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 (46)
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