Abstract: Causativity, the linguistic expression of an agent bringing about a change of state or event, is a fundamental semantic concept encoded in diverse ways across languages. This paper explores two primary types of causative constructions: lexical and periphrastic. Lexical causatives involve a single verb that inherently encodes both the causing event and the caused event, often exhibiting a direct semantic relationship. In contrast, periphrastic causatives employ a separate causative verb (often a light verb) along with a non-causative predicate, allowing for a more explicit decomposition of the causative event and a wider range of semantic nuances such as permission, coercion, or delegation. This paper will delineate the structural, semantic, and pragmatic distinctions between these two types, illustrating their formation, characteristics, and the motivations behind their usage in English and other languages.
Introduction:
Causation is a universal cognitive and linguistic concept, describing a relationship where one event or entity (the cause) leads to another event or state (the effect). Languages possess various mechanisms to express this complex relationship, ranging from morphological derivations to multi-word constructions. Understanding these mechanisms is crucial for comprehending the intricate interplay between syntax, semantics, and pragmatics in human language.
This paper focuses on two major categories of causative constructions: lexical causatives and periphrastic causatives. While both ultimately convey the notion of one participant bringing about an event involving another, they differ significantly in their structural complexity, semantic transparency, and the specific nuances of causation they convey. Lexical causatives are often considered “direct” and “integrated,” whereas periphrastic causatives offer more “decomposed” and often “indirect” or “mediated” forms of causation. This exploration will illuminate how these distinct linguistic strategies contribute to the richness and flexibility of expressing causality in language.
1. Understanding Causativity
Before delving into specific types, it’s important to define what constitutes a causative event in linguistic terms. A causative event typically involves:
A Causer (Agent): The entity responsible for initiating the cause.
A Cause (Causing Event/Action): The action or circumstance performed by the causer.
A Causee (Patient/Affected Entity): The entity that undergoes the change of state or enters into a new event.
An Effect (Caused Event/State): The change of state or event that occurs to the causee as a result of the causer’s action.
For example, in “John broke the window,” John is the causer, his action is the cause, the window is the causee, and its state of being broken is the effect. Linguistically, causatives involve the addition of an argument (the causer) to an intransitive or transitive predicate, making it transitive or ditransitive, respectively.
2. Lexical Causatives
Lexical causatives are characterized by the fact that the causing event and the caused event are encoded within a single verb. These verbs often express a direct, immediate, and typically physical form of causation.
3. 1 Formation and Characteristics
Lexical causatives can arise in several ways:
Inherently Causative Verbs: Some verbs are inherently causative, meaning their core meaning already includes the notion of bringing about a state or event.
Examples: teach (cause to learn), feed (cause to eat), start (“cause to begin”).
1. Teach (cause to learn)
To teach means to cause someone to acquire knowledge, skills, or understanding through instruction, guidance, or demonstration. The action involves a transfer of information or expertise resulting in learning.
Example:
The professor teaches advanced physics to university students, enabling them to grasp complex theories and apply them practically.
(Here, the professor is actively causing the students to learn and comprehend new material.)
Through patient mentoring, she taught her apprentice the intricacies of woodworking.
2. Zero-Derived Causatives (Inchoative-Causative Alternation): Many verbs in English participate in an alternation where an intransitive verb (inchoative, describing a change of state) can be used transitively as a causative verb without any overt morphological change.
Examples:Intransitive (Inchoative): The door opened. / The ice melted. / The bell rang.
Transitive (Causative): John opened the door. / The sun melted the ice. / Mary rang the bell.
This is a highly productive pattern in English, particularly for verbs denoting changes of state or motion.
3.2. Semantic and Pragmatic Characteristics
Direct Causation: Lexical causatives typically imply that the causer directly acts upon the causee, often involving physical contact or immediate mental influence.
Semantic Integration: The causing event and the caused event are fused into a single conceptual unit. The causality is implicit in the verb’s meaning.
Conciseness: They are often the most concise way to express direct causation.
Lack of Intermediate Agent: There is no overt mention or implication of an intermediary agent between the causer and the causee.
Uncontrollability by Causee: The causee typically has no control over the caused event; it is merely an undergoer.
4. Periphrastic Causatives
Periphrastic causatives involve the use of a separate causative verb (often referred to as a “light verb” or “auxiliary causative”) followed by a complement, which expresses the caused event. This structure allows for a more analytical and often more indirect expression of causation.
4.1. Formation and Characteristics
Periphrastic causatives typically take the form: Causer + Causative Verb + Causee + Non-causative Predicate (e.g., bare infinitive, to-infinitive, participle, or clause). In English, common periphrastic causative verbs include make, have, let, get, cause, each carrying specific semantic nuances. Periphrastic causatives typically follow the structure:
Causer + Causative Verb + Causee + Non-causative Predicate
(where the predicate can be a bare infinitive, to-infinitive, participle, or clause).
Common English causative verbs include make, have, let, get, and cause, each carrying distinct semantic nuances and usage patterns:
1. Make
- Meaning: Implies direct coercion, compulsion, or forcing someone to do something. The causee usually has little or no choice in the matter.
- Example:
- The teacher made the students study. (Coercion)
- The rain made the streets slippery. (Inanimate cause, direct effect)
- Structure:
- make + causee + bare infinitive (for animate causees)
- make + causee + adjective or verb phrase (for inanimate causees)
2. Have
- Meaning: Primarily expresses delegation, arrangement, or causing something to be done by another party. The causer arranges or instructs the causee to perform the action, often involving services.
- Example:
- I had my car repaired. (Delegation; someone else performed the repair)
- She had her assistant prepare the report. (Instruction/delegation)
- Structure:
- have + causee + past participle (passive causation/service)
- have + causee + bare infinitive (active delegation or instruction)
3. Let
- Meaning: Conveys permission or allowance. The causer enables or permits the causee to perform an action, emphasizing consent rather than compulsion.
- Example:
- My parents let me go to the party. (Permission)
- The guard let him pass. (Allowance)
- Structure:
- let + causee + bare infinitive
4. Get
- Meaning: Often implies persuasion, effort, or overcoming resistance to bring about the causee’s action. It can also indicate arranging for a service, frequently with more active involvement from the causer.
- Example:
- I got him to fix the computer. (Persuasion or coaxing)
- She got her hair cut. (Arrangement, implying some effort on causer’s part)
- Structure:
- get + causee + to-infinitive (active, persuasion)
- get + causee + past participle (passive, arrangement/service)
5. Cause
- Meaning: A formal, often indirect causative verb, typically used with abstract or inanimate subjects. It implies an initiating or resulting action that may not be intentional or direct.
- Example:
- The explosion caused the building to collapse. (Resulting action)
- His negligence caused the accident. (Abstract cause)
- Structure:
- cause + causee + to-infinitive
Summary Table
| Verb | Semantic Nuance | Typical Structure | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Make | Direct coercion/force | make + causee + bare infinitive/adjective | The teacher made the students study. |
| Have | Delegation/arrangement | have + causee + past participle/bare infinitive | I had my car repaired. |
| Let | Permission/allowance | let + causee + bare infinitive | My parents let me go to the party. |
| Get | Persuasion/effort | get + causee + to-infinitive/past participle | I got him to fix the computer. |
| Cause | Formal/indirect causation | cause + causee + to-infinitive | The explosion caused the building to collapse. |
4.2. Semantic and Pragmatic Characteristics
Indirect Causation: Periphrastic causatives can express various degrees of indirectness, mediation, permission, or coercion. The causal chain is often more explicit.
Semantic Decomposition: The causing event and the caused event are expressed by distinct syntactic units (the main verb and the complement), making the semantic relationship more transparent.
Productivity: They are highly productive, meaning they can be formed with a wide range of verbs that do not have lexical causative counterparts.
Control by Causee: The causee might retain some degree of agency or volition, depending on the specific causative verb used (let implies volition, make implies lack thereof).
Explicit Role of Causer: The role of the causer (e.g., forcing, permitting, delegating) is explicitly encoded by the choice of the periphrastic verb.
5. Key Distinctions and Overlap
| Feature | Lexical Causatives | Periphrastic Causatives |
|---|---|---|
| Structure | Single verb encodes cause + effect. | Causative verb + complement (VP, clause) for caused event. |
| Syntactic Comp. | Simple transitive structure. | Complex, biclausal or monoclausal with VP complement. |
| Semantic Nuance | Direct, immediate, often physical causation. | Indirect, mediated, permission, coercion, delegation, persuasion. |
| Integration | High: Cause & effect fused. | Low: Cause & effect explicitly decomposed. |
| Productivity | Limited; often idiosyncratic or zero-derived patterns. | High; applicable to a wide range of verbs. |
| Causee Agency | Typically none (undergoer). | Varies from none (make) to full (let). |
| Conciseness | More concise | More explicit, but less concise |
| Example | John opened the door. (John caused the door to be open) | John made the door open. (John compelled the door to open) |
| The chef cooked the meal. | The chef had the assistant cook the meal. |
Overlap and Continuum: While distinct, the boundary between lexical and periphrastic causatives is not always absolute. Some verbs might exist in both forms with subtle semantic differences. For instance, “The explosion caused the building to collapse” vs. “The explosion collapsed the building.” The lexical “collapsed” implies a more direct and immediate effect, whereas “caused to collapse” might imply a slightly more indirect causal chain or a focus on the reason rather than the agentive action.
Furthermore, across languages, the preference for one construction over another varies. Some languages are highly morphological, preferring lexical or agglutinative causatives (e.g., Turkish), while others lean more towards periphrastic constructions (e.g., Chinese, with very few morphological causatives).
6. Conclusion
The distinction between lexical and periphrastic causatives provides a valuable framework for understanding how languages encode the fundamental concept of causation. Lexical causatives, characterized by their integrated semantics and often direct causal relationships, offer conciseness and are frequently at the core of verb lexicalization. Periphrastic causatives, on the other hand, provide a more analytical and flexible means of expressing a broader spectrum of causal relationships, including nuances of coercion, permission, and delegation, by explicitly separating the causative predicate from the caused event.
The choice between these two types is not arbitrary but is governed by structural constraints, semantic requirements, and pragmatic considerations, reflecting the speaker’s intent regarding directness, responsibility, and the nature of the causal chain. Studying these constructions illuminates the rich interplay between syntax and semantics, revealing how diverse linguistic strategies allow speakers to articulate the complex ways in which events come to pass in the world.
Reference
- Comrie, B. (1989). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. University of Chicago Press. (General reference on typological aspects)
- Levin, B. (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. University of Chicago Press. (For verb alternations, including causative-inchoative)
- Shibatani, M. (1976). The grammar of causative constructions: A conspectus. In M. Shibatani (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 6: The grammar of causative constructions (pp. 1-40). Academic Press. (A foundational work on causatives)
- Wierzbicka, A. (1980). Lingua Mentalis: The Semantics of Natural Language. Academic Press. (For semantic decomposition)
Leave a Reply