Abstract
Transitivity has traditionally been equated with the number of syntactic arguments that a verb takes. However, Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) puts forward a new approach that defines transitivity in terms of macroroles, leaving the notion of syntactic valence aside. It is perhaps for this reason that the notion of syntactic valence has not received sufficient attention in this framework, and, consequently, some inconsistencies have been identified in its definition. To mention only a few, there is no proper definition of the criteria that determine the notion of syntactic valence, and many of the grammatical processes that have some impact on it – the use of the passive voice and imperatives, the presence of argument-adjuncts, or the position of the arguments in the clause – are overlooked. Hence, in this paper I carry out a critical revision of the definition of syntactic valence and aim to set out some guidelines for a more accurate treatment of this notion within the RRG framework.
Highlights
Transitivity has traditionally been equated with the number of syntactic arguments a verb takes
No matter whether the agent is overtly expressed in the syntax or not, the syntactic valence is reduced by 1 with regard to their active counterpart
In this paper I have tried to offer an accurate account of syntactic valence within the RRG theory
Summary
Transitivity has traditionally been equated with the number of syntactic arguments a verb takes. Puts forward a new approach that defines transitivity in terms of macro-roles, leaving the notion of syntactic valence aside. In this work I carry out a critical revision of the definition of syntactic valence and aim to set out some guidelines for a more accurate treatment of this notion. This paper is part of a broader project that analyses break verbs and from which I have taken the corpus. Whether break verbs appear in a mono-clausal sentence or in a subordinate clause of a larger sentence, the only clause under analysis is the one that contains the break verb This verbal class comprises the following verbs: break, chip, crack, crash, crush, fracture, rip, shatter, smash, snap, splinter, split and tear (Levin 1993: 241)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
