Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution

(ff) #1

will say thatdevour “licenses” (or“requires”or, more simply, “takes”) two semantic arguments. The conceptual
structure of the verb can be thought of as a functionthat maps these two arguments into a conceptualized action. We
can schematize the semantic/conceptual structure ofdevouras (27). The arguments X and Y are typed variables that
specify what kinds of thing can devour and can be devoured respectively. These type specifications are called the
“selectional restrictions”on the arguments, and are part of the essential meaning ofdevour. For now we will consider
the functionDEVOURas an indivisible unit: Chapter 11 provides morefine-grained analysis.


(27) DEVOUR(X, Y)

The roles thatthecharacters play in theeventof devouringare oftencalled thecharacters'thematic rolesortheta-roles.We
mightcalltheseroles the“devourer”and“devouree.”Such terms are notveryuseful,though, as theyapplyonlytothis
verb. But they intuitivelyfall into far more general roles that are shared with many verbs: the“devourer”is a kind of
Agent (character performing an action) and the“devouree”is a kind of Patient (character on which an action is
performed).


In a simple active use of the verb,^61 both these characters must be expressed, the Agent as subject and the Patient as
object:


(28) The lamb devoured the lion
[Agent] [Patient]

We will call the subject and object the“syntactic arguments”ofdevour. That is,devourhas two semantic arguments and
two syntactic arguments.


The very similar verbeathas the same two characters in the semantics: there cannot be an act of eating without
somethingdoing the eating and something being eaten. But it has twopossiblesyntactic realizations(29a, b); the latter
is impossible fordevour.


(29) a.The lamb ate the lion.
b. The lamb ate.
c. *The lamb devoured.

THE PARALLEL ARCHITECTURE 133


(^61) Simple actives are the best criterion for determiningsyntactic arguments because constructions like passive (The lamb was eaten) and imperative(Eat the lion!) can eliminate
expression of one of the arguments. Many languages permit the character that would ordinarily be expressed in subject position to be omitted and understood as if it were
(in English) an appropriate pronoun. For instance,he/she/it ate the lion is normally expressed in Spanish ascomía el león. Such languages are called“pro-drop languages.”

Free download pdf