| Popis: |
In some languages, an antipassive morpheme feeds applicativization, in others, it bleeds it. The analysis of this asymmetry given here relies on two recent proposals: Pylkkänen’s (2008) view that the low applicative must merge with a transitive verb and Basilico’s (2012; 2017) claim that that the antipassive marker can introduce an internal argument. In those cases where the antipassive feeds the applicative, the antipassive marker introduces the internal argument, while in those cases where it bleeds it, the antipassive marker is the expected intransitivizer, disallowing an internal argument from appearing syntactically. This work provides a parsimonious account of the cross-linguistic differences in applicative formation with the antipassive. |
