Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T18:46:35.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Causativization1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Yehuda N. Falk
Yehuda N. Falk
Affiliation:
Department of English, The Faculty of Humanities, Institute of Languages, Literatures and Arts, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, 91905 Jerusalem, Israel
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the search for linguistic universals which typifies the generative approach to grammar, nothing is as revealing as phenomena which manifest themselves in a wide variety of languages. By exploring the similarities and differences that we find in a single phenomenon cross-linguistically, we can gain insight into the nature of the linguistic universals that are responsible for the phenomenon in question. This study is an investigation into one such phenomenon, morphological causativization (henceforth causativization), which may be illustrated by the following examples from a variety of languages.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , March 1991, pp. 55 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Aissen, J. L. (1974). The syntax of causative constructions. PhD dissertation, Harvard University. New York: Garland, 1979.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (1985). The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation. LIn 16. 373–415.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (1988). Incorporation: a theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1982). The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. & Kanerva, J. M. (1989). Locative inversion in Chicheŵa: a case study of factorization in grammar. LIn 20. 1–50.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. (1986). Italian syntax: a government-binding approach. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrier-Duncan, J. (1985). Linking of thematic roles in derivational word formation. LIn 16. 1–34.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, R. & Rosenbaum, P. (eds), Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn & Co. 184–221.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Cole, P. & Sadock, J. M. (1977). Grammatical relations (Syntax and Semantics, 8). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. (1976). The syntax of causative constructions: Cross-language similarities and divergences. In Shibatani, M. (ed), The grammar of causative constructions (Syntax and Semantics, 6). New York: Academic Press. 261–312.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1981). Language universals and linguistic typology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Davies, W. D. & Rosen, C. (1988). Unions as multi-predicate clauses. Lg 64. 52–88.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. S. (1983). Indirect objects in Kinyarwanda revisited. In Perlmutter, D. M. (ed.), Studies in Relational Grammar 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 129–140.Google Scholar
Dubinsky, S. W. (1985). Japanese union constructions: a unified analysis of -sase and -rare. PhD dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Falk, Y. N. (1984a). Grammatical configurations and grammatical relations. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Falk, Y. N. (1984b). The English auxiliary system: a lexical-functional analysis. Lg 60. 483–509.Google Scholar
Farmer, A. K. (1984). Modularity in syntax: a study of English and Japanese. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. & Özkaragöz, İ. (1981). The syntactic nature of the Turkish causative construction. CLS 17. 83–98.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (1982). On the lexical representation of Romance reflexive clitics. In Bresnan, J. (1982). 87–148.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. & Mester, A. (1988). Light verbs and θ-marking. LIn 19. 205–232.Google Scholar
Haig, J. H. (1980). Some observations on quantifier floating in Japanese. Linguistics 18. 1065–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetzron, R. (1976). On the Hungarian causative verb and its syntax. In Shibatani, M. (ed.), The grammar of causative constructions (Syntax and Semantics, 6). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1988). Adjuncts. Unpublished paper, Brandeis University.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. E. & Postal, P. M. (1980). Arc Pair Grammar. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (1975). French syntax: the transformational cycle. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kitagawa, C. (1980). Review of Hinds J. & Howard I. (eds), Problems in Japanese syntax and semantics. Lg 56. 435–440.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1973). The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1970). Irregularity in syntax. New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (1980). On the organization of the lexicon. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, 10). Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, S. (1984). Blocking and Japanese causatives. Lingua 64. 177–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. (1982a). Grammatical relations and clause structure in Malayalam. In Bresnan, J. (1982). 504–589.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. (1982b). Move NP or lexical rules? Evidence from Malayalam causativisation. In Levin, L., Rappaport, M. & Zaenen, A. (eds), Papers in Lexical-Functional Grammar. Bloomington, Ind: Indiana University Linguitics Club. 47–111.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M. (1983). Studies in Relational Grammar 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rappaport, M. & Levin, B. (1988). What to do with θ-roles. In Wilkins, W. (ed.), Thematic relations (Syntax and Semantics, 21). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rosen, C. (1983). Universals of causative union: a co-proposal to the Gibson-Raposo typology. CLS 19. 338–352.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1981). On the notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of a word’. Lin 12. 245–274.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1984). Grammatical relations. LIn 15. 639–673.Google Scholar
Zimmer, K. E. (1976). Some constraints on Turkish causativization. In Shibatani, M. (ed.), The grammar of causative constructions (Syntax and Semantics, 6). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M.-L. (1985). The relationship between morphophonology and morphosyntax: the case of Romance causatives. Lin 16. 247–289.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M.-L. & Vergnaud, J.-R. (1982). On virtual categories. In Marantz, A. & Stowell, T. (eds), Papers in syntax (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 4). Cambridge, Mass.: Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT. 293–303.Google Scholar