Cover not available
Part of
Verb Classes and Aspect
Edited by Elisa Barrajón López, José Luis Cifuentes Honrubia and Susana Rodríguez Rosique
[IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature 9] 2015
► pp. 288–311

Transitivity and verb classes

The received concept of transitivity includes several semantic properties based on the idea that transitive clauses express an action performed by an agent on a patient, and suggest that transitive syntactic structures typically refer to concrete actions. Arguably, a semantic characterization of syntactic transitivity requires independent definitions of semantic and syntactic transitivity and needs more empirical support. This paper is an initial quantitative exploration of semantic verb types and transitive syntactic structures in a Spanish corpus-based syntactic-semantic database (ADESSE) and in a typological valency patterns database (ValPaL), and it somewhat calls into question the hypothesis that transitive syntactic structures are more strongly associated with verbs expressing concrete actions performed by an agent than with verbs expressing certain kinds of mental states.
Keywords: process type, transitivity, verb class
Published online: 25 November 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ivitra.9.13gar
References (26)
Beavers, John. 2011. “On Affectedness.” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29 (2): 335–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2012. Verbs. Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1987. “Transitivity in Grammar and Cognition.” In Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, Russell S. Tomlin (ed.), 53–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. 2014. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. Fourth Edition (revised by Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen). London / New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hartman, Iren, Haspelmath, Martin and Taylor, Bradley (eds.). 2013. Valency Patterns Leipzig. Pre-release version. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL].Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. “Comparative Concepts and Descriptive Categories in Crosslinguistic Studies.” Language 86 (3): 663–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “On S, A, P, T, and R as Comparative Concepts for Alignment Typology.” Linguistic Typology 15 (3): 535–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, Calude, Andreea, Spagnol, Michael, Narrog, Heiko and Bamyaci, Elif. 2014. “Coding Causal–noncausal Verb Alternations: A Form–frequency Correspondence Explanation.” Journal of Linguistics 50 (03): 587–625. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Thompson, Sandra A. 1980. “Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse.” Language 56 (2): 251–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J., Kratochvíl, František and Coupe, Alexander R. 2011. “On Transitivity.” Studies in Language 35 (3): 469–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 2002. “Transitivity Revisited as an Example of a More Strict Approach in Typological Research.” Folia Linguistica 36 (3-4): 141–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago / London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 1999. “Objecthood: An Event Structure Perspective.” Chicago Linguistic Society 35 (1): 223–47.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej. 2005. “Case Pattern Splits, Verb Types and Construction Competition.” In Competition and Variation in Natural Languages: The Case for Case, Mengistu Amberber and Helen de Hoop (eds.), 73–118. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2004. “Descriptive Motifs and Generalizations.” In Language Typology: A Functional Perspective, Alice Caffarel, J.R. Martin, and Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (eds.), 537–673. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ninio, Anat. 1999. “Pathbreaking Verbs in Syntactic Development and the Question of Prototypical Transitivity.” Journal of Child Language 26 (03): 619–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1981. “Split Case-Marking Patterns in Verb-Types and Tense/aspect/mood.” Linguistics 19 (5-6): 389–438.Google Scholar
. 1985. “Remarks on Transitivity.” Journal of Linguistics 21 (02): 385–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vázquez Rozas, Victoria. 2006. “Gustar-Type Verbs.” In Functional Approaches to Spanish Syntax: Lexical Semantics, Discourse and Transitivity, Clancy J. Clements and Jiyoung Yoon (eds.), 80–114. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
. 2007. “A Usage-Based Approach to Prototypical Transitivity.” In On Interpreting Construction Schemas. From Action and Motion to Transitivity and Causality, Nicole Delbecque and Bert Cornillie (eds.), 17–37. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1957. “Verbs and Times.” The Philosophical Review 66 (2): 143–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena. 2010. “Typological Variation in Grammatical Relations.” Ph.D. thesis, Leipzig: Universität Leipzig.