THE AMBIGUITY OF GENITIVE OF-CONSTRUCTION (A Study of Semantics)
SKRIPSI
Submitted to fulfill one of the requirements of Sarjana Sastra degree
Yulie Indriani 63707010
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT FACULTY OF LETTERS
INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF COMPUTER BANDUNG
SKRIPSI
Submitted to fulfill one of the requirements of Sarjana Sastra Degree
Yulie Indriani 63707010
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT FACULTY OF LETTERS
INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF COMPUTER BANDUNG
vii ABSTRAK
Penelitian ini berjudul The Ambiguity of Genetive of-construction (A Study of Semantics), dilakukan berdasarkan asumsi bahwa genitive of-construction sulit untuk ditafsirkan. Hal ini menyebabkan ambiguitas. Oleh karena itu, penelitian ini dilakukan dengan tujuan untuk mengetahui makna apa saja yang dapat ditafsirkan dari genitive of-construction, proposisi apa saja yang dapat dinyatakan dari genitive of-construction, dan implicit case dan state role apa saja yang terdapat dalam genitive of-construction. Dalam penelitian ini, data diambil dari beberapa sumber, yaitu Wuthering Heights, Northanger Abbey, The Complete Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure of Huckleberry Finn, Sense and Sensibility, Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows, and The Prisoner of Azkaban.
Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah metode deskriptif analitik, dilakukan dengan cara menggambarkan dan menganalisis data. Metode deskriptif hanya difokuskan pada penggambaran ambiguitas genitive of-construction. Sedangkan metode analitik difokuskan pada analisis struktur semantik yang mengindikasikan genitive of-construction yang ambigu.
Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah adanya 3 klasifikasi yang muncul; pertama, Genitive of-construction yang menyatakan Event proposition ditandai oleh implicit Agent atau Action; ditandai oleh impllicit Agent atau Affceted; ditandai oleh implicit Agent atau Action atau Beneficiary; ditandai oleh implicit Agent atau Beneficiary. Kedua, Genitive of-construction yang menyatakan State atau Event Proposition ditandai oleh implicit Agent atau Action. Ketiga, Genitive of-construction yang menyatakan Event dan State Proposition ditandai oleh implicit Agent atau Action; ditandai oleh implicit Agent atau Action atau Comment; ditandai oleh Agent atau Action atau Comment atau Beneficiary; ditandai oleh implicit Agent atau Comment; ditandai oleh implicit Agent atau Affected atau Comment. Analisis membuktikan bahwa genitive of-construction dapat menjadi ambigu karena ada beberapa case dan state role yang dihilangkan. Selain itu, hal ini juga terjadi dalam sebuah kalimat karena tidak ada kata, frasa ataupun klausa yang memberikan informasi tambahan mengenai genitive of-contruction
vi ABSTRACT
The research entitled The Ambiguity of Genitive of-construction (A Study of Semantics) is conducted based on the assumption that the genitive of-construction is hard to interpret. Then, it causes the ambiguity. Thus, this research is purposed to find out the meanings resulted from the ambiguity of genitive of-construction, the propositions encoded from the ambiguity of genitive of-construction, and the implicit case and state roles involved in the ambiguity of genitive of-construction. In this research, the data were collected from several data sources, such as Wuthering Heights, Northanger Abbey, The Complete Sherlock Holmes, Tom Sawyer & Huckleberry Finn, Sense and Sensibility, Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows, and Prisoner of Azkaban.
The method used in this research is analytic descriptive method, conducted by describing and analyzing the data. The descriptive method is focused on the description of ambiguity of genitive of-construction. Meanwhile, the analytic method is focused on the analysis of the semantic structure indicating the ambiguity of genitive of-construction.
As the result of the research, there were 3 classifications emerge; first, Genitive of-constructions encode Event propositions which were marked by
implicit Agent or Action; implicit Agent or Affected; implicit Agent or Action or Beneficiary; implicit Agent or Beneficiary. Second, Genitive of-constructions
encode State Propositions which were marked by implicit Agent or Action. Third, Genitive of-constructions encode Event and State Propositions which were marked by implicit Agent or Action; implicit Agent or Action or Comment; implicit Agent or Action or Comment or Beneficiary; implicit Agent or Comment; implicit Agent or Affected or Comment. The analysis proved that the genitive of-construction could be ambiguous since there were some case and state roles which were left implicit. In addition, it could also be ambiguous in sentence since there were no words, phrases, or clauses which gave more information about genitive of-construction
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This skripsi would not finish without supporting and helping from a lot of people. Thus, I want to express my appreciation for the finishing of this skripsi to the following:
1. Prof. Dr. H. Moh. Tadjudin, M.A., as The Dean of Faculty of Letters.
2. Retno Purwani Sari, S.S., M.Hum., The Head of Departement of English Letters, thank you for your advise.
3. Asih Prihandini, S.S., M.Hum., as the coordinator of skripsi, thank you for your advise and help.
4. Dr. Nia Kurniasih, as the Advisor I and Examiner I, thank you for spending time to supervise the writing of this skripsi.
5. M.Rayhan Bustam, S.S., as the Advisor II, thank you for your patience and advise to supervise the writing of this skripsi.
6. Dr. Juanda, as homeroom lecturer of ’07 and Examiner II, thank you for your help, patience, and advise.
7. Tatan Tawami, S.S., as Examiner III, thank you for your help, and advice 8. All English Department teachers and staffs.
Bandung, July, 2011
1
This chapter is concerned with the introduction of the research. The background to the study, research questions, objectives, significance to knowledge, and framework of theories will be described.
1.1 Background to the Study
2
The above case is an example of ambiguous sentence. However, it can also happen in a phrase since there are some words which are left implicit. The implicit words cause a phrase to have many possibilities of ambiguity. Thus, the reader will be hard to interpret the message. The cases demand the writer to study more about the understanding of a message. In this case, the writer only focuses on the understanding of a phrase. It is concerned with genitive of-construction. Genitive of-construction is a kind of genitive constructions; it consists of two noun phrases which are separated by preposition of. It can indicate various relationships other than possession.
There are two previous researchers who did the researches relating to this research. The first one is entitled Konstruksi Posesif Bahasa Inggris written by Sari (2006); the case which is examined in this research is the possessive constructions in English; it is focused on the possessor in possession relation, the possessive relation of possessor-possessee, and the interpreted meanings of possessive construction. The second research is entitled The Analysis of Definite and Indefinite Possessive in Lauren Weisberger’s The Devil Wears Prada written by Amelia (2008). This research is focused on definite and indefinite in double possessive.
and the previous researches, it convinces the writer that ambiguity of genitive of-construction is interesting to be analyzed.
Actually, Larson uses term skewing to describe inappropriateness between semantic structure and grammatical structure. Meanwhile, Quirk uses the term ambiguity. In this research, the writer prefers to choose the term ambiguity which is taken from Quirk since it is more compatible to describe genitive of-construction which has many possibilities of ambiguity. Therefore, the title “The Ambiguity of Genitive of-construction” is chosen as the title of the research.
4
1.2 Research Questions
Based on the case of ambiguity of genitive of-construction which is analyzed, the writer finds some problems:
1. What meanings are resulted from the ambiguity of genitive of-construction?
2. What propositions are encoded by the ambiguity of genitive of-construction?
3. What implicit case and state roles are involved in the ambiguity of genitive of-construction?
1.3 Objectives
The study of the ambiguity of genitive of-construction is proposed:
1. Analyzing the meanings resulted from the encoding of genitive of-construction.
2. Analyzing the implicit case and state roles involved in the encoding of genitive of-construction.
3. Analyzing the propositions encoded in the genitive of-construction based on its case and state roles.
1.4 Significance to Knowledge
to analyze genitive of-construction which has posibilities of ambiguity. Hopefully, this research will be helpful for the readers, especially for students of English Department to help them in analyzing genitive of-construction.
1.5 Framework of the Theories
In analyzing the study of ambiguity of genitive of-construction, the writer applies some theories which support this research. The grand theory of this research is from Larson (1984). According to Larson “sometimes the genitive of-construction can be ambiguous and hard to interpret”. In analyzing this research, the writer also uses syntax theory as a supporting theory. The writer uses syntax theories from Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik (1985), Huddleston (1984) about genitive of-construction. According to Quirk, “the function and meaning of of-genitive is similar to genitive case”.
In addition, the writer uses semantic theories in order to analyze the meanings which can be interpreted in genitive of-construction and analyze the semantic structures which construct the genitive of-construction. The writer uses semantics theories from Larson (1984), Cruse, and Halliday (1985) about propositions and case roles which are involved in the ambiguity of genitive of-construction. The writer also uses another supporting theories from Linda Thomas (1993), Amelia (2008), Sari (2006), Maulana (2009), and Puspitasari (2008).
6 CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL REVIEW
This chapter explains about the theories used to analyze the data in this research. It is divided into two main points, i.e. syntax, and semantics. Each of two main points consists of several applied theories in this research.
This research only analyzes the ambiguity of genitive of-construction semantically. However, it cannot be separated from the theory of syntax since the genitive of-construction is a part of syntax field. Therefore, the theory of syntax is used as a supporting theory. Before the writer gives further explanation about the theory of syntax, it will be better if we know the definition of syntax itself.
2.1 Syntax
Thomas (1993:1) states that syntax is the study which seeks to describe the way words fit together to form sentences or utterances. Furthermore, Chaer (1994:2006) argues that:
Pembahasan sintaksis meliputi (1) Struktur sintaksis: masalah fungsi, kategori dan peran sintaksis (2) satuan-satuan sintaksis yang berupa kata, frasa, klausa, kalimat, dan wacana (3) hal-hal lain ynag berkenaan dengan sintaksis: modus, aspek, dan sebagainya.
which is examined in syntax. Therefore, we need to know kinds of phrases before we discuss further theory of genitive of-construction.
According to Quirk (1985: 60), there are five formal categories of phrases: noun phrase, verb phrase, adjective phrase, adverbial phrase, and prepositional phrase. Here, the writer will explain the phrases one by one as follow:
1) Noun Phrase
Noun phrase consists of either determiner and noun, or just noun. The most meaningful part of a noun phrase is the noun. It is the obligatory constituent and is the head of the noun phrase.
For instance:
The child Determiner Noun 2) Verb Phrase
Functioning as verb. It consists of either verb and noun phrase, or just verb. He eats an apple
NP V NP VP 3) Adjective Phrase
8
For example:
The fat dog
Determiner Adjective Phrase Noun as Pre-modifier
4) Adverbial Phrase
In terms of a phrase category, an Adverbial Phrase or AdvP can be formed by one (only an adverb) or more constituents (degree adverb + adverb). Adverb phrase is used to modify a verb. A degree adverb, as its name suggests, tell us to what degree something is done, so a degree adverb is here said to modify or limit the sense of an adverb.
For example:
Ken snores very loudly Noun Verb degree Adverb
NP VP AdvP
5) Prepositional Phrase
For instance:
The incineration of the astronauts Det Noun Prep det Noun
Noun Phrase Noun Phrase
PP
Genitive of-construction is a kind of genitive constructions. Actually, there are two kinds of genitive constructions; they are genitive construction by inflection ’s and genitive construction by of-construction (of-phrase). According to Quirk (1985: 1276-1277), genitive ’s construction is a genitive case which consists of two noun phrases; one a noun phrase marked for the genitive case by inflection ’s; the other a succeeding and super ordinate noun phrase unmarked for the case in which the genitive noun phrase is embedded with a determinative function; determinative function mean that the genitive noun phrase functions like a definite determiner. For Example, the following are some cases of genitive ’s construction; the city’s population, the dog’s collar, and the family’s car.
10
2.2 Semantics
Since the genitive of-construction is examined semantically, we have to know the definition of semantic itself. According to Palmer (1981: 1), semantics is the technical term used to refer to the study of meaning and since meaning is a part of language, semantics is a part of linguistics. In addition, Saed (2003: 3) argues that semantics is the study of the meanings of words and sentences. Thus, based on the definitions, it can be concluded that semantics is the study about meanings of words and sentences.
