old english transitivity: a view from the past

CHAPTER EIGHT

OLD ENGLISH TRANSITIVITY: A VIEW FROM THE PAST

MAGDALENA CHARZY SKA-WÓJCIK

1. Introduction

There are two major variants of traditionally understood transitivity: broad and narrow.1 The former makes reference to the number of arguments, hence it will be referred to as quantitative, the latter is of a qualitative type, i.e., it is related to the presence of specific argument types. An instance of a quantitative approach to transitivity is exemplified by Bosworth and Toller’s classification, which will be discussed in section 2. A qualitative approach is represented by Visser’s (1963-73) typology of Old English verbs, which will be presented in section 3. As the two accounts are not only based on different defining criteria but also result in different classifications of particular verbs, the two approaches will be evaluated in section 4 with the help of independent Old English data. The concluding remarks will be presented in section 5.

2. Quantitative criterion

The oldest study of OE transitivity is Bosworth and Toller’s (1898) Anglo-Saxon Dictionary and Toller’s (1921) Supplement2 to the dictionary. These 1 After Beedham (2010, 23 fn. 5), [i]n languages with a case system there is a narrow definition of the transitive verb which covers objects in the accusative case only, and a broad definition which incorporates objects in oblique cases, e.g., dative, genitive. 2 It should perhaps be explained that the Supplement does not offer systematic additions with respect to the main volume. Instead, it either corrects and/or

Old English Transitivity: A View from the Past

135

works do not constitute an account of OE transitivity per se but they offer detailed classifications of (most) OE verbs and provide them with illustrative examples. The picture that emerges from the analysis of the verbal entries available in these two sources leaves no doubt as to what property distinguishes transitive and intransitive verbs in OE. These two works are, therefore, a legitimate starting point of this discussion.

The first interesting observation with regard to transitivity is that the very terminology used by the two dictionaries changes and the fact that it changes more or less half-way through the 1898 volume. In particular, while the first part of the 1898 volume resorts to the contrast between verbum activum (v.a.) and verbum neutrum (v.n.), the latter part of the volume and the 1921 supplement uniformly use the terms transitive and intransitive verb. It has to be emphasised that the change in terminology does not represent a change of focus or of the defining properties of transitivity in any way, as evidenced by the fact that the same verb is marked as verbum activum in the 1898 volume and as a transitive verb in the Supplement. The same applies to the terms verbum neutrum vs. intransitive verb. Similarly, the marking of verbs which appear both in transitive and intransitive structures in the Supplement corresponds to the verbum activum vs. verbum neutrum distinction in the first part of the dictionary.

The terms verbum neutrum and verbum activum are slightly problematic and therefore require an explanation. Both are transplanted to the linguistic description of (and in) English from Latin grammars, where their significance is morphosyntactic: a verb is classified as active if its form contrasts with the passive verbal inflection. In effect, this is equal to the verb’s ability to appear in the passive voice – itself a clear indication that the verb can take an object. However, if a verb does not show the contrast, i.e., it never appears in the passive voice because it has no object, it is a neuter verb.

The term active verb is first recorded in English in the early 16th

century but it soon started to give way to a term introduced around the end of the same century, i.e., transitive verb; the term active is most frequently (though not exclusively) used as an adjective classifying voice. The term neuter verb is first recorded in English by the side of the term active verb in the early 16th century, roughly speaking to denote verbs not capable of appearing in the passive, and it was used in this sense until the 19th enriches the information given in the main volume or introduces entries which are not covered in the 1898 volume at all. Therefore, an analysis of any verb needs to encompass the information provided by both volumes.

Chapter Eight

136

century, when the term intransitive verb replaced it completely. Interestingly, the term intransitive verb started to be used in the early 17th century with reference to the same type of verbs, though here the focus was more on the syntactic aspect (‘verbs not taking a direct object’). It has to be pointed out, however, that when the term neuter verb was applied in grammatical descriptions of English, the criteria qualifying a verb as neuter differed widely.

Samuel Johnson’s famous Dictionary of the English Language, first published in 1755, regularly employs the terms active and neuter verb. In the Preface, Johnson provides the following (very) brief description:

English verbs are active, as I love; or neuter, as I languish. The neuters are formed like the actives. Most verbs signifying action may likewise signify condition or habit, and become neuters, as I love, I am in love; I strike, I am now striking. In effect, according to Johnson (and five other authors), a verb

formally qualifies as neuter if it does not have a past participle. There are, of course, problems inherent in such an approach (cf. Michael 1970, 382), which indicate that, while it works for a description of Latin verbs (except for deponentia), it cannot be adapted to a description of English verbs.

Another renowned lexicographer and grammarian, the principal editor of the Oxford English Dictionary, Lindley Murray, uses the same terms, for which he provides the following definitions in his 1808 grammar:3

A Verb Active expresses an action, and necessarily implies an agent and an object acted upon, as: to love; “I love Penelope.” … A Verb Neuter expresses neither action nor passion, but being, or a state of being: as, “I am, I sleep, I sit.” The verb active is also called transitive, because the action passes over to the object, or has an effect on some other thing, as: “The tutor instructs his pupils;” “I esteem the man.”

3 It has to be clarified, however, that Murray (1808 Vol. I) distinguishes not two but three types of verbs: active, passive and neuter (in agreement with Latin grammars), which seems to invalidate the definitions provided for active and neuter verbs. The definition of passive verbs quoted after Murray (1808 Vol. I, 99) below, however, makes it clear that they do not form a separate group of verbs as such, but they are structures with verbs which do not belong to the neuter division. A Verb Passive expresses a passion, or a suffering, or the receiving of an action; and necessarily implies an object acted upon, and an agent by which the object is acted upon: as, to be loved: “Penelope is loved by me.” (Murray 1808 Vol. I, 99)


137

Verbs neuter may properly be denominated intransitives, because the effect is confined within the subject and does not pass over to any object: as, “I sit, he lives, they sleep.” (Murray 1808 Vol. I, 99-100) As is clear, Murray’s definition equates active verbs (verba activa)

with transitives and neuter verbs (verba neutra) with intransitives. Note that the defining properties are both semantic (whether a verb ‘expresses an action’ vs. ‘being, or a state of being’) and syntactic (the presence vs. absence of the object the action passes over to).4 Murray (1808 Vol. I, 99) also reports that some writers distinguish the following kinds of verbs:

1st. Active-transitive, or those which denote an action that passes from agent to some object; as Cæsar conquered Pompey. 2d. Active-intransitive, or those which express that kind of action, which has no effect upon any thing beyond the agent himself: as, Cæsar walked. 3d. Passive, or those which express, not action, but passion, whether pleasing or painful; as, Portia was loved; Pompey was conquered. As if this is not confusing enough, other authors propose still different

definitions of neuter verbs, ranging from classifications which could be summarised as expressing an “ambiguous relation to the passive” (for example, neuter verbs are neither active nor passive, if being active necessarily implies a contrast with active), verbs which “can have a nominative after them” or “express being” (Michael 1970, 388).5

In conclusion, the terms verbum activum and verbum neutrum, though perhaps not clearly defined, are clearly synonymous with the terms transitive verb and intransitive verb, at least in the way they are used by Bosworth and Toller. The complete interchangeability of the two sets of terms can be fully appreciated by comparing the entries of the same verb in the two parts of the dictionary, such as bregdan ‘to move to and from, turn into,’ efestan ‘to hasten, be quick,’ gælan ‘to hinder, hesitate,’ to name but a few. The verbs exhibit two types of uses, which are referred to

4 In a further part of the discussion (Vol. I, 100), however, it appears that the two criteria are not consistently applied: Some of the verbs that are usually ranked among neuters, make a near approach to the nature of a verb active; but they may be distinguished from it by their being intransitive: as, to run, to walk, to fly, &c. The rest are more obviously neuter and more clearly expressive of a middle state between action and passion: as, to stand, to lie, to sleep, &c. 5 As noted by Michael (1970), grammarians who used the term neuter verb can be divided on the basis of the defining criteria into as many as six different groups.

Chapter Eight

138

by a different set of terms, depending on the volume. An examination of the dictionary entries of these and other verbs of the same type makes it clear that the difference is purely terminological.

In effect, while not bearing directly on the issue, the terminological shift and the problems connected with defining the concept point to two important observations. First of all, there seems little justification for the application of the term neuter verbs to English – even less so than there is in Latin. Secondly, on a more general level, it forces upon us the often carefully avoided question of how much of the grammatical description in Western linguistics is influenced, if not in fact distorted, by the adaptation of the Latin terms to descriptions of languages which exhibit altogether different grammatical contrasts.6

Leaving these issues aside, let us return to the two types of verbs recorded in the Anglo-Saxon dictionaries. In line with the terminological switch observed above, I will call them transitive and intransitive. An examination of the dictionary entries leaves no doubt as to the defining characteristics of the two verb types: verbs which are accompanied by a nominal object in any of the available verbal cases, i.e., accusative, dative or genitive, are classified as transitive (cf. (1) below), while a verb not accompanied by an object is classified as intransitive (cf. (2)).

(1) transitive verbs

a. ACC Þonne u hine cwelst when you him-ACC kill ‘When you kill him.’

<s id="T06220052000" n="29.16"> Exod; B8.1.4.2 (CCOE)

6 One seventeenth-century grammar of English presents the English adjective in a chart with six cases, two numbers and three genders. As a result, it shows 36 cells with the same form of the adjective, which had become an uninflected category centuries before the grammar was written. That this was not an attempt at a diachronic description of the English adjective but a side-effect of imposing Latin categories on English is best indicated by the fact that English has never had as many as six different cases. The detrimental impact of grammatical description being so strongly Latin-based is also reported by Næss (2007), albeit she addresses a problem of the opposite nature: [t]raditional grammatical terminology and analysis has been, and is still being, continually challenged by the discovery of grammatical phenomena which do not seem to fit neatly into the categories inherited from Greek and Latin grammar. (Næss 2007, 2)


139

b. DAT Manige tilia Gode to cwemanne many strive God-DAT to please ‘Many people strive to please God.’

<s id="T06660171800" n="39.133.14"> Or4; B9.2.5 (CCOE)

c. GEN þæs his lufu bæde this-GEN his love demands ‘His love demands that.’

<s id="T00230004600" n="93"> Max I; A3.13 (CCOE)

(2) an intransitive verb and his blæda ne fealwia and its flowers not wither ‘And its flowers do not wither.’

