Article published in:
Transitivity and Valency: From theory to acquisition
Edited by Georgia Fotiadou and Hélène Vassiliadou
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes 40:1] 2017
► pp. 25–42

A competition-based analysis of French anticausatives

| Johns Hopkins University
| Johns Hopkins University
Some long-standing questions surrounding anticausatives in languages like French include whether the morphological marking (presence/absence of se) correlates with interpretational differences and/or different syntax. We examine the three anticausatives classes (optional se, obligatory se, no se) in three aspectual contexts and formulate a generalization whereby a default morphological form (reflexive-/non-reflexive-marked) can be identified for each context, plus an interpretive anti-blocking effect: if the lexicon does not provide the default form then the other form (regardless of morphology) preserves the aspectual interpretation of its transitive source. French anticausative se is tied to lexical aspect (rather than syntax), but the distribution is complex and non-transparent. We argue that the grammar allows bidirectional competition among forms and interpretations and the formalize analysis in Bidirectional OT (Superoptimality).
Keywords: anticausative classes, lexical gaps, aspectual interpretations, default mappings, antiblocking effects, Bidirectional OT, Superoptimality
Published online: 08 December 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.40.1.02leg
References

References

Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., & Schäfer, F.
(2015) External Arguments in Transitivity Alternations – A Layering Approach. Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blutner, R.
(2000) Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation. Journal of Semantics, 17(3), 189–216. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cennamo, M.
(2012) Aspectual constraints on the (anti)causative alternation in Old Italian. Transactions of the Philological Society, 110(3), 394–421. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Centineo, G.
(1995) The distribution of si in Italian transitive/inchoative pairs. In M. Simmons, & T. Galloway (Eds.), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory V (pp. 54–71). NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G.
(2004) A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences. In A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou, & M. Everaert (Eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle: exploration at the syntax-lexicon interface (pp. 22–59). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. R.
(1979) Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dekker, P., & von Rooy, R.
(2000) Bi-directional Optimality Theory: An application of game theory. Journal of Semantics 17(3), 217–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 41 ]
Folli, R.
(2002) Constructing Telicity in English and Italian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J.
(1982) On the lexical representation of Romance reflexive clitics. In J. Bresnan (Ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations (pp. 87–148). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hale, K., & Keyser, S. J.
(1987) A View from the Middle. Lexicon Project Working Papers 10. MIT.Google Scholar
Harley, H.
(1995) Subjects, Events, and Licensing. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Heidinger, S.
(2010) French Anticausatives: A Diachronic Perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kempchinsky, P.
(2004) Romance se as an aspectual element. In J. Auger et al., (Eds.), Contemporary Approaches to Romance Linguistics (pp. 239–56). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koontz-Garboden, A.
(2009) Anticausativization. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 27, 77–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, A.
(1996) Severing the external argument from its verb. In J. Rooryck & L. Zaring (Eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon (pp. 109–37). Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Labelle, M.
(1992) Change of state and valency. Journal of Linguistics, 28(2), 375–414. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Labelle, M., & Doron, E.
(2010) Anticausative derivations (and other valency alternations) in French. Probus, 22(2), 303–16. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Legendre, G., & Smolensky, P.
(2010) French inchoatives and the Unaccusativity Hypothesis. In D. Gerdts, J. Moore, & M. Polinsky (Eds.), Hypothesis A/Hypothesis B: Linguistic Explorations in Honor of David M. Perlmutter (pp. 229–46). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Legendre, G., Grimshaw, J., & Vikner, S.
(Eds.) (2001) Optimality-Theoretic Syntax. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Legendre, G., Putnam, M., de Swart, H., & Zaroukian, E.
(Eds.) (2016a) Optimality-Theoretic Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics – From Uni- to Bidirectional Optimization. Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Legendre, G., Smolensky, P., & Culbertson, J.
(2016b) Blocking effects at the lexicon/semantics interface and bi-directional optimization in French. In G. Legendre, M. Putnam, H. de Swart, & E. Zaroukian (Eds.), Optimality-theoretic syntax, semantics, and pragmatics: From uni- to bidirectional optimization (pp. 276–99). Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport-Hovav, M.
(1995) Unaccusativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Martin, F., & Schäfer, F.
(2014) Anticausatives compete but do not differ in meaning: A French case study. Proceedings of CMLF. SHS Web of Conferences 8. Crossref
Pesetsky, D.
(1995) Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinón, C.
(2001) A finer look at the causative-inchoative alternation. In R. Hastings, B. Jackson, & Z. Zvolenszky (Eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 11 (pp. 346–64). Ithaca: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Prince, A., & Smolensky, P.
(1993/2004) Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Technical report, Rutgers University and University of Colorado at Boulder 1993, ROA 537 2002 Revised version published by Blackwell 2004.Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 42 ]
Pylkkänen, L.
(2008) Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T.
(2002) The theta system – An overview. Theoretical Linguistics, 28, 229–90.Google Scholar
Rothemberg, M.
(1974) Les verbes à la fois transitifs et intransitifs en français contemporain. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Smith, C.
(1970) Jespersen’s ‘Move and Change’ Class and Causative Verbs in English. In M. A. Jazayery, E. C. Polomé, & W. Winter (Eds.), Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honor of Archibald A. Hill, Descriptive Linguistics, 2 (pp.101–109). The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, A.
(1987) La réflexivité ergative en français moderne. Le Français Moderne, 55(1–2), 23–54.Google Scholar