Valency (linguistics)

src: oup.useremarkable.com

In linguistics, verb valency or valence is the number of arguments controlled by the verbal predicate. It is linked, though not identical, to a transitivity verb, which only counts the object's argument from a verbal predicate. Valence Verbs, on the other hand, cover all arguments, including verb subject. The meaning of valence linguistics comes from the valence definition in chemistry. This scientific metaphor is due to Lucien TesniÃÆ'¨re, who developed the working valence into a major component of (later known as) the theory of grammar syntax and grammar dependencies. The idea of ​​valence first emerged as a comprehensive concept in a book published by TesniÃÆ'¨re (1959) ÃÆ'â € lÃÆ'Â © ments de syntaxe structurale (Structural syntax elements).

Video Valency (linguistics)

Jenis

There are several types of valence:

1. impersonal (= avalent) rain
2. not transitive (monovalent/monadic) he sleeps
3. transitive (divalent/dyadic) he kicks the ball
4. transitive (trivalent/triadic) he gave her flowers
5. tritransitive (quadrivalent/quadradic) I bet he's a dollar on a horse

• impersonal verbs do not have a clear subject, e.g. Showers. (Although it is technically the subject of the verb in English, it is just a mock subject, it is a syntactic placeholder - it has no concrete references No other subject can replace it. otherwise, there will be no subject at all.In Spain, for example, Rain can be expressed only llueve .)
• intransitive verbs require one argument, e.g. He ¹ sleep.
• a transitive verb requires two, e.g. He ¹ kicked the ² balls.
• a transited verb takes three, e.g. He ¹ gave him a ² a ³ .
• There are several verbs that take four arguments; they are tritransitif. Sometimes betting is considered to have four arguments in English, as in my example ¹ bet on ² five quid ³ on "The Daily Arabian" ⁴ and I ¹ bet you ² two dollars ³ will rain ⁴ . The language that morphologically marks the argument can have a true "tritransitive" verb, like the cause of a verb being transited in Abaza (which combines all four arguments in the phrase "He can not make them return" as pronominal prefixes on the verb).

The term valence also refers to the syntactic categories of these elements. Verbs show variations in this. In the example above, the argument is the noun phrase (NP). But arguments can in many cases be another category, eg.

Winning a prize made our training useful. - Subject is a non-limited verb phrase

That he was late coming does not surprise us. - Subject is a

clause

Sam persuaded us to contribute to the cause . - Object is a non-limited verb phrase

The President mentioned that he will veto this bill . - Object is a

clause

Many of these patterns can appear in a slightly different form than the one just shown above. For example, they can also be expressed using passive voice:

Our training was made valuable (by winning prize).

We were not surprised (with the fact that he was late).

We were persuaded to contribute (by Sam).

That he will veto this bill mentioned (by the president).

The example above shows some of the most common valence patterns in English, but do not start spending them. Other linguists have examined the pattern of more than three thousand verbs and placed it in one or more of several dozen groups.

The verb requires all its arguments in well-formed sentences, although it can sometimes experience valence reduction or expansion. For example, to eat is naturally different, as in he eats apples , but can be reduced to monovalence at he eats . This is called valence reduction . In the southeastern United States, a trivalent form firmly eating is in use, as in I will eat alone some banquets . Normally monovalent verbs, such as sleep , can not retrieve objects directly. However, there are cases where the valence of such verbs may be expanded, for example in He sleeps death sleep. This is called valence expansion . Valence verbs can also be explained in terms of syntax versus semantic criteria. The syntactic valence of the verb refers to the number of dependent arguments a verb can have, while the semantic valence describes thematic relationships associated with the verb.

Maps Valency (linguistics)

Compared to subcategories

TesniÃÆ'¨re 1959 expresses the following valence ideas (translation from French):

"Therefore one can compare a verb to a kind of atom with a bond, vulnerable to attraction to a large or lesser number of actants.For this act, the verb has a greater or lesser amount of bonds that it retains aktan as dependent The number of bonds that the verb has formed what we would call valence of the verb. "

TesniÃÆ'¨re uses the word actants to mean what is now called a broad (and sometimes complementary) argument. An important aspect of TesniÃÆ'¨re's understanding of valence is that the subject is the aktan (= argument, complement) of the verb in the same way that the object is. The concept of subcategories, associated with valence but more related to grammatical phrase structures rather than with grammatical dependencies developed TesniÃÆ'¨re, initially did not see the subject as part of a subcategory framework, although a more modern understanding of subcategorization seems almost identical to valence.

src: slideplayer.com

Changing valence

All languages ​​provide the means to change the verb valence. There are two ways to change verb valence: reduce and increase.

Note that for this section, labels S, A, and P will be used. These are commonly used names (derived from the morphosyntactical alignment theory) given to the argument of the verb. S refers to the subject of the intransitive verb, A refers to the transitive verb agent, and P refers to the patient from the transitive verb. (Patients are sometimes also called offenders.)

This is the core argument of the verb:

• Lydia (S) is sleeping.
• Don (A) is cooking dinner (P).

The non-core argument (or device) is called obliques and is usually optional:

• Lydia is sleeping on the sofa .
• Don is cooking dinner for his mother .

Reduced Valence

Reducing valence involves moving the argument from the core to the oblique state. Passive voice and antipassive sound are prototypical valence reduction devices. Such derivations are most applicable to transitive clauses. Since there are two arguments in the transitive clause, A and P, there are two possibilities for reducing valence:

1. A is removed from the core and becomes skewed. The clause becomes intransitive because there is only one core argument, the original P, which has become S. This is exactly what the passive voice does. The semantics of this construction emphasize the original P and lower the original A rank and are used to avoid mentioning A, drawing attention to P or the outcome of the activity.

(a) Don (A) cooking dinner (P).

(b) Dinner (S) being cooked ( by Don ).

2. P is moved from the core and becomes skewed. Similarly, the clause becomes intransitive and A is native to S. Semantics This construction emphasizes the original A and lowers the original P ratings and is used when the action includes the patient, but the patient is given little or no attention. This is difficult to convey in English.

(a) Don (A) destroy the soda can (P).

(b) Don (S) destroy. [with the implication that soda cans are being destroyed].

Note that this is not the same as an ambitransitive verb, which can be either intransitive or transitive (see criterion 4 below, this one does not meet).

But there are some problems with passive and antipassive as they have been used to describe a wide range of behaviors around the world. For example, when compared with a passive European kanonis, passive construction in other languages ​​is justified in its name. However, when comparing passives across world languages, they do not share one common feature.

R. M. W. Dixon has proposed four passive and antipassive properties.

1. They apply to the underlying transitive clause and form a derived intransitive.
2. The underlying P from passive and A from antipassive to S.
3. The underlying passive A and P of the antipassive enter the edges and are characterized by non-core/case/prepositions. This can be removed, but there is always an option to include it.
4. There are some explicit signs of construction.

He admits that this does not include some constructions that are labeled "passive" by some linguists.

Other ways to reduce valence include reflexes, reciprocity, inverted construction, middle noise, object decline, noun combinations, and object combinations.

Valence expansion

This involves moving the argument from the periphery to the core. Applicative and cause is a prototypical valence enhancement device.

src: i.ytimg.com

In syntactic theory

Valence plays an important role in a number of syntactic frameworks that have been developed in recent decades. In common phrase grammar (GPSG), many phrase structure rules produce a verb class with a certain valence. For example, the following rule generates a transitive verb class:

VP -> H NP [love]

H stands for VP head, which is the part that shares the same category as the VP, in this case, the verb. Some linguists objected that there would be one such rule for each valence pattern. Such a list would lose the fact that all of these rules share certain properties. Working in government and binding (GB) takes the approach to produce all such structures with a single scheme, called the X-bar scheme:

X? -> X, Y?...

X and Y can stand for a number of different lexical categories, and any example of symbols? stands for a bar. So A?, For example, would be a kind of AP (adjective). Two bars, used here to complete, are considered by some linguists to be the maximum projection of the lexical category. Such schemes are meant to be combined with specific lexical rules and projection principles to distinguish between certain verb patterns.

The head-driven phrase structure grammar (HPSG) introduces several schemes that aim to include all such valence-related rules as well as other rules unrelated to the valence. A network is developed for information relating to a particular lexical item. The network and one of the schemata aims to include a large number of specific rules that define the valence of certain lexical items.

Note that the rules (VP ​​-> H NP [love]) and schema (X? -> X, Y?...) only deal with non-subject complement. This is because all of the above syntactic frameworks use completely separate rules (or schemes) to introduce the subject. This is the main difference between them and the original understanding of TesniÃÆ'¨re about valence, which includes the subject, as mentioned above.

One of the most recognizable versions of grammar construction (CxG) also treats subjects like other supplements, but this may be because the emphasis is more on semantic roles and compatibility with work in cognitive science than on syntax.

src: st2.depositphotos.com

See also

src: oup.useremarkable.com

Note

src: images-eu.ssl-images-amazon.com

References

External links

• British Valency Structure - First sketch
• The difference between lexical and grammatical valency
• What is valence?
• Erlangen Valency Patternbank

Source of the article : Wikipedia