Katarzyna Sówka-Pietraszewska

Directionality of the rise of the causative/inchoative alternation with verbs suffixed with -ate, -ize, and -(i)fy

Introduction

Directionality of the rise of the causative/inchoative alternation with verbs suffixed with -ate, -ize, and -(i)fy. This study examines the historical development of causative/inchoative alternation in English verbs (-ate, -ize, -(i)fy), challenging unidirectional models with diverse emergence patterns.

Abstract

This study examines the historical development of the causative/inchoative alternation licensed by English verbs ending in -ate, -ize, and -(i)fy. While lexicalist theories (see, among others, Hale and Keyser 1986, Jackendoff 1990, Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995, 2005, 2011) focus on deep-structure derivation from causative to inchoative forms, this analysis emphasizes the necessity of both variants being attested in surface syntactic structure for such a derivation to occur. Drawing on diachronic evidence from the “Oxford English Dictionary” (OED) and the “Early English Books Online” (EEBO) corpus, the analysis shows that the direction of emergence of the syntactic variants attested by verbs with these suffixes was not uniform. Some verbs follow the traditional causative- to-inchoative direction, others exhibit the reverse pattern, while a third group shows a simultaneous appearance of both forms. This observation raises questions about the unidirectional derivation model in deep-structure and may be interpreted as supporting more flexible, bidirectional, or non-derivational approaches, as proposed by Beavers and Koontz-Garboden (2020) and as suggested by the diachronic evidence in Lavidas (2013). It also appears consistent with the claim made by Rappaport Hovav (2014) that changes in the speakers’ perception of causation may influence the development of alternating syntactic variants. In all, the paper concludes that the causative/inchoative alternation is historically dynamic and calls for theoretical models that integrate diachronic data and account for lexical, morphosyntactic, and usage-based variation.

Review

This study offers a compelling diachronic investigation into the emergence patterns of the causative/inchoative alternation among English verbs suffixed with -ate, -ize, and -(i)fy. Moving beyond traditional lexicalist theories that largely assume a unidirectional deep-structure derivation from causative to inchoative forms, the research critically examines surface syntactic attestations from extensive diachronic corpora, namely the "Oxford English Dictionary" (OED) and the "Early English Books Online" (EEBO). This robust methodological approach positions the paper to challenge prevailing assumptions about the inherent directionality of this fundamental syntactic phenomenon. The core finding of the analysis is the demonstration that the historical development of the causative/inchoative alternation is far from uniform. The study identifies three distinct patterns of emergence: some verbs indeed follow the traditional causative-to-inchoative trajectory, others exhibit a reverse inchoative-to-causative pattern, and a significant third group shows a simultaneous appearance of both variants. This crucial observation directly undermines the explanatory power of purely unidirectional deep-structure derivation models, instead lending strong empirical support to more flexible, bidirectional, or non-derivational theoretical approaches. Furthermore, these findings align with perspectives that suggest speaker perception of causation plays a role in the development of alternating syntactic variants. In conclusion, this paper makes a significant contribution to the fields of lexical semantics and syntactic theory by highlighting the necessity of integrating diachronic evidence into theoretical models. By revealing the dynamic and multi-directional nature of the causative/inchoative alternation, it compels a rethinking of static, unidirectional derivational accounts. The study ultimately advocates for the development of more comprehensive theoretical frameworks that can accommodate historical dynamism and account for the intricate interplay of lexical, morphosyntactic, and usage-based variations in the evolution of grammatical phenomena.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.