2.2.1 Meanings
Based on the above definition, semantics is the study about meanings. According to Lyons (1985: 136), meanings are ideas or concepts which can be transferred from the mind of the hearer by embodying them as they were, in the form of one language or another. Meanwhile, Palmer (1976: 7) states that meaning do no seem to be stable but to depend upon speaker, hearer, and context. In addition, Keraf (1990: 25) states:
Makna adalah unit dari kata dalam suatu bahasa yang mengandung dua aspek, yaitu: bentuk atau ekspresi dan makna atau isi. Bentuk adalah aspek yang dapat ditangkap oleh panca indera yaitu pendengaran dan penglihatan. Sedangkan isi adalah aspek yang menyebabkan reaksi yang hadir dalam pikiran pendengar/pembaca karena stimulasi dari bentuk.
2.2.2 Semantic Structure
In this research, genitive of-construction is examined semantically based on the semantic structure. According to Larson (1984: 26), semantic structure is more nearly universal than grammatical structure. That is type of units, the features, and the relationships are essentially the same for all languages. THINGS, EVENTS, ATTRIBUTES, or RELATIONS.
Based on the above definition, the writer concludes that semantic structure is the way to analyze meaning components (THINGS, EVENT, ATTRIBUTES, or RELATION) in order to represent a proposition.
2.2.3 Proposition
In this case, the writer examines the ambiguity of genitive of-construction by analyzing the meanings in the form of proposition and implicit case and state roles involved in the ambiguity of genitive of-construction. Thus, we have to know the definition of proposition itself. According to Larson (1984: 26), proposition is a grouping of concepts into a unit which communicates. A proposition most often takes the form of a clause or simple sentence in the grammatical structure, but not always. It may be encoded in a variety of forms.
12
2.2.3.1 State Proposition
Larson (1984: 214) also explains further information about State Proposition. He states that a state proposition consists of two main parts and the relations between them. These two parts are topic and comment. The topic is the THING or ATRIBUTE which being talked about. Meanwhile, the comment is what is being said about the topic. A state proposition will have a THING or ATTRIBUTE as the central concept. State propositions do not have an EVENT concept central to the proposition. They consist of THING or ATTRIBUTE being used to describe or identify the topic plus state relation. For instance, the book is Peter’s; the topic is BOOK; and it is related to the central concept PETER by the relation of ownership.
There are a number of examples are given bellow; the first coloumn is the topic concept; second is the relation concept; third is the comment concept; and fourth is the surface form of State Proposition.
TOPIC RELATION COMMENT ENGLISH FORM
Dog Naming Fido The dog’s name is
Fido
That car ownership I That car is mine
The table Substance Wood The table is made of
wood
The story Depiction Bill The story is about
Bill
Mary Kinship my sister Mary is my sister
This bag Containership Rice This bag contains rice
Car Location Garage Car is in the garage
Branch Partitive Tree A branch is a part of
[image:18.595.107.518.113.256.2]tree Table 2.1 State Proposition (Larson, 1984: 215)
2.2.3.2 Event Proposition
14
Case role defined:
1. The agent is the THING which does the action: that is, the person or object which is doer of the EVENT. For example:
John ran fast.
2. The causer may seem very much like agent first. The difference is that the causer is the THING which instigates the EVENT rather that actually doing it. A person or object causes an action or process to happen. For example:
Peter tripped John. (Peter caused John to trip)
3. The affected is the THING that undergoes the EVENT or is affected by the EVENT. The affected refers to the one who experiences an EVENT or the person or object which undergoes the EVENT; that is “feels the effect of”. For instance:
The dog ate the meat
4. The beneficiary is the THING that is advantaged by the EVENT. The beneficiary is not affected as directly as the affected.
John sold the car for a friend.
5. The accompaniment is the THING which participates in close association with the agent, causer, or affected in an EVENT. It is like a secondary agent, causer, or affected. For instance:
John went to the park with his dog.
6. The resultant is that which is produced by the EVENT. There is always close relationship between the EVENT and the resultant. For instance:
7. The instrument is the THING used to carry out an EVENT. It is usually an inanimate object. For example:
Mary wrote with a pencil.
8. The location is the THING which identifies the spatial placement of an EVENT, that is, the source, the place of, or the destination of an EVENT. For example:
Jane ran away from home.
9. The goal is the THING towards which an action directed. For instance: John laughed at Peter.
10.The time, identifies the temporal placement of an EVENT. It tells when the EVENT took place. Or it may indicate the duration of the EVENT. For instance:
John went to the college three weeks ago.
11.The manner is a qualification of the EVENT. For example: The man ran quickly.
12. The measure is the qualification of the EVENT. For example: John prays frequently.
2.2.4 Genitive of-construction
16
recognized by the word of occurring between two nouns. For example, the following are some genitive of-constructions; the house of John, the wing of the bird, the deconstruction of the city, and the branches of the tree. The possessive phrase is often used in the same way as the genitive construction. For example, the following are some possessive phrases of this kind: John’s house, the bird’s wing, the city’s deconstruction, and the tree’s branches.
Some genitive of-constructions stand for a State Proposition, some for Event Proposition, and some for two propositions. First, look at some examples of genitive of-constructions which stand for State Propositions. In the first column, the genitive of-construction is given, and in the second, it is reworded as State Proposition.
Genitive of-Construction State Proposition
The house of John The house belongs to John
The wing of the bird The wing is part of the bird
A city of Africa The city is in Africa
A cup of cold water The cup contains water
[image:21.595.106.515.417.588.2]A crown of gold The crown is made of gold
Table 2.2 Encode State Proposition (Larson, 1984: 228)
Genitive of-construction Event Proposition
The error of Balaam Balaam erred
The death of John John died
[image:22.595.109.515.114.228.2]The growling of the lion The lion growled
Table 2.3 Encode Event Proposition (Larson, 1984: 229)
Sometimes the genitive of-construction contains two propositions. Notice the following:
Genitive of-construction Proposition
The labour of love (Someone) labours because (they) love (someone)
The forgiveness of sins (Someone) will forgive that (someone) has sinned
The knowledge of his will (Someone) knows that (someone) wills Table 2.4 Encode State and Event Proposition (Larson, 1984: 229)
[image:22.595.104.517.336.505.2]18 CHAPTER III
RESEARCH OBJECT AND METHOD
This chapter is concerned with the object of this research and the method applied in conducting this research. Here, the research method is divided into two parts, i.e. data collection and data analysis.
3.1 Research Object
The object of this research is the ambiguity of genitive of-construction which is related to the meanings in the form of proposition and implicit case and state roles. The data were collected from several data sources, such as novels and American corpus. The writer took several data sources since there were various data indicating the ambiguity of genitive of-construction.
3.2 Research Method
The method used in this research is analytic descriptive. According to Ratna (2006: 53):
Metode deskriptif analitik dilakukan dengan cara mendeskripsikan fakta-fakta-fakta yang kemudian disusul dengan analisis. Secara etimologis deskripsi dan analisis berarti menguraikan.
to analyze the semantic structure indicating the ambiguity of genitive of-construction. In conducting the research method, there are two ways which are done; they are data collection and data analysis.
3.2.1 Data Collection
To get valid data, data collection is an important way that has to be done in conducting the research. In this research, the writer conducted library research since it is an appropriate method to collect the valid data. By using library research, the writer could get many references to conduct this research.
20
data by underlining the cases of ambiguity of genitive of-construction. Fourth, the writer selected the data to be analyzed; here, the data were analyzed semantically.
3.2.2 Data Analysis
After collecting the data, the writer analyzed them by applying several ways. First, the writer interpreted the meanings of the data in the form of propositions; here, the writer analyzed the data semantically by interpreting the meanings of the data of genitive of-construction indicating ambiguity in the form of propositions; it was done in order to indicate the ambiguity. Second, the writer analyzed the data based on semantic structure; in this case, the writer analyzed the propositions semantically by analyzing them based on semantic structure; here, the writer analyzed the implicit case and state roles; the case roles can be classified as Agent, Action, Affected, Beneficiary, Accompaniment, Resultant, Instrument, Location, Goal, Time, Manner and Measure; the state roles can be classified as Topic, Comment and Relation; it was done since the writer wanted to prove that the data of genitive of-construction could indicate the ambiguity.
There are two examples of data analysis of the ambiguity of genitive of- construction:
Corpus 1
The talk of madman (WH: 175)
about madman. To make it clear that the phrase is ambiguous, the writer analyzed each meaning.
First meaning:
Madman talked about (something)
THING EVENT THING
as as as
Agent Action Affected
22
Second meaning:
Someone talked about madman
THING EVENT THING
as as as
Agent Action Affected
As can be seen that the above meaning involves some case roles; they are Agent, Action and Affected. In the meaning, someone is the THING which is identified as an Agent since someone did an EVENT. The EVENT is talked which is identified as an Action since it is done by the Agent (someone). Then, someone (Agent) talked (Action) about something. In this case, something is madman which is identified as an Affected since it is affected by an Agent (someone). In this classification, the meaning of someone talked about madman is marked by implicit Agent since in the phrase the talk of madman doesn’t mention the word someone which has a case role as an Agent in the meaning. The phrase the talk of madman just mention the word talk (Action) and madman (Affected). Therefore, the implicit word someone (Agent) causes some interpretation in the phrase the talk of madman. It means that there is implicit information which is caused by the implicit case role Agent (someone). The word someone (Agent) is left implicit in order to make the genitive of-construction.
However, the phrase the talk of madman is still ambiguous in the sentence, as follows:
The phrase the talk of madman is still ambiguous in the above sentence. There are no words or phrases which explain the phrase the talk of madman. Therefore, the phrase does not give a clear information whether madman or someone who talked.
Corpus 2
The disturbance of Catherine (W H: 61)
The phrase the disturbance of Catherine is ambiguous semantically since it can be interpreted into some meanings. There are two meanings which the writer got from the phrase; first, Catherine disturbed someone; second, someone disturbed Catherine. In this case, the writer analyzed the meanings one by one. First meaning:
Catherine disturbed (someone) THING EVENT THING as as as Agent Action Affected
24
mention the word someone which has a case role as an Affected in the meaning. The words someone is left implicit in order to make the genitive of-construction the disturbance of Catherine. But, the implicit case roles cause some interpretation since there is implicit information in the phrase the disturbance of Catherine.
Second meaning:
(Someone) disturbed Catherine THING EVENT THING as as as Agent Action Affected
interpretation since there is implicit information in the phrase the disturbance of Catherine.
Although the phrase is in the sentence, it still has ambiguous meanings.
With that he dashed head foremost out of the room, amid the merriment of the master and mistress, and to the disturbance of Catherine. (Wuthering Heights: 61)
26 CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
This chapter gives a deeper explanation about the analysis of data based on the classifications of data which the writer got from several data sources, such as novels, and American Corpus. Therefore, this chapter is divided into two parts, i.e. classification and analysis.
4.1 Genitive of-constructions that encode Event Proposition
In this classification, the meanings of genitive of-construction only encode Event Proposition in which an EVENT concept has a function as a central concept. There are 23 data of genitive of-constructions that encode Event proposition. Each data can be interpreted into some meanings. Each meaning has different case roles which are left implicit. Thus, the writer divided this classification more specifically into 4 subclassifications based on the implicit case roles.
(01) [01] The stir of society (WH:1)
The phrase the stir of society is ambiguous semantically since it can be interpreted into two meanings; each meaning is marked by different case roles; first meaning, someone made a stir in a society is marked by implicit Agent; second meaning, society made a stir is marked by implicit Action. Therefore, the phrase is classified into ambiguous phrase which is marked by implicit Agent or Action. In this case, the writer analyzed the meanings one by one.
First meaning:
(Someone) (made) a stir in society THING EVENT THING THING
as as as as
Agent Action Resultant Location
28
Second meaning:
Society (made) a stir THING EVENT THING
as as as
Agent Action Resultant
As can be seen that there are 3 case roles involved in the meaning society made a stir; Agent, Action and Resultant. The Agent (society) is the THING which did an Action (made); the Resultant (stir) is the THING which is produced when the Agent did an Action. The meaning society made a stir is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase the stir of society. The Action (made) is left implicit; it causes the ambiguity.
However, the phrase the sir of society is still ambiguous in the sentence, as follows:
In all England, I do not believe that I could have fixed on a situation so completely removed from the stir of society.
(02) [04] My idea of Catherine Earnshaw(WH: 75)
Semantically, the above phrase can be interpreted into two meanings; first meaning is I describe Catherine Earnshaw is marked by implicit Agent and Action; second meaning is I imagine to be Catherine Earnshaw is marked by implicit Agent and Action. Thus, the phrase is classified into ambiguous phrase which is marked by implicit Agent or Action.
