Cover not available
Part of
Causation, Permission, and Transfer: Argument realisation in GET, TAKE, PUT, GIVE and LET verbs
Edited by Brian Nolan, Gudrun Rawoens and Elke Diedrichsen
[Studies in Language Companion Series 167] 2015
► pp. 53–105

Degrees of causivity in German lassen causitive constructions

| Institute of Technology Blanchardstown Dublin, Ireland
In many languages, there is a morphological marker or a lexical expression for a situation in which an agent brings about a state of affairs or makes somebody else do something. In German, both variants of formal marking for causativity are found only very rarely. The main expression of causativity in German is the lassen construction. This is a complex predicate construction with the auxiliary lassen (‘let’), whose semantics can vary within a spectrum of meanings involving direct causation, but also permission and non-intervention. The paper introduces the construction in detail, and sets it in relation to variants of the expression of causativity across languages. The syntax and semantics of the construction is discussed extensively, and it is represented in a Constructional Schema that displays its features. It is argued that cultural knowledge is a useful resource to help the user resolve the semantic ambiguity of the construction. The paper discusses alternatives for the expression of causativity in German, as well, and it comments on the notion of ‘transfer’ and its relation to the expression of causativity.
Published online: 14 January 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.167.02die
References (42)
References
Aissen, Judith L. 1979. The Syntax of Causative Constructions. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Bausewein, Karin. 1991. AcI-Konstruktionen und Valenz . In Betriebslinguistik und Linguistikbetrieb. Akten des 24. Linguistischen Kolloquiums, Universität Bremen, 4–6 September 1989 [Linguistische Arbeiten 260], Eberhard Klein, Francoise Puradier Duteil & Karl Heinz Wagner (eds), 245–251. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam. 2003. The light verb jungle. In Papers from the GSAS/Dudley House Workshop on Light Verbs [Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 9], Gulsat Aygen, Claire Bowern & Conor McDonough Quinn (eds), 1–49. Cambridge MA: Harvard Univerisity, Dept. of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. The syntax of causative constructions: Cross-language similarities and divergences. In The Grammar of Causative Constructions [Syntax and Semantics 6], 
Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), 261–312. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard & Polinsky, Maria (eds). 1993. Causatives and Transitivity [Studies in Language Companion Series 23]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diedrichsen, Elke. 2008. Where is the precore slot? Mapping the layered structure of the clause and German sentence topology. In Investigations of the Syntax-Semantics-Pragmatics-Interface [Studies in Language Companion Series 105], 
Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. (ed.), 203–224. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. The theoretical importance of constructional schemas in RRG. In Proceedings of the RRG 2009 Conference, Wataru Nakamura (ed.), 168–198. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
. 2012. What you give is what you GET? On reanalysis, semantic extension and functional motivation with the German bekommen-passive construction. Linguistics 50(6): 1163–1204. Special issue The Art of Getting: GET Verbs in European Languages from a Synchronic and Diachronic Point of View, Alexandra N. Lenz & Gudrun Rawoens (eds). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013a. Constructions as memes. Interactional function as cultural convention beyond the words. In Beyond Words, Frank Liedtke & Cornelia Schulze (eds), 283–305. Berlin: De Gruyter.
. 2013b. Auxiliary selection in German: Constructional gradience with perfect formation. In Argument Structure in Flux: The Naples/Capri Papers [Studies in Language Companion Series 131], Elly van Gelderen, Jóhanna Barðdal & Michela Cennamo (eds), 405–434. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013c. From idioms to sentence structures and beyond: The theoretical scope of the concept “Construction”. In Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics. The Role of Constructions in Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series 145], 295–330. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. A role and reference grammar parser for German. In Language Processing and Grammars: The Role of Functionally Oriented Computational Models [Studies in Language Companion Series 150], Brian Nolan & Carlos Periñán-Pascual (eds), 105–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. 2000. A typology of causatives: Form, syntax and meaning. In Changing Valency: Case Studies in Transitivity, Robert M.W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds), 30–83. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drach, Erich. 1937 [41963]. Grundgedanken der deutschen Satzlehre. Frankfurt: Diesterweg.Google Scholar
Duden. Online-resource. <[URL] (21 January 2014).
Eisenberg, Peter. 2006. Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik: Der Satz. Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar
Enzinger, Stefan. 2010. Kausative und perzeptive Infinitivkonstruktionen. Syntaktische Variation und semantischer Aspekt. Berlin: Akademie. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fagan, Sarah M.B. 1992. The Syntax and Semantics of Middle Constructions. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
García García, Luisa. 2005. Germanische Kausativbildung. Die deverbalen jan-Verben im Gotischen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, Günther, Hamm, Fritz & Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 1994. Sprachliches Wissen. Frankfurt: SuhrkampGoogle Scholar
Hans-Bianchi, Barbara. 2011. Die kausative Verbalperiphrase zwischen Grammatikalisierung und Sprachkontakt [Daf-Werkstatt Beiheft 1]. Arezzo: Bibliotheca Aretina.Google Scholar
Hentschel, Elke & Weydt, Harald. 2003. Handbuch der deutschen Grammatik. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne & Verhagen, Arie. 1994. The grammar of causatives and the conceptual structure of events. Cognitive Linguistics 5(4): 115–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid I. 2001. Causatives. In Language Typology and Language Universals. An International Handbook, Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds), 886–898. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. Morphologie und Syntax. Online-resource. <[URL]> (21 January 2014).
Michaelis, Laura A. & Ruppenhofer, Josef. 2001. Beyond Alternations: A Constructional Account of the Applicative Pattern in German. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 1976. Kausativkonstruktionen, German translation from Russian by 
Vaclav Kuchler & Heinz Vater. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Nolan, Brian. 2012. The Structure of Modern Irish. A Functional Account. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Nübling, Damaris. 2008. Historische Sprachwissenschaft des Deutschen, 2nd edn. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Pinkwart, Heinz. 1963. Mord ist schlecht für hohen Blutdruck. München: Goldmann.Google Scholar
Pörtner, Rudolf. 1964. Die Erben Roms. Berlin: Econ.Google Scholar
Rawoens, Gudrun & Egan, Thomas. 2013. Distinguishing causative and permissive readings of the Swedish verb låta . Functions of Language 20(1): 64–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ronneberger-Siebold, Elke. 1991. Funktionale Betrachtungen zu Diskontinuität und Klammerbildung im Deutschen. In Beiträge zum 8. Bochum-Essener Kolloquium über ‘Sprachwandel und seine Prinzipien’, Norbert Boretzky, Werner Enninger, Benedikt Jeßing & Thomas Stolz (eds), 206–236. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Rosen, Sara. 1989. Argument Structure and Complex Predicates. PhD dissertation, Brandeis University.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1976. The grammar of causative constructions: A conspectus. In The Grammar of Causative Constructions [Syntax and Semantics 6], Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), 1–40. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1976. Semantic causative types. In The Grammar of Causative Constructions [Syntax and Semantics 6], Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), 43–116. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. 2005. Exploring the Syntax-semantics Interface. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vogel, Ralf. 2009. Skandal im Verbkomplex. Betrachtungen zur scheinbar inkorrekten Morphologie in infiniten Verbkomplexen des Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 28: 307–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wöllstein-Leisten, Angelika, Heilmann, Axel, Stepan, Peter & Vikner, Sten. 1997. Deutsche Satzstruktur. Grundlagen der Syntaktischen Analyse. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Xrakowskij, Viktor S. 2003. Valenz und Sprachtypologie. In Dependenz und Valenz. Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, Vol.1, Vilmos Agel, Ludwig Eichinger, Hans-Werner Eroms, Peter Hellwig, Hans-Jürgen Heringer & Henning Lobin (eds), 444–457. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar