Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse | Language | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Abstract

Transitivity involves a number of components, only one of which is the presence of an object of the verb. These components are all concerned with the effectiveness with which an action takes place, e.g., the punctuality and telicity of the verb, the conscious activity of the agent, and the referentiality and degree of affectedness of the object. These components co-vary with one another in language after language, which suggests that Transitivity is a central property of language use. The grammatical and semantic prominence of Transitivity is shown to derive from its characteristic discourse function: high Transitivity is correlated with foregrounding, and low Transitivity with backgrounding.

References

Abasheikh, Mohammed Imam. 1976. Reflexivization in Chimwi:ni. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, University of Illinois, 6:2.1–22.Google Scholar

Anderson, Stephen R. 1976. On the notion of subject in ergative languages. In Li 1976:1–23.Google Scholar

Anderson, Stephen R. 1977. On mechanisms by which languages become ergative. In Li 1977:317–63.Google Scholar

Anon. 1969. Chichewa: Intensive course. Lilongwe, Malawi, Africa: Likuni Press.Google Scholar

Arms, D. G. 1974. Transitivity in Standard Fijian. University of Michigan dissertation.Google Scholar

Austin, Peter. MS. A grammar of Diyari, South Australia. To appear, Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar

Benjamin, Geoffrey. 1976. An outline of Temiar grammar. Austroasiatic studies, ed. by Jenner, Philip N. et al., 1. 129–88. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar

Berman, Ruth. 1978. Modern Hebrew structure. Tel Aviv: University Publishing Projects.Google Scholar

Bese, Lajos, Dezső, L.; and Gulya, J. 1970. On the syntactic typology of the Uralic and Altaic languages. Theoretical problems of typology and the northern Eurasian languages, ed. by Lászlő, Dezső & Hajdú, P., 113–28. Amsterdam: Gruner.Google Scholar

Blake, Barry. 1977. Case marking in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar

Bloomfield, Leonard. 1917. Tagalog texts with grammatical analysis. Urbana: University of Illinois.Google Scholar

Boas, Franz, and Deloria, Ella. 1941. Dakota grammar. (Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences, 23:2.) Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Catford, Ian. 1976. Ergativity in Causasian languages. Montreal Working Papers in Linguistics 6 (NELS 6), 37–48.Google Scholar

Chung, Sandra. 1973. The semantics of i in Samoan. MS, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar

Chung, Sandra. 1977. On the gradual nature of syntactic change. In Li 1977:3–55.Google Scholar

Chung, Sandra. 1978. Case marking and grammatical relations in Polynesian. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Clark, Ross. 1973. Transitivity and case in Eastern Oceanic languages. Oceanic Linguistics 12. 559–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1975. The antiergative: Finland's answer to Basque. CLS 11. 112–21.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1977a. Subject and direct objects in Uralic languages: A functional explanation of case-marking systems. Études Finno-Ougriennes 12. 5–17.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1977b. Inverse verb forms in Siberia: Evidence from Chukchee, Koryak, and Kamchadal. MS, University of Southern California.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. Syntactic typology, ed. by Lehmann, Winfred P., 329–94. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. MS. ‘Definite’ and ‘animate’ direct objects: A natural class. To appear in Linguistica Silesiana 3.Google Scholar

Cook, Kenneth W. 1978. The mysterious Samoan transitive suffix. Berkeley Linguistics Society 4. 53–66.Google Scholar

Dik, Simon. 1978. Functional grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

Dorfman, Eugene. 1969. The narreme in the Medieval Romance epic. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dryer, Matthew S. 1976. On explaining the syntactic properties of passive agent noun phrases in universal grammar. To appear in Proceedings of the Michigan Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

Faltz, Leonard M. 1978. On indirect objects in universal syntax. CLS 14. 76–87.Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J. 1977. The case for case reopened. Grammatical relations, ed. by Cole, Peter & Sadock, J. M. (Syntax and semantics, 8), 59–81. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Flik, Eva. 1978. Dan tense-aspect and discourse. In Grimes, 46–62.Google Scholar

Foley, William. 1976. Comparative syntax in Austronesian. Berkeley: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar

Fromm, Hans, and Sadeniemi, Matti. 1956. Finnisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar

García, Erica. 1975. The role of theory in linguistic analysis. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1976. Topic, pronoun, and grammatical agreement. In Li 1976:149–88.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Green, Georgia M. 1974. Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Grimes, Joseph E. (ed.) 1978. Papers on discourse. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar

Harries, Lyndon (ed.) 1965. Swahili prose texts. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Harris, Alice. 1976. Grammatical relations in Modern Georgian. Harvard dissertation.Google Scholar

Harrison, Sheldon P. 1976. Mokilese reference grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar

Hawkinson, Annie, and Hyman, Larry M. 1974. Hierarchies of natural topic in Shona. Studies in African Linguistics 5. 147–70.Google Scholar

Hetzron, Robert. 1966. L'adverbe explétif ott et l'aspect hongrois. Linguistics 25. 34–57.Google Scholar

Hill, Jane H. 1969. Volitional and non-vclitional verbs in Cupeño. CLS 5. 348–56.Google Scholar

Hohepa, Patrick W. 1969. The accusative-to-ergative drift in Polynesian languages. Journal of the Polynesian Society 78. 295–329.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. 1977. Observations on the typology of focus and aspect in narrative language. (NUSA, 4.) Jakarta. [Reprinted in Studies in Language 3. 37–64, 1979.]Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. 1979a. Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. Discourse and syntax, ed. by Givón, Talmy, 213–41. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. 1979b. Some discourse origins of ergativity. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Stanford University.Google Scholar

Howard, Olive M. 1978. The paragraph in Gagou (Gban) narrative. In Grimes, 273–82.Google Scholar

Josephs, Lewis S. 1975. Palauan reference grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar

Kahler, Hans. 1965. Grammatik der Bahasa Indonesia. Zweite, revidierte Auflage. (Porta linguarum orientalium, neue Serie, 2.) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar

Kalmár, Ivan. MS. The antipassive and grammatical relations in Eskimo. To appear in Ergativity, ed. by Plank, Frans. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Károly, Sándor. 1972. The grammatical system of Hungarian. The Hungarian language, ed. by Lóránd Benkő & Imre, Samu, 85–144. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Keen, Sandra L. 1972. A description of the Yukulta language. Master's thesis, Monash University.Google Scholar

Kondo, Victor. 1977. Participant reference in Guahibo narrative discourse. Discourse grammar, ed. by Longacre, Robert & Woods, Francis, 3. 25–44. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar

Labov, William. 1972. The transformation of experience in narrative syntax. In his Language in the inner city, 354–405. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Labov, William., and Waletzky, Joshua. 1967. Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. Essays on the verbal and visual arts, ed. by Helm, June, 12–44. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald. 1976. Non-distinct arguments in Uto-Aztecan. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald., and Munro, Pamela. 1975. Passives and their meaning. Lg. 51. 789–830.Google Scholar

Li, Charles N. (ed.) 1976. Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Li, Charles N. (ed.) 1977. Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Lyon, Shirley. 1967. Tlahuitoltepec Mixe clause structure. IJAL 33. 25–33.Google Scholar

McLendon, Sally. 1978. Ergativity, case, and transitivity in Eastern Pomo. IJAL 44. 1–9.Google Scholar

Mardirussian, Galust. 1975. Noun incorporation in universal grammar. CLS 11. 383–9.Google Scholar

Masica, Colin. 1976. Defining a linguistic area: South Asia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Milner, G. B. 1973. It is aspect (not voice) which is marked in Samoan. Oceanic Linguistics 12. 621–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moravcsik, Edith. 1978a. On the distribution of ergative and accusative patterns. Lingua 45. 233–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moravcsik, Edith. 1978b. On the case marking of objects. Universals of human language, ed. by Greenberg, Joseph et al., 4. 249–89. Stanford: University Press.Google Scholar

Moravcsik, Edith. 1978c. On the limits of subject-object ambiguity tolerance. Papers in Linguistics 11:1/2.255–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Morolong, Malillo, and Hyman, Larry. 1977. Animacy, objects, and clitics in Sesotho. Studies in African Linguistics 8. 199–217.Google Scholar

Mulder, Jean. 1978. Universal grammar and diachronic syntax: The case of the Finnish negative. Master's thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar

Mulder, Jean., and Schwartz, Arthur. 1979. On the subject of advancement in the Philippine languages. MS.Google Scholar

Oinas, Felix J. 1966. Basic course in Estonian. (Uralic and Altaic series, 54.) Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar

Polanyi-Bowditch, Livia. 1976. Why the whats are when: Mutually contextualizing realms of narrative. Berkeley Linguistics Society 2. 59–77.Google Scholar

Rafferty, Ellen. 1978. Studies in the discourse structure of the Indonesian of the Chinese of Malang, East Java, Indonesia. Binghamton: SUNY dissertation.Google Scholar

Ransom, Evelyn. 1977. A constraint on the advancement and demotion of NP's. MS, Eastern Illinois University.Google Scholar

Rombauer, Irma S., and Becker, Marion R. 1964. Joy of cooking. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar

Sapir, Edward. 1911. The problem of noun incorporation in American languages. American Anthropologist n.s. 13. 250–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schachter, Paul, and Otanes, Fe. 1972. Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schmid, Maureen. 1979. Co-occurrence restrictions in negative, interrogative, and conditional clauses: A cross-linguistic study. Buffalo: SUNY dissertation.Google Scholar

Scollon, Ronald. 1975. The sequencing of clauses in Chipewyan narratives. Working Papers in Linguistics, University of Hawaii, 7:5.1–16.Google Scholar

Sheffler, Margaret. 1978. Munduruku discourse. In Grimes, 119–42.Google Scholar

Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. Grammatical categories in Australian languages, ed. by Dixon, Robert M. W., 112–71. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar

Slobin, Dan. 1979. The role of language in language acquisition. Invited address to the 50th Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association.Google Scholar

Sohn, Ho-min. 1975. Woleaian reference grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar

Sugita, Hiroshi. 1973. Semitransitive verbs and object incorporation in Micronesian languages. Oceanic Linguistics 12. 393–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Svartvik, Jan. 1966. On voice in the English verb. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Tannahill, Reay. 1973. Food in history. New York: Stein & Day.Google Scholar

Thompson, Sandra A. 1973. Transitivity and some problems with the ba construction in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 1. 208–21.Google Scholar

Timberlake, Alan. 1975. Hierarchies in the genitive of negation. Slavic and East European Journal 19. 123–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Timberlake, Alan. 1977. Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change. In Li 1977:141–77.Google Scholar

Tjokronegoro, Sutomo. 1968. Tjukupkah saudara membina bahasa kesatuan kita? (Are you adequately using our national language?) Jakarta: P. T. Eresco.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert. 1977. Aspects of Lakhota syntax. Berkeley: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar

Wald, Benji. 1973. Variation in the system of tense markers of Mombasa Swahili. Columbia University dissertation.Google Scholar

Wald, Benji. 1979. The development of the Swahili object marker: A study of the interaction of syntax and discourse. Discourse and syntax, ed. by Givón, Talmy, 505–24. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Weidert, Alfons. 1975. I tkong amwi: Deskriptive Analyse eines Wardialekts des Khasi. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar