28.2118, Review: Linguistic Theories; Syntax; Typology: Malchukov, Comrie (2015)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-28-2118. Mon May 08 2017. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 28.2118, Review: Linguistic Theories; Syntax; Typology: Malchukov, Comrie (2015)

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté,
                                   Michael Czerniakowski)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
                       Fund Drive 2017
                   25 years of LINGUIST List!
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Clare Harshey <clare at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Mon, 08 May 2017 10:51:24
From: Ross Bilous [ross.bilous at utoronto.ca]
Subject: Set Valency Classes in the World’s Languages

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36285757


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/26/26-4548.html

EDITOR: Andrej L. Malchukov
EDITOR: Bernard  Comrie
TITLE: Set Valency Classes in the World’s Languages
SUBTITLE: Volume 1-2
SERIES TITLE: Comparative Handbooks of Linguistics 1/1+2
PUBLISHER: De Gruyter Mouton
YEAR: 2015

REVIEWER: Ross Bilous, York University

Reviews Editor: Helen Aristar-Dry

SUMMARY 

“Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, Volumes 1 and 2,” edited by Bernard
Comrie, 
constitute a handbook of a series whose purpose is to offer the academic
readership a uniform account of empirical studies on a particular grammatical
feature or construction from a cross-linguistically comparative perspective.
This handbook, divided into of three parts, is made up of a sizable collection
of articles whose authors concern themselves primarily with inter-linguistic
variation in argument coding and argument alternations of different classes of
verbs, with a view to revealing universal as well as language-particular
characteristics in their argument-structure properties. Part I (“The Leipzig
Valency Classes Project: Introducing the Framework”) synthesizes the results
of research on a “relatively large set of core verb meanings (70) for a
relatively small set of languages (30)” (p. 3), with focus on lexical
properties of verbs representing different valency classes. Part II (“Case
Studies”) contains 30 articles accounting for the results of
questionnaire-based studies conducted on different languages of the world.
Finally, Part III (“Theoretical Framework”) consists of 4 articles by leading
scholars who made substantial contributions to the study of verb classes in
consideration of their valency properties. The handbook also contains a list
of abbreviations (p. ix), Acknowledgements (p. xi), List of authors (p. xiii),
Language index (p. 1703), and Subject index (1709).

Chapter 1 (“Introduction”) of Part I outlines the approaches to the study of
verbs in terms of their valency, their drawbacks, and the semantic map method
developed within the frame of the Leipzig Valency Classes project (a first
systematized cross-linguistic attempt at laying the foundations of a
comprehensive typological classification of valency classes) and of the
earlier Ditransitive project. In the semantic map method verbs are
cross-linguistically categorized on the basis of semantic similarities which
reflect similarities in form and are encoded adjacently in a semantic space,
assumed to be universal. Project participants studied 70 verbs in
consideration of two verbal properties: coding properties (e.g. case and
adpositional marking, etc.) and behavioral properties (e.g. object
rearrangement, indefinite object omission, reflexivization, causativization,
etc.). The major objective was to identify general patterns in verb syntax by
means of examining cross-linguistically semantically equivalent verbs. The
results of this research showed that, although verbs can be generally
categorized based on their shared lexical properties (or by means of
identification of coding frames and valency-increasing/valency-decreasing
alternations), universal generalizations applicable to all verbs are
impossible in view of the existence (across languages) of varying
(structurally and semantically conditioned) exceptions in the syntactic
behavior of certain verbs.

Chapter 2 (“Leipzig Questionnaire on valency classes”) of Part I explicates
the structure of the questionnaire used in the study and “designed to obtain a
consistent set of data from a representative set of languages” (pp. 27, 29).
It contains a list of 70 verb meanings (=Vs, [p. 29]) with basic examples of
valency patterns, coding and syntactic properties of Vs, argument (or uncoded
case) alternations and diathetic alternations/valency changing operations (the
availability of those two types of alternations depends largely on the
morphological complexity of a language), and, finally, questions exploring
further properties of individual verbs and of lexical classes. Chapter 3
(“Comparing verbal valency across languages”) deals with the concept of
valency defining it in terms of “coding frames” and “role frames” and
examining the necessity to limit it to “verb-specific” (pp. 42–47) elements
(=arguments) in contrast with adjuncts (not verb-specific elements). By means
of cross-linguistic comparison of equivalent verb meanings and of participant
roles, the authors conclude that the distinction between arguments and
adjuncts is not crucial for capturing central aspects of valency variation,
and coding frames need first of all contain argument flags (information about
cases and adpositions) and argument indexes (information about the person
associated with the verb). Chapter 4 (“Valency classes and alternations:
parameters of variation”) discusses the question of universality of valency
classes as well as possible variation in their distributional properties in
terms of availability of certain cross-linguistic regularities and of
language-particular variations in coding patterns (e.g. zero valent or avalent
verbs do not represent a universal pattern). Also, valency alternations
(involving arguments only) are defined as sets “of two different coding
frames” (p. 91) and four syntactic types of alternations are distinguished,
based on the typological literature. In Chapter 5 (“Transitivity prominence”)
the extent to which different languages use transitive encoding is discussed.
An attempt to define the concept of transitivity is made, which we address
below (see ¶4 of Evaluation). The results of the study show that transitivity
prominence does not seem to be language-specific, but “decreasing transitivity
prominence” (p. 144) is specific to a small series of verbs. The smallest in
size, Chapter 5a follows up on Chapter 5 by assessing transitivity prominence
from a statistical perspective, analyzing 49 two-argument verbs in about 30
languages. In Chapter 6, “Statistical observations on implicational (verb)
hierarchies”, it is shown (based on the study of 5 types of verb alternations)
how a method can be developed to study implicational hierarchies and it is
suggested that the results of synchronic research on implicational scales can
be used for diachronic predictions and research, and that a procedure applied
for Guttman scaling (a method used to determine the degree to which a data-set
conforms to an implicational hierarchy [p. 156]) may need further
investigation by means of tests and comparisons.

Chapters 7 to 11 of Part II are case studies of valency patterns and valency
alternations in some typologically different languages of Africa. They are
Nllng, Mandinka, Emai, Yorûbá, and Modern Standard Arabic. In Nllng, three
major grammatical relations are generally predicated by semantics, and its
dependent marking system makes it possible to predict coding frames and
valency alternations for the majority of verbs. Also, the vast majority of
verbs fall into one of the three proposed classes, and many verbs have more
than one coding frame. In Mandinka, there is a clear-cut distinction between
transitive and intransitive constructions, and the number of core nominal
terms is limited to two (null core arguments being totally excluded). Its
valency patterns are represented by coding frames of mono-, bi- and tri-valent
verbs. There is also a number of (un)coded valency alternations. Next, Emai
equivalent data reflect four basic valency types: monovalent, bivalent,
trivalent and quadrivalent. The majority of verbs are, however, bivalent. As
to valency alternations, some verbs exhibit no alternations, while many do. In
Yorûbá, valency frames are identified in view of the syntactic properties of
its verbs. There are 10 basic coding frames in this language (keeping in mind
that it does not have zero argument predicates [or avalent verbs]) and 5 major
valency alternations. Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) is characterized by the
availability of 9 coding frames. Derivational patterns (or stems) have more
than one valency changing function. Basic function stems are causative,
reflexive, reciprocal, and passive. Valency alternations in MSA are of two
types: morphologically uncoded and verb-coded (increasing and decreasing, or
reducing), the latter – due to stem variation.

Chapters 12 to 21 of Part II deal with valency classes and valency
alternations in the following languages of Eurasia: Icelandic, Italian,
Eastern Armenian, Bezhta, Even (North Tungusic), Ket, Chintang, Mandarin,
Japanese, and Ainu. Chapter 12 explains some peculiarities of how two- and
three-place predicates instantiate different argument structure constructions
in Icelandic (a language with rich case morphology), such as Nominative/
Dative/ Accusative/ Genitive Subject Constructions, and different ditransitive
constructions. Case variation in this language is an important source of
uncoded alternations. Chapter 13 discusses some major cases of argument coding
and valency changing strategies in Italian, with reference to different
patterns of avalent, monovalent, bivalent, and trivalent verbs. This language
also disposes of some uncoded (e.g. object omission, oblique subject
alternation, etc.) and coded alternations (e.g. voice alternations) as well as
other argument rearranging alternations (e.g. conative alternation, locative
alternation, etc.). In Chapter 14, two and the only marked valency
alternations (the mediopassive and the causative) and various unmarked
alternations (e.g. reciprocal, object omission, proprietive, etc.) in Eastern
Armenian are discussed and the concept of “extended valencies” (p. 496)
accounting for optional and obligatory markedness of identical participants is
introduced. Bezhta, addressed in Chapter 15, is a language possibly lacking
zero valency. Its verbs take at least one argument in either Absolutive or
Ergative case. Its uncoded alternations are represented by case variation and
its coded alternations – by antipassive, causative, potential, and other
constructions. Both types of alternations have semantic implications going
beyond mere valency changes. Chapter 16 tackles the issues of valency
classification en Even. In order to identify valency frames, the authors try
to distinguish between arguments and adjuncts. Then, case-coded and verb-coded
(among some other types of changes) alternations (e.g. voice constructions)
are addressed. Chapter 17 shows how unique features (e.g. absence of
derivational categories, absence of labile verbs, limited morphological means
to express voice, wide use of periphrastic and suppletive constructions,
existence of a small set of [both morphologically and syntactically] avalent
verbs) of Ket morphosyntax are appropriate for identifying in this language
valency classes and valency increasing and decreasing alternations. Next, the
already mentioned above distinction between arguments and adjuncts is also
important for the study of the Chihtang language. Chapter 18 addresses this
issue, since the common morphosyntactic criteria (e.g. referentiality of NPs
as an indicator of argumenthood) are considered to be of little utility in
this case. Valency frames are generally lexically conditioned and later
modified by some syntactic operations. Case variation (e.g. differential case
marking) is mainly at the source of what the authors call “flexible valency”
(p. 669). Based on the study of 663 verbs, 15 predicate frames have been
identified. As to valency alternations, a distinction is made between
alternations with a dedicated marker and those without one. Chapter 19
analyzes valency in Mandarin in view of its relevant typological and unique
(e.g. state-denoting lexemes behaving like verbs) properties. Valency classes
are identified based on the distinction between mono-, bi- and tri-valent
verbs. Six out of seven major valency alternations are uncoded (no
morphological coding of the verb is observed). Japanese valency classes are
discussed in Chapter 20; Japanese is a language with argument-adjunct marked
distinction. While identifying valency classes, the authors took into account
not only the number of possible arguments of a predicate, but also its
syntactic and semantic status reflecting its entire meaning. Among the
productive coded alternations (e.g. passive, causative, etc.) less productive
constructions are detected (e.g. lexically-governed transitivity
alternations). As to the uncoded alternations, these are instantiated on some
lexically-restricted classes of predicates, except for one uncoded alternation
that is possible without imposed restrictions. Chapter 21 is the last chapter
included in the first volume. It presents the results of the study on Ainu
valency. The authors found no major problems in identifying valency patterns
in this well-documented endangered language due to the fact that its arguments
and adjuncts are encoded differently. As to valency patterns, only 5 of them
were identified: avalent, monovalent, bivalent, transitive, bivalent equative
copula, and trivalent transitive.Uncoded alternations are seen as
“zero-causative derivations” (p. 819, due to the existence of labile verb
pairs), whereas coded alternations are represented by two valency-increasing
and five valency-decreasing types of constructions.

Chapters 22 to 27 analyze the coding frames and valency alternations of 6
languages of Austronesia and the Pacific, which are as follows: Balinese,
Jakarta Indonesian, Sri Lanka Malay, Xârâcùù, Nen, and Jaminjung. And finally,
Chapters 28 to 36 examine the constructions under study in the following 10
languages of Americas: Central Alaskan Yupik, Ojibwe, Ho-Chunk, Silammon
Salish, Yaqui, Zenzontepec Chatino, Yucatec Maya, Bora, and Mapudungun. Just
like the studies presented briefly in the previous two paragraphs, the
investigations carried out on these 16 languages also differ in the issues
they focus on and solutions provided, first of all due to the varying
morphosyntactic means of argument structure realization in the languages
studied, and also based on the nature (since some languages are almost
extinct) as well as the richness and the quality of the linguistic data
extracted.

Chapter 37 of Part III (“Situation types, valency frames and operations”)
describes language as a semiotic system that resulted from the interplay of
two independent forces: 1) formal constraints such as laws of logic,
information theory, and physics complemented by other laws, 2) functions of
communication and cognition. Entities of grammar such as valency classes are
affected by the formal constraints only. They display the combinatory
potential of verbs. The article analyzes the typology of valency at 3 semantic
levels (3 - sense construction, 2 - designatum, and 3 -significatum) to which
correspond 3 ranges (extra-linguistic, cross-linguistic, and
language-specific), 3 domains, 3 components and 3 roles. Situation types of
level 3 are represented by predicates with their argument frames at level 2,
which in their turn are represented by verbs at level 1. Argument structure
realization is explained to be achieved by means of valency operations which
create particular predicates (mapped onto lexemes of a given language) with
particular clusters of arguments. Sets of alternative constructions are seen
in terms of paradigmatic relations. Chapter 38 (“The hierarchy of two-place
predicates: its limitations and uses”) defines prototypically transitive verbs
as such that “necessarily create a change” in the patient (p. 1601) and
distinguishes between practical and theoretical limitations to the hierarchy
of two-place predicates (HTPP), despite its limited usefulness due to its
applicability to certain languages and in various areas of grammar such as
word classes, case frames, transitive/intransitive alternation, and voice. In
Chapter 39 (“Verb classes within and across languages”) the importance of
deepening our understanding of both universal and language particular
characteristics of verb categorization is highlighted by way of: 1) reviewing
some of the first attempts to classify verbs based on their commonly shared
meanings, 2) introducing a broad semantic dichotomy that includes a number of
verb classes, 3) examining the possible effects for cross-linguistic research
on verb classes based on the study of argument realization alternatives in
hitting verbs. And finally, Chapter 40 explores the issues of verb
classification and valency alternations by considering semantic underpinnings
of the use of five English physical activity verbs and of 11 specialized
constructions (or instances of alternation phenomena) containing these verbs.
It is shown how the Natural Semantic Metalanguage approach allows for an
appropriate methodology of explicating valency phenomena “right down to the
level of semantic primes and molecules” (p. 1697). It follows from the study
that syntactic alternations represent a combination of two types of meaning:
the primary or basic sense of a verb conjoined with some additional meanings.

EVALUATION

This handbook is an impressive collection in terms of the numerous issues and
questions addressed as well as its interestingly convenient tripartite
structure. However, despite its many obvious merits, some minor issues have
been detected.

First of all, speaking about the structure of the volumes, a few suggestions
can be made. Firstly, there is no introduction (e.g. “Introductory Notes”,
“Introduction”, etc.) per se, either to introduce the handbook or each of its
parts. The readership would definitely benefit from a general introductory
chapter to the whole handbook and the contents of its three parts as well as a
brief explanation of the reasons that motivated this division. It is only in
Section 1 “General Information” (of Chapter 1 “Introduction”, at the beginning
of Part I [p. 3]), that the reader is introduced, in passing, to the whole
handbook by means of the confusing use of the wording “the present volume”,
since it is not clear if the authors are referring to the 1st volume, the
whole handbook, or just Part I. And it is only in the subsection 3.2 of the
first chapter that the reader “suddenly” learns the details of the project and
what led to the conception of this publication as well as the reasons for
dividing it into three parts. This subsection could be easily incorporated
into the above-mentioned general introduction to the handbook. Secondly, in
some articles the references to some influential works on a subject could be
provided, as it is the case of the following statement found on p. 4, ¶ 2:
“Unlike earlier studies, which divided the verbal lexicon into a few highly
general  classes (e.g. stative vs. active verbs, intransitive vs. transitive
vs. ditransitive, or, for intransitives, unaccusatives and unergatives) […]”.

As regards the content of the publication, theories, approaches and methods
are generally very well explained and points made by the authors in their
accounting for the results of their studies are generally clear. However,
there is still some room for improvement and some suggestions can be made with
regard to the potential data to be investigated. For instance, following the
thought (p. 12) that “German makes finer coding distinctions among verb
classes than English” (a language “of the more isolating type”), we would
suggest that the study of languages of the highest morphosynthesis type like
Ukrainian (Bilous 2011: 72), Hungarian or Estonian can be even more
informative (in that it might, for example, possibly lead to some new
revelations about “more granularity in coding frames and valency classes” [p.
17]) than the study of languages like German, considering their highly rich
case morphology as well as polysemous nature underlying syntactically
polyfunctional behavior of adpositional marking (both of which contribute to
the “syntactic versatility” [p. 13] of the above-mentioned languages).
Therefore, categorization of verbs in terms of their lexical properties would
definitely benefit from the results of research on language-specific and
verb-specific case coding properties (such as case selection or assignment and
[double/triple] case alternations) and adpositional marking coding properties.

With regard to the attempt to delimit valency to post-verbal arguments and the
difficulty to find a “unique way of distinguishing between arguments and
adjuncts” (p. 50, Chapter 3), it can be said that drawing a line between
semantic content of a verb and its syntactic realization might prove to be
revealing, at least to a degree (Bilous 2011: 79, 81–82, 95, 122), since
syntactic component seems to have a changing/adjusting effect on verbal
predicates (or their lexical entries) by ‘forcing’ them into new
configurations during syntactic computations (due to a speaker’s ability to
manipulate vocabulary items in different and complex ways, which can vary even
and to a certain extent from one speaker of the same language to another,
based on many factors, such as level of education, level of linguistic
competence, knowledge of other languages, and so on). In other words, it is a
basic inherent property of any verb, made available from Universit’sal Grammar
(UG), to transitivise as soon as a suitable morphosyntactic context makes it
possible (making available a post-verbal nominal featuring argument-like or
adjunct-like meaning), in conjunction with other factors (semantic, pragmatic,
etc.). Also, no clear point was made anywhere in the two volumes that cases
and adpositions (=argument flags) in some languages can have the ability to
change or modify a verb’s ‘basic’ meaning. For instance, the class of
“manner-verbs” (p. 105) can be joined by the Ukrainian verb kynuty ‘throw’
when it selects one of the 3 competing cases – INSTR, realizing [MANNER] as a
feature (Bilous 2011: 259, 298, 305), in line with the observation (Bilous
2011: 69, 94, 124, 325) that the predicate’s semantic content can be
complemented with semantic features derived from the Representation of
Semantic Features before syntactic operations take place. The concept of
transitivity also needs to be addressed, since the purportedly
cross-linguistic definition found on p. 136 is by no means strong enough for
one simple reason to start with (much more needs to be said in this regard
though): zero valent predicates can establish in some languages a transitive
relation; yet they do not have an A (agent) (see Bilous 2011: 87–89 / Bilous
2012: 4, 8–10). This is valid due to the (proposed) existence of a universal
transitivity feature (TF, available from UG) on any predicate and, in theory,
able to be activated or instantiated in any language, even if a predicate has
no agent role to assign (hence the existence of ‘dummy subjects’, provided by
syntax as an alternative means to satisfy the EPP [‘Extended Projection
Principle’, Chomsky 1981; cf. also Bilous 2011: 16, 103 for a detailed
discussion) requirement.

Finally, as far as the quality of the text and the reliability of the data
used are concerned, they are hard to find fault with, since all the articles
appear to be well-edited and proofread. The typographical errors are rare.
Here are examples of some of them: on p. vii in the Contents the reference to
a page “10699” of Chapter 26 “Valency in Nen” should be “1069”; on p. 140, ¶1
the word “other” is repeated; on p. 141, in Ex. 14 the word ‘arm’ is used (for
some unknown reason) interchangeably with the word ‘hand’.

In conclusion, the handbook is a valuable contribution to the study of verbs
valency classes thanks to its extensive coverage of varying topics on verb
classes from a cross-linguistic perspective and on their syntactic behavior as
a reflection of the underlying semantic properties of different types of
verbs. It is recommended first of all for scholars specializing in theoretical
and typological linguistics with focus on verb typology and verbal
argument-assigning properties, as well as for (under)graduate students and
scholars in linguistics of all bents who would like to learn more about the
subject.

REFERENCES

Bilous, Rostyslav. 2012. Transitivity revisited: an overview of recent
research and possible solutions. In Canadian Linguistic Association Annual
Conference Proceedings 2012.

Bilous, Rostyslav. 2011. Transitivité et marquage d’objet différentiel.
Doctoral Dissertation. Toronto, University of Toronto.

Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Ross Bilous is an independent researcher currently interested in the study of
varying grammatical (largely morphosyntactic and semantic) issues from the
perspective of theoretical linguistics, linguistic typology, historical
linguistics, and applied linguistics (e.g. morphosyntactic realization of the
argument structure in (non)Indo-European languages; interlinguistic
semantico-morphosyntactic classification of verbs; relation between semantic
feature realization, case assignment and DP-structure on post-verbal nouns;
the phenomenon of (de)transitivization across languages; featural approach to
the study of language change; the issue of Proto-Indo-European language
reconstruction and characterization; challenges related to the transfer of
units of meaning from one language to another in the domain of transitive
relation during the process of translation; second language teaching and
learning in different learning environments).





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
                       Fund Drive 2017
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
            http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

This year the LINGUIST List hopes to raise $70,000. This money
will go to help keep the List running by supporting all of our 
Student Editors for the coming year.

Don't forget to check out the Fund Drive 2017 site!

http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/

We collect donations via the eLinguistics Foundation, a
registered 501(c) Non Profit organization with the federal tax
number 45-4211155. The donations can be offset against your
federal and sometimes your state tax return (U.S. tax payers
only). For more information visit the IRS Web-Site, or contact
your financial advisor.

Many companies also offer a gift matching program. Contact
your human resources department and send us the necessary form.

Thank you very much for your support of LINGUIST!
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-28-2118	
----------------------------------------------------------
Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated
from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
          http://multitree.org/