4. θ-criterion problems
→ passive verb believe imposes no selectional restrictions on the surface subject
V Foundations of Morphosyntax
WS 2005/2006
Lecture script 15/12/2005
Lecture 10 Relations/roles
There was believed to have been a riot
It was believed to be clear that John was here
1. Theta theory
Mary killed John → Mary, John: different semantic relationship to kill
relations = theta-roles, θ –roles, AGENT/PATIENT
kill: assigns external argument to S, internal argument to O
but: S is sensitive to choice of embedded verb
*There was believed to have left
*It was believed to have introspected
1.1. Some θ –roles
→ moved NP is restricted not by virtue of surface position but by virtue of its d-structure
position
William gave the novel to Jane
AGENT THEME BENEFACTIVE/GOAL
Jane rolled the ball towards Peter
AGENT THEME
GOAL
The ball rolled towards the fence
THEME
GOAL
John had been cold all day
EXPERIENCER
Mary likes to read novels
EXPERIENCER THEME
Detective stories please Jane
THEME
EXPERIENCER
Jane bought the book from William
AGENT THEME
SOURCE
Peter is in Delhi
THEME LOCATION
→ selectional restrictions of a V are restrictions of the types of arguments it can have
believe: has believer and a thing believed
→ believe assigns a θ-role of believer to its first argument and role of belief to second
argument
therefore: where V does not impose restrictions on subject then NP in that subject position
does not receive θ-role from that verb
this is especially true for passive participle believed
John was believed to have left
surface S is not an argument, rather S + embedded infinitive form discontinuous argument
argument of believe is John to have left
argument of left is John
1.2. θ –role assignment: part of lexical knowledge of speaker
kill: θ –grid
AGENT PATIENT
NP
NP
i
j
Janei killed Johnj
Jane killed the burglar
Jane shot the burglar
*Jane killed the burglar the house
Jane shot John a deer
→ requirement: each argument is assigned one and only one theta role (θ–criterion)
2. Clausal arguments
problem: diversified syntactic behavior
object NP vs. object clause
He explained the situation very carefully
*He explained very carefully the situation
He explained very carefully that he was not going to leave
*He explained that he was not going to leave very carefully
3. Control structures
NP movement explains passive and raising
cf. John wants to leave
question: relation between S in matrix (John) and S of embedded infinitive?
d-structure: could be analogue to passive and therefore hint at NP movement
e wants John to leave → Johni wants ei to leave
e is believed John to have left → Johni is believed ei to have left
therefore John is in relation to believe in a non-θ position
NP movement tends to go to non-θ positions
→ θ-criterion (Chomsky): A lexical NP must occupy one and only one θ-position…
NPi binds trace ei
therefore θ-criterion must be extended with
… or bind a trace that occupies one and only one θ-position
John was believed to have left
John occupies θ-position of left because it binds a trace in subject position of left
→ this is the only θ-position John occupies
Control structures involve a relation between two θ-positions
cf. John wants to believe
- S sensitive to both verbs, cf. *The forest wants to believe, *John wants to be transitive
therefore surface subject is argument of main and of subordinate verb