\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}
\newcommand{\defineproperty}[1]{%
	\expandafter\def\csname #1\endcsname##1{%
		\def\temp{##1}%
		\ifx\temp\empty\else $##1$\fi%
		\bgroup\sc #1\egroup}}
\defineproperty{vol}
\defineproperty{inst}
\defineproperty{aff}

\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).}
}

\summary{
	Verbs appear with different participant types%
		\note{e.g. `break' may take Agents, forces and non-volitional human actors, and instruments}\pagenr{107}.
	Hence, the notion of thematic roles%
		\note{where a verb participant can only have one kind of thematic role, depending on the verb}
		complicates things, since a thematic role would have to combine all these different participant types\pagenr{108}.
	It is simpler to let verbs subcategorise for a semantic feature as \inst+ and leave the other features unspecified\pagenr{110}.
}

\subsection*{Experiencers and the dative}
\summary{
	Experiencers may appear as
		transitive clause subjects\note{``I like the dog''},
		intransitive clause subjects\note{``I'm afraid of the dog''}
		and transitive clause objects\note{``The dog frightened me''}\pagenr{185}.
	This variance can only be expected, since experiencers can be (at least)
		both volitional undergoers and affected agents\pagenr{189}.

	Experiencer events cannot simply be captured
		by an analysis of two-participant events in terms of the distinctness of participants
		with respect to the properties \vol{}, \inst{} and \aff{}\pagenr{190}.
	This is a problem of language, not of linguistics;
	the fact that these verbs are difficult to classify only makes them eligible for the perceived variation\pagenr{196}.

	The dative case may be used to indicate reduced transitivity\pagenr{197}.
	However, its function goes beyond this:
	it is also used for
		active receivers\note{``He is helping \emph{me}''}\pagenr{198},
		possessors\pagenr{199} and
		causees\pagenr{200}.
	All are \vol+ \inst- \aff+, which should then be understood as the core meaning of the dative case\pagenr{202}.
}

\end{document}
