Ergative Verb

In general linguistics, a labile verb (or ergative verb) is a verb that undergoes causative alternation; it can be used both transitively and intransitively, with the requirement that the direct object of its transitive use corresponds to the subject of its intransitive use, as in "I ring the bell" and "The bell rings." Labile verbs are a prominent feature of English, but they also occur in many other languages.

Terminology

The terminology in general linguistics is not stable yet. Labile verbs can also be called "S=O- ambitransitive" (following R.M.W. Dixon's usage), or "ergative", following Lyons's influential textbook from 1968. However, the term "ergative verb" has also been used for unaccusative verbs,Keyser, Samuel Jay & Thomas Roeper. 1984. On the middle and ergative constructions in English. Linguistic Inquiry 15(3). 381–416. and in most other contexts, it is used for ergative constructions.

In English

Most English verbs can be used intransitively, but ordinarily this does not change the role of the subject; consider, for example, "He ate the soup" (transitive) and "He ate" (intransitive), where the only difference is that the latter does not specify what was eaten. By contrast, with a labile verb the role of the subject changes; consider "it broke the window" (transitive) and "the window broke" (intransitive).

Labile verbs can be divided into several categories:
* Verbs suggesting a change of state — ''break, burst, form, heal, melt, tear, transform''
* Verbs of cooking — ''bake, boil, cook, fry''
* Verbs of movement — ''move, shake, sweep, turn, walk''
* Verbs involving vehicles — ''drive, fly, reverse, run, sail''

Some of these can be used intransitively in either sense: "I'm cooking the pasta" is similar to both "The pasta is cooking" (as an ergative verb) and "I'm cooking", although it is clearly more informative than either.

Unlike a passive verb, a nominalization, an infinitive, or a gerund, which allow the agent to be either excluded or included, the intransitive form of a labile verb normally requires the agent to be excluded:

* "The window was broken" or "The window was broken by the burglar."
* " €¦to break the window €¦ or " €¦for the burglar to break the window €¦
* " €¦the breaking of the window €¦ or " €¦the burglar's breaking of the window €¦
* "The window broke" but not "The window broke by the burglar."

The intransitive form of a labile verb can suggest that there is no agent. With some non-labile verbs, this can be achieved using the reflexive voice: ''He solved the problem'' becomes ''The problem was solved'' or ''The problem solved itself''.

The first use of the reflexive voice can indicate the lack of an agent, but it can also be used when a specific agent is unknown. For example, the phrases "John broke the window, or maybe Jack did — at any rate, the window broke" and "John solved the problem, or maybe Jack did — at any rate, the problem was solved" both have quite naturally understandable meanings, though they are slightly idiomatic.

The second use of the reflexive voice indicates that the subject of the sentence is the causative agent; the phrase "John solved the problem, or maybe Jack did — at any rate, the problem solved itself" is literally self-contradictory, though idiomatic usage does not always follow this prescription. Accordingly, some grammarians would consider both "The window broke" and "The problem solved itself" to be examples of a distinct voice, the middle voice.

The labile verb enables not only the omission of the outside agent, but also the implication that the affected party is somehow causing the action. This can be done neutrally when the affected party can be considered an institution or corporate entity and the individual member responsible for the action is unimportant, for example "the shop closed for the day". It can also avoid assigning blame when journalists are sympathetic to a particular causative agent, as in "Eight factories have closed this year."

In Norwegian

The labile verbs in Norwegian have one conjugation pattern for the transitive form and another for the intransitive form:

* «Nøtta knakk» (The nut cracked)
* «Jeg knekte nøtta» (I cracked the nut)

In French

French is another language that has them, developed from lack of distinguished sense in Gallo-Roman Vulgar Latin:

*"Il tourne la tête." ("He turns his head.")
*"Sa tête tourne." ("His head turns.")

However, note that the use of the reflexive form of the verb to express the anticausative meaning is more common.

*"J'ouvre la porte." ("I open the door.")
*"La porte s'ouvre." ("The door opens itself", i.e. "The door opens.")

Further, verbs analogous to English ''cook'' have even more possibilities, even allowing a causative construction to substitute for the transitive form of the verb:

*"Je cuis les pâtes." ("I cook the pasta.")
*"Je cuis." ("I cook", i.e. either "I cook omething or e.g. "It's so hot in here, I'm practically roasting.")
*"Je fais cuire les pâtes." (''lit.'', "I make cook the pasta", i.e. "I make the pasta cook", i.e. "I cook the pasta.")
*"Les pâtes cuisent." ("The pasta cooks.")

In Dutch

In Dutch, labile verbs are used in a way similar to English, but they stand out as more distinct particularly in the perfect tenses.

In the present, the usage in both languages is similar, for example:
*"Jan breekt zijn glas." ("John breaks his glass.")
*"Het glas breekt." ("The glass breaks.")

However, there are cases where the two languages deviate. For example, the verb ''zinken'' (to sink) cannot be used transitively, nor the verb ''openen'' (to open) intransitively:
*"Het schip zonk." ("The ship sank.")
*''Not'' *"De marine zonk het schip." (Unlike "The navy sank the ship.")
and
*"Jan opent de deur." ("John opens the door.")
*''Not'' *"De deur opent." (Unlike "The door opens.")

In this last case, one could say: "De deur gaat open." (lit. "The door goes open"), while the former would be stated as "De marine liet het schip zinken." (lit. "The navy let the ship sink").

A difference between Dutch and English is that typically the perfect tenses of intransitives take ''zijn'' (to be) as their auxiliary rather than ''hebben'' (to have), and this extends to these verbs as well.
*''present'':
** "Hij breekt het glas." ("He breaks the glass")
** "Het glas breekt." ("The glass breaks.")
*''perfect'':
** "Hij heeft het glas gebroken" ("He has broken the glass.")
** "Het glas is gebroken." ("The glass has broken." ''or'' "The glass is broken.")

Perfect labile innocence

Labiles are verbs of innocence, because they imply the ''absence'' of an actor who could possibly be blamed. This association is quite strong in Dutch and speakers tend to treat verbs such as ''forgetting'' and ''losing'' as ergatives in the perfect tenses even though they typically have a direct object and are really transitive verbs. It is not unusual to hear sentences such as:

:Ik ben mijn boek vergeten. - I forgot my book (and it just 'happened' ''to'' me: there is no actor).
:Ik ben mijn geld verloren. - I lost my money (poor me).

Something similar happens with compound verbs such as ''gewaarworden'' ('become aware (of something)'). It is a separable compound of ''worden'' ('become'), which is a typical 'process'-verb. It is usually considered a copula, rather than an ergative, but these two group of verbs are related. For example, copulas usually take ''to be'' in the perfect as well. A verb such as ''blijven'' ('stay') is used both as a copula and as an ergative and all its compounds (''nablijven'' ('stay behind'), ''bijblijven'' ('keep up'), ''aanblijven'' ('stay on') etc.) are ergatives.

''Gewaarworden'' can take two objects, a reflexive indirect one and one that could be called a ''causative object''. In many languages the causative object would take a case such as the genitive, but in Dutch this is no longer the case:

:Ik werd me dat gewaar - I became aware of that.

The perfect usually takes ''to be'' regardless of the objects:

:Ik ben me dat niet gewaargeworden. - (''roughly'') I did not catch on to that.

In Hebrew

Hebrew does have a few labile verbs, due in part to calques from other languages; nonetheless, it has fewer labile verbs than English, in part because it has a fairly productive causative construction and partly distinct mediopassive constructions. For example, the verbs (active) and (its mediopassive counterpart) both mean ''to break'', but the former is transitive (as in "He broke the window") and the latter is intransitive (as in "The window broke"). Similarly, the verbs (active) and (its causative counterpart) both mean ''to pass'', but the former is intransitive (as in "He passed by Susan") and the latter is transitive (as in "He passed the salt to Susan").

See also

* Ambitransitive verb
* Unaccusative verb
* Unergative verb

References

External links

Ideas for Teaching Ergative Verbs to ESL Students
* Wiktionary's "English ergative verbs" category

{{DEFAULTSORT:Ergative Verb
Transitivity and valency