Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
  • Home
Article
  • Cited by 25

  • Get access
    Add to cart USD25.00
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
    Log in Register

Coding causal–noncausal verb alternations: A form–frequency correspondence explanation1

  • MARTIN HASPELMATH (a1), ANDREEA CALUDE (a2), MICHAEL SPAGNOL (a3), HEIKO NARROG (a4) and ELİF BAMYACI (a5)...

Abstract

We propose, and provide corpus-based support for, a usage-based explanation for cross-linguistic trends in the coding of causal–noncausal verb pairs, such as raise/rise, break (tr.)/break (intr.). While English mostly uses the same verb form both for the causal and the noncausal sense (labile coding), most languages have extra coding for the causal verb (causative coding) and/or for the noncausal verb (anticausative coding). Causative and anticausative coding is not randomly distributed (Haspelmath 1993): Some verb meanings, such as ‘freeze’, ‘dry’ and ‘melt’, tend to be coded as causatives, while others, such as ‘break’, ‘open’ and ‘split’, tend to be coded as anticausatives. We propose an explanation of these coding tendencies on the basis of the form–frequency correspondence principle, which is a general efficiency principle that is responsible for many grammatical asymmetries, ultimately grounded in predictability of frequently expressed meanings. In corpus data from seven languages, we find that verb pairs for which the noncausal member is more frequent tend to be coded as anticausatives, while verb pairs for which the causal member is more frequent tend to be coded as causatives. Our approach implies that linguists should not rely on form–meaning parallelism when trying to explain cross-linguistic or language-particular patterns in this domain.

Copyright

COPYRIGHT: © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Corresponding author

Authors’ address: (Haspelmath)Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, 04103 Leipzig, Germanyhaspelmt@eva.mpg.de

Footnotes

Hide All
[1]

We are grateful to three anonymous referees for the Journal of Linguistics as well as to Bernard Comrie for very useful comments on this paper. In addition, we are grateful to the audiences in several places where we presented this work: at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (which also deserves thanks for bringing several of the authors together), at the 4th UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference (London), at the Societas Linguistica Europaea 2012 in Stockholm, and at the Syntax of the World's Languages 5 in Dubrovnik.

Footnotes

References

Hide All
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2010. On the morpho-syntax of (anti-)causative verbs. In Hovav, Malka Rappaport, Doron, Edit & Sichel, Ivy (eds.), Syntax, lexical semantics and event structure, 177–203. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Schäfer, Florian. 2006. The properties of anti-causatives crosslinguistically. In Frascarelli, Mara (ed.), Phases of interpretation, 187–211. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Borer, Hagit. 1991. The causative–inchoative alternation: A case study in parallel morphology. The Linguistic Review 8, 119–158.
Bybee, Joan L. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language 82.4, 711–733.
Clark, Eve V. & Clark, Herbert H.. 1978. Universals, relativity, and language processing. In Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.), Universals of human language, vol. 1: Method and theory, 225–277. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Causative verb formation and other verb-derivational morphology. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 3: Grammatical categories and lexicon, 309–348. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, William. 1990. Possible verbs and the structure of events. In Tsohatzidis, Savas L. (ed.), Meaning and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization, 48–73. London: Routledge.
Croft, William. 2003. Typology and universals, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cysouw, Michael. 2008. Generalizing scales. In Richards, Marc & Malchukov, Andrej L. (eds.), Scales (Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 86), 379–396. Leipzig: Institut für Linguistik, University of Leipzig.
Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.. 2000. Introduction. In Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds.), Changing valency: Case studies in transitivity, 1–29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doron, Edit. 2003. Agency and voice: The semantics of Semitic templates. Natural Language Semantics 11, 1–67.
Givón, Talmy. 1991. Markedness in grammar: Distributional, communicative and cognitive correlates of syntactic structure. Studies in Language 15.2, 335–370.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Language universals, with special reference to feature hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton.
Guerssel, Mohamed, Hale, Kenneth, Laughren, Mary, Levin, Beth & Eagle, Josie White. 1985. A cross-linguistic study of transitivity alternations. Chicago Linguistic Society 21, part 2, 48–62.
Haiman, John. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59.4, 781–819.
Hakkani-Tür, Dilek Zeynep. 2000. Statistical language modeling for agglutinative languages. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Computer Engineering, Bilkent University, Ankara.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1987. Transitivity alternations of the anticausative type (Arbeitspapiere Des Instituts Für Sprachwissenschaft N.F. Nr. 4). Cologne: Universität zu Köln.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In Comrie, Bernard & Polinsky, Maria (eds.), Causatives and transitivity, 87–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. Does linguistic explanation presuppose linguistic description? Studies in Language 28, 554–579.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42.1, 25–70.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2008a. Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics 19.1, 1–33.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2008b. Creating economical morphosyntactic patterns in language change. In Good, Jeff (ed.), Language universals and language change, 185–214. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language 86.3, 663–687.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica 45.2, 31–80.
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heidinger, Steffen. 2010. French anticausatives: A diachronic perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Heidinger, Steffen. 2012. Frequenz und die Kodierung der Kausativ–Antikausativ-Alternation im Französischen. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 62, 31–58.
Heidinger, Steffen. To appear. Causalness and the encoding of the causative–anticausative alternation in French and Spanish. Journal of Linguistics.
Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2009. Anticausativization. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 27, 77–138.
Lehmann, Christian. 2007. On the upgrading of grammatical concepts. In Moerdijk, Fons, van Santen, Ariane & Tempelaars, Rob (eds.), Leven met woorden: Opstellen aangeboden aan Piet van Sterkenburg, 409–422. Leiden: Brill.
Letuchiy, Alexander. 2010. Lability and spontaneity. In Brandt, Patrick & García, Marco García (eds.), Transitivity: Form, meaning, acquisition, and processing, 237–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Levin, Beth & Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax–lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mel’čuk, Igor’ A. 1967. K ponjatiju slovoobrazovanija. Izvestija Akademii Nauk SSSR, Serija literatury i jazyka 26(4), 352–362.
Mihalcea, Rada F. & Năstase, Vivi A.. 2002. Letter level learning for language independent diacritics restoration. In Roth, Dan & van den Bosch, Antal (eds.), 6th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL 2002), 105–111. Taipei. [http://www.clips.uantwerpen.be/conll2002/proceedings.html]
Narrog, Heiko. 2007. Nihongo zita dōshi ni okeru yūhyōsei-sa no dōki-duke [On the motivation for markedness differences in Japanese transitivity verb pairs]. In Tsunoda, Mie, Sasaki, Kan & Shioya, Tōru (eds.), Tadōsei no tsūgengoteki kenkyū – Tsunoda Tasaku Hakase kanreki kinen ronbunshū [Cross-linguistic studies of transitivity – a Festschrift for the 60th birthday of Doctor Tsunoda Tasaku], 295–306. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan.
Narrog, Heiko, Pardeshi, Prashant & Sanada, Haruko. 2014. Motivating coding differences in transitivity pairs with frequency: A case study from Japanese. Ms., Tohoku University & NINJAL Tokyo.
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. & Sil'nickij, Georgij G.. 1969. Tipologija morfologičeskogo i leksičeskogo kauzativov [Typology of morphological and lexical causatives]. In Xolodovič, Alexander A. (ed.), Tipologija kauzativnyx konstrukcij [Typology of causative constructions], 20–60. Leningrad: Nauka.
Nedyalkov [Nedjalkov], Vladimir P. & Silnitsky, Georgy G.. 1973. The typology of morphological and lexical causatives. In Kiefer, Ferenc (ed.), Trends in Soviet theoretical linguistics, 1–32. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Nichols, Johanna, Peterson, David A. & Barnes, Jonathan. 2004. Transitivizing and detransitivizing languages. Linguistic Typology 8.2, 149–211.
Payne, Thomas. 1997. Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Piñón, Christopher. 2001. A finer look at the causative–inchoative alternation. In Hastings, Rachel, Jackson, Brendan & Zvolenszky, Zsofia (eds.), Semantics and linguistic theory, vol. 11, 346–364. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
R Development Core Team. 2004. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. http://www.R-project.org.
Rosch, Eleanor. 1978. Principles of categorization. In Rosch, Eleanor & Lloyd, Barbara (eds.), Cognition and categorization, 189–206. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Samardžić, Tanja & Merlo, Paola. 2012. The meaning of lexical causatives in cross-linguistic variation. Linguistic Issues in Language Technology 7.12, 1–14.
Schäfer, Florian. 2008. The syntax of (anti-)causatives: External arguments in change-of-state contexts. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Schäfer, Florian. 2009. The causative alternation. Language and Linguistics Compass 3.2, 641–681.
Siewierska, Anna. 1984. The passive: A comparative linguistic analysis. London: Croom Helm.
Spagnol, Michael. 2011. A tale of two morphologies: Verb structure and argument alternations in Maltese. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Konstanz.
Wright, Saundra K. 2001. Internally caused and externally caused change of state verbs. Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University.
Zipf, George K. 1935. The psycho-biology of language. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO
  • Cited by 25

  • Get access
    Add to cart USD25.00
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
    Log in Register

Coding causal–noncausal verb alternations: A form–frequency correspondence explanation1

  • MARTIN HASPELMATH (a1), ANDREEA CALUDE (a2), MICHAEL SPAGNOL (a3), HEIKO NARROG (a4) and ELİF BAMYACI (a5)...

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.