In this paper, I have proposed that middle formation involves both lexical and syntactic processes. The suppression of the external argument occurs in the lexicon, but this is not sufficient to explain why middle constructions are generic. I propose another lexical process which assigns a feature [ANY] to the event argument. This must be associated with the generic operator in the syntax. I motivated this analysis by showing that a middle verb itself is not a generic predicate, and that it can combine with adverbials which occur only with non-generic predicates. I also showed that in a middle construction, the implied agent does not have to be people in general, as Fagan (1988) claimed. In showing this I propose that a for-phrase in a middle construction is an argument of a complex predicate. This can explain why the status of a for-phrase is controversial.
It is associated with the implied agent by argument transfer. So it
behaves like the implied agent. On the other hand, it convey the meaning of 'point-of-view' because it is realized as an argument of a complex generic predicate which can be relativized to individuals.
This analysis poses difficulties in semantic interpretation of middle constructions. The feature [ANY], which is given to the event argument, can be interpreted as the existential quantifier, but the event argument must be bound by the generic operator in the syntax. A for-phrase is the implied agent which is existentially bound in the interpretation of a middle verb, but it must go into the restrictor of the generic operator and dynamically bind the existentially bound agent in the nucleus scope. This is dealt with by the notion of existential disclosure. Existential disclosure in this paper is non-local in some sense, but Dekker (1993) does not deal with cases like this. We need to find out how far existential disclosure can be extended in a future study.
Chierchia (1995) proposed a similar analysis of individual-level predicates as being bound by the generic operator somewhere outside.
But one clear difference between individual-level predicates and middle verbs is that individual-level predicates are inherently generic while middle verbs are not. For this reason, he proposed that the generic operator be introduced at a strictly local position. But it is still to be explained why individual-level predicates are generic even before they combine with the operator. If my analysis is on the right track, inherently generic predicates seem to require a different analysis.
Appendix
Definitions for conversion from DMG into DIL:
1. (A -conversion)
( A X,8)( cd~[ a/X],8 (provided all free variables in a are free for x in
,8)
([ a/X],8) is obtained by replacing all free occurrences of x in ,8 by a.)
2. ( t -export)
et
,8)( a )~ tC,8et
a))a~,8~tU a- ~,8) -([)~t---,~([)
1182 Yeorn, Jae-Il
3. (~-import)
~ t ~~ ~
~Ed([)~:Jd~ ([)
H
t ~ ;1Jf]~Ct ~ ~ 1\ PP") 4. (associativity)[Ed([); 1Jf]~Ed[([); 1JT]
[[([); 1JT]; r]~[([); [llf;
r]J
References
Ackema, P. and M. Schoorlemmer. (1994). The middle construction and the syntax-semantic interface. Lingua 93, 59-90.
Ackerna, P., and M. Schoorlemmer. (1995). Middles and nonmovement.
Linguistic Inquiry 26, 173-197.
Chierchia, G. (1995). Individual-level predicates as inherent generics. In G.
N. Carlson and F. 1. Pelletier, eds., The Generic Book. The Univer- sity of Chicago Press.
Chomsky, N. (1982). Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 6.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Cinque, G. (1997). Adverbs and Function Heads: A Cross- linguistic Perspective. Oxford University Press.
Davidson, D. (1967). The logical form of action sentences. In N. Rescher, ed., The Logic of Decision and Action (pp. 81-95). University of Pittsburgh Press, .
Dayal, V. (1998). Any as inherently modal. Linguistics and Philosophy 21, 433-476.
Dekker, P. (1993). Existential disclosure. Linguistics and Philosophy 16, 561-588.
Fagan, S. (1988). The English middle. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 181-203.
Fagan, S. (1992). The Syntax and Semantics of Middle Constructions.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fellbaum, C. (1986). On the middle construction in English. Syntax and Semantics 20. lULe.
Groenendijk, 1., and M. Stokhof. (1990). Dynamic Montague grammar. In L.
Kalman and L. P6los, eds., Papers from the Second Symposium on Logic and Language (pp. 3-48). Akademiai Kiad6, Budapest.
Hoekstra, T., and I. Roberts. (1993). Middle constructions in Dutch and English. In Eric Reuland and Werner Abraham eds., Knowledge and Language. Vol. 2: Lexical and Conceptual Structure (pp.
183-220). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Iwata, S. (1999). On the status of an implicit arguments in middles.
Journal of Linguistics 35, 527-553.
Kadmon, N., and F. Landman. (1993). 'Any'. Linguistics and Philosophy 16, 353-422.
Keyser, S. 1., and T. Roeper. (1984). On the middle and ergative constructions in English. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 381-416.
Kratzer, A. (1991). Modality. In A. van Stechow and D. Wunderlich, eds., Semantics: An International Handbook of Comtemporary Research. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Larson, R. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335-39l.
Lasnik, H. (1985). Random thoughts on implicit arguments. ms. University of Connecticut/MIT.
Lee, C. (1996). Negative polarity items in English and Korean. Language Sciences 18, 505-23.
Newmeyer, F. J. (1970). The "Root Modal": Can it be transitive? In Festschrift for Robert B. Lees. Linguistic Research, Inc.
Parson, T. (1990). Events in the Semantics of English. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Rapoport, T. R. (1999). The English middle and agentivity. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 147-155.
Rizzi, L. (1986). Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 501-557.
Roberts, I. (1987). The Representation of Implicit and Dethematized Subjects. Dordrecht: Foris.
Stroik, T. (1992). Middles and movement. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 127-137.
Stroik, T. (1995). On middle formation: A reply to Zribi-Hertz. LinguistiC Inquiry 26, 165-171.
Stroik, T. (1999). Middles and reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 119-131.
Tenny, C. L. (1987). Grammaticalizing Aspect and Affectedness.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. MIT.
Williams, E. (1985). PRO and the subject of NP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3(3), 297-315.
Yeom, 1.-1. (1989). Middle construction in English. Unpublished master's