Summary Details
| Query: |
Sum: Levin/Vendler verb cross-classification
|
|
| Author: | Brian Murphy | |
| Submitter Email: | click here to access email | |
| Linguistic LingField(s): |
Semantics
|
|
| Summary: |
Thanks for all replies! In the end I didn't receive any references to work combining Levin and Vendler verb classes. However several respondents wrote about work on semantic criteria that determine passivisation.
Helge L?drup (University of Oslo) has written a paper on how aspectual class and the semantic role of subjects determine passivisation of verbs in Norwegian. It seems that there are more restrictions on verb passivisation in Norwegian, but that in very broad terms, the criteria are similar to those in German and English. Helge L?drup 2000: ''Exceptions to the Norwegian passive: Unaccusativity, aspect and thematic roles'' in Norsk lingvistisk tidsskrift 1, 2000. Pp. 37-54. Alexander Loengarov (Catholic University of Leuven) makes the interesting point that Levin's classes addresses clausal complement alternations only marginally, concentrating on NP/PP arguments. He is particularly interested in the indicative/subjunctive alternation in Romance languages. Willem Hollman (University of Manchester) wrote his 2003 PhD on a universal account of periphrastic causatives (eg ''He was made do it''), including their passivisation. Bart van Bezooijen (University of Leiden) mentions the cross-linguistic variation in the passivisation of dative constructions. In English both the patient and the recipient/benefactor, can be promoted to subject. However this seems to be unusual. In Dutch only the patient can be promoted, while in some Bantu languages only the benefactor can be promoted (when introduced by verbal morphology). Brian Murphy Trinity College Dublin |
|
| LL Issue: | 15.1497 | |
| Date Posted: | 11-May-2004 | |
| Original Query: | Read original query | |
|
Back |
||
|
|
||
|
Sums main page
|
||
|
About LINGUIST
|
Contact Us
|
Report Broken Link
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents. |
|
