Cover not available
Article In:
Concentric
Vol. 50:2 (2024) ► pp.260–292

Vietnamese transitive cognate objects revisited

| National Chung Cheng University
A cognate object construction (COC) is a construction in which a typically intransitive verb combines with a nominal phrase that has the same meaning or the same morphological stem, e.g., live a happy life. In the literature, the syntactic status of cognate objects (CO) is one of the most debated issues. Pham (1999) observes that in Vietnamese, COs can occur with transitive verbs in both the direct object and indirect object position. She concludes that examples of direct COs provide evidence for the view that COs are arguments, and the existence of indirect COs shows that they can also be indirect objects. First, this paper argues that direct COs cannot be treated as evidence for the argument status of COs since they are not additional arguments. Moreover, they are not nouns but classifiers. Second, indirect COs are not indirect objects but prepositional objects in an adverbial prepositional phrase. These findings reveal that Vietnamese transitive COs are complex and different from the description in Pham’s study. It is important to make a clear distinction between these transitive COs and intransitive COs, especially in cross-linguistic research.
Keywords: cognate object, argument, transitive, classifier, Vietnamese
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1The restrictions on verbs in cognate object constructions
    • 2.2The syntactic status of cognate objects
  • 3.Against Pham (1999)
    • 3.1Theoretical background
    • 3.2The direct cognate object
    • 3.3The indirect cognate object
  • 4.The syntactic status of Vietnamese transitive cognate objects
    • 4.1The bo ‘bundle’ group are nominal classifiers
    • 4.2The da ‘kick’ group are verbal classifiers
    • 4.3The ICOs are prepositional objects in adverbial prepositional phrases
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • List of abbreviations for inter-linear glossing
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (50)
References
Aarts, Bas. 2013. English Syntax and Argumentation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Adger, David. 2012. Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Yurievna. 2000. Classifiers: A Typology of Noun Categorization Devices. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bowers, John. 2002. Transitivity. Linguistic Inquiry 33.21:183–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carnie, Andrew. 2013. Syntax: A Generative Introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Casilda, Garcia de la. 2016. The argument-structure configuration of English middle and related structures. Atypical Predicate-argument Relations, ed. by Thierry Ruchot and Pascale Van Praet, 115–130. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Marybeth. 1992. Conjunction as topicalizer in Vietnamese. Mon-Khmer Studies 201:91–110.Google Scholar
de Swart, Peter. 2007. Cross-linguistic Variation in Object Marking. Doctoral dissertation, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Deng, Dun. 2013. The Syntax and Semantics of Event Quantifiers in Mandarin Chinese. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.
Duffield, Nigel. 1999. Final modals, adverbs and antisymmetry in Vietnamese. Revue Québécoise de Linguistique 27.21:91–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, Michael Allan. 1988. Cognate objects and the case filter. Journal of Linguistics 24.11:89–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kearns, Kate. 2011. Semantics. New York: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumu, and Ken-ichi Takami. 2004. Functional Constraints in Grammar: On the Unergative-unaccusative Distinction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19.31:335–391.Google Scholar
. 2010. Grammar as Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 2015. Verb classes within and across languages. Case Studies from Austronesia, the Pacific, the Americas, and Theoretical Outlook, ed. by Bernard Comrie and Andrej Malchukov, 1627–1670. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Löbner, Sebastian. 2013. Understanding Semantics. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macfarland, Talke. 1995. Cognate Objects and the Argument/Adjunct Distinction in English. Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Massam, Diane. 1990. Cognate objects as thematic objects. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics 35.21:161–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mittwoch, Anita, Rodney Huddleston, and Peter Collins. 2002. The clause: Adjuncts. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, ed. by Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey Pullum, 663–784. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miyamoto, Tadao. 1999. The Light Verb Construction in Japanese: The Role of the Verbal Noun. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
Moltmann, Fredericke. 1989. Nominal and clausal event predicates. Proceedings from the 25th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. by Bradley Music, Caroline Wiltshire and Randolph Graczyk, 300–314. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Nakajima, Heizo. 2006. Adverbial cognate objects. Linguistic Inquiry 37.41:674–684. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, Dinh Hoa. 1957. Classifiers in Vietnamese. Word: Journal of the International Linguistic Association 13.11:124–152.Google Scholar
. 1997. Vietnamese: Tieng Viet Khong Son Phan [Vietnamese without Veneer]. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, Hung Tuong. 2013. The Vietnamese noun phrases. Linguistics of Vietnamese — An International Survey, ed. by Daniel Hole and Elisabeth Löbel, 57–87. Berlin & Cologne: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Nguyen, Huu Dat. 2000. Tieng Viet Thuc Hanh [Vietnamese Applied Linguistics]. Ha Noi, Vietnam: NXB Vanhoa Thongtin.Google Scholar
Nguyen, Phu Phong. 2004. Verbal classifiers in Vietnamese. Proceedings of the 11th Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, ed. by Somsonge Burusphat, 575–582. Tempe, AZ: Program for Southeast Asian Studies, Arizona State University.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 1999. Two classes of cognate objects. Proceedings of the 17th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. by Kimary Shahin, Susan Blake and Eun-Sook Kim, 537–551. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications.Google Scholar
Pham, Hoa. 1999. Cognate objects in Vietnamese transitive verbs. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 171:227–246.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 2016. Participant roles. The Routledge Handbook of Semantics, ed. by Nick Riemer, 403–418. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian. 2013. Argument structure and argument structure alternations. The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax, ed. by Marcel den Dikken, 265–321. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sailer, Manfred. 2010. The family of English cognate object constructions. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Head Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, ed. by Stefan Muller, 191–211. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger. 2006. The role of dimensions in the syntax of noun phrases. Syntax 9.11:67–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simpson, Andrew, and Binh Ngo. 2018. Classifier syntax in Vietnamese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 27.31:211–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tallerman, Maggie. 2011. Understanding Syntax. London: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar
Thompson, Laurence Cassius. 1965. A Vietnamese Grammar. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Tran, Jennie. 2011. The Acquisition of Vietnamese Classifiers. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI.
Tran, Thanh Hai. 2019. A corpus-based study of classifiers in Vietnamese. Proceedings of the 2019 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, ed. by Nicole Rosen and Anne-José Villeneuve. Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Trinh, Tue. 2019. The Edginess of Silence: A Study on Chain Linearization. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vittrant, Alice, and Marc Tang. 2021. Classifiers in Southeast Asian languages. The Languages and Linguistics of Mainland Southeast Asia: A Comprehensive Guide, ed. by Paul Sidwell and Mathias Jenny, 733–772. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 2002. Semantic primes and linguistic typology. Meaning and Universal Grammar: Theory and Empirical Findings, vol. 11 & vol. 21, ed. by Cliff Goddard and Anna Wierzbicka, 257–300. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Niina Ning. 2013. Classifier Structures in Mandarin Chinese. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. The syntax of event internal and event external verbal classifiers. Studia Linguistica 71.31:1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar