Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T04:57:13.928Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Change of state and valency1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Marie Labelle
Marie Labelle
Affiliation:
Departement de linguistique, Université du Québec à MontréalC.P. 8888, succ. A, Montreal, QC, H3C 3P8, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The goal of this article is twofold. First, I explore the hypothesis that a number of regularities in the distribution of the two types of inchoative constructions with verbs of change of state in French, the superficially intransitive construction and the reflexive construction (illustrated in (1)–(3)), can be captured by an analysis whereby monovalent verbs of change of state may project the Patient argument to the subject or to the object position. When the Patient argument is projected to the subject position (as in (1a) and (3a)), the construction is unergative. When it is projected to the object position, the construction is unaccusative (as in (1b)–(3b)). Verbs of change of state in French diner as to whether they may enter an intransitive inchoative construction (1), a reflexive inchoative construction (2) or both (3).

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , September 1992 , pp. 375 - 414
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Baker, Mark (1988). Incorporation: a theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bernard, Georges (1971). La transitivité en français contemporain. Thesis, Université de Rennes, France.Google Scholar
Burston, Jack L. (1979). The pronominal verb construction in French: an argument against the fortuitous homonomy hypothesis. Lingua 48. 147–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burzio, Luigi (1986). Italian syntax: a Government-Binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busse, Winfried & Dubost, Jean-Pierre (1983). Französisches Verblexikon. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett.Google Scholar
Centineo, Giulia (1986). A lexical theory of auxiliary selection in Italian. Davis Working Papers in Linguistics 1. 1–35.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1977). On wh-movement. In Culicover, P., Wasow, T. & Akmajian, A. (eds.), Formal syntax. New York: Academic Press. 71–132.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard (1976). Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald (1967). Causal relations. Journal of Philosophy 64. 691–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delancey, Scott (1984). Notes on agentivity and causation. Studies in Language 8. 181–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delancey, Scott (1985). Agentivity and syntax. Papers from the parasession on causatives and agentivity at the 21st regional meeting. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 1–12.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria (1991). Modularity and the mapping from the lexicon to the syntax. Probus 2. 257–290.Google Scholar
Forest, Robert (1988). Sémantisme entéléchique et affinité descriptive: pour une réanalyse des verbes symétriques ou neutres de français. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 83. 137–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane (1982). On the lexical representation of romance reflexive clitics. In Bresnan, J. (ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 87–148.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane (1987). Unaccusative: an overview. Proceedings of NELS 17 (1986). University of Massachusetts, Amherst: GLSA. Vol. I. 244–258.Google Scholar
Guerssel, Mohammed (1986). On Berber verbs of change: a study of transitivity alternations (Lexicon Project Working Papers 9). Center for Cognitive Science, MIT.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Jay (1988). Explaining and constraining the English middle. In Tenny, C. (ed.), Studies in generative approaches to aspect (Lexicon Project Working Papers 24). Center for Cognitive Science, MIT.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James (1985). On semantics. LI 16. 547–593.Google Scholar
Hirschbühler, Paul (1986). The middle and the pseudo-middle in French. In Montreuil, J.-P. & Birdsong, D. (eds.), Advances in Romance linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris. 97–111.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun (1984). Transitivity. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun & Mulder, René (1990). Unergatives as copular verbs; locational and existential predication. The Linguistic Review 7. 1–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulk, Aafke (1989). La construction impersonnelle et la structure de la phrase. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 18. 59–79.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, Oswaldo (1986). Passive. LIn 17. 587–622.Google Scholar
Junker, Marie-Odile (1987a). Transitive, intransitive, and reflexive uses of deadjectival verbs in French. In Birdsong, D. & Montreuil, J.-P. (eds.), Advances in Romance linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris. 189–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Junker, Marie-Odile (1987b). Typologie des verbes déadjectivaux en français. In Paul, Hirschbühler (ed.), Syntaxe historique du français et des catégories vides. Unpublished report for grants #410–83–0333 and 410–86–2019 (SSHRC), University of Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
Keyser, Samuel J. & Roeper, Thomas (1984). On the middle and ergative constructions in English. LIn 15. 384–416.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda & Sportiche, Dominique (1988). Subjects. Ms., UCLA.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S. Y. (1986). D'accord ou pas d'accord: quelques idées générales concernant une grammaire comparative de l'anglais et du japonais. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 14 /15. 189–206.Google Scholar
Lagae, V. (1990). Les caractéristiques aspectuelles de la construction réflexive ‘ergative’. Travaux de Linguistique 20. 23–42.Google Scholar
Lagane, René (1967). Les verbes symmétriques: économie morpho-syntaxique et différenciation sémantique. Cahiers de Lexicologie 10. 21–32.Google Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine (1986). Object raising in French. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4. 137–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine (1987). Topics in French syntax. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine (1989). Unaccusativity in French. Lingua 79. 95–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth & Rappaport, Malka (1989). An approach to unaccusative mismatches. In Juli, Carter & Rose-Marie, Déchaine (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 19. University of Massachusetts, Amherst: GLSA. 314–329.Google Scholar
Levin, Lorraine S. (1986). Operations on lexical forms: unaccusative rules in Germanic languages. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec (1985). On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Merlan, Francesca (1985). Split intransitivity: functional oppositions in intransitive inflection. In Nichols, Johanna and Woodbury, Anthony C. (eds.), Grammar inside and outside the clauses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 324–362.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne (1991). Active/agentive case marking and its motivations. Lg 67. 510–546.Google Scholar
Parisi, Domenico (1976). The past participle. Italian Linguistics 1. 77–106.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. (1978). Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. (1989). Multiattachment and the unaccusative hypothesis. Probus 1. 63–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. & Postal, Paul M. (1984). The 1-Advancement Exclusiveness Law. In Perlmutter, David M. & Rosen, Carol G. (eds.), Studies in Relational Grammar 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 81–125.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves (1978). Trace theory and French syntax. In Keyser, Samuel J. (ed.), Recent transformational studies in European languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 65–112.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves (1985). On Case and the syntax of infinitives in French. In Jacqueline, Guéron, Hans-Georg, Obenauer & Jean-Yves, Pollock (eds.), Grammatical representation. Dordrecht: Foris. 293–326.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. (1988). Citation etiquette beyond thunderdome. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 6. 579–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert, P. (1985). Le Robert, dictionnaire de la langue française. Paris: Le Robert.Google Scholar
Rosen, Carol G. (1984). The interface between semantic roles and initial grammatical relations. In Perlmutter, David M. & Rosen, Carol G. (eds.), Studies in Relational Grammar 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 38–77.Google Scholar
Rothemberg, Mira (1974). Les Verbes à la fois transitifs et intransitifs en français contemporain. Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Ruwet, Nicolas (1972a). Les constructions pronominales neutres et moyennes. In Ruwet, N., Théorie syntaxique et syntaxe du français. Paris: Seuil. 87–125.Google Scholar
Ruwet, Nicolas (1972b). Les constructions factitives. In Ruwet, N., Théorie syntaxique et syntaxe du français. Paris: Seuil. 126–180.Google Scholar
Ruwet, Nicolas (1989). Weather-verbs and the unaccusative hypothesis. In Carl, Kirschner & Janet De, Cesaris (eds.), Studies in Romance linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 313–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi (1976). The grammar of causative constructions: a conspectus. In Shibatani, M. (ed.), The grammar of causative constructions (= Syntax and Semantics, 6). New York: Academic Press. 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tenny, Carol (1987). Grammaticalizing aspect and affectedness. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Tenny, Carol (1988). The aspectual interface hypothesis: the connection between syntax and lexical semantics. In C. Tenny (ed.), Studies in generative approaches to aspect. Lexicon Project Working Papers 24. 1–18.Google Scholar
Torrego, Esther (1989). Unergative–unaccusative alternations in Spanish. In Itziar Laka & Anoop Mahajan (eds.), Functional heads and clause structure. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10. 253–272.Google Scholar
Trésor de la langue française (1971–). Paris: CNRS & Gallimard.Google Scholar
Van Oosten, Jane H. (1984). On the nature of subjects, topics and agents: a cognitive explanation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert (1987). The unaccusative hypothesis versus lexical semantics: syntactic vs semantic approaches to verb classification. Proceedings of NELS 17 (1986), vol. 2. University of Massachusetts, Amherst: GLSA. 641–662.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert (1990). Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Lg 66. 221–260.Google Scholar
Vet, Co (1980). Temps, aspects et adverbes de temps en français contemporain. Essai de sémantique formelle. Geneva: Droz.Google Scholar
Voorst, Jan van (1986). Event structure. Ph.D. thesis, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Voorst, Jan van (1988). Event structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wehrli, Eric (1986). On some properties of French clitic se. In Borer, H. (ed.), The syntax of pronominal clitics (= Syntax and Semantics 19). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, Anne (1986). Relations anaphoriques en français: esquisse d'une grammaire générative raisonnée de la réflexivité et de l'ellipse structurale. Thesis, Université de Paris VIII.Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, Anne (1987). La réflexivité ergative en français moderne. Le Français Moderne 55. 23–54Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria-Luisa (1985). The relations between morphophonology and morphosyntax: the case of Romance causatives. LIn 16. 247–289.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria-Luisa (1987). Levels of representation in the lexicon and in the syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar