search

langsci / 163

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

English v. German 2 (p. 71) [via PaperHive@docloop] #317

Open docloop[bot] opened 5 years ago

docloop[bot] commented 5 years ago

Annotation imported from PaperHive.

Regarding this part:

While her is arg 2 and obj, the corresponding object in German is arg 3 and obj  in German.

Ash Asudeh wrote:

What you write here is true of our analysis of English, but I'm not sure what the proper LFG analysis of German would have to be off the top of my head. The dative case on 'ihr' certainly makes it seem like an OBJ\theta morphosyntactically, however this particular dative argument can also passivize (or something like passive) , as discussed on page 45, so from that perspective its a better candidate for an OBJ. And what is the evidence that 'ihr' is an ARG3 independently of the (putative) fact that it's an OBJ_\theta?

_Link to original comment. About docloop._

docloop[bot] commented 5 years ago

Annotation imported from PaperHive.

Stefan Müller wrote:

Well, the dative passive is a tricky issue. The dative NP cannot be an OBJ since there is another OBJ already: Er schenkt ihr den Roman. he.NOM gives her.DAT the.ACC novel Der Roman wurde ihr geschenkt. the.NOM novel was her.DAT given Sie bekam den Roman geschenkt. she.NOM got the.ACC novel given As the examples show, the normal passive is possible as well. So "den Roman" must be the OBJ. The dative passive affects OBJ\theta. Philippa Cook has an analysis of datives in German. They are OBJ\theta. ---- - Cook, Philippa. 2006. The datives that aren’t born equal: Beneficiaries and the dative passive. In Daniel Hole, André Meinunger & Werner Abraham (eds.), Datives and similar cases: Between argument structure and event structure, 141–184. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

_Link to original comment. About docloop._