Download 1. Introduction 1 2. Three Major Types of Actants

1. Introduction
2. Three Major Types of Actants: Semantic, Deep-Syntactic, Surface-Syntactic
3. Semantic Actants
3.1. Basic Concepts
3.2. Sem-Actant Slot: Preliminary Characterization (Prototypical Case)
3.2.1. Linguistic Situation and Its Participants
3.2.2. The Semantic Property of SemA-slots
3.2.3. The Lexico-Syntactic Property of SemA-slots
3.3. An Optional Participant or a Circumstantial of a Linguistic Situation?
3.3.1. Lexical Functions for Phraseologically Bound Circumstantials
3.3.2. Optional Participants of a Linguistic Situation
3.3.3. An Optional SemA-slot or a (Non-Standard) Lexical Function?
3.4. Sem-Actant Slot and Sem-Actant
3.4.1 Definitions
3.4.2. Some Comments and Examples
3.4.2.1. No SemA-slots by Analogy
3.4.2.2. Split Variables
3.4.2.3. Numbering of SemA-slots
3.4.2.4. Three Case Studies
3.5. Diathesis of the Lexical Unit L: SemA-slots(L) € DSyntA-slots(L)
3.6. Obligatory/Optional Saturation of SemA-slots
3.7. Blocking of SemA-slots
3.7.1. Systematic Blocking of SemA-slots
3.7.2. Individual Blocking of SemA-slots
3.8. Changing the Number of SemA-slots of L = Changing L’s Semantic Valence
3.8.1. Semantic-Valence Increasing Grammemes/Derivatemes
3.8.2. Semantic-Valence Decreasing Grammemes/Derivatemes
1
3
5
5
7
7
11
12
19
20
24
27
31
31
32
32
34
35
36
39
40
43
44
46
46
46
47
Actants in Semantics and Syntax. I. Actants in Semantics*
IGOR MEL’ČUK
"The verbal node [in a clause] <...> expresses a whole little
drama. As a drama, it implies a process and, most often,
actors and circumstances. The verb expresses the process.
<...> Actants are beings or things that <...> participate in the
process. <...> Circumstants express the circumstances of
time, place, manner, etc."
Tesnière 1959: 102, Chapter 48 [translation mine —IM.]
1.
Introduction
The notion of actant (often referred to also as argument, term, etc.) is crucial to linguistic theory
and no less important in linguistic applications. However, this notion still is much less than clear,
and, consequently, discussions of actants are often confusing: the concepts and the terms used are
vague, the same concepts are designated by different terms and the same term is used for different
concepts. The goal of this paper is to introduce some order into the domain: to draw necessary
distinctions, to supply definitions for basic concepts, and to stabilize the terminology.
To the best of my knowledge, the term actant was first introduced in Tesnière 1959: 102ff to
denote the major syntactic roles of nominals that directly depend on the Main Verb syntactically:
Subject, Direct Object and Indirect Object (the semantic dimension being ignored). What is
proposed here is a development, elaboration and, most importantly, generalization of Tesnière’s
ideas.
The distinction between semantic and syntactic actants was established in the earliest
publications of the Moscow Semantic School (Žolkovskij et al. 1961, Žolkovskij 1964). Later,
these two types of actants were exploited, in an explicit form, in Meaning-Text theory and, more
specifically, in the writing of Explanatory Combinatorial Dictionaries of Russian and French
(Žolkovskij and Mel’čuk 1965, 1967, Mel’čuk and Xolodovič 1970, Mel’čuk 1974 [1999]: 85-86,
134-136, Apresjan 1974 [1998]: 119ff); Mel’čuk and Zholkovsky 1984, Mel’čuk et al. 19841999).
2
During the same period, many other researchers were also exploring the domain, using
different terms for basically the same phenomena. Thus, Argument Structure refers rather to (the
set of) semantic actants, Grammatical Relations or Grammatical Functions to (different types of)
syntactic actants; etc.: Plank 1990, Grimshaw 1990, Lehmann 1991, Lazard 1994 [1998], 1995,
1998, Müller-Gotama 1994, Wechsler 1995, Van Valin and LaPolla 1997: 242ff, Bonami 1999,
Davies and Dubinsky (eds.) 2001. The topic is central to a linguistic trend whose slogan is
‘(linguistic) valence’:1 Helbig/Schenkel 1983 [first edition: 1969], Abraham (ed.) 1978, Allerton
1982, Somers 1987, Mosel 1991, Helbig 1992, Feuillet (réd.) 1998; a family of Valence
Dictionaries was published (e.g., Engel and Schumacher 1976, Apresjan and Páll 1982, Engel et
al. 1983), which describe actants of the entries. Heated discussions around the problem
‘Complements vs. Adjuncts’ (in our terms, ‘Actants vs. Circumstantials’) also belong to this topic;
cf. Somers 1987: 12-28 and especially Bonami 1999. Fillmore’s Case Grammar (Fillmore 1968,
1977; Somers 1987: 30ff) deals, in point of fact, with actants as well. Finally, a more direct
relation links the present paper and works by Russian linguists, such as, first of all, Apresjan 1974,
and then Boguslavskij 1985, 1990, Padučeva 1997, 1998: 87ff, 2002, Plungjan and Raxilina 1990,
1998, Raxilina 1990, 2000; cf. also several papers published in SiI 1998. The literature concerning
the problem of actants is huge; thus, the links between semantic relations and syntactic elements
of the sentence expressing them has been a major issue within Relational Grammar, LexicalFunctional Grammar, Principles and Parameters theory, etc. All this output cannot be reviewed
here, and no parallels can be systematically drawn: such an undertaking would require a few
volumes. I will limit myself to the references above, giving some more in appropriate places.
The forthcoming discussion is conducted in the framework of Meaning-Text Theory (Mel’čuk
1974 [1999], 1988a: 43ff, 1997a); the postulates and the underlying linguistic philosophy of this
theory are taken for granted. However, the present exposition has been consciously made as
theory-independent as possible; among other things, most of the relevant notions are introduced
and fully explained here. No preliminary acquaintance with Meaning-Text theory is presupposed.
3
The present paper is but a first sketch of the unified theory of actants; it still has many holes
and loose ends in it. I have to rely on the patience and indulgence of my reader, for which I most
kindly ask. To facilitate the reader’s task, I supply the following table of abbreviations and
notations used throughout the paper (the terms are explained where they are introduced):
-A
-A(L)
AgCo
DDirO
ECD
GP
IndirO
L
L((X))
L
LF
LU
MV
-R
actant
actant of the lexical unit L
Agentive Complement
deep
Direct Object
Explanatory Combinatorial Dictionary
Government Pattern
Indirect Object
a given lexical unit
lexical unit expressing the meaning (X)
a given language
Lexical Function
lexical unit
Main Verb
representation
-Rel
S-S
SemSIT(L)
SyntU
Ψ
⊕
(X)
[X]
{X}
relation
surfacestructure
semantic
linguistic situation
syntactic
a given utterance
a given participant of a SIT(L)
operation of linguistic union
X is an optional SemA
X is a SemA that cannot be expressed
as a direct Synt-dependent of L
X is a SemA that corresponds to a constant participant and can be expressed
only if it has a modifier
My proposals must be judged from the viewpoint of the main task I set for myself:
To elaborate a formal, exhaustive, coherent and easy-to-handle lexicographic description of
lexical units [= LUs] of a language—such that it can be efficiently used in text
PARAPHRASING,
SYNTHESIS
or
that is, going from a Semantic Representation [= SemR] to all the sentences that
express it, via their Deep- and Surface-Syntactic Representations [= DSyntR/SSyntR].
I mean of course the elaboration of Explanatory Combinatorial Dictionaries [= ECDs] (Mel’čuk
and Zholkovsky 1984, Mel’čuk 1988b, Mel’čuk et al. 1995).
An ECD must ensure accurate paraphrasing within a language or between languages; in other
words, coupled with an appropriate grammar, it must supply all necessary (more or less
equivalent) means for the expression of a given meaning. More specifically, it must supply all the
necessary lexical logistics for the SemR ⇔ DSyntR ⇔ SSyntR transitions.
I believe that the problems that actants generate can be solved only within the frame of
reference brought about by this task of developing an exhaustive, semantically-based and
sufficiently formalized lexicon. Consequently, to evaluate the distinctions and the definitions set
forth in this paper the reader has to check whether they contribute to the fulfillment of this task.
(This is a bit like solving a crime: the very first question is Cui prodest? (For whom is this
4
useful?)) Thus, the problem of actants on all levels of linguistic description is considered within a
lexicographic approach geared, in its turn, to text synthesis/paraphrasing.
2.
Three Major Types of Actants: Semantic, Deep-Syntactic, Surface-Syntactic
In sharp contrast to many other approaches to actants, the subsequent discussion is characterized
by the three following features:
1) It is fully based on DEPENDENCY rather than CONSTITUENCY. I assume that in semantics, as
well as in syntax, the structures in which actants appear are formed by labeled dependency
relations between terminal elements; this assumption conditions to a high degree the outcome of
my research. Again, the problem ‘dependency vs. constituency’ is too vast to be entered into, and
again I can give only some basic references: Tesnière 1959, Hays 1964, Hudson 1980, 1993,
Sgall/Panevová 1988-89, Mel’čuk 1974, 1988a, 2002.
2) It strictly observes two important distinctions:
• The distinction between three major types of actants: SEMANTIC, DEEP-SYNTACTIC, and SURFACESYNTACTIC actants of a lexical unit [= LU] L. These types will be designated, respectively, as
SemAs, DSyntAs and SSyntAs; for ‘...-actant of L,’ I write SemA(L), DSyntA(L), and
SSyntA(L).
• The distinction between ACTANT SLOTS and ACTANTS, based on two complementary viewpoints:
—considering the LU L in language, i.e., in the lexicon;
—considering the LU L in speech, i.e., in an utterance U .
Informally, an actant slot of L in the lexicon is an ‘empty place,’ or ‘open position,’ foreseen in
the lexicographic description of L—namely, in the definition and the Government Pattern of L
(see below). While constructing an utterance out of a starting SemR—or, more precisely, under
this SemR’s lexicalization—each of L’s slots has to be ‘filled,’ or ‘saturated,’ with a linguistic
entity of a particular type; this entity can be a meaning (at the semantic level) or an LU (at a
syntactic level). An actant of L in the given representation of U is the meaning ( P) or the LU P that
semantically/syntactically depends on L in a particular way, namely—by filling the corresponding
actant slot in L’s lexicographic description.2
3) It is 100% lexicon-based (as stated at the end of Section 1): SemAs of the LU L are
specified by the lexicographic definition of L, i.e., by a decomposition of (L); D- and S-SyntAs of
L are specified by L’s Government Pattern [= GP]. In other words, the foundations of our
proposals concerning actants are in the ECD. Let me indicate just two points to make this clearer.
First, as is well-known, syntactic actants of L are opposed to other syntactic dependents of L,
that is, to L’s Circumstantials/Modifiers. This division is anchored in the lexicon:
Actants are entities specified by the lexicographic definition or the Government Pattern of L,
whereas circumstantials/modifiers are entities not mentioned in the definition or the GP of L.
5
This opposition induces a partition of the elements of the sentence: any immediate constituent of a
clause (in most languages a phrase depending directly on the Main Verb [= MV]) is either the
MV’s Actant or its Circumstantial. The same partition applies to the dependents of a nominal N:
each dependent of an N is either its Actant or its Modifier. (A Circumstantial ≈ a Modifier.)
Second, the lexicon presents the correspondence between SemAs(L) and DSyntAs(L), called
the diathesis of L. The diathesis of L plus the correspondence between DSyntAs(L) and
SSyntAs(L) is given by L’s GP.
Terminological Note. As indicated before, the corresponding terminology is not at all unified. Somers 1987: 189
gives a table of different terms used in linguistics for what I call Actants and Circumstantials; I reproduce this table
below, adding to it the opposition ‘term ~ non-term.’
Actant
Circumstantial
participant
circumstantial
inner/internal participant
outer/external participant
argument
adjunct, Fr. ajout, satellite
complement
adjunct, modifier
term
non-term
I chose the term actant over other terms for the following three reasons:
• First, to emphasize the parallelism between all three types of actants. I want the same term on all levels of
representation, and it is preferable to speak of semantic and syntactic actants rather than semantic and syntactic
participants/arguments/terms/complements.
• Second, to avoid the inflated polysemy of such terms as argument and term in linguistics. The term argument is
often used in a vague sense of ‘a particular type of complement,’ without making clear whether it is considered from
the viewpoint of semantics or syntax. For instance, Whaley (1997: 69) says that in any language, a verb can have ‘no
more than three arguments,’ while from his text it is clear that he means the Subject, the Direct Object and the Indirect
Object. Godard (1996) sets out to prove that a completive clause depending on a noun (her desire that he cease to
talk) is not an argument of this noun, but nothing is said explicitly as to what an argument is; I believe that Godard
means ‘semantic actant,’ but it is impossible to be sure.
• Third, to reserve the other terms for a more specific and precise usage. Thus:
—Participant does not go well with lexical units: *a participant of the LU L. I keep the term participant to refer to
participants of a situation—on the conceptual level of representation (i.e., deeper than the SemR).
—Argument is used in logic to refer to a particular role of an element with respect to a predicate in the logical
sense: argument of a predicate, but not *argument of an LU. I will follow this well-established usage.
—Complement belongs to the syntactic level—*semantic complement; it will be used exclusively for syntactically
defined sentence elements.
The term actant, launched by Tesnière (1959), has no misleading connotations and can be made quite clear.
6
The paper is organized as follows. First, it discusses the three types of actants (Sections 3-5),
then considers possible correspondences between them (Section 6), and finally, describes the GP
of a lexical unit (Section 7). Part I includes Sections 1-3; Sections 4-7 constitute Part II, scheduled
to be published later.
3.
Semantic Actants
3.1. Basic Concepts
To introduce the concept of semantic actant of a L(exical) U(nit) L, the concept of predicate (in
the logical sense) is needed. In logic, a predicate is a ‘binding’ meaning, having open slots for
other meanings and binding them into a coherent complex meaning. Special semantic quotes are
used to indicate meanings: (A) or (X) are meanings; a predicate is represented as (P( ; ... ; )). A
meaning that is not binding, because it has no slots for other meanings, is a semantic name, or a
semantic term. The class of predicates is thus opposed to the class of terms. The concept of
predicate as used here (in accordance with the Meaning-Text approach) is based on the
corresponding logical concept but actually is different from it; a few explanations follow.
A meaning (X) filling a slot of a predicate meaning (P) in (P( ; X ; ...; )) is an argument of (P),
and (P) is a predicate of (X). Note that:
—(X) can be a predicate or a name (= term).
—A predicate (P) can have more than one argument.
—In the SemR of an utterance, (X) can be an argument of more than one predicate.
—The term predicate is ambiguous: (α is a predicate) is different from (α is a predicate of β).
([To] be a predicate) is a unary property characterizing a CLASS of meanings, while ([to] be a
predicate of ...) is a binary relation characterizing the ROLE of one meaning with respect to another.
In the first sense, predicate is opposed to semantic name/term; in the second, it is a conversive of
(be an) argument of...
Predicates denote FACTS: actions, activities, events, perceptions, processes, states, relations,
properties, quantities, localizations, and so forth; another convenient name for a fact is situation.
For instance:
(build(John ; [a] house))
= John builds a house; John’s building a house
(smoke(John ; [a] pipe))
= John smokes a pipe; pipe smoking by John
(die(John))
= John dies; John’s death
(taller.than(John ; Mary ; an inch)) = John is taller than Mary by an inch
(pretty(girl))
= [the] pretty girl/[The] girl is pretty/the prettiness of the
girl
(fast(walk(John)))
walking
= John walks fast/John’s walking is fast; John’s fast
7
(100(books))
(here(sit(John)))
= hundred books; a hundred of books
= John sits here; John’s sitting here
(The word fact has in linguistics and logic other senses as well: a mental reflection of what is
taking place; something real, true—as opposed to beliefs; etc. I warn the reader that from now on,
the term fact is used only in the sense defined above.)
Some meanings referring to ENTITIES (rather than to facts)—physical objects, beings and
substances—also have argument slots, because the corresponding entities are essentially related to
particular situations from which they borrow the arguments. Such are the meanings of the names
of artifacts (instruments, weapons, vehicles, …), the names of parts (of something), the names of
social functions and institutions, the relational names such as kinship terms, etc. For instance:
(train(Paris ; Munich))
= train [going] from Paris to Munich
(truck(John ; bricks))
= John’s truck (loaded) with bricks
(medication(John ; headache))
= John’s medication against headache
(leg(John))
= John’s leg
(minister(John ; finance ; Canada)) = John is the finance minister of Canada
(hospital(— ; children ; tuberculosis)) = tuberculosis hospital for children
(father(John ; Mary))
= John is Mary’s father
All such meanings are quasi-predicates.3
For this discussion, the only relevant property of lexical meanings is whether they do or do not
have arguments. Therefore, I will not distinguish between predicates and quasi-predicates,
referring to both as predicative meanings or even—where this cannot lead to confusion—as
predicates.
Predicative meanings can be expressed by LUs of any part of speech: all verbs, all nonpronominal and non-relational adjectives/adverbs express predicates,4 as well as all prepositions
and conjunctions (OVER, AFTERWARDS, IF, WHEN, etc.), numerals (THREE, DOZEN, MILLION) and
particles (ONLY, EVEN, JUST); among nouns, most also express predicates ([an] ATTACK,
PROFESSOR, CONTINUATION, PURSUIT, HOSPITAL, HEAD, BELLY, etc.). Meanings of these LU can
be represented by the expressions of the form (L( ; ; … ; )); all of them have arguments, so that
the corresponding LUs have semantic actants.
Informally speaking, a semantic actant [= SemA] of a LU L that has a predicative meaning
(L( ; ; … ; )) corresponds to an argument of (L): thus, if X and Y are SemAs of L, then (L(X ; Y));
vice versa: if (L(X ; Y)), then X and Y are SemAs of L. As implied above, the expressions
(semantic) argument and semantic actant are completely synonymous, but are in complementary
distribution: argument of a predicate 〈*argument of an LU〉 vs. Semantic Actant of an LU
〈*Semantic Actant of a predicate〉. Strictly speaking, only a lexical meaning (L) can be a SemA of
another lexical meaning (L´); however, as an abbreviation, we will say that L is a SemA of L´. In
8
the sentence John sees Mary, the LUs JOHN and MARY are SemAs of the LU [to] SEE: (see)((John)
; (Mary)). Another form of representing SemAs (adopted in the Meaning-Text theory) is as
follows:
(John)←1 (see)
2 →(Mary).
The arrows show the Sem-dependencies: the predicate-argument relations; the numbers
distinguish different arguments of the same predicate.
In the lexicographic definition of L, which is a semantic decomposition of the meaning (L), all
L’s SemA-slots are represented by variables: X, Y, Z, ... The variables correspond to the numbers
on the arrows of Sem-dependencies in a straightforward way: X ≡ 1, Y ≡ 2, Z ≡ 3, etc. ("≡" stands
for ‘are equivalent [at the same level of representation]’; for details on this numbering, see 3.4.4, p. 00).
Any variable can be typed, or semantically constrained: (person X), (substance Y), (sharp-edge
artifact Z); such constraints limit the range of possible instantiations of the variable. (As we will
see, a variable can be constrained even to one lexeme: (eyes Z), (lips Z), etc., 3.2.3, Item 1.1,
subcase (iii), p. 00.)
The subsequent discussion of SemAs draws heavily on the classic work Apresjan 1974: 119ff
(cf. also Apresjan 2000a: xix). Parallels with and direct borrowings from this source are many; I
will not indicate them in detail, hoping that this remark puts everything in the right perspective.
3.2. Sem-Actant Slot: Preliminary Characterization (Prototypical Case)
The number and the nature of the SemA-slots of an LU L are determined by three major types of
linguistic factors—semantic, syntactic, and lexical. More specifically:
—Semantic considerations have to do only with the analysis of the meaning (L), that is, with its
semantic decomposition; this is the lexicographic definition of L.
—Syntactic considerations concern the ability of a semantic chunk to be actually expressed in
the utterance by an LU that bears a particular syntactic role with respect to L or is linked to L by a
particular paradigmatic relation.
—Lexical, or restricted cooccurrence, considerations deal with the cases when a meaning is expressed idiomatically with respect to L, i.e., to put it differently, is phraseologically bound by L.5
(These considerations are relevant only in case of optional SemA-slots, see 3.3, p. 00ff.)
Let me take up these three types of considerations one by one; but first I need to introduce two
additional notions, on which that of SemA is based: linguistic situation and its participants.
3.2.1.
Linguistic Situation and Its Participants
The number and the nature of SemA-slots in the lexicographic definition of an LU L is
determined based on the following two underlying notions:
9
—linguistic situation denoted by L [= SIT(L)];
—participants of the linguistic situation denoted by L.
Sem-A slots will be defined as corresponding to participants of the SIT(L); in other words, a
SemA-slot in the definition of L necessarily corresponds to a participant of the SIT(L), while the
inverse is not true: as will be shown, a participant of a SIT(L) may correspond to no SemA-slot in
(L).
I have no definition for linguistic situation6 and I will limit myself to a short characterization.
What is meant here is by no means a real-life situation, that is, NOT a state of affairs in the
universe; it is rather a situation strictly as it is portrayed by the language, i.e., by the LU L, and
reflected in possible uses of L. A linguistic situation SIT(L) is a complex fact (in the sense
introduced above, 3.1, p. 5)—a set of facts and entities linked by dependency relations into a
unified structure that is referred to by the predicate (L), which is the meaning of L. L can be of any
part of speech, but the SIT(L) is better characterized by a sentence with the Main Verb L; if L is
not a verb, then SIT(L) can be specified by a sentence that contains either a verb semantically
close to L or an ‘empty’ (= ‘light’) verb taking L as one of its complements. Note that a SIT(L)’s
participant can be not only a person or an object, but an event, an act or a process as well.
Starting from this, participants of a linguistic situation SIT(L) can be defined. In the
prototypical case, one deals with OBLIGATORY participants of SIT(L)s only, and that is what is
defined below. Later on, I will introduce the notion of OPTIONAL participant and thus define
participants of a SIT(L) tout court. Until then, we can reason in terms of obligatory participants,
because whatever is affirmed about them will apply to optional participants as well.
Definition 1: Obligatory Participant of a SIT(L)
An element Ψ of the situation denoted by L is called its obligatory participant if and only if it
satisfies the following condition:
If Ψ is removed from SIT(L), then what remains either cannot be denoted by L or ceases to
be a situation.
NB: ‘Removing Ψ from SIT(L)’ is not the same as ‘omitting its lexical expression L(Ψ) from
the corresponding sentence;’ Ψ can be not mentioned verbally, but it still has to be
necessarily thought of as present in the situation under discussion. ‘Removing Ψ from
SIT(L)’ has to be interpreted as ‘Ψ is not thought of at all.’
Examples
1) The classical illustration is [to] RENT: person X rents commodity Y from person Z for money
W for duration T. If, e.g., T is not taken into account, the resulting situation is not renting: it must
be called buying. On the other hand, if there is no W, this is not renting, either—this is borrowing.
(In the text, Owner, Money and Duration are easily omitted: I rent an apartment in the downtown
10
is a perfect sentence; however, if I use the verb [to] RENT, I thereby imply (from an owner Z for
money W for a duration T)).
2) What are the obligatory participants of the situation denoted by the verb [to] LIE, as in John
was lying on the floor? The surface on which X is lying certainly is an obligatory participant: if
John is in a horizontal position, but is not supported by a horizontal surface underneath him, his
state cannot be referred to as lying: he is suspended, floating, planing, etc., but not lying. Thus, X
is lying presupposes (being supported by surface Y): X is lying on Y (cf., however, below, p. 00);
even the surface Y is not mentioned it is thought of.
3) Consider [to] EAT: [a] being X eats substance Y. If there is substance Y but no one chews and
swallows it, this is not a situation—it is simply some substance Y. (If a person chews and
swallows with his mouth empty, i.e., if there is X and some X’s action but no Y, the resulting
situation can by no means be referred to as eating.)
Now, two more complex examples (discussed in Iordanskaja and Mel’čuk 2002).
4) Take the Russian verb ISTOŠČIT´SJA ([to] become exhausted/depleted); (1) shows that the
Cause of becoming depleted is semantically constrained and must be part of the
SIT(ISTOŠČIT´SJA):
(1) Rus. Kazna istoščilas´ ot vojn/*ot vorovstva činovnikov
(The treasury became depleted because of wars/*because of fraud by officials).
If the Cause of X’s depletion is not an activity that uses up resources of X, the verb ISTOŠČIT´SJA
cannot be used (you have to say, for example, Kazna opustela (The treasury became empty)). The
definition of ISTOŠČIT´SJA looks as follows (the constraint on the Cause is underlined):
X istoščaetsja ot Y ≡
(X becomes depleted, which is caused by activity Y that uses resources of X).
As a result, Cause is an obligatory participant of the SIT(ISTOŠČIT´SJA): if it is not taken into
account, the verb cannot be used to refer to this situation.
5) The Russian verb PLAKAT´ ([to] cry/weep) shows the same properties:
(2) Rus. Ot radosti/*Ot vetra ona zaplakala (She started crying from joy/*from the wind).
The Reason/Cause of crying is also semantically constrained by the lexeme PLAKAT´ and
therefore must be an obligatory participant of the SIT(PLAKAT´) as well:
X plačet ot Y-a ≡
(X has tears in X’s eyes (and produces a particular sound), which is caused by a strong
emotion Y of X).
If tears appear for a reason other than a strong emotion you cannot call this PLAKAT´ (you have,
for instance, to use the expression Slëzy tekut iz glaz, lit. (Tears flow from [the] eyes)).
11
Thus, in many cases, to establish the obligatory participants of a SIT(L), we need a fairly
detailed semantic analysis of L. When deciding whether an element is an obligatory participant of
a linguistic situation or not, it is useful to have recourse to the following heuristic principle.
Obligatory Participant Inheritance Principle
Let there be the lexicographic definition of L: (L) ≡ (L1⊕L2⊕...⊕Li).
SIT(L) INHERITS all obligatory participants of all SIT(Li) that correspond to the predicative
meanings (Li) which compose (L).
Every predicative meaning in the decomposition of (L) brings along all its own obligatory participants. However, the number of participants of SIT(L) is not necessarily equal to the sum of the
numbers of participants of all predicative Sem-components (Li) of (L): some of the latter may coincide, i.e., some (Li) may have the same participants.
The number and the nature of obligatory participants of a linguistic situation do not depend on
how a particular person perceives or analyzes it, that is, with more or with less detail. Obligatory
participants in a SIT(L) are imposed by the language, i.e. by the LU L that refers to the SIT(L).
For instance, people (and domestic animals) drink, as a rule, from a vessel; is the vessel an
obligatory participant of the situation ([to] drink)? No, because X drinks Y (with only two
participants, without the mention of a vessel) satisfies both Definition 1 and Obligatory Participant
Inheritance Principle:
—One can drink water from a drinking fountain or a river; there is no vessel involved and still in
English such a situation must be called drinking.
—The decomposition of ([to] drink) does not contain a predicate which involves a vessel as one
of the obligatory participants of the corresponding SIT(L): (X introduces liquid Y into X’s
mouth/beak and swallows Y).
Obligatory participants of a SIT(L) fall into two subclasses: constant participants—entities
that are ‘fixed,’ or fully specified, in (L); and variable participants—entities for which (L) specifies
only their semantic class. Thus, in SIT(RAINV/N) the entities (water) and (sky/cloud) are constant
obligatory participants; but in SIT(EAT) the entities Eater and Food are variable obligatory
participants: any living being can eat, and every solid substance can (at least, in principle) be
eaten. Several SIT(L)s that consist in the causation of a movement of an object have a constant
participant, which is the Starting point (or the End point) of this movement (see Raxilina 1990:
98-101): thus, in (X puts Y in/on/under... Z) the starting point of Y’s movement is always (in X’s
hands); in (X takes Y from Z), (in X’s hands) is the end point of Y’s movement.
12
Remarks
1. For an obligatory participant of SIT(L) it is not relevant whether it can be expressed in the
sentence along with L or not. Thus, constant obligatory participants of SIT(L) usually are not
expressible.
2. For an obligatory participant which is expressible it is not relevant whether it is expressed
idiomatically or not. Thus, a tool is an obligatory participant of the situation ([to] cut) and ([to]
write), although tools and instruments are expressed rather not idiomatically—for instance, in
English, by using the preposition WITH, regardless of the verb.
3. A situation normally takes place somewhere and at a given moment: space-time coordinates
characterize most situations. But exactly because of that, Location and Time as such are not
obligatory participants of linguistic situations—they are not distinctive. Location or Time CAN be
an obligatory participant only of some very specific linguistic situation: for instance, Alain is
BASED in Singapore ((X is based in location Y)) or 2001 SAW Alain in Singapore ((X is the time in
which P(Y))). This is possible with some (rather rare) LUs, whose meaning foresees such an
obligatory participant (e.g., [to] FOUND ONESELF [somewhere] or [to] LIVE [somewhere]). But
generally speaking, Location and Time constitute a necessary frame in which a SIT(L) takes place
without being SIT(L)’s participants: they are SIT(L)’s circumstants. In the same vein, Speed
characterizes every movement, but it is not an obligatory participant of any corresponding
linguistic situation.7
4. In anchoring the notion of actant in the notion of linguistic situation, I am following a
respectable tradition of Moscow Semantic School, where the triple distinction has been observed
almost from the very beginning: participant of the situation ~ Semantic Actant ~ Syntactic Actant.
(Cf. also Padučeva 1997: 19-21, 1998: 87-92, where this trichotomy is explicitly drawn.)
Now I can introduce the defining properties of a Sem-Actant slot. They are of two types:
semantic and lexico-syntactic. The second type accrues actually to the EXPRESSIONS that implement
the slot; however, par abus de langage, the lexico-syntactic property of the expressions
corresponding to SemA-slots will be referred to as a property of the slot themselves.
3.2.2.
The Semantic Property of SemA-slots
Prototypically, a SemA-slot in the meaning (L) corresponds to one variable obligatory participant
Ψ of SIT(L). However, generally speaking, a SemA-slot of (L) may correspond to more than one
participant of SIT(L); it may correspond to a constant Ψ (Subsection 3.2.3, Item 1.1, subcase (iii),
p. 00); and later on (Subsection 3.3), I will introduce the notion of optional participant of SIT(L),
so that the modifier obligatory also proves irrelevant (cf. Definition 4, 3.3.3, p. 00.). Therefore, the
SEMANTIC defining property of SemA-slots can be formulated as follows:
A SemA-slot in the meaning (L) must correspond to a participant Ψ of SIT(L).
13
The following example is sufficiently complex to illustrate difficulties encountered when
deciding on the SemA-slots of a lexical meaning: the verb [to] SMOKE (as in John was smoking a
cigarette). The situation referred to by this LU implies three variable obligatory participants: the
Actor (who enjoys smoking), the Substance (that burns), and the Artifact (in which the Substance
burns). The meaning of [to] SMOKE is represented by its lexicographic definition, that is, its
Semantic Representation [= SemR] that satisfies a number of conditions; in particular, it must
contain a semantic decomposition of the meaning (L), carried out in terms of other lexical
meanings, most of which are also predicative.8 Here is the SemR of the verb [to] SMOKE:
(3) a. (X smokes Y) ≡ (X inhales the smoke of tobacco Y1 burning in an artifact Y2 that X is
holding in X’s mouth, with the purpose that this gives X pleasure).9
The variable Y in the definiendum (= (X smokes Y)) corresponds to variables Y1 or Y2 in the
definiens (= the decomposition of the meaning); we have here a split variable: Y = Y1/Y2. The
technique of split variables allows us to cover by the same definition such different expressions as
Alain smokes a pipe/cigars/a narghileh... Gauloises/Trenton/... vs. Alain smokes Turkish tobacco/
Capstain, etc. The variable Y corresponds to two different participants of the situation ([to]
smoke), whose expressions are, however, incompatible in one sentence; since these participants
are semantically linked in a particular way (by a metonymic link: (Y1 [tobacco])←(IS IN)→(Y2
[artifact)), they need not to be represented by two different variables, i.e., to correspond to two
different SemA-slots (see below, 3.4.3, p. 00, and Note 20, p. 00). More will be said about the
correspondence ‘participant of SIT(L) ~ SemA-slot of (L)’ later.
