English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The book under review, which is a joint work by Levin and Rappaport Hovav (L&RH hereafter), provides a detailed examination of phenomena falling under the name of 'unaccusativity.' Since the introduction of the unaccusative hypothesis by Perlmutter (1978), a number of different views, semantic or syntactic, have been presented in the literature. In their book, L&RH advocate a syntactic view, and advance the claim that while the unergative-unaccusative distinction is correlated with verb meanings, unaccusativity is determined on the basis of Dstructure representation. In this review article, we will examine some of L&RH's arguments, and look into the question of whether or not we can maintain the main thesis that "unaccusativity is semantically motivated but syntactically represented (p. 21)." In the discussion, we will argue that the unergative-unaccusative dichotomy of verbs can be accounted for on the basis of their lexical meanings, rather than D-structure configurations, and that there is no strong empirical motivation for representing unaccusativity syntactically. Furthermore, we will point out a number of problems with L&RH's linking rules, and propose an alternative which dispenses with the ordering of linking rules.

THE LEXICAL SEMANTICS OF UNACCUSATIVITY AND ARGUMENT REALIZATION