Cover not available
Part of
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2017: Selected papers from 'Going Romance' 31, Bucharest
Edited by Alexandru Nicolae and Adina Dragomirescu
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 355] 2021
► pp. 239–262

The causative-inchoative alternation (as we know it) might fall short

Crosslanguage systematicities and untapped data from Romance and Greek

| National Research Council-Argentina (CONICET)

This contribution challenges the claim that internal arguments are stable/constant arguments in the causative-inchoative alternation. It presents evidence that a third (external-argument-only) variant, produced by the standard combinatorial system, is possible (and systematic) in Romance and Greek. Free composition with a null causative v 0 independent of the internal-argument-licensing head: explains all the hallmarks of monadic (intransitive) variants; correctly preserves event/argument structure correlation (no internal-argument-introducing head, no change-of-state event); uncovers crosslanguage contrasts concerning ±availability of cause(r) interpretation of sole arguments in equipollent derivations. My argument is supported by a parallel with non-Romance languages with comparable morphology (Greek). Such symmetries show a transparent morpho-semantic-syntactic correlation in the choice of argument frame, extending to other verb classes with transitivity alternation. Greek and Romance data support a (a) wider causative alternation with expected semantic/syntactic/morphological implications; (b) (missing) structural distinction among (in)transitivity alternations. Arguably, languages may differ in the availability of this option, showing at least two patterns of variation.

Keywords: argument structure, alternation, intransitivity, causativity, stativity, syntax-semantics interface, Romance, Greek, changing morphology, VP-internal composition
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A basic monadic eventless configuration
    • 2.1Why not a null object?
    • 2.2Eventless monoargumental (and eventless cause)
    • 2.3Section summary
  • 3.Additional evidence
    • 3.1Psych verbs
    • 3.2Greek
    • 3.3Section summary
  • 4.Final remarks
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 December 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.355.12man
References
Alexiadou, Artemis & Elena Anagnostopoulou
2003 Voice morphology in the causative–inchoative alternation. In Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Martin Everaert (eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle, 115–136. Oxford: Oxord University Press.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Florian Schäfer
2006 The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. In Mara Frascarelli (ed.), Phases of interpretation, 187–211. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis & Gianina Iordăchioaia
2014 The psych causative alternation. Lingua 148. 53–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arad, Maya
1998 VP-Structure and the syntax-lexicon interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh & Roumyana Pancheva
2006 Implicit arguments. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, Volume 2, 558–588. Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cattaneo, Andrea
2008 Italian null objects and resultative/depictive predication. In Emily Elfner & Martin Wakov (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 37, 141–152. Amherst: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro
2004 A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences. In Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Martin Everaert (eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle, 22–59. Oxford: Oxord University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doron, Edit
2003 Agency and voice: The semantics of the Semitic templates. Natural Language Semantics 11. 1–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David
1979 Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Folli, Raffaella & Heidi Harley
2005 Flavors of v. In Roumyana Slabakova & Paula Kempchinsky (eds.), Aspectual inquiries, 95–120. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 Causation, obligation and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry 38. 207–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Folli, Raffaella, Heidi Harley & Simin Karimi
2005 Determinants of event type in Persian complex predicates. Lingua 115. 1365–1401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, Ken & Samuel J. Keyser
1988 Explaining and constraining the English middle. In Carol Tenny (ed.), Studies in Generative Approaches to Aspect, 41–58. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1993 On the argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Ken Hale & Samuel Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20, 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth; Samuel Jay Keyser
1998 The Basic Elements of Argument Structure. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 32, 73–118.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken & Samuel J. Keyser
2002 Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi
2012 Lexical decomposition in modern syntactic theory. In Wolfram Hinzen, Edouard Machery & Markus Werning (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compositionality, 328–350. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2014 On the identity of roots. Theoretical Linguistics 40. 225–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 The “bundling” hypothesis and the disparate functions of little v. In Roberta D’Alessandro, Irene Franco & Ángel J. Gallego (eds.), The verbal domain, 3–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1993 More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In Bernard Comrie & Maria Polinsky (eds.), Causatives and transitivity, 87–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1990 Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1991 Parts and boundaries. Cognition 41. 9–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth
1993 Verb classes in English. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport-Hovav
1995 Unaccusativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000 Classifying single argument verbs. In Peter Coopmans, Martin Everaert & Jane Grimshaw (eds.), Lexical specification and insertion, 269–304. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 An event structure account of English resultatives. Language 77. 766–797. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Lexicalized scales and verbs of scalar change. Paper presented at the 46th Annual Meeting of the CLS, Chicago, IL, April 8–10.
2012 Lexicon uniformity and the causative alternation. Martin Everaert, Marijana Marelj & Tal Siloni (eds.), The theta system, 1–19. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth
. Manuscript. English object alternations: A unified account. Stanford University 2006.Google Scholar
Maienborn, Claudia
2007 On Davidsonian and Kimian states. In Ileana Comorovski & Klaus von Heusinger (eds.), Existence: Syntax and semantics, 107–130. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Mangialavori Rasia, Maria Eugenia
2019 Stativity in the causative alternation? New questions and a new variant. Open Linguistics 5. 233–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mangialavori & Marin
2021 Psych verb transitivity: the English/Romance crosscut. Talk at Sensus 2. Constructing meaning in Romance. October 1 2021, UMass, Amherst.Google Scholar
Marín, Rafael & Louise McNally
2011 Inchoativity, change of state, and telicity: Evidence from Spanish reflexive psychological verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29. 467–502. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Massam, Diane
1989 Null objects and non-thematic subjects in middles and tough constructions. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 10. 95–118.Google Scholar
1992 Null objects and non-thematic Subjects. Journal of Linguistics 28. 115–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McIntyre, Andrew
2004 Event paths, conflation, argument structure and VP shells. Linguistics 42. 523–571. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piñón, Cristopher
2001 A finer look at the causative-inchoative alternation. In Rachel Hastings, Brendan Jackson & Zsofia Zvolenszky (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory XI, 346–364. Ithaka: CLC Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian
2008 Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first-phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya
2002 The theta system: An overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28. 229–290.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
2003 Comparative syntax and language acquisition. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian
1987 The representation of implicit and dethematized subjects. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosen, Susan
1996 Events and verb classification. Linguistics 34. 191–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rothmayr, Antonia
2009 The structure of stative verbs. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, Susan
2012 Another look at accomplishments and incrementality. In Violeta Demonte & Louise McNally (eds.), Telicity, change and state, 60–102. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Russi, Cinzia
2008 Italian clitics. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa & Eunjeong Oh
2007 On the syntactic composition of manner and motion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar