Timeline for What is the thematic role of "to the party" in this sentence?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 14, 2017 at 4:47 | comment | added | Cerberus | ... But that was about the verbal phrase drive to; I agree with you—and your central point—that the verbal phrase drive as such does not accept a location, but only a destination. As you say, the functional element in the praedicate frame of drive that marks the required thematic role is the preposition to, not the object of to. | |
| Sep 14, 2017 at 4:44 | comment | added | Cerberus | ... because there could be non-semantic reasons, such specific syntactic requirements. // In she drove to the party, I feel that drive to specifically accepts, and perhaps even requires, a location rather than an event. E.g. she drove to the forest works because it is a place; she drove to the riots works because riots can refer to a thing that can be found at a specific place, even though it is also an event; but *she drove to the end of the day doesn't work, because that's not a place—or it works metaphorically, but only in so far as it is treated like a place. | |
| Sep 14, 2017 at 4:38 | comment | added | Cerberus | Excellent answer. I would only phrase one or two fine points differently. // London can have the thematic role of location with respect to the relation between live in and London: I would say the verbal phrase live in accepts only phrases with the thematic role of location in its major praedicate frame, and London can fulfil that role. // The fact that one cannot say *drive London is, indeed, because London as such cannot occupy the slot of location in the predicate frame of drive; but I do not feel that this very phrase proves that, ... | |
| Aug 13, 2017 at 19:31 | history | edited | user6814 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Further clarifications have been added in response to the objections of an invariably hostile commentator.
|
| Aug 13, 2017 at 8:27 | comment | added | Atamiri | This is a strong claim but no references are given. In a logical representation, the directionality can be built into a predicate or function symbol and the argument clearly is a location in the underlying ontology. If a relation such as metonymy is involved, the role of the argument can be ambiguous (for example if it can be interpreted as an eventuality). | |
| Aug 13, 2017 at 8:14 | history | edited | user6814 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Details added concerning the respective semantic properties of 'Goals' and 'Locations'.
|
| Aug 12, 2017 at 20:04 | history | answered | user6814 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |