Start Submission Become a Reviewer

Reading: Anticausatives are semantically reflexive in Norwegian, but not in English

Download

A- A+
dyslexia friendly

Research

Anticausatives are semantically reflexive in Norwegian, but not in English

Authors:

Björn Lundquist ,

UiT The Arctic University of Norway, CASTL, NO
X close

Martin Corley,

Edinburgh University, GB
X close

Mai Tungseth,

UiT The Arctic University of Norway, CASTL, NO
X close

Antonella Sorace,

Edinburgh University, GB
X close

Gillian Ramchand

UiT The Arctic University of Norway, CASTL, NO
X close

Abstract

In this paper we will discuss cross-linguistic variation in semantic entailment patterns in causative alternations. Previous work has probed this issue with data from elicited semantic judgements on paired linguistic forms, often involving linguistic negation and contradiction. We contribute to the debate in the form of a related psycholinguistic experiment that taps into direct judgements of truth conditions based on visualized scenarios. The stimulus consisted of video sequences of agents causing events, and the task involved answering a Yes-No question based on the anticausative/inchoative alternant. We were therefore able to test two languages, Norwegian and English, with the very same stimuli and directly compare the judgements. Based on our results, we will argue that the causative alternation is qualitatively different in the two languages. More specifically, the results support an entailment relation between the causative and its anticausative counterpart in English, as predicted by the whole class of “causer-less” analyses (Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1995; Ramchand 2008; Reinhart & Siloni 2005) in the literature. In contrast to this, our results support a reflexive analysis of anticausatives in Norwegian (Chierchia 2004; Koontz-Garboden 2009), where no such entailment holds.

How to Cite: Lundquist, B. et al., (2016). Anticausatives are semantically reflexive in Norwegian, but not in English. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics. 1(1), p.47. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.158
318
Views
114
Downloads
Published on 29 Nov 2016.
Peer Reviewed

Downloads

  • PDF (EN)

    comments powered by Disqus