CC BY
35
DOI: 10.24411/2470-1262-2018-10022
УДК (UDK) 811.19
Gurgen Khachaturyan, Vanadzor State University after H. Toumanyan, RA NAS Institute of Language after H. Acharyan,
Vanadzor, Armenia.
Silva Muradyan, Vanadzor State University after H. Toumanyan,
Vanadzor, Armenia.
For citation: Khachaturyan G., Muradyan S., (2018).
The valency of Transitive verbs according to object- adjunction in modern Armenia.
Cross-Cultural Studies: Education and Science.
Vol.3, Issue I, pp. 98-106 (in USA) Manuscript received: 04/26/2018 Accepted for publication: 13/06/2018
CC BY 4.0
ВАЛЕНТНОСТЬ ПЕРЕХОДНЫХ ГЛАГОЛОВ С ДОПОЛНЕНИЕМ В СОВРЕМЕННОМ АРМЯНСКОМ ЯЗЫКЕ
THE VALENCY OF TRANSITIVE VERBS ACCORDING TO OBJECT-ADJUNCTION IN MODERN ARMENIAN
Abstract
The article is devoted to the main characteristics of verb valency in terms of object -adjunction. Connection with objects is one of the main characteristic features of valency. The paper analyses the verb-dependent complements (only objects) in clauses or sentences. It focuses on verb valency both in syntactic and semantic categories of principal and subordinate members. Three types of transitive verbs (monovalent, divalent, trivalent verbs) have been investigated in the research according to the number of objects that a verb can govern. The paper emphasizes the awareness ofpossible types of verb complementation which is significant and useful in the studies of languages since it enables a learner to produce well-articulated speech with grammatical clauses fully conveying the intended meaning.
Valency is typicalfor all major parts of speech (verb, noun, adjective, postposition). However, it is the verb that shows the most diverse and interesting valency patterns. In this article, we will deal exclusively with verbal valency of Armenian transitive verbs.
Keywords: semantic and syntactic valency, government, transitive verbs, principal and subordinate members, subject-adjunction, monovalent, divalent and trivalent verbs
Introduction
The theory of valency has held a special place in linguistics since the middle of the 20th century. Significant contributions have been made in the theoretical and practical examination of the valency in American, Russian, European, and Armenian linguistics, numerous works dedicated to the development of theoretical and practical issues of the valency features of different parts of speech have been published.
The linguistic meaning of valency derives from the definition of valency in chemistry. The scientific metaphor is due to Lucien Tesnière, who developed verb valency in his grammatical theory of dependency. The notion of valency first appeared in Tesnière's posthumously published book Éléments de syntaxe structural (Elements of Structural Syntax). According to Tesnière, valency is the number of actants of a verbal valency carrier. According to the number of units connected with the verb, he differentiates avalent, monovalent, divalent, trivalent verbs [10, p. 250].
During the course of linguistic history, the observations about the valency have mostly been based on Tesnière's analysis. Research studies show that further development of valency theory has been carried out by different linguists from different perspectives.
Theory
S. Katsnelson was the first linguist that describes the concept of valency as a capability of general connections of words in Russian linguistics. Emphasizing the role of the verb, he notes that preposition may also be valency carrier [9].
Valency theory, as outlined by Tesniere, was primarily a syntactic theory. The representative of the Moscow School of Semantics Yu. Apresyan also highlights the semantic aspect of valency. He states that semantic and syntactic actants of the verb are in mutual correspondence [7, p. 15].
In Dependency Grammar and Valency Theory devoted to the image of the dependency grammar and valency theory, presenting the syntactic theory of Lucien Tesnière, the authors (Vilmos Agel, Klaus Fischer) note: "Valency theory is based on the very simple idea or observation that words pre-determine their synactic and semantic environment" [15, p. 236].
A group of linguists (T. Herbst, K. Gotz-Votteler, G. Rickheit, L. Sichelschmidt, J. Fillmore) describe and examine the valency in the relationship of semantics and syntax in the volume of studies and monographs - Valency: Theoretical, Descriptive and Cognitive Issues [14, p. 27, 37, 129, 145, 166].
Moreover, A. Jensen presents the differences between the semantic and syntactic valency by an example of the avalent verb rain. In the clause It is raining the subject it is an empty place
holder which, by the syntactic rules of English, has to occupy the subject position. It is a formal subject and does not carry a semantic role [13].
