Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-m4fzj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-07T05:02:43.194Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comments on Hopper and Thompson's ‘Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse‘

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Marianne Mithun
Marianne Mithun*
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara
*
[mithun@linguistics.ucsb.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The 1980 publication of ‘Transitivity in grammar and discourse’ by Paul Hopper and Sandra Thompson offered an alternative to the focus of much of the field at that time in both methodology and goals. Shared objectives were, of course, an understanding of what language is like and why. But views of just what this might mean and how to achieve it differed in several ways.

Information

Type
Commentary
Information
Language , Volume 101 , Issue 2 , June 2025 , pp. 397 - 400
Copyright
Copyright © Linguistic Society of America 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21(3). 435-83. DOI: 10.1023/A:1024109008573.10.1023/A:1024109008573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783112316009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3). 547–619. DOI: 10.1353/lan.1991.0021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2). 251-99. DOI: 10.2307/413757. [Reprinted, Language 101(2). 351–96, 2025.].10.1353/lan.1980.0017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej. 2006. Transitivity parameters and transitivity alternations: Constraining co-variation. Case, valency and transitivity, ed. by Kulikov, Leonid, Malchukov, Andrej, and Swart, Peter de, 329-57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/slcs.77.21mal.Google Scholar
Timberlake, Alan. 1975. Hierarchies in the genitive of negation. Slavic and East European Journal 19. 123-38. DOI: 10.2307/306765.10.2307/306765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timberlake, Alan. 1977. Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change. Mechanisms of syntactic change, ed. by Li, Charles N., 141-77. Austin: University of Texas Press. DOI: 10.7560/750357-006.Google Scholar
Tjokronegoro, Sutomo. 1968. Tjukupkah saudara membina bahasa kesatuan kita? [Are you adequately using our national language?] Jakarta: P. T. Eresco.Google Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaka. 1985. Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics 21(2). 385-96. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226700010318.10.1017/S0022226700010318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaka. 1999. Transitivity. Concise encyclopedia of grammatical categories, ed. by Brown, Keith, 383-91. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar