Language

Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL) 2002 Vancouver, November 2002

Transitivity Requirement Effects and the EPP*
Yves Roberge, University of Toronto yves.roberge@utoronto.ca 1. Introduction At the clausal level, a subject position whether it is internal to VP or externalized in the Spec of a higher functional projection is obligatory. Thus even when a verb does not select a semanticallyactive subject, a subject position must still be projected. On the other hand, a VP-internal complement position is present only if the verb has properties that force this presence. In both GB and Minimalism, for the subject position, the crucial concept is the EPP, seen either as a stipulation (Lasnik 2001) or motivated in terms of feature checking. Simply stated, the EPP forces the presence of asubject position at the clausal level. For the object position, there is no such concept. In fact, the EPP is simply seen as irrelevant for objects (Davies and Dubinsky 2001). It is argued here that effects similar to, but crucially different from, that of the EPP on the subject position exist for objects. This leads to the hypothesis that a VP-internal object position is obligatory forconceptual and empirical reasons. In other words, the configuration in (1) -- order irrelevant – is given by UG, independently of lexical choice: (1) V 2 V Obj

This Transitivity Requirement (TR) is compared to the EPP. Assuming that TR applies in the thematic layer of the clause whereas the EPP applies in the functional layer, TR involves broadly defined semantic recoverability whereas the EPP involvesmorphological recoverability conditions. 1. On two differences between subjects and objects 1. 1. Cognate subjects? While cognate objects are widespread, cognate subjects seem conspicuously non-existent. Unergative verbs appear quite freely with objects. (2) English (Massam 1990, Jones 1988) John smiled a wicked smile. (3) Tosca sang an aria. Unaccusative verbs, unsurprisingly, do not acceptcognate objects.

*

SSHRC grant (Di Sciullo, 412-97-0016, Asymmetries in Natural Languages)

(4) b.

a. *Il venait souvent son chemin.1 ‘He often went his route.’ *He arrived an early arrival.

French examples (also called figure étymologique or objet interne); see Blinkenberg (1960), Larjavaara (2000). Most of the examples here are from Larjavaara. (5) b. c. d. a. Jouer le jeu. ‘To playthe game.’ Combattre le dernier combat. ‘To fight the last fight.’ Vivre sa vie. ‘To live one’s life.’ Quel rêve je rêvai! ‘What a dream I dreamt.’

Cognate objects in French represent only part of the possibilities for an unergative verb to appear with an object.2 (6) b. (7) b. (8) b. c. a. Élise a grimacé. Elle n’aime pas quand on la prend à l’improviste. ‘Elise grinned. She does not like to besurprised.’ Elle grimaca un rictus résigné. ‘She grinned a resigned grin.’ a. Reinhard bougonne tout seul dans son coin. ‘Reinhard grumbles all alone.’ Reinhard bougonne un truc inaudible. ‘Reinhard grumbles something inaudible.’ a. Il pleure. ‘He is crying.’ Il pleure des larmes de joie. ‘He cries tears of joy.’ Les fruits tombés se sont ouverts et pleurent une chair abricot brunie par la terremouillée. ‘The fallen fruit opened up and cry a flesh the color of an apricot darkened by the soil.’ a. Chouchoutez-vous une image à vous. ‘Pamper yourself your own look.’ En jacassant toutes sortes de syllabes. ‘While chattering all kinds of syllables.’ En gesticulant des airs de Line Renaud. ‘While gesticulating a Line Renaud tune.’

wet

(9) b. c.

1

But the following expression exists:Aller son petit bonhomme de chemin. (Similar to “Go it alone.”)

2

Objects and aspect are often linked in the literature in work by Tenny, Zagona, Borer, Travis, Erteschik-Shir & Rapoport, among others. This extends to Cognate Objects: Massam (1990:179): “The result of the cognate object construction-forming lexical subordination process is the creation of a transitional verb or the...