[Lingtyp] Fwd: terminological question about intransitive verbs

[Marianne Mithun]

There are also the simple Agent/Patient and Active/Stative, which refer to
systems that are similar up to a point but not identical. The first
distinguishes control/volition/affecteness, etc. while the second
distinguishes events from states. This was discussed in

Mithun, Marianne.  1991. Active/Agentive case marking and its motivations.
*Language* 67: 510-546, Reprinted 2019 in a Special Issue on Indigenous
languages: 20th century perspectives.

Marianne

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 7:22 AM Van Valin, Robert <vanvalin at buffalo.edu>
wrote:

> I meant for this to go to the list, too.
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *Robert Van Valin Jr <vanvalin at buffalo.edu>
> *Subject: **Re: [Lingtyp] terminological question about intransitive
> verbs*
> *Date: *May 12, 2021 at 10:18:15 EDT
> *To: *Martin Haspelmath <martin_haspelmath at eva.mpg.de>
>
>
>
> On May 12, 2021, at 09:24, Martin Haspelmath <martin_haspelmath at eva.mpg.de>
> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Best,
> Van
>
>
> So for the stereotypical subdivision of single-argument verbs ("active –
> inactive" in Klimov 1977), maybe "agentive – patientive" is the best choice?
>
>
> Best,
> Martin
>
>
> 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,
> Christian
> --
>
> Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann
> Rudolfstr. 4
> 99092 Erfurt
> Deutschland
> Tel.: +49/361/2113417
> E-Post: christianw_lehmann at arcor.de
> Web: https://www.christianlehmann.eu
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing listLingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.orghttp://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
> --
> Martin Haspelmath
> Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
> Deutscher Platz 6
> D-04103 Leipzighttps://www.shh.mpg.de/employees/42385/25522
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20210512/a8d4c3ac/attachment.htm>