Re: A Survey

Joe wrote:

<<To use an example from a while ago(Optional bits in brackets):

Active - Robert cooks (the soup).
Middle - The soup cooks.
Passive - The soup is being cooked (by Robert).>>

To me it makes more sense to call it an anticausative.   What a causative
does is adds a causer to the verbs arguments.   Most of the time, these verbs
naturally lack a causer in their argument structure (i.e., "to sing" > "to make
sing"), but since you can add as many arguments to a verb as you want, you can
keep adding causatives till the lights go out (however, there is evidence in
languages like Turkish where you can do this that, the more causatives you add,
the more unacceptable the verb becomes).

Now, what an anticausative does is take a naturally causative verb (i.e., one
whose argument structure requires a causer), and demotes that causer, so it
becomes just like an intransitive verb with no causer, only since it's a
naturally causative verb, you expect one.   What I mean by that is, when someones
says something like, "Nate is singing", the natural reaction isn't, "Well, who
made him sing?"   However, if a parent comes home and their child says, "The
window broke", they just might be inclined to say, "Who broke it?"   Anyway, you
can't keep on adding anticausative affixes (if it was an affix) because, once
you get down to one argument, you can't reduce it any longer.   It would be
interesting to see what a language that allows multiple objects and had
anticausative affixes did with respect to this.   But anyway, here are English
examples that exemplify this:

Natural Non-caustive: Robert's afraid (of the soup?).
Causative: Robert frightens the soup.
*Anticausative: *The soup frightens.   (However, interesting note: The room
darkens.)

Natural Causative: Robert's cooking the soup.
Anticausative: The soup's cooking.

I think the reason that passives are so tied into anticausatives is because
both demote something that's often the subject (passives, of course, always
demote the subject; anticausatives demote the causer, which is often the
subject), and raise the object (or causee).   The difference is that most often in
anticausative stuctures, the agent canNOT be reintroduced.

Passive: The soup's being cooked (by Robert).
Anticasausative: The soup's cooking (*by Robert, or ??because Robert's
cooking it).

The easiest way to reintroduce the causer into anticausative expressions is
just to say a new sentence.

So, that's my piece.   I'll descend my soapbox now.

:)

-David