Assessing Unaccusativity and Reflexivity: Using Focus Alternatives to Decide What Gets Which θ-Role-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Assessing Unaccusativity and Reflexivity: Using Focus Alternatives to Decide What Gets Which θ-Role

Published:2014-04 Issue:2 Volume:45 Page:305-321
ISSN:0024-3892
Container-title:Linguistic Inquiry
language:en
Short-container-title:Linguistic Inquiry

Author:

Sportiche Dominique¹

Affiliation:

1. Institut Jean Nicod, Département d’études cognitives, École normale supérieure Paris, Department of Linguistics, 3125 Campbell Hall, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095,

Abstract

In reflexive constructions, two arguments corefer. This makes it hard to decide which argument bears which θ-role, and consequently to assess whether unaccusativity is involved. A new test is proposed using focus alternatives, which overcomes this difficulty and can also be used to assess reflexivity strength.

Publisher

MIT Press - Journals

Subject

Linguistics and Language,Language and Linguistics

Link

https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/LING_a_00156

Reference29 articles.

1. Coyote Papers: Working Papers in Linguistics 20;Ahn Byron,2012

2. Strong and Weak Person Restrictions

3. Binding Theory

4. Italian Syntax

Cited by 20 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Hybrid subjects in Spanish and Catalan: Halfway between Agents and Patients;Glossa: a journal of general linguistics;2024-04-30

2. Auxiliary selection in Italian restructuring: An insight into the size of the clause;Syntax;2024-02-07

3. Auxiliary Selection in Italo-Romance;Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today;2023-10-11

4. Ordinals, reflexives and unaccusatives;Journal of Uralic Linguistics;2022-11-17

5. Reflexive clitics are verbal, not pronominal;Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique;2022-06-20