PREPOSITION ASSIGNMENT IN ENGLISH 279(7) John and Mary went to the party.This seems counterintuitive, inasmuch as with signals nonactorhood which
should be reflected in the LS. The LS in (6) accurately reflects semantic
roles and macroróles of A/A represented in sentence (7). However, the
truth conditions of (5) might be more accurately reflected in a structure
such as (8), where functions of John and Mary are differentiated.
(8) [DO (John,[go' (John/Mary)])] CAUSE [BECOME be-at'
(party, J/M)]The volitional control of sentence (5) seems to be vested in John, as sig
naled by the oblique marking of Mary, even though both John and Mary
are arguments of go' and be-at'.^3
Foley & Van Valin discuss some ungrammatical uses of conjunct-split
ting which support the suggested LS in (8). They observe that while a non-
volitional perception verb such as see allows conjoined experiencers, as in
(9), conjunct-splitting as in (10) with this same verb is questionable (FVV
examples, 85).
(9) John and Mary saw the accident.
(10) Uohn saw the accident with Mary.
The LS postulated in (8) would predict the unacceptability of sentence (10),
since the volitional DO which differentiates the roles of John from Mary is
not part of the LS of see'. Notice that with a perception verb involving a
volitional agent, as in (11), conjunct-splitting is acceptable.
(11) John watched the movie with Mary.
Conjunct-splitting is also briefly discussed with reference to U, as in (12)
where entree and soup are both themes, but the latter, as non-U, is
obliquely marked.
(12) John served the entree with the soup.
The authors note that this kind of conjunct-splitting is restricted to themes
which Φ U; that contexts in which patients or locations are marked by with
are either totally anomalous or have an odd instrumental reading, as in (13)
and (14)
(13) John read the book with the magazine.
(14) John poked the general with the lieutenant.