Chapter 4: Event decomposition and causativized stative verbs
4.3. Aspectual fi insertion, event building and intervention
4.3.1. Case alternations: interactions with morphology and syntax
Accusative objects, i.e. unmarked, and fi-objects occur in complementary distribution and the goal of this chapter is to define the principles that account for the realization of the two alternants.
Provided that a transitive verb is present and that its direct object is realized, aspectual fi insertion can occur in the following three syntactic contexts: progressive constructions, i.e. a qāʕed sentences, SVCs, i.e. constructions in which an aspectual verb, a verb of motion or a verb of position precedes another verb selected from an unrestricted semantic class and, finally, constructions whose predicate is a causativized stative verb.
The availability of one of these three contexts, however, is not a sufficient condition for the insertion of aspectual fi to occur. A direct object is fi-marked in any of these three syntactic contexts if the sentence displays a verb in the perfective form or in the participial form. If this additional requirement is not fulfilled, the object surfaces in its unmarked form, i.e. abstract accusative Case. For reasons of clarity, I will limit the discussion of this subsection to instances of aspectual fi found in SVCs whose V1 occurs in the perfective or in the imperfective form and in simple sentences whose verb is a causativized stative verb in the perfective or in the imperfective form; the somewhat more complex cases of progressive qāʕed sentences and SVCs whose direct object is an active participle will be addressed later on.
The embedded direct object of a SVCs is fi-marked, i.e. fī-morso gato ‘fi-a slice of cake’ in (20), as long as the predicate in V1 position occurs in the perfective form. Similarly, the deep object of a causativized stative verb is fi marked as observed in (21), i.e. fī-l-muṭālʕa ‘fi-the literature’, only as long as the verb occurs in the perfective form:
(20) semi žā yēkel fī-morso gato Semi come.perf eat.imp fi-slice cake
‘Semi arrived eating a slice of cake.’
(21) le-ktob kif haḏaya ḥabbebū-ni fī-l-muṭālʕa the.books as this make_love.perf-me fi-the-literature
‘Books like this one made me love literature.’
The comparison between examples (20) and (21), on the one hand, and examples (22) and (23) on the other, illustrates that the presence of fi marked objects depends on the availability of the appropriate construct as well as the morphological properties of the verb. As the latter pair of examples show, in effect, aspectual fi is not present in the absence of a perfective predicate:
(22) semi yežī yēkel morso gato Semi come.imp eat.imp slice cake
‘Generally Semi arrives eating a slice of cake.’
(23) le-ktob kif haḏaya yḥabbebū-ni l-muṭālʕa the.books as this make_love.imp-me the-literature
‘Books like this make me love literature.’
As we can see from example (22), if both the V1 and V2 of an SVC occur in the imperfective form, the sentence displays an unmarked object, i.e. morso gato. The same is true for a sentence whose predicate is a causativized stative predicate, (23): if the causativized predicate occurs in the imperfective form, then both direct objects, i.e. ‘me’ -ni and l-muṭālʕa ‘the literature’ are unmarked.
Sentences (20)-(23) show that perfective morphology is a necessary condition for the realization of aspectual fi. In consideration of these facts, therefore, I formulate the following generalization:
(24) Perfective morphology determines the presence of fi-marked objects.
The problem with generalization (24) is that it is too powerful. It over-generates incorrect constructions, predicting illicit instances of aspectual fi insertion, such as in (25)b and (26)b:
(25) a. semi klē morso gato Semi eat.perf slice cake
‘Semi ate a slice of cake.’
b. *semi klē fī-morso gato Semi eat.perf fi-slice cake
(26) a. semi ḥebb marwa barša Semi love.perf Marwa much
‘Semi loved Marwa a lot.’
b. *semi ḥebb fī-marwa barša Semi love.perf fi-Marwa much
Examples (25)a and (26)a show that transitive perfective sentences require an unmarked object, which is confirmed by the corresponding starred examples in (25)b and (26)b. Therefore, it cannot be the case that perfective morphology directly correlates with the presence of a fi marked argument and, consequently, the working hypothesis in (24) needs to be refined.
Thus, generalization (24) does not appropriately account for the absence of aspectual fi in perfective contexts like (25)a and (26)a; however, the generalization appears to be valid for constructions like (20) and (21). The issue we face at this point is which additional condition plays a role in the insertion of aspectual fi besides the presence of a perfective predicate. Such a condition must be operative in the former two cases, i.e. examples (20) and (21), but not in the latter two, i.e. (25)a and (26)a.
