Although the idea of valency is not new in the field of linguistics, it seems to have received
relatively little attention up to now. Lucien Tesnière, who became known as the developer of
the so called “dependency grammar”, was one of the first linguists who described the
capacity of a verb to bind a certain number of “actants”1 (cf. Tesnière 1980, 385-386). In his
posthumously published book “Eléments de syntaxe structurale”2 (1959) he called this
phenomenon “valency”. Later on, other linguists adopted his notion, modified and adapted it.
One of these linguists is Peter Eisenberg, a German philologist, who wrote some recent
works on grammar in which the role of verb valency is often in the center of attention.
Because a period of thirty years had passed since Tesnière’s first attempt to define the
phenomenon of valency in linguistics, Eisenberg’s approach is a lot more detailed and
includes different criteria for he had the opportunity to contribute his knowledge of other
theories which were created after Tesnière’s book had been published.
This term paper will draw a comparison of two works written by the authors mentioned
above with special regard to the words which are dependent on verbs. Since the verb is often
in the center of attention when the notion of valency is concerned, the group of the other
words which are “governed” by the verb does not seem to be examined in the same way.
Furthermore there does not even seem to be a standard term for such words (perhaps except
for “arguments” (cf. Meyer 2005, 30), but even the notion of arguments is used in diverse
ways), so that I will use the word “dependents” to refer to every possible linguistic element
which can be bound by a verb.
The main aim of this paper will not only be to provide a small overview of dependents in
valency theories, but also to illustrate the pros and cons of each of these theories in a
comparison at the end.
To introduce the reader into the topic, a small overview of the notion of valency will be
given at the beginning of the term paper. Later on, the most important aspects concerning
dependents of both theories will be presented separately. After having compared the two
works, pointed out the main discrepancies and having stated their benefits respectively their
deficiencies, a final conclusion will be given.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Overview of the Notion of Valency
3. The Concept of Valency According to Tesnière
3.1 “Subordonnés”
4. The Concept of Valency According to Eisenberg
4.1 „Ergänzungen“
5. Comparison
6. Conclusion
Objectives and Thematic Focus
This academic paper aims to provide an overview of the notion of valency by comparing the theoretical approaches of Lucien Tesnière and Peter Eisenberg, with a specific focus on the syntactic dependents of verbs.
- Theoretical foundations of dependency grammar as established by Tesnière.
- Eisenberg’s detailed classification of verbal dependents and their syntactic roles.
- A comparative analysis of how both linguists define and categorize verb-dependent relationships.
- The distinction between obligatory and optional dependents in valency theory.
- Evaluation of the applicability of these models to the English language.
Excerpt from the Book
3. The Concept of Valency According to Tesnière
Lucien Tesnière, who “introduced the concept of valence to modern linguistics […]” (Fink 1977, 7), started his valency theory by referring to the structure of sentences. He pointed out that words which are part of a sentence are no longer isolated like in a dictionary, but in a certain relation (connexion) to their adjacent words. This relation links a “higher” (régissant) with a subordinate (subordonné) element of the sentence. The subordinate element is dependent on the régissant, whereas the régissant governs the subordonné. In the example sentence
(1) John talks.
“John” is dependent on “talks”.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the scope of the paper, identifying the need to compare Tesnière and Eisenberg while defining the terminology used for verbal dependents.
2. Overview of the Notion of Valency: Explores the etymological roots of "valency" and its adaptation from chemistry to linguistics as a tool for describing sentence structure.
3. The Concept of Valency According to Tesnière: Details Tesnière’s dependency grammar, focusing on his distinction between actants and circonstants.
3.1 “Subordonnés”: Examines Tesnière’s classification of actants, including the differentiation between zero-argument (avalent) verbs and those requiring up to three arguments.
4. The Concept of Valency According to Eisenberg: Discusses Eisenberg’s more complex model, which emphasizes syntactic valency and differentiates between various verb groups.
4.1 „Ergänzungen“: Analyzes Eisenberg’s categorization of dependents, including nominal, prepositional, and sentential types, as well as the concept of Stellenzahl.
5. Comparison: Evaluates the discrepancies and benefits between the foundational, broader approach of Tesnière and the more granular, detailed model provided by Eisenberg.
6. Conclusion: Summarizes the findings and suggests that while both theories offer valuable insights, there remains a need for a standardized terminology and further research in the field.
Keywords
Valency, Dependency Grammar, Lucien Tesnière, Peter Eisenberg, Verb, Actants, Ergänzungen, Syntactic Relations, Dependents, Subordonnés, Stellenzahl, Sentence Structure, Linguistics, Arguments, Circonstants
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary subject of this paper?
The paper explores the concept of verb valency and provides a comparative analysis of the theories developed by Lucien Tesnière and Peter Eisenberg.
What are the central themes discussed in the work?
The work focuses on the categorization of verbal dependents, the evolution of valency theory, and the structural relationship between verbs and their associated elements within a sentence.
What is the research goal of this paper?
The aim is to illustrate the pros and cons of Tesnière’s and Eisenberg’s respective theories and to examine how they account for the words governed by verbs.
Which scientific method is applied here?
The author employs a comparative approach, contrasting two specific theoretical frameworks and applying them to English-language sentence structures to identify discrepancies and benefits.
What does the main body cover?
It covers the historical background of valency, the specific classifications of dependents (actants/circonstants for Tesnière; Ergänzungen for Eisenberg), and an assessment of their practical utility in modern linguistic analysis.
Which keywords characterize this paper?
Key terms include Valency, Dependency Grammar, Verb, Actants, Ergänzungen, and Syntactic Relations.
How does Tesnière define the "nexus"?
Tesnière defines the nexus as the unit consisting of one governing element (régissant) and the variable number of its subordinate elements (subordonnés), with the verb usually at the center.
What distinction does Eisenberg make regarding dependents?
Eisenberg differentiates between obligatory and optional dependents, arguing that this distinction is crucial for understanding the specific meaning and valency patterns of different verbs.
Why is the term "dependents" used instead of "arguments"?
The author uses "dependents" to refer to every possible linguistic element bound by a verb because "arguments" is used inconsistently across different linguistic theories.
What conclusion does the author draw about the two theories?
The author concludes that while Tesnière provided a foundational starting point, Eisenberg’s model is more detailed but potentially overly complex, highlighting the lack of a standardized terminology in current research.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Ilona Sontag (Autor:in), 2008, Verb Valency - The dependents of the verb, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/117073
