Verb Alternations: Middle, Conative, and More
Verb Alternations
The Middle Alternation
The middle alternation involves a change in a verb’s transitivity (e.g., Emily broke the laptop – Laptops break easily). Verbs that allow the middle alternation express the bringing about of a change of state in the verb’s object. Verbs like “pat,” “touch,” and “see” do not allow this alternation. It derives from a transitive verb, and the verb has active morphology. The subject corresponds to the logical object of a verb (i.e., patient). Transitive verbs that appear in the alternation require an affected internal argument, but verbs like “read” appear to be an exception (e.g., this book reads easily). It receives a generic interpretation, is incompatible with the imperative, and does not occur in progressive constructions. The middle requires the presence of a modifier.
The Conative Alternation
The conative alternation (e.g., the zombies slashed my face – the zombies slashed at my face; they kicked the pile of wood – they kicked at the pile of wood) suggests an attempted action without specifying whether the action was actually carried out. There’s no entailment that the action denoted by the verb was completed.
The Body-Part Possessor Ascension Alternation
This alternation involves a change in the expression of a possessed body part (e.g., they touched Bill’s shoulder – They touched Bill on the shoulder; Jones hit the dog’s leg – Jones hit the dog on the leg).
Verb Classes, Event Structure, and Alternations
Examples of verb classes:
- Break verbs: break, crack, rip, shatter, snap…
- Cut verbs: cut, hack, saw, scratch, slash…
- Touch verbs: pat, stroke, tickle…
- Hit verbs: hit, bash, pound, tap, whack…
“Break” and “cut” express that the object is “affected” by a change of state: X ACT CAUSES [Y BECOME ]. “Touch” and “hit” express: [X ACT on Y]. In the middle construction of verbs like “break” and “cut,” the verb focuses on the end result rather than on the idea of an agent causing anything to happen. “Touch” and “hit,” whose event structure lacks the BECOME sub-event, cannot have a middle construction.
ACT:
- Break-type verbs: the sub-event act does not necessarily involve motion or contact.
- “Cut” and “hit”: ACT necessarily involves motion and contact.
- “Touch”: the sub-event act necessarily involves contact but not motion.
The Middle Alternation and Event Structure
Focuses on the end result of an event and is only possible with verbs like “break” and “cut” that involve a become sub-event, i.e., a change of state.
The Conative Alternation and Event Structure
Both motion and contact through impact are necessary for the conative construction to be possible, which is why it is possible with “cut” and “hit” but not with “break” and “touch.”
The Body-Part Possessor Ascension Alternation and Event Structure
Requires a sub-event act that involves the notion of “contact.” “Break” verbs are the only ones that don’t participate in the alternation.
The Causative-Inchoative Alternation
Unlike in the middle construction, this does not have to include adverbial modification (e.g., the child broke the screen – the screen broke; Bill opened the door – the door opened). The verb focuses on the become sub-event, on the end result change of state. “Touch” and “hit” are incompatible. “Cut” verbs do not allow the inchoative construction even if they have a become sub-event; “break” type verbs do.
The Locative Alternation
(e.g., Seth loaded hay onto the cart – Seth loaded the cart with hay; Ruth sprayed water on the lawn – Ruth sprayed the lawn with water). The with-variant entails the locative variant, but not vice versa. Verbs denoting the transfer of some substance or set of objects into or onto a container or surface allow the with-variant if the action results in complete filling or depletion, but not if the action does not result in a complete filling. There are some verbs (put verbs) that only appear in the locative variant, and some (fill and cover verbs) which only allow structures like the with variant.
The Dative Alternation
(e.g., Mary gave a book to John – Mary gave John a book; Bob made the cake for Bill – Bob made Bill the cake). The double object construction is possible with verbs in which the indirect object is not only the goal of the movement of the DO but also its possessor, i.e., when the indirect object gets a recipient thematic role (e.g., John tasted the cake for Bill – *John tasted Bill the cake; Rebecca drove her car to Chicago – *Rebecca drove Chicago her car).