Using semantic networks of the Meaning-Text theory, (3a) can be represented as (3b):
(inhale)
(purpose) 2 3
(3)
b.
1
1
2
(hold)
1
(smokeN )
1
(X)
3
1
2
(cause) 1
2
1
(be)
2 (mouth)
1
1
(Y
)
(in)
1
(pleasure)
2
1
(artifact )
(Y2 ) 1
2
2
(be)
(in)
1
(burn)
(tobacco)
The semanteme (inhale) is underlined to indicate its communicatively dominant status:
([to] smoke) is a particular case of ([to] inhale) (for the notion of communicatively dominant
node, see Mel’čuk 2001: 31ff).
Although the situation referred to by [to] SMOKE has three (variable) participants, the meaning
([to] smoke) has only two Sem-actant slots: a SemA-slot(L) can correspond to more than one
participant of the situation SIT(L); in this case, Y correspond to the Substance and to the Artifact.
14
(The inverse is not true, since a participant of SIT(L) may give rise to no more than one SemAslot in (L); in particular, it may give rise to no SemA-slot.)
Corresponding to a participant of SIT(L) is thus a necessary, but not sufficient condition for a
semanteme (σ) to be a SemA of (L): (σ) must also BE EXPRESSIBLE IN THE TEXT IN A PARTICULAR WAY.
This brings us to the lexico-syntactic considerations that underlie the decisions on SemA-slots.
3.2.3.
The Lexico-Syntactic Property of SemA-slots
The verb [to] COST (as in The book cost him $50) describes the situation of selling/buying in
which you have to pay, so that the Payee as an obligatory participant is unquestionable: Definition
1 guarantees the presence of the Payee participant in SIT(COST); the Obligatory Participant
Inheritance Principle also requires it, since the meaning ([to] cost) includes ([to] pay) and ([to] pay)
presupposes the Payee. However, it is impossible to express the Payee in a clause with [to] COST:
The book cost him $50 *to 〈for, with〉 John. Therefore, the lexicographic definition of [to] COST
must not have a SemA-slot for the Payee—the Payee is represented in the definition of ([to] cost)
by a constant, namely, a very general meaning (person who furnishes...). Cf.:
(4) (X costs Y [to] Z) ≡ (merchandise or service X is paid by person Z money Y to the PERSON who
furnishes X to Z).
Thus, an obligatory participant Ψ of the situation denoted by L does not automatically
determine a SemA-slot in (L): Ψ may have no corresponding SemA-slot, because this slot would
not be expressible in the sentence alongside L. Such a participant is not identified in the definition
of L by a variable; it is represented there only by a constant.10
Now, what does it exactly mean that a Ψ is/is not expressible in the text alongside L? The
answer is given by Definition 2. In its formulation and discussion below, the notion of Lexical
Function [= LF] plays a crucial role. It is, however, impossible to introduce or even explain LFs
here, so that the reader is kindly asked to refer to Mel’čuk 1988a: 61ff, 1988b, 1992, 1996, 1998.
(Cf. also short remarks in Subsection 4.1, p. 00.)
Definition 2: To Be Expressible in the Text
We say that a participant Ψ of SIT(L) is expressible in the text if and only if one of the
following three conditions is satisfied:
Syntagmatic conditions
1) The phrase L(Ψ) is syntactically linked to L either directly or via a particular syntagmatic
Lexical Function of L (namely, support verbs Operi, Func0/i, Laborij and realization verbs
Reali, Fact0/i, Labrealij, as well as complex LFs having these verbs as their last component):
L(Ψ) synt L or L(Ψ) synt LF(L) synt L.
2) The phrase L(Ψ) is the syntactic (perhaps indirect) Governor of the syntactic Governor of
L:
15
L(Ψ)− ...synt→L´
synt→L.
A paradigmatic condition
3) The phrase L(Ψ) is a value of a particular paradigmatic Lexical Function of L—one of
actantial nouns S1, S2, S3, ... (on actantial nouns, see below, p. 00).
I will comment on each of these conditions in turn.
Condition 1: L(Ψ) and L are linked either 1. by a direct syntactic dependency or 2. indirectly—
via a syntagmatic LF.
1. L(Ψ) and L are linked by a direct syntactic dependency, that is, either L(Ψ)←L or L(Ψ)→L.
1.1. L(Ψ) syntactically depends on L: L(Ψ)←L
Two cases are distinguished here: L(Ψ) is a SSynt-actant of L or L(Ψ) is not a SSynt-actant of L.
1) L(Ψ) is a SSynt-actant of L (= a subject, an object or a complement):
Mary←sees→John; the cost→of the book; is renting→for three months.
This is the PROTOTYPICAL instance of expressibility of Ψ alongside L.
Three complications are to be noted: (i) the set of L(Ψ)s may be very small (even just one
LU), (ii) L(Ψ) may be phraseologically bound by L, and (iii) L(Ψ) may be a ‘restricted’ SSyntA.
SUBCASE
(i)
(5) Rus. PREDAT´ ([to] betray) vs. PREDATEL´ (traitor) (an example of T. Bulygina):
predat´ rodinu ([to] betray motherland) 〈druzej (friends), nauku (science), Mašu, …〉
vs.
predatel´ rodiny (traitor of-motherland) 〈*druzej, *nauki, *Maši, …〉
With the noun PREDATEL´, the Betrayed can be expressed only by few nouns, in the first place, by
RODINA (motherland) (e.g., even the quasi-synonym OTEČESTVO (fatherland) is impossible: *predatel´ otečestva). This, however, does not prevent us from saying that Ψ = Betrayed is expressible
with PREDATEL´: even a unique possibility of expression is taken to be sufficient.11
SUBCASE (ii)
Not infrequently, L(Ψ) forms a collocation with L, i.e., L(Ψ)’s expression is selected as a function
of L; this means that the SemA that corresponds to Ψ is LEXICALLY BOUND by L. Thus, health
insurance is called in French assurance maladie, lit. (illness insurance) 〈*assurance santé (health
insurance) and *illness insurance〉. How can one account for such data? The propositional form of
[to] INSURE is roughly as follows: person X insures X’s Y [= Thing Insured] against Z [=
Calamity] with the company W ... The lexical entry for INSURANCE must then contain the
following statement: if Ψ´= Calamity (what you insure against) is (illness), this Ψ´ is not
expressed, but the SemA corresponding to Ψ´´= Thing Insured must be (health). For Fr.
(its propositional form being identical to that of the English equivalent) we need the
opposite statement: if Ψ´ = Calamity is (illness), it is expressed, but Ψ´´= Thing Insured is left
ASSURANCE
unexpressed. Similarly, one has to state explicitly that for the noun LEAVE, the Reason (of the
16
leave, i.e. SemA Z) which is (illness) is expressed as SICK (sick leave), while in French we have
MALADIE (illness) (congé maladie/de maladie), and in Russian, PO BOLEZNI, lit. (in accordance with
illness) (otpusk po bolezni); or maternity leave ~ Fr. congé maternité/de maternité (of maternity) ~
Rus. dekretnyj (decree) otpusk.
Another case of lexical boundness is the use of an element of the value of a LF(L) to express a
Ψ of (L)—that is, to be used as an actant. Thus, in French, with the verb PAYER ([to] pay), if the
Amount paid is very high (= LF Magn), it is expressed as [payer] les yeux de la tête 〈la peau des
fesses〉 (the eyes of the head 〈the skin of the buttocks〉); etc. We will see other examples of this
phenomenon later.
SUBCASE (iii)
L(Ψ) is a ‘restricted’ SSyntA—it expresses a
CONSTANT
obligatory participant of SIT(L). Thus,
one can see only with one’s eyes, kick only with one’s foot, and kiss only with one’s lips;
therefore, eyes, foot and lips are Constant Participants of the corresponding SIT(L)s (see above,
3.2.1, p. 00): they are fixed and normally cannot be expressed alongside L. Four types of constant
participants of SIT(L) have to be distinguished:
—a constant participant that cannot be expressed,
—a constant participant that can be expressed, but only if it is characterized explicitly,
—a constant participant that can be expressed even if it is not characterized explicitly,
—a constant participant that must be expressed.
• A constant participant of type 1 cannot be expressed in the sentence at all, even if the speaker
wants to characterize it explicitly. Thus, the Targets of Rus. POŠČËČINA ([a] slap on a cheek), i.e.,
ŠČEKA (cheek), and PROPOLOT´ ([to] weed), i.e., SORNJAKI (weeds), cannot be expressed:
(6) a. Rus. Ivan dal emu poščëčinu *po levoj ščeke 〈*v levuju ščëku〉,
(John gave him a slap-on-the-cheek on the left cheek).
If you absolutely need to mention the cheek, you have to say udaril ego po levoj ščeke (hit him on
the left cheek).
b. Ivan propolol ogorod *ot sornjakov, lit. (Ivan weeded [the] vegetable-garden *from
weeds).
lit.
• A constant participant of type 2 can be expressed under the condition that the speaker
characterizes it explicitly: She sees this only with her left eye or She kissed him with her
chocolate-smeared lips. Therefore, such a constant participant of SIT(L) must be considered
expressible alongside L, even if conditionally. Let me elaborate the example with [to] SEE:
(7) a. (X sees Y {with Z}) ≡ (X perceives Y with X’s eyes {Z}, this perceiving being made
possible by light)
Curly brackets around the variable {Z} indicate that this is an INSTANTIATED variable: the
respective obligatory participant is constant and can be expressed only if it has its own explicit
17
characterization. The semanteme (perceive) in the Sem-decomposition (7b) is underlined as
communicatively dominant node (roughly speaking, (see) is a particular case of (perceive)); cf.
(1b), p. 00.
(eyes {Z})
b.
(perceive )
3
1
1
2
1
(X)
(Y)
(possible)
2
(light)
1
(cause)
• A constant participant of type 3 can be expressed even without an explicit characterization.
Thus, with the verb Rus. OTŠLËPAT´ ([to] spank), which also has a constant Target—(buttocks),—
this Target can be expressed at will, just the same as in English. The French verbs SE MOUCHER
([to] blow one’s nose) and SE TORCHER ([to] wipe one’s behind) also admit the expression of their
constant Targets:
(8) a. Rus. Ivan otšlëpal ego po (tolstoj) popke, lit. (Ivan spanked him on [his] (fat) behind).
b. Fr. Il s’est mouché le nez, lit. (He blew-his-nose to-himself the nose).
c. Fr. Il s’est torché le cul, lit. (He wiped-his-behind to-himself the behind).
• A constant participant of type 4 must be expressed. Thus, the Russian verb RASKVASIT´ ([to]
make the nose bleed by hitting it) ‘incorporates’ its Target: one can raskvasit´ only the nose; yet it
requires this Target to be expressed; in Ja raskvasil emu nos (I made his nose bleed), NOS (nose) is
not omissible (*Ja raskvasil ego (I made him bleed from the nose); cf. Ja pocarapal emu nos (I
scratched his nose) and Ja pocarapal ego (I scratched him)). Similarly, you can stub only a toe;
nevertheless, you have to say I stubbed my toe, rather than *I stubbed (myself).
Thus, we see that some constant obligatory participants of SIT(L) can or even must be
expressed alongside L under some circumstances; therefore, such an obligatory participant has to
be reflected in L’s definition as a SemA, i.e., it gets a SemA-slot in (L). (Cf. Padučeva 1998: 89-90
and 2002: 187-188 on constant actants, which she calls ‘incorporated.’)
2) L(Ψ) is a SSynt-modifier or a conjunct of L—that is, a non-actantial SSynt-dependent: American←help; Mongol←invasion; (thick) French←accent; weekly←rent; Iraqi-←occupied
[territory]; try→and write [this letter]; Rus. izlovčilsja→i ukusil, lit. ([he] managed and bit) (I.
Boguslavskij’s example); Rus. kolebletsja,→idti li tuda, lit. ([he] hesitates whether to go there).
(All these L(Ψ)s are DSynt-actants.)
This combinability can be highly restricted lexically:
18
(9) Rus. MERY (measures) admits the expression of the action that constitutes these measures only
via a few pronominal adjectives, especially the interrogative one: Kakie mery Vy prinjali?
(What measures have you taken?) (Krejdlin and Raxilina 1984).12
Cf. as well sledujuščie mery ([the] following measures) or èti mery (these measures).
But again, even a lexically unique possibility of expressing L(Ψ) as an immediate Synt-dependent of L is sufficient to consider it expressible alongside L. (By the way, there is another reason
to have this SemA-slot with MERY: it is expressible with the LF Func1, e.g., mery, sostojaščie v
tom, čto... (measures that consist in ...), see below; cf. as well V kačestve mery presečenija
naznačit´ podpisku o nevyezde (As a preventive measure I order a written pledge of nondeparture), where podpiska (written pledge) expresses the SemA 1 of MERY.)
1.2. L syntactically depends on L(Ψ): L(Ψ)→L
This happens in a standard way when L is an adjective or an adverb (including among adverbs the
prepositions and conjunctions). In point of fact, the defining feature of the adjectival/adverbial
word classes is exactly this property—taking their only or first SemA as their syntactic Governor
and becoming a DSynt-attribute of the latter (see Mel’čuk 1988a: 105ff on possible cases of
opposite orientation of semantic and syntactic dependencies):
(interesting)−1→(book)
⇔
BOOK
ATTR→INTERESTING
(fast)−1→(run)
⇔
[to] RUN ATTR→FAST
(tonight)−1→(run)
⇔
[to] RUN ATTR→TONIGHT
(painting)←1−(on)−2→(wall)
⇔
PAINTING ATTR →ON II→WALL
(read)←1−(when)−2→(enter)
⇔
READ
ATTR →WHEN II→ENTER
[John was reading when Mary entered the room.]
Moreover, the expression of an obligatory participant of L may be the syntactic Governor of L in
an ‘exotic’ case of SemAs expressed phraseologically by the Main Verb, see below, 3.4.1, (18), p.
00.
2. L(Ψ) and L are linked via a syntagmatic Lexical Function of L.
L(Ψ) can be a DSynt-actant of a particular syntagmatic Lexical Function of L linked to L; this LF
must be a support or realization verb: Operi, etc. or Reali, etc. Let us consider two examples.
• The noun DANGER in the sense of ‘something dangerous’ (the lexeme DANGER2 in Longman
Dictionary of Contemporary English): (X is a danger for Y). This noun cannot take the expression
of the first participant—Dangerous element—as its immediate Synt-dependent: suppose that John
is dangerous for someone; still you do not have*John’s danger or *danger by 〈from〉 John. But
some of its LFs—support verbs—can link the name of the first participant to the noun:
(10) a. John represents an enormous danger for our plans [represent = Oper1(DANGER)].
b. The main danger for our plans comes from John [come from = Func1(DANGER)].
19
• The pair WIDOW/WIDOWER: the expression John’s widow is normal, but *Mary’s widower is
hardly acceptable13 (this example was first introduced in Russian by T. Bulygina); does this mean
that (widow) has two SemA-slots ((X is widow of Y) ≡ (X is a woman, now unmarried, whose
husband Y died), while (widower) has only one ((X is widower) ≡ (X is a man, now unmarried,
whose wife died))? It would, if it were not for a perfect sentence (11):
(11) She died of cancer and left John a widower with three children.
In (11), the verb [to] LEAVE is an LF of WIDOWER, namely—the support verb Labor21: She left
him a widower necessarily means that she was his wife. So the meaning (late wife) of a widower
can be expressed alongside the noun WIDOWER on the surface—via an LF; therefore, this meaning
corresponds to a SemA-slot, and we have (X is widower [of Y]) ≡ (X is an unmarried man whose
wife [Y] died). But in sharp contrast to WIDOW, with WIDOWER this SemA cannot be freely
expressed as a DSyntA (this is shown by brackets around the corresponding SemA-slot variable).
Condition 2: L(Ψ) can be expressed as the syntactic Governor (maybe indirect) of syntactic
Governor of L.
This is possible for some focalizing particles, which behave similarly to quantifiers. Take, for
instance, ONLY:
(only X P(X)) ≡
(the set under consideration to which X belongs contains no α different from X such that P(α))
(cf. the discussion of the meaning of Rus. TOL´KO (only) in Boguslavskij 1985: 83-120). In sentences (12) the obligatory participant Ψ [= P] of the SIT(ONLY) is realized as the Synt-governor of
the noun that is the Synt-Governor of ONLY:
(12) a. Only←Alain[= X]←came[= P(X)].
b. Alain reads[= P(X)] only←novels[= X].
As can be seen, Definition 2 is aimed at constraining the concept of ‘being expressible alongside
L’ to the cases when L(Ψ) is implemented in a specific syntactic frame. If an obligatory
participant Ψ can be expressed in the sentence no matter how, but not as a specific syntactic
element of the sentence linked to L, it is not considered as expressible and the corresponding
SemA-slot is not postulated. Thus, the set from which X is selected in the meaning of ONLY can
be expressed in many loose ways:
(13) a. Here only Alain reads a lot [the set: people who are here].
b. Take my family: only Alain reads a lot [the set: my family].
c. As for them, only Alain reads a lot [the set: they].
As a consequence, this variable obligatory participant of the SIT(ONLY) does not give rise to a
SemA-slot of ONLY.
20
Condition 3: L(Ψ) can be expressed as a value of a particular paradigmatic Lexical Function of
L—of an ACTANTIAL NOUN: nomen agentis S1, nomen patientis S2/3, ...
Consider Rus. (O)GRABIT´ ≈ ([to] mug and rob), which does not admit the expression of the Thing
Taken by the robbers: Ivana ograbili *šuboj 〈*ot šuby, *na šubu, …〉, lit. (They robbed Ivan of his
fur coat), nor *U Ivana ograbili šubu, lit. (At Ivan, they robbed his fur coat). However, the Thing
taken (i.e., the loot) has in Russian a special name: NAGRABLENNOE, DOBYČA (loot); this is
S3((O)GRABIT´). Therefore, (O)GRABIT´ is considered to have a SemA-slot for the loot:
(X ograbil Y-a [v otnošenii Z-a]) = (X robbed Y [with respect to Z]).
Square brackets around a variable in the propositional form of the definition of L indicate that this
variable is not directly expressible with L. (Compare this with [to] COST above. (4), p. 00: English
has no special name for the person to whom Z of COST has to pay Y.)
Similarly, the noun STORE has S2 = GOODS, MERCHANDISE (≈ (what the store sells)) and S3 =
(≈ (the person to whom merchandise is sold)); cf., in this connection, an idiomatic
expression of the meaning ([the store] has/does not have [the merchandise Y]): —Sorry, we do not
carry cross-country skis; here carry = Fact2(STORE). The noun RESTAURANT has S2 = CLIENT,
CUSTOMER
PATRON;
the verb [to] SHOOT has S2 = TARGET; etc. The existence of such S2s and S3s is an argu-
ment in favor of the corresponding SemA-slot.
Summing up, here is the LEXICO-SYNTACTIC defining property of a SemA-slot:
A Sem-slot in the meaning (L) must be expressible in the text.
Until now, I have been dealing only with obligatory participants of SIT(L), and I have
practically obtained the definition of OBLIGATORY SemA-slot. However, before the ‘real’ definition
of SemA-slot and that of SemA could be formulated, the notion of optional participant needs to be
introduced, which will, in turn, allow for the notion of OPTIONAL SemA-slot.
3.3. An Optional Participant or a Circumstantial of a SIT(L)?
In more or less clear cases discussed so far, a meaning suspected of being a SemA of (L) corresponds to an obligatory participant of the situation SIT(L), which can be variable or (in some
special cases) constant; all the other elements of SIT(L) are deemed to be its circumstants.
However, very often we have an ‘actant-like’ meaning (X) which does not correspond to an
obligatory participant of SIT(L), but whose lexicalization depends on L: (X) is expressed in a very
idiomatic, or phraseologically bound, way—as a function of L. As a result, the lexical entry for L
has to carry information on the presence/absence and the form of the lexical unit that expresses the
meaning (X)—L((X)). This makes the meaning (X) a possible candidate for a SemA(L) and the
corresponding element in the SIT(L) a candidate for a participant role (rather than a
21
Circumstantial). How are we to treat such suspicious meanings and their sources in linguistic
situations? Let me start with two examples.
1) Consider the road sign ‘Brake for moose!’ The phrase P = for N is not used freely with brake;
for instance, it cannot be translated into Russian while preserving the same structure (*Tormozi
dlja/na/iz-za losej; a translation could be, for instance, Tormozi: losi!, lit. (Brake: moose!)). The
possibility of the phrase for N with brake must be specified in the lexical entry of [to] BRAKE. But
the entity which the driver has to brake for is by no means an obligatory participant of
SIT(BRAKE): when you press on the brake to stop your car in front of your house you do not brake
for anything; cf. below, 3.3.2, p. 00. Is then this entity a Circumstantial in the linguistic situation
of braking?
2) Suppose I ask in Russian: Kak pisat´ vyraženie /n´ixvatájit/ — v odno slovo [= P 1] ili
razdel´no [= P 2]? (How do you spell the expression /n´ixvatájit/: as one word or as two words?)
The phrases P1 and P2 are very idiomatic with PISAT´, lit. ([to] write): Russian says ‘into one word’
and ‘separately’ (rather than ‘as one word’, ‘as two words’. And again, neither P1 nor P2 obviously
corresponds to an obligatory participant of the linguistic situation PISAT´ ([to] write/spell). But are
they its circumstants? (With English [to] SPELL, things look differently: the indications of how to
spell might be obligatory participants of the SIT(SPELL), due to the special meaning of this verb.)
Confronted with such cases, we have two options:
Solution I: we treat P as a syntactic Circumstantial/Modifier that does not correspond to a
SemA(L) nor to a participant of the SIT(L), but is phraseologically bound by L; the use of P is
described by means of a Lexical Function of L. In Brake for moose!, the phrase for moose is then
syntactically a Circumstantial of Goal, not an Actant; its phraseological character is captured by a
non-standard LF; see 3.2.4.2, p. 00. In the corresponding SIT(L), the braked-for entity would be a
circumstant, not a participant.
Solution II: we broaden the notion of participant of SIT(L), admitting optional participants,
which underlie optional SemA-slots; we then treat (P) as an optional SemA(L). In the
corresponding SIT(L), the braked-for entity is then a participant (although an optional one).
Boguslavskij 1990 has shown that in some cases Solution II is inapplicable (cf. the analysis of
examples (14) - (16), next subsection); I will show that in some cases Solution I is inapplicable,
too. It follows that both solutions are needed—for different cases; for a principled choice between
the two solutions some special criteria are necessary.
3.3.1.
Lexical Functions for Phraseologically Bound Circumstantials
Russian has a series of idiomatic expressions of the type of pisat´ s zaglavnoj/stročnoj bukvy, lit.
([to] write from a capital/lowercase letter) = ([to] spell with a capital/lowercase letter), or pisat´
čerez defis/bukvu O, lit. ([to] write through a hyphen/the letter O) = ([to] spell with a hyphen/ the
22
letter O) (examples from Plungjan and Raxilina 1998: 118); cf. as well pisat´ slitno/vmeste/ v odno
slovo, lit. ([to] write fusedly/together/into one word), vs. razdel´no/v dva slova, lit. (separately/into
two words). The choice of these prepositions and special adverbials must be specified under PISAT´
([to] write)—in its lexical entry. However, the expressions s zaglavnoj/stročnoj bukvy and čerez
defis/bukvu O, etc. do not correspond to obligatory participants of SIT(PISAT´) and do not require
corresponding SemA-slots in its definition. This belief is of course intuitive: I simply do not want
all these various expressions to be mentioned in the definition of PISAT´. Whether I am right or
wrong is irrelevant: my point is to insist that if these expressions are not reflected in L’s definition,
then they are not SemAs(L). The definition of L must cover, with its SemA-slots (= Semvariables X, Y, Z, ...), all and only SemAs of L but nothing else. If a variable X appears in the
definition of L, the meaning (P) corresponding to this variable is a SemA(L); if (P) is not a
SemA(L), it should not correspond to a variable in the definition of L. The inverse is also true: If
(P) is a SemA of L it has to have a corresponding SemA-slot (= a variable) in the definition of L.
Therefore, I posit the following principle:
Only a SemA of L may have, and any SemA of L must have, a SemA-slot in the definition of
L.
The question asked in Plungjan and Raxilina 1990—’Circumstantials in the definition?’—thus receives a clear negative answer: ‘By no means.’ No Circumstantial of L can have a slot in the
definition of L and be represented by a variable—even if this variable is of a different type than
those used for the Actants. (We mean of course syntactic Circumstantials that do not correspond to
SemAs(L), since a SemA can be implemented by a syntactic Circumstantial, as in John behaved
poorly or John stayed home.)
But then, as we just saw, L can have highly idiomatic syntactic dependents that are not L’s
SemAs, and yet still must be indicated in L’s lexical entry. Therefore, a technique is needed to
describe the non-actantial subset of phraseologically bound dependents of L in L’s entry, but
outside of L’s definition and Government Pattern. Such a technique exists: this is the use of
Lexical Functions, already mentioned above, 3.2.3, p. 00.
As soon as we get a Synt-dependent P of L that has an idiomatic expression as a function of L
but is not a SemA of L, a (standard or non-standard) LF can be introduced to specify the form of P
in L’s lexical entry. Let me show how this can be done, using an example from Boguslavskij
1990: 148, where some obvious Circumstantials of L are phraseologically bound by L.
(14) Nepremenno/Objazatel´no ždëm vas v četverg,
lit. (Without fail/Obligatorily we-expect you on Thursday),
which means of course (We expect you to COME [where we will be] on Thursday without fail).
In the starting SemR of sentence (14), the meaning of nepremenno/objazatel´no characterizes
the predicate ([to] come), i.e., this meaning is a predicate that has (come) as its argument. Under
23
lexicalization of this SemR, the semanteme ([to] come) becomes a component inside the definition
of ŽDAT´ ([to] expect someone to come). In sentence (14) itself, nepremenno/objazatel´no is
syntactically a Circumstantial of ŽDAT´, while semantically it continues to bear on the semanteme
([to] come), which is INSIDE the meaning of ŽDAT´: (come←1−without.fail) (in Boguslavskij’s
terms, nepremenno/objazatel´no has in (14) an INTERNAL scope):
(expect)
!DAT´
2
1
(come)
(we)
1
1
2
(you)
(without.fail )
(place)
1
2
(localized )
Importantly, such a use of Circumstantials is highly restricted lexically:
• Other similar verbs, even semantically very close to ŽDAT´, such as PRIGLAŠAT´ ([to] invite) ≈
([to] ask to come), do not admit these Circumstantials:
(15) a. *Nepremenno/*Objazatel´no priglašaem vas v četverg,
lit. (Without fail/Obligatorily we-invite you on Thursday).
• Other similar adverbs are not admitted with ŽDAT´ as Circumstantials of the above type:
b. *Bez opozdanija/*Navernjaka/*Zaprosto ždëm vas v četverg,
lit. (Without coming late/Surely/Without ceremony we-expect you on Thursday).
• Even with a different form of ŽDAT´ or with a different DirO of ŽDAT´ these Circumstantials
may be impossible:
c. (i) My *nepremenno/*objazatel´no ždali vas v četverg,
lit. (Without fail/Obligatorily we-expected you on Thursday).
(ii) *Nepremenno/*Objazatel´no ždëm ix v četverg,
lit. (Without fail/Obligatorily we-expect them on Thursday).
The impossibilities in (15c) are due to the fact that in order to accept this type of Circumstantial,
14
ŽDAT´ must be used in a sort of signalative speech act, with a ‘hidden’ imperative: (Come
without fail/obligatorily!).
All these complex conditions on the use of NEPREMENNO and OBJAZATEL´NO with ŽDAT´ can
be naturally accommodated in the formalism of LFs—by using the following non-standard LF:
ŽDAT´ ([to] expect N to come) [(X ždët Y-a) ≡ (X expects that Y will come where X is)]
….
X being 1st person and Y 2nd person,
so that there should be no probabili-
24
ty of Y’s not coming
: nepremenno, objazatel´no | Ž. in pres/fut, ind,
affirmative sentence, [=
in a speech act of invitation]
Boguslavskij 1990 also considers another type of Circumstantial that has an internal scope, but
is lexically unrestricted:
(16) My ždali tebja zavtra/s ženoj/iz Moskvy,
lit. (We were expecting youSG tomorrow/with [your] wife/from Moscow).
Again, such Circumstantials semantically bear on the semanteme (come), which is within the
meaning (expect N to come), and again they are restricted to the verb ŽDAT´. Thus, they do not
combine, e.g., with PRIGLAŠAT´ ([to] invite): *My priglašali tebja zavtra/iz Moskvy (My priglašali
tebja s ženoj is, however, OK). These Circumstantials also need to be specified in the lexical entry
of ŽDAT´, and this can also be done by means of other non-standard LFs:
ŽDAT´ ([to] expect Y to come)
….
the moment of Y’s coming being T
: Locin N=T, ADVtemp=T
Y coming with/without W
:
Y coming from W
:
s (with)/bez (without) N=W
Locab N=W
As far as I can judge, all examples from Boguslavskij 1990 are covered by this technique in a
systematic and homogeneous way.
In point of fact, Boguslavskij 1990 raises a very important general question, developing
further, in a sense, a fundamental observation of J. McCawley about internal scope of some
adverbials (McCawley’s famous example—borrowed from J.L. Morgan—is He almost killed
John. This sentence has three readings contingent on which semantic component of [to] KILL the
adverb ALMOST bears: 1) he almost tried to hit John, 2) he almost hit John, and 3) John almost
died as a result of being hit: McCawley 1970: 241). This question is:
How do we carry out the lexicalization of semantic elements that bear on a semantic element
that is INSIDE a configuration of semantemes lexicalized as a whole, by an LU?
Suppose the SemR has a configuration (σ1)→(σ2) that can be lexicalized by the LU L: (L) =
(σ1)→(σ2). Now, (σ2) has another semantic governor: (σ2)←(σ3); what about the lexicalization of
(σ3)? In some cases L((σ3)) can become a Circumstantial of L. Thus, in Rus. Ivan vkusno poel, lit.
(Ivan ate tastily) = (Ivan ate tasty food), VKUSNO (tastily) [= (σ3)] semantically bears on the understood Object of EST´ ([to] eat), i.e., on (food) [= (σ2)], while syntactically it is a Circumstantial of
If we use a causative of EST´ and say Maša vkusno nakormila Ivana, lit. (Masha tastily fed
Ivan), VKUSNO becomes a Circumstantial of KORMIT´ ([to] feed) = ([to] cause to eat), continuing
semantically to characterize (food). However, in a similar situation with UMERET´ ([to] die), UBIT´
([to] kill) ≈ ([to] cause to die) (where (die) = (σ2)) and the adverbial V UŽASNYX MUČENIJAX (in
terrible sufferings) [= (σ3)], the same operation is impossible: Ivan umer v užasnyx mučenijax, lit.
EST´.
