search

langsci / 163

A lexicalist account of argument structure
1 stars 0 forks source link

Active/passive alternations (p. 43) [via PaperHive@docloop] #308

Open docloop[bot] opened 5 years ago

docloop[bot] commented 5 years ago

Annotation imported from PaperHive.

Regarding this part:

Missing generalizations: Active/passive alternations

Ash Asudeh wrote:

I think at this point I've kind of explained the issue here: We are not committed to treating the passive phrasally and never have been and in fact talk specifically in both A&G (2012) and AGT (2014) about how the passive can be handled as another template that is called by specific lexical items. So I just don't think the arguments in this chapter hit their mark: They are based on false assumptions/premises, so as valid as they are, they are not sound!

Link to original comment. About docloop.

docloop[bot] commented 5 years ago

Annotation imported from PaperHive.

Stefan Müller wrote:

This is not true. Of course you do it lexically, I never claimed anything else. But on top of your lexical specifications you need c-structures into which your lexically prepared items can enter. This is what I talk about in this chapter.

Link to original comment. About docloop.