Download WRL0005.tmp - Princeton University

Handbook of Pragmatics
(send to Knud)
Discourse and Argument Structure (20 pages, single spaced?)
What is argument structure?
The argument structure of a clause can be defined as the number and type of syntactic constituents
expressed in a clause together with the overall event-interpretation of the clause. 1 Examples of argument
structure patterns include the intransitive, transitive, the ditransitive, the resultative, the sentential clause
complement construction, etc.
Most verbs readily appear in more than one argument structure frame or construction. Pairs of constructions have
often been described as alternations (e.g., Levin 1993), sometimes being described by appealing to transformations
(e.g., Larson…). A good deal of work has noted semantic differences between rough paraphrases (e.g., Partee 1965;
Fillmore 1968; Anderson 1971; Borkin 1974; Goldberg 1995). For example, the ditransitive or double object
construction requires its goal be animate, while the dative construction does not:
Chris sent them a package.
*Chris sent that place a package.
ditransitive
Chris sent a package to them/to that place.
dative
Since transformations were originally understood to relate sentences that had the same meaning, and it is now
widely recognized that each construction has its own meaning/pragmatics, there is less emphasis on derivational
means of relating various constructions in many linguistic theories today. A question that has been gaining attention
and that we focus on here is, what determines which form of an alternation will actually be used? A related question
is, why do languages provide alternative means to express similar meanings? Differences in meaning as in XX
above are clearly one factor. They allow speakers to choose on the basis of differing semantics, and therefore offer
speakers of a language more expressive power. Less studied is the role of pragmatics in differentiating argument
structure possibilities.
What is pragmatics?
For present purposes we distinguish two types of pragmatics:
Non-conventional pragmatics: effects of the interpretation/comprehension or production of sentences in
particular contexts of use by actual language users having the type of processing and cognitive abilities and
preferences that humans have. Would expect these effects to be universal.
Non-conventional pragmatics often give rise to conventional pragmatic properties of language through a
process of grammaticalization (Hopper and Traugott 1993; Traugott XX). This is perhaps what DuBois
had in mind when he stated, “Grammars code best what speakers do most” (Dubois 1985a: 363).
Conventional pragmatics: the conventional association of certain formal properties of language that are
restricted to occur in certain linguistic and extralinguistic contexts. Effects of conventional pragmatics are
non-necessary effects and so we would expect to find some degree of language variation, at least in degree.
Conventional pragmatics includes the notion of packaging of information structure (Halliday 1967; Chafe
1976; Lambrecht 1994):
What does argument structure have to do with pragmatics?
1
Although argument structure is sometimes defined syntactically, without reference to semantics, for
present purposes we will refer to argument structure as involving a pairing of form with function.
1
A simple transitive argument structure can appear in a cleft construction, a left dislocation or a
topicalization construction, each with its own different information structure properties:
(1) It was a giraffe that the mouse saw.
(2) The giraffe, the mouse saw it.
(3) The giraffe, the mouse saw.
It-cleft construction
Left Dislocation construction
Topicalization construction
It is generally recognized that each sentence-level construction such as those in 1-3 is associated with its
own information structure properties. For example, in an extensive corpus analysis of the Switchboard
corpus of spoken language, Gregory and Michaelis (2001) document the functions of the left dislocation
and topicalization constructions, finding subtle distinctions between them. The fronted NPs in the left
dislocation construction are not previously mentioned and yet do persist as topics. The fronted NPs in the
topicalization construction display the opposite tendency: the majority are previously mentioned and do not
persist as topics. That is, the left dislocation construction is topic establishing whereas the topicalization
construction tends to be used for moribund topics.
Significantly less attention has been paid to the information structure generalizations on simple argument
structure patterns, such as the transitive, ditransitive or resultative constructions. It is not immediately
obvious that argument structure, which has to do with the semantic relation between a verb and its
arguments, should have any direct relationship to conventional pragmatics. As Lambrecht (1995:159)
observes, “the independence of semantic and pragmatic roles is an obvious consequence of the fact that
information structure has to do with the USE OF SENTENCES, rather than the MEANING OF
PROPOSITIONS.” Nonetheless, even simple argument structure patterns are associated with information
structure generalizations to some extent.
The preferred use of argument structure patterns
Dubois (1987) proposed a Preferred Argument Structure for the way argument structures are actually used
in discourse. Assuming Dixon’s (1972) system for classifying core arguments, intransitive clauses have
only one core argument, the subject or S; transitive clauses have two core arguments, the Actor or A, and
the Object or O. Dubois analyzed the distribution of lexical A, S and O in elicited, on-going discourse in
the ergative language of Sacapultec Maya. The corpus study revealed that only 2.8% of transitive clauses
and only 1.1% of clauses overall involved two lexical NPs. Moreover, only 3.2% of agents of transitive
clauses represent new information. On the other hand, 22.5% of subjects of intransitives and 24.7% of
objects of transitives represented new information. Du Bois posits two constraints: 1) a Quantity constraint:
“Avoid more than one new argument per clause” (Du Bois 1987:819; see also GivÓn 1975; Chafe 1987),
and 2) the Given A constraint: “avoid new A’s.” These two constraints are jointly taken to define the
Preferred Argument Structure cross-linguistically.
One question that arises is whether the Preferred Argument Structure is really just an effect of correlation
between animates and topicality. That is, the A argument of transitive clauses strongly favors animate
entities, and animates are good candidates for topic status simply because human beings like to talk about
other human beings. Therefore As are likely to be topical (the Given A constraint). Because other than A,
there is only one other argument available in the nuclear clause (either S or O), the Quantity constraint
(avoid more than one new argument per clause) would seem to follow from the Given A constraint.
However, there is a consideration that mediates against the idea that the constraints ultimately follow
directly from the subject matter that human beings choose to discuss. DuBois observes that languages
strongly favor introducing new animate entities via an intransitive clause, whenever new animate entities
are introduced. DuBois suggests that speakers opt for “intransitive introduction followed by transitive
narration (1987:831). The avoidance of the A slot for new mentions of animate entities does not follow
from the idea that humans are likely to make animate entities topical. Thus the Preferred Argument
Structure is not simply an effect of the subject matter that humans prefer to discuss.
2
The findings from Dubois have been replicated again and again in many unrelated languages, including
English (Iwasaki 1985), German (Scheutze-Coburn 1987), French (Lambrecht 1987), Hebrew (Smith
1996), Mam (England 1986), Malay (Hopper 1987b), Quechua (Stewart 1984), child Inuktitut speech
(Allen & Schroder 19XX), Papago (Payen 1987). S and O both easily accommodate new information. The
A slot is distinct in that it strongly prefers old information. 2 The split in the S and O, on one hand, and A
on the other, is what generally defines ergativity, whether it is morphologically marked or syntactically
expressed. It is the discourse properties, DuBois argues, that form the basis for the categorization that
results in all types of ergativity.
Many researchers have noted that there is a natural affinity for logical subjects, whether transitive or
intransitive, to be topical. Thus sentences in which the logical subject (A or S) represents the topic and the
predicate represents the comment or assertion about that topic can be considered the unmarked construction
type (Kuno 1971, Horne 1986: 175; Chafe 1994; Lambrecht 1994).
Languages typically have special constructions that allow for non-canonical packaging of information.
Lambrecht (1994) defines Sentence-Focus Constructions as constructions which are formally marked as
expressing a pragmatically structured proposition in which both the subject and the predicate are in focus.
As Lambrecht (19XX) notes, the function of SF constructions is to present an entity or an event into the
discourse. The SF construction which introduces an event into the discourse is characterized by having
pitch accent only on the logical subject (and not on predicate phrase).
What happened?
()
Her SON is sick.
()
Her CAR broke down.
()
My SHOULDER hurts.
()
JOHN called.
()
Her HUSBAND left her.
Inversion
Inversion: a sentence in which the logical subject appears in postverbal position while some other,
canonically postverbal constituent appears in clause initial position. The most discussed instance of
inversion is perhaps Locative Inversion (Bresnan 1994; Birner XX; Lambrecht 2000).
( ) Into the room ran a MOUSE.
Birner observes that the preposed constituent must contain more familiar information than the postposed
constituent.
There-constructions are another type of SF construction which are often used to introduce an entity into
the discourse.
( ) There’s a MOUSE in the room.
Other types of discourse pragmatic constraints on particular constructions.
In both corpus and experimental studies, Arnold et al. (2000) found that both newness and heaviness play a
role in determining the choice of the ditransitive over the dative construction, where ``heavier" is
2
Oblique arguments pattern with S and O in easily accommodating new information. DuBois speculates
that the root constraint may be that each lexical head licences one lexical or new dependent (the Single
Dependent Hypothesis).
3
determined by number of words, and newness is determined by lack of previous mention in the discourse 3
(see also Givn 1979, 1984; Dryer 1986). Erteschik-Shir (1979) suggests that the idea that the ditransitive
constrains the recipient argument to be non-focal may account for certain interesting facts about how the
ditransitive construction interacts with long-distance dependency constructions and the passive
construction.
In particular, notice that the recipient argument of the ditransitive cannot appear in a long distance
dependency relation:
Subj V Obj1(topical) Obj2
She kicked him the ball.
??Who did Chris give the book?
(cf. Who did Chris give the book to?)
?*It is that girl that Chris gave the book.
?*The girl that Chris gave the book is very nice.
At the same time, the patient argument can appear in such relations:
What did Pat give Chris?
It is that book that Pat gave Chris.
The book that Pat gave Chris is very good.
Conversely, the recipient argument can passivize as in X, while the patient argument resists passivization as
in X:
Pat was given the book by Chris.
??The book was given Pat by Chris.
Erteschik-Shir (1979) suggests that these facts can be explained by appealing to the difference in discourse
function of the two arguments and the two types of constructions. Long-distance dependency constructions
require that the fronted element be a type of focus, whereas the passive construction requires that the
fronted element be topical. Thus the infelicitous sentences above result, she argues, from a class in
information structure constraints on the two coocuring constructions.
This account is quite provocative. It does leave unanswered, the question of why it is that recipients can
appear in a long distance dependency if they are the passive subjects of a ditransitive as in X:
She kicked him the ball.
He was kicked the ball.
Who was kicked the ball?
Who was given the book by Chris?
Transitivity as foregrounding xxx (Hopper and Thompson)
Discourse-conditioned argument omission
Subject-omission (“pro” drop). Many languages allow subject arguments to be unexpressed as long as
those arguments are topical in the discourse. Of these languages, many display subject agreement
properties on the verb (e.g., ASL, Brasilian, Inuktitut, Italian). A question that arises is, whether or why
3
Semantic differences between the two constructions were controlled for by considering only uses of the
verb give, which largely neutralizes the semantic differences between the two constructions (Goldberg
1995).
4
subject arguments are more likely to be left unexpressed than other arguments? It has been proposed that
that are actually not more likely to be unexpressed insofar as the agreement morphology should be
understood to represent the subject argument in these so-called “pro”-drop languages (Bresnan and
Mchombo, Lambrecht).
Object omission. Support for this argument comes from the fact that most languages that allow null
subjects and that do not have verbal agreement marking on the verb, also allow null objects and oblique
arguments. These include Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Mauritian Creole. 4 In these languages, subjects,
objects and oblique arguments can all be omitted as long as the omitted argument is recoverable and nonfocal (including non-contrastive).
4.
5.
A: <I ran across a big fat rat in the kitchen this morning>
B: kulayse, cwuki-ess-e?
So,
kill-PAST-SententialEnding?
“So, did [you] kill [it]?”
A: Ani, tomanka-key naypelie twu-ess-e
No, run away-comp
leave
let-PAST-SE
“No, [I] let [it] run away” (Woo-hyoung Nahm, personal communication, 2/16/99)
There is a clear pragmatic motivation for leaving these arguments unexpressed: Horn’s XX Principle or
Grice’s Maxim of Quantity: say no more than you must. Since these arguments are fully recoverable, there
is no need to utter them. At the same time, omissability and nonomissability of arguments is clearly
conventional in that languages differ in whether or not recoverable arguments can be omitted. For
example, English generally requires all arguments to be overtly expressed, unless lexically specified for
object omission (Fillmore 1986). In Hindi, only continuing topics and backgrounded info can be dropped
(new topics cannot be) (Butt and King ms).
She will live life only according to her own wishes. *(I) was wrong.
and CHEC KOREAN.
Interestingly enough, all languages allow omitted arguments in certain circumstances. An illustrative case
comes from English. A particular confluence of discourse properties can result in object omission. For
example, Goldberg (2000) demonstrates that even objects of causative verbs can be omitted in certain
discourse contexts, pace Browne (1971), Grimshaw and Vikner (1993) Brisson (1994), Rappaport Hovav &
Levin (1998). The following examples illustrate this phenomenon: 5
23.
a. The chef-in-training chopped and diced all afternoon.
b. Tigers only kill at night.
c. The singer always aimed to dazzle/please/disappoint/impress/charm.
d. Pat gave and gave, but Chris just took and took.
4
Hindi is another case in which verb agreement is not necessary for all persons, and where objects as well
as subjects can be omitted.
5
In an indepth survey of various types of omitted argument, Cote (1996:130ff) classifies omitted
arguments of this type as “Arbitrary Null Objects,” but suggests that the class is highly lexically
constrained to include warn, advise, amuse and closely related verbs with animate patient arguments. She
further observes that the generic interpretation is often required. We see here that a great variety of verbs
can appear with this type of omitted argument, regardless of the animacy of the patient argument.
Genericity does seem to be a sufficient although not necessary interpretation for the action as discussed
below.
These cases would be considered a subtype of “Indefinite Null Complementation” according to Fillmore
(1986), and a subtype of “Lexically Conditioned Intransitivity” according to Fellbaum and Kegl (1989).
5
e. These revolutionary new brooms sweep cleaner than ever (Aarts 1995: 85)
f. The sewing instructor always cut in straight lines.
As in all cases of object omission, a semantic requirement of recoverability must be satisfied, and as
expected it is in each of the examples in (23). A further discourse condition is necessary to license the
object omission in 23 (a-f):
Principle of Omission under Low Discourse Prominence:
Omission of the patient argument is possible when the patient argument is construed to be
deemphasized in the discourse vis a vis the action. That is, omission is possible when the patient
argument is not topical (or focal) in the discourse, and the action is particularly emphasized (via
repetition, strong affective stance, discourse topicality, contrastive focus, etc.). (Goldberg 2000)
The definition of focus assumed in the characterization above is a traditional one. Halliday (1967:204), for
example writes “Information focus is one kind of emphasis, that whereby the speaker marks out a part
(which may be the whole) of a message block as that which he wishes to be interpreted as informative."
Similarly Lambrecht (1994: 218) defines the focus relation as relating “the pragmatically non-recoverable
to the recoverable component of a proposition and thereby creates a new state of information in the mind of
the addressee.” Cross-linguistically, focal elements must be expressed. This follows from the fact that they
are not predictable: they must be expressed in order to be identified.
A sentence topic can be defined as a “matter of [already established] current interest which a statement is
about and with respect to which a proposition is to be interpreted as relevant” (Lambrecht 1994: 119). It
follows from this definition that topicality should be recognized as a matter of degree. Even so, the omitted
patient arguments can be seen to be non-topical. It is reasonable to assume that topical elements can be
referred to anaphorically, since they are by definition elements which are already relevant in the discourse.
As expected, the omitted arguments under discussion do not provide possible discourse antecedents, since
they are not topical: 6
24. The chef-in-training chopped and diced all day. *They were put into a large salad.
25. Tigers only kill at night. *They are easily caught at that time.
Emphasis in the principle above is intended as a cover term for several different ways in which an action is
construed to be especially prominent in the discourse. These include the following:
26. Pat gave and gave but Chris just took and took.
27. Tigers only kill at night.
Repeated Action
Generic action
Discourse topic:
28. He was always opposed to the idea of murder, but in the middle of battlefield, he had no trouble killing.
29. She picked up her carving knife and began to chop.
Narrow focus
30. Why would they give this creep a light prison term!? He murdered!7
Strong Affective Stance
Contrastive Focus:
31. “She stole but she could not rob.” (Beatles song: She came in through the Bathroom Window)
This generalization is vaguely reminiscent of the Quantity constraint proposed by DuBois (only one new
mention per clause) in that there is a trade off in terms of how much is expressed per clause: if the verbal
predicate is emphasized, the object argument is more likely to be omissible. However, there is at least a
difference in degree, in that we would not want to claim that emphasizing a predicate makes it more likely
or preferable to omit the object, only that it makes it possible.
7
I thank Christiane Fellbaum and Knud Lambrecht for suggesting several of these examples.
