AbstractThe validity of the C(ase) H(ierarchy), the paradigm case, and the notion of demotion in Comrie's universal theory of causative constructions is questioned. It is argued that the CH theory precludes a more realistic and plausible understanding of the causative construction. Data from a wide range of languages are examined in their own right, not from the perspective of the paradigm case. An alternative view is offered that both causative and noncausative sentences are susceptible to the same NP density control. Under this view the so‐called deviations from the paradigm case‐extended demotion and doubling‐are seen as different grammatical means of keeping the NP density control in effect. The alternative view receives further support from those languages in which transitive verbs must be detransitivised prior to undergoing morphological causativis