Theta Roles and Argument Structure in Manipuri

Indian Linguistics 75 (3-4) 2014: 1-15 ISSN: 0378-0759

THETA-ROLES AND ARGUMENT STRUCTURE IN MANIPURI

AMOM NANDARAJ MEETEI CHUNGKHAM YASHAWANTA SINGH LDC-IL, CIIL, Mysore Dept. of Linguistics, Manipur University [email protected] [email protected]

ABSTRACT

The Theta System (TS), following Reinhart (2002 in particular), enables the

interface between the System of Concepts and the Computational System (CS). The two

atomic features responsible for the set of the set of θ-roles are (1) c (for cause), shaping

the argument in question via causality implied upon the denoted event/change. (ii) m (for

mental involvement) cluing the mental state (volition and intention) of the argument in

question to the denoted event. These two features refer to causality and sentience. The

semantic information of the concepts visible to the Computational System is codified by

these two features (they can be either positive or negative): These features combine in

order to form eight feature clusters, which roughly correspond with the traditional theta

roles. A cluster can be positive if both features are positive or negative if the two features

are negative. When one feature is positive and the other negative, the cluster is said to be

mixed. In this paper, we discuss only Agent-Verbs and their sub-classifications within the

feature composition analysis of the theta-roles in Manipuri. And we extend the concept

up to the realization patterns of these thematic roles. Finally we have briefly shown how

the internal argument and the external arguments are derived within the bare phrase

structure model.

Key words: Feature cluster theta role asymmetric relation.

Paper received on 02.05.2014; Revised paper 30.09.2014

1. Introduction

It is commonly assumed that the semantics of a verb specifies the nature of the arguments it

requires in the form of a list of role-predicates. An argument is understood as an element with

referential content whose notion includes expressions such as definite descriptions, variables,

pronouns, lexical anaphors and the empty element PRO within the Principles-and-Parameters

model of grammar (Chomsky 1986, 1993). A theta-rolei (Θ-role) is a semantic argument of a

predicate. In short, the semantic dependency assigned by the lexical head such as Agent, Theme,

Patience, Goal, etc., are the theta-roles of the NPs which occupy their respective designated

syntactic positions. However, there is no consensus amongst the linguists on the contents of Θ-

roles, whose tendency is further motivated by the fact that there appears not exist any clear criteria

for determining what Θ-roles a given argument bears. On the other hand, viewed from the

interface between cognition and syntax, the lexical entry of the verb classifies its arguments as

agents and patients with respect to the respective sub-system of cognition. In the examples below,

the lexical verbs fear and frighten provides a finite set of analyzable thematic roles.

(1) a. Jack feared Jill/a renewed outbreak of cholera.

b. Jill/ The renewed outbreak of cholera frightened Jack.

Within a folk theory of mind, called ToMMii In the case of fear, the subject Jack exhibits

cognitive activity and hence an agent for ToMM. And, the object also corresponds to the content

of the emotion. Therefore, it is a patient for ToMM. However, in the case of frighten, the object

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

AMOM NANDARAJ MEETEI and CHUNGKHAM YASHAWANTA SINGH 2

Jill, a sentient, mentally active individual, is now an agent for ToMM. At the same time, the object

of frighten is understood as the target of an external agent. In this manner, if frighten selects the

subject argument, an agent for ToByiii

, and underspecified for ToMM, and another direct object

argument), which is both an agent for ToMM and a patient for ToBy, the state of affairs is

accounted for. Such specifications of this sort can be spelled out as a list of features associated

with the given lexical items and Rienhart (2000) argues that thematic information should be

modeled in the form of feature clusters. Accordingly, each cluster describes properties of one

event participant. The above two structures of narrative discourse refer to the domain of physical

and mental activity whose features are represented as c and m respectively. In (1), the lexical

entries of fear and frighten incorporate two feature clusters as illustrated below.

(2) a. fear: {[αc +m], [-m], …}

b. frighten: {[+c], [-c +m], …}

In the case of (2a), [-m] is the cluster assigned to the direct object, the content of emotion

which is underspecified with respect to the physical domain. The cluster {[αc +m] stands for the

subject, since the subject of fear must engage in a mental activity. In the same fashion, in case of

(2b), the (subject) argument of frighten is encoded as [+c]iv, since it is an agent for ToBy and

underspecified with respect to the mental domain. And because the lexical entry of frighten must

make reference to an (object) argument, which is both an agent for ToMM, and a target of force, it

is encoded as [-c +m].

The Theta System, following Reinhart (2002), enables the interface between the System of

Concepts and the Computational System (CS). The two atomic features responsible for the set of

the set of θ-roles are (1) c (for cause), shaping the argument in question via causality implied upon

the denoted event/change4F5. (ii) m (for mental involvement) cluing the mental state (volition and

intention) of the argument in question to the denoted event. These two features refer to causality

and sentience. The semantic information of the concepts visible to the Computational System is

codified by these two features (they can be either positive or negative. These two features are the

pivotal factors in studies of argument structure in such as way that these features combine in order

to form eight feature clusters, which roughly correspond with the traditional theta roles. A cluster

can be positive if both features are positive or negative if the two features are negative. When one

feature is positive and the other negative, the cluster is said to be mixed.

In order to state generalizations for natural classes of thematic roles, notational conventions to

refer to specific features and thereby Rienhart (2001:3) adopted the following conventions.

(3) Notation (Reinhart 2001:3)

[α] = Feature cluster α.

/α = Feature (and value) α.

E.g. the feature /+m occurs in the clusters [+c +m], [-c +m] and [+m]

[/α.] = A cluster, one of whose features is / α.

E.g. [/c] clusters are [-c +m], [-c –m] and [-c]

[+] = A cluster ALL of whose features have value +.

E.g. [-] clusters are [-c –m], [-c], [-m]

Rienhart‟s notation allows the statement of generalizations affecting agents, causes, emitter

(i.e., Immediate Causes Linking Rulev in Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995:135) in such a

manner that all of these roles are [/+c] clusters. All of them are distinguished in terms of

containing the value mvi. In this way, Agents are specified as [+c +m], causes as [+c], and emitters

Theta-Roles and Argument Structure in Manipuri 3

as [+c –m] respectively. Distinction between agents and experiencers can be so explained that both

are [/+m] and therefore agents are specified as [+c +m] while experiencers as [-c +m] respectively.

In this paper, applying Rienhart‟s notation in terms of two binary features, [+/-m] and [+/-c]

to a set of Manipuri verbs, the syntactic realization of these verbs will be scrutinized with respect

to the extrapolations of the Theta System.

Section 2 is about the features and roles where the combination and underspecification of

features are highlighted in short. In this section we will discuss Agent-Verbs and their sub-

classifications within the feature composition analysis of the theta-roles in Manipuri. Section 2 is

about the feature clusters and role sets introducing a set of verbs which will constitute the

empirical basis of the discussion. Section 3 is on the realization pattern generalizing the relation

between thematic role clusters and grammatical functions. Section 4 is about the positions of so

that we can specify them in their respective designated syntactic positions in bare phrase structure

configuration which is the main concern for the following section and Section 5 focuses on

deriving syntactic argument structure by employing, within the Theta system (Rienhart 2002), the

Lexicon marking merging instructions and that of residue of marking procedure (36), Haiden

(2005: 179). Section 6 concludes the paper.

2. Feature clusters and roles

There are eight distinct features-clusters when the combination and underspecification of

features are taken into consideration (Haiden, 2005). Each of these clusters carries an

interpretation in the semantic component. Each thematic cluster role can be, as Marelj (2004)

argues, interpreted as a role predicate in the sense of neo-Davidsonian semantics (Parsons 1990).

We follow Haiden (2005) in referring to such clusters as θ-roles. First, their number is defined and

new roles cannot be discovered, limiting the arbitrariness of role-lists. Second, the notation defines

natural classes of events, and thus tackles the super-role problem.

The interpretations of possible feature combinations are given in the following table.

(4) The interpretation of possible feature combinations (Haiden, 2005:40)

Cluster Specified for Not specified for

[+c+m] Physically and mentally active

[+c-m] Physically active, object of thought

[-c+m] Target of force, mentally active

[-c-m] Target of force, object of thought

[+c] Physically active Sentience

[+m] Mentally active Force

[-c] Target of force Sentience

[-m] Object of thought Force

Haiden (2005) is one of the linguists who has updated theta-roles and take them as consisting

of clusters of binary features, c (for cause) and m (for mental involvement). As observed in Haiden

(2005:40), a co-occurrence of mental activity and physical causation is through the assignment of

the cluster [+c+m] to an argument and since it is perceived by the human mind as volitional

control (Wegner and Wheatley 1999) such [+c+m] cluster bearing argument is interpreted as an

agent in volitional control of the event. The cluster [-c-m] occupies the other end of this scalevii

.

We introduce a set of verbs which will constitute the empirical basis of the discussion so far.


2.1. Agent verbs: [+c+m]

We follow Haiden (2005) in calling a verb agent verb if it selects a [+c+m]. The agent verbs can

be further classified depending upon the basis of further clusters selected: Agent-patient verbs and

Agent-instrument verbs.

2.1.1. Agent-patient verbs

Many two-place verbs select both a [+c+m] cluster, and a [/-c] cluster. They select a theme along

with the agent.

(5) [+c+m], [-c-m]

sa „build‟ kakhət „climb‟ cəŋ „enter‟ səm hat „comb‟, təi/səŋ „paint‟, kok „shave‟ khum

„cover a book‟, kup „cover a roof‟

In the examples below, we can observe that one of the arguments gets required contribute

both mental and physical activity and so, it is reflected in fully volitional control, imperative

sentences (6b and 7b) below. Additionally, the volitional attitude of the agent can be modified as

shown in (6c).

6. a. Tomba-nə ka-də cəŋŋi

Tomba-Nom room-Loc enter-Decl

„Tomba enters the room‟

b. həuzik ka-də cəŋŋu

now room-Loc enter-Imp

„Enter the room now

c. Tomba-nə ka-də harauna cəŋŋi

Tomba-Nom room-Loc happily enter

Tomba-Nom room-Loc happily enter-Decl

7. a. Thoiba-nə ka əmə sai/məcu səŋŋi/ kupsilli

Thoiba-Nom Room one build-Decl/paint-Decl/cover-Decl

„Thoiba builds/paints/covers a room‟

b. cing-du kakhət-lu

hill-Det climb-Imp

„Climb the hill‟

The argument which is required to be a target of force, and the object of an intention can be

visualized as the being effected (8a), affected (8b) or the target of a terminative motion as in

(8c). In (8c), the respective selects [-c] as a terminative motion requires a contact.

(8) a. Chaoba-nə jum əmə sai

Chaoba-Nom house one build-Decl

„Chaoba builds a house‟

b. Tombi-nə məsəm hatli

Tombi-Nom his-hair comb-Decl

„Tombi combs his hair‟

c. Chaoba-nə ciŋdol kakhi

Chaoba-Nom hill-top climbed

Chaoba reached the top of the hill‟

Agentive verbs that belong to a second set select an experiencer along with the agent.


(9) [+c+m] [-c+m]

paotak pi „advise‟

The argument of such agent-experiencer verbs is understood as a volitional agent and the

other one as a patient. Both the arguments must generate truth-conditionally relevant mental

activity. In (10a) below, the subject performs a volitional action, which triggers the mental

activity in the object. Since Manipuri paotak pi „advise‟ requires mental activity by its object,

inanimate objects are impossible as shown in (10b) below.

(10) a. Tomba-nə Chaoba-də paotak pi

Tomba-Nom Chaoba-Dat advise-Decl

„Tomba advises Chaoba‟

b. *Tomba-nə prozek-tə paotak pi

Tomba-Nom project-Dat advise-Decl

Tomba advises the project

The next sub-section will be about agent-instrument verbs explaining about alternating

phenomena between an agentive and an instrumental use.

2.1.2 Agent-instrument verbs

There are verbs, called manner verbs (Rienhart, 2001), which alternate between an agentive and

an instrumental use. In English this is explained using the verb „to peel‟ as shown below.

(11) a. John peeled the apple with the knife.

b. The knife peeled the apple.

Rapp (1997) described the similar pattern under the heading of indirect causation in such a

way that the agent in (12) below is understood to trigger the event being described by doing

something else.

(12) Tomba-nə phi-siŋ-du əiŋbə isiŋ-nə camdunə ŋakthok-i

Tomba-Nom cloth-Pl-Det cold water-Inst by washing protect-Decl

„Tomba protects the clothes by washing them cold‟

Rapp‟s verbs of indirect causation alternate between an agentive (13) and an instrumental use

(14) in a similar manner to that of Reihart‟s manner verbs.

(13) əiŋbə isiŋ-nə cambənə phi-siŋ-du ŋakthok-i

cold water-Inst washing cloth-Pl-Det protect-Decl

„Cold washing protects the cloth‟

There is a common perceptual property between both indirect causation and manner verbs that

a single event cannot cause the events embraced in the above sentences. The presence of two [/+c]

cluster in the lexicon encodes such a perception.

The set of agent-instrument verbs can also be divided into sub-classes depending upon the

further arguments they select.

Following are some of the agent-instrument verbs falling under the first sub-class verbs that

select a theme direct object.


(14) [+c+m] [+c-m] [-c-m]

ləiteŋ „decorate‟, ŋakthok/ŋaksel „protect‟ koisil „surround‟ khumjil „cover‟, thazəbə maŋhən

„betray‟

In the examples below, the accusative is both affected by an action, and the object of an

intention. The presence of two [/+c] clusters, as mentioned before, is revealed in two steps so that

first, these verbs alternate between an agentive and an instrumental use as shown in 15 (a vs. b)

and 16 (a vs. b) below.

