> -----Original Message-----
> From: Word Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of And
> Rosta
> Sent: 15 August 2004 12:55
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [WG] Dick (RE: [WG] old chestnuts department)
>
> ...
>
> > > The door is Theme in (i) and (ii), and in both (i) and (ii) it is
> > > also Agent. It is the most agentive argument in the interpretation of
> > > (i) because no other participant is involved.
> >
> > That's a silly reason. 'Agentive' means 'having the properties of an
> > agent'.
>
> In my view, linking is done by Best Fit. The rule is that the Underlying
> Subject expresses the most agentive participant, i.e. the participant
> that is more agentive than other participants, not that the Underlying
> Subject expresses an agentive participant.
>

OK.

> > Anyway, in _The door opened to my push_ there is an agent, but it's not
> > the door.
>
> I don't know if that's true. In "the door opened to John", "John" is
> not necessarily responsible for the opening. So either your example
> is a different construction, or its interpretation in which the push
> is responsible for the opening is pragmatic.

Yes.

> But even granting, for the sake of argument, that we are looking at
> a construction where "my push" is semantically specified as having
> some force-dynamic input, that doesn't necessarily mean it is the
> most agentive, since one can see the properties of the door as
> determining how much it resists and yields to the force applied to
> it.
>
> > > > These examples are highly relevant: they show that the subject
> > > > relationship has meaning, in being associated with er and all its
> > > > semantics;
> > >
> > > I almost agree. It is the underlying subject that has the agentive
> > > meaning, for passivization does not make the surface subject
> > > agentive, and the agent remains the underlying subj.
> >
> > Come again? I keep thinking I can interpret this, but I'm falling down
> > somewhere.
>
> In, say, "the book was trodden on", "The book" is not the most
> agentive participant or the underlying subject. The underlying
> subj may be expressed by a by-phrase, and can act as a controller
> of secondary predicates. Passivization does not affect argument
> structure.
>

Ahah. In contrast with 'passivisation' using GET, which does.

> > > > ....
> > > > I think you will deny that there is anything to separate the two
> > > > sub-constructions, And, but what the hell.
> > >
> > > No, using Joe's terminology I recognize (i-ii) as distinct
> > > subconstructions
> > > but not as distinct constructions. If (i-ii) jointly constitute a
> > > construction, it is defined in purely syntactic terms.
> >
> > OK. But doesn't that make them separate constructions (since they have
> > idiosyncratic semanticses)?
>
> My point is that they don't have idiosyncratic semantics. As
> constructions (i.e. as wholes whose properties are not derivable
> from the sum of their parts), they have the same semantics.
> As subconstructions (i.e. a statistically salient patterns in
> usage whose properties are derivable from the sum of their parts)
> they have different interpretations.
>

How can they have different interpretations and the same semantics?

> OK. I understand what your claim is, but not why you are making it.
> I can't see any evidence for BE having a lexical meaning, and
> minimal pairs where BE alternates with zero seem to show no
> difference in meaning.
>
> I'm not aware of BE having several different lexical senses, but I
> might be open to persuasion in the face of good evidence. (Though
> I am skeptical about so-called equative BE and about so-called
> modal BE.)
>
> As for the lexical sense being where info about the thematic roles
> played by its arguments is stored, I think the only info that needs
> to be stored is that BE copies the meaning of its complement.

Give me some time (I'm talking months, I think) and I might bring some
evidence out for you.

Jasp

>
> --And.
>