Transitivity and Causation in Lushootseed Morphology

Gengo Kenkyu: Journal of the Linguistic Society of Japan, 1973

This paper investigates the mechanism responsible for the English verbal morphology paradigm in (1), analyses of which have played pivotal roles in theories of syntax, the lexicon and the syntax-morphology interface since Chomsky 1957.

1992

Kobe Papers in Linguistics, 2001

Typological Studies in Language, 2010

Folia Linguistica, 2009

Causativization is typically understood as a morphologically signaled process which introduces an agent to the valency of verbs, thus yielding constructions with n+1 arguments. This clearly constitutes the core of causatives, and many languages across the globe have means of expressing this function. In addition, causative morphemes may attach to verbs without affecting the valency of verbs and/or the number of arguments in clauses in any way. These are examined in this paper. Three types of non-prototypical uses of causative morphemes will be distinguished, based on whether causativization has consequences for the number of participants in the denoted event, the degree of agency associated with the instigator, or the transitivity of the denoted event in general. These three types are labeled COVERT CAUSATIVIZATION, AGENTIVIZATION and TRANSITIVIZATION. In addition to providing a systematic overview of non-prototypical uses of causative morphemes, the rationale behind the attested types and their relation to the causative prototype will also be discussed. The goal of the present study is to show that causativization involves more than the mere introduction of an agent. In so doing, it aims to broaden our perspective on causativization.

In Lisa Matthewson, Erin Guntly and Michael Rochemont (eds.), Wa7 xweysás i nqwal’utteníha i ucwalmícwa: He loves the people’s languages. Essays in honour of Henry Davis, 597–612. Vancouver, BC: UBC Occasional Papers in Linguistics., 2018

Lushootseed has relatively little in the way of word-level inflections the main exception to this being the aspectual system, which is described by Hess (1995) as having five members. On examining the paradigm, one notices that three of the five prefixes involved begin with /lə/, and that each of these forms is closely related in semantic terms. In this paper, I show that this is not a coincidence, and that both the size of the paradigm and the phonological similarities within it can rather neatly be accounted for by treating the progressive morpheme as a clitic, lə=, and the progressive state and continuative aspects as combinations of this clitic with the two non-zero aspect prefixes, one synchronic and one etymological.

Johnson analyses Gapping as resulting &om Across-the-Board verb movement fiom conjoined VPs: binding domain (contrast wJ(10) for Gapping): 20. Robinl could speak French [CP before shel could Russian] We point this out primarily because Levin gives the above as the principal argument for not showing PG and Gapping as related. We have seen, though, that we can capture the similarities between the two fiom the fact that they both involve ATB Vto-I, while capturing the important daerences with the claim that the ATE3 proceeds fiom dflerent types of conjuncts. 4. Pseudogapping: NOT a Special Case of VPE Lam& (1 995,1999) has offered an interesting analysis of PG as a special case of Verb Phrase Ellipsis (WE). Here, we show several problems for Lasnik's idea that the new analysis does not face. Lasntk shows PG as a two-step process: 1) overt raising of a verbal complement to [Spec, Agr-oP], followed by 2) WE. So a sample derivation becomes: 2 1. Robin could speak French and [TP Kim could [AGR-OP Italian,-311 However, this forces the prediction that any and all languages with PG must have W E as well. This prediction simply does not bear out: 22. German a. Robin konnte Russiche sprechen bevor Kim Franzoesich konnte could Russian speak before French could 'Robin could speak Russian before Kim could French' b. *Robin ksnne Fisch essen, und Kim k(inne auch W' Ebad.) 'Robin can eat fish, and Kim can also' 23. Latvian a Vina var runat angliski, un v i d var italiani (PG good) She can speak English, and he can Italian b. *Vina var runat angliski, un ving var ari (VPE bad) She can speak English, and he can also Our analysis (apparently correctly) connects PG with Gapping, rather than WE, in the implicational universal. Lasnik's analysis faces other empirical problems as well. Lasnik relies on [Spec, Agr-oP] a s a landing site for the overt movement of the surface right remnant. The following examples, though, prove unlikely candidates for such overt raising: 24. a. You behaved shamefully, but I did behaw [ADW bravely] b. This new road will lead to Clovis, and that one will lette [PP to Fresno] c. Robin is likely to win, and Kim is k k l y [IP to lose] d. Pat may believe now that every cloud has a silver lining, but she will tomorrow believe [CP that no good can ever come to people in this evil, evil world] None of the above bracketed elements has Case or Agreement features normally associated with AgrP. If one loosens the concept of the role of Agr-oP @amk appeals to an EPP feature checked there), problems remain. Adverbs do not make good subjects, so the (a) form would not seem to allow raising to [Spec, Agr-oP]. In (d), we see an extraposed clausal complement, which cannot have [Spec, Agr-oP] as its landing site. Furthermore, contrary to the expectations of Las~uk's analysis, PG and W E differ in important empirical ways. For instance, PG shows island effects, whereas W E does not: 25. a. Robin can speak Russian, and I know [a fXend [who can ff3ettk &&kl&m too]] b. *Robin can speak Russian, and I know [a friend [who can ff3ettk Italian]] 26. a. Robin will fascinate the children, and I believe [the claim [that Kim will too]] b. ?*Robin will fascinate the children, and I believe [the claim [that Kim will hsektik the adults]] For us, the illformed PG examples fall out under general constraints on movement. Since W E does not involve movement, no such problem exists. Also, as Levin (1 986:54) notes, WE readily allows for more than one supporting auxiliary, while PG does not. The following contrast: 27. a. Robin has been playing the oboe, and Kim has been phyk&w eeee too b. ?*Robin has been playing the oboe, and Kim has been p h p g the bassoon 28. a. Pat could have been drinking beer, and Kim could have been. . €lmhgk% too b. *Pat could have been drinking beer, and Kim could have been gin Lasnik equates PG with VPE and hence cannot explain the above contrasts. For us, PG involves V-to-1 movement. We take I as including TP and Agr-sP. Note that to amve at the (b) forms above, the ATB Verb movement would have to have as its landing site a projection below IP (perhaps an Asp head position) The degradation follows, then, from a suboptimal landing site. 5. Conclusion Pseudogapping and Gapping are the same, but different. They are the same in that they both involve ATB V-to-I movement; they are different in that PG shows asymmetric ATB movement. Our unification of PG as essentially a marked type of Gapping enables us to make a number of correct predictions, and avoids the set of problems facing's Lasnik's VPE-spirited analysis of PG.