The three concepts of case, valency and transitivity belong to the most discussed topics of modern linguistics. On the one hand, they are crucially connected with morphological aspects of the clause, including case marking, person agreement and voice. On the other hand, they are related to several semantic issues such as the meaning of case, semantico-syntactic verbal classes, and the semantic correlates of transitivity. The volume unifies papers written within different theoretical frameworks and representing variegated approaches (Optimality Theory, Government and Binding, various versions of the Functional approach, Cross-linguistic and Typological analyses), containing both numerous new findings in individual languages and valuable observations and generalizations related to case, valency and transitivity.

This book presents a functional analysis of a notion which has gained considerable importance in cognitive and functional linguistics over the last couple of decades, namely 'prototypical transitivity'. It discusses what prototypical transitivity is, why it should exist, and how it should be defined, as well as how this definition can be employed in the analysis of a number of phenomena of language, such as case-marking, experiencer constructions, and so-called ambitransitives. Also discussed is how a prototype analysis relates to other approaches to transitivity, such as that based on markedness. The basic claim is that transitivity is iconic: a construction with two distinct, independent arguments is prototypically used to refer to an event with two distinct, independent participants. From this principle, a unified account of the properties typically associated with transitivity can be derived, and an explanation for why these properties tend to correlate across languages can be given.

Distinguished scholars examine the phenomena of passives and causatives in languages from around the world.

This volume brings together 18 typological studies of causative and related constructions (transitivity, voice, other expressions of cause) by 19 scholars from North America, Western Europe, and Russia. The inspirations for the volume is the pioneering work on causative constructions by the Leningrad Typology Group; several of the contributors have close connections to the charter members of that group, others have appreciated this work from a distance. The volume as a whole is based on the concept of causative constructions as embracing both morphology and syntax, with an important semantic component as well. In addition to general studies concerning the morpho syntactic and semantic typology and the history of causative constructions and relations to other phenomena, the following individual languages are treated in detail: Russian, English, Dutch, Svan, Even, Korean, Yukaghir, Alutor, Aleut, Haruai, Dogon, Athabaskan languages. The volume will be of interest to typologists, to other linguists interested in causative constructions and transitivity relations, and to all who are interested in the linguistic expression of causal relations.

This collection of papers is the first book ever published in English that presents detailed analyses of valency and transitivity alternations in Japanese from multifaceted standpoints: morphology, semantics, syntax, dialects, history, acquisition, and language typology.

Fusing insights from cognitive grammar, systemic-functional grammar and Government & Binding, the present work elaborates and refines Davidse’s view that the English grammar of lexical causatives is governed by the transitive and ergative paradigms, two distinct models of causation (Davidse 1991, 1992). However, on the basis of extensive synchronic and diachronic data on verbs of killing (e.g. kill, execute, choke or drown), it is shown that ‘transitivity’ and ‘ergativity’ are not absolute but prototypical characteristics of verbs which may be overruled by the semantics of the construal in which they occur. The variable transitive or ergative character of the verbs reveals the complex interaction between the semantics of the construction and that of the verb. The diachronic analyses further illustrate how in the course of time verbs may change their paradigmatic properties, either temporarily (e.g. the ergativization of strangle, throttle and smother) or permanently (e.g. the ‘causativization’ of starve or the partial transitivization of abort). The analyses show that these changes are semantically well-motivated and further illustrate the cognitive reality of the two causative models. The work explores the experiential basis of the prototypical paradigmatic behaviour of verbs (e.g. the ergative predilection of the SUFFOCATE verbs). In addition, it attempts to shed more light on the semantics and restrictions of certain constructions, such as the medio-passive, the derivation of adjectives in –able, or the derivation of agentive nominals in –er.

Texts written by Southeast Asian migrants have often been read, taught, and studied under the label of multicultural literature. But what if the ideology of multiculturalism—with its emphasis on authenticity and identifiable cultural difference—is precisely what this literature resists? Transitive Cultures offers a new perspective on transpacific Anglophone literature, revealing how these chameleonic writers enact a variety of hybrid, transnational identities and intimacies. Examining literature from Malaysia, Singapore, and the Philippines, as well as from Southeast Asian migrants in Canada, Hawaii, and the U.S. mainland, this book considers how these authors use English strategically, as a means for building interethnic alliances and critiquing ruling power structures in both Southeast Asia and North America. Uncovering a wealth of texts from queer migrants, those who resist ethnic stereotypes, and those who feel few ties to their ostensible homelands, Transitive Cultures challenges conventional expectations regarding diaspora and minority writers.

This book proposes an overall framework of communication (including translation) that follows CDA (Critical Discourse Analysis)/CL (Critical Linguistics) principles; it devises an analytic tool for the study of transitivity in translation along Hallidayian-functionalist lines; and it incorporates a contrastive corpus of 52 speeches made before the European Parliament in English and Spanish on 9th March 1993 together with their corresponding translations. Both sentence and textual levels become units of analysis. Also, quantitative and qualitative methods are applied. The author analyses the various types of transitivity shifts at sentence level. She also shows that these shifts have contextual effects. Another focus of this study is to present how certain transitivity shifts group together.

Seminar paper from the year 2006 in the subject English Language and Literature Studies - Linguistics, grade: 1,3, University of Dusseldorf "Heinrich Heine" (Department of English Language and Linguistics), course: Seminar: English Functional Syntax, language: English, abstract: As a learner of languages in general and of English in particular, sooner or later one comes across transitive and intransitive verbs. For most of the learners this only means that there are these verbs, which take a direct object (transitive) and those, which do not (intransitive). (1) Susan left. (2) He is writing something. When comparing example (1) and (2), the average student of EFL 1 would claim the second one to be transitive, while the first one would be described as intransitive. For learners at school this explanation might be sufficient, but as a linguist the notion of Transitivity goes far beyond the simple declaration of verbs to be object-taking or not. In this paper special interest will focus on the notion of Transitivity. The observations are based on a study made by Paul J. Hopper and Sandra A. Thompson 2 published in 1980, which focuses on the importance of Transitivity in grammar and discourse 3 . The first part of the paper presented here will explain the notion of Transitivity according to the results of the study by Hopper/Thompson. The second part will draw attention to the universality of Transitivity. The question arises in how far Transitivity is essential to language. Why does the speaker of a language use Transitivity within a speech and how does he do so? Therefore, the main focus of the third part will lie on the pragmatic function of Transitivity, which means the importance of it as a discourse determiner. Especially the role of Transitivity in Foregrounding in discourse will be looked at. The writer of this paper tries to find own examples, if possible, but when it comes to universality and the corpus investigation, only examples of the original study can guarantee the verification of the theory. [...]