INTRODUCTION

This chapter concerns Agent and Patient (or Theme), the most popular thematic relations. Many linguists have not yielded to Dowty's (1991) polemic against highly general thematic relations. Some have instead been moved to conclude that, lest important generalizations be missed (Chapter 6), there must be at least two core relations – call them Agent and Patient – that are extraordinarily general (Van Valin and Wilkins 1996, Baker 1997). This dialectic leaves us with many questions. Here I review just a few in some detail. Section 7.2 investigates the putative generality of Agent with a study of instrumental subjects; this includes some discussion of relations between agency and causation. Section 7.3 discusses problems with Patient in the context of changes and non-changes, and finishes with a note on telicity.

AGENTS

7.2.1 Agents and actors

Typically in sentences that describe nonstative events, the subject names a participant that is conceived, relative to the description of the event provided by the verb, as directly involved in bringing it about. Sentences (1–5) provide examples.

1. (1) Floyd described the glass.

2. (2) Floyd collected the glass.

3. (3) Floyd melted the glass.

4. (4) The heat melted the glass.

5. (5) The oxyacetylene torch melted the glass.

Despite disagreements in jargon, the term “agent” is an appropriate rubric for such relations, since in ordinary usage it has very broad application. We speak of antimicrobial agents, thickening agents, FBI agents, agents of change, agents of disease, and agents of the Czar, in addition to moral agents, intentional agents, and agents of collecting, melting or carrying. Many linguists prefer less mundane names for the broad category comprising (most or all of) these roles, such as “Effector” (Van Valin and Wilkins 1996), “Originator” (Borer 2005) or “Initiator” (Ramchand 2008).

Under this heading there is an assortment of cases. In (1–3) the subject names an individual capable of action: Floyd, the hero of Fodor (1970).