diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'kemmer-handout.tex')
| -rw-r--r-- | kemmer-handout.tex | 245 |
1 files changed, 235 insertions, 10 deletions
diff --git a/kemmer-handout.tex b/kemmer-handout.tex index 1d4198f..dc95d79 100644 --- a/kemmer-handout.tex +++ b/kemmer-handout.tex @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -\documentclass[a4paper,twocolumn]{article} +\documentclass[9pt,a4paper,twocolumn]{extarticle} \usepackage[top=2cm]{geometry} \usepackage[british]{babel} @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ \usepackage[hidelinks]{hyperref} \usepackage{tikz} -\usetikzlibrary{arrows} +\usetikzlibrary{arrows,fit,calc,shapes,positioning} \usepackage[font=small]{caption} \usepackage{subcaption} @@ -116,23 +116,248 @@ (a) a verb has three participants (Agent, Patient and Recipient or Beneficiary), (b) the Agent is coreferent with the Recipient/Beneficiary and (c) the Agent and the Recipient/Beneficiary are normally distinct\pagenr{74}. - This is depicted in \autoref{fig:event-indref}. + This is depicted in \autoref{fig:events-indref}. + + The indirect middle comprises actions that one \emph{normally} or \emph{necessarily} performs for one's own benefit + (which is different from an indirect middle in that it violates property (c) above)\pagenr{78}. + See \autoref{fig:events-indmid}. + + \begin{figure}[h] + \begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\linewidth} + \centering + \begin{tikzpicture}[node distance=1cm,every node/.style={circle,draw},scale=0.9,>=stealth] + \node (A) {}; + \node[right of=A] (B) {}; + \node[right of=B] (C) {}; + \draw[->] (A) -- (B); + \draw[->,dashed] (B) -- (C); + \path (A) edge[bend left,dotted] (C); + \end{tikzpicture} + \caption{Ind. reflexive\pagenr{77}\label{fig:events-indref}} + \end{subfigure}% + \begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\linewidth} + \centering + \begin{tikzpicture}[node distance=1cm,every node/.style={circle,draw},scale=0.9,>=stealth,->] + \node (A) {}; + \node[right of=A] (B) {}; + \path (A) edge[bend left] (B); + \path (B) edge[bend left,dashed] (A); + \end{tikzpicture} + \caption{Ind. middle\pagenr{81}\label{fig:events-indmid}} + \end{subfigure} + \caption{Event schemas for indirect situations} + \end{figure} + + \subsubsection*{Logophoric situation types} + It is possible that multiple events are combined% + \note{e.g. ``Margaret says that Geoffrey is silly.''}\pagenr{82}. + The case discussed here is when the participant in the main event is the \term{Mental Source} of the dependent event. + In this case, there is coreference of Mental Source and the subject of the dependent event, + yet the main event is neither direct nor indirect reflexive + since it violates the thematic aspect\note{see \emph{The direct reflexive}; \term{thematic roles} above}\pagenr{86}. + + \term{Object control}, + where the referent of the object of the main clause is the initiator participant of the dependent event% + \note{e.g. ``I forced him to go''}, + is commonly found with manipulative verbs in many languages\pagenr{88}. + + Whether the object of the main clause is marked using a middle or reflexive marker + seems to depend on the \term{relative distinguishability of the participants}% + \note{cf. body action middles and \autoref{fig:middle-transitivity-line} above}\pagenr{92}. +} + +\subsection*{Related Semantic Domains} +\summary{ + \subsubsection*{Reciprocal situation types} + The prototypical reciprocal context is a simple event frame expressing a two-participant event with two relations + where each participant is the Initiator in one and the Endpoint in the other (see \autoref{fig:event-reciprocal})\pagenr{97}. \begin{figure}[h] \centering \begin{tikzpicture}[node distance=1cm,every node/.style={circle,draw},scale=0.9,>=stealth] \node (A) {}; \node[right of=A] (B) {}; - \node[right of=B] (C) {}; - \draw[->] (A) -- (B); - \draw[->,dashed] (B) -- (C); - \path (A) edge[bend left,dotted] (C); + \node[below of=A,yshift=3mm] (C) {}; + \node[right of=C] (D) {}; + \draw[->] (A) -- (D); + \draw[->] (C) -- (B); + \path (A) edge[bend left,dotted] (B); + \path (C) edge[bend right,dotted] (D); \end{tikzpicture} - \caption{Event schema for the indirect reflexive\label{fig:event-indref}\pagenr{77}} + \caption{Prototypical event schema for reciprocal contexts\label{fig:event-reciprocal}\pagenr{97}} \end{figure} - The indirect middle comprises actions that one \emph{normally} or \emph{necessarily} performs for one's own benefit - (which is different from an indirect middle in that it violates property (c) above)\pagenr{78}. + The reciprocal situation type is similar to the reflexive situation type + in that all participants are both Initiator and Endpoint\pagenr{98}. + It is also similar to collective situations% + \note{e.g. ``The guests left.''}, + but adds that all participants are Endpoints\pagenr{99}. + Lastly, it compares to chaining situations% + \note{e.g. ``The graduates followed each other up onto the platform.''}\pagenr{101}. + + Naturally reciprocal events% + \note{that are semantically necessarily or usually reciprocal} + are different from prototypical reciprocal events in the + \term{relative distinguishability of events}\pagenr{112}: + for naturally reciprocal events% + \note{John and Mary kissed}, + the events are simultaneous, + whereas for prototypical reciprocal events% + \note{John and Mary kissed each other}, + they are not. + + Distinguishability of events and of participants (see under Logophoric situation types) are comparable\pagenr{121}. + The encompassing property is \term{relative elaboration of events}. + When markers are more prominently present, the events are more elaborate. + + \subsubsection*{The cognition middle} + Simple mental events can be depicted as in \autoref{fig:events-mental}. + \autoref{fig:events-mental-expstim} shows a two-participant event% + \note{e.g. ``I pity him.''}, + where the Experiencer directs his attention on the Stimulus + and the Stimulus brings about the mental event in the mind of the Experiencer. + \autoref{fig:events-mental-exp} shows a one-participant event% + \note{e.g. ``The people scared.''}\pagenr{128}. + + \begin{figure}[h] + \begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\linewidth} + \centering + \begin{tikzpicture}[node distance=1cm,every node/.style={circle,draw},scale=0.9,>=stealth,->] + \node (A) {}; + \node[right of=A] (B) {}; + \path (A) edge[bend left,dashed] (B); + \path (B) edge[bend left,dashed] (A); + \end{tikzpicture} + \caption{Experiencer--Stimulus\label{fig:events-mental-expstim}} + \end{subfigure}% + \begin{subfigure}[b]{.5\linewidth} + \centering + \begin{tikzpicture}[node distance=2cm,every node/.style={circle,draw},scale=0.9,>=stealth] + \node (A) {}; + \path (A) edge[loop left,dashed,looseness=5,->,in=315,out=45] (A); + \end{tikzpicture} + \caption{Experiencer only\label{fig:events-mental-exp}} + \end{subfigure} + \caption{Cognitive event schemas\pagenr{128}\label{fig:events-mental}} + \end{figure} + + The affectedness of the Initiator is an inherent part of a mental event, like with middle types. + They also share the low degree of distinguishability of participants\pagenr{129}. + + Verbs of emotion, emotive speech\note{e.g. `complain'} and emotive vocalisations\note{e.g. `laugh'} + are similar to mental events and share the high degree of affectedness of the Experiencer, + although they lack volitionality\pagenr{130}. + + Cognition verbs\note{e.g. `interpret', `consider'} may also appear with middle markers. + \parnote{They seem related to emotion verbs: + in all but one of the languages considered, + when cognition verbs could appear with middle markers, emotion verbs could as well, + and vice versa.} + + Perception events can be split up in three categories: + passive Experiencer-based\note{e.g. ``I smell garlic''}; + active Experiencer-based\note{e.g. ``I smelled the meat to see if it was still good''}; + Stimulus-based\note{e.g. ``Garlic smells good''}\pagenr{136}. + They appear less with middle markers, + possibly because the Experiencer is less affected than with other cognition events. + + Cognition types are most commonly complex% + \note{e.g. ``I think that Thatcher will be ousted''}. + They may be represented as in \autoref{fig:events-complex-cognition}. + + \begin{figure}[h] + \centering + \begin{tikzpicture}[node distance=1cm,every node/.style={circle,draw},scale=0.9,>=stealth,->] + \node (A) {}; + \node[right of=A,xshift=-2mm] (B) {}; + \draw (A) -- (B); + + \node[rectangle,inner sep=2mm,fit=(A) (B)] (D) {}; + \node[left of=D,xshift=-8mm] (E) {}; + \draw[dashed] (E) -- (D); + \path[dashed,draw] (D) -- ($(D)-(0,.8)$) -- ($(E)-(0,.8)$) -- (E); + \end{tikzpicture} + \caption{Complex cognitive event schema\pagenr{139}\label{fig:events-complex-cognition}} + \end{figure} + + \subsubsection*{Other related situation types} + Middle markers are also used for \term{spontaneous events}\note{e.g. `grow', `be born'}\pagenr{144}. + They are different from other middle situation types in the complete lack of volitional initiation by the Patient\pagenr{146}. + + In some languages, middle markers can be used to express situations + where an external causer is understood to exist, but de-emphasised for non-specificity or relative unimportance% + \note{e.g. ``This book reads well'', which implies a reader}\pagenr{147}. + As with spontaneous events, the focus is on the affected entity. + This use can be called \term{passive middle}\pagenr{149}. + \parnote{Further distinctions can be made, but are irrelevant to Kemmer's study.} +} + +\subsection*{Hypotheses and Predictions} +\summary{ + Based on results from the previous sections, the reflexive-middle domain can be plotted as in \autoref{fig:domain-map}. + Prototype categories have been encircled. + Plain arcs indicate semantic similarity (dotted arcs are discussed below)\pagenr{202}. + + \begin{figure*}[b] + \centering + \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.9,every node/.style={align=center,text width=2cm,scale=0.9},every path/.style={draw}] + \node[text width=15mm,draw,ellipse] (dir-refl) {Direct Reflexive}; + \node[text width=28mm,above=4cm of dir-refl,draw,ellipse] (two-p-evts) {Two-Participant}; + \path (dir-refl) -- (two-p-evts); + + \node[above=5mm of dir-refl,xshift=-15mm] (indir-refl) {Indirect Reflexive}; + \node[above=13mm of indir-refl,xshift=-20mm] (indir-mid) {Indirect Middle}; + \path (dir-refl) -- (indir-refl) -- (indir-mid); + + \node[above=5mm of dir-refl,xshift=15mm] (logo-refl) {Logophoric Reflexive}; + \node[above=8mm of logo-refl,xshift=15mm] (logo-mid) {Logophoric Middle}; + \path (dir-refl) -- (logo-refl) -- (logo-mid); + + \node[left=of dir-refl] (recip) {Reciprocal}; + \node[left=of recip] (nat-recip) {Natural Reciprocal}; + \path (dir-refl) -- (recip) -- (nat-recip); + + \node[right=of dir-refl,yshift=5mm] (pass-mid) {Passive Middle}; + \node[right=of pass-mid,draw,ellipse,yshift=-5mm,text width=15mm] (passive) {\sc Passive}; + \node[below=5mm of pass-mid] (emo-mid) {Emotion Middle}; + \node[below=15mm of emo-mid,xshift=-5mm] (cog-mid) {Cognition Middle}; + \path (dir-refl) -- (pass-mid) -- (passive); + \path (dir-refl) -- (emo-mid) -- (pass-mid); + \path (dir-refl) -- (cog-mid) -- (emo-mid); + + \node[below=of dir-refl,text width=28mm] (nontrans-mot) {Non-Translational Motion}; + \node[below=of nontrans-mot] (posture-change) {Change In Body Posture}; + \node[below=of posture-change] (trans-mot) {Translational Motion}; + \node[below=of trans-mot,draw,ellipse,text width=25mm] (one-p-evts) {One-Participant}; + \path (dir-refl) -- (nontrans-mot) -- (posture-change) -- (trans-mot) -- (one-p-evts); + + \node[left=5mm of nontrans-mot,yshift=-5mm] (grooming) {Grooming}; + \path (dir-refl) -- (grooming) -- (one-p-evts.north west); + + \node[right=of cog-mid,yshift=-5mm] (spont) {Spontaneous Action or Process}; + \path (dir-refl) -- (spont); + \path (one-p-evts.north east) -- (spont) -- (passive); + + \node[above=2mm of two-p-evts] {\sc Active}; + \node[below=2mm of one-p-evts] {\sc Active}; + + \path[dotted,line width=2pt] (indir-mid) -- (logo-mid) -- (pass-mid) -- (emo-mid) -- + (spont) -- (cog-mid) -- ($(posture-change)!0.7!(trans-mot)$) -- + (grooming) -- (nat-recip) -- (indir-mid); + \end{tikzpicture} + \caption{Semantic relations among middle and other situation types\pagenr{211}\label{fig:domain-map}} + \end{figure*} + + Reflexive types share coreference of Initiator and Endpoint\pagenr{204}. + Each middle type is linked to the situation type(s) with which it has the greatest semantic affinity. + The passive is midway on the transitivity spectrum, + since it has two participants, but the event is treated as having only one salient entity\pagenr{205}. + + We have seen that relative elaboration of events is the key property + by which reflexive and middle events are distinguished. + Middle morphology, then, is an expressive strategy for variations in the conceptual structuring of events\pagenr{209}. + + The dotted arcs in \autoref{fig:domain-map} indicate the properties that middle types share (low elaboration of events)\pagenr{211}. } \end{document} |