The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation
The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation
49 3.2 The proposal Inspired by Dowty (1991), I propose that PP-verbs denote verbal concepts which, in some sense, are less transparent than others. Consider again the contrast in (6) repeated in (15). In (15a) we know exactly what happened to the stone, it moved as a result of the event denoted by the verb ba’at (‘kicked’). Thus in (15a) the movement of the stone is entailed. There is no such entailment in (15b). All we know for sure is that Dan’s foot touched the stone (with force). (15) a. dan ba’at et ha-even Dan kicked Acc the-stone b. dan ba’at ba-even Dan kicked in+the-stone I do not suggest that all PP-verbs are non-transparent in the same way, but rather that they are non-transparent in some way or another. Since the non-transparency is semantic (i.e. it is related to the verb’s meaning), it is plausible to assume that it stems from the thematic structure of the verb. Inspired by Reinhart (2000, 2001, 2002), I advance the hypothesis in (16): (16) The underspecification hypothesis The internal theta-role of PP-verbs is not fully specified. Given (16), the following question arises: What has to be specified? Before I answer it, a short digression regarding the theta-roles is in order. 3.2.1 Theta roles Thematic relations were posited by Gruber (1965) as the basic structural relations at a ‘Pre-lexical’ semantic level of representation. A common way to talk about thematic relations with respect to a given verb is to name the theta-roles a given verb assigns to its arguments, Agent, Cause, Patient, Theme, Experiencer, Goal, Source and Instrument. It is further assumed that the mapping between the semantic titles and the syntactic structure is quite systematic and predictable (Belletti and Rizzi 1988;
50 Grimshaw 1990; Baker 1988, 1997; Pesetsky 1995, among others). What is significant for the present discussion is that the mentioned authors treat theta-role as primitives. Note that the view of theta-roles as primitives and the notion of semantic transparency induced by the thematic structure are incompatible. In what sense a theta role like Theme would be less or more specified (transparent) than the theta-role Goal? These are just labels. For the hypothesis in (16) to be meaningful a different approach to theta-roles is needed, an approach which does not view theta-roles as primitive atomic notions. Such approaches exist. 3.2.1.1 Thematic decomposition: Jackendoff (1990) decomposes verbal concepts into conceptual categories such as Thing, Event, State, Action, Place, Path. The Event category is elaborated on two tiers (along the lines of tier phonology). It is elaborated as Event-functions (e.g. Stay, Go, Be) on the Thematic tier, which deals with motion and location, and as AFFECT-function on the Action tier which deals with the causal relations. The thematic roles which occur on the thematic tier are Theme, Goal, Source, whereas those on the Action tier are roles such as Actor and Patient. An argument can appear on both tiers or only on one of them. In order to illustrate both situations consider (17): (17) a. dan ba’at et ha-kadur Dan kicked Acc the-ball b. dan ba’at ba-kadur Dan kicked in+the-ball To keep the presentation simple, I will use an informal Jackendovian description to illustrate the analyses of (17a) and (17b) in (18a) and (18b), respectively: (18) a. ‘Dan kicked the ball’ Source Goal (thematic tier) Actor Patient (action tier) b. ‘Dan kicked in+the-ball’ Theme Goal (thematic tier) Actor (action tier)
- Page 17 and 18: 3.2.2 The theta-features (Reinhart
- Page 19 and 20: 5.4.2.1 The status and function of
- Page 21 and 22: 2 1.1 Previous approaches to P 1.1.
- Page 23 and 24: 4 (5) a. dan higi’a axarey ha-mes
- Page 25 and 26: 6 b. misaviv *(le)-ec Hebrew around
- Page 27 and 28: 8 These approaches do depart from t
- Page 29 and 30: 10 heads such as N, V, A do not. 10
- Page 31 and 32: 12 To summarize, as it stands, Grim
- Page 33 and 34: 14 by the corresponding lexical hea
- Page 35 and 36: 16 In the Object Purpose Clause con
- Page 37 and 38: 18 2. The theory of P The main goal
- Page 39 and 40: 20 yes/no questions).This is comple
- Page 41 and 42: 22 (2) Criterion Functional categor
- Page 43 and 44: 24 In various languages some Ps are
- Page 45 and 46: 26 sharp contrast to the core lexic
- Page 47 and 48: 28 lexical, of course) (see the dis
- Page 49 and 50: 30 (iv) Froud 2001 is a psycholingu
- Page 51 and 52: 32 perspective, I will assume that
- Page 53 and 54: 34 Dutch provides an additional arg
- Page 55 and 56: 36 the study). Thus, taking the not
- Page 57 and 58: 38 On my proposal (section 2.2.1) m
- Page 59 and 60: 40 In this respect, let me note a p
- Page 61 and 62: 42 The phenomenon of PP-verbs, alth
- Page 63 and 64: 44 inability to agree with its DP-o
- Page 65 and 66: 46 The question which arises at thi
- Page 67: 48 (13) Internal argument-taking hi
- Page 71 and 72: 52 suitable for the problem at hand
- Page 73 and 74: 54 3.2.3 The mapping generalization
- Page 75 and 76: 56 (iii) Assignment of [Acc] depend
- Page 77 and 78: 58 (25) a. on našol konfet-u v kar
- Page 79 and 80: 60 theory of P developed in chapter
- Page 81 and 82: 62 (37) a. What did he eat in the m
- Page 83 and 84: 64 Thus, whatever the exact restric
- Page 85 and 86: (46). 28 Summarizing the above, P C
- Page 87 and 88: 68 As for the alleged arbitrariness
- Page 89 and 90: 70 3.4 The [-m]/[-c] distinction Th
- Page 91 and 92: 72 viewed as necessary conditions f
- Page 93 and 94: 74 (59) [-c] PP-verbs Physical cont
- Page 95 and 96: 76 interpreted only as undergoing a
- Page 97 and 98: 78 b. dan [he’if mabat] be-rina D
- Page 99 and 100: 80 a [+animate] DP. Consequently, h
- Page 101 and 102: 82 The meaning of (78a) is somethin
- Page 103 and 104: 84 (85) a. he’emanti be-bart [I]
- Page 105 and 106: 86 asserted ‘belief’. In other
- Page 107 and 108: 88 3.5 PP-verbs cross-linguisticall
- Page 109 and 110: 90 But the non-identical realizatio
- Page 111 and 112: 92 P device involves the syntactic
- Page 113 and 114: 94 Note that the options in (103) d
- Page 115 and 116: 96 adjacency requirement between th
- Page 117 and 118: 98 would be [-c] PP-verbs in Englis
50<br />
Grimshaw 1990; Baker 1988, 1997; Pesetsky 1995, among others). What is significant<br />
for the present discussion is that the mentioned authors treat theta-role as primitives.<br />
Note that the view of theta-roles as primitives and the notion of semantic<br />
transparency induced by the thematic structure are incompatible. In what sense a theta<br />
role like <strong>The</strong>me would be less or more specified (transparent) than the theta-role Goal?<br />
<strong>The</strong>se are just labels. For the hypothesis in (16) to be meaningful a different approach to<br />
theta-roles is needed, an approach which does not view theta-roles as primitive atomic<br />
notions. Such approaches exist.<br />
3.2.1.1 <strong>The</strong>matic decomposition: Jackendoff (1990) decomposes verbal<br />
concepts into conceptual categories such as Thing, Event, State, Action, Place, Path.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Event category is elaborated on two tiers (along the lines of tier phonology). It is<br />
elaborated as Event-functions (e.g. Stay, Go, Be) on the <strong>The</strong>matic tier, which deals<br />
with motion and location, and as AFFECT-function on the Action tier which deals<br />
with the causal relations. <strong>The</strong> thematic roles which occur on the thematic tier are<br />
<strong>The</strong>me, Goal, Source, whereas those on the Action tier are roles such as Actor and<br />
Patient. An argument can appear on both tiers or only on one of them. In order to<br />
illustrate both situations consider (17):<br />
(17) a. dan ba’at et ha-kadur<br />
Dan kicked Acc the-ball<br />
b. dan ba’at ba-kadur<br />
Dan kicked in+the-ball<br />
To keep the presentation simple, I will use an informal Jackendovian description<br />
to illustrate the analyses of (17a) and (17b) in (18a) and (18b), respectively:<br />
(18) a. ‘Dan kicked the ball’<br />
Source Goal (thematic tier)<br />
Actor Patient (action tier)<br />
b. ‘Dan kicked in+the-ball’<br />
<strong>The</strong>me Goal (thematic tier)<br />
Actor<br />
(action tier)
Change language