|
Abstract:
In strictly modular models of language generation, e.g.
Levelt (1989), the mapping of non-linguistic, conceptual structures
onto language specific, grammatical representations requires a
definition which is highly restrictive in nature. A test for an
appropriate conception of the mapping mechanisms is provided by the
phenomenon of psych verbs which systematically realize their
seemingly identical thematic arguments in divergent syntactic
positions (henceforth the most adequate English translation of the
German examples will be given):
1) E-S-verb: John fears Mary.
2) S-E-verb: Mary frightens John.
(Mary = STIMULUS; John = EXPERIENCER)
The goal of the current study is to motivate this divergence
both conceptually and grammatically. It will be shown that the two
verb groups given above differ with regard to their thematic - i.e.
non-linguistic - structures. This difference is reflected in
event-structural features that are encoded grammatically. The
argumentation is based on theoretical work as well as (quasi-)
experimental evidence.
Contrary to the assumption that only S-E-verbs are causative
(cf. Grimshaw (1990)) I will argue that psych verbs generally
express (implicit) causality on the conceptual level: Both S-E- and
E-S-verbs can be characterised by the causality features of
covariation (cf. Brown & Fish (1988); Haertl (1999)).
Additional evidence comes from a questionnaire study which shows
that for both (German) verb groups subordinate causal sentences are
preferably assigned to the STIMULUS-entity:
3) John fears Mary because [she/??he] is untrustworthy.
4) Mary frightens John because [she/??he] is untrustworthy.
However, it is the thematic structure that distinguishes S-E-
from E-S-verbs. The following two empirical findings support this.
First of all, another questionnaire study was conducted in which
the animacy - i.e. a thematic feature - of the STIMULUS varied. The
results show an ordinal interaction of verb group and animacy: The
causal sentences were more frequently assigned to an animate
STIMULUS in E-S-verb complexes. Furthermore, an Event-Related
Potential (ERP) study was carried out using the material given
under (3) and (4). For S-E-verbs the unexpected assignment of the
causal sentence to the EXPERIENCER - indicated by the respective
pronoun - evoked an N400 component whereas the same assignment
evoked a P600 component in the case of E-S-verbs.
The differences can be interpreted as a reflex of divergent
thematic structures: Only S-E-verb complexes preferably denote a
temporally homogeneous activity in which an intentionally acting
individual is involved. Thus, S-E-verbs can be analyzed as common
activity verbs such as 'dance' or 'hunt' that normally realise an
AGENT in the subject position. This assumed event-structural
difference was tested directly in a third questionnaire study.
Subjects were asked to judge on a five-step scale the acceptability
of causal sentences that occurred either as temporal activities or
as states. The causal sentences were all assigned to the STIMULUS
in the matrix clause. Consider the following example of an S-E-verb
- note that German does not have explicit aspect markers:
5) S-E-verb: Mary frightens John
because she is doing something now. (= activity)
because she has a certain property. (= state)
In agreement with the hypothesis the results show that S-E-verbs
are preferably realized as activities whereas with E-S-verbs a
stative reading of the STIMULUS-eventuality is judged to be more
acceptable.
|
