Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorNoh, Bokyung
dc.date.accessioned2018-11-22T00:51:50Z
dc.date.available2018-11-22T00:51:50Z
dc.date.issued2000
dc.identifier.citationNoh, Bokyung. "The Effect of Focus on Argument Structure: Depictives vs Resultatives." Papers from the Poster Session of the 18th Annual West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 18), 2000, pp. 79-88.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0894-4539
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/631051
dc.description.abstractA variety of linguistic evidences have been to support the assumption that depictives and resultatives are different in their thematic structures with a main predicate, despite they appear identical on the surface. Both depictives and resultative contain a subject NP, a verb, an object NP, and an adjective following the object NP, as shown in (1)-(2). However, the thematic relation between the verbs and the adjectives are different. In depictives, the adjective characterizes the object NP in relation to the action or process described by the verb. Thus, (la) means: 'I ate the beef and at the time I ate it, it was raw.' The NP is characterized at the time of the action of the verb. In the resultatives, the final adjective characterizes the state of the object NP, a state which results from the action or process described by the verb. Thus, (2a) means: I caused the window to be clean by wiping it; the adjective describes the final state of the NP. (1) a. I ate the beef raw. b. I ate the food cold (depictives) (2) a. I wiped the window clean. b. I kicked the door open. (resultatives) Recently it has been proposed that the argument structure is reflected by sentence accentuation (Schmerling 1976, Gusenhoven 1983, Selkirk 1984). The main claim in the focus theory (e.g., accent percolation theory) is that in a focus constituent consisting of a head and an argument, the accent is realized on the argument, everything else being equal (Gussenhoven 1983, Selkirk 1984). Uhmann (1991) proposes that if focus is assigned to a constituent, all the phonological phrases of that constituent bear an accent. She also points out that a head and an argument form a single phonological phrase, whereas a head and an adjunct form a separate phonological phrase, Following Uhmann (1991), I assume that a pitch accent is the evidence for phonological units and manifests focused words or constituents. The accentual differences between head-argument and head-adjunct are clearly shown by Gussenhoven (1992) as follows: when a head-argument structure is in focus, as in (3), the accent falls on the argument, tent, while when a head-adjunct structure is in focus, as in (4), an accent is realized on the head smoked and the adjunct tent, which are in separate phonological phrases. Likewise, both gerookt 'smoked', and tent 'tent' are accented in Dutch. The phonological phrase is represented by parenthesis, the focus structure is by bracket and the accented words are capitalized. (3) a. John [ ( stayed in the TENT) l b. John [ ( in the TENT gebleven)] F (4) a. John [(SMOKED)(in the TENT)] F b. John [(heeft in the TENT) (gerookt)]F (Gussenhoven 1992: 94) Does the distinction between an argument and an adjunct exist? My goal in this paper is to investigate the issue of how the theory of focus applies to the different types of secondary constructions, namely depictive and resultative constructions. The experiments are conducted to examine the statuses of resultative and depictive constituents in terms of their focus marking.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherUniversity of Arizona Linguistics Circleen_US
dc.titleThe Effect of Focus on Argument Structure: Depictives vs Resultativesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.contributor.departmentThe University of Texas at Austinen_US
dc.identifier.journalCoyote Papersen_US
refterms.dateFOA2018-11-22T00:51:51Z


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
WCCFL18_79-88_Noh.pdf
Size:
739.1Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record