the action tier and the analysis of causationocw.nctu.edu.tw/course/lex031/w8-rd8-t.pdf · the...

The Action Tier and the Analysis of Causation

5 November 2014

Presenter: Yu-Chen Hsiao

• 7.1 The Roles of Actor and Patient; the Action Tier • 7.2 Varieties of Causation • 7.3 Varieties of Dyadic Interaction; the Role Beneficiary 7.3.1 Verbs of Helping and Letting 7.3.2 Verbs of Possession 7.3.3 Verbs of Reaction • 7.4 Temporal Relations between the Cause and the Effect • 7.5 Extensions of Force-Dynamics to Logical Verbs and Psych-Verbs • 7.6 The Role Instrument; Unifying the Use of Hit • 7.7 Argument Binding in Force-Dynamic Verbs • 7.8 Appendix: Lexical vs. Periphrastic Causatives

Outline

Thematic relations in Semantic and Cognition (Jackendoff):

Theme: “thing in motion or being located” Goal: endpoint (1) a. Sue hit Fred. (Theme, Goal) b. The car hit the tree. (Theme, Goal) c. Pete hit the ball into the field. (Theme, Goal) A notion missed from S&C is that of “affected entity”-

the traditional role of Patient. A test for Patient is the ability of NP in the frame(2): (2) What happened to NP was… What Y did to NP was…

7.1 The Roles of Actor and Patient; the Action Tier

(1) a. Sue hit Fred. (Theme, Goal (Patient) ) b. The car hit the tree. (Theme, Goal (Patient) ) c. Pete hit the ball into the field. (Theme, Goal (Patient) )

(3) a. What happened to Fred was Sue hit him. b. What happened to the tree was the car hit it. c. What happened to the ball was Peter hit it into the field. Patient is a potential role independent of and supplementary to the other roles.


Note that the role Patient is not predictable from the other thematic roles.

1. Bill entered the room. (Goal) 2. The car hit the tree. (Goal)(Patient) 3. Peter hit the ball into the field. (Theme(Patient) , Goal)

(4) A test for Patient : What Y did to NP was… (1a)*What Bill did to the room was enter it. (2a) What the car did to the tree was hit it. (3a) What Peter did to the ball was hit it into the field. (3b)*What Peter did to the field was hit the ball into it.

The distribution of Patients vis-à-vis other thematic roles finds a parallel in the distribution of Actors(“doers of the action”)

Test frame for Actor: (5) What NP did was… (6) a. The sodium emitted electrons. What the sodium did was emitted electrons. (Source) (Patient) b. Bill ran down the hill. What Bill did was ran down the hill. (Theme) (Patient) c. The Sponge absorbed the water. What The Sponge did was absorbed the water. (Goal) (Patient)


Adapting suggestions of Culicover and Wilkins (1986) and Talmy (1985), conceptual roles fall into two tiers:

thematic tier dealing with motion and location and

action tier dealing with Actor-Patient relations (7)a. Sue hit Fred. Thematic tier: (theme, goal) Action tier: (actor, patient) b. Peter threw the ball. Thematic tier: (source, theme) Action tier: (actor, patient) c. Bill entered the room. Thematic tier: (theme, goal) Action tier: (actor, )


A functional representation that has Actor and Patient as argument positions, parallel to the treatment of Theme, Source, and Goal: elaboration of Events in the action tier

(9) [EVENT]-> [ AFF(<[THING]>, <[THING]>) ] EX: the car hit the tree. Actor (The car) Patient(the tree) (10) INCH [BE ([CAR], [AT[TREE]]) -> Thematic tier Event AFF ([CAR], [TREE]) -> Action tier All the conceptual function have had a fixed number of arguments. EX: Bill entered. [EVENT]-> [ event GO([THING], [PATH]) ]


Conceptual structure

AFF has the property of having two optional arguments. EX1: Bill enter the room. (Actor ) EX2: Bill rolled down the hill. (11) a. What Bill did was roll down the hill. (Actor ) b. What happened to Bill was he rolled down the hill. (Patient) The lexical entry for roll must permit the Theme(Bill) to be

identified on the action tier as either Actor or Patient.


Convention for notating AFF when only one of its arguments is present.

(13) a. [ AFF([X]) ] (X=Actor or Patient?) b. [ AFF([X]), ] (X=Actor only) c. [ AFF ,([Y] ] (Y=Patient only) d. [ AFF([ ] ,([Y] ] (implicit Actor) e. [ AFF([ X ] ,[ ] ] (implicit Patient)


The action tier enables us to dissert traditional notion of Agent into a number of independent parts :

• Two senses of Agent 1. extrinsic instigator of action is captured by the role “ first argument if CAUSE” 2. volitional actor EX: The wind rolled the ball down the hill. (extrinsic instigator, that is not volitional) EX: Bill rolled down the hill. (volitional actor that is not extrinsic instigator)

extrinsic instigator and volitional actor are independent and cannot be encoded identically.


A more adequate approach is to permit the function AFF a feature elaboration [± volitional].

EX: Bill rolled down the hill. GO ([Bill], [DOWN [Hill]) a. AFF+vol ([Bill], ) willful doer b. AFF-vol ([Bill], ) non-willful doer c. AFF ( ,[Bill]) undergoer


the dissertation of the notion Agent, three semi-autonomous parts: 1. Doer of action (first argument of AFF) 2. extrinsic instigator of action (first argument of

Cause) 3. Volitional Actor (first argument of AFF +vol) The constancy of association of agentivity with subject

position goes specifically with Actor role.

Summary 7.1 The Roles of Actor and Patient; the Action Tier

The action tier is strongly implicated in choice of objects as well as subjects.

If there is a Patient in a transitive sentence, it tends to be associated with direct object.

Bill load the book on the truck. What Bill did to the book was load them on the trunk. Bill smear the paint on the wall. What Bill did to the paint was smear it on the wall. Bill load the truck with the books. Bill smear the wall with the paint.

Summary 7.1 The Roles of Actor and Patient; the Action Tier

Talmy (1985) shows the standard notion of causation can be fruitfully decomposed into a number of features, each of which is subject to parametric variation.

Changing the values of the parameters yields a whole family of concepts related to causation such as hindering, overcoming, letting, helping, and resisting.

Talmy’s fundamental idea is that causation is one instance of a broad system of concepts he called force-dynamics.

7.2 Varieties of Causation

Force-dynamics concepts involve the interaction of two characters.

1. agonist has a tendency toward performing or not performing some action

2. antagonist Standard causation is the case where the antagonist get

his/ her/ its way and so agonist ends up acting differently than his/ her/ its natural tendency.

EX: Harry forced Sam to go away. (antagonist, agonist)


Force-dynamic oppositions: Force and Prevent (17) Harry forced Same to go away. CAUSE ([HARRY], Go ([SAM], [AWAY]) AFF([SAM], ) AFF([HARRY], [SAM]) The agonist (SAM) =Patient(the person whom force is being applied.)

The antagonist (Harry)=Actor (the person applying the force.)

(18) Harry prevented Same from going away. CAUSE ([HARRY], [NOT Go ([SAM], [AWAY]) ]) AFF([SAM], ) AFF([HARRY], [SAM])


A different outcome of force-dynamic oppositions (19)a. Harry pressured/ urged/ goaded Same to go away, and he did go away. but he didn’t go away. b. Harry impeded /hindered Sam’s going away, and in the end Same didn’t go away. but Sam did go away.

1. The Effect is only potential: we cannot infer whether the effort took place or not.

2. Successfully and unsuccessfully can be inserted after the subj (20)a. Harry successfully/ unsuccessfully urge Sam to leave. impeded Sam’s leaving. b. Harry ?successfully/ *unsuccessfully forced Sam to leave. prevented Sam from leaving.


A general function CS that contain “success parameter.” CS+: application of force with a successful outcome such as force and prevent CSu: application of force with an undetermined outcome such as pressure and impede (21)a. Harry pressured Sam to go away. CSu ([HARRY], Go ([SAM], [AWAY]) AFF([SAM], ) AFF([HARRY], [SAM])


A different configuration in the verbs manage, succeed, try, and fail is that they are implicit agonist-antagonist dyad.

(22) a. Harry managed to go away/ succeeded in going away. (CS+) b. Harry tried to go away. (CSu) c. Harry failed to go away.(CS-) All the verbs mentioned so far are pure causatives; The Effect or potential Effect appears as an infinitive or

gerundive complement.


• We have encoded Talmy’s force-dynamic configuration through a combination of the thematic and action tier, using the function CS and AFF; Standard causation, previously noted as CAUSE, is now CS+.

summary


7.3 Varieties of Dyadic Interaction; the Role Beneficiary

A second parameter in Talmy’s force-dynamic theory

concerns the characters of the interaction between the two protagonists. The verb of Helping: help, assist, and aid The configuration in the verbs : the two characters are striving

for the same potential Effect.

The test for an object as a beneficiary is prep for. (25)Harry helped Sam to go away. What Harry did for /*to Sam was help him go away.

7.3.1 Verbs of Helping and Letting

The verb of letting: let, allow, and permit Conceptualized as a potential opposition between antagonist and agonist that is not realized. Non-realization of opposition: • Volitional: Amy let Bill go the movies. • Non-volitional: The window let the light come in. With both protagonists animate, a for of beneficiary seems all

right: (26) What Harry did for Sam was let him come in. • *the window *to *the light it


New dyadic relations as variations in the action tier.

AFF-: the second argument is negatively affected (Patient) [the relation of opposition]

EX:Harry prevented Same from going away.

AFF+: the second argument is positively affected(Beneficiary) [the relation of helping]

EX: Harry helped Sam to go away.

AFF0: non-opposition [the relation of letting] • EX: The window let the light come in.


In principle, AFF+ and AFF0 ought to occur with all the varieties of CS.

The verbs of helping vary between CSu and CS+, depending on the form of complement. (27) Verb of helping: AFF+ (Harry , Sam)


a. Infinitival complement (CSu) Harry helped Sam washed the dishes, and they finished quickly , but they didn’t finish.

b. Gerundive complement (CS+) Harry assisted /aided Sam in washing the dishes, and they finished quickly. ?? but they still didn’t finish.

c. Implicit complement (CSu) Harry assisted /aided /helped Sam, and they finished quickly. ,but they didn’t manage to finish.

The verbs of letting: AFF0 vary between CSu and CS+ (28) a. Harry let Sam leave/allowed Sam to leave, (CSu) and Sam left. but for some strange reason , Sam didn’t leave. b. The cracks in the wall let the light come in, (CS+) and so the room was not entirely dark. *but the light still didn't come in


In general, because AFF+ and AFF0 are less stereotypical force-dynamic interactions than AFF-, it is probably to be expected that they have less highly differentiated lexical realizations.

Summary 7.3.1 Verbs of Helping and Letting

The goal of possession, especially in indirect object position , is construed as Beneficiary.

EX1: Harry give Sam a book. EX2: Harry give a book to Sam. (29) What Harry did for Sam was a. give him a book. b. ? give a book to him. (30) Conceptual structure of Harry gave Sam a book. CS+ ({HARRY], [GO poss ([BOOK], [FROM[HARRY] )]) TO[SAM] AFF+ ([Harry], [SAM]) (31) Conceptual structure of Sam receive a book GO poss ([BOOK], [TO[SAM]]) AFF+ ( , [SAM]) ( undergoer)

7.3.2 verbs of Possession –give and receive

Give is a light verb EX: I gave Mary a kiss. (Beneficiary) (?* I gave a kiss to Marry) EX: I gave Mary a kick. (Patient) (?* I gave a kick to Mary) These constructions are much worse in the to-NP form The action tier is the crucial part of the light verb give

7.3.2 verbs of Possession –give and receive

Why there should be a dative alternation with verbs of position in particular.

The subject and the NP immediately following the verb are canonical positions for action tier roles;

the use of indirect object is a means of canonically marking the Beneficially role.

Summary 7.3.2 verbs of Possession –give and receive

(33) a. Sam gave in to Harry(‘s pressure on him) -> CS+ b. Sam withstood Harry(‘s pressure on him) ->CS- c. Sam resisted Harry(‘s pressure on him) ->CSu The force-dynamic configuration here is that Harry is trying to

get Sam to do sth: Sam is agonist; Harry is antagonist They are set from Sam’s point of view: the nature of Sam’s

reaction to Harry They differ in whether Harry gets his way. (CS)

7.3.3 Verbs of Reaction

CS

difference

a new function- REACT ([X], [Y]) in Action tier (34) Sam resisted Harry CSu ([Harry], [event ] ) REACT- ([SAM], [Harry] )

They imply a more active role for agonist than does the essentially passive Patient role.

Contrastive but indicate the resistance is more than being a recipient of pressure.

(35)Harry pressured Sam to leave, but Sam resisted.

the do test show that a Reactor is a kind of Actor. (36) What Sam did was resist/ withstand/ give in to Harry


This suggest that we should consider AFF and React alternative realization of a more abstract function, just as CAUSE is one realization of the more abstract function.

Summary


• Another parameter of causation involves the temporal relation between the Cause (or instigator’s action) and the Effect.

(37) a. Bill dragged the car down the road. b. Bill threw the ball into the field. Bill’s dragging is temporally coextensive with the motion of car Bill’s throwing only initiates the ball’s motion. Michotte (1984): the principal variants in the perception of

physical causation are “entraining” (drag) and “launching” (throw)

7.4 Temporal Relations between the Cause and the Effect

Causative function

(PIC)

This feature distinction occurs only with CS+, a successful causation.

7.4 Temporal Relations between the Cause and the Effect

(40) a. This fence constrains the cattle. b. This hole lets the water out. c. This highway leads (you) to Tucson. d. The windowshade blocks the light. The use of simple present tense shows they are stative or generic. (41) This hole lets the water out. Csu ([HOLE], [GO ([WATER], [OUT])] state AFF0 ([HOLE], [WATER]) Verbs of logical relation in terms of force-dynamics (42) a. X entails/ implies/leads to Y (cause) b. X rules out/ precludes Y (cause..not) c. X permits/ is consistent with Y (let) d. X reinforces/ supports Y (help)

7.5 Extensions of Force-Dynamics to Logical Verbs and Psych-Verbs

The application of the action tier to the differentiation of experience verbs.

Experiencer affected by the state or event is kind of Patient.

the verb with experiencer in object or oblique position include the function AFF.

Ex: X pleases Y [state AFF+ ([X], [Y])

Those with experiencer in the subject can be thought of giving the subject reaction to the stimulus, that is , their action tier contains REACT.

EX: Y likes X [state REACT + ([X], [Y])


(44) a. X pleases Y [state AFF+ ([X], [Y]) b. X displeases Y [state AFF- ([X], [Y]) c. X suddenly frightened Y [event AFF- ([X], [Y]) d. X strikes Y as crazy [state AFFu ([X], [Y]) e. X matters to Y [state AFFu ([X], [Y]) (45) a. Y likes X [state REACT + ([X], [Y]) b. Y fears/hates X [state REACT - ([X], [Y]) c. Y regards X as crazy [state REACTu ([X], [Y]) These extensions of action tiers push the notion of causation well

beyond the physical domain. Thus force-dynamic domain yields a further application of the

semantic field parameters in conceptual structure.


The action tier provides an interesting way of encoding the tradition role Instrument.

(46)a. Phil opened the door with a key. b. Sam broke the window with a hammer. The characteristics of an instrument (1) It plays a role in the means by which the Actor accomplishes

action (2) The actor acts on the instrument (3) The instrument acts on the Patient

7.6 The Role Instrument; Unifying the Use of Hit

The instrument within a means expression that modifies the core sentence. PIC

BY is the function that turns Events into means modifier.

The Event in turn a causative relation, that is, the instrument is stipulated as an intermediary in the Actor’s action.


(1) a. Sue hit Fred. (Theme, Goal) b. The car hit the tree. (Theme, Goal) c. Sue hit Fred with a stick. ( Goal, Theme ) The stick plays a standard role of the Instrument, but in

addition it function as Theme of the main action.


the action tier and the analysis of causationocw.nctu.edu.tw/course/lex031/w8-rd8-t.pdf · the...

Documents