A Cognitive-Functional Approach To Chinese And English Causative Alternations

Functional linguistics and Cognitive Linguistics generally accept that world languages consist of transitive paradigm and ergative paradigm (Halliday 1985, 1994; Langacker 1991; Lemmens 1998), both of which, as put by Halliday (1985, 1994), Langacker (1991) and Dixon (1994), co-exist in every language. Lemmens (1998) and Ni Rong (2009) observe that substantial ergative phenomena in English and Chinese have long been neglected.Causative alternation, as a core concept of ergativity, is characterized by verbs with both intransitive and transitive use. The intransitive use typically denotes a change-of-state event undergone by some entity while the transitive use denotes that this change-of-state event has been caused by some different entity. We define causative alternation in this dissertation as the same event denoted by the same verb, the causative content of which includes the prototypical agent and subsequent act, while the inchoative content of which does not, since the act denoted by the verb is voluntary.Scholars have conducted much research on various cross-linguistic features of causative alternation from various perspectives of formal linguistics, Cognitive Linguistics and functional linguistics. The formalist school holds two opposite interpretations: detransitivization and causativization. Researchers supporting detransitivization assume that all anticausatives are derived from their transitive counterpart and take the anticausative morphology as an idiosyncratic instance of allomorphy. The causativization approach assumes that the transitive entry is derived from the basic anticausative/unaccusative entry. However, the asymmetry of verb marking prevents both approaches from a satisfactory solution. The lack of derivational source and target of nonalternative unaccuatives constitutes a challenge for both transitive-based and intransitive-based approaches. Cognitive construction grammar, on the other hand, looks beyond alternations and considers each surface pattern on its own terms. Goldberg refers to the broader generalizations as Surface Generalizations. Nevertheless, it is no easy job to distinguish causative and anti-causative constructions from other relevant constructions.The present research, compared with previous studies, differs in the following aspects: 1) We construct a unified Cognitive Model of Causative Alternation Event (CMCAE). 2) We set forth the relative indices of Causative Alternation Strength (CAS) and design corresponding formulae to measure them. 3) We conduct a corpus-based Chinese-English contrastive study.Grounded on theories of Force-Dynamic, Causal Chain, A/D Layering and Absolute Construal, this study constructs CMCAE as a theoretical framework for further analyses of CAV in construction contexts. It proposes that polysemic CAV can also be taken as a construction, and the alternation ability is the outcome of the mutual competition between ergative and transitive constructions.This study focuses on a contrastive study under the assistance of the measurement of CAS. We conduct this research with both qualitative and quantitative methods, adopting Chesterman's (1998) CFA (Contrastive Functional Analysis) method. The data are gathered through KWIC search in CCL (Center for Chinese Linguistic PKU) Corpus and BNC (British National Corpus). We hold that it is essential to study the shared verbs plus shared themes. Thus, under the framework of collostructional analysis, we propose three CAS indices and design relative formulae: 1) verbal shared type index ("StyI"); 2) verbal shared token index ("SToI"); 3) theme shared token index ("TSTI"). We further explore the typical CAVs and the"SUFFOCATE"CAVs in both Chinese and English. We intend to obtain a general picture of semantic and syntactic features of CAVs and the cognitive motivations behind them. For that purpose, we have studied more than 20,000 samples in search of the nature of the causers, themes, tense-aspect features as well as the semantic structure and semantic content which influence alternation. This study also takes a close look at the construction family of causative alternation phenomena and the verb-construction interactions.The major findings are as follows:1) The dissimilarities between the two languages are: (i) Apart from structural differences, Chinese and English typical CAVs differ in situation types. English CAVs are generally achievement and accomplishment verbs, while due to the lack of accomplishment verbs, Chinese has to depend on two other means to achieve the same effect. One is to change activity predicates into accomplishment ones by attaching complements to activity verbs, and the other is to add the resultative meaning to monosyllabic verbs through tense-aspect markers (eg."le") so that"process + theme" obtains an absolute construal. (ii) Chinese and English"SUFFOCATE"verbs are dissimilar in CAS. Chinese monosyllabic CAVs are limited in number, as determined by the trend in disyllablization. The CAS of Chinese monosyllabic verbs is generally lower than that of their English counterparts, whereas that of Chinese disyllable verbs are higher in both STyI and SToI than that of the English ones. Considering the frequent occurrence of Chinese topic sentences, we conclude that the Chinese pseudo-anticausative sentences far outnumber English ones.2) As this study tries to seek the cognitive motivation of causative alternations, the following commonalities reflected by the data should also deserve our attention. (i) With STyI-SToI inconsistencies in both languages, StyI and SToI reveal a tendency of continuum. The asymmetry of theme frequencies leads to the dissimilarities in the quality and quantity of causative alternations. The continuum trend and the split ergativity in even typical CAVs lead us to abandoning the clear-cut ergativity/non-ergativity distinction (Levin & Rappaport 1995; Zeng 2007, 2009, among others). (ii) In the case of Chinese and English"SUFFOCATE"verbs, there is a correlation between CAS and cognitive conception. The lowest CAS value is found in verbs concerning exterior organs, while the highest value is associated with verbs involving inner part of the body. Another interesting finding, though not many, is that fully voluntary verbs (such as"smoulder") do not alternate. Chinese and English CAVs contain the semantic ingredients of ACT, CAUSE-BECOME and RESULT-STATE. The ACT and CAUSE-BECOME meanings are often integrated while the semantic direction of the RESULT-STATE meaning is the object argument. Anti-causatives must contain RESULT-STATE meaning, with neither inclusion nor expulsion of ACT and CAUSE-BECOME meanings. (iii) Another striking feature of causative alternations is the"transferability"of the causer. If the causer can be transferred among such semantic roles as agent, instrument, and natural force, or between the presence and absence of agentivity, the verb possesses a high potential for alternation. And it is also true the other way around. (iv) Potential for alternation is interrelated with the semantic direction of the RESULT-STATE meaning and animacy differences of the outer and inner arguments. First, the RESULT-STATE meaning directs toward the theme argument. Second, the broader the animacy gap between outer and inner argument is, the more potential for alternation a verb is. If both arguments are of the same animacy level, the verb is not likely to alternate.