Full download ebook at ebookgate.

com

Complex Predicates The Syntax Morphology

Interface 1st Edition Leila Lomashvili

https://ebookgate.com/product/complex-predicates-
the-syntax-morphology-interface-1st-edition-leila-
lomashvili/

Download more ebook from https://ebookgate.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

First Language Acquisition of Morphology and Syntax

Pedro Guijarro Fuentes

https://ebookgate.com/product/first-language-acquisition-of-
morphology-and-syntax-pedro-guijarro-fuentes/

Abstract Phonology in a Concrete Model Cognitive

Linguistics and the Morphology Phonology Interface 1st
Edition Nesset

https://ebookgate.com/product/abstract-phonology-in-a-concrete-
model-cognitive-linguistics-and-the-morphology-phonology-
interface-1st-edition-nesset/

Morphosyntactic Change Functional and Formal

Perspectives Oxford Surveys in Syntax Morphology 1st
Edition Fischer

https://ebookgate.com/product/morphosyntactic-change-functional-
and-formal-perspectives-oxford-surveys-in-syntax-morphology-1st-
edition-fischer/

Interaction of Morphology and Syntax Case Studies in

Afroasiatic 1st Edition Zygmunt Frajzyngier (Ed.)

https://ebookgate.com/product/interaction-of-morphology-and-
syntax-case-studies-in-afroasiatic-1st-edition-zygmunt-
frajzyngier-ed/
Semitic and Indo European Volume II Comparative
Morphology Syntax and Phonetics 1st Edition Saul Levin

https://ebookgate.com/product/semitic-and-indo-european-volume-
ii-comparative-morphology-syntax-and-phonetics-1st-edition-saul-
levin/

Natural Language Processing and Computational

Linguistics Speech Morphology and Syntax 1st Edition
Mohamed Zakaria Kurdi

https://ebookgate.com/product/natural-language-processing-and-
computational-linguistics-speech-morphology-and-syntax-1st-
edition-mohamed-zakaria-kurdi/

From Start to Finnish 10th Edition Leila White

https://ebookgate.com/product/from-start-to-finnish-10th-edition-
leila-white/

Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing And

Biology 1st Edition Committee On Frontiers At The
Interface Of Computing And Biology

https://ebookgate.com/product/catalyzing-inquiry-at-the-
interface-of-computing-and-biology-1st-edition-committee-on-
frontiers-at-the-interface-of-computing-and-biology/

The Syntax of Spanish 1st Edition Karen Zagona

https://ebookgate.com/product/the-syntax-of-spanish-1st-edition-
karen-zagona/
Complex Predicates
Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA)
Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) provides a platform for original monograph
studies into synchronic and diachronic linguistics. Studies in LA confront empirical
and theoretical problems as these are currently discussed in syntax, semantics,
morphology, phonology, and systematic pragmatics with the aim to establish robust
empirical generalizations within a universalistic perspective.

General Editors
Werner Abraham Elly van Gelderen
University of Vienna / Arizona State University
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Advisory Editorial Board

Josef Bayer Christer Platzack
University of Konstanz University of Lund
Cedric Boeckx Ian Roberts
ICREA/Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Cambridge University
Guglielmo Cinque Lisa deMena Travis
University of Venice McGill University
Liliane Haegeman Sten Vikner
University of Ghent University of Aarhus
Hubert Haider C. Jan-Wouter Zwart
University of Salzburg University of Groningen
Terje Lohndal
University of Maryland

Volume 174
Complex Predicates. The syntax-morphology interface
by Leila Lomashvili
Complex Predicates
The syntax-morphology interface

Leila Lomashvili
University of Arizona

John Benjamins Publishing Company

Amsterdam / Philadelphia
 TM
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of
8

American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of

Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Lomashvili, Leila.
Complex predicates : the syntax-morphology interface / Leila Lomashvili.
p. cm. (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, issn 0166-0829 ; v. 174)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Grammar, Comparative and general--Verb phrase. 2. Grammar, Comparative and
general--Syntax. 3. Grammar, Comparative and general--Morphology. I. Title.
P281.L63   2011
415--dc22 2010051883
isbn 978 90 272 5557 0 (Hb ; alk. paper)
isbn 978 90 272 8719 9 (Eb)

© 2011 – John Benjamins B.V.

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any
other means, without written permission from the publisher.
John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands
John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa
 Table of contents

Acknowledgements ix
List of abbreviations and symbols xi

chapter 1
Preliminaries 1
1.1 Research goals 1
1.2 Theoretical approaches 2
1.3 Argument structure of causative and applicative constructions 4
1.3.1 Argument structure of causatives 5
1.3.2 Argument structure of applicatives 8
1.4 Variation of causatives and applicatives 11
1.5 Theoretical framework 14
1.5.1 Distributed Morphology (DM) 14
1.5.2 Chomsky’s (1999, 2001) notion of phases 17
1.5.3 Contextual allomorphy as evidence
for phasehood (Embick 2010) 17
1.5.4 Kratzer (1994) on the VoiceP and external arguments 20
1.5.5 Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou & Schaefer (2006)
on separation of CAUSE from Voice 22
1.5.6 Cuervo (2003) on different flavors of little vs 23
1.6 Status of templates and Kartvelian morphosyntax 25
1.6.1 The structure of the verbal template 25
1.6.2 Assumptions about language-specific templatic constraints 28
1.7 Case and agreement 30
1.8 Outline 34

chapter 2
The morphosyntax of causative alternations 37
2.1 Outline of the analysis 37
2.2 Assumptions 38
2.3 Inchoative-causative alternation in Georgian 42
2.3.1 Causatives of inchoative verbs 42
2.4 Unergative verbs of various types and their causatives 46
 Complex Predicates

2.4.1 Hale & Keyser (1993, 2002) on the structure of unergatives 46

2.4.2 Adjective-Incorporated (AI) vPs and their causatives 51
2.4.3 Syntactic and iterated causatives of unergative verbs 54
2.5 Transitive/causative alternation 60
2.5.1 X makes Y do V alternation 60
2.5.2 Iterated causatives 64
2.6 Adversity causatives in Georgian 68
2.7 ‘Pretend’-type predicates and their causatives 75
2.7.1 Derivation of ‘pretend’-type complex verbs 76
2.7.2 Causative alternation of ‘pretend’-type verbs 79
2.8 Psych verbs and causative alternation 82
2.8.1 The empirical base of state, dynamic passive,
and activity psych verbs 82
2.8.2 Analysis of the morphosyntax of the three classes
of psych verbs and their causatives 88
2.9 Causative predicates in related languages (Mengrelian and Svan) 93
2.9.1 The causative alternation in Svan 93
2.9.2 Causative alternation in Mengrelian 95
2.10 Conclusions 97

chapter 3
Applicatives as complex predicates 99
3.1 Theoretical goals 99
3.1.1 Outline of the chapter 99
3.1.2 McGinnis on applicative structures as phases 102
3.1.3 Transitivity restrictions on high and low
applicatives (Pylkkänen 2002) 105
3.1.4 Cuervo (2003) on low and high applicatives in Spanish 107
3.1.5 Jeong (2007) on the structure of low applicatives 112
3.2 Low applicatives in Georgian 114
3.2.1 Low recipient applicatives 114
3.2.2 Low source applicatives 123
3.2.3 Low state applicatives: Possessor Datives (AT) 125
3.3 Low applicatives of unaccusative and inchoative verbs 128
3.3.1 Empirical data and syntactic analysis 129
3.3.2 Analysis of morphological marking 133
3.4 Low applicatives of Noun/Adjective-incorporated predicates 136
3.5 Reflexive applicatives 139
3.5.1 Analysis of the morphosyntax of reflexive applicatives 141
3.6 Possessor datives as low applicatives 145
 Table of contents 

3.6.1 Low applicatives of statives 146

3.6.2 Other activity verbs in low applicative constructions 149
3.7 Four-place predicates as hybrid type applicatives 150
3.7.1 Analysis of the morphosyntax of four-place applicatives 154
3.8 High applicatives in Georgian 158
3.8.1 High applicatives with stative unaccusative predicates 158
3.8.2 High applicatives of other unaccusative predicates 162
3.8.3 High applicatives with dynamic activity verbs 164
3.9 Applicatives in related languages (Mengrelian and Svan) 168
3.9.1 Applicatives in Mengrelian 168
3.9.2 Applicatives in Svan 174
3.10 Conclusions 178

chapter 4
Conclusions 179

References 181
Appendix A 185
Index 189
 Acknowledgements

This project has been initiated as the monograph on the morpho-syntactic proper-
ties of complex predicate constructions in the polysynthetic languages of the South
Caucasus. It was initially intended to cover just the issues of the syntax-morphol-
ogy interface in these constructions but due to a syntactic component, the work
was expanded with the analysis of the argument and event structure. Although
each of the complex predicate constructions (causative and applicative) covered in
this work deserves much more detailed study in the languages under investigation,
the book attempts to cover main types of these constructions by putting them in a
wider context of several Native American and typologically similar languages.
I am particularly grateful to the following people for reviewing and giving
pithy comments on the earlier versions of this work: first and foremost, to Heidi
Harley and Simin Karimi, Andrew Carnie and Rudy Troike as well. The project
also greatly benefited from the input of my linguist friends: Collin Gorrie, Katie
Burns, Alan Hogue and many others. Finally, I am especially thankful to Elly van
Gelderen and Werner Abraham for their interest to publish this work in the Lin-
guistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today series at John Benjamins; Kees Vaes and Patricia
Leplae for their help in shaping up the manuscript for publication.
My special thanks also go to my family, and particularly to my brother for his
constant support and encouragement during writing this book.
 List of abbreviations and symbols

1, 2, 3 Person agreement features obl Oblique case

in verbs
abs Absolutive case pass Passive Voice marker
acc Accusative case past past tense mamker
aor Aorist series perf Perfective series
applic Applicative/version pl Plural number
morpheme
caus Causative morpheme post Postposition
cl Clitic pres Present series
dat Dative case pretend Pretend-type functional head
der Derivational affix prev Preverbal affix denoting
aspect, direction, or the
intensity of an event
erg Ergative case reecip Reciprocal marker
evid Evidentiality marker refl Reflexive Voice morpheme
fut Future tense s (with numbers) – Subject
gen Genitive case sg Singular number
inf Infinitive marker scr Screeve marker
instr Instrumental case ser Series marker
loc Locative case subj Subjunctive mood marker
nom Nominative case tam Tense/Aspect/Mood marker
nonact Nonactive Voice marker th Thematic markers
npn Nominalizer affix tns Tense morpheme
o (with numbers) – Object voice Voice marker
 chapter 1

Preliminaries

1.1 Research goals

This work aims to elucidate the morphosyntax of complex predicate constructions

drawing on empirical evidence mainly from three polysynthetic languages of the
South Caucasian language family: Georgian, Mengrelian, and Svan. For defining
the term ‘complex predicate’ I follow Baker (1996) who considers complex predi-
cates as verbal structures containing at least two morphemes each marking a
phrasal argument in the θ-grid. According to Baker’s definition, complex predi-
cates include the causative, applicative, and possessor-raising structures. The focus
of this book is limited to causative and applicative constructions. This is partly
because the morphological varieties of such constructions are sufficiently diverse
so that they could be treated in a work of this scope. Also, causatives, and applica-
tive structures have certain morphological similarities in that they contain mor-
phemes indexing both core and non-core arguments in their theta-grid, such as
the external argument, theme, and the goal/benefactee arguments. In addition to
this similarity, these constructions are viewed as syntactically and morphologi-
cally complex structures, containing a minimum of two phrasal arguments, and at
least two morphemes.
Stemming from the above definition of complex predicates, the primary goal
is to explore the formal properties of causative and applicative constructions and
to account for mismatches that arise between the syntax-semantics and the mor-
phology of these constructions. Such mismatches are common cross-linguistical-
ly. They abound even in languages which do not morphologically mark the caus-
ative, applicative, or any other alternation. An example of such a mismatch is
when instead of the causative or applicative morpheme itself, a Vocabulary Item
(VI) realizing some other functional head in the left periphery of the clause shows
up (such as reflexive, or voice) to mark the causative or applicative alternation.
Therefore, an additional goal is to propose a unified theory of how the meaning is
encoded in syntax and morpho-phonology. The interface between these systems
in causative and applicative constructions will be subject to scrutiny in Chapters 2
and 3 of this book.
 Complex Predicates

1.2 Theoretical approaches

The syntax-all-the-way-down approach of Distributed Morphology is adopted

here. This approach is relatively recent and has been initiated and advocated by
Baker (1985, 1988), Halle & Marantz (1993, 2002), Marantz (1997), Travis (2000),
Pylkkänen (2002), Cuervo (2003), and Harley (1995, 2008) among others for a
wide range of verbal and nominal constructions, including causative and applica-
tive constructions. This approach has a single engine of structure creation for both
word and sentence formation. Consequently, lexical-semantic representations are
syntactic representations, and no mapping problems arise between them. This
contrasts with lexicalist approaches (for example, Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1995),
where lexical complexity has been argued to be different from the complexity at the
sentential level. Lexicalist approaches posit a need for linking rules specifying how
lexical-semantic representations map onto the syntax. Take the following linking
rule from Levin & Rappaport (1995):
(1) Linking rules
a. “Break: [[x DO-something] Cause [y become BROKEN]
b. Immediate Cause Linking Rule
The argument of a verb that denotes the immediate cause of the even-
tuality described by the verb is its external argument.”
 (Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1995: 135)
c. “Directed change Linking Rule
“The argument of the verb that corresponds to the entity undergoing
the directed change described by that verb is its internal argument”.
 (Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1995: 146)
These types of rules were considered to connect the autonomous modules of the
grammar where lexical-semantic and syntactic representations are processed. The
underlying idea of the lexical-semantic approach is that certain semantic notions are
relevant to determining a verb’s argument structure. For example, in causative con-
structions, the potential adicity of a verb is determined based on the distinction be-
tween internally- and externally-caused events. The verbs denoting internally caused
changes of state (such as flower, bloom, blossom, and decay in English) in which the
cause is inherent to the natural course of development (Levin & Rappaport Hovav
1995, henceforth, L & RH), resist the causative alternation cross-linguistically:
(2) The verbs of internal change resist causativization
a. Cactus bloomed/blossomed/flowered early.
b. *The gardener bloomed/blossomed/flowered the cactus early.
 (L & RH, 1995: 97)
 Chapter 1. Preliminaries 

In contrast to these verbs of internal causation, externally-caused eventualities

may be both transitive and intransitive. These regularly have transitive causative
counterparts. Nevertheless, there are exceptions:
(3) Verbs of external change resist causativization
a. The baker cut the bread.
b. *The bread cut.
c. The assassin murdered the senator.
d. *The senator murdered.
Thus, the lexical semantic properties of events, such as internal and external cau-
sation, are of crucial importance in determining whether the verb can participate
in the argument structure alternation. L & RH argue that this distinction between
externally and internally-caused events roughly corresponds to the unaccusative/
unergative distinction too. Many unergative verbs denote internally-caused events
while unaccusatives generally are derived from externally-caused verbs. Based on
this correspondence then, it follows that unergative verbs may not participate in
the causative/inchoative alternation, as illustrated by the impossibility of caus-
atives in the following English pairs:
(4) Causatives of unergative verbs are not possible
a. Sheila laughed.
b. *Sheila laughed John.
c. Jack danced.
d. *Jack danced Sheila.
However, L & RH argue that languages that mark the causative alternation mor-
phologically often allow causatives of internally-caused events, as in the Hebrew
examples in (5):
(5) Hebrew causatives
a. Hu rakad.
He danced
‘He danced.’
b. Ha-nagan hirkid oto.
The-musician made.dance him
‘The musician made him dance.’
c. Hu rac.
He ran
‘He ran.’
 Complex Predicates

d. Ha-meamen heric oto.

The-coach made.ran him
‘The coach made him run.’ (L & RH 1995: 98)
Chapter 2 shows that unergative verbs in Georgian and related languages can par-
ticipate in the causative alternation without any restriction, regardless of their
lexical semantics. Similarly, verbs of appearance and existence (such as exist, ap-
pear, emerge, etc.), which have been argued to resist causativization cross-linguis-
tically, do participate in the causative alternation in the languages under investiga-
tion here. I argue that lexical-semantic approach does not give sufficient clear-cut
criteria for the classes of verbs participating in this alternation.
Hale & Keyser’s (henceforth, H & K 1993) approach removes the need for the
linking rules between the argument structure and lexical-semantic interpretations,
as the latter is the same as the argument structure (a welcome consequence for the
simplification of the architecture of the grammar). This theory takes the syntax of
word and sentence derivations as the source of compositional meaning of complex
expressions.
The rest of the chapter is organized as follows: in Section 1.2, the argument
structure of causative and applicative constructions is introduced; Section 1.2.1
discusses the argument structure of causatives, and Section 1.2.2 the structure of
applicatives; Section 1.3 explains the source of syntactic variation in causatives and
applicatives; the theoretical framework of the research carried out in the work is
discussed in Section 1.4, which includes an overview of the framework of Distrib-
uted Morphology, Chomsky’s (1999, 2001) notion of phases, Embick’s (2009) the-
ory of contextual allomorphy; Cuervo’s (2003) analysis of event-introducing heads
(the varieties of little vs) along with Kratzer’s (1994) instantiation of VoiceP is pre-
sented; the latter is supported Alexiadou et al.’s (2007) evidence on the distinctness
of the causative and Voice heads in causative, anticausative, and passive structures
from a number of languages. Section 1.5 discusses some basic background facts of
verbal morphology and the status of templates in Georgian and in linguistics the-
ory in general; Case and agreement morphology with various classes of verbs are
discussed in Section 1.6 and the outline of the chapter concludes the book with
Section 1.7.

1.3 Argument structure of causative and applicative constructions

Most work on syntax-semantics of argument structure is based on the idea that

verbs express different types of eventualities and that arguments express partici-
pants in events. This idea naturally extends into a claim that the relations between
 Chapter 1. Preliminaries 

verbs and arguments, and between arguments themselves are built out from event
structure, i.e. event types and predicates that verbs express (Davidson, 1967). In
(6a), for instance, the cause event described by the verb melt relates the subject
John to the event of ice melting, while in (6b), the object argument of (6a) relates to
the event of melting, but in this case without any causing event:
(6) Causative/inchoative alternation of English
a. John melted ice.
b. Ice melted.
It is evident that the event structure in (6a) is more complex since it combines two
events: the causing and melting. Moreover, the two arguments (John and ice) are
related to this complex event, while in (6b) only one argument is related to the
simplex event of melting (ice). These two types of events illustrate a syntactic alter-
nation referred to in the literature as the inchoative/causative alternation.
Consider next how the dative argument expressing the possession or the Bene-
factive/Recipient relation is licensed in the following:
(7) Applicative alternation
a. John bought Anne a pastry.
b. John bought a pastry. (Levin & Rappaport 1995)
In these sentences, the event structure is not composed of two separate events, as
in (6a), where the verb combines the causing and the melting events. So we need
to determine what is licensing the arguments in this construction.
The insights incorporated in the analysis of the argument structure of complex
predicates in this work are mainly drawn from H & K’s (1993) work and developed
by, among others, H & K (2002), Borer (1994), Harley (1995), Marantz (1997),
Travis (2000), Pylkkänen (2002), and Cuervo (2003). Within this framework, syn-
tactic elements such as functional heads and DPs are the building blocks of event
structure, whose meaning is interpreted compositionally.
In what follows, I present some basic assumptions about the argument struc-
ture of these constructions.

1.3.1 Argument structure of causatives

Hale & Keyser (1993, 2002), among others, posit that the argument structure of
causatives involves an additional argument that is interpreted as a causer of the
event described by the verb. The following sentences from English and Georgian
illustrate this:
 Complex Predicates

(8) English
a. Inchoative The cake baked.
b. Causative Lisa baked the cake.
(9) Georgian
a. Inchoative
‘Kart’opili da-lp’a.
Potato prev-rot.pst
‘Potatoes rotted.’
b. Causative
dato-m kart’opili da-a-lp’o
dato-erg potato prev-caus-rot.pst
‘Dato rotted potatoes.’
As seen in (8)–(9), the inchoative/causative alternation involves the addition of
the causer argument to the argument structure of a one-place inchoative verb.
Syntactically the causative structures in these examples are non-distinct in English
and Georgian. However, morphologically we see a difference. In Georgian, the
causative head in inchoative/causative alternation is marked morphologically (af-
fix a-), while in English it is not. Chapter 2 explores the conditions on the realiza-
tion of this morpheme in Georgian and whether there is a correlation between the
syntax of causatives and their realization at the morphological interface.
I follow Pylkkänen (2002) in claiming that the causative head need not intro-
duce the causer argument, and that causativization does not always increase the
number of a verb’s syntactic arguments (Pylkkänen 2002: 75). Rather the causative
head (CAUSE), introduces a syntactically implicit event argument that contributes
to the semantics of the causative verb. Pylkkänen considers two sources of varia-
tion in terms of argument- projecting properties of the causative head: in lan-
guages like Finnish and Japanese, where the CAUSE is independent of the Voice1,
the CAUSE never introduces a causer. Instead, in these languages, she argues that
the causer is projected by the Voice head (Marantz (1986), Kratzer (1994) among
others)). In English, by contrast, since the CAUSE bundles with the Voice0 as a
single syntactic head, both introduce causative event semantics and the causer
argument. Observe these differences in (10):
(10) Variation in Voice-bundling in causatives (Pylkkänen 2002: 76)
a. Non-Voice-bundling causative b. Voice-bundling causative

1. See Section 1.6.4 for the motivation why the little v head is distinct from Voice.
2. X in (7) is an external causer argument projected by the Voice0.
 Chapter 1. Preliminaries 

(Japanese, Finnish) (English)

X2 X
Voice [Voice, CAUSE]
CAUSE

Georgian and related languages with their non-zero CAUSE morphemes fit the
typology of languages with the non-Voice bundling causative head. The relevant
question is what evidence supports the separation of CAUSE from Voice in lan-
guages like Japanese, Finnish, Georgian, etc. Pylkkänen identifies Japanese adver-
sity and Finnish desiderative causatives as structures where the causer argument is
not projected at all even by the Voice head. In these constructions, the nominative
subject is interpreted as an affected argument of the event described by the verb,
but not as a causer:
(11) Japanese adversity causative
Taroo-ga musuko-o sin-ase-ta.
Taro-nom son-acc die-cause-past
(i) ‘Taro caused his son to die.’
(ii) ‘Taro’s son died on him.’3 (Pylkkänen 2002: 81)
Taro is introduced neither by the CAUSE head, nor by Voice0, as the adversity
causative lacks external arguments. The causing event is clearly present and mor-
phologically the CAUSE is realized as -(s)ase, but this head does not relate any
participant to the causing event. Pylkkänen demonstrates that the separation of
the CAUSE from the Voice is a natural consequence of the inability of CAUSE
to introduce a causer argument in languages which have similar structures. In
Chapter 2, I pursue a similar analysis of the CAUSE in adversity causatives (in which
CAUSE does not introduce an external argument), but the analysis is still different
from Pylkkänen’s in that, in Georgian, adversity causatives are productive and
their meaning is predictable. This will be argued to be a result of their syntax, spe-
cifically, the kind of complement that the CAUSE takes in these structures.
To summarize my assumptions about causative constructions:

3. Pylkkänen (2002) argues that the adversity causatives generally are not productive struc-
tures like syntactic causatives in Japanese. Instead, they represent a variety of non-productive
lexical causatives whose meaning may be ambiguous between two interpretations as illustrated
in (11). Adversity causatives in Georgian and related languages do have a predictable meaning
and they are productive, as will be shown in Section 2.6.
 Complex Predicates

(12) a. causative structures universally contain the causative functional

head (CAUSE) and this head introduces a syntactically implicit event
argument;
b. the causer argument may or may not be introduced into the structure;
c. in adversity and desiderative causatives where an external argument is
not introduced, the nominative argument is often interpreted as af-
fected by the event expressed by the verb.

1.3.2 Argument structure of applicatives

This section introduces some core assumptions about the argument structure of
applicatives. Applicatives generally are defined as double object constructions in
which besides the lexical (VP) and event-introducing verbal projections (vP),
which may introduce arguments, the ‘additional’ functional head (Appl0) adds an
‘applied argument’. Usually, semantic relations are established either between this
applied argument and the theme, or between the applied argument and an event
described by the verb (Pylkkänen 2002, Cuervo 2003). The first relation, between
a non-core applied argument and the theme, cross-linguistically is conceptualized
as that of a stative possessor, a recipient, or a source (Cuervo 2003: 16–17). These
relations are referred to as the low applicative due to the lower merging site of the
Appl0 head, namely, below VP:
(13) a. Low Recipient applicative
Sheila baked John a cake.
b. Low Source applicative (Finnish)
Liisa myi Mati-lta talo-n.
Liisa.nom sold Mati-abl house-acc
‘Lisa sold Matti’s house’. (Lit: ‘Lisa sold a house from Matti’.)
 (Pylkkänen 2002: 39)
c. Low Possessor applicative (Spanish)
Pablo le admira la paciencia a Valeria
Pablo cl.dat admires the patience.acc Valeria.dat
‘Pablo admires Valeria’s patience.’ (Lit: Pablo admires Valeria the
patience).  (Cuervo 2003: 17)
Although the meanings of these expressions are different from each other, the
structural relation between the applied argument and the theme is similar as
shown in the following:
 Chapter 1. Preliminaries 

(14) VoiceP Low Applicative

DPNOM/ERG
Ext. Arg. vP

V0 VP

V0 ApplP

DPDAT Appl′
Appl.Arg.
Appl0 DPACC
Theme
By contrast, the high Appl0 head takes the VP as a complement. In high applica-
tives, the semantic relations are different: an applied argument may be experienc-
ing or undergoing the effects of an event expressed by the verb, but in no way does
the applied argument enter into a direct semantic relation with the theme and
obtain the thematic interpretations of benefactee, recipient, etc. Observe the ex-
amples and the syntax of this relation in (15):
(15) High applicatives
Luganda
a. Katonga ya- kwant- i-dde Mukasa ensawo.
K past-hold-appl-pst M bag
‘Katonga held the bag for Mukasa.’ (Pylkkänen 2002: 25)
Chaga
b. n-a′-y′-lyi-`a m-k`a k-e′lya′.
Foc-1sg-pres-eat-apl-fv 1-wife 7-food
‘He is eating food for his wife.’  (Bresnan & Moshi 1993: 49–50)
 Complex Predicates

c. VoiceP High Applicative

DPNOM Voice′
Ext.Arg.
Voice vP

v′

v0 ApplP

DPDAT Appl′
Applied Arg.

Appl0 VP

V0 DPACC
Theme

Cuervo (2003) argues that psychological verb constructions may also be inter-
preted as high applicatives in which the high Appl0 head projects the dative expe-
riencer argument, and the latter is interpreted as ‘a Benefactee’ of an event:
(16) A Daniela le gustan los gatos.
Daniela.dative cl.dat like.pl the cats
‘Daniela likes cats.’
ApplP

DPDAT Appl′
A Daniela

Appl0 vPBE
Le

DP v′
Los gatos

vBE V0
√gust ‘likes’ (Cuervo 2003: 31)
 Chapter 1. Preliminaries 

The nominative theme (los gatos ‘cats’) is the subject of the stative predicate gustar
‘like’, while the Experiencer is external to the vP. The latter argument is argued to
be licensed by the high Appl0 head.
Notice that the number of arguments involved in applicative relations (high
and low) is essentially the same, but there is a semantic difference between them,
which can be attributed to the participation of an event argument. In high applica-
tives, this event argument enters into a relation with the applied one, while in low
applicatives, two DP arguments, the applied and the theme are in close-knit rela-
tion with each other. As mentioned above, the applied argument must be a recipi-
ent, source, or stative possessor of the theme. By contrast, in high applicatives of
psychological predicates shown in (16), the argument structure contains one less
phrasal argument since only the experiencer and the theme arguments are pro-
jected, and not the external argument. In such structures, the experiencer does not
enter in any above-mentioned relations of low-applicatives. Chapter 3 addresses
the question of whether there is an overt morphological realization of these rela-
tionships in Georgian and related languages4.

1.4 Variation of causatives and applicatives

Besides the voice bundling parameter, causatives can also vary in the type of com-
plement that CAUSE takes (Pylkkänen 2002). Pylkkänen identifies three kinds of
complement that CAUSE may take: root, VP, and vP. Root-selecting CAUSE re-
sults in a lexical causative, which may have idiosyncratic meaning and is unpro-
ductive relative to syntactic causatives in a language like Japanese (Harley 2008).
The VP and the vP-selecting causative heads usually form a syntactic causative,
which has non-idiosyncratic meaning and is highly productive across various
classes of verbs. The causative heads that select the vP will be referred to as phase-
selecting causatives following Chomsky (1999, 2001), McGinnis (2000, 2001a, b),
and Arad (2003, 2004) among others. Here are the illustrations of these struc-
tures:
(17) a. ROOT-selecting CAUSE

CAUSE √ROOT

4. In this book applicative constructions are treated in a slightly different approach from the
mainstream literature ingnoring the structures with instrumental and postpositional objects,
which in some accounts are also considered as applicatives. This book restricts the coverage of
these constructions to those Double Object Constructions where the arguments are marked
with structural cases.
 Complex Predicates

b. Verb-selecting CAUSE

CAUSE
v √ROOT
c. Phase-selecting CAUSE

CAUSE vP

v VP

… (Pylkkänen 2002: 77)

The complement type of CAUSE has further consequences for the event composi-
tion in a sentence. Root-selecting CAUSE behaves like a mono-eventive structure
with respect to the scope of adverbial because there is only one place in the clause
where the adverbial can attach: only VP can be modified in the root-selecting
(lexical) causative. The same prediction can be true for VP-selecting causatives. In
the following English causative of an inchoative verb, the manner adverbial reluc-
tantly is expected to modify both the causing and the resulting events regardless of
whether it attaches to a position higher or lower than the VP itself:
(18) VP-modifying adverbial:
a. Bill opened the door reluctantly.
b. Bill reluctantly opened the door.
(Compare: The door opened reluctantly.)
In (18), the adverbial can not modify the causing and the resulting events sepa-
rately since zero-derived causatives of inchoatives in English do not allow such
separate modification of events: they are lexical causatives. Bi-eventive interpreta-
tions are found with vP-selecting causatives (i.e. causatives in which CAUSE takes
phase-complete vPs as its complement). Adverbials can modify both the causing
and the resulting events individually depending on the attachment site (above or
lower than vP). Pylkkänen claims that vP-selecting causatives contain two vPs: the
head of the first vP expresses the causing event, and the head of the second vP, the
resulting event. Therefore, each of these events can be modified:
 Chapter 1. Preliminaries 

(19) The causing event modified

a. Sue reluctantly made John eat oysters.
b. Sue made John eat oysters reluctantly.
In (19a), reluctantly modifies the causing event and is interpreted as oriented to-
ward the external causer argument Sue, while in (19b), the same manner adver-
bial modifies the resulting eating event, i.e., is oriented towards John. Thus, the
adverbial test indicates bi-eventive properties of vP-selecting causatives. I will also
use the test of depictive modification as a diagnostic of mono- and bi-eventive
properties of different types of causatives. As is illustrated throughout Chapter 2, a
depictive modifier can modify the causee argument of the syntactic causative
which matches its case marking with the depictive while it is impossible to modify
the causer argument from the same position even when the case marking is
matched with the relevant argument. The idea is that the modification of the caus-
er and the causee in syntactic causatives must be local and presumably, these two
arguments are projected in separate ‘clauses’. Therefore, the event structure of syn-
tactic causatives is more complex than that of the lexical one.
Applicatives also allow us to probe the mono- or bi-eventive properties of the
complements selected by the Appl0 head. High and low applicatives show a dis-
tinction in terms of mono-/bi-eventiveness. Recall that in low applicatives, the low
Appl0 head does not take a verbal complement because it merges below VP licens-
ing the theme and the applied arguments as in (13)–(14). Since in these structures,
the low Appl0 head does not take a phase-complete complement, they are not sub-
ject to the same bi-eventive analysis as vP-selecting syntactic causatives. Adverbi-
als in low applicatives are expected to modify higher verbal projections, such as vP
and VP, and the structure is interpreted as mono-eventive. For instance, in (20),
the manner adverbial again modifies the baking event:
(20) Adverbial modification of low applicative
Sheila baked John a cake again.
Returning to high-applicatives, the Appl0 head that merges above VP does not in-
troduce a separate event into the semantics of complex predicates, i.e. it does not
select for vP complement as illustrated in (17c) for vP-selecting causatives.5 Cross-
linguistically, vP is argued to introduce an event argument (Harley 1995, Pylkkänen
2002, Cuervo 2003 among others). One might argue that the event structure of high
applicatives cannot be as complex as that of vP-selecting syntactic causatives where
two events are introduced: the causing and the resulting one (i.e. two separate vPs).

5. Here we follow Pylkkänen (2002) and McGinnis (2002, 2004) in which it is proposed that
the high applicative relation is established between an individual and an event due to the Appl0
head selecting for the VP complement. See the tree in (15c) for details.
 Complex Predicates

Since the event structure of a high applicative is simpler than that of the vP-select-
ing causative, the manner adverbial is expected to modify just the VP complement
of the Appl0 head and show the properties of mono-eventive structures:
(21) Modification of VP-high applicative in Georgian
a. gia-s avaria moulodnelad mo-u-xda
Gia-dative accident unexpectedly prev-applic-happen.pst
‘The accident happened to Gia unexpectedly.’
b. gia-s avaria mo-u-xda moulodnelad.
Gia-dative accident prev-applic-happened unexpectedly
‘The accident happened to Gia unexpectedly.’
In these examples, the interpretation of the scope of an adverbial can be the one
where unexpectedly modifies the event described by the verb. Both in (21a) and
(21b), the scope of the adverbial is the same since it modifies the same event of
happening.
A detailed explanation of high applicative semantics with the verbs of happen-
ing will be given in Section 3.8 of Chapter 3. The simpler event structure of high
and low applicatives and the size of the complement that both Appl0 heads take
means that the resulting structure will always show mono-eventive properties with
respect to adverbial scope.

1.5 Theoretical framework

1.5.1 Distributed Morphology (DM)

This work utilizes the framework of Distributed Morphology (DM) in the analysis
of the morphosyntax of complex predicates. In this framework (Halle & Marantz
1993, henceforth H&M), word and sentence formation are viewed as a product of
single derivational mechanism, and the morphology itself is distributed among
several components of the grammar. Word formation may happen at any level
where the head movement and merger of structurally adjacent heads create com-
plex heads (H&M 1993: 112). In DM, the terminal nodes in syntax from which
words are formed do not have any phonological features, and the nodes obtain
those features only at the level of Morphological Structure (MS) by the process
called Vocabulary Insertion. Vocabulary Items (henceforth, VIs) can be under-
specified. For example, the Vocabulary entry for the English verb sink is suffi-
ciently underspecified so that it can be inserted in either inchoative or causative
contexts (Harley & Noyer 2000). For vocabulary insertion to happen, it is enough
that the feature bundle of the Vocabulary Item (VI) does not conflict with the
 Chapter 1. Preliminaries 

features of the terminal (H & M, 1993: 121). It may be that several VIs compete for
the insertion in the same terminal node at the MS. The VI that matches the most
features of the node will be inserted6.
The architecture of the grammar in DM is shown in (22):
(22) (Harley & Noyer 1997: 3)

Morphosyntactic features
[det] [1st] [CAUSE] [+pst]
[root] [pl] etc.

Syntactic operations
Merge, Move, Copy

Morphological operations Logical Form (LF)

Phonological Form (PF)

(Insertion of Vocabulary Items,
Readjustment, phonological rules)

Conceptual Interface
Vocabulary Items
[kæt]:root], [+count],
[+animate], etc.

Encyclopedia
(Non-linguistics knowledge)
Cat: four legs, feline, pet, purrs,
scratches;

In this model, it is assumed that roots are underived primitives in syntactic deriva-
tions, i.e. they are ‘atomic’ non-compositional items. The syntax manipulates just
placeholders of functional morphemes or roots, and these abstract elements re-
ceive phonological content when vocabulary insertion applies.
A syntactic category in this system is derived from syntactic position. Roots
are lexical elements underspecified for lexical category (Arad 2003, 2005, Marantz
1997, Embick 1998). They are marked with the symbol √ and are combined with

6. Known as the ‘subset principle’ (H & M1993).

 Complex Predicates

the category-defining head (such as a adjectival, n nominal head, v verbal head,

etc.).
It is of importance to note that according to DM model (Halle & Marantz 1993),
the ordering of constituents within words and the ordering of words within sen-
tences do not obey the same principles, such as ‘head’, ‘specifier, or ‘complement’
configurations of syntactic building blocks, which trigger a certain ordering of af-
fixes with respect to stems and of phrases to syntactic heads. Consequently, differ-
ent ordering of root/stems with respect to affixes in various languages has little to
do with the merging position of these elements in syntax. The fact that in Georgian
and related languages, the roots are located in the fourth position of the verbal
template followed by 4–5 affixes, and in Navajo, roots come at the end of the tem-
plate preceded by about 9 affixes are arbitrary and an affix’s status as a prefix, suffix,
or infix is independent of its syntactic role, although in the default situation we do
expect that the hierarchical morphological structure will mirror a syntactic hier-
archy from which it is derived as per the ‘Mirror Principle’ (Baker 1988) . This idea
will be expanded in Section 1.5 where the status of templates in the theory of
grammar is discussed.
One of the issues dealt within this study is the linearization of the morphemes
in a well-formed phonological word at morphological structure level (MS). As
many argue (Halle & Marantz 1993, Noyer 1997 among others), linearization is a
property of phonological structure and X0s do not get linearized in syntax. Fur-
ther, Noyer (1997) argues that “linearization applies in the first phase of Morpho-
logical Structure, supplying adjacency relations to all constituents” (Noyer 1997:
38). He claims that at MS two demands determine the mapping of the functional
heads and their morphosyntactic representations to phonological strings: (1) mor-
phological well-formedness conditions on morphological words, and (2) two types
of rules: readjustment rules, which change just the phonological material and sec-
ond, rules, which supply phonological material (affixes) to stems, essentially dis-
charging the features of morphosyntactic representations. Some of these rules will
appear instrumental for understanding the morpheme ordering in complex words
in this work.
Thus, DM recognizes that at MS morphemes may be inserted to meet univer-
sal and/or language-specific well-formedness conditions (Halle and Marantz
1993: 115). An example of such addition is when subject-verb agreement is imple-
mented by adjoining an Agr morpheme to the tns node and then the features of
the subject are copied onto the Agr node. Such addition of terminal nodes at MS
changes the number of terminal elements that might find phonological realization
and naturally, disrupt the isomorphism between PF and syntax. Other processes
that may disturb such a one-to-one relation between terminal nodes in syntax and
the elements at MS are: head-to-head movement of a terminal element and
 Chapter 1. Preliminaries 

adjunction to a terminal element in the tree; merger of structurally adjacent nodes

but keeping their identities-fusion, fission or impoverishment of certain features
at MS before the Vocabulary Insertion. For discussion on the exact nature of these
processes I will refer the reader to Halle and Marantz (1993). A detailed explana-
tion of the processes relevant to the analysis of the data in this study is provided
where relevant.

1.5.2 Chomsky’s (1999, 2001) notion of phases

This work assumes the most recent version of the Minimalist Program as argued
in Chomsky (1999, 2001). In these versions of the program, the derivation of syn-
tactic expressions proceeds cyclically, phase by phase. Chomsky identifies two
phrases as being ‘strong’: vP and CP – the verbal and the complementizer phrases
which have a ‘propositional’ structure (Chomsky 1999: 12). The ‘strong’ phases are
spelled out cyclically. The cyclicity of syntactic derivations and spellout has natural
implications for the derivations of words. One goal of the research here is to ex-
plore to what extent the strong phases of syntactic derivations (vP and CP) can be
the sites of cyclic spellout, and more importantly, whether the functional heads
introducing non-core arguments to the argument structure of causatives and ap-
plicatives can also head a phase. In particular, I will be looking at the status of
causative and applicative heads. The key evidence for the cyclicity of these heads is
supplied by the presence of contextual allomorphy in the morphemes inserted
into these heads (Embick 2010). The next section overviews Embick’s findings in
this respect.

1.5.3 Contextual allomorphy as evidence for phasehood (Embick 2010)

Embick (2009) claims that morphological operations – which determine the pho-
nological form of morphemes – are constrained by the cyclic organization of the
grammar, i.e. by the local domains that are defined by syntax. He develops a local-
ist theory of allomorphy, in which linear adjacency and cyclic locality interact to
produce a theory of allomorphic interaction. Take, for example, contextually-de-
fined allomorphy, illustrated in (23) for English past tense suffixes. We can view
this as the result of Vocabulary Insertion assigning a phonological form to the
morphemes computed in syntax. VIs (Vocabulary Items) compete for insertion
into a given node. The most specific item, matching the node’s featural content,
gives that node its phonological structure:
(23) VIs for the English Past tense
-t ↔ TPAST/____ {√LEAVE, √BEND,...}
 Complex Predicates

-Ø ↔ TPAST/____ {√HIT, √SING, ...}7

-d ↔ TPAST (Embick 2010: 9)
As seen from these items, Roots like BEND and HIT ‘condition’ the insertion of -t
and -Ø allomorphs. -d is a default elsewhere item for the [past] and is only in-
serted when the context for other morphemes is not defined. The cyclic domains
of syntactic computations may render the insertion of certain VIs possible as op-
posed to other VIs. For example, the idea that roots are acategorial elements and
that they merge with the category-defining functional heads such as a, n is well-
supported (Arad, (2003), Marantz (1997), among others)). When these category-
defining heads merge with roots, they are root-attached, i.e. they are in the inner
domain. The same category-defining head may be attached to a structure that has
already been categorized by another head. In such instances, the head which
merges later is argued to be an outer domain head. Embick & Marantz (2008) ar-
gue that both inner and outer domain heads that categorize roots are cyclic, which
means that when merged into a structure, they trigger spellout, the operation that
sends the part of the syntactic structure to the interface components, PF and LF.
Observe these inner and outer domain category-defining heads in the examples
adapted from Embick (2010):
(24) v merged with √ROOT (25) Two category-defining heads and √ROOT

v a
√root
-able v √BREAK (Embick 2010: 10)

In (24), the single category-defining head v merges with the root first defines a
phase. In (25), we have two domains because there are two category defining
heads (a and v). An important property of outer heads like a in (25) is that vo-
cabulary insertion into this position is not root-conditioned. By contrast, non-
cyclic heads (like T0 in (26)) in the outer domain allow contextually-defined
allomorphy. For example, English past tense suffixes -t/-Ø still show the above-
noted root-conditioned allomorphy even though the tense morpheme is not
root-attached, and it is in outer domain as seen in (26). It is argued that the root
first merges with the category-defining v and that T0 is introduced later in the
derivation:

7. We may argue that √SING is a zero-derived past form much like as √HIT since it does not
change the affix in the PAST, but rather the Root.
 Chapter 1. Preliminaries 

(26) English Past tense

T

v T [past]
-t/-Ø

√ROOT v (Embick 2010: 10)

T0 is not a cyclic head as argued in Chomsky (1999, 2001) since it is not phono-
logically independent and does not have a ‘propositional’ structure. The cyclic v
does not block T0 from showing contextual allomorphy conditioned by roots.
Therefore, Embick posits that there is a critical need to accommodate cases where
the functional heads attach higher than the cyclic category-defining heads yet still
show root-determined allomorphy.
Another problem relates to the contextual allomorphy displayed by the nomi-
nalizer category-defining head in English gerunds like John’s marrying of Kathy. In
gerunds, the nominalizer n morpheme spelled out as -ing attaches to the structure
already verbalized by v:
(27) Gerund derivation
n

v [n, -ing]

√MARRY [v, -Ø] (Embick 2010: 10)

The VI -ing inserted into the outer cyclic head n shows no root-determined allo-
morphy, although on the surface one might think that it is attached to the root.
Embick concludes that there are evidently no cases in which an Outer cyclic head
shows Root-determined allomorphy as opposed to non-cyclic ones.
Based on this evidence, he develops two theoretical generalizations that cap-
ture the allomorphic variation of the English past tense morphemes and the lack
of this allomorphy with respect to the nominal category-defining heads (like -ing
in (27)) in gerunds. Here are these generalizations:
(28) “a. .... α] x] Z]
Generalization 1: Non-cyclic Z may show contextual allomorphy de-
termined by α, as long as x is not overt.
 Complex Predicates

b. ....α] x] y]
Generalization 2: Cyclic y may not show contextual allomorphy de-
termined by α, even if x is not overt.” (Embick 2010: 11)
The idea behind these sequences of functional heads in (28a & b) is that outer non-
cyclic heads can see across an Inner cyclic node, but outer cyclic heads cannot. In
(28), lower case x, y are cyclic heads, upper-case Z is non-cyclic head, and α is an
allomorphy-conditioning element, i.e. Root.
Thus, in (28a), non-cyclic Z may be influenced by α, if the intervening head x
is not phonologically realized. However, cyclic y may not be influenced by α, be-
cause y will trigger the spellout of the structure assembled by the point when y
merges. Thus, the phonological realization of x is irrelevant for the contextual allo-
morphy of the outer cyclic head y.
Another conclusion drawn from Embick (2010) is that contextual allomorphy
is possible only with elements that are concatenated. However, in some cases, su-
perficially adjacent elements cannot influence each other allomorphically because
they are not active in the same PF cycle and are separated by a ‘strong’ phase (such
as vP or CP as argued in Chomsky (1999)). In the former case, the conclusion is
straightforward: only those morphemes that are adjacent can influence each other,
while, in the latter case, superficially adjacent elements may be separated by zero-
realized cyclic heads that may render the contextual allomorphy of the outer cyclic
head impossible. These conclusions will be taken into consideration when exam-
ining the data of causative and applicative predicates in this work.

1.5.4 Kratzer (1996) on the VoiceP and external arguments

Since Kratzer (1996), it has been generally assumed that an external argument is
not a ‘true’ arguments of a verb, but is rather introduced by an inflectional head
outside of the VP shell (such as vP). Using some of the Neo-Davidsonian argu-
ment association methods, she argues that external arguments have different se-
mantics due to the way they are introduced in the syntax of verbs. She specifically
argues that the external argument is introduced to the syntax by the separate func-
tional projection such as VoiceP and they are different from internal object argu-
ments in that they never impose specific interpretations on verbs as internal argu-
ments do. The relevant evidence came from Marantz (1984) in which the external
argument was shown not to form idioms with V0 in contrast to the arguments
projected by VP itself as shown in the following:
(29) Idioms of English
a. throw support behind the candidate
b. throw a party
c. throw a fit (Marantz 1984 quoted from Kratzer 1996: 113).
 Chapter 1. Preliminaries 

In these structures, while an internal argument may trigger a certain interpreta-

tion of the verb, the external argument fails to do so. Following Marantz, Kratzer
concludes that the external argument is not a ‘true’ argument of the verb and de-
velops this idea into a coherent theory of VoiceP according to which the external
argument is the argument of Voice0 while the internal one is the argument of VP,
specifically, the latter is generated in the specifier of the VP as illustrated in the
following:
(30) Mittie fed the dog.
VoiceP

DP Voice′
Mittie

Voice VP
Agent

DP V′

the dog V
{feed} (Kratzer 1996: 121)

Furthermore, the internal argument in (29) and (30) first composes with the verb
enabling it to impose certain interpretations on the resulting expression, while the
agent argument composes with a separate light verb (or Voice) and then is con-
joined with the lower predicate via a process called Event Identification (EI). This
process is basically the conjunction operation applied to the separate functions
followed by co-indexing of the event variables. Co-indexing happens due to the
shared 〈s, t〉 type functions in the input functions as seen in (31). As the result of
EI, the denotation of type 〈e, 〈s, t〉〉, which includes Voice with the external argu-
ment, composes with the denotation of the type 〈s, t〉 (including VP with internal
argument) to produce a function of the type 〈e, 〈s, t〉〉 which is Voice’8:
(31) a. Event Identification (EI)
〈e, 〈s, t〉〉 〈s, t〉 ⇒ 〈e, 〈s, t〉〉
Input1 input2 output

8. The following entities denote individuals (e), events (s) and truth values (t).
 Complex Predicates

b. Brutus stabbed Caesar.

VoiceP λx.λe. [stabbing(e) &
Agent (e, Brutus) & theme (e, Caesar]

Brutus Voice′ λx.λe. [stabbing(e) & Agent (e, x) & theme

(e, Caesar)
(By event identification)
Voiceagent λe.[stabbing (e) & theme (e, Caesar)
λx.λe. [Agent (e, x)]

Stab Caesar
λx.λe. [stabbing(e) & theme(e, Caesar)

(Pylkkänen 2002: 13)

In the computation of the denotation of complex events the EI allows the same
existential operator to bind into the two event arguments. This kind of EI is as-
sumed to exist in causative and applicative constructions where Voice head also
introduces an event variable and the external argument to the event structure of
these predicates. Thus, the compositionality of the external argument with the VP
is expected due to this process.

1.5.5 Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou & Schaefer (2006)

on separation of CAUSE from Voice

Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou & Schaefer motivate the separation of Voice from

the causative head from a different data point. Specifically, they consider caus-
ative, anticausative, and passive structures from several languages in their ac-
count such as English, Greek, and German. Although their approach to the caus-
ativazation/anticausativization distinction is not generative, it strikes as the most
promising in fleshing out the syntax and semantics of causative and anticausative
structures and the rationale behind the separation of the Voice and causative
heads. Crucial evidence for separating the above two structures comes from the
fact that agents and external arguments across different languages represent dif-
ferent sematico-syntactic elements and their presence/absence in the structure
determines whether the latter ends up being a passive or an anticausative. Spe-
cifically, in English, German, and Greek an agentive argument is necessary in
passives, while an implicit external argument may be present in anticausatives
excluding the agentive argument. Thus, the grammaticality of from-PPs, durch-
PPs (German) and apo/me-PPs (Greek) in the mentioned three languages points
 Chapter 1. Preliminaries 

to the presence of the implicit causer argument in anticausatives, which is absent

in passives and this prompts Alexiadou et al. to suggest that agentivity and causa-
tion are different concepts, and that they should be represented by different func-
tional heads. They build on Kratzer’s (1996, 2003) proposal on syntactic decom-
position of change-of-state verbs into a Voice and a causative component as
illustrated in the following:
(32) [Voice[CAUSE [Root]]]
This structure is taken to be a core structure of all three constructions: causatives,
anticausatives, and passives with differing feature values on the Voice head. For
example, the agentive voice with voice [+AG] feature licenses agents and instru-
mental PPs in causatives and passives; non-agentive Voice (voice [–AG]) may be
present or entirely be excluded in anticausatives depending on the availability of
non-agentive arguments in passives formed from the same roots. Therefore, two
options exist with respect to Voice[–AG]: it is present in Greek anticausatives
when the passive structures are necessarity agentive, while if this non-agentive
Voice head (Voice [–AG]) is present in passives, it cannot appear in anticausatives
as in English and German. This account nicely captures existing thematic differ-
ences between external vs. agentive arguments and the motivation for distinguish-
ing the external argument introducer (Voice) from the causative head, which in-
troduces a causative event (Pylkkänen 2002). Despite the non-generative approach
to the mentioned constructions, this approach is taken into account when eluci-
dating event structure of adversity causatives and applicatives of internally-caused
events below.

1.5.6 Cuervo (2003) on different flavors of little vs

Cuervo (2003) posits three types of heads that may either themselves be the com-
plements of various functional heads (such as the ApplHIGH), or take the Appl0LOW
as their complement:
(33) Three types of heads
a. Event-introducers: little v0s.
b. Argument introducers: Voice0 and Appl0
c. Roots
These three heads may introduce arguments in the syntax by the combination of
the lexical Root and the verbalizing head (little v). Roots combine with different
kinds of little v (Marantz 1991, Harley 1995) to build event predicates, which
have different meanings depending on the type or the ‘flavor’ of these little vs.
Based on event structure research, this work acknowledges that arguments are
 Complex Predicates

licensed either by an event predicate or by an argument-introducing head (Voice0

or Appl0). Roots may also introduce arguments semantically as their comple-
ments (Levin 1999, Kratzer 1996). In this work, I argue that these little v0 heads
may also introduce arguments to the structure of causative and other construc-
tions. Specifically, they add causee arguments to the structure of make X do V
syntactic causatives.
Given these assumptions about how the argument structure is composed in
the syntax, Cuervo identifies the following types of little vs that define the meaning
of predicates:
(34) Three types of v three types of events example
a. vDO activities dance, run
b. vGO changes fall, go, die
c. vBE states like, admire (Cuervo 2003: 7)
In this typology of event heads, vDO and vGO introduce dynamic events while vBE
introduces stative eventualities (Bach 1986), which are mainly represented by psy-
chological predicates and verbs like lie, hold, etc.
Usually vDO heads active structures and combines with Voice0, which intro-
duces an external argument (Kratzer 1994). It can be assumed that various activity
verbs, both transitive and intransitive (unergatives), are formed with this vDO.
Predicates of change are derived with vGO and include the verbs of movement
and happening. This kind of event does not license an external argument via the
Voice0 head. These are mainly change-of-state verbs, which include events denot-
ing non-volitional changes and they select for an object DP undergoing the
change-of-state (ex. fall and die). Thus, when vGO combines with roots of unac-
cusatives, this typically results in a change-of-state interpretation for the theme
argument.
In contrast to the two dynamic vs, vBE combines with Roots to express states
and Roots combining with this head license dative subject DPs in the specifier of
VP (verbs like matter and Spanish be useful). Stative psychological predicates are
formed by this kind of vBE.
Given these three main types of v, the syntactic composition of complex events
such as causatives, inchoatives, and applicatives is accounted for. I follow Cuervo’s
taxonomy of little v heads in chapters both on causatives and applicatives for sim-
ple events but crucially, her decomposition of the causative head (CAUSE) into
two different types of v (vDO and vBE) will not be accepted for the purposes of pre-
sentation in this chapter.
 Chapter 1. Preliminaries 

1.6 Status of templates and Kartvelian morphosyntax

This part overviews some of the basic grammatical features of Georgian and re-
lated (Kartvelian) languages based on the existing literature on these languages
and the writer’s own observations as a native speaker. This information is deemed
essential for understanding theoretical generalizations regarding the interaction
between syntax and the morphological interface of complex predicates. Most of
the data and functional analyses of morphemes are drawn from Howard Aronson’s
(1990) Georgian: A reader’s grammar, O. Kajaia’s (2004) Mingrelian-Georgian Dic-
tionary and V. Topuria’s monograph (1967) Svan Language.
All three languages are moderately polysynthetic. The number of lexical and
functional morphemes marked on verbs can grow to up to 10–12 morphemes per
word, but is more typically 5–6. There is a great deal of fusion among different
inflectional morphemes such as between person and number agreement, series,
screeve,9 or mood markers, etc. on both sides of stems, i.e. in the pre- and post-
base positions. However, fusion does not usually affect the argument structure-
changing morphemes, which mark syntactic alternations such as causative, appli-
cative, etc. It is also notable that the noun-incorporation which is a main
characteristic of the most native American languages is not productive process in
these languages, so that the compounding of various categorical elemtns do not
produce as complex structures as in American indigenous languages.
The section extends the discussion on the structure of the Georgian verbal
template along with the language-specific restrictions on the realization of certain
morphology in the pre- and post-base positions. The status of verbal templates in
the linguistic theory is also discussed in light of DM and Baker’s Mirror Principle
(1985) highlighting the fact that the latter principle is often a default situation in
the grammar and that the templatic constraints are essentially language-specific
well-formedness rules as argued in Noyer (1997).

1.6.1 The structure of the verbal template

According to Aronson (1990), the Georgian verb template contains a maximum of

three positions for morphemes before the root and as many as 6–8 positions after
the root. Observe the following scheme of the Georgian verb:

9. Series and screeves are the terms drawn from the Kartvelian (South Caucasian) linguistics
that stand for the conjugation pattern of verbs in terms of tense, aspect and mood (TAM). There
are three series in Georgian and Svan, and four in Mingrelian. The screeve is a conjugation pat-
tern for just one value of tense, aspect and mood.
 Complex Predicates

(35) The morphological template of the Georgian verb

1 Preverb
2 Person agreement (subject, object)
3 Applicative, Causative, Voice, etc.
4 Root
5 Theme
6 Causative, Passive, etc.
7 Screeve
8 Theme
9 Causative (screeve)
10 Person agreement/Series

Before explaining the distribution of these various morphemes in the template,

note that the status of a morpheme in this kind of template, i.e. whether it is a
prefix, infix or suffix, has no direct relation with the syntactic operations combin-
ing terminal nodes to create words before the Vocabulary Insertion. In DM, the
hierarchical location of affixes in words is determined by the syntax but again
there need not be a direct one-to-one relation between the terminal elements in
syntax and phonological exponents, neither need the bracketing of the phono-
logical pieces directly reflect the syntactic bracketing (H & M 1993: 11). As Halle
& Marantz show in this foundational article on DM, Baker’s Mirror Principle ar-
guing for the transparent relation between the checking of features in the syntax
and the ordering affixes in a word as a result of this checking is not consistently
accurate. In other words, the order of checked features does not always reflect the
order of affixation in the lexicon whereby the features of the innermost affix are
checked first and the subsequent features are reflected in word formation based on
their order of checking in the syntax. Halle & Marantz reject this principle as too
restrictive because natural languages provide plentiful evidence against such a
strict correspondence between the checking of features on terminal nodes and
their phonological realization in their mapping to the Phonological Form (PF).
Given this sometimes arbitrary relation between the syntax of complex expres-
sions and their phonological realization at PF one might be tempted to argue that
the structure of the verbal template in a particular language(s) is purely epiphe-
nomenal and has little to do with syntactic derivations. Therefore, the order of af-
fixes with respect to Root and the position of the Root with respect to these mor-
phemes may be considered as the result of language-specific constraints on the
morphological well-formedness rather than the direct consequence of the order in
which the checking of these features proceeds. Thus, the position of morphemes in
the verbal or nominal templates need not be strictly viewed as a direct conse-
quence of their syntax.
 Chapter 1. Preliminaries 

In the Georgian verb template shown in (35), the order of three pre-base mor-
phemes is rigid, which means that in relevant syntactic contexts where all three
morphemes are realized, the ordering is the same: first preverbal prefixes are real-
ized followed by the person agreement markers, and finally, argument-structure
changing morphemes such as causative, applicative, voice, etc. The causative, ap-
plicative, or Voice functional heads have multiple phonological exponents whose
insertion depends on the syntactic environment and the feature content on these
nodes. Again the ordering of these morphemes in the template above may have
nothing to do with the order of checking of relevant features in the syntax.
The preverbal prefixes mark both aspect and directionality and as such, they
combine the features of both inflectional and derivational morphology. These ele-
ments resemble Russian preverbs, which, along with the perfective-imperfective
distinction can mark manner, saturation, or the intensity of an event expressed by
the verb. In the latter function, these preverbal elements are like the derivational
morphology in that they imbue a special meaning to the root, and are not produc-
tive. There are fifteen such preverbal prefixes in Georgian and they are inserted into
the initial slot of the template, although we assume that the functional head which
is realized with these prefixal elements (which presumably is Asp0) does not check
its features the latest assuming a bottom-up derivation of words in the syntax.
The person agreement prefixes are spelled out in the second and the final posi-
tions of the verbal template. A separate section below discusses which arguments
trigger insertion of these morphemes along with the case-marking of relevant
DPs. Only one person-number agreement morpheme appears in the pre-base po-
sition even when the verb is transitive and contains two arguments. The reason for
such restricted spellout of the agreement morphemes will be explained below.
The third position, which immediately precedes the base (root) can be occu-
pied by various morphemes marking the argument structure of relevant verbs,
including causative, applicative, and voice morphemes. The VIs of one of these
functional heads are in competition for insertion in this position. Various post-
syntactic rules are also implicated in the spellout of these morphemes, to be dis-
cussed in Chapters 2–3 where relevant.
The order of morphemes in the post-base positions of the Georgian verb tem-
plate is not as rigid as in the pre-base environment, and some of the morphemes
tend to reiterate sometimes for no obvious semantic reason. The morphemes that
can be repeated are the thematic markers (especially one of the five suffixes -eb)
and the syntactic causative morpheme marking the make X do V causative alterna-
tion (-in). The iterated markers do not usually contribute the same semantics
twice, as in the case of reduplicated causative suffix: the second -in does not
introduce another causing event or causee argument to the argument structure.
 Complex Predicates

Instead, the reduplicated causative morpheme may mark the series/screeve or

mood information as shown in the following Perfective series forms:
(36) The Perfective series verb
ga-m-e-ket-eb- in-eb-in-o-s
prev-1s-Voice-make-th-caus-th-caus-tam-3o
‘I would have caused X to make Y.’
To the best of my knowledge the exact function of this iterated causative marker
has not been explained in traditional linguistic literature on Georgian and I provi-
sionally gloss this morpheme as the conjunctive perfect (screeve) marker.
Thematic markers glossed as th in this work are widely attested in the mor-
phology of various verbal and nominal classes cross-linguistically and they are
morphological well-formedness affixes not associated with any specific terminal
node in the syntax. As argued by Halle & Embick (2003), among others, they are
dummy elements and do not realize any particular functional head. In addition, I
argue that they ‘signal’ the presence of certain functional morphology in individu-
al languages. In Georgian and related languages, the thematic marker (-eb) has
been argued to indicate the presence of the causative morpheme (Aronson 1990),
although this relation is not always clear. This is illustrated in Chapter 2.
Among other morphemes inserted into various post-base positions, the mor-
phemes marking causative, voice, agreement, and case are the most important for
understanding further discussion in this work. The causative morpheme -in marks
the causative head added to unaccusative, transitive, or other classes of verbs. The
morpheme marking the passive alternation also shows up in the same post-base
position in relevant syntactic contexts. Finally, the person-number agreement
morphemes inserted in the final position may be fused with the series markers or
be absent entirely.

1.6.2 Assumptions about language-specific templatic constraints

An essential note on Georgian verbal morphology is concerned with language-

specific constraints on the spellout of certain morphemes in the verbal template.
Such constraints limit the positions-of-exponence for the phonological pieces in-
serted into terminal nodes. For example, only one person agreement morpheme
can be inserted in the pre-base position, as well as one argument structure-chang-
ing morpheme. I suggest that this type of restriction is similar to the templatic
structure discussed by Noyer (1997) in the Arabic verb paradigm and in other Af-
ro-Asiatic languages, whereby a single terminal node is associated with two
positions-of-exponence. This situation can result in ‘discontinuous bleeding,’ in
which the morpheme inserted in one position-of-exponence bleeds the insertion of
 Chapter 1. Preliminaries 

another morpheme in another position-of-exponence. Following Noyer, I assume

that in Georgian and related languages, the phi- and other substantive morphosyn-
atctic features are subject to arbitrarily-imposed constraints on the verbal template.
One such constraint limits the insertion of person features of a subject or an object
into the second and the final positions as shown in the following scheme:
(37) Restriction on person agreement morphemes:
…. 2 final
base /root

person agreement person/number agreement

(subject, object…) (subject, object…)

There is only one terminal node and two positions-of-exponence for the person/
number features of a subject and/or object even when both arguments are referen-
tially marked, i.e. represent 1–2 person and present in a sentence. Note that only
the features of referentially marked arguments (1–2 person, i.e. [+participant] or
[+PSE10])) are realized in the mentioned positions. A separate post-base position
of person agreement morphemes also allows the spellout of the person features of
3rd person arguments. The morphemes realizing these arguments are usually
fused with the series markers.
A similar constraint is operative with respect to argument structure-marking
morphemes such as causative, applicative, voice, etc. illustrated with the following
scheme:
(38) …. 3 6
base /root

Causative, Causative, Passive, etc.

Voice,
Applicative, etc.
The numbers indicate the positions of these morphemes in the verbal template.
Thus, one position is available for the causative, applicative, and voice markers in
different syntactic contexts. It is often the case that the Voice marker bleeds the caus-
ative or the applicative marker in various syntactic contexts or vice versa. The rele-
vant empirical evidence and its analysis will be provided in the chapters dealing with
these constructions. The restricted spellout of these morphemes may be a part of
general economy strategies on the spellout of substantive morphosyntactic features.
Summing up this section, the following points should be taken into account
when analyzing the morphosyntax of causatives and applicatives: The structure of

10. This feature is posited in Halle (1997) for designating the Participants of Speech Events, i.e.
the referential arguments.
 Complex Predicates

the verbal template in Georgian may include a maximum of 10–12 morphemes,

which are asymmetrically linearized in the pre- and post-base positions: no more
than three morphemes can occur in the pre-base position, while the number of
morphemes in the post-base position is highly variable reaching a maximum of
6–8 morphemes. The morphological realization of various morphemes is subject
to arbitrarily imposed restrictions that make only limited positions-of-exponence
available for certain morphemes. I assume that mismatches between syntax-se-
mantics and the morphology of complex expressions are due to not only various
restrictions on the spellout of morphemes but also to the readjustment rules op-
erative in the post-syntactic component.
With these observations as background, the next section overviews phi- and
case feature checking in syntax.

1.7 Case and agreement

The three languages of the South Caucasian language family display aspectually-
conditioned split ergativity instantiated by variation between nominative, ergative,
and dative cases on subjects, and dative/accusative/nominative/absolutive cases
on objects, across three series of transitive, and unergative classes of verbs. There
are three such series in Georgian: the Present, the Aorist, and the Perfective. The
three series consist of 11 screeves. The screeves represent the conjugation pattern
for one specific combination of Tense, Aspect, and Mood. The three series differ-
entially mark the case of subjects and objects. In particular, the subjects of transi-
tive and unergative verbs are assigned different cases in the different series: nomi-
native in the Present, ergative in the Aorist, and dative in the Perfective. The
following tables show the screeves in the three series and the corresponding case
marking of the arguments of transitive and unergative verbs:
(39) The structure of the series in Georgian
Series Screeves
Present (Present present imperfect conjunctive
(s = nom) group) present
(Future future conditional conjunctive
group) future
Aorist (s = erg) aorist conjunctive
past
Perfective (s = Dative) present perfect pluperfect conjunctive
(evidential) perfect
 Chapter 1. Preliminaries 

(40) Case marking of transitive verb arguments

Present series Aorist series Perfective series
External argument nom erg. Dative
Theme Dative acc nom
Goal/Beneficiary [Dative]11 [Dative] [gen-PP]

Note that the case marking of the subjects of unergative verbs is the same as that
for transitives, but objects are not projected in unergative structures.
The examples in (41) illustrate the case marking of subjects and objects in
double object constructions (DOCs) across the various series:
(41) a. Present series (active):
Nodar-i bavshv-s t’k’bileul-s chuknis.
Nodar-nom child-dat candy-acc presents.pres
‘Nodar is presenting a candy to the child.’
b. Aorist Series (active):
Nodar-ma bavshv-s t’k’bileu-i achuka.
Nodar-erg child-dat candy-abs presented.aor
‘Nodar presented a candy to the child.’
c. Perfective Series (active, irrealis):
Nodar-s bavshv-is-tvis t’k’bileul-i uchukebia.
Nodar-dat child-gen-for candy-abs presented.perf.
‘Nodar has (apparently) presented the candy to the child.’
Notice that in the Perfective series, the subject is assigned the dative case and the
benefactee object receives a postpositional genitive, which indicates the latter’s
non-argumental position, as this argument no longer triggers the agreement with
the verb (I assume that this argument is in an adjunct position). Due to such dif-
ferential case marking of the subject, two agreement patterns emerge in Georgian.
Nominative and ergative subjects trigger basic agreement (Aronson 1990), which
is realized with the ‘v-set’ markers, while object agreement is realized with ‘m-set’
affixes. The terms ‘v-set’ and ‘m-set’ are based on the first person agreement mark-
ers of subjects and objects in transitive contexts. These sets are shown in Table 6

11. The brackets indicate the optionality of the projection of the Goal/Beneficiary argument in
transitive structures. However, the external and the theme/patient arguments are mandatory as
indicated with the absence of these brackets.
 Complex Predicates

that follows. V-set and m-set agreement affixes cannot show up simultaneously in
the same verb because of the above-mentioned templatic restrictions.12
When subjects of transitive and unergative verbs are assigned dative case, ac-
cusative shows up on the theme argument.13 The agreement pattern with the da-
tive subjects is Inverse as it is realized by the ‘m-set’ agreement markers indexing
subjects and ‘v-set’ affixes indexing nom/acc objects. The following table sum-
marizes the ‘v-set’ and ‘m-set’ affixes:
(42) Georgian agreement morphology
Per Num v-set markers m-set markers
1st v- m-
2 sg Ø-/x- g-
3 -s, -a, -o Ø-, h-, s-
1 v- -t gv-
2 pl Ø-/x-       -t g-          -t
3 -en, -an, -nen, -n, -es Ø-, h-, s-     -t

Both ‘m-set’ and ‘v-set’ paradigms are realized as prefixes when indexing the first
and the second person arguments. The inverse pattern shows up in all syntactic
contexts where subjects are assigned dative case. The relevant constructions, in
addition to the Perfective series forms of transitive and unergative verbs, are sub-
ject-experiencer psychological predicates, two-place passives, adversity causatives,
causatives of internally-changed verbs, and various applicatives, etc. Here are some
examples:
(43) a. The Present series:
dato-s dzul-s Vano-Ø.
dato-dative hates.pres Vano-nom
‘Dato hates Vano.’
b. The Aorist series:
dato-s she-dzulda Vano-Ø
dato-dat prev-hated.aor. Vano-nom
‘Dato hated Vano.’

12. I refer a reader to Lomashvili & Harley (to appear) for detailed explanation of the role of
templates in the spellout of agreement morphology in Georgian.
13. Notice that acc, nom, and Absolutive have syncretic surface realizations in Georgian,
i.e. they are marked with the morphological nominative marker.
 Chapter 1. Preliminaries 

c. The Perfective series:

dato-s she-dzulebia Vano-Ø.
dato-dat prev-hate.perf.Vano-nom
‘Dato (apparently) hated Vano.’
In these examples, the third person dative subject triggers the ‘m-set’ agreement
on verbs which is spelled out as zero. The first person nominative theme object of
psychological verbs in (44) triggers ‘v-set’ agreement on verbs as illustrated in the
following:
(44) dato-s me mo-v- e-nat’re.
dato-dat I-nom prev-1o-Voice-miss.pst
‘Dato missed me.’
However, when both dative and nominative arguments are 1–2 person, the agree-
ment pattern is somewhat more complex, i.e. both subjects and objects trigger
agreement on the morphologically complex verbs which consist of the main verb
and the auxiliary BE. The main verb carries the meaning of the entire predicate,
while the auxiliary ‘AR’ (BE) provides templatic extension for marking tense/as-
pect inflection along with the nominative object agreement on the predicate. Thus,
the secondary function of auxiliary BE-support is to mark the agreement of nom-
inative objects:
(45) Inverse agreement
a. m-iq’var-x-ar
1-love-2-be
‘I love you.sg’
b. g-iq’var-v-ar
2-love-1-be
‘You love me.’
In the inverse pattern, both simple and complex morphological forms of psycho-
logical verbs have the same argument structure, and the agreement morphology
seems to be sensitive to the markedness of one or both verbal arguments.14 Other
syntactic factors are also implicated in the spellout of subject and object person
agreement in these complex forms, which I will not discuss here for space reasons.
Note that tense/mood/aspect markers in these extended verbal units are kept in-
tact, which again shows that they are not fused with the person/number agree-
ment morphemes.

14. Markedness of arguments in terms of person is defined whether these arguments are
[+ participant], i.e. 1–2 person, or [-participant], i.e. 3rd person. Marked arguments are usually
[+participant].
 Complex Predicates

Person agreement is not of direct relevance for the morphosyntax of complex

predicates discussed in this work but it is important for the analysis of various
types of causative and applicative predicates because of the way these construc-
tions display variability in case marking of their main arguments. This informa-
tion is also instrumental in understanding the interaction between the syntax-se-
mantics and morphology of predicate constructions.

1.8 Outline

Both Chapters 2 and 3 begin with an overview of the existing research on causative
and applicative constructions, and also discuss the same constructions in two lan-
guages (Mengrelian and Svan). The limited data available on these languages sug-
gest that almost the same range of causative and applicative structures that are
found in Georgian are available in these languages as well.
Morphosyntactic properties of syntactic causatives derived from various
classes of verbs (inchoative, unergative, unaccusative, etc.) are the focus of
Chapter 2. Two main groups of syntactic causatives are identified: one taking in-
choative verbs as an input to the causative alternation (melt/melt type alternations)
and another, transitive, unergative, and other types of verbs resulting in make X do
V alternations. Morphological distinctions between these two main alternations
are argued to arise from their syntactic structure and from the type of the comple-
ment that the causative head (CAUSE) takes in these types of causative structures.
This chapter also contains a section on adversity and malefactive causatives, where
the dative causee argument is the subject and no external argument is projected by
the Voice0 head. I claim that these dative subjects form a natural class with the da-
tive applied arguments of applicatives.
The morphosyntactic and semantic properties of high and low applicatives are
discussed in Chapter 3. First, I discuss low recipient and source applicatives of
transitive and other classes of verbs where the transfer-of-possession relation is es-
tablished between the external and applied arguments. This chapter also analyzes
the stative possession relation in low applicatives formed with psychological and
existential predicates. Two new types of applicatives are introduced in Chapter 3:
those formed with (1) internally-caused change-of-state and (2) reflexive events.
The applicative relation between the external argument and the theme in reflexive
applicatives is argued to be established through the lower merging site of the re-
flexive Voice head, which ‘forces’ an empty argument PRO to occur in the speci-
fier of the lower Appl0 head which also projects the accusative theme. The control
relation between PRO and the external argument along with the low Appl0 head is
argued to be responsible for the transfer-of-possession relation between the
 Chapter 1. Preliminaries 

external argument and the theme. Chapter 3 also discusses hybrid-type applica-
tives formed by four-place predicates in which high applicative relation is estab-
lished between the higher applied argument and an event expressed by the verb,
and low recipient relation is established between the applied argument projected
by the low Appl0 head and the theme. Some of these complex structures are argued
also to combine CAUSE with the lower PHAVE/PLOC head which projects the Goal-
Recipient and the theme arguments (Harley 2002, Jung & Miyagawa 2004) receiv-
ing either a ‘locative’ or ‘have’ interpretation. The study closes off with the discus-
sion of applicative structures in Mingrelian and Svan, which appear to display the
same range of applicative constructions as Georgian. Chapter 4 summarizes the
basic findings of the study concerning the interface of the argument structure and
the morphological realization of causative and applicative constructions.
 chapter 2

The morphosyntax of causative alternations

This chapter focuses on the causative alternation as it appears with various types
of verbs (inchoative, unergative, transitive, psychological, etc.) specifically ad-
dressing both lexical and syntactic causatives to identify the morphosyntactic
properties of these constructions that are responsible for their productivity across
various verb classes.
The main goal of the chapter is to analyze the interaction between the argu-
ment structure of syntactic causatives and the morphological realization of the
causative head. As in many morphologically rich languages, it is expected that
there are mismatches between the syntax of these complex predicates and their
morphological realization. These mismatches will be accounted for in the Distrib-
uted Morphology framework as indicated in the Introduction.

2.1 Outline of the analysis

In Section 2.2, I outline my basic assumptions relevant to this chapter. In Section 2.3,
I discuss inchoative-causative alternations, which are morphologically realized
with a-/Ø – allomorphs. The novelty of the analysis presented in these sections is
that the causative head selects RootP (√P) as its complement in the causatives of
inchoative verbs. This accounts for the relative productivity of the lexical caus-
atives formed from inchoative alternates and the root-conditioned allomorphy of
the causative head. In Section 2.4, the morphosyntax of causatives formed from
unergative verbs is discussed and the absence of root-conditioned allomorphy of
the causative head is accounted for by the size of the complement that it selects
(that is, vP). It is argued that in a simple X makes Y do V causatives of unergative
verbs such as sing, laugh, etc. only one CAUSE is merged that takes the aforemen-
tioned vP complement. However, when the CAUSE iterates, two causing events
are introduced into the structure and consequently, two causee arguments are in-
troduced to the structure of these complex causatives. Consequently, the morpho-
logical realization of the two CAUSEs does reflect the syntax as two VIs (a- and
-in) are inserted into separate CAUSE heads. In Section 2.5, I analyze the caus-
atives of transitive verbs also as the result of a make X do V alternation and pro-
pose that in these structures, two causative heads are merged and the lower
 Complex Predicates

causative head selects for the argument-full vP complement. I propose that the
presence and/or the lack of allomorphy of the causative head in the alternates of
transitive/unergative verbs on the one hand and inchoatives on the other is a di-
rect consequence of their syntax, namely, the size of the complement that the caus-
ative head takes.
Beyond the analysis of the argument structure of various types of causatives,
the iteration of causative morphemes and their complex syntax is discussed in
various languages (Malagasy, Chemeheuvi, Georgian, Mengrelian and Svan). The
conclusion regarding the iteration of causative morphemes is that the reduplicated
Vocabulary Items (VIs) may not always mark the merger of two CAUSE heads in
the same structure. Instead, one CAUSE morpheme marks the causative event
head while another may mark some other functional head such as Aspect, Mood,
or Tense.
Section 2.6 discusses the morphosyntax of adversity causatives whose syntax
is argued to combine the Voice0 head with a [NonActive] feature and CAUSE head
under one structure. The analysis of nonactive Voice in these structures is different
from the previous literature (such as Kratzer 1994) in that it allows the Voice head
not to project an external argument due to this [NonActive] feature. These struc-
tures project dative causee and nominative affected arguments none of them intro-
duced by CAUSE head. In Section 2.7, the event structure of ‘pretend-type’ com-
plex verbal structures and their causatives is analyzed. These types of complex
predicates have not yet been analyzed extensively in the literature. I propose that
they combine a complex V0 head, including a lexical head turned into the gram-
maticalized functional head ‘PretendP’, and CAUSE composes with the vP and the
VoiceP of a reflexive verb. Various event types of psychological predicates and
their differences in terms of causativization represent the topic of Section 2.8. Fi-
nally, in Section 2.9, causative alternations of various types of verbs are analyzed in
Mengrelian and Svan.

2.2 Assumptions

Next, let us consider some basic assumptions and claims that have been made
about the structure of causatives in other languages. We start with the distinction
between so-called lexical causatives and syntactic causatives. We follow the ap-
proach espoused in Harley (2008) that both kinds of causative are formed in the
syntax and differ only in the depth of embedding of the structure. After examining
this, we turn to the hypothesis that causative morphology might be added at dif-
ferent ‘layers’ of the structure.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
[Contents]
 The Water Nymph. 1
About a mile northwest from Järna Church was located, at one time,
a water mill, Snöåqvarn, belonging to the parishioners of Näs. [195]

One Sunday morning, before the church of Järna had a priest of its
own, the chaplain of Näs set out for that place, and had just arrived
at the mill, when he saw a water man sitting in the rapids below it,
playing on a fiddle a psalm from a psalm book.

“What good do you think your playing will do you?” said the priest.
“You need expect no mercy!”

Sadly the figure ceased playing, and broke his fiddle in pieces,
whereupon the priest regretted his severe condemnation, and again
spoke:

“God knows, maybe, after all.”

“Is that so?” exclaimed the man in joy, “then I’ll pick up my pieces
and play better and more charmingly than before.”

To another mill in the same parish, Lindqvarn, near Lindsnäs, a

peasant came one time with his grist. Along in the night he thought
he would go and see if it was yet ground. He noticed on his arrival
that the mill was not running, and opened the wicket to the wheel-
house to learn what the matter might be, when he saw, glaring at
him from the water below, two eyes “as large as half moons.”

“The devil! what great eyes you have!” cried the peasant, but
received no reply.
“Whew! what monstrous eyes you have!” the peasant again cried;
again no answer. [196]

Then he sprang into the mill, where he stirred up a large fire brand,
with which he returned.

“Are your eyes as large now?” he shouted through the wicket.

“Yes!” came in answer from the stream.

Hereupon the peasant ran the stick through a hole in the floor, where
the voice seemed to come from, and at once the wheel began to
turn again. [197]

1 The water nymphs are noted musicians; their music usually being in a plaintive
strain and expressing a longing to be released on the day of [195]judgment.
Sometimes, but not so often, they appear in the folk-lore as the capricious rulers of
the streams which they inhabit. It is believed, in certain regions that one should
not grind grain on the night before Christmas, for at that time the nymphs are out
in all the streams, and if they find a mill going they stop it, break it, or grind at
such a furious rate that the millstones burst. ↑
[Contents]
 Bölsbjörn. 1

Many generations ago there lived at Bole, in the parish of Ore, a

man named Bölsbjörn, noted far and wide for his wonderful
strength.

The king, hearing about him, commanded him to come to Stockholm

and wrestle with a newly arrived foreign champion named Stenbock,
who was said to be so strong that he had never found his superior.

Bölsbjörn hastened to obey the king’s command. Strapping his

skates upon him, he set off at such a speed that his dog, which had
followed him, gave out and died on the way, and the new-baked
bread put into his haversack was yet warm upon his arrival at
Stockholm.

He was conducted to the king, and was told that he might name his
own reward, however great it might be, if he would vanquish
Stenbock.

The struggle was soon begun and suddenly concluded by Bölsbjörn

laying his antagonist upon his back with such force that three of his
ribs were broken. For his reward, Bölsbjörn demanded as much land
as he could skate around in one day, and it was granted him by the
king.

When he returned home he had made the circuit of nearly twelve

square miles of land, which his descendants to this day occupy. [198]

1 It is believed this comes from an old Icelandic Saga, which has been made a
part of the folk-lore of Dalarne. ↑
[Contents]
 The Treasure Seekers.

It is an established rule that he who seeks buried treasures must

carefully maintain the utmost silence, lest his search be in vain and
harm befall him, body and soul.

They were not ignorant of this—the four men that one time made up
a party for the purpose of unearthing treasures said to be buried in
Josäterdal.

Making their way, one midsummer night, across Lake Sälen, they
saw approaching them a man of strange aspect, behind whose boat
dragged a large fir tree, and a little later another, who inquired if
they had seen any float-wood on their way.

The treasure seekers, who understood that these rowers were no

other than fairies, pretended not to hear the question, and reached
Josäterdal finally, without further temptation.

Just as they began to dig in the hill a grand officer approached and
addressed them, but no one answered. Soon after a number of
soldiers marched up and began to shoot at the diggers, but they did
not allow even this to disturb them. Suddenly a red calf hopped up
and the soldiers pressed nearer, so that the men soon stood
enveloped in powder-smoke so thick that they could not see each
other. When this did not frighten them, a tall gallows was raised on
the side of the hill. It so happened that one of the diggers wore a
red shirt that [199]attracted the attention of the spirits, one of which
cried out:

“Shall we begin with him wearing the red shirt?” Whereupon he lost
his courage and took to his heels, followed neck over head by the
others. [200]
[Contents]
 The Lapp in Magpie Form. 1
A Finn in the forests of Säfsen, having for a long time suffered ill luck
with his flock, determined, let the [201]cost be what it would, to find,
through a Lapp well versed in the arts of the Trolls, a remedy for the
evil he was enduring.

To this end he set out for the home of his to-be-deliverer, and after a
long and fatiguing journey through the wilderness, he came at last to
a Lapp hut which, with no little quaking, he entered, and there found
a man busied with a fire upon the floor.

The Lapp who, through his connection with the Trolls, already knew
the purpose of the visit, and very much flattered thereby, greeted his
guest kindly, and said:

“Good morning, Juga, my boy, are you here? I can give you news
from home. Everything goes well there. I was there yesterday.”

The Finn was terribly frightened at the discovery that he was

recognized, but now more when he heard that the Lapp had made
the same journey forth and back in one day, that had cost him so
many days of wandering.

With assurance of friendship, the Lapp quieted his fears, and

continued:

“I had a little matter to attend to yesterday at your home, and sat

upon the housetop when your wife went over the garden, but I saw
she did not know me, for she threatened me with the house key.”
The Finn now made known his errand, and received for answer that
his animals were even now doing as well as he could wish. The
presents brought by the Finn greatly strengthened their pleasant
relations, and the Lapp agreed willingly to initiate him into the
mysteries of Trolldom. [202]

When the Finn reached home, the incidents of his journey were
circumstantially related to his wife, even to the Lapp’s account of his
visit, and the threats with the house key.

“Yes, I remember now,” said she, “that a magpie sat upon the roof
the same day that the animals seemed to revive, but I believed it to
be an unlucky bird, therefore tried to frighten it away with the key.”

The Finn and his wife now understood that it was their friend, who
had transformed himself thus in order to do them a service, and from
that time held these creatures in great veneration. [203]

1 The magpie in folk-lore is an ominous bird, and is avoided by the peasantry,

because one can not know whether it is the spirit of a Troll, friend or foe. When
the magpies build near the house it is regarded as a lucky omen, but if they build
on the heath, and meantime come to the house and chatter, it bodes evil. ↑
[Contents]
 The Plague. 1

Memories of the epidemics that have ravaged our country still live in
the minds of the people, though, with time, like many other
recollections, they have taken the form of myths.

During the plague there was seen, wandering from village to village,
a boy and a girl, the one with a rake, the other with a broom.
Wherever the boy was seen to use his rake, one and another was
spared from death, but where the girl swept, death left an empty
house, and the places that were not approached by these beings
escaped the plague entirely.

On Soller Island, in Siljan, they strewed gold and precious stones

along the roads and paths, which were so infected that he who so
much as moved one with his hand became a corpse before the next
sunset.

In the end there remained no one on the island except two wise old
men, one named Bengh, the other Harold, who were not deluded by
the gold, thereby saving their lives.

A number of the islanders escaped by flight and moved to the North

Land through the “Twelve-Mile Roads,” that bordered upon
Vermland.

Among those who fled was a young and beautiful maiden named
Malin, who, when she came out upon the [204]road, observed a
glittering jewel, which, upon closer inspection, represented Christ
upon the cross. Notwithstanding the warning of her companions, she
could not resist the temptation to pick up the doubly valuable article.
When they came later to their first camping place, Rossberg, about
four miles from Soller Island, Malin was seen to fall upon her knees
and give herself up to earnest prayer, but just as the evening sun hid
himself behind a mountain, she sank lifeless upon a stone, which
even to this day is called “Malin’s Church,” and is dressed every
midsummer by the herdsmen with fresh leaves and fragrant flowers.
[205]

1 In other regions it is related that heralding an epidemic, a little bird flies around
the country where men are plowing, and, perched upon the ox-yokes, twitters
its warning. ↑
[Contents]
 The Vätters. 1
Vätters, according to the Northern belief, are creatures that live
under ground, but often appear above, and then in human [206]form
so perfect that they have many times been mistaken for mankind.
They live, as do the Trolls and Giants, in mountains, but more often
move from one to another, and it is mostly during these journeys
that they are seen.

When the parish of Ockilbo was first settled, the Vätters were so
plentiful that a peasant who fixed his abode near the Rönn Hills was
forced to build his windows high up near the eaves of his cottage to
escape seeing the troublesome multitude of these beings that
continually swarmed around.

Despite the disposition of the cottager to have nothing to do with

the Vätters, he could not avoid getting into complications with them
at times.

One evening, when the wife went to drive the goats into the goat
house, she saw among hers two strange goats, having horsehoofs
instead of cloven hoofs, as should be. Do her utmost, it was
impossible to separate them from the others. They pressed on, and
were locked up with the rest.

In the night she was awakened by a heavy pounding upon the walls,
and a voice from without called:

“Let us be neighborly, mother, and return my goats to me.”

The woman dressed herself and hastened to the goat house, where
the strange animals were making a dreadful uproar. Upon her
opening the door they [207]sprang out and hurried to the forest,
whence she heard the Vätters shouting and calling them.

Thus a friendly feeling was forever established between the cottager

and the Vätters, and from that day there were no more
disturbances. [208]

1 To the characteristics attributed in this story to the Vätters may be added that
they are peaceable and generally inclined to be friendly to mankind, but that
they may, nevertheless, be aroused to acts of violence if their [206]wishes are not
heeded, or if harm is done them designedly. They are said to have great quantities
of gold and silver, but steel is very offensive to them. If, therefore, a knife is stuck
into a fissure in a mountain, a piece of gold will, a few days later, be found in its
stead. During autumn and in winter they take up their abode in vacated cow
barns, where they employ themselves after the manner of mankind. ↑
[Contents]
 Forssa Church.

In the village Tåsta—Tattestad—in the parish of Hög, lived in former

times a widely renowned man named Tatte, whose son, Blacke, after
whom the high mountain, Blackåsberg, was named, dwelt in
Nannestad, a village in the parish of Forssa.

When the father and son were baptized they together built the
church of Hög, in commemoration of the event. Upon its completion
Blacke, whose home was a long ride distant, stipulated that the
bells, calling the people to worship, should never be rung until his
white horse was seen on Åsaks Hill.

One Christmas day, when Blacke was later than usual, Tatte
commanded that the bell be rung, and the services had already
begun when Blacke arrived at the church. In anger he tore the runic
engraved ring from the church door, with prayers bound it upon his
horse, made a vow that he would build a church of his own where
the ring fell to the ground, and mounting his horse, rode away at full
speed.

While crossing Lake Forssa the ice broke, and the horse was plunged
into the water, but both horse and rider, however, succeeded in
reaching the shore, where the horse shook himself so violently that
the ring was loosened and fell to the earth. Blacke kept his word and
built a church, which, after the adjacent lake, was called Forssa
Church. [209]
[Contents]
 Starkad and Bale.
The renowned hero, Starkad, the greatest warrior of the North, had
offended a princess, therefore had fallen under the displeasure of
the king, to escape whose wrath he wandered northward, where he
took up his abode at Rude in Tuna, and it is related in the folk
stories that he [210]then took the name of “Ala Dräng,” or “Rödu Pilt.”

In Balbo, nine miles distant, in the parish of Borgajö, dwelt another

warrior, Bale, who was a good friend to Starkad, and a companion in
arms.

One morning Starkad climbed to the top of Klefberg, in Tuna, and

addressed Bale, thus:

“Bale in Balbo, are you awake?”

“Rödu Pilt,” answered Bale, nine miles away, “the sun and I always
awake at the same time; but how is it with you?”

“Poorly enough! I have only salmon for breakfast, dinner and supper.
Bring me a piece of meat.”

“All right!” replied Bale, and in a few hours arrived in Tuna with an
elk under each arm.

The following morning Bale stood upon a mountain in Balbo and

shouted:

“Rödu Pilt, are you awake?”

“The sun and I awake always at the same time,” answered Starkad,
“but how is it with you?”
“Oh, I have nothing but meat to eat—elk for breakfast, elk for dinner
and elk for supper, come, therefore, and bring me a fish.”

“All right,” said Starkad, and in a little while he was with his friend,
bearing a barrel of salmon under each arm.

In this manner the warriors kept each other supplied with fresh
game from forest and sea, meantime spreading desolation and terror
through the country, but one evening as they were returning from a
plundering expedition to the sea, a black cloud appeared, [211]and it
began to thunder and lighten. Both hastened on the way, but
reached no further than to Vattjom, when Starkad was struck dead
by lightning. His companion buried him in a hill around which he
placed five stones, two at his feet, one at each shoulder and one at
his head, marking to this day the grave of Starkad forty feet in
length. [212]
[Contents]
 The Bell in Själevad.
When the church at Själevad was about to be built, parishioners
could not agree upon a location. Those who resided farthest north
wished it built at Hemling, and those dwelling to the south desired it
more convenient to them. To terminate the wrangle an agreement
[213]was arrived at as ingenious as simple. Two logs were thrown out
into Hörätt Sound, and it was decided that if they floated out to sea
the church should be built at Voge, but if they floated in toward the
Fjord of Själevad, Hemling should be the building spot.

It happened that just then it was full high tide, when the current
changes from its usual course, and in consequence the logs floated
in favor of Hemling.

The Southerners found it hard to swallow their disappointment and

at once set their wits at work to find a way to defeat the accidental
good luck of their neighbors. In the old chapel of Hemling there was
an unusually large bell, said to have been brought from some
strange land, and regarded with great veneration. Upon this the
Southerners set their hope. One beautiful night they stole the bell
and took it southward, persuaded that their opponents would follow
and build the church near Voge. But the bell, which knew best where
the church ought to stand, provided itself with invisible wings and
started to fly back to the place from which it had been brought.

As it was winging its way homeward, an old woman standing on

Karnigberg—Hag Mountain—saw something strange floating through
the air, at which she stared earnestly, wondering what it could be,
finally recognizing the much prized bell of the parish, whereupon she
cried out:—
“Oh! See our holy church bell!”

Nothing more was needed to deprive the bell of its power of

locomotion and it plunged, like a stone, into Prest Sund—priest
sound—where, every winter, a hole in the ice marks its resting place
at the bottom. [214]