My Notes for Final Exam (1) PDF

Syntactic pyramid (Rank, structure, function) Syntactic segments and syntactic pyramid → syntax → concerned with cognitive processes that allow language users to combine and organize word units in structured chunks so that they are comprehensible to the addressees; a branch of linguistic...

Syntactic pyramid (Rank, structure, function) Syntactic segments and syntactic pyramid → syntax → concerned with cognitive processes that allow language users to combine and organize word units in structured chunks so that they are comprehensible to the addressees; a branch of linguistics concerned with syntactic patterns of a particular language which its users employ to generate/identify surface units capable of activating a particular communicative reading → syntactic rules → a closed set of combination rules to generate syntactic units → syntactic units → syntagmas show surface and cognitive chaining; linear chunks of language signs by the use of which language speakers are able to render certain syntactic information → communication requires that certain patterns of arranging syntactic segments are shared within a language community → speakers/writers produce sequenced chunks of syntactic segments to render certain syntactic information → proper interpretation of syntactic patterns and syntactic information intended by the producers depends on the recipient´s ability to identify the ranks of syntactic segments, their internal structure, and external relations toward the other segments → delineation of syntactic segments and identification of syntactic information that may be inferred from their arrangements is the focus of syntactic contemplations → the la-langue level (language as a system of signs) → the arrangement of syntactic segments may be imagined as a kind of syntactic pyramid of upward (functional) relations and downward (structural) relations Pyramidal ranks → structure → sentence → clause → semiclause → phrase → word → function → word → phrase → semiclause → clause → sentence → the syntactic pyramid is made up of syntactic floors (levels/ranks) starting from the level of word and ending with the level of sentence → the hierarchical arrangement shows that:  syntactic segments of lower floors are used as building blocks for syntactic segments of higher floors (lower-rank segment realize higher-rank segments)  syntactic segments of higher floors are composed of syntactic segments of lower floors  syntactic segments of lower floors fulfil functions in syntactic segments of upper floors → lower-rank syntactic units are put up together to generate higher-rank syntactic units → the syntactic pyramid shows that when attempting to identify the structure/composition of a syntactic segment we should look downward the pyramid, whereas the syntactic functions of particular syntactic segments should be identified while moving upward the pyramid → generation of higher-rank segments from lower-rank segments is governed by the rules that are language-specific (a closed set) 1  → the knowledge of this closed-set language-specific rules allows language users to generate an infinite number of sentence-rank realizations from a definite set of word-rank units through the phrase and clause ranks → syntactic segments → single-member, multiple-member Frames and chains → syntactic components of clause-rank units are tied by cognitive frames and surface chains → they both are some sort of unit-combination formulae shared by the language community and stored in each member´s mental repository → language speakers pick up a particular cognitive frame and opt for a particular surface chain which seems to be most suitable to activate, in their recipients, the intended cognitive reading of a produced linear/sequenced stretch → cognitive frames (onomasiology=syntactic meaning) → combinations of semantic/cognitive roles; convey the syntactic meaning → surface chains (semasiology=grammatical relations) → render the grammatical characteristics of a syntactic stretch (the coding information); structure depends on syntactic relations/functions; they are limited in number → valency → minimum units in a frame/chain Function → Dušková → the potential of a parts of speech to occupy a certain position within a phrase or clause and to join with other elements to form syntagmas → Quirk → the unit´s privilege of occurence in terms of its position, mobility, optionality, dependence in the unit of which it is a constituent → Janigová → an interface between 2 layers of syntactic structure allowing to make syntactic generalizations about the unit´s realizations, position, grammatical properties and syntactic meaning → syntactic function → syntactic slots in surface frames activating certain grammatical features either in a clause (verb, subject, object, adverbial, complement) or in a phrase (head, modifier, determiner, auxiliary) Semasiological vs. onomasiological analysis → semasiological approach → to identify frames consisting of slots for words, phrases, semiclauses, and clauses in a sentence → onomasiological approach → to identify the onomasiological/cognitive/theta chains (Cognitive Question Test) Structure vs. function terms  sentence → structure terms → simple sentence, compound sentence (copulative, adversative...), complex sentence (nominal, relative, adverbial dependent clause) → function terms → speech-act functions (statement, question, command, wish...), grammatical types (declarative, interrogative, imperative, optative, exclamative)  clause 2  → structure terms → main/matrix clause, dependent clause → function terms → subject, object, adverbial, subject complement, object complement, postmodifier  semiclause → structure terms → gerund, participle, infinitive → function terms → subject, object, adverbial, subject complement, object complement, premodifier, postmodifier Onomasiological approach → the analysis derives from the meaning (theta meaning) → languaging → coordinated semiotic behaviour of humans in a consensual domain of interactions → onomasiology → derives from cognitive stratification of human experience Lexical Grammatical Theta Speech-act word Word phrase, clause, semi-clause sentence Lexicology Morphology Onomasiological/cognitive Pragmatics syntax Ranks of Word and Sentence → rank of sentence → its units are delineated by capitalization and punctuation (in writing); grammatical indicators are accompanied by prosody (in speech) → sentence (Prague School of Linguistics) → an elementary communicative utterance through which the speaker reacts to some reality or several items of reality in a manner that appears to be formally, customarily and subjectively complete → sentence → the fundamental units of communication and they serve as distributional fields of communicative dynamism (attribution of communicative significance to a particular linear chunk relative to one another in the process of communication → theme&rheme analysis); serves to carry out various pragmatic functions in concrete communication situations (statements, requests, questions, etc.) → the formal perfection vs. subjective completeness (la langue&la parole dichotomy) → classification of sentences depending on the number of clauses:  single-clause  multiple-clause → classification of sentences depending on the intention of the speaker&the canonical grammatical arrangements of units:  declarative  interrogative  imperative  exclamative  optative → the isolation of particular Word-rank segments in speech is governed by phonetic/phonologic and morphological/lexical rules 3  → the signalization of borderlines between respective units in written discourse is aided by the graphic spaces between particular orthographic units → the Word-rank analysis ends at the bottom of the syntactic pyramid by identifying word classes (parts of speech) The layer of clause → the number of autosemantic verbs delimits the number of clauses Clause vs. semi-clause Clause Semi-clause the presence of verb The presence of verb finite verb (person, number...) non-finite verb (infinitive, gerund, participle) dependent on the superordinate clause Fundamental syntactic relations → phrase level → determination, modification → clause level → predication, complementation, modification Determination → used for the function of words and phrases which in general determine what kind of reference a NP has (definite, indefinite, universal, partitive) → determiners → items realizing this function; occur before the noun acting as the Head of the NP and before its premodifiers → 3 classes of determiners:  Pre-determiners (half, all, double)  Central determiners (the, a/an, some, any, no, this, that)  Post determiners (cardinal and ordinal numbers, many, few) Modification → function of items within a NP adding some descriptive information to the head → an optional function performed for instance by adjectives in NP → modifiers → words modifying the head → 2 classes of modifiers:  Premodifier (a nice girl)  Postmodifier (a girl with long hair) Predication → the function of attributing a quality or assertion to the Subject of the clause by means of the clause element Verb Complementation → the function of a part of a phrase/clause which follows a word and completes the specification of a meaning relationship which that word implies → occurs with verbs/predicative adjectives in forms of Object, Object/Subject Complement, Adverbial Phrase-rank tests 4 → in syntax, words are treated as building blocks of syntactic phrases, which is demonstrated in the syntactic pyramid by the Phrase floor → the phrase is taken as a syntagma that operates as a clause member which is capable of activating grammatical and cognitive hints of syntactic information within the clause → delineation of words → aided by the unity of their form (orthographic&phonetic/phonologic) and lexical meaning → delimitation of phrases tests → transposition, substitution, coordination  transposition test → a/an (im)possibility of changing the position of words within a linear stretch of words → /the/ /old/ /man/ had taught the boy to fish → old* the* man had taught the boy to fish  substitution test → substituting words by other members of the same word classes → the old man had taught the boy to fish → that young fisherman had taught the boy to fish  coordination test → coordinating the whole stretch with an analogical stretch containing other members of the same word class → the old man and that young fisherman had taught the boy to fish → delimitation of phrases is crucial for the syntactic slotting of clauses which determines the syntactic constituency of clauses → phrases carry the cognitive and grammatical/coding information within the clause, their delimitation opens the positions/slots of clause elements  Cognitive Question Test → is used to demark the phrases → serves to hint on the cognitive roles activated by the phrases in a clause → rests in asking simple questions (WHO? does WHAT? To WHOM? HOW/WHERE/ WHEN/WHY?) → derives from the verb which stands as the centre of any syntactic considerations above the level of phrase → it also aids in identifying the cognitively prominent constituent of the phrase which is to be further referred to as the Head (carries the subtantive notional meaning and serves as the prominent bearer of the cognitive role, bears the onomasiological prominence of the phrase) → it tends to govern the rest of the constituents of the phrase headed by it or it reaches out of the limits of the phrase and extends to other clause elements (concord, government) → one of the proofs that cognitive and coding syntactic analyses cannot be treated separately (they are rather complementary)  analysis 1 → /John/ /gave/ /that book/ /to Jane/ → WHO? (John) gave What? (that book) to WHOM? (to Jane)  analysis 2 5  → /some Erasmus students/ /were reading/ /a new textbook on the English syntax/ /in the Department´s library/ → WHO? (some Erasmus students) were reading WHAT kind of a new textbook? (a new textbook on the English syntax) wre reading a new textbook WHERE? (in the Department´s library)  analysis 3 → /all provisions (contained in these Articles) and, ([to the extent that the same applies to the Company], Table A), (with reference to share certificates, lien, and the transfer or transmission of shares) /shall not apply/ /to any shares (included in a Share Warrant)/ → WHAT shall not apply? (all provisions...) provisions contained WHERE shall not apply? (all provisions contained in these Articles and (in) Table A) to WHAT extent Table A´s provisions are included? (to the extent that the same applies to the Company) WHAT kind of provisions shall not apply? (those which refer – with reference to share certificates, lien, and the transfer or transmissions of shares) such provision shall not apply to WHAT? (to any shares included in a share warrant) → slashes indicate the phrases on the level of clause, so called key phrases or valency/clause slots → round and square brackets indicate the internal structure within the key phrases → /I/ /won´t tell/ /you/ /what I like/ (dependent clause=what I like) → /I/ /hate/ /telling a lie/ (dependent semi-clause=telling a lie) → The Cognitive Question Test → centred around the Verb as the cognitive head of a clause or semi- clause → Phrase vs. clause → phrases lack valency/predication-based relations between their members; valency/predication-based relations can be detected on the level of clauses/semi-clauses Internal structure of phrases → classification of phrases depending on the nature of their internal constituency:  noun phrases (the old man, the boy) → consist of heads and modifiers → heads → the grammatically and onomasiologically prominent word class components of phrases → modifiers → components of phrases that add a semantic characteristics to the head; divided into premodifiers (Premod) and postmodifiers (Postmod) → determiners (Det) → function words; determine the kind of reference a noun phrase has (definite, indefinite, universal, situational); occur before the noun acting as the head of the NP and before its premodifiers → determiners (Det) → central determiners (the, a/an, some, any, no, this, that...); pre-determiners (half, all, double...); post-determiners (seven, many, few...)  verb phrases (loved, had taught) → made up of exclusively verbal constituents which may be classified either as heads or auxiliaries → heads → carry the notional meaning of the whole VP → auxiliaries → activate the grammatical and modal meaning thereof (must, have, be...) → operator → the first or only auxiliary in the finite VP 6  → depending on the morphological form of the Head verb → finite VP (-s form, past form, base form of 1st&2nd person sg. and pl., 3rd person pl., modals); non-finite VP (-ing, -ed, infinitive) → finite VP → verbs of finite clauses that may generate sentences independently as they are capable of activating tense and aspect contrasts, passive and active voice contrasts, and person and number concord with the subject of the clause → non-finite VP → are only able to indicate perfect/nonperfect aspect contrasts and active/passive voice contrasts; they function as verbs of semi-clauses (non-finite clauses) → semi-clauses → surface stretches clustered around the verb phrases containing their head verbs in the non-finite form; this verb keeps its valency (the ability to determine the syntactic ties between the constituents of the clause); cannot exist on their own, cannot realize sentences, and must be attached to another finite clause or must be embedded in a NP → I don´t like /to leave anything behind/ → The old man had taught the boy /to fish/ and the boy loved him  prepositional phrases (on the cheek) → composed of a prepositional navigator (PrepNav; rendered by prepositions as parts of speech) and a prepositional complement (PrepCompl; may be either NP or gerundial semi-clause) → prepositional complement → onomasiologically prominent → prepositional navigator → determines the cognitive valency reading of the prepositional complement  adverb phrases (very quickly, suddenly)  adjective phrases (the old man, a very nice girl) Phrase-clause interface → the isolation of phrases reveals the basic clause positions, or clause slots, and thus the proper isolation of phrases will reveal an internal structure of the clause 7  Valency (Frames and chains) Cognitive and coding alignments → when observing the world around us, we perceive it in terms of tangible and intangible entities in states or engaged in activities and processes which we classify further into cognitive categories which can be elicited through a simple set of questions → WHO/WHAT? – Does/Undergoes – WHAT? – (to WHOM?) – (HOW?) – (WHERE?) – (WHEN?) → cognitive roles (semantic/thematic/theta roles/deep level categories) → general coginitive concepts → cognitive alignments → the combinations and arrangements of these roles → coding alignments → the surface realizations of the cognitive alignments Lexical vs.syntactic meaning  lexical meaning → a set of general and unit-specific semantic features/semes that form a specific semantic range for the possible interpretations of units at the Word Rank → the concrete realization of the unit´s semantic potential (sense) depends on its syntagmatic environment  syntactic meaning → involves universal categories such as „willed action vs. unwilled action“, „state vs. process“, „perception vs. cognition/emotion“, „causativeness“, „qualification“ „circumstantiality“ → depends on the ability of the producer to trigger the recipient´s understanding of a particular combination of these universal cognitive categories → Fillmore → a matter of deep cases in terms of internal semantics activated by combinations and arrangements of phrases within the inner structure of clauses  selectional restrictions → the specific combination of cognitive roles either allows concrete lexical units to form particular cognitive alignments or prevents from doing so → John wrote a letter vs. The stone wrote a letter* → the semantic ranges of units at the Word Rank are tailored through the Phrase Rank at the Clause Rank in terms of sense and syntactic meaning  lexical vs. syntactic meaning → a sentence composed of the same autosemantic words/lexical units can activate 2 different cognitive readings of the phrases which they head → /the boy/ /dropped/ /a pen/ → SVO chain → NP + VP + NP → Doer + Willed action + Affected Entity (he did it intentionally) → Unintentional Performer + Unwilled Action + Specifier (he did it by accident → he was clumsy and dropped it) → these 2 syntactic meanings require distinct surface realizations and also the use of distinct lexical units in Slovak → Chlapec odhodil pero vs. Chlapcovi spadlo pero 8  → it is the situational or textual context that determines which of the possible cognitive alignments should be activated → the number of combinations of cognitive roles (cognitive alignments/frames) making up the syntactic meaning is rather limited which results from the fact that syntactic meaning involves a greater degree of generalizations and universalness Valency and valency constituents – elaborators of the Verb or the Action? → syntactic meaning becomes manifested at the Clause Rank via the Phrase Rank → the cognitive interpretation of the NP in the clause depends on whether the Action is Willed/Intentional or Unwilled/Unintentional → action is canonically realized through VP and its determination is central to syntactic analysis → verb-centered → Cognitive Question Test (WHO? WHAT action? WHAT is