Causative alternation, eventivity and transitivity: on the optionality of default constituents

MANGIALAVORI RASIA, MARÍA EUGENIA

UNIVERSITE DE NEUCHATEL

Conferencia; COLLOQUE INTERNATIONAL SUR LETEMPS, L'ASPECT, LA MODALITE ET L'EVIDENTIALITE​; 2018

Claim: The causative-inchoative alternation includes a third variant, logically allowed by the combinatorial system, fully productive in Romance (e.g. Spanish, Italian) and Greek. This little-discussed S(stative) C(ausative) C(onstruction) has a unique (external) argument interpreted by default not as undergoer but as cause/initiator ((1)c) and stative behavior. This raises various problems for the structural characterization and current assumptions on change-of-state [COS] verbs: 1-SCCs challenge the widely-agreed notion that internal arguments?which seem a stable argument in the alternation if the analysis is limited to commonly-discussed variants ((1)a|b)?are default in the argument structure of COS verbs (Hale & Keyser [HK] 2002:112, Rappaport & Levin [RL] 2011:152).2-Causative component independently realized: SCCs are problematic for a basic principle of event composition (2), whereby the event structure of COS verbs combines two components (cause-process); and cause, if present, causally implicates process.3-Absence of internal-argument-introducing VO would mean that interpretation of Spec,v as init/cause cannot be purely structural (read off [v[Vo] sequence (unaccusative vo embedding) HK 2002:176, Chomsky 1995).(1)a. La pasta engorda a los niños. ?Pasta fattens the kids?CAUSATIVE/TRANSITIVE (Spanish)b. Los niños engordan. ?The kids fatten [up]? INCHOATIVE/UNACCUSATIVEc. La pasta engorda. (lit. Pasta fattens.)?Pasta is fattening?SCC/UNERGATIVE(2)a. e1 → e2 ( [V1[V2] HK 1993:69, 2002) b.[xCAUSE[BECOME[ySTATE]]] (RL1998:108)(3) ([vP[voCAUS/INIT,√]])Proposal: languages like Romance/Greek differ from English by systematically allowing direct combination of the external-argument-introducing causative vo with the Root(3), producing an event and argument structure semantically and syntactically simpler than (1)a, but at the same time, maximally distinct from the monoargumental variant (1)b. We show that (A)SCCs do not involve unaccusative structure; rather, presence|absence of internal argument yields non-trivial minimal pairs (COS|SCC). Independent evidence involves (B)Systemtic extension to other verb classes with transitivity alternation (analyzed as stative-causative in English/German (Rothmayr 2009, Arad 1998)); (C)A nontrivial derivational alternative, where morphological marking can be related to realization of nondefective (internal-argument-licensing)Vo. (A) Differences with N(ull)O(bject)/G(eneric) A(rguments): SCCs (i)do not bind reflexives, allow secondary predication, (Null/bare) object quantification, resultatives, ne-cliticization; (ii) are productive with verbs incompatible with passives and NOs. NOs/GAs shift the interpretation to an eventive (Change-Of-State) type (telicity independent of object quantification, endpoint modifiers rejected by SCCs). Eventivity/Telicity correlate with (even null/covert) internal arugment realization: (i)event modifiers, progressive and perfective tense are only allowed on an undergoer reading of the DP (4) (conceptually odd cf.(5)); (ii)for-x-time is only allowed on stative/eventless reading (temporal bound to an individual-level (IL) property, not to an event evolving over time, like gradability. IL predication fits well with: (i)generic reading of the subject (cf.(4)) (not required by INCH variant); (ii)predication over the lifetime of the subject (Ese chococlate engordaba ?That chocolate was fattening?); (iii)incompatibility with perception reports (*He visto al chocolate engordar. ?I saw the chocolate fatten?). Insofar as potentially ambiguous structures get SCC readings, SCCs challenge not only (2)), but also a default internal-argument interpretation of the DP (Rappaport&Levin 2010). (4)Estos payasos *(te) asustan(abruptamente/gradualmente/por un tiempo).`These clowns {*are scary[SCC]/scare you[INCH]} (suddenly/gradually/for some time)? (5)#El chocolate casi engorda/está engordando/engordó. ?Chocolate almost gets fat/is fattening up/fattened?(B)Direct composition with vINIT (3) (cf. McIntyre 2004, Rosen 1989) correctly predicts (i)systematic productivity in Object-Experiencer (i.e., Init-Subject verbs) vs. verbs with opposite distribution (Subject-Experiencer (Undergoer-Subject) verbs); (ii)optional realization of the affected theme in Romance (cf. English).(6)Katherine {SUBJ-EXP*teme|OBJ-EXPOKmolesta).Katherine fears|bothers.?Katherine is bothersome?(C) Greek SCCs also: (i)are free with verbs not allowing NO; (ii)show ILP behavior; (iii)involve eventiveness only if the object is realized (perfect tense forces INCH reading); (iv)are productive with Object-Experiencer (not with Subject-Eperiencer) verbs. Syntax/semantics/morphology relation: Greek SCCs are not possible with Non-Active morphology (used for unaccusatives), mirroring the incompatibility with inchoative (se) marking in Romance. In all cases, syntactic projection of argument structure strictly correlates with event structure (Ramchand 2008 i.a) and morphological realization.