Considering its limited number of principles, LMT is a relative small theory but with ambitious goals. In the previous sections, an OT version of the theory has been laid out and tested out against the cross-linguistic data of locative inversion as generalized by Bresnan (1994). However, there are locative constructions closely related to locative inversion that have not been covered. For instance, locative inversion might bear some relation to sentences with an expletive subject and a locative argument (Bresnan 1994). Following is an example from French.16
(48) Il est arrivé beaucoup de gens à la plage it is arrived many of people at the beach ‘There were many people arriving at the beach.’
The expletive subject is an athematic argument, and as such it must receive an intrinsic [-r] classification by the very nature of [r], thematic restrictedness, (e.g., Bresnan 2001:309) and given its initial position it invariably links to SUBJ.17 Similar to the locative inversion discussed earlier, this construction also indicates that the object function of the theme role renders it more focal than the oblique locative role. An athematic argument in the a-structure is indicated by the
16 I thank the anonymous reviewer who suggested this direction of further research and provided this French example and its discourse analysis.
17 Refer to Bresnan (2001, sec. 14.1) for a more in-depth discussion on athematic arguments in raising constructions.
Candidate LinkPtTh LinkLocInv LinkRolRes DescendFun LinkUnobj LinkUnres
C2 <th-SUBJ loc-OBLθ> *
Candidate LinkPtTh LinkLocInv LinkRolRes DescendFun LinkUnobj LinkUnres
C4 <th-OBJ loc-SUBJ> * * *
underscore outside of the angled brackets, while thematic arguments are within the angled brackets. Thus, the a-structure of (48) is ‘arrive _<th[foc] loc>’. A expletive subject may also be associated with the linking of agentive objects; (49) is an example from French.
(49) Il travaille deux mille ouvriers dans cette usine it works two thousand workers in this factory
‘There are two thousand workers working in the factory.’
Similar phenomena are also observed in Bantu languages, e.g., Demuth (1990), Harford (1990), Machobane (1995), and Demuth and Mmusi (1997). All these issues are important and interesting, but cannot be adequately addressed in the current paper. Further research is needed as to how the a-structure ‘arrive _<th[foc] loc>’ and ‘work _<ag[foc]>’ come about, whether they are morpholexically or morphosyntactically related to ‘arrive <th loc>’ and ‘work _<ag[foc]>’ respectively, and how best to incorporate such relations within the OT-LMT proposed here.
Further development of this OT-LMT will also need to address the issue of secondary patientlike roles as a parameter of variation in double object constructions, known as the Asymmetrical Object Parameter (AOP) (cf., Alsina and Mchombo 1993, Bresnan 2001:321 and references cited). In an non-AOP language, all patientlike roles are linked to an unrestricted function, while AOP languages must link the secondary patient/theme to an object function. An additional constraint may be necessary and constraint ranking may then reflect this variation. This asymmetrical object parameter is stated in (50).
(50) Asymmetrical Object Parameter (AOP):
* θ θ => θ θ [-r] [-r] [-r] [+o]
Finally, the OT-LMT developed here needs to be applied to a much wider range of data cross-linguistically, for example complex predicates in various languages (cf., e.g., Ishikawa 1985; Abaitua 1988; Ackerman 1992; Alisina, Bresnan, and Sells 1997; Her to appear), the valence-changing morphemes and inversion constructions in Georgian (cf., e.g., Holisky 1981, Harris 1981, Blevins 2005), among others. A solid analysis of some of these facts would be a significant test of the linking theory proposed here.
5. Conclusion
In this paper we set out to accomplish two goals. The more ambitious one is to come up with a simpler and more general lexical mapping theory in OT terms, or OT-LMT. The second one is to test this theory out and account for locative inversion in Chinese, English and Chichewa on the one hand and Japanese and Korean on the other hand. Following the standard view in the Optimality Theory, the mapping constraints we proposed are all universal and language variation in
locative inversion is accounted for with different constraint ranking. The OT-LMT we proposed is the UG component that constrains the argument-function linking, or morphosyntactic processes; it thus does not govern the language-specific morpholexical processes, such as passivization, locative transitivization, and resultative compounding. Locative inversion, on the other hand, involves only morphosyntactic operations and is therefore accounted for within the OT-LMT.
In summary, the OT-LMT we proposed not only covers a wider range of empirical data, it also affords a simpler, more consistent, and more general theory.
REFERENCES
Abaitua, Joseba: 1988, Complex Predicates in Basque: From Lexical Forms to
Functional Structures, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Manchester,
Department of Languages and Linguistics.Ackerman, Farrell: 1992, ‘Complex Predicates and Morpholexical Relatedness:
Locative Alternation in Hungarian’, in Ivan Sag and Anna Szabolcsi (eds.),
Lexical Matters, CSLI Publications: Stanford, CA., 55-83.
Ackerman, Farrell and John Moore: 2001a, ‘Dowtyian Proto-properties and Lexical Mapping Theory’, paper presented at the 6th International Lexical-Functional Grammar Conference, Hong Kong, June 2001.
Ackerman, Farrell and John Moore: 2001b, Proto-properties and Grammatical
Encoding: A Correspondence Theory of Argument Selection, CSLI
Publications, Stanford, California.Aissen, Judith: 1999, ‘Markedness and Subject Choices in Optimality Theory’,
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17, 673-711.
Alsina, Alex: 1996, The Role of Argument Structure in Grammar, CSLI Publications, Stanford, California.
Alsina, Alex, Joan Bresnan, and Peter Sells (eds): 1997, Complex Predicates, CSLI Publications, Stanford, California.
Alsina, Alex and Sam Mchombo: 1993, ‘Object Asymmetries and the Chichewa Applicative Construction’, in Sam Mchombo (ed.), Theoretical Aspects of
Bantu Grammar, CSLI Publications, Stanford, California, 17-45.
Asudeh, Ash: 2001, ‘Linking, Optionality, and Ambiguity in Marathi’, in Sells (ed.), pp. 257-312.
Babby, L.: l989, ‘Subjectlessness, External Subcategorization, and the Projection Principle’, Zbornik Matice srpske za filologiju i lingvistiku 32, 7-40.
Baker, Mark: 1983, ‘Objects, Themes, and Lexical Rules in Italian’, in L. Levin, M. Rappaport, and A. Zaenen (eds.), Papers in Lexical-Functional Grammar, Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Birner, B.: l994, ‘Information Status and Word Order: An analysis of English Inversion’, Linguistic Inquiry l7, 347-54.
Blevins, James: 2005, ‘Thematic Inversion in Georgian’, Manuscript, University of Cambridge, http://www.cus.cam.ac.uk/~jpb39/drafts/tig.pdf
Bresnan, Joan: l989, ‘The Syntactic Projection Problem and Comparative Syntax of Locative Inversion’, Journal of Information Science and Engineering (Special issue devoted to the Proceedings of ROCLING II, Taipei, l989) 5, 287-303.
Bresnan, Joan: 1990, ‘Monotonicity and the Theory of Relation-changes in LFG’,
Language Research 26.4, 637-652.
Bresnan, Joan: l994, ‘Locative Inversion and the Architecture of Universal Grammar’, Language 70, 72-l3l.
Bresnan, Joan: l996, ‘Lexicality and Argument Structure’, paper presented at Collogue de Syntax et Semantique Paris, October 12-14, 1995.
http://csli-www.stanford.edu/users/bresnan/
Bresnan, Joan: 2000, ‘Optimal Syntax’, in Joost Dekkers, Frank van der Leeuw and Jeroen van de Weijer (eds.), Optimality Theory: Phonology, Syntax and
Acquisition, 334-385, Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Bresnan, Joan: 2001, Lexical-Functional Syntax, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
Bresnan, Joan and Jonni Kanerva: 1989, ‘Locative Inversion in Chichewa: A Case Study of Factorization in Grammar’, Linguistic Inquiry 20, 1-50.
Bresnan, Joan and Jonni Kanerva: l992, ‘The Thematic Hierarchy and Locative Inversion in UG: A Reply to Schachter's Comments’, Syntax and Semantics: