Cover not available
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
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.Default and antiblocking effects in anticausativization
    • 1.1Completion interpretation
    • 1.2Result state interpretation
    • 1.3Partial completion interpretation
  • 2.A formal account in terms of bidirectional optimization
    • 2.1Ingredients of the analysis
    • 2.2Optimization for completion interpretation
    • 2.3Optimization for partial completion interpretation
    • 2.4Optimization in neutral contexts
  • 3.A brief comparison with (a sample of) alternative analyses
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.40.1.02leg
References (31)
References
Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., & Schäfer, F. (2015). External Arguments in Transitivity Alternations – A Layering Approach. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blutner, R. (2000). Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation. Journal of Semantics, 17(3), 189–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cennamo, M. (2012). Aspectual constraints on the (anti)causative alternation in Old Italian. Transactions of the Philological Society, 110(3), 394–421. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. R. (1979). Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dekker, P., & von Rooy, R. (2000). Bi-directional Optimality Theory: An application of game theory. Journal of Semantics 17(3), 217–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koontz-Garboden, A. (2009). Anticausativization. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 271, 77–138. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labelle, M. (1992). Change of state and valency. Journal of Linguistics, 28(2), 375–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labelle, M., & Doron, E. (2010). Anticausative derivations (and other valency alternations) in French. Probus, 22(2), 303–16. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logo
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pylkkänen, L. (2008). Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T. (2002). The theta system – An overview. Theoretical Linguistics, 281, 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, 21 (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