Syntactic

Argumentation
English Grammar IV
2023
 ROAD MAP
ANALYSIS OF STEPS OF SPOT CONVERGENT &
01 SYNTACTIC 02 NON-CONVERGENT
ARGUMENTATION EVIDENCE
Hypothesis formation &
Evidence for the initial
testing
claim & evidence to
refine the claim
03 STATEMENTS
Practice steps on already
known topics
 Steps for Syntactic Argumentation
Characterization Data statement Hypothesis Principle and
of the structure and summary refinement conclusion
A general CONVERGENT NON-CONVERGENT
characterization of the EVIDENCE & BRIEF EVIDENCE FOR THE
relevant principles or EXPLANATION INITIAL CLAIM Hypothesis
aspects considered in This backs up the Explanation of refinement or
initial claim. evidence. generalization.
the initial claim.
This leads to refine the
claim.
Ergative constructions resemble passive
structures because in both the external
argument is left implicit.
 01
Characterization
of the structure
Brief theoretical explanation:
restrict main aspects.
In both ergative and passive
constructions the internal argument
of the verb appears in subject
position.
● Brief theoretical explanation.
External cause:
● Main aspects in the initial
-ERGATIVE STRUCTURES: not
present because it is not part of the claim are explained and
thematic structure of the verb. related to the claim.
-PASSIVE CONSTRUCTIONS: may be
present or implicit. The verb is still a
transitive one and selects an
external argument.
 02
Data statement
and summary
Examples & explanation in
connection to the initial
claim
 1. (a) The window broke. ● Pinpoint the relevant
(b) The window was broken. linguistic aspects under
analysis, the data alone are of
no help.
Set 1 shows that the external
● Do not explain what is not
argument of the verb ‘break’ in part of the initial claim.
● Do not ‘spoil’ your argument.
the ergative construction in (a)
Terms like ‘implicit’ or
and in the passive construction ‘suppressed’ cannot be used
freely YET.
in (b) is not present.
 03
Hypothesis
refinement
NON-CONVERGENT EVIDENCE (to the initial
claim)
Explanation of evidence.
2. (a) *The window broke by John ● Non- convergent evidence to
refine your hypothesis.
(b) The window was broken by John.
● An explanation of the evidence
3. (a) The window broke on its own/ by itself. ● A comment that sums up what
(b)* The window was broken on its own/by
you derive from the analysis to
reinforce the argument.
itself.

Set 2 shows the contrast in grammaticality if an agent/cause is recovered in an ergative

construction (2a) and in a passive construction (2b). +Specific explanation of (2a) and (2b)

Set 3 shows that the modifiers on its own or by itself are compatible with ergative verbs
but not with passivized ones. +Specific explanation of (3a) and (3b)

A by-phrase which recovers a verb’s agent or external cause is licensed when the
verb is passivized, but not when the verb is an ergative one.
 04
Principle and
conclusion
A straightforward statement that wraps up
and clearly states the generalization.
The external argument can be left implicit
in passive structures, but it is suppressed
in ergative ones.
1. PRACTICE. Consider the initial hypotheses below and follow the
steps of syntactic argumentation to solve them. Before doing so,
check the example given above.

a. All change of state verbs of internal causation can participate in

the causative alternation.

b. All unaccusative verbs can participate in the causative alternation.

c. The only relevant semantic feature to distinguish unaccusative

from unergative verbs is volition.
a. All change of state verbs of internal causation can participate in
the causative alternation.

01 Characterization of the structure

Ergative unaccusative verbs can be divided into verbs of internal causation
and of external causation. Verbs of internal causation can participate in the
causative alternation provided the external cause receives the theta role of
<force> or <cause>. If the transitive counterpart contains an external cause
that has the features [+VOLITION] [+ANIMATE], the sentence will be
ungrammatical.
 a. All change of state verbs of internal causation can participate in
the causative alternation.
02 Data statement and summary
1 (a) BLOOM: ergative unaccusative verb of internal
1. a. The tree bloomed early.
causation.
b. *The crazy meteorologist bloomed <1> internal argument; DP [The tree]; <patient>.
the tree.
1 (b) BLOOM: Transitive counterpart- Ergative verb of
c. Early Spring heat bloomed the tree. internal causation.
* <agent>
Set 1 shows that verbs of internal
causation can participate in the 1 (c) BLOOM: Transitive counterpart- Ergative verb of
internal causation.
causative alternation if the
<1,2> external argument: DP [Early Spring heat]
external cause receives the theta <force>: compatible.
role of <force> or <cause>. internal argument: DP [The tree]; <patient>.
.
 a. All change of state verbs of internal causation can participate
in the causative alternation.