(15) a. Thoibi-nə thoŋau-bu ləi-siŋ-nə ləiteŋ-i

Thoibi-Nom window-Acc flower-Pl-Inst decorate-Decl

„Thoibi decorates the window with flowers‟

b. ləi-siŋ-nə thoŋau-bu ləiteŋ-i

flower-Pl-Inst window-Acc decorate-Decl

„Flowers adorn the window‟

(16) a. Tomba-nə məhəusa lairembi-bu ŋaselli

Tomba-Nom nature goddess-Acc protect-Decl

Tomba protects the nature (of Goddess)‟

b. hidak-tu-nə cakhau-bu ŋakthoki

drug-Det-Inst stomach-Acc protect-Decl

„The drug protects the stomach‟

Second, this alternation cannot be accounted for in terms of underspecification. There could

have been a condition of expecting non-intentional, inanimate causes in eventive environments if

these verbs selected underspecified [+c]. This is not case in examples of (17).

(17) a. *lal-du-nə hannədəgi hennə warol-siŋ-bu thəusarəde

War-Det-Inst previous-than more document-Pl-Acc rejected

„The war rejected more documents than usual‟

b. lal-du-nə khuŋgəŋ-du-bu məikhu-nə kupsille

war-Det-Nom village-Det-Acc smoke-Inst covered

„The war covered the village with smoke‟

Following are some of the agent-instrument verbs falling under the seconst sub-classs verbs

that select an experiencer internal argument.

(18) [+c+m] [+c-m] [-c+m]

ikaibə pi „insult‟, nokem-haigemna „humilate‟ niŋbə kaihəl „disappoint‟

For these verbs, the direct object is not only a target of force, but it is also required to generate

truth-conditionally relevant mental activity. In (19b), the direct object may name the provoked

mental state instead of its bearer while reference to non-sentient objects is undoubtedly impossible

as shown in (19c,e & g).

(19) a. Tomba-nə Chaoba-bu ikaibə pi

Tomba-Nom Chaoba-Acc insult-Decl

„Tomba insults Chaoba‟

b. paukhum-du-nə əphəbə wakhəl-si-bu ikaibə pi

response-Det-Inst good idea-Det-Acc insult-Decl

„The response insults the good idea‟


c. *Tomba-nə əmotpə kalagi thabək-tu ikaibə pi

Tomba-Nom dirty art-Gen work-Det insult-Decl

„Tomba insulted the dirty work-of-art‟

d. Tomba-nə Chaoba-bu niŋbə kaihəlli

Tomba-Nom Chaoba-Acc disappoint-Decl

„Tomba disappoints Chaoba‟

e. *Tomba-nə projek-tu-bu niŋbə kaihəlli

Tomba-Nom project-Det-Acc disappoint-Decl

„Tomba disappoints the project‟

f. Tomba-nə Chaoba-bu nokem-haigemnəi

Tomba-Nom Chaoba-Acc humiliate-Decl

„Tomba humiliates Chaoba‟

h. *Tombi-nə ma-gi məmannəbi-gi khuzi-bu nokem-haigemnəi

Tombi-Nom she-Gen her-friend-Gen bangle-Acc humiliate-Decl

Tombi humiliates her friend‟s bangle‟

3. Realization patterns of thematic roles

In this subsection, we tentatively show the relation between thematic role clusters and

grammatical functions. For agent-theme verbs, they realize their clusters in a homogeneous way.

Thus, [+c+m] is always assigned to the subject, [-c-m] to the object. We can have the following

schematic relation:

(20) [+c+m], [-c-m]

sai „build‟

(21) SU DO

[+c+m] [-c-m]

Chaoba-nə jum əmə sai

Chaoba-Nom House one build-Decl

Chaoba builds a house

For the agent-experiencer verbs, they are very similar in this respect. [+c+m] is assigned to

the subject while [-c+m] is assigned to the direct object.

(22) [+c+m] [-c+m]

pautak pi „advise‟

(23) SU DO

[+c+m] [-c+m]

Tomba-nə Chaoba-də paotak pi

Tomba-Nom Chaoba-Dat advise-Decl

„Tomba advises Chaoba‟

Next, the double causatives happen to appear in two argument realization frames.

Interestingly, when [+c+m] is realized, it is assigned to the subject Thoibi in (25). In this case, [+c-

m] can be assigned to a PP-adjunct. However, [+c-m] is assigned to the subject ləi-siŋ-nə „flower‟

in (25) when [+c+m] is not realized. What is seen is that [-c-m] is always assigned to the direct

object thoŋnau-bu „window‟.

(24) [+c+m] [+c-m] [-c-m]

ləiteŋi „decorate‟


(25) SU DO PP

[+c+m] [-c-m] [+c-m]

Thoibi-nə thoŋnau-bu ləi-siŋ-nə ləiteŋ-i

Thoibi-Nom window-Acc flower-Pl-Inst decorate-Decl

„Thoibi decorates the window with flowers‟

[+c-m] [-c-m]

ləi-siŋ-nə thoŋnau-bu ləiteŋ-i

flower-Pl-Inst window-Acc decorate-Decl

A simple generalization that emerges from this picture is that a [+c] cluster cannot be

realized in direct object position, and that the fully specified [-] cluster is always assigned to the

direct object. Both mixed value clusters are subject to variation. [+c-m] can be a PP-adjunct or a

subject, [-c+m] an accusative or a dative. This short literature is shown below.

(26) SU DO PP

[+c+m] [-c-m]

[+c+m] [-c+m]

[+c+m] [-c-m] [+c-m]

[+c-m] [-c-m]

Within these few data, it is observed that psychological agency, which is encoded as [+m], is

surfaced together with causation as a thematic prominence-determining property, whose

observation is further correspondent to that of observation about the prominence of causing over

affected arguments in syntactic arguments structure (Croft 1990, 1991, 1998; Jackendoff 1990).

The next sub-section briefly explains about the positions of argument NPs so that we can

understand their positional status within the clause.

4. Positions of argument NPs

In this sub-section, we briefly show that argument objects are VP-internal while subject arguments

are VP-external. For the first case, we use two tests- Government-related tests and Binding

asymmetries (Haiden, 2005).

4.1. Government-related tests

In GB framework, extraction out of an NP is licit only when the NP is properly governed by

V. If extraction out of NP is grammatical, we can conclude that object NPs are properly governed

and they are therefore VP-internal. In the example (27) below, split topicalization of NP həinəu

„mango‟ affects VP-internal NPs.

(27) həinəui Tomba-nə ti məjam cai

mango Tomba-Nom many eat-Decl

„Tomba eats many mangoes‟

In the above sentence, we have seen the topicalization of partial noun phrase in such a way

that the small NP həinəu is fronted while the determiner məjam gets stranded. Constructions of

this sort might exist but they are rare to get appeared in the text, which proves that object NPs are

VP-internal.


4.2 Binding asymmetries

Here we show that subjects c-command objects, but not vice versa. Such an existence of classic

Principle C (i.e., a pronoun cannot be co-referent with an NP that it c-commands) effects in

Manipuri provides another source that subject in the language asymmetrically c-commands object.

(28) a. phəklaŋ khudiŋgi məsagi məchu ləi

wall each self-Gen colour has-Decl

„Each wall has its own colour‟

b. *məsagi məchu phəklaŋ khudiŋgi lə

self-Gen colour wall each has-Decl

„Its own colour each wall has‟

c. [əibə khudiŋ-nə]i magii lairik apabə-siŋ-bu khəŋ-zə-i

writer every-Nom his book reader-Pl-Acc know-Refl-Decl

„Every writer knows his readers‟

d. *magi lairik apabə-siŋ-bu əibə khudiŋ-nə khəŋ-zə-i

his book reader-Pl-Acc writer every-Nom know-Refl-Decl

„His readers every writer knows‟

The above data supplies the fact that a nominative quantifier can bind into the accusative (28a

& c), but not vice versa, even if it precedes it (28b & d). Another fact is that the binder is a VP-

external argument which is shown by the c-command relation between the universally quantified

NP əibə khudiŋ-nə „every writer‟ and a co-indexed possessive magi „his‟ embedded in another NP.

That is, such an availability of a bound variable reading of the possessive indicates c-command

(Brandt, 2003; Reinhart, 1983). The asymmetry firmly establishes the conclusion that the

nominative is VP-external.

5. Deriving argument structure

We assume that interpretation is structure preserving and two structure-building operations

such merge and head-of are responsible for the derivation in the sense of Chomsky (1995) and

Haiden (2005) and. Merger, being the basic building operation of human language, takes two

objects and forms a third complex object. The operation head-of defines the head of a given object

by filtering out non-head component. It can be assumed that there are three linguistic domains for

deriving an expression. They are phonological, syntactic and semantic respectively and Haiden

(2005: 163) defines, for assigning a meaning to an object of one domain, a function that maps the

element of the domain into a non-intersecting domain.

(29) Interpretation

f: A → B

where A ∩ B = Ø

Since we assume that interpretation is structure-preserving, we need to show that the

operations merge and head-of derive meaningful objects in syntax. In the (30) below, it is told

that x merges with y to form xy, and then head-of eliminates y as a dependent of x, and finally z

merges with the head x of xy, to form zx.


(30)

z x by merge

x by head-of

x y by merge

For head- complement structure, head-of can eliminate x as dependent of z, yielding a

complementation structure (31).

(31) complement-structure

z by head-of

z x by merge

x by head-of

x y by merge

For specifier-structure, z is eliminated as a dependent of x.

(32) Specifier structure

x by head-of

z x by merge

x by head-of

x y by merge

Bothe configurations are bare structures and multiple specifies can be merged as long as the

resulting configuration has an interpretation in semantics. Based on the idea of Van Riemsdijk

over the categorical attraction within a single projection, Haiden suggests that the formation of a

head-complement construction requires the merger of a distinct category so that a verb merges

with a categorically distinct object to form a verbal projection, as shown below in (32) in the form

of a subcategorization frame.

(33) Subcategorization of V

V/ _ N

This states that a verb phrase can be well-formed if V has merged with N. In a similar

manner, the subcategorization frame of v given below in (34) states that a functional head in the

extended projection of V subcategorizes for a functional element in the extended projection of N

and thus replaces the extension-clause of the Extended Projection Principle (Chomsky 1982).


(34) Subcategorization of v (EPP)

v/ _D

The subject DP can be merged with v or the raising of DP from a VP-internal position will

satisfy the requirement in (34). Since it is generally assumed in the Theta system that thematic

roles are listed in the lexicon as part of verbs, it follows that verbs assign thematic roles to nouns

and sometimes through a preposition/postpositions. Viewed thus, Haiden (2005; 175) provides the

following asymmetry.

(35) Main Thematic Condition

Θ is assigned by [/-N] to [/-V]

What is mainly claimed in this condition is that verbs and prepositions assign Θ-roles to

nouns. Again, within the Theta system (Rienhart 2002), a lexical verb entry is made entry for

insertion into a syntactic derivation by a marking procedure. Based on Reinhart (2002) and

Renhart and Siloni (2005), on Lexicon marking merging instructions, Haiden (2005: 179) provides

a residue of marking procedure (36), which is responsible for designing internal argument taking

verbs and CS merging instructions (37) so that thematic role clusters can be realized in designated

syntactic positions.

(36) Lexicon marking (residue)

Mark the verb with a D-feature, id its entry includes

(i) both a [+] cluster and a fully specified cluster [/α,/-c], or

(ii) both a [+c] cluster and a [-] cluster.

(37) Merging instructions

a. If nothing rules this out, merge Θ externally.

b. Merge a fully specified [-] cluster with V.

c. Merge a [+] cluster with v.

From (37), we know that there is a fundamental distinction between two classes of thematic

role clusters. Clauses (b) & (c) in (37) recognize one class of clusters. The clause (a) of (37)

affects the realization of mixed value and underspecified [-] clusters and since the merging

instructions do not refer to both of them, the realization of these clusters is optional.

For concreteness, we consider a simple agent-patient verb- sai „build‟ in Manipuri.

(38) sa „build‟: [+c+m], [-c-m]

According to clause (56.i) of the marking procedure, V is marked with D-feature since it

contains both a [+] cluster and a fully specified [/-c] cluster. In the example (39) below, let us

assume a partial array incorporating the lexical categories ləumi „farmer‟, jum „house‟ the verbal

stem sa „build‟, the two demonstrative articles ədu „that‟, and a caseviii

suffix nə „Nominative

marker‟ as well as a case suffix bu „Accusative marker‟. Now, the merging instructions recognize

both clusters selected by sa- „build‟: fully specified [-c-m] must merge with V by clause ((37b)

and fully specified [+c+m] must merge with v by clause (37c). Manipuri has SOV order. The tree

in (40) represents the bare phrase structure of the expression (39) below.

(39) ləumi ədu-nə jum ədu-bu sai

farmer that- haouse that-Accu buld-Decl

„The farmer builds the house‟


(40) v

DN

v[+c+m]

N Dnom v[+c+m]

V

DN

V[-c-m]

N Dacc

In order to explain the derivative stages of the above example (39), we can define the operation as

a function between two variables ranging over the same finite domain E, x,y E2, delivering xy

E:

(41) Merge

E2 → E

μ : (x,y) xy

By definition, the output of μ is in E. It should be noted that asymmetrical relations are introduced

by a filtering operation responsible for designating the head by eliminating its dependant. (cf. 30,

31 & 32). In (42) below, the whole operation is modeled as a sum whose summation applies with

respect to y, so x is the head of xy, y is the complement of x.

(42) head-of

μ(x,y) Cx

y є E

Now, we can have the following computational stages:

(43) VP-internal DP

merger of the internal Θ-role μ(Vsa, Θ[-c-m])

creation of internal argument DP μ(Njum, Dədubu)

merger of the internal argument: μ(VΘ, DN)

assignment of interbnal Θ-role

checking of V-subcategorization

(cf. 33)

elimination of the assigned Θ-role Σ w.r.t. Θ

introduction of DP-structure Σ w.r.t. N. D

VP-external DP

merger of functional v μ(V, v)

closure of VP Σ w.r.t. V


merger of external Θ-role μ(v, Θ[+c+m])

creation of external argument DP μ(Nləumi, Dədunə

merger of external argument:

assignment of external Θ-role checking

of v-subcategorization (cf. 34)

elimination of the assigned Θ-role Σ w.r.t. Θ

introduction of DP-structure Σ w.r.t. N. D

Within Minimalist Program, features at Spell-Out must all be interpretable. Features must

match that requires feature identity, i.e., features that have the same attribute and the same value.

In the order to delete the uninterpretable feature of V with Θ[-c-m] the operation Agree requires a

goal NP with D Θ[-c-m], which is both local and active. The same mechanism can be applied in the

case of VP-external DP.

6. Conclusion

In this paper we have shown show that thematic structure alternations (agentive/nonagentive

subject alternation. In section 1, we have canvassed the Theta System of Reinhart‟s θ-roles (2002)

and Haiden (2005), in terms of updating theta-roles by taking them as consisting of clusters of

binary features. After a brief introduction, in section 2 we discussed the features and roles where

the combination and underspecification of features are highlighted in short. In this section we

discuss Agent-Verbs and their sub-classifications within the feature composition analysis of the

theta-roles in Manipuri. In Section 3 we illustrated the realization pattern generalizing the relation

between thematic role clusters and grammatical functions. In Section 4 we highlighted the

positions of NPs so that we can specify them in their respective designated syntactic positions in

bare phrase structure configuration which is the main concern for the following section. Section 5,

we made an attempt to derive syntactic argument structure by employing, within the Theta system

(Rienhart 2002), the Lexicon marking merging instructions, and that of residue of marking

procedure (36), Haiden (2005: 179). Section 6 concludes the paper.

NOTES

i. One can emphasize that thematic roles within GB framework mainly originate from the early work

connected with lexical semantics, especially Fillmore (1968) and Gruber (1965). For Fillmore

(1968:20) case is an underlying syntactic-semantic relationship and the syntactic identification is

through showing covert grammatical distinctions in the ways nominals behave in the syntax. For

Gruber (1965, 1976), there is a prelexical structure deeper than the level of deep structure in syntax,

which provides a base for the syntactic structure and at the same time, provides the meaning

relations between the parts of a sentence. In the prelexical structure, the verb is the core element.

ii. The Theory of Mind Mechanism (Leslie, 1996), specifies how representations of states of affairs

are related to each other, and how such mental representations can trigger actions, thereby

predicting the behavior of volitional agents. The distinguishing property of living and sentient kind

is autonomous, goal-directed movement.

iii. Within a commonsense Theory of Body mechanism, where agents are distinguished from other

physical bodies that are not agents and their mechanical interaction are well described. ToBy is

responsible for the recognition of physical objects, and for the interpretation and prediction of their

behaviors in three-dimensional space as caused by force. See Talmy (2000), Croft (1990, 1991,

1998) for finding out corresponding notion in the case of lexical semantics.

iv. The /c/ feature is assumed to be associated with an argument that is perceived as sufficient

condition for the action described by the verb.

v. Under the direct mapping procedure of lexical items into syntax, Levin and Rappaport Hovav

(1995:135) laid down their immediate cause linking rule as follows:


Immediate Causes Linking Rule in Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995:135)

The argument of a verb that denotes the immediate cause of the eventuality described by that verb

is its external argument. In this assumption, linking rules map the highest argument to the subject

position whiles the lowest one to the object.

vi. The feature /m/ is assumed to be associated with some sort of mental state of the participant though

it does not determine the causal status of the argument.

vii. Please see the detailed description of the table in Haiden (2005:40-41).

viii. Within MP it is considered that sentences have a phrase structure consisting of a lexical domain,

VP, and a functional domain. There are commonly accepted functional projections- the

complementizer phrase (CP), agreement phrase for the subject (AgrSP), tense phrase (TnsP) and

agreement phrase for the object (AgrOP). The VP is where there is insertion of the verb and its

arguments. Features associated with inflectional morphology occupy the functional projections

such as tense, aspect and agreement. The lexical elements move to the functional domain to check

their features. We assume that the same holds for nouns. The case features of nouns are checked in

the appropriate designated specifier position. This Checking can occur at any stage of derivation.

Overt N movement to D in Italian by Longobardi‟s (1994) N-to-D raising provides strong support

for the presence of a (null) D in Romance and Germanic languages such as Italian and English,

respectively. Manipuri exhibits the surface order [noun+modifiers]-[number marker]-[definite

marker]-[case markers]-[pragmatic markers] as shown by the examples below.

1. pakhəŋ məca-siŋ-du-nə-di kəri khəŋgəni

bachelor-young-Pl-dst-Nom-Topic marker what will know

„As for those young bachelors, what shall they do for?‟

We follow the assumption that the above surface order of NP derives from cyclic leftward

movement of the nominal inflection domain as successive XP-adjunction to [spec NumP] and [spec

DP], respectively within the literature of an articulated nominal left periphery (see under the split-D

hypothesis Abney 1987; Ritter 1991; 1992, 1995; Siloni 1996, 1997; Giusti 1994; Cinque 1994,

1996; Aboh 1999, 2002; Panagiotidis (2000). In this paper, we do not go in depth about Manipuri

Nominal Structure. What is required to know is that the entire NP [ləumi əaduna] functions an

agent carrying the fully specified cluster [+c+m] by merging with the small v marked with [+c+v]

through the requirement of (34) above.

REFERENCES

BORER, HAGIT 2003. „Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanation: syntactic projections and

lexicon.‟ In The Nature of Explanation in Linguistic Theory, edited by Maria Polinsky

and John Moore. Stanford: CSLI and Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Pp. 31-68

BRANDT, PATRICK 2003. Cipient predication: Unifying double object, dative experiencer and

existential/presentational constructions. Ph.D.diss., Utrecht University.

CARRIER-DUNCAN, JILL 1985. „Linking of thematic roles in derivational word formation.‟

Linguistic Inquiry 16: 1-24.

CHOMSKY, NOAM 1955. The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. New York: Plenum.

_______1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Berlin: de Gruyter.

_______1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding.

Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

_______1986. Barrier. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

_______1993. „A minimalist program for linguistic theory‟, in Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay

Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20, 1-52. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

_______1994. „Bare Phrase Structure‟, MIT Occasional Paper in Linguistics 5. MIT Linguistic

Department, Cambridge.

_______1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.


_______2000. „Minimalist inquiries: the framework.’ In E. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka

(eds.). MA: The MIT Press, Pp.89-155

_______2004. „Beyond explanatory adequacy.‟ In Structures and Beyond, edited by A. Belleti.

Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, Pp.104-131

CROFT, WILLIAM 1990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

_______1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

_______1998. „Event structure in argument linking.‟ In The Projection of Arguments. Lexical and

Compositional Factors, edited by Miriam Butt, and Wilhelm

Geuder. Stanford: CSLI Publications, Pp. 21-64

DORON, EDIT 2003a. „Transitivity alternations in the Semitic template system.‟ In Research in

Afroasiatic Grammar II, edited by Jacqueline Lecarme. Amsterdam, Philadelphia:

Benjamins, Pp. 127-150

_______2003b. „Agency and voice: the semantics of the semitic templates‟. Natural Language

Semantics 11: 1-67.

DOWTY, DAVID 1991. „Thematic proto-roles and argument selection.‟ Language 67: 547-619.

FILLMORE, CHARLSE J. 1968. „The case for case.‟ In Universals in Linguistic Theory, edited by

Emon Bach, and Robert T. Harms. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winstone, Pp. 1-88

FODOR, JERRY A. 1970. „Three Reasons for not deriving “kill” from “cause to die”‟. Linguistic

Inquiry 1: 429-438.

FODOR, JERRY A.1983. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

_______1987. Psychosemantics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press/ Bradford Books.

_______and ERNIE LEPORE 1998. „The emptiness of the lexicon: Reflections on James

Pustejovsky‟s The Generative Lexicon‟. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 269-288.

GRIMSHAW, JANE 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

GRUBER, J. 1976. Lexical Structure in Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: North Holland.

HAIDEN, MARTIN 2005. Theta Theory. Berlin, New York, Mouton de Gruyter.

JACKENDOFF, RAY 2002. Foundations of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

LESLIE, ALAN 1994. „ToMM, ToBy, agency: Core architecture and domain specificity.‟ In

Mapping the Mind. Domain Specificity and Culture, edited by Lawrence A. Hirschfeld

and Susan A. Gelman. New York: Cambridge University Press, Pp. 119-148

LEVIN, BETH and MALKA RAPPAPORT HOVAV 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical

Semantics Interface. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

_______2005. Argument Realization. New York: Cambridge University Press.

MARELJ, MARJANA 2004. Middles and argument structure across languages. Ph.D. diss., LOT,

Utrecht University.

REINHART, TANYA 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm.

_______2000. „The Theta System: Syntactic Realization of Verbal Concepts‟. OTS Working

Papers in Linguistics. Utrecht:

_______2001. A synopsis of the Theta System. Ms., University of Utrecht and Tel Aviv

University.

_______2002. „The Theta System- an overview‟. Theoretical Linguistics 28 (3): 229-290.

_______and TAL SILONI. 2005. „The Lexicon-Syntax Parameter: reflexivization and other arity

operations‟. Linguistic Inquary 36.

RIEMSDIJK, HENK C. VAN. 1998. „Categorial feature magnetism: The endocentricity and

distribution of projection‟. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 5: 143-196.

SINGH, CH. YASHAWANTA, 2002. Manipuri Grammar. New Delhi, Rajesh Publication.

TALMY, LEONARD. 2000. Towards a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

WEGNER, DANIEL M. and THALIA WHEATLEY 1999. „Apparent mental causation. Sources of the

experience of will‟. American Psychologist 54: 480-492.

Theta Roles and Argument Structure in Manipuri

Documents

Transcript of Theta Roles and Argument Structure in Manipuri