Advertisement

Experiencers and Causation

Chapter
Part of the Jerusalem Studies in Philosophy and History of Science book series (JSPS)

Abstract

In this paper, we use the domain of object experiencer verbs in Greek to discuss the behavior of non-agentive causative construals of this verb class with clear implications for the syntax of causative predicates in general. We argue that eventive causative object experiencer verbs are best analyzed as instances of transitive internally caused change of state verbs. We then explore the consequences of this analysis for a group of verbs that have been labeled in the literature defeasible causative verbs. We substantiate the proposal that the layer introducing agents as external arguments is distinct from the layer introducing causers as external arguments. As a result, causers are conceived of as being part of the same event structural component that contains the resultant state, while agents are separated from it, being introduced in VoiceP.

Keywords

Object experiencer Causer Agent Internally caused change of state verbs Defeasible causatives Dependent case 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to three anonymous reviewers and the editors of this volume for their comments. Special thanks to Fabienne Martin and Malka Rappaport Hovav. AL 554/8-1 (Alexiadou) is hereby acknowledged.

References

  1. Alexiadou, A. (2014). The problem with internally caused change-of-state verbs. Linguistics, 52, 879–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexiadou, A. (2018). Able adjectives and the syntax of psych verbs. Glossa: a Journal of General Linguistics, 3, 74.  https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexiadou, A., & Anagnostopoulou, E. (2009). Agent, causer and instrument PPs in Greek: Implications for verbal structure. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 57, 1–16.Google Scholar
  4. Alexiadou, A., & Anagnostopoulou, E. (2019). Novel object experiencer predicates and clitic doubling. Syntax.  https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.1217.
  5. Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., & Schäfer, F. (2006). The properties of anticausativs cross-linguistically. In M. Frascarelli (Ed.), Phases of interpretation (pp. 187–212). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., & Schäfer, F. (2015). External arguments in transitivity alternations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Alexiadou, A., & Iordăchioaia, G. (2014). The psych causative alternation. Lingua, 148, 53–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Anagnostopoulou, E. (1994). Clitic dependencies in Modern Greek. PhD dissertation, University of Salzburg.Google Scholar
  9. Anagnostopoulou, E. (1999). On experiencers. In A. Alexiadou, G. Horrocks, & M. Stavrou (Eds.), Studies in Greek syntax (pp. 67–93). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Anagnostopoulou, E. (2003). The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  11. Anagnostopoulou, E., & Sevdali, C. (2018). Two modes of dative and genitive case assignment: Evidence from two stages of Greek. Ms. U Crete and U Ulster (submitted).Google Scholar
  12. Arad, M. (1998). Psych-notes. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 10, 203–223.Google Scholar
  13. Baker, M. (2015). Case: Its principles and parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Baker, M., & Vinokurova, N. (2010). Two modalities of case assignment in Shaka. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 28, 593–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L. (1988). Psych-verbs and theta-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6, 291–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Campbell, R., & Martin, J. (1989). Sensation predicates and the syntax of stativity. Proceedings of WCCFL, 8, 44–55.Google Scholar
  17. Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step. Essays on minimalist syntax in honour of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–155). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Croft, W. (1998). Event structure and argument linking. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and syntactic constraints (pp. 21–63). Stanford: CLSI Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 20, 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Harley, H., & Noyer, R. (2000). Formal vs. Encyclopedic properties of vocabulary: Evidence from nominalization. In B. Peters (Ed.), The lexicon-encyclopedia interface (pp. 349–374). Amsterdam: Elsevier Press.Google Scholar
  24. Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD dissertation, Universtiy of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  25. Kratzer, A. (1996). Severing the external argument from its verb. In J. Rooryck & L. Zaring (Eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon (pp. 109–137). Kluwer: Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Landau, I. (2010). The locative syntax of experiencers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lavidas, N. (2007). The diachrony of Greek anticausative morphology. In A. Alexiadou (Ed.), Studies in the morpho-syntax of Greek (pp. 106–135). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  29. Levin, B. (2009). Further explorations of the landscape of causation: comments on the paper by Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 49, 239–266.Google Scholar
  30. Levin, B., & Hovav, M. R. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Marantz, A. (1991). Case and licensing. Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL ’91), 8, 234–253.Google Scholar
  32. McCoon, G., & Macfarland, T. (2000). Externally and internally caused change of state verbs. Language, 76, 833–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martin, F. (This volume). Aspectual differences between agentive and non-agentive uses of causative predicates. In Perspectives on causation. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Martin, F., & Schäfer, F. (2017). Sublexical modality in defeasible causative verbs. In A. Arregui, M. L. Rivero, & A. Salanova (Eds.), Modality across categories (pp. 87–108). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Masullo, P. (1993). Two types of quirky subjects: Spanish vs. Icelandic. Proceedings of NELS, 23, 303–317.Google Scholar
  36. Oehrle, R. (1976). The grammatical status of the English dative alternation. PhD thesis. MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  37. Pesetsky, D. (1995). Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Pylkkänen, L. (2002). Introducing arguments. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  39. Ramchand, G. (2008). First phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Reinhart, T. (2002). The theta system: An overview. Theoretical Linguistics, 28(3), 229–290.Google Scholar
  41. Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B. (2012). Lexicon uniformity and the causative alternation. In M. Everaert, M. Marelj, & T. Siloni (Eds.), The theta system: Argument structure at the interface (pp. 150–176). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Roussou, A., & Tsimpli, I. (2007). Clitics and transitivity. In A. Alexiadou (Ed.), Studies in the morpho-syntax of Greek (pp. 138–174). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  43. Schäfer, F. (2008). The syntax of (anti-)causatives. External arguments in change-of-state contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schäfer, F. (2012). Two types of external argument licensing: The case of causers. Studia Linguistica, 66, 128–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Solstad, T. (2009). On the implicitness of arguments in event passives. Proceedings of NELS, 38, 365–375.Google Scholar
  46. Stowell, T. (1986). Psych-movement in the mapping between D- structure and LF. Paper presented at GLOW 9.Google Scholar
  47. Verhoeven, E. (2009). Experiencer objects and object clitics in Modern Greek: Evidence from a corpus study. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Greek Linguistics (pp. 574–588).Google Scholar
  48. Wright, S. (2001). Internally caused and externally caused change of state verbs. Northwestern University dissertation.Google Scholar
  49. Wright, S. (2002). Transitivity and change of state verbs. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 28, 339–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Humboldt Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Leibniz-Zentrum Allgemeine SprachwissenschaftBerlinGermany
  3. 3.University of CreteRethymnoGreece

Personalised recommendations