View
11
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Page 1 of 29
CausativityandTransitivityinArabic
PeterHallman,UniversityofToronto
peter.hallman@utoronto.ca
1. Introduction
Thispapertreatstheissueofwhethermorphologicallybasictransitiveverbsarestructurally
complexonparwith(certainanalysesof)morphologicallyderivedcausativeverbs.An
explorationofthebehaviorofmorphologicallybasicandderivedverbsinArabicindicatesthat
basictransitivesareindeedstructurallycomplex,buttheircomplexityisnotderivedby
causativization.
Itisacommontraitofnaturallanguagesthataclassofverbsshowsanunaccusative/causative
alternation.Forexample,theEnglishverbsmeltandflattencanbeusedbothunaccusatively,as
in(1),andcausatively,asin(2).
(1) a. Theicemelted.
b. Themetalflattened.
(2) a. Theradiatormeltedtheice.
b. Thesmithflattenedthemetal.
The Syntax of Transitivity
Page 2 of 29
Insuchalternations,thecausativeformissemantically,syntactically,andtypically
morphologicallyadditive.Semantically,thecausativeformhasacausativecomponentthatis
notpresentintheunaccusativeform.Syntactically,thecausativeformlicensesanadditional
argument(thecauser)notlicensedbytheunaccusativeform.Morphologically,thecausative
formistypicallymarked.WhilenotevidentintheEnglishexamplesabove,themorphological
markednessofthecausativeformisevidentintwotypesofcausativeformsinArabic,the
languagethatthispaperisprimarilyconcernedwith.The‘geminate’causativeismarkedby
doublingofthemiddleconsonantofthebase.
(3) a. xalā l-bayt-u
be-vacant the-house-NOM
‘Thehouseisvacant.’
b. xallā ʾaṣḥāb-ī l-bayt-a
vacate friends-my the-house-ACC
‘Myfriendsvacatedthehouse.’
The‘ablaut’causativeismarkedbyablautofthe‘stemvowel’,thevowelofthesecondsyllable
ofthebase.Thestemvowelisunpredictableinthebase(thea-examplesbelow)butinvariably
/a/inthecausative(theb-examplesbelow).Arabichasthreevowels.
(4) a. ḥaruma l-xurūǧ-u ʿalay-hi
be-forbidden the-leaving-NOM to-him
‘Itisforbiddenforhimtogoout.’
Peter Hallman
Page 3 of 29
b. harama ʾab-ū-hu l-xurūǧ-a ʾalay-hi
forbid father-NOM-his l-leaving-ACC to-him
‘Hisfatherforbidhimtogoout.’
(5) a. ḥaziʾa l-fannān-u
be-ridiculed the-artist-NOM
‘Theartistwasridiculed.’
b. ḥazaʾa l-muḥarrir-u l-fannān-a
ridicule the-editor-NOM the-artist-ACC
‘Theeditorridiculedtheartist.’
(6) a. falata l-kalb-u
get-loose the-dog-NOM
‘Thedoggotloose.’
b. falata l-walad-u l-kalb-a
let-loose the-child-NOMthe-dog-ACC
‘Thechildletthedogloose.’
Thatthestemvowelisconsistentinthecausativeandnotintheunaccusativesuggeststhatthe
stemvoweloftheunaccusativeislexicallydetermined,whilethestemvowelofthecausative
The Syntax of Transitivity
Page 4 of 29
reflectscausativization.Thatis,itisthecausativethatismorphologicallymarkedinthepairsin
(4)-(6),nottheunaccusative.
Theargumentthatislicensedbytheunaccusativeisalsolicensedinthecausative,andthe
attributionofthepropertydenotedbytheunaccusativetothatargumentalsoobtainsinthe
causative.Thatis,thesyntaxandsemanticsoftheunaccusativealternantpersevereinthe
causativealternant,butnotviceversa.Thesefactssuggestthatcausativesarederivationally
relatedtotheirunaccusativecounterpartsbyacausativizationprocessthatisamorphosyntactic
augmentationofthatunaccusativecounterpart.TouseterminologyintroducedinChomsky
(1995),unaccusativeexpressionslikemeltaresimplexVPs(7a),andtheircausativecounterparts
arecomplexstructures,whatChomskytermsa‘little-vP’,containingthesimplexcounterpart
(7b).This‘syntactic’approachtocausativizationiswell-representedintheliteratureonthe
matter(Kuroda,1965;Kayne,1975;Aissen,1979;Marantz,1985;Baker,1988;Hung,1988;Li,
1990;Travis,1991;Koopman,1992;andothersmentionedbelow).1
(7) a. VP b. vP DP V’ DP v’ theice V theradiator v VP melt DP V’ theice V melt
Somerecenttheorizingoriginatingwithinthesyntacticapproachtocausativitysketchedin(7)
seekstoexpandthescopeoftheapproach,totransitivityingeneral.Itcharacterizestransitivity
Peter Hallman
Page 5 of 29
asastructurallyadditiveprocess,likecausativization,andtherebyreducestransitivityto
causativity(Bowers,1993;HaleandKeyser,1993;Chomsky,1995;Kratzer,1996;Travis,2000;
Marantz,1997;Arad,1999;Pylkkänen,2002;Bowers,2002;Embick,2004;andothers).At
issuehereisthenatureoftransitiveverbsthatdonothaveunaccusativecounterparts(inthe
remainderofthispaperIusetheterm‘transitive’inthissense,referringonlytoverbsthatdonot
haveanunaccusativecounterpart,andtheterm‘dyadic’torefertoanytwo-placeexpression,
whetherofthetransitiveorcausativetype).Isaverblikebuy,whichoccursinthesyntactic
framein(8a)butnot(8b),lexicallytransitive,andsosyntacticallysimplex,asin(9a)(on
analogyto(7a)),orisitsyntacticallytransitivized,bycausativizationofanunaccusative
subconstituentwhich,foronereasonoranother,hasnoindependentmorphologicalinstantiation
ofitsown,asin(9b)(onanalogyto(7b))?Thesyntacticapproachtotransitivity,reifiedmost
famouslyinKratzer(1996),claimsthatthestructureof(8a)isthatin(9b).Notethataccording
tothisapproach,unaccusativeverbshaveadifferentsyntacticcategory(VP)fromdyadicverbs
(vP).
(8) a. WeboughtyourslippersinMarrakesh.
b. *YourslippersboughtinMarrakesh.
(9) a. VP b. vP DP V’ DP v’ we V DP we v VP buy yourslippers DP V’ yourslippers V buy
The Syntax of Transitivity
Page 6 of 29
ThispapersurveysdatafromtwotypesofcausativeconstructionsinStandardArabicthat
indicatethat,whiletransitiveslikebuyareindeedsyntacticallycomplexalongthelinesof(9b),
theextrastructurethere,little-vP,isnotcausativizingor‘agentivizing’.Rather,itisafunctional
scaffoldinginwhichathetarolelexicallyassociatedwiththerootisdischarged.I.e.,itiswhat
Larson(1988)termsa‘VPshell’.Aconstraintisobservedthatasemanticrootmaynotbe
associatedwithmorethanthreeVPshells.Thisstructuralconstraintonwordformationlends
credencetothesyntacticapproachtowordformation,thoughtheanalysisproposedhere
attributesagreaterroletonon-compositionallexicalpropertiesofrootsthananalysesinthe
traditionofKratzer(1996).
2. CausativizationinArabic
TwomorphologicalprocessesformcausativeverbsinArabic,ablautandgemination.2The
propertiesofthesealternationsarediscussedinturnbelow.Section3presentsananalysisof
theirbehavior.
2.1 Ablaut
Causativeverbsmaybeformedfromunaccusativesbychangingthestemvowelto/a/
(Kurylowicz,1957;FassiFehri,1987),illustratedin(10).Thestemvowelinthebaseisoneof
thethreephonemic(short)vowelsofArabic,/i/,/a/or/u/.Thevowel/u/isquiterarein
Peter Hallman
Page 7 of 29
unaccusative/causativepairsand/i/quitecommon.Notethatifthestemvowelinthebaseis/a/,
ablauthasnonetmorphologicaleffect(10i-k).
(10) a. ḥazina (besad) ⇒ ḥazana (makesad)
b. hadima (falltoruin) ⇒ hadama (ruin)
c. waǧira (bescared) ⇒ waǧara (frighten)
d. kariba (beworried) ⇒ karaba (worrys.o.)
e. xariba (bedestroyed) ⇒ xaraba (destroy)
f. haziʾa (beridiculed) ⇒ hazaʾa (ridicule)
g. naǧiza (beimplemented) ⇒ naǧaza (implement)
h. xafiya (behidden) ⇒ xafā (hides.t.)3
i fāta (passaway) ⇒ fāta (relinquish)
j. falata (bereleased) ⇒ falata (release)
k. faraša (spreadout) ⇒ faraša (spreads.t.out)
l. ḥaruma (beprohibited) ⇒ ḥarama (prohibit)
Ablautisarestrictedprocess.Itonlyappliestounaccusativebases,nevertounergativebases
(11),transitivebases(12),orditransitivebases(13).
(11) a. ḍaḥika (laugh) ⇒ *ḍaḥaka (causetolaugh)
b. nāma (sleept) ⇒ *nāma (cause to sleep)
c. ʿaṭasa (sneeze) ⇒ *ʿaṭasa (causetosneeze)
d. bakā (cry) ⇒ *bakā (cause to cry)
The Syntax of Transitivity
Page 8 of 29
(12) a. darasa (study) ⇒ *darasa (causetostudy)
b. fahima (understand) ⇒ *fahama (causetounderstand)
c. ʿalima (know) ⇒ *ʿalama (causetoknow)
d. šariba (drink) ⇒ *šaraba (causetodrink)
(13) a. manaḥa (give) ⇒ *manaḥa (causetogive)
b. ḥabā (award) ⇒ *ḥabā (causetoaward)
c. ʿaraḍa (submit) ⇒ *ʿaraḍa (causetosubmit)
d. wahaba (donate) ⇒ *wahaba (causetodonate)
2.2 Gemination
CausativeverbsmayalsobeformedinArabicbygeminationofthemiddleradicaloftheroot,
commonlydescribedasthetemplateC1aC2C2aC3,asillustratedin(14).Geminatecausative
formsarefoundformanyofthesamerootsthatformablautcausatives,asin(14a-d)(cf.(10a-
d)).
(14) a. ḥazina (besad) ⇒ ḥazzana (makesad)
b. hadima (falltoruin) ⇒ haddama (ruin)
c. xariba (bedestroyed) ⇒ xarraba (destroy)
d. naǧiza (beimplemented) ⇒ naǧǧaza (implement)
Peter Hallman
Page 9 of 29
e. waṣala (arrive) ⇒ waṣṣala (accompany)
f. xalā (bevacant) ⇒ xallā (vacate)
g. sariḥa (proceedfreely) ⇒ sarraḥa (grantleave)
h. našiṭa (belively) ⇒ naššaṭa (enliven)
i. samina (befat) ⇒ sammana (fatten)
Butgeminationislessrestrictedthanablaut.Unergativeverbsmayshowageminatecausative
counterpart,asin(15)(cf.(11)),asmaytransitiveverbs,asin(16)(cf.(12)).
(15) a. ḍaḥika (laugh) ⇒ ḍaḥḥaka (makes.o.laugh)
b. nāma (sleep) ⇒ nawwama (makes.o.sleep)
c. ʿaṭasa (sneeze) ⇒ ʿaṭṭasa (makes.o.sneeze)
d. bakā (cry) ⇒ bakkā (makes.o.cry)
(16) a. darasa (study) ⇒ darrasa (teachs.o.s.t.)
b. fahima (understand) ⇒ fahhama (makes.o.understands.t.)
c. ʿalima (know) ⇒ ʿallama (informs.o.ofs.t.)
d. šariba (drink) ⇒ šarraba (offers.o.s.t.todrink)
e. ḥamala (carry) ⇒ ḥammala (makes.o.carrys.t.)
f. kataba (write) ⇒ kattaba (makes.o.writes.t.)
Whenatransitiveverbiscausativized,theresultingconstructionisditransitive;bothobjectsbear
accusativecase.
The Syntax of Transitivity
Page 10 of 29
(17) darrasa l-muʿallim-u l-ʾaṭfāl-a l-dars-a
taught the-teacher-NOM the-children-ACC the-lesson-ACC
‘Theteachertaughtthechildrenthelesson.’
Althoughgeminationisafreerprocessthanablaut,geminationisrestrictedintwoimportant
ways.First,likeablaut,geminationmaynotapplytoaditransitivebase.
(18) a. manaḥa (give) ⇒ *mannaḥa (causes.o.togives.o.s.t.)
b. ḥabā (award) ⇒ *ḥabbā (causes.o.toawards.o.s.t.)
c. ʿaraḍa (submit) ⇒ *ʿarraḍa (causes.o.tosubmits.t.tos.o.)
d. wahaba (donate) ⇒ *wahhaba (causes.o.todonates.t.tos.o.)
Second,althoughgeminationmayapplytotransitivesingeneral,itmaynotapplytothose
transitiveverbsthatarethemselvesderivedbyablaut.I.e.,thetermsontherighthandsidein
(10)donothavegeminatecounterparts(thoughthetermsonthelefthandsidemay);ablaut
bleedsgemination(FassiFehri,1987).
(19) a. ḥazana (makesad) ⇒ *ḥazzana (causes.o.tomakes.o.sad)
b. hadama (ruin) ⇒ *haddama (causes.o.toruins.t.)
c. waǧara (frighten) ⇒ *waǧǧara (causes.o.tofrightens.o.)
d. karaba (worrys.o.) ⇒ *karraba (causes.o.toworrys.o.)
e. xaraba (destroy) ⇒ *xarraba (causes.o.todestroys.t.)
Peter Hallman
Page 11 of 29
f. hazaʾa (ridicule) ⇒ *hazzaʾa (causes.o.toridicules.o.)
g. falata (release) ⇒ *fallata (causes.o.toreleases.o.)
h. faraša (spreads.t.out)⇒ *farraša (causes.o.tospreads.t.out)
3. RestrictionsonLexical-SyntacticDerivations
Ablautandgeminationarevalencyincreasingmorphemes.Theirfunctionisjustthatattributed
tolittle-vbyChomsky(1995),andforthatreasonIrefertothemas‘little-v’s’,specificallyvAB
andvGEMrespectively.Ablautappliesonlytounaccusativebases,meaningtheunaccusativityof
lexicalitemsisvisibletotheablautmorpheme.Onthesyntacticapproachtotransitivity,
unaccusativeverbsareinfactvisiblydistinctfromdyadicverbs,namelyinsyntacticcategory
(VPvs.vP).Further,HaleandKeyser(1993)arguethatunergativeverbsarehiddentransitives,
ofwhichtheinternalargumentisincorporatedintotheverbstem.Thesethereforesharea
categorywith(other)dyadicverbs.Thefactthatablautappliestounaccusativesandnot
transitives,causativesorunergatives,then,isasensitivityoftheablautmorphemetothe
syntacticcategoryofitsbase,i.e.ac-selectionalrestriction.ThemorphemevABselectsVP,
representedgraphicallyasbelow,wherethesolidlinesignifiesselectionfromlefttoright.
(20) vAB VP
ThefactthatvABandvGEMareincomplementarydistributionsuggeststheycompetefora
syntacticposition,i.e.,thatvGEMalsoselectsVP;thetwoderivationalmorphemesthencannot
bothapplytothesameargumentatonce.
The Syntax of Transitivity
Page 12 of 29
(21) vGEM VP vAB
However,thepicturein(21)incorrectlyconflatesthedistributionofthetwomorphemes.
AlthoughvGEMmayapplytoanunaccusativebase,itmayalsoapplytotransitivebases,
includingunergatives.However,ifitwerepossiblefortransitivitytoberepresentedattheVP
level(toaccommodatethefactthatvGEMappliestotransitives)andvABandvGEMcompetefor
VP,thenvABshouldapplytotransitivebasesaswell,contrarytofact.Indeed,thediscussionin
section2illustratesthatthederivationalbasesforvGEMandvABdonotcoincide,thoughthey
overlapintheunaccusatives.
TheparticlevGEMappliestotransitiveverbs(aswellasunaccusatives),buttransitivityisnot
representedatthelevelofVP,sincevABappliestoVPbutdoesnotapplytotransitives.
Thecategoryoftransitives,then,isnotVP,norisitvABPitself,sinceablautbleedsgemination
(see(19)).Thecategoryoftransitives,then,isadistinctcategorythatIlabelvTP,projectedbya
morphemevT[RANSITIVE]whosemeaningisdiscussedinsection3.1.TheparticlevGEMmayapply
tovTP,thecategoryoftransitives(16),butnotvABP,thecategoryofablautcausatives(19).
Ablautdoesnotapplytotransitives,meaningthemorphemesvTandvABneveroccurinone
word;theyareincomplementarydistribution.Thediagrambelowrepresentsthisstateofaffairs,
whereagain,thesolidlinesrepresentselectionfromlefttoright.
(22) vGEM vT VP vAB
Peter Hallman
Page 13 of 29
OnefindswordsinwhichvGEMappliestoatransitivebase(16),butalsowordsinwhichit
appliesdirectlytoanunaccusativebase(14),indicatingvTisoptionalinthepathfromvGEMto
VP,globallyspeaking.ForagivenchoiceofV,though,vTiseitherobligatorilypresentor
obligatorilyabsent.WeknowthisbecauseifvTwereoptionalforagivenroot,thatrootwould
showatransitive/intransitivealternationsuperficiallyindistinguishablefromablaut
causativization.Butunlikeablaut,thetransitivecounterpartwouldpotentiallyshowageminate
causativeformaswell,beingderivedbyvTratherthanvAB.Thatthisstateofaffairsis
unattestediswhatFassiFehriobserves.FassiFehri’sgeneralizationthatablautformsmaynot
becausativizedmaybealternativelystatedasfollows:wheneveratransitiveverbhasan
intransitivecounterpart,thattransitiveverbneverhasageminatecausativecounterpart(e.g.
(23a)),andwheneveratransitiveverbhasageminatecausativecounterpart,thattransitivenever
hasanintransitivecounterpart(e.g.(23b)).
(23) a. falata(bereleased) ⇒ falata(releases.t.)⇒ *fallata(causes.o.toreleases.t.)
b. *kataba(bewritten) ⇒ kataba(writes.t.) ⇒ kattaba(causes.o.towrites.t.)
SowhetherarootoccursincategoryVPorvTPiscontingentontheidentityoftherootinan
intimate,lexical,way,i.e.,itisalexicalpropertyoftheroot.Nonetheless,transitivityisin
complementarydistributionwiththemorphemevAB,indicatingthat,likevAB,transitivityisa
structuralpropertyofaverb.BothparticlesvTandvABcompeteforaVPcomplementthatthey
cannotbothhaveinoneword.Transitivity,thoughitisalexicalpropertyoftheroot,is
structurallyinstantiated(asvT)distinctlyfromtheroot(VP).Larson(1988)presentsa
mechanismthatreconcilestheseapparentlycontradictorypropertiesoftransitivity.Section3.1
The Syntax of Transitivity
Page 14 of 29
exploresthisissue,butbeforeturningtothatdiscussion,Ipresentsomeremarksonditransitives
thatfleshoutthediagramin(22)somewhat.
Althoughgeminationappliestotransitiveverbs,itdoesnotapplytoditransitives(18).Thatis,
geminationisincomplementarydistributionwithditransitivity,meaningtherelationshipof
geminationtotheditransitivitypropertyisliketherelationshipofablauttothetransitivity
property.WherevDTPisthecategoryofditransitives,projectedbyvD[I]T[TRANSITIVE]:
(24) vDT vT vGEM VP vAB
Noargumentscanbeaddedtoaditransitiveverborageminatecausative,i.e.,nofour-place
verbsexist,whethermorphologicallyaugmentedornot.4Thethree‘layers’shownin(24)
exhausttheargumentstructurepossibilitiesforArabicverbs.
3.1 OntheDifferencebetweenTransitivityandCausation
Grammaticalprocessesdifferentiatebetweenthosetransitiveverbsthathaveanintransitive
counterpartandthosethatdonot.Onlythelatteraresubjecttogemination;theformerarenot.
Thisobservationinitselfdemonstratesthattransitiveverbsarenotsimplycausativesthatfor
somereasonhavenounaccusativecounterpart.Morphosyntacticprocessesaresensitiveto
whethertheintransitivecounterpartexists.Dyadicverbsarenotahomogeneousclass.
Peter Hallman
Page 15 of 29
TheparticlesvGEMandvABarecausativizing.Theyassertofapropositionpandanindividualx
thatxcausesp(whatcauseinturnmeansisanothermatternotaddressedhere).Thatis,theyare
genuinelyvalencyincreasing;theyaddanargumentnotrepresentedintheroot.
(25) ªvGEM/ABº = Òp<s,t> λx<e> [cause(x, p)]
Accordingtotheanalysisproposedhere,ifaverbhascategoryvTPorvDTPthennoformofthat
rootexistswithlesservalency.Thatis,thetransitiveparticlesvTandvDTareinseparablefrom
anybasetheyapplyto.Thatsuggeststheyfulfillanobligatoryfunctionwhentheyoccur.The
factthatverbsofcategoryvTPorvDTPdonothavelesservalencyformsindicatesthatthe
valencyofthatverb(butnotitsstructure)isnotconstructedadditivelyinthemorphosyntax;itis
aninvariantlexicalpropertyoftheroot.
Larson(1988)attributestowhatheterms‘VPshells’afunctionthatisstructurebuildingbutnot
valencyincreasing.AccordingtoLarson,VPshellsoccurinditransitiveconstructionstoprovide
asyntacticscaffoldingfortheintroductionofDPsthatcannotbeintroducedwithinthemaximal
projectionoftherootduetothebinarybranchingrestrictiononX-barprojections(Kayne,1984).
Duetothisrestriction,aheadcannotbelocallyrelatedtomorethantwoDPs(itscomplement
andspecifier).Becausethetarolesareassignedunderlocality(withinthemaximalprojectionof
thethetaroleassigninghead;KoopmanandSportiche,1985;KoopmanandSportiche,1991),a
more-than-two-placepredicateisunabletodischargeallofitsthetaroleswithinitsmaximal
projectionandmustmoveintoahigher,semanticallyvacuousheadposition,whereitbecomes
localtothespecifierofthathead,andisabletodischargeathetaroletoaDPinthatspecifier
position.
The Syntax of Transitivity
Page 16 of 29
Bowers(1993),Kratzer(1996)andothersproposethatDPsarelicenseduniformlyinspecifier
positions(auniformitythatthesyntacticanalysisoflexicaldecompositionthattheyadvocate
makespossible),meaningthatatheta-roleassigningheadisinfactlocaltoonlyoneDPposition,
itsspecifier.ThehypothesisthatvTPisaVPshellthenpresentsanexplanationforwhytheVP
layerinvTPsisnoteligibleforindependentwordhood.TherootofavTPisalexicallydyadic
predicatethatisunabletodischargeallofitsthetaroles—ithasonlyonespecifier—exceptin
cooperationwithvT,whichprojectsanadditionalspecifier.Thesameconsiderationsimplicate
theVPshellhypothesisforvDTPs.Accordingtothisproposal,then,thereisnodifferencein
functionbetweenvTandvDT,andhenceforthIrefertobothassimply‘little-v’.Thedenotation
in(26)forlittle-vmimicstheeffectofV-to-vraising(it‘passeson’thethetaroleofV).Forthe
presentpurposes,IleaveasidethequestionofwhetheritisaccompaniedbyactualsyntacticV-
to-vraising.
(26) ªvº = ÒP<e,t> Òx<e> [P(x)]
Althoughlittle-visessentiallysemanticallyvacuousaccordingtothisproposal,itisnot
superfluous.Little-visincomplementarydistributionwithcausativization,whichisa
morphosyntacticallyautonomousprocess(i.e.,independentoflexicalpropertiesofthebase).
Thiscomplementarityindicatesthatlittle-vis‘onpar’withcausativization,i.e.,hasthesame
typeofsyntacticinstantiation,thoughnotthesamesemanticfunction.Thissyntactic
instantiationplaysanon-trivialroleinrestrictingpossibleverbdenotations.Inconjunctionwith
thedistributionalgeneralizationin(24),itderivesFassiFehri’sobservationsummarizedbythe
Peter Hallman
Page 17 of 29
patternin(23),thatonlythoseverbsthatdonothavereducedvalencyformsundergo
gemination.
Thediagramin(27)showstheselectionalrestrictionsexpressedbythediagramin(24)
superimposedonastructuralhierarchyconsistingofthreeshells.Thestructurein(27)isaword-
formingtemplatethatoffers‘slots’foratmostthreeword-formingoperators,includingtheroot.
Causativeoperatorscompetewithlittle-v’sforslotsinthistemplate.Ifarootdenotesatriadic
predicate,thetwolittle-v’sthatobligatorilysubservethetaroleassignmentmonopolizeshells2
and3,thatareotherwiseavailableforcausativization.Ifarootdenotesadyadicpredicate,shell
2isobligatorilymonopolizedbyalittle-vinvolvedintheassignmentoftheexternalthetaroleof
theroot,butlevel3isavailableforgeminatecausativization.Ifarootdenotesaunarypredicate,
itisunaccusative,andlevels2and3areavailableforablautandgeminatecausativization
respectively(butablautbleedsgemination).Theglobalrestrictiontothreeshellsprovidesan
overallrestrictiononthenumberofargumentsapredicatemayhave,whetherthosearguments
areacquiredbycausativizationorarelexicalargumentsoftheroot.
(27) v v vGEM VP vAB Shell 3 Shell 2 Shell 1
The hypothesis advanced here correctly predicts that the expressions in (28) are well-formed,
because they correspond to a path in the diagram in (27) and are semantically composable given
(25), (26) and the appropriate root denotations.
The Syntax of Transitivity
Page 18 of 29
(28) a. Basicunaccusative: ḥazina(besad)
[1ḥazina]
b. Ablautcausativeofbasicunaccusative:ḥazana(causetobesad)
[2vAB[1ḥazina]]
c. Geminatecausativeofbasicunaccusative:ḥazzana(causetobesad)
[3vGEM[1ḥazina]]
d. Basic transitive: kataba (write)
[2 v [1 kataba ]]
e. Geminate causative of basic transitive: kattaba (cause to write)
[3 vGEM [2 v [1 kataba ]]]
f. Basic ditransitive: manaḥa(give)
[3v[2v[1manaḥa]]]
Thehypothesisalsocorrectlypredictsthattheexpressionsin(29)arenotderivable,becausethey
donotcorrespondtoapathinthediagramin(27)(thoughtheywouldbesemantically
composableiftheyweremorphosyntacticallywellformed).
Peter Hallman
Page 19 of 29
(29) a. Geminatecausativeofablautcausative: *ḥazzana(causetocausetobesad)
*[3vGEM[2vAB[1ḥazina]]]
b. Geminatecausativeofditransitive: *mannaḥa(causetogive)
*[3vGEM[?v[2v[1manaḥa]]]
c. Ablautcausativeoftransitive: *kataba(causetowrite)
*[2vAB[?v[1kataba]]]
d. Ablautcausativeofditransitive: *manaḥa(causetogive)
*[2vAB[?v[?v[1manaḥa]]]]
Lastly,severalderivationswhichdocorrespondtoapathin(27)arenonethelessillformed
becausetheyarenotsemanticallycomposable.Theunaccusativeuseofe.g.kataba(asin(30a))
isblockedbecausetheunaccusativecategoryVPisunsaturatedwhentherootiskataba,whichis
lexicallydyadic.Thetransitiveuseofe.g.manaḥa(asin(30b))isblockedbecausethetransitive
(shell2)categoryvPisunsaturatedwhentherootismanaḥa,whichislexicallytriadic.The
unaccusativeuseofe.g.manaḥa(asin(30c))isblockedbecausetheunaccusative(shell1)
categoryVPisunsaturatedwhentherootinmanaḥa,whichislexicallytriadic.
(30) a. *kataba l-kitāb-u
wrote the-book-NOM
*‘Thebookwrote.’
The Syntax of Transitivity
Page 20 of 29
b. manaḥa l-muʿallim-u l-kitāb-a
gave the-teacher-NOM the-book-ACC
*‘Theteachergavethebook.’ (meaning‘Someonegavetheteacherthebook’)
c. manaḥa l-kitāb-u
gave the-book-NOM
*‘Thebookgave’ (meaning‘Someonegavesomeonethebook’)
3.2 ProductivityandthePlaceofMorphosyntax
Bothablautandgeminationshowcharacteristicsoflexicalprocesses,specificallylackof
productivityandsemanticidiosyncracy.Notallunaccusativeverbsthatwouldseemtobe
semanticallyfitforablautcausativizationhaveextantablautforms.Theverbsontherightin
(31),withthecausativeinterpretationsattributedtothemthere,appeartobeaccidentallexical
gaps;notethatthebasesontheleftaresubjecttogemination(14e-i).
(31) a. waṣala (arrive) ⇒ *waṣala (causetoarrive)
b. xalā (bevacant) ⇒ *xalā (vacate)
c. sariḥa (proceedfreely) ⇒ *saraḥa (grantleave)
d. našiṭa (belively) ⇒ *našaṭa (enliven)
e. samina (befat) ⇒ *samana (fatten)
Peter Hallman
Page 21 of 29
Further,causativizationcommonlycarriessemanticconnotationsthatarenotsemantically
uniformfromlexicalitemtolexicalitem.Forexample,mariḍa(besick)encompassesarather
widesemanticfield,includingnon-communicableillnesseslikepoisoningandcanceraswellas
maladieslikeheartattack,strokeandotherorganicinjuriesthatdonotcanonicallyfallunderthe
Englishcounterpartsick.However,theablautcausativecounterpartmaraḍadescribesonly
sicknesscausedbyspoiledfood.
(32) mariḍa (besick) ⇒ maraḍa(makesick,saidonlyoffood)
Thesefactsindicatethatifcausativizationbyablautisasyntacticprocess,itobtainsina‘lexical’
componentofthesyntaxmodule,acomponentthatispronetoidiosyncrasiesinproductivityand
semantictransparency.HaleandKeyser(1993),Marantz(1997)andTravis(2000)describe
suchacomponent,whichTravisterms‘L-syntax’.CausativizationbyablautisanL-syntactic
process.
Likeablaut,geminationshowshallmarksofalexicalprocess.Itisnotentirelyproductive,since
nogeminatecausativeformsexistforsomerootsthatwouldseemtorepresentvalidpossible
basesforgemination,asin(33).
(33) a. ḍaraʿa (behumble) ⇒ *ḍarrraʿa (causes.o.tobehumble)
b. ḏahila (beperplexed)⇒ *ḏahhala (causes.o.tobeperplexed)
c. faraḍa (decides.t.) ⇒ *farraḍa (causes.o.todecides.t.)
d. fataḥa (opens.t.) ⇒ *fattaḥa (causes.o.toopens.t.)
The Syntax of Transitivity
Page 22 of 29
Alsolikeablaut,geminatecausativeformscommonlyhaveidiosyncraticsemanticconnotations
notfoundinthebase.Forexample,thegeminateformin(14e),waṣṣala,meansaccompany,
whichissomewhatmorethanthecausativizationofthebasewaṣala,meaningarrive.I.e.,
waṣṣalameansnotjustcausetoarrive,butcausetoarrivebyaccompanying.Similarly,sarraḥa
(grantleave)mayconnotedivorce,butnotitsunaccusativebasesariḥa(proceedatwill).The
basesawāin(34),whichmeansbeevenwith,orequalto,formsageminatecausativethatmeans
cooktoperfection.
(34) sawā (beeven) ⇒ sawwā (cooktoperfection)
Theculinaryconnotationofsawwāseemstoreferencethesamemetaphorthattheterms
overcookandundercookreferenceinEnglish,thatis,thatcookingsomethingcausesitto
approachalevelatwhichitisperfectlycooked.Cookingitunderoroverthatlevelresultsin
‘undercooked’or‘overcooked’.InArabic,‘causingittobeeven’withthatlevelresultsin
‘cookedtoperfection’.Inthesecasesandthecasesofsemanticidiosyncrasyintheablaut
causatives,thecausativeinterpretationispresentinthecausativederivative,thoughthese
causativederivativescarryadditionalconnotationsbeyondthemeaningsoftheirparts,thatare
lexicalassociationsofthewordsoderived.Thatis,causativizationmaynotchangethemeaning
ofthebase,butmaycarryadditionalconnotationsnotcarriedbythebase.Causativeshavea
compositionalcomponenttotheirmeaning,butcausativizationformslexicalitems,which,by
virtueofhavingaplaceinaregistryofinformation(thelexicon),havethepossibilitytoacquire
semanticbaggagebeyondtheircompositionalcontent.
Peter Hallman
Page 23 of 29
4 ConcludingRemarks
Inlightoftheconsiderationsdiscussedintheprevioussection,theanalysisproposedhereisbest
viewedasastructurallydefinedfilterthatlimitsthemorphosyntacticcomplexityoflexicalitems,
or,touseatermmentionedpreviously,atemplatetowhichnewcoinagesandreanalysesmust
conform,thatrestrictsthetypesofbasesforablauttoasubsetofthoseforgemination,that
prohibitsgeminationfromapplyingoverablaut,andthatrestrictsverbstothreeorfewer
arguments,regardlessofhowtheygetthatway.Althoughtransitivityisalexicalpropertyofa
rootintheanalysisproposedhere,itisalexicalpropertythatmonopolizesanargumentslotina
structuraltemplate,blockingderivationalmorphemesfromaddinganewargumentinthatslot.
Inthatrespectitisastructuralproperty.Theanswertothequestionposedattheoutsetofthis
paper,then,isthattransitiveverbsareindeedstructurallyisomorphictocausatives,andinthis
pointthepresentanalysisisconsistentwiththatofKratzer(1996)andothers.However,thedata
surveyedhereindicatethatwhiletheexternalargumentofacausativeverbisanargumentofthe
causativemorpheme,theexternalargumentofatransitiveverbisanargumentoftheroot,andin
thispointthepresentanalysisdivergesfromthatofKratzer(1996).
ThediscrepancybetweenthepresentanalysisandanalysesalongthelinesofKratzer’s,which
arebasedlargelyonEnglish,raisesthequestionofwhethertheresultsofthepresentstudyon
ArabicareapplicabletoEnglishatall,orwhetherthepresentanalysisandKratzer’sareboth
correctanalysesoftheirrespectiveareasofinquiry.SimilaritiesbetweentheEnglish
causative/unaccusativealternationillustratedin(35)andablautinArabicsuggestthattheareas
ofinquiryoverlap.
The Syntax of Transitivity
Page 24 of 29
CausativizationinEnglishonlyappliestounaccusativeverbs((35a)and(1)-(2)),notunergatives
(35b),transitives(35c),orditransitives(35d).Morestrikingly,thealternationisoccasionally
markedbyablaut(35e-h).
(35) a. sadden ⇒ saddens.o.
b. laugh ⇒ *laughs.o.
c. writes.t. ⇒ *writes.o.s.t.(meaningmakes.o.writes.t.)
d. gives.o.s.t. ⇒ *gives.o.s.o.s.t. (meaningmakes.o.gives.o.s.t.)
e. rise ⇒ raise
f. sit ⇒ set
g. fall ⇒ fell(atree)
h. lie ⇒ lay
Theseparallelssuggestthatthecausative/unaccusativealternationshownin(1)and(2)isthe
veryprocessdescribedas‘ablaut’inArabic.Englishfailstoshowacounterpartofgemination,
i.e.,causativizationofunergativesandtransitives.InviewoftheArabicfacts,thefailureof
unergativesandtransitivestocausativizeinEnglishcanbechalkeduptoalexicalgap.The
particlevGEMdoesnotexistinEnglish.
Theanalysispresentedherederivestheinteractionbetweentransitivityandcausativitydescribed
insection2.Causativizationobservesthesameglobalconstraintthatconstrainsthenumberof
argumentsarootmayhave:arootmaynothavemorethanthreedirectarguments,and
causativizationmaynotderiveaformthathasmorethanthreedirectarguments.Thatis,
causativization‘usesup’aroot’sallotmentofargumentslots.Thisinteractionbetweenbasic
Peter Hallman
Page 25 of 29
transitivityandcausativitysuggeststheyareparallelproperties.Yet,thefactthattransitivityis
inseparablefromanyrootitisassociatedwithsuggeststhatitisalexicalpropertyofthatroot,
notoneconstructedinthesyntax.Ihaveproposedthattheargumentsofatransitiveverbsare
licensedinVPshellsthatuseupslotsintheroot’sallotmentofargumentpositionsthatcould
otherwisehostcausativization.Thisanalysisderivesthepatternseeninsection2andreconciles
apparentlycontradictorycharacteristicsoftransitivity.
