3.1 “Lexical passive” vs. “Intransitivizer”

Recall that only 8 pairs are listed in (1) for the R-AR constructs of Type (1E) {AR/∅}. In this subsection I examine the R-AR constructs of Type (1E) {AR/∅} so as to examine the functional status of AR with respect to the feature [–ACC].¹² The set of diagnostic questions given in (2) is employed to tease out the two distinct manifestations of AR: “intransitivizer” or “lexical passive.”

Which interpretation the AR of a given Type (1E) R-AR construct would have is not predictable, being dependent on the idiosyncratic lexico-semantic property of the participating R. In the examples to be cited hereafter, AR is simply identified in gloss as AR whereas direct passive (r)are is glossed as “PASSIVE.”

In (3b)/(5), a lexical passive AR with [-ACC] internally pair-Merges to an R with the consequence that NP azarasi no ko ‘baby seal’ raises to the Spec of TP to receive the nominative case, with the agent kuma ‘bear’ retained in the postpositional ni ‘by’ phrase just as it happens with the (r)are direct passive (3c).¹³ There is no licit construction where an AR occurs with R tukam ‘grab’ functioning as an intransitivizer.

Examples of AR behaving as an intransitivizer are given below:

In (6) the well-formed (b) sentence shows that AR here functions as an intransitivizer. In the passive context (c), sas-AR is illicit, while passive (r)are is fine, indicating further that the AR in sas-AR functions only as an intransitivizer. The next example follows suit.

A given R participating in the Type (1E) doublet pattern must therefore be registered in its lexical entry with respect to these two factors: (i) its participation in Type (1E); and (ii) its idiosyncratic choice between the two possible interpretations of AR (i.e., lexical passive or intransitivizer).

3.2 Type (1C) {AR/E} AR’s are lexical passives

To determine whether or not the Type (1C) {AR/E} AR functions as a lexical passive, we use the same diagnostic tests as in (2) reproduced here as (9).

The tests (9a) and (9b) reveal that the type (1C) {AR/E} AR’s attached to the transitive R’s are all variants of lexical passives, and not intransitivizers, as indicated by (10). Idiosyncratic variations such as (10a), (10b), and (10c) manifest depending on the co-occurring R’s.

We know that the AR‘s in (10) are lexical passives because they all meet (9a) regarding the presence of -(ni)yotte ‘by’ and reject what (9b) prescribes. The AR’s in the pattern (10a) are exemplified in (11), allowing niyotte ‘by’ and rejecting the retention of the subject NP with its (original) nominative case marking intact. Note the kind of similarity and non-similarity between the AR and the direct passive (r)are.

Example (11b) with lexical passive AR is structurally represented as follows (with kare ‘he’ representing the case of yokisinakatta bakuhatu ‘unexpected explosion’ as well):

The R osam ‘suppress’ internally pair-Merges to Type (1C) AR [-ACC], the consequence of which is that object NP sawagi ‘disturbance’ needs to raise to the Spec of TP to receive nominative case, while the agentive kare ‘he’ (or, the triggering causer yokisinakatta bakuhatu ‘unexpected explosion’) is demoted to a non-argument position followed by postposition ni(yotte).

True to the “in-between voice” characteristic of the TrAlt system, those R-AR’s that belong to the (10b) and (10c) variations essentially follow the pattern of (10a) but display varying degrees of idiosyncratic variations. Thus, consider (13b) and (14b) with R’s like atatam ‘warm’ and butuk ‘hit’, with which only the triggering causer subject is allowed in the context of R-AR.

The variant (10c) allows the agent in the R-AR construction to take a postpositional ni ‘by’, but not niyotte ‘by’:

Besides those pairs listed in (10), there are Type (1C) (AR/E) R’s like azuk ‘entrust to’, sazuk ‘give’, and iituk ‘give order’, which do not exactly follow the pattern of classification formulated in (9) and (10). They are all ditransitive R’s involving the “Source, Goal, Theme” roles. In (16a), the Source Ken may double as the Agent, and Theme kamera ‘camera’ transports from the Source/Agent to the Goal Sue in some capacity.

The attachment of lexical passive AR to a ditransitive R like azuk ‘entrust’ thus strips away the indirect objecthood from the Goal argument, and promotes it to the subject position, converting the ditransitive status of this R to that of the transitive ([[R]_ditr-AR]_tr). In this manner, the feature [–ACC] associated with AR exposes the two faces of AR manifesting in the same context: (i) with its “lexical passive” face, it demotes the “Source” subject Ken to the postpositional Ken-{ni, kara} ‘from Ken’; and (ii) with its “intransitivizer-like” face, it reduces ditransitivity to transitivity by promoting the indirect object Sue-ni to be the subject.¹⁵

The specifics of those variations associated with the R’s must be registered in their lexical entries. Here again, differences in the degree of acceptability associated with each of those cases accentuates the “in-between voice” characteristics associated with AR.

3.3 The context for “being affected”

Consider again example (13c), reproduced here as (17). To be noted here is that the sentence with the sentient subject Sue may turn out to be less odd if we assume that the mental, psychological, or physiological state of the subject referent Sue is significantly affected by the event expressed by the predicate (i.e., ‘warmed by the soup’).

In (18) too Sue is the significant “affectee” in the event of being hit by a car:

What is common with (17), (18b), and other similar constructions are the curious “affectee” status of the subject NP referent and the concomitant ambiguous status of AR of being either a lexical passive or an intransitivizer.

This is reminiscent of the phenomenon pointed out by Matsumoto 2000c in relation to a transitive and ditransitive pair like osie-ru ‘teach’ and osowar-u ‘learn’. Thus, consider the following pair:

Matsumoto (2000c: 82) notes that the felicity requirement for the transitive osowar-ru and ditransitive osie-ru type pairs is that the subject NP referent of the transitive construction (which corresponds to the referent of the NP-ni in the ditransitive) must be associated with a sense of being significantly affected by the event described by the predicate. Thus, in the case of (19), seito ‘student’ is the significant affectee in the event “English lesson.”

4.1 Type (1E) {AR/∅} AR and its substandard productivity

Recall that, of those of Jacobsen’s (1992) eight pairs that belong to the Type (1E) pattern, we have identified two pairs wherein the R demands the lexical passive AR (i.e., (3b) and (4b)) and two others with which the R calls for the intransitivizer AR (i.e., (6b) and (7b)). This is the picture that fits Hasegawa’s (2001: 2) characterization, namely, that Japanese TrAlt is a system wherein it is “not predictable” which suffix a particular R takes. This is the underlying assumption behind Jacobsen’s (1992) “Appendix list” as well.

There exist, however, Type (1E) R-AR constructs not listed in Jacobsen’s “Appendix.” They are instances of what Kageyama (1996: 191–192) calls zoogo ‘new word creation’ notwithstanding their substandard status. He cites the following four cases from Miyaji (1985), in which examples from well-known literary works are painstakingly collected: e.g., [dak-AR]_intr ← [dak]_tr ‘hold on’ (Miyaji 1985: 285–287, (3); Kageyama 1996: 192, (128e)); [musub-AR]_intr ← [musub]_tr ‘tie’ (Miyaji 1985: 295–296; Kageyama 1996: 192, (128d)); [os-AR]_intr ← [os]_tr ‘put (a seal) on’ (Miyaji 1985: 288, (3); Kageyama 1996: 192, (128c)); [turus-AR]_intr ← [turus]_tr ‘hang’ (Miyaji 1985: 291–292; Kageyama 1996: 192, (128a)). A case of [[dak]_tr -{AR/∅}]_intr is exemplified in (20a) along with the perfectly natural direct passive version in (20b).

Miyaji’s own list of these formations further includes the following: “[mus-AR]_intr ← [mus]_tr ‘steam cook’” (Miyaji 1985: 293–294); “[nuk-AR]_intr ← [nuk]_tr ‘pull out’” (Miyaji 1985: 301–305); “[sik-AR]_intr ← [sik]_tr ‘lay out’” (Miyaji 1985: 283–287); “[tatam-AR]_intr ← [tatam]_tr ‘fold’” (Miyaji 1985: 297–298), “[tutum-AR]_intr ← [tutum]_tr ‘enclose’” (Miyaji 1985: 299–300).

For Kageyama (1996: 191), these Type (1E) R-AR constructs exemplify “new word creation.” With Nishio (1954), these are instances of new word creation made in “analogy” to the Type (1E) {AR/∅} pattern. How about their substandard status? The answer is clear enough. As Kageyama (1996: 191–192) points out, the reason for their substandard status has to do with the fact that the transitive R’s that are involved here are those that are normally considered to “lack the intransitive counterparts.” The lexical passive AR is attached illegally to those transitive R’s. In these cases, the lexical passive AR masquerades as a direct passive. (Kageyama also notes that these R’s constitute a natural lexico-semantic class, being of “the kind that expresses a state or a change of location.”)

Indeed, these R’s under discussion have all the signatures of the transitive R’s that “lack the intransitive counterparts” according to various empirical tests advanced in Hayatsu (1989). She observes, on the basis of such phenomena as agentive nominalization, iteration phenomenon, co-occurring adverbs, and compound verb formation, that there is a notable lexico-semantic contrast between the transitive R’s that participate in TrAlt and those that do not, clustering around the aspectual sense of “result.” The R’s that do not participate in TrAlt tend to be those that express a sense of process; they are aspectually [-state, +durative, -telic] with the telic feature fixed as [-telic]. In contrast, the R’s that do participate in TrAlt can relate to the resulting points of eventuality; it is normally the kind that is aspectually characterized as [-state, +durative, +telic]. Thus, the capacity of an R to express an ongoing process can be a test to tease apart those two types of R’s (Hayatsu 1989: 240–243). And, the R’s in the R-AR examples exhibiting substandard status (e.g., dak ‘hug’ in (20a)/(21a), nom ‘drink’ in (21b)) are exactly those that have the capacity of expressing an ongoing process, as the following examples show:

These examples demonstrate that the R’s that appear in substandard R-AR’s like dak-AR ‘be held’ are of the type that do not participate in TrAlt. Hence, dak-AR is illegal and marked as substandard. In popular usage, such substandard R-AR constructs are quite unstable. My sense is that, while an example like dak-AR ‘be embraced’ in (20) is fairly understandable, an example like mus-AR ‘be steam-cooked’ of [[mus]_tr-{AR/∅}] in the following example taken from Yokomitsu Riichi’s novel Hai ‘Flies’ (1923) (Miyaji 1985: 293) goes beyond the permissible line today:

As Miyaji notes most of these substandard forms disappear in time.

What is important to note, at the same time, is that this substandard productivity phenomenon is highly symptomatic of the passive-like function of a lexical passive AR, contributing to the TrAlt’s “in-between” voice status. Native speakers of Japanese are quite aware, and indeed quite ready to take advantage, of the distinct passive-like force associated with the lexical passive AR, even risking the consequence of its substandard status. That is to say, the v suffix AR here is not subjugated entirely to its host R’s idiosyncratic lexico-semantic property. On one hand we do need to acknowledge that each R participating in TrAlt must be registered in the dictionary for its co-occurrence potential with AR. But, on the other, the substandard behavior of AR’s noted in this subsection shows that the same AR’s can act like syntactically active passives. AR here is behaving badly, but potentially not so prohibitively. And, this, of course, is what we might expect from the Japanese TrAlt, which is an “in-between” voice system.

4.2 Productivity phenomena involving the Type (1C) {AR/E} pattern

Unlike the substandard productivity of Type (1E) {AR/∅} AR, the productivity involving Type (1C) {AR/E} AR is quite robust and stable.

Noteworthy for our purpose are the fascinating diachronic findings by Nishio (1954). He lists three historically classified periods as in (23a), (23b), and (23c), in terms of which the productivity pattern involving the derivational directionality of [R-AR]_intr ← [A-E]_tr can be traced with remarkable clarity. Taking the data in (23a) to be the constant, Nishio shows that the newly created Type (1C) [R-AR]_intr forms increased as time went on, as shown in (23b) and (23c).

What this picture shows is that prior to the emergence of the new [[R]_tr -AR]_intr forms in each of the stages (23b) and (23c), the corresponding [[R]_tr -E]_tr forms had already existed. Nishio claims on the basis of this that the formation of the new [R-AR]_intr constructs must have taken place in analogy to the existing Type (1C) {[[R]_tr -AR]_intr/[[R]_tr -E]_tr} pattern already available in the stage (23a). This productivity process was apparently quite robust, which would attest to the fact that the type (1C) {AR/E} pattern is by far the largest group in (1). It would also lead us to speculate that there may well be far more actual cases of the Type (1C) R-{AR/E} pairs beyond those listed by Jacobsen’s (1992) “Appendix.” In fact, Miyaji’s list of such unlisted pairs includes kagam-{AR/E} ‘squat’ (Miyaji 1985: 227–233), mak-{AR/E} ‘reduce in price’ (Miyaji 1985: 88–89), and sukum{AR/E} ‘cower’ (Miyaji 1985: 204–208).

Nishio thus identifies, for the first time in literature, the fact that the derivational directionality “[[R]_tr-AR]_intr ← [[R]_tr-E]_tr” is a factor in creating the new R-v formation of the Type (1C) {AR/E} pattern, although the other way around (i.e., [[R]_tr-AR]_intr ® [[R]_tr-E]_tr) is possible as we saw in the case of tatiag-E ‘start up’ (see fn.3). He fails to provide, however, a satisfactory account as to why that should be the case (see, especially, Nishio 1954: 113). I suspect that the reason for this is his preoccupation with “analogy” as the basic driving force for new word formation. We will return to the question of the derivational directionality favoring “[[R]_tr-AR]_intr← [[R]_tr-E]_tr” in Section 7.

5.1 Paradigmatic structure

If, however, the difference between lexical causative AS and (s)ase causativization is primarily defined in terms of the monoclausal vs. biclausal test, complications arise. Matsumoto (2000a: 146–51) demonstrates, using examples such (25), that periphrastic (s)ase causativization of certain transitive verbs (e.g., tabe-ru ‘eat’, sir-u ‘know’, hak-u ‘put on, wear’) that do not participate in TrAlt may function as “lexical” (s)ase causatives, if the set of conditions listed in (26) are met.

If satisfied, Matsumoto notes, they exhibit syntactically “monoclausal” characteristics as judged by such tests as subject honorification, passivization of the object NP of the base R, pronominal binding, Control, and subject oriented adverbial interpretation. The fact that reflexive karezisin ‘herself, himself’ may refer to the subject Anpanman in (25) indicates that the sentence is monoclausal, because, as generally accepted, karezisin “must be bound within its clause” (Matsumoto 2000a: 148). So, we now have a question: what is the status of (s)ase in (25)? Is it still a syntactically active periphrastic causative?

A significant attempt to respond to such a question is Miyagawa’s (1980; 1984; 1998) “Paradigmatic Structure” (PDS) thesis. So, although not directly bearing upon the main issues of this paper, let me provide a brief comment. The PDS, specifying three slots (Intransitive, Transitive, and Ditransitive), purports to be a system in terms of which a verb, either simple or complex, can be “placed into an appropriate slot” (Miyagawa 1984: 186); as such, it constitutes “an organization within the lexicon that filters as to which verbs may enter the permanent lexicon” (Miyagawa 1998: 71). In (24), transitive tabe ‘eat’ being an R that does not participate in TrAlt, tabe-sase ‘eat-cause’ fits into the PDS’s ditransitive slot. This system provides a principled way to explain, for instance, why the intransitive R niow ‘smell’ lacking the transitive partner may adopt the causative form niow-ase ‘smell-cause’ to constitute an idiom that means “hint” (Miyagawa 1998: 71, M’s (11)).

