Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-tsvsl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T06:19:44.685Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The basicness of transitives 1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

A. Saksena
A. Saksena
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper raises the question whether transitive or intransitive semantics is the more basic. Recently, the transformational analysis of causatives (Lakoff, 1970; McCawley, 1968) has proposed that transitives are derived from intransitives by a causative transformation — thus implying that intransitive semantics is more basic. Because the transformational model has been so influential2 this claim has been carried over, often unquestioningly, into the grammar of many languages such as Hindi (Kachru, 1966, 1971; Kleiman, 1971). This paper shows that of significance in determining basicness is the question whether intransitive verbs of the form (O_) represent natural activity or agent-motivated activity; and using this criterion, we expect most transitives to be basic.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , September 1982 , pp. 355 - 360
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bach, E. & Harms, R. T. (eds.) (1968). Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Balachandran, , Lakshmi, Bai. (1973). A case grammar of Hindi. Decennary Publication Series #7. Agra: Central Institute of Hindi.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1968). The case for case. In Bach, E. & Harms, R.T.1–90.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1970). Three reasons for not deriving ‘kill’ from ‘cause to die’. LIn 1.4. 429–438.Google Scholar
Kachru, Yamuna. (1966). An introduction to Hindi syntax. Urbana, Illinois: Department of Linguistics, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Kachru, , Yamuna, . (1971). Causative sentences in Hindi revisited. In Papers on Hindi Syntax, 1.2. 75–103. Urbana, Illinois: Department of Linguistics, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Kellogg, S. H. (1972). A grammar of the Hindi language. New Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corporation. (This appears to be a reprint of the 1938 Third Edition, which was only slightly revised from the 1893 Second Edition.)Google Scholar
Kleiman, , Angela, B. (1971). Some aspects of the causative construction in Hindi. In Papers on Hindi Syntax 1.2. 104–135. Urbana: Department of Linguistics, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1970). Irregularity in syntax. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. (1968). Lexical insertion in a Transformational Grammar without Deep Structure. In Papers From the Fourth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 71–80.Google Scholar
Saksena, A. (1970). Vowel length in Hindi. Unpublished UCLA Ms.Google Scholar
Sharma, , Aryendra, . (1972). A basic grammar of modern Hindi. Delhi: Ministry of Education and Scientific Research, Government of India.Google Scholar