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
|
\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}
\def\vol#1{$#1$\bgroup\sc vol\egroup}
\def\inst#1{$#1$\bgroup\sc inst\egroup}
\def\aff#1{$#1$\bgroup\sc aff\egroup}
\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).}
}
\end{document}
|
