The Syntax Of Roots And The Roots Of Syntax 1st Edition Alexiadou

The Syntax Of Roots And The Roots Of Syntax 1st
Edition Alexiadou download
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-syntax-of-roots-and-the-roots-
of-syntax-1st-edition-alexiadou-5894266
Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.
The Division Of Labor Between Grammar And The Lexicon An Exploration
Of The Syntax And Semantics Of Verbal Roots 1st Edition Josep Ausensi
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-division-of-labor-between-grammar-
and-the-lexicon-an-exploration-of-the-syntax-and-semantics-of-verbal-
roots-1st-edition-josep-ausensi-54542326
The Syntax Of Vv Resultatives In Mandarin Chinese Jianxun Liu
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-syntax-of-vv-resultatives-in-
mandarin-chinese-jianxun-liu-46235732
The Syntax Of Portuguese Mary A Kato Ana Maria Martins Jairo Nunes
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-syntax-of-portuguese-mary-a-kato-
ana-maria-martins-jairo-nunes-48524880
The Syntax Of Neoaramaic The Jewish Dialect Of Zakho Eran Cohen
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-syntax-of-neoaramaic-the-jewish-
dialect-of-zakho-eran-cohen-49455082

The Syntax Of Nominalizations Across Languages And Frameworks Artemis
Alexiadou Editor Monika Rathert Editor
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-syntax-of-nominalizations-across-
languages-and-frameworks-artemis-alexiadou-editor-monika-rathert-
editor-50264966
The Syntax Of Colophons A Comparative Study Across Pothi Manuscripts
Nalini Balbir Editor Giovanni Ciotti Editor
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-syntax-of-colophons-a-comparative-
study-across-pothi-manuscripts-nalini-balbir-editor-giovanni-ciotti-
editor-50266940
The Syntax Of Neoaramaic The Jewish Dialect Of Zakho Eran Cohen
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-syntax-of-neoaramaic-the-jewish-
dialect-of-zakho-eran-cohen-50341706
The Syntax Of Argument Structure Empirical Advancements And
Theoretical Relevance Artemis Alexiadou Editor Elisabeth Sophia Maria
Verhoeven Editor
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-syntax-of-argument-structure-
empirical-advancements-and-theoretical-relevance-artemis-alexiadou-
editor-elisabeth-sophia-maria-verhoeven-editor-50378812
The Syntax Of Mauritian Creole Anand Syea
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-syntax-of-mauritian-creole-anand-
syea-50616718

The Syntax of Roots and the Roots of Syntax

OXFORD STUDIES IN THEORETICAL LINGUISTICS
general editors
David Adger and Hagit Borer, Queen Mary, University of London
advisory editors
Stephen Anderson, Yale University; Daniel Büring, University of California, Los Angeles; Nomi Erteschik-Shir,
Ben-Gurion University; Donka Farkas, University of California, Santa Cruz; Angelika Kratzer, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst; Andrew Nevins, University College London; Christopher Potts, Stanford Uni-
versity; Barry Schein, University of Southern California; Peter Svenonius, University of Tromsø; Moira Yip,
University College London
Recent titles
33 Events, Phrases, and Questions
by Robert Truswell
34 Dissolving Binding Theory
by Johan Rooryck and Guido Vanden Wyngaerd
35 The Logic of Pronominal Resumption
by Ash Asudeh
36 Modals and Conditionals
by Angelika Kratzer
37 The Theta System
Argument Structure at the Interface
edited by Martin Everaert, Marijana Marelj, and Tal Siloni
38 Sluicing
Cross-Linguistic Perspectives
edited by Jason Merchant and Andrew Simpson
39 Telicity, Change, and State
A Cross-Categorial View of Event Structure
edited by Violeta Demonte and Louise McNally
40 Ways of Structure Building
edited by Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria and Vidal Valmala
41 The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence
edited by Jochen Trommer
42 Count and Mass Across Languages
edited by Diane Massam
43 Genericity
edited by Alda Mari, Claire Beyssade, and Fabio Del Prete
44 Strategies of Quantification
edited by Kook-Hee Gil, Steve Harlow, and George Tsoulas
45 Nonverbal Predication
Copular Sentences at the Syntax-Semantics Interface
by Isabelle Roy
46 Diagnosing Syntax
edited by Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng and Norbert Corver
47 Pseudogapping and Ellipsis
by Kirsten Gengel
48 Syntax and its Limits
edited by Raffaella Folli, Christina Sevdali, and Robert Truswell
49 Phrase Structure and Argument Structure
A Case Study of the Syntax-Semantics Interface
by Terje Lohndal
50 Edges in Syntax
Scrambling and Cyclic Linearization
by Heejeong Ko
51 The Syntax of Roots and the Roots of Syntax
edited by Artemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer, and Florian Schäfer
For a complete list of titles published and in preparation for the series, see pp 334–5.

The Syntax of Roots and
the Roots of Syntax
Edited by
ARTEMIS ALEXIADOU, HAGIT BORER,
AND FLORIAN SCHÄFER
1

3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, ox2 6dp,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© editorial matter and organization Artemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer, and Florian Schäfer 2014;
© the chapters their several authors 2014
The moral rights of the authors have been asserted
First Edition published in 2014
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2014934898
ISBN 978–0–19–966526–6 (hbk.)
978–0–19–966527–3 (pbk.)
Printed and bound by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, cr0 4yy
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

Contents
General preface vii
Notes on contributors viii
List of abbreviations xi
1. Introduction 1
Artemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer, and Florian Schäfer
2. From syntax to roots: A syntactic approach to root interpretation 14
Víctor Acedo-Matellán and Jaume Mateu
3. The roots of nominality, the nominality of roots 33
Paolo Acquaviva
4. Roots in transitivity alternations: Afto-/auto-reflexives 57
Artemis Alexiadou
5. Domains within words and their meanings: A case study 81
Elena Anagnostopoulou and Yota Samioti
6. The category of roots 112
Hagit Borer
7. On a low and a high diminutive: Evidence from Italian and Hebrew 149
Marijke De Belder, Noam Faust, and Nicola Lampitelli
8. The interaction of adjectival passive and Voice 164
Edit Doron
9. Roots and phases 192
Ángel J. Gallego
10. The ontology of roots and verbs 208
Lisa Levinson
11. Derivational affixes as roots: Phasal Spell-out meets English Stress Shift 230
Jean Lowenstamm
12. Building scalar changes 259
Malka Rappaport Hovav

13. When roots license and when they respect semantico-syntactic
structure in verbs 282
Antje Roßdeutscher
References 310
Index 329
vi Contents

General preface
The theoretical focus of this series is on the interfaces between subcomponents of the
human grammatical system and the closely related area of the interfaces between the
different sub-disciplines of linguistics. The notion of ‘interface’ has become central
in grammatical theory (for instance, in Chomsky’s Minimalist Program) and in
linguistic practice: work on the interfaces between syntax and semantics, syntax and
morphology, phonology and phonetics, etc. has led to a deeper understanding of
particular linguistic phenomena and of the architecture of the linguistic component
of the mind/brain.
The series covers interfaces between core components of grammar, including syntax/
morphology, syntax/semantics, syntax/phonology, syntax/pragmatics, morphology/
phonology, phonology/phonetics, phonetics/speech processing, semantics/pragmatics,
and intonation/discourse structure, as well as issues in the way that the systems of
grammar involving these interface areas are acquired and deployed in use (including
language acquisition, language dysfunction, and language processing). It demonstrates,
we hope, that proper understandings of particular linguistic phenomena, languages,
language groups, or inter-language variations all require reference to interfaces.
The series is open to work by linguists of all theoretical persuasions and schools of
thought. A main requirement is that authors should write so as to be understood by
colleagues in related subfields of linguistics and by scholars in cognate disciplines.
The term ‘root’ is relatively familiar from morphology and from phonology, but
within the past 15 years, an increasing body of work has emerged which suggests that
there are empirical and conceptual advantages to assuming that the most basic
syntactic building block is neither a ‘word’ nor a Lexeme, but rather, a root, i.e. a
unit that is, in particular, devoid of a syntactic category. From the perspective of
such approaches, syntactic categories emerges as a result of the syntactic configura-
tion, and are not, as more traditional approaches would have it, a property which
terminals bring with them into the syntax.
While there is an agreement, in such theoretical quarters, on what roots are not,
various scholars have pursued rather different solutions to the questions of what roots
are. Are they units of phonological representations, and if so, how delimited? Are
they units of meaning, and if so, how delimited? Do they have syntactic properties
(e.g. argument selection)? And finally, in the absence of category for roots, how do
syntactic constituents come to have a categorial label? This book provides an invalu-
able service in bringing together diverse answers to these questions, serving, simulta-
neously, as an introduction to the root-based approach, and as a tool to ‘rootists’
seeking to understand the diverse ramifications of the theoretical approach as a whole.
David Adger
Hagit Borer

Notes on contributors
Vı́ctor Acedo-Matellán is a postdoctoral researcher at Universidade do Minho, Portugal.
He received his Ph.D. in linguistics in 2010, at Universitat de Barcelona. His research interests
include issues in the syntax-lexicon interface and the syntax-morphology interface, and he has
worked on the argument and event structure of prefix and particle predicates. Among others,
he has published in Probus and in a volume within the series Syntax and Semantics by
Emerald.
Paolo Acquaviva is Senior Lecturer in Italian at University College Dublin. He is a graduate
of the University of Pisa and of the Scuola Normale Superiore of Pisa, where he obtained his
Ph.D. in 1993. His research centres on morphology and its interface with lexical semantics, in
particular on how linguistic categories shape the conceptualization of nouns. Lexical Plurals,
an extensive study into the varieties of non-canonical plurality, was published in 2008 by
Oxford University Press.
Artemis Alexiadou is Professor of Theoretical and English Linguistics at the Universität
Stuttgart. She received her Ph.D. in linguistics in 1994 from the University of Potsdam. Her
research interests lie in theoretical and comparative syntax, morphology, and most impor-
tantly in the interface between syntax, morphology, the lexicon, and interpretation. She has
published in journals, edited volumes, and conference proceedings.
Elena Anagnostopoulou obtained her Ph.D. in linguistics from the University of Salzburg
in 1994. After a post-doc at MIT (1997–1998), where she returned in 2007 as a Visiting
Associate Professor, she took a position at the University of Crete in 1998, where she is
currently Professor of Theoretical Linguistics. Her research interests lie in theoretical and
comparative syntax, with special focus on the interfaces between syntax, morphology, and the
lexicon, argument alternations, Case, Agreement, clitics and anaphora. She is the author of
The Syntax of Ditransitives: Evidence from Clitics (Mouton de Gruyter 2003), has co-edited
four volumes in theoretical linguistics, and has published in journals, edited volumes, and
conference proceedings.
Marijke De Belder is currently an FWO postdoc researcher at the KU Leuven campus
Brussel after having been a postdoc lecturer at Utrecht University, where she received her
Ph.D. in linguistics. Her research interests are morphosyntax and the syntax-lexicon interface.
More specifically, she has studied the syntax of roots, nominal inflection, vocabulary insertion,
derivational word-formation, and compounding. She published on Dutch nominal inflection
in the Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics and in Lingua.
Hagit Borer is Professor and Chair of Linguistics at Queen Mary, University of London. She
received her Ph.D. in linguistics at MIT, and has held professorial positions at the University
of Massachusetts at Amherst and at the University of Southern California. Her research
interests include syntax, morphosyntax, the syntax-semantics interface, and the acquisition
of syntax by children.

Edit Doron is Professor of Linguistics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. She received a
Ph.D. in linguistics from the University of Texas at Austin in 1983. Her main research area is
the interface of semantics, morphology, and syntax, particularly in such languages as Hebrew,
Arabic, Aramaic, English, and French. She has published various articles on the following
topics: the Semitic verbal system, nominal predicates, adjectival passives, the subject-predicate
relation, resumptive pronouns, bare and mass nouns, ergativity, ellipsis, apposition, free
indirect discourse, the semantics of aspect and habituality, the semantics of voice, and
reference to kinds.
Noam Faust received his Ph.D. from Paris VII University in 2011. He is currently working at
the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is interested in phonological, morphological, and
morpho-syntactic structures, and how these can be detected through sound patterns. He has
published on these topics in the Semitic languages of Hebrew, Neo-Aramaic, and Tigre. He is
now conducting fieldwork on both Tigre and Nuer.
Ángel J. Gallego is a Professor Agregat at the Departament de Filologia Espanyola of the
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, where he defended his doctoral dissertation in 2007. He
is a member of the Centre de Lingüística Teòrica, a theoretical linguistic research group. His
main interests and publications concern the areas of syntax, comparative grammar, and
parametric variation (especially within Romance languages). He has published in journals
like Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, Probus, Theoretical Linguistics, or Linguistic
Analysis, and he is the author of the monograph Phase Theory (John Benjamins, 2010), and
has also acted as an editor in Phases. Developing the Framework (Mouton de Gruyter, 2012)
and El movimiento de constituyentes (with José M. Brucart, Visor, 2012).
Nicola Lampitelli is a lecturer at University of Tours (France). He received his Ph.D. in 2011
from University Paris 7. His research interests include the phonological form of morphemes,
the structures of words, and the phonology-syntax interface. He has published mainly on
Romance and Afroasiatic languages.
Lisa Levinson is an associate professor at Oakland University and received her Ph.D. from
NYU in 2007. She works on morphosemantics, trying to better understand what the atomic
units of compositional semantics are, and the extent to which those atomic units can be
mapped to atomic morphosyntactic constituents. She has recently published articles in the
journals Natural Language and Linguistic Theory and Syntax.
Jean Lowenstamm is Professor of Linguistics at Université Paris Diderot in Paris, France. He
received his Ph.D. from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, in 1979. His research
interests include phonology, morphology, syntax, and interface issues. He has published on
those topics with special attention to Semitic, Germanic, and Romance languages. He is one of
the four editors of Brill’s Annual of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics.
Jaume Mateu is an associate professor of Catalan and current Director of the Center for
Theoretical Linguistics at Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB). He received his Ph.D.
in linguistics at UAB (2002). His research interests include the lexicon-syntax interface and
argument structure. Some of his recent publications are “Argument structure”, in A. Carnie
et al. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Syntax (2014); “Conflation and incorporation
Notes on contributors ix

processes in resultative constructions”, in V. Demonte & L. McNally (eds.), Telicity, Change,
and State: A Cross-Categorial View of Event Structure, Oxford: OUP (2012), 252–78; and “The
manner/result complementarity revisited: A syntactic approach” (joint work with Víctor
Acedo-Matellán), in M. C. Cuervo & Y. Roberge (eds.), The End of Argument Structure?
Vol. 38, Syntax & Semantics, Bingley: Emerald (2012), 209–28.
Malka Rappaport Hovav is Henya Sharef Chair in Humanities, head of the School of
Language Sciences and Professor of Linguistics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. She
received her Ph.D. in 1984 from MIT. Her research interests included lexical semantics,
argument structure, and morphology. She is author, along with Beth Levin, of Unaccusativity
(MIT Press, 1995) and Argument Realization (Cambridge University Press, 2005).
Antje Roßdeutscher is a senior researcher at the University of Stuttgart. She received her
Ph.D. in 1989. Her field of research is formal dynamic semantics (Discourse Representation
Theory) with special interest in lexical semantics, syntax-semantics interface, underspecified
DRT, and word-formation. She has published in journals such Theoretical Linguistics, Lin-
guistics and Philosophy, and Linguistische Berichte.
Yota Samioti is a Ph.D. candidate in the Linguistics sector of the Philology department at the
University of Crete. She is currently working on the syntax and semantics interface regarding
adjectival participles in Greek.
Florian Schäfer is researcher at the the collaborative research centre SFB 732 ‘Incremental
Specification in Context’ at the Universität Stuttgart. He studied General and Theoretical
Linguistics at the University of Potsdam and completed his Ph.D. dissertation on the (anti-)
causative alternation in 2007 at the University of Stuttgart. His main research interests are
located in the theories of syntax, morphology, and lexical semantics and the interaction of
these modules of grammar.
x Notes on contributors

List of abbreviations
{EX[V]} Verbal Extended Projection
#(P) Quantity (Phrase)
√&c Roots and Category
a adjectiviser
A(P) Adjective (Phrase)
ACC Accusative
ACT Active Voice
AER Agentive emphatic reflexives
aff affixal realization
AG Agree
ALL Allative
APPL(P) Applicative (Phrase)
AS-nominal Argument Structure Nominal
Asp(P) Aspect Phrase
AspQ Aspect/Quantity
AUG Augmentive
C Categorial functor
C Conceptual properties
C(AUS) Causative template verb
C(P) Complementizer (Phrase)
CCS Categorial Complement Space
CAUS Causative
CNT Count
Compl Complement
COS Change of State
D(P) Determiner (Phrase)
DAT Dative
DEF Definiteness
Deg(P) Degree (Phrase)

DIM Diminutive
Div(P) Division (Phrase)
DM Distributed Morphology
DO Direct Object
DRS Discourse Representation Structure
DRT Discourse Representation Theory
E(P) Event Phrase
ExP Extended Projection
F Feminine
GB Government and Binding
GEN Genitive
I(NTNS) Intensive template verb
I(P) Inflectional (Phrase)
ILL Illative
infer inference
LC Lexicalisation Constraint
Lex(P) Lexical Phrase
LF Lexical Function
LP Lexical Phonology
LPM Lexical Phonology and Morphology
M Masculine
MCM Multiple Contextualized Meaning
MH Modern Hebrew
MID Middle Voice
n nominalizer
N(P) Noun (Phrase)
NAct Non-active
NEU Neuter
NOM Nominative
Num(P) Number (Phrase)
P(P) Prepositional (Phrase)
PART Participle
PASS Passive Voice
PF Phonological Function
PIC Phase Impenetrability Condition
PL Plural
xii List of abbreviations

POSS Possessive
PREF Prefix
PST Past
PTCP participle phrase
Q(P) Quantifier (Phrase)
QiTeL Hebrew convention : Q, T, and L represent root consonants,
i, e vocalization of the unaffixed verb stem
Q-TL-L Hebrew convention, root consonants
Q-TQ-T Hebrew convention, root consonants
QiTuL Hebrew convention, root consonats, plus vocalization pattern
R-nominal Result nominal
REFL Reflexive
Result(P) Result (Phrase)
RO Reference Object
Root(P) Root (Phrase)
S(IMPL) Simple template verb
SC Small Clause
SG Singular
Size(P) Size (Phrase)
SPE Sound Patterns of English
Spec Specifier
T(P) Tense (Phrase)
TRANS Transitive
u uninterpretable
v verbalizer
V(P) Verb (Phrase)
vC Categorizing head v
vE Eventivizing head v
VI Vocabulary Insertion
Voice(P) Voice (Phrase)
XSM Exo-Skeletal Model
List of abbreviations xiii

1
Introduction
ARTEMIS ALEXIADOU, HAGIT BORER,
AND FLORIAN SCHÄFER
1.1 Overview
The chapters in this volume are based on talks presented at two workshops entitled
Rootbound and Roots that were held in Los Angeles (February 2009) and in Stuttgart
(June 2009) respectively. These two workshops brought together scholars from
different schools of thought to discuss and debate the nature of roots and to
investigate, primarily, their interaction, or lack thereof, with syntactic structure. By
extension, and because views differ on what roots actually are, the chapters brought
together here comment not only on the syntax of roots, but also on their phonology,
semantics, and morpho-phonological role (or lack thereof), insofar as these turn
out to bear on their interaction with syntax.
Different perspectives notwithstanding, a number of important commonalities
have emerged which, in turn, highlight what are, in our view, the core issues of
concern to syntactic “root” scholars. In our introduction we offer a survey of these
issues.1
1.2 Roots and syntactic models
The relationship between syntactic structure and syntactic terminals has always been
at the core of important debates within generative grammar. Indeed, the very nature
of syntactic terminals is not a theoretically neutral issue. Are such terminals phono-
logically abstract or phonologically concrete? Do they correspond to features or to
1
Alexiadou and Schäfer’s research was supported by a DFG grant to project B6 of the collaborative
research center Incremental Specification in Context at the University of Stuttgart, which also financially
supported the organization of the Stuttgart Roots workshop. We would like to thank Patrick Lindert for
his assistance in finalizing the formatting of this volume. The title of this volume reflects the particular
focus around which we and our contributors came together—our interests in investigating the role that
roots play in syntactic representations, including event structure. Thanks to Paolo Acquaviva and Mark
Liberman for titular inspiration.

actual fully listed items, possibly “words” or “lexemes”? Do such terminals have
syntactic properties that inform the structure they project, or more generally, do
structures project from terminals, or, alternatively, do the properties of terminals
derive from the structure that they are embedded within, and with the structure itself
constructed some other way? And finally, are there, in actuality, “terminals” in the
commonly understood sense altogether? Differently put, is there any theoretical
reason to assume that, e.g., an N head which is embedded within some nominal
extended projection actually contains something in it that emerges from some
vocabulary list, be it formal or substantive?
Within current approaches to syntactic structure which distinguish between
functional nodes (e.g., TP, DP) and non-functional nodes (e.g., NP, AP), an addi-
tional question emerges: Are terminals embedded within functional structure for-
mally identical to terminals which are embedded within non-functional structure?
To wit, is the formal status of, e.g., the in the dog the same as that of dog, or are they
fundamentally distinct formal entities?
In the last decade or so, and parting way with the dominant approaches in the last
three decades of the 20th century, a body of research has emerged which seeks to
equate at least some syntactic terminals with roots, with the common understanding
that roots are distinct from “words” or “lexemes”, and at least potentially, more
minimal than either. Crucially, and as a common denominator to most of these
approaches, roots differ from both “words” and “lexemes” in that in and of them-
selves they do not have a syntactic category.
This said, the assumption that there exist syntactic terminals which are category-
less, roots, only goes part way towards accounting for the traditional properties
typically associated with “words” (or “lexemes”). Among such properties pivotal
ones that clearly interact with the syntactic structure involve selection (categorial as
well as thematic) and lexical semantics. To wit, traditional accounts (specific modes
of execution aside) have a particular verb, say kick, select a nominal complement and
assign two thematic roles to two arguments. However, if kick is not a verb, but rather
a category-less root, is it sensible to claim that it selects a complement of a particular
type, or that it assigns roles to event arguments? Equally important are issues which
concern phonological realization. While typically assumed to be syntactically inert
and potentially listed, it nonetheless remains the case that syntactic properties do
impact phonological realization (e.g., the realization of inflection, as well as the
realization of categorizing affixes). How to model the relevant interaction between
realization and syntax in the case of roots, however, remains at least prima facie
unclear. Again, an illustration may be helpful. Within traditional accounts, broke
emerges in past tense contexts through consultation with the lexical entry of the verb
break. But if break is a category-less root, rather than a verb, where could the
relevant information be stored?
2 Artemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer, and Florian Schäfer

In the past ten years, and within the community of scholars who subscribe to the
view that category-less terminals are syntactically useful, distinct answers have
emerged to some of these questions. The purpose of this volume is to bring some
of these differing perspectives together, in the hope of elucidating what the empirical
consequences of the differing perspectives are, specifically on the way in which
different conceptions of roots bear on the construction of syntactic objects.
Within generative linguistics, the term root has been most dominantly used in the
context of word formation, where it is frequently identified with the notion stem (but
see Aronoff 1994 for some comments on the use of the term). Roots, as thus used,
are a minimal morpho-phonological base unit, where by base we refer specifically to
an intransitive core, which may then merge with affixes, themselves, in the relevant
sense, transitive. From that perspective, dog is a root (√DOG), but so is, for example,
struct (√STRUCT) as in instruct or construction. Within the historically prevailing
traditions in generative linguistics, however, dog is a licit syntactic terminal, whereas
struct is not. Specifically, and unlike dog, struct is neither a “word” nor a “lexeme”. It
is not clear what category it is, if any, and it cannot be meaningfully claimed to
exercise any selection, be it categorial or thematic. As such, then, it is not a licit
syntactic object. (We note as an aside that in Chomsky 1970, objects which are
category-less but which have selection properties are syntactically licit objects).
Suppose, however, we dispense with the assumption that listed terminals come
with a syntactic category. A number of important potential questions and conse-
quences emerge immediately. The first set of questions concerns the formal nature of
roots. Harking back to an important debate within research on word formation and
lexical representatins, roots are fundamentally syntactico-semantic in nature (and
thus on a par with Lexemes, as in Beard 1995 and others), or, to the contrary, are
they fundamentally phonological in nature, as in Aronoff (1976)? And are they,
possibly, a conjunction of semantic and phonological properties, as might be sugges-
ted (albeit not for roots as such) in Allen (1978), Pesetsky (1982), and Kiparsky
(1982a, b, 1997)? Do roots have any syntactic properties (e.g., selection) which impact
their syntactic environment (e.g., Marantz 1997, harking back to Chomsky 1970) or,
are they possibly devoid of any syntactic properties altogether (e.g., Borer 2003), and
if the latter, how do selectional effects emerge?
And finally, are there actually veritable listed terminals which we may call roots,
and which merge, syntactically, as such? The latter claim has been challenged from
two rather different perspectives. Thus, in Ramchand (2008), neither roots nor other
listed (non-functional) terminals are syntactically present, and “words” are but the
realizations of complex structures in which terminals are featural in nature. For De
Belder and van Craenenbroeck (2011) on the other hand, terminals which corres-
pond to roots do exist, but they are not populated by listed items. Rather, they are
null sets, whose existence is mandated by the properties of Merge (and specifically,
First Merge).
Introduction 3

An altogether different set of questions emerges once we consider the potential
interaction between roots as category-less items, and the properties of complex
words. To wit, if √STRUCT is a possible syntactic terminal, then instruct or structure
must be formed syntactically. Similarly, if √DOG is a syntactic terminal, dogs must
be formed syntactically. However, the formal nature of the syntactic operations that
can give rise to instruction or dogs are by no means agreed upon. One option would
be to assume that not only roots, but also affixes are syntactic terminals which merge
with the root. Such an approach would involve importing into the syntax the
configurational approaches to word formation otherwise advanced, within an autono-
mous morphological system, by Lieber (1980), Williams (1981), Selkirk (1982), and
more recently Ackema and Neeleman (2004) among others. On the other hand, one
may adopt a realizational approach, thereby allowing the formation of complex
words not through the presence of additional terminals, but through the spelling out
of syntactic distinctions on the tree, thus importing into the syntax approaches such
as those of Beard (1990, 1995) and Anderson (1992) (the latter for inflection only),
among others. Can these different approaches, once integrated into the syntax, be
shown to make different predictions, and can they be shown to overcome some
rather recalcitrant issues that have, traditionally, provided evidence for removing
word formation from the syntax altogether?
The issue here, we note, concerns not only the properties of roots, but also the
properties of affixes. Specifically, if one subscribes to the view that words have an
internal hierarchical structure, it must be the case that not only roots but also affixes
are syntactic terminals. But if so, what is the difference, if any, between affixes and
roots? The question doesn’t emerge, of course, within the realizational system, quite
simply because affixes as such do not exist. For a realizational (syntactic) approach,
however, the task is how to specify the presence of relevant syntactic properties that
condition particular realization (e.g., past tense), but which nonetheless do not
translate into structural complexity.
Finally, within the types of approaches under consideration here, roots are devoid
of category by assumption. However, under the plausible claim that in constituents
such as the dog, dog is at least in some relevant sense a noun, how does (the) dog,
coextensive with the category-less root √DOG, come to be a noun, and by extension,
how is categorization in general accomplished?
1.3 Specific issues and the structure of this volume
Importantly, this is not a book about word formation as such. Rather, it is about the
merits and the consequences, or lack thereof, of postulating category-less syntactic
terminals. For that reason, we did not attempt to integrate into this volume specific
debates on word formation which do not, as such, have syntactic ramifications,
nor have we included perspectives that postulate a fundamentally non-syntactic

component of word formation. Discussions of the morpho-phonological properties
of roots or their lexical semantics were thus included insofar as they were couched
within the fundamental claim that the root is a valid syntactic object, either as a
terminal, or as a relevant unit of syntactic information.
Relative to the contributions in this volume, four main foci emerge from our brief
introduction. These foci do not, as such, divide the chapters of this volume into
groups, but rather, cut across them. More frequently than not, discussions of root
properties and their interaction with syntactic structure are closely interlaced,
resulting in a network of interconnections between the different chapters.
1.3.1 The meaning of roots in isolation and the selection of arguments
An important question that has been widely discussed in the recent literature is how
much meaning roots have in isolation, and to what extent that meaning informs
their syntactic merging possibilities. More specifically, we can identify the following
general approaches:
. Quite independently of whether or not roots have meaning, as such, some
scholars subscribe to the view that roots do select arguments (e.g., Marantz
1997, 2000), thus informing some aspects of their syntactic context. Similarly for
Harley (2009b, c), although Harley suggests that root selection may, at times, be
mediated by formal structure.
. Other authors, on the other hand, have argued explicitly that roots may have
meaning from which some aspects of their syntactic context may emerge. Thus
Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2010) make a strong case that root meaning
consists of a limited number of contrastive ontological properties (e.g., manner
vs. result). Embick (2004a), as well, claims that roots may have formal meaning
properties (specifically stative vs. eventive). Embick as well as Rappaport Hovav
and Levin further argue that meaning distinctions associated with roots inform
their syntactic merger possibilities, their potential categorization array, and the
availability of arguments. This general position is adopted by several of our
contributors, while others explicitly argue against it.
. Finally, some scholars argue that not only do roots not have any meaning in
isolation, all (grammatical) meaning is associated with constituents larger than
roots (see Acquaviva 2008a and Borer 2013). For these scholars, the absence of
meaning correlates directly with the absence of arguments or any selection
properties. That position, as well, has been adopted by some of our contributors.
Let us consider some of our chapters from the perspective of this particular
debate. The claim that structure, rather than root ontology, determines interpreta-
tion is the point of departure for Acedo-Matellán and Mateu’s contribution, where,
in line with Hale and Keyser (1993, 2002) and Borer (2003, 2005), it is assumed that
argument structure is computed on the basis of syntactic configuration. Extending
Introduction 5

this approach, Acedo-Matellán and Mateu propose that the properties of roots are
contingent on their syntactic position. Appealing to a crucial distinction between the
conceptual and the syntactic properties of roots, they show that the conceptual
meaning of roots are opaque to the syntactic computation and hence must be
excluded from those aspects of the semantic interpretation that are built structurally.
As a consequence, ontologies of roots are grammatically spurious. Rather, what
might appear, intuitively, to be a grammatically active root meaning, such as result
or manner, is in fact an interpretation that is associated with a well-defined syntactic
structure. Even more specifically, they suggest that grammatical result interpretation
emerges whenever the root merges as the complement of a recursive P projection.
Grammatical manner interpretation, on the other hand, emerges whenever the root
is adjoined to v. Arguing directly against claims made by other contributors to this
volume (including Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou and Samioti, Levinson, Rappaport-
Hovav, and Roßdeutscher), they strongly deny the claim that ontological classifica-
tions of roots can inform the linguistic derivation or place any conditions on it. To
the contrary, it is the structural position occupied by the root in the syntactic event/
argument structure which determines its properties, including those that appear
linked to meaning. As such, this conclusion is compatible with the Exo-Skeletal
approach, otherwise endorsed, in this volume, by Borer as well as by De Belder,
Faust, and Lampitelli.
A contrasting perspective on this same issue is offered in Alexiadou’s contribu-
tion, which examines the complex distribution of the prefix afto- “self” in Greek
(and its Romance equivalent). She argues that the behavior of that prefix provides
important insights into the relevance of root ontology and sheds light on its
interaction with syntax in general and with the relevance of the manner/result
dichotomy in particular. It further sheds important light on the nature of the
Voice node, which, in Greek, hosts non-active morphology. Specifically, afto-
combines neither with naturally reflexive predicates nor with mono-eventive pre-
dicates in general. If we assume that the properties of such predicates are contingent
on the presence of manner roots, and that manner roots merge as modifiers of v, to
give rise to a mono-eventive structure, and if we further assume that afto- indicates
the presence of a bi-eventive structure, then these effects can be explained. But if that
is the explanation, then it crucially depends on the claim that the ontology of the
root does translate, directly, into syntactic delimitations of its merger environment.
Ultimately endorsing similar conclusions, Doron investigates a particular subclass
of Hebrew adjectival passive participles formed in the causative template and shows
that their interpretation always includes an implicit external argument, even when
the external argument of the (active) verbal source is optional. As such, the behavior
of these passive participles parallels that of passive verbs in Hebrew, which also
obligatorily include implicit external arguments. The behavior of adjectival passive
participles in other morphological templates, by contrast, parallels the behavior of

middle-voice verbs, which exclude external arguments. The conclusion drawn by
Doron is that the structure of adjectival passives must contain a Voice node, and that
the value of that Voice node is contingent on the voice values of the corresponding
verbs. Crucially, roots can be classified into various ontological types, and their
ontology correlates with the type of participles they build. Assuming the ontology
proposed, in essence, by Embick (2004a), she proposes that dynamic roots only give
rise to resultative participles, whereas roots that denote states may give rise to both
stative and resultative participles. With this distinction in place, Doron shows that
for the causative morphological template, the only available voice value is passive,
i.e., one which obligatorily introduces an (implicit) external argument. It thus
emerges that resultative participles in the causative templates must include a Voice
projection. It similarly emerges that the participial/adjectival structures proposed by
Kratzer (1994) and Embick (2004a), which do not include a Voice head, cannot
account for this correlation.
Levinson’s contribution, likewise, argues for the syntactic relevance of root ontol-
ogy. In her contribution she explores the connections between the semantic proper-
ties of roots and morphosyntactic properties and argues that some correlations
between interpretation and morphosyntax can be derived from the semantic types
of the roots that form the lexical core of verbs. This idea in itself is not new, as for
example Rappaport Hovav and Levin (1998) argue for the existence of meaning
“constants” which determine aspects of a verb’s syntactic realization. However, in a
departure from Rappaport Hovav and Levin (1998), Levinson integrates this
approach into a Distributed Morphology approach to syntactic word formation.
The syntactic execution, as it turns out, gives rise to interesting predictions regarding
the interpretation of composition with roots. By putting forth an explicit formaliza-
tion of verbal lexical decomposition, predictions concerning roots and composition
with them are shown to be borne out. In addition to contributing to our under-
standing of the ontology of roots, the chapter shows that apparent verb polysemy
frequently involves structural ambiguity which emerges in the context of root
polysemy. If on the right track, Levinson’s findings thus provide evidence that
roots are not semantically vacuous in isolation, contra Marantz (1996), Borer
(2005, 2013, this volume), Acquaviva (2008a, this volume), and Harley (2009a, b, c).
Rappaport Hovav’s chapter takes as its starting point, yet again, the claim that the
meaning components of verbal roots can inform grammatical structure. Specifically,
the chapter proposes a scalar analysis of verbs which highlights the structural
parallels between the semantics of change-of-state verbs and directed motion verbs
which is in turn supported by grammatical and interpretive properties shared by
both classes of verbs. In particular, scalar change verbs in both domains typically do
not encode a manner component, demonstrating what Rappaport Hovav and Levin
(2010) call manner/result complementarity. In turn, most verbs that do not lexicalize
scalar changes are shown to be manner verbs. The chapter further demonstrates that
Introduction 7

it is possible to isolate those components of the scalar semantics of event descrip-
tions that are lexicalized in the root and those that are contributed by constituents in
the syntactic context of the root. Distinguishing those aspects of the event descrip-
tion which are lexically encoded from those which are not leads to a deeper under-
standing of the argument realization and interpretive properties of various classes of
verbs and lends further credence to the claim that it is possible to isolate and
explicate the grammatically relevant meaning components associated with a verbal
root. From Rappaport Hovav’s perspective, lexicalized meaning is a property of
roots, determined in the lexicon, and not structurally. This approach thus assumes,
as others do in this volume, an ontological classification of roots, which is gramma-
tically relevant, a position explicitly denied in other contributions to this volume.
Finally, and yet again arguing for the significance of root meaning, Roßdeutscher
investigates the contribution of roots to the syntactic and semantic properties of
verbs. The leading question of her investigation is “How can the semantics of verbs
be constructed from their roots?” Roßdeutscher assumes that roots have a semantics
which is the source of argument structure and which determines whether they can
be selected by certain functional heads such as v (verbalizer), n (nominalizer) or
a (adjectivizer). For instance, eventive or “manner” roots like run are simple event
types which merge (directly) with v; the property root dry, on the other hand, creates
an argument for the bearer of the property dry to give rise to the de-adjectival verb to
dry. In contrast, entity-roots typically fill argument slots that are created by other
roots. E.g., the sortal root line in to underline a word satisfies one of the two
argument slots created by the preposition-like root under. (The other argument is
contributed by the direct object of the verb underline.) In German, where verb
formation of this kind is common, sortal roots fill argument slots of preposition-like
heads. Notwithstanding these results, Roßdeutscher notes that roots may enter word
formation operations that are incompatible with their ontology. In such cases, she
proposes, interpretation emerges as a result of the root being coerced into the
properties of the forming operations.
1.3.2 The syntax of roots
If roots lack a categorial specification, the way in which they come to be associated
with one, if indeed they do, is a pivotal question. Relative to this question, at least the
following approaches have emerged:
. Syntactic categorization is achieved through the existence of specialized cate-
gory labels, such as n, v, a which merge with an otherwise category-less roots, as
in Marantz (2000) and subsequent work. In such approaches, the root itself
never has a category. Rather, the category is associated with the node that
dominates it. As a consequence, any categorized constituent is at least binary
branching. Most contributions in our volume assume this type of categorization.

. Alternatively, syntactic categorization is an artifact of syntactic context. This
approach was first put forth in Chomsky (1970) for lexical entries in general and
regardless of their morphological complexity (and see also Marantz 1997). More
recently, it has been advanced, specifically for roots, by Borer (2003, 2005, 2013)
and subsequent work (cf. Alexiadou 2001, De Belder 2011b, among others).
Within that system, a root has a post-facto category as determined by a selecting
functor (e.g., the root becomes equivalent to V when selected by T, and
equivalent to N when selected by D) and categorized constituents need not be
binary branching.
. An interesting twist relative to both approaches is that of Acquaviva (2009, this
volume), who accepts that roots are category-less, but nonetheless assumes that
the categorial status of roots, within the syntax, is by default nominal, unless
otherwise structured.
Chapters in our volume that touch specifically on these issues are those of Acqua-
viva, Borer, and De Belder, Faust and Lampitelli.
Acquaviva’s chapter investigates nouns as a primary lexical category. In his
contribution, he distinguishes individuation as discourse referent at the DP-level
from individuation as an abstract category, and argues that lexical nouns name the
latter, rather than the former. In turn, the granularity and the part-structure of the
denotation domain, including individual reference, emerge from the grammatical
structure occupying the middle field between the outer DP-level and the innermost
N- and root-level. Bringing forth empirical evidence to support his claim, Acquaviva
spells out the descriptive and explanatory advantages of his approach, giving rise to a
strong, falsifiable claim on what can and what cannot be a common noun in a
natural language. The pivotal role of nouns notwithstanding, Acquaviva nevertheless
argues that locating nominality (directly) on roots is over-simplistic and ultimately
wrong. Insofar as they differ from nouns, roots should not be stipulated to have the
semantic function of nouns; instead, their function is to differentially label the
syntactic construction that corresponds to a noun, and which interfaces the Con-
ceptual/Intentional cognitive system as the name of a category concept.
Borer’s contribution focuses on the categorial properties of roots and proposes
that just like event structure, these emerge in the context of particular functional
structure and as a consequence of it. For Borer, functors, whether segments of
extended projections or derivational categorizers, are viewed as elements that parti-
tion the categorial space. Thus D and # (or Num) as well as the rest of the members
of the nominal extended projection project a nominal structure (say DP), and define
the domain of their complement as equivalent to N. A root residing at the bottom of
such an extended projection doesn’t need to merge with a category label (in turn
zero realized) nor undergo conversion. Rather, it becomes N-equivalent by virtue of
merging with a functor that defines its complement space as N. The model of
categorization outlined is contrasted with the model of categorization advanced by
Introduction 9

Chomsky (1970) and researchers working within the Distributed Morphology model.
Borer explicitly argues against linking the emergence of a category to zero-realized n,
v, and a, showing that if such zero-realized categorial heads are assumed across the
board, a number of very unfortunate formal consequences emerge, including the
failure to correlate morphosyntactic complexity with morpho-phonological com-
plexity, and the need to postulate a host of syntactic locality restrictions which apply
across the board to zero-categorizers, but never to realized categorizers, and which
conspire to make the actual existence of such unrealized nodes virtually impossible
to detect (see, most recently, Embick 2010).
Syntactic properties of roots vs. those of (otherwise) categorized constituents are
likewise at the core of the contribution made by De Belder, Faust, and Lampitelli.
Looking at the properties of diminutives in Italian and Modern Hebrew, they argue
that there are two different positions for their merger. The first position involves the
functional domain of the noun, and hence takes as its input an already categorized
constituent. The second position involves merger with the root, and hence, from the
authors’ perspective, below the categorial head. The two positions differ with respect
to their productivity, with respect to the emergence of meaning compositionality,
and from the perspective of the word-formation strategy used. These differences, in
turn, can be accounted for by appealing to the distinct merge properties. Specifically,
the authors propose that the first categorial head demarcates a boundary between
two distinct domains. The domain below that head allows for non-compositional,
lexically listed meaning, whereas the domain that includes the categorial node hosts
functional projections whose meanings cannot be idiosyncratic.
1.3.3 The meaning of roots in context
However derived, if complex words are syntactically complex constituents, some
concern must be given to the emergence within such complex words of non-
compositional meaning, i.e., meaning associated with a complex constituent
that cannot be computed from the meaning of its parts, and with transmission
with the meaning “gearbox” being a typical example. Syntactic approaches to non-
compositionality do agree on the need to define a local syntactic domain within
which compositionality need not apply. What that domain might be, however, is not
agreed upon.
Some authors have argued that the domain of non-compositionality converges
with the domain of first categorization, see Arad (2003), Embick and Marantz
(2007a), and Embick (2010), as well as De Belder, Faust, and Lampitelli (this
volume). Alternatively, the domain of non-compositionality is defined by the pre-
sence of a functional bracket, as proposed in Borer (2013). And finally, other
domains have been proposed, e.g., by Alexiadou (2009) and by Harley (2009b),
each with its own distinct predictions.
In addition to the brief discussion already summarized in our discussion of De
Belder, Faust and Lampitelli (this volume), this question is at the heart of the

contribution by Anagnostopoulou and Samioti. Anagnostopoulou and Samioti
investigate the conditions under which idiosyncratic meaning arises in word forma-
tion. More specifically, they investigate the hypothesis put forth in Arad (2003, 2005)
and Marantz (2001, 2007a) that idiosyncratic meaning is constrained by categoriza-
tion. Their investigation is focused on Greek deverbal adjectives and adjectival
participles which provide extensive evidence for attachment below vs. above higher
heads (e.g., little v, Voice) of the adjectivizing/participial suffixes -tos and -menos,
respectively. Anagnostopoulou and Samioti propose, following Harley (2005), that
roots with fixed meaning fall into basic ontological types, naming events, things, or
states. As for roots that fail to have such specific fixed meaning, a categorial head
serves to provide an ontological classification, thereby giving rise to a fixed “mean-
ing”, which is then retained throughout the derivation. Finally, the interpretation of
idioms provides support for the view that the head which delimits the domain for
idiomatic interpretations of adjectival participles and deverbal adjectives in Greek is
Voice, equivalent to the (little) v head which introduces the agent, as was proposed
originally in Marantz (1996, 1997). The conclusion then is that across the board, it is
the agent-licensing v that serves as a boundary for special meanings of both phrasal
idioms and complex words.
1.3.4 Phases and root phonology
In a hierarchical, syntactic approach to complex words, not only roots, but also
affixes must be listed. The common approach within root-based models is that while
both roots and affixes are listed, the lists are distinct and the listed items have
distinct properties. To illustrate, in (most) Distributed Morphology accounts, roots
are category-less but are listed with some phonology (see, e.g., Embick and Halle
2005; Embick 2010) while affixes are Vocabulary Items which can certainly be
associated with formal categorial properties, but which are, in turn, subject to late
insertion. Similar claims are made in Borer (2003, 2005, 2013), who likewise assumes
that roots are inherently linked with phonological information, but functional
vocabulary is subject to late realization. Different perspectives, are certainly possible.
Thus Harley (2009b) subscribes to the view that affixes are categorial and roots are
not, but nonetheless holds that both are subject to late insertion. In contrast, De
Belder (2011b) subscribes to the view that (derivational) affixes are in actuality roots,
and that both roots and affixes are devoid of any phonological properties and are
subject to late insertion.
As is well known, however, Vocabulary Items, and specifically affixes, come, in
English, in two varieties which are quite distinct from each other. Class 1 affixes
(+ boundary) which allow assimilation across an affix boundary, and which allow for
cyclical stress assignment, and class 2 affixes, (# boundary), which do not. It is not
clear, however, how any of the schematic pictures presented above can account for
this, and indeed, as Lowenstamm (this volume) points out, Distributed Morphology
Introduction 11

fails directly in offering no account for English Stress Shift, e.g., the emergence of
progressive cases such as átom, atómic, atomícity (but atómicness).
In turn, any discussion of affix types in English must take account of the
extremely influential Level Ordering Hypothesis (see primarily Lexical Phonology
and Morphology, Kiparsky 1982a, b, 1997). According to the Level Ordering Hypoth-
esis, boundary types define two distinct domains of rule application which define not
only phonological rule application, but also semantic and syntactic characteristics.
Class 1 affixes define the inner domain—they are closer to the root/stem, they may
attach to non-words (and hence potentially non-categorized roots), and the combi-
nation may give rise to non-compositionality. In contrast, or so the claim goes, Class
2 affixes only attach to words (and hence by assumption to categorized constituents),
merge outside Class 1 affixes, and do not allow non-compositionality. If on the right
track, this picture comes very close to Chomsky’s notion of phase, insofar as phases
provide a natural juncture for the simultaneous realization of phonological, seman-
tic, and syntactic properties. The question that we must ask, then, is whether the
formation of complex words can be usefully characterized by appealing to phases,
and if so, what the relevant phase is. Thus Embick (2010) explicitly proposes that
root categorization creates a phase domain, thereby defining a domain for the
application of phonological processes as well as for the possible emergence of non-
compositional meaning (see the discussion above on the chapter by Anagnostopou-
lou and Samioti). A different phase-based approach is put forth in Borer (2013),
subscribing to the view that every instance of merge is, effectively, a phase, but
subject to extension through head remerger.
Two chapters in this volume specifically address the question of the interaction of
phases with roots. While one of them (Gallego) is primarily concerned with the
domain for argument structure determination, the other (Lowenstamm) takes on
directly the task of characterizing affixes vs. roots as based on Phase Theory.
In his exploration of the relationship between the properties of roots and the
theory of phases, Gallego asks whether all the properties of roots (by assumption
non-phase heads) can be derived from phase heads, by assuming grammatical
formatives such as category labels (n, v, etc.), φ-features (gender, number, person),
and structures that give rise to argument interpretation. That category and
φ-features contribute to the emergence of phases is a fairly standard assumption
in the current literature (see Chomsky 2007, 2008, Richards 2007), but the possibility
that argument structure is dependent on the presence of phase heads has not been
considered. Gallego explores this perspective following Gallego (2010, 2012) and
argues that it follows straightforwardly from Chomsky’s (2000 et seq.) Phase Theory.
Specifically, he proposes that argument structure is projected after the relevant
category-inducing morpheme merges with the root. In line with Chomsky’s (2007,
2008), he also assumes that phase heads provide non-phase heads with properties
through a process of feature inheritance, and that such inheritance is only forced in

the case of unvalued φ-features. By assumption, now, only light verbs contain
unvalued φ-features, and the emerging prediction would be, rather contrary to
fact, that only roots that are dominated by light verbs could take arguments.
Addressing this apparent problem, Gallego proposes a distinction between “syntactic”
and “conceptual” arguments, linking the former to Chomsky’s unvalued φ-features,
and the latter to the conceptual content of roots. As an added bonus, Gallego notes
that as n never has unvalued φ-features; it never licenses syntactic arguments.
As noted already, Lowenstamm’s starting point is the observation that Distributed
Morphology accounts of vocabulary insertion have failed, altogether, to shed any
light on the nature of cyclic rule application, such that it gives rise to átom, atómic,
atomícity. A resolution as well as a conceptual simplification of the system are
available, Lowenstamm proposes, if one assumes the following: (a) stress-shifting
affixes are effectively transitive roots, rather than categorial labels; (b) the domains of
phonological rule application and spellout cannot be characterized usefully along the
lines of + vs. # boundaries. Rather, phases, or domains for the application of
phonological rules, should instead be defined on roots. Rules such as stress shift
would now apply to the most deeply embedded root, then reapply on the domain
defined by the next adjacent higher root, and so forth. The domain of the roots, now
to include cyclic “affixes”, would constitute Phase 1. The concomitant conclusion
would be that cyclic phonology is the hallmark of category-less roots, which,
together, constitute Phase 1, a domain in which categorially marked elements (e.g.,
non-cyclic affixes) are altogether excluded from that phase. As a consequence, affixes
no longer need to be divided into cyclic (i.e., + affixes) or non-cyclic (i.e., # affixes) as
such. Rather, our inventory would consist of roots and of affixes. The former would
constitute the innermost domain, the first phase, where merged elements would
include not only classical roots, but also, for example, √IC, √ATION. In that domain,
not only would phonological rule application be cyclical, but meaning could be non-
compositional because of the absence of category labels. Beyond Phase 1, however,
affixes are categorial, rule application is never cyclic, and meaning, in the presence of
categorial labels, is always compositional.
Introduction 13

2
From syntax to roots: A syntactic
approach to root interpretation
VÍCTOR ACEDO–MATELLÁN AND JAUME MATEU
2.1 Introduction
In recent years the important idea has been advanced that the interpretation of
arguments takes place on the basis of their syntactic position in event structure (see
Borer 2003, 2005) or, alternatively, argument structure configurations (see Hale and
Keyser 1993, 2002). For instance, to put it in Borer’s (2003:32) terms, “it’s not the case
that Agents project externally (universally), but rather, that nominal expressions
which project externally must be interpreted as Agents.” In this chapter we extend
this idea to the interpretation of roots: roots are structurally interpreted depending
on the position they occupy in the syntactic configuration. By drawing a crucial
distinction between the conceptual and the syntactic interpretations of roots, we will
take pains to show that roots, from the conceptual point of view, are opaque to the
syntactic computation and, hence, to the structural semantics of the linguistic expres-
sion. As a result, grammatically relevant ontologies of roots become spurious.*
Our chapter is organized as follows. In section 2.2 we present a neoconstructionist
view of argument structure. In section 2.3 we deal with the thematic interpretation of
roots with respect to the structures they appear in, focusing first on the so-called
Manner/Result complementarity and, second, on the syntactic properties of instru-
ment-naming verbs. We provide overall conclusions in section 2.4.
2.2 Theoretical framework
We assume that argument structure is syntactically built: it is brought about by
the application of the operation Merge to primitive relational elements and
* We are very grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions.
This research has been sponsored by grants FFI2010-20634, FFI2011-23356 (Ministerio de Ciencia e
Innovación-FEDER), and 2009SGR1079 (Generalitat de Catalunya).

non-relational elements. The non-relational elements may be either roots or full-
fledged DPs.
Relational elements alone may project structure. We propose the existence of two
such elements for the building of what has been called argument structure: v, an
event-encoding relational element, and p, an adpositional-like element. We, along
with Harley (2005) or Marantz (2005), assume that the semantic “flavors” v may
adopt arise structurally: i.e., for instance, a little v taking a DP specifier and a DP or
root complement is interpreted as DO, while one taking a DP specifier and a Small
Clause Result (cf. Hoekstra 1988) complement is interpreted as CAUSE. In a parallel
fashion, we follow Hale and Keyser’s (2002:ch. 7) claim that the so-called central and
terminal coincidence relations encoded in the element p can be read off a single
p-projection and a double p-projection, respectively.1
Accordingly, the semantic
flavors inherent to these relational argument structure elements can be derived
from configurational properties.2
(1) Relational elements
v (eventive head) p (adpositional head)
Non-relational elements cannot project structure. Hence, roots cannot take comple-
ments or specifiers, and there does not exist any syntactic object like a RootP (but see
Marantz 1997 or Harley 2005, where roots are allowed to take complements; see Gallego,
this volume, for the idea that all elements manipulated by syntax are relational).3
The structures projected by relational elements plus their own intrinsic value (as an
event or as an adpositional relation) yield the structural semantics of the linguistic
expression (see Harley and Noyer 2000).4
Some relevant examples of syntactic argu-
ment structures that we will be dealing with in this chapter are the following ones:
1
According to Hale and Keyser (1993, 2002), a terminal coincidence relation (e.g., cf. to, out of, from,
etc.) involves a coincidence between one edge or terminus of the theme’s path and the place, while a
central coincidence relation (e.g. cf. with, at, on, etc.) involves a coincidence between the centre of the
theme and the centre of the place. For the correlation between terminal/central coincidence relation and
telicity/atelicity, respectively, see Mateu (2002).
2
As pointed out to us by Cedric Boeckx (personal communication), these two relational elements
could eventually be reduced to a single relational element capable of building predicates. The surface
distinction, then, between verbs and the categories representing p—mainly adpositions, but also adjectives:
see Mateu (2002), Amritavalli and Jayaseelan (2003), Amritavalli (2007), and Kayne (2009), for the claim
that adjectives can cross-linguistically be analyzed as resulting from the incorporation of a non-relational
element/a Noun to an adpositional marker—would be strictly morphological, and would depend again on
conﬁgurational factors: i.e., such an element, when merged with T, would surface as a verb, and it would
surface otherwise when not merged with T.
3
The unavailability of structures involving a RootP could be treated as the result of a crash at LF, rather
than the result of an intrinsic syntactic incapability of roots to project. See Gallego (this volume) for a
phase-theoretic account of the inability of roots to take (internal) arguments. See De Belder (2011b) and De
Belder and van Craenenbroeck (2011) for a syntactic, Merge-based account of the nature of roots, which,
according to these authors, are to be found exclusively as complements.
4
Under the view sketched in footnote 2, there not being any ontological difference between v and p, the
structural semantics would correspond solely to the semantic import of the conﬁguration.
From syntax to roots: A syntactic approach to root interpretation 15

(2) a. Unergative creation/consumption event5
Sue danced: [vP [DP Sue] [v0 v √dance]]
Cf. Sue did a dance: [vP [DP Sue] [v0 v [DP a dance]]]
b. Transitive event of surface-contact6
He pushed the cart: [vP [DP He] [v0 v [pP [DP the cart] [p0 p √push]]]]
Cf. He gave the cart a push: [vP [DP He] [v0 v [pP [DP the cart] [p0 WITH [DP a
push]]]]]
c. Transitive event of change of state/location7
The strong winds cleared the sky: [vP [DP The strong winds] [v0 v [pP [DP the
sky] [p0 p [pP p √clear]]]]]
Sue shelved the books: [vP [DP Sue] [v0 v [pP [DP the books] [p0 p [pP p
√shelf]]]]]
Cf. Sue put the books on the shelf: [vP [DP Sue] [v0 v [pP [DP the books] [p0 p [pP
on [DP the shelf]]]]]]
d. Unaccusative event of change of state/location
The sky cleared: [vP v [pP [DP The sky] [p0 p [pP p √clear]]]]
Cf. He went to Paris: [vP v [pP [DP He] [p0 to [pP p (= AT) [DP Paris]]]]]
If a root is adjoined to the v head a complex event emerges, such as the following
ones (see McIntyre 2004, Embick 2004a, Mateu 2008, i.a.):
(3) a. Complex creation event
Sue baked a cake:
[vP [DP Sue] [v0 [v √bake v] [DP a cake]]]
b. Complex transitive event of change of state/location
Sue hammered the metal flat:
[vP [DP Sue] [v0 [v √hammer v] [pP [DP the metal] [p0 p [pP p √flat]]]]]
Sue sneezed a napkin off the table:
[vP [DP Sue] [v0 [v √sneeze v] [pP [DP napkin] [p0 p [pP off [DP the table]]]]]]
5
See Volpe (2004), for the proposal that consumption verbs (e.g., eat, drink, smoke, etc.) are unergative
in Hale and Keyser’s (1993, 2002) sense. As is well-known, the latter claim that unergatives are transitive
verbs associated to creation processes (i.e., [do x]).
6
We follow Hale and Keyser’s (2002:44) proposal to treat this kind of predicate as featuring an abstract
preposition of central coincidence—that is, a single p projection. See also Mulder (1992:59), who claims
that push-verbs receive a Small Clause analysis. But see Harley (2005) for a different analysis.
7
Unlike Hale and Keyser (2002), we do not assign different syntactic argument structures to denominal
verbs like shelve and deadjectival verbs like clear: see our footnote 2, for the claim that adjective is not a
primitive element. The double p-structure, i.e., the one associated to terminal coincidence relation, can be
regarded as our version of Hoekstra’s (1988) Small Clause Result (cf. also Ramchand and Svenonius 2002, i.
a.).
16 Víctor Acedo–Matellán and Jaume Mateu

c. Complex unaccusative event of change of state/location
The candle blew out:
[vP [v √blow v] [pP [DP The candle] [p0 [pP out X]]]]8
Sue danced into the room:
[vP [v √dance v] [pP [DP Sue] [p0 -to [pP in- [DP the room]]]]]
Importantly for our present purposes, non-relational elements are assigned a
particular interpretation depending on the position they occupy in the abovemen-
tioned structures, as either specifier, complement or adjunct of a v head, a single p
projection or a double p projection.9
For example, some relevant syntactic positions
of argument structure are interpreted as follows: spec-v is Originator, compl-v is
Incremental Theme, adjunct-v is Manner, spec-p is Figure, compl-single p is Central
Ground, and compl-double p is Terminal Ground (Result).
As for the nature of roots, they are constituted of two sets of properties: C and F.
F is a set of phonological properties. C is a set of conceptual properties readable only
at the C-I interface and unable, therefore, to determine the syntactic computation
in any way.10
The set of Cs of the roots contained in a linguistic expression in
combination with its structural semantics provides the semantic dimension of that
linguistic expression. In relation to the nature of C, Marantz’s (2001) distinction
between semantic properties and semantic features, shown in (4), becomes relevant:
(4) “word (really, root) meanings don’t decompose; the semantic properties of
words (= roots) are different from the compositional/decompositional seman-
tic features expressed through syntactic combination” (Marantz 2001:8).
8
The analysis of (3c) captures Svenonius’s (1996) proposal, assumed by Hale and Keyser (2002:229–
230), that bare particles like out can be analyzed as prepositions that incorporate a complement (i.e., the
Ground, represented by X in the example): such a proposal is coherent with maintaining the birelational
nature of p.
9
There are important restrictions on the distribution of DPs and roots in argument structure
configurations: while the former can be merged as specifiers but not as adjuncts to v or p, the latter can
be merged as adjuncts to v or p but not as specifiers. We take the reason for these restrictions to be
phonological and having to do with the different status of DPs and roots with respect to the transmission
of a phonological matrix to a phonologically empty head (v or p)—the operation referred to as conflation
(Hale and Keyser 2002); but see Section 3.1 for an important qualification. On the one hand, roots are
assumed to be copied into empty matrixes to be PF-licensed and this they can accomplish only if directly
merged with an empty head, either as complements or adjuncts. On the other hand, empty heads must be
provided a phonological matrix to be PF-licensed (unless a default Vocabulary Item is inserted therein),
and acquire one from the nearest possible non-relational element; however, if a DP is adjoined to the
empty head, becoming the nearest possible non-relational element, it cannot provide any phonological
matrix, since it is phonologically non-defective. See Acedo-Matellán 2010 for more related discussion.
10
An anonymous reviewer points out that for some roots the precise nature of C or F is not clear. For
example, what is the set C for the root -ceive in receive, deceive, conceive, etc.? And what is the set F for the
common root in think/thought? Since, for space reasons, we cannot provide a full answer to these
questions, we refer the reader to Borer (2005:351f.) for the interpretation of ceive-like roots as part of
idiomatic verbs and Acquaviva (2008a:15f.) for the proposal that roots name, rather than mean. On the
other hand, see Halle and Marantz (1993:129f.) for an analysis of root allomorphy of the think/thought kind
in terms of readjustment rules and Siddiqi (2009:27–63) for an analysis in terms of competition.

Marantz’s semantic properties correspond to our set C, while his semantic features
are what we have termed the structural semantics of a linguistic expression. Follow-
ing Marantz (1995) we take the meaning of a linguistic expression to be the sum of its
structural semantics and the semantic properties of the roots integrated in that
expression.
In this chapter we will be concerned with the set C; in particular, we would like to
show that C never tampers with syntax: semantic properties of roots never deter-
mine the syntactic computation and, hence, the structural semantics of the linguistic
expression.11
As a consequence, roots cannot be distributed into grammatically
relevant ontologies according to the type of C they encode, since there are no
grammatically relevant types of Cs. Quite on the contrary, roots receive a semantic
interpretation according to the syntactic position where they are merged (see above).
To show this we review some relevant cases where the structural semantics of the
linguistic expression is seemingly sensitive to properties of C, in particular to
whether C encodes a result, a manner or an instrument in the conceptual scene
evoked by the expression where it appears. By showing that even in these cases the
structural semantics is determined solely by the syntactic structure and the value of
the relational elements which project it, the claim is underpinned that C, the
conceptual dimension of roots, is opaque to the computation (see Borer 2003, 2005
and Åfarli 2007, i.a., for further discussion on so-called neoconstructionist
approaches).
2.3 Syntax determines how roots are thematically interpreted
In this section, we present two case studies that show that the lexical-semantic
classification/ontology of the root is not what predetermines the syntactic derivation.
Rather, we claim, it is the structural position the root occupies in the syntactic
argument structure which determines its thematic interpretation. First, we review
Mateu and Acedo-Matellán’s (2012) main arguments for a syntactic treatment of the
so-called Manner/Result complementarity (section 2.3.1) and, second, we analyze the
syntactic properties of instrument-naming verbs (section 2.3.2).
2.3.1 A syntactic approach to Manner/Result complementarity
First we deal with the so-called “manner/result complementarity” (see (5)) within
the syntactic model sketched out above, which lacks Rappaport Hovav and Levin’s
(1998, 2010) ontological categorization of roots and their deterministic integration
into non-syntactic event schemas.
11
See Embick (2000), however, for an argument, framed within a discussion on the syntax of deponent
verbs in Latin, that the choice of root can determine non-trivial syntactic effects. Interestingly, Embick’s
conclusion is that those syntactic effects cannot be derived from the semantic properties of the root [from
C], but from some formal feature “associated arbitrarily with certain Roots” (Embick 2000:1).

(5) Manner/Result Complementarity: Manner and result meaning components are
in complementary distribution: a verb may lexicalize only ONE.
(Levin and Rappaport Hovav 2011)
Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2010) and Levin and Rappaport Hovav (2011) claim
that no verb encodes both manner and result: the manner in which something
comes to be in a state is unspecified for break-type verbs (e.g., break, fill, freeze,
melt, etc.), while the result is unspecified for wipe-type verbs (e.g., wipe, rub, scrub,
sweep, etc.). More generally, these authors claim that the manner/result comple-
mentarity is related to the lexicalization constraint in (6):
(6) The Lexicalization Constraint: A root can only be associated with one position
in an event schema, as either an argument or a modifier.
Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2010) and Levin and Rappaport Hovav (2011) claim
that the root can be associated as a modifier in the event structure pattern of manner
verbs (see (7a)) or as an argument in the pattern of causative change of state
predicates (see (7b)). Given (6), it is predicted that the root in a single verb cannot
be associated to both modifier and argument positions.12
(7) a. [ x ACT< ROOT> ]
b. [ x CAUSE [ y BECOME <ROOT> ]]
c. *[ [ x ACT< ROOT> ] CAUSE [y BECOME <ROOT>]] (* in a single verb)
According to the syntactic framework sketched out in section 2.2 above, our claim
is that the lexicalization constraint in (6) and its associated “Manner/Result com-
plementarity” in (5) follow from how primitive elements of argument structure are
composed in the syntax (see Hale and Keyser 2002, Mateu 2002, and Acedo-Matellán
2010, i.a.). In particular, the descriptive observation in (5) can be accounted for in a
syntactic model where notions like Manner and Result become grammatically
relevant because they can be claimed to be configurationally read off the mere
syntactic argument structure: in particular, following previous syntactic treatments
of Talmy’s (2000) well-known typology of motion events (see Acedo-Matellán and
Mateu 2008 and Mateu 2008, i.a.), we argue that Manner is to be read off the
adjunction relation to v, whereas Result is to be read off the complement of the
double p-structure. Accordingly, the more general lexicalization constraint in (6) can
be shown to be derived from the syntactic fact that a single (monomorphemic) root
cannot act both as a v modifier and as a complement of a double p projection at the
same time.
12
See Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2010:26): “( . . . ) assuming that manner roots modify the predicate
ACT and result roots are arguments of BECOME, a root can modify ACT or be an argument of BECOME
in a given event schema. A root cannot modify both these predicates at once without violating the
lexicalization constraint.”

Mateu and Acedo-Matellán’s (2012) neoconstructionist approach to the Manner/
Result complementarity contrasts with Levin and Rappaport Hovav’s lexicalist
approach in that Manner and Result are not meaning components of the root, but
interpretations derived from the position the root occupies in the syntactic structure.
From now on, we use capital letters to refer to Manner and Result in this sense. It
follows that, from our neoconstructionist perspective, expressions such as “Manner
root” or “Result root” are oxymoronic; at best, one could refer to “Manner con-
structions” and “Result constructions”, that is, constructions where the root is
adjoined to v and constructions where the root occupies the predicate position of
a Hoekstrian Small Clause Result, respectively. By contrast, we use “manner” and
“result”, in lowercase letters, to refer to the conceptual content of the root. In this
sense, we stick to Grimshaw’s (2005:85) claim that there are no constraints on how
complex the conceptual content of a root can be, unlike Rappaport Hovav and Levin
(2010:25), who claim that “[m]anner/result complementarity, however, involves the
root”. As we will see, a root may certainly involve manner and result simultaneously;
crucially, however, it may not be interpreted as Manner and Result simultaneously.
In our neoconstructionist approach, roots are not deterministically associated to
syntactic argument/event structures whereby lexicalist labels like “Manner verbs”
and “Result verbs” must be descriptively understood rather as “Manner construc-
tions” and “Result constructions”. In particular, we think that Rappaport Hovav and
Levin’s (1998, 2010) claim that “result verbs” like break are less elastic (i.e., appear in
fewer syntactic argument structure constructions) than “manner verbs” like wipe
boils down to an E-linguistic fact, since counterexamples to their descriptive general-
ization can be found: for example, it is not the case that the root √break can only be
interpreted as Result (cf. the causative use in (8a) or the anticausative one in (8b))
since this root can also be structurally interpreted as Manner, as shown by the
examples in (8c) and (8d). Notice that (8c) and (8d) do not entail #The hammer head
broke nor #The boy broke, whereby off and into the room are not mere adjuncts but
are the Small Clause predicates. See McIntyre (2004) and Mateu (2008), i.a., for the
claim that the root is adjoined to a light verb in those cases that involve so-called
‘Manner conflation’. In (9) are the syntactic argument structures corresponding to
the examples in (8).
(8) a. The strong winds broke the glass.
b. The glass broke.
c. The hammer head broke off.
d. The boy broke into the room.
(9) a. [vP [DP The strong winds] [v0 v [pP [DP the glass] [p0 p [pP p √break]]]]]
b. [vP v [pP [DP The glass] [p0 p [pP p √break]]]]
c. [vP [v √break v] [pP [DP The hammer head] [p0 p [pP off X]]]]
d. [vP [v √break v] [pP [DP The boy] [p0 -to [pP in- [DP the room]]]]]

In our neoconstructionist approach, Rappaport Hovav and Levin’s (1998) obser-
vation that verbs such as break are less elastic than verbs such as wipe is to be
accounted for in terms of the compatibility between the structural semantics and the
conceptual content of the root. Thus, for example, one can agree that the root
√break is typically more used in constructions like (8a) and (8b), rather than in
constructions like (8c) and (8d). However, since usage factors like prototypicality
and frequency have to do with E-language, we consider that descriptive statements
like “the grammar of break is different from the grammar of wipe” are misleading
and should be rephrased as “the behavior of break is different from the behavior
of wipe”. See Rappaport Hovav, this volume, for a different perspective on verbs of
the break-type (encoding “scalar change”) and verbs of the wipe-type (encoding
“non-scalar change”) and the manner/result complementarity.
That said, we do acknowledge that there are some unquestionable cases of lack of
elasticity. We consider these cases to involve idioms in Borer’s (2005:25–29) sense. As
an example, consider the verb arrive, whose root is associated with a relational
element like p(ath). This explains its consistent use as an unaccusative verb: for
example, cf. Italian auxiliary selection in Gianni è arrivato “Gianni is arrived” (i.e.,
‘Gianni arrived’) vs. *Gianni ha arrivato ‘Gianni has arrived’.13
Turning back to the constraint in (6), it should not be regarded as an inescapable
stipulation on the formation of event structures (as in Rappaport Hovav and Levin’s
2010 lexical-semantic approach), but can be shown to be derived from the more
general formal fact that a root cannot be incorporated and conflated at the same time
(in a single verb). In particular, we assume that there are two ways of forming a verb:
i.e., via incorporation or via conflation (cf. Haugen’s 2009 revision of Hale and
Keyser’s 2002 distinction). We illustrate the difference with the case of the formation
of denominal verbs.14
In incorporation cases, the denominal verb (e.g., see (10a)) is
formed via copying the full matrix of the complement into the null verb. In
conflation cases, the denominal verb (e.g., see (11a)) is formed via direct adjunction
of a root to the null verb. In (10a) the root is structurally interpreted as Incremental
Theme (cf. (2a)), whereas in (11b) it is interpreted as Manner (cf. (3a)).15
13
In contrast, the following Italian example in (i), drawn from Sorace (2000:868; ex. (15c)), shows that a
root like It. √dur ‘last’ can be used in both unaccusative and unergative syntactic structures since, unlike
It. arrivare ‘arrive’ or It. venire ‘come’, It. durare does not involve an idiom in our sense: unlike arrivare or
venire, durare is not only compatible with an unaccusative use (cf. It. essere ‘be’-selection), but it can also
be allowed to be inserted in an unergative argument structure: [do √dur], whereby in this case auxiliary
avere ‘have’ is selected.
(i) Il presidente {è/ha} durato in carica due anni. (Italian)
the president IS/HAS lasted in post two years
‘The president lasted in post for two years.’
14
It should be clear that we use the term denominal verb as a descriptive label: importantly, we adhere
to the view that roots do not bear a category (see Marantz 1995f., Borer 2005, among others). Accordingly,
so-called “denominal” verbs are in no way derived from a noun.
15
For further discussion on so-called Manner Conﬂation, see also Mateu (2002, 2008), McIntyre
(2004), Embick (2004a), Harley (2005), Zubizarreta and Oh (2007), Acedo-Matellán (2010), i.a.

(10) a. The boy smiled.
b. [vP [DP The boy] [v0 [v √smile] [√smile]]]
(11) a. The boy smiled his thanks.
b. [vP [DP The boy] [v0 [v √smile v] [DP his thanks]]]
Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2010:footnote 3) point out that “for the purposes of
investigating manner/result complementarity, the specific type of predicate decom-
position representation does not matter. The representations could be recast along
neo-Davidsonian lines ( . . . ) or as minimalist syntactic structures”. We disagree on
this point since the predictions of the semantic and syntactic approaches can be
quite different in an important way: for example, a brief comparison of Koontz-
Garboden and Beavers’s (2010) semantic approach with our syntactic one is
illustrative. As pointed out by these two semanticists, the Manner/Result comple-
mentarity in (5) cannot be said to hold as such when framed in truly semantic terms.
Koontz-Garboden and Beavers point out that conceived truth-conditionally, the
prediction is that there should be verbs encoding both manner and result, and
manner-of-death verbs can be claimed to fill in this gap. By using manner-of-
death verbs like electrocute, drown or guillotine, Koontz-Garboden and Beavers
(2010) claim that Rappaport Hovav and Levin’s (2010) generalization with respect
to Manner/Result complementarity does not hold as such in semantic theory: the
former point out that its scope is narrower than the latter assume. However, in our
view, what Koontz-Garboden and Beavers (2010) show is not that the Manner/Result
complementarity in (5) is too strong; if anything, what they show is that (5) cannot
be formulated as such in purely semantic terms: Koontz-Garboden and Beavers
(2010:34) conclude that “we must admit the third and final logically possible class of
eventive roots, namely manner+result roots, contra RHL’s assumption that such
roots should not exist.”
As pointed out by Mateu and Acedo-Matellán (2012), Koontz-Garboden and
Beavers’s conclusion that a root can be claimed to conceptually express both manner
and result is compatible with our syntactic approach: we have nothing to say with
respect to which conceptual semantics a root element can encode.16
Our claim is that
when Manner and Result are understood in syntactic terms, there is a validity for
the descriptive constraint in (5). Consider for example the manner-of-death verb
guillotine in (12):
(12) Joe guillotined Mary.
16
Cf. also Grimshaw’s (2005) important distinction between structural meaning and semantic content.
Following Hale and Keyser (1993f.), we assume that only the former can be syntacticized and then
constrained by well-known syntactic principles. In contrast, the complexity of conceptual content (i.e.,
Grimshaw’s 2005 semantic content) is not constrained by syntax. See also Borer (2005) for extensive
discussion on the need to sharply distinguish the meaning conveyed by grammatical structures from the
grammatically inert, conceptual content encapsulated in roots (in her terms, listemes).

(13) a. [vP [DP Joe][v0 √guillotine [pP [DP Mary] [p0 p [pP p √guillotine]]]]]
b. [vP [DP Joe] [v0 [v √guillotine v] [DP Mary]]]
Our claim is that the syntactic argument structure corresponding to its use as a
telic causative predicate of change of state is the one in (13a), where the root is
structurally interpreted as Result: as pointed out above, Result is to be read off the
complement of the double p-structure. The root √guillotine is incorporated into
the null complex p en route to the null verb (see Hale and Keyser 2002 and Haugen
2009). The fact that its corresponding conceptual root encodes manner is not
structurally represented.
Similarly, the present neoconstructionist framework allows us to generate the
syntactic argument structure in (13b), where the root is now structurally interpreted
as Manner since it is adjoined to v. As noted above, in these cases the root is argued
to be compounded with the null verb via Conflation (see Embick 2004a, McIntyre
2004, Mateu 2008, Haugen 2009). (13b) will often be pragmatically ill-formed since
its structural interpretation would be “Joe created Mary by means of guillotining/
with a guillotine” (cf. (3a) and (11) above). However, as pointed out to us by an
anonymous reviewer, (13b) can be expected to be possible under the following
scenario: imagine a horror story in which zombies are created by chopping off
heads. Imagine a character named Joe who guillotines a woman named Elizabeth
in order to create a new creature: Mary. Given this scenario, the conflation structure
in (13b) would then be appropriate.17
Be this as it may, the important point for us
here is that (12) does obey the restriction in (5), since a root cannot be incorporated
(cf. (13a)) and conflated (cf. (13b)) at the same time. See also section 2.3.2 below, for
further discussion of other cases of instrument/manner verbs where (syntactic)
Manner conflation can be argued not to be involved.
One caveat is in order with respect to the Manner/Result complementarity in our
syntactic model. It is important to point out that such a complementarity only
emerges in cases where a monomorphemic verb, that is, a single root, is involved.
Accordingly, (5) does not hold for complex resultative constructions like John wiped
the table clean, where the verb encodes Manner and the Result component is
encoded by the adjective. Similarly, the out-prefixation construction exemplified in
(14) is a notable exception to Rappaport Hovav and Levin’s (2010) claim that
Manner/Result complementarity is manifested at the word level in English; in this
case the prefix encodes Result and the verb expresses Manner (see Marantz 2009:13):
(14) John outswam/outdanced/outworked Mary.
17
Interestingly, as predicted by Talmy’s typology (2000), the Conﬂation pattern exempliﬁed in (13b),
(3a), or (11b) can be found in English but not in Romance languages. See Mateu (2003, 2012) and Acedo-
Matellán (2010) for further discussion.

Finally, as pointed out by Mateu and Acedo-Matellán (2012), another exception to
Rappaport Hovav and Levin’s (2010) abovementioned claim could be argued to be
the one discussed by Marantz (2001, 2005). According to him, the verb destroy and
related Latinate verbs (e.g., construct, instruct, restructure, obstruct, etc.) involve the
bimorphemic analysis depicted in (15): “√STROY is a manner root that incorporates
a particle, spelled out de-, that takes an ‘inner subject’ as the direct object of the
syntactically derived verb destroy” (Marantz 2001:21).18
According to him, the pre-
sence of the root √stroy, which, in (15), is intended to be structurally oriented
towards the external argument, would account for the ill-formedness of the anti-
causative variant of these verbs: e.g., cf. #The city destroyed / #The city constructed
/ #The boys instructed, etc. (see Alexiadou 2010 and Harley 2007 for further
discussion).
(15)
v
√STROY
city de-
Marantz (2001:21)
2.3.2 Against a uniform treatment of instrument verbs
In this section we concentrate on the syntactic properties of so-called instrument
verbs and further purport to show that the ontological kind of a root does not
determine its thematic interpretation within the predicate in a grammatically rele-
vant fashion, nor does it determine the place it has to be merged at within the
structure. Rather, the opposite holds: it is the root’s merging place that must be
claimed to determine its thematic interpretation. In particular we concentrate on
cases of denominal verbs like hammer, brush, or rake, where the incorporated root
refers to an object understood as the instrument used in the conceptual scene that
the whole predicate evokes. The discussion sets off from Harley’s (2005) proposal of
analysis for this class of verbs.
Harley (2005) proposes to derive the Aktionsart properties of a verb from a
combination of both the (un)boundedness of the root it incorporates and the
place in the syntactic configuration where that root is to be found. The proposal is
based on two tenets: on the one hand, the well-known fact that some properties of
the internal argument may determine the (a)telicity of the event (see Verkuyl 1972,
Dowty 1979, Tenny 1992, among others); on the other hand, a Halekeyserian
18
One caveat is in order regarding this quote. The combination of the preﬁx de- and the root √stroy is
not a case of incorporation in our sense: as illustrated in (10), incorporation of the root √smile into the
little v head does not involve afﬁxation, but simply the copying of the phonological matrix of the former
into the latter.

l-syntactic approach to argument structure (Hale and Keyser 1993f.), where verbs
(and all predicates) decompose into (l-)syntactic structures according to their argu-
ment structure properties. Harley argues that, as overt objects may determine
VP telicity, so may roots merged as l-syntactic objects. As an example, the telicity
of unergative denominal verbs of birthing, like foal, whelp, or calve, and the atelicity of
unergative denominal verbs of bodily emission of fluids, like drool, sweat, or bleed,
depend, respectively, on the boundedness and unboundedness of the root they
incorporate (see (16), from Harley 2005:46, 47);19
this is possible because the root
of these verbs is directly merged as the complement of the light verb (see (17), from
Harley 2005:46, 48; the arrow is meant to express incorporation of the root into
the phonologically empty v head), whence its properties can determine the (a)telicity
of the event:20
(16) a. The mare foaled {in two hours/#
for two hours} (cf. bounded √foal)
b. The baby drooled {for two hours/#
in two hours} (cf. unbounded √drool)
(17)
DP
v √P
√FOAL/√DROOL
The mare/The baby
vP
v′
The analysis is successfully applied to other verbs, which, although assigned l-
syntactic structures different from the one in (17), also seem to involve a homo-
morphism between the root and the event. However, when it comes to instrument
verbs like hammer, brush, or rake Harley observes that, in spite of the boundedness
of their roots, these verbs are not necessarily telic, as shown in (18) through (20)
(Harley 2005:60):
19
We note that birthing verbs like foal or whelp can be atelic if the predicate depicts an event in which
the mother produces several foals or whelps (cf. The bitch whelped for ﬁve minutes). This is a problem for
Harley’s (2005) analysis, since it is based on the allegedly inherent boundedness of the root. We think that
the structure of unergative predicates (see (17) and (2a)) is underspeciﬁed with respect to (a)telicity. In the
case of birthing verbs like whelp, the resulting predicate can be telic or atelic depending on whether the
root is understood as referring to a single whelp or several whelps, respectively. See footnote 24 for more
details on the non-grammatical character of the (a)telicity of these verbs. We thank an anonymous
reviewer for raising this point.
20
Actually, what is merged as the complement of v is the phrase projected by the root, √P. The
projecting ability of the roots is one of the points in which our analysis departs from that of Harley’s (see
section 2.2).

(18) John hammered the metal for/in five minutes.21
(19) Sue brushed the dog for/in five minutes.
(20) Jill raked the leaves for/in an hour.
In the face of this evidence Harley (2005:60) concludes that “[ . . . ] the source of
these denominal Roots cannot be within the argument structure of the vP, either as a
sister to v or in the Inner Subject or prepositional object positions of a Small Clause,
since elements originating in any of these positions do affect the telicity of their vPs.
Considering the thematic role of the incorporated nominal in these examples, this
makes sense: these incorporated nouns are neither Themes nor Location/Locatums,
but rather Instruments [emphasis added: VAM&JMF]. Instrumental phrases, in the
overt syntax, are adjuncts to vP, not arguments of it.”22
She then proposes that in these verbs the root is directly related to little v but in a
non-configurational way, that is, not holding a complement or specifier relationship
with it. This is shown in (21) (from Harley 2005:61):
(21)
DP
v
v′
√P
DP
the metal
Sue
hammering
(hit)
vP
√
21
An anonymous reviewer points out that a telic predicate headed by hammer is more difficult to
accept than a telic predicate headed by brush or rake, as shown in the examples of (18) through (20). We
agree with this reviewer that the difference in acceptability is due to world-knowledge reasons: while the
result of an event of brushing a dog or raking the leaves can be said to be salient or conventionalized, the
result of an event of hammering the metal cannot—although probably in the lexicon of smiths a telic
hammering of the metal is perfectly usual. See Kratzer (2000:4) for a similar remark on the telic instance of
push.
22
The Inner Subject and prepositional object positions of a Small Clause are positions in l-syntactic
configurations, whence an element may determine the aspectual interpretation of the event. Harley
proposes that the roots of deadjectival verbs of change of state (like clear or lengthen) and denominal
verbs of change of location (like saddle or butter) are merged, respectively, as predicate of a Small Clause
and prepositional object of a Small Clause-like configuration. The overt object, in both kinds of predicates,
originates as the subject of the Small Clause (it is, hence, an Inner Subject).

The same analysis, although not explicitly formulated, is proposed by Harley and
Haugen (2007:10), where it is stated that “English instrumental denominal verbs
always involve roots conflating directly with v, indicating manner [ . . . ]”. Haugen
(2009:254) also proposes, for the same verbs, that “the nominals [i.e., the roots:
VAM&JMF] are directly merged (or conflated) as adverbials directly into v.”
However, Harley’s (2005) conclusion seems to us to be too rash: the aspectual
ambiguity witnessed in the examples of (18) through (20) is not a sufficient condition
to infer that the roots in these predicates are not merged at some argumental
position. In addition, we strongly claim that, grammatically speaking, it is not
warranted that “these incorporated nouns [i.e., √hammer, for instance: VAM&JMF]
are neither Themes nor Location/Locatums, but rather Instruments” (Harley
2005:60). Hence, that observation cannot guide us in assigning them a place (an
adjunct position) in the structure. In particular, we claim that predicates such as
hammer in (18), can be analyzed as structurally ambiguous: on the one hand, the telic
hammer involves a structure hosting a preposition of terminal coincidence (in our
terms, a double p-projection). On the other, following Hale and Keyser’s
(2002:43–44) analysis of impact verbs, the atelic hammer (i.e., its normal use)
involves one hosting a preposition of central coincidence (in our terms, one
p-projection). The root √hammer, much as naming an instrument in the conceptual
scene evoked, is merged in one and the same argumental position: as a complement
of p in either case. This is represented in (22a) and (22b), respectively (arrows are,
again, the means to represent incorporation in our sense):23
(22)
DP
John
v pP
p′
√hammer
vP
v′
DP
the metal
p pP
p
a. John hammered the metal (in five minutes).
23
We note that our analysis solves some phonological problems of Harley’s proposal in (21). In
particular, a source is provided for the phonological matrix of the verb, and, second, the problematic
empty root (the abstract HIT in (21)), copied for no (phonological) reason into v, disappears.

DP
John
v pP
√hammer
DP
the metal
p
vP
v′
p′
b. John hammered the metal (for five minutes).
Rough paraphrases of the structures in (22a) and (22b), respectively a transitive
event of change of state and a transitive activity, are the following ones (see Hale and
Keyser 2002:43–44):
(23) a. John causes the metal to go INTO the state identified by √hammer
b. John provides the metal WITH properties identified by √hammer
The claim is, thus, that telic hammer-predicates are change-of-state predicates,
like break or open (in their most usual instantiations), while atelic hammer-pre-
dicates are atelic transitive predicates like push or shake (in their most usual
instantiations).24
There is evidence that telic hammer-predicates are in fact
24
In an exoskeletal framework such as the one adopted here, push can be construed as a telic change-
of-state predicate (as in Sue pushed the button in seconds). See Kratzer (2000:4) or Borer (2005:128f.) for
similar remarks on this verb and its German counterpart. Importantly, there is evidence that the telicity of
these predicates is grammatically represented—contra Rappaport Hovav and Levin (1998: footnote 15),
who, following Brisson (1994), assume that telic instances of verbs like sweep are not representationally
different from their atelic counterparts. For instance, Kiparsky (1998:23, 24) shows that telic predicates
headed by the Finnish counterpart of shake require their objects to appear in accusative case—partitive
case automatically triggering an atelic reading:
(i) Ravist-i-n mato-n.
shake-pst-1sg carpet-acc
‘I shook out the carpet.’
Thus, the telic uses of verbs like push, shake, iron, or sweep (see below) must be neatly distinguished from
other cases where telicity can be argued to depend solely on the properties of the root, and not on the
syntactic environment in which it is inserted. This is the case with telic and atelic unergative verbs like,
respectively, foal or drool—discussed by Harley (2005) and in this section—which inherit their eventive
(un)boundedness from the (un)boundedness of their roots, but which can be shown to be grammatically
indistinguishable from each other (for instance, it is interesting to point out that, in Italian, conceptually
telic ﬁgliare ‘foal’, unlike grammatically telic arrivare ‘arrive’ (and all grammatically telic intransitives),
selects the auxiliary avere ‘have’, and not essere ‘be’, in the perfect tenses).

change-of-state predicates. For instance, they, unlike atelic instances of hammer,
allow a restitutive reading of the adverb again, as shown in (24):25
(24) a. John hammered the metal sheet in 5 minutes, but someone creased it. Sue
hammered it again, in 4 minutes.
b. #
John hammered the metal sheet for 5 minutes. Sue hammered it again, for
4 minutes.
In (24a), a repetitive reading of the adverb (that is, one in which what is repeated
is the causing action) is precluded, since the subjects of each instance of hammer
have different references. The fact that a restitutive reading is accepted (being the
only one possible) suggests that the predicate encodes a final state over which again
takes scope. In the same line, hammer seems to be combinable with the prefix re-
which, according to Marantz (2005) encodes a restitutive reading and excludes a
repetitive one. This is shown in (25):26
(25) The Damascus sword, for example, consisted of wrought-iron bars hammered
until thin, doubled back on themselves, and then rehammered to produce a
forged weld. (Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Forge Welding”: <http://www.
britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/639223/welding/7848/Forge-welding>)
The same contrast is observable in other telic change-of-state predicates (for
instance, headed by open, as in (26a)) versus atelic transitive predicates (for instance,
headed by push, as in (26b)):
(26) a. Sue and John arrived at the strange temple. Sue opened the door, entered,
and closed the door. John waited outside and after five minutes {opened
the door again/reopened the door}.27
b. Sue pushed her car for a while and then took a break. #
A gentle passer-by
stopped and {pushed it again/repushed it}.
Another proof that instrument verbs can be syntactically construed as telic is that
they admit depictive secondary predication (Rapoport 1993, Mateu 2002). As shown
in the examples of (27) and (28), telic predicates headed by instrument-naming verbs
such as brush or rake contrast with atelic predicates, which do not admit such
secondary predication (see (29)):28
(27) Don’t brush the coat wet or you’ll ruin it.
25
See McCawley (1973), Fabricius-Hansen (1975), Dowty (1979), von Stechow (1996), among others.
26
But see Marantz (2009) for arguments that re- attaches to DPs.
27
The example is meant to be interpreted such that Sue and John had never opened the door until that
moment.
28
We are thankful to an anonymous reviewer for these examples.

(28) He raked the field dry.
(29) ??
He pushed the mare pregnant.
We emphasize that, given our exoskeletal assumptions, we are not making a
statement about brush, rake or push as verbs. Therefore, we are not claiming that
brush and rake admit secondary predication while push does not. Rather, the claim is
that telic predicates of change of state, such as (27) and (28), may host such
predication, while atelic predicates such as (29), may not.
More evidence comes from verbs naming the instrument with which someone is
killed, like guillotine or knife, which can easily head change-of-state predicates (see
Koontz-Garboden and Beavers 2010, for guillotine), as shown in (30) and (31):
(30) It took me five minutes to guillotine Jim (with one slice). (Koontz-Garboden
and Beavers 2010: footnote 13)
(31) [ . . . ] a leading Libyan dissident who was found knifed in his grocery shop in
west London. (found in Collins Wordbanks Online English corpus)
Similarly, verbs of household activities naming the instrument with which the
activity is carried out can be construed as (telic) changes of state, as illustrated below
by Catalan escombrar ‘sweep’, from escombra ‘broom’, and planxar ‘iron’, from
planxa ‘iron’:
(32) He escombrat la cuina en cinc minuts.
have.1sg sweep.ptcp the kitchen in five minutes
‘I swept the kitchen out in five minutes.’
(33) He planxat les camises en quinze minuts.
have.1sg iron.ptcp the shirts in fifteen minutes
‘I ironed the shirts in fifteen minutes.’
There is evidence, therefore, that the difference between the telic and the atelic
instances of instrument verbs is grammatical.29
Our claim is that the root is free to
be merged as the complement of an abstract preposition (see (22)): that is, an
argumental position, contra Harley (2005). In particular, when it is embedded within
a single p projection (encoding central coincidence; see section 2.2) it is interpreted
as a Central Ground; when it is embedded within a double p projection (encoding
terminal coincidence), it is interpreted as a Terminal Ground (i.e., Result). Crucially,
in neither case is it interpreted as an instrument (i.e., Manner), in spite of the fact
that it may represent an instrument in the conceptual scene. This is of course not to
say that these roots are not usually found in configurations akin to the one proposed
by Harley in (21), that is, merged in a non-argumental position. Following McIntyre
29
See footnote 24.

(2004) and Embick (2004a), among others, we claim that in a resultative construc-
tion such as the one in (34), the root √hammer is merged directly as an adjunct to v
via conflation, while another root occupies the place encoding resultant state. This is
represented in (34b):
(34) a. John hammered the metal flat.
b.
DP
John
v pP
p′
√flat
vP
v′
DP
the metal
p pP
p
v
√hammer
In the structure of (34b) the root √hammer is adjoined to the eventive head v, and
is therefore identified with the grammatically-encoded event. In that sense, √ham-
mer represents a Manner of the event.30
In conclusion, it has been argued that one and the same root may be inserted in
two different positions in the syntactic structure (not simultaneously): either in an
argumental position, e.g., as complement to a p head—which can either be taken as
complement by another p head or form a single p projection; see (22a) and (22b),
respectively—or in a non-argumental position, as an adjunct to the v head (see
(34b)). The root receives a different interpretation depending on the position where
it is freely merged: Terminal Ground in (22a), Central Ground in (22b) or Manner in
(34b). The fact that the root √hammer refers to the “instrument” with which the
action is carried out is orthogonal to its structurally imposed, grammatically relevant
interpretation.
2.4 Concluding remarks
What on an intuitive level seem to be intrinsic features of the root, such as Result,
Manner, etc., are in fact properties of the structure: e.g., Result is the interpretation
30
Of course, if √hammer is merged as complement to v it is understood as Incremental Theme: He has
been hammering all morning (i.e., “he has been doing hammering all morning”).

of a root merged as the complement of a double-p projection and Manner is the
interpretation of a root adjoined to v. As a consequence, the ontological classification
of roots does not condition the linguistic derivation, as is assumed in the endoskel-
etal approach (Rappaport Hovav and Levin 1998, 2010, Rappaport Hovav, this
volume) and some work done within Distributed Morphology (Alexiadou, this
volume, Anagnostopoulou and Samioti, this volume, Doron, this volume, Levinson,
this volume, Roßdeutscher, this volume). On the contrary, it is the structural
position occupied by the root in the syntactic event/argument structure that
determines its interpretation, a result compatible with the exoskeletal approach
(Borer 2003, 2005; see also Acquaviva, this volume).

3
The roots of nominality,
the nominality of roots
PAOLO ACQUAVIVA
3.1 Introduction
A natural goal of a theory of grammar is to explain what speakers know when they
know lexical items. I will follow here recent syntactic approaches to lexical decom-
position, in particular those that posit category-free roots in the make-up of lexical
categories (Marantz 2001, Arad 2003, 2005, Borer 2003, 2005) and pose the question
of how grammar expresses what we call nouns. To date, most work on lexical
decomposition has focused on verbs, with important extensions on deverbal nomi-
nalizations; by contrast, my aim here is to investigate nouns as a primary lexical
category—the roots of nominality.1
Baker (2003) addressed this same question, following syntactic assumptions that
do not involve discrete category-free roots. Baker’s work links up to a philosophical
tradition stemming from Frege (1884) and Geach (1962), which views the essence of
nominality in the ability to stand for S in a sentence of the form x is the same S as y.
There are two reasons for reconsidering the question. First, Baker’s approach views
nouns as sortal terms, that is, terms expressing a standard of sameness; but not all
nouns straightforwardly admit such an interpretation, and the very idea that nouns
lexically define a principle of identity (a way of being the same) as distinct from a
principle of application (what they are true of) is not as obvious as it may appear
(see Barker 2010 for a critique). Second, defining nouns as sortal terms tends to blur
the distinction between a ‘nominal’ and a ‘noun’. In order to contribute to a theory
of lexical competence, we should focus on what makes nouns the kind of words they
are. This leads to the second aim: distinguishing various aspects of nominal inter-
1
The research reported here was supported by a fellowship funded by the Alexander von Humboldt
Stiftung, which I gratefully acknowledge. I would also like to thank Josef Bayer, Hagit Borer, Phoevos
Panagiotidis, and Carl Vogel for very useful discussion, as well as the organizers of the Stuttgart workshop
and the editors of this volume. Faults and omissions are my own responsibility.

pretation and home in on nominality as an irreducible lexical property—the nomin-
ality of roots.
The argument has three stages. In the first part (sections 3.2–3.4), I will distinguish
individuation as defining a discourse referent at DP-level from individuation as
defining an abstract (kind-level) category of entities, and I will claim that lexical
nouns name such abstract categories; the granularity and the part-structure of the
denotation domain are specified by grammatical morphemes between the outer DP-
level and the innermost N- and root-level. The second part (3.5–3.8) justifies this
approach on empirical grounds, showing its descriptive and explanatory advantages
leading to falsifiable predictions on what can be and what cannot be a common noun
in a natural language. The last part (3.9–3.10), in contrast with widely held assump-
tions (in this volume, see especially the contributions by Alexiadou, Levinson,
Rappaport Hovav, Roßdeutscher) argues that roots do not encapsulate any aspect
of lexical semantic content, not even encyclopedic or lexical-categorial information
(contrast Gallego, this volume, and Borer 2005); in particular, the observations in
sections 3.9 and 3.10 suggest that locating nominality on roots is oversimplistic and
ultimately wrong. In so far as they differ from nouns, roots should not be stipulated
to have the semantic function of nouns; instead, their function is to differentially
label the syntactic construction that corresponds to a noun, and which interfaces the
Conceptual/Intentional cognitive system as the name of a category concept.
3.2 Two types of individuation
Both tree and tall are true of entities; but only the noun tree defines a type of entity.
As a necessary preliminary, let us distinguish individuation in this intuitive sense
from the individuation of an entity as a discourse referent. Discourse referents are
what we talk about: individuals in the domain of discourse, set up, tracked and
variously qualified by appropriate determiners and quantifiers, through deixis,
anaphora, and quantification (“StrongDP” in Zamparelli 2000, and <e>d in Borer
2005). The identification of discourse referents is ultimately anchored in the speak-
ers’ spatiotemporal frame (Strawson 1959), and in this frame it is possible to make
identifying reference to them without the medium of a categorizing description (he,
that, the second from the left, another one). For this reason, anything can be a
discourse referent: the individuals referred to by pronouns or corresponding to the
assignment of value to variables, but also, without overt determiners, nominalized
properties which are subjects of individual-level predicates, as in big is beautiful, and
individuals denoted by names.
Nouns, more precisely common nouns, contribute to the individuation of discourse
referents indirectly, by a categorizing description: that tree, every book. To capture the
difference between tree and tall, we can follow a well-established tradition and call
“kinds” the categories of entities expressed by nouns (Carlson 1977, Krifka 1995,
Chierchia 1998, Zamparelli 2000), with the assumptions spelled out in (1):
34 Paolo Acquaviva

(1) • kinds are primary entities, not abstracted from individuals;
• nouns are names for kinds, and denote them rigidly;
• nouns are primarily entity-denoting names, not predicates.
The first assumption is taken from Krifka (1995) and Mueller-Reichau (2006). The
second generalizes to all kind-denoting nouns (not all nouns, as we will see) the
doctrine of direct reference of Putnam (1975) and Kripke (1972). The third adopts
Baker’s (2003) and Mueller-Reichau’s (2006) characterization of nouns (again, not
all) as kind-referring terms, but as names, and thus rigidly, and not as predicates. In
this respect, my suggestion is the mirror image of the “Nominal Description Theory”
of names, where names express “no substantive property but merely the property of
bearing that very name” (Bach 2002); or in the words of Elbourne (2008:197): “on
most occasions of use Alfred will mean ‘entity called Alfred and identical to a,’ where
a is an individual constant picking out an entity called Alfred.” Instead of starting
with nouns as predicates and characterizing names by the property of “being
named” and by a stipulation of identity with an unidentified referent, the alternative
I explore here starts with names and characterizes nouns as names for kinds; their
predicative use is derivative. This, I argue, is the ultimate source of the distinction
between the identifying function of nouns and the characterizing function of
adjectives and other predicates (cf. Barker and Dowty 1993).2
The hypothesis which emerges from the assumptions in (1) concerns the funda-
mental, irreducible nature of nouns as a lexical category. It does not concern “bare
nouns” in the sense of nouns embedded in a structure without determiners or
modifiers, but the constitutive properties of nouns as a lexical category. Clearly the
two issues are related, but the question “what is a noun” is prior to the question
“what is a bare noun”, that is, a noun in a particular syntactic context.
While the hypothesis presupposes that nouns are a linguistic category, it does not
presuppose that they are a primitive morphological or syntactic category. In fact, the
syntactic approach followed here (largely that of Borer 2005) decomposes lexical
categories into constructions made up of smaller syntactic pieces, at whose core lies a
category-free root. This leaves open the possibility that some fundamental properties
could make a construction a noun rather than an adjective or a verb, over and above
the choice of certain grammatical formatives. In what follows, I will pursue this line
and distinguish nominality as a grammar-internal characterization from a more
substantive characterization, in which what is morphosyntactically nominal also
encapsulates a certain cognitive value which no other lexical categories have, namely,
functioning as a name for a certain entity. Semantically, this is an <e>-typed kind;
cognitively, the kind-level entity named by (the construction interpreted as) a
2
Krifka (1995) calls “kinds” conventional kinds (e.g., gentleman) and “concepts” the larger class of
kind-level objects which include both conventional and non-conventional kinds (e.g., gentleman in a blue
tie). In discussing kind-level objects named by simplex nouns, I use “kind” only in the ﬁrst sense, and
“concepts” for their psychological counterpart.
The roots of nominality, the nominality of roots 35

Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content

Anna säpsähti, hän huomasi nyt vasta, että tuo huoahdus oli
häneltä tietämättään ja varkain päässyt. Vaan hän ei voinut sitä
huokaustaan kahlehtia, tuskan ryöppy syöksähti tuon Markkuksen
kysymyksen johdosta aivan valtoinaan esiin.
— Oi niin, mestari, minä tahtoisin maata tuossa noin kylmenevänä
taikka jo kylmänä, tunnotonna ja tiedotonna, noinikään tahtoisin
nukkua pois, nukkua jo kohta ja ainaiseksi, — oi, se olisi niin
helpottavaa, niin autuasta!
Mestari Markkus loi häneen nyt terävän, tutkivan katseen ja hänen
kasvonsa kävivät yhä suruvoittoisemmiksi, kuta kauemmin hän
neitosta tarkasteli. Vaan tämä jatkoi vielä äskeisellä kiihkollaan:
— Miksi olisi rikos toivoa jonkun kurjan kitujan kärsimysten
loppua? Miksei saisi helpottaa ja jouduttaa sitä, minkä kumminkin
kerran täytyy tapahtua. Miksei olisi ihminen henkensä herra, kuka
sen omistaisi, ellei hän?
Mestari Markkus nousi aivan kauhistuneena pystöön.
— Te olette väsynyt, te uneksitte, armollinen neiti.
— Jospa se olisikin unta, jos olisi kaikki ollut unta! Enkä
kumminkaan sitä soisi, ei se on todellisuutta, mutta sitä on jo
kylläksi… Lupaisitteko olla vaiti, mestari, jos huomaisitte
lääkelaatikostanne jonkun pienen pullon kadonneen, pienen vain, —
se ei olisi tuottanut kellekään vahinkoa, kellekään surua tai häpeää…
Markkus huomasi aavistuksissaan olevan perää, — vielä uusi suru
tässä perheessä, entisiä masettavampi, nöyryyttävämpi. Sitä surua ja

häpeää olisi neito nyt tahtonut välttää, — kunpa ei olisi sekin jo
myöhää. Säälien hän laski kätensä Annan olkapäille.
— Tyttö parka, kuinka suuri tuskasi lieneekin, sinä haaveksit
mahdottomia. Elämän ja kuoleman raja on korkeampi, kuin että sen
yli niin helposti hyppää, sen olet huomaava. Tällä puolen sen rajan
ovat tänne kuuluvat kaihot kärsittävät. Vaan sinä olet sairas, tyttöni,
tässä olet potilasta hoitanut, itse tarvitset hoitoa.
— Ei, ei, mestari, en tarvitse, huudahti Anna säikähtyneenä. — Te
olette oikeassa, olen valvonut liiaksi, olen väsynyt, minä uneksin. Ei,
vielähän tahdon minäkin elää, rakastaa, nauttia ja tehdä
velvollisuuteni…! Kas noin, serkkunikin elpyy taas.
Kalpean potilaan hipeälle oli kuume taas ajanut hienon punan.
Laiha käsivarsi liikahti peitolla ja harhaileva katse näytti etsivän
jotakin. Anna kostutti hiukan potevan huulia, korjasi peitettä ja
istahti taas jakkaralle vartiopaikkaansa, virkahtaen vähän
reippaammin:
— Kas näin, nyt olen taas valmis serkkuani vaalimaan. Hyvää yötä,
mestari.
Mestari puisteli päätään, katsellen vuoroin hoitajaa ja vuoroin
potilasta. Vaan Annan äänessä oli ollut jotakin käskevää, jota hän ei
voinut olla tottelematta.
— Hyvää yötä, lapseni, herätä minut, kun tarvitaan tai kun itse
väsyt. — Vaan vielä hän ovella pysähtyi tautivuodetta katsomaan,
tuumien itsekseen: Kunhan tuottaisi toisen vaaliminen edes hoivaa
omille tuskille! Ja ääneen hän virkkoi:

— Elä valvo liiaksi, tyttöni, tauti voi tarttua sinuunkin.
— Ei ole hätää, mestari, kyllä minä jaksan, vastasi Anna
rauhoittavalla äänellä, mutta itsekseen hän lisäsi mestarin mentyä:
— Kunpa tarttuisi, kunpa tarttuisi pian!
Yön istui Anna ja vartioitsi potilastaan, joka hiljaa kuin nukkuen
siinä makasi, vaan aamupuoleen yötä voitti väsymys; hoitajattaren
pää vaipui vuoteen reunaa vastaan ja hän nukkui hetkisen siinä
istuvallaan. Säpsähtäen hän siitä heräsi ja katsoi serkkuaan. Tämä
makasi nyt silmät auki ja katseli häntä kysyvin silmin, joissa jo oli
outo kiilto; käsi näytti tapailevan jotakin ja huuli liikahti hiljaa. Vaan
samassa vaipui käsi alas peitolle, silmän kiilto kävi raukeaksi,
himmeäksi, tummeni, sammui pois. Heikko henki oli lähtenyt.
Vartija oli myös jo tehnyt tehtävänsä, hän oli vapaa. Hetkisen vielä
ikäänkuin kadehtien katsottuaan vuoteella lepäävää siirtyi Anna
viereiseen huoneeseen, istahti sen ikkunan ääreen ja katseli
liikahtamatta ulos autioon luontoon, jossa aamun ensi sarastus hyvin
verkalleen hälventi öistä pimeyttä. Vaan tuskan voima siinä voitti
hänen rauenneen mielen.
Jännitys tautivuoteen ääressä ja kuoleman kanssa taistelevan
sairaan vaaliminen olivat jonkunverran viihdyttäneet hänen omia
ajatuksiaan, vaan nyt ne oman mielen mustat mietteet uudella
voimalla hänessä heräsivät vireille ja lohduton epätoivo hänet valtasi.
Näihin asti oli hän askareidensa seassa vielä hiukan toivonut
sulhonsa saapuvan häntä pelastamaan, ennenkuin setä ja täti
joutuisivat kotiin, hän oli haaveksinut vapautumista, unhotusta. Toivo
oli nyt mennyt, — ei pelastusta, ei lohdutusta nähnyt hän millään
taholla.