The comparison between the SVC in (20) and its parallel example in (22) suggests another hypothesis, namely that the larger syntactic context where an argument occurs interacts with the licensing of Case. As the comparison of the two examples under discussion suggests, an embedded direct object must be fi marked if its selecting verb is embedded under a perfective predicate, leading us to the following refined generalization:
(27) Aspectual fi is inserted whenever a transitive verb is embedded under a perfective predicate.
Generalization (27) accounts for the pattern found across SVCs, but it cannot be correct, since, unlike our first hypothesis, it is too narrow and it does not account for the presence of a fi-marked object in examples like (21); causativized stative predicates, in fact, require a marked object in the absence of an embedding predicate.
Based on these facts, we can draw two conclusions: that predicate embedding cannot account for the complementary distribution of marked and unmarked objects and that perfective morphology alone is not a good predictor. Nonetheless, the availability of an embedding perfective verb in SVCs, and of perfective morphology on a causativized stative predicate are indeed necessary conditions for the insertion of aspectual fi in their respective contexts. Thus, unless we want to abandon the idea that aspectual fi insertion is a unified phenomenon, there must be an additional condition involved in the computation which is not immediately visible in overt syntax. The question concerns what this condition is, keeping in mind that it must link to Case, the causativization of a stative verb, structural complexity, and perfective morphology.
In order to answer this question, I will look at the internal structure of causativized stative predicates and show that aspectual fi insertion indeed depends on a generalization similar to (27), as long as we consider the aspectual operators present in the structure instead of the number of verbal tokens. Since this approach requires a syntactic model that can account for the internal complexity of a predicate, I will illustrate the syntactic background adopted in this research before addressing the analysis.
4.3.2. Syntactic background
The present work adopts the popular view that verbs are represented in syntax with a variable level of complexity matched by the number of arguments they select. This means that the argument structure and the inner aspectual properties of a verb are encoded within the verbal domain thanks to the presence of multiple structural layers or “shells” in the spirit of Larson (1988), Travis (1991) and the rich research domain stemming from these seminal works.
The model I refer to for Arabic is the one described by Hallman (2006). According to this model, direct arguments are merged as specifiers of a verbal projection, either v° or V°, and thus, every argument is introduced by a distinct projection. This principle is also referred to in the literature as the “one argument per subevent condition”, which states that every subevent must correspond in syntax to an XP structure, and that each XP is associated to an argument position (see Rappaport-Hovav and Levin 2001 and references therein). Following this rationale, mono-argumental verbs will present a single structural layer and, consequently, the basic structure of a monadic unaccusative or unergative predicate will be the one in (28), with a single argument merged in spec-V°1:
1 I am aware that this approach does not account for the difference between unaccusative or unergative predicates. Treating these verbs as one structural class does not allow us to capture in syntax effects such
(28) VP
DP1 V’
V°
The DP in the above structure is the internal argument of the VP; however, since the verb presents only one argument, that DP is promoted to the subject position and, therefore, is Case licensed outside of the verbal domain.
The same logic applies to transitive predicates; I again follow Hallman’s work and assume that transitivity is an additive process that increases the structure by one structural projection. This additional projection is conventionally headed by a v° which is responsible for the licensing of accusative Case and provides the specifier position where the second argument of the verb is merged as in (29).
(29) vP
DP2 v’
V° VP
DP1 V’
V°
Svenonius (2013) points out that approaches of this sort represent a way to encode Burzio’s Generalization: accusative is assigned by v°, which also determines the theta role of its specifier and vice-versa, accusative is not assigned if the relevant head is not present. According to Svenonius (2002b; 2013), v° in structures like (29) can either assign the agent theta role to its subject, which occurs in transitive dynamic predicates, or it can assign the experiencer theta role to the external argument of a stative verb. He refers to Baker (2001) when making this claim and connects it to the intuition that all transitive predicates are structurally uniform. I also take this stand and assume that transitive stative predicates, that is i-level predicates or “Kimian states” (cf.
Maienborn 2008), are dyadic structures whose external argument position is projected by a v°
head which is neither causative nor agentive. Thus, I follow Svenonius and assume that any dyadic constructions like (29) comprise two subevents, even when the transitive root is stative.
