This section discusses the so-called causative alternation; cf. Mulder (1992), Levin (1993) and Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1995: §2). Example (316) gives a typical example of the causative alternation with the verb brekento break. The core property of this alternation is that the object of the transitive construction in (316a) corresponds to the subject of the monadic construction in (316b). The monadic verb is unaccusative, as can be seen from the fact that it takes the perfect auxiliary zijnto be.

The alternation is semantically characterized by the fact that the transitive verb is causative: it expresses that its subject causes the change of state denoted by the unaccusative verb. This is also reflected in the fact that the transitive construction entails the unaccusative construction: the truth of the proposition that Jan breaks the vase entails that the vase breaks. Of course, the reverse does not hold.

The alternation in (316) is sometimes also referred to as the causative-inchoative alternation, since the unaccusative verb is often taken to denote the beginning of a process (i.e. has an inchoative aspect), but example (317) shows that the monadic verb can also be an accomplishment.

In fact, the unaccusative verbs resulting from the alternation do not necessarily have to be telic, i.e. they need not denote an accomplishment or an achievement; they can also be atelic, i.e. they can denote an activity, as in (318), or a state, as in (319). The only thing that seems relevant is that the subject of the transitive construction can be seen as the originator of the state of affairs denoted by the unaccusative verb; cf. Section 1.2.3, sub II, for a discussion of this term.

Note that we have called the monadic verbs in the (b)-examples in (318) and (319) unaccusative despite the fact that they take the auxiliary hebben in the perfect tense; the reason is that the selection of zijn is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for assuming unaccusativity, since it also depends on the aspectual properties of the verb; cf. Section 2.1.2, sub III, for the claim that an unaccusative verb must be telic in order to be able to select zijn, and Section 2.2.3, sub IIB/C, for evidence that the verbs in question are indeed unaccusative.

In this context it may be useful to point out that a transitive verb such as drogento dry can denote either atelic or telic states of affairs. This is clear from adverb selection; cf. Section 1.2.3, sub I. The acceptability of the adverb urenlangfor hours in the (a)-examples in (320) shows that drogen can be construed as atelic and that the corresponding unaccusative construction also refers to an atelic state of affairs. The acceptability of the adverbial phrase binnen een uurwithin an hour in the (b)-examples shows that transitive drogen can also be used as an achievement, which is reflected by the fact that the corresponding unaccusative construction can also be used to denote a telic state of affairs. Note that the (non-)telicity of the unaccusative verb determines whether the perfect auxiliary is realized as hebben or zijn.

The examples in (321) and (322) show that the causative alternation is also possible with verbs that take an adjectival or prepositional complementive; the complementive can also be a verbal particle.

Accordingly, examples like (321) and (322) show that the subjects in the corresponding unaccusative constructions need not be an internal arguments of the verb itself, but can also be introduced into the structure as the logical subjects of a complementive. This means that the causative alternation resembles regular passive and regular middle formation in that it is the accusative object (and not necessarily the internal theme argument) of the transitive verb that appears as the subject of the corresponding monadic construction. Since neither causative alternation nor middle formation is reflected in the verb form, it may be difficult to distinguish between the two constructions. We will not address this issue here, but refer the reader to Section 3.2.2.2, sub II, for a discussion of some differences between the two constructions.

Example (323) provides a sample of verbs entering into the causative alternation.

The verbs in (323) are all unaccusative in their non-causative use, but we find a similar alternation with the verb lerento learn/teach in (324). If the non-causative verb lerento learn in (324b) is indeed an undative verb, as suggested in Section 1.2.4, sub IIB, this case suggests that the causative alternation is the result of adding an external argument to an otherwise unaccusative or undative verb, not of omitting the external argument of a transitive verb; the latter option would leave unexplained why it is the goal/experiencer argument that is raised to subject in (324b) and not the theme argument. We leave this question as to whether the monadic or the transitive verb is the input for the causative, or whether the two options coexist, for future research; cf. Alexiadou et al. (2015) for relevant discussion and references.

The Dutch causative alternation is not usually reflected by a change in the morphological form of the verb. However, there is a small set of causative verbs where the alternation affects the morphological form; examples are the location verbs leggento put and liggento lie, and zettento put and zittento sit and in (325a&b). A non-locational pair is given in (325c).

These forms are not related by some synchronic morphological process, as is clear from the fact that the relation involves the otherwise unproductive process of vowel change (Ablaut); the causative forms in the primeless examples take an /ɛ/, whereas the corresponding unaccusative forms in the primed examples take an /I/ or an /ɑ/. That the morphological relation is not productive is also suggested by the fact that the causative verb zetten has yet another non-causative variant, the location verb staanto stand in (326b), which is not morphologically related to it.

Furthermore, it may be that the type of causativization expressed by the vowel change is different from the type of causativization discussed earlier: whereas the non-causative versions of the verbs in (323) are always unaccusative, the alternation in the (a)-examples in (327) shows that the non-causative form in the Ablaut case can also be intransitive. In this respect, the alternation in the (a)-examples resembles the alternation between the syntactic laten causative in (327b) and the simple intransitive construction in (327b').

We also observe that in many cases, in which English allows a causative alternation, Dutch must appeal to the laten causative. For instance, the examples in (328) show that Dutch does not have Levin’s (1993:31) class of induced-action alternations; the intended proposition can only be expressed with a complex laten-construction.

Finally, the examples in (329) show that Dutch also has a causative alternation in which the transitive verb in (329a) can be seen as the causative counterpart of the inherently reflexive verb in (329b).

Section 2.5.2, sub II, discusses some differences between the alternation that the verbs in (323) undergo and the one exemplified in (329). It is suggested there that the two types of alternation differ in that the former is a process of causativization, deriving causative transitive verbs from unaccusative verbs, whereas the latter is a process of anti-causativization, deriving inherently reflexive inchoative verbs from causative transitive verbs.