The Theta System – an overview

Abstract

The Theta System -an overview 1 TANYA REINHARTThis paper presents an overview of a larger project in progress on the concepts interface. In part, it is based on the findings in Reinhart (2000), where several of the problems are discussed in greater details. However, many aspects of the system have been further developed, or changed, since that manuscript.The general picture I assume is that the Theta system (what has been labeled in Chomsky's Principles and Parameters framework 'Theta theory') is the system enabling the interface between the systems of concepts, the computational system (syntax) and, indirectly (via the syntactic representations), with the semantic inference systems.In the modular view of Fodor and Chomsky, the cognitive systems operate independently of each other, and generally, the information processed in any given system is not legible to the others. But for the interface to be possible, each system should contain also some information that is legible to other systems. Possibly, a system can also pass on information that is not legible within that system, but which is legible to others. We may assume that for each set of systems, there is some central system that gathers information that may be legible to the other sets of systems, and it is this system that enables the interface. The theta system can be viewed, then, as the central system of the systems of concepts.The Theta system consists of (at least):a. Lexical entries, which are coded concepts, with formal features defining the h-relations of verb-entries.

Ulwa Verb Class Morphology

“…32 Nevertheless, despite these difficulties, I believe that there is something to the distinction, a conclusion suggested by converging evidence from the corpus-based and psycholinguistic studies of Wright (2001) and McKoon and Macfarland (2000;2002). 33 More important in the present context, I believe that Ulwa verb class morphology is sensitive to this distinction.…”

“…5 In various writings, particularly Hale and Salamanca (2002) and Hale and Keyser (2002:chap. 4), Hale and colleagues bring data like those discussed above to bear on Hale and Keyser's (1998;2002) theory of argument structure and try to make sense of them descriptively in light of this theory. The core idea of the theory Hale and his colleagues apply to Ulwa verb morphology is that verbal argument structure is a consequence of the lexical category of roots that verbs are constructed from.…”

Backward binding as a psych effect: A binding illusion?

“…2 As far as we know, with the exception of Kiss (2012), there is no in-depth discussion of BB as a psych effect in German and there is no experimental testing; and with the current state, there would be no reason to expect any blocking effects, as German shares all the relevant structural properties that should allow for BB. In sum, BB is predicted to occur with a subclass of EO verbs, namely those verbs that are stative and take subject matter stimuli (Reinhart 2002). The question is whether the possibility of BB is a property of this class of verbs (under particular thematic/aspectual restrictions) or an artifact of more general pragmatic principles that apply with this verb class, due to preferences in their aspectual interpretation (Bouchard 1995;Arad 1998b).…”

“…Assuming quantifier raising at LF for episodic cases, WCO effects are theoretically predicted for quantified-object antecedents binding possessive pronouns inside the subject. Let us recall the data from Reinhart (2002) in (16a) and (17a), which indicate that, unlike agentive verbs, EO verbs license backward variable binding. As already mentioned in Section 2, this is attributed to the underlying syntactic or thematic characterization of experiencer objects as subject-like arguments that consequently serve as a proper binder, in contrast to canonical patient objects.…”

Qualia Structure in Spanish Prepositional Verbs: When the verb resorts to a preposition

“…Botwinik-Rotem considers that this happens because the so-called underspecified roles, i.e. targets and goals, must be realized as PPs (following Reinhart's (2002) theta theory). However, although this hypothesis might account for the meaning differences displayed by verbs alternating between a transitive and an oblique government, such as believe (in), it does not account for the meaning differences in verbs allowing prepositional alternation, such as convertir {en/a} 'turn into, convert {at/to}' or belong {to/on/in}, which undoubtedly are due to the preposition.…”