Re: Unaccusative vs unergative ...

Muke Tever wrote:

> > The distinction between unaccusative and unergative verbs is structural.
> The
> > idea is this:  Transitive verbs have two structural positions or
> relations,
> > which we could call the "subject" position/relation and the "object"
> > position/relation.  Unergative verbs are intransitives in which the single
> > argument has the basic properties of a subject.  In cases where unergative
> > verbs alternate with transitives, the subject of the unergative
> corresponds
> > to the subject of the transitive:
> >
> >   Transitive:  John ate the sushi.
> >   Unergative:  John ate.
> >
> > Unaccusative verbs are intransitives in which the single argument has some
> of
> > the properties usually associated with the object position/relation.  In
> > cases where unaccusative verbs alternate with transitives, the subject of
> the
> > unaccusative corresponds to the object of the transitive:
> >
> >   Transitive:  John sank the ship.
> >   Unaccusative:  The ship sank.
> [snip]
> > Does that explain the difference adequately?  If not, I'll try again...
>
> I suppose the 'unergative' is so called because it appears in accusative or
> active languages only, and not in ergative ones?
No, it's more warped than that.  In some traditions, verbs like "sink" are
called "ergative verbs" because the subject of the intransitive variant ("The
ship sank") patterns with the object of the transitive variant ("John sank the
ship").  "Unergative verbs" are so called because they're the opposite of
ergative verbs.

However, in most traditions the term "ergative verb" was avoided because of the
potential for confusion with other senses of the word "ergative", and so a
different term had to be invented.  Since the opposite of "ergative" is
"accusative" (subject of intransitive patterns with subject of transitive), it
follows that verbs which are ergative are also "unaccusative".  Thus was
launched one of the most bizarre terminological conventions in linguistics.

Matt.

Reply