[Montserrat Martínez Vázquez “Lexical Ergativity in English and Spanish”, en Gramática

Contrastiva Inglés-Español. Huelva: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Huelva,

1996, pp. 25-44.

Lexical Ergativity in English and Spanish

Montserrat Martínez Vázquez

1. Introduction.

Ergativity has received quite a lot of attention in the last few years. Among the
reasons for such an increase in studies on ergativity is the attention paid to languages
which had not been studied before. But the term has been used to refer to a wide range
of different phenomena. As Dixon points out:
`Ergativity' is currently an `in' term in linguistics. It is used by a wide
variety of linguists, with a whole range of different meanings. As a result, much
confusion exists at present about what an 'ergative' language is, and about the
morphological, syntactic, and semantic consequences of such a characterization.
(Dixon, 1979: 59)

The term ergativity originated as a descriptive label to refer to a case-marking

system that marks the subject of an intransitive verb (S) and the object of a transitive
one (O) with the same case morpheme, and in opposition to the subject of a transitive
sentence (A). Thus we find ergative and accusative systems:

Intransitive subject: S
Transitive subject: A
Transitive object: O

Accusative Ergative
S=A S=O
O A

A further step in the study of ergativity has led linguists to believe that, strictly
speaking, there are no ergative languages: all those languages primarily thought of as
"ergative" also include accusative structures in their systems.1 And many accusative
languages have also been found to have some type of ergative organization.

2. Types of ergativity

The term ergativity has been progressively extended to any structure that treats S
in the same manner as O and differently from A. This phenomenon may show up in a
variety of different linguistic forms. In addition to morphological ergativity, new levels
of ergativity have been discovered: syntactic, discourse and lexical ergativity.
Morphological ergativity is found, among other languages, in Basque, which has a
different morpheme for S and A. S is marked as absolutive, like O, whereas A is
marked with the ergative morpheme {-k}:

(1) a. Gizona etorri da (the man has arrived).

b. Gizonak gozokia jan du (the man has eaten the cake).2

Dyirbal, for instance, also shows ergativity at a syntactic level with the equi rule,
which allows deletion of an NP identical to a previous NP in a coordinate clause, if both
NPs are in S or O function. Thus in Dyirbal in a sentence like (2a) the S of the second
clause is taken to be identical to O, and not to A as would be the case in English. So the
whole sentence would be interpreted as (2b).

(2) a. John saw Mary and sat down.3

b. John saw Mary and Mary sat down.

A language may show discourse ergativity if in the thematic organization of its

clauses S and O are treated in a similar way, and differently from A. For instance, a
language may tend to place the topic in an S or O function.4
The term has also been applied to the lexical domain. Thus, Burzio (1986)
remarks that for certain Italian ambi-transitive verbs, the selection rules for O
correspond to those for S. He calls the intransitive patterns of those pairs "ergative
verbs".

1 According to Verhaar (1990:153) "No known language is entirely ergative". Though it has been
pointed out that Basque is fully ergative at the morphological level. See Dixon (1994:2).
2 Examples from Moreno Cabrera (1991:423).
3 See Dixon (1987:4-5).
4 See Givón (1983).
3. Lexical ergativity.

As far as English and Spanish are concerned, we find some verbs used both
transitively and intransitively, the intransitive sentence having as subject the object of
the transitive counterpart. In such structures S and O behave in the same way, i.e. they
keep the same relation with the verb, and are different from A:

(3) a. I broke the glass.

b. The glass broke.
c. El gobierno subió los impuestos.
d. Los impuestos subieron.

Other English and Spanish verbs relate their subjects and differentiate them from
O. Such is the case, for example, of the following sentences:

(4) a. I ate fish and chips.

b. I ate.
c. Comí chocolate con churros.
d. Comí.

Thus we could say that both English and Spanish mix ergativity (3) and
accusativity (4) in their lexicons. But this type of ergativity which is restricted to the
lexical domain has to be clearly differentiated from the original sense of the term, which
makes reference to case-marking. English and Spanish are accusative languages at both
morphological and syntactic levels, but they have some lexemes which are ergative.5
Therefore, I will use the term ergative in its lexical sense, to refer to the semantic
parallelism between S and O,6 as exemplified in (3).

4. Lexical ergativity in English and Spanish.

There are three types of structures where a verb may be used in both a transitive
and an intransitive pattern, where the O of the transitive pattern appears as S in the
intransitive counterpart.

(5) a. They photographed her.

b. She photographs well.

(6) a. John opened the door.

5 See Dixon (1987:6-7).

6 See Lyons (1968:342).
 b. The door opened.

(7) a. The boy walked the dog.

b. The dog walked.

Structures (5), (6) and (7) share this alternating organization of an identical
semantic role as S or O. Therefore, they may be grouped together under the term
ergativity.7 But this alternating relationship between semantic role and syntactic
function is not the only defining feature of these structures. Actually, they are not
always grouped together. A simple look at some of the terminology employed to refer
to them will give us a clear idea about the different perspectives under which they have
been analyzed. Notice that the only unifying term used to cover the three types is
ergative:
(5)

term source
pseudo-intransitive Kilby (1984:45-48)
derived-intransitive O'Grady, (1980)
middles Keyser and Roeper (1984) Fellbaum (1986)
activo-passives Jespersen (1927:347-355)
ergative Huddleston (1971: 65)
process-oriented clauses Halliday (1968: 47)
patient-subject construction Van Oosten, 1977
medio-passive Grady (1968)
undergoer verbs Verhaar (1990)
potential or hypothetical clauses Hatcher (1943)
promotion-to-subject construction Dixon (1991: 322-335)
passival verbs Sweet (1891:90)

(6)

term source
ergative Van Riemsdijk and Williams (1986), Van
Riemsdijk and Williams (1986)
alternating intransitives O'Grady (1980)
anticausatives Siewierska (1984: 77), Kholodovic (1969),
Masica (1976), Comrie (1977)
inchoative Fellbaum (1986)
unaccusative or absolutive Keyser and Roeper (1984)
theme verbs Wunderlich (1985)
unaccusative Fellbaum (1989)

7 See M. Martínez Vázquez (to appear).

causative verbs Kaplan (1989: 170)
ambitransitives Dixon (1994)

(7)

term source
unergative verbs Ravin (1991: 107)
active intransitive verbs of locomotion Hale and Keyser (1986)
ergative Huddleston (1971:65); Halliday (1967:46);
Noguchi (1989:159) Dixon (1987:7)

This use of the term ergativity at a lexical level has been condemned by some
linguists.8 However, even those who prefer to discuss these structures under a different
rubric, take it as a starting point, since, whether acceptable or not, it is the term most
generally employed.9 I will subclassify these ergative pairs into three groups that I will
label derived intransitivity, alternating transitivity and derived transitivity ,
respectively.
No Spanish Grammar as far as I know, has used the term ergative as it has been
used to refer to any of the English structures exemplified by (5), (6) and (7) above.
However, we also find ergative verbs in Spanish, though most verbs take the clitic se in
the intransitive pattern.

(8) a. Juan cuaja la leche.

b. Esta leche cuaja bien.
(9) a. Los comerciantes suben los precios.
b. Los precios suben.
(10) a. Sonia paseó al perro.

8 See Dixon (1987:7): "this usage must be deplored, since it can only serve to confuse unwary
readers, and make it harder for them to appreciate the nature of morphological, syntactic and discourse
ergativity"; Dixon (1991:323); or Comrie (1978:391) "In much recent work on ergativity, or at least in
much recent work using the term ergativity, the term has been extended to cover sets of sentences like the
following English pair John broke the window/the window broke (...) This use of the term can be very
misleading". Zwolanek (1987:59) also condemns the use of the term ergative to refer to John in a
sentence like John broke the window and absolutive for the window in either the transitve or intransitive
pattern: "Diese Verwendung des Begriffs 'Ergativität' ist sehr irreführend".
9 See Lyons (1968:352): "(...) the term that is generally employed by linguists for the syntactic
relationship that holds between (1) The stone moved and (3) John moved the stone is "ergative"". Lyons
(1968:342) uses the term to refer to structures like (9). For Halliday (1967:46 ff) the following subjects
are ergative: i. She washed the clothes. (actor in effective) ii. He marched the soldiers. (initiator in
descriptive). Huddleston (1971:65) uses the term in a wider sense: "It will be convenient to have a simple
term to refer to the verbs entering into such contrasts: I shall speak of them, informally and somewhat
loosely, as 'ergative' verbs, since they suggest an ergative organization of the clause (one where a one-
place verb, i.e. a verb combining with a single NP, takes an 'affected' element as subject, while a two-
place verb takes a 'causer' as subject and an affected element as object) rather than a transitive
organization (one where a one-place verb takes an 'actor' as subject and a two-place verb an actor as
subject and a 'goal' as object)."
 b. El perro paseó por el jardín.

5. Derived intransitiviy.10

In structures like (5) or (8) we face a derivation from transitivity into

intransitivity. The derived intransitive structure is subject to a number of constraints
which do not apply in the transitive pattern.
The first unifying feature of these derived intransitive structures both in English
and Spanish is the need for adverbial determination. This adverbial shows the properties
of the subject that either hinder or facilitate the development of the action denoted by
the verb.11

(11) a. This book sells well.

b. This material washes well.
c. Esta cretona lava bien. (DRAE)
d. Esta puerta abre bien. (DRAE)

In (11), the adverb implies that the result of the action is due to a positive property
of the patient. In this sense these derived intransitives are patient-focused as Fellbaum
(1986:21) labels them or process-oriented as Halliday (1967:47) terms them, in
opposition to passives which are agent-oriented.12
If, on the contrary, we are dealing with a negative property of the subject, then
negation may replace the adverbial:

(12) a. This shirt doesn't/won't iron.

(13) b. Esta ventana no cierra.

We may want to be more specific about the process:

(13) Chomsky's new book reads like a thriller.13

(14) El banco no abre los domingos.
(15) The dress fastens down at the back.
(16) Este vestido abrocha por detrás.

10 For a more detailed study of these structures see L. González Romero (this volume).
11 Fellbaum (1986:9) calls them facility adverbs.
12 The agent in these structures is always implied since these verbs always involve two
participants, but it cannot be made explicit.
13 Example from Kilby (1984).
 Sometimes an emphasis on affirmation replaces the adverbial:

(17) His books always/do/should/will sell.14

(18) La seda tiñe.

The subject of these derived intransitives is usually an inanimate being --

sometimes animate but never a volitional cooperator of the action. It is affected by the
action typically involving a physical change, but never understood to be a result of the
action. Thus:

(19) These potatoes bake well.

(20) *This bread bakes well.
(21) Esta leche cuaja bien.
(22) *Este flan cuaja bien.

We find homonymous structures with an instrumental as subject (23-24), but there

is no ergative relation in such examples (25-26), since the transitive counterpart does
not place this instrumental as object (27-28).

(23) This straw sucks well.

(24) Esta lija pule bien.
(25) !X sucks this straw well.
(26) !X pule esta lija bien.
(27) X sucks well with this straw.
(28) X pule bien con esta lija.

In English we also find these derived intransitives with human subjects.

(29) Bureaucrats bribe easily.

(30) Mary scares easily.
(31) Royalists die well under torture. (Massam 1992, "heard on TV")

I have found no parallel examples in Spanish. We do find human subjects with

psych-verbs, like (32) but they get a different interpretation which is closer to reflexives
than to passives, (33).

14 Notice that in these examples we find an epistemic modality: the speaker somehow grants the
content of the proposition. As regards the verb sell in Spanish, María Moliner and DRAE describe it only
as transitive or pronominal. However, I have recently found it in an intransitive pattern: La nostalgia
vende bien. (El País, 3/1/96, p.53).
 (32) María se asusta fácilmente.
(33) Mary gets scared easily.

Another restriction of these derived intransitive patterns has to do with their tense-
aspect reference. These sentences show a generic reference,15since they state properties
that are held to be generally true, and they don't refer to specific events in time16. Hence
the unacceptability of (34-35).

(34) *The shirt washed well yesterday.17

(35) *El nylon lavó bien ayer.

They are generally found in a simple present tense and making reference to
timeless situations. However examples like (36) are not rare:

(36) Her book sold well.

(37) Bureaucrats are bribing more than ever in Reagan's second term. (Fagan
1992)
(38) La leche cuajó bien.

6. Alternating transitivity.18

We find a different type of ergative structure with verbs like move, open, close or
break, which alternate the transitive and the intransitive patterns. Some linguists like
Anderson (1968), Lyons (1968) or Halliday (1970) claim that they are basically
intransitive and that their transitive use is derived. Others like Comrie (1977)
Kholodovic (1969) or Masica (1976) call these verbs anticausative, suggesting an
intransitive origin, thus the transitive being derived. In Spanish we find verbs like

15 See Keyser and Roeper (1984:384), O'Grady (1980), and Verhaar (1990:132) on this point.
Fellbaum (1986:4-5) points out that it is not the action that is generic in these structures: it is the agent
that is nonspecific. I find it confusing to talk about a non-specific agent. This would associate these
derived intransitives with passives since as Stein (1979) points out between an 80% and 85% of English
passive clauses do not present the by + agent phrase.
16 The Spanish verb colgar, originally transitive, has an intransitive use which is clearly stative: La
ropa cuelga del balcón.
17 Notice that they do not appear in imperative or progressive constructions (as Keyser and
Roeper, 1984:385 point out):
i. *Bribe easily, bureaucrat!
ii.*Bureaucrats are bribing easily.
This will lead Verhaar (1990:133) to conclude that they are stative verbs.
18 I use the term transitivity in this case to refer to both the transitive and intransitive structures.
See Verhaar (1990:93): "'transitivity', a term which now increasingly functions as a superordinate term
for what is 'intransitive' and 'transitive'."
aumentar, disminuir, subir, etc. The class of verbs is enlarged by many others that
appear as intransitives with se. As in English, in Spanish there is not a unanimous
opinion as to which structure is the original. Thus in the DRAE aumentar is considered
as a transitive verb which may derived into an intransitive. María Moliner, on the other
hand, presents it as originally intransitive. Other Spanish verbs in this group are hervir,
cocer, colgar, disminuir, mejorar, empeorar, subir, bajar, pasar, variar, cambiar, etc.
The situation denoted by the verb in the intransitive pattern of these alternating
structures is not necessarily dependent on the intervention of an agent. The subject,
typically inanimate, is again a patient subject, but the event is self-originated, the verb
behaving almost as inherently reflexive. Thus, for instance, the verb open cannot be
associated to an accidental action if it appears with the NP can. (42); the verb empezar
is only possible in the intransitive pattern with eventive subjects, (44), since a non-
eventive subject, (46), would make the reflexive interpretation impossible.

(39) I opened the door.

(40) The door opened.
(41) I opened the can.
(42) *The can opened.
(43) El profesor empezó la clase tarde.
(44) La clase empezó tarde.
(45) He empezado el libro.
(46) *El libro ha empezado.

The action is brought about accidentally; there is no agent explicit nor implicit:

(47) *The door opened by John.

(48) *La clase empezó por el profesor.

though an instrumental may appear:

(49) The door opened with the wind.

(50) Los precios subieron a causa de la inflación.

It is interesting to remark that some verbs may appear both as derived intransitives
or as alternating transitives, depending on the situation implied. If it is interpreted as
self-originated it will be built as an alternating transitive structure (51). If an agent is
implicit, then it will have to be built as a derived intransitive (52), with all its constraints
(i.e. addition of an adverbial, potential or hypothetical sense, etc.). It would be
ungrammatical otherwise (53).

(51) The door opened. AT

(52) This can opens easily. DI
(53) *This can opens. DI

Also interesting to note is the fact that the formation of these structures is
restricted to the lexical domain. Thus semantically equivalent verbs are not necessarily
built in the same way. In Spanish, empezar or comenzar are ergative with eventive NPs,
but iniciar is not.

(54) Ella inició/comenzó/empezó la reunión tarde.

(55) La reunión *inició/se inició/comenzó/empezó tarde.

The verb fly shows different restrictions in English and in Spanish:

(56) The plane/kite/bird flew.

(57) She flew a plane/kite/*bird.

Curiously enough in Spanish:

(58) *Ella voló un avión. (Pilotó un avión)

(59) Ella voló la cometa.
(60) El perro voló la perdiz. (DRAE)

7. Derived transitivity.

The third group of structures with this diathetic alternation that links S and O,
which we have loosely called ergative, is formed by active intransitive verbs like walk,
march, swim, etc. which admit the addition of an NP subject to form a causative
structure.
The original structure involves one participant in a high intransitive structure, (61,
63). By adding an instigator we form the transitive structure, (62, 64). The subject of the
intransitive moves then to the position of object. The resulting structure has two active
participants: the subject or instigator and the object or agent.

(61) The dog walked.

(62) I walked the dog.
 (63) El perro paseó.
(64) Sonia paseó al perro.19

All these structures need an animate agent, capable of performing the action. This
agent is the subject of the intransitive sentence. In the transitive counterpart the subject
is always instigator.
In English these causative constructions are said to be "exceptional", formed only
by a small group of verbs like gallop, march, walk, run, fly, jump and swim.20 I don't
think that this class is restricted to these motion verbs. The verbs work, dance, exercise,
and train also build similar ergative structures:

(65) We work hard in this office.

(66) They work us hard in this office.
(67) Carol danced toward the wall.
(68) George danced Carol toward the wall.
(69) The patient exercised.
(70) The nurse exercised her patient.
(71) John trained top athletes for the boat race.
(72) Top athletes trained for the boat race.

