Documentation

Linglib.Studies.Song1996

Song 1996: Causative Construction Typology #

[Son96]

[Son96]'s typology of causative constructions, classifying how causative meaning is expressed (morphosyntactic packaging). Three types: COMPACT (English kill, Turkish -dür), AND (Vata le), PURP (Korean -ke ha-).

This file owns Song's typology + 6 per-language datums + WALS Ch 110A/111A grounding theorems + the Comrie-Song complexity bridge. The orthogonal Pylkkänen 2008 Voice-bundling × selection typology lives at Studies/Pylkkanen2008.lean §13 (Pylkkänen's substrate; not subsumed by Song's). Comrie 1989's compact/morphological/ periphrastic complexity scale lives at Semantics/Causation/Morphological.CausativeComplexity (the substrate Song's toComplexity projects into).

This file replaces a previous 41-LOC Studies/Song1996.lean that was an editorial-bridge anti-pattern (HahnDegenFutrell ↔ Causation Typology). The Causation/Typology.lean file (542 LOC) was simultaneously dissolved and renamed here.

Cross-paper context (deferred) #

Song's COMPACT/AND/PURP three-way is defensible but coarse, and the file-level typology should be read against:

The internal CausativeMorphology enum (suffix / freeMorpheme / lexical) within COMPACT is closer to current field consensus than Song's COMPACT/AND/ PURP partition itself — the file documents the typology Song proposed, not the typology the field has converged on.

Key Typology (Song §5.1-5.3 — UNVERIFIED location refs) #

TypeStructureImplicative?Example
COMPACTVcause ⊕ Veffect fusedYesEnglish kill, Turkish -dür
ANDTwo clauses, sequentialYesVata le
PURPTwo clauses, purposiveNoKorean -ke ha-

The COMPACT type subsumes both lexical causatives (English kill) and morphological causatives (Turkish -dür, Japanese -ase, French faire).

Morphosyntactic type of causative construction (Song 1996).

Orthogonal to the force-dynamic builder: a .make builder can be realized as COMPACT (English make), AND, or PURP depending on the language.

  • compact: Cause and effect fused into a single predicate. Includes lexical (kill) and morphological (-dür, -ase).
  • and_: Two clauses joined sequentially. Effect clause is factual.
  • purp: Two clauses, with purposive semantics. Effect clause is non-implicative (not entailed to have occurred).
Instances For
    @[implicit_reducible]
    Equations
    Equations
    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
    Instances For

      Whether a causative construction type is implicative.

      Implicative = the cause clause entails the effect clause.

      • COMPACT: Yes — kill entails death occurred
      • AND: Yes — sequential structure implies effect is factual
      • PURP: No — purposive structure leaves effect open
      Equations
      Instances For

        Morphosyntactic realization of the causative morpheme.

        Within COMPACT causatives, the causal element can be realized as:

        • A bound morpheme (Turkish -dür, Japanese -ase)
        • A free morpheme forming a tight unit (French faire)
        • A lexical fusion with no separable morpheme (English kill)

        Note: CausativeMorphology.lexical (no separable morpheme) and Semantics/Causation/Morphological.CausativeComplexity.lexical (most-compact end of Comrie's complexity scale) share the constructor name lexical but are NOT semantically equivalent. The first is a morpheme-shape claim; the second is a construction-complexity claim. English kill satisfies both, but the inferential content differs: one says "no separable causal morpheme", the other says "construction is at the most-compact end of Comrie's continuum".

        Instances For
          @[implicit_reducible]
          Equations
          Equations
          • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
          Instances For

            A cross-linguistic causative construction datum.

            • language : String

              Language name

            • form : String

              Surface form or morpheme

            • constructionType : CausativeConstructionType

              Construction type in Song's typology

            • morphology : Option CausativeMorphology

              Morphological realization (for compact types)

            • gloss : String

              Gloss / translation

            Instances For
              Equations
              • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
              Instances For
                Equations
                Instances For

                  Cross-linguistic data #

                  English kill — lexical COMPACT causative (kill = cause-to-die)

                  Equations
                  • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                  Instances For

                    Turkish -dür — morphological COMPACT causative suffix

                    Equations
                    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                    Instances For

                      Japanese -(s)ase — morphological COMPACT causative suffix

                      Equations
                      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                      Instances For

                        French faire — COMPACT causative with free morpheme. NB: this is the empirically disputed boundary case — Song calls French faire a free-morpheme COMPACT, while Comrie 1989 / Folli & Harley 2005 analyse French faire-V as periphrastic (two words, analytic). The toComplexity bridge below maps it to morphological, lossily collapsing the disagreement.

                        Equations
                        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                        Instances For

                          Korean -ke ha- — PURP-type causative (non-implicative)

                          Equations
                          Instances For

                            Vata le — AND-type causative (sequential, implicative)

                            Equations
                            Instances For

                              Implicativity theorems #

                              AND-type causatives are implicative.

                              PURP-type causatives are NOT implicative.

                              English periphrastic causatives are sequential (AND-type) per WALS 110A.

                              Turkish periphrastic causatives are purposive (PURP-type) per WALS 110A.

                              Korean periphrastic causatives are purposive (PURP-type) per WALS 110A, consistent with the -ke ha- construction being PURP in Song's typology.

                              Korean's WALS 110A classification matches our datum's construction type.

                              English has nonperiphrastic (compact) causatives per WALS 111A.

                              English nonperiphrastic causatives are morphological per WALS 111A (corresponding to lexical causatives like kill).

                              Turkish has nonperiphrastic (compact) causatives per WALS 111A.

                              Turkish nonperiphrastic causatives are morphological (suffix -dür) per WALS 111A, matching our datum.

                              Japanese has nonperiphrastic (compact) causatives per WALS 111A.

                              Japanese nonperiphrastic causatives are morphological (suffix -(s)ase) per WALS 111A, matching our datum.

                              French has nonperiphrastic (compact) causatives per WALS 111A. WALS classifies French as both (morphological and compound).

                              Korean has nonperiphrastic (compact) causatives per WALS 111A, in addition to the periphrastic -ke ha- construction.

                              Korean nonperiphrastic causatives are morphological per WALS 111A.

                              WALS 110A total: 118 languages with periphrastic causative data.

                              WALS 111A total: 310 languages with nonperiphrastic causative data.

                              WALS 110A: 35 languages have sequential-only periphrastic causatives.

                              WALS 110A: 68 languages have purposive-only periphrastic causatives.

                              WALS 110A: 15 languages have both sequential and purposive.

                              WALS 111A: 254 languages have morphological-only nonperiphrastic causatives.

                              WALS 111A: 9 languages have compound-only nonperiphrastic causatives.

                              WALS 111A: 24 languages have both morphological and compound.

                              WALS 111A: 23 languages have neither morphological nor compound.

                              Purposive periphrastic causatives (PURP-type) are the dominant pattern cross-linguistically, outnumbering sequential (AND-type) roughly 2:1.

                              Morphological causatives overwhelmingly dominate nonperiphrastic strategies: 254 out of 310 languages (82%) have morphological-only.

                              Song's construction types map to [Com89]'s complexity scale.

                              The mapping is many-to-one and lossy at the COMPACT/freeMorpheme boundary: French faire-V is compact + freeMorpheme in Song's typology but periphrastic (analytic, two-word) in Comrie's. We collapse this disagreement by mapping COMPACT → morphological uniformly; the cost is invisibility for the faire case.

                              See [folli-harley-2005] for the syntactic-structure dispute over French faire-infinitive vs faire-par that this collapse obscures.

                              Equations
                              Instances For

                                Both multi-clause Song types map to Comrie's periphrastic. Relocated here from Studies/Comrie1989.lean per the chronology-discipline rule (Comrie 1989 cannot cite Song 1996; the cross-paper bridge belongs in the later paper's study file).