6
Discourse-conditioned obligatory adjuncts
Conversational pragmatics can be seen to elucidate the distinction between arguments and adjuncts. It is
generally assumed that only arguments are obligatorily expressed. What do we make, therefore, of the
existence of obligatory phrases which appear to be adjuncts? For example, when uttered with “neutral”
intonation, an adjunct is required in 1a order to avoid a sense of anomaly: impressionistically, the (a)
structure demands that something more be said, while the (b) structure somehow satisfies this demand:
1a.
b.
#This house was built.
This house was built last year.
Certain changes in tense or aspect (as in 11), modality (12), polarity (13), and emphatic uses of auxiliaries
(14) can obviate the need for an adjunct.
11a The house will be built.
b. The house has been built.
12a.
b.
The house might be built.
The house should be built.
13. The house wasn't built.
14. The house WAS built.
Goldberg and Ackerman (2001) argue that the explanation for the unacceptability of (1b), (#The house
was built) is that the utterance is not informative in the Gricean sense. That is, a clause with a definite
subject presupposes the existence of the subject referent (Strawson 1964); in this case the fact that the
house exists is presupposed. Therefore it is possible to infer that at some point in the past, the house was
created.8 Nothing informative is being said that can't be calculated by knowing how the lexical meaning of
house and build in conjunction with how presupposition works for definite NP subjects. The fact that
adjuncts are so often required for passive verbs of creation is expected, since we assume that artifacts are
created, and that particular artifacts are created in default ways. Thus an utterance asserting that a house is
built simply states what is already known to normal participants in a conversation. Moreover, no obvious
inferences can be drawn simply from the fact that an artifact was created in the usual way.
When a contrastive context is invoked, as in (14) where there is stress on was, we assume that what is
asserted is that the house was in fact actually built and no adjunct is required. In this case, there is an
implicit contrast with a negative proposition, and the positive polarity of the copula verb provides a
contrastive focus for the clause. Contrastive focal stress on the subject argument or on the verb can also, as
expected, render bare passives felicitous since a focus is provided:
17b. The HOUSE was built (not the garage).
17c. The house was BUILT (not just designed).
There are various other ways of providing a focus in simple sentences as well. In fact if the method of
creation is somehow unusual, then a verb of constructive accomplishment can itself provide a meaningful
assertion (i.e., play the role of focus), without emphatic stress or an obligatory adjunct:
18. This cake was microwaved.
19. These diamonds were synthesized.
8
It is important to note that we are not claiming that English or natural language more generally has no tolerance for
redundancy. This important point will be clarified in section 8.
7
Varios tenses or aspects other than the simple past serve to inform the listener that the creation took place
before, after or during a particular reference time:
20a. The house will be built.
b. The house has been built.
c. The house had been built.
d.The house is being built.
A pragmatic account keyed to the nature of the informativeness of utterances is clearly not restricted to the
event structure of a participating predicate. The examples in (21) each lack an information focus. We
assume claims are believed, books are read and television programs are watched by someone or other; in a
“neutral context”, these examples simply do not convey anything informative, i.e., anything that couldn’t
be calculated by knowing the meaning of the predicate and the NP Argument.
21a.#The claim was believed.
b. #The book was read.
c. #The television program was watched.
Thus there are many ways of making a clause informative (i.e., providing a focus). An adjunct is just one
way. Without an adjunct or some other focal information, the clausal predication is generally infelicitous.
5. Middles
By “middles” or “mediopassives” we intend a construction with an implicit actor argument that
prototypically appears in the simple present tense with a generic interpretation (Roberts 1985; Hale and
Keyser 1987; Iwata 1999). As has frequently been observed, English middles often require some type of
adjunct (e.g., Jackendoff 1972; Ernst 1984; Fellbaum 1986; van Oosten 1986):
23. #The car drives.
24. The car drives like a boat/easily /365 days a year/only in the summertime.
As is evident from (24), a wide variety of adjuncts can be used to rescue middles from infelicity.
Several researchers have observed that negated middles or middles that are overtly emphasized often
attenuate the need for an adjunct (Keyser and Roeper 1984: 385; Fellbaum 1985: 9; Dixon 1991: 326;
Rosta 1995: 132):
25. That car doesn’t drive.
26. These red sports cars DO drive, don’t they? (Dixon 1991:326).
Fellbaum (1985) notes that the negation serves to supply “non-given” information, while the emphasized
verb serves to indicate non-expectedness (see also Iwata 1999). That is, the change in polarity or emphasis
provides a focus for the clause, making the expression informative and therefore acceptable. Our default
assumption is that cars can be driven so asserting that they cannot be (25) is informative; in (26), the
emphasized auxiliary is used to convey the idea that the cars drive really well or fast or easily.
Positing a pragmatic explanation for obligatory adjuncts allows us to explain why certain middles, like
certain short passives with constructive predicates, do not require an adjunct. For example,
28. <How do you close this purse?> It snaps/ It zips/ It buttons.
29. <Where do we enter the secret passageway?> The bookshelf opens.
In a context in which it is informative to assert that people should be able to perform a given action on the
subject argument as in (28) and (29), no adjunct is required.
11. Subcategorized Adjuncts
8
The discussion above raises the question of how to treat cases of “subcategorized” adverbs (Jackendoff
1972; McConnell-Ginet 1982). Consider the following examples (judgments of “#” and “*” are clarified
below):
51a. #Pat dresses.
b. Pat dresses stylishly.
52a. *Pat behaved to Chris.
b. Pat behaved badly to Chris.
Several researchers have suggested that the adjuncts only appear to be required because the verbs
themselves do not normally convey enough information (Dinsmore 1981; Ernst 1984; Iwata 1999).
However, only certain of these verbs display the sort of contextual variability we saw was the hallmark of
“obligatory” adjuncts, required because of conversational principles. As Ernst (1984: 332) points out, dress
is clearly such a case. Example (51a) is acceptable if Pat lives on a remote island where only some people
wear clothing. One can also felicitously:
53a. Pat DRESSES! (to mean Pat dresses up and looks good)
b. Pat doesn’t dress.
c.Pat dresses first thing in the morning/in the middle of the night/only on Tuesdays.
That is, as long as the utterance is made informative, via contrastive context, emphasis (53a), negation
(53b) or any type of adjunct (53c), dress can appear without a modifying adverb. The case of behave to is
quite different. Notice that none of the following contexts rescues (52a):
54a. *Pat behaved to Chris, but not to Sam. (contrastive)
b. *Pat BEHAVED TO Chris.
(emphasis)
c. *Pat doesn’t behave to Chris.
(negation)
d. *Pat behaves to Chris first thing in the morning/in the middle of the night/only on Tuesdays.
(other adjuncts)
Thus in the case of behave to (also treat with a meaning like that of behave to), a manner adverb is indeed
subcategorized for by the verb (McConnell-Ginet 1982). It is in this way quite different from the other
instances of “obligatory” adjuncts discussed above, in that it is required by more than conversational
pragmatics.
With the few lexical exceptions (e.g. behave to), we have seen that the distribution of “obligatory adjuncts”
in short passives and middles follows simply and directly from discourse pragmatics. Predication or
modification of an argument is only licensed when it is informative in the discourse context. Common
behaviors exhibited by several different grammatical constructions of English are explicable in terms of a
uniform pragmatic factor.
Anti-Passives
Use Givon’s 1990 Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction (have section on antipassive in files)
Case study two: optional arguments (Campos on object drop in Spanish: have paper: look in 1998.tex;
Also Rena Torres Cacoullous’ paper on intensive “le” construction in Sp).
Cite Rapoport 1999 Language paper: structure, aspect and the predicate OR Erteshik-Shir and Rapaport on
their notion of focus.
Pay, serve, feed tell teach can have omitted themes
9
From Gregory Ward [Chicago Tribune, Section 5, p. 6. 1/18/00; article "Snob appeal"]
>>
> > [Ripley] is also not far from Theodore Dreiser's poor young man,
> > Clyde Griffiths, who, in the movie version, "A Place in the Sun," was
> > played by Montgomery Clift, who murdered because he wanted the
> > high-society girl, Elizabeth Taylor, and the lifestyle that would go
> > with marriage to her.
>>
> >here, there is no generic reading as Clift only murdered once, if memory
> >serves. [aha! the preceding utterance is another token, i just
> >realized!] in any event, it's fine even if Monty only committed one
> >murder. the main point here is that Ripley 'became a murderer', which is
 >that

 References
Ackerman, Farrell and Adele E. Goldberg. 1996. Constraints on Adjectival Past Participles. In Conceptual
Structure, Discourse and Language, A. E. Goldberg, (ed.) CSLI Publications.
Allen, Shanley E.M. and Heike Schroder. 2000?? Preferred Argument Structure in Early Inuktitut Speech
Data. In J. DuBois, L. Kumpf and W. Ashby. Preferred Argument Structure: Grammar as Architecture for
Function. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Birner, Betty J. 1944. Information Status and word order: AN analysis of English Inversion.
Langauge VOl 70 No 2. 233-259.
Bolinger, Dwight. (1965) Forms of English. Cambridge: Harvard.
Butt, Miriam and Tracy Holloway King. Ms. 2000. Null Elements in Discourse Structure.
(cites B. Hoffman 1995 Penn dissertation for variable salience of backgrounded info)
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins and William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: tense, aspect and
modality in the language of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.1992
Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness and Time. U of Chicago PRess.
Dinsmore, J. 1981. Pragmatics, formal theory and the analysis of presupposition. Bloomington: Indiana
University Linguistics Club.
Dixon, R. M.W. 1991. A New Approach to English Grammar, based on semantic principles. Oxford
University Press.
Erteschik-Shir, N. and Shalom Lappin. 1979. Dominance and the functional explanation of island
phenomena. Theoretical Linguistics 6.41-85.
Ernst, T. 1984. Towards an integrated theory of adverb position in English. Bloomington: Indiana
University Linguistics Club.
Fellbaum, Christiane. 1985. On the Middle Construction in English. Bloomington: Indiana University
Linguistics Club.
Green, Georgia. 1989. Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
10
Gregory, Michelle L. and Laura A. Michaelis. forthcoming. Topicalization and Left Dislocation: A
Functional Opposition Revisited. Journal of Pragmatics
Grice, Paul H. 1975. Logic and Conversation. In Cole and Morgan 9eds). Syntax and Semantics volume
III: Speech Acts. NY: Academic Press. 41-58.
Grimshaw, Jane and Sten Vikner. 1993. Obligatory Adjuncts and the Structure of Events. In Knowledge
and Language. Eric Reuland and Werner Abraham (eds). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hale, Ken and Jay Keyser 1987. A view from the middle. Lexicon Projet Working Papers 10. Cambridge
Mass.: Center for Cognitive Science MIT.
Halliday A. K. 1967. Notes on Transitivity and theme in English. Part II. Journal of Linguistics 3. 199244.
Hirtle, W. H. 1969. -Ed Adjectives like Verandahed and Blue-Eyed. Journal of Language 6:19-36.
Hopper, Paul J and Elisabeth Closs Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Horn, Lawrence. 1984. Toward a New Taxonomy for Pragmatic Inference: Q-Based and R-Based
Implicature. In D. Schiffrin, ed., GURT '84: Meaning, Form and Use in Context. Washington: Georgetown
University Press. 11-42.
Hutchison, Chris. 1989. Predicate Emphasis and Copying in Haitian. Paper given at the MIT Niger-Congo
Workshop on Serial Constructions and Transitivity Alternations.
Iwata, Seizi. 1999. On the status of implicit arguments in middles. In Journal of Linguistics 35: 527-553.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Keyser, S.J. and T.Roeper. 1984. On the middle and ergative constructions in English. Linguistic Inquiry
15:3. 381-416.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1995. The pragmatics of case: on the relationship between semantic,
grammatical and pragmatic roles in English and French. In M. Shibatani and S. A. Thompson
(eds) Essays in Semantics and Pragmatics. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume 1: Theoretical
Prerequisites. Stanford, Ca.: Stanford University Press.
MacWhinney, Brian. 1982. Basic Syntactic Processes. In Language Development, Syntax and Semantics
VOlume 1. Stan A Kuczaj II editor. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Massam, D. 1990. Cognate Objects as Thematic Objects. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 35 2.
161-190.
McConnell-Ginet, S. (1982). Adverbs and logical form: A linguistically realistic theory. Language,
58,144-184.
McConnell-Ginet, S. (1994). On the Non-Optionality of Certain Modifiers. Mandy Harvey and
Lynn Santelmann (eds.) SALT IV 230-250. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
11
Mittwoch, Anita. 1988. Aspects of English Aspect: on the Interaction of Perfect, Progressive and
Durational Phrases.
Polinsky, Maria. 1999. Lambrecht: information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the
mental representation of discousre referents. Language 75 3: 567-582.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin. 1998. Building Verb Meanings. In M. Butt and W.
Geuder (eds.) The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors. Stanford: CSLI
Publications.
Roberts, I. 1985. The representation of implicit and dethematized subjects. PhD dissertation,
University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75-116.
Rosta, A. 1995. How does this sentence interpret? The semantics of English mediopassives. In
Aarts, B. and Meyer, C.F. (eds.) The verb in contemporary English: theory and description.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 123-144.
Sadock, J. (1998). Grammatic Tension. Ms. University of Chicago.
Stalnaker, Robert. 1978. Assertion. In P. Cole (ed.) Pragmatics. Syntax and Semantics, volume
ix. New York: Academic Press. 315-332.
Strawson, P. 1964. Identifying reference and truth values. Theoria 30. 96-118. Also in D.
Steinberg and L. Jakobovits (eds.) 1971. Semantics. Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, Sandra A. and Paul J. Hopper. Ms. Transitivity, Clause Structure, and Argument
Structure: Evidence from conversation. In Bybee and Hopper (eds) Frequency and the Emergence
of Linguistic Structure. Chris Benjamins.
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1988. Pragmatic Strengthening and Grammaticalization. Berkeley
Linguistic Society 14. 406-416.
van Hout, Angeliek. 1996. Event Semantics of Verb Frame Alternations: A Case Study of
Dutch and its Acquisition. Doctoral dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Brabant, Tilburg.
Van Oosten (1986). The nature of subjects, topics and agents: a cognitive explanation.
Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Wright, Saundra and Beth Levin. 2000. Unspecified Object Contexts with Activity and Change of State
Verbs. Paper presented at the LSA Annual Meeting, Chicago. January 6, 2000.
property reading i was trying to get at at the last reading group
Why doesn't the patient argument undergo passive (as readily)?
??The book was given Pat by Chris.
Suggestion:
Allow degrees of focus.
Assume, with E-S, that the information structure of co-occurring
constructions must be compatible.
Define what it means for the information structures to be ``compatible":
Constructions can add no more than two degrees of
12
focus to an argument of a co-occurring construction.
Assume:
Long-Distance constructions require the ``moved" element to have
the highest degree of focus:3
Passive construction requires the subject argument to have 1
degree of focus (normally considered topic but see Tomlin 1991 ``focal
attention").
The ditransitive construction requires:
the recipient argument have 0 degrees of focus (be non-focal)
the patient argument have 2 degrees of focus
Hierarchy of focus:
Moved elts > ditrans pat > subj > ditrans rec \\
3
2
1
0
Similarly as before:
Long-distance constructions cannot move the recipient argument because that would involve adding 3
degrees of focus
Long-distance constructions can move the patient argument because that only adds
1 degree of focus
Passive can apply to the recipient because it only adds 1 degree of
focus.
New prediction:
Long-distance constructions can move the recipient if
passive has applied, because passive adds 1 degree of focus, and
only 2 more degrees of focus are added by the long-distance construction.
Open question:
Why is it that passive cannot apply (as easily) to the
patient argument of ditransitive?
?? The book was given Chris.
One degree of focus would need to be subtracted.
Is subtracting any degrees of focus problematic?
OR
Do we not want to rule out passives of ditransitive patients on the basis of
an information structure clash?
Note 0 is acceptable in British English and is also found attested in American English.
13
Cross linguistic facts:
Obj1 or Obj2
Kinyarwanda (Gary and Keenan 1977, Perlmutter 1989)
Luganda (Hyman 1993)
Obj1 only
Chiche\^wa (Bresnan and Moshi 1990)
Obj2 only ???
Non occurring (Polinsky, in preparation)
%claimed for Basaa (Hyman and Duranti 1982)
\end{enumerate
Polinsky (in prep): implicational hierarchy for ditransitives and focus
constructions: Languages are more likely to allow the patient argument
to occur in focus constructions than the recipient.
14