Niissä mietteissä hänet mestari Markkus tapasi, kun vähän
myöhemmin, tautivuoteesta vainajan löydettyään, huolestuneena
lähti hoitajaa hakemaan. Hän neuvoi Annalle lepoa, käski kumminkin
hänen sitä ennen käydä ulkona kävelemässä, saamassa raitista
ilmaa, sillävälin kuin palvelusväki kuolinhuoneessa suoritti
ensimmäisen surullisen palveluksen.
Ulos, lumiseen, vapaaseen luontoon, hiihtämään puhtoselle
hangelle! — se ajatus viehätti hetkisen Annan rauennutta mieltä ja
hän tarttui siihen kiinni kuin viihdyttävään pelastuskeinoon. Ulos hän
kiirehti, haki pihalta nuoremman serkkunsa liukkaat sukset ja jo
seuraavassa tuokiossa hän viiletti loivaa rinnettä alas selälle. Jäälle
hiihtäessään kuuli hän syrjemmältä talvitieltä tutun kulkusen kilinän,
— Ebba-rouva palasi sieltä nyt Kuitiaan. Vaan Anna ei kääntynyt
takasin häntä vastaanottamaan, ei pyörähtänyt katsomaankaan,
hiihti vain edelleen. Hän oli saanut päähänsä uuden mielenjohdon,
joka häntä piti vireillä: hän tahtoi hiihtää Paraisten kirkolle asti,
vanhan Maunupapin luo, joka oli ollut hänen äitinsä ystävä ja jolla
varmaankin olisi joku lohdutuksen sana hänellekin hänen suuressa
tuskassaan. Niin, varmaankin oli hän sieltä saava neuvoa ja
lohdutusta…
Tuo ajatus virkisti hänen mieltään ja raitis talvinen ilma, jota hän
nyt pitkästä ajasta hengitti, vaikutti kuin huumausjuoma hänen
rauenneisiin jäseniinsä, työntäen niissä hyytyneen veren
vilkkaampaan kulkuun. Hän kuvaili elävänsä vielä lapsuutensa
huoletonta aikaa, hiihtelevänsä hankea pitkin lapsen keveydellä ja
hilpeällä mielellä. Eteenpäin, eteenpäin, vapauteen, mielen
tyyneyteen, pakoon tuskia ja toivottomuutta!

Pysähtelemättä hän hiihti edelleen. Vaan kun hän oli saapunut
salmentakaiselle mantereelle, rupesivat talviluonnon hetkeksi
terästämät voimat raukenemaan, hiihto kävi raskaammaksi ja
samalla nuo tuokioksi unhottuneet mustat mietteet palasivat uudella
voimalla takasin. Hän huomasi, ettei hän jaksanutkaan hiihtää
Paraisten kirkolle asti, että hänen täytyisi palata kotiin Kuitiaan,
jonne Ebba-rouva jo oli saapunut ja marskiakin odotettiin… Ja silloin
viimeinenkin oljenkorsi katkesi ja katosi.
Väsähtäneenä hän vaipui istumaan rantakivelle pienen koivun
kupeelle, molemmin käsin sauvaansa nojaten. Vähän alempana
jäällä kulki Turusta tuleva talvitie. Hetkisen kuluttua rupesi sieltäpäin
kuulumaan aisakellon helinää, joka kasvoi ja koveni. Kukahan sieltä
ajaa Kuitiaan? se ajatus herätti Annan taas mietteistään ja hytkäytti
hänen mieltään. Saapuuko sieltä marski nyt Turun kautta kotiinsa?
Vai, vai … onko se hänen odotettunsa, hänen pelastuksensa,
onnensa…?
Monta kirjettä oli Anna kirjoittanut sulholleen Ruotsiin ja pyytänyt
häntä tulemaan Kuitiaan vapauttamaan hänet tavalla taikka toisella.
Hän oli kirjoittanut, että hän on valmis pakenemaan setänsä kodista
ja seuraamaan Ruotsiin… Vastausta ei ollut tullut, vaikka hän oli sitä
toivonut viimeisiin asti. Nytkö aivan viime hetkessä toteutuisi
todellakin tuo toivo … niin, varmaankin hän saapuu nyt juuri tuossa.
Anna kuvaili, kuinka hän istuisi tuohon rekeen sulhonsa viereen ja
sitten he ajaisivat pois, pois, kauas, ei kukaan tietäisi minne, ei
kukaan osaisi hakea heitä mistään, hän olisi hävinnyt maailmasta,
unhottunut vähitellen, vaan nauttisi itse kätkössä täysin mitoin
unhotustaan ja kauvan kaivattuaan onnea… Kavion kopse kuului jo
läheltä. Anna nousi jännityksissä pystöön katsomaan. Tuolta hän
ajaa niemen kärjestä, yksin ajaa virkkua juoksijaa… Ja kas, hän

pysäyttää hevosen, katsoo, katsoo pitkään törmälle päin… Jo nousee
reestä, sitasee suitset jalaksen nokkaan ja lähtee kahlaamaan
törmälle, — se on hän, — onko? — — Ah, ei, ei, se on se toinen…
Anna hervahti taas takasin istumaan lumiselle kalliolle.
Ajaja, joka Anna Flemingiä kohden astui, oli nuori Henrik Horn
Kankaisista. Hän oli tuntenut törmällä istuvan tytön, ja tuli häntä
tervehtimään ja puhuttelemaan, koska hänen asiansa Paraisten
puolelle koski juuri häntä. Kesästä asti oli nuori Henrik viipynyt
isänsä mukana Kankaisissa, vaan nyt oli hän lähdössä pitemmäksi
ajaksi Ruotsiin, jatkamaan opintojaan ja harjaantumaan isänsä
johdolla valtiotaitoon. Sitä ennen oli hän kumminkin tahtonut käydä
Kuitiassa, saamassa varman vastauksen siihen kysymykseen, jonka
hän jo vuosi sitten Upsalassa oli tehnyt.
Näitä hän siinä neitosen edessä hangella seistessään tälle lyhyesti
ja ujosti kertoi ja lisäsi sitten rohkeammin ja päättävämmin:
— Suora kysymys ansaitsee suoran vastauksen, ja siksi tahdon
vielä kerran esittää asiani marski Flemingille ja hänen rouvalleen.
Mutta minä tiedän, että lopullinen päätös kumminkin riippuu teistä,
neitini, ja siksi pyydän teiltä itseltänne ensiksi kuulla tuomioni.
Anna kuunteli nuoren Hornin puhetta ikäänkuin aivan outoa, taikka
äärettömän kaukaista ja jo mennyttä asiaa, eikä hän ensiksi oikein
jaksanut käsittää, mistä kysymys olikaan. Mutta kuta pitemmin
nuorukainen puhui, sitä enemmän tuo asia rupesi häntä pelottamaan
ja huolettamaan. Hän kuiskasi läähättäen:
— Ei, jalo nuori herra, elkää menkö Kuitiaan. Tarjouksenne on
mulle kunniaksi, vaan se on mahdoton.

Nuorukaiselle ei tämä vastaus näyttänyt olevan odottamaton. Hän
jatkoi:
— Olen tullut huomaamaan, että en ole teidän suosiotanne
onnistunut voittamaan eikä ole minulle tietämätöntä sekään, että
eräs toinen on ollut minua onnellisempi. Vaan kumminkin: minun
täytyy, ennen Suomesta lähtöäni, vielä esittää teille asiani.
Sydämmenne valitsemaa ei teille sukunne anna; minun silmämääräni
olisi tehdä teidät onnelliseksi. Ettekö voi antaa mulle vastaiseksikaan
toiveita?
Neitosta puistatti, tämä kohtaus talvisella hangella oli tapahtunut
niin odottamatta, hänen kiihotetun mielensä ollessa aivan toisaalle
kiinnitettynä. Vaivoin hän itselleen sai asian selvitetyksi.
— Se on totta, sopersi hän vastaan, minä uskon teitä, te olette
jalomielinen ja hyvä, vaan se on sittenkin kaikki mahdotonta, kaikki…
Minä kuulun toiselle ja sitäpaitse … niin, te tulette sen huomaamaan,
— ei, elkää menkö Kuitiaan. Oi, minä pyydän teitä, jos olen ollut
teille jonkunarvoinen, elkää menkö!
— Neiti Fleming, minulla on asiaa Kuitiaan ei ainoastaan itseni
vaan isänikin puolesta, vastasi nuorukainen hetkisen kaihomielellä
neidon kiihkoa tarkastettuaan. — Minun on siellä ilmoitettava, että
isäni ei suostu ottamaan vastaan sitä ylipäällikkyyttä Suomessa,
jonka Kaarlo-herttua tahtoo riistää marski Flemingilta ja tarjoo
isälleni. Tämä päätös merkitsee sitä, että Kankaisissa ei tahdota
asettua leppymättömälle riitakannalle Kuitiaa vastaan, että isäni
suostuu unhottamaan, rakastaa rauhaa…
— Minä ymmärrän … vaan…

— Vaan kiellätte minua menemästä Kuitiaan?
— Oi, te olette tehneet niin paljon minun arvottoman vuoksi.
Mutta säälikää minua, minä rukoilen teitä, armahtakaa minua, sillä
minä olen onneton!
Nuorukainen näki sen tuskan, mikä kuvastui neidon rukoilevista
katseista ja oivalsi, että tässä on tosi kysymyksessä. Hän on
onneton, hän kärsii, — sen tunteen edestä oli hän valmis
väistymään. Ja sanaakaan lisäämättä aikoi hän poistua, kumarsi jo
jäähyväisiksi ja astui pari askelta, vaan pysähtyi kumminkin vielä ja
virkkoi:
— Surunne on haikea, sen näen, ja siksi teitä tottelen, — vaan
keveällä mielellä en lähde kotimaastani. Hyvästi, neiti Fleming. Jos
joskus mielenne tyynnyttyä, olojen muututtua, kaipaatte ystävän
neuvoa tai apua, löydätte aina minusta ystävän, vaikka vielä mitä
tapahtukoon.
Kiilsipä kuin kiitollinen vilaus Annan rauenneessa katseessa, hänen
jäähyväisiksi nyökäyttäessään päätään lähtevälle, mutta se katse
vaipui taas alas, eikä kotvaseen kohonnut. Hän kuuli, kuinka taas
kavioiden kopse lähti loittonemaan samalle taholle, josta se äsken oli
lähestynyt, kuuli vielä hetken aisakellon helinää ja taas oli kaikki
äänetöntä talvisessa luonnossa. Anna nojasi päänsä koivun kylmää
kylkeä vastaan ja koetti itkeä, vaan kyyneleet eivät juosseet. Hän
ajatteli tuota äkillistä, lyhyttä kohtausta hangella, joka sekin vielä oli
lisännyt hänen mielensä kaihoa. Hän oli karkottanut tuon kelpo
nuorukaisen… Kuinka huolettoman elon ja rauhaisan kodin hän olisi
voinut hänen rinnallaan saada, suruista vapaan; siinä hän olisi voinut
vaikuttaa muidenkin onneksi, yhdistää maansa molemmat mahtavat
suvut ja aikaansaada sopua ja rauhaa. Hän olisi ollut rakastettu ja

arvossapidetty… Kaikki hän oli menettänyt, kaikki mestannut
tavotellessaan tuota pikkuista onneaan, jota hän ei kumminkaan
tavannut. Mitä oli hänellä siitä jälellä: muisto keltakiharaisesta
nuorukaisesta, joka ehkä ei ollut häntä koskaan todenperäisesti
rakastanut, muisto hymyilevistä huulista, joiden petolliset valat olivat
syösseet hänet häpeään, — sen hän oli unelmillaan saavuttanut!…
Mutta sittenkin! Jos tuossa tulisi ajaen se solakka poika, tempaisi
häntä käsipuolesta ja lähtisi viemään: oi, oi, millä innolla ja
kiitollisuudella hän tarttuisi tuohon käsivarteen, riippuisi siitä
hellittämättä kiinni — ja kaikki oli sovitettu, kärsimys ja häpeä… Vaan
se on kaikki turhaa, ei ole toivoa enää, ei rahtuakaan. Anna puristi
suonenvedontapaisesti koivun hoikkasta runkoa ja jäi sen varaan
rauenneena makaamaan.
Hän istui siinä liikahtamatta niin kauan, kunnes kylmän väreet
rupesivat hänen ruumiistaan puistattamaan. Silloin hän nousi ja
käänsi suksensa taas Kuitiaan päin. Kotiin, sinne harmajalinnaiseen
vankilaan, odottamaan mitä tuleva oli, — kohtalonsa varaan oli
hänen antauduttava, muuta neuvoa ei enää ollut. Vaan niin raskaasti
lipuivat nyt sukset salmen tasaista pintaa pitkin ja niin pystyltä tuntui
tuo loiva rinne kotisaaren rannan noustessa Kuitian kohdalla. — —
Marski Klaus Fleming oli, yötämyöten ajettuaan Marttilan
kievarista, saapunut kotiinsa muuatta tuntia myöhemmin kuin hänen
rouvansa Siuntiosta. Pihalla vastaansa rientäviltä nuoremmilta
lapsiltaan oli hän jo kuullut vanhimman poikansa kuolemasta ja
kaihomielellä oli hän rientänyt sairashuoneeseen, missä hän tapasi
vaimonsa itkemässä nuoren vainajan vuoteella. Pää kumarassa,
väsymyksestä rauenneet kasvot kalpeina oli hän kauan seisonut siinä
Ebba-rouvan rinnalla nuorukaisen kuihtuneen ruumiin vieressä, ja
siltä oli hetkisen näyttänyt, että hänenkin partanen leukansa vähän

oli väkättänyt. Vaan sitten oli hän vetänyt palttinan poikansa
kasvoille, kääntynyt ja lähtenyt työhuoneesensa, jossa hänellä oli
vastassaan monen viikon kirjeet ja postit. Tyyneesti oli hän siellä
työskennellyt, rauhallisesti antanut Gröningille käskyjä, mitä
erinäisten, kiireellisimpäin asiain johdosta heti olisi tehtävä, olipa
itsekin kirjoittanut muutamia lyhyviä vastauksia. Viimeksi ryhtyi hän
tuohon herttualta äsken tulleeseen postiin, jota avatessaan hänen
kätensä vihasta vavahtivat. Ja sen luettuaan jäi hän pitkäksi ajaksi
kirje kädessään istumaan ja miettimään.
Vihdoin näkyi hän tehneen päätöksensä. Hän kutsui mestari
Markkuksen puheilleen ja lähti, tuokion neuvoteltuaan hänen
kanssaan, ulos työhuoneestaan. Kirjeiden joukossa oli ollut myöskin
eräs kirje Ebba-rouvalle tämän sisarelta, leskikuningattarelta, joka
Kaarlo-herttuan käskystä hänkin oli kirjoittanut Annan asiasta ja
vilkkaasti kehotti sisartaan suostumaan Annan avioliittoon herttuan
kamarijunkkarin kanssa, sekä taivuttamaan miestäänkin siihen. Klaus
meni Ebba-rouvan huoneeseen, ojensi hänelle tämän kirjeen ja istui
ääneti vieressä katsellen vaimonsa hämmästystä hänen näitä uutisia
lukiessa.
— Ja mitä nyt arvelet? kysyi hän hiljaa rouvaltaan, joka, ollen
äskeisen, haikean surunsa valtaamana, ei vielä oikein voinut toipua
käsittämään tuon lukemansa kirjeen sisältöä.
— Mitä, onko tämä totta? Tämäkö suru vielä äskeisen lisäksi,
sopersi kyyneleitään kuivaava rouva.
— Me emme saa menettää malttiamme, — tosia kirjeessä
kerrotaan. Nyt on vain päätettävä, mitä on tehtävä, päätettävä heti.

— Päätettävä, — onko neuvottelemisen tilaisuutta? Annan täytyy
tietysti heti mennä naimisiin, — oi, jo syksyllä aavistin minä pahaa.
Vaan sinä et silloin tahtonut taipua; nyt on suostuminen välttämätön.
Marskin silmässä leimahti kuin salama ja hänen nyrkkinsä kohosi
pystöön. Häntä tahdotaan pakottaa syömään sanansa, tuo ajatus
saattoi hänet hurjistumaan. Herttua oli yhdessä liitossa tuon kurjan
viettelijän kanssa, ja nyt he olivat ilkeydessään vieneet asian niin
pitkälle, että hänen, marski Flemingin, joko muitta mutkitta oli
suostuttava tuohon vihaamaansa avioliittoon, joka ei ollut hänen
nimelleen arvokas, taikka vedettävä nimelleen ja suvulleen vielä
suurempi, ilmeinen häpeä. Suo siellä, vetelä täällä. Ah, kuinka
herttua nyt mahtoi nauttia siitä pulasta, johon hän marskin oli
saattanut, nöyryyttääkseen hänet tässäkin kohden, marski saattoi
kuvailla mielessään, kuinka hän siitä itsekseen ilkkui. Vaan malta,
herttua, hoki hän sapekkaassa mielessään, vielä ei ole asia päättynyt
sinun mielesi mukaan, — ei hetikään!
— Ja siinä arvelet siis, että me täällä rupeamme valmistamaan
häitä, pakosta ja herttuan käskystä?
— Niin, — näin kohta poikamme kuoleman jälkeen, se ei ole
hauskaa. Vaan mihinkä siitä pääsemme, onhan tehtävä, mitä häpeän
estämiseksi voi. Taikka lähetämmekö Annan vihittäväksi
Strömsholmaan, kuten sisareni ehdottaa?
Marski nousi kalpeana ja päättäväisenä pystöön. Hän oli itse jo
aikoja sitten tehnyt päätöksensä.
— Ei koskaan. Sitä nautintoa emme herttualle suo. Jos olisi
kysymys mistä muusta tahansa, niin minä suostuisin, vaan tässä on

herttualla tarkotus persoonallisesti nöyryyttää minut, ja silloin olen
minä rautanen.
— Suostut mieluummin häpeään. Vaan ajattele toki, miten siitä
Anna kärsii, emme ainoastaan me. Klaus, sinun rautatahtoasi olen
aina ihaillut, nyt sitä pelkään, — sinä olet julma!
— Minä olen julma, minut pakotetaan sellaiseksi. Mitä häpeän
salaamiseksi tehdä voi, siitä olen huolta pitävä, ja viettelijän
kurittamisesta myös, — muusta ei ole puhumistakaan.
Vaan Ebba-rouva rukoili aivan kiihkeästi:
— Ei, ei, Klaus, asia siitä vain pahenee. Taipukaamme tämä ainoa
kerta, eihän tämä pieni nöyryytys toki paljoa merkitse.
— Se merkitsee kaikki, — elä pyydä, Ebba, nyt vain toimiin
ryhtymään.
Ja kuuntelematta edes mitään enempää lähti marski rouvansa
luota, kutsui Eenokin puheilleen ja antoi hänelle muutamia käskyjä,
varottaen häntä tarkasti ja huolellisesti niitä tottelemaan. Silloin juuri
palasi Anna hiihtomatkaltaan ja pysähtyi, kohdatessaan eteisessä
setänsä, liikahtamatta paikoilleen. Siinä vaihdettiin vaan yksi silmäys
sedän ja veljentyttären välillä, vaan se silmäys sanoi kaikki.
Tervehtimättä neitosta, tutkimatta ja nuhtelematta häntä, virkkoi
marski kylmästi ja varmasti:
— Sinä pukeudut Anna heti matkapukuun, Eenokki tulee sinua
saattamaan.
Ennen puolen tunnin kuluttua täytyy sinun olla matkalla.

Anna kuunteli tuota ääneti kuin tuomiotaan ja totteli. Hän ei
tiennyt minne hänen tuli matkustaa, ei mikä marskilla oli mielessä,
vaan hän ei kysellyt, se olisi ollut tarpeetonta. Ja hiljaa hän lähti
matkalle varustautumaan. Vaan marski itse antoi palvelusväelle
joukon määräyksiä. Nuoren Eerikin hautajaiset olivat lykättävät siksi,
kunnes hän joutui takasin matkoiltaan, joille hän taas lähti. Huovit
olivat vaihdettavat, vereksiä miehiä hän käski varustaa
kolmekymmentä seuralaisikseen, Eenokin piti ottaa mukaansa viisi
huovia. Ja viipymättä piti kaiken olla valmisna.
Nämä määräykset annettuaan meni marski taas työhuoneeseensa,
jossa Gröning työskenteli kirjeiden ääressä, viskautui patjarahille
makaamaan, ja virkkoi:
— Jaksatko lähteä matkalle taas, poikani? Ota nuo työsi mukaasi,
Turun linnassa voit niitä valmistella.
Gröning katseli säälien, vaan samalla ihaillen, isäntäänsä. Surut ja
vastukset lisäsivät vain hänen tarmoaan ja voimaansa, eikä hän
väsymykselle antanut valtaa. Sellainen luja päättäväisyys ja
toimintavoima kuvastui nytkin hänen kasvoiltaan, ettei olisi luullut
häntä kuuskymmenvuotiseksi mieheksi, joka juurikaan oli pitkältä,
rasittavalta matkalta palannut.
— Minä olen nuori, vastasi kirjuri, vaan te rasitatte itseänne liiaksi.
Ettekö suo itsellenne päivän lepoa?
— Muut eivät suo mulle, eivät anna aikaa suremaan poikaani eikä
nukkumaan kotonani. Vaan niin on ehkä parasta, siten viihtyy mieli.
Käy aterialle poikani, hevoset ovat heti valjaissa.

Tuokion kuluttua ajoikin kaksi rekeä linnan portaitten alle.
Ensimmäinen oli kuomureki, jonka ajajanlaudalla Eenokki tyyneenä
ja vakavana istui; siihen tuotiin Anna Fleming, peitettiin vällyihin ja
kuomun uutimet laskettiin eteen. Ei kukaan tiennyt, minne se reki oli
määrätty lähtemään. Marski oli näet jo Marttilassa arvannut, että
herttuan junkkarilla ehkä oli aikomus, jos ei hän sittenkään saisi
tyttöä mielisuosiolla, koettaa viedä hänet varkain Ruotsiin, eikä hän
Annaan siinä suhteessa ensinkään luottanut; ja siksi hän näin
salaperäisesti lähetti tytön pois Kuitiasta. Eenokki yksin tiesi, minne
tyttö oli vietävä, mutta syitä ei tiennyt hänkään. Vaan jotakin
omituista hänestä tässä kyydissä oli. Monta kertaa oli hän tätä
samaa tyttöä ollut saattamassa, mutta niin hänestä tuntui, kun hän
hiukan unisena ja väsyneenä ohjasi hevosiaan ulos linnanportista,
että tällaisella asialla hän ei ennen ollut Flemingin neitosta kyydinnyt.
Heti jälestä lähti toinenkin reki liikkeelle. Siinä istui marski ja
hänen rinnallaan Gröning, joka hänkin, samoinkuin koko talonväki,
ihmetteli, mikähän tuon ensi reen päämäärä mahtoi olla. Hän oli
tosin marskin käytöksestä ja puheista ruvennut aavistelemaan, että
hänen lankomiehensä ja aatelisneiden välit olivat kääntyneet hullulle
tolalle, vaan koko asianlaitaa ei hän vielä älynnyt. Kotvasen ajoivat
molemmat reet peräkkäin, vaan kun ehtivät tienhaaraan, mistä
talvitie vei suoraan Turkuun, näki Gröning kuomureen kääntyvän
mantereelle päin, sille tielle, jota he juuri äsken marskin kanssa
olivat tulleet. Siihen asti oli marskikin ääneti istunut. Nyt hän asettui
makaavaan asentoon reessään, ja virkkoi:
— Pidä huoli, Gröning, että vauhti pysyy hyvänä, minä tahdon
nukkua hetkisen. Turussa emme heti jouda nukkumaan, siellä
kuuluvat Suomen herrat neuvottelevan, kuka on tuleva Suomen
käskynhaltijaksi, ja me tahdomme siitä myös jonkun sanan sanoa.

— Siksi siis on näin kiire Turkuun?
— Vielä muistakin syistä on kiire, poikani. Meidän täytyy siellä
vielä tavata eräs sulhasmies, joka komeasti kuuluu seurueineen
asuvan Turun linnassa, täytyy pitää huolta, ettei hänen kesken sieltä
tarvitse lähteä. Vaan nyt me nukumme.
Marski painautui turkkeihinsa reen pohjalle ja kuorsasi jo hetkisen
kuluttua. Vaan nuori kirjuri oli hänen puheistaan ymmärtänyt sen,
minkä jo oli ennakolta melkein aavistanut. Ja hän mietti itsekseen,
siinä ulappain jäitä pitkin ajellessaan:
— Ai, ai, lankomies, sinä et taida olla omalla asiallasi, kun »me»
Turkuun ehdimme. Oma syysi, et uskonut kun sanoin: väärällä
tolalla!
Vaan sääli sinua on, jos nyt jo hirteen joudut, sääli hilpeää miestä!
Ja hän mietti siinä kauan itsekseen, tekisikö hän rikoksen
isäntäänsä vastaan, jos antaisi pienen viittauksen ja varotuksen
lankomiehelleen ja lähettäisi hänet kiireimmän kautta Ruotsiin
takaisin. Olisikohan siitä jälestäkäsin omatunto paha?
— Hm, mitä se tämä kaikki minuun kuuluu, pelastakoon mies
niskansa miten voi, päätteli hän vihdoin. — Vaan jos paikalle satun,
niin senverran toki sukulaisuuden vuoksi hänelle sanonen, että: nyt
luiki jalkoihisi ja pysy kaukana tästä maasta!

IX.
Talvisia retkiä.
Turun linnassa oli näinä päivinä monenlaisia vieraita. Ruotsalaiset
lähetyskunnat seurueineen, jotka täällä herttuan valtuuttamina
vierailivat, olivat sijoitetut ulompaan, n.s. uuteen linnaan,
suomalaiset aatelisherrat taas, jotka olivat saapuneet Turkuun
maansa hallinnon järjestämisestä neuvottelemaan, olivat saaneet
asuinpaikkansa vanhan linnan suojissa. Mutta olipa Turun linnassa
tilaa vaikka vielä useammillekin vieraille; se oli näihin aikoihin
hyvässä hoidossa ja sen kaikki rakennukset olivat asuttavassa
kunnossa.
Juhanan, Suomen herttuan, isännöidessä kolmisenkymmentä
vuotta sitten Turun linnassa ja siellä nuoren puolisonsa kanssa
pitäessä upeaa hovia, olivat näet vanhan Turun linnan rakennukset
kaikki korjatut ja siistityt sisästä ja ulkoa ja senkin jälkeen oli sen
rakennustöitä myötään pidetty vireillä, sen varustuksia lisätty, sen
asumuksia laajennettu. Linna sijaitsi siihen aikaan oikeastaan
saaressa, sillä Aurajoen suun ja Linna-aukon lahden välinen niemeke
oli katkastu laajalla, vedellä täytetyllä vallihaudalla, jonka yli

laskusilta johti; aallot lainehtivat siihen aikaan vielä ympäri linnan
aina muureihin saakka, joiden juurella nyt on kuiva maa. Laskusillan
ja pääportin kautta maanpuolelta linnaan tultaessa saavuttiin ensiksi
tuohon »uuteen linnaan», jota sillä nimellä kutsuttiin, koska se oli
myöhemmin rakennettu kuin linnan sisempi, harmaakivinen, vanha
osa, jonka alkujuuria tuskin enää tunnettiinkaan. Vanhan ja uuden
linnan välissä oli korkea valli, joten linnassa oli kaksi linnapihaa.
Tornit olivat vanhassa linnassa, sen itäisessä ja läntisessä päässä.
Tuossa sisemmässä linnassa olivat myöskin kaikki linnan juhlasuojat
ja vallashuoneet, siellä oli Klaus Flemingillä oma huoneustonsa Turun
linnassa oleskellessaan ja sinne saapuneet vieraatkin majoitettiin. Oli
kumminkin uudessakin linnassa muutamia huoneita matkustajia
varten varattu ja täällä se nyt nuori hovijunkkari Hieronymus
Birckholtz jo viikon päivät oli seurueineen majaillut, viettäen uhkeata
elämätä ja kopeana nauttien hyväkseen, mitä linnalla oli
tarjottavana.
Herttuan hovijunkkari esiintyi näet tällä matkallaan Suomessa
aivan toisella tavalla kuin tavallisilla pikaratsastusmatkoillaan, ja se
oli kaikki herttuan ansiota. Tämä tarmokas ruhtinas, joka suurten,
laajain suunnitelmainsa ohella oli sattumalta ja aluksi piloillaan,
mutta tavallisella kiihkollaan ja sitkeydellään, kiinnittänyt huomionsa
nuoren mielijunkkarinsa naimiskauppoihin marskin veljentyttären
kanssa, tahtoi myöskin voimalla ja arvolla ajaa ne perille. Hän ei
unhottanut sitä, että Klaus-herra tylysti ja kopeasti oli hyljännyt
hänen kosintansa suosikkinsa puolesta, se häntä ärsytti, hän tahtoi
pakottaa marskin myöntymään. Ja kun hän nyt oli Hieronymolta
kuullut, millä kannalla asiat olivat, oli hän hykeltänyt käsiään ja
ilkkuen nauranut: ahas, sinä Kuitian kopea herra, se temppu vetää,
holhokkisi joutuu sittenkin palvelijani vaimoksi ja unelmasi liitosta
Hornin suvun kanssa ovat mennyttä kalua!

Olipa vielä eräs erityinen syy, miksi herttua tuota naimiskauppaa
niin innolla harrasti. Fleming-suvun vallan ja mahtavuuden
perusteina ja tukena Suomessa olivat hänen laajat maatiluksensa,
jotka Klaus-herra osaksi oli perinyt, osaksi itse ansainnut. Mutta
perittyjen joukossa olivat myöskin ne tilukset, jotka hänen veljensä
Jaakkiman kuoltua olivat hänen käsiinsä joutuneet, vaikka ne
oikeastaan kuuluivat Jaakkiman ainoalle tyttärelle, Annalle. Jos nyt
Anna saisi uuden, herttualle uskollisen, holhoojan, joutuisi iso osa
marskin tiloista ja alustalaisista pois hänen välittömästä
vaikutuksestaan, ja ainahan sekin vähän hänen mahtavuuttaan
masentaisi.
Siksi varusti herttua mitä komeimmalla ja arvokkaimmalla tavalla
hovijunkkarinsa, tämän nyt lähtiessä melkein kuin pakolla vaatimaan
omakseen marskin veljentytärtä. Hieronymo sai seurueekseen viisi
nuorta junkkaria, joille kaikille herttuan kustannuksella teetettiin
uudet, loistavat puvut ja annettiin upeat ratsut ja kiiltävät aseet.
Vielä antoi herttua Hieronymolle, paitsi uutta suosituskirjettä,
erityisen turvakirjan, vaatien siinä kaikkia avustamaan junkkaria
tämän matkalla ja uhaten vihallaan ja kostollaan jokaista, joka
uskaltaisi jollakin tavoin häntä ehkäistä taikka ahdistella. Turun
linnan päällikkö, vanha Hannu Eerikinpoika Prinkkalan herra, sai
käskyn valmistaa Turun linnassa asunnon ja ravinnon Hieronymolle
ja hänen seurueelleen, ja useita vaikuttavia henkilöitä pyysi herttua
vielä erityisesti avustamaan suosikkiaan tämän yksityisissä
yrityksissä.
Vanha Prinkkalan herra, Turun linnan tarkka isäntä, marskin
innokas kannattaja ja ystävä, oli varsin tyytymätön noihin herttuan
käskyihin ja hän olisi mielellään ajanut ruotsalaiset junkkarit pellolle
linnastaan mässäämästä, jos vaan olisi uskaltanut niin jyrkästi

vastustella herttuan nimenomaista käskyä. Vaan Hieronymo
miehineen osasi taas puolestaan komeasti ja korskeasti komennella
esiin mitä parasta linnassa lie ollut syötävää taikka juotavaa. Ei siinä
säästetty linnan varoja, ei viinejä, ei oluvia eikä muita herkkuja, ja
linnan palvelijat saivat kuin orjat juosta heidän käskyläisinään ja
seistä heidän juomanlaskijoinaan. Kestejä pidettiin myöhään ja
varhain ja monta yötä läpeensä olivat nuoret kosioretkeläiset siten jo
hummanneet linnan vanhoilla viinivaroilla ja vankoilla olutpanoksilla.
Näitä kuluttamaan olivat nuoret hurjastelijat toisinaan kutsuneet
vieraikseen ketä kaupungilla tapasivat, hulivilipäitä
aatelisnuorukaisia, porvareita, lukiolaisia ja sällejä, — ei siinä
valikoitu eikä ikävää kärsitty.
Taaskin tänä iltana olivat häämatkalaiset koossa uuden linnan
alakerran suuressa holvisalissa ja joukko nuoria turkulaisia vietti iltaa
siellä heidän hauskassa, vallattomassa ja vieraanvaraisessa
seurassaan. He olivat tällä kertaa komentaneet ylös kellarista
kokonaisen oluttynnyrin ja istuivat nyt jakkaroilla sen ympärillä
vuoron päältä vääntäen kranaa ja laskien tinaisiin maljoihin tuota
vaahtoavaa, vankkaa juomaa. Seuraansa hauskuuttamaan olivat he
laskeneet sisälle ovensuuhun muutamia kierteleviä laulajia, jotka
olutpalkoista kitaran säestyksellä vetelivät iloisia lauluja, joihin
juhlajuojatkin usein yhtyivät. Ja tarina luisti sillävälin kepeästi ja
vallattomasti, huoli ei näyttänyt painavan ketään.
— Mutta kuinka kauan näitä juhlia jatketaan? kysäsi kumminkin
laulujen ja pilajuttujen lomaan eräs Ruotsista tulleista junkkareista,
kohentaessaan ilosesti roimuavaa takkavalkeaa.
— Mikäs jatkaessa, eikö sinun ole täällä hyvä olla? vastasi
Hieronymo huolettomasti. — Lisää olutta, — juo!

— Eipä siltä, terve, veli, vaan joku päähän näilläkin menoilla täytyy
olla —, olisipa hauska tietää, minkälainen pää se on.
— Hyvä pää, iloiset lopettajaiset, vakuutti Hieronymo toverilleen
häntä olalle taputtaen. — Pidetään kestejä tässä linnassa, kunnes
hedelmä on kypsynyt putoamaan puusta, kunnes Kuitian herra on
valmis laittamaan häitä. Vielä hän ei ole tullut kotiinkaan, meillä ei
ole kiirettä. Ja sittenkin tarvitsee hän kai muutamia päiviä
saadakseen kiroilla ja sadatella, — miksikä häntä hätäyttelisimme!
Odotetaan rauhassa, kunnes herttuan ja leskikuningattaren kirjeet,
tytön ja rouvan kyyneleet ja välttämätön pakko ovat tehneet
vaikutuksensa. Silloin vasta iskemme käsiksi, silloin vietetään häät ja
juodaan Kuitiassa Flemingin olusia, — hei vain!
Vaan tuo nuori ruotsalainen oli vieläkin hiukan epäilijä.
— Noinko varmaan uskot marskin sulle nyt tytön antavan? kysyi
hän. —
Muista, miten itse olet häntä sydämmiköksi kuvannut.
— Olkoon sydämmikkö, hänen täytyy taipua, katsos, mullahan ne
ovatkin nyt nuorat käsissäni. Vai luuletko hänen mieluummin
häpäsevän nimensä ja sukunsa, — ei, poikani, maltahan vielä
hetkinen, kunnes Flemingin talossa rupee kiire tulemaan ja hänen
nimensä juorujutuissa kulkee läpi maailman, — hän tulee itse häitä
tarjoamaan!
Koko maailma oli muuten jo hyvällä alulla puhumaan tuosta
jutusta, johon Flemingin nimi sekaantui, sen tiesi Hieronymo ja hän
piti kyllä itsekin huolta, että maine levisi. Aina uudessa seurassa oli
hän valmis kertomaan, millä asioilla hän täällä liikkui ja kuinka
hänellä oli varmat toiveet, eikä hän vähän tuttavallisemmassa piirissä

pitänyt tarpeellisena salata, »kuinka hullusti se oli sattunut
käymään». Sitenpä jo kuiskuttiinkin Flemingin neiden asiasta
aatelispiireissä, siksi sille nauroivat porvarit ja palkolliset sille
hihittivät. Tämä ei voi olla asian ratkaisuun vaikuttamatta, hedelmä
on kypsymässä.
— Entäpä jos marski pakottaa tytön kieltämään kaikki, jos sinun
oikeutesi väitetään valheeksi?
Puoleksi piloillaan tuo epäilevä nuorukainen näin vielä kiusasi
Hieronymoa. Vaan tämä remahti nauramaan.
— Ei, kuule veli, pakollakin on rajansa. Kuitian Klaus voi riehua ja
raivoilla, voi syöstä sappea ja myrkkyä, vaan tehtyä hän ei saa
tekemättömäksi, vaikka kiukkuunsa kuolisi. Mutta sekään ei olisi
hänelle terveellistä. Ja sitäpaitse, tyttö ei ole ainoastaan vallassani,
hän on puolellani.
— Heijaa siis, sen tytön kunniaksi juokaamme!
— Ja kaikkien tyttöjen, — nyt lauluksi pojat:
»In salutem virginum — bibas!
Absentium, presentium,
Et qvotqvot venientium, — bibas!»
Reippaasti remahti laulu hilpeässä juomaseurassa. Vaan kun laulu
oli lopussa ja sen jälkeen hetkisen äänettömyys vallitsi, silloin virkkoi
aivan vakavasti ja varmasti eräs seurassa olevista suomalaisista
Hieronymolle:
— Oikein on, että otat asian iloiselta kannalta, vaan mikäli marskin
tunnen, en usko hänen taipuvan tuumiisi sittenkään. Miten silloin

häittesi käy?
Hieronymokin kävi tuosta tuokioksi vakavaksi ja viivähti kotvasen,
ennenkuin vastasi:
— Sekin tapaus on otettu huomioon, silloin katkastaan juhlat
hetkeksi ja käydään toiseen leikkiin. Talven pimeimpänä yönä
ajetaan Kuitiaan ja viedään sieltä morsian holhoojan luvatta ja
varkain, — tyttö itse ei muuta toivokaan, ensi viittauksestani on hän
valmis rientämään vastaamme. Ja häät vietetään silloin Tukholmassa
tai Strömsholmassa tai marskin tiloilla Uplannissa, komeita juhlia
voidaan pitää sielläkin.
Näin Hieronymus aikeitaan kuvaili, koettaen heittäytyä leikilliseksi,
vaan näkyipä sentään, että asia ei hänestä pelkkää leikkiä ollut. Ja
tulisesti hän tovereilleen jatkoi:
— Mutta sinä yönä täytyy ratsujemme osottaa, mihin kykenevät
eikä saa silloin miehetkään säikkyä pieniä railoja Ahvenanmerellä.
Kuinka tahansa: tyttö on tuleva täältä mukaani Ruotsiin tavalla tai
toisella, sillä hän on minun!
— Oikein. Anna Flemingin malja!
— Ja onnellisen sulhasen malja!
— Ja marski Flemingin malja!
Ja taas pistettiin lauluksi. Raikkaasti kajahti linnan korkea holvi
kun nuorukaiset, yhä yltyen innossaan, vetelivät täysistä kurkuista
reippaita juomalaulujaan. Ja tinaiset maljat kalahtivat vastakkain ja
kumeasti vastasi korkea holvi:

— Bibas!
Vaan ylhäällä vanhan linnan puolella kiukutteli vanha, ahnas ja
tarkka Hannu Eerikinpoika tuota rähinää kuullessaan ja kiroili, kun
hänen vähäväliä täytyi hellittää kellarin avaimia lähettääkseen
herttuan suosittamille vieraille uusia herkkuja. Päätään puistelivat
tälle kaikelle ne toisetkin suomalaiset aatelisherrat, jotka näinä
päivinä oleskelivat Turun linnassa, sinne kokoontuneina herttualta
äsken saapuneiden, merkillisten kirjeiden johdosta. He olivat hyvin
epäilevällä kannalla siitä, mitähän noista herttuan hommista mahtoi
syntyä, niin toisesta kuin toisestakin, ja mitä tuloksia linnassa
viipyvät lähetyskunnat lopuksikin saanevat toimeen. Herttua oli
määrännyt Kaarlo Hornin Suomen sotaväen päälliköksi Flemingin
sijaan, taikka, ellei Horn siihen rupeaisi, Aksel Kurjen tai jonkun
muun. Horn, joka tämän asian vuoksi oli Kankaisista kävässyt
Turussa, oli ehdottomasti kieltäytynyt ja lähtenyt takasin kotiinsa,
sieltä pian matkustaakseen Ruotsiin. Ja Kurki, joka vielä oli Turussa,
ei uskaltanut hänkään ryhtyä sellaiseen toimeen vastoin Flemingin
tahtoa, — vaikka mieli olisi tehnytkin. Toiset aateliset taas vetäysivät
toistensa selän taa syrjään, nähdäkseen, miten asiat kehittyivät. He
olivat epävarmoja, marskin poissaollessa eivät he tahtoneet päättää
mitään ratkaisevaa ja niin oli asia yhä auki, vaikka herttuan
lähettiläät myötään jotakin ratkaisevaa vaativat. Ja marski viipyi
poissa. Kuinka Suomen herrat siellä Turun linnan juhlahuoneissa
neuvottelivatkaan, aina he tulivat siihen johtopäätökseen, että ilman
Klaus Flemingiä he eivät kykene mihinkään.
Heidän siitä juuri neuvotellessa kaikui äkkiä kavioiden kopsetta
sillalta, suurenlainen huovijoukko kuului sieltä ratsastavan linnaan.
Vanha Prinkkalan herra heristi hetkisen korviaan, kuunteli uteliaasti
ja tuntijan tavoin ja sitä tehdessään hänellä kasvot kirkastumistaan

kirkastuivat ja veitikka leikki hänen silmässään, kun hän
neuvotteleville herroille virkkoi:
— Minä luulen, että asiat pian selvenevät. Odottakaahan hetkinen.
Ja avopäin juoksi vanhus ulos vastaanottamaan tulijoita. Vaan
kokoontuneet aatelisherrat istuivat ääneti ja katselivat toisiaan.
Tuliko taas uusi käänne ja mihin suuntaan kävi se?
Tuokion kuluttua aukeni ovi taas ja Hannu Eerikinpojan
saattamana astui marski Klaus Fleming huoneeseen. Valo häikäsi
hetkeksi hänen pimeään tottuneita silmiään, joten hän pysähtyi
keskelle lattiata, heti tuntematta, ketä huoneessa oli. Vaan vielä
turkit päällään, lakki päässä, astui hän peremmäs ja kysyi jyrisevällä
äänellä, tervehtimättä yksityisesti ketään:
— Kuka se herroista on, joka täällä on asetettu sotaväkemme
komentoon ja Suomen käskynhaltijaksi?
Ei kuulunut hiiskahdustakaan. Marski seisoi hetkisen paikoillaan,
leväytti sitten turkkinsa auki, pani kädet lanteille ja virkkoi
ystävällisemmin:
— Minähän näen tässä vain tuttua väkeä. Sanokaa pois, kellä on
nyt komento Suomessa?
Ei kuulunut vieläkään vastausta salin perällä istuvain herrain
joukosta. Silloin virkahti vanha Prinkkalan herra koruttomasti:
— Eiköhän komento lie sillä, jolle kuningas sen on uskonut.
Ja Kurkikin, joka oli noussut ja käynyt marskia vastaan, ehätti nyt
todistamaan:

— Siitä ei lie epäilystä.
— No, se on totta puhuen minunkin käsitykseni asiasta, lausui
marski, viskatessaan turkit päältään. Hän tervehti nyt aatelisherroja
yksitellen, jatkaen puhettaan: — Terveeksi miehet, joka mies. Minä
olen jo vanha ja olen paljo mukana ollut, enkä viitsi koristella
tuumiani. Tässä maassa en ole mihinkään komentoon pyrkinyt enkä
sitä rukoillut, vaan on sen kuningas mulle tehtäväksi antanut. Ja niin
kauan kun hän mulle vallan tässä maassa uskoo, en siitä luovu, eikä
sitä multa riistetä, ellei ase kädessä. Te olette täällä kuulemma jo
kauan neuvotelleet ja vaivanneet päitänne. Se on ollut turhaa.
Meidän ei pidä neuvotella, meidän ei pidä hapuilla, meidän pitää vain
jokaisen täyttää velvollisuutemme ja horjahtamatta totella laillista
esivaltaamme. Meidän pitää olla suomalaisia!
Ne miehevät sanat olivat jo Suomen herroista riistäneet kaiken
epäilyksen. Hyväksyviä ääniä kuului joukosta:
— Se on miehen puhetta!
— Muuhun päätökseen emme ole mekään voineet tulla.
Ja Aksel Kurki lisäsi:
— Niin, täällä herttuan lähetyskunta odottaa vastausta. Vaan
teidän asia on, ei meidän, vastata herttualle.
— Me vastaamme kaikesta, meillä on se raskas velvollisuus ja
siihen olemme jo tottuneet, puhui marski istahtaen pöydän ääreen
lepäämään. — Herttua tahtoo meidät pois, koska olemme esteenä
hänen tuumilleen. Mihin asti nuo tuumat tähtäävät, sitä ei ole
meidän arvosteltava eikä se meidän menettelyämme muuta, vaikka

ne tähtäisivät itse Ruotsin kruunua. Me pysymme paikoillamme. Ja
me vastaamme hänelle kaikesta, kunnioittaen ja siivosti vastaamme,
mutta järkähtämättömästi, poikkeamatta hiuskarvaa siitä, mitä
oikeaksi katsomme ja mitä kuningas on käskenyt. Te olkaa huoleti!
Eikä ollut Suomen herroilla siihen mitään väittämistä. Hetkinen
siinä vain keskusteltiin vielä asiasta, ja täysi selvyys oli taas
palautettu. Silloin kääntyi marski vanhan linnanpäällikön puoleen:
— No, sinä ahnas Prinkkalan poika, itseäsi et ole koskaan
säästänyt, mutta linnan kellareita säästät aina niin tarkasti, kuin ei
viini olisikaan juotavaksi luotu. Vieläkö sulla on jälellä sitä Juhana-
herttuan aikuista hyvää espanjalaista?
— Vielä on tynnyri koskematonna tallessa, en ole sitä antanut,
vaikka tässä viime päivinä kyllä korkeammat käskyt ovatkin
kellareitamme komentaneet ja tyhjennelleet.
— Mitkä hiton korkeammat käskyt?
— Herttuan käskyt, lähettiläät, ja … ja sitten, vielä nuo kirotut
kosiomiehet, jotka ovat matkalla Kuitiaan.
Marski kävi yhtäkkiä vakavaksi ja hänellä oikesi vartalo suoraksi.
Tuokioksi oli hän unhottanut tuon toisen osan matkansa
tarkotuksesta,
vaan nyt hän olikin heti valmis siihen puuttumaan. Ankarasti hän
lausui
Prinkkalan herralle:
— Tuota heti tänne se viheliäinen vehkeilijä … no, etkö ymmärrä,
se herttuan kätyri, joka täällä linnassa kuuluu rehmivän. Heti! Vaan

malta: kenen luvalla olet täällä majoittanut ja kestinnyt tuota
rosvojoukkoa?
— Vastahakoisesti sen olen tehnyt, vaan heillä on herttualta sekä
turvakirjat että nimenomaiset käskyt.
— Hannu Eerikinpoika, sinä olet hyvä soturi, vaan sinä ajattelet
lyhyeen. Sinun ei tule ottaa vastaan käskyjä keltään muulta kuin
kuninkaalta tai minulta. — Tuo tänne se heittiö!
Prinkkalan herra meni, vaan palasi hetken kuluttua tyhmistyneenä
ja hätääntyneenä ilmoittamaan, että linnut olivat lähteneet lentoon.
Ruotsalaiset vieraat, jotka äsken vielä niin äänekkäästi hoilasivat
uudessa linnassa, olivat kohta marskin saavuttua nousseet satulaan
ja ratsastaneet linnasta ulos.
— Ahaa, hän pelkää jo, hän pakenee, raukka, huudahti marski
puolittain ilkkuen, puolittain kiivastuen. — Vaan me palautamme
hänet takasin Turun linnan kesteihin, vaikkapa vasten tahtoaankin,
sen lupaan.
Ja itse laskeusi marski linnanpihalle, jossa hänen huovinsa
parhaallaan harjasivat ja apettivat hiestyneitä ratsujaan, ja huusi
kovalla äänellä:
— Hei, huovini, satulaan teitä heti kymmenen miestä. Sinä Olavi
saat lähteä johtajaksi, osota nyt olevasi nopsa ja taitava.
Nämä viimeiset sanat virkkoi hän huovien joukossa olevalle
nuorukaiselle, äpäräpojalleen Olavi Klaunpojalle, joka näihin aikoihin
oleskeli Turun linnassa aseharjoituksia suorittamassa ja nuoren
hurjastelijan innolla paloi halusta päästä juuri tällaisille

seikkailuratsastuksille. Tuossa tuokiossa oli Olavi taluttanut ratsunsa
linnantallista ja kiipesi satulaan. Vaan marski antoi hänelle vielä
muutamia neuvoja ja osviittoja. Pakoonlähteneiden jälille piti Olavin
miehineen rientää ja tuoda heidät linnaan takasin jos mahdollista
hengissä. Sitä varten tuli hänen ensin kaupungissa ja sitten matkan
varrella tiedustella, mitä tietä junkkarit olivat ajaneet, ja viilettää
perästä, vaikka pitäisi viikon ratsastaa. Parilla sanalla hän vielä
viittasi, mistä syystä hän niin hartaasti halusi Birckholtzin käsiinsä ja
tämä viittaus yhä kiihotti nuorukaisen intoa.
Taas tömisi piha ja laskusilta, kun kymmenen huovia karautti sen
poikki kaupunkiin päin, ja marski nousi takasin linnan juhlasuojiin
jatkamaan seurusteluaan Suomen herrain kanssa, varmana ennen
pitkää saavansa tuon vihaamansa junkkarin tutkittavakseen. Olavi oli
kyllä tekevä parastaan, sen hän tiesi.
Tältä kumminkin vierähti kaupungissa kappale kallista aikaa,
ennenkuin hän sai varmat tiedot, että junkkarit olivat ajaneet
Hämeen tietä sisämaahan päin. Silloin hän karautti jälestä minkä
huovien väsyneet ratsut jaksoivat. Mutta ruotsalaiset junkkarit olivat
jo päässeet hyvän matkan edelle ja heillä oli levänneet, nopsat
hevoset.
Se sama kavioiden kopina, joka oli pannut Prinkkalan herran
heristämään korviaan, oli näet jo ensiksi kuulunut uuden,
portinpuoleisen linnan suureen holviin, jossa Hieronymo toveriensa
kanssa oli iloinnut ja juopotellut. Mutta hän oli
juhlahuumauksessakin aina varovainen ja tarkka ja kohta hän,
aavistaen marskin tulevan, oli kiirehtinyt ulos tietoja urkkimaan. Hän
näki marskin nousevan reestä, tunsi Gröningin hänen rinnallaan ja

riensi kohta hälinän kestäessä tätä kuiskien puhuttelemaan. Gröning
se hänelle ensiksi hätäillen virkkoikin:
— Nyt, lankomies, kiirehdi Ruotsiin, ellet erityisesti rakasta
hirttonuoraa.
— Enkä rakasta ensinkään, vaan onko tosiaankin ukko niin
vihassa? No, onhan mulla herttuan turvakirja.
— Se ei auta, tällaisena en ole ukkoa ennen koskaan nähnyt.
Eikäpä tuo ole kummakaan…
— So, so lankomies. Siinä tapauksessa ajan minä Kuitiaan, sehän
sopii hyvin, kun karhu on pesästään poissa.
— Sieltä et mitään löydä, aja vain suorinta tietä Ruotsiin.
— Mitä, onko Anna lähetetty pois? Minne, minne?
— Sitä ei kukaan tiedä, sisämaahan päin häntä kuljetettiin samalla
kuin me Kuitiasta lähdimme, ehkä matkalla Viipuriin, ehkä
Vironmaalle, ehkä Puolaan…
— Hyvästi, lankomies, tyttö on minun!
Enempää ei häntä Gröning ehtinyt varottaa, sillä poika oli jo
pyörähtänyt tiehensä, juuri samassa kuin marski nousi rappusia
myöten ylös linnanpäällikön huoneisiin. Hän oli komentanut juhlivat
toverinsa kaikessa hiljaisuudessa satulaan ja itse oli hän
eellimmäisenä ratsastanut kaupungin läpi Hämeen tielle. Hänen
kasvoillaan oli ollut hiukan ilkkuva piirre; hän oli todellakin toivonut,
että marski olisi olojen pakosta taipunut, vaan huomatessaan
lankonsa säikäyksen, oli hän oivaltanut, että niin ei ollut laita. Ja

silloin oli hän päättänyt ryhtyä toiseen keinoon, — sama se, kunhan
hän tytön omakseen saa, ja sen hän saa ja marskin hän nolaa, —
siitä hän itsekseen ilkkui. Mutta sitten oli hän taas käynyt vakavaksi
muistaessaan, että marski häntä luultavasti pian ajattaisi takaa ja
hän oli kannustanut ratsunsa hyvään vauhtiin, vaatien tovereitaan
tekemään samoin. Nämä seurasivat sangen kummastuneina mukana
ja hiukan tyytymättöminäkin, kun iloiset pidot noin äkkiä oli pitänyt
keskeyttää, ja he utelivat pisteliäästi Hieronymolta, mitä tämä öinen
huviratsastus nyt merkitsi.
— Tätä huviratsastusta tulee ehkä jatkettavaksi vielä päivälläkin,
seuratkaahan mukana vain, kehotti Hieronymo.
— Ja minne asti sitä sitten ajetaan?
— Sitä emme vielä tiedä. Mutta parantakaa vauhtia, meillä on kiire
monesta syystä.
Hieronymolle oli kohta lankonsa puheista selvinnyt, että hänen
täytyi kiireesti liikkua tavatakseen tyttönsä, jota nähtävästi oltiin
johonkin piilopaikkaan viemässä, — sitä ennen oli hän pelastettava
ja vietävä turvaan, joko Viroon tai Ruotsiin. Aikaa ei ollut hukata ja
siksi piti viipymättä ponnistaa. Onneksi hän jo tunsi tiet ja seudut
Suomessa, eikä hänellä siitä syystä pimeässäkään ollut epäilystäkään
matkan suunnasta, ajaessaan Hämeen valtatietä eteenpäin minkä
vain ratsut pääsivät lumisella maantiellä.
Turun-Hämeen vanhan valtatien varrella asuvat ihmiset olivat
näihin aikoihin usein tottuneet näkemään suurempia ja pienempiä
ratsujoukkoja niin talvella kuin kesälläkin kulkevan tätä tietä
edestakaisin, heillä oli monasti liiankin paljo tietoa ja kokemusta
noista vallattomista, kurittomista huovijoukoista, jotka matkoillaan

talonpoikain tuvissa kestityttivät itseään ja ottivat eväikseen ruokia ja
juomia, mitä vain irti saivat. Mutta ihmetellen katselivat nyt
kumminkin tienvartelaiset, jotka seuraavana aamuna seurasivat
maantieliikettä, niitä ratsastusseurueita, jotka peräkkäin heidän
ohitseen vilahtelivat. Aikusin aamulla tuli rannikon taholta ensiksi
umpinainen kuomureki puolenkymmenen huovin seuraamana,
pyrkien hyvää vauhtia itään päin. Tämän matkueen kulku oli
kumminkin paljo hitaampaa kuin sitä seuraavan, joka päivemmällä
vilisti ohi, ja tämä seurue se juuri talonpoikiin tekikin oudon
vaikutuksen. Nämä ratsastajat eivät näet olleet varsinaisia huoveja,
vaan hienopukuisia herrasmiehiä, jotka siroilla ratsuillaan ja
ohkasissa asuissaan näyttivät varsin köykäsiltä tuossa kylmässä,
lumisessa talviluonnossa. Päitset olivat kullatut, ohjasten helat
välähtelivät ja korskuen polkivat ratsut pehmyttä lunta, vaan
raskasta se näytti olevan. Vielä tuntia, toista, jälemmin karautti
samaa maantietä pitkin parvi karkeapartaisia, lyhyviin turkkeihin
puettuja ratsastajia, joilla oli pienet, märiksi ajetut hevoset ja jotka
paikkakuntalaiset kohta tunsivat Flemingin huoveiksi. Ja he olisivat
oivaltaneet nämä eri matkueet tavalla tai toisella toisiinsa kuuluviksi,
joskaan eivät ratsastajat aina kylän paikoilla olisi pysähtyneet
kyselemään, toinen parvi, oliko ensimmäinen siitä kulkenut ohi, ja
kolmas, oliko ja milloin toisen parven näköistä ratsastajajoukkoa
huomattu.
Lyhyviä levähdyshetkiä pitäen kulkivat matkueet siten eteenpäin
koko päivän, yhä lähennellen toisiaan, eivätkä malttaneet kauaksi
yölepoonkaan jäädä. Ja kun seuraava iltapäivä rupesi hämärtämään,
ei montakaan neljännestä enää ollut niiden väliä. Silloin oltiinkin jo
Hämeen sydämmessä, lähellä tuota Birger Jarlin vanhaa linnaa, joka
jo ammoisista ajoista oli ollut sisä-Suomen keskustana, sen
hallinnon, sen sotaväen ja sen kaiken toimeliaisuuden

keräyspaikkana. Tätä linnaa kohden ohjasi ensimmäinen matkue
kulkunsa ja sen jälestä toiset, yhä parannellen vauhtiaan. Hieronymo
näet rupesi arvaamaan, että marskilla oli aikomus tänne sisämaan
linnaan kätkeä ja haudata veljentyttärensä ja tahtoi siis kaikin
mokomin saavuttaa kuomureen, ennenkuin se ehtisi linnan muurien
sisäpuolelle, jossa Sten Fincke, jonka Sigismund vuosi sitten oli
määrännyt Hämeenlinnan päälliköksi, marskia miellyttääkseen kyllä
tulisi tyttöä tarkoin vartioimaan. Hevoset olivat väsyneet ja
kompastelivat lumessa ja liian vähän levänneet ajajatkin uupuivat
niin, että väliin torkahtelivat satulassa. Vaan ei auttanut, junkkarein
johtaja kannusti hevostaan ja toisten täytyi seurata perästä. Takaa-
ajajista he sitävastoin luulivat olevansa turvassa, niin vinha oli ollut
heidän vauhti.
Jo kuumottivat, heidän harjua ajaessaan, etäältä Hämeenlinnan
pyöreät tornit illan harmajaa taivasta vastaan ja se kiihotti
Hieronymoa yhä vieläkin. Ilta pimeni, esineet kävivät epäselviksi.
Vaan eräässä alamäessä oli hän näkevinään jotakin liikettä edessään,
ja aivan oikein, tuokion kuluttua hän jo tunsikin kuomureen ja sen
ympärillä viisi huovia. Vaan jo oltiinkin aivan linnaa ympäröivän
metsättömän aukon partaalla. Silloin hän pani kiirettä tovereihinsa;
yhdellä, äkkiarvaamattomalla hyökkäyksellä hän tahtoi hajoittaa
huovit ja anastaa kuomun haltuunsa. Siinä olivatkin jo kaikki toverit
koossa.
— Nyt myrskynä eteenpäin! komensi Hieronymo.
— Vaan takaakin kuuluu kavioiden kopsetta, huomautti yksi
jälempänä tulleista.
— Kuulukoon mitä tahansa. Tuiskuna kuomun kimppuun, se
otetaan mukaan ja yhtä höyryä porhalletaan siitä Vanajaveden jäälle

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
ebookbell.com

The Syntax Of Roots And The Roots Of Syntax 1st Edition Alexiadou

More Related Content

Similar to The Syntax Of Roots And The Roots Of Syntax 1st Edition Alexiadou (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

The Syntax Of Roots And The Roots Of Syntax 1st Edition Alexiadou