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