On Causative Verbs and Derived Nominals in EnglishAuthor(s): Carlota S. SmithSource: Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Winter, 1972), pp. 136-138Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177696 .Accessed: 14/06/2014 21:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Linguistic Inquiry.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:35:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

136 SQUIBS AND DISCUSSION

all are ill-formed as a consequence of violating (ib). None- theless it may be that the degree of deviation lessens from (a) to (c). This could be explained by postulating a hierarchy in which derived constituents are more or less fully S-like, with tensed clauses most S-like, subject- possessing infinitives and gerunds next, and subjectless gerunds and infinitives still less, with possibly a distinction making gerunds less S-like than infinitives. Such a hierarchy is plausible, although I do not know how to describe it formally. Such distinctions seem to play a role in restricting the possibilities of extracting constituents from different kinds of clauses.4

References Bresnan, J. (0 971) "On Sentence Stress and Syntactic

Transformations," Language 47, 257-28I. Chomsky, N. (to appear) On Interpreting the World, Pantheon

Books, New York. Emonds, J. (I970) Root and Structure Preserving Transforma-

tions, unpublished Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.

Postal, P. M. (to appear) "Some Rules That Are Not Suc- cessive Cyclic," Linguistic Inquiry.

Ross, J. R. (I967) Constraints on Variables in Syntax, unpub- lished Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.

4 Chomsky (to appear) advances some proposals which would constrain extraction from tensed clauses in contrast to nontensed in- finitival and gerundial clauses. In particular, he claims that a constituent can be extracted from a tensed clause only if it is in complementizer position, while this is not the case with nontensed clauses. While there can be no doubt, I think, that there is an important core of truth in distinguishing tensed from nontensed clauses with respect to their greater resistance to extraction, and while Chomsky's proposal draws many significant contrasts, the exact formulation seems untenable to me on various grounds. In particular, it requires that unbounded rules like those involved in the movement of question and relative forms operate on every cycle, or, in the terminology of Postal (to appear) successive cyclically. But as I argue there, this cannot be the case.

ON CAUSATIVE VERBS AND DERIVED NOMINALS IN ENGLISH

Carlota S. Smith, University of Texas at Austin

A number of verbs in English occur both transitively and intransitively, e.g. turn (John turned the wheel; The wheel turned). These verbs are often referred to as causatives.1 In

1 Most verbs of this type have a causative meaning. There are, however, verbs with causative meaning that do not occur transitively and intransitively, for instance, kill. There are also verbs that occur as transitives and intransitives but without causative meaning, e.g. read, frighten (The book reads well; Mary frightens easily).

A serious definition and full treatment of causatives is lacking. For the limited purposes of this note, I refer to verbs as causative if they

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:35:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SQUIBS AND DISCUSSION

his recent discussion of derived nominals, Chomsky points out that some causative verbs have derived nominals associated with the intransitive form only. He cites as an example the verb grow (cf. The corn's growth but not * The farmer's growth of the corn). Chomsky states that in general causative verbs do not have derived nominals associated with their transitive forms.

There are many counterexamples to this claim: convert, explode, divide, accelerate, expand, repeat, neutralize, conclude, unify, and so on at length; thus, The priest's conversion of Robert and Robert's conversion. Note that all of the preceding counterexamples share a morphological property: their nominals are formed with suffixes of Latin origin, usually the suffix -tion.

Examination of a significant number of causative verbs2 leads to the conclusion that an adequate grammar of English must allow for both transitive and intransitive derived nominals. There are almost as many causative verbs that have both as there are causatives that have only intransitive nominals. Among several hundred verbs, there is less than io% difference in frequency between the two types.3

Whether or not a verb has a transitive nominal depends on how the nominal is formed. If a causative verb takes a nominalizing suffix of Latin origin (-tion, -al, -ment), then it has both transitive and intransitive derived nominals (type L). If a causative verb does not take such a nominal- izing suffix, then it occurs only intransitively (and quite idiosyncratically) in derived nominals (the Anglo-Saxon type).

As illustration, consider the following pairs of causative verbs:

AS L change alter turn rotate stop terminate dunk submerge kill assassinate increase augment raise escalate end conclude

occur transitively and intransitively, with substantially the same lexical items as transitive objects and intransitive subjects, as the sentences given above with turn exemplify.

2 The entries in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, I953 edition, were examined for this study.

3 A more recent dictionary, especially a dictionary with many technical words, would undoubtedly contain more causatives that have both kinds of derived nominals. Most technical terms are morphologically of this type, e.g. oxidize, acidulate.

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:35:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

138 SQUIBS AND DISCUSSION

The AS verbs do not take Latin nominalizing suffixes, and have only intransitive derived nominals. The L verbs take Latin nominalizing suffixes and have both types of derived nominals. In general, verbs of Anglo-Saxon origin do not take Latin nominal suffixes, and verbs of Latin origin do. There are some exceptions: increase, for instance, of Latin origin, has a 0 nominal suflix.

Actually the example grow-growth is exceptional. I have found only 3 other causative verbs that have nominals with the suffix -th: warm, widen, lengthen. Most causative verbs of type AS have the e nominal suffix: ring, turn, change, raise, and so forth. The nominal suffix that occurs fairly often on derived nominals of type AS is -ness: we have The light's dimness but not *John's dimness of the lights. This suffix occurs with about I /5 of the verbs of this type. Note that both -th and -ness are AS suffixes.

Thus the grammar must distinguish at least two classes of "causative" verbs: those that do and do not have transi- tive derived nominals. Evidently, either the lexicalist position or the transformational derivation of causatives must be given up.

References Chomsky, N. (1970) "Remarks on Nominalization," in

Readings in English Transformational Grammar, R. A. Jacobs and P. S. Rosenbaum, eds., Ginn & Co., Waltham, Mass.

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY WILLIAM CLOWES & SONS, LIMITED, LONDON, BECCLES AND COLCHESTER

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:35:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Article Contentsp. 136p. [137]p. 138

Issue Table of ContentsLinguistic Inquiry, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Winter, 1972), pp. 3-138Volume InformationFront MatterCyclical Rules in Klamath Phonology [pp. 3-33]A Global Constraint on Pronominalization [pp. 35-59]Doubl-ing [pp. 61-86]Turkish Participles [pp. 87-99]Remarks and RepliesOn "Gapping and the Order of Constituents" [pp. 101-108]

Squibs and DiscussionWhat Did John Keep the Car That was In? [pp. 109-114]The Squid, the Squib, and Others [p. 115]Why It Is That That That That Follows the Subject Is Impossible [pp. 116-118]Any vs. Every [pp. 119-120]A Note on Anaphoric Islands and Causatives [pp. 121-125]Gh-Words [pp. 125-130]Two Remarks on Dragging [pp. 130-136]On Causative Verbs and Derived Nominals in English [pp. 136-138]

Back Matter