Chapter 4: Head, Complements, Modifiers, and

Argument Structures

Syntactic Constructions in English

Kim and Michaelis (2020)

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 1 / 73

1 Building a Phrase from a Head
Internal vs. External Syntax
The Notion of Head, Complements, and Modifiers
2 Differences between Complements and Modifiers
3 PS Rules, X0 -Rules, and Features
Problems of the PS Rules
Intermediate Phrases and Specifiers
Intermediate Phrases for Non-NPs
4 Lexicon and Feature Structures
Feature Structures and Basic Operations
Feature Structures for Linguistic Entities
5 Arguments and Argument-Structure Constructions
Basic Properties of Argument Structure
Types of Argument-Structure Constructions
Argument Structure as Constructions: Form and Meaning Relations
6 Conclusion

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 2 / 73

Internal vs. external syntax

The combinatory properties of word and phrasal constructions involve

two aspects of syntax: internal and external syntax.
Internal syntax deals with what a well-formed phrase consists of,
whereas external syntax is concerned with how the phrase can be
used in a larger construction.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 3 / 73

Internal syntax

Why the difference in grammaticality of the examples in (1)?

(1) a. *He [put his hand].
b. *He [put under the comforter].
c. *He [put his hand warm].
d. *He [put his hand to be under the comforter].
e. He [put his hand under the comforter].
This combinatory requirement can be traced back to the internal (or
lexical) properties of the verb put, and is not related to any external
properties of the VP.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 4 / 73

External syntax

By contrast, external syntax is concerned with the syntactic

environment in which a phrase occurs.
(2) a. This is the comforter under which he [put his hand]. (cf.
(1a))
b. This is his hand that he [put under the comforter]. (cf.
(1b))
(3) a. *He kept [put his hand under the comforter].
b. He kept [putting his hand under the comforter].

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 5 / 73

Head

Each phrase has one essential, obligatory element, called “head”.

(4) a. NP b. VP c. AP

... N V ... A ...

The head of each phrase determines the syntactic category of the
phrase from which it is built, a phenomenon called ‘lexical projection’.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 6 / 73

Head (cont’d)

The property of headedness plays an important role in grammar.

The head dictates what it must combine with. That is, it determines
its complements.
(5) a. Clark denied the plagiarism charges.
b. *Clark denied.
(6) a. Hill handed the students an ambitious assignment.
b. *Hill handed the students.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 7 / 73

English declarative sentence construction

The properties of the head become properties of the whole phrase.

(7) a. Lopez [wants to leave the United States].
b. *Lopez [eager to leave the United States].
(8) a. They [know that the president is running for re-election].
b. *They [certain that the president is running for re-election].
(9) English Declarative Sentence Construction:
Each declarative sentence must contain a finite VP as its
head.
(10) a. *Lopez [(to) be eager to leave the United States].
b. *They [(to) be certain that the president is running for
re-election].

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 8 / 73

Modifiers and minimal/maximal phrases

In addition to the complements of a head, a phrase may also contain

modifiers (also called adjuncts).
(11) a. Tom [VP [VP offered advice to his students] in his office].
b. Tom [VP [VP offered advice to his students] with love].
The VP which includes this kind of modifier forms a maximal phrase.
The inner VP here forms a ‘minimal’ VP which includes all the
‘minimally’ required complements, and the outer VP is the ‘maximal’
VP which includes optional modifiers.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 9 / 73

Head, complement, modifier, minimal/maximal phrase

(12) a. Head: A lexical or phrasal element that is essential in

determining the category and internal structure of a larger
phrase.
b. Complement: A phrasal element that a head must combine
with – that is, one that is selected by the head. Complements
include direct object, indirect object, predicative complement,
and oblique complement.
c. Modifier: A phrasal element that is not selected by the head
functions but which functions as a modifier of the head phrase,
e.g., indicating the time, place, manner, or purpose of the
action expressed by a verb and its complements.
d. Minimal Phrase: the phrase including a head and all of its
complements.
e. Maximal Phrase: the phrase that includes all complements as
well as any modifiers.
Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 10 / 73
Complements vs. modifiers: obligatoriness

Obligatoriness: Complements are required phrases while modifiers

are not.
(13) a. Eli placed the cushion behind him.
b. Eli kept the cushion behind him.
c. *Eli stayed the cushion behind him.
(14) a. *These ladies and gentlemen placed him busy.
b. These ladies and gentlemen kept him busy.
c. *These ladies and gentlemen stayed him busy.
(15) a. *He placed behind the bodyguard.
b. *He kept behind the bodyguard.
c. He stayed behind the bodyguard.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 11 / 73

Complements vs. modifiers: obligatoriness (cont’d)

Modifiers are optional. Their presence is not required by the grammar.

(16) a. John deposited some money in the bank.
b. John deposited some money in the bank on Friday.
However, this ‘obligatoriness’ test is not always sufficient, for some
verbs allow optional complements.
(17) a. He read (the book) for at least one hour every day.
b. It seems inappropriate (to me) to turn a simple wedding
into a grand social occasion.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 12 / 73

Complements vs. modifiers: iterability

Iterability: In general two or more instances of the same modifier

type can occur with the same head, but this is impossible for
complements.
(18) a. *The UN blamed global warming [on humans] [on natural
causes].
b. The two had met [in Los Angeles] one night [at a bar] in
June of that year.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 13 / 73

Complements vs. modifiers: the do-so test

The Do-so Test: We can use do so or do the same thing to avoid

repetition of an identical VP expression.
(19) a. Leslie deposited some money in the checking account and
Mary did the same thing.
b. Lesllie deposited some money in the checking account on
Friday and Mary did the same thing.
This VP can also replace only the minimal phrase, excluding the
modifier.
(20) John deposited some money into the checking account on
Friday and Mary did the same thing on Monday.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 14 / 73

Complements vs. modifiers: the do-so test (cont’d)

If something can be replaced by do so or do the same thing , then it is

either a minimal or a maximal phrase.
This in turn means that this ‘replacement’ VP cannot be understood
to exclude any complement(s).
(21) a. *John [deposited some money into the checking account]
and Mary did the same thing into the savings account.
b. *John [gave a present to the student] and Mary did the
same thing to the teacher.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 15 / 73

Do-so replacement condition

(22) Do-so Replacement Condition:

The phrase do so or do the same thing can replace a verb
phrase that includes at least all of the complements of the verb.
(23) a. *John locked Fido in the garage and Mary did so in the room.
b. *John ate a carrot and Mary did so a radish.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 16 / 73

Complements vs. modifiers: combinatory freedom

Combinatory freedom: An adjunct can cooccur with a relatively

broad range of heads whereas a complement is typically limited in its
distribution.
(24) a. They sat/danced//walked/meditated on the hill.
b. They walked on/over/under the hill.
(25) The world relies on/*at/*for Occam’s Razor.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 17 / 73

Complements vs. modifiers: structural differences

Structural Differences: In tree structures, complements combine

with a lexical head (not a phrase) to form a minimal phrase whereas
modifiers combine with a phrase to form a maximal phrase.
(26) XP

XP Modifier

X Complement(s)

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 18 / 73

Complements vs. modifiers: structural differences (cont’d)

(27) a. VP

VP PP

V NP in the room

ate some food

b. VP

V NP PP

put the money in the room

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 19 / 73

Complements vs. modifiers: ordering differences

Ordering Differences: As a complement needs to combine with a

lexical head first, complements typically precede modifiers.
(28) a. He met [a woman] [in the lobby of the Four Seasons].
b. *He met [in the lobby of the Four Seasons] [a woman].
(29) a. the student [of linguistics] [with long hair]
b. *the student [with long hair] [of linguistics]

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 20 / 73

Two issues with PS rules: endocentricity

Two main issues arise with respect to the content of PS rules.

The first is related to the headedness of each phrase, often called
the ‘endocentricity’ of the phrase.
(30) a. S → NP VP
b. NP → Det AdjP∗ N
c. VP → V (NP) (VP)
d. VP → V NP AP
e. VP → V NP NP
f. VP → V S
g. AP → A VP
h. PP → P NP
i. VP → Adv VP
Here, each phrase is the projection of a head, and is thereby
endocentric.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 21 / 73

Two issues with PS rules: endocentricity (cont’d)

However, this raises the question of whether we can have rules like
the following, in which the phrase has no head at all:
(31) a. VP → P NP
b. NP → PP S
Nothing in the grammar makes such PS rules unusual, or different in
any way from the set in (30).

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 22 / 73

Two issues with PS rules: redundancy

Another limitation of the simple PS rules concerns the issue of

redundancy.
(32) a. *The problem disappeared the accusation.
b. The problem disappeared.
(33) a. *Clarke denied.
b. Clarke denied the plagiarism charges.
(34) a. *Hill handed the student.
b. Hill handed the students an ambitious assignment.
These examples show that each verb has its own restrictions on its
complement(s).

