See data and maps.
Izmalkova, D. (2023). “Causatives: expression type”. In: Typological Atlas of the Languages of Daghestan (TALD). Ed. by M. Daniel, K. Filatov, T. Maisak, G. Moroz, T. Mukhin, C. Naccarato and S. Verhees. Moscow: Linguistic Convergence Laboratory, NRU HSE. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6807070. http://lingconlab.ru/dagatlas.
@incollection{izmalkova2023,
title = {Causatives: expression type},
author = {Daria Izmalkova},
year = {2023},
editor = {Michael Daniel and Konstantin Filatov and Timur Maisak and George Moroz and Timofey Mukhin and Chiara Naccarato and Samira Verhees},
publisher = {Linguistic Convergence Laboratory, NRU HSE},
address = {Moscow},
booktitle = {Typological Atlas of the Languages of Daghestan (TALD)},
url = {http://lingconlab.ru/dagatlas},
doi = {10.5281/zenodo.6807070},
}The causative construction is an expression whose meaning can be schematically represented as “A causes B to X”, where A and B are nominal arguments and X is a predicate. Causative meaning in East Caucasian languages can be expressed in multiple ways: by means of suffixation (e.g. Bagvalal (11)), using light verb constructions (e.g. Kryz (2)), and various intermediate constructions (e.g. Bezhta (3)). Here we define light verb constructions as:
Thus, periphrastic constructions and complement-taking verbs will be categorized as light verb constructions, and any construction with two identifiable verb stems that is represented as one wordform will be considered intermediate between a suffix and light verb construction.
Bagvalal (Kibrik
et al. 2001: 387)
|
madinat-i-r |
zar |
b-ic’-e: |
|
madinat-obl-erg |
ice.nom |
n-melt-caus |
|
‘Madinat melted the ice.’ |
Kryz (Authier 2009: 314)
|
a-d |
zindan.c-a |
ʕa-r-ğu-z |
vu-yid |
|
3-notn |
prison-loc |
pv-m-force.in-inf |
give-aor.m |
|
‘He had him thrown in jail.’ |
Bezhta (Comrie et al. 2015: 361)
| ija-al |
| cry-inf |
| ‘cry’ |
| ija-gol-al |
| cry-put-inf |
| ‘force to cry’ |
Cross-linguistically causatives are commonly expressed morphologically (mostly by affixation) or by means of a periphrastic construction. According to Song (2013a), compounds (i.e. monoclausal multiverb constructions) are rare. In East Caucasian languages these types of constructions seem to be generally common and as such they are also used in certain languages as the primary strategy of forming causative expressions.
As mentioned in (Song 2013b), practically every language has a periphrastic causative construction. We believe this to be true for Caucasian languages as well, therefore we assume that the absence of a periphrastic construction for certain languages in the sample is likely due to missing data.
The goal of this chapter is to is to classify the types of constructions which can express causative meaning in the languages of Daghestan according to the available descriptions. We will also examine the semantics of the auxiliary verb (where it is present).
Each causative construction was classified as either a suffix1, a light verb or a suffixal auxiliary2. Given the fact that the languages present more of a spectrum than a set of classes in regards to the extent to which the causative construction is grammaticalized, the following criteria were used to draw boundaries between the proposed classes:
The majority of languages in the sample have a morphological causative (27/40), specifically a suffix is used to express causative meaning. There are two exceptions: Budukh (EC > Lezgic), where the synthetic causative is formed by stem shortening and vowel alternation (4) and Tsugni Dargwa, where the synthetic causative is formed by stress shift (5).
Budukh (Talibov 2007: 168)
| sanꭓ-an |
| be_forgotten-inf |
| ‘be forgotten’ |
| senꭓ-i |
| forget-inf |
| ‘forget’ |
Tsugni Dargwa (Salajbanov, Sumbatova 2022: 2-3 (110-111))
| murad-li | hin | d-erčː-ib |
| Murad-erg | water | npl-drink.pfv-pret |
| ‘Murad drank the water.’ |
| murad-li | urči-cːe | hin | d-erčː-íb |
| Murad-erg | horse-inter | water | npl-drink.pfv-pret |
| ‘Murad gave the horse water to drink.’ |
In several languages the causative suffix is fused with tense suffixes, for example in Akhvakh (6):
| q’in-āri |
| sew-caus.pst |
| (-a + -ari = -āri) |
| ‘caused to sew’ |
Turkic languages (Nogai, Kumyk, Azerbaijani) possess multiple sets of transitivizing suffixes, without one necessarily expressing exclusively causative meaning. In (Xangišiev 2014) it is noted that in Kumyk these suffixes are distributed lexically, but the motivation behind the choice of the suffix is not transparent (for example, different suffixes can be used for the same verb in different dialects), and it is claimed that their distribution was once related to the transitivity and semantics of the verb. It is also noted that the -tɯr;-tir;-tur;-tyr, -ʁuz;-giz, -ʁar;-ger, -set, -dar suffixes are much more restricted in their use. In (Širaliev, Sevortjan 1971) the Azerbaijani suffixes dɯr/dir and -t are described separately as causative suffixes, whereas the other suffixes are described as transivitizing suffixes. In (Baskakov 1940) these sets of suffixes in Nogai are simply listed without any comments on their distribution. In (Baskakov 1973) it is noted that the suffix -kar/-ker is archaic. The suffixes that were described as rare (or not described as causative in the case of Azerbaijani) are not in the database (they are only mentioned in the “comment” column).
The Dargwa varieties share a common suffix -aq (cf. Table 1), which in the case of Kubachi (7) is said to be the verb ‘overcome’, which attaches to the stem (Magometov 1963: 214). There are reasons to doubt that the lexical origin of the Kubachi causative is that transparent, as it is practically identical to the suffix attested in other Dargwa varieties. In addition, there are multiple potential candidates3 for the source of grammaticalization of this suffix (Michael Daniel, p.c.). However, given that it is described as a verb in the source, the Kubachi causative is classified as a suffixal auxiliary.
Kubachi (Magometov 1963: 214)
| bis-ij |
| sell-inf |
| ‘sell’ |
| bis-aq-ij |
| sell-overcome-inf |
| (or sell-CAUS-INF) |
| ‘force to sell’ |
Interestingly, a number of languages showcase an intermediate form: a light verb construction at various stages of grammaticalization. There are 10 languages that have causative constructions classified as suffixal auxiliaries (cf. Table 2). In addition to this, there are cases like Avar (EC > Avar), where the light verb construction can be shortened/fused (8).
Avar (Forker 2020: 16)
| heq’e-ze | ha-b-ize |
| drink-inf | do-n-inf |
| ‘make drink’ |
| heq’e-z-a-b-ize |
| drink-inf-do-n-inf |
| ‘make drink’ |
| EC branch | language | auxiliary | lexical verb form |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nakh | Chechen | CM-an ‘do’, jta/i:ta ‘leave’ | stem, stem |
| Ingush | CM-u ‘do’, -iit/-it ‘leave’ | stem, stem | |
| Tsova-Tush | -it-ar ‘leave’ | stem | |
| Tsezic | Hinuq | CM-u:- ‘do’, tok’er- ‘?’ | stem, stem |
| Bezhta | gol-al/gil-al/gul-al ‘put’ | stem | |
| Lezgic | Rutul | haʔas ‘do’ | stem |
| Tsakhur | haʔu ‘do’ | potentialis stem | |
| Dargwa | Sanzhi | CM-irq’-/CM-arq’- ‘do’ | stem? |
| Kubachi | -aqij/-iqij ‘overcome’ | stem | |
| Tsugni | -aʁ-/-iʁ- ‘drive’ | stem |
At least 21 languages have a light verb or periphrastic construction. In the vast majority of the constructions classified here the lexical verb is in the infinitive, with a few exceptions.
In Lak the auxiliary can combine with both an infinitive (perfective) and a participle (imperfective) (9).
Lak (Kazenin 2013: 108)
| Jala | ga | butta-l | ∅-uxx-an | ∅-uv-ssa-r | Shurah-ssa | realny |
| after | 3sg | father-gen.sg | m-enter.pfv-inf | m-do.pst-adj-3sg | Buynaksk-adj | real |
| učilish-aluwun |
| school-ill |
| ‘Then father sent him to Buynaksk Realschule.’ |
| Turknal | mu | bilajat | cixwa | b-urug‹la›g-i | b-u-w-nu | b-u-r |
| turkey | this | country | refl | n-watch‹IPFV›.ptcp-3sg | n-do.pst-n-pst | n-aux.pres-3sg |
| ‘Turkey made this country look at itself.’ |
In Kryz the auxiliary ‘do’ combines with a participle (10).
| ꭓinib.c-ir | furi | ʕu-r-ğar-a | ar-id |
| wife-erg | man | pv-m-believe-ptcp | do-aor.m |
| ‘The woman persuaded her husband.’ |
In Bagvalal the auxiliary verb forms two constructions: one with the lexical verb in the infinitive from the imperfective stem, the other with the lexical verb in the infinitive from the potential stem (11). The second construction has permissive meaning:
Bagvalal (Kibrik et al. 2001: 385)
| ima-š:u-r | anwar | rasul-i-b | as | kʷaꭓ:-a | w-ešta |
| father-obl.m-erg | Anwar | Rasul-obl-gen.n | money | steal-msd.ipfv.inf | m-let |
| ‘Father made Anwar steal money from Rasul.’ |
| ima-š:u-r | anwar | rasul-i-b | as | kʷaꭓ:-a: | w-ešta |
| father-obl.m-erg | Anwar | Rasul-obl-gen.n | money | steal-msd.pot.inf | m-let |
| ‘Father allowed Anwar steal money from Rasul.’ |
It is important to note that many languages employ multiple strategies in coding causative meaning, which in turn are often distributed based on semantic (direct/indirect or permissive) or morphological (derived from transitive/intransitive verbs or adjectives) properties. For example, in Lezgian the suffix -(a)r- is used with intransitive verbs (12)(a) and the light verb construction with the verb tun ‘leave’ is used with transitive verbs (12)(b). In Tsez the suffix -r-/-ir- is used for verbs (13 a) and the suffix -ik’-/-uk’- is used for adjectives (13 b). In Mehweb Dargwa the light verb construction with the verb aʔas ‘drive’ has directive meaning (14 a), whereas with the verb CM-aqas ‘leave’ the meaning is permissive (14 b); the construction with the verb CM-aq’as ‘do’ is used with adjectives (14 c).
Lezgian (Haspelmath 1993: 163, 358)
| ksu-r-un |
| sleep-caus-msd |
| ‘put to bed’ |
| Ada | ča-w | ∅ | ixtilat-ar | aqwazar-iz | ta-da-j. |
| he.erg | we-adel | (erg) | conversation-pl | stop-inf | cause-fut-pst |
| ‘He would make us stop the conversations.’ |
Tsez (Bokarëv 1959: 204, 203)
| əs-ir-a |
| say-caus-inf |
| ‘cause to say/ ask’ |
| tatan-ik’-a |
| warm-caus-?inf |
| ‘make warm’ |
Mehweb Dargwa (Barylnikova 2019: 173, 174, 176)
| pat’imat-ini | anwar | uʕq’-es | aʔ-ib. |
| Patimat-erg | Anwar | m.go:pfv-inf | drive:pfv-aor |
| ‘Patimat made Anwar go away.’ |
| pat’imat-ini | anwar | w-aq-ib | umma | d-aq’-as |
| Patimat-erg | Anwar | m-leave:pfv-aor | kiss | npl-do:pfv-inf |
| ‘Patimat let Anwar kiss her.’ |
| aꭓaj-ni | musa | zuba | w-aq’-ib |
| khan.obl-erg | Musa | blind | m-do:pfv-aor |
| ‘Khan blinded Musa.’ |
The most common verbs found in causative constructions were ‘do’ (13), ‘leave’ (8) and ‘give’ (5). The verb ‘let’ is used in Khwarshi (EC > Tsezic), Bagvalal (EC > Andic), Karata (EC > Andic) and Tindi (EC > Andic). In Bezhta (EC > Tsezic), Botlikh (EC > Andic) and Godoberi (EC > Andic) the verb ‘put’ is used4. There are a number of verbs attested in only one language, namely, “overcome” (Kubachi Dargwa), “become” (Botlikh), “direct” (Akhvakh), “sell” (Khinalug), “use” (Bezhta). I suspect that verbs glossed as ‘force’ have that meaning because they form causative constructions, but they might have other core meanings. Not all idioms have available dictionaries, or, in some cases, the verb in question is not mentioned in them, so I have not been able to verify this. The full list of auxiliaries and their semantics is presented in Table 3:
| Family > branch | Language | Auxiliary | Semantics |
|---|---|---|---|
| EC > Andic | Akhvakh | bit’-uruʎa | direct |
| Godoberi | t’ami | put | |
| Botlikh | t’am-i | put | |
| CM-iʁ-a-j | become | ||
| Bagvalal | CM-ešta | let | |
| Karata | it-a-ɬ-a | let | |
| Tindi | CM-ešdo | let | |
| EC > Tsezic | Hinuq | tok’-er | ‘?’ |
| t’amizi-u: | ‘force’ | ||
| Khwarshi | CM-ešt’a | ‘let’ | |
| Bezhta | gol-al/gil-al/gul-al | ‘put’ | |
| tok’-al | ‘use’ | ||
| EC > Lezgic | Agul | aq’-a-s | ‘do’ |
| qačik-a-s | ‘force’ | ||
| Archi | a-s | ‘do’ | |
| Budukh | CM-uc’u | ‘give’ | |
| Kryz | aric | ‘do’ | |
| vuyic | ‘give’ | ||
| Lezgian | t-un | ’leave’6 | |
| Rutul | wy-s | ‘give’ | |
| haʔa-s | ‘do’ | ||
| Tsakhur | haʔu | ‘do’ | |
| Tabasaran | ğit-ub | ‘leave’ | |
| Udi | -b-es | ‘do’ | |
| EC > Dargwa | Mehweb | aʔ-as | ‘drive’ |
| CM-aq-as | ‘leave’ | ||
| CM-aq’-as | ‘do’ | ||
| Sanzhi | CM-irq-‘/CM-arq-’ | ‘do’ | |
| Kubachi | aq-ij/iq-ij | ‘overcome’ | |
| Tsugni | -aʁ-;-iʁ- | ‘drive’ | |
| EC > Lak | Lak | CM-an | ‘do’ |
| CM-it-an | ‘leave’ | ||
| EC > Khinalug | Khinalug | ček’iri | ‘sell’ |
| EC > Nakh | Chechen | CM-an | ‘do’ |
| jta/i:ta | ‘leave’ | ||
| Ingush | d.u | ‘do’ | |
| iit/it | ‘leave’ | ||
| Tsova-Tush | it-ar | ‘leave’ | |
| EC > Avar | Avar | ha-b-ize | ‘do’ |
| IE > Iranian | Azerbaijan-Tat | saꭓden | ‘do’ |
| Aspheron-Tat | doren | ‘give’ | |
| Judeo-Tat | hiš-de | ‘leave’ | |
| IE > Armenic | Armenian | t-al | ‘give’ |
Most languages have multiple causative constructions. On Map 1 the label “morphological” is used for languages in which a morphological causative is present, “suffixal auxiliary” for languages in which a suffixal auxiliary is present, and “light verb” for languages in which only light verb constructions are attested. All Andic, Tsezic, Dargwa (except Kubachi) and Turkic languages have a morphological causative. Nakh languages use suffixal auxiliaries. Lezgic languages mostly use light verb constructions, but Rutul and Tsakhur have suffixal auxiliaries, while Budukh, Lezgian and Udi5 have morphological causatives. There does not seem to be any significant areal distribution.
3 — third person; 3sg — third person singular; adel — adelative; adj — adjective; aor — aorist; aux — auxiliary; caus — causative; erg — ergative; fut — future; gen — genitive; ill — illative; inf — infinitive; inter — within (a solid object); ipfv — imperfective; loc — locative; m — masculine; msd — masdar; n — neuter; nom — nominative; notn — non-neuter pronominal suffix; npl — non-human plural; obl — oblique; pfv — perfective; pl — plural; pot — potential; pres — present; pret — preterite; pst — past; ptcp — participle; pv — preverb; refl — reflexive; sg — singular
With the exception of Budukh, which has a causative classified as “shortening+vowel alternation” and Tsugni Dargwa which has a causative classified as “stress shift”.↩︎
“Suffixal auxiliary” is somewhat of a placeholder for any construction that cannot be classified as a suffix or a light verb.↩︎
For example, in (Daniel 2019: 97) it is claimed that this suffix is derived from the verb -aq(ib) ~ -irq- ‘let go’.↩︎
It should be noted that the verbs used in these constructions are often very polysemous, so the meanings stated here and in the database can be somewhat subjective.↩︎
-d- in Udi, which is classified as a suffix here, combines with the infinitive of the verb (though other suffixes may follow it) and is described as an auxiliary verb (Maisak 2008). The reason why it is classified as a suffix here is that it is bound to the lexical verb and lacks a transparent lexical origin.↩︎