Transcript Document
LIN 1080 Semantics
Lecture 13
Albert Gatt
In this lecture
We take a look at argument structure and thematic roles
these are the parts of the sentence that correspond to the
participants in the situation described
thematic roles help to classify the kinds of relations between
entities (people, things, places) in a situation
Part 1
Classifying thematic roles
Some distinctions
Mary hit John.
Syntactic functions:
Surface subject: Mary
Surface object: John
Thematic roles:
Mary is the AGENT in the situation
John is the PATIENT
Some distinctions
John was hit by Mary.
Syntactic functions:
Surface subject: John
Surface prepositional object: Mary
Thematic roles:
Mary is still the AGENT in the situation
John is still the PATIENT
Arguments with specific roles have typical syntactic
functions, but roles stay constant when the surface order
changes.
Thematic roles: AGENT
doer or initiator of an action
capable of “volitional” behaviour
typically animate
Silvia cooked dinner.
The cat climbed the wall.
Related to: ACTOR
conceived as a more general role
AGENT is a kind of ACTOR
ACTOR does not need to display volition:
The car ran over the hedgehog
Thematic roles: AGENT (cont)
Some tests have been proposed for AGENT-hood
Jackendoff (1972):
to test if a participant is an agent, try adding some phrase that
makes volition explicit
John opened the letter deliberately
John opened the letter in order to read it
?John received the letter in order to read it
Thematic roles: PATIENT
undergoes the effect of some action
often changes its state
can be animate or inanimate
The sun melted the ice.
Thematic roles: PATIENT
Jackendoff (1990) proposes the following test:
if it makes sense to ask What happened to X? then X is probably the
patient.
Sue slapped John.
What happened to John? (He got slapped)
The book was in the library.
What happened to the book? (Anomalous!)
What happened to the library? (Anomalous!)
Thematic roles: THEME
Entity which is moved by an action or whose location or state
is described
need not be animate
The book is in the library.
Some authors treat THEME and PATIENT as the same role.
Thematic roles: EXPERIENCER
Used for entities that display some awareness of an action/
sensation/state
not volitional, unlike AGENT
I feel sick.
Jack saw the lion in the bushes.
Thematic roles: BENEFICIARY
entity for whose benefit the action was performed
typically realised as complement of a for-PP
Jackson painted a picture for his wife
Thematic roles: INSTRUMENT
the means by which an action is performed
often realised as complement of a with-PP
He burst the door with a sledgehammer
Thematic roles: LOCATION
place where something is
place where action takes place
typically realised as complement of a locative PP (under, in,
on)
The tiger hid behind the curtain
Thematic roles: GOAL
thing towards which something moves
can be literal or metaphorical movement
John gave the letter to Mary
She told the Joke to her friends
NB: some theorists refer to certain GOALs as RECIPIENTs
especially in the case of give and similar verbs
Thematic roles: SOURCE
the entity from which something moves or originates
can be literal or metaphorical
typically realised in a from-PP
I got the idea from Jason.
I come from Malta.
Problems with these classifications
Different authors have different views about what qualifies as
what
e.g. to some, there is no distinction between PATIENT and
THEME
There are some ambiguous cases:
Margarita received a gift.
GOAL? RECIPIENT? BENEFICIARY?
Dealing with the ambiguity
Jackendoff (1990):
some roles are more primary than others
different roles belong to different levels of interpretation
thematic tier: describes spatial relations
roles include THEME, GOAL, SOURCE, LOCATION
action tier: describes ACTOR-PATIENT type relations
main roles are therefore ACTOR/AGENT and PATIENT,
EXPERIENCER, BENEFICIARY, INSTRUMENT
Sentences receive an interpretation on both levels
Jackendoff (1990)
Sue hit Fred.
thematic tier: THEME (Sue) GOAL (Fred)
action tier: ACTOR (Sue) PATIENT (Fred)
Bill entered the room.
thematic tier: THEME (Bill) GOAL (the room)
action tier: ACTOR (Bill)
N.B. not all arguments need to be represented at both
levels!
