Cover not available

Article published In: Current trends in analyzing syntactic variation:
Edited by Ludovic De Cuypere, Clara Vanderschueren and Gert de Sutter
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 31] 2017
► pp. 165–194

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Scales or features in verb meaning?

Verb classes as predictors of syntactic behavior

 | Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin |
Published online: 23 April 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00007.ver
Abstract
Several syntactic properties of verbal heads are accounted for through their semantic properties. Verbal features such as agentivity, volitionality, stativity etc. have been proven a useful tool for predicting several aspects of their syntactic behavior such as passivization, auxiliary selection etc. In the context of the empirical turn in current linguistics, the assumption of discrete features is questioned by studies based on corpora or speakers’ intuitions showing that the diagnostics of semantic features involve gradience. These findings are challenging for grammatical theory: are we justified to assume the existence of discrete verb classes or do the established properties indicate scalar dimensions of meaning? Based on two empirical studies – an acceptability study and a corpus study – the present article examines the role of agentivity in distinguishing verb classes and in predicting the syntactic behavior of verbs in German. Acceptability data show that the diagnostics of agentivity involve gradience, which cannot be reduced to random sources of variation. However, a comparison of scalar vs. categorical models of agentivity based on these diagnostics reveals that the syntactic variation in word order found in written corpus data is best accounted for through a model that assumes a binary division into a ±agentive and a non-agentive verb class.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Agentivity
  • 3.Diagnostics of agentivity
    • 3.1Method
    • 3.2Results
    • 3.3Discussion
  • 4.Predicting voice and order
    • 4.1Method
    • 4.2Influence of agentivity on voice
    • 4.3Influence of agentivity on order
    • 4.4Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (51)
References
Agresti, Alan. 2007. An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis. New Jersey: Wiley. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arad, Maya. 1998. VP-Structure and the Syntax-Lexicon Interface. PhD dissertation. London: University College of London.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bader, Markus, and Jana Häussler. 2010. “Word Order in German: A Corpus Study.” Lingua 1201: 717–762. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bayer, Joseph. 2004. “Non-nominative Subjects in Comparison.” In Non-nominative Subjects vol. 11, ed. by Peri Bhaskararao, and Karumuri V. Subbarao, 49–76. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana, and Luigi Rizzi. 1988. “Psych-verbs and θ – theory.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 61: 291–352. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bornkessel, Ina, Stefan Zysset, Angela D. Friederici, D. Yves von Cramon, and Matthias Schlewewsky. 2005. “‘Who Does What to Whom?’ The Neural Basis of Argument Hierarchies during Language Comprehension.” NeuroImage 261: 221–233. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2007. “Is Syntactic Knowledge Probabilistic? Experiments with the English Dative Alternation.” In Roots: Linguistics in Search of its Evidential Base, ed. by Sam Featherston, and Wolfgang Sternefeld, 75–96. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brunetti, Lisa. 2009. “On the Semantic and Contextual Factors that Determine Topic Selection in Italian and Spanish.” The Linguistic Review 261: 261–289. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1976. “Givenness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics and Point of View.” In Subject and Topic, ed. by Charles N. Li, 27–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. “Thematic Proto-roles and Argument Selection.” Language 671: 547–619. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Engelberg, Stefan. 2015. “Gespaltene Stimulus-Argumente bei Psych-Verben. Quantitative Verteilungsdaten als Indikator für die Dynamik sprachlichen Wissens über Argumentstrukturen.” In Argumentstruktur – Valenz – Konstruktionen, ed. by S. Engelberg, Meike Meliss, Kristel Proost, and Edeltraut Winkler, 469–492. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert. 2000. “Optimal Exceptions.” In Lexicon in Focus, ed. by Barbara Stiebels, and Dieter Wunderlich, 173–209. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grafmiller, Jason. 2013. The Semantics of Syntactic Choice, an Analysis of English Emotion Verbs. PhD dissertation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grewendorf, Günther. 1989. Ergativity in German. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hartigan, John A., and Pamela M. Hartigan. 1985. “The Dip Test of Unimodality.” Annals of Statistics 13.11: 70–84. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2001. “Non-canonical Marking of Core Arguments in European Languages.” In Non-canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects, ed. by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, Robert M. W. Dixon, and Masayuki Onishi, 53–83. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haupt, Friederike S., Matthias Schlesewsky, Dietmar Roehm, Angela D. Friederici, and Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky. 2008. “The Status of Subject-Object Reanalyses in Language Comprehension Architecture.” Journal of Memory and Language 591: 54–96. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoberg, Ursula. 1981. Die Wortstellung in der geschriebenen deutschen Gegenwarts-sprache. München: Hueber.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holisky, Dee A. 1987. “The Case of the Intransitive Subject in Tsova-Tush (Batsbi).” Lingua 711:103–132. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia, and Tal Siloni. 2011. “Causatives across Components.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 291: 657–704. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Institut für Deutsche Sprache. 1991–2017. COSMAS I/II Corpus Search, Management and Analysis System. Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache. [URL].
. 2010. Deutsches Referenzkorpus / Archiv der Korpora geschriebener Gegenwartssprache 2010-I (Release vom 02.03.2010). Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache. [URL].
Keller, Frank, and Antonella Sorace. 2003. “Gradient Auxiliary Aelection and Impersonal Passivization in German: an Experimental Investigation.” Journal of Linguistics 39.11: 57–108. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klein Katharina, and Silvia Kutscher. 2002. “Psych-verbs and Lexical Economy.” Theorie des Lexikons 122. Düsseldorf: University of Düsseldorf.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knut. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Topic, Focus and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2010. The Locative Syntax of Experiencers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1991. “Predicate Classes and participation .” In Partizipation. Das sprachliche Erfassen von Sachverhalten, Hansjakob Seiler, and Waldfried Premper, 183–239. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lenerz, Jürgen. 1977. “Zum Einfluß von ‘Agens’ auf die Wortstellung des Deutschen.” In Grammatik und interdisziplinäre Bereiche der Linguistik. Akten des 11. Linguistischen Kolloquiums Aachen 1976, ed. by Hans W. Viethen, Wolf-Dietrich Bald, and Konrad Sprengel, 133–142. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, Fabienne. 2015. “Explaining the Link between Agentivity and Non-culminating Causation.” Proceedings of SALT 251: 246–266. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, Fabienne, and Florian Schäfer. 2017. Sublexical modality in defeasable causative verbs. In Modality across Syntactic Categories, Ana Arregui, María Luisa Rivero, and Andrés Salanova, 87–108. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencer and Cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pijpops, Dirk, and Dirk Speelman. 2015. “Argument Alternations of the Dutch Psych Verbs. A Corpus Investigation.” Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Quantitative Investigations in Theoretical Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 2004. “Protorollen und Verbtyp: Kasusvariaton bei psychischen Verben.” In Semantische Rollen, ed. by Rolf Kailuweit, and Martin Hummel, 377–401. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. “Animacy, Generalized Semantic Roles, and Differential Object Marking.” In Case, Word Order, and Prominence. Interacting Cues in Language Production and Comprehension, ed. by Monique Lamers, Peter de Swart, 65–90. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya, and Tal Siloni. 2005. “The Lexicon-syntax Parameter: Reflexivization and Other arity Operations.” Linguistic Inquiry 361: 389–436. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 2001. Experiencing Derivations. SALT lecture, New York. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. “The Theta System – an Overview.” Theoretical Linguistics 281: 229–290.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roeper, Tom. 1987. “Implicit Arguments and the Head-complement Relation.” Linguistic Inquiry 181: 267–310.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scheepers, Christoph, Barbara Hemforth, and Lars Konieczny. 2000. “Linking Syntactic Functions with Thematic Roles: Psych Verbs and the Resolution of Subject-Object Ambiguity.” In German Sentence Processing, ed. by Barbara. Hemforth, and Lars Konieczny, 95–135. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sorace, Antonella. 2004. “Gradience at the Lexicon-Syntax Interface: Evidence from Auxiliary Selection and Implications for Unaccusativity.” In The Unaccusativity Puzzle, ed. by A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou, and M. Everaert, 243–268. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1976. “Semantic Causative Types.” In The Grammar of Causative Constructions, ed. by M. Shibatani, 43–116. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Temme, Anne, and Elisabeth Verhoeven. 2016. “Verb Class, Case, and Order: A Cross-linguistic Experiment on Non-nominative Experiencers.” Linguistcs 54.41: 769–813.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr., and Randy LaPolla. 1997. “Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr., and David P. Wilkins. 1996. “The Case for ‘Effector’: Case Roles, Agents, and Agency Revisited.” In Grammatical Constructions: their Form and Meaning, ed. by Masayoshi Shibatani, and Sandra A. Thompson, 289–322. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verhoeven, Elisabeth. 2009. “Subjects, Agents, Experiencers, and Animates in Competition: Modern Greek Argument Order.” Linguistische Berichte 2191: 355–376.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. “Agentivity and Stativity in Experiencer Verbs: Implications for a Typology of Predicate Classes.” Linguistic Typology 141: 213–251. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. “Thematic Prominence and Animacy Asymmetries. Evidence from a Cross-linguistic Production Study.” Lingua 1431:129–161. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. “Thematic Asymmetries Do Matter! A Corpus Study of Word Order in German.” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 27.11: 45–104. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter. 1997. “Cause and the Structure of Verbs.” Linguistic Inquiry 281: 27–68.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Ryan, Margaret Kathleen, Linda Cupples, Iain Giblin, Lyndsey Nickels & Paul F. Sowman
2025. The contest of the causer contender and the agent defender. Language and Cognition 17 DOI logo
Wiskandt, Niklas & Dila Turus
2025. Verb-LVC Pairs with Experiencer Objects in German: Differences in Usage and Meaning. In How to Do Things with Corpora [Linguistik in Empirie und Theorie/Empirical and Theoretical Linguistics, ], ► pp. 195 ff. DOI logo
Fritz-Huechante, Paola, Elisabeth Verhoeven & Julian A. Rott
2020. Agentivity and non-culminating causation in the psych domain: Cross-linguistic evidence from Spanish and Korean. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 5:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue