Heidi Harley

Causation, Obligation, and Argument Structure: On the Nature of Little v

As shown by Kayne (1975), Romance causatives with faire fall into two classes, faire infinitif (FI) and faire par (FP). We argue from Italian data that the properties of the two classes depend on the nature of the complement of fare:FI embeds a vP, FP a nominalized VP. The syntactic and semantic characteristics of these complements account straightforwardly for well-known differences between FI and FP, including the previously untreated obligation requirement in FI, absent in FP. Our analysis also accounts for another subtle restriction on the formation of FP: the existence of an animacy requirement on the subject of fare, absent in FI. Finally, we argue that only FP can undergo passivization; this accounts for a previously unobserved asymmetry in passivizability of causatives of unergative and unaccusative intransitive verbs.

Wanting, Having, and Getting: A Note on Fodor and Lepore 1998

This article takes up Fodor and Lepores (1998) account of the meaning of [want DP]structures, according to which the verb to have is introduced at interpretation. With certain DP complements a want to have DP paraphrase of want DP is ill formed; the correct paraphrase uses get or give. To allow for this, F&L would have to vary the introduced verb depending on the meaning of the DP, but this would make their proposal co-compositional, defeating its original purpose. If have, get, and give all contain the abstract preposition PHAVE (Harley 1995, Richards 2001), however, F&Ls treatment may be appropriately revised: the element introduced by want is not have but PHAVE. F&L can avoid co-compositionality at the price of allowing lexical decomposition.

What language says about the psychology of events

Despite the variety of verb meanings, linguistic research on their syntax and semantics has shown that they can be categorized into a finite and surprisingly small number of event types. More recently, research in the psycholinguistics of language acquisition and processing has emphasized the relevance of event type. The wider implication of these findings is that the conceptual fluidity of verbal concepts is confined by the fundamental structures of mental grammar, shedding light on this important interface between cognition and syntactic organization.

Form and meaning in Hiaki (Yaqui) verbal reduplication

This paper provides a description of the reduplication patterns of Hiaki (also known as Yaqui or Yoeme), based on a corpus of hundreds of reduplicated verbs with example sentences. The various phonological shapes that reduplication can take are described and the morphological, phonological, and lexical factors which affect the particular reduplicant shape associated with a given verb stem are considered. The primary meanings which reduplication can convey are described, including habitual aspect, emphasis, and iteration, as well as a few secondary meanings associated with particular lexical items. It is established that reduplicant shape is not correlated with reduplication meaning, with one small subclass of exceptions. Finally, reduplicated forms of complex and compound verbs are discussed, with particular emphasis on their word‐internal, head‐marking character.

WCO, ACD, and QR of DPs

In this squib, I point out a hitherto unnoticed interaction between weak crossover (WCO) and antecedent-contained deletion (ACD) that provides another piece of evidence for an LF A-movement account of ACD and against the A-movement account proposed by Hornstein (1994), adding to the case against Horsteins proposal made by Kennedy (1997). Interestingly, the key piece of evidence, an ACD construction within a definite DP, implies that a quantificational type must be optionally available for definite DPs, but is exploited only when necessary to repair ACD violations

In Support of the PHAVE Analysis of the Double Object Construction

Pylkkänen (2002, 2008) and Bruening (2010a) present several arguments against the ‘‘small clause’’ approach to the double object construction in English, building on the predictions that that proposal makes with respect to the transfer-of-possession entailment, Goal-oriented depictives, nominalizations, subextraction, quantifier scope, and idioms. We argue that the small clause analysis proposed by Harley (1995, 2002) in fact makes correct predictions in all these cases. In addition, we point out the existence of previously overlooked parallels between double object structures and have-sentences with respect to depictives, eventive DP complements, and quantifier scope. This motivates an analysis that links these different behaviors to the properties of a single PHAVE element common to both.

The syntax of argument structure: Evidence from Italian complex predicates

This paper provides an analysis of Italian complex predicates formed by combining a feminine nominalization in - ata and one of three light verbs: fare ‘make’, dare ‘give’ and prendere ‘take’. We show that the constraints governing the choice of light verb follow from a syntactic approach to argument structure, and that several interpretive differences between complex and simplex predicates formed from the same verb root can be accounted for in a compositional, bottom–up approach. These differences include variation in creation vs. affected interpretations of Theme objects, implications concerning the size of the event described, the (un)availability of a passive alternant, and the agentivity or lack thereof of the subject argument.

Logophors, variable binding and the interpretation of have☆

Abstract The unavailability of the experiencer reading of English have when its subject is coindexed with a logophor in the complement is shown to be the result of a particular licensing condition on the experiencer and locative readings of have . The experiencer or location subject of have must bind a [+R] variable in its complement. Logophors, while variables, are not [+R] in the binding theory as presented in Reinhart and Reuland (1993); hence the experiencer or location reading is not licensed. More broadly, the result supports the proposals of Ritter and Rosen (1997) and Belvin (1993, 1996) that have is a predicate whose interpretation depends upon the nature of and relations between its arguments.

Reply to commentaries, "on the identity of roots"

It is an amazing and humbling thing to have a baker’s dozen of one’s most insightful colleagues engage seriously with one’s actual proposals on paper. I am edified and inspired by these commentaries, all of which have made an important contribution to my understanding of my own ideas, as well as my understanding of the commentators’ views on these and related issues. All of the commentaries adduce important empirical evidence bearing on all these questions, which would not normally be collected in a single place; this strikes me as an incredibly valuable resource. I also appreciate this opportunity to expound further on some of the issues discussed in light of the responses, articulate where I see connections and opportunities arising, and respond to one or two criticisms. Luckily for me, some commentaries include discussion and data that I will invoke in responding to critical points raised in other commentaries; how great is that? One thing the commentaries make abundantly clear is that the discussion of roots’ essential natures, in and out of syntax, is far from over. On the one hand, Borer argues for a fundamentally phonological characterization, raising questions concerning the paradigmatic character of the suppletion data I present. On the other hand, Rappaport Hovav and De Belder emphasize the essential character of the semantic content of roots, including and especially suppletive ones. Labelle points out the importance of semantic content in realizing the project of integrating roots into a concrete model of sentence production and processing, as it must be communicative intent that drives selection of the Numeration. Acquaviva argues that root nodes are crucially non-syntactic entities, fundamentally different from other abstract morphemes in List 1, while Svenonius argues strongly against postulating a foundational distinction between functional, syntactic elements and encyclopedic, non-syntactic elements. This latter division on roots’ fundamental nature is closely connected to another foundational syntactic question that arises in several of the commentaries, concerning the position of

Impersonal agreement in a non-agreement language: The Hiaki impersonal construction

Introduction Andrew Carnie and Heidi Harley Part I: Configurationality and the Pronominal Argument Hypothesis 1. Empty Categories, Case and Configurationality, 1984 Eloise Jelinek 2. The bi-Construction and Pronominal Arguments in Apachean, 1989 Merton Sandoval and Eloise Jelinek 3. Predicates and Pronominal Arguments in Straits Salish, 1994 Eloise Jelinek and Richard Demers 4. Navajo as a Discourse Configurational Language, 2000 Mary Ann Willie and Eloise Jelinek 5. The Pronominal Argument Parameter, 2006 Eloise Jelinek Part II: Hierarchies, Information Structure, and Semantic Mapping 6. Auxiliaries and Ergative Splits: A Typological Parameter, 1987 Eloise Jelinek 7. The Case Split and Argument Type in Choctaw, 1989 Eloise Jelinek 8. Ergative Splits and Argument Type, 1993 Eloise Jelinek 9. Distributing Arguments, 1995 Molly Diesing and Eloise Jelinek 10. Argument Hierarchies and the Mapping Principle, 2003 Eloise Jelinek and Andrew Carnie Part III: Yaqui Morphosyntax 11. Double Accusative Constructions in Yaqui, 1989 Eloise Jelinek and Fernando Escalante 12. Voice and Transitivity as Functional Projections in Yaqui, 1998 Eloise Jelinek 13. Quantification in Yaqui Possessive Sentences, 2003 Eloise Jelinek 14. Impersonal Agreement in a non-Agreement Language: The Hiaki Impersonal Construction Previously unpublished, Eloise Jelinek and Heidi Harley