ENGLISH LEXICAL CAUSATIVE CONSTRUCTION:
A Study of Syntax and Semantics
SKRIPSI
Submitted to fulfill one of the requirements of Sarjana Sastra Degree
TRISA SEPDIANI NIM. 63710020
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LETTERS
INDONESIA COMPUTER UNIVERSITY
BANDUNG
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Alhamdulillahirabbil’alamin, praise be upon Allah SWT that I have finally
accomplish this skripsi. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to:
1. Dean of Faculty of Letters, Prof. Dr. H. M. Tadjuddin, M.A.
2. Head of English Department, Dr. Juanda
3. My advisors, Tatan Tawami, S.S., M.Hum. and Nenden Rikma, S.S.,
M.Hum. Thanks for their kindness in guiding the writer to write this
skripsi.
4. My examiners, Dr. Nia Kurniasih and M. Rayhan Bustam, S.S. Thanks for
their suggestions to the writer in revising this skripsi.
5. Guardianship lecturer, Nungki Heriyati, S.S., M.A.
6. All the lecturers in English Department; Retno Purwani Sari S.S.,
M.Hum., Asih Prihandini S.S., M.Hum. and the others who cannot be
mentioned one by one. Thanks for their knowledge and experience they
have shared to the writer.
7. Classmates of 2010; Dania, Ceuceuw, Vivi, Lena, Vini, Abang, Daliman,
Om, Wildan and the others who cannot be mentioned one by one.
Bandung, August 2014
ix CONTENTS
ABSTRACT vi
ABSTRAK vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT viii
CONTENTS ix
LIST OF FIGURE xiii
LIST OF ABBREVIATION xiv
LIST OF APPENDICES xv
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to The Topic 1
1.2 Research Questions 4
1.3 Objectives 4
1.4 Significant to Knowledge 5
1.5 Framework of the Theory 5
CHAPTER II THEORETICAL REVIEW
2.1 Syntax 8
2.1.1 Syntactic Function 9
2.1.1.1 Subject 9
2.1.1.2 Predicate 10
x
2.1.1.4 Complement 11
2.1.1.5 Adverbial 12
2.1.2 Syntactic Unit 13
2.1.2.1 Phrase 13
2.1.2.2 Clause 16
2.2 Semantics 17
2.2.1 Componential Analysis 17
2.2.2 Semantic Roles 18
2.2.2.1 Agent 19
2.2.2.2 Causer 19
2.2.2.3 Affected 19
2.2.2.4 Beneficiary 20
2.2.2.5 Accompaniment 20
2.2.2.6 Resultant 21
2.2.2.7 Instrument 21
2.2.2.8 Location 21
2.2.2.9 Goal 22
2.2.2.10 Time 22
2.2.2.11 Manner 22
2.2.2.12 Measure 23
xi
2.3 Lexical Causative 24
2.3.1 Causer 25
2.3.2 Causee 26
CHAPTER III RESEARCH OBJECT AND METHOD
3.1 Research Object 27
Lexical Causative with No Change in Verb; the Agent is not the
Causer
33
4.2 Lexical Causative with No Change in Verb; the Agent is the Causer 40
4.2
Lexical Causative with Some Idiosyncratic Changes in Verb; the
Agent is the Causer
60
4.3 Lexical Causative with Different Verb; the Agent is the Causer 71
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions 84
5.2 Suggestions 87
xii
APPENDICES 93
91 REFERENCES
Deterding, David, H. and Poedjosoedarmo, Gloria, R. 2001. The Grammar of
English: Morphology and Syntax for English Teachers in Southeast Asia.
Prentice Hall, Singapore.
Dixon R.M.W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Flick, Uwe. 2009. An Introduction to Qualitative Research Fourth Edition. SAGE
Publication Limited, London.
Fromkin, Victoria and Robert Rodman. 1983. An Introduction to Language,
Third Edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston
Goddard, Cliff. 1998. Semantic Analysis, A Practical Introduction. Oxford
University Press
Jacobs, Roderick A. 1995. English Syntax: A Grammar for English Language
Professionals. New York: Oxford University Press
Kreidler, Charles W. 1998. Introducing English Semantics. London: Routledge.
Larson, Mildred, L. 1984. Meaning Based Translation: A Guide to
Cross-language Equivalence. University Press of America.
Miller, Jim. 2002. An Introduction to English Syntax. UK: Cambridge University
Press.
O’Grady, William, et.al. 1996. Contemporary Linguistics: An Introduction (Third
Edition). United Kingdom: Pearson Education Limited.
Palmer, F.R. 1976. Semantics: 2nd Edition. London: Cambridge University Press
Payne, Thomas E. 1997. Describing Morphosyntactic; A Guide for Field Linguist.
92
Payne, Thomas E. 2011. Understanding English Grammar. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Radford, A. 2004. Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the structure of English.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Randolf, Quirk. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of The English Language. New
York: Longman
Samardzic, Tanja and Merlo, Paola. 2012. The Meaning of Lexical Causatives in
Cross-Linguistic Variation. Linguistic Issues in Language Technology – LiLT, 12 Januari 2012.
Sudaryanto. 1993. Metode dan Aneka Teknik Analisis Bahasa: Pengantar
Penelitian Wahana Kebudayaan secara Linguistis. Yogyakarta: Duta
Wacana University Press.
Sugiyono. 2007. Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif Kualitatif dan R&D. Bandung:
Alfabeta
Werner, Patricia, K. 1990. Mosaic I: A Content Based Grammar (Second Edition).
Madison: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.
William, James, D. 2005. The Teacher’s Grammar Book, Lawrence Erlbaum.
New Jersey: Associates Publisher.
Winarti. 2009. Konstruksi Kausatif Morfologis dan Perifratis dalam Bahasa
Indonesia. Bandung: Universitas Indonesia
Yulianasari. 2006. Analisis Konstruksi Kausatif Sintaksis (Syntactic Causative)
Dalam Novel Congo Karya Michael Crichton. Bandung: UNIKOM
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents background to the study, research question, objectives,
significance to knowledge and framework of the theories.
1.1 Background to the study
Causative is an expression in which an event (the caused event) is depicted
as taking place because someone does something or because something happens
Goddard (1998:260). It is used when one thing or person causes another thing or
person to do something. Causative is divided into three types according to
Goddard (1998:260): analytical causative, morphological causative, and lexical
causative. The analytical causative is expression in which there are two events that
have relation where one event shows cause and another one shows result, as in
Mary made her brother do his homework. The morphological causative is formed
by adding suffixation such as –en and –ify, for example widen, simplify. The last
one is the lexical causative, the expression in which the form does not show
causative but it has semantically causative, for example in the verbs like kill and
feed.
Lexical causative is a construction that shows a cause and an effect
through one causative verb. For example in:
In (I), the cause and the effect are represented by the predicate kills. The
cause is shown explicitly that Danu (causer) causes Andrea (causee) to die. In (I),
the effect is shown implicitly that Andrea dies because of what Danu does to her.
Therefore, semantically Danu does something that causes Andrea to die. This
state is represented by the lexical causative of the predicate kill.
Observing the verbs kill and die from the above illustration, few simple
questions appear, why is it only the verb kill that is said to be lexically causative,
whereas die not? The brief answer may go this way, that kill is a transitive verb
whereas dies is an intransitive verb. Simply, because the object Andrea follows
the verb kill whereas no object follows the verb die. In addition to that, if both
verbs are seen from their shared meaning, death for example, should not their
meaning be easily accessible through their relation to death? When kill carries the
concept of die, does die carry the concept of kill? These questions then lead to the
difference in the inherent meaning of the verb; kill suggests that there seems to be
an intention to make one in death condition, whereas dies does not show the
intention though in the end it shows that one is death. Eventually, it is simply
understood that the sentence *Danu dies Andrea is not acceptable in English. This
phenomenon is one of several cases occurring in the lexical causative verb.
Some may argue that these merely the cases of transitive or intransitive
verb. If so, what about the verb open that applies for both subjects in the
sentences:
II. a I open the door.
In II. a, it is clear that the one who makes the door open is I. However, in
II. b it is not clear who makes the door open. This case indicates that the form of
lexical causative verbs may have same form but carries different information. As
stated earlier, lexical causative verb shows a cause and an effect through one
causative verb. Then, what are the information and how are they related is a
crucial issue to be discussed.
Another case occurs in the sentences:
III. a I lay the book on the table.
III. b The book lies on the table.
III. a suggests the same information as in the II. a, and III. b seems to suggest the
same thing as in II. b. However, there is a slight difference in III. b that the verb is
not the same as III. a as in II. b is the same as in II. a. It indicates that the
discussion of lexical causative is quite complex in the way of understanding what
information involve in the verb, who is the causer or the causee, and what is the
easy way to recognize the form. These questions stimulate the writer’s curiosity to
explore the inherent meaning carried by the verbs and at the same time to discover
the impact towards the arguments (syntactic unit) following the verb or existing in
the construction. The lexical causative seems interesting to be analyzed, because it
is different from the analytical causative that shows the cause and the effect in the
construction, whereas the lexical causative only shows the cause without the
effect, and put one lexical verb that show the cause and the effect at the same
In relation to this research, two previous researches about causative have
been conducted. The first research is entitled Analisis Konstruksi Kausatif
Sintaksis (Syntactic Causative) dalam Novel Congo Karya Michael Crichton
(Kajian Sintaksis dan Semantik) by Yuliana Sari (2006) UNIKOM. It focuses on
what is the role existing in the syntactic causative construction, the category of
causee, what is the kind of predicate of effect, and causative verb meaning. The
second research is entitled Konstruksi Kausatif Morfologis dan Perifratis dalam
Bahasa Indonesia by Winarti (2009) Universitas Indonesia. It focuses on
morphological causative and periphrastic construction in Bahasa Indonesia.
Both researchers did not analyze about the lexical causative. Therefore,
this research, entitled “English Lexical Causative Construction” is performed to
extend the discussion regarding the issue.
1.2 Research Questions
1. What are the syntactic units following the lexical causative verb?
2. What are the semantic features existing in the syntactic units with the
lexical causative verbs?
1.3 Objectives
1. To describe the syntactic units following the lexical causative verbs.
2. To describe the semantic features existing in the syntactic units with the
1.4 Significance to knowledge
This research is expected to have significant benefit, both theoretically and
practically. Theoretically, it is expected to give knowledge about the lexical
causative to reader in terms of how a lexical causative verb has different form of
verb with different syntactic units following it. Additionally, how the semantic
features existing in the syntactic units expose the existence of causer and causee
within the sentences. Practically, it is expected to give understanding about the
lexical causative to reader in how a lexical causative verb has semantically
causative by exposing the inherent meaning of the verb. Other than that, the
reader is informed how to differ the types of lexical causative verbs in English by
looking at the syntactic units following it and the meaning properties contained.
1.5 Framework of the Theory
In this research, several theories are applied to guide the analysis. First, the
writer uses the theory of syntax from Miller (2002), Jacobs (1995), and Radford
(2004) to analyze the syntactic units and syntactic functions. In addition, the
writer also uses other relating theories of syntax to extend the analysis. Other than
the syntax theories, the writer also uses the theory of semantics from Palmer
(1976), Larson (1984), Fromkin and Rodman (1983) to discover the meaning of
the syntactic unit and the componential analysis. As for the theory used to analyze
the lexical causative is taken from Goddard (1998:260):
send, and feed which seem to be related in meaning to other words (such as die, go, and eat).”
According to the theory, it is said that causative is an event occurring
because someone does something, or when someone or something causes another
thing or person to do something, whereas the lexical causative is one lexical verb
that has relation to other words, kill and die.
Further, Dixon (1994) states that there are three ways to identify the
lexical causative, first, identify the lexical verb, second, identify the causer and
the last, identify the causee. These are as follows:
i. Relating to the lexical verb involved in the construction, whether the
lexical causative verbs are:
a. Stative vs. active
b. Intransitive vs. transitive vs. ditransitive
ii. Relating to the causee, whether it is:
a. Having vs. lacking control
b. Acting willingly vs. unwillingly
c. Partially affected vs. completely affected
iii. Relating to the causer, whether it is:
a. Acting directly vs. indirectly
b. Acting accidentally vs. intentionally
c. Acting naturally vs. with effort
In addition, Payne (2002), in Winarti (2009:18) it is said that there are
three subtypes of lexical causative. There are no change in verb, some
idiosyncratic change in verb, and different verb. Lexical causative with category
no change in verb means that the verb in the causative and non-causative
construction is the same. Some idiosyncratic change in verb means that there is
vowel change in the verb in the causative and in the non-causative construction
but the meaning is synonymous. Different verb means that verb in the causative
8 CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
This chapter outlines the theories used to analyze the data discussed in
Chapter IV. In addition, it also illustrates the framework of the research. It
exhibits theories regarding the focus and topic of the study. In general, the
framework of this study is divided into two main theories, syntax and semantics;
however, the focus is on the lexical causative. The theories are outlined based on
the data analysis in Chapter IV. Therefore, it is expected that the description of the
theories can ease the reader to understand the focus of the study that is explained
through syntax and semantic approaches.
2.1 Syntax
The term syntax deals with the structure of sentence. As Miller (2002:56)
states that “syntax has to do with how words are put together to build phrases,
with how phrases are put together to build clauses or bigger phrases and with
how clauses are put together to build a sentence”. It suggests that syntax
combines word in order to construct the phrases, clauses or sentences. In addition,
according to Jacobs (1995:4) “Syntax deals with grammatical principles, units,
and relations involved in sentence structure”. This means that syntax talks about
the grammatical principles, units and relation within the sentence structure. In this
research, the writer limits the discussion of syntax into syntactic funtions and
9
Syntactic units or constituents fill grammatical function in syntactic
analysis. In addition, the constituents can be said as part of the syntactic structure
since they made up phrases and sentences that eventually form a complete
sentence structure. As suggested by Radford (2004:7):
“The central assumption underpinning syntactic analysis in traditional grammar is that phrases and sentences are built up of a series of constituents (i.e. syntactic units), each of which belongs to a specific grammatical category and serves a specific grammatical function”
Departing from this, the syntactic analysis is performed to discover the
sentence structure for its constituents, what category they belong, and what
function they hold in the sentence.
2.1.1 Syntactic Functions
In syntax, syntactic function or grammatical function is understood as the
functions that are served by every constituent in the sentence. It is then known
that grammatical function is those that serve as the Subject, Predicate, Object,
Complement, and Adverbial in the sentence.
2.1.1.1 Subject
Subject is the function in the sentence that is described or that does the
action. As Radford (2004:8) suggests “subject generally represent entities directly
involved in the particular action or event described by the predicate”. In addition,
Deterding and Poedjosoedarmo (2001:74) illustrate what is defined by subject as
10 William buys Kate some flowers
They state that the subject usually occurs before the verb, the subject
determines subject-verb concord (so the –s suffix is added to present tense verbs
with third person singular subjects) and the subject and first auxiliary are inverted
for interrogative sentence.
2.1.1.2 Predicate
In a simple way, predicate is commonly known as the action verb or the
words that exhibits what the subject does. William (2005:54) argues that verbs
tend to be words that describe actions and states of being. On this basis, we can
see that sentences generally express two types of relations: (a) an agent
performing an action; (b) existence. This indicates that predicate is not merely
about what the subject does, yet it also suggests who or what the subject is. The
examples below (taken from William, 2005:54) illustrates the definition:
1. The dogs bark. 2. The tree was tall.
In 1, the dogs performed the action conveyed in the verb bark, whereas in
2, the tree expresses its existence or what the subject is. He also states that
functionally everything else in a sentence is related to its subject and predicate in
some way (2005:55).
In addition to the discussion of verb, several of them oblige or can work
with an object. William names this kind of verb as transitive verbs (2005:72).
Other than that, Deterding and Poedjosoedarmo add that the verbs that take two
11
and indirect objects. Regarding the issue, William defines these terms as the noun
phrase that is acted upon we refer to as a direct object; the noun phrase that
accepts the direct object we call it an indirect object (2005:75).
2.1.1.3 Object
In a simple definition, it is understood that object is the function in the
sentence that receives the action from the subject. In line with this, William
(2005:57) illustrates what is defined by object through the following example:
Fritz hit the ball.
He states that in this sentence, the ball was hit, so it is what Fritz acted upon. Such constructions are referred to as objects. He also adds that objects always consist of a noun phrase. This quotation suggests that object is indicated to
have noun phrase as its constituent or syntactic unit.
2.1.1.4 Complement
Another term applies in the grammatical function is complement. It is
different from object; that it is not acted upon by the subject. A complement is
said to serve and complete the predicate William (2005:57). The term serve can be
defined as to complete the be form verb as in She is beautiful. In addition, a
complement is also defined to complement the subject as in Kinan is my student.
Though my student is said to be noun phrase constituent, it is not an object since it
12
Another distinguished case of complement is where it occurs in the verb
following by two noun phrases. They sometime do not directly state direct or
indirect object but one of the constituents describes the direct object. Therefore, it
is called as object complement Deterding and Poedjosoedarmo (2001:76) as in we
have elected you our leader.
2.1.1.5 Adverbial
The term adverbial is said to modify the verbs, the adjectives and the other
adverbs William (2005:79). It is said to modify the verbs as in Anna walks slowly
to the room. Therefore, it is also defined to modify the adjectives as in Michele is
really smart. Additionnaly, it is said to modify the other adverbs as in Charlie
speaks very loudly. It has six types, as in the following:
Other than this, prepositional phrase also may serve as adverbial William
13
phrase that can serve adverbially or adjectivally (2005:89) as in (examples taken
from the same source):
The woman with the red hair drove a Porsche.
Fritz walked down the street.
In the morning, Fred always has wild hair.
2.1.2 Syntactic Units
Syntactic units or constituents are simply understood as the units of
language contained in the sentence and they may serve particular grammatical
function. Deterding and Poedjosoedarmo (2001:65) argue that a constituent is a
group of words that belong together and behave as a single unit. It indicates that
constituents are syntactic units serving as particular grammatical function in a
sentence. Therefore, they can also be called as arguments (semantic term) of the
predicate since they can also serve as subject and complements in the sentence
Radford (2004:8). In this study, the constituents are limited to the discussion of
kinds of phrases as the constituents present in the discussion in Chapter IV.
2.1.2.1 Phrase
Phrase is said to be the most basic kind of constituent Deterding and
Poedjosoedarmo (2001:67). In addition to this, William (2005:56) states that a
phrase can be defined as one or more words functioning together as a unit that
14
forming a phrase is by merging (a technical term meaning ‘combining’) two
words together. However, relating to the merging itself, William argues that
a phrase is identified on the basis of the keyword at its beginning, such as a noun or a verb….These words are referred as headwords because they are at the head of the phrase and the other words in the phrase are attached to them (2005:57).
This definition suggests that by way of merging, the headwords of the
phrases determine the kinds of the phrase itself. For examples (taken from
Radford), if the beginning word of the phrase is a noun, the phrase is then called
noun phrase and if it is a verb it is then called as verb phrase, as in Flowers in her
hair and Running with the bull. This so-called merging is the basic rule in
combining phrase. Several phrases under discussion are described below.
a. Noun Phrase
According to Quirk (1985:62):
“noun phrases consist of a head, which is typically a noun, and of elements which (either obligatory or optionally) determine the head and (optionally) modify the head, or complement another element in the phrase”
As mentioned earlier in the definition of phrase, the noun phrase has noun
as its head. This quotation emphasis the phrase structure rule mentioned earlier.
b. Verb Phrase
The same case occurs also in verb phrase, the phrase structure rule is
supported by the theories from Quirk (1985:62) saying that“verb phrases consist
of a main which either stands alone as the entire verb phrase, or is preced by up
15 c. Adjective Phrase
In addition to the definition of phrase, adjective phrase is also built by the
adjective as its head. Quirk (1985:63) states that “adjective phrases consist of an
adjective as head, optionally preceded and followed by modifying elements”. This
quotation suggests that the head may be followed or preceded by the modifying
elements of other categories/phrases.
d. Adverb Phrase
The adverb phrase is also built by adverb as its head of the phrase. Quirk
(1985:63) says that ”adverb phrases are similar to adjective phrases in their
structure, except that they have an adverb, instead of an adjective, as their head”.
This simply indicates that the phrase structure rule is also applied to this phrase.
However, the form of this phrase may be in the form of prepositional phrase since
it can serve to function as adverb in the sentence construction (see e below).
e. Prepositional Phrase
Finally yet importantly, prepositional phrase is rather unique since it can
also serve as adverb. Quirk (1985:63) says that “prepositional phrase consist of
preposition followed by a prepositional complement, which is normally a noun
phrase”. In addition to this and the point in d, William (2005:89) states that the
preposition links its noun phrase to either a verb phrase or another noun phrase,
which means that the prepositional phrase functions either adverbially or
16 2.1.2.2 Clause
After considering phrases, the other syntactic unit to be discussed is
clause. Deterding and Poedjosoedarmo argue clause as consisting of a subject and
a predicate, sometimes with a subordinator preceding the subject (2001:85). This
quotation implies a clause can be said as part of a sentence and it could be a
dependent one or independent since it has a predicate and a subject, yet sometimes
it has subordinator. Under this discussion, relating to the fact that there are
independent and dependent clause, Deterding and Poedjosoedarmo (2001:88)
mention that there are three basic kinds of finite subordinate clause: a noun
clause, a relative clause, and an adverb clause.
Relating to this study, the clause itself may serve particular grammatical
function since it is also a constituent, part of sentence that builds up the sentence.
This understanding is supported by Deterding and Poedjosoedarmo (2001:88)
through their illustration regarding the most common function of the mentioned
clauses.
Clause type Function Example
Noun clause Direct object I know that SYNTAX IS FUN
Relative clause Post modifier of noun He is the man WHO MET ME
Adverb clause Adverbial I laughed WHEN I SAW HIM
Figure 2.1 Three Basic Types of Finite Subordinator Clauses.
As illustrated, each clause serves particular grammatical function.
However, the form of these clauses may be reduced, making it rather difficult to
17 2.2 Semantics
Semantics is the study of meaning. As Palmer (1976:1) states that
“Semantics is technical term used to refer to the study of meaning”. Another
opinion states by Fromkin and Rodman (1983:124) “The study of the linguistic
meaning of words, phrases, and sentences is called semantics”. Therefore, it can
be concluded that semantics is the study of meaning of words, phrases and
implied or intended by the word itself. Larson argues that the meaning of lexical
item can only be discovered by studying that particular item in contrast to other
items which are closely related (1984:79). This suggests that the meaning of a
word can be discovered by way of contrasting or grouping it to other known
words that are closely related. This way, the shared meaning components may
exhibit the intended meaning of the words. One way of grouping or contrasting
the word is through componential analysis.
In componential analysis, one is making the contrastive feature of meaning
for certain areas of vocabulary Larson (1984:82). Through this, the words can
18
mapping of the word’s meaning. This kind of analysis, according to Larson
(1984:83) is known as the fact that each word is a bundle of meaning components.
In this approach, Larson also adds up that the words must contain a generic
component (1984:83).
In relation to this, he illustrates how meaning components can be analysed
through the words man, woman, boy, and girl, because they are all human beings
(1984:84). He says that the generic component is also shared as central
component, which is HUMAN BEING (see figure below).
MALE FEMALE
ADULT man woman
YOUNG boy girl
Figure 2.2 Contrastive Feature of Meaning
(taken from Larson, 1984:84)
The figure illustrates that in order to distinguish each word from another;
the presence of contrastive component is required. In this case, the contrastive
component of woman is ADULT and FEMALE, respectively for the others as
illustrated from the figure.
2.2.2 Semantic Roles
Semantic role is understood to serve the arguments (constituents/units) of
the verbs in the sentence. Semantic role names the role of each argument of the
sentence as suggested by the predicate. Below are several semantic roles defined
19 2.2.2.1 Agent
Agent is someone or something that does an action. As Larson (1984:199)
said “agent is the thing which does the action”. For instance:
Bella read the book The sun rises
Bella is the one who does the action of reading whereas the sun indicates that it
undergoes an action.
2.2.2.2. Causer
Causer is someone or something that makes someone or something do an
action. As suggested by Larson (1984:199) “causer is the thing which instigates
the event rather than actually doing it”. For instance:
Jason brokes the window (Jason causes the window brokes)
Eliza made her brother clean the room (Eliza causes her brother cleans the room)
The term causer here can also be indicated as the causer of lexical causative verb
under discussion (see 2.3.1).
2.2.2.3 Affected
Affected is someone or something that experiences an action or that is
affected by the action. According to Larson (1984:200) “affected is the thing that
undergoes the event or is affected by the event”. For instance:
20 Kinan feeds the cat
The ice undergoes an action of changing from solid to liquid whereas Kinan is the
one doing the action of giving food.
2.2.2.4 Beneficiary
Benefiary is someone or something that receives an advantage or
disadvantage from the action. As Larson (1984:201) states “beneficiary is the
thing that is advantages or disadvantages by the event”. For instance:
Sally gives the book to me
Mary bought her mother some cakes
The examples show that her mother and me take the advantages from the agents.
2.2.2.5 Accompaniment
Accompaniment is someone or something that takes a part and has relation
with the agent, the causer or the affected in an action. As suggested by Larson
(1984:201) “accompaniment is the thing which participates in close association
with the agent, the causer or the affected in an event”.
Robert walks to the partk with his dog
I ate dinner with my friends
In this research, since the accompaniment has close association, it may also serve
as causer in some cases.
21 2.2.2.6 Resultant
Resultant is something that is produced by an action. As Larson
(1984:201) said “resultant is that which is produced by the event”. For instance:
He writes a letter for her wife
George made some cookies
2.2.2.7 Instrument
Instrument is that is used to do an action. Larson (1984:201) states
“instrument is the thing used to carry out an event”. For instance:
John cut the bread with a knife
Andrea writes with a pencil
In this study, the instrument may serve as the causer. The first example illustrates
that something that cuts the bread is the knife, the causer, likewise in the next
example (see 2.3.1).
2.2.2.8 Location
Location is something that shows the source, the place or the destination
from an action. According to Larson (1984:202) “location is the thing which
identifies the spatial placement of an event”. For instance:
Anna goes to the school
Martin comes from London
The first example shows that the school is the destination whereas the second
22 2.2.2.9 Goal
Goal is something which is directed by an action. Larson (1984:202) said
“goal is the thing towards which an actionis directed”. For instance:
Billy throw the basketball to the ring
I pray to God
Both examples show that goal is something/someone that is intended to be the
final direction of the intention of the agent.
2.2.2.10 Time
Time is used to show when an action takes place. As Larson (1984:202)
suggests “time identifies the temporal placement of the event, it tells when the
event took place”. For instance:
Joanna will come at five o’clock
Peter went to Paris two days ago
As suggested by the examples, time shows particular time of the events to occur.
It identifies the occurrence of the event at one specific time.
2.2.2.11 Manner
Manner is how to do the action. As suggested by Larson (1984:203)
“manner is the qualification of the event, it is the manner in which the action,
experience, or process was carried out”. For instance:
I walk slowly to the room
23
According to the quotation and example, manner is simply understood as the
extension of how the action is performed by the agent or how the action occurs.
2.2.2.12 Measure
Measure is used to show quantity of an action. According to Larson
(1984:203) “measure is the quantification of the event”. For instance:
My mother’s bag costs $70
The flower had grown five inches
The quotation simply suggests that measure quantifies the event or the action. It
tells exactly the units being measure as suggested by the action.
2.2.3 Paraphrase
In this section, the term paraphrase is intended to serve the analysis of
making the lexical causative into non-lexical causative. It is due to the fact that
paraphrase can be used to state similar thing in the different way. According to
Kreidler (1998:9) “parahrase is sentences that make equivalent stataments about
the same entities”. Below are examples taken from Kreidler (1998:9):
a. Rebecca got home before Robert
b. Robert got home before Rebecca
c. Robert arrived at home after Rebecca
d. Rebecca got home later than Robert
The examples indicate that the meanings of the above examples are the same
24 2.3 Lexical Causative
Lexical causative is the expression in which the verb shows the meaning of
cause and effect. As Payne (2011:392) states “lexical causative (also “inherently
causative verb”) is a verb whose lexical entry expresses the meaning of cause and
effect, e.g., kill means ‘cause to die”. Therefore, in the lexical causative there are
the term called causer; agent of cause and causee; agent of effect.
Additionally, lexical causative is divided into three subtypes according to
Payne (1997:177). Lexical causative with category no change in verb means that
the verb in the causative and non-causative construction is the same. Some
idiosyncratic change in verb means that there is vowel change in the verb in the
causative and in the non-causative construction but the meaning is synonymous.
Different verb means that verb in the causative construction changes in the
non-causative construction.
Further, Dixon (1994) states that there are three ways to identify the
lexical causative, first, identify the lexical verb, second, identify the causer and
the last, identify the causee. The writer classifies them into the following outline
(taken from Dixon 1994):
a. Relating to the lexical verb involved in the construction, whether the
lexical causative verbs are stative vs. active and/or intransitive vs.
transitive vs. ditransitive. It is intended to discover the characteristics
of the verb so that the nature of the verb can be indicated.
b. Relating to the causee, whether it is: having vs. lacking control, acting
25
affected. This part is intended to discover the role of the cause and how
the cause is affected by the causer through the verbs.
c. Relating to the causer, whether it is: acting directly vs. indirectly,
acting accidentally vs. intentionally, acting naturally vs. with effort,
involved vs. not involved in the activity. This section is intended to
discover how the causer affects the causee as well as to see their
relation to the causee through the verbs.
2.3.1 Causer
In the causative construction, there is the term called causer, it is someone
or something that make someone or something does an action. This term is
indicated to be similar to the term causer of the semantic role. In addition, the
causer in this term can also be served by the semantic role of instrument and/or
accompaniment. As Larson (1984:199) said “causer is a person or object causes
an action or process to happen). In addition, Payne (2011:317) said “causer is an
agent that is external to the situation itself”. It suggests that causer is the
argument that allows the action to occur, or it has the power to make the action to
occur. For instance:
Mary made John cook the chicken.
In the example above, Mary is the causer of the action of cooking, but she
is not the agent of the action cook itself, the agent of the action cook is John. It
shows that causer is the agent of the external situation related to Payne
26 2.3.2 Causee
According to Payne (2011:317), causee is the agent of the effect. This
means that causee is someone or something that does the action suggested by the
causer. For instance:
Cristine made Ana eat the burger
The causee in the construciton above is Ana. She becomes the agent of the
effect the action made suggested by the causer Cristine. In this research, the cause
can also serve as the affected since most of the findings suggest that the objects of
27 CHAPTER III
RESEARCH OBJECT AND METHOD
This chapter illustrates the object of the research in relation to the topic
under discussion. It also covers how the research is conducted; comprising the
research method and technique, the description of data collection, and the data
analysis.
3.1 Research Object
The object of the research is lexical causative construction in English. The
data of the lexical causative construction is taken from the British National
Corpus (BNC) through several steps of selection from Thomas E. Payne (1997)
and Tanja Samardžić and Paola Merlo (2012) (see: 3.2.1 Data Collection for
details). The data is accessed on early February until late May to finish.
The lexical causative construction also known as lexical verb or transitive
verb is a verb that shows the cause and effect of the properties or semantic
features of the verb. The inherent meanings of the verb in the syntactic
construction indicate the existence of participants or argument involved in the
action carried by the verb itself. This suggests that through the verb the existences
of causer and causee can be indicated. In addition, both terms (causer and causee)
can be switched to show the nature of the lexical verb itself through the shifting of
the causer in the non-lexical causative into the causee in the lexical causative
28 3.2 Research Method
This research is qualitative. Flick (2009:90) states that “qualitative
research comprises a specific understanding of the relation between issue and
method”. The quotation suggests that the issue taken in this study is qualified and
described to give particular understanding or findings. In addition, the analysing
process is guided through specified method.
The method of this study is descriptive-analytic. Sugiyono (2007:14)
states, “Metode deskriftif analisis adalah yang digunakan untuk menganalisa data
dengan cara mendeskripsikan atau menggambarkan data yang telah terkumpul
sebagaimana adanya”. This simply suggests that the data is analyzed through the
description or illustration. The description and illustration discuss the facts of the
data through the relation among the elements in the data. This method illustrates
the steps taken to describe the topic under discussion through the analysis.
In addition, the writer uses distributional method to expose the data, as
stated by Sudaryanto (1993:15) “… metode agih itu alat penentunya justru bagian
dari bahasa yang bersangkutan itu sendiri”. From the quotation, it can be inferred
that this method is applicable for the study since the analysis exposes how the
elements of language combine to expand one’s understanding towards the
syntactic structure for example. In addition, Sudaryanto also argues that “Alat
penentu dari metode agih ini jelas, selalu berupa bagian atau unsur dari bahasa
objek sasaran penelitian itu sendiri; kata, fungsi sintaksis, klausa, silabe kata, titi
29 3.2.1 Data Collection
In collecting the data, several steps are taken. First, to guide writer’s for
the lexical verbs, the writer uses selected article and book in order to figure out
the verbs. The article is “The Meaning of Lexical Causative in Cross-Linguistic
Variation” by Tanja Samardžić and Paola Merlo and the book entitled
“Understanding English Grammar” by Thomas E. Payne. The writer marks the
lexical verbs found in the book and article. Second, writing out the lexical
causative verbs that have been marked to ease the searching of the data. Third, the
writer looks over the use of these lexical causative verbs in the sentences from the
BNC in order to see the varied constructions as well as to enrich the discussion.
Fourth, copying the selected data to the data collection file to be classified into its
categories; no change in verb, some idiosyncratic change in verb, and different
verb. After that, the writer picks out the representative data to be analyzed.
3.2.2 Data Analysis
After collecting the data, they are analyzed through several ways. First, the
lexical causative verb construction is analyzed by finding its syntactic features to
determine the constituent and their function in the sentences. Second, the
character of the lexical causative verb is determined to see for its transitivity.
Third, the inherent meaning of the lexical causative verb is described by
examining the semantic features of the verb. Fourth, the semantic role in
30
existence of causer and causee. Then, the constituents/arguments involved in the
sentence undergo a simple test by moving them to be placed as subject or object
of the sentences. This test is set to simply see the causer and cause of the verb and
to prove that the verb is lexical causative verb.
The data analysis below illustrates the process of analyzing the data:
Data
Miserable, she broke a breadstick into pieces.... (GV8:116)
Analysis
Relating to the lexical causative verb existing in the data above, the
construction is formed by the nominal subject she followed by the
dynamic-transitive verb broke, the nominal object a breadstick, and the prepositional
phrase into pieces, that serves as the complement of object. Syntactically, broke is
dynamic verb since it shows the process of broking that occurs with some
duration of time. Additionally, broke is transitive verb since it is followed by the
object a breadstick receiving the action from the subject she. The prepositional
phrase into pieces serves as the complement of object since it complements the
object after receiving the action from the subject.
She broke a bread stick into pieces
Agent Affected Resultant
S P O Complement of
31
Semantically, the subject she has the properties of [female] + [animate]
indicating that the subject is human who has the capability of doing things. This
indicates that the subject may serve as an agent who does the action suggested by
the verb broke. The verb broke has the properties of [separation] + [suddenness]
indicating that the action performed by the agent may make the object a
breadstick to separate and that the separation occurs suddenly without duration of
time. The object a breadstick has the properties of [kind of bread] + [having
longer form than the commonly known bread] + [the form may somehow be like a
stick]. The object a breadstick has the role of affected since it experiences an
action from the agent she and that the action has somehow made the object
becomes no longer in its condition as suggested by the properties, which is like a
stick. The adverb into pieces has the properties of [to become into separation] +
[the separation may be more than one]. This adverb has the role of resultant since
it describes the condition of the object a breadstick which is no longer in pieces
since it has undergone the action from the agent she.
To show the causative construction, the data is made into the analytical
causative using made as predicate of cause to show the existence of the causer and
the causee.
(i) She made herself break the breadstick into pieces
Someone made something (the breadstick) break
The breadstick breaks into pieces
In (i), she has two roles, as an agent and as a causer. Relating to the causer,
32
Directly, in terms that the subject she does the action of breaking directly to the
object by herself. Intentionally, means that the subject she has the intention to
break (the infinitive, present form of broke) the object a breadstick, as indicated
by the resultant that the breadstick is to be made into pieces to be eaten by the
subject herself or for others. The subject causer she also does the action with
effort because, in order to fulfill subject’s intention; to eat the breadstick for
example, the subject must put some effort (action) upon it, broke is a verb that
needs an action from the subject. The subject she also involves in the action
because she is the causer and the agent of the action.
Relating to the causee, herself, as the reflexive pronoun to the subject she,
does the action willingly, is completely affected, and has control to the action. As
a causee, herself acts willingly without force from the causer, because the causee
is the causer itself. Herself also is affected completely by the action broke, herself
makes the object broken and has control to the action because herself is the one
that does the action. To show that this is lexical causative with category no
change in verb, the causative construction and the non-causative construction are
shown:
(i) She broke a breadstick into pieces.
(ii) The breadstick broke into pieces.
Construction (i) is the causative construction as illustrated above, whereas
construction (ii) is the non-causative construction because it shows the effect of
33 CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
This chapter describes the findings of the research under discussion.
Lexical causative verb is the verb that shows two events; cause and effect through
one event. The lexical causative verbs are divided into three categories of findings
namely (a) lexical causative with no change in verb, (b) lexical causative with
some idiosyncratic changes in verb, and (c) lexical causative with different verb.
4.1 Lexical Causative with NO CHANGE IN VERB; the agent is not the causer
This category illustrates the findings of the lexical causative verb with no
change in verb. In this term, no change in verb means that the verb in the
causative construction is same when it is made into the non-causative
construction.
Data 1
Freeze
Freeze the juice separately. (ED3:2276)
Freeze the juice separately
Affected Manner
34
Relating to the lexical verb in the data above, its construction is formed by
the dynamic-transitive verb freeze, the noun phrase the juice that serves as the
object, the adverbial phrase separately that serves as the adverb. Syntactically,
freeze is dynamic verb since it shows the process of freezing. This verb indicates
that there is such process of freezing things, the freezing occurs after a while with
duration of timeline. Furthermore, freeze is transitive verb since it is followed by
the object the juice. The adverbial phrase separately serves as the adverb since it
shows how the objcet the juice freezes.
Semantically, the verb freeze has the properties of [harden into ice] +
[convert from a liquid to solid by cold] indicating that the action performed by the
agent makes the object the juice to harden and change from liquid to solid by cold
with duration of time. The object the juice has the properties of [the natural fluid
of a fruit] and has the role of affected since it undergoes the action from the agent.
The adverb separately has the properties of [to divide] and has the role of manner
since it shows how the object the juice is divided into some parts.
To show the causative construction, the data is made into the analytical
causative using made as predicate of cause to show the existence of the causer and
the causee.
(i) (You) made the juice freeze separately
Someone made something (the juice) freeze
The juice freezes
In (i), you has a role as the agent but you is not a causer of the freezing, the
35
action directly, intentionally, with effort and involves in the action. Directly,
means that the causer cold does the action of freezing directly to the object.
Intentionally, means that the causer cold has intention to freeze the object the juice
as shown by the manner separately to be divided into some part. This intention is
gained through the sense derived from the agent you that you wants ot make the
object the juice freeze separately. The causer cold also does the action with effort
since it needs the other medium to make the object the juice freeze, for example
by using a freezer. The causer cold also involves in the action of freezing since
cold is the causer of the action freeze.
Relating to the causee, the juice does the action willingly, is completely
affected and has lack control to the action. Willingly, means that the causee the
juice does the action kindly since the causee is inanimate; lifeless which means it
cannot refuse the action of freezing. Moreover, the causee the juice is completely
affected to the action of freezing since the object the juice changes into ice by the
process of freezing. In addition, the causee the juice has lack control to the action
since the causer is cold and the agent is you. To show that this is lexical causative
with category no change in verb, below is shown the causative construction and
the non-causative construction:
(i) (You) freeze the juice separately.
(ii) The juice freeze
Construction (i) is the causative construction as illustrated above, whereas
construction (ii) is the non-causative construction since it shows the effect of
36 Data 2
Dry
(viii) Dry the pups with tissues.... (EV6:270)
Dry the pups with tissues
Affected Instrument
P O Complement of object
In the data above, the construction is formed by the dynamic-transitive
verb dry, the noun phrase the pups that serves as the objectand the prepositional
phrase with tissues that serves as the complement of object. Syntactically, dry is
dynamic verb since it shows a process of drying something. This verb shows that
to dry something, the drying occurs after a while with some duration of time and
with some helping of the other medium. In addition, dry is transitive verb since it
is followed by the object the pups. The prepositional phrase with tissues serves as
the complement of object since it complements the object the pups.
Semantically, there is a subject that does the action dry that is implicitly
mentioned. According to the construction which is formed as the imperative
sentence, then the subject is you. You has the properties of [indefinitely specified
person] + [animate] showing that the subject is human who has the ability to do
things. The verb dry has the properties of [free from liquid or water] showing that
the action dry make the object the pups is free from something like water or
liquid. The object the pups has the properties of [a young dog] and has the role of
37
complement of object with tissues has the properties of [using] + [soft and thin
paper] and has the role as instrument since it shows a tool which is tissue that
make the object become dry.
To show the causative construction, the data is made into the analytical
causative using made as predicate of cause to show the existence of the causer and
the causee.
(i) (You) made the pups dry with tissues
Someone made something (the pups) dry
The pups dry with tissues
In (i), you has the role as the agent and with tissues has the role as the
causer. Relating to the causer, with tissues does the action indirectly, intentionally,
with effort and involves in the action. Indirectly, means that with tissues as the
causer cannot do the action by itself, it needs helping from the agent you to do the
action. Intentionally, means that the causer with tissues has intention to make the
object the pups become dry which is free from water or liquid using tissues. The
causer with tissues also does the action with effort, means that in doing the action
dry, there are some process that have to be done by the agent you. Moreover, the
causer with tissues involves in the action since to make the object the pups
become dry, the agent you need some tools which is tissues.
Relating to the causee, the pups does the action willingly, is completely
affected and has lack control to the action. Willingly, means that the pups as the
causee does the action of drying freely. Additionally, the pups as the causee is
38
causee the pups has lack control to the action since the one that has control is the
agent you. To show that this is lexical causative with category no change in verb,
the causative construction and the non-causative construction are shown below:
(i) (You) dry the pups with tissues
(ii) The pups dry
Construction (i) is the causative construction whereas construction (ii) is
the non-causative construction since it shows the effect of construction (i).
Data 3
Melt
Melt the butter in a large saucepan.... (ABB: 1298)
In the data above, the construction is formed by the dynamic-transitive
verb melt, the noun phrase the butter that serves as the object, and the
prepositional phrase in a large saucepan that serves as the adverb. Syntactically,
the subject you is omitted since it is an imperative sentence, melt is dynamic verb
since it shows a process of meltingthe object the butter. Additionally, melt is
transitive verb since it is followed by the object the butter that receives the action
from the subject. In a large saucepan as the prepositional phrase serves as the
adverb since it shows where the action melt occurs.
melt the butter in a large saucepan
Affected Location
39
Semantically, the subject is implicitly mentioned and since it is imperative,
then the agent is you. The subject you has the properties of [indefinitely specified
person] + [animate] showing that the subject is human who has the capability to
do something. The verb melt has the properties of [to be altered from solid to
liquid] + [by heat] showing that the action performed by the agent make the object
the butter alters from solid to liquid state by heat. The object the butter has the
properties of [soft yellow substance] + [is used for cooking] and has the role as
the affected, since it undergoes the action melt by the agent you and that the action
make the object becomes no longer in its condition. The adverb in a large
saucepan has the properties of [round cooking pan] + [with a handle] and has the
role as location, since it shows where the action meltoccurs.
To show the causative construction, the data is made into the analytical
causative using made as predicate of cause to show the existence of the causer and
the causee.
(i) You made the butter melt in a large saucepan
Someone made something (the butter) melt
The butter melts in a large saucepan
In (i), you has the role as the agent, but you is not the causer of the
melting, the causer is heat suggested by the properties. Relating to the causer, you
does the action directly, intentionally, with effort and involves in the action.
Directly, means that the agent you does the action of melting directly to the object.
Intentionally, means that the agent you has the intention to melt the object the
40
effort, since to cook something with the melting butter, the subject you must put
some effort over it. Further, the agent you also involves in the action sinceyou is
the agent of the action of melting.
Relating to the causee, the butter does the action willingly, is completely
affected and having control to the action. Willingly, means that the causee the
butter does the action of melting kindly since the agent of the action is the causer
you.Furthermore, the causee the butter is completely affected to the action of
melting since the object of the action is the causee itself. In addition, the causee
the butter has no control to the action, since it is inanimate that has no capability
to do something and since the causer is heat and the agent is you. To show that
this is lexical causative with category no change in verb, it is shown the causative
construction and the non-causative construction:
(i) You melt the butter in a large saucepan
(ii) The butter melts
Construction (i) is the causative construction as illustrated above, while
construction (ii) is the non-causative construction because it shows the effect of
construction (i).
4.2 Lexical Causative with NO CHANGE IN VERB; the agent is the causer
This category illustrates the findings of the lexical causative verb with no
change in verb. In this term, no change in verb means that the verb in the
causative construction is same when it is made into the non-causative
41
since it shows the proces of gathering something with some duration of time. In
addition, gather is transitive verb since it is followed by the object the nuts. The
adverbial phrase together serves as the adverb since it show how the object the
nuts is gathered.
Semantically, the subject is implicitly mentioned and according to the
sentence, the type of the sentence is imperative. Therefore, the subject is you. The
subject you has the properties of [indefinitely specified person] + [animate]
indicating that the subject is human who has capability to do something. The verb
gather has the properties of [bring together] + [collecting] indicating that the
action gather make the object the nuts to collect and to bring together. The object
the nuts has the properties of [dry fruit] + [hard-shelled] + [seed with separable
rind] and has a role as affected since it undergoes the action gather from the
42
has the properties of [in one place] and has a role as the manner since it show how
the action is done by the subject.
To show the causative construction, the data is made into the analytical
causer, you does the action directly, intentionally, with effort and involves in the
action. Directly, means that the causer you does the action directly without any
other medium to the object the nuts. Intentionally, means that you as the causer
does the action with intention in order to make the object the nuts together in one
place. You as the causer also does the action with effort since it requires some
attempts to gather the object the nuts. The causer you also involves in the action
since you is the causer and the agent of the action of gathering.
Relating to the causee, the nuts does the action willingly, is completely
affected and has lack control to the action. Willingly, means that the causee the
nuts receives the action kindly since it is inanimate. Additionally, the causee the
nuts is completely affected to the action since it experiences the process of
gathering. Moreover, the nuts as the causee has lack control to the action since it
