Concreteness of Theme Person of Beneficiary

24

2.2.6 Concreteness of Theme

Garretson 2004 coded the theme arguments for whether they referred to a concrete object, defined as a prototypically concrete inanimate object or substance perceivable by one of the five senses. The „prototypical‟ limitation was used to bring the category into the ordinary categorization of what a concrete object is: for example, it excludes water but includes plants. While the previous categorization of animacy was simplified by omitting concrete and nonconcrete inanimates, this feature concreteness of theme tries to compensate the simplification. This research makes use of the categorization of Garretson 2004 above, yet it assumes that water is concrete object. The categorization of this research relies more of the ability of the four senses to sense the object. When the object can be touched, tasted, smelled, or seen, the object is claimed as concrete. When the object can only be heard, it is included under the category of inconcrete. See the examples below which illustrate the feature concreteness of theme See also Appendices 1 and 2. 11. And then, when -- Well I hope you will then feel like getting me a new silk gown. You know, Mr. Prouty, that my white verb : getting theme : a new silk gown : concrete

2.2.7 Person of Beneficiary

Departing from the findings of Silverstein 1976, the feature person of beneficiary is reviewed. Silverstein ranked the various nominal expressions to Local person Pronoun 3 rd Proper noun 3 rd Human 3 rd Animate 3 rd 25 Inanimate 3 rd . The findings suggest that 1 st 2 nd person pronouns are marked when they are subjects of transitive clauses, but not when they are objects. This categorization, however, mix the locality of person inclusiveexclusive with pronominality and animacy. Thus, this very feature of person of beneficiary is put under a different category. In the studies of dative and benefactive alternation, the feature person of recipientbeneficiary is coded into two. Bresnan et al. 2001 claim that person influences syntactic alternations in some languages and variations in English. He then, confirms Cueni‟s 2004 categorization, distinguishing the feature person into inclusive and specific uses of both first and second persons as „local‟ and third person as „non-local‟. In the research of dative construction, Theijseen et al. 2009 annotated person of recipient by giving it the value local or nonlocal . Local recipients are in first or second person e.g. I, me, yourself , non-local ones in third person. In this research of benefactive construction, the categorization system is similar with Theijssen ‟s. However, this research includes we and us as local, and puts inanimate beneficiary under the category of non-local. The examples of the benefactive construction with the feature person of beneficiary are given below See also Appendices 1 and 2 12. in breakfast or dinner isnt of much account. Now, theres Dinah gets you a capital dinner , -- soup, ragout, roast fowl, dessert, verb : gets beneficiary : you : local 26

2.2.8 Number of Theme and Beneficiary