[Lingtyp] Agentive vs. unagentive causees?

[양재영]

Dear Seppo,

Korean (which happens to be my L1) exhibits a case marker alternation on
causees in the syntactic causative construction (V-key ha-).
The condition for which case marker is used is claimed by some to be of
implicational nature, as shown in the examples below:

emma-ka ai-ka/-lul/-eykey pap-ul mek-key ha-yess-ta
mother-NOM child-NOM/ACC/DAT rice-ACC eat-CAUS-PAST-DECL
Causer Causee Theme Verb

All of above are said to be acceptable, which I confirm. Also, Nam & Ko
(2019) argues that here the nominative Causee is being ‘allowed’ to eat
rice by the Causer, whereas the accusative one is being ‘forced’ and the
dative one is being ‘advised’ to do so.
I do agree with the claimed difference in agentivity/volitionality of
Causee in this kind of alternation, but I also suspect there is much more
to it, and it should be emphasized that the implication is very subtle and
easy to cancel.
Below is some relevant literature, unfortunately in Korean, on the
phenomenon:

남기심•고영근 [Nam, Gisim & Ko, Yeonggeun]. 2019. 표준국어문법론 [Korean Standard
Grammar]. 한국문화사 [Hankook Munhwasa].
김영희 [Kim, Yeonghui]. 1993. “-게 하-“ 사동 구문의 세 유형 [Three types of -key ha-
causative construction]. 어문학(語文學) [EOMUNHAK — The Korean Language and
Literature] 54: 89–120.
김철균•엄홍준 [Kim, Chulkyun & Um, Hongjoon]. 2020. 장형 사동 구문의 수용성에 대한 양적 연구 — 한국어
장형 사동 구문의 피사동주 격 교체를 중심으로 [A Quantitative Study of the Acceptability of
Long-Form Causative Constructions — Focusing on the Case Alternation of the
Causees]. 어문논집(語文論集) [Journal of The Society of Korean Language and
Literature] 82: 7–40.

Hope this helps.

Best,
Jaeyeong Yang
Dept. of Linguistics,
Seoul National University

2024년 10월 30일 (수) 오후 9:40, Juergen Bohnemeyer via Lingtyp <
lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>님이 작성:

> Dear Seppo et al. – I understand. I think this is a terminological issue.
> In my mind, what you describe is an involuntary causee involved against
> their will in bringing about a to them undesirable outcome (or so the
> speaker frames it). To me, this is not the same as an accidental agent.
> Accidental agents have a plan of action and then either realize that plan
> with unintended consequences or wind up realizing a different action from
> what they had intended, as described by Alicke (2000). To me, this frame is
> difficult to apply to causees, since they only have a plan of action if
> they have control over the induced action. For example, imagine A asking B
> to do the dishes, and B breaking a glass in the process. In this case, B is
> an accidental agent – but do they get to blame A for the breaking of the
> glass, so that they (B) could be construed as the causee of the breaking
> event? I guess that’s an empirical question, and the answer might depend on
> the language. – Best – Juergen
>
>
>
> Alicke, Mark D. 2000. Culpable control and the psychology of blame. *Psychological
> Bulletin* 126(4): 556–574.
>
>
>
> Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)
> Professor, Department of Linguistics
> University at Buffalo
>
> Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus
> Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260
> Phone: (716) 645 0127
> Fax: (716) 645 3825
> Email: jb77 at buffalo.edu
> Web: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/
>
> Office hours Tu/Th 3:30-4:30pm in 642 Baldy or via Zoom (Meeting ID 585
> 520 2411; Passcode Hoorheh)
>
> There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In
> (Leonard Cohen)
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of
> Kittilä, Seppo via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Date: *Wednesday, October 30, 2024 at 02:59
> *To: *Riccardo Giomi <r.giomi at uva.nl>, Haig, Geoffrey <
> geoffrey.haig at uni-bamberg.de>
> *Cc: *LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> >
> *Subject: *Re: [Lingtyp] Agentive vs. unagentive causees?
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Thank you very much for all your answers to my query, they have all been
> very helpful. As for Jürgen's message, I may specify what I meant a bit,
> since I very well get that the idea of an accidentally acting causee is a
> bit odd. First, the examples that Riccardo gave would be one good example
> of this. What I originally had in time when I sent the query was cases like
> 'Great. look what you made me do, I broke this vase'. This sentence would
> be possible (at least in my L2 variety of English) when, for example,
> someone pushes me making me stumble and hit a vase that falls down and
> breaks. In that case, someone else causes me do to cause another
> state-of-affairs that results in a broken vase. I know that the causation
> by the causer and the role of causee are not understood in the prototypical
> sense in these cases, but in any case an external causer causes me to
> participate in an event of breaking and my action is
> accidental/involuntary/not controlled.
>
>
>
> Did this make things clearer? All the best,
>
> Seppo
> ------------------------------
>
> *Lähettäjä:* Riccardo Giomi <r.giomi at uva.nl>
> *Lähetetty:* tiistai 29. lokakuuta 2024 20.16
> *Vastaanottaja:* Kittilä, Seppo <seppo.kittila at helsinki.fi>; Haig,
> Geoffrey <geoffrey.haig at uni-bamberg.de>
> *Kopio:* lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <
> lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Aihe:* Re: Agentive vs. unagentive causees?
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> One language that might possibly be relevant to both Seppo's and Geoff's
> messages (if only, perhaps, tangentially) could be Mongsen Ao. Below is how
> the dative-marked / unmarked causee opposition is described in Coupe's
> grammar (p. 195):
>
>
>
>
>
> And below is an example showing how the 'agentive' (AGT) case enclitic can
> be used to stress the volitional involvement of the A argument (p. 157),
> with no change to the verb:
>
>
>
>
>
> Hope this helps!
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> R
>
>
>
> ______
>
>
>
> Coupe, A. R. 2007. *A Grammar of Mongsen Ao * [Mouton Grammar Series MGL,
> 39]*. *Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
>
> ______
>
>
>
>
>
> Riccardo Giomi
>
> Assistant Professor of Functional Linguistics
>
> University of Amsterdam
>
> Faculty of Humanities: Department of Linguistics
>
> Spuistraat 134, 1012 VB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Spuistraat+134,+1012+VB,+Amsterdam,+The+Netherlands?entry=gmail&source=g>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of
> Haig, Geoffrey via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Sent:* 29 October 2024 18:56
> *To:* Kittilä, Seppo <seppo.kittila at helsinki.fi>
> *Cc:* lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> >
> *Subject:* Re: [Lingtyp] Agentive vs. unagentive causees?
>
>
>
> Dear Seppo,
>
>
>
> I can’t help you with examples of distinct causative markers according to
> volitionality/agentivity of the causee, but I was curious about your remark
> re the related alternation on causers (I broke X accidentally/on purpose),
> and the reference to Faucconier (2012). I assume you mean her 2012 thesis?
>
>
>
> As I read Faucconiier, a key take-away point of her work was in fact the
> typological paucity of strategies for flagging volitionality vs.
> non-volitionality of a transitive subject (A), on the A itself. It can be
> done by a shift in the verb (often involving a voice alternation), but
> apparently not often via flagging alone.
>
>
>
> I found the claim surprising at the time, but I have to admit I have not
> actually since found a language that exhibits what (I think) she means,
> which would be a language that had a marker, –X, to differentiate a
> volitional breaker from non-volitional breaker, without accompanying
> changes to the verb (Jane broke the vase (i.e. accidentally) vs. Jane-x
> broke the vase (intentionally)).
>
>
>
> I am aware of such examples with intransitive verbs of course (the famous
> Batsbi/Tsova-Tush examples, and so on). But not of clear cases of
> transitives.
>
>
>
> Anyway, I’d be happy to hear of clear examples of volitionality-based
> differential-A marking (ruling out those accompanied by a change of lexical
> verb (common with light verbs), or a voice shift on the verb).
>
>
>
> Not sure if we need to open a sub-thread on the list for this, could be
> just directly relayed to me. I’d be happy to post a general summary of
> whatever comes in,
>
>
>
> Best wishes
>
> Geoff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **************************************
>
> Geoffrey Haig
>
> Professor of Linguistics
>
> Institut fuer Orientalistik
>
> Universität Bamberg
>
> 96047 Bamberg
>
>
>
> https://www.uni-bamberg.de/aspra/team/aktuelles-team/prof-dr-geoffrey-haig/
>
>
>
> Tel. +49 951 8632490 / Dept. admin: +49 951 863 2491
>
>
>
> *Von:* Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> *Im Auftrag
> von *Kittilä, Seppo via Lingtyp
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 29. Oktober 2024 15:52
> *An:* LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org
> *Betreff:* [Lingtyp] Agentive vs. unagentive causees?
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Does anyone here happen to know whether there are languages that would
> code what I have labelled here as agentive and unagentive causees
> differently. I refer here to cases like 'John made me build a house'
> (agentive causee) and 'great, now you made me break this' (unagentive
> causee). In both cases, the causee is responsible for what happens, but
> there are clear differences in whether the causee acts volitionally,
> purposefully and is in control. There are many languages where the
> agentivity/volitionality of the causer is formally manifest in cases like
> 'I broke something on purpose/accidentally' (for example the case marking
> of the Causer varies accordingly, see, e.g., Fauconnier 2012), but are
> there similar cases for Causees. And I am not looking for cases where the
> degree of volitionality of the Causee is different as in 'I made/let him do
> something', but cases where the coding of a Causee that accidentally causes
> something to happen is different from a Causee whose action is volitional
> and controlled.
>
>
>
> All the best,
>
> Seppo
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20241101/f2e811c5/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 102402 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20241101/f2e811c5/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 95664 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20241101/f2e811c5/attachment-0003.png>