Search for a command to run...
TRANSITIVITY IN GRAMMAR AND DISCOURSE Paul J. HopperSandra A. Thompson State University ofNew York,University of California, BinghamtonLos Angeles Transitivity involves a number of components, only one of which is the presence of an object of the verb. These components are all concerned with the effectiveness with which an action takes place, e.g., the punctuality and telicity of the verb, the conscious activity of the agent, and the referentiality and degree of affectedness of the object. These components co-vary with one another in language after language, which suggests that Transitivity is a central property of language use. The grammatical and semantic prominence of Transitivity is shown to derive from its characteristic discourse function: high Transitivity is correlated with foregrounding, and low Transitivity with backgrounding.* The Transitivity Hypothesis 1. A mass of evidence suggests the significance of the notion of Transitivity in the grammars of the world's languages. In this paper, we wish to show (1) that Transitivity is a crucial relationship in language, having a number of universally predictable consequences in grammar, and (2) that the defining properties of Transitivity are discourse-determined. We begin here by presenting a broad theory of Transitivity. In §2 we discuss its morphosyntactic and semantic manifestations; and in §3 we outline an explanation of the grammatical facts within the framework of discourse structure. Transitivity is traditionally understood as a global property of an entire clause, such that an activity is 'carried-over' or 'transferred' from an agent to a patient. Transitivity in the traditional view thus necessarily involves at least two participants (a view which we shall later qualify), and an action which is typically effective in some way. This intuitive understanding is the one which we shall attempt to characterize explicitly and in universal terms. As a first step, we propose to isolate the component parts ofthe Transitivity notion, and to study the ways in which they are typically encoded by languages. We have identified the following parameters of Transitivity, each of which suggests a scale according to which clauses can be ranked. * An earlier version of this paper was presented as a colloquium at the Summer Meeting of the LSA, July 1978. We thank the discussants for their willingness to become involved in our hypothesis and for their valuable advice: Bernard Comrie, Edith Moravcsik, Ellen Prince, and Jerry Sadock. In addition, the following people have been generous in offering comments and discussion on the ideas in this paper: Judith Aissen, Bernard Comrie, Leonard Faltz, Sheldon Harrison, Robert Hetzron, Robert Kirsner, Robert Longacre, Edith Moravcsik, Jean Mulder, Paul Schachter, Maureen Schmid, Russell Schuh, and Stanley Starosta. We are very grateful to all these people for their help, and hereby absolve them of any responsibility for the use we may have made of it. 251 252 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 56, NUMBER 2 (1980) (1) A. Participants B.Kinesis C.Aspect D.Punctuality e. volitionality Affirmation Mode Agency Affectedness of O Individuation of O F. G. H. I. J. LOW 1 participant non-action atelic non-punctual non-volitional negative irrealis A low in potency O not affected O non-individuated high 2 or more participants, A and O.1 action telic punctual volitional affirmative realis A high in potency O totally affected O highly individuated It is easy to show that each component of Transitivity involves a different facet of the effectiveness or intensity with which the action is transferred from one participant to another: (A)Participants : No transfer at all can take place unless at least two participants are involved. (B)Kinesis: Actions can be transferred from one participant to another; states cannot. Thus something happens to Sally in / hugged Sally, but not in / like Sally. (C)Aspect: An action viewed from its endpoint, i.e. a telic action, is more effectively transferred to a patient than one not provided with such an endpoint. In the telic sentence / ate it up, the activity is viewed as completed, and the transferral is carried out in its entirety; but in the atelic / am eating it, the transferral is only partially carried out. (D)Punctuality: Actions carried outwithnoobvioustransitional phasebetween inception and completion have a more marked effect on their patients than actions which are...