Advances in Role and Reference Grammar

308 JULIA A. JOLLY

allowing predictions and explanations of prepositional assignment. This

study represents a step in that direction.

Notes

* This is an abridged version of Jolly, 1986, M. A. Thesis, published in Davis Work­

ing Papers in Linguistics, 2 (1987).

1. Notice that cane in (1) is both a theme which is not U and an effector which is not
   A: [[do' (John)] CAUSE [do' (cane)]] CAUSE [BECOME be-at' (counter,
   cane)]. The effector-theme is that which is traditionally labeled "instrumental".


2. Conjoined roles are indicated in LS by "x/y".


3. This discussion of volitional control and the scope of the DO operator in sentences
   in which comitative with marks a non-agent effector will be further explored in
   Section 2.6.2.


4. This shading of category boundaries is evident in the LSs provided in sections 2.5-
   2.7.


5. In a double CAUSE accomplishment structure where φ CAUSE ψ = [ac­
   complishment] CAUSE [achievement], we will mark the central accomplishment
   CAUSE by italicizing the operator, e.g., CAUSE.


6. The predicate specified in this structure — exist' in [BECOME exist' (pieces)] —
   is a predicate of existence not specified in the original RRG analysis in FVV. Its
   single argument is a patient as with other single argument statives such as dead,
   broken, shattered.


7. Notice that agent and path, alone, cannot specify an accomplishment. When path
   occurs alone, without a source or a goal argument (e.g., Rita walked through the
   park), the prepositional function is that of an adjunct, rather than a path argu­
   ment in an accomplishment, and the verb is an activity.


8. See discussion of Dowty's distinction between object-level statives and stage-level
   statives in section 2.5.2.


9. The sequential functions will not be analyzed further in this study since they do
   not occur in non-predicative functions. As primitives, like be-at' and pray', they
   are not decomposed into semantic components. The lexicon lists these functions
   as: before' (x,y).


10. This hierarchy is different from the one in FVV:269, in that it contains the purpo­
    sive semantic relation omitted by FVV. Purposive is part of Silverstein's (1976)
    hierarchy of clause-clause logical relations from which the FVV hierarchy is
    derived.