Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 42:4 (2018) ► pp.755–797

Argument realization of psychological verbs

| College of Staten Island, CUNY
By using data from nearly thirty languages of various families and regions, this paper examines the argument realization of three types of psychological verbs (i.e. causative bivalent, non-causative bivalent, and monovalent). It finds that, when compared with the argument realization of core transitive verbs like BREAK, causative bivalent psych verbs show crosslinguistic uniformity in that they pattern with core transitive verbs in argument realization. The same comparative approach finds that the argument realization of non-causative bivalent psych verbs shows a lot of crosslinguistic variation. As for monovalent psych verbs, the paper finds that they almost always pattern with the argument realization of unaccusative verbs. The findings of the paper are accounted for by using the Force-Control-Causality (FCC) model of verb meaning. Under this model, the uniformity in argument realization with respect to causative bivalent psych verbs is due to the prominence of the causative relationship expressed and the directionality of the causality from the Causer to the Causee. The variation in argument realization with respect to non-causative bivalent psych verbs can be attributed to the fact that such verbs express neither causation nor transmission of physical force. As for the near uniformity in argument realization with respect to monovalent psych verbs, it is due to the fact that they involve only one argument (thus no competition for the subject position) and this single argument shares the [−control] feature with the single argument of unaccusative verbs. This study points to the need of recognizing Causer and Causee as two core and highly-ranked thematic roles in a global thematic hierarchy.
Keywords: psychological verb, psych verb, argument realization, causative, Causer, Causee
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Argument realization of the three types of psych verbs
    • 2.1Argument realization of causative bivalent psych verbs
    • 2.2Argument realization of non-causative bivalent psych verbs
    • 2.3Argument realization of monovalent psych verbs
  • 3.A Force-Control-Causality (FCC) account
  • 4.Conclusion and implication
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 4 February 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.17016.li
References (76)
References
Arad, Maya. 1998. Psych-notes. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 101. 203–223.
Atoyebi, Joseph. 2013. Yorùbá valency patterns. In Iren Hartmann, Martin Haspelmath & Bradley Taylor (eds.), Valency Patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL] (12 March 2016.)
Baker, Mark C. 1989. Object sharing and projection in serial verb constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 201. 513–553.Google Scholar
1997. Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax, 73–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2013. Icelandic valency patterns. In Iren Hartmann, Martin Haspelmath & Bradley Taylor (eds.), Valency Patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL] (11 March 2016.)
Belletti, Adriana & Luigi Rizzi. 1988. Psych-verbs and θ-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 61. 291–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. Notes on psych-verbs, θ-theory, and binding. In Robert Freidin (ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, 132–162. Cambridge & London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 1995. The Semantics of Syntax: A Minimalist Approach to Grammar. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Ash Asudeh, Ida Toivonen & Stephen Wechsler. 2016. Lexical-Functional Syntax, 2nd edn. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Jonni M. Kanerva. 1989. Locative inversion in Chicheŵa: A case study of factorization in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 201. 1–50.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology, 2nd edn. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard & Zaira Khalilova. 2013. Bezhta valency patterns. In Iren Hartmann, Martin Haspelmath & Bradley Taylor (eds.), Valency Patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL] (11 March 2016.)
Conners, Thomas J. & David Gil. 2013. Jakarta Indonesian valency patterns. In Iren Hartmann, Martin Haspelmath & Bradley Taylor (eds.), Valency Patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL] (11 March 2016.)
Creissels, Denis. 2013. Mandinka valency patterns. In Iren Hartmann, Martin Haspelmath & Bradley Taylor (eds.), Valency Patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL] (12 March 2016.)
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 1993. Case marking and the semantics of mental verbs. In James Pustejovsky (ed.), Semantics and the Lexicon, 55–72. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Event structure in argument linking. In Mariam Butt & Wilhelm Geuder (eds.), The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors, 21–63. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davis, Anthony R. & Jean-Pierre Koenig. 2000. Linking as constraints on word classes in a hierarchical lexicon. Language 761. 56–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1984. Notes on agentivity and causation. Studies in Language 8(2). 181–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1985. Agentivity and syntax. In William H. Eilfort, Paul D. Kroeber & Karen L. Peterson (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Causatives and Agentivity at the Twenty-First Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 1–12. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1978. Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: The Structure of the Clause, ed. by Kees Hengeveld, 2nd rev. edn. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 671. 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Estrada-Fernández, Zarina, Mercedes Tubino Blanco & Jesús Francisco Villalpando Quiñonez. 2013. Yaqui valency patterns. In Iren Hartmann, Martin Haspelmath & Bradley Taylor (eds.), Valency Patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL] (12 March 2016.)
Goddard, Cliff. 2013. English valency patterns. In Iren Hartmann, Martin Haspelmath & Bradley Taylor (eds.), Valency Patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL] (11 March 2016.)
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey S. 1965. Studies in Lexical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
1976. Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Gupta, Sagar Mal & Jyoti Tuladhar. 1979/1980. Dative subject constructions in Hindi, Nepali and Marathi and Relational Grammar. Contributions to Nepalese Studies 7(1/2). 119–153.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Iren, Martin Haspelmath & Bradley Taylor (eds.). 2013. Valency Patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL] (11 March 2016.)
Haspelmath, Martin & Luisa Baumann. 2013. German valency patterns. In Iren Hartmann, Martin Haspelmath & Bradley Taylor (eds.), Valency Patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL] (11 March 2016.)
Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 561. 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1987. The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 181. 369–411.Google Scholar
. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 2003. Not so quirky: On subject case in Icelandic. In Ellen Brandner & Heike Zinsmeister (eds.), New Perspectives in Case Theory, 127–163. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kász, Csilla. 2013. Modern Standard Arabic valency patterns. In Iren Hartmann, Martin Haspelmath & Bradley Taylor (eds.), Valency Patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL] (12 March 2016.)
Keenan, Edward L. & Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1). 63–99.Google Scholar
Kim, Soung-U. 2013. Korean valency patterns. In Iren Hartmann, Martin Haspelmath & Bradley Taylor (eds.), Valency Patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL] (12 March 2016.)
Kishimoto, Hideki & Taro Kageyama. 2013. Japanese (standard) valency patterns. In Iren Hartmann, Martin Haspelmath & Bradley Taylor (eds.), Valency Patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL] (11 March 2016.)
Koenig, Jean-Pierre & Anthony R. Davis. 2001. Sublexical modality and the structure of lexical semantic representations. Linguistics and Philosophy 241. 71–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2010. The Locative Syntax of Experiencers. Cambridge & London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2013. Yucatec Maya valency patterns. In Iren Hartmann, Martin Haspelmath & Bradley Taylor (eds.), Valency Patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL] (16 March 2016.)
Levin, Beth. 1999. Objecthood: An event structure perspective. In John P. Boyle & Aaron M. Griffith (eds.), Papers from the 35th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 1: The Main Session, 223–247. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Jason Grafmiller. 2013. Do you always fear what frightens you? In Tracy Holloway King & Valeria de Paiva (eds.), From Quirky Case to Representing Space: Papers in Honor of Annie Zaenen, 21–32. Stanford, CA: CSLI Online Publications.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej. 2013. Even valency patterns. In Iren Hartmann, Martin Haspelmath & Bradley Taylor (eds.), Valency Patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL] (11 March 2016.)
McCawley, Noriko A. 1976. On experiencer causatives. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions, 181–203. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical Transitivity. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, Igor. 1997. Evenki. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2013. Evenki valency patterns. In Iren Hartmann, Martin Haspelmath & Bradley Taylor (eds.), Valency Patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL] (11 March 2016.)
Nordhoff, Sebastian. 2013a. Sri Lanka Malay valency patterns. In Iren Hartmann, Martin Haspelmath & Bradley Taylor (eds.), Valency Patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL] (12 March 2016.)
(ed.). 2013b. The Genesis of Sri Lanka Malay: A Case of Extreme Language Contact. Leiden & Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pankau, Andreas. 2016. Quirky subjects in Icelandic, Faroese, and German: A Relational Grammar account. In Doug Arnold, Miriam Butt, Berthold Crysmann, Tracy Holloway King & Stefan Müller (eds.), Proceedings of the Joint 2016 Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar and Lexical Functional Grammar, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland, 499–519. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge & London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 1999. Cases and Thematic Roles: Ergative, Accusative and Active. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Mismatches in semantic-role hierarchies and the dimensions of role semantics. In Ina Bornkessel, Matthias Schlesewsky, Bernard Comrie & Angela D. Friederici (eds.), Semantic Role Universals and Argument Linking: Theoretical, Typological, and Psychological Perspectives, 53–87. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian Catriona. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First-Phase Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 2001. Experiencing derivations. In Rachel Hastings, Brendan Jackson & Zsofia Zvolenszky (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 11, 365–387. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
. 2002. The Theta system: An overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28(3). 229–290.Google Scholar
Rozwadowska, Bożena. 1988. Thematic restrictions on derived nominals. In Wendy Wilkins (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 21: Thematic Relations, 147–165. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1989. Are thematic relations discrete? In Roberta Corrigan, Fred Eckman & Michael Noonan (eds.), Linguistic Categorization, 115–130. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Psychological verbs and psychological adjectives. In Martin Everaert & Henk C. van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol. 61, 2nd edn, 3383–3408. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schikowski, Robert, Balthasar Bickel & Netra Prasād Paudyāl. 2013. Chintang valency patterns. In Iren Hartmann, Martin Haspelmath & Bradley Taylor (eds.), Valency Patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL] (11 March 2016.)
Seifart, Frank. 2013. Bora valency patterns. In Iren Hartmann, Martin Haspelmath & Bradley Taylor (eds.), Valency Patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL] (11 March 2016.)
Talmy, Leonard. 1976. Semantic causative types. In Mayayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions, 43–116. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. III: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, 57–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 121. 49–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. I: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge & London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tsujimura, Natsuko. 1991. On the semantic properties of unaccusativity. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 131. 91–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vajda, Edward J. & Elena Kryukova. 2013. Ket valency patterns. In Iren Hartmann, Martin Haspelmath & Bradley Taylor (eds.), Valency Patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL] (11 March 2016.)
Valentine, J. Randolph & Mary Ann Corbiere. 2013. Ojibwe valency patterns. In Iren Hartmann, Martin Haspelmath & Bradley Taylor (eds.), Valency Patterns Leipzig. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL] (12 March 2016.)
Van Valin, Robert D. 1990. Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 661. 221–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhoeven, Elisabeth. 2010. Agentivity and stativity in experiencer verbs: Implications for a typology of verb classes. Linguistic Typology 141. 213–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zaenen, Annie. 1993. Unaccusativity in Dutch: Integrating syntax and lexical semantics. In James Pustejovsky (ed.), Semantics and the Lexicon, 129–161. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Li, Chao
2020. Causer and causee as two higher-ranked thematic roles. Language and Linguistics. 語言暨語言學 21:4 ► pp. 601 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.