1

USEA Valency Analysis

2

This is the (simplified) valency representation of the sentence He opened the can:

He open<ed> the can.

In the following we shall disregard the definite article and the tense morpheme.

3

This is the valency representation of the sentence He wanted to open the can:

He wanted (to) open the can.

Note that the ”subject” arrow of the infinitive is represented, although syntactically it can

be considered unrealized.

4

Now let us begin analysing a typical sentence with the verb use:

He used a knife to open the can.

He used (a) knife to open the can.

5

He used (a) knife to open the can.

The rest of the analysis can be carried out in two ways. According to the first

solution, use and to are both two-place predicates.

I.e., to ≈ ’intend’

6

He used (a) knife (to) open the can.

According to the second analysis, to is not a predicate, and use has three valency

positions:

I.e., the intention is implied, but not expressed overtly.

7

Now let us look at a close paraphrase:

He opened the can with a knife.

There are different ways of handling the phrase with a knife.

8

According to the classical analysis, INSTRUMENT is a deep case. This

gives us the following representation:

He opened the can (with a) knife.

9

If we prefer to let open have only two valency positions we can turn with into a

predicate.

Still, we have to choose between two solutions: with can be either a two-place

or a three-place predicate.

10

To understand this, let us compare the paraphrases He used a knife to open the can and He opened the can with a knife.

11

He used (a) knife to open the can.

He opened the can with (a) knife.

Solution with semantic to:

12

As we see, there is no element in He opened the can with a knife that can match the predicate to in He used a

knife to open the can.

13

He used (a) knife (to) open the can.

He opened the can with (a) knife.

Solution with syntactic to:

14

This solution gives us total isomorphism between the paraphrases.

15

Of course, in some contexts to must be analysed as semantic, even when occurring

with use.

To open the can, use a knife.

Cf. the pretty close paraphrase: If you want to open the can, use a knife.

16

Not realized third valency position:

John opened the can. He used (a) knife.

In order to retrieve the third position, we have to cross the sentence border (full stop).

17

the <us>er (of) the instrument

Predicate incorporated:

18

The only (<us>er of) this instrument (is) John.

Only John uses this instrument.

Syntactic nomen agentis:

19

Implicit use:

«use» tool

«use» instrument

«use» means

«use» machine

20

First valency position not realized:

«use» means (of) production

sewing «use» machine

21

«use» <wash>er

Incorporated predicate and implicit predicate.

«use» <bor>er

22

John opened the can.

His «use» (tool was a) knife.

Syntactic tool:

23

Now a cross-linguistic comparison.

«use» <dish><wash>er

«use» <disk>maskin

<posudo><moech>naja mashina

24

Note also that Sw. disk (verbal morpheme) corresponds to Eng. wash,

not to dish!

In Russian, we do not need an implicit verb «use»; the adjective itself can be the carrier

of such a meaning.

25

Another cross-linguistic comparison: milking machine vs Sw. mjölkmaskin*.

*Less common, but also possible: mjölkningsmaskin.

«use» <milk>ing machine

«use» <<mjölkmaskin

26

Still another cross-linguistic comparison: screwdriver vs Sw. mejsel.

«use» <screw><driv>er

«use» mejsel2 «skruv» «skruva»

mejsel1 = chisel

mejsel2 = screwdriver

27

He (was) «use» <knif>ed (by a) bandit.

He was knifed by a bandit.

28

«use» knife «cut»

«use» <saw>

Knife vs saw.

29

The End