+\documentclass[9pt,a4paper,twocolumn]{extarticle}

+

+\usepackage[hidelinks]{hyperref}

+\usepackage[top=2cm]{geometry}

+\usepackage[font=small]{caption}

+\usepackage{handouts}

+

+\usepackage{polyglossia}

+\setdefaultlanguage{british}

+\setotherlanguage{hebrew}

+\newfontfamily\dutchfont[Mapping=tex-text]{Latin Modern Roman}

+\newfontfamily\hebrewfont[Scale=MatchLowercase]{Ezra SIL}

+\DeclareTextFontCommand{\ez}{\hebrewfont}

+

+\usepackage{stfloats}

+\usepackage{subcaption}

+\usepackage{enumitem}

+

+\title{\Large Handout of ``Prototypical Transitivity''\footnote{\r{A}shild N{\ae}ss (2007).}}

+\author{Camil Staps}

+

+\newcommand{\MDAH}[0]{\bgroup\sc mdah\egroup}

+\def\vol#1{$#1$\bgroup\sc vol\egroup}

+\def\inst#1{$#1$\bgroup\sc inst\egroup}

+\def\aff#1{$#1$\bgroup\sc aff\egroup}

+

+\begin{document}

+

+\maketitle

+

+\subsection*{Why a transitive prototype?}

+\parnote{

+ A \term{prototype} definition assigns membership of a category by means of judgement of similarity to a central exemplar\pagenr{11}.

+ The prototype's properties should be \emph{gradable},

+ so that a \emph{degree of similarity} with it can be determined.

+ Ideally, prototype properties are chosen \emph{maximally distinct} from members of other, contrasting categories\pagenr{12}.

+}

+

+\summary{

+ A traditional transitivity prototype involves

+ a volitional agent,

+ a concrete, dynamic action with

+ perceptible and lasting effect on a patient\pagenr{15}.

+}

+

+\summary{

+ There exists a transitive prototype, but

+ (1) why does it exist, and

+ (2) why does it look the way it does\pagenr{16}?

+}

+

+\subsection*{The Maximally Distinguished Arguments Hypothesis (\MDAH)}

+\summary{

+ Kemmer argues that the participants of transitive events are very distinguishable\pagenr{28} as far as their semantical roles are concerned:

+ there should be one Initiator and one Endpoint, and they may not overlap.

+ We see here a prototypical agent and a prototypical patient\pagenr{29}.

+ This suggests the \MDAH:

+ \begin{quote}

+ A prototypical transitive clause is one where

+ the two participants are \emph{maximally semantically distinct}

+ in terms of their roles in the event described by the clause\pagenr{30}.

+ \end{quote}

+ The question remains what the defining properties of agents and patients are.

+ One should separate

+ \term{inherent properties} (definiteness, animacy) and

+ \term{relational properties} (agency, patienthood, etc.).

+ The \MDAH{} considers only relational properties, since it makes a claim about relations to an event\pagenr{31}.

+ Any definition of agency should also only consider relational properties ---

+ notwithstanding the fact that there may be correlations between inherent and relational properties\pagenr{40}.

+

+ An agent can be defined as a volitional instigator (\vol+ \inst+);

+ a patient as affected (\aff+).

+ By the {\MDAH}, a patient should then also have the properties \vol- and \inst-,

+ and an agent should be \aff-\pagenr{44}.

+}

+

+\subsection*{The Affected Agent}

+\summary{

+ A common deviation of the above definition of Agent is the \term{Affected Agent},

+ a participant with the characteristics \vol+ \inst+ \aff+.

+ That this deviates from the Agent definition by the \MDAH{} explains why verbs with Affected Agents can often be used intransitively\pagenr{72}.

+

+ Apart from that, we often see that verbs like `eat' appear with markers of subject affectedness,

+ or that the verb itself is grammaticalised into a marker of agent affectedness%

+ \plainIdea{~(also Hebrew \ez{אכל}?)}\pagenr{75}.

+

+ Affected Agent constructions are often semantic middles, defined as

+ ``[v]erbs with two or more participants

+ that have more than one affected or more than one controlling partcipant'' (Testelec 1998)\pagenr{82}.

+}

+

+\subsection*{Transitivity in verbs and clauses}

+\summary{

+ For all deviations from the prototypical agent (\vol+ \inst+ \aff-) and patient (\vol- \inst- \aff+)

+ we find languages that display them in different constructions\pagenrs{89--107}.

+}

+

+\parnote{

+ \begin{description}[style=nextline,leftmargin=1em,itemsep=-3pt]

+ \item[Volitional Undergoers (\vol+ \inst- \aff+)]

+ This special kind of patient is rarely, thought not never, found in different constructions than the transitive Patient\pagenr{89}.

+ The rarity may be explained due to the similarity to beneficiaries\pagenr{91}.

+ \item[Force (\vol- \inst+ \aff-)]

+ This includes natural forces and human actors that don't act volitionally.

+ Both are sometimes described differently, sometimes in the same manner\pagenr{93}.

+ \item[Instrument (\vol- \inst+ \aff+)]

+ Many languages distinguish between forces and instruments,

+ since instruments are manipulated by another entity.

+ Agents and instruments are `things making the event happen' (\inst+),

+ while instruments and patients are `things the Agent does something to' (\aff+)\pagenr{97}.

+ \item[Frustrative (\vol+ \inst- \aff-)]

+ Distinguished by a small number of languages\pagenr{100}.

+ \item[Neutral (\vol- \inst- \aff-)]

+ This includes resultative objects (there was nothing to be affected before the event)

+ and stimulus, themes, etc.\pagenrs{103--107}.

+ \end{description}

+

+ \plainIdea{The question remains on what basis some categories are patients and others are agents

+ (e.g., why \vol+ \inst- \aff+ is a patient and not an agent).}

+}

+

+\end{document}