Ingredients of Instrumental Meaning

This paper presents an analysis of the English instrumental markers with and 15 verbal use. As with other thematic roles, the semantic generalizations encoded by the role Instrument have been difficult to precisely characterize. In this study, we analyze the distinct semantic contributions of with and use, illuminating several properties of instrumental meaning. In particular, use specifies that the agent must act intentionally, which we formalize as universal quantification over possible 20 worlds within a Montague-style compositional framework. By contrast, with encodes a constraint whereby an instrument is a direct extension of the force initiated by the agent. This analysis is most consistent with theories in which thematic roles are clusters of event properties, rather than categories defined in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions; our analysis does not make use of Instrument as a primi25 tive role.

[1]  Emmon Bach,et al.  The algebra of events , 1986, The Language of Time - A Reader.

[2]  David R. Dowty.  On the Semantic Content of the Notion of ‘Thematic Role’ , 1989 .

[3]  Rajesh Bhatt,et al.  Covert Modality in Non-finite Contexts , 2006 .

[4]  Jean-Pierre Koenig,et al.  The KEY to lexical semantic representations , 2006, Journal of Linguistics.

[5]  Stephen Wechsler,et al.  Preposition Selection Outside the Lexicon , 1995 .

[6]  Ray Jackendoff.  Semantics and Cognition , 1983 .

[7]  Toshiyuki Ogihara,et al.  Tense, attitudes, and scope , 1995 .

[8]  Elizabeth Cowper,et al.  A concise introduction to syntactic theory : the government-binding approach , 1992 .

[9]  B. Landau,et al.  Using instruments to understand argument structure: Evidence for gradient representation , 2015, Cognition.

[10]  Aynat Rubinstein,et al.  Roots of modality , 2012 .

[11]  Scott Grimm.  The Bounds of Subjecthood: Evidence from Instruments , 2007 .

[12]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Information-Based Syntax and Semantics: Volume 1, Fundamentals , 1987 .

[13]  P. Égré.  Intentional action and the semantics of gradable expressions (On the Knobe Effect) , 2014 .

[14]  Hans Kamp,et al.  Formal Properties of ‘Now’ , 2013 .

[15]  E. Kako.  Thematic role properties of subjects and objects , 2006, Cognition.

[16]  David L. Davidson,et al.  The Logical Form of Action Sentences , 2001 .

[17]  S. Pinker.  Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure , 1989 .

[18]  John Beavers,et al.  The structure of lexical meaning: Why semantics really matters , 2010 .

[19]  Robert D. van Valin,et al.  The case for “effector”: Case roles, agents, and agency revisited , 1996 .

[20]  Thomas Grano,et al.  Mental action and event structure in the semantics of 'try' , 2011 .

[21]  L. Rissman.  Instrumental with, locatum with and the argument/adjunct distinction , 2010 .

[22]  L. Rissman.  Periphrastic Use: a Modal Account of Instrumentality , 2011 .

[23]  Francis Ferraro,et al.  Semantic Proto-Roles , 2015, TACL.

[24]  Scott DeLancey,et al.  Event Construal and Case Role Assignment , 1991 .

[25]  E. Herburger.  What Counts: Focus and Quantification , 2000 .

[26]  STRUCTURE AT THE LEXICAL LEVEL AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR TRANSFER GRAMMAR by , 2009 .

[27]  Manfred Krifka,et al.  Nominal Reference, Temporal Constitution and Quantification in Event Semantics , 1989 .

[28]  B. Levin,et al.  What to do with theta-roles , 1986 .

[29]  Leonard Talmy,et al.  Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition , 1987, Cogn. Sci..

[30]  Márta Abrusán,et al.  Predicting the presuppositions of soft triggers , 2011 .

[31]  Christopher Pinon,et al.  Aspectual composition with degrees , 2008, Adjectives and Adverbs.

[32]  A. Goldberg.  Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations , 2002 .

[33]  I. M. Schlesinger,et al.  Instruments as agents: on the nature of semantic relations , 1989, Journal of Linguistics.

[34]  Florian Schäfer,et al.  Instrument subjects are agents or causers , 2006 .

[35]  Karin Kipper Schuler,et al.  Argument Realization , 2006, Comput. Linguistics.

[36]  T. Ogihara,et al.  Temporal reference in English and Japanese , 1992 .

[37]  I. Kucerova.  Grammatical marking of givenness , 2012 .

[38]  David R. Dowty,et al.  Word Meaning and Montague Grammar , 1979 .

[39]  Matthew Whelpton,et al.  Locality and Control with Infinitives of Result , 2002 .

[40]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  Using Conceptual Spaces to Model Actions and Events , 2012, J. Semant..

[41]  George Lakoff,et al.  Instrumental Adverbs and the Concept of Deep Structure , 1968 .

[42]  D. A. Holisky.  The case of the intransitive subject in Tsova-Tush (Batsbi) , 1987 .

[43]  Andrew Rosta,et al.  Cognitive space and linguistic case. , 2002 .

[44]  Robert Stalnaker,et al.  Presuppositions of Compound Sentences , 2008 .

[45]  Emmon Bach,et al.  Purpose Clauses and Control , 1982 .

[46]  T. Parsons.  Thematic relations and arguments , 1995 .

[47]  George Lakoff,et al.  Criterion for Verb Phrase Constituency , 1966 .

[48]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar , 1972 .

[49]  Andrew Radford,et al.  Transformational Grammar: Contents , 1988 .

[50]  Michael Vincent Inman.  Semantics and pragmatics of Colloquial Sinhala involitive verbs , 1993 .

[51]  Mark C. Baker,et al.  Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing , 1988 .

[52]  I. M. Schlesinger.  Cognitive space and linguistic case: Cognitive space , 1995 .

[53]  L. Talmy.  Semantic Causative Types , 1976 .

[54]  Irene Heim,et al.  Semantics in generative grammar , 1998 .

[55]  V. Hacquard.  On the event relativity of modal auxiliaries , 2010 .

[56]  Kai von Fintel,et al.  How to Say Ought in Foreign: The Composition of Weak Necessity Modals , 2008 .

[57]  Lilia Rissman,et al.  Event participant representations and the instrumental role: A cross-linguistic study , 2013 .

[58]  T. Vestergaard.  Prepositional phrases and prepositional verbs: A study in grammatical function , 1977 .

[59]  Charles Jones,et al.  Purpose Clauses: Syntax, Thematics, and Semantics of English Purpose Constructions , 1991 .

[60]  C. Fillmore.  The case for case reopened , 1977 .

[61]  Heidi Harley,et al.  Eliminating causative entailments with the force-theoretic framework , 2013 .

[62]  Carson T. Schütze.  PP attachment and argumenthood , 1995 .

[63]  O. Percus.  Constraints on Some Other Variables in Syntax , 2000 .

[64]  C. Meier,et al.  The Meaning of Too, Enough, and So... That , 2003 .

[65]  Judith Jarvis Thomson,et al.  Acts and other events , 1977 .

[66]  P. Wolff.  Representing causation. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[67]  M. Cresswell.  Entities and indices , 1990 .

[68]  David R. Dowty.  Thematic proto-roles and argument selection , 1991 .

[69]  The polysemy of with in first language acquisition , 2001 .

[70]  M. Hackl,et al.  A modal ambiguity in for-infinitival relative clauses , 2012 .

[71]  Naoyuki Ono,et al.  INSTRUMENTS: A CASE STUDY OF THE INTERFACE BETWEEN SYNTAX AND LEXICAL SEMANTICS , 1992 .

[72]  Dorit Abusch,et al.  Presupposition Triggering from Alternatives , 2010, J. Semant..

[73]  Jeffrey Gruber.  Studies in lexical relations , 1965 .

[74]  Ezra Keshet,et al.  Split intensionality: a new scope theory of de re and de dicto , 2010 .

[75]  Hans Kamp.  To the memory of Arthur Prior Formal properties of ‘now’ , 2008 .

[76]  Richard Montague,et al.  The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English , 1973 .

[77]  Sam Alxatib.  Actuality Entailments in Palestinian Arabic⇤ , 2015 .

[78]  Manfred Krifka,et al.  Thematic Relations as Links between Nominal Reference and Temporal Constitution , 1992 .

[79]  D. Cruse.  Some thoughts on agentivity , 1973, Journal of Linguistics.

[80]  A. Kratzer.  Severing the External Argument from its Verb , 1996 .

[81]  Angelika Kratzer,et al.  Stage-Level and Individual-Level Predicates , 1995 .

[82]  Terence Parsons,et al.  Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics , 1990 .

[83]  R. Jackendoff.  The Status of Thematic Relations in Linguistic Theory , 1987 .

[84]  Jean-Pierre Koenig,et al.  Arguments for adjuncts , 2003, Cognition.

[85]  Peter Gordon,et al.  The Origin of Argument Structure in Infant Event Representations , 2004 .

[86]  V. Hacquard.  Aspects of modality , 2006 .

[87]  Jean-Pierre Koenig,et al.  What with? The Anatomy of a (Proto)-Role , 2007, J. Semant..

[88]  Jon Nissenbaum,et al.  Kissing Pedro Martinez: (Existential) Anankastic Conditionals and Rationale Clauses , 2005 .

[89]  K. Fintel,et al.  Anatomy of a Modal Construction , 2007, Linguistic Inquiry.

[90]  Andrew Radford,et al.  Transformational Grammar: A First Course , 1988 .

[91]  Jacopo Romoli,et al.  The Presuppositions of Soft Triggers are Obligatory Scalar Implicatures , 2015, J. Semant..

[92]  Angelika Kratzer,et al.  Facts: Particulars or Information Units? , 2002 .

[93]  Paul M. Pietroski,et al.  Events and Semantic Architecture , 2005 .

[94]  A. Kratzer.  The Notional Category of Modality , 2008 .

[95]  Valentine Hacquard,et al.  On the interaction of aspect and modal auxiliaries , 2009 .

[96]  D. Nilsen,et al.  The instrumental case in English : syntactic and semantic considerations , 1973 .

[97]  Joseph Ulatowski,et al.  Intuitions and Individual Differences: The Knobe Effect Revisited , 2007 .