Cite this article as: Dantata, A. I., & Abdulsalam, S. (2025). Theta theory and argument structure in Kambari: A Government and Binding approach. Sokoto Journal of Linguistics and Communication Studies (SOJOLICS), 1(2), 51–59. https://www.doi.org/10.36349/sojolics.2025.v01i02.006
THETA THEORY AND ARGUMENT STRUCTURE IN KAMBARI: A
GOVERNMENT AND BINDING APPROACH
By
Aliyu Ibrahim Dantata
Department of English, Faculty of Languages and
Communication Studies
Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida University, Lapai
&
Salima Abdulsalam
Federal Polytechnic Bida, Niger State.
Abstract
The focus of this paper is to give an overview of
Theta Theory outlined in GB framework developed by Chomsky (1981, 1986) and
subsequent works with particular reference to Kambari data within the confines
of Chomsky’s Government-Binding Theory (1981, 1986) and Grimshaw’s (1990, 1991)
Argument Structure. In numerous works
over the past decades, most studies on this aspect focused on assignment of
Theta roles to arguments in different languages, but putting Kambari language
into consideration has not been done to the best of my knowledge. The study is
qualitative and uses introspection in analysing the data. Theta Theory, as one
of the essential aspects of formal linguistics, is identified to be the guiding
theoretical framework in this paper, and it helped to identify some of the core
principles of Universal Grammar. The theory was
adopted for its concise explanation for the structural relationship that holds
between verbs and their arguments in Kambari sentence formation. This paper
identifies and further describes the most basic thematic relations encoded in
various theta roles with respect to Kambari data. The paper further observed
that aspects of the syntactic behaviour of verbs are tied to their meaning in
Kambari. The findings reveal that thematic roles are assigned to arguments
based on the thematic hierarchy encoded in the language (Agent, Patient, Theme,
etc) and that two thematic roles of Agent/Source can be assigned to an argument
in Kambari – not necessarily conforming to the Theta Criterion in English.
Keywords:
Theta Criterion; Thematic Hierarchy; Theta Grid; Thematic Roles; Argument
Structure
1. Introduction
This paper examines the aspect and operation of the
theta theory in Kambari sentences as an instantiation of its universal role. TheKambari
language cluster is located in the northern part of Nigeria’s Middle Belt near
the western boarder of Nigeria, particularly in Niger State and part of Kebbi
State. The cluster is classified as Niger-Congo, Volta-Congo, Benue-Congo,
Kainji, Western-Kainji, Kambari Group, (Crozier and Blench 1992). Stark (2010,
2011) examined three Kambari dialects – Agwara, Auna, and Salka – and developed
a working orthography. Salka speakers use Tsishingini, Auna speakers use
Tsikimba while Agwara speakers use Cishingini. Kambari language is partially
standardized, with Salka Kambari used in writing, and displays an SVO sentence
structure with distinctions in number and person but not gender (Stark, 2010).
This paper assumes that syntactic categories constrain argument structures,
defined as the relations between heads and their lexical arguments (Hale &
Kayser, 1999).
2. Literature
Review
In
numerous works over the past decades, beginning with the pioneering works of
Gruber (1965) within the generative enterprise, Fillmore (1968), and Jackendoff
(1972), it has been argued that each Argument of a predicate bears a particular
thematic role, and that the set of thematic functions which Arguments can
fulfil are drawn from a highly restricted, finite, universal set.
Thus, these earliest work on Theta Theory within the
generative model was completed by Gruber (1965) and Fillmore (1968). Contrary
to work done today, these renown scholars saw theta assignment as a reflection
of the deeper ‘relations’ holding between arguments and their respective
predicates. This tradition has continued in theories of Case Linking as well as
in the Lexical Functional Grammar (henceforth LFG) and Head-Driven Phrase
Structure Grammar (henceforth HPSG) syntactic models.
Gruber (1965) was impressed by the fact that there is
consistent pattern in sentences that is best explained by their semantic
similarities. To account for this, he proposed a “pre-Lexical” structure, which
has properties “that are basic both to the syntactic form and the semantic
relationships” (Gruber 1965: 2). Essentially, he proposed that at this level
‘syntax and semantics will have the same representation’ (ibid: 2). In his
view, the pre-lexical structures for verbs contained information about the semantic
relations that they held within the sentence. The fundamental semantic relation
noted by Gruber is the “theme” (hence the further coinage of ‘thematic
relations’), which he posits as necessary to all sentences.
He however, suggested several fundamental attributes
of thematic roles that can be summarized thus: thematic roles are not syntactic
– they represent some kind of basic information related to the semantic
interpretation of the word; the most basic of the thematic roles is the
“theme”; the “theme” is often found in two positions: either the subject
position of non-causative verbs or the object position of causative verbs; the
pre-lexical structure “projects” a structure.
An additional attribute of Gruber’s model needs to be
demonstrated. Besides the fact that some thematic relations are always present
in a sentence, Gruber observed that some arguments can take more than one
thematic role. Invariably, some thematic roles seem to be shared over more than
one argument. This is exemplified by the following sentence:
(1) David gave Mary a thousand pounds.
We can argue that “David” is both the Agent and the
Source. Consequently, this led Gruber to the conclusion that some subjects are
related to an incorporated formative in the pre-lexical structure.
Fillmore (1968) developed an approach referred to as
Case Grammar within the generative parlance. Despite the fact that Fillmore
called the relations he was describing as Case Relations, they were, to a large
extent, what we would now call thematic relations. First, he observed that a
sentence is made up of a “verb and one or more noun phrases, each associated
with the verb in a particular case relationship” (Fillmore 1968: 21). Moreover,
although a case may be shared among conjoined nouns in an NP, each case
relationship can occur only once in a sentence. In the system developed by
Fillmore, Cases (i.e. thematic roles)
describe both the type of noun that can fill a case position and the role the
noun plays in the sentence.
Jackendoff (1972) saw the efficacy in Gruber’s
pre-lexical structures in their capacity to predict what kinds of thematic
roles would be “required” by the semantics of a verb for a well-formed
sentence. Building on this, Jackendoff proposes that the thematic relations
should be derived by the semantic component, nominating the verb itself as the
source: Clearly the verb of the sentence is what determines the [thematic]
relationship: the lexical entry of a verb must correlate grammatical and
thematic relations (Jackendoff 1972: 37).
All the three models of analyses Gruber, Fillmore and
Jackendoff attempted to explain thematic roles in terms of a structural
relation between the verb and its arguments. Gruber and Jackendoff worked on a
pre-lexical or semantic structure, which explained the relations in further
sentence derivations. Fillmore created structures directly within the syntax,
deleting semantic information at a later stage of the derivation. However, the
three proposals introduce a problem that still engages the minds of scholars
today struggling to provide optimal solutions. Namely, if a thematic role is a
relation between a verb and an argument, intuitively we feel that the argument
is an NP. Nonetheless, this is not what the syntax would perhaps; lead us to
believe if we were to analyze the structure only.
In effect, all the three approaches expound this by
suggesting that “to” is somehow part
of the thematic role itself. Either it is included in the pre-lexical
structure, onto which the verb is mapped, or it is included in the verb’s
lexical entry in the semantic sub-entry, or it is part of the case frame and may or may not appear in
the surface structure.
More recently, research in this area has been
extremely productive, and many new insights have been gained. Syntacticians
have adopted an idealization of thematic relations which uses the notion theta
roles. In most of the literature, the terms thematic relations and theta roles
are used interchangeably. A theta role may thus be composed of one or more
thematic relations, but crucially all of the thematic relations making up a
single theta role must be assigned by a single element to a single position (Cowper,
1992). Two perspectives worth mentioning are the Projectionist view and the
Constructionist approach to theta theory.
According to the Projectionist view, theta roles are
projected from the verb to its arguments in a hierarchical manner. Moreover,
the theta roles assigned by the verb project onto the syntactic structure of
the sentence. The Projectionist view introduces the concept of "Projection
Layers" to capture this hierarchical projection of theta roles. Each
projection layer corresponds to a specific theta role assigned by the verb. The
layers are ordered hierarchically based on the thematic hierarchy.
The Projectionist view of Theta Theory provides a way
to capture the complex assignment of theta roles in a sentence and how they
relate to the syntactic structure. It offers an analysis that incorporates the
hierarchical nature of thematic roles and their projection within the syntax.
On the other hand, the constructionist account of
Theta Theory is a theoretical perspective within the framework of generative
linguistics that emphasizes the role of syntax and argument structure
construction in the assignment of thematic roles (or theta roles) to
constituents in a sentence. The constructionist account challenges the
traditional view of Theta Theory, which posits that theta roles are assigned
based on the intrinsic properties of individual lexical items (verbs and their
arguments). Instead, the constructionist account argues that theta roles emerge
through the interaction of syntactic constructions and the semantics of lexical
items (Gibert-Sotelo
and Marín 2024).
According to the constructionist account, the
syntactic structure of a sentence is not simply a linear combination of
individual words, but it consists of higher-level constructions that have their
own internal organization and semantics. These constructions provide the
framework for mapping arguments onto theta roles.
In this view, theta roles are not assigned by
individual lexical items in isolation but are derived through the
constructional properties of the larger syntactic structure. The specific
combination of lexical items, phrase structures, and syntactic operations
determines how theta roles are assigned and distributed within a sentence.
The constructionist account of Theta Theory emphasizes
the importance of syntax and syntactic structures in determining the
distribution and assignment of theta roles. It highlights the interaction
between syntax and semantics and provides a more dynamic and construction-based
perspective on how thematic roles are assigned in language.
One central task for any theory of grammar is to solve
the so-called "linking problem": the problem of discovering
regularities in how the participants of an event are expressed in surface
grammatical forms and explaining those regularities. When there is a
distinction between the language faculty and other cognitive faculties, then
there must in principle be at least three stages in the association that need
to be understood. First, there is the non-linguistic stage of conceptualizing a
particular event. · For instance, while all of the participants in an event may
be affected by the event in some way or another, human cognizers typically
focus on one or the other of those changes as being particularly salient or
relevant to their interests. This participant is taken to be the
"theme" or "patient" of the event, perhaps in some kind of
non-linguistic conceptual representation, such as the one developed by
Jackendoff (1983, 1990). Second, this conceptual/thematic representation is
associated with a linguistic representation in which the entity seen as the
patient of the event is represented as (say) an NP that is the direct object of
the verb that expresses what kind of an event it was. This is the interface
between language and the conceptual system. Finally, there is the possibility
of adjusting this representation internally to the language system, by way of
movements, chain formations, Case assignment processes, or whatever other
purely syntactic processes there may be. For instance, the NP that represents the
theme and starts out as the direct object of the verb may become the subject if
there is no other subject in the linguistic representation, either because
there was no agent in the conceptual representation (as with an unaccusative
verb), or because it was suppressed (as with a passive verb).
The linking problem arises because there isn't always
a one-to-one mapping between the syntactic structure and the semantic roles in
a sentence. Sometimes, a single syntactic argument can correspond to multiple
semantic roles, or multiple syntactic arguments can correspond to a single
semantic role.
Resolving the linking problem involves analyzing the
various factors that influence the mapping between syntactic structure and
semantic roles, such as verb subcategorization, case marking, word order, and
context. Different theories and frameworks within linguistics propose different
solutions to the linking problem, and ongoing research explores the intricacies
of this relationship.
However, on theoretical grounds, it is assumed that
principles of UG correlate thematic structure with syntactic structure in a
uniform fashion. This assumption is embodied in the Uniformity of
Theta-Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH, henceforth): ‘‘Identical thematic
relationships between items are presented by identical structural relationships
between those items at the level of D-structure’’ (Baker 1988, 46).
The fundamental principle of Theta Theory is the Theta-Criterion,
a biuniqueness condition on theta-role assignment, which forces the
requirements of the lexicon to be projected into syntax. Theta-role assignment
is determined by syntactic configuration. By Uniformity, if the theta-role
assignment is the same, the syntactic configuration must be the same at some
level of representation. Thus, the standard formulation of the Theta-Criterion
relates roles to arguments (Chomsky 1981: 36), and requires that every argument
is assigned just one theta role and
that every theta role is assigned to just one
argument. Its main role is to determine the position to which NP-Movement
is possible. The theta criterion imposes one-to-one relation between arguments
and theta roles such that one NP can only be associated with one theta role and
conversely one theta role is only assigned to one argument; given in (2) below:
(2). Theta Criterion: (Chomsky
1981:36)
a. Each argument is assigned one theta role;
b. Each theta role
is assigned to one argument
The Theta-Criterion is a principle in the theory of syntax, particularly
in Generative Grammar, which ensures that each argument in a sentence is
appropriately assigned a thematic role by the verb or other predicate in the
sentence. The Theta-Criterion states that every participant in the event
described by the verb must have a clear and unique theta role and every role
that the verb specifies must be filled by exactly one participant. It is
crucial for syntactic well-formedness and ensuring that sentences are
semantically interpretable. Thus, it ensures that every argument in a sentence
has a distinct and appropriate role, which contributes to the overall meaning
and grammaticality of the sentence. Roles such as Agent, Patient, Theme,
Beneficiary, Source, Goal, etc. are some of the theta roles assigned to
arguments within the theta theory. It is assumed that these are assigned to the
complements of lexical items as lexical property. This is because lexical heads
carry Thematic Information: they are associated with a number of arguments, to
which they assign a thematic role or theta role, agent, patient etc.