25
(Ivan died in terrible sufferings), but not *Maša ubila Ivana v užasnyx mučenijax, lit. (Masha killed
Ivan in terrible sufferings). This is so because the phrase V UŽASNYX MUČENIJAX must
semantically bear on the SemA X (1) of (die), whose expression must be the syntactic Subject of
the clause: V UŽASNYX MUČENIJAX is syncategorematic. A third case is presented in Ivan napilsja
do čërtikov, lit. (Ivan drank himself into seeing little devils): the phrase DO ČËRTIKOV [= (σ3)]
semantically also bears on the SemA X (1) of (drinking), but the latter, i.e., the person drinking,
need not to be realized as the syntactic Subject of the clause for the phrase DO ČËRTIKOV to be
acceptable; therefore, DO ČËRTIKOV can be a syntactic Circumstantial of the corresponding
causative: Maša napoila Ivana do čërtikov, lit.(Masha made-drink Ivan into seeing little devils).
I mention all these facts in order to show to what extent Boguslavskij was right in 1990, when
he was saying that a new type of rules is needed to cover Circumstantials under lexicalization,
especially—Circumstantials that are phraseologically bound. I believe that these rules are nothing
else but non-standard Lexical Functions in the entry of the LU controling these Circumstantials.
Thus, VKUSNO is a non-standard LF of EST´ (note that you do not have *On vkusno popil (He
drank (a) tasty drink(s))), V UŽASNYX MUČENIJAX is a non-standard LF of UMERET´ (*On pogib v
užasnyx mučenijax (He died a violent death in terrible sufferings)), and DO ČËRTIKOV, that of
NAPIT´SJA and NAPOIT´ (note again the impossibility of *On pil do čërtikov, lit. (Ivan was drinking
himself into seeing little devils)).
In (14) - (16), it is not advisable to use SemA-slots to describe the data presented (see Boguslavskij 1990: 145-147), at least for three reasons:
—The dubious sentence elements are, as far as their meaning and role are concerned, typical Circumstantials. (There is no doubt that they are Circumstantials with ([to] come).)
—They do not correspond to obligatory participants of the SIT(L); they are not even
characteristic of the prototypical SIT(L). True, SemAs that correspond to optional participants of
SIT(L) will be admitted (see 3.3.2 below); but the elements in question cannot be shown to be
even optional participants.
—They are syntactically compatible alongside the same L (Nepremenno ždëm tebja zavtra s
ženoj k obedy (We expect you without-fail tomorrow with your wife for lunch)), which would
entail too many different Sem-actants.
Here is one more example in which Solution I seems necessary.
(17) Rus. PISAT´ ([to] write/[to] spell), considered above; non-standard LFs work here all right:
PISAT´ ([to] write) [= X writes Y with Z on W]
....
making the first letter of Y a capital
: s bol´šoj/zaglavnoj/propisnoj bukvy,
lit. (from a capital/uppercase letter)
making the first letter of Y lowercase
:
s malen´koj/stročnoj bukvy,
26
(from a small/lowercase letter)
: čerez (through) N=U
: čerez defis (through a hyphen)
lit.
using a letter U
using a hyphen
leaving a space between two letter strings :
leaving no space between two letter strings
razdel´no, v dva slova,
lit. (separately, into two words)
: vmeste, slitno, v odno slovo, bez probela,
lit. (together, fusedly, into one word,
without space)
To cover all these phraseologically bound expressions by SemA-slots in the definition of PISAT´ is
linguistically unacceptable: this would create too many different SemAs, which semantically do
not at all resemble what we intuitively perceive as SemAs.
Thus, in some cases the technique of LFs for describing phraseologically bound
Circumstantials is necessary. It is so powerful that it CAN be used in all cases when the researcher
needs to express the restricted syntactic and/or lexical cooccurrence controlled by an LU L.
However, another question is when it SHOULD be used. Very often the problematic X seems to be
an Actant rather than a Circumstantial. When confronted with such a difficulty, the researcher
might prefer the other technique: an optional actant slot, based on an optional participant of
SIT(L).
3.3.2.
Optional Participants of a SIT(L)
Consider three cases in which the use of an optional participant of the SIT(L)—and consequently
of an optional SemA-slot—seems warranted to describe the behavior of a phrase P
phraseologically bound by L.
(Eat/drink) verbs and the container of food/drink
This is a typical case of a dependent P of L for which it not immediately obvious whether it is a
SemA(L) or simply a Circumstantial phraseologically bound by L: the name of the container from
which food or drink is taken by an Eater and which depends on a verb meaning ([to] eat) or ([to]
drink). Russian says est´ iz tarelki ([to] eat from a plate) and pit´ iz stakana ([to] drink from a
glass), while in French, the container of the food/drink is introduced with DANS (in): manger dans
une assiette, boire dans un verre. The preposition DANS is phraseologically bound by (eat/ drink):
it remains with all sort of occasional containers, like est´ iz ruk/manger dans les mains ([to] eat
from the hands (of someone)).15 Therefore, DANS has to be given in the entry for (eat)/(drink).
Since the container is by no means an obligatory participant of the respective situations, it can be
treated as a circumstant; the phrases iz tarelki/dans une assiette/ from a plate are then described as
Circumstantials (that do not correspond to a SemA).and the preposition is specifed by a nonstandard LF:
27
Rus. EST´
Fr. MANGER
taking Y from the container Z
: iz N=Z
dans N=Z
However, the name of the food/drink container does not feel like a Circumstantial! In
particular, if it is a Circumstantial, then what type of Circumstantial? Circumstantials form a
hierarchy:
Sentential Adverbs > Time (including Duration) > Place > Manner > Cause > Goal > Means > Instrument
Circumstantials←
→
Actants
This is an ordering according to the degree of ‘circumstantial character’ of the element under
analysis. The prototypical Circumstantials are situated towards the left-hand side of the hierarchy,
Sentential Adverbs being the most ‘circumstantial’ among Circumstantials. The elements at the
right-hand side of the hierarchy are closer and closer to Actants, the Instrument being more often
an Actant. Strictly speaking, the container phrase with (eat/drink) does not correspond to any one
of the Circumstantials on the list. Loosely speaking, however, the container might be categorized
as an Instrument of eating/ drinking; but that is exactly what makes it be perceived as an Actant.
True, the meanings (eat)/(drink) do not presuppose a container for food/liquid. Yet the
situation of eating/drinking by humans is to eat/drink using a container; even
domestic animals eat and drink from something: a manger, a bucket, a trough, etc. So why not to
declare the food/drink container an optional participant of eating/drinking and introduce the
corresponding optional SemA-slot into the definitions of the verbs? As a result, we have
something like (X eats/drinks Y (from Z)); the component in parentheses is an optional SemA-slot.
PROTOTYPICAL
There is another important consideration that makes this solution almost inevitable. A noun
like PLATE or GLASS (≈ (artifact designed to be eaten/drunk from)) necessarily has a LF Labreal12:
[to] EAT/[to] DRINK, i.e. [to] eat [N] from a plate/[to] drink [N] from a glass; in this use,
EAT/DRINK takes the name of the container as its SemA. Do we want to say that in (i) John ate
some rice, (ii) John ate some rice from my plate, and (iii) John was eating from my plate we see
different verbs [to] EAT? If we do not and in eat from a plate, PLATE is a SemA, the container
from which food is taken must be a SemA in (i)-(iii). This consideration is introduced as a
criterion for optional participants/ SemAs, Subsection 3.3.3, Criterion 5b, p. 00.
(Die)-verbs and the cause of dying
Consider the sentence John died of cancer/of a stroke. German expresses the same thing as an [lit.
(on)] Krebs/infolge [lit. (due to)] eines Schlaganfalls 〈or: an einem Schlaganfall〉 sterben; Russian
says umeret´ ot [lit. (from)] raka/ot insul´ta, while in Polish, this becomes umrzeć na [lit. (on)] raka/
na wylew krwi.16 Cf. as well She died in childbirth, Germ. Sie ist bei [= (at)] der Geburt gestorben,
Rus. Ona umerla pri [= (at)] rodax, obsol. rodami [INSTR], Pol. Zmarła przy [= (at)] porodzie, Fr.
28
Elle est morte en couches; John died in a car accident or Fr. Jean est mort dans un accident de
voiture; or else die of natural causes, Rus. umeret´ estestvennoj/svoej smert´ju, lit. ([to] die [by]
natural/one’s own deathINSTR), Germ. eines natürlichen Todes sterben, lit. ([to] die a natural
death’s), Fr. mourir de mort naturelle/de sa belle mort, lit. ([to] die of natural death/of one’s
beautiful death). The choice of the preposition or the whole expression of the cause is
phraseologized and must be specified in the lexical entry of the (die)-verb. (Even more so, since
many higher or lower synonyms of [to] DIE do not readily admit the expression of the cause: *Ona
skončalas´ pri rodax/estestvennoj smert´ju (She passed away in childbirth/of natural causes), *On
okočurilsja ot insul´ta (He croaked from a stroke).) But the semantic decomposition of ([to] die)
does not require the slot for the cause of death; therefore, the following non-standard LFs can be
used:
[to] DIE
....
which is caused by Y
: of N=Y | Y = illness; giving birth, in childbirth | Y = birthing
which has no external cause : of natural causes
(the same schema is applied to other languages).17
But again as above, although the cause of death is not an obligatory participant of the
linguistic situation denoted by [to] DIE18 and does not give rise to an obligatory SemA-slot, in a
prototypical linguistic description of human dying the Cause plays an important role. It seems
preferable to make it into an optional participant/optional SemA-slot and write something like this:
(X dies (of Y)) ≡ (X ceases to be alive (which is caused by Y)), where parentheses show the
optionality of this SemA-slot.
A strong additional argument may be quoted in favor of this solution—the same as with [to]
EAT/DRINK and the food/drink container. With names of illnesses and wounds, [to] DIE is a Real1:
die of cancer, die of one’s injuries. Here the cause of death is a SemA of [to] DIE; therefore, it
must be a SemA with all other uses of DIE.
Note that, as illustrated in the examples above, the SemA (Cause) with DIE can be
phraseologically bound: die of cancer/in childbirth/of natural causes. But a phraseologically
bound expression of a SemA is a known phenomenon: cf. 3.2.3, subcase (ii), p. 00.
[to] BRAKE and the purpose of braking
Let us return to the road sign ‘Brake for moose!’ Since the phrase brake for [N] is not free (the
choice of the preposition FOR is constrained), it must be specified in the lexical entry for [to]
BRAKE. However, for [N] by no means refers to an obligatory participant of (braking). Therefore,
it must not be obligatorily reflected in the definition, i.e., does not necessarily get a SemA-slot. It
can be described by a non-standard LF:
29
[to] BRAKE
.....
: for N=Z
But it can as well be described by an optional SemA-slot:
(X brakes Y (for Z)) ≡ (X causes that vehicle Y that X is driving stops (in order to avoid a collision
in order to avoid colliding with Z
of Y with Z))
The expression for N will then be supplied in the Government Pattern (see below, 7, p. 00) of [to]
BRAKE. Thus, both descriptions are plausible; criteria allowing for a choice are offered below.
The technique of optional SemA-slots was proposed and used in Apresjan 1974: 124-125 and
Mel’čuk 1974: 127 (optional Sem-slots for the Teacher and the School in the definition of
UČIT´SJA ([to] learn). It may help make our description more elegant without losing anything.
3.3.3.
An Optional SemA-slot or a (Non-Standard) Lexical Function?
The problem with optional participants/SemA-slots is that they seem to be arbitrary: one can add
them at will, as soon as a situation of restricted lexical cooccurrence is encountered. Moreover, the
use of an optional SemA-slot is formally equivalent to the use of an LF. Therefore, criteria are
needed that would serve as a kind of formal clue for the researcher forced into a choice between
the two descriptive techniques. I can propose five such criteria.
Linguistic criteria for the choice
between an optional participant/SemA-slot and an LF
In an utterance, the phrase P is syntactically linked to (in most cases, depending on) L and
phraseologically bound by L. P can be described:
either as a value of an LF(L)—Solution I;
or as corresponding to an optional participant of SIT(L)/an optional SemA-slot of L—Solution
II.
The choice is made according to the five criteria that concern:
1) the semantic role of P with respect to L;
2) the semantic homogeneity of different possible Ps;
3) the lexical boundness of P by L;
4) the semantic boundness of P by L;
5) the existence (in language L ) of some particular LFs relating L and P.
I will take up these criteria in turn. They are formulated in such a way as to give a positive
indication for Solution II.
30
1. Semantic role of P
Prototypical Circumstantials express the semantic roles that form the hierarchy mentioned above,
3.3.2, p. 00; the ‘circumstantial character’ of a sentence element P diminishes toward the righthand end of the hierarchy, where Circumstantials blend with Actants.
Criterion 1
The closer to the right-hand end of the Circumstantial hierarchy the semantic role of P (with
respect to L) is, the more preferable is Solution II, i.e., the use of an optional SemA-slot to
describe the choice of P.
In the case of Brake for moose!, P = for moose is over the line to the right-hand side of the Circumstantial hierarchy: Solution II is preferable.
2. Semantic homogeneity of P s
Generally, an LU L can have less different Sem-actants than different Circumstantials. Semactants are also more homogeneous than Circumstantials in the following sense: a SemA
corresponds to a semantically homogeneous class of expressions that all play the same semantic
role with respect to L; a Circumstantial corresponds to a heterogeneous class of expressions that
play with respect to L rather different semantic roles. Different Circumstantials of the same type
(two Locations, two Times, two Manners, etc.) can be combined with each other, i.e., they can
cooccur as codependents of the same L without being coordinated. However, if two actants
cooccur they are of different types or else they are coordinated.
Criterion 2
The less varied, or less heterogeneous, the Ps in question are the more preferable is Solution II,
i.e., the use of an optional SemA-slot.
Thus, in case of [to] BRAKE we have just one homogeneous class of expressions (all phrases for N
play the same role in the situation of (braking)), while for PISAT´ we have many different heterogeneous Ps, which, in addition, are easily combinable: Èto slovo pišetsja s zaglavnoj bukvy slitno
čerez "o" (This word is spelled 1) using a capital letter 2) as one word 3) with an "o"). According
to Criterion 2, for N with [to] BRAKE is a SemA (an optional one), while the above Ps with PISAT´
must be described via LFs—otherwise we would have to introduce too many different SemAslots.
3. Lexical boundness of P s by L
In the prototypical case, the expressions of a SemA of L are controlled GRAMMATICALLY (= syntactically/morphologically) rather than lexically: L imposes the use of a structural word (preposition,
conjunction) that introduces P or the morphological form of P, but lexically Ps are free
expressions (except for general semantic restrictions on L’s corresponding SemA-slot).
31
Phraseologically bound Circumstantials, on the other hand, tend to be LEXICALLY constrained by L,
as we have seen in Boguslavskij 1990’s examples. Therefore, Criterion 3 can be posited:
Criterion 3
The less lexical restrictions are imposed on Ps (i.e., Ps are restricted rather grammatically than
lexically), the more preferable is Solution II (an optional SemA-slot).
For [to] BRAKE, the Goal phrase is obligatorily introduced by the preposition FOR; otherwise, P is
lexically not bound at all: [to] brake for children 〈dogs, drunken soldiers, old/young couples,
fallen trees, ...〉. But for PISAT´, with several Ps mentioned above, the choice of lexical units is
restricted: vmeste/slitno/v odno slovo (as one word) 〈*kak odno slovo, *odnim slovom〉, razdel´no
(as two words) 〈*kak dva slova, *dvumja slovami〉, etc.
We have, however, seen that the expression of a SemA can be lexically bound as well (3.2.3,
1.1, subcase (ii), p. 00); Criterion 3—like the others—is not absolute.
4. Semantic boundness of P s by L
The expression of a SemA is often constrained semantically, which means that a given SemA-slot
can be filled exclusively by elements of a particular semantic class:
—you drink a LIQUID Y (from a CONTAINER Z);
—you write an EXPRESSION/SYMBOL Y with an INSTRUMENT Z on a SURFACE W;
—you pay a PERSON/ESTABLISHMENT Z MONEY Y; etc.
The need for such a semantic constraint leads to prefer having the corresponding variable in the
definition of L, so that the suspected P is rather a SemA(L)—which can well be optional.
Criterion 4
If P is semantically constrained, then Solution II is preferable, i.e., P is to be described rather as
a SemA(L), its variable being semantically constrained in the definition of L.
Thus, with EAT/DRINK (3.3.2, p. 00), P = from N is semantically constrained: it must be a container; with DIE, P = of N is also constrained: it is an illness or another internal cause. Cf.
examples (1) - (2), 3.2.1, p. 00.
Technically, however, such semantic constraints still can be included into the corresponding
LF, so that Criterion 4 again signals no more than a preference.
5. Semantic links between P and LFs of L
Criterion 5: Presence (in the lexicographic description of L) of some special LFs
a) A name for the whole family of Ps which is an actantial noun—Si(L).
An actantial noun Si for L is a general name for the corresponding DSyntA i of L. Thus, S1 is
the general name for the DSyntA I—nomen agentis, S2 is the name for the DSyntA II—nomen
pacientis/objectis, etc.
32
If language L has a noun N such that any
Solution II is to be preferred: P
can be referred to by N and N = Si(L), then
is rather a SemAi(L).
P
Thus, in Russian one eats iz tarelki (from a plate), iz bljudca (from a saucer), etc., and drinks iz
stakana (from a glass), iz čaški (from a cup), etc. All these Ps have a common name N = POSUDA
(tableware; dishes, cups and crockery); POSUDA can be described as S3(EST´/PIT´), i.e., (what
people eat and drink from). This is a consideration in favor of treating iz tarelki, iz bljudca, etc. as
an optional participant of the linguistic situation of eating/drinking and as an optional
SemA(EST´/PIT´).
Similarly, in lovit´ rybu udočkoj na červja/na motylja, lit. ([to] catch fish [Y = II] with a rod [Z
= III] on worm/on fly [W = IV]), all baits have a special name: NAŽIVKA (bait) (just like English),
which can be described as S4(LOVIT´ [rybu]) ([to] fish). Consequently, na červja, etc. is a
SemA(LOVIT´ [rybu]). (It is an optional participant/optional SemA-slot: one can fish with a rod
without a bait.)
This criterion is again not absolute:
• In some cases, Si is not very idiomatic, so that its existence cannot be used as a weighty
argument in favor of an actantial treatment. Thus, for to die, S2(DIE) = CAUSE, which is not
idiomatic.
• Worse, in other cases Si does not exist at all. Thus, for [to] BRAKE we do not have an S2:
English has no word to denote the entity for which one brakes.
b) L is (a value of) a particular syntagmatic LF of P.
If in one of its uses L is such a value of an LF(P ) that P is a DSyntA(L) [= L−i→P and L =
LF(P)], L must have an optional SemA-slot for the whole class of Ps’ uses; therefore, Solution
II is to be preferred.
In the phrase drink from a glass, L is [to] DRINK, GLASS being P; DRINK = Labreal12(GLASS):
drink−III→glass; therefore, in its lexicographic definition, [to] DRINK must have an optional
SemA-slot for a vessel—in order to avoid discrepancy between the description of [to] DRINK in its
general use and in its use as a Labreal12 with names of vessels. Similarly:
—in sleep in a bed, [to] SLEEP = Real1(BED), so that sleep−II→bed, and [to] SLEEP must have an
optional Sem-slot for a ‘sleeping’ piece of furniture (or something with the same function, such as
a sleeping bag or a hammock);
—in die from cancer, [to] DIE = Real1(CANCER), so that die−II→cancer, and [to] DIE must have
an optional Sem-slot for a cause of death (in this case, illness).
None of the criteria (except maybe for 5b) is decisive. But the sum of their indications allows
the researcher to make an appropriate decision, i.e., to distinguish between optional participants
and circumstants of linguistic situations. Thus, suppose a semantic element (σ) expressed with L is
33
actant-like but does not correspond to an obligatory participant of the SIT(L); then we try the five
criteria on it: if they concur to single (σ) out as an optional SemA, we take (σ) to be a SemA and
the corresponding entity, an optional participant of SIT(L); otherwise, this entity is a circumstant
and we have recourse to Lexical Functions in order to describe the expression of (σ).
Now I can formulate the definitions of the optional participant of SIT(L) and that of
participant of SIT(L).
Definition 3: Optional Participant of a SIT(L)
An element Ψ of the situation denoted by L is called its optional participant if and only if its
expression in the sentence L(Ψ) satisfies most of the above five criteria (≈ is an optional SemAslot(L).
Definition 4: Participant of a SIT(L)
An element Ψ of the situation denoted by L is called its participant if and only if it is its obligatory or its optional participant.
Only semantic considerations are relevant to accepting an element Ψ of the situation SIT(L) as
its obligatory participant: the impossibility to use L if Ψ is not taken into account. For optional
participants a set of linguistic criteria is needed, both of semantic and lexico-syntactic nature; they
have been presented in Subsection 3.3.3. Informally speaking, an element of the SIT(L) is an
obligatory participant if without it L cannot be used to denote the situation; an element of the
SIT(L) is an optional participant if, although L can be used even without it, its expression is linked
to L (in the utterance) in a way that satisfies our five criteria.
With the notions of optional participant and of participant of a SIT(L), the whole machinery is
in place for a direct assault on the definitions of SemA-slot and of SemA.
3.4. Sem-Actant Slot and Sem-Actant
3.4.1 Definitions
Definition 5: Sem-Actant Slot in a Lexicographic Definition
An SemA-slot for the meaning (X) is introduced into the definition of L if and only if the
following two conditions are simultaneously satisfied:
1) (X) corresponds to a participant Ψ of SIT(L) [the semantic condition];
2) (X) is expressible in the text [the lexico-syntactic condition].
34
A SemA-slot corresponding to an obligatory participant of the SIT(L) is, naturally, an
obligatory SemA-slot; a SemA-slot corresponding to an optional participant of the SIT(L) is an
optional SemA-slot.
Definition 6: Active Semantic Valence of L (cf. Lehmann 1991: 16)
The set of all SemA-slots (obligatory+optional) of L constitutes the active semantic valence of
L.
Now the concept of Sem-Actant is easy to define:
Definition 7: Semantic Actant
An LU P is a Sem-Actant of L in utterance U if and only if, in the Semantic Structure of U , the
meaning of P, i.e. (P), fills a SemA-slot (no matter obligatory or optional) of (L).
Examples
1. The English noun STOVE. A stove is an artifact where some fuel Ψ [obligatory!] burns (to
be used for heating and/or cooking); since one can say wood/charcoal/oil stove, the meaning
(stove) has a SemA-slot for fuel: (fuel X stove).
2. The Russian noun SERDCEII (heartII) in the sense (presumed organ of feelings):
(18) a. Ona razbila emu serdce, lit. (She broke to-him [the] heart). =
(She caused him utmost LOVE PAINS).
b. Kogda on vidit takoe, ego serdce oblivaetsja krov’ju,
lit. (When he sees such things his heart is bleeding profusely). =
(Seeing such things causes him utmost PSYCHOLOGICAL PAIN).
c. Èto sogrevaet ego serdce, lit. (This warms up his heart). = (This causes him JOY).
d. Ot ètogo u nego na serdce koški skrebut,
lit. (From this, at him on [the] heart cats are-scratching). =
(This causes him utmost ANXIETY AND WORRY).
e. Kogda on uvidel Mašu, serdce u nego ušlo v pjatki,
lit. (When he saw Masha [the] heart by him went to [the] heels). =
(Seeing Masha caused him utmost FEAR).
f. Èto emu kak maslom po serdcu [pronounced /’pós´ircu/, rather than ‘regular’ /pas´ércu/],
lit. (This to-him [is] as with-butter over heart). =
(This causes him utmost PSYCHOLOGICAL PLEASURE).
An expression including SERDCEII has at least two SemA-slots: X that causes a feeling (= ona
(she), kogda on vidit (when he sees), èto (this)) and Y that experiences this feeling (= on (he)). But
what about the feeling itself? In each sentence of (18) a different feeling is expressed, and this corresponds to a different verb: RAZBIT´ ([to] break) means ([to cause] love pains), OBLIVAT´SJA KRO-
35
V´JU
([to] bleed profusely) means (psychological pains), etc. We have to conclude that this is a
third SemA: Z, the feeling involved. As a result, SERDCEII has three SemA-slots:
serdce čeloveka Y [= II], reagirujuščee na fakt/lico X [= I] čuvstvom Z [= III],
lit. (individual Y’s heartII that reacts to fact/person X by feeling Z).
True, the SemA-slot Z is expressed in a rather unusual way—by the Main Verb; this, however,
does not contradict Definition 5. Moreover, the expressions of Z are phraseologically bound by
SERDCEII: they are values of its different LFs. For instance:
SERDCEII
Z being joy, Real1
: sogrevat´ [~ Ndat=Y] ([to] warm up)
Z being love pains, Real1 : razbit´ [~ Ndat=Y]
([to] break)
Z being fear, Fact2
: ujti v pjatki [u Ngen=Y] ([to] go to heels)
This also, even if not widespread, is a known phenomenon: expression of a SemA by a
phraseologically bound expression; cf. 3.2.3, subcase (ii), p. 00.
3.4.2. Some Comments and Examples
3.4.2.1. No SemA-Slots by Analogy
LUs that are very close semantically—near-synonyms, near-antonyms, near-conversives, different
derivatives of the same lexeme—may have different Sem-valence. Consider, for instance, Russian
verbal derivation with the circumfix do-…-sja. When a verb meaning (X L-s Y) takes this
circumfix, the resulting verb do-L-sja means ([to] suffer some bad consequences Z from having
L-ed excessively), as in do+čitat´+sja [do golovnoj boli] ([to] suffer a headache from having read
excessively), do+žalovat´+sja ([to] suffer some bad consequences Z from having complained
excessively), do+boltat´+sja ([to] suffer some bad consequences Z from having chatted
excessively), etc.; the pattern is extremely productive. Interestingly, the derived verb do+L+sja in
most cases does not have all the SemA-slots of L (except for the ‘Subject’ slot): čitat´ romany
([to] read novels), but dočitat´sja *romanov, žalovat´sja roditeljam ([to] complaint to the parents),
but dožalovat´sja *roditeljam, boltat´ s sosedom ([to] chat with the neighbor), but doboltat´sja *s
sosedom, etc. The do+L+sja verb does inherit all the obligatory participants of (L), but not the
corresponding SemA-slots: they are BLOCKED by a sort of dummy, something like
(whoever/whatever it is)—a constant participant of the corresponding SIT(L). Thus, (X boltaet s Yom) ≡ (X chats with Y), but (X doboltalsja do Z-a) ≡ (X suffered some bad consequences Z of
having excessively chatted with whoever it was).
Three more examples of a similar kind (from Plungjan and Raxilina 1998):
1. Rus. UČENIK2, lit. (school student), has a SemA-slot for the school, while its very close
synonym ŠKOL´NIK (school kid) does not (because here (school) is a constant):
36
(19) (X, učenik2 Y-a) ≡ (X, child or adolescent that goes to school Y) = ((school) student)
(učeniki 276-oj školy (students of school 276))
vs.
(X, škol´nik)
≡ (X, child or adolescent that goes to school) = (schoolkid)
(*škol´niki 276-oj školy (schoolkids of school 276))
2. Rus. UČENIK1 (disciple), which is a nomen agentis of the verb UČIT´SJA ([to] study Z with
Y), does not have all the SemA-slots which the verb has (although its SIT(L) has the same
paticipants):
(20) (X učitsja u Y-a Z-u) ≡ (Person X studies Z with the person Y)
(Maša učitsja lingvistike u Apresjana (Maša studies linguistics with Apresjan))
vs.
(X, učenik1 Y-a) ≡ (X, person who studies something with person Y)
(učenik Apresjana (Apresjan’s disciple), but not učenik *lingvistiki/*po lingvistike/*v
lingvistike)19
3. A differen case is Rus. ÈMIGRANT (emigrant), a nomen agentis of the verb ÈMIGRIROVAT´
([to] emigrate) ((person X emigrates from country Y to country Z)):
(21) a. (X èmigriruet iz Y-a v Z) ≡
(X leaves X’s country Y in order to settle permanently in a country Z).
However, with the noun ÈMIGRANT, the target country Z cannot be expressed as its direct Syntdependent:
b. èmigrirovat´ v Ispaniju ([to] emigrate to Spain), but *èmigranty v Ispaniju (emigrants to
Spain), *ispanskie èmigranty (Spanish emigrants)
[the expression ispanskie èmigranty is correct, but it means (emigrants from Spain), not *(to Spain);
with ÈMIGRANT, an adjective referring to a country expresses the SemA Y].
Nevertheless, Russian has some expressions in which the name of the target country is linked
to ÈMIGRANT via an ‘admissible’ syntagmatic LF (a complex LF with Operi):
c. Kanada oxotno prinimaet èmigrantov iz Evropy,
lit. (Canada gladly receives emigrants from Europe),
where PRINIMAT´ is Perm3Oper3(ÈMIGRANT).
This is sufficient to posit a SemA-slot for the target country in the definition of ÈMIGRANT: (X,
emigrant from Y [to Z]).
The obvious conclusion—in agreement with Plungjan and Raxilina 1998—is that we should
not ascribe SemA-slots to an LU by analogy with other LUs, no matter how similar they are in
semantic or syntactic terms. In Mel’čuk 1974: 135 I gave the wrong impression that SemA-slots
could be inherited or transferred to L from L’s semantic parents. What I really meant were
participants of the situation considered: these ARE inherited, which, however, does not necessarily
37
mean the inheritance of SemA-slots. The meaning of Rus. PROMAXNUT´SJA ([to] miss [while
shooting at something]) has the same participants as STRELJAT´ ([to] shoot): the Shooter, the Target,
the Weapon, the Projectile; but it has a SemA-slot only for the Shooter: Ivan vystrelil v medvedja
iz karabina, no promaxnulsja, lit. (Ivan fired at the bear from [his] carbine, but missed) vs. Ivan
promaxnulsja *v medvedja *iz karabina, lit. (Ivan missed at the bear from [his] carbine). A
synonymous expression ne popast´ (do not hit [while shooting at something]) has these SemA-slots:
Ivan ne popal v medvedja iz karabina, lit. (Ivan did-not hit the bear from [his] carbine). Note that,
for instance, [to] MISS—the English equivalent of PROMAXNUT´SJA—has two SemA-slots, one for
the Causer [= Shooter], the other for the Undergoer [= Target]: Ivan fired, but missed the animal.
3.4.2.2. Split Variables
English says [to] comb Mary’s hair 〈*[to] comb Mary〉, while in Russian we have pričësyvat´
Mašu, lit. ([to] comb Masha), or pričësyvat´ Mašiny volosy, lit. ([to] comb Masha’s hair), or else
pričësyvat´ Maše volosy/golovu, lit. ([to] comb [the] hair/head to-Masha). This is taken care of as
follows:
Eng. (X combs Y with Z)
≡ (X arranges the hair Y on the head of a person with a comb
Z).
Russ. (X pričësyvaet Y Z-u W-om) ≡ (X arranges the hair Y1 on the head Y2 of a person Z with
a comb W).
The variables Y and Y2, which appear in the Russian definition, are split variables (3.2.2, p.
