The Metaterm ‘Cause’
The purpose of this discussion is to explore a particularly flexible but explicit definition for the linguistic term ‘cause’ or ‘causative’ as a semantic notion for language-specific description, cross-linguistic comparison, and general theorizing and linguistic dialogue. Examples will be brought in from Newari (Tibeto-Burman) of the general variety used in Kathmandu, Nepal, as well as from English. Strong constraints cannot be built into the definition in the absence of agreed-upon language universals justifying such constraints. Its flexibility lies in allowing an indefinite number of details to be made explicit, and its explicitness, in specifying where those details belong in relation to one another.
KeywordsNoun Phrase Pragmatic Inference Causative Construction Subject Noun Phrase Causative Verb
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Since wo is a general third person singular, these sentences could all be translated with’ she’ instead of ‘he.’ ‘Ext’ stands for ‘external evidential,’ and ‘int’ for ‘internal evidential.’ Other abbreviations are the usual ones: agt = agentive (suffix), caus= causative, dat = dative, acc = accusative, loc = locative, inf= infinitive. Although called agentive in these ergative constructions, the suffix-ń does not differentiate between agentive and instrumental, agentive being inferred from animateness or other contextual features,-ń and-ύ are cover terms for a variety of morphophonemes.-ύ is realized as lengthening of the preceding vowel, and-ń, word-finally, as lengthening and nazalization of the preceding vowel, o covers a broad schwa range, dh, lh are voiced aspirate (breathy) d, l.Google Scholar
- 2.For wo to be clearly interpreted as animate, as in ‘I made her/him fall down,’ it requires the dative/accusative form wo.y-to..Google Scholar
- 3.’specified assertibility’ refers to the indication that an element, when it occurs in a clause, will be asserted (together with any other elements so specified) if the clause token is marked for assertion. Thus, if only the possibility of the action or state in Q is specified assertable, then assertion of the action or state itself is not made although still inferable as intended.Google Scholar
- Bendix, E. H. Componential analysis of general vocabulary. The Hague: Mouton, 1966.Google Scholar
- Fodor, J. A. Three reasons for not deriving ‘kill’ from ‘cause to die.’ Linguistic Inquiry, 1970, 1, 429–438.Google Scholar
- Givón, T. Cause and control: On the semantics of inter-personal manipulation. In J. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol.4). New York: Academic Press, 1975.Google Scholar
- Matisoff, J. A. Lahu causative constructions: Case hierarchies and the morphology/syntax cycle in Tibeto-Burman perspective. In M. Shibatani (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 6): The grammar of causative constructions. New York: Academic Press, 1976.Google Scholar
- Postal, P. M. On the surface verb ‘remind.’ Linguistic Inquiry, 1970, 1, 37–120.Google Scholar
- Shibatani, M. The grammar of causative constructions: A conspectus. In M. Shibantani (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 6): The grammar of causative constructions. New York: Academic Press, 1976.(a).Google Scholar
- Shibatani, M.(Ed.).Syntax and semantics (Vol. 6): The grammar of causative constructions. New York: Academic Press, 1976. (b).Google Scholar
- Weinreich, U. Explorations in semantic theory. In U. Weinreich, On semantics (W. Labov & B. S. Weinreich, Eds.). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1980. (Originally published, 1966.).Google Scholar
- Wojcik, R. H. Where do instrumental NPs come from? In M. Shibatani (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 6): The grammar of causative constructions. New York: Academic Press, 1976, pp. 165–180.Google Scholar