Unaccusativity

Abstract My research is an attempt at suggesting a cross-linguistically valid definition of verbs characterized by unagentivity and affectedness such as “burn”, “die”, “sink”, “fall”, “slide”, etc., which according to the present analysis constitute the semantic core of unaccusativity. Both synchronic and diachronic approaches are followed. Various definitions have been attributed to these verbs (eventives, anticausatives, transformatives, inchoatives, decausatives). Although Perlmutter & Postal (1984) classify unaccusative verbs on the basis of their syntactic behavior, they also argue that the syntactic expression of arguments is always determinable on the basis of the meaning of the verb, so that some correspondence can be established between unaccusativity and some verb types (predicates of existing and happening: “exist”, “happen”, “transpire”, “occur”, etc.; duratives: “last”, “remain”, “stay”, “survive”, etc). Historical (Delbrück 1897; Benveniste 1950; Lazzeroni 1990, 2001) and Typological (Kemmer 1993; Klaiman 1991) Linguistics, on the other hand, have given further contributions: the meanings of unaccusative verbs widely correspond to the media tantum (or deponentia) identified by Delbrück (1897) and Benveniste (1950) and to the ten middle types enumerated by Kemmer (1993: 16-20). On the basis of Hopper-Thompson's Transitivity Scale (1980) and the Cognitive-Semantic Approach (Rosch, Lakoff, Lazzeroni etc.) the hypothesis can be put forward that the verbs characterized by unagentivity and affectedness are to be regarded as Prototypical Unaccusatives.