The Syntax of Transitivity
Page 26 of 29
Notes
1 Thesyntacticapproachthatisthesubjectofthepresentstudyisnottheonlyapproach
representedintheliterature.‘Lexical’approachestakebothcausativeandunaccusativeverbsto
bestructurallyatomiclexicalitems,whoserelatednessisrepresentedintheformoflexical
operations,redundancyrulesormeaningpostulates(Dowty,1979;FoleyandVanValin,1984;
Pinker,1989;Jackendoff,1990;Rosen,1990;Levin,1993;andothers).
2 A third process, prefixation of ʾa-,alsoformscausatives,anddiffersfromgeminationonlyin
thatittypicallysignifieslackofcoersion.Thislexicaldifferenceaside,therestrictionsonthe
distributionofʾa-areexactlythosethatrestrictgemination,andsincetheserestrictionsarethe
subjectofinquiryhere,thispaperdoesnottreatʾa-separately.
3 Glides delete between short vowels under conditions described in detail by Brame (1970) and
Levy (1971), as in (10h,i), where /xafaya/ surfaces as [xafā] and /fawata/ surfaces as[fāta].
4 Additional relata may be introduced in prepositional phrases, but I take these to be arguments
of the prepositions that introduce them, which form a complex predicate with the verb.
Peter Hallman
Page 27 of 29
References
Aissen, J., 1979. The syntax of causative constructions. Garland Press, New York.
Arad, M., 1999. On "Little v". In: Arregi, K., Bruening, B., Krause, C., Lin, V., Eds., Papers on
morphology and syntax, cycle one. Department of Linguistics, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.,
pp. 1-25.
Baker, M., 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Bowers, J., 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 591-656.
Bowers, J., 2002. Transitivity. Linguistic Inquiry 33, 183-224.
Brame, M., 1970. Arabic phonology: Implications for phonological theory and general Semitic,
MIT: Ph.D. Dissertation.
Chomsky, N., 1995. The minimalist program. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Dowty, D., 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in
generative semantics and in Montague's PTQ. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht.
Embick, D., 2004. On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry 35,
355-392.
Fassi Fehri, A. 1987. Anti-causatives in Arabic, causativity and affectedness. Ms. Cambridge,
Mass.
Foley, W., Van Valin, R., 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
The Syntax of Transitivity
Page 28 of 29
Hale, K., Keyser, S. J., 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic
relations. In: Hale, K., Keyser, S. J., Eds., The view from building 20: Essays in
linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 53-109.
Hung, H. 1988. The structure of derived nouns and verbs in Malagasy: A syntactic account:
McGill University.
Jackendoff, R., 1990. Semantic structures. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Kayne, R., 1975. French syntax: The transformational cycle. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Kayne, R., 1984. Connectedness and binary branching. Foris, Dordrecht, Holland.
Koopman, H., Sportiche, D. 1985. Subjects. Los Angeles: UCLA.
Koopman, H., Sportiche, D., 1991. The position of subjects. Lingua 85, 211-258.
Koopman, H., 1992. On the absence of case chains in Bambara. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 10, 555-594.
Kratzer, A., 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In: Rooryck, J., Zaring, L., Eds.,
Phrase structure and the lexicon. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 109-137.
Kuroda, S.-Y., 1965. Causative forms in Japanese. Foundations of Language 1, 30-50.
Kurylowicz, J., 1957. Esquisse d’une théorie de l’apophonie en Sémitique. Bulletin de la Société
de Linguistique de Paris 53, 1-38.
Larson, R., 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335-391.
Levin, B., 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. University
of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Levy, M., 1971. The plural of the noun in Modern Standard Arabic, University of Michigan:
Ph.D. Dissertation.
Li, Y., 1990. X0-binding and verb-incorporation. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 399-426.
Peter Hallman
Page 29 of 29
Marantz, A., 1985. Lexical decomposition vs. affixes as syntactic constituents, Papers from the
parasession on causatives and agentivity at CLS 21. Chicago Linguistics Society,
Chicago, pp. 154-171.
Marantz, A., 1997. No escape from syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of
your own lexicon. In: Dimitriadis, A., Siegel, L., Eds., University of Pennsylvania
working papers in linguistics: Proceedings of the 21st annual Penn linguistics
colloquium. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 201-225.
Pinker, S., 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass.
Pylkkänen, L., 2002. Introducing arguments, MIT: Ph.D. Dissertation.
Rosen, S. T., 1990. Argument structure and complex predicates. Garland, New York.
Travis, L. 1991. Derived objects, inner aspect, and the structure of VP. Ms. Montreal.
Travis, L., 2000. Event structure in syntax. In: Tenny, C., Pustejovsky, J., Eds., Events as
grammatical objects: The converging perspectives of lexical semantics and syntax. CSLI
Publications, Stanford, pp. 145-185.
Recommended