3. Lexical Approach

1
3. Lexical Approach

• Some linguists argue that the middle formation
  are not derived by NP movement, but are formed in
  the lexicon.
• The condition that makes up a middle formation
  depends on the verbs themselves.

2
3.1 Hale and Keyser

• Hale Keyser
• Condition on English Middle Formation
• A dyadic transitive verb V may form a middle
  if and only if its object is TH-commited by the
  central participant in the LCS (Lexical
  Conceptual Structure) (Hale and Kerser 19877)
• a. x cause y undergo change, (by )
• central participant

3

• Only the verbs which have a type of the LCS in
  (a) may undergo middle formation. In other
  words, only the verbs with affected arguments
  may form middles.
• ?However, the account has a problem pointed
• out in Chung (1995a) and others. There are
• middle verbs whose arguments are not affected,
• but the sentences are still grammatical.

4

• Ex a. This book reads easily. (This book is
  not an affected argument.)
• Concerning the question of how middles are
  derived syntactic or lexical, Hale and Keyer
  (1987) examine the two types of constructions,
• depictives and resultatives.

5

• Depictive construction
• Although depictive predicates may be
  predicated of subjects or objects, Hale and
  Keyser present the following examples to account
  the following depictive which is predicated of
  the object.
• Ex ???This bread cut t hot easily.

6

• If the grammatical subjects are moved out of
  object position (key points of NP movement), then
  the depictive predicate hot can be predicated of
  the trace left in object position, satisfying the
  mutual c-command condition. The ungrammaticality
  of the sentences in (a) is evidence against the
  NP movement analysis.

7

• Resultative middles
• x cause (y undergo change-1 z undergo
  change-2)
• The LCS of the main verbs, x cause (v undergo
  change-1), and that of the result expression,
• z undergo change-2 are combined as above.

8

• Hale Keyser conclude that resultative
  constructions dont involve the syntactic
  secondary prediction and the depictive
  constructions are evidence against syntactic
• NP movement.

9
3.2 Fagan

• Fagan
• 1.Externalize the direct theta-role.
• the externalization of an internal argument in
  middle formation
• 2.Assign arb to the external ?-role
• explains the reason why the implicit agent in a
• middle is interpreted generically and does not
  project
• into syntax a saturated argument in the
  lexicon doesnt
• project.

10

• Ex 1.
• John laughs at easily.
• The reason that Fagan restrict
  externalization to the
• direct theta-role in 1 is because it
  prevents prepostion standing and raising in
  middle.
• ?Problems in middles where indirect arguments
  become the external argument.
• Ex The knife cuts well.
• gt The grammatical subject is the indirect
  argument, but the verb cut still form middles.

11
3.3 Ackema Schoorelmmer

• Ackema Schoorlemmer
• AS(1994) argue the middles are derived at a
• presyntactic level of representation LCS
• (Lexical Central Structure). At LCS, two kinds
• of semantic information are represented at two
• different tiers. One is the thematic tier, and
• another one is the action tier.

12

• The thematic tier contains the semantic
  information like arguments and semantic
  primitives like CAUSE and GO. The action tier
  encodes the affectedness relations between
  arguments Actor and Patient.
• John went for a dog. The argument John is
  either Theme (the first argument of movement
  function GO) or Actor (the affectedness relation
  between arguments).

13

• Jackendoff assumes that the Action tier arguments
  are more prominent than thematic tier arguments,
  so Actor argument , the highest argument is
  marked as the external argument.
• Ex
• kill (?actor (?Patient)) ext

14

• Semantic argument at LCS project to syntax, but
  some semantic argument do not project.
• AS assume the following condtion on the
  nonprojection of argument
• ? Recoverability Condition
• An A-marked nonprojecting semantic argument x
  must be (a) discourse linked to a semantic
  argument identical to x. (b) ARB
• Semantics arguments which can be recoverable
  from discourse or which has ARB interpretation do
  not project.

15

• AS propose the operation of middle formation
  (MF) in the Recoverability Condition.
• (1)MF Actor ARB
• According to MF above, in middle formation Actor
  argument
• of a verb is assigned ARB, and this argument
  will not
• project according to (b) of Recoverability
  Condition. (1)(MF)
• also implies that only the verbs with Actor can
  undergo MF.
• This replaces the Affectedness Condition on MF.
  

16

• 1.drive (?Actor ( ?Patient ) ) ext
• ?
• 2.MF drive (? ( ? ) ) ext
• Actor ARB Patient
• ?
• 3.drive (?Patient) ext
• AS assume the external argument is highest
  argument, and it will be suppressed. Once the
  highest arguments is suppressed, then the next
  highest one becomes the external argument. The
  property ext cannot be erased during a
  derivation.

17

• The assumption of AS can account for the
  exception to the Affectedness Condition.
• Mary sells a book (Theme) to Harry (Goal).
• These books (Theme) dont sell to linguists
  (Goal).
• Linguists (Goal )dont sell books (Theme) to
  easily.
• gt Linguists with the theta role Goal is
  not the next highest argument.

18

• ?Problems
• (1) John hit the ball. ltgt The ball hits well.
• The verbs hit has Actor, and according to
• ASs prediction, some verbs which have Actor,
• which is suppressed later but not Patient may
• undergo MF . However, the presentation here is
  against
• ASs prediction. The verb hit cannot form
  middles.

19

• (2)
• The heavy clothes (Theme) cut easily with a
  knife (Instrument).
• The knife (Instrument) cuts heavy clothes
  (Theme) well
• These two sentences cause a contradiction.
• Once the position of the two thematic roles is
  assumed, they cant change the hierarchy
  randomly.

20
4. Causative Approach

• 4.1 Causation and Middle formation---
• Middles are causatives. Some property of the
  grammatical subjects of a middle is Cause, and
  the event denoted by the verb phrase is Causee.
• Condition on Causation
• The Speaker believes that the causee (or
  caused event) would not take place without the
  cause.

21

• Ex
• a. The window breaks easily.
• b. Cause the window
• c. Causee event the window breaking easily.
• The cause is not volitional (??????) and cause
  also participants in the caused event.
• The author suggest the causative relation is
  represented at LCS.

22

• LCS of break and middle break
• a. transitive x cause y undergo change of
  break
• b. middle y cause y undergo change of
  break,
• by x
• In the LCS of the middle break, the argument
  y is both the cause and an argument in the
  caused event (Theme) at the same time. The
  argument x is Actor which doesnt appear overly
  in syntax, but it plays a semantic role at LCS.
  The middle formation is a process from (a) to (b).

23

• For the change from (a) to (b) above, two
  conditions are to be satisfied. First, in the
  transitive verb, the argument x which is Actor
  should exist. Second, one internal argument and
  the event denoted by the verb phrase have the
  causative relation where the internal argument
  participates in the event.
• a. Assign the index arb to Actor
• b. x . . . y. . . gt y cause event . . . y
  . ., by
• Actor
• x
• Actor arb

24
4.2 Propertities of English Middles

• First English cannot derived form stative verbs.
  The reason is that middle formation involves
  causation and causation involves an event, but
  stative verbs do not have an event in the lexical
  meaning.
• Second the causative approach may explain
  that indirect arguments can be grammatical
  subjects in middles.

25

• Thirdly, the causative approach can account for
  that there are middles where non-affected
  arguments become the grammatical subjects, which
  is problematic for the Affectedness Condition.
• Fourth, English middles is that the construction
  has an implicit agent which does not appear
  overtly.

26

• Fifth, the property of English middles is that we
  do not have the long-distance middle
  construction, unlike passive and raising
  constructions. We cannot find middle where the
  grammatical subject moves out a clausal boundary.
  The middle formation takes place within a
  clause, a boundary of one predicate.

27
5. Remain Question and Conclusion

• There are some remaining questions the authors
  Chung have not dicussed so far.
• 1. First, middles need some kind of
  adverbials.
• 2. Some causative psychological verbs may form
  middles, but some do not.
• Ex a. Mary frightens easily.
• b. John discourages easily.
• c. ??John encourages easily.

28

• There are two approaches to English middle
  formation in this article movement approach and
  lexical approach. The movement approach assumes
  that middle formation involves NP movement in
  syntax, whereas lexical approach doesnt. These
  two approaches both have some problems. Chung
  proposes the causitive approach, but there are
  also some problems for others to account for.

29

• Thank You for Your Patience and Attention
• 
  David Nick