The Adjective Class
Appendix 2 Confusing uses of terms ‘unaccusative’
and ‘unergative’
Understanding the multi-layered phenomenon of transitivity has in recent years been obscured by use of a particular type of terminology.
The terms ‘unaccusative’ and ‘unergative’ were introduced in Perlmutter (1978) and then spread through several brands of formal linguistics. These labels tend to be applied in a wide and vague way, to different sorts of phenomena in different languages. Their uses include:
(a) If a language has consistent marking of S, and ambitransitive subclasses of verbs, then ambitransitives of type S = A may be called ‘unergative’ and those of type S = O ‘unaccusative’.
(b) If a language has strict transitivity plus split-S marking, intransitive verbs of type Sa may be styled ‘unergative’ and those of type So ‘unaccusative’.
(c) If a language has strict transitivity plus consistent marking of S, the label
‘unergative’ may be used of transitive verbs that are particularly open to
antipassivization, or of intransitive verbs that are particularly open to undergo an application derivation, and the label ‘unaccusative’ may be used of transitive verbs that are particularly open to passivization, or of intransitive verbs that are particularly likely to be used in a causative derivation. Or these labels may be used to relate to some quite different grammatical parameter. Or they may be used to classify verbs on an entirely semantic basis—those that are intuitively thought to be basically non-volitional are labelled ‘unaccusative’, etc.
‘Unaccusative’ and ‘unergative’ are vague labels used to describe different phenom-ena in different languages, without any explicit acknowledgement that this is being done. Linguists employing the labels tend to imply that certain verbs are inherently unaccusative and others inherently unergative. In fact a verbal meaning that belongs to the Sa class in one language may be in the S = O class in another; and so on.
We also find that some languages show more than one of the phenomena for which the labels ‘unaccusative’ and ‘unergative’ are employed. As mentioned in §13.4, Warekena combines split-S marking with ambitransitives of types S = A and S = O (in fact, many of type Sa = A and a few of types So = A and Sa = O). If one came across the label ‘unaccusative’ in a grammar of Warekena it would be hard to know whether it was referring to So intransitives or to S = O ambitransitives. Again, the properties that were listed under (c) may also apply for a language with an Sa/So split or for one with two varieties of ambitransitives. That is, the labels ‘unaccusative’ and ‘unergative’ are used for such a wide variety of phenomena as to be essentially imprecise and unclear.
The use of these labels, far from explaining anything, obscures certain key differ-ences between languages. Their employment provides the false sense of a universal semantic basis for varied grammatical properties. They are best avoided.
Sources and notes
The discussion throughout this chapter builds on my previous publications on the topic (very occasionally, there is verbatim repetition from them), particularly Dixon (1989, 1994, 1999b).
Hopper and Thompson (1980) include much useful material; some of which I have used. Note, though, that their examples relate to several different levels of transitivity, and to non-canonical marking. And they do not describe the transitivity profile of the languages from which illustrations are taken.
13.1. Note that in recent years some formal theorists have used the label ‘adjuncts’ for peripheral arguments. Further discussion of extended intransitive clause types, and references to languages in which they are well attested, will be found in Dixon (1994: 122–4).
13.2. One language which shows tripartite marking in main clauses is Dhalanji, from Western Australia. At an earlier stage: (i) nouns showed an
sources and notes 157 absolutive–ergative pattern, with A indicated by ergative suffix -Ngu ∼ -lu, and S and O arguments being formally unmarked; (ii) pronouns showed a nominative–accusative system with O marked by accusative suffix -nha, while A and S were unmarked. Ergative suffix -Ngu ∼ -lu (for A function) and accusative suffix -nha (for O function) have now been generalized to apply to both nouns and pronouns, with just S function being left unmarked. There is one exception—the 1sg pronoun retains a single form for both A and S functions. (See Austin1981b.) Further discussion of tripartite marking is in
§13.5.4 and Dixon (1994: 34–41, 44–5).
Information on Mali from Stebbins (forthcoming; personal communica-tion). Note that in Mali the O/So argument after the predicate is shown either by an NP or by a pronoun (not by both), whereas the A/Sa argument before the predicate can be shown by both an NP and a pronoun. Information on Bats is repeated from Dixon (1994: 79–80), being entirely based on Holisky (1987).
13.3. In some languages there is a further class of verbs, with just a handful of members, which take no core arguments at all (and could be said to have ‘zero valency’); they typically include weather verbs such as ‘rain’.
Data on Manambu from Aikhenvald (2008a), on Tariana from Aikhenvald (2003). The Jarawara data is from Dixon (2004a: 549, 82–3); Warekena from Aikhenvald (1998 and personal communication).
13.5.1. Fuller information on verbs in Yidiñ which may only have inanimate A arguments (plus example sentences) is in Dixon (1991b: 273–4). The concept of ‘liking’ is shown through a nominal root in two Australian languages:
Martuthunira (Dench1995: 208) and Burarra (Glasgow 1994: 358).
13.5.2. Fuller discussion and exemplification of the points made here for Fijian is in Dixon (1988a: 215–21). Note that Fijian double transitive suffixes some-times have a simply semantic role such as ‘do lots of some-times’ or ‘do intensively’.
Information on Jarawara is from Dixon (2004a: 550–7).
13.5.3. For discussion of the syntactic possibilities for giving verbs in English, see Dixon (2005: 119–24). The syntax of wuga-l ‘give’ in Dyirbal is described in Dixon (1972: 300). Information on Bantu languages is in Hyman and Duranti (1982), Gary and Keenan (1977), Duranti and Byarushengo (1977), and Dryer (1983). Comrie (2003) describes how some languages have two suppletive forms for the verb ‘give’, either (i) with one form for when the recipient is 1st or 2nd person and the other for when it is 3rd person, or (ii) with one form for1st and another for 2nd or 3rd person recipient. Further discussion on ‘give’, ‘tell’, and ‘show’ cross-linguistically—plus source information for the languages mentioned here—is in Dixon (1989).
13.5.5. Diingal ‘laugh at’ in Guugu Yimidhirr is from Haviland (1979: 168, 178).
A fuller discussion of the semantic basis for assignment to S = A and S = O subclasses in Fijian is in Dixon (1988a: 204–14), from which the account here is abstracted. A fuller discussion on the conditions for omitting an O NP in English will be found in Dixon (2005: 305–9).
13.6. Most of the information in this section comes from Onishi (2001a) and other chapters in Aikhenvald, Dixon, and Onishi (2001). Information con-cerning ‘follow’ in Icelandic is from John Maling (personal communication).
Fuller information on the partitive case in Finnish is in Kiparsky (1998).
13.6.1. Information on Lezgian was supplied by David Kilby from Mejlanova (1960). That on other North-East Caucasian languages is based on, among other sources, ˇCerný (1971), Paris (1985), Comrie (1981), Nichols (1982), and Simon Crisp (personal communication). Punjabi from Bhatia (1993: 170–1).
Appendix1. This is a condensation of Aikhenvald and Dixon (forthcoming).
Appendix 2. In a 1995 book entitled Unaccusativity: At the syntax–lexical semantics interface, Levin and Rappaport Hovav state ‘the hypothesis [is]
that the syntactic properties of verbs are determined by their meanings’. It is amazing that at this date such a fallacy should be revitalized. It is never possible to predict, with certainty, the syntactic status of a word in a given lan-guage from its meaning (if it were, all lanlan-guages would have correspondingly iconic grammars). See the discussion in §1.8, illustrated for ‘hungry’, ‘mother’,
‘father’, and ‘two’.
A further, more esoteric, illustration, comes from Baniwa of Içana (an Arawak language spoken in Brazil). This is a split-S-type language; the verb -hmanika ‘play’ is of type Sa in the Hohôdene dialect but of type So in the Siuci dialect (Alexandra Aikhenvald, personal communication)—same meaning, different grammatical status.