Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

2.1.2.Intransitive, transitive and monadic unaccusative verbs

quickinfo

The distinction between transitive and intransitive verbs is taken from traditional grammar, where the defining distinction between these two classes is taken to be the number of nominal arguments they take: intransitive verbs take one argument that appears as a subject, whereas transitive verbs take two arguments which appear as, respectively, a subject and a direct object. The contrast between subjects and objects is made visible by case. The subject de man'the man' in (15a) and (16a) is assigned nominative case, which is clear from the fact that it can be replaced by the nominative pronoun hij'he'. The object de jongen'the boy' in (16a), on the other hand, is assigned accusative case, which is clear from the fact that it can be replaced by the object pronoun hem'him'.

a.		De man/Hijnom	huilt.
		the man/he	cries

b.		Het meisje/Zijnom	lacht.
		the girl/she	laughs

a.		De man/Hijnom	achtervolgt	de jongen/hemacc.
		the man	chases	the boy/him

b.		Het meisje/Zijnom	leest	de krant/hemacc.
		the girl/she	reads	the newspaper

c.		Jan/Hijnom	brak	de vaas/hemacc.
		Jan/he	broke	the vase/hemacc

Although the traditional distinction between intransitive and transitive verbs is intuitively clear-cut, it seems too course-grained given that there is a class of verbs exhibiting properties of both transitive and intransitive verbs. Some typical examples of such verbs, which will be called unaccusative for reasons that will become clear shortly, are given in (17). This section will argue that the verbs in (17) cannot be considered intransitive on a par with those in (15) by showing on the basis of several tests that the subjects in (17) are not external but internal arguments.

a.		Jan/Hijnom	arriveert	op tijd.
		Jan/he	arrives	in time

b.		De vaas/Hijnom	brak.
		the vase/he	broke

Preliminary evidence in favor of the claim that unaccusative verbs take an internal argument is that the semantic relation between the subject noun phrase de vaas'the vase' and the monadic verb breken'to break' in (17b) is similar to that between the object noun phrase de vaas and the dyadic verb breken in the transitive construction in (16c). By saying that the noun phrase de vaas is an internal (theme) argument of breken in both cases, this semantic intuition is formally accounted for.
The term unaccusative verb derives from the fact that, in contrast to (in)transitive verbs, verbs like arriveren and monadic breken are assumed to be unable to assign accusative case to their internal argument, which must therefore be assigned nominative case. In this respect, unaccusative verbs are similar to passive participles; in the passive counterparts of the transitive constructions in (16), which are given in (18), the internal argument of the transitive verbs achtervolgen'to chase', lezen'to read' and breken'to break' cannot be assigned accusative case and they therefore also appear as nominative phrases, that is, as subjects of the passive constructions.

a.		De jongens	worden	achtervolgd	(door de man).
		the boys	are	chased	by the man

b.		De krant	wordt	gelezen	(door het meisje).
		the newspaper	is	read	by the girl

c.		Het glas	wordt	gebroken	(door Jan).
		the glass	is	broken	by Jan

We will see in Subsection II that there are more similarities between subjects of passive constructions and subjects of unaccusative verbs, which can be explained if we assume that the latter occupy a similar base position as the former; we are dealing in both cases with internal theme arguments that surface as derived subjects of the constructions. To emphasize the similarity of the internal argument (direct object) of a transitive verb and the internal argument (subject) of an unaccusative verb, we will often use the term DO-subject for the latter.
The discussion is organized as follows, subsection I starts by giving a general characterization of the intransitive, transitive and monadic unaccusative verbs. Since the intransitive and unaccusative verbs share by which the property of taking a single argument, they can readily be confused; the means to distinguish these two classes will be discussed in Subsection II, subsection III concludes with a brief discussion of a number of verbs that meet some but not all criteria for assuming unaccusative status, and raises the question as to whether these verbs can be considered a special class of unaccusatives.

I. General introduction
II. Distinguishing intransitive from unaccusative verbs
III. A second class of unaccusative verbs?
IV. More on auxiliary selection and unaccusativity
V. Conclusion

[+] I. General introduction

This subsection provides a general characterization of the intransitive, transitive and monadic unaccusative verbs, as well as a small representative sample of each verb class. This subsection further focuses on the fact that the distinction between transitive and intransitive verbs is not always clear-cut, given that transitive verbs can occur without an object in some cases and that intransitive verbs can sometimes occur with an object.

[+] A. Transitive verbs

Transitive verbs like kopen'to buy' or lezen'to read' in (19) select two nominal arguments, one external and one internal. The external argument is realized as the subject and normally refers to an agent or a cause of the event, whereas the internal argument is realized as the direct object of the clause and normally refers to the theme of the event.

a.		JanAgent	kocht	een leuke romanTheme.
		Jan	bought	a nice novel

b.		MarieAgent	leest	de krantTheme.
		Marie	reads	the newspaper

c.		JanAgent	rookt	een sigaarTheme.
		Jan	smokes	a cigar

d.		MarieAgent	schildert	de stoelTheme.
		Marie	paints	the chair

Generally speaking, the two arguments must be overtly expressed, as is clear from the fact that example (20a) is severely degraded. There are, however, many exceptions to this rule; example (20b), for instance, is fully acceptable despite the fact that there is no direct object. It should be noted, however, that the theme argument is semantically implied in such cases, and interpreted as a canonical object of the verb lezen'to read'; Marie is reading a text of some sort. That the theme argument is semantically implied is also clear from the fact that the pronoun het in the clause within parentheses can refer to the thing that Marie is reading. See Levin (1993: Section 1.2) and Van Hout (1993: Section 2.5) for more discussion.

a.	*	Jan kocht	(maar	ik	kon	niet	zien	wat	het	was).
		Jan bought	but	I	could	not	see	what	it	was

b.	Marie leest	(maar	ik	kan	niet	zien	wat	het	is).
	Marie reads	but	I	can	not	see	what	it	is
	'Marie is reading, but I canʼt see what it is.'

Dropping the direct object is also possible in examples like (19c&d), but this gives rise to an habitual or an occupational reading; example (21a) expresses that Jan is an habitual smoker, and (21b) expresses that Marie has an occupation as a painter or is painting pictures as a hobby. We will refer to the verbs in (20b) and (21) as pseudo-intransitive verbs.

a.		Jan rookt.	habitual
		Jan smokes

b.		Marie schildert.	occupational
		Marie paints

The properties of transitive verbs will be illustrated by means of a very small sample of verbs. Example (22) therefore gives a somewhat larger sample of verbs behaving in the same way. This sample is of course not exhaustive; the set of transitive verbs is an open class that consists of numerous lexical items, and which can readily be extended by adding borrowings or new coinages.

Transitive verbs: aaien'to stroke/pet', bewonderen'to admire', blussen'to extinguish', eten'to eat', groeten'to greet', kopen'to buy', kopiëren'to copy', kussen'to kiss', knippen'to cut', legen'to empty', onderzoeken'to investigate', roken'to smoke', schilderen'to paint', schillen'to peel', slaan'to beat', zien'to see', etc.Transitive verbs: aaien'to stroke/pet', bewonderen'to admire', blussen'to extinguish', eten'to eat', groeten'to greet', kopen'to buy', kopiëren'to copy', kussen'to kiss', knippen'to cut', legen'to empty', onderzoeken'to investigate', roken'to smoke', schilderen'to paint', schillen'to peel', slaan'to beat', zien'to see', etc.

[+] B. Intransitive verbs

The defining property of intransitive verbs like huilen'to cry' and slapen'to sleep' is that they select an external nominal argument only. This argument is normally an agent or a cause, and is realized as the subject of the clause. Intransitive verbs are normally not accompanied by a direct object, as is clear from the fact that (23a') is degraded. Occasionally, however, intransitive verbs can be accompanied by a so-called cognate object. Consider the verb slapen'to sleep' in (23b), which implies that Marie is having a sleep. This information can at least marginally be made explicit by adding a direct object, as in (23b'), provided that the object expresses some information that is not already implied by the verb; a modifier is obligatorily present. Something similar is illustrated by the (c)-examples; the cognate object is acceptable given that it has a negative connotation that is not part of the meaning of the verb.

a.		Jan huilt.
		Jan cries

a'.	*	Jan huilt	een traan.
		Jan cries	a tear

b.		Marie slaapt.
		Marie sleeps

b'.		Marie sliep	een *(verkwikkende) slaap.
		Marie slept	a refreshing sleep

c.		Jan praat.
		Jan talks

c'.		Jan praat	onzin.
		Jan talks	nonsense

Example (24) gives a small sample of typical intransitive verbs. In the discussion below, we will illustrate the properties of the intransitive verbs only by means of a small subset of these examples. Note that many of these verbs involve voluntary or involuntary bodily functions, which shows that the notion of agent does not imply that the activity can be controlled by the external argument.

Intransitive verbs: ademen'to breathe', boeren'to belch', blozen'to blush', dansen'to dance', dromen'to dream', falen'to fail', gapen'to yawn', hoesten'to cough', huilen'to cry', ijlen'to be delirious', lachen'to laugh', morren'to grumble', plassen'to pee', skiën'to ski', slapen'to sleep', werken'to work', zwemmen'to swim', zweten'to sweat', etc.Intransitive verbs: ademen'to breathe', boeren'to belch', blozen'to blush', dansen'to dance', dromen'to dream', falen'to fail', gapen'to yawn', hoesten'to cough', huilen'to cry', ijlen'to be delirious', lachen'to laugh', morren'to grumble', plassen'to pee', skiën'to ski', slapen'to sleep', werken'to work', zwemmen'to swim', zweten'to sweat', etc.

[+] C. Unaccusative verbs

Contrary to what traditional grammar assumes, the set of monadic verbs is not a uniform category; Subsection II will show that the intransitive verbs in (24) should be distinguished from the so-called unaccusative verbs in (25).

a.		Jan arriveert.
		Jan arrives

b.		Het glas	breekt.
		the glass	breaks

Example (26) gives a small sample of such verbs. Unaccusative verbs normally denote some process and the subject is normally not presented as an agent but as a theme, that is, an entity that undergoes the process.

Unaccusative verbs: arriveren'to arrive', barsten'to burst', gebeuren'to occur', groeien'to grow', kapseizen'to capsize', ontstaan'to arise', ontwaken'to wake up', rimpelen'to wrinkle', sneuvelen'to fall', stagneren'to stagnate', sterven'to die', struikelen'to stumble', vallen'to fall', verdwijnen'to disappear', verlopen'to pass/to elapse', verschijnen'to appear', verwelken'to wither', voorkomen'to happen', zinken'to sink', zwellen'to swell', etc.Unaccusative verbs: arriveren'to arrive', barsten'to burst', gebeuren'to occur', groeien'to grow', kapseizen'to capsize', ontstaan'to arise', ontwaken'to wake up', rimpelen'to wrinkle', sneuvelen'to fall', stagneren'to stagnate', sterven'to die', struikelen'to stumble', vallen'to fall', verdwijnen'to disappear', verlopen'to pass/to elapse', verschijnen'to appear', verwelken'to wither', voorkomen'to happen', zinken'to sink', zwellen'to swell', etc.

[+] D. The gradual nature of the distinction between transitive and intransitive verbs

The previous subsections have shown that certain transitive verbs can be used as pseudo-intransitive verbs, that is, as intransitive verbs with an implied canonical object, and that certain intransitive verbs can be used transitively, that is, with a cognate object. These two facts show that the distinction between transitive and intransitive verbs is not absolute but gradual. It is therefore not surprising that some researchers (such as Hale and Keyser 1993) have argued that the two verb classes must actually be considered one single class. If so, whether a direct object is overtly expressed may depend on whether a canonical object is semantically implied by the semantics of the verb; a direct object can only be used if it adds something to the meaning inherently expressed by the verb.
This can be clarified by means of a verb like dansen'to dance', which can readily be used both as an intransitive and as a transitive verb, as shown by the examples in (27). The reason why (27a) is marked with the direct object present is that the latter is redundant: the verb dansen already semantically implies that some sort of dance is performed. Example (27b), on the other hand, is acceptable with the direct object present since the direct object conveys information that is not implicitly present in the verb: it provides more information about the type of dance that is involved.

a.		Jan danste	(*?een dans).
		Jan danced	a dance

b.		Jan danste	de tango.
		Jan danced	the tango

Perhaps something similar occurs with intransitive motion verbs like schaatsen'to skate' and lopen'to walk'. The primed examples in (28) show that cognate objects are particularly common with these verbs, where they trigger a reading according to which the subject partakes in some sporting activity; the cognate object then refers to some conventional unit that must be covered or to some specific sports event. For example, sentence (28a') expresses that Jan is involved in a 5-kilometer long skating race/participates in the famous Frisian skating marathon that goes through 11 Frisian cities. Example (28b') provides similar examples with the verb lopen'to walk'.

a.	Jan schaatst	op de vijver.
	Jan skates	on the lake
	'Jan is skating on the lake'

a'.	Jan schaatst	de vijf kilometer/de Elfstedentocht.
	Jan skates	the five kilometers/the Elfstedentocht
	'Jan is skating the five kilometers/Frisian skating marathon.'

b.	Jan loopt	buiten.
	Jan walks	outside
	'Jan is walking outside.'

b'.	Jan loopt	de 100 meter/de Amsterdam marathon.
	Jan runs	the 100 meters/the Amsterdam marathon
	'Jan is running the 100 meters/the annual marathon held in Amsterdam.'

The discussion of the examples above suggests that it may not be necessary to distinguish between intransitive and transitive verbs: the crucial factor is not whether the verb takes a direct object but whether this object can express non-redundant information. Although we do not want to take a stand on the idea that intransitive and transitive verbs constitute a single verb class (and will continue to use these two notions), we believe that the fact that the issue can be raised supports the claim that the classification of verbs should not primarily focus on the adicity of the verb; the basic question is not how many arguments a certain verb takes, but what types of arguments.

[+] II. Distinguishing intransitive from unaccusative verbs

Transitive verbs can normally be distinguished easily from intransitive and unaccusative verbs for the simple reason that the former selects two arguments, whereas the latter two select only a single argument. The fact that intransitive and unaccusative verbs are both monadic, on the other hand, makes it harder to distinguish between these two types. This subsection shows, however, that various properties of verbs depend on whether the verb in question takes an external and/or an internal argument. These properties can therefore be used as tests in order to establish whether we are dealing with an intransitive or an unaccusative verb.

[+] A. Thematic role of the subject

In the prototypical case, transitive and intransitive verbs denote activities; subjects of such verbs are agents that are performing these activities. For this reason the subject of an intransitive or transitive verb typically refers to a +animate participant (or an instrument that is especially designed to perform a specific task).

a.		JanAgent/*het boek	lacht.
		Jan/the book	laughs

b.		JanAgent/*de kachel	rookt	een sigaar.
		Jan/the heater	smokes	a cigar

Unaccusative verbs, on the other hand, generally denote processes; subjects of such verbs are themes, that is, participants undergoing these processes. The fact that the subject of an unaccusative verb is not an agent accounts for the fact that, like the direct object of a transitive verb, it can readily refer to a -animate participant in the event. This is shown in (30).

a.	De jongensTheme/boekenTheme	arriveren	morgen.
	the boys/books	arrive	tomorrow
	'The boys will arrive tomorrow.'

b.		JanTheme/het boekTheme	viel.
		Jan/the book	fell

If we assume that agents are typically external arguments and themes are typically internal arguments, this contrast between intransitive and unaccusative verbs follows from the claim that subjects of the former are external, whereas subjects of the latter are internal arguments. We refer the reader to Subsection III for a discussion of a set of apparently intransitive verbs like branden'to burn' and smeulen'to smolder' that may take inanimate subjects.

[+] B. ER-nominalization

Subsection A has shown that intransitive and transitive verbs normally denote activities and that the external arguments of such verbs refer to agents, that is, entities performing those activities. It is therefore not surprising that many of these verbs can be the input of er-nominalization, that is, the morphological process that derives agentive nouns by means of suffixation of the verbal stem with the affix -er (or one of its allomorphs); cf. Sections N1.3.1.5 and N2.2.3.1. The resulting noun refers to an entity performing the action denoted by the input verb. In (31a&b), we give some examples involving transitive verbs. It should be noted, however, that there are also many transitive verbs like groeten'to greet' in (31c) that, for unclear reasons, do not readily allow er-nominalization (although it is possible to find examples of de groeter in humorous contexts; cf. pasopaardig.nl).

a.		De manAgent	achtervolgt	de jongensTheme.
		the man	chases	the boys

a'.		de achtervolgerAgent	van de jongensTheme
		the chaser	of the boys

b.		De meisjesAgent	lezen	de krantTheme.
		the girls	read	the newspaper

b'.		de lezersAgent	van de krantTheme
		the readers	of the newspapers

c.		JanAgent	groette	de buurmanTheme.
		Jan	greeted	the neighbor

c'.	*?	de groeter	van	de buurman
		the greeter	of	the neighbor

Observe that the direct object of the verb can be expressed by means of a post-nominal van-PP. Occasionally, the postnominal van-PP is dropped, in which case the habitual or occupational reading of the pseudo-intransitive verbs in (21) is likely to arise.

a.		Jan rookt.
		Jan smokes

b.		Jan schildert.
		Jan paints

a'.		een roker
		a smoker

b'.		een schilder
		a painter

The vast majority of intransitive verbs also allow er-nominalization. Some examples are given in (33). The unaccusative verbs, on the other hand, never allow er-nominalization, as is illustrated in the examples in (34). Apparently, having an external (agentive) argument is a necessary condition for er-nominalization, and the unaccusative verbs fail to satisfy this condition.

a.		JanAgent	lacht.
		Jan	laughs

b.		JanAgent	droomt.
		Jan	dreams

a'.		een lacher
		a laugh-er

b'.		een dromer
		a dream-er

a.		De gastTheme	arriveert.
		the guest	arrives

b.		De jongenTheme	viel.
		the boy	fell

a'.	*	een arriveerder
		an arrive-er

b'.	*	een valler
		a fall-er

The conclusion that we can draw from the discussion above is given in (35). Recall from Section 1.2.2, sub IIC, that the term unergative verb is a cover term for all verbs with an external argument, that is, intransitive and (di-)transitive verbs.

Generalization I: Er-nominalization is a sufficient (but not a necessary) condition for assuming unergative status for a verb; unaccusative verbs cannot be the input of er-nominalization.

The examples in (36) seem to be exceptions to the generalization in (35): The verbs stijgen'to ascend' and dalen'to descend' in (36a), for example, are unaccusative but still allow er-nominalization. It should be noted, however, that these er-nouns have a lexicalized meaning; they are only used in the context of a listing or a competition (as in sports, charts or financial indexes) and can refer to, e.g., a share that has increased/decreased in value but not to the subject in an example such as Het vliegtuig/De piloot stijgt'the airplane/pilot goes up'. Something similar holds for the noun groeier in (36c), which refers to a plant (and nowadays also companies) that grow fast, not just to anything that grows, or the noun blijvertje in (36b), which refers to something that is of a more lasting nature, not just to any entity that stays in a specific place. It seems that we are dealing with jargon here, or more or less idiomatic expressions.

a.	de	stijgers/dalers	van vandaag	jargon
	the	ascend-ers/descend-ers	of today
	'the shares that increased/decreased in value today'

b.	Loofbomen	zijn	vaak	langzame	groeiers.	jargon
	deciduous.trees	are	often	slow	growers
	'Deciduous trees often grow slowly.'

c.	De CD-speler	is een blijvertje.	idiomatic
	the CD-player	is a stay-er
	'The CD-player is here to stay.'

For a more extensive discussion of agentive er-nouns, see Section N1.3.1.5, where apparent counterexamples such as (36) are also discussed; for the moment we will ignore such cases and simply assume that generalization I in (35) holds in full.

[+] C. Auxiliary selection

Despite the fact that in Dutch the perfect tense can be formed by means of either hebben'to have' or zijn'to be', transitive verbs seem to take hebben only.

a.		De man	heeft/*is	de jongens	achtervolgd.
		the man	has/is	the boys	chased

b.		De meisjes	hebben/*zijn	gisteren	de krant	gelezen.
		the girls	have/are	yesterday	the newspaper	read

The monadic verbs, on the other hand, differ with respect to the auxiliary verb they take. The intransitive verbs always take hebben, whereas the unaccusative ones instead take zijn.

a.	Het kind	heeft/*is	gehuild.
	the child	has/is	cried
	'The child has cried.'

b.		Marie heeft/is	geslapen.
		Marie has/is	slept

a.		De post	is/*heeft	gearriveerd.
		the post	is/has	arrived

b.		Het glas	is/*heeft	gebroken.
		the glass	is/has	broken

The conclusion we can draw from the examples in (37) and (38) is that unergative verbs, that is, verbs selecting an external argument, must take the auxiliary hebben in the perfect tense. The data in (39) suggest that unaccusative verbs, that is, verbs that do no select an external argument, must take the auxiliary zijn in the perfect tense. We will see in Subsection III, however, that the latter probably cannot be upheld in full. The correct generalization therefore seems to be as given in (40).

