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

Introduction Agent vs. Effector Thematic relation Outline 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

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

Lyons and Ravin Lyons Ravin 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

Dowty and Talmy Dowty Talmy 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

Langacker, Jackendoff, and Delancey 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

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’

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, optional ex) 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

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

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

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)]

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’

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