Граматика / English Syntax

96	Predicates, Arguments and Thematic Roles

they assign, to their argument structures. If we do this for the predicates in (13)–(17) we derive the following results:

(22)devour (verb)

[1 hNP, Agenti, 2 hNP, Patienti]

(23)smile (verb)

[1 hNP, Agenti]

(24)investigate (verb)

[1 hNP, Agenti, 2 hNP, Patienti]

(25)give (verb)

[1 hNP, Agenti, (2 hNP, Benefactivei), 3 hNP, Themei]

(26)bet (verb)

[1 hNP, Agenti, 2 hNP, Goali, 3 hNP, Patienti, 4 hClause, Propositioni]

What we have now in (22)–(26), in the angled brackets following the numbered arguments, are combinations of the argument structures of the predicates in question with their thematic structures. Frames like this can be hypothesised to be the kind of specifications that are attached to lexical items listed in our mental lexicon (dictionary).

Let us now turn to elements in sentences that do not receive thematic roles. Above we defined arguments as participants in a propositional drama. From this it follows that an element in a sentence that does not refer to a participant is not an argument. Instead, we could say that such an element is merely part of the scenery. What type of expression would qualify for nonparticipant status? In Chapter 2 we discussed sentences like (27) and (28):

(27)It always rains in London.

(28)There were six policemen on the bus.

The grammatical Subjects in these sentences are it and there respectively. We called it in (27) weather it, because it often occurs in sentences which tell you about the weather, and we called there in (28) existential there, because it is used in propositions about existence. Notice that unlike referential it and locative there in (29) and (30) below, the Subjects in (27) and (28) do not refer to entities in the outside world. They are purely Subject slot fillers.

(29)I hate the number 31 bus, it is always packed!

(30)I’ll put your co ee over there.

Other non-arguments are expressions in sentences that furnish only circumstantial, non-participant, information. In English these are typically

Grammatical Functions and Thematic Roles	97

phrases or clauses that function as Adjunct. If we modified sentence (1) above as in (31), then the italicised phrases would not be arguments:

(31)Last summer, the crocodile greedily devoured a doughnut.

Neither of the phrases last summer and greedily can be said to participate in the mini-scene enacted by the crocodile and the doughnut. They merely tell us when it took place and how. In the formal notation we developed in this chapter, Adjuncts are ignored and (31) receives the same notation as (1), namely (22). Adjuncts are never arguments, and it follows that not all grammatical functions are linked to argument positions. The reverse, however, does hold true: each argument realises a grammatical function.

6.3Grammatical Functions and Thematic Roles

Why do we need thematic roles? To answer this question, consider (32)–(35) below, all of which contain the verb smash:

(32)David smashed the window.

(33)The window was smashed by David.

(34)A brick smashed the window.

(35)David used a brick to smash the window.

Exercise

Before reading on, first underline the argument expressions in these sentences, and then determine which thematic role they carry.

Notice that although the grammatical functions of the argument expressions David, the window and a brick are di erent in each of the sentences in which they appear, their thematic roles are the same. For example, the NP David carries the role of Agent in each case, despite the fact that it has two di erent syntactic functions, namely Subject in (32) and (35), and Complement of a preposition in (33). Similarly, in all sentences the NP the window is a Patient, regardless of the grammatical function it carries. Finally, the NP the brick carries the role of Instrument, and appears in two di erent functional slots: Subject and Direct Object. What these examples clearly show, then, is that there is no one-to-one relationship between grammatical function and thematic role, and we therefore need to distinguish these notions. Remember that grammatical function is primarily a syntactic notion, whereas thematic roles are primarily semantic in nature.

98	Predicates, Arguments and Thematic Roles

6.4Selectional Restrictions

Consider the sentences below:

(36)The keyboard designed some clothes.

(37)The stapler took a break.

(38)My colleague broke his feelings.

You will agree that in the world we live in there is something odd about these sentences: keyboards are not in the habit of designing clothes, staplers don’t take breaks, and feelings aren’t entities that can be broken. We refer to the restrictions imposed by the predicates of the sentences above on their arguments as selectional restrictions. Linguists have suggested that one way of dealing with selectional restrictions is to assign features to predicates and their arguments. For example, we might say that the verb design carries a feature [þanimate] and that its Subject must also carry this feature. If it doesn’t, the resulting sentence in deviant. Clearly, in (36) the Subject expression the keyboard is not an animate entity and the sentence is odd as a result. (37) is strange for the same reason. (38) can also be handled in terms of features: we might say that the verb break carries the feature [þconcrete] which must be matched by a Direct Object that carries the same feature. In (38) the DO is an abstract NP, and this accounts for its peculiarity. This way of handling selectional restrictions is a syntactic one: we require particular elements to be properly matched in terms of the features they carry.

In recent years the perspective on selectional restrictions has changed. It is now felt that they can be handled in a way that does not require a complicated array of features. An alternative way of dealing with selectional restrictions is to regard them as being a semantic, rather than a syntactic, phenomenon. This would account for the fact that (36)–(38) are syntactically well-formed, though odd meaningwise. It could be argued that selectional restrictions can be handled in terms of thematic roles. We have already seen that the grammar specifies, in its thematic structure, which thematic roles a predicate assigns. One possible avenue of research is to see whether we can predict which selectional restrictions a predicate imposes on its arguments, simply by looking at the thematic roles the arguments carry. Consider again sentence (36) above. We have seen that the verb design in (36) requires a Subject with an Agent role. We might now reasonably make the general observation that Agents are typically animate entities. If we do this, then there is no need to stipulate separately for each verb which particular features it carries. (36) above is deviant simply because a general rule has been broken, namely the rule that says that Agents are typically animate entities. The advantage of handling selectional restrictions in this way is that there is no longer a reason to set up a separate mechanism in the grammar that handles

Three Levels of Description	99

them, and the result is that the grammar becomes more streamlined. Henceforth, then, we will assume that selectional restrictions are restrictions on thematic roles.

6.5Three Levels of Description

I started this chapter with the observation that sentences can be described in two ways: by assigning functions to constituents, and then by assigning categorial labels to them. These are the by now familiar levels of function and form. In this chapter we saw that sentences can be described at a third level, namely the level of thematic roles. A sentence like (32) can be represented as follows at the three levels of description:

(39)		David		smashed	the window
	Functional level	Subject		Predicator	Direct Object
	Form level	[S/MC [NP N]	[VP	V	[NP Det N ]]]
	Thematic level	Agent		predicate	Patient

Remember that function and form are syntactic notions, while the thematic level of representation is semantic in nature.

Key Concepts in this Chapter

predicate

one-place predicate two-place predicate three-place predicate

argument

internal argument external argument

argument structure thematic structure thematic roles

Agent

Patient Theme, etc.

selectional restrictions

100	Predicates, Arguments and Thematic Roles

Exercises

1.In Section 6.1 we looked at one-place predicates, two-place predicates, three-place predicates and, exceptionally, four-place predicates. Consider now the sentences below:

(i)It rained.

(ii)It snowed.

Can weather verbs like rain and snow be classified into one of the predicate types mentioned above? If your answer is ‘yes’, which type is it? If your answer is ‘no’, why not?

2.The following constructions have been called activo-passives. Why is this an appropriate label? In answering this question pay particular attention to the thematic role of the Subjects. In which situations would we use such constructions? Can you think of other verbs that can occur in this type of construction?

(i)This book reads well.

(ii)This car steers poorly.

3.In Section 6.2 we listed Locative as being one of the thematic roles. Would you assign this role to the italicised phrase in the sentence below? Why (not)?

(i)Kids love to swim in the sea.

4.Describe the following sentences as in (39). You may ignore the internal structure of subordinate clauses.

(i)Jane saw a UFO last night.

(ii)Bill used a penknife when he cut the bread.

(iii)The President stumbled.

(iv)Penny put the bread on the table.

(v	I believed him.

(vi)I thought that he was wrong.

5.Produce representations like those in (22)–(26) to show the combined argument structure and thematic structure of the verbs in Exercise 4. Use curly brackets ({ . . . }) if an argument can be syntactically realised in more than one way.

*6. Frawley (1992, pp. 201 .) contrasts the thematic role of Agent with that of Author: ‘whereas the agent is the direct doer, the author is

Exercises	101

simply the enabler, or the indirect cause’ (1992, pp. 205). He claims that distinguishing these roles allows us to account for the di erences between (i) and (ii) below:

(i)Bill floated down the river.

(ii)The canoe floated down the river.

From the point of view of thematic roles, what di erences can you detect between the Subject expressions of these sentences? Do you feel that adding a new -role of Author to the list in the text is justified?

*7. Both of the following are possible sentences of English. They have the same meaning.

(i)The Government faces di cult debates.

(ii)Di cult debates face the Government.

First analyse these sentences functionally, then discuss the thematic properties of the verb face. Can you think of any other verbs that behave like face?

*8. In the text we saw that there is no agreement among linguists about which thematic roles we should recognise, or indeed how many. Consider the following query which appeared on LINGUIST, an Internet discussion group (for more details on LINGUIST, see the Further Reading section below):

Q:If John is an Agent in John opened the door, and John is an Experiencer in John saw the movie, what is John in John weighs 200 pounds?

Try answering this question, and then see below which answers some linguists have given to this question.

According to Jackendo (1972: 44) (Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, 1972, MIT Press), the theta-role of John in the above sentence is theme. Jackendo follows Gruber (Studies in Lexical Relations, MIT dissertation 1965 and other work) in assuming the following definition for theme: Theme is defined as either an NP which undergoes physical motion, or as the NP whose location is being asserted (Jackendo 1972: 29–30). The use of John in the above sentence falls under the latter definition. Jackendo says that the above sentence corresponds with the following sentence: John weighs in at

102	Predicates, Arguments and Thematic Roles

200 pounds. Hence, John is a theme by virtue of the fact that its location is being asserted, the location being 200 pounds on the scale. One final note is that elsewhere in the literature theme and patient are often used interchangeably. However, Jackendo (1987: 394–395 (‘The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory’, Linguistic Inquiry 18, 369–411) makes a distinction between these two thetaroles. He defines patient as the ‘object a ected’, and he reserves theme only to refer to NPs undergoing movement or whose location is being asserted. (L. Kaiser)

I suggest that John in your sentence John weighs 200 lb. is a patient, which these days is more usually called theme. (L. Connolly)

In John weighs two hundred pounds [the NP] John bears no special thematic role, John is merely the subject of a predicate. That is, John bears the same role or nonrole that he bears in John is male, John is a mason, John is good at cross-word puzzles. Consider that: John weighs two hundred pounds is rather close to the purely copular/predicative construction: John is two hundred pounds in weight. (B. Ulicny)

Overweight. (A. Marantz)

(Answers compiled from LINGUIST, vol. 5, 1076)

This should give you quite a good idea of the extent of the disagreement between linguists about the assignment of thematic roles. The disagreement is quite considerable, and even the last facetious comment is telling, in that it indicates that some linguists (syntacticians!) simply don’t worry much about thematic roles.

Further Reading

On predicates and arguments, see Hurford and Heasley (1983), Units 5 and 13. This book also deals with thematic roles (which are called participant roles) in Unit 20. For a slightly more advanced treatment, see Alwood, Anderson and Dahl (1977). The classical references for thematic roles are Fillmore (1968), who refers to them under the heading of ‘case’ and Gruber (1976). An excellent and very accessible discussion of the grammatical function of Direct Object, and why it is di cult to associate it with a particular thematic role, can be found in Schlesinger (1995). The syntactic feature-based treatment of selectional restrictions was proposed in Chomsky (1965). For later treatments see, for example, Horrocks (1987, pp. 35–6) and Radford (1988, pp. 369 ., 388–9).

Further Reading	103

In Exercise 2 above I mentioned LINGUIST. This is an electronic discussion forum on the Internet which deals with all branches of linguistics. You need an e-mail account to use this service. You can subscribe free by sending the message below to [e-mail]

subscribe linguist hyour first namei hyour last namei

e.g.

subscribe linguist Ted Jones

Make sure that your message contains only these words, and that so-called signatures, provided by certain mailing programmes (e.g. Eudora or Pegasus) have been removed.

7Cross-Categorial Generalisations: X-bar Syntax

In our discussion of English syntax in the preceding chapters we’ve learnt how to parse sentences at the functional, formal and thematic levels. What we haven’t done in any great depth so far is look inside the various constituents that sentences are composed of to see how they are structured. The internal structure of the various phrase types is the topic of this chapter.

7.1Heads, Complements and Specifiers

In Chapter 3 we saw that all phrases have something in common, namely the fact that they must minimally contain a Head. In the bracketed phrases in the sentences below the Heads are shown in bold type:

(1)The defendants denied the charge: they claim that they did [VP not destroy the garden]

(2)She proposed [NP an analysis of the sentence]

(3)Jake is [AP so fond of co ee]

(4)They are [PP quite in agreement]

(5)My sister cycles [AvP much faster than me]

Notice that apart from the obligatory presence of the Heads, there are further similarities between these phrases. First of all, there appears to be a strong bond between the Head and the constituent that follows it in each case. Thus, in (1) the verb destroy requires the presence of a Noun Phrase that refers to an entity that is destroyable. Similarly, in (2) the PP of the sentence complements the noun analysis in that it specifies what is being analysed. Notice that in this case the noun analysis with its associated Complement of the sentence can be contrasted with a verb þ Complement sequence: analyse the sentence. Compare (2) with (6):

(6)She proposed to analyse the sentence.

In (3)–(5) something analogous to (1) and (2) is going on: in each case the constituent that follows the Head is required to complete the sense of the Head. In Chapter 2 we briefly introduced the notion Complement as a general term to denote any constituent whose presence is required by another

104

Heads, Complements and Specifiers	105

element. We now see that all the major syntactic categories can take a Complement. This is an important generalisation captured by the notion of subcategorisation, which we introduced in Chapter 2, and to which we will return in Section 7.4 below. How can we represent the close bond between Head and Complement in a tree diagram? One way is to assume that the two together share a node (i.e. they are sisters), as in (7) below:

(7)Phrase

Head Complement

Of course, this can only be a partial representation of the structure of phrases like those in (1)–(5). What about the elements that immediately precede the Heads, such as not, an, so and quite in (1)–(5)? Unlike Complements, these seem to relate not so much to the Head, but to the Head and Complement taken together. For example, in (1) we could say that not adds something to the sequence destroy the garden: it negates it. We can ask the question ‘what did the players not do?’, and the answer would be ‘destroy the garden’. In (2) the determiner an relates to the sequence analysis of the sentence, not just to the Head. And in (3)–(5) the adverbs so, quite and much intensify the strings fond of co ee, in agreement and faster than me, respectively. We will say that the elements that precede the Head in (1)–(5) specify the Head þ Complement sequence and we will accordingly refer to them as Specifiers (abbreviated as ‘Spec’). We can now expand our partial tree in (7) as follows for each of the phrases in (1)–(5):

(8)VP

Spec		?
	V	NP
not	destroy	the garden

(9)NP

Spec		?
	N	PP
an	analysis	of the sentence