Ауыспалы және өздік етістер

Verb that can be used transitively or intransitively

In general linguistics, a labile verb (or ergative verb) is a verb that undergoes causative alternation; that is, it can be used both transitively and intransitively, with the requirement that the direct object of its transitive use corresponds to the subject of its intransitive use, as in "I ring the bell" and "The bell rings." Labile verbs are a prominent feature of English, and also occur in many other languages. When causatively alternating verbs are used transitively they are called causatives since, in the transitive use of the verb, the subject is causing the action denoted by the intransitive version. When causatively alternating verbs are used intransitively, they are referred to as anticausatives or inchoatives because the intransitive variant describes a situation in which the theme participant (in this case "the door") undergoes a change of state, becoming, for example, "opened".

The terminology in general linguistics is not stable yet. Labile verbs can also be called "S=O ambitransitive" (following R. M. W. Dixon's usage), or "ergative", following Lyons's influential textbook from 1968. However, the term "ergative verb" has also been used for unaccusative verbs, and in most other contexts, it is used for ergative constructions.

Under a syntactic intransitive base approach, the transitive form is derived from the intransitive form by insertion of a verbal layer projected by a head expressing causation and introducing the external agent argument. In addition, the layers are joined together by head movement of the lowest verb head to positions higher in the syntactic structure. Change of state verbs are broken down into the verbal layers of initiation phrase (initP), process phrase (procP) and result phrase (resP), which approximately correspond to the predicate cause, become, and state respectively. Example (9a), the anticausative variant, is basic according to the intransitive base approach. The theme ("the stick") is initially merged into the specifier of resP and that it then moves to the specifier of procP. Around this time the causative alternations closely resemble an adult like form; however, around the age of 2;6 to 12;0 children begin making common errors of overregularization, in which they erroneously overuse the causative. Children often acquire the syntactic pattern that goes along with verbal alternations; however, that does not mean that they acquire the lexical semantic restrictions that accompany these alternations. In (29c), children are erroneously using fixed intransitive verbs (such as "stay") in environments where fixed transitive verbs (such as "keep") would be used. In language acquisition, once children establish that a particular transitivity alternation is productive, they often extend the alternation to new verbs, It has been suggested that children learn this is through the no negative evidence problem; for example a child will learn that the verb 'throw' can never be used in a subject position: *"the ball threw". A reflexive pronoun is a pronoun that is preceded by the noun, adjective, adverb or pronoun to which it refers (its antecedent) within the same clause.

Mandarin Chinese is a language that lacks inflectional morphology that marks tense, case, agreement, or lexical category. The language also does not have derivational morphology to mark the transitivity of verbs.

Causative alternation in Korean is difficult to interpret. There have been many attempts to capture the restrictions on Korean causative alternation, but none of them capture the restrictions entirely. Some verbs in Korean bear similarities to the paired verbs in Japanese. Morphological changes take place in order to show transitivity and intransitivity. Shown in (25) is the causative use of the verb "열다" – "yeolda", conjugated in past tense. Shown in (26) is the anticausative use of the verb, conjugated in past tense. In examples (25) and (26), it is seen that the infinitive (unconjugated) forms of the verb "yeolda" are the same, but causative and anticausative forms take on different conjugated forms in order to show causativity. Korean also bears similarities to Chinese in its verbal compounding. Shown in (27) and (28) is an example of a verb that requires compounding in order to be grammatical in the causative use. Seen in (27) is the anticausative use of the verb "죽다" – "jugda", conjugated in past tense. Seen in (28) is the causative use of the verb, conjugated in past tense. Example (28) shows that the verb "jugda" behaves similarly to the verb "sui" in Mandarin Chinese seen in example (24) in that the verb requires some sort of action performed by the agent.