46 ROBERT D. VAN VALIN, JR.
Here the coming into contact of the theme z, the knife, with the locative y, the
cake, brings it about that the cake becomes cut; thus the knife is both effecting
and undergoing motion and is an effector-theme. This is brought out most
clearly in a sentence like The knife cut the cake in which the effector-theme
is actor. Effector-theme ranks below agent and effector with respect to the
actor end of the hierarchy, as shown by sentences like Mary accidentally cut
her dress with the knife, in which the "pure" effector Mary must be actor. It
outranks locative for actor, as shown by The stick hit the window, in which
window is a locative (cf. FVV, section 2.6). It is outranked by locative for
undergoer, as shown by the possibility of Milton hit the window (with a
stick), where the effector-theme is omissible, and the impossibility of Mil
ton hit the stick (*against the window) with stick interpreted as an effector-
theme; without the locative PP, the NP after hit must be given its unmarked
reading, that of locative.
The prototypical actor is an agent, the prototypical undergoer a
patient, but effectors, experiencers, locatives and even themes (with
intransitive activity verbs of motion) can also function as actor, and loca
tives, experiencers and themes can also serve as undergoer; this depends on
the LS of the particular verb, as shown in Table 4. Thus the actor of see is
an experiencer, that of show an effector and by implicature an agent (cf.
20d), and that of cry an effector (cf. 20c); similarly, the undergoer with
break is a patient, while that of toss is a theme (cf. 20d). It must be
emphasized that the label "undergoer" should not be taken literally, just as
"actor" should not. The actor of see does not do anything but is neverthe
less an actor in the sense intended here, i.e. the logical subject; similarly,
the undergoer of see does not undergo anything, unlike the undergoer of
e.g. kill, but it is still the undergoer of the verb, i.e. the logical object. The
specific semantic content of the macrorole with a particular verb is supplied
by the thematic relation the argument bears in the LS, not by its macrorole
status, although the two are clearly related.
The number of macroroles that a verb takes is largely predictable from
its LS; there are only three possibilities: 0, 1, 2. If a verb has two or more
arguments in its LS, e.g. [do'(x)] CAUSE [BECOME be-at'(y,z)] or
hear'(x,y), then the unmarked situation is for it to take two macroroles. If a
verb has only a single argument in its LS, e.g. walk'(x) or BECOME
open'(y), then the unmarked situation is for it to have only one macrorole.
Verbs with no arguments, e.g. snow', have no macroroles. The nature of the
macroroles is also a function of the verb's LS. If a verb takes two, then they