Semantics vs. Syntactic roles (analysis)
If a verb can be acted out as a scene, this scene would describe the semantics behind the verb. For
example:
The syntax of verbs is slightly at odds with their semantics.
Semantics goes a long way to predicting the syntax of a verb but does not quite get there.
Ex. “want a victory” versus *”hope a victory” and “hope for a victory” versus *“want for a victory”
“Hope” and “want” are very similar semantically.
“Likely”/”unlikely” applies to propositions. The same things can be possible/impossible. Sometimes
likely and possible are interchangeable.
In other words, they are just different scenes on the same stage, with the same actors and participants.
Ex. “Governor Haley is likely to win the election” versus *”Governor Haley is possible to win the
election.”
This split in syntactic constructions cannot possibly come from the semantics of the words. There is a
gap between syntax and semantics.
The scene (or semantics) for tell vs. report.
Tell implies the following actors/elements needed for this scene:
Teller (agent)  the thing being told (theme)  The Tellee / the goal
Report implies the following actors/elements needed for this scene:
The Reporter (agent)  the thing being reported (theme)  the reportee (goal/recipient)
Semantically these words are identical. However, syntactically, they function very differently:
“I told the person X” is plausible, whereas “I reported the person x” carries a different set of meanings.
“John told Sam a joke.” = grammatical
“John told a joke to Sam.” = grammatical
“John reported a crime to the police.” = grammatical
*“John reported the police a crime.” Ungrammatical
Syntactically, what is the difference between the words:
Column A
Tell
Column B
John tells Sam a joke. Report
(double object
allowed)
Give
Sam gives John a
book. (double object
not allowed)
Transfer
John reports the
message to Sam.
(double object not
allowed)
John transfers the
money to Sam. (double
object allowed)
Column A  Germanic words can take the double object construction
Column B  Latinate words cannot take the double object construction
Note: The etymology reveals the difference, showing how we apply rules to certain words dependent on
their origins. Yet, most native speakers of English understand the syntactic rules without understanding
the etymology. In fact, six year olds produce these forms reliably and obviously do not have much if any
knowledge of etymology. Any theory has to hold this into account to be plausible.
“Quirky” case
Some verbs take certain cases for a seemingly arbitrary reason in Germanic. For example, the German
Ich helfe ihr. ‘I help her.’ The choice of the dative is arbitrary. It is not uncommon to find “quirky” case in
Germanic languages. The word “case” here is separate term from the case system of grammars.
Summary
 Semantic meaning delimits the possibility of structure but it cannot predict the syntactic
structure.
 But often there are certain “arbitrary bits” of information that just basically says a verb can only
function in a scene in a certain just because  ask the verb, the verb says: “that’s just the way it
is.” (Note: there are deeper theoretical explanations but for our purposes the word arbitrary is
all we need to know.)
David M Perlmutter and Paul M. Postal’s Towards a Universal Characterization of Passivation posits a
theory about what gets to be passive and what does not.
a) Passivation in English applies to a string of words in which an NP, Verb and NP occur in that
order. (transitive)
b) Passivation involves the demotion of the Subject NP and promotion of the Object NP.
We know, English requires these elements for passivation of a transitive clause:




You change word order (promotion / demotion)
You change the case (Nominative  accusative and vice versa)
You add the “by phrase”
You include a special morphosyntactic element (be + participle)
Other languages do not require this list for passivation.
PASSIVATION
In an ergative/absolutive system:
The object of a transitive clause OR the subject of an intransitive clause  not marked by any marker
(e.g. absolutive)
ABSOLUTIVE
o
The boat was sunk.  boat = absolutive
o
o
The boat was sunk by John.  boat = absolutive
The boat sank.  boat = absolutive
In a nominative/accusative system:
Post passivation, no more accusative marker(s) is necessary  the phrase becomes intransitive.
John sank the boat.

The boat was sunk (by John).
John = Subj

The boat = new Subj. and John = something else. (Intransitive clause)
VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS: Passive vs. Antipassive
A. Passive
1
2
SUBJ
OBJ
(becomes something else)
becomes the subj
Verb
B. Antipassive
1
2
Verb
SUBJ
OBJ
(becomes the subj)
becomes something else
C. Alternate View of Antipassive
1
2
Verb
SUBJ
OBJ
*(becomes the obj)
becomes something else
**(then becomes the subj)
*makes the surface level of both B. and C. different. But you would have to seek out evidence to show
some marker or treatment of the initial subj. as an object to cash in on this analysis. Bill Davies found
just that in Choctaw.
**moves back to subj. position because clauses requires subject.
Interpretation/Explanation:
1. Difference between passive and intransitive clauses
Passive makes trans.  intrans.
Intrans. Clauses are just made.
2. 1 POV of Passive: Spontaneous Demotion: where there is demotion of the subj. and obj. moves
up as a natural consequence.
2 POV of Passive: Motivated Demotion: where there is promotion of an obj. and the subj. is
kicked out of its place as a natural consequence.
BOTH  considered the process of detransitivizing
3. Antipassive is similar to passive in that you start with a trans. and it is detransitivized. But, with
the antipassive you retain the subj. and demote the obj.
4. The passive demotes the subject NP and retains the object NP as the main argument in the
clause, and antipassives do the opposite. The object NP is demoted, but the subject NP is
retained as the main .argument of the clause.
Verb marking and case reflexes do not tell you which view is correct.
All clauses need subjects (part of argument for spontaneous demotion). A gap is made by the
spontaneous demotion and the object NP being promoted fills that gap.
Summary:
Passive
Option 1: Ditransitivizes a transitive clause
by demoting a subject
Option 2: : Ditransitivizes a transitive clause
by promoting an obhect
BOTH VALID ANALYSIS
Antipassive
Ditransitivizes a transitive clause by demoting the
object
EXTRA: Jamie’s analysis of Antipassive: the verb is ambitransitive is also plausible but is a lexicalist
approach vs. a constructionist approach.