Workshop: The Diachrony of Valence: Changes in Argument Structure
Organizers:
Werner Abraham (Universities of Vienna & Munich) (werner_abraham@t-online.de)
Matthias Eitelmann (University of Mainz)
Teresa Fanego (University of Santiago de Compostela) (teresa.fanego@usc.es)
Elly van Gelderen (Arizona State University) (ellyvangelderen@asu.edu)
Dagmar Haumann (University of Agder) (dagmar.haumann@uia.no)
Lars Hellan (University of Trondheim) (lars.hellan@ntnu.no)
Elisabeth Leiss (University of Munich) (elisabeth.leiss@lmu.de)
Workshop description
Traditionally, argument structure is an integral part of a lexical item's representation encoding the
number of arguments the lexical item takes, how the arguments are syntactically realized (e.g. DP,
PP, CP) and which semantic roles they instantiate (e.g. Agent, Experiencer, Theme). However,
these properties or features are neither synchronically invariable nor diachronically immune to
change, especially if a language is affected by large-scale typological shifts (Comrie 2006). A
showcase example in this respect is English with its development from syntheticity to analyticity.
As a consequence, a drastic increase of labile verbs can be witnessed, i.e. single double-functional
verbs whose argument structure varies considerably in that they can be used both with an
intransitive and a transitive meaning without any overt formal marking, which makes a
classification of English verbs as either transitive or intransitive notoriously difficult (van Gelderen
2011). Also, English has enhanced syntactic means for functions formerly expressed
morphologically (e.g. causativity: whereas jan-verbs ceased to be productive, periphrastic markers
of causativity have taken their place (van Gelderen 2014, García García 2012; Haspelmath 1993),
with the most recent addition being constituted by the V NP into V-ing construction).
This workshop aims at exploring argument structure from a diachronic (and comparative)
perspective focusing on the extent and limitation of variation in the lexical representation and/or the
(morpho)syntactic realization of a lexical item's arguments. Two types of processes are of prime
interest: those that affect a lexical item's argument structure (transitivization and detransitivization)
and those that affect the mapping of a lexical item's arguments onto syntax.
1. Augmentation processes, for example, involve strategies in which the verbal territory of a verb
is more or less systematically extended, as is the case with cognate objects that are etymologically
and semantically related to the verb they co-occur with, thus occupying the internal argument
position of a verb otherwise not taking direct objects (cf. English to smile a smile or Greek
ekhárēsan kharàn megálēn sphódra 'they were exceedingly glad with big joy' (cf. Hoeche 2009;
Lavidas 2012)), or with 'reaction' objects (cf. English to grunt one's gratitude, to wave an adieu (cf.
Felser & Wanner 2001; Levin 1993))
2. Argument reduction processes, for example, affect typically the highest argument of a lexical
item, which will either be absent from the lexical item's argument structure, as in anticausatives (cf.
German Eis schmilzt schnell 'ice melts fast') and middles (cf. English bananas peel easily), or
morphologically 'saturated', as is the case in canonical passives (cf. French il était tué 'he was killed'
or Norwegian alt for mye kastes 'too much is thrown away' (cf. Schäfer 2008, Julien 2007, Klingvall
2007, Steinbach 2002, Lødrup 2000)).
3. Argument mapping and remapping becomes evident in syntactic variation, cases in point
being complementation patterns (e.g. nominal vs. sentential complements, double object
constructions, complements of adjectives), (non)canonical subjects (e.g. quirky subjects, expletive
and locative constructions), etc. These phenomena often result from the interplay of changing
phonological and morphological conditions, semantic change as well as pragmatic considerations
(cf. Abraham 2010, Rudanko 1999, 2011, Hudson 1992, Colleman & De Clerck 2008, Fanego
2007, Hazout 2008, Barðdal 2006).
4. Additionally, since valence selection may be organized paradigmatically (case morphology
contingent also upon aspectual value of (verbal) complement or on the choice between features such
as [+/-human/+/-animate]) or syntagmatically (either independent of, or contingent upon, linear
position in the clause as in Modern English) a shift from paradigmatic to syntagmatic may be a
diachronic choice also (cf. Abraham & Leiss 2015).
Against this backdrop, the major questions that this workshop seeks to address are 
 which factors, diachronically, have impacted the argument structure of lexical items and induced
what types of changes
 what strategies, if any, are employed to formally mark changes in a lexical item's argument
structure and/or the mapping of a lexical item's arguments? 
 which strategies, if any, compensate for the absence of overt morphosyntactic and
morphonological cues/marking?
 to what extent are cross-linguistically generalizations possible?
On a larger scale, we are interested in the following issues and questions 
 are there processes that are more (a)typical than others? 
 are there preferred argument structures? Is there preferred mapping?
 argument structure changes in categories other than V and N
 why is it that certain types of changes yield (non)uniform results (e.g. argument demotion results
in periphrastic passives, morphological passives or middles, whereas argument reduction results
in impersonals and anticausatives; reflexivization in both augmentation and reduction processes)
 are certain types of adjuncts more prone to reanalysis than others (augmentation of argument
structure)?
 do labile verbs have labile argument structures?
 which types of change affect individual lexical items and which affect classes of lexical items
and constructions?
 what is the exact interplay of argument structure and event structure (aspect)?
 chicken-and-egg questions, e.g. do all changes begin in the lexicon, or can syntax (morphology,
semantics, pragmatics) feed argument structure?
 descriptions of transitivization, detransitivization, and changes in the mapping
Additional questions are:
 Since massive syntactic (multiple) fusion of (directional) prepositions (an/ab/vor/zu/auf/
unter/über etc.), on the one hand, and aspectual ge- and simple verbs took place (ver-/ab-/vor-/beizer-/über-/unterREDEN) the question rises to which systematic extent this influ-enced the valence
of the new fused verbs. In particular, did the prepositions – themselves a governing category –
merge their valence into the resulting fusional complex?
 Since prepositional fusion resulted in either (non-focal) prefixal or (focal) particle com-plexes,
and since certain prepositions only yielded focused prefixal morphemes (ver-SPRECHEN
“promise” vs. VORsprechen “drop in on”; *anSPRECHEN-ANsprechen), the differ-ent results may
require different systematic explanations.
 What is behind the generality of directional preposition+verb fusion, but not stative preposition+verb?
 Is it possible to explain case in terms of features and clear form-function relations in the vein of
Jakobson 1957?
 Is there any systematics behind case selection of verba deponentia? Consider Latin utor+
ABLATIVE, which taken by its diathetic form should represent the original AGENT, but which, in
fact, represents the direct object of the deponens verb.
 Speaking in terms of paradigms, how do languages encode causatives as opposed to decausatives, transitives as opposed to detransitives.
 Has there diachronically been a restriction for doubling identical case forms? Consider German
jemanden.ACC etwas.ACC lehren; jemanden.ACC etwas.ACC kosten, which are strict-ly evaded in
the spoken dialects. Does this mean that morphological case raises semantic images which are unalignable with one another in a single clause? But consider also Latin aliquem.ACC Latinam
linguam.ACC discere, which was valid thruout Classical Latin (but perhaps not in late vulgar
Latin?). 
 What L-contact did and does with valence is an unwritten chapter on this topic. Contribu-tions
from pidgins and creoles would be highly welcome. This applies equally to French in-fluence in the
period of ME. 
 Given the common insight that under L-contact (i.e. with pidginization and creolization)
grammar is transferred to the recipient L a lot less than semantic-lexical information, what role does
semantic valence play in the emerging language? Does it influence linearization in a systematic way
(linearization aligning with hierarchies of semantic roles)? 
 Bare datives and the pertinent prepositional constituents (as in English): simply linear align-ment
or semantic difference? 
 Is there a particular role laid aside for the reflexive pronominal, either full or as a grammat-ical
suffix, influencing valence emergence synchronically and diachronically? The case of deponens
verbs and their semantic case distribution. 
 Finally, are there instances of morphological valence encoding that are interacting with phonemic
syllable status vs. desyllabification due to phonetic changes?
References
Abraham, Werner 2010. Types of transitivity. Intransitive objects, and intransitivity – and the logic
of their designs: Ways to keep apart derivation in syntax and the lexicon. In: P. Brandt & M.
García García (eds.) Transitivity: form, meaning, acquisition, and processing, 15-68.
[Linguistic Aktuell /Linguistics Today 166]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Abraham, Werner & Elisabeth Leiss 2015 (to appear). Syntagmatic vs. paradigmatic case – the
methodolo-gy for underspecification of case exponency. In: L. Hellan; A. Malchukov & M.
Cennamo (eds.) Verbal valency in European languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Barđdal, Jóhanna 2006. Construction-Specific Properties of Syntactic Subjects in Icelandic and
German. Cognitive Linguistics 17 (1): 39–106.
Colleman, Timothy & Bernard De Clerck 2008. Accounting for Ditransitive Constructions with
envy and forgive. Functions of Language 15(2): 187–215.
Comrie, Bernard 2006. Transitivity Pairs, Markedness, and Diachronic Stability. Linguistics 44(2):
303–18.
Fanego, Teresa 2007. Drift and the Development of Sentential Complements in British and
American English from 1700 to the Present Day: In Pérez-Guerra, J., D. González-Alvarez, J.
Bueno-Alonso, E. Rama-Martínez & D. Britton, Derek (eds.). 'Of Varying Language and
Opposing Creed': New Insights into Late Modern English. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang,
161–235.
Felser, Claudia & Anja Wanner. 2001. The syntax of cognate and other unselected objects. In Dehé,
N. & Wanner, A. (eds). Structural Aspects of Semantically Complex Verbs. Frankfurt am
Main: Peter Lang, 105–30.García García, Luisa 2012. Morphological Causatives in Old
English: the Quest for a Vanishing Formation. Transactions of the Philological Society 110:
122–48.
Gelderen, Elly van 2011. The Linguistic Cycle: Language Change and the Language Faculty.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gelderen, Elly van 2014. Changes in Psych-verbs: A reanalysis of little v. Ms. Arizona State
University, Tempe.
Haspelmath, Martin 1993. More on the Typology of Inchoative/Causative Verb Alternations. In:
Comrie, B. & M. Polinsky (eds.). Causatives and Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
87–120.
Hazout, Ilan 2008. On the Relation between Expletive There and Its Associate: A Reply to
Williams. Linguistic Inquiry 39 (1): 117–28.
Hoeche, Silke 2009. Cognate Object Constructions in English. A Cognitive-Linguistic Account.
Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Hudson, Richard 1992. So-Called ‘Double Objects’ and Grammatical Relations. Language 68 (2):
251–76.
Jakobson, Roman [1957]1971. Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb. In: Jakobson,
Roman: Selected writings 2: 130-147.
Julien, Marit 2007. The relation between morphology and syntax. In: Ramchand, G., Ch. Reiss
(eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 209–
38.
Klingvall, Eva 2007. (De)composing the Middle. A Minimalist Approach to Middles in English and
Swedish. PhD dissertation. University of Lund.
Lavidas, Nikolaos 2012. Unaccusativity and the diachrony of null and cognate objects in Greek. In
Gelderen, E. van, J. Barðdal & M. Cennamo (eds.). Argument Structure in Flux: The NaplesCapri Papers. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 307–42.
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Lødrup, Helge 2000. Exceptions to the Norwegian passive: unaccusativity, aspect and thematic
roles. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 18: 37–54.
Rudanko, Juhani 1999. Diachronic Studies of English Complementation Patterns. Eighteenth
Century Evidence in Tracing the Development of Verbs and Adjectives Selecting Prepositions
and Complement Clauses. University Press of America.
Rudanko, Juhani 2011. Changes in Complementation in British and American English. CorpusBased Studies on Non-Finite Complements in Recent English. Palgrave Macmillan.
Schäfer, Florian 2008. The Syntax of (Anti-)Causatives. External arguments in change-of-state
contexts. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Steinbach, Markus 2002. Middle Voice. A Comparative Study in the Syntax-Semantics Interface of
German. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.