Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Intransitive verb

In , an intransitive is a that does not require a direct object to complete its meaning, typically expressing an action or state involving only the . These verbs form the core of simple where the action does not transfer to another entity, distinguishing them from transitive verbs that necessitate an object to receive the action. Common examples include sleep, arrive, and die, as in the sentences "The child sleeps" or "The meeting arrived on time." Intransitive verbs can often appear at the end of a or be followed by optional elements such as adverbs, prepositional phrases, or other to add details about manner, time, or place, but they cannot take a or as a direct complement. For instance, in "She laughed loudly in the room," laughed is intransitive, with loudly and in the room serving as rather than objects. This structure contrasts with transitive constructions, where omitting the object results in an incomplete , and intransitive verbs notably cannot form equivalents. Many verbs exhibit ambitransitivity, allowing them to function as either transitive or intransitive based on , such as run in "They run daily" (intransitive) versus "They run a " (transitive). In linguistic analysis, intransitive verbs are further subdivided into unaccusative (often involving change of state, like fall) and unergative (typically agent-driven activities, like work) categories, which influence syntactic patterns such as subject properties and selection in languages like or . Understanding these distinctions is essential for constructing grammatically correct sentences and analyzing verb valency across languages.

Fundamentals

Definition

An intransitive verb is a verb that does not require a direct object to complete its meaning, typically forming a complete with only a in the syntactic pattern of + . This distinguishes it from other verb types by limiting the verb's valency to one , the , without transferring action to an additional recipient. The term "intransitive" originates from Late Latin intransitīvus, meaning "not passing over," derived from in- ("not") + trānsitīvus ("passing over," as in transitive), reflecting the verb's lack of action transfer to an object. It entered English grammatical terminology in the 17th century, building on classical Latin traditions of classifying verbs by their ability to govern objects. Basic syntactic tests identify intransitive verbs through their resistance to certain transformations. For instance, they cannot undergo passivization, as there is no direct object available to promote to subject position, unlike transitive verbs that permit such restructuring. Additionally, attempting to introduce a direct object typically alters the verb's core meaning or requires a different lexical item, confirming the verb's inherent one-argument structure. In sentence structure, intransitive verbs contribute to economical clause formation by achieving semantic completeness without complements, contrasting with transitive verbs that demand a direct object to fully express the action. This role underscores their foundational place in , enabling simple declarative sentences focused on the subject's action or state.

Comparison with Transitive Verbs

Intransitive verbs differ fundamentally from in their syntactic requirements, as they form complete using only a as the core , without needing a direct object. For instance, the "She sleeps" is syntactically complete with the intransitive verb "sleeps" and its "she," whereas a transitive verb like "eats" requires a direct object to complete the , as in "She eats an apple." This distinction arises because intransitive verbs denote one-participant events, limiting their argument structure to a single core role, typically filled by the in subject-verb () order in languages like English. Semantically, intransitive verbs assign a single thematic role to their , such as an (for volitional actions) or a (for non-volitional states), reflecting situations involving only one participant. In contrast, transitive verbs encode two-participant events, assigning distinct roles like to the (the instigator) and or to the object (the affected ), as in "The chef cooked the meal," where "chef" is the and "meal" the . This semantic asymmetry highlights how correlates with the complexity of event representation, with intransitives focusing on internal or self-contained actions. Grammatically, these differences lead to distinct behavioral patterns, such as the inability of intransitive verbs to undergo passivization, since there is no object to promote to position; attempts like "*The city was arrived by the train" are ungrammatical in English. Transitive verbs, however, readily form passives, e.g., "The apple was eaten by her," demoting the and promoting . Additionally, intransitives lack extensions into ditransitive structures, which require two objects (direct and indirect) and are a feature of certain transitive verbs, like "give" in "She gave him a ."
Verb TypeRequired ArgumentsExample SentencePassivization Possibility
IntransitiveSubject only (S)She sleeps.No (*She was slept.)
TransitiveSubject + object (A + O)She eats an apple.Yes (An apple was eaten by her.)

Examples

In English

In English, intransitive verbs are those that do not require a direct object to complete their meaning, forming complete predicates with just a subject. Common examples include arrive, die, laugh, sleep, and walk. For instance: "The train arrives on time," "She died peacefully," "He laughed heartily," "The baby sleeps soundly," and "They walk daily." These verbs express actions or states that are self-contained, relying on the subject's role to convey full semantic content. Intransitive verbs in English can be categorized by semantic types, reflecting their core meanings and usage patterns. Verbs of motion, such as run ("The dog runs in the park") and walk, denote movement without specifying a goal or endpoint in the basic form. Verbs of state, like exist ("God exists") and sleep, describe conditions or existence. Verbs of change of state include fall ("The leaves fall in autumn") and die, indicating transitions in condition or location. Verbs of emission, such as sneeze ("She sneezes loudly") and laugh, express the release of sound or substance. These categories highlight how intransitives capture diverse aspects of experience without needing an object. The historical evolution of intransitive verbs in English traces from the synthetic structures of to the analytic forms of . In , verb valency was often marked through rich inflectional endings and case systems on nouns, allowing flexible while indicating roles syntactically. Over time, particularly during the period, the loss of inflections due to phonological erosion and influence shifted English toward analytic constructions, where prepositions, auxiliaries, and fixed subject-verb-object order clarify intransitive usage without morphological cues. This transition resulted in modern intransitives that depend more on syntactic position for completeness. Corpus studies, such as those analyzing the (BNC), indicate the prevalence of intransitive s in everyday language across written and spoken genres. Some intransitive s can optionally take objects—nouns derived from the itself—for stylistic emphasis, as in "live a life," though this is a specialized case.

Cognate Objects

A is a that shares an etymological or semantic root with an accompanying intransitive , serving to specify or intensify the action or state denoted by the , often for idiomatic or emphatic purposes. For instance, in constructions like "live a life" or "die a death," the elaborates on the 's meaning without introducing an external affected by the action. This phenomenon is particularly associated with unergative intransitive s, such as those expressing voluntary actions, though it can extend to unaccusatives under specific interpretations. Syntactically, cognate objects do not function as true direct objects, as evidenced by their inability to undergo passivization—for example, "*A laugh was laughed by her" is ungrammatical—or to trigger case assignment typical of transitive complements. Instead, they are often analyzed as adverbial modifiers or adjuncts that provide manner or extent information, occupying a postverbal position without saturating the verb's argument structure. This adjunct status distinguishes them from genuine objects, as they resist pronominalization (e.g., "*She laughed it") and co-occur with additional adverbials without conflict. Examples illustrate this across verb types: with action-oriented unergatives like "sing a song" or "laugh a hearty laugh," the cognate object emphasizes the activity; with unaccusatives such as "die the ," it specifies the event's in a more sense. State-like verbs, such as "," similarly employ them for intensification, though such uses are less common. Historically, these constructions evolved from compound forms, becoming more productive in around the 13th century, often shifting from referential to non-referential event nouns in . Constraints limit cognate objects to a subset of intransitive verbs, primarily those allowing internal aspectual specification, and they frequently appear in fossilized or idiomatic expressions rather than productively with all intransitives. For example, verbs like "run" permit "run a ," but arbitrary extensions such as "*sleep a " are rare and . This non-productive nature ties their distribution to lexical idiosyncrasies and historical processes, such as the development of progressive aspects in English.

Theoretical Distinctions

Ambitransitivity

Ambitransitive verbs, also referred to as labile verbs, are those that can function both intransitively, without a direct object, and transitively, with a direct object, using the identical form without any morphological alterations such as affixes or auxiliaries. This alternation allows the same to express varying argument structures depending on , a particularly prevalent in English where the 's core semantics adapt flexibly to the presence or absence of an object. For instance, the "read" appears intransitively in "She reads daily" to denote the general activity, or transitively in "She reads a " to specify the object involved. Two primary types of ambitransitive verbs are distinguished based on their semantic and structural behavior. Labile verbs feature an optional object where omission does not substantially alter the event's meaning, often implying an indefinite or contextually recoverable object in the intransitive use; examples include "eat" as in "They eat voraciously" versus "They eat ," or "run" in "She runs marathons" transitively compared to "She runs every morning" intransitively. In contrast, causative-inchoative alternations involve verbs denoting a change of state, where the transitive form expresses an causing the change and the intransitive form indicates a spontaneous occurrence; representative cases are "break," as in "The broke the " (causative) versus "The broke" (inchoative), or "open" in "He opened the " compared to "The opened." Syntactically, ambitransitive verbs are identifiable through tests confirming the optionality of the direct object, where its omission leaves the verb's tense, voice, and subject agreement unchanged, maintaining active voice throughout. This contrasts with strictly transitive verbs that require an object for grammaticality. Common English examples demonstrating this include "eat," "run," and "open," where the transitive frame reduces to without structural disruption. Semantically, these verbs frequently exhibit shifts in agentivity, with the transitive variant assigning an agent to the as the initiator of the action, while the intransitive form promotes the subject to a or role, often evoking a sense of spontaneity or implicit reflexivity akin to a middle voice interpretation. In labile cases, the intransitive use may imply an underspecified object, preserving activity focus; in causative-inchoative pairs, the alternation highlights causation versus autonomy in event structure. Many such verbs, particularly in causative-inchoative alternations, align with unaccusative classifications in syntactic theory.

Unaccusative and Unergative Verbs

The unaccusative hypothesis posits a fundamental division among intransitive verbs into two subclasses: unaccusatives and unergatives. Unaccusative verbs are those whose surface originates as the underlying object in the , functioning semantically as a or that undergoes a change, such as in examples like arrive or fall. In contrast, unergative verbs feature a surface that is the underlying , typically an initiating the action, as seen in laugh or run. This distinction was first proposed by in his seminal work on relational grammar, arguing that it accounts for diverse syntactic behaviors across languages. Several diagnostic tests help identify this split. In Italian, ne-clitic movement serves as a key indicator: unaccusative verbs allow the partitive clitic ne to extract from their postverbal , as in Ne arrivavano molti ("Many of them arrived"), whereas unergative verbs block it, yielding ungrammaticality in ?Ne ridevano molti ("Many of them laughed"). In English, compatibility with resultative phrases distinguishes the classes; unaccusatives permit secondary predicates predicated of the , such as The glass broke to pieces, but unergatives do not, as in the infelicitous ?John laughed to pieces. Similarly, in , auxiliary selection in compound tenses reveals the divide: unaccusatives select être ("be") with agreement, as in Les invités sont arrivés ("The guests have arrived"), while unergatives use avoir ("have"), as in Les invités ont ri ("The guests have laughed"). These tests, elaborated in Luigi Burzio's analysis of Italian syntax, underscore the hypothesis's empirical basis. Within generative syntax, the unaccusative-unergative distinction receives a structural interpretation. Unaccusative verbs involve NP-movement of the underlying object to the position to satisfy case requirements, generating a deeper syntactic level absent in unergatives, whose single argument originates in the specifier of the without such advancement. This framework, developed in Burzio's Government-Binding approach, integrates the hypothesis into broader theories of phrase structure and theta-role assignment. Semantically, unaccusatives frequently encode changes of or , where the undergoes telic events without an external causer in the intransitive form, aligning their with internal causation. This pattern contrasts with unergatives, which typically involve manner or agentive activities lacking such inherent endpoints. Beth Levin and Malka Rappaport Hovav's exploration at the syntax-lexical semantics interface highlights how these semantic properties correlate with the syntactic behaviors predicted by the unaccusative hypothesis.

Valency and Transformations

Valency Concepts

In , valency refers to the inherent capacity of a to require or permit a specific number of syntactic arguments in a . Intransitive verbs are characterized by a valency of one, meaning they obligatorily take only a as their and do not a direct object. This property distinguishes them from verbs with higher valency requirements, establishing intransitives as the minimal case in verbal . From the perspective of dependency grammar, intransitive verbs function as monovalent predicates within phrase structure, where the verb serves as the head that governs solely its subject dependent, without projecting additional core dependents. This analysis emphasizes the asymmetrical binary relations between words, with the intransitive verb forming a simple dependency tree limited to the subject-verb link. In comparison to higher-valency verbs, intransitives provide a for understanding realization: transitive verbs exhibit valency two by requiring both a and a direct object, while ditransitive verbs have valency three, additionally demanding an indirect object. This gradation underscores how valency scales with the number of obligatory actants, positioning intransitives at the foundational level of complexity. The foundational theoretical model for valency is Lucien Tesnière's framework, outlined in his monograph Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Tesnière conceptualized valency in terms of a verb's "hooks" or slots for s—obligatory syntactic elements directly tied to the verb's meaning—while circonstants represent optional that do not affect core valency. For intransitive verbs, this translates to a single obligatory (the subject), with any additional modifiers treated as circonstants. This distinction has profoundly influenced subsequent syntactic theories by prioritizing the verb's role in organizing elements.

Valency-Changing Operations

Valency-changing operations encompass a range of morphological and syntactic processes that alter the argument structure of verbs, often deriving intransitive forms from transitive bases or vice versa. These operations are crucial for expressing nuanced semantic relations, such as the absence of an external causer in events that occur spontaneously. Detransitivization, a primary such process, reduces the valency of a by eliminating its external argument (the causer or ), resulting in an intransitive construction where the or becomes the sole . For instance, in English, the transitive verb "open" (as in "She opened the door") can undergo detransitivization to form the anticausative "The door opened," implying an internal or spontaneous cause without specifying an . Anticausatives represent a subtype of detransitivization, particularly common in change-of-state verbs, where the focus shifts to the resulting situation rather than the causing event. This alternation is morphologically unmarked in some languages like English but overtly marked in others, such as Russian, where the reflexive suffix -sja derives intransitives from transitives (e.g., "katat’" 'roll (tr.)' becomes "katat’-sja" 'roll (intr.)'). In Spanish, the clitic -se serves as a versatile intransitivizing marker, functioning in anticausative constructions to suppress the external argument, as in "La puerta se abrió" ('The door opened'), derived from the transitive "abrir" ('to open'). This -se can also encode middle voice interpretations, where the verb expresses a property of the subject without an agent, further reducing valency to create intransitive predicates. Passivization provides another inverse mechanism for valency reduction, transforming transitive verbs into intransitives by promoting the object to subject and demoting or omitting the original subject. In English, the active "The boy ate the apple" becomes the passive "The apple was eaten (by the boy)," where the verb now takes only one core argument, rendering it intransitive. Similar patterns occur cross-linguistically; in , "Los hombres beben el vino" ('The men drink the wine') passivizes to "El vino es bebido por los hombres" ('The wine is drunk by the men'), with the agent optionally expressed as an oblique. This operation maintains the event's semantics but reorients the syntactic structure to emphasize the patient. The productivity of these operations is not uniform across all verbs and is constrained by semantic hierarchies, such as the spontaneity scale proposed by Haspelmath (1993), which ranks verb meanings from high agentivity (e.g., monotransitive actions like 'kill') to low (e.g., agentful processes like 'die'). Verbs higher on the scale (more spontaneous, like 'freeze') tend to favor unmarked causatives and less frequent anticausatives, while those lower (less spontaneous, like 'break') more readily undergo detransitivization to form anticausatives. For example, across 21 languages, 'break'-type verbs show a high anticausative-to-causative (12.50), whereas 'freeze'-type verbs exhibit a low (0.17), reflecting universal tendencies where not all transitives permit detransitivization due to their position on this causation scale. These constraints ensure that valency changes align with the inherent semantics of the verb, preventing ungrammatical derivations in languages with such operations.

Cross-Linguistic Perspectives

In Indo-European Languages

In Indo-European languages, a prominent pattern among intransitive verbs involves auxiliary selection in perfect tenses, where unaccusative intransitives—those denoting change of state or location—typically select the auxiliary "be" rather than "have," distinguishing them from unergatives and transitives. This phenomenon is widespread in both and branches; for instance, in , unaccusatives like ankommen ("arrive") form the perfect with sein (e.g., Er ist angekommen, "He has arrived"), while unergatives like arbeiten ("work") use haben (e.g., Er hat gearbeitet, "He has worked"). Similarly, in , unaccusatives such as arrivare ("arrive") pair with essere (e.g., È arrivato, "He has arrived"), contrasting with avere for unergatives like lavorare ("work") (e.g., Ha lavorato, "He has worked"). This selection is influenced by , particularly , with telic unaccusatives favoring "be" more consistently than atelic ones, as outlined in the Auxiliary Selection Hierarchy. In , particularly English, intransitive verbs exhibit a high frequency of ambitransitivity, where verbs can alternate between transitive and intransitive uses without morphological change, a pattern less prevalent in other Germanic languages like or . Examples include (transitive: "The fire burns the wood"; intransitive: "The wood burns") and melt (transitive: "The heat melts the ice"; intransitive: "The ice melts"), reflecting a diachronic increase in labile verbs since , driven by internal processes that expanded this valency flexibility uniquely in English compared to its sister languages. Romance languages frequently employ reflexive markers to derive intransitive constructions from transitive bases, often resulting in pseudo-intransitive or middle voice interpretations that reduce argument structure. In French, for example, se laver ("to wash oneself") uses the reflexive clitic se to create an intransitive verb where the subject acts upon itself, suppressing an external object while maintaining a process-oriented meaning; similar patterns occur in Spanish (lavarse) and Italian (lavarsi), where se merges subject and object roles, functioning as a middle marker for self-affected actions. Reconstructed Proto-Indo-European intransitive verbs featured ablaut patterns that encoded aspectual distinctions, with root vowels alternating to signal versus (completed) aspects in atelic or process-denoting forms. For instance, intransitive like bʰeh₂- ("to flee") showed full-grade e in present stems for ongoing and zero-grade in for punctual completion, a system integrated into the broader verbal where ablaut interacted with endings to express without dedicated intransitive markers. This inheritance influenced descendant languages' aspectual systems, though simplified over time.

In Non-Indo-European Languages

In non-Indo-European languages, intransitive verbs often exhibit typological patterns that diverge from nominative-accusative alignments, such as split-S systems where the marking of intransitive s varies based on the verb's semantics. In some Australian languages, a split-S pattern treats the subject (S) of agentive intransitive verbs (e.g., those implying control or volition, such as "run" or "laugh") like the transitive subject (A) with ergative marking, while non-agentive intransitives (e.g., "fall", "die", or uncontrolled states) align the S with the transitive object (O) using absolutive marking. This semantic split reflects agentivity hierarchies, where volitional actions pattern accusatively and non-volitional ones ergatively. Fluid-S systems in some Australian languages extend this flexibility, allowing contextual choice in S marking within the same clause based on degrees of agentivity, though less rigidly than in split-S. Ergative-absolutive alignment is prominent in isolates like and the family, where intransitive subjects consistently receive absolutive case, patterning identically with transitive objects and distinct from transitive subjects marked ergative. In , for instance, the intransitive "etortzen da" (comes) marks the subject with absolutive, mirroring the object in transitives like "ikusten du" (sees it), emphasizing the verb's core participant over agenthood. Similarly, in such as Kaqchikel, perfective intransitives like "x-e-wär" (they slept) affix absolutive markers (Set B) to the subject, aligning it with transitive objects, though many Mayans show aspect-based splits where non-perfective contexts shift toward accusative patterns for subjects. This alignment highlights how intransitives in these languages prioritize thematic roles like or undergoer over syntactic subjecthood. In Niger-Congo languages like Akan, serial verb constructions frequently chain intransitive verbs, particularly motion verbs, to encode complex events without introducing objects or coordination markers, treating the sequence as a single predicate with shared arguments. For example, motion verbs such as "kOserE" (borrow/go for) and "hyE" (wear/put on) combine in "Papa no kOserE EkyE hyE" (The man went to borrow a hat and wore it), where both intransitives share the subject and describe sequential subevents within one clause. These constructions allow intransitives to extend valency indirectly through chaining, often incorporating deictic motion to specify directionality, as in "tOO" (buy/arrive for) followed by "twiie" (ride/travel), forming holistic event representations without object licensing. East Asian languages like employ topic-comment structures that often isolate intransitive verbs in the clause, reducing reliance on explicit objects and emphasizing contextual predication over strict argument . In sentences such as "Oosaka-ni-wa gaikoku-jin-ga takusan sunde-iru" (In , many foreigners are living), the topic-marked "Oosaka-ni-wa" sets the frame, while the intransitive "sunde-iru" (living/residing) in the updates information about the without needing an object, leveraging for coherence. This permits intransitives to function independently, as the topic absorbs locative or contextual roles, contrasting with more rigid subject-predicate alignments elsewhere.

References

  1. [1]
    INTRANSITIVE Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
    : not transitive. especially : characterized by not having or containing a direct object. an intransitive verb. intransitively adverb. intransitiveness noun.Direct objects · Indirect object · Words That Start With I (page 30)
  2. [2]
    [PDF] Transitive, Intransitive, Ditransitive and Ambitransitive Verbs
    Intransitive verbs take only a sub- ject and lack a direct object. The grammar guide fell. I cried. You laughed.
  3. [3]
    INTRANSITIVE definition | Cambridge English Dictionary
    (of a verb) having or needing no object: In the sentence "I tried to persuade him, but he wouldn't come," "come" is an intransitive verb.
  4. [4]
    Chapter 6. Verb Phrases – Collaborative Textbook on English Syntax
    Unlike other types of verbs, intransitives can end sentences. Note, however, that intransitive verbs are not required to end the sentence. They can be followed ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition<|control11|><|separator|>
  5. [5]
    [PDF] A Formal Multi-Level Connectionist Theory of Linguistic Well ...
    In current linguistic theory, the contrasts between unaccusative and unergative intransitive verbs in diagnostic contexts are accounted for by some ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
  6. [6]
    Intransitive Verb: Definition and Examples - Grammar Monster
    An intransitive verb is a verb that does not take a direct object. In other words, the action of an intransitive verb is not done to someone or something.
  7. [7]
    Transitive and intransitive verbs - Style Manual
    Aug 8, 2022 · A verb is transitive when the action of the verb passes from the subject to the direct object. Intransitive verbs don't need an object to make sense.
  8. [8]
    Intransitive - Etymology, Origin & Meaning
    Originating from Late Latin intransitivus meaning "not passing over," this word denotes a verb that does not take a direct object, established as a noun ...
  9. [9]
    Intransitive Verbs (Never Passive) - Grammar-Quizzes
    Recognize intransitive verbs and static verbs that do not take objects and cannot be changed to passive voice; identify which verbs take passive.Missing: test | Show results with:test
  10. [10]
  11. [11]
    Transitive and Intransitive Verbs - Academic Guides
    No information is available for this page. · Learn why
  12. [12]
    INTRANSITIVE VERB Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
    intransitive verb. A verb that does not need a direct object to complete its meaning. Run, sleep, travel, wonder, and die are all intransitive verbs.
  13. [13]
    8.6 Subcategories – Essentials of Linguistics
    transitive verbs have one NP or DP as their complement · intransitive verbs have no complements · ditransitive verbs have two complements that can alternate ...
  14. [14]
    Transitivity - Grammatical Features
    Whether a situation is encoded as transitive or intransitive depends, first of all, on the semantic characteristics of the participants - though, as was ...
  15. [15]
    [PDF] Transitivity and Change of State Verbs - Linguistic Society of America
    In this paper I argue that both internally and externally caused change of state verbs are found in intransitive and related transitive constructions; in other ...
  16. [16]
    English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation ...
    In this rich reference work, Beth Levin classifies over 3,000 English verbs according to shared meaning and behavior. Levin starts with the hypothesis that ...
  17. [17]
    [PDF] Verb Classes Within and Across Languages - Stanford University
    Apr 15, 2011 · AN EXAMPLE: My book English Verb Classes and Alternations (Levin 1993) classifies English verbs that do not (exclusively) take sentential ...
  18. [18]
    Valency changes in the history of English - ResearchGate
    Aug 6, 2025 · This article examines changes in the valency marking in the history of English. I start with a discussion of the typological literature on measuring basic ...
  19. [19]
    [PDF] Changes in the English Language from Synthetic to Analytic
    Old English relied on its nouns, adjectives, and verbs but was mainly free when it came to word order as proven by Gelderen (2016) who provides the following:.
  20. [20]
  21. [21]
    A corpus-driven study of lexicalization models of English intransitive ...
    There are two major approaches to defining EIVs: the syntactic and the syntactic-semantic. Conventionally, EIVs are defined mainly from the syntactic ...
