5 . Toward a force - dynamic theory of argument

In the preceding chapters, we presented an analysis of lexical aspect that integrates the many lexical aspectual distinctions relevant to grammar with grammatical consequences into a single model. The model analyzes the aspectual structure of events as a temporal sequence of qualitatively distinct phases. The phases are represented in two geometric dimensions, time and qualitative states. In this and the following chapters, we will turn to the question of argument realization, that is: how are the participants in events expressed as grammatical arguments of a predicate? We will be concerned specifically with the grammatical encoding of arguments, in terms of case marking, indexation (agreement) and word order, for the reasons discussed in §1.4 (see also §5.2.2). There is a huge literature on argument realization, with theories in all major approaches to grammar. An excellent recent summary of the major theories is found in Levin and Rappaport Hovav (2005), henceforth AR. In §5.2, we will give an overview of theoretical constructs used in recent (and not so recent) approaches to argument realization, based on Croft (1998a) and AR, focusing on the contribution of event structure, the subject of this book, to argument realization. Theories of argument realization make greater or lesser use of a common set of theoretical constructs. This is reflected in the organization of the critique of argument realization theories in Croft (1998a) and in the organization of AR: (1) a. Event structure: a representation of the semantic structure of events that is relevant to syntax (cf. AR, ch. 4). b. Participant roles: a way of defining participant roles, usually based at least in principle on properties of event structure (cf. AR, ch. 2). c. Ranking of participant roles: some way of ordering participant roles, which is used in argument realization (cf. AR, ch. 6). d. Role designation: some way to designate a special status for certain participant roles, generally to link them to core (Subject or Object) argument roles (cf. AR, ch. 3). e. Mapping rules: rules that map the participant roles into grammatical roles such as Subject and Object, based on properties defined in (a)-(d) (cf. AR, ch. 5). All of these constructs are interconnected in various ways in each theory of argument realization. We will focus on the degree to which participant roles, ranking of participant roles, and role designation are defined independently of event structure. Before doing so, however, we will introduce some common representations …