Generalization II: Selection of the auxiliary zijn is a sufficient (but not a necessary) condition for assuming unaccusative status for a verb; unergative verbs take the auxiliary hebben.

[+] D. Attributive use of the participle

Past/passive and present participles can often be used in prenominal attributive position as modifiers of a noun. This subsection shows that, at least in the case of the past/passive participle, the unergative/unaccusative status of the base verb determines the nature of the modification relation between the participle and the head noun.

[+] 1. Past/passive participles

Past/passive participles of transitive verbs can be used attributively. The singly-primed examples in (41) show that the noun that is modified by the participle corresponds to the internal argument (direct object) of the verb. The doubly-primed examples show that modification of a noun that corresponds to the external argument (subject) of the verb leads to an unacceptable result or an unintended reading; the noun phrase de achtervolgde man in (41a''), for example, cannot refer to the agent (the person who is doing the chasing), but only to the theme (the person who is being chased).

a.		De manAgent	achtervolgt	de jongensTheme.
		the man	chases	the boys

a'.	de	(door de manAgent)	achtervolgde	jongensTheme
	the	by the man	chased	boys
	'the boys who are chased by the man'

a''.	#	de	achtervolgde	manAgent
		the	chased	man

b.		De meisjesAgent	lezen	de krantTheme.
		the girls	read	the newspaper

b'.	de	(door de meisjesAgent)	gelezen	krantTheme
	the	by the girls	read	newspaper
	'the newspaper that has been read by the girls'

b''.	*	de	gelezen	meisjesAgent
		the	read	girls

The examples in (42) show that nouns that correspond to subjects of intransitive verbs are like nouns that correspond to subjects of transitive verbs in that they cannot be modified by means of a past/passive participle.

a.		Het kindAgent	huilt.
		the child	cries

b.		De babyAgent	slaapt.
		the baby	sleeps

a'.	*	het	gehuilde	kindAgent
		the	cried	child

b'.	*	de	geslapen	babyAgent
		the	slept	baby

Nouns that correspond to subjects of unaccusative verbs, on the other hand, can be modified by a past/passive participle, just like nouns that correspond to internal arguments (direct objects) of transitive verbs. This is illustrated in (43).

a.		De postTheme	arriveert.
		the post	arrives

b.		Het glasTheme	brak.
		the glass	broke

a'.		de gearriveerde	postTheme
		the arrived	post

b'.		het	gebroken	glasTheme
		the	broken	glass

From the examples in (41) to (43) we can conclude that only nouns corresponding to an internal argument of a verb can be modified by an attributively used past/passive participle. We will see in Subsection III, however, that not all unaccusative verbs allow attributive use of their past participle. The proper generalization therefore seems to be as given in (44).

Generalization III: The possibility of using the perfect/past participle attributively is a sufficient (but not a necessary) condition for assuming unaccusative status for a monadic verb; the perfect/past participle of an intransitive verb cannot be used attributively.

Recall from Section 2.1.2, sub I, that intransitive verbs may sometimes have a so-called cognate object; the verb dromen'to dream', for example, can be combined with the object een nachtmerrie'a nightmare'. Sometimes intransitive verbs like dromen can also be used in the sense of "creating by means of dreaming". In such cases, the verb of course patterns with the transitive verbs.

a.	Jan droomt	een nachtmerrie/een reis.
	Jan dreams	a nightmare/a journey
	'Jan has a nightmare/Jan creates a journey by means of dreaming.'

de gedroomde nachtmerrie/reis

[+] 2. Present participles

The attributive use of the present participle does not seem to be sensitive to whether the modified noun corresponds to an external or an internal argument of the verb. Rather, it is sensitive to the syntactic function of the phrase that corresponds to the modified noun. The noun modified by the present participle always corresponds to the subject (the nominative argument) of the clause.

a.		De meisjes	lezen	de krant.
		the girls	read	the newspaper

b.		de	lezende	meisjes
		the	reading	girls

c.	*	de	lezende	krant
		the	reading	newspaper

a.		De baby	slaapt.
		the baby	sleeps

b.		de	slapende	baby
		the	sleeping	baby

a.		Het glas	brak.
		the glass	broke

b.		het	brekende	glas
		the	breaking	glass

[+] 3. Attributive modification and aspect

The previous subsections have shown that a noun corresponding to the subject of an unaccusative construction can be modified both by a past and by a present participle. Some additional examples are given in (49). The difference between the two forms is aspectual in nature: the past/passive participles in the singly-primed examples present the events as completed (perfective aspect), whereas the present participles in the doubly-primed examples present the events as ongoing (durative or imperfective aspect).

a.		De gasten	arriveren.
		the guests	arrive

b.		De bladeren	vallen.
		the leaves	fall

a'.	de	gearriveerde	gasten
	the	arrived	guests
	'the guests who have arrived'

b'.	de	gevallen	bladeren
	the	fallen	leaves
	'the leaves that have fallen'

a''.	de	arriverende	gasten
	the	arriving	guests
	'the guests who are arriving'

b''.	de	vallende	bladeren
	the	falling	leaves
	'the leaves that are falling'

The perfective meaning aspect of the past/passive participle is also present if the input verb is transitive, as in de gelezen krant'the newspaper that has been read' in (41b'), and the durative meaning aspect of the present participle is also present if the input verb is transitive or intransitive, as de lezende meisjes'the reading girls' in (46b) and de slapende baby'the sleeping baby' in (47b).

[+] E. (Impersonal) passive

Passivization is typically associated with (di-)transitive verbs. Although it is certainly not true that all transitive verbs can be passivized (cf. Section 3.2.1.1, sub III), many indeed allow this option; some examples are given in (50).

a.		De man achtervolgt	de jongens.
		the man chases	the boys

a'.	De jongens worden	(door de man)	achtervolgd.
	the boys are	by the man	chased
	'The boys are chased (by the man).'

b.		De meisjes	lezen	de krant.
		the girls	read	the newspaper

b'.	De krant	wordt	(door de meisjes)	gelezen.
	the newspaper	is	by the girls	read
	'The newspaper is read (by the girls).'

It is, however, by no means true that passivization is restricted to (di-)transitive verbs; the examples in (51) show that intransitive verbs can also be passivized. Because the passive constructions in the primed examples do not have a subject (nominative argument), they are normally referred to as impersonal passives. Observe that the regular subject position in these impersonal passives is occupied by the expletive element er'there'.

a.		Het kind	huilt.
		the child	cries

a'.		Er	wordt	gehuild	(door het kind).
		there	is	cried	by the child

b.		De baby	slaapt.
		the baby	sleeps

b'.		Er	wordt	geslapen	(door de baby).
		there	is	slept	by the baby

Unaccusative verbs differ from intransitive verbs in that they do not allow impersonal passivization. Some examples illustrating this are given in (52). Observe that we took examples with human subjects, since it is often claimed that there is an animateness restriction on passivization in the sense that clauses that contain a -animate subject cannot be passivized.

a.		De gasten	arriveren.
		the guests	arrive

a'.	*	Er	wordt	(door de gasten)	gearriveerd.
		there	is	by the guests	arrived

b.		De jongen	viel.
		the boy	fell

b'.	*	Er	werd	(door de jongen)	gevallen.
		there	was	by the boy	fallen

The data in this subsection therefore suggest that having an external argument is a necessary condition for passivization of a verb. If no external argument is present, as in the case of unaccusative verbs, passivization is blocked.

Generalization IV: The possibility of passivization is a sufficient (but not a necessary) condition for assuming unergative status for a verb; unaccusative verbs cannot be passivized.

For a more extensive discussion of the restrictions on passivization, we refer the reader to Section 3.2.1.

[+] F. Wat voor split

The so-called wat voor split has played a prominent role in the literature on unaccusative verbs. A wat voor-phrase is an interrogative noun phrase consisting of the sequence wat voor (een)'what for a' followed by a noun. Like all interrogative phrases, the complete noun phrase can be placed in clause-initial position, as is shown in (54a). The notion wat voor split refers to the fact that it is also possible to split the wat voor-phrase and to place the interrogative element wat in clause-initial position while stranding the remainder of the phrase, as in (54b). We refer the reader to Section N4.2.2 for a more extensive discussion of wat voor-phrases.

a.	Wat	voor	(een)	krant	hebben	die meisjes	gelezen?
	what	for	a	newspaper	have	those girls	read
	'What kind of newspaper have those girls read?'

b.	Wat	hebben	die meisjes	voor	(een)	krant	gelezen?
	what	have	those girls	for	a	newspaper	read
	'What kind of newspaper did those girls read?'

What is relevant here is that it has been claimed that the wat voor split is only possible if the split noun phrase is an internal argument (direct object), as in (54b). If the split applies to an external argument, the result indeed seems severely degraded. This is shown in (55b).

a.	Wat	voor	een	meisjes	hebben	een krant	gelezen?
	what	for	a	girls	have	a newspaper	read
	'What kind of girls have read a newspaper?'

b.	*	Wat	hebben	voor	een	meisjes	een krant	gelezen?
		what	have	for	a	girls	a newspaper	read
		'What kind of girls have read a newspaper?'

If the generalization that the wat voor split is only possible with internal arguments is correct, it is predicted that the subject of an unaccusative verb can undergo it, whereas it is blocked in the case of an intransitive verb. Things are not so simple, however, since it has been suggested that the degraded status of (55b) is not due to the fact that the wat voor-phrase is an external argument, but to the fact that it is an indefinite noun phrase; in many cases, indefinite subjects require the presence of the expletive element er'there'. And, although the judgments of native speakers vary, example (55b) seems to improve considerably if this expletive is added, as in (56).

%	Wat	hebben	er	voor	een	meisjes	een krant	gelezen?
	what	have	there	for	a	girls	a newspaper	read
	'What kind of girls have read a newspaper?'

Although this observation makes it rather dubious that taking recourse to the wat voor split can help us to make a distinction between intransitive and unaccusative verbs, let us see how these verbs behave in this respect. As is shown in (57), unaccusative verbs do indeed allow the wat voor split. Note that if expletive er is dropped the examples become unacceptable.

a.		Wat	voor	gasten	zijn	??(er)	gearriveerd?
		what	for	guests	are	there	arrived

a'.		Wat	zijn	*(er)	voor een gasten	gearriveerd?
		what	are	there	for a guests	arrived

b.		Wat	voor	een spullen	zijn	*?(er)	gevallen?
		what	for	a things	are	there	fallen

b'.		Wat	zijn	*(er)	voor	een	spullen	gevallen?
		what	are	there	for	a	things	fallen

Applying the wat voor split to intransitive verbs gives rise to a perhaps somewhat marked result, but it seems an exaggeration to declare them ungrammatical. The examples in (58) also become unacceptable if eris dropped, but we did not indicate this for the sake of clarity of presentation.

a.		Wat	voor	jongens	hebben	er	gehuild?
		what	for	boys	have	there	cried

a'.	%	Wat	hebben	er	voor	jongens	gehuild?
		what	have	there	for	boys	cried

b.		Wat	voor	mensen	hebben	er	gedroomd?
		what	for	people	have	there	dreamed

b'.	%	Wat	hebben	er	voor mensen	gedroomd?
		what	have	there	for people	dreamed

The hypothesis that intransitive and unaccusative verbs differ in that the former take an external and the latter an internal argument is supported by the data in this subsection only insofar as example (56) and the primed examples in (58) are marked.

[+] G. Summary

Table 2 summarizes the discussion in the previous subsections. Row 1 indicates whether the verb takes an external and/or an internal argument, and relates this to the semantic role the referent of the argument in question plays in the event denoted by the verb. Row 2 shows that verbs can only function as the input of the formation of an agentive er-noun if they take an external argument; the derived noun refers to the entity performing the action denoted by the verbal stem. Row 3 indicates whether the verb selects the auxiliary hebben or zijn in the perfect tense. Row 4 indicates whether the past/passive participle can be used attributively and, for the transitive verbs, what argument the modified noun corresponds to. Row 5 indicates whether or not the verb allows (impersonal) passivization and row 6, finally, indicates whether the argument(s) of the verb allow a wat voor split.

Table 2: Properties of transitive, intransitive and unaccusative verbs (to be revised)

		transitive		intransitive	unaccusative
1.	argument(s)	external (agent)	internal (theme)	external (agent)	internal (theme)
2.	er-nominalization	+	—	+	—
3.	auxiliary selection	hebben		hebben	zijn
4.	attributive use of past/passive participle	—	+	—	+
5.	(impersonal) passive	+		+	—
6.	wat voor split	%	+	%	+

This table nicely demonstrates the relation between the type(s) of argument that the verb takes and the properties discussed. At least the material implications in (59) seem to hold. Note that we do not include the wat voor split in this list, because it is not obvious that it really determines whether we are dealing with an internal argument; the data is simply not clear enough for claiming that.

er-nominalization → external argument (unergative verb)

auxiliary zijn → no external argument (unaccusative verb)

attributive use of the past/passive participle → internal argument (unaccusative verb, if monadic)

(impersonal) passive → external argument (unergative verb)

The material implications in (59) are given in their present form on purpose; they express that the consequence (= the part after the arrow) is a sufficient but possibly not a necessary condition for the antecedent (= the part before the arrow) to hold: the formulation in (59b), for example, expresses that a verb selecting zijnmay not have an external argument, but it does not exclude the possibility that additional conditions must be met in order to license zijn. Or, to say it differently, (59b) expresses that we may conclude from the fact that a verb takes zijnin the perfect tense that no external argument is present, but not that all verbs without an external argument take zijn. The material implications in (59) therefore correspond to the generalizations I-IV formulated in the previous subsections, repeated here as (60).

Generalization I: Er-nominalization is a sufficient (but not a necessary) condition for assuming unergative status for a verb; unaccusative verbs cannot be the input of er-nominalization.Generalization I: Er-nominalization is a sufficient (but not a necessary) condition for assuming unergative status for a verb; unaccusative verbs cannot be the input of er-nominalization.

Generalization II: Selection of the auxiliary zijn is a sufficient (but not a necessary) condition for assuming unaccusative status for a verb; unergative verbs take the auxiliary hebben.Generalization II: Selection of the auxiliary zijn is a sufficient (but not a necessary) condition for assuming unaccusative status for a verb; unergative verbs take the auxiliary hebben.

Generalization III: The possibility of using the perfect/past participle attributively is a sufficient (but not a necessary) condition for assuming unaccusative status for a monadic verb; perfect/past participles of intransitive verbs cannot be used attributively.Generalization III: The possibility of using the perfect/past participle attributively is a sufficient (but not a necessary) condition for assuming unaccusative status for a monadic verb; perfect/past participles of intransitive verbs cannot be used attributively.

Generalization IV: The possibility of passivization is a sufficient (but not a necessary) condition for assuming unergative status for a verb; unaccusative verbs cannot be passivized.Generalization IV: The possibility of passivization is a sufficient (but not a necessary) condition for assuming unergative status for a verb; unaccusative verbs cannot be passivized.

[+] III. A second class of unaccusative verbs?

The discussion in Subsections I and II summarizes the results of the generative research over the last two or three decades, and is representative of what can be assumed to be the "standard" view (which does not mean that the distinction between intransitive and unaccusative verbs has not been challenged). There is, however, a group of monadic verbs that seem to have escaped attention. Consider the examples in (61).

a.		Jan bloedt	heftig.
		Jan bleeds	fiercely

b.		Jan drijft	op het water.
		Jan floats	on the water

Below we will see that the verbs in (61) have some properties in common with the unaccusative verbs discussed in Subsection II. There are also, however, several differences, which we will argue to be related to an aspectual difference between the two classes of unaccusative verbs. Example (62) provides a small sample of verbs behaving similarly to the verbs in (61).

Unaccusative verbs (class II): bloeden'to bleed', branden'to burn', drijven'to float', flakkeren/flikkeren'to flicker', lekken'to leak', rotten'to rot', schuimen'to foam', smeulen'to smolder', stinken'to stink', vlammen'to flame', etc.Unaccusative verbs (class II): bloeden'to bleed', branden'to burn', drijven'to float', flakkeren/ flikkeren'to flicker', lekken'to leak', rotten'to rot', schuimen'to foam', smeulen'to smolder', stinken'to stink', vlammen'to flame', etc.

[+] A. Thematic role of the subject

Subsection IIA has shown that intransitive and transitive verbs typically involve actions, and that the subjects of these verbs are therefore typically agentive in nature. This is, however, not the case with the examples in (62); the verbs instead seem to refer to a process and their subject functions as a theme, that is, refers to the participant that is undergoing the process. The examples in (63) show that, concomitant to this, the subject need not refer to a +animate participant in the event. This supports the hypothesis that the verbs in (62) are unaccusative in nature.

a.		De jongen/wond	bloedt	heftig.
		the boy/wound	bleeds	fiercely

b.		De jongen/band	drijft	op het water.
		the boy/tire	floats	on the water

Another fact that seems to support the hypothesis that verbs like these do not take an external/agentive argument is that they normally do not occur in imperatives. This is illustrated in (64) by means of success imperatives. Section 1.4.2 has shown that whereas (pseudo-)intransitive verbs can readily occur in this construction, unaccusative verbs cannot; the verbs in (62) pattern in this respect with the unaccusative verbs.

a.	Slaap	ze!	intransitive
	sleep	ze
	'Sleep well!'

b.	*	Vertrek	ze!	unaccusative (class I)
		leave	ze

c.	*	Bloed	ze!	unaccusative (class II)
		bleed	ze

[+] B. Er-nominalization

Since er-nominalization requires as input a verb selecting an agentive (hence external) argument, we predict that the verbs in (62) cannot undergo this process. The examples in (65) show that this expectation is indeed borne out; the intended interpretations of the er-nouns are given in square brackets.

a.	#	bloeder	someone/thing that is bleeding
		bleed-er

b.	#	brander	someone/thing that is burning
		burn-er

c.	#	drijver	someone/thing that is floating
		float-er

d.	*	lekker	something that is leaking
		leak-er

e.	*	rotter	something that is rotting
		rot-er

f.	*	schuimer	something that is foaming
		foam-er

The fact that the forms in (65) are not acceptable under the intended reading does not imply that they do not occur at all. Bloeder, for example, is a somewhat outdated noun referring to a person suffering from hemophilia. Brander is possible, too, but it denotes an instrument with which, e.g., paint can be removed (and may in fact be derived from the causative counterpart of the verb we are discussing here). Drijver is possible on more or less the intended reading (for example, it can be used for a quill used in fishing), but it is not the case that anything that is floating can be denoted by it. The conclusion must therefore be that the verbs in (62) cannot be the input for the otherwise fairly productive morphological rule that derives agentive er-nouns from intransitive and transitive verbs. This is again an argument in favor of assuming unaccusative status for these verbs.

[+] C. Auxiliary selection

At first sight, auxiliary selection seems to provide evidence against the hypothesis that we are dealing with unaccusative verbs in (62); the examples in (66) show that these verbs select hebben, just like intransitive verbs.

a.	De jongen/wond	heeft/*is	hevig	gebloed.
	the boy/wound	has/is	heavily	bled
	'The boy/wound has bled heavily.'

b.	De jongen/band	heeft/*is	op het water	gedreven.
	the boy/tire	has/is	on the water	floated
	'The boy/tire has floated on the water.'

However, There is reason for assuming that this difference in auxiliary selection between unaccusative verbs like arriveren'to arrive' and vallen'to fall', on the one hand, and verbs like bloeden'to bleed'and drijven'to float', on the other, is aspectual in nature. Processes denoted by the former type of unaccusative verbs are normally construed as being inherently bounded in time; verbs like arriveren and vallen are telic (from Greek telos'goal'), that is, construed as involving some endpoint at which a specific resulting state is obtained. The processes denoted by the latter type, on the other hand, are normally construed as unbounded; verbs like bloeden and drijven are atelic in the sense that no inherent endpoint is implied.
The contrast between the two classes of unaccusative verbs will therefore follow if we assume that the selection of zijn is a special property of telic unaccusative verbs; all other verbs select hebben. The suggestion that telicity is involved in auxiliary selection is supported by the fact that making the events denoted by bloeden and drijven telic by adding a resultative predicate like dood'dead' or a particle like weg'away' forces the use of zijn in the perfect tense. This is shown in (67).

a.		De jongen	bloedt	dood.
		the boy	bleeds	dead

b.		De band	drijft	weg.
		the tire	floats	away

a'.	De jongen	is/*heeft	dood gebloed.
	the boy	is/has	dead bled
	'The boy has bled to death.'

b'.	De band	is/*heeft	weg	gedreven.
	the tire	is/has	away	floated
	'The tire has floated away.'

The fact that the examples in (67) are grammatical at all is actually a second argument in favor of assuming unaccusative status for verbs like bloeden and drijven. With intransitive verbs, the addition of a resultative predicate goes hand in hand with the addition of a second participant in the event structure; example (68a), which involves the intransitive verb huilen'to cry', is ungrammatical without the noun phrase zijn ogen'his eyes'. With unaccusative verbs, on the other hand, the addition of a second noun phrase is excluded, as is shown in (68b); See Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995:ch.2) for extensive discussion.

a.		Jan huilt	*(zijn ogen)	rood.
		Jan cries	his eyes	red

b.		Jan valt	(*zijn vriend)	dood.
		Jan falls	his friend	dead

If verbs like branden and drijvenare indeed unaccusative, we correctly predict that introducing a second participant also gives rise to an ungrammatical result in (69). We will return to examples like these in Section 2.2.

a.		Jan bloedt	(*zijn zusje)	dood.
		Jan bleeds	his sister	dead

b.		De band	drijft	(*het kind)	weg.
		the tire	floats	the child	away

This subsection has argued that selection of the perfect auxiliary zijn is not a necessary but a sufficient condition for assuming unaccusative status for a verb; atelic unaccusative verbs select hebben, just like the unergative verbs. Section 2.1.3 will further support this conclusion by showing that the so-called nom-dat verbs, which are generally considered dyadic unaccusative verbs, may also take hebben in the perfect tense if they are atelic. The claim that selection of zijn is not necessary for assuming unaccusative status was first put forward in Mulder & Wehrmann (1989) on the basis of independent evidence involving locational verbs, which will be reviewed in Section 2.2.3, sub IIC1.

[+] D. Attributive use of the past participle

Subsection IID has shown that intransitive and unaccusative verbs differ with respect to whether the past/passive participle of the verb can be used attributively; past/passive participles of unaccusatives can be used in this way, but those of intransitives cannot. With respect to this test, the verbs in (62) again pattern with the intransitive verbs instead of with the unaccusative ones.

a.	*	de	gebloede	jongen/wond
		the	bled	boy/wound

b.	*	de	gedreven	jongen/band
		the	floated	boy/tire

What we would like to suggest here is that the ungrammaticality of the examples in (70) is again related to the difference in telicity. An example such as de gearriveerde gasten suggests that the guests have reached the endpoint implied by the verb arriveren'to arrive'. Since verbs like bloeden and drijven do not have such an implied endpoint, the examples in (70) are semantically anomalous. As expected under this proposal, the telic examples in (67) do allow the attributive use of the participles (provided that the secondary predicate or particle is present as well):

a.		de	dood	gebloede	jongen
		the	dead	bled	boy

b.		de	weg	gedreven	band
		the	away	floated	tire

The claim that the attributive use of past participles of unaccusative verbs is sensitive to the telicity of the verb is supported by the discussion in Section 2.1.3, where it will be shown that nom-dat verbs allow attributive use of their past participles if they are telic but not if they are atelic.

[+] E. Impersonal passive

Subsection IIE concluded that the presence of an external argument is a necessary condition for passivization. If the verbs in (62) are indeed unaccusatives, they do not have an external argument and therefore we expect passivization to be excluded. The examples in (72) show that this expectation is indeed borne out. Observe that we took examples with human subjects, since it is often claimed that there is an animacy restriction on passivization; clauses that contain a -animate subject cannot be passivized.

a.	*	Er	wordt	hevig	(door Jan)	gebloed.
		there	is	heavily	by Jan	bled

b.	*	Er	wordt	(door die jongen)	op het water	gedreven.
		there	is	by that boy	on the water	floated

It should be noted, however, that just in the case of regular unaccusative verbs, there are stage contexts in which impersonal passivization of the verbs in (62) improves; an example is (73a), in which it is clear that the bleeding events are willful acts of some agent (the actors). A similar example is (73b), which passes the responsibility for the nasty smell in the loo to some unnamed person who is answering nature's call and which is less concerned with the actual cause of the smell. The passive constructions in (73) thus have agentive aspects that are lacking in active sentences such as De acteurs bloeden'The actors are bleeding' or De uitwerpselen stinken'The excrements are stinking'.

a.	Er	wordt	in deze film	weer	flink	gebloed.
	there	is	in this movies	again	a.lot	bled
	'This is another bloody movie.'

b.	Er	wordt	weer eens	gestonken	op de plee.
	there	is	again once	stunk	in the loo
	'Someone is once again stinking up the loo.'

[+] F. Wat voor split

Although we have seen that the wat voor split is not a very reliable test for distinguishing between intransitive and unaccusative verbs, we will give the relevant data here for completeness' sake. The data in (74) show that a wat voor split is possible with the subject of the verbs under discussion, provided that the expletive er is present.

a.	Wat	hebben	*(er)	voor patiënten	gebloed?
	what	have	there	for patients	bled
	'What kind of patients bled?'

b.	Wat	hebben	*(er)	voor banden	in het water	gedreven?
	what	have	there	for tires	in the water	floated
	'What kind of tires floated in the water?'

[+] G. Conclusion

The data in this subsection strongly suggest that the verbs in (62) are a separate class of unaccusative verbs, which differ in their aspectual properties from the unaccusative verbs discussed in Subsection II: whereas the latter are telic, the verbs in (62) are all atelic. The fact that the verbs in (62) do not select zijn in the perfect tense is probably related to their atelicity and the same thing may hold for the fact that the past participle of these verbs cannot be used attributively. More support for the claim that the verbs in (62) are unaccusative can be found in Section 2.2.3, sub IIB2.

[+] IV. More on auxiliary selection and unaccusativity

Subsection IIIC, has shown that the selection of the auxiliary zijn is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for assuming unaccusative status in the sense that the verb must be telic in addition; atelic unaccusative verbs select hebben. The term telicity has been defined in terms of the implied endpoint of an eventuality: telic unaccusative verbs denote eventualities that imply a transition of one state into another. For example, the verb sterven'to die' refers to an eventuality that involves the transition of some entity from the state "alive" to the state "dead"; a present-tense example such as (75a) indicates that the entity referred to by the subject is undergoing this transition, and the perfect-tense example in (75b) indicates that this transition is completed.

a.	De oude man	sterft.
	the old man	dies
	'The old man is dying.'

b.	De oude man	is gestorven.
	the old man	is died
	'The old man has died.'