03 Hypothesis refinement
2 (a) CLEAR: Ergative verb of internal causation.
2. a. Her lungs cleared.
<1> internal argument; DP Her lungs; <patient>.
b. *Several breathing treatments
Ergative verbs of internal causation. The action is
cleared her lungs. brought about without the intervention of an external
cause.
Set 2 shows that verbs of internal
causation that denote a bodily 2 (b) CLEAR: Ergative verb of internal causation that
function differ from others in that they denotes a bodily function.
DO NOT participate in the causative
alternation. No external cause can Transitive counterpart: not possible.
bring about an internal process.
b. All unaccusative verbs can participate in the causative alternation.

04 Principle and conclusion

Verbs of internal causation that denote bodily
functions cannot participate in the causative
alternation.
 b. All unaccusative verbs can participate in the causative alternation.

01 Characterization of the structure

The causative alternation is a phenomenon by means of which
intransitive verbs allow for a transitive use under certain
circumstances. In the causative alternation, former intransitive
verbs select an external cause with varying [+/- volition] and [+/-
animate] features.
b. All unaccusative verbs can participate in the causative alternation.

02 Data statement and summary

(1) (a) BLOSSOM: Ergative Unaccusative
1. (a) The flowers blossomed.
verb of internal causation.
(b) Warm weather blossomed the flowers. <1> internal argument; DP [The flowers];
1. (a) The glass broke. <patient>.
(1)(b) BLOSSOM: causative version -
(b) Tom/the wind broke the glass. Transitive <cause, patient>.

(2) (a) BREAK: Ergative Unaccusative

Sets 1 and 2 show that ergative verb of external causation.
unaccusative verbs of internal causation (1) <1> internal argument; DP [The glass];
and of external causation (2) have a <patient>.
causative counterpart. (2)(b) BREAK: causative version -
Transitive <agent/cause, patient>.
b. All unaccusative verbs can participate in the causative alternation.

03 Hypothesis refinement
3. (a) The man appeared.
(3) APPEAR: Unaccusative verb of appearance.
(b) *The woman appeared the man. <1> internal argument; DP [The man]; <THEME>.
4. (a) Tom went to school.
(4) GO: Unaccusative verb of inherently directed
(b) *Tom went his little cousin to school. motion.
<1> internal argument; DP [Tom]; <THEME>.
Sets 3 and 4 show that unaccusative
verbs of appearance and of inherently
directed motion do not have
causative counterparts.
b. All unaccusative verbs can participate in the causative alternation.

04 Principle and conclusion

Not all unaccusative verbs have a causative counterpart.

Ergative unaccusative verbs participate in the causative
alternation, but unaccusative verbs of appearance and
inherently directed motion do not have a causative
counterpart.
 c. The only relevant semantic feature to distinguish unaccusative
from unergative verbs is volition.

01 Characterization of the structure

There are two types of intransitive verbs: unaccusative verbs and
unergative verbs. They have semantic differences. While unergative verbs
select an external argument with the feature [+ VOLITION], unaccusative
verbs select an internal argument with the features [-VOLITION]. This
semantic feature is relevant to distinguish unaccusative from unergative
c. The only relevant semantic feature to distinguish unaccusative from
unergative verbs is volition.
02 Data statement and summary
1 (a) RUN: Intransitive unergative verb
<1> external argument; DP [Peter]; <agent>.
1. a. Peter intentionally ran to the park.
The verb theta-marks an agent which has the feature
b. *The car intentionally appeared. [+VOLITION].
The agent licenses the agent-oriented modifier realized
by the adverbial phrase [intentionally].
Set 1 shows that volition is a 1 (b) APPEAR: Intransitive unaccusative verb
relevant semantic feature to <1> internal argument; DP [The car]; <theme>.
distinguish unaccusative
This sentence is ungrammatical because the verb does
from unergative verbs. not theta-mark an agent and as a consequence the
agent-oriented modifier is not licenced.
c. The only relevant semantic feature to distinguish unaccusative from
unergative verbs is volition.
03 Hypothesis refinement
Non-convergent evidence: 2 WALK: Intransitive unergative verb
<1> external argument; DP [Peter]; <agent>.
2. a. *Peter walked in a second.
b. Peter walked for hours. Unergative verbs describe events which are [-TELIC].
Not compatible with punctual phrases like [in a second].
3. a. The car appeared in a second. Compatible with durative phrases like [for hours].
b. *The car appeared for hours.
3 APPEAR: Intransitive unaccusative verb
<1> internal argument; DP [The car]; <theme>.
Sets 2 and 3 show that telicity is
also a relevant semantic feature Unaccusative verbs describe events which are [+TELIC].
Compatible with punctual phrases like [in a second].
to distinguish unaccusative from Not compatible with durative phrases like [for hours].
unergative verbs.
c. The only relevant semantic feature to distinguish unaccusative
from unergative verbs is volition.

04 Principle and conclusion

Both telicity and volition are relevant semantic
features to distinguish unaccusative from
unergative verbs.