OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Copley/Causation in Grammatical Structures
14_Copley_and_Martin_Chapter14 REVISES
page 372 11.11.2014 8:13am
14
Event-structural prominence and
forces in verb meaning shifts
ANJA LATROUITE
14.1 Introduction
In Indo-European languages, subject choice in a sentence is determined by the
respective role of the arguments, i.e. in sentences with active verbs the most agentlike argument (the Actor) maps to subject, as exemplified in (1), while in sentences
with passive verbs the most affected argument (the Undergoer) maps to subject, as
exemplified in (2). Note that in the passive sentences the Actor argument becomes
oblique and is either not realized at all or introduced by a preposition.*
(1)
(2)
Active sentences with Actor subject1
a. They manipulated her.
b. Sie
töte-t-en
den
3p.nom kill-past-3pl Det.masc.acc
‘They killed the demonstrator.’
Demonstranten.
demonstrator
Passive sentences with Undergoer subject
a. She was manipulated (by them).
b. Der
Demonstrant wurde
Det.masc.nom demonstrator become.past.3s
‘The demonstrator was killed (by them).’
(von ihnen)
(from them)
getötet.
killed
* I would like to thank the audience at FIGS, especially G. Ramchand and J. Beavers, as well as the organizers
of the conference and editors of this volume, B. Copley and F. Martin, for helpful comments and questions. This
chapter has also greatly benefited from the thought-provoking criticism and suggestions of the two anonymous
reviewers. Special thanks are due to my Tagalog consultants, R. Panotes Palmero and E. Guerrero, as well as to
S. Lambert and R. D. Van Valin, Jr for critical remarks on earlier versions of this chapter. Obviously all
remaining flaws and errors are my own. A large part of the work on this chapter was possible thanks to research
project B1 of CRC 991‚ “Verb frames at the syntax–semantics interface,” funded by the DFG. This chapter is
partly based on Chapter 6 of my PhD thesis.
1
Annotation: AV: Actor voice; ACC: accusative; GEN: genitive; DAT: dative; Det: determiner; impf:
imperfective; MASC: masculin; NMZ: nominalization; NOM: nominative; PL: plural; past: past tense;
s: singular; UV: Undergoer voice. Infixes are marked by < > and may separate the initial consonant of the
stem (Cstem) from the rest of the verb stem.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Copley/Causation in Grammatical Structures
14_Copley_and_Martin_Chapter14 REVISES
page 373 11.11.2014 8:14am
14.2 The nature of voice in Tagalog
373
The subject argument is easily identifiable in both sentence types as it triggers
person–number agreement on the verb and bears nominative case. The active voice
form of a verb is often called the basic, unmarked voice form, while passive is
conceived of as the marked, derived voice form due to its morphological complexity
and the way it affects the argument structure of the verb by reducing the number of
obligatory arguments by one. In other words, while the active voice form of the verb
has an accusative-marked object argument in addition to the nominative-marked
subject argument, the passive verb no longer takes an accusative complement.
As we will see in the next section, subject selection in Tagalog differs considerably
from subject selection in Indo-European languages. For one, the voice system allows
for a larger array of possible subjects which are identified by affixes encoding
semantic rather than grammatical properties of the subject. Secondly, the voice
system is symmetrical in the sense that Actor voice is no more basic than Undergoer
voice. Moreover, voice affixes are prone to inducing a difference in the interpretation
of verbs, resulting in certain voice forms being less acceptable or preferred than
others. The aim of this chapter is to gain a better understanding of what contribution
is made by the choice of voice. Previous theories relate the semantic function of the
voice affixes to specificity (Maclachlan 2000; Rackowski 2002; Aldridge 2004) or
transitivity (Starosta 2002; Nolasco 2005; Saclot 2006). After a brief overview of the
Tagalog voice system and the relevant terminology in section 14.2, section 14.3
briefly reviews the mentioned approaches as well as some problems they face.
Section 14.4 lays out a theory in which the notion of event structural prominence
and the role of the Actor and the Undergoer in the event are central. More
specifically, it will be shown that voice gaps, subject selection preferences, and
meaning shifts with certain verbs can be related to the factors that contribute to
the causal construal of the event, e.g. the intentionality of the Actor, the motivational
role of the Undergoer in the coming about of an event, and the purpose of an action.
14.2 The nature of voice in Tagalog
Tagalog possesses a set of voice affixes that indicate the properties the subject
argument exhibits in the event. The sentences in (3) show the event denoting stem
tawa ‘laugh’ with a number of different Actor voice (AV) affixes that express how
the Actor is involved in the event of laughing. In (3a) the voice affix /naka-/
expresses that the Actor had the ability to laugh, while the affix /um-/ in (3b),
which is associated with dynamicity, expresses that the Actor actually laughed. The
affix /na-/ in (3c) signals that the Actor laughed despite himself (unintentionally),
while the affix /nag-/ (3d) marks an Actor who laughed heartily. The subject is
marked by the particle ang, which, following Kroeger (1993), is glossed here as NOM
(= nominative). The data show that degrees of dynamicity and intention play a
central role in Tagalog. Note that Tagalog does not have a tense system, but rather
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Copley/Causation in Grammatical Structures
374
14_Copley_and_Martin_Chapter14 REVISES
page 374 11.11.2014 8:14am
14. Event-structural prominence
two morphological markers that provide information on the event in relation to the
time of reference: (a) the morphological marker /N-/ (/um-/-verbs lack this marker),
glossed as realis, for an event viewed as +begun, and (b) morphological marking in
the form of CV-reduplication of the first syllable, glossed as impf, indicating that the
event is or was ongoing (Kroeger 1993). Consequently, the following Realis verb
forms express that the event had/has begun, but was/is not ongoing. These forms are
usually translated by simple past forms.
(3)
a. Naka-tawa
ang lalaki.
av.realisability-laugh nom man
‘The man was able to laugh.’
b. T< um>awa
Tstem< av.realis>dynamic1laugh
‘The man laughed.’
ang
nom
lalaki.
man
c. Na-tawa
ang
lalaki.
av.realisstative-laugh
nom
man
‘The man happened to laugh (despite himself).’
d. Nag-tawa
ang
av.realisdynamic2-laugh
nom
‘The man laughed heartily.’
lalaki.
man
In addition to the set of Actor voice affixes shown above, there is also a set of three
non-Actor affixes. They are traditionally described in terms of thematic roles, e.g. the
suffix /-in/ is said to single out the Theme–Patient argument (= directly affected
argument), /-an/ the Recipient–Location–Goal arguments, and /i-/ the Beneficiary/
Instrument as well as certain Theme arguments, as shown in Table 14.1. There is no
consensus with respect to the number and labels of thematic roles in Austronesian
linguistics (cf. Drossard 1984 for an overview). For the purpose of this chapter and
for the sake of simplicity, I will use the cover term Undergoer voice (UV) affixes for
all non-Actor voices, following Himmelmann (1987).2
Note that Tagalog exhibits two non-subject case markers in addition to nominative ang: genitive ng for core arguments of the verb (i.e. arguments the verb
requires due to its meaning and transitivity), and dative sa for oblique arguments
as well as for non-Actor core arguments expressed by pronouns. Given the special
status of animate entities in this language, it is not surprising to find a separate
set of case markers for personal names. Pronouns also come in three different case
forms, as exemplified in the third line of Table 14.2 for the 3rd person singular
pronoun.
2
Description of the Tagalog voice system in terms of thematic roles is problematic, and should
probably be replaced by the concept of event-structural roles (cf. Latrouite and Naumann 1999; 2001).
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Copley/Causation in Grammatical Structures
14_Copley_and_Martin_Chapter14 REVISES
page 375 11.11.2014 8:14am
14.2 The nature of voice in Tagalog
375
Table 14.1 Voice affixes
Voice affix
selects as subject
um-; mag – (Realis: nag-)
-in (Realis: in-)
-an (Realis: in-verb-an)
i-(Realis: i-ni-verb)
Actor
Theme–Patient
Locative: Recipient–Location–Goal
Circumstantial: Beneficiary–Instrument–Theme
Table 14.2 Case markers
Common nouns
Personal names
Pronoun 3sg
nominate
genitive
dative
ang
si
siya
ng
ni
niya
sa
kay
sa kaniya
As has been pointed out by Foley (1998) and Himmelmann (2005), Tagalog is a
symmetrical voice language, i.e. no voice form is morphologically more basic than
another and no voice form can be viewed as derived from another voice form. An
often-cited example of a verb stem taking all of the voice affixes above, and thus
allowing for Actor, Theme, Locative, and Beneficiary subjects marked by the nominative marker ang, is shown in (4). An item enclosed within square brackets in the
translations below indicates that this is a possible but less preferred reading for the
sentence without further context. Note that genitive-marked Undergoers are preferably understood as non-specific in Actor voice sentences, but not in Locative or
Beneficiary voice sentences. The role of specificity has been often evoked as crucial,
and will be reviewed in the next section.
(4)
Active verb with different voice affixes
ka
ng libro sa aklatan para sa anak mo.
a. H<um>iram
Hstem< av>borrow 2s.nom gen book dat library for dat child 2s.gen
ACTOR: um‘You borrow a book in [a/]the library for the child!’
b. Hiram-in
mo
ang libro sa aklatan para
sa anak mo.
borrow-uv:in 2s.gen nom book dat library for
dat child 2s.gen
THEME:-in
‘You borrow the book in [a/]the library for your child!’
c. Hiram-an
mo
ng libro ang aklatan para sa anak mo.
borrow-uv:an 2s.gen gen book nom library for dat child gen
‘You borrow a/[the] book in the library for the child!’
LOCATIVE: -an
d. I-hiram
mo
ng libro sa aklatan ang anak mo.
uv:i–borrow 2s.gen gen book dat library nom child 2s.gen
‘You borrow a/the book in [a/]the library for your child!’ BENEFICIARY: i-
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Copley/Causation in Grammatical Structures
376
14_Copley_and_Martin_Chapter14 REVISES
page 376 11.11.2014 8:14am
14. Event-structural prominence
Extensive work has shown that the Undergoer voice forms cannot be analyzed as
passives (cf. e.g. Foley 1976; Foley and Van Valin 1977; Pawley and Reid 1979;
Drossard 1984; Himmelmann 1991). For one, the Actor argument does not get
demoted to oblique in Undergoer voice sentences. Quite the contrary: it retains
certain subject properties. Sentences like (5) show that in Undergoer voice sentences,
the ng-marked Actor, and not the ang-marked Undergoer, is interpreted as coreferential with the subject of the second conjunct. Note that the 3rd person singular
pronoun is gender-neutral in Tagalog and would in theory allow for both interpretations.3
(5)
B<in>ugbog4
ng
lalaki ang babae at um-alis
Bstem< UV.realis>beat.up GEN man NOM woman and AV.realis-leave
siya.
3s.Nom
‘The man beat up the woman and he left.’
(NOT: ‘The woman was beaten up by the man and she left.’) (Drossard 1984: 61)
At least since Schachter (1976) it has been well known that the syntactic properties associated with the subject in most Indo-European languages are divided
between the Actor argument and the ang-marked argument in Tagalog, i.e. rolerelated subject properties are associated with the Actor and reference-related subject
properties are associated with the ang-marked argument (cf. Foley and Van Valin
1984). I follow Kroeger (1993) in this chapter and call the ang-marked argument the
subject, as it exhibits important subject properties like the ability to launch floating
quantifiers and the ascension of possessors, as well as the ability to control secondary
predicates and to license relativization as the only argument in the sentence.5,6
Examples like those in (4) evoke the misleading impression that voice choice is
rather free and that the meaning difference between Actor and Undergoer voice
forms boils down to a difference in specificity with respect to the Theme argument.
In the next section we look at subject selection restrictions and greater meaning
shifts, and discuss previous approaches that have analyzed the function of the voice
affixes in terms of specificity and transitivity.
3
Drossard (1984: 75ff.) points out that this interpretation is due to the combination of two active
predicates. If a stative and an active predicate are combined, the reference of the pronoun is ambiguous.
4
The Realis form of Undergoer voice forms is marked by the infix /-in-/ with verbs beginning in
consonants and the prefix /ni-/ with verbs beginning in vowels. Patient/Theme voice forms lack the suffix
/–in/ in Realis. The Actor voice forms /nag-/ and /naka-/ and is analyzed as a fusion of /mag-/ and /-in-/,
respectively /maka-/ and /-in-/ (cf. Pawley and Reid 1979).
5
See Schachter (1976) for a discussion of Kroeger’s work and the analysis of sentences lacking
nominative arguments.
6
In Philippine languages, the ang-marked argument is often called the topic—however, not in the
sense of discourse topic or old information, as it may very well be the focus of the sentence (cf. Schachter
and Otanes 1972). Rather, it is used in the sense of “clause-internal topic” and “what the event denoted by
the verb phrase is about,” showing that its status is not first and foremost pragmatic, but grammatical.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Copley/Causation in Grammatical Structures
14_Copley_and_Martin_Chapter14 REVISES
page 377 11.11.2014 8:14am
14.3 Tagalog voice marking
377
14.3 Previous approaches to Tagalog voice marking
14.3.1 Subject choice, specificity, and intentionality
Already Bloomfield (1917: 155) had stated that in Actor voice sentences the Undergoer argument was generally either lacking or “underdetermined,” while in Undergoer voice sentences it was definite. Naylor (1986) put this observation into the rule
that a definite Patient/Theme would win over a definite Actor with respect to subject
choice. More recent works (Maclachlan 2000; Rackowski 2002; Aldridge 2004)
phrase this observation more carefully in terms of specificity instead of definiteness.7
Specificity is usually understood to mean something like “presupposed by the
speaker.” Rackowski takes the specificity of the nominative argument as the motivation to state that specificity is a central factor in voice choice, in the sense that only
non-specific Patients may stay in VP, while specific Patients need to move out of VP
to a position where they trigger voice marking. This results in the picture that
specific Actors outrank non-specific Patients/Themes for nominative marking,
while specific Patients/Themes are believed to generally outrank specific Actors
and “enforce” Undergoer voice. Grammaticality judgments with respect to wellknown examples like the one in (6) seem to provide further evidence for the key role
of specificity in Tagalog. In contrast to the Undergoer voice sentence in (6b), the
Actor voice sentence in (6a) is considered unacceptable by native speakers. Recall
that non-subject Undergoers expressed by personal names and pronouns are always
marked by the dative marker.
(6)
takot ‘fear’/ takót ‘afraid’, t-um-akot/takut-in: to frighten
(Schachter and Otanes 1972)
a. *T< um>akot
siya
kay Jose.
Tstem < av.realis>afraid 3s.nom dat Jose
Intended: ‘He frightened Jose.’
b. T-in-akot
Tstem< uv.realis>afraid
‘He frightened Jose.’
niya
3s.gen
si Jose.
nom Jose
Interestingly, for a limited number of verbs, the Actor voice form is found to be
unacceptable, even if the Undergoer is non-specific and the Actor specific as in (7a),
while the Undergoer voice form in (7b) is acceptable, as would be expected. The
marker # indicates that speakers find the sentence awkward.
(7)
7
patáy ‘dead’, p.um.atay/patay.in: to kill (Saclot 2006)
a. #P< um>atay
ang mga bata ng mga aso.
Pstem< av.realis>dead nom pl child gen pl dog
Intended: ‘The children killed (the) dogs.’
Cf. Bell (1978) as well as Adams and Manaster-Ramer (1988) for data challenging the definiteness
requirement in Tagalog.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Copley/Causation in Grammatical Structures
378
14_Copley_and_Martin_Chapter14 REVISES
page 378 11.11.2014 8:14am
14. Event-structural prominence
b. P< in>atay
ng mga bata
Pstem< uv.realis>dead gen pl child
‘The children killed the dogs.’
ang mga aso.
nom pl dog
Saclot (2006) suggests that the unacceptability of (7a) results from semanticpragmatic considerations: Undergoer voice forms, but not Actor voice forms, are
said to denote intentional actions directed towards the Undergoer. If the Actor is not
depicted as intentionally killing the dogs, i.e. if Actor voice is chosen, the implication
is that it is an inherent property/inclination of the Actor to kill. The action is not
depicted as specifically directed at the referent of the Undergoer. The idea of
children randomly killing animals is felt to be odd and thus Actor voice gets rejected.
Saclot therefore suggests that Actor voice forms imply voluntariness, while Undergoer voice forms imply intention.
When it comes to explaining the distribution of Actor voice vs. Undergoer voice
of verbs that denote emotional states and do not take intentional agents like the verb
umibig/ibigin ‘to love’ in (9), or verbs that may take inanimate highest arguments
like sumalpok/salpukin ‘to hit’ in (8), the notions of voluntariness and intention lack
explanatory power. It should be noted that the specificity of the Undergoer in these
sentences does not “enforce” Undergoer voice. Actor voice may be freely chosen
even if the Undergoer is specific, as the sentences in (8a) and (9a) show. While with
the verb ‘to hit’ in (8a) the speaker may choose between ng and sa, and thus overtly
mark the difference between a non-specific Undergoer (ng) and a specific Undergoer
(sa), the emotion verb umibig ‘to love’ only takes sa-marked Undergoers, like many
verbs that require animate Undergoers. Given that the sentence in (9a) is taken from
the story Alamat ng saging, it can be shown, however, that in this particular case, the
Undergoer lalaki ‘man’ is indeed specific, even definite, as he has been mentioned in
the preceding sentences. The Undergoer voice sentences, given in (8b) and (9b) for
comparison, are of course also possible, although according to Nolasco (2005), the
Undergoer voice sentence in (8b) depicts a less natural scenario of the waves
‘forcefully striking the boat.’
(8)
a. S< um>alpok
ang alon
nom wave
Sstem< av.realis>strike
‘The wave struck a/the boat.’
b. S< in>alpok
ng
Sstem< uv.realis>strike gen
‘The wave struck the boat.’
(9)
alon
wave
ng/sa bangka.
gen/dat boat
(Schachter 1972: 70)
ang bangka.
nom boat
(Schachter 1972: 70)
Context: Noong unang panahon, isang magandang babae ang nakilala ng isang
kakaibang lalaki. ( . . . ) Ipinagtapat naman ng engkanto na buhat siya sa lupain
ng mga pangarap, at hindi sila maaaring magkasama.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Copley/Causation in Grammatical Structures
14_Copley_and_Martin_Chapter14 REVISES
page 379 11.11.2014 8:14am
14.3 Tagalog voice marking
379
‘Once upon a time a beautiful woman met a strange/odd man. ( . . . ) The
spirit (=the man) declared frankly that he was from the region of dreams, and
that they could not become companions.’ (Source: Alamat ng saging (http://
hawaii.edu/Filipino/Related))
a. Gayunman, um-ibig
ang babae
sa
lalaki.
however
av.realis-love nom woman
dat man
‘However, the woman loved the man.’
b. In-ibig
ng babae
uv.realis-love gen woman
‘The woman loved the man.’
ang lalaki.
nom man
These few sentences show already that the distribution and acceptability of Actor
and Undergoer voice affixes cannot fully be explained by referring to the specificity
of the Undergoer or the intentionality of the Actor argument (for more examples see
Latrouite 2012 and in press).
The differences in interpretation that Saclot describes in terms of volition vs.
intention for the sentences in (7) are clearly restricted to verbs requiring animate,
controlling Actors. The voluntariness reading of Actor voice forms is probably best
viewed as a prototypical and—in the Gricean sense of the word—implicated inference for activity verbs with animate and controlling Actors, but not as uncancellable
semantic content associated with the Actor voice affix /um-/ (cf. Van Valin and
Wilkins 1996). Evidence for the status of this interpretation as an implicature comes
from contrastive focus sentences. The choice of Actor voice in a contrastive focus
sentence with the verbs above is perfectly acceptable, as seen in (10), and does not
implicate that the Actor acts voluntarily, rather than unintentionally, and once again
it does not implicate or require the Undergoer to be non-specific.
(10)
a. Siya
ang t< um>akot
3s.nom nmz tstem< av.realis>afraid
‘It is he who frightened Jose.’
kay Jose.
dat Jose
b. Ang mga bata ang p< um>atay
nom pl child
nmz pstem< av.realis>dead
‘It is the children who killed dogs/the dogs.’
ng/sa
gen/dat
mga
pl
aso.
dog
Saclot’s analysis is not undermined by the observation that intentionality cannot
serve as an explanation for all voice selection patterns. Following Nolasco (2005), she
views intentionality as only one factor that may serve to render an argument more
prominent than the other. Nolasco (2005) assumes a framework in which intentionality is one parameter of semantic transitivity—a notion that has been put forward
by several Philippinists as decisive for voice choice. The next section provides a brief
overview and discussion of the transitivity approach to voice.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Copley/Causation in Grammatical Structures
380
14_Copley_and_Martin_Chapter14 REVISES
page 380 11.11.2014 8:14am
14. Event-structural prominence
14.3.2 Voice choice and transitivity
Transitivity as a key concept in the voice system of Tagalog is discussed in Starosta
(2002), Ross (2002), Nolasco (2005), and Nolasco and Saclot (2005). The basic idea
is that voice affixes differ with respect to transitivity marking: sentences with Actor
voice forms are said to be intransitive, while sentences with Undergoer voice forms
are said to be transitive (for a different view, see Kroeger 1993 and Himmelmann
1991). Transitivity is not to be understood as a morphosyntactic term (cf. Ross
2002), but as a semantic notion in the sense of Hopper and Thompson (1980), i.e. it
is understood to be about an activity “being carried over or transferred from an
agent to a patient. Transitivity in this traditional view necessarily involves at least
two participants . . . and an action which is typically EFFECTIVE in some way”
(Hopper and Thompson 1980: 251, emphasis original). Hopper and Thompson
identify a list of parameters—“each of which suggests a scale according to which
clauses can be ranked” (p. 251)—that “involves a different facet of the effectiveness
or intensity with which the action is transferred from one participant to another”
(p. 252). Nolasco (2005), Nolasco and Saclot (2005) revises Hopper and Thompson’s
parameters and the definition of transitivity to suit Philippine languages (cf. 2005a:
222), for which he assumes only a weak grammaticalization of the subject–object
relation. Inspired by Klaiman’s (1988) notions “source of action” and “most affected
entity,” he comes up with the following definition:
A transitive construction is one where the source of the action is viewed as distinct from the
most affected entity (P). An intransitive construction is one where the source of the action is
also viewed as the most affected entity. (Nolasco 2005: 218)
Nolasco claims that the primary function of the voice affixes is “to cross-index the
most affected entity in the clause” (Nolasco and Saclot 2005: 2; cf. Nolasco 2005: 236);
i.e. Actor voice, signalling intransitivity, identifies the Actor (the sole argument of the
verb) as the most affected one, while Undergoer voice, signalling transitivity, identifies
the Undergoer as the most affected one. Nolasco does not define the notion of
affectedness.8 However, given that he refers to Klaiman’s work, it is evident that
he holds the view that “performing an action” can also be a form of being affected.
Latrouite (2011) provides a detailed discussion of all the parameters given by
Nolasco, and shows that some of them are of little to no importance to voice choice,
e.g. kinesis and punctuality, or cancellable inferences, e.g. the amount of effort put in
by the Actor. A third set of (interrelated) parameters comprising individuation,
affectedness of the Patient, telicity, and directionality, on the other hand, are shown
to play a more substantial role for a number of verbs. It seems to me that behind
Nolasco’s undefined notion of prominence as affectedness lurks an idea similar to
my notion of “event-structural prominence of participants,” which will be defined in
8
For a more restrictive view of affectedness applied to the three different Undergoer voice affixes, see
Himmelmann (1987).
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Copley/Causation in Grammatical Structures
14_Copley_and_Martin_Chapter14 REVISES
page 381 11.11.2014 8:14am
14.3 Tagalog voice marking
381
section 14.4, i.e. the idea that voice affixes cross-index an argument with a higher
level of prominence based on the nature of the event and its event-related properties.
Therefore the next section briefly reviews and discusses those parameters that shed
light on the aspects that I consider relevant to the voice system and the topic of this
chapter.
14.3.3 Individuation, affectedness of P, telicity, and directionality
Nolasco (2005a) is aware of Actor voice sentences with specific Undergoers and
therefore does not include specificity, but rather particularity (of the event) and
individuation (of the Undergoer), in his list of criteria for semantically transitive
sentences. Both these parameters can be used in describing the difference between
(11a), which according to Nolasco denotes a general leisure-time activity (a nonparticular event), and (11b), which denotes “a conscious, deliberate and particular
act undertaken to affect a book” (p. 230).
(11)
a. Nag-basa
siya
ng
libro.
av.realis-read 3s.nom gen book
‘He did book-reading.’ [Nolasco’s translation]9
b. B<in>asa
Bstem< uv.realis>read
‘He read the book.’
niya
3s.gen
ang
nom
libro.
book
(Nolasco 2005: 230)
The sentences also differ with respect to the parameter of individuation of the
Undergoer argument. The book is understood as an individuated object in the
Undergoer voice sentence, but not in the Actor voice sentence. Nolasco notes that
individuation is not to be understood as “specificity” or in the sense of “grammatical
individuation” signalled by pronouns and personal names, but as “exclusivity of a
semantic patient.” Saclot (2006) chooses an example with two personal names, given
in a slightly modified version in (12), to explicate the concept of individuation.
(12)
/suntok/ ‘hit’ with two specific arguments
a. S< um>untok
si Pedro
kay Jose.
Sstem< av.realis>hit nom Pedro dat Jose
‘Pedro hit Jose.’
b. S< in>untok
sstem< uv.realis>hit
‘Pedro hit Jose.’
ni Pedro
gen Pedro
(cf. Saclot 2006: 10)
si
Jose.
nom Jose
It is suggested that the speaker chooses (the admittedly marked) Actor voice form
in (12a) because Jose was not the only one who got hit and the activity was not
9
My consultants allow for more than one interpretation of this sentence; it may also be understood as
‘he read a book’, so a sentence taking up ‘book’ as a discourse referent may follow.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Copley/Causation in Grammatical Structures
382
14_Copley_and_Martin_Chapter14 REVISES
page 382 11.11.2014 8:14am
14. Event-structural prominence
specifically directed towards him. Thus, in contrast to (12b), Jose is not understood
as the exclusive receiver of the action in (12a), supposedly because the Actor hit for
the sake of hitting and not because he had Jose as a target in mind. However,
different speakers offer different scenarios: my consultants suggest that Actor voice
was chosen because Pedro tried to hit Jose, but did not touch him (or really hit him).
So in the first scenario given by Saclot, the Undergoer was understood as fully
physically affected, but not viewed as delimiting the event because he was not
the only one involved, while in the second scenario the Undergoer was viewed
as the only one involved, but not as prototypically affected by it. Individuation of
the Undergoer is thus only one of two possible interpretations. What both interpretations given for (12a) have in common is the focus on the initial phase of the
event, i.e. the causing phase, which is characterized by the Actor’s intention of
starting and pursuing the activity, while the subevent associated with the Undergoer
is backgrounded, leaving room for different interpretations as to how (s)he may have
been involved. This is in line with the idea that sentences are descriptions of
situations, such that more than one situation can satisfy the description; see also
Copley and Harley’s discussion (Ch. 6 above) of how more than one situation may
be construed for a single sentence.
Note that the Actor voice example of the verb ‘to love’, given in (9a), cannot be
explained based on the fact that the Undergoer is (i) one among many or (ii) not
understood as prototypically affected. The latter is first and foremost true because
the verb ‘to love’ does not determine any prototypical change of state with respect to
the Undergoer argument. It can also be argued that the punctual contact verb ‘hit’ is
not associated with a specific result that the event brings about with respect to the
Undergoer either. We find that, in contrast to result-oriented verbs like “to frighten”
and “to kill,” for which Actor voice forms are very much dispreferred and necessitate
a special context (cf. Latrouite 2011), all dynamic contact verbs above, as well as ‘to
bite’ in (13), allow for Actor and Undergoer voice forms in basic sentences. However, the Actor voice form in (13c) is strongly dispreferred if the Undergoer is
human, while the Actor is not human—a pattern that was found to hold true for all
the contact verbs looked at in Latrouite (2011).
(13)
a. K< um>agat
ang
Kstem< av.realis>bite
nom
‘The dog bit a/the bone.’
b. K< in>agat
ng
Kstem< uv.realis>bite gen
‘The dog bit the bone.’
c. #K< um>agat
ang aso
< av.realis>bite nom dog
‘The dog bit me/Lena.’
aso
dog
aso
dog
ng/sa
gen/dat
ang
nom
buto.
bone
buto.
bone
sa akin/
dat 1s.nonact/
kay Lena.
dat Lena
(cf. Saclot 2006: 5)
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Copley/Causation in Grammatical Structures
14_Copley_and_Martin_Chapter14 REVISES
page 383 11.11.2014 8:14am
14.3 Tagalog voice marking
383
As an intermediate summary, we can conclude that we need to distinguish
different classes of verbs: verbs that bring about changes in an Undergoer and
those that do not. The first class comprises stative verbs without an agent, like “to
love,” for which discourse-structural prominence of the arguments plays a role for
subject choice, as argued in Latrouite (2011); and verbs with an agent, but no
extended event structure and no specific change brought about with respect to the
Undergoer, like punctual contact verbs. Note that the Undergoer of the latter
subclass prototypically delimits the run-time and is associated with the end-point
of the event in contrast to the Undergoer of the first subclass. As mentioned before,
for contact verbs, referential properties of the arguments like their respective position on the animacy hierarchy (with humans as agents par excellence being on top)
plays a role. If the referent of the Actor and Undergoer argument is in both cases a
human being, then—without further context—Undergoer voice is preferred. Actor
voice was argued to be only possible if a scenario can be construed in which the
Undergoer does not delimit the event or is not construed as motivating the coming
about of the event, thereby putting the responsibility for the initiation and the runtime of the event solely on the Actor and rendering it more prominent. Speakers
suggested in these cases that they viewed the Actor as having an inherent predisposition towards the denoted kind of behavior. The data suggest that this construal is
faciliated if the Undergoer is inanimate.
The second class of verbs denotes events that bring about changes in the Undergoer.
A subclass of these verbs requires an animate Actor and denotes a specific change of
state in animate Undergoers, like the verbs “to kill” and “to frighten.” These resultoriented verbs strongly prefer Undergoer voice forms to the extent that Actor voice
forms are labeled “unacceptable” in basic sentences. Another subclass deserves mention, for which Nolasco’s notion of individuation turns out to be a very decisive
parameter, because the event-structural interpretation of the verb crucially hinges on
this factor. This is true for verbs taking incremental themes (13)10 (cf. Dowty 1991),
i.e. Undergoer arguments that are used up or built up bit by bit as the event denoted
by the verb progresses. The basic idea, formulated by Krifka (1992; 1998), is that for
verbs taking incremental themes a one-to-one relationship between the run-time of
the event and the parts of the incremental theme can be established. According to
Lyutikova and Tatevosov (Ch. 11 above), incremental verbs denote a “special type of
immediate causation, whereby two eventualities are causally related down to their
proper parts and temporally co-extensive . . . any part of the causing eventuality has
to bring about some temporally co-extensive part of the caused eventuality and . . .
any part of the caused eventuality is to be brought about by some temporally
co-extensive part of the causing eventuality.” An individuated Undergoer is thus
10
Nolasco analyzes examples like these in terms of the parameter “less affected patient” vs. “fully
affected patient.”
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Copley/Causation in Grammatical Structures
384
14_Copley_and_Martin_Chapter14 REVISES
page 384 11.11.2014 8:14am
14. Event-structural prominence
understood as measuring out the event (cf. Tenny 1987; 1994) and changes an
activity verb into an accomplishment verb, as exemplified in (14) and (15).
(14)
Activity readings with Actor voice
a. S< um>ulat
si Pedro
ng
liham.
Sstem< av.realis>write nom Pedro gen letter
‘Pedro wrote a letter/part of a letter/letters.’
b. L< um>angoy
ka
Lstem< av>swim 2s.nom
‘Swim in the river.’
c. K< um>ain
Kstem< av.realis>eat
‘I ate (a) fish/fishes.’
sa
dat
ako
1s.nom
ilog.
river
ng
gen
d. Um-akyat
ako
ng/sa
av.realis-go_up 1s.nom gen/dat
‘I climbed on a/the mountain.’
(15)
isda.
fish
bulog.
mountain
Accomplishment readings with Undergoer voice
a. S< in>ulat
ni Pedro
ang liham.
Sstem< uv.realis>write gen Pedro nom letter
‘Pedro wrote the letter/the letters.’
b. L< in>angoy
mo
ang
ilog.
Lstem< uv.realis>swim 2s.gen nom river
‘You swam (across) the river (= from one side to the opposite side).’
c. K< in>ain
ko
Kstem< uv.realis>eat 1s.gen
‘I ate the fish/the fishes.’
ang
nom
isda.
fish
d. In-akyat
ko
ang
bulog.
uv.realis-go_up 1s.gen nom mountain
‘I climbed the mountain (= all the way up to the top of the mountain).’
As Dell (1987) points out, the completion reading is best viewed as a default
reading (see also Chs 2 and 6 above). Still, Undergoer verbs never receive a simple
activity reading. Rather, they express that the Actor intended to bring about an
accomplishment, if completion is contradicted. However, Actor voice sentences, as
pointed out by my consultants, can be interpreted as accomplishments if they occur
in a contrastive focus sentence, even if the Undergoer is not explicitly marked as
specific by the dative marker sa, as shown in (16). This suggests that AV verbs, in
contrast to UV verbs, are not specified for the (intended) result brought about with
respect to the Undergoer, i.e the Actor voice form is the less specific form regarding
the relation of Actor and Undergoer.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Copley/Causation in Grammatical Structures
14_Copley_and_Martin_Chapter14 REVISES
page 385 11.11.2014 8:14am
14.3 Tagalog voice marking
(16)
Siya
ang k-um-ain
3s.nom nmz kstem< av.realis>eat
‘He is the one who ate fish/the fish.’
ng/sa
gen/dat
385
isda.
fish
As mentioned above, more than one scenario may be construed for a single
sentence. In the case of Tagalog, this seems to be true, with the restriction that
there are always prototypical construals, and that less specific forms that would in
theory allow for a larger array of readings are usually taken to be restricted to the
readings the more specific form does not cover, unless this less specific form is
chosen for different reasons, as is the case in (16), where Actor voice is obligatory.
The examples in this section show that the significance of Nolasco’s parameters to
voice selection depends to a large degree on the meaning and the event structure
associated with a verb, as well as on the centrality of the arguments for the event.
Meaning components of the verb determine, in ways to be discussed in section 14.4,
which participant will preferably be chosen as subject. Subject choice deviating from
the default choice results in meaning shifts, as exemplified above and in the next set
of data, which Nolasco reviews under the section of “directionality.” “Directionality”
is Nolasco’s cover term for actions that are directed away from the Actor towards an
external target, and those that are “inherently internal” (2005a: 230), i.e. directed
towards the Actor. The example in (17a) illustrates that the Actor voice form
nagpaluto “to make someone cook” denotes a reflexive action, in the sense that
the caused action is understood as benefiting the Actor. This reading is said not to
arise with the more common Undergoer voice form pinaluto in (17b).
(17)
a. Nag-pa-luto
ako
ng
adobo
av.realis-caus-cook 1s.nom gen adobo
‘I asked my mother to cook adobo (for me).”
b. P< in>a-luto
ko
ng
adobo
caus< uv.realis>-cook 1s.gen gen adobo
‘I asked/let my mother (to) cook adobo.’
sa
dat
nanay
ko.
mother 1s.gen
ang nanay
ko.
nom mother 1s.gen
(Nolasco 2005: 230)
In a causative construction, it is obviously the Causee that is intentionally
envisaged by the Actor and central to the event in the sense that (s)he is instigated
to move from non-action to action which she (the causee) controls. Anyone who
reads a text in Tagalog will find that causative sentences with Undergoer (Causee)
voice forms like (17b) are more frequent than causative sentences with Actor voice
forms. As pointed out by Nolasco, if Actor voice is chosen in a causative construction, we get a marked interpretation, namely that the Actor is more than just the
initiator: (s)he is at the same time the Benificiary or Goal of the caused action and its
result, i.e the Actor is understood to play a significant role in the causing event and
in the caused event. One of my consultants pointed out that the argument ‘mother’
does not have to be construed as the Causee in the Actor voice sentence, but may be
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Copley/Causation in Grammatical Structures
386
14_Copley_and_Martin_Chapter14 REVISES
page 386 11.11.2014 8:14am
14. Event-structural prominence
the person who was asked by the Causer to get the adobo cooked for the Actor,
showing once more that the Actor–Undergoer relationship is open to more than one
construal in Actor voice.
Nolasco’s parameters have in common that they measure the centrality of the
participant for the event, or the event-structural prominence of arguments. The
diversity of the parameters can be explained based on the fact that verb classes differ
in what meaning components are central to their predicational core. The notion of
event-structural prominence alluded to in this section has been associated with a
number of different factors. On the one hand, it has been characterized as prominence in terms of centrality to the predication, e.g. Undergoers are more prominent
than Actors for result-oriented verbs like “kill” and “frighten,” while Actors are more
prominent for manner of action verbs than Undergoers. On the other hand, while
describing voice choice diverging from predicate-inherent orientation, it was also
associated with event-related properties of arguments, such as intention, reason/
motivation (for the activity), and the property of measuring out/delimitating the
event, all of which are connected with how events are causally construed. The
following two sections serve to clarify the concept of voice marking as prominence
marking and the importance of event-structural prominence in the overall system
and in the occurrence of meaning shifts.
14.3.4 Nominative marking and voice choice as prominence marking
The idea behind the development of the Austronesian voice system is that it started
out as a pragmatic system (cf. e.g. Foley and Van Valin 1984) and got grammaticized
in such a way that most speakers nowadays feel that only a certain set of voice affixes
is acceptable (and easily interpretable) with particular verbs, out of which a few are
more natural than others with a given stem. The discourse topic has turned into a
clause topic, i.e. a subject of a certain kind that has inherited the property of
“specificity,” a characteristic of a topic-worthy participant. Given this background,
Latrouite (2011) argues that the voice system marks prominence, which is evaluated
on different levels: on the discourse-structural level, the information-structural level,
the event-structural level, and the referent level (comprising specificity as well as
animacy). The last three, more local, levels of prominence are central to the
predication and interact to a certain degree. As we have already seen, for verbs
like “to love” or “to greet” the specificity of the Undergoer argument is not eventstructurally important. However, for verbs denoting incremental events, specificity is
event-structurally important, turning the interpretation of the verb from denoting
an activity (“eat cake”) to denoting an accomplishment (“eat a (certain)/the cake”).
Obviously, specificity does not only interact with the event-structural level, but also
with the discourse- and the information-structural level, but this goes beyond the
scope of this chapter (cf. Latrouite 2011 for discussion). Suffice it to say that given
this approach one would expect that for verbs which are not associated with an
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Copley/Causation in Grammatical Structures
14_Copley_and_Martin_Chapter14 REVISES
page 387 11.11.2014 8:14am
14.3 Tagalog voice marking
387
elaborate event structure, levels other than the event-structural level play an important role for voice selection, while for verbs with a more elaborate event structure,
which are the focus of this chapter, event-structural prominence is expected to play a
major role. The data discussed in Latrouite (2009 and 2011) suggest that there may
be a ranking between the three levels of local salience, in the sense that informationstructural prominence outranks event-structural prominence, which in turn ranks
higher than referential prominence (ISPESPRP) for nominative marking, but
this point will not be pursued here.
In order to evaluate the event-structural prominence of an argument, we need to
take a look at the meaning components associated with the respective verbs. A verb
like “to kill” denotes a non-specific activity and a specific result. As the more specific
information is associated with the Undergoer (and as the event manifests itself with
respect to the Undergoer), it is the Undergoer that is most relevant for the predication and thus, by default, the more prominent of the arguments in this respect.
Hence, whether a verb is inherently Undergoer- or Actor-oriented can be deduced
from its lexical meaning as a first step. In accordance with Rappaport Hovav and
Levin’s (2010) idea of manner–result complementarity, most verbs either specify the
Actor-related manner component or the Undergoer-related result component of an
event. In frameworks like RRG (Role and Reference Grammar, Van Valin and
LaPolla 1997) and LDG (Lexical Decomposition Grammar, Wunderlich 1997), this
fact is reflected in the decompositional representations of verb meaning. The resultoriented verb “to kill,” for example, is usually decomposed into a generic activity
predicate (e.g. ACT or “do”) and a general change of state predicate (e.g. BECOME)
which takes the specific result predicate DEAD, resulting in (ACT (x) and BECOME
(DEAD (y))) (s) in LDG. The activity verb “to climb,” on the other hand, is usually
decomposed into a specific activity predicate, (e.g. MOVE-UPWARD) and the
general change of state predicate (BECOME) taking a general result predicate
(LOCATION), resulting in (MOVE_UPWARD (x) and BECOME (LOCATION
(x, at y))) (s). Note that the causation relation between the activity and the change
of state is not explicitly stated in LDG decompositions because it can be deduced
based on the well-formedness condition Coherence, which the semantic representation of lexical verbs has to adhere to (cf. Kaufmann and Wunderlich 1998).
Coherence states that subevents encoded by the predicates of a decomposed
semantic structure must be contemporaneously or causally related. The latter is
automatically true if an activity and a change of state predicate are joined. The basic
idea here is that the inherently more prominent argument is the argument of the
specific predicate, not the non-specific one.
As we have seen in the previous sections, the inherent orientation, e.g. the Actor
orientation of manner verbs like “to swim” or “to read,” may be overridden. Undergoer voice shifts the focus to the subevent associated with the Undergoer, i.e. the
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Copley/Causation in Grammatical Structures
388
14_Copley_and_Martin_Chapter14 REVISES
page 388 11.11.2014 8:14am
14. Event-structural prominence
end-point, and to its role as delimiter of the run-time of the event. Summing up
these observations, a verb has an event-structurally prominent argument if:
(i) when decomposing the predicate into meaning components, the specific
meaning component only provides information on one argument;
(ii) one of the arguments is crucial for the event, because it delimits the run-time.
If both points come together as in the verb “to kill,” i.e. if the meaning of the
predicate centers on the Undergoer and the Undergoer delimits the event (and is
also prominent at the referential level, given that it has to be animate), we get a verb
for which Actor voice forms are only found in the focus construction. If a verb takes
an Undergoer that is not more prominent than the Actor with respect to the first
point, but only with respect to the second, as in the case of contact verbs like “to hit,”
then we expect it to exhibit a preference for Undergoer voice, while still allowing
Actor voice forms.
Note that Tenny (1992: 9) defines a delimited event as an event that the language
encodes as having an end-point. In terms of the Tagalog voice system, we need a
slightly different concept of “delimitation of an event,” if we want to use this notion
to also capture Actors in Actor voice forms. An Actor may be viewed as delimiting
an event, if the run-time of the event is construed as strictly dependent on the Actor,
whereby the notion “run-time” comprises the start, the developing phase and the
end-point of the event. I suggest that inherent event-structural prominence, as
characterized in (i), may be overwritten if the second level of event-structural
prominence, as characterized in (ii), is possible and plausible for a given verb. I
suggest the following definition of (secondary) event-structural prominence to
explain voice selection and meaning shifts induced by voice affixes:
An argument (a core argument) is event-structurally prominent if the run-time of
the event expressed by the verb is viewed as strictly related to this argument.
By “strictly (temporally) related” I mean that the referent of the prominent
argument is viewed as a crucial participant right from the beginning until the
temporal end of the event. With verbs denoting controlled activities as those
discussed above, the involvement in the occurrence of the event implies that the
prominent argument is seen as the driving force for the beginning and the end, if it is
an animate Actor, or, in the case of a non-acting Undergoer argument, as the reason
for the event occurring. The only way an Undergoer can be perceived as having been
involved in the controlled activity of an Actor from beginning to end is if (s)he is
perceived as somehow causal or motivational for the beginning and the end of the
event. Hence, in my terminology, it may be either the Undergoer argument, or the
Actor argument as a controlling, intentional being, that may delimit the run-time of
the event. Note that the properties in question, which enable a speaker to view an
argument as event-structurally prominent in the above sense, are those relevant to
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Copley/Causation in Grammatical Structures
14_Copley_and_Martin_Chapter14 REVISES
page 389 11.11.2014 8:14am
14.3 Tagalog voice marking
389
the causal construal of an event. As argued by Kistler (Ch. 4 above), not only events
but also facts can be causes. In the case of Tagalog, it is facts about the participants
that are evoked by speakers as being at the heart of the reason why the event came
about and how it developed. We will see clear examples of this in section 14.4.
Turning back to Saclot’s “hit” example, we see how the notion of event-structural
prominence accounts for the changes in meaning that have been described. For the
Undergoer voice form of “to hit,” event-structural prominence of the Undergoer
means that Jose was viewed as involved in the event from beginning to end. The
involvement in the beginning is easily reinterpreted as Pedro’s being focused on Jose
right from the beginning. Thus, the reading that Pedro acted deliberately and
intentionally with respect to Jose arises. Furthermore, Jose is construed as the only
one who was hit, as the run-time of the event is viewed as directly related to him.
However, if, by choosing Actor voice, the speaker expresses that the start and the end
of the event are strictly related to the Actor and not to the Undergoer, then the
interpretation is possible that the Undergoer is seen neither as the reason for the
event starting nor as a relevant factor for the event continuing or ending. In other
words the Undergoer’s involvement in the event is viewed as neither strictly related
to the beginning nor to the end, nor to any other point of the event, and he may be
construed as one out of many Undergoers involved in the event. Note, however, that
he could just as well be the only one involved, albeit in such a way that he is not
viewed as delimiting the event (e.g. because he did not get touched).
While “hit” denotes a simple punctual activity with a “normal” non-decomposable Undergoer, the examples in (14) and (15) have shown that with an activity verb
that may take an incremental Undergoer argument—i.e. an Undergoer who, by
virtue of being decomposable into definable parts, measures out the event—Undergoer voice will result in a switch from activity reading to an active accomplishment
reading11 of the respective verb.
A third example of a meaning shift was exemplified in (17) for the indirect
causative verb ‘to make cook’. The highest Actor argument, the Causer, is the
argument of the non-specific predicate (CAUSE), while the Causee argument is
the argument of the specific manner of action predicate (COOK); hence the complex
predicate is inherently Causee-oriented. As we have seen, once Actor voice instead of
Causee voice is chosen, the Causer-Actor is construed as a crucial participant in the
caused subevent, in the sense that (s)he is understood as the Beneficiary–Goal of the
action, and as such, causer of and motivation for the caused subevent. This interpretation is explainable if event-structural prominence is understood as above, i.e. in
the sense that the Actor is viewed as prominent for the run-time of the entire event
and not only the instigation process.
11
The notion active accomplishment was coined by Van Valin and La Polla (1997) for the telic use of
activity verbs.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Copley/Causation in Grammatical Structures
390
14_Copley_and_Martin_Chapter14 REVISES
page 390 11.11.2014 8:14am
14. Event-structural prominence
The notion of event-structural prominence is related to the idea of “perspective”
and “orientation” (Himmelmann 1987) that we often find in Philippine linguistics.
The notions “perspective” and “event-structural prominence” are related in that the
event-structural prominence of an argument implies that the event is depicted as
manifesting itself primarily with respect to this argument, i.e. the involvement of
the participant denoted by the prominent argument is the determining factor for the
most important event properties. The notion of orientation captures the important
intuition that the speaker’s perspective on the event and on the participants in it
plays a key role. However, once a pragmatic category like perspective is grammaticized in a language, it is natural that there are a number of non-pragmatic factors
that constrain the system of voice selection and the acceptability of voice forms.
To sum up: for many verbs, one argument is inherently more prominent and may
be a more natural delimiter than the other, leading to a preference for the respective
voice form. Choosing the alternative voice form may then lead to non-prototypical
readings of verbs, resulting from the fact that the speakers need to think of natural
scenarios, in which the formerly non-prominent argument can be construed as
central to the event. It has been argued that this is achieved by focusing on properties
of the arguments that are relevant to the coming about, continuing, and ending of
the event. All the above means that the affixes operate within the meaning space
opened up by the verb. Thus, events can only be oriented toward a limited set of
participants central to the event, even if the set tends to be a bit bigger than the set of
arguments available for the grammatical relation “subject” in Indo-European languages. In the following we will see how the notion of event-structural prominence
above captures less straightforward meaning shifts than those discussed up to now.
14.4 Shifts in the interpretation of Actor-oriented verbs due
to Undergoer voice
Shifts in meaning induced by Actor voice versus Undergoer voice vary from verb to
verb. This is one of the reasons why shifts in Tagalog verb meaning have frequently
been labeled “idiosyncratic.” In (18), Undergoer voice licenses a number of Undergoer arguments that may motivate and delimit the moving event: e.g. a person or a
group of people the Actor intends to meet (18b), an object the Actor intends to get
(18c), or a certain distance the Actor intends to run (18d).
(18)
a. T-um-akbo
si Pedro
tstem< av.realis>run nom Pedro
‘Pedro ran to the table.”
b. Takbu-hin
mo
ang
realis.run-uv 2s.gen nom
‘Run to (talk to) the police!’
sa
mesa.
dat table
polis!
police
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Copley/Causation in Grammatical Structures
14_Copley_and_Martin_Chapter14 REVISES
page 391 11.11.2014 8:14am
14.4 Shifts in interpretation
c. Takbu-hin
mo
run-uv
2s.gen
‘Run the marathon!’
391
ang
marathon!
nom
marathon
(cf. http://www.scribd.com/doc/6784539/salita)
In all these cases, the Undergoer does not only delimit the event, but is also the
purpose or the motivation behind the event. This aspect is very important for
the examples in (19) and (20). As pointed out by Saclot (2006), the acceptability
of the Undergoer voice form in (19) requires a specific setting, e.g. a restaurant
setting that establishes a pre-determined relationship between the Actor and the
Undergoer. While in (19a) the returning to the table is about the Actor and her
motivation to return, (19b) implies that it is properties of the table that made the
Actor return to it: “a sense of purpose to accomplish what is on the table” is implied
(Saclot 2006: 8), or in other words, the table is viewed as playing the key role for the
occurrence of the event. Without such a context, Undergoer voice forms get rejected,
as the example in (19c) shows. In order to express the sentence in (19c), Actor voice
would have to be chosen.
(19)
a. ( . . . ) b< um>alik
siya
sa mesa/
bstem< av.realis>return 3s.nom dat table/
‘She returned to the table / the wall’
sa pader.
dat wall
b. B< in>alik-an
ng
weyter
ang
mesa.
bstem< realis>return-lv gen waiter
nom table
‘The waiter returned to the table (to do something to the table).’
(cf. Saclot 2006: 8)
c. #B< in>alik-an
niya
bstem< realis>return-lv
3s.gen
‘He returned to the wall.’
ang
nom
pader.
wall
For the verb lumabas/labasin ‘to go out’ (20), Undergoer voice seems to result in a
change of direction. While in the Actor voice sentence, the Undergoer argument is
the place or person that is left, in Undergoer voice it is the destination of the
movement.
(20) a. L< um>abas
si Pedro
sa
bahay/ sa kapit-bahay.
lstem< av.realis>go.out nom Pedro gen house/ dat neighbor(’s house)
‘Pedro left a house/the neighbor (’s house).’
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Copley/Causation in Grammatical Structures
392
14_Copley_and_Martin_Chapter14 REVISES
page 392 11.11.2014 8:14am
14. Event-structural prominence
b. Ni-labas-an12
ni
Pedro
ang kapit-bahay.
< realis>-go.out-lv
gen
Pedro
nom neighbor(’s house)
‘Pedro went out to (meet) his neighbor (e.g. he went out to fight with his
neighbor).’
(Reyal Panotes, pers. comm.)
Once again, this can be explained if we recall that event-structural prominence
means that the beginning and the run-time of the event expressed by the verb are
viewed as strictly related to the prominent argument. Given that Undergoer voice
implies that the Undergoer is crucially involved in the occurrence of the event,
without further context the sentence (20) receives the reading that the Undergoer
kapitbahay (which may mean both ‘neighbor’ and ‘neighbor’s house’) is the reason
why the Actor decided to go out: once again, the neighbor is not only the reason, but
the purpose and the goal. Note that with a non-animate object the interpretation of
the Undergoer voice form of labas is “go out to get something” (English 1977: 731),
nicely rendering the meaning that it is the Undergoer that is decisive for the
beginning and the run-time of the event. Although kapitbahay could be construed
as the location ‘the neighbor’s house’ in (20), this interpretation would be weird, as a
location cannot straightforwardly be interpreted as motivating someone to move
out, unless there is a context that renders this reading plausible.
Another meaning shift that has often been labeled “idiosyncratic” is shown in (21).
(21)
a. P< um>asok
ka
ng/sa
bahay!
pstem< av>go.into 2s.nom gen/dat house
“Enter/Go into a/the house!’
b. Pasuk-in
mo
ang
bahay!
go.into-uv 2s.gen nom house
‘Break into the house! (= Go into the house to steal!)’
(Reyal Panotes, pers. comm.)
Given the characterization of event prominence above, the resulting meaning is
not all that unexpected. The Undergoer voice form of pasok ‘go into’ implies that the
Undergoer plays the crucial role for the beginning of the event, i.e. the place the
Actor goes into directly motivates his going there, e.g. because the Actor needs to
accomplish something in this location. In the context of Philippine culture, “going
into a building to accomplish something” got lexicalized into “going into a building
with the purpose of robbing it,” rendered by the English translation “to break into.”
Although the English translation suggests otherwise, the process of entering the
house does not have to be an act of violence directly affecting the surface of
the house, according to my informants. What counts is that some properties about
the house (the content or imagined content) are the reason for the entering event to
occur. The house is at once the motivation for and goal of the action.
12
Speakers differ as to whether or not they need the suffix /-an/ to get this reading.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Copley/Causation in Grammatical Structures
14_Copley_and_Martin_Chapter14 REVISES
page 393 11.11.2014 8:14am
14.4 Shifts in interpretation
393
The same is true for the verb dumating ‘to arrive’, which surprisingly may also
take Undergoer voice forms, datnin “to attain something” and datnan “to come
upon/to catch someone in the act” (cf. English 1987: 421).
(22)
a. D< um>ating
si Pedro
sa kapit-bahay/sa
Manila.
dstem< av.realis>arrive nom Pedro dat neighbor(’s house)/dat Manila
‘Pedro arrived at the neighbor’s house/in Manila.’
b. D< in>atn-an
ni Pedro
ang kapit-bahay/#ang Manila.
dstem< realis>go.out(-lv) gen Pedro nom neighbor’s house/nom M.
‘Pedro caught his neighbor (in the process of doing something bad)/
#Manila.’
(Reyal Panotes, pers. comm.)
Upon a closer look at the motion verbs bumalik/balikan “to return” and tumakbo/
takbuhin “to run,” it becomes clear that the lexicalized meanings of pasukin, labasin,
and datnin/datnan follow a similar pattern and are not that unexpected (“idiosyncratic”) at all. All Undergoer voice forms of motion verbs identify the Undergoer not
only as a simple location but as the entity motivating the beginning of the movement
on the part of the Actor and the time-span of the event per se, because something
has to be accomplished with respect to the “location.” As the examples in (23c) and
(24c), mere locations, even if they delimit the event, are not acceptable as prominent
Undergoers.
(23)
(24)
a. G< um>apang
ang bata
Gstem< av.realis>crawl nom child
‘The child crawled over the floor.’
sa
dat
sahig.
floor
b. G< in>apang
ng bata
ang
Gstem< uv.realis>crawl gen child nom
‘The child crawled to (get) the doll.’
doll.
doll
c. #G< in>apang
ng bata
ang
Gstem< uv.realis>crawl gen child nom
Intended: ‘The child crawled to the wall.’
pader.
wall
a. L< um>akad
si Pedro
lstem< av.realis>walk nom Pedro
‘Pedro walked on/over my roses.’
akin-g
my-lk
sa
dat
roses.
roses
b. Ni-lakar-an/Ni-lakad
ni Pedro
ang
aking
<realis>walk-lv
gen Pedro
nom
my-lk
‘Pedro walked on/over my roses (to destroy them).’
roses.
roses
c. Ni-lakar-an/Ni-lakad
ni Pedro
ang
mabatong
kalye.
< realis>walk-lv
gen Pedro
nom
stone-lk
street
‘Pedro walked on a stony street.’
(Reyal Panotes, pers. comm.; cf. Himmelmann 1987)
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Copley/Causation in Grammatical Structures
394
14_Copley_and_Martin_Chapter14 REVISES
page 394 11.11.2014 8:14am
14. Event-structural prominence
As the example in (24) shows, the same observation holds for verbs that do not
denote movements. As English (1986) notes in his dictionary, the active perception
verb ‘to watch out of the window’ (25a) turns into a quasi-causative verb in Undergoer voice (25b), with the Undergoer construed as the motivation for the Actor to
‘watch out of the window’.
(25)
a. D< um>ungaw
dstem< av.realis>watch_out_of_the_window
‘Pedro watched out of the window.’
si
nom
b. D< in>ungaw
ni
Dstem< uv.realis>watch_out_of_the_window gen
‘Pedro showed himself to Mia at the window.’
Pedro.
Pedro
Pedro
Pedro
si
nom
Mia.
Mia
14.5 Summary
Voice in Philippine languages like Tagalog is often described in terms of thematic
roles and relative specificity of arguments. In this chapter I have reviewed a set of
data in which the relative specificity associated with the different thematic roles
played a minor role (or no role at all) for the acceptability of voice forms. I have
suggested that a closer look at verb semantics and event structure can be helpful
in explaining the acceptability and preference of certain voice forms. Furthermore,
I have discussed data showing that voice selection may lead to interesting shifts in
the interpretation of verbs, closely related to the causal construal of events. These
shifts have been viewed as idiosyncratic, but are in fact systematic, if the concept of
event-structural prominence and the way it is defined here is adopted. Eventstructural prominence has been argued to be only one out of a number of competing
levels of prominence—one global and three more local levels of prominence—but it
is clearly the prominent one when it comes to shifts in verb meaning.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Alexiadou-etal/
00_Copley_and_Martin_References REVISES
page 395 11.11.2014 8:16am
References
Abusch, Dorit (1985). On verbs and time. Ph.D thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Ackerman, Farrell, and Goldberg, Adele (1996). Constraints on adjectival past participles. In
Adele Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI,
17–30.
Adams, Fred, and Steadman, Annie (2004). Intentional action in ordinary language: core
concept or pragmatic understanding? Analysis 64: 173–81.
Adams, Karen, and Manaster-Ramer, Alexis (1988). Some questions of topic/focus choice in
Tagalog. Oceanic Linguistics 27: 79–101.
Ahmed, Tafseer (2007). Unaccusativity and underspecification in Hindi/Urdu. Talk given
at Conference on Theoretical and Computational Perspectives on Underspecification,
Stuttgart.
Ahn, Woo-kyoung, and Kalish, Charles (2000). The role of mechanism beliefs in causal
reasoning. In Frank Keil and Robert Wilson (eds), Explanation and Cognition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 199–225.
Aissen, Judith (1974). The syntax of causative constructions. Ph.D thesis, Harvard University.
Aldridge, Edith (2004). Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages. Ph.D thesis,
Cornell University.
Alexiadou, Artemis (2010). On the morpho-syntax of (anti-)causative verbs. In Malka Rappaport Hovav, Edit Doron, and Ivy Sichel (eds), Syntax, Lexical Semantics and Event Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 177–203.
Alexiadou, Artemis (2014). The problem with internally caused change-of-state verbs, Linguistics 52. 4: 879–909.
Alexiadou, Artemis, and Anagnostopoulou, Elena (2004). Voice morphology in the causative–
inchoative alternation: evidence for a non unified structural analysis of unaccusatives. In
Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Martin Everaert (eds), The Unaccusativity
Puzzle. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 114–36.
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena, and Schäfer, Florian (2006). The properties of
anticausatives crosslinguistically. In Mara Frascarelli (ed.), Phases of Interpretation. Berlin:
de Gruyter, 187–212.
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena, and Schäfer, Florian (to appear). External
Arguments in Transitivity Alternations: A Layering Approach. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Alexiadou, Artemis, Iordăchioaia, Gianina, Martin, Fabienne, Schäfer, Florian and Caro,
Mariángeles (2013). ‘Direct participation’ and ‘agent exclusivity’ in derived nominals and
beyond. In Gianina Iordăchioaia, Isabelle Roy, and Kaori Takamine (eds), Categorization
and Category Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 153–80.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Alexiadou-etal/
396
00_Copley_and_Martin_References REVISES
page 396 11.11.2014 8:16am
References
Alexiadou, Artemis, and Schäfer, Florian (2006). Instrument subjects are agents or causers. In
Donald Baumer, David Montero, and Michael Scanlon (eds), Proceedings of the 25th West
Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla, 40–8.
Alicke, Mark (1992). Culpable causation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63:
368–78.
Alicke, Mark (2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin
126.4: 556–74.
Alsina, Alex (1992). On the argument structure of causatives. Linguistic Inquiry 23.4: 517–55.
Alsina, Alex, and Joshi, Smita (1993). Parameters in causative constructions. In Lise Dobrin,
Lynn Nichols, and Rosa Rodriguez (eds), Papers from Chicago Linguistics Society 27.3.
Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 1–15.
Altshuler, Daniel (2013). There is no neutral aspect. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic
Theory 23: 40–62.
Anjum, Rani, and Mumford, Stephen (2010). A powerful theory of causation. In Anna
Marmodoro (ed.), The Metaphysics of Powers. New York: Routledge, 143–59.
Aristotle (1941). The Basic Works of Aristotle, ed. with an introduction by Richard McKeon.
New York: Random House.
Aristotle (1999). Aristotle Physics: Book VIII, trans. D. Graham. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Arkadiev, Peter, and Letuchiy, Alexander (2009). The syntax and semantics of event structure
and Adyghe causatives. MS, Russian Academy of Sciences.
Armstrong, David (1979). A Theory of Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Armstrong, David (1997). A World of States of Affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Armstrong, David (2004). Truth and Truthmakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aronson, Jerold (1971). On the grammar of ‘cause’. Synthese 22: 414–30.
Asher, Nicholas (1992). A default, truth-conditional semantics for the progressive. Linguistics
and Philosophy 15: 463–508.
Austin, John (1966). Three ways of spilling ink. Philosophical Review 75.4: 427–40.
Bach, Emmon W. (1980). In defense of passive. Linguistics and Philosophy 3.3: 297–341.
Bach, Emmon (1986). The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9.1: 5–16.
Bach, Emmon (1989). Informal Lectures on Formal Semantics. Albany: State University of
New York Press.
Baglini, Rebekah, and Francez, Itamar (2013). The implications of managing. Handout given
at the 31st Annual Meeting of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Tempe.
Baker, Mark (1988). Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Baker, Mark (1997). Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.),
Elements of Grammar: A Handbook in Generative Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic,
73–137.
Baker, Mark, Johnson, Kyle, and Roberts, Ian (1989). Passive arguments raised. Linguistic
Inquiry 20.2: 219–51.
Bale, Alan (2007). Quantifiers and verb phrases: an exploration of propositional complexity.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25.3: 447–83.
Barbey, Aron, and Wolff, Phillip (2007). Learning causal structure from reasoning. In Danielle
McNamara and Gregory Trafton (eds), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the
Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 713–18.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Alexiadou-etal/
00_Copley_and_Martin_References REVISES
page 397 11.11.2014 8:16am
References
397
Bar-el, Leora, Davis, Henry, and Matthewson, Lisa (2005). On non-culminating accomplishments. In Leah Bateman and Cherlon Ussery (eds), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting
of the North East Linguistics Society 35.1: 87–102.
Bartsch, Renate, and Vennemann, Theo (1972). The grammar of relative adjectives and
comparison. Linguistische Berichte 20: 19–32.
Barwise, Jon (1981). Scenes and other situations. Journal of Philosophy 77: 369–97.
Barwise, Jon, and Etchemendy, John (1987). The Liar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barwise, Jon, and Perry, John (1981). Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Beaver, David (2001). Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Beaver, David, and Lee, Hanjung (2003). Form–meaning asymmetries and bidirectional
optimization. In Jennifer Spenader, Anders Eriksson, and Östen Dahl (eds), Proceedings
of the Stockholm Workshop on Variation within Optimality Theory. University of Stockholm, 138–48.
Beavers, John (2010). Aspectual analysis of ditransitive verbs of caused possession in English.
Journal of Semantics, 28: 1–54.
Beck, Sigrid, and Johnson, Kyle (2004). Double objects again. Linguistic Inquiry 35.1: 97–123.
Beck, Sigrid, and Snyder, William (2001). Complex predicates and goal PP’s: evidence for a
semantic parameter. In A. H.-J. Do, L. Dominguez, and A. Johansen (eds), Proceedings of
the 25th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, Mass.:
Cascadilla Press.
Beebe, James, and Buckwalter, Wesley (2010). The epistemic side-effect effect. Mind and
Language 25.4: 474–98.
Bell, Sarah (1978). Two differences in definitesness in Cebuano and Tagalog. Oceanic Linguistics 17: 1–9.
Bennett, Jonathan (1988). Events and their Names. Indianapolis: Hackett.
Benz, Anton (2006). Partial blocking and associative learning. Linguistics and Philosophy 29.5:
587–615.
Bhatt, Rajesh (2000). Covert modality in non-finite contexts. Ph.D thesis, University of
Pennsylvania.
Bhatt, Rajesh (2003). Causativization in Hindi. Class handout, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst, March 2003.
Bittner, Maria (1998). Concealed causatives. Natural Language Semantics 7.1: 1–78.
Bjerre, Tavs (2001). Causation, event structure and process specifying adverbials. Nordic
Journal of Linguistics 24: 29–46.
Bloom, Paul, Peterson, Mary, and Garrett, Merrill (1999). Language and Space. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press.
Bloomfield, Leonard (1917). Tagalog Texts with Grammatical Analysis. Urbana: University of
Illinois Press.
Blutner, Reinhard (2000). Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation.
Journal of Semantics 17.3: 189–216.
Bohnemeyer, Jürgen, and Swift, Mary (2006). Force dynamics and the progressive. Proceedings
of the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Albuquerque.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Alexiadou-etal/
398
00_Copley_and_Martin_References REVISES
page 398 11.11.2014 8:16am
References
Bonnefon, Jean-François, and Villejoubert, Gaëlle (2006). Tactful or doubtful? Expectations of
politeness explain the severity bias in the interpretation of probability phrases. Psychological
Science 17: 747–51.
Borer, Hagit (1998). Deriving passives without theta-grids. In Steven Lapointe, Diane Brentari,
and Patrick Farrell (eds), Morphology and its Relations to Phonology and Syntax. Stanford,
Calif.: CSLI, 60–99.
Borer, Hagit (2003). Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanations: syntactic projections and the
lexicon. In Maria Polinsky and John Moore (eds), The Nature of Explanation in Linguistic
Theory. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI, 31–68.
Borer, Hagit (2004). The grammar machine. In Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou,
and Martin Everaert (eds), The Unaccusativity Puzzle. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
31–67.
Borer, Hagit (2005a). Structuring Sense, vol. 1: In Name Only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Borer, Hagit (2005b). Structuring Sense, vol. 2: The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Botha, Rudolf (1983). Morphological Mechanisms. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Bowers, John (2002). Transitivity. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 183–224.
Brennenstuhl, Waltraud, and Wachowicz, Krystyna (1976). On the pragmatics of control.
Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley:
Berkeley Linguistics Society, 454–68.
Brentano, Franz (1874). Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint, ed. L. L. McAlister. Atlantic
Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1973.
Bresnan, Joan (1982). The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press.
Bresnan, Joan (1995). Lexicality and argument structure. Paper presented at the Syntax and
Semantics Conference, Paris.
Bresnan, Joan (2001). Lexical-Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bromberger, Sylvain (1966). Why-questions. In Robert Colodny (ed.), Mind and Cosmos.
Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press; repr. in: Sylvian Bromberger, On What We
Know We Don’t Know (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 75–100.
Brousseau, Anne-Marie, and Ritter, Elisabeth (1991). A non-unified analysis of agentive verbs.
In Dawn Bates (ed.), Proceedings of the 10th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics.
Stanford, Calif.: CSLI, 53–64.
Bruening, Benjamin (2012). By-phrases in passives and nominals, Syntax 16: 1–41.
Burzio, Luigi (1986). Italian Syntax: A Government and Binding Approach, Dordrecht: Reidel.
Butt, Miriam (2003). The morpheme that wouldn’t go away. Handout, University of Manchester seminar series.
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere, and Pagliuca, William (1994). The Evolution of Grammar: Tense,
Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Caha, Pavel (2007). The shape of paradigms. Talk given at GLOW 30: MS, University of
Tromsø.
Cartwright, Nancy (1979). Causal laws and effective strategies. Noûs 13: 419–37.
Cartwright, Nancy (1983). How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cartwright, Nancy (2004). Causation: one word, many things. Philosophy of Science 71:
805–19.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Alexiadou-etal/
00_Copley_and_Martin_References REVISES
page 399 11.11.2014 8:16am
References
399
Castañeda, Hector-Neri (1967). Comments on Donald Davidson’s ‘The logical form of action
sentences’. In Nicholas Rescher (ed.), The Logic of Decision and Action. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 104–12.
Centineo, Giulia (1995). The distribution of si in italian transitive/inchoative pairs. In Mandy
Simons and Teresa Galloway (eds), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory V.
Austin: University of Texas, 54–71.
Cheng, Patricia, and Novick, Laura (1991). Causes versus enabling condition. Cognition 40:
83–120.
Cheng, Patricia, and Novick, Laura (1992). Covariation in natural causal induction. Psychological Review 99: 365–82.
Chierchia, Gennaro (1989). A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences. MS,
Cornell University.
Chierchia, Gennaro (2004). A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences.
In Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou and Martin Everaert (eds), The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax–Lexicon Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
22–59.
Choi, Sungho, and Fara, Michael (2012). Dispositions. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2012/entries/dispositions/
Chomsky, Noam (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In Roderick Jacobs and Peter Rosenbaum
(eds), Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn, 184–221.
Chomsky, Noam (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo (1988). On si construction and the theory of arb. Linguistic Inquiry 15:
521–81.
Cinque, Guglielmo (1994). On the evidence for partial N movement in the romance DP. In
Guglielmo Cinque, Jan Koster, Jean-Yves Pollock, Luigi Rizzi, and Raffaella Zanuttini (eds),
Paths Toward Universal Grammar. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press,
85–110.
Cinque, Guglielmo (2005). Deriving Greenberg’s universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic
Inquiry 36: 315–32.
Cipria, Alicia, and Roberts, Craige (2000). Spanish imperfecto and pretérito: truth conditions
and aktionsart effects in a situation semantics. Natural Language Semantics 8: 297–347.
Cleland, Carol (1991). On the individuation of events. Synthese 86: 229–54.
Collins, Chris (2005). A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 8.2: 81–120.
Collins, John (2000). Preemptive prevention. Journal of Philosophy 97: 223–34.
Collins, John (2007). Counterfactuals, causation, and preemption. In Dale Jacquette (ed.),
Philosophy of Logic. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1127–43.
Comrie, Bernard (1981). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Comrie, Bernard, and Polinsky, Maria (1993). Causatives and Transitivity. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Condoravdi, Cleo (2003). Moods and modalities for will and would. Talk given at the
Amsterdam Colloquium Workshop on Mood and Modality.
Condoravdi, Cleo, and Lauer, Sven (2009). Performing a wish: desiderative assertions and
performativity. Talk given at California Universities Semantics and Pragmatics 2, UCSC.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Alexiadou-etal/
400
00_Copley_and_Martin_References REVISES
page 400 11.11.2014 8:16am
References
Copley, Bridget (2004). A grammatical and a conceptual distinction for modals. In Leah
Bateman and Cherlon Ussery (eds), Proceedings of North East Linguistic Society 35. Charleston, SC: BookSurge.
Copley, Bridget (2005a). When the actual world isn’t inertial: Tohono O’odham cem. In
Michael Becker and Andrew McKenzie (eds), Proceedings of SULA 3: 1–18.
Copley, Bridget (2005b). Ordering and reasoning. In Jon Gajewski, Valentine Hacquard,
Bernard Nickel, and Seth Yalcin (eds), New Work on Modality. MIT Working Papers in
Linguistics and Philosophy 51: 7–34.
Copley, Bridget (2008). The plan’s the thing: Deconstructing futurate meanings. Linguistic
Inquiry 39.2: 261–74.
Copley, Bridget (2009). The Semantics of the Future. New York: Routledge.
Copley, Bridget (2010). Towards a teleological model for modals. Talk given at the Paris
Working Sessions on Modality, Goals and Events, Paris 8.
Copley, Bridget (2014). Causal chains for futurates. In Mikhail Kissine, Philippe de Brabanter,
and Saghie Sharifzadeh (eds), Future Times, Future Tenses. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Copley, Bridget, and Harley, Heidi (2009). Futurates, directors, and have causatives. Snippets
19: 5–6.
Copley, Bridget, and Harley, Heidi (2010). Causatives, ability, and dispositions. Talk given at
GENIUS 2, Genericity: Interpretations and Uses Workshop on Dispositions, Abilities, and
States, Institut Jean Nicod, Paris.
Copley, Bridget, and Harley, Heidi (to appear). A force-theoretic framework for event
structure. Linguistics and Philosophy.
Coppock, Elizabeth (2009). The logical and empirical foundations of Baker’s Paradox. Ph.D
thesis, Stanford University.
Craig, Colette (1976). Properties of basic and derived subjects in Jacaltec. In Charles Li (ed.),
Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 99–123.
Crane, Tim (1999). Intentionality as the mark of the mental. In Anthony O’Hear (ed.),
Contemporary Issues in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
229–51.
Craver, Carl (2007). Explaining the Brain: Mechanisms and the Mosaic Unity of Neuroscience.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crawford, Frank (1968). Waves: Berkeley Physics Course 3. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Croft, William (1990). Possible verbs and the structure of events. In Savas Tsohatzidis (ed.),
Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Categorization. London: Routledge, 48–73.
Croft, William (1991). Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Croft, William (1994). The semantics of subjecthood. In Marina Yaguello (ed.), Subjecthood
and Subjectivity: The Status of the Subject in Linguistic Theory. Paris: Ophrys, 29–75.
Croft, William (1998). Event structure in argument linking. In Miriam Butt and Wilhelm
Geuder (eds), The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Syntactic Constraints. Stanford,
Calif.: CSLI, 21–63.
Croft, William (2009). Force dynamics and directed change in event lexicalization and
argument realization. MS, University of New Mexico.
Croft, William (2012). Verbs: aspect and argument structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Alexiadou-etal/
00_Copley_and_Martin_References REVISES
page 401 11.11.2014 8:16am
References
401
Crone, Phil (2012). Extra-lexical factors and the causative alternation. MS, Stanford
University.
Cruse, David (1972). A note on English causatives. Linguistic Inquiry 3–4: 520–28.
Cuervo, Maria (2003). Datives at large. Ph.D thesis, MIT.
Cummins, Robert (2000). ‘How does it work?’ vs. ‘What are the laws?’ Two conceptions of
psychological explanation. In Frank Keil and Robert Wilson (eds), Explanation and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 117–45.
Dahl, Östen (2007). Towards an ecological semantics of tense and aspect. In Daniele Monticelli and Anu Treikelder (eds), Aspect in Language and Theories: Similarities and Differences. Tartu: Tartu ülikool, 111–24.
Davidson, Donald (1966). The Logical Form of action sentences. Repr. in Donald Davidson
(ed.), Essays on Actions and Events (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), 105–22.
Davidson, Donald (1967). Causal relations. Repr. in Donald Davidson (ed.), Essays on Actions
and Events (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), 149–62.
Davis, Ernest (1991). Common Sense Reasoning. San Francisco, Calif.: Morgan Kaufmann.
Davis, Henry (2000). Salish evidence on the causative-inchoative alternation. In Amsterdam
Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science Series 4. Amsterdam: Benjamins,
25–60.
Davis, Henry, and Demirdache, Hamida (1995). Agents and events. Talk given at GLOW
(Generative Linguistics in the Old World) 18.
Davis, Henry, and Demirdache, Hamida (2000). On lexical verb meanings: evidence from
Salish. In James Pustejovsky and Carol Tenny (eds), Events as Grammatical Objects: The
Converging Perspectives of Lexical Semantics and Syntax. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI/Stanford
University Press, 97–142.
Davis, Henry, Matthewson, Lisa, and Rullmann, Hotze (2009). ‘Out of control’ marking as
circumstantial modality in St’at’imcets. In Lotte Hogeweg, Helen de Hoop, and Andrej
Malchukov (eds), Cross-linguistic Semantics of Tense, Aspect, and Modality. Amsterdam:
Benjamins, 205–44.
De Guzman, Videa (1978). Syntactic Derivation of Tagalog Verbs. Honolulu: University of
Hawai’i Press.
Dehghani, Morteza, Iliev, Rumen, and Kaufmann, Stefan (2012). Causal explanation and fact
mutability in counterfactual reasoning. Mind and Language 27.1: 55–85.
DeLancey, Scott (1981). An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language
57.3: 626–657.
DeLancey, Scott (1983). Agentivity and causation: data from Newari. Proceedings of the
Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 9: 54–63.
DeLancey, Scott (1984). Notes on agentivity and causation. Language 8.2: 181–213.
Dell, François (1987). An aspectual distinction in Tagalog. Oceanic Linguistics 22–3: 175–206.
Demirdache, Hamida (1997). Out of control in St’át’imcets Salish and event (de)composition.
In Amaya Mendikoetxea and Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria (eds), Theoretical Issues in the
Morphology–Syntax Interface. Bilbao: Servicio de Publicaciones de la UPV.
Demirdache, Hamida, and Martin, Fabienne (2013). Agent control over non-culminating
events. MS, Université de Nantes/Universität Stuttgart.
Demirdache, Hamida, and Sun, Hongyuan (2013). On non-culminating accomplishments in
Mandarin. MS, University of Nantes.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Alexiadou-etal/
402
00_Copley_and_Martin_References REVISES
page 402 11.11.2014 8:16am
References
De Swart, Henriëtte (1998). Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 16.2, 347–85.
Devens, Monica (1972). Pima c’m. International Journal of American Linguistics 45: 349–61.
De Vreese, Leen (2006). Pluralism in the philosophy of causation: desideratum or not?
Philosophica 77: 5–13.
Dixon, Robert, and Aikhenvald, Alexandra (2000). Changing Valency: Case Studies in Transitivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doron, Edit (2003). Agency and voice: the semantics of the Semitic templates. Natural
Language Semantics 11.1: 1–67.
Doron, Edit (2005). The aspect of agency. In Tova Rapoport and Nomi Erteschik-Shir (eds),
The Syntax of Aspect: Deriving Thematic and Aspectual Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 154–73.
Dowe, Phil (2000). Physical Causation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dowe, Phil (2001). A counterfactual theory of prevention and ‘causation’ by omission.
Australasian Journal of Philosophy 79: 216–26.
Dowe, Phil (2007). Causal processes. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.
edu/entries/causation-process/
Dowty, David (1972). On the syntax and semantics of the atomic predicate CAUSE. In Paul
Peranteu, Judith Levi, and Gloria Phares (eds), Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of
the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 62–74.
Dowty, David (1977). Toward a semantic analysis of verb aspect and the English ‘imperfective’
progressive. Linguistics and Philosophy 1.1: 45–77.
Dowty, David (1979). Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: The Semantics of Verbs and
Times in Generative Semantics and in Montagues PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Dowty, David (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67: 547–619.
Drossard, Werner (1984). Das Tagalog als Repräsentant des aktivischen Sprachbaus. Tübingen:
Narr.
Dubinsky, Stanley, Lloret, Maria-Rosa, and Newman, Paul (1998). Lexical and syntactic
causatives in Oromo. Language 64.3: 485–500.
Duffield, Nigel (2005). Flying squirrels and dancing girls: events, inadvertent causes and
unaccusativity in English. In Leah Bateman and Cherlon Ussery (eds), Proceedings of the
Thirty Fifth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Charleston, SC: BookSurge,
159–70.
Duffield, Nigel (2011). On unaccusativity in Vietnamese and the representation of inadvertent
cause. In Raffaella Folli and Chistiane Ulbrich (eds), Interfaces in Linguistics. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 78–95.
Duffield, Nigel (in preparation). Particles and projections in Vietnamese syntax. MS, Konan
University.
Dupre, John, and Cartwright, Nancy (1988). Probability and causality: why Hume and
indeterminism don’t mix. Noûs 22: 521–36.
Eckardt, Regine (2000). Causation, contexts, and event individuation. In James Higginbotham,
Fabio Pianesi, and Achille Varzi (eds), Speaking of Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
105–23.
Edgington, Dorothy (1997). Mellor on chance and causation. British Journal for the Philosophy
of Science 48: 411–33.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Alexiadou-etal/
00_Copley_and_Martin_References REVISES
page 403 11.11.2014 8:16am
References
403
Eells, Ellery (1991). Probabilistic Causality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ehring, Douglas (1987). Causal relata. Synthese 73: 319–28.
Embick, David (1997). Voice and the interfaces of syntax. Ph.D thesis, University of
Pennsylvania.
Embick, David (2004). On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry
35.3: 355–92.
Embick, David (2010). Localism vs. Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Engel, Pascal (2002). Truth. Chesham: Acumen.
English, John (1977). English–Tagalog Dictionary. Manila: National Bookstore.
English, John (1986). Tagalog–English Dictionary. Manila: National Bookstore.
Ernst, Thomas (2002). The Syntax of Adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fair, David (1979). Causation and the flow of energy. Erkenntnis 14: 219–50.
Fales, Evan (1990). Causation and Universals. London: Routledge.
Falk, Yehuda (1991). Causativization. Journal of Linguistics 27.1: 55–79.
Fara, Delia Graff (2000). Shifting sands: an interest-relative theory of vagueness. Philosophical
Topics 28.1: 45–81. [Originally published under the name ‘Delia Graff ’.]
Fauconnier, Stefanie (2011). Involuntary agent constructions are not directly linked to
reduced transitivity. Studies in Language 35.2: 311–36.
Fauconnier, Stefanie (2012). Constructional effects of inanimate agents: a typological study.
Ph.D thesis, University of Leuven.
Fauconnier, Stefanie (2013). Completives as markers of non-volitionality. Folia Linguistica
47.1: 35–54.
Fernando, Tim (2004). A finite-state approach to events in natural language semantics.
Journal of Logic and Computation 14.1: 79–92.
Filip, Hana (2008). Events and maximalisation: the case of telicity and perfectivity. In Susan
Rothstein (ed.), Theoretical and Cross-Linguistic Aproaches to the Semantics of Aspect.
Amsterdam: Benjamins, 257–90.
Fodor, Jerry (1970). Three reasons for not deriving ‘kill’ from ‘cause to die’. Linguistic Inquiry
1: 429–38.
Fodor, Jerry (1998). Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Fodor, Jerry, and Lepore, Ernie (1997). Morphemes matter: the continuing case against lexical
decomposition. MS, Rutgers University, Center for Cognitive Science.
Foley, William (1976). Comparative Syntax in Austronesian. Ph.D Thesis. University of
California, Berkeley.
Foley, William (1998). Symmetrical voice systems and precategoriality in Philippines
languages. Paper presented at the workshop on Voice and Grammatical Functions in
Austronesian, University of Sydney.
Foley, William, and Van Valin, Robert (1977). On the viability of the notion of ‘subject’ in
universal grammar. In Kenneth Whistler et al. (eds), Proceedings of the Third Annual
Berkeley Linguistics Society, 293–320.
Foley, William, and Van Valin, Robert (1984). Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Alexiadou-etal/
404
00_Copley_and_Martin_References REVISES
page 404 11.11.2014 8:16am
References
Folli, Raffaella (2001). Constructing telicity in English and Italian. Ph.D thesis, University of
Oxford.
Folli, Raffaella, and Harley, Heidi (2005). Flavours of v: consuming results in Italian and
English. In Paula Kempchinsky and Roumyana Slabakova (eds), Aspectual Enquiries.
Dordrecht: Springer, 95–120.
Folli, Raffaella, and Harley, Heidi (2007). Causation, obligation and argument structure: on
the nature of little v. Linguistic Inquiry 38.2: 197–238.
Folli, Raffaella, and Harley, Heidi (2008). Teleology and animacy in external arguments.
Lingua 118: 198–202.
Franks, Steven (1995). Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fujita, Koji (1993). Object movement and binding at LF. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 381–8.
Fujita, Koji (1996). Double objects, causatives, and derivational economy. Linguistic Inquiry
27.1: 146–73.
Gärdenfors, Peter (2000). Conceptual Spaces: The Geometry of Thought. Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press.
Gehrke, Berit (2012). Passive states. In Violeta Demonte and Louise McNally (eds), Telicity,
Change, and State: A Cross-Categorial View of Event Structure. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 185–211.
Geuder, Wilhelm (2002). Oriented adverbs: issues in the lexical semantics of event adverbs.
Ph.D thesis, University of Tübingen.
Geuder, Wilhelm, and Weisgerber, Matthias (2006). Manner and causation in movement
verbs. In Christian Ebert and Cornelia Endriss (eds), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 10.
Berlin: ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 125–38.
Geurts, Bart (2009). Goodness. In Maria Aloni, Harald Bastiaanse, Tikitu de Jager, Peter van
Ormondt, and Katrin Schulz (eds), Proceedings of the 17th Amsterdam Colloquium, 277–85.
Giannakidou, Anastasia, and Staraki, Eleni (2012). Ability, action, and causation: from pure
ability to force. In Alda Mari, Claire Beyssade, and Fabio Del Prete (eds), Genericity.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 250–75.
Ginet, Carl (1990). On Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ginzburg, Jonathan, and Sag, Ivan (2000). Interrogative Investigations: The Form, Meaning
and Use of English Interrogatives. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI.
Giorgi, Alessandra, and Pianesi, Fabio (2001). Ways of terminating. In Carlo Cecchetto,
Gennaro Chierchia, and Maria Teresa Guasti (eds), Semantic Interfaces: Reference, Anaphora and Aspect. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI.
Givón, Talmy (2001). Syntax 1. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Glasbey, Sheila (1996). The progressive: a channel-theoretic analysis. Journal of Semantics
13.4: 331–61.
Glennan, Stuart (1996). Mechanisms and the nature of causation. Erkenntnis 44: 49–71.
Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2010). Causal pluralism. In Helen Beebee, Christopher Hitchcock, and Peter
Menzies (eds), Oxford Handbook of Causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 326–37.
Göksel, Aslı (1993). Levels of representation and argument structure in Turkish. Ph.D thesis,
University of London.
Goldberg, Adele (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument
Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Alexiadou-etal/
00_Copley_and_Martin_References REVISES
page 405 11.11.2014 8:16am
References
405
Goldvarg, Eugenia, and Johnson-Laird, Philip (2001). Naive causality: a mental model theory
of causal meaning and reasoning, Cognitive Science 25: 565–610.
Goodall, Grant (1997). Theta-alignment and the by-phrase. In Kora Singer, Randall Eggert,
and Gregory Anderson (eds), Proceedings of Chicago Linguistic Society 33. Chicago:
University of Chicago, 129–39.
Gopnik, Alison, and Schulz, Laura (2007). Causal Learning: Psychology, Philosophy, and
Computation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grimm, Scott (2011). Semantics of case. Morphology 21.3–4: 515–44.
Grimshaw, Jane (1990). Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Stokhof, Martin (1991). Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and
Philosophy 14: 39–100.
Gropen, Jess, Pinker, Steven, Hollander, Michelle, Goldberg, Richard, and Wilson, Ronald
(1989). The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language 65:
203–57.
Guasti, Maria (1993). Causative and Perception Verbs: A Comparative Study. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.
Guasti, Maria (1996). Semantic restrictions in Romance causatives and the incorporation
approach. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 294–313.
Guasti, Maria (2005). Analytic causatives. In Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds),
The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, vol. 1. Oxford: Blackwell, 142–72.
Guéron, Jacqueline (2005). Tense, person, and transitivity. In Nomi Erteschik-Shir and Tova
Rapoport (eds), The Syntax of Aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 89–116.
Guéron, Jacqueline (2006). Inalienable possession. In Martin Everaert, Henk van Riemsdijk,
Rob Goedemans, and Bart Hollebranse (eds), Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Oxford:
Blackwell, 585–634.
Haertl, Holden (2003). Conceptual and grammatical characteristics of argument alternations:
the case of decausative verbs. Linguistics 41: 883–917.
Haider, Hubert (2001). How to stay accusative in insular Germanic. Working Papers in
Scandinavian Syntax 68: 1–14.
Hale, Kenneth (1969). Papago /cim/. International Journal of American Linguistics 35: 203–12.
Hale, Kenneth, and Keyser, Samuel Jay (1987). A view from the middle. Lexicon Project
Working Papers 10: Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Hale, Kenneth, and Keyser, Samuel (1993). On argument structure and the lexical expression of
syntactic relations. In Kenneth Hale and Samuel Keyser (eds), The View from Building 20:
Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 53–109.
Hale, Kenneth, and Keyser, Samuel (2002). Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Hall, Ned (2000). Causation and the price of transitivity. Journal of Philosophy 97: 198–222.
Hall, Ned (2004). Two concepts of causation. In John Collins, Ned Hall, and Laurie Paul (eds),
Causation and Counterfactuals. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 225–76.
Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection.
In Kenneth Hale and Samuel Keyser (eds), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics
in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 111–76.
Hardcastle, Valerie (1991). Partitions, probabilistic causal laws, and Simpson’s paradox.
Synthese 86: 209–28.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Alexiadou-etal/
406
00_Copley_and_Martin_References REVISES
page 406 11.11.2014 8:16am
References
Harley, Heidi (1995). Subjects, events, and Licensing. Ph.D thesis, MIT.
Harley, Heidi (2005). How do verbs get their names? Denominal verbs, manner incorporation,
and the ontology of verbs roots in English. In Nomi Erteschik-Shir and Tova Rapoport
(eds), The Syntax of Aspect: Deriving Thematic and Aspectual Interpretation. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 42–64.
Harley, Heidi (2008). On the causative construction. In Shigeru Miyagawa and Mamoru Saito
(eds), Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 20–53.
Harley, Heidi (2009). The morphology of nominalizations and the syntax of vP. In Anastasia
Giannakidou and Monika Rathert (eds), Quantification, Definiteness and Nominalization.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 321–43.
Harley, Heidi (2010). A minimalist theta theory. In Cedric Boeckx (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 426–47.
Harley, Heidi (2013). External arguments and the Mirror Principle: on the distinctness of
Voice and v. Lingua 125: 34–57.
Harley, Heidi, and Noyer, Rolf (2000a). Formal vs. encyclopaedic properties of vocabulary:
evidence from nominalizations. In Bert Peeters (ed.), The Lexicon–Encyclopedia Interface.
Amsterdam: Elsevier, 349–74.
Harley, Heidi, and Noyer, Rolf (2000b). Licensing in the non-lexicalist lexicon. In Bert Peeters
(ed.), The Lexicon–Encyclopaedia Interface. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 349–74.
Haspelmath, Martin (1993a). More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations.
In Bernard Comrie and Maria Polinsky (eds), Causatives and Transitivity. Amsterdam:
Benjamins, 87–120.
Haspelmath, Martin (1993b). Passive participles across languages. In Barbara Fox and Paul
Hopper (eds), Voice: Form and Function. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 151–78.
Haspelmath, Martin (2008). Causatives and anticausatives. Handout for the Leipzig Spring
School on Linguistic Diversity.
Hausman, Daniel, and Woodward, James (1999). Independence, invariance and the causal
Markov condition. British Journal of Philosophy of Science 50: 521–83.
Hay, Jennifer, Kennedy, Christopher, and Levin, Beth (1999). Scalar structure underlies telicity
in ‘degree achievements’. In Tanya Mathews and Devon Strolovitch (eds), Semantics and
Linguistic Theory IX. Ithaca, NY: CLC, 127–44.
Heider, Fritz, and Simmel, Marianne (1944). An experimental study of apparent behavior.
American Journal of Psychology 57.2: 243–59.
Heim, Irene (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D thesis,
University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Heim, Irene (1992). Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of
Semantics 9: 183–221.
Heim, Irene, and Kratzer, Angelika (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Higginbotham, James (1985). On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 547–93.
Higginbotham, James (1997). Location and causation. MS, University of Oxford.
Higginbotham, James (2000). Accomplishments. Talk given at GLOW in Asia 2.
Higginbotham, James (2009). Accomplishments. In Tense, Aspect and Indexicality. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 116–25.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Alexiadou-etal/
00_Copley_and_Martin_References REVISES
page 407 11.11.2014 8:16am
References
407
Himmelmann, Nikolaus (1987). Morphosyntax und Morphologie: Die Ausrichtungsaffixe im
Tagalog. Munich: Fink.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus (1991). The Philippine Challenge to Universal Grammar. Arbeiten des
Kölner Universalien-Projekts 15. Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschs.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus (2002). Voice in Western Austronesian: an update. In Fay Wouk and
Malcolm Ross (eds), The History and Typology of Western Austronesian Voice Systems.
Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, 7–16.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus (2004). Tagalog. In Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan, and Stavros Skopeteas (eds), Morphology: An International Handbook on Inflection
and Word Formation. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1473–90.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus (2005). The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar:
Theological overview. In Karl Alexander Adelaar and Nikolaus Himmelmann (eds), The
Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar. London: Routledge, 110–8.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus (2006). How to miss a paradigm or two: multifunctional ma- in
Tagalog. In Felix Ameka, Alan Dench, and Nicholas Evans (eds), Catching Language.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 487–527.
Hitchcock, Christopher (1996a). The role of contrast in causal and explanatory claims.
Synthese 107: 395–419.
Hitchcock, Christopher (1996b). Farewell to binary causation. Canadian Journal of Philosophy
26: 335–64.
Hitchcock, Christopher (2004). Do all and only causes raise the probabilities of effects? In
John Collins, Ned Hall, and Laurie Paul (eds), Causation and Counterfactuals. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press, 403–18.
Hitchcock, Christopher (2007). Prevention, preemption, and the principle of sufficient reason.
Philosophical Review 116: 495–532.
Hitchcock, Christopher (2010). Probabilistic causation. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-probabilistic/
Hoekstra, Teun, and Mulder, René (1990). Unergatives as copular verbs: locational and existential
predication. Linguistic Review 7: 1–79.
Hook, Peter (1979). Hindi Structures: Intermediate Level. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Hopper, Paul, and Thompson, Sandra (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56: 251–99.
Horgan, Terence (1978). The case against events. Philosophical Review 87: 28–47.
Horvath, Julia, and Siloni, Tal (2010). Lexicon versus syntax: evidence from morphological
causatives. In Malka Rappaport Hovav, Edit Doron, and Ivy Sichel (eds), Lexical Semantics,
Syntax, and Event Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 153–76.
Horvath, Julia, and Siloni, Tal (2011). Causative across components. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 29.3: 657–704.
Horvath, Julia, and Siloni, Tal (2013). Anticausatives have no cause(r): a rejoinder to Beavers
and Koontz-Garboden. Lingua 131: 217–30.
Huitink, Janneke (2005). Analyzing anankastic conditionals and sufficiency modals. In Sylvia
Blaho, Luis Vicente, and Erik Schoorlemmer (eds), Proceedings of the 13th Conference of the
Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe, 135–56.
Hulswit, Menno (2002). From Cause to Causation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Hume, David (2007[1748]). An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Alexiadou-etal/
408
00_Copley_and_Martin_References REVISES
page 408 11.11.2014 8:16am
References
Ikegami, Yoshihiko (1985). Activity, accomplishment, achievement: a language that can’t say,
‘I burned it, but it didn’t burn’ and one that can. In Adam Makkai and Alan Melby
(eds), Linguistics and Philosophy: Essays in Honor of Rulon S. Wells. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 265–304.
Ilić, Tatjana (2013). Modality and causation in Serbian dative anticausatives: a crosslinguistic
perspective. Ph.D dissertation, University of Hawai’i.
Ippolito, Michaela (2000). Remarks on the argument structure of Romance causatives.
MS, MIT.
Jackendoff, Ray (1975). A system of semantic primitives. In Roger Schank and Bonnie
Nash-Webber (eds), Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing. Arlington, Va.:
ACL, 112–17.
Jackendoff, Ray (1983). Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, Ray (1987). On beyond Zebra: the relation of linguistic and visual information.
Cognition 26: 89–114.
Jackendoff, Ray (1990). Semantic Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Jackson, Eric (2005). Resultatives, derived statives, and lexical semantic structure. MS, University of California, Los Angeles.
Jackson, Frank (1998). From Metaphysics to Ethics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Jacob, François, and Monod, Jacques (1961). On the regulation of gene activity. Cold Spring
Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 26. Cold Spring Harbor, NY : Cold Spring Harbor
Laboratory Press.
Jacobs, Peter (2011). Control in Skwxwúmesh. Ph.D thesis, University of British Columbia.
Jaeggli, Osvaldo (1986). Passive. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 587–622.
Jäger, Gerhard, and Blutner, Reinhard (2000). Against lexical decomposition in syntax. In
Adam Wyner (ed.), Proceedings of IATL 15. Haifa: University of Haifa.
Jäger, Gerhard, and Blutner, Reinhard (2003). Competition and interpretation: the German
adverb wieder (again). In Ewald Lang, Claudia Maienborn and Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen
(eds), Modifying Adjuncts. Berlin: de Gruyter, 393–416.
Jespersen, Otto (1940). A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, pt 5: Syntax.
London/Copenhagen: Allen and Unwin/Munksgaard.
Kachru, Yamuna (1976). On the semantics of the causative construction in Hindi/Urdu. In
Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), The Grammar of Causative Constructions. New York: Academic
Press, 353–69.
Kachru, Yamuna (1980). Aspects of Hindi Syntax. Delhi: Manohar.
Kallulli, Dalina (2006a). Unaccusatives with dative causers and experiencers: a unified account.
In Daniel Hole, André Meinunger, and Werner Abraham (eds), Datives and Other Cases.
Amsterdam: Benjamins, 271–301.
Kallulli, Dalina (2006b). A unified analysis of passives anticausatives, and reflexives. In Olivier
Bonami and Patricia Cabredo Hoffherr (eds), Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and
Semantics, vol. 6. Paris: CNRS, 201–26.
Kallulli, Dalina (2007). Rethinking the passive/anticausative distinction. Linguistic Inquiry
38.4: 770–80.
Kamp, Hans (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Jeroen Groenendijk,
Theo Janssen, and Martin Stokhof (eds), Formal Methods in the Study of Language.
Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum, University of Amsterdam, Mathematical Centre
Tracts 135: 277–322.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Alexiadou-etal/
00_Copley_and_Martin_References REVISES
page 409 11.11.2014 8:16am
References
409
Kamp, Hans (1999–2007). Intentions, plans and their execution: turning objects of thought
into entities of the external world. MS, University of Stuttgart.
Kamp, Hans, and Reyle, Uwe (1993). From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Kamp, Hans, and Rossdeutscher, Antje (1994). Remarks on lexical structure and DRS construction. Theoretical Linguistics 20: 97–164.
Katz, Jerrold (1970). Interpretive semantics vs. generative semantics. Foundations of Language
6.2: 220–59.
Kaufmann, Ingrid, and Wunderlich, Dieter (1998). Crosslinguistic patterns of resultatives.
Working Papers SFB: Theorie des Lexikons 109. Düsseldorf: University of Düsseldorf.
Kennedy, Christopher (2007). Vagueness and grammar: the semantics of absolute and relative
gradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 3.1: 1–45.
Kenny, Anthony (1963). Action, Emotion and Will. London: Routledge.
Kim, Jaegwon (1973). Causes and counterfactuals. Journal of Philosophy 70: 570–72.
Kiparsky, Paul (1997). Remarks on denominal verbs. In Alex Alsina, Joan Bresnan, and Peter
Sells (eds), Complex Predicates. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI, 473–99.
Kissine, Mikhail (2008). Why will is not a modal. Natural Language Semantics 16: 129–55.
Kistler, Max (1998). Reducing causality to transmission. Erkenntnis 48: 1–24.
Kistler, Max (1999). Causes as events and facts. Dialectica 53: 25–46.
Kistler, Max (2001). Causation as transference and responsibility. In Wolfgang Spohn, Marion
Ledwig, and Michael Esfeld (eds), Current Issues in Causation. Paderborn: Mentis, 115–33.
Kistler, Max (2002). Causation in contemporary analytical philosophy. In Costantino Espito
and Pasquale Porro (eds), Quaestio: annuario di storia della metafisica 2. Turnhout:
Brepols, 635–68.
Kistler, Max (2006a). Causation and Laws of Nature. New York: Routledge. Originally
published as Causalité et lois de la nature (Paris: Vrin, 1999).
Kistler, Max (2006b). La causalité comme transfert et dépendance nomique. Philosophie 89:
53–77.
Kistler, Max (2009). Mechanisms and downward causation. Philosophical Psychology 22:
595–609.
Kistler, Max (2011). Causalité. In Anouk Barberousse, Denis Bonnay, and Mikaël Cozic (eds),
Précis de philosophie des sciences. Paris: Vuibert, 100–140.
Kittilä, Seppo (2005). Remarks on involuntary agent constructions. Word 56.3: 381–419.
Kittilä, Seppo (2013). Causative morphemes as a de-transitivizing device: what do noncanonical instances reveal about causation and causativization? Folia Linguistica 47.1:
113–38.
Klaiman, Miriam H. (1988). Affectedness and control: A typological study of voice systems. In
Shibatani, Masayoshi (ed.), Passive and Voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 25–83.
Klein, Wolfgang (1994). Time in Language. London: Routledge.
Klein, Wolfgang (1998). Assertion and finiteness. In Norbert Dittmar and Zvi Penner (eds),
Issues in the Theory of Language Acquisition. Bern: Lang, 222–45.
Klein, Wolfgang (2006). On finiteness. In Veerle van Geenhoeven (ed.), Semantics in Acquisition, Dordrecht: Springer, 245–72.
Knobe, Joshua (2003a). Intentional action in folk psychology: an experimental investigation,
Philosophical Psychology 16: 309–24.
Knobe, Joshua (2003b). Intentional action and side-effects in ordinary language. Analysis 63:
190–93.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Alexiadou-etal/
410
00_Copley_and_Martin_References REVISES
page 410 11.11.2014 8:16am
References
Knobe, Joshua (2006). The concept of intentional action: a case study in the uses of folk
psychology. Philosophical Studies 130: 203–31.
Knobe, Joshua (2010). Action trees and moral judgment. Topics in Cognitive Science 2.3:
555–78.
Knobe, Joshua, and Fraser, Ben (2008). Causal judgment and moral judgment: two experiments. In Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (ed.), The Evolution of Morality: Adaptations and
Innateness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 441–8.
Koenig, Jean-Pierre, and Chief, Lian-Cheng (2008). Scalarity and state-changes in Mandarin
(and other languages). In Olivier Bonami and Patricia Cabredo Hofherr (eds), Empirical
Issues in Syntax and Semantics 7. Paris: CSSP, 241–62.
Koenig, Jean-Pierre, and Davis, Anthony (2001). Sublexical modality and the structure of
lexical semantic representations. Linguistics and Philosophy 24.1: 71–124.
Koenig, Jean-Pierre, and Muansuwan, Nuttanart (2000). How to end without ever finishing:
Thai semi-perfectivity. Journal of Semantics 17.2: 147–82.
Koontz-Garboden, Andrew (2007). Monotonicity at the lexical semantics–morphosyntax
interface. In Emily Elfner and Martin Walkow (eds), Proceedings of the 37th Annual
Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, Mass.: Graduate Linguistic Student
Association.
Koontz-Garboden, Andrew (2009). Anticausativization. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 27: 77–138.
Kratzer, Angelika (1977). What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy 1.3: 337–56.
Kratzer, Angelika (1979). Conditional necessity and possibility. In Rainer Bäuerle, Urs Egli,
and Arnim von Stechow (eds), Semantics from Different Points of View. Berlin: Springer,
117–47.
Kratzer, Angelika (1989). An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy
12: 607–53.
Kratzer, Angelika (1990–2009). How specific is a fact? semanticsarchive.net
Kratzer, Angelika (1996). Severing the external argument from its verb. In Johan Rooryck
and Laurie Zaring (eds), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic,
109–37.
Kratzer, Angelika (1998). More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. In Devon
Strolovitch and Aaron Lawson (eds), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 8.
Ithaca, NY: CLC, 92–110.
Kratzer, Angelika (2000). Building statives. In Lisa Conathan et al. (eds), Proceedings of the
26th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: BLS, 385–99.
Kratzer, Angelika (2005). Building resultatives. In Claudia Maienbaum and Angelika
Wöllstein-Leisen (eds), Event Arguments: Functions and Applications. Tübingen: Niemeyer,
177–212.
Kratzer, Angelika (2009). Modality in context. Talk given at the 2009 ‘Context and content’
lectures, Institut Jean Nicod, Paris.
Kratzer, Angelika (2011). Situations in natural language semantics. Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/situations-semantics
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Alexiadou-etal/
00_Copley_and_Martin_References REVISES
page 411 11.11.2014 8:16am
References
411
Krifka, Manfred (1989). Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event
semantics. In Renate Bartsch and Johan van Benthem (eds), Semantics and Contextual
Expression. Dordrecht: Foris, 75–115.
Krifka, Manfred (1992). Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal
constitution. In Ivan Sag and Anna Szabolsci (eds), Lexical Matters. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI,
29–53.
Krifka, Manfred (1998). The origins of telicity. In Susan Rothstein (ed.), Events and Grammar.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 197–235.
Krifka, Manfred (1999). Manner in dative alternation. In Sonya Bird, Andrew Carnie, Jason
Haugen, and Peter Norquest (eds), Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference on
Formal Linguistics. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press, 260–71.
Krifka, Manfred (2011). Causativity in language: unaccusatives, causative alternation, continuous causation in the dative alternation. Talk given at Bielefeld University, 10 Nov.
Krifka, Manfred (2012). Some remarks on event stucture, conceptual spaces and the semantics
of verbs, Theoretical Linguistics 38.3–4: 223–36.
Kroeger, Paul (1993). Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. Stanford,
Calif.: CSLI.
Kulikov, Leonid (1993). The ‘second causative’: a typological sketch. In Bernard Comrie and
Maria Polinsky (eds), Causatives and Transitivity. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 121–53.
Kulikov, Leonid (2001). Causatives. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher, and Wolfgang Raible (eds), Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook, vol. 2. Berlin: de Gruyter, 886–98.
Kupula, Mikko (2010). Causers as derived Subjects: an unaccusative view from Finnish.
Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 86: 199–219.
Kwon, Nayoung (2004). A semantic and syntactic analysis of Vietnamese causatives. Paper
presented at Western Conference on Linguistics, San Diego.
Lagnado, David, and Sloman, Steven (2006). Time as a guide to cause. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition 32: 451–60.
Lagnado, David, Waldmann, Michael, Hagmayer, York, and Sloman, Steven (2007). Beyond
covariation: cues to causal structure. In Alison Gopnik and Laura Schultz (eds), Causal
Learning: Psychology, Philosophy, and Computation. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
154–72.
Lakoff, George (1965/70). On the nature of syntactic irregularity. Thesis, Indiana University.
Published in 1970 as Irregularity in Syntax.
Lakoff, George (1968). Some verbs of change and causation. In Susumo Kuno (ed.), Mathematical Linguistics and Automatic Translation, Report NSF-20. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University, 1–27.
Lakoff, George (1970). Irregularity in Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Lakoff, George (1971). On generative semantics. In Danny Steinberg and Leon Jakobovits
(eds), Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 232–96.
Lakoff, George, and Johnson, Mark (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George, and Johnson, Mark (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and
its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
Landman, Fred (1992). The progressive. Natural Language Semantics 1.1: 1–32.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Alexiadou-etal/
412
00_Copley_and_Martin_References REVISES
page 412 11.11.2014 8:16am
References
Langacker, Ron (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Lappin, Shalom (2000). An intensional parametric semantics for vague quantifiers. Linguistics
and Philosophy 23: 599–620.
Latrouite, Anja (2000). Linking in Tagalog: argument encoding determined by the semantic
properties of arguments. In Geert Booji and Jaap van Marle (eds), Yearbook of Morphology.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 123–54.
Latrouite, Anja (2009). Levels of prominence and voice marker selection. Talk given at the
11th International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Aussois, 22–6 June.
Latrouite, Anja (2011). Voice and case in Tagalog: the coding of orientation and prominence.
Ph.D thesis, Düsseldorf University.
Latrouite, Anja (2012). Differential object marking in Tagalog. In Laurer Eby Clemens and
Greg Scontras (eds), Proceedings of AFLA 18. Harvard University.
Latrouite, Anja (in press). Shifting perspectives: Argument marking and the syntax-semanticspragmatics interface. In Jens Fleischhauer, Anja Latrouite, and Rainer Osswald (eds),
Further Investigations of the Syntax-Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Düsseldorf: DUP.
Latrouite, Anja, and Naumann, Ralf (1999). On the interpretation of Tagalog voice affixes. In
Carolyn Smallwood and Catherine Kitto (eds), Proceedings of the 6th Austronesian Formal
Linguistics Association. Toronto: Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 221–34.
Lauer, Sven (2010). Periphrastic causatives in English: what do they mean? MS, Stanford
University.
Legate, Julie (to appear). Voice and v.
Levin, Beth (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levin, Beth (2009). Further explorations of the landscape of causation: comments on the
paper by Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49: 239–66.
Levin, Beth, and Rappaport Hovav, Malka (1986). The formation of adjectival passives.
Linguistic Inquiry 17: 623–61.
Levin, Beth, and Rappaport Hovav, Malka (1995). Unaccusativity: At the Syntax–Lexical
Semantics Interface. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Levin, Beth, and Rappaport Hovav, Malka (1998). Building verb meaning. In Miriam Butt and
Wilhelm Geuder (eds), The Projection of Arguments. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI, 97–134.
Levin, Beth, and Rappaport Hovav, Malka (1999). Two structures for compositionally derived
events. In Tanya Matthews and Devon Strolovitch (eds), Proceedings of Semantics and
Linguistic Theory 9. Ithaca, NY: CLC, 199–223.
Levin, Beth, and Rappaport Hovav, Malka (2005). Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Levin, Beth, and Rappaport Hovav, Malka (2008). Lexical conceptual structure. In Klaus von
Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn, and Paul Portner (eds), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Levin, Beth, and Rappaport Hovav, Malka (2013). Lexicalized meaning and manner/result
complementarity. In Boban Arsenijević, Berit Gehrke, and Rafael Marín (eds), Subatomic
Semantics of Event Predicates. Dordrecht: Springer, 49–70.
Levinson, Lisa (2007). The roots of verbs. Ph.D thesis, New York University.
Lewis, David (1973). Causation. Journal of Philosophy 70: 556–67.
Lewis, David (1986a). Causation. In Philosophical Papers, vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 159–72.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Alexiadou-etal/
00_Copley_and_Martin_References REVISES
page 413 11.11.2014 8:16am
References
413
Lewis, David (1986b). On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lewis, David (1986c). Postscripts to ‘causation’. In David Lewis (ed.), Philosophical Papers,
vol. 2: Oxford: Oxford University Press, 172–213.
Lewis, David (2000). Causation as influence. Journal of Philosophy 97: 182–97.
Lewis, David (2004). Causation as influence. In John Collins, Ned Hall, and Laurie Paul (eds),
Causation and Counterfactuals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 75–106.
Li, Yaffei (1990). X-binding and verb incorporation. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 399–426.
Lidz, Jeffrey (2004). Causation and reflexivity in Kannada. In Veneeta Dayal and Anoop Mahajan
(eds), Clause Structure in South Asian Languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 93–130.
Lieber, Rochelle (1988). Phrasal compounds in English and the morphology–syntax interface.
In Diane Brentari, Gary Larson, and Lynn MacLeod (eds), Proceedings from the Parasession
on Agreement in Grammatical Theory. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 202–22.
Lieber, Rochelle (1992). Deconstructing Morphology: Word-Formation in Syntactic Theory.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lifschitz, Vladimir (1988). Circumscriptive theories: a logic-based framework for knowledge
representation. Journal of Philosophical Logic 17: 391–441.
Lifschitz, Vladimir (1998). Cracking an egg: an exercise in commonsense reasoning. MS,
University of Texas at Austin.
Lombrozo, Tania (2010). Causal-explanatory pluralism: how intentions, functions, and
mechanisms influence causal ascriptions. Cognitive Psychology 61: 303–32.
Longworth, Francis (2010). Cartwright’s causal pluralism: a critique and an alternative.
Analysis 70: 310–18.
Lyutikova, Ekaterina, Tatevosov, Sergei, Ivanov, Mikhail, Shluinskij, Andrej, and Pazel’skaja,
Anna (2006). Struktura Sobytija i Semantika Glagola v Karachajevo-Balkarskom Jazyke
[Event Structure and Verb Meaning in Karachay-Balkar]. Moscow: IMLI RAN.
Machamer, Peter, Darden, Lindley, and Craver, Carl (2000). Thinking about mechanisms,
Philosophy of Science 67: 1–25.
Machery, Edouard (2008). The folk concept of intentional action: philosophical and experimental issues. Mind and Language 23: 165–89.
Mackie, John (1965). Causes and conditionals. American Philosophical Quarterly 2: 245–65.
Mackie, John (1974). The Cement of the Universe: A Study of Causation. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Maclachlan, Anna (1996). Aspects of ergativity in Tagalog. Ph.D thesis, McGill University.
Malchukov, Andrej (1993). Adversative constructions in Even in relation to passive and
permissive. In Bernard Comrie and Maria Polinsky (eds), Causatives and Transitivity.
Amsterdam: Benjamins, 369–84.
Malchukov, Andrej (2006). Transitivity parameters and transitivity alternations: constraining
co-variation. In Leonid Kulikov, Andrej Malchukov, and Peter de Swart (eds), Studies on
Case, Valency and Transitivity. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 329–59.
Malinas, Gary, and Bigelow, John (2009). Simpson’s paradox. Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-simpson/
Malle, Bertram (2006). Intentionality, morality and their relationship in human judgment.
Journal of Cognition and Culture 6: 1–2.
Malt, Barbara (1999). Word meaning. In William Bechtel and George Graham (eds), A
Companion to Cognitive Science. Oxford: Blackwell, 331–8.
Manzini, Maria (1983). Restructuring and reanalysis. Ph.D thesis, MIT.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Alexiadou-etal/
414
00_Copley_and_Martin_References REVISES
page 414 11.11.2014 8:16am
References
Marantz, Alec (1984). On the nature of grammatical relations. Ph.D thesis, MIT.
Marantz, Alec (1997). No escape from syntax: don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy
of your own lexicon. In Alexis Dimitriadis (ed.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn
Linguistics Colloquium. Working Papers in Linguistics (Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania) 4.2: 201–25.
Marantz, Alec (2001). Words. MS, MIT.
Marantz, Alec (2009). Roots, re- and affected agents: can roots pull the agent below Little v?
Paper presented at Roots II Workshop, Stuttgart.
Marcus, Gary, and Davis, Ernest (2013). How robust are probabilistic models of higher-level
cognition? Psychological Science 24.12: 2351–60.
Marelj, Marijana (2004). Middles and argument structure across languages. Ph.D thesis,
Utrecht Institute of Linguistics, OTS.
Martin, Fabienne, and Schäfer, Florian (2012). The modality of offer and other defeasible
causative verbs. In Nathan Arnett and Ryan Bennett (eds), Proceedings of the 30th West
Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla, 248–58.
Martin, Fabienne, and Schäfer, Florian (2013). On the argument structure of verbs with bi-and
monoeventive uses. In Stefan Keine and Shayne Sloggett (eds), Proceedings of the North East
Linguistic Society 42: Amherst: GLSA, 297–308.
Martin, Jack (1991). Lexical and syntactic aspects of Creek causatives. International Journal of
American Linguistics 57.2: 194–229.
Masica, Colin (1976). Defining a Linguistic Area: South Asia. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Masica, Colin (1991). The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Matthewson, Lisa (2004). Cross-linguistic variation and the nature of aspectual classes. Talk
given at Cornell University, 26 Feb.
McCawley, James (1968). Lexical insertion in a transformational grammar without deep
structure. In Bill Darden, Charles-James Bailey, and Alice Davison (eds), Fourth Regional
Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: University of Chicago, 71–80.
McCawley, James (1971). Pre-lexical syntax. In Richard O’Brien (ed.), Linguistics: Developments of the Sixties, Viewpoints for the Seventies. Washington, DC: Georgetown University
Press, 19–33.
McCawley, James (1972). Syntactic and Logical Arguments for Semantic Structures. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
McCawley, James (1978). Conversational implicature and the lexicon. In Peter Cole (ed.),
Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 245–59.
McDermott, M. (1995). Redundant causation. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 40:
523–44.
McGrath, Sarah (2003). Causation and the making/allowing distinction. Philosophical Studies
114: 81–106.
McGrath, Sarah (2005). Causation by omission: a dilemma. Philosophical Studies 123: 125–48.
McKoon, Gail, and Macfarland, Talke (2000). Externally and internally caused change of state
verbs. Language 76.4: 833–58.
McTaggart, John (1908). The unreality of time. Mind 17.4: 457–74.
Mellor, David (1987). The singularly affecting facts of causation. In Matters of Metaphysics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 201–24.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Alexiadou-etal/
00_Copley_and_Martin_References REVISES
page 415 11.11.2014 8:16am
References
415
Menzies, Peter (2004). Difference-making in context. In John Collins, Ned Hall, and Laurie
Paul (eds), Causation and Counterfactuals. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 139–80.
Menzies, Peter (2007). Causation in context. In Huw Price and Richard Corry (eds), Causation, Physics and the Constitution of Reality: Russell’s Republic Revisited. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 191–223.
Menzies, Peter (2008). Counterfactual theories of causation. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-probabilistic/
Menzies, Peter, and Price, Huw (1993). Causation as a secondary quality. British Journal for
Philosophy of Science 44: 187–203.
Mervis, Carolyn, and Rosch, Eleanor (1981). Categorization of natural objects. Annual Review
of Psychology 32: 89–115.
Michotte, Albert (1963). The Perception of Causality. London: Methuen. [Originally published
in 1946.]
Mill, John Stuart (1973[1872]). System of logic. In John Robson (ed.), Collected Works of John
Stuart Mill, vol. 7/8: Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Mills, Candice, and Keil, Frank (2004). Knowing the limits of one’s understanding: The
development of an awareness of an illusion of explanatory depth. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology 87: 1–32.
Miyagawa, Shigeru (1984). Blocking and Japanese causatives. Lingua 64: 177–207.
Miyagawa, Shigeru (1989). Structure and Case Marking in Japanese. San Diego, Calif.:
Academic Press.
Miyagawa, Shigeru (2012). Blocking and causatives: unexpected competition across derivations. In Case, Argument Structure, and Word Order. London: Routledge, 202–23.
Moens, Marc, and Steedman, Mark (1988). Temporal ontology and temporal reference.
Computational Linguistics 14: 15–28.
Molnar, George (2003). Powers: A Study in Metaphysics, ed. Stephen Mumford. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Montague, Richard (1974). The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In
Richmond Thomason (ed.), Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers by Richard Montague. New
Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 303–59.
Morange, Michel (1998). La part des gènes. Paris: Jacob. Translated by Matthew Cobb (2001),
The Misunderstood Gene (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press).
Mueller, Erik (2006). Commonsense Reasoning. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Muentener, Paul, and Lakusta, Laura (2011). The intention-to-CAUSE bias: evidence from
children’s causal language. Cognition 119.3: 341–55.
Mumford, Stephen (2008). Powers, dispositions, properties: or a causal realist manifesto. In
Ruth Groff (ed.), Revitalizing Causality: Realism About Causality in Philosophy and Social
Science. London: Routledge, 139–51.
Mumford, Stephen, and Anjum, Rani (2011a). Getting Causes from Powers. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Mumford, Stephen, and Anjum, Rani (2011b). Spoils to the vector: how to model causes if you
are a realist about powers. The Monist 94: 54–80.
Murphy, Gregory (2002). The Big Book of Concepts. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Nadelhoffer, Thomas (2005). Skill, luck, control and intentional action. Philosophical Psychology 18.3: 341–52.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Alexiadou-etal/
416
00_Copley_and_Martin_References REVISES
page 416 11.11.2014 8:16am
References
Nanay, Bence (2010). Morality or modality? What does the attribution of intentionality
depend on? Canadian Journal of Philosophy 40: 25–40.
Nash, Léa (2006). Structuring VP. Paper presented at École d’automne de linguistique, Paris.
Naumann, Ralf (2001). Aspects of changes: a dynamic event semantics. Journal of Semantics
18.1: 27–81.
Naylor, Paz (1986). On the pragmatics of focus. In Paul Geraghty, Lois Carrington, and
Stephen Wurm (eds), FOCAL 1: 43–57.
Neapolitan, Richard (1990). Probabilistic Reasoning in Expert Systems: Theory and Algorithms.
New York: Wiley.
Nedjalkov, Vladimir, and Silnitsky, Georgij (1969). Tipologija morfologičeskogo i leksičeskogo
kauzativov. In Aleksandr Xolodovič (ed.), Tipologija Kauzativnyx Konstrukcij: Morfologičeskij Kauzativ. Leningrad: Nauka, 20–50.
Nedjalkov, Vladimir, and Silnitsky, Georgij (1973). The typology of morphological and lexical
causatives. In Ferenc Kiefer (ed.), Trends in Soviet Theoretical Linguistics: Foundations of
Language. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1–32.
Neeleman, Dirk, and van de Koot, Hans (2012). The linguistic expression of causation. In
Martin Everaert, Tal Siloni, and Marijana Marelj (eds), The Theta System: Argument
Structure at the Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 20–51.
Nelson, Diane (2000). Linking causatives and experiencers. In Diane Nelson and Paul Foulkes
(eds), Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics 8 (University of Leeds), 149–177.
Nichols, Shaun, and Ulatowski, Joseph (2007). Intuitions and individual differences: the
Knobe effect revisited. Mind and Language 22: 346–65.
Nolasco, Ricardo (2005). What ergativity in Philippine languages really means. Proceedings of
the Taiwan–Japan Joint Workshop on Austronesian Languages. Taipei: National Taiwan
University, 215–38.
Nolasco, Ricardo, and Saclot, Maureen (2005). M- and S-transitivity in Philippine-type
languages. Paper presented at the 2005 International Course and Conference on Role and
Reference Grammar, Taipei, Academia Sinica, 26–30 June.
Nouwen, Rick (2011). Degree modifiers and monotonicity. In Paul Egré and Nathan Klinedinst (eds), Vagueness and Language Use. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 146–64.
Oehrle, Richard (1976). The grammatical status of the English dative alternation. Ph.D
thesis, MIT.
O’Keefe, John (1996). The spatial prepositions in English, vector grammar and the cognitive
map theory. In Merrill Garrett (ed.), Language and Space. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,
227–316.
O’Keefe, John (2003). Vector grammar, places, and the functional role of the spatial prepositions in English. In Emile van der Zee and Jon Slack (eds), Representing Direction in
Language and Space. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 69–85.
Park, Ki-Seong (1993). Korean causatives in Role and Reference Grammar. MA dissertation,
University of New York.
Parsons, Terence (1989). The progressive in English: events, states, and processes. Linguistics
and Philosophy 12: 213–41.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Alexiadou-etal/
00_Copley_and_Martin_References REVISES
page 417 11.11.2014 8:16am
References
417
Parsons, Terence (1990). Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Partee, Barbara (1989). Many quantifiers. ESCOL 89, 383–402. Repr. in Compositionality in
Formal Semantics: Selected Papers by Barbara Partee (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004), 241–58.
Paslawska, Alla (1998). Transparente Morphologie und Semantik eines deutschen Negationsaffixes. Linguistische Berichte 175: 353–85.
Paul, L. A. (2009). Counterfactual theories. In Helen Beebee, Christopher Hitchcock, and Peter
Menzies (eds), Oxford Handbook of Causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 158–84.
Pawley, Andrew, and Reid, Lawrence (1979). The evolution of transitive constructions in
Austronesian. In Paz Naylor (ed.), Austronesian Studies: Papers from the Second Eastern
Conference on Austronesian Languages. Ann Arbor: Center for South and Southeast Asian
Studies, 103–30.
Payne, Thomas (1997). Describing Morphosyntax: A Guide for Field Linguists. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Pearl, Judea (1988). Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligence Systems. San Mateo, Calif.: Morgan
Kaufmann.
Pearl, Judea (2000). Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Pederson, Eric (2008). Event realization in Tamil. In Melissa Bowerman and Penelope Brown
(eds), Crosslinguistic Perspectives on Argument Structure: Implications for Learnability.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 331–55.
Perlmutter, David (1978). Impersonal passive and the unaccusative hypothesis. Proceedings of
the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 157–89.
Pesetsky, David (1995). Zero Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Pettit, Dean, and Knobe, Joshua (2009). The pervasive impact of moral judgments. Mind and
Language 24.5: 586–604.
Phan, Trang (2013). The projection of inner aspect in Vietnamese. Journal of Portuguese
Linguistics 12.1: 41–62.
Phillips, Vivianne (2001). The interactions between prefix and root: the case of maha in
Malagasy. In Vivianne Phillips, Ileana Paul, and Lisa Travis (eds), Formal Issues in
Austronesian Linguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 85–104.
Pighin, Stefania, Bonnefon, Jean-François, and Savadori, Lucia (2011). Overcoming number
numbness in prenatal risk communication. Prenatal Diagnosis 31: 809–13.
Pinker, Steven (1989). Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Piñón, Christopher (2001a). A finer look at the causative-inchoative alternation. In Rachel
Hastings, Brendan Jackson, and Zsofia Zvolenszky (eds), Proceedings of Semantics and
Linguistic Theory 11. Ithaca, NY: CLC, 346–64.
Piñón, Christopher (2001b). Modelling the causative–inchoative alternation. Linguistische
Arbeitsberichte 76. Leipzig: University of Leipzig, 273–93.
Piñón, Christopher (2009). Incrementality by degrees. Talk given at Chronos 9, Paris.
Place, Ullin (1996). Intentionality as the mark of the dispositional. Dialectica 50(2): 91–120.
Portner, Paul (1997). The semantics of mood, complementation, and conversational force.
Natural Language Semantics 8: 167–212.
Portner, Paul (1998). The progressive in modal semantics. Language 74: 760–87.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Alexiadou-etal/
418
00_Copley_and_Martin_References REVISES
page 418 11.11.2014 8:16am
References
Prince, Ellen (1973). Futurate be-ing, or why Yesterday morning, I was leaving tomorrow on
the midnight special is OK. Talk given at the 1973 Summer Meeting of the Linguistic Society
of America.
Psillos, Stathis (2008). Causal pluralism. In Robrecht Vanderbeeken and Bart D’Hooghe (eds),
Worldviews, Science and Us: Studies of Analytical Metaphysics—A Selection of Topics From a
Methodological Perspective. Singapore: World Scientific, 131–51.
Pustejovsky, James (1988). The geometry of events. In Carol Tenny (ed.), Studies in Generative
Approaches to Aspect. Cambridge, Mass.: Centre for Cognitive Science, MIT, 34–62.
Pustejovsky, James (1991). The syntax of event structure. Cognition 41: 47–81.
Pustejovsky, James (1995). The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Pylkkänen, Liina (1999a). Causation and external arguments. In Liina Pylkkänen, Angeliek
van Hout, and Heidi Harley (eds), Papers from the UPenn/MIT Roundtable on the Lexicon.
Cambridge, Mass.: MITWPL, 161–83.
Pylkkänen, Liina (1999b). On stativity and causation. In Carol Tenny and James Pustejovsky
(eds), Events as Grammatical Objects. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI, 417–45.
Pylkkänen, Liina (2002). Introducing arguments. Ph.D thesis, MIT. Published by MIT Press in
2008.
Pylkkänen, Liina, Martin, Andrea, McElree, Brian, and Smart, Andrew (2009). The anterior
midline field: coercion or decision making? Brain and Language 108: 184–90.
Quine, Willard (1985). Events and reification. In Ernest Lepore and Brian McLaughlin (eds),
Actions and Events: Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson. Oxford: Blackwell,
162–71.
Rackowski, Andrea (2002). The structure of Tagalog: specificity, voice and the distribution of
arguments. Ph.D thesis, McGill University.
Ramchand, Gillian (2008). Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First-Phase Syntax. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ramchand, Gillian (2013). Argument structure and argument structure alternations. In
Marcel den Dikken (ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ramsey, Frank (1925). Universals. In Philosophical Papers, ed. David Mellor. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 8–30. [Originally published in 1925.]
Randriamasimanana, Charles (1986). The Causatives of Malagasy. Honolulu: University of
Hawai’i Press.
Rapp, Irene, and von Stechow, Arnim (1999). Fast ‘almost’ and the visibility parameter for
functional adverbs. Journal of Semantics 16.2: 149–204.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka (2014). Lexical content and context: the causative alternation in
English revisited. Lingua 141: 8–29.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Levin, Beth (1998). Building verb meanings. In Miriam Butt
and Wilhelm Geuder (eds), The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional
Factors. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI, 97–134.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Levin, Beth (2002). Change of state verbs: implications for
theories of argument projection. In Julie Larson and Mary Paster (eds), Proceedings of the
28th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: University of California,
269–80.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Alexiadou-etal/
00_Copley_and_Martin_References REVISES
page 419 11.11.2014 8:16am
References
419
Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Levin, Beth (2010). Reflections on manner/result complementarity. In Malka Rappaport-Hovav, Edit Doron, and Ivy Sichel (eds), Lexical Semantics,
Syntax, and Event Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 21–38.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Levin, Beth (2012). Lexicon uniformity and the causative
alternation. In Martin Everaert, Marijana Marelj, and Tal Siloni (eds), The Theta System:
Argument Structure at the Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 150–76.
Recanati, François (2007). Perspectival Thought: A Plea for (Moderate) Relativism. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Regier, Terry, and Carlson, Laura (2001). Grounding spatial language in perception: an empirical
and computational investigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 130: 273–98.
Reichenbach, Hans (1956). The Direction of Time. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Reinhart, Tanya (2000). The theta-system: syntactic realization of verbal concepts. OTS
Working Papers in Linguistics, Utrecht: OTS, 1–45.
Reinhart, Tanya (2002). The theta system: an overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28.3: 229–90.
Reinhart, Tanya, and Siloni, Tal (2005). The lexicon–syntax parameter: reflexivization and
other arity operations. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 389–436.
Reiss, Julian (2009). Causation in the social sciences: evidence, inference, and purpose.
Philosophy of the Social Sciences 39.1: 20–40.
Reuland, Eric (1983). Governing -ing. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 101–36.
Rice, Keren (2000). Voice and valency in the Athapaskan family. In Robert Dixon and
Alexandra Aikhenvald (eds), Changing Valency: Case Studies in Transitivity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 173–235.
Ritter, Elizabeth, and Rosen, Sara (1993). Deriving causation. Natural Language & Linguistic
Theory 11.3, 519–55.
Ritter, Elizabeth, and Rosen, Sara (1996). Strong and weak predicates. Linguistic Analysis
26: 29–62.
Ritter, Elizabeth, and Rosen, Sara (1998). Delimiting events in syntax. In Miriam Butt and
Wilhelm Geuder (eds), The Projection of Arguments. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI, 135–64.
Rivero, María, and Arregui, Ana (2010). Variation in circumstantial modality: Polish versus
St’at’imcets. Linguistic Inquiry 41.4: 704–14.
Roeper, Tom (1987). Implicit arguments and the head-complement relation. Linguistic
Inquiry 18: 267–310.
Rosch, Eleanor (1978). Principles of categorization. In Eleanor Rosch and Barbara Lloyd (eds),
Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 27–48.
Rosen, Sara (1999). The syntactic representation of linguistic events. Glot International
4.2: 3–11.
Ross, Malcolm (2002). The history and transitivity of western Austronesian voice and voice
marking. In Fay Wouk and Malcolm Ross (eds), The History and Typology of Western
Austronesian Voice Systems. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, 17–62.
Rothstein, Susanne (2001). Predicates and their Subjects. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Rothstein, Susanne (2004). Structuring Events: A Study in the Semantics of Lexical Aspect.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Rozenblit, Leonid, and Keil, Frank (2002). The misunderstood limits of folk science: an
illusion of explanatory depth. Cognitive Science 26: 521–62.
Russell, Bertrand (1913). On the notion of cause. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 13: 1–26.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Alexiadou-etal/
420
00_Copley_and_Martin_References REVISES
page 420 11.11.2014 8:16am
References
Russell, Bertrand (1986[1912]). The concept of cause. In Mysticism and Logic. London: Allen &
Unwin, 173–199.
Russell, Bertrand (1998[1912]). The Problems of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ruwet, Nicolas (1972). Les constructions factitives. In Nicolas Ruwet, Théorique syntaxique et
syntaxe du Français. Paris: Seuil, 126–80.
Saclot, Maureen (2006). On the transitivity of the actor focus and the patient focus constructions in Tagalog. Talk given at the 10th International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Palawan, 17–20 Jan.
Saksena, Anuradha (1982a). Contact in causation. Language 58.4: 820–31.
Saksena, Anuradha (1982b). Topics in the Analysis of Causatives with an Account of Hindi
Paradigms. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Salmon, Wesley (1984). Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Salmon, Wesley (1998). Causality and Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sapir, Edward (1944). Grading: a study in semantics. Philosophy of Science 11.2: 93–116.
Saxe, Rebecca, and Carey, Susan (2006). The perception of causality in infancy. Acta Psychologica 123: 144–65.
Schachter, Paul (1976). The subject in Philippine languages. In Charles Li (ed.), Subject and
Topic. New York: Academic Press, 493–518.
Schachter, Paul, and Otanes, Fe (1972). Tagalog Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Schäfer, Florian (2008a). The Syntax of (Anti-)Causatives: External Arguments in Change-ofState Contexts. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Schäfer, Florian (2008b). Two types of external argument licensing. GLOW Newsletter 31.
Schäfer, Florian (2009a). The causative alternation. Language and Linguistics Compass 3.2:
641–81.
Schäfer, Florian (2009b). The oblique causer argument across languages. In Anisa Schardl,
Martin Walkow, and Muhammad Abdurrahman (eds), Proceedings of the North East
Linguistic Society 38. Amherst: GLSA, 297–308.
Schäfer, Florian (2012). Two types of external argument licensing: the case of causers. Studia
Linguistica 66.2: 128–80.
Schaffer, Jonathan (2000). Causation by disconnection. Philosophy of Science 67: 285–300.
Schaffer, Jonathan (2003). The metaphysics of causation. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-metaphysics/
Schaffer, Jonathan (2004). Causes need not be physically connected to their effects. In
Christopher Hitchcock (ed.), Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Science. Oxford:
Blackwell, 197–216.
Schaffer, Jonathan (2006). Le trou noir de la causalité. Philosophie 89: 40–52.
Schaffner, Kenneth (1993). Discovery and Explanation in Biology and Medicine. Chicago:
Chicago University Press.
Schulz, Laura, Kushnir, Tamar, and Gopnik, Alison (2007). Learning from doing: intervention
and causal inference. In Alison Gopnik and Laura Schulz (eds), Causal Learning: Psychology, Philosophy and Computation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 67–85.
Scriven, Michael (1971). The logic of cause. Theory and Decision 2: 49–66.
Shepard, Jason, and Wolff, Phillip (2013). The role of causal structure in ascriptions of
intentionality. MS, under review.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Alexiadou-etal/
00_Copley_and_Martin_References REVISES
page 421 11.11.2014 8:16am
References
421
Shibatani, Masayoshi (1973a). A linguistic study of causative constructions. Ph.D thesis,
University of California, Berkeley.
Shibatani, Masayoshi (1973b). Semantics of Japanese causatives. Foundations of Language 9.3:
327–73.
Shibatani, Masayoshi (1975). A Linguistic Study of Causative Constructions. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Shibatani, Masayoshi (1976). The grammar of causative constructions: a conspectus. In
Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), The Grammar of Causative Constructions. New York: Academic
Press, 1–40.
Shibatani, Masayoshi (2002). Introduction: some basic issues on the grammar of causation. In
Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), The Grammar of Causation and Interpersonal Manipulation,
Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1–22.
Shibatani, Masayoshi (2006). On the conceptual framework for voice phenomena. Linguistics
44.2: 217–69.
Shibatani, Masayoshi, and Pardeshi, Prashant (2002). The causative continuum. In Masayoshi
Shibatani (ed.), The Grammar of Causation and Interpersonal Manipulation. Amsterdam:
Benjamins, 85–26.
Sichel, Ivy (2010). Event structure constraints on nominalization. In Artemis Alexiadou and
Monika Rathert (eds), The Syntax of Nominalizations across Languages and Frameworks.
Berlin: de Gruyter, 151–90.
Simon, Herbert (1952). On the definition of the causal relation. Journal of Philosophy 49:
517–28.
Singh, Mona (1998). On the semantics of the perfective aspect. Natural Language Semantics 6:
171–99.
Skyrms, Brian (1980). Causal Necessity: A Pragmatic Investigation of the Necessity of Laws.
New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Sloman, Steven (2005). Causal Models: How People Think about the World and its Alternatives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sloman, Steven, Barbey, Aron, and Hotaling, Jared (2009). A causal model theory of the
meaning of cause, enable, and prevent. Cognitive Science 33: 21–50.
Sloman, Steven, Fernbach, Philip, and Ewing, Scott (2012). A causal model of intentionality
judgment. Mind and Language 27: 154–80.
Smith, Carlota (1970). Jespersens ‘move and change’ class and causative verbs in English. In
Ali Jazayery, Edgar Palomé, and Werner Winter (eds), Linguistic and Literary Studies: In
Honor of Archibald A. Hill, vol. 2. Berlin: de Gruyter, 101–9.
Smith, Carlota (1997). The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Smith, Edward, and Medin, Douglas (1981). Categories and Concepts. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press.
Smith, Marcus (2004). A pre-group grammar of a non-configurational language. MS, University of California.
Solstad, Torgrim (2009). On the implicitness of arguments in event passives. In Anisa Schardl,
Martin Walkow, and Muhammad Abdurrahman (eds), Proceedings of the North East
Linguistic Society 38. Amherst, Mass.: GLSA, 365–74.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Alexiadou-etal/
422
00_Copley_and_Martin_References REVISES
page 422 11.11.2014 8:16am
References
Song, Grace, and Wolff, Phillip (2005). Linking perceptual properties to the linguistic expression of causation. In Michel Achard and Suzanne Kemmer (eds), Language, Culture and
Mind. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI, 237–50.
Song, Jae Jung (1996). Causatives and Causation. London: Longman.
Sorace, Antonella (2000). Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language 76:
859–90.
Sosa, Ernest, and Tooley, Michael (1993). Causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sparing-Chávez, Margarethe (2003). I want to but I can’t: the frustrative in Amahuaca.
Summer Institute of Linguistics Electronic Working Papers: www.sil.org/resources/publications/entry/7854
Spencer, Andrew (1991). Morphological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sproat, Richard, and Shih, Chilin (1991). The crosslinguistic distribution of adjective ordering
restrictions. In Carol Georgopoulos and Roberta Ishihara (eds), Interdisciplinary Approaches
to Language: Essays in Honor of S.-Y. Kuroda. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 565–93.
Stalnaker, Robert (1968). A theory of conditionals. Studies in Logical Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 98–112.
Stalnaker, Robert (1978). Assertion. In Peter Cole (ed.), Pragmatics. NewYork: Academic
Press, 315–32.
Starosta, Stanley (2002). Austronesian ‘focus’ as derivation: evidence from nominalization,
Language and Linguistics 3.2: 427–79.
Starosta, Stanley, Pawley, Andrew, and Reid, Lawrence (1982). The evolution of focus in
Austronesian. In Amran Halim, Lois Carrington, and Stephen Wurm (eds), Papers from the
Third International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics. Canberra: Australian National
University, 145–70.
Steedman, Mark (1998). The productions of time. MS, University of Edinburgh.
Stowell, Tim (1983). Subjects across categories. Linguistic Review 2: 285–312.
Strawson, Peter (1959). Individuals: An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics. London: Methuen.
Strevens, Michael (2007). Review of Woodward, Making Things Happen. Philosophy and
Phenomenological Research 74: 233–49.
Strevens, Michael (2008). Comments on Woodward, Making Things Happen. Philosophy and
Phenomenological Research 77: 17–92.
Sulkala, Helena, and Karjalainen, Merja (1992). Finnish. London: Routledge.
Suppes, Patrick (1970). A Probabilistic Theory of Causality. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Svenonius, Peter (2001). Case and event structure. MS, University of Tromsø.
Sweetser, Eve (1982). Root and epistemic modals: causality in two worlds. In Monica Macaulay, Orin Gensler, Claudia Brugman, Inese Civkulis, Amy Dahlstrom, Katherine Krile, and
Rob Sturm (eds), Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics
Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 484–507.
Sweetser, Eve (1984). Semantic structure and semantic change: a cognitive linguistic study of
modality, perception, speech acts and logical relations. Ph.D, University of California,
Berkeley.
Szabó, Zoltán (2004). On the progressive and the perfective. Noûs 38: 29–59.
Talmy, Leonard (1976). Semantic causative types. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), The Grammar
of Causative Constructions. New York: Academic Press, 43–116.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Alexiadou-etal/
00_Copley_and_Martin_References REVISES
page 423 11.11.2014 8:16am
References
423
Talmy, Leonard (1981). Force dynamics. Paper presented at conference on Language and
Mental Imagery, Berkeley, Calif., May.
Talmy, Leonard (1983). How language structures space. In Herbert Pick and Linda Acredolo
(eds), Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research and Application. New York: Plenum Press,
225–82.
Talmy, Leonard (1985a). Force dynamics in language and thought. In William Eikfont, Paul
Kroeber, and Karen Peterson (eds), Papers from the Parasession on Causatives and Agentivity at the Twenty-First Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago:
Chicago Linguistic Society, 293–337.
Talmy, Leonard (1985b). Force dynamics as a generalization over causative. In Deborah
Tannen and James Atlatis (eds), Proceedings of the Georgetown University Round Table
on Languages and Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 6785.
Talmy, Leonard (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12:
49–100.
Talmy, Leonard (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics, vols 1 and 2. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
Tannenbaum, David, Ditto, Peter, and Pizarro, David (2007). Different moral values produce
different judgments of intentional action. MS, University of California-Irvine.
Tatevosov, Sergei (2008). Subevental structure and non-culmination. In Olivier Bonami and
Patricia Cabredo Hofherr (eds), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 7: http://www.
cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss7, 393–422.
Tatevosov, Sergei, and Ivanov, Mikhail (2009). Event structure of non-culminating accomplishments. In Lotte Hogeweg, Helen de Hoop, and Andrej Malchukov (eds), CrossLinguistic Semantics of Tense, Aspect, and Modality. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 83–130.
Tatevosov, Sergei, and Lyutikova, Ekaterina (2012). A finer look at predicate decomposition:
evidence from causativization. In Christopher Piñón (ed.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and
Semantics 9: http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss9: 207–23.
Taylor, Richard (1966). Action and Purpose. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Tenny, Carol (1987). Grammaticalizing aspect and affectedness. Ph.D thesis, MIT.
Tenny, Carol (1992). The aspectual interface hypothesis. In Ivan Sag and Anna Szabolsci
(eds), Lexical Matters. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI, 1–28.
Tenny, Carol (1994). Aspectual Roles and the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic.
Tenny, Carol (2000). Core events and adverbial modification. In Carol Tenny and James
Pustejovsky (eds), Events as Grammatical Objects: the Converging Perspectives of Lexical
Semantics and Syntax. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI, 285–334.
Tenny, Carol, and Pustejovsky, James (2000a). Events as Grammatical Objects: The Converging
Perspectives of Lexical Semantics and Syntax, Stanford, Calif.: CSLI.
Tenny, Carol, and Pustejovsky, James (2000b). History of events in linguistic theory. In Carol
Tenny and James Pustejovsky (eds), Events as Grammatical Objects: The Converging
Perspectives of Lexical Semantics and Syntax. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI, 3–38.
ter Meulen, Alice (1990). English aspectual verbs as generalized quantifiers. In Juli Carter,
Rose-Marie Déchaine, Bill Philip, and Tim Sherer (eds), Proceedings of NELS 20: 378–90.
Thomason, Richmond (1970). Indeterminist time and truth-value gaps. Theoria 36: 264–81.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Alexiadou-etal/
424
00_Copley_and_Martin_References REVISES
page 424 11.11.2014 8:16am
References
Thomason, Richmond, and Stalnaker, Robert (1973). A semantic theory of adverbs. Linguistic
Inquiry 4.2: 195–220.
Thompson, Laurence (1985). Control in Salish grammar. In Frans Plank (ed.), Relational
Typology. Berlin: Mouton, 391–428.
Thomson, Judith (2003). Causation: omissions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66:
81–103.
Travis, Lisa (1991). Inner aspect and the structure of VP. Talk given at NELS 22, University of
Delaware, Newark.
Travis, Lisa (1994). Event phrase and a theory of functional categories. In Päivi Koskinen
(ed.), Proceedings of the 1994 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistics Association.
Toronto: Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 559–70.
Travis, Lisa (2000). Event structure in syntax. In Carol Tenny and James Pustejovsky (eds),
Events as Grammatical Objects: The Converging Perspectives of Lexical Semantics and
Syntax. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI, 145–85.
Travis, Lisa (2005). Articulated VPs and the computation of Aktionsart. In Paula Kempchinsky and Roumyana Slabakova (eds), Syntax, Semantics and Acquisition of Aspect.
Dordrecht: Springer, 69–94.
Travis, Lisa (2010). Inner Aspect: The Articulation of VP. Dordrecht: Springer.
Truswell, Rob (2011). Events, Phrases, and Questions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tubino Blanco, Mercedes (2011). Causatives in Minimalism. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Van de Velde, Danièle (2001). L’agentivité généralisée: le cas des prédicats psychologiques. In
Danièle Amiot, Walter de Mulder, Estelle Moline, and Dejan Stosic (eds), Ars Grammatica:
hommages à Nelly Flaux. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 237–57.
van Hout, Angeliek (1996). Event semantics of verb frame alternations. Ph.D thesis, Tilburg
University. Published in 1998 by Garland, New York.
van Hout, Angeliek (2004). Unaccusativity as telicity checking. In Artemis Alexiadou, Elena
Anagnostopoulou, and Martin Everaert (eds), The Unaccusativity Puzzle. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 60–83.
van Lambalgen, Michiel, and Hamm, Fritz (2003). Event calculus, nominalisation, and the
progressive. Linguistics and Philosophy 26.4: 381–458.
van Lambalgen, Michiel, and Hamm, Fritz (2005). The Proper Treatment of Events. Oxford:
Blackwell.
van Rooy, Robert (2004). Signalling games select Horn strategies. Linguistics and Philosophy
27.4: 493–527.
Van Valin, Robert (2005). Exploring the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Van Valin, Robert, and LaPolla, Randy (1997). Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function.
Cambridge: Cambrige University Press.
Van Valin, Robert, and Wilkins, David (1996). The case for ‘effector’: case roles, agents and
agency revisited. In Masayoshi Shibitani and Sandra Thompson (eds), Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 289–322.
Vecchiato, Antonella (2003). The Italian periphrastic causative and force dynamics. In Nihan
Ketrez, Justin Aronoff, Monica Cabrera, Asli Ciger, Shadi Ganjavi, Milena Petrova, and
Isabelle Roy (eds), USC Working Papers in Linguistics 1, 91–109.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Alexiadou-etal/
00_Copley_and_Martin_References REVISES
page 425 11.11.2014 8:16am
References
425
Vecchiato, Antonella (2004). On intentional causation in Italian. In Julie Auger, Joseph
Clements, and Barbara Vance (eds), Contemporary Approaches to Romance Linguistics.
Amsterdam: Benjamins, 343–60.
Veltman, Frank (1991). Defaults in update semantics. In Hans Kamp (ed.), Conditionals,
Defaults and Belief Revision. Edinburgh: Center for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh, 28–64.
Vendler, Zeno (1957). Verbs and times. Philosophical Review 66: 143–60.
Vendler, Zeno (1967a). Causal relations. Journal of Philosophy 64: 704–13.
Vendler, Zeno (1967b). Facts and events. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press, 12–146.
Vichit-Vadakan, Rasami (1976). The concept of inadvertence in Thai periphrastic causative
constructions. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), The Grammar of Causative Constructions.
New York: Academic Press, 459–76.
Vlach, Frank (1981). The semantics of the progressive. In Philip Tedeschi and Annie Zaenen
(eds), Tense and Aspect. New York: Academic Press, 271–92.
van Voorst, Jan (1996). Some systematic differences between the Dutch, French, and English
transitive construction. Language Sciences 18.1: 227–45.
von Stechow, Arnim (1995). Lexical decomposition in syntax. In Urs Egli, Peter Pause,
Christoph Schwarze, Arnim von Stechow, and Götz Wienold (eds), Lexical Knowledge in
the Organisation of Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 81–177.
von Stechow, Arnim (1996). The different readings of wieder ‘again’: a structural account.
Journal of Semantics 13: 87–138.
von Stechow, Arnim (2000). Temporally opaque objects. MS, Universität Tübingen.
von Stechow, Armin (2003). How are results represented and modified? Remarks on Jäger &
Blutner’s anti-decomposition. In Ewald Lang, Claudia Maienborn, and Cathrine FabriciusHansen (eds), Modifying Adjuncts. Berlin: de Gruyter, 417–51.
von Wright, Georg (1971). Explanation and Understanding. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Walsh, Clare, and Sloman, Steven (2005). The meaning of cause and prevent: the role of
causal mechanism. In Bruno Bara, Larry Barsalou, and Monica Bucciarelli (eds), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum,
2331–6.
Walsh, Clare, and Sloman, Steven (2011). The meaning of cause and prevent: the role of causal
mechanism. Mind and Language 26.1: 21–52.
Warglien, Massimo, Gärdenfors, Peter, and Westera, Matthijs (2012). Event structure, conceptual spaces and the semantics of verbs. Theoretical Linguistics 38: 159–93.
Weber, Elke, and Hilton, Denis (1990). Contextual effects in the interpretation of probability
words: perceived base rate and severity of events. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Perception and Performance 16.4: 781–9.
Weld, Daniel (1994). An introduction to least-commitment planning. AI Magazine 15.4: 27–61.
Werner, Tom (2006). Future and non-future modal sentences. Natural Language Semantics
14.3: 235–55.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Alexiadou-etal/
426
00_Copley_and_Martin_References REVISES
page 426 11.11.2014 8:16am
References
White, Peter A. (1999). Toward a causal realist account of causal understanding. American
Journal of Psychology 112: 605–42.
White, Peter A. (2006). The role of activity in visual impressions of causality. Acta Psychologica 123: 166–85.
White, Peter A. (2009). Perception of forces exerted by objects in collision events. Psychological Review 116: 580–601.
White, Peter (2010). The property transmission hypothesis: a possible explanation for visual
impressions of pulling and other kinds of phenomenal causality. Perception 39.9: 1240–53.
White, Peter (2012). The experience of force: the role of haptic experience of forces in visual
perception of object motion and interactions, mental simulation, and motion-related
judgments. Psychological Bulletin 138: 589–615.
Wierzbicka, Anna (1988). The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Williams, Edwin (1980). Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 203–38.
Williams, Edwin (1981). Argument structure and morphology. Linguistic Review 1.1: 81–114.
Williams, Edwin (2006). Telic too late. MS, Harvard University.
Williams, Edwin (2011). Derivational prefixes are projective, not realizational. In Edwin
Williams (ed.), Regimes of Derivation in Syntax and Morphology. New York: Routledge,
42–66.
Williamson, Jon (2009). Probabilistic theories. In Helen Beebee, Christopher Hitchcock,
and Peter Menzies (eds), Oxford Handbook of Causation. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 185–212.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig (2001). Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell. [Originally
published in 1953.]
Wolff, Phillip (2003). Direct causation in the linguistic coding and individuation of causal
events, Cognition 88: 1–48.
Wolff, Phillip (2007). Representing causation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
136: 82–111.
Wolff, Phillip, and Song, Grace (2003). Models of causation and the semantics of causal verbs,
Cognitive Psychology 47: 276–332.
Wolff, Phillip, Barbey, Aron, and Hausknecht, Matthew (2010). For want of a nail: how
absences cause events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 139: 191–221.
Wolff, Phillip, Hausknecht, Matthew, and Holmes, Kevin (2010). Absent causes, present
effects: how omissions cause events. In Jürgen Bohnemeyer and Eric Pederson (eds),
Event Representation in Language: Encoding Events at the Language Cognition Interface.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 228–52.
Wolff, Phillip, Klettke, Bianca, Ventura, Tatyana, and Song, Grace (2005). Categories of
causation across cultures. In Woo-kyoung Ahn, Robert Goldstone, Bradley Love, Arthur
Markman, and Phillip Wolff (eds), Categorization Inside and Outside of the Lab: Festschrift
in Honor of Douglas L. Medin. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association,
29–48.
Wolff, Phillip, and Shepard, Jason (2013). Causation, touch, and the perception of force.
Psychology of Learning and Motivation 58: 167–202.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Alexiadou-etal/
00_Copley_and_Martin_References REVISES
page 427 11.11.2014 8:16am
References
427
Wolff, Phillip, Song, Grace, and Driscoll, David (2002). Models of causation and causal verbs.
In Mary Andronis, Christopher Ball, Heidi Elston, and Sylvain Neuval (eds), Papers from
the 37th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Main Session, vol. 1. Chicago: Chicago
Linguistics Society, 607–22.
Wolff, Phillip, and Zettergren, Matthew (2002). A vector model of causal meaning. In Wayne
Gray and Christian Schunn (eds), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of
the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 944–9.
Woodward, James (2003). Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Woodward, James (2006). Sensitive and insensitive causation. Philosophical Review 115: 1–50.
Woodward, James (2007). Interventionist theories of causation in psychological perspective.
In Alison Gopnik and Laura Schulz (eds), Causal Learning: Psychology, Philosophy, and
Computation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 17–36.
Woodward, James (2008). Response to Strevens. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research
77: 193–212.
Woodward, James (2009). Agency and interventionist theories. In Helen Beebee, Christopher
Hitchcock, and Peter Menzies (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Causation. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 234–62.
Wright, Saundra (2002). Transitivity and change of state verbs. In Julie Larsen and Mary
Paster (eds), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Berkeley, Calif.: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 339–50.
Wunderlich, Dieter (1997). Cause and the structure of verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 28.1: 27–68.
Wunderlich, Dieter (2006). Towards a structural typology of verb classes. In Dieter Wunderlich (ed.), Advances in the Theory of the Lexicon. Berlin: de Gruyter, 57–166.
Wunderlich, Dieter (2012). Lexical decomposition. In Markus Werning, Wolfram Hinzen,
and Edouard Machery (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 307–27.
Xolodovič, Aleksandr (1969). Tipologija Kauzativnyx Konstrukcij: Morfologičeskij Kauzativ.
Leningrad: Nauka, 20–50.
Yang, In-Seok (1976). Semantics of Korean causation. Foundations of Language 14.1: 55–87.
Zacks, Jeffrey, Kurby, Christopher, Eisenberg, Michelle, and Haroutunian, Nayiri (2011).
Prediction error associated with the perceptual segmentation of naturalistic events. Journal
of Cognitive Neuroscience 23: 4057–66.
Zepeda, Ofelia (1983). A Papago Grammar. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Zepeda, Ofelia (1987). Desiderative-causatives in Tohonno O’odham. International Journal of
American Linguistics 53.3: 348–61.
Zimmer, Karl (1976). Some constraints on Turkish causativization. In Masayoshi Shibatani
(ed.), The Grammar of Causative Constructions. New York: Academic Press, 399–412.
Zucchi, Alessandro (1993). The Language of Proposition and Events. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic.
Zucchi, Sandro, Neidle, Carol, Geraci, Carlo, Duffy, Quinn, and Cecchetto, Carlo (2010).
Functional markers in sign languages. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign Languages. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPi
Alexiadou-etal/
428
00_Copley_and_Martin_References REVISES
page 428 11.11.2014 8:16am
References
Zwarts, Joost (2010). Forceful prepositions. In Vyvyan Evans and Paul Chilton (eds), Language, Cognition and Space: The State of the Art and New Directions. Sheffield: Equinox,
193–214.
Zwarts, Joost, and Winter, Yoad (2000). Vector space semantics: a model-theoretic analysis of
locative prepositions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9.2: 171–213.
Zwicky, Arnold, and Sadock, Jerrold (1975). Ambiguity tests and how to fail them. In John
Kimball (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 4. New York: Academic Press, 1–36.