On the Nature of English Periphrastic Causatives

This is an attempt at constructing a framework for understanding the nature of English periphrastic causative constructions, taking make, let, have, get and cause as representative cases. Although English abounds with causative expressions, lexical and periphrastic, surprisingly little has been discussed about them, still less the nature of the causatives.
I would like to discuss them mainly in terms of Actor, Experiencer, Intender, Beneficiary, and Controller. They are listed in the appropriate slots for each of the verbs, and some of them projected in spatial relations to shed some light on the prominent semantic threshold of them. The concept of Initiator (Actor + Experiencer + Intender) is introduced, to explain the discrepancy between CONTROL and CULPABILITY. Givón ('75: 86) claims "only (115a) will be accepted as a legitimate plea of innocence ― since in it the accused DISCLAIMS CONTROL": (115) Your honor, I'm innocent, I lost my balance and fell and that way I

a.	caused	her to	fall overboard and drown.
*b.	made	her	fall overboard and drown.
*c.	had	her	fall overboard and drown.

He cannot explain, however, why (d), although far from assigned CONTROL, is not accepted as a plea of innocence.

*d.

got

her to

fall overboard and drown.

I will also show that the factor, Experiencer in a novel interpretation will work to apperceive the causative verb have in comparison with the four others, revealing have is inherently passive in active form, grouping get in this sense.