User:崇朝其雨/蓝色空间号沙盒
在语言学中，非宾格动词是一种不及物动词，其句法上的主语不是语义上的施事。换言之，主语并不主动发起动词指涉的动作。非宾格动词的主语在语义角色上和及物动词的直接宾语或动词被动语态的主语很相似。
汉语中非宾格动词的例子有“门打开了”中的“打开”、“事故发生了”中的“发生”。例句中“打开”和“发生”是发生在主语的动作而非主语发起的动作。在语义上，“门”在“门打开了”中和在及物句“他们打开了门”、被动句“门被打开了”中扮演了相似的语义角色。非宾格动词与非作格动词相对立。非作格动词，例如“跑”“打”等，描述的动作是由主语主动发起的。非宾格动词得名是由于虽然主语的题元角色是受事，但却没有被指派宾格。
主宾型配列的语言通常用宾格标记及物动词的賓語。很多情况下，宾语都是非自主性的论元，语义角色通常是受事。然而非宾格动词的主语虽然是非自主性的，但却没有用宾格标记。Perlmutter (1978)指出，存在例如“slide”这样的动词，取决于其语义上是否自愿发生，既可以是非宾格动词也可以是非作格动词。[1]非宾格动词的概念最早由University of California, San Diego的Perlmutter在1978年的论文提出[2]但Perlmutter认为是Pullum发明了非宾格动词和非作格动词两个术语。[3]
历史[编辑]
非宾格假说（1978）[编辑]
The derivation of the core properties of unaccusative constructions from a set of principles is one of the topmost issues[來源請求] of the agenda of modern syntax since the seminal work by Perlmutter 1978 (cf. Burzio 1986 and Hale-Keyser 2003 for landmark proposals). Perlmutter introduced the "Unaccusative Hypothesis" in 1978 explaining that intransitive verbs are not homogeneous, but are either unaccusative verbs or unergative verbs.[4] The Unaccusative Hypothesis was later integrated into the Government and Binding Theory by Burzio (1986). The Unaccusative Hypothesis (UH) argues that the Object of the sentence becomes the Subject in the derivation, meanwhile unergatives start as subjects. More specifically, the first approach introduced by the Unaccusative Hypothesis arrived at an important consequence constituting an analogy between English passive voice constructions and unaccusative constructions whereas in the second approach a more radical theory was proposed based on the analysis of expletive there stemming from the sentences with the copula suggested in Moro 1997.
Acquisition of unaccusatives[编辑]
While L2 learners have difficulties with the distinction between unaccusative and unergative verbs, children when learning their first language do not encounter those same difficulties. Studies have shown that children as young as 2 years old can distinguish between unaccusative and unergative verbs.[5] Tests have been done on 2 year olds in Hebrew and Portuguese (Friedmann 2007), on 4 & 5 year olds in German and Dutch (van Hout, 1996; Randall, van Hout, Baayen & Weissenborn, 2004), 2 & 3 year olds in Italian and French (Lorusso, Caprin, and Guasti 2004, Snyder et al., 1995), and 3 - 6 year olds in Russian (using Genitive-of-Negation tests) (Babyonyshev et al. 2001). These studies all concluded that children from a young age are able to differentiate between unaccusatives, unergatives, and transitives.
Split Intransitivity[编辑]
Further linguistic studies have shown that intransitive verbs will identify as either unergative or unaccusative, determined by the language. A recent study proposed by James Baker in 2019 suggests that intransitive verbs not only identify as either unaccusative or unergative, but with multiple different classes.[6] According to Baker, the Split Intransitivity analysis has various advantages over the traditional approach in terms of argument structure. The original traditional hypothesis proposed by Levin & Rappaport-Hovav in 1995 mentions linking rules referring to either an external or internal argument. In Split Intransitivity, Baker introduces additional components to the processing of unaccusative verbs he calls Initiation, State, and Change.
Oshita's unaccusative trap hypothesis (1997, 2001)[编辑]
The Unaccusative Trap Hypothesis, developed by Oshita in 1997 and 2001, proposes to bring[需要解释] several unaccusative-related phenomena cross-linguistically and to address L2 acquisition on unaccusative verbs. According to Oshita, L2 learners undergo a 3-step process before they have the knowledge to distinguish between unaccusative and unergative verbs. In the Unaccusative Trap Hypothesis, at the first stage, unaccusatives are acquired as unergatives in L2 learners. In the second stage, L2 learners realize and become awakened to the natural linking rules proposed by Levin and Rappaport Havov in 1995. Even in this second stage, there is a stage of syntactic confusion with derivations into the sentence structure. Since Unaccusatives have different syntactic rules for their target languages, the non-target interlanguage phenomena for Japanese or other languages, for example, will be different than those observed in English. Oshita mentions that L2 learners must unlearn non-target syntactic operations and reach the third stage. By this stage, they are out of confusion and can understand unaccusative constructions natively. This study, discussed by Junhua Mo in 2020, analyzed the Unaccusative Trap Hypothesis with L2 English learners and calls for further study.[7] The linking rules associated proposed by Levin and Rappaport Hovav were only effective for L1 acquisition of English, not applicable to L2 acquisition.
Neural correlates of unaccusative Verbs[编辑]
According to linguistic theory, unaccusative verbs have sentences that undergo lexical and syntactic operations that do not occur with unergative and transitives.[8] A recent study in 2010 by Friedmann, Shetreet, and Hadar explains and supports this linguistic theory by showing that there are two separate activation locations from unaccusative and unergative verbs in the brain. This study focused on neural correlations of linguistic distinction between Unaccusatives and Unergatives.[9] This study was taken from participants who were tested in their native language, Hebrew. The differences between Unaccusative and Unergative (and transitive) verbs arose from differences in syntactic and lexical derivations.
Structure[编辑]
Unaccusative and unergative verbs, while syntactically different, are communicated the same on the surface. They both include a noun phrase (NP) followed by a verb phrase (VP) when produced. In generative grammar, an unaccusative verb is analysed as having an underlying VP shell in which the NP is selected by the bottom-most VP and later moved. For an unergative verb, on the other hand, the NP is selected by the topmost VP in a VP shell, and therefore is not required to move to create a surface level order of the noun being followed by the verb. The image to the right demonstrates how the noun in an unaccusative is the direct object of the sentence, as it is selected by the VP as a complement, whereas the noun in an unergative is the subject of the sentence.[10]
Auxiliary selection as a test for unaccusativity[编辑]
The unaccusative/unergative split in intransitive verbs can be characterized semantically. Unaccusative verbs tend to express a telic and dynamic change of state or location, while unergative verbs tend to express an agentive activity (not involving directed movement). While these properties define the "core" classes of unaccusatives and unergatives, there are intermediate classes of verbs whose status is less clear (for example, verbs of existence, appearance, or continuation, verbs denoting uncontrolled processes, or motion verbs).
A number of syntactic criteria for unaccusativity have also been identified. The most well-known test is auxiliary selection in languages that use two different temporal auxiliaries (have and be) for analytic past/perfect verb forms (e.g. German, Dutch, French, Italian; even Early Modern English). In these languages, unaccusative verbs combine with be, while unergative verbs combine with have.
- French:
- unaccusative: Je suis tombé. lit. "I am fallen." (= "I have fallen.")
- unergative: J'ai travaillé. "I have worked."
- Italian:
- unaccusative: È arrivato. lit. "[He] is arrived." (= "He has arrived.")
- unergative: Ha telefonato. "[He] has phoned."
From one language to another, however, synonymous verbs do not always select the same auxiliary, and even within one language, a single verb may combine with either auxiliary (either depending on the meaning/context, or with no observable semantic motivation, sometimes depending on regional variation of the language). The auxiliary selection criterion therefore also identifies core classes of unaccusative and unergatives (which show the least variation within and across languages) and more peripheral classes (where variation and context effects are observed). There are languages which do not have auxiliary selection, such as Russian, and therefore other tests sometimes have to be used to determine whether a verb is unaccusative or unergative
Other tests that have been studied involve passivization (see Impersonal passive voice), ne/en cliticization in Italian and French, and impersonal, participial, and resultative constructions in a wide range of languages.
For example, in Dutch and Turkish, unergative verbs can be used in impersonal passive constructions, but unaccusative verbs cannot.[11] In the following example from Dutch, the verb is unergative, describing a voluntary action, and can be made passive:
- Er wordt hier veel geskied.
- "A lot of skiing is done here." (lit. "it is skied much here")
But a sentence with an unaccusative verb, such as "The concert lasted a long time", cannot be made passive.
In Japanese, the grammaticality of sentences that appear to violate syntactic rules may signal the presence of an unaccusative verb. According to transformational models of grammar, such sentences contain a trace located in the direct object position that helps to satisfy the mutual c-command condition between numeral quantifiers and the noun phrases they modify (Tsujimura, 2007).
Unaccusativity in English[编辑]
Tests for English unaccusative verbs[编辑]
Modern English only uses one perfect auxiliary (have), although archaic examples like "He is fallen/come" reflect the use of be with unaccusative verbs in earlier stages of the language. The identification of unaccusative verbs in English is therefore based on other criteria, notably:
- Many unaccusative verbs alternate with a corresponding transitive verb, where the unaccusative subject appears in direct object position.
- The ice melted. ≈ The sun melted the ice.
- The window broke. ≈ The golf ball broke the window.
- Past participles of unaccusative verb can be used as a nominal modifier with active meaning. This is not possible with unergative past participles, as indicated by the asterisk (*).
| unaccusative verb | past participle | unergative verb | past participle | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The snow melted. | the melted snow | The victim shouted. | *the shouted victim | |
| The guests departed. | the departed guests | The child slept. | *the slept child | |
| The soldier fell. | the fallen soldier | The leader hesitated. | *the hesitated leader |
- The subject of an unaccusative verb can be modified by a resultative adjunct. This is a property shared by direct objects and passive subjects, but not shared by the subjects of unergative and transitive verbs.
| resultative adjunct can modify: | unaccusative verb | unergative verb | |
|---|---|---|---|
| subject in intransitive verb | The vase broke into pieces. | *John dined full/to death/two pounds heavier. | |
| direct object of transitive verb | John broke the vase into pieces. | (not applicable) | |
| subject of transitive verb | (not applicable) | *John ate the brownies full/to death/two pounds heavier. | |
| subject of passive verb | The vase was broken into pieces. | *The brownies full/to death/two pounds heavier. |
While "to die" has been classified as an unaccusative verb, like "to fall" and "to arrive",[12] Dąbrowska (2016)[13] noted that "to die" is an example of Unaccusative Mismatch, because "to die" behaves:
- unaccusatively in some tests, e.g. (!)There laughed a girl in the room (unergative) vs. There appeared a lady on the scene (unaccusative) vs. There died a myriad;
- yet unergatively in others, e.g. Philip died vs. (!)The soldier died Philip.
Types of English unaccusative verbs[编辑]
Perlmutter (1978) gives examples of various types of unaccusative verbs. He emphasises that the following categories are not definitive, and that alternative classifications are possible.[14]
| (a) | the verb "be" with adjectives | be heavy, be red, etc. |
| (b) | verbs whose grammatical subject
is semantically a Patient |
(i) burn, fall, sink, float, flow, slip, slide, shake, stumble, succumb,
boil, dry, sway, wave, lie (involuntary), bend (involuntary) |
| (ii) melt, freeze, evaporate, solidify, darken, rot, wither, collapse, break,
increase, germinate, die, suffocate, crack, split, disappear, disperse, explode | ||
| (c) | predicates of existing and happening | exist, happen, occur, arise, ensue, turn up |
| (d) | non-voluntary verbs of appearance, sound, smell, etc. | shine, sparkle, clink, snap (involuntary), pop, smell (bad), stink |
| (e) | aspectual predicates | begin, start, stop, continue, end |
| (f) | duratives | last, remain, stay, survive |
Perlmutter points out that some verbs can be used in either unaccusative or unergative clauses. If the action is deliberate or willed, the clause is unergative:
- The figurine stood on this table. – (unaccusative)
- The children stood on this table. – (unergative)
Morphosyntactic alignment and unaccusative verbs[编辑]
Unaccusative verbs are generally more readily identifiable in ergative-absolutive languages, such as Basque, since the subject of unaccusative verbs is inflected similarly to direct objects. [15] By contrast, nominative-accusative languages, such as Japanese mark the subject of unaccusative verbs agentively. [16]
Examples in Basque
Edalontzi-a
glass-A-DEF
apurtu
break-PERF
da.
A3s-AUX
The glass has broken.
Jon-ek
Jon-E
edalontzi-a
glass-A-DEF
apurtu
break-PERF
du.
A3s-AUX-E3s
Jon has broken the glass.
In example (a), the verb apurtu is unaccusative, and the noun edalontzi appears in the object position, and is marked in the absolutive case. In example (b), the verb is transitive, and we see the subject Jon marked in the ergative case. The auxiliary verb used in either case is also different. The same case markings auxiliary variations[需要解释] appear in an unaccusative/unergative setting, on the same noun:[17]
Jon-Ø
John-A
etorr-i
come-PERF
da.
be-A3s
John came
Jon-ek
Jon-E
etsi
resign-PERF
du-Ø.
have.A3s-E3s
John resigned (is desperate)
In the unaccusative setting (a), Jon is marked in the absolutive case; in the unergative setting (b), Jon is marked in the ergative case. Note, too, the auxiliary be in the unaccusative setting and the auxiliary have in the unergative setting.
Examples in Georgian
Similar to Basque, Georgian also features different markings for agent/object nouns in intransitive contexts, but does the verb case remains unchanged[需要解释].[18] In unaccusative contexts (a), the noun is marked with the active[需要解释] case, while it is marked with the nominative case in unergative contexts.
bavšv-ma
child-ACT
itʼira.
3S/cry/II
The child cried.
rezo
Rezo.NOM
gamoizarda.
3S/grow/II
Rezo grew up.
See also[编辑]
- Anticausative verb – type of unaccusative
- Copula
- Deponent verb
- Ergative verb – transitive equivalent of unaccusative
- Impersonal passive voice
- Reflexive verb
- Transitivity
- Ambitransitive verb – transitive equivalent of unergative
- 不及物动词
- 及物动词
- Unergative verb – opposite of unaccusative
References[编辑]
- ^ Perlmutter (1978), p. 163.
- ^ 参考Google ngrams的数据。
- ^ Perlmutter (1978) p.186.
- ^ Perlmutter (1978) p.186.
- ^ Vernice, Mirta; Guasti, Maria Teresa. The acquisition of SV order in unaccusatives: manipulating the definiteness of the NP argument. Journal of Child Language. January 2015, 42 (1): 210–237. ISSN 0305-0009. PMID 24460921. S2CID 36955432. doi:10.1017/S0305000913000536 （英语）.
- ^ Baker (2019)
- ^ Mo (2020)
- ^ Perlmutter (1978)
- ^ Shetreet (2010)
- ^ Harves, Stephanie Annemarie. Unaccusative syntax in Russian. Distributed by MIT working papers in linguistics. 2003. OCLC 64038025.
- ^ Perlmutter (1978), p. 168–9.
- ^ Kerstens, Johan; Ruys, Eddy; Zwarts, Joost. unergative verb. Lexicon of linguistics. Utrecht institute of Linguistics, OTS Utrecht University. 1996–2001 [July 28, 2019].
- ^ Dąbrowska, A. "Unaccusative or unergative: The case of the English verb to die" in Roczniki humanistyczne 64(11):25-39 · (January 2016). doi:10.18290/rh.2016.64.11-2
- ^ Perlmutter (1978), pp. 162-3.
- ^ Aske, Jon. "The Accusativity/Ergativity Balance in a Non-Split Ergative Language: The Case of Euskara (Aka Basque)". Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, vol. 13, 09/10/1987, p. 1, doi:10.3765/bls.v13i0.1821.
- ^ Hirakawa, M. (2001). L2 ACQUISITION OF JAPANESE UNACCUSATIVE VERBS. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(2), 221–245. doi:10.1017/S0272263101002054.
- ^ Maria-José Ezeizabarrena,The (in)consistent ergative marking in early Basque: L1 vs. child L2, Lingua, Volume 122, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 303–317, ISSN 0024-3841, doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2011.11.009.
- ^ Harris, A. C. (1982). Georgian and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Language, 58(2), 290–306. doi:10.2307/414100.
Further reading[编辑]
- Lexicon of Linguistics (Utrecht institute of Linguistics)
- Burzio, Luigi. Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Reidel. 1986. ISBN 978-90-277-2014-6.
- Everaert, M.; van Riemsdijk, H; Goedemans, R. (eds) 2006 The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Volumes I–V, Blackwell, London. See "copular sentences" and "existential sentences and expletive there" in Volume II
- Hale, Kenneth; Keyser, Jay. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 39. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. 2002. ISBN 978-0-262-26305-4.
- Levin, Beth; Rappaport-Hovav, Malka. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-lexical Semantics Interface
. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. 1994. ISBN 978-0-262-62094-9. - Moro, Andrea. The Raising of Predicates: Predicative Noun Phrases and the Theory of Clause Structure. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 80. Cambridge University Press. 1997. ISBN 978-0-521-56233-1.
- Perlmutter, David M. Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis (PDF). Proc. of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. UC Berkeley: 157–189. 1978.
- Sorace, Antonella. Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language (Linguistic Society of America). 2000, 76 (4): 859–890. JSTOR 417202. doi:10.2307/417202.
- Tsujimura, Natsuko. An introduction to Japanese linguistics 2nd. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 2007. ISBN 978-1-4051-1066-2.
- Huang, Yujing. Linking form to meaning: Reevaluating the evidence for the unaccusative hypothesis. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest LLC. 2018. ISBN 979-8-6781-3796-8.
- Friedmann, Naama. The Leaf Fell (the Leaf): The Online Processing of Unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry (The MIT Press). 2008, 39 (3): 355–77. JSTOR 40071442. PMC 3399662
. PMID 22822348. doi:10.1162/ling.2008.39.3.355. - Mo, Junhua. A Critical Review of the Unaccusative Trap Hypothesis: Theoretical, Conceptual and Empirical Issues. Journal of Language Teaching and Research (Academy Publication). 2020, 11 (2): 260–268. ISSN 1798-4769. S2CID 213827077. doi:10.17507/jltr.1102.14.
- Shetreet, E. The neural correlates of linguistic distinctions: Unaccusative and unergative verbs.. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2010, 22 (10): 2306–2315. PMID 19925202. S2CID 5735218. doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21371.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
