Questions from students (seminar The Verb Phrase and the Syntax-Semantics Interface)
Handout 1
QUESTION. On the question of nominalisation, Exc. C what is the thematic role expressed
in the nominalisation ‘copy’ ?
Answer:
That was a trick question. It is a kind of theme or patient, because it is a thing
created in the copying event. However, it is strictly speaking not an argument of the verb
copy. (We don’t say I copied a copy meaning ‘I made a copy by copying something’.)
Question: Could you please give the answer with the explanation of the exercices C (number
4), E (number 5) and K (number 4, 5 and 6)
Answer: C4 was a trick question. It is a kind of theme or patient, because it is a thing created
in the copying event. However, it is strictly speaking not an argument of the verb copy. (We
don’t say I copied a copy meaning ‘I made a copy by copying something’.)
E5: Francine is both patient of hit and possessor of the head.
K4: the implicit argument is the liquid that was poured out of the bucket.
K5: implicit argument = some surface (identifiable only if there is a fuller contect)
which was being cleaned.
K6: implicit arg = dust, dirt or similar impurities that are wiped off the table.
QUESTION. In Handout 1, in the example (65), you write that "the student of physics", in
the sentence "She saw the students of physics", is the complement of "see". I do not
understand why it is a complement and not an argument of "see".
ANSWER. I said in the handout on p.7 that complement is just another term for argument,
with the difference that complements of verbs have to appear inside VP.
QUESTION. Also in Handout 1, I do not understand very well the concept of "abstract
cases"... Could you explain it to me again please?
ANSWER. This concept is hard to understand and I will not ask about it in the exams. The
idea is basically that some linguists assume that all NPs have case, even if the case is not
actually marked with a particular piece of morphology. The reasons for this are a bit hard to
explain, which is one reason why I didn’t really go into this.
QUESTION. In Exc. E, the claim that a single NP can have several thematic roles, what are
the thematic roles for Keith listened to the record stoned ?
ANSWER: The point is that Keith is both the agent of the verb listen and is an argument of
the adjective (or more exactly: adjectival participle) stoned. (Typically people say that the
arguments of adjectives are themes. This is another instance of the use of the term faute de
mieux.)
QUESTION. And what is the difference if we have the sentence: Keith got stoned ?
ANSWER: I didn’t get time to talk about this problem. There are two very different views
on the argument structure of verbs like get in the above sentence and the verbs in the
following sentences
She became tired/a muslim
She is tired/a muslim
She stayed tired/a muslim/in the building
She went/came/moved/ran into the building
and basically any verb where you can see an AP or PP describing the state/position of another
NP:
1
a)
Some people deny that the NP is an argument of the verb in these cases.
Instead, they assume that the NP and the AP/PP/predicative NP form a constituent (usually
called a small clause) which expresses a situation. In this analysis, Fred became sick would
involve a constituent [small clause Fred sick] expressing the state of Fred’s being sick. Fred
moves out of this constituent because of the subject requirement. The verb become merely
indicates that this situation comes about.
b)
Other people would say that the verbs here take two arguments, an NP and the
AP/PP/predicative NP. These people would normally say that the subject NP is also an
argument of the latter constituent. In other words, the verb and predicative constituent share
an argument.
Handout 2
QUESTION. In Handout 2, example (58), you speak about the experiencer subject in the
sentence "x pleases/frightens/surprises/disturbs y". But isn't it the object, "y", which is the
experiencer? Same question for the example (59). Maybe you already explained it, but I was
not able to be in classe the day you talked about it.
ANSWER: Yes I made a mistake here. Change experiencer subject and experiencer object in
(58/59). The same point affects the paragraph just below (60). It should begin as follows:
Experiencer object verbs can be either states or events, while experiencer subject verbs are
always states...
Question:
In Handout 2, example (31b) I cannot understand how the thematic hierarchy
accounts for thematic roles like goals. In "Mavis sent a letter to Basil", "to Basil" is a goal
and, as such, is the argument that is lowest on the hierarchy since "a letter" is a theme and
thus precedes goal on the hierarchy (it is the next lowest argument on the hierarchy).
According to the thematic hierarchy, "to Basil" would be realised as direct object and "a
letter" as indirect object, which is clearly not the case. You gave this sentence as an example
of how assuming different thematic roles for the same variant but I cannot understand how in
this case the thematic hierarchy accounts for "to Basil" being realised as a direct obejct and "a
letter" as an indirect object.
Answer:
The thematic hierarchy I presented was only meant to apply to NPs (=DPs), not
to PPs. to Basil is a PP, so it is not relevant to the computation of the thematic roles. The
handout didn’t state this directly. It only stated it indirectly by only talking about subjects,
direct objects and indirect objects. A PP like to Basil would not normally be called an indirect
object in (modern English) linguistics.
When you think about this a bit you will notice that the choice to include or not to
include PPs in the thematic hierarchy is part of the answer to exercise E.
Question. Can we say that the constructional view of argument structure is a theory that says
that there is no need of thematic roles since we can paraphrase all grammatical components in
the sentence? I don't really get the importance or the point of this theory.
ANSWER: The theory does not use thematic roles as part of its linking theory. The nature of
the construction determines what becomes subject and what becomes object etc. It is for
instance not part of the theory that you have to know that an NP is an agent in order to
determine whether it is put in the subject position.
2
QUESTION. The point "solution" in Handout 2 concerning the 4th theory "Direct linking
and the subject requirement" causes me problems! I would like to know if this point was made
to make the theory acceptable (--> subject requirement).
ANSWER: You are effectively asking whether the only reason to assume the subject
requirement is to save the direct linking rule theory, or whether there is independent
evidence for the subject requirement (i.e. evidence for the existence of the subject
requirement which has nothing to do with the direct linking rule theory). I didn’t explain this
in enough detail in the handout. The independent evidence for the subject requirement comes
mainly from cases where an expletive is inserted in the subject position:
It rained.
There are three people here.
The expletives it and there are meaningless in these contexts. Most linguists assume that they
are inserted because, in languages like English, the subject position has to be filled. The
proposed movement operation described in the handout is just another way of filling the
subject position if it would otherwise be unoccupied. This of course does not prove that the
movement rule exists, but on the other hand there is no reason why it shouldn’t.
QUESTION. I would like to know how point 6 in Handout 2 "abstract syntactic approaches"
works using the passive form. E.g "The plate broke". How can we build a tree? Is it a relevant
point?
ANSWER: The plate broke is not a passive sentence. That would be The plate was/got
broken. You don’t need to know about this for the exam. There are various different theories
of the syntax of a passive sentence, but I will merely point out here that all proponents of the
abstract syntax approaches described in the handout would assume some version of the idea
that the patient/theme argument in a passive sentence starts in object position and moves to
subject position because of the subject requirement.
Handout 3
Question: How are cognate objects relevant to unaccusativity ?
Appart from the fact that cognate objects are not possible with unaccusativity, I don’t see how
it is relevant to it?
Answer:
That was basically the answer. Cognate objects are sometimes assumed to be a
test for unergative verbs because unaccusative verbs are assumed not to allow them.
Question: How is the notion of unaccusativity relevant to resultative constructions ?
I really don’t see how…
Answer:
Looking at the data in the section on resultative constructions, you can see that
if you try to form a resultative construction from an unergative verb, you need to add some
kind of semantically almost vacuous object (a reflexive or way): They worked themselves to
death; We talked our way out of the situation. With unaccusative verbs, these vacuous objects
are not needed: the bag split open, the toast burnt black, the vase broke into a thousand
pieces.
QUESTION. I would like to know the differences between adjectives from unergative and
unaccusative verbs. Moreover can we make a difference between unergative and unaccusative
verbs concerning the passive form since there is no passive with intransitive verbs?
ANSWER. I assume that you are talking about ADJECTIVAL PASSIVES mentioned in
section 2.4 of handout 3. The idea is that if you use a passive participle as an adjective, it can
only modify the arguments of unaccusative verbs (as in example 12 on the handout: fallen
3
leaves etc.) or the objects of transitive verbs (destroyed buildings and others in example (14)).
Such a participle cannot modify a NP corresponding to the subject of an unergative verb
(hence the unacceptability of *worked people and other data in (13)).
The idea that unaccusatives disallow passive constructions (section 2.5 on the
handout) doesn’t apply to adjectival passives. I should have made this clearer on the handout.
QUESTION In Handout 3, example (22), you use the verb "ouvrir" as an example. But in this
sentence, it is a transitive verb. And the unaccusative and unergative verbs are intransitive,
aren't they? Moreover, if you say "J'ai ouvert la porte ce matin", there is no agreement...
ANSWER: yes, ouvrir is transitive in that sentence because I was making the point that the
subjects of unaccusative verbs behave like the objects of transitive verbs in some respects.
Concerning the last sentence of your question: There is no agreement in J’ai ouvert la porte
because French participles only agree with NPs which are in front of the participle. This is
why I wrote the example in (22) in such a way that the object was a pronoun and therefore in
front of the participle.
4