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