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

\usepackage[top=2cm]{geometry}
\usepackage[british]{babel}
\usepackage{stfloats}

\usepackage{handouts}

\usepackage[hidelinks]{hyperref}
\usepackage{tikz}
		
\newcommand{\situationtransition}[7]{%
	\begin{tikzpicture}[node distance=4em,scale=0.9,every node/.style={scale=0.9}]
		\node[             label={below:$x_{-3}$},label={above:#1}] (xm3) {};
		\node[right of=xm3,label={below:$x_{-2}$},label={above:#2}] (xm2) {};
		\node[right of=xm2,label={below:$x_{-1}$},label={above:#3}] (xm1) {};
		\node[right of=xm1,label={below:$x_0$},   label={above:#4},
			circle,draw,fill=black,inner sep=2pt]                     (x0)  {};
		\node[right of=x0, label={below:$x_1$},   label={above:#5}] (x1)  {};
		\node[right of=x1, label={below:$x_2$},   label={above:#6}] (x2)  {};
		\node[right of=x2, label={below:$x_3$},   label={above:#7}] (x3)  {};

		\node[left of=xm3, label={left:$\dots$}]  (start) {};
		\node[right of=x3, label={right:$\dots$}] (end) {};

		\path[draw,<->] (start) -- (end);
	\end{tikzpicture}
}

\title{\Large Handout of ``Aspect and the Biblical Hebrew Niphal and Hitpael''\footnote{Richard Charles Benton, Jr. 2009. University of Wisonsin-Madison.}}
\author{Camil Staps}

\begin{document}

\maketitle

\summary{
	The problem with the Niphal and Hitpael stems is both
	(a) \term{internal overlap},
		that each stem covers more than one functional area (passive, middle and reflexive), and
	(b) \term{external overlap},
		that the functions of the two stems overlap with each other\pagenr{102}.
}

\summary{
	\subsubsection*{Aspect}
	Benton takes from Keenan (1985) the idea that when a language has multiple passives,
	they are distinguished by \term{aspect}\pagenr{102}.
	\criticism{
		he then takes from later linguists new views on aspect\pagenr{104--5},
		and applies Keenan's theory using those ideas about aspect.
		It is unclear if Keenan's theory applies to those new ideas.
	}
	Linguists distinguish different kinds of aspect:
		\term{viewpoint aspect},
			where a full or partial view of a situation is presented;
		\term{situation aspect},
			which presents features of a situation.
	Different kinds of situation aspect can be categorised by the features
		static--dynamic, durative--instantaneous and telic--atelic.
	Based on Smith and Pustejovsky, different types of events can be depicted in diagrams\pagenr{108--9}
		(see \autoref{fig:situation-transitions}).
	Different aspects may be communicated lexically, contextually and morphologically, depending on the language\pagenr{112}.

	\begin{figure*}[b]
		\centering
		\situationtransition{$\dots$}{$\lnot$built}{$\lnot$built}{built}{built}{built}{$\dots$}
		
		\vspace*{1em}
		\situationtransition{}{}{}{reached}{reached}{reached}{$\dots$}
		
		\vspace*{1em}
		\situationtransition{}{}{}{tapped}{}{}{}

		\caption{Different types of events: accomplishment, achievement and semelfactive.\label{fig:situation-transitions}}
	\end{figure*}
}

\summary{
	\subsubsection*{Passive}
	Benton distinguishes the semantical
		\term{Agent} (A)\note{volitionally performs an action, typically affecting another entity},
		\term{Patient} (O)\note{undergoes the action of the Agent} and
		\term{Subject} (S)\note{of a one-place predicate}\pagenr{116}.
	In the passive, the A-role is demoted and often the O-role is promoted to S.
	However, an S does not always correspond to an O-role%
		\note{consider ``The man went into the building,'' where `man' is an S,
			and ``The man entered the building,'' where `man' is an A:
			the \emph{syntactical} roles differ,
			while the \emph{semantical} roles are identical}.
	An A is logical, psychological, semantic and grammatical subject\pagenr{118}.
	All these aspects can be demoted, but demotion can be restricted to some types of subject, depending on the language.
}

\summary{
	\subsubsection*{Middle}
	The middle voice presents a large formal and functional variety between languages\pagenr{128}.
	In cognitive linguistics, scholars look for the middle's prototype\pagenr{131}.
	According to Manney, passive and middle are used in similar situations,
	the use of either one only reflects the point of view the speaker wants to take\pagenr{133}.
	Kemmer claims that the middle distinguishes itself by its level of distinguishability of the participants\pagenr{135}%
		\note{see \autoref{fig:middle-transitivity-line}}.

	\plainnote{
		\begin{figure*}[b]
			\centering
			\color{black}
			\begin{tikzpicture}[node distance=8em,scale=0.9]
				\node             (a) {Two-participant};
				\node[right of=a] (b) {Reflexive};
				\node[right of=b] (c) {Middle};
				\node[right of=c] (d) {One-participant};

				\node[xshift=-5em,yshift=-1em] at (a) (plus) {+};
				\node[xshift=5em, yshift=-1em] at (d) (min)  {-};

				\draw[<->] (plus) -- (min)
					node[below,midway] {Degree of distinguishability of participants};
			\end{tikzpicture}
			\caption{Distinguishability of participants (Kemmer 1993)\label{fig:middle-transitivity-line}}
		\end{figure*}
	}

	Like the passive, the middle demotes the A, but unlike the passive, an A can be a middle-S.
	When the A is S, A is demoted by reducing its agency and volition\pagenr{139}.
}

\end{document}