can be used to describe events of transfer, show two options for expressing their arguments, jointly referred to as the dative alternation, illustrated in (1)-(3) with English data. (1) a. Terry gave Sam an apple b. Terry gave an apple to Sam (2) a. Martha sent Myrna a package b. Martha sent a package to Myrna (3) a. Leigh threw Lane the ball b. Leigh threw the ball to Lane In a recent paper, M. Rappaport Hovav and B. Levin (2008) challenge the predominant view of the English dative alternation, which takes all alternating verbs to have two meanings and, concomitantly, associates each meaning with a particular syntactic realization (e.g. S. Beck and K. Johnson 2004, G. Green 1974,

Studies of English “dative ” verbs and their counterparts in other languages typically focus on whether a language shows two morphosyntactic argument realization options for these verbs—a DATIVE ALTERNATION—and, if so, what these options are (e.g., Dryer 1986, Haspelmath 2004a,

Verbs like get, give, and transitive want incorporate a possession component, and hence receive paraphrases that include the verb have as given in (1):

This paper explores the architecture of the syntax/semantics interface. Many recent theories of lexical meaning assume that argument realization is largely dependent on underlying subevent structure. However, I show that subevent structure is not sufficient to capture certain generalizations about argument realization, focusing on the domain of argument/oblique alternations, where a single argument of a verb can be realized either as a direct or oblique argument. I suggest that for these alternations the relevant semantic property is strength of truth conditions: all else being equal an argument realized as a direct argument in such an alternation will have a monotonically stronger set of truth conditions imposed on it than when it is realized as an oblique. I offer an analysis of object/oblique alternations in particular, suggesting that the weakening truth conditions in a range of such alternations follows from a single Affectedness Hierarchy that captures increasingly more general degrees of affectedness for patient arguments. I show that similar contrasts can be found with indirec object/oblique and subject/oblique alternations as well, on different semantic hierarchies. I conclude by suggesting a theory of weakening truth conditions is not incompatible with subevent semantic analyses of verb meaning, and in fact the two can augment one another. ∗ This paper is based on my dissertation (Beavers 2006), though of course many details are left aside in this presentation.

These comments address two facets of Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou’s paper. The first part takes as its starting point their assumption that internally caused change of state verbs are causative and reexamines two putative diagnostics for causativity in light of further empirical evidence. The second part examines the nature and distribution of the Greek preposition me and asks why it can be used to introduce both indirect causers and instruments, even if these semantic notions might not seem to fall into a natural class. 1.

Abstract not found

Verb classes are sets of semantically-related verbs sharing a range of linguistic properties, such as: — possible realizations of arguments — interpretation associated with each possible argument realization The big question: What is behind verb classes that on the one hand makes them so appealing as a research tool and on the other hand explains their limitations? Overview: Part I: The appeal and limitations of verb classes

In this paper I examine the types of events associated with ditransitive verbs that describe caused possession by looking at their lexical aspectual properties, a methodology that has proven fruitful for the exploration of (in)transitive verbs. I show that as a whole these ditransitives share a number of aspectual properties in common with (in)transitive verbs of change of state and motion, suggesting a single, shared underlying analysis. However, I also show that there is considerable microvariation among ditransitive verbs in exactly how their aspectual properties are determined, with one key factor being how much of the meaning of each verb is entailed directly and how much is cancelable. On the basis of this I propose an aspectuallybased classification of ditransitive verbs quite similar to previously proposed classes of (in)transitive verbs. I also show that the particular analysis I develop may shed some light on which ditransitives participate in the dative alternation.

DATIVE VERBS: The subset of ditransitive verbs that take agent, recipient (possessional goal), and theme arguments, such as give, send, and throw; contrast the other major subset, verbs of putting. • RH&L (2008) argue that any account of the argument realization of English dative verbs must be “verb sensitive”: a satisfactory analysis requires recognizing semantic distinctions among the verbs. • In English, the challenge is that dative verbs show two argument realization options—a DATIVE ALTERNATION—one with recipient–theme order and the other with theme–recipient order. (1) a. Terry gave Sam an apple. (double object construction; recipient–theme order) b. Terry gave an apple to Sam. (to construction; theme–recipient order) • Concomitantly, RH&L reassess the English facts used to support a competing “uniform multiple meaning ” approach, which takes all dative verbs to have two distinct meanings, each giving rise to its own argument realization, and show they are better understood from a verb sensitive perspective. • Goals of the talk: Argue for a meaning sensitive approach to Japanese and Korean dative verbs, which express their non-agent arguments using dative and accusative case, with either order of these arguments usually possible. (2) Japanese:

• A key area in lexical semantics has been determining possible and impossible word meanings. Although putatively a semantic question, since the days of Generative Semantics an important tool for making such predictions is how word meanings are built grammatically. • Event decomposition has been key to this (lexicalist à la Dowty 1979 or syntactic à la