Difficulties with thematic roles
Intuitively, they are there, but they are very difficult to
delimit
Classifications like AGENT/PATIENT etc must allow for a lot of
variation in what qualifies.
e.g. the child cracked the mirror
is the mirror a PATIENT?
More serious problem: how to define each role.
there needs to be some semantic motivation
i.e. we need to show that the distinctions capture meaningful
distinctions in a semantic theory
Dowty (1991)
Attempt to deal with the problem of defining thematic roles
correctly.
Example: What does x have in common in:
x murders y,
x nominates y
x interrogates y
Dowty:
they have a set of entailments in common
x does a volitional act
x causes an event to take place involving y
x moves or changes externally
NB. These entailments are carried by all the above sentences,
and they all feature the role of x
Dowty (1991)
Proposed to view roles as prototypes
rather than define several roles, each crisply delimited, he
proposed two basic prototypes: Proto-Agent, Proto-Patient
each prototype has a list of characteristic entailments
arguments in a sentence qualify as one or the other to different
degrees
Dowty (1991)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Proto-Agent
volitional involvement in the
event or state
sentience / perception
causes an event or a change of
state in another participant
movement relative to the
position of another participant
Proto-Patient
1. undergoes a change of state
2. incremental theme
3. causally affected by another
participant
4. stationary relative to movement
of another participant
Degrees of thematic role-hood
Under Dowty’s conception, some arguments will be more
Proto-Agent-like than Proto-Patient-like
John cleaned the house
has all the entailments of the Proto-Agent
John dropped the suitcase
lacks volition, but has sentience
The storm destroyed the house
lacks sentience and volition
Part 2
Why thematic roles?
Thematic roles and argument selection
There seem to be systematic ways in which roles typically map to
grammatical functions
e.g. EXPERIENCER is usually the subject
PATIENT is usually the object
Roles therefore allow us to predict how arguments are linked to the verb
given its semantics.
Often, a theta-grid for a verb is proposed
Crack: <AGENT, PATIENT, INSTRUMENT>
underlined role maps to subject
order of roles allows prediction of grammatical function
Dowty’s Argument Selection Principle
if a verb takes a subject and an object
the argument with the greatest number of Proto-Agent properties will be
the one selected as subject;
the one with the greatest no. of Proto-Patient properties will be selected
as object.
Dowty on argument selection
Corollary 1 of the ASP:
if two arguments have roughly equal numbers of Proto-Agent
and Proto-Patient properties, either one or both may be the
direct object
Corollary 2 of the ASP:
with a 3-place predicate (e.g. give), the direct object will
probably be the argument with the greatest number of ProtoPatient properties
The rationale
Dowty’s model seems to have high predictive power.
e.g. In describing a shoot event, involving <John, the dog, the
gun>, we are likely to map John to subject, the dog to object,
the gun to a PP
John has the highest no. of Proto-Agent roles
out of the dog and the gun, dog has higher no. of Proto-Patient
roles
Other thematic roles
Proto-Agent and Proto-Patient are the basic prototypes in
Dowty’s model
the idea is to then view other roles like EXPERIENCER etc
as sharing some of the properties of a Proto-Agent/Patient,
but not all
Dowty’s thematic role hierarchy
Dowty’s principles are meant as (violable) constraints on how
arguments of a verb are linked to it syntactically.
They also allow us to speak of candidacy for subjecthood by
“degrees”
Proposed hierarchy:
AGENT >
INSTRUMENT
EXPERIENCER
> PATIENT >
SOURCE
GOAL
elements higher up have more Proto-Agent properties, so more likely
to be subjects
Summary
Thematic roles are a crucial linking feature between syntax
and semantics
In models like Dowty’s, some attempts are made to predict
syntactic features (subject, object etc) from underlying
semantics