Finding the best fit for direct and indirect causation: a typological study


formal length

How to Cite

Levshina, N. (2016). Finding the best fit for direct and indirect causation: a typological study. Lingua Posnaniensis, 58(2), 65–82.


The contrast between direct and indirect causation is the most widely discussed semantic distinction in the literature on causative constructions. This distinction has been claimed to correlate with a number of formal parameters, such as formal distance, productivity and length, which are linked to different functional and diachronic explanations based on the principles of iconicity and economy. The present study tests these claims on a typologically representative sample of languages from 46 diverse families, examining four formal variables and their association with (in)directness of causation. According to the data, formal length displays the most pervasive association with the semantic distinction in question, which supports the economy-based explanation. In addition, the relative prominence of the other formal parameters depends on the type of causatives and their stage of grammaticalization.


Amberber, Mengistu. 2000. Valency-changing and valency-encoding devices in Amharic. In Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds.), Changing valency: Case studies in transitivity, 312-332. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bruno, Ana Carla. 2003. Waimiri Atroari Grammar: Some Phonological, Morphological, and Syntactic Aspects. Tucson, AZ : University of Arizona. (Doctoral dissertation.)

Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.

Comrie, Bernard. 1976. The syntax of causative constructions: Cross-language similarities and divergencies. In Masayoshi, Shibatani (ed.), Syntax and Semantic 6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions, 261-312. New York: Academic Press.

Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dixon, R. M. W. 2000. A typology of causatives: Form, syntax and meaning. In Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds.), Changing valency: Case studies in transitivity, 30-83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.). 2013. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Accessed on 2017-01-03.)

Evans, Nicholas D. 1995. A Grammar of Kayardild: With Historical-Comparative Notes on Tangkic (Mouton Grammar Library 15). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Givón, Talmy. 1980. The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements. Studies in Language 4(3). 333-377.

Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Haiman, John. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59(4). 781-819.

Haiman, John. 1985. Natural syntax: Iconicity and erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics 19(1). 1-33.

Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language 86(3). 663-687.

Haspelmath, Martin. 2016. Universals of causative and anticausative verb formation and the spontaneity scale. Lingua Posnaniensis 58(2). 33-63.

Hualde, José Ignacio & Ortiz de Urbina, Jon (eds.). 2003. A Grammar of Basque. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Kemmer, Susanne & Verhagen, Arie 1994. The grammar of causatives and the conceptual structure of events. Cognitive Linguistics 5. 115-156.

Kulikov, Leonid. 2001. Causatives. In Haspelmath, Martin & König, Ekkehard & Oesterreicher, Wulf & Raible, Wolfgang (eds.), Language Typology and Language Universals. An International Handbook. Vol. 2, 886-898. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Lehmann, Christian. 1995. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom Europa.

Levshina, Natalia. 2016. Why we need a token-based typology: A case study of analytic and lexical causatives in fifteen European languages. Folia Linguistica 50(2). 507-542.

Matisoff, James A. 1976. Lahu causative constructions: case hierarchies and the morphology/syntax cycle in a Tibeto-Burman perspective. In Shibatani, Masayoshi (ed.), Syntax and Semantic 6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions, 413-442. New York: Academic Press.

McFarland, Teresa Ann. 2009. The phonology and morphology of Filomeno Mata Totonac. Berkeley: University of California Berkeley. (Doctoral dissertation.)

Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. & Otaina, Galina A. 2013. A Syntax of the Nivkh Language: The Amur dialect (Studies in Language Companion Series 139). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Nedyalkov, Vladimir P. & Silnitsky, Georgij G. 1973. The typology of morphological and lexical causatives. In Ferenc, Kiefer (ed.), Trends in Soviet Theoretical Linguistics, 1-32. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Okrand, Marc. 1977. Mutsun grammar. Berkeley: University of California Berkeley. (Doctoral dissertation.)

Olawsky, Knut. 2006. A Grammar of Urarina (Mouton Grammar Library 37). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

R Core Team. 2016. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. (Accessed 2017-01-21)