A corpus-based study on the transitive uses of English physiological verbs
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32714/ricl.13.02.08Keywords:
physiological verbs, transitivity alternations, non-canonical objects, corpus studyAbstract
This paper examines the transitivity potential of a group of English unergative verbs that denote physiological processes, a syntactico-semantic verbal class which has not received enough attention in the literature. Through a qualitative corpus-based analysis of 26 verbs conducted on the COCA and BNC corpora, it will be shown that the degree of transitivity of this verbal class is higher than stated in previous studies since, in addition to the cognate object construction (And burp the same garlic burps), the substance object alternation (I was breathing garlic over her), and the resultative construction (He yawned open his mouth), they have been documented in seven other transitive patterns in which they increase their valency with the addition of a non-canonical direct object: x’s way constructions (They crapped their way out?), reaction object constructions (Emma hiccups a yes), caused-motion constructions (They’d laugh me straight out of the door), preposition drop alternations (He shit the rug), the understood body-part object alternation (He snuffled his nose along his arm and sleeve), away constructions (Hatch yawned away another hour), and causative patterns (Always burp your baby when feeding time is over).
Downloads
References
Allan, Keith and Kate Burridge. 2006. Forbidden Words: Taboo and the Censoring of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Amberber, Mengistu. 1996. Transitivity Alternations, Event-types and Light Verbs. Quebec, Canada: The McGill University dissertation.
Ausensi, Josep. 2019. Revisiting the elasticity of verb meaning and the way-construction in English. In M. Teresa Espinal, Elena Castroviejo, Manuel Leonetti, Louise McNally and Cristina Real-Puigdollers eds. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 23/1: 75–92.
Bary, Corien and Peter de Swart. 2005. Additional accusatives in Latin and Ancient Greek: Arguments against arguments. In Judit Gervain ed. Proceedings of the Ninth ESSLLI Student Session. Edinburgh: online, 12–24. https://hdl.handle.net/2066/40222 (15 May, 2024.)
Bassols de Climent, Mariano. 1945. Sintaxis Histórica de la Lengua Latina. Barcelona: CSIC.
Beavers, John. 2002. Aspect and the distribution of prepositional resultative phrases in English. LinGO Working Paper #2002–7. Stanford: Stanford University. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John-Beavers/publication/2893783_Aspect_and_the_Distribution_of_Prepositional_Resultative/links/0deec522f3c542eb86000000/Aspect-and-the-Distribution-of-Prepositional-Resultative.pdf (20 April, 2024.)
Bilous, Rostylav. 2012. Transitivity revisited: An overview of recent research and possible solutions. Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association: 1–14. https://cla-acl.ca/pdfs/actes-2012/Bilous_2012.pdf (10 April, 2024.)
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Boas, Hans C. 2003. A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Bouso, Tamara. 2021. Changes in Argument Structure. The Transitivizing Reaction Object Construction. Bern: Peter Lang.
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax: A Government-binding Approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. The syntax of causative constructions: Cross-language similarities and divergences. In Masayoshi Shibatani ed. The Grammar of Causative Constructions. New York: Academic Press, 261–312.
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Causative verb formation and other verb-deriving morphology. In Tim Shopen ed. Language Typology and Syntactic Description 3. Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 309–348.
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Role of Semantic Typology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Davidse, Kristin. 1991. Transitivity/Ergativity: The Janus-headed grammar of actions and events. In Martin Davies and Louise Ravelli eds. Advances in Systemic Linguistics. London: Pinter, 105–135.
Davies, Mark. 2008. Corpus of Contemporary American English. https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/ (February-July, 2024.)
Davies, Mark. 2007. British National Corpus. https://www.english-corpora.org/bnc/ (February-July, 2024.)
Davies, Mark. 2013. Corpus of Global Web-Based English. https://www.english-corpora.org/glowbe/ (February-July, 2024.)
de Swart, Petrus Jacobus Franciscus. 2007. Cross-Linguistic Variation in Object Marking. Utrecht: LOT.
Devís Márquez, P. Pablo. 1993. Esquemas Sintáctico-semánticos: El Problema de las Diátesis en Español. Cádiz: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Cádiz.
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55/1: 59–138.
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1991. A New Approach to English Grammar, on Semantic Principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dixon, Robert M. W. and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald eds. 2000. Changing Valency: Case Studies in Transitivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Esquivel Rodríguez, Leo. 2010. Operaciones de aumento de valencia sintáctica en español. Letras 48: 151–167.
