INDIRECT CAUSATION: ENGLISH GET-CONSTRUCTIONS AND THEIR MACEDONIAN EQUIVALENTS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37834/JCP258223aKeywords:
contrastive analysis, translation, constructions, typology, causationAbstract
This paper presents the results of an empirical investigation into the typology of indirect causation in English and Macedonian. The study focuses on English causative analytic constructions formed with the verb get and non-finite verb forms. The aim of this research is to identify typological differences in how indirect causation is encoded in the two languages by comparing English constructions with their translational equivalents in Macedonian. Given that English, unlike Macedonian, possesses dedicated lexicogrammatical markers for encoding indirect causation – such as the grammaticalized verb get, we hypothesize that the Macedonian translational equivalents of causative get-constructions will vary depending on the construction type. To test this hypothesis, we extracted examples of these constructions from both fiction and documentary prose. The quantitative analysis of the data shows that the functional equivalents of infinitival contructions are predominantly biclausal structures, whereas the translations of present participial get-constructions tend to use monolexical verbs.
References
Comrie, B. (1985). Causative verb formation and other verb-deriving morphology. In T. Shopen (ed.). Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, 309–348. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Comrie, B. (1989). Language Universals and Language Typology. Oxford: Blackwell. Croft, W. (2012). Verbs: Aspect and clausal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dixon, R.M.W. (2000). A typology of causatives: form, syntax and meaning. In R.M.W. Dixon and A. Aikhenvald (eds.). Changing valency: Case Studies in Transitivity, 30–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Downing, A. (2014). English Grammar: A University Course (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
Gilquin, G. (2003). So close, so different. Causative ‘get’ and ‘have’. Journal of English Linguistics, 31(2): 125–148.
Gilquin, G. (2010). Corpus, cognition and causative constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Givón, T. (2001). Syntax. A functional-typological introduction. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Givón, T. (2005). Context as Other Minds: The Pragmatics of Sociality, Cognition and Communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Haspelmath, M. (1993). Causatives and Other Valency-Changing Devices. In B. Comrie (ed.). Valency and Voice, 73–166. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Haspelmath, M. (2016). Universals of causative and anticausative verb formation and the spontaneity scale. Lingua Posnaniensis, 58(2): 33–63.
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction Grammar and Its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Hollmann, W. B. (2003). Synchrony and diachrony of English periphrastic causatives: a cognitive perspective. PhD dissertation, University of Manchester. Hopper, P. and Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kemmer, S. and Verhagen, A. (1994). The grammar of causatives and the conceptual structure of events. Cognitive Linguistics, 5(2): 115–156.
Kulikov, L. I. (2001). Causative. In M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher and W. Raible (eds.). Language typology and language universals. An International Handbook, Vol. 2, 886–898. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
Letuchiy, A. (2009). Towards typology of labile verbs: lability vs. derivation. In P. Epps and A. Arkhipov (eds.). New challenges in typology: Transcending the borders and re ning the distinctions, 247–268. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
Levshina, N., Geeraerts, D. and Speelman, D. (2013). Mapping Constructional Spaces: A Contrastive Analysis of English and Dutch Analytic Causatives. Linguistics, 51(4): 825–854.
Levshina, N. (2017). Measuring iconicity: A quantitative study of lexical and analytic causatives in British English. Functions of Language, 24(3): 319–347.
Mitkovska, L. and Bužarovska, E. (2020). Zero-marked valency alternations in Macedonian. Prace Filologiczne, 75(1): 355–372.
Shibatani, M. (1976). The Grammar of Causative Constructions: A Conspectus. In M. Shibatani (ed.). The Grammar of Causative Constructions, 1–40. New York: Academic Press.
Shibatani, M. and Pardeshi, P. (2001). The causative continuum. Kobe Papers in Linguistics, 3: 136–177.
Shibatani, M. (2002). Some basic issues in the grammar of causation. In M. Shibatani (ed.). The Grammar of Causation and Interpersonal Manipulation, 22, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Stefanowitsch, A. (2001). Constructing causation: A construction-grammar approach to analytic causatives. PhD dissertation, Rice University, Houston.
Talmy, L. (1976). Semantic Causative Types. In M. Shibatani (ed.), The Grammar of Causative Constructions, 43–116. New York: Academic Press.
Talmy, L. (1988). Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition. Cognitive Science, 12(1): 49–100.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics: Vol. 1: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (1998). The semantics of English causative constructions in a universal-typological perspective. In M. Tomasello (ed.). The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, 113–53. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright © 2014 Blaže Koneski Faculty of Philology, Skopje
Journal of Contemporary Philology (JCP)
Современа филологија
