10.theta Roles Good

Limitations of Categorical Distinctions Limitations of Categorical Distinctions
Classifying Arguments: Thematic Roles Classifying Arguments: Thematic Roles

The Theta Criterion The Theta Criterion
Outline
Thematic Roles: Argument types
and syntactic realization
Syntax (37-287)
Limitations of Categorical Distinctions
Gabi Danon
Classifying Arguments: Thematic Roles
The Theta Criterion

Department of English
December 1, 2010
Gabi Danon Thematic Roles: Argument types and syntactic realization Gabi Danon Thematic Roles: Argument types and syntactic realization

Introduction: Is subcategorization Classes of PP arguments

enough?
(1) Max lives in the forest.
The X-bar analysis makes it possible to combine any kind of The subcategorization for the verb live is V [ _PP]. But can
head with any kind of complement, adjunct and specifier. we use any PP here?
Some other principle(s) must rule out impossible
(2) a. Max lives near/behind/outside the forest.
combinations.
Our analysis so far relies heavily on subcategorization b. * Max lives to/from/during the forest.
frames. But is this enough?
Generalization: only PPs denoting location can act as
complements of live.

Classes of PP arguments (cont.) Classes of NP arguments
(4) a. John gave Mary a book.

The PP used with the verb put also has to denote location: b. * John gave a book Mary.
(3) a. Max put the picture in/on/near/behind/below

the table.
I The subcategorization frame of give is V [ _ NP NP], [_
NP PP], but this doesn’t rule out (4b).
b. * Max put the picture to/from/during the table.
I When used with 2 NPs, they have different roles:
Conclusion: Subcategorization isn’t accurate enough. I The first has to be the recipient;
I The second is the thing that is given;
I This information is not part of the categorical information
(NP).

Classes of NP arguments (cont.) Restrictions on Subjects
The subject of the verb love must be animate:
(6) a. Max loves Rosa.

(5) a. Max scared Rosa.
b. * Imagination loves Rosa.
b. * Max scared the kitchen.
I The object of scare has to be an NP.

I Phrase structure rules tell us that the subject has to be
an NP.
I Not all NPs are allowed here: only NPs that denote
something that can have feelings.
I Subcategorization doesn’t say anything about specifiers,
only about complements.
Conclusion: Nothing in our grammar can rule out (6b).
Restrictions on Coordination Summary: Unexplained Facts
Coordination can take 2 constituents of the same kind and At least three things get no explanation in our grammar so
combine them: NP+NP, PP+PP, etc. far:
But there are cases where coordination doesn’t work, even I Differences between different semantic classes of
though the category is the same: NPs/PPs.
(7) a. John/Mary/the stone broke the window.

I Restrictions on subjects.
b. John and Mary broke the window. I Restrictions on coordination of similar phrases.
c. * John and the stone broke the window. We need to add something else to our grammar to solve
these problems.
Introduction Introduction
Limitations of Categorical Distinctions A Typology of θ -roles Limitations of Categorical Distinctions A Typology of θ -roles
Classifying Arguments: Thematic Roles Obligatory and optional θ -roles Classifying Arguments: Thematic Roles Obligatory and optional θ -roles
The Theta Criterion Agent, instrument and cause The Theta Criterion Agent, instrument and cause
Decomposing θ -roles Decomposing θ -roles
Example: the verb ’kiss’ Example: the verb ’put’
(8) a. Rosa kissed Max. (9) a. Rosa put the book on the table.
b. * Rosa kissed. b. * Rosa put the book.
c. * Rosa kissed from Max. c. * Rosa put on the table.
d. */?? The wind put the book on the table.
Why are (8b) and (8c) ungrammatical?
Subcategorization: V [_ NP] Intuition: The meaning of the verb put determines the
Question: Is this an arbitrary choice, or does it follow from number and kind of ‘participants’ in an event of
the verb’s meaning? putting.
Intuition: The meaning of the verb kiss determines that Thematic roles: This verb has 3 roles, belonging to the
an event of kissing involves 2 ‘participants’, classes that we will refer to as: agent, theme,
which must both be expressed as NPs. and locative.
Thematic Roles: the General Idea Grouping Verbs

