Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Causative
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==Literature== ===Shibatani=== Shibatani<ref name=Shibatani>Shibatani, M., ed. (2001) ''The grammar of causation and interpersonal manipulation''. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.</ref> lists three criteria for entities and relations that must be encoded in linguistic expressions of causation: # An agent causing or forcing another participant to perform an action, or to be in a certain condition # The relation between [the] two events [=the causing event, and the caused performing/being event] is such that the speaker believes that the occurrence of one event, the ‟caused event," has been realized at t2, which is after t1, the time of the ‟causing event" # The relation between causing event and caused event is such that the speaker believes the occurrence of the caused event depends wholly on the occurrence of the causing event—the dependency of the two events here must be to the extent that it allows the speaker a counterfactual inference that the caused event would not have taken place at a particular time if the causing event had not taken place, provided that all else had remained the same.<ref name=Shibatani/> This set of definitional prerequisites allows for a broad set of types of relationships based, at least, on the lexical verb, the semantics of the causer, the semantics of the causee and the semantics of the construction explicitly encoding the causal relationship. Many analysts (Comrie (1981), Song (1996), Dixon (2000) and others) have worked to tease apart what factors (semantic or otherwise) account for the distribution of causative constructions, as well as to document what patterns actually occur cross-linguistically. ===Comrie=== [[Bernard Comrie]]<ref name=Comrie>[[Bernard Comrie|Comrie, B.]] (1981). ''Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology''. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p.158–177</ref> focuses on the typology of the syntax and semantics of causative constructions proper. Crucially, Comrie (and others to be discussed here) distinguish between the linguistic encoding of causal relations and other extra-linguistic concerns such as the nature of causation itself and questions of how humans perceive of causal relations. While certainly not irrelevant, these extra-linguistic questions will, for now, be left aside. Comrie usefully characterizes causative events in terms of two (or more) microevents perceived of composing a macroevent, and encoded in a single expression (of varying size and form). Formally, he categorizes causatives into 3 types, depending on the contiguity of the material encoding the causing event and that encoding the caused event. These are: 1) lexical causatives, in which the two events are expressed in a single lexical item, as in the well-discussed case of English kill; 2) morphological causatives, in which the causing event and the caused event are encoded in a single verbal complex via causative morphology, and, prototypically, morphological marking showing the status of affected arguments. Finally, Comrie discusses analytic causatives, in which the causing event and the caused event are encoded in separate clauses. Comrie's work is also noteworthy for having brought the notion of syntactic hierarchy to bear on the typology of causative constructions. A hierarchy of grammatical relations had already been formulated to help explain possibilities for relative clause formation (first presented as Keenan and Comrie's (1972) NP accessibility hierarchy; see Croft 1990: 147), and Comrie argued that a similar hierarchy was in play, at least in some constructions, in the marking of the original A argument when a base transitive clause is causativized. The hierarchy is as follows: *subject > direct object > indirect object > oblique > genitive Comrie's argument was, in short, that some causativized-transitive constructions mark the new A as belonging to the leftmost available slot in the above hierarchy. Dixon (2000) fleshes out a version this analysis in more detail. ===Song=== Presenting a typology of causatives and causation based on a database of 600 languages, Song<ref name=Song>Song, J.J. (1996). ''Causatives and causation: A universal-typological perspective''. London and New York: Addison Wesley Longman.</ref> is very critical of typological work that depends on statistical inference, citing data from the Niger-Congo family that contradicts some earlier claims that "languages within genera are generally fairly similar typologically".<ref name=Song/> Song therefore culls data from every language for which adequate documentation is available to him, and categorizes the various causative constructions gleaned therefrom into three classes: '''COMPACT''', '''AND''' and '''PURP'''. Song employs the following terminology: *[Scause] – the clause which denotes a causing event *[Seffect] – the clause which denotes the caused event *[Vcause] – verbal elements of [Scause] *[Veffect]- verbal elements of [Seffect]<ref name=Song />{{rp|20}} The major differences between Song's analysis and Comrie (1981) and Dixon (2000), is that Song lumps the range of lexical and morphological causatives together under the label COMPACT,<ref name=Song />{{rp|20}} in which [Vcause] can be "less than a free morpheme" (e.g., bound morpheme [prefix, suffix, infix, circumfix, reduplication], zero-derivation, suppletion); or "a free morpheme",<ref name=Song />{{rp|28}} in which [Vcause] and [Veffect] form a single grammatical unit. Most of the examples given look like serial verb constructions, and no in-depth analysis is undertaken for some of the constructions in which [Vcause] and [Veffect] are less formally contiguous. Song notes this non-contiguity, but does not undertake to explain why it might be important. The AND causative, for Song, is any construction with a separate [Scause] and [Seffect] i.e., in which "two clauses [are] involved".<ref name=Song />{{rp|35}} This, in theory, could include larger, multi-clausal expressions of causal relations which many analysts probably would not label a 'causative construction', e.g.: 'It rained yesterday, so they stayed home', but the boundaries of the AND causative category are not discussed. One of Song's major contributions to the literature{{According to whom|date=May 2012}} is fleshing out an analysis of his PURP causative. These are constructions which encode intended causation on the part of the causer, but which do not encode any outcome: i.e., the speaker encodes [Vcause] and causer intentionality, but remains agnostic as to whether [Veffect] was felicitously effected. ===Talmy=== [[Leonard Talmy]]<ref name=Talmy2>Talmy, L. 2000. ''Toward a Cognitive Semantics'' Volume 2: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge: MIT Press. p.67–101</ref> conducts an in-depth investigation of different types of causal relations. Talmy refers to these as "lexicalization patterns," a term that may reman unclear to some,{{Who|date=March 2014}} given that few of the examples given in his discussion are lexical items, and most interpretations of "different types of causation incorporated in the verb root" are in fact wholly dependent on other morphosyntactic material in the clause. Below is his list of possible (semantic) causative types,<ref name=Talmy2 />{{rp|69–70}} with examples: *autonomous events (non-causative) ''The vase broke.'' *resulting-event causation ''The vase broke from a ball's rolling into it.'' *causing-event causation ''A ball's rolling into it broke the vase.'' *instrument causation ''A ball broke the vase.'' *author causation (unintended) ''I broke the vase in rolling a ball into it.'' *agent causation (intended) ''I broke the vase by rolling a ball into it.'' *undergoer situation (non-causative) ''My arm broke (on me) when I fell.'' *self-agentive causation ''I walked to the store.'' *caused agency (inductive causation) ''I sent him to the store.'' One question remaining to be explored is how this set of divisions usefully differs from other analysts' typologies of the semantics of encoding causal relations. Some overlap in the types of semantic information in play is immediately apparent. However, in cases of instrument causation ('the hammer broke the cup'), it would be expected that the 'causer' be the one acting directly [Dixon's criterion 6] and to be involved in the activity [criterion 9]. Likewise, one would expect instances of caused agency to include more information on causee control on willingness [criteria 3 & 4].
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)