Universiteit Gent
Faculteit Letteren & Wijsbegeerte
Academiejaar 2012-2013
Ergativityc in English, Dutch and German:
A corpus-based, contrastive study of deadjectival verbs
Masterproef voorgelegd tot het bekomen van de graad van
Master in de Taal- en Letterkunde: Twee talen
Evi De Groote
Promotor: Prof. Dr. Miriam Taverniers
2
Acknowledgement
I am grateful to many people who have supported me during the past years. First of all, I
want to thank my supervisor, Prof. Dr. Miriam Taverniers for her useful advice and for the
confidence she has shown in this study. I am also grateful to Dr. Julie Van Bogaert for
proof-reading parts of this work. A special thanks goes to Charlotte De Kuysscher, for her
moral support and for the entertaining conversations. Finally, I want to thank my family
and my friends for their kindness and support throughout my study.
3
Table of contents
Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................... 3
Table of contents.................................................................................................................. 4
List of tables ......................................................................................................................... 7
List of figures ....................................................................................................................... 7
1
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 9
2
Literature Review ....................................................................................................... 11
2.1
The complexity of a definition ................................................................................. 11
2.2
“Ergativity” representing different phenomena........................................................ 12
2.3
Different approaches towards (lexical) ergativityc ................................................... 13
2.4
Ergativityc as a type of valence reduction ................................................................ 16
2.5
Contrastive study of ergativityc ................................................................................ 18
2.5.1
General ................................................................................................................. 18
2.5.2
Contrastive approaches so far............................................................................... 22
2.5.3
Ergativityc in English ........................................................................................... 28
2.5.3.1
Causativizing affixes ............................................................................................ 28
2.5.3.2
Causative constructions ........................................................................................ 31
2.5.4
Ergativityc in Dutch .............................................................................................. 36
2.5.4.1
General ................................................................................................................. 36
2.5.4.2
Verbs with prefix ver- .......................................................................................... 36
2.5.4.3
Reflexive verbs..................................................................................................... 37
2.5.4.4
Periphrastic construction with doen/laten ............................................................ 39
2.5.5
Ergativityc in German ........................................................................................... 40
2.5.5.1
General ................................................................................................................. 40
2.5.5.2
Verbs with prefix ver- .......................................................................................... 41
2.5.5.3
Reflexive verbs..................................................................................................... 42
2.5.5.4
Periphrastic construction with lassen ................................................................... 43
3
Methodology ............................................................................................................... 44
4
Analysis and discussion .............................................................................................. 50
4.1
Dutch translation strategies ...................................................................................... 50
4.1.1
General ................................................................................................................. 50
4.1.2
Prefixed verbs....................................................................................................... 50
4.1.3
Attributive construction........................................................................................ 53
4
4.1.4
Ergativec verbs...................................................................................................... 55
4.1.5
Deadjectival verbs ................................................................................................ 56
4.1.6
Reflexive verbs..................................................................................................... 57
4.1.7
Other constructions .............................................................................................. 57
German translation strategies ................................................................................... 59
4.2
4.2.1
General ................................................................................................................. 59
4.2.2
Prefixed verbs....................................................................................................... 60
4.2.3
Attributive construction........................................................................................ 62
4.2.4
Ergativec verbs...................................................................................................... 64
4.2.5
Deadjectival verbs ................................................................................................ 65
4.2.6
Reflexive verbs..................................................................................................... 66
4.2.7
Other constructions .............................................................................................. 69
4.3
5
Discussion and conclusion ....................................................................................... 69
Diachronic excursion.................................................................................................. 74
5.1
General ..................................................................................................................... 74
5.2
Hypothesis ................................................................................................................ 76
6
Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 81
Appendix 1: Dutch primary data ..................................................................................... 83
Appendix 2: German primary data ................................................................................. 87
Appendix 3: Dutch results ................................................................................................ 89
Appendix 4: German results ............................................................................................ 94
References .......................................................................................................................... 97
5
6
List of tables
Table 1.
Terminology
Table 2.
Formal linguistic devices to express causation in Modern English
(Baron 1974: 302, 1)
Table 3.
Comparison of Dutch and German strategies
Table 4.
A selection of features in Modern English and Modern German
(Toyota 2008: 285)
Table 5.
A selection of features in Old English and Old High German
(Toyota 2008: 285)
List of figures
Figure 1.
Representation of Dutch translations
Figure 2.
Distribution of prefixes in Dutch
Figure 3.
Distribution of comparatives in Dutch
Figure 4.
Ergativec verbs in Dutch
Figure 5.
Periphrastic constructions in Dutch
Figure 6.
Representation of German translations
Figure 7.
Distribution of prefixes in German
Figure 8.
Distribution of comparatives in German
7
8
1 Introduction
Ergativityc is said to be a well-studied and “widely recognized phenomenon” in linguistics
(Horvath & Siloni 2011:2176). This linguistic phenomenon is illustrated by pairs such as
(1) and (2).
(1)
a. The man breaks the vase.
b. The vase breaks.
(2)
a. Smoke darkens the sky.
b. The sky darkens.
Many linguists take into account both syntactic and semantic features to characterize the
ergativec alternation (Legendre et al. 1991, Levin & Hovav 1995, Zaenen 1993). In order
to define the ergativec alternation syntactically, the position of the object is crucial: the
object in the two-participant construction [henceforth ERG2] in (1)a and (2)a moves to
subject position in the one-participant construction [henceforth ERG1] in (1)b and (2)b.
Davidse defines the ergativec alternation semantically and differentiates between ERG1 and
ERG2 on the basis of the feature instigatable. ERG1 potentially possesses this feature,
whereas ERG2 is always “externally instigated” (Davidse 1998: 99).
So far, different linguistic traditions have been concerned with positioning ergativityc
within the grammar of a language and with defining the crucial characteristics of
ergativityc in a given language. However, Davidse states that no consensus between
different linguistic schools has been reached, because of an “almost total lack of dialogue
between [...] schools” (Davidse 1998: 95). Hovav later confirmed this claim by Davidse
and adds that not all linguists refer to the same phenomena when using the terms
“unaccusative” [ergativec] and “unergative” [transitivec] verbs (Hovav 2005: 623).
Although some domains of ergativityc are well-studied, the title of a research by
Alexiadou et al., formulated as ‘The Unaccusativity Puzzle’ (2004), indicates that some
aspects of ergativityc still remain a puzzle; one of those aspects is the contrastive aspect of
ergativityc. Although Horvath & Siloni (2011: 2176) state that ergativityc is “attested
across languages”, it is striking that a comparison of ergativityc across languages has
received little attention. A significant comparative study has been carried out by Fontenelle
(1996) for English and French. However, a comparison of ergativityc between the
Germanic languages English, Dutch and German has not been carried out so far, although
there are pointers in the literature about how those languages differ with respect to
9
ergativityc. For instance, Abraham (2003: 2) states that English “does not identify
ergativityc with empirical clarity equivalent to German and Dutch”.
The purpose of this paper is to compare ergativityc in English, Dutch and German
and more precisely to examine which equivalent are used in German and Dutch to
represent a set of English ergativec verbs in Dutch. This set consists of 41 English
deadjectival ergativec verbs ending in the suffix –en (3).
(3)
(brighten, flatten, widen)
This study is organized as follows. The first part of section 2 discusses the ergativec
alternation in general. The second part of section 2 deals with the ergativec alternation in
respectively English, Dutch and German. Section 3 discusses the methodology used in this
research. In section 4, which forms the greater part of this study, the findings, i.e. the
translation strategies in Dutch and German, will be closely looked at and compared. The
study ends with a diachronic excursion in section 5, which links the differences between
English, Dutch and German concerning ergativityc to changes in the alignment type in the
history of English (Toyota 2008).
10
2 Literature Review
2.1 The complexity of a definition
The complexity of the concept ergativityc is reflected in the continuing debate among
linguists. During the last decades, linguists proposed both semantic and syntactic
approaches to define ergativityc. However, no consensus has been reached on a definition
and on the position of ergativityc within the grammar of a language. Legendre et al. (1991:
1) considered earlier approaches towards ergativityc and argued in their ‘Unifying syntactic
and semantic approaches to unaccusativity’ (1991) in favour of a combined approach.
Recently, however, Hovav (2005: 623) noticed that the terms “unaccusative” [ergativec]
and “unergative” [transitivec] are still not used consistently among linguists. Davidse
(1998: 95) recognizes this problem, as she states there is an “almost total lack of dialogue
between [...] schools”. To avoid ambiguity in terms of terminology, I decided to apply the
terms by Kristin Davidse for the different types of paradigms and the abbreviations ERG1
and ERG2 for respectively the one-participant construction and the two-participant
construction of the ergativec alternation. I listed their equivalents terms in other traditions
as well in Table 1. Their definitions are given further on in the literature review.1
Different types of paradigm
Davidse (1992)
Transitivec verbs
Ergative c verbs
Formal tradition
Unergative verb
Unaccusative verb
Ergativec alternation
Davidse (1998)
Two-participant construction
One-participant construction
Haspelmath (1993, 2002)
Causative verb
Anticausative verb
Inchoative verb
Van Gelderen (2011)
Causative verb
Anticausative verb
This paper
ERG2
ERG1
Table 1. Terminology
1
The content and structure of §2.1, §2.2, §2.3, §2.5.2, §2.5.3 and §2.5.4 is based on my BA paper ‘A
contrastive study of a set of ergative verbs in English and Dutch’
11
2.2 “Ergativity” representing different phenomena
An important linguist in the research of ergativityc is R.M.W. Dixon. In the late seventies,
he defines the term “ergativityc” in general as he states that “a language is said to show
ergativec characteristics if the intransitive subject (S) is realized in the same manner as the
transitive object (O) and differently from the transitive subject (A)” (Dixon 1979: 60-61).
Ergativity thus refers to the system a language adopts to express the relation between these
“three core semantic-syntactic relations” (Dixon 1979: 61). Dixon provides an overview of
this complex concept by distinguishing between three different levels of ergativity:
morphological, syntactic and discourse ergativity (Dixon 1979: 3-5). He refers to
“morphological ergativity” if the function of an NP is clear from “(i) case inflections; (ii)
particles, i.e. prepositions or postpositions; (iii) pronominal cross-referencing on the main
verb or on an auxiliary verb, or (iv) word order” (Dixon 1979: 3). Depending on the
particular relation between the object and subject, a language can be (i) absolutive/ergative,
in which case the absolutive is usually the unmarked case, or (ii) nominative-accusative, in
which the nominative is generally the unmarked case (Dixon 1979: 72). It is important to
note, that the system a language adopts, is not clear-cut: no known language is purely
ergative at any level (Dixon 1979: 84). The second type of ergativity distinguished by
Dixon, viz. “syntactic ergativity”, is much rarer than morphological ergativity. It implies
that syntactic rules, e.g. coordination, are specific for certain functions of an NP in a
clause. When a language is said to be ergative at a syntactic level, the core of the clause is
the intransitive subject (which may remain implicit) and the transitive object (Dixon 1979:
4-5). The third type of ergativity, “discourse ergativity”, is a phenomenon that has only
recently achieved attention from linguists. A certain topic (or a non-topic) can be
introduced by means of an intransitive subject, a transitive object or a transitive subject. If
S and O are treated in the same way in a language, this language is said to have a discourse
ergativity (Dixon 1979: 5). Lastly, Dixon states that an additional, more distinct category
of ergativity exists in the lexical domain (Dixon 1979: 5). In some languages, some verbs
may be used either transitively (with A and O core NPs) or intransitively (with just an S
core NP). The subject of the intransitive construction, can be either the same as the
transitive subject or it can refer to the object of the transitive construction. In the latter
case, these verbs are ergativec (Dixon1979: 5-7). Dixon believes that English belongs to
this last category, as it shows ergativity (henceforth ergativityc)in the lexical domain
(Dixon 1979: 7). This type of ergativityc will be the focus of this study.
12
2.3 Different approaches towards (lexical) ergativityc
As stated earlier, no consensus has been reached on the features of ergativec verbs, because
of different linguistic approaches towards ergativityc. Some linguists argue that the
meaning of the verb is the crucial factor which determines whether a verb is ergativec or
not. Other linguists argue that the syntactic behaviour of the verb is crucial and still others
prefer the golden mean between both approaches. A semantic approach is presented by
Haspelmath, who argues that the main distinction between a causative [ERG2] and an
inchoative [ERG1] verb, is the fact that “the causative verb meaning includes an agent
participant who causes the situation, whereas the inchoative verb meaning excludes a
causing agent and presents the situation as occurring spontaneously” (Haspelmath 1993:
90).
Unlike Haspelmath, Perlmutter supports a more syntax-oriented approach,
formulated as the “unaccusative hypothesis” (Alexiadou et al. 2004: 1-2). Supporters of the
“unaccusative hypothesis” use the term unaccusative in the sense of ergativec and oppose
it to the unergative [transitivec] paradigm. According to the formal tradition, intransitive
verbs can be divided into two subclasses, unergative [transitivec] and unaccusative
[ergativec] verbs, on the basis of their underlying syntactic structure (Alexiadou et al.
2004: 2). The single argument of intransitive verbs can have syntactically different
functions. An unergative verb has a subject as its argument whereas an unaccusative verb
has an object as its argument (Alexiadou et al. 2004: 2). Next to this syntactic difference,
Perlmutter takes the semantics of the ergativec verb into account as well, as he believes that
the semantic role of the single argument is distinct. The role of the single argument of an
unaccusative verb is a patient, a function which is typically associated with the object
(Friedman: 2008: 355), whereas the single argument of an unergative verb is an agent.
Perlmutter thus believes that agentivity or the lack of agentivity plays a role in
distinguishing
between
unergativity
[transitivityc]
or
unaccusativity [ergativityc]
(Alexiadou et al. 2004: 12). The difference in agentivity is exemplified in (4)-(5).
(4)
The boy smiles.
(5)
The girl falls.
In (4), the boy is the subject of the action smiling and has a typical agent-role. The verb to
smile is thus an unergative verb. In (5), by contrast, the argument the girl is according to
supporters of the “unaccusative hypothesis” the object of the clause, since the girl
13
undergoes the process of falling. The verb to fall can therefore be labelled as an
unaccusative verb [ergativec]. Other supporters of the “unaccusativity hypothesis” have
argued that not agentivity, but telicity is the crucial notion determining unaccusativity:
“unaccusative verbs [ergativec] tend to be telic, while unergative ones [transitivec] tend to
be atelic” (Alexiadou et al. 2004: 13). Zaenen, following Perlmutter’s “unaccusative
hypothesis”, investigated a set of Dutch ergativec verbs and confirmed the significance of
the notion telicity in the distinction between unaccusativity [ergativityc] and unergativity
[transitivityc] (Zaenen 1993: 326-327).
Legendre et al. (1991), Levin & Hovav (1995) and Zaenen (1993:318) believe that
syntax and semantics intermingle. Levin & Hovav (1995) argue that the notion of action
and change of state on the one hand and that of internal and external causation on the other
hand defines the difference between respectively unergative verbs [transitivec] and
unaccusative [ergativec] ones. Legendre et al. point out a shortcoming of the syntactic
approach, which is the lack of tests for unergativity. This has as a result that the class of
unergatives [transitivesc] are often defined negatively” (Legendre et al. 1991: 4). Davidse
too takes into account both semantic and syntactic characteristics to define ergativityc. She
nuances the idea of internal and external causation (Levin & Hovav 1995) as characteristic
for ergativec verbs, as she focuses on “the construction types rather than on verb classes”
(Davidse 1998: 99). She characterizes the one-participant construction [ERG1] as
potentially possessing the feature “instigatable” and contrast this with the two-participant
construction [ERG2], which has the “externally instigated” feature (Davidse 1998: 99).
The distinction between ERG1 and ERG2 is illustrated in (6)-(7).
(6)
The snow globe shook.
(7)
The boy shook the snow globe.
In (6), the participant in ERG1, the snow globe, possesses the feature “instigatable”. In
ERG2 (6), the external instigator the boy is made explicit. The participant in ERG1 does not
necessarily possesses the feature “instigatable”. Illustration (8) shows an ergativec verb
which is internally caused.
(8)
The boy shuddered.
(9)
*The boy shuddered the snow globe.
(10)
*The snow globe shuddered.
14
The verb to shake in (6)-(7) and the verb to shudder in (8)-(10) thus differ with respect to
the features ‘externally caused’ and ‘internally caused’. Davidse (1998: 99) believes that
an internally caused verb has an “argument with some inherent property which is itself
responsible for bringing about the eventuality”. Therefore, an external argument cannot be
added as is illustrated in (9). The arguments of internally caused verbs are “typically
people or animals” (Davidse 1998: 99), e.g. the boy in (8). This is the reason why the snow
globe in (10), which is an inanimate subject, is not acceptable.
Whereas Perlmutter treated unaccusative verbs as a subclass of intransitive verbs,
Davidse assigns ergativec verbs a different position within the grammatical system.
Following Halliday, she posits the ergativec construction paradigm as a type of construal of
actions and events. In her functional approach, she views the grammar of material
processes as “Janus-headed”, i.e. two distinct types of construal are available for the
representation of actions and events: an ergativec one and a transitivec one (Davidse 1998:
102). She characterizes the transitive type of construal as a “process and extension model”
(Davidse 1992: 108). The kernel of the transitive construal model is an actor performing an
action (e.g. John + read). This Actor-Process can be extended into an Actor-Process-Goal
clause (e.g. John was reading the newspaper), resulting in a transitive clause. If it is not
extended, the Actor-Process as such is an intransitive clause (e.g. John was reading). By
contrast, “the ergative system realizes an ‘instigation of process’ model” (Davidse 1992:
109). This process can, as mentioned earlier, be either self-instigated (Medium-Process, as
in The door opened) or externally instigated (Instigator-Process-Medium, as in Jane
opened the door) (Davidse 1992: 109). According to Davidse, “the transitive system and
ergative system have different grammatical centres and different directionalities” (Davidse
1992: 110). Transitive clauses have the actor as nucleus and can only be extended to the
right to include a goal. Ergativec clauses, by contrast, have the medium as centre and can
only be extended to the left to introduce the instigator (Davidse 1992: 110). The split
between the transitivec and ergativec system can be detected formally in two alternation
constructions (Davidse & Geyskens 1997: 5). First, the ergativec construction can be
paraphrased by means of an analytic causative, whereas the transitivec construction does
not allow this paraphrase (11).
15
(11)
a. transitivec:
He spread the bread. / * He caused the bread to spread.
b. ergativec:
Malicious rivals spread rumours. / Malicious rivals caused rumours
to spread.
(Davidse & Geyskens1997: 4-5)
Second, the ergativec, construction in contrast to the transitivec construction, can be
alternated in a one-participant construction [ERG1]which is non-caused (Davidse &
Geyskens 1997: 5). This is illustrated in (12).
(12)
a. transitivec:
He spread the bread. / *The bread spread.
b. ergativec:
Malicious rivals spread rumours. / Rumours spread.
(Davidse & Geyskens 1997: 5)
2.4 Ergativityc as a type of valence reduction
The ergativec alternation – the alternation of ERG2 to ERG1 – is regarded as a type of
valence reduction (Haspelmath & Bardey 1991). The valence of a verb is defined by
Haspelmath (2002: 210) as “the information that these entries [i.e. the semantic-role
structures and the syntactic function structures of
verbs] contain in addition to the
pronunciation the word-class and the meaning”. Haspelmath (2002: 210) distinguishes two
structures in the valence of a verb: the syntactic function structure (also “syntactic valence”
or “function structure”) and the semantic-role structure (also “semantic valence” or
“argument structure”). In the discussion of valence change according to Haspelmath (2002:
213), the anticausative [ERG1] is a clear example of an event-changing operation.
Haspelmath & Bardey (1991) argue, in their comparative study of valence changes,
that the alternation in the valence pattern of the verb does not necessarily involve a
morphological derivational process, as in for example the ‘Dative Shift’. However, they
consider the ergativec alternation as the result of such a derivational process (Haspelmath
& Bardey 1991: 2) They classify changes in the valence of verbs into valence-decreasing
and valence-increasing categories. The valence-decreasing morphological categories in
turn are divided into the patient-removing and agent-removing categories. Haspelmath &
16
Bardey (1991: 2) include the anticausative [ERG1] in the agent-removing category. They
(1991: 4) state that most languages strongly require an argument that occupies the subject
position. When the subject is deleted as a result of a valence-decreasing operation, the
patient argument must fill up the subject position. Haspelmath & Bardey (1991: 4)
consider the anticausative [ERG1] as the most radical agent-removing category, as it
eliminates the agent argument completely. Haspelmath & Bardey (1991: 5) argue that the
anticausative [ERG1] is similar to the passive, in that both constructions eliminate the agent
from subject position. However, the anticausative [ERG1] differs crucially from the passive
in two ways. First, it eliminates the agent completely and as a result, the action in the
anticausative construction [ERG1] appears to occur spontaneously.
2
Second, the
anticausative [ERG1] can only be formed from a limited set of verbs, i.e. from verbs
“expressing actions that are performed without any specific instruments or methods, so that
they can be thought of as happening spontaneously, without a (human) agent’s
intervention” (Haspelmath & Bardey 1991: 5).
Haspelmath & Bardey (1991: 5-7) do not only compare the anticausative [ERG1]
construction to the passive, they also compare it to a category that is “somewhat similar,
i.e. the resultative, illustrated in (13). The resultative construction “turns a verb that refers
to an event into a verb referring to a state that results from that event” (Haspelmath &
Bardey 1991: 6).
(13)
anticausative
The door is closing. (the door closes)
resultative
The door is closed.
(Haspelmath & Bardey: 1991: 5-6, 10b-c)
However, Haspelmath & Müller-Bardey (1991: 6) add that the resultative and the
anticausative construction [ERG1] are very different. The anticausative [ERG1] has the
deletion of the agent participant as its main feature, whereas the resultative is the
“expression of a state by means of an event word” and the lack of agent is therefore only a
secondary effect, due to the fact that states cannot have an agent.
2
See Davidse (1998) in §2.3: ‘Different approaches towards (lexical) ergativityc, pp. 14-15
17
2.5 Contrastive study of ergativityc
2.5.1
General
In the cross-linguistic study of ergativityc, the term “unaccusative mismatch” needs to be
explained. It is well-known that diagnostics for ergativityc does not identify the same verbs
as being ergativec within and across languages. These differences within and across
languages are referred to as “unaccusative mismatches” (Alexiadou et al. 2004: 8). An
example of a diagnostic which has been proposed in order to determine whether a verb is
ergativec or not is the selection of the auxiliary verb to form a perfective construction (e.g.
Van de Beld 2010: 22; Bentley & Eythórsson 2003: 448-452). This test provides an
illustration of an unaccusative mismatch. In most Romance and Germanic languages, the
auxiliary be is selected for the perfect construction in the case of ergativec verbs, while
transitivec verbs select have, as for instance in Dutch (14) (Bentley & Eythórsson. 2003:
448) and German (15). English (16) is in this respect an exception, as both transitivec and
ergativec verbs use the auxiliary verb to have (Alexiadou et al. 2004: 5).
(14)
a. De deur is geopend.
b. Hij heeft de deur geopend.
(15)
a. Die Tür ist geöffnet.
b. Er hat die Tür geöffnet.
(16)
a. The door has opened.
b. He has opened the door.
Other tests to distinguish ergativec from transitivec verbs which apply to English,
Dutch and German are: the possibility for participles of ergativec verbs to occur as a
prenominal modifier (17-18) and the inability of ergativec verbs to be passivized (19a), as
opposed to transitivec verbs which can have an impersonal passive (Alexiadou et al. 2004:
5-6). An additional criterion for ergativec verbs is the possibility to appear in resultative
constructions (20) (Alexiadou et al. 2004: 5).
(17)
a. de gekuste student
b. der geküβte Student
c. the kissed student
(Alexiadou et al. 2004: 6, 16a)
18
(18)
a. de ingeslapen student
b. der eingeschlafene Student
c. the fallen asleep student
(Alexiadou et al. 2004: 6, 16c)
(19)a.
b.
(20) a.
*Er werd door de kinderen in Amsterdam
gebleven.
It
was by the children
remained.
Er
werd hier door de jongelui
veel gedanst.
It
was here by the young people
a lot danced.
in Amsterdam
The bottle broke open.
(Alexiadou et al. 2004: 5, 15c
b.
De fles brak open.
c.
Die Flasche brach offen.
Next to “unaccusative mismatch”, “lability” is a second significant term in the
comparison of ergativityc in English, Dutch and German. Labile verbs are, according to
Van Gelderen (2011: 108), those verbs that change in valence without altering
morphologically. Haspelmath defines lability similarly as he states that in a labile
alternation, “the same verb is used both in the inchoative [ERG1] and in the causative
[ERG2] sense” (Haspelmath 1993: 92). Like Haspelmath, Davidse observes the flexibility
of ERG1 and ERG2 (21) and opposes this flexibility to a different way of expressing the
relation between ERG1 and ERG2, i.e. by means of different lexemes (22) (Davidse 1992:
108-109).
(21)
a. The door opened.
b. The man opened the door.
(22)
a. The chicken died.
b. The man killed the chicken.
Interesting in Haspelmath’s research is that he questions whether verbs, which are
morphologically identical, but behave differently in the syntactic distribution, can be
labelled as labile verbs or not (Haspelmath 1993: 98-99). An example of the Dutch
19
ergativec verb breken and the German ergativec verb brechen, is shown in (23)-(24). These
verbs have a different syntactic distribution in ERG1 and ERG2.3
(23)
a. Het kopje is gebroken.
b. Die Tasse ist gebrochen.
c. (The cup has broken)
(24)
a. De jongen heeft het kopje gebroken.
b. Der Junge hat die Tasse gebrochen.
c. (The boy has broken the cup)
As illustrated in (23)-(24), a difference in the choice of auxiliary verb can be found
in the perfect tense. In ERG1 (23), the verb zijn (to be) in Dutch and the verb sein (to be) in
German is selected, whereas ERG2 requires the verb hebben (to have) in Dutch or haben in
German in the perfect tense (24). Haspelmath considers such verbs labile, as “the inflection
is different only in certain forms and one would not say that the verbs are derived from the
stem by means of the auxiliary” (Haspelmath 1993: 99).
Letuchij (2004: 1) remarks that linguists use the term lability with three distinct
senses. According to Letuchij (2004: 1) the most frequent sense of lability refers to verbs
that can occur in both ERG1 and ERG2. In this type of lability, the causation of the single
argument is added in ERG2. Second, the term lability is often used in a broader sense,
when it includes all verbs that can be used both intransitively and transitively without an
additional causative meaning in the transitive construction, as shown in (25)
(25)
a. Mary knits very well.
b. Mary knits a sweater.
(Letuchij 2004: 1)
Lastly, lability can very generally refer to the “ability to be used in several constructions of
the sentence without special marking of diathesis change in the verb” (Polinskaya 1986:
44, as cited in Letuchij 2004: 1). In this sense, the semantics of the construction are
neglected. It is the first sense of lability that is significant for this research, i.e. the sense
which is used in Van Gelderen (2011), Haspelmath (1993) and Davidse (1992).
Letuchij (2004: 1) focuses on the semantic types of verbs that are associated with
lability and on “the main types of correlation between the two constructions of the ergative
3
See (14)-(15), p.18
20
alternation of the verb”. Letuchij (2004: 1-4) acknowledges that lability may be common in
one language, but very rare in another. He notices that in English, “most transitive verbs
can also be used intransitively, but in other Germanic languages, only restricted verb
classes have this property”. Despite the fact that lability is language-specific, Letuchij
(2004: 1) finds that some groups of verbs tend to be more labile than other types of verbs.
He therefore formulates his research question as the implicational universal: “if there are
labile verbs in a certain language, verbs of these groups will likely be labile”. He
distinguishes four types of verbs that are frequently labile. Phase verbs – those verbs that
denote a phase of the situation - constitute the first group of labile verbs, e.g. the German
anfangen (begin/be begun), enden (finish/be over) or aufhören (stop/be stopped). Letuchij
(2004: 2) is even more radical in his view than Haspelmath (1993), as he considers verbs to
be labile when they are only semantically labile, i.e. when “they designate a situation P and
its causation”. These verbs are not necessarily syntactically labile, as for instance aufhören,
which takes a prepositional object and not a direct object (26).
(26) Ich hörte mit der Arbeit auf. (I finished the work)
(Letuchij 2004 : 4, 2)
Letuchij (2004: 22) notes that not all German phase verbs are labile. Most frequently labile
are the inchoative phase verbs, i.e. those verbs that designate the beginning of an action.
The second group of verbs, associated with lability are the verbs with a prototypically
patient argument, e.g. the verb to break. A third group of verbs that tend to be labile,
according to Letuchij (2004: 2), is made up of verbs that share a semantic component, e.g.
the verbs go and lead share as a common meaning ‘the subject goes’ as “lead X = ‘go with
X and make X go”. Lastly, Letuchij (2004: 3) states that derived verbs are often labile as
well.
According to Letuchij (2004: 4), the most common type of lability is “causative
lability”. In this type of lability, the verb can either denote the “situation P” or the
“causation of the situation P”. However, Letuchij (2004: 4-5) distinguishes three other
types of lability. First, he recognizes “reflexivity lability”. This reflexive type expresses
both the meaning “’X P Y’, where X is the subject and Y is the object, and ‘X P X’, where
X is both subject and object” (Letuchij 2004: 4). This type of lability is found in English as
well, as illustrated in (27).
21
(27)
The mother washes the baby. / John washes (his face).
(Letuchij 2004: 4)
A second type of lability, “reciprocal lability”, is not widespread across languages, but it is
found in English. The labile verb denotes “’X P Y’ and ‘P and Y P each other’, as shown
in (28).
(28)
I met her. / We meet in the street (meet each other).
(Letuchij 2004: 4)
Lastly, Letuchij distinguishes “passive lability” (conversive lability), which “designate the
same situation P using different participant as subjects” (Letuchij 2004: 5) This type of
lability is very rare and does not occur in English.
2.5.2
Contrastive approaches so far
In her comparative study of Old English and other Germanic languages, Van Gelderen
finds that Old English already deviates from the other Germanic languages in its basic
valence pattern (Van Gelderen 2011: 106). The basic valence pattern of a language is the
pattern which is most frequent and is morphologically the simplest one (Van Gelderen
2011: 106). Van Gelderen then compared the pattern of Old English with that of Modern
English and discovered that the valence pattern remained stable in the history of the
English language, but that English deviates substantially from the other Germanic
languages in having the greatest number of labile verbs (Van Gelderen 2011: 106). Already
in 1997, Abraham (1997, as cited in Van Gelderen 2011: 114) came to the same conclusion
as Van Gelderen, viz. that English verbs differ from verbs in the other Germanic languages
with respect to the representation of ergativityc. Moreover Abraham states that
anticausative verbs [ERG1] and causative verbs [ERG2] in English are indistinguishably
labile as opposed to the other Germanic languages where there is a clear morphological
contrast between the alternating forms (Abraham 1997, as cited in Van Gelderen 2011:
114).
Another important linguist in the field of ergativityc is Haspelmath (1993). In his
study, he examines the inchoative/causative [ergativec] alternations cross-linguistically and
defines the inchoative/causative [ergativec] pair as:
22
a pair of verbs which express the same basic situation (generally a change of state, more rarely
a going-on) and differ only in that the causative verb meaning includes an agent participant
who causes the situation, whereas the inchoative verb meaning excludes a causing agent and
presents the situation as occurring spontaneously (Haspelmath 1993: 90).
Haspelmath first divides the inchoative/causative pair into directed and non-directed pairs.
In directed oppositions, “one of the members of the alternation is derived from the other”
(García García 2012: 125). Within the directed pairs, causative oppositions and
anticausative oppositions are distinguished and classified according to markedness. The
intransitive member [ERG1] is morphologically marked in the anticausative pair, whereas
the transitive member [ERG2] is more marked in the causative pair (García García 2012:
125). The anticausative pair is illustrated for German in (29), the causative pair in (30).
(Comrie 2006: 304)
(29)
(30)
umdrehen
(turn)
transitive
sich umdrehen
(turn)
intransitive
enden
(finish)
intransitive
beenden
(finish)
transitive
An illustration of the anticausative is provided in (31) for English.
(31)
to lose / to get lost.
(García García 2012: 125, 4)
García García (2012: 125) in line with Haspelmath (1993), adds a third category
within the directed pairs, i.e. the “periphrastic” or “analytic” causatives. This periphrastic
construction uses a causative auxiliary, as illustrated in (32).
(32)
to laugh / to make laugh
(García García 2012: 125, 3)
García García (2012: 125) furthermore states that it is common in “modern European
languages […] to use the reflexive pronoun as an anticausative particle”. This is shown in
23
(33) for German.4 In contrast with German, English makes use of the ergativec verb to
open, Dutch uses a periphrastic anticausative pair (34).
(33)
a. Ich öffnete die Tür .
(I opened the door)
b. Die Tür öffnete sich.
(the door opened)
(García García 2012: 125, 5a-5b)
(34)
a. Ik opende de deur
(I opened the door)
b. De deur ging open
(the door opened)
In the non-directed pairs, each member of the inchoative/causative pair is equally marked
(Comrie 2006: 304) or put differently, neither member is derived from the other (García
García 2012: 125). The non-directed pairs can be subdivided into labile, equipollent and
suppletive oppositions. Labile verbs have the same form in both the transitive [ERG2]
(35a) and intransitive construction [ERG1] (35b).
(35)
a. The child broke the bottle.
b. The bottle broke.
In equipollent verb pairs (called “correlative oppositions” by García García 2012), both
members are marked, as they both differ in one part of the stem, either root or affixes can
vary, as illustrated for German in (36) (Comrie 2006: 304, García García 2012: 126).
(36)
aufwachen/ aufwecken
“wake up”
lernen/lehren
“learn/teach”
(Haspelmath 1993: 100)
García García (2012: 126) argues that some English morphological pairs, that can be traced
back to Germanic morphological causatives, belong to the equipollent verb pairs, as their
relationship is synchronically not transparent anymore (García García 2012: 126). Lastly,
4
García García (2012: 125) remarks that the German reflexive pronoun sich functions here as a middle
marker, which implies that the Agent has not been eliminated from the valence structure of the sentence:
“The reflexive pronoun cannot signal that agent and patient are co-referential, since the predicate is nonagentive (García García 2012: 125)”. Haspelmath (2002: 213) describes this as well and believes it is due to
the fact that agent and patient are co-referential that the reflexive can be seen as having only a single
syntactic function.
24
the members of suppletive verb pairs, 5 have a different root in the transitive and
intransitive construction, shown in (37) (Comrie 2006: 304).
(37)
die
kill
Haspelmath (1993: 88) finds great differences across languages and even within
languages in the direction of derivation. According to Haspelmath (1993: 88) we find
“abundant cases of asymmetric relationships between words, where one word is basic and
another word is formally derived from it”. He illustrates this by means of the English
lexeme resultative which is derived from the noun result. This variation across and within
languages is not random, but depends on the so-called “principle of diagrammatic
iconicity“:
The formally derived (or marked) words are generally also semantically derived in that they
have some additional meaning element that is lacking in the formally basic (or unmarked)
word. This correlation between the formal and the semantic basic-derived (or markedness)
relationships has been identified as an instance of diagrammatic iconicity.
(Haspelmath 1993: 87)
Haspelmath (1993: 96) collected a sample of 31 verb pairs in 21 languages in order to
investigate the inchoative/causative verb [ergativec] alternation. It is important to note for
this research that English and German are both included. Haspelmath finds that “languages
differ greatly in their ways of expressing the relationship between inchoative and causative
verbs” (Haspelmath 1993: 89), which confirms his more general claim that languages
differ greatly in derivation, due to the principle of diagrammatic iconicity (Haspelmath
1993: 100-101). Haspelmath argues that the inchoative/causative alternation is particularly
regular in verbs that are derived from an adjective (Haspelmath 1993: 94-95). He illustrates
this by means of German and states that every German factitive derivation can build an
anticausative by adding the particle sich (38).
(38)
German adjectives, factitives and anticausatives
flüssig
5
(liquid)
verflüssigen
(make liquid)
sich verflüssigen
(become liquid)
Cf. Baron (1974): “Lexical causatives”, pp. 34-35
25
anders
voll
stark
(different)
(full)
(strong)
verändern
(change (tr.))
sich veränderen
(change (intr.))
füllen
(fill (tr.))
sich füllen
(fill (intr.))
verstärken
(reinforce)
sich verstärken
(become strong)
(Haspelmath 1993: 94-95, 17)
This regularity in the deadjectival factitives is, according to Haspelmath (1993: 95), due to
the fact that they “generally only contain the meaning component ‘cause to become’ in
addition to the adjectival meaning, and this meaning component is neither agent-oriented
nor otherwise too specific or unlikely”. Furthermore Haspelmath (1993: 100-101) adds that
some languages exhibit almost always a non-directed derivation in the inchoative/causative
pair, e.g. English, German, Japanese, Indonesian, Georgian and Greek. Among these
languages, English is unique in this strong preference for non-directed derivation
(Haspelmath 1993: 101). More precisely, Haspelmath, like Abraham (1997 as cited in
Haspelmath 1993: 102) and van Gelderen (2011), finds that English especially prefers
labile verbs in the causative/inchoative alternation (Haspelmath 1993: 102).
Comrie (2006) carried out another important contrastive study with regard to
ergativityc, in which he uses the methodology as developed in Haspelmath (1993) to
examine the relations in causative-inchoative verb pairs. His aim is twofold: First, Comrie
considers some individual languages to test Haspelmath’s typology; second, he researches
the diachronic stability of his classification. Comrie combines Haspelmath’s findings with
his own results and in so doing, he obtains the language profiles of 24 different languages,
by considering the translation of 31 concepts in each language. In general, Comrie
confirms Haspelmath’s classification and concludes that cross-linguistically, causative
pairs are preferred, “with Europe being anomalous in its high incidence of languages
preferring anticausative pairs” (Comrie 2006: 307). He finds that the language profiles are
diachronically stable in their predominance of either anticausative or causative pairs.
Interesting for this research are the language profiles of English and German, which are
integrated in Comrie’s study. The profile for English is rather clear-cut: 25 out of 31 verb
pairs are translated labile in English, 3 verb pairs are translated suppletive, 2 verb pairs are
anticausative, and one is equipollent. German on the other hand prefers the anticausative
26
pairs (15.5 out of 31 verb pairs) and only 9.5 concepts are translated labile.6 Two minor
groups build the equipollent verbs pairs (4 verb pairs) and the suppletive verbs pairs (1
verb pair), which is the same for English (Comrie 2006: 306).
A last contrastive study in ergativityc that is relevant for this research has been
carried out for English and French by Fontenelle (1996). He investigated the representation
of [ERG1] and [ERG2] in the Collins-Robert English-French dictionary. He argues that the
arguments of a verb are mainly determined by its meaning; therefore the definitions in the
bilingual dictionary provide useful data (Fontenelle 1996: 209). According to Fontenelle,
bilingual dictionaries usually use the so-called “splitting strategy”, i.e. the various
transitive senses and the various intransitive senses of a verb are listed separately
(Fontenelle 1996: 212). Fontenelle finds five different possibilities for the translation of
English ergativec verbs in French in the Collins-Robert English-French dictionary. A first
option is that both constructions are expressed by the same verb in French, i.e. the same as
in English. A second possibility is pronominalization (39), i.e. the use of a French
pronominal verb “to account for the intransitive usage of an English ergative verb”
(Fontenelle 1996: 215).
(39) a.
Joy lightened his face.
La joie éclaira son visage.
b.
His face lightened.
Son visage s'éclaira.
(Fontenelle 1996: 215)
Thirdly, the causative operator faire can be introduced, so that we get the construction faire
+ infinitive (40).
(40) a.
The worker rotates the axes.
L'ouvrier fait tourner les axes.
b.
The axes rotate.
Les axes tournent.
(Fontenelle 1996: 215)
6
The 15.5 and 9.5 are due to the fact that two synonymous verb pairs existed for one concept. Haspelmath
(1993: 100) counted these two verb pairs as 0.5 when expressed differently.
27
A fourth option is the use of another causative operator rendre + adjective, the equivalent
of the English paraphrase to make + adjective. (41).
(41) toughen
a. Transitive:
rendre plus solide, renforcer
b. Intransitive:
devenir plus solide
(Fontenelle 1996: 215)
A last possibility to represent the English ergativec verb in French is the passive
construction (42) (Fontenelle 1996: 214-216).
(42)
transfer
a.Transitive:
transférer, muter
b. Intransitive:
être transféré or muté
(Fontenelle 1996: 215)
A similar contrastive study for Dutch or German has not been carried out so far. I
aim to provide a first step towards filling this gap in the research of ergativityc.
2.5.3
Ergativityc in English
2.5.3.1 Causativizing affixes
As deadjectival verbs ending in the suffix –en are the focus of my research, I will first
provide some general information on affixes and I will focus on English causative suffixes
in particular. Klaholz (2005: 4) defines affixes in general as bound morphemes which are
added to free morphemes. The process of adding an affix to an independent morpheme is
called “affixation”. When an affix precedes the free morpheme, it is called a prefix; when
the affix is positioned after the independent morpheme, it is called a suffix (Klaholz 2005:
4). Klaholz (2005: 4) states that English prefixes in general alter the lexeme but they
usually do not influence the word-class. This is not the case with suffixes, which can alter
the word-class of the free morpheme (Fabb 1988: 528). Fabb lists five distinct functions of
suffixes; they can either be deadjectival (e.g. –ify), deverbal (e.g. –al), denominal (e.g. –
ed), adjective-forming (e.g. –y) or noun-forming (e.g. –ant) (Fabb: 1988: 532). The first
class of suffixes, the deadjectival suffixes, contains the suffix –en as well. This suffix is,
according to Fabb, special, as it is only attachable to monosyllabic adjectives (Fabb 1988:
28
535). Fabb thus concludes that “-en is constrained only by two selectional restrictions: (a)
involving category, (b) involving monosyllables” (Fabb 1988: 535).
Kjellmer (2001: 155) states that deadjectival verbs can have three functions, which
can
be
combined
within
one
verb.
Deadjectival
verbs
are
mostly
either
transitive/inchoative, e.g. to purify (to make (sth.) pure(r)) or intransitive/inchoative, e.g. to
harden
(to
become
hard(er)).
The
third
function
of
deadjectival
verbs,
intransitive/copulative is rather rare, e.g. to idle (to be idle) (Kjellmer 2001: 155).
Van Gelderen (2011: 125) characterizes deadjectival verb in –en as having a
causativizing function. The suffix –en was introduced in Middle English, since the function
of the prior causativizer -i was not transparent anymore (Van Gelderen 2011: 125).
According to Skeat (1892, as cited in Van Gelderen 2011: 125), the –en suffix is derived
from the Gothic verbal class with a –na suffix. The function of this –na suffix, a
detransitivizer, was then altered into a causativizer (Skeat 1892, as cited in Van Gelderen
2011: 125). The –en suffix became highly productive and turned nouns and adjectives into
causative verbs (Suzuki 1989, as cited in Van Gelderen 2011: 125). The prior causativizer
–i in Old English was derived from the causativizer -j in early Germanic and caused a
morphological contrast between e.g. the Old English anticausative verb nesan (escape
from, be saved) and the causative verb nerian (save, protect) (Van Gelderen 2011: 124).
This causativizer has been largely replaced by the causativizer –en in Middle English, but
Van Gelderen states that traces of the causativizer –i can still be seen in a few Modern
English verb pairs, such as sit and set, lie and lay, fall and fell, whose vowel alternation
was caused by this affix (Van Gelderen 2011: 123).
Next to the causativizers –i and –en, three other causativizers, –ize, –ate and –ify,
were borrowed into Middle English but have lost their productivity in Modern English
(Van Gelderen 2011: 127). The suffix –ate adopted Latin participles into English (e.g.
activate and assassinate) (Van Gelderen 2011: 127). The suffix –ify on the other hand was
used to anglicise French loanwords, as in clarify and unify, and corresponds to the French
causative verbs on –fier (Van Gelderen 2011: 126).
Baron (1974: 306-307) argues that in Modern English, at least four suffixes exist that
derive causative verbs from adjectives and nouns. In contrast to Van Gelderen (2011),
Baron (1974: 306) argues that these four suffixes are productive in Modern English,
although some are “more productive than others”. These causativizing suffixes include –
ify, -ize and –en, as in Van Gelderen (2011), but Baron adds the zero-suffix as well.
29
Examples of the zero suffix which derived verbs from adjectives and nouns are shown in
(43).
(43)
adjective → verb
adjective
verb
-∅
yellow
yellow
blue
blue
cool
cool
empty
empty
warm
warm
clear
clear
noun → verb
noun
verb
-∅
wine
wine and dine
(Baron 1974: 306-307, 16-17)
Next to these suffixes, Baron (1974: 307) distinguishes two prefixes, en- and dis-, that turn
adjectives and nouns into causative verbs. Examples are given in (44).
(44)
adjective → verb
adjective
verb
en-
rich
enrich
able
enable
dis-
able
disable
noun → verb
noun
verb
en-
code
encode
circle
encircle
courage
encourage
courage
discourage
dis(Baron 1974: 307, 18-19)
Van Gelderen (2011: 127) concludes that “[d]ue to the loss of these affixes
[causativizing affixes and transitivizing affixes in Old English], unaccusatives [ERG1] and
causatives [ERG2] have the same form”. This accounts for the higher number of labile
30
verbs in English. However, the reason for the loss of causativizers in English and the
deviation from the other Germanic languages, which is accompanied by this loss, remains
unclear, according to Van Gelderen (2011: 137).7
2.5.3.2 Causative constructions
In this chapter, I will discuss some other strategies, next to ergativec verbs, to present
causation and unaccusativity in English.
Causation -or the formulation of the causative- has been a desirable topic of research
in the tradition of linguistic research and during the last decades, it has received much
attention from typologists (García García 2012: 122). Consensus has been reached between
linguists about the significance of causation: linguists agree that the causative is the most
frequent morphological valence changing category in the languages of the world (Bybee
1985: 29 in Haspelmath & Bardey 1991: 11, García García 2012: 122). Moreover, as
causatives form a significant share of the transitive verbs, they play a major role in
transitivity studies as well (García García 2012: 122).
García García (2012: 122) argues in his study on morphological causatives in Old
English that: “[i]n many languages (and perhaps covertly in all languages) the transitivity
relationship lies at the explanatory core of most [emphasis in the original] grammatical
processes”. Haspelmath & Bardey (1991: 11-14) situate the causative in the valenceincreasing categories, and consider it more specifically as an agent adding construction.8 In
this agent adding construction, the additional participant, i.e. the causer fills up the subject
position and the former subject must move and take up a different position. Some
languages can not only derive causatives from intransitive construction, but also from
transitive constructions (Haspelmath & Bardey 1991: 12). The former subject of the
transitive sentence, the causee, can then be treated in three different ways. It can be
expressed by means of an indirect object, an instrumental phrase or by means of a second
direct object.
In his study on the structure of English causatives, Baron (1974: 299) defines
causation semantically as shown in (45):
7
8
Cf. §5.2: ‘Hypothesis’, pp 78-80
See §2.4: ‘Ergativityc as a type of valence reduction’, pp. 16-17
31
(45)
“a relationship between two states of affairs (X at time T 1 and X’ at time T2) and a
cause Z which provides the necessary conditions for effecting the change from X to
X’. More precisely,
(a) Z is the cause of the change from X to X’.
(b) The transition from X to X’ is a causative action.
(c) State of affairs X’ is an effect or result." [italics in original]
Haspelmath & Bardey (1991:13) characterize causatives semantically as well, by
distinguishing two types of causatives, according to the type of causer. In the first type, the
direct causative, the causer “actively participates in the action, acting on the cause (in order
to get the content of the base verb realized), which will imply some sort of coercion in case
the causee is animate” (Haspelmath & Bardey 1991: 13). In the indirect causative on the
other hand, the cause and result of the action are less closely related, the causer is merely
the instigator or a distinct cause of the event, expressed in the verb. 9 This contrast is
illustrated in (46)-(47).10
(46)
Direct causation
Indirect causation
John put clothes on Mary.
John made Mary wear clothes.
(Haspelmath 2008: 14)
(47)
Direct causation
Indirect causation
He killed the chicken.
He caused the chicken to die.
Shibatani lists three types of causatives: root causatives, affixal causatives and
auxiliary causatives (Shibatani 1975: 4). Root causatives are frequently used in most
languages. These are verbs in which the root and the causative morpheme are the same.
Shibatani (1975) includes distinct strategies within this category.11 Instances for this type
are the verbs to kill and to lay (Shibatani 1975: 4). The one-participant alternation of the
root causative can be another lexeme. The causative verb to kill is, for instance, as opposed
to the anticausative verb to die, the causative verb to lay to the anticausative verb (ERG1)
to lie (Shibatani 1975: 4). Affixal causatives are a second type of causatives. They are
especially associated with agglutinative languages. Infixes, prefixes and suffixes have all
been attested, but the selection of a language for a causative infix is rare. Prefixes are more
9
See Davidse 1998 in §2.3: ‘Different approaches towards (lexical) ergativityc, pp. 14-15
See (8)-(10), p. 14
11
Cf. Baron (1974) for a more refined taxonomy, pp. 33-35
10
32
common, but most languages adopt suffixes to express causatives, e.g. English (Shibatani
1975: 5-6).12 A last category of causatives are the auxiliary causatives. These auxiliary
verbs usually come with isolating languages, “due to their typological nature” (Shibatani
1975: 6). English is according to Shibatani a “so-called fusional language”, which means it
can adopt auxiliary causative verbs as well (Shibatani 1975: 7). Some auxiliary causative
verbs are illustrated in (48)-(51).
(48)
I made my brother go to the grocery store.
(49
I caused my brother to go to the grocery store.
(50)
I had my brother go to the grocery store.
(51)
I got my brother to go to the grocery store.
Shibatani calls these periphrastic constructions “more abstract causative verbs” (Shibatani
1975: 6). They represent a similar meaning of the ERG2, i.e. causation. However, Levin &
Hovav remark that ERG2 is more limited in its interpretation, because it only allows a
direct, manipulative causation, whereas a periphrastic construction includes both direct and
indirect causation (Levin & Hovav 1994: 36 n1).
Baron (1974: 302-310) distinguishes the same morphological and syntactic strategies
as Shibatani (1975) to express causation in English. However, Baron (1974) differentiates
subcategories within the three categories: root causatives, affixal causatives and auxiliary
causatives. His classification is summarized in Table 2.
1.
Morphological
Verb non-causative →verb causative
(a)
(i)
Strong/weak verb alteration
(ii)
Suppletion
(iii)
Same verb (lexical)
(b) Adj./noun + Affix →verb causative
12
(i)
Adj./noun + Affix →verb causative
(ii)
Prefix + Adj./noun
Cf. §2.5.3.1: ‘Causativizing affixes’, pp. 28-31.
33
2.
Syntactic
(a) Periphrastic
(b) Object of result, quasi-causative
Table 2. Formal linguistic devices to express causation in Modern English
( Baron 1974: 302, 1)
Baron (1974: 302) distinguishes first between morphological and syntactic strategies
to express causation in English. The morphological mechanism ‘(a) Verb non-causative → verb
causative’
corresponds to the root causatives in Shibatani (1975). This strategy consists,
according to Baron (1974: 302-306), of three subcategories: (i) the strong/weak alternation,
(ii) suppletion and (iii) the same verb. The strong/weak alternation (i), or the change of a
non-causative to a causative was a productive strategy in Indo-European, but was never
productive in the history of English, although there are some relics in Old English, e.g.
licgan (to lie) vs. the causative lecgan (to lay) (Baron 1974: 303). Suppletion (ii) is another
type of relation between the causative and anticausative verb, which is very frequent in
English. Two distinct forms make up a suppletive pair, when this relation between these
forms is typically expressed morphologically in that language (52).
(52)
non-causative
causative
buy
sell
die
kill
The last subcategory (iii) within the morphological strategy “(a) Verb
non-causative
→verb causative” is important for this work, since it involves the use of the same verb in both
the causative and the anticausative construction. Baron (1974: 305) refers to these verbs as
“lexical causatives” (ergativec verbs) and adds that English has a large number of these
verbs (53).
(53)
(bend, cool, freeze)
According to Baron (1974: 305) these lexical verbs have their origin in three different
historical sources. First, “lexical causatives” [ergativec verbs] can “result from the merger
of phonological distinctions” (54) (Baron 1974: 305).
34
(54)
melten/mieltan > melt
(Baron 1974: 305-306)
Second, they can arise due to the loss of one member of the causative pair. Typically, it is
the causative member that is lost. For example, in non-standard dialects, it is observed that
the causative verb teach is substituted by the non-causative learn (55).
(55)
A good whipping will learn you not to disobey!
(Baron 1974: 305, 14)
Last, “lexical causatives” (ergativec verbs) result through transitivization, which turns
intransitive verbs transitive. This process operated especially during the Middle English
period (Baron 1974: 306). The verb to cook was, for instance, originally only used as an
intransitive verb, but was attested from the 17th century onwards in both transitive and
intransitive construction (Möhlig & Klages 2002: 234).13
The second type of morphological causation in English “(b) Adj./noun + Affix
→verb
causative”
corresponds to the affixal causatives in Shibatani (1975). The syntactic
strategies are summarized with the term “auxiliary causatives” in Shibatani (1975). Baron
(1974: 307-310) distinguishes within the syntactic strategies two subtypes: “periphrastic
constructions” (iv) and “object of result”, “quasi-causative” constructions (v). The
periphrastic constructions (iv) consist of two parts: a verb (e.g. have, get, cause, let, make)
and a complement. In English, seven types of complement appear in this construction: “i.e.
infinitive, present participle, clause, noun, adjective, past participle and locative” (Baron
1974: 308). However, not every complement is compatible with every causative verb.
Baron (1974: 309) remarks that some combinations, “especially with have, are
predominantly resultative rather than causative (i.e. the sentence focuses upon the resultant
state of affairs X’ at time T2 rather than upon the causative action itself).” The last
category, the “object of result”, “quasi-causative” construction (v) is not always included
in the discussion of causatives in English. However Anderson (1971 in Baron 1974: 309)
argues that “verbs taking objects of result are causative verbs”.
13
Cf. “transitivization process” in §5.2: ‘Hypothesis’, p. 79
35
2.5.4
Ergativityc in Dutch
2.5.4.1 General
For ergativityc in Dutch and English, no contrastive research has been carried out so far.
Nonetheless, some relevant studies on Dutch need to be mentioned here as they deal with
the Dutch strategies that are used to translate the corresponding English ergativec verb. In
the next sections, studies concerning ver-verbs, reflexive verbs and the periphrastic
construction with doen/laten will be discussed. The remaining Dutch strategies, i.e.
resultative constructions, Dutch ergativec verbs and deadjectival verbs, are not included,
since no relevant studies are available.
2.5.4.2 Verbs with prefix verAs ver-verbs constitute an important translation strategy in my set English ergativec verbs
ending in –en,14 the prefix ver- will be closely discussed in this section. With regard to the
relation between Dutch ver-verbs and ergativityc, two studies are worth mentioning. The
first research by Van de Beld (2010) focuses on the relation between unaccusativity
(ergativityc) and ver-verbs in Dutch within the Government and Binding tradition. The
main processes that account for the distinction between causation (ERG2) and
unaccusativity (ERG1) within this framework are “expletivization” and “causativization”.
The first process explains the reduction of ERG2 to ERG2 (Van de Beld 2010: 27). On the
other hand, a process that adds an argument is called “causativization” (Van de Beld 2010:
28). The general meaning of the prefix ver– is according to Van de Beld “[t]he movement
or transition to a new location or state of the object of the verb” (Van de Beld 2010: 18).
This general notion consists, according to van de Beld, of three different types: the
“become-type”, “the go-type” and the “mis-type” (Van de Beld 2010: 43). With respect to
ergativityc, I will only focus on the first one. The become-verbs have the most transparent
meaning, i.e. “the internal role becomes that what is denoted by the stem” e.g. vervlakken
(to become flat) (Van de Beld 2010: 43). This type only occurs with verbs that are derived
from adjectives or nouns. The prefix ver– is thus an exception, since prefixes generally do
not alter the word class (Van de Beld 2010: 45). However, the attachment of the prefix
ver– to an adjective is rare, because the adjective needs to have a commonly used
14
See §4.1.2: ‘Prefixed verbs’, 51-52
36
comparative. Therefore, ver-verbs cannot be derived from an adjective that cannot be
graded (Van de Beld 2010: 48).
In a seconds work that concerns ver-verbs, Los et al. (2012) focus on particles and
prefixes from a comparative perspective. Los et al. (2012: 176) argue that the inseparable
prefixes be-, ver- and ont- are derived from free morphemes in earlier Germanic, and were
“grammaticalized into bound morphemes because Verb Second (V2) was not yet in place
so that they were always immediately adjacent to the verb” (Los et al. 2012: 176). English
on the other hand lost these prefixes in the transition from Old English to Middle English
due to reduction of unstressed syllables. These prefixes were replaced by the productive
French and Latin loan affixes (Los et al. 2012: 176). Los et al. (2012: 177), like Van de
Beld (2010) state that prefix ver- can be combined with adjectives and nouns and add that
they can be connected to verbs as well. Furthermore, Los et al. (2012: 177) believe that
both the Dutch and German prefix ver- have a transitivizing effect and that ver-verbs are
telic, i.e. denoting that the action is completed.15 The object of ver-verbs is, according to
Los et al. (2012: 182) fully affected, “but the affectedness specifically involves the partial
or complete destruction, damaging, or wasting of the participant in question”.
2.5.4.3 Reflexive verbs
An important study concerning reflexive constructions in Dutch, the Dutch dialect
Heerlens and French with respect to ergativityc is carried out by De Vries (2000). Since
English ergativec verbs are sometimes presented as reflexive verbs in other languages, for
instance in Dutch and German, the exploration of ergativityc in those languages has to take
into account the nature of reflexive verbs (Reinhart & Siloni 2004). Abraham stated as
early as 1986 that ergativec verbs, reflexive verbs and middles are closely related, because
they cannot take an accusative object (Abraham 1986: 1). The labelling of reflexive verbs
as ergativec ones has been popular among linguists since the eighties, especially in research
that is concerned with Romance reflexives (Reinhart & Siloni 2004: 1). However, the view
of reflexives as ergativec has been criticized, e.g. in the study ‘Against the Unaccusative
Analysis of Reflexives’, in which Reinhart & Siloni discussed the position of reflexives
with regard to ergativityc (Reinhart & Siloni 2004: 1). In their conclusion, Reinhart &
Siloni argue that “reflexives systematically fail syntactic tests of unaccusativity” (Reinhart
& Siloni 2004: 10). De Vries confirms the study of Reinhart & Siloni in his own research.
15
Cf. Zaenen (1993) and Alexiadou et al. (2004) in §2.3: ‘Different approaches towards ergativityc’, p.14
37
He examined whether a set of reflexive verbs in Dutch, French and Heerlens were ergativec
or not by means of some ergativec tests (De Vries 2010: 1). He concluded as well that
reflexive verbs cannot be labelled as ergativec, because the test results were too diffuse (De
Vries 2010: 9). However, De Vries believes that reflexive verbs are not necessarily a
subgroup of transitivec verbs and adds that additional research is needed to solve this
question of classification (De Vries 2010: 9).
Cornips & Hulk (1996) as well focus on reflexive verb in Dutch, Heerlens and
French and discuss how these verbs should be classified. The starting point of their
research concerns the transitive change of state verbs in Heerlen Dutch (henceforth HD), of
which the inchoative equivalent appear in two constructions, a reflexive construction (57a)
and an intransitive construction (ERG1) (57b). However, the reflexive construction is in
standard Dutch (henceforth SD) both “very restricted” and “far from regular” (Everaert
1986: 83, as cited in Cornips & Hulk 1996: 1).
(56)
transitive Construction
Ik buig het riet.
‘I bend the reed’
(57)
inchoative constructions
a. HD/?*SD
Het riet buigt zich.
the reed bends refl
‘the reed is bending’
b. HD/SD
Het riet buigt.
The reed bends
‘the reed is bending’
(Cornips & Hulk 1996: 1, 1)
Unlike Reinhart & Siloni (2004) and De Vries (2010), Cornips & Hulk (1996: 1)
argue in favour of an ergativec analysis for these reflexives in Heerlen Dutch, as was done
before for French by Labelle (1990&1992 in Cornips & Hulk 1996: 1) and Zribi-Hertz
(1987 in Cornips & Hulk 1996: 1). They claim that the reflexive pronoun in the reflexive
construction in Heerlen Dutch “acts as an aspectual marker, namely that of focusing on the
end-point of the action” (Cornips & Hulk 1996: 2). They confirm their claim by showing
that the distribution of the one-participant construction of the reflexive change of state
verbs is distinct from that of default reflexive transitive verbs (Cornips & Hulk 1996: 2).
A default embedded reflexive construction, that uses the Dutch causative laten, is
38
grammatical for default reflexives (58), but appears to be ungrammatical for the reflexive
change of state verbs (59).
(58) SD/HD
(59) SD/HD
Moeder
laat de
kinderen
zich wassen.
mother
lets the
children
refl wash
*Moeder
laat het
riet
zich buigen.
mother
lets the
reed
refl bend
(Cornips & Hulk 1996: 4, (10)a.-b.)
The ungrammaticality of (48) results, according to Everaert (1986: 89, as cited in Cornips
& Hulk 1996: 4), from the fact that “het riet (the reed) is not an agentive external argument
which is required by the causative laten” (Cornips & Hulk 1996: 4).
2.5.4.4 Periphrastic construction with doen/laten
In Dutch, it is possible to express causation by means of a periphrastic construction with
the verbs doen and laten. These verbs are used as causative verbs when it is followed by
“bare infinitival complements, i.e. complements lacking the infinitival marker te (to)”
(Verhagen & Kemmer 1997: 62). The subject of the causative verb doen is the causer of
the process or state denoted by the non-finite verb. Verhagen & Kemmer (1997: 71)
identify two dimensions in causative events, “the distinction between initiator and endpoint
of the causal change” and “the distinction between animate and inanimate”. Verhagen &
Kemmer (1997: 71) claim that all causative events imply an initiating element and an
endpoint. Important for distinguishing the causative verbs doen and laten is, however, the
distinction between animate and inanimate causers. Verhagen (1998: 63; 105) find that in
general, laten is much more frequent than doen and that laten is more frequently used with
an animate causer, doen is much more frequent with an inanimate causer (Verhagen 1998:
63;105). A reason for this contrast between the two causative verbs is proposed by
Verhagen & Kemmer (1997), who believe that a cause denoted by the verb doen is a direct
one, while laten indicates indirect causation.
39
(60)
Hij
haalde
de
stop eruit en
the
plug out
liet het badwater
weglopen.
he
took
and let the bath-water
run-away
(He took out the plug and let the bathwater flow off.)
(Verhagen & Kemmer 1997: 68, (14))
The construction with laten in (60) expresses indirect causation, as the pulling of the plug
was only the indirect cause that made the bathwater flow off, the direct cause is a bigger
source of energy, i.e. gravity (Verhagen & Kemmer: 1997 68). Verhagen & Kemmer
(1997: 67) view indirect causation as an extension of the terms “permission” and
“enablement” and define it as “a situation that is conceptualized in such a way that it is
recognized that some other force besides the initiator is the most immediate source of
energy in the effected event” (Verhagen & Kemmer 1997: 67). The verb doen denotes a
direct cause, as illustrated in (61).
(61)
De
stralende
zon doet de
temperatuur
oplopen.
the
shining
sun does the
temperature
rise
(The bright sun makes the temperature rise.)
(Verhagen & Kemmer 1997: 70, (1))
In (61), the subject ‘de stralende zon’ is inanimate and is the direct cause of the event.
2.5.5
Ergativityc in German
2.5.5.1 General
No contrastive studies between English and German regarding ergativityc have been
carried out so far. In the next sections, the resultative construction and reflexive verbs will
be discussed, since these are frequent German translation strategies in my set of English
ergativec verbs ending in –en.16 I will also discuss the periphrastic construction with lassen,
as this is a significant strategy in German to present causation. However, this strategy did
not occur in the results, whereas Dutch equivalent construction with laten is found in the
findings. I did not include the attributive construction, ergativec verbs and deadjectival
16
See §4.2.3: ‘Attributive construction’: pp 62-64 and §4.2.6: ‘Reflexive verbs’, pp. 66-69
40
verbs in this discussion, although these strategies are found in the translation of English
ergativec verbs on –en, as no relevant literature is available on these topics.
2.5.5.2 Verbs with prefix verAs for the Dutch prefix –ver, the exact meaning of the German prefix –ver remains
unclear. Kaválková (2007: 17; 21) believes that this German prefix, when attached to a
verb, influences the transitivity of the verb. The prefix turns the verb transitive by moving
the actor of the sentence to a more fronted position. Kaválková (2007: 21-22) distinguishes
a causativizing function for ver-, next to 14 other different functions of this prefix.
Dauronienė (2007: 64), agrees with Kaválková (2007) as she believes that different
meanings are united in this prefix. Smolka et al. (2009: 342) on the other hand state that
the bound morphemes ver- and be- “do not necessarily have a meaning of its own.”
Wunderlich (1997: 58) argues as well that ver- does not function as a causativizer as it
occurs, next to causative verbs, with inchoative verbs as well. Moreover, causative verbs
do not necessarily need a prefix. A last reason to conclude that the prefix is not the decisive
factor in turning a verb into a causative one is the fact that the vowels in these verbs can
carry an umlaut, which is a remnant of a former causative suffix (Wunderlich:1997: 58).
Dauronienė (2007: 64) researched the origin of the prefix and states that the modern
German prefix ver- corresponds to 3 different Gothic particles: first, it corresponds to the
particle faur-, which means vorbei in modern German (past, over), second, to the particle
fra- which means weg (gone, left, away) and third to the particle fair-, which is similar to
the modern German er-, ent-, heraus- or durch-. Dauronienė (2007: 64) argues that in Old
High German and in Middle High German, this prefix did not have a fixed form. Only in
the 16th century, under the influence of Martin Luther, this prefix became normalized to the
form we know today. Not only the form of ver- varied, the meaning of this prefix was not
fixed either. As the ver-prefix is derived from three particles, according to Dauronienė
(2007: 64), different meaning competed which led to the erosion of some of these
meanings. Dauronienė (2007: 64) argues that this evolution has not yet been completed and
that it is still noticeable today. She illustrates this by means of the ver-verb versprechen,
which means both für jemanden sprechen (speak out/up for someone) and gegen jemanden
sprechen, zurückweisen (reject). She (2007:64) believes that the German reflexive sich
aided the ver-prefix to narrow down in meaning.
41
2.5.5.3 Reflexive verbs
Piñón (2001: 276) believes that it is common for the inchoative member of the ergativec
pair [ERG1] to be marked by means of a reflexive pronoun. In German ERG1 is, according
to Piñón (2001: 276) either signalled by means of the reflexive pronoun (62) or it is not
marked at all (63), as is the case in English. However, this study shows that there are more
options to represent the ERG1 in German.17
(62)
a.
b.
Maria
öffnete
die Tür
Maria
opened
the door.
Die Tür
öffnete
sich.
The door
opened.
refl
öffnen.
sich öffnen
(Piñón 2001: 277, 10)
(63)
a.
b.
Rebecca
zerbrach
den Bleistift.
Rebecca
broke
the pencil.
Der Bleistift
zerbrach.
the pencil
broke .
zerbrechentr
zerbrechenintr
(Piñón 2001: 276-277, 9)
Furthermore, Piñón (2001: 277) finds, next to the ergativec alternating pairs and the
verb pairs, in which the one-participant construction is marked with a reflexive pronoun,
two other types of pairs. The first verb pair töten/sterben (kill/die) are suppletive verbs, i.e.
consisting of two different lexical items. 18 The second verb pair versenken/sinken
(sinktr/sinkintr) is “only diachronically related”, since “versenken is a prefixed form of
senken ‘sinktr’, which is in turn a causative form of sinken ‘sinkintr’” (Piñón 2001: 277).
Piñón (2001: 278) draws two conclusions on the reflexive construction on the basis of
these alternating verb pairs in German. First, he infers that the reflexive marker sich is not
the only trigger that distinguishes between the two constructions of the ergativec alternation
(Piñón 2001: 278). Second, he concludes that “sich (when it appears) derives an inchoative
verb [ERG1] from a causative-inchoative one [ERG2], and yet this is at odds with the claim
made by the traditional model that the order of semantic derivation is precisely the other
way around” (Piñón 2001: 278).
17
18
See §4.2: ‘German translation strategies’, 59-60
Cf. Baron (1974) in §2.5.3.2: ‘Causative constructions’, pp. 31-35
42
2.5.5.4 Periphrastic construction with lassen
Although the periphrastic, causativizing construction with lassen is not a translation
strategy of my set English ergativec verbs, I will discuss this construction, as it is an
important causative structure in German. Two periphrastic construction with lassen should
be distinguished: the causative (Kausativ), illustrated in (64a) and (64b) and the causativepassive (Kausativpassiv), illustrated in (65) (Gunkel: 2003: 175).
(64)
a.
Ich lasse Karl den Rasen mähen.
(I make Karl mow the lawn)
b.
Ich lasse die Milch überkochen.
(I let the milk boil over)
(Gunkel: 2003: 175, 4-2a-b)
(65)
Ich lasse den Rasen (von Karl) mähen.
(I have the lawn mown by Karl)
(Gunkel: 2003: 175, 4-3)
Gunkel (2003: 175) identifies two types of causative interpretations. First, (64a) can be
interpreted as a as “Ich veranlasse, dass Karl den Rasen mäht.” Second, it can be
interpreted as a permissive causative, which can be paraphrased with “Ich lasse zu, dass
Karl den Rasen maht.”
43
3 Methodology
As a first step in an investigation of how English ergativec verbs are represented in Dutch
and German, I opted for a descriptive analysis of the language data rather than the user
data, focusing on dictionary data in a quantitative approach. The data I needed to consider
first had to be narrowed down in order to obtain a homogenous and manageable set of
verbs. I decided to start from those English ergativec verbs that are derived from an
adjective by means of causativizer –en as the starting point of my contrastive research.
I collected the deadjectival ergativec verbs in English on the basis of two works, a
reference grammar and a diachronic study. The first work I used was the Collins
COBUILD Grammar Patterns by Gill Francis, Susan Hunston and Elizabeth Manning,
which presents approximately 600 ergativec verbs in English, classified on the basis of
their distribution and semantics (Francis et al. 1996). To verify the completeness of this
sample of verbs, I used the study ‘Valency changes in the history of English’ by Van
Gelderen, carried out in 2011. Van Gelderen (2011) focuses on causativizers in the history
of English, as the aim of her study is to investigate valence changes and the rising
frequency of labile verbs in English. She lists the English verbs ending in the causativizer –
en, according to Earle (1880:291), Skeat (1892: 275-276) and Levin & Hovav (1995: 96)
in order to show the productivity of this suffix. The corpus by Francis et al. showed to be
more complete, since it included, next to the base forms, prepositional variants of the base
verbs as well. I did not include those prepositional verbs for two reasons. First, I chose not
to focus on those verbs in this research, because I wanted to focus on simple verbs in
English and their equivalents in Dutch and German. However, I believe that taking into
account prepositional verbs as well, would be useful in further research concerning
ergativityc. Second, the translation of prepositional verbs was usually not available in the
dictionary I used.
The comparison of the samples in Francis et al. 1996 and Van Gelderen 2011
decreased the chance of errors, since the two sets of verbs gathered in those sources are
based on different criteria. Whereas Francis et al.’s aim is to give an exhaustive list of
ergativec verbs in general, Van Gelderen lists all deadjectival verbs ending in causativizer –
en.
For the Dutch translations of the English ergativec verbs, I used the translating
dictionary Van Dale Elektronische Grote Woordenboeken, version 5.0, 2009. In order to
44
obtain the German translations of the English ergativec verbs, I combined two translating
dictionaries: the Collins Dictionary19 and the Oxford Dictionary20, both available online. 21
In his study ‘Non Alternating Argument Structures: The Causative/Inchoative
Alternation in Dictionaries’, Montemagni (1994: 354) states that:
Currently available dictionaries provide an undoubtedly rich source of lexical information, but
often omit or do not make explicit salient syntactic and semantic properties of lexical items.
This is also the case of argument structure alternations holding for the same verb
Fontenelle acknowledges this problem as well and he adds that ergativityc is not
plain in dictionaries because they adopt a splitting strategy, i.e. dictionaries will treat a
prototypical ergativec verb by distinguishing between all the transitive senses and all the
intransitive senses (Fontenelle 1996: 212). An instance of this splitting strategy in the Van
Dale dictionary is given in (66).
(66)
to break
a. (intransitive verb)
1. dichtgaan
2. aflopen
3. naderen
4. slaags raken
b. (transitive verb)
1. dichtmaken
2. besluiten
3. dichter bij elkaar brengen
4. insluiten
5. naderen
6. afmaken
19
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english
21
The raw data can be found in ‘Appendix 1: Dutch primary data’, pp. 83-86 and ‘Appendix 2: German
primary data’, pp. 87-89
20
45
Both the Oxford Dictionary and the Collins Dictionary use this splitting strategy. An
instance of the splitting strategy in the Collins Dictionary for the verb ‘to break’ is given in
(67).
(67) to break
a. (transitive verb)
1. brechen, zerbrechen, kaputt schlagen, einschlagen, aufbrechen
2. kaputt machen
3. brechen, verletzen
4. unterbrechen
5. ritzen, durchbrechen
6. zureiten, brechen
7. kleinkriegen, mürbemachen, brechen, entziffern, durchbrechen
8. dämpfen
9. ausbrechen aus
10. mitteilen
b. (intransitive verb)
1. brechen, zerreiβen, kaputtgehen, zerbrechen
2. kaputtgehen
3. von etw abbrechen
4. eine Pause machen
5. umschlagen
6. zusammenbrechen
7. sich brechen
8. anbrechen, los brechen
9. brechen
10. bekannt werden, ans Licht kommen
11. seine (Un)kosten decken
12. anstoßen
From the information available in the dictionary, one can distil some essential
information for the representation of ergativityc. In the case of the Dutch translation of to
46
break, the alternation is presented by the opposition gaan versus maken in the verbs
dichtgaan (66a.1) and dichtmaken (66b.1). In addition to this strategy, Dutch has the verb
naderen at its disposal, which is ergativec since it is found in both transitive (66a.3) sense
and intransitive (66b.5) sense. The German translations shows the opposition between
intransitive sich brechen (67b.7) and brechen (67a.1). Next to this strategy, German has the
verb zerbrechen (67b.1), which functions both in the transitive and intransitive
construction.
The raw data of Dutch is listed in Appendix 1, the raw data of German can be found
in Appendix 2. From these data, I excluded three types of patterns that appeared in the
Dutch and German translations. Firstly, I did not select those translations that are very
narrow in meaning in that they are restricted to a particular profession or other specific
context of use, instances are shown in (68) and (69) for Dutch and (70) for German.
(68)
sharpen
(met een halve toon) verhogen (Br. Eng. muziek)
(69)
shorten
(scheepsvaart) minderen (zeil)
(70)
strengthen (currency, market) festigen
Secondly, I did not include translations that were used in a metaphorical sense, e.g. (71)(72).
(71)
awaken
uit de droom helpen
(72)
flatten
(town) dem Erdboden gleichmachen
Lastly, I did not include those verbs, for which only a transitive or intransitive sense was
available, as the ergativec alternation was not clear in that case. It was usually the
intransitive construction that was absent both in Dutch, as is illustrated in (73)-(74) and in
German (75)-(76).
(73)
deafen (transitive verb)
1.
doof maken, verdoven
2.
overstemmen, verdoven
3.
geluiddicht maken, isoleren
47
(74)
neaten (transitive verb)
1.
(75)
(76)
net, netjes maken, opruimen
madden (transitive verb)
1.
ärgern
2.
fuchsen
sharpen (transitive verb)
1.
schleifen
2.
spitzen
3.
schärfen
However, when a verb meaning is only available in a transitive or intransitive use, but can
be seen as a specific sense of an alternating use, I have included it in the sample. There is
one example where this is the case, viz. the verb darken (77). One of its intransitive senses
is translated as betrekken, bewolkt worden. This sense of the verb does not have a transitive
alternant, due to the specific meaning, however, this meaning can be seen as a specific
version of donker(der) worden, which does have the transitive alternant donker(der)
maken.
(77)
darken
a. onvergankelijk werkwoord
1.
donker(der) worden
2.
vertroebelen
3.
betrekken, bewolkt worden
b. onovergankelijk werkwoord
1. donker(der) maken
When the sample was collected,22 I divided the Dutch and German translations into
several categories and obtained the same possible translation strategies in both languages:
expressions with a verb + adjective, verbs with prefixes, deadjectival verbs, reflexive
verbs, verbs that appeared in both constructions of the alternation, and one remaining
group. These results can be found in Appendix 3 for Dutch and in Appendix 4 for German.
22
The results can be found in ‘Appendix 3: Dutch results’, pp.89-93 and ‘Appendix 4: German results’, pp.
94-96.
48
This quantitative approach has major advantages for linguistic research.
Thoutenhoofd for instance mentions that it “would lead to greater levels of methodological
rigour and so enhance the scientific status to the discipline” (Thoutenhoofd 2007: 2). I
decided to combine the purely quantitative approach of the dictionary data with a
qualitative aspect. To illustrate the findings, I used instances from Opus - The open
parallel corpus.23 The value of this corpus lies in the fact that it provides translated texts in
both English-Dutch and English-German.
23
The corpus can be consulted online via: http://opus.lingfil.uu.se/.
49
4 Analysis and discussion
4.1 Dutch translation strategies
4.1.1
General
In Figure 1, the representation of ergativec verbs in Dutch is displayed. I calculated this
distribution by first discriminating the Dutch ergative verbs, regardless of their internal
structure, from the other strategies. Afterwards, I considered the other strategies in Dutch.
What is striking, is the occurrence of two main trends. First, the English verb is in
65% of the cases represented in Dutch by a verb that contains a prefix or by a verb
combined with an adjective. Second, only a minority of the Dutch verbs have the same
properties as in English: only 12% of the Dutch verbs were found in both alternating
constructions and only 4% of all verbs were derived from an adjective. I will concentrate
on the translating possibilities for Dutch and discuss them separately.24
Verb with adjective
15%
31%
4%
Verb with prefix
Reflexive verb
12%
Ergative verb
4%
Deadjectival verb
34%
Other
Figure 1. Representation of Dutch translations
4.1.2
Prefixed verbs
As shown in Figure 1, out of all the translation mechanisms, the main pattern consists of
verbs, composed with a prefix (34%).
24
The content and structure of §4.1: ‘Dutch translation strategies’ is based on my BA paper ‘A contrastive
study of a set of ergative verbs in English and Dutch’
50
4%
15%
12%
18%
4%
31%
7%
6%
34%
Verb with prefix
Reflexive verb
Ergative verb
Deadjectival verb
Other
Comparative form
Positive form
Both
Figure 2. Distribution of prefixes in Dutch
In Figure 2, the distribution of the most frequent prefixes in the Dutch translations is
shown. Note that the prefix ver– is the most frequent one, as it occurs in exactly 50% of all
prefixed verbs. As already discussed in the literature review,25 Van de Beld argues that
ver– derives verbs from adjectives or nouns, but that the derivation from an adjective with
ver– is rather rare (Van de Beld: 2010: 43; 48). It is significant that, although Van de Beld
claims that ver-derivation from adjectives is rather rare in general, the prefix ver–appears
to be the most frequently used prefix in the current research. Ver-verbs which are derived
from adjectives in my data set are shown in (78).
(78)
verblinden, verbreden, zich verbreden, verdichten, verdiepen,
zich verdiepen, verdikken, verdonkeren, verduisteren, zich
verfrissen, verhaasten, verharden, verhelderen, verhevigen,
verhogen, verlagen, verlengen, verlevendigen, verlichten,
verminderen, verscherpen, zich verscherpen, verslappen, laten
verslappen, versnellen, versomberen, versterken,
verstijven,
vertederen,
vertroebelen,
doen
verstevigen,
vertroebelen,
vervagen, doen vervagen, verzachten, verzwakken
The only ver-verb in my data set that is not derived from an adjective is verhaasten
(hasten). According to the Middelnederlandsch Woordenboek, 26 verhaasten is derived
from the verb haasten (hasten).
25
See §2.5.4.2: ‘Verbs with prefix –ver’, pp. 36-37
This verb is not included in the etymological dictionary EWN (Etymologisch Woordenboek van het
Nederlands).
26
51
Van de Beld furthermore argues that ver-verbs derived from an adjective, “are
ungrammatical, if they are derived from a closed scale adjective, which allows modifiers
such as bijna (almost) and zo goed als (as good as) […] and that do not allow a
comparative form” (Van de Beld 2010: 48). This claim is confirmed in the set of ver-verbs
focused on in this study. For instance, verlevendigen (to liven), the comparative form of
the adjective, i.e. levendiger (more lively) is displayed as grammatically correct (79),
whereas the periphrastic constructions bijna levendig and zo goed als levendig are not
regarded as correct (80).
(79)
Wij willen graag verder gaan om de debatten levendiger te maken en
verschillende problemen uit de weg te ruimen. <Opus>
(80)
verlevendigen
<levendig levendiger
*bijna levendig
*zo goed als levendig
Almost all ver-verbs that appear in my sample are derived from an adjective, for which a
comparative form exists. However, the verb verminderen (to lessen) in (81) shows that the
statement of Van de Beld should be nuanced. This ver-verb is composed differently, since
it is derived from the comparative form minder (less).
(81)
verminderen
weinig
<minder
*bijna weinig
*zo goed als weinig
The verb verdonkeren (to darken) appears to be an exception to Van de Beld’s claim that
ver-verbs are “ungrammatical, if they are derived from closed-scale adjectives“ (Van de
Beld 2010: 48), as illustrated in (82).
(82)
verdonkeren
< donker
donkerder
bijna donker
zo goed als donker
The utterances bijna donker and zo goed als donker are grammatical. Following Van de
Beld, this would lead to the ungrammaticality of the ver-verb verdonkeren. In addition to
verdonkeren, the verbs verdichten, verharden, verlichten, and verstevigen are other
instances of verbs that allow the above-mentioned modifiers.
Another interesting prefix is the prefix be–, since a difference in distribution is
noticeable: be– is more frequently attached to transitive verbs than to intransitive verbs.
52
The verbs with this prefix that occur in intransitive clauses on the one hand and transitive
clauses on the other hand, are displayed in (83).
(83 )
a. intransitive:
betrekken, bedaren
b. transitive:
bevochtigen, bevestigen, bemoedigen, bezielen, bedroeven,
beperken
The distribution of be-verbs in the data confirms the characterization of be–, found in the
literature on Dutch morphology, as a “causative” (e.g. Lieber & Baayen 1993) or
“transitivizing” prefix (e.g. Laffut 1998). The more frequent occurrence of prefixed verbs
in the transitive construction is noticeable in the other groups of prefixes (op–, be–, ont–,
af–) as well, but more data is needed to confirm this trend.27
4.1.3
Attributive construction
A second translation strategy is the attributive one, in which a verb is combined with an
adjective. In this major translation strategy (31%), the adjective is combined with maken
(to make) in the transitive construction and with worden (to become) in the intransitive
construction. An illustration of the Dutch intransitive translation of the verb to blacken is
presented in (84), the transitive translation is given in (85).
(84)
English: However, low-fat yoghurt does not rot your teeth, blacken your
lungs or put you on a ventilator.
Dutch: Van magere yoghurt gaan je tanden niet rotten, worden je longen
niet zwart en hoef je niet aan een beademingsapparaat. <Opus>
(85)
English: In the times in which we live, it is very easy to blacken the
reputation of public figures.
Dutch: In de tijden waarin we leven, is het maar al te gemakkelijk om de
reputatie van openbare figuren zwart te maken. <Opus>
27
Of all prefixed verbs [93], 45 verbs are found in intransitive senses, as opposed to 64 verbs in transitive
senses.
53
Although most Dutch translations correspond to the pattern worden + adjective and
maken + adjective, some deviations exist and are highlighted in (86).
(86)
awaken:
zich bewust worden
bewust maken
darken:
treurig worden
triest stemmen
sadden:
somber worden
somber stemmen
sicken:
het beu/moe worden
moe maken
tighten:
strakker worden
strak trekken
toughen:
taai worden
taai doen worden
As mentioned earlier, the attributive group is the largest group: out of 41 English
ergativec verbs, 34 verbs have an attributive translation in Dutch. Next to the high
frequency of the combination of a verb with an adjective in general, it is often the only
translation possibility that is available in Dutch. The frequency of this pattern in Dutch
leads to a substantial difference between English and Dutch. In English, the focus of the
ergativec verb lies on the process which is denoted by the verb. This contrasts with Dutch,
in which the attributive construction is a very frequent strategy. Due to this difference in
representation of ergativityc, one can argue that the focus in Dutch is shifted towards the
result of the process denoted by the verb (maken or worden) in combination with the
adjective. This difference in focus is shown in the illustrations (87)-(89) by means of the
verbs to quicken and to lengthen.
(87)
English: Firstly, we have entered a new phase of competition, and the
pace of structural change is set to quicken still further.
Dutch: Ten eerste: we bevinden ons in een nieuwe concurrentiefase, en
de snelheid waarmee structurele veranderingen zich zullen voordoen zal
nog groter worden. <Opus>
(88)
English: Mr President, with the enlargement of the European Union the
border we share with Russia will lengthen and we will have several new
neighbours.
Dutch: Mijnheer de Voorzitter , met de uitbreiding van de Europese Unie
wordt onze gemeenschappelijke grens met Rusland langer en krijgen wij
verscheidene nieuwe buren. <Opus>
54
(89)
English: Apart from casting doubt on democratic control, such an
arrangement would lengthen the reporting period and jeopardize the
recently restored co-ordination of the work of STOA with that of the
committees.
Dutch: Die bepaling zou niet alleen het democratisch beheer op de
helling zetten, maar zou ook de termijn voor de indiening van verslagen
langer maken en de coördinatie van de werkzaamheden van STOA met
die van de commissies aantasten. <Opus>
As the construction worden/maken + adjective focuses more on the result than the
English ergativec verb, one would expect that comparatives would occur in this
construction (groter worden/maken), since both the constructions worden/maken +
adjective and the comparative highlight the result of the state, denoted by the adjective.
This hypothesis is confirmed in the results: in the dictionary, the comparative form is given
in 18% of all adjectives, and in almost one quarter of all adjectives, both the positive and
the comparative form are listed. This is shown in Figure 3.
Reflexive verb
22%
Ergative verb
58%
Deadjectival verb on -en
6%
Other
47%
Comparative form
24 %
18%
18%
Positive form
Both
7%
Figure 3. Distribution of comparatives in Dutch
4.1.4
Ergativec verbs
Only 12% of the Dutch verbs corresponding to English ergativec en-verbs occur in both t
and ERG2 and can be thus labelled as ergativec. The assertion of van Gelderen, that English
has more labile verbs than the other Germanic languages is thus confirmed in my data set
(Van Gelderen 2011: 114).28
Striking is the frequent occurrence of ver-verbs within the group of Dutch ergativec
verbs. Figure 4 shows that 75% of all ergativec verbs consist of ver-verbs. Although there
28
See §2.5.2: ‘Contrastive approaches so far’, p.22; Cf. §5.2: ‘Hypothesis’, 78-80
55
seems to be a link between this prefix and the ergativityc of the verb, De Vries remarks that
prefix ver– can attach to both ergativec and transitive verbs and he adds that ergativec verbs
remain ergativec after the prefixation with ver– (De Vries 2010: 48;50). These statements
question the direct relation between ergativityc and ver– since verbs can, according to De
Vries, already be ergativec before the prefixation by ver– and can be still transitive after the
prefixation by ver–. In order to investigate function of prefix ver–, more detailed research
is needed. One question that seems worth exploring is whether the group of Dutch
ergativec verbs is expanding, as is the case in English (Van Gelderen 2011: 107). This
question as well requires further research and I believe that further research might be
useful to consider the productivity of prefix ver– in relation to ergativityc in Dutch.
Verb with adjective
4% 4%
Verb with prefix
15%
3%
34%
Reflexive verb
Deadjectival verb
12%
9%
Other
Prefix ver
31%
Other
Figure 4. Ergativec verbs in Dutch
4.1.5
Deadjectival verbs
A small set of Dutch verbs is composed in the same way as the corresponding English
verb, i.e. derived from an adjective. This set, which forms 4% of the Dutch verbs, is listed
in (90).
(90)
bleken, effenen, harden, klaren, korten, lichten, pletten, ruwen,
scherpen, snellen, witten, zwarten
Most deadjectival verbs occur either in the intransitive clause or in the transitive
clauses, with a slight preference for the last construction. As only two of the deadjectival
verbs, zwarten (blacken) and scherpen (sharpen) occur in both constructions of the
ergativec alternation, I do not believe that the suffix –en has the same causativizing
function in Dutch as it has in English.
56
4.1.6
Reflexive verbs
The set containing Dutch reflexive verbs appears to be interesting, as there is a clear
contrast between the number of occurrences in the intransitive sense and the transitive
sense. Almost all reflexive verbs occur in the intransitive construction, because reflexive
verbs cannot take a direct object (Abraham 1986: 1).29 In some cases it is possible to use
the verb transitively, without the reflexive pronoun and with an object. In (91), the English
verb freshen up is represented by the transitive, non-reflexive verb opfrissen, in (92) we
find the intransitive, reflexive verb zich opfrissen.
(91)
English: Mr President, Prime Minister, ladies and gentlemen, the Finnish
Presidency will freshen up a tired EU.
Dutch: Mijnheer de Voorzitter, mijnheer de premier, dames en heren, het
Finse voorzitterschap zal de vermoeide Europese Unie opfrissen.
(92)
English: Where can I go and freshen up?
Dutch: Waar kan ik me even opfrissen?
4.1.7
Other constructions
doen + verb
44%
48%
laten + verb
Other periphrastic constructions
8%
Figure 5. Periphrastic constructions in Dutch
Some patterns within the remaining group can be distinguished. A first pattern consists of
the transitive constriction that combined the verb doen with an infinitive. This construction
29
However, the verb zich verfrissen (‘to freshen, to freshen up’) appears in both constructions according to
the Van Dale dictionary and the verb zich opfrissen (‘to freshen, to freshen up’) is only represented as a
transitive verb. No occurrences of these reflexive verbs with a direct object are found in the database Opus,
The open parallel corpus, neither were contextual examples provided in the Van Dale dictionary. The
representation of these verbs as transitive in Van Dale might be based on a different interpretation of the
nature of the reflexive pronoun in the grammatical pattern (i.e. where it is represented as constituting a direct
object itself). A extensive discussion of the theoretical status of reflexives in Dutch is beyond the scope of
this study, a brief discussion on this topic can be find in §2.5.4.3: ‘Reflexive verbs’, pp 37-39.
57
is the most frequent pattern, as it occurs in almost 50% of the translations in the remaining
group. In the corresponding intransitive construction, the verb remains without doen. The
transitive-intransitive alternation is shown in illustrations (93)-(94) by means of the
English verb heighten.
(93)
English: We hope that both sides can find a mutually acceptable basis for
a resumption of peaceful dialogue and avoid unilateral measures, which
might heighten tensions.
Dutch: Wij hopen dat beide partijen een basis voor hervatting van een
vreedzame dialoog kunnen vinden die voor beide zijden aanvaardbaar is,
en dat men eenzijdige maatregelen vermijdt die de spanningen zouden
kunnen doen toenemen. <Opus>
(94)
English: If, as has already been the case with the transposition of other
directives, Germany, the 'model pupil', goes its own way, this would
heighten the distortions in competition between the national water
industries in the EU still further, thus running counter to the aim of the
directive, which is to create a uniform framework for Europe's water
industry.
Dutch: Wanneer de voorbeeldige leerling Duitsland, zoals reeds bij de
omzetting van andere richtlijnen het geval was, zijn eigen weg gaat, zal
de concurrentieverstoring tussen de nationale waterhuishoudingen in de
EU nog toenemen en indruisen tegen de doelstellingen van de richtlijn,
namelijk een uniform kader voor de waterhuishouding in Europa te
scheppen. <Opus>
In line with Verhagen & Kemmer's (1997) claim that the causative doen is, more
frequently used with an inanimate causer than laten, we find the inanimate causer
eenzijdige maatregelen in (93).30
A second regular construction in Dutch consists of the combination laten and an
infinitive in the transitive construction. As is the case in the above-mentioned construction
with doen, the verb without laten remains in the intransitive constriction. The alternation is
30
See Verhagen & Kemmer (1997) in: §2.5.4.4 ‘Periphrastic construction with doen/laten’, pp. 39-40
58
displayed by means of the Dutch verb vieren in (95)-(96) for the transitive construction and
in (97)-(98) for the intransitive construction.
(95)
Het eerste is uiteraard dat wij de teugels niet kunnen laten vieren.
(96)
Ook bij de gezinshereniging mogen we het touw niet laten vieren.
(97)
Mythes over de rol van alcohol en drugs vieren nog altijd hoogtij.
(98)
In de randgebieden van talrijke steden, waar door gebrek aan
werkgelegenheid en sociale en culturele activiteiten sociale uitsluiting is
ontstaan, vieren vandalisme en criminaliteit hoogtij. <Opus>
In both (95) and (96), we find animate causers (wij), which again supports Verhagen &
Kemmer’s claim (1997: 63; 105)
4.2 German translation strategies
4.2.1
General
Figure 6 shows the distribution of the German mechanisms that are used to represent the
English ergativec verbs. In some categories, an overlap between different German
strategies appeared. In order to obtain the representation in Figure 6, I assigned every
German translation to each suitable strategy, as I did for the Dutch results. An illustration
is the German verb sich verbreitern (broaden), which I considered as both a verb,
composed with a prefix and as a reflexive verb. I will discuss these ambiguous occurrences
further on.
Striking in the German distribution is the occurrence of two major strategies that
account for almost 70% of all occurrences, i.e. ergativec verbs translated by means of a
verb with prefix or with a periphrastic construction of a verb and an adjective. Another
important finding is the near absence of ergativec verbs in German. There is only one verb,
aufheitern (brighten), that can be used in both ERG1 and ERG2.
59
6%
7%
2%
verb with adjective
30%
verb with prefix
16%
reflexive verbs
ergative verbs
deadjectival verb
other
39%
Figure 6. Representation of German translations
4.2.2
Prefixed verbs
The main strategy in German (39%) consists of verbs composed of a stem and a prefix.
These prefixed verbs appear in both the transitive and intransitive construction, with a
small predominance of the transitive construction (57%) over the intransitive construction.
However, the majority of the intransitive prefixed verbs in (70%) are reflexive. These
reflexive verbs with prefixes are shown in (99).
(99)
sich aufheitern, sich aufhellen, sich auflockern, sich beeilen,
sich beschleunigen, sich verbreitern, sich verdichten sich
verdunkeln, sich verfinstern, sich verhärten sich vertiefen,
sich verringern, sich verstärken
2%
7%
6%
verb with adjective
10%
16%
reflexive verbs
4%
3%
38%
15%
31%
4%
ergative verbs
deadjectival verb
other
prefix ver
2%
prefix auf
Figure 7. Distribution of prefixes in German
Within the category of the prefixed verbs, the verbs with ver- are the most frequent ones,
as shown in Figure 7. These ver-verbs appear in both the intransitive and transitive
construction. However, it is important to note that every intransitive ver-verb is reflexive
as well. Illustration (100) shows that the German reflexive pronoun sich distinguishes
60
between the non-reflexive ver-verb in the transitive construction and the reflexive ver-verb
in the intransitive construction.31
(100)
transitive
intransitive
English verb
verbreitern
sich verbreitern
broaden
verdunkeln
sich verdunkeln
darken
verfinstern
sich verfinstern
darken
vertiefen
sich vertiefen
deepen
verringern
sich verringern
lessen
An illustration of the German translation of the English ergativec verb deepen is given in
(101) for the transitive construction and in (102) for the intransitive construction.
(101) English: The EU must continue and deepen its relations with these countries
and contribute, through a real partnership, to the fight against poverty, to the
development of the awareness of environmental problems, to the
involvement of civil societies and to a better awareness of the social
dimension of the problems encountered.
German: Die Europäische Union muß [sic] ihre Beziehungen mit diesen
Staaten weiter pflegen und vertiefen und mit Hilfe einer wirklichen
Partnerschaft zur Bekämpfung der Armut, zur Entwicklung ihrer Sensibilität
gegenüber Umweltproblemen, zur Einbeziehung ihrer zivilen Gesellschaft
und zu einer zunehmenden Berücksichtigung der sozialen Dimension ihrer
Probleme beitragen. <Opus>
(102) English: Any inability by an education system to train its pupils to use or
master these technologies would consequently further deepen social
inequalities, or even create them.
German: Wenn das Bildungswesen nicht in der Lage wäre, die Schüler für
die Nutzung bzw. Beherrschung dieser Techniken zu rüsten, so hätte das zur
Folge, dass qoziale Ungleichheiten sich vertiefen oder neu entstehen.
<Opus>
31
Cf. §4.2.6: ‘Reflexive verbs’, pp. 66-69
61
In the translation of the English deadjectival ergativec verbs in -en, the reflexive pronoun
sich distinguishes between the transitive verb and the intransitive equivalent. This supports
the claim made by Wunderlich (1997) and Smolka et al. (2009 that the German prefix verdoes not operate as a causativizer.32
Another frequent prefix is auf, which appears as much in the transtive construction as
in the intransitive construction. Within the intransitive group of auf-verbs, both reflexive
verbs (50%) and non-reflexive verbs (50%) appear. Therefore, the distribution of auf-verbs
is different from the distribution of ver-verbs, as only reflexive ver-verbs appear in the
intransitive construction.
The last prefix I will discuss is an. Striking is the fact that this prefix is restricted to
the transitive construction in contrast to prefixes be-, ein- and er- that appear in both
constructions (103).
(103)
anfeuchten
anspannen
anziehen
schwarz anmalen
The an-verbs are not as clear-cut in their formation as the earlier discussed prefixed verbs:
schwarz anmalen (blacken) belongs both to the prefixed verbs as to the category with
periphrastic constructions. The verb anfeuchten is deadjectival and the verbs anspannen
and anziehen are both deverbal.
4.2.3
Attributive construction
A second major strategy in the translation of the English ergativec verbs consists of a
periphrastic, attributive construction in which an adjective and a verb are combined. In the
default construction, the adjective appears, either in its positive or comparative form, with
the German verbs machen (to make) in the transitive construction and werden (to become)
in the intransitive construction. This construction is the equivalent of the Dutch attributive
construction that links the verbs maken and worden with an adjective. 33 The German
intransitive translations of the verbs lengthen and blacken is illustrated in (104) and (105).
32
33
See §4.2.2: ‘Prefixed verbs‘, pp. 60-62
See §4.1.3: ‘Attributive construction’; pp. 53-55
62
(104)
English: If we applaud solutions such as this one, in which a dictator
attempts to manipulate supposedly democratic institutions, we will be
helping to lengthen the list of countries governed by regimes which are
repugnant to us in Europe but which we cynically find acceptable in the
case of Africa.
German: Wenn wir einem Kuhhandel wie diesem, mit dem ein Diktator
versucht, die vorgeblich demokratischen Institutionen zu manipulieren,
auch noch Beifall klatschen, dann tragen wir dazu bei, daß die Liste der
Länder mit Regimes, die uns in Europa zwar abstoßen, die wir aber
zynischerweise für Afrika hinnehmen, immer länger wird. <Opus>
(105)
English: Unlike the rapporteur, I think it is necessary to broaden the
social dialogue in order to rally the troops .
German: Ich glaube, anders als der Berichterstatter, daß [sic] der soziale
Dialog breiter werden muß , wenn ein markanter Einsatz erreicht werden
soll. <Opus>
The German transitive translation of the verb lighten is illustrated in (106).
(106)
English: It is true that dual-denomination notes or coins would have
required thought at an earlier stage and for that there would have had to
be a real concern to lighten the burden on private individuals.
German: Natürlich hätte man an die doppelte Bezeichnung auf den
Scheinen und Münzen früher denken müssen, aber das hätte
vorausgesetzt, dass man wirklich gewillt ist, es den Privatpersonen
leichter zu machen. <Opus>
This periphrastic construction in German highlights the result of the process which is
denoted by the verb, whereas in English the process itself is highlighted.34 This focus on
the result is highlighted by means of the adjective which appears in 37% of all occurrences
in the comparative form as well. The constructions with comparatives are listed in (107).
34
Cf. the attributive construction in Dutch in §4.1.3: ‘Attributive construction’, pp. 53-55
63
(107)
transitive
intransitive
English
länger machen
harden
heller machen
lighten
leichter machen
lighten
kürzer werden
shorten
weicher machen
weicher werden
soften
sanfter machen
dicker machen
soften
dicker werden
thicken
In some periphrastic constructions, the verb in the pattern adjective + machen/werden
deviates. These deviations are highlighted in (108).
(108)
blacken
schwarz anmalen
fasten
festmachen
flatten
flach drücken
loosen
locker lassen
sadden
traurig stimmen
straighten
gerade ziehen
verb with prefix
2%
7%
reflexive verbs
6%
16%
ergative verbs
19%
deadjectival verb
30%
other
3%
39%
8%
comparative
positive
Figure 8. Distribution of comparatives in German
4.2.4
Ergativec verbs
As mentioned earlier on, only one English verb, brighten, can be translated by means of a
German ergativec verb aufheitern. This verb occurs in both ERG1 and in ERG2. However,
the ergativec translation strategy of the verb aufheitern is not the only option. In ERG1 is
the reflexive verb sich aufheitern available as well.
64
4.2.5
Deadjectival verbs
A minor translation strategy consist of verbs that are composed in the same way as the
English ergativec verbs: 7% of the German translations are derived from an adjective with
the suffix –en, without a prefix. The verb lockern is an exception, as the <e> in the suffix
has disappeared. These deadjectival verbs are shown in (116) and occur only in the
transitive construction.
(116)
härten, kürzen, lockern, röten, schärfen, schwärzen, stärken, weißen
Striking in this set of deadjectival verbs is the occurrence of an umlaut in all verbs
with vowels that can obtain an umlaut, excepts for the verb lockern. Hieble (1957: 272274) distinguishes fourteen functions of the umlaut in German, one of which is the
causative, found in weak verbs like tränken (trinken), stärken (stark), schwächen
(schwach) etc. Almost all contemporary German verbs with umlaut are the result of the
following palatal element <i>, <ī> or <j> in Old High German (Twaddell 1938: 177). This
palatalized element in Old High German was the suffix –jan,35 which characterized the
causative verbs (Hieble 1957: 274). The palatalized element affected the previous
consonant or consonant cluster and consequently palatalized the previous vowel, changing
it into a more closed and fronted vowel (Hieble 1957: 272; Wunderlich 1997: 58; Twaddell
1938: 177). These systematic mutations in the vowel quality were not immediately
represented in the German orthography, except for the change of the short <a>. In was
only in Middle High German, after the causativizing suffix –jan had disappeared, that the
graphemes were adapted in accordance to the vowel quality (Twaddell 1938: 177).
Wunderlich (1997: 58) discusses causative verbs and states that almost all
deadjectival verbs are causative and notices that these verbs are often prefixed. This is
proven in my data set in which the prefixed ver-verbs are all derived from adjectives.36
Most of the prefixed deadjectival verbs are derived from an adjective which is gradable
(117). Only a few ver-verbs are derived from the comparative form, as shown in (118).
35
Cf. the causativizing suffix –jan in Old English in §2.5.3.1: ‘Causativizing affixes’, p. 29
However, these prefixed ver-verbs that are derived from an adjective are not included in the category
deadjectival verbs, since they are all derived from adjectives.
36
65
(117)
(118)
(sich) verdunkeln
< dunkel
dunkler
(sich) vertiefen
< tief
tiefer
sich verhärten
< hart
härter
verkürzen
< kurz
kürzer
(sich) verstärken
< stark
stärker
sich verdichten
< dicht
dichter
(sich) verfinstern
< finster
finstrer
(sich) verbreitern
breit
<breiter
verlängern
lang
< länger
(sich) verringern
(ge)ring
< (ge)ringer
Wunderlich (1997: 59) believes that the structure of these verb is arbitrary, in that
they are sometimes derived from the positive form and sometimes from the comparative
form of the adjective. According to Wunderlich (1997: 59) the derivation of a comparative
form is superfluous, because the interpretation of gradable adjectives is always relative.
The auf-verbs resemble the ver-verbs in their structure. They are derived from an
adjective, shown in (119), with the verb aufwecken as an exception. However, these aufverbs are derived from positive adjectives that are not gradable, in contrast to the ververbs, which are derived from gradable adjectives.
(119)
4.2.6
(sich) aufheitern
heiter
auffrischen
frisch
(sich) aufhellen
hell
(sich) auflockern
locker
aufrauen
rau
aufweichen
weich
aufwachen
wach
aufwecken
/
Reflexive verbs
In 16% of the translations, the English ergativec verb is represented in German by means of
a reflexive verb. Striking is the high frequency of prefixed reflexive verbs; Almost 79% of
66
all reflexive verbs are composed of a stem with prefix.37 In the category of the reflexive
verbs as well, the prefix ver is the most frequent one: 60% of all prefixed reflexive verbs
are composed with this prefix. The reflexive verbs are limited in their distribution: they
only occur in the intransitive construction, as illustrated in (13). When they occur in the
transitive construction, the same verb appears without the reflexive pronoun (109).
(109)
English: There are good reasons for assuming that this report, as well as
similar legislative proposals, will further strengthen EU authorities such
as the European Food Safety Authority ( EFSA ).
German:
Diese
Fehlentwicklung
ermöglichte
es
kriminellen
Organisationen, die vor allem aus dem nichteuropäischen Ausland
kommen, sich verstärkt auszubreiten und zu dezentralisieren. <Opus>
(110)
English: If we want targeted and effective projects which have a concrete
and
substantial
impact
in
needy
all strengthen the initiatives designed
areas,
to
we
extend
should
the
first
of
means
of
disseminating information through modern communications technology.
German: Wenn wir mit gezielten und wirksamen Projekten konkrete und
bedeutende Ergebnisse erzielen wollen, dann müssen wir zunächst die
Initiativen verstärken, durch die die Instrumente zur Verteilung und
Information mittels moderner Kommunikationstechnologien vermehrt
werden sollen. <Opus>
Dauronienė (2007: 65) distinguishes two types of reflexive verbs. Verbs that belong
to the first type are called real reflexive verbs (‘echte reflexive Verben’). In this category,
the reflexive pronoun has anaphoric function, which means that it refers back to the subject
of the verb and that it has no intrinsic meaning of its own. The second type of reflexives
are called the unreal reflexives (‘unechte reflexive Verben’). In this construction, the
reflexive pronoun functions as a complement. In this second category as well, the reflexive
pronoun refers to the subject of the sentence. However, when the verbs occurs without the
reflexive pronoun, the process denoted by the verb can also refer to someone or something
37
Cf. §4.2.2: ‘Prefixed verbs’, pp. 60-62
67
else. An illustration, that shows the distinct distribution of real and unreal reflexive verbs is
provided in (111).
(111) unreal reflexive verb
real reflexive verb
sich verletzen
sich schämen
(to wound, to injure)
(to be/feel ashamed)
Er verletzt sich.
Er schämt sich.
Er verletzt die Ordnung/dich/...
* Er schämt die Ordnung/dich/…
(Dauronienė 2007: 65)
(Dauronienė 2007: 65)
In my results, most of the reflexive verbs – listed in (112) – are unreal reflexives.
(112)
sich aufhellen
lighten
sich auflockern
loosen
sich beschleunigen
quicken
sich lockern
loosen
sich mästen
fatten
sich spannen
tauten
sich verbreitern
deepen
sich verdichten
thicken
sich verdunkeln
darken
sich verhärten
toughen
sich verhärten
harden
sich verringern
lessen
sich verstärken
strengthen
sich vertiefen
deepen
For these unreal reflexives, the same verbs without reflexive pronoun can be found in
Opus. Examples are provided in (113) and (114).
(113)
Wir
sollten
also
unsere
politische
Berührungsfläche
mit
Rußland verbreitern, um die überraschenden Wendungen, die dort
vonstatten gehen, besser verstehen zu können.
68
(We should therefore broaden the scope of our political contact with
Russia, and, this would help us to understand the changes that take place
there so unexpectedly.) <Opus>
(114)
Will man vielleicht seine Website verdunkeln oder seine Kunden, die
weiterhin Dateien von offshore-Internetseiten herunterladen, verfolgen
(Would the site be blocked or would we prosecute the users who
continued to download files from offshore sites?) <Opus>
Only one verb occurs exclusively as a real reflexive verb in the Opus corpus, i.e. sich
beeilen (hasten), shown in (115). This verb, as opposed to the unreal reflexive verbs, is in
the online version of Duden, categorized as a reflexive verb.
(115) Wenn wir über die Kosten reden, beeilen Sie sich alle, um deutlich zu machen,
daß Sie zu viel zahlen, zu wenig bekommen, mehr haben müssen!
(If we talk about costs you all rush to point out that you pay too much, receive
too little, and must have more!) <Opus>
4.2.7
Other constructions
Next to the five mechanisms discussed so far, some remaining translations remain (116).
These translations only occur in the transitive construction. In this category as well, we
find an umlaut on the vowels in the verbs dämpfen, mästen and ärgern. Lastly, one
complex verb construction (Funktionsverbgefüge) zur Ruh bringen, appears.
(116)
spannen
wecken
dämpfen
mästen
ärgern
eilen
zur Ruh bringen
tauten
waken
dampen
fatten
madden
hasten
quieten
4.3 Discussion and conclusion
In this section, I compare the Dutch and German translation strategies of the English
ergativec verbs. Table 3 lists the translation strategies of Dutch and German next to each
other.
69
Dutch
ERG1
Prefixed
verbs
verbreden (broaden)
verdichten (thicken)
verdikken (thicken)
verdonkeren (darken)
verduisteren (darken)
verharden (harden)
verhevigen (heighten)
verminderen (lessen)
verscherpen (scharpen)
verslappen (loosen)
versomberen (darken)
verstevigen (stiffen)
verstijven (stiffen)
vertederen (soften)
vertroebelen (darken)
vervagen (darken)
verzwakken (sicken)
zich verbreden (broaden)
zich verdiepen (deepen)
zich verfrissen (freshen)
zich verscherpen (sharpen)
German
ERG2
ERG1
ERG2
doen vervagen (darken)
laten verslappen (loosen)
verblinden (darken)
verbreden (broaden)
verdichten (thicken)
verdiepen (deepen)
verdikken (thicken)
verdonkeren (darken)
verduisteren (darken)
verhaasten (hasten)
verharden (harden)
verhelderen (lighten)
verhogen (heighten)
verlagen (lessen)
verlengen (lengthen)
verlevendigen (quicken)
verlichten (lighten)
verminderen (lessen)
verscherpen (sharpen)
versnellen (hasten)
versterken (heighten)
versterken (strenghten)
verstevigen (stiffen)
verstevigen (strengthen)
verstijven (stiffen)
vertederen (soften)
vertroebelen (darken)
doen vertroebelen (darken)
verzachten (soften)
verzwakken (sichen)
zich verfrissen (freshen)
ontlasten (lighten)
ontzilten (freshen)
ontzouten (freshen)
bedroeven (sadden)
bemoedigen (hearten)
beperken (lessen)
bevestigen (fasten)
bevochtigen (dampen)
bevochtigen (moisten)
bezielen (quicken)
aandikken (thicken)
aanhalen (tighten)
sich verbreitern (broaden)
sich verdichten (thicken)
sich verdunkeln (darken)
sich verfinstern (darken)
sich verhärten (harden)
sich verhärten (toughen)
sich verringern (lessen)
sich verstärken (strengthen)
sich vertiefen (deepen)
verärgern (madden)
verbreitern (broaden)
verdunkeln (darken)
verfinstern (darken)
verkürzen (shorten)
verlängern (lengthen)
verringern (lessen)
verstärken (strentghen)
vertiefen (deepen)
sich beeilen (hasten)
sich beschleunigen (quicken)
befestigen (fasten)
beruhigen (quieten)
beschleunigen (quicken)
anfeuchten (moisten)
anspannen (tauten)
anziehen (tighten)
schwarz anmahlen (blacken)
anspannen (tauten)
anziehen (tighten)
eindicken (thicken)
opbleken (whiten)
opfleuren (freshen)
ophelderen (brighten)
ophelderen (lighten)
opklaren (brighten)
opklaren (lighten)
doen opfleuren (freshen)
doen opklaren (brighten)
opfleuren (freshen)
opfrissen (freshen)
opglanzen (brighten)
ophogen (heighten)
opwekken (waken)
zich opfrissen (freshen)
auffrischen (freshen)
aufheitern (brighten)
aufwachen (waken)
sich aufheitern (brighten)
sich aufhellen (lighten)
sich auflockern (loosen)
aufheitern (brighten)
aufhellen (lighten)
auflockern (loosen)
aufrauen (roughen)
aufwecken (waken)
aufweichen (soften)
afnemen (lessen)
dichtgaan (fasten)
losgaan (loosen)
toenemen (heighten)
toenemen (thicken)
afkorten (shorten)
afplatten (flatten)
afvlakken (flatten)
doen toenemen (heighten)
doen toenemen (thicken)
losknopen (loosen)
uitdiepen (deepen)
vastbinden (fasten)
vastmaken (fasten)
vastsnoeren (tighten)
vastzetten (fasten)
erwachen (awaken)
erwachen (waken)
erfrischen (freshen)
erleichtern (lighten)
ontspannen (loosen)
ontwaken (awaken)
ontwaken (waken)
bedaren (quieten)
betrekken (darken)
betrekken (sadden)
aandikken (thicken)
aansterken (strengthen)
70
Attributive
construction
Ergativec
verbs
bedroefd worden (sadden)
bewolkt worden (darken)
blind worden (darken)
breder worden (broaden)
dieper worden (deepen)
dik worden (fatten)
dik(ker) worden (thicken)
donker(der) worden (darken)
flauw worden (flatten)
gebonden worden (thicken)
gek worden (madden)
goedkoop/goedkoper worden (cheapen)
hard worden (harden)
het beu worden (sicken)
hoger worden (heighten)
ingewikkeld(er) worden (thicken)
kort(er) worden (shorten)
langer worden (lengthen)
levend worden (quicken)
licht(er) worden (lighten)
los(ser) worden (loosen)
(meer) dof worden (flatten)
meer vlak worden (flatten)
minder drukkend worden (lighten)
minder zilt worden (freshen)
minder zout worden (freshen)
onduidelijk worden (darken)
onduidelijk(er) worden (thicken)
plat(ter) worden (flatten)
recht worden (straighten)
rood worden (redden)
rustig worden (quieten)
ruw worden (coarsen)
ruw worden (roughen)
scherp(er) worden (sharpen)
somber worden (sadden)
sterk(er) worden (strengthen)
stijf/stijver worden (stiffen)
strak worden (tauten)
strakker worden (tighten)
taai worden (toughen)
treurig worden (darken)
vertederd worden (soften)
vet worden (fatten)
vochtig worden (dampen)
vochtig worden (moisten)
wakker worden (awaken)
wakker worden (waken)
wit worden (whiten)
woedend worden (madden)
zacht(er) worden (soften)
zich bewust worden (awaken)
ziek worden (sicken)
zwart worden (blacken)
zwarten (blacken)
verbreden (broaden)
verduisteren (darken)
verdonkeren (darken)
vertroebelen (darken)
opfleuren (freshen)
verharden (harden)
verminderen (lessen)
kalmeren (quieten)
verscherpen (sharpen)
verzwakken (sicken)
vertederen (soften)
verstijven (stiffen)
verstevigen (stiffen)
aandikken (thicken)
verdikken (thicken)
verdichten (thicken)
scherpen (sharpen)
(meer) dof maken (flatten)
bewust maken (awaken)
blind maken (darken)
breder maken (broaden)
dieper maken (deepen)
dik(ker) maken (fatten)
dik(ker) maken (thicken)
donker(der) maken (darken)
erger maken (heighten)
flauw(er) maken (flatten)
gek maken (madden)
goedkoop/
goedkoper maken (cheapen)
hard maken (harden)
hoog/hoger maken (heighten)
ingewikkeld(er) maken (thicken)
korter maken (shorten)
langer maken (lengthen)
levend maken (quicken)
losser maken (loosen)
moe maken (sicken)
onduidelijk maken (thicken)
onduidelijk maken (darken)
rechtmaken (straighten)
rood maken (redden)
ruw maken (coarsen)
ruw maken (roughen)
scherp(er) maken (sharpen)
somber stemmen (sadden)
sterk(er) maken (strengthen)
stijf maken (stiffen)
strak trekken (tighten)
taai doen worden (toughen)
teder maken (soften)
triest stemmen (darken)
verdrietig maken (sadden)
vochtig maken (dampen)
wakker maken (awaken)
wakker maken (waken)
woedend maken (madden)
zacht(er) maken (soften)
ziek maken (sicken)
zwartmaken (blacken)
breiter werden (broaden)
dichter werden (thicken)
dick(er) werden (thicken)
dunkel werden (darken)
fett werden (fatten)
frisch werden (freshen)
gerade werden (straighten)
hart werden (harden)
hell werden (lighten)
krank werden (sicken)
kürzer werden (shorten)
länger werden (lengthen)
rau werden (roughen)
sanft werden (soften)
steif werden (stiffen)
weich(er) werden (soften)
weiß werden (whiten)
dicker machen (thicken)
dunkel machen (darken)
festmachen (fasten)
gerade machen (straighten)
heller machen (lighten)
krank machen (sicken)
länger machen (lengthen)
leichter machen (lighten)
rau machen (roughen)
sanfter machen (soften)
schwarz machen (blacken)
steif machen (stiffen)
weich(er) machen (soften)
weiß machen (whiten)
aufheitern (brighten)
71
Deadjectival
verbs
klaren (lighten)
lichten (lighten)
scherpen (sharpen)
snellen (hasten)
zwarten (blacken)
bleken (whiten)
effenen (flatten)
harden (harden)
korten (shorten)
pletten (flatten)
ruwen (roughen)
scherpen (sharpen)
witten (whiten)
zwarten (blacken)
Reflexive
verbs
zich bewust worden (awaken)
zich concentreren (thicken)
zich haasten (hasten)
zich scherpen (sharpen)
zich spannen (tauten)
zich spannen (thighten)
zich vasthechten (fasten)
zich verbreden (broaden)
zich verdiepen (deepen)
zich verfrissen (freshen)
zich verscherpen (sharpen)
zich opfrissen (freshen)
zich verfrissen (freshen)
Other
constructions
een vaste vorm aannemen (harden)
er frisser gaan uitzien (freshen)
gaan glanzen (lighten)
in kracht toenemen (strengthen)
leven beginnen te vertonen (quicken)
moed scheppen (hearten)
moed vatten (hearten)
tekenen van leven geven (quicken)
uit zijn humeur geraken (darken)
vast gaan zitten (fasten)
bevrijden van een druk (lighten)
een vaste vorm geven (harden)
laten verslappen (loosen)
laten vieren (loosen)
moed geven (hearten)
somber stemmen (darken)
somber stemmen (sadden)
strak trekken (tighten)
tot rust brengen (quieten)
uit zijn humeur brengen (darken)
härten (harden)
kürzen (shorten)
lockern (loosen)
röten (redden)
schärfen (sharpen)
schwärzen (blacken)
stärken (strengthen)
wecken (awaken)
weißen (whiten)
sich aufheitern (brighten)
sich aufhellen (lighten)
sich auflockern (loosen
sich beeilen (hasten)
sich beschleunigen (quicken)
sich lockern (loosen)
sich mästen (fatten)
sich röten (redden)
sich spannen (tauten)
sich verbreitern (broaden)
sich verdichten (thicken)
sich verdunkeln (darken)
sich verfinstern (darken)
sich verhärten (harden)
sich verhärten (toughen)
sich verringern (lessen)
sich verstärken (strengthen)
sich vertiefen (deepen)
sich zusammenziehen (tighten)
schwarz anmahlen
zur Ruh bringen (quieten)
ärgern (madden)
dämpfen (dampen)
eilen (hasten)
mästen (fatten)
spannen (tauten)
Table 3. Comparison of Dutch and German strategies
Several parallels between Dutch and German appear concerning the translation
strategies. First, in both Dutch and German, the same translation mechanisms can be
found: the English ergativec verbs can be translated by means of a prefixed verb,
deadjectival verb, ergativec verb, reflexive verb or by means of an attributive construction.
I distinguished a remaining group in both languages as well. Second, in both languages,
verbs with prefixes are the most frequently available translations. Moreover, in both Dutch
and German, the prefix ver- is the most frequent one. However, Dutch and German differ
with respect to the distribution of the ver-verbs in ERG1. In German, ver-verbs only appear
72
in the intransitive construction when they are reflexive, whereas Dutch allows intransitive
non-reflexive ver-verbs as well. Third, Dutch as well as German use the attributive
construction, which combines the verbs worden/werden in the intransitive construction and
machen/maken in the transitive construction as a second frequent strategy. A last parallel
between Dutch and German concerns the deadjectival verbs without a prefix. In both
languages, they present only a minor translation strategy: Dutch only translates 4% of the
English ergativec verbs with such a deadjectival verb, German only 7%. However, whereas
the Dutch deadjectival verbs appear in both transitive and intransitive clauses, the German
verbs occur exclusively in transitive ones.
Although the Dutch and German translation mechanisms are very similar, they differ
in three respect. First, ergativec verbs are more frequent in Dutch (12%) than in German
(2%). Second, reflexive verbs are more frequent in German (16%) than in Dutch (4%).
Last, in Dutch the periphrastic causative verb appears in ERG2, e.g. laten verslappen
(loosen) and laten vieren (loosen). This construction does not appear in the German
translations, although it is well-attested in literature.
73
5 Diachronic excursion
5.1 General
The translation equivalents in German and Dutch are rather similar, but differ substantially
from English. The set of English ergativec verbs only correspond to 12% of Dutch ergativec
verbs and only to 2% of German ergativec verbs. The differences in these three Germanic
languages can be linked to other structural differences between English on the one hand
and German and Dutch on the other hand. In Toyota (2008), it is shown that Modern
English deviates from German and Dutch in alignment, but that Old English resembled
modern German and Dutch more than it does nowadays. In order to confirm this
hypothesis, Toyota (2008) compares English and German from Indo-European
perspectives and focuses on changes in alignment in both languages.
Before focusing on the alignment types in the history of the Indo-European
languages, it is important to note that this terminology can only be applied to the so-called
syntactic languages, not to semantic languages. Dixon (1994: 23) states that “labels such as
nominative, accusative, absolutive and ergative are only properly applicable to languages
of the first type [i.e. syntactic languages]” (Dixon 1994: 23) Syntactic languages are
defined by Dixon (1994: 23) as languages in which “each verb has a prototypical meaning,
and grammatical marking is applied to the verb’s arguments on the basis of their function
in the prototypical instance”. Semantic languages on the other hand do not mark the
participants on the basis of the prototypical meaning of the verb, but the participants are
marked according to the particular use of a verb in a sentence (Dixon 1994; 24). Although
English belongs to the first type, it also shows some characteristics of the semantic type.
Dixon illustrates this by means of the verb ‘to kick’ (Dixon: 1994: 24). The prototypical
meaning of the verb incorporates the meaning of the direct object is being affected, shown
in (117). However Dixon states that English can insert prepositions to show that the direct
object is not affected by the action, which is an example of direct marking (118).
(117)
John kicked the ball.
(118)
John kicked at the ball (and missed it).
(Dixon 1994: 24)
All Indo-European languages share the same alignment type nowadays, but some
Indo-European languages in older language stages differed in terms of alignment type
74
(Toyota 2008: 281). According to Toyota (2008: 281), it is important to consider historical
changes within the Indo-European languages, because he believes that “the change from an
earlier type [of alignment] to the modern one helps us to explain the current grammatical
structure in English and German” (Toyota 2008: 281). He provides a clear definition of
alignment:
The term alignment means the way a language treats a subject and an object grammatically in
terms of the distribution of morphological markers or of syntactic, semantic or morphological
characteristics. Furthermore, these different systems can be roughly classified into a couple of
units. (Toyota 2008: 281)
In order to clarify the alignment changes in English and German, Toyota (2008: 281283) first describes the different widespread types of alignment. He distinguishes two main
types and one minor type of alignment: “the nominative-accusative alignment, “the
absolutive-ergative alignment” and the “active-stative alignment”.38 These alignment types
differ in the treating of the participants. In the nominative-accusative languages, the subject
in the intransitive and the subject in the transitive construction are identical, whereas the
subject and the direct object are identical in the absolutive-ergative languages (Toyota
2008: 281). Dixon (1979: 3-5) describes these alignment types and refers to them as being
part of morphological ergative, next to syntactic ergativity and discourse ergativity. A
language is ergative on the morphological level ergativity if the function of an NP is clear
from “(i) case inflections; (ii) particles, i.e. prepositions or postpositions; (iii) pronominal
cross-referencing on the main verb, or on an auxiliary verb, or (iv) word order” (Dixon
1979: 3). Depending on the particular relation between the object and subject, a language
can be (i) absolutive/ergative, in which case the absolutive is usually the unmarked case, or
(ii) nominative-accusative, in which the nominative is generally the unmarked case (Dixon
1979: 72). The third type of alignment, the active-stative alignment fills in an intermediary
position. This alignment type is “identified based in the split of intransitive subjects into
two groups: the active-cum-pseudo-transitive subject and the stative/inactive-cumtransitive object” (Toyota 2008: 282).
The Indo-European languages all belong to the nominative-accusative languages.
Toyota (2008: 282) adds that these Indo-European languages in earlier language stages
belonged to the active alignment. It is important to note, however, that the system a
language adopts is not clear-cut: no known language is purely ergative at any level (Dixon
38
Cf. §2.2: ‘Ergativity representing different phenomena’, p. 12
75
1979: 84).39 Toyota (2008: 283) remarks this as well and adds that some languages show
some characteristics of the ergative pattern. This partial ergative alignment is known as
split-ergativity. This alignment pattern often arises when “historical changes leave some
gap in the verbal paradigm in a language in question” (Toyota 2008: 283). The type of
alignment change that occurred in the Indo-European languages is one from an aspect
language to a transitive one. In Proto-Indo-European, the aspectual distinction between
perfect and imperfect was the most important one. However, the causer-causee relationship
could still be expressed by the speaker. In the evolution of the Indo-European languages,
the relationship causer-causee gained importance, and it could be realised grammatically,
which resulted in the active-middle dichotomy. The active then expressed the causercausee relationships and the middle expressed the lack of this relationship (Toyota 2008:
283).
5.2 Hypothesis
As mentioned above, Toyota (2008: 287) argues that “[d]ue to the change from active to
accusative alignment, IE [Indo-European] languages became sensitive to the causer-casuee
relationship. Toyota (2008: 285) argues that the differences between English and German
are due to the fact that German is more archaic than English and that “features found in
German are characteristics of older IE [Indo-European] languages.” These distinguishing
features between Modern English and Modern German are shown in Table 4.
English
German
Nominal gender
-
ѵ
Agreement (N & ADJ)
-
ѵ
Case
-
ѵ
Middle Voice
-
ѵ
Passive voice
ѵ
-/ ѵ
SVO (rigid)
V-2 (freer)
Subject prominence
ѵ
-
Topic prominence
-
ѵ
Word order
Table 4. A selection of features in Modern English and Modern German
(Toyota 2008: 285)
39
See §2.2: ‘Ergativity representing different phenomena’, p.12
76
Furthermore, Toyota (2008: 285) argues that the structural differences between
German and English were not present in older language stages. His findings are
summarized in Table 5, which show that Old High German and Old-English share the
same characteristics.
Old English
Old High German
Nominal gender
ѵ
ѵ
Agreement (N&ADJ)
ѵ
ѵ
Case
ѵ
ѵ
Middle voice
-
ѵ
Passive voice
-
-
SOV (freer)
SOV (freer)
Word order
Subject prominence
-
-
Topic prominence
ѵ
ѵ
Table 5. A selection of features in Old English and Old High German
(Toyota 2008: 285)
Toyota (2008: 285) therefore concludes that the changes in the history of the German
language are much more subtle than the changes from Old English to Modern English.
And he believes that Old English is closer to Modern High German than to Modern
English (Toyota 2008: 285).
Halliday (1985: 146, as cited in Lemmens 1998: 91) stresses the change in valence
pattern in the history of the English language as well and claims that: “the coming of [the
ergative] pattern to predominance in the system of modern English is one of a number of
related developments that have been taking place in the language over the past five
hundred years or more”. The evolution from an intransitive verb to an ergativec one,
implies that the process, denoted by the verb, changes from being fully autonomous to a
semi-autonomous process that is instigatable (Lemmens 1998: 86).
Lemmens (1998: 85-94), following Davidse’s (1992; 1998) functional approach,
investigated the history of the English verbs starve and hunger as a case study to illustrate
the ergativization of intransitives in the history of English. Lemmens (1998: 86) argues that
the Modern English verbs starve and hunger differ nowadays both semantically and
syntactically drastically from the original verbs. In Old English, the verb to starve was
(near-)synonymous with the present-day verb to die. The original meaning of to starve is
77
found in the cognate forms in other Germanic languages as well, e.g. “Old Frisian sterva,
Old Saxon sterban, Middle Dutch sterven, and Old High German sterban” (Lemmens
1998: 87). Probably, the semantic and the syntactic interchangeability of the verbs to
starve and to die resulted in a process of semantic specialization of the verb to starve
which could only be used to denote one specific meaning, i.e. “a lingering death caused by
hunger [...], cold [...], grief, or slow disease” (Lemmens 1998: 87). This lexical
specialization went together with a change in distribution: from the 16th century onwards,
to starve could be used in ERG2 (Lemmens: 1998: 88).This is, according to Lemmens a
clear instance of ergativization, since the process evaluated to one which is instigatable.
The verb afterwards lost the ability to occur as an intransitive verb and thus became
ergativec.
Whereas Toyota (2008) and Halliday (1985 as cited in Lemmens 1998) stress the
similarities between Old English and the other Germanic languages, illustrated by means
of German, Van Gelderen (2011: 106) stresses that Old English already deviated in its
basic valence pattern in comparison with the other Germanic languages. She compared the
pattern of Old English with that of Modern English and discovered that the valence pattern
remained stable in the history of the English language, but that English deviates
substantially from the other Germanic languages in having the greatest number of labile
verbs (Van Gelderen 2011: 106).
García García (2012) supports Van Gelderen’s view that Old English already
deviates from the other Germanic languages in having more labile verbs. García García
(2012: 131) states that “in spite of their vitality in early Germanic, few of the causative
jan- oppositions remain in the modern languages”.40 Even during the Old English period,
the relation between the Germanic causative verb pairs already started to become less
transparent due to sound changes (García García 2012: 131;135). Moreover, “no
systematic relationship holds between derived causatives and their bases in Old English”
(García García 2012: 135). García García (2012: 137) considers the loss of the causative
opposition as the most remarkable syntactic development in Old English. The causative
opposition disappeared as one or both of the members of the causative pair increased in
valence (García García 2012: 137). García García (2012) adds that this development only
affected the verb pairs, which have an intransitive verbs as base. 41 Either a causing
participant (Agent) was added to the valence pattern of the intransitive base, so that the
40
41
Cf. §2.5.3.1: ‘Causativizing affixes’, p. 29
Cf. Haspelmath (1991): “causative verbs pair” in §2.5.2: ‘Contrastive approaches so far’, p.23
78
verb became transitive, or the derived verb on –jan can lost the causing participant and as a
result became intransitive. Both processes resulted in a labile verb, that could be used in
both ERG1 and in ERG2 (García García 2012: 137). García García (2012: 137) remarks
that labile verbs should be distinguished from intransitive verbs that turned into transitive
ones through a transitivization process. The main difference between labile verbs and
regular transitive verbs concerns the participant that is added. The labile verb adds a
causing participant to its valence pattern, whereas the transitive verb takes on an accusative
object (García García 2012: 137).
This syntactic melting process started in common Germanic, as it can be
demonstrated that some verb pairs are not distinct in the Modern Germanic languages, e.g.
the two distinct verbs in the pair. “GER *brenna- (intr.) vs. *branija- (tr.) are translated by
one single verb in English (burn), Dutch (branden) and German (brennen). However, this
process in Old English is called ‘collapsing causative oppositions’, because of the high
frequency of labile verbs in García García’s study (García García 2012: 137). His study
shows that in Old English “a total of 13 out of 57 OE causative pairs show syntactic
melting” (García García 2012: 137). García García (2012: 138) concludes that “The
syntactic melting of causative oppositions seems to be more frequent in Old English than
in other Germanic languages”.
42
However, he adds that this statement should be
considered with caution, as García García (2012: 138) believes that more thorough
research is needed to confirm this claim.
Interesting for this research is that García García (2012: 138) compares Old English
and Old High German with regard to labile verbs. García García (2012: 138) states:
“The causative alternation is maintained in Old High German and Old Saxon, as opposed to
Old English. Labile verbs are extraordinarily frequent in present-day English […], as opposed
to for instance Modern High German.”
42
According to García García (2012: 139), The high frequency of labile verbs in English is related to the fact
that “in English both obligatory subjects and a fixed word order function as disambiguating strategies.” As a
result, no confusion between ERG1 (The door opened) and ERG2 (He opened the door) is possible, as
opposed to pro-drop languages. However, he (2012: 139) remarks that “incidentally, German has fewer labile
verbs than English, although it is also a non-pro-drop language; However, it has a more flexible word order,
which might lead to ambiguous interpretation of the arguments in instances where there is no or ambivalent
case marking” (García García 2012: 139) García García (2012: 139) furthermore notes that “the increase of
labile verbs in English has also been pointed out by Fischer (1994: 98-103, and elsewhere) in connection with
the rise of accusative and infinitive constructions in English, and the change in word order from basic
subject-object-verb (SOV) to subject-verb-object (SVO), which could have caused transitive infinitives to be
interpreted as intransitive ones.”
79
García García (2012: 138) illustrates this split between Modern English and Modern High
German by means of the following verbs pairs (123), that are morphologically marked in
German, but labile in English:
(123)
English
German
sink
versinken/versenken
split
sich spalten/spalten
wake up
erwachen/erwecken
(García García 2012: 138, 16)
Aronson (1977: 202), like García García (2012: 138), remarks that the
transitive/intransitive opposition is much clearer in German than it is in English. He shares
the opinion of Van Gelderen (2011) and García García (2012), that Modern English differs
from Old English in its typology.
80
6 Conclusion
In this study, I examined the different strategies that occur in Dutch and German to
represent a set of 41 English ergativec verbs. In order to obtain the translations, I consulted
the Van Dale dictionary for Dutch and the Collins Dictionary and the Oxford Dictionary
for German. I then illustrated the quantitative results with instances from the Opus-corpus,
which provides parallel translated texts for both English-Dutch and English-German.
Several parallels and differences between English, Dutch and German can be
found.
First, both Dutch and German equivalents of the English ergativec verbs could be
divided on the basis of their internal syntactic structure into five main groups (prefixed
verbs, deadjectival verbs, ergativec verbs, reflexive verbs and an attributive construction)
and a remaining group.
Second, in both Dutch and German, I discovered that prefixed verbs represent a
major translation strategy. The most frequent and most significant prefix in both languages
is ver–. This prefix seems to be linked to ergativityc in Dutch: in over 80% of the Dutch
ergativec verbs found in the results, the verb contained this prefix. However, the ver-verbs
in German behave differently: Dutch ver-verbs appear in both constructions of the
ergativec alternation, German ver-verbs appear in ERG2, whereas they only occur in ERG1
with the reflexive pronoun ‘zich’. The prefix ver- thus distinguishes between the
alternating constructions in Dutch, but German uses the reflexive pronoun to oppose ERG1
against ERG2
Third, the representation of the English ergativec verb as an attributive construction
in Dutch and German, which combines the verbs worden/werden in ERG1 and
machen/maken in ERG2 is, next to the prefixed verbs, a frequent translation strategy. Due
to the frequency of this construction, a difference in focus between both languages appears.
In English, the process itself is highlighted by means of the ergativec verb, whereas the
periphrastic construction in Dutch and German shifts the focus towards the result of the
process.
Last, A final minor strategy in Dutch is the periphrastic construction of doen/laten
combined with a verb. This strategy is not found in my results in German.
81
As I examined only a restricted set of ergativec verbs in English, no generalizations
for ergativityc in Dutch or German can be made so far. To learn more about the equivalents
of English ergativec verbs in Dutch and German, I believe that it would be useful to start
from larger sets of English verbs. A more detailed investigation of the reflexive
construction and on the the different Dutch prefixes found in the current data set, and more
specifically on their contribution in the senses of one or both of ERG1 and ERG2 is needed.
82
Appendix 1: Dutch primary data
English
awaken
blacken
brighten
broaden
cheapen
coarsen
dampen
darken
Dutch: intransitive
ontwaken
wakker worden
zich bewust worden
gaan beseffen
zwart/donker worden
zwarten
opklaren
ophelderen
verbreden
zich verbreden
breder worden
goedkoop/goedkoper worden
in prijs dalen
ruw worden
vochtig worden
donker(der) worden
verduisteren
verdonkeren
vertroebelen
onduidelijk worden
vervagen
betrekken
bewolkt worden
versomberen
treurig worden
uit zijn humeur geraken
blind worden
deepen
dieper worden
zich verdiepen
fasten
dichtgaan
sluiten
vast gaan zitten
zich vasthechten
dik worden
vet worden
plat(ter) worden,
fatten
flatten
meer vlak/laag/effen worden
flauw worden
Dutch: transitive
wekken
wakker maken
bewust maken
doen beseffen
zwartmaken
zwarten
doen opklaren
opglanzen
verbreden
breder maken
goedkoop/goedkoper maken
in prijs/waarde doen dalen
ruw maken
vochtig maken
bevochtigen
donker(der) maken
verduisteren
verdonkeren
(doen) vertroebelen
onduidelijk maken
doen vervagen
somber stemmen
triest stemmen
uit zijn humeur brengen
blind maken
verblinden
dieper maken
verdiepen
uitdiepen
bevestigen
vastzetten
vastbinden
vastmaken
dik(ker) maken
(vet)mesten
afplatten
pletten
afvlakken
effenen
flauw(er) maken
83
freshen
(meer)
dof/mat/smaakloos/saai/eentonig
worden
(vaak met up) frisser worden
(voornamelijk met up) zich
verfrissen
harden
hasten
hearten
heighten
(vaak met up) er frisser gaan
uitzien
(vaak met up) opfleuren
minder zilt worden
minder zout worden
verharden
hard/ongevoellig/gevoelloos
worden
een vaste vorm aannemen
zich haasten
snellen
moed vatten
moed scheppen
hoger worden
toenemen
verhevigen
lengthen
lessen
lighten
intensifiëren
lengen
langer worden
afnemen
verminderen
minderen
teruglopen
dalen
achteruitgaan
licht(er) worden
minder drukkend worden
ophelderen
(meer) dof/mat/smaakloos/saai
maken
(vaak met up) opfrissen
(vaak met up) verfrissen
zich verfrissen
wederkerend werkwoord
(voornamelijk met up) zich
opfrissen
(doen) opfleuren
ontzilten
ontzouten
verharden
harden
hard maken
een vaste vorm geven
verhaasten
versnellen
bemoedigen
moed geven
hoog/hoger maken
verhogen
ophogen
doen toenemen
versterken
erger maken
intensiveren
verlengen
langer maken
beperken
verminderen
terugbrengen
verlagen
terugbrengen
verlichten
bevrijden van een druk/last
ontlasten
verhelderen
verlichten
lichten
opklaren
(gaan) glanzen/glimmen/gloeien
klaren
gloren
dagen
bliksemen
(weer)lichten
84
loosen
roughen
los(ser) worden
losgaan
ontspannen
verslappen
gek/krankzinnig worden
woedend/razend worden
vochtig worden
levend worden
(weer) tot leven komen
leven beginnen te vertonen
tekenen van leven geven
rustig worden
kalmeren
bedaren
rood worden
blozen
ruw/oneffen/ongelijkmatig
worden
sadden
bedroefd/neerslachtig worden
madden
moisten
quicken
quieten
redden
sharpen
shorten
sicken
soften
stiffen
straighten
betrekken
donker worden
somber worden
scherp(er) worden
verscherpen
scherpen
zich verscherpen
zich scherpen
kort(er) worden
ziek/misselijk/onpasselijk
worden
het beu/moe worden
walgen
verzwakken
zacht(er) worden
vertederd worden
vertederen
verstijven
stijf/stijver/strammer worden
een vastere vorm aannemen
verstevigen
in kracht toenemen
recht worden
recht trekken
losser maken
losknopen
laten vieren
laten verslappen
gek/krankzinnig maken
woedend/razend maken
bevochtigen
levend maken
doen herleven
bezielen
verlevendigen
tot rust brengen
kalmeren
tot bedaren brengen
rood maken
doen blozen
ruw maken
ruwen
verdrietig maken
bedroeven
somber stemmen
scherp(er) maken
verscherpen
scherpen
korter maken
verkorten
korten
afkorten
ziek/misselijk maken
moe maken
doen walgen
verzwakken
zacht(er) maken
verzachten
teder maken
vertederen
verstijven
stijf/stram maken
een vastere vorm doen aannemen
verstevigen
krachtiger maken
rechtmaken
recht zetten
85
strengthen
tauten
thicken
tighten
toughen
waken
whiten
sterk(er) worden
aansterken
in kracht toenemen
zich spannen
strak/gespannen worden
sterk(er) maken
versterken
verstevigen
spannen
aanhalen
aantrekken
dik(ker)/dichter maken
aandikken
verdikken
verdichten
binden (vloeistof)
dik(ker)/dicht(er) worden
aandikken
verdikken
verdichten
stollen (vloeistof)
gebonden/geconcentreerder
worden
zich
groeperen/concentreren/verzamel
en ,
samenkomen
samenbrengen
toenemen (in dikte/aantal),
doen toenemen (in dikte/aantal)
onduidelijk/onverstaanbaar
onduidelijk(er) worden
maken
ingewikkeld(er)/moeilijk(er)/ver ingewikkeld(er)/moeilijk(er)/ver
ward(er) worden
ward(er) maken,
zich spannen
spannen
strakker worden
strak trekken
aanhalen
vastsnoeren
taai/hard/onbuigzaam doen
taai/hard/onbuigzaam worden
worden
ontwaken
wekken
opwekken
wakker worden
wakker maken
wit/bleek worden
witten
opbleken
bleken
86
Appendix 2: German primary data
English
German transitive
German intransitive
awaken
wecken
erwachen
blacken
schwärzen
schwarz machen
schwarz anmahlen
brighten
aufheitern
aufheitern
sich aufheitern
broaden
verbreitern
sich verbreitern
breiter werden
dampen
dämpfen
darken
verdunkeln
sich verdunkeln
dunkel machen
dunkel werden
verfinstern
sich verfinstern
vertiefen
sich vertiefen
deepen
tiefer werden
fasten
befestigen (an)
festmachen
fatten
fett werden
mästen
flatten
flach drücken
freshen
erfrischen
sich mästen
auffrischen
frisch werden
harden
härten
hart werden
abhärten
sich verhärten
hasten
eilen
sich beeilen
hearten
heighten
lengthen
verlängern
länger machen
länger werden
lessen
verringern
sich verringern
lighten (1)
aufhellen
sich aufhellen
heller machen
hell werden
lighten (2)
leichter machen
erleichtern
loosen
lockern
sich lockern
auflockern
sich auflockern
locker lassen
madden
ärgern
verärgern
moisten
anfeuchten
quicken
beschleunigen
sich beschleunigen
87
quieten
beruhigen
zur Ruhe bringen
redden
röten
roughen
aufrauen
rau machen
sadden
traurig stimmen
sharpen
schärfen
shorten
kürzen
sich sröten
rau werden
kürzer werden
verkürzen
sicken
krank machen
krank werden
soften
weich/ weicher machen
weicher/ weich werden
aufweichen
sanfter machen
sanft werden
stiffen
steif machen
steifer werden
straighten
gerade ziehen
gerade werden
gerade machen
strengthen
tauten
stärken
stärker werden
verstärken
sich verstärken
spannen
sich spannen
anspannen
thicken
dicker machen
dicker/dick werden
eindicken
dichter werden
sich verdichten
tighten
anziehen
toughen
abhärten
waken
whiten
sich zusammenziehen
härten
sich verhärten
wecken
aufwachen
aufwecken
erwachen
weiβ machen
weiβ werden
weissen
88
Appendix 3: Dutch results
Dutch: prefix verintransitive
verbreden
zich verbreden
verduisteren
verdonkeren
vertroebelen
vervagen
versomberen
zich verdiepen
zich verfrissen
verharden
English
transitive
verbreden
verlengen
verminderen
verlagen
verlichten
verhelderen
laten verslappen
verlevendigen
verscherpen
broaden
broaden
darken
darken
darken
darken
darken
darken
darken
deepen
freshen
harden
hasten
hasten
heighten
heighten
heighten
lengthen
lessen
lessen
lighten
lighten
loosen
quicken
sharpen
verzwakken
verzachten
vertederen
verstijven
versterken
verstevigen
verstevigen
verdikken
verdichten
sicken
soften
soften
stiffen
strengthen
strengthen
stiffen
thicken
thicken
verduisteren
verdonkeren
vertroebelen
doen vertroebelen
doen vervagen
verblinden
verdiepen
zich verfrissen
verharden
verhaasten
versnellen
verhogen
versterken
verhevigen
verminderen
verslappen
verscherpen
zich verscherpen
verzwakken
vertederen
verstijven
verstevigen
verdikken
verdichten
Dutch: prefix ont-/beontwaken
ontspannen
ontlasten
ontwaken
ontzilten
ontzouten
betrekken
awaken
loosen
lighten
waken
freshen
freshen
darken
89
bevochtigen
bevestigen
bemoedigen
bezielen
bevochtigen
bedroeven
betrekken
bedaren
beperken
dampen
fasten
hearten
quicken
moisten
sadden
sadden
quieten
lessen
Dutch: other prefixes
opklaren
ophelderen
opbleken
brighten
brighten
brighten
deepen
flatten
flatten
freshen
freshen
freshen
freshen
heighten
lessen
lighten
lighten
shorten
strengthen
thicken
waken
whiten
Dutch: attributive
English
opfleuren
doen opklaren
opglanzen
uitdiepen
afplatten
afvlakken
opfrissen
zich opfrissen
opfleuren
doen opfleuren
ophogen
afnemen
ophelderen
opklaren
afkorten
aansterken
aandikken
aandikken
opwekken
intransitive
transitive
wakker worden
wakker maken
awaken
zich bewust worden
bewust maken
awaken
zwart/donker worden
zwartmaken
blacken
breder worden
breder maken
broaden
goedkoop/goedkoper worden
goedkoop/goedkoper maken
cheapen
ruw worden
ruw maken
coarsen
vochtig worden
vochtig maken
dampen
donker/donkerder worden
donker/donkerder maken
darken
onduidelijk worden
onduidelijk maken
darken
bewolkt worden
darken
treurig worden
triest stemmen
darken
blind worden
blind maken
darken
dieper worden
dieper maken
deepen
dik worden
dik/dikker maken
fatten
vet worden
fatten
90
plat/platter worden
flatten
meer vlak/laag/effen worden
flatten
flauw worden
(meer)
dof/mat/smaakloos/eentonig
worden
flauw/flauwer maken
flatten
(meer) dof/mat/smaakloos/saai
maken
flatten
minder zilt worden
freshen
minder zout worden
hard/ongevoellig/gevoelloos
worden
freshen
hard maken
harden
hoger worden
hoog/hoger maken
heighten
erger maken
heighten
langer maken
lengthen
langer worden
licht/lichter worden
lighten
minder drukkend worden
lighten
los/losser worden
losser maken
loosen
gek/krankzinnig worden
gek krankzinnig maken
madden
woedend/razend worden
woedend/razend maken
madden
vochtig worden
levend worden
moisten
levend maken
rustig worden
quicken
quieten
rood worden
ruw/oneffen/ongelijkmatig
worden
rood maken
redden
ruw maken
roughen
bedroefd/neerslachtig worden
verdietig maken
sadden
somber worden
somber stemmen
sadden
scherp/scherper worden
scherp/scherper maken
sharpen
kort/korter worden
ziek/misselijk/onpasselijk
worden
korter maken
shorten
ziek/misselijk maken
sicken
het beu/moe worden
moe maken
sicken
zacht/zachter worden
zacht/zachter maken
soften
vertederd worden
teder maken
soften
stijf/stijver/strammer worden
stijf/stram maken
stiffen
recht worden
rechtmaken
straighten
sterk/sterker worden
sterk/sterker maken
strengthen
strak/gespannen worden
dik/dikker/dicht/dichter worden
gebonden/geconcentreerder
worden
tauten
dik/dikker/dichter maken
thicken
onduidelijk/onverstaanbaar
onduidelijk/onduidelijker worden maken
ingewikkel(der)/moeilijk(er)/ver ingewikkel(der)/moeilijk(er)/ver
ward(er) worden
ward(er) maken
strakker worden
thicken
thicken
thicken
tighten
taai/hard/onbuigzaam worden
strak trekken
taai/hard/onbuigzaam doen
worden
wakker worden
wakker maken
waken
wit/bleek worden
toughen
whiten
91
Dutch: ergativec
zwarten
verbreden
verduisteren
verdonkeren
vertroebelen
opfleuren
verharden
verminderen
kalmeren
verscherpen
verzwakken
vertederen
verstijven
verstevigen
aandikken
verdikken
verdichten
scherpen
English
blacken
broaden
darken
darken
darken
freshen
harden
lessen
quieten
sharpen
sicken
soften
stiffen
stiffen
thicken
thicken
thicken
sharpen
Dutch: deadjectival in -en
English
intransitive
transitive
zwarten
zwarten
blacken
pletten
flatten
effenen
flatten
harden
harden
snellen
hasten
lichten
lighten
klaren
lighten
scherpen
scherpen
scharpen
ruwen
roughen
korten
shorten
tauten
witten
whiten
bleken
whiten
Dutch: reflexive
intransitive
English
transitive
zich bewust worden
awaken
zich verbreden
broaden
zich verdiepen
deepen
zich vasthechten
fasten
zich verfrissen
zich verfrissen
freshen
zich opfrissen
freshen
92
zich haasten
hasten
zich verscherpen
sharpen
zich scherpen
sharpen
zich spannen
tauten
zich groeperen
thicken
zich spannen
thighten
Dutch: other
intransitive
transitive
English
gaan beseffen
doen beseffen
awaken
opklaren
doen opklaren
brighten
in prijs dalen
in prijs/waarde doen dalen
cheapen
vertroebelen
doen vertroebelen
darken
vervagen
doen vervagen
darken
opfleuren
doen opfleuren
freshen
toenemen
doen toenemen
heighten
(weer) tot leven komen
doen herleven
quicken
walgen
doen walgen
sicken
een vastere vorm aannemen
een vastere vorm doen aannemen stiffen
toenemen
thicken
taai/hard/onbuigzaam worden
doen toenemen
taai/hard/onbuigzaam doen
worden
uit zijn humeur geraken
uit zijn humeur brengen
darken
een vaste vorm aannemen
een vaste vorm geven
harden
moed vatten
toughen
hearten
moed scheppen
moed geven
hearten
minder drukkend worden
bevrijden van een druk/last
lighten
leven beginnen te vertonen
quicken
tekenen van leven geven
quicken
tot rust brengen
bedaren
quieten
tot bedaren brengen
in kracht toenemen
strengthen
stiffen
strakker worden
strak trekken
tighten
versomberen
somber stemmen
darken
treurig worden
triest stemmen
darken
vast gaan zitten
fasten
er frisser gaan uitzien
freshen
gaan glanzen/glimmen/gloeien
lighten
laten vieren
loosen
verslappen
laten verslappen
loosen
somber worden
somber stemmen
sadden
93
Appendix 4: German results
German: prefix vertransitive
verbreitern
verdunkeln
verfinstern
vertiefen
verlängern
verringern
verärgern
verkürzen
verstärken
English
intransitive
sich verbreitern
sich verdunkeln
sich verfinstern
sich vertiefen
sich verhärten
sich verringern
sich verstärken
sich verdichten
sich verhärten
broaden
darken
darken
deepen
harden
lengthen
lessen
madden
shorten
strengthen
thicken
toughen
German: prefix ererwachen
erfrischen
erleichtern
erwachen
awaken
freshen
lighten (2)
waken
German: prefix anschwarz anmahlen
anfeuchten
anspannen
anziehen
anspannen
anziehen
German: prefix aufaufheitern
aufhellen
auflockern
aufrauen
aufweichen
aufwecken
blacken
moisten
tauten
tighten
tauten
tighten
aufheitern
sich aufheitern
auffrischen
sich aufhellen
sich auflockern
aufwachen
German: prefix bebefestigen (an)
beschleunigen
beruhigen
sich beeilen
sich beschleunigen
brighten
brighten
freshen
lighten (1)
loosen
roughen
soften
waken
fasten
hasten
quicken
quieten
German: prefix eineindicken
thicken
German : attributive
English
94
transitive
intransitive
schwarz machen
blacken
breiter werden
broaden
dunkel werden
darken
fett werden
fatten
frisch werden
freshen
hart werden
harden
länger machen
länger werden
lengthen
heller machen
hell werden
lighten( 1)
dunkel machen
leichter machen
rau machen
lighten (2)
rau werden
roughen
kürzer werden
shorten
krank machen
krank werden
sicken
weich/ weicher machen
weich/ weicher werden
soften
sanfter machen
sanft werden
soften
steif machen
steif werden
stiffen
gerade machen
gerade werden
straighten
dicker machen
dick/ dicker werden
thicken
dichter werden
thicken
weiβ werden
whiten
weiβ machen
festmachen
fasten
schwarz anmahlen
blacken
flach drücken
flatten
locker lassen
loosen
traurig stimmen
sadden
gerade ziehen
straighten
German:
ergativec
English
aufheitern
brighten
German: deadjectival in -en
transitive
English
intransitive
wecken
schwärzen
awaken
härten
harden
lockern
loosen
röten
redden
schärfen
sharpen
kürzen
shorten
stärken
strengthen
weissen
whiten
German: reflexive
English
transitive
blacken
intransitive
sich aufheitern
brighten
95
sich verbreitern
broaden
sich verdunkeln
darken
sich verfinstern
darken
sich vertiefen
deepen
sich mästen
fatten
sich verhärten
harden
sich beeilen
hasten
sich verringern
lessen
sich aufhellen
lighten (1)
sich lockern
loosen
sich auflockern
loosen
sich beschleunigen
quicken
sich röten
redden
sich verstärken
strengthen
sich spannen
tauten
sich verdichten
thicken
sich zusammenziehen
tighten
sich verhärten
toughen
German: other
transitive
English
intransitive
spannen
tauten
wecken
waken
dämpfen
dampen
mästen
fatten
ärgern
madden
eilen
hasten
zur Ruh bringen
quieten
96
References
Abraham,
Werner.
1986.
Unaccusatives
in
German.
Groninger
Arbeiten
zur
germanistischen Linguistik 28. 1-72.
Abraham, Werner. 2003. Ergative diagnostics. Temptatio redux. Linguistik online 13,
http://www.linguistik-online.de/13_01/abraham.html. (22 May 2012.)
Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Martin Everaert (eds.). 2004. The
unaccusativity puzzle: explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Aronson, Howard. 1977. English as an active language. Lingua 41(3–4): 201-216.
Baron, Naomi. 1974. The structure of English causatives. Lingua 33(4): 299–342.
Beld, Ingmar van de. 2010. Reflexivity and Dutch Ver-verbs. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht
Phd thesis.
Bentley, Delia & Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2003. Auxiliary selection and the semantics of
unaccusativity. Lingua 114. 447-471.
Collins English Dictionary. http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary
Comrie, Bernard. 2006. Transitivity pairs, markedness and diachronic stability. Linguistics
44(2): 303-318.
Cornips, Leonie & Aafke Hulk. 1996. Ergative reflexives in Heerlen Dutch and French.
Studia Linguistica 50(1) 1-21.
Daunorienė, Justina. 2007. Bedeutungswandel bei den Reflexiven Verben des Deutschen.
Kalbotyra 57(3), S. 62-70.
Davidse, Kristin & Sara Geyskens. 1997. Have you Walked the Dog yet? The Ergative
Causativization of Intransitives. Preprint no. 161. Leuven: Katholieke
Universiteit.
97
Davidse, Kristin. 1992. Transitivity/ergativity: The Janus-headed grammar of actions and
events. In Davies, Martin & Louise Ravelli (eds.) Advances in systemic
Linguistics: Recent theory and practice. London: Pinter. 105-135.
Davidse, Kristin. 1998. On transitivity and ergativity in English, or on the need for
dialogue between schools. In Auwera, Johan van der; F. Durieux & L. Lejeune
(eds.) English as a Human language. To Honour Louis Goossens. (Lincom
Studies in Germanic Linguistics, 4.) München: Lincom Europa. 95-108.
De Groote, Evi. 2012. A contrastive study of a set of ergative verbs in English and Dutch.
Ghent: Ghent University BA paper.
Dixon, R.M.W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55 (1). 59-138.
Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: University Press.
Fabb, Nigel. 1988. English suffixation is only constrained by selectional restrictions.
Natural language & Linguistic theory. 6(4): 527-539.
Fontenelle, Thierry. 1996. Ergativity, collocations and lexical functions. In Gellerstram,
Martin, Jerker Järborg, Sven-Göran Malmgren, Kerstin Norén, Lena Rogström
and Catarina Röder Papmehl (eds.) Euralex ‘96 Proceedings. Goteborg: Göteborg
University. 209-222.
Francis, Gill, Susan Hunston & Elizabeth Manning (eds.). 1996. Collins COBUILD
Grammar Patterns. Vol. 1: Verbs. London: HarperCollins.
García García, Luisa. 2012. Morphological Causatives in Old English: the Quest for a
Vanishing Formation. Transactions of the Philological Society 110 (1): 122-148.
Gelderen, Elly van. 2011. Valency changes in the history of English. Journal of
Historical Linguistics 1(1): 106-143.
Gunkel, Lutz. 2003. Infinitheit, Passiv und Kausativkonstruktionen im Deutschen.
Stauffenburg: Tübingen.
98
Haspelmath, Martin & Thomas Müller-Bardey. 1991 (slightly revised in 2001) Valence
change. In G. Booij, Lehmann C. & Mugdan, J (eds.) Morphology.A Handbook
on Inflection and Word Formation. Berlin: de Gruyter: 1-23.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb
alternations. In Comrie B. & M. Polinsky (eds.) Causatives and transitivity.
Amsterdam: Benjamins. 87 -120.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2002. Understanding Morphology. London: Oxford University Press.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical
asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics 19.1:1-33.
Hieble, Jacob. 1957. What about the German Umlaut? The German Quarterly 30(4): 272274.
Horvath, Julia & Tal Siloni. 2011. Anticausatives: Against reflexivization. Lingua 121(15).
2176-
2186.
Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 2005. Review of: Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou
& Martin Everaert (eds.) (2004) The unaccusativity puzzle: explorations of the
syntax lexicon interface. Journal of Linguistics 41(3). 623-629.
Kaválková, Renata. 2007. Semantische Leistung der Präfixe bei deutschen Verben.
Masaryk University. Thesis.
Kjellmer, Göran. 2001. Why Weaken But Not *Strongen? On Deadjectival Verbs. English
Studies 82(2): 154-171.
Klaholz, Dominique. 2005. Prefixation in English. Marburg: Philipss University Marburg.
Laffut, An. 1998. The locative alternation: A contrastive study of Dutch vs. English.
Languages in Contrast 1(2). 127-160.
Legendre, Géraldine, Yoshiro Miyata & Paul Smolensky. 1991. Unifying syntactic and
semantic approaches to unaccusativity: A connectionist approach. Proceedings of
the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley,
CA.
99
Lemmens, Maarten. 1998. Lexical Perspectives on Transitivity and Ergativity. Causative
Constructions in English, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Letuchij, Alexandr. 2004. Lability of verbs and its relations to verb meaning and argument
structure (based on the data of Indo-European, Arabic, Turkic and other
languages).
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1994. A preliminary analysis of causative verbs in
English. Lingua 92. 35-77.
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical
Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lieber, Rochelle & Harald Baayen. 1993. Verbal prefixes in Dutch: A study in lexical
conceptual structure. In Booij, Geert & Jaap van Marle (eds.) Yearbook of
morphology 1993. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 51–78.
Los, Bettelou, Corrien Blom, Geert Booij, Marion Elenbaas & Ans van Kemenade. 2012.
Morphosyntactic change: A comparative study of particles and prefixes.
Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Montemagni, Simonetta. 1994. Non alternating argument structures: the
causative/inchoative alternation in dictionaries. Proceedings of Euralex ‘94,
Amsterdam, 349-359.
Möhlig, Ruth & Monika Klages. 2002. Detransitivization in the history of English from a
semantic perspective. In Fanega, Teresa & María José López-Couso (eds.) English
Historical Syntax and Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 231-254.
Oxford German Dictionary. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english
Philippa, Marlies, Frans Debrabandere, Arend Quak, Tanneke Schoonheim & Nicoline van
der Sijs (eds.). 2003-2009. Etymologisch Woordenboek van het Nederlands.
Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Piñón, Christopher. 2001. Modelling the Causative-Inchoative Alternation. Linguistische
Arbeitsberichte 76: 273–293.
100
Reinhart, Tanya & Tal Siloni. 2004. Against the unaccusative analysis of reflexives.
Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Martin Everaert (eds.) The
unaccusativity Puzzle. Studies on the syntax-lexicon interface. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. 288-331.
Shibatani, Mayayoshi. 1975. A linguistic study of causative constructions. Bloomington:
Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Smolka et al. 2009. When semantics means less than morphology: The processing of
German prefixed verbs. Language and cognitive processes 24: 337-375.
Thoutenhoofd, Ernst. 2007. Corpus linguistics as multimedia laboratory: Material culture
and experimental practise in the social sciences. [Paper presented at the “science
and technology studies views of e-social science” panel, Third International
Conference on e-social science, Ann Arbor (US), 7-9 October,
http://www.virtualknowledgestudio.nl/staff/ernst-thoutenhoofd/documents/
paper_ann%20arbor%202007.pdf. (5 May 2012.)
Tiedemann, Jörg. 2009. News from OPUS - A Collection of Multilingual Parallel Corpora
Tools and Interfaces. In Nicolov, N., K. Bontcheva, G. Angelova & R. Mitkov
(eds.) Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins. 237-248.
Toyota, Junichi. 2008. Re-evaluating comparison between English and German: IndoEuropean perspectives. Kalbotyra: Germanų ir romanų studijos 59(3): 281–289.
Twaddell, W. Freeman. 1938 A Note on Old High German Umlaut. Monatshefte für
deutschen Unterricht. 30(3/4): 41-43.
Van Dale Grote woordenboeken, 5th edn. 2009. Antwerpen: Van Dale uitgevers.
Verhagen, Arie & Suzanne Kemmer. 1997. Interaction and causation: causative
constructions in modern standard Dutch. Journal of pragmatics 27, 61-82.
Verhagen, Arie. 1998. Changes in the use of Dutch doen and the nature of semantic
knowledge. In Ostade, Ingrid Tieken-Boon van, Marijke van der Wal & Arjan van
101
Leuvensteijn. (eds.) Do in English, Dutch and German. History and present-day
variation. Münster: Nodus Publikationen. 103-119.
Verwijs, Eelco & Jacob Verdam. 1885. Middelnederlandsch Woordenboek. ’sGravenhage: Nijhoff.
Vries, Mark de. 2000. Reflexieve constructies en ergativiteit. Een speurtocht naar de
syntaxis van wederkerendheid in het Nederlands, Heerlens en Frans. In H. den
Besten (ed.) Samengevoegde woorden. Valedictory volume in honour of Wim
Klooster, Universiteit van Amsterdam. 253-263.
Wunderlich, Dieter. 1997. Cause and the structure of verbs. Linguistic Inquiry, 28(1): 2768.
Zaenen, Annie. 1993. Unaccusative verbs in Dutch and the syntax-semantics interface. In
Pustejovski, J. (ed.) Semantics and the lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers. 129-61.
102