ARGUMENT STRUCTURE OF ACTIVE CLAUSES IN

CRAZY RICH ASIAN

NAMA
160

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF HUMANITIES
UDAYANA UNIVERSITY
DENPASAR
2022

ii
ARGUMENT STRUCTURE OF ACTIVE CLAUSE IN
CRAZY RICH ASIAN

An undergraduate thesis as partial fulfillment to obtain Bachelor Degree at The

English Department, Faculty of Humanities
Udayana University, Denpasar, Bali

NAMA
160

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF HUMANITIES
UDAYANA UNIVERSITY
2022

iii
 MOTTO OF UDAYANA UNIVERSITY
“Taki-takining Sewaka Guna Widya”

VISION OF UDAYANA UNIVERSITY

“Udayana University seeks to be a leading university that produces high potential
graduates who become the best in their generation, develop further towards self-reliance;
and remain fully engaged with our local indigenous knowledge and practices”

VISION OF ENGLISH STUDY PROGRAM

“To be an excellent and internationally recognized study program in English language
and literature research that is imbued with the Indonesian cultural values in 2027”

iv
 APPROVAL SHEET

THIS UNDERGRADUATE THESIS

HAS BEEN APPROVED IN MONTH
YEAR

First Advisor, Second Advisor,

Prof. Dr. I Drs.

NIP. 19 NIP. 1

Acknowledged by:

Dean Head of English Department

Faculty of Humanities Faculty of Humanities
Udayana University Udayana University

Dr. Made Sri Satyawati, M. Hum. Dr. I Wayan Mulyawan,S.S.,M.Hum

NIP. 197103181994032001 NIP. 197812012006041002

v
PLAGIARISM STATEMENT

vi
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS

vii
 ABSTRACT
This study entitled Argument Structure of

Keywords: argument structure, grammatical relations, semantic roles, active

clause

viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COVER.....................................................................................................................i
INSIDE COVER......................................................................................................ii
MOTTO OF UDAYANA UNIVERSITY..............................................................iii
APPROVAL SHEET..............................................................................................iv
PLAGIARISM STATEMENT................................................................................v
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................................................................................vi
ABSTRACT..........................................................................................................vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................................................................................x
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION.............................................................................1
1.1 Background of the Study..................................................................................1
1.2 Problems of the Study.......................................................................................2
1.3 Aims of the Study.............................................................................................3
1.4 Scope of Discussion..........................................................................................3
1.5 Research Method..............................................................................................3
1.5.1 Data Source...........................................................................................4
1.5.2 Method and Technique of Collecting Data...........................................4
1.5.3 Method and Technique of Analysing Data...........................................5
1.5.4 Method and Technique of Presenting Analysis....................................5
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE, CONCEPTS AND THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK........................................................................................................7
2.1 Review of Literature.........................................................................................7
2.2 Concepts..........................................................................................................12
2.2.1 Argument Structure.............................................................................12
2.2.2 Transfer and Transition Predicate.......................................................14
2.3 Theoretical Framework...................................................................................14
2.3.1 Argument Structure.............................................................................15
2.3.2 Transition and Transfer Predicate.......................................................20
CHAPTER III ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENT STRUCTURE OF TRANSITION
AND TRANSFER VERBS....................................................................................23
3.1 Analysis of Argument Structure of Transition and Transfer Verbs................23
3.1.1 Bounce.............................................................................................23
3.1.2 Float.................................................................................................31

9
 10

3.1.3 Move................................................................................................38
3.1.4 Roll...................................................................................................47
3.1.5 Slide.................................................................................................54
CHAPTER IV CONCLUSION.............................................................................62
Bibliography..........................................................................................................63
 11

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Words can be involved to some categories, part of speech. All of the

categories can be found within sentences, noun, verb, adjective, adverb, and other

closed word classes. In operating a clause, the terms frequently found are verb with

its subject and the other elements. Accordingly, transitivity and valence of a verb deal

with subject and object it takes.

A Verb in English requires at least a subject to operate a grammatical

sentence. In other words, a participant must be involved within a clause. Therefore,

Kroeger (2005: 53) defined that the individuals (or participants) of whom the

property or relationship is claimed to be true are called arguments. The participants

previously implied are regarded as arguments. Moreover, a verb may take more

participants to involve in a clause it operates. In other words, different verb possibly

takes different number of argument. When a predicate is asserted to be true of the

right number of arguments, the result is a well-formed proposition: a “complete

thought”

Syntactic structure or grammatical structure may motivate form of arguments

that a verb assigns. When a clause consists of pronouns, the form of the pronoun

depends on its case, either nominative or accusative case form. In English, pronoun is

distinguished based on its case, nominative and accusative case form. The first person
 12

singular pronoun stands as I; on the other hand, it turns to me when its case is

accusative. In addition, the order or position of the argument also denotes its case.
 13

Argument does not always stands with a pronoun form; it probably takes the form of

nominal types. Therefore, it is necessary to deal with grammatical relation of

arguments since it describes the structure of arguments that a verb can assign.

Grammatical relation provides mapping of form and position of an argument.