(10) Rosa kissed/cleaned/attacked Max.
I The verbs kiss, clean, and attack clearly differ in their

I Part of what we know about each verb is:
meaning
I How many arguments it takes
I What kinds of arguments these are
I Do they differ in their syntactic behavior?
I Arguments fall into general classes that we call (11) a. * Rosa kissed/cleaned/attacked.
Thematic Roles, or θ -roles (‘theta roles’) b. * The freezer kissed/cleaned/attacked Max.
I This determines how a verb can be used c. Rosa kissed/cleaned/attacked the sofa.
d. Max was kissed/cleaned/attacked (by Rosa).
Conclusion: From a syntactic point of view, these verbs all

take the same kinds of arguments.
Thematic Roles versus Lexical Semantics A preliminary list of θ-roles
(12) a. Rosa hit Max. Agent: the one who intentionally initiates the action
b. Rosa kicked Max. Theme: entity undergoing the effect of the action,
moved or perceived
Semantically: hit and kick are obviously not equivalent
Experiencer: entity experiencing some psychological
Syntactically: hit and kick have the same syntactic
state
properties
Instrument: means by which the action was performed
There is no syntactic process that is sensitive to the
Locative: place involved in the event
difference in meaning between these verbs.
Thematic roles are classes of arguments that are relevant to Goal: entity towards which the activity is directed
the syntax; semantic distinctions that play no role in the Source: entity from which something moves
syntax are not encoded in thematic roles.
Syntactic properties sensitive to θ-roles Example: Passive
Not all verbs can be passivized:

Position of arguments: The mapping of roles to
positions in the sentence is predictable. (13) a. Max ate the cake.
Category of arguments: Agents are always realized as b. The cake was eaten.
NPs; Locatives are usually PPs (headed by (14) a. Max stayed at home.
locative prepositions); Themes are realized as
b. * Home was stayed at.
NP or CP; etc.
Lexical operations: Some operations on verbs are We may passivize a verb that has an agent and a theme, but
possible only if the verb has a certain θ -role. not a verb that has a theme and a locative. (Note: This is
just a partial and simplified generalization).
Example: -er nominalization Identifying roles

The suffix -er can be used to create a noun from a verb: How do we identify the thematic roles associated with a
I teach – teacher given verb?
Identifying the number of roles is similar to identifying the
I sing – singer
subcategorization frame: we check how many arguments
I dance – dancer
are obligatory and how many are optional.
I build – builder Since the definitions of roles are based on semantic
But not all verbs allow this process: properties, we usually test for sensitivity to several semantic
I disappear – *disapearer factors:
I fall – *faller I animacy (agents and experiencers must be animate)
I arrive – *arriver I intentionality (agents do something intentionally)
This process is usually allowed only if the verb’s subject is an I directionality (goal and source involve directional
agent. movement/transfer)
Example: ‘cook’ Example: ‘disappear’

Which role(s) does the verb disappear assign?
Which role(s) does the verb cook assign? (16) a. The rabbit disappeared.
b. My wallet disappeared.
(15) a. John cooked the vegetables. c. * The thief disappeared my wallet.
b. * The pot cooked the vegetables.
c. * John cooked the vegetables the rice. Disappear: theme
The fact that someone might disappear intentionally doesn’t
Cook: agent, theme
make this into an agent; the roles define what is required by
the verb – and the verb disappear does not require its
subject to initiate the action intentionally, it requires it to
undergo the effect of the action.
Example: ‘admire’ Example: ‘stay’
Which role(s) does the verb admire assign? Which role(s) does the verb stay assign?
(17) a. John admires Mary. (18) a. John stayed under the bed.
b. * The table admires Mary. b. The shoes stayed under the bed.
c. * John admires. c. * John stayed.
Admire: experiencer, theme Stay: theme, locative
Example: ‘send’ Example: ‘fall’
Which role(s) does the verb send assign?
(19) a. John sent the letter to Mary. Which role(s) does the verb fall assign?
b. John sent the letter. (20) a. Mary fell from her bed to the floor.
c. * John sent to Mary. b. Mary fell.
d. * The truck sent the letter to Mary. c. The glass fell.
e. * John sent the letter in/on/under Mary.
f. John sent Mary the letter.
Fall: theme, (source), (goal)
Send: agent, theme, (goal)
Obligatory and optional arguments Obligatory Roles
I We saw that not all arguments are obligatory – certain An obligatory argument of a verb is associated with an
verbs have optional arguments. obligatory θ -role in the verb’s thematic grid – there must be
I Until now, we described this distinction using something in the sentence that receives it:
subcategorization frames that listed several options for
using a verb. (21) a. * Rosa loves. (missing theme argument)
I Using the thematic grid of a verb provides an alternative b. * The earthquake scared. (missing experiencer
way of describing optionality. argument)
c. * Max sent to Rosa. (missing theme argument)
Note that in the context of discussing θ -roles, the subject is
also considered to be an argument of the verb.
Optional Roles Describing a Verb’s Theta Grid

When listing the θ -roles of each verb, we should mark which
ones are optional. Many linguists also underline the ‘highest’
Optional arguments get an optional θ -role: role, i.e. the role that is assigned to the subject if all roles are
present in a given sentence – here we simply write that role
(22) a. John sent the letter (to Mary). (optional goal)
first:
b. John fixed the radio (with a screwdriver).
love: experiencer, theme
(optional instrument)
c. Max was reading (a newspaper). (optional
send: agent, theme, (goal)
theme) fix: agent, theme, (instrument)
read: agent, (theme)
Important: θ -roles are only for arguments, not for modifiers;
(optional) modifiers are not listed in the θ -grid.
Agent versus instrument Agent? Instrument?

Agent and instrument are both involved in performing an
action. Both can appear together, or one at a time; an
instrument can be the subject if no agent is expressed. What are the roles assigned by the verb break?
(23) a. John locked the door with the key. (24) a. John broke the window with a hammer.
b. John locked the door. b. John broke the window.
c. The key locked the door.
So far, this looks the same as for lock: agent, theme, and
d. * The key locked the door with John.
instrument.
An agent does something volitionally (on purpose); an
instrument is always used by an agent, even when the agent
isn’t expressed.
The subject of ‘break’ (cont.) The Cause theta role
Ther subject of break may have the θ -role called cause.

(25) The wind/earthquake broke the window.
I A cause, unlike an agent, does not involve volition.
The subject here: I A cause, unlike an instrument, is not used by an agent
I is not an agent: it doesn’t have volition (expressed or implied).
I is not an instrument: it isn’t used by an agent An event of breaking can be volitional or not, so we have an
alternation between agent and cause:
(26) * John broke the window with the wind.
break: (agent/cause), theme, (instrument)
The distribution of agent, cause and More examples: ‘scare’

instrument
(28) a. The thunder scared Max (#intentionally).
(27) a. The boy broke the window (with a stone). b. Rosa scared Max (by sneeking up on him).
b. The wind broke the window (*with a stone). c. ?? Rosa scared Max with the thunder.
c. * The boy broke the window with the wind.
d. Rosa scared Max with a mask.
d. A stone broke the window (*with the boy/wind).
I An agent and an instrument may (and often do) appear

I Thunder can scare without somebody “operating” it —
together not an instrument.
I A cause and an instrument never appear together I The subject of scare is either agent or cause.
I An agent and a cause never appear together I An instrument is allowed (optionally), but only when
I An instrument may be a PP (‘with NP’) or an NP (in there is an agent.
subject position); an agent can only be an NP; a cause
Scare: agent/cause, experiencer, (instrument)
may be either an NP or, in some cases, a CP
More examples: ‘clean’ More examples: ‘threaten’

(30) a. The letter threatened Max.
(29) a. The rain cleaned the car (#intentionally).
b. The gangsters threatened Max.
b. Max cleaned the car (intentionally).
c. ?? Max cleaned the car with the rain. I A letter does not threaten on its own: somebody
d. Max cleaned the car with a sponge. writes/sends the letter.
I The subject of threaten is either agent or instrument
I Rain can clean on its own — not an instrument. (not cause).
I The subject of clean is either agent or cause.
Apparent counterexample – metaphorical extensions:
I An instrument is allowed (optionally), but only when
there is an agent. (31) The economic crisis threatens Africa’s food supply.
Clean: agent/cause, theme, (instrument) Metaphors very often involve ‘deviations’ from the typical
constraints on argument selection.
More examples: ‘open’ Some Generalizations
(32) a. The key opened the door.

b. Bill opened the door (with a key). I Verbs that allow a cause also allow an agent instead.
c. The wind opened the door (*with a key). I agent and cause never appear together in the same
clause.
I A key does not open a door on its own. I If there’s an instrument, there’s also an agent (at least
I The subject of open is agent, cause or instrument. implied).
I An instrument can appear as a PP when the subject is an
agent, or as an NP when in subject position.
Problems with the existing definitions Structuring the θ-role system

Some problems with the definitions of θ -roles that we have
so far:
Groups of roles: If the agent/cause alternation is so I The list of θ -roles so far looks like an arbitrary list of
common, are these really 2 distinct roles? semantic classifications.
Kinds of Themes: What does an entity that is moved I Is there any structure behind it?
have to do with an entity that is perceived? Why
I Are there systematic factors that define the various
should both be classified as having the same
roles?
role? I Are there natural ways of grouping different roles
Propositional arguments: Why are clausal arguments together and showing what they have in common?
classified as themes?
Overlapping roles: Is the subject of tell or eat an agent
or an experiencer? Why?
A 2-feature system [ ±m±c ] : 4 roles
Reinhart (2000, 2002): the major roles can be distinguished Using only these distinctions, we can immediately define 4
by two factors: θ-roles:
Mental state: some roles (agent and experiencer) must [ +m+c ] : mental state is involved, causes the event:
involve a mental state; other roles (theme, agent
instrument, cause) do not require a mental [ +m-c ] : mental state only, not a causer: experiencer
state. [ -m+c ] : causes the event; no mental state involved:
Cause: some roles (agent, instrument, cause) are instrument
interpreted as causing the event; others (theme, [ -m-c ] : doesn’t involve a mental state, and doesn’t
experiencer) are not. cause the event: theme
The meaning of -m The Cause role

The cause θ -role systematically appears where a mental
(33) a. John likes pizza.
state is optionally relevant; wherever a cause is possible, an
b. John likes Mary.
agent is also allowed:
like: [+m-c], [-m-c]
(34) a. The news scared Mary.
I -m means that a mental state is not relevant to the b. John scared Mary (on purpose/by mistake).
θ-role and not required by the verb (35) a. The wind opened the door.
I -m does not mean that a mental state is impossible b. John opened the door (on
The object of like may have a mental state, as in (33b); but purpose/unintentionally).
this is not required as part of what it means to be liked.
In the old system of θ -roles:
Conclusion: The θ-roles are determined by what the verb
scare: agent/cause, experiencer
requires, not by the independent properties of
the arguments in a specific sentence. open: agent/cause, theme
Agent/Cause: [+c] [ +c ] :versus [ +c-m ] :
I The cause θ -role systematically alternates with the [ +c ] : A mental state might optionally be involved,
agent θ -role. leading to a different interpretation of the event.
I What we need is a θ -role that corresponds to [ +c-m ] : A mental state is not relevant to the verb, not
agent/cause. even optionally.
I There’s no need for something which is only cause, (36) a. Max scared Rosa (on purpose).
because this never happens.
b. The thunder scared Rosa.
We define a θ -role which is neutral (unspecified) with respect (37) a. Max scared Rosa with a mask.
to ±m:
b. Max scared Rosa with a lawyer.
[ +c ] : causes the event; may or may not involve a
relevant mental state scare: [+c], [+m-c], ([+c-m])
Introduction
Limitations of Categorical Distinctions A Typology of θ -roles Limitations of Categorical Distinctions θ -Roles and Argument Realization
Classifying Arguments: Thematic Roles Obligatory and optional θ -roles Classifying Arguments: Thematic Roles The θ -Criterion and restricting ambiguity
The Theta Criterion Agent, instrument and cause The Theta Criterion The Theta Criterion and subcategorization
Decomposing θ -roles
Summary: the new role typology Unselected arguments

