Cover not available
Part of
Usage-Based Studies in Modern Hebrew: Background, Morpho-lexicon, and Syntax
Edited by Ruth A. Berman
[Studies in Language Companion Series 210] 2020
► pp. 465–506

Chapter 13
Transitivity and valence

| The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
The study explores a range of transitive constructions of varying prototypicality in Modern Hebrew (MH) referring to causal and non-causal events, including complex predicates, semi-transitive and lexicalized constructions, with transitivity analyzed as a morpho-syntactic category rather than a semantic concept. The chapter describes various types of alternations and variations in case-frame and argument structure in MH transitive constructions, noting the growing tendency towards labile alternation (ambitransitivity), particularly in the prototypical causative morphological pattern of the hif’il verb-template (e.g., hilbin ‘whiten’ serves both as causative ‘make white’ and inchoative ‘become white’). In such cases, a change in the valence-frame of the verb does not necessarily involve change in the verb-morphology, yielding the claim that transitivity in MH does not depend exclusively on the semantic frame or morpho-phonological nature of the verb-pattern, but instead on the overall syntactic properties of the construction, which in turn is dependent on discourse requirements. Avoidance in discourse of the core O (object) argument is shown to occur even in highly transitive constructions, in which reader-hearers resolve the unrealized argument by context-based inferences and/or based on their communicative competence in conversational discourse.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Transitive constructions in MH
    • 2.1Micro-roles
    • 2.2Morphosyntactic properties
  • 3.Reduced vs. increased transitivity
  • 4.Pseudo-marking of transitivity
  • 5.Transitive constructions with periphrastic verbs and lexicalized expressions
  • 6.Labile (ambitransitive) alternations
    • Type I: Transitive-intransitive zero derivation
  • 7.Alternations and variations in case-frame and argument structure
    • 7.1Alternation between accusative and ‘b’-prepositional construction
    • 7.2Transitive verbs in locative alternation
  • 8.Transitivity in discourse
  • 9.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 18 March 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.210.14hal
References (69)
References
Anderson, Stephen R. 1971. The role of deep structure in semantic interpretation. Foundations of Language 7(3): 387–396.Google Scholar
Berman, Ruth A. 1980. The case of an (S)VO language: Subjectless constructions in Modern Hebrew. Language 56(4): 759–776. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1982a. On the nature of oblique objects in bitransitive constructions. Lingua 56: 101–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1982b. Dative marking of the affectee role. Hebrew Annual Review 6: 35–59.Google Scholar
1993. Marking of verb transitivity by Hebrew-speaking children. Journal of Child Language 20(3): 641–669. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. Children’s lexical innovations: Developmental perspectives on Hebrew verb-structure. In Language Processing and Language Acquisition in a Root-Based Morphology [Language Acquisition & Language Disorders 28], Joseph Shimron (ed.) 243–291. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2017. Word class distinctiveness versus polycategoriality in Modern Hebrew: Psycholinguistic perspectives. In Lexical Polycategoriality: Cross-linguistic, Cross-theoretical, and Language Acquisition Approaches [Studies in Language Companion Series 182], Valentina Vapnarsky & Edy Veneziano (eds), 343–376 Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berman, Ruth A. & Uziel-Karl, Sigal. 2000. Where’s ellipsis: Whether and why there are missing arguments in Hebrew child Language. Linguistics 38(3): 457–482.Google Scholar
Bolozky, Shmuel. 1982. Strategies of Modern Hebrew verb formation. Hebrew Annual Review 6: 69–79.Google Scholar
. 1999. Measuring Productivity in Word Formation: The Case of Israeli Hebrew [Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 27]. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. The ‘roots’ of denominative Hebrew verbs. In Language Processing and Language Acquisition in a Root-Based Morphology [Language Acquisition & Language Disorders 28], Joseph Shimron (ed.), 131–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Borschev, Vladimir & Partee, Barbara H. 2002. The Russian genitive of negation: Theme-rheme structure of perspective structure? Journal of Slavic Linguistics 10(1–2): 105–144.Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1998. Le marquage de l’expérient dans les langues d’Europe. In Actance et Valence dans les Langues de l’Europe [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 20–2], Jack Feuillet (ed.), 259–294. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. Chicago IL: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2014. Cross-linguistic variation in the treatment of beneficiaries and the argument vs. adjunct. Linguistic Discovery 12(2): 41–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 1990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 1994. The semantics of subjecthood. In Subjecthood and Subjectivity: The Status of the Subject in Linguistic Theory, Mariana Yaguello (ed.), 29–75. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1980. Studies in Functional Grammar. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. & Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2000. Introduction. In Changing Valency: Case Studies in Transitivity, Robert M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds), 1–29. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doron, Edit & Dubnov, Keren. 2017. The locative alternation in Biblical (and Modern) Hebrew. In Advances in Biblical Hebrew Linguistics: Data, Methods, Analyses [Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 12], Adina Moshavi & Tania Notarius (eds), 321–360. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3): 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63(4): 805–855. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. Argument structure. Grammar in use. In Preferred Argument Structure: Grammar as Architecture for Function [Studies in Discourse and Grammar 14], John W. Du Bois, Lorraine E. Kumpf & William J. Ashby (eds), 13–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dubnov, Keren & Doron, Edit. 2014. ħilufey hamašlimim šel poʕaley hasarah bilšon hamiqraʔ bhašvaʔah lʕivrit bat yameynu (Complement alternation in removal verbs: Biblical vs. Modern Hebrew). Lešonenu 67(3): 371–384.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Universals in Linguistic Theory, Emmon Bach & Robert T. Harms (eds), 1–88. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
1986. Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. In Berkeley Linguistics Society 12: 95–107.Google Scholar
Francez, Itamar. 2006. Possessors, goals and the classification of ditransitive predicates: Evidence from Hebrew . In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 6, Olivier Bonami & Patricia Cabredo Hofherr (eds), 137–154. <[URL]>Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. Constructions, lexical semantics and the correspondence principle: Accounting for generalizations and subregularities in the realization of arguments. In The Syntax of Aspect: Deriving Thematic and Aspectual Interpretation [Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 10], Nomi Erteschik-Shir & Tova Rapoport (eds), 215–237. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldenberg, Gideon. 1998. On verbal structure and the Hebrew verb. Studies in Semitic Linguistics: Selected Writings, 148–197. Jerusalem: Magnes.Google Scholar
Halevy, Rivka. 1998. beyn taħbir lleqsiqon: hahictarfut hamugbelet bʕivrit bat yameynu (Between Syntax and Lexicon: Restricted Collocation in Contemporary Hebrew). Jerusalem: Magnes.Google Scholar
. 2004. haqategoriya halšonit ʕal pi model haʔavtipusim: dugmot min haʕivrit šel yameynu (Linguistic categorization in light of the Prototypical Model: Examples from Modern Hebrew). In Language Studies, Vol. 9, Aharon Maman, & Steven E. Fassberg (eds), 127–156. Jerusalem: Magnes.Google Scholar
. 2005. pʕalim transitiviyim ʕim štey curot hašlamah: yširah uvilti yširah ʕim beyt hayaħas (Transitive verbs in Hebrew with et/be- alternation). In Language Studies, Vol. 10, Aharon Maman & Steven E. Fassberg (eds), 31–64. Jerusalem: Magnes.Google Scholar
. 2007. Transitive verbs with non-accusative alternation in Hebrew: Cross-language comparison with English, German and Spanish. In On Interpreting Construction Schemas: From Action and Motion to Transitivity and Causality [Trends in Linguistics 198], Nicole Delbecque & Bert Cornillie (eds), 61–101. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2009. ħilufey hayaħasah bfoʕaley haʕamasah, risus uqroveyhem (The load/spray alternation in Hebrew). Lešonenu 71(1–2): 181–202.Google Scholar
. 2013. The dative in Modern Hebrew. In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, Vol. 1, Geoffrey Khan (ed.), 659–663. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
. 2016. Non canonical ‘existential-like’ constructions in colloquial Modern Hebrew. In Atypical Predicate-Argument Relation [Lingvisticæ Investigationes Supplementa 33], Tierry Ruchot & Pascale Van Praet (eds), 27–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In Causatives and Transitivity [Studies in Language Companion Series 23], Bernard Comrie & Maria Polinsky (eds), 87–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Transitivity prominence. In Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, Vol. 1, Andrej L. Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds), 131–148. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, Calude, Andreea, Spagnol, Michael, Narrog, Heiko & Bamyaci, Elif. 2014. Coding causal–noncausal verb alternations: A form–frequency correspondence explanation. Journal of Linguistics 50(3): 587–625. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Havers, Wilhelm. 1931. Handbuch der erklärenden Syntax: ein Versuch zur Erforschung der Bedingungen und Triebkräfte in Syntax und Stilistik [Indogermanische Bibliothek: Grammatiken 20]. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, Kennedy, Christopher & Levin, Beth. 1999. Scale structure underlies telicity in degree achievements. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory, Vol. 9, Tanya Matthews & Devon Strolovitch (eds), 127–144. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2): 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid, Malchukov, Andrej L. & de Swart, Peter. 2006. Case, Valency & Transitivity [Studies in Language Companion Series 77]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuzar, Ron. 2002. tavnit ha‘ħagam’ hapšutah balašon hamyuceget kimduberet [The simple impersonal construction in texts represented as colloquial Hebrew]. In Speaking Hebrew: Studies in the Spoken Language and in Linguistic Variation in Israel [Te’uda 18], Shlomo Izre’el (ed.), 329–352. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
. 2012. Sentence Patterns in English and Hebrew [Constructional Approaches to Language 12]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, Randy, Kratochvíl, František & Coupe, Alexander R. 2011. On transitivity. Studies in Language 35(3): 469–492. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laks, Lior. 2011. Morpho-Phonological and Morpho-Thematic Relations in Hebrew and Arabic Verb Formation. PhD dissertation, Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
Lauwers, Peter & Willems, Dominique. 2011. Coercion: definitions and challenges, current approaches, and new trends. Linguistics 49(6): 1219–1235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 2002. Transitivity revisited as an example of a more strict approach in typological research. Folia Linguistica 36(3–4): 141–190.Google Scholar
Letuchiy, Alexander. 2009. Towards a typology of labile verbs: Lability vs. derivation. In New Challenges in Typology: Transcending the Borders and Refining the Distinctions [Trends in Linguistics 217], Patience Epps & Alexandre Arkhipov (eds), 223–244. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2017. Arabic ‘labile verbs’ in form III: Lability or something else? In Verb Valency Changes: Theoretical and Typological Perspectives [Typological Studies in Language 120], Albert Álvarez González & Ía Navarro (eds) 258–284. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Rappaport-Hovav, Malka. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L. 2008. Split intransitives, experiencer objects and ‘transimpersonal’ constructions: (Re-)establishing the connection. In The Typology of Semantic Alignment, Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds), 76–100. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nӕss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical Transitivity [Typological Studies in Language 72]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna, Peterson, David A. & Barnes, Jonathan. 2004. Transitivizing and detransitivizing languages. Linguistic Typology 8(2): 149–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rappaport-Hovav, Malka. 2015. A constructional idiom in Modern Hebrew: The influence of English on a native Hebrew collocation. Journal of Jewish Languages 3(1–2): 325–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rappaport-Hovav, Malka & Levin, Beth. 1998. Building verb meanings. In The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors [CSLI Lecture Notes 83], Miriam Butt & Wilhelm Geuder (eds), 97–134. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, Ruvik. 2005. milon hasleng hamaqif (Comprehensive Dictionary of Israeli Slang). Jerusalem: Keter.Google Scholar
Schwartz-Norman, Linda. 1976. The grammar of ‘content’ and ‘container’. Journal of Linguistics 12(2): 279–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, Carlotta S. 1978/2011. Jespersen’s ‘Move and Change’ class and causative verbs in English. In Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honor of Archibald A. Hill, Vol. 2: Descriptive Linguistics [Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 8], Mohammad Ali Jazayery, Edgar C. Polomé & Werner Winter (eds) 101–109. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stern, Naftali. 1994. milon hapoʕal: ʕerkiyut utfucah šel pʕalim baʕivrit haħadašah (Dictionary of Hebrew Verbs: The Valency and Distribution of the Verb in Contemporary Hebrew). Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1991. Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. Berkeley Linguistics Society 17: 480–519. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taube, Dana. 2007. Impersonal and passive constructions in contemporary Hebrew. In Studies in Semitic and General Linguistics in Honor of Gideon Goldenberg, Tali Bar & Eran Cohen (eds), 277–297. Münster: Ugarit.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Hopper, Paul J. 2001. Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. In Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, Joan L. Bybee & Paul J. Hopper (eds), 27–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1985. Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics 21(2): 385–396. DOI logoGoogle Scholar