Gradience in Split Intransitivity

3. Current views on SI The Unaccusative Hypothesis unaccusative vs unergative predicates The role of semantics projectionist approaches thematic/aspectual structure ? syntax constructional approaches syntax ? semantic interpretation Gradience in SI verbs have various degrees of �unaccusativity� or �unergativity� (within and across languages)

4. The Gradience Approach Arguments pro Sorace�s hierarchy (ASH/SIH) Change of location selects BE (least variation) Change of state Continuation of a pre-existing state Existence of state Uncontrolled process Controlled process (motional) Controlled process (non-motional) selects HAVE (least variation)

5. The Gradience Approach Typological predictions 1. Other tests in Romance & Germanic obey the ASH 2. Tests in languages without AS obey the ASH 3. �Core� verbs pass more tests than �non-core� verbs Problems 1. Impersonal passive constructions in German 2. Quantifier floating in Japanese 3. Turkish diagnostic tests

6. Telicity vs agentivity Semantic features underlying the ASH telicity (predicate feature) ? aspectual structure determines the upper half of the ASH agentivity (argument feature) ? thematic structure determines the lower half of the ASH Problems the impersonal passive test some �active-inactive� languages

7. Telicity vs agentivity An alternative proposal Foley�s Actor-Undergoer hierarchy Actor: volitional performer causing an event or change of state sentience movement A U stationary causally affected incremental theme Undergoer: undergoing a change in state

8. Turkish diagnostic tests The -mIs participle (= -mIs) The impersonal passive (= IP) The -(y)ArAk gerund (= -(y)ArAk) Other tests

9. Turkish diagnostic tests The -mIs test prenominal participle �postterminative� / stative-resultative value Examples: a. ��r�-m�s yiyecek �rotten food� (unaccusative) rot-mIs food b. *kos-mus �ocuk �run child� (unergative) run-mIs child

10. Turkish diagnostic tests The IP test attaches the passive suffix good diagnostics: past & future (not aorist - generic) Examples: a. G�steri boyunca bagir-il-di. (unergative) demonstration throughout shout-PASS-PAST.3per �It was shouted throughout the demonstration.� b. *Ay, d�n burada �ok fena kay-il-di. (unaccusative) oh yesterday here very badly skid-PASS-PAST �Oh, yesterday it was skidded here very badly.�

11. Turkish diagnostic tests The -(y)ArAk test denotes simultaneous or consecutive action the two verbs must be both unacc. or both unerg. Examples: a. Kiz [(top) oyna-y-arak] sarki s�yle-di. (unergative) girl ball play-Y-ArAk sing-PST �The girl, while playing (ball), sang.� b. *Kiz [(top) oyna-y-arak] kay-di. (unaccusative) Girl ball play-Y-ArAk slip-PST �The girl, while playing (ball), slipped.�

12. Turkish diagnostic tests Other tests et- �do� vs ol- �be� compounds (unerg. vs unacc.) -Irken �while� vs -IncE �when� (the same) -GAn, -tI vs. -mA nominalizations (the same) -Ik adjectives (unaccusative)

13. Mismatches: -mIs Change of location �arrive�, �go�, �exit�, �enter� occur with -mIs plus an adverbial (of path/manner/time) �rise�, �descend�, advance� freely occur with -mIs State position Vs (�sit�, �lie�) and psychological states (�be scared�) freely occur with -mIs �exist� must take an adverbial

14. Mismatches: -mIs Uncontrolled process some bodily function Vs (�sweat�, �blush�, �sleep�) freely occur with -mIs, some (�shiver�, �cough�, �dream�) take an adverbial, some (�bleed�) do not occur with -mIs Controlled process manner of motion Vs (�run�, �swim�, �climb�) occur with -mIs plus a path adverbial non-motional Vs (�talk�, �work�) occur with -mIs plus an adverbial

15. Mismatches: IP Change of location occur in IPs with agentive implicit subject (e.g. �come�) Change of state psychological changes (�get bored�) occur in IPs Uncontrolled processes body function Vs (�sneeze�, �shiver�, �hiccup�, �sweat�) occur in IPs

16. Mismatches: -(y)ArAk Uncontrolled processes �cry� may coocur with �come� (about a child) �scream� may coocur with �be born� (the same) �sway� may coocur with �slip� (about a drunkard) �sparkle� may coocur with �go out� (about light) �foam� may coocur with �pull back� (about the sea) �sweat� may coocur with �die� (about a person)

17. Mismatches Sorace�s ASH is challenged by -mIs & IP tests definite change of location Vs cannot occur with -mIs without an adverbial (non-core behaviour) (agentive) change of location Vs occur in IPs (the same) manner of motion Vs can occur with -mIs if accompanied by a path adverbial non-motional controlled processes can occur with -mIs and an adverbial psychological change of state verbs occur in IPs

18. Mismatches Foley�s hierarchy is challenged by the -mIs test both agentive and non-agentive motion Vs occur with -mIs psychological states and positions also occur with -mIs

19. A possible solution The IP depends on the degree of agentivity of the implicit subject (confirmed by Foley�s hierarchy) (telic) change of location Vs may occur in IPs The -mIs test seems to depend on the degree of telicity & agentivity of the construction (telic) change of state Vs with non-agentive arguments pass the test as unaccusatives (e.g. �melt�) telic change of location Vs pass the test as unaccusatives (e.g. �fall�, �flee�)

20. A possible solution Most Turkish motion Vs are not inherently telic. in the company of a path adverbial they become telic and pass the -mIs test Problem non-motional controlled processes occur with -mIs and an adverbial An alternative solution Turan: -mIs does not test unaccusativity, but is rather �associated with verbs with a consequent state�

21. Conclusions Turkish -mIs, IP, -(y)ArAk test results: change of state Vs are core unaccusatives in Turkish controlled process (non-motional) Vs are core unerg. intermediate classes exhibit variation agentive motion Vs are underspecified for telicity telicity plays no role in the IP test, but seems to be relevant in the -mIs and -(y)ArAk tests there are doubts as to the validity of the -mIs test