Article published In: Transitivity and Valency: From theory to acquisition
Edited by Georgia Fotiadou and Hélène Vassiliadou
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes 40:1] 2017
► pp. 25–42
A competition-based analysis of French anticausatives
Published online: 8 December 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.40.1.02leg
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.40.1.02leg
Abstract
Some long-standing questions surrounding anticausatives in languages like French include whether the morphological marking (presence/absence of se) correlates with interpretational differences and/or different syntax. We examine the three anticausatives classes (optional se, obligatory se, no se) in three aspectual contexts and formulate a generalization whereby a default morphological form (reflexive-/non-reflexive-marked) can be identified for each context, plus an interpretive anti-blocking effect: if the lexicon does not provide the default form then the other form (regardless of morphology) preserves the aspectual interpretation of its transitive source. French anticausative se is tied to lexical aspect (rather than syntax), but the distribution is complex and non-transparent. We argue that the grammar allows bidirectional competition among forms and interpretations and the formalize analysis in Bidirectional OT (Superoptimality).
Article outline
- Introduction
- 1.Default and antiblocking effects in anticausativization
- 1.1Completion interpretation
- 1.2Result state interpretation
- 1.3Partial completion interpretation
- 2.A formal account in terms of bidirectional optimization
- 2.1Ingredients of the analysis
- 2.2Optimization for completion interpretation
- 2.3Optimization for partial completion interpretation
- 2.4Optimization in neutral contexts
- 3.A brief comparison with (a sample of) alternative analyses
- Notes
References
References (31)
Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., & Schäfer, F. (2015). External Arguments in Transitivity Alternations – A Layering Approach. Oxford University Press.
Blutner, R. (2000). Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation. Journal of Semantics, 17(3), 189–216.
Cennamo, M. (2012). Aspectual constraints on the (anti)causative alternation in Old Italian. Transactions of the Philological Society, 110(3), 394–421.
Centineo, G. (1995). The distribution of si in Italian transitive/inchoative pairs. In M. Simmons, & T. Galloway (Eds.), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory V (pp. 54–71). NY: Cornell University.
Chierchia, G. (2004). A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences. In A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou, & M. Everaert (Eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle: exploration at the syntax-lexicon interface (pp. 22–59). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dekker, P., & von Rooy, R. (2000). Bi-directional Optimality Theory: An application of game theory. Journal of Semantics 17(3), 217–42.
Folli, R. (2002). Constructing Telicity in English and Italian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oxford.
Grimshaw, J. (1982). On the lexical representation of Romance reflexive clitics. In J. Bresnan (Ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations (pp. 87–148). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kempchinsky, P. (2004). Romance se as an aspectual element. In J. Auger et al., (Eds.), Contemporary Approaches to Romance Linguistics (pp. 239–56). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kratzer, A. (1996). Severing the external argument from its verb. In J. Rooryck & L. Zaring (Eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon (pp. 109–37). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Labelle, M., & Doron, E. (2010). Anticausative derivations (and other valency alternations) in French. Probus, 22(2), 303–16.
Legendre, G., & Smolensky, P. (2010). French inchoatives and the Unaccusativity Hypothesis. In D. Gerdts, J. Moore, & M. Polinsky (Eds.), Hypothesis A/Hypothesis B: Linguistic Explorations in Honor of David M. Perlmutter (pp. 229–46). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Legendre, G., Putnam, M., de Swart, H., & Zaroukian, E. (Eds.). (2016a). Optimality-Theoretic Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics – From Uni- to Bidirectional Optimization. Oxford University Press.
Legendre, G., Smolensky, P., & Culbertson, J. (2016b). Blocking effects at the lexicon/semantics interface and bi-directional optimization in French. In G. Legendre, M. Putnam, H. de Swart, & E. Zaroukian (Eds.), Optimality-theoretic syntax, semantics, and pragmatics: From uni- to bidirectional optimization (pp. 276–99). Oxford University Press.
Martin, F., & Schäfer, F. (2014). Anticausatives compete but do not differ in meaning: A French case study. Proceedings of CMLF. SHS Web of Conferences 8.
Pinón, C. (2001). A finer look at the causative-inchoative alternation. In R. Hastings, B. Jackson, & Z. Zvolenszky (Eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 11 (pp. 346–64). Ithaca: CLC Publications.
Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (1993/2004). Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Technical report, Rutgers University and University of Colorado at Boulder 1993, ROA 537, 2002. Revised version published by Blackwell, 2004.Oxford: Blackwell.
Rothemberg, M. (1974). Les verbes à la fois transitifs et intransitifs en français contemporain. The Hague: Mouton.
