Cover not available
Part of
Contrastive Studies in Verbal Valency
Edited by Lars Hellan, Andrej L. Malchukov and Michela Cennamo
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 237] 2017
► pp. 327–373

Valency alternations between inflection and derivation

A contrastive analysis of Italian and German

| University of Turin
Valency alternations are usually treated either as a lexical phenomenon resulting from the manipulation of the argument structure of a verb or as a context-conditioned variation resulting from the insertion of a verb into a certain syntactic configuration or construction. In the paper, the attempt is made to give support to the lexical view by discussing valency alternations along the inflectional / derivational continuum. In particular, the contrastive analysis of Italian and German valency alternations shows that several different types can be observed which range from patterns clearly belonging to the inflectional pole such as the passive, the resultative and the reflexive to patterns of a lexical nature which can be treated on a par with their corresponding derivational analogues. Accordingly, valency alternations can be arguably considered as a type of conversion – i.e. as a process of lexeme formation – with a basically modifying value in which the base undergoes a sub-classification in hyponymic terms.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The inflection / derivation continuum
  • 3.Deriving valency changes across inflection and derivation
  • 4.The peculiar status of valency alternations
  • 5.Valency alternations as a morphological operation
  • 6.Valency alternations in Italian and German: A contrastive survey
    • 6.1IM-Relating valency alternations
    • 6.2DM-Relating valency alternations
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 April 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.237.11gae
References (72)
References
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Everaert, Martin (eds). 2004. The Unaccusativity Puzzle. Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Sevdali, Christina. 2013. Dative-nominative alternations in Germanic languages: A generative perspective. Lingue e Linguaggi 9: 7–20.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Angster, Marco. 2012. Le marche di coreferenza contrastiva nella formazione delle parole. Una panoramica delle lingue d’Europa. PhD dissertation, University of Pavia.Google Scholar
Apresjan, Juri D. 1974. Regular polysemy. Linguistics 12: 5–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by Itself. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2004. The function of word-formation and the inflection-derivation distinction. In Words in their Places. A Festschrift for J. Lachlan Mackenzie, Henk Aertsen, Mike Hannay & Rod Lyall (eds), 283–292. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit.Google Scholar
Beard, Robert. 1995. Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology. A General Theory of Inflection and Word Formation Albany NY: New York Press.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1992. Morphology, semantics and argument structure. In Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar, Iggy Roca (ed.), 47–64. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. Against split morphology. In Yearbook of Morphology 1993, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 27–50. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. In Yearbook of Morphology 1995, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 1–16. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2013. Structuring Sense, Vol. III: Taking Form. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology [Typological Studies in Language 9]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cennamo, Michela & Jezek, Elisabetta. 2011. The anticausative alternation in Italian. In I luoghi della traduzione – Le interfacce. Atti del XLIII Congresso Internazionale di Studi della Società di Linguistica Italiana (SLI), Verona, 24–26 settembre 2009, Giovanna Massariello Merzagora & Serena Dal Maso (eds), 809–823. Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Cennamo, Michela. 2015. Valency patterns in Italian. In Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, Vol. 1, Andrej Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds), 417–481. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Corbin, Danielle. 1997. Locutions, composés, unités polylexématiques: Lexicalisation et mode de construction. In La locution entre langue et usages, Michel Martins-Baltar (ed.), 53–101. Fontenay: ENS.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2003. Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In Motivation in Language. Studies in Honor of Günter Radden, Hubert Cuyckens, Thomas Berg, René Dirven & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds), 49–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William & Cruse, D. Alan. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diedrichsen, Elke. 2013. Auxiliary selection in German: Constructional gradience with perfect formation. In Argument Structure in Flux: the Naples/Capri Papers [Studies in Language Companion Series 131], Elly van Gelderen, Michela Cennamo & Jóhanna Barðdal (eds), 405–434. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 2000. A typology of causatives: Form, syntax and meaning. In Changing Valency. Case Studies in Transitivity, Robert M.W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds), 30–83. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dokulil, Milos. 1968. Zur Theorie der Wortbildung. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universität Leipzig [Gesellschafts- und Sprachwissenschaftsreihe] 17: 203–211.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1989. Prototypical differences between inflection and derivation. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 42: 3–10.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. & Merlini Barbaresi, Lavinia. 1994. Morphopragmatics. Diminutives and Intensifiers in Italian, German and Other Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dubinsky, Stanley & Simango, Silvester R. 1996. Passive and stative in Chichewa: Evidence for modular distinctions in grammar. Language 72(4): 749–781. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fagan, Sarah. 1988. The English middle. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 181–204.Google Scholar
Fleischer, Wolfgang & Bars, Irmhild. 1995. Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Gaeta, Livio. 2010a. On the viability of cognitive morphology for explaining language change. In Word Formation from Cognitive Perspectives, Alexander Onysko & Sascha Michel (ed.), 75–95. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010b. Synthetic compounds. With special reference to German. In Cross-Disciplinary Issues in Compounding [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 131], Sergio Scalise & Irene Vogel (eds), 219–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Affix ordering and conversion: Looking for the place of zero. Lingue e Linguaggio 12(2): 145–170.Google Scholar
. 2014. Kontrastive Linguistik nach der typologischen Wende. Kommentar zu den Beiträgen. Germanistische Mitteilungen 40(1): 79–82.Google Scholar
. 2015a. Action nouns in Romance. In Müller et al., Vol. 2, 1165–1185.Google Scholar
. 2015b. Lexeme formation in a conscious approach to the lexicon. In Semantics of Complex Words, Laurie Bauer, Lívia Körtvélyessy & Pavol Štekauer (eds), 115–141. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
García Velasco, Daniel & Hengeveld, Kees. 2002. Do we need predicate frames? In New Perspectives on Argument Structure in Functional Grammar, Ricardo Mairal Usón & María Jesús Pérez Quintero (eds), 95–123. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2010. Cognitive Semantics. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Geniušienė, Emma Š. 2006. Passives in Lithuanian (in comparison with Russian). In Passivization and Typology: Form and Function [Typological Studies in Language 68], Werner Abraham & Larisa Leisiö (eds), 29–61. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2013. Constructionist approaches. In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds), 15–31. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The View from Building 20. Studies in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2015. The syntax-morphology interface. In Syntax – Theory and Analysis, Vol. 2, Tibor Kiss & Artemis Alexiadou (eds), 1128–1154. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1996. Word-class-changing inflection and morphological theory. In Yearbook of Morphology 1995, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 43–66. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & Sims, Andrea D. 2010. Understanding Morphology, 2nd edn. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hook, Peter E. & Koul, Omkar N. 2006. Valency sets in Kashmiri. In Voice and Grammatical Relations: In Honor of Masayoshi Shibatani [Typological Studies in Language 65], Tasaku Tsunoda & Taro Kageyama (eds), 43–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iacobini, Claudio. 2004. Verbi parasintetici. In La formazione delle parole in italiano, Maria Grossmann & Franz Rainer (eds), 167–181. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Keller, Frank & Sorace, Antonella. 2003. Gradient auxiliary selection and impersonal passivization in German: An experimental investigation. Journal of Linguistics 39: 57–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 2011. Reflexive nominal compounds. Studies in Language 35(1): 112–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Contrastive linguistics and language comparison. Languages in Contrast 12: 3–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid I. 2001. Causatives. In Language Typology and Linguistics Universals, Vol. 2, Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard Konig, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds), 886–898. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Volkmar. 2015. Categories of word-formation. In Müller et al., Vol. 2, 1020–1034.Google Scholar
Lenci, Alessandro. 2012. Argument alternations in Italian verbs: A computational study. In Linguaggio e cervello – Semantica / Language and the brain – Semantics. Atti del XLII Congresso Internazionale della Società di Linguistica Italiana, Vol. 2 (CD-Rom), Paper II.B.1, Pier Marco Bertinetto, Valentina Bambini & Irene Ricci (eds). Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Letuchiy, Alexander. 2009. Towards a typology of labile verbs: Lability vs. derivation. In New Challenges in Typology. Transcending the Borders and Refining the Distinctions, Patience Epps & Alexandre Arkhipov (eds), 247–268. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 1995. Unaccusativity. At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Löbner, Sebastian. 2002. Understanding Semantics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2013. Voice and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 44(1): 77–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. & Ruppenhofer, Josef. 2001. Beyond Alternations: A Constructional Account of the Applicative Pattern in German. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan & Wechsler, Steve. 2014. Lexical approaches to argument structure. Theoretical Linguistics 40(1–2): 1–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, Peter O., Ohnheiser, Ingeborg, Olsen, Susan & Rainer, Franz (eds). 2015. Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, vol.2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Munaro, Nicola. 1994. Alcuni casi di alternanza di struttura argomentale in inglese. In Teoria del Linguaggio e Analisi Linguistica: XX Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, Gianluigi Borgato (ed.), 341–370. Padova: Unipress.Google Scholar
Mutz, Katrin. 2003. Le parole complesse in ‘auto’ nell'italiano di oggi. In Italia linguistica anno Mille. Italia linguistica anno Duemila. Atti del XXXIV Congresso Internazionale della SLI, Nicoletta Maraschio & Teresa Poggi Salani (eds), 649–664. Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Rainer, Franz. 1993. Spanische Wortbildungslehre. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Levin, Beth. 2008. The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 44: 129–167.Google Scholar
Salvi, Giampaolo. 2010. La realizzazione sintattica della struttura argomentale. In Grammatica dell’italiano antico, Vol. 1, Giampaolo Salvi & Lorenzo Renzi (eds), 123–189. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Sanders, Gerald. 1988. Zero derivation and the overt analogue criterion. In Theoretical Morphology: Approaches in Modern Linguistics, Michael Hammond & Michael Noonan (eds), 155–175. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schäfer, Florian. 2008. The Syntax of (Anti-)Causatives. External Arguments in Change-of-state Contexts [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 126]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siller-Runggaldier, Heidi. 2000. Fra semantica e formazione delle parole: I cambiamenti di valenza verbale. Italienische Studien 21: 233–268.Google Scholar
. 2003. Changes of valence and their effect on objects. In Romance Objects: Transitivity in Romance Languages, Giuliana Fiorentino (ed.), 187–216. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Cambiamenti di valenza. In La formazione delle parole in italiano, Maria Grossmann & Franz Rainer (eds), 546–549. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Sorace, Antonella. 2000. Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language 76(4): 859–890. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Štekauer, Pavol. 2015. The delimitation of derivation and inflection. In Müller et al., Vol. 1, 218–235.Google Scholar
Thornton, Anna M. 2004. Conversione. In La formazione delle parole in italiano, Maria Grossmann & Franz Rainer (eds), 501–533. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Valera, Salvador. 2015. Conversion. In Müller et al., Vol. 1, 322–339.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter. 2015. Valency-changing word-formation. In Müller et al., Vol. 2, 1424–1466.Google Scholar