LEADER 05360nam 2200685 450 001 9910786630003321 005 20200903223051.0 010 $a90-272-7010-4 035 $a(CKB)3710000000187292 035 $a(EBL)1741705 035 $a(SSID)ssj0001267830 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)12517858 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0001267830 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)11265060 035 $a(PQKB)10658984 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL1741705 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10894996 035 $a(CaONFJC)MIL627645 035 $a(OCoLC)884015464 035 $a(PPN)23023979X 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC1741705 035 $a(EXLCZ)993710000000187292 100 $a20140723h20142014 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aur|n|---||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 00$aStructuring the argument $emultidisciplinary research on verb argument structure /$fedited by Asaf Bachrach, Isabelle Roy, Linnaea Stockall 210 1$aAmsterdam, Netherlands :$cJohn Benjamins Publishing Company,$d2014. 210 4$dİ2014 215 $a1 online resource (213 p.) 225 1 $aLanguage Faculty and Beyond,$x1877-6531 ;$vVolume 10 300 $aDescription based upon print version of record. 311 $a90-272-0827-1 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references at the end of each chapters and indexes. 327 $aStructuring the Argument; Editorial page; Title page; LCC data; Table of contents; Acknowledgments; Introduction: Argumenting the structure; 1. The mapping question; 2. Non canonical argument structure realization; 3. Neurobiological models; References; Part I. The general issue: Verb argument structure; Can we dance without doing a dance? Two opposite views on the integration of roots in the syntactic ; 1. Introduction: Roots in theories of argument structure; 2. Marantz (2011): Roots can only be adjuncts. A critical reply; 3. Three additional reasons to allow roots in complement position 327 $a4. ConclusionsNotes; Determining argument structure in sign languages; 1. Introduction; 2. The lexicon of SLs: A brief overview; 3. Distributed Morphology accounts; 4. Classifier predicates and argument structure; 5. Discussion and future prospects; 6. Conclusion; Notes; References; The processing and representation of light verb constructions; 1. Introduction; 2. Investigating the processing of light verb constructions; 3. Repercussions for grammatical theories of light verb constructions; 4. Conclusions; Notes; References; Part II. Non-canonical argument structure realization 327 $aLuigi piace a Laura? Electrophysiological evidence for thematic reanalysis with Italian dative objec1. Introduction; 2. Theoretical considerations; 3. Processing sentences with object experiencer verbs; 4. The present study; 5. General discussion; 6. Conclusion; Acknowledgments; Notes; References; Appendix; Causative nominalizations: Implications for the structure of psych verbs; 1. Introduction; 2. OE verbs and causative nominalizations; 3. Argumental PPs in the OE-SE alternation in Greek and Romanian; 4. A syntactic analysis for CPNs; 5. CPNs in English; 6. Conclusions and predictions 327 $aNotesReferences; Part III. Neurobiological models; Neurocognitive mechanisms of verb argument structure processing; 1. Introduction; 2. Argument structure in language processing models and theoretical linguistics; 3. The neural instantiation of argument structure processing; 4. A neurocognitive model of verb argument structure processing; Notes; References; Argument structure: Between linguistics and neuroimaging; Defining a question; Methodological considerations; A case study: The derivation of reflexive verbs; Concluding remarks; Note; References 327 $aArgument structure: Creating a productive space for theory and experimentation1. Introduction; 2. The causative-inchoative alternation; 3. A blueprint for successful interaction; 4. Conclusion; Note; References; Language index; Subject index 330 $aWe investigate so-called causative psych nominalizations (CPNs), i.e., nominalizations of object experiencer (OE) verbs that realize non-agentive causers as external arguments. While they are ruled out in English (Grimshaw 1990; Iwata 1995; Pesetsky 1995) and have been suggested to be cross-linguistically banned (Landau 2010), we show that Romanian and Greek derive CPNs from the subject experiencer (SE) form of alternating OE verbs. We analyze them as nominalizations of the anticausative SE form of these verbs. Our results suggest a structural difference between Romanian/Greek and English psyc 410 0$aLanguage faculty and beyond ;$vVolume 10. 606 $aGrammar, Comparative and general$xVerb phrase 606 $aGrammar, Comparative and general$xAugmentatives 606 $aGrammar, Comparative and general$xSyntax 615 0$aGrammar, Comparative and general$xVerb phrase. 615 0$aGrammar, Comparative and general$xAugmentatives. 615 0$aGrammar, Comparative and general$xSyntax. 676 $a415 702 $aBachrach$b Asaf 702 $aRoy$b Isabelle 702 $aStockall$b Linnaea 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910786630003321 996 $aStructuring the argument$93818166 997 $aUNINA