Advances in Role and Reference Grammar

A SYNOPSIS OF ROLE AND REFERENCE GRAMMAR 57

of the construction. In order for a syntactic pivot to exist, there must be a
restricted neutralization of semantic roles associated with the privileged
function in the construction; if there is no restricted neutralization, as in
Acehnese, then there are no grounds for positing specific non-semantic
relations like subject and direct object. "Core argument", while a syntactic
status, does not define a specific argument relation like subject or direct
object. In English verb agreement, as described at the beginning of section
4.2, the core-initial NP bears the defining syntactic function (it triggers verb
agreement) and there is a restricted neutralization associated with it; it is
therefore the syntactic pivot of the construction.
In the two constructions in (37) and (38) there is a restricted neutraliza­
tion with respect to the omitted argument in (37) (equi-NP-deletion) and
with respect to the argument that appears in a core with a nucleus of which
it is not an argument in (38) (raising).^34
(37) a. Susan wants to run in the park.
b. Susan wants to be taller.
c. Susan wants to eat a hot dog.
d. Susan{ doesn't want the panhandler to accost {
e. Susan doesn't want to be accosted by a panhandler.
(38) a. Jack seems to be running in the park.
b. Jack seems to be taller.
 Jack seems to be eating a hot dog.
d. Jack{ seems the panhandler to have accosted ¡
e. Jack seems to have been accosted by a panhandler.
In strictly syntactic terms, there is a missing argument in the dependent
core in (37), while in (38) an argument of the dependent core appears in the
matrix core; hence in (37) the privileged syntagmatic function defining the
construction is that of the missing argument, while in (38) it is that of the
"raised" argument. In both constructions there are restrictions on which
argument can be omitted or raised, as the (d) examples show. The missing
argument in the dependent core in (37a,c) is an actor, in (37b,e) an under­
goes and similarly the "raised" argument is an actor in (38a,c) and an
undergoer in (38b,e). In (37d) and (38d), the missing or raised arguments
have the same semantic role as in the grammatical (e) examples; this is cru­
cial evidence that the restriction cannot be stated in semantic role terms.
There is thus a restricted neutralization with respect to the omitted NP in
(37) and the "raised" NP in (38), and therefore these arguments are the