This chapter discusses argument structure alternations capitalizing on the Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) notions of logical structure, macrorole and privileged syntactic argument assignment, and linking. A distinction is drawn between lexical and syntactic processes. The lexical alternations (for example, causativization and anticausativization) are often limited in productivity and serve to enrich the lexicon. The syntactic alternations (for example, passivization and antipassivization) are characterized by mappings between the lexical and the syntactic levels, and may play an important role in referent tracking or topic continuity.

This chapter introduces complex sentences, which are complicated sentences that are formed by a main clause and one or more subordinate clauses, namely, clauses of unequal importance. Five types of common complex sentences are identified in this chapter: causative, concessive, conditional, purposive, and preference. Each type is introduced in terms of specific correlative markers and their meanings and uses.

It seems that non-finite clauses in English can be easily identified with the help of morphological indicators, but the fact is that non-finite clauses are often ambiguous in meaning and intermediate in construction. Chapter 6 revisits the controversial English constructions with non-finiteness according to the definition, construction types and principles proposed in the previous chapters. The process-relation perspective provides a good answer for the controversial issues in the causative and non-causative constructions, the serial verb construction, the absolute construction, and other ambiguous non-finite constructions.

Hausa retains the widespread Chadic three-term system of masculine singular, feminine singular, and plural (gender neutral). This is reflected in nominal forms and in agreement patterns. With a few grammatical morphemes, e.g. the Linker (na/ta/na) the masculine singular and the plural share the same marker. Tense–Aspect–Mood (TAM) is generally indicated by an overt marker after the subject pronoun and before the verb. The finaln in the Completive paradigm is not a TAM marker as often said, but rather a plural formative. The marker in the Subjunctive is zero. This form historically also indicated the Aorist, which still occurs but in the negative only. The causative is and was formed syntactically using a main verb sâa ‘to cause’ (lit. ‘to put’) and not by means of a morphological extension on the verb. Indirect objects have changed significantly from Old Hausa, in word order, in the form of the marker(s), and in the specific pronouns used. Verbs in the grade system vary in their pre-indirect object usage. Reflexives are built on the noun ‘head’, the question being whether they originally might have employed ‘body’ instead, which is now found in reciprocals.

This chapter considers the borderline between morphology and syntax and the ways in which morphology and syntax interact with each other. We begin with a look at the ways in which morphology can affect the valency or argument structure of sentences, considering passives and anti-passives, which decrease valency, and causatives and applicatives, which increase valency. We then go on to look at processes of noun incorporation and cliticization and at phrasal verbs, verbs with separable prefixes, and so-called phrasal compounds. The chapter concludes with alook at morphological versus syntactic (periphrastic) expression in English comparatives and superlatives.

Chapter 7 deals with syntax proper. In this chapter, we discuss Category 2 (verbal and adjectival) formation, basic sentence structure, and the passive and causative patterns. We describe five basic patterns of predication: verbal predicates, adjectival predicates, nominal (copular) predicates, auxiliaries, and irregular predicates. We begin with basic sentence patterns, then introduce “scrambling” phenomena (that is, variations in word order), clausal embedding, and other complex sentence patterns. For both passive and causative constructions, we describe the basic shape of the patterns, the three-way distinction of lexical, morphological, and syntactic passives and causatives, and major syntactic characteristics of each. As with lexical passives, lexical causatives are underived. Morphological causatives involve seven allomorphs, four homophonous with the suffixes of the morphological passive. We survey the four patterns of syntactic causatives, and explain the major syntactic differences between morphological and syntactic causatives. We show that from an areal/typological perspective, Korean fits the North Asian pattern of primarily causativizing (transitivizing) languages.