Time in probabilistic causation: direct vs. indirect uses of lexical causative verbs

  • Martin F
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
N/AReaders
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

It is traditionally assumed that lexical causative verbs (e.g. kill) express direct causationonly, while periphrastic (bi-clausal) causatives (e.g. cause to die) may also express indirectcausation. In favour of this constraint, Fodor famously observed that the (change of) state introducedby lexical causative verbs is not accessible for separate adverbial modification by temporal(or manner) adverbials. In this paper, I present old and new arguments against the direct causationconstraint under the definitions of directness of Fodor and Wolff. I then propose a new definitionof directness in terms of ab-initio causal sufficiency framed in Kvart’s probabilistic account ofsingular causation. I argue that directness so redefined is an implicature rather than an entailmentof lexical causative verbs, which enables me to account for old and new data. Furthermore, I accountfor why the constraint on separate modification by temporal adverbials can be relaxed witheventuality-denoting subjects.Keywords: lexical causative verbs, direct vs. indirect causation, causal sufficiency, probabilistictheories of causation, semantics/pragmatics interface.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Martin, F. (2018). Time in probabilistic causation: direct vs. indirect uses of lexical causative verbs. ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 61, 107–124. https://doi.org/10.21248/zaspil.61.2018.487

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free