Ed. Atayan was the first Armenian linguist that referred to the idea of valency. Following Tesniere, he describes the valency as a connecting capacity not only typical for verbs but also other parts of speech - nouns, adjectives, adverbs [8, p. 220].
The issues of modern Armenian valency are comparatively broadly examined by G. Jahukyan. According to the number of units connected with the verb, valency can act as subject-adjunction, predicate-adjunction, object-adjunction, adverbial-adjunction [4, 466].
Armenian linguists H. Harutyunyan, S. Gyulbudaghyan, M. Asatryan, R. Ishkhanyan have implemented their own grammatical studies of the mentioned phenomenon, following on Jahukyan's definition of valency. H. Harutyunyan and S. Gyulbudaghyan also mention that nouns, adjectives, adverbs, and prepositions can also have the grammatical category of valency [3, p. 21, 2, p. 23]. H. Harutyunyan examines government and valency together, suggesting that the classification of verbs in terms of valency is in essence the study of verbs in terms of government [3, p. 50].
All the valency studies mentioned refer to the examination of contemporary languages. G. Khachatryan has examined the expression of valency in the context of the Old Armenian (Grabar), presenting the valency of analytical verbs [5]. G. Khachatryan was the first linguist to add vocative-adjunction to the valency cases listed above [5, p. 26]. One of the characteristic features of valency is the ability to connect with the vocative, which is typical only to the verb. The connection between the predicate and the vocative is realized by the personal forms of the verbs possessing unlimited categories of person through their number concord. The connection with the vocative directly depends on the lexico-semantic category of the vocative, which usually indicates the person [6].
The delimitation between obligatory and optional complements is considered to be the most fundamental issue to the development of valency theory. In Dependency Grammar and Valency Theory Agel and Fischer note several solutions, attempted in reflecting the nature of the complement/adjunct difference, on various basis, such as: a morphosyntactic (complements are formally determined by the verbs; Eisenberg 2006), distributional (complements are specific to subclasses of verbs; Engel 1988), and semantic basis (verb and complements constitute a minimal proposition; Fischer 1999). However, they think that none proved wholly satisfactory the construal of complement/adjunct transition [15, p. 239].
Among the criteria in the distinction between complements and adjuncts T. Herbst suggested that adjuncts can be deleted without making the sentence ungrammatical. Furthermore, adjuncts tend to be less fixed than complements with respect to the position in which they occur in the sentence: At intervals St. Anthony lighthouse flashed... At intervals St Anthony lighthouse flashed to his left. To his left St Anthony lighthouse flashed. [12, p. 3-4].
G. Khachatryan links the existence of each valency unit, combined with the verb, with semantic and/or grammatical peculiarities of the verb [5, p. 278]. It is important to consider the priority of those verbal complements that are derived from strong and obligatory government.
In this paper, we deal with changes in the structure of valency for transitive verbs in terms of object-adjunction valency in Modern Eastern Armenian.
Results
In linguistics, valency refers to the complements controlled by a principal member. It is related, though not identical, to verb transitivity, which counts only object complements of the verbal predicate. Verb valency, on the other hand, covers all arguments, including the subject, vocative, object, predicative and adverbial. Verb valency can be defined as the general and specific linking ability of the verb, through which it can get into dependency relations, often mutual, with other linguistic elements - subject, vocative, predicative, object, adverbial. The concept of verb valency corresponds to the characteristics and behavior of verbs in syntactic and semantic structures.
The valency of a lexical item is its inherent capacity to govern a specific number and type of complements. Transitive verbs can be divided into the following classes based on their object-adjunction valency, i.e. how many arguments or "valents" they can take: monovalent, divalent, trivalent. The verb dictates the number of required arguments.
All transitive verbs are at least monovalent due to verbal grammatical category of voice, that is to say, they necessarily demand a direct object. The direct object is one of the main syntactic functions of transitive verbs in active clauses. The main monovalent verbs are: ufopk sirel "love", hwtfwbki havanel "to like", wmk} atel "to hate", hwdpnipky hamburel "to kiss", wkubki tesnel "to see", hwhqfi^k handipel "to meet", qntfk govel "to praise", nimhj utel "to eat", fatik xmel "to drink", tywrnwpk} katarel "to fulfil", tywpqwi kardal "to read", etc.
