Content uploaded by James Watters
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by James Watters on Nov 10, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Comp. by: K.VENKATESAN Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 6 Title Name: Bentleyetal
Date:5/1/23 Time:12:21:15 Page Number: 292
6
Argument Structure
Alternations
James K. Watters
Abbreviations
We use the Leipzig abbreviations (www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/gloss
ing-rules.php), with the following additions:
1first person DIR direction, secondary theme
1PL first person plural ELAT elative
2 second person MOOD mood
3 third person NONFUT non-future
3PL third person plural PREP preposition
ANTIC anticausative PRON pronominal
ASP aspect marker (general) PV preverb (Abaza)
CON continuative SP subject prefix (Bantu)
CONN connective
6.1 Introduction
In the most general sense, ‘argument structure’refers to ‘the specification
of and relation between a word’s semantic and syntactic arguments’(Jack-
endoff 2002: 134). Specifying the arguments that are semantically deter-
mined by a predicate and determining the relationship between those
arguments and their syntactic realization has been a key field of research
in all current linguistic theories. We can imagine a spectrum of possibil-
ities, from the possibility that all the details of a word’s syntax follow from
a correct account of its semantics to the other extreme claiming that the
relation between the semantic and syntactic configurations are simply
arbitrary. Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) takes a middle course in
accounting for the relationship between a verb’s meaning and its syntax:
the syntactic argument structure is projected from the verb’s lexical
Comp. by: K.VENKATESAN Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 6 Title Name: Bentleyetal
Date:5/1/23 Time:12:21:15 Page Number: 293
information, along with other predicates in the clause, and is also modified
by discourse pragmatics.
The purpose of this chapter is to give an introductory account of how
verbal argument structures and their alternations are handled in RRG.* The
literature across linguistic theories on these issues is vast and there is no
space to review other models or make detailed comparisons or to discuss
argument structures of non-verbal predicates.
RRG proposes a logical structure (LS) associated with each verb that is
based on a system of lexical decomposition. Unlike the lexical decompos-
ition found in Generative Semantics, or, more recently in Distributed
Morphology, the decomposition is largely defined by Aktionsart or lexical
aspect (Vendler 1967[1957]). Following work by Dowty (1979), RRG applies
semantic tests to determine a verb’s syntactically relevant lexical
decomposition.
The alternations in the syntactic arrangements of a verb’s arguments
complicate attempts to generalize about the verb’s argument structure. In
the Chomskyan tradition, such alternations are often accounted for by a
derivational process involving movement. RRG, however, is a monostratal
theory in which each sentence has a single morphosyntactic representation
linked by a set of rules to its semantic representation. It is important to note
that the mapping between the semantic and syntactic representation does
not involve movement or syntactic derivation of any kind.
Argument structure alternations involve different syntactic alignments
among arguments projected by the LS and may also involve adjuncts (the
elements of the peripheries of the layered structure of the clause). The order
of presentation in this chapter is based in part on the distinction between
lexical and syntactic aspects of argument structure. After some introductory
comments in Section 6.2, Section 6.3 focuses on lexical processes that affect
the linking of arguments to macroroles. Section 6.4 looks at syntactic pro-
cesses that affect the linking of arguments or adjuncts to the privileged
syntactic argument (PSA). Section 6.5 discusses two processes, the passive
and antipassive, that reflect marked mappings at both levels: they can have a
lexical effect on the linking to macroroles and also a syntactic effect,
determining which argument functions as the PSA.
The examples in this chapter come from a selection of languages from
different linguistic families, including some that have been discussed before
in the RRG literature. However, most of my fieldwork has been in the
Tepehua branch of the Totonac-Tepehua language family (Mexico). Because
of this, apart from English examples, illustrations of some of the more
complex issues will often be drawn from examples in Tepehua.
1
A key concept in RRG is the Completeness Constraint, which places an
important restriction on argument structure alternations.
* This chapter has benefited significantly from comments by a peer reviewer and suggestions by Delia Bentley. Of course, any
remaining mistakes and obscurities are my own fault.
Argument Structure Alternations 293
Comp. by: K.VENKATESAN Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 6 Title Name: Bentleyetal
Date:5/1/23 Time:12:21:15 Page Number: 294
(1) Completeness Constraint:
All of the arguments explicitly specified in the semantic representation of a
sentence must be realized syntactically in the sentence, and all of the
referring expressions in the syntactic representation of a sentence must be
linked to an argument position in a logical structure in the semantic
representation of the sentence.
(Van Valin 2005: 129–130)
This constraint allows for a bidirectional mapping between the syntactic
structure of the clause and the lexical structure. Two points of clarification:
(a) Van Valin points out that ‘explicitly specified’means that a variable or a
constant fills the argument position in the logical structure; if it is filled by
‘Ø’, it is unspecified (2005: 130); and (b) note that only referring expressions
in the syntax need to be linked to an argument in the semantic representa-
tion. These points will be relevant in some of the discussion in this chapter.
6.2 Argument Structure Alternations
Consider the verb give in English or its equivalent in some other language. It
evokes a scene that includes a giver, something given, and a person or object
that receives what is given. As part of the meaning of the verb, these
arguments are included in the lexical entry for give but the arguments
may be realized in different ways syntactically. For example, argument
structure alternations discussed in the literature on English syntax include
examples such as the following.
(2) a. Randy gave the book to Kim.
b. Randy gave Kim the book.
This particular kind of alternation, commonly known as the dative alternation,
is a lexical alternation, affecting the mapping from the LS to the undergoer. As
will be seen in 6.3.2, not all languages have such an alternation.
Other alternations in the argument structure of give in English are
possible.
(3) a. The book was given to Kim (by Randy).
b. Kim was given the book (by Randy).
c. Randy gave the book.
d. Randy was always giving.
In each of these examples, the sentence entails that someone gave, some-
thing was given, and someone was the recipient or intended recipient (see
Williams 2015: 199–202). The argument structure is shaped by the passive
constructions in (3a) and (3b). The examples in (3c) and (3d) show that each
may have one unspecified argument but, unlike many languages, without
any morphology to signal the change. The syntactic arrangement of the verb
and its arguments is significantly different in each case.
294 JAMES K. WATTERS
Comp. by: K.VENKATESAN Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 6 Title Name: Bentleyetal
Date:5/1/23 Time:12:21:15 Page Number: 295
The linking of arguments has been a key element of RRG since its incep-
tion (Foley and Van Valin 1984). As pointed out by Van Valin and LaPolla
(1997: 384, 389–392), the linking between semantic arguments and their
position in the syntax has two major phases:
1. mapping the arguments in logical structures onto macroroles, and
2. mapping the macroroles and other arguments onto the syntax.
The core arguments are those that are determined by the semantic decom-
position of the verb. Adjuncts are non-argument PPs and adverbs, which
occur in a periphery. RRG recognizes a third class of argument, the ‘argu-
ment-adjuncts’, which will be presented in 6.4.
The syntactically relevant semantics of a sentence is represented in the LS
(see Chapter 3 of this volume). That semantic representation determines the
kind of syntactic template (e.g. tree structure) that the sentence maps onto,
following a default principle:
Syntactic template selection principle:
The number of syntactic slots for arguments and argument-adjuncts within the
core is equal to the number of distinct specified argument positions in the
semantic representation of the core. (Van Valin 2007: 130)
There are typically language-specific restrictions, as well, such as the English
constraint that all cores have a syntactic valence of 1 (i.e. English requires
dummy subjects for predicates without any semantic argument, such as
rain).
6.3 Lexical Alternations
The standard mapping of a verb’s arguments onto the actor and undergoer
macroroles follow the Actor-Undergoer Hierarchy (AUH; Chapter 4). There
are, however, processes that are common cross-linguistically that alter the
standard argument structure or alignment. These include the two types of
constructions discussed in this section: noun incorporation and the ditran-
sitives or dative constructions.
6.3.1 Noun Incorporation
A common feature of head-marking languages is noun incorporation. In
some languages, such as West Greenlandic, noun incorporation is so pro-
ductive that it is reported ‘there are infinitely many possible forms involving
noun incorporation’(Sadock 1991: 84).
We can start with an example from Nahuatl (Uto-Aztecan) given by Sapir
(1911: 260) in one of the first discussions of noun incorporation.
Argument Structure Alternations 295
Comp. by: K.VENKATESAN Stage: Proof Chapter No .: 6 Title Name: Bentleyetal
Date:5/1/23 Tim e:12:21:16 Page Number: 296
(4) a. ni-c-qua in nacatl
1sbj-3obj-eat the flesh
‘I eat the flesh.’
b. ni-nica-qua
1sbj-flesh-eat
‘Iflesh-eat.’
In (4a) the verb is clearly transitive, requiring the direct object pronominal
form. The verb in (4b), however, is intransitive and so lacks the direct object
marking. Now consider the following examples from Tongan (Polynesian)
(5a–b) and
Yucatec Maya (6a–b) (from Mithun 1984: 851, 857).
(5) a. Na'e inu 'a e kavá 'e Sione.
pst drink abs conn kava erg John
‘John drank the kava.’
b. Na'e inu kava 'a Sione
pst drink kava abs John
‘John kava-drank.’
(6) a. t-in-ˇ
c’ak-Ø-ah ˇ
ce'.
comp-I-chop-it-prf tree
‘I chopped a tree.’
b. ˇ
c'ak-ˇ
ce'-n-ah-en.
chop-tree-antip-prf-I(abs)
‘I wood-chopped.’
In both of these alternations, the verb is intransitive when the noun is
incorporated, as can be seen by the absolutive case for the actor in both
(5b) and (6b). (The intransitivity of the Yucatec Maya form in (6b) is also
marked by the antipassive suffix, which is typically present in the derivation
of an intransitive verb from a transitive.)
The key difference regarding semantic arguments in (4), (5) and (6) is that
the unincorporated patient is referential and maps onto the undergoer
position in a transitive construction. The incorporated nouns, however, are
non-referential and therefore do not correspond to any specific argument in
the LS, resulting in intransitive sentences. This kind of noun incorporation,
therefore, has a detransitivizing effect.
Another type of noun incorporation –perhaps the most common cross-
linguistically (McGregor 1997) –is the incorporation of nouns referring to
body parts. These constructions typically do not change a transitive verb into
an intransitive. Rather than deleting the undergoer macrorole, they display
an alternation in the linking to undergoer: in the non-incorporated forms,
the body part is the undergoer; in the incorporated forms, the undergoer is
the person, the possessor of the body part. In some languages the only nouns
that can be incorporated into the verb are body parts. Body part
incorporation
296 JAMES K. WATTERS
Comp. by: K.VENKATESAN Stage: Proof Chapter No .: 6 Title Name: Bentleyetal
Date:5/1/23 Tim e:12:21:16 Page Number: 297
results in part from the frequent recurrence and natural cohesion of
many activities affecting parts of the body, e.g. ‘to hand-wash’or ‘to
tooth-brush’. In addition, noun incorporation of body parts allows
affected persons to assume a primary case role, such as subject or direct
object, rather than merely oblique possessor.
(Mithun 1984: 858)
The person affected can assume ‘a primary case role’in these constructions
because the transitivity of the verb is unchanged, with the possessor of the
body part linking to the undergoer macrorole, as the ʻaffected personʼ.
2
Mithun (1984: 857) provides the following example from Tupinamba (Tupí).
(7) a. s-oβá a-yos-éy
his-face I-it-wash
‘I washed his face.’
b. a-s-oβá-éy
I-him-face-wash
‘I face-washed him.’
Unlike the previous examples of noun incorporation, the verb continues
to be transitive –both forms in (7) have an actor and undergoer. Both
sentences have the same LS but differ in regard to undergoer selection.
(8) a. wash′(a-,[have.as.part′(s-,oβá)]) ¼(7a)
b. wash′(a-,[have.as.part′(s-,oβá)]) ¼(7b)
In both examples, the first person singular prefixa- maps onto the actor
macrorole. In (8a) ‘his face’, as patient, is the unmarked choice for under-
goer. The incorporated form in (8b) requires the marked choice for under-
goer and the possessor maps onto the undergoer macrorole.
One other kind of noun incorporation needs to be briefly discussed here.
At the beginning of this section, it was mentioned that Greenlandic Eskimo
is known to have extremely productive noun incorporation (Sadock 1991).
A language with similar constructions is Southern Tiwa (Kiowa-Tanoan) and
both languages are discussed in Rosen (1989). Consider the following
examples from Allen et al. (1984: 297).
(9) a. Wisi bi-musa-tuwi-ban
two 1sg:B-cat-buy-pst
3
‘I bought two cats.’
b. Yedi ibi-musa-tuwi-ban
those cats-B:B-buy-pst
‘They bought those cats.’
These examples, like many in Allen et al. (1984) and Sadock (1991), are
notably different from the noun-incorporation examples discussed previ-
ously, in at least two ways. First, the incorporated nouns are modified by a
quantifier (9a) and a deictic (9b), and, second, they are clearly referential.
Van Valin and LaPolla (1997: 66–68) present an analysis of similar
Argument Structure Alternations 297
Comp. by: K.VENKATESAN Stage: Proof Chapter No .: 6 Title Name: Bentleyetal
Date:5/1/23 Tim e:12:21:16 Page Number: 298
constructions in Greenlandic Eskimo, showing how RRG accommodates
such structures with distinct operator and constituent projections in the
layered structure of the noun phrase. The significant conclusion is that,
unlike the earlier examples discussed in this section, these do not involve
the incorporation of a bare noun, but rather full RPs, as shown by the fact
that they are referential and by the presence of modifiers.
6.3.2 Ditransitives
For our purposes here, I will assume the definition of ditransitives offered by
Malchukov et al. (2010: 1):
A ditransitive construction is defined here as a construction consisting
of a (ditransitive) verb, an agent argument (A), a recipient-like argument
(R), and a theme argument (T).
As they point out, this excludes some verbs of transfer which do not involve
a recipient (such as put) as well as benefactives (discussed in Section 6.4); but
it includes verbs with a ‘recipient’in both a literal and an extended sense.
These are verbs that in English manifest the well-known dative alternation.
In RRG, ditransitives and other verbs with three arguments require a
complex representation with more than one predicate. The common LS for
a ditransitive involves two states of affairs joined by CAUSE.
(10) [do′(x, Ø)] CAUSE [BECOME have′(y, z)]
Following the AUH, the first argument of do′,x, is the actor, while the
theme, the second argument of have′,z, is the undergoer.
Over the last fifty years, there have been many studies of the English
dative alternation that try to account for the semantic similarities and
differences between pairs of sentences such as (2) and the following ones.
(11) a. Chris sent the money to Sam.
b. Chris sent Sam the money.
It should be noted that dative alternation is absent from many languages.
Consider the following examples from Alacatlazala Mixtec, an Otoman-
guean language of Mexico (from Zylstra 1991: 13) and from French.
(12) tásh¯
ıit
¯
ut¯
und
¯
aha s¯
ıhí ñá
(con)give I paper hand mother her
‘I’m giving the paper to her mother.’
(13) s¯
ık¯
oñá noní noo i
(compl)sell she corn face my
‘She’s selling corn to me.’
(14) Jean a donné le livre `
a Marie
John has given the book to Marie
‘John gave the book to Mary.’
298 JAMES K. WATTERS
Comp. by: K.VENKATESAN Stage: Proof Chapter No .: 6 Title Name: Bentleyetal
Date:5/1/23 Tim e:12:21:16 Page Number: 299
(15) *Jean a donné Marie le livre.
