Subject-object inversion

We now move on to examine the linking in the subject-object inversion verbs under the same assumptions of one-to-one linking and suppression.

Argument-function mapping is illustrated in detail within the LMT presented in section 2.

(75) a. Tamen liang ge ren chi yi bang rou.

they two CL person eat one pound meat i. ‘Those two people eat one pound of meat.’

chi < x y > (x = ag, y = th) IC: [-r]

DC:

--- S/O/… S/O UMP: S O

ii. ‘One pound of meat feeds/serves those two people.’

chi < x-z y > (x = ag, y = th, z = ext)

DC:

--- S/O/… S/O UMP: S O

b. Yi bang rouchi tamen liang ge ren.

one pound meat eat they two CL person

‘One pound of meat feeds/serves those two people.’

chi

y >

o] [-r]

DC: [+

r]

--- OBJθ S/O UMP: OBJθ S

Again, the linking of <ag-SUBJ th-OBJ> in the basic transitive reading of (75a(i)) is mundane; the real issue is why inversion occurs between (75a(ii)) and (75b). The answer virtually falls out under the assumption of strict one-to-one linking. Within the composite role ag-ext, two possibilities arise in linking.

If the extent role is suppressed, the linking is again mundane, much like that of a typical transitive verb. When the agent role is suppressed, the composite role is then syntactically assigned solely based on the extent role. An apparent inversion occurs. This inversion is only apparent because, technically, the agent role is not

assignment completely. However, the semantic content associated with a suppressed role is still implicitly available. In the case of a composite role, the suppressed composing role is inherently bound with its partner and thus always finds an implicit semantic connection with it. Therefore, even though (75a(ii)) and (75b) have inverted linking, their semantic content remains the same.

However, crucially, given agent’s overt linking in the former but its suppression in the latter, only the former can be modified by a ‘subject-oriented’ adverb, as shown below.

(76) a. Tamen liang ge ren guyi chi yi bang rou.

they two CL person intentionally eat one pound meat i. ‘Those two people intentionally eat one pound of meat.’

ii. ‘By theiri intention, one pound of meat feeds/serves them two peoplei.’

b. Yi bang rou (*

guyi) chi tamen liang ge ren.

one pound meat intentionally eat they two CL person

Finally, note that this LMT account assigns the inverted subject in (75b) to the restricted function of OBJθ, rather than the unrestricted OBJ. There is some evidence for that. As demonstrated earlier, the inverted agent is indeed objectlike in that it also appears in the ba-construction. However, a typical OBJ in Chinese also allows a counterpart bei-construction, while an OBJθ does not.

(77) a. Zhangsan gei-le Lisi zhe ben shu.

John give-ASP Lee this CL book

‘John gave Lee this book.’

b. Zhe ben shu bei (Zhangsan) gei-le Lisi.

this CL book BEI John give-ASP Lee

‘The book was given to Lee (by John).’

c.*Lisi bei (Zhangsan) gei-le zhe ben shu.

Lee BEI John give-ASP this CL book

‘Lee was given the book (by John).’

d.*Liang ge ren bei yi bang rouchi.

two CL person BEI one pound meat eat

‘Two people are fed one pound of meat.’ (intended meaning) In (77b), the OBJ zhe ben shu ‘this book’ does passivize, but the indirect object in (77c), which an OBJθ restricted to the theme role, does not. Likewise, the fact that the inverted agent does not passivize, as shown in (77d), would suggest that it is more likely an OBJθ, rather than a full-fledged OBJ. Also, a typical OBJ allows extraction, while an indirect or secondary object does not, as shown in (78) and (79) respectively.

(78) a. Zhe zhong rou, Zhangsan chi.

this kind meat John eat

‘This kind of meat, John eats.’

b. Zhangsan chi de zhe zhong rou.

John eat REL this kind meat

‘The kind of meat that John eats.’

(79) a.*Lisi, Zhangsan gei-le zhe ben shu.

Lee John give-ASP this CL book

‘Lee, John gave this book to.’

b.*Zhangsan gei-le zhe ben shu de ren.

John give-ASP this CL book REL person

‘The person that John gave this book to.’

The behavior of the inverted subject in topicalization and relativization, as in (80), is similar to that of an OBJθ in (79), not OBJ in (78). Its status as an OBJθ thus seems reasonable.

(80) a.*Si ge ren, zhe zhang chuang shui.

four CL person this CL bed sleep ‘*Four people, the bed sleeps.’

b.*Zhe zhang chuang shui de si ge ren.

this CL bed sleep REL four CL person ‘*The four people the bed sleeps.’

5. Discussion

The analysis of the subject-object inversion construction presented above consists of three components. The first component is data-driven and posits that the inversion verb takes on an additional extent role, which binds with the existing agent role in a-structure. The second component is also data-driven; we demonstrated the extremely restricted range of syntactic behavior this construction allows and the low degree of productivity in the lexical class of the inversion verbs, both strongly suggesting a morpholexical solution and not a syntactic one. The third component argues that strict one-to-one linking requires the suppression of a composing role in a composite role. The three components are separate and each is independently motivated. The linking facts are fully accounted for as a consequence of the three components coming together.

However, this inversion in question is only apparent because, technically,

from syntactic assignment. Thus, the subject-object inversion described in this paper is no more an inversion than the passive construction, where the less prominent theme likewise surfaces as the syntactic subject while the agent is suppressed for linking and may or may not appear by way of the adjunct by-phrase. The thematic hierarchy is thus never violated. However, an explanatory theory should be able to account for not only the grammaticality of the inverted linking but also the fact that it is highly marked. The LMT account does offer a potentially promising foundation for a markedness theory in linking, which will be explored in 5.2, after we clarify an important issue with the notion of suppression first in 5.1.