The translation of unaccusative verb phrases from English [626726]

UNIVERSITATEA DIN BUCUREȘ TI
FACULTATEA DE LIMBI ȘI LITERATURI STRĂ INE
SECȚ IA TRADUC ERE Ș I INTERPRETARE
SPECIALIZAREA: ENGLEZĂ – GERMANĂ

LUCRARE DE LICENȚĂ

The translation of unaccusative verb phrases from English
into Romanian

Candidat: [anonimizat]:
Prof. dr. Roxana -Cristina Petcu

BUCUREȘ TI
IUNIE 2018

1
UNIVERSI TATEA DIN BUCUREȘ TI
FACULTATEA DE LIMBI ȘI LITERATURI STRĂ INE
SECȚ IA TRADUC ERE Ș I INTERPRETARE
SPECIALIZAREA: ENGLEZĂ – GERMANĂ

LUCRARE DE LICENȚĂ

The translation of unaccusative verb phrases from English
into Romanian
(Traducerea grupurilor verbale inacuzative din limba
engleză în limba română)

Candidat: [anonimizat]:
Prof. dr. Roxana -Cristina Petcu

BUCUREȘ TI
IUNIE 2018

2
Table of contents

Introduction ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. 3
Chapter I ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ….. 4
I.1. Properties of unaccusative verbs ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………. 4
I.2. Tests for unaccusativity ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …. 9
Chapter II: Similarit ies and differences between English and Romanian unaccusatives ……… 16
II.1. Similarities ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………….. 16
II.2. Differences ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………….. 21
Chapter III: Recategorization of unaccusative verbs in English and Romanian …………………. 26
III.1. Recategorization of English unaccusative verbs ………………………….. ……………………. 26
III.2. Recategorization of Romanian unaccusative verbs ………………………….. ………………… 35
Chapter IV: Inventory of unaccusative constructions in English and Romanian. Tran slation
problems ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. … 41
IV.1. List in terms of unaccusative classes ………………………….. ………………………….. ……….. 41
IV.2. List in terms of recategorization of unaccusatives ………………………….. …………………. 47
Conclusion ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. 52
References ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. 53

3
Introduction

The aim of this paper is to present a specific class of intranzitive verbs, namely that of
unaccusative verbs, with respect to how they behave in English and Romanian. By studying
these verbs and their behaviour in both langu ages one can gather data that are of help not only
to better understand English and Romanian grammar, but also to be able to produce better
translations.
The first chapter will present a series of properties of unaccusative verbs, as well as the
classes they are divided into, and different tests meant to determine the unaccusative nature of
a verb, together with a series of examples. The second chapter will aim to point out the
similarities and differences of unaccusative verbs in English and Romanian, while providing
examples that reflect them. The (dis)similarities will be based on the p roperties of
unaccusatives and the applicability of certain tests in both languages , which were covered in
Chapter I . Chapter III will show the recategorization of such verbs, both in English and
Romanian, thus illustrating the flexible nature of unaccusat ivity depending on various
contexts. The fourth and last chapter will list a series of unaccusative constructions in English
and Romanian in order to reflect some of the possible issues that might occur when translating
unaccusative verbs and their solutio ns, based on the information gathered in the previous
chapters .

4
Chapter I
I.1. Properties of unaccusative verbs

According to Perlmutter (1978), apud Petcu (2009), English intransitive verbs can be divided
into two classes: unergatives and unaccu satives. This paper will be focusing on the class of
unaccusative verbs. As their name suggests, these verbs cannot assign accusative case. As
Avram (2003) states, in order to assign accusative case, a verb has to take an external
argument. This external a rgument is the subject of the sentence that occupies the [Spec IP]
position – the position where the subject normally appears in. This position must be occupied
in order for a sentence to be grammatical and for the verb to also assign case. However, in the
case of unaccusative verbs, they take an unique internal argument, namely a direct object,
which originally does not occupy the [Spec IP] position, leaving it empty. Since there is no
external argument in the subject position, the verb does not assign acc usative case. But if the
subject position is left empty, the sentence would be ungrammatical. Therefore, the internal
argument of the unaccusative verb moves from its original post -verbal position into the
subject position, so that the sentence will be gra mmatical. Now the internal argument
occupies the [Spec IP] position and acts as a syntactic subject, but is still in fact a deep direct
object. Therefore, even if the subject position is occupied, it is filled in by an internal
argument, meaning that the v erb still will not assign accusative case because only by the
presence of an external argument it can do so.
As seen above, an important feature of unaccusatives is that they have an internal argument as
their syntactic subject but no external argument. Sy ntactically speaking, the subject of
unaccusatives is a Patient, or Theme, which, semantically speaking, is its direct object. The
following sentence will be taken as an example:
(1) a. The glass broke.
Inherently , the verb to break is transitive, but t he verb to break in sentence (1a) is an
unaccusative intransitive because one can infer that the glass is the participant that suffered
the breaking (the internal argument), not the participant that caused the breaking (the external
argument). In other words, th e sentence can be rephrased as:
(1) b. Someone broke the glass.

5
c. The glass was broken (by someone).
In sentences (1b) and (1c) it is clear that the glass is a direct object, namely an internal
argument that suffers the breaking, and the action of break ing is performed by an external
argument. Practically speaking , the meaning in sentences (1a), (1b) and (1c) is the same.
Thus, in sentence (1a) the syntactic subject of the verb to break is an internal argument ( the
glass) , meaning that it is a Theme/Pati ent and, at the same time, the semantic direct object of
the verb.
Unaccusative verbs are split into three main classes: underived unaccusatives, derived
unaccusatives and two -argument unaccusatives (Petcu 2009).
According to Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1995) , apud Petcu (2009) , underived unaccusatives
can be further divided into several sub -classes. Firstly, there are underived unaccusative
verbs of existence and appearance , such as: exist, happen, occur, appear, disappear, emerge,
arise, vanish, a nd so on. S uch verbs require two arguments, the one that undergoes the act of
existing, which is the Theme and simultaneously the subject of the verb, and the argument
that denotes the location of the existence. Levin & Rappaport (1995) , apud Petcu (2009) ,
claim that these verbs have the following features: they can be found in the locative inversion
construction, they need a locative argument, they are usually found in there -insertion
constructions and cannot appear in causative alternation constructions.
The locati ve inversion construction means that the verb is preceded by a locative
Prepositional Phrase and the post -verbal position is occupied by the surface subject of the
sentence, while maintaining the sentence’s property of being grammatical. The presence of a
locative argument means that there is an argument present, usually in post -verbal position,
which denotes the place where the action denoted by the verb occurs (such as: into thin air, on
that street, near the house, outside the castle , and so on).
Accord ing to Avram (2003), in the case of There -insertion constructions the expletive there
occupies the subject position, namely [Spec IP], and thus the internal argument of the verb
can remain in its original position, inside the Verbal Phrase, in post -verbal position. This is
the reason why the There -insertion is ungramamtical with unergatives, that is because their
external argument is initially generated in the subject position, therefore the [Spec IP] position
is already filled in and the expletive cannot o ccupy it.

6
Ultimately, the causative alternation construction means that the subject of a verb can become
its direct object and the subject position is occupied by an Agent. This means that one would
refer in this case to intransitive verbs that have a tra nsitive counterpart. Since the verbs of
existence and appearance are underived verbs and do not have a transitive counterpart, they
cannot occur in causative alternation.
These four features are illustrated in the listed order in the examples below:
(2) a. Next to her appeared a strange shadow. [Locative inversion]
b. Outside were a lot of protesters . [Locative inversion]
c. The mysterious silhouette vanished into thin air . [Locative argument]
d. Something terrible occured in that mansion . [Locati ve argument]
e. There arose a lot of criticism . [There -insertion]
f. There were too many people talking . [There -insertion]
g. Many suppositions emerged after the murder.
i. *People emerged many suppositions after the murder . [No cau sative alternantion]
Another type of underived unaccusatives are verbs denoting „non -voluntary emission of
stimuli that impinge on senses”: shine, sparkle, glitter, glisten, glow, jingle, clink, clang, snap,
rackle, pop, smell, stink (Perlmutter 1978 , apud Petcu 2009 ). According to Perlmutter, apud
Petcu (2009) , the subject of these verbs is a Theme which undergoes the changes denoted by
the verb, and has no control over the event described by the verb.
(3) a. The food [Theme] smelled awful.
b. His eyes [Theme] were glowing in the dark .
The third sub -class of underived unaccusatives is that of verbs whose argument is assigned
the Theme/ Patient theta role (Perlmutter 1978 , apud Petcu 2009 ): flow, float, drown, hang,
dangle, sink, fall , and so on.
The class of derived unaccusative verbs includes those tranzitive verbs which can also have
an intranzitive interpretation. That is, the direct object of one tranzitive verb becomes the

7
syntactic subject of the intranzitive interpretation of the same verb. This cl ass includes verbs
such as changes of state, inchoative verbs, aspectual verbs and verbs of motion (Petcu
2009).
Here is an example of a derived unaccusative:
(4) a. I burned the woo d. [tranzitive]
b. The wood burne d. [intranzitive]
The verb burn in sen tence (4a) is tranzitive, whereas sentence (4b) illustrates its intranzitive
counterpart where the direct object of the verb in the first sentence, the wood , became the
syntactic subject of the verb in the second sentence.
In the category of change of stat e verbs one can find verbs such as: break, crack, bend, boil,
burn, cool, age, deteriorate, shrink, broaden, burst, blacken, etc. (Petcu 2009).
Inchoative verbs may comprise of: melt, freeze, evaporate, darken, bud, open, decompose ,
and so on. Verbs such a s: begin, commence, stop, start, continue, resume, end, cease , etc. are
aspectual verbs . Lastly, the class of verbs of motion comprises of: bounce, move, roll, spin,
rotate, etc. (Avram 2003, Petcu 2009).
The two -argument unaccusatives are the verbs which take a Theme as well as a Source or
Goal argument. Two examples for this type of unaccusatives are pass and slip (Petcu 2009).
Let us take two examples that illustrate the unaccusativity of these verbs and the fact that they
take two arguments, namely the Theme and the Source/ Goal:
(5) a. Her father’s wealth passed to her after his death . [Goal]
b. The details about the address slipped me. [Source]
In both cases above the verbs pass and slip are unaccusative. In (5a) one can infer that Her
father’s wealt h is a Theme and the syntactic subject of the verb because it undergoes the act
of being passed to someone, while to her is the Goal because it illustrates to whom the wealth
passed. In (5b) the details is the Theme that undergoes the act of slipping and me is the
Source, the person who is the source of the act of not knowing the details.
However, as stated by Avram (2003), there are certain verbs that, depending on the context in
which they occur, can be unaccusative, as well as unergative .