  22. [22]
    Adverbial Cognate Objects | Linguistic Inquiry - MIT Press Direct
    Oct 1, 2006 · Search Site. Citation. Heizo Nakajima; Adverbial Cognate Objects. Linguistic Inquiry 2006; 37 (4): 674–684. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling ...
  23. [23]
    Adverbial Cognate Objects - jstor
    The occurrence of adverbial cognate objects in adjunct position enables unaccusative verbs to take this type of cognate object.
  24. [24]
    Adverbial Cognate Objects - ResearchGate
    Aug 6, 2025 · Cognate objects are inextricably linked with intransitive verbs particularly unergative verbs (Quirk et al 1984;Keyser and Roeper 1984;Jones ...
  25. [25]
    Labile (Ambitransitive) Verbs - Brill Reference Works
    Labile verbs are verbs that can be used transitively or intransitively with no formal (morphological and/or phonological) difference between the transitive ...
  26. [26]
    [PDF] 4. Causatives and anticausatives
    Finally, in labile (or ambitransitive) alternations, the same verb is used both in the inchoative and in the causative sense, e.g.. (18) Modern Greek svíno. 1.
  27. [27]
    Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis
    Sep 25, 1978 · In this paper I give one argument in favor of the advancement analysis of impersonal passives over the demotion analysis.
  28. [28]
    Unaccusativity - MIT Press
    Unaccusativity is an extended investigation into a set of linguistic phenomena that have received much attention over the last fifteen years.
  29. [29]
  30. [30]
    A Dependency Grammar of English - Semantic Scholar
    Jul 15, 2019 · A Dependency Grammar of English · Topics · 22 Citations · 105 References · Related Papers ...
  31. [31]
    Elements of Structural Syntax - OAPEN Home
    The volume contains a comprehensive approach to the syntax of natural languages, an approach that is foundational for an entire stream in the modern study of ...
  32. [32]
  33. [33]
    SE in Spanish: Properties, structures and analyses | Borealis
    Dec 1, 2021 · This article provides an overview of Spanish SE, covering the main empirical facts, analyses and theoretical issues that it raises.
  34. [34]
    Valency-Changing Operations - Universal Dependencies
    Transitive clauses (those that have an object) can be passivized, which means: Active verb form is replaced by passive (finite auxiliary + participle). Former ...Coding strategies · Spanish · Basque · Yidiɲ
  35. [35]
    Introduction to the special issue on variation in auxiliary selection
    Nov 9, 2017 · Subjects of unergative verbs behave like subjects for transitive verbs while subjects of unaccusative verbs behave more like objects. Perlmutter ...
  36. [36]
    [PDF] Labile Verbs in English - DiVA portal
    ... intransitive verbs whose subjects are underlying objects or underlying sub ... percentage of non-directed pairs . Haspelmath claims that the English ...
  37. [37]
    SE Constructions in the Romance Languages
    ### Summary of Reflexive Markers like *se* in Romance Languages
  38. [38]
    (PDF) The Proto-Indo-European aspect system - Academia.edu
    Proto-Indo-European exhibited an elaborate inflectional aspect system including over twenty specific aspect categories.
  39. [39]
    Types of split system (Chapter 4) - Ergativity
    And some languages pursue a middle course, marking some S like A and some like O; such languages fall into two kinds, 'split-S' and 'fluid-S'. ... R. M. W. Dixon, ...Missing: intransitivity | Show results with:intransitivity
  40. [40]
    [PDF] Evidence from Basque ergativity in adult L2 speakers
    On the contrary, Basque is an ergative-absolutive language, which treat objects of transitive verbs and intransitive subjects alike, distinguishing them from ...
  41. [41]
    [PDF] When Ergative Is Default: A View from Mayan
    In this paper, I will address a puzzle about the alignment between ergative/absolutive Case and grammatical relations in Mayan languages.
  42. [42]
    [PDF] Serial verb constructions and their event representations in Akan
    Abstract. Serial verb constructions (SVC) are often assumed to describe a single event in the speaker's mind. The event representations of SVC have been ...Missing: intransitives motion
  43. [43]
    [PDF] Topic-Comment Articulation in Japanese: A Categorial Approach
    This paper deals with the topic-comment articulation of information structures conveyed by sentences. In Japanese, the topic marker WA is attached not only to ...