NELS40@MIT, Nov. 13-15. 2009

Miyoko Yasui

1

Prepositional versus Verbal Causativizers
Miyoko Yasui
Dokkyo University
myasui@dokkyo.ac.jp(an extended version of the original handout)
1. Introduction• There are two cases of increased Case requirement: (i) in causatives like (1b) and (2b), a causer
argument is added and the external DP argument of the root cannot appear in spec,TP; and (ii) a
DP argument appears instead of a TP argument after nontransitive predicates like think andcertain in (3b) and (4b).
(1) a. Mary went to New York.
b. John made Mary go to New York.
(2) a. Mary-wa New York-e ik-ta.
TOP
TO go-PAST'Mary went to New York.'b. John-wa Mary-o New York-e ik-(s)ase-ta.
TOP
ACC
to go-CAUSE-PAST'John caused Mary to go to New York.'(3) a. I think that John should resign.
b. I can't think of anything.
(4) a. I'm certain that he will win.
b. I'm certain of his victory.
• (i) is accommodated by verbal elements (make and -(s)ase); (ii) is accommodated by thesemantically null preposition (of).
• –kan in Indonesian can be analyzed as a semantically null affixal P on a par with of.
• If –kan is P unlike make and –(s)ase, it appears lower than the root predicate.
• -kan can license only internal DP arguments due to its configurationally low status. Specifically,
it can handle not only a DP in (ii) and a subcase of (i) but also a benefactive DP argument.
• -kan cannot Case-license an external DP argument in the configuration (i).
2. Transitivity restriction on Indonesian causatives and benefactives(cf., Sneddon (1996), Son and Cole (2008))• If suffixed by –kan (and prefixed by meN-), unaccusative and adjective roots become causative.
(5) a. Cangkirnya pecah.
cup.hisbreak(Son and Cole (2008: 123))'The cup broke/is broken.'

NELS40@MIT, Nov. 13-15. 2009

Miyoko Yasui

b. Janet memecahkan cangkirnya.
Janet MEN.break-KAN cup.her'Janet broke her cup.'(6) a. Wajahnya putih.
face.his white'His face is white.'b. Ia memutihkan wajahnya.
3sg MEN.white-KAN face.his'He whitened his face.'• If suffixed by –kan, transitive roots become benefactive rather than causative.
(7) a. Tika memanggang roti itu untuk Erik.
(Son&Cole (2008: 124))
Tika MEN.bake bread the for Erik
'Tika baked the bread for Erik.'b. Tika memanggangkan Erik roti itu
Tika MEN.bake-KAN Erik bread the'Tika baked Erik the bread.'
NOT 'Tika caused Erik to bake bread.'(8) a. John baked bread for Mary.
b. John made Mary bake bread.
(8a)  (8b)(9) a. John-wa Mary-no tame ni pan-o yak-ta.
John-TOP Mary-GEN sake for bread-ACC bake-PAST'John baked bread for Mary.'b. John-wa Mary-ni pan-o yak-(s)ase-ta.
John-TOP Mary-DAT bread-ACC bake-SASE-PAST'John caused Mary to bake bread.'(9a)  (9b)• Question 1: Make and –(s)ase constitute causative constructions regardless of the transitivity of
the root. On the other hand, –kan produces causative constructions from unaccusative andadjectival roots (but not from unergatives), while it yields benefactive (not causative)
constructions from transitives. Why?
• Answer: Since -kan is P and appears lower than the root, it can Case-license only an internalargument such as theme and benefactive; it cannot Case-license an external argument ofunergative and transitive predicates.
3. Prepositional –kan and of in English• -kan in (10c) and (11c) functions on a par with of in (3b) and (4b) and the independent Ps in(10b) and (11b); it Case-licenses a DP argument that thematically corresponds to a complement
clause.
(Sneddon (1996: 61, 72, 98, 268), Son and Cole (2008: 122))(10) a. Saya berpikir bahwa dia pencuri.
I think that he thief'I think that he is a thief.'

2

NELS40@MIT, Nov. 13-15. 2009

Miyoko Yasuib. Saya berpikir tentang sukses.
I think ofsuccess'I think of success.'c. Saya mebikirkan
sukses.
I MEN.think-KAN success'I think of success.'(11) a. Saya bangga bahwa saya adalah muslim
I
proud that I
am a Muslim.
'I'm proud that I'm a Muslim.'b. Pak Hasrun bangga akan anaknya.
Mr. Hasrun proud of son.his'Mr. Hasrun is proud of his son.
c. Pak Hasrun membanggakan anaknya.
Mr. Hasrun MEN.proud-KAN son.his'Mr. Hasrun is proud of his son.
• Make and sase contribute to the causative meanings in (1) and (2); they are causative 'predicates.'• Of in (3) and (4) and –kan in (10) and (11) do not cause any violation of the UTAH.
• Of in (3) and (4) and –kan in (10) and (11) are semantically null.
• Question 2: If –kan in (5)-(7) is the same as the one in (10) and (11), it follows that the causativeand benefactive meanings in (5)-(7) should not originate in –kan. Then, where do they comefrom?
• Answer: Of and –kan (and Ps in general) appear lower than V/A. –kan can Case-license a DP
argument within the projection of the V/A, which otherwise could not appear there; it changes
the arity of the V/A.
(12)
VP/AP
2
V/A

PP
2
P
1

NP/DP

of/-kan• Ps are selected by Vs rather than selecting bare Vs. (Koopman (1994: 284))(13) a. I will/can sing this song.
b. I made/let Mary visit her mother.
c. *without Mary see Bill

3

NELS40@MIT, Nov. 13-15. 2009

Miyoko Yasui

4d. *He insists on have his way. (14) a. John depends on his mother.
b. John went on.
4. Configurational differences between the verbal causativizer –sase and the prepositional
affix –kan(15) a.
v'
b.
vP
2
2
v
1
-sase

vP
2
(ext)v(ext)

v'
2

v

P
#


v'
2

...

P
#
 ... P ...
1–kan-Sase selects a vP; it has an external argument (ext) in its complement domain. (cf. Shibatani(1976a,b), Svenonius (2005), Miyagawa (1998), Marantz (1997), Kratzer (1996) etc.)• –kan appears lower that the root (); -kan can only Case-license an internal argument.
5. Answers to Questions 1 & 2
5.1 Why unaccusatives/adjectives become causative but unergatives cannot• Many of the unergative verbs in Indonesian have the form ber + N as exemplified in (16). They
resist suffixation by –kan, though there are some exceptional cases as given in (17).
(16) a. bertopi'wear a hat'
BER-hatb. berkuda'ride a horse'
BER-horsec. berbohong'tell a lie'
BER-lie(17) a. berhenti'stop'
BER-stopb. menberhentikan'dismiss
MEN.BER-stop-KAN
c. menghentikan'stop'
MEN.stop-KAN(Sneddon (1996: 61-65))(Sneddon (1996: 74), Chonan (2009))

NELS40@MIT, Nov. 13-15. 2009

Miyoko Yasui

5• Hale and Keyser's (1993, 2002) analysis can naturally apply to N-based ber-verbs as in (18b),with ber- as the light verb v (projections of category-deciding heads are removed for ease ofillustration).
(18) a. Unaccusative/Adjective
P
2
break=> (5a) Cangkirnya pecah.
'The cup broke/is broken.'int@
the cupb. Unergative
vP
2
v'
2
v
1

=> Erik bertopi.
'Erik wears a hat.'

ext
1

hat

Erik

ber• The internal argument of break in (18a) moves to spec-TP for Case/EPP reasons.
• So does the external argument of ber-hat in (18b).
• If the internal argument of break (NP*) first merges with –kan as in (19a), it is Case-checked by–kan within the P, and the spec-TP position is available for an external argument; hence, thewhole construction is causative. Since –kan is affixal, it needs to incorporate into the root as in(19b) (P incorporation in Baker's (1988) sense).
(19) a.
Pb.
P=> (5b) Janet memecahkan cangkirnya.
2
3'Janet broke her cup.'breakPP
2break-kan (PP)
2



P
1

NP*
@

(P)
1

NP*
@

-kan

her cup(-kan) her cup

NELS40@MIT, Nov. 13-15. 2009

Miyoko Yasui• Suppose that –kan appears with the unergative predicate in (18b). We should consider (20a,b),
but neither is legitimate. Specifically, -kan in (20a), which is an affix, cannot incorporate into
the root hat. -kan in (20b) can incorporate into the root, but it has no chance to Case-license
NP*.
(20) a.
vP
b.
vP
3
3
v'
2
v
1

hat

-ber

PP
2

v'
2

P
1

NP*
1

v
1

-kan

Erik

-ber

NP*
1

P
2
hat

Erik

P
1
-kan

5.2 Why transitives become benefactive rather than causative(21)
vP<==(7a) Tika memanggang roti itu untuk Erik.
3'Tika baked the bread for Erik.'
NP
1

v'
3

Tika

v
1

P
2

meN- bakeNP*@

the bread• The standard analysis of the prefix meN- is that it is a verbalizing as well as accusative
Case-checking head (cf. Cole and Harmon (2005), Son and Cole (2008)). But meN- quite
productively attaches to adjectival roots and forms inchoative verbs as in (22) (cf., Sneddon(1996: 66)).
(22) Wajahnya menutih.
face.3SG MEN.white'His face became white.'(cf. (7a, b))

6

NELS40@MIT, Nov. 13-15. 2009

Miyoko Yasui• Hence, I assume that (i) meN- is a verbalizing functional head without a Case-checking ability;(ii) meN- introduces an external argument, and (iii) transitive roots like panggang (bake) have apotential to check accusative Case.
• The Case-checking potential is activated only when it becomes verbal owing to meN-, just as theroot destr- in English can check accusative Case only if it becomes verbal as shown in (23).
• Depend-, on the other hand, does not have a potential to check accusative Case; hence (24b) is
ill-formed even if it becomes verbal.
(23) a. The enemy destroyed the city.
b. *The enemy destroyed of the cityc. the enemy's destruction of the city(24) a. John depends on his father.
b. *John depends his father.
c. John's dependence on his father• I thus assume that NP* in (21) is Case-checked by bake and the external argument Tika moves
to spec-TP.
• If NP* in (21) first merges with –kan as in (25), the Case-checking feature of the verb
meN-bake remains unchecked; hence, (25) does not converge, just as 'Tika baked of the bread.'
is ungrammatical.
(25)
vP
3
NP
1
Tika

v'
2
v
1

P
2

meN- bake

PP
2
P
NP*
1 @

-kan the bread• PP benefactives like (7a) can be analyzed on a par with (21), as in (26). NP* is Case-checkedby bake; the beneficiary Erik is Case-checked by the P; and Tika moves to spec-TP for
Case/EPP reasons.

7

NELS40@MIT, Nov. 13-15. 2009(26)

Miyoko Yasui

vP
3
NP
1

=> (7a) Tika memanggang roti itu untuk Erik
'Tika baked the bread for Erik.'v'
4

Tika v
1

P
4

meN-

'
2
bake

PP
2

NP*
@

P
1

NP
1

the bread for Erik
• As for double object benefactives, we should consider (27) and (28). In (27), two DPs appear
within P, and the beneficiary Erik fails to be Case-checked.
(27)
vP
4
NP
1
Tika

v'
4
v
1
meN-

P
3
'
2
bake

NP*
@

NP
1
Erik

the bread• If NP* first merges with –kan as in (28), the root takes the resultant PP by its first merge, just as
the root merges directly with DP* by its first merge in (21) and (26). There is no essential
difference as to the UTAH.
• Since –kan Case-checks NP* in (28), the root (plus –kan) can Case-check the other DP Erik.
This results in the well-formed construction (7b).
• The thematic role of Erik cannot be a causer if an agent/causer should be an external argument

8

NELS40@MIT, Nov. 13-15. 2009

Miyoko Yasui

outside the root projection. Since a PP beneficiary argument can optionally appear as in(7a)=(26), the most natural (and presumably the only) interpretation of Erik is a beneficiaryargument. Sneddon (1996: 82) observes that verbs like eat, which express actions that are nottypically done for someone else resit suffixation by -kan.
(28)

vP
3
NP
1
Tika

=> (7b) Tika memanggangkan Erik roti itu.

v'
4
v
1

'Tika baked Erik the bread.'

P
3

meN-

'
2

bake

NP
1

PP
2

P
1

Erik

NP*
@

-kan
the bread• The linear order and the passivizability show that the primary object is the beneficiary argumentof the double object construction in (29) and the theme argument of the PP benefactive
construction in (30).
• These facts can be explained if we assume that the primary object is the one that is Case-checkedby the root.
(29) a. Dia membelikan adiknya buku.
(Sneddon (1996: 251))
he MEN.buy-KAN brother.his book'He bought his brother a book.'b. Adiknya dibelikannya buku.
brother.his be-bought.him book'His brother was bought a book by him.'(30) a. Dia memeli buku its untuk adiknya.
he MEN.buy book that for brother.his'He bought that book for his brother.'b. Buku itu dibelinya
untuk adiknya.
book that be-bought.him for brother.his'That book was bought by him for his brother.

9

NELS40@MIT, Nov. 13-15. 2009

Miyoko Yasui

10

6. Exceptions to the transitivity restriction• There are several cases where no additional DP argument appears despite the presence of –kan.
• Case 1: Meriksa in (31a) appears to be a transitive root. Suffixed by –kan and prefixed by meN-,
it becomes causative rather than benefactive in (31b), against the transitivity restriction.
(31) a. Dokter memeriksa mata saya.
.
doctor MEN.check my eyes
'The doctor checked my eyes.'b. Saya memeriksakan mata ke dokter/*oleh dokter
I MEN.check-KAN eyes by doctor'I had my eyes checked by the doctor.'• A transitive root without meN- is homophonous with what Guilfoyle et al. (1992) call a
subjective passive like (32b).
(32) a. Kmi menjemput dia
b. Dia kami jemput
we MEN.meet him
He us met
'We met him.''He was met by us.'• If meriksa in (31b) is a subjective passive as described in (33a), the appearance of –kan is
expected; it Case-licenses the theme argument. In fact, the English translation of (31b) suggeststhat it has a passive connotation.
(33)vP==> (31b)
5
NP
@

v'
4

the doctor v
1
meN-

P

5
'
3
checkPASS

PP 
2

PP   P
NP
2
1 @

  P
1

NP
by the doctor@

 -kan my eyes
• A verbal root like destr in English is ambiguous between active and passive, as shown in (34).
(31b)=(33) is on a par with (34b), where the theme argument is Case-checked by of and the agent
argument optionally appears with by.

NELS40@MIT, Nov. 13-15. 2009

Miyoko Yasui

11(34) a. the enemy's destruction of the cityb. the destruction of the city (by the enemy)c. *It was destroyed of the city by the enemy• A remaining question is why (34c) is ill-formed; adjectives and intransitive verbs in English
allow of but passive forms of transitive verbs do not allow of (cf. Chomsky (1981)).
• Case 2: A beneficiary argument can be phonetically empty, as shown in (35b). If -kan is absent,
the absence of a beneficiary PP results in no benefactive meaning as in (35a), while if -kan ispresent, the beneficiary argument either overtly appears as a DP as in (7b) or is obligatorily
implied as in (35b). If Indonesian is NOT a pro-drop language contrary to Son&Cole's (2008:125) assumption, the benefactive interpretation of (35b) remains inexplicable.
(35) a. Pelayan mengambil segelas air (untuk tamu). (Sneddon (1996: 81-82))
waiter MEN.fetch glass water (for guest)'The waiter fetched a glass of water (for the guest).'b. Pelayan mengambilkan segelas air.
waiter MEN.fetch- KAN glass water'The waiter fetched someone a glass of water.'• Case 3: So-called instrumental or goal-PP constructions with -kan like (37b) do not appear to
introduce a new DP argument. (Sneddon (1996: 78-80), Son&Cole (2008: 130-135). (35a,b)
show that the transitive verb mengikat (tie) can take either a theme or an instrumental as its
object. Mengikat in the construction (36a) can optionally take an instrumental PP as in (37a).
If it is suffixed with -kan, the instrumental argument becomes its primary object, and the theme
argument becomes a PP, as in (37b). In contrast to benefactive -kan in (35), -kan in (37b) canbe omitted without causing change in meaning.
(36) a. Dia mengikat anjing itu.
3SG MEN.tie dog the'He tied the dog.'b. Dia mengikat tali itu
3SG MEN.tie rope the'He tied the rope.'(37) a. Dia mengikat anjing itu dengan tali.
3SG MEN.tie dog the with ropeb. Dia mengikat-(kan) tali itu ke anjing.
3SG. MEN.tie- KAN rope the to dog'He tied the rope to the dog.'• I will leave Cases 2 and 3 for future research.

