On the gradual loss of transitivity: verbs of authority

Over time, case-governing properties of individual verbs can undergo change, and in some instances this change can be accompanied with shifts in the transitivity. This paper presents and analyzes changes in the case-governing properties of several verbs that used to take the object in the accusative but then switched to objects in the instrumental. As these verbs moved away from taking accusative objects, they also gradually shifted from fully transitive to intransitive. The diachronic evolution of these verbs thus illustrates a close link between morphological and syntactic changes. The verbs under discussion have the unifying general meaning of exerting authority, and the author will refer to them as verbs of authority. They include the following lexical units (shown in the infinitive): upravlyat' 'reign, govern, rule, command'; rukovodit 'govern, control, direct';predvoditel'stvovat' 'preside, lead, guide, oversee'; komandovat' 'command, be in charge'; zavedovat' 'manage, direct'; pomykat' 'maltreat', and pravit' 'reign, govern, rule'. As data from the late 18th century show, all these verbs used to take an accusative object, but over the last three centuries, this accusative object was replaced with the object in the instrumental case. As a result, verbs of authority were losing their transitive properties. The loss of transitivity was gradual, with varying pace across different constructions. The change started with finite forms of verbs of authority, and over several decades, the case of objects taken by these verbs varied between the accusative and the instrumental. The new pattern then spread to event nominalizations. In general, Russian event nominalizations formed from transitive verbs take the object in the genitive case. Nominalizations formed from verbs of authority retained genitive objects well after finite forms switched to taking the instrumental, but eventually the genitive was replaced by the instrumental in event nominalizations as well. Finite passive forms of verbs of authority were retained even longer, but those were eventually lost as well. Finally, long after the change in these three constructions, passive participles of verbs of authority remained productive. The order of change finite form > nominalization > passive > passive participle is constant across all the verbs of this class, and the only difference appears to be in the timing of a particular change for a given verb. Data from the Russian National Corpus (www.ruscorpora.ru) support a conclusion that if at some point over the last 300 years a currently intransitive verb formed a passive participle the verb must have been transitive one or two centuries ago. To illustrate, the Contemporary Standard Russian (CSR) has the passive participle upravlyayemyy 'governed' whereas the corresponding verb upravlyat' is no longer transitive. Until the beginning of the 19th century, this verb was transitive and took the object in the accusative (cf. upravlyat' voysko 'command an army'). The event nominalization upravlenie 'administration, government' retained transitivity for another thirty-odd years after the finite forms switched to taking the instrumental (e.g., upravlenie imeniy-a 'administering the estate-GEN'); however, in CSR the object in the nominalization also has to appear in the instrumental (upravlenie imeniy-em). As a result, we find a passive participle corresponding to an intransitive verb for over a couple centuries. Since intransitive verbs in CSR do not form passive participles it is more accurate to analyze the verb and the participle as parallel, independent forms, with the participle testifying to the long-lost transitivity of upravlyat'. The grammatical changes discussed in this paper are represented in three tables that track different transitivity characteristics of verbs of authority over time.

Keywords

Authors

References