Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Transitive–Unaccusative Alternation: A Cross-Modal Priming Study

  • Published:
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The relationship between different linguistic manifestations of an eventuality-denoting concept, referred to in the literature as diatheses or voices, is well-studied in theoretical linguistics. Among researchers studying this phenomenon, it is widely agreed that there is a systematic relationship between the various diatheses of a concept. However, when a specific alternation is addressed, the nature of this relationship, namely, its directionality, is at debate. This research employs the much-debated transitive–unaccusative alternation as a case-study and reports the results of two cross-modal priming experiments designed to explore how Hebrew speakers perceive it. The results reveal an asymmetry between the facilitating effects of transitives and unaccusatives, thus suggesting that the relationship between these diatheses is directional. As a whole, this study demonstrates that theoretical debates regarding derivational relationships can be addressed by means of psycholinguistic research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. As the transitive–unaccusative alternation, like other derivational alternations, exhibits sporadic derivational gaps, there are some cases where an unaccusative verb does not have a transitive alternate in the vocabulary of a specific language. Some examples from English are vanish, appear, wilt and flower. For an extensive discussion and empirical investigation see Fadlon (2011).

References

  • Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopolou, E., & Everaert, M. (2004). Introduction. In A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopolou, & M. Everaert (Eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle: explorations of the syntax–lexicon interface (pp. 1–21). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopolou, E., & Schäfer, F. (2006). The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. In M. Frascarelli (Ed.), Phases of interpretation (pp. 187–213). Berlin: Mouton.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, M., & Badecker, W. (2002). Inflectional regularity: Probing the nature of lexical representation in a cross-modal priming task. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(4), 705–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altmann, G., Garnham, A., & Dennis, Y. (1992). Avoiding the garden path: Eye movements in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(5), 685–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arad, M. (2005). Roots and patterns: Hebrew morpho-syntax. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aronoff, M. (1976). Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L. (1981). The syntax of “ne”: Some theoretical implications. The Linguistic Review, 1, 117–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18(3), 355–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borer, H., & Grodzinsky, Y. (1986). Syntactic cliticization and lexical cliticization: The case of Hebrew dative clitics. In H. Borer (Ed.), The syntax of pronominal clitics. Syntax and semantics 19 (pp. 175–217). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borer, H. (1994). The projection of arguments. In E. Benedicto & J. Runner (Eds.), Functional projections (pp. 19–47). Amherst, MA: GLSA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., Stewart, A. J., & McLean, J. F. (2000). Syntactic priming in spoken production: Linguistic and temporal interference. Memory & Cognition, 28(8), 1297–1302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burkhardt, P., Piñango, M. M., & Wong, K. (2003). The role of the anterior left hemisphere in real-time sentence comprehension: Evidence from split intransitivity. Brain and language, 86(1), 9–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burzio, L. (1986). Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, G. (2004). Written in 1989. A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences. In A. Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou, & M. Everaert (Eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle: Explorations of the syntax–lexicon interface (pp. 22–59). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Minimalist inquiries: The framework step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–155). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (2013). Problems of projection. Lingua, 130, 33–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doron, E. (2003). Agency and voice: The semantics of the semitic templates. Natural Language Semantics, 11(1), 1–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Embick, D., & Marantz, A. (2008). Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry, 39(1), 1–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fadlon, J. (2011). Hidden entries: A psycholinguistic study of derivational gaps. In M. Everart, M. Marelj, & T. Siloni (Eds.), The theta system: argument structure at the interface (pp. 200–226). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrand, L., & Grainger, J. (1992). Phonology and orthography in visual word recognition: Evidence from masked non-word priming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45(3), 353–372.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, F. (2000). Syntax in language production: An approach using tree-adjoining grammars. In L. Wheeldon (Ed.), Aspects of language production (pp. 291–330). Hove: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, F., & Hendereson, J. (1991). The use of verb subcategorization information in syntactic parsing. In G. Simpson (Ed.), Understanding word and sentence (pp. 305–330). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII (pp. 559–586). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedmann, N., Taranto, G., Shapiro, L., & Swinney, D. (2008). The leaf fell (the leaf): The online processing of unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 39, 355–377.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Frost, R., Forster, K., & Deutsch, A. (1997). What can we learn from the morphology of Hebrew: A masked priming investigation of morphological representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 23, 829–856.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frost, R., Deutsch, A., & Forster, K. (2000). Decomposing morphologically complex words in a nonlinear morphology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 751–765.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frost, R., Deutsch, A., Gilboa, O., Tannenbaum, M., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2000). Morphological priming: Dissociation of phonological, semantic, and morphological factors. Memory & Cognition, 8, 1277–1288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harley, H. (1995). Subjects, events, and licensing (Doctoral dissertation). Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horvath, J., & Siloni, T. (2011). Causatives across Components. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 29(3), 657–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koontz-Garboden, A. (2009). Anticausativization. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 27, 77–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A. (2004). Building resultatives. In C. Maien-born & A. Wllstein-Leisten (Eds.), Event arguments in syntax, semantics, and discourse (pp. 177–212). Tbingen: Niemey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., & Thompson, K. (2011). Real-time production of unergatives and unaccusative sentences in normal and agrammatic speakers: An eyetracking study. Aphasiology, 25(6–7), 813–825.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, B., & Rappaport, M. (1995). Unaccusativity at the syntax–lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loebell, H., & Bock, K. (2003). Structural priming across languages. Linguistics, 41(5), 791–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marantz, A. (1997). No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In A. Dimitriadis & L. Siegel (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st annual penn linguistics colloquium (pp. 201–225). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marantz, M. (2007). Phases and words. In S. Choe (Ed.), Phases in the theory of grammar (pp. 191–222). Seoul: Dong In.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marslen-Wilson, W., Tyler, L. K., Waksler, R., & Older, L. (1994). Morphology and meaning in the English mental lexicon. Psychological Review, 101(1), 3–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meltzer, A., & Siloni, T. (2013). Unaccusativity in Hebrew. Encyclopedia of Hebrew languages and linguistics. Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90(2), 227–234.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McQueen, J., & Cutler, A. (1998). Morphology in word recognition. In A. Spencer & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Handbook of morphology (pp. 101–132). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neely, J. H. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition, 11, 264–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. (1990). Events in the semantics of English: A study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlmutter, D. (1978). Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. In Proceedings of the 4th annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics society, Berkeley, CA, pp. 157–189.

  • Pesetsky, D. (1982). Paths and categories (Doctoral dissertation). Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesetsky, D. (1995). Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchett, B. (1988). Garden path phenomena and the grammatical basis of language processing. Language, 64(3), 539–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pritchett, B. (1992). Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramchand, G. (2008). Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rappaport-Hovav, M., & Levin, B. (2011). Lexicon uniformity and the causative alternation. In M. Everart, M. Marelj, & T. Siloni (Eds.), The Theta system: Argument structure at the interface (pp. 150–177). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart, T., & Siloni, T. (2004). Against the unaccusative analysis of reflexives. In A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou, & M. Everaert (Eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle: Explorations of the syntax–lexicon interface (pp. 159–180). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart, T., & Siloni, T. (2005). The lexicon–syntax parameter: Reflexivization and other arity operations. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 389–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shetreet, E., Friedmann, N., & Hadar, U. (2010). The neural correlates of linguistic distinctions: Unaccusative and unergative verbs. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 2306–2315.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shlonsky, U. (1997). Clause structure and word order in Hebrew and Arabic: An essay in comparative Semitic syntax. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tulving, E., & Schacter, D. L. (1990). Priming and human memory systems. Science, 247(4940), 301–306.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to express her deepest gratitude to Julia Horvath, Tal Siloni, Michal Ben-shachar, Naama Friedmann and Aya Meltzer-Asscher for their valuable guidance and advice.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Pycholinguistics and Neurolinguistics Research Lab, Department of Linguistics and Sagol School of Neuroscience, Tel-Aviv University, Ramat-Aviv, Israel

    Julie Fadlon

Authors
  1. Julie Fadlon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie Fadlon.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Verbs Used in Experiment 1

Experimental condition

Transitive

Unaccusative

No. of shared phonemes (NSP)

Translation

Simplex–complex

   rikex

hitrakex

5

softened

   ximem

hitxamem

5

heated

   kerer

hitkarer

4

cooled

   lixlex

hitlaxlex

4

soiled

   saraf

nisraf

4

burned

   motet

hitmotet

4

collapsed

   kimet

hitkamet

5

wrinkled

   patax

niftax

3

opened

   saxaf

nisxaf

4

swept

   cinen

hictanen

5

chilled

   Šavar

niŠbar

3

broke

   pizer

hitpazer

5

scattered

Complex–simplex

   hicmiax

camax

4

grew

   hir’id

ra’ad

3

trembled

   hifriax

parax

3

blossomed /blew

   hikpi

kafa

1

froze

   hitbia

tava

2

drowned

   hinbit

navat

2

sprouted

   hizrim

zaram

2

poured/flowed

   he’if

af

2

flew

   higbir

gavar

2

rose

   hiv’ir

ba’ar

1

burnt (arson)

   heni’a

na

2

moved

   hirtit

ratat

2

vibrated

Simplex–simplex

   kiba

kava

2

turned-off

   Šikex

Šaxax

3

alleviated

   hidlik

nidlak

4

turned-on

Complex–complex

   hixŠil

nixŠal

3

tripped

   he’erim

ne’eram

4

stacked

   hifsik

nifsak

4

stopped

   hirtiv

nirtav

4

made/got-wet

   he’elim

ne’elam

4

made/ vanished

   hixxid

nixxad

3

made/got-extinct

   hixliŠ

nexlaŠ

3

weakened

  

Average: 3.265

 

Phonological control condition

Prime

Target

NSP

Experimental NSP—control NSP ratio

Prime

Target

NSP

Experimental NSP—control NSP ratio

hitrakex

tarak

4

1.25

rikex

nikrax

3

1.6666667

‘slammed’

‘got-wrapped’

hitxamem

tixem

4

1.25

ximem

nitxam

3

1.6666667

‘delimited’

‘delimited’

hitkarer

kiter

5

0.8

kerer

herik

3

1.3333333

‘griped’

‘emptied’

lixlex

hitxalxel

4

1

hitlaxlex

xilxel

4

1

‘shuddered’

‘seeped’

saraf

nifras

4

1

nisraf

naŠar

3

1.3333333

‘spread’

‘fell’

motet

hemit

3

1.333333

hitmotet

timtem

4

1

‘killed’

‘soddened/muddled’

kimet

hemtik

5

1

hitkamet

katam

4

1.25

‘sweetened’

‘sniped’

patax

pite’ax

4

0.75

niftax

nafax

4

0.75

‘developed’

‘blew’

nisxaf

nise’ax

5

0.8

saxaf

hexsif

3

1.3333333

‘formulated’

‘made/became-silver’

hictanen

henec

4

1.25

cinen

hitnocec

4

1.25

‘buded’

‘glittered’

šavar

biser

1

3

niŠbar

naŠav

3

1

‘announced’

‘blew’

hitpazer

pirez

5

1

pizer

hefriz

4

1.25

‘demilitarized’

‘exaggerated’

hicmiax

maxac

4

1

camax

hexmic

3

1.3333333

‘smite’

‘made-sour’ ‘missed’

hir’id

hera

2

1.5

ra’ad

he’edir

2

1.5

‘worsened’

‘glorified’

hifriax

hefer

3

1

parax

rixef

2

1.5

‘violated’

‘hovered’

hikpi

paka

2

0.5

kafa

hifki’a

3

0.3333333

‘burst’

‘expropriated’

tava

hiv’it

2

1

hitbia

hibit

4

0.5

‘terrified’

 

‘looked’

hinbit

heniv

2

1

navat

nitev

3

0.6666667

‘yielded’

‘directed’

hizrim

ramaz

2

1

zaram

nirmaz

4

0.5

‘hinted’

‘got/was hinted’

af

hofi’a

2

1

he’if

afa

2

1

‘appeared’

‘baked’

gavar

hivrig

3

0.666667

higbir

higiv

3

0.6666667

‘screwed’

‘responded’

hiv’ir

hebi’a

2

0.5

ba’ar

her’iv

2

0.5

‘expressed’

‘starved’

na

ne’ena

2

1

heni’a

ana

3

0.6666667

‘got-answered’

‘answered’

ratat

hetir

2

1

hirtit

yiret

3

0.6666667

‘allowed’

‘intercepted/shot-down’

kiba

baka

3

0.666667

kava

nikva

3

0.6666667

‘got-cleaved’

‘pooled’

Šaxax

ninŠax

3

1

Šikex

xaŠak

4

0.75

‘got-bitten’

‘desired’

hidlik

nilkad

4

1

nidlak

hiklid

4

1

‘got-trapped’

‘rusted’

nixŠal

nixeŠ

3

1

hixŠil

hexiŠ

4

0.75

‘guessed’

‘speed-up’

ne’eram

hitna’er

4

1

he’erim

hi’ir

4

1

‘shaked-off’

‘waked’

nifsak

fikses

4

1

hifsik

hikif

4

1

‘faxed’

‘orbited’

hirtiv

hitiv

4

1

nirtav

viter

4

1

‘made-well’

‘gave-up’

he’elim

ho’il

4

1

ne’elam

hil’im

4

1

‘availed’

‘made-vanish’

hixxid

nidxa

3

1

nixxad

hidi’ax/hedi’ax

3

1

‘rejected’

‘rinsed’/‘dismissed’

nexlaŠ

hiŠlix

3

1

hixliŠ

hexil

4

0.75

‘tossed’

‘implemented’

 

Average

3.265

1.04

  

3.35

0.99

Appendix 2: Verbs Used in Experiment 2

Experimental condition

Transitive

 

Intransitive

 

Complex–simplex

   hix’is

‘angered’

ragaz

‘got-angry’

   hitbi’a

‘drowned’

Šaka

‘drowned’

   hiŠtik

‘silenced’

nadam

‘got-silent’

   he’if

‘flew’

na

‘moved’

   hiv’it

‘scared’/’frightened’

yara

‘feared‘

   hicit

‘burned’ (arson)

ba’ar

‘burned’

   herkid

‘made-dance’

zaz

‘moved’

   hexliŠ

‘weakened’

rafa

‘got-limp’

   hidgiŠ

‘emphasized’

balat

‘got-prominent’

   hirgiz

‘annoyed’

ka’as

‘got-angry’

   heni’a

‘moved’

zaz

‘moved’

Complex–complex

   hidhim

‘amazed’

hitrashem

‘got-impressed’

   hirgiz

‘annoyed’

hit’acben

‘got-irritated’

   higŠim

‘realized’/‘fulfilled’

hitmameŠ

‘realized’

   he’ir

‘waked’

hikic

‘wakened’

   hirgil

‘habituated’

histagel

‘habituated’

   hitiŠ

‘exhausted‘/’tired’

hit’ayef

‘got-tired’

   hitmiha

‘surprisingly astounded’

hitpale

‘wondered’

   hiv’ir

‘burned’(arson)

hitlahet

‘heated’

   hifxit

‘lessened’

hitma’et

‘diminished’

   hishpric

‘sprayed’

nitaz

‘got-sprayed’

Simplex–simplex

   cimcem

‘reduced’

paxat

‘decreased’

   Šamat

‘dropped’

nafal

‘fell’

Control condition

Prime

Target

hixnis

patar

hivlig

hitromem

piter

hitlabeŠ

hiflig

bara

hexlif

histaben

pina

nislax

patax

hitxalef

hivtiax

axal

pica

amad

kilel

higniv

gila

nirtav

hinif

hevi

bilbel

yaŠav

hisbir

hitga’age’a

pileg

halax

hikdiŠ

hista’er

liben

histapek

xalaf

hexdir

hishtaxrer

hitmid

ganav

hicmid

rac

hoŠi’a

hitlahev

pizer

hitpana

rikex

hitgareŠ

hisgir

hitkarev

himci

mica

hishki’ax

hitmaked

ina

hitrageŠ

ciyec

parax

hicmi

xava

naval

gar

himit

paca

hexmi

nam

hivrig

yaraŠ

hirdim

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fadlon, J. The Transitive–Unaccusative Alternation: A Cross-Modal Priming Study. J Psycholinguist Res 45, 671–696 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-015-9368-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-015-9368-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation