Early parental causal language input predicts children’s later causal verb understanding

How does parental causal input relate to children’s later comprehension of causal verbs? Causal constructions in verbs differ across languages. Turkish has both lexical and morphological causatives. We asked whether (1) parental causal language input varied for different types of play (guided vs. free play), (2) early parental causal language input predicted children’s causal verb understanding. Twenty-nine infants participated at three timepoints. Parents used lexical causatives more than morphological ones for guided-play for both timepoints, but for free-play, the same difference was only found at Time 2. For Time 3, children were tested on a verb comprehension and a vocabulary task. Morphological causative input, but not lexical causative input, during free-play predicted children’s causal verb comprehension. For guided-play, the same relation did not hold. Findings suggest a role of specific types of causal input on children’s understanding of causal verbs that are received in certain play contexts.

Causative in Sasak: A Mechanism of Valency Increase

This study discusses the formation of causatives based on the criteria proposed by Dixon (2012). Pertain to the mechanism of valency increasing, it is found that causative construction in Sasak Kuto-Kute dialect covers two forms: morphological and lexical. Morphological causative involves the process of adding confix N -ang/in and affix -in to the non-causative base verb, whilst, the lexical causative uses the causative verb mate 'died/killed'. Furthermore, it was found that the formation of causative from intransitive verbs can be done by moving the original S to O position in the causative construction, which is morphologically marked on the verb, and also using different verbs with the same meaning to form the causative construction which is followed by the transfer of the original S to O position. For transitive verbs, the formation can be done through the use of affixes with the original A and original O both becoming O1 and O2. Last, the causative construction in the dialect semantically involves five semantic parameters, namely transparency, naturalness, intention, involvement, and control.

CAUSATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF ACEH LANGUAGE: TYPOLOGY APPROACH

This study discusses causative construction in Acehnese language typologically. The problems studied were (1) the type of causative construction of the Aceh language typologically, (2) the relationship of the causative construction of Aceh language in typology, and (3) structures that establish the causative construction of Acehnese language. Research data, both oral and written, were obtained by speaking and listening methods. All data are examined by the identity and distributional methods. The results of the study showed that typologically the causative construction of Aceh language consists of morphological causative, lexical causative and analytic causative. Aceh language causative construction in this paper is investigated through parameters of semantics and formal. This construction was produced by combination of clause and conjunction ‘kerna’ or ‘seubap’; using analytical causative verb ‘peugot’ and ‘geuyu’; morphological causative affixes ‘meu-‘, ‘peu-‘ and ‘seu-‘; and using certain lexical causative in which have causative meaning. The relationship of the causative construction of the Aceh language in a syntactic typology, namely causative morphology and lexical causative was included in the causative construction of monoclauses, whereas analytic causative was included in the causative construction of biclauses. Structurally, testing is done by pinning syntactic operations, hence causative analytic was formed by biclauses structures, while lexical and morphological causative was formed by monoclausal structures.

Causatives

A causative is a linguistic expression referring to a situation consisting of a certain event and a force responsible for the realization of it, as seen in the following examples, where the addressee is understood as the cause of laughing of the addresser: English You make me laugh = Lithuanian Tu mane juok-in-i (2sg.nom1sg.acc laugh-caus-prs.2sg). These examples illustrate two major types of causative expressions, where make and -in- serve as markers of causative relations. English employs a free form, and the construction is termed periphrastic (or analytic, syntactic) causative, while Lithuanian uses an affix, and this type is referred to as morphological causative. There are other formal means beside affixation to form morphological causatives, such as reduplication, vowel, consonant, and tone alternations. The periphrastic causatives can be monoclausal or biclausal in their structure, and the monoclausal ones are sometimes specifically referred to as syntactic causatives. In addition to that, lexical causatives can be recognized if a predicate bearing no synchronically transparent relation to another predicate is interpreted as causative on semantic grounds. For example, in the English sentence You killed him, one may paraphrase kill as “cause to die” and argue that kill stands in causative relation with respect to die. Some authors also use the term “lexical causative” when talking about nonproductive and/or semitransparent formations, which typically disallow ambiguity of adverb scope. With regard to semantics, causatives can be factitive (as English make) or permissive (as English let), the causing force may operate directly or indirectly (by certain intermediate actions), and a number of other parameters can be shown to be relevant. It has been argued that these semantic parameters also bear a relation to the formal means of expression of causatives, such as direct causation expressed by morphological causatives and indirect one by periphrastic constructions. Within a larger context, causatives are interpreted as valency-changing operations, which add a causer as an agent (“you” in the previous examples) and demote the subject of the base predicate, which becomes the causee and can be marked as a certain object (“me” in the previous examples). The principles governing the marking of the causee, such as “the paradigm case” and “the semantic role approach,” have been one of the main topics in the study of causatives. The syntax of causative constructions is usually also discussed in the studies dealing with transitivity and voice (see further references in the separate Oxford Bibliographies article in Linguistics “Transitivity and Voice”).

Where Syntax and Semantics Meet: A Typological Investigation of Old Egyptian Causatives

The earliest stage of the ancient Egyptian language attested in writing, i.e., Old Egyptian, had two productive causative mechanisms that increase the valency of verbs: morphological (mono-clausal) and periphrastic (bi-clausal). The former is characterized by the prefix s-, while the latter employs the lexical causative verb rḏj ‘give’ followed by a complement clause. Despite the fact that both causative strategies have been known to scholars since the inception of the study of the ancient Egyptian language, any systematic or comprehensive study of Egyptian causative verbs is lacking. This paper thus aims to provide a new insight into the Old Egyptian morphological and periphrastic causatives by examining their syntactic as well as semantic properties. The results of this analysis show which types of verbs have a preference for which of the two causative strategies and demonstrate the semantic differences between the morphological and periphrastic causative types. Furthermore, this paper clarifies the peculiar nature of the morphological causatives of transitive verbs, whose valency does not increase. I suggest a possible solution to this issue that lies in the function of the n-prefix in Old Egyptian.

Time in probabilistic causation: direct vs. indirect uses of lexical causative verbs

It is traditionally assumed that lexical causative verbs (e.g. kill) express direct causationonly, while periphrastic (bi-clausal) causatives (e.g. cause to die) may also express indirectcausation. In favour of this constraint, Fodor famously observed that the (change of) state introducedby lexical causative verbs is not accessible for separate adverbial modification by temporal(or manner) adverbials. In this paper, I present old and new arguments against the direct causationconstraint under the definitions of directness of Fodor and Wolff. I then propose a new definitionof directness in terms of ab-initio causal sufficiency framed in Kvart’s probabilistic account ofsingular causation. I argue that directness so redefined is an implicature rather than an entailmentof lexical causative verbs, which enables me to account for old and new data. Furthermore, I accountfor why the constraint on separate modification by temporal adverbials can be relaxed witheventuality-denoting subjects.Keywords: lexical causative verbs, direct vs. indirect causation, causal sufficiency, probabilistictheories of causation, semantics/pragmatics interface.

Can a microwave heat up coffee? How English- and Japanese-speaking children choose subjects in lexical causative sentences

Languages differ greatly in how they express causal events. In languages like Japanese, the subjects of causative sentences, or causers, are generally animate and intentional, whereas in other languages like English, causers range widely from animate beings to inanimate objects (e.g. Wolff, Jeon & Li, 2009). This paper explores when children learn to represent cause in their native tongue and how this learning occurs over the course of development. English- and Japanese-speaking preschoolers watched animations that were caused by (i) humans acting intentionally, (ii) humans acting accidentally, (iii) objects that generate energy (e.g. a machine), and (iv) objects that do not generate energy (e.g. a tool). Children were then asked to choose a good description of the event between two options. At age three, English- and Japanese-speaking children performed the task in similar ways, attending only to the intention of causal agents; however, at age four, speakers of the two languages diverged. English speakers were more likely to accept energy-generating objects such as machines as the subject of a lexical causative sentence than Japanese speakers.

CAUSATIVE CONSTRUCTION IN INDONESIAN LANGUAGE

This research concerns with causative construction in Indonesian language. The analyses of causative construction of Indonesian language based on the parameter of morphosyntax and semantics as proposed by Comrie (1989).The objectives of this research are to identify the causative types of Indonesian language. The result of the analyses shows that based on morphosyntax parameter the causative types in Indonesian language are (1) analytical causative, (2) morphological causative, (3) resultative causative, and (4) lexical causative. Based on semantic parameter causative types in Indonesian language are differentiated into two features, (1) the controlling level accepted by causee, and (2) the closeness of relationship between cause and effect components.

From transitive to causative in Japanese

Modern Japanese has a morphological causative, formed by suffixes on the verb, and lexical causatives. The morphological causative has been in use since Late Old Japanese. However, the etymology of this morphological causative and the status of related causative formations in Old Japanese remain unclear. This paper supports the view that lexical causative formations in Old Japanese are the direct predecessors of the morphological causative. In their morphological, syntactic, and semantic features they form a chain of morphologization with the productive causative that emerged from them. Similar diachronic developments have also been observed in Sanskrit and North American languages. Thus, the formation of a morphological causative from a lexical pattern, a path of development that has received little attention, seems to constitute a crosslinguistically valid source for the evolution of productive causatives. It is proposed that the type of change observed here is an exaptation of fossilized morphological material, which, in several important aspects, runs counter to the directionality of change posited in mainstream grammaticalization theory.