done? To WHOM? WHERE, WHEN, and HOW?) → every autosemantic verb occuring in a clause retains its own cognitive sphere of influence or attraction over the other components of the clause → Tesniére → a parallel between the central position of the verb in a clause and the sun at the centre of the solar system with the other planets orbiting in dependent positions → Allerton → valency is „the different potentials that individual verbs have for occuring in a variety of sentence structures“  valency → the action/verb-forced possibility of phrases co-occuring within a clause → the fundamental clause-diagnostic feature that distinguishes phrases from clauses or semi-clauses → can be analysed from 2 points of view:  semasiologically → starting from the surface function segments (S, O, C, A) → focuses on the surface arrangement of the clause elements concentrated around the verb  onomasiologically (cognitively) → starting from cognitive roles (Doer, Performer, Goal...) → concerned with the framing of the general cognitive categories which are arranged around the Action → the selection is determined rather by users who employ a particular verb with a particular setting Arguments&Non-Arguments → valency → comprised of the minimum number of elaborators; a reduction of the alignment which includes all the surface slots as well as the cognitive roles → each phrase performs a specific clause-relevant syntactic function Functions Subject (S) podmet Verb (V) slovesný prísudok Object (O) predmet Subject Complement (Cs) menná časť slovesno-menného prísudku Object Complement (Co) povinné doplnenie predmetu 9  Adverbial (A) príslovkové určenie Yesterday Jane wrote a long letter to her boyfriend Function Adverbial Subject Verb (did Direct Object Indirect Object (WHEN?) (WHO?) WHAT?) (A) (WHAT?) (D) (to WHOM?) Structure AP NP VP NP PrepP Cognitive role Temporal Agent Action Theme Donee → although each of these sets is concerned with a specific respective aspect of syntactic analysis (structure, function, syntactic meaning), they do not indicate the degree of the syntactic tightness obtaining between the particular elaborators and the VP → the cognitive and coding alignments are centred around the Action and the VP → regardless of whether the valency is perceived semasiologically or onomasiologically, it is generally agreed that the VP/Action structure exerts various degrees of syntactic attraction over the other clause segments → depending on the force exerted by the VP/Action, segments are divided into:  valency-mandatory (direct elaborators/Arguments) → build up coding valency chains at the surface level and cognitive valency frames at the deep level  valency-optional (indirect elaborators/Non-Arguments) → valency → the arrangement of the minimum mandatory VP/Action elaborators at both the grammatical/surface level as well as the cognitive/deep level Valency-mandatory vs. valency-optional clause segments  Tesniére  Actants (mandatory)  Circonstants (optional)  Miller → complements&adjuncts to define the subcategories of modifiers  Van Valin → semantic layer vs. syntactic layer a. semantic layer  arguments (direct dependents) → direct participants of the verbal action  adjuncts (indirect dependents) → locative/temporal references b. syntactic layer  terms → S, Od (direct), Oi (indirect) → the core of the clause 10   non-terms → remaining clause elements → part of the periphery of the clause (the verb is the nucleus of the clause) → valence → refers to the number of arguments that it takes Non-Argument Argument Action/Verb Argument Argument yesterday John gave a bunch of to Jane flowers Coding adverbial subject verb direct object indirect object alignment Coding valency subject verb direct object indirect object chain/arguments Cognitive circumstantial agent action theme donee alignment Cognitive agent action theme donee valency frame/arguments Coding Arguments&coding chains  arguments → coding clause elements (S, O, Cs, Co, A) → surface level → categories of abstract syntactic meaning/cognitive roles (agent, perceiver, patient, localizer, qualifier...) → coding markers/properties (cross-linguistic explicit markers) → inflection of nouns, pronouns, articles, adjectives, verbs, S/V agreement, plutipersonal concord in Basque, prepositions, aspect, tense&voice verb contrasts, word order, prosody&types of reflexive structures, lexical items (lexical base contrasts, adverbs, special types of auxiliaries); they exist in various combinations depending on the language type in question → implied markers → cognitive feasibility check (context) of a particular alignment that is inevitably performed when overt flagging fails; e.g. Slovak sentences where feminine nouns take the same form in both NOM and ACC sg., which exposes such clauses to 2 potential valency readings → loď prevrátila plť (ship overturned raft) → ship (NOM/ACC sg.), raft (NOM/ACC sg.) → cognitive feasibility check → the determination of which option is more feasible in a concrete situation; can be applied to determine the correct valency reading → the ship overturned the raft → Agent + Action + Patient, SVO chain → the purpose of both markers is to allow the hearer/reader to identify the intended cognitive meaning of the constituents → classification of verbs based on a semasiologically-biased valency concept:  mono-valent (taking only the Subject)  divalent (taking the Subject&Object)  trivalent (taking the Subject&2 Objects) 11   coding chains → there are 7 kernel types (surface valency chains) of English clauses → valency chains/coding chains/chains Chain Verb type Corresponding Slovak Example term SV Intransitive proper Intranzitívne sloveso The sun is shining SVCs Copular Sponové sloveso The girl is/seems nice SVA Copular (slovesno-menný p.) John is at home SVO Monotransitive Monotranzitívne sloveso She helped John SVOO Ditransitive Ditranzitívne sloveso Mary gave him a book SVOA Complex transitive Komplexne-tranzitívne Mary put the baby in the sloveso cradle SVOCo Complex transitive The jury finds him guilty Cognitive Arguments and cognitive frames → cognitive roles → general categories of syntactic meaning resulting from the mental projections of extralinguistic phenomena into language; realized through the Phrase rank and become manifest at the Clause rank → cognitive valency frames → the cognitive combinations reduced to the minimum mandatory cognitive roles capable of being perceived by the addressee as cognitively complete sets → cognitive arguments → all components of these frames are mandatory Action companions → cognitive alignments → combinations including both mandatory and non-mandatory Action elaborators Verb → used to indicate 2 different statuses:  word-class member (sloveso)  clause element (autosemantic verb=slovesný prísudok, auxiliary verb=spona slovesno-menného prísudku)  intransitive verbs (SV) → followed by no obligatory clause element  copular verbs (SVCs, SVA)  transitive verbs (SVO, SVOO, SVOCo, SVOA) → monotransitive (SVO), ditransitive (SVOO), complex transitive (SVOCo, SVOA) → 2 functions of the verb in the VP:  Head  Auxiliary (operator) → 1st or only auxiliary in a VP carrying the grammatical categories of the verb → division of VP based on the morphological form:  finite VP → the 1st or only ver bis finite verb and the rest are non-finite forms 12  The ship sank was sinking has been sinking must have been sinking operator (must, has, was); auxiliaries main verb/head  non-finite VP → 1st or only verb is nonfinite Valency-a surface or cognitive phenomenon?  Semasiological approach → surface arrangement → SVO chain  Onomasiological approach → deep arrangement → Agent + Action + Patient Frame Cognitive concept of valency → projection of humans´ conceptualization of relations existing between various entities, actions, states or processes observed in the extra-linguistic environment into sets of arrangements/chains of cognitive roles (e.g. Agent/Action/Patient) effected through surface syntactic units (functioning e.g. as Subject/Verb/Object) → based on the human´s ability to employ such patterns on a recurrent and analogical basis, e.g. inanimate cognitive patterns seem to be modelled according to animate cognitive patterns → John damaged the car vs. Lightning damaged the car Cognitive roles  entities  agent (cause-active entity) → intentional performer/doer, external causer, permitter, initiator, instrument  patient (cause-inactive entity) → unintentional performer/undergoer, affected participant, resultant, possessor/donee, focus, theme, specifier  experiencer (experiencing entity) → mental/bodily experiences → cognizer, emoter, perceiver, bearer  qualified entity (being attributed various characteristics)  localized entity (being allocated with various circumstances)  states/actions (intentional/unintentional)  circumstances (spacial/temporal/mannerial) Agent (cause-active entity) 13 Intentional performer/Doer an animate entity that actively He is digging the garden engages in an action or state with intention and awareness External causer influences the situation or The flood destroyed several event from outside, often villages leading to an effect on another entity, which may be the subject of the verb Permitter an entity that allows or enables John grows his beard in winter certain actions or processes to occur Initiator the entity that triggers or He jumped the horse over the fence causes the action or event Instrument an inanimate entity that The key opened the door facilitates the action but is not itself the initiator or doer Patient (cause-inactive entity) Unintentional an entity experiences an action or John broke his leg performer/Undergoer state without intending to perform it Affected participant an entity that undergoes a change John painted the wall or is impacted by the action Resultant an entity that is produced, created, John painted a landscape or brought into existence as a result of an action Possessor/Donee an entity that holds or owns John gave her a present something (Possessor), the (Possessor); John got a present recipient of an action or object (Donee) (Donee) Focus the most important information or John loves Jane the element that the speaker intends to highlight Theme a cognitive or semantic role John gave her a present assigned to an entity that is affected by or involved in the action described by the verb but is not the agent performing the action 14 Specifier a participant or syntactic element John broke his leg that specifies or qualifies another element within a phrase or clause Experiencer (experiencing entity) Cognizer an entity that perceives, thinks, or John remembered his name has knowledge about something Emoter an entity that experiences or John loved her expresses an emotion or mental state Perceiver an entity that experiences or John saw a girl (looked at her) senses an action, state, or event, typically through one of the senses (sight, hearing, etc.) Bearer an entity that undergoes an action John is aging or experiences a state 15  Action frames, Existential frames, Qualifying frames (subject-oriented) Action Frames → convey activities, processes or states requiring a single Argument (Agent/Experiencer) → these Arguments are realized by nominal structures (NP=subject) → canonical chain: SV → canonical structure: NP + VP → canonical Arguments in the frame: Agent/Experiencer + Action/Process  Doer Action sub-frame → Doer + Willed Action → Doer = an animate intentional performer of Action/an inanimate entity (metaphoric extension) → /He/ /is swimming/ → /Winter/ /came/  Bearer Action sub-frame → Bearer + Unwilled state/Process → Bearer = entities involved in various kinds of spontaneous states and processes → /John/ /is aging/ → /The sun/ /shines/  Perceiver Action sub-frame → Perceiver-Specifier + State/Process → Perceiver-Specifier = activated by a non-argument surface element (the determiner of the Head of the NP) → /My leg/ /hurts/  Undergoer Action sub-frame → Undergoer + Unwilled action → Undergoer = a cause-inactive entity involved in some kind of unwilled action → /John/ /is drowning/ → /John/ /slipped/ /on a banana peal/ SV(A) → /the car/ /crashed/  Atmospheric Action sub-frame → Prop It + Atmospheric condition → /It/ /´s snowing/ Existential Frames → an idea of existence of an entity (both concrete and abstract), or its appearance on the scene, with or without some locative or modal specifications → they involve either 1 cognitive Argument (Existing entity), or 2 cognitive Arguments (Existing entity&Localizer) → canonical chain: SV → canonical structure: NP + VP 16  → canonical Arguments in the Frame (macro-roles): Existing entity + State of existence  Existential sub-frame proper → Existing entity + State of existence → coding analysis: SV → structural analysis: NP + VP → /new answers/ /exist/ → this sub-frame may also include a Temporal Circumstantial which qualifies as Argument especially if it activates negation → /the problem/ /still/ /exists/ (SV/SVA)  Dummy there existential sub-frame → Dummy there + Existential be + Existing entity → coding analysis: S(there)V(be)S > SV → structural analysis: dummy there + VP (be) + NP → /there/ /came/ /some rain/ → there → a pronominal nature, serves as the Subject slot filler → Activates an idea of existence/non-existence of an entity or phenomenon, the verb to be is auto- semantic  Dummy there existential-locative sub-frame → Dummy there + Existential be + Existing/Localized Entity + Localizer → coding analysis: S(there)V(be)SA → structural analysis: dummy there + VP(be) + NP + PrepP → /there/ /is/ /a book/ /on the table/ → activated by 2 Arguments (Existing Entity&Localizer) encoded as post-verb Subject&Adverbial  Dummy there action existential-locative sub-frame → Dummy there + Existential be + Action + Localizer → Coding analysis: S(there)V(be)S(action)A → structural analysis: dummy there + VP(be) + NP + PP → /there/ /was/ /a wolf´s howl/ /in the distance/  Dummy there modal existential-locative sub-frame → Dummy there + Modal be (+no) + -ing Action + Localizer → coding analysis: S(there)V(be)(no)SA → structural analysis: dummy there + VP(be) + Gerundial semi-clause (no=gerundial determiner) + PrepP/AP → /there/ /is/ /no smoking/ /in these premises/ Qualifying Frames → various kinds of value judgments about features or qualities attributable to entities → these entities may be qualified either as Subjects or Objects → canonical chain: SVCs → 2 coding Arguments (S, Cs) of the Verb are required 17  → chain diagnostic verbs: be (copular/linking function); become, seem, appear, sound, turn (semi- copular=both linking function&some additional semantic components) → autosemantic verbs whose cognitive completeness requires a mandatory qualifier → resemble, equal... → canonical Arguments in the Frame (macro-roles): Qualified Entity + State/Process + Qualifier → qualifiers:  current qualifier (State) → be, appear, seem, feel, look, sound, smell, taste... → replaceable by the verb „be“  resulting qualifier (Process) → become, get, turn, go, grow, prove, turn... → replaceable by the verb „become“ → tests:  the replaceability of the verb by „be“ or „become“  the impossibility to passivize the Cs → canonical structure: NP + VP + NP/AdjP → the Cs may be realized by nominal structures (by NP&AdjP), but also semi-clauses (gerundial&infinitival) and nominal types of finite dependent clauses → diagnostic test:  reduceability/replaceability by a simple noun (phrase) or adjective (phrase) Structural realization of the Subject Complement NP headed by: -common case noun He is a student. -possessive case noun This car is John´s. -adjective (AdjP) The still, fog-shrouded valley was absolutely silent. Pronoun -personal subjective/objective It is she/her -possessive This house is ours. -reflexive He seems himself once more. -interrogative Who are you? -indefinite You can be anyone you want to be. Numeral -cardinal She is ten. -ordinal He was the first. Infinitive semi-clause/non-finite clause The real mistake is to stop trying. Gerundial semi-clause Seeing is believing. Finite dependent clause That´s what he looks. Adjectivized participle I am surprised./It is interesting. Participle The answer is no. 18  Evaluative Qualifying sub-frame → My decision is final  Action Qualifying sub-frame → I am a big eater → The patient is under observation  Classifying Qualifying sub-frame → Clay became a public defender → indefinite article  Identifying Qualifying sub-frame → the tall man is the guide → definite article  Possessive Qualifying sub-frame → follows the copular verb to have and is not passivizable → he has a car (SVCs) → the Possessive Qualifying Frame may be synonymous with the Evaluative Qualifying Frame (not always the case!) → she has blue eyes (Possessive) → her eyes are blue (Evaluative) → when the Qualified Entity is a true Possessor based on an entailed donation of external objects, this sub- frame may synonymize with the Possessive Patient sub-frame → he has a car (SVCs) (Possessive Qualifying=not passivizable) → he owns a car (SVO) → a car is owned by him (Possessive Patient=passivizable) → both are cognitively synonymous with the Relational Qualifying Frame (The car belongs to him) → Possessive Qualifying Frames (copular „have“ + an action noun, e.g. I have a bath) do not synonymize with „belong“ (Relational Qualifying frame), they can be treated as realization of the Doer Action sub- frames (I bath)  Relational Qualifying sub-frame → the Verb expresses a particular Relation (not being a true copular verb) and the Subject Complement conveying the Relation Referent → autosemantic verb; the post-verb element is not passivizable → coding analysis: SVCs → structural analysis: NP + VP + NP → cognitive analysis: Qualified Entity + Composite Qualifier (Relation + Referent)  equality → nothing can ever equal that experience  similarity → terrier dogs closely resemble each other  comparison → the cost exceeded our estimate  possession 19  → the book belongs to me  content → the thesis contains/consists of 3 chapters  Perception-evaluative Qualifying sub-frame → coding analysis: SVCs/SVA → structural analysis: NP + VP + AdjP/AP → cognitive analysis: Perceiver/Qualified Entity + Perception + Perception Qualifier → he felt cold → the movie was terrifying (the movie terrified me → the movie = stimulus, me = perceiver) → the soup tastes delicious Prototypical Cs  coding (formal) markers → post-Verb position, no V-Cs concord  structural realization → NP/AdjP  cognitive markers → prototypical cognitive role of Qualifier  valency Argument in SVCs 20  Patient frames Patient Frames → Patient Argument = cognitive marker of Patient Frames Coding markers → on the surface, Patient Frames must include an Object Argument → the Object Argument may either occur as a single post-V Argument (SVO), or it may be followed by any of the following: another Object (SVOO), Object Complement (SVOCo) or Adverbial (SVOA)  SVO → he painted the wall  SVOO → John gave Jane the book  SVOA → she put the pen into a bag  SVOCo → they considered him guilty → diagnostic coding markers: word order, object case of pronouns, lack of V/O concord, passive transformation Grammaticalized word order → in English the Subject/Object contrast is activated by the position relative to the verb, i.e. the immediate post-Verb position is reserved for the Object → word order → fixed in English to such a degree that it serves as grammaticalizer; employed for grammatical purposes the same way as grammatical affixes (inflectional/synthetic languages) → pre/post-V position of a NP carries the same grammatical information as the nominative/accusative inflectional contrast in Slovak (it allows language users to distinguish the Subject from Object) → Peter loves Jane (SVO) → Peter ľúbi Janu (SVO) → Jane loves Peter (SVO) → Janu ľúbi Peter (OVS) → 2 types of Objects:  Direct Object  Indirect Object → they differ from each other by their mutual position and distinct case form in inflectional languages → the cognitive cases identifiable as Theme (Direct Object) and Donee (Indirect Object) are activated by the post-Verb position relative to each other depending on the type of structure realizing them → if the Indirect Object is realized by a NP, it precedes the Direct Object → if the Indirect Object is realized by a PP, it follows the Direct Object → Peter gave Jane (Oi) some flowers (Od) → Peter gave some flowers (Od) to Jane (Oi) 21  Direct Object (Theme) → Od -the omission of the Od would result in changing the cognitive role of the Oi (Donee → Theme), itself being reinterpreted as Od Indirect Object (Donee) → Oi -positionally more central, placed closer to the Verb positionally -its surface omission does not affect the cognitive completeness of the Verb -the Donee remains implicitly present in the frame (even though the Oi was removed from the surface chain) Object case of pronouns → the Object case is formally identical with the common case in both nouns and pronouns, except for personal pronouns → I&me, he&him, she&her, we&us, they&them → interrogative&relative pronoun who&whom → what → case syncretism → what causes the death? (SVO) vs. what did the death cause? (OVSV) Lack of Verb/Object concord → there is no Verb/Object concord, which is a coding marker that shows a different degree of grammatical interdependence obtaining between the Verb and the Subject, and that between the Verb and the Object → the Subject commands the form of the Verb as to person and number → the children are reading a book/books vs. the children is reading a book/books* Passivization test → the major coding Object-diagnostic test → fully feasible with Agentive Patient Frames where the Agent performs, instigates, or causes the action which subsequently involves/affects the Patient → John painted the picture → the picture was painted by John → Passivization test is also possible with Experiencer Patient Frames → John loves Jane (SVO) → Jane is loved by John (pass SVO) → in SVOO chains both Direct and Indirect Objects meet the Passivization test → Peter gave some flowers to Jane → some flowers were given to Jane by Peter/Jane was given some flowers by Peter Structural markers → the diagnostic/canonical structural realization of the Object slot is a NP → the structural diagnostic test for Object → the Replaceability/Reduceability by a simple NP → you can take anything you like → you can take it/that Structural realization of Objects 22  NP headed by noun -common case noun I kicked the ball as hard as I could. -possessive case noun I like Peter´s more. -substantivized adjective/participle She gives a lot of money to the poor. -substantivized adverbial She deserves better. NP headed by pronoun -personal/objective case pronoun She didn´t like him. -possessive pronoun She didn´t like his. -demonstrative pronoun He didn´t know that. -indefinite pronoun You can take anything you want. -reflexive pronoun At dawn, he found himself in a thick bed of reeds. -relative pronoun I know what he is hiding up his sleeve. NP headed by numeral -ordinal Could you take only three. -cardinal I found the third. PP They provided us with shelter. Finite dependent clause That´s what she looks. Infinitive semi-clause She loves to watch detective films. Gerundial semi-clause Both spouses admitted attempting to hide the true extent of their assets. Cognitive markers → canonical/diagnostic role of Object: Patient (Animate/Inanimate Entities) → Patient → not directly involved in Actions/States, but is affected by them, or come into existence through their operation → classification:  Agentive Patient sub-frames → Activated by causative verbs requiring Agent of various sub-types in combination with various micro- roles of Patient → SVO, SVOO, SVOA → they are passivizable a. Agentive Patient Sub-frames realized as SVO  she kissed him on the mouth (Doer&Affected Entity)  Jane made a cake (Doer&Resultant)  In 1906 the earthquake destroyed San Francisco (External Causer&Affected Entity)  I don´t play poker (Doer&Action Specifier)  he climbed Mt.Gerlach (Doer&Locative Specifier)  John grows his beard in winter (Permitter&Bearer)  he was watching a film (Doer Experiencer&Focus)  his jokes amused me (Stimulus&Experiencer/Affected Entity) 23  the key opened the door (Instrument&Affected Entity) → Permitter Sub-frame → intentionality of the Agent/Permitter exerted upon the Bearer of a Process; the Permitter´s intentional activity is activated implicitly by this concrete combination of cognitive roles → Doer/Experiencer Patient Frames → agentive use of verbs related to perception and cognition; John listened to him vs. John heard him → Stimulus&Instrument Sub-frames → may be treated as cognitive transpositions of their underlying canonical variants involving an animate Agent/Doer → Doer + Action + Experiencer/Affected Entity + Stimulus → a comedian amused the audience with his jokes (his jokes amused the audience) → Doer + Action + Focus/Affected Entity + Instrument → an IT nerd solved the problem with Keboola prompts (Keboola prompts solved the problem) b. Agentive Patient Sub-frames realized as SVOO i. Donation sub-frames → canonical/diagnostic distribution of cognitive Arguments: Donor + Donation + Donee + Theme → Theme (Direct Object), Donee/Recipient (Indirect Object)  she bought him a car (Donor&Donee&Theme)  they served a writ of summons on the defendant (Donor&Donee&Theme)  we provided them with food and shelter (Donor&Donee&Theme)  he gave the car a wash (Quazi Donor&Quazi Donee&Eventive Patient/Quazi Theme) → Eventive Sub- frame  they guaranteed them the right to collective bargaining (Promisor&Promisee&Object of Promise) → Commitment Sub-frame  I owe you 5 dollars (Promisor/Obligor&Promisee/Obligee&Object of Transfer/Theme) → Commitment Sub-frame  they charged him 200€/they deprived him of property (Taker&Injured Party&Theme) → the Donation frame entails both of the Possessive Sub-frames (Possessive Patient&Qualifying) → Theme&Donee → may be realized by both NP and PP → Theme (PP) → to provide with, to furnish with, to entrust with, to charge with → Theme (PP) is still passivizable as a simple NP → we provided them with food and shelter → they were provided with food and shelter → Eventive Donation Sub-frame → Quazi Donor + Quazi Donation + Quazi Donee + Eventive Patient; SVOO; he gave the car a wash (the Possession test does not apply → the car possesses a wash*) → Commitment Sub-frame → involves a commitment on the part of the Promisor toward the Promisee (mortgagor&mortgagee, obligor&obligee...) (the mortgagee possesses the money*) → reversed side of donation → steal, rob, deprive, charge → Doer → acting either dishonestly or from the position of power → Patient → rather injured (the Injured Party → passivizable smoothly) → Theme → passivization is completely impossible → they deprived him of liberty → he was deprived of liberty → liberty was deprived of him* 24  → Omissibility test → they charged him 200€ → they charged him (?) → they charged 200€ → Injured Party (passivization) → he was stolen a car → a car was stolen from him → Omissibility test → they stole him a car? → they stole him* → they stole a car ii. Dicendi sub-frame → involves a sub-type of cognitive verbs (verba dicendi → verbs of speaking, expressing ideas, promising) which require Cognizer, Resultant Focus and Addressee as elaborators → Jane told him a story  Experiencer Patient frames → are activated by verbs lexicalizing various physical, emotional and perception states by which Experiencers are subclassified → they are realized by the SVO chain → the diagnostic Patient micro-role: Focus  I know him (Cognizer&Current Focus)  he asked a question/he said something/she argued that the proposed law should be defeated (Doer Cognizer&Resultant Focus)  Mary enjoyed the play (Emoter&Focus)  I can hear birds outside (Perceiver&Focus)  John owns a house (Possessor&Current Theme)  John received a summons (Possessor&Resultant Theme)  John broke his leg (Unintentional Performer/Undergoer&Relation (Part-Whole) Specifier)  John broke her heart (Unintentional Performer&Affected Entity)  the company has incurred huge losses over the past three years (Unintentional Performer&Theme/Resultant)  six patients underwent this kind of operation (Undergoer&Specifier)  the film sold thousands of tickets in presale (Relation/Respect Exponent&Theme Relation/Respect Specifier) → Experiencer → animate entities; inanimate entities (metaphoric expressions) → Experiencer Possession Sub-frame → synonymous with Possessive Qualifying Frame, but it differs by the possibility of passivization → John owns a house vs. a house is owned by John; John has blue eyes → blue eyes are had by John* The purchaser received the goods (obdržať/prevziať) Experiencer Possession Frame The purchaser accepted the goods (prijať) Agentive Donation Frame → Undergoer Patient Frame → Relation Specifier (Direct Object); the Subject Undergoer (a transposed Affected Entity from a prime causative Agentive Patient Frame) → Prime version → some external intervener broke John´s leg → John broke his leg → Prime → Doer&Theme&Relation/Respect Specifier → the film sold thousands of tickets in pre-sale → the production company sold thousands of tickets (theme) for this film (respect specifier) in a pre-sale 25  → Non-Primal combination of cognitive Arguments → Focus Subject&Cognizer Object → it seems to me that she is quite crazy → does not meet the Passivization Test Focus&Cognizer it occurred to me that I forgot your birthday → SVO it seems to me that she is quite crazy → SVO she reminds me of her mother → SVOA Focus&Cognizer English interests me  Circumstantial Patient-like frames → involve a combination of Agent/Experiencer and various Patient-like elaborators → passivization → smooth when the cognitive role of the Object is clearly that of an affected participant in a causative frame (a surface transposition) Circumstantial Patient Frames (SVO) Bearer&Resultant centipedes grow their legs their legs are What do they grow? at various stages of their grown...* development Doer&Action Specifier they were dancing a waltz a waltz was danced by What they were them(?) dancing? Doer&Locative Specifier they climbed a hill a hill was climbed by What did they climb? them Doer&Measure Specifier they ran 20 miles 20 miles were run by How many miles did them (?) they run? Localizer/Source& the broken pipe was water was run by the From where was water Exponent/Undergoer running water broken pipe* running? Doer&Eventive he took a shower a shower was taken by What did he take? him Emoter&Cognate he smiled his ironic smile his ironic smile was How did he smile? smiled by him* 26  Circumstantial frames Circumstantial frames → used to activate either various circumstantial features pertaining either to the Agent/Experiencer or to the Patient → they are diagnostically realized by AP which function as Adverbials, they can qualify either as Arguments (in the Circumstantial Frames) or as Non-Arguments (optional modifiers within clauses, AdjP or AP, and they can also be employed as sentence modifiers) Coding markers → Adverbial modifiers are grammatically diagnosed by their position relative to the Verb, their lack of Verb – Adverbial concord, and the inapplicability of the Passivization Test a. Position → Adverbials can often be placed at different locations within a clause; for example, they may occur after the Verb, within the verb phrase, at the pre-Head position within adverb and adjective phrases, but also initially and finally in the clause/sentence  Post-Verb/clause final position  Pre-head within the VP, AdjP, AP  Before the focused or evaluated clause b. No passive transformation → surface clause components which qualify as Adverbials do not meet the Passivization Test, and this represents a clear coding diagnostic criterion distinguishing them from the Object → don´t move an inch! → an inch is not moved* (Adverbial) Structural markers → the Test of Reducibility to/Replaceability by a simple adverb → to distinguish Adverbials from Subject Complements → don´t move an inch → don´t move there/at all (Adverb Replaceability Test) → A → it means that we have time → it means that (Nominal Replaceability Test) → Cs AP the wolf songs lasted a minute or two but resonated much longer NP the wolf songs lasted a minute or two but resonated much longer PrepP each morning and night I swept the hillsides with binoculars, hopeful of a miracle Finite dependent clause I will help him however I can Infinitive semi-clause/non-finite clause he stopped to watch the sunset Gerundial semi-clause/non-finite clause because of having travelled abroad, families and friends give them a status of lucky and privileged people -ing participle semi-clause/non-finite clause I asked, immediately realizing the stupidity of the question 27 Cognitive markers → diagnostic cognitive role of Adjunct Adverbial: Circumstantial Feature → Circumstantial correlates with Exponent as the cognitive label used to indicate the entity that is exposed to various circumstantial features  /John/ /is/ /at home/ → Exponent + Copula + Circumstantial/Localizer  /John/ /put/ /his hands/ /into his pockets/ → Agent + Action + Patient/Exponent + Circumstantial/Localizer → the Cognitive Question Test can also be used reliably to distinguish the Adverbial from other clause elements, eliciting various micro-roles within the domain of Circumstantial Feature by means of interrogative items such as Where? When? How? Why? or For what purposes? → the Cognitive Question Test can also function as a diagnostic test allowing the delineation of two general sub-categories of Adverbials, namely Adjuncts and Sentence Adverbials which are themselves further sub-divided into Disjuncts and Conjuncts → while Adjuncts are Adverbials which are incorporated in the clause structure either as Arguments or Non-Arguments, Sentence Adverbials stand outside the clause structure and form components of sentences → only Adjuncts can be elicited by the Cognitive Question Test → her hair curls naturally (how does her hair curl?) Cognitive Macro-role Cognitive Micro-roles Question Test Place Position Where? Direction To where? Source From where? In what direction? Distance How far? Time Position When? Duration How long? Frequency How often? Relation Since/until when? Manner Proper How Subject Adjuncts What was the Subject like in doing so? Means/Instrument By means of what/with what? Accompanying circumstances How? Viewpoint/Respect From what point of view?In what respect? Result Changed into what? Measure Measure proper To what degree/extent? Intensifiers Amplifiers Intensifiers Downtoners Contingency Reason Why? 28  Purpose For what purpose? Effect So-that? Condition If what? Concession In spite of what? Source From what? Agency By whom/by what? Focusing - Exponent shifted to Adjunct slot tears were streaming/running down her face → her face streamed tears → Adjuncts can qualify as both Arguments and Non-Arguments, but the Omissibility Test can be used to distinguish between the 2 categories Argument he is going to school → he is Direction Localizer going* Argument she put her bracelet in the box → Direction Localizer she put her bracelet* Non-Argument he is coming from school → he is Source Localizer coming Non-Argument she found her bracelet in the box Position Localizer →she found her bracelet Circumstantial frames → cognitive frames incorporating Circumstantials as Arguments → they are realized either as SVA or SVOA coding chains, Argument Adjuncts convey various circumstantial features assigned to their Exponents (i.e., the Subject in SVA, and the Object in SVOA) a. Circumstantial sub-frames with Subject Exponent  Locative sub-frame → coding analysis: SVA → structural analysis: NP + VP + AP/PrepP → 2 mandatory Arguments of the Verb, i.e., a Subject, indicated by the left-to-the-Verb position in English and the mandatory Adjunct (A) indicated by the right-to-the-verb position: SVA → verbs which occur in this frame are auto-semantic verbs whose cognitive completeness requires a mandatory localizing post-verb Argument → cognitive analysis: Exponent + State/Action + Spatial Feature/Localizer (positional/directional localizer)  he is here (position)  the Himalayas stretch uninterruptedly for about 1,550 miles from west to east (distance/position) 29  he went to school (direction)  Reversed Locative sub-frame → the order of Exponent and Localizer is reversed on the surface of the Reversed Locative sub-frame as a result of the metaphoric elaboration of the prime Locative sub-frame → tears streamed down her cheeks → her cheeks streamed with tears → cognitive analysis: Exponent + Process + Localizer → Localizer + Process + Exponent → can be identified correctly if the Adjunct is realized by a NP → a structure in which segments tears/blood are considered as an Object (based on Nominal Reducibility Test) is not passivizable because the cognitive relations between the pre-Verb and post-Verb component are not causative → if we apply the Cognitive Question Test, this string can be interpreted as a Reversed Locative sub- frame, in which tears/blood can be analysed as an Exponent and her cheeks/Hagrid´s nose as a Localizer → the structure can be interpreted as a SVA coding chain → her cheeks streamed with tears → down cheeks to her were running tears (back translation) → Reversed Locative sub-frame → employs autosemantic verbs whose nominal post-Verb components cannot be pasivized; the bottle (localizer) contains milk (exponent) → milk is in the bottle  Temporal sub-frame → coding analysis: SVA → structural analysis: NP + VP + PrepP/AP → cognitive analysis: Exponent + State/Action + Temporal Feature/Circumstantial (When?How long? Since/Until when?)  he lived in the nineteenth century (point in time)  the journey takes/lasts two hours (duration)  he has lheld two jobs since he graduated (time reference)  Manner sub-frame → coding analysis: SVA → structural analysis: NP + VP + AP → cognitive analysis: Exponent + State/Action + Manner Feature/Circumstantial (how?)  he behaved badly  the defendant pleads guilty  Measure sub-frame → coding analysis: SVA → structural analysis: NP + VP + AP → cognitive analysis: Exponent + Copula/Semi-Copula + Measure Feature/Circumstantial (how much? how far? how long?)  he weights 60 kg  he is 10 years old  this book (Exponent) cost me 20 euros (Measure Circumstantial) 30  Capacity sub-frame → coding analysis: SVA → structural analysis: NP + VP + AP → cognitive analysis: Capacity Exponent + Capacity Feature + Capacity Degree → Airbus A310 seats 220 passengers in two classes → Overt markers → modal auxiliaries (can, may), periphrasic structures (be able to) realizing Action Frames (I can read) and Patient Frames (I can do it) → Circumstantial Capacity Sub-frame → used to activate an idea of potential capacity, quality or capacity without the presence of an explicit marker of potential or possibility; notionally realized by the Verb, and its degree is expressed by an Argument Adjunct and is activated cognitively by a combination of the Capacity Feature and the Capacity Degree assigned to the Capacity Exponent Subject → this arrangement allows a cognitive reading of the coding chain SVA as a Capacity Sub-frame → this beer (capacity exponent) drinks well (capacity degree) → the Capacity Sub-frame is activated by a combination of the Capacity Feature/Purpose and its Degree (Subject Exponents only) → the Airbus seats 220 passengers in two classes → the Airbus A310 has a capacity of 220 passengers (paraphrase) → a dispositive reading may also be activated by the SV coding chain in which the Degree is left unstated but the disposition is implicitly present → the book sells (SV) → the book is in demand and people want to buy it (paraphrase) → it is also identified in SV realization involving the modal verbs can/may as operators in complex VP, the Capacity Degree is not present in this sub-type (Action Frame) → the company was therefore the only one which could complain  Qualifier respect sub-frame → coding analysis: SVCsA → structural analysis: NP + VP + AdjP + PrepP → cognitive analysis: Exponent + Copula + Qualifier + Respect (in respect of what?) → Qualifier Respect Circumstantial Sub-frames are composed of predicative adjectives expressing emotion, inclination or relation functioning as Subject Complements and an Adjunct usually realized by a prepositional phrase: interested in music, afraid of dark, in love with somebody, good at  Jane is afraid of dark  I am done with them  her dress is almost identical with mine → comparative structures can also be ranked with this sub-frame (SVCsA) → he is old enough to know better; she is older than him b. Circumstantial sub-frames with Object Exponent  Patient-locative sub-frame → coding analysis: SVOA → structural analysis: NP + VP + NP + PrepP 31 → cognitive analysis: Agent + Action + Patient/Theme + Direction Localizer (to/where?)  she put the basket on the chair  I rank you among my very best friends → Direction Localizers can also be viewed as Non-Arguments  they filed an appeal with a higher court  he tossed a folded newspaper across the desk  Patient-respect sub-frame → coding analysis: SVOA → structural analysis: NP + VP + NP + PrepP → cognitive analysis: Doer + Action + Affected Entity + Respect (in respect of what?)  they charged him with burglary  they accused him of theft  he diagnosed a patient with brain concussion  please advise us of problems as they happen  Patient-manner sub-frame → coding analysis: SVOA → structural analysis: NP + VP + NP + AP/PrepP → cognitive analysis: Doer + Action + Affected Entity + Manner (how?)  she treats me badly  they treat me like a criminal  now we can think of them differently  Covert Initiation sub-frame → coding analysis: SVOA → strctural analysis: NP + VP + NP + PrepP → cognitive analysis: Initiator + Initiating/Initiated Action + Affected Entity/Doer + Circumstantial (Localizer/Manner...)  he marched his company up the hill  they swore him to secrecy → the Covert Initiation Sub-frame → marked by a doubling of the micro-roles of the Affected Entity/Doer in the Object slot and the presence of an implied Initiation Action on the part of the Subject Initiator → the passivization of the Object → his company was marched by him* 32  Sentence Adverbials Adjuncts vs. Sentence Adverbials → there are 2 major sub-classes of Adverbials:  Adjuncts → can be elicited by the Cognitive Question Test → they fall within the cognitive domain of the Verb of a clause and can qualify either as its Arguments or Non-Arguments → may modify a verb, an adjective, a adverb, a clause → position → postverbal position, before the expression they modify → no passive transformations → since AP is the diagnostic structural realization of Adjuncts, it may be used as a test (reduceability/replaceability by a simple adverb) → structural realizations → AP, NP, PP, a finite subordinate clause, an infinitive semi-clause, -ing participle semi-clause, gerundial semi-clause, verbless clause  Sentence Adverbials → are not subject to Cognitive Question Test → they stand outside the Verb´s alignment of cognitive roles → they are components of the sentence → initial position, independent intonation unit, the inability of being elicited by alternative interrogation and negation, the inability of being subject to focusing by Focusing Adjuncts, the inability of being subject to focusing by cleft sentences a. disjuncts style disjuncts content disjuncts comment on the style and form of what is being said express speaker´s observations or attitudes regarding the actual content of an utterance; commenting on its certainty or truth conditions can be paraphrased by phrases (e.g. to put it frankly, can be paraphrased by Qualifying Frames → the frankly speaking, to be frank) Qualified Entity is realized as a postponed dependent Subject declarative clause&the Qualifier is activated by an adjective-conversed Content Disjunct; the Sentential Relative Clause can also be used (e.g. surprisingly, be surprising)  style disjuncts  content disjuncts → tend to occupy the front position as a separate intonation unit, even in negative sentences → cannot be elicited by the Manner Cognitive Question Test (how?) and they do not fall under the scope of the negation of the Verb 33  i. evaluating the content → properly, luckily, rightly, hopefully... ii. relating to the certainty → definitely, certainly, obviously, undoubtedly... iii. relating to the factuality → actually, maybe, perhaps, really, indeed, actually... → cannot be safely paraphrased by the Subject Declarative Clause Test → it was really not my fault → it was real that it was not my fault* b. conjuncts listing in the first place, next, then, first, second, to start with, to conclude, eventually additive above all, moreover, in addition, furthermore, similarly, besides summative altogether, all in all, overall appositive namely resultive so, therefore, as a result, hence, thereby adversative yet, still, nevertheless, however, though Adverbial polyfunctionality → the decision to rank a particular segment with a particular sub-class is always context-dependent → a single semantic interpretation in a single context → diagnostic factors: position, paraphrase and intonation  Manner Proper Adjuncts vs. Subject Adjuncts → they both satisfy the diagnostic Manner Cognitive Question Test (how?in what manner?), but the evaluative attitude of Subject Adjuncts is related not only to the action but also to the Agent/Subject performing it → the paraphrase „in an ADJ manner“ is only applicable to the Manner Proper Adjuncts → the final position clearly distinguishes Manner Proper Adjuncts from Subject Adjuncts  she properly wrote her homework → she wrote her homework properly (Manner Proper Adjunct)  he foolishly ignored his parents´ advice → he ignored his parents´ advice foolishly* (Subject Adjunct) → Manner Proper Adjuncts can function as both Arguments and Non-Arguments → Subject Adjuncts are always Non-Arguments → Manner Proper Tests → in what manner? → Subject Adjunct Test → how?  Subject Adjuncts vs. Content Disjuncts → they both can be understoof as evaluating the content of the utterance as a whole, and therefore both structures can be paraphrased by the Subject Declarative Clause Test (Adj THAT clause...) 34  → Subject Adjuncts can be viewed as evaluating the Subject and the manner of its behaviour/attitude and can therefore be elicited by the Manner Cognitive Question Test (How?) related to the Subject of the clause → Subject Adjuncts are incorporated into the clause structure as Non-Arguments → Content Disjuncts always stand aside from the Verb´s alignment → voluntarily, accidentally, deliberately, willingly, reluctantly → they evaluate the Agent/Subject cognitively but formally meet only the Declarative Clause Paraphrase (he intentionally omitted my name → it was intentional that he omitted my name; he was intentional in that she omitted my name*)  Measure Adjunct Intensifiers vs. Content Disjunct → the Content Disjunct reading is activated through its front position (or final position), with the separate intonation indicated by a comma → the Measure Adjunct Intensifier reading is activated by its position between the Subject and the Verb (or between the Operator and the Head in a complex VP) → when an -ly adverb is incorporated into a phrase (AdjP/AP), it has a manner/measure effect, while it has a Content Disjunct reading it fronted (the water is really hot vs. really, the water is hot)  Focusing Adverbials → they serve as rhematizers → tools to focus the addressee´s attention on the piece of information that is most important from the perspective of the communication → the denomination of this sub-class of Adverbials → only, especially, as well, also, even, just, merely, solely, alone, simply, especially, particularly, in particular neither – nor (even), both – and (also), not only – but (also) → narrow orientation Subjuncts (Greenbaum&Quirk):  restrictive → I merely wanted to know his name (I didn´t want to know anything else)  additive → Fred had also invited his mother-in-law (in addition to others) → Focusing Adverbials can rhematize the Heads of the VP, AdjP and AP, but also NP and even entire dependent clauses VP your essay merely hints at the real problem AP I saw her here just yesterday NP it was merely a coincidence Clause she got the job merely because her father owns the company → the Focusing Adverbial can overlap with Intensifier Measure Adjuncts whose function is to strengthen the intensity of the Head 35  Patient-oriented qualifying frames&Initiation frames A. Patient Qualifying Frames a. Argument and Non-Argument Qualifiers → Qualifying Frames involve 2 cognitive Arguments → the Qualified Entity (the Argument Subject/Object slot) and the Qualifier (Subject/Object Complement) → Subject-oriented and Object-oriented Qualifiers are co-referential with their Qualified Entities, i.e. they qualify the same extralinguistic referent as is activated by the respective Qualified Entities Subject-oriented Qualifying Frame Object-oriented Qualifying Frame he is safe and sound → he is* (Valency Omissibility they found him sound → they found him* (meaning Test) „considered him“) (Valency Omissibility Test) he came (home) safe and sound → he came (home) they found him safe and sound → they found him (meaning „after looking for him“) (Valency Omissibility Test)  Double-Predication Test → valency-omissible Qualifiers (Non-Arguments) admit a double-predication paraphrase, which is negative with Argument Qualifiers  he was safe and sound when he came home (Double-Predication Test works)  he was safe and sound when they found him (Double-Predication Test works) → as the Object is shifted to the Subject position in the passive transformation of surface chains, the Object Complement turns into a Subject Complement in the passive  they found the defendant guilty → the defendant was found guilty Structural realization Subject Complement Object Complement NP he is a company director they appointed him a company director AdjP he is guilty they found him guilty PrepP the house is under reconstruction they treat him as friend Infinitival semi-clause he seems to be happy they consider him to be guilty Gerundial semi-clause seeing is believing they consider text messaging ruining language Participial semi-clause he heard Jane crying Finite clause that is what we call bravery → when the Object Complement is realized by a NP, the negative Passivization Test can be used to distinguish it from the Object  they appointed him a company director → he was appointed a company director by them 36 Coding markers of Object Complement → it is placed after the Object → cannot become the focus of passive transformation → she considered her mother a sensible woman → a sensible woman was considered her mother by her* → can be considered as a reduced secondary predication between the Object and the Object Complement → her mother is a sensible woman → it is valency inomissible Cognitive sub-classes → Subject-oriented Qualifying Frames: Qualified Entity + State/Process + Qualifier → Object-oriented Qualifying Frames: Agent/Experiencer + Action/State/Process + Affected Entity/Foxus = Qualified Entity + Qualifier → depending on the current or resultant effect of the lexical verb, the Subject-oriented Qualifiers are further sub-divided into current and resultant, the diagnostic verbs being to be and to become → this can also be applied to Object-oriented Qualifiers  current qualifier → some like it hot (it is hot)  resultant qualifier → Obama appointed him as director of national intelligence (he became director of national intelligence)  Patient-Qualifying Sub-frames combined with Agentive Subject → Doer + Action + Affected Entity/Qualified Entity + Resultant Qualifier  you can hardly call him generous (SVOCo)  she drives me nuts with his jealousy (SVOCo (A)  the rain made the tent wet (SVOCo) → the Current Qualifier combined with Doer Subject is a Non-Argument in the following sentences → Doer + Action + Affected Entity/Qualified Entity + Current Qualifier  they declined the job offer as unacceptable (SVO (Co)  they brought him home drunk (SVO (A) (Co)  Patient-Qualifying Sub-frames combined with Experiencer Subject → Emoter + Emotion +Focus/Qualified Entity + Current Qualifier  some like it cold (SVOCo)  I like/prefer my coffee hot and strong (SVOCo) → Cognizer + Cognition + Cognition Focus/Qualified Entity + Current Qualifier  they find him innocent (SVOCo)  they treat him as friend (SVOCo) vs. they treated me like a son (SVOA)  we consider careful work essential (SVOCo)  we knew them to be honest (SVOCo)  you should think yourself lucky to have gotten off with only one warning (SVOCo) → this Qualifying Sub-Frame can be compared with the Patient-Respect Circumstantial Sub-Frame from which it differs in that the latter involves a Doer Subject 37  → Affected Entity Object & Respect Circumstantial realized by a PrepP, SVOA chain, Adjunct being transitional between Argument and Non-Argument  the judge convinced the defendant /of theft/  the prosecutor prosecuted the offender /for theft/  a jury acquitted the teenager Kyle Rittenhouse /of murder/ /on Friday/ (SVOA (A) → a type of Non-Argument Qualifier realized by -ing participial and infinitival semi-clauses conveying Action performed, or Process/State undergone/experienced by the Object may be exemplified as follows → Experiencer + State + Focus + Action Qualifier  I saw her coming (SVO (Co)  I will never forget you helping me out that time (SVO (Co) Syntactic ambiguities → 2 possible interpretations of the sentence „I met my friend walking down the street“  /I/ /met/ /my friend/ /walking down the street/ (SVO (Cs) → while I was walking down the street  /I/ /met/ /my friend walking down the street/ (SVO) → my friend was walking down the street → Co-Referent Test → disambiguating the identical surface realizations  Honestly, I felt /a fool/ /standing there alone on the platform/ (SVCs (Cs) → I considered myself as a fool  Suddenly, I felt /a fool pushing in front of me on the platform/ → another person as the Perception Focus → Transposition Test → standing there on the platforma lone, I felt a fool B. Initiation Frames → involve 2 actions and 2 agentive entities → the Initiating Action and the Initiated Action, and the Initiation Doer and the Initiated Doer → can be realized in 2 variants → the Overt and Covert Initiation Sub-frames a. Overt Initiation Sub-frame realized as SVOCo → it is realized on the surface as SVOCo chain innwhich the Co activates the action performed by the Object (Initiated Action) → the Object slot merges 2 cognitive micro-roles, i.e. the Affected Entity in relation to the Initiator, and the Doer in relation to the Initiated Action realized by the infinitival and -ing participial semi-clauses → the cognitive micro-roles merged in the Object slot can involve the Affected Entity/Doer combination and also the Affected Entity/Cognizer or Affected Entity/Doer  she tricked him into believing that she was his sister´s friend → he believes that (Cognizer)  this will cause us to lose weight → we lose weight (Doer) → the non-performance of the Initiated Action can also be indicated by verbs such as to prevent from, to protect from, to forebear from  his disability prevents him from driving → if the Initiating Action is instigated by the verbs of command, its surface value can be reinterpreted as the Object → to ask, to wonder, to request, to expect...  Jane asked him to come tomorrow (he was asked to come/to come tomorrow) 38  they expect /borrowers/ /to return books on time/ (borrowers are expected; to return books/returning books is expected (from them) b. Covert Initiation Sub-frame realized as SVOA → can be perceived as a condensed transformation of the SVOCo Prime Overt Initiation Sub-frame → he made his troops march across the field → the Affected Entity allows for pasivization and the Doer permits an Action Sub-frame paraphrase  he marched his troops across the field → his troops were marched by him across the field  he marched his troops across the field → his troops marched across the field → the Action transform paraphrase is not possible with simple Patient Focus Sub-frames  he let the dwarves out of the mountain → the dwarves were led out of the mountain; the dwarves led out of the mountain* 39  Apposition Apposition – an Anchor/Apposition or Anchor/Anchor relationship? → Apposition (prístavok) → a multi-member syntactic construction that is analysed either in terms of the dependence of one element upon another (Anchor/Apposition) or the equivalence of its members (Anchor/Anchor); a relationship between 2 elements → Focus of the analysis → identifying the extralinguistic referent, identifying surface syntactic function, the S-V concord, determining the ability to stand alone in place of the whole phrase, semantic and pragmatic aspects (non/restrictiveness), intonational aspect (loose and close apposition), onomasiological prominence (the ability of members to activate the frame role in relation to the Verb) → Apposition (dependence) → a separate clause component attached to another clause element (the Anchor = head); it is therefore treated as a syntactically and pragmatically prominent component to which the whole structure can be reduced and which enables the identification of the extralinguistic referent either by itself (Non-Restrictive Apposition) or in tandem with the appositive co-component (Restrictive Apposition); in this approach the relationship between the appositive members may be described as Anchor+Apposition (Apposition = a simple syntactic unit) → Apposition (equivalence) → a composite syntactic unit in which at least 2 components are syntactically and onomasiologically equivalent, with this relationship being termed as the Anchor+Anchor syntagma → members of an Apposition are usually realized by the same rank structures, but a combination of 2 different types of phrases and/or ranks is not rare → the difference between Restrictive and Non-Restrictive Appositions is examined in terms of the extent of mutual independence vs. independence of appositive members, in aiding the addressee to identify the extralinguistic referent, but this is always dependent on the pragmatic situation (i.e. the personal and/or situational context) Single Referent Test → components of Apposition have an identical onomasiological prominence, i.e. they are capable of performing the same cognitive role in the clausal frame, and they refer to the same extralinguistic entity/referent  the Klondike Highway is a highway that runs