AG 2: The syntax of argument structure: empirical advancements and theoretical relevance
Artemis Alexiadou, Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Unter den
Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, Tel. 030-2093-2316, Fax 030-2093-2244, artemis.alexiadou@hu-berlin.de
Elisabeth Verhoeven, Institut für deutsche Sprache und Linguistik, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Unter
den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, Tel. 030-2093-9796, Fax 030-2093-9729, verhoeve@cms.hu-berlin.de
Website der AG2: https://www2.hu-berlin.de/syntax/themp/index.html
Abstract
The syntax of argument structure has been the focus of a number of empirical studies investigating phenomena such as the causative alternation (Fadlon 2014), unaccusativity (Keller & Sorace 2003, Hirsch & Wagner 2011, Irwin 2013, Verhoeven & Kügler 2014), ergativity (Longenbaugh & Polinsky 2013), argument hierarchies and argument realization (Bornkessel et al. 2005, Lamers & de Swart (eds.) 2012), the dative alternation (Bresnan et al. 2007), inherent vs. structural case (Jacobsen 2000, Bayer et al. 2001), psych predicates (Lamers & de Hoop 2014, Verhoeven 2014, 2015), etc. Such studies provide interesting but potentially controversial contributions to linguistic theory: some discover gradience in the verbal lexicon that can only be precisely measured with quantitative methods (see e.g., Keller & Sorace 2003); others claim that properties attributed to verbal syntax are an epiphenomenon of other layers of grammar (see e.g., Hirsch & Wagner 2011); yet other studies show reflexes of core properties of verbal syntax in processing (see e.g. Polinsky et al. 2012 on ergativity).
The workshop will address the following issues:
- Does the progress in empirical methods promise theoretical advancements in the syntax of argument structure? In particular, do empirical data obtained through corpus or experimental methods confirm/reject/validate evidence previously gained through linguistic intuitions?
- A major shortcoming of experimental and corpus data is that they contain artefacts associated with sources of variation that are external to the grammar. How can we distinguish between grammatically relevant information and grammar-external variation that is involved in experimental or corpus data?
- Theoretical accounts make a distinction between core grammatical properties and linguistic properties attributed to processing. How can this distinction be established by experimental data?
This workshop brings together theoretical linguists, corpus linguists, and psycholinguists that are interested in the syntax of argument structure and employ precise empirical methods in building theories thereof.
Programm
| Mittwoch, 24. Februar 2016 | |
| 14:00 – 15:00 | Maria Polinsky: The relationship between theoretical and empirical syntax |
| 15:00 - 16:00 | Patrick Brandt and Petra Schumacher: Effects of repairing illegal argument structures |
| 16:00 - 16:30 | Kaffeepause |
| 16:30 - 17:30 | Nino Grillo, Berit Gehrke, Nils Hirsch, Caterina Paolazzi, and Andrea Santi: It’s all about verb-type: Passives are not inherently more complex than actives |
| 17:30 - 18:00 | Patricia Irwin: Discourse and unaccusativity: Quantitative effects of a structural phenomenon |
| 18:00 - 18:30 | Dmitry Ganenkov: Relativization in two morphologically ergative languages: a corpus study |
Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2016 | |
| 9:00 – 10:00 | Isabel Oltra-Massuet, V. Sharpe, K. Neophytou, and Alec Marantz: Syntactic priming as a test of argument structure: A self-paced reading experiment |
| 10:00 - 11:00 | Linnaea Stockall, Christina Manouilidou, Laura Gwilliams, Alec Marantz: Un/Re-packing argument and event structure restrictions on prefixation: MEG evidence |
| 11:00 - 11:30 | Kaffeepause |
| 11:30 - 12:30 | Paul Kiparsky: On the syntax and argument structure of agent nouns |
| 12:30 - 13:00 | Nils Hirsch: Groups of object experiencer (ObjExp) verbs in German — empirically revisited statt Tibor Kiss: Argument structure and reflexive binding
|
Freitag, 26. Februar 2016 | |
| 11:30 – 12:30 | Helen de Hoop: Grammar under pressure: the case of subject hun 'them' in Dutch |
| 12:30 - 13:00 | Anna Czypionka and Carsten Eulitz: Case marking affects the processing of animacy with simple verbs, but not particle verbs: An event-related potential study |
| 13:00 - 13:30 | Sandra Pappert, Michael Baumann, and Thomas Pechmann: The issue of lexical guidance in sentence production: Evidence from structural priming experiments |
| 13:30 - 14:00 | Jeannique Darby: Assessing agentivity and eventivity in object-experiencer verbs: the role of processing statt Sabine Reuters, Sarah Verlage, and Martina Penke: Animacy effects in German sentence production |
