In the model of the productive grammar, we adopt the cardinal premise that morphological regulations may alter the statement construction of a base-generated predicate, absorbing or stamp downing portion of its theta functions. We foremost introduce cases of dissymmetry between statement and theta constructions, and so mean to supply alternate brief histories that may appeal to this dissymmetry in the model of the productive grammar. These histories chiefly involve the PP, EPP, Quasi-Argument Hypothesis, I?-role Transmission and the Checking Theory.
Argument and Theta Structures
Traditional plants of logic maintain that propositions, which can be thought of as the semantic opposite number of simple clauses, consist a predicate and a set of statement ( s ) . By and large talking, a predicate is an look denoting an activity or event, and an statement is an look bespeaking a participant in the relevant activity or event. Terminologically talking, we say that the statement or statements of a predicate are its capable and complements ( viz. , internal and external statement ( s ) ) . The statement construction of a predicate is applied to stand for the composing of statement ( s ) of the predicate. Arguments and predicate are connected syntactically through c-selection ( categorical-selection ) .
The semantic relationship between the statements and predicate of a given postulation is illustrated via the thematic role/ I?-role grid or semantic construction. The functions performed by a given predicate are determined by s-selection ( semantic choice ) of the predicate. S-selection is mostly determined by the built-in significance ( sometimes called conceptual construction ) of the lexical points. Namely, idiosyncratic belongingss of the predicate determine the figure of theta functions it can delegate. For illustration, the statement construction and theta construction of the predicate bargain are represented as follows:
( 1 ) a. statement construction
Volt: 1 ( 2 ) 3
NP NP NP
b. theta construction
V: & lt ; AGENT, ( BENEFICIARY ) , THEME & gt ;
John bought ( me ) a book.
The statement construction is by and large said to demo the syntactic relationships between the statement ( s ) and the predicate, while the theta construction is assumed to demo the semantic dealingss between the predicate and its statement ( s ) . Using ( 2 ) , we can show these impressions as follows:
( 2 ) hit V: & lt ; 1, 2 & gt ;
V: & lt ; AGENT, PATIENT & gt ;
The ball hit the window.
Syntactically, the chief verb hit has two statements, working as capable and object ( external and internal statements severally ) at the sentential degree. Semantically, it assigns two I?-roles ( AGENT, PATIENT ) to the statements. Harmonizing to Theta Criterion ( Haegeman,1994:63 ) : each statement is assigned one and merely one theta function, each theta function is assigned to one and merely one statement, ideally talking, there should be a one-to-one balance between the theta construction and the statement construction of a given predicate.
The Asymmetry
However, there is the dissymmetry bing between the figure of statements the predicate takes and that of the theta functions assigned by the predicate in pattern.
Broadly speech production, cases of this dissymmetry include the undermentioned facets: ( a…° ) It is difficult to specify the theta function of a given statement. Although on the footing of the theta standard, merely one theta function can be assigned to an statement, an statement may be said to hold several different theta functions in different theories. E.g. Timmy received a gift of flowers. Should we see “ Timmy ” as the GOAL, RECIPIENT, BENEFICIARY or else? Jackendoff ‘s ( 1972 ) solution is to suggest that one statement can carry through more than one function. ( a…± ) Different functions may carry through a same grammatical map. In English there is a inclination for the topic to be AGENT, direct objects to be PATIENT or THEME, INSTRUMENTs to happen as prepositional phrases, but this need non ever be the instance. E.g. :
( 3 ) a. The male child broke the glass with a cock.
B. The cock broke the glass.
c. The glass broke.
Saeed ( 2000: 146 ) suggests that this procedure of different functions busying the capable place involves a hierarchal procedure. Equally far as the topic is concerned, the implicational hierarchy of possible functions is:
( 4 ) AGENT & gt ; RECIPENT & gt ; BENEFICIENT & gt ;
THEME/PATIENT & gt ; INSTRUMET & gt ; LOCATION
However, this concatenation of hierarchy is still in difference ( see Stroik ( 1996:161 ) for relevant information ) . ( a…? ) The lists of functions given in the literature have varied from writer to writer. Dowty ‘s ( 1991:582 ) solution is to see the thematic functions in footings of archetypal bunchs of deductions and specify the theta functions in footings of shared verbal deductions about nominal mentions. Hence the belongingss of the agent proto-role include ( a ) volitional engagement in the event or province, ( B ) awareness, ( degree Celsius ) doing an event or alteration of province in another participant, ( vitamin D ) motion. So PERCEPT, AGENT, EXPERIENT and so on can be categorized into the Agent Proto-Role ( see besides Saeed, 2000 ) .
Strictly talking, there should be a one-to-one correspondence between the theta-role and the statement, but many apparently debatable sentences really arise:
The above predicates are employed to represent that in pattern, statement construction and theta-role assignment of a given predicate are asymmetric sometimes. In ( 6b ) and ( 7b ) , both sentences are made up by following the theta grid and statement construction of the relevant predicate, but neither is grammatical ; ( 8b ) contains an idiomatic look kick the pail, and here the predicate boot is said to hold no internal statement ; in ( 9c ) , the sentence satisfies the demands of the statement construction and theta assignment of the predicate seem ; nevertheless, it is still ill-formed, sentences ( 9a/b ) can deliver the ungrammaticality via syntactic operations ; in ( 10 ) , there is obvious dissymmetry between the existent statement construction and the theta construction of the predicate payoff. How to construe these phenomena of dissymmetry?
