Prepositional versus Verbal Causativizers
Miyoko Yasui
Dokkyo University

1.

Introduction

In causative constructions of natural languages, a causer argument, which does not
originate in a predicate’s argument structure, is typically realized as a DP (or NP). Sincea DP requires Case, the predicate needs to expand its Case-licensing ability, for example,
by being selected by an independent verb like make in the English example (1b) or by averbal bound morpheme like -sase in the Japanese example (2b).
(1) a. Mary went to New York.
b. John made Mary go to New York.
(2) a. Mary-wa New York-e ik-ta.
Mary-TOP New York-to go-PAST‘Mary went to New York.’b. John-wa Mary-o
New York-e ik-(s)ase-ta.
John-TOP Mary-ACC New York-to go-cause-PAST‘John caused Mary to go to New York.’
A distinct type of increased Case requirement is exemplified in (3b) and (4b), where a DP
argument appears instead of a TP argument after the intransitive verb think and theadjective certain, respectively.
(3) a. I think that John should resign.
b. I can’t think of anything.
(4) a. I’m proud that you won the game.
b. I’m proud of your victory.
Unlike in (1) and (2), it is the semantically null preposition of rather than the designatedverbal elements that accommodates the Case requirement in (3) and (4). It is not
surprising to resort to make, -sase, or of since transitive verbs and prepositions are
generally Case-licensors. An important difference is that in (1) and (2), the number ofarguments has increased and the causative meaning is added, while in (3) and (4), there’sYasuino semantic or thematic change. Indonesian is interesting in that one of its suffixes, -kan,
which I will analyze on a par with of in English, is used in both patterns of increased
Case requirement as well as benefactive constructions. In this paper, I will deduce theversatile nature of –kan in contrast to the causative verbs make and –sase from theircategorial distinction.
2.

Transitivity Restriction on Indonesian Causatives and Benefactives

As summarized in Sneddon 1996, and Son and Cole 2008, -kan constitutes distinct
constructions depending on the transitivity of the root; if suffixed with –kan (and prefixedwith meN-), unaccusatives and adjectives become causative as in (5) and (6), whiletransitive verbs become benefactive as in (7).
(5) a. Cangkirnya pecah.
cup.hisbreak‘The cup broke/is broken.’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.’         (7) a. Tika memanggang roti itu untuk Erik.
Tika MEN.bakebread 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.’(Son and Cole 2008:123-124)
Specifically, Erik in (7b) cannot be interpreted as the agent of the baking event caused by
the matrix subject; it can only be a benefactive argument.
In contrast, Japanese verbs with –sase are interpreted as causative regardless of
their transitivity.
(8) a. John-wa Mary-no tame ni pan-oyak-ta.
John-TOP Mary-GEN sake for bread-ACC bake-PAST‘John baked bread for Mary.’b. John-wa Mary-ni pan-oyak-(s)ase-ta.
John-TOP Mary-DAT bread-ACC bake-cause-PAST‘John caused Mary to bake bread.’Prepositional versus Verbal Causativizers
Like (2b) with an intransitive verb, (8b), involving a transitive verb, has the causative
meaning rather than the benefactive meaning expressed by (8a). The same holds true of
make in (1b).
3.

Prepositional –kan and of in English

Besides causative and benefactive constructions, –kan functions purely to license aninternal DP argument (see Sneddon 1996: 61, 72, 98, 268; Son and Cole 2008:122;
Kroeger 2007:Section 4). In (9a), the verb berpikir ‘think’, takes a clausal complement. It
can take a nominal argument if is followed by an independent preposition as in (9b).
Alternatively, a nominal argument is possible if the verbal root is suffixed with -kan as in(9c). (10a-c) show a similar pattern with the adjectival root bangga ‘aware’.
(9) a. Saya berpikir bahwa dia pencuri.
I
thinkthat he thief‘I think that he is a thief.’
b. Saya berpikir tentang sukses.
Ithink ofsuccess‘I think of success.’c. Saya mebikirkan
sukses.
MEN.think.KAN successI‘I think of success.’(10) a. Saya bangga bahwa saya adalah muslim
I
proud thatI
ama 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.’
Clearly, the paradigm in (9a,b) and (10a,b) parallels that in the English examples in (3a,b)and (4a,b). Then, the synonymy of (9b,c) and of (10b,c) suggests that –kan in (9c) and(10c) is an affixal preposition on a par with the semantically null preposition of.
Suppose that –kan in causatives and benefactives like (5)-(7) is the same lexical
item as the one in (9c) and (10c). It follows that –kan makes no direct contribution to thecausative or benefactive meaning in (5)-(7). As for the causative meanings in the English
and Japanese examples in (1b) and (2b), make and -sase probably contribute to somedegree. It needs to be explained how –kan can constitute distinct constructions without
being endowed with the corresponding semantic contents.
A key to this question can be found in the categorial status of –kan as P. Note thatof in think of and aware of is to be analyzed as appearing configurationally lower than
think and aware. More generally, quite a few English verbs and adjectives take PP

Yasuicomplements but there are no clear cases of Ps selecting predicates, though bare verbs
can be selected by functional verbs such as –sase, make, have, let and modal auxiliaries.1
So, I assume that –kan appears lower than verbal or adjectival roots not only in (9) and(10) but also in the causative and benefactive examples in (5)-(7). I further assume, interalia, with Kratzer 1996 and Marantz 1997 that an external argument is introduced by afunctional head (v) that selects a root projection. It follows that the complement domainof –kan can involve an internal argument of the root but never an external argument. On
the other hand, if -sase and make take a vP (see Shibatani 1976, Harley 2008, andSvenonius 2005), the external argument is closer to them than any of the internalarguments. In the next section, I will show that –kan produces distinct constructions
depending on which internal argument of the root it Case-checks, which in turn is
contingent on the transitivity of the root.
4.
4.1

Licensing of Internal Arguments by -kan
Why Unaccusatives/Adjectives Become Causative But Unergatives Cannot

According to Sneddon (1996:61-65), many of the intransitive verbs with the prefix berin Indonesian are N-based, as exemplified in (11).
(11) a bertopi
BER-hat‘wear a hat’b. berkuda
BER-horse‘ride a horse’c. berbohong
BER-lie‘tell a lie’

I assume that core cases of ber-verbs are N-based, and analyze them as in (12a) with an
instance in (12b).2(12) a. [vP DP*(ext) [v’[v ber- ] N ]]]b. [vP[DP* Erik] [v’[v ber- ] [N topi ]]](cf. (11a))(12) is based on the following assumptions, where I follow but slightly depart from Haleand Keyser’s (1993, 2002) analysis of unergatives:(13)(i) ber- is a verbalizer with [uCase]; (ii) it introduces an external argument in its
spec position, which is to be construed as related to its N complement;3 (iii) it
triggers N incorporation in Baker (1988) due to its affixal nature, and (iv) its[uCase] agrees with that of the N.4

Ber-verbs largely fail to become causative via suffixation with –kan. In contrast, as has
been exemplified in (5) and (6), those that become causative are unaccusatives oradjectives, and they have no prefix or suffix. I assume that they are acategorial roots ()1Koopman (1994) offers one possible line of analysis on this asymmetries. Hoffman (1995:124)
assumes that VP can be selected by P, acknowledging that it is unusual.
2
Category labels are used hereafter for ease of illustration.
3
See Sneddon 1996:51-64 for various semantic roles of the subject of ber-verbs.
4
-features are set aside here since Indonesian verbs show no overt agreement with a subject or an
object. See also Sato 2010 for a similar analysis of ber-verbs.

Prepositional versus Verbal Causativizers
merging with their surface subject as their internal argument and forming a root phrase(P) as in (14a) with an example in (14b).
(14) a. [P[ ... ] DP*(int) ]b. [P[ pecah ] [DP* cangkirnya]](=(5a))

In (12) and (14), [uCase] of DP* and [uCase] of the clausal head, say T, are checked
under Agree, and the latter’s EPP feature forces DP* to remerge in its spec position.
My main claim has been that –kan is P and appears lower than the root. Given(12), it has no chance to agree with DP* of the ber-verb, which is an external argument.
On the other hand, if DP* of the unaccusative/adjective root in (14) first merges with–kan, and the resultant phrase merges with the root as in (15), its [uCase] is checked
properly in situ by –kan; hence, the spec,T position is available for an external argument.
(15)[TP[DP Janet] T ... [P[ pecah ] [PP[P –kan] [DP* cangkirnya]]]] (=(5b))

