Causatives

All verbs with dual transitivity on the S = O pattern can be considered to be underlyingly intransitive, with a causative version that involves S becoming O and a new role, the Causer (which is most frequently human), entering as A. (For some AFFECT verbs the Causer coincides with Agent.)

This applies both to (i) those verbs that native speakers think of as basically intransitive, e.g. walk, bleed, work, trip, burst, curl, burn, and to (ii) those that native speakers think of as basically transitive, e.g. drop, spill, break, extend, coil. The difference lies in the fact that verbs of set (ii) are thought of as generally involving a Causer, and those of set (i) as just occasionally involving a Causer.

Only a limited number of intransitive verbs can be used in a simple causative (i.e. S = O transitive) construction. But virtually all verbs— both intransitive and transitive—can occur in a periphrastic causative construction with Secondary verbs from the MAKING type, i.e. make, force, cause, get, have. Although ‘causative’ is the traditional label for these constructions (which I retain here), in fact a periphrastic construction with the verb cause—often referring to action which brings about a result by indirect means—is far removed in meaning from a simple causative. The verb cause in English has a limited range of use—one could scarcely say *He caused the dog to walk in the park, and if one could it would mean something quite different from He walked the dog in the park.

It is instructive to compare make (the most commonly used verb from the MAKING type) with a simple causative:

(18a) John walked the dog in the park

(18b) John made the dog walk in the park

(19a) Mary opened the door

(19b) Mary made the door open

(20a) Fred dissolved the sugar in the liquid

(20b) Fred made the sugar dissolve in the liquid

There is considerable semantic difference between the sentences in each pair. The (b) alternatives imply that some difficulty was encountered, that the event did not happen naturally. Hearing (18b) one might infer that the dog did not want to walk in the park, (19b) that the door could have been stuck and needed a hard shove, (20b) that Fred had perhaps to heat the liquid to get the sugar to dissolve. In contrast, the (a) sentences imply a natural activity—the dog was eager to walk, the door opened easily, and the sugar began to dissolve as soon as it was put in the liquid.

The differences between the (a/b) pairs relate to the fact that in (b) the dog/door/sugar is subject of the complement clause verb (it is also coded as surface direct object of make, but this is a secondary matter). It has the semantic properties of a subject, the role which is most relevant to the success of the activity. It is generally only appropriate to use a make construction when the subject of the complement clause is—by its character or nature—impeding the success of the activity; make refers to over-coming this impedance. In contrast, the dog/door/sugar is in the (a) sentences simply the object of the complement clause verb; it has the semantic characteristics of an object, i.e. the role which is most saliently affected by the activity described by the verb (there is here no hint of an impedance which has to be overcome).

Other MAKING verbs enter into constructions with a meaning similar to the (b) sentences. He got the dog to walk in the park and He forced the dog to walk in the park also imply that there was an element of impedance which had to be overcome.

Verbs from the MAKING type also occur freely with HUMAN PROPENSITY adjectives, e.g. She made me (be) angry, She got me (to be) angry. Adjectives from other types can also be used with make, in appropriate circumstances. We mentioned that many adjectives from the DIMENSION, PHYSICAL PROPERTY, SPEED, AGE and COLOR types may be used as both intransitive and transitive verbs, either in root form (e.g. narrow, warm) or by the addition of a derivational suffix -en (e.g. deepen, sweeten). There is a semantic contrast between a lexical causative such as deepen, sweeten, and a periphrastic one such as make deep, make sweet. The lexical form is most often used when the quality referred to by the adjective was already present to some extent and has now been intensified, i.e. deepen, ‘make deeper’, sweeten ‘make sweeter’. The periphrastic causative states that the quality has been engendered (it may or may not have been present to some degree before), e.g. Mary made the tea very sweet (in my opinion) but John complained and she had to sweeten it some more.

The simple causative construction (as in (18a), (19a), (20a)) is available for those intransitive verbs for which it is plausible that a Causer could be responsible for the event happening in a natural manner.

Almost all transitive verbs in English lack a simple causative use. This appears to be due to a syntactic constraint. Transitive verbs already have a direct object and any putative causative construction would be likely to be confused with the straightforward transitive. If corresponding to the periphrastic causative Mary made John cut the cake we were to have a simple causative, then Mary—as Causer—would become subject of cut. We could get either Mary cut John PREPOSITION the cake or else Mary cut the cake PREPOSITION John. Each of these would be understood to imply that Mary did the cutting, whereas what we are trying to describe is John doing the cutting and Mary making him do it. (There is an ‘inherent preposition’ transitive verb that does form a causative, refer to, e.g. Noam referred me to Mithun’s new book, and alongside I referred to Mithun’s new book. Here the presence of the preposition avoids any possibility of confusion.)

However, Secondary-A verbs involve no roles beyond those of the complement clause verb—nothing comes between the two verbs in John started running or Nanny started washing the baby. Start—and also stop, keep, begin, hurry, hasten—can be used causatively. The new Causer comes in before start with the original subject now moving to a position between the two verbs, e.g. The official started John running (i.e. gave the signal for him to start) or Mother started Nanny washing the baby (told her it was now bath-time). Note the difference in meaning from The official made John start running, which carries the implication that he didn’t want to run.

There are two points to note about simple causatives of Secondary-A verbs. The first is that only an ING complement clause may be involved, not a Modal (FOR) TO complement—we can say John started to run, but not *The official started John to run. This is because Modal (FOR) TO relates to the subject getting involved in the activity normally on their own volition, not at a signal from someone else. The second is that there is no simple causative construction with finish; that is, there is no causative corresponding to John finished making the beds. A putative causative, *Mother finished John making the beds, would imply that she gave a signal for the activity to terminate, and this would be incompatible with the ‘object orientation’ meaning of finish—the activity terminates when all the beds are made. (But note that we can have Mother made John finish making the beds, demonstrating once again the considerable semantic difference between simple causatives and periphrastic causatives in English.)

The verb marry has wide syntactic possibilities. We classed it as an ‘inherent reciprocal’ verb that may omit an O NP if it is each other, e.g. John and Mary married (each other), corresponding to John married Mary and Mary married John. There is a causative corresponding to this, e.g. Father O’Leary married John and Mary. There is also a causative corresponding to the simple transitive (non-reciprocal) use of marry, e.g. Father O’Leary married John and Bill to Mary and Jane respectively—here to introduces what is direct object in the non-causative John and Bill married Mary and Jane respectively.

In summary, a periphrastic causative construction, with a verb from the MAKING type, can, potentially, involve any transitive or intransitive verb or any adjective. It most often involves getting someone to do something that they did not want to do, or getting something into a new state. Simple causatives are available for some Secondary-A verbs, for some intransitive Primary-A verbs (the verb is used in a transitive frame, with the original S becoming O) and for adjectives from certain types (either the adjectival root is used as a transitive verb, or -en is added). A simple causative implies that the Causer is responsible for an event happening in a natural manner, or for a property being intensified.