3. Interpretations
In the model of the productive grammar, theta function assignment is determined by the idiosyncratic belongingss of the base-generated predicate. When this predicate is taken into the numeration for syntactic operations, morphological regulations may alter the figure of the theta roles to be assigned to its statement ( s ) , absorbing or stamp downing portion of its theta function ( s ) . With less theta functions to delegate, the statement construction is altered at different syntactic degrees. As chiefly outlined by Chomsky ( 1995 ) , the statement construction can be farther changed, motivated by some syntactic demands. To carry through the full reading ( FI ) demand, we propose to construe this dissymmetry from the following four facets.
3.1 PP and EPP
PP ( Projection Principle ) sums up: lexical information is syntactically represented ( Haegeman, 1994: 63 ) . The thematic function played by a given statement in relation to its predicate determines the scope of looks, which can carry through the relevant statement maps ; the nature of the relevant limitations depends on the semantic belongingss of the predicate on the one manus and on the semantic function played by the statement on the other. In a proposition, the predicate straight I?- Markss its complements while the capable /external statement is indirectly I? -marked by its predicate, it is compositionally determined by the whole predicate+Complement complex construction. The VP-internal capable hypothesis postulates ( Radford 2000:167 ) that subjects originate internally within VP where a complement is I? -marked by merge with a caput V, and a topic is I? -marked by merge with a V-bar. Marantz ( 1984:23 ) and Chomsky ( 1986:59-60 ) propose that the thematic function of the topic is non determined by the verb entirely, but instead is compositionally determined by the whole verb /the predicate +complement construction -i.e. by V-bar. To fulfill EPP ( Extended Projection Principle ) , or Predication Principle ( Rothstein, 1995 ) , which requires that a sentence must hold a topic, the topic has to raise to the [ Spec, IP ] place. ( 1b ) violates PP because haste should be used with into in a dynamic state of affairs conditioned by its semantic belongingss ; ( 2b ) violates EPP because the sentence does non incorporate a topic ; in ( 3b ) , to kick the pail is an idiomatic look and the pail does non mention to an entity in the existent universe, hence is non an statement ; in 4, seem is a one-place predicate, by and large does non incorporate an external statement, but in order to fulfill EPP in a tensed clause, the interpolation of the expletive it or a subject-to-subject elevation can deliver the sentence ; in 5, the transitive verb payoff undergoes Middle Formation in which its AGENT is absorbed and can non assigned to its external statement, motivated by Case theory, theta standard and EPP, the base-generated internal statement moves up, working as a derived topic.
3. 2 Quasi-argument Hypothesis
( 2a ) and ( 3a ) can be rewritten into ( 11 ) and ( 12 ) severally for convenience ‘s interest: ( 11 ) Iti sometimes rains after [ PRO I snowing ]
( 12 ) John [ kicked the pail ] .
In ( 11 ) , it and PRO are co-indexed. In ( 12 ) , the pail is assumed to intend to decease merely when used with boot. They are looks that function as statements of a particular category of verbs and have specific readings peculiar to the state of affairss described by these verbs and are assigned I?-roles. These looks are sometimes assumed as particular arguments-the quasi-arguments, particular and restricted to peculiar readings, as the WEATHER I?-role is assigned to it in 6 ( Ouhalla, 2001:150 ) . This phenomenon of Argument Augmentation ( see Larson 1990 for relevant information ) accounts for the version of some excess statements. If we are on the right path, the augmented statement fulfils the PP and EPP conditions.
3.3 I?-roles Transmission
( 9a ) and 5 can be rewritten into 8 and 9 besides for convenience ‘s interest:
( 13 ) Maryi seems [ Ti to hold solved the job ] .
( 14 ) Bureacratsi payoff Ti easy.
It is obvious there are semantic relationships bing between the ancestor and the relevant hint. In ( 13 ) , the external I?-role of the predicate in the subsidiary clause is assigned to the hint and the hint transmits the I?-role to its ancestor Mary consequently, which is located in a dethematic place ; The hint and its ancestor are said to organize a concatenation, the ancestor is the caput and the hint is the root /tail, the I?-role is transmitted from the hint to the ancestor through the concatenation. Equally far as ( 14 ) is concerned, although the accusatory Case of the hint is absorbed by the derived verb payoff, the I?-role still survives and it is transmitted to the ancestor in the [ Spec, IP ] place, where the ancestor receives the nominative Case. This manner the statement construction matches the theta construction of a derived predicate at the sentential degree.
3.4 Checking Theory
Harmonizing to Chomsky ( 1993 ) , the L-features involved in capable understanding are represented in three separate classs prior to spell-out, V, Agrs and the DP capable.The topic carries a strong nominative Case caput characteristic which is checked by raising the NP to the [ Spec, IP ] place or by utilizing the expletive it. Chomsky ( 1995 ) holds that motion is motivated by characteristic look intoing demand of the functional classs. Chomskean functional classs include T, C, and V, which have strong [ V signifier ] and EPP characteristics to look into during the procedures of syntactic operations. Checking Theory can account for the ungrammaticality of ( 15 ) :
( 15 ) *There seems Mary has solved the job.
Decision
There is dissymmetry between the statement construction and theta-role assignment of a derived predicate ; PP, EPP, Quasi-argument hypothesis, I?-role Transmitting and the look intoing theory can be employed to account for the difference. Enlightened by these regulations, we assume that this dissymmetry is represented by the statement construction of a derived predicate at the sentential degree. Taking the absorbed, suppressed or even augmented theta function ( s ) into our consideration, we conclude the statement construction corresponds to the theta composing of the related predicate.