8
(6) a. The spinnin g top spinned endlessly .[unaccusative]
b. The ballerina spinned gracefully .[unergative]
(7) a. The body lay on the floor until the police came . [unaccusative]
b. Joey lay on the couch and sipped his coffee. [unaccusative]
The two sets of examples a bove show the possibility of one and the same verb to have both
unaccusative and unergative properties, depending on the context. In sentence (6a) the verb
spin is unaccusative as its surface subject is a Theme ( the spinning top ) that undergoes the act
of spinning over which it has no control. But in sentence (6b) the same verb has unergative
properties for its subject is an Agent that has control over the action of spinning and does it
willingly. The same goes for examples (7a) and (7b). In (7a) the verb lie is unaccusative, but
in (7b) the same verb is interpreted as unergative.
This property of one and the same verb to behave both like an unaccusative and an unergative
is linked to the context it appears in and to the type of subject it requires – be it a Theme or an
Agent.
To conclude , unaccusative verbs are those intransitive verbs that can not assign Accusative
case, whose subject is a direct object, a Theme. They can be split into three main classes:
underived unaccusatives, derived unaccusatives and two-argument unaccusatives. These
classes can also be further split into several subclasses of unaccsatives such as verbs of
existence, verbs describing non -voluntary emissions of stimuli, change of state verbs ,
inchoative verbs, aspectual verbs and verbs of motion. Some of them also have a tranzitive
interpretation depending on the context they appear in, and some can have both unaccusative
and unergative properties which are linked to the context as well and to the type of subject the
verbs take. The clas ses of verbs described in this subchapter will undergo a series of tests in
the following subchapter that can further demonstrate their unaccusative nature.

9
I.2. Tests for unaccusativity

I.2.1. There are a number of guidelines and tests one can apply to the classes of unaccusatives
presented in Chapter I.1. in order to identify an unaccusative verb. One way of determining
whether an intransitive verb is unaccusative is to see if its surface subject is an internal
argument. Levin & Rappaport (1995) , apud Petcu (2009) , suggested four rules to be followed
when establishing if an argument is an internal one.
First rule is called the Directed Change Linking Rule . According to this rule, “the argument
of a verb that corresponds to the entity undergoing the di rected change described by the verb
is its direct internal argument” (Levin & Rappaport 1995: 146 , apud Petcu 2009: 14 ). This
rule can be applied to unaccusatives such as break, melt, die, evaporate, and so on. These
verbs are change of state verbs and inc hoatives and take an internal argument as their
syntactic subject. This can be seen in the examples below:
(8) a. The porcelain figurine broke . [change of state]
b. The ice melted . [change of state]
c. Her uncle died. [change of state]
d. The water evaporated . [change of state]
The second rule put forth by Levin & Rappaport (1995) , apud Petcu (2009) , is the Existence
Linking Rule . According to this rule, the argument of a verb of existence is a direct internal
argument. The sentences below ca n illustrate this rule.
(9) a. A shooting star appeared in the sky . [verb of existence]
b. The match took place in Berlin . [verb of existence]
c. A murder occurred in that city . [verb of existence]
The Immediate Cause Linking Rule is the third rule formulated by Levin & Rappaport
(1995) , apud Petcu (2009) , and regards unergative verbs. It says that the immediate -cause
argument is the external argument of the verb. The immediate -cause argument is the
participant that partakes in an event and at the s ame time causes the event to happen. In other
words, the argument that causes the event and has control over it is an external argument, an

10
Agent. Agents are the subjects of unergative verbs, whereas Themes/ Patients are the surface
subjects of unaccusativ e verbs, thus one can differentiate between these two classes of
intransitive verbs.
(10) a. Susan [Agent] ran home .
b. The ball [Patient] rolled down the hill .
In sentence (10a) Susan is the controller of the act of running and is the on e who does the
running, therefore she is the external argument, the Agent of the verb run, which is therefore
an unergative verb. However, in sentence (10b) the ball behaves like a Theme/ Patient and is
the internal argument of the verb roll which is an un accusative verb. In this sentence, the
internal argument, the ball , does not control the action of rolling, it did not cause the event, it
only undergoes the event of rolling down the hill. One can infer that someone or something
else caused the ball to ro ll.
The last rule of Levin & Rappaport (1995) , apud Petcu (2009) , is the Default Linking Rule ,
according to which the argument of a verb that does not obey the prior three rules is an
internal argument. For example, one can say that verbs such as flow or spin have as their
surface subject an internal argument that is a Patient which does not have control over the
action, but it undergoes the action, and that thus they are unaccusative verbs.
(11) a. The boat flows down the river .
b. The compas s needle is spinning .
Since both the boat and the compass needle have no control over the action, instead they
undergo the act of flowing and spinning , and are not the immediate cause of the events, they
are classified as internal arguments. At the same ti me, they do not obey the Immediate Cause
Linking Rule. Hence they are also the surface subjects of the verbs flow and spin, so the verbs
are unaccusative.
I.2.2. According to Avram (2003), another test for unaccusativity is the There -insertion test.
This t est demonstrates that only unaccusative verbs can appear in There -constructions and
that unergative verbs are not grammatical in such constructions.
(12) a. There occur red a murder . [unaccusative]

11
b. *There worked many people at the office . [unergative]
In sentence (12a) the verb is unaccusative , namely a verb that expresses appearance, whereas
in sentence (12b) the verb is unergative and it expresses the volition of the subject to do the
act of working and the control the subject has over this action.
However, as Avram (2003) states, not all unaccusative verbs are grammatical in the There –
insertion constructions. For example, unaccusative verbs that express a definite change of
state do not occur in There -insertion constructions, thus sentence (13) below is
ungrammatical:
(13) * There boiled the water in the pot . [change of state]
Therefore, the sub -classes of unaccusative verbs that are grammatical in There -sentences are,
according to Avram (2003), verbs of existence (be, exist, live, occur), verbs of sound existence
(echo, resonate), verbs of group existence (abound, swarm), verbs of appearance (appear,
begin, open, happen).
I.2.3. A third test for unaccusativity is the locative inversion in which the verb is preceded by
a locative Prepositional Phrase and the surface subject is in the post -verbal position (Avram
2003).
(14) a. In the garden are many roses . [unaccusative]
b. In the woods appeared a shadow . [unaccusative]
c. *In the park walk many people . [unergative ]
d. *At the station wait the workers . [unergative ]
In sentences (14a) and (14b) the verbs are unaccusative which express existence or
appearance, whereas in sentences (14c) and (14d) the verbs are unergative, hence they have
an Agent as the ir subject ( many people, the workers ). It is clear that the last two sentences are
ungrammatical and that only unaccusative verbs can occur in the locative inversion. This is
because the surface subject of unaccusative verbs is grammatical in the post -verbal position,
since that is where it is originally generated given that it is actually the internal argument of
the verb, the Theme, while the subject of unergative verbs is ungrammatical in the post -verbal

12
position, since it is originally generated before the verb because it represents the external
argument of the verb, namely the Agent.
Despite this fact, not all unaccusative verbs are grammatical in the locative inversion. Avram
(2003) notes that unaccusatives which denote existence or appearance are mostly used in
locative inversion (examples (14a) and (14b) above) and that unaccusatives which show a
definite change of state are ungrammatical in this case (examples (15a) and (15b) below).
(15) a. * In the backyard melted the snowman . [change of state]
b. *In the dryer shrunk the clothes . [change of state]
I.2.4. The fourth test to identify unaccusativity is the presence of a resultative construction .
(Avram 2003, Petcu 2009). This test is applied by adding a resultative phrase to the sentenc e
in order to predicate of the direct object of the verb, and never its subject. Thus, resultative
phrases are grammatical with unaccusative verbs since their surface subject is in fact their
direct object (whose theta -role is Theme or Patient) that occupi es the subject position because
the verb cannot assign accusative case, therefore its internal argument has to move to [Spec,
IP] in order to be assigned case. Unergative verbs have a subject, that is the Agent, the
external argument, and they have no dire ct object to predicate of.
This feature according to which resultative phrases can predicate only of a direct object is
called the Direct Object Restriction (Avram 2003).
(16) a. The door closed shut. [unaccusative]
b. The waterfall froze solid. [unaccusative]
c. *He coughed to death . [unergative]
d. *She cried to sleep. [unergative]
In sentences (16c) and (16d) the resultative phrases are to death and to sleep but the verbs are
unergative, since they have as s ubject an Agent and no direct object to predicate of, therefore
they are ungrammatical in the context of a resultative phrase.
In sentences (16a) and (16b) the resultative phrases shut and solid predicate of the internal
arguments ( the door, the waterfall ) the end state which they reach, namely the state of being
closed shut and being solid. The internal arguments ( the door, the waterfall ) occupy the

13
subject position but are in fact direct objects that undergo the actions of closing and freezing.
This bein g said, sentences (16a) and (16b) are grammatical and pass the resultative
construction test, thus their verbs (close and freeze ) are unaccusative.
It is also worth noting that the verbs in (16a) and (16b) denote telic events that have an
endpoint, therefo re a resultant state. This leads to the conclusion that telic unaccusatives are
grammatical in sentences with resultative phrases.
As stated by Avram (2003), unergatives are mainly verbs that show activities, therefore they
are atelic. Since they are ungra mmatical in resultative constructions, one could say that atelic
unaccusatives (verbs that suggest existence) are also ungrammatical in such constructions.
This is illustrated in the example below:
(17) a. * She remained tired . [atelic unaccusative] (Avram 2003 : 184)
Nevertheless, there are cases in which unergatives can occur in resultative constructions, that
is, when a fake reflexive object (sentences (18a) and (18b) below) or an inalienably possessed
noun phrase (sentence (18c) below) or a fake direct ob ject (sentence (18d) below) is added:
(18) a. He coughed himself to death . [fake reflexive object]
b. She cried herself to sleep . [fake reflexive object]
c. She cried her eyes out. [inalienably possessed noun phrase]
d. The dog barked him awake. [fake direct object] (Avram 2003 : 185)
I.2.5. Another test for unaccusativity is the use of past participles as pre -nominal modifiers ,
within the noun phrase (Avram 2003, Cornilescu 1995, Petcu 2009). According to this test,
the past participle of unaccusatives can be used as a noun modifier, but not that of
unergatives.
Here are a few examples of unaccusatives whose past participles are used as modifiers: a
closed window, a fallen petal, melted snow, rotten tomatoes . All these past participles have
one thing in common: the verb the participle is derived from expresses a telic event. In the
following example it can be seen that those unaccusative verbs that denote an atelic event do
not generate a noun modifier based on their pas t participle: * an existed danger, *a lived
woman, *a trembled tree (Avram 2003).

14
In the case of unergatives, the ungrammaticality of their past participle as a noun modifier can
be seen in the following examples: * a coughed man, *a walked travele r, *a sneezed child, *a
barked dog.
According to Cornilescu (1995), the past participle of a verb can be used as a noun modifier,
namely as an adjective, if the noun they modify represents the initial direct object of the verb.
Given that unaccusative verb s have as a surface subject a direct object and that unergatives
have a subject but no direct object, one could say that this is the reason why the past participle
of unaccusatives can be a noun modifier and that of unergatives cannot. In this case, the pa st
participle of the verb becomes an attribute for the direct object of the verb and not its subject.
I.2.6. According to Avram (2003) and Petcu (2009), the ability of a verb to allow a cognate
object is another test to differentiate between unaccusatives and unergatives . A cognate object
is a direct object that has semantic and morphologic features which are linked to the verb.
These cognate objects can occur only with unergative verbs since they, unlike unaccusatives,
can assign accusative case to a certa in type of direct object because they have an external
argument, a subject. Avram (2003) states that there is a link between the property of a verb to
assign case and the ability to take an external argument – this link is called Burzio’s
Generalization. A ccording to this theory, if a verb does not take an external argument, it
cannot assign accusative case. By applying this theory to unaccusative verbs one can see that,
given that they only take an internal argument, and not an external one, they do not as sign
accusative case, therefore they cannot take a cognate object. Sentences (19) below are
examples of unergative verbs that allow cognate objects, be they related semantically or
morphologically to the verb. These verbs are atelic, but when attached a co gnate object they
become telic. This is because the cognate object denotes the result of the act and thus is a
resultative, it states and endpoint (Avram 2003). In this case, the intransitive unergative verb
also becomes transitive.
(19) a. The children cr ied tears of sadness .
b. She smiled a charming smile . (Avram 2003 : 321)
c. He coughed and irritating cough . (Avram 2003 : 321)
In conclusion, one can determine if a verb is unaccusative or not by applying a series of tests.
Firstly, one should take into account the fact that the grammatical subject of an unaccusative

15
verb is its internal argument, namely a Theme or Patient that undergoes the action denoted by
the verb. Semantically speaking, this is in fact the direct object of the verb. Levin &
Rappaport (1995) , apud Petcu (2009) , formulate a series of rules meant to be followed when
trying to decide whether an argument is in fact an internal argument. A second test for
unaccusativity is the There -insertion test. According to this test, only unaccusative verbs of
existence, sound existence, group existence and appearance are grammatical in There –
constructions. Thirdly, the locative inversion test demonstrates that certain unaccusatives can
appear in post -verbal position while there is a locative prepositional phrase that precedes the
verb. The unaccusatives which are most commonly encountered in the locative inversion
structures are verbs denoting existence or appearance. Another unaccusativity test shows that
an unaccusative v erb, usually a telic verb, can occur in the presence of a resultative phrase,
and that unergatives are less likely to do so. Moreover, the past participle of an unaccusative
verb can be used as a noun modifier in pre -nominal position, whereas that of unerg atives
cannot. Lastly, unaccusative verbs do not allow a cognate object, while unergatives do allow
one. This is because a cognate object can occur only if the verb can assign accusative case,
and a verb can do so as long as it has an external argument, wh ich unaccusative verbs do not
have. The tests presented in this chapter, as well as the classes of unaccusative verbs, will be
of help in establishing the similarities and differences between English and Romanian
unaccusative verbs in the following chapter .

16
Chapter II : Similarities and differences between English and Romanian unaccusatives
II.1. Similarities

A. Just as English , Romanian also has verbs that classify as unaccusative, hence the transitive/
intransitive distinction between certain ver bs is noticed here as well. Accordin g to
Dragomirescu (2010 ), the Romanian unaccusative verbs take as their surface subject an
internal argument, a Theme or Patient, which undergoes the action described by the verb,
similar to English.
(20) a. (RO) Venitu rile [Patient] cresc.
b. (EN) Incomes [Patient] are rising.
Sentence (20) is an example of the unaccusative verb rise / a crește in an English and a
Romanian context. In both of them the internal argument the incomes / veniturile is the
grammatical subject which undergoes the act of rising, without having any control over this
event.
B. Another similarity between English and Romanian unaccusatives is that in both languages
their past participles can become ad jectives (Dragomirescu 2010 ). The following examples of
past participles of unaccusatives functioning as noun modifiers in English: a closed window, a
fallen petal, melted snow, rotten tomatoes, burnt food, have the following Romanian
counterparts: o ferestră închisă, o petală căzută, zăpadă topită, roșii putrezite, mâncare arsă .
C. Moreover, some Romanian unaccusative verbs can also have a tranzitive interpretation
similar to the English unaccusative verbs, as shown in Chapter I.1. As stated in the
forementioned chapter, these verbs enter the class of derived unaccusative verbs. The
characteristic of this class of verbs is that the direct object of certain verbs in their tranzitive
interpretation becomes their subject in the intranzitive interpretat ion. Here are a few examples
of underived unaccusative verbs in Romanian and their counterparts in English:
(21) a. (RO) Bucătarul a topit ciocolata. [tranzitive]
b. (EN) The cook melted the chocolate. [tranzitive]
c. (RO) Ciocolata s -a topit. [intrazitive]

17
d. (EN) The chocolate melted. [intranzitive]
(22) a. (RO) Copilul rostogolea bulgărele în zăpadă. [tranzitive]
b. (EN) The child was rolling the snowball in the snow. [tranzitive]
c. (RO) Bulgărele se rostogolea la deal. [intranzitive]
d. (EN) The snowball was rolling downhill. [intranzitive]
(23) a. (RO) Magicianul a continuat spectacolul. [tranzitive]
b. (EN) The ma gician continued the show. [tranzitive]
c. (RO) Spectacolul a continuat. [intranzitive]
d. (EN) The snow continued. [intranzitive]
D. As seen above and as shown in Chapter I.1., the English intranzitive verbs in sentences
(21), (22) and (23) belong to three separate classes of unaccusative verbs: inchoative verbs
(sentence (21) above), verbs of motion (sentence (22) above) and aspectual verbs (sentence
(23) above). The same goes for their counterparts in Romanian. Therefore, one can conclude
that anothe r similarity between English and Romanian unaccusative verbs is that the
Romanian unaccusatives can also be split into various classes based on their meaning, context
and the state or event they denote, as seen in the case of English unaccusatives in Chapt er I.1.
Firstly , as Dragomirescu (2010) shows, there are unaccusative verbs in Romanian that are
included in the class of verbs denoting a change of state: a se ciobi (to chip), a se coagula (to
coagulate), a se defecta / a se sparge (to break), a se deter iora (to deteriorate), a (se) fierbe
(to boil), a (se) rugini (to rust), a (se) arde (to burn), a se trezi (to awake) a se îndoi (to bend),
and so on.
As illustrated in Chapter I.2., telic unaccusative verbs can occur in resultative constructions,
and sinc e verbs denoting a change of state are telic, they can appear in such constructions,
both in English and in Romanian. Below are examples of Romanian and English verbs
denoting a change of state in resultative constructions:
(24) a. (RO) Tot ce era din porțelan s-a spart în bucăți . [resultative phrase]
b. (EN) Everything made of porcelain broke into pieces . [resultative phrase]

18
c. (RO) Conacul familiei Baudelaire a ars scrum . [resultative phrase]
d. (EN) The Baudelaire mansion burned to ashes . [resultative phrase]
The resultative phrases ( în bucăți / into pieces, scrum / to ashes ) in sentences (24) above show
the end state which the internal arguments of the verbs reach. They can be understood as is
into pieces / este în bucăți and became ashes / a devenit scrum .
The second class of unaccusative verbs in Romanian given by Dragomirescu (2010) is that of
verbs of spatial configuration: a se diviza (to divide), a se extinde (to extend), a apune (to set /
to go down), a răsări (to arise), a sta (to sit), a atârna (to hang), and so on.
Some English verbs of spatial configuration have a causative variant, which is also the case
for Romanian unaccusatives of this class as well. Below are examples of a Romanian and an
English unaccusative verb of spatial confi guration with its causative counterpart:
(25) a. (RO) Pe pereții galeriei atârnă multe tablouri. [unaccusative]
b. (RO) Pictorii atârnă multe tablouri pe pereții galeriei. [causative variant]
c. (EN) The guests sat at the kitchen table. [unaccusative]
d. (EN) I sat the guests at the kitchen table. [causati ve variant]
The verbs in sentences (25a) and (25c) show the location of their internal arguments ( multe
tablouri / the guests ) and can be replaced by the verb to be / a fi (which is an unaccusative
verb as well) while maintaining the same meaning, whereas the verbs in sentences (25b) and
(25d) became tranzitive because the causative variant involves an Agent ( pictorii / I ) who
causes the action denoted by the verb to take place, thus the causative interpretation.
The third class of unaccusative verbs encoun tered both in English and Romanian is that of
verbs of motion. Some of the verbs of motion listed by Dragomirescu (2010) are the
following: a (se) urca (to climb), a se învârti (to spin), a se mișca (to move), a se opri (to
stop), a se rostogoli (to roll), a se roti (to rotate) , and so on.
Similar to the verbs of motion in English, the Romanian unaccusatives denoting motion can
also occur in a causative variant. The following examples illustrate this feature:
(26) a. (RO) Am oprit melodia. [causative variant]

19
b. (EN) I stopped the song. [causative variant]
c. (RO) Melodia s -a oprit. [unaccusative]
d. (EN) The song stopped. [unaccusative]
e. (RO) Am mișcat scara. [causative variant]
f. (EN) I moved the ladder. [causative variant]
g. (RO) Scara s -a mișcat . [unaccusative]
h. (EN) The ladder moved. [unaccusative]
The next class of English unaccusative verbs that exists in Romanian as well is that o f verbs
of existence and appearance. The Romanian list comprises of verbs such as: a apărea (to
appear), a dispărea (to disapear), a fi (to be), a exista (to exist), a reapărea (to reappear), a
pieri (to perish), a se ascunde (to hide) , and so on (Dragomir escu 2010).
Another similarity between English and Romanian unaccusative verbs regarding the verbs of
existence and appearance is their ability to appear in the locative inversion. The following
examples illustrate this feature in both languages:
(27) a. (RO) În orașul acela au dispărut mul ți oameni. [locative inversion]
b. (EN) In that town disappeared many people. [locative inversion]
c. (RO) Pe masă erau trei feluri de mere. [locative inversion]
d. (EN) On the table were three varieties of apples. [locati ve inversion]
According to Dragomirescu (2010), the fifth class of English unaccusative verbs which is
encountered in Romanian as well is that of verbs denoting non -voluntary emission of stimuli.
This class comprises of: a se infiltra (to infiltrate), a se propaga (to disperse), a se difuza (to
diffuze), a țășni (to spout) , and so on.
The last class of unaccusative verbs that can be found in Romanian as well is that of aspectual
verbs (Dragomirescu 2010). Some of these verbs are: a se încheia (to end), a se termina (to
terminate), a se repeta (to repeat), a (se) continua (to continue), a (se) sfârși (to end), a
începe (to begin), a înceta (to cease) .

20
To conclude, there is a large number of intranzitive verbs in Romanian that can classify as
unaccusative and share similiarities with the English unaccusative ve rbs. First of all, it is to be
noticed that their main feature is that, in both languages, the subject of an unaccusative verb
is, in fact, a Theme or Patient, namely an internal argument undergoing the action denoted by
the verb. Secondly, both Romanian a nd English unaccusative verbs have a past participle
form that can become a noun modifier, namely an adjective that modifies the deep direct
object of the unaccusative verb in question. Another similarity is that in both languages some
unaccusative verbs c an have a tranzitive interpretation, meaning that the surface subject of the
unaccusative verb in the intranzitive interpretation becomes the direct object of the same verb
in the tranzitive interpretation. Moreover, the subclasses of unaccusative verbs sp ecific to
English can be found in Romanian as well. Therefore, one can distinguish between the
following classes of Romanian unaccusative verbs: verbs denoting a change of state, verbs of
spatial configuration, verbs of motion, verbs of existence and appea rance, verbs denoting non –
voluntary emission of stimuli and aspectual verbs.

21
II.2. Differences

A. The first noticeable difference is that i n the case of Romanian unaccusatives, as opposed to
English, it is much more common for this type of verbs to occur in their reflexive form (SE)
(Dragomirescu 2010). In fact, the English unaccusatives do not have a reflexive form.
(28) a. (RO) Frânghia s-a rupt. [reflexive]
b. (EN) The rope broke.
c. (RO) Toate cuburile de gheață s-au topit. [reflexive]
d. (EN) All the ice cubes melted.
e. (RO) S-au întâmplat multe lucruri ciudate în casa aceea. [reflexive]
f. (EN) Many strange things occured in that house.
As Dra gomirescu (2010) points out, the huge number of reflexiv e unaccusative verbs in
Romanian shows there is a link between their being reflexive and their being unaccusative.
There are also Romanian unaccusative verbs which have both a reflexive and a non -reflexive
form. Dragomirescu (2010) gives a list of the latt er unaccusative verbs in Romanian
comprising some of the following verbs: changes of state such as a (se) accelera (to
accelerate), a (se) albi (to bleach), a (se) arde (to burn), a (se) coace (to bake), a (se) crăpa
(to crack), a (se) răci (to cool) ; verbs of spatial configuration like a (se) ancora (to anchor), a
(se) înțepeni (to get stuck) ; verbs of motion such as a (se) coborî (to descend), a (se) urca (to
ascend ); aspectual verbs: a (se) continua (to continue), a (se) sfârși (to end) .
(29) a. (RO) Când a auzit veștile, s-a albit la față. [reflexive unaccusative]
b. (EN) When he heard the news, his fac e turned white.
c. (RO) Când a auzit veștile, a albit la față. [non-reflexive unaccusative]
d. (EN) When he heard the n ews, his face turned white.
e. (RO) Mânerul s-a înțepenit . [reflexive unaccusative]
f. (EN) The handle got stuck .

22
g. (RO) Mâner ul a înțepenit . [non-reflexive unaccusative]
h. (EN) The handle got stuck .
Sentences (29) show the way in which both the reflexive and non -reflexive variants of one
and the same unaccusative verb behave in Romanian. First of all, they are clearly
unaccus ative because their surface subject is a Theme/ Patient which undergoes the change
denoted by the verb. The fact that the Romanian unaccusative verbs in sentences (29) can
occur both in a reflexive and a non -reflexive form does not change the fact that the y are
unaccusative, nor does it change their semantic meaning. In both cases, the verb stays
unaccusative and expresses the same idea ( fața lui este albă / his face is white ; mânerul este
înțepenit / the handle is stuck ). This is also proven by their English translation underneath
each sentence. Both the reflexive and non -reflexive variants and the sentences they occur in
have the same English traslation because their meaning is ultimately the same and also
because English lacks a reflexi ve form for unaccusative verbs.
Dobrovie -Sorin (2004), apud Dragomirescu (2010) , states that the difference between the
reflexive and non -reflexive varian t of a verb is due to the fact that the non -reflexive variant
emphasizes the process denoted by the verb and that the reflexive variant emphasizes the final
state denoted by the verb and reached by the interal argument. Cornilescu (1998) , apud
Dragomirescu (2010) , highlights the fact that the non -reflexive variant of a verb denotes an
autonomous process, while its reflexive variant denotes a process caused by external factors.
However, these are just a few of the theories regarding the reflexive and non -reflexive reading
of certain verbs and the matter is still up for debate.
(30) a. (RO) Mâncarea se arde. [reflex ive unaccusative] (Dragomirescu 2010: 181)
b. (EN) The food is getting burned.
c. (RO) Hârtia arde. [non-reflexive unaccusative] (Dragomirescu 2010 :181)
d. (EN) The paper is burning .
According to Dragomirescu (2010: 181), the meaning of the verb in sentence (30a) is that the
food / mâncarea is going to reach the state of being burnt and unedible, focusing on the final
state of the internal argument (the food / mâncarea ), whereas the non -reflexive variant of the

23
verb in sentence (30c) focuses on the process of burning. As Dragomirescu (2010: 181) puts
it, this sentence can be understood as: the paper is about to burn (”este pe cale să ardă”).
Cornilescu (1998: 320), apud Dragomirescu (2010: 179), gives one of the following example s
to illustrate the fact that the reflexive variant of a Romanian verb has an external cause,
whereas the non -reflexive variant suggests an autonomous process:
(31) a. (RO) Părul se albește / albește cu vârsta. [reflexive/ non -reflexive unaccusative]
b. (EN) Hair turns grey with age.
B. Another difference is that while in English unaccusative verbs can appear in There –
constructions, this test cannot be applied to unaccusatives in Romanian because the insertion
of such an expletive is impossible. (Dragomirescu 2010).
C. As pointed out by Dragomirescu (2010), in Romanian the locative inversion is possible
with any kind of un accusative verb, whereas in English it is restricted to verbs denoting
existence and appearance. The reason is that in Romanian the subject position can vary – it
can appear either inside the Verbal Phrase or outside, thus the word order is not as strict a s in
English. In some cases, the locative inversion can imply emphasis. Below are examples of
verbs denoting a change of state which are grammatical in the locative inversion in Romanian,
but ungrammatical in English:
(32) a. (RO) Pe aragaz fierbe apa. [locativ e inversion]
b. (EN) * On the stove boils the water. [locative inversion]
c. (RO) În sufragerie s-a rupt scaunul. [locative inversion]
d. (EN) * In the living room broke the chair. [locative inversion]
e. (RO) În baie au ruginit țevile . [locative inversion]
f. (EN) * In the bathroom rusted the pipes. [locative inversion]
In conclusion, there are differences between Romanian and English unaccusative verbs, the
main one being the fact that, in Romanian, these intranzitive verbs occ ur most of the time in
their reflexive form, which is not the case for English intranzitives (as shown in sentences
(28) above) . Sentences (29) showed that Romanian unaccusative verbs have a reflexive
variant, as well as a non -reflexive variant, but this d oes not change their meaning or the fact

24
that they are still unaccusative. Sentences (30) and (31) demonstrated a few slight differences
between the reflexive and the non-reflexive variant s of Romanian unaccusative verbs in terms
of what they emphasize (a process or a final state, as shown in (30) above) and in terms of
their external cause (as shown in (31) above). Another difference is that some tests applied to
English unaccusatives cannot be applied to Romanian unaccusatives. One of these tests is the
There-insertion construction which cannot occur in Romanian because this language does not
need this type of expletive. The last difference is that Romanian unaccusative verbs of any
sub-class can occur in the locative inversion due to the freedom of word o rder specific to
Romanian language (as demonstrated in sentences (32a), (32c) and (32e) above) . On the other
hand, not all unaccusati ve verbs in English can occur in the locative inversion (only those that
show existence or appearance can) . Compare the sit uation in sentences (32b), (32d) and (32f)
above (which are ungrammatical) with the situation in (33) below (which is grammatical
because the unaccusative verbs here denote existence ):
(33) a. In the sky were many kites. [locative inversion]
b. On the floor lie a bunch of carpets. [locative inversion]

Looking back to chapters II.1. and II.2., one reaches the conclusion that English and
Romanian verbs, intranzitive verbs in particular, do share some features (presented in chapter
II.1.), yet, given that Englis h is a Germanic language and Romanian is a romance language
and that languages in general evolve differently throughout time , there are also a few
differences (presented in chapter II.2.). Chapter II showed that, first of all, one can identify
the split in the case of intranzitive verbs in both languages, namely in both languages these
verbs can be divided into unergatives and unaccusatives. While focusing only on unaccusative
verbs, this chapter presented their properties and how they behave in Romanian, similarly and
differently from the English ones . Chapter II.1. showed that both Romanian and English
unaccusative verbs take a Theme or Patient as their subject, that their past participle can
become a noun modifier and that in both languages they can have a tranzitive interpretation as
well. Plus, the subclasses of unaccusative verbs that are found in English also occur in
Romanian (verbs denoting a change of state, verbs of spatial configuration, verbs of motion,
verbs of existence and appearance, verbs de noting non -voluntary emission of stimuli and
aspectual verbs).

25
Secondly, the main difference between English and Romanian unaccusatives which stands out
is the fact that, most of the time, Romanian unaccusative verbs occur in their reflexive form,
which d oes not apply to the English ones. Romanian unaccusative verbs, besides their
reflexive variant, also have a non -reflexive variant, while maintaining the same meaning and
their unaccusative nature. Moreover, some tests that apply to English unaccusative ve rbs
cannot apply to Romanian unaccusatives – one of these tests is There -insertion (it cannot be
applied in Romanian because the expletive there is not specific to this language). Lastly, any
Romanian unaccusative verb can occur in the locative inversion, unlike some English
unaccusatives, because in Romanian word order is much more flexible than in English. The
similarities and differences discussed in this chapter will account for the similar or different
ways in which Romanian and English unaccusatives a re recategorized.

26
Chapter III : Recategorization of unaccusative verbs in English and Romanian

The previous chapters discussed the properties of certain verbs that qualify them as
unaccusative verbs . The unaccusative classification is based on a few unacc usativity tests
presented in Chapter I.2. (such as the There -insertion, the locative inversion, the resultative
construction, the part participle of a verb acting as a noun modifier, the addition of a cognate
object and the fact that the surface subject i s a Theme/ Patient) and on certain meanings the
unacc usative verbs carry and the events they denote presented in Chapter I.1 (such as verbs of
existence and appearance, verbs denoting non -voluntary emissions of stimuli, those denoting
a change of state, in choative verbs, aspectual verbs and verbs of motion ). However, some of
them can have various interpreta tions beside the unaccusative one and these other
interpretations are triggered by the context they occur in and the meaning they carry. T his
chapter will cover the various interpretations whi ch unaccusative verbs may have that classify
them as copular or copula -like verbs, tranzitive verbs or unergatives.
III.1. Recategorization of English unaccusative verbs

A. Unacusative verbs as tranzitive
Tranzitive verbs are different from intranzitive verbs in the sense that not only do they always
take an agentive subject , namely an external argument in the subject position, but they also
occur with a direct object at all times. The direct object, that is the inte rnal argument, is in
post-verbal position and t hus is assigned Accusative case (Avram 2003). Let us consider the
following sentence as an example of a tranzitive verb:
(34) She stretched her arms. [tranzitive]
Since both the position of the subject and that of the direct object are occupied by an
argument (she occupies the subject position and is an external a rgument and her arms
occupies the direct object position and is the internal argument) and since the internal
argument is assigned Accusative case, this pr operty being the main feature of tranzitive verbs,
one can say that t he verb stretch in sentence (34 ) is tranzitive. Therefore, while intranzitive
verbs have only one argument (unaccusative verbs have one internal argument that behaves
like a surface subje ct and unergative verbs take one external argument that behaves like an

27
agentive subject), tranzitive verbs have two arguments (both an external and an internal
argument) , one that performs the action and one who undergoes the action . Based on the
number of internal arguments that occur, the tranzitive class can be further split into two:
monotranzitive verbs and ditranzitive verbs. (Avram 2003). Monotranzitive verbs take only
one internal argument, whereas ditranzitive verbs take two internal arguments.
(35) a. Tarantino directed this movie . [monotranzitive]
b. She wrote a letter to her mother . [ditranzitive]
In sentence (35a) the verb is monotranzitive because it takes only one internal argument,
namely this movie which is a direct object, hence it is assig ned Accusative case and also
undergoes the event denoted by the verb to direct . Meanwhile, the verb in sentence (35b) is
ditranzitive because it takes two internal arguments, namely a letter (the direct object) and to
her mother (the prepositional object). In this context, th e verb write needs a direct object, the
element that undergoes the act of being written and that is assigned Accusative case ( a letter ),
and the receiver of the letter, the Goal ( her mother ), which is still an internal argument given
its theta role and classifies as an indirect object.
Moving to the class of unaccusative verbs, one can notice a number of verbs which can appear
as tranzitive in different contexts. According to Șerban (1982), some of the verbs belonging to
the monotranzitive class are: bend, break, burn, close, drop, increase, move, open, start , spin .
As seen in Chapter I.1., these verbs can also belong to certain classes of unaccusative verbs,
such as verbs denoting a change of state, inchoative verbs, aspectual verbs and verbs of
motion. Upon a closer look , one can reach the conclusion that the verbs belonging to the class
of derived unaccusatives, namely the class made up of the sub -classes of verb s previously
mentioned , can occur as mono tranzitive verbs in other contexts . The monotranzitive nature of
derived unaccusative verbs is illustrated in the examples below:
(36) a. The music box broke. [change of state unaccusative]
b. I broke the music box . [monotranzitive]
c. The gates opened. [inchoative unaccusative]
d. The soldiers opened the gates . [monotranzitive]
e. The engine started. [aspectual unaccusative]

28
f. The mechanic started the engine . [monotranzitive]
g. The ball is spinning . [unaccu sative verb of motion ]
h. The kid is spinning the ball . [monotranzitive]
In sentences (36a), (36c), (36e) and (36g) t he verbs are unaccusative since they have only one
internal argument that is theta -marked as Theme/ Patient (the music box, the gates, th e engine,
the ball ) and no external argument. However, the verbs in (36b), (36d), (36f) and (36h) are
tranzitive because they take both an internal argument that is assigned Accusative case and
thus is a direct object ( the music box, the gates, the engine, the ball ) and an external argument
that occupies the subject position and is responsible for the action which the direct object
undergoes ( I, the soldiers, the mechanic, the kid ). Moreover, since the tranzitive verbs in the
latter group of sentences occur with just one internal argument, one can conclude that they are
monotranzitive.
Monotranzitive verbs can also have causative features and are interpreted as „causing
someone or something to do something” (Șerban 1982). According to Șerban (1982) and
Petcu (2009), the u naccusative verbs sit and stand , which are verbs of spatial configuration,
can occur as causative monotranzitive verbs.
(37) a. The walking stick stood against the wall. [unaccusative] (Petcu 2009: 19)
b. I stood the walking stick against the wall. [causative monotranzitive] (Petcu 2009:19)
c. He sat in a chair . [unaccusative]
d. I sat the old man down in a chair . [causative monotranzitive] (Șerban 1982: 217)
The unaccusative verbs in (37a) and (37c) show the spatial configuration of the internal
argument, its location (therefore they can be interpreted as the walking stick was against the
wall / he was (sitting) in a chair ), whereas the ver bs in (37b) and (37d) can be interpreted as I
caused the walking stick to be there (against the wall) / I caused the old man to sit down in a
chair . Plus, the verbs in (37b) and (37d) are monotranzitive because they have an external
argument ( I / I ) and on ly one internal argument ( the walking stick / the old man ) that
undergoes the event denoted by the verb and caused by the external argument. However, the
meaning stays the same in all sentences.

29
Another class of unaccusative verbs that can be recategorized as causative monotranzitives is
that of inchoative verbs (Șerban 1982). As Șerban (1982) states, there is a close link between
the meaning denoted by inchoative verbs ( that of initiating a cahnge of state ) and that of
causative verbs (they illustr ate the process of causing the initiation of the new state ).
(38) a. The porridge cooled. [inchoative unaccusative] (Șerban 1982: 221)
b. Xandra cooled the porridge . [causative monotranzitive] (Șerban 1982: 221)
Sentence (38a) includes an inchoative unaccusative ver b (cool) which illustrates the new state
which the internal argument reaches, the focus is on the final state of being cool (the sentence
is paraphrased as The porridge is cool ), whereas its monotranzitive counterpart, (38b), is
understood as Xandra caused the porridge to cool , thus the emphasis is on the process of
cooling and the cause that initiated this process, the external argument ( Xandra ). Ultimately,
both sentences have the same meaning.
In the case of ditranzitive verbs there are some unaccusative counterparts as there are for
monotranzitive ones. The fact that unaccusative and monotranzitive verbs require only one
internal argument facilitates the occur rence of a unaccusative verb that has a monotranzitive
counterpart, whereas ditranzitives requir e the presence of two internal arguments –
requirement which unaccusative verbs usually do not meet. However, one could take as an
example the inaccusative verb pass. As stated by Petcu (2009), this verb is a double object
verb and occurs in the presence o f two internal arguments: the Goal argument and the Theme.
(39) a. The estate passed to Lord Wilde . [unaccusative] (Petcu 2009: 25)
b. He passed the estate to Lord Wilde . [ditranzitive]
In sentence (39a) the verb is unaccusative because it takes as a surface subject an internal
argument (a direct object: the estate ), while also taking a second internal argument (an
indirect object: to Lord Wilde ). The first internal argument represents the Theme that
undergoes the process of passing to someone and the second internal argument represents the
Goal to whom the estate passes . In sentence (39b) the two internal argumen ts of the
unaccusative verb in (39a) are preserved and an external argument that controls the process of
passing is added ( he). This makes up the frame of a ditranzitive verb (one external argument
and two internal arguments).

30
Upon a second look, one can say that a ditranzitive verb occurs with a Theme argument, the
element that undergoes the act denoted by the verb, and a Goal argument, the participa nt
towards whom the act is performed , therefore the Beneficiary of the action. Therefore, if one
takes the sentences with monotranzitive verbs in examples (36) above and adds a Beneficiary
to the sentence, then the verb will have two internal arguments. Th e sentences will be as
follows:
(40) a. I broke the music box for him . [ditranzitive]
b. The soldiers opened the gates for them . [ditranzitive]
c. The mechanic started the engine for him . [ditranzitive]
d. The kid is spinning the ball for his sister . [dit ranzitive]
The verbs in sentences (40) above have two internal arguments. First, the direct object which
occurs in the monotranzitive variant as well ( the music box, the gates, the engine, the ball ),
and then the second internal argument, namely a preposit ional object. The prepositional
objects in sentences (40) above ( for him / for them / for him / for his sister ) are internal
arguments and signal the Beneficiary of the verbal event, namely that the event denoted by
the verb occurs for them. One can infer that The mechanic started the engine for him, because
he asked him to do so . In other words, the event occurs as a favor done for someone. The
same inference can be applied to the other examples in (40) as well.
One can extend this ditranzitive interpretat ion to other inchoative verbs as well by adding a
prepositional object, a Beneficiary . For example, the ditranzitive interpretation of the verb to
cool in sentence (38b) above will be as follows:
(41) Xandra cooled the porridge for her child . [ditranzitive]
One can infer that, in sentence (41 ), Xandra cooled the porridge for her child, because the
child asked her to, or as a favor to her child . Therefore, the child is the Beneficiary and the
second internal argument which, together with the first internal argume nt, the Theme ( the
porridge) and the external argument, the subject ( Xandra ), make up the frame of a ditranzitive
verb. Other inchoative verbs (such as melt, increase , close ), aspectual verbs ( stop), verbs of
motion ( move ) which can be recategorized as dit ranzitive as well are listed below , showing
the possibility to recategorize derived unaccusatives as ditranzitives :

31
(42) a. The chef melted the butter for the customer (because he asked him to). [ditranzitive]
b. The driver increased the speed for him (beca use he asked him to). [ditranzitive]
c. I closed the window for her (because she asked me to). [ditranzitive]
d. He stopped the car for her (because she asked him to). [ditranzitive]
e. Dan moved the boxes for her (because she asked him to). [ ditranzitive]
B. Unaccusative verbs as unergatives
According to Avram (2003), there are unaccusative verbs which, depending on the context
they occur in and the meaning they carry, can be recategorized as unergative s. In order to
demonstrate this statement , Perlmutter (1978), apud Avram (2003: 191), gives the following
examples:
(43) a. The wheels slid on the ice. [unaccusative]
b. Joe slid on the ice. [unergative]
c. The figurine stood on this table . [unaccusative]
d. The children stood on this table . [unergative]
e. The unemployment rate jumped in July . [unaccusative]
f. Henry jumped over the fence . [unergative]
Just as Avram (2003) notes, the arguments of the verbs in (43a), (43c), (43e) are internal
arguments, theta -marked as Themes/ Patients, thus the verbs are unaccusative, whereas the
arguments of the verbs in (43b), (43d) and (43f) are external arguments, theta -marked as
Agents, hence the unergative reading of the verbs. As one can notice in sentences (43) above,
the verbs pertain to the cla ss of verbs of motion ( slide , jump ) and spatial configuration
(stand ). Therefore, unaccusative verbs belonging to these classes can also be recategorized as
unergative. Other unaccusative verbs which have an unergative reading and belong to the
class of verbs of motion are roll, spin, move and so on .
(44) a. The bowling ball rolled on the floor . [unaccusative]
b. David rolled over. [unergative]

32
On the one hand, in sentence (44a) the verb roll is unaccusative since its surface subject is a
Theme that has no control over the action, nor did it cause it, while the same verb in (44b) is
categorized as unergative since its subject is an Agent that has control over the action and that
also caused the event denoted by the verb to take place.
C. Unaccusative verbs as copula -like or copular verbs
Avram (2003) states that copulative or copula -like verbs „provide a link between the subject
of the sentence and the element which predicates about this subject” (Avram 2003: 195). Let
us analyse the following examples:
(45) a. John is clever . [copula BE] (Avram 2003: 195)
b. She remained a widow . [copula -like verb] (Avram 2003: 195)
The verb in sentence (45a) is a copular verb and predicates of John, the subject, the property
of being clever . This element that represents the property that is predicated of the subject is
called predicative (in this case, clever is a predicative expressed by an Adjectival Phrase )
(Avram 2003) . Normally, the verb remain carries a certain meaning and is an unaccusative
verb denoting existence. How ever, in sentence (45b) remain is a copula -like verb because it
functions the way be does: it predicates of the subject ( she) the property of being a widow
(thus a widow is a predicative expressed by a Determiner Phrase) . In other words, the
sentence is un derstood as: She is a widow . According to Avram (2003), the verb be is the
main copular verb, while other verbs which carry a certain meaning are copula -like.
Consider ing the examples above, one can assert that there are classes of unaccusative verbs
which can be recategorized as copular or copula -like verbs. These classes are verbs of
existence and appearance (for verbs such as: remain, loom, be, appear ), verbs of spatial
configuration ( lie, stand, sit ) and verbs of motion ( fall) (Șerban 1982, Avram 2003) . Their
recategorization is illustrated in the examples below:
(46) a. The castle loomed menacing in the distance . [copula -like] (Șerban 1982: 127)
b. The castle loomed in the distance . [unaccusative verb of existence]
c. She appeard nice . [copula -like]
d. A shadow appeared in the distance . [unaccusative verb of existence]

33
e. The book lay open on the table . [copula -like] (Șerban 1982: 126)
f. The book lay on the table . [unaccusative verb of spatial configuration]
g. He fell silent . [copula -like] (Șerban 1982: 126)
h. The leaves fell. [unaccusative of motion ]
In the sentences above, the copula -like interpretation of the verb (46a), (46c), (46e), (46g) is
due to the fact that the verb forms a copulative predication when attached a predicative
(menacing / nice / open / silent ). The role of the predicative is to denote the property which is
predicated of the subject. These sentences can be paraphrased as: The castle is menacing / She
is nice / The book is open / He is silent . The unaccusative verb s in the other sentences in (46)
carry their meaning as verbal predicates and denote existence, spatial configuration and
motion.
To conclude, unaccusative verbs in English can be recategorized as either tranzitive, copular
or copula -like verbs or unergati ve verbs, depend ing on the context they appear in and the
meaning they carr y. As shown in this chapter, tranzitive verbs fall into t wo categories
depending on the number of internal arguments: monotranzitives (one internal argument) and
ditrazitives (two i nternal arguments). Some unaccusative verbs can be recategorized as both.
Firstly, unaccusative verbs denoting a change of state (such as burn , break ), inchoative verbs
(such as close , open ), aspectual verbs (such as start) and verbs of motion (such as spin) can be
recategorized as monotranzitive verbs, as demonstrated in sentences (36) above.
Monotranzitive verbs also have causative features, namely they can be interpreted as „causing
someone or something to do something or to reach a certain state”. The u naccusative verbs
which can be recategorized as causative monotranzitives are verbs of spatial configuration
(sit, stand ) as shown in example (37) above, inchoative verbs ( cool, melt ) as shown in
sentence (38) above. The ditranzitive recategorization of un accusative verbs occurs in the case
of double object unaccusatives (such as pass in example (39) above) and in that of derived
unaccusative verbs (such as inchoative verbs, changes of state, aspectual verbs and verbs of
motion) as illustrated in examples ( 40), (41) and (42) above.
Secondly, there are unaccusative verbs which can also be recategorized as unergative verbs.
These verbs belong to the class of verbs of motion ( slide, jump, roll ) and spatial configuration

34
(stand, sit ). Their unergative interpret ation depends on the agentive property of the subject
which is seen as an external argument as shown in (43) and (44) above.
Another recategorization of unaccusative verbs is that of copular or copula -like verbs. These
verbs form a copulative predication with a predicative and together predicate a certain
property of the subject of the sentence. In other words, the verb predicates certain features of
the subject, and those features are illustrated by the predicative. As Avram (2003) notes, the
main copular verb is be, while the other verbs that predicate of the subject and carry specific
meanings are copula -like verbs. The unaccusatives which behave in different contexts as
copula -like are: verbs of existence and appearance (as shown in (46a) above), verbs of spatial
configuration (as shown in (46e) above) and verbs of motion (as shown in (46g) above).

35
III.2. Recategorization of Romanian unaccusative verbs

A. Unaccusative verbs as tranzitive
The tranzitive/ intranzitive distinction is present in Roma nian too, as well as the split of
tranzitive verbs into monotranzitive and ditranzitive. Romanian tranzitive verbs have similar
properties as the English ones: they occur with an external argument that takes the subject
position and have an internal argument which occupies the direct object position, being
assigned Accusative case.
(47) a. (RO) Ea a întins brațele .[tranzitive]
b. (EN) She stretched her arms .[tranzitive]
The verb in sentence (47a) is tranzitive because the subject position is occupied by an external
argument, theta -marked as Agent ( ea / she ), and the direct object position is occupied by a n
internal argument, theta -marked as Theme ( brațele / arms ), which undergoes the action of
being stretched.
Romanian m onotranzitives behave in the same way: they take one internal argument as their
direct object and one external argument as their subject. Romanian ditranzitive verbs, like
English ditranzitives, take two internal arguments (a direct and in indirect object) and one
external argument as a subject. The monotranzitive and ditranzitive structure is illustrated
below:
(48) a. (RO) Tarantino a regizat acest film . [monotranzitive]
b. (EN) Tarantino directed this movie . [monotranzitive]
c. (RO) I-a scris o scrisoare mamei ei . [ditranzitive]
d. (EN) She wrote a letter to her mother . [ditranzitive]
The verb in sentence (48a) is monotranzitive becaus e it has only one internal argument, a
direct object ( acest film / this movie ), while the one in sentence (48c) is ditranzitive because it
takes two internal arguments, a direct object ( o scrisoare / a letter ) and an indirect object
(mamei ei/ to her mothe r) who is the beneficiary of the letter.

36
Chapter III.1. showed that English unaccusative verbs which can be recategorized as
monotranzitive are th e derived unaccusatives (change of state, inchoative verbs, aspectual
verbs and verbs of motion). One can obse rve this phenomenon in Romanian as well since
these classes are encountered here as well.
(49) a. (RO) Fereastra s -a spart . [unaccusative change of state]
b. (EN) The window broke . [unaccusative change of state]
c. (RO) El a spart fereastra . [monotranziti ve]
d. (EN) He broke the window . [monotranzitive]
e. (RO) Motorul a pornit . [aspectual unaccusative]
f. (EN) The engine started. [aspectual unaccusative]
g. (RO) Eu am pornit motorul . [monotranzitive]
h. (EN) I started the engine . [monotranz itive]
i. (RO) Roata se învârtea . [unaccusative verb of motion]
j. (EN) The wheel was spinning . [unaccusative verb of motion]
k. (RO) Copilul învârtea roata . [monotranzitive]
l. (EN) The child was spinning the wheel . [monotranzitive]
The verbs marked as monotranzitive in sentences (49) above can be recategorized as such
because they have an external argument acting as a subject ( el / he, eu / I, copilul / the child )
and an internal argument acting as a direct object ( fereastra / the window, moto rul / the
engine, roata / the wheel ).
These derived Romanian unaccusatives can also be recategorized as ditranzitive by adding an
indirect object (a second internal argument) to the verb.
(50) a. (RO) Copilul i-a deschis ușa (lui pentru el ). [ditranzitive]
b. (EN) The child opened the door for him. [ditranzitive]
c. (RO) Mecanicul i-a pornit motorul (mașinii lui pentru el). [ditranzitive]

37
d. (EN) The mechanic started the engine for him. [ditranzitive]
e. (RO) Copilul ți-a deschis ușa (pentru tine). [ditranzitive]
f. (EN) The child opened the door for you. [ditranzitive]
In sentences (50a), (50c) and (50e) the verb has two internal arguments: the direct object ( ușa
/ the door, motorul / the engine, ușa / the door ) and an indirect object, namely a p ersonal
pronoun in dative ( i- / him, i – / him, ți – / you ) which denotes the Beneficiary, the person to
whom the action denoted by the verb is done. These indirect objects show the person for
whom a favor is done (the favor of opening a door, the favor of s tarting the engine). This kind
of structure could be interpreted as The child opened him the door , which of course in English
is ungrammatical, but is possible in Romanian .
B. Unaccusative verbs as unergatives
There are unaccusative verbs in the class of verbs of motion (a se apropia / to approach, a se
cățăra / to climb, a aluneca / to slide ) and of spatial configuration ( a se apleca / to bend over,
a coti / to swerve, a se aduna / to gather ) which can have an unergative interpretation
(Dragomirescu 2010).
(51) a. (RO) Crengil e copacului se apleacă peste fântână . [unaccusative] (Dragomirescu 2010:
117)
b. (EN) The tree branches bend over the well. [unaccusative]
c. (RO) Ion se apleacă peste fântână . [unergative] (Dragomirescu 2010:117)
d. (EN) Ion bends over the wel l. [unergative]
e. (RO) Apa se adună în gropi. [unaccusative] (Dragomirescu 2010:117)
f. (EN) The water is gathering in the diggings . [unaccusative]
g. (RO) Oamenii se adună în piață . [unergative]
h. (EN) The people are gathering in the s quare. [unergative]
i. (RO) Vița-de-vie se cațără până în vârful turnului . [unaccusative]
j. (EN) The vine is climbing all the way to the top of the tower. [unaccusative]

38
k. (RO) Copilul se cațără în copac. [unergative]
l. (EN) The child is climbing up the tree. [unergative]
The verbs classified as unergative in the sentences in (51) above are classified as such because
they all have an external argument as their subject that has control over the action and
performs the action willingly (Ion, oamenii / the people, copilul / the child ), whereas the
unaccusative verbs take an internal argument as their subject, that is a Theme which has no
control over the action denoted by the verb (crengil e copacului / the tree branches, apa / the
water, vița -de-vie / the vine ).
C. Unaccusative verbs as copular or copula -like verbs
The two types of unaccusatives in Romanian that can be recategorized as copular or copula –
like verbs are: verbs of existence ( a fi / to be ) and verb s of spatial configuration ( a rămâne / to
remain ), as classified in Romanian by Dragomirescu (2010) . The verb a fi / to be is, as its
English counterpart, a copular verb when attached a predicative, as shown below:
(52) a. (RO) Ei sunt talentați . [copula BE]
b. (EN) They are talented . [copula BE]
c. (RO) Ei sunt acasă . [unaccusative]
d. (EN) They are at home . [unaccusative]
In sentence (52a) and (52b) the verb is copular because it forms a copulative predication with
the predicative talentați / talent ed. The verb predicates of the subject, ei / they , the property
denoted by the predicative, namely the property of being talented. On the other hand, in
sentence (52c) and (52d) the verb to be is an unaccusative verb of existence. One can infer the
locatio n of the subject, namely that ei / they are at home and no other place.
The examples below demonstrate the recategorization of the unaccusative verb remain as
copula -like verb:
(53) a. (RO) A rămas acasă . [unaccusative]
b. (EN) She remained at home . [unaccusative]
c. (RO) A rămas mut. [copula -like]

39
d. (EN) He remained speechless . [copula -like]
Sentences (53c) and (53d) show the recategorization of the verb remain as a copula -like ver b.
The verb forms a copulative predication with the predicative that accompanies it ( mut /
speechless ) which predicates of the subject the property of being speechless. The sentence can
be understood as Este mut / He is speechless .
Considering all of the a bove , Romanian unaccusative verbs, just like the English ones , can be
recategorized as tranzitive, namely mono tranzitive and ditranzitive. Those which can occur as
monotranzitive are the derived unaccusatives (change of state, inchoative verbs, aspectual
verbs and verbs of motion). In their monotranzitive interpretation they take an external
argument as their subject and a n internal argument as their direct object that is affected by the
subject and assigned Accusative case. The derived unaccusative verbs c an also occur as
ditranzitives. In their ditranzitive interpretation, besides the subject and the direct object, a
third argument is added: an indirect object which is assigned either Beneficiary or Goal.
Romanian unaccusatives (verbs of motion and spatial configuration) can also be recategorized
as unergative when their subject is interpreted as an Agent, an external argument, that has
control over the action denoted by the verb. The third recategorization of Romanian
unaccusative verbs is as copular or co pula-like verbs. These verbs belong to the class of verbs
of existence and verbs of spatial configuration. When they are attached to a predicative (an
element that predicates a property of the subject) they form a copulative predication and are
recategoriz ed as copular or copula -like verbs.

In conclusion , unaccusative verbs can be recategorized, both in English and Romanian, as
tranzitive, copu lar or copula -like verbs and un ergative ve rbs when the context requires it.
When they are recategorized as tranzi tive, they can be either monotranzitive or ditranzitive
with respect to the number of arguments they take (one internal and one external, or one
external and two internal). This applies to both English and Romanian, in particular to the
class of derived un accusatives. The same class of verbs can be recategorized as belonging to
the ditranzitive class when they occur with a third internal argument, that is besides the
subject and the direct object, an indirect object is added, assigned Beneficiary or the Goa l.
The unaccusatives that can be recategorized as unergatives belong to the class of verbs of
motion and spatial configuration. When they are recategorized as unergative verbs their

40
subject is an external argument, an Agent, that initiates the action denot ed by the verb
willingly. Lastly, both Romanian and English unaccusatives can be interpreted as copular or
copula -like verbs when they occur with a predicative – an element that predicates something
of the subject of the sentence. In short, the verb predic ates a property (expressed by the
predicative) of the subject (the external argument).

41
Chapter IV : Inventory of unaccusative constructions in English and Romanian .
Translation problems

The present chapter lists a series of unaccusative verbs in English a nd Romanian,
accompanied by various contexts, aiming to reflect the problems that may occur in the
translation process of such verbs and to also offer a solution, as well as their features specific
to each language and the way they behave. The verbs are gr ouped by the classes of
unaccusatives they belong to in terms of what kind of event or action they denote , presented
in Chapter I, and by their recategorization frame , presented in Chapter III .
IV.1. List in terms of unaccusative classes

Verbs of existenc e and appearance
(1) (EN) APPEAR
There appeared a shadow in the woods. (RO) A APĂREA
*Acolo a apărut o umbră în pădure .
The first problem that can be observed is that in the case of There -insertion the expletive
cannot be translated into Romanian because the result is an ungrammatical sentence, as seen
above, especially when there is a locative phrase after the verb (in this case in the woods ). In
English, th e expletive is needed to fill the subject position and it does not show location,
whereas in Romanian s entences are grammatical even without an element that fills the subject
position , as Romanian is a pro -drop language . Moreover, there in Romanian is translated as
acolo , denoting a location , but in this context there is already a locative phrase, namely in the
woods / în pădure . In such cases, given that the expletive there does not occur in such
contexts in Romanian, it is prefferrable that the construction be translated as: A apărut o
umbră în pădure / În pădure a apărut o umbră , therefore leaving there aside.
(2) (EN) OCCUR (RO) A AVEA LOC / A APĂREA
There occurred a murder. *Acolo a avut loc o crimă .

42
The same issue encountered above can be seen in the case of another unaccusative verb of
existence – occur . As stated above, the expletive there does not exp ress a location, it merely
fills the subject position which must always be occupied in English. Therefore, it will not be
translated in Romanian, hence this language lacks the expletive element. Given that in the
English sentence there is no locative phras e, there is no reason to provide a locative phrase in
Romanian. The English sentence emphasizes the occurrence of a murder, not the place of the
occurrence. Therefore, the Romanian version should also emphasize only the occurrence,
leaving the location asi de, and be translated simply as: A avut loc o crimă .
Given that There -insertion in English is grammatical with all unaccusative verbs of existence
and appearance , the problem and the solution mentioned above applies to all of them.
(3) (EN) ARISE
Problems ari se when you are not prepared . (RO) A SE IVI, A APĂREA
Problemele apar când nu ești pregătit .
Problemele se ivesc când nu ești pregătit .
One can observe that in Romanian, certain unaccusative verbs appear not only in their non –
reflexive form (the first Rom anian translation above), but in a reflexive variant as well (the
second translation in Romanian). However, the English unaccusatives do not have a reflexive
form and they will always occur with a non -reflexive one. This will be the main difference
between the English and Romanian sentences in such cases but this does not change the fact
that they both convey the same meaning.
Change of state verbs
(4) (EN) CHIP
Porcelain chips easily.
(5) (EN) CHANGE
Some people do not change .
(6) (EN) BLACKEN
The sky blackened . (RO) A (SE) CIOBI
Porțelanul se ciobește ușor.
(RO) A (SE) SCHIMBA
Unii oameni nu se schimbă .
(RO) A (SE) ÎNNEGRI
Cerul s-a înnegrit .

43
(7) (EN) SHRINK
Alice shrinked after she drank the bottle .
(8) (EN) BAKE
Bread bakes fast . (RO) A (SE) MICȘORA
Alice s-a micșorat după ce a băut din sticlă .
(RO) A (SE) COACE
Pâinea se coace repede .
Just as in the case of verb (3) above, most verbs which denote a change of state occur in their
reflexive form in Romanian, whereas this is not the case for English. The role of the reflexiv e
SE is to illustrate that the surface subject undergoes the action denoted by the verb. If one
were to translate the English unaccusatives without the reflexive form in Romanian, some of
the verbs would have a tranzitive nature. Compare, for example, the Romanian contexts f or
(5) and (7 ) with their non -reflexive alternatives: Unii oameni nu sc himbă / Alice a micșorat .
They no longer emphasize the fact that the subject is a Theme/ Patient, namely the undergoer
of the action and they require a direct object after the verb in order to be grammatical , thus
changing their unaccusative status to tranzi tive.
(9) (EN) DETERIORATE
*In the bathroom deteriorated the paint
on the walls. (RO) A (SE) DETERIORA
În baie s-a deteriorat vopseaua de pe pereți .

(10) (EN) BURN
*In the woods burned the trees .
(11) (EN) COOL
*In those areas cooled the weather .
(12) (EN) BURST
*In the basement burst the pipe . (RO) A (SE) ARDE
În pădure au ars copacii .
(RO) A (SE) RĂCI
În zonele acelea s-a răcit vremea .
(RO) A (SE) SPARGE
La subsol s-a spart țeava .
Another issue that is noticed is the way Romanian and English unaccusative verbs behave in
the locative inversion . As seen in the previous chapters, a great number of Romanian
unaccusatives, regardless of the class they belong to, are grammatical in the locative
inversion, unlike the case of English unaccusatives (only those that deno te existence and

44
appearance can occur in such structures). This could pose a problem when translating them
from Romanian into English. As seen in examples (9), (10), (11) and (12) even if the
Romanian context occurs with a locative inversion, in English, i f the unaccusatives do not
express existence or appearance, cannot keep the same Romanian structure because they
would be ungrammatical. Given that the verbs above denote a change of state, their English
translation will leave the locative phrase at the en d of the sentence. For example: The weather
cooled in those areas / The trees burned in the woods .
(13) (EN) BEND
The metal bent flat.
(14) (EN) BOIL
The pot boiled dry.
(15) (EN) BREAK
The piggy -bank broke open .
(16) (EN) CRACK
The eggshell cracked open . (RO) A (SE) ÎNDOI
Metalul s -a îndoit până s -a aplatizat .
(RO) A (SE) FIERBE
Oala a fiert până s -a evaporat apa .
(RO) A (SE) RUPE, A (SE) SPARGE
Pușculița s -a spart și s-a deschis .
(RO) A (SE) CRĂPA
Coaja de ou s -a crăpat și s-a deschis .
In some cases, the resultative phrase s in English that occur with unaccusatives cannot be
translated in Romanian by just one word – it would result in an ungrammatical sentence
(Metalul s -a îndoit plat/ Oala a fiert uscată/ Pușculița s -a spart deschisă/ Coaja de ou s -a
crăpat deschisă ). As se en above the Romanian translations replace the resultative phrase with
a second sentence (an Adverbial of Result in (13) and (14) and a Ma in Clause in (15) and
(16)) in order to convey the same meaning the English constructions have (they can be
rephrased as: The metal bent until it became flat/ The pot boiled until the liquid in it
evaporated/ The piggy -bank broke and opened/ The egshell cracked and opened ). In both
cases the sentences focus on the final state reached by the internal argument.
Inchoative verbs
(17) (EN) MELT
The ice -cream melted. (RO) A (SE) TOPI
Înghețata s-a topit.

45
(18) (EN) EVAPORATE
The water evaporated because of the heat .
(19) (EN) REDDEN
The sky reddened .
(20) (EN) WILT
*In the garden wilted all the flowers .
(21) (EN) BUD
*In the flower pot budded the roses.
(22) (EN) OPEN
*In the living room open ed the window. (RO) A (SE) EVAPORA
Apa s-a evaporat din cauza căldurii .
(RO) A (SE) ÎNROȘI
Cerul s-a înroșit .
(RO) A SE OFILI
În grădină s-au ofilit toate florile.
(RO) A ÎMBOBOCI
În ghiveci au îmbobocit trandafirii.
(RO) A (SE) DESCHIDE
În sufrageri e s-a deschis fereastra .
The inchoative class poses the same issues regarding the reflexive form of Romanian
unaccusatives and the locative inversion. In examples (17), (18) and (19) one can notice the
reflexive variant of the Romanian unaccusatives which does not occur in the English
translation, since the English unaccusatives do not have a reflexive variant. In this case, the
Romanian constructions require the reflexive form of the verb in order to show that the
subject undergoes the event that is expre ssed and that it is a Theme/ Patient. The non –
reflexive form of these verbs would result in a tranzitive reading such as: Înghețata a topit
(ceva)/ Apa a evaporat (ceva)/ Cerul a înroșit (ceva) which would also be ungrammatical.
Furthermore, in examples (2 0), (21) and (22) one can observe that the locative inversion is
possible with any type of unaccusative verb, whereas in English it is restricted only to verbs
denoting existence and appearance. Thus, the English examples will leave the locative phrase
at the end of the sentence as seen in the case of (9), (10), (11), (12) above.
Considering all of the above, the main problems which can occur when translating
unaccusative structures from English into Romanian or the other way around are: There –
insertion co nstructions, the occurence of the reflexive form in Romanian, the locative
inversion structures and the presence of a resultative phrase in English. Firstly, the examples
above show that in the case of a There -insertion, the expletive will not be translate d in
Romanian because it does not carry the meaning of a location. The only element that

46
expresses location in a There -insertion structure is a locative phrase located at the end of the
sentence (example (1) above). When there is no locative phrase in such constructions, it
means that the sentence focuses on the occurrence of the action and not its location, therefore
no locative phrase will appear in the Romanian version (example (2) above). Secondly, the
presence of the reflexive form in Romanian is impor tant because it underlines the Theme/
Patient nature of the internal argument (as demonstrated in examples (4) -(8) and (17) -(19)
above), whereas without it the unaccusative would have a more tranzitive interpretation in
some cases. Thirdly, the unaccusativ e constructions above have shown that the locative
inversion is possible with any class of unaccusative verbs in Romanian, whereas it is not the
case in English, thus changing the position of the locative phrase from the pre -verbal position
in Romanian to the post -verbal position in English (examples (9) -(12) and (20) -(22) above) .
Last but not least, the presence of a resultative phrase in English can pose problems to the
Romanian translation, considering that in some cases it is not possible to translate i t using one
word. In Romanian constructions it is translated as another sentence (examples (13) -(16)
above). As seen above, these issues are not pinpointed to only one specific class of
unaccusatives, they can appear in the case of more than one type of un accusative verbs.

47
IV.2. List in terms of recategorization of unaccusatives

Unaccusatives as tranzitive verbs
As seen in Chapter III, the classes of unaccusative verbs that can be recategorized as
tranzitive are the derived unaccusatives and ver bs of spatial configuration. Firstly, let us take
a look at the unaccusatives which can be interpreted as monotranzitive.
(23) (EN) ROAST
The cook roasted the stake .
(24) (EN) CHIP
The kid chipped the cup .
(25) (EN) SCATTER
They scattered the petals .
(26) (EN) STOP
They stopp ed the car .
(27) (EN) SPIN
They spinned the wheel . (RO) A (SE) PRĂJI
Bucătarul a prăjit friptura .
(RO) A (SE) CIOBI
Copilul a ciobit ceașca .
(RO) A (SE) ÎMPRĂȘTIA
Au împrăștiat petalele .
(RO) A (SE) OPRI
Au oprit mașina .
(RO) A (SE) ÎNVÂRTI
Au învârtit roata .
As shown in the examples above, the unaccusative ver bs which normally occur in their
reflexive form in Romanian, when they are recategorized as tranzitive , must always occur in
their non -reflexive form in order to be grammatical as mono tranzitive constructions (hence
the reflexive form emphasizes the unaccu sative nature of the verb as well as the Theme/
Patient status of the internal argument).
There is a set of unaccusative verbs in English, which are recategorized as causative
monotranzitives, that can pose difficulties when translated into Romanian: verbs of spatial
configuration. Examples are provided below:

48
(28) (EN) STAND
The knight stood his sword against the
table . (RO) A STA
Cavalerul și-a proptit sabia de masă .
In English the verb stand can also be recategorized as a causative monotranzitive and is
interpreted as causing someone/ something to stand . In the context above it can be interpreted
as The knight caused his sword to stand against the table . However, in Romanian such
construction is not possible with the same verb ( a sta ) because it does not car ry a causative
meaning. Thus, in order to convey the same meaning in Romanian, a different verb is used ( a
propti ).
When it comes to unaccusative verbs recategorized as ditranzitive, in some cases in
Romanian, besides the external argument, the verb is acc ompanied by two internal arguments
made up of a direct object and in indirect object, whereas in English it is mostly accompanied
by a direct object and a prepositional object. Let us examine the contexts below:
(29) (EN) OPEN
*The waiter opened him the bottle . (RO) A (SE) DESCHIDE
Chelnerul i-a deschis sticla .
In Romanian, the i- illustrates the indirect object, the Beneficiary for whom the bottle was
opened, but when translating the structure into English, it will not be possible to keep an
indirect object b ecause it results in an ungrammatical sentence (as seen in (29) above). This is
why in English, the Beneficiary , namely the participant for whom the act is done by the
subject, will be represented by a prepositional object as follows: The waiter opened the bottle
for him .
(30) (EN) INCREASE
*The company increased them the
salaries . (RO) A (SE) MĂRI, A CREȘTE
Compania le-a mărit salariile .
The same problem seen in (29) occurs in (30) as well, the Romanian le- is the indirect object,
the Beneficiary. However, in the English context the Beneficiary cannot be expressed by an
indirect object such as them/ to them , because it is not grammatical (as seen above). In this
case, the sentence can be translated as The company increased their salaries . The reason why

49
it can be translated as such (with a possesive: their ) is because one can infer from the
Romanian context that the salaries belong to a certain group of people: them (Compania le -a
mărit salariile care aparțin lor / The company increased the salaries which belong to them ).
This could pose a problem since the Romanian context which contains a ditranzitive verb is
translated into English with a monotranzitive verb in order to convey the same meaning and to
maintain the grammaticality of the sentence .
Unaccusatives as copular or copula -like verbs
(31) (EN) LIE
The jewelry box lies locked on the table . (RO) A STA
Cutia de bijuterii stă încuiată pe masă .
The English context contains a cop ula-like verb ( lie), whereas the Romanian context contains
a verbal predicate ( a sta ). The word locked in English is a predicative (an Adjectival Phrase)
and forms a copulative predication with the verb lie, while in Romanian the word încuiată is
an Adverb ial of Manner that determines the verbal predicate stă. However, despite the
differences at the syntactic level in the two contexts, the sentences convey the same meaning
and are similar at semantic level . This can be applied to the other verbs of spatial
configuration as well, since they are quite similar to the verb lie in terms of meaning and
syntactic function.
(32) (EN) FALL
The crowd fell silent . (RO) A CĂDEA
*Mulțimea a căzut în liniște/ liniștită.
Mulțimea a tăcut . / În mulțime s-a făcut
liniște .
As seen above, the verb fall (a cădea) in Romanian cannot have a copular interpretation since
it only expresses motion , and in this context the verb fall does not convey the idea of motion .
Thus, the verb changes in the Romanian translation in order to convey the meaning of the
English context ( The crowd stopped speaking, therefore there was silence ): a tăcea / a se face
(liniște) . In the case of copula -like verbs, t he focus is not as much on the verb, as it is on the
predicative (silent ) because it is the ele ment that illustrates the final state or a feature of the
subject . For this reason the Romanian translation focuses on conveying the idea of silence and

50
not the idea of falling .
Considering the analysis presented by this subchapter, there are some transla tion problems
that occur in the case of unaccusative verbs when they are recategorized as tranzitive or
copula -like verbs. Firstly, the occurrence of the reflexive form versus the non -reflexive one.
In Romanian, when unaccusatives (which mostly occur in th eir reflexive form) are
recategorized as tranzitive they must occur in their non -reflexive form in order to be
grammatical with a subject that behaves as an Agent. Example (28) also showed that it is
difficult to translate an English causative verb into Ro manian with the equivalent of that verb,
since it cannot convey the same causative meaning and be grammatical in Romanian.
Moreover, in the case of unaccusatives recategorized as ditranzitive verbs, in Romanian the
two internal arguments are made up of a d irect object and an indirect object, but in English,
while this combination is possible as well, the direct object is more often accompanied by a
prepositional object (as seen in (29) and (30) above). When speaking about unaccusatives
recategorized as copu la-like verbs, one can note the fact that the English verbs (such as
examples (31) and (32) above) will not always be translated into Romanian with their
equivalent in this language. The reason is that the Romanian equivalents cannot be
recategorized as co pula-like verbs because they do not carry a copular meaning when attached
to a predicative. Either the predicative becomes an Adverbial of Manner, as seen in (31), or
the verb changes completely, as seen in (32).

To conclude, both Chapter IV.1. and Chapte r IV.2 . have shown a series of problems which
might occur when attempting to translate unaccusative verbs from English into Romanian or
viceversa. First of all, in the case of There -insertion constructions, the expletive there cannot
be translated into Rom anian as acolo because the English word does not carry a locative
meaning, it merely fills the subject position, which in Romanian is not needed. Another aspect
worth noting is the fact that the Romanian unaccusatives occur mostly in their reflexive form
(while this does not apply to English), which emphasizes the Theme/ Patient status of the
internal argument, and as seen in Chapter IV.2., they must occur in their non -reflexive variant
when recategorized as tranzitive in order to emphasize the Agent status of the internal
argument. A further problem might be the locative inversion which is grammatical with any
type of Romanian unaccusative, but in the case of English, if the verb does not denote

51
existence or appearance, the locative phrase must occur at the end of the sentence in order to
maintain the grammaticality of the context. Furthermore, when English unaccusatives occur
with resultative phrases, these phrases will sometimes be translated into Romanian with
another sentence (as seen in (13) -(16) above). In example (28) one can note the fact that
causative constructions in English are difficult to be translate d with their Romanian
equivalent, as the latter does not have a causative meaning, thus requiring different verbs in
Romanian. When unaccusatives are recategorized as ditranzitive, in Romanian it is possible to
have a direct object and an indirect object as internal arguments more often than it is in
English. As demonstrated in (29) and (30) these verbs occur most likely with a direct object
and a prepositional object in English, even if in the Romanian context the second internal
argument is an indirect object. Examples (31) and (32) showed that in some cases the
unaccusatives recategorized a s copula -like in English cannot be translated with their
Romanian equivalents for they cannot be recategorized as such in this language. Instead, other
verbs are used (32) or the syntactic function of the verb and of the predicative changes
(example (31) a bove).

52
Conclusion

This paper presented the features and behaviour of unaccusative verbs with respect to English
and Romanian in the attempt to point out their importance for the translation process of
unaccusative constructions. Chapter I presented the p roperties of unaccusative verbs and
listed a number of test that can be applied in order to decide the unaccusative nature of a verb.
It was proven that their main characteristic is the fact that they cannot assign Accusative case
and that their surface su bject is, in fact, a deep object. The main classes into which
unaccusatives are split (underived, derived and two -argument unaccusatives) were also listed
with examples. The tests for unaccusativity (There -insertion, the subject as Theme/Patient,
locative inversion, the presence of a resultative phrase, the past participle of unaccusatives as
a noun modifier, allowance of a cognate object) were illustrated in sentences with proper
examples. Chapter II pointed out the similarities and differences between Eng lish and
Romanian unaccusatives. It underlined the fact that in both languages the past participle of
unaccusatives can function as a noun modifier, that they can also have a tranzitive
interpretation and that they are divided into similar classes. The dif ferences proved to be the
reflexive form of Romanian unaccusatives compared to the non -reflexive form of English
unaccusatives, the applicability of only a few unaccusativity tests in the case of Romanian as
opposed to English and the freedom of word order specific only to Romanian which allows
the locative inversion to be applied to all unaccusatives, unlike English. Chapter III showed
that the type of intranzitive verbs in question can be recategorized, in both languages, as
tranzitive, copular or copula -like verbs and unergative verbs provided the right context.
Ultimately, Chapter IV provided an inventory of unaccusative constructions in English and
Romanian that emphasize the problems that occur when translating such constructions and
ways of solving th em, while taking into account the classes of unaccusatives presented in
Chapter I and their recategorization presented in Chapter III .
Thus, t his paper proved that the study of Romanian and English unaccusatives accounts for a
better understanding of both English and Romanian grammar and that it sheds light on the
problems that occur in the translation of unaccusative constructions.

53
References

Avram, L. (2003), English Syntax. The Structure of Root Clauses , Bucharest, Oscar Print
Cornilescu, A. (1995), Concepts of Modern Grammar. A Generative Grammar Perspective ,
Bucharest, Bucharest University Press
Dragomirescu, A. (2010), Ergativitatea: tipologie, sintaxă, semnatică , Bucharest, Bucharest
University Press
Petcu, R. C. (2009), Ergativity in English and R omance , Bucharest, Bucharest University
Press
Șerban, D. (1982), English Syntax. Volume One , Bucharest, TUB