An unmarked interpretation of (15) is that the event expressed by P is caused by theindividual expressed by the DP in spec,T; the whole construction is construed as
causative in what Zubizarreta and Oh (2007) call “constructional” manners.
4.2

The Nature of the Prefix meN-

Besides being suffixed with –kan, the unaccusative/adjective root needs to be prefixedwith meN-, as has been illustrated in the causative verbs in (5b) and (6b). A standard
analysis of meN- (Cole and Harmon 2005, Son and Cole 2008 inter alia) is that it is
responsible for accusative Case-checking. This assumption is supported by the fact that it
is added to almost all transitive verbs including derived causative verbs, and it alternateswith another prefix di- in passives. There is, however, one piece of evidence to question
this assumption. In particular, meN- quite productively attaches to adjectival roots andforms inchoative verbs as in (16) as observed in Sneddon 1996:66.
(16)

Wajahnya menutih.
face.3SG MEN.white‘His face became white.’(cf. (6a))

Clearly, meN- in (16) has nothing to do with accusative Case. I thus assume the following
concerning meN-:(17)(i) meN- is a verbalizer without [uCase]; (ii) it introduces an external argument
in its spec position, which is to be construed as related to the root phrase; (iii)[uCase] originates in the transitive verbal root; and (iv) the root’s [uCase]
becomes active only if the root’s category is fixed as verbal by being selected byand incorporated into meN- or some other verbalizer.

Yasui
Something like (17iii, iv) needs to be adopted in any theory to distinguish transitive andintransitive verbs. For instance, destroy can take an accusative DP while arrive cannot;
their nominal counterparts behave on a par, requiring a preposition before a DP.
Given (17i-iv), a basic transitive structure like (18a) is to be analyzed as (18b),
while the derived causative structure in (15) is to be elaborated as (19).
(18) a. Tika memanggang roti itu.
Tika MEN.bakebread the‘Tika baked the bread.’b. [TP Tika
T [vP (Tika) [v meN- ] [P[ panggang ] [DP roti itu ]]]]
[uCase]2[uCase]1[uCase]1[EPP][uCase]2(19) [TP Janet T [vP (Janet) [v meN- ] [P[ pecah ] [PP[P –kan ] [DP cangkirnya]]]]][uCase]1[uCase]1[EPP] [uCase]2[uCase]2
A minimal difference is that the accusative Case feature of the verbal complex originatesin the transitive root in (18) and –kan in (19).
4.3

Why Transitives Become Benefactives Rather Than Causatives

If the internal argument of the root in (18a) first merges with –kan and the resultant
phrase merges with the root, the root’s [uCase] requires one more DP argument to agreewith in its complement domain, as described in (20a), with a full sentence in (20b).
(20) a.

vP
4
v
1

P
5

’
meN-panggang-kan[uCase]2 51(panggang-kan)

PP
3DPbeneficiary1
Erik[uCase]2P
1DPtheme@(-kan)[uCase]1

roti itu[uCase]1Prepositional versus Verbal Causativizers
b. Tika memanggangkan Erik roti itu
Tika MEN.bake.KAN Erik bread the‘Tika baked Erik the bread.’(=(7b))

An additional DP needs to be some internal argument of the root rather than an externalargument. If a causer argument is always external to the root, a natural candidate for the
extra DP is a beneficiary since a beneficiary PP can optionally appear in general, as has
been illustrated by (7a). In (20a), the suffix –kan incorporates into the root after its[uCase] has agreed with [uCase] of the theme argument. The root (’) further merges
with the beneficiary DP, and the resultant phrase (P) becomes verbal by merging withand incorporating into the light verb meN-, where [uCase] of the root becomes active
according to (17iii,vi) and agrees with [uCase] of the beneficiary.
If a root, if it has some internal arguments, should always merges with its theme
first, the hierarchical structure given in (20a) is correct. As (20b) shows, however, at PF
the beneficiary should be adjacent to the verbal complex with -kan, while the theme
argument is dissociated from –kan, which in my theory is responsible for its Casechecking. Moreover, under passivization, the beneficiary is preposed in the double object
construction with –kan as in (21b), while the theme is preposed in the PP benefactive
construction as in (22b).
(21) a. Dia membelikan adiknya
buku.
he MEN.buy.KAN brother.his book‘He bought his brother a book.’b. Adiknya dibelikannya
buku.
brother.his DI.buy.KAN.him book‘His brother was bought a book by him.’(22) 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 DI.buy.him for brother.his‘That book was bought by him for his brother.’(Sneddon 1996:251)

The above paradigm is essentially the same as the one observed with the corresponding
constructions in English.5 I assume with Chomsky (1995, 2001, 2008) and Kayne (1994)
that syntactic structures encode configurational relations but no linear orderings. The PF
position of the beneficiary DP and its passivizability, which is referred to as Marantz’s
generalization in Baker (1988:245-258), call for principled explanations.
I will claim that the primary object is the one that agrees with [uCase] of thewhole verbal complex, which is the beneficiary (21a) and the theme in (22a). The
Indonesian passivization with the prefix di- exemplified in (21b) and (22b), whatever
5

Those who do not like passive benefactives like the English translation of (21b) totally reject theother word order ‘The book was bought his brother by him.’ See Hoffman 1995:117.

Yasui
operation it may be, cancels the Case-licensing relation between the verbal complex andthe primary object just defined, and the latter is forced to move to the spec, T position for
Case/EPP reasons. Note that the object of the lexical causative with –kan in (19) can besaid to agree with the Case feature of the verbal complex, though the feature originates in-kan. It is passivized in the same way as a prepositional object in a pseudo-passive like‘the bed has not been slept in for weeks.’
Going back to the PF realization of (20a) as (20b), the beneficiary comes
immediately after the verbal complex, and -kan is dissociated from the theme DP. Thiscan be attributed to the fact that Indonesian, like English, lacks overt case morphology,
and requires the verbal complex to be linearly adjacent to the DP it has Case-checked;
the theme DP is frozen in place. An alternative is to Spell-Out the vP according to
Kayne’s (1994) LCA. In (20a), the verbal complex asymmetrically c-commands
DPbeneficiary, which in turn asymmetrically c-commands DPtheme; the correct surface orderin (20b) is obtained.6
5.
5.1(Apparent) Exceptions to the Transitivity Restriction
Causatives with Transitive Roots

As mentioned in Section 2, transitive roots, if suffixed with –kan and prefixed with meN-,
generally become benefactive rather than causative. It is because a causer argument isexternal to the root and can never be in the complement domain of –kan, which appears
lower than the root. Sneddon (1996:74-76) and Kroeger (2007:2.4), however, observethat there are cases of transitive roots with –kan that do not have a benefactive
connotation, as exemplified in (23) and (24).
(23)

Saya memeriksakan mata ke dokter/*oleh dokter.
I
MEN.check.KAN eyes to doctor/ by doctor‘I had my eyes checked by the doctor.’(24)

Saya mau mencetakkan kartu nama saya di percetakan baru itu.
I
want.to MEN.print.KAN card name my at printery new that
‘I want to get my calling cards printed at that new printery.’(Sneddon 1996:75)

If the roots in (23) and (24) had [uCase], they would have no DP to agree with since thetwo DPs to their right are Case-checked by –kan or prepositions.

6

The adjacency between the theme DP and the verbal complex in (22a) can be explained
analogously, but there are presumably some differences. Given (17iv), [uCase] of the beneficiary DP in(21a) can agree with [uCase] of the root only after the latter becomes verbal by incorporating into the lightverb meN-. For this reason, I assume that the beneficiary DP must occur in the complement domain of theroot and that of meN-. In contrast, the beneficiary PP in (22a), which is optional and is irrelevant for[uCase] of the root, can be merged after the root incorporates into meN-.

Prepositional versus Verbal Causativizers
In fact, a transitive verbal root without meN- is homophonous with what is calledsubjective passive in Guilfoyle et al. (1992:397-404) and passive type two in Sneddon(1996:246-260) such as (25b).
(25) a. Kmi menjemput dia
we MEN.meet him‘We met him.’b. Dia kami jemput
He us met
‘He was met by us.’(Sneddon 1996:249)

If the roots meriksa in (23) and cetak in (24) are subjective passives and hence lack[uCase], there is no superfluous [uCase] in these examples. The similarity between
subjective passive and the construction exemplified by (23) and (24) is supported by thefact that neither construction allows an agent phrase with the preposition oleh, which
typically appears in the other type of passives with the prefix di- exemplified in (21b),(22b), and (26) below.
(26)

Saya dijemput oleh dia.
I
DI.meet by him‘I was met by him.’(Sneddon 1996:248)

In particular, what appears to be an agent in (23) is introduced by the locative prepositionke, and the preposition oleh is not allowed. I will assume that (ke) dokter in (23) is not anexternal argument but internal locative argument. The PP in (24) is a clearer example oflocative.
Under the assumption that the root meriksa in (23) is passive lacking [uCase],
Case-checking goes as in (27)(27)[vP saya [v meN- ] [P[’[ meriksa ] [PP[P – kan] mata ]] [PP[P ke ] dokter]]]][uCase][uCase]1 [uCase]1 [uCase]2 [uCase]2

Mata first merges with –kan and their Case features check each other. The passive root
merges with the resultant phrase, which is interpreted as its primary or theme argument,
and subsequently merges with the locative phrase ke docter. The root phrase P merges
with the light verb meN-, which introduces an external argument. (24) can be explained
similarly.
I am claiming that –kan in (23) and (24) is quite close to of in English nominals
like (28b).
(28) a. the enemy’s destruction of the cityb. the destruction of the city (by the enemy/in Afghanistan)c. *It was destroyed of the city (by the enemy/in Afghanistan).

Yasui
Like transitive roots in Indonesian, the noun destruction can be construed as active or
passive as in (28a,b), and its internal argument can appear with of, which is impossible inthe verbal construction in (28c). A near, though awkward, paraphrase of (23) would be ‘I
had the checking of my eyes at the doctor’s (office),’ where the matrix subject is clearly
not the agent of the action expressed by the nominal checking. In brief, causative
sentences with transitive roots like (23) and (24) support rather than refute my theory
advocated here.7
5.2

Empty Beneficiary

Sneddon (1996:81-82) observes that a beneficiary DP can be missing, as shown in (29c).
(29) a. Pelayan mengambil segelas air (untuk tamu).
waiter MEN.fetch glass water (for guest)‘The waiter fetched a glass of water (for the guest).’b. Tika memanggangkan Erik roti itu(=(7b))
Tika MEN.bake.KAN Erik bread the‘Tika baked Erik the bread.’c. Pelayan mengambilkan segelas air.
waiter MEN.fetch-KAN glass water‘The waiter fetched someone a glass of water.’More specifically, if -kan is absent as in (29a), the benefactive meaning is also absent
without a beneficiary PP; if -kan is present, the beneficiary argument either appears
overtly as in (29b) or is obligatorily implied as the English translation of (29c) shows.
Son and Cole (2008:125) claim that Indonesian is a pro-drop language. If abeneficiary empty category is present in (29c) and it requires Case, the presence of –kan
is not contradictory. Indonesian, however, does not seem to allow pro-drop generally.
An alternative account would be that the root in (29c) is passive as I have argued for (23)and (24). Then, [uCase] of the only overt DP is checked under Agree with [uCase] of–kan, and the beneficiary, which cannot appear in the root projection, is somehow
implied. I will not work out this possibility any further here.8
5.3

Instrumental or Goal PP -kan

One major construction that does not easily fall under my theory involves a so-called
instrumental or goal PP -kan; no new DP argument appears to be introduced despite theaddition of –kan (see Sneddon 1996:78-80, Son and Cole 2008:130-135 inter alia). For
example, (30a,b) show that the transitive verb mengikat ‘tie’ can take either a theme or an
instrumental as its primary object. Mengikat in (30a) can optionally take an instrumental
PP as in (31a). If it is suffixed with -kan, the instrumental argument becomes its primary7

Kroeger (2007:2.4) is concerned with the less productive nature of causatives with transitiveroots under the assumptions that causative -kan and benefactive -kan are different contrary to my position.
8
In expletive passive constructions like ‘it was believed that the earth was flat,’ the experiencer
argument is implied.

Prepositional versus Verbal Causativizers
object, and the theme argument becomes a PP, as in (31b). In contrast to the benefactive
construction, -kan in (31b) can be omitted without change in meaning.
(30) 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.’(31) 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.’
Hoffman (1995) analyzes dative and locative alternation verbs in English and Chichewa
under the assumption that they take projections headed by Ps that can be bidirectional. It
might be interesting to combine this line of analysis with my claim that Indonesiantransitive roots are bidirectional in that they can be interpreted as active or passive.
6.
6.1

Other Analyses and Some Implications
Pylkknen’s (2008) Low and High Applicatives

According to Pylkknen (2008), applicative heads can be classified into two dependingon whether they appear lower or higher than the root. One might think that my analysis
could be restated as –kan being a low applicative head. In fact, these two claims aretotally different. For one thing, in Pylkknen’s theory, benefactive heads in English andseveral other languages are low, while all causative heads are high. My claim has beenthat both causative and benefactive -kan are Ps that appear lower than the root.
Moreover, in Pylkknen’s theory, the English benefactive double object
construction is analyzed as low because there is a possession implication between the two
objects, as has been observed by many researchers (Oehrle 1976, Pesetsky 1995, Beckand Johnson 2004 inter alia).
(32) a. Sally knitted Peter a sweater.
b. Sally knitted a sweater for Peter.
(32a) strongly entails that Peter had the sweater that Sally had knitted, while (32b) can
also mean that Sally did the knitting because Peter didn’t know how to knit. Partly
following Pylkknen’s theory, Son and Cole (2008) claim that Indonesian benefactives
do have a possession meaning and analyze –kan as low applicative. In fact, this factual
generalization is clearly rejected by Sneddon 1996:81, Kroeger 2007, and Chonan

Yasui2010:148-149.9 My claim that benefactive –kan appears lower than the root is not at all
based on the presence of possession implication but on its categorial status as P.
6.2

Baker’s (1988) V Incorporation and P Incorporation

In Baker’s (1988) seminal work on incorporation, causatives are analyzed as V
incorporation, while benefactives and other applicatives are treated as P incorporation.
This approach is quite similar to Pylkknen’s (2008) in that the root appears lower thancausative heads but higher than benefactive heads. The distinction is quite reasonable inthat Chichewa, for example, uses the same morpheme –ir in benefactive and otherapplicative construction, but a distinct morpheme –its in causatives. –Kan in Indonesian,however, is used in both constructions; this homophony would be accidental in Baker’s
theory. In fact, Baker does not take up causative –kan, analyzing only benefactive –kan
as merging with a beneficiary just like a free standing P. Since in my theory abeneficiary merges with the root instead of –kan, and agrees with its [uCase], Marantz’s
generalization mentioned in 4.3 follows straightforwardly. Baker’s UTA is also
respected in that a theme and a beneficiary merge with the root in the same order in the
double object and PP benefactive constructions.
6.3

Lexical Causatives and Benefactives in English

As has been observed by Pylkknen (2008) and others, (33)-(36) show that lexicalcausative and benefactive double object constructions in English exhibit essentially thesame transitivity restriction observed in the Indonesian data in (5)-(7).
(33) a. The ice melted.
b. John melted the ice.
(35) a. I baked a cake for him.
b. I baked him a cake.

(34) a. Sue laughs.
b. *Mary laughs Sue.
(36) a. Mary spoke for Sue.
b. *Mary spoke Sue.

A salient difference is that they show no overt morphological changes on verbs. Supposethat they involve the same phonetically null morpheme. If it is a kind of P on a par with-kan, my account of Indonesian causatives and benefactives can be extended to (33)-(36).
This line of analysis might be supported by the fact that Indonesian verbal roots
cannot be suffixed doubly with –kan, and English derived nominals cannot take two
instances of of, as shown in (37).
(37) *the gift of the children (of) a book

(Kayne 2008: (72))

Then, lexical causatives like melt in (33b), if analyzed as being suffixed by an empty
affixal P, should not take a benefactive argument; (38c-e) should all be ill-formed.

9

McGinnis (2001) identifies two kinds of applicative according to the presence/absence ofpossession meaning.

Prepositional versus Verbal Causativizers(38) a. The ice melted.
(=(33a))b. John melted the ice.
(=(33b))c. John melted me some ice.
d. ?John broke me a block of ice.
e. *John cracked me the nut.
Pylkknen (2008:3) judges (38c) as grammatical, which should mean that there is apossession implication between the two objects. The possession relation is just as natural
between the two postverbal DPs in (38d,e) as in (38c), but they are less acceptable. Thus,
it is not implausible to maintain that English lexical causatives and benefactives involve asemantically empty P.
References
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: a theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Beck, Sigrid and Kyle Johnson. 2004. Double object again. Linguistic Inquiry 35:97-123.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed.
Michael Kenstwicz, 1-52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory, eds.
Richard Freiden, Calros P. Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133-166. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chonan, Kazuhide. 2010. A study of causatives and applicatives in English, Indonesian,and other languages. Doctoral dissertation, Dokkyo University.
Cole, Peter and Gabriella Hermon. 2005. Subject and non-subject relativization inIndonesian. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 14:59-88.
Guilfoyle, Eethne, Henrietta Hung, and Lisa Travis. 1992. Spec of IP and spec of VP:
two subjects in Austronesian languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
10: 375-414.
Hale, Kenneth, and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical
expression of syntactic relations. In The view from building 20, eds. Kenneth
Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 53-109. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Hale, Ken and Samuel Jay Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Harley, Heidi. 2008. On the causative construction. In The Oxford handbook of Japanese
linguistics, eds. Shigeru Miyagawa and Mamoru Saito, 20-53. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Hoffman, Mika. 1995. The structure and surface form of benefactives and otherprepositional grammatical relations. In Grammatical relations: Theoretical
approaches to empirical questions, eds. Clifford S. Burgress, Katarzyna Dziwirek
and Donna Gerdts, 117-129. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Kayne, Richard S. 2008. Antisymmetry and the lexicon. ms. New York University.

Yasui
Koopman, Hilda. 1994. Licensing Heads. In Verb Movement, eds. David Lightfoot andNorbert Hornstein, 261-296. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Serving the external argument from its verb, In Phrase structure
and the lexicon, eds. Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring, 109-137. Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
Kroeger, Paul. 2007. Morphosyntactic vs. morphosemantic functions of Indonesian -kan.
In Architectures, rules, and preferences: Variations on themes of Joan Bresnan.
eds. Annie Zaenen, Jane Simpson, Tracy Holloway King, Jane Grimshaw, Joan
Maling, and Chris Manning, 229–251. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: don’t try morphological analysis in theprivacy of your lexicon. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics
Colloquium: University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4.2, eds.
Alexis Demitriadis, Laura Siegel, Clarissa Surek-Clark, and Alexander Williams,
201-225. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Penn Linguistics circle.
McGinnis, Martha. 2001. Phases and the syntax of applicatives. NELS 31: 333-349.
Oehrle, Richard T. 1976. The grammatical status of the English dative alternation.
Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press.
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Sato, Yusuke. 2009. Complex phrase structures within morphological words: evidence
from English and Indonesian. Lingua 120: 379-407.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1976. Causativisation. In Syntax and semantics 5, ed. Masayoshi
Shibatani, 239-294. New York: Academic Press.
Sneddon, James Neil. 1996. Indonesian: a comprehensive grammar. London & New
York: Routledge.
Son, Minjeong and Peter Cole. 2008. An event-based account of -kan constructions instandard Indonesian. Language 84:120-160.
Svenonius, Peter. 2005. Two domains of causatives. Talk presented at CASTL.
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa and Eunjeong Oh. 2007. On the syntactic composition ofmanner and motion. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Department of English
Faculty of Foreign Languages
Dokkyo University
1-1 Gakuencho, Soka, Saitama 340-0042
JAPANmyasui@dokkyo.ac.jp