Two types of causative construction in
Pwo Karen(the Eastern dialect)1
Atsuhiko Kato

55

56

0. Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to have a general look at the causative
constructions of the Eastern dialect of Pwo Karen which is spoken in Burma.
Special attention will be taken to what kinds of verbs2 can co-occur with thecausative elements. It will be shown that 'controllability' of the verbs
denoting caused situations and 'humanity' of causees take important roles in
the use of the causative constructions of Pwo Karen.
The causative constructions of Pwo Karen can be grouped into twogroups. One is the construction where the causative element (hereafter
CAUSE) and the verb denoting a caused situation are juxtaposed, and thecomplex of the juxtaposed elements functions like a single verb, with a noun
which denotes the causer preceding it and a noun which denotes the causee
following it. This type will be referred to as Type I in this paper.
Type I:CAUSER CAUSE V CAUSEE

See below.
(1) (a)

'@we.

lI_

3sg

go

"He went."
(b)

j@-

da_

lI_

1sg CAUSE go

'@we.
3sg

"I let him go."(1b) is a causative sentence of Type I, and (1b) is the corresponding simple
active sentence. In (1b), the 'causative verb' da_ and the verb lI_ "to go" arejustaposed.
Another is the construction where a causative element takes acomplement sentence of which subject denotes the causee, and the causer
functions as the subject of the matrix sentence. This type will be referred toas Type II

in this paper.

57

Type II: CAUSER CAUSE [ CAUSEE V ]See below:(2) (a)

'@we.

lI_

3sg

go

"He went."
(b)

j@-

'an:m@n.

'@we.

lI_

1sg CAUSE

3sg

go"I ordered him to go."In (2b) which is an example of Type II , the causee appears as the subject of thecomplement sentence. The reason that the causee should not be taken as theobject of the matrix verb but the subject of the complement sentence is shown
later.
Before looking at the characteristics of the Type I and II, it would benecessary to introduce the concept of 'controllability' of a verb, which isessential for discussing the causative constructions of Pwo Karen. The verbsof Pwo Karen can be classified into [ ＋ controllable] verbs and [ －controllable] verbs: a [ ＋ controllable] verb is the one which denotes asituation that the subject can intentionally control, and a [－controllable]
verb is the one which denotes a situation that the subject cannot
intentionally control3. In Pwo Karen most verbs are specified about
controllability in the lexicon4. The tests to see whether a verb is [ ＋controllable] or [－controllable] are shown below:(i) If a verb can be an imperative sentence without any assistance of aparticle, it is [＋controllable], and if not, it is [－controllable]:(3) 'an:"Eat!"(4) ＊Ti.

"Die!"

Thus, in the examples above, 'an: "to eat" is [＋controllable], and Ti. "to die"58

is [－controllable]5.
(ii) If a verb can be used in the subordinate clause be. ... To_ "so as (to do/be)"when the subject of it and the subject of the main clause are coreferential, itis [－controllable], and if not, it is [＋controllable].
(5) ＊be.

j@i-

SCM(6) be.

j@i-khlain_phloUn_

To_ ,

j@i-

1sg speak

Karen

SCM

1sg endeavor

TI:

j@i-

To_ ,

SCM 1sg can SCM

kly_cy_kly_cy_1sg endeavor"I made an effort to be able (to do something)."Thus, khlain_ "to speak" is [＋controllable], and TI: "can" is [－controllable].
(iii) If a verb can be preceded by one of the causative verbs ma_ , it is [－controllable], if not, it is [＋controllable].
(7) ma_lan_thi.pha=

CAUSE tumble"(I) made (him) tumble."(8) ＊ma_

lI_

'@we.

CAUSE go3sg

Thus, lan_thi.pha= is [－controllable], and lI_ is [＋controllable]. However,since one of the main purpose of this paper is to see the features of verbs
which can co-occur with causative verbs themselves, this test cannot be usedhere.
(iv) If a verb can take an inanimate subject, it is [－controllable].
(9) lai:'aU_

lan_the:bookfall down"The book fell down."

59Thus the verb lan_the: is a [－controllable] verb. But in the case of a verb
which cannot take an inanimate subject, it may be either [＋controllable] or[ － controllable], in other words it cannot be said that a verb is [ ＋controllable] because it cannot take an inanimate subject. For example,

lan_thi.pha= "to tumble, to fall down" is a verb which cannot take an
inanimate subject, but it is [－controllable].
In the appendix it is shown whether important verbs are [＋controllable] or[－controllable]. Most verbs are specified about controllability in the lexicon,
but there are verbs, though few in number, of which controllability is not
specified, for example ni= "to laugh". They can be used either as a [＋controllable] verb or a [－controllable] verb. For these verbs also, see theappendix.
1. Type I
This is the type where the causative element and the verb denoting a
caused situation are juxtaposed. Though it is not yet evident whether thewhole of the juxtaposed elements can be considered to be a 'compound verb',
it can be said that they are quite tightly tied up because they cannot beinterrupted by any other forms. Hereafter, the whole of the juxtaposed
elements is refered to as a 'verb complex' for convenience sake.
The Type I causative construction can be defined in that the object6 of
the verb complex and the 'logical subject' of the latter element of the verb
complex are coreferential. For example:(10) j@-

da_

lI_

'@we.

1sg CAUSE go

3sg

(=1b)

"I let him go."In (10), '@we., the object of the verb complex da_ lI_, is the logical subject oflI_ which is the latter element of the verb complex7. In this respect, (10) is
quite different from (11).

60

(11) j@-ba:

jU=khwa=

1sg must care

'@we.
3sg

"I must take care of him."
This sentence is not the causative construction because '@we. is not the logicalsubject of jU=khwa= which is the latter element of the 'verb complex' ba:

jU=khwa=.
Type I can be further divided into two types: one is the case where thecausative element is a 'causative verb', and another is the case where thecausative element is a general verb. Each type will be observed below.
1.1 The case using 'causative verbs'
There are four causative verbs which have so far been found in theauthor's data: ma_ , da_ , phI:lan. and ko_. Each of them have their origin ina general verb, but they semantically or syntactically differ from theircorresponding general verbs. In this sense, it can be said that they are moreor less grammaticalized; hence they are called 'causative verbs'. I define a'causative verb' as a verb which is a more or less grammaticalized verb for
the use as the causative element. They can be considered as one kind of'auxiliaries' (See the note 2; i.e., they are preverb particles).
When a causative verb is used, the causee occurs in the positions
described below, which are common to all the causative verbs. First, if theverb denoting a caused situation is one which cannot take an object, namely
an intransitive verb, the causee occurs in the object (direct object) position of
the verb complex (examples below are sentences with da_):(12) j@-

da_

kli:

'@we.

1sg CAUSE run 3sg"I let him run."
Second, if the verb denoting a caused situation is one which can take one
object, namely a transitive verb, the causee occurs in the indirect object8
position of the verb complex:61

(13) j@-

da_

'an:

'@we.

mI_

1sg CAUSE eat 3sg

rice"I let him eat rice"
Finally, if the verb denoting a caused situation is one which can take two
objects, namely a ditransitive verb, the causee occurs with the preposition

de=, which indicates Instrumental or Comitative9.
(14) j@-da_

phI:lan.

1sg CAUSE give'@we.

lai:'aU_

de= j@-

pha=

3sg

book

with my father"I let my father give a book to him."
The fact that the causee is syntactically demoted as the valence of the verb
denoting a caused situation increases conforms to Comrie (1976)'s proposal10
from the linguistic typological point of view.
1.1.1

ma_
The causative verb ma_ has the corresponding general verb ma_ whichmeans "to do" or "to make".

The reason why ma_ should be considered to bea causative verb is shown below:(15) j@-

ma_

pjo_

'@we.

1sg CAUSE vomit

3sg

mI_
rice

"I made him vomit rice"
In (15), the verb complex ma_ pjo_ takes two objects. If ma_ is a general verb,

ma_ pjo_ should be able to take only one object, because as Kato (1998)
shows, in verb concatenation of Pwo Karen, the whole of the concatenatedverbs takes over the characteristics, including the manner of taking
arguments, of one of the concatenated verbs. Of which characteristics aretaken over is determined according to whether they are intransitive (Vi) ortransitive (Vt). In short, in the concatenations of Vi + Vi, Vi + Vt, and Vt +62

Vt, the characteristics of the posterior verb (V2) are taken over, and in the
concatenation of Vt + Vi, the characteristics of the anterior verb (V1) aretaken over. For details, see Kato (1998). A few examples are below:(16) j@-paU_ than:jU=

l@khon.

1sg

open PVP

lookoutside"I opened (the window) and looked at the outside."(16')(a) ＊j@-paU_ than:jU=

pai_t@ran.

1sg

open PVP

lookwindow(b) ＊j@-paU_ than:jU=

pai_t@ran.

l@khon.

1sg

open PVP

lookwindow

outside(17) j@-

dU:

Ti.

thwi:

1sg

hit

die

dog

"I hit the dog dead."
In (16), an example of Vt + Vt concatenation, the whole of the concatenatedverbs paU_ than: jU= takes over the manner of taking arguments of the V2

jU= (here paU_ than: as the whole is treated as the V1), therefore it cantake one object. It must be noted that the object is the argument of V2,

andthe argument of V1, pai_t@ran. "window", cannot occur in the sentence, as isshown in (16'a) and (16'b). Next, in (17), an example of Vt + Vi concatenation,
the whole of the concatenated verbs takes over the manner of taking
arguments of the V1 dU:, thus it takes one object, thwi: "dog". The V2 Ti.
"die" is an intransitive verb, and in this case, it does not influence thecharacteristics of the whole concatenated verbs.
Thus, the whole of concatenated general verbs cannot take two objects
as far as either of the verbs is not a ditransitive verb11. In (15), if ma_ is a
general verb, the whole of the concatenated verbs, in this case Vt + Vt,
should be able to take only one object, since both of the verbs are ones which
can take only one object. However, there are two objects in (15), and this is
why ma_ should be considered to be a causative verb, not a general verb.

63

The causative verb ma_ is used when the verb denoting a caused
situation is [－controllable]. There is no semantic restriction for the causees.
Examples are shown below:(18) j@-

ma_

Ti.

thwi:

1sg CAUSE dead dog"I killed the dog."(19) j@-ma_

Ta_mE:

1sg CAUSE fear

'@we.
3sg

"I frightened him."(20) '@we.
3sg

ma_

lan_thi.pha=

CAUSE tumble'@-

wE=cO_

hisbrother"He made his brother tumble."(21) j@-ma_

ga_gon_1sg CAUSE

break

'@-

gein:

his

house

"I broke his house."(22) j@-

ma_

cO:

j@-

chain.

1sg CAUSE wet

his

shirt

"I got my shirt wet."(23) j@-ma_

lan_jwa_

Tein:la:1sg CAUSE flowleaf

"I made the leaf flow"
If the co-occurring verb is [＋controllable], ma_ cannot used anymore:(24) ＊j@-

ma_

lI_

'@we.

1sg CAUSE go 3sg

64

(25) ＊j@-chon.mon:'@we.

1sg CAUSE consider

3sg(26) ＊j@-

ma_

ma_

'an:phon.

'@we.

mI_

1sg CAUSE cook

3sg

rice

The sentences (24)-(26) become acceptable if ma_ is replaced by da_ which
will be discussed in the next section.
(24') j@-

lI_

'@we.

1sg CAUSE go

3sg(25') j@1sg

da_

da_

"I let him go."chon.mon:'@we.

CAUSE consider

3sg"I let him consider (it)."(26') j@-da_

'an:phon.

'@we.

mI_

3sg

rice

1sg CAUSE cook
"I let him cook rice."

In fact, there are a few exceptions which do not conform to the generalization
above; they are the verbs, TI:ja. "to know", da: "to see", na=g@n. "to hear",and na:TI: "to understand", which have meanings concerning perception or
cognition. These verbs are considered [－controllable] because they cannot be
an imperative sentence and they can occur in the be. ... To_ clause, but in fact
they do not co-occur with ma_. They are the only exceptions for the use of

ma_12. See the examples below:(27) (a) ＊j@1sg(b) j@-ma_

TI:ja.

'@we.

CAUSE knowda_

TI:ja.

1sg CAUSE know

3sg

'@we.
3sg

"I notified him (of that)."65

(28) (a) ＊j@-na=g@n.

'@we.

1sg CAUSE hear3sg(b) j@-ma_da_

na=g@n.

'@we.

1sg CAUSE hear3sg

"I made it possible for him to hear (that)."

1.1.2

da_

(daU_)

da_ can also be pronounced as daU_. Considering the phonologicalcorrespondence with the Western Pwo Karen dialect (the Western form
/d@y'/) or Sgaw Karen (Sgaw Karen form /dy'/), its original form would havebeen daU_, but presently it is more often pronounced as da_. It has thecorrersponding general verb daU_ which means "to fight" or "to attack". The
reasons why da_ is considered to be a causative verb, not a general verb are
given below:(29) j@-

da_

'an:

'@we.

kU:

1sg CAUSE eat

3sg

confectionery"I let him eat a cake."
First, as is shown in (29), da_ is not used as a verb meaning "to fight".
Second, the general verb meaning "to fight" is usually pronouced daU_, notda_. Third, if da_ is a general verb, the verb complex in (29) should be able totake only one object, as we saw in 1.1.1. Since the general verb meaning "tofight" and 'an: "to eat" are both transitive verbs which can take only one
object, the concatenated general verbs da_ 'an: could take only one object;
nevertheless there are two objects in (29). Accordingly, da_ should beconsidered a causative verb.
The causative verb da_ is used when the verb denoting a caused
situation is [＋controllable]. Therefore the causee is usually an animate
entity, which is due to the fact that the verb is [＋controllable], and there isno need to specify animacy as a selectional restriction of da_. Examples ofsentences with da_ are:66

(30) j@-

da_

lI_

'@we.

1sg CAUSE go

3sg"I let him go."(31) j@-

da_

'an:

j@-

thwi:

cha:

dog

feed

'@we.

ch@_

1sg CAUSE eat my"I feed my dog."(32) j@-da_'an:gu:1sg CAUSE steal

3sg thing"I let him steal (it)."If da_ is replaced by ma_, these sentences become unacceptable.
(30') ＊j@-

ma_

lI_

'@we.

(31') ＊j@-

ma_

'an:

'@we.

(32') ＊j@-ma_

'an:gu:

kU:

'@we.

ch@_

Generally speaking, if the verb denoting a caused situation is[＋controllable], ma_ is used as the causative verb, and if [－controllable], da_is used as the causative verb. However, with a [-controllable] verb, da_ is infact sometimes used as the causative verb.
(33) j@-ma_

ga_gon_1sg CAUSE

break

'@-

gein:

his

house

"I broke his house."(34) j@-

ma_

saU_

'@we.

1sg CAUSE startled 3sg"I startled him."
In (33) and (34), it is not impossible to replace ma_ with da_ as below:

67

(33') j@-da_ga_gon_(34') j@-

da_

saU_

'@-

gein:

'@we.

In the author's data, it was found that ma_ can be replaced by da_ in almost
all of the cases. In the all cases, however, using ma_ is more natural thanusing da_ with a [-controllable] verb. According to Kato (1992), Sgaw Karenhas the forms ma= and dy' which are cognage to Pwo Karen ma_ and da_respectively, and there is also a sentence which corresponds to (33'):(35) j@-dy'

ha'gO='@-

1sg CAUSE break his

hi^[Sgaw Karen]house"I let his house break of itself."
The sentence (35) implies that "I" let the "collapse of his house" take its
course and that "I" was just an "onlooker". Sgaw Karen dy'

does not usually

co-occur with a [－controllable] verb, but if it does, it always yields the"noninterference" meaning as in (35). In Pwo Karen, however, da_ with a [＋controllable] verb does not involve the meaning like this. Furthermore, in theWestern dialect of Pwo Karen, the sentence below corresponding to (33') is anunacceptable sentence:(36) ＊j@1sg

d@y'

ga'gaun:

'@-

jein_

CAUSE break

his

house

Looking at these facts,[Western Pwo Karen]

it would be possible that the new use of da_ being

able to co-occur with [ － controllable] verbs without adding a particularmeaning has sporadically appeared in the Eastern dialect of Pwo Karen.
1.1.3

phI:lan.

(phlan.)Next, we will see the causative verb phI:lan. which involves
benefactive meaning. The following is an example:

68(37) j@-phI:lan.

pO=

1sg CAUSE read'@we.

lai:'aU_

3sg

book

"I let him read the book (for his sake)."
It has the corresponding general verb phI:lan. which means "to give"13 andwhich can take two objects. The reasons why phI:lan. should be considered to
be a causative verb are as follows.
First, as we saw in 1.1.1, in the concatenation of Vt + Vt, thecharacteristics of V2 are taken over by the whole concatenated verbs. In (37),pO= "to read" is a verb which takes only one object, but the whole of theconcatenated verbs takes two objects, therefore phI:lan. pO= is not an
ordinary concatenation. This fact implies that phI:lan. is a causative verb.
Second, in (37) even if we assume phI:lan. pO= is an ordinary concatenationand that the characteristic of taking two objects is determined by the V1

phI:lan., there is a definite difference between phI:lan. of here and general
phI:lan.:(38) j@-phI:lan.

1sg give'@we.

lai:'aU_

3sg

book

"I gave him a book."
In (38), a sentence where the general verb phI:lan. is used, there is amovement from j@- "I" to '@we. "he" of the "book". But the sentence (37), withthe causative phI:lan., does not involve such a movement of any entity, inother words, in (37) there is not any change of possessors that is ordinarily
involved in a sentence with the general verb phI:lan.. Therefore we may
reasonably say that phI:lan. as in (37) should be considered a causative verb.
The causative verb phI:lan. can be used without respect to whether theverb denoting a caused situation is [＋controllable] or [- controllable].

(39)

and (40) below are the examples with [＋controllable] verbs, and (41) and(42) are the examples with [－controllable] verbs:

69

(39) j@-phI:lan.

lI_

'@we.

1sg CAUSE

go

3sg"I let him go (for his sake)."(40) j@-phI:lan.

1sg CAUSE'an:phon.

'@we.

mI_

cook

3sg

rice

"I let him cook rice (for his sake)."(41) j@-phI:lan.

m@n.

than:

'@we.

1sg CAUSE alive

PVP

3sg

"I revived him (for his sake)."(42) j@-phI:lan.

dU:

than:

1sg CAUSE big'@we.

PVP 3sg"I brought him up (for his sake)."
The causative verb phI:lan. differs from ma_ or da_ in that phI:lan. adds
benefactive meaning to the sentence. As far as the causee is animate, it is to
be interpreted as the beneficiary. However, as in the examples below,
inanimate entities often appear as a causee, in which case the causee is notcoreferential with the beneficiary:(43) j@-phI:lan.

khU=

than:

thi.

'@we.

1sg CAUSE

hot

PVP water 3sg'@gan=sake"I boiled the water for him."(44) j@-phI:lan.

phan_

than:

daU_ph@n_

1sg CAUSE light

PVP

inside of the room

"I made the room light (for someone's sake)."
In (43), the causee is thi. "water", but the beneficiary is '@we. "he", and in(44), the causee is daU_ph@n_, but the beneficiary is someone which is not
expressed in the sentence. Thus, when the causee is an inanimate entity, it

70

is not coreferential with the beneficiary.
1.1.4

ko_
A verb complex with the causative ko_ generally means "call someone

in order to make him/her do something".
(45) j@-

ko_

'an:

'@we.

mI_

1sg CAUSE eat 3sg

rice"I called him to make him eat rice. (I invited him for a meal)."The causative verb ko_ has the corresponding general verb which means "tocall" or "to invite" and which can take one object:(46) j@-

ko_

'@we.

1sg call 3sg"I invited him."
In (45), if the verb complex ko_ 'an: is a simple example of concatenatedgeneral verbs, it could take only one object, since none of the verbs isditransitive. However, there are two objects in (45), therefore, ko_ in thiscase should be considered to be a causative verb, not a general verb.
But, in fact, ko_ can take two objects when it is used in the meaning of"call someone as ~" as shown in (47):(47) j@-

ko_

'@we.

man_cO_

1sg

call

him

uncle

"I call him 'Uncle'"Through this fact, can it be assumed that the verb complex of (45) takes overthe ko_'s characteristic of being able to take two objects as in (47)? The
answer is 'no'. In (47), the direct object and the indirect object are
coreferential, namely '@we. equals man_cO_, while in (45), the relationship'@we. = mI_ does not hold. Therefore, we may say that ko_ as in (45) is not71the same as the general verb ko_.
In a sentence with the causative ko_, the verb denoting a caused
situation can be either [＋controllable] or [－controllable]. (48) and (49)
below are the examples with [＋controllable] verbs:(48) j@-

ko_

'an:

'@we.

mI_

(=45)

1sg CAUSE eat 3sg

rice"I invited him for a meal."(49) j@my

To_

ko_

mi.

j@_

friend CAUSE sleep 1sg"My friend let me stay one knight at his house."(50) below is an example with a [－controllable] verb:(50) j@-

ko_

nO:

than:

'@we.

1sg CAUSE wake PVP 3sg"I called out to him to wake him up."
One thing to be noted in the use of ko_ is that the causee must be [＋human]. Therefore, (51) below is appopriate, while (52) with an animal
causee is not acceptable:(51) j@-

ko_

gE.

than:

j@-

phU:

1sg CAUSE come PVP mychild"I told my son to come up (onto the house)."(52) ＊j@-

ko_

gE.

than:

j@-

thwi:

1sg CAUSE come PVP my dog
The general verb ko_ has the same selectional restriction:72

(53) ＊j@-

ko_

j@-

1sg

call

1sg.GEN dog

thwi:

Perhaps the causative verb ko_ has succeeded the selectional restriction of
the original general verb.
1.2 The case where general verbs are used as the causative element
Here, we will see the cases where a general verb is used as thecausative element. These cases are discussed by Kato (1998) in his
description of Pwo Karen verb concatenation, where he shows that only if theconcatenated verbs are of combination of Vt + Vi, the logical subjects of theV1 and the V2 are not coreferential, and that the logical subject of V2 iscoreferential with the object noun of the concatenation. (54) below is an
example of such a case, whereas the sentences (55) - (57) are examples of theother combinations where the logical subjects of the V1 and V2 arecoreferential.
Vt + Vi(54) j@-

dU:

Ti.

thwi:

1sg

hit

dead

dog

"I hit the dog dead."
Vi + Vi(55) j@-chi.nan_1sg sitko_sa_shout"I shouted while sitting."
Vi + Vt(56) j@-chi.nan_1sg sitpO=

lai:'aU_

read

book

"I read a book while sitting."73

Vt + Vt
(57) j@-'an:phon.

1sg cook

'an:

mI_

eat

meat

"I cooked the rice and ate it."
In a concatenation such as (54), V2 denotes a situation caused by the action
denoted by V1, therefore the sentence contains a causative-like meaning14.
With this combination, a verb used as V1 is often relatively high intransitivity, and the V2 is always [-controllable](for details see Kato

1998). Examples follow:(58) j@-

che_

Ti.

'@we.

1sg

stab

dead 3sg"I stabbed him dead."(59) j@-

'ain:

ble_

kU:

1sg

bite

smash confectionery"I bit the bisket into pieces."(60) ch@phU:xa='an:ga_gon_bu:

insect

eat

break

paddy

"The insects did harm to the paddy."(61) j@-

dU:

kain:

le:

1sg hit

bend

stick

"I hit the stick to bent it."(62) j@1sg'O:ke:

su:

lan_

put

cool PVP

thi_khlan.
tea"I put the tea to cool it."
Generally speaking, in sentences of this type, the object noun of theconcatenated verbs refers to the undergoer of the V1, but it is not always the74case. See the example below (see Kato 1998 also).
(63) j@-kh@Un:

1sg dig

lan_b@n_phloUn_cU:

sink

corpse"I dug (the ground) and buried the body."
2. Type II
In this section we will see the Type II , where the word order is
CAUSER CAUSE [ CAUSEE V ]. The causee occurs in the position of thesubject of the complement sentence. In this type, the possible causative
elements which have so far been found in my data are the verbs 'an:m@n. "toorder", plE_tO_ "to allow", and phI:lan. "to give". Unlike the causative verbs
which were seen in 1.1, they are not considered as 'auxiliaries' (preverb
particles and postverb particles; See the note 2) because Pwo Karen
auxiliaries do not take a complement sentence.
In order to define this type of construction, I will show the difference
between this construction and other constructions taking a complement
sentense. There are various verbs which take a complement sentence:(64) j@-lO_[ '@we.

lI_ ]

3sg

go

1sg tell"I told that he had gone."(65) j@-

TI:ja.

1sg know[ '@we.

gE. ]

3sg

come

"I know that he came."(66) j@-da:

1sg see[ '@we.

kli: ]

3sg

run"I saw him running."
These complement sentences shows the opposition of the realis and irrealis.
In other words, the irrealis marker m@- can be attached to the verbs of these75

complement sentences.
(64') j@-

lO_

'@we.

m@-

1sg tell 3sg

lI_

IRR go"I told that he would go."(65') j@-

TI:ja.

'@we.

m@-

gE.

1sg know3sg

IRR come"I know that he will come."(66') j@-

da:

'@we.

m@-

1sg see 3sg

kli:

IRR run"I saw him preparing to run."If the irrealis marker m@- is attached to the verbs of the complement
sentences, the situations denoted by the verbs are interpreted to occur after
the situations denoted by the matrix verbs. However, this is not the case for
the Type II causative construction. For example:(67) j@1sg'an:m@n.

'@we.

lI_

order

3sg

go

"I orderd him to go."(68) j@-plE_tO_

1sg allow

'@we.

lI_

3sg

go

"I allowed him to go."(69) j@1sg

phI:lan.

'@we.

lI_

give

3sg

go

"I let him go (for his sake)."In the sentences above, m@- cannot be attached to the verbs of thecomplement sentences.

76

(67') ＊j@-'an:m@n.

'@we.

m@-

lI_

(68') ＊j@-

plE_tO_

'@we.

m@-

lI_

(69') ＊j@-phI:lan.

'@we.

m@-

lI_

In (67), the situation "he goes" occurs after the situation "I order (him)", buteven so m@- cannot co-occur before lI_. The Type II causative construction isdefined as the construction where the complement sentence occuring in theobject position of the matrix verb does not show the opposition of realis andirrealis15.
Next, it will be shown that in the Type II

the causee is not the objectof the matrix verb, but the subject of the complement sentence. There arethree evidences. The examples with 'an:m@n. are shown below:(i) A pause can be put before the causee as (70a), but cannot after the causeeas (70b): (# denotes a pause)(70) (a) j@-'an:m@n.

#

1sg order(b) ＊j@-'an:m@n.

1sg order

'@we.

lI_

3sg

go

'@we.

# lI_

3sg

go

"I orderd him to go."(ii) The whole of the complement sentence can be topicalized as (71a), but
topicalization cannot be done with the causee left in the original position as(71b):(71) (a) '@we.
3sg

lI_

phja.

nO:

j@-

go

market that16 1sg'an:m@n.
order"It was to go to the market that I ordered him to do."(b) ＊lI_
go

(iii)

phja.

nO:

j@-

market that 1sg'an:m@n.

'@we.

order

3sg

The particle l@- which introduce complement sentences can be put

77before the causee:(72) j@-'an:m@n.

l@-

'@we.

lI_

order

COMP 3sg

go

1sg"I ordered that he should go."
The same can be said of plE_tO_ and phI:lan17. With the evidences above, thecausee should be considered to be the subject of the complement sentence,
not the object of the matrix verb.
We will see the details of each verb below.
2.1'an:m@n.
The meaning of the verb 'an:m@n. is "to order"18. In a sentence with'@n:m@n., the verb of the complement sentence must be [＋controllable].
Therefore, (74) is unacceptable.
(73) j@-'an:m@n.

'@we.

chi.nan_

order

3sg

sit

1sg

"I ordered him to sit down."(74) ＊j@1sg'an:m@n.

'@we.

lan_thi.pha=

order

3sg

tumbleFurther, the causee must be [＋human]. Therefore, (76) where the causee isan animal is unacceptable.
(75) j@-'an:m@n.

j@-

phU:

'an:

mI_

order

my child

eat

rice

1sg

"I ordered my children to eat rice."(76) ＊j@1sg'an:m@n.
order

j@-

thwi:

my dog

'an:

cha:

eat

rice

78

This is parallel to the fact that 'an:m@n. cannot take a [－human] object.
(77) (a) j@1sg(b)＊j@-'an:m@n.

j@-

phU:

order

my

child

'an:m@n.

j@-

order

my dog1sg
2.2"I ordered my child (to do something)"

thwi:

plE_tO_
The meaning of the verb plE_tO_ is "to allow". As in the case of'an:m@n., the verb of the complement sentence must be [＋controllable].
Therefore, (79) is unacceptable.
(78) j@-plE_tO_'@we.

chi.nan_3sg

sit

1sg allow"I allowed him to sit down."(79) ＊j@1sg

plE_tO_

'@we.

Ti.

allow

3sg

die

Here also the causee must be [＋human], which is the same as the case of'an:m@n.. Therefore, (81) is unacceptable.
(80) j@-plE_tO_

1sg allow

j@-

phU:

'an:

mI_

my child

eat

rice

"I allowed my children to eat rice."(81) ＊j@-

plE_tO_

1sg allow

j@-

thwi:

'an:

cha:

my dogeat

feedThis is parallel to the fact that plE_tO_ cannot take a
noun.

79

[－human] object

(82) (a) j@-

plE_tO_

j@-

phU:

1sg

allow

my

child

(b)＊j@-

plE_tO_

j@-

thwi:

1sg

allow

my dogphI:lan.

(phlan.)2.3"I allowed my child (to do something)"

The meaning of the verb phI:lan. is "to give". It contains benefactive
meaning as the causative verb phI:lan. which we saw in 1.1.3. However, in
the Type II

construction, the causee is always the beneficiary. Since

sentences with phI:lan. of the Type I and sentences with phI:lan. of the TypeII are the same in that they contain benefactive meaning, they can often beparaphrased with each other. See below:(83) (a) j@-

phI:lan.

1sg give

lI_

'@we.

go

3sg

(Type I)"I let him go (for his sake)."(b) j@-

phI:lan.

1sg give

'@we.

lI_

3sg

him

(Type II )"I let him go (for his sake.)"(84) (a) phI:lan.
give

jain=

j@_

n@-

cE:bein=tread

1sg yourbicycle(Type I)

"Let me ride your bicycle."(b) phI:lan.
give

j@-

jain=

n@-

cE:bein=1sg treadyourbicycle(Type II )"Let me ride your bicycle."
But the construction with phI:lan. of the Type II differs from that of the TypeI in that the causee of the Type II must be [+human], while the Type I allows
a [－human] causee19:80

(85) (a) j@-

phI:lan.

1sg give

ja=

j@-

thwi:

thi.

(Type I)

swim my dog water"I let my dog swim in the water (for its sake)."(b) ＊j@-phI:lan.

1sg give

j@-

thwi:

ja=

my dog swim

thi.

(Type II )water

But they are the same in that the verb denoting a caused situation can beeither [＋controllable] or [－controllable] in both the types:(86) (a) j@-

phI:lan.

1sg give(b) j@-

phI:lan.

1sg give

TI:ja.

'@we.

know

3sg

'@we.

TI:ja.

3sg

know(Type I)
"I notified him (of something)."(Type II )3. Summary
We can see from the discussion above that controllability of verbs andhumanity of causees play important roles in the use of the causative
constructions of Pwo Karen20. The table below summarizes the discussion:
Causative

Controllability of

Humanity ofelements

the verb

the causeema_[－controllable]

unspecifiedda_usually [＋controllable]

unspecified

phI:lan.

unspecified

unspecified

ko_unspecified[＋human]general verbs[－controllable]

unspecified'an:m@n.

[＋controllable][＋human]plE_tO_[＋controllable][＋human]

phI:lan.

unspecified[＋human]Type I

Type II

81

Finally, it may be worth pointing out that the causative constructions of Pwo
Karen do not imply whether caused situations actually happen or do not.
Thus, even if a clause which negate the caused situation is put after acausative sentence, it does not yield any contradiction21:(87) j@-

ma_

Ti.

'@we.

1sg CAUSE die 3sg

la=nan.Ti:
but

'@we.

Ti.

'e:

3sg die

NEG"I killed him, but he did not die."(88) j@-

che_

Ti.

1sg stab die'@we.

la=nan.Ti:

'@we.

Ti.

'e:

3sg

but

3sg

die

NEG

lI_

'e:

"I stabbed him to kill, but he did not die."(89) j@-

da_

lI_

'@we.

1sg CAUSE go

3sg

la=nan.Ti:
but

'@we.

3sg goNEG"I let him go, but he did not go."(90) j@-'an:m@n.

'@we.

lI_

la=nan.Ti:'@we.

1sg CAUSE

3sg

go

but

3sg

lI_
go

'e:
NEG

"I ordered him to go, but he did not go."All these examples show that, in the causative constructions of Pwo Karen,
the caused situations are represented as ones which are just expected tohappen. In other words, whether they have actually happened is not
expressed in the causative sentences. This fact reminds us of Ikegami's(1985) discussion which points out that the Japanese is a 'process-oriented'
language compared to English which is 'goal-oriented'. According to Ikegami,
the Japanese verbs of motion do not always imply the achievement of theirgoals, thus the sentence like below is acceptable:(91) moyasita keredo,
burnedthoughmoenakatta[Japanese]didn't burn "I burned it, but it did not burn."

82

The sentences (87)-(90) imply that Pwo Karen is also a 'process-oriented'
language as Japanese, although it is needless to say that this view should be
examined from various points of view.
Notes
Pwo Karen can be divided into two dialects based on intelligibility (SeeKato 1995): the Eastern dialect which is spoken in Hpa-an, Hlainbwe,
Kokareik, etc.; and the Western dialect (Delta dialect) which is spoken in
Bassein, Kyonbyaw, Myaungmya, etc. The dialect treated in this paper is theEastern dialect. The data used here were collected during my several fieldresearches studies: researches carried out sporadically in Burma (mainly inYangon) when the author stayed there from 1992 to 1995; research in Mae

1

Sot from December 1995 to January 1996 (supported by the Mitsubishi Trust
Yamamuro Memorial Scholarship Commitee); research in Mae Sot
and Hpa-an from January to February 1997 and research in Mae Sot andHpa-an from January to March 1998 (both supported by the Grant-in-Aid
from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Science and Culture). This paper isa thoroughly revised version of the paper read at the seminar of the
University of Tokyo in April 1996. I wish to thank Prof. Yasutoshi Yukawa,Prof. Tasaku Tsunoda, the other professors and the students for their helpfulcomments. And my special thanks are due to Saw Thurein, U Sandarwara
and Saw Hta Lon who have been teaching me the Pwo Karen language.
2 Pwo Karen verbs can be defined as the words which 'auxiliaries' can attach

to. 'Auxiiaries' include preverb particles (ex. m@- "irrealis marker", l@"negative marker" etc.) and postverb particles (ex. jU=wa= "try (to do)", ba:"inevitality" etc.).
3 Verbs specified as [＋controllable] can be switched to [－controllable] ones

by putting the verbal particle ba: after them. See the example below (jain= is
specified as [＋controllable]):
j@-

jain=

ba:

'I:khU:lon:

1sg tread BA excrement"I carelessly stepped on droppings ."83

Nevertheless, verbs specified as [－controllable] cannot be switched to [＋controllable].
If we utilize the semantic representation proposed by Van Valin and
LaPolla (1997), controllable verbs may be represented as DO (x, [do' ... .

4

5 If there is a need to make a sentence of imperative illocutionary force using

the word Ti., one of the verbal particles denoting a wish, la= or da:we., has tobe put after the verb.
(i) Ti. la=chai_
die PVP SFP(ii) Ti. da:we.
die PVP"I wish that you (or he / she / I ) would die.""I wish that you (or he / she / I ) would die."In this paper, a noun which is put immediately before a verb or a verb
complex is called a 'subject', and a noun which is put immediately after averb or a verb complex is called an 'object'.

6

7 The fact that '@we. is the logical subject of the verb lI_ can be seen, if wethink of the sentence '@we. lI_ "he goes".
8 In a sentence with two objects, RECIPIENT is put immediately after theverb, and PATIENT follows it:
VERB RECIPIENT PATIENTIn the case of a sentence with two objects, I will use the term 'indirect object'
for a noun which occurs immediately after the verb, and the term 'direct
object' for a noun which occurs after the indirect object.
9 The particle de= also denotes Conjunctive :nU:we:
broom

de= nU:wi_Tu:
and fan"a broom and a fan"

10 For discussions of the proposal of Comrie (1976), see, for example, Comrie(1981), Palmer (1994), Song (1996), Van Valin and LaPolla (1997).
84

11 For example, the whole of the concatenated verbs below takes two objects

since the V2 is a ditransitive verb:
j@- lI_ phI:lan.
1sg go give

'@we.
3sg

lai:'aU_book"I went and gave him a book."

Therefore, of the tests to see controllability, the test using ma_ has
exceptions.
12

13 phI:lan. is often pronounced phlan.. This can also be said of the generalverb phI:lan..
14 Pwo Karen also has a sentence such as below:

j@- dU: thwi: Ti. poUN=
1sg hit dog dead SFP"I hit the dog and the dog died."
In this case, the resulted situation "dead" was not intended by the actor "I",in other words it is caused inadvertently. (This type of verb serialization was
also discussed by Kato 1998). In (54), on the other hand, the dog's death wasintended by "I" from the beginning. Kato (ibid.) discussed this difference
from the view of 'head verb' of serialized verbs: he assumes that in thesentence above the head verb is Ti., whereas in (54) the head verb is dU:.
15 The fact that the opposition between realis and irrealis cannot be seen in

the complement sentence of the causative construction implies that thecomplement sentence is strongly dependent to the matrix sentence.
Anevidence in favour of this is that the matrix sentence and the complement
sentence cannot independently select time adverbial phrases:＊l@ni_jo_
today

j@-

'an:m@n.

'@we.

1sg CAUSE 3sg

lI_

kE_kho:go

tomorrow

This contrasts with English which can say as below:

Yesterday Fred persuaded John to go to the market tomorrow.
85

16 Here the demonstrative nO: "that" is used as a topic marker.

17 (1) (a) j@-

plE_tO_ # '@we. lI_(b) ＊j@- plE_tO_ '@we. # lI_(c) j@- phI:lan. # '@we. lI_(d) ＊j@- phI:lan. '@we. # lI_(2) (a) '@we. lI_ phja. nO: j@- 'an:m@n.
(b) ＊'lI_ phja. nO: j@- 'an:m@n. '@we.
(c) '@we. lI_ phja. nO: j@- phI:lan.
(d) ＊'lI_ phja. nO: j@- phI:lan. '@we.
(3) (a) j@- plE_tO_ l@- '@we. lI_(b) j@- phI:lan. l@- '@we. lI_
18 In the Western dialect, 'an_m@_, the cognate word with '@n:m@n., cannot

take a complement sentence. The Western dialect has no construction
corresponding to type II. The Western 'an_m@_ is used as a causative verb as
below:
j@- 'an_m@_
le: '@we_
1sg CAUSE go
3sg"I ordered him to go."
The Eastern dialect and Western dialect differs from eath other especially inthe phonological level and lexical level (See Kato 1995), but in the syntactic
level also, they show such a difference.
19 Unlike 'an:m@n. and plE_tO_ , phI:lan. can take a [－human] recipient:j@- phI:lan. j@- thwi:
1sg give
my dog"I gave my dog a feed."

cha:
feed

20 All these causative expressions themselves have the characteristic of [＋controllable]. Thus, they can be used as an imperative sentence.
21 This fact is very similar to the 'resultative constructions' of Kayah Li. (See

Solnit 1997:68)
86

Appendix
Below is the list which shows the controllability of some Pwo Karen verbs
which were selected mainly according to Hattori (1957). There are someverbs, but small in number, which are not specified about controllability as
shown in (iii) below. It should also be added that the verbs denoting
movement or presence, i.e. lI_ "to go", gE. "to come", naU: "to enter", than: "toascend", lan_ "to descend", chi.th@Un: "to stand", 'O: "to be", are treated as[＋controllable] when they take an animate subject, while treated as [－controllable] when they take an inanimate subject.
*The forms in parentheses ( ) are the corresponding Japanese words.
(i) [＋controllable] verbs
chi:cha.

to urinate (osikko suru)'I:cha.

to void excrement (unci suru)chon.na:

to listen (kiku)To_to wear (kiru)

kwE:

to take off (clothes) (nugu)cha_

to sew (nuu)'an:phon.

to cook (taku)'an:to eat (taberu)

T@un:to build (tateru)

chi.nan_to sit (suwaru)

cain:

to walk (aruku), to run away (nigeru)

lon_

to pursue (oikakeru)'O:xaU:to marry (kekkon suru)'O:pwai_

to rest (yasumu)'an:gu:to steal (nusumu)

kli:

to run (hasiru)

khwE_

to creep (hau)'an:ca_to ask (tazuneru)

pO=

to read (yomu)ko_

to call (yobu)

lo:kwe_to play (asobu)

87

phI:lan. (phlan.)to give (yaru, ageru)'an:cha.

to sell (uru)'O:kho_to wait (macu)

ma_ch@n_ to help (tecudau)
plE_tO_

to allow (yurusu)

thaU_

to wipe (huku)phu:

to carry on one's back (seou)ko_kI:

to put (oku)da_nE:

to show (miseru)

san.

to tear [Vt] (saku, yaburu)'an:Ti.ja_

to wash (arau)che_

to stab (sasu)chon.mon: to consider (kangaeru)
ma_lU:

to study (osowaru), to teach (osieru)

nE_'an:to believe (sinziru)ja=

to swim (oyogu)'ain:

to bite (kamu)lI_

to go (iku)gE.

to come (kuru)

with an animate subject

naU:

to enter (hairu)

with an animate subject

than:

to ascend (agaru, noboru) with an animate subject

lan_

to descend (sagaru, oriru)

chi.th@Un: to stand (tacu)'O:

cf. 'ain: to be sharp (surudoi)
with an animate subject

with an animate subject

with an animate subject

to be, to exist (iru)with an animate subject(ii) [－controllable] verbs
khlI_

to be bold (hagete iru)

kwE:

to be unfastened (hodokeru)

mein.

to be ripe (ureru)'wi:

to be delicious (oisii)

ch@n.

to be sweet (amai)gan.

to be salty (siokarai)

chain:

to be sour (suppai)88

'u:paU_to rot (kusaru)

nO:

to awake [Vi] (mezameru)dU:

to be big (ookii)

m@n.

to be alive (ikite iru)

bon:to be fat (futotte iru)

pwai_Ta_to be tired (cukareru)

caU_cha.

to be sick (byooki da)cha.

to ache (itai)

ma_n@n_to win (kacu)ca_

to be defeated (makeru)

Ta_sa=

to be old (toshitotte iru)

ga_gon_to be broken (kowareru)ja:

to tear [Vi]the:to be cut (kireru)

lan_the:to fall (ociru)

cO:

to be wet (nurete iru)

xain.

to be dry (kawaite iru)

Ta_nan:to forget (wasureru)

Ta_mE:

to fear (osoreru, kowai)saU_

to be amazed (odoroku)

Ta_xwi.

to be glad (yorokobu, uresii)

Ta_than:to get angry (okoru)

khU:lon:to freeze [Vi] (kooru)

phli=

to melt [Vi] (tokeru)

phan_

to be light, to be bright (akarui)khai_

to be dark (kurai)khU=

to be hot (acui)khlein:to be cold (cumetai)

l@n_

to be warm (atatakai)

lan_b@n_to sink [Vi] (sizumu)

lan_jwa_

to flow (nagareru)

lan_ji:to wither (kareru)'ain:

to be sharp (surudoi)(sakeru)89lan_thi.pha=

to tumble, to fall down (korobu)

thO.

to be long (nagai), to be high (takai)phy:

to be short (mizikai), to be low (hikui)

ci.ca:

to be dirty (kitanai)phlI.

to be smooth (namerakana)lE=

to be wide (hiroi)'a:to be many (ooi)sa_to be few (sukunai)lI_

to go (iku)gE.

to come (kuru)

with an inanimate subject

naU:

to enter (hairu)

with an inanimate subject

than:

to ascend (agaru, noboru) with an inanimate subject

lan_

to descend (sagaru, oriru) with an inanimate subject

chi.th@Un: to stand (tacu)with an inanimate subject

with an inanimate subject'O:to be, to exist (aru)with an inanimate subject

TI:ja.

to know (sitte iru)da:to see (mieru)

na=g@n.

to hear (kikoeru)

na:TI:

to understand (wakatte iru)(iii) Verbs unspecified about controllability
The verbs shown below are difficult to treat, because they are like [＋controllable] verbs in that they can be an imperative sentence, while they arelike [－controllable] verbs in that they can occur in the be. ... To_ clause, andthat they can co-occur with causative ma_.
k@chI:

to sneeze (kusyami suru)ni=

to laugh (warau)

gan:

to weep (naku)

pjo_

to vomit (haku)

For the exaplanation of this fact, I assume that these verbs are not specified
about controllability in the lexicon, and they can optionally take either value90

of controllability.

Transcription
ConsonantspT [t1] t

c

k

ph

th

ch

kh

b [∫]

d [Î]

m

n

' [/]

s [Ç] xhg [V] R [Â]ny [≠]wjlr/n/ after a vowel indicates that the latter part of the vowel is nasalized.
Vowelsiy [È] u [¨]

I [I]
e

U [U]
@ [´] oE [E] a

O [O]

Tones
:

[55]

= [22(3)]
_

[11]

.

[51]

unmarked = atonic(If an atonic syllable occurs before a wordboundary, it is represented with hyphen.)Abbreviations
SCM= subordinate clause marker

SFP= sentence final particle

PVP= post verb particle

91

References
Comrie,Bernard(1976)"The

syntaxofcausative

constructions:cross-language similarities and divergences." In Shibatani (1976), pp.
261-312.
________ (1981) Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Oxford: BasilBlackwell.
Givón, Talmy (1975) "Cause and control: On the semantics of interpersonal
manipulation." In Kimball, John P. (1975) Syntax and Semantics, Vol 4,
pp. 59-89. New York: Academic Press.
Hattori, Shiro (1957) Kisogoichoosahyoo (Questionnaire for Basic Vocabulary[in Japanese]). Department of Linguistics, University of Tokyo.
Ikegami, Yoshihiko (1985) " 'Activity' - 'accomplishment' - 'achievement' -- alanguage that can't say 'I burned it, but it didn't burn' and one thatcan." In Makkai, Adam and Alan K. Melby (eds.) (1985) Linguistics andPhilosophy: Essays in Honor of Rulon S. Wells. Amsterdam andPhiladelphia: John Benjamins.
Jones, Robert. B. Jr. (1961) Karen Linguistic Studies. Berkley and Los
Angeles: University of California Press.
Kato, Atsuhiko (1993) "Sugookarengo no doosirenzoku (Verb serialization in
Sgaw Karen [in Japanese])." Journal of Asian and African Studies
45:177-204.
________ (1995) "The phonological systems of three Pwo Karen dialects."

Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 18.1:63-103.
________ (1998) "Pookarengo (toobuhoogen) no doosirenzoku ni okeru
syudoosi ni tsuite (On head verbs of serial verb constructions in Pwo
Karen (the Eastern dialect) [in Japanese] )." Gengo Kenkyu (Journal of
the Linguistic Society of Japan) 113:31-61.
Palmer, Frank R. (1994) Grammatical Roles and Relations. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Sakamoto, Hinako (1985) "Tai-go no doosi no kaibunrui ni tsuite(Subcategorization of Thai verbs)[in Japanese]." Journal of Asian and

African Studies 30:177-192.

92

Shibatani, Masayoshi (ed.) (1976) Syntax and Semantics, Vol 6: The

Grammar of Causative Constructions. New York: Academic Press.
Solnit, David B. (1997) Eastern Kayah Li: Grammar, Texts, Glossary.
Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.
Song, Jae Jung (1993) Causatives and Causation: A Universal-Typological

Perspective. London: Longman.
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. and Randy J. LaPolla (1997) Syntax: Structure,

Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vichit-Vadakan, Rasami (1976) "The concept of inadvertence in Thai
periphrastic causative constructions." in Shibatani(1976), pp.459-476.

93