1
00): they correspond both to one SemA-slot Y and are used to show that this slot can be saturated
either by the designation of hair or by that of the head. The SemA-slot Y corresponds to two
different participants of the situation ([to] comb)—the hair and the head—but it is only one SemA,
since the expressions for hair and for head are incompatible in one sentence and there is a
contiguity, or metonymic, semantic link between (hair) and (head). (On incompatibility of the
expressions of two SemAs, see Part II, 4.4.2.) We have seen an example of split variables
before—with [to] SMOKE, p. 00; here is another one:
[to] HIT
(22) (X hits Y with Z on W) ≡ (Person X causes that X’s body part Z1 or an object Z2 that X is
holding in X’s hand comes in a violent contact with the body part W of a being
Y)
(John hit the horse on the back with his fist/with a stick).20
38
3.4.2.3. Numbering of SemA-slots
The SemA-slots(L) are numbered as follows: The number i of the given SemA-slot(L) Ai is
determined by the predicate meaning (inside (L)) of which Ai is a SemA. Thus, for [to] HIT, X hits
Y, X is a SemA of (cause), i.e., a Causer: (X causes that X’s body part or an object ...). Similarly,
for [to] LOVE, X loves Y, X is a SemA of (experience), i.e., an Experiencer: (X experiences a
feeling caused by Y...); etc. The number 1 is attributed to the SemAs bearing the following
semantic roles (the list is far from exhaustive):
the Causer
: (John)←1−(hit) 2→(Mary) (John hits Mary)
the Experiencer
: (John)←1−(love) 2→(Mary) (John loves Mary)
the Localized
: (John)←1−(be2) 2→(Paris) (John is in Paris)
the Characterized : (John)←1−(weighs) 2→(70 kilos) (John weighs 70 kilos; John’s weight
is 70 kilos)
: (John)←1−(is.handsome)(John is handsome)
the Moving (Body) : (John)←1−(goes to)−2→(Paris) (John goes to Paris)
the Essant21
: (John)←1−(be1) 2→(boy) (John is a boy)
the Comparand
: (John)←1−(taller) 2→(Mary) (John is taller than Mary)
the Whole
: (John)←1−(head) (John’s head; the roof of the house)
the Possessor
: (John)←1−(own)−−− 2→(car) (John owns a car)
Other SemA-slots of the same L are numbered consecutively (without ‘holes’), based on the same
type of conventions. The counterparts of the semantic roles considered—i.e., the Undergoer (of a
causation), the Object of Experience, the Location, etc. are SemAs 2. The SemA that ‘follows’ the
SemA 2 is given the number 3; etc. (Thus, in John tells Mary the story, (John) as the Causer is the
SemA 1, (story) as the Undergoer is 2, and (Mary) as the Addressee is 3.)
Remarks
1. For a discussion of the Sem-roles, their ordering and fine-grained meaning analysis, see, e.g.,
Wechsler 1995: 9ff. For the present approach, these problems are rather marginal.
2. Names of Sem-roles are introduced here exclusively for the ease of presentation. They do not
appear in utterance representations and are never used in formal reasoning; these names are no
more than pedagogically convenient abbreviations.
3.4.2.4. Three Case Studies
To illustrate the decision-making process with respect to SemA-slots, here are three cases
where the SemA status of a sentence element is not obvious (examples have been proposed by E.
Raxilina; the ‘suspicious’ sentence element is boldfaced). Let me emphasize that in these cases,
the key to the solution is a sharper distinction of lexicographic senses: a phrase P whose actantial
39
status is dubious with respect to an ‘untreated’ lexical item turns out to be a SemA, and often an
obligatory one, as soon as we properly distinguish the lexical units.
Case 1: Rus. LOVIT´ ([to] catch) and BROSIT´SJA ([to] throw oneself)
(23) Rus. lovit´ [rybu] na červja/na motylja [= P] ([to] fish with worms/with grubs).
P
The treatment of P in (23) via a non-standard LF is of course possible. But here the expression
seems to be a Sem-actant even more than a container with (eat)/(drink):
—semantically, P does not fit at all into the picture of Circumstantials: Criterion 1;
—the Ps are homogeneous and are not lexically bound (na muxu (with a fly), na strekoz (with
dragon flies), na kusoček kolbasy (with a piece of sausage)): Criteria 2 and 3;
—P is not semantically constrained in the definition of LOVIT´, so that Criterion 4 gives us no
indication;
—as I said above, Russian has a name for all possible baits: NAŽIVKA (Criterion 5a); and lovit´ is
Labreal12(NAŽIVKA) (Criterion 5b).
All criteria that apply provide converging positive indications—the bait must have a SemA-slot:
(X lovit rybu Y Z-om (na W)) ≡ (X is trying to catch fish Y with a tool Z (with bait W)).
Since Bait is not obligatory in the situation of fishing, this is an optional participant/an optional
SemA-slot.
The type of description proposed presupposes a fine sense discrimination—that is, a very detailed analysis of each lexical item into separate lexemes. Thus, LOVIT´ in lovit´ rybu ([to] fish)
must have a separate lexicographic entry. Among other things, this LOVIT´ has some derivatives
that other verbs LOVIT´ do not have, and vice versa: thus, Russian has rybnaja lovlja, rybalka (fishcatching) (= S0(lovit´ rybu), rybolov (man actually engaged in fishing), rybak (fisherman), etc., but
no
*nasekomaja/*babočkovaja
lovlja
(insect-catching,
butterfly-catching),
*nasekomolov/*babočkolov (insect-catcher, butterfly-catcher); lovlja nasekomyx/baboček
(insect/butterfly catching) is fine and neutral, but *lovlja ryb (fish-catching) does not exist, while
lovlja ryby refers to a regular, professional occupation.
Similarly, consider Rus. brosit´sja pod poezd 〈pod mašinu〉, lit. ([to] throw oneself under [a]
train/[a] car [as a way of suicide]); German, for instance, says it differently: sich vor einen Zug 〈vor
ein Auto〉 werfen, lit. ([to] throw oneself in-front-of a train/a car). Do Rus. BROSIT´SJA and Germ.
have a SemA-slot for a moving vehicle or would it be better to introduce a nonstandard LF for these verbs? Criteria 1-4 are in favor of Solution II (a SemA-slot): here Ps are not
typical Circumstantials, they are semantically homogeneous, not lexically bound and semantically
constrained ((a moving vehicle)); Criterion 5 does not give positive indications: Russian and
SICH WERFEN
German do not have a special name for the vehicle used as a tool of suicide; and obviously the
verbs in question are not LFs of the vehicle names. But since most criteria suggest a SemA-slot,
40
we conclude that the phrase Rus. POD Nacc/Germ. VOR Nacc is a SemA of the respective verb.
This conclusion is justified: in all probability, the LU in question is a special sense of the verb
under analysis, i.e., a separate lexeme with the meaning (X throws himself under moving vehicle
Y with the goal of committing suicide), where the name of the vehicle Y is even an obligatory
SemA-slot. With, for instance, brosit´sja s balkona/s mosta, lit. ([to] throw oneself from [a]
balcony/[a] bridge) [also in order to commit suicide], the preposition s is not selected as a function of
the verb: prygnut´ s balkona/s mosta ([to] jump from [a] balcony/[a] bridge). On the other hand,
one can brosit´sja s balkona/s mosta v vodu without any intention to commit suicide. However,
vybrosit´sja iz okna, lit. ([to] throw oneself from [a] window) can mean only an attempt at a
suicide; here iz okna is also a SemA of this particular sense of VYBROSIT´SJA.
Case 2: Rus. OŠIBAT´SJA ([to] make a mistake)
The Russian verb OŠIBAT´SJA ([to] err) = ([to] make a mistake) can be used without any dependent:
Ja ošibsja (I made a mistake), On ošibaetsja (He is wrong); this is quite a typical use. On the other
hand, it admits three types of Synt-dependents which refer to the domain/the entity with respect to
which the mistake was made:
(24) a. On ošibsja v nej [= P], lit. (He erred in her). = (He was wrong in his opinion of her),
but not *v Moskve ([He was wrong in his opinion] of Moscow).
b. On ošibsja v rasčëtax 〈vyčislenijax, vykladkax, diagnoze〉 [= P],
lit. (He erred in [his] calculations 〈diagnosis〉),
but not *v doroge (in [his] road), *vo mnenii (in [his] opinion), *v rešenii (in [his] solution).
c. On ošibsja dver´ju 〈adresom, nomerom [telefona]〉 [= P],
lit. (He erred by door [INSTR] 〈by address, by phone number〉). =
(He entered/knocked on a wrong door 〈used a wrong address, dialed a wrong number〉),
but not *povorotom ([took] a wrong turn), *mneniem ([shared] a wrong opinion).
On the one hand, these Ps are semantically constrained, on the other, they look rather
heterogeneous; what are they with respect to the verb? I think they are SemAs, but of three
different lexemes of the verb OŠIBAT´SJA. The semantically constrained character of Ps does not
interfere with their Sem-Actant status; on the contrary, according to Criterion 4 it is a positive
indication. And if OŠIBAT´SJA is split into three lexemes, they cease to be heterogeneous! More
specifically:
• OŠIBAT´SJA1 is semantically related to NAPRASNO, lit. (to be wrong in ...):
d. On ošibsja v nej ≈ On naprasno dumal o nej tak, kak on dumal, lit. (He was wrong in
thinking of her so).
• OŠIBAT´SJA2a has a S0 = OŠIBKA1, with Oper1 = DOPUSTIT´, so that OŠIBAT´SJA2a ≡
DOPUSKAT´ OŠIBKU1:
e. On dopustil ošibku v rasčëtax 〈vyčislenijax, vykladkax, diagnoze〉,
41
lit.
(He admitted a mistake in [his] calculations 〈diagnosis〉).
• OŠIBAT´SJA2b has no such paraphrase, but admits another one, with PO OŠIBKE (by mistake):
f. On vošël v ètu dver´ po ošibke, lit. (He entered this door by mistake);
On nabral ètot nomer po ošibke, lit. (He dialed this number by mistake).
Russian has another noun OŠIBKA—OŠIBKA2, also meaning (mistake), with Oper1 =
SOVERŠIT´;
for this OŠIBKA2 there is no verb (OŠIBAT´SJA cannot be used in the corresponding
contexts):
g. Pojdja tuda, ja soveršil ošibku (Going there I made a mistake),
but not Pojdja tuda, ja *ošibsja.
OŠIBKA2 also has two SemA-slots, and the SemA Y is expressed in (24g) by a deepričastie phrase.
Another expression of this SemA-slot is by an infinitive via the LF Oper1(OŠIBKA2) = BYT´ ([to]
be):
h. Pojti tuda bylo ošibkoj (To go there was [a] mistake).
For all three verbs OŠIBAT´SJA, the Domain of mistake is an obligatory participant, so that here
the Ps in question are SemAs beyond any doubt. (The above semantic analysis of OŠIBAT´SJA follows the main lines of Apresjan 2000b.)
Case 3: Rus. PET´ ([to] sing) (Plungjan and Raxilina 1998: 117)
The Russian verb PET´ ([to] sing) can be used in the following way:
(25) On pel dlja škol´nikov 〈dlja pensionerov, dlja ranenyx soldat〉 [= P]
(He sang for schoolkids 〈retired people, wounded soldiers〉).
Does the phrase meaning (for Z) correspond to a SemA-slot of PET´? In my opinion, it does, but
again, only with a special sense (= lexeme) of PET´: (person X sings musical piece Y for the
benefit of public Z). (Here the SemA-slot Z is obligatory.) Similar polysemy is observed with the
verbs TANCEVAT´ ([to] dance) and IGRAT´ ([to] play music); all these verbs have an additional
sense (... performing for Z). Note that čitat´ stixi ([to] recite poetry), žonglirovat´ ([to] juggle),
pokazyvat´ fokusy ([to] do conjuring tricks) and vystupat´ ([to] perform) also have the (obligatory)
SemA-slot (public Z), which is realized in a different way: čitat´ stixi and pokazyvat´ fokusy take
an Indirect Object Ndat, while žonglirovat´ and vystupat´ govern the prepositional phrase PERED
(before) + N (*DLJA (for) + N). All criteria of Sem-actanthood supply positive indications:
—the semantic role of P (= Addressee) is not typical for Circumstantials;
—P s in (25) are very homogeneous and lexically not bound;
—they must be semantically characterized in the definition of the verb as a possible audience;
—there are a special S0 = VYSTUPLENIE ≈ (performance) and a special S3: PUBLIKA (public),
SLUŠATELI (listeners)/ZRITELI
(spectators);
—and the generic verb for this family—VYSTUPAT´ [pered N] ([to] perform [for N])—is a
Real1(PUBLIKA, SLUŠATELI, ZRITELI).22
42
3.5. Diathesis of the Lexical Unit L: SemA-slots(L) ⇔ DSyntA-slots(L)
Our next step must be an examination of the correspondence between Semantic (= Sem-) and
Deep-Syntactic (= DSynt-)actant slots of the same LU L, that is, of L’s diathesis.
Definition 8: Diathesis
The correspondence between the SemA-slots(L) and DSyntA-slots(L), i.e.,
SemA-slots(L) ⇔ DSyntA-slots(L),
is called the diathesis of L.
This formulation covers of course also the cases where either a SemA-slot(L) does not correspond
to a DSyntA-slot(L), see 3.7, p. 00, or a DSyntA-slot(L) does not correspond to any SemA-slot(L),
see 6.2, p. 00. Note that even when a SemA-slot corresponds to a DSyntA-slot, the latter can be
blocked, i.e., its saturation by an expression on the surface may be impossible (under particular
conditions); yet this DSyntA-slot is present in the diathesis as such. Formally, the diathesis of an
LU L is described by L’s Government Pattern [= GP(L)]; for a detailed discussion of the notion
of GP, see 7, p. 00. (See Padučeva 1997, 1998, 2002 for a similar, but different concept of
diathesis. The major difference is that Padučeva includes in the notion of diathesis a third
correspondence, namely that with communicative ranks of the elements in question. I completely
agree that the diathesis—even in my narrower sense—is intimately and essentially related to the
communicative structure of the utterance, but I am not sure that these links should be part of the
diathesis itself. For the time being, I prefer a poorer, i.e., simpler, notion of diathesis supplied—so
to speak, on the outside—with communicative specifications.)
The association between SemA-slots and DSyntA-slots of an LU can, at least partially, be
subject to some general regularities concerning the link between the semantic role of a given
SemA and the type of the DSyntA that expresses it: in language L , with a verb of such and such a
type, the Actor corresponds to the DSyntA I, the Experiencer to the DSyntA II, etc. Then the
following question can be asked:
To what DSyntA-slots(L) can a SemA-slots(L) with a given semantic role correspond in principle?23
This relationship is known as linking, or alignment (see, e.g., Davis and Koenig 2000). Although
the linking is not one of the goals in this paper, I will allow myself three remarks.
• The regularities controlling the linking of SemA-slots to DSyntA-slots of L include the
following:
In English, the SemA-slot ‘Experiencer’ of a verb V cannot be expressed by the DSyntA II of
the corresponding present participle Vpart.pres in a N+Vpart.pres compound (Grimshaw 1990: 1516).
This claim can be illustrated by the contrast in (26):
43
(26) *man-frightening god vs. man-hating god
*parent-satisfying fun vs. fun-adoring parents.
In MAN←II FRIGHTEN, (man) is the Experiencer of (fright), and the N+Vpart.pres compound is impossible; in MAN←II HATE, (man) is the Object/Source of (hate), and the compound is fine. The
SemA ‘Patient’ or ‘Perceived’ can also be expressed by a DSyntA II in N+Vpart.pres compounds:
man-eating tigers, gift-bringing visitors, bird-watching tourists, etc.
• Generally speaking, SemA-to-DSyntA linking is far from regular: a lexeme can have two
different diatheses, that is, two types of linking; cf. well-known examples:
(27) supply food [= II] to the peasants [= III] ~ supply peasants [= II] with food [= III]
load hay
[= II] on the truck
[= III] ~ load the truck [= II] with hay [= III]
spray paint [= II] on the wall
[= III] ~ spray the wall [= II] with paint [= III]
Here the same SemA-slots correspond to different DSyntA-slots. (Formally, either such a lexeme
has two different GPs or there are two different, but semantically very close lexemes.)
Numerous facts of this nature make it impossible to describe linking by general rules; the GP,
where linking for the headword L is specified by direct listing is a necessity.
• The linking characteristic of L, i.e., L’s diathesis, can be changed by inflection/derivation
applied to L. Two cases have to be distinguished:
—Linking is changed without changing the semantic valence of L; in other words, no
SemA-slots are added to or subtracted from L, so that we have a ‘pure’ diathesis modification. The
best known diathesis-modifying inflectional category is voice (see Mel’čuk 1997b).
—Linking is changed together with changing the semantic valence of L: SemA-slots are
added or subtracted. The most common morphological categories that involve the modification of
the Sem-valence of L are:
1) Adding SemA-slots to L: Causative, Applicative, and Possessedness;
2) Subtracting SemA-slots from L: Decausative.
For more details, see below, 3.8, p. 00.
3.6. Obligatory/Optional Saturation of SemA-slots
The obligatory/optional character of the saturation, or EXPRESSION, of a SemA-slot by a DSyntA
has been widely discussed (cf., for instance, Mosel 1991: 244-250, Helbig 1992 103ff). Obligatory
expression is even commonly taken as a defining property of Actants in their opposition to
Circumstantials (= non-actants). However, most discussions do not state explicitly exactly what
kinds of actant slots/actants are in question. In this paper, the statement ‘expression of ... is 〈is not〉
obligatory’ concerns only SemA-slots: for each SemA-slot it must be indicated whether its
expression by a DSyntA is obligatory or it can remain verbally unsaturated, perhaps under specific
conditions.24 (There is no need to characterize DSyntA-slots from this viewpoint: if a DSyntA-slot
44
is obligatorily expressed, this simply means that the corresponding SemA-slot is obligatorily
expressed.) Thus, a SemA-slot can be:
—obligatorily expressible,
—optionally expressible,
—not expressible at all, i.e., blocked (under particular circumstances, see below).
The following six clarifications are in order:
1. The optionality of a SemA-slot AS SUCH—the optionality of its PRESENCE in the definition of L,
or its semantic optionality—must be carefully distinguished from the optionality of its
EXPRESSION, or its syntactic optionality:
—a SemA-slot Ai of L is OPTIONAL if it corresponds to an optional participant of SIT(L);
—a SemA-slot Ai of L is OPTIONALLY EXPRESSIBLE if the corresponding DSyntAi can be absent
from (the DSynt-Structure of) the sentence.
For instance, the SemA-slots for Instrument, Surface and Language are obligatory with the
verb [to] WRITE (Dick writes a letter with a fountain pen on a small piece of paper in Japanese),
because they correspond to the obligatory participants of the linguistic situation (write); however,
they are optionally expressible: the sentence Dick wrote me a letter is grammatically perfect,
although it does not say with what, on what and in what language Dick wrote.
2. Optionality of a Synt-element in a sentence is orthogonal to the actantial status of this
element: any element, whether or not it is an Actant, can be optional or obligatory
(‘omissible/non-omissible,’ in the current parlance).
Firstly, not only SemAs, but also some obvious modifiers can be obligatory in particular constructions (obligatory Circumstantials/Modifiers are boldfaced):
(28) a. Fr. On lui a fait des funérailles magnifiques 〈luxueuses〉
(He was given a magnificent 〈luxurious〉 funeral).
vs.
*On lui a fait des funérailles le 1 avril 〈à Paris〉
(He was given a funeral on April 1st 〈in Paris〉).
b. Rus. ženščina redkogo uma (woman of rare intelligence)
vs.
*ženščina uma (woman of intelligence)
c. Rus. Nad polem 〈Nad izboj〉 klubilsja dym
(Smoke curled over the field 〈over the house〉).
vs.
*Včera 〈Kol´cami〉 klubilsja dym (Smoke curled yesterday 〈in rings〉).
Secondly, a sentence element can be obligatory for purely communicative reasons, and not
because it is syntactically obligatory:
45
(29) a. John was born in France/on October 19 〈with all his family present, into a wealthy family〉.
vs.
b. #John was born.
The expression (29b) is linguistically fine: After so many worries and troubles, finally John was
born; it can be unacceptable pragmatically—because it is not clear what exactly it communicates.
(Cf. Goldberg and Ackerman 2001 for a detailed analysis of numerous cases where syntactic
Circumstantials are communicatively obligatory.)
Therefore, the obligatoriness of a sentence element cannot serve as a criterion for determining
whether it is an actant or not.
Obligatoriness of an actantial expression is explicitly indicated in the GP(L).
3. It is sometimes said that SemA-slots of nouns are never obligatorily expressed. This is,
however, false (as noted, e.g., in Helbig 1992: 116):
(30) German
a. Durch die totale Beherrschung der Presse war er sehr mächtig
(Thanks to complete mastery over the press he was very powerful).
b. Durch die Berücksichtigung dieses Tatbestandes hat er Erfolg gehabt
(Thanks to consideration of the facts he was successful).
Without the boldfaced adnominal complements, sentences (30a-b) are ungrammatical, and this is
not for communicative reasons: even if the preceding text makes it quite clear what is meant, these
complements cannot be omitted.
4. The words ‘is obligatorily/optionally expressed’ must be understood cum grano salis. Thus,
we have to distinguish different types of optional expression:
—The presence of P is optional if the preceding context specifies P completely; this is contextually-bound optionality (Mosel 1991: 246). Thus, Rus. REŠIT´SJA ([to] decide [on N], dare, make
up [one’s] mind) requires the expression of the SemA 2, but in an appropriate context, the SemA 2
can remain unexpressed:
(31) a. *Ivan rešaetsja/rešilsja (Ivan is deciding/has decided on something).
vs.
b. Ivan kolebletjsa: on vsë rešaetsja (Ivan is hesitating: he is still making up his mind).
c. Ivan bojalsja prygnut´ v vodu. Nakonec, on rešilsja
(Ivan was afraid to jump into water. Finally, he made up his mind).25
What we see in (31c) is a syntactic ellipsis. Note that syntactic ellipses can be (nearly) obligatory:
thus, on the surface (in the sentence and not in its SSyntS), in many languages the subject of the
imperative is deleted; in Pro-Drop languages, subject pronouns are deleted under neutral
communicative conditions; common actants of conjoined verbs are factored out (John shaves,
washes and eats his breakfast; John reads novels, newspapers and publicity magazines); etc.
46
—The presence of an obligatory P along with a verb L can become optional if L is in the
infinitive (To kill is easy for him, while *He kills/*He is killing).
5. The optionality of a Synt-actant of L depends on the language, L itself and the type of actant.
Thus, in English, the DSyntA I of the Main Verb cannot be omitted under normal conditions; in
Tolai, the DSyntA II of a transitive verb cannot be omitted without detransitivizing the verb:
(32) Tolai (Melanesian; Mosel 1991)
a. A vavina
i
kita
ra bul
(The woman hit the child).
the woman
vs. A vavina
the woman
vs. *A vavina
b. A vavina
the woman
vs. A vavina
the woman
vs. *A vavina
3SG
hit
the child
i
kikita
3SG
hit.DETRANS
i
i
kita
mom+e
The woman hit).
ra tava (The woman drank the water).
3SG
drink TRANS
the water
i
mom+o
3SG
drink
i
mome
(The woman hit).
(The woman drank).
DETRANS
(The woman drank).
6. Another important distinction to be drawn between different SemA-slots of L was indicated
by J. Panevová (1994: 228-231): independently of its optional/obligatory expressibility, an
obligatory SemA-slot can be indispensable or non-indispensable. If someone said Rus. Petja
uexal (Pete left), he is not obliged to specify from where, to where or by what means of
transportation: the sentence Petja uexal is absolutely complete both semantically and syntactically.
However, if we ask the speaker 1) (From where did Pete leave?), 2) (To where did Pete leave?) and
3) (By what means of transportation did Pete leave?), he can answer (I do not know) only to
questions 2 and 3; he cannot answer that he does not know from where Pete left! The SemA-slot
for Starting Point is not only semantically obligatory, it is also communicatively indispensable
(the SemA-slots Endpoint and Transportation Means are semantically obligatory, too, but they are
communicatively non-indispensable). Similarly, in Pete paid 5 dollars, under normal
circumstances the speaker cannot easily answer (I don’t know) if asked (For what?); he is free,
however, not to know to whom Pete paid (Padučeva 1998: 94). This means that an indispensable
SemA-slot must be necessarily saturated in a well-formed Sem-Structure.
3.7. Blocking of SemA-slots
Even an obligatory SemA-slot(L), which is in principle expressible (Definition 2, 3.2.3, p. 00),
may be non-expressible by a direct syntactic dependent of L—either never or in particular
contexts; in such a case, we speak of blocking this SemA-slot. Blocking of SemA-slots can be
47
systematic, i.e., concerning easily definable sets of LUs, or individual, i.e., concerning specific
LUs.
3.7.1.
Systematic Blocking of SemA-slots
A SemA-slot can be systematically blocked in three major cases: cases 1 and 2 concern the
lexicon (the blocking happens for some parts of speech and for some nominal quasi-predicates),
and case 3 is grammatical (the blocking is performed by a grammatical meaning—inflectional or
derivational —that reduces the acitve syntactic valence of L without affecting its semantic
valence). As far as the character of blocking is concerned, cases 1 and 3 represent absolute
blocking: DSyntA I becomes impossible; case 2 covers relative blocking: DSyntA-slot I exists,
but cannot be expressed by a direct dependent of L (it can be expressed only indirectly—via an
LF, etc.).
1. Parts of speech without DSyntA-slot I: inherent modifiers
Lexical units of certain syntactic classes do not have the DSyntA-slot I at all; their SemA-slot X
(1), which would correspond to the DSyntA-slot I, is automatically blocked. This happens, first of
all, with adjectives. What is the SemA X of an adjective becomes, in the DSynt-structure, its
DSynt-governor (see above, 3.2.3, Item 1.2, p. 00):
Sem-representation
DSynt-representation
(red)−1→(ball)
corresponds to
RED ←ATTR−BALL
This inversion of semantic vs. syntactic dependency is the definitorial feature of the Adjective (see
Beck 2002):
Prototypically, an adjective is a semantically monovalent lexeme (= it has one SemA-slot) such
that its Sem-dependent is necessarily its Synt-governor.26
The parts of speech Adverb, Preposition and Conjunction possess the same definitorial
property. Namely, the LU that expresses the SemA X (1) of an adverb, a preposition or a
conjunction becomes, in the Synt-structure, its Synt-governor:
Sem-representation
DSynt-representation
[(Alan)←1−](sleep)←1−(soundly)
corresponds to
SOUNDLY←ATTR−SLEEP[−I→ALAN]
(lady)←1−(with)[−2→(dog)]
corresponds to
LADY−ATTR →WITH[ −II→DOG]
(we sleep)←1−(when)[−2 →(he came)] corresponds to WE SLEEP−ATTR→WHEN−II→[COME HE]
Prepositions and Conjunctions are of course prototypically bi-valent (rarely, tri-valent).
For all LUs of these parts of speech, the SemA-slot X of L does not correspond to any
DSyntA. Therefore, both the SemA-slot X and the DSyntA-slot I should not appear in the GP.
Thus, the GPs of EQUAL, WITH and WHEN are as follows (for a systematic characterization of GP,
see Section 7, Part II, p. 00ff):
48
EQUAL
WITH
WHEN
Y = II
Y = II
Y = II
1. to N
1. N
1. CLAUSE
2. Relational nominal quasi-predicates
A relational noun Nrel—such as FATHER (X is the father of Y) or BOSS (X is the boss of Y)—cannot
have its SemA-slot X (i.e., the Essant X) expressed as Nrel’s syntactic dependent; this SemA is
‘incorporated’ into the meaning of Nrel. However, the SemA-slot X of Nrel can be expressed
elsewhere in the sentence, although not as Nrel’s dependent; cf., e.g., the post of finance minister
occupied by John, where the SemA X (1) of MINISTER, namely, JOHN, is syntactically related to
MINISTER via the LUs POST and OCCUPY. Because of that, for such nouns—contrary to the
situation of the inherently modifying parts of speech—the SemA-slot X does correspond to the
DSyntA-slot I (X = I), and this fact must be indicated in their lexicographic description with the
indication of blocking; cf. the GP of FATHER:
FATHER
X=I
——
Y = II
1. of N
2. N’s
3. Syntactic-valence decreasing grammemes
The best known grammatical means to block an obligatory SemA-slot is a suppressive: a grammatical voice that marks the blocking of a particular SemA-slot of L. Namely, the Subjectless
Suppressive blocks the SemA-slot X (1), and the Objectless Suppressive, the SemA-slot Y (2).
Subjectless Suppressive
(32) a. Pol. Zbudowa+no
szkol+ę,
lit. (Finished-building [a] school).
build
b. Est. Ehita+ta
SBJ-LESS.SUPPR
+kse
build SBJ-LESS.SUPPR PRES
school SG.ACC
sild +a,
lit.
(Be-building [a] bridge).
bridge SG.PART(itive)
In both constructions, the noun is an obvious DirO; there is no SSynt-subject—even no dummy
zero subject, since the verb shows no agreement, and no expression of Agent is possible.
Therefore, here the DSyntA I is blocked absolutely. For instance, the GP of the Subjectless
Suppressive form of a Polish transitive verb looks as follows:
Y = II
Nacc
The SemA-slot X is not indicated in this GP, since X can never correspond to a DSyntA.
49
Objectless suppressive
(33) Apapantilla Totonac [/V0/ stands for a laryngealized vowel; ´ denotes stress]
(He buys bread).
~ tamāwa+ná0n (He is engaged in buying (things)).
tamāwá pancín
(He washes cloths).
~ če0qē0 +ní0n (He is engaged in washing (things)).
če0qē0;
lú0šu0
a0qšoqó kin+tā0tín (He deceives my brother). ~ a0qšoqo +nú0n (He is engaged in deceiving (preople)).
In the left-hand sentence of these pairs, the DirO is obligatory; if it is not physically present,
the verbal form means (buys it), (washes it), (deceives him/her), and the DirO must be clear from
the context. In the right-hand sentence of these pairs no expression of the Patient is possible.
A similar phenomenon is found in Nahuatl. Here, a relational noun of a particular kind (e.g., a
kinship term) has a SemA-slot for the Possessor; therefore, e.g., TA/ (father of Y) cannot be used
without a person/number Possessor prefix, like no+ta/ (my father); the form *ta/ is
ungrammatical. If you want to speak of fathers in general or of any father, i.e., without specifying
whose father he is, you have to block the expression of Possessor’s SemA-slot by the
derelativizing prefix te- and use the form te+ta/. The prefix te- produces the meaning (father of no
matter whom); this is a case of syntactic valence decreasing operation, which is functionally
parallel to the suppressive voice.
3.7.2.
Individual Blocking of SemA-slots
We have already seen some examples of LUs which have one or more of their SemA-slots
blocked; in all cases this is relative blocking. I simply give here the corresponding GPs.
WIDOWER
Rus. ÈMIGRANT (emigrant)
(see 3.2.3, Item 2, p. 00)
(see 3.4.2.1, Item 3, p. 00)
X=I
Y = II
X=I
———
———
———
Y = II
1. iz (from) N
Z = III
———
2. A
3.8. Changing the Number of SemA-slots of L = Changing L’s Semantic Valence
Most languages have grammatical techniques that change the number of SemA-slots of an LU L,
i.e., its Sem-valence (of course, modifying L’s propositional meaning at the same time). The result
can be a different LU L1 regularly related to L (derivation) or a different form of the same L
(inflection); this difference is, however, irrelevant in the present context. Formally, changing the
Sem-valence can induce either increasing it, that is, adding SemA-slots (cf. ‘slot addition’ in
Lehmann 1991: 22), or decreasing it, that is, subtracting SemA-slots.
50
3.8.1.
Semantic-Valence Increasing Grammemes/Derivatemes
The three most common Sem-valence increasing grammemes/derivatemes correspond to the
grammatical meanings known as Causative, Applicative, and Possessedness; all the three add a
SemA-slot to the lexeme in question.
Causative: (X V-s (Y)) ⇒ (Z causes that X V-s (Y))
(34) Swahili [Roman numbers indicate nominal classes]
a. Juma
a+li +i +let +a
kahawa
I.Juma
I
PAST IX bring
IND
IX.coffee
(Juma brought the coffee).
vs.
b. Fatuma
I.Fatuma
a+li
I
+m+let +esh
PAST I
+a
bring CAUS IND
Juma
kahawa
I.Juma
IX.coffee
(Fatuma made Juma bring the coffee).
The transitive verb in Swahili agrees in nominal class with its Subject and with a definite
DirO: in (34a), with (coffee), in (34b), with (Juma) (in (34b), KAHAWA is an Oblique Object).
Applicative: (X V-s (Y)) ⇒ (X V-s (Y) involving Z)
(35) Swahili
a. Juma
I.Juma
a+li
+i +let +a
I PAST IX bring IND
kahawa
IX.coffee
(Juma brought the coffee).
vs.
Juma
a+li
I.Juma
I
+m+let
PAST I
+e
+a
bring APPL
Fatuma
kahawa
IND I.Fatuma
IX.coffee
(Juma brought the coffee for Fatuma) [lit. (...supplied Fatuma with coffee)]
b. (i) Juma
a+li +li+pat+a
gari
(Juma got the car).
I.Juma
(ii) Juma
I.Juma
vs.
c. (i) Juma
I.Juma
I
PAST V get
a+li
I
+m+pat+a
PAST I
a+li
I
IND V.car
get
V
(Juma got the driver).
IND I.driver
+li+pat+i
PAST
dereva
+a
get APPL IND
gari
dereva
V.car
I.driver
(Juma got a driver for the car) [≈ (... supplied the car with driver)].
(ii) Juma
I.Juma
a+li
I
+m+pat+i
PAST I
+a
get APPL IND
dereva gari
I.driver
V.car
(Juma got a car for the driver) [≈ (... supplied the driver with car)].
51
Possessedness: (X) ⇒ (X belonging to Y)
In Nahuatl, only a relational noun, which has a SemA-slot for the Possessor in its definition, can
accept a number/person prefix expressing the Possessor (cf. 3.7.1 above); a non-relational noun
must first be declined for possessedness (-uh) and thus be made relational, after which it also can
have a number/person prefix:
(36) Nahuatl (my father) no +ta/ 〈*no+ta/+uh〉 vs. (my dog) no +čiči+uh 〈*no +čiči〉
1SG father
3.8.2.
1SG dog POSSESS
Semantic-Valence Decreasing Operations
The most widespread derivateme that eliminates a Sem-component together with the
corresponding SemA-slot is the Decausative: (X causes that Y V-s ...) ⇒ (Y V-s ...).
(37) Russian
([to] bend [transitive]) gnut´ ~ ([to] bend [intransitive]) gnut´ +sja
([to] break [transitive]) lomat´ ~ ([to] break [intransitive]) lomat´+sja
([to] roll [transitive]) katit´ ~ ([to] roll [intransitive]) katit´ +sja
Decausatives are thus opposed to suppressives (mentioned in 3.7.1, p. 00). A suppressive
decreases the syntactic valence of the lexeme L, blocking the expression of a particular SemAslot, but does not affect L’s Sem-valence: with a suppressive, the concerned SemA-slot as such
remains; however, with the decausative, it disappears.
N
otes
* The present paper has grown out of reflections instigated by the articles Boguslavskij 1990 and Plungjan & Raxilina
1990, as well as my own lexicographic and syntactic research; for many years I have been pondering the notion of
actant as it is used in Meaning-Text theory. In this process, a special role has been played by E. Raxilina: she has been
regularly prodding and pressing me into working on this fascinating problem; moreover, she has been asking pointed
and sometimes embarrassing questions, citing difficult examples, initiating important discussions whose results have
lead me to a much better understanding of what I wanted. It is not an exaggeration to say that without Raxilina this
paper would not be written. In addition, many of the crucial examples I have used in the paper come from her.
The ideas underlying my presentation owe a lot to A. Zholkovsky, with whom the first sketch of the theory of
actants was first developed almost 40 years ago, and of course to Ju. Apresjan (1974: 119ff).
52
The text of the paper was read and commented upon by I. Boguslavskij, L. Iomdin, L. Iordanskaja (repeatedly),
S. Kahane, A. Polguère, E. Raxilina, L. Wanner, and D. Weiss; their remarks and suggestions lead to many serious
changes and helped me to produce a better presentation. The prefinal version underwent the scrutiny of M. Alonso
Ramos, D. Beck, J. Milićević and E. Savvina; the final text was reread once again by L. Iordanskaja, and then by T.
Korelsky. I am happy to thank all these people for their constructive criticisms and excellent advice.
Serious progress with this paper was made thanks to my stay (in 2000) at the Max-Planck-Institute in Leipzig,
where I had been invited and received by Professor B. Comrie.
My research has been supported by CHRC grants 410-1997-1076 and R0009247.
Address for correspondence: Dept. of linguistics and translation, University of Montreal, P.O. Box 6128 Centreville, Montreal, H3C 3J7, Canada; fax: 1+514+343-2284; e-mail: [email protected]
1
. (1, p. 00) The term valence as applied to description of language seems to have originated with Charles Hockett
(1958: 248ff).—In European tradition, the British English form valency is more current.
2
. (2, p. 00) Two remarks are here in order.
1. The expression '[to] fill an actant slot' is an abbreviation: in point of fact, in the lexicon, where an LU has actant
slots, no filling of slots occurs; and in an utterance, where LUs are linked to each other, there are no actant slots.
Actant slots are used in the process of lexicalization of the initial Semantic Structure. We say that, in (a representation
of) U , L´/(L´) fills the actant slot x of L/(L) if and only if in (this representation of)
U
the dependency relation x
subordinates L´/(L´) to L/(L), that is, if we have L´/(L´)←x L/(L). We say then that the LU L´ fills the SemA-slot of L
if the meaning (L´) does.—Another known term for our 'slot' is place or position. In the tradition of the Moscow
Semantic School, the term valentnost´ ([a] valence) is current.
2. Both above distinctions are no novelty: they were explicitly stated already in Mel'čuk 1974: 85ff, where
Semantic Actants were systematically opposed to Deep-Syntactic and Surface-Syntactic Actants. Before that, these
distinctions were established, for instance, in Helbig/Schenkel 1969 [1983]: 60ff—in terms of "different levels of
valence;" see also Helbig 1992 (13ff and 154-155). Boguslavskij 1985: 11 aptly compares the distinctions between
actant slots and actants to that between different fishing hooks designed for different types of fish (≈ actant slots) and
53
a real fish caught by a corresponding hook (≈ actant). Finally, these distinctions are stated, in a concise and clear
manner, in Padučeva 1998: 87-89.
3
. (3.1, p. 00) In this connection, cf. Helbig 1992: 112ff, Escandell Vidal 1995 and Raxilina 2000: 311-336 on
semantic and syntactic valence of nouns.
4
. (3.1, p. 00) Pronominal (MY, YOUR, ...), possessive (Rus. KATIN (of-Katya)) and relational (AMERICAN) adjec-
tives can be non-predicative or predicative. They are non-predicative when they express Sem-Actants of a predicate,
as in my visit [= (visit(I ; ...))], American response [= (respond(USA ; ...))], etc. They are predicative when they mean
(belonging to ...) or (characterizing ...), as in my flower, American way of life, etc.
5
. (3.2, p. 00) "Semantic configuration (σ) is expressed idiomatically with respect to L" means that the choice of
the LU to express (σ) is contingent on L. In practical terms, this presupposes that the lexicographic description of L
must specify the appropriate expression of (σ) as a SSynt-dependent or the SSynt-governor of L.
6
. (3.2.1, p. 00) Barwise and Perry 1983 could be of help in developing this basic concept. Let it
be emphasized, however, that what is meant here is a LINGUISTIC situation, not a 'psychologically' or
'realistically' defined one.
7
. (3.2.1, p. 00) A viewpoint to the contrary is widespread, based on the following reasoning: Location and Time
cannot characterize ANY linguistic situation, cf.:
#
(i) At noon, Norwegians are tall.
#
(ii) She hoped in the garden [that Alan would come], etc.
Therefore, their admissibility must be stated in the lexicographic description of the corresponding LUs.
I disagree: (i) - (ii) do not represent poor
LEXICAL
cooccurrence, but rather poor
SEMANTIC
combinability. What is
wrong with sentences of the type (i) - (ii) is their underlying semantic configurations, which are ill-formed. The
cooccurrence of meanings should be foreseen in the description of the Location and Time semantemes (something
along the following lines: "if (time [of]→P), then (P) is an event," etc.). This is not related to the problem of obligatory
participants. On the cooccurrence of Circumstantials, see part II, Note 14, p. 00.
54
8
. (3.2.2, p. 00) On lexicographic definitions, see, e.g., Mel'čuk 1988b and Mel'čuk et al. 1995: 72ff.
9
. (3.2.2, p. 00) In order to make this illustration more surveyable, two simplifications have been made:
• Substances other than tobacco can be smoked as well: marijuana 〈= pot〉, hashish, opium, etc. A complete defini1
tion of [to] SMOKE should contain the indication that (tobacco) is the default value of the variable Y .
1
• The verb [to] SMOKE admits still another construction: Alain [= X] smokes strong Turkish tobacco [= Y ] from an
old pipe [= Y2]. Taking it into account adds more complexity, while it is highly restricted; I allowed myself to ignore
it here. If I were to consider it, the verb [to] SMOKE would have three SemA-slots.
10
.
(3.2.3, after (2), p. 00) In reality, the situation with [to]
COST is more complex than my description
suggests. In This book costs $30 at McMillan's the phrase at McMillan's may be considered as an expression of the
Payee: it is not a simple locative Circumstantial, isofunctional with in New York or on a plane. If we decide to cover
such uses as well the verb [to] COST will have the corresponding SemA-slot.
11
. (3.2.3, p. 00) As L. Iomdin indicated, some other expressions of Ψ = Betrayed with predatel´ are possible:
predatel´ [č´ix-libo] interesov, lit. (traitor of [somebody's] interests), predatel´ naroda 〈otčizny〉, lit. (traitor of the
people 〈of the fatherland〉), predatel´ carja, lit. (traitor of the tzar), predatel´ našego dela 〈rabočego klassa〉, lit. (traitor
of our cause 〈of the working class〉). But this is irrelevant to the discussion: it is obvious that Ψ is not expressed freely;
whether it has just one expression or a few does not change the idea.
12
.
(3.2.3, (7), p. 00) The interrogative adjective KAKOJ (what [N]), when used with MERY, does not have the
same meaning as with other nouns. Asking Kakaja kniga? (What/which book?) or Kakoj ogurec? (What/which
cucumber?), one asks about some properties or about the identity of the thing denoted by the noun; kakoj with MERY
is aimed exclusively at the actions taken: (What has been done?) (It would be a joke to answer something like Xorošie
(Good ones).)
13
.
(3.2.3, p. 00) This is not so for all English speakers. In some particular, especially legal, contexts the expres-
sion of the wife who died with the noun WIDOWER is possible: The widower of a former Veterans Hospital nurse
55
should receive compensation, etc. (thanks to L. Iomdin for this and other examples). However, in Standard American,
the difference between John's widow and *Mary's widower is clearly perceived. Based on the 250-million-word North
American News corpus, A. Stefanowitch (personal communication) established that while 62.6% of the occurrences
of WIDOW are accompanied by an indication of the late husband, only 9,9% of the occurrences of WIDOWER have the
expression of the late wife.
14
.
(3.3.1, (15c), p. 00) On signalatives, see Iordanskaja & Mel'čuk 1995: 218, Mel'čuk 2001: 354.
15
.
(3.3.2, p. 00) Note that:
1. The preposition in question introduces the name of a container. Otherwise, another preposition can be used; thus
in French one has manger à même la table 〈le sol〉 ([to] eat straight from the table 〈the ground〉), boire au goulot, lit.
([to] drink straight from the neck (of the bottle)), boire à la fontaine ([to] drink from the fountain). This other
preposition can be free, i.e. non-phraseologized (as à même), or controlled by the governing verb/the governed noun
(as in boire au goulot
~ boire à la fontaine). Thanks to S. Kahane for having drawn my attention to this complica-
tion.
2. In French, the preposition in question is used with the verbs of eating/drinking; verbs meaning ([to] take out)
require the preposition DE (from) to introduce the name of a container: Alain a sorti le cafard de l'assiette/de la tasse
(Alain took the cockroach out of the plate/out of the cup).
16
.
(3.3.2, p. 00) Polish manifests here another complication: the noun after NA is in the accusative; however, if it
is a one-syllable masculine noun, it is declined as an animate: na rak+a instead of the inanimate *na rak, cf. na syfilis
(on syfilis) 〈na *syfilis+a〉, but slang na syf+a 〈*na syf〉. (Thanks to Z. Frajzyngier for Polish data.)
17
. (3.3.2, p. 00) The phraseologized character of the expression of the Cause is shown, e.g., in Iordanskaja and
Mel'čuk 1996.
18
.
(3.3.2, p. 00) This means that you can use the verb [to]
DIE
without mentioning or even
knowing the cause of death. In the real world, death of course necessarily has a cause—like any
other fact; but exactly because of this ubiquitousness, Cause, like Time and Location, is not an
56
obligatory participant of linguistic situations as such. It may be one, but only if the corresponding
lexical meaning introduces it (cf. Iordanskaja and Mel'čuk 2002). Interestingly, the situation
designated by the Russian verb
UMIRAT´
([to] die) has the Cause as an obligatory participant,
because if the Cause is external and implies a violent death, the verb
contrary to Eng.
DIE
UMIRAT´
cannot be used,
(He died in a car accident = On pogib 〈*umer〉 v avtomobil´noj katastrofe;
the verb POGIBAT´ ([to] die a violent death) has to be used. (Thanks to E. Savvina for this
indication.)
19
. (3.4.2, (20), p. 00) The correct sentence V lingvistike Petja — učenik Apresjana (In linguistics, Pete is a
disciple of Apresjan) features still another lexeme: UČENIK3 ≈ (follower) .
20
.
(3.4.3, (21), p. 00) Split variables should not be confused with split valences of Russian linguistics (Apresjan
1974: 153-155; Raxilina 1990: 87-88). Split variables are mutually exclusive, i.e. incompatible, because they
represent the same SemA-slot; a 'split valence' is a metaphor for two compatible SemA-slots that are related by a
direct semantic link. Thus, for HIT in John hit the horse on the back we need three Sem-actant slots represented by
three variables: (X hits Y on Z), Z being a bodypart of Y; as we see, no split variable is involved, while the pair of
SemA-slots Y and Z constitute a split valence. Later, I will consider another notion, very close to split valence: split
DSynt-actant, 5, p. 00.
21
.
22
.
(3.4.4, p. 00) The term is due to David Gil; it comes from Lat. ESSE ([to] be).
(3.4.2.4, end, p. 00) Should we really postulate an additional lexeme for PET´, TANCEVAT´, etc., or would it
be more economical to add the Public SemA-slot as an optional one in the definition of the verb in the neutral sense?
However interesting, this question is not relevant to the present paper: it touches on quite a different problem—that of
dividing a lexical item into lexemes—and cannot be discussed here. I will only point out that the description by a
separate 'performance' lexeme is preferable: the 'neutral' lexeme admits many Circumstantials that are inappropriate
for the 'performance' lexeme (like in pet´ vo ves´ golos ([to] sing at the height of one's voice), pet´ xorom ([to] sing in
57
chorus), pet´ v unison ([to] sing in unison), etc.), and vice versa (like in pet´s orkestrom ([to] sing with an orchestra),
pet´ na bis ([to] sing an encore), etc.).
23
.
24
.
(3.5, p. 00) On this topic, see, e.g., Müller-Gotama 1994.
(3.6, p. 00) Some authors speak about the omissibility of syntactic actants and insist that on the semantic level
there is no omissibility (e.g., Helbig 1992: 104). Such formulations are not incorrect, but seem misleading and
therefore inconvenient. That is why I prefer to speak of NOT EXPRESSING an actant rather than about OMITTING it.
25
.
(3.6, (31c), p. 00) The ability to admit contextually conditioned omission of an Actant expression is lexical;
thus, Rus. NAMEREVAT´SJA ([to] have the intention [to ...]) cannot be used without the expression of its SemA 2 .
Even in a maximally clear, fully informative context you cannot leave it unexpressed: *On namerevalsja(He
intended). If need be, you have to say U nego bylo takoe namerenie (He had such an intention) or something similar.
(Cf., however, Poka on tol´ko namerevaetsja (Till now, he only has an intention).)
26
. (3.7.1, Item 1, p. 00) There exist of course polyvalent adjectives, such as X is equal to Y, X is typical of Y,
etc., but this does not affect my statement. For them, I have to say that 'their SemA 1 is their Synt-governor.'
References
Abraham, Werner (ed.) (1978). Valence, Semantic Case and Grammatical Relations. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Allerton, D. (1982). Valency and the English Verb. London etc.: Academic Press.
Apresjan, Jurij (1974). Leksičeskaja semantika. Moskva: Nauka. [Reprinted: 1998.]
Apresjan, Jurij (2000a). Lingvističeskaja terminologija slovarja. In: Ju. Apresjan et al., Novyj
ob"jasnitel´nyj slovar´ sinonimov russkogo jazyka. Vtoroj vypusk, Moskva: Jazyki russkoj
kul´tury, viii-xLv.
Apresjan, Jurij (2000b). [The synonym series OŠIBAT´SJA.] In: Ju. Apresjan et al., Novyj ob"jasnitel´nyj slovar´ sinonimov russkogo jazyka. Vtoroj vypusk, Moskva: Jazyki russkoj kul´tury,
261-266.
Apresjan, Jurij; and Páll, Erna (1982). Orosz ige — magyar ige. Vonzatok és kapcsolódások [Russian Verb—Hungarian Verb. Government and Cooccurrence]. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó.
58
Barwise, Jon; and Perry, John (1983). Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, MA—London: The
MIT Press.
Beck, David (2002). The Typology of Parts of Speech Systems: The Markedness of Adjectives.
New York—London: Routledge.
Boguslavskij, Igor´ (1985). Issledovanija po sintaksičeskoj semantike. Moskva: Nauka.
Boguslavskij, Igor´ (1990). Vnešnjaja i vnutrennjaja sfera dejstvija nekotoryx temporal´nyx
obstojatel´stv. In Metody formalne w opisie języków sŁowiańskich (Ju.D. Apresjanu k
šestidesjatiletiju), Z. Saloni (red.), Białystok: Dział Wydawnictw Filii UW, 137-148.
Bonami, Olivier (1999). Les constructions du verbe : le cas des groupes prépositionnels argumentaux. Analyse syntaxique, sémantique et lexicale. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université
Paris VII.
Davis, Anthony; and Koenig, Jean-Pierre (2000). Linking as constraints on word classes in a
hierarchical lexicon. Language, 76(1), 56-91.
Davis, William; and Dubinsky, Stanley (2001). Objects and Other Subjects. Grammatical Functions, Functional Categories and Configurationality. Dordrecht etc.: Kluwer.
Engel, Ulrich, Savin, E. et al. (1983). Valenzlexicon Deutsch-Rumänisch — Dict∞ionar de valent∞a
german-român [= Deutsch im Kontrast, Band 3]. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.
Engel, Ulrich; and Schumacher, H. (1976). Kleines Valenzlexicon deutscher Verben [Forschungsberichte des Instituts für deutsche Sprache, Mannheim, 31]. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Escandell Vidal, Victoria (1995). Los complementos del nombre. Madrid: Arco/Libros.
Feuillet, Jack (réd.) (1998). Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe. Berlin—New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Fillmore, Charles (1968). The case for case. In Universals in Linguistic Theory, E. Bach and R.
Harms (eds.), New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1-88.
Fillmore, Charles (1977). The case for case reopened. In Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 8.
Grammatical Relations, P. Cole and J. Saddock (eds.), New York: Academic Press, 59-81.
Godard, Danièle (1996). Les phrases compléments de Nom sont-elles des arguments ? In Les
noms abstraits : histoire et théories, N. Flaux, M. Glatigny et D. Samau (réd.), Presses du
Septentrion, 301-311.
Goldberg, Adele; and Ackerman, Farrel (2001). The pragmatics of obligatory adjuncts. Language,
77(4), 798-814.
Grimshaw, Jane (1990). Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA—London: The MIT Press.
Hays, David (1964). Dependency theory: a formalism and some observations. Language, 40(4),
511-525.
Helbig, Gerhard (1992). Probleme der Valenz- und Kasustheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
59
Helbig, Gerhard; and Schenkel, Wolfgang (1983). Wörterbuch zur Valenz und Distribution
deutscher Verben. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Hockett, Charles (1958). A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: MacMillan.
Hudson, Richard (1980). Constituency and dependency. Linguistics, 18(3/4), 179-198.
Hudson, Richard (1993). Recent developments in dependency theory. In Syntax. An International
Handbook of Contemporary Research. Vol. 1, J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld, Th.
Vennemann (eds.), Berlin—New York: W. de Gruyter, 329-338.
Iordanskaja, Lidija; and Mel’čuk, Igor (1995). Traitement lexicographique de deux connecteurs
textuels du français contemporain: kEN FAITl vs kEN RÉALITÉl. In Tendances récentes en
linguistique française et générale (volume dédié à David Gaatone), H. Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot and
L. Kupferman (réd.), 1995, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 211-236.
Iordanskaja, Lidija; and Mel’čuk, Igor (1996). K semantike russkix pričinnyx predlogov (IZ-ZA
ljubvi ~ OT ljubvi ~ IZ ljubvi ~ S ljubvi ~ PO ljubvi). The Moscow Linguistic Journal, 2, 162211.
Iordanskaja, Lidija; and Mel’čuk, Igor (2002). Conversif ou causatif ? Cahiers de lexicologie,
80(1): 2002, 105-119.
Krejdlin, Grigorij; and Raxilina, Ekaterina (1984). Semaničeskij analiz voprosno-otvetnyx struktur
so slovom "kakoj". Izvestija AN SSSR, SLJa, 43(5), 457-470.
Lazard, Gilbert (1994). L’actance. Paris: PUF. [Translation: 1998. Actancy. Berlin—New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.]
Lazard, Gilbert (1995). La définition des actants. In Lucien Tesnière aujourd’hui, F. MadrayLesigne and J. Richard-Zappella (réd.), Paris/Louvain: Peeters, 151-158.
Lazard, Gilbert (1998). Définition des actants dans les langues européennes. In: Feuillet (ed.)
1998: 12-146.
Lehmann, Christian (1991). Relationality and the grammatical operation. In Partizipation. Das
sprachliche Erfassen von Sachverhalten, H. Seiler/W. Premper (eds.), Tübingen: Gunter Narr,
13-28.
McCawley, James (1970). Semantic representation. In Cognition: A Multiple View, P. Garvin
(ed.), New York—Washington: Spartan Books.
Mel´čuk, Igor´ (1974). Opyt teorii lingvističeskix modelej “Smysl ⇔ Tekst”. Semantika, Sintaksis.
Moskva: Nauka. [Reprinted: 1999.]
Mel’čuk, Igor (1988a). Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice. Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press.
Mel’čuk, Igor (1988b). Semantic description of lexical units in an Explanatory Combinatorial
Dictionary: basic principles and heuristic criteria. International Journal of Lexicography, 1(3),
165-188.
60
Mel’čuk, Igor (1992). Paraphrase et lexique: la théorie Sens-Texte et le Dictionnaire Explicatif et
Combinatoire. In: Mel’čuk et al. 1992: 9-58.
Mel’čuk, Igor (1996). Lexical Functions: A tool for the description of lexical relations in the lexicon. In Lexical Functions in Lexicography and Natural Language Processing, L. Wanner (ed.),
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 37-102.
Mel’čuk, Igor (1997a). Vers une linguistique Sens-Texte. Leçon inaugurale. Paris: Collège de
France.
Mel’čuk, Igor (1997b). Cas grammaticaux, construction verbale de base et voix en massaï : vers
une meilleure analyse de concepts. Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris, 92(1), 49113.
Mel’čuk, Igor (1998). Collocations and Lexical Functions. In Phraseology. Theory, Analysis, and
Applications, A.P. Cowie (ed.), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 23-53.
Mel’čuk, Igor (2001). Communicative Organization in Natural Language. The Semantic-Communicative Structure of Sentences. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Mel’čuk, Igor (2002). Language: Dependency. In International Encyclopedia of the Social and
Behavioral Sciences, N. J. Smelser and Paul B. Baltes (eds.), Oxford: Pergamon, 8336-8344.
Mel’čuk, Igor, et al. (1984-1999). Dictionnaire explicatif et combinatoire du français
contemporain. Recherches lexico-sémantiques I-IV, Montréal: Les Presses de l’Université de
Montréal.
Mel’čuk, Igor; Clas, André; and Polguère, Alain (1995). Introduction à la lexicologie explicative
et combinatoire, Bruxelles: Duculot.
Mel’čuk, Igor; and Xolodovič, Aleksandr (1970). Zalog (Opredelenie. Isčislenie). Narody Azii i
Afriki, nº 4, 111-124.
Mel’čuk, Igor; and Zholkovsky, Alexander (1984). Explanatory Combinatorial Dictionnary of
Modern Russian. Vienna: Wiener Slawistischer Almanach.
Mosel, Ulrike (1991). Towards a typology of valency. In Partizipation. Das sprachliche Erfassen
von Sachverhalten, H. Seiler and W. Premper (eds.), Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 240-251.
Müller-Gotama, F. (1994). Grammatical Relations. A Cross-Linguistic Perspective on their Syntax
and Semantics. Berlin—New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Padučeva, Elena (1997). Semantičeskie roli i problema soxranenija invarianta pri leksičeskoj
derivacii. Naučno-texničeskaja informacija, Seija 2, nº 1, 18-30.
Padučeva, Elena (1998). Kommunikativnoe vydelenie na urovne sintaksisa i semantiki. SiI 1998,
82-107.
Padučeva, Elena (2002). Diateza i diatetičeskij sdvig. Russian Linguistics, 26(2), 179-215.
61
Panevová, Jarmila (1994). Valency frames and the meaning of the sentence. In The Prague School
of Structural and Functional Linguistics, Ph. Luelsdorff (ed.), Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
Benjamins, 223-243.
Plank, Frans (1990). Objets trouvés. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und
Kommunikationsforschung, 43(1), 59-85.
Plank, Frans (ed.) (1984). Objects. Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations. London etc.:
Academic Press.
Plungjan, Vladimir; and Raxilina, Ekaterina (1990). Sirkonstanty v tolkovanii? In Metody
formalne w opisie języków słowiańskich (Juriju Derenikoviču Apresjanu k šestidesjatiletiju), Z.
Saloni (red.), Białystok: Filija UW, 201-210.
Plungjan, Vladimir; and Raxilina, Ekaterina (1998). Paradoksy valentnostej. In SiI 1998: 108-119.
Raxilina, Ekaterina (1990). Semantika ili sintaksis? (K analizu častnyx voprosov v russkom
jazyke). München: Otto Sagner.
Raxilina, Ekaterina (2000). Kognitivnyj analiz predmetnyx imen: semantika i sočetaemost´.
Moskva: Russkie slovari.
Sgall, Petr; and Panevová, Jarmila (1988-89). Dependency syntax—a challenge. Theoretical
Linguistics, 15(1), 73-86.
SiI (1998). Semiotika i informatika, vyp 36. Moskva: Jazyki russkoj kul´tury/Russkie slovari.
Somers, Harold (1987). Valency and Case in Computational Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Tesnière, Lucien (1959). Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.
Van Valin, Robert; and LaPolla, Randy (1997). Syntax, Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wechsler, Stephen (1995). The Semantic Basis of Argument Structure. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Whaley, Lindsay (1997). Introduction to Typology. The Unity and Diversity of Language.
Thousand Oaks, CA—London—New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Žolkovskij, Aleksandr (1964). O pravilax semantičeskogo analiza. Mašinnyj perevod i prikladnaja
lingvistika, 8, 17-32. [In English: V. Rozencvejg (ed.), Essays on Lexical Semantics, vol. I,
1974, Stockholm: Skriptor, 155-169.]
Žolkovskij, Aleksandr; Leont´eva, Nina; and Martem´janov, Jurij (1961). O principial´nom
ispol´zovanii smysla pri mašinnom perevode. In Mašinnyj perevod 2, Moskva: Institut točnoj
mexaniki i vyčislitel´noj texniki AN SSSR, 17-46.
Žolkovskij, Aleksandr; and Mel´čuk, Igor´ (1965). O vozmožnom metode i instrumentax semantičeskogo sinteza. Naučno-texničeskaja informacija, nº 5, 23-28.
Žolkovskij, Aleksandr; and Mel´čuk, Igor´. 1967. O semantičeskom sinteze. Problemy
kibernetiki,19, 177-238.
4. Deep-Syntactic Actants
4.1. General Considerations and Definitions
4.2. Numbering of DSyntA-slots
4.3. DSynt-Actants: Two Problematic Cases of DSyntA-slot Numbering
4.4. Restrictions on the Surface Realization of DSyntA-slots
4.5. Changing the Active DSynt-Valence of L
5. Surface-Syntactic Actants
6. Correspondence between Actant Slots of L
7. Government Pattern of L
1
1
6
8
11
14
16
20
29
Actants in Semantics and Syntax. II. Actants in Syntax
IGOR MEL’ČUK
After the notion of Semantic Actant has been clarified in Part I of this article, I can move to
actants in syntax. As stated in Section 2, Part I, an important feature of my approach is a
systematic distinction between Deep- and Surface-Syntactic actants/actant slots. Therefore, I start
with an examination of Deep-Syntactic Actants (Section 4), to continue with SSyntAs (Section
5), after which a survey of possible correspondences between actants of the three types is
presented (Section 6); finally, the Government Pattern is characterized (Section 7).
4.
Deep-Syntactic Actants
4.1. General Considerations and Definitions
DSyntAs constitute an interface between SemAs, determined mainly by semantic considerations
(plus expressibility), and SSyntAs, determined exclusively by syntactic considerations
(distribution, word order, structural words, agreement and government, morphological forms,
control of gerunds/reflexives and the like, relativization, etc.). DSyntAs are called in to strike a
balance and to find a compromise between these two types of considerations so as to facilitate
the description of the correspondence SemSs ⇔ SSyntSs.
Definition 9: DSynt-Actant Slot in a Government Pattern
A DSyntA-slot is introduced into the Government Pattern of @a Lexical Unit [= LU] L if and
only if it corresponds to a SemA-slot in the definition of L.
Definition 10: Deep-Syntactic Actant
An LU is a DSynt-Actant of L in utterance if and only if one of the following two conditions is satisfied:
a. either fills a DSyntA-slot of L—@this is a prototypical DSyntA of L;
b. or corresponds to a SSyntA of L such that it implements a @prototypical DSyntA of a
prototypical DSyntA(L).
As one sees, I allow for such DSyntAs that are not controlled by a SemA-slot of L itself and
therefore have no corresponding DSyntA-slot@ , but pass to L from one of its @prototypical
DSyntAs (cf. 6, Item@. @2.1, p. 00).
DSyntAs appear in the DSynt-Structure (of a sentence), which can be characterized with
respect to two aspects: its representational means (i.e., its formal language) and its organization.
From the viewpoint of its inventory of representational means, the DSyntS must meet the following three requirements:
• it must be cross-linguistically universal in that it uses a universal inventory of DSyntrelations;
2
• it must be convenient for the description of restricted lexical cooccurrence;
• it must be convenient for the formulation of paraphrasing rules.
