Transitivity-intransitivity spectrum.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 12:47 pm

I recently came across the terms high transitivity and low transitivity and thought I'd burden all of you with them:

"According to H&T, transitivity-intransitivity is not a dichotomy, but a continuum along which all clauses may be placed, based on their score on the ten morphosyntactic and semantic properties in (3)."

http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cache/paper ... tivity.pdf

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 3:08 pm

My empty saddlebag of a brain could do with being filled. Not sure if that pdf will fit in, though.

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 4:03 pm

Great, so there IS a link between aktionsart and transitivity!

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:18 pm

You mean you've actually read all that, and understood it, Andy?!

But seriously, though, I noticed Van Valin & LaPolla mentions Aktionsart (I'm thinking of reading up a little on Role and Reference Grammar, foolish me), so what you said caught my eye. Guess I might now (try to) see what metal's link is 'all about'.

(=FH trying to look "brave" and enthusiastic!

)

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:36 pm

Andrew Patterson wrote:Great, so there IS a link between aktionsart and transitivity!

Seems so.

and awayyyy!!!

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 6:39 pm

I hope that we can discuss the link between aktionsart and transitivity without you getting frightened off when I mention that I note that some conventionally intransitive verbs are nevertheless catenatives (nobody seems to be interested in these but me), that is to say that they are unable to do their action to a substantive, but can to another verb. This seems to suggest to me that mood/modality and transitivity are closely linked concepts.

That much is obvious (when you think about it), but how or if this has anything to do with aktionsart, that's what I'd like to know, Metal.

Please don't get frightened off just because I mentioned the dreaded "C" word.

.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 6:49 pm

Good luck, metal.

Or should that be, 'Good luck, Andy'?

Enjoy yourselves, you two, anyway!

(FH bows/scurries out).

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:44 pm

Enjoy yourselves, you two, anyway!

(FH bows/scurries out).

Fluffyhamster, can't you scurry back? You are as welcome to join the discussion as anyone else.

Catenatives are just part of this anyway, the original post merely suggested that transitivity and intransitivity form a continuum. Is that really such a hard subject?

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:53 pm

I will try to scurry back, back it may take me a while to chew my way through the piles of syntax books now blocking the way. Please be patient.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 9:05 pm

(A hamster is lying, feet up, in its cage, apparently dead, or pretty near it. It appears to be missing its teeth. During this, we hear the following voiceover, spoken with mournful music playing in the background):

Hamsters use their teeth so much, nibbling at everything, and sometimes their teeth wear out, especially when they nibble at books. They then have no teeth left for eating real food.

(Fade out, then back in on some tearful, sobbing kids, standing by the open cage, cradling a, we can now see, obviously dead hamster. Fade out to bold red lettering onscreen):

KEEP YOUR BOOKS OUT OF TOOTHREACH OF HAMSTERS

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 1:07 am

Andrew Patterson wrote:I hope that we can discuss the link between aktionsart and tranitivity without you getting frightened off when I mention that I note that some conventionally intransitive verbs are nevertheless catenatives (nobody seems to be interested in these but me), that is to say that they are unable to do their action to a substantive, but can to another verb. This seems to suggest to me that mood/modality and transitivity are closely linked concepts.

That much is obvious (when you think about it), but how or if this has anything to do with aktionsart, that's what I'd like to know, Metal.

Please don't get frightened off just because I mentioned the dreaded "C" word. .

I'm not frightened off at all, Andy, just wondering why I am more caught by this error than with the discussion, "tranitivity".

I'll get back into things as soon as the Guinness wears off.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 1:59 am

Andrew Patterson wrote: some conventionally intransitive verbs are nevertheless catenatives (nobody seems to be interested in these but me), that is to say that they are unable to do their action to a substantive, but can to another verb. This seems to suggest to me that mood/modality and transitivity are closely linked concepts.

To get the ball rolling again, could you post some examples of the above?

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:16 pm

Absolutely I could.
You might want to make reference to my Venn diagram as you go.
http://www.geocities.com/endipatterson/Cat.html

The most obvious category would be the modals, and I include here "had better" and "would rather" when "would rather" is not followed by the past subjunctive. They have to do their action to another verb although this verb may be invisible such as when a question is answered:

Can you ski?
Yes, I can ("ski" is not repeated, but is needed to understand the context. Try walking into a room and saying, "Yes, I can," without a context and see what happens.)

With the modal verbs this action is reduced to our philosophical outlook on the utterance, but with verbs followed by gerunds or by "to" and the infinitive it may be a true action (such as "apply to transfer" or "suggest going;") or it can be a modal equivelent (such as "be on the point of" or "ought to") that only expresses our philosophical outlook.

The only other catenatives that can be wholly (not optionally) intransitive are those followed by "to" and the infinitive without an object (bottom right.)

Of the -ing forms (non-overlap) only "waste time" isn't followed by an object (although "time" itself could be considered to be the object here.)

Some forms that can be folowed by either a gerund or infinitive are more interesting:

"Come" and "go" are definitely intransitive. We can say, "Come dancing, but not *Come it, "He's gone fishing, but not, *He's gone it. I would therefore argue that here the -ing form is a present participle and not a gerund.

I also note that where the object of a verb is aso followed by an -ing form, the -ing form is also forced into being a present participle (which is why I list verbs followed by object "to" and the infinitive on the diagram, but not verbs followed by the object and -ing form.)

The verbs followed by "to" and the infinitive as I said before, may be transitive or intransitive:

Transitive ( also followed by -ing)

Be, Forget, Remember, Mean, Need, Regret, Stop try (all also followed by -ing)

Transitive ("To"and infinitive only)
Have, Arrange, Attempt, Can/Can't afford, Choose, Decide, Fail, Learn, Manage, Neglect, Offer, Plan, Promise, Refuse, Resolve, Swear, Tend (different meaning), Threaten, Volunteer (reflexive or jocular), Vow.

Intransitive (The ones we are interested in)
Be able, Be about, Be bound, Be going, Ought, Use (discontinued actions and states), Agree, Aim, Appear, Be determined, Be supposed, Happen, Hessitate, Know how, Long, Pretend, Proceed, Seem, Strive, Tend (same meaning as when followed by to and infinitive)

I haven't mentioned "Let", "Make" and "Help" yet which can be either transitive or intransitive, nor the verbs of passive perception: "See", "hear", "Sense", etc which are always transitive.

This is mearly a partial description of the transitivity of the catenatives, it doesn't say why it is so.

BTW, Metal, was the Guiness good?