13.417, Qs: L2 Common European Framework, Passivisation

Fri Feb 15 14:49:18 UTC 2002

LINGUIST List:  Vol-13-417. Fri Feb 15 2002. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 13.417, Qs: L2 Common European Framework, Passivisation

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U.<aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry, Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>
            Andrew Carnie, U. of Arizona <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org):
	Simin Karimi, U. of Arizona
	Terence Langendoen, U. of Arizona

Editors (linguist at linguistlist.org):
	Karen Milligan, WSU 		Naomi Ogasawara, EMU
	James Yuells, EMU		Marie Klopfenstein, WSU
	Michael Appleby, EMU		Heather Taylor-Loring, EMU
	Ljuba Veselinova, Stockholm U.	Richard John Harvey, EMU
	Dina Kapetangianni, EMU		Renee Galvis, WSU
	Karolina Owczarzak, EMU

Software: John Remmers, E. Michigan U. <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
          Gayathri Sriram, E. Michigan U. <gayatri at linguistlist.org>

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen at linguistlist.org>
 ==========================================================================

We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually
best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is
then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was
instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we
would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.

In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it
is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have
taken the trouble to respond to the query.

=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Thu, 14 Feb 2002 16:02:52 +0100
From:  Cornelia Gerhardt <c.gerhardt at mx.uni-saarland.de>
Subject:  Common European framework of reference for languages

2)
Date:  Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:42:33 BST
From:  "Willem Hollmann" <mfcxjwbh at fs1.art.man.ac.uk>
Subject:  Passivisation of periphrastic causatives across languages

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Thu, 14 Feb 2002 16:02:52 +0100
From:  Cornelia Gerhardt <c.gerhardt at mx.uni-saarland.de>
Subject:  Common European framework of reference for languages

Has anyone who teaches L2 students used the 'Common European framework
of reference for languages' to "officially" state the level of
attainment which they expect their students to reach? Officially here
stands for e.g.  in university or departmental regulations.  If so, do
you expect C1, C2 or simply C?  I am also interested in any other uses
of this framework at university
level.
Thank you, I will post a summary to the list.

Cornelia Gerhardt
Anglistik
Universitat des Saarlandes
Saarbrecken

c.gerhardt at mx.uni-saarland.de

-------------------------------- Message 2 -------------------------------

Date:  Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:42:33 BST
From:  "Willem Hollmann" <mfcxjwbh at fs1.art.man.ac.uk>
Subject:  Passivisation of periphrastic causatives across languages

I am working on the passivisation of English periphrastic
causatives. One of the central questions is why it should be that some
of them (CAUSE, FORCE, MAKE) freely passivise, while others do not
(HAVE), or only very marginally (GET):

(i) To most people, a receptionist is an obstacle to be
negotiated, and that was unfortunately how I was made to
feel for much of the time. (BNC)
(ii) *... how I was had to feel

English LET can also occur in the passive construction, at least in
combination with certain verbs:

(iii) Blaine says he was let go because he had found Vial in error
on anatomical matters. (BNC)

I am aware of some other European languages that allow
passivisation of causatives; interestingly, the predicates
involved tend to be of the semantically rather specific
'force' or 'oblige' type, see e.g. Dutch and Spanish:

(iv) Hij werd gedwongen (om) de papieren te tekenen.
'He was forced to sign the papers'
(v) Él fue forzado a firmar los papeles.
'He was forced to sign the papers'

(The Dutch example is fully grammatical, but the Spanish
one is apparently a little awkward.)

Semantically more "neutral" causatives comparable to
English CAUSE or MAKE do not occur in the passive (at least
not with an infinitival complement). As for permission /
enablement predicates, Dutch allows the following:

(vi) Hij werd vrijgelaten om te gaan.
'He was let-free to go'

However, this is not implicative causation, i.e. it is not
entailed that the referent of 'hij' actually went.

I would be very grateful for information on the types
of causative predicates that can occur in the passive
construction in other languages. E.g. are there
restrictions similar to Dutch or Spanish, or are "neutral"
predicates allowed as well? If so, is this the case for
only a restricted set of neutral causatives (like in
English), or does the entire class allow it? And if there
is only a restricted set, is it possible to identify any
(subtle) semantic differences between the predicates that
allow passivisation and those that do not (perhaps related
to the source concepts of the verbs)? Also, how
"grammatical" are the various passive causatives (see the
remarks about Eng. GET and Sp. FORZAR, above)? Finally,
what about passivisation of permissive / enabling causation
predicates?

Apart from specific data, I would also welcome references
to relevant literature. Please reply to my e-mail address
directly: W.B.Hollmann at stud.man.ac.uk

Many thanks

Willem

Willem Hollmann
University of Manchester
Linguistics Dept / English Dept
Arts Building
Oxford Rd
Manchester M13 9PL
UK
http://lings.ln.man.ac.uk/Html/RStuds/WBH/default.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-13-417