Manner and result: Implications for argument realization across languages

Overview Fillmore's "The Grammar of Hitting and Breaking" (1970) draws attention to the considerable divergences in the argument realization options of the verbs break and hit in English. These divergences have been understood in the context of a dichotomy in the English verb lexicon between manner and result verbs (RH&L 1998). An open question: Does this dichotomy play a role in understanding the argument realization patterns of verbs in languages beyond English? Primary goal: To address this question using hitting verbs, showing that the dichotomy makes predictions about expected crosslinguistic similarities and divergences in argument realization. Why these verbs? Manner verbs are predicted to show more diversity in argument realization in and across languages than result verbs; thus, hitting verbs, as manner verbs, provide a good domain to investigate such predictions and show that they are verified. Secondary goal: To show certain argument realization principles apply across languages, with differences in how languages encode specific types of events arising from differences in their lexical and morphosyntactic resources-independent differences which hide considerable commonalities. The argument realization of hitting and breaking verbs in English Fillmore (1970) focuses on break and hit as representatives of two larger classes of verbs, whose members share elements of meaning and patterns of behavior

The elasticity of verb meaning revisited

This paper investigates the source of systematic argument realization differences among two classes of manner verbs, hitting and wiping verbs. Its starting point is the hypothesis that argument realization patterns can largely be attributed to grammatical constraints on argument expression interacting with grammatically privileged properties of a verb's root.  These properties include the root's ontological category and, as argued here, whether it encodes contact at a point or a region

Exploring the Relationships between Hemoglobin, the Endothelium and Vascular Health in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease

Background/Aims: The ideal hemoglobin target in chronic kidney disease remains unknown. Ultimately, individualized targets may depend upon the properties of the patient’s endothelial and vascular milieu, and thus the complex relationships between these factors need to be further explored. Methods: Forty-six patients with a glomerular filtration rate (GFR) 2 or on renal replacement therapy underwent measurement of hemoglobin, endothelial microparticles (EMPs) and aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV) at 0, 3 and 6 months. In addition, a number of inflammatory, cardiac and vascular biomarkers were measured at baseline. Results: No correlation was observed between baseline values of PWV and EMPs, PWV and hemoglobin, or hemoglobin and EMPs in the overall cohort. When stratified by CKD status, a positive correlation was observed between PWV and EMP CD41–/CD144+ in patients with GFR 2 only (r = 0.54, p = 0.01). Asymmetric dimethylarginine correlated with baseline PWV (r = 0.27, p = 0.07), and remained significantly correlated with the 3- and 6-month PWV measurement. Conclusions: In this small heterogeneous cohort of dialysis and non-dialysis patients, we were unable to describe a physiologic link between anemia, endothelial dysfunction and arterial stiffness

Change of State Verbs: Implications for Theories of Argument Projection

Recent work in argument expression has focused on verbs showing multiple argument projection options, often with concomitant shifts in aspectual classification or assignment of so-called "aspectual roles" (e.g., measure or incremental theme). Theories of argument projection generally adopt one or both of the following hypotheses: (1) argument projection is aspectually determined; (2) argument expression is not lexically determined. Although much recent work incorporates the conjunction of the two hypotheses, they represent two distinct issues: whether argument expression is aspectually driven and whether argument expression is lexically or syntactically determined. It is possible to argue that argument projection is lexically determined and aspectually driven (e.g., Tenny 1987, 1992, 1994) or to argue that projection is not completely lexically determined but not completely aspectually driven either (e.g., Jackenoff 1990). We argue against each individual hypothesis, as well as against their conjunction. We do this through a close examination of the argument expression properties of change of state verbs and a comparison of these properties with those of aspectually-related verbs

Scalar Structure Underlies Telicity in "Degree Achievements"

No abstract