LINGUIST List 13.417

Fri Feb 15 2002

Qs: L2 Common European Framework, Passivisation

Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karenlinguistlist.org>



We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.

In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have taken the trouble to respond to the query.

Directory

  • Cornelia Gerhardt, Common European framework of reference for languages
  • Willem Hollmann, Passivisation of periphrastic causatives across languages

    Message 1: Common European framework of reference for languages

     Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 16:02:52 +0100
    From: Cornelia Gerhardt <c.gerhardtmx.uni-saarland.de>
    Subject: Common European framework of reference for languages


    Has anyone who teaches L2 students used the 'Common European framework of reference for languages' to "officially" state the level of attainment which they expect their students to reach? Officially here stands for e.g. in university or departmental regulations. If so, do you expect C1, C2 or simply C? I am also interested in any other uses of this framework at university level. Thank you, I will post a summary to the list.

    Cornelia Gerhardt Anglistik Universitat des Saarlandes Saarbrecken

    c.gerhardtmx.uni-saarland.de

    Message 2: Passivisation of periphrastic causatives across languages

     Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:42:33 BST
    From: Willem Hollmann <mfcxjwbhfs1.art.man.ac.uk>
    Subject: Passivisation of periphrastic causatives across languages


    I am working on the passivisation of English periphrastic causatives. One of the central questions is why it should be that some of them (CAUSE, FORCE, MAKE) freely passivise, while others do not (HAVE), or only very marginally (GET):

    (i) To most people, a receptionist is an obstacle to be negotiated, and that was unfortunately how I was made to feel for much of the time. (BNC) (ii) *... how I was had to feel

    English LET can also occur in the passive construction, at least in combination with certain verbs:

    (iii) Blaine says he was let go because he had found Vial in error on anatomical matters. (BNC)

    I am aware of some other European languages that allow passivisation of causatives; interestingly, the predicates involved tend to be of the semantically rather specific 'force' or 'oblige' type, see e.g. Dutch and Spanish:

    (iv) Hij werd gedwongen (om) de papieren te tekenen. 'He was forced to sign the papers' (v) �l fue forzado a firmar los papeles. 'He was forced to sign the papers'

    (The Dutch example is fully grammatical, but the Spanish one is apparently a little awkward.)

    Semantically more "neutral" causatives comparable to English CAUSE or MAKE do not occur in the passive (at least not with an infinitival complement). As for permission / enablement predicates, Dutch allows the following:

    (vi) Hij werd vrijgelaten om te gaan. 'He was let-free to go'

    However, this is not implicative causation, i.e. it is not entailed that the referent of 'hij' actually went.

    I would be very grateful for information on the types of causative predicates that can occur in the passive construction in other languages. E.g. are there restrictions similar to Dutch or Spanish, or are "neutral" predicates allowed as well? If so, is this the case for only a restricted set of neutral causatives (like in English), or does the entire class allow it? And if there is only a restricted set, is it possible to identify any (subtle) semantic differences between the predicates that allow passivisation and those that do not (perhaps related to the source concepts of the verbs)? Also, how "grammatical" are the various passive causatives (see the remarks about Eng. GET and Sp. FORZAR, above)? Finally, what about passivisation of permissive / enabling causation predicates?

    Apart from specific data, I would also welcome references to relevant literature. Please reply to my e-mail address directly: W.B.Hollmannstud.man.ac.uk

    Many thanks

    Willem

    Willem Hollmann University of Manchester Linguistics Dept / English Dept Arts Building Oxford Rd Manchester M13 9PL UK http://lings.ln.man.ac.uk/Html/RStuds/WBH/default.htm