Advertisement

What Is a Patient?

  • Mário A. Perini
Chapter

Abstract

The semantic role Patient is poorly defined in the literature, so often one has to work with vague, nonoperational definitions. In this chapter it is shown that defining the Patient as the “entity that undergoes a change of state” accounts for part of the cases usually so analyzed; but in many cases this definition fails to work, and besides such cases cannot be brought under any single definition. For these cases, the solution here proposed is to leave the complements blank for semantic roles, and let them be filled in by default; the examination of many examples shows that this solution works adequately to account for the data. Finally, it is shown that the definition must be refined into the “entity that undergoes a nonpsychological change of state” because psychological change of state corresponds to another well-defined role, namely, the Experiencer.

Keywords

Change of state Patient Profiling Transitive construction 

References

  1. Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Fillmore, C. J. (1970). The grammar of hitting and breaking. In R. Jacobs & P. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham: Ginn. Reprinted in Fillmore (2003).Google Scholar
  3. Fillmore, C. J. (2003). Topics in lexical semantics. In Form and meaning in language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Frawley, W. (1992). Linguistic semantics. Hillsdade: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Haegeman, L. (1991). Introduction to government and binding theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Herbst, T., & Schüller, S. (2008). Introduction to syntactic analysis. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  7. Jackendoff, R. S. (1987). The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 18(3), 369–411.Google Scholar
  8. Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar—vol. II, Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar—A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Levin, B., & Hovav, M. R. (2005). Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Saussure, F. d. (1916/1969). Cours de linguistique générale [A course in general linguistics]. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
  13. Schlesinger, I. M. (1995). Cognitive space and linguistic case: Semantic and syntactic categories in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49–100. Reprinted as Chap. 7 of Toward a Cognitive Semantics (MIT Press 2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Volume I: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Van Valin, R., Jr. (2005). Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wierzbicka, A. (1988). The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mário A. Perini
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidade Federal de Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrazil

Personalised recommendations