Valence (linguistics)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In linguistics, the technical term valence denotes the property of a word or a group of words to "bind" other words or parts of sentences, to "demand" additions or to "open spaces and to regulate the filling of these spaces" . Central to the valence theory is the verb and its valence ( Verbvalenz ). Valence is not only assigned to verbs, words of other parts of speech such as nouns (noun valence) and adjectives (adjective valence) are also assigned valence.

General valence theory and its terminology

The starting point of the valence theory is Tesnière's work Éléments de syntaxe structurale, published posthumously in 1959 . His basic idea: The verb as the center of the sentence requires additions and thus determines the structure of the sentence. For this, Tesnière coined the term verb valence. The term “valence” is borrowed from the chemical term valence , which describes the number of bonds that a certain atom in a molecule forms to other atoms. Tesnière's idea was not entirely new; it can be traced back to medieval grammars using the terms of rule and connotation.

As synonyms for valence or in connection with valence are also used:

  • Potential for mercy.
  • Transitivity (in traditional grammar).
  • Selection.
  • Subcategorization .

The word that has the property of valence (valence carrier) is also called rain . The linguistic elements dependent on it Dependentien .

The linguistic expression that complements the valence carrier (saturates it, governs and is determined by it) is an addition (or a complement ). Additions are to be distinguished grammatically from additional information (or supplements) that are not determined by the valence .

Three aspects of valence can be distinguished:

  • Quantitative valence = number of vacancies
  • Qualitative valence = shape of the fillings
  • Selective valence = semantic properties of the fillings

The number of digits is part of the meaning of a word. The type of blank space is part of the syntactic characterization of a word. The arguments and the categories that realize these arguments syntactically are to be recorded in the lexicon entry and can e.g. B. be represented in a government model . Both characterize a word and are called its argument structure or valence frame .

The valence of the verb (verb valence)

The structure of a sentence is determined by the verb or, more precisely, by the predicate . Which clauses a verb requires is determined by its valence or value. The "valence" describes the potential of a verb to require certain additions and to determine their form.

In the foreground of the valence theory is the valence of the verb; it is the core of the dependency grammar . Valence dictionaries describe verbs and their valence properties.

The valence of a verb is part of its meaning. At the same time, the syntax of the sentence depends on it . If you compare the number and type of valency of all verbs, you get a limited number of sentence construction plans (or sentence patterns). In addition to the syntactic valence of a verb, we also speak of its semantic valence , in summary also of syntactic-semantic valence

The semantic compatibility of words in context is also referred to as semantic valence (also: compatibility ). (Example of a deliberate violation of this: * Cats would buy whiskas. )

Valence carriers don't always have to be a verb alone. Compound predicates can also be valence carriers (example: the new coach gets the national team going for the World Cup. Valence carrier = ... gets ... going ). Modal, modality and auxiliary verbs, on the other hand, cannot be valence carriers. (Example: Kahn has to stay at home. Predicate = must stay . Valence carrier = stay ⇒ Kahn stays at home. ).

From the point of view of their valence, verbs are classified differently:

Verbs with one to n characters

Overview

A distinction is made according to the number of spaces in a verb

  • Null-valued verbs require neither object nor subject:
  1. <It> snowed for <days>.
  2. <Since Valentin> thawed <es>.

Because the subject position has to be filled in German, a suppletive id appears .

  • Single-valued (monovalent) verbs usually require a subject, rarely an object:
  1. < A da> obl ran <fastest>.
  2. < A chill> obl fell <by an arrow> <before Troy>.
  3. <The A rbeiter> obl froze <whole body>.
  • Two-valued (bivalent) verbs are the most important group. They almost always call for both a subject and an object. If the object is in the accusative, one speaks of transitive verbs; its peculiarity is to form a structural passive :
  1. < B ina> obl fell <on the A sphalt> fak .
  2. < C arl> obl loved < B ert> obl <like applesauce>.
  3. < B ello> obl obeyed <the A lten> fak <every word>.
  4. <The B CITIZENS> obl imaginary "of A hnen> obl <awe>.
  5. <The B aby> obl liked 'the A utofahrt> obl <immensely>.
  6. < M ir> obl. Dreamed <once> <from an R ave> obl .
  • Three-valued (trivalent) verbs require two objects in addition to the subject, mostly in the accusative and dative case:
  1. < C onni> obl gave < B oris> obl <an a tlas> obl .
  2. < C urt> obl helped <the B uben> <in / with the A nziehen> fak .
  3. < C hiara> obl taught <the B usfahrer> fak <the A nschnallen> obl .
  • Quadrivalent verbs are extremely rare:
  1. <Yesterday> was < A lex> obl <the C hauffeur> obl <a B called> obl <for D ora> fak with.

