<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;
panose-1:2 11 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"CMU Serif";
panose-1:2 0 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman \(Body CS\)";
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#467886;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"CMU Serif";
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#467886" vlink="#96607D" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"CMU Serif"">Dear Tim – In the <a href="https://causalityacrosslanguages.wordpress.com/">
CAL project</a>, we’ve been treating constructions such as your (7) as involving what we call ‘non-sentential causer adjuncts’ (NCRAs). They appear to be common across languages, but in our sample only ever seem to show up as a bit of a niche strategy. Unsurprisingly,
they seem to have a semantic affinity for natural force causers. Below you can see a conditional inference model for the English NCRA construction based on acceptability rating data. NCRr = Natural force causer; Mediation = presence of an intermediate agent/subevent;
ContrHCEAF = the second participant in the causal chain exerts control over the induced action/activity. The numbers on the leaves mean that the construction is acceptable with natural force causers 94% of the time, etc. – Best – Juergen<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"CMU Serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-family:"CMU Serif""><img border="0" width="651" height="449" style="width:6.7812in;height:4.677in" id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.png@01DB2B9B.72009E50"></span></u><u><span style="font-family:"CMU Serif""><o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"CMU Serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black">Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)<br>
Professor, Department of Linguistics<br>
University at Buffalo <br>
<br>
Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus<br>
Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260 <br>
Phone: (716) 645 0127 <br>
Fax: (716) 645 3825<br>
Email: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><a href="mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu" title="mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:#0078D4">jb77@buffalo.edu</span></a></span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black"><br>
Web: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><a href="http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/" title="http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:#0563C1">http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/</span></a></span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black"> <br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Office hours Tu/Th 3:30-4:30pm in 642 Baldy or via Zoom (Meeting ID 585 520 2411; Passcode Hoorheh) </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black"><br>
<br>
There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In <br>
(Leonard Cohen) </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="DE" style="font-family:"CMU Serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="DE" style="font-family:"CMU Serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div id="mail-editor-reference-message-container">
<div>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<b><span style="color:black">From: </span></b><span style="color:black">Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of Tim Ongenae via Lingtyp <lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org><br>
<b>Date: </b>Thursday, October 31, 2024 at 12:26<br>
<b>To: </b>lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org <lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[Lingtyp] Passive vs. anticausative<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black">Dear colleagues,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black">I have a question related to the distinction between passive and anticausative, which is quite important to understand my (diachronic) data on anticausativization in Latin. Latin has three
anticausative strategies:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black">1/ the mediopassive strategy, in which there is voice syncretism between anticausative and passive. This strategy is clearly in decline in later periods of Latin.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black">(1) porta aperitur<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black"> door.nom open.mpass<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black"> “The door opens” or “The door is opened.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black">2/ the reflexive strategy (which is, however, more frequent in agentive anticausatives, or autocausatives and not so much in decausatives / non-agentive anticausatives)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black">(2) porta se aperit<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black"> door.nom refl.acc open.act<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black"> “The door opens.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black">3/ the labile strategy (the active intransitive)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black">(3) porta aperit<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black"> door.nom open.act<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black">A clear functional distinction between passive and anticausative is necessary to understand it. For the mediopassive, I draw a distinction based on agentivity in my data analysis (external
Agent present in context = passive; external Agent not present in context = anticausative), which is important to understand the mediopassive. However, in Latin there is also the possibility to replace the Agent with an Instrument or a Cause in the transitive
alternant of verbs that can undergo anticausativization (cfr. Effector as defined by Van Valin & Wilkins 1996), as in the following examples:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black">(4) I open the window. (I = Agent)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black">(5) The hammer opens the window. (The hammer = Instrument)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black">(6) The wind opens the window. (The wind = Cause)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black">Example (6) in detransitivization could give example (7) in English. In Latin, I have noticed that in these contexts both the labile and mediopassive strategies could be used (although
there seems to be a lexical distinction between more ‘spontaneous’ events preferring lability and less ‘spontaneous’ events preferring the mediopassive). Furthermore, my preliminary analysis suggests that lability is becoming more frequent in Late Latin, but
only in contexts without a cause. In Zúñiga and Kittilä (2019), constructions similar to (7) were treated as non-prototypical anticausatives (Inanimate Causer Constructions), but, at least in Latin, I have the feeling that these constructions are somewhere
between passives and anticausatives.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black">(7) a. The window opens from the wind.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black"> b. The window is opened by the wind.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black">My question is the following: do you have knowledge about the encoding of examples like (7) in the language(s) you are studying? Are they treated as an anticausative, as a passive or as
something else? If you happen to know of any secondary literature on this, I would be very grateful as well!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black">Many thanks in advance!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black">Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black">Tim<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>