Two remarks:
(1) On collapsing lexical and syntactic levels
This is a coming idea in both mainstream and non-mainstream linguistics.
Ray Jackendoff, for example, has suggested that syntactic patterns are
stored in the lexicon (in a form not completely unlike the familiar 'basic
sentence patterns'!) Ronald Langacker has suggested the same thing, at the
polar opposite end of the theoretical spectrum, so to speak, in Cognitive
Grammar.
(2) Rebecca Wheeler's posting lays out the basics of valence grammar
mostly in terms of structural co-occurrences: how many NPs follow the
verb, etc. There is another element to valence that brings us even better
capabilities for doing things like separating 'consider'-type verbs from
'give' or 'read'-type verbs. This is the notion of 'thematic roles'.
How thematic roles are defined varies somewhat from theory to theory, but
the basic story is that there is a limited universal inventory of
participant-roles that languages encode grammatically. These are based on
real-world relationships (or how these are perceived/conceived) among
participants in a scene described by a sentence. T. Givon (Syntax: A
functional/typological introduction, pp. 126-127) gives this list:
"Agent: deliberate initiator of events
Dative: conscious participant or recipient in events or states
Patient: registering a non-mental state or change-of-state
Benefactive: conscious benefitter from an agent-initiated event ...
Instrumental: unconscious instrument used by the agent in bringing about
the event
Associative: co-agent or co-dative that is outside the focus of importance
Locative: concrete point of spatial reference with respect to which the
position or change-in-location of another participant is construed
Manner: the manner of a state or of an agent-initiated event"
Again, the precise ways the names of the roles are used might vary
slightly, but there is a lot of commonality. ('dative' and 'benefactive'
are particularly subject to different definition/usage within
linguistics; there may also be slightly larger or smaller inventories
depending on the theory; 'experiencer' and 'absolute' are other roles that
come to mind.)
These interact with valence grammar by being viewed as part of the
semantics of a verb (part of the verb's meaning as stored in our mental
lexicon). 'Give', for instance, would include an agent, a patient, and a
benefactive as 'intimate' or defining participants (if any one is missing
from the _scene_ (NOT the sentence), the event does not count as an
instance of 'giving'). In trying to figure out 'consider'-type verbs, I
don't see a role here for the object complement, but clearly there is an
agent and a patient, but no benefactive. Verbs vary as to which roles MUST
also be encoded in a sentence. 'Put', for instance, requires agent,
patient, and locative to be named by phrases in a sentence. 'Eat' is
defined by an agent and a patient, but the verb can be used with only one
of these encoded, e.g. 'Sue ate'. (Note that this is one way to describe
'transitive verbs used intransitively'.)
If we include thematic roles in sentence analysis, it adds a 'layer':
Sentence: John broke the window with a hammer
Structure: NP V NP PP
Gram. roles: Subject Direct Object Adverbial
Them. roles: Agent Patient Instrument
Are thematic roles of any use in grammar teaching? It's clear that passive
sentences are defined by having patient-subjects; if the agent appears, it
appears as an adverbial PP with 'by'. What do you think? Could you see an
application for thematic roles in grammar teaching -- perhaps a short list
for earlier levels, a fuller list for more-advanced levels?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanna Rubba Assistant Professor, Linguistics ~
English Department, California Polytechnic State University ~
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 ~
Tel. (805)-756-2184 Fax: (805)-756-6374 ~
E-mail: [log in to unmask] ~
Office hours Winter 1999: Mon/Wed 10:10-11am Thurs 2:10-3pm ~
Home page: http://www.calpoly.edu/~jrubba ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