However, to convey a message, it is necessary to deal with meaning, in this case the

semantic structure. The grammatical structure or the surface structure provides

information about what form and where the argument stands. On the other hand, the

semantic function will provide the relation of arguments and the verb. It is necessary,

for instance, to recognize whether an argument plays a role of agent or experiencer.

Verbs involved to mental states and emotions tend to assign an experiencer. On the

other hand, an action verb tends to associate with agent.

Agent which is based on semantic function or role of an argument is

frequently found confusing. The term agent has been frequently associated with and

assumed as syntactic function of subject, mostly in passive sentence. This traditional

understanding of grammar will lead us wrong; therefore, this study will try to

examine how grammatical relation and semantic role are associated within active

clauses.

1.2 Problems of the Study

Based on the background of the study, the problem of the study will be

presented as follows.
 14

1. What grammatical relations are operated within active clauses in the novel

of ‘Crazy Rich Asian’?

2. What semantic role does the argument have within active clauses in the

novel of ‘Crazy Rich Asian’?

1.3 Aims of the Study

In accordance with the problems of the study, the aims of the study will be

presented as follows.

1. To recognize what grammatical relations are operated within active

clauses in the novel of ‘Crazy Rich Asian’

2. To recognize what semantic role the arguments have within active clauses

in the novel of ‘Crazy Rich Asian’

1.4 Scope of Discussion

The discussion within this study will involve grammatical relations and

semantic roles of arguments within clauses and sentences in the novel of Crazy Rich

Asian. The clauses and sentences will be taken into the data if they are considered as

active or passive clauses and sentences. Huddleston and Pullum (2005: 26) stated that

it is allowed to present information in various ways. The terms active and passive

were mentioned related to how the information is packaged. In other words, the focus

of this study lies on discussing data in the level of clause and sentence which is

involved to active or passive notion.

 15

1.5 Research Method

This study is involved to library research, and it was conducted where the data

is collected through reading books or other sources. Research method is defined as a

system of working in order to achieve the determined goals with easier and more

effective ways. According to Zaim (2014: 22), linguistics research or linguistics study

is divided into two types of study, descriptive and historic comparative method.

Descriptive method is the method that was applied in this study which depicts

linguistics phenomena based on how language actually works. The research method

within this study consists of data source, method and technique of collecting data,

method and technique of analyzing data, and method and technique of presenting

data.

1.5.1 Data Source

According to Zaim (2014: 74), data is defined as a number of facts managed

by the researcher. Data shows what will be examined, and the data within this study

will be taken from a novel of which the title is ‘Crazy Rich Asians’. This novel was

published in 2013, and the author of this novel is Kevin Kwan. This novel is chosen

as the data source of this study since it shows how language actually works within

written text and some dialogue as well. Therefore, it is expected that the analysis will

show how language is actually used.

 16

1.5.2 Method and Technique of Collecting Data

The method applied in collecting the data was documentary that was proposed

by Bungin (2011) by reading through the source and finding clauses. The first step of

data collection was reading the novel and finding clauses and sentences involved to

active and passive. The active and passive clauses and sentences was sorted based on

its structure which has extra element, be verb. After the data have been obtained,

classification of the data was conducted based on its voice, active and passive.

1.5.3 Method and Technique of Analyzing Data

Descriptive qualitative method was conducted while analyzing the data. The

data was analyzed based on how the language or linguistics properties work. It works

on the relation within the language units or linguistics properties. Based on the

grammatical relation and semantic structure of the argument, it will be mapped to its

syntactic and semantic role.

1.5.4 Method and Technique of Presenting Data

The analyzed data was presented in informal method by Zaim (2014:114).

Data analysis presentation was conducted by using the description of the analyzed

data. Verbs and arguments within the sorted clauses were separated. Verb and

arguments separated were presented in a subcategorization. Those data were

described in term of its grammatical relation and semantic role.

 17

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE, CONCEPTS, AND THEORETICAL

FRAMEWORK

Some studies have also been reviewed in order to find the relevance of the

previous studies. In addition, concepts and theory related to the study will be

presented within this sub chapter.

2.1 Literature Review

Arta (2020) within an undergraduate thesis entitled Argument Structure and

the Semantic role also described this issue, related to grammatical relation and the

semantic role of arguments. The data was taken from corpus, in this case COCA.

Accordingly, the theory applied in this previous study is relevant with this current

study, Kroeger (2005). However, the scope and the data source will be different. The

scope of the discussion in the previous study was limited to the declarative sentence,

in this case it was based on sentence mood. The verb yawn, eat, write, and walk

belong to intransitive verb, while these verbs eat, write, walk, like, hit, give, show,

told, bake are involved to transitive verbs. On the other hand, give, show, told, and

bake can be also involved to ditransitive verbs. In addition, a verb may involve to
 18

either intransitive or transitive, such as eat, write, and walk, or it may involve to

either transitive or ditransitive, such as give, show, told, and bake. all of the clauses

have arguments those play the role of agent, experience, recipient, beneficiary,

instrument, theme, patient, stimulus, location, source, goal, path, and accompaniment.

This study is relevant in term argument structure because the same theory was

applied, of which theory was proposed by Kroeger (2005).