First meaning:
(I) (describe) Catherine Earnshaw THING EVENT THING
as as as
Agent Action Affected
As can be seen that the above meaning consists of 3 case roles; Agent, Action, Affected Affected. The Agent (I) is the THING which did an Action (describe); the Affected (Catherine Earnshaw) is the THING which is affected when the Agent did an Action. The meaning I describe Catherine Earnshaw is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase my idea of Catherine Earnshaw; the Agent (I) and Action (describe) are left implicit. Those implicit case roles cause the ambiguity.
Second meaning:
(I) (imagine) to be Catherine Earnshaw
THING EVENT THING
as as as
30
The above meaning shows that it involves 3 case roles; Agent, Action, and Affected. The Agent (I) is the THING which did an Action (imagine); the Affected (Catherine Earnshaw) is the THING which is affected when the Agent did an Action. The meaning I imagine to be Catherine Earnshaw is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase my idea of Catherine Earnshaw; the Agent (I) and Action (describe) are left implicit. Those implicit case roles cause the ambiguity.
However, the phrase my idea of Catherine Earnshaw is still ambiguous in the sentence, as follows:
I marvelled much how he, with a mind to correspond with his person, could fancy my idea of Catherine Earnshaw.
The above sentence just give an information that the speaker admired someone since he could fancy my idea of Catherine Earnshaw. However, there are no words, phrases or clauses which explain whether he could fancy when the speaker described Catherine Earnshaw or he could fancy when the speaker imagined to be Catherine Earnshaw.
(01) [03] The disturbance of Catherine (W H: 61)
The phrase the disturbance of Catherine is ambiguous semantically since it can be interpreted into some meanings. There are two meanings which the writer got from the phrase; each meaning is marked by different case roles; first meaning is Catherine disturbed someone is marked by implicit Affected; second meaning is someone disturbed Catherine which is marked by implicit Agent. Thus, the phrase is classified into ambiguous phrase which is marked by implicit Agent or Affected. In this case, the writer analyzed the meanings one by one.
First meaning:
Catherine disturbed (someone) THING EVENT THING as as as Agent Action Affected
32
Second meaning:
(Someone) disturbed Catherine THING EVENT THING as as as Agent Action Affected
The above meaning shows that there are some case roles involved in the meaning someone disturbed Catherine; they are Agent, Action and Affected. The Agent (someone) is the THING which did an Action (disturbed); the Affected (Catherine) is the THING which is affected when the Agent did an Action; The meaning someone disturbed Catherine is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase the disturbance of Catherine; here, the Agent (someone) and is left implicit. The implicit case role causes the ambiguity.
Although the phrase the disturbance of Catherine is in the sentence, it still has ambiguous meanings.
With that he dashed head foremost out of the room, amid the merriment of the master and mistress, and to the disturbance of Catherine. (Wuthering Heights: 61)
(02) [07] The talk of madman (WH: 175)
Semantically, the phrase the talk of madman is ambiguous since it can be interpreted into two meanings; each meaning is marked by different case roles; first meaning is madman talked about something which is marked by implicit Affected; second meaning is someone talked about madman which is marked by implicit Agent. Therefore, the phrase is classified into ambiguous phrase which is marked by implicit Agent or Affected. To make it clear that the phrase is ambiguous, the writer analyzed each meanings.
First meaning:
Madman talked about (something)
THING EVENT THING
as as as
Agent Action Affected
34
Second meaning:
(Someone) talked about madman
THING EVENT THING
as as as
Agent Action Affected
As can be seen that the meaning someone talked about madman encodes Event Proposition; it involves 3 case roles, they are Agent, Action and Affected. The Agent (someone) is the THING which did an Action (talked); the Affected (madman) is the THING which is affected when the Agent did an Action; The meaning someone talked about madman is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase the talk of madman; here, the Agent (someone) is left implicit. The implicit case role causes the ambiguity.
However, the phrase the talk of madman is still ambiguous in the sentence, as follows:
“Mr. Heathcliff,” said I, “this is the talk of madman”.
The phrase the talk of madman is still ambiguous in the above sentence. There are no words or phrases which explain the phrase the talk of madman. Therefore, the phrase doesn’t give a clear information whether madman or someone who talked.
(03) [11] The influence of Joseph’s complaints (WH: 376)
influenced someone with his complaints which is marked by implicit Affected; second meaning is someone influence someone else with Joseph’s complaints which is marked by implicit Agent and Affected. Hence, the phrase is classified into ambiguous phrase which is marked by implicit Agent or Affected. Let’s take a look the analysis as follows:
First meaning:
Joseph influenced (someone) with his complaints
THING EVENT THING THING
as as as as
Agent Action Affected Instrument
The above meaning shows that there are 4 case roles involved; Agent, Action, Affected and Instrument. The Agent (Joseph) is the THING which did an Action (influenced); the Affected (someone) is the THING which is affected when the Agent did an Action; the Instrument (his complaints) is the THING used to carry out the EVENT. The meaning Joseph influenced someone with his complaints is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase the infleunce of Joseph’s complaints; here, the Affected (someone) is left implicit. The implicit case role causes the ambiguity.
Second meaning:
(Someone) influenced (someone else ) with Joseph’s complaints
THING EVENT THING THING
as as as as
36
Based on the above meaning, there are 4 case roles involved; Agent, Action, Affected and Accompaniment. The Agent (someone) is the THING which did an Action (influenced); the Affected (someone else) is the THING which is affected when the Agent did an Action; the Instrument (Joseph’s complaints) is the THING used to carry out the EVENT. The meaning someone influenced someone else with Joseph’s complaints is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase the infleunce of Joseph’s complaints; here, the Agent (someone) and Affected (someone else) are left implicit. The implicit case roles cause the ambiguity.
However, the phrase the influence of Joseph complaints is still ambiguous in the sentence, as follows:
After breakfast, Catherine insisted on my bringing a chair and sitting with my work under the fit-trees at the end of the house; and she beguiled Hareton, who had perfectly recovered from his accident, to dig and arrange her little garden, which was shifted to that corner by the influence of Joseph’s complaints.
her garden; whether Joseph complained to someone about Catherine’s garden, then someone influenced Catherine to change her garden.
(04) [16] The fears of the sister (NA: 110)
The phrase the fears of the sister can be interpreted into two meanings;
each meaning is marked by different case roles; first meaning is the sister fears something which is marked by implicit Affected; second meaning is someone
fears the sister which is marked by implicit Agent. Thus, the phrase is classified into ambiguous phrase which is marked by implicit Agent or Affected.
First meaning:
The sister fears (something)
THING EVENT THING
as as as
Agent Action Affected
Based on the above description, the meaning the sister fears something
encodes Event Proposition; it involves 3 case roles, they are Agent, Action and
38
Second meaning:
(Someone) fears the sister
THING EVENT THING
as as as
Agent Action Affected
The meaning someone fears the sister encodes Event Proposition; it involves 3 case roles, they are Agent, Action and Affected. The Agent (someone) is the THING which did an Action (fears); the Affected (the sister) is the THING which is affected when the Agent did an Action; The meaning someone fears the sister is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase the fears of the sister; here, the Agent (someone) is left implicit. The implicit case role causes the ambiguity.
However, the phrase is still ambiguous in the sentence, as follows:
The fears of the sister have added to the weakness of the woman.
The phrase the fears of sister is still ambiguous in the sentence. The phrase is not explained by the other words, phrases or clauses whether someone fears the sister or the sister fears someone. The sentence does not give more information
about that. The sentence just told that the fears caused the weakness to the
woman.
(05) [40] The memory of his brother (TCSH: 686)
Affected; second meaning is someone memorized his brother which is marked by implicit Agent. Thus, the phrase is classified into ambiguous phrase which is marked by implicit Agent or Affected.
First meaning:
His brother memorized (something or someone)
THING EVENT THING
as as as Agent Action Affected
From the above description, the meaning his brother memorized something or someone encodes Event Proposition; it involves 3 case roles, they are Agent, Action and Affected. The Agent (his brother) is the THING which did an Action (memorized); the Affected (something or someone) is the THING which is affected when the Agent did an Action; The meaning his brother memorized something or someone is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase the memory of his brother; here, the Affected (something or someone) is left implicit. The implicit case role causes the ambiguity.
Second meaning:
Someone memorized his brother
THING EVENT THING
as as as
Agent Action Affected
40
The Agent (someone) is the THING which did an Action (memorized); the Affected (his brother) is the THING which is affected when the Agent did an Action; The meaning someone memorized his brother is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase the memory of his brother; here, the Agent (someone) is left implicit. The implicit case role causes the ambiguity.
However, the phrase is still ambiguous in the sentence, as follows:
My hand has been forced, however, by the recent letters in which Colonel James Moriarty defends the memory of his brother, and I have no choice but to lay the facts before the public exactly as they occurred.
The above sentence just give an information that the speaker described how the speaker’s feeling when there was a letter from Colonel James Moriaty which defended the memory of his brother. However, there are no words, phrases, or clauses whether James Moriaty wrote a letter about his brother’s memory or about someone who memorized his brother.
4.1.3 Event Proposition which is marked by only Implicit Agent or Action or Beneficiary
(01) [17] The compliment of John Thorpe's affection (NA: 143)
The above phrase can be interpreted into two meanings; each meaning is marked by different case roles; first meaning is Someone gave compliment to John Thorpe’s affection which is marked by implicit Agent and Action; second meaning is John Thorpe gave compliment to someone as his affection which is marked by implicit Action and Benefeiciary. Thus, the phrase is classified into ambiguous phrase which is marked by implicit Agent or Action or Beneficiary.
First meaning:
Someone gave compliment to John Thorpe’s affection
THING EVENT THING THING
as as as as
Agent Action Affected Beneficiary
42
Second meaning:
John Thorpe (gave) compliment to(someone) as his affection
THING EVENT THING THING THING
as as as as as
Agent Action Affected Beneficiary Attributive
Based on the above meaning, there are 5 case roles involved; Agent, Action, Affected, Beneficiary and Attributive. The Agent (John Thrope) is the THING which did an Action (gave); the Affected (compliment) is the THING which is affected when the Agent did an Action; the Beneficiary (someone) is the THING which got advantage from the Action which the Agent did. The meaning someone gave compliment to John Thrope’s affection is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase the compliment of John Thrope’s affection; here, the Action (gave) and the Beneficiary (someone) are left implicit. Those implicit case roles cause the ambiguity.
Although the phrase is in the sentence, it is still ambiguous. Let’s take a look the sententence as follows:
The compliment of John Thorpe's affection did not make amends for this thoughtlessness in his sister.
The above sentence just gave an information that his sister did not get
amends from the compliment of John Thorpe’s affection. There are no words,
phrases or clauses which give a clear information whether someone or John
(02) [46] Last letter of the Duke’s (TCSH: 798)
The above phrase is ambiguous semantically since it can be interpreted into two meanings; each meaning is marked different case roles; first meaning is Duke wrote the last letter to someone which is marked by implicit Action and Beneficiary; second meaning is Someone wrote the last letter to Duke which is marked by implicit Agent and Action. Therefore, the phrase is classified into ambiguous phrase which is marked by implicit Agent or Action or Beneficiary.
First meaning:
Duke (wrote) the last letter to (someone) THING EVENT THING THING
as as as as
Agent Action Resultant Beneficiary
44
Second meaning:
(Someone) (wrote) the last letter to Duke
THING EVENT THING THING
as as as as
Agent Action Resultant Beneficiary
As can be seen there are 4 case roles involved in the above meaning; Agent, Action, Resultant and Beneficiary. The Agent (someone) is the THING which did an Action (wrote); the Resultant (last letter) is the THING which is produced when the Agent did an Action; the beneficiary (Duke) is the THING which got an advantage from the Action that the Agent did. The meaning someone wrote the last letter to Duke is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase the last letter of the Duke’s; here, the Agent (someone) and Action (wrote) are left implicit. The implicit case roles cause the ambiguity.
However, the phrase is still ambiguous in the sentence, as follows:
“I see. By the way, that last letter of the Duke’s–was it found in the boy’s room after he was gone?”
(03) [56] An entire party of Aurors (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: 10)
Semantically, the above phrase is ambiguous since it can be interpreted into two meanings; each meaning is marked by different case roles; first meaning is Aurors held an entire party for someone which is marked by implicit Action and Beneficiary; second meaning is Someone held an entire party for Aurors which is marked by implicit Agent and Action. Therefore, the phrase is classified into ambiguous phrase which is marked by implicit Agent or Action or Beneficiary.
First meaning:
Aurors (held) an entire party for (someone) THING EVENT THING THING
as as as as
Agent Action Resultant Beneficiary
46
Second meaning:
(Someone) (held) an entire party for Aurors
THING EVENT THING THING
as as as as Agent Action Resultant Beneficiary
As can be seen that there are 4 case roles involved in the above meaning; Agent, Action, Resultant and Beneficiary. The Agent (somoene) is the THING which did an Action (held); the Resultant (an entire party) is the THING which is produced when the Agent did an Action; the Beneficiary (Aurors) is the THING which got an advantage from the Action that the Agent did. The meaning someone held an entire pary for Aurors is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase an entire party of Aurors; here, the Agent (someone) and Action (held) are left implicit. The implicit case roles cause the ambiguity.
However, the phrase is still ambiguous in the sentence, as follows:
“My Lord,” Yaxley went on, “Dawlish believes an entire party of Aurors will be used to transfer the boy—”
4.1.4 Event Proposition which is marked by only Implicit Agent or Beneficiary
In this subclassification, there are 1 data of genitive of-construction. The data encodes Event Proposition which is marked by implicit Agent or Beneficiary.
(01) [06] My offer of a wife (WH: 130)
The above phrase is ambiguous semantically since it can be interpreted into two meanings; each meaning is marked by different case roles; first meaning is I offered a wife to someone which is marked by implicit Beneficiary; second meaning is someone offered a wife to me which is marked by implicit Agent. Thus, the phrase is classified into ambiguous phrase which is marked by implicit Agent or Beneficiary.
First meaning:
I offered a wife to (someone) THING EVENT THING THING
as as as as
Agent Action Affected Beneficiary
48
wife; here, the Beneficiary (someone) is left implicit. The implicit case role causes the ambiguity.
Second meaning:
(Someone) offered a wife to me
THING EVENT THING THING
as as as as Agent Action Affected Beneficiary
As can be seen that there are 4 case roles involved in the above meaning; Agent, Action, Affected and Beneficiary. The Agent (someone) is the THING which did an Action (offered); the Affected (a wife) is the THING which is affected when the Agent did an Action; the Beneficiary (me) is the THING which got an advantage from the Action that the Agent did. The meaning someone offered a wife to me is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase an my offer of a wife; here, the Agent (someone) is left implicit. The implicit case role causes the ambiguity.
However, the phrase is still ambiguous in the sentence, as follows:
“Well. I won’t repeat my offer of a wife”
4.2 Genitive of-constructions that encode Event or State Proposition marked by Implicit Agent or Action
In this classification, the meanings of a genitive of-construction not only encode Event Propositions, but also encode Event and State Proposition. For example, if there are three meanings interpreted from a genitive of-construction, two meanings encode Event Proposition, one meaning encode Event and State proposition. In this case, there are 4 data of genitive of-constructions encode Event or State proposition. Each data can be interpreted into some meanings. Each meanings have different case roles which are left implicit.
As stated previously that there are only 3 data showed Event or State Propositions. Each meanings in the form of Proposition have implicit case roles which is marked by implicit Agent or Action. It means that the meanings have implicit Agent or implicit Action or both from one phrase.
(01) [10] The spectacle of Catherine (WH: 364)
50
ambiguous phrase which is marked by Agent or Action. To make it clear that the phrase is ambiguous, the writer analyzed each meanings.
First meaning:
Catherine (made) a spectacle
THING EVENT THING
as as as Agent Action Resultant
Based on the above meaning, there are 3 case roles involved in the meaning of genitive of-construction the spectacle of Catherine. The case roles are Agent, Action and Resultant. The Agent (Catherine) is the THING which did an Action (made); the Resultant (a spectacle) is the THING which is produced by when the Agent did an Action. The meaning Catherine made a spectacle is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase the spectacle of Catherine; the Action (made) is left implicit. The implicit case role causes the ambiguity.
Second meaning:
(Someone) (made) a spectacle about Catherine
THING EVENT THING THING
as as as as
Agent Action Resultant & Topic Comment
State Proposition
Relation: Depiction
State Proposition. Then, those porpositions are combined into one proposition in order to make a simple proposition. Therefore, the form of meaning is someone made a spectacle which is about Catherine; however, the words which is is left implicit; actually, the words which is has a role in connecting the word spectacle and Catherine; thus, there is a relation depiction between a spectacle and Catherine; the final form of meaning is Someone made a spectacle about Catherine. The meaning consists of 3 case roles and 2 state roles; they are Agent, Action, Resultant, Topic and Comment. The Agent (someone) is the THING which did an Action (made); the Resultant (a spectacle) is the THING which is produced by when the Agent did an Action; in addition, the word spectacle also has a role as Topic which stands for State Proposition; the Comment (Catherine) is the THING which described that the spectacle is about Catherine, not someone else. The meaning someone made a spectacle about Catherine is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase the spectacle of Catherine; the Agent (someone) and the Action (made) are left implicit. The implicit case roles cause the ambiguity.
Third meaning:
Catherine (played) in the spectacle
THING EVENT THING
as as as
Agent Action Location
52
(Catherine) is the THING which did an Action (played); the Location(the spectacle) is the THING which identified the spatial placement of the EVENT. The meaning Catherine played inthe spectacle is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase the spectacle of Catherine; the Action (played) is left implicit. The implicit case role causes the ambiguity.
However, the phrase is still ambiguous in the sentence, as follows:
He, poor man, was perfectly aghast at the spectacle of Catherine seated on the same bench with Hareton Earshaw, leaning her hand on his shoulder.
The above sentence just give an information that he was shocking someone by sitting on the same bench with Hareton Earnshaw at the spectacle of Catherine. However, there are no words, phrases or clauses whether the someone made a spectacle about Catherine or Catherine made a spectacle or Catherine just played in the spectacle.
(02) [59] The love song of A. Jerome Minkoff (American Corpus)
First meaning:
A. Jerome Minkoff (wrote ) a love song
THING EVENT THING
as as as
Agent Action Resultant
As can be seen that there are only 3 case roles involved in the above meaning; Agent, Action and Resultant. The Agent (A.Jerome Minkoff) is the THING which did an Action (wrote); the Resultant (a love song) is the THING which is produced when the Agent did an Action. The meaning A.Jerome Minkoff wrote a love song is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase the love song of A.Jerome Minkoff; here, the Action (wrote) is left implicit. The implicit case role causes the ambiguity.
Second meaning:
(Someone) sang a love song about A.Jerome Minkoff
THING EVENT THING THING
as as as as
Agent Action Resultant , Topic Comment State Proposition
54
proposition. Therefore, the form of meaning is someone sang a love song which is about A. Jerome Minkoff; however, the words which is is left implicit; actually, the word which is has a role in connecting a love song and A. Jerome Minkoff; thus, there is a relation depiction between them. The above meaning shows that there are 3 case and 2 state roles involved; Agent, Action, Resultant, Topic and Comment. The Agent (someone) is the THING which did an Action (sang); the Resultant (a love song) is the THING which is produced when the Agent did an Action. Here, the Resultant (a love song) also has a role as a Topic which stands for State Proposition. The Comment (A. Jerome Minkoff) is the THING which describes that the Topic (a love song) is about A. Jerome Minkoff. In this case, the Agent (someone) and Action (Event) are left implicit. It causes the ambiguity. Although the phrase is in the sentence, it is still ambiguous.
By Joseph Epstein JOSEPH EPSTEIN'S latest book, the love song of A. Jerome Minkoff and Other Stories, will be published in April by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
4.3 Genitive of-constructions that encode Event and State Propositions
In this classification, the meanings of a genitive of-construction encode Event and State Proposition. For example, if there are 3 meanings interpereted from a ginitive of-construction, each meaning encodes Event and State Proposition. There are 33 data of genitive of-constructions encode Event proposition. Each data can be interpreted into some meanings. Each meanings have different case roles and state roles which are left implicit. Thus, the writer divided this classification more specifically into 5 classifications based on the implicit case and state roles.
4.3.1 Event and State Proposition which is marked by Implicit Agent or Action
In this subclassification, each meaning encodes Event and State Proposition which is marked by implicit Agent or Action. It means that the meanings have implicit Agent or implicit Action or both from one phrase. There are 3 data of genitive of-constructions in this classification.
(01) [11] A short sketch of my adventures (TCSH: 11)
The above phrase is ambiguous semantically since it can be interpreted
into two meanings; first meaning is someone made a short sketch about my adventure which is marked by implicit Agent and Action; second meaning is I
56
First meaning:
(Someone) (made ) a short sketch about my adventure
THING EVENT THING THING
as as as as
Agent Action Resultant & Topic Comment
State Proposition
Relation: Depiction
Based on the above description, the meaning someone made a short sketch about my adventures encodes Event and State Propositions; formerly, the phrase A short sketch of my adventuresis interpreted into two propositions; first meaning is someone made a short sketch which encodes Event Proposition; second meaning is a short sketch is about my adventure which encodes State Proposition. Then, those porpositions are combined into one proposition in order to make a simple proposition. Therefore, the form of meaning is someone made a short sketch which is about my adventures; however, the words which is is left implicit; actually, the words which is has a role in connecting the words a short sketch and my adventure; thus, there is a relation depiction between a short sketch and my adventure; the final form of meaning is someone made a short sketch about my adventure. The meaning consists of 3 case roles and 2 state roles; they are Agent,
adventure, not someone else. The meaning someonemade a short sketch about my adventure is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase A short
sketch of my adventure; the Agent (someone) and the Action (made) are left implicit. The implicit case roles cause the ambiguity.
Second meaning:
I made a short sketch about my adventure
THING EVENT THING THING
as as as as
Agent Action Resultant & Topic Comment
State Proposition
Relation: Depiction
58
(made); the Resultant (a short sketch) is the THING which is produced by when the Agent did an Action; in addition, a short sketch also has a role as a Topic which stands for State Proposition; the Comment (my adventure) is the THING which described that a short sketch is about my adventure, not someone else. The meaning I made a sketch about my adventure is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase a short sketch of my adventure; the Agent (I) and the Action (made) are left implicit. The implicit case roles cause the ambiguity.
However, the phrase a short sketch of my adventure is still ambiguous in a sentence:
I gave him a short sketch of my adventures, and had hardly concluded it by the time that we reached our destination.
The above sentence just an information that the speaker gave a short sketch of my adventure to him which they reached the destination. However, there are no words, phrases, or clauses whether a short sketch was made by someone or it was made by the speaker.
4.3.2 Event and State Proposition which is marked by Implicit Agent or Action or Comment
(01) [02] An excellent caricature of my friend Joseph (WH: 21)
The phrase an excellent caricature of my friend is ambiguous semantically since it can be interpreted into two meanings; each meaning is marked by different case and state roles; first meaning is my friend Joseph made an excellent caricature about himself which is marked by implicit Action and Comment; second meaning is my friend Joseph made an excellent caricature about someone which is marked by implicit Action and Attributive; third meaning is someone made an excellent caricature aboout my friend Joseph which is marked by implicit Agent and Action. Therefore, the phrase is classified into ambiguous phrase which is marked by implicit Agent or Action or Attributive. In this case, the writer analyzed the meanings one by one.
First meaning:
My friend Joseph (made) an excellent caricature about (himself). THING EVENT THING THING as as as as Agent Action Resultant & Topic Comment State Proposition
Relation: Depiction
60
Second meaning:
My fiend Joseph (made) an excellent caricature about (someone). THING EVENT THING THING as as as as Agent Action Resultant & Topic Comment
State Proposition
62
which stands for State Proposition; the Comment (someone) is the THING which described that an excellent caricature is about someone, not himself. The meaning my friend Joseph made an excellent caricature about someone is one of meaning which can be interpreted from the phrase an excellent caricature of my friend Joseph; the Action (made) and the Comment (someone) are left implicit. The implicit case roles cause the ambiguity.
Third meaning:
Someone made an excellent caricature about my friend Joseph. THING EVENT THING THING
as as as as
Agent Action Resultant & Topic Comment
State Proposition
Relation:Depiction The above meaning someone made an excellent caricature about my friend Joseph encodes Event and State Proposition; formerly, the phrase An excellent caricature of my friend Joseph is interpreted into two propositions; first meaning
