Christie's resultative analysis (p. 35) [via PaperHive@docloop]

[docloop[bot]]

Annotation imported from PaperHive.

Regarding this part:

Thus nothing is left of the original configuration, it is just the verb. Christie ’s (2010) analysis of the resultative would be in deep trouble since she assumed that the resultative template is optionally introduced at the result predicate and overwrites optional information coming from the verb.

Ash Asudeh wrote:

Yes, this is true, but as you note later, she could just move all the resultative stuff to the verb instead, so in fact much of this, including the footnote, is a bit of a straw man argument, in my view.

Link to original comment. About docloop.

[docloop[bot]]

Annotation imported from PaperHive.

Stefan Müller wrote:

No. In the course of writing this book I was accused of building straw man arguments by a lot of people. Interestingly enough with complementary views on what is a proper argument and what is not. Some suggested things that others called straw man arguments. Again: the point is not to prove LFG wrong. In fact there is Simpson (1983), the mother of all lexical analyses, and LFG could simply go back to this. My point is: If you do it phrasally you run into problems and you just agreed on this for one possible analysis. If all of the parts of the construction may be missing (are optional in the rule) and you assign the result template to the verb then nothing of the original idea (the configuration including a V, a DP and a predicate licenses the resultative meaning) is gone. You attach something to a bare verb. The combinatorics works out because the resources of the verb are matched the RESULT-T template. But this is what you do in a lexical approach, so you could go lexical right away. Note that attaching the RESULT-T would not work for all the other Germanic languages since the verb can be in C. Assuming a co-head analysis like Berman (2003) does, the verb would be optional in the rule as well. You would be forced to have another annotation at the C position saying that there could be verbs belonging to the resultative construction. Whatever you do, you run into the problem that I sketched in 2006: the configurations are not fixed. ---- - Berman, Judith. 2003. Clausal syntax of German (Studies in Constraint-Based Lexicalism). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. - Müller, Stefan. 2006. Phrasal or lexical Constructions? Language 82(4). 850–883. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0213. - Simpson, Jane. 1983. Resultatives. In Lori S. Levin, Malka Rappaport & Annie Zaenen (eds.), Papers in Lexical Functional Grammar, 143–157. Reprint: Simpson 2005. Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club. - Simpson, Jane. 2005. Resultatives. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Lexical semantics in LFG, 149–161. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

Link to original comment. About docloop.