Chapter 57Transitivity and Valency Classes

57.1 Argument frames and their expression

A verb's argument frame specifies the participants it takes grammatically. An intransitive has a subject; a transitive has a subject and an object; a ditransitive has two objects. Ainu also has predicates without a subject, and some descriptions recognize rare derived four-place verbs Nakagawa (2024: 124–135); Satō (2008: 97).

The number of words spoken in a clause need not equal its argument count. Arguments may be understood from context, and third person has no audible person marker. Conversely, a phrase describing a place can be an object selected by the verb. English translations with “in” or “to” do not determine the Ainu construction Nakagawa (2024: 125–129).

57.2 Zero-place predicates and experienced states

Ambient predicates describe weather or surrounding conditions without a grammatical subject. Nakagawa's Saru comparison distinguishes them from one-place predicates describing a participant's experience Nakagawa (2024: 129–130, table 12).

The forms do not follow a single recipe. Some contain an, while others combine a different base with an ambient element. Nakagawa also notes a word-boundary question in apto as “rain falls,” because apto can be an independent noun Nakagawa (2024: 129).

In his cited narrative, mean modifies cuk “autumn,” while the narrator uses person-marked merayke for feeling cold. The passage contrasts the season's weather with personal sensation Nakagawa (2024: 130, example 15, from Kayano 1974a: 65).

57.3 Subjects and objects have varied meanings

A one-place subject can act, undergo a change, or experience a state. In incorporating forms, the source of an event may be inside the stem while the affected participant receives subject marking Nakagawa (2024: 129–130). The possessive and natural-force constructions are discussed in Chapter 47 (Possessors in Noun Incorporation).

Semantic roles can also vary without a change in argument count. Bugaeva and Kobayashi discuss as with an intentional stander or a standing tree. They caution that the agency of nonhuman participants depends partly on narrative context Bugaeva & Kobayashi (2022: §5.1.1). Such variation differs from a verb alternating between one and two arguments.

57.4 A selected location can be an object

Nakagawa contrasts an intransitive verb of entering with a transitive verb that selects a location. The place particle occurs in the first construction, while the second takes the place expression directly Nakagawa (2024: 128, examples 12–13).

Locative selection also occurs in three-place frames. The verb o “put” takes someone putting, a thing put, and a location. Nakagawa separates it from two-place locative o, the plural counterpart of oma, and from a two-place use meaning “ride” Nakagawa (2024: 134–135, table 14). The same short form thus occurs in distinct frames.

57.5 The copula's special person pattern

Nakagawa includes ne among two-place predicates because it relates a subject to a nominal complement. Its person pattern is special: the subject uses the A series, but the nominal complement is not indexed with an object-series marker Nakagawa (2024: 132).

This is one reason to keep semantic participants, grammatical arguments, and person-index positions distinct. Satō explicitly separates those notions in his discussion of valency Satō (2023: 39–40, 45–50).

57.6 Higher valency and derivation

Three-place verbs include kore “give” and epakasnu “teach.” Applicative and causative morphology can also produce three-place frames from two-place bases Nakagawa (2024: 133–134). The added participant's role depends on the construction.

The causative -yar/-ar behaves differently: it replaces the base subject with a causer while suppressing the causee as a separately expressible or indexed argument. Its causative meaning therefore coexists with unchanged valency Bugaeva & Kobayashi (2022: §4.3.1).

Nakagawa reports a rare four-place interpretation of omarere, a causative of three-place omare, from a Saru narrative Nakagawa (2024: 135, example 34, from Chiba University 2015: 420). Satō questions making such marginal forms a general grammatical class and stresses the distinction between their semantic participants and the language's person-index positions Satō (2025: 22–24) ‹contested›.

57.7 Transitivity pairs and rare unchanged forms

A change between intransitive and transitive use generally involves a different form. Satō contrasts visibly related pairs with lexically distinct pairs such as ipe “eat a meal” and e “eat something.” He reports identical plural roski “stand” and “stand something up” as a rare exception in his Chitose account Satō (2008: 97). Correspondences and stem formation are developed in Chapter 60 (Verb Formation from Nouns and Verbal Roots).

57.8 Lexical frames and theoretical arity

Nakagawa's arity analysis assigns numerical values to stems, affixes, and phrases. A person marker reduces the number of independently available nominal arguments in that analysis. This leads him to reject zero third-person affixes within his system Nakagawa (2024: 136–139). Satō instead distinguishes argument slots, semantic valency, and morphological valency, and retains zero third-person indices Satō (2023: 39, 45–50); Satō (2025: 21–25) ‹contested›.

The disagreement affects the analysis of overt and unexpressed arguments. It does not remove the observed contrasts between person paradigms or between verbs selecting different complements. See Chapter 62 (Person Marking and Argument Roles) and Chapter 56 (The Verb Word and Its Boundaries).