Fellbaum, Christiane. 1990. English verbs as a semantic net. International Journal of Lexicography 3: 278–301.
Felser, Claudia and Anja Wanner. 2001. The syntax of cognate and other unselected objects. In Nicole Dehé and Anja Wanner eds. Structural Aspects of Semantically Complex Verbs. Bern: Peter Lang, 105–130.
Fernando, Chitra and Roger Flavell. 1981. On Idiom: Critical Views and Perspectives. Exeter: University of Exeter.
Flach, Susanne. 2020. The emergence of the into-causative: Constructionalization and the sorites paradox. In Lotte Sommerer and Elena Smirnova eds. Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 45–68.
Givón, Talmy. 1984. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction (Vol. 1). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goldberg, Adele E. 1991. It can’t go down the chimney up: Paths and the English resultative. Berkeley Linguistic Society 17: 368–378.
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, Adele E. and Ray Jackendoff. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80: 532–568.
Hale, Ken and Samuel J. Keyser. 1986. Some transitivity alternations in English. Lexicon Project Working Papers 7: 605–638.
Hale, Ken and Samuel J. Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Han, Ligang. 2019. A review of the major varieties of English language. International Education Studies 12/2: 93–99.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In Bernard Comrie and Maria Polinsky eds. Causatives and Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 87–120.
Hickey, Raymond. 2012. Standard English and standards of English. In Raymond Hickey ed. Standards of English: Codified Varieties around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–33.
Hilpert, Martin. 2014. Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Höche, Silke. 2009. Cognate Object Constructions in English: A Cognitive Linguistic Account. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56/2: 251–299.
Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Israel, Michael. 1996. The way constructions grow. In Adele E. Goldberg ed. Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 217–230.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. Twistin’ the night away. Language 73/3: 534–559.
Kim, Mija. 2010. On the time away construction: A corpus-based approach. Linguistic Research 27/1: 121–136.
Kim, Jong-Bok and Jooyoung Lim. 2012. English cognate object constructions: A usage-based construction grammar approach. English Language and Linguistics 18: 31–55.
Kijparnich, Nabhidh. 2011. The unergative-unaccusative split: A study of the verb die. Manutsayasat Wichakan 18/2: 107–126.
Kudrnáčová, Naděžda. 2005. Oscillatory corporeal verbs from a semantico-syntactic perspective. Brno Studies in English 31/1: 35–48.
Kuno, Susumu and Ken-ichi Takami. 2004. Functional Constraints in Grammar. On the Unaccusative-Unergative Distinction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
La Polla, Randy J., František Kratochvíl and Alexander R. Coupe. 2011. On transitivity. Studies in Language 35/3: 469–491.
Lakoff, Robin. 1973. The logic of politeness: or, minding your P’s and Q’s. In Claudia W. Corum, Thomas Cedric Smith-Stark and Ann Weiser eds. Proceedings from the 9th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago Linguistic Society, 292–305.
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Leech, Geoffrey, Paul Rayson and Andrew Wilson. 2001. Word Frequencies in Written and Spoken English: Based on the British National Corpus. London: Routledge.
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Macfarland, Talke. 1995. Cognate Objects and the Argument/Adjunct Distinction in English. Evaston, Illinois: The Nothwestern University dissertation.
Marantz, Alec. 1992. The way-construction and the semantics of direct arguments in English: A reply to Jackendoff. Syntax and Semantics 26: 179–188.
Martínez Vázquez, Montserrat. 1998. Diátesis: Alternancias oracionales en la lengua inglesa. Huelva: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Huelva.
Martínez Vázquez, Montserrat. 2014. Expressive object constructions in English: A corpus-based analysis. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 69: 175–190.
Massam, Diane. 1990. Cognate objects as thematic objects. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics 35: 161–90.
McClure, William. 1990. A lexical semantic explanation for unaccusative mismatches. In Katarzyna Dziwirek, Patrick Farrell and Errapel Meijas-Bikandi eds. Grammatical Relations: A Cross-Theoretical Perspective. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 305–318.
McColm, Dan. 2019. A Cross-Linguistic Investigation of the Way-Construction in English, Dutch, and German. Edinburgh: The University of Edinburgh dissertation.
McMillion, Allan. 2006. Labile Verbs in English: Their Meaning, Behavior and Structure. Stockholm: The Stockholm University dissertation.
Mittwoch, Anita. 1998. Cognate objects as reflections of Davidsonian arguments. In Susan Rothstein ed. Events and Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 309–332.
Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nakajima, Heizo. 2006. Adverbial cognate objects. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 647–684.
Ogata, Takafumi. 2011. Cognate objects as categorical expressions. Journal of Chikushi Jogakuen University and Junior College 3: 1–14.
Payne, Thomas. 1997. Describing Morphosyntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Peña Cervel, Sandra M. 2009. Constraints on subsumption in the caused-motion construction. Language Sciences 31: 740–765.
Perek, Florent. 2018. Recent change in the productivity and schematicity of the way-construction: A distributional semantic analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 14: 65–97.
Perlmutter, David. 1978. Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. In Jeri J. Jaeger, Anthony C. Woodbury, Farrell Ackerman, Christine Chiarello, Orin D. Gensler, John Kingston, Eve E. Sweetser, Henry Thompson and Kenneth W. Whistler eds. Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 157–190.
Radford, Andrew. 1988. Transformational Grammar: A First Course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Real Puigdollers, Cristina. 2008. The nature of cognate objects: A syntactic approach. In Sylvia Blaho, Camelia Constantinescu and Bert Le Bruyn eds. Proceedings of ConSOLE XVI. Leiden: Leiden University, 157–178.
Riaubiené, Benita. 2015. Resultative Secondary Predicates in European Languages. Lithuania: Vilna University.
Rivas, Elena. 1996. Construcciones de objeto interno en castellano medieval. Intento de caracterización. Revista de Filología Románica 13: 39–60.
Roberge, Yves. 2002. Transitivity requirement effects and the EPP. Paper presented at WECOL 2002. Vancouver: Universidad de British Columbia.
Rodríguez Adrados, Francisco. 1992. Nueva Sintaxis del Griego Antiguo. Madrid: Gredos.
Sailer, Manfred. 2010. The family of English cognate object constructions. In France Stefan Müller ed. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 191–211.
Smith, Carlota S. 1970. Jespersen’s ‘Move and Change’ class and causative verbs in English. In Mohammad Ali Jazayery, Edgar C. Polomé and Werner Winter eds. Linguistics and Literary Studies in Honor of Archibald A. Hill (Vol. 2). Mouton: The Hague, 101–109.
Snell-Hornby, Mary. 1983. Verb Descriptivity in German and English: A Contrastive Study in Semantic Fields. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Song, Jae Jung. 1996. Causatives and Causation: A Universal-Typological Perspective. London: Longman.
Stockwell, Robert, Paul Schachter and Barbara Partee. 1973. The Major Syntactic Structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Sweet, Henry. 1891. A New English Grammar. Part I: Introduction, Phonology, and Accidence. Oxford: Clarendon.
Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Tim Shopen ed. Language Typology and Lexical Descriptions. Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 57–149.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics II: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Taylor, John R. 1995. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thalberg, Irving. 1972. Enigmas of Agency. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1985. Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics 21/2: 385–396.
van Gelderen, Elly. 2018. The Diachrony of Verb Meaning: Aspect and Argument Structure. London: Routledge.
Visser, Fredericus Theodorus. 1963–1973. A Historical Syntax of the English Language. Leiden: J. Brill.
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1997. Understanding Cultures Through Their Key Words: English, Russian, Polish, German, and Japanese. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilson, Jacob. 2019. The Syntax and Lexical Semantics of Cognate Object Constructions. Arizona: Arizona State University.
WorldData.info. 2025. English speaking countries. https://www.worlddata.info/ languages/english.php (22 February, 2025.)
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Research in Corpus Linguistics
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Submission of your paper to this journal implies that the paper is not under submission for publication elsewhere. Material which has been previously copyrighted, published, or accepted for publication will not be considered for publication in this journal. Submission of a manuscript is interpreted as a statement of certification that no part of the manuscript is copyrighted by any other publisher nor is under review by any other formal publication. By submitting your manuscript to us, you agree on these copyright guidelines. It is your responsibility to ensure that your manuscript does not cause any copyright infringements, defamation, and other problems.
Submitted papers are assumed to contain no proprietary material unprotected by patent or patent application; responsibility for technical content and for protection of proprietary material rests solely with the author(s) and their organizations and is not the responsibility of the journal or its editorial staff. The main author is responsible for ensuring that the article has been seen and approved by all the other authors. It is the responsibility of the author to obtain all necessary copyright release permissions for the use of any copyrighted materials in the manuscript prior to the submission.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under the BY Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal
Article submission implies author agreement with this policy.
