71-18,042
LEE, Paul Gregory, 1942- SUBJECTS AND AGENTS.
The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1970 Language and Literature, linguistics
University Microfilms. AXEROX Company , Ann Arbor, Michigan
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED SUBJECTS AND AGENTS
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Paul Gregory Lee, A.B., M.A.
*«*«*«
The Ohio State University 1970
Approved by
/jljA j) • iJhd&U Adviser Department of Linguistics ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am very grateful to the people who have criticized the drafts of this dissertation, expecially my adviser, Charles
Fillmore. Others who have helped me a great deal are Gaberell
Drachman, David Stampe, and Arnold Zvicky.
ii VITA
March 2,19**2 . .''i . Born - Hamilton, Ohio
1 9 6 5 ...... A.B., Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
1965-1967...... Teaching Assistant, Department of Linguistics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
1967 ...... M.A., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
1967-1969 ...... Research Associate, Department of Linguistics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
1969-1970 ...... Administrative Associate, Department of Linguistics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
PUBLICATIONS
"The English Preposition WITH." Working Papers in Linguistics No. 1, pp. 30-79, December 1967- "English Word-Stress." Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 389-Vo6 , April 1969. "Do from Occur. Working Papers in Linguistics No. 3, pu. 1-21, June 1969. "Subjects and Agents." Working Papers in Linguistics No. 3, pp. 36- 113, June 1969. "The Deep Structure of Indirect Discourse." Working Papers in Linguistics No. U, pp. 6U-73, May 1970.
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: Linguistics
Studies in Syntax. Professors D. Terence Langendoen and Charles J. Fillmore.
Studies in Phonology. Professor David L. Stampe
Studies in Historical Linguistics. Professors D. Terence Langendoen and Use Lehiste iii TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... ii
VITA ...... iii
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION...... 1
2. AGENTIVENESS ...... 7
3. A G E N T S ...... 16
1*. DEEP SUBJECTS...... 27
5. PREDICATE-RAISING...... 37
6. THE LIKE-SUBJECT REQUIREMENT ...... 1*6
7. BY-CLAUSES ...... 5 6
8. SUBJECTS FROM BY-CLAUSES ...... 69
9. INDIRECT CAUSATIVES...... 8l
10. -LY ADVERBS...... 95
11. CROSSOVER E V I D E N C E ...... 102
12. AGENTS AND CAUSATIVES...... Ill
BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 116
iv CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
The hypothesis of this study is that in English, agents are simply deep subjects. If a noun phrase is the agent of a sentence, then it is the subject of that sentence in underlying structure. Non agent superficial subjects are secondary; they are introduced into subject position by transformation. An immediate implication of this is that, since some sentences are agentless, there will be underlying sentences with no subjects.
Before I outline the arguments to be presented, the terms 'deep subject’ and 'agent1 require some discussion. The first of these,
'deep subject,1 is to be interpreted within the framework of the transformational-generative theory of syntax. In all versions of this theory, sentences are assigned underlying, or deep structures which undergo a step-wise conversion into superficial (observed) structures.
I assume that underlying structures, like superficial structures, are ordered from left to right and consist of sentences, and that under lying sentences look sufficiently like superficial sentences for the term ' deep subject' to be understood in a fashion parallel to 'super ficial subject.' In particular, I assume that a deep subject of a sentence will also be the sentence’s superfi