[Lingtyp] terminological question about intransitive verbs
martin_haspelmath at eva.mpg.de
Wed May 12 14:37:14 UTC 2021
Yes, and I think this argues for the use of "agentive – patientive" when
a language has a valency class that includes verbs like 'talk', 'sing',
'dance', 'work', and another class that includes verbs like 'die',
'fall', 'sink', 'wilt'. It seems that all other cases simply don't fit
into this stereotypical dichotomy.
Incidentally, I have suggested that only patientive single-argument
verbs (like 'die' and 'fall') should be taken into account for
determining the S-argument (analogous to the A-argument, which is
defined by the coding properties of 'kill' and 'break'; Haspelmath 2011
Am 12.05.21 um 16:22 schrieb Van Valin, Robert:
> I meant for this to go to the list, too.
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> *From: *Robert Van Valin Jr <vanvalin at buffalo.edu
>> <mailto:vanvalin at buffalo.edu>>
>> *Subject: **Re: [Lingtyp] terminological question about intransitive
>> *Date: *May 12, 2021 at 10:18:15 EDT
>> *To: *Martin Haspelmath <martin_haspelmath at eva.mpg.de
>> <mailto:martin_haspelmath at eva.mpg.de>>
>>> On May 12, 2021, at 09:24, Martin Haspelmath
>>> <martin_haspelmath at eva.mpg.de <mailto:martin_haspelmath at eva.mpg.de>>
>>> I don't think there's anything wrong with "actor-holding -
>>> undergoer-holding", but why not simply "agentive – patientive"?
>>> The term pair "actor/undergoer" was coined by Foley & Van Valin
>>> (1984: §2.1) in order to have a way to generalize over the following
>>> kinds of situations:
>>> /Colin (A) killed the taipan (U)./
>>> /The avalanche (A) crushed the cottage (U)./
>>> /The dog (A) sensed the earthquake (U)./
>>> Van Valin also used "Actor" and "Undergoer" for two types of Lakota
>>> single-argument verbs, but it is well-known that there's a wide
>>> range of ways in which languages can have multiple valency
>>> constructions for single-argument verbs.
>> Francesca Merlan’s paper in the 1985 Nichols & Woodbury (eds)
>> ‘Grammar inside and outside the clause’ volume is very important in
>> this regard, as she shows that languages exhibiting
>> split-intransitivity differ significantly in terms of the markedness
>> of the two major classes. For example, in Lakhota the so-called
>> ‘active’ class is the smaller, more restricted class (must have an
>> animate argument), while there is no such restriction on the verbs in
>> the larger, unmarked class of so-called ’stative’ verbs. She argues
>> that in Iroquoian the situation is reversed: the unmarked class is
>> the ‘active’ class, and the smaller, restricted class contains the
>> ’stative’ predicates. Given the diversity she documents, it’s not
>> obvious that terms like ‘actor/undergoer’ or ‘agentive/patientive’
>> are very useful as general typological labels.
>>> For example, Russian has some single-argument verbs that take an
>>> Accusative argument (/menja tošnit/'I.ACC feel sick') and others
>>> that take a Dative argument (/mne nezdorovitsja/'I.DAT feel sick').
>>> Are both these valency classes "undergoer-holding"? Or maybe
>>> "actor-holding" because experiencers are sentient and therefore more
>>> like agents?
>> This example highlights another problem with these terms, namely the
>> lack of clear criteria for assigning them when used outside of a
>> well-defined theoretical framework.
>>> So for the stereotypical subdivision of single-argument verbs
>>> ("active – inactive" in Klimov 1977), maybe "agentive – patientive"
>>> is the best choice?
>>> Am 12.05.21 um 12:24 schrieb Christian Lehmann:
>>>> The only or direct actant of an intransitive verb may be its actor
>>>> (/run/) or its undergoer (/die/). This may be taken to be a feature
>>>> of the verb's valency. There are then two valency classes of
>>>> intransitive verbs. I know of the following terms for these:
>>>> active - inactive (Klimov)
>>>> agentive - non-agentive
>>>> unergative - unaccusative (Perlmutter)
>>>> All of these pairs have terminological or conceptual problems
>>>> (which I can name if desired). I have therefore been looking for
>>>> better terms. I had called them
>>>> actor-oriented - undergoer-oriented.
>>>> However, I need the term 'oriented' in verbal grammar in a
>>>> different sense, so I have to replace these. Currently, I call them
>>>> actor-holding - undergoer-holding
>>>> Not particularly elegant, are they?
>>>> Are there good terms on the linguistic market (of the past two
>>>> centuries) for what is meant by the above? Or failing this,
>>>> brilliant neologisms?
>>>> Grateful for suggestions,
>>>> Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann
>>>> Rudolfstr. 4
>>>> 99092 Erfurt
>>>> Tel.: +49/361/2113417
>>>> E-Post: christianw_lehmann at arcor.de
>>>> Web: https://www.christianlehmann.eu
>>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>> Martin Haspelmath
>>> Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
>>> Deutscher Platz 6
>>> D-04103 Leipzig
>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>> <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Deutscher Platz 6
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Lingtyp