Kicking as a three-level verb
The simple "atoms" of verbs set forth in previous posts, with a THEME, LOC, and (perhaps) a CAUSE, are somewhat too simple to stand alone in analyzing most verbs.
Delancey seems to take it that "kick" is a "surface contact verb" and that she kicked the ball can be analyzed something like she CAUSE kick GOTO ball. 1
He also seems to take it that she kicked him the ball is something like she CAUSE ball GOTO him.2
In the second sentence, while it is certainly correct that she kicked him the ball normally describes an event which can be described as she CAUSE ball GOTO him, that analysis lacks any indication of how she CAUSEd the ball GOTO him, while the sentence does tell us this - she kicked it to him. Note that the conversation She threw him the ball - No, she kicked it, makes perfect sense.
Also, this conversation seems to sugggest, although perhaps less obviously, there is a level of the kind of activity involved - kicking. She was involved in the act of kicking, not of, for example, throwing.
So it seems that the sentence She Kicked him the ball seems to analyze into three "layers": (1) Her act of kicking, (2) the causing of a kick to go to the ball, and (3) the causing of the ball to go to him.
Each of the first two act as a kind of "context" for those following it. She acted to kick (moved the leg in a striking motion), which caused a kick (a strike with the foot) to contact the ball, which in turn, caused the ball to go to him. Thus it was her act of kicking, and not merely "she", that CAUSEd the kick to GOTO the ball. Note that each level can succeed while those below can fail "she kicked (but missed the ball", and she kicked the ball (but it went wide). Thus each layer seems to be the cause of the later phrase. We thus now have an analysis of "she kicked him the ball" as
[1]: she AT (act of) kick (-ing)
[2]: [1] CAUSE kick (= strike with foot) GOT0 ball
[3]: [2] CAUSE ball GOT him
Note that being engaged it an activity is metaphorically being located AT the activity.
This analysis seems also to bring out the possible sentence rather naturally. She kicked the ball is [1] and [2]; while she kicked (but missed) is [1] alone.
1See the discussion of surface contact verbs, including "kick", in LSA Summer Institute, UC Santa Barbara, 2001, Lecture 3 and What an Innatist Argument Should Look Like
2Delancey doesn't explicitly discuss "kick" as a ditransitive verb, but this observation seems to fairly follow for the discussion of ditransitive verbs in LSA Summer Institute, UC Santa Barbara, 2001, Lecture 3 and What an Innatist Argument Should Look Like
Delancey seems to take it that "kick" is a "surface contact verb" and that she kicked the ball can be analyzed something like she CAUSE kick GOTO ball. 1
He also seems to take it that she kicked him the ball is something like she CAUSE ball GOTO him.2
In the second sentence, while it is certainly correct that she kicked him the ball normally describes an event which can be described as she CAUSE ball GOTO him, that analysis lacks any indication of how she CAUSEd the ball GOTO him, while the sentence does tell us this - she kicked it to him. Note that the conversation She threw him the ball - No, she kicked it, makes perfect sense.
Also, this conversation seems to sugggest, although perhaps less obviously, there is a level of the kind of activity involved - kicking. She was involved in the act of kicking, not of, for example, throwing.
So it seems that the sentence She Kicked him the ball seems to analyze into three "layers": (1) Her act of kicking, (2) the causing of a kick to go to the ball, and (3) the causing of the ball to go to him.
Each of the first two act as a kind of "context" for those following it. She acted to kick (moved the leg in a striking motion), which caused a kick (a strike with the foot) to contact the ball, which in turn, caused the ball to go to him. Thus it was her act of kicking, and not merely "she", that CAUSEd the kick to GOTO the ball. Note that each level can succeed while those below can fail "she kicked (but missed the ball", and she kicked the ball (but it went wide). Thus each layer seems to be the cause of the later phrase. We thus now have an analysis of "she kicked him the ball" as
[1]: she AT (act of) kick (-ing)
[2]: [1] CAUSE kick (= strike with foot) GOT0 ball
[3]: [2] CAUSE ball GOT him
Note that being engaged it an activity is metaphorically being located AT the activity.
This analysis seems also to bring out the possible sentence rather naturally. She kicked the ball is [1] and [2]; while she kicked (but missed) is [1] alone.
1See the discussion of surface contact verbs, including "kick", in LSA Summer Institute, UC Santa Barbara, 2001, Lecture 3 and What an Innatist Argument Should Look Like
2Delancey doesn't explicitly discuss "kick" as a ditransitive verb, but this observation seems to fairly follow for the discussion of ditransitive verbs in LSA Summer Institute, UC Santa Barbara, 2001, Lecture 3 and What an Innatist Argument Should Look Like
Labels: grammar
posted by decaf owl at 1:32 PM
0 comments
