An important discussion in theories of argument structure concerns the explanatory division of labor between thematic properties and event structure. English get -passives, analyzed in much previous work as differing thematically from be -passives, provide an interesting test case. We present an analysis of get -passives centered on the proposal that they contain additional event structure (realized as get ) relative to their be counterparts. We employ by -adjuncts to identify the different event structures in passive types, and use other diagnostics to support our analysis. Further discussion considers the prominent proposal from previous studies that get -passives differ thematically from be -passives in (sometimes) assigning an Agent role to their surface subjects. We show that contrasts between get and be on this dimension are a consequence of event-structural differences between the two. The result is a unified analysis of the get -passive that has implications for the role of event structure in understanding the syntax and interpretation of arguments.

We discuss theoretical approaches to blocking effects, with particular emphasis on cases in which words appear to block phrases (and perhaps vice versa). These approaches share at least one intuition: that syntactic and semantic features create possible “cells” or slots in which particular items can appear, and that blocking occurs when one such cell is occupied by one form as opposed to another. Accounts of blocking differ along two primary dimensions: the size of the objects that compete with one another (morphemes, words, phrases, sentences); and whether or not ungrammatical forms are taken into consideration in determining the correct output (relatedly, whether otherwise well-formed objects are marked ungrammatical by competition). We argue that blocking in the sense of competition for the expression of syntactic or semantic features is limited to insertion of the phonological exponents of such features (the Vocabulary items of Distributed Morphology) at terminal nodes from the syntax. There is thus no blocking at the word level or above, and no competition between grammatical and ungrammatical structures. The architectural significance of these points is emphasized throughout the discussion.

The article examines the structure of resultative participles in English: participles that denote a state resulting from a prior event, such as The cake is flattened or The metal is hammered. The analysis identifies distinct stative participles that derive from the different heights at which aspectual morphemes attach in a verbalizing structure.The Aspect head involved in resultative participles is shown to attach to a vP that is also found in (a) the formation of deadjectival verbs and (b) verb phrases with resultative secondary predicates, like John hammered the metal flat. These distinct constructions are shown to have a shared structural subcomponent.The analysis proposed here is compared with Lexicalist approaches employing the verbal versus adjectival passive distinction.It is shown that a uniformly syntactic analysis of the participles is superior to the Lexicalist alternative.

We develop a theory of movement operations that occur after the syntactic derivation, in the PF component, within the framework of Distributed Morphology.The theory is an extension of what was called Morphological Merger in Marantz 1984 and subsequent work.A primary result is that the locality properties of a Merger operation are determined by the stage in the derivation at which the operation takes place: specifically, Merger that takes place before Vocabulary Insertion, on hierarchical structures, differs from Merger that takes place post—Vocabulary Insertion/linearization.Specific predictions of the model are tested in numerous case studies.Analyses showing the interaction of syntactic movement, PF movement, and rescue operations are provided as well, including a treatment of English do -support.

The analysis centers on the notion of category in synthetic and analytic verbal forms and on the status of the feature that determines the forms of the Latin perfect. In this part of the Latin verbal system, active forms are synthetic (“verbs”) but passive forms are analytic (i.e., participle and finite auxiliary). I show that the two perfects occur in essentially the same structure and are distinguished by a difference in movement to T; moreover, the difference in forms can be derived without reference to category labels like “Verb” or “Adjective” on the Root. In addition, the difference in perfects is determined by a feature with clear syntactic consequences, which must be associated arbitrarily with certain Roots, the deponent verbs. I discuss the implications of these points in the context of Distributed Morphology, the theory in which the analysis is framed.