|
|
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| '''Valency''' is a category that indicates the number of syntactic arguments required by any predicate.
| | Some of the questions in Level 29 of CLEA450 are extremely difficult to get as this page has no concrete examples of Trivalency. I will try to add some (other than any featured in the quiz), but might be more reliable if someone with more experience wrote it.--[[User:John|John]] 13:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| == Natural language == | | == beautiful (adjective) = avalent (VAL0) == |
| In the UNLarium framework, valency may assume the following values:
| |
|
| |
|
| {{#tree:id=nl_valency|openlevels=0|root=Valency|
| | Why? Doesn't "beautiful" require an object (which is beautiful)? [[User:Vzakharov|Vzakharov]] 20:23, 23 August 2012 (CEST) |
| *avalent (VAL0): no argument
| |
| *monovalent (VAL1): one argument
| |
| *divalent (VAL2): two arguments
| |
| *trivalent (VAL3): three arguments
| |
| *tetravalent (VAL4): four arguments
| |
| }}
| |
| | |
| ;Verb valency and [[transitivity]]
| |
| :Verb valency is related, though not identical, to verb transitivity. Valency includes all arguments (including the subject) whereas transitivity includes only objects. | |
| ::rain = intransitive and monovalent (VAL1)
| |
| ::llover (es = rain) = intransitive and avalent (VAL0)
| |
| ::run = unergative (intransitive) and monovalent (VAL1)
| |
| | |
| ;Non-verbal valency
| |
| :Nouns, adjectives, adverbs and prepositions also have valency, which is related to the number of (internal) arguments they require.
| |
| ::beauty (noun) = avalent (VAL0)
| |
| ::beautiful (adjective) = avalent (VAL0)
| |
| ::beautifully (adverb) = avalent (VAL0)
| |
| ::arrival = monovalent (VAL1) (arrival of someone)
| |
| ::loyal = monovalent (VAL1) (loyal to someone or to something)
| |
| ::differently = monovalent (VAL1) (differently from something)
| |
| ::in = monovalent (VAL1) (in someplace)
| |
| | |
| ;Elliptical objects
| |
| :In the UNLarium framework, objects are to be considered elliptical (hidden) in verbal constructions if they can be inferred from the context.
| |
| :I read the book = I read all the afternoon = divalent (VAL2) (no significant semantic change)
| |
| :John kissed Mary = John kisses well = divalent (VAL2) (no significant semantic change)
| |
| :John bought a car = John buys (and Peter sells) = divalent (VAL2) (no significant semantic change)
| |
| | |
| ;Different valency values mean different senses
| |
| :In the UNLarium framework, the same verb may have different valency values, but only when associated to different UWs:
| |
| :John lives in Paris = monovalent (VAL1) (live = reside)
| |
| :John lives a nightmare = divalent (VAL2) (live = experience)
| |
| | |
| ;Objects (essential) are not to be confounded with adjuncts (accidental)
| |
| :John bought a car to Mary = divalent (VAL2) and not trivalent (VAL3)
| |
| | |
| === Example ===
| |
| *avalent: house, sad, now
| |
| *avalent: llover (es), chover (pt) (= rain) (null subject verbs in non-pro-drop languages)
| |
| *monovalent: construction, interested, contrarily, run, fall, sleep;
| |
| *divalent: buy, sell, go
| |
| *trivalent: give
| |
| | |
| == UNL ==
| |
| In UNL, valency, as a syntactic category, is not to be represented.
| |
Some of the questions in Level 29 of CLEA450 are extremely difficult to get as this page has no concrete examples of Trivalency. I will try to add some (other than any featured in the quiz), but might be more reliable if someone with more experience wrote it.--John 13:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
beautiful (adjective) = avalent (VAL0)
Why? Doesn't "beautiful" require an object (which is beautiful)? Vzakharov 20:23, 23 August 2012 (CEST)
