Aspectual Differences Between Agentive and Non-agentive Uses of Causative Predicates
Aspectual Differences Between Agentive and Non-agentive Uses of Causative Predicates
复制标题
使动谓语的施事和非施事用法之间的方面差异
DOI：
10.1007/978-3-030-34308-8_8
复制
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
F. Martin
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
F. Martin
本文旨在解释为什么在不同语言中，使役谓语的零变化（或失败尝试）使用在代理主语中比在原因主语中更容易获得。本文的结构如下。第8.2节报告的实验研究表明，研究中对零变化用法的接受程度因语言和不同类型的使役动词而异，一方面集中在普通话的普通（外延）单态使役动词上，另一方面集中在法语和英语的可否定（情态）使役谓词上。第8.7节说明了这一差异。第8.3节指出了这两组语言的零变化用法的来源，即汉语外延使役的外显体和英语或法语可解使役的次词性情态。第8.4节详细说明了Martin（2015）关于代理和非顶点之间联系的描述所提出的一个问题。第8.5节展示了引入施者与致因者的语音头如何与致因vps相结合，以及这两个语音头之间的语义差异如何影响对vp-事件的解释，特别是由vp表示的致因事件类型的标记方式。更确切地说，有人认为，在代理使用中，由vp表示的导致事件类型由由x的动作和主谓物y的状态变化（CoS）组成的复杂事件“充实”，而在非代理使用中，相同的导致事件类型仅由主谓物的CoS充实，它们本身由主语表示的可能性引起。在这种观点下，如果我们从外部论证中抽象化，一个非使役vp就会被解释为和它的反使役vp一样。然后认为，两个语态头之间的语义差异最终解释了为什么通常情况下，使役动词的零变化用法只适用于施词，从8.6.1节的外延使役动词开始，然后在8.6.2节中解决可消除的（情态）使役动词。第8.8节解释了为什么即使有致因主语，一些说话者偶尔也会接受零变化读法。
This paper aims to provide an account for why, across languages, the zero-change (or failed-attempt) use of causative predicates is easier to obtain with agent subjects than with causer subjects. The paper is structured as follows. Section 8.2 reports experimental studies suggesting that the degree of acceptance of the zero-change use at study varies across languages and across types of causative verbs, focusing on Mandarin run-of-the-mill (extensional) monomorphemic causative verbs on one hand, and French and English defeasible (modal) causative predicates on the other. This difference is accounted for in Sect. 8.7. Section 8.3 identifies the source of the zero-change use for these two sets of languages, namely outer aspect for Mandarin extensional causatives, and sublexical modality for English or French defeasible causatives. Section 8.4 spells out an issue raised by Martin’s (2015) account of the link between agentivity and non-culmination. Section 8.5 shows how the Voice head introducing agents vs. causers combines with causative vps, and how the semantic difference between these two voice heads influences the interpretation of the vp-event, and, in particular, the way the causing event type denoted by the vp is tokenized. More precisely, it is argued that in the agentive use, the causative event type denoted by the vp is ‘fleshed out’ by complex events composed of an action of x and a change-of-state (CoS) of the theme’s referent y, whereas in the non-agentive use, the very same causing event type is fleshed out by CoS of the theme’s referent only, themselves caused by the eventuality denoted by the subject. On this view, if we abstract away from the external argument, a non-agentive causative vp is interpreted the same way as its anticausative counterpart. It is then argued that the semantic difference between the two voice heads ultimately explains why typically, zero-change uses of causative vps are acceptable with agents only, starting with extensional causative verbs in Sect. 8.6.1, and then addressing defeasible (modal) causative verbs in Sect. 8.6.2. Section 8.8 accounts for why the zero-change reading is occasionally accepted by some speakers even with a causer subject.
及物性交替中的外部参数：分层方法
DOI：
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199571949.001.0001
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
Alexiadou;Artemis;Elena Anagnostopoulou ;Florian Schäfer
通讯作者：
Florian Schäfer
解释能动性和非终极因果关系之间的联系
DOI：
10.3765/salt.v25i0.3060
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
Semantics and Linguistic Theory
影响因子：
--
作者：
Martin;Fabienne
通讯作者：
Fabienne