The verb "read"

In the above posts, I have written about some of my ideas about a case grammar approach to the grammar of verbs discussed by Scott DeLancey and the University of Oregon. In one of the papers, What MIGHT be innate: Perceptual structure in linguistic structure, DeLancey makes the comment that under this approach "at points the semantic plausibility gets stretched a bit", and sets forth the interpretation

I	read	The King In Yellow.
AG	LOC	THEME

That is, DeLancey presents "read" as a loc-incorporating verb, with "I" being the agent that CAUSEs the Theme "The King in Yellow" to GOTO the Loc, "read", or "being read". This takes "read" to be analogous to "break" verbs, in which Agent CAUSE Theme GOTO Loc.

I am going to disagree with him here, arguing that "read" is more like a "hit" verb, incorporating the theme, roughly "reading"; leaving what is being read, "The king in Yellow", as the Loc to which the reading is directed. That is, I am arguing for

I	read	The King In Yellow.
AG	THEME	LOC

The verb "break", incorporates the resultant Loc, with the Theme going to that state. Note the difference between Joe broke the dish and The dish broke. In both the Theme (the dish) ends up in the resultant state (being broken). The verb "hit", which incorporates the Theme (one or more instances of hitting), which is directed to the Loc (what is being hit). So we have Jane hit the ball (Jane delivered a hit to the ball), but *The ball hit is impermissible. "Read", like "hit" and unlike "break", does not allow this alternation, *"'The King in Yellow' read" is not acceptable.

Also, we can say "Jane gave the ball a quick hit", which makes more explicit the transfer of an instance of hitting to the ball, but not *"Joe gave the plate a break" because, according to the theory, an instance of breaking is not being delivered to the plate as in a "hit" verb, but rather the plate is being delivered to the state of being broken. While perhaps a trifle non-standard, it is perfectly understandable to say "I gave the report a quick read", that is, as with "hit" but not with "break", which suggests that the event of reading is being delivered to the report rather that the report being given to the state of being read.

Using the three levels of meaning in the previous post, "read" acts like "kick" (and "hit"):

• Abigail read (Abigail AT (act of) read (-ing))


• Abigail read "Utopia" (Abigail CAUSE (act of) read (-ing) GOTO "Utopia")


• Abigail read "Utopia" to Fred (Abigail CAUSE "Utopia" GOTO Fred)

Does this analysis of "read" as a theme-incorporating verb address the problem noted by DeLancey of the "stretching of the semantic plausibility"? I believe it does. I take "read" to be what might be called an "attention directing verb", in which we claim that the attention of the agent is being directed to or toward an object. This is a difference between "hear" and "listen" (I heard it but I didn't listen to it -- the sound reached my ears, but I didn’t direct my attention to it) and between "see" and "look at" (I saw it but didn't really look at it). If "read" is such an attention directing verb, then "Sarah read the book" means something along the line of "Sarah directed her reading-attention to the book". Which seem to me to have semantic plausibility that treating "read" as a loc-incorporating verb lacks.