[CAUSE([
Chapter 6:Generative Devices for Argument Alternations
The argument in chapter 4 clearly indicates that lexical semantic representations of predicates do not alter when no logical semantic difference is obseⅣ ed through the altemation.In this chaptett l demonstrate how far this statement can be lnaintained with respect to other argument altemations in Englisho Speciflcally9 1 will arguc that many argument altemations in English are to be induced by two types of generativc deviccs in the lexicon。 One ofthe devices is̀̀lexical rllles"that are applied to semantic arguments of predicates,while the other is̀̀lexical operations"that are applied directly to qualia StrLICture of predicateso ln the end, it will be concluded that various argument altemations in English can be captured in our linking strategy along with the change of semantic values of arguments and the shift of pattems in argument realization,without recourse to individualized lexical semantic representations to syntactic constrllctions。
6。 1。 Lexical Rules
ln this section, four lexical rllles that tte applied to semantic arguments of predicates will be discussed.All of the rLlleS must provide their own grounds in our cognitive faculty, so that the motivation of the rLlleS is fairly universal, although the effect inay vary froln language to language. I will show how those rLlleS affect the semantic valuc of arguments,in order to show how various argument altemations in English are brought about。
6。 1。1.Argument Abstraction
The flrst lexical semantic rLlle On arguments is thè̀abstraction"of arguments.
This rule is operative to trigger the argument altemations where the valency ofcausative transitive verbs appears to decrease with a particular semantic shift to be obseⅣed.For example,lct us consider the middle altemation in(6。 1):
(6。
1)
И&員
θИルθr α′Jθa. The butcher cuts the lneat.
bo Thel■
eat cuts casily。 (Levin 1993:26)In contrast to the active transitive sentence in(6。 la),the sentence patterll in(6。 lb)is called ̀̀Iniddle", since the sentence is ̀̀active" in its morphology of the verb, but
̀̀pass市e"in its meaning.In the middle variant,the logical o可 ect Ofthe verb is surfaced as the grammatical sutteCt,although there is no pass市 e or other morphological marking on the verb that indicates the extemalization of the intemal argumente lt appears, therefore,that ttθ θα′in(6.lb)iS in fact realized as the sutteCt position at a base StrLICmre(Diesing 1992),but I Will claim that both vttiants in the middle altemation share the same underlying syntactic conflguration, cxcept the scmantic valuc of the agent argument.
It has been argued that rniddle sentences denote a different semantic concept from their coHiesponding active sentences in teⅡ ns of̀̀genericity"(Keyser and Roeper 1984, Fagan 1992).In faCt,the understood agent in(6。lb)can be interpreted only genericany.
Therefore,Iniddle sentences are advisedly used to describe a general property of the SutteCt rather than a speciflc event.Becausc of this selnantic property9 1niddle sentences are not compatible with puncmal til■ e adverbs, progressive aspect, and perception verbs.
(6。2)a.?Yesterday9 the lnayor bribed easily9 according to the newspapen b.*Bureaucrats are bribing easily.
c。 *I saw bureaucrats bribe casily. (Keyser and Roeper 1984:384‑386)
These characteristics have been ascribed to the property of the lniddle variant as an
individual―level stative predication, which depicts a generic property of the suttect independent of a particular duration of time(MatSumoto and Fttita 1995,Kageyama 2006,Kudo 2008).
The chttacteristic description in middle sentences is motivated by the speaker's SutteCtiVe event constrLlal that re■ects in acmal linguistic expressions in principled ways(Langacker 1991)。 Speciically9 the mot市 ation of middle fommation must be a
description of the inherent property or̀̀inction"of a theme argument,regardless of the ability and volition of a possible agento Hence,the derivation of the iniddle variant shall be induced by a lexical rLlle that defocuses an agent argument to bc understood as an ilnplicit one,so that the′θ′θη′Jα′Jゥノof a change of state/1ocation in the theme argument is highlighted.Following Fagan(1988),I suggest that this defocusing of agent argument can be achieved by changing a speciflc agent into some arbitrary referent that can be paraphrased by such a generic noun phrase as′ θθρJの J″gθ″θrαJ(ci Fellbaum 1985).
In order to accomplish this defocusing of arguments,let us assume that the lexical semantic l■1lè̀argument abstraction"is applied at the lexical semantic representation of a predicate as in the following lnannen
(6。
3)И
rgν θη′Иbs′ rαε′JθηQ:P(C,X)⇒
Q:P(e,Xarb)The tenn αrb in(6.3)designates a set of feanres,such as[十human,十generic,土plural], which identifles semantic properties generally refelTed to as̀̀arbitrary interpretation"
(Rizzi 1986)。 Syntactically9 abstracted arguments are realized as an implicit argument called̀̀arbitrary pro"(henCefO■h,′ αrb),whiCh is an empty counterpart of arbitrary semantic arguments.
Now,witness the effect of argument abstraction in terlns ofthe lniddle altematione First,consider the lexical semantic representation ofε 夕′in(6。 4):
(6。
4) cut
QUALIA=CONST=i:cutlery
FORMAL=be(e2*,y9璽
)AGENTIVE=act(el*,X,i)
The verb εν′holds the semantic representation that is typical ofverbs of change of state.
By the application of argument abstraction,the agent argument of εν′is abstracted away9 as shown in(6.5a).SinCe Our linking strategy requires that arguments of εν′be rnapped
to its appropriate syntactic position,as in(6。 5b),the underlying syntactic conflguration in(6。5c)is prOVided.
Qだ
aCt(el*,X,i)⇒
Qだ act(el*,Xarb,i) QA:aCt(el*,Xarb,i)― → [νP Xaめ [ッ′ソVP]]QF:be(e2*,y9cut)一
→
[vP y[v′ V Cut]]
ソ
P←
Qだ act(el*,Xaめ,i)＼
proarbχ
/＼
VP
← QF:be(e2*,勇
cut)/＼
the meaち V′
/＼
cut
From(6.5c),ル θ θα′Will be moved out of VP in order to satisfy the requirement that the suttiect position in English be f11led by an overt element。 l Since′
晨フαrb iS incapable ofbeing the grammatical sutteCt,it may stay at the speciier ofソR While ttθ θα′will move up to the subieCt position instead.Thus,the peculiarity of surface syntactic fom oflniddle sentences results.
As for the realization of′ α″ら,Stroik(1992)provides a strong piece of evidence that an implicit agent ofthc lniddle variant should be present syntactically.
Books about{oneself/*hersel母 never read poorly。
Books about{*oneSelf/herselfl read quickly for Mary。 (StrOik 1992:136)
(6.5)
(6.6) ａ ｂ
C。
V
ａ ｂ
The proper license ofthe reflexive pronoun θ″θsθJ/in(6.6a)suggests that there is some null argument in the clause that seⅣ es as a possible antecedent ofthe pronouno The null argument in qucstion must be an implicit agent created by argument demotion,because
the re■exive pronoun needs to be co― indexed with the overtヵr―phrase argument,ル 盈ファ, in(6.6b),whiCh iS logically linked to the implicit agent。 2
This analysis of rniddle follllation ilnlnediately predicts that verbs that participate in the Ⅱliddle altemation must be causative transitives; othe「 Ⅳise,no overt argument will be mapped onto the syntaxo ln fact,Iniddle forlnation is best considered to be a lexical derivation,since all verbs in the middle variant have their transitive uses even though they rnay lack their intransitive uses,and there is no verb that appears only in the lniddle varianto With this in lnind,consider the following paradignl:
(6。7)ao CryStal breaks easily。
(Levin 1993:241)
b. Copper rods bend easily. (Levin 1993:242)co ldaho Potatoes bake beautinlllyc (Levin 1993:244) do Cotton clothes dry easily. (Lcvin 1993:245)
(6.8)a.*French fabrics adores easily.
b.*The answer knows easily. (Lc宙
n1993:26)
(6。9)a.*ThiS metal won't pound.
b. This lnetal won't pound iat.(Levin 1993:26)
Middle sentences are typically forlned with verbs of change of state,as shown in(6.7).
In cotttrast,stative verbs in(6。 8)are inCOmpatible with the middle forlnation,since they do not have an agentive argument to be abstracted.Verbs of silnple action in(6。 9)are also not compatible with the l■ iddle variant,unless some result state is indicated by a resultative predicate(Rapoport 1993)。 Our apprOach to the middle altelmation can treat this condition appropriately by necessarily stating that lniddle folttnation is restricted to those verbs that have both agentive and folttnal roles in their qualia structure.
In passing,it is worth lnentioning that argument abstraction has a secondary clect。
Recall that lniddle verbs are individual― level predicates,and thus lnust be stative,even though the coHiesponding active verbs can be eventivee This lncans that the evenmality of the original active sentence will be lost in the course of lniddle forlnation.I suggest that this semantic shift is induced by the suppression of event arguments through the
alterllation.Given that event arguments,by deflnition,spccify a concrete expression of an event(Davidson 1967),it seCms perfectly reasonable to posmlate that if participants or particular settings(eog.,tilne,placc)of an event are abstracted away9 the concreteness of the event itself will be bJνrκグin parallelo Accordingly, if event argulnents of a predicate become somewhat deflcit as a result of argument abstraction, the derived sentence must be understood as an instance of individual― level predication(Kageyama 2006,Kudo 2008)。3
The same explanation as the lniddle altemation can namrally be extended to the characteristic property of agent altemation given in(6.10).
(6.10) Cttαrαc′θrお′Jθ PκフθrヶゴAgθη′∠ルθrηα′jθη a. That dog bites people.
bo That dog bites. (Levin 1993:39)
In this altemation,the affected theme argument ofthe verb,which has been considered not omissible,is missing.Sentence(6。 10b)Shares the same semantic property as middle sentences in that it describes a general property of the suttcct rather than a speciflc evento ln this respect,(6。 10b)ShOuld be distinguished fronl the sentence derived by
̀̀indeinite otteCt deletion"(e.g.ル
bη
αJraαζ夕 α′θ tt Jν εり),sinCe it is clear that the latter describes an actual event happening at a given tilne and place.In the characteristic property of agent altemation,what is abstracted away is an intemal argument of causative transitive verbs,namely the theme argument.Consider the lexical semantic representation of bJた in(6.H),whiCh is another example of verbs ofchange of state:
(6.11) bite
QUALIA=FORMAL=
be(e2*,y9bitten)=aCt(el*,x)
Based on the analogy of the lniddle fol肛nation,