CHAPTER 8

OBJECT-ORIENTED QUALIFYING FRAMES AND

INITIATION FRAME

The Subject-oriented Qualifying Frame was introduced in Chapter 5 which outlined its
diagnostic coding (post-Verb position, non-passivization), structural (NP, AdjP) and cognitive
(the list of sub-frames) aspects. This chapter will deal with the issue of valency obligatory
(Argument) and non-obligatory (Non-Argument) nature of the Qualifying Frame, and beside
the Subject-oriented type, it will also analyse its Object-oriented realizations.

VI. Object-oriented Qualifying Frame

1. Argument and Non-Argument Qualifiers

The Qualifying Frame involves two Arguments: Qualified Entity and Qualifier. On the
surface the Qualified Entity occupies either the Argument Subject or Argument Object
slot, and the Qualifier occupies the slot that is referred to as Complement: Subject
Complement (Cs) if it qualifies the Qualified Entity realized as Subject; Object
Complement (Co) if the Qualified Entity occurs in the Object Slot. The Subject-oriented
and the Object-oriented Qualifiers are co-referential with their Qualified Entities, i.e.
they qualify the same extralinguistic referent as is activated by the respective Qualified
Entities.

Subject-related Qualifying Frame Object-related Qualifying Frame

1A He is safe and sound. 1B They found him sound.

2.A He came (home) safe and sound. 2B They found him safe and sound.

While 1A and 1B above exemplify Argument Qualifiers, 2A and 2B exemplify Non-

Argument Qualifiers. By definition, Non-Arguments are not obligatory in terms of both
valency chains and frames. The difference between the two sub-groups thus may be tested
by the Valency Omissibility Test:

1A He is * 1B They found him *(they considered

him)

2.A He came (home). 2B They found him. (after looking for

him)

The valency chains in 1A and 1B are SVCs and SVOCo, respectively, while in 2A and 2B
they are SV and SVO, respectively.

Moreover, the valency-omissible Qualifiers, i.e. 2A and 2B admit a double-predication

paraphrase (Double-Predication Test), which is not available with the inomissible
ones, i.e. 1A and 1B:

1A he is safe and sound when ….* 1B he was guilty when they found him. *

2A he was safe and sound when he came home. 2B he was safe and sound when they found
him.

The relationship between the Object-oriented Qualifiers and their Objects may be treated
as a kind of condensed copular predication (Dušková, 1988: 506):
3.They found O(the Defendant) Co(guilty). → the defendant is guilty.

Linguists employ quite a differing terminology to refer to the surface elaborators of the
Verb activating the two of the above groups of Qualifiers. Quirk et al. (1990) use the
terms Subject Complement and Object Complement (1990:343, 349) for the valency-
obligatory Qualifiers, while they consider the non-obligatory Qualifiers as verbless
adverbial clauses (???). Dušková (1988:350, 505-512) treats obligatory Subject-related
Qualifiers as nominal part of the verbo-nominal predicate (back translation), while she
refers to the non-obligatory Qualifiers as doplnok podmetu and doplnok predmetu, which
may be literally translated as Subject Complement and Object Complement, respectively.
Aarts (2001) refers to the structures that lack an overt verb, but contain an implicit verb to
be as Small Clauses functioning as Direct Objects, treating them as a single
constituent/single proposition: Martin considers (Tim a creep). [Tim to be a creep] (Aarts,
2001: 56). On the other hand, Aarts treats any obligatory constituent following the verb to
 be related to the Subject as Complement, regardless of whether it is realized by a nominal
or adverbial segment (exemplified as Liam is very ill., Susie is Professor of English., Pete
is in France.) (Aarts, 2001:181-182). Huddleston (2005:76) employs the terms subjective
or objective predicative complements to refer to the obligatory representatives of the class
under analysis. The following chart exemplifies some of the terminological differences in
question:

Table XXX Terminological differences identified in respect of Qualifiers

Our new puppy Our new puppy We felt our new We brought our
is scared. came home puppy scared. new puppy
scared. home scared.

Naše nové Priniesli sme

Naše nové šteňa Cítilil sme, že
šťeňa prišlo k naše nové šťeňa
je vystrašené. naše nové šťeňa
nám domov domov
je vystrašené.
vystrašené. vystrašené.

Dušková menná časť doplnok obligatórny doplnok

slovesno- podmetu doplnok predmetu
menného predmetu
prísudku

Quirk et al. Subject Subject- Object Object-

Complement qualifying Complement qualifying
verbless clause verbless clause

Janigová Argument Non-Argument Argument Non-Argument

Subject Subject Object Object
Complement Complement Complement Complement

2. Structural markers

Qualifiers may be realized by the following types of structures:

NP He is a company director. They appointed him a company

 director.
AdjP He is guilty. They found him guilty.
PrepP The house is under reconstruction. They treat him as friend.
Infinitival He seems to be happy. They consider him to be guilty.
semi-clause
Gerundial Seeing is believing. They consider text messaging
semi-clause ruining language.
Participial
semi-clause He heard Jane crying.

Finite clause That is what we call bravery. --------

When the Object Complement is realized by a NP, the Negative Passivization Test would
distinguish it from the Object: a company director was appointed by them*/he was appointed
by them.

3.Cognitive Sub-Frames of the QUALIFYING FRAME

Canonical distribution of macro-roles:

Subject-oriented Qualifying Sub-Frames: Qualified Entity + State/Process + Qualifier

Object-oriented Qualifying Sub-frames: Agent/Experiencer + Action/State/Process +

Affected Entity/Focus = Qualified Entity + Qualifier

Depending on the current or resultant kind of the lexical verb, the Subject-oriented Qualifiers
were further sub-divided into current and resultant, the diagnostic verbs being to be and to
become, respectively. This may be applied to the Object-oriented Qualifiers as well:

1. Current Qualifier: Some like it hot.

2. Resultant Qualifier: Obama appointed him as director of national intelligence.

For the list of the Subject-oriented Qualifying Sub-Frames, see Chapter 5.

Object-oriented Qualifying Sub-Frames:

1. Combined with Agentive Subject

Doer + Action + Affected Entity/Qualified Entity + Resultant Qualifier

We have cried together over stories and we have laughed ourselves breathless too. SVOCo

You can hardly call him generous. SVOCo

She drives me nuts with her jealousy. SVOCo

They pulled the door open. Somebody left the door open. SVO(Co)

This turned him against the establishment. (External Causer) SVO(Co)

They will appoint her director of the program. (MW) SVO(Co)

Doer + Action + Affected Entity/Qualified Entity + Current Qualifier

They declined the job offer as unacceptable. SVO(Co)

Would you describe your music as rock or pop? SVO(Co)

The court found the Defendant guilty. SVOCo

Since the verb to find in the legal context shows features of both declarative and
representative speech act (see Chapter 13), this influences the Agent/Cognizer reading of its
Subject as well as the current and resultant reading of the Qualifier:

The court declared the Defendant guilty/the court considers the Defendant guilty.

The Defendant becomes guilty/convicted upon the moment of delivery of the judgment./

The Defendant is viewed as guilty.

2. Combined with Experiencer Subject

Emoter + Emotion + Focus/Qualified Entity + Current Qualifier

I like/prefer my coffee hot and strong. SVO(Co)

Cognizer + Cognition + Cognition Focus + Current Qualifier

They treat him as friend. SVOCo

We consider careful work essential. SVOCo

They presumed the Defendant innocent. SVOCo

Students often find this book useful. SVOCo

We knew them to be honest. SVOCo

You should think yourself lucky to have gotten off with only one warning! SVOCo

We found the boy in the woods alone. SVO(Co) (Undergoer Subject)

A special type of Non-Argument Qualifier realized by the -ing-participial and infinitival semi-
clauses conveying the Action performed, or Process/State undergone/experienced by the
Object.

Experiencer + State + Focus +Action Qualifier

I saw her coming. SVO(Co)
I heard them sing. SVO(Co)
I will never forget you helping me out that time. SVO(Co)

Doer Experiencer + Action + Focus + Action Qualifier SVO(Co)

I watched her coming. SVO(Co)

3. Syntactic ambiguities

The sentence I met my friend walking down the street. allows of two interpretations, (although
the appropriate context would have a disambiguating effect):

1. I met my friend while I was walking down the street.

Object Subject Complement

/I / met/ /my friend/ /walking down the street/. SVO(Cs)

2. I met my friend who was walking down the street.

Object Det
/I / / met/ / (my) Head(friend) PostMod(walking down the street)/. SVO
The coding test supporting either interpretation is the possibility or impossibility of
transposing the semi-clause, which is only possible with the SVO(Cs) interpretation:

1. Walking down the street, I met my friend. (I was walking)

2. Walking down the street, I met my friend.* (my friend was walking)

Huddleston (2005) points out the importance of the Co-Referent Test in disambiguating the
identical surface structural realizations. He used the following couple:

1. Honestly, I felt a fool standing there alone on the platform.

2. Suddenly, I felt a fool pushing in front of me on the platform. (Huddleston, 2005:74)

Sentence 1 exemplifies SVCs(Cs) chain containing both sub-types of Complement (Argument

– a fool, and Non-Argument – standing there alone on the platform): I considered myself a
fool as I was standing there alone on the platform. Sentence 2 is the SVO chain where the
Object slot activates another person as Perception Focus, with the semi-clause functioning as
the Postmodifier of the fool. The Transposition Test applies only to example 1, as in the
previous case: Standing there on the platform alone, I felt a fool. versus Pushing in front of
me on the platform, I felt a fool.*

VII. INITIATION FRAME

This Frame involves two actions and two agentive entities: Initiating Action and Initiated
Action, and Initiator Doer and Initiated Doer. It may be realized in two variants, namely Overt
and Covert Initiation Sub-Frames. The difference between them consists in that the Initiating
Action and the Initiated Action are realized separately in the Overt Initiation Sub-Frame,
while these two actions are fused in the Covert Initiation Sub-Frame.

1. Overt Initiation Sub-Frame realized as SVOCo

Initiator Initiating Affected Initiated Action

Action Entity+Doer
S V O Co
(They) (made) (us) (minimize costs).

The Overt Initiation Sub-Frame is realized on the surface as SVOCo chain where the Co
activates the action performed by the Object, so called Initiated Action. The Object slot
merges two cognitive micro-roles, i.e. the Affected Entity in relation to the Initiator, and the
Doer in relation to the subsequent Initiated Action realized by the non-finite clauses/semi-
clauses, namely infinitival and -ing-participial semi-clauses. Some authors treat these
structures as the complex catenative constructions which involve the chaining of verbs and
“an intervening NP – an NP that is interpreted semantically as subject of the non-finite clause
(Huddleston, 2005:214), i.e. as Doer, while on the surface level the post-finiteVerb elaborator
satisfies the Object test safely (structural form, passivization, Patient cognitive role): we were
made to minimize costs.

The cognitive micro-roles merged in the Object slot may not only involve the Affected
Entity/Doer combination, but also the Affected Entity/Cognizer couple as exemplified in the
sentence: She tricked him into believing that she was his sister´s friend. → he believes
that…

The zero Initiated Action occurs when it is initiated by such verbs as to prevent from,
to protect from, to relieve from, to forebear from, …. If the Initiating Action is realized
instigated by the verbs of command, its surface value may be reinterpreted as the Object: to
ask, to order, to request, to expect…

Jane asked him to come tomorrow. →he was asked to come/to come tomorrow/coming
tomorrow was asked

Bringing up children often requires you to put their needs first. → you are required/to put
their needs/putting their needs first is required (from you)

They expect borrowers to return books on time. → to return books/returning books on time is
expected (from them)

Other examples may include:

He can cause us to make more mistakes.

The mosquitoes feasting on our necks and ears forced us to move.

They encouraged him to go back to school.

She tricked him into believing that she was his sister´s friend.

President charged him with organizing the meeting.

Bad weather prevented us from leaving.

They expect you to pay your bills.

2. Covert Initiation Sub-Frame realized as SVOA

Initiator Initiating + Affected Circumstantial

Initiated Action Entity+Doer
S V O A
(He) (marched) (his troops) (across the field).
The Overt Initiation Sub-Frame correlates with the Covert Initiation Sub-Frame, comprising a
Circumstantial Argument, which disposes of a discrete verbalization of the Initiating Action
and Initiated Action, the former being covertly activated by the specific combination of
cognitive Arguments – Initiator, Affected Entity/Doer and Circumstantial:

The Covert Initiation Sub-frame may be treated as a condensed transformation of the core
Overt Initiation Sub-frame:

Initiator (He) Initiating Action(made) Doer(his troops) Initiated Action(march) Circumstantial(across the field). SVOCo

Exercises
Identify Complements, decide if they are Arguments or Non-Arguments and cognitive
sub-type and determine the valency chain of the clause.
1. She was appointed professor of chemistry at the university.
2. Set in a small Californian coastal town, a mysterious force turns seemingly benign
birds into vicious killers.
3. After his parents died, the boy´s uncle was appointed as his guardian.
4. The executive would also appoint members to the Election Commission.
5. He grabbed my arm to prevent me from falling.
6. The court adjudged the company bankrupt.
7. I watched the car come nearer.
8. They´d prefer us to come later.
9. He privately declared it to be one of his finest moments.
10. Nightmare on Elm Street scared me silly.
11. She flew home alone.
12. The howls prompted me to consider whether the wolves had spotted me on the open
gravel bar or noticed the tarp of my tent.
13. A night of heavy rain has turned the empty parking lot at the trailhead into brown
soupy puddles.
14. The rattling helicopters made me nervous.
15. I remember Lara standing on the platform.
16. It seems hopeless, and futile, and a little like the salmon themselves. They struggle
against the currents, and all of them die, and many of them never lay eggs. But each
one throws itself into the struggle, and year after year, they keep the ecosystem alive.
17. Many societies punish those who do not conform to the prevailing orthodoxy and treat
difference and non-conformity as a mistake.
18. Cf. Now we can think of them differently.
19. The sound of a car door, and then an engine starting jarred him
into realizing Elisabeth must have stayed in the woods all this time.
20. He made his horse bound into a gallop almost from a walk in his haste to go upon his
mission. (RBC 50)
21. After many experiments we find that we must begin earlier, at school. But the boys
and girls are not docile; we can make nothing of them. (Th1)
22. He turned away amazed and angry. (RBC 51)
23. Some like it really hot (100 degrees Fahrenheit!) and some like it as cool as 75 °F (24 °C).
24. They elected him president.
25. The sound of a car door, and then an engine starting jarred him
into realizing Elisabeth must have stayed in the woods all this time.
26. Bad weather prevented us from leaving.
27. This research was published in the US in 1932 as The Nature of Human Conflicts and
made him internationally famous as one of the leading psychologists in Soviet Russia.
In 1937, Luria submitted the manuscript in Russian and defended it as a doctoral
dissertation at the University of Tbilisi (not published in Russian until 2002).
28. The book has been translated into multiple foreign languages and has been
recognized as the principal book establishing Neuropsychology as a medical
discipline in its own right.
29. Luria published his well-known book The Working Brain in 1973 as a concise adjunct
volume to his 1962 book Higher Cortical Functions in Man.