* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINGUIST List logo Eastern Michigan University Wayne State University *
* People & Organizations * Jobs * Calls & Conferences * Publications * Language Resources * Text & Computer Tools * Teaching & Learning * Mailing Lists * Search *
* *
LINGUIST List 22.3026

Tue Jul 26 2011

Qs: Passives, Implicit Agents

Editor for this issue: Brent Woo <bwoolinguistlist.org>


We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.

In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have taken the trouble to respond to the query.

To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.cfm.
Directory
        1.     Andrew McIntyre , Passives, Implicit Agents

Message 1: Passives, Implicit Agents
Date: 26-Jul-2011
From: Andrew McIntyre <andrew.mcintyreunine.ch>
Subject: Passives, Implicit Agents
E-mail this message to a friend

Dear linguists,
A common claim is that verbal passives disfavor interpretations in which
implicit Agents are interpreted as co-referent with passive subjects.
Thus, (1) does not suggest that Mary is dressing herself (the “disjoint
reference” effect). By contrast, coreferent interpretations are allowed
with adjectival participles like those in (2) and certain get-constructions
like (3).

(1) Mary is being dressed at the moment.
(2) Mary seems well-dressed. Mary is a well-dressed person.
(3) Mary is getting dressed.

I would be grateful if people could help me with the following questions:

A. Does anyone know of discussions in the literature of cases of
adjectival participles which disfavor coreferent interpretations? It
appears that such cases are possible once we move beyond verbs like
“dress” which express commonly self-directed acts. For instance, my
judgment of (4) is that “underrated” cannot have a coreferent reading
however much the context favors it.

(4) #If I had the choice between people who think they are geniuses
and people who underrate themselves, I would choose the underrated
ones.

B. Can anyone provide me with defenses (or criticisms) of PRAGMATIC
accounts of the lack of coreferent interpretations in cases like (1). An
example of such an account might be one which treats disjoint
reference effects as an implicature (say a scalar implicature based on
the fact that the speaker could have signaled the reflexive
interpretation unambiguously by using an active construction with a
reflexive interpretation such as ''Mary is dressing.''). Examples of non-
pragmatic accounts would be ones which make no appeal to
implicatures and rely on absolute syntactic/semantic statements
(“coreference is out with verbal passives since it would incur a
crossover violation”; cf. Baker/Johnson/Roberts, Passive Arguments
Raised, Linguistic Inquiry, 1989).

Many thanks in advance for any help in these matters.

Andrew

Linguistic Field(s): Pragmatics
                            Semantics
                            Syntax


Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue



Page Updated: 26-Jul-2011

Supported in part by the National Science Foundation       About LINGUIST    |   Contact Us       ILIT Logo
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.