LINGUIST List 9.136

Wed Jan 28 1998

Qs: Thematic roles, Chomsky/Levi-Strauss

Editor for this issue: Brett Churchill <brettlinguistlist.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.

Directory

  1. Stuart Robinson, passivisation and thematic roles
  2. PCARINO, CHOMSKY/LEVI-STRAUSS GRUDGE MATCH

Message 1: passivisation and thematic roles

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 20:27:19 +1000
From: Stuart Robinson <Stuart.Robinsonanu.edu.au>
Subject: passivisation and thematic roles

Can anyone recommend work on thematic roles-particularly as they relate to
passiviation? I'm looking for works post-dating (and perhaps in response
to) Jackendoff's (1972) proposed constraint on passivisation in English,
which is basically as follows--the thematic role of the object of the"by"
phrase must outrank the subject on the following hierarchy: agent <
location/source/goal < theme. I'd like to see how or whether this
constraint works for other languages. (I know passivisation is highly
productive in many Bantu languages, but I'm not sure whether any trace of
such a hierarchy could be found nonetheless.) And I'd like to learn of
counterexamples in English.

Regards,
Stuart Robinson

- 

Stuart Robinson <Stuart.Robinsonanu.edu.au>
Linguistics Department
Australian National University
Canberra ACT 0200
FAX: 61-6-279-8214
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 2: CHOMSKY/LEVI-STRAUSS GRUDGE MATCH

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 10:57:22 -0500
From: PCARINO <Paula_Carinousccmail.lehman.com>
Subject: CHOMSKY/LEVI-STRAUSS GRUDGE MATCH

Hi folks--

I'm not a linguist (but I play one on TV), just a curious layperson who
wants to know where Levi-Strauss and Chomsky part ways. I understand
that L-S was an anthropologist so his focus and intent are different
from Chomsky's, but in terms of "rules" and "deep structure", are the
two simpatico?

If possible, please respond privately, as I do not subscribe to this
mailing list.

Thank you!

Paula










Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue