A relational approach to argument structure: Mateu (2002), Acedo

Mateu (2002) and Acedo Matellán (2010) put forth a syntactic theory of argument structure, establishing a distinction between relational and non-relational elements, where roots qua non-relational elements provide encyclopedic content and functional heads qua relational elements are used to build the structure. In both cases, merge is applied to build the syntactic argument structure. The framework chosen in Acedo-Matellán (2010) is Distributed Morphology,⁴ who assumes its hypotheses about syntax as the only generative engine, Late Insertion, and post-syntactic PF-branch operations.

As for the semantics, Mateu and Acedo Matellán also subscribe to the view that semantics is read off the syntactic structure; however, their approach presumes a higher amount of semantics beyond what is assumed by Marantz (2013). Specifically, different configurations receive different semantic interpretations hinging upon the positions assumed by relational and non-relational elements. Thus, when a DP is merged in Spec,v, that is, as an external argument, the event is interpreted as externally caused by some entity (13), whereas if no element is merged in this position, the event is interpreted as non-externally caused (14). On the other hand, if v takes as its complement a root or DP, the event is interpreted as a creation or consumption event, depending on the properties of the non-relational element (13a, b,). There might also be atelic transitive events if the non-relational element is merged in Compl,Place (13c).⁵ Change of state and change of location events require that a PathP is merged in Compl,v (cf. (13d-e)).

Note that, in contrast to Marantz (2013), Mateu and Acedo Matellán consider that a verb such as shelve contains a small-clause as complement of the v head in accordance with the analysis proposed by Hale & Keyser (2002).

4 See footnote 3.

5 Acedo Matellán (2010) assumes that prepositions consist of a non-relational element, that is, a root, adjoined to the functional Place head. Thus, in his view, the difference between in the box and on the box is conceptual rather than grammatical as both sequences are built using the same structure (i).

(i) a. [PlaceP the cat [Place’ Place √IN [DP the box]]]

b. [PlaceP the cat [Place’ Place √ON [DP the box]]]

While a single pP is interpreted as Place and assumed to establish a predicative relation between its specifier and complement, a double pP is interpreted as Path, which takes as complement a PlaceP.

(13) Unergative and transitive structures

a. Sue danced: [vP [DP Sue] [v’ v √^DANCE]]

b. Sue did a dance: [vP [DP Sue] [v’ v [DP a dance]]

c. She pushed the car: [vP [DP Sue] [v’ v [PlaceP [DP the car] [Place’ Place √^PUSH]]]]

d. Sue put the books on the shelf: [vP [DP Sue] [v’ v (=put) [PathP [DP the books]

[Path’ Path [PlaceP [DP the books] [Place’ [Place Place √ON] [DP the shelf]]]]]]

e. Sue shelved the books: [vP [DP Sue] [v’ v [PathP [DP the books] [Path’ Path [DP the books] [PlaceP Place √SHELVE]]]]]

Unaccusative structures, that is, events that are non-externally caused, allow several configurations. If v takes a PlaceP as its complement, the event is interpreted as stative or atelic (14a). By contrast, when a PathP is merged as Comp,v, the event is interpreted as an unaccusative change of state or location (cf. (14c-d)). Acedo Matellán (2010:61) argues for the possibility that copular constructions may be reducible to a PlaceP merged directly with T, without v mediating between them (14b). Then, it follows that copular be in English may be the phonological instantiation of T.

(14) Unaccusative structures

a. Dinosaurs existed: [vP v [PlaceP [DP dinosaurs] [Place’ Place √^EXIST]]]

b. Sue is in Barcelona: [PlaceP [DP Sue] [Place’ [Place Place √^IN] [DP Barcelona]]]

c. The sky cleared: [vP v [PathP [DP the sky] [Path’ Path [PlaceP [DP the sky] [Place’ Place

√^CLEAR]]]]

d. Sue went to Barcelona: [vP v (=go) [PathP [DP Sue] [Path’ Path (=to) [PlaceP [DP

Sue] [Place’ Place [DP Barcelona]]]]]]

In following work, Mateu & Acedo Matellán (2012) and Acedo Matellán & Mateu (2014) explore the manner/result complementarity, that is, the impossibility that a single verb can simultaneously lexicalize manner and result, to account for cross-linguistic variation in resultative constructions (see Rappaport-Hovav & Levin 2010, Beavers & Koontz-Garboden 2012, Ramchand 2014, among others). The complementarity is argued to follow from morphophonological reasons, meaning that

“a single null head, in this case v, may be specified with only one phonological matrix.

Since both incorporation and conflation are aimed at filling up this null head v, they

cannot apply simultaneously” (Mateu & Acedo Matellán 2012). Furthermore, the authors pursue that a root’s interpretation derives from its point of merge in the argument structure. The examples below show the different interpretations a root can have depending on the place where it is merged: the manner interpretation is obtained in (15a) and (16a) by merging the root as an adjunct to v; if the root occurs as complement in a small-clause, a result interpretation is obtained instead as in (15b) and (16b); finally, roots can also be interpreted as incremental themes if they are merged in the complement position of v (16c).

(15) a. [VP [v √^BREAK v] [SC [DP he] [into the room]]] (He broke into the room) b. [VP v [SC [DP the glass] [√^BREAK]]] (The glass broke)

(16) a. [VP [v √^CLIMB v] [SC Joe out of the tunnel]] (Joe climbed out of the tunnel) b. [VP v[SC [DP the prices] [√CLIMB]] (The prices climbed)

c. [VP Joe [v’ v √CLIMB]] (Joe climbed)

(Acedo Matellán & Mateu 2012)

This approach contrasts with Marantz’s (2013) view of roots as adjuncts of the verbal head or as predicational elements that can denote a state in change of state predicates.

In this regard, Mateu and Acedo Matellán propose a more constrained view of the semantics of argument structure, as the structural assumptions about the location of roots in the structure limit in specific ways the semantic interpretation of the derivation in the conceptual interface. While Marantz does not make any claims about cross-linguistic variation, Mateu and Acedo Matellán make the claim that a language’s ability to conflate a root as a manner co-event in resultative structures is limited to satellite-framed languages, impeding their existence in Romance languages. In section 3, I thoroughly discuss resultative constructions and address how they can be analyzed within Ramchand’s first phase syntax. Importantly, the approach taken to account for the properties of this construction will significantly differ from the one taken by Mateu and Acedo Matellán, as in her framework, roots can only materialize heads and cannot appear as adjuncts or complements of heads.