Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T16:19:35.328Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Causalness and the encoding of the causative–anticausative alternation in French and Spanish1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2015

STEFFEN HEIDINGER
STEFFEN HEIDINGER*
Affiliation:
Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz
*
Author’s address: Institut für Romanistik, Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, Merangasse 70/III, 8010 Graz, Austriasteffen.heidinger@uni-graz.at
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In French and Spanish, both parts of the causative–anticausative alternation can be formally encoded in two ways: Depending on the form of the verb, marked and unmarked causatives and marked and unmarked anticausatives can be distinguished. The goal of this paper is to verify whether causalness is a factor in the encoding and whether the two languages differ in this respect (verbs used more often as causatives than as anticausatives have a high degree of causalness, while verbs used more often as anticausatives than as causatives have a low degree of causalness). On the basis of a corpus study of 20 French and 20 Spanish verbs, it will be shown that in both languages a strong correlation between causalness and encoding exists. A high degree of causalness increases the likelihood that a verb’s anticausative is marked and the causative is unmarked, and a low degree of causalness increases the likelihood that a verb’s anticausative is unmarked and the causative is marked.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , 01 November 2015 , pp. 562 - 594
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexiadou, Artemis. 2010. On the morpho-syntax of (anti-)causative verbs. In Rappaport Hovav, Malka, Doron, Edith & Sichel, Ivy (eds.), Lexical semantics, syntax, and event structure, 177–203. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2014. The problem with internally caused change-of-state verbs. Linguistics 52.4, 879–909.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Schäfer, Florian. 2006. The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. In Frascarelli, Mara (ed.), Phases of interpretation, 175–199. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bassac, Christian. 1995. Le statut de verbe dit ergatif: Étude contrastive anglais-français. Thèse de Doctorat, Université de Nancy II.Google Scholar
Beavers, John & Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2013a. In defense of the reflexivization analysis of anticausativization. Lingua 131, 199–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beavers, John & Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2013b. Complications in diagnosing lexical meaning: A rejoinder to Horvath & Siloni (2013). Lingua 134, 210–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben Salah-Tlili, Imen. 2007. Contribution à l’étude des ‘verbes symétriques’ en français contemporain. In François, Jacques & Brahim, Ahmed (eds.), Morphosyntaxe et sémantique du verbe (Cahier no 23 du CRISCO), 15–37. Caen: Université de Caen.Google Scholar
Bittner, Maria. 1999. Concealed causatives. Natural Language Semantics 7.1, 1–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 2004. A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences. In Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Everaert, Martin (eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle: Explorations of the syntax–lexicon interface, 22–59. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 2006. Transitivity pairs, markedness, and diachronic stability. Linguistics 44.2, 303–318.Google Scholar
CREA = Real Academia Española. Banco de datos (CREA). Corpus de referencia del español actual. http://www.rae.es (accessed 29 December 2011, 2 January 2012 and 15 April 2013).Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1990. Possible verbs and the structure of events. In Tsohatzidis, Savas L. (ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization, 48–73. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2002. Corpus del español (100 millones de palabras, siglo XIII – siglo XX).http://www.corpusdelespanol.org.Google Scholar
Forest, Robert. 1988. Sémantisme entéléchique et affinité descriptive: pour une réanalyse des verbes symétriques ou neutres du français. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 83.1, 137–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frantext = ATILF-CNRS & Université de Lorraine (ed.). Base textuelle de Frantext. Nancy.http://www.frantext.fr (accessed 20 May 2010, 1 June 2010, 15 September 2010 and 12 April 2013).Google Scholar
Härtl, Holden. 2003. Conceptual and grammatical characteristics of argument alternations: The case of decausative verbs. Linguistics 41.5, 883–916.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1987. Transitivity alternations of the anticausative type. Köln: Universität zu Köln.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In Comrie, Bernard & Polinsky, Maria (eds.), Causatives and transitivity, 87–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42.1, 25–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics 19.1, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, Calude, Andreea, Spagnol, Michael, Narrog, Heiko & Bamyacı, Elif. 2014. Coding causal–noncausal verb alternations: A form–frequency correspondence explanation. Journal of Linguistics 50.3, 587–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heidinger, Steffen. 2010. French anticausatives: A diachronic perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heidinger, Steffen. 2012. Frequenz und die Kodierung der Kausativ–Antikausativ–Alternation im Französischen. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 62.2, 31–58.Google Scholar
Heidinger, Steffen. 2014. The persistence of labile verbs in the French causative–anticausative alternation. Linguistics 52.4, 1003–1024.Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia & Siloni, Tal. 2011. Anticausatives: Against reflexivization. Lingua 121.15, 2176–2186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horvath, Julia & Siloni, Tal. 2013. Anticausatives have no Cause(r): A rejoinder to Beavers and Koontz-Garboden (in this issue). Lingua 131, 217–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kailuweit, Rolf. 2011. Romance Anticausatives: A constructionist RRG approach. In Nakamura, Wataru (ed.), New perspectives in Role and Reference Grammar, 104–133. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Kailuweit, Rolf. 2012. Construcciones anticausativas: el español comparado con el francés. In von Bellosta Colbe, Valeriano & García García, Marco (eds.), Aspectualidad-Transitividad-Referencialidad: Las lenguas románicas en contraste, 133–158. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kallulli, Dalina. 2006. A unified analysis of passives, anticausatives and reflexives. Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics 6, 201–225.Google Scholar
Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2007. States, changes of state, and the Monotonicity Hypothesis. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2009. Anticausativization. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 27.1, 77–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid. 2003. The labile syntactic type in a diachronic perspective: The case of Vedic. SKY Journal of Linguistics 16, 93–112.Google Scholar
Kupferman, Lucien. 2008. Les deux anticausatifs du français: invariants lexicaux, configurations syntaxiques et inférences sémantiques. In Danblon, Emmanuelle, Kissine, Mikhail, Martin, Fabienne, Michaux, Christine & Vogeleer, Svetlana (eds.), Linguista sum: Mélanges offerts à Marc Dominicy, 235–250. Paris: Harmattan.Google Scholar
Labelle, Marie. 1992. Change of state and valency. Journal of Linguistics 28, 375–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labelle, Marie & Doron, Edit. 2010. Anticausative derivations (and other valency alternations) in French. Probus 22.2, 303–316.Google Scholar
Legendre, Geraldine & Smolensky, Paul. 2010. French inchoatives and the Unaccusativity Hypothesis. In Gerdts, Donna B., Moore, John C. & Polinsky, Maria (eds.), Hypothesis A/Hypothesis B: Linguistic explorations in honor of David M. Perlmutter, 229–246. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Letuchiy, Alexander. 2010. Lability and spontaneity. In Brandt, Patrick & García García, Marco (eds.), Transitivity: Form, meaning, acquisition, and processing, 237–255. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth & Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax–lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levy, Paulette. 1994. Verbos con sentido causativo en la construcción transitiva. In Alonso, Alegría & Garza Cuarón, Beatriz (eds.), II Encuentro de lingüistas y filólogos de España y México: Salamanca 25–30 de noviembre de 1991, 347–366. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.Google Scholar
Martin, Fabienne & Schäfer, Florian. 2014. Anticausatives compete but do not differ in meaning: A French case study. SHS Web of Conferences 8, 2485–2500. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20140801245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendikoetxea, Amaya. 1999. Construcciones inacusativas y pasivas. In Bosque, Ignacio & Demonte, Violeta (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española: Las construcciones sintácticas fundamentales. Relaciones temporales, aspectuales y modales, 1575–1629. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
Mendikoetxea, Amaya. 2012. Passives and se constructions. In Hualde, José I., Olarrea, Antxon & O’Rourke, Erin (eds.), The handbook of Hispanic linguistics, 477–502. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 1969. Nekotoryje verojatnostnyje universalii v glagol’nom slovoobrazovanii [Some probabilistic universals in verbal derivation]. In Vardul’, I. F. (ed.), Jazykovyje universalii i lingvističeskaja tipologija [Language universals and linguistic typology], 106–114. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Nedyalkov, V. P. & Silnitsky, G. G.. 1973. The typology of morphological and lexical causatives. In Kiefer, Ferenc (ed.), Trends in Soviet theoretical linguistics, 1–32. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna, Peterson, David A. & Barnes, Jonathan. 2004. Transitivizing and detransitivizing languages. Linguistic Typology 8.2, 149–211.Google Scholar
Piñón, Christopher. 2001. A finer look at the causative–inchoative alternation. In Hastings, Rachel, Jackson, Brendan & Zvolenszky, Zsofia (eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory XI, 346–364. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Ramalle, Teresa M. 2005. Manual de sintaxis del español. Madrid: Castalia.Google Scholar
Rothemberg, Mira. 1974. Les verbes à la fois transitifs et intransitifs en français moderne. The Hague & Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Samardžić, Tanja & Merlo, Paola. 2012. The meaning of lexical causatives in cross-linguistic variation. Linguistic Issues in Language Technology 7.12, 1–14.Google Scholar
Sánchez Lopez, Cristina. 2002. Las constructiones con se. Estado de la cuestión. In Sánchez López, Cristina (ed.), Las construcciones con se, 13–163. Madrid: Visor Libros.Google Scholar
Schäfer, Florian. 2008. The syntax of (anti-)causatives: External arguments in change-of-state contexts. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schäfer, Florian. 2009. The causative alternation. Language and Linguistics Compass 3.2, 641–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schäfer, Florian & Vivanco, Margot. 2013. Reflexively marked anticausatives are not semantically reflexive. Presented at Going Romance, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 1987. L’Ergativité réflexive en français moderne. Le Français moderne 55, 23–54.Google Scholar