The general architecture of LDG

The four-level architecture of LDG is illustrated in (2), representing the German ditransitive verb geben ‘give’, which is canonically realized by the nom-dat-acc pattern in (1b).

(1) a. (als) der Torwart dem Jungen den Ball gab

(when) the goal-keeper the boy the ball gave

b. [DP^x_nom [DP^y_dat [DP^z_acc geb-agr^x ]]]

(2)

       lz    ly    lx    ls
      +hr   +hr    -hr
      -lr    +lr    +lr

{act(x) & bec poss(y,z)}(s)

x=Agent or Controller
y=Recipient
z=Patient or Affected
Causal event: act(x)(s₁)
Result state: poss(y,z)(s₂)

AGR
ACC DAT NOM

(3) The four-level architecture of LDG: Levels of representation and interface constraints

MS	Û	TS	Û	SF	Û	CS
hr/lr-features		hr/lr-features abstract case		binarily structured

	Argument Linking		Argument Hierarchy		Possible Verbs
			Structural Argument		Coherence (Iconicity)
					Connexion

		Lexical marking		Predicative Arguments
		Affected by argument demotion		Affected by argument extension

SF-CS interface constraints

(4) Possible Verbs. In a decomposed SF representation of a verb, every more deeply embedded predicate must specify the higher predicate or sortal properties activated by the higher predicate. (Kaufmann 1995)

(5) Connexion. In a decomposed SF structure, each predicate must share at least one argument with another predicate, either explicitly or implicitly.

(6) Coherence. Subevents encoded by the predicates of a decomposed SF structure must be contemporaneously or causally connected.

SF-TS interface constraints

(7) Argument Hierarchy. The list of l-abstractors in TS corresponds to the depth of embedding in SF, with the lowest argument to the left (first subjected to Functional Application), and the highest argument to the right. Correspondingly, the lowest argument (of a multivalent verb) is designated as [+hr,-lr], and the highest argument as [-hr,+lr], whereas all medial arguments are designated as [+hr,+lr].

(8) Structural Argument. An argument is structural only if it is either the lowest argument or (each of its occurrences) L(exically)-commands the lowest argument; so every internal (nonhighest) argument of a nonfinal predicate in SF is nonstructural.

L-command is defined for the nodes in SF, which represent logical types, as follows: a L-commands b if the node g, which either directly dominates a or dominates a via a chain of nodes type-identical with g, also dominates b.

TS is considered an independent level of representation for two reasons:

· The default designations on the basis of Argument Hierarchy can be lexically overridden, which happens in all instances of quirky case or dative experiencers.

· Again lexically determined, it is possible that improper theta roles (expletive arguments) appear, which do not have a thematic correspondent in SF although they participate in morphological case.

LDG is a strictly lexical account: The appearance of additional arguments (such as possessors, beneficiaries, or affected objects) is only licensed by a predicate that is added to the base SF.

Referential arguments

Verbs have a situational referential argument that is modified and bound by functional categories of the verb. It does not count in the hierarchy of arguments.

Nouns have a referential argument that counts in the hierarchy of arguments. In DPs it is modified and bound by functional categories of the noun, while in predicative nouns it is realized in the syntax.

Verbs have a richer argument structure than nouns.

All category changing operations and argument changing operations can be marked morphologically, but can also be unmarked. Generally, these operations are more restricted if they are unmarked (invisible).