Anticausativization

Original Paper

Abstract

This paper provides a comprehensive review and analysis of the facts of anticausativization, the phenomenon whereby an inchoative verb is morphologically derived from its causative counterpart (e.g., Spanish romper ‘break (trans)’ versus romperse ‘break (intrans)’). It treats the phenomenon as reflexivization (Chierchia 2004), providing a number of new arguments for this kind of treatment, and showing how it, as opposed to alternatives in the literature, accounts for the wide range of data reviewed. In addition, the facts laid out show that inchoatives derived from causatives retain the CAUSE operator present in the lexical semantic representation of the causative verb from which they are derived, contrary to the widely held view of anticausativization as a process that deletes a CAUSE operator. In this way, it is shown that anticausativization does not provide an argument against the Monotonicity Hypothesis, the idea that word formation operations do not delete operators from lexical semantic representations.

Keywords

Lexical semantics Word formation Anticausatives Reflexives Causative alternation Monotonicity Hypothesis Spanish Ulwa 

References

  1. Alexiadou, Artemis, and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 2004. Voice morphology in the causative-inchoative alternation: Evidence for a non-unified structural analysis of unaccusatives. In The unaccusativity puzzle: Explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface, eds. Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Martin Everaert, 114–136. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  2. Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Florian Schäfer. 2006. The properties of anti-causatives crosslinguistically. In Phases of interpretation, ed. Mara Frascarelli, 187–211. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  3. Arad, Maya. 2003. Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: The case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 737–778. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arad, Maya. 2005. Roots and patterns: Hebrew morpho-syntax. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar
  5. Bach, Emmon. 1986. The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9: 5–16. References to reprint in Paul Portner and Barbara H. Partee (eds.) (2002) Formal semantics: The essential readings. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  6. Baker, Mark C.. 2003. Lexical categories: Verbs, nouns, and adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  7. Beavers, John, and Andrew Koontz-Garboden. 2006. A universal pronoun in English? Linguistic Inquiry 37: 503–513. Google Scholar
  8. Benedicto, Elena, and Ken Hale. 2000. Mayangna, a Sumu language: Its variants and its status within Misumalpan. In Indigenous languages, ed. Elena. Benedicto. Vol. 20. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics. Google Scholar
  9. Bierwisch, Manfred. 1986. On the nature of semantic form in natural language. In Human memory and cognitive capabilities: Mechanisms and performances, eds. F. Klix and H. Hagendorf, 765–784. Amsterdam: Elsevier (North-Holland). Google Scholar
  10. Brousseau, Anne-Marie, and Elizabeth Ritter. 1991. A non-unified analysis of agentive verbs. In Proceedings of the tenth west coast conference on formal linguistics, ed. Dawn Bates, 53–64. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  11. Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1992. Current morphology. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
  12. Centineo, Giulia. 1995. The distribution of si in Italian transitive/inchoative pairs. In Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory. Vol. 5, 54–71. Ithaca: Cornell Linguistics Circle. Google Scholar
  13. Chierchia, Gennaro. 2004. A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences. In The unaccusativity puzzle, eds. Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Martin Everaert, 22–59. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Previously circulated as unpublished 1989 Cornell University manuscript. Google Scholar
  14. Croft, William. 1990. Possible verbs and the structure of events. In Meanings and prototypes, ed. Savas L. Tsohatzidis, 48–73. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  15. Cusihuaman, Antonio. 1976. Gramática Quechua: Cuzco-Collao. Lima: Ministerio de Educación, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Google Scholar
  16. DeLancey, Scott. 1984. Notes on agentivity and causation. Studies in Language 8: 181–213. Google Scholar
  17. Doron, Edit. 2003. Agency and voice: The semantics of Semitic templates. Natural Language Semantics 11: 1–67. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dowty, David. 1978. Governed transformations as lexical rules in a Montague grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 9: 393–426. Google Scholar
  19. Dowty, David. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing. Google Scholar
  20. Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67: 547–619. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Embick, David. 1997. Voice and the interfaces of syntax. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Google Scholar
  22. Embick, David. 1998. Voice systems and the syntax/morphology interface. In Papers from the UPenn/MIT roundtable on argument structure and aspect. Vol. 32, 41–72. MITWPL. Google Scholar
  23. Embick, David. 2004. On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 355–392. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Faltz, Leonard M. 1985. Reflexivization: A study in universal syntax. New York: Garland Publishing. Google Scholar
  25. Fillmore, Charles. 1970. The grammar of hitting and breaking. In Readings in English transformational grammar, eds. Roderick Jacobs and Peter Rosenbaum. Waltham: Ginn. Google Scholar
  26. Foley, William A., and Robert D. VanValin. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  27. Folli, Raffaella. 2001. Constructing telicity in English and Italian. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oxford, Oxford. Google Scholar
  28. Fukuda, Shin. 2008. The projection of telicity in vietnamese. In Proceedings of the 37th meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, eds. Emily Elfner and Martin Walkow, 219–231. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  29. Garcia, Erica C. 1975. The role of theory in linguistic analysis: The Spanish pronoun system. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Google Scholar
  30. Grahek, Sabina. 2002. Alternating unaccusative verbs in Slovene. In Leeds working papers in linguistics and phonetics, ed. Diane Nelson. Vol. 9, 57–72. School of Modern Languages and Cultures: Linguistics and Phonetics, Leeds: University of Leeds. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/linguistics/WPL/WPL9.html. Google Scholar
  31. Green, Thomas. 1999. A lexicographic study of Ulwa. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
  32. Grimshaw, Jane. 1982. On the lexical representation of Romance reflexive clitics. In The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. Joan Bresnan, 87–148. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  33. Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  34. Guerssel, Mohamed, Kenneth Hale, Mary Laughren, Beth Levin, and Josie White Eagle. 1985. A cross-linguistic study of transitivity alternations. In Proceedings of the 21st annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Vol. 2 of Parasession on causatives and agentivity, 48–63. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Google Scholar
  35. Hale, Kenneth L., and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1987. A view from the middle. In Lexicon project working papers 10. Center for Cognitive Science. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  36. Hale, Kenneth L., and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1998. The basic elements of argument structure. In Papers from the UPenn/MIT roundtable on argument structure and aspect. Vol. 32, 73–118, MITWPL. Google Scholar
  37. Hale, Kenneth L., and Samuel Jay Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  38. Hall, Barbara (Partee). 1965. Subject and object in modern English. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. References to published version, 1979, Garland, New York. Google Scholar
  39. Härtl, Holden. 2003. Conceptual and grammatical characteristics of argument alternations: The case of decausative verbs. Linguistics 41: 883–916. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Haspelmath, Martin. 1987. Transitivity alternations of the anticausative type. Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft Universität zu Köln. Google Scholar
  41. Haspelmath, Martin. 1990. The grammaticization of passive morphology. Studies in Language 14: 25–72. Google Scholar
  42. Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In Causatives and transitivity, eds. Bernard Comrie and Maria Polinsky, 87–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  43. Haspelmath, Martin. 2005. Universals of causative verb formation. LSA Institute class handout, August 2, 2005. Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
  44. Holm, John. 1978. The creole English of Nicaragua’s Miskito coast. Doctoral Dissertation, University of London, University College, London. Google Scholar
  45. Horn, Laurence. 1985. Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language 61: 121–174. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Horvath, Julia, and Tal Siloni. 2002. Against the “little-v” hypothesis. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 27: 107–122. Google Scholar
  47. Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  48. Juarros, Eva. 2003. Argument structure and the lexicon/syntax interface. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. Google Scholar
  49. Kallulli, Dalina. 2006a. On unaccusative morphology and argument realization. Vienna: University of Vienna. Google Scholar
  50. Kallulli, Dalina. 2006b. Unaccusatives with dative causers and experiencers: A unified account. In Datives and other cases: Between argument structure and event structure, eds. Daniel Hole, André Meinunger, and Werner Abraham, 271–301. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  51. Kallulli, Dalina. 2007. Rethinking the passive/anticausative distinction. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 770–780. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Keenan, Edward. 1985. Passive in the world’s languages. In Language typology and syntactic description, ed. Timothy Shopen. Vol. 1, 242–281. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  53. Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The middle voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  54. Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2006. The states in changes of state. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (in press). Google Scholar
  55. Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2007a. The Monotonicity Hypothesis. University of Manchester, manuscript. Google Scholar
  56. Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2007b. States, changes of state, and the Monotonicity Hypothesis. Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Google Scholar
  57. Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2008a. Monotonicity at the lexical semantics–morphosyntax interface. In Proceedings of the 37th meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, eds. Emily Elfner and Martin Walkow. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  58. Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2008b. Ulwa verb class morphology. International Journal of American Linguistics 76(2) (in press). Google Scholar
  59. Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, eds. Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  60. Labelle, Marie. 1992. Change of state and valency. Journal of Linguistics 28: 375–414. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lakoff, George. 1965. On the nature of syntactic irregularity. Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. Published 1970 as Irregularity in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Google Scholar
  62. Lakoff, Robin. 1971. Passive resistance. In Proceedings of the seventh annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 149–163. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Google Scholar
  63. Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  64. Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  65. Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1998. Morphology and lexical semantics. In Handbook of morphology, eds. Arnold Zwicky and Andrew Spencer, 248–271. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  66. Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  67. Lieber, Rochelle. 1980. On the organization of the lexicon. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
  68. Lieber, Rochelle. 2004. Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  69. Manzini, Maria Rita. 1983. On control and control theory. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 421–446. Google Scholar
  70. Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  71. Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In Proceedings of the 21st annual penn linguistics colloquium. Vol. 4.2 of University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 201–225. Google Scholar
  72. Marcotte, J.P. 2005. Causative alternation errors in child language acquisition. Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Google Scholar
  73. Marušič, Franc, and Rok Žaucer. 2006. On the intensional feel-like construction in Slovenian: A case of a phonologically null verb. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24: 1093–1159. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. McCawley, James. 1968. Lexical insertion in a transformational grammar without deep structure. In Proceedings of the fourth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 71–80. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Google Scholar
  75. McKoon, Gail, and Talke Macfarland. 2000. Externally and internally caused change of state verbs. Language 76: 833–858. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. McKoon, Gail, and Talke Macfarland. 2002. Event templates in the lexical representation of verbs. Cognitive Psychology 45: 1–44. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Mendikoetxea, Amaya. 1999. Construcciones inacusativas y pasivas. In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua Española, eds. Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte, 1575–1629. Madrid: Editorial Espasa. Google Scholar
  78. Montague, Richard. 1973. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In Approaches to natural language, eds. K.J.J. Hintikka, J.M.E. Moravcsik, and P. Suppes, 221–242. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing. References to reprinted version in Paul Portner and Barbara Partee (eds.) 2002. Formal semantics: The essential readings. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 17–34. Google Scholar
  79. Nedjalkov, Vladimir P., and G.G. Silnitsky. 1973. The typology of morphological and lexical causatives. In Trends in Soviet theoretical linguistics, ed. Ferenc Kiefer, 1–32. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing. Google Scholar
  80. Newmark, Leonard, Philip Hubbard, and Peter Prifti. 1982. Standard Albanian: A reference grammar for students. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar
  81. Nichols, Johanna, David Peterson, and Jonathan Barnes. 2004. Transitivizing and detransitivizing languages. Linguistic Typology 8: 149–212. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Norwood, Susan. 1997. Gramática de la lengua Sumu. Managua: CIDCA. Google Scholar
  83. Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the semantics of English: A study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  84. Perlmutter, David. 1978. Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. In Proceedings of the fourth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 157–189. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Google Scholar
  85. Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiencer and cascades. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  86. Piñón, Christopher. 2001a. A finer look at the causative-inchoative alternation. In Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory 11. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistics Circle. References to prepublication manuscript on www. http://www.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/~pinon/papers/flcia.html.
  87. Piñón, Christopher. 2001b. Modelling the causative-inchoative alternation. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 76: 273–293. Google Scholar
  88. Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  89. Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  90. Pylkkänen, Liina. 2000. On stativity and causation. In Events as grammatical objects, eds. Carol Tenny and James Pustejovsky, 417–445. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  91. Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Beth Levin. 1998. Building verb meanings. In The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, eds. Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder, 97–134. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  92. Reinhart, Tanya. 1996. Syntactic effects of lexical operations: Reflexives and unaccusatives. In OTS working papers. Downloaded from author’s website: http://www.let.uu.nl/~tanya.reinhart/personal/.
  93. Reinhart, Tanya. 2002. The theta system: An overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28: 229–290. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Reinhart, Tanya, and Eric Reuland. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 657–720. Google Scholar
  95. Reinhart, Tanya, and Tal Siloni. 2005. The lexicon-syntax parameter: Reflexivization and other arity operations. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 389–436. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Roeper, Thomas. 1987. Implicit arguments and the head-complement relation. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 267–310. Google Scholar
  97. Rothstein, Susan. 2004. Structuring events. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Sadler, Louisa, and Andrew Spencer. 1998. Morphology and argument structure. In Handbook of morphology, eds. Arnold Zwicky and Andrew Spencer, 206–236. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  99. van der Sandt, Rob A. 1991. Denial. In Papers from the Chicago Linguistic Society: The parasession on negation. Vol. 27, 331–344. Chicago. Google Scholar
  100. Scalise, Sergio. 1986. Generative morphology. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  101. Schäfer, Florian. 2007. On the nature of anticausative morphology: External arguments in change-of-state contexts. Doctoral Dissertation, Universität Stuttgart, Stuttgart. Google Scholar
  102. Schladt, Matthias. 2000. The typology and grammaticalization of reflexives. In Reflexives: Forms and functions, eds. Zygmunt Frajzyngier and Traci S. Curl. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  103. Siewierska, Anna. 1984. The passive: A comparative linguistic analysis. London: Croom Helm. Google Scholar
  104. Simons, Mandy. 1995. The binyan Hitpa’el decomposed: On the derivation and function of the Hebrew binyan Hitpa’el. In Proceedings of the eleventh annual conference of the Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics, 143–167. Google Scholar
  105. Smith, Carlota. 1970. Jespersen’s ‘move and change’ class and causative verbs in English. In Linguistic and literary studies in honor of Archibald A. Hill, eds. Mohammad A. Jazayery, Edgar C. Polomé, and Werner Winter. Vol. 2 of Descriptive linguistics, 101–109. The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar
  106. Van Valin, Robert D., and David P. Wilkins. 1996. The case for “effector”: Case roles, agents and agency revisited. In Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning, eds. Masayoshi Shibatani and Sandra A. Thompson, 289–322. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  107. Van Voorst, Jan. 1995. The semantic structure of causative constructions. Studies in Language 19: 489–523. Google Scholar
  108. Wechsler, Stephen. 2005. More problems for ‘little v’—and a lexicalist alternative. Talk presented on October 11, 2005 at the Construction of Meaning Workshop, Stanford University. Google Scholar
  109. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1980. Lingua mentalis: The semantics of natural language. Sydney: Academic Press Australia. Google Scholar
  110. Wunderlich, Dieter. 1997. Cause and the structure of verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 27–68. Google Scholar
  111. Zubair, Cala, and John Beavers. 2008. Non-nominative subjects and the involitive construction in Sinhala. Handout of paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Jan. 4, 2008, Chicago. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Linguistics and English LanguageThe University of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations