Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
70
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
(ISSN
–
2771-2834)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
70-76
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
ABSTRACT
The article deals with comparative study of linguistic units that express causative meaning in English and Karakalpak
languages. It is noted that there are similarities and differences of causative structures that can be formed
morphologically and syntacti
cally. Moreover, some scholars’ views were stated and examples of causative verbs were
taken from literary texts in order to reveal causative meaning used in the text. Due to the study, analytical form is used
to express causative meaning in English while it is mostly formed morphologically in Karakalpak language.
KEYWORDS
Causative verb, causative construction, morphological, syntactic, lexical, affixes.
INTRODUCTION
In linguistics, the study of verbs in the lexical-semantic
field became widespread from the second half of the
last century. As a result, by classifying words according
to their lexical-semantic meanings, it was determined
that they have special types. While the causative
meaning has different morphological indicators in
many languages, in others it seems to depend on
particular constructions or verb semantics. In
particular, the analysis of these meanings of verbs is
carried out in all natural languages in synchronic,
dichronic, and at the same time, comparative-
typological directions.
Carrying out the comparative-typological analysis of
causativeness within the framework of non-family
group languages, first of all, reveals the essence of the
issue by determining the structural-semantic features
Research Article
LINGUISTIC UNITS FORMING CAUSATIVE MEANING
Submission Date:
October 20, 2024,
Accepted Date:
October 25, 2024,
Published Date:
October 30, 2024
Crossref doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/ijll/Volume04Issue10-12
Musaev Abish Abilkazievich
Karakalpak State University named after Berdakh, Uzbekistan
Journal
Website:
https://theusajournals.
com/index.php/ijll
Copyright:
Original
content from this work
may be used under the
terms of the creative
commons
attributes
4.0 licence.
Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
71
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
(ISSN
–
2771-2834)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
70-76
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
of the causative unit and structure, its grammatical
signs, lexical means.
A big difference can be noticed when comparing the
causative classifiers in English and Karakalpak. The
syntactic position and lexical variation of verbs affect
the meaning of the structure. When the verb serves as
a predicate, its semantic expression depends on the
argument (subject, object). Of course, in this position,
along with the transitive nature of the verb, its lexical
meaning is also important. That is why the analysis of
the meaning of the verb is important.
Literature review
Causative structures are considered a linguistic
phenomenon that expresses a complex macro
situation. They consist of two micro-situations: 1) the
causer affects another object in order to create an
event; 2) a qualitative change occurs in the object
subjected to causation under the influence of the
action of the causator . It should be noted that the
causative event not only represents the result of the
effect of the causer and the subject, but also a person
can participate in the function of the causer. In this
situation, mental and psycho-emotional changes occur
in the subject who has been caused, in addition to
quality changes. Extensive research has been done on
the category of causation by this time. V. Nedyalkov
and S.Yakhontov emphasize that causation should be
studied in connection with result . According to them,
a change in an object or a subject as a result of a
causative effect also indicates that it has passed from
a certain situation to another situation. B. Comrie
focuses on the fact that the action of the subject in the
role of possessor moves to the main plan in the analysis
of events with the form “S Vcaus Obj” as a syntactic
construction. L. Kulikov emphasizes that the valence
feature of the verb plays an important role in causative
constructions. In this regard, his views are consistent
with Dixon’s view. According to R. Dixon’s analysis, the
amount of valence increases by adding a new
argument (S) (occurring to causation) to the argument
in the function A (causator). He avoids the conclusion
that this analysis is suitable for all languages. The
author notes that if the language has two or three
causative constructions, there is always a semantic
difference between them (Dixon 2000:64). Semantic
distinctions in causation and the classification of their
types have already been carried out by V. Nedyalkov, G.
Silnitskyi. The authors distinguish two main semantic
types of causation. Here, the causative agent creates
the causative situation as a result of physical action in
bringing about the causation. This situation is also
divided into direct and indirect, causative semantic
types. These semantic types are referred to by the
authors as contact and non-contact terms. This
causation is expressed by Shibatani in the form of
manipulative and direct causation. It should be noted
that there are supporters of distinguishing between
direct and indirect causation depending on the
semantic feature controlled or not controlled by the
subject.
METHODOLOGY
We believe that it is important to pay attention to the
degree of causation in causative semantics and
differentiation. Here, it is important to define the
semantic differences between mandatory causative
and permissive causative. Because these differences
are related to the use of special lexical tools and
formation of syntactic constructions. In fixed
causation, the causative allows the causative situation
to occur. It can be observed that this is done in English
by the verb “let”. For example:
Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
72
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
(ISSN
–
2771-2834)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
70-76
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
Let me say something… (M.Binchy, 415);
…let me help you clear away (M.Binchy, 418).
We can observe that in imperative causation, the
situation has a factual status and is expressed by the
verbs make, have, and get. For example:
He put away his handkerchief. 'You're quite right. They
make me feel old and grubby and silly. (Maeve Binchy,
Firefly Summer.
–
United Kingdom: Arrow Books, 2006.
–
P 176)
… her down and wondered what it would have
been like to have him take her hand like that.
(Maeve Binchy, Firefly Summer. 564)
Causative semantic differentiation in Karakalpak
language depends on certain morphological forms, like
other Turkic languages. In the Karakalpak language,
the mandatory voice of the verb is formed by adding
suffixes -t, -
tır,
-tir, -
dır,
-dir, -
ır,
-ir, -
qız,
-kiz, -
ǵ
ı
z, -giz, -
qar, -ker to the verb . Causative meaning is formed as a
means of morphological expression.
P. Qurbanazarov emphasizes that the morphological
method of expressing causativeness in the Karakalpak
language is considered the main one. As for syntactic
and lexical methods, they serve as additional or similar
tools. However, this does not mean that these
methods do not play any role in the formation of
causation. In three cases, when it is necessary to
convey more clearly the meanings such as "ask",
"command", etc., and it is not possible to do this with
the help of morphological forms, syntactic units of the
language is used in the Karakalpak language .
Although sufficient work has been done on the study
of the causative category in both languages,
comparative-typological analysis of the semantic
realization of this category is considered important.
Because causativeness in both languages differs not
only in form and lexical means, but also from a
semantic point of view. The presence of cognitive
factors is also important for the comparative analysis
of this category. Because causation is directly related
to the psycho-emotional situation of a person and the
cognitive activity of subjects participating in the
situation. Both languages have a number of verb
lexemes
with
causative
meaning.
However,
diachronically in English, they show the verbs make,
let, give as causative indicators . You can also find
researchers who include the verbs do, take in this
group of verbs.
Each language has a different grammatical
construction for expressing causative structures.
Morphological causation, as one of the known types,
means that the predicate undergoes the process of
expressing causality and is carried out using a
separately expressed predicate . The type of causation
is assigned to secondary predicates. Qualitative,
quantitative, psychoemotional, state changes of the
person or object affected by causation are filled with a
secondary predicate. These causative structures are
morphological in nature. With the help of verbs, a
separate structure is formed when a causative event
occurs.
On the basis of examples collected from fiction in
English and Karakalpak languages, a number of
linguistic means of expression that make up causative
structures were determined.
Causative construction in English
Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
73
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
(ISSN
–
2771-2834)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
70-76
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
Table
№ 1
1
Lexical verbs
2
S + make + O +
infinitive
3
S + make + O +
adjective
4
S + let + O +
infinitive
5
S + have + O(thing) + V(3)
6
S + have + O(person) +
infinitive
without
“to”
7
S + have + O(person) +
ing
8
S + get + O(person) +
infinitive
with
“to”
9
S + help + O +
infinitive
with
or
without
“to”
Examples of causative constructions used in English are:
1. Lexical causative verbs
: And as Taylor looked down
at Amanda with soft, loving eyes, Hank broke a pencil
in half. (Deveraux J., The awakening, 188)
2. S + make + O + infinitive
: ‘As soon as I get to town
I shall go to my brother, and make him come home
with me to Gracechurch Street; and then we may
consult together as to what is to be done.’ (Austen J.,
Pride and Prejudice, P. 433-434)
3. S + make + O + Adjective
: He could make her angry,
and that was a step in the right direction, and just a
moment ago he’d seen something else in her eyes.
(Deveraux J., The awakening, 80)
4. S + let + O + infinitive
: “Here, Miss Eiler, let me carry
those things for you. (Deveraux J., The awakening, 192)
5. S + have + O(thing) + V(3):
In spite of this
amendment, however, she requested to have a note
sent to Longbourn, desiring her mother to visit Jane,
and form her own judgement of her situation. (Austen
J., Pride and Prejudice, P. 59.)
6. S + have + O(person) + infinitive
without “to”: Dara
had wanted to have Grace O'Neill (to) stay. (Maeve
Binchy, Firefly summer, 347)
7. S + have + O(person) + ing
: Her story had us laughing
so much. (https://dictionary.cambridge.org)
8. S + get + O(person) + infinitive with “to”:
Years ago
Harker had tried to get him to marry Amanda, but
Taylor wanted to wait until she was “trained properly.”
(Deveraux J., The awakening, 27)
Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
74
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
(ISSN
–
2771-2834)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
70-76
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
9. S + help + O + infinitive with or without “to”
: ‘You
helped me make all the jam and cakes. You're more
entitled than anyone,’ Grace had said.
In the table below, we found it necessary to mark
language units such as subject, object, verb, adjective
used in the Karakalpak language causative structures
as following: subject -
B (in kk: baslawısh), object
- T
(tolıqlawısh), verb
- F (feyil), adjective - Kel. (kelbetlik),
auxiliary verb - KF (auxiliary verb).
Causative construction in the Karakalpak language.
Table
№
2
1
B + T + F
(-t, -
tır,
-tir, -
dır,
-dir, -
ır,
-ir, -
qız,
-kiz, -
ǵız,
-giz, -qar, -ker)
2
B + T + F
(-
ǵa,
-ge) +
májbúrlew/ májbúr etiw
3
B + T + Kel. + KF (etiw, qılıw)
4
B + T + F
(-
ına,
-ine, -
ǵa,
-ge) +
ruxsat beriw/ruxsat etiw
5
B + T + F
(-
dı, di,
-
ın,
-in) +
soranıw/ótiniw
6
B + T + F
(-
dı, di,
-
ǵa,
-in) +
buyırıw/buyrıq etiw/buyrıq beriw
7
B + T + F
(-
dı,
-di, -
ın,
-in) +
qálew, tilew, tilek etiw
8
B + T + F
(-
dı,
-di, -
ın,
-in) +
talap etiw
Examples of causative construction used in the Karakalpak language
1. B + T + F (-t, -
tır,
-tir, -
dır,
-dir, -
ır,
-ir, -
qız,
-kiz, -
ǵ
ı
z, -giz,
-qar, -ker)
: Men on
ı
keshe bile góre at
ı
p taslamay,
ákesini
ń
qayda ekenin aytt
ı
r
ı
w ush
ı
n qamaqta
qald
ı
rd
ı
m. (A.Bekimbetov, 26)
2. B + T + F (-
ǵ
a, -ge) + májbúrlew/ májbúr etiw
: Al, siz
on
ı
derlik hár eki j
ı
ldan hámle kóteriw-ge májbúrleysiz!
(M.N
ı
zanov, 40)
3. B + T + F (-
ına,
-ine, -
ǵ
a, -ge)+ ruxsat beriw/ruxsat
etiw
: Ba
ǵ
ń
a kirew-ge ózi
ń
ruxsat etken edi
ń
ǵ
oy,
Periyzat,
—
dedi sırlı sorawdıń mánisine túsinbey. (A.
Bekimbetov, 49)
4. B + T + Kel. + KF (etiw, qılıw)
: Ol a
ǵ
as
ı
n qapa q
ı
l
ı
p
al
ǵ
an
ı
na qatt
ı
ókinishte, biraq, on
ı
qalay juw
ı
p-
shay
ı
wd
ıń
esab
ı
n tappay ar-sar edi. (M. N
ı
zanov, 307)
5. B + T + F (-
dı, di,
-
ın,
-in) +
soranıw/ótiniw
: Ápsana:
Áyyemgi zamanlarda bir jas jigit ańshılıqtı úyreniw
niyetinde eliniń ataqlı ańshısına kelip, oq jay so
ǵ
ı
wd
ı
hám
on
ı
at
ı
wd
ı
úyretiw-in
soranad
ı…»
.
(T.Kaypbergenov, 92)
6. B + T + F (-
dı, di,
-
ǵ
a, -in) + buy
ı
r
ı
w/buyr
ı
q etiw/buyr
ı
q
beriw
: -
Bir ápsana boyınsha, ákesi menen balasınıń álle
kanday gunaları ushın qazı ekewine de eliw
-eliwden
Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
75
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
(ISSN
–
2771-2834)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
70-76
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
dúrre urıw
-
ǵ
a buy
ı
r
ı
p: «Eliw dúrre áwele ákege ur
ı
ls
ı
n»
depti.
7. B + T + F (-
dı,
-di, -
ın,
-in) + qálew, tilew, tilek etiw
:
Sonday qarar
ǵ
a keldim, en
di Oksanadan da, qızımnan
da xat yaki qońıraw kelmew
-
in qudadan tilep jasadım.
(M.Nızanov, 140)
8. B + T + F (-
dı,
-di, -
ın,
-in) + talap etiw
: Kewlimjay
hámmeniń
jalańbaslanıw
-
ın
talap
etti.
(T.Kaypbergenov, Maman biy Apsanası, 206)
Causative situation and process are coded in speech as
a separate cognitive event . The authors claim that the
process of morphological affixation creates semantic
differences in languages where causation is a separate
category. In the Karakalpak language, the decisive role
of accusatives is to convert intransitive or (in rare
cases) transitive verbs into causative verbs. Although
this suffix is added to transitive and intransitive verbs
alike, it has functions other than causation.
Compare:
Bul xızmetti qala xalqı óz minnetine
aldı. Sonlıqtan
jana
ǵ
ı
úlken kemelerli buzd
ı
r
ı
p, nárete qay
ı
q soqt
ı
r
ıń
da
hayal q
ı
zlar brigadas
ı
n shólkemlestir
ń
! (K. Sultanov,
«Aqdarya» roman
ı
, 51);
-
«Urıp
-so
ǵ
ı
w paydas
ı
z, - dedi-aw anaw kúngi bala,
jasa
ǵ
an, ómir tájiriybeniz bar adams
ı
z
ǵ
oy, óz
bas
ıńızdan keshken waqıyalardan aytıp isendirseńiz de
boladı. Bolmasa anız
-ertek qusa
ǵ
an bir nárseler ayt
ı
p
beri
ń»
. (K. Allambergenov, «Quslar qaytqan kun», 26).
This process can include consonant repetition,
reduplication,
sound
expansion,
and
similar
phenomena, or internal changes through various
affixes. The change of the suffix -
tır in the Karakalpak
language to -dir is one of the other types of affixes that
form morphological causation. This additional special
causation feature is listed. The indicators of causation
in the Karakalpak language are added to the verb to
form a causative verb. Since these additions are part of
morphological causative structures, they are evaluated
as analytic and peripheral causative structures. In
addition, we are in favor of studying causative
structures specific to the passive participle by
connecting them with separate lexical causation.
CONCLUSION
So, in both languages under comparative study, the
study of sentence structure into separate sentence
fragments has its own character, based on the
characteristics of the syntactic structure of the
languages and their connection to each other
according to the specific relations of each element
participating in the formation of syntax and other
lexical units. Specific stages of considering the issue of
semantic-syntactic meanings have been formed. In this
regard, it is necessary to pay attention to the specific
approach to the structure of that language in each
language, that is, to determine the difference in the
methods of connecting them to each other. However,
both languages have lexical and syntactic tools that
convey meaning, but their syntactic functions do not
differ significantly in solving certain problems in the
traditional approach.
REFERENCES
1.
Song J. J., Causatives and Causation. A Universal-
Typological Perspective.
–
London: Longman.
1996.
–
257 р.
2.
Недялков В.П., С. Е. Яхонтов., Типология
результативных конструкций // Типология
Volume 04 Issue 10-2024
76
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
(ISSN
–
2771-2834)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
10
P
AGES
:
70-76
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
результативных
конструкций
(результатив,
статив, пассив, перфект). –
Л.: Наука, 1983. –
С. 5
-
41.
3.
Comrie B., Subject and Object Control: Syntax,
Semantics, and Pragmatics // BLS10, 1984.
–
Р. 450
-
464.
4.
Kulikov L., Causatives // Language typology and
language universals. An international handbook.
Vol. 2.
–
Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
2001.
–
Р. 886
-989.
5.
Dixon R. M. W., A typology of causatives: form,
syntax and meaning // Changing valency: case
studies in transitivity.
–
Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2000.
–
P. 30-83.
6.
Недялков В. П., Силъницкий Г. Г., Типология
каузативных конструкций // Морфологический
каузатив. –Ленинград: Наука, 1969. –
С. 5
-19.
7.
Shibatani Masayoshi., The grammar of causative
constructons: a conspectus // The grammar of
causative constructions.
–
New York: Academic
Press, 1976.
–
Р. 1
-40.
8.
Kulikov L., Causatives // Language typology and
language universals. An international handbook.
Vol. 2.
–
Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
2001.
–
Р. 886
-989.
9.
Даулетов М., Д
ә
уенов
Е
.,
Бекбергенов
А
.,
Ҳә
зирги
қ
ара
қ
алпа
қ
ә
дебий
тилини
ң
грамматикасы
.
–
Н
ө
кис
:
Билим
. 1994. - 206
б
.
10.
Курбаназаров П., Категория каузативности и
межуровневыеспособы её выражения. Автореф.
Дис. Кан. Фил. Наук. –Т. 1984. –С 10.
11.
Daniel Michael A., Maisak, Timur A., Merdanova
Solmaz R. Causatives in Agul // Argument Structure
and Grammatical Relations. A crosslinguistic
typology // Studies in language companion series
126.
–
Amsterdam
–
Philadelphia: John Benjamins,
2012.
–
Р. 55–
114.