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 23 / 73

Two issues with PS rules: redundancy (cont’d)

Each specific pattern is known as the ‘subcategorization’ requirement

of each verb.
(35) a. disappear: IV,
b. deny: TV, NP
c. give: DTV, NP NP
(36) a. VP → IV
b. VP → TV NP
c. VP → DTV NP NP
Each VP rule thus also needs to specify the kind of verb that can
serve as its head.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 24 / 73

Two issues with PS rules: redundancy (cont’d)

A similar issue of redundancy arises in accounting for subject-verb

agreement.
(37) a. The insect devours the soft flesh.
b. The insects devour the soft flesh.

(38) a. S → NPsing VPsing (for (37a))

b. S → NPpl VPpl (for (37b)

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 25 / 73

Two issues with PS rules

The grammar described above may be a perfectly adequate

descriptive tool.
From a theoretical perspective, however, we must address the
endocentricity and redundancy issues. A more specific, related
question is: how many PS rules does English have?
For example, how many PS rules do we need to characterize English
VPs? Presumably there are as many rules as there are subcategories
of verbs.
We need to investigate the properties shared by all PS rules, in order
to develop a theory of PS rules.
For example, it seems to be the case that each PS rule must have a
‘head’. This will prevent many PS rules that we could write using the
rule format, from being actual rules of any language.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 26 / 73

Intermediate phrases and specifiers

In order to understand the structures that rules describe, we need two

additional notions: ‘intermediate category/phrase’ and ‘specifier
(SPR)’.
(39) a. Every photo of Max and sketch by his students appeared
in the magazine.
b. No photo of Max and sketch by his students appeared in
the magazine.
(40) *Sketch by his students appeared in the magazine.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 27 / 73

N-bar

The phrase N0 is intuitively bigger than a noun, but smaller than a

full NP, in the sense that it still requires a determiner from the class
the, every, no, some, and the like.
(41) a. [Every [[photo of Max] and [sketch by his students]]]
appeared in the magazine.
b. [No [[photo of Max] and [sketch by his students]]]
appeared in the magazine.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 28 / 73

Specifier

The complementary notion that we introduce at this point is

‘specifier’ (spr), which can include the words just mentioned, as well
as phrases.
(42) a. [the enemy’s] [N0 destruction of the city]
b. [The enemy] [VP destroyed the city].
These phrases are treated as the specifiers of N0 and of VP,
respectively.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 29 / 73

Possible specifiers of N0

Some specifiers of N0 are simple words, but others are phrases.

(43) a. a little dog, the little dogs (indefinite or definite article)
b. this little dog, those little dogs (demonstrative)
c. my little dogs, their little dog (possessive adjective)
d. every little dog, each little dog, some little dog, either
dog, no dog (quantifying)
e. my friend’s little dog, the Queen of England’s little dog
(possessive phrase)

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 30 / 73

DP

(44) a. DP

Det

the
b. NP

DP N0

NP Det friend

DP N0 ’s

Det brother

my

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 31 / 73

Sample trees

(45) NP

DP N0

the enemy’s N PP

destruction of the city

(46) S

NP VP

The enemy V NP

destroyed the city

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 32 / 73

Generalization

Given these similarities between NP and S structures, we can

generalize over them.
(47) XP

Specifier X0

X Complement(s)

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 33 / 73

Head-specifier, Head-complement rules

(48) a. XP → Specifier, X0 (head-spr construction)

b. XP → X, YP∗ (head-comp construction)

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 34 / 73

Head-modifier rule

In addition to these two, we need the head-modifier rule.

(49) XP → Modifier, X0 (head-mod construction)

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 35 / 73

Representation with head, complement, modifier, and
specifier all together

(50) XP

Specifier X0

X0 Modifier

X Complement(s)

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 36 / 73

Constraint on the HEAD-COMP CONSTRUCTION

One important constraint on the head-comp construction is

that the head must be a lexical element.
This in turn means that we cannot apply the head-mod
construction first and then the head-comp construction.
(51) a. the king [of Rock and Roll] [with a hat]
b. *the king [with a hat] [of Rock and Roll]

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 37 / 73

Constraint on the HEAD-COMP CONSTRUCTION
(cont’d)

(52) a. NP
DP N0
the N0 PP

N PP with a hat
king of Rock and Roll
b. NP
DP *N0
the N0 PP

N PP of Rock and Roll

king with a hat

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 38 / 73

One-substitution test for N0

The pronoun one replaces an N0 but not an N or an NP.

(53) a. The present king of country music is more popular than
the last one.
b. *The king of Rock and Roll is more popular than the one
of country music.
(54) A: Which student were you talking about?
B: The one with long hair.
B0 : *The one of linguistics with long hair.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 39 / 73

Merits of these three grammar rules

There are several more welcoming consequences of these three X0

rules.
These grammar rules can account for the same structures described
by all of the PS rules that we have seen so far: with these rules we
can identify phrases whose daughters are a head and its
complement(s), or a head and its specifier, or a head and its modifier.
The three X0 rules thereby greatly minimize the number of PS rules
needed to characterize well-formed English sentences.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 40 / 73

Merits of these three grammar rules (cont’d)

In addition, these X0 rules directly address the endocentricity issue,

because they refer to ‘Head’.
(55) XP[pos 1]

Specifier X0 [pos 1]

X0 [pos 1] Modifier

X[pos 1] Complement(s)

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 41 / 73

Merits of these three grammar rules (cont’d)

Using the new feature number, whose values are singular and plural,
we can add a crucial detail to the head-spr construction.
(56) XP → Specifier[number 1 ], X0 [number 1]

The rule states that the subject’s number value is identical to that
of the predicate VP’s number value.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 42 / 73

Intermediate phrases for non-NPs

The traditional notion of X0 -rules, in particular the specifier of an X0

intermediate phrase, may be extended to phrases other than NPs.
(57) a. [NP that [N0 boy [of hers]]]
b. [AP much [A0 smaller [than Tom]]]
c. [PP right [P0 down [the slope]]]
With the assumption that the specifier is a non-head phrase directly
dominated by a maximal phrase like AP or PP, much and right in
(57b) and (57b) would be specifiers.
However, unlike specifiers of N0 , specifiers of A0 and P0 are all optional
and lack a tight syntactic relationship with the head.
Such differences among putative ‘specifiers’ have caused proponents
of X0 syntax to restrict the use of X0 to phrases like NPs.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 43 / 73

Feature structures

Most modern grammars rely on a representation of lexical information

in terms of features and their values.
Each feature structure is an attribute-value matrix (AVM).
 
(58) Attribute1 value1
Attribute2 value2 
 
Attribute3 value3 
... ...

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 44 / 73

Value types

The value of each attribute can be an atomic element, a list, a set, or

a feature structure.
 
(59) type
Attribute1 atomic 
 
 
Attribute2 h i
 
  
Attribute3 
 
   
Attribute4 . . .

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 45 / 73

Feature structures: typed

One important property of every feature structure is that it is typed.

That is, each feature structure is relevant only for a given type.
(60) a. 
university

name Kyunghee University 
location Seoul
b. * university
 
name Kyunghee University 
mayor Kim

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 46 / 73

Typed feature structures: example

 
(61) author
name
 Kim 

children
 hEdward, Richard, Alberti 


swimming, cycling, jogging, . . .
 
hobbies 
   

 field linguistics 

advanced-degree area syntax  
year 1996

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 47 / 73

Feature structures: structure-sharing

One useful aspect of feature structures is structure-sharing, which

we have already seen above in connection with the 1 notation.
Structure sharing is used to represent cases where two features (or
attributes) have an identical value.
(62)
individual

name Kim

address 1
 *individual  

 individual individual
children name Edward , name Richard name Albe
address 1 address 1 address 1

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 48 / 73

Feature structures: subsumption

The subsumption relation concerns the relationship between a feature

structure with general information and one with more specific
information. In such a case, the general one subsumes the specific
one.
(63)  
  individual
individual
A: v B: name kim 
name Kim
tel 961-0892

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 49 / 73

Feature structures: unification

Feature unification means that two compatible feature structures are

unified, conveying more coherent and rich information.
   
(64) individual F individual
→
name Kim tel 961-0892

 
individual
name Kim 
tel 961-0892

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 50 / 73

Feature structures: unification (cont’d)

If two feature structures have incompatible feature values, they

cannot be unified
   
(65) individual F individual
6→
name Edward name Richard

 
individual
* name
 Edward 
name Richard

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 51 / 73

Feature structure for linguistic entities

Any individual or entity, including a linguistic expression, can be

represented by a feature structure.
Every lexical entry includes at least phonological (in practice,
orthographic), morphological, syntactic, and semantic information.
(66) Lexical Information for the verb puts
a. phonological information: /pυts/
b. morphological information: put + s
c. syntactic information: verb, present, 3rd singular
d. argument information: <agenti, themej, locationk>
e. semantic information: put relation(i,j,k)

