Cover not available
Part of
Current Issues in Syntactic Cartography: A crosslinguistic perspective
Edited by Fuzhen Si and Luigi Rizzi
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 267] 2021
► pp. 139–160

Chapter 7
Causativity alternation in the lower field

| University Moulay Ismail Meknes
We will argue in this paper that the lower field of the sentence, little vP, is endowed with a new functional category cause phrase (causP). We will severet anticausativity from voice. We will propose that anticausative morphology in standard Arabic (SA) is projected in syntax closer to the root, between the root and v°. Our proposition has two important consequences. The first one, it denies the existence of the strict locality between a root and its categorizer. The second one, it confirms that agentive and causer subjects will occupy different hierarchical positions inside of the sentence (IP). We will see that transcategorial derivations of derived nominals from the verb conserves anticausative morphology, but it cannot do so with passive morphology. This is a strong fact confirming the different syntactic status of the two kinds of morphology. Moreover, the distribution of agentive and causer subjects with subject oriented adverbs (SOA) and manner adverbs (MA) shows an asymmetry between the two in linking SOA and MA. We will explain this asymmetry between agent and causer subjects by their different syntactic positions into the structure of IP. Thereafter, we will extend our analysis to nominal events too.
Keywords: causativity, lower field, anticausativity, Standard Arabic, agent subject, causer subject, subject oriented adverbs (SOA), manner adverbs (MA)
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The morpho-syntactic nature of non-active morphology
    • 2.1The multiples ways of anticausatives realization in SA
    • 2.2Non-active morphology in SA
      • 2.2.1On the difference between voice and anticausative morphology
      • 2.2.2The homonymy of voice morphology
  • 3.Anticausative morphology is not a part of the root
    • 3.1Locality between roots and little v
  • 4.Anticausative morphology and transcategorial derivation
  • 5.Adverb distribution within anticausatives
    • 5.1Repetitive and restitutive adverbs
    • 5.2PP instruments and goals
  • 6.Causativity and agentivity in event nominals
    • 6.1Adverbs distribution in nominal domains
    • 6.2Agentivity in event nominals
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 October 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.267.07naj
References (68)
References
Alexiadou, Artemis & Lohndal, Terje. 2017. On the division of labor between roots and functional structure. In The Verbal Domain, Roberta D’Alexandro, Irene Franco & Àngel J. Gallego (eds), 85–104. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena, Spathas, Giorgos & Lechner, Winfried. 2015. On deriving the typology of repetition and restitution. Paper presented at Glow 2015, Paris 8 and CNRS. Paris.
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2014. Roots don’t take complements. Theoretical Linguistics 40: 287–298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Where is non-active morphology? In Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Stefan Müller (ed.), 244–262. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
. 2010. On the morpho-syntax of (anti-) causative verbs. In Syntax Lexical Semantics and Event Structure, Malka Rappaport Hovav, Edith Doron & Ivy Sichel (eds), 177–203. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. On the role of syntactic locality in morphological processus: The case of (Greek) derived nominals. In Quantification, Definitness and Nominalization, Anastasia Giannakidou & Monika Rathert (eds), 253–280. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Schäffer, Florian. 2006. The properties of anticausatives cross-linguistically. In Phases of Interpretation, Mara Frascarelli (eds), 187–212. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Everaert, Martin. 2004. The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Studies on the Syntax-Lexicon Interface, 1–21. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis. 1997. Adverb Placement. A Case Study in Antisymmetric Syntax [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 18]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alkaabi, Maera. 2015. The Anatomy of Arabic Words: The Role of the Root in Representation and Processing. PhD dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
Ayyat, Amjed Ahmed, Sultan, Fazal Mohamed & Yasin, Mohamed Subakir Mohd. 2013. A minimalist approach to short passive in Standard Arabic. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 7 (9): 375–382.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2014. Roots and domains, some remarks “On the Identity of Roots”. Theoretical Linguistics 40: 299–310.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Samioti, Yota. 2014. Domaine within words and their meanings: A case study. In The Syntax of Roots and the Roots of Syntax, Artemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer & Florian Schäfer (eds). Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arad, Maya. 2005. Roots and Patterns: Hebrew morphosyntax. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
. 2003. Locality constraints on the interpretation: The case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 737–778. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 2013. The roots of language. In The Boundaries of Pure Morphology, Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden & John Charles Smith (eds). Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayrou, Ahn. 2016. Severing internal arguments from their predicates: An English case study. Paper presented at Swarthmore College, 8 January 2016.
