Филологические науки / 3. Теоретические и методологические

проблемы исследования языка

Associate professor Baklagowa J.W.

Kuban State University, Russia

Causative Verb “to let” in the Group of English Analytical Causatives

The terms “causation” and “causality” denote the causative-consecutive connection between two events of the objective reality/ situations (one situation gives rise to other situation); and the terms “causative” and “causativity” cover the linguistic means of causation expression in the verb system.

Causativity is a gradual category which shows causative-consecutive relations in the language. The causativity is regarded as a modal relation which is directed by the modality subject to the modality object with the purpose of “causing a certain action or a certain state of a person or an object” [Zolotova 1973: 278].

The meaning of the causativity is expressed in the first place in causative verbs – “in action verbs with the meaning of an intellectual or mental, physical, social action which is directed to another person or subject, as a result the latter performs some act, experiences a state, changes a quality” [Vsevolodova 2000: 57-58].Therefore causativity is a lexis-grammatical verbal category which implies subject-object relations.

All languages have ways to express causation, but differ in the means. B. Comrie categorizes causative into 3 types, depending on the contiguity of the material encoding the causing event and that encoding the caused event. These are: 1) lexical causatives, in which the two events are expressed in a single lexical item; 2) morphological causatives (grammatical causatives), in which the causing event and the caused event are encoded in a single verbal complex via causative morphology, and, prototypically, morphological marking showing the status of affected arguments [Comrie 1981].

Lexical causative constitutes the verbs which contain the causation component in the meaning. Grammatical causative is a result of the lexical meaning grammaticalization. Grammatical causative is divided into morphological causative and syntactic or analytic causative. Morphological causative constitutes morphologically derivative verbs which are formed by means of affix addition to verb radicals. In syntactic causative the causation meaning is expressed by the form causative verb with the categorical meaning “inducement to action or state”.

Causative situation, which is fundamental in the semantic structure of causative verbs, includes five obligatory notional components or constants: 1) the forming constant that means the causation reference, this constant makes the situation causative; 2) a subject and 3) the state of antecedent; 4) a subject and 5) the state of consequent [Bessalow 2010: 86]. In lexical causative the semantic structure of causative verb contains at least two constants, and in the analytical causative there is only one constant – the forming constant that means the causation reference.

Grammatical causative correlates with the process of the lexical meaning grammaticalization. The grammaticalization of the collocation is connected with a greater or a smaller weakening of lexical (object) meaning of a collocation component, with its successive transformation of a lexical meaningful (categorematic) word into a half-form word or a form word where the grammatical meaning dominates; the whole word group turns into the analytical form.

The type of the grammatical structure of language isn’t defined by the quantity of analytical and synthetic forms. It is defined by dominant expression manners of grammatical meanings in word and in sentence. The essence of analytical manner consists in the separate expression of grammatical and lexical information that is realised by means that are supplementary to the lexical information repository (form words, word order and intonation). The grammatical manner that dominates in language embraces both morphology and syntax. There aren’t absolutely analytical languages or synthetic languages. Therefore these terms are used in the meaning “mainly analytical” or accordingly “mainly synthetic”.

The English language is the language of “mainly analytical type of structure”. The causative category can be expressed in English in the analytical constructions in which the inducement is realized by means of specialized form verbs (let, make, get, have etc.).

Although these verbs in their causative usage are often assigned to the meaning of “form verbs”, not all their characteristics can meet the requirements of form words. Functional or form words are called such words which don’t have full lexical meaning and which aren’t independent parts of sentence [Barchudarov, Stelling 2005: 134].

Nevertheless these verbs are characterized as such with a highly generalized meaning and with the lack of syntactic “self-sufficiency”. Semantically they are characterized by the wideness of meaning, what permits them to replace fullmeaning causative verbs. The connection of these verbs with infinitive, which expresses the caused action, is compulsory. In that way delexicalization of these verbs affords ground for ranking them among form words.

In this article the semantics of the English verb let will be analysed. The analytical causative with the verb let is characterized by extra high productivity.

The first meaning of the verb let is “to allow someone to do something”. The subject or the causator is an animate noun, the caused object is an animate noun too. E.g.: “In early 2009, he let Democrats in Congress write the $800-billion stimulus program...” (The Independent Agenda, 18.08.11); “...our iPad app lets you enjoy The Sunday Times as never before” (The Sunday Times, 05.12.10).

The verb in this meaning is often used in imperative forms, by expressing invitation and even wish, order, permission (consequently the causative meaning isn’t lost), e.g.: “Having said that, let me report the positive side” (The Independent, 05.11.11); “Let me show you to your en-suite cave, sir” (The Independent, 17.01.10); “Let us show terror detainee's face on BBC, lawyers plead” (The Independent, 10.02.10); “Steve Richards: Let the battle of ideas commence” (The Independent, 29.11.11).

The second causative meaning of the verb let is «to not stop something happening, or to make it possible for it to happen», in other words the permissive meaning. The caused object can be both an animate noun and an inanimate noun (including an abstract notion), e.g.: “Let the wild animal remain undisturbed to recover in peace” (The Sunday Times, 01.11.11).

It is a known fact that the permissive in pure form is a rare phenomenon in natural languages (for example, morphological permissive in Batsi). The permissive meaning is often regarded as a variant of causative meaning, i.e. as a variety of causativity. It is absolutely correct, because the border between the causative meaning and the permissive meaning is vague enough. The permissive meaning assumes that the action will take place if it isn’t stopped by subject [Fritz 2005: 134].

The essence of permissive meaning is that the subject of a causative action (the causator) causes the situation without preventing from its realization; he allows/ permits the situation to take place. In a causative situation the origin or the only source of changes is the caused subject in the referential way; but in permissive the role of the caused subject comes to the assumption of these changes or to its preventing (in other words the influence of the causator loses activity).

There are possible different degrees of causator activity within the permissive meaning. The causator can be an active agent or can simply control the situation and not to prevent progress of events. The following usage contexts of the verb let obviously demonstrate this: “We are letting people know that they have brothers and sisters who are there to fight for their rights...” (The Sunday Times, 04.11.11); “On the other hand if you lack this ability with flavours play safe and let the wine waiter (or your regular cook) dig out a bottle…” (The Sunday Times, 07.08.11); “After the RCMP decided to engage an outside review of matters, it would have been far better had he let that process work, instead of offering up his own conclusions” (Pacific Free Press, 05.11.11).

Some linguists call into question the obligatory availability of caused situation in grammatical causative. Causative-consecutive relations are picked out only in that case if one situation involves inevitable another situation. And on the contrary, the presence of the consequence-situation is definitely the evidence of the presence of caused situation (or cause). The given correlation is not always fulfilled in the constructions with causative semantics: it can be exemplified by sentences like Мать заставляет дочь учить уроки. The presence of the caused construction is undoubtedly here; but the consequence – caused situation – is not necessary implemented (maybe daughter isn’t doing her homework) [Kasevich 2002: 76].

It is known that it is usual to distinguish between contact causation and distant (non contact) causation [Nedyalkow, Silnizkiy 1969: 28-29]. With distant causation the relation between caused subject (causator) and caused state is mediate. It means the influence that is necessary for causator is implemented by another person, on the initiative of causator. By contact causation the caused subject acts himself.

In spite of the fact that grammar causative denotes oftener mediate causation the verb let is characterized both by contact causation and by distant causation.

Distant causation permits the presence of intermediate executors and doesn’t presuppose unity of time and place. Causator сan not participate in caused action. He can only induce intermediate executors to action (so he is an “instigator”). Distant causation usually occurs with animate caused object.

With contact causation causator influences caused object by bringing this object to a new state through immediate contact. As mentioned above this influence can be active or can simply come to passive control: “There is a strength in the Irish people and they won't let that kind of treatment break their spirit” (The Independent, 16.10.11); “Let the cookies cool down before you try them [Long., 28-29]”.

In that way analytical constructions with the causative verb let represent a structurally complicated grammatical verbal category. From semantics point of view these constructions are able to transmit subtle shades of correlation between subject and object under conditions of contact and distant causation.

References

1. Barchudarov L.S. Stelling D.A. English Grammar // New in the Foreign Linguistics. Issue 8. – М., 1978. – P. 172 – 208.

2. Bessalow A.J. Causative Verbs as Means of Causative-Consecutive Relations in English and French // Bulletin of Moscow State Regional University. № 6. 2010. – O. 85 – 90.

3. Comrie B. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981. – p. 158-177.

4. Vsevolodova M.V. Theory of Functional-Communicative Syntax. – М., 2000.

5. Kasevich V.B. Tibetan-Burmese Causative and Principle of Iconicity // Chinese Linguistics. Isolating Languages. The Х. International Conference: Materials. – M., 2002. – P. 75 – 79.

6. Nedyalkow W.P. Silnizkiy G.G. Typology of Causative Constructions // Typology of Causative Constructions. Morphological Causative. – L.: Nauka, 1969. – P. 5 – 18.

7. Fritz M. Grammatik und Semantik der Infinitivkonstruktionen von neuhochdeutsch lassen / M. Fritz // Der Infinitiv im Deutschen. – Tübingen, 2005. – S. 132- 146.

8. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. – Edinburgh: Pearson Education, 2005.

9. Zolotova G. A. Studies in Functional Syntax of Russian Language. – М.: Nauka, 1973.