1. Cross-linguistic universality of the DSyntS
The DSyntS must be abstract enough to be valid for most or even all languages. Its formalism,
used to reflect the syntactic organization of sentences, must be sufficient to represent whatever
syntactic constructions the researcher may encounter. Therefore, the DSyntS should represent
syntactic constructions of language in the most general way, so that particular syntactic
properties of an ’s real sentence do not appear in its DSyntS. (They will be of course shown in
the Surface-SyntS.) For this reason, the DSyntS of a sentence does not contain:
1) ‘Grammatical,’ or ‘structural,’ words, that is:
—governed (= lexically predictable) prepositions and conjunctions;
—analytical markers of inflectional categories whose grammemes may have nonmorphological expression (as a result, an analytical form is represented by one DSynt-node, with
the corresponding subscripts for the grammemes expressed);
—empty structural elements of the sentence (i.e., dummy Subjects and Objects, such as Eng. IT
in It rains, It is easy to see ..., It can be recurred to this method, This method makes it possible to
neutralize the consequences, etc.).
2) Words that make up the inner structure of idioms (= complete phrasemes), so that an idiom
is represented by one DSynt-node.
3) The substitute pronouns (HE, SHE, IT, ...); only their lexical antecedents may appear.
As a result, the DSyntSs of two synonymous sentences which widely differ at the SSyntlevel, are very similar or identical. Thus, take German sentence (38a) and its Russian equivalent
(38b), which have fairly different syntactic organization:
(38) a. Germ. Er hat das Zimmer betreten, lit. (He has entered the room).
b. Rus. On vošël v komnatu, lit. (He entered in room).
Their DSyntSs are, however, identical (of course up to the lexical ‘filling’ and grammemes; the
German Present Perfect of the verb corresponds to the Russian Past in the Perfective Aspect;
Russian does not have the category of definiteness):
BETRETEN act, ind, perf, pres
VOJTI ind, perf, past
I
ER masc, sg
II
I
ZIMMER def, sg
ON masc, sg
II
KOMNATA sg
The important syntactic differences between (38a) and (38b)—the presence of the auxiliary verb
and the article in German, as well as that of the preposition V (in) in Russian,—which lead to
3
non-isomorphic syntactic structures, appear only at the next, closer-to-surface, level: in the
SSyntS.
As can be seen from these DSyntSs, DSynt-relations are very general and thus very few. For
the time being, there are 12 DSyntRels:
—APPEND(itive)@,
—COORD(inative) and QUASI-COORD [for the special construction where the following member elaborates on the preceding one, adding more precise information:
John was born in the USA, QUASI-COORD→in New York, QUASI-COORD→in Manhattan, QUASI-COORD→on the 56th Street]@.
—ATTR(ibutive)restr(ictive) [written, as a default case, ATTR] and ATTRqual(ificative)@\
—@Six actantial DSyntRels (I, II, ..., VI) plus a DSyntRel to encode the Direct Speech
(IIdir.speech, which is, so to speak, a variant of the DSyntRel II); the actantial DSyntRels will be
characterized below, in 4.2, p. 00.1
2. Lexical cooccurrence restrictions and the DSyntS
It is well-known that most collocations in all languages can be systematically and exhaustively
described in terms of Lexical Functions [= LFs; Žolkovskij and Mel’čuk 1967, Mel’čuk 1996]:2
—Collocations such as a HEAVY smoker, a KEEN interest, a THICK accent, LOUDLY acclaim,
pursue VIGOROUSLY, as alike AS PEAS IN A POD are covered by the LF Magn, which represents an
intensifying attribute; it must syntactically depend on its key word via the ATTR DSynt-Relation:
Magn←ATTR SMOKER [= heavy smoker],
Magn←ATTR ACCLAIM [= pursue vigorously],
Magn←ATTR ALIKE
[= as alike as two peas in a pod], etc.
—In collocations of the type BE in despair, GIVE an account, OFFER an apology, CONDUCT a poll,
STRIKE a pose, PAY a visit we find another LF: Oper1; its value is a ‘light’ verb (a verb emptied of
semantic content) that links the DSyntA I NP1 of the key word L to L itself—in such a way that
NP1 is DSyntA I of Oper1, while L is its DSyntA II:
This person←I is[= Oper1] II→in despair[= L].
As is immediately seen, an element of the value of an LF, its keyword and DSyntAs of this
keyword fulfill specific DSynt-roles@with respect to each other. However, from the viewpoint of
Surface-Syntactic Structure, heavy smoker, pursue vigorously and as alike as two peas in a pod
are very different constructions; an abstract DSynt-Relation ATTR is needed to express their
commonality and make it possible to describe them all by one LF [= Magn]. The same is true
about the phrases [to] be in despair vs. [to] offer an apology: to cover them by one LF [= Oper1]
we need an abstract DSynt-Relation II.@
4
3. Paraphrasing rules and the DSyntS
Using DSyntRels makes it possible to formulate relevant syntactic operations needed in order to
carry out all theoretically feasible (quasi-)synonymic transformations of syntactic structures.
Since the DSyntRels are universal, their number small and their configurations limited, we can
develop a finite set of linguistically universal rules that apply in any language, provided it is
described by an appropriate dictionary, where for each LU L the values of all LF(L) are
specified. (This set of rules is relatively small: less than a hundred for all languages.) Two
examples follow.
Example 1. Consider the equivalences of the following types:
X aids Y
≡ X gives aid to
X logs in Y
≡ X does a log-in into Y
X lies to Y
≡ X tells a lie to Y
X visits Y
≡ X pays a visit to Y
X objects to Y
≡ X raises an objection to Y X operates on Y ≡ X performs an operation on Y
X apologizes to Y ≡ X offers an apology to Y
X permits Y to Z ≡ X grants Y a permission to Z
There are thousands of such equivalences, based on the synonymy between a verb and a
corresponding verbo-nominal collocation; all of them are described (and that, for any language)
by a simple universal formula
V ≡ Oper1(S0(V))−II→S0(V),
where S0 stands for deverbal action/event/state noun@ of the verb V, and Oper1(S0(V)) is the
above-mentioned support verb selected by this noun.@
Example 2. Here are some equivalences of a different type (they are approximate, which is
irrelevant for our purposes here):
X is plagued by doubt
≡
X feels gnawing doubt
X spares no effort
≡
X makes huge efforts
X flashes a smile at Y
≡
X gives Y a (big/dazzling) smile
X heaps praise on Y
≡
X sings high praise of Y ( to Z)
These equivalences, also very numerous, are described by another universal formula:
@//@[Magn + Oper1](S0(V))−II→S0(V) ≡
Oper1(S0(V))−II→S0(V)−ATTR→Magn(S0(V))
This is intensifier transfer: the semanteme (intense), present in the meaning of [to] PLAGUE used
with [a] DOUBT (John is plagued by doubt), is lexicalized separately as the adjective GNAWING,
which is syntactically transferred to the noun DOUBT (John feels gnawing doubt). Similarly for
[to] SPARE [no N]: (intense), included in (spare no ...), can be lexicalized as HUGE, the latter being
attached to EFFORT; etc.
A few dozen such formulas—Universal Paraphrasing Rules—turn out to be more or less3
sufficient for the description of synonymic paraphrasing in all languages (Mel’čuk 1974: 149176, 1988: 77ff, Mel’čuk 1992: 31ff) and for structural transfers between languages (since
5
translation can be viewed as a particular case of interlingual paraphrasing). It is obvious that
DSyntAs should be introduced and numbered in language in such a way as to ensure the
applicability of paraphrasing rules and the production of correct synonymous expressions within
and between languages.
As to the organization of a particular DSyntS, it must, on the one hand, preserve all Semdistinctions specified in the starting SemS and, on the other hand, ensure a maximal
@homomorphism with the SSyntS to be produced.
The preservation of initial semantic distinctions is based on two techniques.
• First, the set of DSynt-relations is specified in such a way that in most cases (i.e., in most
cross-linguistically widespread syntactic constructions) these DSyntRels, taken of course
together with the lexical entries of the LUs involved, ensure the complete preservation of
meaning.
• Second, in idiosyncratic constructions, where and when need be, the DSyntS has recourse to
artificial, or fictitious, lexical units. Some syntactic constructions can be themselves
meaningful—that is, some highly idiomatic Surface-SyntRels do carry meaning. For instance,
consider the Russian sentence “Da kak ty smeeš´!” — rasserdilsja Ivan, lit. (‘But how dare you!’,
became-angry Ivan) = (...said 〈exclaimed〉 Ivan, angry). In the SSyntS, it is represented by the
following configuration (see Iordanskaja and Mel’čuk 1981):
“DA KAK TY SMEEŠ´!”←quotative-RASSERDIT´SJA,
where the meaning (say) is expressed by the quotative SSyntRel. The DSynt-representation of this
configuration presents a problem: What is the DSyntRel between RASSERDIT´SJA ([to] become
angry) and the Direct Speech expression? It should be, of course, an actantial DSyntRel, but the
Direct Speech expression does not correspond to any SemA-slot or any DSyntA-slot of
RASSERDIT´SJA: X [= I] rasserdilsja na Y-a [= II] (X became angry with Y). The simplest solution
available is to introduce into the DSyntS a fictitious lexical unit which would express the
meaning of (say) carried by the Russian quotative SSyntRel, so that we obtain the DSyntconfiguration
“DA KAK TY SMEEŠ´!”←IIdir.speech−«SAY»−ATTR →RASSERDIT´SJA,
the quotes « » indicating the fictitious character of the LU «SAY» (as if it were ... he said
becoming angry). The other logically possible solution is to introduce an additional DSyntRel to
cover such constructions. This, however, would result in the loss of universality and simplicity of
the present system of DSyntRels.4 For more on fictitious LUs in the DSyntS, see 6 below, Item
4.2, p. 00ff.
The desired maximal isomorphism with the SSyntS requires to observe the following
principle (rule of thumb):
6
Structural @Homomorphism between the DSyntS and SSyntS of the same Sentence
The DSyntS should not admit inversions of Synt-dependencies between its elements with
respect to their SSynt-correspondents, except when it is absolutely unavoidable.
All the necessary inversions should then happen between the SemS and DSyntS, that is, between
Sem-Dependencies and DSynt-Dependencies. Thus, the sentences [They drank] three bottles of
wine and [They saw] three girls have structurally identical SemSs that correspond to the
following schema: (X)←1 −(quantity)−2 →(Y):
[(drink)−2 →](wine)[= X]←1 −(quantity)−2 →[Y =] (three)−1 →(bottles)
and
[(see) −−2 →](girls)[= X]←1 −(quantity)−2 →[Y =] (three);
The SSyntSs of these sentences, however, are very different:
[THREE←quantitative−]BOTTLES nominal-completive→OF WINE
vs.
THREE← quantitative GIRLS
The quantitative expression THREE BOTTLES, which is a Noun Phrase, syntactically dominates
the quantified expression WINE, while the quantitative expression THREE, which is a Numeral,
syntactically depends on the quantified expression GIRLS. According to the Principle of
Structural @Homo@morphism, the DSyntS must preserve the orientation of these SyntDependencies, so that we have:
[THREE←ATTR ]BOTTLES I→WINE vs. THREE←ATTR GIRLS
As is obvious from this example, in cases in which there is no @homomorphism between
semantics and surface syntax,
the violation of the @homomorphism must be represented as happening between Sem- and
DSynt-Structures, i.e., between semantics and syntax—rather than between Deep- and
Surface-Syntactic Structures, i.e., inside syntax.
After all, the DSyntS, even though it is Deep, is first and foremost a SYNTACTIC structure and
should faithfully reflect the syntactic organization of the sentence.
4.2. Numbering of DSyntA-slots
In accordance with their intermediate character, DSyntA-slots(L) are numbered as a function of
two different set of properties: the relationships with the Surface-Syntactic Actants and the
relationships with Semantic Actants.
Syntactic properties of DSyntA-slots
Roughly speaking, DSyntA-slots(L) are numbered in the order of decreasing syntactic
obliqueness with respect to L. The degree of obliqueness of a DSyntA is determined from that of
the corresponding SSyntA. The latter reflects the HIERARCHY of SSyntAs, which is established
7
through the analysis of their observable behavior (Keenan and Comrie 1977, Iordanskaja and
Mel’čuk 2000, Van Valin 2001: 33ff).
When L is a verb, the degree of obliqueness of its dependents is more or less intuitively felt.
If L is not a verb, we have to think of the semantically closest verbal expression (for instance,
with the copula [to] BE) and to reason based on it. Thus, for the preposition UNDER, one must
consider the expression X is under Y; for the noun TRUCK, X transports Y from one place to
another in a truck; etc. Cf. the remarks of Raxilina (2000: 311-316) concerning ‘the in-built
functional predicate’ in the meaning of the nouns that denote artifacts.
NB: Recall that semantically empty SSynt-elements (i.e., dummy Subjects and Objects,
governed prepositions and conjunctions) are not represented at the DSynt-level and thus do
not correspond to any DSyntAs. There are also other SSyntAs that do not correspond to
any DSyntAs of L: see below, 6, Item 4, p. 00. On empty SSynt-elements in different
languages, see Kathman 1993.
DSynt-Actants are denoted by Roman numbers, which specify DSynt-relations that
subordinate DSyntAs to their Governors. In sharp contrast to semantic numbers (= pure
distinguishers), the DSynt-numbers are meaningful: each of them corresponds to a family of
concrete Surface-Syntactic constructions brought together because their dependent members
fulfill similar roles from the viewpoint of expressing the SemAs of the LU under consideration.
Thus:
• DSyntA I corresponds to:
—What is on the surface a SSynt-Subject (and all its transforms):
JOHN←I−SLEEPV (John is sleeping), JOHN←I−SLEEPN (John’s sleep)
(John sends a letter to Mary)
JOHN←I−LETTER TO MARY (John’s letter to Mary)
JOHN←I−ARRIVAL (John’s arrival), YOU←I−LOVE (your love)
N
JOHN←I−SEND A LETTER TO MARY
USA←I−INTERVENTION
(USA intervention = American intervention)
—Different nominal complements, especially those that express the ‘part ~ whole’, ‘set ~
element’ and ‘container ~ content’ relation:
JOHN←I−LEGS (John’s legs)
ROOF−I→HOUSE (roof of the house)
(These representations are due to the verbalizations of the type John has legs,
The house has a roof, etc., where John and house are SSynt-Subjects.)
MAJORITY−I→POPULATION (the majority of the population)
BAG−I→TOMATOES (a bag of tomatoes)
CUP−I→TEA (a cup of tea)
• DSyntA II corresponds to:
8
—What is on the surface a Direct Object of L (and all its transforms):
JOHN←II−LOVEV ([Someone] loves John)
JOHN←II−LOVEN ([Mary’s] love for John)
—What is on the surface the most important Indirect Object or Complement of L—if there
is no Direct Object (and all its transforms):
BELONG−II→JOHN (belong to John), BELONGINGS−II→JOHN (John’s belongings),
FAITHFUL−II→JOHN (faithful to John)
—What are on the surface complements of prepositions and conjunctions:
UNDER−II→BED (under the bed)
AND−−II→JOHN (@[Mary] and John), BUT−−II→JOHN (@[Mary] but [not] John)
—What are on the surface nominal complements @that do not correspond to SSyntSubject’s transforms and that are not covered by DSyntRel I:
FATHER−−−II→MARY (the father of Mary, Mary’s father; the possible verbalization
is X is Mary’s father)
MINISTER−−II→FINANCE (the finance minister)
—What is on the surface the Agentive Complement [= AgCo]:
WRITTEN −II→JOHN (written by John)
• DSyntA III corresponds to what is on the surface an Indirect/Oblique Object (in case there is
a DirO as well):
JOHN←III−SEND ([Someone] sends [a letter] to John ~ ... sends John [a letter])
NOSE←III−PUNCH ([Someone] punched [John] on the nose)
• DSyntAs IV - VI correspond to what are on the surface even more Oblique, or Prepositional,
Objects:
300 DOLLARS←IV−RENT (rented @ [a room from John] for $300),
TWO WEEKS←V −RENT (rented for two weeks)
Semantic properties of DSyntAs
However, different surface-syntactic constructions are subsumed under one DSynt-relation
not only because of the similarity of their syntactic properties and behavior, but also as a function
of the similarity of their relationships to Semantic Actants. Therefore, for instance, the fact that
an AgCo is more oblique than an IndirO does not interfere with my treating the AgCo as DSyntA
II, while the IndirO is DSyntA III (cf. Kahane 1998: 327, where this fact is mentioned as a
problem): the AgCo reflects the conversion of SemAs, it still is semantically the Actor.
Important conventions
It is required that in the lexical entry of a given LU L, that is, in its Government Pattern [=
GP], DSyntA-slots be numbered as follows:
9
1. Consecutively (= without gaps): I+II+III, etc.; the GPs with such numberings as *I+III or
*I+II +IV are disallowed. 5
2. Beginning with I or II—or having no DSyntAs at all; the GPs with such numberings as
*III+IV are disallowed.6
3. Without repetitions: the GPs with such numberings as *I+I or *I+II+II are disallowed.
Let it be emphasized that the requirements 1 and 2 concern the numbering itself, not the linear
order in which L’s DSyntAs appear in its GP or in the sentence.
4.3. DSynt-Actants: Two Problematic Cases of DSyntA-slot Numbering
To illustrate better the concept of DSyntA, I will consider two problematic cases: DSyntAs of
nouns denoting parameters and those of nouns denoting sets.
1. DSyntAs of Nouns Denoting Parameters
What DSyntA of SPEED is CAR in the phrase the speed of the car? The corresponding verbal
expressions are The car has a top speed of 75 km/h, The car is going at the speed of 75 km/h or
This car makes 75 km/h; they indicate that CAR is the DSyntA I of SPEED. Our conclusion is
buttressed by such cases as the following ones:
The bag←I weighs 30 kg
~
The weight I→of the bag is 30 kg
The stick←I measures 30 cm
~
The length I→of the stick is 30 cm
John←I stands 165 cm
~
The height I→of John is 165 cm
The stick←I costs $30
~
The price I→of the stick is $30
John←I is 65 years old
~
John’s←I age is 65 years
Therefore, the name of the object characterized by a parameter is taken—in English—to be the
DSyntA I of the name of the parameter; its Sem-Role is ‘Characterized’ (the DSyntA II
being ‘Value’). Thus, the phrase [to determine the] quantity of particles appears as
QUANTITY −I→PARTICLES.
2. DSyntAs of Nouns Denoting Sets
Now, what about a set of particles? What is the DSynt-Relation between SET and PARTICLES,
that is, more precisely, PARTICLES being a DSyntA of SET, what is the number of this @DsyntActant? The answer is not straightforward; I will give it in several steps.
• Semantically, (set) is correlative with (element), and the noun ELEMENT has obvious DSyntAs:
X←I Oper1 II→ELEMENT II→Y ≡ X is an element of (the set) Y;
we deal here with a binary semantic relation (X is.an.element of Y). The noun SET, however, has
no corresponding inverse expression: *Y is the set of element X is meaningless; we need either Y
is the set of elements Xi, with elements Xi in the plural, or Y contains the element X. Moreover, it
is difficult to predicate (is the set of Xs) of something referential. Sentences of the type The
paradigm of a noun is the set of all its number-case forms are rather METAlinguistic: they
introduce a name (‘Let’s call paradigm such and such a set’) rather than make a statement. The
10
sentence John is a member of the Linguistic Society cannot be easily inverted: ??The Linguistic
Society has John as a member is unnatural. (However, The Linguistic Society has many Belgian
professors as members or This club accepts women as members are perfectly OK.7) The semantic
asymmetry between SET and ELEMENT was pointed out to me by A. Polguère; as soon as I
realized the importance of this fact, I started treating (set) as a one-place predicate. As a result,
the noun SET and all its ‘semantic heirs’ have only one DSyntA, which is I:
SET I→PARTICLES (set of particles)
HUNDREDS I→WORKERS (hundreds of workers)
HERD I→COWS (cow herd/herd of n cows)
In other words, I propose to describe the DSynt-role of the name of elements of a set in the
expressions such as (NAME OF A) SET→(NAME OF ITS) ELEMENTS as DSyntA I of the name of
the set. This proposal easily generalizes on the expressions with LF @Figur, where we have
metaphorical ‘sets,’ or ‘collections:’
GRAPES I→WRATH (grapes of wrath)
HAIL I→kAUTOMATIC FIREl (hail of automatic fire)
(also: flow of information, wall of rain, wave of terror acts, firestorm of controversy, etc.).
By analogy, the same convention is applied to measure units:
TON I→DEBRIS (tons of debris, three tons of debris)
LITER I→MILK (two and a half liters of milk)
• A (set of suffixes) is roughly (suffixes), a (crowd of students) is (students), and (tons of debris)
are of course (debris). Therefore, in the sentences Suffixes form a set or Students gather in a
crowd, the ‘elements’ are the DSyntA I of the support verb (= [to] FORM, [to] GATHER) and
consequently the DSyntA I of the ‘set.’ These support verbs are Oper1 of SET, CROWD, etc. Some
other support verbs that illustrate the DSynt-actantial role of the (elements) are:
Oper1(SET)
=
belong (Some oblique forms belong to the set W)
Func1(SET)
=
include (The set W includes some oblique forms)
Caus1Oper1(PARTY) =
join
(Alain joined the Labor party)
Caus1Oper1(CROWD) =
join
(Alain joined the crowd I→of angry dockers)
• In Russian, the ‘elements’ DSyntA can often be expressed as an adjective:
(herd of pigs)
STADO I→SVIN´I
~
svinoe stado
(crowd of students) TOLPA I→STUDENTY
~
studenčeskaja tolpa
(wall of fire)
STENA I→OGON´
~
ognennaja stena
Such an adjectival expression is characteristic of the DSyntA I, but is rather rare for the DSyntA
II.
Thus, it seems reasonable to treat the name of elements N1 depending on the name of the
corresponding set N2 as the DSyntA I of N2.8
11
4.4. Restrictions on the Surface Realization of DSyntA-slots
A DSyntA-slot i of L can be subject to four types of restriction:
1. The DSyntAi(L) can never be expressed in the sentence as a direct dependent of L: blocking
of DSyntAi(L).
2. The DSyntAi(L) cannot be expressed in the sentence in the presence of the expression of
another DSyntAj(L) or of a particular surface realization of another DSyntAj(L): incompatibility
of two DSyntA(L)s.
3. The DSyntAi(L) cannot be expressed in the sentence in the absence of (a particular form of)
the expression of another DSyntAj(L): inseparability of two DSyntAs(L).9
4. The DSyntAi(L) must be expressed in the sentence: obligatoriness of DSyntAi(L).
1. Blocking of DSyntA-slots
Blocking of a DSyntA-slots corresponds to the case where a SemA-slot of L cannot be expressed
on the surface as an immediate dependent of L: absolute blocking; the examples have been given
in Part I (Subsection 3.7), and I will not return to them.
2. Incompatibility of two DSyntAs(L)
Here two subcases have to be distinguished:
1) two DSyntAs of L cannot be simultaneously expressed under any condition: these two
DSyntAs are incompatible as such;
2) two DSyntAs of L cannot be simultaneously expressed under particular surface conditions:
these two DSyntAs are compatible, but only if some particular surface realizations are selected.
Incompatibility of two DSyntAs as such
Here are two examples from Russian.
(39) a. Na nëm ležit vina za katastrofu [= II(VINA)] (Apresjan 1974: 151),
lit. (The responsibility for the catastrophe lies on him),
and
Na nëm ležit vina pered kollektivom [= III(VINA)],
lit. (The responsibility with respect to the collective lies on him),
but not
Na nëm ležit ??vina za katastrofu pered kollektivom,
lit. (The responsibility for the catastrophe with respect to the collectivity lies on him)
b. orkestr strunnyx instrumentov [= II] (Plungjan and Raxilina 1998: 109),
lit. (orchestra of cords),
and
orkestr klassičeskoj muzyki [= III],
lit. (orchestra of classical music),
but not
12
*orkestr strunnyx instrumentov klassičeskoj muzyki
A different type of example is given in Grimshaw 1990: 180 for English:
(40) a. The mere thought that Alan is here [= II] … ~ John’s [= I] thought,
but not
*John’s thought that Alan is here …
b. The knowledge that … [= II] ~ John’s [= I] knowledge,
but not
*John’s knowledge that …
(The grammaticality judgments are Grimshaw’s; native speakers diverge as to the degree of
acceptability of the expressions of the type Your thought that Alan might be here, etc.)
There is an interesting complication related to split variables, which we have seen in Part I,
3.4.2.2, p. 00ff. Suppose that a SIT(L) has two variable participants Ψ´ and Ψ´´ such that their
expressions are always incompatible, no matter under what surface form. We face then two
cases:
• Ψ´ and Ψ´´ are linked by a semanteme of a metonymic character: (is-part.of) or
(is.localized.on) (one of these participants is part of the other or is on it); then Ψ´ and Ψ´´ give
rise to one Sem-Actant slot say, Y, specified by split variables Y1 and Y2 (see Part I, 3.4.2., p.
00).
• Ψ´ and Ψ´´ are not linked by a semanteme of a metonymic character; then Ψ´ and Ψ´´ give
rise to two Sem-Actant slots, say, Y and Z (see (39)-(40)).
Incompatibility of particular surface realizations of two DSyntAs
We have in Korean (O’Grady 1991: 226-227):
(41) John+i
Seoul+ul
ttena+ss +ta
(John left Seoul).
NOM
but not
John+i
ACC
*Seoul+ul
NOM
leave PAST DECL(arative)
Honolulu+lo
ACC
ALL
ttena+ss
leave
+ta
PAST DECL
(John left Seoul for Honolulu).
The correct expression is
John+i
Seoul+eyse
NOM
Honolulu+lo
DAT
ALL
ttena+ss
+ta
leave PAST DECL
(John left Seoul for Honolulu).
The accusative marking the expression of DSyntA II (= Starting point) is not compatible with
the allative expression of DSyntA III (= End point), but the dative of the DSyntA II is.
Similar situations are found in many languages, especially if the two DSyntAs are expressed
by the same SSynt-means. Here are two examples from Russian:
13
(42) a. On prizval naselenie [= II] k spokojstviju [= III],
lit. (He appealed the population to calmness).
vs.
ego prizyv k naseleniju [= II] (his appeal to the population)
or
ego prizyv k spokojstviju [= III] (his appeal to calmness)
but not *ego prizyv k naseleniju k spokojstviju.
However, if different forms of expression are used, no incompatibility arises:
b. On prizval naselenie [= II] soxranjat´ [= III] spokojstvie,
lit. (He appealed the population to keep calmness).
and
ego prizyv k naseleniju [= II] soxranjat´ [= III] spokojstvie,
lit. (his appeal to the population to keep calmness)
(43) On pomešal Alenu [= III, Ndat] v vypolnenii [= II] zadači,
lit.
(He impeded Alain in fulfilling the task)
or
On pomešal Alenu [= III, Ndat] vypolnit´ [= II, Vinf] zadaču,
lit.
(He impeded Alain to-fulfill the task)
vs.
On pomešal vypolneniju [= II, Ndat] zadači Alenom,
lit.
(He impeded to fulfilling of the task by Alain),
but not
*On pomešal Alenu [= III, Ndat] vypolneniju [= II, Ndat] zadači,
where both DSyntAs are implemented by nouns in the dative.
3. Inseparability of DSyntAs(L)
A DSyntA-slot(L) may be expressible only if another DSyntA-slot(L) is actually expressed. Here
again two subcases have to be distinguished:
1) A DSyntAs of L can be expressed only if another DSyntA is expressed, no matter how:
these DSyntAs are inseparable as such;
2) A DSyntAs of L can be expressed—perhaps in a particular form—only if another DSyntA is
expressed in a particular form: these two DSyntAs are inseparable only if some particular surface
realizations are selected.
Inseparability of two DSyntAs as such
(44) The destruction of the city [= II] by the enemy [= I] was complete
and
The destruction was complete,
14
but not
*The destruction by the enemy [= I] was complete;
This is the prototypical case of inseparability: the DSyntA I cannot be expressed with the noun
DESTRUCTION if the DSyntA II is not. Such a situation is characteristic of many deverbal (≈
action) nouns in many languages. (But not of all such nouns and not in all the contexts: The
translation by Rilke still remains the best; The destruction by the enemy is preferable to
surrender.)
See Wechsler 1995: 63ff for some regularities concerning the inseparability of DSyntAs(L);
thus, often the DSyntA j of a verb cannot be expressed if the DSyntA i is not expressed, i < j; cf.
(45):
(45) Avoid smearing the drawing [i = II] with charcoal [j = III]. ~
Avoid smearing the drawing [= II]. ~
Avoid smearing,
but not
*Avoid smearing with charcoal [= III].
Inseparability of two DSyntAs in a particular surface form
(46) a. Èto pomešalo vypolnit´ [= II]zadaču,/vypolneniju [= II] zadači,
lit. (This impeded to-fulfill the task/to-fulfilling of-the-task),
but not
*Èto pomešalo v vypolnenii [= II] zadači,
lit. (This impeded in fulfillment of the task).
The expression of the DSyntA II by the prepositional phrase V + Nprep is quite grammatical, but,
requires the expression of the DSyntA III (which is itself not obligatory) to be present:
b. Èto pomešalo nam [= III] v vypolnenii [= II] zadači,
lit. (This impeded to us in fulfillment of the task).
4. Obligatoriness of DSyntAs
It is well known that some complements (and modifiers, for that matter) are obligatorily
expressed; what is important for us here is that this property accrues to some particular DSyntAs
of some Ls, for instance:
(47) a. This idea is WORTH pondering 〈discussing, analyzing, ...〉,
but not
*This idea is worth.
b. You can RELY on Leo 〈on his opinion, on your health, on me, ...〉,
but not
*You can rely.
(Similar examples: *It consists., *He tells., *He relates., ...)
15
The situation is actually more complex: there can be degrees of obligatoriness; obligatoriness
may depend on the form of L (e.g., a DSyntA is more obligatory with the finite form of the verb
L than with the infinitive); it can also depend on the context (a DSyntA may be less obligatory if
it is retrievable from the context); etc. But in this article, I need not to go in all these details.
All four aspects—blocking, incompatibility, inseparability, and obligatoriness of DSyntAs—
are easily taken care of: by restrictions accompanying the Government Pattern of L.
4.5. Changing the Active DSynt-Valence of L
The active DSynt-valence of a lexical unit L can be changed without affecting the Sem-valence
of L; namely, the active DSynt-valence of L can be increased or decreased. An increase of the
active DSynt-valence of L is possible because L can have a DSyntA which does not correspond
to any of its SemA-slots; a decrease is equally possible because L can have a SemA-slot that does
not correspond to any DSyntA-slot.
Increasing the active DSynt-valence of L can be done by standard syntactic operations
@@of the following type: Consider a DSyntA L((Y)) of a semantically two-actant lexeme L that
has its own DSyntA L((Z)): L((Y)) i→L((Z)); this configuration can be equivalent to another
configuration with L((Z)) ‘transferred’—in the DSynt-structure—from L((Y)) to L, ‘being raised,’
as it were, to a higher level of syntactic hierarchy, cf. Figure 1. In this way, L receives an
additional DSyntA, namely the DSyntA III, although it has only two SemA-slots. In most cases,
the ‘raised’ DSyntA L((Z)) is a ‘possessor’ (in a very large sense); therefore, this phenomenon is
known as Possessor Raising.
L
I
L((X))
L
I
II
L((Y ))
II III
L((X))
I
L((Z))
L((Y ))
L((Z))
Figure 1
Possessor Raising
Possessor Raising is widespread in French, especially in the construction with a body part
Possessor (= L((Z))); under some specific conditions, it is obligatory. Thus, in order to express
the meaning (I washed his head) one has to say (48):
(48) Fr. Je lui ai lavé la tête, lit. (I to-him have washed the head),
rather than *J’ai lavé sa tête (I have washed his head), as English has it. In the Surface-SyntS, the
raised Possessor is an actant—an IndirO; as a consequence, it has to be a DSyntA as well.
16
The same phenomenon is observed in Russian (where it is, however, more restricted than in
French):
(49) a. Oni razbili Petiny←očki
≡
Oni razbili→Pete očki,
lit.
(They broke Pete’s glasses) (They broke to-Pete [the] glasses)
[The first sentence in (49a) implies that at the moment of breaking, the glasses were not on Pete’s
nose, while the second sentence implies exactly the opposite: Pete was wearing glasses at this
moment.]
b. Petiny←očki razbilis´
≡
U Peti←razbilis´ očki,
(Pete’s glasses got broken)
lit. ≈ (By Pete [the] glasses got broken).
[The surface-syntactic status of the U + Ngen phrase is not quite clear. It might be a special
SSynt-Circumstantial depending on the Main Verb, and in many cases, it probably is. But, on the
other hand, this phrase can alternate with the dative complement: Oni razbili u Peti = Pete očki;
there are also constructions where the U + Ngen phrase is an indisputable SSynt-actant—an
oblique Object: U Peti bolit golova, lit. (At Pete aches the head). Therefore, I prefer describing
the U + Ngen phrase in this paper as an Indirect Object.]
c. On povesil kartinu v Petinu←komnatu ≡ Kartinu on povesil→k Pete 〈= Pete〉 v
komnatu,
lit. (He hanged the painting in Pete’s room) = (... to Pete in the room).
For a detailed survey of syntactic phenomena of the Possessor Raising type, see König and
Haspelmath 1998.
Decreasing the active DSynt-valence of L can be done also by standard morphological operations available in language , namely—by grammatical voices, more precisely suppressives of all
types; these operations have been characterized in Part I, 3.7.1, Item 3, p. 00.
5. Surface-Syntactic Actants
The main problem that has preoccupied practically everyone in this domain, beginning with Tesnière,10
is
the
differentiation
between
(syntactic)
Actants
and
(syntactic)
Circumstantials/@Modifiers; for criteria of this differentiation, see, among others, @@Panevová
1974-75, Engel 1977: 98-103, 158-179, Matthews 1981: 121ff, Somers 1987: 12-18, Helbig
1992: 74ff, and Bonami 1999. (This opposition is also known under other names: Complements
vs. Adjuncts or Terms vs. Non-Terms.)
There are two questions to answer in connection with the problem:
First question
Is the division of sentence elements depending on @the sentence head@ L into L’s Actants
and L’s Circumstantials/ Modifiers a partition?
In other words, are there ‘intermediate’ sentence elements, something in between Actants and
Circumstantials/Modifiers? I do not think so: for me, the division under consideration is a
17
partition, so no intermediate elements exist. More precisely, let us put aside the elements
involved in coordination (parts of conjoined strings) and the ‘ancillary’ elements of all types
(markers of grammemes in analytical forms, components of phraseologized constructions, and
the like). Then whatever remains in a sentence is a result of one or the other of two major
syntactic operations: complementation or modification. Elements introduced by
complementation are SSynt-Actants of L; they are foreseen in the lexicographic description of L
(@with the exception of ‘free’ SSynt-actants, see. 6, Item 4.2@) Elements introduced by
modification are SSynt-Circumstantial/SSynt-Modifiers of L; generally speaking, they are not
foreseen by L. Theoretically this is a strict dichotomy, although in practice it is often difficult,
perhaps even impossible, to convincingly include a given sentence element into one or the other
set. (When a researcher tries to define intermediate major types of sentence elements—as, for
instance, Somers 1984 does, what is actually found are SUBtypes of SSyntAs and SSyntCircumstantials, not something in between them.)
Second question
How does one distinguish between SSynt-Actants and SSynt-Circumstantials?
All sorts of operational tests have been proposed: omissibility, repeatability, frequency, linear
position, morphological behavior of Governors/Dependents, etc. But not even one, to my knowledge, turned out to be necessary and sufficient. (However, all of them, at least to some extent,
have played an important role as heuristic means attracting the researchers’ attention to ‘difficult’
cases; see, among other works, Bonami 1999: 21-42, which shows that neither omissibility nor
repeatability can be used as defining properties of SSyntAs vs. SSynt-Circumstantials.) The most
reliable criterion, however, seems to be so-called DO SO test (Lakoff and Ross 1976, Somers
1984: 516-520, 1987: 17, Bonami 1999: 69ff):
The DO SO Test for SSynt-Actantial Status of a sentence element
The DO SO test is carried out in three steps:
• take a clause C of the form “Subject + P + X” (John cuts a log with a saw on the veranda),
where X is the element which we want to test (here, X = on the veranda), and P is the Main Verb
with all its dependents—minus of course the Subject and X (here, P = cuts a log with a saw);
• construct another clause, C´, of the form “Subject´ + DO SO + X´” (Mary does so in the bedroom), where P is replaced with DO SO, while the Subject and the tested element X are replaced
with convenient expressions;
• conjoin C´ to C, to obtain a sentence of the form “C and C´” (John cuts a log with a saw on
the veranda, and Mary does so in the bedroom).
If the resulting sentence is incorrect—because the sentence element X´ cannot appear after do
so and thus contrast with X, dependent of the MV in P, X (and X´) is a SSynt-Actant; if the
resulting sentence is correct, X (and X´) is not a SSynt-Actant, but a SSynt-Circumstantial.
18
In our example, on the veranda is identified by the test as a SSynt-Circumstantial, which is
correct.
More illustrations (after Somers 1987: 18):
(50) a. I live in Manchester and Jock does so *in Salford. ~
I have lived in Manchester since 1995 and Jock has done so since 1999 .
b. I drive a Vokswagen and Jock does so *a Lancia. ~
I drive a Vokswagen for the director and Jock does so for the minister .
c. The News lasts for 15 minutes and the Weather Report does so *for 5. ~
The News lasts for 15 minutes on Monday and the Weather Report does so
on Tuesday .
d. Jock bought a car for £200 and Kieran did so *for £300. ~
Jock bought a car for £200 with stolen money and Kieran did so with my gift .
e. Jock found a penny and Kieran did so *a pound. ~
Jock found a penny in his pocket and Kieran did so *on the floor. ~
Jock found the penny in his pocket immediately , while Kieran did so
only after groping desperately through the junk he always keeps there .
f. Jock sent a letter to his father and Kieran did so *to his mother. ~
Jock sweeps the floor for his father , and Kieran does so for his mother .
According to the DO SO test, the boldfaced phrases are SSynt-Actants, and boxed phrases SSyntCircumstantials.
As we see, at least on some occasions, the DO SO test nicely distinguishes between a SSyntA
and a Circumstantial.11 The same type of test has been proposed for French, German, Japanese,
etc. (Somers 1984: 518, Bonami 1999).
The DO SO test is very useful, but it is difficult to conclude that it always gives the intuitively
expected results (pending a serious investigation). Its main drawback is its non-universality:
• The DO SO test is not applicable for stative and event verbs nor for non-verbal predicative
lexemes, while it is exactly these two groups of lexemes that mostly need an operational test for
the distinction between Actants and Circumstantials.
• It is not equally acceptable in all languages. Thus, in Russian, sentences with sdelat´ èto (the
equivalent of do so) are in many cases so cumbersome that the intuition of speakers balks and no
reliable judgments can be obtained.12
• The test identifies only those SSynt-Actants of L that belong to L’s active syntactic valence.
However, suppose that we want to admit ‘free’ SSynt-Actants, i.e., elements that are not lexically
19
controlled by L but still are considered as L’s SSynt-Actants rather than L’s SSyntCircumstantials (cf. 6, Item 4, p, 00); then it is not clear how the DO SO test will perform.
Therefore, I prefer to base the distinction between Actants and Circumstantials on their
SYNTACTIC properties. Roughly speaking, SSyntAs are sentence elements whose SSynt-behavior
is similar to that of MAJOR SSyntAs: the Subject, the DirO and the IndirO (also known as terms:
for instance, Van Valin 2001). In other words, less obvious SSyntAs can be defined inductively,
or recursively, as cluster notions, based on their similarity with a few previously established
obvious SSyntAs; for the latter the SSynt-actantial status is postulated. The main tool for
isolating and characterizing SSyntAs is then a LIST OF SYNTACTIC PROPERTIES, which are of course
language-specific. These properties can be grouped into three sets (Keenan 1976):
• Semantico-syntactic properties of sentence elements i: ’s SEMANTIC abilities (e.g., can/
cannot express the Causer, etc.), COMMUNICATIVE abilities (e.g., can/cannot be Focalized), and
REFERENTIAL abilities (e.g., can/cannot be referentially definite).
• Purely syntactic properties of sentence elements i:
—obligatory presence in any clause;
—possibility of multiple presence (= repeatability);
—special linear position;
—control of reflexivization;
—control of gerunds;
—possibility of relativization;
—possibility of gapping;
—possibility of pronominalization;
—participation in valence-changing operations/constructions;
etc.
These are SSynt-properties that are relevant for many languages; there are, however, many
more further, language-specific properties. Thus, for instance, in English, an important SSyntproperty of a N is its ability to admit a dangling preposition. Thus, Which bed did you sleep in in
New York? vs. *Which city did you sleep in her bed in? (the phrase in a bed is more of an actant
of [to] sleep than the phrase in a city; cf. Part I, 3.4.1, Item 5b, p. 00). In French, an important
SSynt-property of a clause element is its ability to be cliticized; etc.13 @It goes without saying
that in actual practice the researcher must have recourse to all such properties when defining
sentence elements in .
• Morpho-syntactic properties of sentence elements i (which are not present in all languages):
imposition of AGREEMENT and GOVERNMENT.
(For more on syntactic properties that serve to identify Synt-actants, see Plank (ed.) 1984, Plank
1990, Lazard 1994: 68ff, Iordanskaja and Mel’čuk 2000, Van Valin 2001: 33ff; a general review
20
of SSyntAs in languages of Europe is given in Lazard 1998. An in-depth analysis of syntactic
properties of French Circumstantials is found in Bonami 1999: 43-68, where the author
establishes four sufficient conditions for the Circumstantial status, based on linear position and
semantic scope.)
Taken globally, SSyntAs are characterized by their syntactic ACTIVENESS: they interact with
the Main Verb and with each other and have perceptible impact on the overall syntactic
organization of the sentence. In a sharp contrast, SSynt-Circumstantials are characterized by their
syntactic PASSIVENESS; generally speaking, there is little or no interaction between them and the
rest of the sentence.
Although lists of relevant syntactic properties are language-specific, the definition of SSyntA
is universal; it is inductive.
Definition 11: Surface-Syntactic Actant
1. The Subject and the @obvious@ Objects of L are (prototypical) SSyntAs of L [= the BASE
of induction].
2. An @expression@ that syntactically depends on L is a SSyntA of L in if and only if
possesses a sufficient number of common SSynt-properties with a SSyntA [= the STEP of
induction].
The Subject is defined as the most privileged sentence element: it is characterized by a set of
properties, which are exclusive to it. The DirO is the second most privileged sentence element: it
possesses another set of properties, some of which are shared by the Subject, but by no other sentence elements; and so forth. Subject and Objects (which are sometimes quite infelicitously
called Grammatical Relations/Functions or Terms) are characterized by very high syntactic
activeness: they impose agreement on the Main Verb, occupy privileged linear position, admit of
Relativization and/or of Raising, control Reflexivization and gerunds, etc. These SSyntAs
constitute the base of induction. Other sentence elements can be compared to them according to
previously established properties: a sentence element sharing a sufficient number of properties
with a SSyntA is also a SSyntA.
NB: As is always the case with distinctions in natural language, the borderline between SSyntAs
and SSynt-Circumstantials can be blurred. Thus, in some languages, a prototypical
Circumstantial, e.g., a locative expression, can be promoted by passivization to become the
Subject. Cf. in Kalagan (a Philippino language; Hagège 1983: 113) and in English; the
promoted Circumstantial is boxed:
(51) a. k +um+amang
aku
sa
tubig
na
lata ati
hardin
draw ACT
I.SUBJ
OBL
water
(I draw water in the garden with a can).
vs.
INSTR can
LOC
garden
21
kamang+an
ku
draw
I.INSTR SUBJ
lit.
LOC.PASS
ya hardin
garden
sa
tubig na
lata
OBL
water
can
INSTR
(The garden was-drawn-in water by-me with a can).
b. These cars are designed in such a way that people can sleep in them. ~
These cars are designed to be slep+t in.
In some other languages (e.g., Bantu) a Circumstantial can impose agreement on the MV:
(52) Kirundi (the controller Circumstantial is boxed)
A+ba+ntu
ba+ha +bi +zi+her+a
muru+go
i+bi+gori
i+n+ka
II
man
II
XIX VIII
X give IND
in
XIX pen
VIII corn
X cow
(Men give corn to cows in [the] pen)
[the verb form shows agreement with the locative Circumstantial by a class prefix ha-].
It is possible that in such a language, a locative phrase should be considered a ‘free’ SSyntA
(see below, 6, @4.2, p. 00), rather than a Circumstantial.
Be it as it may, I think that the existence of difficult cases does not undermine my main
postulate: sentence elements are strictly partitioned into SSyntAs and SSynt-Circumstantials.14
Having characterized SemA, DSyntAs and SSyntAs separately, I can now switch to correspondences between them.
6.
Correspondence between @Actants/Actant Slots of L
In the prototypical case, a SemA-slot(L) corresponds to a DSyntA-slot(L), which, in turn, corresponds to a SSyntA-slot(L). But in practice, it often happens that there is no one-to-one correspondence between these three types of actant slots. Thus, a SemA-slot(L) does not always
correspond to a DSyntA-slot(L): see the remarks on ‘modifying parts of speech,’ Part I, 3.2.3, p.
00 and 3.7.1, p. 00—case 1; the inverse is also true: there can be a DSyntA-slot(L) that does not
correspond to a SemA-slot(L)—case 2. Moreover, a DSyntA-slot of L does not always
correspond to a SSyntA-slot of L, either: it can correspond to a Circumstantial or a Modifier—
case 3. And inversely, there can be a SSyntA of L that does not correspond to a DSyntA-slot of L
(and of course not to a SemA-slot(L)—case 4. As a result, we obtain the following picture, with
one prototypical case and four cases15 of discrepancy between SemA-, DSyntA-, and SSyntAslots of a lexical unit:
22
prototypical
Sem-Actant
cases of discrepancy
case
1
SemA
SemA
2
3
4
SemA
DSyntActant
DSyntA
DSyntA
SSyntActant
SSyntA
SSyntA
DSyntA
SSyntA
Figure 2
Correspondences between SemA-, DSyntA-, and SSyntA-slots of an LU
The absence of one-to-one correspondence between semantic and syntactic actants of L is
studied in detail in Boguslavskij 1996. On the one hand, the book offers many interesting
examples supplied with profound analyses. Thus, in the phrase my most favorite painter the
meaning (I) is a SemA of the meaning (most favorite), while the syntactic link between MY and
(MOST) FAVORITE is not obvious; in any event, it is not a Synt-actantial dependency. On the
other hand, Boguslavskij introduces the notion of action sphere [= Rus. sfera dejstvija] of L,
which generalizes the concept of Synt-actant: the action sphere of L is any fragment of the
SSynt-Structure whose meaning fills in the corresponding SemA-slot of L (1996: 43-44).
Unfortunately, the complexity and length of the present paper prevents me from taking this
promising concept into account.
1. A SemA of L does not Correspond to a DSyntA of L
This situation can be illustrated with LUs that are ‘inherent modifiers.’ As indicated in Part I,
3.7.1, Item 1, p. 00, the SemA-slot 1 in the lexicographic description of an LU L of a ‘modifying’
part of speech (the adjective, the adverb, the preposition, ...) does not have a corresponding
DSyntA-slot I, because the SemA 1 of such an LU is always—by definition—the Synt-Governor
of L.
2. A DSyntA of L does not Correspond to a SemA of L
A DSyntA(L) does not correspond to a SemA(L), although it does to a SSyntA(L), in the
following three subcases:
• Displaced DSynt-Actants;
• Split DSynt-Actants;
• DSynt-Actants with Support Verbs.
All such DSyntAs(L) have the following important property: although they do not directly
correspond to a SemA-slot(L), they correspond to a SemA-slot of a different LU that is
semantically linked to L or correspond to a SemA-slot(L) indirectly. This feature distinguishes
case 2 from case 4—‘free’ SSyntAs, which correspond to no DSyntA and no SemA at all.
23
2.1. Displaced DSynt-Actants
A DSyntA(L) can be the result of the application of a general grammatical rule, which turns
an DSynt-Actant of a DSynt-Actant of L into L’s own DSyntA—for instance, Possessor Raising,
see 4.5 above, p. 00. Such a DSyntA(L), which does not correspond to any SemA-slot(L), can be
called a displaced actant. A displaced DSyntA(L) does not have a corresponding slot in the
lexicographic entry for L; however, its presence and form are controlled by L—semantically,
syntactically or lexically. Thus, in the Russian examples (50), p. 00, we see the opposition
between the IndirO Ndat (50a) and the OblO U + Ngen (50b), which are distributed according to
the type of the governing verb: roughly speaking, the displaced actant (shown in boldface) must
be realized by an IndirO (= a noun in the dative) if the governing verb is transitive, and by an
OblO (= a prepositional phrase with U (at/by)) if it is intransitive.
2.2. Split DSynt-Actants
Consider the sentences Alan saw that Leo was sleeping and Alan saw Leo sleep. In both we have
the verb [to] SEE, which has two SemAs: X sees Y. (For simplicity’s sake, I do not mention here
the third—restricted—SemA: (eyes), see Part I, 3.2.3, Item 1.1, (iii), p. 00, as in She sees it with
her left eye only.) However, in the DSyntS, the first SEE has two DSyntAs, while the second has
three:
SEE
I
SEE
II
SLEEP
ALAN
I
I
II III
ALAN
SLEEP
LEO
LEO
This is the phenomenon of ‘splitting’ a Sem-actant. It closely corresponds to what Apresjan
(1974: 153-155) called a split valence: one SemA-slot of L is implemented by two L’s DSyntAs,
each of them picking up, so to speak, a part of the SemA, the latter being a situation with its
participants. Thus, in the first sentence above, the DSyntA II denotes the whole situation that is
seen: the fact together with the entity involved; in the second sentence, the DSyntA II denotes
only the entity, and the DSyntA III only the fact. Par abus de langage, the DSyntAs resulting
from a split of a SemA are called split DSyntAs. To describe split DSynt-actants in the lexical
entry of SEE, an additional Government Pattern [= GP; on GP, see below, Section 7) is used:
[to] SEE, GP 1
[to] SEE, GP 2
X=I
Y = II
X=I
Y = II
N
that CLAUSE
N
N
P(Y) = III
Vinf
24
The notation ‘P(Y)’ in the heading of GP 2 means that the DSyntA III of SEE corresponds semantically to the predicate stated about the SemA Y of SEE—when the latter is only the entity, i.e., a
part of the situation.
Split DSyntAs can of course appear only when the corresponding SemA is instantiated by a
fact, which has its own SemAs. Split DSyntAs(L) have their own DSyntA-slots, although these
slots do not correspond to SemA-slots(L) in a direct way. This technique is used for all cases
when one has to deal with split DSyntAs: I see that the exam is approaching ~ I see the exam
approaching (and Accusativus cum Infinitivo constructions, like the famous Lat. Caeterum puto
Carthaginem delendam esse, lit. (Besides I-believe Carthage to-be-destroyable to-be)), I find that
he is intelligent ~ I find him intelligent, I believe that he is in Singapore ~ I believe him to be in
Singapore, etc.
The case of John kissed Mary on the left cheek is different: [to] KISS ≡ (human X kisses
living being Y on Y’s body part Z) has three SemA-slots (Y and Z being related by a metonymic
link), so that here each DSyntA-slot corresponds to its own SemA-slot, and no split DSynt-actant
appears.
NB : The adjective split in split DSyntAs does not have the same meaning as the adjective split in split variables,
1 2
term introduced in Part I, 3.4.2.2, p. 00 (Y = Y /Y ). I would like by all means to avoid such a polysemy
in terminology, but I was unable to find a good term to replace split in one of its usages.
@It is interesting to note
2.3. DSynt-Actants with support verbs
Strictly speaking, support verbs (or, more generally, verbs that are elements of the value of a
particular LF) do not have their own full-fledged definition: they do not have their own SemAslots. Therefore, a DSyntA of a support verb Vsupp does not correspond to a SemA-slot(Vsupp),
but to a SemA-slot(L). Thus, in Alain did me a favor the verb [to] DO is Oper1(FAVOR), which
has three DSyntAs:
Oper1
I II III
ALAIN
I
FAVOR
The DSyntA I of this Oper1 corresponds to SemA-slot (X) of (favor), the DSyntA II to the LU
itself, and the DSyntA III to the SemA-slot (Y) of (favor) ((X’s favor to Y)) The verb [to]
as such, that is, as an element of the value of Oper1(FAVOR) appears only in the SSyntS,
FAVOR
DO
where there are no more DSyntAs. (For a discussion of the GPs in the lexicographic descriptions
of lexico-functional support verbs, see Alonso Ramos 1998: Ch. 6, 2 and 2001.)
In some languages, collocations involving support verbs are more central and more complex
than in English, French, German, or Russian. Thus, in Persian (Lazard 1994: 93-95), the role of a
25
verb is played, most of the times, by a phrase ‘support verb Vsupp + (semantically deverbal) noun
S0,’ with lesser or greater degree of phraseologization. Here are a few such constructions—
’Vsupp + S0’ collocations, currently known as ‘complex verbs’—that correspond to transitive
verbs (‘[N-rā]’ stands for their DirO, -rā being a postposition that obligatorily marks a definite
DirO):
([to] end [N])
= tamam kardan [N-rā], lit. (ending
do [N])
([to] begin [N])
= āg˘āz
kardan [N-rā], lit. (beginning
do [N])
([to] light up [N])
= āteš
kardan [N-rā], lit. (fire
do [N])
([to] beat [N])
= kotāk zādan
[N-rā], lit. (beating
hit [N])
([to] show [N])
= nešan dādan
[N-rā], lit. (sign
give [N])
([to] learn [N])
= yād
gereftan [N-rā], lit. (memory
take [N])
([to] congratulate [N]) = tābrik goftan
[N-rā], lit. (congratulation say [N])
For instance: Nowruz-rā be šomā tābrik miguyam, lit. (New-Year [= DirO] on you congratulation I-say) = (I wish you a Happy New Year).
Within a construction of such a type, S0 is a SSyntA of Vsupp—namely, its Quasi-DirO. The
‘real’ DirO, i.e. N-rā, corresponds to the DSyntA II of Vsupp. What is the DSynt-role of S0? I
think that this S0 is the DSyntA III of Vsupp, so that the latter is the value of Labor12(S0). We
find in this construction quite an exotic diathesis of Vsupp: its DSyntA III corresponds to the
SSyntA Quasi-DirO, but does not correspond to a SemA, because Vsupp, being empty, does not
have any.16
3. A DSyntA-slot of L does not correspond to a SSyntA-slot of L
A DSynt-Actant of L can be expressed on the surface not by a SSyntA, but by a modifier, an
attribute, a circumstantial, a part of a compound, or a conjunct of L. Cf.:
(53) INVASION II→CENTRAL AMERICA
⇔
Central American←modif invasion
BEHAVE II→GOOD
⇔
behave attrib→well
EXAMINATION II→PATIENT
⇔
patient’s←possess examination
SMELL II→GOOD
⇔
[It] smells circumst→good
ACCESS II→INTERNET
⇔
Internet←compos access
TRY II→COME
⇔
try coordin→and conjunct→come
A DSyntA that is not expressed by a SSyntA necessarily corresponds to a SemA; this follows
from the definition of DSyntA (it is defined by its correspondence either to a SemA or to a
SSyntA of L).
A clear example of a DSyntA that is not expressed by a SSyntA but rather by a SSyntCircumstantial is provided by Location Adverbials used with location verbs; cf. French examples
(54) quoted by Lazard (1998: 68):
26
(54) a. Il habite à la campagne en Bourgogne dans une maison isolée
(He lives in the country in Burgundy in an isolated house).
b. Je me rends en ville chez mes parents (I go to town to my parents).
We see in (54a-b) a group of conjunctively linked SSynt-Circumstantials expressing one DSyntA
(Lazard proposes for such Circumstantials the term adstants). Thus, for (54a), the DSynt-subtree
of Figure 3 depends on the verb HABITER ([to] live) in the DSyntS as the DSyntA II, and in the
SSyntS the SSynt-image of this subtree appears as a locative Circumstantial of the same verb:
HABITER
II
Locin [= À]
II QUASI-COORD
Locin [= EN]
CAMPAGNE II QUASI-COORD
Locin [= DANS]
BOURGOGNE II
MAISON
Figure 3
The DSyntS of sentence (54a)
NB : To represent such syntactic constructions (à la campagne→en Bourgogne→dans une
maison) at ther DSynt-level, an special DSyntRel—QUASI-COORDINATIVE—is needed,
since the coordination of this type does not admit of a normal way of expression—e.g.,
using the conjunction ET (and).
More examples of this descrepancy between DSyntA- and SSyntA-slots are found in
Apresjan 1979 (Rus. Kak ego zovut?, lit. (How do [they] call him?) = (What’s his name?), On
otlično vyšel na fotografii, lit. (He came out perfectly on the photo), On tak velel, lit. (He ordered
so) , etc.) and Boguslavskij 1996: 27ff.
4. A SSyntA of L does not correspond to a DSyntA-slot of L
Four major types of SSyntAs(L) can be indicated that do not correspond to DSyntAs(L) and, as a
consequence, do not correspond to the SemA-slots(L):
• Dummy Surface-Syntactic sentence elements, i.e., empty Subjects and DirOs (≈ ‘impersonal’
pronouns).
• ‘Free’ SSyntAs, in particular, ‘free Datives,’ which are not controlled by L’s active Semvalence or by the active Sem-valence of L’s Actants (these are particular types of IndirOs).
• Cognate Actants.
27
• SSynt-Actants within full phrasemes (= idiomatic expressions) controlled by L.
4.1. Dummy Subjects and dummy DirOs
A language can require, at least in some constructions, the use of semantically empty elements,
called impersonal pronouns, to fill the SSynt-role of Subject and sometimes of DirO. Such is the
‘meteorological’ IT (It is raining; with Subject-to-Object Raising: Did you hear it thundering?)
or the expletive IT (It seems that Alan is crazy; This theory has it that the electron may have any
spin). Similar phenomena are known in many languages: for instance, Fr. Il pleut (It rains), Il a
été passé trois lois importantes, lit. (It has been passed three important laws). In some languages
(such as Spanish or Russian) this impersonal pronoun may be zero: Sp. Ø3SG llueve (It rains) or
Rus. Ø3SG svetaet (It dawns); in some others, an impersonal pronoun (non-zero or zero) appears
with various forms of what is loosely known as impersonal passive: Germ. Es wird getanzt, lit. (It
becomes danced) = (People dance); Sp. Ø3SG se vende autos nuevos, lit. (It sells itself new cars [=
DirO]) = (New cars are sold [here]); Ukr. ØNEU.3SG mnoju cju sumu bulo splačeno, lit. (It was paid
by-me this sum [= DirO = ACC]) = (I paid this sum).
In all such cases, the dummy element is not reflected in the definition of L and does not
participate in L’s diathesis. However, it is indicated in L’s GP—in a cell which has no name in
the heading. Cf., for instance, the GP of the phraseme kIT DAWNS [upon X that Y]l (as in It
dawned upon me that ...):
kIT DAWNSl
IT
X=I
Y = II
1. that CLAUSE
1. upon N
(In the SSyntS, the THAT clause depends on [to] DAWN via the quasi-subjectival SSyntRel, and the
UPON phrase is an OblO.)
The GP of the Russian verb TOŠNIT´, lit. [to nauseate) = ([to] have nausea) (as in ØNEU, 3SG
menja tošnit, lit. ([It] nauseates me)), where the Experiencer is realized as a DirO in the
accusative:
TOŠNIT´
ØNEU, 3SG
X = II
1. Nacc
Thus, these dummy SSyntAs have their SSyntA-slots in the corresponding lexical entries, but
they do not correspond to any Sem- or DSyntAs.
4.2. ‘Free Datives’
It is not quite clear at this point whether the existence of ‘free’ SSyntAs, i.e., SSyntAs not
controlled by the LU’s active Sem-valence should be accepted. I am inclined to admit them,
because—I think—they are not similar enough to SSynt-Circumstantials. Among other things,
28
word order rules for them (in corresponding languages) put these elements closer to SSyntAs
than to SSynt-Circumstantials. And even if only for methodological reasons, it is preferable to
admit first more variegated types of elements and to see what techniques are needed to deal with
them; this might throw additional light on the problem.
Here is a sufficiently clear example of what I think is a ‘free’ SSyntA: Russian phrase ZA +
Num +money N (za 100 rublej (for 100 roubles)), which means (being paid Num N). Practically,
any action verb can take this dependent: On napišet tebe adres za 5 roublej (He’ll write you the
address for 5 roubles), Obed dostavljaetsja za 5 roublej (The dinner is delivered for 5 roubles),
On budet spat´ dva časa za 5 roublej (He will sleep two hours for 5 roubles), etc. There are of
course many other phrases of this type. It is clear that they are not controlled by the active
valency of the verb; but are they SSynt-Actants or SSynt-Circumstantials? I think they are
SSyntAs, although a special study is needed to prove this.
The best-known sentence elements that can claim the status of ‘free’ SSyntAs without being
related to DSyntAs/SemAs are so-called ‘Free Datives.’ The three major types of Free Datives of
which I am aware are the Beneficiary, the Concerned, and the Dativus Ethicus (see Abraham
1973, Leclère 1979, Herslund 1988, Belle and Langendonck (eds.) 1996, Langendonck and Belle
(eds.) 1999). On semantic configurations expressed by Free Datives, see Wiezbicka 1986 and
1988: 359-387.
• Beneficiary
The sentence element referred to as Beneficiary is a kind of IndirO; here is an example (Somers
1987: 25):
(55) a. The gamekeeper shot the squire a rabbit.
The boldfaced Beneficiary is an IndirO that does not correspond to any Sem- or DSyntA-slot of
[to] SHOOT. In the DSyntS, it has to be represented as a prepositional phrase with a fictitious preposition, for instance «FOR» (≈ (for the benefit of ...), semantically different from ‘real’ FOR ≈ (to
be received by ...); fictitious lexical nodes are explained in 4.1, p. 00); thus, at the DSynt-level, a
Beneficiary is not an actant, but an ATTR. Cf.:
b. The gamekeeper gave the squire a rabbit. ~
The gamekeeper gave a rabbit to the squire;
but
The gamekeeper shot the squire a rabbit. ~
The gamekeeper shot a rabbit *to the squire.
A Beneficiary Object can cooccur with a FOR-phrase, which demonstrates the difference of their
meanings:
c. The gamekeeper shot the squire a rabbit for his friend Leo.
29
The Beneficiary’s linear position and cooccurrence restrictions on its use qualify it as an IndirO:
its SSynt-behavior is simply indistinguishable from that of the IndirO with [to] GIVE or [to]
SEND. (Wechsler 1995: 84ff argues in favor of the FOR-phrase being a SSynt-Circumstantial.
However, the DO SO test—p. 00—treats this phrase as an Actant: *John shot a rabbit for the
squire, and Alain did so for his friend [D. Beck]. If this is so, the FOR-phrase could be another
type of ‘free’ SSyntA.) The other known term for the Beneficiary is Inner Recipient.
• Concerned
The Concerned is a different kind of IndirO—with the meaning (X is affected by L), which could
be both positively or negatively:
(56) a. Alain got me the spider out of the bath,
where me does not mean (for me = so that I receive the spider): it means that I am somehow concerned by the situation (for instance, it avoids me getting the spider out myself,
which corresponds to another sense of FOR).
b. Rus. U neë lampočka peregorela, lit. (At her [a] bulb has-blown-out),
where u neë (at her) means that she is affected by the blown-out bulb.
In the DSyntS, such an X must be introduced by the fictitious preposition «CONCERNING» (and is
thus an ATTR).
Two more examples (French; Leclère 1979: 124-125):
(57) a. Paul a cassé ces trois verres à Marie
(Paul has broken these three glasses on Mary).
b. Paul a fait une bronchite à sa mère (Paul has caught a bronchitis on his mother).
@For an interesting discussion of the distinction between actantial and non-actantial (= ‘free)
datives in French, see Rooryck 1988.
• Dativus Ethicus
Finally, Dativus Ethicus is a personal pronoun (of 1st or 2nd person singular, i.e., (to me) or (to
youSG)), carrying a very complex meaning: ≈ (I/youSG being emotionally implicated [in the fact]).
(58) a. Germ. Liebe mir nur keinen Hippie (Abraham 1973: 16),
lit. (Don’t you ever love me a hippie!) = (Don’t you ever love a hippie on me!)
b. Fr. Paul te lui fabriquera une table (à Marie) en vingt minutes (Leclère 1979: 134)
(Paul could make her a table (for Mary) in twenty minutes, d’ya see!)
c. Fr. Paul te lui a donné une de ces gifles (à Marie) ! (Leclère 1979: 143)
(Paul has given her (to Mary) one of those slaps, d’ya see!)
d. Fr. Paul te m’a donné une de ces gifles ! (Leclère 1979: 144)
(Paul has given me one of those slaps, d’ya see!)
30
Dativus Ethicus has two important properties: 1) it can be only the 1st or 2nd person singular
pronoun (no noun in the dative is possible in this role), and 2) it can cooccur with other IndirOs,
while the latter cannot cooccur with each other. Therefore, in the SSyntS, this sentence element
has to be described by a particular SSyntRel, for instance, dat.etic.-objectival. In the DSyntS,
another fictitious preposition «ETHIC.DAT» is needed to represent it (so that, in the DSyntS,
Dativus Ethicus is again an ATTR) .
4.3. Cognate Actants
Another type of a SSyntA(L) that corresponds to no DSyntA(L) and to no SemA-slot at all is a
cognate actant (generally called cognate object; note, however, that this latter term covers more
than our cognate actant):
(59) a. He laughed a hearty laugh.
b. He smiled a wide smile.
c. He sighed a deep sigh.
d. He slept a good long sleep.
e. He died a terrible death.
From the viewpoint of its form, a cognate actant is a deverbal noun S0(V) that appears as a
SSyntA, in this case—as a DirO with the intransitive verb V which otherwise cannot have a
DirO; most often, this S0(V) has the same radical as V. Usually, a cognate actant supports an
adjectival modification that semantically bears on V, as in (59). Being a DirO, a cognate actant
has to be treated as a SSyntA of the corresponding verb. However, [a] LAUGH in (59a) does not
correspond to a SemA-slot of [to] LAUGH (nor of any other lexeme linked to LAUGH), and there
is no reason to associate it to a DSynt-actant. As a result, a cognate actant should not be foreseen
in the GP of the verb [to] LAUGH —although it might be necessary to specify the possibility of a
cognate actant in the lexical entry of [to] LAUGH; it can be done by an LF (Magn, Bon or else a
non-standard one). At the DSynt-level, a cognate SSyntA is represented as a Modifier (as before,
by the DSyntRel ATTR):17
LAUGH V
Magn
LAUGH V
ATTR
I
JOHN
subjectival
JOHN
direct-objectival
LAUGH N
modificative
HEARTY
Figure 4
The DSyntS and SSyntS of the sentence John laughed a hearty laugh
31
4.3. SSynt-Actants within full phrasemes
Consider the notorious full phraseme, or idiom, [to] kKICK THE BUCKETl ≈ ([to] die). It is a LU of
English; in the DSyntS, it is represented by one node and has only one DSyntA: I, the
designation of the person who dies. But in the SSyntS, it appears as KICK directobjectival→[ΤΗΕ] BUCKET. As a result, we have a DirO that does not correspond to any DSyntA
of this phraseme and, consequently, does not correspond to a SemA-slot. That is exactly what
happens with every full phraseme that includes ‘internal’ SSyntAs.
Phraseological SSynt-actants include an interesting particular case: a dummy pronoun. We
find it, e.g., in German idioms Ich habe es eilig, lit. (I have it urgent) = (I am in a hurry), Er wird
es in der Sprachwissenschaft weit bringen (He will be very successful in linguistics), etc., and in
French idioms la bailler belle [à N], lit. ([to] give her [to N] beautiful) = ([to] try to deceive [N]),
se la couler douce, lit. ([to] pass her to-oneself sweet) = ([to] have a life without complications),
etc.
7. Government Pattern of L
As indicated above, the correlation between all three types of actants of L and their surface (=
SSynt-/DMorph-) implementation18 is specified in the Government Pattern of L: GP(L).
In terms of its role, the GP of L corresponds to what is known as subcategorization frame in
other linguistic approaches.19
A GP is written as a table of m columns and n rows, where m is the number of DSyntAslots(L), and n, the maximal number of SSynt-/DMorph-realizations possible for a DSynt-actant
of L. In each column we have:
In the headline of the table, the correspondence between SemA-slots and DSyntA-slots. This
correspondence is called the diathesis of L. It can be of one of the following three types:
1) X ⇔ Ι , Y ⇔ III; 2) X + Y ⇔ I; 3) SemA1(Y) ⇔ III
• The expressions of the form ‘X ⇔ Ι ,’ ‘Y ⇔ III,’ etc. illustrate the prototypical
correspondences.
• ‘X + Y ⇔ I’ means that the two SemA-slots taken together correspond to one DSyntA, as in
Alain [= X] and Helen [= Y] kissed passionately, where the coordinated phrase Alain and Helen
constitutes one DSyntA I of the reciprocal verb [to] KISS.
• ‘SemA1(Y) ⇔ III’ means that the DSyntA III corresponds to the SemA-slot 1 of Y(L), not to
a SemA-slot(L), as in Fr. Alain [= X ⇔ I] baise la main [= Y ⇔ II] à la dame [= SemA1(Y)
(Alain kisses the hand to the lady), where (lady) is the DSyntA III of BAISER ([to] kiss)
and corresponds to the SemA-slot 1 of (hand) (= the Owner of a body part).
⇔ III], lit.
Thus, a DSyntA-slot of L can correspond 1) to one SemA-slot(L), 2) to a union of two
SemA-slots(L) and 3) to a SemA-slot of a SemA of L. A cell in the heading of a GP can also be
32
empty, if the corresponding cell in the body of the table contains a semantically empty
expression, i.e., a dummy SSynt-element.
In the table proper, each cell manifests one of the three possibilities:
—The cell corresponds to a DSyntAi of L (the standard case). Then:
• Either the cell contains the list of SSynt-elements that can realize the DSyntAi, with a full
specification of the DMorph-means of their surface implementation, for instance:
subj→Ngen
[subject in the genitive]
apposit.1→Nnom
[prepositional object introduced by ON, as in depend on]
[non-agreeing apposition in the nominative]
adverbial→ADV
[invariable adverbial]
prepos.obj→on
+N
NB: Recall that the expression of a DSyntA is not necessarily a SSyntA: it can be a Modifier.
At the same time, the cell i contains the indication of the obligatory character of the
DSyntAi: oblig. The absence of this indication means by default that the DSyntAi is
optional (except for the DSyntA I, which is in principle always obligatory).
• Or the cell is empty (technically, it is filled with a blank), which means that the DSyntAislot cannot be expressed in utterance (this slot is, so to speak, ‘dormant:’ it can be
expressed indirectly—via an LF, etc., see Part I, 3.2.3, p. 00). The DSyntAi-slot is
blocked, which simply means that the corresponding SemA-slot is blocked.
—The cell does not corresponds to a DSyntAi-slot of L (the special case). This is possible
only if one of the SSyntAs of L is a dummy: a dummy Subject of the type IT in It rains or It
seems that John is sick or a dummy DirO of the type The latest theory has it that this virus is not
lethal or Germ. Er schafft es, die Arbeit zu beenden, lit. (He manages it to finish the work). For
instance:
subj→IT
[The dummy subject IT]
As an illustration, let me show a column of the GP for three English verbs that have an
IndirO:
[to] GIVE
[to] CONTRIBUTE
[to] ENVY
Z = III
1. −indir-obj→to N
2. −indir-obj→N
Z = III
1. −indir-obj→to N
Z = III
1. −indir-obj→N
For [to] GIVE, the GP allows both He gives an apple to Mary and He gives Mary an apple; for
[to] CONTRIBUTE, only He contributed $100 to the committee is possible (*He contributed the
committee $100〉, while the GP of [to] ENVY admits only He envies Mary her wealth 〈*He envies
her wealth to Mary〉.
And now, the full GPs for the verbs [to] ACCUSE and [to] BLAME:
[to] ACCUSE
33
X =I
1. −subj→N
Y = II
1. −dir-obj→N
Z = III
1. −obl-obj→of N
2. −obl-obj→of Vger
John [= I] accused the minister [= II] of fraud [= III]
〈of not doing his duty [= III]〉.
[to] BLAME, GP 1
X=I
1. −subj→NN
Y = II
1. −dir-obj→N
Z = III
1. −obl-obj→for N
2. −obl-obj→for Vger
John [= I] blamed the minister [= II] for the deficit [= III]
〈for having forgotten his duty [= III]〉.
[to] BLAME, GP 2
X=I
1. −subj→NN
Z = II
1. −dir-obj→N
Y = III
1. −obl-obj→on N
John [= I] blamed the deficit [= II] on the minister [= III] .
As we see, semantically close verbs may have different Government patterns; on the other
hand, one verb may have more than one GP.
The GP(L) is supplied with a list of constraints that specify the incompatibility/the
inseparability of DSyntAs of L and indicate the conditions for that (C stands for ‘column,’ i.e.,
for a DSyntA-slot; a Roman number refers to the column, and an Arabic number indicates the
cell, i.e., a particular surface means of expression). For instance:
Impossible: CII + CIII
[DSyntAs II and III can never be both expressed as direct dependents of L]
Impossible: CII without CIII
[DSyntA II can never be expressed as a direct dependent of L without DSyntA III
being also expressed]
Impossible: CII.3 + CIII.1
[DSyntA II cannot be implemented by the means nº 3 if the DSyntA III is implemented by the means nº 1, and vice versa]
For a detailed description of Government Pattern, see Apresjan 1974: 133ff.
*s
*
*
34
Here I can let the curtain fall on the little drama of Actants. At least, a few things are now
clearer than they have been before, although many problems remain not only unanswered, but not
even properly stated. Faciant meliora potentes!
References
Abraham, Werner (1973). The Ethic Dative in German. In Generative Grammar in Europe,
Kiefer, F. and N. Ruwet (eds.), Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1-19.
Alonso Ramos, Margarita (1998). Étude sémantico-syntaxique des constructions à verbe support.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université de Montréal.
Alonso Ramos, Margarita (2001). Constructions à verbe support dans des langues SOV. Bulletin
de la Société de linguistique de Paris, 96(1), 79-106.
Apresjan, Jurij (1974). Leksičeskaja semantika. Moskva: Nauka. [Reprinted: 1998.]
Apresjan, Jurij (1979). K ponjatiju glagol´nogo upravlenija. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, 3,
197-205.
Belle, van, William; and Langendonck, van Willy (eds.) (1996). The Dative. Vol. 1. Descriptive
Studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Boguslavskij, Igor´ (1996). Sfera dejstvija leksičeskix edinic. Moskva: Škola “Jazyki russkoj
kul´tury”.
Bonami, Olivier (1999). Les constructions du verbe : le cas des groupes prépositionnels
argumentaux. Analyse syntaxique, sémantique et lexicale. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Université Paris VII.
Engel, Ulrich (1977). Syntax der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Berlin: Erich Schmidt. [3rd rev.
ed.: 1994.]
Feuillet, Jack (réd.) (1998). Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe. Berlin—New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Hagège, Claude (1983). Pour le retour d’exil des périphériques. Modèles linguistiques, 5: 1, 107116.
Helbig, Gerhard (1992). Probleme der Valenz- und Kasustheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Herslund, Michael (1988). Le datif en français. Louvain/Paris: Peeters.
Iordanskaja, Lidija; and Igor Mel’čuk (1981). On a class of Russian verbs which can introduce
Direct Speech. In The Slavic Verb, P. Jakobsen and H. Krag (eds.), Copenhague: Rosenkilde
and Bagger, 51-66. [See also in: I. Mel’čuk, The Russian Language in the Meaning-Text
Perspective, 1995, Moskva—Wien, Škola “Jazyki russkoj kul´tury”/Wiener Slawistischer
Almanach, 215-231.]
Iordanskaja, Lidija; Mel’čuk, Igor (2000). The notion of Surface-Syntactic Relation revisited
(valence-controlled Surface-Syntactic Relations in French). In Slovo v tekste i v slovare.
35
Sbornik statej k semidesjatiletiju Ju.D .Apresjana, L.L. Iomdin and L.P. Krysin (red.),
Moskva: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury, 391-433.
Kahane, Sylvain (1998). Le calcul des voix grammaticales. Bulletin de la Société de linguistique
de Paris, 93(1), 325-348.
Kathman, David (1993). Expletive verb marking in Abkhaz. BLS-19, 193-204.
Keenan, Edward (1976). Towards universal definition of ‘Subject.’ In Subject and Topic, Ch. Li
(ed.), New York etc.: Academic Press, 303-334.
Keenan, Edward; and Comrie, Bernard (1977). Noun phrase accesibility and Universal Grammar.
Linguistic Inquiry, 8(1), 63-98.
König, Ekkehard; and Haspelmath, Martin (1998). Les constructions à possesseur externe dans
les langues d’Europe. In: J. Feuillet (ed.) 1998: 525-606.
Lakoff, George; and Ross, John (1976). Why you can’t do so into the sink. In Syntax and
Semantics, vol. 7: Notes from the Linguistic Underground, J. McCawley (ed.), New York:
Academic Press, 101-111.
Langendonck, van Willy; and Belle, van William (eds.) (1999). The Dative. Vol. 2. Theoretical
and Contrastive Studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Lazard, Gilbert (1994). L’actance. Paris: PUF. [Translation: 1998. Actancy. Berlin—New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.]
Lazard, Gilbert (1998). Définition des actants dans les langues européennes. In: Feuillet (ed.)
1998: 12-146.
Leclère, Christian (1979). Syntactic Datives and Ethic Datives. Statistical Methods in Linguistics,
1: 2, 122- 147.
Matthews, Peter (1981). Syntax. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.
Mel´čuk, Igor´ (1974). Opyt teorii lingvističeskix modelej “Smysl ⇔ Tekst”. Semantika,
Sintaksis. Moskva: Nauka. [Reprinted: 1999.]
Mel’čuk, Igor (1988). Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice. Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press.
Mel’čuk, Igor (1992). Paraphrase et lexique: la théorie Sens-Texte et le Dictionnaire Explicatif et
Combinatoire. In: Mel’čuk et al., 1992, Dictionnaire explicatif et combinatoire du français
contemporain. Recherches lexico-sémantiques III, Montréal: Les Presses de l’Université de
Montréal, 9-58.
O’Grady, William (1991). Categories and Case. The Sentence Structure of Korean. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: Benjamins.
@@Panevová, Jarmila (1974-75) On verbal frames in functional generative description. Part I:
Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics [= PBML], 22, 3-40, Part II : PBML, 23, 17-53.
Plank, Frans (1990). Objets trouvés. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung, 43(1), 59-85.
36
Plank, Frans (ed.) (1984). Objects. Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations. London etc.:
Academic Press.
Raxilina, Ekaterina (2000). Kognitivnyj analiz predmetnyx imen: semantika i sočetaemost´. Moskva: Russkie slovari.
@Rooryck, Johan (1988) Formal aspects of French non-lexical datives. Folia Linguistica, 22: 34, 373-386.
Sag, Ivan; and Pollard, Carl (1989). Subcategorization and Head-driven Phrase Structure. In
Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, M. Baltin and A. Kroch (eds.), Chicago—
London: The University of Chicago Press, 139-181.
Samvelian, Pollet (2001). Le statut syntaxique des objets « nus » en persan. Bulletin de la Société
de linguistique de Paris, 96(1), 349-388.
Somers, Harold (1984). On the validity of the Complement-Adjunct distinction in Valency
Grammar. Linguistics, 22(4), 507-530.
Somers, Harold (1987). Valency and Case in Computational Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Van Valin, Robert (2001). An Introduction to Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wechsler, Stephen (1995). The Semantic Basis of Argument Structure. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Wierzbicka, Anna (1986). The semantics of ‘internal dative’ in English. Quaderni di semantica,
7(1), 121-135, 155-165.
Wierzbicka, Anna (1988). The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
1
. (4.1, Item 1, p. 00) The number 6 has nothing mysterious in it; it was empirically established
(Apresjan 1974: 137), based on such cases as Rus. KOMANDIROVAT´ ([to] send on a
(business) mission): X[I] sends Y[II] from Z[III] to W[IV] to do P[V] for the period T[VI]. In some
languages, the number of possible DSyntAs can be lower; but it is not impossible that some other
languages have verbs with a higher number of DSyntAs. This, however, will not affect the
proposed system of DSyntAs: all respective rules are stated for a DSyntA i, with i = I, II, ... For
this reason, the DSyntAs must be numbered rather than given 'lexical' names; below we will see
other cases for which the numbering of actants is crucial.
37
2
. (4.1, Item 2, p. 00) A very small percentage of collocations must be described by the
Government Patter.
3
. (4.1, p. 00) I have to say 'more or less [sufficient]' because there still is a serious amount of
collocations covered by non-standard LFs (while the Paraphrasing Rules are written in terms of
standard LFs) and by Government Patterns, as indicated above.—These formulas, or rules, being
universal
does
not
mean
that
all
languages
necessarily
use
the
corresponding
constructions/transformations, but only that If a language has necessary lexical units, then these
formulas are valid.
4
.
(4.1, p. 00) I do not consider here still another logical possibility: postulating another sense of
RASSERDIT´SJA,
i.e., something like ([to] say angrily). The paper Iordanskaja and Mel'čuk 1981
analyzes in detail the unacceptable consequences of such a solution; let me mention here just
two: 1) this would require adding the corresponding sense to all Russian verbal lexemes denoting
emotions and brusque actions, such as (become amazed), (start crying), (stand up), (spit), etc.—i.e.,
to thousands of verbs; 2) there will be a formal problem with the 'inherent' DSyntAs of the verbs
involved, because a new DSyntA has to be added— the Direct Speech expression.
5
. (4.2, p. 00) Dummy syntactic elements do not interfere with this principle: as just stated, they
do not appear on the DSynt-level and therefore are not counted. Thus, consider the Spanish idiom
diñársela a N, lit. ([to] give-itself-It to N) = ([to] swindle N), while DIÑAR = ([to] give) [coll.]. In
the SSyntS, LA (= 3sg feminine pronoun in the accusative) is the DirO of DIÑAR, but this is
only a dummy DirO: it does not appear at all in the DSyntS, where the DSyntA
II
of
DIÑÁRSELA is the phrase 'a N': DIÑÁRSELA−II→a N.—In an actual DSyntS actantial 'gaps'
are of course possible, because of the non-expression of some DSyntA-slots: John [= I] rented
his apartment [= II] for a year [= V].
38
6
. (4.2, p. 00) Verbs without the DSyntA-slot I
Several verbs have no DSyntA-slot I (but some still can have DSyntA-slot II). I will quote five
types of such verbs.
L has no DSyntA-slots at all
1. Meteorological verbs: It is raining or Fr. Il fait beau, lit. (It does beautiful) = (The weather is
fine). The DSyntSs of the above sentences are then as follows:
RAIN(V)pres, ind, progr ο,
FAIRE BEAUl(V)ind, pres ο [the symbols « o » represent here and
below nodes in the DSyntS]
In other words, in the DSyntS, these verbs do not have actants.
L has DSyntA-slot II, but no DSyntA-slot I
2. Some monoactantial verbs of sensations and feelings: Rus. TOŠNIT´, lit. ([to] nauseate N); Lat.
PUDERE, lit. ([to] shame N); Fr. FALLOIR, lit. ([to] need Vinf/N); or Germ. FRIEREN, lit. ([to]
freeze N). Their DSyntS is as follows:
TOŠNIT´(V)ind, presο−II→ο L(Y) [MenjaACC tošnit (I have nausea)]
PUDERE(V)ind, presο−II→ο L(Y) [Pudet meACC (I am ashamed)], taedet meACC (I am disgusted),
piget meACC (I am
bored), poenitet meACC Ngen (I repent N)]
FALLOIR(V)ind, presο−II→ο L(Y)
[Il faut travailler, lit. (It needs to work), Il faut des livres, lit. (It needs some books)]
FRIEREN(V)ind, presο−II→ο L(Y) [Es friert michACC, lit. (It freezes me) = (I am cold)].
This situation, which is rather exotic in Indo-European, is very typical for numerous languages
that have static verbs
governing the name of the Experiencer as a DirO.
3. The idioms that contain their own syntactic subject, for instance:
The cat’s got Y’s tongue
⇔
kTHE CAT HAS GOT TONGUEl
ο−II→ο L(Y)
39
Fr. Que le diable emporte Y ! ⇔
kQUE LE DIABLE EMPORTEl ο−II→ο L(Y)
lit. (Let the devil take Y!)
Fr. La moutarde monte au nez à Y
⇔
kLA MOUTARDE MONTE AU NEZl ο−II→ο L(Y)
lit. (The mustard goes-up to-Y to the nose) = (Y flares up).
Fr. Le torchon brûle entre Y et Z
⇔
kLE
TORCHON
BRULEl
ο−II→ο L(Y)−COORD→ο ET−II→ο L(Z)
lit. (The rag is burning between Y and Z) = (There is a running battle going on between Y and Z).
At the DSynt-level, such an idiom is represented by one node, and no branch numbered I leaves
it.
4. Interjections of the type Down with Y!: kDOWN [with N]l ο−II→ο L(Y).
5. Any verb in the form of subjectless suppressive (in a language where this voice exists):
Fr. Il se vend des Y, with the DSyntS VENDRE subj-suppr , ind, pres ο−II→ο L(Y).
These examples show that one can have diatheses in which the numbering of DSyntAs does not
begin with I, but with II.
7
. (4.3, p. 00) Cf. as well: "I wouldn't belong to any club that would have me for a member"
[Groucho Marx]; thanks to D. Beck for this quotation.
8
. (4.3, p. 00) Encoding the name of elements as the DSyntA I of the name of the set is not
without problems. Thus, Russian says:
(i)
a. Oni obrušili na atakujuščix grad I→pul´,
lit. (They dropped on the attackers a hail of bullets).
In this sentence, OBRUŠIT´ ([to] drop) is an Oper1 of the noun GRAD (hail) taken in this collocation (see Figure 1a
below).
Similarly, the sentence
b. Oni vstretili Alena burej I→applodismentov, lit. (They met Alain with a storm of applause),
40
has the DSyntS where VSTRETIT´ ([to] meet [with N]) is a Labor12 of BURJA (storm) (again, in this collocation);
see Figure 1b.
Oper1
I
II III
GRAD
(hail) I
ONI
(they)
Labor 12
I
ATAKUJU !"IE
(attackers )
ONI
(they)
PULI (bullets)
II III
ALEN
(Alain)
BURJA
I (storm)
APLODISMENTY
(applause)
Figure 1a
Figure 1b
Figure 1
DSynt-Structures of sentences (i)
In both sentences, ONI is the DSyntA I of the support verb and therefore it must correspond to
the DSyntA I of GRAD and BURJA. This is, however, impossible—since these nouns already have a
different DSyntA
I
(= the name of the 'elements' that constitute
GRAD/BURJA).
To solve the
contradiction, we have to postulate that with nouns of the type GRAD/BURJA a support verb has as
its DSyntA I not the DSyntA I of its keyword (as in the standard case) but the DSyntA I of the
DSyntA I of its keyword. More research and reflection are needed to make this description fully
convincing.
9
. (4.4, p. 00) The concepts of actant incompatibility and inseparability were introduced in
Iordanskaja 1961.
10
. (5, p. 00) Strangely enough, Tesnière himself, who had introduced the distinction, drew the
line between Actants and Circumstantials in a wrong way (Tesnière 1959: 127-129), treating as
Circumstantials, for instance, any phrase introduced by the preposition DE: dépendre de N ([to]
depend on N), changer de N ([to] change one's N), etc.
41
11
. (5, p. 00) Herslund 1988: 31ff rightly indicates the reason for the DO SO test to be relatively
successful: it directly corresponds to the defining property of Actants, namely—to their
representing obligatory participants of the SIT(L). Based on this feauture, Herslund proposes an
additional test of his own: replace the element X that depends on the MV with a general negation
(nobody, nothing); if this entails the negation of the MV (and of the denoted fact itself), X is an
Actant; otherwise X is a Circumstantial. Thus, He spoke to nobody entails that He did not speak
at all; to+N is an Actant of [to] SPEAK. But He sang to nobody does not entail He did not sing
at all: he could sing alone; to+N is a Circumstantial of [to] SING. However, this test, as well as
the 'standard' DO SO test, is not free of drawbacks:
• It does not distinguish between Actants and Location/Time Circumstantials, since they are
logically always obligatory: He never sang and He sang nowhere both entail He did not sing at
all.
• It does not work for optional Actants or for 'free' Actants, see below.
12
. (5, p. 00) Even in English the test does not always produce clear-cut results. For instance, D.
Beck when asked whether he can say
(i) John cut the board with a knife, and David did so with a saw.
answered (a bit enigmatically): "I can write it (I can't say it). My father concurs as well, though I
am a tad uncomfortable with it for some reason."
13
.
(5, p. 00) Thus, in French, a 'genitive' complement of a DirO (i.e., a 'DE+N' phrase
depending on a DirO) can be cliticized by EN, while a 'genitive' complement of a Subject cannot:
(i) J'aime la forme de ce fruit (I love the form of this fruit). ~
J'en aime la forme (I love its form).
vs.
La forme de ce fruit me plaît, lit. (The form of this fruit pleases me). ~
42
*La forme m'en plaît (Its form pleases me).
(ii) J'ai vu la moitié de ces gens (I have seen half of these people). ~
J'en ai vu la moitié (I have seen half of them).
vs.
La moitié de ces gens vient, lit. (half of these people is coming). ~
*La moitié en vient (Half of them are coming).
14
.
(5, p. 00) The Main Fallacy Concerning Circumstantials
One hears fairly often that there is no clear borderline between Actants and Circumstantials,
because in principle Circumstantials are restricted in the cooccurrence with their governors
roughly in the same way as Actants are. Typical examples include pairs of sentences like the
following ones:
(i) Rus. On bežal s knIgoj v rukax (He was running with a book in his hands).
vs.
*On mstil s knIgoj v rukax (He was avenging himself with a book in his hands).
(ii) Rus. On medlenno podnimalsja (He was going up slowly).
vs.
*On medlenno spal (He was sleeping slowly).
(iii) Rus. On s trudom podnjal čemodan (He lifted the suitcase with difficulty).
vs.
*On s trudom podymet čemodan (He will lift the suitcase with difficulty).
However, all such examples are irrelevant to our topic: they concern impossible combinations of
meanings, not those of Lexical Units. Such semantic configurations as *(sleep slowly) should be
banned at the level of the starting Sem-structure, so that the linguistic model as such does not
need to be able to detect or to eliminate them. Cf. Note 8, Part I, p. 00.
43
15
. (6, p. 00) Logically, three types of elements—SemAs, DSyntAs, and SSyntAs—admit 8
combinations (since each of the types can be present or absent, we have 23 = 8). However, one
combination is trivial (no actants at all) and two are impossible according to our definitions:
*SemA — SSyntA and *— DSyntA —. Thus, our schema covers all five possible cases of
correspondence between SemAs, DSyntAs, and SSyntAs of an LU L.
16
. (6, p. 00) Persian has several other types of 'complex verbs:
First, a 'complex verb' may contain a noun that is not a deverbal noun S0, but the name of a body
part or of an artifact (e.g., dast zadan ([to] hit hand) = ([to] touch) or rang zadan ([to] hit paintN) =
([to] paint)); in these 'complex verbs' the auxiliary verb is not an empty ('light') support verb, but
a semantically full accomplishment verb—the LF Reali or Labrealij.
Second, the syntactic relations inside a 'complex verb' may be different from those we have
presented. Thus, both (i) and (ii) are possible:
(i) Omid divār+rā rang zad (Omid painted [the] wall) = lit. (Omid paint-hit the wall),
where DIVAR (wall) is the DirO, and RANG (paintN) is a Quasi-DirO of ZADAN ([to] hit); ZADAN is
here
a value of Labreal13(RANG),
DIVĀR←II−Labreal13(RANG)−III→RANG.
so
that
at
the
DSynt-level,
we
have
(ii) Omid in rang+rā be divār zad (Omid painted [the] wall with this paint) (lit. (Omid hit this
paint on the-wall));
here DIVĀR (wall) is an OblO with the preposition BE ≈ (on), and RANG (paintN) is the DirO; in this
case,
is a value of Real1(RANG),
DIVĀR←III−Real1(RANG)−II→(RANG).
ZADAN
and
at
the
DSynt-level,
we
have
(For a detailed analysis of 'complex verbs' in Persian, see Samvelian 2001.)
17
.
(6, Item 2.2, p. 00) The notion of cognate object calls for two remarks.
1. A cognate object is not necessarily a SSynt-actant. Thus, in French and Russian, cognate
objects are rather Circumstantials: Fr. Il a ri d'un gros rire, lit. (He laughed with a big laugh), Il
est mort d'une mort terrible, lit. (He died with a terrible death), Rus. On rassmejalsja gromkim
smexom [= INSTR], lit. (He laughed with a loud laugh), On umer užasnoj smert´ju [= INSTR], lit. (He
died with a terrible death). Arabic has a regular syntactic construction, known as mas>dar mut>laq>
(absolute masdar): to express a Circumstantial of manner with a verb, Arabic uses a deverbal
noun of this verb (= mas>dar) with an adjective—a typical Cognate Object, putting it in the
accusative, the form most Arabic Circumstantials have; the result is something like D>araba+nī
44
d>arb+an šadi|d+an ([He] beat-me [with] strong
([He] pushed-me [with] big PUSH).
BEATING
) or Dafa?a+nī daf?at+an kabī rat+an
2. Even in English one has an alternative way to describe the sentences in (60). We can say
that the verbs are values of the LF Oper1 of the nouns LAUGH, SMILE, SLEEP, etc.; as such, these
verbs will be transitive and will admit DirOs legitimately as their Actants. However, the problem
of the correspondence 'SemAs ~ DSyntAs' remains, because support verbs do not have SemAs in
the strict sense, see below.
18
. (7, p. 00) The SSynt-/DMorph-implementations of SSyntAs include:
In the SSyntS
• governed prepositions and conjunctions ([to] depend on N, [to] quarrel over N, [to] ask
whether N, ...),
• some derivatemes (action nominal, relational adjective, ...),
• some grammemes (infinitive, gerund, adverbal, ...).
In the DMorphS
• case of nouns,
• mood and tense of finite verbs,
• gender, number and case of adjectives,
• forms of clauses (negative, interrogative, ...).
19
. (7, p. 00) Thus, for instance, Wechsler (1995: 2) says: “The lexical entry specifies which
argument slots are to be filled by (the interpretation of) which complements.” For a detailed
description of Subcategorization in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, see Sag and Pollard
1989.