A German introduction to the concepts of causativity may be found in the course on Morphology and Syntax.
In order to approach the formation and the evolution of causative constructions in terms of typology, we need the following prerequisites:
1. a theory of causative situations,
2. an account of the paradigmatic relations of causativization,
3. a typological inventory of strategies for the formation of causative constructions.
We will take up each of these topics in turn.
Causativity may be defined as in T1, illustrated by the diagram below:
T1. Causativity
I. A situation C is causative iff it is complex in the following way:
II. Derivatively, a construction which expresses C and is derived from a construction expressing B is causative.
The predicate of C\B is symbolized by the red explosion. It will be called the cause predicate (and, if a verb, the cause verb). The predicate of B, symbolized by the blue explosion, will be called the base predicate. In the following examples, E1.a and E2.a illustrate the base situation, E1.b and E2.b illustrate corresponding causative situations.
b. I had my sister cut my hair.
E2. a. Die Studenten schreiben morgen eine Klausur.
‘The students will write a test tomorrow.’
b. Ich lasse die Studenten morgen eine Klausur schreiben.
‘I will have the students write a test tomorrow.’
A verb that combines the meanings of the base predicate and the cause predicate in a transparent way is a causative verb. A verb whose meaning contains these two components, but is merely in a lexical paradigmatic relationship with the base predicate without bearing a structural relation to it is a semantically causative verb.
The causer is constitutive of a causative situation. If a is removed from the conceptual level, as in E1.a and E2.a, only the base situation remains, and the whole
situation is no longer causative. The causee, on the other hand, is optional at
the conceptual level (i.e. apart from its being optional in particular
syntactic constructions). Situations lacking b are illustrated in E3.b and E4.b.
b. I had my hair cut.
E4. a. Ich schreibe morgen eine Klausur.
Ger ‘I will write a test tomorrow.’
b. Ich lasse morgen eine Klausur schreiben.
‘I will have a test written tomorrow.’
Here the causer is the only agent in C; but it is not the immediate agent of the base predicate. Such a causative sentence expresses mediate agency of the causer in B. If we compare, in this respect, E3.b and E4.b with E1.b and E2.b, mediate agency appears as omission of the causee. If, instead, we compare them with E3.a and E4.a, where the same participant is immediate agent, mediate agency appears as distantiation of the agent. Furthermore, elimination of the causee is the last step in its demotion; s. below.
The addition of a higher agent is both more expected and easier to accommodate in the situation if this does not yet contain an agent. In the same sense, the ensuing upheaval of the base verb valency is less radical if it is intransitive than if it is transitive. Therefore, we have the implicational hierarchy shown in S2.
S2. Base predicate hierarchy for causativization
adjective ← inactive intransitive verb ← active intransitive verb ← transitive verb ← multivalent verb
The interpretation of S2 is as follows: If a language has causative verbs from bases at some point of S2, then it has causative verbs from bases left to that point of S2. Here it must be noted that verbs formed by providing an adjectival base with an agent causing the base argument to be in the state or property designated by the adjective are traditionally called factitive, not causative. This distinction is justified because many languages, among them the Indo-European and the Mayan languages, make a structural distinction between causativization of verbal bases and factitivization. From an onomasiological perspective, however, factitivization belongs into the first position of S2.
S2 may be briefly illustrated. Yucatec Maya has productive factitivization and causativization of inactive intransitive bases. German has productive factitivization and a dozen of synthetic causative verbs (of the type sitzen ‘sit’ – setzen ‘set’) only from intransitive bases, with one exception (trinken ‘drink’ – tränken ‘water’, which however confirms the rule, as the underlying direct object can practically not be accommodated in the valency of the causative verb. Turkish has factitivization and causativization over the whole gamut of S2.
The parameters on which causative constructions vary follow from the definition in T1 (cf. Comrie 1985):
The causer may exert stronger or weaker control on B. With strongest control, it forces B by direct participation. With weakest control, it just lets B happen. Thus, causativization oscillates between coercion and permission.
The causee may have more or less control in C. With least control, it is just the direct patient of the causer’s action. With most control, it remains the agent in B, with the causer’s permission. This is essentially the same distinction, made from the point of view of the causee.
The cores of the two situations B and C may remain distinct or may merge. If they remain distinct, the causer performs some activity appropriate to bring B about (indirect causation). If they merge, the causer engages actively in B (direct causation).
Agentivization is an operation which adds a highest agent, the causer, to the base situation. The base situation is presupposed as a starting point; the situation that contains an added highest agent is arrived at as the result of the operation.
In language, complex constructions arising as the result of an operation presuppose the existence of simple constructions with the same functional (cognitive, communicative) properties, which may serve as a model of the target of the operation (cf. Dik 1985). For instance, agentivization aims at a constellation that may also be expressed, in an elementary way, by simple agentive (transformative or transport) transitive verbs, e.g. parse, bring. Such elementary situations, in their turn, may form the input to an operation which outputs that kind of situation which served as the input to the first operation. In the case at hand, the converse operation consists in suppressing the agent in a situation so that the resulting situation happens without the intervention of an agent, i.e. by itself, as in this string parses easily. This converse of agentivization is deagentivization. Their structural implementation in terms of deverbal verb derivation is known as causative and anticausative.
The analogous alternative of either adding or suppressing a participant exists with respect to the undergoer. To an elementary agentive situation such as Linda thinks, an undergoer may be added, e.g. Linda thinks up a new linguistic model. This operation is extraversion. And again, the situation containing both participants may provide the input to an operation that suppresses the undergoer, as in Linda sews a dress -> Linda sews. This is introversion. This system of operations is summarized in T2 (cf. Lehmann 2002, section 3):
T2.Transitivity-changing operations
It is important to note that the relationship between these operations is not only converse but also complementary. Whether my linguistic system provides me with intransitive ‘break’ plus an operation to derive causative ‘break’ from it, or it provides me with transitive ‘break’ plus an operation to derive anticausative ‘break’ from it, ultimately the same purpose is served. Apart from the necessary target model mentioned above, the whole verbal vocabulary of a language could in principle be monovalent, with all transitive verbs being derived by operations of agentivization and extraversion. This does happen, e.g. in Bororo (Crowell 1979). In principle, the reverse would be conceivable, too, with all verbs being basically bivalent and monovalent verbs being derived by operations of deagentivization and introversion. This scenario is not very probable, and no actual examples are known. In what follows, it is naturally the left column of T2 that will be of interest to us.
From a semantic perspective, b in B has less control than a. Consequently, a typically gets assigned the macrorole of an actor (subject or ergative), while b gets a macrorole endowed with less control, undergoer in the simplest case. From a syntactic perspective, the subject function in the sentence is born by a. Consequently, if b bears this function in the simple clause coding B and if C ⊃ B is coded as one clause, then b cannot keep the subject function and therefore is demoted on the hierarchy of syntactic functions.
| accusative system | ergative system | |
|---|---|---|
| subject | absolutive | |
| direct object | primary object | ergative |
| indirect object | secondary object | |
| other complement | ||
| adjunct | ||
| adnominal dependent | ||
In E1 and E2, the causee is coded as a direct object. Although B comprises its own undergoer, which keeps its direct object function, this does not lead to conflicts in this construction, as they depend on two distinct verbs, the cause verb and the base predicate. As soon as these merge into a causative verb, a conflict arises which may be resolved in different ways.
| Kausation im Japanischen | |