Causativity and Transitivity in Arabic

of 29

CausativityandTransitivityinArabic

PeterHallman,UniversityofToronto

[email protected]

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

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

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


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

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


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

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)


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

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.


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

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.


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

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


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

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.


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

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.


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

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.’


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

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.)


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

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.


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

of 29

transitivityandcausativitysuggeststheyareparallelproperties.Yet,thefactthattransitivityis

inseparablefromanyrootitisassociatedwithsuggeststhatitisalexicalpropertyofthatroot,

notoneconstructedinthesyntax.Ihaveproposedthattheargumentsofatransitiveverbsare

licensedinVPshellsthatuseupslotsintheroot’sallotmentofargumentpositionsthatcould

otherwisehostcausativization.Thisanalysisderivesthepatternseeninsection2andreconciles

apparentlycontradictorycharacteristicsoftransitivity.


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

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.


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

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.

Causativity and Transitivity in Arabic

Documents

Transcript of Causativity and Transitivity in Arabic