Causative Constructions in Modern Standard Arabic | ||
| مجلة الدراسات الإنسانية والأدبية | ||
| Article 27, Volume 26, Issue 4, January 2022, Pages 1172-1192 PDF (1.55 M) | ||
| Document Type: المقالة الأصلية | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/shak.2022.253147 | ||
| Author | ||
| د/ ياسر العتيبي | ||
| أستاذ مشارک - جامعة الطائف-المملکه العربية السعودية | ||
| Abstract | ||
| This study aims to describe the causative constructions in modern standard Arabic (MSA) and discuss their analyses. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to discuss the causative constructions in MSA. This study shows that there are three different types of causatives in MSA: the lexical causative, the periphrastic causative, and the morphological causative. We discuss the three types of causatives in MSA and the associated thematic roles of arguments, especially the morphological causatives, where the number of arguments and their thematic roles are changed after the derivation. The role of the causee is always patient, and the role of the causer is always an agent of the event even if the basic verb requires a subject with a different role. The last section of this study presents a syntactic analysis of the three structures of causatives in MSA within the lexical functional grammar framework | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Causatives; Causer; Causee; Caused event | ||
| References | ||
|
Aarts, B. (2017). English syntax and argumentation. Palgrave.
Ackerman, F. (1992). Complex predicates and morpholexical relatedness: Locative alternation in Hungarian. In I. Sag and A. Szabolcsi (Eds.), Lexical Matters, pp. 55–83. Stanford, CA. CSLI Lecture Notes, number 24.
Ackerman, F. and J. Moore (2001). Proto-Properties and Grammatical Encoding: A Correspon- dence Theory of Argument Selection. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Alsina, A. (1996). The Role of Argument Structure in Grammar: Evidence from Romance. Stan- ford, CA.
Bresnan, J., T. HOEKSTRA, H. VAN DER HULST, and M. MOORTGAT (1980). Polyadicity:
Part i of a theory of lexical rules and representations in lexical grammar.
Broadwell, G. A., M. Butt, T. H. King, et al. (1998). Directionals as complex predicates in choctaw.
In On-line Proceedings of the LFG98 Conference.
Butt, M. (1996). The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu. Dissertations in Linguistics.
Stanford, CA. Revised and corrected version of 1993 Stanford University dissertation.
Carnie, A. (2007). Syntax: a generative introduction (2e`me e´d.).
Dalrymple, M. (2001). Lexical functional grammar, Volume 42. Academic Press New York. Dowty, D. R. (1991). Thematic proto roles and argument selection. Language 67(3), 547–619. Falk, Y. (2001). Lexical-functional grammar. CSLI.
Jackendoff, R. S. (1983). Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Jackendoff, R. S. (1990). Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Kaplan, R. M. and J. Bresnan (1982). Lexical Functional Grammar: a Formal System for Gram- matical Representation. In J. Bresnan (Ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Rela- tions, pp. 173–282. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kearns, K. (2011). Semantics (second ed.). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kiparsky, P. and C. Kiparsky (1970). Fact. In M. Bierwisch and K. E. Heidolph (Eds.), Progress in Linguistics, pp. 143–173. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kroeger, P. (2004). Analyzing syntax: a lexical-functional approach. Cambridge Univ Pr.
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Postal, P. M. (1974). On Raising. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Radford, A. (1988). Transformational Grammar. Cambridge: CUP.
Zaenen, A. (1993). Unaccusativity in Dutch: An integrated approach. In J. Pustejovsky (Ed.),
Semantics and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
| ||
|
Statistics Article View: 117 PDF Download: 453 |
||
