Transitivity (grammar)

Transitivity ( from Latin transitio, go over, transition, also: Targeting ) is a descriptive property of verbs. It specifies how many arguments requires a verb. Verbs are transitive as referred that require two arguments, the Germans would, for example, all verbs that need in an unmarked, asset- set both subject and an object to a sentence that is formed with this verb is grammatically. Verbs are called intransitive, requiring only one argument, a verb takes three arguments, so it is ditransitiv. In the traditional school grammar a verb is transitive on the other hand, if his object bears the accusative case.

• 2.1 Kasusrektion
• 2.2 grammaticality and eradication
• 2.3 Thematic Roles
• 2.4 Argument coding on the verb

Introduction

Transitivity is a property which is the classification of verbs. In general, indicates the property, how many players ( arguments ) requires a verb. The property of transitivity is a special, traditional but used only for verbs form the valence.

Happiness ( 2005) defined the term as a syntactically transitive reasonable class of verbs whose characteristic feature is to have a mandatory or optional object.

Verbs are predicates that, depending on the unintended meaning, require different arguments. As an argument it denotes the players that specify the situation described by the verb closer. These include, for example, subject or object. Since all players are called predicates argument, in the following the term verbal argument is used to emphasize that we are talking about the players of verbs, rather than to the players of adpositions or predicative noun.

A discrepancy in the description of transitivity in grammar also arises from different schools of thought. Here, especially the schulgrammatische view and the general linguistics face.

Transitivity in grammar school

In traditional grammar school Transitivity is the property of a verb, the accusative case to rule defined. A verb is transitive, therefore, when one of his teammates bears the accusative case.

Another criterion in the school grammatical point of view the passivating. A verb is transitive, therefore, if it can be put into a passive process, in which the ( accusative ) object becomes the subject.

Transitivity in general linguistics

In general linguistics, however, the transitivity of a verb is less clear. During the accusative ad hoc serves as a criterion in determining the transitivity in the school grammatical perspective, it is considered in the linguistic perspective as a result of the transitive property of a design. In linguistics, the case will only be defined on the transitivity property. This ensures that ( as Ergativsprachen ) can define a property of transitivity even in languages ​​that do not have an accusative, which is not possible according to the school grammatical perspective.

Verbal arguments

To determine the transitivity of a verb, it is first necessary to define what is a verbal argument. There are various criteria which, depending on the analysis, may be weighted differently.

Kasusrektion

An important criterion in the determination of verbal arguments is the Kasusrektion. Specifically, it is about the question of which set element which case where does. When Bestimung transitivity the relevant set of elements are the noun phrases (NP ) or in some modern theories Determiniererphrasen (DP ) (hereinafter NP is used). Here it is crucial that the NP get assigned by the verb or a functional category set their case.

Depending on the theoretical approach the case of verbal arguments derived from the verb itself ( rather descriptive approaches) or of abstract syntactic categories ( generative approaches) as I / T or v. The case of other NP be assigned from other categories, such as from other nouns, or of adpositions. To illustrate this, the following examples from the Germans were given:

The window, me and the child are each see NP, is a verb, with and through are prepositions.

A simple sentence would be

I is in the nominative case, the child is in the accusative, I, in this example, the subject, the child object. The case of both NP are fixed, so they can not be changed:

This immutability is a sign that the case of NP are firmly attached to the verb or to the position of the NP in the sentence. Note: The characters asterisk ( *) before a sentence means that the sentence is ungrammatical.

If we add the set to another NP ( the window ), the set is first ungrammatical:

Thus the theorem with the supplement is grammatically, the NP it is necessary to provide the window pane with a preposition. Thus it receives a case, which in turn is immutable:

In the first example, the sentence is grammatical. The preposition with awards to the NP the window pane the dative case, which is implemented correctly on the NP. In the second example, the NP bears the accusative case, the block will be again ungrammatical. If you replace the preposition with by the preposition, the case of the NP changed the window pane:

This example shows that the case of the NP the window pane is not tied to the position in the sentence, as is the case with the NPs I and the child, but to the preceding preposition. For the question of transitivity are only the NPs of meaning and thus verbal arguments that get assigned to their case from the verb or by their position in the sentence. In the above example, however, I and the child verbal arguments, the window would not.

Nevertheless, it is the case in most Nominativsprachen, the object must not be in the accusative forcibly. If we replace in the example see the verb commemorate or help you through the verbs, the case of the object genitive or dative changes:

On the set in (6b ) shows that the case of the object is not changeable. So he is bound to the structure or to the verb.

Kasusrektion alone is not sufficient to uniquely determine the status of a set element as a verbal argument. First, there are many languages ​​that do not select a case of the NP itself ( such as the English ), and there are verbs that embed due to its importance no Np but for example all the ( side-) sets or prepositional phrases, which nevertheless as verbal arguments apply. Kasusrektion is therefore not biunique means of determining verbal arguments, but an implicit: Has an NP a solid caused by the verb case, it is a verbal argument, but not necessarily vice versa.

Grammaticality and eradication

Another means to determine the status of a set element as verbal argument is checking whether the grammaticality and basic meaning of the sentence changes when one of the parts of a sentence omits. Is it possible to omit the phrase without the sentence is ungrammatical or an entirely new meaning implies the Omitted is not a verbal argument.

Also some examples from German to illustrate: I, the man and the book are NP give, read, and think are verbs.

Is a perfectly grammatical sentence of the Germans. If you let one of the NPs away, the sentence is ungrammatical:

A verb like think beyond the necessary subject- NP in its meaning, in which a state of affairs is held to be true, one set as a player:

If you let the subordinate clause away, or is a simple one NP, the meaning of the verb fundamentally changes (indicated in Example sentences with the diamond mark, #) or the sentence is ungrammatical:

In the first sentence the verb is thinking without additional context information completely interpreted differently than the sentence above. By omitting the embedded clause to its meaning changed fundamentally.

In the following example, a set is also embedded in another:

If we let get away from here the subordinate clause, the intended meaning of the verb itself does not change:

The situation is similar with adverbial complements:

A member of a sentence or phrase is only a verbal argument when ungrammatical by its omission of the total rate or the meaning of the verb changes fundamentally. A problem here is question what "basic" means. In one is not exhaustive agree. Thus, it is unclear whether the meaning of a verb like eat is fundamentally changing, if you to say what is eaten or not. The situation is similar with all verbs that can be used with or without an object:

If the main focus of the first sentence that the man reading the book, and not a newspaper, is in the second sentence only in the foreground the fact that the man will ever read. Considered syntactically and semantically it is usually assumed that it is the first read another word acts as the read the second sentence.

Not to be confused is the eradication of arguments with the ellipse. In theory, it is believed that an ellipse the omitted information is yet available and syntactically integrated indirectly in the sentence, but only not pronounced. So the sentence is, for example, b. dialog (15 ) syntactically not considered the same set as the one in (10b ), even though it contains the same chain of sounds:

Thematic roles

A zoom drawn mainly in functional theories criterion in the definition of verbal arguments is the assignment of semantic (or thematic ) roles and theta or Θ - roles (for the distinction see the linked article ).

Argument coding on the verb

However, not all languages ​​all the arguments of the verb realize in their own words or phrases. Also, it is not rare that languages ​​have no case marking. Some of these languages ​​compensate for this fact in that they highlight the players of the verb in the form of clitics or Flexionsaffixen the verb itself.

So-called pro -drop languages ​​have the property of not realizing pronominal subjects in the form of independent pronouns but. Carried to the verb attached clitics or affixes An example of such a language is the Italian:

Other languages ​​mark next to the subject and the object on the verb itself, if the verb requires one. An example is the language Algische Yurok

A small group of languages ​​marked next to the subject and the indirect object and the direct object in addition to the ditransitive verb, such as the Lakota language:

Contributes in such a language, the verb of a sentence capitalized only a Kongruenzmarkierung, is an intransitive verb, it carries two to a transitive, at three markers to a ditransitives verb should be noted, however, that it is these markers also optional could act arguments, which then, however, usually appear in a form other than the markers that encode mandatory arguments. Also can be unlabeled superficially in such languages ​​mandatory arguments. In such cases, no affix stands for the corresponding argument on the verb, according to the context, however, this argument must be logically available. In such cases, one starts from the existence of a so-called Nullmorphemes, the argument is thus marked by the absence of a separate marker. Such Nullmorpheme most likely to occur at canonical positions in the world's languages ​​. Objects of a sentence usually have the property to be inanimate, since objects are the things normally, with which something is done. For this reason, it is likely that the object is in the third person. Conversely, it is unusual, if the object is in the first or second person, since an animate thing to the passive part of an activity is degraded. We then say that an object in the third person is canonical, while an object in the first or second person is uncanonical. For reasons of economy of language such canonical constellations are usually not explicitly mark. Unkanonische constructions are, however, tends to be more marked, exemplary of such explicit markers is the inverse morphology mentioned here.

Definition of the transitivity of a verb

Based on the above criteria can be reasonably sure of the value of a verb determine, however, which can be made ​​on the basis of the different problems and Schwammigkeiten these properties, especially in less well-documented languages ​​, rarely unambiguous judgments. The following terms can be defined from:

• Requires a verb not a mandatory argument, it is called zero-valent, examples: rain, snow
• Requires a verb exactly one mandatory argument, it is intransitive, examples: race, rush
• Requires a verb exactly two mandatory arguments, it is transitive, examples: look, love
• It requires three arguments, it is ditransitiv, examples: give, give

It is controversial whether there are verbs that require more than three mandatory arguments.

Transitivity in the broader sense

As mentioned above, the notion of transitivity is almost exclusively based on the valence of verbs. In the strict sense, however, have all predicates in a structure a property of transitivity.

Verbs are usually regarded as the central structuring element of a (sub ) set. The valence of the verb is the valence of the entire construction before, as for example, a structure that is a verb ditransitives basis called Ditransitiv construction. In the grammar school and the term is due to the central meaning of the verb or Verbkomplexes for a set therefore " predicate of the sentence " is used, although any member of a set can be a predicate in the linguistic sense.

Not to be confused is the linguistic concept of transitivity with the property relations of the quantities used in logic and mathematics. From the two sets

And

Does not follow automatically that Fritz Maria annoyed, even if it is, and Peter is in both sets to the same individual and annoy in both sets at the same transitive predicate. In the mathematical sense of the following

And

Imperative that applies if contained in the same reference set and is a transitive relation on this reference set.

Importance of transitivity

In linguistics, the property of transitivity of a structure plays a central role to play in determining the Kasusaliinierung a language. Thus, for only when one transitive and familiar intransitive verbs in a language, say, whether a language Akkusativsprache, a Ergativsprache, an active language, a language with a neutral Aliinierung, a language with hierarchical orientation or an ergative - accusative language and therefore over which case it has, if necessary.

For example, if the only argument of an intransitive verb marked with a case, which corresponds to the case, which is also the object of a transitive verb, but does not appear on its subject, it is in the case of the so-called absolutive (in some gauges also nominative ) and in the language of a ergativische language. The case of the subject of a transitive verb in such a language is called ergative and gives the type of the language its name. Mind the subjects of transitive and intransitive verbs the same case and this differs from that of the object of a transitive verb, so it is a Akkusativsprache, the case of the object is accusative, that of the subjects called nominative.

Transitivity as a semantic property

In order to describe transitivity also semantically, using Hopper / Thompson ( 1980: 252 ), the following semantic features, which can be given in single sentences or not ( in German translation ):