Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T02:55:45.355Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cause, causer and causee: a semantic perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Kashi Wali
Kashi Wali
Affiliation:
Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In recently proposed analyses of the causee's case (Aissen, 1974; Cole, 1976; Comrie, 1976) it has been generally assumed that: (a) causatives are underlyingly bisentential with a structure such as s[X cause s[Y to do something (run, hit, jog, … ]s]s; (b) the causative merger with its complement verb erases the grammatical relation of the complement subject; and (c) the case of the derived NP (i.e. the causee) emerging from the complement subject is determined by some universal grammatical principles of higher order.1 On the basis of a cross-language study, Comrie (1976a), for example, has suggested that the case of the causee follows from two main syntactic principles: the Doubling constraint and the Case Hierarchy (CH). The doubling constraint prevents the primary subject and object relations from duplicating in simple structures. The case hierarchy, which feeds on the doubling constraint, demotes the causee to Direct, Indirect, or Oblique Object (DO, IO, OO) position with each increase in the number of complement arguments of the causative construction. Thus if the complement clause is without an object, the causee positions itself as DO, the highest unoccupied position on the hierarchy. If the complement DO is already present the causee moves to IO, and if both DO and IO positions are filled, the causee demotes to OO NP whose nature under CH is unspecified. Turkish supposedly represents a paradigm of this operation.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , September 1981, pp. 289 - 308
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Aissen, J. (1974a). The syntax of causative constructions. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Aissen, J. (1974b). Verb raising. LIn 5. 325–366.Google Scholar
Cardona, G. (1965). A Gujarati reference grammar. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardona, G. (1967). Pānini's syntactic categories. JOIB 16. 201–215.Google Scholar
Cardona, G. (1978). Relations between causatives and passives in Indo-Iranian. Collitz lecture, LSA Institute 1978.Google Scholar
Chang, S. (1973). A generative study of discourse. Seoul University, Korea: Language Research Institute.Google Scholar
Cole, P. (1976a). A causative construction in Modern Hebrew: theoretical implications. In Cole, R. (ed.), Studies in modern Hebrew syntax and semantics. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 99–128.Google Scholar
Cole, P. (1976b). A note on the grammatical role of the causee in universal grammar. Proceedings of the Mid-American Linguistics Conference, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Cole, P. (1976c). The causee in universal grammar: syntax or semantics? Unpublished ms.Google Scholar
Cole, P. & Sridhar, S. N. (1977). Clause union and relational grammar: evidence from Hebrew and Kannada. LIn 8. 700–713.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1974). Causatives and universal grammar. TPhS 1974. 1–32.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1976a). The syntax of causative constructions: cross-language similarities and divergences. In Shibatani, M. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 6. New York: Academic Press. 261–312.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1976b). Review of Xolodovič, A. (ed.), Tipologija kauzativnyx konstrukcij. Lg 52. 479–488.Google Scholar
Damle, M. K. (1965). Shastriya Marathi vyakran. (A scientific grammar of Marathi), 3rd edition. Pune, India: R. D. Yande.Google Scholar
Gildersleeve, & Lodge, (1895). Latin grammar, 3rd edition. London: Macmillan, and New York: St Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Hacker, P. (1961). On the problem of a method for treating the compound and conjunct verbs in Hindi. BSOAS 24. 484–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harada, S. I. (1976). Honorifics. In Shibatani, M. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 5. New York: Academic Press. 499–561.Google Scholar
Harris, A. (1976). Grammatical relations in modern Georgian. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Hetzron, R. (1976). On the Hungarian causative verb and its syntax. In Shibatani, M. (ed.), Syntax and semantics. 6 New York: Academic Press. 371–398.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. (1974). An introduction to spoken Kashmiri. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1975). French syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, C. & Kiparsky, P. (1970). Fact. In Bierwisch, M. & Heidolph, K. E. (eds), Progress in linguistics. The Hague: Mouton. 143–173.Google Scholar
Li, C. N. & Thompson, S. (1977). The causative in Wappo: a special case of doubling. PBLS 3. 175–181.Google Scholar
Okuda, A. (1978). A performative analysis of Japanese honorifics. MA Thesis, Syracuse University.Google Scholar
Pinkham, J. (1974). Passive and faire-par causative constructions in French. Senior Essay, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Postal, P. & Perlmutter, D. (1974). Lectures on relational grammar. Lectures presented at the LSA Institute.Google Scholar
Radford, A. (1978). Agentive causatives in Romance: accessibility verses passivization. JL 14. 35–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reis, M. (1973). Is there a rule of subject-to-object raising in German? PCLS 9. 519–529.Google Scholar
Saltarelli, M. (1977). Where do agent phrases come from? Paper presented to LSA Winter Meeting.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. (1976). Causativisation. In Shibatani, M. (ed.), Syntax and semantics 5. New York: Academic Press. 239–294.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. (1977). Grammatical relations and surface cases. Lg 53. 789–809.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. (1976). Avoiding ambiguity in German double accusatives. Harvard Studies in Syntax and Semantics.Google Scholar
Vasu, S. C. (1962). Siddhant Kaumudi of Bhattoji Dixit, Vol. I. Delhi: Benarasidas.Google Scholar
Wali, K. (1979). Two Marathi reflexives and the causative structure. SLang 3. 3.Google Scholar
Wali, K. (1979). Case of causee. Descriptive and applied linguistics 12. Tokyo: ICU.Google Scholar
Wali, K. (1980). Oblique causee and passive explanation. LIn II. 258–260.Google Scholar