The Case for Case Reopened ‘Agents and Agency Revisited’

1. The Case for Case Reopened‘Agents and Agency Revisited’ Written by David Wilkins & Van Valin Presented by Jinho Choi

2. Introduction • Agent vs. Effector • Before: Agent = Central & Primary notion • Here: Effector = Dynamic participant doing something in an event • Thematic relation • Roles: Agent(A), Force(F), and Instrument(I) • Goals: 1) To show the basic of the effector relation(ER) 2) To show how (A), (F), and (I) interpretations derive from ER • Outline • Section 2: Agents, Agency, and semantic roles • Section 3: Role and Reference Grammar (Van Valin) • Section 4: Agents, Effectors, Forces, and Instruments

3. Fillmore and Case Grammar • The Case for Case • Goal: Syntactical relations(subject) Semantical relations(agent) • Why: Semantical relations are more cross-linguistic • What is 'Case‘? • Relationship between a verb(predicate) and its associated NP(arguments) • Roles: Agentive(A), Instrumental(I), and Objective(O) • Discrete, Independent, etc. • Obligatory vs. Optional: Agentive > Instrumental > Objective • Advantage vs. Flaws • Advantage: Case roles assigned to NPs remains the same • Flaws: No attention to detailing the nature of the semantics representations

4. Lyons and Ravin • Lyons • Agent: animacy, intention, responsibility, and internal energy-source • Agentive situations: Affect, Produce(Cause, effect), Produce(Agent, effect) • Assumption: Languages are designed to handle the paradigm instances particular morphemes handle paradigm instances of agency • Ravin • Before: Agent = animacy + causation + action • Argument: A verb 'put' does not necessarily require animacy • Question: Can thematic roles be viewed as a function of the interaction of semantic level, syntactic level, and pragmatic level

5. Dowty and Talmy • Dowty • Theory: All roles are event-dependent in meaning (argument selection) • Lexical entailments: Roles cannot be treated as discrete categoriesProto-roles: proto-agent, proto-patient • Advantage: 1) Not any less clear than the traditional ones 2) More straightforwardly relevant to human life • Talmy • Two events: causing event vs. caused event • Agent: An entity whose act initiates an intended causal sequence leading to an intended final event • Ex) The ball broke the window.The ball  Sailing into window  The window broke

6. Langacker, Jackendoff, and Delancey • Langacker • Roles archetypes: Agent, Instrument, Patient/Mover/Experiencer • Flow of energy: Agent > Instrument > Patinet/Mover/Experiencer • Jackendoff • Thematic relations: Derived from decompositional representations of verbs • Agent: Motion tier [CAUSE(w), GO(x,y,z)], Action tier AFF(actor, patient) • [+vol]Actor vs. [-vol]Actor • Delancey • Agent: A clausal-level phenomenon that is dependent on both verb structure and inherent semantic properties of NP

7. Things in common • What is ‘Agent’? • A crucial notion to explain grammatical phenomena • Prototypically nominal properties (animacy and volition) +Prototypically event properties (activity and causation) • Primary interest: Verb/event-structure (not NP) • Opposition of ‘Patient’

8. Role and Reference Grammar(RRG) • Case Grammar vs. RRG • Similarity: Mapping between semantic and syntax • Difference: Discourse-pragmatics crucial in RRG • Semantic Macroroles • Case roles: Derived from argument positions in lexical rep. of verbs • DO: abstract operator, optionalex) The girl saw the picture vs. The girl looked at the picture • Problems • Agency depends entirely on the verb  sometimes on NP • Different lexical representation for the same verb • Agent becomes the secondary interpretation added to others

9. Agent as a pragmatic implicature • Another view of 'Agent‘ • Agent is often not a property of the semantic structure of the predicate. • Pragmatic principle: You may interpret effectors and effector-themes, which are human as agents. • Examples to show that the principle breaks down (p15) • DO vs. State/Activity • Factors to determine 'Agent‘ • Lexical semantic properties of the verb: activity > achievement > state • Inherent lexical content of the NP argument • Grammatical construction in which the verb and NP co-occur

10. Agent as a pragmatic implicature (continue) • Inherent lexical content of the NP argument • Volition: Non-conscious of wills • Intention: Conscious of will + ability to plan • Rationality: Intention + knowledgeable about what the result • Ex) The looter broke the window  The looter rationally broke the window. The baby broke the window  The baby accidentally broke the window. • Grammatical constructions • Depends on effector-arguments • Causative const.: Causee may or may not be interpreted as an agent • Purposive const.: Main subject intends for the situation forces an agent interpretation

11. The derivation of instrument and force from effector • Focus • Before: How agent derives from effector for most verbs • Here: The nature of force and instrument • Roles redefined • Agent: animate, effector • Force: inanimate(motive), effector, instigator • Instrument: inanimate(non-motive), effector, non-instigator • Structure representation • [[do(instigator)] CAUSE[do(effector, action)]] CAUSE[BECOME pred(change of state)]

12. Case study: 'open' • John/The wind/The key opened the door. • The key is opening the door. • John/The wind opens the door. • Pat and Robin/The wind and the rain/The key and the combination opened the door. • Pat and the wind opened the door. • The key and the wind opened the door. • Pat and the key opened the door. • John opened the door by throwing the key. • Animate, self-motive(internal energy), or function • Different meanings of ‘open’

13. Concluding remarks • Agent: not a basic or fundamental semantic role • Solution: using ‘Effector’ instead • Agent is still important • Effector-arguments are very often to be human Definition of Agent • Force and Instrument: 'less good' members