The causative continuum
The causative continuum
复制标题
因果连续体
DOI：
10.1075/tsl.48.07shi
复制
发表时间：
2002
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Prashant Pardeshi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Shibatani;Prashant Pardeshi
本文有五个目标：（1）阐明动词语义与致使的直接/间接区别;（2）论证动词语义在致使推导中的重要性;（3）为致使形成的形式维度和语义维度沿着的连续体提供更有说服力的证据;（4）论证生产力参数作为形式功能相关性的预测因子，（5）确立“社会性因果”这一中间范畴的重要性。经常被引用的直接和间接因果关系的概念，以及类似的操纵/指令和接触/遥远的概念，指的是因果关系认知的根本区别。然而，这些术语一直被相当模糊和松散地使用，需要重新定义或澄清与因果关系语法中其他问题相关的动词语义。根动词和使役动词的动词语义相互作用的方式，要求一个更细粒度的语义远远超出了传统的及物/不及物的区别，以及最近认识到的非作格/非作格的区别。在类型学研究中，习惯上分为（a）词汇（合成），（B）形态，（c）句法（分析或迂回）类型。我们发现，这种形式的类型学在许多方面是有限的。首先，正如Givón（1980）和Comrie（1981，1985）所指出的，这三种类型形成了一个连续体，而且每一种类型都由自己的连续体组成，使整个形式维度成为一个单一的连续体。更重要的是，功能类型学要求明确的形式和语义的一个给定的认知领域的维度，使相关的形式意义的相关性是在一个系统的方式捕获。事实证明，在形式上不同的使役类型之间存在大量的功能重叠，
This paper has a five-fold goal of (1) clarifying the direct/indirect distinction in causation in relation to verbal semantics,(2) demonstrating the importance of verbal semantics in causative derivation,(3) providing more compelling evidence for a continuum along both formal and semantic dimensions in causative formation,(4) arguing for the productivity parameter as a predictor of the formfunction correlation, and (5) establishing the importance of an intermediate category of ‘sociative causation’. The oft-invoked notions of direct and indirect causation as well as similar ones of manipulative/directive and contact/distant refer to a fundamental distinction in the cognition of causation. These terms have been rather vaguely and loosely used, however, and need to be either redefined or clarified in relation to the verbal semantics relevant to other issues in the grammar of causation. The verbal semantics of both root verbs and causative verbs interact in a way that calls for a finer-grained semantics going well beyond the traditional transitive/intransitive distinction as well as the more recently recognized unaccusative/unergative distinction.In a typological study it is customary to classify causative forms into (a) the lexical (synthetic),(b) the morphological, and (c) the syntactic (analytic or periphrastic) type. We find a formal typology of this kind to be limited in a number of respects. For one thing, as noted by Givón (1980) and Comrie (1981, 1985), these three types form a continuum, and each type, furthermore, consists of a continuum of its own, rendering the entire formal dimension into a single continuum. More significantly, functional-typology demands articulation of the formal and the semantic dimension of a given cognitive domain, so that the relevant formmeaning correlation is captured in a systematic manner. As it turns out, there is a great deal of functional overlap among formally distinct types of causative, which