Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T07:35:48.981Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Causers in English, Korean, and Chinese and the individuation of events

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2014

Phillip Wolff ,
Ga-Hyun Jeon  and
Yu Li
Phillip Wolff*
Affiliation:
Emory University
Ga-Hyun Jeon
Affiliation:
Emory University
Yu Li
Affiliation:
Emory University
*
Correspondence addresses: Phillip Wolff, Department of Psychology, Emory University, 532 N. Kilgo Circle, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA. E-mail: pwolff@emory.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The kinds of entities that can be described as causing an event depend, in part, on the language one speaks. Whereas in English and Chinese it is possible to say The knife cut the bread or The key opened the door, in Korean and many other languages, such sentences sound very odd. According to the initiator hypothesis, languages fall into two major groups with respect to possible external arguments in causal expressions: those that require that the causer be capable of generating its own energy and those that require only that the causer participate in the causal chain leading up to a particular result. In support of this hypothesis, we show that ability to self-energize has a larger impact on acceptability ratings in Korean than in either English or Chinese (Exp. 1). We also show that restrictions on possible causers extend to the semantics of possible causes in the descriptions of animations depicting causal chains (Exp. 2). Finally, we show that cross-linguistic differences in the linguistic coding of causers may have consequences for the way people conceptualize animations of causal chains in terms of number of events (Exp. 3). Implications for the representation of verb meaning and the semantics of external arguments in other languages are discussed.

Keywords

causativeslexical semanticssubjecthoodlanguage and thoughtcross-linguistic comparisonsevent perceptionevent individuation
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , June 2009 , pp. 167 - 196
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexiadou, Artemis & Schäfer, Florian. 2006. Instrument subjects are agents or causers. In Baumer, Donald, Montero, David & Scanlon, Michael (eds.), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast conference on Formal Linguistics, 40–48. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Achard, Michel. 2001. Causation, constructions, and language ecology: An example from French. In Shibatani, Masayoshi (ed.), The grammar of causation and interpersonal manipulation, 127–156. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Baron, Naomi S. 1977. Language acquisition and historical change. New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Bratt, Elizabeth O. 1996. Argument composition and the lexicon: Lexical and periphrastic causatives in Korean. Stanford, CA: Stanford University doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Casasanto, Daniel. 2005. Crying “Whorf”. Science 307. 1721–1722.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology, 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Craig, Colette C. 1977. The structure of Jacaltec. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Cruse, D. Alan. 1973. Some thoughts on agentivity. Journal of Linguistics 9. 11–13.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 2001. Essays on actions and events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Delancey, Scott. 1984. Notes on agentivity and causation. Studies in Language 8. 181–213.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67. 547–619.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Bach, Emmon & Harms, Robert Thomas (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Folli, Raffaella & Harley, Heidi. 2007. Teleology and animacy in external arguments. Lingua 118. 190–202.Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre. 2003. Why we're so smart. In Gentner, Dedre & Goldin-Meadow, Susan (eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought, 195–236. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grimm, Scott. 2007. The bounds of subjecthood: Evidence from instruments. Berkley Linguistics Society 33.Google Scholar
Guilfoyle, Eithne. 2000. Tense and N-features in Modern Irish. In Carnie, Andrew & Guilfoyle, Eithne (eds.), The syntax of verb initial languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1985. A comparative typology of English and German: Unifying the contrast. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray & Culicover, Peter W.. 2003. The semantic basis of control. Language 79(3). 517–556.Google Scholar
Kearns, Kate. 2000. Semantics. London: Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
Kwon, Nayoung & Polinsky, Maria. 2006. Object control in Korean: Structure and processing. In McGloin, Naomi & Mori, Junki (eds.), Japanese/Korean linguistics 15, 249–262. Chicago, IL: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI).Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representation of discourse referents (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 71). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 1993. Arguments against ‘subject’ and ‘direct object’ as viable concepts in Chinese. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 63. 759–813.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 2009. Chinese as a topic-comment (not topic-prominent and not SVO) language. In Xing, Janet (ed.), Studies of Chinese linguistics: Functional approaches, 9–22. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
Li, Charles & Thompson, Sandra. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In Li, Charles (ed.), Subject and topic. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1994. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 2005. Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth & Hovav, Malka Rappaport. in press. Lexical conceptual structure. In Maienborn, Claudia, von Heusinger, Klaus & Portner, Paul (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nisbett, Richard E., Choi, Incheol, Norenzayan, Ara & Peng, Kaiping. 2001. Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review 108. 291–310.Google Scholar
Park, Ki-seong. 1993. Korean causatives in role and reference grammar. Bufalo, NY: State University of New York at Buffalo Master's thesis.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria & Potsdam, Eric. 2003. Backward control: Evidence from Malagasy. In Rackowski, Andrea & Richards, Norvin (eds.), Proceedings of the eighth meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association, 257–272. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 1988. Transformational grammar: A first course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 1997. Syntactic theory and the structure of English: A minimalist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlesinger, I. M. 1989. Instruments as agents: On the nature of semantic relations. Journal of Linguistics 25. 189–210.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1976. The grammar of causative constructions: A conspectus. In Shibatani, Masayoshi (ed.), Syntax and semantics 6: The grammar of causative constructions, 1–40. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi, & Pardeshi, Prashant. 2001. The causative continuum. In Shibatani, Masayoshi (ed.), The grammar of causation and interpersonal manipulation, 85–126. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-Min. 2001. The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Song, Seok C. 1988. Explorations in Korean syntax and semantics. Berkeley: University of California, Institute of East Asian Studies.Google Scholar
Song, Grace & Wolf, Phillip. 2005. Linking perceptual properties to the linguistic expression of causation. In Achard, Michel & Kemmer, Suzanne (eds.), Language, culture, and mind, 237–250. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Soto Verónica, V. 2001. Some constraints on Cora causative constructions. In Shibatani, Masayoshi (ed.), The grammar of causation and interpersonal manipulation, 197–244. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
van Voorst, Jan. 1996. Some systematic differences between Dutch, French, and English transitive constructions. Language Sciences 18. 227–245.Google Scholar
VanValin, Robert D. & LaPolla, Randy. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, Phillip. 2003. Direct causation in the linguistic coding and individuation of causal events. Cognition 88. 1–48.Google Scholar
Wolf, Phillip, Jeon, Ga-hyun & Yeh, Kathy. 2006. Causal agents and the individuation of events in English, Chinese, and Korean. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Cognitive Science, 213–214. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Wolf, Phillip, Jeon, Ga-hyun, Klettke, Bianca & Li, Yu. in press. Force creation and possible causers across languages. In Malt, Barbara & Wolff, Phillip (eds.), Words and the world: How words capture human experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wolf, Phillip, Klettke, Bianca, Song, Grace & Ventura, Tatyana. 2005. Categories of causation across cultures. In Ahn, Woo-kyoung, Goldstone, Robert L., Love, Bradley C., Markman, Arthur & Wolff, Phillip (eds.), Categorization inside and outside of the lab: Festschrift in honor of Douglas L. Medin, 29–48. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Wolf, Phillip & Ventura, Tatyana. 2009. When Russians learn English: How the semantics of causation may change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12(2). 153–176.Google Scholar
Xu, Dan. 2006. Typological change in Chinese syntax. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar