Sole argument generalization - Revision history

Wohlgemuth at 16:13, 8 July 2009

2009-07-08T16:13:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:13, 8 July 2009
Line 18:		Line 18:
	{{dc}}		{{dc}}
	[[Category:Syntax]]		[[Category:Syntax]]
	[[Category:~~Hypothesis~~]]		[[Category:HYPO]]
	{{stub}}		{{stub}}

Haspelmath at 15:54, 2 March 2009

2009-03-02T15:54:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:54, 2 March 2009
Line 17:		Line 17:

	{{dc}}		{{dc}}
	[[Category:~~HYPO~~]]		[[Category:Syntax]]
	{{stub~~}}{{cats~~}}		[[Category:Hypothesis]]
			{{stub}}

Haspelmath at 18:03, 26 February 2009

2009-02-26T18:03:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:03, 26 February 2009
Line 17:		Line 17:

	{{dc}}		{{dc}}
			[[Category:HYPO]]
	{{stub}}{{cats}}		{{stub}}{{cats}}

Haspelmath at 18:02, 26 February 2009

2009-02-26T18:02:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:02, 26 February 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Sole Argument Generalization''' is a generalization proposed in Levin & Rappaport (1986) which says that an [[argument]] that may stand as a sole [[NP]] [[complement]] to a [[verb]] can be externalized by [[Adjectival passive formation]]. This generalization is meant to account for the difference between (ii) and (iii):		The '''Sole Argument Generalization''' is a generalization proposed in Levin & Rappaport (1986) which says that an [[argument]] that may stand as a sole [[NP]] [[complement]] to a [[verb]] can be externalized by [[Adjectival passive formation]]. This generalization is meant to account for the difference between (ii) and (iii):

	(i) Dick sold Tom the car.		(i) Dick sold Tom the car.

Wohlgemuth: utrecht

2009-02-21T19:48:07Z

utrecht

New page

'''Sole Argument Generalization''' is a generalization proposed in Levin & Rappaport (1986) which says that an [[argument]] that may stand as a sole [[NP]] [[complement]] to a [[verb]] can be externalized by [[Adjectival passive formation]]. This generalization is meant to account for the difference between (ii) and (iii):

(i) Dick sold Tom the car.
(ii) The car remained unsold.
(iii) *Tom remained unsold.

In (ii), the internal argument of ''sell'' is externalized. This is allowed since the NP ''the car'' can be the sole argument of ''sell'' (cf. ''Dick sold the car''). In (iii), on the other hand, the second internal argument of ''sell'' is externalized, but this NP cannot be the sole argument (cf. *''Dick sold Tom'' in the reading ''Dick sold something to Tom''), and externalization therefore is not possible.

=== Links ===

[http://www2.let.uu.nl/UiL-OTS/Lexicon/zoek.pl?lemma=Sole+Argument+Generalization&lemmacode=235 Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics]

=== References ===

* Levin, B. and M. Rappaport 1986. ''The Formation of Adjectival Passives,'' Linguistic Inquiry 17, pp. 623-663
* Spencer, A. 1991. ''Morphological Theory,'' Blackwell, Oxford.

{{dc}}
{{stub}}{{cats}}