Cover not available
Part of
Verb Valency Changes: Theoretical and typological perspectives
Edited by Albert Álvarez González and Ia Navarro
[Typological Studies in Language 120] 2017
► pp. 258–284

Arabic ‘labile verbs’ in form III

Lability or something else?

| National Research University, Higher School of Economics, Moscow
The article discusses labile (also known as ambitransitive) verbs in literary Arabic. I show that, though Arabic does not have a rich system of labile verbs, some existing cases of lability (labile verbs of form III) are particularly interesting from the typological point of view. Their unusual property is that the opposition between semantically causative vs. non-causative uses (and number of syntactic arguments) do not always correlate with syntactic (in)transitivity. Verbs of form III have both possible types of non-standard uses: transitive non-causative and intransitive causative uses, as well as the two standard uses (transitive causative and intransitive non-causative uses). I link this non-standard type of lability to some general features of voice and transitivity in Arabic. At the end of the article, some cases of lability outside form III are discussed.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Definition and distribution of labile verbs
    • 2.1The state of research
    • 2.2A-lability vs. P-lability
    • 2.3Lability and syntactic transitivity
  • 3.Arabic verb system and transitivity
    • 3.1Verbal patterns
    • 3.2Syntactic indefiniteness
    • 3.3Form III and non-standard transitivity
  • 4.Lability in form III
    • 4.1 sāwā
    • 4.2 mātala
    • 4.3 ṣālaħa
    • 4.4 fāraqa
    • 4.5 qāraba
    • 4.6 ṭābaqa
    • 4.7 wāzana
    • 4.8Intransitive structures with bayna: What is the functional motivation?
    • 4.9Variation in form III: Summary
  • 5.Labile verbs of other forms
  • 6.Lability of derived verbs: Some parallels in other languages
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 September 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.120.10let
References (33)
References
Benmamoun, Elabbas, Aoun, Joseph E. & Choueiri, Lina. 2010. The Syntax of Arabic. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Blachère, Régis & Maurice Gaudefroy-Demombynes. 1952. Grammaire de lʹarabe classique. Paris: G. P. Maisonneuve.Google Scholar
Blachère, Régis. 1958. Elements de l’arabe classique. Paris: G. P. Maisonneuve.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Process 10: 425–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 2006. Transitivity pairs, markedness, and diachronic stability. Linguistics 44(2): 303–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2014. P-lability and radical P-alignment. Linguistics 52(4): 911–944. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daniel, Michael A., Ganenkov, Dmitri V. & Merdanova, Solmaz R. 2012. Causatives in Agul. In Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations: A crosslinguistic typology [Studies in Language Companion Series 126], Pirkko Suihkonen, Bernard Comrie and Valery Solovyev (eds), 55–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1980. Ergativity. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 2012. Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 182]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galiamina, Yulia. 2006. Transitivity and lability in Songhay. In Case, Valency and Transitivity [Studies in Language Companion Series 77], Leonid I. Kulikov, Andrei L. Malchukov & Peter de Swart (eds), 359–371. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grande, Bentsion M. 1998. Kurs arabskoj grammatiki v sravnitel’no-istoričeskom osveščenii (Course of Arabic grammar in historical and comparative perspective). Moscow: Russkie slovari.Google 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
Hopper, Paul & Thompson, Sandra. 1980. Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language 56(2): 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakovlev, Nikolaj F. & Ašhamaf, Daud A. 1941. Grammatika adygejskogo literaturnogo jazyka (A grammar of literary Adyghe). Moscow: Izdatel′stvo AN SSSR.Google Scholar
Kehayov, Petar & Virve Vihman. 2014. The lure of lability: A synchronic and diachronic investigation of the labile pattern in Estonian. Linguistics 52(4): 1061–1106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kibrik, Alexander E., Muravyeva, Irina A. & Kodzasov, Sandro V. 2001. Jazyk i fol’klor alutorcev (Alutor language and folklore). Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
Khrakovskij, Viktor S. 2011. Kauzativnaja derivacija: osobyj slučaj (The causative derivation: A special case). In Meždunarodnaja konferencija, posvjaščennaja 50-letiju Peterburgskoj tipologičeskoj školy: Materialy i tezisy dokladov (International conference, dedicated to the 50th anniversary of Saint-Petersburg Typological School. Proceedings and abstracts), Viktor S. Khrakovskij, Sergei Yu. Dmitrenko, Alexander K. Ogloblin & Natalia M. Spatar (eds), 184–192. Saint-Petersburg: ILI RAN.Google Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid I. 1999. May he prosper in offspring and wealth: A few jubilee remarks on the typology of labile verbs and Sanskrit púsyati ʹprospers; makes prosperʹ. In Tipologija i teorija jazyka: Ot opisanija k objasneniju (Typology and language theory: From description to explanation), Yakov G. Testelets & Ekaterina V. Rakhilina (eds), 224–244. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid I. & Lavidas, Nikolaos (eds). 2014. Typology of Labile Verbs: Focus on Diachrony. Special issue of Linguistics 52(4).Google Scholar
Letuchiy, Alexander B. 2006. Tipologija labil’nyx glagolov: semantičeskije i morfosintaksičeskije aspekty (Typology of labile verbs: Semantic and morphosyntactic aspects). PhD dissertation. Moscow.Google Scholar
2010. Lability and spontaneity. In Transitivity: Form, Meaning, Acquisition, and Processing [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 166], Patrick Brandt & Marco García García (eds), 237–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Tipologija labil’nyx glagolov (Typology of labile verbs). Moscow: Yazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-lexical Semantics Interface. [Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 26]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L., Haspelmath, Martin & Comrie, Bernard (eds). 2010. Studies in Ditransitive Constructions: A Comparative Handbook. Berlin New York: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 1969. Nekotoryje verojatnosnyje universalii v glagol’nom slovoobrazovanii (Some probabilistic universals in verbal derivation). In Jazykovyje universalii i lingvističeskaja tipologija (Language universals and linguistic typology), Igor F. Vardul’ (ed.), 106–114. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical Transitivity [Typological Studies in Language 72]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna, Peterson, David A. & Barnes, Johnatan. 2004. Transitivizing and detransitivizing languages. Linguistic Typology 8: 149–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prost, Alain. 1956. La langue songay et ses dialectes. Dakar: IFAN.Google Scholar
Rožanskij, Fedor I. 1991. O tranzitivnosti i intranzitivnosti v jazyke songaj (On transitivity and intransitivity in Songhay). In Afrika: Kul’tura, etničnost’, jazyk, 179–187. Moscow: Institut jazykoznanija.Google Scholar
Saad, George Nehweh. 1982. Transitivity, Causation and Passivization. London: Kegan Paul International.Google Scholar
Scheka, Yury V. 1999. Intensivnyj kurs tureckogo jazyka (An intensive course of Turkish). Moscow: Izdatel’stvo MGU.Google Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1985. Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics 21: 385–396. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Halevy, Rivka
2020. Chapter 13. Transitivity and valence. In Usage-Based Studies in Modern Hebrew [Studies in Language Companion Series, 210], ► pp. 465 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.