John has given Marie the book
‘John gave Marie the book.’
Unlike English, Mixtec and French do not have dative alternation. In
Mixtec languages the indirect object requires a body-part relational noun,
functioning as a preposition (p.c. Carol Zylstra). If the indirect object follows
the verb the result is ungrammatical. Likewise in French, a construction
similar to the English ‘dative movement’is ungrammatical. In both lan-
guages, the direct object behaves like the direct object in a simple transitive
clause and the indirect object must be preceded by a preposition (or a
relational noun, in the case of Mixtec). These exemplify what Dryer (1986:
815) calls a ‘direct object’language: the undergoer of the simple transitive
continues to manifest the same morphosyntactic properties in the ditransi-
tive construction (the ‘direct object’is still the ‘direct object’). Such ‘direct
object’languages require the unmarked undergoer choice predicted by the
AUH in ditransitives, choosing theme or patient as undergoer rather than
the recipient.
However, some languages require a marked undergoer choice in ditransi-
tives: the recipient, not the theme, is consistently linked to the undergoer
macrorole. Dryer (1986: 815) calls these ‘primary object languages’.Peterson
(2007: 144) provides the example of Hakha Lai, a Tibeto-Burman language.
(16) a. vok na-Ø-hmuʔ
pig 2sg.sbj-3sg.obj-see
‘You saw the pig.’
b. na-ka-humuʔ
2sg.sbj-1sg.obj-see
‘You saw me.’
c. vok na-ka-peek
pig 2sg.sbj-1sg.obj-give
‘you gave me the pig.’
The verb agrees with the actor and the undergoer in the simple transitive
clauses (16a) and (16b) and with the recipient in the ditransitive clause (16c).
This agreement pattern in the ditransitive is obligatory –the alternation
found in English dative movement is absent. (For further discussion of
Tibeto-Burman examples, see Van Valin and LaPolla 1997: 272–273.) In
‘primary object languages’, unlike the Mixtec and French examples, the
recipient is obligatorily linked to the undergoer macrorole.
In Van Valin and LaPolla (1997: 387) this marked choice for undergoer is
attributed to animacy –the animate indirect object is chosen over the
inanimate direct object for undergoer position (see, however, Guerrero
and Van Valin 2004 for further discussion).
Some languages, such as Mixtec and Tepehua, have no syntactically
ditransitive verb roots. Although Tepehua has no verb roots with three
direct core arguments, the LS for predicates such as ma:laqatʃa: ‘send’(17a)
Argument Structure Alternations 299
Comp. by: K.VENKATESAN Stage: Proof Chapter No .: 6 Title Name: Bentleyetal
Date:5/1/23 Tim e:12:21:17 Page Number: 300
and stʼa: ‘sell’(18), like their counterparts in other languages, require three
semantic arguments. Consider the examples in (17) and (18).
(17) a. ma:laqatʃa:-ɬ
send-pfv
‘s/he sent it’
b. ma:laqatʃa:-ni-ɬ
send-dat-pfv
‘s/he sent it to him/her’
(18) a. ʃtaq-ɬi
give-pfv
‘s/he gave it.’
b. ʃtaq-ni-ɬ
give-dat-pfv
‘s/he gave it to him/her’
Totonac-Tepehua languages have only one (or two) adpositions, with
applicatives fulfilling a preposition-like function (Watters 2019). Rather than
employing a preposition to refer to the recipient, Totonac-Tepehua lan-
guages use the suffix-ni, signalling a marked undergoer choice. The appli-
cative -ni licenses a third argument.
In (17) and (18), both the transitive and the ditransitive forms have the
basic LS given in (10). The only difference is that the transitive constructions
in (17a) and (18a) do not specify the y-argument (the recipient) in the LS.
(19) a. [do′(x,Ø)] CAUSE [BECOME have′(Ø,z)] (¼(17a), (18a))
b. [do′(x,Ø)] CAUSE [BECOME have′(y,z)] (¼(17b), (18b))
Following the Completeness Constraint (1) the unspecified recipient in (19a)
is absent from the syntax; in (19b) the recipient is specified in the LS, so must
also be syntactically present. The recipient argument cannot appear in a
clause unless the applicative suffix, -ni, occurs on the verb.
In the case of the verbs in (17a) and (18a), the theme is linked to the
undergoer position and what would correspond to the indirect object is
unexpressed. In both cases the simple transitive forms of such verbs are
typically used in contexts where the recipient must be invoked from the
context, as a definite null complement (Fillmore 1986). Semantically, the
recipient is required to complete the predication. This is one way in which
an argument –in this case the unexpressed recipient –contrasts with
adjuncts. Adjuncts modify the predication rather than complete it, and,
when syntactically absent, the interpretation of the utterance does not
require they be invoked by the listener.
The key evidence that the argument of the applicative -ni (the recipient) is
linked to the undergoer macrorole is the effect of the antipassive suffix, -nVn
(20b) (see Section 6.5.2), which deletes the undergoer.
4
With a simple transi-
tive verb in Tepehua, the direct object is syntactically obligatory. Consider
the example sentences in (20). If no object noun phrase appears in the
300 JAMES K. WATTERS
Comp. by: K.VENKATESAN Stage: Proof Chapter No .: 6 Title Name: Bentleyetal
Date:5/1/23 Tim e:12:21:17 Page Number: 301
clause, it is still transitive, requiring a translation with a definite third
singular pronoun (20a).
(20) a. kin-kuku st’a:-y
1poss-uncle sell-ipfv
‘My uncle sells it.’
b. kin-kuku st’a:-nan
1poss-uncle sell-antip
‘My uncle sells.’
c. kin-kuku ki-st’a:-ni-y laqtʃ’iti
1pos-uncle 1obj-sell-dat-ipfv clothes
‘My uncle sells me clothes.’
d. kin-kuku st’a:-ni-nin laqtʃ’iti
1poss-uncle sell-dat-antip clothes
‘My uncle sells clothes’
The translation of (20b) shows that the antipassive suffix-nVn in Tlachichilco
Tepehua results in deletion of the patient undergoer. In (20c), the presence
of the applicative suffix-ni, marks the recipient as undergoer. This is evi-
denced by the fact that it is the recipient that is deleted in (20d), when the
antipassive suffix is present.
In sum, RRG posits only two macroroles even though predicates may have
more than two arguments in their logical structure. Ditransitive construc-
tions display different approaches to the syntactic position of the recipient
argument. In some languages, the theme is the undergoer, following the
default choice on the AUH. In other languages, the recipient is regularly the
marked choice for undergoer, reflecting its prominence as the typically
more animate non-actor argument. Finally, other languages allow variable
linking to the undergoer macrorole.
6.3.3 Other Three-Place Predicates and Lexical Applicatives
While cross-linguistic studies such as Malchukov et al. (2010) limit the
notion of ditransitive to three-place predicates in which the third argument
is some kind of recipient, there are, of course, other kinds of three-place
predicates. Common examples in English include the following.
(21) a. Chris put the jar on the table.
b. Kim sprayed insect repellent under the bed.
The constructions in (21) involve a predicate with an indirect core argument
of location. The predicates put and spray both have the LS [do′(x, Ø)] CAUSE
[BECOME be-loc′(y, z)] and ‘in the actual semantic representation of a
sentence be-loc′would be replaced by the LS of a preposition’that corres-
ponds to the specific example (e.g. on,under,in, etc.) (Van Valin and LaPolla
1997: 160).
There are at least two ways that the English dative constructions discussed
in 6.3.2 are different from three-place predicates like these. First, these
Argument Structure Alternations 301
Comp. by: K.VENKATESAN Stage: Proof Chapter No .: 6 Title Name: Bentleyetal
Date:5/1/23 Tim e:12:21:17 Page Number: 302
three-place predicates do not display similar argument alternations that
affect undergoer assignment. Second, they involve predicative prepositions
rather than the non-predicative prepositions found in ditransitives.
There are other classes of three-place verbs in English and other European
languages that do not involve a dative argument but do display alternating
argument structure. One well-known set of such verbs is the spray/load class
(Fillmore 1968: 48; Levin 1993: 50–51).
(22) a. He sprayed the paint on the wall.
b. He sprayed the wall with the paint.
It has often been noted that this alternation reflects a semantic distinction
in that the NP or RP immediately following the verb shows a higher level of
affectedness: as Fillmore notes (1968: 48, fn.49), the sentence in (22b) implies
the entire wall got painted but (22a) does not. Furthermore, in the corres-
ponding passive sentences, the semantic distinction is maintained, showing
that the difference in affectedness is due to undergoer status, not to the
syntactic position of direct object.
(23) a. The paint was sprayed on the wall.
b. The wall was sprayed with the paint.
This alternation is a modulation of argument structure and, like the
dative alternation, reflects different linkings to the undergoer macrorole.
The semantic macrorole of undergoer, not the syntactic position of direct
object, ‘represents the non-instigating, affected participant in a state of
affairs’(Van Valin 2005: 61–62). Thus, considering the two non-actor argu-
ments in each of the sentences in (22) and (23), the undergoer is the more
affected one (see Van Valin 2005: 113–114).
6.3.4 Causative
Lexical causative constructions built on intransitive verbs are generally
straightforward when it comes to argument structure: the causee is linked
to undergoer in both the intransitive and transitive constructions; in the
transitive construction, the causer links to actor.
(24) a. The door opened.
b. [BECOME open′(door)]
(25) a. Chris opened the door.
b. [do′(Chris, Ø)] CAUSE [BECOME open′(door)]
However, in languages that allow a causative built on a transitive verb base,
the result is a predicate with three core arguments. The causer will be linked
to the actor macrorole, but, as in the case of ditransitives, the question arises
about which of the remaining two arguments will be linked to the
undergoer position.
302 JAMES K. WATTERS
Comp. by: K.VENKATESAN Stage: Proof Chapter No .: 6 Title Name: Bentleyetal
Date:5/1/23 Tim e:12:21:17 Page Number: 303
West Coast Bajau, one of the Sama-Bajaw languages of the Western
Malayo-Polynesian branch of Austronesian, as reported by Miller (2007:
303), has a productive morphological causative prefixpe-.
(26) a. Togor bana tiang pagar e.
upright very post fence dem
‘The fence post stands very straight.’
b. Boi pe-togor Mali tiang pagar e.
comp caus-upright Mali post fence dem
‘Mali erected the fence post.’
Miller (2007: 302–308) includes various examples of causatives with pe- on
statives, inchoatives, manner, and activity verbs. He reports that few transi-
tive verb roots take the pe- causative, but when they do, ‘the causee is the
new undergoer’(2007: 306). This is also the case in Tepehua, but in a more
indirect fashion. The causee appears in the clause due to the presence of the
same applicative -ni, presented in 6.3.2, which links an indirect object to
the undergoer (the vowel of -ni is lengthened as part of the causative forma-
tion rule).
(27) transitive causative of transitive
ʔah-ya ‘s/he digs it’maːʔah-ni:-y ‘s/he makes her/him/it dig it’
ʃʔoq-ya ‘s/he unties it’ma:ʃʔoq-niː-y ‘s/he makes him/her/it untie it’
In clear contrast to the pattern in the West Coast Bajau and Tepehua
examples is causative formation on a transitive verb in which the undergoer
of the base verb retains the syntactic marking and behaviour of undergoer.
The causee then appears as a peripheral or indirect core argument. An
example of this can be seen in the Turkish sentences in (28) (from Underhill
1976: 346):
(28) a. Yusuf di¸s-in-i çek-ti
Yusuf tooth-3poss-acc pull-pst
‘Yusuf pulled his tooth.’
b. Yusuf doktor-a di¸s-in-i c ek-tir-di
Yusuf doctor-dat tooth-3poss-acc pull-caus-pst
‘Yusuf had the doctor pull his tooth.’
In both the basic transitive as well as the causative construction, the direct
object, di˙
s,‘tooth’is marked as accusative and, in the causative, the causee
must be marked as dative.
Like other lexical constructions in this section, morphological causatives
affect the level of mapping from predicate argument structure onto the
actor and undergoer macroroles. For causatives formed on a transitive verb
base, two non-actor core arguments are present in the LS, and languages
differ in regard to which of the two links to the undergoer macrorole.
Argument Structure Alternations 303
Comp. by: K.VENKATESAN Stage: Proof Chapter No .: 6 Title Name: Bentleyetal
Date:5/1/23 Tim e:12:21:18 Page Number: 304
6.3.5 Anticausative
The anticausative construction has been described as the inverse of the
causative: instead of adding a causer and causing event to the LS, the antic-
ausative is a derived intransitive in which the undergoer is the PSA. Haspel-
math and Müller-Bardey (2001) call the anticausative ‘the most radical
agent-removing category’and include examples such as the following from
Hungarian and Turkish.
(29) a. András-t három tárgy-ból elvág-t-ák
András-acc three subject-elat fail-pst-3pl
‘They failed András in three subjects.’
b. András három tárgy-ból elvág-ód-ott.
András three subject-elat fail-antic-pst(3sg)
‘András failed in three subjects.’
(30) a. Anne-m kapı-yıaç-tı.
mother-1sg door-acc open-pst(3sg)
‘My mother opened the door.’
b. Kapıaç-ıl-dı.
door open-antic-pst(3sg)
‘The door opened.’
In each of these examples, the verb root is causative with actor and under-
goer and the intransitive is derived by a morphological operation.
The RRG literature discusses two kinds of anticausatives. The alternations
in (29) and (30) display an anticausative that is similar to the ‘middle’
construction in traditional grammar. In these constructions, ‘the function
of the morphological markers is to cancel part of the logical structure’(Van
Valin 2005: 46) –the anticausative removes the causer and causing event
from an otherwise causative verb. Typically, the anticausative alternation
applies to a minor subclass of verbs. This is the case in Tepehua languages,
which have a small group of transitive verb roots that have derived intransi-
tive forms marked by the inchoative prefix, ta-, as in the following examples.
(31) Base verb
(causative)
Gloss Derived form
(anticausative)
Gloss
laːqaːɬi-y ‘xbreaks it down’ta-laːqaːɬi-y ‘it breaks down’
tʃeʔe-y ‘xshatters it’ta-tʃeʔe-y ‘it shatters’
ʔeʃ-a ‘xtears it’ta-ʔeʃ-a ‘it tears’
teʔe-y ‘xcracks it’ta-teʔe-y ‘it cracks’
The obvious similarity between the passive and this anticausative con-
struction is that both remove the actor as a core argument. However, there is
a key difference between them: the passive has an implicit or understood
actor and causing event but this anticausative construction does not. In RRG
this means that, unlike the passive, in which the actor is implicit but not a
304 JAMES K. WATTERS
Comp. by: K.VENKATESAN Stage: Proof Chapter No .: 6 Title Name: Bentleyetal
Date:5/1/23 Tim e:12:21:18 Page Number: 305
core argument, in these anticausatives the actor and causing event are
missing altogether.
(32) causative achievement/accomplishment !achievement:
[do′(x, Ø)] CAUSE [BECOME/INGR pred′(y)] !BECOME/INGR pred′(y)
This kind of anticausative converts a causative achievement or causative
accomplishment with two macroroles into an intransitive achievement or
accomplishment with only the undergoer macrorole.
A second kind of anticausative maintains the causing activity in the LS
buttheagentoftheactivityisunspecified. This kind of anticausative is
found in Romance languages and involves a reflexive construction. The
analysis is presented in Van Valin and LaPolla (1997: 408–414), based on
Centineo (1996), who gives evidence for the presence of the activity
predicate in the LS: the occurrence of manner adverbs –which only
occur with activities –and an implicit agent (see also Bentley 2006:
126–136). Consider these Spanish examples from González Vergara
(2009: 366–374).
(33) a. Pedro ensució la camisa.
Pedro stained.3sg the shirt
‘Pedro stained the shirt.’
b. La camisa se ensució.
the shirt reflstained.3sg
‘The shirt got dirty.’
González Vergara shows that (33b), like the Italian examples in Centineo
(1996), has an implicit causing agent and can occur with manner adverbs.
Thus, unlike the anticausatives accounted for by (32), these maintain the
causing activity in the LS.
(34) Causative achievement/accomplishment )achievement:
[do′(x, Ø)] CAUSE [BECOME/INGR dirty′(y)] )
[do′(Ø,Ø)] CAUSE [BECOME/INGR dirty′(y)]
Both of the rules in (32) and (34) change an event with two specified
arguments into an achievement or accomplishment with one undergoer
but they have significantly different logical structures.
6.3.6 Null Complements and the Activity–Active
Accomplishment Alternation
Van Valin (2012: 69) discusses the following examples of the relation
between argument structure and telicity.
(35) a. Sandy wrote (poetry) for an hour/*in an hour. Atelic
b. Sandy wrote the poem in an hour. Telic
(36) a. Chris drank (beer) for an hour/*in an hour. Atelic
b. Chris drank the beer in an hour. Telic
Argument Structure Alternations 305
Comp. by: K.VENKATESAN Stage: Proof Chapter No .: 6 Title Name: Bentleyetal
Date:5/1/23 Tim e:12:21:18 Page Number: 306
To account for this common alternation between atelic and telic uses of
some verbs, ‘not just verbs but in fact whole verb phrases must be taken
into account to distinguish activities from accomplishments’(Dowty
1979: 60–62). The RRG analysis of the examples in (35) and (36) requires
distinct logical structures for the atelic and telic readings of the verbs.
The objects in (35a) and (36a) are non-referring NPs but those in (35b) and
(36b) are RPs. As a result, there is a difference in macrorole status, since
activities, including multiple-argument activity verbs (the atelic
examples), never have an undergoer macrorole. A common explanation
for the data in (35) and (36), then, is that the alternation is due to the
change in the referential status of the object, that is, whether it is an RP
or NP.
Van Valin (2012: 69–71) shows that the activity–active accomplishment
alternation in other languages often is not due to the inferred status of the
object, but is marked on the verb. Changing the aspect marking on the verb
can result in a change from activity to active accomplishment (‘He was
eating everything for two hours,’vs. ‘He ate everything in two hours.’) The
following lexical rules account for the alternations, showing the change in
the LS (see also Van Valin and LaPolla 1997: 180 and, for a revised LS of active
accomplishments which has no consequences for the current discussion,
Van Valin 2018 and Bentley 2019).
(37) a. Activity [motion] )Active Accomplishment: do′
(x, [pred′(x)]) )do′(x, [pred′(x)]) & INGR be-LOC′(y, x)
b. Activity [consumption] )Active Accomplishment: do′
(x, [pred′(x, y)]) )do′(x, [pred′(x, y)]) & INGR consumed′(y)
c. Activity [creation] )Active Accomplishment: do′
(x, [pred′(x, y)]) )do′(x, [pred′(x, y)]) & INGR exist (y)
These lexical rules reflect the productivity of an alternation between two LSs
involving the same base verb.
To show that this alternation cannot be attributed simply to the presence of
adefinite direct object, Van Valin (2012: 70) presents examples from Georgian
(Holisky 1981), in which the preverb da- imposes a telic reading of the event.
(38) a. K’ac-i (c’eril-s) c’er-s xuti saati.
man-nom (letter-dat) write.prs-3sg five hours
‘The man is writing (letters) for five hours.’
b. K’ac-i c’eril-s da-c’er-s at c’ut-ši.
man-nom letter-dat pv-write.prs-3sg ten minutes-in
‘The man will write the letter in ten minutes’
The kind of alternation accounted for in the rule in (37) is not marked
morphologically in English but is in languages such as Georgian and it
is marked by aspectual markers in other languages such as Russian. The
distinct logical structures of activities and their corresponding active
accomplishments have both semantic and syntactic consequences.
306 JAMES K. WATTERS
Comp. by: K.VENKATESAN Stage: Proof Chapter No .: 6 Title Name: Bentleyetal
Date:5/1/23 Tim e:12:21:19 Page Number: 307
6.4 Syntactic Alternations
This section offers a brief survey of benefactives and constructions which
involve an adjunct. These constructions involve both adjunct prepositions in
the periphery and argument-adjunct prepositions which ‘introduce an argu-
ment into the clause and share it with the logical structure of the core,
rather than taking the logical structure of the core as an argument’(Van
Valin and LaPolla 1997: 159). These categories of prepositions also character-
ize adpositions and many applicatives cross-linguistically.
6.4.1 Benefactive
Though often treated as a subtype of the dative construction, a benefactive
typically has a different relation to the event referred to by the verb. In the
case of ditransitives, that is, constructions in which the third argument in
some sense ‘receives’the second one, the verb itself introduces an LS that
includes the three arguments. This is not the case with a benefactive
construction. A benefactive construction involves an argument external
to the event. Unlike the semantic representation of an adjunct, the seman-
tic representation of a benefactive shares an argument with the LS of
the verb.
In RRG, the benefactive involves purpose, and can be represented by the
semantic representation given for ‘purposive for’in English in Van Valin and
LaPolla (1997: 383) (based on Jolly 1991).
(39) Semantic representation of purposive for:
want′(x, LS
2
^DO (x,[LS
1
...CAUSE...LS
2
])
Like adjunct adpositional phrases, the benefactive has the argument it
licenses as its first argument and embeds the LS of the core as its second
argument. However, the benefactive, unlike an adjunct, shares an argument
with the core. (41) is a simplified analysis of the benefactive example (40).
(40) ki-makaː-ni-ɬʔaqa-tawn tʃaqaʔ
1sg.obj-make-dat-pfv clf-one house
‘He made me a house.’
(41) [want′(x, LS2 ^DO (x,[make′(x, house)]) CAUSE [have′(I, house)]
This benefactive has some similarities to a ditransitive. However, unlike
ditransitives, constructions that include CAUSE and a recipient, benefac-
tives more generally describe a situation of affectedness. Thus, many
languages use the benefactive construction to express malefactives, as well
as with intransitive activities:
(42) ʔik-maqniː-ni-ka-ɬki-ʃʔoy
1sbj-kill-dat-pas-pfv 1poss-dog
‘(Someone) killed my dog on me.’
Argument Structure Alternations 307
Comp. by: K.VENKATESAN Stage: Proof Chapter No .: 6 Title Name: Bentleyetal
Date:5/1/23 Tim e:12:21:19 Page Number: 308
(43) ʔik-miɬpaː-ni-ya-n
1sbj-sing-dat-fut-2obj
‘I will sing for you.’
The benefactive marks the presence of an argument-adjunct that is not part
of the LS associated with the bare verb but, unlike a simple adjunct, it shares
an argument with that LS. Therefore, though it is an example of argument
structure alternation at the syntactic level, it is a lexical process. Indeed, the
Tepehua applicative -ni that marks the presence of the recipient in ditransi-
tives and the experiencer in benefactives is never used to mark the presence
of an adjunct in a clause.
6.4.2 Syntactic Applicatives
Applicative constructions in head-marking languages correspond in large
part to prepositional phrases in dependent-marking languages. This has led
some to analyse applicatives as ‘preposition incorporation’, following Baker
(1988: 229–304). As already shown, the Tepehua applicative dative suffix-ni
results in the indirect object being linked to the undergoer position. This is
also true of the applicative constructions in the following examples from
Chiche
ˇ
wa (Bantu), as reported in Baker (1988: 247–248).
(44) a. kalulu a-na-gul-ir-a mbidzi nsapato
hare sp-pst-buy-for-asp zebras shoes
‘The hare bought shoes for the zebras.’
b. mbidzi zi-pa-gul-ir-idw-a nsapato (ndi kalu!u)
zebras sp-pst-buy-for-pas-asp shoes by hare
‘The zebras were bought shoes by the hare.’
Baker points out that in this construction, the applicative -ir has resulted
in the benefactive argument usurping properties associated with the direct
object: immediate postverbal position, object pro-drop, and (in this
example) subject of the passive (compare 44a and 44b). In RRG terms, this
is evidence that in the Chiche
ˇ
wa applicative construction, the benefactive
is the undergoer. As we saw in 6.4.1, this is not surprising, as the benefac-
tive is typically an example of an argument-adjunct rather than a
simple adjunct.
However, some applicatives allow adjuncts to appear as syntactic argu-
ments of the verb. As reported in Peterson (2007), Hakha Lai, a Tibeto-
Burman language, has several optional applicative constructions that allow
an adjunct to appear as a verbal argument.
(45) a. ka-law ʔan-ka-thloʔ-pii
1sg.poss-field 3pl.sbj-1sg.obj-weed-com
‘They weeded my field (together) with me.’
b. tiilooŋkhaa tivaa kan-Ø-tan-naak
boat top river 1pl.sbj-3sg.obj-cross-ins
‘We used the boat to cross the river.’
308 JAMES K. WATTERS
Comp. by: K.VENKATESAN Stage: Proof Chapter No .: 6 Title Name: Bentleyetal
Date:5/1/23 Tim e:12:21:19 Page Number: 309
The Hakha Lai examples in (45) have paraphrases in (46):
(46) a. kay-maʔ¼hee ka-law ʔan-thlaw
1sg-pron¼com 1sg.poss-field 3pl.sbj-weed
‘They weeded my field together with me.’
b. tiilooŋ¼ʔin tivaa (khaa) kan-tan
boat¼ins river top 1pl.sbj-cross
‘We used the boat to cross the river.’
Tepehua has three applicative prefixes that allow adjuncts to appear as
arguments of the verb: comitative tʼaː, instrumental puː, and direction ɬi.
(47) a. kin-ta-tʼaː-ʔa-ɬ
1obj-3pl.sbj-com-go-pfv
‘They went with me.’
b. puː-mi-ɬhuːki
ins-come-pfv horse
‘S/he came by horse.’
c. waːyuːtʃaɬiː-stʼaː-ɬ
foc 3pron dir-sell-pfv
‘S/he sold it for that (price) / sold it for that (reason).’
The instrumental in (47b) has a paraphrase with a Tepehua preposition but
paraphrases of the applicative constructions in (47a) and (47c) require prep-
ositions borrowed from Spanish. (The paraphrase of the comitative requires
kun from Spanish con and the price reading of ɬiː-requires por.)
The two key questions in an RRG account of applicative constructions
built on a transitive verb base involve the lexical level (48a) and the syntactic
level (48b).
(48) a. Does the argument of the base verb or the argument of the applicative link
to the undergoer macrorole?
b. Is there a restriction regarding which of the non-actor arguments may
occur as PSA in a passive construction?
Thequestionin(48b)istouchedoninSection6.5.Dataregarding(48a)is
provided by Peterson (2007) regarding applicatives in Bakusu (Bantu) and
Hakha Lai (Tibeto-Burman). In Bakusu, the instrumental applicative does
notmanifeststandardobjectpropertiesandafirst hypothesis would be
that the instrument does not link to undergoer position though it is a
syntactic argument of the derived verb. In Hakha Lai, in six of the seven
applicative constructions the applied object apparently links to undergoer
position, taking on standard object properties. The one exception, again, is
the instrumental, a feature that Peterson suggests is due to the fact that
instrumentals are typically inanimate, and, therefore, less salient in
reported events.
In Tlachichilco Tepehua, only the argument of the dative applicative,
-ni, is regularly linked to the undergoer macrorole. The other three
Argument Structure Alternations 309
Comp. by: K.VENKATESAN Stage: Proof Chapter No .: 6 Title Name: Bentleyetal
Date:5/1/23 Tim e:12:21:19 Page Number: 310
applicatives, ɬiː-,puː-,tʼaː-, most often simply allow adjuncts to appear as
syntactic arguments of the verb –an important feature since only direct
arguments of the verb can be questioned or relativized in Tepehua.
However, the linking of the PSA in a passive construction is not limited
to the undergoer: any direct syntactic argument of the verb can be
the PSA.
6.5 Voice
The RRG account of voice alternations –passive and antipassive –distin-
guishes two areas of argument linking. RRG’s universal formulation of voice
oppositions refers to both the syntactic and lexical dimensions of voice
modulation.
(49) General characterization of basic voice constructions in RRG
a. PSA modulation voice: permits an argument other than the default
argument ... to function as the privileged syntactic argument.
b. Argument modulation voice: gives non-canonical realization to a
macrorole argument.
(Van Valin 2005: 116)
In RRG, the general cross-linguistic characterization of passive and anti-
passive voice involves both levels of mapping: the lexical assignment of
macrorole status and the syntactic determination of PSA. Van Valin and
LaPolla (1997) provide the English passive and the Dyirbal (a Pama-Nyugan
language spoken in north-eastern Australia) antipassive as prototypical
constructions.
(50) a. English passive construction
5
b. Dyirbal -ŋay antipassive construction
Though these are given as prototypical examples, it should be noted that
there are languages with passive or antipassive constructions in which
modulation occurs on only one of the two levels mentioned in (49).
As a result of argument modulation, in a passive construction, the actor
macrorole is removed from the core –it is either deleted or moved to the
periphery. This typically results in some other argument occurring as the
PSA. In the case of the antipassive, the undergoer is similarly removed,
typically making an otherwise transitive verb into an intransitive.
6.5.1 Passive
According to Keenan and Dryer (2007: 328–329), the following passives are
‘basic passives’((51) is their example, (52) is Tlachichilco Tepehua).
(51) John was slapped.
310 JAMES K. WATTERS
Comp. by: K.VENKATESAN Stage: Proof Chapter No .: 6 Title Name: Bentleyetal
Date:5/1/23 Tim e:12:21:20 Page Number: 311
(52) Pa:laqsti-saː-ka-ɬni Juan
cheek-hit-pass-pfv art Juan
‘John was slapped.’
This is considered to be a ‘basic’passive because passives like this ‘are the
most widespread across the world’slanguages’. They have the following
characteristics: (i) there is no agent phrase (in Tepehua, as in many other
languages, the passive does not allow the actor to appear in the clause at
all); (ii) the verb is a transitive verb that is passivized; (iii) in its non-
passivized form, the verb expresses an action with an agent subject and
patient object.
By these criteria, then, English passives with an explicit actor as well as
impersonal passives (passives of intransitives) are not basic passives. The
contrast between the two Tepehua forms in (53) illustrates the use of the
passive with intransitive verbs, as do the examples from German and
Turkish in (54a) and (54b), respectively.
(53) a. Tapaːtsaː-kan maɬkuyuːabril y mayu
work-pass(ipfv) month April and May
‘It is worked (people work) the months of April and May.’
b. ʔantʃaʔalin-kan
there exist-pass(ipfv)
‘It is existed there./Something is there.’
(54) a. Es wird hier getanzt
it is here danced.
‘Dancing takes place here.’
b. E˘
glen-il-di.
have.fun-pass-pst
‘Fun was had.’
The existence of impersonal passives shows the importance of distinguish-
ing the two aspects of passive in (49). The forms in (53) and (54) involve the
argument modulation of (49b), in that the actor is absent from the clause.
However, the PSA modulation is irrelevant in these constructions, as there is
no PSA.
Even very closely related languages can have passive constructions that
differ in either the PSA modulation or the argument modulation. In Tlachi-
chilco Tepehua, first- and second-person undergoers (but not third plural)
are marked as PSA in the passive construction (55a). In Pisaflores Tepehua,
while second-person undergoers must be marked as PSA, first-person under-
goers more commonly retain the undergoer marking (55b).
(55) a. k-laqtsʼin-kan-a:-w
1sbj-see-pass-ipfv-1pl
‘We are seen.’
b. kin-ta-laqts’in-kan-a:-n
1obj-3plsbj-see-pass-ipfv-2obj
‘We are seen.’
Argument Structure Alternations 311
Comp. by: K.VENKATESAN Stage: Proof Chapter No .: 6 Title Name: Bentleyetal
Date:5/1/23 Tim e:12:21:20 Page Number: 312
In the Tlachichilco Tepehua example, (55a), the actor is removed (argument
modulation) and the undergoer is the PSA, marked by the ‘subject’form
(PSA modulation). In the Pisaflores Tepehua example (55b), the actor is
removed (argument modulation) but the undergoer is still marked as
‘object’, not as PSA (there is no PSA modulation).
Besides the variation regarding the presence or absence of PSA modula-
tion, there is notable cross-linguistic variation regarding what arguments
can be linked to the PSA.
Yaqui (Uto-Aztecan) is an example that only allows a macrorole to appear
as PSA, so in the following passive forms, only the undergoer can function as
PSA (from Guerrero and Van Valin 2004: 299–300).
(56) a. U chu’u-W ki’i-wa-k.
the dog-nom bite-pass-pst.pfv
‘The dog was bitten.’
b. Jamut-ta-u nooka-wa-k.
woman-acc-dir talk-pass-pst.pfv
‘Someone talked to the woman’/*‘The woman was talked to.’
In the passive construction in (56a) the undergoer assumes PSA status; in the
passive in (56b), however, the woman is marked by the directional postpos-
ition, -u, and is not linked to the undergoer position. As a result, the PSA
modulation of the passive does not apply, only the argument modulation,
removing the actor.
However, some languages allow a wide variety of arguments to link to
the PSA position. Van Valin (2005: 121) gives examples from Kinyarwanda
(Bantu), in which applicatives can mark several semantic roles. Tepehua is
another example. The Totonac-Tepehua languages have pragmatically
determined word order and no case marking on the NPs. It is not possible
to determine, for a transitive clause in isolation with two third-person
singular participants, which is the PSA. The passive and antipassive play
a major role in tracking referents. In (57), the instrumental and comitative
appear as syntactic arguments of the verb due to the applicatives though
they do not have macrorole status. However, in the passive they can map
onto the PSA.
(57) a. waːyuːtʃapuː-tʃʼan-nan-kan
foc that ins-sow-antip-pass(ipfv)
‘That’s what it’s planted with (instrumental).’
b. ʔik-tʼaː-tʃiwin-ka-ɬ
1sbj-com-speak-pass-pfv
‘I was spoken with (comitative).’
In Tepehua, the discourse-pragmatics directly influence the selection of
the PSA, and the freedom for different arguments to function as PSA serves a
key pragmatic function: maintaining topics and tracking referents (see
Watters 2017).
312 JAMES K. WATTERS
Comp. by: K.VENKATESAN Stage: Proof Chapter No .: 6 Title Name: Bentleyetal
Date:5/1/23 Tim e:12:21:20 Page Number: 313
6.5.2 Antipassive
The term ‘antipassive’refers to a change in syntactic alignment of argu-
ments that has traditionally been used to describe a detransitivizing form in
ergative languages, such as in the following examples from Dyirbal (from
Dixon 1994: 161, 170).
(58) a. yabu banaga-nyu
mother.abs return-nonfut
‘Mother returned.’
b. ŋuma yabu-ŋgu bura-n
father.abs mother-erg see-nonfut
‘Mother saw father.’
c. yabui [bural-ŋa-ŋuŋuma-gu] banaga-nyu
mother.abs see-antip-rel.abs father-dat return-nonfut
‘Mother, who saw father, was returning.’
The examples in (58a) and (58b) exemplify the standard ergative-absolutive
marking for actor in an intransitive clause and in a transitive clause. The
absolutive is the PSA in Dyirbal and only the PSA can be relativized. As a
result, unlike nominative-accusative languages, for the actor to be relativ-
ized, it must be absolutive. The sentence in (58c) shows how this can be
done. The antipassive suffix on the verb in the relative clause results in an
intransitive construction, the undergoer is no longer a core argument and
the actor, as with any intransitive, is in the absolutive, allowing the forma-
tion of the relative clause.
Much of the discussion in the RRG literature regarding antipassives
involves syntactically ergative languages such as Dyirbal. In those cases,
the antipassive construction allows the actor to function as PSA. Some
linguists use the term antipassive only for ergative languages. However,
I am following the perspective articulated by Polinsky (2013):
Some researchers insist on the link between the antipassive and
ergativity ..., while others propose that the antipassive is not limited to
ergative languages ... The transitive/antipassive alternation is simply
more visible in an ergative language, where it typically involves a
change in subject case marking from ergative to absolutive.
Considering the two aspects of voice in RRG (49), the same can be said for
antipassives as for passives: in some languages the relevant construction
only affects the argument modulation and does not directly affect the PSA
modulation. In fact, many ergative languages are only ergative in their
morphology and do not have the syntactic ergativity found in a language
like Dyirbal.
In a non-ergative language like Tepehua, the antipassive only involves
the level of argument modulation (49b). It occurs on a transitive verb base,
marking the absence of the undergoer, whether it is the undergoer of the
verb root or the marked undergoer, that is, the argument of the dative
Argument Structure Alternations 313
Comp. by: K.VENKATESAN Stage: Proof Chapter No .: 6 Title Name: Bentleyetal
Date:5/1/23 Tim e:12:21:20 Page Number: 314
suffix-ni. But it never marks the absence of the applicative argument
associated with one of the applicative prefixes (comitative, instrumental,
directional).
(59) a. puː-stʼaː-na-ɬki-muːral
ins-sell-antip-pfv 1poss-bag
‘S/he sold using my bag.’
b. José tʼaː-stʼaː-na-ɬKwan
José com-sell-antip-pfv Kwan
‘José sold with Juan.’
These examples involve the antipassive construction, which marks the
absence of the undergoer. However, the arguments of the instrumental and
comitative applicatives are present. This supports the analysis in 6.4.2 that
Tepehua applicatives other than the dative -ni, do not link to undergoer.
6.6 Conclusion
Alternations in argument structure at the lexical and syntactic levels have
important functions. Some lexical processes such as causatives and anticausa-
tives are often more limited in productivity and serve to enrich the lexicon.
Others, such as noun incorporation and ditransitive alternations, and some
applicatives, clearly have semantic effects regarding which argument is the
most affected or patient-like (i.e. the undergoer). The activity–active accom-
plishment alternation involves a change in transitivity and is tied to a
difference in the telic or non-telic nature of the event.
Syntactic processes discussed in this chapter add syntactic arguments to the
verb or affect the linking to the PSA. Voice alternations, such as passive and
antipassive, involve mappings at both the lexical and syntactic levels. Apart
from simply removing an argument from the core because that argument is
not salient at the moment, these constructions often play an important role
in tracking referents or maintaining the discourse topic.
RRG provides a framework that has the heuristic value of requiring one to
determine the logical structure associated with a verb and the linking of
arguments in the logical structure to the macroroles and from the macro-
roles to PSA and syntactic positions in the clause. The alternations discussed
in this chapter are captured by capitalizing on the distinction between these
levels of linguistic analysis.
References
Allen, Barbara J., Donna B. Gardiner and Donald G. Frantz. 1984. Noun
incorporation in Southern Tiwa. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics
50: 292–311.
314 JAMES K. WATTERS
Comp. by: K.VENKATESAN Stage: Proof Chapter No .: 6 Title Name: Bentleyetal
Date:5/1/23 Tim e:12:21:20 Page Number: 315
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bentley, Delia. 2006. Split Intransitivity in Italian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bentley, Delia. 2019. The Logical Structure of Verbs of Quantized and Non-Quantized
Change. Paper presented at the International RRG Conference, 19–21
August 2019, University at Buffalo (SUNY).
Centineo, Giulia. 1996. The distribution of si in Italian intransitive/incho-
ative pairs. In Mandy Simmons and Theresa Galloway (eds.), Proceedings of
SALT V, 54–71. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: D.
Reidel.
Dryer, Matthew S. 1986. Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative.
Language 62: 808–845.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Emmon Bach and Robert T.
Harms (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory,1–91. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1986. Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. In Vassi-
liki Nikiforidou, Mary VanClay, Mary Niepokuj and Deborah Feder (eds.),
Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society,95–107. Berkeley, CA:
Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Foley, William A. and Robert D. Van Valin. 1984. Functional Syntax and Univer-
sal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
González Vergara, Carlos. 2009. One rule to rule them all: Logical structures
for Spanish non-reflexive se sentences. In Lilián Guerrero, Sergio Ibáñez
Cerda and Valeria A. Belloro (eds.), Studies in Role and Reference Grammar,
361–380. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Guerrero, Lilián and Robert D. Van Valin. 2004. Yaqui and the analysis of
primary object languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 70(3):
290–319.
Haspelmath, Martin and Thomas Müller-Bardey. 2001. Valency change. In
G. Booij, C. Lehmann and J. Mugdan (eds.), Morphology. An International
Handbook on Inflection and Word Formation, 207. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
www.eva.mpg.de/fileadmin/content_files/staff/haspelmt/pdf/2005val.pdf.
Holisky, Dee A. 1981. Aspect theory and Georgian aspect. In B. Comrie and M.
Polinsky (eds.), Causatives and Transitivity,87–120. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Jackendoff, Ray S. 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar,
Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jolly, Julia. 1991. Prepositional Analysis within the Framework of Role and Reference
Grammar. New York: Peter Lang.
Keenan, Edward L. and Matthew S. Dryer. 2007. Passive in the world’s
languages. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Descrip-
tion, Vol. 1: Clause Structure, 325–361. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Argument Structure Alternations 315
Comp. by: K.VENKATESAN Stage: Proof Chapter No .: 6 Title Name: Bentleyetal
Date:5/1/23 Tim e:12:21:20 Page Number: 316
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investi-
gation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Malchukov, Andre, Martin Haspelmath and Bernard Comrie. 2010. Studies
in ditransitive constructions: A typological overview. In Andre Malchukov,
Martin Haspelmath and Bernard Comrie (eds.), Studies in Ditransitive Con-
structions. A Comparative Handbook, 1–64. Berlin: De Gruyter, Mouton.
McGregor, William. 1997. Grammatical structures in noun incorporation. In
Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, Kristin Davidse and Dirk Noël (eds.),
Reconnecting Language: Morphology and Syntax in Functional Perspectives. Cur-
rent Issues in Linguistic Theory, 141–180. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Miller, Mark. 2007. A Grammar of West Coast Bajau. PhD dissertation, (Arling-
ton), University of Texas.
Mithun, Marianne. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60:
847–894.
Perlmutter, David M. and Paul M. Postal. 1977. Toward a universal charac-
terization of passive. In K. Whistler, R. D. Van Valin et al. (eds.), Proceedings
of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 3, 394–417. Berkeley,
CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Peterson, David A. 2007. Applicative Constructions. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Polinsky, Maria. 2013. Antipassive constructions. In Matthew S. Dryer and
Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online.
Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals
.info/chapter/108.
Rosen, Sarah Thomas. 1989. Two types of noun incorporation: A lexical
analysis. Language 65: 294–317.
Sadock, Jerrold M. 1991. Autolexical Syntax: A Theory of Parallel Grammatical
Representations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sapir, Edward. 1911. The problem of noun incorporation in American lan-
guages. Language 13(2): 250–282.
Underhill, Robert. 1976. Turkish Grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Van Valin, Robert. 2005. Exploring the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Van Valin, Robert. 2007. The Role and Reference Grammar analysis of three-
place predicates. Suvremena Lingvistika 33.1(63): 31–64. https://rrg.caset
.buffalo.edu/rrg/vanvalin_papers/RRG-Analysis_Three-Place_Pred.pdf.
Van Valin, Robert. 2012. Lexical representation, co-composition, and linking
syntax and semantics. In James Pustejovsky, Pierrette Bouillon, Hitoshi
Isahara, Kyoko Kanzaki and Chungmin Lee (eds.), Advances in Generative
Lexicon Theory: Text, Speech and Language Technology, Vol. 46, 67–107. Dor-
drecht: Springer.
Van Valin, Robert. 2018. Some issues regarding (active) accomplishments. In
Rolf Kailuweit, Lisann Künkel and Eva Staudinger (eds.), Applying and
Expanding Role and Reference Grammar,71–93. Freiburg: Freiburg Institute
for Advanced Studies, Albert-Ludwigs Universität Freiburg.
316 JAMES K. WATTERS
Comp. by: K.VENKATESAN Stage: Proof Chapter No .: 6 Title Name: Bentleyetal
Date:5/1/23 Tim e:12:21:20 Page Number: 317
Van Valin, Robert and Randy LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and
Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vendler, Zeno. 1967[1957]. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY, Cornell Univer-
sity Press. (Previously published in Vendler, Zeno. 1957. Verbs and times.
Philosophical Review 56: 143–160.)
Watters, James K. 2017. Tlachichilco Tepehua: Semantics and function of
verb valency change. In Álvaro González and Ía Navarro (eds.), Verb Valency
Changes: Theoretical and Typological Perspectives, Typological Studies in Lan-
guage 120, 165–192. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Watters, James K. 2019. La preposición en tepehua y construcciones seme-
jantes. In Lilián Guerrero (ed.), Adposiciones y elementos de su tipo en lenguas
de América. Estudios sobre Lenguas Americanas 9, 315–344. Mexico: Uni-
versidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones
Filológicas.
Williams, Alexander. 2015. Arguments in Syntax and Semantics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Zylstra, Carol F. 1991. A syntactic sketch of Alacatlazala Mixtec. In Bradley, C.
Henry and Barbara E. Hollenbach (eds.), Studies in the Syntax of Mixtecan
Languages, Vol. 3, 1–178. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the
University of Texas at Arlington.
Notes
1 When citing research done by others, I have tried to keep the same
morpheme glosses that they have used.
2 For discussion of body-part incorporation with an intransitive verb,
resulting in a change of undergoer assignment (‘possessor raising’), see
Van Valin (2005: 145–146).
3 The gloss B refers to one of three gender classes, in this case, one that
refers to either an animate plural or an inanimate singular (Allen et al.
1984: 293, fn. 5)
4 The passive or ‘unspecified subject’construction in Tepehua does not
provide evidence of undergoer status. In a Tepehua passive construction,
a non-undergoer can map onto the PSA (see 6.4.2).
5 These parallel the ‘two universals of passivization’presented by Perlmut-
ter and Postal: (i) ‘A direct object of an active clause is the (superficial)
subject of the “corresponding”passive,’and (ii ‘The subject of an active
clause is neither the (superficial) subject nor the (superficial) direct object
of the “corresponding”passive’(1977: 399).
Argument Structure Alternations 317