Active clauses with monovalent verbs are characterized as a valency pattern where transitive verb requires an obligatory direct object, expressed with accusative case, as in:
1) Upwtip hwtipnipkg fop npqnih: Aram kissed his son.
2) Ubfob ufrpnttf t fahtinp: Ani likes [the/an] apple.
In the sentences above, the verbs kiss and like are followed by a direct object (son, apple). In these sentences, the compliment is realized with the grammatical function of direct object.
There are verbs that govern two direct objects; they are called double-direct object, such as wbtfwbki anvanel, tyn^k koc'el "to name", hn^wtyk} hrc'akel "to declare", hwtiwpk hamarel "to consider", ^wmpwumk} patrastel "to make", etc. Wmjpmfm^mfU wbtfwbkgfob bpkmU: They called the capital Yerevan.
The valency of lexical items in different languages may or may not coincide. Languages, however, vary as to the way in which verbs are connected to their complements. In traditional
Armenian grammars, verbs require that their complement(s) be used in a certain case, taking a particular form, with or without a preposition/postposition.
A number of transitive verbs require one or two indirect objects besides the direct object, due to their lexicogrammatical properties. Grammatical behavior of obligatory indirect objects is determined to a great extent by the lexicogrammatical properties of the verb that govern them. A single valency structure corresponds to a single meaning of verb.
The classification of indirect objects is characterized by semantic qualities of the verb. Consequently, though divalent transitive verbs are the same in demanding one indirect object, they differ, however, in that indirect objects are variable, expressed with appropriate morphological cases. Compare the government of the verbs mm\ "to give" and tfhpghh} "to take" in the following sentences. Both verbs in the respective examples require an obligatory indirect object, but in different cases (dative and ablative).
1) Upmrfp wtfhg qpfop UprfhUfrU: Aram gave the pen to Armen.
2) Uprfhhp tfhpgphg qpfop Upwrffig: Armen took the pen from Aram.
In the sentence 1 in order for the giving-event to be possible, two complements have to be involved, something given (direct object) and someone or something receiving what is given (dative indirect object). Similarly, in the sentence 2 in order for the taking-event to be complete, two complements have to be involved, something taken (direct object) and someone or something from whom/which taking the object (ablative indirect object).
The Armenian dative, ablative, and instrumental cases have no equivalents in English. While English expresses these meanings by prepositions, Armenian achieves the same effect by adding the respective marker to nouns and pronouns.Thus, apart from direct object, divalent verbs require in addition an indirect object. Here we have the following pattern: transitive verb - direct object -indirect object, where the direct object is stable, and the indirect object is variable both in content and expression plan, respectively:
1. transitive verb - direct object - dative object, where the latter is expressed with dative case or postpositional phrases with the postpositions hhm het "with", qM dem "against", hmtimp, hamar "for". The primary function of the dative object is to indicate the recipient of an action. The main verbs are: mm\ tal "give", hrffrphi nvirel "to present, to donate", timwhhi matnel "to betray", tfGmphi vcarel "to pay", fywmtyhi ktakel "to will", tfmfimnhi vacarel "to sell", tfmpfimmph varjatrel "to pay", ^uhi kisel "to share", etc. The verbs of utterance and communication are especially active in this pattern, such as muh asel "to say", hmqnpqh} halordel "to report",phimqph t'eladrel "to dictate", ^mwmufambhi patasxanel "to answer", fanuwntfmbhi xostovanel "to confess", ^mmrfh} patmel "to tell", pmgmmph} bac'atrel "to explain", hmpgbhi harc'nel "to ask", etc.
a)Upmrip tf&mphg fawUntp^wUfrU:
Aram paid the money to the shopkeeper.
b) Umjpp, hhpfcmp t ^mmrfnirf hphfawUhpfr hwrfwp:
The mother tells a fairytale for/to the children.
2. Transitive verb - direct object - object of separation/origin, where the latter is expressed with ablative case. The complement of separation essentially indicates the division of a person/object or indicates a person/object from whom/which an action originates. The main verbs are: wbpwmki anjatel "disconnect", pwdwbk} bazanel "to divide", uwwbwi stanal "to get", ptyk jnjel, "to delete", qwrnk} zatel "to separate", rnwppkpk} tarberel "to distinguish", etc.
a) Uwjpp, brfkp umwgwrf npqntg:
The mother received a gift from her son.
3. Transitive verb - direct object - object of instrument/means, where the latter is expressed with the instrumental case or postpositional phrases with the postposition tifopngntf mijoc'ov "by means of". This object essentially indicates the person/object by whom/which the action is carried out. The main verbs are: tyw^k kapel "tie",2wpdk\ sarzel "to move", tyspk ktrel "to cut", qpwtfk gravel "to occupy", ¡gbki lc'nel "to fill", m^wptyk} ularkel "to send", etc.
a) Sqwh tyw^kg nmpp rfftprntyrn^ntf:
The boy tied his leg with a bandage.
4. Transitive verb - direct object - object of relation, where the latter is expressed with the ablative case or postpositional phrases with the postpositions tfmu^fr masin "about", ^bp^pbpj^l veraberyal "referring to, regarding", b^rnrndrndp nkatmamb "with respect to", etc. This object denotes the person/object to whom/which the action relates. The object of relation is especially assigned by verbs of utterance and cognition, such as fanuk\ xosel "to speak", ^wrntik} patmel "to tell", qpnLghi zruc'el "to talk",pwtipwufy bambasel "to gossip", timwdk} mtacel "to think", qwmk} datel "to judge", etc.
a) Swmp pnnbkpfob ^wmdnid t qk^pkp fop tyjwUpfrg:
The grandmother tells her grandchildren events from her life.
b) nrnwbnqbkpp, qpnigniti kb pUUntpjntUhpfr rfmufih:
The students talk about the exams.
5. Transitive verb - direct object - object of limitation, where the latter is expressed with the ablative, instrumental, and locative cases or postpositional phrases with the postposition tikp mej "in". This object denotes the person/object by whom/which the action of the subject is limited or particularized. The object of limitation can be assigned by these verbs: qpwtfki gravel "attract", tik^wqpk} meladrel "to blame", hwbMk} hanjnel "to pass", etc.
a) nrnwbnqp, fbbnipjnib hwbMkg wUqihphUfrg:
The student passed the exam in English.
b) Ujq tyfobp foM qpwtfkg fop qhqhgtyntpjwtfp:
That woman attracted me by her beauty.
c) Upwtifob tik^wqpkgfob mUmqU^ntpjmU rihp:
They blamed Aram of/for dishonesty.
A number of transitive verbs require two indirect objects due to their lexicogrammatical properties. They are called tri-valent verbs. Here we have the following pattern: transitive verb -
103
direct object - two indirect objects, where the direct object is stable, indirect objects are variable both in content and expression plan, respectively:
1. transitive verb - direct object - dative object - object of separation/origin. The main verbs are: фп^шйдЩ p'oxanc'el "to transfer", hшйMhl hanjnel "to hand", etc.
a) Ьш ишййр ^p tihnpfig фп^,шйдЬд amfyfrh.
He transferred the brace from his right hand to the left one.
2. Transitive verb - direct object - dative object - object of instrument/means. The main verbs are: йшштдЬ} matuc'el "to serve", zarkel "to bump", etc.
a) иштпъдпщ йршйд untpti йшштдЬд иЦт.тЬщф
The waiter served them coffee with/on a tray.
3. Transitive verb - direct object - object of separation/origin - object of instrument/means. The main verbs are: тшррЬрЬ} tarberel "to distinguish", щш2тщшЩ pastpanel "to protect", etc.
a) Ншрщ djniu mum^hpfrg Цшркф t шшррЬрЬ} йрш Цшрйрш^тй qrnjhntf:
One can distinguish Mars from other stars by its reddish colour.
Conclusion
Research studies show that a transitive verb may be monovalent, divalent, trivalent due to the number of obligatory objects required by the verb. The direct object is an obligatory compliment for all transitive verbs, and the indirect objects depend on the semantics of the verbs which assign various expressions to its complements. The fact that the grammatical function is the same for all divalent verbs does not entail that the semantic roles that the verbs assign to their respective complements (indirect object) are also the same. The grammatical functions of indirect objects are determined by the nature of the verb. Namely, the quantitative aspect of divalent and trivalent verbs is determined by their qualitative aspect.
While the roots of valency concept lie in Tesniere's works, further development of the theory of valency has been carried out by different linguists from different perspectives. Some linguists attribute valency to verbs only, whereas others regard valency as the linking ability of any linguistic element; they investigate the valency of other word classes, especially of adjectives, adverbs, and nouns. What is remarkable is that valency can be described in terms of both quantitative and qualitative characteristics at the morphosyntactic and logico-semantic levels.
References:
1. Asatryan M.E. Modern Armenian, Syntax Yerevan, 1987:
2. Gyulbudaghyan S.V. Syntax of Modern Armenian Yerevan, 1988:
3. Harutyunyan H. A. Government in Modern Armenian Yerevan, 1983:
4. Jahukyan G.B. The Basics of Modern Armenian Theory Yerevan, 1974:
5. Khachatryan G.K. The Valency of Analytical Verbs in Grabar Yerevan, 2000:
6. Khachatryan G.K. Connection with Vocative as an Expression of Verb Valency in Modern Armenian Language and linguistics (№ 1) pp. 5-17. ISSN 1829-0183 Yerevan, 2016.
7. Apresjan Ju. D. Tipy sootvetstvija semanticheskih i sintaksicheskih aktantov. Problemy tipologii i obschej lingvistiki, Mezhdunarodnaja konferencija, posvjaschennaja 100-letiju so dnja rozhdenija prof. A. A. Holodovicha. (Types of Concordances of Semantic and Syntactic Actants. Problems of Typology and General Linguistics. An International Conference on the Occasion of the Centenary of Prof. A.A. Holodovich). Sankt-Peterburg, 2006. (Accessed: 05.09.2016) https://iling.spb.ru/typo/materials/SPb2006_Abstracts.pdf
8. Atajan Je. R. Predmet i osnovnyeponjatija struktural'nogo sintaksisa. (The Subject and Major Perspectives of Structural Syntax) Erevan, 1968.
9. Kacnel'son S. D. K ponjatiju tipov valentnosti Voprosy jazykoznanija (Toward an Understanding of Types of Valency, Issues of Linguistics) (№ 3) pp. 20-32. ISSN 0373-658X Moskva, 1987. (Accessed:
12.05.2016) http://www.ruslang.ru/doc/voprosy/voprosy1987-3.pdf
10. Ten'er L. Osnovy struktural'nogo sintaksisa (Fundamentals of Strucural Syntax) Moskva, 1959.
11. Fillmore J. Valency issues in FrameNet, Valency: Theoretical, Descriptive and Cognitive Issues, Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 187, Berlin-New York, 2007.
12. Herbst T. The valency approach to argument structure constructions, Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 282, Constructions-Collocations-Patterns, Berlin/Boston, 2014. (Accessed: 12.05.2016) http://www.anglistik.phil.uni-erlangen.de/institut/personen/englinguistics/herbst/pub/Valency_approach-preliminary_version.pdf
13. Jensen Per A. Verb Valency, Grammatical functions and Semantic Roles Grammar in Expert Communication, 2013. (Accessed:15.09.2017)
http://openarchive.cbs.dk/bitstream/handle/10398/8673/Per%20Anker%20Jensen_Lect ure%20Notes%2001.pdf?sequence=1
14. Valency: Theoretical, Descriptive and Cognitive Issues, Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 187, Berlin New York, 2007. T. Herbst Valency complements or valency patterns p. 27. K. Gotz-Votteler Describing semantic valency p. 37. G. Rickheit and L. Sichelschmidt, Valency and cognition - a notion in transition, p. 166. J. Fillmore Valency issues in FrameNet pp.129, 145.
15. Vilmos Agel, Klaus Fischer Dependency Grammar and Valency Theory. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic analyses. Oxford, University Press.
(Accessed: 09.01.2018) https://www.uni-
kassel.de/fb02/fileadmin/datas/fb02/Institut_f%C3%BCr_Germanistik/Bilder/Depend ency_Grammar_and_ Valency_Theory_2010.pdf
Information about the authors:
Khachatryan Gurgen (Vanadzor, Armenia) - Doctor of Philological Sciences, Professor. Rector of Vanadzor State University after H. Toumanyan. Professional Council of RA Ministry of Education and Science NAS Institute of Language after H. Acharyan.
Muradyan Silva (Vanadzor, Armenia) — PhD student of the Chair of Armenian Language of Vanadzor State University after H. Toumanyan.
