In linguistics, an unaccusative verb is an intransitive verb whose grammatical subject is not a semantic agent. In other words, the subject does not actively initiate, or is not actively responsible for, the action expressed by the verb. An unaccusative verb's subject is semantically similar to the direct object of a transitive verb or to the subject of a verb in the passive voice.
Examples in English are "the tree fell"; "the window broke". In those sentences, the action (falling, breaking) can be considered as something that happened to the subject, rather than being initiated by it. Semantically, the word "tree" in the sentence "the tree fell" plays a similar role to that in a transitive sentence, such as "they cut down the tree", or its passive transformation "the tree was cut down". Unaccusative verbs thus contrast with unergative verbs, such as run or resign, which describe actions voluntarily initiated by the subject. They are called unaccusative because although the subject has the semantic role of a patient, it is not assigned accusative case.
In nominative–accusative languages, the accusative case, which marks the direct object of transitive verbs, usually represents the non-volitional argument (often the patient). However, for unaccusative verbs, although the subject is non-volitional, it is not marked by the accusative. As Perlmutter points out, the same verb such as "slide" can be either unaccusative or unergative, depending on whether the action was involuntary or voluntary. [1] The term "unaccusative verb" was first used in a 1978 paper by David M. Perlmutter of the University of California, San Diego. [2] Perlmutter credited the linguist Geoffrey K. Pullum with inventing the terms "unaccusative" and "unergative". [3]
The derivation of the core properties of unaccusative constructions from a set of principles has been one of the topmost issues[ citation needed ] of the agenda of modern syntax since the seminal work by Perlmutter 1978 (cf. Burzio 1986 and Hale-Keyser 2003 for landmark proposals). Perlmutter introduced the "Unaccusative Hypothesis" in 1978 explaining that intransitive verbs are not homogeneous, but are either unaccusative verbs or unergative verbs. [4] The Unaccusative Hypothesis was later integrated into the Government and Binding Theory by Burzio (1986). The Unaccusative Hypothesis (UH) argues that the Object of the sentence becomes the Subject in the derivation, meanwhile unergatives start as subjects. More specifically, the first approach introduced by the Unaccusative Hypothesis arrived at an important consequence constituting an analogy between English passive voice constructions and unaccusative constructions whereas in the second approach a more radical theory was proposed[ clarification needed ] based on the analysis of expletive there stemming from the sentences with the copula suggested in Moro 1997.
While L2 learners have difficulties with the distinction between unaccusative and unergative verbs, children when learning their first language do not encounter those same difficulties. Studies have shown that children as young as 2 years old can distinguish between unaccusative and unergative verbs. [5] Tests have been done on 2 year olds in Hebrew and Portuguese (Friedmann 2007), on 4 & 5 year olds in German and Dutch (van Hout, 1996; Randall, van Hout, Baayen & Weissenborn, 2004), 2 & 3 year olds in Italian and French (Lorusso, Caprin, and Guasti 2004, Snyder et al., 1995), and 3 - 6 year olds in Russian (using Genitive-of-Negation tests) (Babyonyshev et al. 2001). These studies all concluded that children from a young age are able to differentiate between unaccusatives, unergatives, and transitives.
Further linguistic studies have shown that intransitive verbs will identify as either unergative or unaccusative, determined by the language. A recent study proposed by James Baker in 2019 suggests that intransitive verbs not only identify as either unaccusative or unergative, but with multiple different classes. [6] According to Baker, the Split Intransitivity analysis has various advantages over the traditional approach in terms of argument structure. The original traditional hypothesis proposed by Levin & Rappaport-Hovav in 1995 mentions linking rules referring to either an external or internal argument. In Split Intransitivity, Baker introduces additional components to the processing of unaccusative verbs he calls Initiation, State, and Change.
The Unaccusative Trap Hypothesis, developed by Oshita in 1997 and 2001, proposes to bring[ clarification needed ] several unaccusative-related phenomena cross-linguistically and to address L2 acquisition on unaccusative verbs. According to Oshita, L2 learners undergo a 3-step process before they have the knowledge to distinguish between unaccusative and unergative verbs. In the Unaccusative Trap Hypothesis, at the first stage, unaccusatives are acquired as unergatives in L2 learners. In the second stage, L2 learners realize and become awakened to the natural linking rules proposed by Levin and Rappaport Havov in 1995. Even in this second stage, there is a stage of syntactic confusion with derivations into the sentence structure. Since Unaccusatives have different syntactic rules for their target languages, the non-target interlanguage phenomena for Japanese or other languages, for example, will be different than those observed in English. Oshita mentions that L2 learners must unlearn non-target syntactic operations and reach the third stage. By this stage, they are out of confusion and can understand unaccusative constructions natively. This study, discussed by Junhua Mo in 2020, analyzed the Unaccusative Trap Hypothesis with L2 English learners and calls for further study. [7] The linking rules associated proposed by Levin and Rappaport Hovav were only effective for L1 acquisition of English, not applicable to L2 acquisition.
According to linguistic theory, unaccusative verbs have sentences that undergo lexical and syntactic operations that do not occur with unergative and transitives. [8] A recent study in 2010 by Friedmann, Shetreet, and Hadar explains and supports this linguistic theory by showing that there are two separate activation locations from unaccusative and unergative verbs in the brain. This study focused on neural correlations of linguistic distinction between Unaccusatives and Unergatives. [9] This study was taken from participants who were tested in their native language, Hebrew. The differences between Unaccusative and Unergative (and transitive) verbs arose from differences in syntactic and lexical derivations.
Unaccusative and unergative verbs, while syntactically different, are communicated the same on the surface. They both include a noun phrase (NP) followed by a verb phrase (VP) when produced. In generative grammar, an unaccusative verb is analysed as having an underlying VP shell in which the NP is selected by the bottom-most VP and later moved. For an unergative verb, on the other hand, the NP is selected by the topmost VP in a VP shell, and therefore is not required to move to create a surface level order of the noun being followed by the verb. The image to the right demonstrates how the noun in an unaccusative is the direct object of the sentence, as it is selected by the VP as a complement, whereas the noun in an unergative is the subject of the sentence. [10]
The unaccusative/unergative split in intransitive verbs can be characterized semantically. Unaccusative verbs tend to express a telic and dynamic change of state or location, while unergative verbs tend to express an agentive activity (not involving directed movement). While these properties define the "core" classes of unaccusatives and unergatives, there are intermediate classes of verbs whose status is less clear (for example, verbs of existence, appearance, or continuation, verbs denoting uncontrolled processes, or motion verbs).
A number of syntactic criteria for unaccusativity have also been identified. The most well-known test is auxiliary selection in languages that use two different temporal auxiliaries (have and be) for analytic past/perfect verb forms (e.g. German, Dutch, French, Italian; even Early Modern English). In these languages, unaccusative verbs combine with be, while unergative verbs combine with have.
From one language to another, however, synonymous verbs do not always select the same auxiliary, and even within one language, a single verb may combine with either auxiliary (either depending on the meaning/context, or with no observable semantic motivation, sometimes depending on regional variation of the language). The auxiliary selection criterion therefore also identifies core classes of unaccusative and unergatives (which show the least variation within and across languages) and more peripheral classes (where variation and context effects are observed). There are languages which do not have auxiliary selection, such as Russian, and therefore other tests sometimes have to be used to determine whether a verb is unaccusative or unergative
Other tests that have been studied involve passivization (see Impersonal passive voice), ne/en cliticization in Italian and French, and impersonal, participial, and resultative constructions in a wide range of languages.
For example, in Dutch and Turkish, unergative verbs can be used in impersonal passive constructions, but unaccusative verbs cannot. [11] In the following example from Dutch, the verb is unergative, describing a voluntary action, and can be made passive:
But a sentence with an unaccusative verb, such as "The concert lasted a long time", cannot be made passive.
In Japanese, the grammaticality of sentences that appear to violate syntactic rules may signal the presence of an unaccusative verb. According to transformational models of grammar, such sentences contain a trace located in the direct object position that helps to satisfy the mutual c-command condition between numeral quantifiers and the noun phrases they modify (Tsujimura, 2007).
Modern English only uses one perfect auxiliary (have), although archaic examples like "He is fallen/come" reflect the use of be with unaccusative verbs in earlier stages of the language. The identification of unaccusative verbs in English is therefore based on other criteria, notably:
unaccusative verb | past participle | unergative verb | past participle | |
---|---|---|---|---|
The snow melted. | the melted snow | The victim shouted. | *the shouted victim | |
The guests departed. | the departed guests | The child slept. | *the slept child | |
The soldier fell. | the fallen soldier | The leader hesitated. | *the hesitated leader |
resultative adjunct can modify: | unaccusative verb | unergative verb | |
---|---|---|---|
subject in intransitive verb | The vase broke into pieces. | *John dined full/to death/two pounds heavier. | |
direct object of transitive verb | John broke the vase into pieces. | (not applicable) | |
subject of transitive verb | (not applicable) | *John ate the brownies full/to death/two pounds heavier. | |
subject of passive verb | The vase was broken into pieces. | *The brownies full/to death/two pounds heavier. |
While "to die" has been classified as an unaccusative verb, like "to fall" and "to arrive", [12] Dąbrowska (2016) [13] noted that "to die" is an example of Unaccusative Mismatch, because "to die" behaves:
Perlmutter (1978) gives examples of various types of unaccusative verbs. He emphasises that the following categories are not definitive, and that alternative classifications are possible. [14]
(a) | the verb "be" with adjectives | be heavy, be red, etc. |
(b) | verbs whose grammatical subject is semantically a Patient | (i) burn, fall, sink, float, flow, slip, slide, shake, stumble, succumb, boil, dry, sway, wave, lie (involuntary), bend (involuntary) |
(ii) melt, freeze, evaporate, solidify, darken, rot, wither, collapse, break, increase, germinate, die, suffocate, crack, split, disappear, disperse, explode | ||
(c) | predicates of existing and happening | exist, happen, occur, arise, ensue, turn up |
(d) | non-voluntary verbs of appearance, sound, smell, etc. | shine, sparkle, clink, snap (involuntary), pop, smell (bad), stink |
(e) | aspectual predicates | begin, start, stop, continue, end |
(f) | duratives | last, remain, stay, survive |
Perlmutter points out that some verbs can be used in either unaccusative or unergative clauses. If the action is deliberate or willed, the clause is unergative:
This section possibly contains original research .(December 2021) |
Unlike the subtle evidence for unaccusatives in English, Russian provides strong tests to determine unaccusativity. The four tests for unaccusativity in Russian are:
When the subject of an unaccusative verb appears in a po-phrase, the verb will lack subject-verb agreement. This construction would be ungrammatical for unergatives, causing a distinction to be visible between unaccusatives and unergatives.
Я
I
дал
gave-MASC.SG
мальчикам
boys-DAT
по
(po)
яблоку
apple-DAT
‘I gave the boys an apple each.’
По
(po)
яблоку
apple-DAT
упало
fell-NEUT.SG
с
from
каждого
each-GEN.SG
дерева
tree-GEN
‘A (different) apple fell from each tree.’
В
in
каждой
each
квартире
apartment
смеялось
laughed-NEUT.SG-REFL
по
(po)
мальчику.
boy-DAT
‘A (different) boy laughed in each apartment.’
Na-phrases affect the interpretation of the internal arguments of the verb. This would be the NP in the direct object position of a transitive verb or the NP in the subject position of an unaccusative verb, once again creating a clear distinction between unaccusatives and unergatives.
Дети
children-NOM
купили
bought-PL
много
many
книг
books-GEN
‘The children bought a lot of books.’
Много
much
травы
grass-GEN
наросло
grew-NEUT.SG
в
in
парке
park
‘A lot of grass grew in the park.’
*Много
many
детей
children-GEN
наиграло
played-NEUT.SG
в
in
парке
park
‘Many children played in the park.’
Locative Inversion (Babyonyshev 1996) is a construction that is only possible for the NPs in the position of the subject of unaccusative verbs. These three tests, while they do distinguish unaccusatives from unergatives, are seldom used in everyday speech.
В
in
углу
corner
валялась
lay-FEM.SG-REFL
куртка
jacket-NOM
‘In the corner lay a jacket.’
В
in
саду
garden
росли
grew-PL
три
three
розы
roses-NOM
‘In the garden grew three roses.’
*Себе
self
под
under
нос
nose
напевал
sang-MASC.SG
Петя
Petja-NOM
‘To himself sang Petya.’
В
in
квартире
apartment
свистит
whistles
Ваня
Vanya-NOM
‘Vanya is whistling in the apartment.’
In contrast, Genitive-of-Negation, is frequently used by Russian speakers in both spoken and written language. The genitive case can be used both for the direct objects of transitive verbs and the subjects of unaccusative verbs while the sentence is being negated. This grammatical case is not allowed to be used for the NPs in the subject position of transitive and transitive[ clarification needed ] verbs, and with unergative verbs. [15]
Ответ-а
Answer–GEN
не
NEG
пришло
came–NEUT.SG
'The answer didn't come.'
Студент
Student.MASC-NOM
не
NEG
писал
wrote-MASC.SG
/*писало
/wrote-NEUT.SG
'The student didn't write'
Владимиров
Vladimirov
не
NEG
управляет
direct
фабрикой
factory-INST
/*фабрики
/*factory-GEN
'Vladimirov doesn’t direct the factory.'
Unaccusative verbs are generally more readily identifiable in ergative-absolutive languages, such as Basque, since the subject of unaccusative verbs is inflected similarly to direct objects. [17] By contrast, nominative-accusative languages, such as Japanese mark the subject of unaccusative verbs agentively. [18]
Edalontzi-a
glass-A-DEF
apurtu
break-PERF
da.
A3s-AUX
The glass has broken.
Jon-ek
Jon-E
edalontzi-a
glass-A-DEF
apurtu
break-PERF
du.
A3s-AUX-E3s
Jon has broken the glass.
In example (a), the verb apurtu is unaccusative, and the noun edalontzi appears in the object position, and is marked in the absolutive case. In example (b), the verb is transitive, and we see the subject Jon marked in the ergative case. The auxiliary verb used in either case is also different. The same case markings auxiliary variations[ clarification needed ] appear in an unaccusative/unergative setting, on the same noun: [19]
Jon-Ø
John-A
etorr-i
come-PERF
da.
be-A3s
John came
Jon-ek
Jon-E
etsi
resign-PERF
du-Ø.
have.A3s-E3s
John resigned (is desperate)
In the unaccusative setting (a), Jon is marked in the absolutive case; in the unergative setting (b), Jon is marked in the ergative case. Note, too, the auxiliary be in the unaccusative setting and the auxiliary have in the unergative setting.
Similar to Basque, Georgian also features different markings for agent/object nouns in intransitive contexts, but does the verb case remains unchanged[ clarification needed ]. [20] In unaccusative contexts (a), the noun is marked with the active[ clarification needed ] case, while it is marked with the nominative case in unergative contexts.
bavšv-ma
child-ACT
itʼira.
3S/cry/II
The child cried.
rezo
Rezo.NOM
gamoizarda.
3S/grow/II
Rezo grew up.
A passive voice construction is a grammatical voice construction that is found in many languages. In a clause with passive voice, the grammatical subject expresses the theme or patient of the main verb – that is, the person or thing that undergoes the action or has its state changed. This contrasts with active voice, in which the subject has the agent role. For example, in the passive sentence "The tree was pulled down", the subject denotes the patient rather than the agent of the action. In contrast, the sentences "Someone pulled down the tree" and "The tree is down" are active sentences.
In grammar, an intransitive verb is a verb, aside from an auxiliary verb, whose context does not entail a transitive object. That lack of an object distinguishes intransitive verbs from transitive verbs, which entail one or more objects. Additionally, intransitive verbs are typically considered within a class apart from modal verbs and defective verbs.
In linguistics, an object is any of several types of arguments. In subject-prominent, nominative-accusative languages such as English, a transitive verb typically distinguishes between its subject and any of its objects, which can include but are not limited to direct objects, indirect objects, and arguments of adpositions ; the latter are more accurately termed oblique arguments, thus including other arguments not covered by core grammatical roles, such as those governed by case morphology or relational nouns . In ergative-absolutive languages, for example most Australian Aboriginal languages, the term "subject" is ambiguous, and thus the term "agent" is often used instead to contrast with "object", such that basic word order is often spoken of in terms such as Agent-Object-Verb (AOV) instead of Subject-Object-Verb (SOV). Topic-prominent languages, such as Mandarin, focus their grammars less on the subject-object or agent-object dichotomies but rather on the pragmatic dichotomy of topic and comment.
Lexical semantics, as a subfield of linguistic semantics, is the study of word meanings. It includes the study of how words structure their meaning, how they act in grammar and compositionality, and the relationships between the distinct senses and uses of a word.
In general linguistics, a labile verb is a verb that undergoes causative alternation; that is, it can be used both transitively and intransitively, with the requirement that the direct object of its transitive use corresponds to the subject of its intransitive use, as in "I ring the bell" and "The bell rings." Labile verbs are a prominent feature of English, and also occur in many other languages. When causatively alternating verbs are used transitively they are called causatives since, in the transitive use of the verb, the subject is causing the action denoted by the intransitive version. When causatively alternating verbs are used intransitively, they are referred to as anticausatives or inchoatives because the intransitive variant describes a situation in which the theme participant undergoes a change of state, becoming, for example, "rung".
In linguistic typology, split ergativity is a feature of certain languages where some constructions use ergative syntax and morphology, but other constructions show another pattern, usually nominative–accusative. The conditions in which ergative constructions are used vary among different languages.
In linguistic typology, ergative–absolutive alignment is a type of morphosyntactic alignment in which the single argument ("subject") of an intransitive verb behaves like the object of a transitive verb, and differently from the agent ("subject") of a transitive verb. Examples include Basque, Georgian, Mayan, Tibetan, and certain Indo-European languages. It has also been attributed to the Semitic modern Aramaic languages. Ergative languages are classified into two groups: those that are morphologically ergative but syntactically behave as accusative and those that, on top of being ergative morphologically, also show ergativity in syntax. No language has been recorded in which both the morphological and syntactical ergative are present. Languages that belong to the former group are more numerous than those to the latter. Dyirbal is said to be the only representative of syntactic ergativity, yet it displays accusative alignment with certain pronouns.
In linguistic typology, tripartite alignment is a type of morphosyntactic alignment in which the main argument ('subject') of an intransitive verb, the agent argument ('subject') of a transitive verb, and the patient argument of a transitive verb are each treated distinctly in the grammatical system of a language. This is in contrast with nominative-accusative and ergative-absolutive alignment languages, in which the argument of an intransitive verb patterns with either the agent argument of the transitive or with the patient argument of the transitive. Thus, whereas in English, "she" in "she runs" patterns with "she" in "she finds it", and an ergative language would pattern "she" in "she runs" with "her" in "he likes her", a tripartite language would treat the "she" in "she runs" as morphologically and/or syntactically distinct from either argument in "he likes her".
Georgian grammar has many distinctive and extremely complex features, such as split ergativity and a polypersonal verb agreement system.
An unergative verb is an intransitive verb that is characterized semantically by having a subject argument which is an agent that actively initiates the action expressed by the verb.
An ambitransitive verb is a verb that is both intransitive and transitive. This verb may or may not require a direct object. English has many ambitransitive verbs. Examples include read, break, and understand.
The impersonal passive voice is a verb voice that decreases the valency of an intransitive verb to zero.
Hindustani, the lingua franca of Northern India and Pakistan, has two standardised registers: Hindi and Urdu. Grammatical differences between the two standards are minor but each uses its own script: Hindi uses Devanagari while Urdu uses an extended form of the Perso-Arabic script, typically in the Nastaʿlīq style.
In linguistics, volition is a concept that distinguishes whether the subject, or agent of a particular sentence intended an action or not. Simply, it is the intentional or unintentional nature of an action. Volition concerns the idea of control and for the purposes outside of psychology and cognitive science, is considered the same as intention in linguistics. Volition can then be expressed in a given language using a variety of possible methods. These sentence forms usually indicate that a given action has been done intentionally, or willingly. There are various ways of marking volition cross-linguistically. When using verbs of volition in English, like "want" or "prefer", these verbs are not expressly marked. Other languages handle this with affixes, while others have complex structural consequences of volitional or non-volitional encoding.
The grammar of the Marathi language shares similarities with other modern Indo-Aryan languages such as Odia, Gujarati or Punjabi. The first modern book exclusively about the grammar of Marathi was printed in 1805 by Willam Carey.
Guanano (Wanano), or Piratapuyo, is a Tucanoan language spoken in the northwest part of Amazonas in Brazil and in Vaupés in Colombia. It is spoken by two peoples, the Wanano and the Piratapuyo. They do not intermarry, but their speech is 75% lexically similar.
In grammar, the voice of a verb describes the relationship between the action that the verb expresses and the participants identified by its arguments. When the subject is the agent or doer of the action, the verb is in the active voice. When the subject is the patient, target or undergoer of the action, the verb is said to be in the passive voice. When the subject both performs and receives the action expressed by the verb, the verb is in the middle voice.
In generative linguistics, Burzio's generalization is the observation that a verb can assign a theta role to its subject position if and only if it can assign an accusative case to its object. Accordingly, if a verb does not assign a theta role to its subject, then it does not assign accusative case to its object. The generalization is named after Italian linguist Luigi Burzio, based on work published in the 1980s, but the seeds of the idea are found in earlier scholarship. The generalization can be logically written in the following equation:
θ ↔ A Where: θ = Subject Theta Role A = Accusative Case
In linguistics, differential argument marking (DAM) is the phenomenon of a language's encoding a single grammatical function (e.g. subject or object) in different ways. It includes non-uniform encoding of arguments in terms of case marking, but also in terms of the presence or absence of agreement on the verb. The term differential marking – specifically differential object marking or DOM – was coined by Georg Bossong in relation to his work on Sardinian and New Iranian languages. However, in recent years there has been a growing interest in the great variety of differential marking patterns across the world's languages in both formal and functional linguistics.
In linguistic typology, nominative–absolutive alignment is a type of morphosyntactic alignment in which the sole argument of an intransitive verb shares some coding properties with the agent argument of a transitive verb and other coding properties with the patient argument of a transitive verb. It is typically observed in a subset of the clause types of a given language.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(help); Missing or empty |title=
(help)