What to investigate

It is not sufficient, when writing the grammar of a language, just to say that it has a causative construction. All causative constructions have in common the addition of an A argument (the causer) to an underlying clause and this provides the basic semantic/syntactic criterion for recognizing a causative construction in a given language. But languages differ a great deal in the formal marking and syntax of their causatives, and in the specific meanings attached to them. The following details should be pursued: (a) The grammatical mechanism which is used to mark a causative construction may have alternate forms, perhaps conditioned phonologically, or else relating to the transitivity of \'erbs to which they apply. As discussed in 24.2, causative mechanisms include morphological processes, multi-verb predicates, and periphrastic constructions (typically, the causative verb in the main clause, taking a complement clause whose predicate head is the lexical verb being causativized). There may also be pairs of lexical verbs which appear to be in causative relation (like go and semi in English) although in all such instances languageinternal criteria should be sought (rather than just relying on intuitional judgement). (b) The syntax of each causative mechanism is to be carefully considered. What are the transitivitv values of the verbs to which it applies? A new argument is always added, the causer (in A function). What happens to the original arguments of the underlying verb (especially if it is transitive or extended intransitive)? Attested possibilities are presented in 24.3. (c) There may be several causative constructions, and they will always differ in terms of one or more of the semantic parameters discussed in 24.4- State/action, Transitivity, Control, Volition, Affectedness, Directness, Intention, Naturalness, and Involvement. If there is a single causative mechanism, its meaning must be tested. Single mechanisms do typically have a wide semantic

range, but they are unlikely to cover all values of each parameter. For example, a causative may only apply to an animate (or just a human) causee, but may only be used when the causee is willing and the causer acts directly. And so on. (d) Check, for each grammatical marking of causation-a valency increasing process-whether it has further functions. It may also mark the other valencr-increasing process, applicative, and/or passive, a valency reducing process. Or, in certain circumstances, it may have no valency changing effect at all, but just add some semantic element, such as an action intensively performed. If a certain grammatical form has more than one function, it is often hard to decide whether to analyse it as one item with multiple functions, or as several homonymous items. Often, it does not really matter which path is followed, so long as there is consistency. (There may be more important points to worry about in the grammar than such an issue.) In some cases, a form with disparate meanings or functions may have developed out of an earlier form with narrower scope. In other cases, items which are homonymous today may have developed from quite different forms at an earlier stage of the language. It should always be borne in mind that the most appropriate synchronic analysis is not necessarily congruent with the diachronic scenario. For example, what were distinct prefixes ka- and kim- at one stage of a language may (as aspiration is lost) fall together as ka-, with the original semantic functions becoming so intertwined that in synchronic analysis it is appropriate to recognize a single prefix ka- (rather than two homophonous forms).