Beavers, John & Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2013. In defense of the reflexivization analysis of anti-causatives. Lingua 131: 199–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boecks, Cederic. 2008. Bare syntax. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2014. Wherefore roots? Theoretical Linguistics 40: 343–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Taking Form, Structuring Sense, Vol. III. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. In Name Only, Structuring Sense, Vol. I. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Robert Freiden, Carlos P. Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale. A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowics (ed.). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds), 184–221. Walthan MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen. 2014. On diagnosing complement-taking roots. Theoretical Linguistics 40: 361–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danbolt Ajer, Hanna. 2017. The middle voice, valency and Aktionsart in the Arabic verb. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 10: 1–21.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 2002. Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
De Belder, Marijke & van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen. 2015. How to merge a root. Linguistic Inquiry 46(4): 625–655. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doron, Edith. 2003. Agency and voice: The semantics of the semitic templates. Natural Language Semantics 11: 1–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dubinsky, Stanley & Simango, Sylvester Ron. 1996. Passive and stative in Chichewa: Evidence for modular distinctions in grammar. Language 72: 497–781. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, David & Marantz, Alec. 2008. Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39(1): 1–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ernst, Thomas. 2001. The Syntax of Adjuncts. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Semantic features and the distribution of adverbs. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 17: 79–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 1988. Arabic passive affixes as aspectual predicates. Ms, MIT & Faculty of Letters, University of Rabat.Google Scholar
Folli, Raffaella & Harley, Heidi. 2008. Teleology and animacy in external arguments. Lingua 118(2): 190–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Causation, obligation, and argument structure: On the nature of little v. Linguistic Inquiry 38(2): 197–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Flavours of v: Consuming results in Italian & English. In Aspectual Inquiries, Paula Kempchinsky & Roumyana Slabakova (eds). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2017. The “bundling” hypothesis and the disparate functions of little v. In The Verbal Domain, Roberta D’Alessandro, Irene Franco & Angél J. Gallego (eds). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2013. External arguments and the mirror principal: On the distinctness of voice and v. Lingua 125(1): 34–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. How do verbs take their names? Denominal verbs, manner incorporation and the ontology of roots in English? In Nomi Erteschik-Shir and Tova Rapoport (eds.), The Syntax of Aspect. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horvarth, Julua & Siloni, Tal. 2013. Anticausatives have no causer: Arejoindre to Beavers and Koontz-Garboden. Lingua 131: 217–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jason, Merchant. 2016. Roots don’t select: A novel argument from category-dependent I-selection. Paper presented at 42nd meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 2016.
Kalluli, Dalina. 2006. A unifed analysis of passives, anticausatives and reflexives. In Emperical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 6, Olivier Bonami & Patricia Cabredo Hofher (eds), 201–225. <[URL]> (28 January 2021).
Koontz-Garboden, Andrew & Beavers, John. 2017. Change of state verbs and the semantics of roots. In the Proceedings of 34th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Aaron Kaplan, Miranda K. McCarvel & Edward J. Rubin (eds), 347–354. Somerville MA: The Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase Structure and Lexicon, Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring (eds). Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Lisa. 2008. Deriving verb classes: Where roots semantics meets syntax. Okland University, The Linguistics Department Colloquium Series.Google Scholar
Lohndal, Terje. 2014. Phrase Structure and Argument Structure. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 2013a. Locality domains for contextual allomorphy across the interfaces. In Distributed Morphology Today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, Ora Matushansky & Alec Marantz (eds), 95–116. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013b. Verbal argument structure: Events and participants. Lingua 130: 152–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013c. Locating the verbal roots. Talk given at the 25th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. Reykjavik, 13 May.
. 2007. Phases and words. In Phases in the Theory of Grammar, Sook-Hee Choe (ed.), 191–222. Seoul: Dong-In Publishing.Google Scholar
. 2000. Words. Paper presented at the 20th West Coast Conference of Formal Linguistics, University of Southern California, 23–25 February.
McCarthy, John. 1979. Formal Problems in Semitic Phonology and Morphology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Mccawley, James. D. 1968. The role of semantics in grammar. In Universals of Linguistic Theory, Emmon Bach & Robert T. Harms (eds). New York NY: Holt Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Moltmann, Friederike. 1997. Parts and Wholes in Semantics. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Naji, Mohamed. 2016. On the ontology of roots and their complements. In the Proceedings of The Japanese Society of Language Sciences (JSLS), Conference Handbook. Tokyo: University of Tokyo.Google Scholar
. 2010. Categorization and semantic function: The case of the Arabic verb. Paper presented at the III Conference on The Representation of Event, Paris. Maison de la Recherche, Université de la Nouvelle Sorbonne, Paris III.
Oseki, Yohei. 2017. Voice morphology in Japanese argument structures. Ms, New York University.Google Scholar
Piñón, Christopher. 2010. What to do with agent-oriented adverbs. The 7th Workshop on Inferential Mechanisms and their Linguistic Manifestation, Göttingen. Göttingen 4–5 June.
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing Arguments [Linguistics Inquiry Monograph 49]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Stechow, Armin. 2007. Syntactic and Lexical Causativization: Become and Cause Again. Ms., University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
Versteegh, Kees. 1997. Landmarks in Linguistic Thought, III: The Arabic Linguistic Tradition. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1977. Transformations and the Lexicon. In Culicover, P., T. Wasow & A. Akmajian (eds.), Formal Syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar