Cover not available

In:Usage-Based Studies in Modern Hebrew: Background, Morpho-lexicon, and Syntax
Edited by Ruth A. Berman
[Studies in Language Companion Series 210] 2020
► pp. 465–506

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

Chapter 13
Transitivity and valence

 | The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Published online: 18 March 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.210.14hal
The study explores a range of transitive constructions of varying prototypicality in Modern Hebrew (MH) referring to causal and non-causal events, including complex predicates, semi-transitive and lexicalized constructions, with transitivity analyzed as a morpho-syntactic category rather than a semantic concept. The chapter describes various types of alternations and variations in case-frame and argument structure in MH transitive constructions, noting the growing tendency towards labile alternation (ambitransitivity), particularly in the prototypical causative morphological pattern of the hif’il verb-template (e.g., hilbin ‘whiten’ serves both as causative ‘make white’ and inchoative ‘become white’). In such cases, a change in the valence-frame of the verb does not necessarily involve change in the verb-morphology, yielding the claim that transitivity in MH does not depend exclusively on the semantic frame or morpho-phonological nature of the verb-pattern, but instead on the overall syntactic properties of the construction, which in turn is dependent on discourse requirements. Avoidance in discourse of the core O (object) argument is shown to occur even in highly transitive constructions, in which reader-hearers resolve the unrealized argument by context-based inferences and/or based on their communicative competence in conversational discourse.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Transitive constructions in MH
    • 2.1Micro-roles
    • 2.2Morphosyntactic properties
  • 3.Reduced vs. increased transitivity
  • 4.Pseudo-marking of transitivity
  • 5.Transitive constructions with periphrastic verbs and lexicalized expressions
  • 6.Labile (ambitransitive) alternations
    • Type I: Transitive-intransitive zero derivation
  • 7.Alternations and variations in case-frame and argument structure
    • 7.1Alternation between accusative and ‘b’-prepositional construction
    • 7.2Transitive verbs in locative alternation
  • 8.Transitivity in discourse
  • 9.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
References (69)
References
Anderson, Stephen R. 1971. The role of deep structure in semantic interpretation. Foundations of Language 7(3): 387–396.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berman, Ruth A. 1980. The case of an (S)VO language: Subjectless constructions in Modern Hebrew. Language 56(4): 759–776. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1982a. On the nature of oblique objects in bitransitive constructions. Lingua 56: 101–125. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1982b. Dative marking of the affectee role. Hebrew Annual Review 6: 35–59.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1993. Marking of verb transitivity by Hebrew-speaking children. Journal of Child Language 20(3): 641–669. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2003. Children’s lexical innovations: Developmental perspectives on Hebrew verb-structure. In Language Processing and Language Acquisition in a Root-Based Morphology [Language Acquisition & Language Disorders 28], Joseph Shimron (ed.) 243–291. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2017. Word class distinctiveness versus polycategoriality in Modern Hebrew: Psycholinguistic perspectives. In Lexical Polycategoriality: Cross-linguistic, Cross-theoretical, and Language Acquisition Approaches [Studies in Language Companion Series 182], Valentina Vapnarsky & Edy Veneziano (eds), 343–376 Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berman, Ruth A. & Uziel-Karl, Sigal. 2000. Where’s ellipsis: Whether and why there are missing arguments in Hebrew child Language. Linguistics 38(3): 457–482.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolozky, Shmuel. 1982. Strategies of Modern Hebrew verb formation. Hebrew Annual Review 6: 69–79.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1999. Measuring Productivity in Word Formation: The Case of Israeli Hebrew [Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 27]. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. The ‘roots’ of denominative Hebrew verbs. In Language Processing and Language Acquisition in a Root-Based Morphology [Language Acquisition & Language Disorders 28], Joseph Shimron (ed.), 131–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Borschev, Vladimir & Partee, Barbara H. 2002. The Russian genitive of negation: Theme-rheme structure of perspective structure? Journal of Slavic Linguistics 10(1–2): 105–144.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1998. Le marquage de l’expérient dans les langues d’Europe. In Actance et Valence dans les Langues de l’Europe [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 20–2], Jack Feuillet (ed.), 259–294. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. Chicago IL: University of Chicago.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2014. Cross-linguistic variation in the treatment of beneficiaries and the argument vs. adjunct. Linguistic Discovery 12(2): 41–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1994. The semantics of subjecthood. In Subjecthood and Subjectivity: The Status of the Subject in Linguistic Theory, Mariana Yaguello (ed.), 29–75. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1980. Studies in Functional Grammar. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. & Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2000. Introduction. In Changing Valency: Case Studies in Transitivity, Robert M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds), 1–29. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Doron, Edit & Dubnov, Keren. 2017. The locative alternation in Biblical (and Modern) Hebrew. In Advances in Biblical Hebrew Linguistics: Data, Methods, Analyses [Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 12], Adina Moshavi & Tania Notarius (eds), 321–360. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.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
Du Bois, John W. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63(4): 805–855. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2003. Argument structure. Grammar in use. In Preferred Argument Structure: Grammar as Architecture for Function [Studies in Discourse and Grammar 14], John W. Du Bois, Lorraine E. Kumpf & William J. Ashby (eds), 13–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dubnov, Keren & Doron, Edit. 2014. ħilufey hamašlimim šel poʕaley hasarah bilšon hamiqraʔ bhašvaʔah lʕivrit bat yameynu (Complement alternation in removal verbs: Biblical vs. Modern Hebrew). Lešonenu 67(3): 371–384.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Universals in Linguistic Theory, Emmon Bach & Robert T. Harms (eds), 1–88. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1986. Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. In Berkeley Linguistics Society 12: 95–107.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Francez, Itamar. 2006. Possessors, goals and the classification of ditransitive predicates: Evidence from Hebrew . In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 6, Olivier Bonami & Patricia Cabredo Hofherr (eds), 137–154. <[URL]>Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. Constructions, lexical semantics and the correspondence principle: Accounting for generalizations and subregularities in the realization of arguments. In The Syntax of Aspect: Deriving Thematic and Aspectual Interpretation [Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 10], Nomi Erteschik-Shir & Tova Rapoport (eds), 215–237. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldenberg, Gideon. 1998. On verbal structure and the Hebrew verb. Studies in Semitic Linguistics: Selected Writings, 148–197. Jerusalem: Magnes.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halevy, Rivka. 1998. beyn taħbir lleqsiqon: hahictarfut hamugbelet bʕivrit bat yameynu (Between Syntax and Lexicon: Restricted Collocation in Contemporary Hebrew). Jerusalem: Magnes.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. haqategoriya halšonit ʕal pi model haʔavtipusim: dugmot min haʕivrit šel yameynu (Linguistic categorization in light of the Prototypical Model: Examples from Modern Hebrew). In Language Studies, Vol. 9, Aharon Maman, & Steven E. Fassberg (eds), 127–156. Jerusalem: Magnes.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. pʕalim transitiviyim ʕim štey curot hašlamah: yširah uvilti yširah ʕim beyt hayaħas (Transitive verbs in Hebrew with et/be- alternation). In Language Studies, Vol. 10, Aharon Maman & Steven E. Fassberg (eds), 31–64. Jerusalem: Magnes.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Transitive verbs with non-accusative alternation in Hebrew: Cross-language comparison with English, German and Spanish. In On Interpreting Construction Schemas: From Action and Motion to Transitivity and Causality [Trends in Linguistics 198], Nicole Delbecque & Bert Cornillie (eds), 61–101. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. ħilufey hayaħasah bfoʕaley haʕamasah, risus uqroveyhem (The load/spray alternation in Hebrew). Lešonenu 71(1–2): 181–202.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. The dative in Modern Hebrew. In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, Vol. 1, Geoffrey Khan (ed.), 659–663. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. Non canonical ‘existential-like’ constructions in colloquial Modern Hebrew. In Atypical Predicate-Argument Relation [Lingvisticæ Investigationes Supplementa 33], Tierry Ruchot & Pascale Van Praet (eds), 27–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In Causatives and Transitivity [Studies in Language Companion Series 23], Bernard Comrie & Maria Polinsky (eds), 87–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Transitivity prominence. In Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, Vol. 1, Andrej L. Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds), 131–148. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, Calude, Andreea, Spagnol, Michael, Narrog, Heiko & Bamyaci, Elif. 2014. Coding causal–noncausal verb alternations: A form–frequency correspondence explanation. Journal of Linguistics 50(3): 587–625. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Havers, Wilhelm. 1931. Handbuch der erklärenden Syntax: ein Versuch zur Erforschung der Bedingungen und Triebkräfte in Syntax und Stilistik [Indogermanische Bibliothek: Grammatiken 20]. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, Kennedy, Christopher & Levin, Beth. 1999. Scale structure underlies telicity in degree achievements. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory, Vol. 9, Tanya Matthews & Devon Strolovitch (eds), 127–144. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2): 251–299. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid, Malchukov, Andrej L. & de Swart, Peter. 2006. Case, Valency & Transitivity [Studies in Language Companion Series 77]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuzar, Ron. 2002. tavnit ha‘ħagam’ hapšutah balašon hamyuceget kimduberet [The simple impersonal construction in texts represented as colloquial Hebrew]. In Speaking Hebrew: Studies in the Spoken Language and in Linguistic Variation in Israel [Te’uda 18], Shlomo Izre’el (ed.), 329–352. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Sentence Patterns in English and Hebrew [Constructional Approaches to Language 12]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy, Kratochvíl, František & Coupe, Alexander R. 2011. On transitivity. Studies in Language 35(3): 469–492. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laks, Lior. 2011. Morpho-Phonological and Morpho-Thematic Relations in Hebrew and Arabic Verb Formation. PhD dissertation, Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lauwers, Peter & Willems, Dominique. 2011. Coercion: definitions and challenges, current approaches, and new trends. Linguistics 49(6): 1219–1235. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 2002. Transitivity revisited as an example of a more strict approach in typological research. Folia Linguistica 36(3–4): 141–190.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Letuchiy, Alexander. 2009. Towards a typology of labile verbs: Lability vs. derivation. In New Challenges in Typology: Transcending the Borders and Refining the Distinctions [Trends in Linguistics 217], Patience Epps & Alexandre Arkhipov (eds), 223–244. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. Arabic ‘labile verbs’ in form III: Lability or something else? In Verb Valency Changes: Theoretical and Typological Perspectives [Typological Studies in Language 120], Albert Álvarez González & Ía Navarro (eds) 258–284. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Rappaport-Hovav, Malka. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L. 2008. Split intransitives, experiencer objects and ‘transimpersonal’ constructions: (Re-)establishing the connection. In The Typology of Semantic Alignment, Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds), 76–100. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nӕss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical Transitivity [Typological Studies in Language 72]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna, Peterson, David A. & Barnes, Jonathan. 2004. Transitivizing and detransitivizing languages. Linguistic Typology 8(2): 149–211. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rappaport-Hovav, Malka. 2015. A constructional idiom in Modern Hebrew: The influence of English on a native Hebrew collocation. Journal of Jewish Languages 3(1–2): 325–336. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rappaport-Hovav, Malka & Levin, Beth. 1998. Building verb meanings. In The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors [CSLI Lecture Notes 83], Miriam Butt & Wilhelm Geuder (eds), 97–134. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosenthal, Ruvik. 2005. milon hasleng hamaqif (Comprehensive Dictionary of Israeli Slang). Jerusalem: Keter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schwartz-Norman, Linda. 1976. The grammar of ‘content’ and ‘container’. Journal of Linguistics 12(2): 279–287. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, Carlotta S. 1978/2011. Jespersen’s ‘Move and Change’ class and causative verbs in English. In Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honor of Archibald A. Hill, Vol. 2: Descriptive Linguistics [Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 8], Mohammad Ali Jazayery, Edgar C. Polomé & Werner Winter (eds) 101–109. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stern, Naftali. 1994. milon hapoʕal: ʕerkiyut utfucah šel pʕalim baʕivrit haħadašah (Dictionary of Hebrew Verbs: The Valency and Distribution of the Verb in Contemporary Hebrew). Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1991. Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. Berkeley Linguistics Society 17: 480–519. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taube, Dana. 2007. Impersonal and passive constructions in contemporary Hebrew. In Studies in Semitic and General Linguistics in Honor of Gideon Goldenberg, Tali Bar & Eran Cohen (eds), 277–297. Münster: Ugarit.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Hopper, Paul J. 2001. Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. In Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, Joan L. Bybee & Paul J. Hopper (eds), 27–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1985. Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics 21(2): 385–396. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue