Creissels (2025): Transitivity, Valency, and Voice #
@cite{creissels-2025}
Formalization of key results from @cite{creissels-2025}, a comprehensive typological reference on transitivity, valency, and voice across the world's languages. The book proposes a unified framework based on:
- TR-roles (A, P, S, X): constructional categories defined by coding properties relative to prototypical transitive verbs (§1.3.3)
- Nucleativization/denucleativization: the two fundamental operations underlying all voice alternations (§8.1.3)
- Alignment and the Obligatory Coding Principle: A-alignment vs P-alignment as the fundamental typological parameter (§1.3.4)
- Voice marker polysemy: systematic cross-linguistic co-expression patterns where the same morpheme marks multiple voice alternation types (§8.2)
This study file bridges @cite{creissels-2025}'s framework (formalized in
Core/Alternation.lean) to existing linglib infrastructure:
MorphologicalCausation.lean: causativization and decausativizationCore/VoiceSystem.lean: pivot-based voice system typologyMinimalism/Core/Applicative.lean: Pylkkänen's high/low applicativesCore/RootDimensions.lean: Levin's diathesis alternation diagnostics
§8.3.1.2: "Decausativization suppresses the referent of the initial A from participant structure and converts the initial P into the S term of an intransitive construction."
This corresponds to IntransitivizationType.anticausative in linglib's
existing causation typology. Creissels prefers "decausativization" because
the prefix de- transparently marks removal of the causation component,
while "anticausative" misleadingly suggests a parallel with "antipassive"
that doesn't hold (§8.3.1.2).
Decausativization suppresses A from participant structure — same structural effect as anticausative intransitivization.
Reflexive intransitivization is NOT decausativization: the causer is coidentified with the causee (bieventive), not removed. In Creissels' terms, reflexive intransitives are a different structural operation.
§8.3.1.1 defines causativization as "the nucleativization of a participant (the causer) that instigates the event denoted by the initial construction or controls its realization."
The existing CausativeConstruction type adds the fine structure:
morphological complexity (lexical/morphological/periphrastic) and
semantic mediation (direct/indirect). Creissels' causativization is the
structural frame; linglib's CausativeConstruction fills in the parameters.
§12.1.4 gives the tripartite morphological distinction:
- Synthetic (affixal): most common cross-linguistically
- Analytic (auxiliary + nonfinite): European passives, 'make/let' causatives
- Periphrastic (light verb): borderline voice/biclausal
Every CausativeConstruction instantiates the structural pattern of
causativization: a new participant (causer) in A role.
Causativization and decausativization are inverse operations on the causality chain (§8.3.1): causativization adds a causer in A, decausativization suppresses A from participant structure.
The three morphological complexity levels of @cite{comrie-1989} map to §12.1.4's synthetic/analytic/periphrastic distinction. Lexical = synthetic (most compact).
§14.1 distinguishes three varieties:
- P-applicativization (§14.1.1): applied phrase fills P role
- D-applicativization (§14.1.3): applied phrase is dative oblique
- X-applicativization (§14.1.4): applied phrase is ordinary oblique
Pylkkänen (2008)'s high/low distinction is orthogonal to Creissels' P/D/X distinction. High applicatives introduce event-level participants (benefactives); low applicatives introduce transfer participants (recipients, sources). In Creissels' terms, high applicatives tend to produce P-applicativization (the applied phrase gets P coding), while low applicatives tend to produce D-applicativization (dative coding).
All three applicativization types nucleativize a new participant.
P-applicativization is valency-increasing (the applied phrase becomes a new core term).
§8.5: symmetrical voice systems are those in which verb morphology marks the selection of a participant as the privileged syntactic term (pivot) WITHOUT AFFECTING TRANSITIVITY. This is a fundamentally different type of voice system from A/P-prominent systems (§1.3.3.3).
The existing VoiceSystemProfile captures this with .symmetrical vs
.asymmetrical, but doesn't encode Creissels' key insight: symmetrical
voices are NOT instances of passivization, causativization, etc. — they are
a distinct type that doesn't fit the nucleativization/denucleativization
framework at all.
Example Toba Batak voice profiles illustrate that symmetrical systems have 2+ voices with equal morphological complexity (equipollent marking).
An A/P-prominent transitive construction (e.g., English active/passive) maps to an asymmetrical voice system.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
§8.3.2.1: "The maintenance of the initial A in participant structure is essential to distinguish passivization from decausativization."
Both operations denucleativize A and yield an intransitive construction, but they differ in whether A remains in participant structure:
- Passivization: A is
.denucleativized(oblique or unexpressed, but still semantically present — can appear as oblique agent phrase) - Decausativization: A is
.suppressed(removed from participant structure entirely — no agent phrase possible)
This distinction is now directly encoded in ParticipantFate.
Passivization and decausativization are structurally distinct despite both yielding intransitive constructions: they differ in whether A remains in participant structure.
§8.3.2: passivization, antipassivization, and S-denucleativization form a natural class — all three denucleativize a core term without nucleativizing any other participant, and the denucleativized participant remains in participant structure. They differ only in which core term is targeted:
- Passivization: A denucleativized
- Antipassivization: P denucleativized
- S-denucleativization: S denucleativized
Passivization and antipassivization are structural mirrors: both denucleativize exactly one core term without nucleativizing any other.
S-denucleativization completes the paradigm: all three target different TR-roles.
§8.3.3: reflexivization and reciprocalization cumulate two participant roles (A and P) into a single participant (S). They differ in whether S refers to a single individual (reflexive) or a group whose members mutually fill both roles (reciprocal).
Both are classified as valency-decreasing in Creissels' framework —
the derived construction has fewer core terms. The existing WALS Ch 106 data
in Typology.lean captures the cross-linguistic formal relationship between
reflexive and reciprocal markers.
Reflexivization and reciprocalization have identical structural effects on core terms — they differ only in the semantic interpretation of cumulation (individual vs. group).
§8.4: voice markers can be stacked compositionally. Example from Tswana (§8.4.1, ex. 38):
- write-CAUS-APPL: causativize then applicativize
- write-APPL-PASS: applicativize then passivize
- write-CAUS-PASS: causativize then passivize
- write-CAUS-APPL-PASS: all three composed
The compositional stacking means we can model multi-marker verb forms as
sequential application of ValencyAlternation operations.
A stacked voice derivation: a sequence of alternations applied in order.
Equations
Instances For
Example Tswana stacking patterns (§8.4.1).
Equations
Instances For
§8.3.7 identifies portative derivation as a distinct voice alternation type that cannot be reduced to either causativization or applicativization, although it shares features with both:
- Like causativization: the derived construction has a prototypical agent in A
- Like applicativization: a new participant is introduced as P
- Unlike either: the A of the derived construction corresponds to the S of the initial construction (not a new causer), and the new P is the carried entity
Example: Caddo Ci-ʔa=d(ih)-ʔaʔ 'I will go' → Ci-ni-ʔa=d(ih)-ʔaʔ 'I will take it' (§8.3.7, ex. 33).
Portative derivation is valency-increasing but structurally distinct from both causativization and applicativization.
§1.3.4.2: most languages have a clear preference for either A-alignment (S codes like A) or P-alignment (S codes like P). Some languages (e.g., Basque, Georgian) show split-S patterns.
Equations
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Studies.Creissels2025.russian = { language := "Russian", defaultAlignment := Core.Alternation.Alignment.A_alignment }
Instances For
Equations
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Studies.Creissels2025.avar = { language := "Avar", defaultAlignment := Core.Alternation.Alignment.P_alignment }
Instances For
Equations
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Studies.Creissels2025.basque = { language := "Basque", defaultAlignment := Core.Alternation.Alignment.P_alignment, violationsExist := true, splitS := true }
Instances For
Equations
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Studies.Creissels2025.mandinka = { language := "Mandinka", defaultAlignment := Core.Alternation.Alignment.A_alignment, violationsExist := true }
Instances For
The Russian verbal suffix -sja / -s' is a paradigmatic example of voice marker polysemy. It marks at least four different voice alternation types:
(8a) reflexivization: Ivan mo-et-sja 'Ivan washes (himself)' (8b) reciprocalization: Paren' i devuška celuj-ut-sja 'The boy and the girl were kissing' (8c) passivization: Lekcija čita-et-sja professor-om 'The course is delivered by the professor' (8d) antipassivization: Sobaka kusa-et-sja 'The dog bites (people)'
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Russian -sja is polysemous across four voice alternation types.
The Tswana voice suffix -el (traditionally called "applicative") marks both P-nucleativization (applicativization) and A-nucleativization of obliques (non-causative A/S-nucleativization). Example:
(12) Ki-tłàà-kwál-él-á Kítsó lò-kwâːlɔ̀ 'I'll write the letter to/for Kitso' (P-nucleativization of recipient) (13b) Nàmà í-ʃáb-él-à bò-χɔ́ːbɛ̀ 'Meat gives flavor to the porridge' (A-nucleativization of instrument → A)
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Ch 12 discusses restrictions on causativization.
@cite{krejci-2012}'s hierarchy (already formalized in
MorphologicalCausation.lean) describes which verb classes can be
causativized: unaccusatives > middles/ingestives > unergatives >
simple transitives. This hierarchy predicts that causativization
of transitive verbs (§12.3.5) often requires antipassivization to
create an intransitive base first.
Causativization of transitives may require prior antipassivization to create an intransitive base (§12.3.5). This is an instance of compositional voice marker stacking.