4. Results of Sentence Patterns and Construal
4.5 The Comparison of the Sentence Patterns in Different Action Chains
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
In this section, the results in terms of the distribution of sentence patterns and their underlying construals are presented. However, the display of the variant
construals imposed on each action chain only accounts for the sentence patterns of the action chain, respectively. In the next section, we will compare the sentence patterns which are similar or even identical in form but derived from the two distinct action chains; for example, the [NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN] (You can substitute margarine in the recipe) from the ‘AGENT-IN action chain’ and the [NPAGENT + Verb + NPOUT] (You can substitute butter in the recipe) from the ‘AGENT-OUT action chain’. In doing so, we are able to reveal the cause of the ambiguous role of the direct object in [NPAGENT
+ Verb + NPIN/OUT] (i.e. margarine and butter) and investigate the situation of these two competing conceptualizations of the action chains in SUBSTITUTE.
4.5 The Comparison of the Sentence Patterns in Different Action Chains In this section, we particularly compare the sentence patterns which are similar in their forms but are derived from the two distinct action chains. In the present thesis, the two action chains of SUBSTITUTE are argued to be the cause of the ambiguous role of the direct object in [NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN/OUT] and the subject in [NPIN/OUT + be + Verb-pp]. This section is structured as follows. In the sub-section 4.5.1,
[NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN] (You can substitute margarine in the recipe) and [NPAGENT
+ Verb + NPOUT] (You can substitute butter in the recipe) are compared; in the sub-section 4.5.2, [NPIN + be + Verb-pp] (Margarine can be substituted in the recipe) and [NPOUT + be + Verb-pp] (Butter can be substituted in the recipe) are compared; then, in the sub-section 4.5.3, [NPIN + Verb + for NPOUT] (Margarine can substitute for butter in the recipe) and [NPIN + Verb + NPOUT] (Margarine can substitute butter in the recipe) are compared.
‧
Table 4.23 displays the comparison between [NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN] and [NPAGENT + Verb + NPOUT] in terms of their underlying construals imposed on the action chains and their number of occurrence in the corpus.
Table 4.23 The contrast of [NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN] with [NPAGENT + Verb + NPOUT] Sentence Pattern Construals Imposed on the Action Chain Number NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN
(+ obliques)
You can substitute margarine in the recipe.
214/1104 (19.4%)
NPAGENT + Verb + NPOUT
(+ obliques)
You can substitute butter in the recipe.
20/1104 (1.8%)
Table 4.23 shows that although [NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN] (You can substitute margarine in the recipe) and [NPAGENT + Verb + NPOUT] (You can substitute butter in the recipe) share the identical form, they are derived from the two distinct action chains.
While [NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN] is derived from the ‘AGENT-IN action chain’, [NPAGENT + Verb + NPOUT] is derived from the ‘AGENT-OUT action chain’. Then, with a closer look, we found that it is the primary landmark (LM) conferred on the
different participants in the action chains that makes either the NPIN or the NPOUT the direct object of the sentence patterns. [NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN] reflects that
Agent In Out
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
the primary landmark is conferred on the ‘IN’ participant in the ‘AGENT-IN action chain’. In contrast, [NPAGENT + Verb + NPOUT] reflects the construal which makes the
‘OUT’ participant the secondary focus (i.e. LM) of the event. The ‘AGENT-OUT action chain’ allows this particular construal, since the ‘OUT’ participant is involved in the force-dynamic interaction of the action chain.
Therefore, it could be argued that the ambiguous role of the direct object in [NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN/OUT] results from the primary landmark which is licensed to be conferred on the ‘OUT’ participant in the ‘AGENT-OUT action chain’.
Then, according to the corpus results, the 214 times of [NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN] significantly outnumber the 20 times of [NPAGENT + Verb + NPOUT]. This suggests that although [NPAGENT + Verb + NPOUT] reflecting the construal of ‘TR (AGENT) + LM
(OUT)’ might occur, the sentence pattern and its underlying construal is less preferred.
In contrast, the sentence pattern [NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN] reflecting the construal of
‘TR (AGENT) + LM (IN)’ is the typical use of SUBSTITUTE.
4.5.2 [NPIN + be + Verb-pp] and [NPOUT + be + Verb-pp]
The ambiguous role of the NP also occurs in passive construction, specifically the NP in the subject position. Table 4.24 displays the comparison between [NPIN + be + Verb-pp] and [NPOUT + be + Verb-pp] in terms of their underlying construals
imposed on the respective action chain and their number of occurrence in the corpus.
Agent In Out TR LM
Agent In Out TR LM
Agent In Out TR LM
‧
Sentence Pattern Construals Imposed on the Action Chain Number
NPIN + be + Verb-pp
Margarine can be substituted in the recipe.
83/1104 (7.5%)
NPOUT + be + Verb-pp
Butter can be substituted in the recipe
72/1104 (6.5%)
Table 4.24 shows that these two sentence patterns correspond to the two distinct action chains. On the one hand, [NPIN + be + Verb-pp] reflects the construal of ‘TR (IN)’ imposed on the ‘AGENT-IN action chain’. On the other hand, [NPOUT + be + Verb-pp] reflects the construal of ‘TR (OUT)’ imposed on the ‘AGENT-OUT action chain’.
In a similar vein, we argue that the ambiguous role of the subject of [NPIN/OUT + be + Verb-pp] results from the ‘AGENT-OUT action chain’, which licenses the trajector to be conferred on the ‘OUT’ participant, as in [NPOUT + be + Verb-pp].
As a consequence, both NPIN and NPOUT could be NP in the subject position of the passive construction.
According to the corpus results, the number of 83 hits of [NPIN + be + Verb-pp]
is close to that of 72 hits of [NPOUT + be + Verb-pp]. This suggests that these two
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
sentence patterns occupy similar proportions in natural language use. However, while the 83 hits of [NPIN + be + Verb-pp] only account for 9.2% of the sentence patterns in the ‘AGENT-IN action chain’, the 72 hits of [NPOUT + be + Verb-pp] account for 35.3%
of the sentence patterns in the ‘AGENT-OUT action chain’. Despite the result that both sentence patterns account for a similar proportion in natural language use, [NPIN + be + Verb-pp] is less preferred in the ‘AGENT-IN action chain’ while [NPOUT + be +
Verb-pp] is preferred in the ‘AGENT-OUT action chain’.
4.5.3 [NPIN + Verb + for NPOUT] and [NPIN + Verb + NPOUT]
[NPIN + Verb + for NPOUT] is argued to bear the resemblance to [NPIN + Verb + NPOUT] in that both sentence patterns seem to be interchangeable with little change in their meaning. For example, [NPIN + Verb + NPOUT] (Gas can substitute for 50–80%
of diesel oil) could be presented in [NPIN + Verb + for NPOUT] (Gas can substitute 50–
80% of diesel oil). Both sentences describe the identical event of substituting; that is, the NPIN (gas) is capable of taking the place of the NPOUT (50–80% of diesel oil).
Although both sentence patterns resemble each other, the fundamental difference between them lies in the conceptualization of the event of substituting, that is, how the event of substituting is conceptualized in the action chain. The comparison of the conceptualized action chains between [NPIN + Verb + for NPOUT] (Gas can substitute for 50–80% of diesel oil) and [NPIN + Verb + NPOUT] (Gas can substitute 50–80% of diesel oil) is presented in Table 4.25.
Agent In Out TR
Agent In Out TR
‧
Sentence Pattern Construals Imposed on the Action Chain NumberNPIN + Verb + for NPOUT
Gas can substitute for 50–80% of diesel oil.
131/1104 (11.9%)
NPIN + Verb + NPOUT
Gas can substitute 50–80% of diesel oil.
20/1104 (1.8%)
In Table 4.25, [NPIN + Verb + for NPOUT] (Gas can substitute for 50–80% of diesel oil) reflects the absolute construal in which the existence of the ‘AGENT’ participant is particularly diminished in the ‘AGENT-IN action chain’. Therefore, the event of substituting is construed as a ‘thematic process’ in which the capability of the NPIN
(Gas) to substitute is emphasized by diminishing the existence of the ‘AGENT’ participant. There is no force-dynamic relation between the ‘IN’ and the ‘OUT’;
instead, the ‘OUT’ is merely related to the ‘IN’. In contrast, [NPIN + Verb + NPOUT] (Gas can substitute 50–80% of diesel oil) reflects the force-dynamic interaction between ‘IN’ and ‘OUT’ in the ‘AGENT-OUT action chain’.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
describing the event that an ‘IN’ takes the place of an ‘OUT’ in SUBSTITUTE, language users tend to construe a thematic process of the ‘IN’ participant without evoking the existence of the ‘AGENT’ participant in the ‘AGENT-IN action chain’. The construal with the force-dynamic interaction between ‘IN’ and ‘OUT’ in the ‘AGENT
-OUT action chain’ is less preferred.
4.6 Summary of the Chapter
In this chapter, we have presented the distribution and the analysis of the sentence patterns and their underlying construals imposed on the two distinct action chains.
In section 4.1, the two conceptualized action chains in the event of substituting are introduced with their respective distribution in the natural language use. The
‘AGENT-IN action chain’ is argued to be the typical conceptualization in which the
force-dynamic interaction is confined to the ‘AGENT’ and the ‘IN’ participant.
In section 4.2, the sentence patterns reflecting the variant construals imposed on the ‘AGENT-IN action chain’ are presented. The construal of ‘TR(AGENT)+LM(IN)’
and ‘TR(IN)’ are found underlying the sentence patterns. Importantly, these sentence
patterns vary according to the prominence of the ‘AGENT’ participant. Specifically, the
‘AGENT’ participant could be a trajector (You can substitute margarine for butter in the recipe), a secondary landmark (Margarine can be substituted in the recipe by you), an unprofiled participant in the base (Margarine can be substituted for butter in
Agent In Out
Agent In Out TR LM
Agent In Out TR
‧
the recipe), and an almost diminished participant in the ‘absolute construal (Margarine can substitute for butter in the recipe).
In section 4.3, the distribution and the analysis of the sentence patterns in the
‘AGENT-OUT action chain’ is presented. This action chain includes every participant in
the force-dynamic interaction. Three different construals are found: the construal of
‘TR(AGENT)+LM(OUT)’, ‘TR(IN)+LM(OUT)’,and‘TR(OUT)’.
The corpus result suggests that [NPOUT + be + Verb-pp] (Butter can be substituted in the recipe) is the predominant sentence pattern reflecting the construal of ‘TR(OUT)’.
In section 4.4, the distribution of the respective participant is presented. This shows that the ‘IN’ participant is the most ‘needed’ participant profiled pervasively and that the ‘AGENT’ participant is the most ‘prominent’ participant in that most of its profiling is the primary focus of the event.
In section 4.5, we have compared the sentence patterns similar in their forms and demonstrated that the cause for the ambiguous role of the NP in the direct object position of [NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN/OUT] (You can substitute margarine in the recipe) and the subject position of [NPIN/OUT + be + Verb-pp] (Margarine can be substituted in the recipe). The ambiguous role of the NP in question stems from the two distinct action chains conceptualized in the event of substituting.
Although the analysis of construal in this chapter presents and illustrates the distribution of the conceptualized action chains and the construals underlying the sentence patterns, some questions remain unsolved. Specifically, the analysis of construal works in uncovering the cause of the ambiguous role of the direct object of [NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN/OUT] (You can substitute margarine in the recipe) and the
Agent In Out
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
subject of [NPIN/OUT + be + Verb-pp] (Margarine can be substituted in the recipe).
However, we cannot reveal the ambiguous role of the NP at issue in these sentence patterns so far. In the next section, we present the analysis of information status of these syntactic positions (i.e. subject and direct object) and demonstrate how the role of NP can be predicted by means of information structure.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS OF INFORMATION STRUCTURE IN SENTENCE PATTERNS
In last chapter, the problem of identifying the role of NP in the direct object of [NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN/OUT] (You can substitute margarine in the recipe) and the subject of [NPIN/OUT + be + Verb-pp] (Margarine can be substituted in the recipe) has been indicated. The distribution of each sentence pattern is demonstrated as follows.
On the one hand, [NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN] accounts for 19.4% of SUBSTITUTE while [NPAGENT + Verb + NPOUT] accounts for merely 1.8% of it. It suggests that, despite the allowance of NPIN and NPOUT in the direct object, the occurrence of NPIN
is more predominant than NPOUT. On the other hand, the distribution of [NPIN + be + Verb-pp] and [NPOUT + be + Verb-pp] is tantamount to each other with the proportion of 7.5% and 6.5%, respectively. In contrast to the distinct proportion in [NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN/OUT], the close proportion of NPIN and NPOUT in [NPIN/OUT + be + Verb-pp] may cause more challenges in interpreting the role of the subject.
In section 3.3.5, the potential of information structure in identifying the role of the NP in question has been argued. Specifically, two hypotheses predict that new information tends not to be the NPOUT and that old information could be either NPIN
or NPOUT. In this chapter, we examine the information status of the NP in the position of direct object in active transitive construction (You can substitute margarine in the recipe) and the NP in the position of subject in the passive construction (Margarine can be substituted in the recipe). Note that [NPIN + Verb + NPOUT] (Margarine can substitute butter in the recipe) in the active transitive construction was not included in the analysis since the role of the NPs in the position of subject and direct object was not ambiguous.
‧
The chapter is structured as follows. In section 5.1, the distribution of the information status in the sentence patterns is presented. In section 5.2, the results of the ‘discourse-new’ NP in the sentence patterns are further illustrated. In section 5.3, the results of the ‘discourse-old’ NP in the sentence patterns are introduced. Lastly, in section 5.4, the impact of information structure and construal on the sentence patterns is discussed.
In the analysis of information structure, the sentence patterns in the active transitive and the passive construction were all included (except [NPIN + Verb + NPOUT]), as in Table 5.1. The NP whose information status is investigated is bolded.
5.1 Distribution of Information Status in the Sentence Patterns
Table 5.1 presents the distribution of the information status of the NP in the active transitive construction and the passive construction. The results show that, as for the NPs in the direct object position of the active transitive construction, 80.4% of them are ‘discourse-new’ while only 19.6% of them are ‘discourse-old’.
Table 5.1 The distribution of information status of NP in sentence patterns Sentence Patterns Information
‧
On the other hand, as for the NPs in the subject position of the passive construction, 56.4% of them are ‘discourse-new’ and 43.6% of them are ‘discourse-old’.
These two results suggest that the direct object NP in the active transitive construction strongly prefers ‘discourse-new’ NP and that the ‘discourse-new’ NP preference is less so in the subject position of the passive construction.
From the perspective of the information status in information structure, Table 5.2 demonstrates the preferred position for the ‘discourse-new’ and ‘discourse-old’ NPs in the constructions. On the one hand, when the NPs are ‘discourse-new’, 71.5% of them occur in the direct object of the active transitive construction, which means that the
‘discourse-new’ NPs prefer the post-verbal position in the active transitive
construction rather than the pre-verbal position in the passive construction. On the other hand, when the NPs are ‘discourse-old’, 55.8% of them occur in the pre-verbal position of the passive construction in contrast to 44.2% in the post-verbal position of the active transitive construction. ‘Discourse-old’ NPs show the preference for the pre-verbal position of the passive construction.
Table 5.2 Information status of NP in sentence patterns of SUBSTITUTE Information
Status Sentence Patterns Number Total
Discourse-new
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
The results show that the choice of sentence patterns generally conforms to ‘old-before-new principle’ (Chafe, 1994; Ward & Birner, 2004). When the NP is
‘discourse-new’, the NPs prefer to occur in the post-verbal position, that is, the sentence pattern [NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN/OUT] (You can substitute margarine in the recipe). In contrast, when the NP is ‘discourse-old’, the pre-verbal position is preferred, as in [NPIN/OUT + be + Verb-pp] (Margarine can be substituted in the recipe).
These findings relating to the preferred position of the NP in information structure echo with the proposal of Preferred Argument Structure (Du Bois, 2003).
Specifically, the preferred sentence pattern [NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN/OUT] of the
‘discourse-new’ NP is consistent with Du Bois’ (2003) argument that “the general pattern for two-place predicates is that only one core argument typically carries new information, and this argument is not the A” (p. 38), which means that the direct object tends to carry new information. Our finding that the ‘discourse-new’ NPs prefer the post-verbal position (i.e. direct object) of the active transitive construction is consistent with the preferred argument structure of transitive verbs in Du Bois (2003:38). In general, ‘discourse-new’ NPs prefer the post-verbal position of [NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN/OUT] (You can substitute margarine in the recipe) while
‘discourse-old’ NPs tend to occur in the pre-verbal position of [NPIN/OUT + be + Verb-pp] (Margarine can be substituted in the recipe).
In the next section, we further look into the relation between the preferred role of the NP and the information status of the NP in information structure. Specifically, the two hypotheses of this thesis will be attested. The ‘discourse-new’ NPs were predicted to show the preference for the NPIN while the ‘discourse-old’ NPs showed little
preference to either NPIN or NPOUT.
‧
5.2 ‘Discourse-new’ NP in the Sentence Patterns
Table 5.3 displays the ‘discourse-new’ NPs in different sentence patterns.
Regardless of the constructions, 90.6% of the ‘discourse-new’ are interpreted as NPIN
in the sentence patterns while merely 9.6% of them are NPOUT. The stark contrast between the NPIN and the NPOUT in ‘discourse-new’ NPs suggests that ‘discourse-new’
NPs prefer NPIN rather than NPOUT.
Table 5.3 ‘Discourse-new’ NP and sentence patterns in SUBSTITUTE Information
Status Sentence Patterns Number Total Grand
Total
This result supports our first hypothesis that the ‘discourse-new’ NP tends to be the NPIN. The tendency is anticipated in that using a ‘discourse-new’ entity as the NPIN is more common than the NPOUT to be replaced. To illustrate, in (5.1), the
‘AGENT’ I uses an alternatives thick oil (NPIN) to prevent leakage.
(5.1) I own a 1976 SWB Series III which is leaking oil from the seal round the offside swivel pin housing. As the housing is not pitted I cleaned it and replaced the seal, however it is still leaking some oil. Can I avoid renewing the housing by substituting thick oil to prevent further leakage? (AN2-652)
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
However, it is less favorable to interpret thick oil as the NPOUT since replacing new information which just comes to readers/hearers’ mind may be against our live experience or intuition. Therefore, if we replace the oil in (5.1) with the thick oil, as in (5.2), the information status of the direct object NP (thick oil) of SUBSTITUTE becomes ‘discourse-old’ which in turn makes the interpretation of the NP more compatible with NPOUT rather than NPIN.15
(5.2) I own a 1976 SWB Series III which is leaking some thick oil from the seal round the offside swivel pin housing. As the housing is not pitted I cleaned it and replaced the seal, however it is still leaking. Can I avoid renewing the housing by substituting thick oil to prevent further leakage?
The other example of the ‘discourse-new’ in [NPIN/OUT + be + Verb-pp]
(Margarine can be substituted in the recipe) is exemplified in (5.3). The NP (A quality, dry pale sherry) is ‘discourse-new’ as a newly introduced alternative in the recipe, and thus the NP should be the NPIN.
(5.3) [Title: Rice wine] Used extensively for cooking and drinking in China, it is made from glutinous rice, yeast and spring water. A quality, dry pale sherry can be substituted, but cannot equal its unique, rich, mellow taste.
(G2D-750)
The corpus results support our first hypothesis in that the ‘discourse-new’ NP demonstrates the strong preference for the NPIN in natural language use. In the next
15 For here, we recognized that the context information also comes into play and induces our interpretation of the NP (thick oil) to be NP .
‧
section, the second hypothesis relating to relation between the ‘discourse-old’ NP and the role carried by the NP will be attested.
5.3 ‘Discourse-old’ NP in the Sentence Patterns
As for the relation between the ‘discourse-old’ NPs and the role carried by the
As for the relation between the ‘discourse-old’ NPs and the role carried by the