Proceedings of the LFG 02 Conference National Technical - CSLI ...

Figure 10. Correspondence architecture for example (18):
VP
maachha-Ti bhaj-aa jaa-i khi-aa-ga-laa
fish-the fry-PRTP-go-dM eat-PRTP-go-PAST.3 rd
‘Having been fried, the fish was eaten
⎡ ⎤
⎡PRED 'khaa' ↑ SUBJ
⎤
⎢rel-0 event-chain⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎡PRED 'maachha'⎤
⎥
⎢⎡rel-1 bhaaj ⎤ ⎥
⎢SUBJ ⎢DEF + ⎥
⎥
⎢⎢AGENT NULL⎥
⎥
⎢ ⎢NUMBER SG ⎥
⎥
⎢⎢ ⎥
⎢PERSON 3 ⎥
⎢⎣PATIENT [ ] ⎥
⎢ ⎣ ⎦
⎥
⎦ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎡2rel khaa ⎤ ⎥
⎢TENSE PAST
⎥
⎢⎢AGENT NULL⎥
⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎢PATIENT ⎥
[ ] ⎥
⎢ ⎡PRED 'bhaaj' ↑ SUBJ ⎤⎥
⎢⎣ ⎦ ⎥
⎢ADJUNCT ⎢ ⎥⎥
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
⎢⎣ ⎢⎣ SUBJ []
⎥⎦
⎥⎦
S
↑SUBJ=↓ ↑=↓ α =
NP VP λ =
Φ =
↑ SUBJ =↓SUBJ
λ(* ˆαθ ˆ) = NULL ∧λ(* αθ ˆ)
= NULL
↑=↓ ↑=↓
VPdep V’
↑=↓ ↑=↓
Vdep V
Notice that we do not exclude asymmetrical passivization, as exemplified in (17). While the
suppression of the highest thematic role is enforced constructionally, we have left the mapping
to subject of a passive verb open.
Another specification left out in the above is one representing the temporal order between the
events/situations described by the VPs. What is needed is the construction of a set of
precedence specifications for pairs of VPs/situations, schematically as follows (again, as
specifications added to those stated so far for the constellation in question):
54