Cover not available

In:Atypical predicate-argument relations
Edited by Thierry Ruchot and Pascale Van Praet
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes Supplementa 33] 2016
► pp. 87–112

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

Non-human agents as subjects in English and Dutch

A corpus-based translation study

 | Ghent University
 | Ghent University
 | Ghent University
Published online: 8 December 2016
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lis.33.04dom
In English sentences with a verb denoting an action like give, the subject usually plays the semantic role of agent. While in English non-human agents such as this manual in This manual gives instructions on the correct assembly occur quite frequently, Dutch seems to apply more restrictions, as illustrated in Dit handboek bevat voorschriften over de juiste montage in which the Dutch subject dit handboek is not an agent but rather a possessor (see e.g. Delsoir 2011; Vandepitte & Hartsuiker 2011). This article investigates how a set of 154 English sentences from the Dutch Parallel Corpus with non-human agents as subjects of give are translated into Dutch. The lower number of Dutch non-human agents are discussed with regard to translation tactics and explained in terms of differences in verb meanings between English give and its Dutch cognate geven and the lexico-­semantics of the non-human agents . The lexical choices translators made lead to valency loss in Dutch.
References (33)
References
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic structures. s’-Gravenhage: Mouton & Co., N.V.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Delsoir, Jan. 2011. The acceptability of non-prototypical agents with prototypical agent requiring predicates in Dutch. Gent: Hogeschool Gent.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3). 547–619. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Stefanie. 2012. Constructional effects of involuntary and inanimate agents: A cross-linguistic study. Unpublished PhD, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Universals in linguistic theory.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1977a. The case for case reopened. Syntax and Semantics, vol. 8. New York/ San Francisco/London: Academia Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1977b. Scenes-and-frames semantics. In A. Zampolli (ed.), Linguistic structures processing, 55–88. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gambier, Yves. 2009. Stratégies et tactiques en traduction et interpretation. In G. Hansen, A. Chesterman, & H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (eds.), Efforts and models in interpreting and translation research, 63–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1993. English grammar: A function-based introduction, 2 vols. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. Syntax: An introduction, vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hawkins, John. A. 1986. A comparative typology of English and German: Unifying the contrasts. Austin, London and Sydney: Croom Helm.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
House, Juliane. 2008. Towards a linguistic theory of translation as re-contextualisation and a third space phenomenon. Linguistica Antverpiensia 7. 149–175.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 2004. Animacy, agentivity, and the spread of the progressive in modern English. English Language and Linguistics 8(1). 47–69. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klaiman, M.H. 1991. Grammatical voice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 1994. Grammatical roles and relations. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 1999. Cases and thematic roles: Ergative, accusative and active. Tübingen: 
Niemeyer Verlag. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1972. A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rura, Lidia, Willy Vandeweghe & Maribel M. Perez. 2008. Designing a parallel corpus as a multifunctional translator’s aid. Proceedings of the XVIII FIT World Congress , 4–7 August 2008, Shanghai, China, from [URL].
Sanfilippo, Antonio. 1990. Grammatical relations, thematic roles and verb semantics. Unpublished PhD, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schlesinger, Izchak M. 1989. Instruments as agents: On the nature of semantic relations. Journal of Linguistics 25(1). 189–210. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 1991. Functional grammar. Routledge: New York.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tamm, Anne. 2012. Scalar verb classes. Scalarity, thematic roles, and arguments in the estonian aspectual lexicon. Firenze: Firenze University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. 1. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vandepitte, Sonia & Robert J. Hartsuiker. 2011. Metonymic language use as a student translation problem: Towards a controlled psycholinguistic investigation. In C. Alvstad, A. Hild, & E. Tiselius (eds.), Methods and strategies of process research. Integrative approaches in translation studies, 67–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Online dictionary items
“geven”. Dikke Van Dale. Van Dale Uitgevers. 02 December 2013. [URL].
“give”. Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press, n.d. Web 21 October 2013. [URL].
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Freiwald, Jonas & Stella Neumann
2025. Re-opening the case. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies DOI logo
Renzel, Anne, Gunther De Vogelaer & Jens Bölte
2025. Varying strategies for processing “loose” argument structure in West Germanic languages. Frontiers in Language Sciences 4 DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. Theme in English and German [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 112], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 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