Consider the sentences: (A) 'The window broke.' (B) 'The child broke the window.' What has happened to argument structure between A and B?
AThe subject in A has been promoted to object in B, and the child has been added as a new object
BA new causer argument (the child) has been added as subject; the original subject (the window) has been demoted to object position
CThe valency has decreased by one because the causative removes the intransitive reading
DBoth sentences have the same valency; only the thematic role of 'window' has changed
This is the causative alternation: applying a causative adds one argument (the causer) at the subject position, and demotes the original intransitive subject (the Patient/Theme — the window) to object position. Valency increases from 1 to 2. The window's thematic role as Patient is preserved; what changes is its grammatical position. Option A reverses the direction: promotion/demotion describes what happens in passives, not causatives.
Question 2 Multiple Choice
A linguist describes the Turkish form getir- ('bring,' derived from gel- 'come' via the suffix -t) as a morphological causative. What distinguishes this from the English periphrastic causative 'I made him come'?
AThe morphological causative increases valency by two; the periphrastic causative increases it by one
BThe morphological causative expresses direct causation encoded in the verb itself; the periphrastic uses a separate causative verb and typically implies indirect causation
CThey are functionally identical; the distinction is purely a matter of historical development
DPeriphrastic causatives are only available in English; morphological causatives are the universal cross-linguistic default
The key cross-linguistic distinction is not just structural but semantic: morphological causatives (affixes on the verb) tend to imply direct causation — the causer acts immediately on the event. Periphrastic causatives (make/have/let + infinitive) typically imply indirect causation — the causer acts on the causee, who then performs the action. 'She made him clean the room' implies pressure or instruction; a morphological equivalent would suggest she directed the cleaning more immediately. Option C ignores the semantic distinction; Option D is empirically false.
Question 3 True / False
A morphological causative typically implies more direct causation than a periphrastic (analytic) causative expressing the same event.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: True
This is a robust cross-linguistic generalization: periphrastic causatives introduce a full 'causal chain' between causer and event, implying mediation through the causee's action. Morphological causatives, by encoding causation directly in the verb, express a more tight, immediate causal connection. This gradient of directness is also reflected within English periphrastic causatives: 'make' (coercive), 'have' (arranged), and 'let' (permissive) form a scale of decreasing causer control.
Question 4 True / False
When a causative construction is applied to an intransitive verb, the original subject of that verb remains in the subject position, and the causer is added as a new object.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
The opposite is true: the causer is introduced at the subject position (it is the new, higher-ranked argument), and the original intransitive subject is demoted to object position. For example: 'The ice melted' (intransitive; ice = subject) → 'The heat melted the ice' (causative; heat = causer/subject, ice = object). The causer always occupies the highest argument position because it is the external initiator of the event.
Question 5 Short Answer
What happens to argument structure when a causative construction is applied to a transitive verb? Use an example to illustrate.
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: Applying a causative to a transitive verb increases valency by one, creating a ditransitive structure. The new causer is added as subject; the original subject is demoted to an indirect object or oblique position; the original object remains as direct object. For example: 'She ate the cake' (transitive; she = subject/Agent, cake = object) → 'I made her eat the cake' (causative; I = causer/subject, her = causee/indirect object, cake = direct object). The original subject (she) is demoted but retains its agency as the entity performing the action.
This demotion pattern follows from the general logic of causatives as valency-increasing operations: each application of a causative adds one argument at the top of the argument hierarchy, shifting all other arguments down one position. This is why repeated causativization (making a causative of a causative) is constrained in most languages — the argument structure would otherwise become unmanageably complex.