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 52 / 73

Feature structure for linguistic entities: example

 
(67) verb
form
 hputsi 

  

 syntax 

  " # 



head pos verb 


syn

 vform -es 

  " #



 spr hNP i i 

val
comps hNPj , PPk i 
 

 D E 
 
arg-st
 NP[agt]i , NP[th]j , NP[loc]k 

   
semantics
 
 
 


pred
 put-rel 
 

i
 
sem
 agt  

 
j
 theme  
 
loc k

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 53 / 73

Basic properties of argument structure

The feature arg-st has as its value a list whose elements are the
arguments that a lexical expression takes.
(68) a. The child smiled.
b. The dog chased the squirrel.
c. The bishop gave the medal to his successor.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 54 / 73

Basic properties of argument structure: examples

" #
(69) a. form hsmilei
arg-st hNPi
" #
b. form hchasei
arg-st hNP, NPi
" #
c. form hgivei
arg-st hNP, NP, PPi

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 55 / 73

Observations about the properties of ARG-ST

We can make a few important observations about the properties of

arg-st.
The first is that even though arguments are linked to semantic roles
(e.g., agent, patient, theme, location, etc), the value of arg-st is a
list of syntactic categories like NP or PP. This is partially because
there are sometimes difficulties in assigning a specific semantic role
(as in That item is similar to his). When required, we mark the
categorial information of each argument with a semantic role value.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 56 / 73

Observations about the properties of ARG-ST (cont’d)

The second is that not only verbs but also other lexical expressions
including adjectives, nouns, and prepositions can take an argument or
arguments.
(70) a. [His mother] is quite fond [of the novel].
b. [Internet firms’] reliance [on information technology]
might differ across industries.
c. [The moon] was out. [Mars] was in.
" #
(71) a. form hfondi
arg-st hNP, PP[of]i
" #
b. form hreliancei
arg-st hDP, PP[on]i
" #
c. form hini
arg-st hNPi

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 57 / 73

Observations about the properties of ARG-ST (cont’d)

The third point to note is that the arguments selected by each

predicate feature the ordering of subject, direct object, and oblique
complement, and are eventually linked to grammatical functions such
as subj and comps.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 58 / 73

Types of argument structure constructions

The information of the arg-st list implies verbs can be classified

based on the type of argument structure they can occur with.
That is, we can differentiate verb types by looking only at the number
of arguments they require.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 59 / 73

Types of argument-structure constructions: intransitive
construction

The Intransitive Construction: This is the

argument-structure construction accommodating verbs that require
only one argument.
(72) a. John disappeared.
b. *John disappeared Bill.
(73) a. John sneezed.
b. *John sneezed the money.
h i
(74) arg-st hNPi

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 60 / 73

Types of argument-structure constructions: linking
construction

The Linking Construction: Verbs such as look, seem, remain,

and feel require a complement whose typical category is an AP.
(75) a. Tang looked [thoughtful].
b. Students became [familiar with this information].
c. The drink never tasted [so good].
d. The difference remained [statistically significant].
e. James seemed [ready to start a new life].
These verbs also can select other phrases (here, NP).
(76) a. Her house became [a landmark].
b. They seemed [a happy couple].
c. She remained [a firm supporter of the arts].
h i
(77) arg-st hNP, XP[pred +]i

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 61 / 73

Types of argument-structure constructions: transitive
construction

The Transitive Construction: Unlike linking verbs, a pure

transitive verb combines with a referential, non-predicative NP as its
complement.
(78) a. He typed [the first pages of his doctoral dissertation].
b. Clinton supported [the health care bill].
c. The Roman armies destroyed [the temple].
The complement NP here is not a predicative complement, as seen
from the passive examples.
(79) a. The first pages of his doctoral dissertation were typed.
b. The health care bill was supported by Clinton.
" #
(80) form hdestroyi
arg-st hNP[agt], NP[pat]i

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 62 / 73

Types of argument-structure constructions: ditransitive
construction

The Ditransitive Construction: English has a number of

generally ditransitive verbs, including send, pass, buy, teach, and tell.
(81) a. Sam sent [him] [a coded message].
b. The player passed [Paul] [the ball].
c. The parents bought [the children] [non-fiction novels].
d. She taught [her students] [job skills].
" #
(82) form hteachi
arg-st hNP, NP[goal], NP[th]i

