From a3cc2a148d0de65a1b1921633cb2948464f2d8af Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Camil Staps
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 23:21:26 +0200
Subject: Almost finished Kemmer

---
 kemmer-handout.tex | 245 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 235 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

(limited to 'kemmer-handout.tex')

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}
-- 
cgit v1.2.3