In Spanish they are less productive, but nevertheless the grammar permits them.

(73) Los muchachos/los toros corren.

(74) Los muchachos corren los toros.
(75) Los muchachos le corrían por las calles (GRAE 250-1)
(76) La perdiz voló.
(77) El perro voló la perdiz.
(78) El ministro cesó.
(79) Cesaron al ministro.
(80) Los muertos resucitaron.

19 "Pasear es un verbo básicamente intransitivo que, no obstante, puede emplearse con valor
transitivo cuando adquiere un sentido factitivo: pasear el niño." Roca Pons (1970:233).
20 Noguchi (1989:159 fn 6): "We will not go into the dicussion of agentive objects exemplified in
(ib) below:
(i) a. The horse walked.
b. John walked the horse.
We simply note that this type of alternation is truly exceptional. Indeed, there are only a few verbs
which are involved in this type of alternation; gallop, march, walk, run, fly, jump, swim are the only
possible candidates that I have actually encountered. Rather, we take the existence of this type of sporadic
causativization to be indicative of the generality of the EA (ergative alternation)." See also Olszewska
(1974:254).
 (81) Resucitaron a los muertos.
(82) María ascendió.
(83) Ascendieron a María.

8. Concluding remarks.

We may sum up by stating that lexical ergativity is also found in Spanish with
some verbs that alternate in transitive and intransitive patterns. The defining feature of
these structures is the presence of an NP which may appear either as O or S. We have
analysed three different groups of clauses which involve different syntactic behaviours.
In a first group we faced a phenomenon of derived intransitivity: the subject is
clearly a patient as in passives, but no agent can be expressed, even though there is
always one implicit. They emphasise the process and they involve a certain type of
modality.
In the second group we find verbs which alternate the transitive and the
intransitive patterns with the same range of productivity. This group of verbs forms a
larger class both in English and in Spanish. The intransitive pattern is seen as an
accidental process, therefore no agent is implied.
The third class is formed by intransitive verbs which may appear as transitives by
introducing a subject as instigator of the action. Unlike the two previous structures, in
these clauses the object of the intransitive is agentive.
References.

Anderson, J. M. 1968. "Ergative and nominative in English" Journal of Linguistics 4, 1-

32.
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax. A government-binding approach. Dordrecht:
Reidel.
Comrie, B. 1978. "Ergativity" in Syntactic typology: studies in the phenomenology of
language. W. P. Lehmann, (ed.) pp. 329-394. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Cranmer, David J. 1976. Derived Intransitivity: a contrastive analysis of certain
reflexive verbs in German, Russian and English. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Cruse, D.A. 1973. "Some thoughts on agentivity", Journal of Linguistics 9, 11-23.
Dixon, R. M. W. 1979. "Ergativity", Language 55, 59-138.
Dixon, R. M. W. 1987. "Studies in Ergativity", Lingua 71, 1-16.
Dixon, R. M. W. 1991. A new approach to English Grammar, on semantic principles,
chapter 10: "What sells slowly, but wears well?", pp. 321-335. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge:
University Press.
DRAE, Real Academia Española. 1984. Diccionario de la lengua española. Madrid:
Espasa-Calpe.
Fagan, Sarah M. B. 1988. "The English Middle", Linguistic Inquiry 19, 181-203.
Fagan, Sarah M. B. 1992. The syntax and semantics of middle constructions. A study
with special reference to German. Cambridge: University Press.
Fellbaum, Chistiane. 1986. On the middle construction in English. Reproduced by the
Indiana Lingusitics Club.
Fellbaum, Chistiane. 1989. "On the "Reflexive Middle" in English", Proceedings of the
Chicago Linguistic Society 25, 123-132.
Fillmore, C. J. 1968. "The case for case" en E. Bach and R. T. Harms (eds.) Universals
in Linguistic Theory, pp. 1-89. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Fillmore C. J. 1977. "The Case for Case Reopened" en P. Cole and J. M. Sadock (eds.)
Syntax and Semantics 8: Grammatical Relations, pp. 59-81. New York and London:
Academic Press.
González Romero, L. 1995. Estudio sintáctico-semántico de las construcciones medias
en inglés actual. MA Thesis. Universidad de Huelva.
Grady, Michael. 1965. "The Medio-Passive Voice in Modern English", Word 21-22,
270-272.
Grady, Michael. 1968. "Varieties of the English Middle Voice and Medio-passive"
Linguistics 54, 5-12.
Hale, K. and J. Keyser. 1986. "Some Transitivity Alternations in English" Lexicon
Project Working Papers 7, Center for Cognitive Science, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1967-68. "Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English" Journal of
Linguistics 3, 37 81, 199-244; 4, 179-215.
Hatcher, Anna Granville. 1943. "Mr. Howard Amuses Easy", Modern Language Notes
58, 8-17.
Huddleston, Rodney. 1971. The Sentence in Written English. Chapter 3 "Subjects,
Objects and Cases". Cambridge: University Press.
Jespersen, O. 1927. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. London:
Allen and Unwin.
Kaplan, J. P. 1989. English Grammar.Principles and Facts. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Kilby, D. 1984. Descriptive Syntax and the English Verb. London: Croom Helm.
Kholodovic. A. A. (ed.) 1969. Tipologiia Kauzativnykh Konstrukcii: Morfologicskii
Kauzativ. Leningrad: Nauka.
Keyser, Samuel Jay and Thomas Roeper. 1984. "On the middle and ergative
constructions in English", Linguistic Inquiry 15, 381-416.
Martínez Vázquez, M. to appear. Actas del XIX Congreso Nacional de AEDEAN. Vigo.
Masica, C. P. 1976. Defining a Linguistic Area, South Asia. Chicago: U.P.
Molina, J.A. de. 1974. Usos de se. Madrid: SGEL.
Moliner, María. 1984. Diccionario de uso del español. Madrid: Gredos.
Lyons, J. 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: University Press.
Moreno Cabrera, J. C. 1984. "La diátesis anitcausativa. Ensayo de Sintaxis General",
Revista Española de Lingüística 14, 21-43.
Moreno Cabrera, J. C. 1985. "Anticausatives: A typological Sketch", Papers from the
21st Regional Meeting of the CLS. 172-181.
Moreno Cabrera, J. C. 1987. "La participación" en Fundamentos de Sintaxis General,
pp. 47-64. Madrid: Síntesis.
Nagucka, Ruta. 1983. "On transitivity and intransitivity of the same (?) verb in
English", Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 16, 25-43.
Noguchi, Tohru. 1989. "Morphologically-related predicates: ergatives and middles in
English", English Linguistics 6, 150-167.
O'Grady, William D. 1980. "The derived intransitive construction in English", Lingua
52, 57-72.
Olszewska, Teresa. 1974. "Causative constructions in Englsih and Polish. A contrastive
study", Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 3, 251-266.
Plank, Frans. 1979. (ed.) Ergativity: towards a theory of grammatical relations. London
and New York: Academic Press.
Poldauf, Ivan. 1969. "The so-called medio-passive in English" Acta Universitatis
Carolinae-Philologica. Prague Studies in English 3, 15-34.
Ravin, Yael. 1991. Lexical Semantics without Thematic Roles. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Roca Pons, J. 1970. Introducción a la gramática. Barcelona: Teide.
Sadock, Jerrold M. and Judith N. Levi. 1977. "Ergativity in English?" Chicago
Linguistic Society book of squibs. Cumulative index 1968-1977. S. E. Fox, W. A.
Beach and S. Philosoph, (eds.) pp. 91-93. Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago.
Schroten, Jan. 1986. "Ergativity, raising and restructuring in the syntax of Spanish
aspectual verbs", Linguisticae Investigationes 10, 439-465.
Shibatani, M. (ed.) 1976. Syntax and Semantics 6. The Grammar of Causative
Constructions. New York: Academic Press.
Siewierska, Anna. 1984. The Passive. A Comparative Linguistic Analysis. Wolfeboro,
New Hampshire: Croom Helm.
Stein, G. 1979. Studies in the Function of the Passive. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Sweet , H. 1891. A new English Grammar I. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Taylor, A. 1976. "Ergative-based" or "transitive-based"? Foundations of Language 14,
1-17.
Van Oosten, Jeanne. 1977. "Subjects and agenthood in English", Papers from the 13th
Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 459-471.
Van Riemsdijk, H. and E. Williams. 1986. Introduction to the Theory of Grammar.
Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press.
Verhaar, John W. M. 1990. "How transitive is intransitive?", Studies in Language 14,
93-168.
Williams, Edwin. 1987. "English as an ergative language", Papers from the 23th
Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 366-375.
Wunderlich, D. 1985. "Über die Argumente des Verbs", Linguistische Berichte 97, 183-
227.
Zwolanek, Reneé. 1987. Merkmale der Ergativkonstruktion. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.