97428
In the context of the sentence: スーパーで雑誌が売っている, is the verb 売っている being used as
a transitive or intransitive verb?

I understand that usually 売る is a transitive verb in the sense that "I sell
apples" can be written: りんごを売る

My textbook implies that the intransitive partner to the verb 売る is
売れる。However, while 売れる is indeed an intransitive verb, it really means to
"sell well" rather than to "be sold".

I found this link <https://www.nhk.or.jp/bunken/summary/kotoba/term/128.html>,
which implies that both

  1. スーパーで雑誌 **が** 売っている and
  2. スーパーで雑誌 **を** 売っている can be used.

Is it correct to think of (1) as an intransitive usage of the verb 売る, roughly
translated to "Magazines are sold at the supermarket" vs (2) a transitive
usage of the verb 売る, roughly translated to "[Some(one/people)] are selling
magazines at the supermarket"?

As such is 売る an ambitransitive verb [Can verbs be both transitive and
intransitive?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/44523/can-verbs-
be-both-transitive-and-intransitive/44526#44526)?
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-28T05:39:48.380
97427
2022-12-26T14:44:51.150
48600
question
grammar transitivity
Is the verb 売る both a transitive and intransitive verb?
Please read that NHK article more carefully; it says 雑誌が売っている is nonstandard
and should be avoided at least in broadcasting. I am aware that the usage of
雑誌が売っている is gradually increasing among young speakers, as the graph in that
article shows, but it still sounds clearly unnatural at least to my ears.
明鏡国語辞典 explicitly states this usage is grammatically wrong.

> `使い方` 「イチゴが売っていたよ」のように、物を主語にした「～が売っている」は、文法的には誤り。

Still, if we are to accept 雑誌が売っている as a _new_ correct usage of 売る, it is
being used an intransitive verb meaning "to be sold". Although a dictionary
published 30 years from now may have this intransitive usage, for now, it is
always safer to say 雑誌が売られている.

By the way, the same can be said for 発売する. I had believed this was _always_
transitive (新しい本を発売しました or 新しい本が発売されました), but an intransitive usage
(新しい本が発売しました) is gradually increasing in the last decade. I personally hate
this trend, but word usages change over time...

**EDIT:** As far as I can tell, this nonstandard usage (`thing + が +
transitive-verb + ている`) is perhaps unique to 売る, and I am aware of no
meaningful pattern here. (After a long discussion, aguijonazo failed to give
me even one example exactly like this one.) It often happens that a misuse
becomes widespread somehow, and you shouldn't try to over-generalize something
like this.

**EDIT 2:** @Chocolate found a research article exactly on this topic!

> 大西美穂. **存在表現の適用ー「やる」と「売る」の自動詞用法ー**. 日本語用論学会 第14回大会発表論文集. 2011.

You can read the entire article [here
(PDF)](http://pragmatics.gr.jp/content/files/proceedings/Proceedings_07_2012.pdf).
According to this research, the only pattern that is relatively common and
similar to `[物]+が売っている` is `[TV番組]+がやっている`. Although the author gave long
hypotheses for each of them as to why they came into use, she could find no
similarities between the two verbs. It's more than 10 years after the first
publication of this research, and we have not found any new verb similar to
them. Therefore, ultimately, I think it's best to treat those two verbs merely
as exceptions.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-28T06:27:13.960
97428
2022-12-26T14:44:51.150
2022-12-26T14:44:51.150
5010
5010
97427
answer
What makes が acceptable to a certain degree is the subsidiary verb いる, not the
intransitivity of the verb 売る. In fact, 雑誌が売る is clearly ungrammatical. In
general, `[V て-form]- いる` describes a state. It could be either transient or
near permanent. The most typical examples of near permanent states include
住んでいる and 勤めている. In the case of 売っている, it could be either depending on the
context. If it refers to a near permanent state, it could be seen as a
property of the thing being sold. This is why the subject marker が sounds
somewhat acceptable. It is similar to why が can be used instead of を to denote
the direct object of an action with a potential verb, as in 日本語が話せる. The focus
shifts from the action to the thing being acted on.

* * *

[Edit]

For the record, denying the uniqueness of 売る was never my objective. I don’t
even see the need.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-28T07:33:50.910
97429
2022-11-29T12:45:39.123
2022-11-29T12:45:39.123
43676
43676
97427
answer