14 Event-structural prominence and forces in verb meaning shifts

14

Event-structural prominence andforces in verb meaning shifts

ANJA LATROUITE

14.1 Introduction

In Indo-European languages, subject choice in a sentence is determined by therespective role of the arguments, i.e. in sentences with active verbs the most agent-like argument (the Actor) maps to subject, as exemplified in (1), while in sentenceswith passive verbs the most affected argument (the Undergoer) maps to subject, asexemplified in (2). Note that in the passive sentences the Actor argument becomesoblique and is either not realized at all or introduced by a preposition.*

(1) Active sentences with Actor subject1

a. They manipulated her.b. Sie töte-t-en den Demonstranten.

3p.nom kill-past-3pl Det.masc.acc demonstrator‘They killed the demonstrator.’

(2) Passive sentences with Undergoer subjecta. She was manipulated (by them).b. Der Demonstrant wurde (von ihnen) getötet.

Det.masc.nom demonstrator become.past.3s (from them) killed‘The demonstrator was killed (by them).’

* I would like to thank the audience at FIGS, especiallyG. Ramchand and J. Beavers, as well as the organizersof the conference and editors of this volume, B. Copley and F.Martin, for helpful comments and questions. Thischapter has also greatly benefited from the thought-provoking criticism and suggestions of the two anonymousreviewers. Special thanks are due tomy Tagalog consultants, R. Panotes Palmero and E. Guerrero, as well as toS. Lambert and R. D. Van Valin, Jr for critical remarks on earlier versions of this chapter. Obviously allremaining flaws and errors aremy own. A large part of the work on this chapter was possible thanks to researchproject B1 of CRC 991‚ “Verb frames at the syntax–semantics interface,” funded by the DFG. This chapter ispartly based on Chapter 6 of my PhD thesis.

1 Annotation: AV: Actor voice; ACC: accusative; GEN: genitive; DAT: dative; Det: determiner; impf:imperfective; MASC: masculin; NMZ: nominalization; NOM: nominative; PL: plural; past: past tense;s: singular; UV: Undergoer voice. Infixes are marked by < > and may separate the initial consonant of thestem (Cstem) from the rest of the verb stem.

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPiCopley/Causation in Grammatical Structures 14_Copley_and_Martin_Chapter14 REVISES page 372 11.11.2014 8:13am

The subject argument is easily identifiable in both sentence types as it triggersperson–number agreement on the verb and bears nominative case. The active voiceform of a verb is often called the basic, unmarked voice form, while passive isconceived of as the marked, derived voice form due to its morphological complexityand the way it affects the argument structure of the verb by reducing the number ofobligatory arguments by one. In other words, while the active voice form of the verbhas an accusative-marked object argument in addition to the nominative-markedsubject argument, the passive verb no longer takes an accusative complement.

As we will see in the next section, subject selection in Tagalog differs considerablyfrom subject selection in Indo-European languages. For one, the voice system allowsfor a larger array of possible subjects which are identified by affixes encodingsemantic rather than grammatical properties of the subject. Secondly, the voicesystem is symmetrical in the sense that Actor voice is no more basic than Undergoervoice. Moreover, voice affixes are prone to inducing a difference in the interpretationof verbs, resulting in certain voice forms being less acceptable or preferred thanothers. The aim of this chapter is to gain a better understanding of what contributionis made by the choice of voice. Previous theories relate the semantic function of thevoice affixes to specificity (Maclachlan 2000; Rackowski 2002; Aldridge 2004) ortransitivity (Starosta 2002; Nolasco 2005; Saclot 2006). After a brief overview of theTagalog voice system and the relevant terminology in section 14.2, section 14.3briefly reviews the mentioned approaches as well as some problems they face.Section 14.4 lays out a theory in which the notion of event structural prominenceand the role of the Actor and the Undergoer in the event are central. Morespecifically, it will be shown that voice gaps, subject selection preferences, andmeaning shifts with certain verbs can be related to the factors that contribute tothe causal construal of the event, e.g. the intentionality of the Actor, the motivationalrole of the Undergoer in the coming about of an event, and the purpose of an action.

14.2 The nature of voice in Tagalog

Tagalog possesses a set of voice affixes that indicate the properties the subjectargument exhibits in the event. The sentences in (3) show the event denoting stemtawa ‘laugh’ with a number of different Actor voice (AV) affixes that express howthe Actor is involved in the event of laughing. In (3a) the voice affix /naka-/expresses that the Actor had the ability to laugh, while the affix /um-/ in (3b),which is associated with dynamicity, expresses that the Actor actually laughed. Theaffix /na-/ in (3c) signals that the Actor laughed despite himself (unintentionally),while the affix /nag-/ (3d) marks an Actor who laughed heartily. The subject ismarked by the particle ang, which, following Kroeger (1993), is glossed here as NOM(= nominative). The data show that degrees of dynamicity and intention play acentral role in Tagalog. Note that Tagalog does not have a tense system, but rather


14.2 The nature of voice in Tagalog 373

two morphological markers that provide information on the event in relation to thetime of reference: (a) the morphological marker /N-/ (/um-/-verbs lack this marker),glossed as realis, for an event viewed as +begun, and (b) morphological marking inthe form of CV-reduplication of the first syllable, glossed as impf, indicating that theevent is or was ongoing (Kroeger 1993). Consequently, the following Realis verbforms express that the event had/has begun, but was/is not ongoing. These forms areusually translated by simple past forms.

(3) a. Naka-tawa ang lalaki.av.realisability-laugh nom man‘The man was able to laugh.’

b. T<um>awa ang lalaki.Tstem<av.realis>dynamic1laugh nom man‘The man laughed.’

c. Na-tawa ang lalaki.av.realisstative-laugh nom man‘The man happened to laugh (despite himself).’

d. Nag-tawa ang lalaki.av.realisdynamic2-laugh nom man‘The man laughed heartily.’

In addition to the set of Actor voice affixes shown above, there is also a set of threenon-Actor affixes. They are traditionally described in terms of thematic roles, e.g. thesuffix /-in/ is said to single out the Theme–Patient argument (= directly affectedargument), /-an/ the Recipient–Location–Goal arguments, and /i-/ the Beneficiary/Instrument as well as certain Theme arguments, as shown in Table 14.1. There is noconsensus with respect to the number and labels of thematic roles in Austronesianlinguistics (cf. Drossard 1984 for an overview). For the purpose of this chapter andfor the sake of simplicity, I will use the cover term Undergoer voice (UV) affixes forall non-Actor voices, following Himmelmann (1987).2

Note that Tagalog exhibits two non-subject case markers in addition to nomina-tive ang: genitive ng for core arguments of the verb (i.e. arguments the verbrequires due to its meaning and transitivity), and dative sa for oblique argumentsas well as for non-Actor core arguments expressed by pronouns. Given the specialstatus of animate entities in this language, it is not surprising to find a separateset of case markers for personal names. Pronouns also come in three different caseforms, as exemplified in the third line of Table 14.2 for the 3rd person singularpronoun.

2 Description of the Tagalog voice system in terms of thematic roles is problematic, and shouldprobably be replaced by the concept of event-structural roles (cf. Latrouite and Naumann 1999; 2001).


374 14. Event-structural prominence

As has been pointed out by Foley (1998) and Himmelmann (2005), Tagalog is asymmetrical voice language, i.e. no voice form is morphologically more basic thananother and no voice form can be viewed as derived from another voice form. Anoften-cited example of a verb stem taking all of the voice affixes above, and thusallowing for Actor, Theme, Locative, and Beneficiary subjects marked by the nom-inative marker ang, is shown in (4). An item enclosed within square brackets in thetranslations below indicates that this is a possible but less preferred reading for thesentence without further context. Note that genitive-marked Undergoers are pre-ferably understood as non-specific in Actor voice sentences, but not in Locative orBeneficiary voice sentences. The role of specificity has been often evoked as crucial,and will be reviewed in the next section.

(4) Active verb with different voice affixesa. H<um>iram ka ng libro sa aklatan para sa anak mo.

Hstem<av>borrow 2s.nom gen book dat library for dat child 2s.gen‘You borrow a book in [a/]the library for the child!’ ACTOR: um-

b. Hiram-in mo ang libro sa aklatan para sa anak mo.borrow-uv:in 2s.gen nom book dat library for dat child 2s.gen‘You borrow the book in [a/]the library for your child!’ THEME:-in

c. Hiram-an mo ng libro ang aklatan para sa anak mo.borrow-uv:an 2s.gen gen book nom library for dat child gen

‘You borrow a/[the] book in the library for the child!’ LOCATIVE: -an

d. I-hiram mo ng libro sa aklatan ang anak mo.uv:i–borrow 2s.gen gen book dat library nom child 2s.gen‘You borrow a/the book in [a/]the library for your child!’ BENEFICIARY: i-

Table 14.1 Voice affixes

Voice affix selects as subject

um-; mag – (Realis: nag-) Actor-in (Realis: in-) Theme–Patient-an (Realis: in-verb-an) Locative: Recipient–Location–Goali-(Realis: i-ni-verb) Circumstantial: Beneficiary–Instrument–Theme

Table 14.2 Case markers

nominate genitive dative

Common nouns ang ng saPersonal names si ni kayPronoun 3sg siya niya sa kaniya


14.2 The nature of voice in Tagalog 375

Extensive work has shown that the Undergoer voice forms cannot be analyzed aspassives (cf. e.g. Foley 1976; Foley and Van Valin 1977; Pawley and Reid 1979;Drossard 1984; Himmelmann 1991). For one, the Actor argument does not getdemoted to oblique in Undergoer voice sentences. Quite the contrary: it retainscertain subject properties. Sentences like (5) show that in Undergoer voice sentences,the ng-marked Actor, and not the ang-marked Undergoer, is interpreted as corefer-ential with the subject of the second conjunct. Note that the 3rd person singularpronoun is gender-neutral in Tagalog and would in theory allow for both inter-pretations.3

(5) B<in>ugbog4 ng lalaki ang babae at um-alisBstem<UV.realis>beat.up GEN man NOM woman and AV.realis-leavesiya.3s.Nom‘The man beat up the woman and he left.’(NOT: ‘The womanwas beaten up by theman and she left.’) (Drossard 1984: 61)

At least since Schachter (1976) it has been well known that the syntactic proper-ties associated with the subject in most Indo-European languages are dividedbetween the Actor argument and the ang-marked argument in Tagalog, i.e. role-related subject properties are associated with the Actor and reference-related subjectproperties are associated with the ang-marked argument (cf. Foley and Van Valin1984). I follow Kroeger (1993) in this chapter and call the ang-marked argument thesubject, as it exhibits important subject properties like the ability to launch floatingquantifiers and the ascension of possessors, as well as the ability to control secondarypredicates and to license relativization as the only argument in the sentence.5,6

Examples like those in (4) evoke the misleading impression that voice choice israther free and that the meaning difference between Actor and Undergoer voiceforms boils down to a difference in specificity with respect to the Theme argument.In the next section we look at subject selection restrictions and greater meaningshifts, and discuss previous approaches that have analyzed the function of the voiceaffixes in terms of specificity and transitivity.

3 Drossard (1984: 75ff.) points out that this interpretation is due to the combination of two activepredicates. If a stative and an active predicate are combined, the reference of the pronoun is ambiguous.

4 The Realis form of Undergoer voice forms is marked by the infix /-in-/ with verbs beginning inconsonants and the prefix /ni-/ with verbs beginning in vowels. Patient/Theme voice forms lack the suffix/–in/ in Realis. The Actor voice forms /nag-/ and /naka-/ and is analyzed as a fusion of /mag-/ and /-in-/,respectively /maka-/ and /-in-/ (cf. Pawley and Reid 1979).

5 See Schachter (1976) for a discussion of Kroeger’s work and the analysis of sentences lackingnominative arguments.

6 In Philippine languages, the ang-marked argument is often called the topic—however, not in thesense of discourse topic or old information, as it may very well be the focus of the sentence (cf. Schachterand Otanes 1972). Rather, it is used in the sense of “clause-internal topic” and “what the event denoted bythe verb phrase is about,” showing that its status is not first and foremost pragmatic, but grammatical.



14.3 Previous approaches to Tagalog voice marking

14.3.1 Subject choice, specificity, and intentionality

Already Bloomfield (1917: 155) had stated that in Actor voice sentences the Under-goer argument was generally either lacking or “underdetermined,” while in Under-goer voice sentences it was definite. Naylor (1986) put this observation into the rulethat a definite Patient/Theme would win over a definite Actor with respect to subjectchoice. More recent works (Maclachlan 2000; Rackowski 2002; Aldridge 2004)phrase this observation more carefully in terms of specificity instead of definiteness.7

Specificity is usually understood to mean something like “presupposed by thespeaker.” Rackowski takes the specificity of the nominative argument as the motiva-tion to state that specificity is a central factor in voice choice, in the sense that onlynon-specific Patients may stay in VP, while specific Patients need to move out of VPto a position where they trigger voice marking. This results in the picture thatspecific Actors outrank non-specific Patients/Themes for nominative marking,while specific Patients/Themes are believed to generally outrank specific Actorsand “enforce” Undergoer voice. Grammaticality judgments with respect to well-known examples like the one in (6) seem to provide further evidence for the key roleof specificity in Tagalog. In contrast to the Undergoer voice sentence in (6b), theActor voice sentence in (6a) is considered unacceptable by native speakers. Recallthat non-subject Undergoers expressed by personal names and pronouns are alwaysmarked by the dative marker.

(6) takot ‘fear’/ takót ‘afraid’, t-um-akot/takut-in: to frighten(Schachter and Otanes 1972)

a. *T<um>akot siya kay Jose.Tstem <av.realis>afraid 3s.nom dat JoseIntended: ‘He frightened Jose.’

b. T-in-akot niya si Jose.Tstem<uv.realis>afraid 3s.gen nom Jose‘He frightened Jose.’

Interestingly, for a limited number of verbs, the Actor voice form is found to beunacceptable, even if the Undergoer is non-specific and the Actor specific as in (7a),while the Undergoer voice form in (7b) is acceptable, as would be expected. Themarker # indicates that speakers find the sentence awkward.

(7) patáy ‘dead’, p.um.atay/patay.in: to kill (Saclot 2006)a. #P<um>atay ang mga bata ng mga aso.

Pstem<av.realis>dead nom pl child gen pl dogIntended: ‘The children killed (the) dogs.’

7 Cf. Bell (1978) as well as Adams and Manaster-Ramer (1988) for data challenging the definitenessrequirement in Tagalog.


14.3 Tagalog voice marking 377

b. P< in>atay ng mga bata ang mga aso.Pstem<uv.realis>dead gen pl child nom pl dog‘The children killed the dogs.’

Saclot (2006) suggests that the unacceptability of (7a) results from semantic-pragmatic considerations: Undergoer voice forms, but not Actor voice forms, aresaid to denote intentional actions directed towards the Undergoer. If the Actor is notdepicted as intentionally killing the dogs, i.e. if Actor voice is chosen, the implicationis that it is an inherent property/inclination of the Actor to kill. The action is notdepicted as specifically directed at the referent of the Undergoer. The idea ofchildren randomly killing animals is felt to be odd and thus Actor voice gets rejected.Saclot therefore suggests that Actor voice forms imply voluntariness, while Under-goer voice forms imply intention.

When it comes to explaining the distribution of Actor voice vs. Undergoer voiceof verbs that denote emotional states and do not take intentional agents like the verbumibig/ibigin ‘to love’ in (9), or verbs that may take inanimate highest argumentslike sumalpok/salpukin ‘to hit’ in (8), the notions of voluntariness and intention lackexplanatory power. It should be noted that the specificity of the Undergoer in thesesentences does not “enforce” Undergoer voice. Actor voice may be freely choseneven if the Undergoer is specific, as the sentences in (8a) and (9a) show. While withthe verb ‘to hit’ in (8a) the speaker may choose between ng and sa, and thus overtlymark the difference between a non-specific Undergoer (ng) and a specific Undergoer(sa), the emotion verb umibig ‘to love’ only takes sa-marked Undergoers, like manyverbs that require animate Undergoers. Given that the sentence in (9a) is taken fromthe story Alamat ng saging, it can be shown, however, that in this particular case, theUndergoer lalaki ‘man’ is indeed specific, even definite, as he has been mentioned inthe preceding sentences. The Undergoer voice sentences, given in (8b) and (9b) forcomparison, are of course also possible, although according to Nolasco (2005), theUndergoer voice sentence in (8b) depicts a less natural scenario of the waves‘forcefully striking the boat.’

(8) a. S<um>alpok ang alon ng/sa bangka.Sstem<av.realis>strike nom wave gen/dat boat‘The wave struck a/the boat.’ (Schachter 1972: 70)

b. S< in>alpok ng alon ang bangka.Sstem<uv.realis>strike gen wave nom boat‘The wave struck the boat.’ (Schachter 1972: 70)

(9) Context: Noong unang panahon, isang magandang babae ang nakilala ng isangkakaibang lalaki. ( . . . ) Ipinagtapat naman ng engkanto na buhat siya sa lupainng mga pangarap, at hindi sila maaaring magkasama.



� ‘Once upon a time a beautiful woman met a strange/odd man. ( . . . ) Thespirit (=the man) declared frankly that he was from the region of dreams, andthat they could not become companions.’ (Source: Alamat ng saging (http://hawaii.edu/Filipino/Related))a. Gayunman, um-ibig ang babae sa lalaki.

however av.realis-love nom woman dat man‘However, the woman loved the man.’

b. In-ibig ng babae ang lalaki.uv.realis-love gen woman nom man‘The woman loved the man.’

These few sentences show already that the distribution and acceptability of Actorand Undergoer voice affixes cannot fully be explained by referring to the specificityof the Undergoer or the intentionality of the Actor argument (for more examples seeLatrouite 2012 and in press).

The differences in interpretation that Saclot describes in terms of volition vs.intention for the sentences in (7) are clearly restricted to verbs requiring animate,controlling Actors. The voluntariness reading of Actor voice forms is probably bestviewed as a prototypical and—in the Gricean sense of the word—implicated infer-ence for activity verbs with animate and controlling Actors, but not as uncancellablesemantic content associated with the Actor voice affix /um-/ (cf. Van Valin andWilkins 1996). Evidence for the status of this interpretation as an implicature comesfrom contrastive focus sentences. The choice of Actor voice in a contrastive focussentence with the verbs above is perfectly acceptable, as seen in (10), and does notimplicate that the Actor acts voluntarily, rather than unintentionally, and once againit does not implicate or require the Undergoer to be non-specific.

(10) a. Siya ang t<um>akot kay Jose.3s.nom nmz tstem<av.realis>afraid dat Jose‘It is he who frightened Jose.’

b. Ang mga bata ang p<um>atay ng/sa mga aso.nom pl child nmz pstem<av.realis>dead gen/dat pl dog‘It is the children who killed dogs/the dogs.’

Saclot’s analysis is not undermined by the observation that intentionality cannotserve as an explanation for all voice selection patterns. Following Nolasco (2005), sheviews intentionality as only one factor that may serve to render an argument moreprominent than the other. Nolasco (2005) assumes a framework in which intention-ality is one parameter of semantic transitivity—a notion that has been put forwardby several Philippinists as decisive for voice choice. The next section provides a briefoverview and discussion of the transitivity approach to voice.



14.3.2 Voice choice and transitivity

Transitivity as a key concept in the voice system of Tagalog is discussed in Starosta(2002), Ross (2002), Nolasco (2005), and Nolasco and Saclot (2005). The basic ideais that voice affixes differ with respect to transitivity marking: sentences with Actorvoice forms are said to be intransitive, while sentences with Undergoer voice formsare said to be transitive (for a different view, see Kroeger 1993 and Himmelmann1991). Transitivity is not to be understood as a morphosyntactic term (cf. Ross2002), but as a semantic notion in the sense of Hopper and Thompson (1980), i.e. itis understood to be about an activity “being carried over or transferred from anagent to a patient. Transitivity in this traditional view necessarily involves at leasttwo participants . . . and an action which is typically EFFECTIVE in some way”(Hopper and Thompson 1980: 251, emphasis original). Hopper and Thompsonidentify a list of parameters—“each of which suggests a scale according to whichclauses can be ranked” (p. 251)—that “involves a different facet of the effectivenessor intensity with which the action is transferred from one participant to another”(p. 252). Nolasco (2005), Nolasco and Saclot (2005) revises Hopper and Thompson’sparameters and the definition of transitivity to suit Philippine languages (cf. 2005a:222), for which he assumes only a weak grammaticalization of the subject–objectrelation. Inspired by Klaiman’s (1988) notions “source of action” and “most affectedentity,” he comes up with the following definition:

A transitive construction is one where the source of the action is viewed as distinct from themost affected entity (P). An intransitive construction is one where the source of the action isalso viewed as the most affected entity. (Nolasco 2005: 218)

Nolasco claims that the primary function of the voice affixes is “to cross-index themost affected entity in the clause” (Nolasco and Saclot 2005: 2; cf. Nolasco 2005: 236);i.e. Actor voice, signalling intransitivity, identifies the Actor (the sole argument of theverb) as themost affected one, while Undergoer voice, signalling transitivity, identifiesthe Undergoer as the most affected one. Nolasco does not define the notion ofaffectedness.8 However, given that he refers to Klaiman’s work, it is evident thathe holds the view that “performing an action” can also be a form of being affected.Latrouite (2011) provides a detailed discussion of all the parameters given byNolasco, and shows that some of them are of little to no importance to voice choice,e.g. kinesis and punctuality, or cancellable inferences, e.g. the amount of effort put inby the Actor. A third set of (interrelated) parameters comprising individuation,affectedness of the Patient, telicity, and directionality, on the other hand, are shownto play a more substantial role for a number of verbs. It seems to me that behindNolasco’s undefined notion of prominence as affectedness lurks an idea similar tomy notion of “event-structural prominence of participants,” which will be defined in

8 For a more restrictive view of affectedness applied to the three different Undergoer voice affixes, seeHimmelmann (1987).



section 14.4, i.e. the idea that voice affixes cross-index an argument with a higherlevel of prominence based on the nature of the event and its event-related properties.Therefore the next section briefly reviews and discusses those parameters that shedlight on the aspects that I consider relevant to the voice system and the topic of thischapter.

14.3.3 Individuation, affectedness of P, telicity, and directionality

Nolasco (2005a) is aware of Actor voice sentences with specific Undergoers andtherefore does not include specificity, but rather particularity (of the event) andindividuation (of the Undergoer), in his list of criteria for semantically transitivesentences. Both these parameters can be used in describing the difference between(11a), which according to Nolasco denotes a general leisure-time activity (a non-particular event), and (11b), which denotes “a conscious, deliberate and particularact undertaken to affect a book” (p. 230).

(11) a. Nag-basa siya ng libro.av.realis-read 3s.nom gen book‘He did book-reading.’ [Nolasco’s translation]9

b. B<in>asa niya ang libro.Bstem<uv.realis>read 3s.gen nom book‘He read the book.’ (Nolasco 2005: 230)

The sentences also differ with respect to the parameter of individuation of theUndergoer argument. The book is understood as an individuated object in theUndergoer voice sentence, but not in the Actor voice sentence. Nolasco notes thatindividuation is not to be understood as “specificity” or in the sense of “grammaticalindividuation” signalled by pronouns and personal names, but as “exclusivity of asemantic patient.” Saclot (2006) chooses an example with two personal names, givenin a slightly modified version in (12), to explicate the concept of individuation.

(12) /suntok/ ‘hit’ with two specific arguments (cf. Saclot 2006: 10)a. S<um>untok si Pedro kay Jose.

Sstem<av.realis>hit nom Pedro dat Jose‘Pedro hit Jose.’

b. S<in>untok ni Pedro si Jose.sstem<uv.realis>hit gen Pedro nom Jose‘Pedro hit Jose.’

It is suggested that the speaker chooses (the admittedly marked) Actor voice formin (12a) because Jose was not the only one who got hit and the activity was not

9 My consultants allow for more than one interpretation of this sentence; it may also be understood as‘he read a book’, so a sentence taking up ‘book’ as a discourse referent may follow.



specifically directed towards him. Thus, in contrast to (12b), Jose is not understoodas the exclusive receiver of the action in (12a), supposedly because the Actor hit forthe sake of hitting and not because he had Jose as a target in mind. However,different speakers offer different scenarios: my consultants suggest that Actor voicewas chosen because Pedro tried to hit Jose, but did not touch him (or really hit him).So in the first scenario given by Saclot, the Undergoer was understood as fullyphysically affected, but not viewed as delimiting the event because he was notthe only one involved, while in the second scenario the Undergoer was viewedas the only one involved, but not as prototypically affected by it. Individuation ofthe Undergoer is thus only one of two possible interpretations. What both inter-pretations given for (12a) have in common is the focus on the initial phase of theevent, i.e. the causing phase, which is characterized by the Actor’s intention ofstarting and pursuing the activity, while the subevent associated with the Undergoeris backgrounded, leaving room for different interpretations as to how (s)he may havebeen involved. This is in line with the idea that sentences are descriptions ofsituations, such that more than one situation can satisfy the description; see alsoCopley and Harley’s discussion (Ch. 6 above) of how more than one situation maybe construed for a single sentence.

Note that the Actor voice example of the verb ‘to love’, given in (9a), cannot beexplained based on the fact that the Undergoer is (i) one among many or (ii) notunderstood as prototypically affected. The latter is first and foremost true becausethe verb ‘to love’ does not determine any prototypical change of state with respect tothe Undergoer argument. It can also be argued that the punctual contact verb ‘hit’ isnot associated with a specific result that the event brings about with respect to theUndergoer either. We find that, in contrast to result-oriented verbs like “to frighten”and “to kill,” for which Actor voice forms are very much dispreferred and necessitatea special context (cf. Latrouite 2011), all dynamic contact verbs above, as well as ‘tobite’ in (13), allow for Actor and Undergoer voice forms in basic sentences. How-ever, the Actor voice form in (13c) is strongly dispreferred if the Undergoer ishuman, while the Actor is not human—a pattern that was found to hold true for allthe contact verbs looked at in Latrouite (2011).

(13) a. K<um>agat ang aso ng/sa buto.Kstem<av.realis>bite nom dog gen/dat bone‘The dog bit a/the bone.’

b. K<in>agat ng aso ang buto.Kstem<uv.realis>bite gen dog nom bone‘The dog bit the bone.’

c. #K<um>agat ang aso sa akin/ kay Lena.<av.realis>bite nom dog dat 1s.nonact/ dat Lena‘The dog bit me/Lena.’ (cf. Saclot 2006: 5)



As an intermediate summary, we can conclude that we need to distinguishdifferent classes of verbs: verbs that bring about changes in an Undergoer andthose that do not. The first class comprises stative verbs without an agent, like “tolove,” for which discourse-structural prominence of the arguments plays a role forsubject choice, as argued in Latrouite (2011); and verbs with an agent, but noextended event structure and no specific change brought about with respect to theUndergoer, like punctual contact verbs. Note that the Undergoer of the lattersubclass prototypically delimits the run-time and is associated with the end-pointof the event in contrast to the Undergoer of the first subclass. As mentioned before,for contact verbs, referential properties of the arguments like their respective posi-tion on the animacy hierarchy (with humans as agents par excellence being on top)plays a role. If the referent of the Actor and Undergoer argument is in both cases ahuman being, then—without further context—Undergoer voice is preferred. Actorvoice was argued to be only possible if a scenario can be construed in which theUndergoer does not delimit the event or is not construed as motivating the comingabout of the event, thereby putting the responsibility for the initiation and the run-time of the event solely on the Actor and rendering it more prominent. Speakerssuggested in these cases that they viewed the Actor as having an inherent predis-position towards the denoted kind of behavior. The data suggest that this construal isfaciliated if the Undergoer is inanimate.

The second class of verbs denotes events that bring about changes in theUndergoer.A subclass of these verbs requires an animate Actor and denotes a specific change ofstate in animate Undergoers, like the verbs “to kill” and “to frighten.” These result-oriented verbs strongly prefer Undergoer voice forms to the extent that Actor voiceforms are labeled “unacceptable” in basic sentences. Another subclass deserves men-tion, for which Nolasco’s notion of individuation turns out to be a very decisiveparameter, because the event-structural interpretation of the verb crucially hinges onthis factor. This is true for verbs taking incremental themes (13)10 (cf. Dowty 1991),i.e. Undergoer arguments that are used up or built up bit by bit as the event denotedby the verb progresses. The basic idea, formulated by Krifka (1992; 1998), is that forverbs taking incremental themes a one-to-one relationship between the run-time ofthe event and the parts of the incremental theme can be established. According toLyutikova and Tatevosov (Ch. 11 above), incremental verbs denote a “special type ofimmediate causation, whereby two eventualities are causally related down to theirproper parts and temporally co-extensive . . . any part of the causing eventuality hasto bring about some temporally co-extensive part of the caused eventuality and . . .any part of the caused eventuality is to be brought about by some temporallyco-extensive part of the causing eventuality.” An individuated Undergoer is thus

10 Nolasco analyzes examples like these in terms of the parameter “less affected patient” vs. “fullyaffected patient.”



understood as measuring out the event (cf. Tenny 1987; 1994) and changes anactivity verb into an accomplishment verb, as exemplified in (14) and (15).

(14) Activity readings with Actor voicea. S<um>ulat si Pedro ng liham.

Sstem<av.realis>write nom Pedro gen letter‘Pedro wrote a letter/part of a letter/letters.’

b. L<um>angoy ka sa ilog.Lstem<av>swim 2s.nom dat river‘Swim in the river.’

c. K<um>ain ako ng isda.Kstem<av.realis>eat 1s.nom gen fish‘I ate (a) fish/fishes.’

d. Um-akyat ako ng/sa bulog.av.realis-go_up 1s.nom gen/dat mountain‘I climbed on a/the mountain.’

(15) Accomplishment readings with Undergoer voicea. S<in>ulat ni Pedro ang liham.

Sstem<uv.realis>write gen Pedro nom letter‘Pedro wrote the letter/the letters.’

b. L<in>angoy mo ang ilog.Lstem<uv.realis>swim 2s.gen nom river‘You swam (across) the river (= from one side to the opposite side).’

c. K<in>ain ko ang isda.Kstem<uv.realis>eat 1s.gen nom fish‘I ate the fish/the fishes.’

d. In-akyat ko ang bulog.uv.realis-go_up 1s.gen nom mountain‘I climbed the mountain (= all the way up to the top of the mountain).’

As Dell (1987) points out, the completion reading is best viewed as a defaultreading (see also Chs 2 and 6 above). Still, Undergoer verbs never receive a simpleactivity reading. Rather, they express that the Actor intended to bring about anaccomplishment, if completion is contradicted. However, Actor voice sentences, aspointed out by my consultants, can be interpreted as accomplishments if they occurin a contrastive focus sentence, even if the Undergoer is not explicitly marked asspecific by the dative marker sa, as shown in (16). This suggests that AV verbs, incontrast to UV verbs, are not specified for the (intended) result brought about withrespect to the Undergoer, i.e the Actor voice form is the less specific form regardingthe relation of Actor and Undergoer.



(16) Siya ang k-um-ain ng/sa isda.3s.nom nmz kstem<av.realis>eat gen/dat fish‘He is the one who ate fish/the fish.’

As mentioned above, more than one scenario may be construed for a singlesentence. In the case of Tagalog, this seems to be true, with the restriction thatthere are always prototypical construals, and that less specific forms that would intheory allow for a larger array of readings are usually taken to be restricted to thereadings the more specific form does not cover, unless this less specific form ischosen for different reasons, as is the case in (16), where Actor voice is obligatory.

The examples in this section show that the significance of Nolasco’s parameters tovoice selection depends to a large degree on the meaning and the event structureassociated with a verb, as well as on the centrality of the arguments for the event.Meaning components of the verb determine, in ways to be discussed in section 14.4,which participant will preferably be chosen as subject. Subject choice deviating fromthe default choice results in meaning shifts, as exemplified above and in the next setof data, which Nolasco reviews under the section of “directionality.” “Directionality”is Nolasco’s cover term for actions that are directed away from the Actor towards anexternal target, and those that are “inherently internal” (2005a: 230), i.e. directedtowards the Actor. The example in (17a) illustrates that the Actor voice formnagpaluto “to make someone cook” denotes a reflexive action, in the sense thatthe caused action is understood as benefiting the Actor. This reading is said not toarise with the more common Undergoer voice form pinaluto in (17b).

(17) a. Nag-pa-luto ako ng adobo sa nanay ko.av.realis-caus-cook 1s.nom gen adobo dat mother 1s.gen‘I asked my mother to cook adobo (for me).”

b. P<in>a-luto ko ng adobo ang nanay ko.caus<uv.realis>-cook 1s.gen gen adobo nom mother 1s.gen‘I asked/let my mother (to) cook adobo.’ (Nolasco 2005: 230)

In a causative construction, it is obviously the Causee that is intentionallyenvisaged by the Actor and central to the event in the sense that (s)he is instigatedto move from non-action to action which she (the causee) controls. Anyone whoreads a text in Tagalog will find that causative sentences with Undergoer (Causee)voice forms like (17b) are more frequent than causative sentences with Actor voiceforms. As pointed out by Nolasco, if Actor voice is chosen in a causative construc-tion, we get a marked interpretation, namely that the Actor is more than just theinitiator: (s)he is at the same time the Benificiary or Goal of the caused action and itsresult, i.e the Actor is understood to play a significant role in the causing event andin the caused event. One of my consultants pointed out that the argument ‘mother’does not have to be construed as the Causee in the Actor voice sentence, but may be



the person who was asked by the Causer to get the adobo cooked for the Actor,showing once more that the Actor–Undergoer relationship is open to more than oneconstrual in Actor voice.

Nolasco’s parameters have in common that they measure the centrality of theparticipant for the event, or the event-structural prominence of arguments. Thediversity of the parameters can be explained based on the fact that verb classes differin what meaning components are central to their predicational core. The notion ofevent-structural prominence alluded to in this section has been associated with anumber of different factors. On the one hand, it has been characterized as promin-ence in terms of centrality to the predication, e.g. Undergoers are more prominentthan Actors for result-oriented verbs like “kill” and “frighten,” while Actors are moreprominent for manner of action verbs than Undergoers. On the other hand, whiledescribing voice choice diverging from predicate-inherent orientation, it was alsoassociated with event-related properties of arguments, such as intention, reason/motivation (for the activity), and the property of measuring out/delimitating theevent, all of which are connected with how events are causally construed. Thefollowing two sections serve to clarify the concept of voice marking as prominencemarking and the importance of event-structural prominence in the overall systemand in the occurrence of meaning shifts.

14.3.4 Nominative marking and voice choice as prominence marking

The idea behind the development of the Austronesian voice system is that it startedout as a pragmatic system (cf. e.g. Foley and Van Valin 1984) and got grammaticizedin such a way that most speakers nowadays feel that only a certain set of voice affixesis acceptable (and easily interpretable) with particular verbs, out of which a few aremore natural than others with a given stem. The discourse topic has turned into aclause topic, i.e. a subject of a certain kind that has inherited the property of“specificity,” a characteristic of a topic-worthy participant. Given this background,Latrouite (2011) argues that the voice system marks prominence, which is evaluatedon different levels: on the discourse-structural level, the information-structural level,the event-structural level, and the referent level (comprising specificity as well asanimacy). The last three, more local, levels of prominence are central to thepredication and interact to a certain degree. As we have already seen, for verbslike “to love” or “to greet” the specificity of the Undergoer argument is not event-structurally important. However, for verbs denoting incremental events, specificity isevent-structurally important, turning the interpretation of the verb from denotingan activity (“eat cake”) to denoting an accomplishment (“eat a (certain)/the cake”).Obviously, specificity does not only interact with the event-structural level, but alsowith the discourse- and the information-structural level, but this goes beyond thescope of this chapter (cf. Latrouite 2011 for discussion). Suffice it to say that giventhis approach one would expect that for verbs which are not associated with an



elaborate event structure, levels other than the event-structural level play an import-ant role for voice selection, while for verbs with a more elaborate event structure,which are the focus of this chapter, event-structural prominence is expected to play amajor role. The data discussed in Latrouite (2009 and 2011) suggest that there maybe a ranking between the three levels of local salience, in the sense that information-structural prominence outranks event-structural prominence, which in turn rankshigher than referential prominence (ISP�ESP�RP) for nominative marking, butthis point will not be pursued here.

In order to evaluate the event-structural prominence of an argument, we need totake a look at the meaning components associated with the respective verbs. A verblike “to kill” denotes a non-specific activity and a specific result. As the more specificinformation is associated with the Undergoer (and as the event manifests itself withrespect to the Undergoer), it is the Undergoer that is most relevant for the predica-tion and thus, by default, the more prominent of the arguments in this respect.Hence, whether a verb is inherently Undergoer- or Actor-oriented can be deducedfrom its lexical meaning as a first step. In accordance with Rappaport Hovav andLevin’s (2010) idea of manner–result complementarity, most verbs either specify theActor-related manner component or the Undergoer-related result component of anevent. In frameworks like RRG (Role and Reference Grammar, Van Valin andLaPolla 1997) and LDG (Lexical Decomposition Grammar, Wunderlich 1997), thisfact is reflected in the decompositional representations of verb meaning. The result-oriented verb “to kill,” for example, is usually decomposed into a generic activitypredicate (e.g. ACT or “do”) and a general change of state predicate (e.g. BECOME)which takes the specific result predicate DEAD, resulting in (ACT (x) and BECOME(DEAD (y))) (s) in LDG. The activity verb “to climb,” on the other hand, is usuallydecomposed into a specific activity predicate, (e.g. MOVE-UPWARD) and thegeneral change of state predicate (BECOME) taking a general result predicate(LOCATION), resulting in (MOVE_UPWARD (x) and BECOME (LOCATION(x, at y))) (s). Note that the causation relation between the activity and the changeof state is not explicitly stated in LDG decompositions because it can be deducedbased on the well-formedness condition Coherence, which the semantic represen-tation of lexical verbs has to adhere to (cf. Kaufmann and Wunderlich 1998).Coherence states that subevents encoded by the predicates of a decomposedsemantic structure must be contemporaneously or causally related. The latter isautomatically true if an activity and a change of state predicate are joined. The basicidea here is that the inherently more prominent argument is the argument of thespecific predicate, not the non-specific one.

As we have seen in the previous sections, the inherent orientation, e.g. the Actororientation of manner verbs like “to swim” or “to read,” may be overridden. Under-goer voice shifts the focus to the subevent associated with the Undergoer, i.e. the



end-point, and to its role as delimiter of the run-time of the event. Summing upthese observations, a verb has an event-structurally prominent argument if:

(i) when decomposing the predicate into meaning components, the specificmeaning component only provides information on one argument;

(ii) one of the arguments is crucial for the event, because it delimits the run-time.

If both points come together as in the verb “to kill,” i.e. if the meaning of thepredicate centers on the Undergoer and the Undergoer delimits the event (and isalso prominent at the referential level, given that it has to be animate), we get a verbfor which Actor voice forms are only found in the focus construction. If a verb takesan Undergoer that is not more prominent than the Actor with respect to the firstpoint, but only with respect to the second, as in the case of contact verbs like “to hit,”then we expect it to exhibit a preference for Undergoer voice, while still allowingActor voice forms.

Note that Tenny (1992: 9) defines a delimited event as an event that the languageencodes as having an end-point. In terms of the Tagalog voice system, we need aslightly different concept of “delimitation of an event,” if we want to use this notionto also capture Actors in Actor voice forms. An Actor may be viewed as delimitingan event, if the run-time of the event is construed as strictly dependent on the Actor,whereby the notion “run-time” comprises the start, the developing phase and theend-point of the event. I suggest that inherent event-structural prominence, ascharacterized in (i), may be overwritten if the second level of event-structuralprominence, as characterized in (ii), is possible and plausible for a given verb. Isuggest the following definition of (secondary) event-structural prominence toexplain voice selection and meaning shifts induced by voice affixes:

An argument (a core argument) is event-structurally prominent if the run-time ofthe event expressed by the verb is viewed as strictly related to this argument.

By “strictly (temporally) related” I mean that the referent of the prominentargument is viewed as a crucial participant right from the beginning until thetemporal end of the event. With verbs denoting controlled activities as thosediscussed above, the involvement in the occurrence of the event implies that theprominent argument is seen as the driving force for the beginning and the end, if it isan animate Actor, or, in the case of a non-acting Undergoer argument, as the reasonfor the event occurring. The only way an Undergoer can be perceived as having beeninvolved in the controlled activity of an Actor from beginning to end is if (s)he isperceived as somehow causal or motivational for the beginning and the end of theevent. Hence, in my terminology, it may be either the Undergoer argument, or theActor argument as a controlling, intentional being, that may delimit the run-time ofthe event. Note that the properties in question, which enable a speaker to view anargument as event-structurally prominent in the above sense, are those relevant to



the causal construal of an event. As argued by Kistler (Ch. 4 above), not only eventsbut also facts can be causes. In the case of Tagalog, it is facts about the participantsthat are evoked by speakers as being at the heart of the reason why the event cameabout and how it developed. We will see clear examples of this in section 14.4.

Turning back to Saclot’s “hit” example, we see how the notion of event-structuralprominence accounts for the changes in meaning that have been described. For theUndergoer voice form of “to hit,” event-structural prominence of the Undergoermeans that Jose was viewed as involved in the event from beginning to end. Theinvolvement in the beginning is easily reinterpreted as Pedro’s being focused on Joseright from the beginning. Thus, the reading that Pedro acted deliberately andintentionally with respect to Jose arises. Furthermore, Jose is construed as the onlyone who was hit, as the run-time of the event is viewed as directly related to him.However, if, by choosing Actor voice, the speaker expresses that the start and the endof the event are strictly related to the Actor and not to the Undergoer, then theinterpretation is possible that the Undergoer is seen neither as the reason for theevent starting nor as a relevant factor for the event continuing or ending. In otherwords the Undergoer’s involvement in the event is viewed as neither strictly relatedto the beginning nor to the end, nor to any other point of the event, and he may beconstrued as one out of many Undergoers involved in the event. Note, however, thathe could just as well be the only one involved, albeit in such a way that he is notviewed as delimiting the event (e.g. because he did not get touched).

While “hit” denotes a simple punctual activity with a “normal” non-decomposa-ble Undergoer, the examples in (14) and (15) have shown that with an activity verbthat may take an incremental Undergoer argument—i.e. an Undergoer who, byvirtue of being decomposable into definable parts, measures out the event—Under-goer voice will result in a switch from activity reading to an active accomplishmentreading11 of the respective verb.

A third example of a meaning shift was exemplified in (17) for the indirectcausative verb ‘to make cook’. The highest Actor argument, the Causer, is theargument of the non-specific predicate (CAUSE), while the Causee argument isthe argument of the specific manner of action predicate (COOK); hence the complexpredicate is inherently Causee-oriented. As we have seen, once Actor voice instead ofCausee voice is chosen, the Causer-Actor is construed as a crucial participant in thecaused subevent, in the sense that (s)he is understood as the Beneficiary–Goal of theaction, and as such, causer of and motivation for the caused subevent. This inter-pretation is explainable if event-structural prominence is understood as above, i.e. inthe sense that the Actor is viewed as prominent for the run-time of the entire eventand not only the instigation process.

11 The notion active accomplishment was coined by Van Valin and La Polla (1997) for the telic use ofactivity verbs.



The notion of event-structural prominence is related to the idea of “perspective”and “orientation” (Himmelmann 1987) that we often find in Philippine linguistics.The notions “perspective” and “event-structural prominence” are related in that theevent-structural prominence of an argument implies that the event is depicted asmanifesting itself primarily with respect to this argument, i.e. the involvement ofthe participant denoted by the prominent argument is the determining factor for themost important event properties. The notion of orientation captures the importantintuition that the speaker’s perspective on the event and on the participants in itplays a key role. However, once a pragmatic category like perspective is grammati-cized in a language, it is natural that there are a number of non-pragmatic factorsthat constrain the system of voice selection and the acceptability of voice forms.

To sum up: for many verbs, one argument is inherently more prominent and maybe a more natural delimiter than the other, leading to a preference for the respectivevoice form. Choosing the alternative voice form may then lead to non-prototypicalreadings of verbs, resulting from the fact that the speakers need to think of naturalscenarios, in which the formerly non-prominent argument can be construed ascentral to the event. It has been argued that this is achieved by focusing on propertiesof the arguments that are relevant to the coming about, continuing, and ending ofthe event. All the above means that the affixes operate within the meaning spaceopened up by the verb. Thus, events can only be oriented toward a limited set ofparticipants central to the event, even if the set tends to be a bit bigger than the set ofarguments available for the grammatical relation “subject” in Indo-European lan-guages. In the following we will see how the notion of event-structural prominenceabove captures less straightforward meaning shifts than those discussed up to now.

14.4 Shifts in the interpretation of Actor-oriented verbs dueto Undergoer voice

Shifts in meaning induced by Actor voice versus Undergoer voice vary from verb toverb. This is one of the reasons why shifts in Tagalog verb meaning have frequentlybeen labeled “idiosyncratic.” In (18), Undergoer voice licenses a number of Under-goer arguments that may motivate and delimit the moving event: e.g. a person or agroup of people the Actor intends to meet (18b), an object the Actor intends to get(18c), or a certain distance the Actor intends to run (18d).

(18) a. T-um-akbo si Pedro sa mesa.tstem<av.realis>run nom Pedro dat table‘Pedro ran to the table.”

b. Takbu-hin mo ang polis!realis.run-uv 2s.gen nom police‘Run to (talk to) the police!’



c. Takbu-hin mo ang marathon!run-uv 2s.gen nom marathon‘Run the marathon!’ (cf. http://www.scribd.com/doc/6784539/salita)

In all these cases, the Undergoer does not only delimit the event, but is also thepurpose or the motivation behind the event. This aspect is very important forthe examples in (19) and (20). As pointed out by Saclot (2006), the acceptabilityof the Undergoer voice form in (19) requires a specific setting, e.g. a restaurantsetting that establishes a pre-determined relationship between the Actor and theUndergoer. While in (19a) the returning to the table is about the Actor and hermotivation to return, (19b) implies that it is properties of the table that made theActor return to it: “a sense of purpose to accomplish what is on the table” is implied(Saclot 2006: 8), or in other words, the table is viewed as playing the key role for theoccurrence of the event. Without such a context, Undergoer voice forms get rejected,as the example in (19c) shows. In order to express the sentence in (19c), Actor voicewould have to be chosen.

(19) a. ( . . . ) b<um>alik siya sa mesa/ sa pader.bstem<av.realis>return 3s.nom dat table/ dat wall‘She returned to the table / the wall’

b. B<in>alik-an ng weyter ang mesa.bstem<realis>return-lv gen waiter nom table‘The waiter returned to the table (to do something to the table).’

(cf. Saclot 2006: 8)

c. #B<in>alik-an niya ang pader.bstem<realis>return-lv 3s.gen nom wall‘He returned to the wall.’

For the verb lumabas/labasin ‘to go out’ (20), Undergoer voice seems to result in achange of direction. While in the Actor voice sentence, the Undergoer argument isthe place or person that is left, in Undergoer voice it is the destination of themovement.

(20) a. L<um>abas si Pedro sa bahay/ sa kapit-bahay.lstem<av.realis>go.out nom Pedro gen house/ dat neighbor(’s house)‘Pedro left a house/the neighbor (’s house).’


14.4 Shifts in interpretation 391

b. Ni-labas-an12 ni Pedro ang kapit-bahay.<realis>-go.out-lv gen Pedro nom neighbor(’s house)‘Pedro went out to (meet) his neighbor (e.g. he went out to fight with hisneighbor).’ (Reyal Panotes, pers. comm.)

Once again, this can be explained if we recall that event-structural prominencemeans that the beginning and the run-time of the event expressed by the verb areviewed as strictly related to the prominent argument. Given that Undergoer voiceimplies that the Undergoer is crucially involved in the occurrence of the event,without further context the sentence (20) receives the reading that the Undergoerkapitbahay (which may mean both ‘neighbor’ and ‘neighbor’s house’) is the reasonwhy the Actor decided to go out: once again, the neighbor is not only the reason, butthe purpose and the goal. Note that with a non-animate object the interpretation ofthe Undergoer voice form of labas is “go out to get something” (English 1977: 731),nicely rendering the meaning that it is the Undergoer that is decisive for thebeginning and the run-time of the event. Although kapitbahay could be construedas the location ‘the neighbor’s house’ in (20), this interpretation would be weird, as alocation cannot straightforwardly be interpreted as motivating someone to moveout, unless there is a context that renders this reading plausible.

Another meaning shift that has often been labeled “idiosyncratic” is shown in (21).

(21) a. P<um>asok ka ng/sa bahay!pstem<av>go.into 2s.nom gen/dat house“Enter/Go into a/the house!’

b. Pasuk-in mo ang bahay!go.into-uv 2s.gen nom house‘Break into the house! (= Go into the house to steal!)’

(Reyal Panotes, pers. comm.)

Given the characterization of event prominence above, the resulting meaning isnot all that unexpected. The Undergoer voice form of pasok ‘go into’ implies that theUndergoer plays the crucial role for the beginning of the event, i.e. the place theActor goes into directly motivates his going there, e.g. because the Actor needs toaccomplish something in this location. In the context of Philippine culture, “goinginto a building to accomplish something” got lexicalized into “going into a buildingwith the purpose of robbing it,” rendered by the English translation “to break into.”Although the English translation suggests otherwise, the process of entering thehouse does not have to be an act of violence directly affecting the surface ofthe house, according to my informants. What counts is that some properties aboutthe house (the content or imagined content) are the reason for the entering event tooccur. The house is at once the motivation for and goal of the action.

12 Speakers differ as to whether or not they need the suffix /-an/ to get this reading.



The same is true for the verb dumating ‘to arrive’, which surprisingly may alsotake Undergoer voice forms, datnin “to attain something” and datnan “to comeupon/to catch someone in the act” (cf. English 1987: 421).

(22) a. D<um>ating si Pedro sa kapit-bahay/sa Manila.dstem<av.realis>arrive nom Pedro dat neighbor(’s house)/dat Manila‘Pedro arrived at the neighbor’s house/in Manila.’

b. D<in>atn-an ni Pedro ang kapit-bahay/#ang Manila.dstem<realis>go.out(-lv) gen Pedro nom neighbor’s house/nom M.‘Pedro caught his neighbor (in the process of doing something bad)/#Manila.’ (Reyal Panotes, pers. comm.)

Upon a closer look at the motion verbs bumalik/balikan “to return” and tumakbo/takbuhin “to run,” it becomes clear that the lexicalized meanings of pasukin, labasin,and datnin/datnan follow a similar pattern and are not that unexpected (“idiosyn-cratic”) at all. All Undergoer voice forms of motion verbs identify the Undergoer notonly as a simple location but as the entity motivating the beginning of the movementon the part of the Actor and the time-span of the event per se, because somethinghas to be accomplished with respect to the “location.” As the examples in (23c) and(24c), mere locations, even if they delimit the event, are not acceptable as prominentUndergoers.

(23) a. G<um>apang ang bata sa sahig.Gstem<av.realis>crawl nom child dat floor‘The child crawled over the floor.’

b. G<in>apang ng bata ang doll.Gstem<uv.realis>crawl gen child nom doll‘The child crawled to (get) the doll.’

c. #G<in>apang ng bata ang pader.Gstem<uv.realis>crawl gen child nom wallIntended: ‘The child crawled to the wall.’

(24) a. L<um>akad si Pedro sa akin-g roses.lstem<av.realis>walk nom Pedro dat my-lk roses‘Pedro walked on/over my roses.’

b. Ni-lakar-an/Ni-lakad ni Pedro ang aking roses.<realis>walk-lv gen Pedro nom my-lk roses‘Pedro walked on/over my roses (to destroy them).’

c. Ni-lakar-an/Ni-lakad ni Pedro ang mabatong kalye.<realis>walk-lv gen Pedro nom stone-lk street‘Pedro walked on a stony street.’

(Reyal Panotes, pers. comm.; cf. Himmelmann 1987)


14.4 Shifts in interpretation 393

As the example in (24) shows, the same observation holds for verbs that do notdenote movements. As English (1986) notes in his dictionary, the active perceptionverb ‘to watch out of the window’ (25a) turns into a quasi-causative verb in Under-goer voice (25b), with the Undergoer construed as the motivation for the Actor to‘watch out of the window’.

(25) a. D<um>ungaw si Pedro.dstem<av.realis>watch_out_of_the_window nom Pedro‘Pedro watched out of the window.’

b. D<in>ungaw ni Pedro si Mia.Dstem<uv.realis>watch_out_of_the_window gen Pedro nom Mia‘Pedro showed himself to Mia at the window.’

14.5 Summary

Voice in Philippine languages like Tagalog is often described in terms of thematicroles and relative specificity of arguments. In this chapter I have reviewed a set ofdata in which the relative specificity associated with the different thematic rolesplayed a minor role (or no role at all) for the acceptability of voice forms. I havesuggested that a closer look at verb semantics and event structure can be helpfulin explaining the acceptability and preference of certain voice forms. Furthermore,I have discussed data showing that voice selection may lead to interesting shifts inthe interpretation of verbs, closely related to the causal construal of events. Theseshifts have been viewed as idiosyncratic, but are in fact systematic, if the concept ofevent-structural prominence and the way it is defined here is adopted. Event-structural prominence has been argued to be only one out of a number of competinglevels of prominence—one global and three more local levels of prominence—but itis clearly the prominent one when it comes to shifts in verb meaning.



References

Abusch, Dorit (1985). On verbs and time. Ph.D thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Ackerman, Farrell, and Goldberg, Adele (1996). Constraints on adjectival past participles. InAdele Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI,17–30.

Adams, Fred, and Steadman, Annie (2004). Intentional action in ordinary language: coreconcept or pragmatic understanding? Analysis 64: 173–81.

Adams, Karen, and Manaster-Ramer, Alexis (1988). Some questions of topic/focus choice inTagalog. Oceanic Linguistics 27: 79–101.

Ahmed, Tafseer (2007). Unaccusativity and underspecification in Hindi/Urdu. Talk givenat Conference on Theoretical and Computational Perspectives on Underspecification,Stuttgart.

Ahn, Woo-kyoung, and Kalish, Charles (2000). The role of mechanism beliefs in causalreasoning. In Frank Keil and Robert Wilson (eds), Explanation and Cognition. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 199–225.

Aissen, Judith (1974). The syntax of causative constructions. Ph.D thesis, Harvard University.Aldridge, Edith (2004). Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages. Ph.D thesis,Cornell University.

Alexiadou, Artemis (2010). On the morpho-syntax of (anti-)causative verbs. In Malka Rappa-port Hovav, Edit Doron, and Ivy Sichel (eds), Syntax, Lexical Semantics and Event Struc-ture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 177–203.

Alexiadou, Artemis (2014). The problem with internally caused change-of-state verbs, Lin-guistics 52. 4: 879–909.

Alexiadou, Artemis, and Anagnostopoulou, Elena (2004). Voice morphology in the causative–inchoative alternation: evidence for a non unified structural analysis of unaccusatives. InArtemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Martin Everaert (eds), The UnaccusativityPuzzle. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 114–36.

Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena, and Schäfer, Florian (2006). The properties ofanticausatives crosslinguistically. In Mara Frascarelli (ed.), Phases of Interpretation. Berlin:de Gruyter, 187–212.

Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena, and Schäfer, Florian (to appear). ExternalArguments in Transitivity Alternations: A Layering Approach. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Alexiadou, Artemis, Iordăchioaia, Gianina, Martin, Fabienne, Schäfer, Florian and Caro,Mariángeles (2013). ‘Direct participation’ and ‘agent exclusivity’ in derived nominals andbeyond. In Gianina Iordăchioaia, Isabelle Roy, and Kaori Takamine (eds), Categorizationand Category Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 153–80.

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 11/11/2014, SPiAlexiadou-etal/ 00_Copley_and_Martin_References REVISES page 395 11.11.2014 8:16am

Alexiadou, Artemis, and Schäfer, Florian (2006). Instrument subjects are agents or causers. InDonald Baumer, David Montero, and Michael Scanlon (eds), Proceedings of the 25th WestCoast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla, 40–8.

Alicke, Mark (1992). Culpable causation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63:368–78.

Alicke, Mark (2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin126.4: 556–74.

Alsina, Alex (1992). On the argument structure of causatives. Linguistic Inquiry 23.4: 517–55.Alsina, Alex, and Joshi, Smita (1993). Parameters in causative constructions. In Lise Dobrin,

Lynn Nichols, and Rosa Rodriguez (eds), Papers from Chicago Linguistics Society 27.3.Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 1–15.

Altshuler, Daniel (2013). There is no neutral aspect. Proceedings of Semantics and LinguisticTheory 23: 40–62.

Anjum, Rani, and Mumford, Stephen (2010). A powerful theory of causation. In AnnaMarmodoro (ed.), The Metaphysics of Powers. New York: Routledge, 143–59.

Aristotle (1941). The Basic Works of Aristotle, ed. with an introduction by Richard McKeon.New York: Random House.

Aristotle (1999). Aristotle Physics: Book VIII, trans. D. Graham. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Arkadiev, Peter, and Letuchiy, Alexander (2009). The syntax and semantics of event structureand Adyghe causatives. MS, Russian Academy of Sciences.

Armstrong, David (1979). A Theory of Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Armstrong,David (1997). AWorld of States of Affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Armstrong, David (2004). Truth and Truthmakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Aronson, Jerold (1971). On the grammar of ‘cause’. Synthese 22: 414–30.Asher, Nicholas (1992). A default, truth-conditional semantics for the progressive. Linguistics

and Philosophy 15: 463–508.Austin, John (1966). Three ways of spilling ink. Philosophical Review 75.4: 427–40.Bach, Emmon W. (1980). In defense of passive. Linguistics and Philosophy 3.3: 297–341.Bach, Emmon (1986). The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9.1: 5–16.Bach, Emmon (1989). Informal Lectures on Formal Semantics. Albany: State University of

New York Press.Baglini, Rebekah, and Francez, Itamar (2013). The implications of managing. Handout given

at the 31st Annual Meeting of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Tempe.Baker, Mark (1988). Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.Baker, Mark (1997). Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.),

Elements of Grammar: A Handbook in Generative Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic,73–137.

Baker, Mark, Johnson, Kyle, and Roberts, Ian (1989). Passive arguments raised. LinguisticInquiry 20.2: 219–51.

Bale, Alan (2007). Quantifiers and verb phrases: an exploration of propositional complexity.Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25.3: 447–83.

Barbey, Aron, and Wolff, Phillip (2007). Learning causal structure from reasoning. In DanielleMcNamara and Gregory Trafton (eds), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of theCognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 713–18.


396 References

Bar-el, Leora, Davis, Henry, and Matthewson, Lisa (2005). On non-culminating accomplish-ments. In Leah Bateman and Cherlon Ussery (eds), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meetingof the North East Linguistics Society 35.1: 87–102.

Bartsch, Renate, and Vennemann, Theo (1972). The grammar of relative adjectives andcomparison. Linguistische Berichte 20: 19–32.

Barwise, Jon (1981). Scenes and other situations. Journal of Philosophy 77: 369–97.Barwise, Jon, and Etchemendy, John (1987). The Liar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Barwise, Jon, and Perry, John (1981). Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Beaver, David (2001). Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Beaver, David, and Lee, Hanjung (2003). Form–meaning asymmetries and bidirectionaloptimization. In Jennifer Spenader, Anders Eriksson, and Östen Dahl (eds), Proceedingsof the Stockholm Workshop on Variation within Optimality Theory. University of Stock-holm, 138–48.

Beavers, John (2010). Aspectual analysis of ditransitive verbs of caused possession in English.Journal of Semantics, 28: 1–54.

Beck, Sigrid, and Johnson, Kyle (2004). Double objects again. Linguistic Inquiry 35.1: 97–123.Beck, Sigrid, and Snyder, William (2001). Complex predicates and goal PP’s: evidence for asemantic parameter. In A. H.-J. Do, L. Dominguez, and A. Johansen (eds), Proceedings ofthe 25th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, Mass.:Cascadilla Press.

Beebe, James, and Buckwalter, Wesley (2010). The epistemic side-effect effect. Mind andLanguage 25.4: 474–98.

Bell, Sarah (1978). Two differences in definitesness in Cebuano and Tagalog. Oceanic Linguis-tics 17: 1–9.

Bennett, Jonathan (1988). Events and their Names. Indianapolis: Hackett.Benz, Anton (2006). Partial blocking and associative learning. Linguistics and Philosophy 29.5:587–615.

Bhatt, Rajesh (2000). Covert modality in non-finite contexts. Ph.D thesis, University ofPennsylvania.

Bhatt, Rajesh (2003). Causativization in Hindi. Class handout, University of Massachusetts,Amherst, March 2003.

Bittner, Maria (1998). Concealed causatives. Natural Language Semantics 7.1: 1–78.Bjerre, Tavs (2001). Causation, event structure and process specifying adverbials. Nordic

Journal of Linguistics 24: 29–46.Bloom, Paul, Peterson, Mary, and Garrett, Merrill (1999). Language and Space. Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press.

Bloomfield, Leonard (1917). Tagalog Texts with Grammatical Analysis. Urbana: University ofIllinois Press.

Blutner, Reinhard (2000). Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation.Journal of Semantics 17.3: 189–216.

Bohnemeyer, Jürgen, and Swift, Mary (2006). Force dynamics and the progressive. Proceedingsof the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Albuquerque.


References 397

Bonnefon, Jean-François, and Villejoubert, Gaëlle (2006). Tactful or doubtful? Expectations ofpoliteness explain the severity bias in the interpretation of probability phrases. PsychologicalScience 17: 747–51.

Borer, Hagit (1998). Deriving passives without theta-grids. In Steven Lapointe, Diane Brentari,and Patrick Farrell (eds), Morphology and its Relations to Phonology and Syntax. Stanford,Calif.: CSLI, 60–99.

Borer, Hagit (2003). Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanations: syntactic projections and thelexicon. In Maria Polinsky and John Moore (eds), The Nature of Explanation in LinguisticTheory. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI, 31–68.

Borer, Hagit (2004). The grammar machine. In Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou,and Martin Everaert (eds), The Unaccusativity Puzzle. Oxford: Oxford University Press,31–67.

Borer, Hagit (2005a). Structuring Sense, vol. 1: In Name Only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Borer, Hagit (2005b). Structuring Sense, vol. 2: The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.Botha, Rudolf (1983). Morphological Mechanisms. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Bowers, John (2002). Transitivity. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 183–224.Brennenstuhl, Waltraud, and Wachowicz, Krystyna (1976). On the pragmatics of control.

Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley:Berkeley Linguistics Society, 454–68.

Brentano, Franz (1874). Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint, ed. L. L. McAlister. AtlanticHighlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1973.

Bresnan, Joan (1982). The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press.

Bresnan, Joan (1995). Lexicality and argument structure. Paper presented at the Syntax andSemantics Conference, Paris.

Bresnan, Joan (2001). Lexical-Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Bromberger, Sylvain (1966). Why-questions. In Robert Colodny (ed.), Mind and Cosmos.

Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press; repr. in: Sylvian Bromberger, On What WeKnow We Don’t Know (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 75–100.

Brousseau, Anne-Marie, and Ritter, Elisabeth (1991). A non-unified analysis of agentive verbs.In Dawn Bates (ed.), Proceedings of the 10th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics.Stanford, Calif.: CSLI, 53–64.

Bruening, Benjamin (2012). By-phrases in passives and nominals, Syntax 16: 1–41.Burzio, Luigi (1986). Italian Syntax: A Government and Binding Approach, Dordrecht: Reidel.Butt, Miriam (2003). The morpheme that wouldn’t go away. Handout, University of Man-

chester seminar series.Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere, and Pagliuca, William (1994). The Evolution of Grammar: Tense,

Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Caha, Pavel (2007). The shape of paradigms. Talk given at GLOW 30: MS, University of

Tromsø.Cartwright, Nancy (1979). Causal laws and effective strategies. Noûs 13: 419–37.Cartwright, Nancy (1983). How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Cartwright, Nancy (2004). Causation: one word, many things. Philosophy of Science 71:

805–19.


398 References

Castañeda, Hector-Neri (1967). Comments on Donald Davidson’s ‘The logical form of actionsentences’. In Nicholas Rescher (ed.), The Logic of Decision and Action. Pittsburgh: Uni-versity of Pittsburgh Press, 104–12.

Centineo, Giulia (1995). The distribution of si in italian transitive/inchoative pairs. In MandySimons and Teresa Galloway (eds), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory V.Austin: University of Texas, 54–71.

Cheng, Patricia, and Novick, Laura (1991). Causes versus enabling condition. Cognition 40:83–120.

Cheng, Patricia, and Novick, Laura (1992). Covariation in natural causal induction. Psycho-logical Review 99: 365–82.

Chierchia, Gennaro (1989). A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences. MS,Cornell University.

Chierchia, Gennaro (2004). A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences.In Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou and Martin Everaert (eds), The Unaccusa-tivity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax–Lexicon Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press,22–59.

Choi, Sungho, and Fara, Michael (2012). Dispositions. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2012/entries/dispositions/

Chomsky, Noam (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In Roderick Jacobs and Peter Rosenbaum(eds), Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn, 184–221.

Chomsky, Noam (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Chomsky, Noam (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Cinque, Guglielmo (1988). On si construction and the theory of arb. Linguistic Inquiry 15:521–81.

Cinque, Guglielmo (1994). On the evidence for partial N movement in the romance DP. InGuglielmo Cinque, Jan Koster, Jean-Yves Pollock, Luigi Rizzi, and Raffaella Zanuttini (eds),Paths Toward Universal Grammar. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press,85–110.

Cinque, Guglielmo (2005). Deriving Greenberg’s universal 20 and its exceptions. LinguisticInquiry 36: 315–32.

Cipria, Alicia, and Roberts, Craige (2000). Spanish imperfecto and pretérito: truth conditionsand aktionsart effects in a situation semantics. Natural Language Semantics 8: 297–347.

Cleland, Carol (1991). On the individuation of events. Synthese 86: 229–54.Collins, Chris (2005). A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 8.2: 81–120.Collins, John (2000). Preemptive prevention. Journal of Philosophy 97: 223–34.Collins, John (2007). Counterfactuals, causation, and preemption. In Dale Jacquette (ed.),

Philosophy of Logic. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1127–43.Comrie, Bernard (1981). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Comrie, Bernard, and Polinsky, Maria (1993). Causatives and Transitivity. Amsterdam:Benjamins.

Condoravdi, Cleo (2003). Moods and modalities for will and would. Talk given at theAmsterdam Colloquium Workshop on Mood and Modality.

Condoravdi, Cleo, and Lauer, Sven (2009). Performing a wish: desiderative assertions andperformativity. Talk given at California Universities Semantics and Pragmatics 2, UCSC.


References 399

Copley, Bridget (2004). A grammatical and a conceptual distinction for modals. In LeahBateman and Cherlon Ussery (eds), Proceedings of North East Linguistic Society 35. Charle-ston, SC: BookSurge.

Copley, Bridget (2005a). When the actual world isn’t inertial: Tohono O’odham cem. InMichael Becker and Andrew McKenzie (eds), Proceedings of SULA 3: 1–18.

Copley, Bridget (2005b). Ordering and reasoning. In Jon Gajewski, Valentine Hacquard,Bernard Nickel, and Seth Yalcin (eds), New Work on Modality. MIT Working Papers inLinguistics and Philosophy 51: 7–34.

Copley, Bridget (2008). The plan’s the thing: Deconstructing futurate meanings. LinguisticInquiry 39.2: 261–74.

Copley, Bridget (2009). The Semantics of the Future. New York: Routledge.Copley, Bridget (2010). Towards a teleological model for modals. Talk given at the Paris

Working Sessions on Modality, Goals and Events, Paris 8.Copley, Bridget (2014). Causal chains for futurates. In Mikhail Kissine, Philippe de Brabanter,

and Saghie Sharifzadeh (eds), Future Times, Future Tenses. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Copley, Bridget, and Harley, Heidi (2009). Futurates, directors, and have causatives. Snippets19: 5–6.

Copley, Bridget, and Harley, Heidi (2010). Causatives, ability, and dispositions. Talk given atGENIUS 2, Genericity: Interpretations and Uses Workshop on Dispositions, Abilities, andStates, Institut Jean Nicod, Paris.

Copley, Bridget, and Harley, Heidi (to appear). A force-theoretic framework for eventstructure. Linguistics and Philosophy.

Coppock, Elizabeth (2009). The logical and empirical foundations of Baker’s Paradox. Ph.Dthesis, Stanford University.

Craig, Colette (1976). Properties of basic and derived subjects in Jacaltec. In Charles Li (ed.),Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 99–123.

Crane, Tim (1999). Intentionality as the mark of the mental. In Anthony O’Hear (ed.),Contemporary Issues in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,229–51.

Craver, Carl (2007). Explaining the Brain: Mechanisms and the Mosaic Unity of Neuroscience.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Crawford, Frank (1968). Waves: Berkeley Physics Course 3. New York: McGraw-Hill.Croft, William (1990). Possible verbs and the structure of events. In Savas Tsohatzidis (ed.),

Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Categorization. London: Routledge, 48–73.Croft, William (1991). Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.Croft, William (1994). The semantics of subjecthood. In Marina Yaguello (ed.), Subjecthood

and Subjectivity: The Status of the Subject in Linguistic Theory. Paris: Ophrys, 29–75.Croft, William (1998). Event structure in argument linking. In Miriam Butt and Wilhelm

Geuder (eds), The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Syntactic Constraints. Stanford,Calif.: CSLI, 21–63.

Croft, William (2009). Force dynamics and directed change in event lexicalization andargument realization. MS, University of New Mexico.

Croft, William (2012). Verbs: aspect and argument structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


400 References

Crone, Phil (2012). Extra-lexical factors and the causative alternation. MS, StanfordUniversity.

Cruse, David (1972). A note on English causatives. Linguistic Inquiry 3–4: 520–28.Cuervo, Maria (2003). Datives at large. Ph.D thesis, MIT.Cummins, Robert (2000). ‘How does it work?’ vs. ‘What are the laws?’ Two conceptions ofpsychological explanation. In Frank Keil and Robert Wilson (eds), Explanation and Cogni-tion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 117–45.

Dahl, Östen (2007). Towards an ecological semantics of tense and aspect. In Daniele Mon-ticelli and Anu Treikelder (eds), Aspect in Language and Theories: Similarities and Differ-ences. Tartu: Tartu ülikool, 111–24.

Davidson, Donald (1966). The Logical Form of action sentences. Repr. in Donald Davidson(ed.), Essays on Actions and Events (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), 105–22.

Davidson, Donald (1967). Causal relations. Repr. in Donald Davidson (ed.), Essays on Actionsand Events (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), 149–62.

Davis, Ernest (1991). Common Sense Reasoning. San Francisco, Calif.: Morgan Kaufmann.Davis, Henry (2000). Salish evidence on the causative-inchoative alternation. In Amsterdam

Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science Series 4. Amsterdam: Benjamins,25–60.

Davis, Henry, and Demirdache, Hamida (1995). Agents and events. Talk given at GLOW(Generative Linguistics in the Old World) 18.

Davis, Henry, and Demirdache, Hamida (2000). On lexical verb meanings: evidence fromSalish. In James Pustejovsky and Carol Tenny (eds), Events as Grammatical Objects: TheConverging Perspectives of Lexical Semantics and Syntax. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI/StanfordUniversity Press, 97–142.

Davis, Henry, Matthewson, Lisa, and Rullmann, Hotze (2009). ‘Out of control’ marking ascircumstantial modality in St’at’imcets. In Lotte Hogeweg, Helen de Hoop, and AndrejMalchukov (eds), Cross-linguistic Semantics of Tense, Aspect, and Modality. Amsterdam:Benjamins, 205–44.

De Guzman, Videa (1978). Syntactic Derivation of Tagalog Verbs. Honolulu: University ofHawai’i Press.

Dehghani, Morteza, Iliev, Rumen, and Kaufmann, Stefan (2012). Causal explanation and factmutability in counterfactual reasoning. Mind and Language 27.1: 55–85.

DeLancey, Scott (1981). An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language57.3: 626–657.

DeLancey, Scott (1983). Agentivity and causation: data from Newari. Proceedings of theAnnual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 9: 54–63.

DeLancey, Scott (1984). Notes on agentivity and causation. Language 8.2: 181–213.Dell, François (1987). An aspectual distinction in Tagalog. Oceanic Linguistics 22–3: 175–206.Demirdache, Hamida (1997). Out of control in St’át’imcets Salish and event (de)composition.In Amaya Mendikoetxea and Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria (eds), Theoretical Issues in theMorphology–Syntax Interface. Bilbao: Servicio de Publicaciones de la UPV.

Demirdache, Hamida, and Martin, Fabienne (2013). Agent control over non-culminatingevents. MS, Université de Nantes/Universität Stuttgart.

Demirdache, Hamida, and Sun, Hongyuan (2013). On non-culminating accomplishments inMandarin. MS, University of Nantes.


References 401

De Swart, Henriëtte (1998). Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language and LinguisticTheory 16.2, 347–85.

Devens, Monica (1972). Pima c�m. International Journal of American Linguistics 45: 349–61.De Vreese, Leen (2006). Pluralism in the philosophy of causation: desideratum or not?

Philosophica 77: 5–13.Dixon, Robert, and Aikhenvald, Alexandra (2000). Changing Valency: Case Studies in Tran-

sitivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Doron, Edit (2003). Agency and voice: the semantics of the Semitic templates. Natural

Language Semantics 11.1: 1–67.Doron, Edit (2005). The aspect of agency. In Tova Rapoport and Nomi Erteschik-Shir (eds),

The Syntax of Aspect: Deriving Thematic and Aspectual Interpretation. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 154–73.

Dowe, Phil (2000). Physical Causation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Dowe, Phil (2001). A counterfactual theory of prevention and ‘causation’ by omission.

Australasian Journal of Philosophy 79: 216–26.Dowe, Phil (2007). Causal processes. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.

edu/entries/causation-process/Dowty, David (1972). On the syntax and semantics of the atomic predicate CAUSE. In Paul

Peranteu, Judith Levi, and Gloria Phares (eds), Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting ofthe Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 62–74.

Dowty, David (1977). Toward a semantic analysis of verb aspect and the English ‘imperfective’progressive. Linguistics and Philosophy 1.1: 45–77.

Dowty, David (1979). Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: The Semantics of Verbs andTimes in Generative Semantics and in Montagues PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Dowty, David (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67: 547–619.Drossard, Werner (1984). Das Tagalog als Repräsentant des aktivischen Sprachbaus. Tübingen:

Narr.Dubinsky, Stanley, Lloret, Maria-Rosa, and Newman, Paul (1998). Lexical and syntactic

causatives in Oromo. Language 64.3: 485–500.Duffield, Nigel (2005). Flying squirrels and dancing girls: events, inadvertent causes and

unaccusativity in English. In Leah Bateman and Cherlon Ussery (eds), Proceedings of theThirty Fifth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Charleston, SC: BookSurge,159–70.

Duffield, Nigel (2011). On unaccusativity in Vietnamese and the representation of inadvertentcause. In Raffaella Folli and Chistiane Ulbrich (eds), Interfaces in Linguistics. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 78–95.

Duffield, Nigel (in preparation). Particles and projections in Vietnamese syntax. MS, KonanUniversity.

Dupre, John, and Cartwright, Nancy (1988). Probability and causality: why Hume andindeterminism don’t mix. Noûs 22: 521–36.

Eckardt, Regine (2000). Causation, contexts, and event individuation. In James Higginbotham,Fabio Pianesi, and Achille Varzi (eds), Speaking of Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press,105–23.

Edgington, Dorothy (1997). Mellor on chance and causation. British Journal for the Philosophyof Science 48: 411–33.


402 References

Eells, Ellery (1991). Probabilistic Causality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Ehring, Douglas (1987). Causal relata. Synthese 73: 319–28.Embick, David (1997). Voice and the interfaces of syntax. Ph.D thesis, University ofPennsylvania.

Embick, David (2004). On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry35.3: 355–92.

Embick, David (2010). Localism vs. Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Engel, Pascal (2002). Truth. Chesham: Acumen.English, John (1977). English–Tagalog Dictionary. Manila: National Bookstore.English, John (1986). Tagalog–English Dictionary. Manila: National Bookstore.Ernst, Thomas (2002). The Syntax of Adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Fair, David (1979). Causation and the flow of energy. Erkenntnis 14: 219–50.Fales, Evan (1990). Causation and Universals. London: Routledge.Falk, Yehuda (1991). Causativization. Journal of Linguistics 27.1: 55–79.Fara, Delia Graff (2000). Shifting sands: an interest-relative theory of vagueness. Philosophical

Topics 28.1: 45–81. [Originally published under the name ‘Delia Graff ’.]Fauconnier, Stefanie (2011). Involuntary agent constructions are not directly linked toreduced transitivity. Studies in Language 35.2: 311–36.

Fauconnier, Stefanie (2012). Constructional effects of inanimate agents: a typological study.Ph.D thesis, University of Leuven.

Fauconnier, Stefanie (2013). Completives as markers of non-volitionality. Folia Linguistica47.1: 35–54.

Fernando, Tim (2004). A finite-state approach to events in natural language semantics.Journal of Logic and Computation 14.1: 79–92.

Filip, Hana (2008). Events and maximalisation: the case of telicity and perfectivity. In SusanRothstein (ed.), Theoretical and Cross-Linguistic Aproaches to the Semantics of Aspect.Amsterdam: Benjamins, 257–90.

Fodor, Jerry (1970). Three reasons for not deriving ‘kill’ from ‘cause to die’. Linguistic Inquiry1: 429–38.

Fodor, Jerry (1998). Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Fodor, Jerry, and Lepore, Ernie (1997). Morphemes matter: the continuing case against lexicaldecomposition. MS, Rutgers University, Center for Cognitive Science.

Foley, William (1976). Comparative Syntax in Austronesian. Ph.D Thesis. University ofCalifornia, Berkeley.

Foley, William (1998). Symmetrical voice systems and precategoriality in Philippineslanguages. Paper presented at the workshop on Voice and Grammatical Functions inAustronesian, University of Sydney.

Foley, William, and Van Valin, Robert (1977). On the viability of the notion of ‘subject’ inuniversal grammar. In Kenneth Whistler et al. (eds), Proceedings of the Third AnnualBerkeley Linguistics Society, 293–320.

Foley, William, and Van Valin, Robert (1984). Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


References 403

Folli, Raffaella (2001). Constructing telicity in English and Italian. Ph.D thesis, University ofOxford.

Folli, Raffaella, and Harley, Heidi (2005). Flavours of v: consuming results in Italian andEnglish. In Paula Kempchinsky and Roumyana Slabakova (eds), Aspectual Enquiries.Dordrecht: Springer, 95–120.

Folli, Raffaella, and Harley, Heidi (2007). Causation, obligation and argument structure: onthe nature of little v. Linguistic Inquiry 38.2: 197–238.

Folli, Raffaella, and Harley, Heidi (2008). Teleology and animacy in external arguments.Lingua 118: 198–202.

Franks, Steven (1995). Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Fujita, Koji (1993). Object movement and binding at LF. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 381–8.Fujita, Koji (1996). Double objects, causatives, and derivational economy. Linguistic Inquiry

27.1: 146–73.Gärdenfors, Peter (2000). Conceptual Spaces: The Geometry of Thought. Cambridge, Mass.:

MIT Press.Gehrke, Berit (2012). Passive states. In Violeta Demonte and Louise McNally (eds), Telicity,

Change, and State: A Cross-Categorial View of Event Structure. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 185–211.

Geuder, Wilhelm (2002). Oriented adverbs: issues in the lexical semantics of event adverbs.Ph.D thesis, University of Tübingen.

Geuder, Wilhelm, and Weisgerber, Matthias (2006). Manner and causation in movementverbs. In Christian Ebert and Cornelia Endriss (eds), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 10.Berlin: ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 125–38.

Geurts, Bart (2009). Goodness. In Maria Aloni, Harald Bastiaanse, Tikitu de Jager, Peter vanOrmondt, and Katrin Schulz (eds), Proceedings of the 17th Amsterdam Colloquium, 277–85.

Giannakidou, Anastasia, and Staraki, Eleni (2012). Ability, action, and causation: from pureability to force. In Alda Mari, Claire Beyssade, and Fabio Del Prete (eds), Genericity.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 250–75.

Ginet, Carl (1990). On Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Ginzburg, Jonathan, and Sag, Ivan (2000). Interrogative Investigations: The Form, Meaning

and Use of English Interrogatives. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI.Giorgi, Alessandra, and Pianesi, Fabio (2001). Ways of terminating. In Carlo Cecchetto,

Gennaro Chierchia, and Maria Teresa Guasti (eds), Semantic Interfaces: Reference, Ana-phora and Aspect. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI.

Givón, Talmy (2001). Syntax 1. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Glasbey, Sheila (1996). The progressive: a channel-theoretic analysis. Journal of Semantics

13.4: 331–61.Glennan, Stuart (1996). Mechanisms and the nature of causation. Erkenntnis 44: 49–71.Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2010). Causal pluralism. InHelenBeebee, ChristopherHitchcock, andPeter

Menzies (eds), Oxford Handbook of Causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 326–37.Göksel, Aslı (1993). Levels of representation and argument structure in Turkish. Ph.D thesis,

University of London.Goldberg, Adele (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument

Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.


404 References

Goldvarg, Eugenia, and Johnson-Laird, Philip (2001). Naive causality: a mental model theoryof causal meaning and reasoning, Cognitive Science 25: 565–610.

Goodall, Grant (1997). Theta-alignment and the by-phrase. In Kora Singer, Randall Eggert,and Gregory Anderson (eds), Proceedings of Chicago Linguistic Society 33. Chicago:University of Chicago, 129–39.

Gopnik, Alison, and Schulz, Laura (2007). Causal Learning: Psychology, Philosophy, andComputation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Grimm, Scott (2011). Semantics of case. Morphology 21.3–4: 515–44.Grimshaw, Jane (1990). Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Stokhof, Martin (1991). Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and

Philosophy 14: 39–100.Gropen, Jess, Pinker, Steven, Hollander, Michelle, Goldberg, Richard, and Wilson, Ronald(1989). The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language 65:203–57.

Guasti, Maria (1993). Causative and Perception Verbs: A Comparative Study. Turin: Rosen-berg & Sellier.

Guasti, Maria (1996). Semantic restrictions in Romance causatives and the incorporationapproach. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 294–313.

Guasti, Maria (2005). Analytic causatives. In Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds),The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, vol. 1. Oxford: Blackwell, 142–72.

Guéron, Jacqueline (2005). Tense, person, and transitivity. In Nomi Erteschik-Shir and TovaRapoport (eds), The Syntax of Aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 89–116.

Guéron, Jacqueline (2006). Inalienable possession. In Martin Everaert, Henk van Riemsdijk,Rob Goedemans, and Bart Hollebranse (eds), Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Oxford:Blackwell, 585–634.

Haertl, Holden (2003). Conceptual and grammatical characteristics of argument alternations:the case of decausative verbs. Linguistics 41: 883–917.

Haider, Hubert (2001). How to stay accusative in insular Germanic. Working Papers inScandinavian Syntax 68: 1–14.

Hale, Kenneth (1969). Papago /cim/. International Journal of American Linguistics 35: 203–12.Hale, Kenneth, and Keyser, Samuel Jay (1987). A view from the middle. Lexicon Project

Working Papers 10: Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Hale, Kenneth, and Keyser, Samuel (1993). On argument structure and the lexical expression ofsyntactic relations. In Kenneth Hale and Samuel Keyser (eds), The View from Building 20:Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 53–109.

Hale, Kenneth, and Keyser, Samuel (2002). Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure.Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Hall, Ned (2000). Causation and the price of transitivity. Journal of Philosophy 97: 198–222.Hall, Ned (2004). Two concepts of causation. In John Collins, Ned Hall, and Laurie Paul (eds),

Causation and Counterfactuals. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 225–76.Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection.In Kenneth Hale and Samuel Keyser (eds), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguisticsin Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 111–76.

Hardcastle, Valerie (1991). Partitions, probabilistic causal laws, and Simpson’s paradox.Synthese 86: 209–28.


References 405

Harley, Heidi (1995). Subjects, events, and Licensing. Ph.D thesis, MIT.Harley, Heidi (2005). How do verbs get their names? Denominal verbs, manner incorporation,

and the ontology of verbs roots in English. In Nomi Erteschik-Shir and Tova Rapoport(eds), The Syntax of Aspect: Deriving Thematic and Aspectual Interpretation. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 42–64.

Harley, Heidi (2008). On the causative construction. In Shigeru Miyagawa and Mamoru Saito(eds), Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 20–53.

Harley, Heidi (2009). The morphology of nominalizations and the syntax of vP. In AnastasiaGiannakidou and Monika Rathert (eds), Quantification, Definiteness and Nominalization.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 321–43.

Harley, Heidi (2010). A minimalist theta theory. In Cedric Boeckx (ed.), The Oxford Hand-book of Linguistic Minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 426–47.

Harley, Heidi (2013). External arguments and the Mirror Principle: on the distinctness ofVoice and v. Lingua 125: 34–57.

Harley, Heidi, and Noyer, Rolf (2000a). Formal vs. encyclopaedic properties of vocabulary:evidence from nominalizations. In Bert Peeters (ed.), The Lexicon–Encyclopedia Interface.Amsterdam: Elsevier, 349–74.

Harley, Heidi, and Noyer, Rolf (2000b). Licensing in the non-lexicalist lexicon. In Bert Peeters(ed.), The Lexicon–Encyclopaedia Interface. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 349–74.

Haspelmath, Martin (1993a). More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations.In Bernard Comrie and Maria Polinsky (eds), Causatives and Transitivity. Amsterdam:Benjamins, 87–120.

Haspelmath, Martin (1993b). Passive participles across languages. In Barbara Fox and PaulHopper (eds), Voice: Form and Function. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 151–78.

Haspelmath, Martin (2008). Causatives and anticausatives. Handout for the Leipzig SpringSchool on Linguistic Diversity.

Hausman, Daniel, and Woodward, James (1999). Independence, invariance and the causalMarkov condition. British Journal of Philosophy of Science 50: 521–83.

Hay, Jennifer, Kennedy, Christopher, and Levin, Beth (1999). Scalar structure underlies telicityin ‘degree achievements’. In Tanya Mathews and Devon Strolovitch (eds), Semantics andLinguistic Theory IX. Ithaca, NY: CLC, 127–44.

Heider, Fritz, and Simmel, Marianne (1944). An experimental study of apparent behavior.American Journal of Psychology 57.2: 243–59.

Heim, Irene (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D thesis,University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Heim, Irene (1992). Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal ofSemantics 9: 183–221.

Heim, Irene, and Kratzer, Angelika (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford:Blackwell.

Higginbotham, James (1985). On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 547–93.Higginbotham, James (1997). Location and causation. MS, University of Oxford.Higginbotham, James (2000). Accomplishments. Talk given at GLOW in Asia 2.Higginbotham, James (2009). Accomplishments. In Tense, Aspect and Indexicality. Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 116–25.


406 References

Himmelmann, Nikolaus (1987). Morphosyntax und Morphologie: Die Ausrichtungsaffixe imTagalog. Munich: Fink.

Himmelmann, Nikolaus (1991). The Philippine Challenge to Universal Grammar. Arbeiten desKölner Universalien-Projekts 15. Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschs.

Himmelmann, Nikolaus (2002). Voice in Western Austronesian: an update. In Fay Wouk andMalcolm Ross (eds), The History and Typology of Western Austronesian Voice Systems.Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, 7–16.

Himmelmann, Nikolaus (2004). Tagalog. In Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mug-dan, and Stavros Skopeteas (eds), Morphology: An International Handbook on Inflectionand Word Formation. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1473–90.

Himmelmann, Nikolaus (2005). The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar:Theological overview. In Karl Alexander Adelaar and Nikolaus Himmelmann (eds), TheAustronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar. London: Routledge, 110–8.

Himmelmann, Nikolaus (2006). How to miss a paradigm or two: multifunctional ma- inTagalog. In Felix Ameka, Alan Dench, and Nicholas Evans (eds), Catching Language.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 487–527.

Hitchcock, Christopher (1996a). The role of contrast in causal and explanatory claims.Synthese 107: 395–419.

Hitchcock, Christopher (1996b). Farewell to binary causation. Canadian Journal of Philosophy26: 335–64.

Hitchcock, Christopher (2004). Do all and only causes raise the probabilities of effects? InJohn Collins, Ned Hall, and Laurie Paul (eds), Causation and Counterfactuals. Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press, 403–18.

Hitchcock, Christopher (2007). Prevention, preemption, and the principle of sufficient reason.Philosophical Review 116: 495–532.

Hitchcock, Christopher (2010). Probabilistic causation. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philoso-phy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-probabilistic/

Hoekstra, Teun, andMulder, René (1990). Unergatives as copular verbs: locational and existentialpredication. Linguistic Review 7: 1–79.

Hook, Peter (1979). Hindi Structures: Intermediate Level. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Hopper, Paul, and Thompson, Sandra (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Lan-

guage 56: 251–99.Horgan, Terence (1978). The case against events. Philosophical Review 87: 28–47.Horvath, Julia, and Siloni, Tal (2010). Lexicon versus syntax: evidence from morphologicalcausatives. In Malka Rappaport Hovav, Edit Doron, and Ivy Sichel (eds), Lexical Semantics,Syntax, and Event Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 153–76.

Horvath, Julia, and Siloni, Tal (2011). Causative across components. Natural Language andLinguistic Theory 29.3: 657–704.

Horvath, Julia, and Siloni, Tal (2013). Anticausatives have no cause(r): a rejoinder to Beaversand Koontz-Garboden. Lingua 131: 217–30.

Huitink, Janneke (2005). Analyzing anankastic conditionals and sufficiency modals. In SylviaBlaho, Luis Vicente, and Erik Schoorlemmer (eds), Proceedings of the 13th Conference of theStudent Organization of Linguistics in Europe, 135–56.

Hulswit, Menno (2002). From Cause to Causation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Hume, David (2007[1748]). An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.


References 407

Ikegami, Yoshihiko (1985). Activity, accomplishment, achievement: a language that can’t say,‘I burned it, but it didn’t burn’ and one that can. In Adam Makkai and Alan Melby(eds), Linguistics and Philosophy: Essays in Honor of Rulon S. Wells. Amsterdam: Benja-mins, 265–304.

Ilić, Tatjana (2013). Modality and causation in Serbian dative anticausatives: a crosslinguisticperspective. Ph.D dissertation, University of Hawai’i.

Ippolito, Michaela (2000). Remarks on the argument structure of Romance causatives.MS, MIT.

Jackendoff, Ray (1975). A system of semantic primitives. In Roger Schank and BonnieNash-Webber (eds), Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing. Arlington, Va.:ACL, 112–17.

Jackendoff, Ray (1983). Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Jackendoff, Ray (1987). On beyond Zebra: the relation of linguistic and visual information.

Cognition 26: 89–114.Jackendoff, Ray (1990). Semantic Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Jackson, Eric (2005). Resultatives, derived statives, and lexical semantic structure. MS, Uni-

versity of California, Los Angeles.Jackson, Frank (1998). From Metaphysics to Ethics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Jacob, François, and Monod, Jacques (1961). On the regulation of gene activity. Cold Spring

Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 26. Cold Spring Harbor, NY : Cold Spring HarborLaboratory Press.

Jacobs, Peter (2011). Control in Skwxwúmesh. Ph.D thesis, University of British Columbia.Jaeggli, Osvaldo (1986). Passive. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 587–622.Jäger, Gerhard, and Blutner, Reinhard (2000). Against lexical decomposition in syntax. In

Adam Wyner (ed.), Proceedings of IATL 15. Haifa: University of Haifa.Jäger, Gerhard, and Blutner, Reinhard (2003). Competition and interpretation: the German

adverb wieder (again). In Ewald Lang, Claudia Maienborn and Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen(eds), Modifying Adjuncts. Berlin: de Gruyter, 393–416.

Jespersen, Otto (1940). A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, pt 5: Syntax.London/Copenhagen: Allen and Unwin/Munksgaard.

Kachru, Yamuna (1976). On the semantics of the causative construction in Hindi/Urdu. InMasayoshi Shibatani (ed.), The Grammar of Causative Constructions. New York: AcademicPress, 353–69.

Kachru, Yamuna (1980). Aspects of Hindi Syntax. Delhi: Manohar.Kallulli, Dalina (2006a). Unaccusatives with dative causers and experiencers: a unified account.

In Daniel Hole, André Meinunger, and Werner Abraham (eds), Datives and Other Cases.Amsterdam: Benjamins, 271–301.

Kallulli, Dalina (2006b). A unified analysis of passives anticausatives, and reflexives. In OlivierBonami and Patricia Cabredo Hoffherr (eds), Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax andSemantics, vol. 6. Paris: CNRS, 201–26.

Kallulli, Dalina (2007). Rethinking the passive/anticausative distinction. Linguistic Inquiry38.4: 770–80.

Kamp, Hans (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Jeroen Groenendijk,Theo Janssen, and Martin Stokhof (eds), Formal Methods in the Study of Language.Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum, University of Amsterdam, Mathematical CentreTracts 135: 277–322.


408 References

Kamp, Hans (1999–2007). Intentions, plans and their execution: turning objects of thoughtinto entities of the external world. MS, University of Stuttgart.

Kamp, Hans, and Reyle, Uwe (1993). From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Kamp, Hans, and Rossdeutscher, Antje (1994). Remarks on lexical structure and DRS con-struction. Theoretical Linguistics 20: 97–164.

Katz, Jerrold (1970). Interpretive semantics vs. generative semantics. Foundations of Language6.2: 220–59.

Kaufmann, Ingrid, and Wunderlich, Dieter (1998). Crosslinguistic patterns of resultatives.Working Papers SFB: Theorie des Lexikons 109. Düsseldorf: University of Düsseldorf.

Kennedy, Christopher (2007). Vagueness and grammar: the semantics of absolute and relativegradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 3.1: 1–45.

Kenny, Anthony (1963). Action, Emotion and Will. London: Routledge.Kim, Jaegwon (1973). Causes and counterfactuals. Journal of Philosophy 70: 570–72.Kiparsky, Paul (1997). Remarks on denominal verbs. In Alex Alsina, Joan Bresnan, and PeterSells (eds), Complex Predicates. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI, 473–99.

Kissine, Mikhail (2008). Why will is not a modal. Natural Language Semantics 16: 129–55.Kistler, Max (1998). Reducing causality to transmission. Erkenntnis 48: 1–24.Kistler, Max (1999). Causes as events and facts. Dialectica 53: 25–46.Kistler, Max (2001). Causation as transference and responsibility. In Wolfgang Spohn, MarionLedwig, and Michael Esfeld (eds), Current Issues in Causation. Paderborn: Mentis, 115–33.

Kistler, Max (2002). Causation in contemporary analytical philosophy. In Costantino Espitoand Pasquale Porro (eds), Quaestio: annuario di storia della metafisica 2. Turnhout:Brepols, 635–68.

Kistler, Max (2006a). Causation and Laws of Nature. New York: Routledge. Originallypublished as Causalité et lois de la nature (Paris: Vrin, 1999).

Kistler, Max (2006b). La causalité comme transfert et dépendance nomique. Philosophie 89:53–77.

Kistler, Max (2009). Mechanisms and downward causation. Philosophical Psychology 22:595–609.

Kistler, Max (2011). Causalité. In Anouk Barberousse, Denis Bonnay, and Mikaël Cozic (eds),Précis de philosophie des sciences. Paris: Vuibert, 100–140.

Kittilä, Seppo (2005). Remarks on involuntary agent constructions. Word 56.3: 381–419.Kittilä, Seppo (2013). Causative morphemes as a de-transitivizing device: what do non-canonical instances reveal about causation and causativization? Folia Linguistica 47.1:113–38.

Klaiman, Miriam H. (1988). Affectedness and control: A typological study of voice systems. InShibatani, Masayoshi (ed.), Passive and Voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 25–83.

Klein, Wolfgang (1994). Time in Language. London: Routledge.Klein, Wolfgang (1998). Assertion and finiteness. In Norbert Dittmar and Zvi Penner (eds),

Issues in the Theory of Language Acquisition. Bern: Lang, 222–45.Klein, Wolfgang (2006). On finiteness. In Veerle van Geenhoeven (ed.), Semantics in Acquisi-

tion, Dordrecht: Springer, 245–72.Knobe, Joshua (2003a). Intentional action in folk psychology: an experimental investigation,

Philosophical Psychology 16: 309–24.Knobe, Joshua (2003b). Intentional action and side-effects in ordinary language. Analysis 63:190–93.


References 409

Knobe, Joshua (2006). The concept of intentional action: a case study in the uses of folkpsychology. Philosophical Studies 130: 203–31.

Knobe, Joshua (2010). Action trees and moral judgment. Topics in Cognitive Science 2.3:555–78.

Knobe, Joshua, and Fraser, Ben (2008). Causal judgment and moral judgment: two experi-ments. In Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (ed.), The Evolution of Morality: Adaptations andInnateness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 441–8.

Koenig, Jean-Pierre, and Chief, Lian-Cheng (2008). Scalarity and state-changes in Mandarin(and other languages). In Olivier Bonami and Patricia Cabredo Hofherr (eds), EmpiricalIssues in Syntax and Semantics 7. Paris: CSSP, 241–62.

Koenig, Jean-Pierre, and Davis, Anthony (2001). Sublexical modality and the structure oflexical semantic representations. Linguistics and Philosophy 24.1: 71–124.

Koenig, Jean-Pierre, and Muansuwan, Nuttanart (2000). How to end without ever finishing:Thai semi-perfectivity. Journal of Semantics 17.2: 147–82.

Koontz-Garboden, Andrew (2007). Monotonicity at the lexical semantics–morphosyntaxinterface. In Emily Elfner and Martin Walkow (eds), Proceedings of the 37th AnnualMeeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, Mass.: Graduate Linguistic StudentAssociation.

Koontz-Garboden, Andrew (2009). Anticausativization. Natural Language and LinguisticTheory 27: 77–138.

Kratzer, Angelika (1977). What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean. Linguistics and Philo-sophy 1.3: 337–56.

Kratzer, Angelika (1979). Conditional necessity and possibility. In Rainer Bäuerle, Urs Egli,and Arnim von Stechow (eds), Semantics from Different Points of View. Berlin: Springer,117–47.

Kratzer, Angelika (1989). An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy12: 607–53.

Kratzer, Angelika (1990–2009). How specific is a fact? semanticsarchive.netKratzer, Angelika (1996). Severing the external argument from its verb. In Johan Rooryck

and Laurie Zaring (eds), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic,109–37.

Kratzer, Angelika (1998). More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. In DevonStrolovitch and Aaron Lawson (eds), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 8.Ithaca, NY: CLC, 92–110.

Kratzer, Angelika (2000). Building statives. In Lisa Conathan et al. (eds), Proceedings of the26th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: BLS, 385–99.

Kratzer, Angelika (2005). Building resultatives. In Claudia Maienbaum and AngelikaWöllstein-Leisen (eds), Event Arguments: Functions and Applications. Tübingen: Niemeyer,177–212.

Kratzer, Angelika (2009). Modality in context. Talk given at the 2009 ‘Context and content’lectures, Institut Jean Nicod, Paris.

Kratzer, Angelika (2011). Situations in natural language semantics. Stanford Encyclopedia ofPhilosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/situations-semantics


410 References

Krifka, Manfred (1989). Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in eventsemantics. In Renate Bartsch and Johan van Benthem (eds), Semantics and ContextualExpression. Dordrecht: Foris, 75–115.

Krifka, Manfred (1992). Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporalconstitution. In Ivan Sag and Anna Szabolsci (eds), Lexical Matters. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI,29–53.

Krifka, Manfred (1998). The origins of telicity. In Susan Rothstein (ed.), Events and Grammar.Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 197–235.

Krifka, Manfred (1999). Manner in dative alternation. In Sonya Bird, Andrew Carnie, JasonHaugen, and Peter Norquest (eds), Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference onFormal Linguistics. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press, 260–71.

Krifka, Manfred (2011). Causativity in language: unaccusatives, causative alternation, contin-uous causation in the dative alternation. Talk given at Bielefeld University, 10 Nov.

Krifka, Manfred (2012). Some remarks on event stucture, conceptual spaces and the semanticsof verbs, Theoretical Linguistics 38.3–4: 223–36.

Kroeger, Paul (1993). Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. Stanford,Calif.: CSLI.

Kulikov, Leonid (1993). The ‘second causative’: a typological sketch. In Bernard Comrie andMaria Polinsky (eds), Causatives and Transitivity. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 121–53.

Kulikov, Leonid (2001). Causatives. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterrei-cher, and Wolfgang Raible (eds), Language Typology and Language Universals: An Inter-national Handbook, vol. 2. Berlin: de Gruyter, 886–98.

Kupula, Mikko (2010). Causers as derived Subjects: an unaccusative view from Finnish.Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 86: 199–219.

Kwon, Nayoung (2004). A semantic and syntactic analysis of Vietnamese causatives. Paperpresented at Western Conference on Linguistics, San Diego.

Lagnado, David, and Sloman, Steven (2006). Time as a guide to cause. Journal of ExperimentalPsychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition 32: 451–60.

Lagnado, David, Waldmann, Michael, Hagmayer, York, and Sloman, Steven (2007). Beyondcovariation: cues to causal structure. In Alison Gopnik and Laura Schultz (eds), CausalLearning: Psychology, Philosophy, and Computation. Oxford: Oxford University Press,154–72.

Lakoff, George (1965/70). On the nature of syntactic irregularity. Thesis, Indiana University.Published in 1970 as Irregularity in Syntax.

Lakoff, George (1968). Some verbs of change and causation. In Susumo Kuno (ed.), Mathe-matical Linguistics and Automatic Translation, Report NSF-20. Cambridge, Mass.: HarvardUniversity, 1–27.

Lakoff, George (1970). Irregularity in Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Lakoff, George (1971). On generative semantics. In Danny Steinberg and Leon Jakobovits(eds), Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 232–96.

Lakoff, George, and Johnson, Mark (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Lakoff, George, and Johnson, Mark (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind andits Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.

Landman, Fred (1992). The progressive. Natural Language Semantics 1.1: 1–32.


References 411

Langacker, Ron (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Uni-versity Press.

Lappin, Shalom (2000). An intensional parametric semantics for vague quantifiers. Linguisticsand Philosophy 23: 599–620.

Latrouite, Anja (2000). Linking in Tagalog: argument encoding determined by the semanticproperties of arguments. In Geert Booji and Jaap van Marle (eds), Yearbook of Morphology.Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 123–54.

Latrouite, Anja (2009). Levels of prominence and voice marker selection. Talk given at the11th International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Aussois, 22–6 June.

Latrouite, Anja (2011). Voice and case in Tagalog: the coding of orientation and prominence.Ph.D thesis, Düsseldorf University.

Latrouite, Anja (2012). Differential object marking in Tagalog. In Laurer Eby Clemens andGreg Scontras (eds), Proceedings of AFLA 18. Harvard University.

Latrouite, Anja (in press). Shifting perspectives: Argument marking and the syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface. In Jens Fleischhauer, Anja Latrouite, and Rainer Osswald (eds),Further Investigations of the Syntax-Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Düsseldorf: DUP.

Latrouite, Anja, and Naumann, Ralf (1999). On the interpretation of Tagalog voice affixes. InCarolyn Smallwood and Catherine Kitto (eds), Proceedings of the 6th Austronesian FormalLinguistics Association. Toronto: Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 221–34.

Lauer, Sven (2010). Periphrastic causatives in English: what do they mean? MS, StanfordUniversity.

Legate, Julie (to appear). Voice and v.Levin, Beth (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Levin, Beth (2009). Further explorations of the landscape of causation: comments on the

paper by Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49: 239–66.Levin, Beth, and Rappaport Hovav, Malka (1986). The formation of adjectival passives.

Linguistic Inquiry 17: 623–61.Levin, Beth, and Rappaport Hovav, Malka (1995). Unaccusativity: At the Syntax–Lexical

Semantics Interface. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Levin, Beth, and Rappaport Hovav, Malka (1998). Building verb meaning. In Miriam Butt and

Wilhelm Geuder (eds), The Projection of Arguments. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI, 97–134.Levin, Beth, and Rappaport Hovav, Malka (1999). Two structures for compositionally derived

events. In Tanya Matthews and Devon Strolovitch (eds), Proceedings of Semantics andLinguistic Theory 9. Ithaca, NY: CLC, 199–223.

Levin, Beth, andRappaportHovav,Malka (2005).Argument Realization. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Levin, Beth, and Rappaport Hovav, Malka (2008). Lexical conceptual structure. In Klaus vonHeusinger, Claudia Maienborn, and Paul Portner (eds), Semantics: An International Hand-book of Natural Language Meaning. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Levin, Beth, and Rappaport Hovav, Malka (2013). Lexicalized meaning and manner/resultcomplementarity. In Boban Arsenijević, Berit Gehrke, and Rafael Marín (eds), SubatomicSemantics of Event Predicates. Dordrecht: Springer, 49–70.

Levinson, Lisa (2007). The roots of verbs. Ph.D thesis, New York University.Lewis, David (1973). Causation. Journal of Philosophy 70: 556–67.Lewis, David (1986a). Causation. In Philosophical Papers, vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 159–72.


412 References

Lewis, David (1986b). On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Lewis, David (1986c). Postscripts to ‘causation’. In David Lewis (ed.), Philosophical Papers,vol. 2: Oxford: Oxford University Press, 172–213.

Lewis, David (2000). Causation as influence. Journal of Philosophy 97: 182–97.Lewis, David (2004). Causation as influence. In John Collins, Ned Hall, and Laurie Paul (eds),

Causation and Counterfactuals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 75–106.Li, Yaffei (1990). X-binding and verb incorporation. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 399–426.Lidz, Jeffrey (2004). Causation and reflexivity in Kannada. In Veneeta Dayal and Anoop Mahajan(eds), Clause Structure in South Asian Languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 93–130.

Lieber, Rochelle (1988). Phrasal compounds in English and the morphology–syntax interface.In Diane Brentari, Gary Larson, and Lynn MacLeod (eds), Proceedings from the Parasessionon Agreement in Grammatical Theory. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 202–22.

Lieber, Rochelle (1992). Deconstructing Morphology: Word-Formation in Syntactic Theory.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lifschitz, Vladimir (1988). Circumscriptive theories: a logic-based framework for knowledgerepresentation. Journal of Philosophical Logic 17: 391–441.

Lifschitz, Vladimir (1998). Cracking an egg: an exercise in commonsense reasoning. MS,University of Texas at Austin.

Lombrozo, Tania (2010). Causal-explanatory pluralism: how intentions, functions, andmechanisms influence causal ascriptions. Cognitive Psychology 61: 303–32.

Longworth, Francis (2010). Cartwright’s causal pluralism: a critique and an alternative.Analysis 70: 310–18.

Lyutikova, Ekaterina, Tatevosov, Sergei, Ivanov, Mikhail, Shluinskij, Andrej, and Pazel’skaja,Anna (2006). Struktura Sobytija i Semantika Glagola v Karachajevo-Balkarskom Jazyke[Event Structure and Verb Meaning in Karachay-Balkar]. Moscow: IMLI RAN.

Machamer, Peter, Darden, Lindley, and Craver, Carl (2000). Thinking about mechanisms,Philosophy of Science 67: 1–25.

Machery, Edouard (2008). The folk concept of intentional action: philosophical and experi-mental issues. Mind and Language 23: 165–89.

Mackie, John (1965). Causes and conditionals. American Philosophical Quarterly 2: 245–65.Mackie, John (1974). The Cement of the Universe: A Study of Causation. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Maclachlan, Anna (1996). Aspects of ergativity in Tagalog. Ph.D thesis, McGill University.Malchukov, Andrej (1993). Adversative constructions in Even in relation to passive andpermissive. In Bernard Comrie and Maria Polinsky (eds), Causatives and Transitivity.Amsterdam: Benjamins, 369–84.

Malchukov, Andrej (2006). Transitivity parameters and transitivity alternations: constrainingco-variation. In Leonid Kulikov, Andrej Malchukov, and Peter de Swart (eds), Studies onCase, Valency and Transitivity. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 329–59.

Malinas, Gary, and Bigelow, John (2009). Simpson’s paradox. Stanford Encyclopedia ofPhilosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-simpson/

Malle, Bertram (2006). Intentionality, morality and their relationship in human judgment.Journal of Cognition and Culture 6: 1–2.

Malt, Barbara (1999). Word meaning. In William Bechtel and George Graham (eds), ACompanion to Cognitive Science. Oxford: Blackwell, 331–8.

Manzini, Maria (1983). Restructuring and reanalysis. Ph.D thesis, MIT.


References 413

Marantz, Alec (1984). On the nature of grammatical relations. Ph.D thesis, MIT.Marantz, Alec (1997). No escape from syntax: don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy

of your own lexicon. In Alexis Dimitriadis (ed.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual PennLinguistics Colloquium. Working Papers in Linguistics (Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania) 4.2: 201–25.

Marantz, Alec (2001). Words. MS, MIT.Marantz, Alec (2009). Roots, re- and affected agents: can roots pull the agent below Little v?

Paper presented at Roots II Workshop, Stuttgart.Marcus, Gary, and Davis, Ernest (2013). How robust are probabilistic models of higher-level

cognition? Psychological Science 24.12: 2351–60.Marelj, Marijana (2004). Middles and argument structure across languages. Ph.D thesis,

Utrecht Institute of Linguistics, OTS.Martin, Fabienne, and Schäfer, Florian (2012). The modality of offer and other defeasible

causative verbs. In Nathan Arnett and Ryan Bennett (eds), Proceedings of the 30th WestCoast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla, 248–58.

Martin, Fabienne, and Schäfer, Florian (2013). On the argument structure of verbs with bi-andmonoeventive uses. In Stefan Keine and Shayne Sloggett (eds), Proceedings of the North EastLinguistic Society 42: Amherst: GLSA, 297–308.

Martin, Jack (1991). Lexical and syntactic aspects of Creek causatives. International Journal ofAmerican Linguistics 57.2: 194–229.

Masica, Colin (1976). Defining a Linguistic Area: South Asia. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Masica, Colin (1991). The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Matthewson, Lisa (2004). Cross-linguistic variation and the nature of aspectual classes. Talk

given at Cornell University, 26 Feb.McCawley, James (1968). Lexical insertion in a transformational grammar without deep

structure. In Bill Darden, Charles-James Bailey, and Alice Davison (eds), Fourth RegionalMeeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: University of Chicago, 71–80.

McCawley, James (1971). Pre-lexical syntax. In Richard O’Brien (ed.), Linguistics: Develop-ments of the Sixties, Viewpoints for the Seventies. Washington, DC: Georgetown UniversityPress, 19–33.

McCawley, James (1972). Syntactic and Logical Arguments for Semantic Structures. Blooming-ton: Indiana University Linguistics Club.

McCawley, James (1978). Conversational implicature and the lexicon. In Peter Cole (ed.),Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 245–59.

McDermott, M. (1995). Redundant causation. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 40:523–44.

McGrath, Sarah (2003). Causation and the making/allowing distinction. Philosophical Studies114: 81–106.

McGrath, Sarah (2005). Causation by omission: a dilemma. Philosophical Studies 123: 125–48.McKoon, Gail, and Macfarland, Talke (2000). Externally and internally caused change of state

verbs. Language 76.4: 833–58.McTaggart, John (1908). The unreality of time. Mind 17.4: 457–74.Mellor, David (1987). The singularly affecting facts of causation. In Matters of Metaphysics.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 201–24.


414 References

Menzies, Peter (2004). Difference-making in context. In John Collins, Ned Hall, and LauriePaul (eds), Causation and Counterfactuals. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 139–80.

Menzies, Peter (2007). Causation in context. In Huw Price and Richard Corry (eds), Caus-ation, Physics and the Constitution of Reality: Russell’s Republic Revisited. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 191–223.

Menzies, Peter (2008). Counterfactual theories of causation. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philo-sophy: plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-probabilistic/

Menzies, Peter, and Price, Huw (1993). Causation as a secondary quality. British Journal forPhilosophy of Science 44: 187–203.

Mervis, Carolyn, and Rosch, Eleanor (1981). Categorization of natural objects. Annual Reviewof Psychology 32: 89–115.

Michotte, Albert (1963). The Perception of Causality. London: Methuen. [Originally publishedin 1946.]

Mill, John Stuart (1973[1872]). System of logic. In John Robson (ed.), Collected Works of JohnStuart Mill, vol. 7/8: Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Mills, Candice, and Keil, Frank (2004). Knowing the limits of one’s understanding: Thedevelopment of an awareness of an illusion of explanatory depth. Journal of ExperimentalChild Psychology 87: 1–32.

Miyagawa, Shigeru (1984). Blocking and Japanese causatives. Lingua 64: 177–207.Miyagawa, Shigeru (1989). Structure and Case Marking in Japanese. San Diego, Calif.:Academic Press.

Miyagawa, Shigeru (2012). Blocking and causatives: unexpected competition across deriv-ations. In Case, Argument Structure, and Word Order. London: Routledge, 202–23.

Moens, Marc, and Steedman, Mark (1988). Temporal ontology and temporal reference.Computational Linguistics 14: 15–28.

Molnar, George (2003). Powers: A Study in Metaphysics, ed. Stephen Mumford. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Montague, Richard (1974). The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. InRichmond Thomason (ed.), Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers by Richard Montague. NewHaven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 303–59.

Morange, Michel (1998). La part des gènes. Paris: Jacob. Translated by Matthew Cobb (2001),The Misunderstood Gene (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press).

Mueller, Erik (2006). Commonsense Reasoning. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Muentener, Paul, and Lakusta, Laura (2011). The intention-to-CAUSE bias: evidence fromchildren’s causal language. Cognition 119.3: 341–55.

Mumford, Stephen (2008). Powers, dispositions, properties: or a causal realist manifesto. InRuth Groff (ed.), Revitalizing Causality: Realism About Causality in Philosophy and SocialScience. London: Routledge, 139–51.

Mumford, Stephen, and Anjum, Rani (2011a). Getting Causes from Powers. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Mumford, Stephen, and Anjum, Rani (2011b). Spoils to the vector: how to model causes if youare a realist about powers. The Monist 94: 54–80.

Murphy, Gregory (2002). The Big Book of Concepts. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Nadelhoffer, Thomas (2005). Skill, luck, control and intentional action. Philosophical Psychol-

ogy 18.3: 341–52.


References 415

Nanay, Bence (2010). Morality or modality? What does the attribution of intentionalitydepend on? Canadian Journal of Philosophy 40: 25–40.

Nash, Léa (2006). Structuring VP. Paper presented at École d’automne de linguistique, Paris.Naumann, Ralf (2001). Aspects of changes: a dynamic event semantics. Journal of Semantics

18.1: 27–81.Naylor, Paz (1986). On the pragmatics of focus. In Paul Geraghty, Lois Carrington, and

Stephen Wurm (eds), FOCAL 1: 43–57.Neapolitan, Richard (1990). Probabilistic Reasoning in Expert Systems: Theory and Algorithms.

New York: Wiley.Nedjalkov, Vladimir, and Silnitsky, Georgij (1969). Tipologija morfologičeskogo i leksičeskogo

kauzativov. In Aleksandr Xolodovič (ed.), Tipologija Kauzativnyx Konstrukcij: Morfologi-českij Kauzativ. Leningrad: Nauka, 20–50.

Nedjalkov, Vladimir, and Silnitsky, Georgij (1973). The typology of morphological and lexicalcausatives. In Ferenc Kiefer (ed.), Trends in Soviet Theoretical Linguistics: Foundations ofLanguage. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1–32.

Neeleman, Dirk, and van de Koot, Hans (2012). The linguistic expression of causation. InMartin Everaert, Tal Siloni, and Marijana Marelj (eds), The Theta System: ArgumentStructure at the Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 20–51.

Nelson, Diane (2000). Linking causatives and experiencers. In Diane Nelson and Paul Foulkes(eds), Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics 8 (University of Leeds), 149–177.

Nichols, Shaun, and Ulatowski, Joseph (2007). Intuitions and individual differences: theKnobe effect revisited. Mind and Language 22: 346–65.

Nolasco, Ricardo (2005). What ergativity in Philippine languages really means. Proceedings ofthe Taiwan–Japan Joint Workshop on Austronesian Languages. Taipei: National TaiwanUniversity, 215–38.

Nolasco, Ricardo, and Saclot, Maureen (2005). M- and S-transitivity in Philippine-typelanguages. Paper presented at the 2005 International Course and Conference on Role andReference Grammar, Taipei, Academia Sinica, 26–30 June.

Nouwen, Rick (2011). Degree modifiers and monotonicity. In Paul Egré and Nathan Kline-dinst (eds), Vagueness and Language Use. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 146–64.

Oehrle, Richard (1976). The grammatical status of the English dative alternation. Ph.Dthesis, MIT.

O’Keefe, John (1996). The spatial prepositions in English, vector grammar and the cognitivemap theory. In Merrill Garrett (ed.), Language and Space. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,227–316.

O’Keefe, John (2003). Vector grammar, places, and the functional role of the spatial preposi-tions in English. In Emile van der Zee and Jon Slack (eds), Representing Direction inLanguage and Space. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 69–85.

Park, Ki-Seong (1993). Korean causatives in Role and Reference Grammar. MA dissertation,University of New York.

Parsons, Terence (1989). The progressive in English: events, states, and processes. Linguisticsand Philosophy 12: 213–41.


416 References

Parsons, Terence (1990). Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics.Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Partee, Barbara (1989). Many quantifiers. ESCOL 89, 383–402. Repr. in Compositionality inFormal Semantics: Selected Papers by Barbara Partee (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004), 241–58.

Paslawska, Alla (1998). Transparente Morphologie und Semantik eines deutschen Negation-saffixes. Linguistische Berichte 175: 353–85.

Paul, L. A. (2009). Counterfactual theories. In Helen Beebee, Christopher Hitchcock, and PeterMenzies (eds), Oxford Handbook of Causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 158–84.

Pawley, Andrew, and Reid, Lawrence (1979). The evolution of transitive constructions inAustronesian. In Paz Naylor (ed.), Austronesian Studies: Papers from the Second EasternConference on Austronesian Languages. Ann Arbor: Center for South and Southeast AsianStudies, 103–30.

Payne, Thomas (1997). Describing Morphosyntax: A Guide for Field Linguists. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Pearl, Judea (1988). Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligence Systems. San Mateo, Calif.: MorganKaufmann.

Pearl, Judea (2000). Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Pederson, Eric (2008). Event realization in Tamil. In Melissa Bowerman and Penelope Brown(eds), Crosslinguistic Perspectives on Argument Structure: Implications for Learnability.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 331–55.

Perlmutter, David (1978). Impersonal passive and the unaccusative hypothesis. Proceedings ofthe Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 157–89.

Pesetsky, David (1995). Zero Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Pettit, Dean, and Knobe, Joshua (2009). The pervasive impact of moral judgments. Mind and

Language 24.5: 586–604.Phan, Trang (2013). The projection of inner aspect in Vietnamese. Journal of Portuguese

Linguistics 12.1: 41–62.Phillips, Vivianne (2001). The interactions between prefix and root: the case of maha inMalagasy. In Vivianne Phillips, Ileana Paul, and Lisa Travis (eds), Formal Issues inAustronesian Linguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 85–104.

Pighin, Stefania, Bonnefon, Jean-François, and Savadori, Lucia (2011). Overcoming numbernumbness in prenatal risk communication. Prenatal Diagnosis 31: 809–13.

Pinker, Steven (1989). Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure.Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Piñón, Christopher (2001a). A finer look at the causative-inchoative alternation. In RachelHastings, Brendan Jackson, and Zsofia Zvolenszky (eds), Proceedings of Semantics andLinguistic Theory 11. Ithaca, NY: CLC, 346–64.

Piñón, Christopher (2001b). Modelling the causative–inchoative alternation. LinguistischeArbeitsberichte 76. Leipzig: University of Leipzig, 273–93.

Piñón, Christopher (2009). Incrementality by degrees. Talk given at Chronos 9, Paris.Place, Ullin (1996). Intentionality as the mark of the dispositional. Dialectica 50(2): 91–120.Portner, Paul (1997). The semantics of mood, complementation, and conversational force.

Natural Language Semantics 8: 167–212.Portner, Paul (1998). The progressive in modal semantics. Language 74: 760–87.


References 417

Prince, Ellen (1973). Futurate be-ing, or why Yesterday morning, I was leaving tomorrow onthe midnight special is OK. Talk given at the 1973 Summer Meeting of the Linguistic Societyof America.

Psillos, Stathis (2008). Causal pluralism. In Robrecht Vanderbeeken and Bart D’Hooghe (eds),Worldviews, Science and Us: Studies of Analytical Metaphysics—A Selection of Topics From aMethodological Perspective. Singapore: World Scientific, 131–51.

Pustejovsky, James (1988). The geometry of events. In Carol Tenny (ed.), Studies in GenerativeApproaches to Aspect. Cambridge, Mass.: Centre for Cognitive Science, MIT, 34–62.

Pustejovsky, James (1991). The syntax of event structure. Cognition 41: 47–81.Pustejovsky, James (1995). The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Pylkkänen, Liina (1999a). Causation and external arguments. In Liina Pylkkänen, Angeliek

van Hout, and Heidi Harley (eds), Papers from the UPenn/MIT Roundtable on the Lexicon.Cambridge, Mass.: MITWPL, 161–83.

Pylkkänen, Liina (1999b). On stativity and causation. In Carol Tenny and James Pustejovsky(eds), Events as Grammatical Objects. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI, 417–45.

Pylkkänen, Liina (2002). Introducing arguments. Ph.D thesis, MIT. Published by MIT Press in2008.

Pylkkänen, Liina, Martin, Andrea, McElree, Brian, and Smart, Andrew (2009). The anteriormidline field: coercion or decision making? Brain and Language 108: 184–90.

Quine, Willard (1985). Events and reification. In Ernest Lepore and Brian McLaughlin (eds),Actions and Events: Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson. Oxford: Blackwell,162–71.

Rackowski, Andrea (2002). The structure of Tagalog: specificity, voice and the distribution ofarguments. Ph.D thesis, McGill University.

Ramchand, Gillian (2008). Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First-Phase Syntax. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Ramchand, Gillian (2013). Argument structure and argument structure alternations. InMarcel den Dikken (ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Ramsey, Frank (1925). Universals. In Philosophical Papers, ed. David Mellor. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 8–30. [Originally published in 1925.]

Randriamasimanana, Charles (1986). The Causatives of Malagasy. Honolulu: University ofHawai’i Press.

Rapp, Irene, and von Stechow, Arnim (1999). Fast ‘almost’ and the visibility parameter forfunctional adverbs. Journal of Semantics 16.2: 149–204.

Rappaport Hovav, Malka (2014). Lexical content and context: the causative alternation inEnglish revisited. Lingua 141: 8–29.

Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Levin, Beth (1998). Building verb meanings. In Miriam Buttand Wilhelm Geuder (eds), The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and CompositionalFactors. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI, 97–134.

Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Levin, Beth (2002). Change of state verbs: implications fortheories of argument projection. In Julie Larson and Mary Paster (eds), Proceedings of the28th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: University of California,269–80.


418 References

Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Levin, Beth (2010). Reflections on manner/result complemen-tarity. In Malka Rappaport-Hovav, Edit Doron, and Ivy Sichel (eds), Lexical Semantics,Syntax, and Event Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 21–38.

Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Levin, Beth (2012). Lexicon uniformity and the causativealternation. In Martin Everaert, Marijana Marelj, and Tal Siloni (eds), The Theta System:Argument Structure at the Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 150–76.

Recanati, François (2007). Perspectival Thought: A Plea for (Moderate) Relativism. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Regier, Terry, and Carlson, Laura (2001). Grounding spatial language in perception: an empiricaland computational investigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 130: 273–98.

Reichenbach, Hans (1956). The Direction of Time. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Reinhart, Tanya (2000). The theta-system: syntactic realization of verbal concepts. OTS

Working Papers in Linguistics, Utrecht: OTS, 1–45.Reinhart, Tanya (2002). The theta system: an overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28.3: 229–90.Reinhart, Tanya, and Siloni, Tal (2005). The lexicon–syntax parameter: reflexivization andother arity operations. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 389–436.

Reiss, Julian (2009). Causation in the social sciences: evidence, inference, and purpose.Philosophy of the Social Sciences 39.1: 20–40.

Reuland, Eric (1983). Governing -ing. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 101–36.Rice, Keren (2000). Voice and valency in the Athapaskan family. In Robert Dixon andAlexandra Aikhenvald (eds), Changing Valency: Case Studies in Transitivity. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 173–235.

Ritter, Elizabeth, and Rosen, Sara (1993). Deriving causation. Natural Language & LinguisticTheory 11.3, 519–55.

Ritter, Elizabeth, and Rosen, Sara (1996). Strong and weak predicates. Linguistic Analysis26: 29–62.

Ritter, Elizabeth, and Rosen, Sara (1998). Delimiting events in syntax. In Miriam Butt andWilhelm Geuder (eds), The Projection of Arguments. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI, 135–64.

Rivero, María, and Arregui, Ana (2010). Variation in circumstantial modality: Polish versusSt’at’imcets. Linguistic Inquiry 41.4: 704–14.

Roeper, Tom (1987). Implicit arguments and the head-complement relation. LinguisticInquiry 18: 267–310.

Rosch, Eleanor (1978). Principles of categorization. In Eleanor Rosch and Barbara Lloyd (eds),Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 27–48.

Rosen, Sara (1999). The syntactic representation of linguistic events. Glot International4.2: 3–11.

Ross, Malcolm (2002). The history and transitivity of western Austronesian voice and voicemarking. In Fay Wouk and Malcolm Ross (eds), The History and Typology of WesternAustronesian Voice Systems. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, 17–62.

Rothstein, Susanne (2001). Predicates and their Subjects. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Rothstein, Susanne (2004). Structuring Events: A Study in the Semantics of Lexical Aspect.Oxford: Blackwell.

Rozenblit, Leonid, and Keil, Frank (2002). The misunderstood limits of folk science: anillusion of explanatory depth. Cognitive Science 26: 521–62.

Russell, Bertrand (1913). On the notion of cause. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 13: 1–26.


References 419

Russell, Bertrand (1986[1912]). The concept of cause. InMysticism and Logic. London: Allen &Unwin, 173–199.

Russell, Bertrand (1998[1912]). The Problems of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Ruwet, Nicolas (1972). Les constructions factitives. In Nicolas Ruwet, Théorique syntaxique et

syntaxe du Français. Paris: Seuil, 126–80.Saclot, Maureen (2006). On the transitivity of the actor focus and the patient focus construc-

tions in Tagalog. Talk given at the 10th International Conference on Austronesian Linguis-tics, Palawan, 17–20 Jan.

Saksena, Anuradha (1982a). Contact in causation. Language 58.4: 820–31.Saksena, Anuradha (1982b). Topics in the Analysis of Causatives with an Account of Hindi

Paradigms. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Salmon, Wesley (1984). Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Salmon, Wesley (1998). Causality and Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Sapir, Edward (1944). Grading: a study in semantics. Philosophy of Science 11.2: 93–116.Saxe, Rebecca, and Carey, Susan (2006). The perception of causality in infancy. Acta Psycho-

logica 123: 144–65.Schachter, Paul (1976). The subject in Philippine languages. In Charles Li (ed.), Subject and

Topic. New York: Academic Press, 493–518.Schachter, Paul, and Otanes, Fe (1972). Tagalog Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of

California Press.Schäfer, Florian (2008a). The Syntax of (Anti-)Causatives: External Arguments in Change-of-

State Contexts. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Schäfer, Florian (2008b). Two types of external argument licensing. GLOW Newsletter 31.Schäfer, Florian (2009a). The causative alternation. Language and Linguistics Compass 3.2:

641–81.Schäfer, Florian (2009b). The oblique causer argument across languages. In Anisa Schardl,

Martin Walkow, and Muhammad Abdurrahman (eds), Proceedings of the North EastLinguistic Society 38. Amherst: GLSA, 297–308.

Schäfer, Florian (2012). Two types of external argument licensing: the case of causers. StudiaLinguistica 66.2: 128–80.

Schaffer, Jonathan (2000). Causation by disconnection. Philosophy of Science 67: 285–300.Schaffer, Jonathan (2003). The metaphysics of causation. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-metaphysics/Schaffer, Jonathan (2004). Causes need not be physically connected to their effects. In

Christopher Hitchcock (ed.), Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Science. Oxford:Blackwell, 197–216.

Schaffer, Jonathan (2006). Le trou noir de la causalité. Philosophie 89: 40–52.Schaffner, Kenneth (1993). Discovery and Explanation in Biology and Medicine. Chicago:

Chicago University Press.Schulz, Laura, Kushnir, Tamar, and Gopnik, Alison (2007). Learning from doing: intervention

and causal inference. In Alison Gopnik and Laura Schulz (eds), Causal Learning: Psychol-ogy, Philosophy and Computation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 67–85.

Scriven, Michael (1971). The logic of cause. Theory and Decision 2: 49–66.Shepard, Jason, and Wolff, Phillip (2013). The role of causal structure in ascriptions of

intentionality. MS, under review.


420 References

Shibatani, Masayoshi (1973a). A linguistic study of causative constructions. Ph.D thesis,University of California, Berkeley.

Shibatani, Masayoshi (1973b). Semantics of Japanese causatives. Foundations of Language 9.3:327–73.

Shibatani, Masayoshi (1975). A Linguistic Study of Causative Constructions. Bloomington:Indiana University Press.

Shibatani, Masayoshi (1976). The grammar of causative constructions: a conspectus. InMasayoshi Shibatani (ed.), The Grammar of Causative Constructions. New York: AcademicPress, 1–40.

Shibatani, Masayoshi (2002). Introduction: some basic issues on the grammar of causation. InMasayoshi Shibatani (ed.), The Grammar of Causation and Interpersonal Manipulation,Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1–22.

Shibatani, Masayoshi (2006). On the conceptual framework for voice phenomena. Linguistics44.2: 217–69.

Shibatani, Masayoshi, and Pardeshi, Prashant (2002). The causative continuum. In MasayoshiShibatani (ed.), The Grammar of Causation and Interpersonal Manipulation. Amsterdam:Benjamins, 85–26.

Sichel, Ivy (2010). Event structure constraints on nominalization. In Artemis Alexiadou andMonika Rathert (eds), The Syntax of Nominalizations across Languages and Frameworks.Berlin: de Gruyter, 151–90.

Simon, Herbert (1952). On the definition of the causal relation. Journal of Philosophy 49:517–28.

Singh, Mona (1998). On the semantics of the perfective aspect. Natural Language Semantics 6:171–99.

Skyrms, Brian (1980). Causal Necessity: A Pragmatic Investigation of the Necessity of Laws.New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Sloman, Steven (2005). Causal Models: How People Think about the World and its Alter-natives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sloman, Steven, Barbey, Aron, and Hotaling, Jared (2009). A causal model theory of themeaning of cause, enable, and prevent. Cognitive Science 33: 21–50.

Sloman, Steven, Fernbach, Philip, and Ewing, Scott (2012). A causal model of intentionalityjudgment. Mind and Language 27: 154–80.

Smith, Carlota (1970). Jespersens ‘move and change’ class and causative verbs in English. InAli Jazayery, Edgar Palomé, and Werner Winter (eds), Linguistic and Literary Studies: InHonor of Archibald A. Hill, vol. 2. Berlin: de Gruyter, 101–9.

Smith, Carlota (1997). The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Smith, Edward, and Medin, Douglas (1981). Categories and Concepts. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press.

Smith, Marcus (2004). A pre-group grammar of a non-configurational language. MS, Uni-versity of California.

Solstad, Torgrim (2009). On the implicitness of arguments in event passives. In Anisa Schardl,Martin Walkow, and Muhammad Abdurrahman (eds), Proceedings of the North EastLinguistic Society 38. Amherst, Mass.: GLSA, 365–74.


References 421

Song, Grace, and Wolff, Phillip (2005). Linking perceptual properties to the linguistic expres-sion of causation. In Michel Achard and Suzanne Kemmer (eds), Language, Culture andMind. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI, 237–50.

Song, Jae Jung (1996). Causatives and Causation. London: Longman.Sorace, Antonella (2000). Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language 76:

859–90.Sosa, Ernest, and Tooley, Michael (1993). Causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Sparing-Chávez, Margarethe (2003). I want to but I can’t: the frustrative in Amahuaca.

Summer Institute of Linguistics Electronic Working Papers: www.sil.org/resources/publica-tions/entry/7854

Spencer, Andrew (1991). Morphological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Sproat, Richard, and Shih, Chilin (1991). The crosslinguistic distribution of adjective ordering

restrictions. In Carol Georgopoulos and Roberta Ishihara (eds), Interdisciplinary Approachesto Language: Essays in Honor of S.-Y. Kuroda. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 565–93.

Stalnaker, Robert (1968). A theory of conditionals. Studies in Logical Theory. Oxford: Black-well, 98–112.

Stalnaker, Robert (1978). Assertion. In Peter Cole (ed.), Pragmatics. NewYork: AcademicPress, 315–32.

Starosta, Stanley (2002). Austronesian ‘focus’ as derivation: evidence from nominalization,Language and Linguistics 3.2: 427–79.

Starosta, Stanley, Pawley, Andrew, and Reid, Lawrence (1982). The evolution of focus inAustronesian. In Amran Halim, Lois Carrington, and Stephen Wurm (eds), Papers from theThird International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics. Canberra: Australian NationalUniversity, 145–70.

Steedman, Mark (1998). The productions of time. MS, University of Edinburgh.Stowell, Tim (1983). Subjects across categories. Linguistic Review 2: 285–312.Strawson, Peter (1959). Individuals: An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics. London: Methuen.Strevens, Michael (2007). Review of Woodward, Making Things Happen. Philosophy and

Phenomenological Research 74: 233–49.Strevens, Michael (2008). Comments on Woodward, Making Things Happen. Philosophy and

Phenomenological Research 77: 17–92.Sulkala, Helena, and Karjalainen, Merja (1992). Finnish. London: Routledge.Suppes, Patrick (1970). A Probabilistic Theory of Causality. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Svenonius, Peter (2001). Case and event structure. MS, University of Tromsø.Sweetser, Eve (1982). Root and epistemic modals: causality in two worlds. In Monica Macau-

lay, Orin Gensler, Claudia Brugman, Inese Civkulis, Amy Dahlstrom, Katherine Krile, andRob Sturm (eds), Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley LinguisticsSociety. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 484–507.

Sweetser, Eve (1984). Semantic structure and semantic change: a cognitive linguistic study ofmodality, perception, speech acts and logical relations. Ph.D, University of California,Berkeley.

Szabó, Zoltán (2004). On the progressive and the perfective. Noûs 38: 29–59.Talmy, Leonard (1976). Semantic causative types. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), The Grammar

of Causative Constructions. New York: Academic Press, 43–116.


422 References

Talmy, Leonard (1981). Force dynamics. Paper presented at conference on Language andMental Imagery, Berkeley, Calif., May.

Talmy, Leonard (1983). How language structures space. In Herbert Pick and Linda Acredolo(eds), Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research and Application. New York: Plenum Press,225–82.

Talmy, Leonard (1985a). Force dynamics in language and thought. In William Eikfont, PaulKroeber, and Karen Peterson (eds), Papers from the Parasession on Causatives and Agent-ivity at the Twenty-First Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago:Chicago Linguistic Society, 293–337.

Talmy, Leonard (1985b). Force dynamics as a generalization over causative. In DeborahTannen and James Atlatis (eds), Proceedings of the Georgetown University Round Tableon Languages and Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 6785.

Talmy, Leonard (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12:49–100.

Talmy, Leonard (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics, vols 1 and 2. Cambridge, Mass.: MITPress.

Tannenbaum, David, Ditto, Peter, and Pizarro, David (2007). Different moral values producedifferent judgments of intentional action. MS, University of California-Irvine.

Tatevosov, Sergei (2008). Subevental structure and non-culmination. In Olivier Bonami andPatricia Cabredo Hofherr (eds), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 7: http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss7, 393–422.

Tatevosov, Sergei, and Ivanov, Mikhail (2009). Event structure of non-culminating accom-plishments. In Lotte Hogeweg, Helen de Hoop, and Andrej Malchukov (eds), Cross-Linguistic Semantics of Tense, Aspect, and Modality. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 83–130.

Tatevosov, Sergei, and Lyutikova, Ekaterina (2012). A finer look at predicate decomposition:evidence from causativization. In Christopher Piñón (ed.), Empirical Issues in Syntax andSemantics 9: http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss9: 207–23.

Taylor, Richard (1966). Action and Purpose. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Tenny, Carol (1987). Grammaticalizing aspect and affectedness. Ph.D thesis, MIT.Tenny, Carol (1992). The aspectual interface hypothesis. In Ivan Sag and Anna Szabolsci(eds), Lexical Matters. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI, 1–28.

Tenny, Carol (1994). Aspectual Roles and the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Dordrecht: KluwerAcademic.

Tenny, Carol (2000). Core events and adverbial modification. In Carol Tenny and JamesPustejovsky (eds), Events as Grammatical Objects: the Converging Perspectives of LexicalSemantics and Syntax. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI, 285–334.

Tenny, Carol, and Pustejovsky, James (2000a). Events as Grammatical Objects: The ConvergingPerspectives of Lexical Semantics and Syntax, Stanford, Calif.: CSLI.

Tenny, Carol, and Pustejovsky, James (2000b). History of events in linguistic theory. In CarolTenny and James Pustejovsky (eds), Events as Grammatical Objects: The ConvergingPerspectives of Lexical Semantics and Syntax. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI, 3–38.

ter Meulen, Alice (1990). English aspectual verbs as generalized quantifiers. In Juli Carter,Rose-Marie Déchaine, Bill Philip, and Tim Sherer (eds), Proceedings of NELS 20: 378–90.

Thomason, Richmond (1970). Indeterminist time and truth-value gaps. Theoria 36: 264–81.


References 423

Thomason, Richmond, and Stalnaker, Robert (1973). A semantic theory of adverbs. LinguisticInquiry 4.2: 195–220.

Thompson, Laurence (1985). Control in Salish grammar. In Frans Plank (ed.), RelationalTypology. Berlin: Mouton, 391–428.

Thomson, Judith (2003). Causation: omissions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66:81–103.

Travis, Lisa (1991). Inner aspect and the structure of VP. Talk given at NELS 22, University ofDelaware, Newark.

Travis, Lisa (1994). Event phrase and a theory of functional categories. In Päivi Koskinen(ed.), Proceedings of the 1994 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistics Association.Toronto: Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 559–70.

Travis, Lisa (2000). Event structure in syntax. In Carol Tenny and James Pustejovsky (eds),Events as Grammatical Objects: The Converging Perspectives of Lexical Semantics andSyntax. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI, 145–85.

Travis, Lisa (2005). Articulated VPs and the computation of Aktionsart. In Paula Kemp-chinsky and Roumyana Slabakova (eds), Syntax, Semantics and Acquisition of Aspect.Dordrecht: Springer, 69–94.

Travis, Lisa (2010). Inner Aspect: The Articulation of VP. Dordrecht: Springer.Truswell, Rob (2011). Events, Phrases, and Questions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Tubino Blanco, Mercedes (2011). Causatives in Minimalism. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Van de Velde, Danièle (2001). L’agentivité généralisée: le cas des prédicats psychologiques. In

Danièle Amiot, Walter de Mulder, Estelle Moline, and Dejan Stosic (eds), Ars Grammatica:hommages à Nelly Flaux. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 237–57.

van Hout, Angeliek (1996). Event semantics of verb frame alternations. Ph.D thesis, TilburgUniversity. Published in 1998 by Garland, New York.

van Hout, Angeliek (2004). Unaccusativity as telicity checking. In Artemis Alexiadou, ElenaAnagnostopoulou, and Martin Everaert (eds), The Unaccusativity Puzzle. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 60–83.

van Lambalgen, Michiel, and Hamm, Fritz (2003). Event calculus, nominalisation, and theprogressive. Linguistics and Philosophy 26.4: 381–458.

van Lambalgen, Michiel, and Hamm, Fritz (2005). The Proper Treatment of Events. Oxford:Blackwell.

van Rooy, Robert (2004). Signalling games select Horn strategies. Linguistics and Philosophy27.4: 493–527.

Van Valin, Robert (2005). Exploring the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Van Valin, Robert, and LaPolla, Randy (1997). Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function.Cambridge: Cambrige University Press.

Van Valin, Robert, and Wilkins, David (1996). The case for ‘effector’: case roles, agents andagency revisited. In Masayoshi Shibitani and Sandra Thompson (eds), Grammatical Con-structions: Their Form and Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 289–322.

Vecchiato, Antonella (2003). The Italian periphrastic causative and force dynamics. In NihanKetrez, Justin Aronoff, Monica Cabrera, Asli Ciger, Shadi Ganjavi, Milena Petrova, andIsabelle Roy (eds), USC Working Papers in Linguistics 1, 91–109.


424 References

Vecchiato, Antonella (2004). On intentional causation in Italian. In Julie Auger, JosephClements, and Barbara Vance (eds), Contemporary Approaches to Romance Linguistics.Amsterdam: Benjamins, 343–60.

Veltman, Frank (1991). Defaults in update semantics. In Hans Kamp (ed.), Conditionals,Defaults and Belief Revision. Edinburgh: Center for Cognitive Science, University of Edin-burgh, 28–64.

Vendler, Zeno (1957). Verbs and times. Philosophical Review 66: 143–60.Vendler, Zeno (1967a). Causal relations. Journal of Philosophy 64: 704–13.Vendler, Zeno (1967b). Facts and events. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: CornellUniversity Press, 12–146.

Vichit-Vadakan, Rasami (1976). The concept of inadvertence in Thai periphrastic causativeconstructions. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), The Grammar of Causative Constructions.New York: Academic Press, 459–76.

Vlach, Frank (1981). The semantics of the progressive. In Philip Tedeschi and Annie Zaenen(eds), Tense and Aspect. New York: Academic Press, 271–92.

van Voorst, Jan (1996). Some systematic differences between the Dutch, French, and Englishtransitive construction. Language Sciences 18.1: 227–45.

von Stechow, Arnim (1995). Lexical decomposition in syntax. In Urs Egli, Peter Pause,Christoph Schwarze, Arnim von Stechow, and Götz Wienold (eds), Lexical Knowledge inthe Organisation of Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 81–177.

von Stechow, Arnim (1996). The different readings of wieder ‘again’: a structural account.Journal of Semantics 13: 87–138.

von Stechow, Arnim (2000). Temporally opaque objects. MS, Universität Tübingen.von Stechow, Armin (2003). How are results represented and modified? Remarks on Jäger &Blutner’s anti-decomposition. In Ewald Lang, Claudia Maienborn, and Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds), Modifying Adjuncts. Berlin: de Gruyter, 417–51.

von Wright, Georg (1971). Explanation and Understanding. London: Routledge andKegan Paul.

Walsh, Clare, and Sloman, Steven (2005). The meaning of cause and prevent: the role ofcausal mechanism. In Bruno Bara, Larry Barsalou, and Monica Bucciarelli (eds), Proceed-ings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum,2331–6.

Walsh, Clare, and Sloman, Steven (2011). The meaning of cause and prevent: the role of causalmechanism. Mind and Language 26.1: 21–52.

Warglien, Massimo, Gärdenfors, Peter, and Westera, Matthijs (2012). Event structure, con-ceptual spaces and the semantics of verbs. Theoretical Linguistics 38: 159–93.

Weber, Elke, and Hilton, Denis (1990). Contextual effects in the interpretation of probabilitywords: perceived base rate and severity of events. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance 16.4: 781–9.

Weld, Daniel (1994). An introduction to least-commitment planning. AI Magazine 15.4: 27–61.Werner, Tom (2006). Future and non-future modal sentences. Natural Language Semantics14.3: 235–55.


References 425

White, Peter A. (1999). Toward a causal realist account of causal understanding. AmericanJournal of Psychology 112: 605–42.

White, Peter A. (2006). The role of activity in visual impressions of causality. Acta Psycholo-gica 123: 166–85.

White, Peter A. (2009). Perception of forces exerted by objects in collision events. Psycholo-gical Review 116: 580–601.

White, Peter (2010). The property transmission hypothesis: a possible explanation for visualimpressions of pulling and other kinds of phenomenal causality. Perception 39.9: 1240–53.

White, Peter (2012). The experience of force: the role of haptic experience of forces in visualperception of object motion and interactions, mental simulation, and motion-relatedjudgments. Psychological Bulletin 138: 589–615.

Wierzbicka, Anna (1988). The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Williams, Edwin (1980). Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 203–38.Williams, Edwin (1981). Argument structure and morphology. Linguistic Review 1.1: 81–114.Williams, Edwin (2006). Telic too late. MS, Harvard University.Williams, Edwin (2011). Derivational prefixes are projective, not realizational. In Edwin

Williams (ed.), Regimes of Derivation in Syntax and Morphology. New York: Routledge,42–66.

Williamson, Jon (2009). Probabilistic theories. In Helen Beebee, Christopher Hitchcock,and Peter Menzies (eds), Oxford Handbook of Causation. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 185–212.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig (2001). Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell. [Originallypublished in 1953.]

Wolff, Phillip (2003). Direct causation in the linguistic coding and individuation of causalevents, Cognition 88: 1–48.

Wolff, Phillip (2007). Representing causation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General136: 82–111.

Wolff, Phillip, and Song, Grace (2003). Models of causation and the semantics of causal verbs,Cognitive Psychology 47: 276–332.

Wolff, Phillip, Barbey, Aron, and Hausknecht, Matthew (2010). For want of a nail: howabsences cause events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 139: 191–221.

Wolff, Phillip, Hausknecht, Matthew, and Holmes, Kevin (2010). Absent causes, presenteffects: how omissions cause events. In Jürgen Bohnemeyer and Eric Pederson (eds),Event Representation in Language: Encoding Events at the Language Cognition Interface.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 228–52.

Wolff, Phillip, Klettke, Bianca, Ventura, Tatyana, and Song, Grace (2005). Categories ofcausation across cultures. In Woo-kyoung Ahn, Robert Goldstone, Bradley Love, ArthurMarkman, and Phillip Wolff (eds), Categorization Inside and Outside of the Lab: Festschriftin Honor of Douglas L. Medin. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association,29–48.

Wolff, Phillip, and Shepard, Jason (2013). Causation, touch, and the perception of force.Psychology of Learning and Motivation 58: 167–202.


426 References

Wolff, Phillip, Song, Grace, and Driscoll, David (2002). Models of causation and causal verbs.In Mary Andronis, Christopher Ball, Heidi Elston, and Sylvain Neuval (eds), Papers fromthe 37th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Main Session, vol. 1. Chicago: ChicagoLinguistics Society, 607–22.

Wolff, Phillip, and Zettergren, Matthew (2002). A vector model of causal meaning. In WayneGray and Christian Schunn (eds), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference ofthe Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 944–9.

Woodward, James (2003). Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Woodward, James (2006). Sensitive and insensitive causation. Philosophical Review 115: 1–50.Woodward, James (2007). Interventionist theories of causation in psychological perspective.In Alison Gopnik and Laura Schulz (eds), Causal Learning: Psychology, Philosophy, andComputation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 17–36.

Woodward, James (2008). Response to Strevens. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research77: 193–212.

Woodward, James (2009). Agency and interventionist theories. In Helen Beebee, ChristopherHitchcock, and Peter Menzies (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Causation. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 234–62.

Wright, Saundra (2002). Transitivity and change of state verbs. In Julie Larsen and MaryPaster (eds), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society.Berkeley, Calif.: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 339–50.

Wunderlich, Dieter (1997). Cause and the structure of verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 28.1: 27–68.Wunderlich, Dieter (2006). Towards a structural typology of verb classes. In Dieter Wunder-lich (ed.), Advances in the Theory of the Lexicon. Berlin: de Gruyter, 57–166.

Wunderlich, Dieter (2012). Lexical decomposition. In Markus Werning, Wolfram Hinzen,and Edouard Machery (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 307–27.

Xolodovič, Aleksandr (1969). Tipologija Kauzativnyx Konstrukcij: Morfologičeskij Kauzativ.Leningrad: Nauka, 20–50.

Yang, In-Seok (1976). Semantics of Korean causation. Foundations of Language 14.1: 55–87.Zacks, Jeffrey, Kurby, Christopher, Eisenberg, Michelle, and Haroutunian, Nayiri (2011).Prediction error associated with the perceptual segmentation of naturalistic events. Journalof Cognitive Neuroscience 23: 4057–66.

Zepeda, Ofelia (1983). A Papago Grammar. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Zepeda, Ofelia (1987). Desiderative-causatives in Tohonno O’odham. International Journal of

American Linguistics 53.3: 348–61.Zimmer, Karl (1976). Some constraints on Turkish causativization. In Masayoshi Shibatani(ed.), The Grammar of Causative Constructions. New York: Academic Press, 399–412.

Zucchi, Alessandro (1993). The Language of Proposition and Events. Dordrecht: KluwerAcademic.

Zucchi, Sandro, Neidle, Carol, Geraci, Carlo, Duffy, Quinn, and Cecchetto, Carlo (2010).Functional markers in sign languages. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign Languages. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.


References 427

Zwarts, Joost (2010). Forceful prepositions. In Vyvyan Evans and Paul Chilton (eds), Lan-guage, Cognition and Space: The State of the Art and New Directions. Sheffield: Equinox,193–214.

Zwarts, Joost, and Winter, Yoad (2000). Vector space semantics: a model-theoretic analysis oflocative prepositions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9.2: 171–213.

Zwicky, Arnold, and Sadock, Jerrold (1975). Ambiguity tests and how to fail them. In JohnKimball (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 4. New York: Academic Press, 1–36.


428 References

Documents

14 Event-structural prominence and forces in verb meaning shifts