It has been known for a long time that prototypical telic unaccusative verbs like sterven are sometimes also used with the perfect auxiliary hebben. For example, in order to refer to the completed activity of an actor preparing Hamlet's death scene, we may use the sentence in (76a). An important question is whether the verb sterven in (76a) is still an unaccusative verb (with a theme argument) or whether it is used as an intransitive verb (with an agent). The fact that the verb sterven can be passivized in the given context suggests the latter.

a.	%	Jan heeft	de hele dag	gestorven.
		Jan has	the whole day	died
		'He has died all day.'

b.	%	Er	werd	de hele dag	gestorven.
		here	was	the whole day	died

The percentage signs in (76) are used to indicate that some speakers may consider examples like these as rather forced even within the context sketched. There are, however, more natural cases. Honselaar (1987), for example, provides the examples in (77a&b); we marked the (b)-example with a dollar sign in order to indicate that this is the more special case, as is clear from the fact that the 14th edition of the Van Dale dictionary does not mention the possibility of monadic keren to select hebben.

a.	Toen	zijn	we	gekeerd.
	then	are	we	turned
	'Weʼve turned there.'

b.	$	Toen	hebben	we	gekeerd.
		then	have	we	turned
		'Weʼve turned there.'

Honselaar relates the two alternative realizations to interpretation; whereas (77a) denotes an eventuality that results in a different state (here: a different orientation of movement), (77b) emphasizes the action itself. This difference in interpretation can be accounted for in different ways. One possibility, not discussed by Honselaar, is based on the fact that the unaccusative verb keren'to turn' has the transitive, causative counterpart shown in (78a); see Section 3.2.3 for a discussion of this type of verb frame alternation. This opens up the possibility of analyzing (78b) not as an unaccusative verb, but as the pseudo-intransitive counterpart of causative keren in (78a). Such an analysis would immediately account for the fact that (78b) focuses on the action itself given that Jan functions as an agent (and not as a theme) in this example, as well as the fact that impersonal passivization is possible.

a.	Jan heeft	de auto	gekeerd.	transitive
	Jan has	the car	turned
	'Jan has turned the car.'

a'.		De auto	werd	gekeerd.
		the car	was	turned

b.		Jan heeft	gekeerd.	pseudo-intransitive?
		Jan has	turned

b'.		Er werd gekeerd.
		there was turned

There are, however, cases in which such a solution is not available. Consider, for instance, the examples in (79) that combine motion verbs with a directional PP. Example (79b) provides the unmarked case, in which the perfect tense is formed with the auxiliary zijn. However, Honselaar correctly claims that in examples like (79b&c) the auxiliary hebben can also be used.

a.	Jan is/*heeft	naar Groningen	gewandeld.
	Jan is/has	to Groningen	walked
	'Jan has walked to Groningen.'

b.	Jan is/heeft	naar Groningen	gewandeld	(niet	gefietst).
	Jan is/has	to Groningen	walked	not	cycled
	'Jan has walked to Groningen (he didnʼt cycle).'

c.	Jan is/heeft	zijn hele leven	naar Groningen	gewandeld.
	Jan is/has	his whole live	to Groningen	walked
	'Jan has walked to Groningen all his life.'

Honselaar attributes this to the fact that the examples in (79b&c) do not focus on the resulting state but on the activity itself: in (79b) this is the result of assigning exhaustive focus on the verb and in (79c) by means of the adverbial phrase zijn hele leven'his whole life', which much favors a generic interpretation. The auxiliary hebben becomes possible because placing emphasis on the action denoted by the verb sufficiently suppresses (in our terms) the telicity of these sentences; see Honselaar (1987) and Beliën (2008/2012) for more examples and discussion.

[+] V. Conclusion

The previous subsections have compared transitive, intransitive and unaccusative verbs. The main focus has been on the distinction between intransitive and unaccusative verbs; cf. Perlmutter (1978) and Burzio (1986), subsection II reviewed a number of unaccusativity tests proposed for Dutch by Hoekstra (1984a). The discussion in Subsection III has shown, however, that there seems to be a special class of atelic unaccusative verbs that has been overlooked in the literature so far and that does not satisfy a number of the standard tests. More specifically, these verbs differ from the unaccusative verbs discussed in Subsection II in that they select the perfect auxiliary hebben instead of zijn, and that their past/passive participles cannot be used attributively. We argued that these tests are not only sensitive to the unaccusativity of the verbs but also to their telicity; this claim will also be supported by the discussion of the nom-dat verbs in Section 2.1.3. If we accept the conclusion that there are two types of unaccusative verbs, Table 2 from Subsection IIG, must be revised as in Table 3.

Table 3: Properties of transitive, intransitive and unaccusative verbs (revised)

		transitive		intransitive	unaccusative
					telic	atelic
1.	argument(s)	external (agent)	internal (theme)	external (agent)	internal (theme)
2.	auxiliary selection	hebben		hebben	zijn	hebben
4.	attributive use of past/passive participle	—	+	—	+	—
3.	(impersonal) passive	+		+	—
5.	er-nominalization	+	—	+	—
6.	wat voor split	%	+	%	+

References:

Beliën, Maaike2008Constructions, constraints and construal. Adpositions in DutchFree University AmsterdamThesis
Beliën, Maaike2012Dutch manner of motion verbs: disentangling auxiliary selection, telicity and syntactic functionCognitive Linguistics231-26
Burzio, Luigi1986Italian syntax: a government-binding approachDordrecht/Boston/Lancaster/TokyoReidel
Hale, Ken & Keyser, Samuel1993On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relationsHale, Ken & Keyser, Samuel (eds.)The view from Building 20: essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain BrombergerCambridge, MA/LondonMIT Press53-109
Hoekstra, Teun1984Transitivity. Grammatical relations in government-binding theoryDordrecht/CinnaminsonForis Publications
Honselaar, Wim1987Zijn vs. Hebben in het samengesteld perfectumDe Nieuwe Taalgids8055-68
Honselaar, Wim1987Zijn vs. Hebben in het samengesteld perfectumDe Nieuwe Taalgids8055-68
Levin, Beth1993English verb classes and alternationsChicago/LondonUniversity of Chicago Press
Levin, Beth1993English verb classes and alternationsChicago/LondonUniversity of Chicago Press
Levin, Beth & Rappaport Hovav, Malka1995Unaccusativity at the syntax-lexical semantics interfaceCambridge, MA/LondonMIT Press
Mulder, René & Wehrmann, Pim1989Locational verbs as unaccusativesBennis, Hans & Kemenade, Ans van (eds.)Linguistics in the Netherlands 1989Dordrecht111-122
Perlmutter, D.M1978Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesisBerkeley Linguistics Society4157-189

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riet Vos

Category: Dutch Syntax

Keywords: DO-subjectExpletiveNon-main VerbPerfect AuxiliaryUnaccusative Verb

Version: 1.0, January 2016

Version history:

version	editor(s)	date	remarks
1.0	Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riet Vos	January 2016

report errorprintcite

Jump to:

introduction
references
related articles