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 63 / 73

Types of argument-structure constructions: ditransitive
construction (cont’d)

As we noted earlier, these verbs typically have related verbs in which

the recipient or goal argument is realized instead as an oblique PP
complement.
(83) a. Sam sent a coded message to him.
b. The player passed the ball to Paul.
c. The parents bought non-fiction novels for the children.
d. She taught job skills to her students.
" #
(84) form hteachi
arg-st hNP, NP[th], PP[goal]i

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 64 / 73

Types of argument structure constructions: complex
transitive construction

The Complex Transitive Construction: There is another

type of transitive verb which selects two complements, one
functioning as a direct object and the other as a predicative phrase
(NP, AP, or VP), describing the object.
(85) a. Mary regards Bill as a good friend.
b. Hamilton’s policies made some people furious.
c. They call her a strategist.
d. They believe him to be a disinterested observer.
" #
(86) form hcalli
arg-st hNP, NP, XP[pred +]i

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 65 / 73

Types of argument structure constructions: some others

Even though these five types of argument structure constructions can

cover most of the general types, there are other verbs that do not fit
into these constructions or at least require further specifications on
the complement(s).
(87) a. *They carted away.
b. *They carted the debris.
c. They carted the furniture out of the home.
" #
(88) form hcarti
arg-st h 1 NP[agt], 2 NP[th], 3 PP[loc]i

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 66 / 73

Argument structure as constructions

The argument-structure patterns have been identified with verb

classes, but we view these classes as ‘constructions’ because they are
logically independent of any given verb.
The key support for this view comes from the manner in which
language users creatively extend the meanings of verbs by changing
the combinatory behavior of verbs.
(89) a. Pat coughed and then shook his head.
b. Pat began to cough violently.
c. *Pat coughed his head.

(90) a. Chess coughed smoke out of his lungs.

b. I coughed vodka back into my glass.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 67 / 73

Argument structure as constructions (cont’d)

(91) a. Pat kicked. (intransitive)

b. Pat kicked the ball. (transitive)
c. Pat kicked at the ball. (conative)
d. Pat kicked Bob the ball. (ditransitive)
e. Pat kicked the ball into the stadium. (caused-Motion)
f. Pat kicked Bob black and blue. (resultative)

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 68 / 73

Argument structure as constructions (cont’d)

Construction type Argument-structure Semantic Properties

intransitive <NPx> X acts alone
conative <NPx, PPy> X acts at Y
transitive <NPx, NPy> X acts on Y or X experiences Y
ditransitive <NPx, NPy, NPz> X causes Y to receive Z
caused-motion <NPx, NPy, PPz> X causes Y to move Z
resultative <NPx, NPy, XPz[pred +]> X causes Y to become Z

Table: Argument-structure constructions and semantic properties

In this constructional view, the meaning of a sentence is determined

by the combination of the matrix verb’s core meaning with the basic
event type (constructional meaning) conveyed by the construction
with which it combines.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 69 / 73

Argument structure as constructions (cont’d)

According to this constructional view, extended uses of a verb are

expected, because the set of verbs that can occur in the given
construction is not predetermined.
(92) a. Colin sneezed.
b. *Colin sneezed his napkin.
c. Colin sneezed his napkin off the table.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 70 / 73

Conclusion

We first showed that the well-formedness of each phrase depends on

its internal as well as external syntax.
The pivotal expression in internal syntax is the head which projects
either its minimal or maximal phrase.
We have seen that a grammar with simple PS rules raises two
important issues: endocentricity (headedness) of a phrase and
redundancies in the lexicon.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 71 / 73

Conclusion (cont’d)

To resolve these two issues, generative grammar has introduced X0

rules including three key combinatorial rules: head-complement(s),
head-specifier, and head-modifier.
These rules ensure that each phrase is a projection of a head
expression, while recognizing the existence of intermediate phrases
(X-0 phrases).
Capturing the similarities between NPs and Ss in a uniform way, a
grammar with X0 rules also recognizes the necessity of introducing
features like pos.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 72 / 73

Conclusion (cont’d)

The grammar we adopt in this course (SBCG) follows the direction in

developing a fine-grained feature-system to build the generative
grammar we aim for.
We also introduced the basic feature system that we will use in
describing the English language.
In addition, we examined the traditional idea of argument structure
patterns and the novel conception of such patterns within CxG,
according to which argument-structure patterns are constructions.
We have briefly shown that this view plays a key role in accounting
for innovative uses of verbs in various contexts.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 4 73 / 73