Miyagawa (1998) admits, however, that his PDS has difficulty in handling triplets, which involve two distinct lexical forms competing for just one PDS slot (e.g., [mor]_intr ‘leak_intr’ and [mor-E]_intr ‘leak_intr’; or [tok]_tr ‘dissolve_tr’ and [tok-AS]_tr ‘dissolve_tr’).

5.2 Two types of causation

Kageyama (1996) makes an important contribution to our understanding of the nature of causation expressed by AS. He takes advantage of the fact that some R’s expressing animate motion of “self-induced change” may occur either with the AS oriented (1F) R-{∅/AS} pattern or with “transitivizing” E forming Type (1A) R-{∅/E}. Analyzing the semantic distinction between AS and E in this minimal pair context in terms of his “Lexical Semantic Relation” (LSR) framework, he concludes that AS may accommodate a “triggering causer,” while E calls for a “volitive NP” as its external argument EA (Kageyama 1996: 69–77; 190–198). His claim is based on examples like the following (Kageyama 1996: 197, K’s (137b) and (138b)):

In (27a) with E, the sentient EA kodomo ‘child’ qualifies to be a volitive NP, while the non-sentient EA densya no sindoo ‘train’s vibration’ does not, thus rendering the latter infelicitous. In example (27b), AS, which simply requires its EA to be a triggering causer, fits in with either animate kodomo ‘child’ or inanimate densya no sindoo ‘train’s vibration’; hence, both are felicitous in (27b).

Suga (1980: 37, (58) and (60)) notes a similar contrast:

Sentence (28a) calls for a volitive EA, providing a context favorable to E but not to AS. In (28b) with inanimate EA, the situation is the reverse: only AS that relates to triggering causation is felicitous.

Matsumoto (2000b) presents a critique of Kageyama’s claim, stating that the distinction between -e and -as is “only an accidental product of his examples,” and that “the distinction comes from the semantics of the base verb rather than from the affix chosen” (Matsumoto 2000b: 178). In his view, -e and -as “both trigger causativization in a similarly indeterminate way, allowing different possibilities for the nature of their subject”; “this kind of distinction” is “a part of the regular semantics of each semantic type of verb” (Matsumoto 2000b: 181). I concur with the view that the distinction comes from the semantics of the base R. In this, however, I adopt the line of analysis suggested by Arad (1998: 124). She proposes: “we should distinguish not between agents and causers as such but between predicates selecting for an agent and predicates which allow a causer.” For, “agents and causers are generated in the same syntactic position, Spec vP.” Selection of v* suffix E* by V is the “something more” which distinguishes agents from causers, allowing a volitive agent in its Spec vP*. If a given R like ak ‘open’ selects either AS or E, the contrastive semantic characteristics associated with AS or E may then manifest as exemplified in (28a) and (28b). Following Kageyama, I thus maintain that AS may call for a “triggering causer.” As for E, a detailed analysis of it follows directly.

6.1 Lexico-semantic properties associated with E’s

First of all, what about the lexico-semantic properties of the E’s that appear in Type (1C) R-{AR/E} or Type (1D) R-{E/AS}? Informative for this inquiry is Hayatsu’s (1989) observation referred to in Section 4.1, concerning the lexico-semantic contrast between the transitive R’s that participate in TrAlt and those that do not. To reiterate: the R’s that do not participate in TrAlt tend to be those that express a sense of process; they are aspectually [-state, +durative, -telic] with the telic feature fixed as [-telic]. In contrast, the R’s that do participate in TrAlt can relate to the resulting points of eventuality; it is normally the kind that is aspectually characterized as [-state, +durative, +telic]. Thus, the E’s that appear in Type (1C) R-{AR/E} or Type (1D) R-{E/AS} should, at the least, be those that can relate to a resultant state.

6.2 Feature [+Resultant]

Suga (1980) provides important empirical evidence for the view that the critical lexico-semantic property of E can be represented in terms of the feature [+Resultant]. He focuses on the triplet formation involving the [R-E]_intr, [R-∅]_intr, and [R-AS]_tr constructs which share the identical intransitive R (the R is intransitive here, given [[R]_intr-AS]). This context provides a minimal pair of the two intransitive forms, [[R]_intr-∅]_intr and [[R]_intr-E]_intr, displaying a delicate division of labor: the unmarked form [R-∅]_intr refers straightforwardly to the event that the R expresses, while the marked form [R-E]_intr highlights the resultant state.

Thus, consider the case of [[mor]_intr-∅]_intr and [[mor]_intr-E]_intr (mor ‘leak, escape’):

According to Suga (1980: 35), “X-ga mor” means ‘X moves out (from where it was located earlier)’. If this “movement” can be visibly traced, as in (32) with water flow, both (32a) the event of water leaking (mor) and (32b) the resultant state of water having leaked (mor-E) can both be felicitous; the difference between them is negligible and contributes to no grammaticality discrepancy, as seen in the English translations of (32a,b). If, on the other hand, the movement is the kind that can only be ascertained from its resultant state, as in the case of “secret” in (33) or a person’s “name” in (34), then, the difference between the [[R]_intr-∅]_intr in (a) and the [[R]_intr-E]_intr in (b) does contribute to the grammaticality discrepancy. In a situation depicted by (33), for instance, it is the resultant state that is critical precisely because the point to be communicated by (33) has to do with where the top-secret leak ends up, whether the enemy gets hold of it or not. In this context, the use of mor-∅ in (33a) would display a woeful lack of understanding concerning the grammaticalized division of labor that mor-∅ vs. mor-E instantiates.

To cite another example from Suga (1980), namely, the case of ter ‘shine, flash’.

In terms of the grammaticality discrepancy, the relationship of (35a) to (35b) is the exact opposite of the relationship of (35c) to (35d). With the morning sun in (35a) and (35b), it is natural to describe it as bursting forth gloriously, but it is odd to describe it in terms of the resultant state of bursting out (whatever that means). On the other hand, it is peculiar to describe a groom flushing as in (35c), but it is perfectly understandable if he blushes as the result of an embarrassment as described in (35d).¹⁸

I will thus posit as a plausible working hypothesis that v suffix E is uniquely characterized by the feature [+Resultant]. In the succeeding subsections we examine how this feature [+Resultant] affects the interpretation of the R-E’s depending on the given R’s verb types: i.e., unaccusative, unergative, or accomplishment.

6.3 E attachment to unaccusative R’s

Recall that in Section 5.1 we concurred with Kageyama (1996) that the [R-E]_tr in Type (1A) {∅/E} calls for a volitive NP in the subject position. In the sense of Chomsky (2013: 43, fn. 29), the E of this type is v*. I therefore maintain that in Type (1A), wherewith E’s involve transitivity directly, the resultant state is one that is effected by an outside force:

According to Jacobsen (1992: 77), the type of R’s participating in Type (1A) {R-∅/E} as “transitivizing” E’s are those that typically express animate motion of “self-induced change including a number of run-of-the-mill unaccusative verbs”, such as sizum ‘sink’ and karam ‘entwine’.¹⁹ Aspectually, those R’s are [-state, +durative, -telic].

Unaccusative R’s are inherently subcategorized with an internal argument (IA), and call for no external argument (EA). I suggest that, in the structural context of the [R-E] of such an R, v suffix E* with its [+Resulant] feature has an effect of assigning [+ACC] to that IA, a consequence of which is that the IA (e.g., asagoa no turu ‘morning glory vine’ in (37b)) needs no longer raise to the Spec of TP position to receive the nominative case, the EA (e.g., Sue) being introduced independently as the volitional agent. (37b) is structurally represented as follows:

Here, karam ‘entwine’ internally pair-Merges (Epstein et al. 2016: 98) to suffix E*, {v*, <karam, E*>}, to create a “X⁰-level amalgam.” Aspectually, this [[_intr R]-E*]_tr is [-state, +durative, +telic] (i,e., “Accomplishment”). The E attachment thus “transitivizes” an R, rendering the EA of the [[_intr R]-E*]_tr to be a volitive NP.

Let me note that the discussion so far is consonant with Jacobsen’s (1992, 2016) “semantic markedness” thesis, the basic guideline of which may be stated as follows:

Since “it is commonplace in human experience for entities possessing organic or other complex functions to lose those functions spontaneously with the passing of time, without the influence of external force,” the Semantic Markedness thesis predicts that the R’s that belong to Type (1A) would participate in the “causative” {∅/E} pattern (Jacobsen 2016: 28).

6.4 Psych-verbs

A group of psych-verb constructions belonging to Type (1A) R-{∅/E} display a backward reflexivization phenomenon, as pointed out by Hasegawa (see 2001: 23–24; cf. H’s (59)).

Hasegawa claims, and I concur, that the nominative subject in example (40a) “is not an external argument but is derived from inside VP” (p. 22). Supportive evidence for it is the binding phenomenon. In (40a), the antecedent Sue does not c-command the reflexive zibun ‘self’. This apparent puzzle disappears if we assume that (40a) is structurally represented as in (41), in which case the antecedent Sue does c-command the trace of zibun, and we also assume that the internal pair-Merge of R kurusim ‘suffer’ to suffix E allows [R-E] to assign the accusative case to the IA Sue.

The fact that R-E can participate in backward reflexivization in a fashion parallel to the periphrastic causative (s)ase as in (40a) shows, once again, the “in-between voice” status (Noda 1991: 214) of the Japanese TrAlt system.²⁰

6.5 E attachment to unergative R’s

We have seen that the [+Resultant] feature of v suffix E attached to an unaccusative R has an effect of assigning [+ACC] to its internal argument (IA). The unergative R subcategorized with no IA precipitates no such operation. Aspectually, the unergative R’s are [-state, +durative] with the telic feature unspecified. The E attachment to such an R renders the resulting [[R]_intr -E]_intr construct to be [-state, +durative, +telic], but, without the presence of IA, E fails to act as v*. Hence, the [+Resultant] feature associated with E functions only to highlight a resultative sense of the eventuality expressed by the co-occurring R (recall the discussions in Sections 6.1 and 6.2). The structural representation of (33b) (Suga 1980: 35, (34B)), repeated here as (42a), is (42b).

6.6 E-attachment to accomplishment R’s

One outstanding characteristic of the R’s that co-occur with “intransitivizing” E of Type (1B) {E/∅}, as Jacobsen (1992: 77) puts it, is that they are predominantly “verbs of destruction and violence” that involve a sudden change of state.²¹ An example of such an R is or ‘break’:²²

Aspectually, such an “accomplishment” R is ([-state, +durative, +telic]). Smith (1997: 246) states: “Accomplishments may consist of a finite number of repetitions of an event, indicated with a cardinal or other adverbial. The final endpoint of the last subevent is the final endpoint of the events.” I maintain that it is with this sense of “the final endpoint of the last subevent” that the E represents the final endpoint of that eventuality. The same point can be made with yak ‘burn’ of Type (1B) {E/∅} occurring as yak-E, in which the E expresses the final endpoint of the burning event “that results in the disintegration or loss of an entity” (Jacobsen 2016: 26). In terms of Jacobsen’s Semantic Markedness thesis, the Type (1B) pairs exhibit the anticausative pattern {∅/E} expected “with the events of disintegration.” For solid entities to spontaneously disintegrate into parts (regardless of any function the entities might or might not have) “is clearly less common” (Jacobsen 1992: 27).

6.7 Unified lexico-semantic property of E

Based on the foregoing discussions, I propose a unified account of v suffix E, as follows: