\documentclass[a4paper]{article} \usepackage[top=2cm]{geometry} \usepackage[british]{babel} \usepackage{stfloats} \usepackage{handouts} \usepackage[hidelinks]{hyperref} \usepackage{tikz} \usepackage[font=small]{caption} \title{\Large Handout of ``Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse''\footnote{Paul J. Hopper and Sandra A. Thompson (1980).}} \author{Camil Staps} \begin{document} \maketitle \summary{ Transitivity is traditionally understood as a global property of an entire clause, but in this paper the authors look at different transitivity features that lower level clause elements are marked for\pagenr{251}. \parnote{% These features are \term{participants} (2+, A and O --- 1), \term{kinesis} (action --- non-action), \term{aspect} (telic --- atelic), \term{punctuality}, \term{volitionality}, \term{affirmation}, \term{mode} (realis --- irrealis), \term{agency}, \term{affectedness of O}, \term{individuation of O}. } The hypothesis is that when two phrases are marked for any of these features, their markings are at the same end of the transitivity scale\pagenr{255}. This does not predict whether a phrase is marked or not. Transitivity features may be manifested both morphosyntactically and semantically. The hypothesis itself is supported by a lot of data, but this data only shows correlation, no causation\pagenr{280}. In other words, we are looking for a communicative reason why all the transitivity features would correlate. This reason is the concept of grounding: \term{background} is that part of discourse which does not vitally contribute to the speaker's goal, as opposed to \term{foreground}. All the transitivity features correlate logically with this concept. The hypothesis supports the traditional understanding that transitivity is a feature of a clause\pagenr{294}. When a particular feature is foregrounded depends on the distinction between foregrounded and backgrounded discourse. Hence, properties that are irrelevant to foregrounding are also irrelevant to transitivity. } \end{document}