Variability of arity (valence) of a verb

Depending on the context and meaning of the verb, its arithmetic can vary.

  • Example 1 ( write ):
    • (1) <Ernst> writes <his mother> <a letter> <about his lack of money>. ( writes is four-valued);
    • (2) <Ernst> writes <his mother> <a letter> (... is three-valued);
    • (3) <Ernst> writes <his mother> (... is two-valued);
    • (4) <Ernst> writes. (.. is monovalent).
  • Example 2 ( congratulations ):
    • (1) <I> congratulations <Dir> (two-valued)
    • (2) <I> congratulate <Dir> <on your birthday> (three-valued)
  • Example 3 ( answer ):
    • (1) <I> answer. (monovalent);
    • (2) <I> answer <i>. (two-valued)
    • (3) <I> answer <him> <to the letter>. (three-valued)
    • (4) <I> answer <him> <to the letter>, <that I would like to come>. (four-valued)

Verbs with necessary (compulsory) and with free (optional) addition

A distinction is made between verbs with necessary and with free addition. However, this distinction is seen as problematic for German. In some cases, a strict division into two parts is avoided by dividing into (1) mandatory supplements , (2) contextually optional supplements and (3) optional supplements .

See also the example above Ernst writes (to his mother (a letter (about his lack of money))).

Compulsory additions are necessary so that a sentence is grammatically well-formed, optional additions can be omitted, but are still considered a specific construction of the verb. There are two types of optional additions: context-dependent additions , which can be omitted because the context is clear, or unlimited additions, such as B. "She smokes (a cigarette)". But there are also indications such as time indications, place indications, etc., which can be freely combined and do not depend on the verb.

Potential and realized valence as an alternative

In the “Metzler Lexicon Language” it is suggested to distinguish between a potential and a realized valence instead. The potential valence then indicates how many additions can depend on a verb; this contrasts with the specifically realized valence.

See also

literature

  • Vilmos Ágel , Ludwig M. Eichinger , Hans Werner Eroms, Peter Hellwig, Hans Jürgen Heringer , Henning Lobin: Dependenz und Valenz / Dependency and Valency. 2 vols. Berlin / New York 2003
  • Vilmos Ágel: Valence Theory . Tübingen 2000.
  • Angelika Ballweg-Schramm and Helmut Schumacher: Verbvalence dictionary on a semantic basis. In: Practice of Lexicography: Reports from the Workshop. Edited by Helmut Henne , Tübingen 1979 (= Germanistische Linguistik , 22), pp. 92–123.
  • Ludwig M. Eichinger, Hans Werner Eroms (Ed.): Dependenz und Valenz . Hamburg 1995.
  • R. Emons: Valence grammar for English . Tuebingen 1978.
  • U. Engel, H. Schumacher: Small Valence Lexicon of German Verbs. 2nd Edition. Tuebingen 1978.
  • Lucien Tesnière : Elements de syntaxe structurale. 1959. (German: Basics of structural syntax. Justification of the valence grammar)
  • Armin Gatterer : About the valence of nouns that express relationships between people . Innsbruck 1984.
  • Gerhard Helbig: Problems of the valence and case theory . Tübingen 1992.
  • Gerhard Helbig, Wolfgang Schenkel: Dictionary on valence and distribution of German verbs . 8th, through Edition. Tübingen 1991.
  • Thomas Herbst , David Heath, Ian Roe, Dieter Götz: A Valency Dictionary of English . Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin / New York 2004.
  • Peter Koch, Thomas Krefeld: Dependency and valence in Romance languages. In: Peter Koch, Thomas Krefeld (Ed.): Connexiones Romanicae Dependenz and Valenz in Romance languages. Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tübingen 1991, ISBN 3-484-30268-2 , pp. 5-38.

Web links

Wiktionary: Valence  - explanations of meanings, word origins, synonyms, translations

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Katja Kessel, Sandra Reimann: Basic knowledge of German contemporary language. Fink, Tübingen 2005, ISBN 3-8252-2704-9 , p. 14.
  2. ↑ Detlef Langemann, Simone Felgentreu (ed.): Duden, basic knowledge school: German. 2nd Edition. 2006, ISBN 3-411-71592-8 , p. 123: "to bind semantically and syntactically"
  3. ↑ Duden - The grammar. 7th edition. 2005, ISBN 3-411-04047-5 , Rn. 1180.
  4. ↑ Michael Dürr, Peter Schlobinski: Descriptive Linguistics. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006, ISBN 3-525-26518-2 , p. 116.
  5. ^ Lohnstein: Formal logic. 1996, p. 51.
  6. ↑ Katja Kessel, Sandra Reimann: Basic knowledge of German contemporary language. Fink, Tübingen 2005, ISBN 3-8252-2704-9 , p. 14.
  7. ↑ Andreas Blombach, Valence Theory and Construction Grammar , page 6 f. (PDF)
  8. ↑ Duden - The grammar. 7th edition. 2005, ISBN 3-411-04047-5 , Rn. 521 fn. 1.
  9. ↑ valence. In: Hadumod Bußmann : Lexicon of Linguistics. 3. Edition. 2002, ISBN 3-520-45203-0 ; see. here also dependency grammar .
  10. ↑ Vilmos Ágel: Valence Theory. Tübingen 2000, page 16.
  11. ↑ valence. In: Hadumod Bußmann: Lexicon of Linguistics. 3. Edition. 2002, ISBN 3-520-45203-0 .
  12. ^ Christoph Gabriel, Trudel Meisenburg: Romance Linguistics. Fink, 2007, ISBN 978-3-7705-4325-0 , p. 185.
  13. ↑ a b Duden - The grammar. 7th edition. 2005, ISBN 3-411-04047-5 , Rn. 1180: so e.g. T.
  14. ↑ Katja Kessel, Sandra Reimann: Basic knowledge of German contemporary language. Fink, Tübingen 2005, ISBN 3-8252-2704-9 , p. 14.
  15. ↑ See Jörg Meibauer: Introduction to German Linguistics. 2nd Edition. 2007, ISBN 978-3-476-02141-0 , p. 149.
  16. ^ Jörg Meibauer: Introduction to German linguistics. 2nd Edition. 2007, p. 149.
  17. ↑ Duden - The grammar. 7th edition. 2005, ISBN 3-411-04047-5 , Rn. 521 (there for the verb)
  18. ↑ Vervalence. Online at uni-heidelberg.de ( Memento of the original from June 22, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / mmtux.idf.uni-heidelberg.de
  19. ^ Heidrun Pelz: Linguistics. Hoffmann and Campe, 1996, ISBN 3-455-10331-6 , to 8.4, p. 167.
  20. ↑ Duden - The grammar. 7th edition. 2005, ISBN 3-411-04047-5 , Rn. 521.
  21. ↑ a b c d Cf. Katja Kessel, Sandra Reimann: Basic knowledge of contemporary German language. Fink, Tübingen 2005, ISBN 3-8252-2704-9 , p. 17.
  22. ↑ U. Pospiech: Syntax. In: Johannes Volmert (Ed.): Basic course in linguistics. 5th edition. 2005, ISBN 3-8252-1879-1 , p. 140.
  23. ^ So Thomas Herbst, Michael Klotz: Lexicography. Schöningh, 2003, ISBN 3-8252-8263-5 , p. 77.
  24. ↑ syntax. In: Glück (Hrsg.): Metzler Lexikon Sprache. 4th edition. 2010.