The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically
The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically
复制标题
抗病因的跨语言特性
DOI：
10.1515/9783110197723.4.187
复制
发表时间：
2006
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
F. Schäfer
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Alexiadou;E. Anagnostopoulou;F. Schäfer
1. 目标使役/反使役交替一直是语言文献中类型学和理论讨论的主题。这种交替的特点是动词具有及物和不及物用法，因此动词 V 的及物用法大致意味着“导致 Vin 及物”（参见 Levin 1993）。讨论围绕两个问题：第一个问题涉及反使役关系和被动关系之间的异同，第二个问题涉及及物变体和不及物变体之间的派生关系（如果有的话）。关于第二个问题，已经制定了多种方法。判断该方法在概念上不令人满意，根据该方法，每个变体都被分配一个独立的词汇条目，因此得出的结论是，这两个变体必须在派生上相关。接下来的问题是两者中哪一个是基本的以及这种推导发生在语法中的何处。我们对这次讨论的贡献是反对因果/反因果交替的派生方法。我们重点研究英语、德语和希腊语被动语态和反使役语中与外部论元（施事者、起因、工具、引起事件）相关的介词分布，以及这些语言中经历使役/反使役交替的动词集。我们认为，这两个领域的跨语言差异为反对因果/反因果交替的因果化和去及物化分析提供了证据。我们提供了一种实现这种交替的方法，该方法基于将状态动词变化为语音和原因的句法分解
1. Goals The causative/anticausative alternation has been the topic of much typological and theoretical discussion in the linguistic literature. This alternation is characterized by verbs with transitive and intransitive uses, such that the transitive use of a verb V means roughly ‘cause to Vintransitive’ (see Levin 1993). The discussion revolves around two issues: the first one concerns the similarities and differences between the anticausative and the passive, and the second one concerns the derivational relationship, if any, between the transitive and intransitive variant. With respect to the second issue, a number of approaches have been developed. Judging the approach conceptually unsatisfactory, according to which each variant is assigned an independent lexical entry, it was concluded that the two variants have to be derivationally related. The question then is which one of the two is basic and where this derivation takes place in the grammar. Our contribution to this discussion is to argue against derivational approaches to the causative/anticausative alternation. We focus on the distribution of PPs related to external arguments (agent, causer, instrument, causing event) in passives and anticausatives of English, German and Greek and the set of verbs undergoing the causative/anticausative alternation in these languages. We argue that the crosslinguistic differences in these two domains provide evidence against both causativization and detransitivization analyses of the causative/anticausative alternation. We offer an approach to this alternation which builds on a syntactic decomposition of change of state verbs into a Voice and a CAUS