In a 1994 paper on causative constructions,
Arie Verhagen and I discussed the accusative/dative
case alternations in causatives in typological perspective
(as described in work by Comrie, Cole, Saksena,
and others).
We related these alternations to the accusative/dative
alternations in simple, non-causative clauses found in Japanese and
other languages,
which show semantic parallels. The relations have to do with the
meanings of the case markers, language-specifically
(and at a higher level of generalization, cross-linguistically),
and the meanings of the constructions
in which they occur. Simple two-participant clauses are in specific
ways parallel
to causative clauses, structurally and semantically.
The reference:
Times New RomanKemmer, Suzanne and Arie
Verhagen. “The Grammar of Causatives and the Conceptual Structure of
Events.” Cognitive Linguistics 5(2), 115-156. 1994.
Reprinted in Mouton Classics, Vol. 2: From Syntax to Cognition, Mouton
de Gruyter, 2002
--Suzanne
On Mar 22, 2006, at 12:08 PM, Michael Noonan wrote:
In a number of languages where an accusative/absolutive
contrasts with a
dative, if there is a choice between the two, the dative signals either
greater control over the event or greater involvement, perhaps simply
by
focusing on the emotional or physical state of the patient.
For the first, Japanese causatives of intransitives show the following
contrast:
Hanako ga Taroo o ik-ase-ta
Hanako nom Taroo acc go-caus-past
'Hanako made Taroo go'
Hanako ga Taroo ni ik-ase-ta
Hanako nom Taroo dat go-caus-past
'Hanako convinced/got Taroo to go'
In Chantyal, the contrast between absolutive and dative for objects
can be
exploited, with the dative being used to express the patient's
physical or
emotional involvement in the event. In the example below the
absolutive
[on 'chicken'] is unmarked:
kyata-s@ cu nHaka tha-i
boy-erg this chicken cut-perf
'The boy killed the chicken [by cutting off its head]'
kyata-s@ cu nHaka-ra tha-i
boy-erg this chicken-dat cut-perf
'The boy cut the chicken' [i.e. he wounded it]
Mickey Noonan
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006, Ashild Nass wrote:
Dear colleagues,
I'm wondering if anyone has information on languages where a patient
arugment which is somehow volitionally involved in the event which
affects it (e.g. 'letting' something happen to it) is marked
differently
from a regular nonvolitional patient. There are examples of this from
Icelandic (examples from Barddal 2001):
1. Hann klóraDi mig 2. Hann klóraDi mér
he.NOM scratched me.ACC he.NOM scratched me.DAT
(D here used for the voiced dental approximant)
Both of these translate into English as 'he scratched me'; the
difference is that in 1) the scratching is an act of violence, where
as
in 2) it refers to scratching in order to relieve an itch; in other
words, the dative-marked participant in 2) voluntarily submits to the
scratching, whereas the accusative-marked participant in 1) is a
hapless
victim.
Does anyone know of other languages that show similar patterns? The
distinction wouldn't necessarily have to be in the case-marking of the
object, any formal distinction on this basis is of interest.
Thanks in advance,
Åshild Næss
--
Åshild Næss
Postdoctoral researcher
Dept. of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies
University of Oslo
P.O. Box 1102 Blindern
0317 Oslo, Norway
Phone: (+47) 22 84 40 06
Office: HW327
Michael Noonan Professor of Linguistics
Dept. of English Office: 414-229-4539
University of Wisconsin Fax: 414-229-2643
Milwaukee, WI 53201 Messages: 414-229-4511
USA Webpage: http://www.uwm.edu/~noonan
ArialSuzanne Kemmer
713-348-6225
Herring Hall 209
Rice University