Medeiros Assignment #2


1. Why is it a strike against Lexicalism if there are some phonological words
that absolutely may never be interpreted idiosyncratically (i.e.
idiomatically).
The central claim of Lexicalism is that the "word" is a priveleged unit for
phonology, syntax and semantics. Under this hypothesis, words should be built
in the Lexicon by a process distinct from syntactic combination, and as such
any word built 'before' syntax should be eligible for idiomatization. The fact
that there are some words that must, as a matter of principle, be interpreted
compositionally destroys the bundling of all compositionality into the syntax.

2. What are the 'semantic' arguments of each of the roots \/DESTROY and \/GROW
(i.e. what theta roles does each assign by virtue of its root meaning)?
DESTROY has an Agent and a Patient (or Theme? I can never keep these two
straight), while GROW has just a Theme.

3. When \/GROW occurs as a veb with an agent argument, where does this agent
argument come from?
It is licensed by the causative 'little-v' head with which it merges.

4. Marantz gives \/BREAK as an example of a third class of root. What are its
semantic arguments?
It has none.

BONUS QUESTION: What is the implication for syntax of the fact that \/BREAK can
occur with a patient argument when it's a verb?

Hmm. Perhaps the 'categorial-v' with which it merges to acquire the category
'verb' -- distinct from the 'light v' which permits agents -- licenses a
complement, in a way parallel to what happens to \/GROW in the causative light
v environment: the syntax permits a structure, and the semantics are 'squishy'
enough to accomodate the theta-assignment implied. This raises serious
questions about theta-assignment in general; if this really is possible, where
do subcategorizational restrictions come from?