Subject and object

One of the subtlest but at the same time most apparent aspects of the syntax of the predicate is the set of ways in which the subject/verb and verb/object constructions can be set up. These constructions have as their purpose - generally, but not always - a focusing on one terminal of a multi-argument expression, a focusing on one particular role in the situation under discussion.

I have suggested elsewhere¹ that the normal choice of subject is determined by a hierarchy of case types, and only those predicates which require something ‘unexpected’ as their subjects need to have such information registered in their lexical entry. I believe that, at least in the vast majority of cases, those noun-phrases capable of becoming direct objects of a given verb are at the same time the ones which can appear as the subjects of passive constructions made with the same verb. Thus such information at least does not need to be stated twice, and at best may not need to be stated at all for most verbs, since it is most likely subject to rather general statements about combinations of cases.²

There is an extremely interesting set of subject- and object-selection facts that seem to operate in connection with expressions of ‘ quantity ’ and ‘ contents ’. The verb sleep refers to an ‘activity’ of an animate being in a particular place, where the one who sleeps is typically mentioned as the subject; but when the focus is on the place and at issue is the number of different beings that can sleep in that place, the verb permits the Place noun-phrase to appear as subject. We see this in sentence :

(86) This houseboat sleeps eight adults or sixteen children.

The verb feed has its use as a ‘ causative ’ of eat, but it can be used to express other kinds of relations with eating, too. To indicate the typical relation between the Agent and a description of the ‘ contents ’ of his eating activity, we use sentences like (87):

(87) The child feeds on raisins.

There is a relation between a recipe (which identifies, among other things, quantities of food) and the number of people who can (with satisfaction) eat the food one prepares by following the recipe, and this is the relation we see expressed in a sentence like (88):

(88) This recipe feeds eight adults or four children.

In the case of feed, the connection between the Place and a quantity of ‘eaters’ requires the latter quantity to be a ‘ rate Thus we get sentences like (89):

(89) This restaurant feeds four hundred people a day.

It is not clear to me how one can capture facts of the sort I have just suggested in any way short of providing (in effect) separate lexical descriptions for each of these uses. It is clear, anyway, that examples (86)-(89) cannot be understood as merely exemplifying ‘ causative ’ extensions of these verbs.

¹ ‘The case for case’ (1968) in E. Bach and R. Harms (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, Holt, Fdnehart and Winston.

² Incidentally, verbs which are obligatorily passive are verbs with one associated noun-phrase designated as ‘direct object’ but none as ‘normal subject’. An automatic consequence of this situation is that the expression will be cast in the passive form.

مواضيع ذات صلة

Some lexical structures and their empirical validity Conclusion

Metaphor and the form of lexical entry

Systematic and accidental lexical gaps explained by lexical hierarchies

Hierarchies are non-convergent

COMPARATIVES

FEATURE ASSIMILATION

SELECTIONAL RESTRICTIONS

The implications of lexical hierarchies for some ‘syntactic’ phenomena

Hierarchies among lexical items

A hierarchy of semantic features

Binary features

Some lexical structures and their empirical validity