Theses on Theta Theory - James Baker, linguistician

Baker, Theta theory, 7/3/2017 1

Theses on Theta Theory0

James Baker

SyntaxLab, 7th March 2017

1 Introduction

1.1 Introduction to the introduction

Why do we want thematic roles?

(1) a. Imhotep

Agent

is eating the lollipops.

Patient

b. The lollipops

Patient

are being eaten by Imhotep.

Agent

— no change in roles

1.2 Thematic roles and how to �nd them

Big questions:

(i) What thematic roles are there?

(ii) What are the relationships between these roles?

0With thanks in particular to Ian Roberts and Michelle Sheehan for helpful comments relating to this

work.


Method:

• seek out semantic properties with syntactic e�ects.

1.3 Atomic vs. molecular theories1

‘Atomic’ theories:

• Agent, Patient, Goal, Instrument ...

‘Molecular’ theories:

• Ramchand (2008):

– Roles determined by structural position relative to functional heads init, proc

and res:

(2) initP

init’

procP

proc’

resP

res’

result-rhemeres

resultee

proc

undergoer

init

initiator

(proc can also take a rheme complement)

– initiator, undergoer and resultee can combine, e.g.:

∗ argument of run is initiator-undergoer;

1One major approach which does not clearly fall under either of these categories is the proto-roles

theory of Dowty (1991). I will not discuss this here.


∗ argument of intransitive break is undergoer-resultee;

∗ argument of arrive is initiator-undergoer-resultee.

∗ (But subject of drive is just an initiator, argument of intransitive melt

is just an undergoer.)

• Reinhart (2002):

– Interacting features \c (‘cause change’) and \m (‘mental state’):

[+c+m] [+c–m] [+c]

agent instrument cause

[–c+m] [–c–m] [–c]

experiencer theme goal

[+m] [–m] [ ]

sentient subject matter arb

Cf. atomic theories again:

• Agent and Cause:

(3) a. Lucy melted the lollipops. (Agent)

b. The heat melted the lollipops. (Cause)

• Di�erent syntactic behaviours of Agent and Cause (Oehrle 1976 and others), e.g.:

(4) Agent subject:

a. My husband gave me a daughter.

b. My husband gave a daughter to me.


(5) Cause subject:

a. My relationship with him gave me a daughter.

b. *My relationship with him gave a daughter to me.

• Agent and Cause:

– both external arguments;

– both express ‘initiators’.

• Here: ‘Agent’ (θ-initiation+θ-volition) is a subset of ‘Cause’ (θ-initiation).

(6) Some thematic role hierarchies:

a. Agent > Instrument > Object (Fillmore 1968)

b. Agent > Experiencer > Theme (Belletti and Rizzi 1988)

c. Agent > Theme > Goal > Oblique (Larson 1988)

d. Agent > Instrument > Theme/Patient > Goal/Location (M. Baker 1989)

e. Agent > Experiencer > Goal/Source/Location > Theme (Grimshaw 1990)

Is Theme above Goal or vice versa?

(7) a. Lucy gave the book to

Theme

Chris.

Goal

b. Lucy gave Chris

Goal

the book.

Theme


1.4 The rest of the paper

A molecular approach arguing for the following roles in the following hierarchy:

(8) θ-volition > θ-initiation > θ-state > θ-change > rheme2

• Focus is on the core arguments of verbs (subjects, direct and indirect objects).

Other roles, such as those which may occur in non-argumental PPs, other ad-

juncts, vocatives etc. are not addressed.

Outline of talk:

• §2: thematic roles in intransitives;

• §3: thematic roles in monotransitives (excluding psych predicates);

• §4: thematic roles in psych predicates (including psych predicates);

• §5: thematic roles in ditransitives;

• §6: conclusion.

Other points:

• We don’t want to identify more roles than necessary (Occam’s Razor): aim is to

identify the same set of roles with each valency class.3

• No comparison of theories here.

• Approach should be seen as programmatic.

• Data from English, but same method can be expanded to other languages too (see

Baker in preparation).

2It may also be appropriate to identify a role called something like θ-telic/ θ-bounded/θ-result (cf.

res in Ramchand 2008). This would come between θ-change and rheme on the hierarchy, but I won’t

discuss it further here. See Baker (2016, submitted, in preparation).

3I have not however been able to identify good evidence for rheme arguments with one-argument

verbs.


– Question of universality of roles/hierarchy (cf. the UTAH of M. Baker Baker

(1988)) not addressed.4

2 Intransitives

See Baker (2016, submitted) for more detail.

Amongst intransitives:

• Only verbs denoting changes (of state or location) occur as prenominal past par-

ticiples:

(9) +change:

a. the melted butter

b. the torn curtain

c. the fallen leaves

d. the recently arrived recruits

(10) –change:

a. * the survived sailor

b. * the coughed lecturer

c. * the swum �sh

d. * the talked interviewee (Intended: ‘the X who has survived/coughed/...’)

4I am inclined to think that the roles (at least the core roles on the hierarchy addressed here, leaving

aside roles assigned by adpositions etc.) are universal, though some variation nevertheless may arise

when semantic properties are grammaticalised di�erently with di�erent verbs. This is restricted, how-

ever, to semantically ‘fuzzy’ cases: for example, intransitives verbs of internal causation (e.g. ‘blush’,

‘decay’, ‘sparkle’, ‘buzz’) which do not clearly categorise as initiated by their arguments. In Basque these

pattern consistently with verbs taking θ-initiation subjects ([+initiation] verbs), but in English and

Georgian they often pattern with those verbs which do not take such subjects ([–initiation] verbs). See

Baker (in preparation).


• Only verbs denoting changes allow the resultative construction (see also below):

(11) +change:

a. The wood burned black.

b. The lake froze solid.

c. The sun sank low.

(12) –change:

a. *Lucy survived happy.

b. *Lucy coughed hoarse.

c. *Lucy worked tired. (Intended: ‘Lucy became Adj as a result of V-ing.’)

• Only verbs denoting changes have causative alternants (see also below):

(13) +change:

a. Lucy burned the wood.

b. Lucy froze the lollipops.

c. Lucy tore the curtain.

d. Lucy sank the ship.


(14) –change:

a. *Lucy survived Chris.

b. *Lucy coughed Chris.

c. *Lucy swam Chris.

d. *Lucy talked Chris. (Intended: ‘Lucy made Chris V.’)

• Amongst verbs of change, resultatives/causatives are further restricted to those

which describe events not initiated by their subjects (in the intransitive alternant)

(cf. Ramchand 2008):

(15) +change, –initiation: see (11, 13)

(16) +change, +initiation:

a. *Lucy arrived tired.

b. *Lucy went happy. (Intended: ‘Lucy became Adj as a result of V-ing.’)

(17) +change, +initiation:

a. *Lucy arrived Chris.

b. *Lucy went Chris. (Intended: ‘Lucy made Chris V.’)

• Verbs denoting states fail the above tests and also: V one’s way into, V away,

cognate objects, out-pre�xation, -er-su�xation. Verbs denoting changes also fail

these tests.


(18) +state:

a. *Lucy sat her way into the room.

b. *Lucy was sitting away.

c. *Lucy sat a sitting.

(19) +change:

a. *Lucy arrived her way into the room.

b. *Lucy was arriving away.

c. *Lucy arrived an arrival.

(20) –change, –state:

a. Lucy coughed her way into the room.

b. Lucy was coughing away.

c. Lucy coughed a cough.

Hence: main features evident in intransitives and corresponding thematic roles:

• ±initiation: θ-initiation

• ±state: θ-state

• ±change: θ-change

These thematic primitives can combine or occur by themselves:


(21) a. θ-change+θ-initiation: Lucy arrived.

b. θ-change only: The window broke.

(22) a. θ-state+θ-initiation: Lucy remained in the room (deliberately).

b. θ-state only: The vase remained on the table.

(23) θ-initiation only: Lucy coughed.

The following combination does not occur:

(24) *θ-change+θ-state

θ-volition:5

(25) a. θ-initiation+θ-volition: Lucy outtalked Chris.

b. θ-initiation: ?Lucy outtrembled Chris.

We can thus revise (21a, 22a) as follows:

(26) a. θ-change+θ-initiation+θ-volition: Lucy arrived.

b. θ-change+θ-initiation+θ-volition: Lucy remained in the room.

Some of you may be interested in this footnote.6

3 ‘Canonical’ monotransitives

θ-initiation is found on ‘external arguments’ (active voice subjects), θ-change is

found on ‘internal arguments’ (direct objects):

5Similar results also pertain of the cognate object diagnostic. There is also clear evidence for a voli-

tionality contrast in intransitives in languages where this a�ects case marking, e.g. Tibetan or Hindi.

6It is di�cult to demonstrate the proposed thematic hierarchy on language-internal considerations

along, but there is cross-linguistic evidence from Sorace’s (2000) Auxiliary Selection Hierarchy; the the-

matic hierarchy proposed here can be seen as in part a formalisation of Sorace’s hierarchy. See Baker

(2016, submitted) for discussion.


(27) A terrible �re

θ-initiation

destroyed the city.

θ-change

θ-volition:

(28) The enemy army destroyed

θ-initiation+θ-volition

the city.

θ-change

(29) The suicidal thrill-seeker was deliberately eaten by

θ-change+θ-volition

the shark.

θ-initiation

rheme7: una�ected internal arguments:

(30) Arabella touched

θ-init.+θ-vol.

the wall.

rheme

Evidence for θ-volition and θ-change:8

• Only transitives with θ-change have intransitive anticausative alternants, but

can’t do so if the external argument must carry θ-volition (after Potashnik 2015):

(31) θ-volition (optional), θ-change:

a. Lucy burned the newspaper.

b. The �re burned the newspaper.

c. The newspaper burned.

7The etymology of this terminology is somewhat complex; I am basically adopting or adapting Ram-

chand’s (2008) usage.

8In (some?) languages where a�ectedness a�ects the marking of direct objects, this may also be

attributable to the presence or absence of θ-change.


(32) θ-volition (obligatory), θ-change:

a. Lucy painted the wall.

b. *The brush painted the wall.

c. *The wall painted.

(33) No θ-change:

a. Lucy crossed the road.

b. *The road crossed.

Evidence for the thematic hierarchy from transitives:

(34) a. θ-volition > θ-initiation (29)

b. θ-volition, θ-initiation > θ-change (27, 28)

c. θ-volition, θ-initiation > rheme (30)

(35) θ-volition > θ-initiation > θ-change, rheme

4 Psych predicates

Two main classes in English:

(36) a. Ghosts frighten

Stimulus

Elizabeth.

Experiencer

(also amuse, worry etc.)

b. Elizabeth fears

Experiencer

ghosts.

Stimulus

(also love, hate, enjoy etc.)

What roles do Experiencer and Stimulus correspond to on the present approach?


• Experiencer: θ-change or θ-state:9

(37) Ghosts frighten

???

Elizabeth.

θ-state

(Elizabeth is in a habitual state of being frightened by ghosts.)

(38) The ghost suddenly frightened

???

Elizabeth.

θ-change

(39) Elizabeth fears

θ-state

ghosts.

???

(40) Suddenly Chris loved

θ-change?

Lucy.

???

– Experiencers may also bear θ-initiation(+θ-volition) as well?

(41) Chris deliberately loved

θ-state+θ-initiation

+θ-volition

Lucy.

???

∗ Experiencers can only be initiators with fear verbs?

• Stimulus: rheme:

– The Stimulus is �rst-merged lower than the Experiencer with both fear and

frighten type verbs (Belletti and Rizzi 1988):

9Cf. Grimshaw (1990) who analyses fear-type verbs, but not frighten-type ones, as Dowty-Vendler

states. As I show here, it seems to me however that frighten verbs can be stative too, and fear verbs can

refer to a change.


(42) a. [Ghostsi [[frighten ghostsi] Elizabeth.]]

b. [Elizabeth [fears ghosts.]]

– This suggests the Stimulus bears a role lower on the hierarchy than the Expe-

riencer. If the Experiencer bears θ-state or θ-change, then on the hierarchy

adopted here the only other role available is rheme.10

(43) θ-volition > θ-initiation > θ-state, θ-change > rheme

Is there language-internal evidence for the ordering of θ-state and θ-change?

See next section.

• Stimulus: θ-initiation(+θ-volition)?

– Yes—but only sometimes.

∗ Clear volitional initiation in for example:

(44) The ghost frightened Elizabeth on purpose.

– Where a Stimulus bears one or both of these roles it also bears rheme.

∗ Positional argument (see above).

– When aren’t Stimuli initiators?

∗ Scenario where:

· Ghosts don’t exist.

· Elizabeth is frightened of ghosts.

· Non-existent entities can’t initiate anything.

10Some more evidence that Stimuli bear the rheme role is that we don’t seem to get verbs where the

only argument is a Stimulus, just as we don’t get verbs where the only argument is a rheme. This may

be disproved by cases like This book appeals, however—though perhaps we are dealing with something

else here.


· So Ghosts in Elizabeth fears ghosts can’t have θ-initiation in this

scenario.

∗ Or when the Experiencer seems to be the initiator ((41)). Stimulus can

only be initiator with frighten verbs?

• Pesetsky (1995) distinguishes two sorts of ‘Stimulus’: (i) Causer (frighten class),

(ii) Target or Subject Matter of Emotion (fear class; hereafter ‘Target’):

(45) a. The fossil pleased/delighted/overjoyed the paleontologist. [Causer]

b. The paleontologist liked/loved/adored the fossil. [Target]

– (45b) ‘impl[ies] a positive evaluation’ of the fossil by the palaeontologist,

but (45a) ‘merely causally link[s] [the fossil] to the emotion denoted by the

predicate’.

– Relates to the presence (45a) vs. optional absence (45b) of the θ-initiation

role? (rheme is present regardless.)11

– This may also answer Pesetsky’s question as to why no clause seems to have

both Causer and Target arguments: no predicate can have two rhemes.

11Alternatively the di�erence may simply be a matter of lexical semantics. Pesetsky provides a number

of other examples supposedly demonstrating the Causer vs. Target distinction, but most of these involve

PP arguments (where the preposition may contribute thematic content of its own; psych predicates with

such arguments are not the focus of the present discussion) and I am not sure his judgements as to the

supposed semantic di�erences hold up in every case. It may be, then, that this supposed distinction does

not, in fact, exist.


5 Ditransitives

(46) a. Prepositional dative (PD): Lucy gave the book to Chris.

b. Double object construction (DOC): Lucy gave Chris the book.

• the book: ‘Theme’

• Chris: ‘Goal’

Are Themes and Goal �rst-merged in the same position in both constructions?

• Larson (1988), Ormazabal and Romero (2010) and others: yes, Goal moves above

Theme in DOC (‘movement’ approach):

(47) a. Prepositional dative: [gavei [[a book] [gavei [to Chris]]]]

b. Double object construction: [gavei [[Chris]j [[a book] [gavei [Chris]j]]]]

• Marantz (1993), Pesetsky (1995), Harley (2002), Bruening (2010) and others: no,

Goal is �rst-merged below Theme in PD and above Theme in DOC (‘alternative

projection’ approach):

(48) a. Prepositional dative: [gavei [[a book] [gavei [to Chris]]]]

b. Double object construction [gavei [[Chris] [gavei [a book]]]]

• The movement approach captures the thematic similarities between the argu-

ments in both constructions, but fails to capture the thematic di�erences.

• The alternative projection approach captures the thematic di�erences between the

arguments in both constructions, but fails to capture the thematic similaries.12

12I am of course assuming here that the thematic content of arguments relates to their structural po-

sition, along the lines of UTAH. Speci�cally, existing versions of the movement approach are situated

in a framework which assumes the thematic role of an argument is determined solely by the position in

which it is base-generated / �rst-merged.


– Thematic similarities: the PD and DOC have very similar semantics—in the

above examples, the Goal is the person receiving the Theme, the Theme is

the object being transferred.

– Thematic di�erences (a selection) (Harley 2002, Krifka 2003):

∗ DOC, but not PD: existence of Goal implied;

∗ DOC, but not PD: Goal interpreted as becoming possessor of the Theme;

∗ DOC, but not PD: sense of completion often imparted.

A harmonisation: we can account for both the similarities and the di�erences in the

thematic interpretations of the two constructions if we allow arguments to receive their

thematic interpretation in multiple positions, via movement.

What are the roles?

• External argument: θ-initiation, optionally also θ-volition (as in other clause

types).

– See (4, 5) again.

• The Theme undergoes a change (of possession or location): θ-change.

• The Goal:

– First-merged below the Theme (below θ-change) in both PD and DOC:

rheme.

– Moves above the Theme (but below the external argument) in the DOC—

between θ-initiation and θ-change: only candidate is θ-state.

– The θ-state role relates to the stative properties of existence and possessor-

ship that are predicated of this argument. It also encourages a completion

reading.


(49) a. Lucy gave

θ-init.

+θ-vol.

the book to

θ-change

Chris.

rheme

b. Lucy gave

θ-init.

+θ-vol.

Chris

rheme

+θ-st.

the book.

θ-change

c. The wind gave

θ-initiation

Chris

rheme

+θ-st.

a chill.

θ-change


Argum

ent

Exem

plaryve

rbs

12

3

θ-initiation

--

work,cough

θ-state(+θ-initiation

)-

-sit,state

θ-change(+θ-initiation

)-

-go

,arrive

θ-change

--

melt,break

rheme

--

Do

es

no

to

ccu

r

θ-initiation

θ-state

-D

oes

no

to

ccu

r?

θ-initiation

θ-change

-destroy,eat

θ-initiation

rheme

-touch,cross

θ-state/change(+θ-initiation)

rheme

-fear

,love

θ-state/change

rheme(+θ-initiation)

-frighten

,am

use

θ-initiation

θ-change

rheme+(θ-state)

give

,throw

•(M

ostθ-initiation

argu

men

ts

can

also

tak

eθ-volition

.)


6 Conclusion

(50) θ-volition > θ-initiation > θ-state > θ-change > rheme

How does the thematic hierarchy relate to syntactic structure?

• Higher roles assigned higher in the structure.

• Evidence for separate positions (at least some of the time) for (at least) θ-initiation,

θ-state, θ-change and rheme.13

• Baker (2016, submitted) argues that each role is associated with its own structural

position (Spec or Comp), in an ordered hierarchy of functional projections:

(51) VolitionP

Volition’

InitiationP

Initiation’

StateP

State’

ChangeP

Change’

VP

rhemeV

Change

θ-change

State

θ-state

Initiation

θ-initiation

Volition

θ-volition

• Thematic hierarchy derives from this; it doesn’t need to exist independently.

Some other questions:

• Why does the hierarchy have the form it has?

13And probably θ-volition as well, if we take examples like (29) and adopt an analysis where the

argument in the by phrase is merged in the usual ‘external argument’ / θ-initiation position (along the

lines of Collins 2005).


– More generally: why does syntax encode these roles, and not others we

might imagine?

• Why are certain combinations of roles possible but not others?

– Reducible to semantic considerations?

References

Baker, J. (2016). Split intransitivity in English. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguis-

tics 9, 1–34.

Baker, J. (in preparation). Split intransitivity: thematic roles, case and agreement. Ph. D.

thesis, University of Cambridge.

Baker, J. (submitted). Split intransitivity in English. Submitted to English Language and

Linguistics.

Baker, M. C. (1988). Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Belletti, A. and L. Rizzi (1988). Pysch verbs and θ-theory. Natural Language & Linguistic

Theory 6(3), 291–352.

Bruening, B. (2010). Double object constructions disguised as prepositional datives.

Linguistic Inquiry 41(2), 287–305.

Collins, C. (2005). A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 8(2), 81–120.

Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3), 547–

619.

Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Emmon Bach and R. Harms (Eds.), Univer-

sals in Linguistic Theory. Berlin: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.


Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Harley, H. (2002). Possession and the double object construction. In P. Pica (Ed.), Lin-

guistic Variation Yearbook 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamines.

Krifka, M. (2003). Semantic and pragmatic conditions for the dative alternation. In 2003

KASELL Inernational Conference on English Language and Linguistics.

Larson, R. K. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19(3), 335–391.

Marantz, A. (1993). Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In S. A.

Mchombo (Ed.), Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Oehrle, R. (1976). The Grammatical Status of the English Dative Alternation. Ph. D. thesis,

MIT.

Ormazabal, J. and J. Romero (2010). The derivation of dative alternations. In M. Duguine,

S. Huidobro, and N. Madariaga (Eds.), Argument Structure and Syntactic Relations from

a Crosslinguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamines.

Pesetsky, D. M. (1995). Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT

Press.

Potashnik, J. (2015). The unaccusative alternation: Deriving the change-of-state con-

straint. Unpublished ms., http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003080.

Ramchand, G. (2008). Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Reinhart, T. (2002). The theta system—an overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28(3), 229–90.

Sorace, A. (2000). Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Lan-

guage 76(4), 859–90.

Theses on Theta Theory - James Baker, linguistician

Documents

Transcript of Theses on Theta Theory - James Baker, linguistician