<s id="T06320000300" n="1.3"> PPs (prose); B8.2.1 (CCOE) In effect, the defining parameter of transitivity within Bosworth and

Toller’s classification embodies the most traditional interpretation of the notion: a purely quantitative requirement that a verb be accompanied by an NP object in an unspecified case. Therefore, according to Bosworth and Toller, a verb is transitive if it occurs with a nominal object, regardless of its case and a verb which appears without it is intransitive.7 An invaluable asset of this type of approach, or perhaps its raison d’être, is a peculiarity of Old English complementation, which shows a strong propensity for object case alternations. In other words, one and the same verb tends to take objects in different cases without exhibiting any change of meaning.8 Instances of such alternations can be found with all verb types and though

7 It has to be admitted that verbs accompanied by a prepositional phrase are not classified into any type. This omission is to be expected in such a binary formal approach to transitivity. Interestingly, Doroszewski’s (1963) definition of transitivity, which relies on exactly the same purely formal criteria introduces a subtype in order to accommodate verbs accompanied by prepositional phrases. In effect, according to Doroszewski, a verb is transitive if it is accompanied by a nominal object, intransitive if no object accompanies it, and indirectly transitive if it governs a prepositonal object. 8 The limitations of space do not allow me to expand further on that topic but as I show in Charzy ska-Wójcik (2014), this means that the basic sense of the verb stays the same but the overall meaning of the clause is, according to some researchers (Plank 1982; Goh 2000; Toyota 2009), influenced by the choice of cases.

Chapter Eight

140

they may be more common with some verbs than with others, they are encountered across the whole system in all configurations, i.e., ACC/DAT, ACC/GEN, GEN/DAT, and ACC/DAT/GEN. Some examples of the alternations are shown below.

(3) ACC/DAT: blissian ‘to gladden’

a. ACC Ða se halga ongann hæleþ blissigean then the saint started man-ACC to-gladden ‘Then the saint started to gladden the man.’

<s id="T00050053800" n="1607"> And; A2.1 (CCOE)

b. DAT swa þu, engla god, eallum blissast as you angels’ God all-DAT gladden ‘As You, the God of angels, gladden everybody.’

<s id="T01600000900" n="27"> LPr II; A20 (CCOE)

(4) ACC/GEN: bidan ‘to expect’ a. ACC

hire sweostor… baad þone ecan sige her sister expected the eternal victory-ACC ‘He sister expected eternal victory.’

<s id="T06900048900" n="24.332.14"> Bede 4; B9.6.6 (CCOE)

b. GEN Nu hie softe þæs bidon now they quietly that-GEN expected ‘Now they quietly expected this.’

<s id="T00110003700" n="146"> ChristA,B,C; A3.1 (CCOE)

(5) ACC/DAT/GEN: wiðsacan ‘to reject’ Se fæder wiðsoc his bearne, the father rejected his child-DAT and ðæt bearn wiðsoc ðone fæder, and that child rejected the father-ACC and æt nextan ælc freond wiðsoc oðres and next each friend rejected other-GEN ‘The father rejected the child and that child rejected the father and in the end friends rejected each other.’

<s id="T05210002100" n="110"> LS 34; B3.3.34 (CCOE) The verbs in all the clauses quoted in (3)–(5) above are seen as

transitive in this approach. Note that the non-discriminating nature of this classification, which does not rely on the type of case exhibited by a


141

nominal object, is most fully appreciated with reference to the verbs exhibiting object case alternations. This is summarised in Table 8-1 below.

Table 8-1. Verb types in OE according to Bosworth and Toller

Intransitive verbs Transitive verbs V + 0

V + NP-ACC V + NP-DAT V + NP-GEN

V + NP-ACC/DAT V + NP-ACC/GEN V + NP-GEN/DAT

V + NP-ACC/DAT/GEN The pervasive variability of transitive complementation patterns

contrasts sharply with the single intransitive type and naturally provokes the following set of questions:

(6) i. Do OE intransitive (monovalent) verbs really represent a homogenous

pattern? ii. What is the mutual relationship between transitive and intransitive

structures with the same verb, as in the case of bregdan, efestan, gælan discussed above?

iii. What are the differences between the many transitive patterns shown in Table 8-1?

As will soon be clear, points (6i) and (6ii) can receive a common

answer, while point (6iii) requires a separate treatment. It has already been mentioned that some OE verbs can be used both

transitively and intransitively with the effect that they are classified as transitive in some uses and as intransitive in others. These valency alternations qualify as alternations of the type discussed in Levin (1993). Therefore, it seems that the type is not homogenous and requires the introduction of finer internal distinctions. This issue falls beyond the scope of the present chapter but an investigation into this type of alternation is offered in van Gelderen (2011). In addition, some transitive verbs can appear without an object which they normally require if the object is sufficiently clear from the context. Such cases need to be set apart from

Chapter Eight

142

the former type, as they represent elliptical structures (also referred to as object drop).9

It can, therefore, be concluded that OE monovalent structures do not represent a homogenous type. Instead, they fall into (at least) as many as three different subtypes:

(7) i. intransitive verbs which never appear with an object;

ii. verbs which show both transitive and intransitive uses, representing classifiable alternations of the type discussed in Levin (1993) and van Gelderen (2011);

iii. transitive verbs used in elliptical structures. In effect, both transitive and intransitive clauses represent various

subtypes and any account of OE transitivity should be able to properly express the mutual relationships between them. Bosworth and Toller’s modest theoretical apparatus naturally lacks the necessary formal means, not being a classification per se but it has to be admitted that it has a way of setting apart transitive uses of bivalent verbs from elliptical structures. In particular, some uses of verbs otherwise classified as transitive are marked as absolute. These are illustrated in (8)–(10) below, which contain quotations listed in Bosworth and Toller under the relevant classifications. The actual text, however, is given in the form in which it appears in the Complete Corpus of Old English to ensure consistency in the format of the data quoted.

(8) a. ACC

Ic dealf ðisne pytt. I dug this hole-ACC ‘I dug this hole.’

Gen. 21, 30. (B&T)10

b. absolute Þa dulfon hi in þere ylcan stowe. when dug they in the same place ‘When they dug in the same place.’

Shrn. 113, 13. (BTs)

9 A more insightful discussion of the type is offered in Visser (1963-73) and Charzy ska-Wójcik (2013). 10 The abbreviations B&T and BTs placed next to the primary sources identify the part of the dictionary which a given quote comes from, with the former indicating the main volume of the dictionary and the latter the supplement volume.


143

(9) a. DAT Sum sceal on heape hæleþum cweman. one shall in company men-DAT delight ‘One shall in company give pleasure to men.’

Exon. 88a; Th. 331, 33; Vy. 77. (B&T)

b. absolute Ic cweme I delight ‘I am happy.’

Wrt. Voc. ii. 12, 44. (BTs)

(10) a. GEN His frynd þæs micclum wundrodon and blissodon. his friends that-GEN much wondered-at and rejoiced ‘His friends very much wondered at this and rejoiced it.’

Hml. Th. ii. 26, 11. (BTs)

b. absolute He… sæt mid þam gebeorum blissigende samod. he sat with the guests rejoicing together ‘He sat with the guests rejoicing.’

Hml. S. 26, 327. (BTs) While the very term absolute is, again, one with a long and confused

history in the description of Latin, let us only remark that it is used in Bosworth and Toller to signify an object-less structure with a transitive verb, i.e., to mark elliptical uses (which does not fully correspond to Priscian’s definition of the term).

In effect, Bosworth and Toller’s classificatory system is capable of differentiating (even if only terminologically) between transitive verbs that are used transitively and those that are used absolutely and can formally mark verbs of dual membership. It does not, however, articulate the differences between the subtypes of transitive verbs, implying thereby that they represent a homogenous group. This brings us to question (6iii) posed above, which will, therefore, have to remain unanswered for the time being. I will return to it in section 3, where I will show that treating these verbs as a homogenous group is an oversimplification with implications producing wrong empirical results for OE.

Having looked at the advantages and disadvantages of Bosworth and Toller’s treatment of transitivity with respect to the Old English data, I would like to evaluate the theoretical status of transitivity defined solely with respect to the quantitative parameter. Despite important advances in the study of transitivity viewed as a notion of cross-linguistic validity, one

Chapter Eight

144

can still meet in the current literature definitions of transitivity which rely on the quantitative criterion. This reflects the assertion that

all human languages classify actions into two basic types: those involving one obligatory participant, which are described by intransitive sentences, and those involving two obligatory participants, which are dealt with by transitive sentences. (Dixon 1979, 102)

The status of this criterion is discussed in LaPolla, Kratochvíl, and Coupe (2011). In their evaluation of syntactic (as opposed to semantic) definitions of transitivity, where a quantitative interpretation of the notion certainly belongs, they note what follows.

The traditional syntactic definition of transitivity says that a language has one or more constructions where two arguments are given special status in the clause as core (obligatory) arguments, as opposed to only one argument being given that status. This is straightforward, but defining transitivity in this way doesn’t help us understand very much about the language given the circularity of identifying a clause as transitive because it has two arguments, and saying that it has two core arguments because it is a transitive clause. The traditional view also does not recognise the diversity of morphosyntactic phenomena that show that clauses with two core arguments are not all alike … . (LaPolla, Kratochvíl, and Coupe 2011, 471) In conclusion, the major empirical assets of Bosworth and Toller’s

quantitative approach to OE transitivity consist in: (i) accommodating the variability of the case-marking of verbal objects; (ii) distinguishing between intransitive (absolute) uses of transitive verbs

and: a. genuinely intransitive verbs, b. verbs of dual membership, referred to as ambitransitive or labile.

As for its drawbacks, as already indicated, these are both of a theoretical and an empirical nature. First of all, defining transitivity solely on the basis of the number of core arguments is, as pointed out above, circular. Secondly, Bosworth and Toller’s bi-partite division into transitive and intransitive verbs fails to differentiate between various subtypes of OE transitive verbs – a distinction which will be brought to light in section 3.

3. Qualitative criterion

Another type of traditional approach to transitivity, though with a slightly different focus, takes the presence of a direct object as the defining


145

property of transitive structures. It is represented by Visser (1963-73), whose An Historical Syntax of the English Language constitutes the only attempt at a full, independent classification of OE verbs. Another seminal work devoted to Old English syntax, Mitchell (1985), relies heavily on Visser’s classification, introducing only minor modifications. Similarly, Ogura’s (1996) classification of OE verbs is based on Visser’s typology. Moreover, Ogura focuses more on semantic groupings than on formal aspects. No other authors have explicitly dealt with OE transitivity in any holistic way on such a grand scale or attempted a classification of OE verbs into the relevant types, though there have been a few isolated attempts at interpreting case variation in OE from the perspective of transitivity (cf., for example, Plank 1982; Goh 2000; Toyota 2009; van Gelderen 2011). In spite of these, Visser’s view on OE transitivity remains the definitive word on the matter.

As signalled by the title of the section, Visser’s approach to transitivity relies on the presence of an NP object but, in contrast to Bosworth and Toller’s classification, it differentiates between NP object types, to the effect that it is only the presence of a direct object that makes a clause transitive. Visser’s definition of the term direct object is as follows:

The traditional term ‘direct object,’ in which the meaning of the adjective ‘direct’ is obscure, has been kept here for want of a better. In Old English the direct object is easily recognizable since it is the (pro)noun in the accusative complementing the subject + verb group. … Grammarians have often tried to give a definition based on the kind of notional or logical relation between this complement and its verb, but so far these attempts have been futile, the relations being too multifarious and too heterogeneous to be comprehended in one single term. Only in a few special cases is the direct object “the person or thing to which something is done” (Onions); “the receiver of the action” (Kittredge); “the thing directly affected by the action” (Grattan); “the goal, the object, actually hit or affected by the activity, or thing representing the goal, the real object of the activity” (Curme); “the sufferer(s) of the action” (Stokoe). (Visser 1963-73, §418) In consequence, a verb accompanied by an indirect object is classified

by Visser as intransitive. The crucial aspect of transitivity, then, is what qualifies as a direct object? As shown above, Visser draws a dividing line between objects in the accusative case on the one hand and dative or genitive objects on the other: only the former count as direct objects.11 So 11 In accordance with Visser’s definition of transitivity, Brody (1989), when discussing OE impersonal constructions, says that lician ‘to like’ could not appear

Chapter Eight

146

only verbs with accusative objects are classified as transitive in Visser’s typology, while verbs whose objects are dative or genitive are intransitive, just as verbs which do not take an object of any kind. However, Visser remains silent on the matter of case alternations exhibited by OE verbs and does not classify verbs which show variable object cases. In consequence, the aspect of structure which is crucial in defining transitivity remains underspecified and, while it is clear how to classify verbs with only accusative objects on the one hand, and those with exclusively non-accusative objects on the other, it is not altogether obvious how to treat objects which exhibit alternative accusative vs. non-accusative case marking. This is summarised in Table 8-2 below.

Table 8-2. Visser’s verb types

Intransitive verbs ? Transitive verbs V + 0 V + NP-ACC/DAT V + NP-ACC

V+ NP-DAT V + NP-ACC/GEN V + NP-GEN V + NP-ACC/DAT/GEN

V + NP-GEN/DAT In effect, it might seem that Visser’s classification does not focus on a

verb with the full array of its complementation frames but on individual structures. This impression, however, vanishes when one is confronted with Visser’s classification of “syntactical units in Old English that consist of subject + verb without further complement” (§129), where he distinguishes as many as four different types of verbs, depending on whether these verbs can take an object and, if so, of what type: direct or indirect.12 What has to be added, however, in defence of this classification is that it is only seemingly tailor-made for Old English: in fact, it is more of a diachronic account of the changes to the system. Since later changes to the English language eliminated case distinctions, the variability of case in transitive constructions, i.e., “it could not appear with a nominative experiencer argument and a theme in the accusative case” (Brody 1989, 262). However, in contrast to Visser’s formulation, Molencki (1991) talks about the direct object in OE in the dative or accusative case, clearly indicating the equal status of the two cases. The presence of these contrasting interpretations of what is the direct object in OE shows that the terms direct object and, in consequence, transitivity are understood differently even with reference to the same language. 12 Cf. Charzy ska-Wójcik (2011, 2013) for detailed comments on Visser’s groupings presented in his §129.


147

marking is attested only in OE and eME. As a result, the direct vs. indirect object alternations, which are crucial in defining transitivity in OE, do not constitute a valid aspect of structure when later states of English are examined. Since Visser’s focus is diachronic, the OE data are not viewed from a purely synchronic perspective. Instead, their interpretation is strongly influenced by the later stages of the system, where case alternations do not play a part in defining transitivity.

In conclusion, Visser defines transitivity with respect to the notion of the direct object, without taking a stand on the matter of case alternations, inherent in the system. In effect, his classification works only for verbs with non-alternating object cases or for individual structures.

This kind of underspecification of a crucial notion is a recurring theme in qualitative definitions of transitivity. It is reported by Lapolla, Kratochvíl, and Coupe (2011, 470), who remark that, while standard definitions of transitivity involve the notion of the direct object, “[n]othing is said in these definitions about what a direct object is and how to identify it.” A subtype of this kind of qualitative (rather than quantitative) interpretation of transitivity, though in a different theoretical guise, is represented by approaches resorting to S A P13 in defining transitivity. S denotes the subject of an intransitive clause, while A and P are relations within a monotransitive one. As noted by Haspelmath (2011, 535), these terms “are often taken for granted,” but “there are substantial differences in the literature in the way these terms are understood” (Haspelmath 2011, 538). This is (at least partly) due to the fact that there are no universal criteria for identifying transitive clauses. Precise criteria defining (in)transitivity can often be found in individual languages, but transitivity-related phenomena are so diverse that these criteria “are not generalizable across languages” (Haspelmath 2011, 542).

What transpires from the above is this: if transitivity is defined by the presence of a particular category in a particular language, then classifying

13 The full set of terms is: S, A, P (or O), T, R (or G) but only S, A and P are relevant for our discussion here, while T and R (alongside A) represent relations within ditransitive clauses. The terms appeared in the linguistic literature in the 1970s as tools of comparative linguistics. With time, they were adopted by descriptive linguistics, and the use of the same categories in descriptive and comparative studies has resulted in the categories taking on different meanings. As noted by Haspelmath (2011, 536), there are now three major types of approaches which apply the term: “the Dixonian approach (Dixon 1994, 2000), the Comrian approach (Comrie 1989; Lazard 2002) and the Bickelian approach (Bickel and Nichols 2009; Bickel 2011).”

Chapter Eight

148

clauses in this language as transitive on the basis of the presence of this category is, in effect, perfectly circular. Another very unwelcome reflection following from the same set of observations is whether by applying different criteria to different phenomena approached from different perspectives linguists have not, in effect, defined a different category? Therefore, it seems that, if transitivity is to be a valid notion in OE, we need to see what it entails.

4. Passivisation as an indicator of transitivity

The availability of passivisation, though very imperfect as a universal diagnostic, is normally associated with transitivity.14 Under the most traditional understanding of transitivity, it is the ability to appear in the passive voice (verbum passivum) that qualified a verb as verbum activum. As noted above, the term verbum activum was replaced with transitive verb, but its defining property did not change. If the contrast was not available for a given verb (i.e., the verb was unable to appear in the passive voice), it was classified as verbum neutrum – again, a term which gave way to a newer denotation, i.e., intransitive verb. This basic distinction is still recognised in the modern literature on transitivity, as shown below.

Passivization makes it in many (but not all) cases possible to separate transitive clauses from less transitive ones, since ... only clauses conceived of as somehow transitive are to be passivized in many languages. The acceptability of passivization correlates to some extent with transitivity: the more transitive a clause is, the more readily it can be passivised. (Kittilä 2002, 23) Nowadays, it is mainly the semantic understanding of transitivity that

is directly correlated with passivation (see, for example, Toyota 2009, 11 and de Mattia-Viviès 2009, 105). However, transitivity defined semantically correlates with the presence of a passivisable object and, in this sense, it can serve as a diagnostic for our OE data: since our problem is precisely the lack of a reliable definition of transitivity, we can try using the passivisation test to see how it divides OE verbs into passivisable and

14 This is of course an oversimplification, especially in view of the fact that, as noted by Siewierska (1984), there is not a single property of passive clauses which is universally attested.


149

non-passivisable ones and whether this division correlates with the transitive vs. intransitive distinction. Note that my reasoning here is not circular: I am not defining transitivity with respect to passivisation. My intention is to see how passivisation relates to the two approaches to transitivity presented in sections 1 and 2.

Let me begin with the predictions. If transitive verbs are understood in the sense of Bosworth and Toller (a broad, quantitative definition, by which a verb is transitive if accompanied by an NP object regardless of its case), we expect all verbs which can take an NP object to be passivisable. If, on the other hand, transitivity is viewed in Visser’s terms (a narrow qualitative definition, where only verbs with direct objects are transitive), only verbs which take accusative objects are expected to undergo passivation in OE.

An examination of the passivisation of OE verbs, as shown in Mitchell (1985), Charzy ska-Wójcik (2002) and Quinn (2005), indicates that, while the major division between verbs which can passivise and those that cannot runs along the lines of Bosworth and Toller’s classification, a secondary division within passivisation reflects Visser’s understanding of the notion. In particular, the criterion which qualifies an OE verb for passivisation is its ability to take an NP object, regardless of the actual case of the object. In other words, verbs classified by Bosworth and Toller as transitive (or active) can passivise. However, verbs taking an accusative object (i.e., transitive verbs under Visser’s classification) produce personal passives with a correspondence between the active accusative object and the nominative subject in the passive, as shown in (11) below. In contrast, verbs which take non-accusative objects (in the dative or genitive case) produce impersonal passives, in which the dative or genitive argument which shows up in the active voice remains unchanged under passivisation and the resulting clause has no nominative subject, hence the 3SG form of the verb, as shown in (12) and (13).15

15 It needs to be borne in mind that some verbs which were never accompanied by accusative objects in the earlier part of the period started to appear with accusative NPs in late OE. In consequence, the type of passive these verbs produced changed from the impersonal to the personal type. If the diachronic change of the complementation pattern were ignored, one might get a mistaken impression that verbs which assigned the accusative to the object could appear in impersonal passives.

Chapter Eight

150

(11) personal passivisation a. active clause with ACC

And he eac ofsloh æ ele cyningas, and he also killed noble kings-ACC ‘And he also killed noble kings.’

<s id="T01390142900" n="135.19"> PPs; A5 (CCOE)

b. personal passive Næs seo eadige maria na ofslegen not-was the blessed Mary-NOM not-at-all killed ne gemartyrod lichomlice: Ac gastlice; nor martyred physically but spiritually ‘The blessed Mary was not killed or martyred physically but spiritually.’

<s id="T02140008200" n="146.7"> ÆCHom I, 9; B1.1.10 (CCOE)

(12) impersonal passivisation with a dative NP a. active clause with DAT

þonne god deme manna gehwylcum be ærran gewyrhtan. then God will-judge of-men each-DAT by earlier merits ‘Then God will judge each man by his earlier merits.’

<s id="T05640000200" n="2"> HomU 32 (Nap 40); B3.4.32.3 (CCOE)

b. impersonal passive Si an hi bio læded to þam heofone and to þam soon they are led to the heaven and to the heahsetle þære halgan rinnisse, and him bi þær demed. throne of-the holy Trinity and them-DAT is there judged ‘They are soon led to the heaven and to the throne of the holy Trinity and they are judged there.’

<s id="T05410002400" n="49"> HomU 12.2 (Willard); B3.4.12.2 (CCOE)

(13) impersonal passivisation with a genitive (and dative) NP a. active clause with GEN (and DAT)

For æm þu him sealdest his modes willan, because you him granted his spirit’s wish and þæs þe he mid his weolorum wilnade, and that which he with his lips asked-for þæs þu him ne forwyrndest. that-GEN you him-DAT not refused ‘Because, you granted him the wish of his spirit and you did not refuse to him what he asked for with his lips.’

<s id="T06320026200" n="20.2"> PPs (prose); B8.2.1 (CCOE)


151

b. impersonal passive and him wæs swa forwyrned æs inganges sy an. and him-DAT was so refused the entrance-GEN soon ‘And he was soon refused entry.’

<s id="T03790012100" n="480"> ÆHex; B1.5.13 (CCOE) Note that it is also necessary to see how the verbs not classified by

Visser behave under passivisation. As shown in Mitchell (1985), verbs which optionally take an accusative object tend to produce personal passives:

(14) a. active with ACC

þu hæfst afandod min mod, you have tested my spirit-ACC ‘You have put my spirit to trial.’

<s id="T06320017700" n="16.3"> PPs (prose); B8.2.1 (CCOE)

b. active with GEN Þa a crist axode philippum and he his afandode when Christ asked Philip and he him-GEN tested ‘When Christ tested Philip and put him to trial.’

<s id="T02170004900" n="188.12"> ÆCHom I, 12; B1.1.13 (CCOE)

c. personal passive swa swa gold bi on fyre afandod; just as gold-NOM is in fire tested ‘Just as gold is put to trial in fire.’

<s id="T02040001500" n="4.35"> ÆCHom I (Pref); B1.1.1 (CCOE) In effect, the difference between personal vs. impersonal passivisation

derives from a difference between object types, i.e., it is based on Visser’s contribution to the notion of OE transitivity. It transpires that objects which can (at least potentially) be assigned the accusative case contrast with objects incapable of bearing the accusative. Regardless of whether the two different object types are formally referred to as direct and indirect, the fact remains that there is a distinction between the two object types which is clearly visible under passivisation: accusative objects form personal passives, while non-accusative objects are correlated with impersonal ones. In conclusion, OE passivisation shows that each of the two approaches single-handedly produces the wrong empirical results but a combination of the two interpretations of transitivity accurately accounts for the specificity of OE passivisation.

Chapter Eight

152

5. Concluding remarks

In this chapter, I have presented two traditional accounts of OE transitivity. They represent a broad and narrow understanding of the notion and, as I have shown, each of them has its strengths and weaknesses. The former, i.e., the broad quantitative interpretation of Bosworth and Toller, relies on the number of nominal arguments of the verb in defining transitivity. It has been shown to accommodate the pervasive variability of OE object case alternations by classifying a verb as transitive if it is accompanied by an NP object regardless of its case. In contrast, the narrow, i.e., qualitative approach to transitivity of Visser relies on the presence of the direct object in defining transitivity and by direct object Visser means only the NP object formally marked with the accusative case. The variability of object cases is not tackled at all in this approach.

The two approaches have been evaluated on theoretical and empirical grounds. Both are viewed in the current linguistic literature as insufficient and circular – a conclusion only to be expected in view of the more recent advances in linguistic theory and description. As for their empirical power, each of them separately is shown to make wrong predictions with respect to the peculiarities of OE passivisation. However, the OE facts can be readily explained by appealing to the defining parameters of transitivity of both of the two classifications jointly. In particular, the quantitative classification separates verbs which can be passivised (transitive) from those that cannot (intransitive); the results of the qualitative classification coincide with the division of verbs between those which form personal passives (transitive verbs with a direct object in the accusative case) and those which form impersonal passives (intransitive verbs with an indirect object in the dative or genitive case).

An important point where the two views can be shown to converge, although not related to passivisation, is strictly connected with another syntactic operation which affects the number of arguments in a clause, namely object dropping. The treatment of elliptical structures is the same in both approaches. Bosworth and Toller on the one hand, and Visser on the other recognise the tendency of OE verbs to drop the NP object if it is sufficiently implied in the context. The relevant structures are referred to in both sources as absolute.

In addition to that, both classifications recognise the existence of verbs which show transitive and intransitive uses. However, Bosworth and Toller classify the different structures as representing the same verb (transitive and intransitive within one dictionary entry), while Visser


153

(§129) treats them as “etymologically related homonym[s],” i.e., as different verbs, thereby denying a syntactic relationship between the two structures.16 Note, however, that neither Bosworth and Toller, nor Visser approach the question of what is encoded in the differences exhibited by object cases, i.e., the question raised in (6iii) remains unanswered.

Concluding, some of the phenomena related to transitivity are properly accounted for in either of the two theories individually or in both of them jointly, but the problem of object case alternation is not even addressed by either of them. Importantly, if transitivity is related to cases, and on the basis of passivisation we have seen that it is, this dimension cannot be ignored in a classification of OE verbs. It would, therefore, be interesting to see how the current linguistic models with their refined theoretical apparatus fare with respect to OE transitivity. This issue, however, falls beyond the scope of the present chapter but is exhaustively dealt with in Charzy ska-Wójcik (2014).

References Beedham, Christopher. 2010. “The Equivocation of Form and Notation in

Generative Grammar.” In Chomskyan (R)evolutions, edited by Douglas A. Kibbee, 19–42. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Bickel, Balthasar. 2011. “Grammatical Relations Typology.” In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, edited by Jae Jung Song, 399–444. Oxford: OUP.

Bickel, Balthasar, and Johanna Nichols. 2009. “Case Marking and Alignment.” In The Oxford Handbook of Case, edited by Andrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer, 304–21. Oxford: OUP.

Bosworth, Joseph, and Thomas Northcote Toller. 1898. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary Based on the Manuscript Collections of the Late Joseph Bosworth, Edited and Enlarged by T. Northcote Toller. London: Clarendon Press.

Brody, Michael. 1989. “Old English Impersonals and the Theory of Grammar.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 1:262–94.

16 The interpretation of this type of alternation in the current linguistic literature agrees with Bosworth and Toller’s treatment (cf. van Gelderen 2011 and Charzy ska-Wójcik 2011, 2013).

Chapter Eight

154

CCOE = Cameron, Angus, and Roberta Frank, eds. Complete Corpus of Old English: The Toronto Dictionary of Old English Corpus. University of Toronto Centre for Medieval Studies. The Oxford Text Archive. http://ota.ahds.ac.uk/

Charzy ska-Wójcik, Magdalena. 2002. “The Impersonal Passive in Old and Middle English.” Beyond Philology 2:35–51.

—. 2011. “Reflections on Structural Variation in Old English Verbs.” In New Perspectives in Language, Discourse and Translation Studies, edited by Miros aw Pawlak and Jakub Bielak, 137–51. Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London and New York: Springer.

—. 2013. “The Salient Silence – Against a Unique Membership-Based Typology of Old English Verbs.” In PASE Papers in Linguistics, edited by Marcin Kleban and Ewa Willim, 37–53. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiello skiego.

—. 2014. “Transitivity à la Old English.” In Language Change: Faces and Facets, edited by Magdalena Charzy ska-Wójcik, Jerzy Wójcik, and Anna Bloch-Rozmej, 43–75. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.

Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Curme, George Oliver. 1931. A Grammar of the English Language. In Three Volumes. Volume III: Syntax. Boston and New York: D.C. Heath and Company.

Dixon, Robert Malcolm Ward. 1979. “Ergativity.” Language 55:59–138. —. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: CUP. —. 2000. “A Typology of Causatives: Form, Syntax and Meaning.” In

Changing Valency: Case Studies in Transitivity, edited by Robert Malcolm Ward Dixon and Alexandra Yurievna Aikhenvald, 30–83. Cambridge: CUP.

Doroszewski, Witold. 1963. Podstawy Gramatyki Polskiej. Cz 1. Wydanie 2. Warszawa: PWN.

Gelderen, Elly van. 2011. “Valency Changes in the History of English.” Journal of Historical Linguistics 1(1):106–43.

Goh, Gwang-Yoon. 2000. “Alternative Case Markings in Old English Texts.” English Studies 3:185–98.

Grattan, John Henry Grafton, and Percival Gurrey. 1925. Our Living Language: A New Guide to English Grammar. London and Edinburgh: T. Nelson and Sons, Ltd.

Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. “On S, A, P, T, and R as Comparative Concepts for Alignment Typology.” Linguistic Typology 15(3):535–67.


155

Johnson, Samuel. Preface to A Dictionary of the English Language: A Digital Edition of the 1755 Classic by Samuel Johnson, edited by Brandi Besalke. Last modified December 16, 2013. Accessed February 20, 2014. http://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/?page_id=8.

Kittilä, Seppo. 2002. Transitivity: Towards a Comprehensive Typology. Turku: University of Turku Press.

Kittredge, George Lyman, and Frank Edgar Farley. 1913. An Advanced English Grammar: With Exercises. Boston, New York, Chicago and London: Ginn and Company.

Lapolla, Randy John, František Kratochvíl, and Alexander Robertson Coupe. 2011. “On Transitivity.” Studies in Transitivity: Insights from Language Documentation, special issue of Studies in Language 35(3):469–92.

Lazard, Gilbert. 2002. “Transitivity Revisited as an Example of a More Strict Approach in Typological Research.” Folia Linguistica 36(3-4):141–90.

Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

Mattia-Viviès, Monique de. 2009. “The Passive and the Notion of Transitivity.” Review of European Studies 1(2):94–109.

Michael, Ian. 1970. English Grammatical Categories and the Tradition to 1800. Cambridge: CUP.

Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English Syntax. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Molencki, Rafa . 1991. Complementation in Old English. Katowice:

Uniwersytet l ski. Murray, Lindley. 1808. An English Grammar: Comprehending the

Principles and Rules of the Language, Illustrated by Appropriate Exercises and a Key to the Exercises. In Two Volumes. York: Thomas Wilson and Son.

Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical Transitivity. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Ogura, Michiko. 1996. Verbs in Medieval English. Differences in Verb Choice in Verse and Prose. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Onions, Charles Talbut. [1905] 1927. An Advanced English Syntax Based on the Principles and Requirements of the Grammatical Society. 4th

edition. London: Swan Sonnenschein and Co. Plank, Frans. 1982. “Coming into Being among the Anglo-Saxons.” Folia

Linguistica 16:73–118. Quinn, Heidi. 2005. The Distribution of Pronoun Case Forms in English.

Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Chapter Eight

156

Siewierska, Anna. 1984. The Passive: A Comparative Linguistic Analysis. London: Croom Helm.

Stokoe, Henry Robert. 1937. The Understanding of Syntax. London: W. Heinemann.

Toller, Thomas Northcote. 1921. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary Based on the Manuscript Collections of the Late Joseph Bosworth. Supplement. London: Clarendon Press.

Toyota, Junichi. 2009. “Passive as an Indicator of Alignment Change in Terms of Transitivity.” Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 49:41–52.

Visser, Frederick Theodore. 1963-73. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Leiden: Brill.

old english transitivity: a view from the past

Documents