A force-dynamic characterisation

If we look at the behaviour of SEE in terms of the diagnostics for agonist/antagonist pairings, we see that its relations do not really conform to that dyadic distinction. The semantic structure of ‘se e l’ is too complicated; with so many different concepts conflated within one situation, it is impossible for the referent of the subject of saw to act on the referent of the object of saw in Peter saw Jane, for example. On the other hand, in much the same way as the impossibility o f a straightforward thematic

analysis did not preclude there from being thematic elements i n ‘seel’, so we find that the absence of a straightforward force-dynamic account does not entail that there are no force-dynamic elements within ‘seel’.

We can establish that there are force-dynamic elements in ‘seel’ using diagnostics from Jackendoff (1990). The analysis o f force-dynamics that Jackendoff (1990) and Pinker (1989: 193) present relies on an instance of an action being dyadic.

An agonist, for them, is an agonist only if it acts on another entity. Neither of them recognises a specific kind o f action that is force-dynamic. Jackendoff assumes an extra tier o f conceptual structure in which the predicate AFF is appropriate: the first argument o f AFF is the agonist; the second argument is the antagonist. As

Jackendoff s theory is not relational, but is instead organised around conceptual structure predicates, AFF is essentially a device for establishing force-dynamic relations in Jackendoff s system. Jackendoff (1990: 125-126) claims that the main diagnostics for an agonist/antagonist dyad are the test frames in (32).

(32) a. what Peter did was....

b. what happened to Peter was....

Thalberg (1977) discusses the semantics o f perception in the context o f debates about the philosophy o f mind. Among other matters, he discusses whether the percept is responsible for being perceived. However, his discussion o f perception does not adduce linguistic evidence.

(32a) is a test for a situation which is an action where the referent of Peter is an agonist, according to Jackendoff, and (32b) is a diagnostic for a situation where the referent o f Peter is an antagonist.

Jackendoff admits that these diagnostics are “rough-and-ready” (1990: 125) but he does not offer any alternatives. Croft’s (1991) typological study does not provide language-particular diagnostics for determining agent/patient relations,

neither do Talmy’s (1985b, 1988) papers on force-dynamics. The major problem with the diagnostics in (32) is that the “what happened” test can, as Jackendoff (1990: 294n7.1) points out, apply to “discourse” patients. That is, an argument o f any verb can be construed as a patient given the right context. There are examples in (33).

(33) a. what happened to Jane was that she killed a pedestrian

b. what happened to Jane was that she kissed the Blarney Stone

We can easily think of appropriate contexts for the examples in (33) although it is patently the case that the referent of Jane was responsible for the actions in the subordinate clauses and if they had an effect on her, the effect was one that we derive contextually. So we know that killing somebody usually results in your going to gaol and that kissing the Blarney Stone results in your having outstanding rhetorical powers.

What is more, the test with DO is not a test for an agonist but is instead a test for an actor, or do-er. If we take an example of any number of intransitive verbs, particularly unaccusative verbs, we can see that the referent of their subject is not an agonist, although it is a do-er. There are examples in (34)

(34) a. the ball moved

b. what the ball did was move

Jackendoff s account does not capture the essential force-dynamic effect of agonists being a particular sub-class of actors. We cannot be certain that the DO test will

establish that the referent of a particular word is the agonist. Jackendoff uses the DO test to establish that an entity is the first argument of a Conceptual Structure predicate AFF. We could interpret Jackendoff as stating that the first argument of AFF was an agonist if there was a second argument, and a do-er if there was not.

If we apply the diagnostics in (32), being aware that neither test is entirely reliable, we can see that both the subject and the object can be force-dynamically significant in some way.

(35) a. what Peter did in Paris was see all the Georges Braques b. what happened to Peter was that he saw the Medusa’s face c. !what the Georges Braques did was be seen by Peter

d. what happened to the Georges Braques was that Peter saw them

Apart from (35c), where it is not possible to conceive of a collection of paintings as the er of a ‘doing’ situation, it is clear that the tests for the force-dynamics of ‘seel ’ show that both perceiver and percept can be agonist like and antagonist like. In the next section, 1 introduce evidence from Croft (1991) which suggests more

conclusively that both participants can be agonist and antagonist like.