Download
1 / 29
290 likes | 440 Views
USE. A Valency Analysis. This is the (simplified) valency representation of the sentence He opened the can :. He open<ed> the can. In the following we shall disregard the definite article and the tense morpheme. This is the valency representation of the sentence He wanted to open the can :.
E N D
USE A Valency Analysis
This is the (simplified) valency representation of the sentence He opened the can: He open<ed> the can. In the following we shall disregard the definite article and the tense morpheme.
This is the valency representation of the sentence He wanted to open the can: He wanted (to) open the can. Note that the ”subject” arrow of the infinitive is represented, although syntactically it can be considered unrealized.
Now let us begin analysing a typical sentence with the verb use: He used a knife to open the can. He used (a) knife to open the can.
The rest of the analysis can be carried out in two ways. According to the first solution, use and to are both two-place predicates. He used (a) knife to open the can. I.e., to ≈ ’intend’
According to the second analysis, to is not a predicate, and use has three valency positions: He used (a) knife (to) open the can. I.e., the intention is implied, but not expressed overtly.
Now let us look at a close paraphrase: He opened the can with a knife. There are different ways of handling the phrase with a knife.
According to the classical analysis, INSTRUMENT is a deep case. This gives us the following representation: He opened the can (with a) knife.
If we prefer to let open have only two valency positions we can turn with into a predicate. Still, we have to choose between two solutions: with can be either a two-place or a three-place predicate.
To understand this, let us compare the paraphrases He used a knife to open the can and He opened the can with a knife.
Solution with semantic to: He used (a) knife to open the can. He opened the can with (a) knife.
As we see, there is no element in He opened the can with a knife that can match the predicate to in He used a knife to open the can.
Solution with syntactic to: He used (a) knife (to) open the can. He opened the can with (a) knife.
This solution gives us total isomorphism between the paraphrases.
Of course, in some contexts to must be analysed as semantic, even when occurring with use. To open the can, use a knife. Cf. the pretty close paraphrase: If you want to open the can, use a knife.
Not realized third valency position: John opened the can. He used (a) knife. In order to retrieve the third position, we have to cross the sentence border (full stop).
Predicate incorporated: the <us>er (of) the instrument
Syntactic nomen agentis: Only John uses this instrument. The only (<us>er of) this instrument (is) John.
Implicit use: «use» tool «use» instrument «use» machine «use» means
First valency position not realized: «use» means (of) production sewing «use» machine
Incorporated predicate and implicit predicate. «use» <wash>er «use» <bor>er
Syntactic tool: John opened the can. His «use» (tool was a) knife.
Now a cross-linguistic comparison. «use» <dish><wash>er «use» <disk>maskin <posudo><moech>naja mashina
In Russian, we do not need an implicit verb «use»; the adjective itself can be the carrier of such a meaning. Note also that Sw. disk (verbal morpheme) corresponds to Eng. wash, not to dish!
Another cross-linguistic comparison: milking machine vs Sw. mjölkmaskin*. «use» <milk>ing machine «use» <<mjölk>maskin *Less common, but also possible: mjölkningsmaskin.
Still another cross-linguistic comparison: screwdriver vs Sw. mejsel. «use» <screw><driv>er «use» mejsel2 «skruv» «skruva» mejsel1 = chisel mejsel2 = screwdriver
He was knifed by a bandit. He (was) «use» <knif>ed (by a) bandit.
Knife vs saw. «use» knife «cut» «use» <saw>
