To me it seems that 毎日働かせる has two possible meanings:

  1. Every day (I) make (him) work. (So I issue this order to him every day) OR,

  2. (I) make (him) work every day. (So maybe I only issue this order once and he has to work every day).

Which one does it mean exactly? What if I want to distinguish the two meanings
in Japanese?
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-03-18T05:47:00.700
98958
2023-03-19T02:40:45.223
56050
question
causation ambiguity
What does 毎日働かせる mean exactly? (causative form + frequency modifier)
From a grammar perspective, the two sentences are **EQUIVALENT** , and there's
actually no difference grammar-wise. Why? Because doesn't matter in English or
in Japanese, `every day` or `毎日` is an **adverb(副詞)** , which modifies the
verb, which is `to make (someone) work` or `働かせる`.

Putting the adverb before or after the verb **in English** is only a matter of
emphasis and choice, and does not affect the meaning of the sentence, as they
still modify the same verb. In Japanese however, due to the SOV structure, you
are required to put the adverb before the verb, aka the verb has to come at
last. English is SVO so the adverb can come both before and after.

> Example:  
>  I eat every day. Every day I eat.  
>  毎日食べる。

While you get 2 options for English, you get one for Japanese. Unless you want
to talk like Yoda and then none of the SOV SVO stuff would matter and you can
throw word orders around. This could happen in casual speech.

> Talk like me, you must. (no longer SVO in English)  
>  俺は食べる、毎日。(The adverb now comes after)  
>  毎日食べるよ、俺は。 (Even the subject can come after in casual speech)
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-03-18T23:51:40.613
98967
2023-03-18T23:51:40.613
39855
98958
answer
It could mean either of the two depending on context.

You could convert it to a two-verb construction 働くように言う. If you put 毎日 before
it, the sentence is still ambiguous. But if you put it before 言う, it
unambiguously modifies that verb.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-03-19T02:06:02.113
98968
2023-03-19T02:06:02.113
43676
98958
answer
I think the modifier is more likely to modify the main action than the causing
action, but there is some ambiguity. Also, it's not just about frequency
modifier.

> 私は彼を在宅で働かせた。 ("He" was probably working from home. Or, it's a bit of a
> stretch, but not impossible to read it as saying "I" was working from home
> supervising "him".)

The ambiguity doesn't often manifest because other facts in the context and
common sense make it clear. To clarify your intention in a stand alone
sentence, you will probably want to use different words and constructions.

> 私は彼に働くよう毎日言い、彼はそうした。 (split two actions into two separate verbs)

> 私は彼に毎日働くよう言い、彼はそうした。

> 私は彼に在宅での仕事をさせた。 (nominalize the main action)

> 私は在宅で、彼には仕事をさせた。

(I feel like 彼はそうした is necessary in the first two because otherwise whether
"he" did it or not is unclear.)
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-03-19T02:40:45.223
98970
2023-03-19T02:40:45.223
10531
98958
answer