In Government-Binding theory, an argument is an
expression with a theta role, and the position to which a theta role can be
assigned is called an A(rgument)-position
(Crystal 2008). Thus, theta-roles are assigned to arguments – where
arguments are nominal positions. There are two types of arguments, ‘internal
and external’. Although there is a convergence of opinion in the literature
that verbs assign theta-roles to their internal arguments (= their subjects),
opinions diverge as regards the assignment of theta-roles to external arguments
(= subjects of predicates). Whereas Fillmore (1968) believes that the external
arguments are also assigned theta-roles by the verb, Sells (1985: 36), Chomsky
(1986: 59-60), and Radford (1988: 386-7) argue that it is not the verb but
rather the entire VP that assigns a theta-role to its external argument. Thus,
the semantic role of the external argument “is determined compositionally,
depending on the meaning of the unit – V-NP” (Chomsky 1986:386).
The arguments of a verb are said to be selected by the
verb. A verb that selects a particular type of argument is said to be
subcategorized for that type of argument. The set of arguments selected by the
verb, including the subject argument, constitutes its argument structure.
Nouns, adjectives and prepositions also have argument structure.
It is important to equally note that, most researchers
working within GB have assumed that theta-roles are assigned by verbs according
to a universal hierarchy, which determines the order of realization of the
arguments, thus giving rise to different types of argument structure. Among
others, Carrier-Duncan (1985) proposes that certain arguments are higher than
others in a hierarchy, which in turn determines their realization in a sentence
in the manner of Larson (1988) and Grimshaw (1990). For instance, Grimshaw
(1990) orders the realization of the different possible arguments according to
the following thematic hierarchies: agent > experiencer >
goal/source/location > theme.
Levin’s (1993) work is guided by the assumption that
the behaviour of a verb, particularly with respect to the expression and
interpretation of its arguments, is to a large extent determined by its
meaning. Thus, verb behaviour can be used effectively to probe for
linguistically relevant pertinent aspects of verb meaning. He attempts
delimiting and systematizing the facets of verb behaviour. The contents of
Levin’s study should help pave the way toward the development of a theory of
lexical knowledge. Ideally, such a theory must provide linguistically motivated
lexical entries for verbs which incorporate a representation of verb meaning
and which allow the meanings of verbs to be properly associated with the
syntactic expressions of their arguments. The present paper is, however, guided
by this assumption.
Levin (1993) further posits that a representative of a
wide range of phenomena that suggest that a speaker's knowledge of the
properties of a verb goes well beyond an awareness of the simple expression of
its arguments – the type of lexical knowledge traditionally represented in
subcategorization frames. Furthermore, the speaker's ability to make subtle
judgments about possible and actual verbs and their properties makes it
unlikely that all that a speaker knows about a verb is indicated in its lexical
entry. Thus, Pylkkanen (2002) states that verbs describe events in the world
and verbal arguments name individuals that stand in some relevant relations to
those events.
2.1 Theoretical Framework
Theta theory is a linguistic framework within the
field of generative grammar that seeks to explain the structural relationship
between verbs and their arguments in sentence formation. It was initially
proposed by Chomsky (1981, 1986) as a sub-theory of the Government and Binding
(GB) theory and has since undergone various developments and modifications. The
main goal of theta theory is to account for the assignment of thematic roles to
noun phrases (NPs) (arguments) in a sentence and to establish the syntactic
representation of these roles. Thematic roles refer to the different semantic
relationships that nouns have with the verb in a sentence, such as agent,
patient, theme, experiencer, instrument, benefactor, goal, etc.
