The Resultatives vs. the Passives

The Resultatives vs. the Passives

This paper makes the distinction between the resultative and the passive through presence/absence of an effect derived. They belong to verbs of action divided into two categories such as verbs of causation (alias verbs causative) and verbs of initiation (alias verbs initiative). The verb causative can produce an effect for the resultative and the verb initiative indicates only extending energy over to its object: this is for the passive. For this, we establish the happen test for the distinction between the verbs of the two constructions. Derivations such as resultivization and passivization have been reviewed with new angles for the resultative and the passive. This paper follows the suggestions that the action dynamic is the basic and first state indicated by Nilsen, Shibatani, Sierwierska, and others, in contrast to those of Lyon and Dowty. In deriving the two, we justify that states or statives are derived from the dynamic which is considered to be a preceding event. In assigning semantic roles, Agent, Patient, and Theme has been established in slightly modified fashion: Patient is employed to the resultative and Agent/Theme to the passive. Hyponymy says transparency between verbs of causative transitive and verbs of resultative intransitive. For the quantitative reading of valencies, the number of valency is decreased in the resultative and maintained in the passive. Suggestions from Shibatani and Ritter & Rosen have influence upon establishing the valency structures of Allerton. The resultative contains a monovalency structure, however, the passive maintains divalency frames mainly because it assumes an agent responsibility or implied in a prepositional phrase, which services as a valent in Allerton's elaboration structure of the verb.