NELS40@MIT, Nov. 13-15. 2009

Miyoko Yasui

12

7. Pylkknen's (2008) High/Low Applicatives and Son&Cole (2008)• The claim that –kan is P and it appears lower than the root is quite different from Pylkknen's(2008) High/Low distinction of Applicatives.
• In Pylkknen's theory, all causatives are high; so Indonesian causatives like (5) and (6) should behigh.
• Lexical and syntactic causatives are distinguished by the size of their complement: root phrase,(VP) or vP.
• Distinct meanings are associated with morphologically distinct high applicative morphemes inexamples like (38).
(38) a. Mukasa o-se-is-a
Katonga
Mukasa 3SG.PAST-laugh-CAUSE-FV Katonga'Musuka made Katonga laugh.'b. Mukasa o-amb-el-a
Katonga
Mukasa 3SG.PAST-speak-BENEF-FV Katonga'Mukasa spoke for Katonga.'• Pylkknen observes that English lexical causatives and benefactives are subject to the transitivity
restriction of the kind found in Indonesian examples (5)-(7).
• But in Pylkknen's theory, all causatives are high, and the contrast between (39) and (40) is
attributed to the claim that English lexical causatives select for a root phrase, which does nothave an external argument in its projection.
• The contrast between (41) and (42) is explained under the assumption that English benefactives
are low. In brief, (39)-(42) are not given a unified analysis in Pylkknen's theory.
(39) a. The ice melted.
b. John melted the ice.
(40) a. Sue laughs.
b. *Mary laughs Sue.
(41) a. I baked a cake for him.
b. I baked him a cake.
(42) a. Mary spoke for Sue.
b. *Mary spoke Sue.

(unaccusative --> causative)(unergative -->*causative)(transitive --> benefactive)(unergative --> *benefactive)• Son and Cole (2000: 145): Both causative and benefactive -kan are low applicatives, but they are
given distinct semantic characterizations.
• Their claim that -kan is a result head is alleged to be based on the generalization that thebeneficiary DP argument is a prospective possessor of the theme argument, as has been observedfor English double object constructions like (43) (cf. Oerhle (1976), Pesetsky (1995), Beck andJohnson (2004) etc.).
(43) a. Sally knitted Peter a sweater.
(only possession reading)b. Sally knitted a sweater for Peter. (possession and non-possession readings possible)

NELS40@MIT, Nov. 13-15. 2009

Miyoko Yasui

13• Son&Cole's claim does not accord with Sneddon (1996: 81): Indonesian allows a wider range ofbenefactive verbs with -kan than English double object verbs, and they typically express a purely
benefactive (non-possessive) meaning. In particular, (44) does not imply change of thepossessor of the cases; its English translation calls for a beneficiary PP. See also Chonan(2009).
(44)

Sopir membawakan saya koper yang berat.
the driver MEN.carry-KAN me bag heavy.
'The driver carried the heavy cases for me.''*The driver carried me the heavy cases.'

8. Some implications• Lexical causatives and benefactives in English can be analyzed as involving the samephonetically null morpheme. If it is a kind of P on a par with -kan, my account of thetransitivity restriction in Indonesian causatives and benefactives can be extended to (39)-(42).
• Indonesian verbal roots cannot be suffixed doubly with –kan, and English derived nominals
cannot take two instances of of, as shown in (45).
• Then, lexical causatives like melt in (46b), if analyzed as being suffixed by an empty affixal P,
should not take a benefactive argument; (46c-e) should all be ill-formed.
(45) a. *meN.  -kan-kan
b. *John's cracking of me of the nut(cf., Kayne (2008))(46) a. The ice melted.
b. John melted the ice.
c. ?John melted me some ice.
(grammatical in Pylkknen (2008))
d. ?John broke me a block of ice.
e. *John cracked me the nut.
References
Austin, P. K. and S. Musgrave. (2008) Voice and Grammatical Relations in Austronesian
Languages, CSLI Publications.
Baker, M. (1988) Incorporation, The University of Chicago Press.
Beck, S. and K. Johnson (2004) "Double object again." Linguistic Inquiry 35, 97-123.
Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures, Mouton de Gruyter,
Berlin.
Chonan, K. (2009) "A Study of Causatives and Applicatives in English, Indonesian, and Other
Languages." Manuscript submitted for the doctoral degree at Dokkyo University.
Chung, S. (1976) “On the Subject of Two Passives in Indonesian,” In C. N. Li, (ed.) Subject andTopic: 57-99. Academic Press.
Chung, S. (2008) “Indonesian Clause Structure from an Austronesian Perspective,” Lingua 118:
1554-1582.
Cole, P. and G. Harmon (2005) “Subject and Non-subject Relativization in Indonesian,” Journal of
East Asian Linguistics 14: 59-88.

NELS40@MIT, Nov. 13-15. 2009

Miyoko Yasui

14

Guilfoyle, E., H. Hung, and L. Travis. (1992) “Spec of IP and Spec of VP: Two Subjects inAustronesian Languages”, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10: 375-414.
Hale, K., and S. J. Keyser. (1993) “On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic
Relations,” In K. Hale, and S. J. Keyser, (eds.), The View from Building 20. MIT Press.
Hale, K., and S. J. Keyser. (2002) Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure, MIT Press.
Halle, M. and A. Marantz, (1993) “Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection,” In K. Hale,and S. J. Keyser, (eds.) The View from Building 20. MIT Press.
Harley, H. (2007) “The Bipartite Structure of Verbs Cross-linguistically,” pdf.
Harley, H. (2008) “On the Causative Construction,” In S. Miyagawa. and M. Saito, (eds.) The
Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, Oxford University Press.
Kayne, R. S. (2008) "Antisymmetry and the lexicon." ms. New York University.
Koopman, H. (1994) "Licensing Heads." In N. Hornstein and D. Lightfoot (eds), Verb Movement,
Cambridge University Press.
Kratzer, A. (1996) “Serving the External Argument from its Verb,” In J. Rooryck and L. Zaring,(eds.) Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Marantz, A. (1997) “No Escape from Syntax: Don’t Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy ofYour Lexicon,” Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, 201-225.
McGinnis, (2001), “Phases and the Syntax of Applicatives,” NELS 31: 333-349.
Miyagawa, S. (1989) Structure and Case Marking in Japanese, Syntax and Semantics 22, Academic
Press.
Miyagawa, S. (1998) “(S)ase as an Elsewhere Causative and the Syntactic Nature of Words,”
Journal of Japanese Linguistics 16: 67-110.
Pesetsky, D. (1995) Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades, MIT Press.
Pylkkänen, L. (2008) Introducing Arguments, MIT Press.
Shibatani, M. (1976a) “Causativisation,” In Syntax and Semantics 5. Academic Press.
Shibatani, M (1976b) “The Grammar of Causative Constructions: A Conspectus,” In M. Shibatani,(ed.) Syntax and Semantics 6: Grammar of Causative Constructions, 125-137, Academic Press.
Sneddon, J. N. (1996) Indonesian: A Comprehensive Grammar, Routledge.
Son, M., and P. Cole. (2008) “An Event-Based Account of -kan Constructions in Standard
Indonesian,” Language 84: 120-160.
Svenonius, P. (2005) “Two Domains of Causatives,” Talk Presented at CASTL. pdf.