414 MARY L. NUNES
ungrammatical linking of the clausal SUBJ NP to the POSS GF in the vNP,
it also complicates the analysis and blurs the generalization which explains
preposing with this and two other groups of nominals. That is, the double
genitive assumption, which creates the SUBJ-GF:POSS-GF juxtaposition-
ing in argument-to-GF linking in the first place, actually forces Rappaport
to use the nonsalient preposability factor in her stipulation. Specifically, in
using the agentive vs. the experienced status of clausal SUBJ arguments to
preclude ungrammatical GF linking in related vNPs, she ignores the
saliency of the experiencer status of the argument affected by the experien
tial state. In so doing, she unnecessarily adds an argument structure to all of
the verbal members of this class and inverts the generalization, given in (60)
below, which actually explains preposing with these experiential state nominals.(60) EXP > other for LDP NP
In other words, in vNPs headed by vNs which include an EXP in their LSs,
only the EXP NP can occupy the LDP. This is true whether the EXP is
linked to the A or to the U, as is reflected in (61).
(61) a. Jess's A:exp love of / for the puppyU.th STA
b. *the puppy'sv.th love
. Jess's A:exp recognition of the robberU:th ACH
d. *the robber 'sU:th recognition
e. Jess'sU.exv amusement at/'with the puppyA:ef ACM
f. * the puppy'sA:&{ amusement of JessU:exp
The obvious question in RRG, of course, is why only the EXP can occupy
the LDP. The answer lies in the topical function of the LDP and the fact
that EXPs are always animate and usually human (cf. fn. 33), while the THs
of the STA and ACH nominals and the EFs of the ACM experiential-state
nominals need not be either animate or human.
(62) a. Jess'sA:exp love of spinachU:th STA
b. Jess'sA:exp recognition of the signatureU:th ACH
c. Jess'sU.exp amusement at/with the newsA:ef ACM
Deane (1987) relates the Silverstein Hierarchy, which claims that human
and animate referents are inherently more topical than are inanimate refe
rents, to English possessives and topicality. By this standard, the EXP
thematic relation, which is by definition always borne by an animate (and
usually human) referent, can be viewed as inherently topical. It would