Semantic syntax

(deep grammar)

• CH. FILLMORE

Исследователь предполагает, что предложение можно описать в терминах семантических конфигураций, которые предопределяются и располагаются вокруг глагола.

На уровне семантическом глагол с т.з. подобного рода конфигурации формирует постоянную структура, а возникновение конкретных предложений является следствием возможного варьирования синтаксических ролей глубинных семантический смыслов.

Здравый смысл: с т.з. смысла "John plays the piano" "Piano is played by John" - смысл один и тот же. Но Исследователи говорили не об этом. Они пытались составить географию англ глагола с т.з. его локализации внутри его окружения соответствующими существительными. В этом тоже что-то есть!

Филмор предложил набор глубинных падежей (deep cases). Т.е. по сути дела, глубинных падежей как смыслов, с которыми может сочетаться конкретный глагол.

• The agent of case presupposes that we code the doer of the action.

• The objective case is the object of the action, in other words, smth that is directly affected by the agent's action.

• The instrumental case is the inanimate cause of an action or a state.

• The dative case is a associated with the an animate being which is affected by the action.

• The factitive case correlates with the object resulting from an action or a state.

• The locative case identifies the space location of an action or a state.

Employing the notion of DC he tried to prove that Sentences appear as a result of verbal selection in the sense that the V selects from a certain number of DC forming its case frame. Some cases are obligatory, others are optional. If we delete obligatory cases, we produce ungrammatical sentences. For example: Mary gave apples - ungrammatical.

ПОХВАЛИТЬ ФИЛМОРА:он приводит док-ва реальности падежей.

Even though the eng S dont make DC obvious, Fillmore argues that they are present in Eng. If you take up absolutely sensible sentences: "John broke the windows", "A hammer broke the window" - John and hammer broke the window. - UNGRAMMATICAL, because JOHN and HAMMER have different deep cases.

Fillmore also made attempts to prove that DC may be illustrated with the help of prepositional structures. If you choose to illustrate the idea behind the Dative case, you'll be able to produce: "I give lectures to students". TO STUDENTS - direction of the action. He proved that as a result of the possible grammatical relevant transformation such prepositions may be deleted without destroying the sence of the S. - "I give students lectures".

Его раскритиковали. Написав свою 1 работу, спустя несколько лет, он написал "The case for case reopen", где пытается оправдать теорию.

He was severely criticized because his definitions of cases were purely semantic. More to that, his own pupils asked him to analyze sentences.

* John broke the window with a stone.

John - agent

stone - instrumental case

-> The wind broke the window.

Wind - instrumental / agentive???

Agentive is supposed to be animate!!!

What make things worse:

The wind broke the window with hailstones. Wind - instrumental?

Hailstones - instrumental?

But Fillmore said that one case may be used in one sentence once!!!

Such criticism was quite fair, Fillmore tries to introduces ammendments to his system.

NEW CASES:

The force of the action

The perciever of the action

Originator of speech

Material....

В рез-те его теория теряет форму, а падежей становится около 30. Но даже в этом случае он не может объяснить устройство следующих предложения:

* The man died.

Man - dative?

* The snow melted. Snow - objective?

НО ОН МОЛОДЕЦ.

• W. CHAFE

All languages have the same ways of organizing meanings. To prove this, he tries to create a universal grammatical description rather than universal semantic model of the sentence.

SEMANTIC RAWS

These SR are determined by the semantic content of the V. It is the nature of the V that determines what the S will be like, what N will accompany the V, and how these N will be semantically specified.

He begins with the classification of the V.

He splits V into 3 groups:

- actions

- processes

- states

He says that it is highly possible that intermediary types should exist. The most important semantic relations of the V are the agent and the patient.

If a V is characterized as an action, such a V should be accompanied by an agent-N. This N should be animate and should denote a human being. The man laughed.

If we use "chair" instead of "man"

SEMANTIC ROLES:

• AGENT

someone who does something or who performs an action

(what did N do?) - if S answers the question, the S contains Agent.

AGENTS:

a) causative

A makes an inanimate object before an action.

"John threw a stone": the Agent is causative.

b) permission

"John dropped the stone" - John provides the stone with the opportunity to perform the action.

If A is causative, we can employ the role of an instrument ."John threw a stone with a рогатка"

"I read the letter", "The letter was read by me".

• PATIENT

The object of the action. The semantic essence of P is that it changes its state in the course of the action.

For example: A boy broke the dish.(What happened to N)?

PATIETNS can be semantically animate and inanimate.

If the P is expressed by a syntactic Subject, then it corellates with processes and states.

For example: The wood is dry. The rope is tight.

the Agent and the Patient are in a sematic relationship too.

The A always does does smth to teh patient or brings about the change in teh state of the Patient.

* ACTION-PROCESS VERBS.

Он пытался объяснить, откуда возникает идея, что чтобы что-то где-то произошло, должна быть причина.

• Beneficiary

"Tom has the tickets"

In this S Tom is the one who gains profit from the situation described. Here Chefe introduces BENEFECTIVE VERBS.

Semantically, B may appear in S as subjects and objects and the V they are assosiated with also belong to the class of ACTION-PROCESSES.

"Mary sold Tom a convertible".

• Experiences

"He wanted a drink", "Tom saw a snake".

On the face of it, Tom seems to be close to Agent, but HE IS NOT! Because in the Sentences Tom is not the doer f the actions, he is not the instigator of the action. In a deep sense, Tom is the one who is mentally/physically disposed towards smth.

The E is a person whose mentality or physique are affected.

To illustrate this definition, we can say: "The snake became visible in the respect of the experience of Tom"...

* EXPERIENCIAL VERBS.

Normally, these V are not used in the continuous form. As a rule, they demand Patient-Nouns, but he also says that there are Experiencial Verbs, that may do without Patient-Nouns. "Tom is hot".

• Instrument

"Tom cut the rope with a knife", "Tom opened teh door with a key".

He explains that teh Instrument is some kind of an object that plays a role in bringing about the process. It is decisive that instrument is not the motivating force, cause or instigator. The Instrument is always subsidiary to the Agent: the Agent governs the work of teh Instrument.

In certain structures the Instrument may be Subject, or the Adverbial Modifier.

"The knife cut the rope", "Tom cut the rope with a knife"

Compliment

Accompanies the Verb and denotes smth that appears in the course of the action.

"Children played a game".

Roughly speaking, Chafe's compliment corresponds to Fillmore's Factitive.

Some Compliments are compulsory while other Compliments are not.

"He made a remark". REMARK - obligatory compliment.

"Marry sang a song". SONG - we can remove it without changing the sense.

Semantically, when we have compliments, V may be Actions, Processes, States.

• Location

Usually appears next to the V denoting States.

"The knife is in teh box", "The cat is on the roof"

"To be" is not the only locative V in Eng.

He suggests that there should exists LOCATIVE PROCESSES ("John fell off the chair") and there may be LOCATIVE ACTIONS ("Tome sat in a chair").

Вся его теория окончательно убедила грамматистов, что существует центр предложения. Более того, он не ограничился попыткой семантических интерпретаций, он попытался формализовать усилия, предполагая, что в конечном итоге, он передал наиболее существенные механизмы установления связи между смыслом и его поверхностным представлением.

НО

будучи американцем, поклонником Хомского, генеративистом в душе, Чейф никогда не анализировал реальных предложений. Все предложения он придумал сам для своего анализа. Не ставился вопрос об употребимости и частотности...Он утверждал, что это основа универсальной грамматики для всех языков мира.

Этого не могли не заметить коллеги...

ACTUAL SENTENCE DIVISION