Predication as a Thematic Relation

Abstract

In the previous Chapters I discussed several kinds of structures which are evidence for a non-lexical/thematic analysis of subjecthood, since they are cases in which the subject of a primary predicate is not assigned a thematic argument by the head of the predicate. These included constructions where the subject is a pleonastic, constructions where the DP in subject position is moved there from a lower position, and clauses where the main predicate simply doesn’t assign an external theta-role. The predicates in these constructions are predicates by virtue of their syntactic structure and not by virtue of their lexical structure. A ‘distinguished argument’ theory which defines predicate and predication in terms of thematic arguments has to explain how XPs which do not assign external theta-roles enter into predication relations with their subjects. The way in which lexical, non-movement theories of subjects deal with these problems is very different from the way in which a movement-based theory like Williams’ can deal with it (whether the movement is actual, in a ‘strong’ derivational theory of syntax, or ‘virtual’ in a representational type theory in which DP chains are built at S-structure in conformance with certain constraints, as in Rizzi (1986)). I will discuss non-movement accounts of subject hood in Chapter 6 and 7; here I will consider in depth the theta-based theory developed by Williams. My argument will be that it is not possible to combine a syntactic theory which includes movement and NP (or rather, DP) chains with a distinguished argument account of subjects, predicates and predication.