Download Argument structure: Realising semantic participants in

Argument Structure
Argument structure: Realising semantic participants in syntax
Lecture Advanced Topics in English Linguistics, Andrew McIntyre
1
Introduction
1.1 Some basic concepts and questions
Part of the knowledge we have about certain linguistic expressions is that they must or
may appear with certain other expressions (their arguments) in order to be interpreted
semantically and in order to produce a syntactically well-formed phrase/sentence.
(1)
John put the book near the door
put takes John, the book and near the door as arguments
near takes the door and arguably the book as arguments
(2)
Fred’s reliance on Mary
reliance takes on Mary and Fred as arguments
(3)
John is fond of his stamp collection
fond takes his stamp collection and John as arguments
An expression taking an argument is called a predicate in modern & philosophical
terminology (distinguish from old terminology where predicate = verb phrase).
The terms argument and complement are similar. The difference: a complement is an
argument which appears inside the phrase headed by the word selecting it (e.g. a
complement of a verb is inside the verb phrase). Arguments that are not complements are
called external arguments. In (1), put has three arguments, of which only the book and
near the door are complements, and John is an external argument.
Some linguists say that arguments can be shared by two predicates, e.g. in (1) the book
might be taken to be an argument of both put and near.
Argument structure: the (study of) the arguments taken by expressions.
In syntax, we say a predicate (e.g. a verb) has, takes, subcategorises for, selects this or
that (or so-and-so many) argument(s).
Lexical entries for words must indicate their argument structure: they must say what other
expressions (called arguments) may/must appear with that word. E.g.:
(4)
a. Egbert ate the chicken.
b. Egbert ate.
(5)
b. Egbert devoured the chicken.
b. *Egbert devoured.
(6)
a. *Egbert dined the chicken.
b. Egbert dined.
(7)
Lexical entry for eat (simplified):
a. Phonology:
/i:t/
b. Semantics:
X puts Y in X’s mouth and digests it.
c. Argument structure:
[NP X]
([NP Y])
The entry for dine would omit ([NP Y]). Entry for devour would have no parentheses.
1.2 The semantic and syntactic side of argument structure
Thematic roles (also called semantic roles, theta roles, θ roles): descriptions of the
semantic relation between a predicate and its argument(s).
Grammatical relations: (also called grammatical functions) descriptions of the syntactic
position of an argument.
1
Some thematic roles
initiator of an event; PATIENT: entity affected/changed by the event:
(8)
FredAGENT painted the wallPATIENT.
RECIPIENT Person receiving something:
(9)
Wayne gave his grandmotherRECIPIENT an industrial grunge cd.
BENEFICIARY Person who benefits from the event:
(10) I made a cup of coffee for the guestsBENEFICIARY.
THEME: entity whose position/direction is indicated; also used by some linguists for patients
and as a cover term for cases whose thematic role is not clearly definable:
(11) The ballTHEME rolled down the hill.
EXPERIENCER: entity which experiences an emotion or other psychological state. The entity
triggering this response is called a theme or stimulus:
(12) BasilEXPERIENCER likes the musicTHEME.
INSTRUMENT: the means by which an action is performed:
(13) I wiped the table with a ragINSTRUMENT.
GOAL/SOURCE: start/endpoint of a motion event:
(14) She went from ParisSOURCE to LondonGOAL.
LOCATION: place where an entity/event is/occurs:
(15) She worked in the officeLOCATION
AGENT:
Some grammatical relations
The notions complement and external argument seen above are grammatical relations. Others:
SUBJECT: NP that appears outside the VP and determines verbal inflection:
(16) Francine has [VP drunk the beer]
OBJECT: NP argument of verb appearing inside VP; Objects are also called DIRECT OBJECTS,
unless there are two objects, in which case the first object is called an INDIRECT OBJECT and
only the second a DIRECT OBJECT.
(17) Stuart [VP noticed [NP the cows](DIRECT) OBJECT]
(18) Nancy [VP gave [NP the visitor](INDIRECT) OBJECT [NP a drink](DIRECT) OBJECT ]
OBLIQUE: Argument of V realised in a PP inside VP:
(19) The book [VP belongs [PP to me]]
Crucial point: Thematic roles and grammatical relations do not correlate one-to-one:
Subject
Indirect object
Direct object
(20) a. [AGENT Grandma] broke
[PATIENT the cup]
b. [PATIENT The cup] broke
(21) a. [AGENT Mavis]
sent
[RECIPIENT Basil]
[THEME a letter]
b. [RECIPIENT Basil] was sent
[THEME a letter]
A. What are the thematic roles of the underlined expressions in the following sentences.
There may be more than one correct answer in some cases.
1. Jimmy forgot the answer.
2. Frank made Eileen a cup of tea
3. Stanley got a book
4. Stanley got sick
5. The money went to Mavis
6. The car was destroyed by rioters
7. The knife won’t cut the plastic 8. The metal polishes easily
9. Mary danced
10. Mary danced out of the room and into the garden
11. He plunged into the sea; They blew up
12. He plunged himself into the sea; They blew themselves up
2
Argument Structure
1.3 Some questions for argument structure theories
A.
Given the mismatches between thematic roles and grammatical relations, what
determines how an argument will be realised/linked in syntax? If we know an
argument’s thematic role, how can we predict what grammatical relation it will have?
a. EgbertAGENT ate the cakePATIENT.
b. *The cake ate Egbert.
c. The cake was eaten.
(22)
Bad response: add information about grammatical relations to the lexical entry for
eat in (7). Problems:
This misses a generalisation: every English verb with an AGENT and PATIENT
behaves like eat in (22). E.g. destroy, make, unwrap, print...
If a new verb is created and has an AGENT and PATIENT, it will also behave like
eat in (22). Real examples:
a. Some protestors gnomed the Reserve Bank of Australia.
b. Bored teenagers forked someone’s garden.
(23)
(30)
(31)
(32)
How the (b) variants are derived from the (a) variants using a lexical operation:
(33) Lexical operation adding a beneficiary:
a. Input: A verb with two NP arguments, one of which is a created or fetched object.
b. Output: A verb with three NP arguments, the added argument being a person who
benefits from the action named by the verb.
(34)
Basic lexical entry for make (omitting information irrelevant here):
a. Semantics:
‘X causes Y to come into existence’
b. Argument structure:
[NP X] [NP Y]
(35)
Derived lexical entry for make:
a. Semantics: ‘X causes Y to come into existence for the benefit of Z’
b. Argument structure:
[NP X] [NP Y] [NP Z]
Better response: Assume that at least some argument-structural facts are
predictable and systematic, and try to work out how the system works.
B.
Many questions concern the fact that most verbs are involved in alternations, i.e. can
be used with different argument structures (see Levin 1993 for many other examples):
Dative Alternation
a. Mary gave Floyd a book.
b. Mary gave a book to Floyd.
Causative Alternation
a. Sally broke the cup.
b. The cup broke.
Locative Alternation
a. Ants crawled in the garden.
b. The garden crawled with ants.
(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
Questions that alternations raise:
Do the variants in an alternation (e.g. (24)(a,b)) differ in meaning?
Is one of the variants in an alternation somehow derived from the other?
Why are there exceptions to alternations, cf. (24) and (27):
a. Marmaduke donated his stamp collection to the museum.
b. *Marmaduke donated the museum his stamp collection.
Aim: examine some of the (simpler) answers that have been given to the above questions.
2
Some other cases where linguists might use lexical rules to add an argument:
(36) Causativisation:
a. I worked hard.
b. The boss worked me hard.
(37) Adding location NP:
a. I surfed.
b. I surfed the waves.
(38) Adding PPs:
a. I walked.
b. I walked into the house.
2.2 Example of how lexical operations can suppress arguments
Implied reflexive object alternation (also wash, bathe, exercise, shower, undress):
(39) a. The barber shaved someone.
b. The barber shaved.
[=shaved himself]
(40) a. Lisa dressed the child.
b. Lisa dressed.
[=dressed herself]
(41) a. Ann criticised herself.
b. *Ann criticised.
[=criticised herself]
(42)
Lexical operation creating verbs with implied reflexive objects:
a. Input: A verb with two NP arguments denoting an action which an agent commonly
performs on itself.
b. Output: A verb with one NP argument, interpreted as both agent and patient.
(43)
Basic lexical entry for shave (omitting information irrelvant here):
a. Semantics:
‘X removes hair from Y using a razor or shaver’
b. Argument structure:
[NP X] [NP Y]
(44)
Derived lexical entry for shave:
a. Semantics:
‘X removes hair from X using a razor or shaver’
b. Argument structure:
[NP X]
Lexical operations: Changing a verb’s argument structure in the lexicon
Lexicalists (e.g. Pinker 1989, Levin/Rappaport Hovav 1995) say the lexicon is active.
There are lexical operations (=lexical rules) changing basic lexical entry, yielding a
derived lexical entry with a new meaning and/or argument structure.
This is one way of explaining how alternations come about. We look at some examples of
how some linguists might use lexical operations to add and subtract arguments of verbs.
2.1 Example of how lexical rules can add arguments
Benefactive alternation: beneficiary NP added to verbs with created or obtained objects:
(28) a. John made a salad.
b. John made his daughter a salad.
(29) a. Mary drew a picture.
b. Mary drew the children a picture.
3
a. She burnt a cd.
b. She burnt her friend a cd.
a. I got/fetched/obtained/bought a book.
b. I got/fetched/obtained/bought her a book.
a. I opened the door. b. *I opened them the door. [no created object]
Some other cases where linguists might use lexical rules to add an argument:
(45) Object drop: a. The lion killed an animal.
b. The lion killed.
(46) Passive:
a. Someone shot Kennedy.
b. Kennedy was shot.
(47) Middle:
a. You can read this book easily. b. This book reads easily.
4
Argument Structure
Suppressed arguments can sometimes be realised as obliques (PPs):
(48) He was treated by a doctor.
2.3 Other remarks
Lexical operations don’t determine how arguments are linked to syntax. They just explain
how one verb can appear with different numbers/types of arguments. They thus answer
question B in section 1.3, not question A.
Sometimes it is unclear which variant is basic in an alternation, e.g. the causative
alternation in (49), for which one could debate about whether the transitive or the
intransitive variant is the basic lexical entry. (See Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1995.)
(49) a. The cup broke.
b. Fritz broke the cup.
3
Thematic hierarchies
Many theories use some kind of thematic hierarchy (see Levin/Rappaport 1996:37ff). We
discuss a simplified version of this approach. Consider (50):
(50) Fred broke the plate.
(51)
Lexical entry for transitive break (ignoring irrelevant matters and whether this lexical
entry is derived from intrans. break using a lexical rule):
a. Semantics:
X causes Y to become broken.
b. Argument structure:
[NP X]
[NP Y]
To determine which NP will be subject and which will be object, follow the following
steps.
Step 1: Deduce the thematic roles of NP arguments of the verb from verb meaning.
X is AGENT, Y is PATIENT.
Step 2: Determine their relative position of the following thematic hierarchy:
(52) Thematic hierarchy
AGENT
EXPERIENCER
INSTRUMENT
RECIPIENT / BENEFICIARY
PATIENT / THEME
LOCATION / SOURCE / GOAL
AGENT
is higher on the hierarchy than PATIENT.
Step 3: Link the arguments to syntax as follows, starting with (a), then (b):
(53) a. The argument that is highest on the hierarchy is realised as subject.
b. The argument that is lowest on the hierarchy is realised as direct object.
c. The next lowest argument on the hierarchy is realised as indirect object..
Result: AGENT becomes subject, PATIENT becomes direct object.
Other examples which the theory can predict.
Subject
Direct object
(54) a. [AGENT Fred]
broke
[PATIENT the plate]
b. [PATIENT The plate] broke.
(55) a. [THEME Elvis]
left
[SOURCE the building]
b. [RECIPIENT Anna]
received
[THEME a letter]
used
[INSTRUMENT the computer]
c. [AGENT Mary]
5
Dative alternations and psych verbs are a challenge for thematic hierarchy theories, at
least if one assumes that the same thematic roles are involved in both variants:
(56) a. Mavis sent Basil a letter.
b. Mavis sent a letter to Basil.
(57) a. Jack feared the psycho.
b. The psycho frightened Jack.
One solution: assume that different thematic roles are involved:
(58) a. [AGENT Mavis]
sent
[RECIPIENT Basil]
[THEME a letter]
b. [AGENT Mavis]
sent
[THEME a letter] [GOAL to Basil]
(59) a. [EXPERIENCER Jack]
feared
[THEME the psycho]
b. [AGENT The psycho] frightened
[EXPERIENCER Jack]
Other strategies for handling these data involve movement operations which are too
complex to discuss here.
There are several different versions of the thematic hierarchy in the literature, partly
because linguists disagree on the best strategy for handling the dative alternation and
psych verbs. This results in different assumptions in the relative positions of certain
thematic roles (e.g. theme, goal, experiencer) in different theories. (See Levin/Rappaport
1996:37ff for examples of different thematic hierarchy theories.)
Critique:
No agreement on how many thematic roles there are and how to define them (esp.
THEME), making it hard to know which hierarchy is right.
No convincing proposals for why the hierarchy should exist and why the hierarchy
doesn’t have a different order.
B. The (un)acceptability of some of the following sentences is not predicted by the
(simplified!) thematic hierarchy theory in (52)/(53). Which sentences suggest that the
theory needs to be changed or improved? Can you think of suggestions for improving the
theory?
a. The key opened the door
b. The door opened
c. *Egbert opened the key the door
d. Grandma entered the disco
f. Gertrude received the book
g. The book cost ten dollars
h. Ten dollars will buy you the book
i. Basil feared the psycho
j. The psycho frightened Basil
k. Ethel gave the librarian the book
l. The bouncer denied Francine access
4
The constructional view of argument structure
Constructional theories (e.g. Construction Grammar, Goldberg 1995) see grammatical
constructions as having their own meanings, just like words. Constructions are lexical
items with empty slots into which words/phrases can be inserted. The meaning of the
sentence is obtained by combining the meanings of the construction with those of the
words inserted into them. Examples:
(60)
Lexical entry for the transitive construction:
a. Form:
[S [NP1 ] [VP [V ] [NP2 ] ]
b. Meaning: 1. NP1 causes NP2 to change in the manner indicated by the verb.
2-n. (Other meanings for construction.)
(61)
The transitive construction with lexical items inserted in it:
a. Form:
[S [NP1 John] [VP [V broke] [NP2 the vase] ]
b. Meaning: John caused the vase to change in a ‘breaking’ manner.
6
Argument Structure
(62)
Lexical entry for the intransitive construction:
a. Form:
[S [NP1 ] [VP [V ] ]
b. Meaning: 1. NP1 changes in the manner indicated by the verb.
2-n. (Other meanings for construction.)
(63)
The intransitive construction with lexical items inserted in it:
a. Form:
[S [NP The vase] [VP [V broke] ]
b. Meaning: The vase changed in a ‘breaking’ manner.
The causative alternation exists because certain verbs can be inserted in either the
transitive or the intransitive construction.
Notice that one doesn’t need to determine the thematic roles of the arguments in order to
determine which argument appears as subject, object etc.
In this theory, grammatical constructions are no different from normal phrasal idioms,
except that the latter predetermine some of the morphemes in them, e.g.
(64) Fred couldn’t {think/teach/play/research...} his way out of a paper bag.
(65)
Lexical entry for the ‘paper bag’ construction:
a. Form: [S [NP1 X]i [AUX couldn’t] [VP [V ] [NP Xi’s way] ] [PP out of a paper bag]]
b. Meaning: X cannot V very well.
Critique:
Many linguists find this approach uninteresting because it does not try to reduce
irregularity in grammar. Everything is basically an idiom, just memorised.
The theory is unconstrained and not predictive: It can describe anything. It doesn’t
exclude structures not found in human languages (say verbs with five arguments),
which is part of the job of a linguist.
5
Direct linking rules
(Direct) linking rules (direct mapping rules, Levin/Rappaport 1996:34) claim that a
particular thematic role is directly associated with a particular grammatical relation. A
simple example:
(66) a. Agents are inserted in the subject position.
b. Patients are inserted in the direct object position.
The idea that arguments can inserted in the object position and then move to the subject
position is called the Unaccusative Hypothesis, and the verbs are called unaccusative
verbs. Several tests have been proposed for identifying unaccusative verbs (Labelle 1992,
Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1995), e.g.:
Perfect formed with be, not have in some languages:
(70) a. Der Teller ist
zerbrochen.
b. Ich habe gearbeitet.
[German]
the plate is
broken
I have worked
‘The plate broke.’
‘I worked.’
Constructions in which patient/theme stays in object position:
(71) a. %There died thousands of people. b. *There worked thousands of people.
(72) a. Into the room ran three people.
b. *In the rooom sang three people.
Participle interpreted actively:
(73) a broken plate: ‘a plate which has broken’
(74) *a worked person
Critique:
Rules like (66) are incomplete without an explanation for the generalisations.
Unaccusativity tests give conflicting results. It is thus hard to trust the tests. This is a
reason why not everyone believes the Unaccusative Hypothesis.
6
A syntactic variant of the linking rule hypothesis
Many linguists decompose verb meanings into smaller parts, e.g.:
(75) John froze the meat:
[John CAUSE [the meat freeze]]
=John causes the meat to freeze.
Other languages may express parts of the decomposition (called primitives, decomposition
predicates) in the form of affixes on verbs or as independent verbs:
(76) a.
Taroo-ga
niku-o
koor-ase-ta.
[Japanese]
Taro-NOM meat-ACC
freeze-CAUSE-PAST
‘Taro froze the meat.’
b.
Ich
ließ das Buch
fallen.
[German]
I
let
the book
fall
‘I dropped the book.’
Apparent problem: This works for the transitive variants of causative alternation, but
makes the wrong prediction for intransitive variant:
(67) a. [AGENT/SUBJECT She] broke [PATIENT/OBJECT the plate].
b. [PATIENT/SUBJECT The plate] broke.
c. *Broke [PATIENT/OBJECT the plate].
Many modern linguists assume that such morphemes are present in the syntax even if they
are not pronounced (e.g. Pylkkänen 2002).
(77)
VP
NP
V’
John V
VP
CAUSE
V
NP
freeze
the meat
Solution: Assume that the linking rules in (66) are correct, but that some syntactic
principle changes the structure produced by the linking rule. E.g.:
Consequence: John is an argument not of freeze, but of CAUSE. We see this in:
(78) John caused the meat to freeze.
(68)
Subject requirement (also called the Extended Projection Principle): In languages
like English, the subject position must be filled. This is done by means of a purely
syntactic movement operation. E.g.
Such analyses assume the VP-internal subject hypothesis. In (77), John would move to the
subject position outside the VP (Radford 1997).
(69)
[S [NP The plate ]i [VP broke
It is assumed that freeze moves to CAUSE (since CAUSE is an affix, & can’t stand
alone). This applies to the Japanese and Finnish cases, except affix is pronounced.
ti ]]
7
8
Argument Structure
Defence of this type of theory:
The theory explains why agents, if present, appear as subject (something thematic
hierarchies, linking rules and constructions don’t explain very well).
There’s no reason to reject unpronounced elements in principle.
It simplifies the description of differences between languages. The only difference
between Japanese & English in (67)/(68) is the pronunciation of the causative
morpheme: in English, its pronunciation is zero.
Some arguments presuppose too much knowledge of syntactic & semantic theory to
discuss in this course. (e.g. Pylkkänen 2002, Hale & Keyser 1993)
Critique: It is very hard to be sure that the unpronounced elements really exist; The
indications for them are indirect and theory-internal.
7
Categories other than verbs
The focus on verbs above doesn’t mean that there is nothing to say about the argument
structures of categories other than verbs. Here are some brief points about nouns and
prepositions, without discussing how the linking between thematic roles and grammatical
relations works.
7.1 Prepositions
Most spatial prepositions have two arguments. Their thematic roles are THEME (= argument
whose location is indicated; other terms for this argument are FIGURE, TRAJECTOR, LOCATED
OBJECT ) and REFERENCE OBJECT (= argument helping to indicate location of FIGURE; other
terms are GROUND, LANDMARK). Typically, the THEME will be realised as an external
argument and the REFERENCE OBJECT as argument of P, but not always.
(79) I put the bookTHEME on the shelfREF.OBJ.
(80) The bookTHEME stayed on the shelfREF.OBJ.
(81) a. Grandma put her false teethTHEME in (her mouthRER.OBJ).
[optional ref.obj.]
b. The catTHEME jumped off (the tableREF.OBJ).
[optional ref.obj.]
(82) a. Grandma poured the waterTHEME out (of the bucketREF.OBJ).
b. Grandma poured the bucketREFERENCE OBJECT out.
[theme unrealised;
ref.obj. outside PP]
7.2 Nouns
An important type of noun is a relational noun, a noun denoting something which is
inconceivable independently of some other entity. This ‘other entity’ is an argument of the
noun, called its inalienable possessor. Cf. alienable possessors, which are owners and can
keep or dispose of the possession as they wish.
(83) a. John’s arms
(arms are inalienably possessed by John)
b. John’s books
(books are alienably possessed by John)
(84) More relational nouns: side, sister, partner, king, remote control, instruction manual
C. Can you think of more relational nouns other than kinship or body part terms?
D. Nominalisations (=nouns derived from verbs or other categories) often have arguments
inherited from the word from which they are derived. What are the thematic roles of the
arguments of the nouns in the examples below? One example is an instance of a so-called
passive nominalisation because it parallels a passive construction. Which one?
1. The doctor’s amputation of my arms.
2. The city’s destruction by barbarians.
3. The conservatives’ abhorrence of Bill Clinton.
4. The uncertainty of the politicians.
9
E. Nominalisations like those below express arguments of the source verb. What are the
thematic roles expressed by the following nominalisations?
1. arrestee
2. dishwasher
3. arrestee
4. copy
F. Explain the following contrasts:
1. one-eyed people; four-seated cars; short-sighed people; two-edged sword
2. *two-biked people; *apartmented people; *computered students
G. How do the nouns author, writer and novelist differ in terms of argument structure?
8
Arguments vs. modifiers (adjuncts)
It is crucial to distinguish arguments from modifiers (=adjuncts). We can explain this
using the following phrases (the heads of the phrases are underlined; the arguments of the
head are in capitals; modifiers are in italics; optional constituents are in parentheses).
(85) VP: a. (constantly) relied ON HER (throughout the crisis)
b. (quickly) devoured THE LEFTOVERS (in the kitchen) (on Friday)
c. gave HER THE BOOK (on Friday) (in the kitchen) (to make her happy)
c. (often) claimed THAT HE WAS GOD'S PERSONAL MESSENGER (despite
somewhat sceptical reactions)
(86) AP: a. reliant ON HER PARENTS (during the crisis)
b. fond OF HIS WIFE (in every way)
c. proud (OF HER CHILDREN) (above all justification)
d. unable (TO KEEP THE APPOINTMENT) (because of the accident)
e. (completely) bereft/devoid OF INSPIRATION
(=lacking it)
(87) NP
a. his fondness/liking FOR STRONG DRINK (during the Winter months)
b. my (misguided) reliance ON MICROSOFT SOFTWARE (in writing these notes)
c. the expert (ON PHYSICS) (on the committee) (in an orange waistcoat)
d. her (profound) faith (IN DIVINE BEINGS) (during the crisis)
e. the (generous) friends (OF THE ACCIDENT VICTIMS)
f. the (better known) kings (OF ENGLAND) (before the fifteenth century)
(88) PP:
a. towards THE FENCE
b. (right) inside (THE HOUSE)
c. despite STATE INTERVENTION
Basic difference: Modifiers are less closely related to the head they are dependent on than
are arguments. More specifically:
A.
The definition of a word must mention its arguments but not its modifiers. E.g. a
definition of give must mention the agent, recipient and theme, but it would contain
redundancies if it mentioned the possibility of modifiers like those in (85)c) (e.g. give means
‘x causes y to have z at a certain time in a certain place for a certain reason’).
B.
Consequence of A: The arguments of a word must be mentioned in its lexical
entry, but its modifiers should not. Cf. the lexical entries in (7) and (89). However you
formulate the lexical entry for give, there would be no need to mention the possibility of
adding the bracketed phrases in (85)c) in the lexical entry. The use of modifiers should follow
from general semantic, syntactic and pragmatic principles, not from the lexical entry of the
word they modify.
(89) Lexical entry for give (simplified):
a. Phonology & morphology: /gIv/ (past: /geIv/, participle: /gIvn/
b. Semantics: ‘an event in which a person x causes a person y to have some object z’
c. Syntactic category: Verb
d. Argument structure: [VPV [NP y] [NP z]] or [VPV [NP z] [PP to [NP y]]]
C.
Modifiers are always optional, while arguments are often obligatory. The claim is
10
Argument Structure
not that arguments are always obligatory. The object of eat is optional, but can be shown to be
an argument by various other tests (which ones?). Furthermore, if eat’s object is not
pronounced, it is implicitly present: I ate is interpreted like I ate something. Similarly, the PP
in proud (of himself) is an argument because if we don’t pronounce it we understand proud as
meaning something like ‘proud of himself/his achievements etc.’. See exercises K, L for more
examples of such implicit arguments. The main uncertainty regarding implicit arguments is
whether or not they are present in the syntax as unpronounced NPs/PPs etc.
D.
Modifiers can be added recursively, i.e. there is in principle no limit to the
number of modifiers a word can have within its phrase, cf. (90). By contrast, arguments are
limited by the lexical entry of the word selecting them. With few exceptions, verbs have at
most three arguments, while other categories can have at most two.
(90) a. [sometimes] walked THE DOG [slowly] [in the park] [on Fridays] [after work] [for
two hours] [to clear his mind]
b. [big], [black], [fluffy], [dangerous] dogs [without collars] [in the park]
E.
With the exception of external arguments (subjects), the arguments of a head
mostly appear closer to the head of the phrase than do modifiers, cf. the examples above.
Exceptions (discussed in class) involve movement operations.
F.
Observation E follows from a principle that arguments are combined with their
heads before modifiers are. I.e. head+argument(s) forms a constituent which excludes
modifiers. The modifiers are added to the head+argument(s) constituent but create a bigger
instance of the same category. This operation is called adjunction. (This explains why
modifiers are often called adjuncts.) Adjunction is a recursive operation, explaining point D
above. Examples:
(91) a. [NP clever [NP students of physics]]
(NP=N’ in some theories)
b. [VP often [VP slowly [VP ate his dinner] in the kitchen]]] (VP=V’ in some theories)
G.
Some proforms stand for head+argument(s) constitutents. These proforms can’t
be used if the argument is repeated:
(92) the student (of maths) with long hair and the one with short hair
*the student of maths and the one of linguistics
(93) I read (a book) in the kitchen and she did so in the living room
*I read a book and she did so a magazine
H. Some of the thematic roles apply to modifiers as well as arguments. Decide whether the
location roles below are arguments or modifiers. Multiple answers are not excluded.
1. The cows stayed in Neuchâtel.
2. Sheila finally lived in Sydney.
3. His wife left him in Vladivostok.
4. He wrote a letter in London.
I. Are the PPs below arguments or modifiers?
1. a professor of physics
2. a ring of gold
5. a fan of the band
6. interested in physics
8. I slept in that bed
9. the side of the car
[at the party, Mary, on French art]
3. They unanimously rejected the application for a second trip to America in May.
[in May, unanimously, for a second trip to America (in May)]
K. Find the implicit arguments (cf. point C above) in the following sentences and describe
their interpretation.
1. We saw a pub, but we didn’t go in because John doesn’t drink.
2. He was afraid, so he put his hat on and left.
3. To be a successful author, you must write quickly. Support from publishers is crucial.
L. Phrasal verbs (=particle verbs) consist of a verb and a preposition-like element with an
implicit argument. Re-read section 7.1 on the thematic roles associated with prepositions
and describe the interpretations of the implicit arguments associated with the prepositional
particles in the following examples.
1. Grandma put her false teeth in. 2. The protestors walked out.
3. I wiped the dust off.
4. I wiped the table off.
M. Use the data below to design a hypothesis about when –ing-forms are usable as adjectives.
Hint: the –ing form must have an implicit argument with a particular thematic role.
1. striking innovations / *striking bricks (=falling bricks which strike people)
2. arresting ideas / *arresting policemen
3. a chilling movie /*a chilling freezer
N. Using the following data, try to work out the conditions under which the subject of have
can be inanimate. Hint: it is connected to something discussed before section 8.
1. The house has {a roof/two kitchens/*a tree/*many tables/*my mother}.
2. The shelf has {broken legs/a new owner/*many books/*a vase}.
9
References
Baker, M. 1997. Thematic roles and syntactic structure. L. Haegeman (ed.)Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 73-137
Dowty, D. 1991. Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language 67:547-619.
Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions. University of Chicago Press.
Hale, K. & Keyser, S. 1993. On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations'. In K. Hale & S.
Keyser (eds.). The View from Building 20. MIT Press. Cambridge (Mass.). 53-110.
Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Labelle, M. 1992. Change of state and valency. Linguistics 28:375-414.
Levin, B. 1993. English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. 1995. Unaccusativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pinker, S. 1989. Learnability and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pylkkänen, L. 2002. Introducing Arguments. Dissertation: MIT.
Radford, A. 1997. Syntactic theory and the structure of English. Cambridge University Press.
3. we decided on a boat
7. I behaved in a bad way
10. funding for research
J. Are the items listed in brackets below each sentence below arguments or modifiers, and
what are they are arguments or modifiers of? More than one answer may be right.
1. People started loudly applauding the performance of the band in the next room.
[loudly, in the next room, of the band]
2. She gave Mary a book on French art at the party.
11
12