1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
|
\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}
|