[ +m+c ] : (agent)
What’s wrong with the following sentences?
[ +m-c ] : (experiencer)
[ -m+c ] : (instrument) (38) a. * John disappeared the book.
[ +c ] : (agent/cause; we may refer to this simply as b. * We watched the movie to the garden.
‘cause’)
[ -m-c ] : (theme) In each of these, there is an element that doesn’t get a
θ-role. The verbs in this case assign only the following roles,
This notation can be used instead of the traditional names; and there is no role for the ‘extra’ element:
the traditional names can still be used as a convenient
disappear: theme
‘shortcut’.
watch: agent, theme
goal, source & locative: we won’t try to define these
using the ±m and ±c features.
Limitations of Categorical Distinctions θ -Roles and Argument Realization Limitations of Categorical Distinctions θ -Roles and Argument Realization
Classifying Arguments: Thematic Roles The θ -Criterion and restricting ambiguity Classifying Arguments: Thematic Roles The θ -Criterion and restricting ambiguity
The Theta Criterion The Theta Criterion and subcategorization The Theta Criterion The Theta Criterion and subcategorization
Licensing an XP inside VP Licensing an XP (cont.)

An XP inside VP can be one of the following:
Argument: Must have a θ-role
I Every element in the VP is either an argument or a
Modifier: Must not have a θ-role
modifier.
Phrases that denote one of the following can usually be
I An argument is only possible if the verb has a suitable
modifiers:
θ-role.
Place: in the garden, at home, over there, etc
I A modifier can only be a phrase that has a suitable kind
Time/duration: at midnight, yesterday, every week, for of interpretation.
an hour, etc
Generalization: Every argument of the verb must get a
Manner: quickly, easily, with a silly smile, etc
θ-role.
A sentence is ungrammatical if the VP contains something
that cannot be interpreted as a modifier and that has no
θ-role.
Roles are determined by the verb To+NP is not always a goal
The fact that the PP is headed by to doesn’t make it a goal.

(39) * We watched the movie to the garden.
(40) a. John subscribed to this magazine.
Common mistake: “to the garden is a goal but this verb
b. John always listens to the news. (compare:
cannot have a goal”.
looks at/watches)
This is meaningless: the only way in which this PP could be a c. The ring belongs to Rosa.
goal was if the verb assigned this role to it.
Correct statement: “to the garden” in this example The highlighted PPs here, with to, are not goals.
receives no θ -role, and cannot be interpreted as The right perspective: an XP can only get a θ-role
a modifier either. assigned to it by the verb.
Canonical mappings Missing arguments
Each role has some ‘default’ realizations:

(41) a. * She loves.
Agent: NP
b. * Max sent to Mary.
Cause: NP or CP
Theme: NP or CP These verbs have an obligatory θ -role that is not assigned to
Experiencer: NP anything in the sentences above:
Instrument: PP headed by with, or NP love: experiencer, theme
Goal: PP headed by to/towards, or NP send: agent, theme, goal
Source: PP headed by from Generalization: Every obligatory θ-role must be
Locative: PP headed by a locative P (in, on, under etc) assigned.
The Theta Criterion Unambiguous example
(42) Max read a book from the library.

Together, these two requirements are known as the Theta
Criterion: There are 4 ways to analyze this according to X-bar rules:
I Every argument of the verb must get a θ -role. 1. PP as argument of V
I Every obligatory θ -role must be assigned. 2. PP as modifier of V
3. PP as argument of N
4. PP as modifier of N
PP as an argument of V? PP as a modifier of V?
(43) VP (44) VP
V0 V0
V0 PP
V NP PP
V NP from the library
read a book from the library
read a book
The PP cannot be a sister of V, because it gets no θ -role:
read: agent, theme, (goal), (instrument) The PP cannot be a modifier in the VP, because of its
meaning.
In the tree above, the θ -Criterion is violated.
PP as part of the NP Ambiguous example

(45) NP
DetP N0
(46) Max took a book from the library.
a
N0 PP Here, there is an optional θ -role that could be assigned to
the PP – source:
N from the library take: agent, theme, (source), (goal)
book The optionality of the source makes 2 trees possible.
I The PP’s meaning forces it to be a modifier in the NP.

I The entire NP is the theme argument of the verb.
Conclusion: The sentence is unambiguous.
PP as an argument of V PP as part of the NP

(47) VP (48) VP
V0 V0
V NP
V NP PP took
a book from the library
took a book from the library This is grammatical:
I The NP gets the theme θ -role from the verb.
This is grammatical:
I The verb’s source θ -role, which is optional, isn’t
I The NP gets the theme θ -role from the verb.
assigned here.
I The PP gets the source θ -role from the verb.
I The PP is a modifier of the noun.
More examples Unambiguous sentence with ‘put’

For the verb put, there is an obligatory locative θ -role:
Another example: (50) * Rosa put the carpet.
(49) a. Rosa put the carpet in the bedroom. ( 1 So there must be something in the VP that gets this role:
meaning) (51) VP
b. Rosa cleaned the carpet in the bedroom. (2
meanings) V0
Why is there a difference in the number of meanings?

put: agent, theme, locative
clean: agent, theme V NP PP
put the carpet in the bedroom
Ambiguous sentence with ‘clean’ Is subcategorization still needed?
In many cases, we no longer need to use subcategorization:

I For the verb clean, like most other verbs, there can be most of the work is already done by θ -roles.
an optional locative modifier.
(52) * John fixed.
I This makes possible 2 analyses:
1. The PP is a modifier of V fix: agent, theme, (instrument)
2. The PP is a modifier of N
I Sentence (52) is bad because it violates the Theta
The Theta Criterion is not violated in any of these options,
Criterion.
and the sentence is ambiguous.
I Subacategorization seems redundant here.
Idiosyncratic subcategorization NP and CP themes

Some verbs allow a CP or an NP, and others don’t:
We need subcategorization frames only when θ -roles don’t
explain what kind of complement a verb takes. (54) a. John mentioned the accident.
b. John mentioned that he ruined the car.
(53) a. Rosa relies on Max.
(55) a. John prevented the accident.
b. * Rosa relies Max.
b. * John prevented that he ruined the car.
rely: experiencer, theme
I For both of these verbs, θ 2 is theme.
This doesn’t tell us that the theme role has to be assigned to I This role can, in principle, be assigned either to an NP or
a PP (and that the PP must use this particular P). to a CP.
rely: V [ _ PP] I For prevent, the object must be an NP.
experiencer, theme mention: agent, theme
prevent: agent/cause, theme; subcategorization: [ _ NP]
Limitations of Categorical Distinctions θ -Roles and Argument Realization

Classifying Arguments: Thematic Roles The θ -Criterion and restricting ambiguity
The Theta Criterion The Theta Criterion and subcategorization
Summary: Theta roles

I Theta roles classify arguments into different general
types
I Every verb has a set of theta roles as a result of its
lexical semantics
I The Theta Criterion acts as a ‘filter’ that reduces the
number of structures allowed by the grammar
I Subcategorization frames are not necessary where they
provide information that is predictable from a verb’s
theta grid; they are necessary where the form of a
verb’s arguments is idiosyncratic
I Theta roles also play a role in other areas, such as
constraining lexical operations or determining the
mapping of arguments to syntactic positions
Gabi Danon Thematic Roles: Argument types and syntactic realization

10.theta Roles Good

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10.theta Roles Good

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Limitations of Categorical Distinctions Limitations of Categorical Distinctions

Classifying Arguments: Thematic Roles Classifying Arguments: Thematic Roles

The Theta Criterion

Limitations of Categorical Distinctions Limitations of Categorical Distinctions

Introduction: Is subcategorization Classes of PP arguments

Limitations of Categorical Distinctions Limitations of Categorical Distinctions

Classes of PP arguments (cont.) Classes of NP arguments

(4) a. John gave Mary a book.

(3) a. Max put the picture in/on/near/behind/below

Limitations of Categorical Distinctions Limitations of Categorical Distinctions

Classes of NP arguments (cont.) Restrictions on Subjects

The subject of the verb love must be animate:

(6) a. Max loves Rosa.

I The object of scare has to be an NP.

Restrictions on Coordination Summary: Unexplained Facts

(7) a. John/Mary/the stone broke the window.

Example: the verb ’kiss’ Example: the verb ’put’

Thematic Roles: the General Idea Grouping Verbs

I The verbs kiss, clean, and attack clearly differ in their

Conclusion: From a syntactic point of view, these verbs all

Thematic Roles versus Lexical Semantics A preliminary list of θ-roles

Syntactic properties sensitive to θ-roles Example: Passive

Not all verbs can be passivized:

Example: -er nominalization Identifying roles

Example: ‘cook’ Example: ‘disappear’

Example: ‘admire’ Example: ‘stay’

Admire: experiencer, theme Stay: theme, locative

Example: ‘send’ Example: ‘fall’

Which role(s) does the verb send assign?

Send: agent, theme, (goal)

Obligatory and optional arguments Obligatory Roles

Optional Roles Describing a Verb’s Theta Grid

Agent versus instrument Agent? Instrument?

The subject of ‘break’ (cont.) The Cause theta role

Ther subject of break may have the θ -role called cause.

The distribution of agent, cause and More examples: ‘scare’

I An agent and an instrument may (and often do) appear

More examples: ‘clean’ More examples: ‘threaten’

More examples: ‘open’ Some Generalizations

(32) a. The key opened the door.

Problems with the existing definitions Structuring the θ-role system

A 2-feature system [ ±m±c ] : 4 roles

The meaning of -m The Cause role

Agent/Cause: [+c] [ +c ] :versus [ +c-m ] :

Summary: the new role typology Unselected arguments

Licensing an XP inside VP Licensing an XP (cont.)

Roles are determined by the verb To+NP is not always a goal

The fact that the PP is headed by to doesn’t make it a goal.

Canonical mappings Missing arguments

Each role has some ‘default’ realizations:

The Theta Criterion Unambiguous example

(42) Max read a book from the library.

PP as part of the NP Ambiguous example

I The PP’s meaning forces it to be a modifier in the NP.

PP as an argument of V PP as part of the NP

More examples Unambiguous sentence with ‘put’

Why is there a difference in the number of meanings?

put the carpet in the bedroom

Ambiguous sentence with ‘clean’ Is subcategorization still needed?

In many cases, we no longer need to use subcategorization:

Idiosyncratic subcategorization NP and CP themes

Limitations of Categorical Distinctions θ -Roles and Argument Realization