LARS HELLAN, ANDREJ MALCHUKOV AND MICHELA GENNAMO (EDS),
CONTRASTIVE STUDIES IN VERBAL VALENCY
LINGUISTIK AKTUELL/LINGUISTICS TODAY, VOLUME 237.
Ams e dam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins PublishingCompany, 2017.
ISBN 9789027257208
E e since Tesniè e (1959), alency has been acen al opic in syn ax. The adi ional
wo k on alency sha es wo cha ac e is ics. Fi s , i akes on alexical iew o alency,
i.e. alexical uni ( ypically a e b) is said o ha e ace ain alency ame, and alency
al e na ions a e explained in e ms o lexical uni de i a ion. This iew has no gone
unchallenged; p obably he bes -known al e na i e was pionee ed by Adele E.Gold-
be g in he now-classic monog aphs (1995, 2006). Second, linguis s ha e ypically
s udied alency in indi idual languages, and ha e usually ocused only on selec ed
ace s o he complex opic, hus lea ing agap ha s ill emains o be ully b idged.
Only ecen ly he e o s o do ha ha e gi en ise o a ious alency-cen e ed en e -
p ises; wo examples ha could be paid heed o a e he Leipzig Valency Classes P oj-
ec (c . Malchuko and Com ie 2015) and he Cons uc ion Labeling p ojec (c . Hellan
and Dakubu 2010). The monog aph unde e iew ce ainly comes as awelcome con-
ibu ion o he ield, b idging he gap ali le u he , while also ackling some o he
heo e ical ques ions ela ing o he i s abo e-men ioned cha ac e is ic.
The au ho s o he s udies included in he monog aph a e a ilia ed wi h a ious
ins i u ions, in e es ed in di e se languages om all o e he wo ld, and hei con-
ibu ions a e ancho ed wi hin di e en linguis ic amewo ks. All o hem came
oge he , howe e , sha ing he in e es in alency o Ma y Es he K opp Dakubu
(1938–2016), o whose memo y he olume is dedica ed. She was as uden o linguis s
so p ominen as Zellig Ha is; la e she mo ed o Ghana, whe e she spen he whole
p o essional li e, conduc ing esea ch on Nige -Congo languages, becoming an ex-
pe in a ious ields o Wes A ican linguis ics. She le behind an imp essi e ich-
ness o esul s on which o he s can build.
The hi een s udies included in he book a e o ganized in o h ee majo pa s, e-
ol ing a ound a gumen coding, alency ea anging al e na ions, and he in e ace
be ween alency and g amma ical oice, espec i ely. The pape s a e accompanied
by ab ie in oduc o y o e iew o he no ion o alency, which pays special a en-
ion o he desc ip i e s a egies applicable when dealing wi h e bs ha may occu
in se e al alency ames. The in oduc o y pape also conside s he link be ween
e b seman ics and alency ames, illus a ing how con as i e s udies migh a-
cili a e he esea ch in his a ea. The ollowing su ey is necessa ily selec i e o lack
o space; Ican only commen e y b ie ly on each pape , and wi hou ying o be
exhaus i e, I ake he libe y o adding an occasional ema k ha migh spa kle he
in e es o o he s.
The i s ou s udies explo e he a ea o alency ames and a gumen coding. The
i s pape , w i en by We ne Ab aham and Elisabe h Leiss, is i led Mul iple case
binding— The p incipled unde speci ica ion o case exponency. The au ho s
pu sue Jakobson’s no ion o pa adigma ic case, a guing agains syn ac ic case, i.e.
case being iewed as syn agma ically s uc u ed (a iew due o Tesniè e). The au ho s
Jakub Sláma
242 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 2/2018
insis ha he e should be a u n owa ds he pa adigma ics o case, and ha he
esea ch in case unc ions should s a anew by ede ining he ca ego y adequa ely.
They also ake he oppo uni y o c i icize bo h o malis app oaches ( o “a educ-
ion o case o i s o mal side”, p. 29) and Cons uc ion G amma . As o he la e ,
hey claim ha “syn agma ic case as ep esen ed in case ames o e b ames is
he a o i e opic o cons uc ion g amma ians o en o ce hei claim ha syn ax is
no hing mo e han idioma ic cons uc ion” (p.74), dubbing his a“dubious” me hod-
ological app oach. While any cons uc i e c i icism is welcome by he membe s o
he cogni i e-cons uc ionis a e ni y, Ibelie e ha e y ew o hem— i any—
would conside syn ax o be “no hing mo e han idioma ic cons uc ion.”
Do o hee Bee mann’s s udy In ini i es deals wi h con ol pa e ns in Ge man and
No wegian ba e in ini i e cons uc ions, ocusing on aspec ual and pe cep ion e bs.
She elies on he amewo k o Lexical Func ional G amma , which allows he o
pinpoin unc ional and seman ic cons ain s unde lying he di e en p ope ies o
Ge man and No wegian e b chains.
Ma y Es he K opp Dakubu and La s Hellan’s con ibu ion i led Alabeling sys-
em o alency: Linguis ic co e age and applica ions p esen s he Cons uc-
ion Labeling Sys em, a o ma o alency ep esen a ion ha has p o ed o be
ac oss-linguis ically applicable ool o alency- ela ed anno a ion, as illus a ed
wi h examples om English, No wegian, and Ga (spoken in Ghana). Gi en he limi-
a ion o space, Ican men ion only h ee poin s ha I ind wo h no ing. Fi s , he
au ho s wo k wi h he no ion o cons uc ions. While hey make i clea ha hey
conside hei no a ion as “neu al ela i e o he amewo k ‘Cons uc ion G am-
ma ’,” hey s ill sugges — jus i iably, Ibelie e— ha hei no a ion’s “abili y o
compac ly ep esen la ge numbe s o cons uc ion ypes” (p.110) could be asou ce
o inspi a ion ha cons uc ion g amma ians migh bene i om on hei ques o
an op imal sys em o no a ion as he bu ess o a obus syn ac ic heo y. Second,
al hough no ocusing on English in hei con ibu ion, he au ho s p o ide alink1
o he assembly o alency empla es o English as well. Thi d, he applica ions o
he no a ion sys em include he mul ilingual alency da abase Mul iVal,2 ce ainly
ause ul esou ce.
Denis C eissels and Céline Mounole’s Non-canonical alency pa e ns in
Basque, a ia ion and e olu ion p o ides an in iguing insigh in o he wo kings
o one o he ew non-Indo-Eu opean languages o Eu ope. Relying on da a om Old
Basque, S anda d Basque, and p esen -day dialec s, he au ho s documen he expan-
sion o e ga i e encoding, i.e. he expansion o coding ames lacking an absolu i e
slo , in he his o y o Basque. They a emp o p o ide an explana ion o he ise
o o iginally non-canonical coding ames, a guing ha “ he si ua ion obse ed in
p esen -day Basque implies achange in he cons ain s unde lying he o ganiza ion
o he alency p ope ies o Basque e bs o in hei ela i e anking” (p.151). Since
he diach onic pe spec i e on alency emains o be a he an unde esea ched a ea,
his pape migh be in aluable o anyone in e es ed in he ield.
1 <h ps:// ypec a .o g/ c2wiki/Valence_P o ile_English>
2 <h ps:// ypec a .o g/ c2wiki/Mul ilingual_Ve b_Valence_Lexicon>
JAKUB SLáMA 243
The second pa o he monog aph, comp ised o ano he ou s udies, co e s he
opic o alency ea anging al e na ions.
And ej L.Malchuko ’s Explo ing he domain o di ansi i e cons uc ions
o ms alink be ween he p esen olume and he Leipzig Valency P ojec men ioned
abo e. Malchuko ocuses on lexical a ia ion o di ansi i e cons uc ions, illus a -
ing ha his a ia ion is no andom as he e a e p e e ences o ce ain e b classes
o ce ain syn ac ic alignmen s. These p e e ences a e shown o be alid c oss-lin-
guis ically, wi h he au ho using examples om awhole gamu o languages. In he
conclusion o his pape , he au ho poin s ou ha “mo e g oundwo k needs o be
done on seman ic analyses o indi idual e bs and cons uc ions” (p.214), highligh s
he need o e b lexicons o indi idual languages, and concludes by calling o mo e
p og ess “on bo h he heo e ical and he empi ical side o es ablish uni e sals in he
domain o e b classes and alency al e na ions” (ibid.).
Chia a Melloni and F ancesca Masini’s Cogna e cons uc ions in I alian and
beyond iden i ies h ee ypes o cogna e cons uc ions (CCs) in I alian, mainly ocus-
ing on he Cogna e Objec Cons uc ion (COC), well-known om English, as in Sa ah
smiled acha ming smile. The au ho s analyze he kinds o e bs and nouns ha appea
in I alian CCs, using wo web co po a. Con a y o wha has p e iously been claimed,
hei analysis shows ha COCs ake seman ically he e ogenous e bs as well as ob-
jec nominals wi h di e gen seman ic p ope ies. Fu he mo e, he au ho s pinpoin
se e al lexico-seman ic (aspec ual p ope ies, e en schemas, noun ypes) and p ag-
ma ic ( edundancy, and pe haps egis e ) cons ain s on he use o he COC. Com-
pa ing I alian wi h o he Romance languages, he au ho s iden i y language speci ic
ea u es o he use o CCs; a e aking Russian and Heb ew da a in o accoun , hey
also sugges ha he I alian CC seems o be a o ed in ce ain s ylis ic con ex s, and
ha his migh be alanguage speci ic endency.
Michela Cennamo’s Objec omission and he seman ics o p edica es in I alian
in acompa a i e pe spec i e in es iga es he seman ics o objec omission wi h
di alen e bs in I alian, paying a en ion o se e al a iables and con ex ual ea-
u es. Va iabili y in he omissibili y o he objec in I alian is shown o e lec bo h he
e en s uc u e empla e o he e b and seman ic elemen s lexicalized in he e b,
in e ac ing wi h no ions such as animacy and e e en iali y. While he cons ain s on
inde ini e objec s (as in Anna sc i e a e Ugo s udia a ‘Anna was w i ing and Ugo was
s udying’) in I alian and English seem o be simila (e.g. in bo h languages inde i-
ni e null objec a e ypically non-anima e), anapho ic null objec s appea o display
ahighe deg ee o language speci ic a iabili y, which should be u he in es iga ed.
In he con ibu ion i led On animacy es ic ions o he null objec in B a-
zilian Po uguese, Sonia Cy ino add esses some o he ques ions aised by he p e-
ious a icle, discussing anapho ic null objec s in B azilian Po uguese, as compa ed
o Ame ican Spanish and o he languages. I is a gued ha B azilian Po uguese null
objec s a e cha ac e ized by aclus e o seemingly un ela ed p ope ies (including
non-anima e an eceden s and aban on ma ix subjec s as an eceden s). As he anal-
ysis is couched wi hin he amewo k o gene a i e syn ax, he au ho conside s
null objec s o be ins ances o DP ellipsis, i.e. inaudible DPs ha ha e iden ical an e-
ceden s, which enables he o assume ha “ he e is apa allelism equi emen o be
244 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 2/2018
me , and he null objec and i s an eceden mus be in pa alleled s uc u es” (p.291).
The pa allelism equi emen is claimed o be so s ong as o be able o o e ide he
non-animacy equi emen , which is suppo ed by g amma ical (albei pe iphe al)
examples such as Ped o beijou aMa iai depois que oPaulo ab açou _i ‘Ped o kissed Ma ia
a e Paulo hugged (he ).’ Ne e heless, he au ho concludes ha he e y es ic ed
possibili y o anima e an eceden s emains an open issue.
The las pa o he olume, which includes i e con ibu ions, ocuses on alency
changing s a egies and oice al e na ions. Leonid Kuliko and Nikolaos La idas’s
Be ween Passi e and Middle ocuses on G eek and Vedic e bs ha can appea
wi h wo non-ac i e mo phologies. The c ucial pa o he con ibu ion p esen s
he esul s o adiach onic co pus s udy, compa ing Home ic G eek, Classical G eek
(Pla o), and Koine G eek (New Tes amen ), which shows “adec ease o he p esence
o he e bal class ha can appea wi h wo non-ac i e oice mo phologies in G eek”
(p.322). This dec ease migh be a ibu able o he ongoing loss o he middle oice
mo phology bu also o he ise o labile3 e bs ha ha e ac i e oice mo phology o
causa i e as well as an icausa i e4 uses.
In Valency al e na ions be ween in lec ion and de i a ion, Li io Gae a con-
as s I alian and Ge man, ocusing on a ious alency changes and al e na ions in an
e o o o ganize hem along he In lec ion-De i a ion con inuum. Valency al e na-
ions a e usually ea ed ei he as alexical phenomenon o as acon ex -condi ioned
a ia ion (i.e. as apu ely syn ac ic phenomenon); Gae a a gues o he o me , which
is compa ible wi h he iew o alency al e na ions as a ype o con e sion, i.e. ap o-
cess o lexeme o ma ion. The au ho hus iews, o ins ance, bake— a e b allowing
o he da i e al e na ion— as polysemous, wi h di e en senses being ac i a ed in
Ibaked acake o he and Ibaked he acake. While i needs o be emphasized ha he
au ho does no necessa ily plead o apu ely lexicalis iew o al e na ions, Is ill be-
lie e ha he discussion migh ha e bene i ed i a gumen s such as hose pu o wa d
by Goldbe g (2006: Chap e 2) we e aken in o accoun . The only a gumen agains
(neo-)cons uc ionis app oaches (which a e disca ded wi hou much conside a ion)
men ioned by Gae a is he ele ance o he a gumen s uc u e o de i a ional mo -
phology, as exempli ied by he I alian -bile, Ge man -ba , and English -able, “which
no mally and p oduc i ely selec only ansi i e e bs” (p.368). Howe e , Ibelie e
ha his is no eally a alid a gumen agains (neo-)cons uc ionis app oaches, since
hese can accoun o he es ic ions on wo d- o ma ion by he abo e-men ioned su -
ixes by in oking seman ic cons ain s, i.e. wi hou ac ually making e e ence o he
a gumen s uc u e pe se (c . he e y in oduc ion o Goldbe g 1995).
Ismael I án Teomi o Ga cía’s P onominal e bs ac oss Eu opean languages
p oposes aclassi ica ion o p onominal e bs, i.e. e bs “whose syn ac ic ealiza ion
o hei a gumen s uc u e equi es o allows he inse ion o apa icle ha lacks
3 Labili y means ha ing he “same mo phology o he ansi i e and in ansi i e use”
(p.298).
4 An icausa i e e bs a e e bs ha “seman ically deno e achange o s a e and en e he
causa i e-an icausa i e al e na ion” (p.381) exempli ied by John opened he doo ( he caus-
a i e a ian ) and The doo opened ( he an icausa i e a ian ).
JAKUB SLáMA 245
[…] in e p e a ion as ega ds he pa icipan s uc u e o he e en ” (p. 375), as in he
Spanish Juan se asus ó ‘Juan go sca ed’ o he Czech Sklo se ozbilo ‘The glass b oke.’5
The p oposed classi ica ion is based p ima ily on Spanish, bu he au ho e e s o
awide a ie y o Eu opean languages as well, concluding wi h examples o ques ions
ha s ill need o be answe ed. Since he e ha e been ex ensi e deba es o e he s a us
o he Czech wo d se (be i ap onoun o apa icle), i could be no ed ha Czech lin-
guis ics migh p o ide e y good sugges ions on how some o hese ques ions migh
be answe ed (c . Pe gle 2016, o ins ance).
The opic o e lexi i y is also ele an o he ollowing con ibu ion, Adina D ag-
omi escu and Alexand u Nicolae’s Seman ic cons ain s on he e lexi e/non- e-
lexi e al e na ion o Romanian unaccusa i es, which discusses seman ic e ec s
associa ed wi h he al e na ion o ase o 38 Romanian unaccusa i e e bs. E en
hough he au ho s conclude ha “auni a y seman ic analysis o he al e na ion is
no a ailable o Romanian” (p.407), hey s ill manage o delinea e se e al subclasses
o hese e bs. The a ailabili y o he al e na ion in each o hese subclasses seems
o be mo i a ed by di e en ac o s, which migh include seman ic di e ences be-
ween he e lexi e and he non- e lexi e a ian as well as he egis e and s ylis ic
specializa ions. By compa ing Romanian wi h o he Romance languages, he au ho s
mani es ha hese ac o s migh be bo h language-speci ic and e b class-speci ic.
Finally, Anna Malicka-Klepa ska’s Ci cum ixed causa i es in Polish agains
apano ama o ac i e and non-ac i e oice mo phology endea o s o accoun o
he peculia beha io o Polish ci cum ixed causa i es, i.e. asubclass o causa i es
wi hou co esponding syn he ic an icausa i es. Fo ins ance, while nei he * anieć
no *po anieć a e a es ed Polish wo d o ms, Kule mogłyby po anić konie ‘The bulle s
could inju e he ho ses’ (wi h he ci cum ix unde lined) is ag amma ical sen ence;
analogous examples can be ound o ins ance in Russian as well as in Old Chu ch
Sla onic. The au ho , d awing on he heo e ical backg ound o he oo -based Gen-
e a i e mo phosyn ax, a gues ha “ he limi a ions on he dis ibu ion o ci cum ixed
causa i es and an icausa i es […] esul om he pa icula dis ibu ion o Ac i e
oice and Non-ac i e oice heads” (p.464).
To conclude, he s udies in he olume come om a ious unc ionalis and o -
malis heo e ical backg ounds, and hey explo e anumbe o in e ela ed phenom-
ena, using da a om a ela i ely la ge numbe o languages. While some o he pa-
pe s con ibu e o ongoing discussions o ce ain issues, o he s manage o explo e
ela i ely unde esea ched opics, including a ew no able diach onic s udies. My
o e iew o he indi idual con ibu ions is bla an ly educ i e, and so Iwould like o
poin ou explici ly ha he monog aph does no include asingle con ibu ion ha
would no u n ou qui e hough -p o oking and inspi ing, o ha would ail o p o e
ha he c oss-linguis ic s udy o ( e bal) alency is a ui ul en e p ise wo h pu -
suing. The book p o ides an in aluable esou ce o esea che s and s uden s o no
only gene al linguis ics.
5 Howe e , ano he Czech example p o ided, Jan se přek apil ‘John became su p ised,’ ha d-
ly i s he de ini ion as se seems o be a e lexi e p onouns co e e en ial wi h Jan; ‘John su -
p ised himsel ’ would be he co ec ansla ion, Isuspec .

246 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 2/2018
REFERENCES
Goldbe g, A.E. (1995) Cons uc ions.
ACons uc ion G amma App oach o A gumen
S uc u e. Chicago and London: The Uni e si y
o Chicago P ess.
Goldbe g, A.E. (2006) Cons uc ions a Wo k. The
Na u e o Gene aliza ion in Language. New Yo k:
Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
Hellan, L. and M.E.K.Dakubu (2010) Iden i ying
Ve b Cons uc ions C oss-linguis ically [SLAVOB
Se ies]. Uni e si y o Ghana. Re ie ed on 28
Decembe 2017 om <h p:// ypec a .o g/w/
images/d/db/1_In olabels_SLAVOB- inal.pd >.
Malchuko , A. and B.Com ie (eds) (2015)
Valency Classes in he Wo ld’s Languages. Vol.1:
In oducing he F amewo k, and Case S udies
om A ica and Eu asia. Be lin; Bos on:
DeG uy e Mou on.
Pe gle , J. (2016) Ko ázce z .akuza i ního se
češ ině: pohled (nejen) diach onní. Slo o
aslo esnos 77, 102–122.
Tesniè e, L. (1959) Élémen s de syn axe s uc u ale.
Pa is: Klincksieck.
Jakub Sláma
Czech Language Ins i u e o he Czech Academy o Sciences
Le enská 4, 118 51 P aha 1, Czech Republic
[email protected]