With this basic building system in mind, we can now move on to more complex event structures in which three theta roles and respective arguments are licensed. I follow again Hallman’s work on Arabic and assume that causative verbs in Tunisian are derived in triadic structures corresponding to the structure in (30):
(30) vP
DP3 v’
v° vP
DP2 v’
v° VP DP1 V’
V°
The diagram above presents two external arguments, namely: DP2 and DP3. At the same time, however, this structure presents two internal arguments since DP2 is internal with respect to the verbal projection that introduces DP3 in its specifier. This ambiguous status of DP2 will later be revealed as relevant for our discussion.
Hallman states that causativized transitive constructions are ditransitive in all respects, because they present the same level of structural complexity as ditransitive verbs and the same Case licensing properties. This means that the syntactic tree in (30) represents both triadic classes.
Consider the following examples:
(31) a. semi (qāʕed) yʕaṭi fī-bū-h fī-l-ktēb Semi prog give.imp fi-father-his fi-the-book
‘Semi is giving his father the book.’
b. semi ʕaṭā bū-h le-ktēb Semi give.perf father-his the-book
‘Semi gave his father the book.’
(32) a. semi (qāʕed) yeḍawweq fī-marwa fī-šoklata Semi prog make_taste.imp fi-Marwa fi-chocolate
‘Semi is making Marwa taste chocolate.’
b. semi ḍawweq marwa šoklata Semi make_taste.perf Marwa chocolate ‘Semi made Marwa taste chocolate.’
Examples (31) and (32) illustrate that both types of triadic predicates present a uniform Case licensing pattern regardless of whether the triadic structure is derived or base-generated; the two objects are fi marked in progressive contexts, cf. (31)a and (32)a; while the same sentences require two unmarked objects in perfective contexts, cf. (31)b and (32)b.
4.3.3. Case alternations with causativized stative predicates:
Tunisian presents one type of causative construction whose Case pattern diverges from the one just described, namely sentences in which the causative verb is derived from an underlying stative predicate. Causativized stative verbs are triadic predicates in which a different Case licensing pattern can be observed. Their Case pattern is peculiar in two respects: it is different from what
we find in other triadic constructions and it allows the two direct objects to appear in overt syntax with different Case marking; see the following example:
(33) a. le-ktēb hadaya ḥabb semi fī-l-muṭālʕa the.book this make_love.perf Semi fi-the-literature
‘This book is making Semi love literature.’
b. *le-ktēb hadaya ḥabb semi l-muṭālʕa the.book this make_love.perf Semi the-literature c. *le-ktēb hadaya ḥabb fī-semi l-muṭālʕa
the.book this make_love.perf fi-Semi the-literature
The comparison between the examples in (31) and (32) versus (33) shows that the latter example, which presents a causativized stative predicate, requires different marking on the two direct objects, unlike the two constructions presented in the previous subsection. Besides this peculiar Case pattern, there is no indication that causativized stative predicates are different from the other triadic verbs from a structural viewpoint. One question therefore is what makes causativized stative predicates different from triadic predicates of all other kinds.
4.3.4. Event variables and i-level predicates
I will address the question above by introducing an additional concept, namely the idea that predicates present an semantic argument, i.e. a Davidsonian argument (1967), in addition to the arguments that they project in syntax.
The syntactic approach discussed above presupposes that complex events present several structural layers and that each structural layer represents a subevent, which introduces an argument and licenses its theta role. I follow Svenonius’ (2002b) proposal and assume that the one argument per subevent condition extends to event variables too, so that an event presents as many variables as there are subevents in its structure. This means that a verb phrase presents a variable (e) associated to any v°/V° projection, so that a transitive structure will result in the following representation:
(34) vP
DP2 v’
V° VP (e2)
DP1 V’
V°
(e1)
Unlike Svenonius, I take a neo-Davidsonian stand and adopt the view that any subevent introduces a variable regardless of its stative or dynamic nature and that the difference between stative and dynamic verbs boils down to the way the variables are bound.
Chierchia (1995) proposes that all stative predicates (i.e. i-level predicates) are inherently generic. Considering his approach, this means that i-level predicates are “incomplete” predicates,
in the sense that they need to be locally bound by an operator in order to be merged in a felicitous syntactic structure. According to the author, the defective status of i-level predicates requires the presence of a generic operator (OPgen) in their immediate environment, which is on parallel with negative polarity items and their licensing conditions. As he suggests, stative predicates in effect are “generic polarity items” (ibid. p 202).
The intuition behind his proposal is that generic contexts and i-level predicates are similar in respect to their temporal properties: they both tend to last. For instance, a disposition of an individual is expected to last throughout the lifespan of that person, and the same is true for i-level predicates, since they precisely describe permanent properties of their arguments. The core of Chierchia’s idea, therefore, is that such a lasting property of predicates has a single source, meaning a single generic operator merged in both generic and stative context. Under this account, therefore, i-level predicates are special verbs that present “no natural non-generic uses” (ibid. p 198) while other verbs allow both the generic and the episodic reading.
Dynamic verbs interpreted as generics and stative verbs differ with respect to the position where OPgen is merged; predicates of the first type require the presence of OPgen in the inflectional domain (which is a point that I will return to later in this section), while OPgen is located a low position in the syntactic structure of an i-level predicate, precisely because they need binding in their immediate syntactic environment.
Chierchia proposes that OPgen in stative predicates is situated as low as the specifier position of a vP. Moreover, OPgen has the properties of an adverb of quantification with a special modal flavor so that it binds the situation variable, i.e. the event variable, projected by verbs whose felicity conditions must be met “in any world maximally similar to ours” (ibid. p 196).
I adopt this proposal and assume that OPgen is merged as a specifier within the vP domain.
This is coherent with the adverbial nature that Chierchia attributes to this element and is also in line with the cartographic approach to syntax adopted in this work. Following Cinque (1999), adverbs, i.e. AdvPs, merge in the specifier of a corresponding syntactic projection whose head can be the landing site for the verb. Thus, under the view that OPgen behaves like an adverb of quantification, it should merge as a specifier too.
Translating this proposal to the syntactic model discussed before, a transitive i-level predicate such as ‘to know’ or ‘to love’ projects a dyadic structure of the kind illustrated in (35)2, whereby OPgen binds all the event variables in its domain:
2 According to Davidson (1967) the event variable is associated with a predicate in the same way as its arguments. As he explains, every action-sentence contains an additional event argument in its semantic representation and the event argument is existentially quantified. The event argument does not have a syntactic counterpart besides being associated to a single subevent (Svenonius 2002b). Since every subevent projecting head is associated to an event variable in the model I adopt, I will simply represent the
(35) vP
Opgen vP
DP2 v’
v° VP
(egen)
DP1 V’
V°
(egen)I use adjunction to represent the merging site of the generic operator for simplicity and space reasons. However, I think Chierchia’s proposal is compatible with a cartographic modelling of syntax if a vP internal aspectual projection in the spirit of Tavis (2005) where OPgen can merge is assumed.
We will now discuss causativized constructions and their Case pattern with these bases in mind before launching the discussion of how Case is licensed in Tunisian.
4.3.5. Accusative and fi marked objects in causative constructions
The empirical observation we will deal with in this section is that Tunisian requires the direct arguments of a causativized stative verb in the perfective form to be assigned with mismatching Cases. More specifically, as noted by Brahim (2007), the theme object of the causativized stative verb in the perfective form is obligatorily fi marked, while the deep subject, i.e. the experiencer, is licensed with unmarked accusative case, as in (36):
(36) karrhet-ni fī-l-kosksi make_hate.perf-me fi-the-couscous
‘She made me hate couscous.’
(Adapted from Brahim 2007, 99: (15)d)
The presence of mismatching Cases on the objects of example (36) is puzzling with respect to the data discussed in chapter 2. The sentence under discussion presents a single verb form with perfective morphology and a single marked object. This fact is at odds with the data presented in chapter 2 section 4.1, which clearly showed that perfective predicates do not select for fi marked objects; see for instance examples (37) and (38):
(37) a. semi klē l-kosksi Semi eat.perf the-couscous
‘Semi ate couscous.’
b. #Semi klē fī-kosksi Semi eat.perf fi-couscous
#‘Semi ate in the couscous.’
(38) Semi klē fī-šqala Semi eat.perf in-bowl
‘Semi ate in a bowl.’
Examples (37) and (38) show that perfective predicates do not license fi marked objects, i.e.
(37)a. The presence of a marked object is semantically incongruous in contexts of this type, see (37)b, because fi in perfective contexts is only understood as a preposition that introduces a locative adjunct, as shown by (38).
As we can observe in (39), this pattern can be generalized to all transitive predicates, including stative ones.
(39) a. semi ḥebb-ni Semi love.perf-me
‘Semi loved me.’
b. *semi ḥebb fī-yya Semi love.perf fi-me
The ungrammatical status of (39)b is expected since, as we know from chapter 2, section 6.4,
The ungrammatical status of (39)b is expected since, as we know from chapter 2, section 6.4,