The central claim of Theta Theory is that argument
structure does not consist of just a set of arguments but is rather a
structured representation over which relations of prominence are defined. One
kind of evidence comes from theta-marking in predicates. The behaviour of the
predicate in human language provides another kind of evidence for positing a
structured argument structure: their behaviour can be understood as resulting
from a mismatch between their thematic prominence relations.
The verb is the central element in the prelexical
structure earlier proposed in pre-GB days, other elements are given labels
(roles) associated with particular verbs (Gruber 1976: 2). Thus, Aitchison
(2003: 125) posits that verbs dominate a sentence and dictates its structure,
while Baker (2003: 95) argues that syntacticians are accustomed to specify the
Theta-grid (a
list of the verb’s argument structure
to show how many arguments the verb takes, what kind of arguments they are
(agent, theme, experiencer, goal, instrument, etc.), and in what order they
appear in the verb's lexical entry) of a
lexical item and to having this grid determine the syntactic structure that the
word appears in, which forms their relation. The relationship between verbs and
their arguments is a widely debated topic in linguistics. A verb's semantics
can determine the morphosyntactic realization of its arguments. Assuming a
close connection between verb meaning and syntactic structure, it provides a
bridge between lexical-semantic and syntactic research, synthesizing the
results of work from a range of linguistic sub-disciplines and in a variety of
theoretical frameworks.
Argument structure
is the set of participants a verb requires and how those participants appear in
sentences. It is the part of a
verb’s meaning that determines how many
arguments the verb needs, what kind of arguments they are, and how they are
syntactically arranged. This paper is
therefore guided by the assumption that the behaviour of a verb, particularly
with respect to the expression and interpretation of its arguments, is to a
large extent determined by its meaning. Thus, verb behaviour can be used effectively
to probe for linguistically relevant pertinent aspects of verb meaning. This
paper therefore, offers an attempt at delimiting and systematizing the facets
of verb behaviour that can incorporate a representation of verb meaning and to
allow the meanings of verbs to be properly associated with the syntactic
expressions of arguments.
The arguments of a predicate cross-linguistically are
realized syntactically as the subject, direct object, and indirect object and
semantically as the agent, patient, experiencer, theme, and so on. The
relationships entered into by different predicates with their arguments are
varied. The arguments are classified into semantic categories according to the
kind of role they play in the sentence in combination with their predicates.
However, human languages do not define straightforward
mappings between thoughts and words. To get a sentence, it is not enough to
select the appropriate words and string them together in an order that conveys
the meaning relationships among them. Though verbs are choosy, not all verbs
can appear in all sentences, even when the combinations make perfect sense.
Different subcategories of verbs make different demands on which their
arguments must be expressed, which can be optionally expressed, and how the expressed
arguments are encoded grammatically – that is, as subjects or objects. Arguments of a given predicate in Kambari are
associated with positions in a syntactic structure and the role they play in
the language which hitherto identifies and further describes the most basic
thematic relations encoded in various theta roles in the language (Dantata (2024). The properties of verbs in different subcategories
are specified by their entries in the mental lexicon – argument structures
– the
set of participants a verb requires and how those participants appear in
sentences.
3. Methodology
The methodology
for this paper is both empirical and theoretical in nature. Hence, fieldwork
method was implored in collecting the relevant data and the theoretical tool of
Theta Theory was used in the analysis. This method was particularly exploited
in eliciting the data on Kambari and then proceeds with its examination and
representation, first using introspection to determine grammaticality judgment
before finally submitting the data to analytical framework of Theta-Theory using Principles and
Parameters Approach.
4. Key Concepts in
Theta Theory
Some of the key concepts of grammatical analyses in
theta theory include the following:
Thematic Roles: Thematic roles are assigned to
arguments in a sentence based on their semantic relationship with the verb.
Examples of thematic roles include agent, patient, theme, experiencer, etc.
Theta Grid: The theta grid is a representation of the
thematic structure of a sentence and it determines the grammatical
relationships and constraints between arguments. It consists of a list of theta
roles associated with each argument in a sentence. Each theta role can only be
assigned to a single argument, and each argument must be assigned a unique
theta role.
Theta Criterion: The Theta Criterion is a principle in
theta theory that states that every argument in a sentence must be assigned a
theta role by the verb. It ensures that all the arguments in a sentence have a
thematic role and that no argument is left unassigned or has multiple theta
roles.Though there are cases for arguments bearing multiple theta roles in
Kambari in collaboration by the empirical evidence provided by Jackendoff
(1972).
Thematic Hierarchy: The thematic hierarchy is a
ranking of thematic roles based on their syntactic behaviour and prominence.
Certain roles have a higher ranking and tend to be assigned to arguments in the
specifier positions of functional projections, while lower-ranking roles are
assigned to arguments in the complement positions.
Theta-Role Assignment: Theta-role assignment involves
the process of assigning theta roles to arguments in a sentence. The assignment
is determined by various factors, including the lexical properties of the verb,
the structural position of the argument, and the thematic hierarchy.
5. Data
Presentation and Analysis
This section provides presentation and analysis of the data obtained in
Kambari. For instance, giving the sentence in (3), the argument “Magaji” (the
beneficiary) is structurally separated from the verb by being embedded in a PP,
thus:
(3) Shagiya[AGENT]
cá ta màrà[THEME a tyó
yaMagaji[BENEFACTIVE]
Shagiya.NOM give.pst
CM wine.OBJ at go.prct. to Magaji.OBJ
‘Shagiya gave the
wine to Magaji.’ [__NP, PP]
Agent>Theme>Benefactive
The structure in (3) shows that the verb “ca – give”
subcategorize for three arguments in Kambari – Shagiya, mara, and Magaji. Each
of these arguments is assigned a theta role of Agent, Theme, and Benefactive
respectively. This data further show that in Kambari, the Nominative position
can further be assigned Source role apart from being an Agent. The Theta-Criterion states that every participant in
the event described by the verb must have a clear and unique theta role and
every role that the verb specifies must be filled by exactly one participant,
this becomes too strong for the language, because Agent and Source can be
assigned to an argument at the same time. In effect, Projectionist view
suggested that “to-ca” is somehow part of the thematic role
itself as seen by the Kambari data above.
In a sentence like (4) below, the verb "gave" assigns the
theta roles Agent/Source, Benefactive, and Theme to the NPs “Shagiya”, “màrà”, and “Magaji” respectively. According to the
Projectionist view, these theta roles project onto different projection layers,
representing their hierarchical relationship.
(4) Shagiya[AGENT]
ca ta Magaji[BENEFACTIVE] mara[THEME]
Shagiya.NOM give.pst
CM Magaji.OBJ wine.OBJ
‘Shagiya gave
Magaji the wine’. [__NP, NP]
Agent>Benefactive>Theme
The example above shows how movement of arguments occur and how it
affects the hierarchical structure of theta roles assigned to arguments due to
alternation of the arguments. In example (3), we have Agent>Theme>Benefactive,
while in example (4) we have Agent>Benefactive>Theme. This clearly shows
that alternation can make arguments to move from their original position to
occupy certain positions by the grammar of the language.
Consider the sentence in (5) below: In a constructionist account, the
theta role of the agent (Jatau) and the patient (yàndà’a) is not determined solely by the individual meanings of “Jatau” and “ɓósó” but by the construction that relates an agent and a
patient in a transitive event. The construction provides the frame within which
the theta roles are assigned.
(5) Jatau[AGENT]
ɓósó ta yàndà’a[PATIENT]
Jatau.NOM break.pst
CM calabash-the.OBJ
‘Jatau broke the
calabash’ [__NP]
Agent>Theme
This shows that the verb subscribe for two
arguments due to its transitive nature. The semantic interpretation of the verb
subcategorizes for an Agent that must perform the action and a Patient who
eventually received the action of the verb.
Consider example (4) taken here as (6) below. Syntactically, "Shagiya" is the subject, "Magaji" is the
direct object, and "mara’a" is the indirect object. Semantically, however,
"Shagiya" corresponds to the agent role,
"Magaji" to the benefactive role, and "mara’a" to the theme role.
(6) Shagiya[AGENT]
ca ta Magaji[BENEFACTIVE] mara[THEME]
Shagiya.NOM give.PST
CM Magaji.OBJ wine.OBJ
‘Shagiya gave
Magaji the wine’. [__NP, NP]
Agent>Benefactive>Theme
It will thus be ungrammatical for a
construction which its verb subcategorizes for three arguments to have only
two. This shows that the subcategorization frame will lack one of the mandatory
arguments. For instance, when ca – give requires three arguments and a
speaker end up providing just two arguments, the construction becomes illicit,
ill-formed, and ungrammatical as example (7) buttresses:
(7) * Shagiya[AGENT] ca ta
Magaji[BENEFACTIVE]
Shagiya.NOM give.PST
CM Magaji.OBJ
*‘Shagiya gave
Magaji the wine’. [__NP]
Agent>Benefactive
In the above example, the Theme role is
missing which makes the construction ungrammatical. Verbs of this nature
require three arguments which must be fulfilled before the sentence becomes
grammatical in Kambari.
The Theta-Criterion states that every participant in the event described
by the verb must have a clear and unique role and every role that the verb
specifies must be filled by exactly one participant as can be seen in Kambari
data below:
(8) Cìmbì’i[AGENT] tánù taìkàrábù[THEME] o mòlólì’i[GOAL]
Farmer-the load.Pst CM maize on donkey-the
The farmer loaded the maize on the donkey.
Tanu verb [___NP, PP]
Tanu: verb; 1 2 3
NP NP PP <Agent, Theme, Goal>
|
1 NP |
2 NP |
3 PP |
|
i |
j |
k |
Each of the arguments Chimbi’i,
ìkàrábù and mòlólì’i has one unique role of Agent, Theme
and Goal respectively fulfilling the Theta-Criterion using the Theta
Grid. However, violation of Theta-Criterion can be seen where the verb requires
certain number of arguments and role is not assigned to one of such arguments
as the Kambari data below shows:
(9) *Cìmbì’i[AGENT]
tánù ta ìkàrábù[THEME]
*Farmer-the load.Pst CM maize
*The farmer loaded the maize.
Tanu verb [___NP]
Tanu: verb; 1 2
NP NP Agent>Theme
|
1 NP |
2 NP |
|
|
i |
j |
k |
This clearly shows a violation of Theta-Criterion which makes the
construction ill-formed because the verb tánù
requires three arguments but only two suffice with the roles of Agent
and Theme; the Goal position in the Grid is left empty which
makes the construction ill-formed, just like the one in example (7) above.
Thus, in the entry for PUT in a sentence such as example (10) below:
(10) Ayashe[AGENT]
zùwà ta ìlyályá’a[THEME] a aàvàlú’u[LOCATION]
Ayashe .NOM put CM
food-the.OBJ on ground the.OBJ
Ayashe put the
food on the mat. [__NP, PP]
Agent>Theme>Location
The NP complement “ìlyályá’a” is
assigned the role of Patient (or Theme) and the PP complement “aàvàlú’u” is assigned the role of Location. It is further
assumed that the majority of verbs theta marks the subject position of
sentences containing them. In this regard, the subject NP of (10) above (i.e
Ayashe) is assigned the Agent role. Any constituent assigned a theta role, by
definition denotes a predicate argument.
The Subcategorization frame and Theta Grid for the verb ‘ca– give’ in example (3) can be seen in
(11) below:
(11) ca: verb; [__NP, PP]
ca: verb; 1 2 3
NP NP
PP <Agent, Theme, Benefactive>
|
1 NP |
2 NP |
3 PP |
|
i |
j |
k |
ca: verb;
The subcategorization frame of ‘ca– give’ requires three arguments – NP1, NP2,
and PP(NP)3. The last argument can either be PP, enclosed within a
prepositional phrase or another NP. The Theta Grid maintains that for the
arguments contained in the frame, they must be assigned roles of Agent, Theme,
and Benefactive respectively.
6. Conclusion
The paper has, thus far, discussed that the thematic
structure associated with lexical items must be saturated in the syntax, as
stated in the theta criterion. Even though part of our data suggests that the
principle is too strong. One of the central issues concerning the
lexicon-syntax interface is how these roles are distributed across syntactic
arguments. The classical Theta Criterion (Chomsky 1981) is probably not
necessary to regard it as an independent principle of grammar. The observation
that argument structure need to receive at least one theta-role reduces to the
independently necessary principle of full interpretation: an argument without
such a role could not be interpreted. It is not clear whether the other
generalizations expressed by the Theta-Criterion are actually valid; at the
least they are analysis-dependent. These other generalizations are that every
theta role must be assigned to some argument, and that an argument cannot
receive more than one such role is too strict in Kambari because there are
cases of arguments bearing multiple theta roles. This is collaborated by the
empirical evidence provided by Jackendoff (1972).
It is noteworthy that arguments of predicates in
Kambari are identified in terms of distinct thematic roles, thereby giving
theta roles their status in the grammar of the language. Theta role status in
the grammar enables us to state generalizations in both language-specific and
crosslinguistic terms regarding the taxonomy of arguments, and also to
distinguish between the thematic structure of predicates which have the same
number of arguments but differ in the kind of arguments they have. Furthermore,
the universal theta role hierarchy is the basis on which the linking rules are
expressed in Kambari and grammatical relations are equally defined and
realised. Theta theory has been influential in understanding the relationship
between syntax and semantics and has provided insights into the grammatical
structure of sentences in Kambari and it helped to identify some of the core
principles of Universal Grammar.
The paper concludes, as part of its findings that
Kambari data has an exception with respect to Theta Criterion because some
arguments can be assigned two theta roles. Each theta role must be assigned to
an argument in Kambari. The verb in Kambari determines the number of arguments
it subcategorises for in a sentence. Any unfilled subcategorization frame in
the sentence of Kambari will render such construction ungrammatical in the
language. Theta
Theory provides the bridge between
meaning and syntactic structure, shaping grammaticality, predicting
syntactic transformations, cross-linguistic universals, and the lexicon-syntax
interface in human languages.
References
Aitchison, J. (2003). Words in the Mind: An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon (3rd ed.).
Blackwell.
Baker, M. (1988). Incorporation:
A theory of grammatical function changing. University of Chicago Press.
Baker, M. (1997). Thematic roles and syntactic
structure. In Haegeman , L. (ed) Elements of grammar: Handbook of generative
syntax. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Baker, M. (2003). Lexical
categories. Cambridge University Press.
Carrier-Duncan, J. (1985). ‘Linking of thematic roles
in derivational word formation.’ Linguistic
Inquiry 16, 1 – 34.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and
binding. Foris.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its
nature, origin and use, Praeger.
Cowper, E. A. (1992). A concise introduction to syntactic theory: The government and binding
approach. University of Chicago Press.
Crozier,
D. H. & Blench, R. M. (1992) (2nd Edn.). An index of Nigerian languages. Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Crystal, D. (2008). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (6th ed). Blackwell
Publishing.
Dantata, A. I. (2024). The argument structure of
verbal predicates in Kambari. Unpublished PhD Thesis.Sokoto: UsmanuDanfodiyo
University.
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). ‘The case for case’, in E.
Bach & R.T. Harms (eds) Universals in linguistic theory. Holt
Rinehart & Winston. pp. 1-88.
Gibert-Sotelo,
E. & Marín, R. (2024). Argument structure and the eventive-stative
alternation in extent verbs. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 9(1).
pp. 1–44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.9522
Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument structure. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Grimshaw, J. (1991). 'Extended projections', MS,
Brandeis University.
Gruber, J. S. (1965). Studies in lexical relations,
PhD dissertation, Massachusetts: MIT.
Haegeman, L. (1994). Introduction to government and
binding theory(2nd edn.). Blackwell.
Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. (1999). Bound features,
Merge, and transitivity alternations. In Liina Pylkka¨nen, Angeliek van Hout,
and Heidi Harley, (eds.), Papers from the UPenn/MIT Roundtable on the Lexicon. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 35.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MITWPL.
Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 18. MIT Press.
Larson, R. (1988). ‘On the double object
construction’. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335-91.
Levin, B. (1993). English
verb classes and alternations: A
preliminary investigation. The University of Chicago Press.
Pylkkanen, L. (2002). Introducing arguments.
Unpublished Ph.D Thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Radford, A. (1988). Transformational grammar: A
first course. Cambridge University Press.
Sells, P. (1985). Lectures
on contemporary syntactic theories. Stanford University.
Stark,
J. P. (2010). Kambari orthography design.
Summer Institute of Linguistics International.
Stark,
J. E. (2011). The role of oral literature
in the dissemination of neologisms. Summer Institute of Linguistics
International.
0 Comments