Kashi Wali

Cause, causer and causee: a semantic perspective

In recently proposed analyses of the causees 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.