Yuniartati (2017) on her undergraduate thesis entitled Syntactic Functions of

Deverbal Nouns Found in Huffington Post Website: Morphosyntactic Approach

analyzed the nominal suffixes that certainly form noun and their syntactic function.

The theory of suffixes by Quirk that form nouns was applied in recognizing the first

problem, finding out the suffixes. The following theory, lexical functional grammar

by Falk is relevant with this study since similar understanding of syntactic function,

another term of grammatical relation, is used to map the deverbal noun; in this study,

the understanding of syntactic function is used to map the arguments, those are also

nouns/ noun phrases. However, the framework used is different with this study,

constituent structure and functional structure were used as the representation of the

NPs; therefore, the grammatical properties were shown in detail. Although the theory

makes the data analysis more detail and uses the terms of OBJ and OBJ2, the

difference between both and how it differs from traditional grammar is not clearly

explained. In addition, the syntactic functions found after the analysis were subject

and object. The study of Yuniartati is different with this study in term of topic; yet,

one of theories applied was relevant.

 19

Dewi (2018) on her undergraduate thesis entitled the Morphosyntax of

English Deverbal Noun in the Straits Times Website also tried to recognize the

suffixes those form noun and their syntactic function. These two studies are relevant

in terms of theory they used to analyze the syntactic function, and this similarity were

also applied in this study in mapping the syntactic function of the argument structure.

However, the theory which became the framework that was used to analyze the

syntactic function is different with this study. The theory was proposed by Randolph

Quirk (1985) that divided the syntactic function, another term of grammatical

relation, into four functions – subject, object, complement, and adverbial. However,

the two of those syntactic functions can be subcategorized, they are object, direct

object and indirect object, and complement, subject and object complement. In

addition, different finding occurs that the syntactic functions applied in the data were

subject, object, subject complement, and object complement.

Udayana (2016) on his article, Argument Structure at Syntax-Discourse

Interface, in the proceeding of the Third International Conference on English across

Culture, tried to discover that argument is not only motivated by the lexico-semantics

of a verb but it can be also the interface of syntax and discourse. In other word, he

tried to find the effect of information structure on argument. According to his claim,

there are three constructions which have the notion of information structure

phenomena – dummy it, passive, and antipassive. In dummy it, it plays important role

in preserving syntactic function or grammatical relation although it does not possess

any semantic content. He therefore concluded that it is the role of discourse,

 20

information structure or syntax. However, the theory used as the framework in

analyzing the data was not arranged in a complete thought. There are some citation

which refers to Birner and G. Ward (2004); nevertheless, it is not clear that whose

theory was assumed to map those three constructions. In addition, the data that is

used in this study are more acceptable in term of validity since the data in this study

were taken from Corpus of Contemporary America that consists of data of how

language is used in a various way; in contrast, there is no clear source where the data

were taken from in the article.

The following review was conducted with an undergraduate thesis entitled The

Argument Structure of Passive Clauses Found in English Novels proposed by Sari

(2021). This undergraduate thesis concerned on the grammatical relations and the

semantic roles of the argument in agentive passives clauses. It is aimed at identifying

the different types of passive clauses as well as the argument structure of passive

clauses in novels. The data of this study was obtained from five novels: Pinocchio's

travels, Charlotte's web, A Wrinkle in Time, Peter Pan and Wendy, and Beyond the

Kingdoms. The types of agentive passives found in five novels are agentive passives

with expressed agent and agentive passives without expressed agent, according to the

analysis. In addition, the agentive passives without expressed agent are the dominant

types used in four novels; however, only one novel, Pinocchio's Adventures, uses

both types of agentive passives equally. The subject, object, oblique, and adjunct

grammatical relations present in the agentive passives sentence, on the other hand, are

subject, object, oblique, and adjunct. Furthermore, the data contains all of the
 21

semantic role labels. This proposal is relevant in term argument structure due to the

same theory was applied.

The last review was conducted with the undergraduate thesis entitled

Grammatical Relation and Semantic Roles of Arguments in English Verb of Transfer

“Convey” proposed by Dwipayana (2021). It tries to discover how grammatical

relation and semantic roles of argument in English verb of transfer “Convey” is

operated. The study focused on grammatical relation and semantic roles of argument

within a specific argument structure. A total of 100 accidental samplings were taken.

As a result, every piece of information discovered is built using Levin's transfer verb

"convey" (1993). The analysis' base theories are Kroeger's (2005) Grammatical

Relation and Semantic Role, which is reinforced by Dowty and Taylor's theory of

Proto-Roles (1991). The findings are presented in both formal and informal methods.

Three terms are used to describe the various argument structures seen in the 100

samplings. The transitive structure emerges as the most prominent, although the other

two, intransitive and ditransitive, are quite well represented. Subject, Object, Oblique,

and Adjunct are the grammatical relations that have been discovered. All semantic

roles, with the exception of stimulus, beneficiary, and accompaniment, are found.

Some roles, like theme and instrument, have several lexical meanings. Physical,

perceptive, and abstract entities are the three types of entities. The agent is divided

into three types of indications: prototypical agent, metaphorical agent, and abstract

agent. Due to the primary ability of the verb "convey," the impacted argument was

described as proto-patient, which was later specified as a theme.

2.2 Concepts
 22

There are some terms related to this study and they must be necessary due to

understanding required when analyzing the data. As subcategorization or argument

structure is related to grammatical relation and semantic role, this term will be

involved within the concepts. The other terms those will be defined in this sub

chapter involves grammatical relation and semantic role.

2.2.1 Argument Structure

Mateu (2014: 24), with a syntactic notion, stated that argument structure is a

hierarchical representation of the arguments required by the predicate determining

how they are expressed in the syntax. In other word, syntax motivates how the

argument is structured, and it also represents the number and type of the argument

required that deals with its grammatical relation. Besides that, Mateu (2014: 24) also

defined argument structure as a semantic notion, that argument structure is a

representation of the central participants in the eventuality (event or state) expressed

by the predicate. Thus, the argument structure will deal with the term of semantic or

thematic role.

According to Kroeger (2005: 53), the individuals (or participants) of whom

the property or relationship is claimed to be true are called arguments. When a

sentence or a clause consists of a single subject and single predicate, it is categorized

as simple sentence/ clause. Accordingly, Kroeger (2004: 7) also stated that argument

structure of a predicate is a representation of the number and type of arguments

associated with a predicate. Based on that, it is possible to conclude that different

predicate may require different number of arguments.

 23

a. Semantic Role
In relation to the argument, which is defined as participant of an event, Kroger

stated (2005: 54) that it is helpful to classify arguments into broad semantic

categories according to the kind of role they play in the situations described by their

predicates, and the same idea he proposed (2004: 9) was that the approach which will

be adopted is to assign participants to broad semantic or conceptual categories

according to the role they play in the described event or situation. In other word, the

semantic role of an argument will keep the proposition of a sentence or messages

conveyed in a sentence.

Valin (2004:23) stated that each verb or other predicate has a certain number of

arguments, each of which bears a distinct semantic role; this will be referred to as a

verb’s argument structure. Within this understanding, the argument structure of a verb

is the number of arguments it contains, each of which has a specific semantic role.

b. Grammatical Relation
Valin (2004:33) stated that, there are strong tendencies for certain

phenomena to involve a particular relation and examples of the most likely

constructions to pick out subjects, direct objects or indirect objects will be presented.

Based on this understanding, the syntactic relations between a verb and the noun

phrases in a clause are indicated by grammatical relations. Subject, direct object, and

indirect object are all common grammatical relations. Oblique noun phrases are those

that are not part of the main argument.

 24

According to Kroeger (2005: 62) arguments must be assigned a grammatical

relation within the clause. The grammatical relation of an argument, which is

determined on the basis of morphological and syntactic properties, is not the same as

its semantic role, which is determined by the meaning of the verb. It should be

determined based on its grammatical properties and order.

2.2.3 Active and Passive Sentence

Huddleston and Pullum (2005: 26) stated that it is allowed to present

information in various ways. The terms active and passive were mentioned related to

how the information is packaged. The terms active and passive reflect the fact that in

clauses describing an action the subject of the active version denotes the active

participant, the performer of the action, while the subject of the passive version

denotes the passive participant, the undergoer of the action. In addition, extra element

be verb is required while constructing a passive sentence/clause. However, this study

will be only concerned on the active clauses.

2.3 Theoretical Framework

In analyzing the data and answering the problems of the study, theory is

necessary which will become the framework of the analysis. Theory of Kroger will be

used in answering the problems of the study; the theory will involve understanding

regarding grammatical relation and semantic role.

2.3.1 Argument Structure

Argument is a participant of an event or property, and the argument structure

provides information about the number of argument and its type. Kroger (2005: 62)
 25

defined arguments as elements which are “selected” by the verb. Arguments are

required or permitted by certain predicates. In other words, arguments can be

obligatory for certain verbs. In addition, it is also important to understand semantic

roles, grammatical relations, and other elements those are probably found within

clause and sentence.

2.3.1.1 Semantic Roles

Semantic role deals with meaning conveyed. Semantic role of an argument

presents what role they play in the particular event or situation. Some terms are used

differently by some linguists, and same labels can be also used in different ways. It is

actually depending on views how they describe the terms. However, the following

semantic roles proposed by Kroger (2005: 54) will be the terms assumed as semantic

roles:

a. agent: causer or initiator of events

b. experiencer: animate entity which perceives a stimulus or registers a

particular mental or emotional process or state

c. recipient: animate entity which receives or acquires something

d. beneficiary: entity (usually animate) for whose benefit an action is

performed

e. instrument: inanimate entity used by an agent to perform some action

f. theme: entity which undergoes a change of location or possession, or

whose location is being specified

 26

g. patient: entity which is acted upon, affected, or created; or of which a

state or change of state is predicated

h. stimulus: object of perception, cognition, or emotion; entity which is

seen, heard, known, remembered, loved, hated, etc.

i. location: spatial reference point of the event (the source, goal, and path

roles are often considered to be sub-types of location)

1) source: the origin or beginning point of a motion

2) goal: the destination or end-point of a motion

3) path: the trajectory or pathway of a motion

j. accompaniment (or comitative): entity which accompanies or is

associated with the performance of an action

The terms above represent the semantic relation which a predicate can assign and

determine the meaning of a verb.

2.3.1.2 Grammatical Relation

Kroger (2005: 62) stated that arguments must be assigned a grammatical

relation within the clause. Moreover, argument is determined by the syntactic and

morphological properties. The elements of grammatical relation can be divided into

subject and object, and terms and oblique.

a. Subject and Object

Based on traditional grammar view, subject is adopted as the doer of an

action; on the other hand, an object is adopted as what or who undergoes the action.

That understanding probably does not meet what is regarded grammatical relation.
 27

Grammatical relation expresses grammaticality, and semantic role deals with the

meaning. Therefore, grammatical relations, subject and object, cannot be identified

based on what role it plays, doer or undergoer. These data will describe how

grammatical relation is determined by grammatical properties not by its semantic or

meaning.

2 (a) A dog bit John.

(b) John was bitten by a dog.

There are still those who define a subject as the doer of an action, while the object is

the person or thing affected by the doer. However, both examples have shown that a

subject is not always an agent, and an object is not always a patient. A dog in 2(a) is

the subject of the sentence and also the agent or one who initiates to do the action of

biting; in contrast, a dog in 2(b) is not the subject of the sentence, it is considered as

object of the preposition or oblique argument although the role it plays is still the

same. Miller (2002: 105) stated that there are assumptions that consider term like a

dog in 2(b) as logical subject since it denotes agent.

3 (a) The tiger hunts its prey at night

(b) Prey is hunted by the tigers at night

(c) This prey, the tigers haunted

The tigers in 3(a) turns up inside the prepositional phrase by the tigers in 3(b). The

argument the tigers refers to agent in the situation described in either 3(a) or 3(b);

thus, it is assumed as logical subject. In accordance with different point of views and

this controversy, there are some understanding of subjects, grammatical subject,

 28

logical subject, and psychological subject. Grammatical subject is what is assumed as

subject in this study since the grammatical relation is determined by its grammatical

properties, while logical subject like what is assumed as agent is regarded as semantic

role. In the other hand, psychological subject is regarded as entity which is what a

speaker wishes to say. In sentence 3(a), the tigers is regarded as the psychological

subject, while the information is packaged in different way in 3(c), this prey becomes

the subject. In other word, the subject is determined by the information structure.

According to Kroger (2005: 56), here are the following properties of subject

in English:

a. Word order: In a basic English sentence, subject normally comes before

the verb, and object and other elements come after the verb.

b. Pronoun forms: Pronouns have special form when they appear in certain

position that indicates whether they are subject or object pronouns.

c. Agreement with verb: In the simple present tense, a morphological

marking, a suffix -s, is added to the verb when a third person subject is

singular. However, the number and person of the object or any other

element in the sentence does not give any effect to the form of the verb:

d. Content questions: If the subject is replaced by a question word (who or

what), the rest of the sentence remains unchanged. However, if the object

is replaced by a question word, there must be an auxiliary before the

subject.
 29

e. Tag questions: A tag question is used to seek confirmation of a statement.

It always contains a pronoun which refers back to the subject, and never

to any other element in the sentence.

Supporting these criteria, Miller (2002: 93) explained some properties that become

the criteria of grammatical subject.

a. Syntactic properties:

 control of reflexives

 control of all and both floating

 functioning as pivot in infinitives and coordinate constructions

b. Morpho-syntactic properties:

 being involved in person and number links with the finite verb

 being in the nominative case.

Subject and object in an English sentence can be identified based on its grammatical

properties. In addition, subject or object cannot be identified in the basis of semantic

or thematic roles or information structure.

b. Terms and Oblique Argument

According to Kroger (2005: 57), subjects and objects are often referred to as

terms, or direct arguments, while arguments which are not subjects or objects are

called indirect or oblique arguments. Based on that understanding, we may conclude

that subject and object have closer relationship comparing to oblique. In addition,

oblique is marked or preceded by a preposition, while subject and object appear in

bare noun phrase without being preceded by a preposition. These terms will occur
 30

when identifying the grammatical relation of an argument, and they are represented in

abbreviation, SUBJ, OBJ, and OBL that refer to subject, object and oblique argument.

c. Adjunct and Argument

According to Kroger (2005: 58), arguments are the participants which must be

involved because of the very nature of the relation or activity named by the predicate,

and without which the clause cannot express a “complete thought”. However,

speakers might also put elements which are not really required by the predicate to

make the flow of the story understood by the hearer(s) including time and place the

event takes and the way of an action is done. In other word, Kroger (2005: 58)

defined that elements which are not closely related to the meaning of the predicate

but which are important to help the hearer understand the flow of the story are called

adjunct.

As described not really required by the predicate, an adjunct is not obligatory

or always optional, while argument is obligatory. Besides that, an argument is

bounded by the semantic role that is assigned by its predicate; therefore, certain

predicate requires certain argument(s). In contrast, adjunct is semantically

independent, and this is the reason why an adjunct may be freely added while

argument is depended on the verb, and in addition, oblique is also obligatory as we

can find also in PP that consists obligatory oblique argument.

d. Indirect Object and Secondary Object

In traditional grammar, it is probably confusing to identify these two terms,

direct and indirect object since it can appear in two position or have grammatical
 31

difference. As previously mentioned, the grammatical relation is determined based on

grammatical properties, not semantic role of the object. However, direct and indirect

object are distinguished based on their meaning in traditional grammar. Therefore, it

will have different point of view in this approach that the grammatical relation is

motivated by grammatical properties. According to Kroger (2005: 61), grammatical

relations must be identified on the basis of grammatical properties, not semantic

roles.

Finding a verb consisting of two NPs object or ditransitive carries two terms

of object, primary or direct object (OBJ), the first object appears after the verb, and

secondary or indirect object (OBJ2) that appears after the primary object. However,

people might be confused in determining OBJ2 or OBL since in traditional grammar,

the grammatical relation of both might be the same. As described, the difference is

that an OBL is marked by a preposition.

There are two basic classes of grammatical relation, terms and oblique. Terms

(i.e. SUBJ, OBJ, OBJ2) play an active role in a wide variety of syntactic
 32

constructions, while obliques are relatively inert. Those clausal elements are

summarized in the diagram above by Kroeger (2005: 62).

Argument structure has the elements of grammatical relation and semantic

role, and how to determine and the explanation of the elements have been clear. In

representing the argument structure, those elements are associated within a

subcategorization. Argument structure represents the verb and its terms or arguments,

and they are mapped into their grammatical relations. In order to associate the

semantic roles, each term or argument is also mapped into the semantic role.

CHAPTER III

ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENT STRUCTURE OF ACTIVE CLAUSES IN

‘CRAZY RICH ASIAN’ NOVEL

The analysis is based on the framework of the study in the previous chapter,

including the theory of argument structure with its grammatical relation and semantic

role those were proposed by Kroger (2005).

3.1 Grammatical Relations and Semantic Roles

Data 1

Three Chinese women stood nearby

Stood < three Chinese women>

 33

Grammatical Relation Subject

Semantic Role Agent

The verb in this clause is stood which performs a past tense. The only term

assigned by the verb is the term three Chinese women. Based on its order, it is clear

that the term stands as the subject. The argument comes at the beginning of the

clause, or precisely before the verb. This argument does not perform any pronoun

form, neither subject or object pronoun. Referring to the agreement, past tense with

the second form of verb does not show any agreement. However, the second form of

verbs is agreed with any subject, without having any circumstances with what subject

it takes. The only wh-question word could replace the subject is who without

changing any order or form of the clause. Therefore, it is clear that this argument

stands as the subject of the clause.

However, an adverb is left from the argument structure since it is not

considered as term or oblique. Although nearby shows where the action is performed,

this unit does not have close relation to the verb as it is not required by the verb. In

other word, nearby is regarded as adjunct. The semantic role that is assigned to the

only term is agent due to initiator of the action of standing.

Data 2

Eleanor nodded in agreement

Nodded < Eleanor>

 34

Grammatical Relation Subject

Semantic Role Agent

The predicate nodded is involved to transitive verb, for it takes one term,

Eleanor. It does not take any object; thus it is considered as intransitive. The term

taken is a subject, Eleanor, since it comes before the verb which is performed in past

tense. Based on its word order, it is acceptable to consider this argument as the

subject. Although it does not appear in the pronoun form or does not perform a

question tag, providing content question is also possible, who nodded in agreement?

Therefore, Eleanor is considered as subject. The subject as the only term or direct

argument takes the role of agent that goes an action of nodding. Regarding to the rest

of the sentence, it does not account for an argument, term, or semantic role, since the

prepositional phrase in agreement is semantically independent and it cannot sub-

classify the predicate. In addition, the phrase can substitute another constituent.

Although the phrase is performed with preposition, it does not guarantee that it

belongs to argument as it is not closely related or required by the verb. Therefore, it is

considered as an adjunct. The semantic role that is assigned to the only term is agent

due to initiator of the action of nodding.

Data 3

Eddie walked over to his younger cousins

Walked < Eddie, his younger cousin>

 35

Grammatical Relation Subject Oblique

Semantic Role Agent/theme Goal

This sentence seems complex comparing to previous intransitive data.

However, it has only one term, direct argument, Eddie, that stands as subject. Based

on its position, it comes before verb; it indicates that this argument stands for subject

although it is not performed with pronoun form. In addition, content question may

support that Eddie is a subject – who walked over to his younger cousins. An

inexistence of a subject has proved that the content question stands for a subject.

Besides that, this sentence consists of an indirect argument or oblique his younger

cousin. It comes after a preposition to and it can sub-classify the location of the

predicate.

Semantically, the subject takes the role of theme, entity that goes a movement of

walking, from a starting point to an ending point, and at the same time it can be also

regarded as an agent as this entity is the initiator of the action of walking. In relation,

the oblique his younger cousin represents the role of location, especially goal as the

end point of the movement. Although the starting point is not specified in the

sentence, it is clear that the predicate assigns the role of theme to the subject.

Data 4

Felicity went back to where her younger sister Alexandra Cheng stood

guarding the luggage.

went < Felicity, where her younger sister >

Alexandra Cheng stood
guarding the luggage.
 36

Grammatical Relation Subject Oblique

Semantic Role Agent/theme Goal

This data also seems complex comparing to previous data. However, it has

only one term, direct argument, Felicity, that stands as subject. Based on its position,

it comes before verb; it indicates that this argument stands for subject although it is

not performed with pronoun form. In addition, content question may support that

Felicity is a subject – who went back to where her younger sister Alexandra Cheng

stood guarding the luggage. An inexistence of a subject has proved that the content

question stands for a subject. This clause does not have object as no argument comes

directly after the verb. Besides that, this sentence consists of an indirect argument or

oblique where her younger sister Alexandra Cheng stood guarding the luggage.

However, oblique within this data is filled with a clause which is shown by a subject

and a verb within the clause. Moreover, this clause could represent argument required

by the verb. It comes after a preposition to and it can sub-classify the location of the

predicate.

Semantically, the subject takes the role of theme, entity that goes a movement

of going, from a starting point to an ending point, and at the same time it can be also

regarded as an agent as this entity is the initiator of the action of going. In relation,

the oblique, where her younger sister Alexandra Cheng stood guarding the luggage,

represents the role of location, especially goal as the end point of the movement.

Although the starting point is not specified in the sentence, it is clear that the

predicate assigns the role of theme to the subject.

 37

Data 5

he recognized the name

recognized < he, the name>

Grammatical Relation Subject Object

Semantic Role Experiencer Stimulus

The verb in this sentence is recognized, which is a past form of a verb. This

verb assigns two arguments, two terms, he and the name; the verb recognzed is

therefore involved to transitive verb. The first argument in word order is regarded as

subject since it appears before the verb, and the argument that appears after the verb

is regarded as object. The first term is performed with subject pronoun he, third

person singular form of subject. Moreover, their positions have grammatically

described their function and relation. In addition, content questions can also describe

each argument grammatical relation; they are who recognized the name? and what

did he recognize?. In the first content question, the question word replaces the term

he and the rest of the sentence remains the same. On the other hand, there is a slight

change within the second content question. An auxiliary did appears before the

subject. Moreover, the following argument is regarded as object, in this case primary

object, as the object is the only object and it comes directly after the verb. It does not

have following object, and the clause does not have a secondary object.

Thus, he and the name are considered as subject and object in sequence.
 38

Semantically, the verb recognized requires someone who recognized and

something which is recognized. The first argument he plays the role of experiencer

due to the cognitive process within the verb. While, the following term the name

stimulates the cognitive process of recognizing; it is therefore considered as stimulus.

Data 7

you booked the Lancaster Suite

booked < you, the Lancaster Suite>

Grammatical Relation Subject Object

Semantic Role Agent Patient

The verb within this data is also considered as transitive verb as it takes two

arguments, you and the Lancaster Suite. The verb booked is performed in past form

which derives from book. These arguments are regarded as subject and object

respectively. The first argument can be considered as subject as its position has

shown that it comes before the verb. Moreover, it is performed with subject pronoun

he, third person singular form of subject. On the other hand, the following argument

stands after the verb. Although no pronoun form is performed within the object, the

position has proved its function. Moreover, when tested with content question, it

shows the same evidence, who booked the Lancaster Suite? and what did you book?

First question word replaces the subject without interfering the rest of the clause; on

the other hand, the second content question has a slight change by the auxiliary verb

did and different order. Moreover, the following argument is regarded as object, in
 39

this case primary object, as the object is the only object and it comes directly after the

verb. It does not have following object, and the clause does not have a secondary

object.

As presented within the data, the semantic role of the subject is agent; this

argument is regarded as agent since it represent a human being who initiates an action

of booking. The object of the clause is regarded as patient as it is affected by the

action of booking.

Data 8

you might think you booked the Lancaster Suite

Think < You, you booked the Lancaster >

Suite

Grammatical Relation Subject Object

Semantic Role Experiencer Stimulus

Different from the previous data this data seems more complex as it has clause

within the clause. A pronoun form occupies the first argument, and the second

argument is occupied by a clause. The verb within this data is also considered as

transitive verb as it takes two arguments, you and you booked the Lancaster Suite.

The verb think is performed with modal auxiliary might. These arguments are
 40

regarded as subject and object respectively. The first argument can be considered as

subject as its position has shown that it comes before the verb. Moreover, it is

performed with subject pronoun you, second person singular form of subject. On the

other hand, the following argument stands after the verb. Although no pronoun form

is performed within the object, the position has proved its function. Moreover, when

tested with content question, it shows the same evidence, who might think you booked

the Lancaster Suite? and what might you think? First question word replaces the

subject without interfering the rest of the clause; on the other hand, the second

content question has a slight change by the auxiliary verb might and different order.

Moreover, the following argument is regarded as object, in this case primary object,

as the object is the only object and it comes directly after the verb. It does not have

following object, and the clause does not have a secondary object.

Related to the meaning of the clause and the distribution of the arguments, the

verb think is involved to a cognitive verb which makes the argument who undergoes

the cognitive process of thinking become an experiencer and the argument which

stimulates the process of thinking become a stimulus. Based on that it is clear that the

first argument you is the experiencer and the object argument is the stimulus.

Data 9

Nick wished he could stop that brilliant analytical mind of hers

Think < Nick, He could stop that brilliant >

analytical mind of hers

Grammatical Relation Subject Object

 41

Semantic Role Experiencer Stimulus

Similar to the previous data, this data seems complex as it has clause within

the clause. Non-pronoun form occupies the first argument, and the second argument

is occupied by a clause. The verb within this data is also considered as transitive verb

as it takes two arguments, Nick and he could stop that brilliant analytical mind of

hers. The verb wished is performed in past form which derives from wish. These

arguments are regarded as subject and object respectively. The first argument can be

considered as subject as its position has shown that it comes before the verb. On the

other hand, the following argument stands after the verb. Although no pronoun form

is performed within the object, the position has proved its function. Moreover, when

tested with content question, it shows the same evidence, who wished he could stop

that brilliant analytical mind of hers? and what did Nick wish? First question word

replaces the subject without interfering the rest of the clause; on the other hand, the

second content question has a slight change by the auxiliary verb did and different

order. Moreover, the following argument is regarded as object, in this case primary

object, as the object is the only object and it comes directly after the verb. It does not

have following object, and the clause does not have a secondary object.

Related to the meaning of the clause and the distribution of the arguments, the

verb wish is involved to a cognitive verb which makes the argument who undergoes

the cognitive process of wishing become an experiencer and the argument which
 42

stimulates the process of wishing become a stimulus. Based on that it is clear that the

first argument Nick is the experiencer and the object argument is the stimulus.

Data 10

I can order club sandwiches with champagne and caviar

order < I, club sandwiches with >

champagne and caviar

Grammatical Relation Subject Object

Semantic Role Agent Patient

The verb within this data is also considered as transitive verb as it takes two

arguments, you and the Lancaster Suite. The verb booked is performed in past form

which derives from book. These arguments are regarded as subject and object

respectively. The first argument can be considered as subject as its position has

shown that it comes before the verb. Moreover, it is performed with subject pronoun

he, third person singular form of subject. On the other hand, the following argument

stands after the verb. Although no pronoun form is performed within the object, the

position has proved its function. Moreover, when tested with content question, it

shows the same evidence, who booked the Lancaster Suite? and what did you book?

First question word replaces the subject without interfering the rest of the clause; on

the other hand, the second content question has a slight change by the auxiliary verb

did and different order. Moreover, the following argument is regarded as object, in

this case primary object, as the object is the only object and it comes directly after the
 43

verb. It does not have following object, and the clause does not have a secondary

object.

As presented within the data, the semantic role of the subject is agent; this

argument is regarded as agent since it represent a human being who initiates an action

of booking. The object of the clause is regarded as patient as it is affected by the

action of booking.

Data 11

Their butler always serves us caviar with little triangles of toasted bread.

serves < their butler, us club sandwiches

>
with champagne
and caviar

Grammatical Relation Subject Object1 Object2

Semantic Role Agent Beneficiary Theme

The verb within this data is also considered as ditransitive verb as it takes

three arguments, their butler, us, and caviar with little triangles of toasted bread. The

verb serves is performed in present form for third singular pronoun which derives

from serve. These arguments are regarded as subject, primary object, and secondary

object respectively. The first argument can be considered as subject as its position has

shown that it comes before the verb. On the other hand, the following argument

stands after the verb. Pronoun form is performed within the object, objective form of

we, us; the position has proved its function. Moreover, when tested with content
 44

question, it shows the same evidence, who always serves us caviar with little

triangles of toasted bread? The question word replaces the subject without interfering

the rest of the clause. Moreover, the following argument is regarded as object, in this

case primary object, and it comes directly after the verb. After the primary object, a

noun phrase comes as the secondary object. The object of preposition is not regarded

as an oblique as it is modifying the prepositional phrase which modifies the preceding

noun.

As presented within the data, the semantic role of the subject is agent; this

argument is regarded as agent since it represent a human being who initiates an action

of serving. The object of the clause is regarded as beneficiary as the entity us benefits

from the action of serving; moreover, the third argument is regarded as theme as it

moves from the butler to us.

Data 12

I’m getting myself a drink

getting < I, myself a drink >

Grammatical Relation Subject Object1 Object2

Semantic Role Agent Beneficiary Theme

 45

The verb within this data is also considered as ditransitive verb as it takes

three arguments, I, myself, and a drink. The verb getting is performed in present form

for which derives from get and it is also preceded by to be am. These arguments are

regarded as subject, primary object, and secondary object respectively. The first

argument can be considered as subject as its position has shown that it comes before

the verb. On the other hand, the following argument stands after the verb. Pronoun

form is performed within the subject; the position has proved its function. Moreover,

when tested with content question, it shows the same evidence. The question word

replaces the subject without interfering the rest of the clause. Moreover, the following

argument is regarded as object, in this case primary object, and it comes directly after

the verb. After the primary object, a noun phrase comes as the secondary object.

As presented within the data, the semantic role of the subject is agent; this

argument is regarded as agent since it represent a human being who initiates an action

of getting. The object of the clause is regarded as beneficiary as the entity myself

benefits from the action of getting; moreover, this argument is the same entity

depicted by the subject. The third argument is regarded as theme as it moves from a

particular place to the entity.

Data 13

I’ll get a rum and coke

get < I, a rum and coke>

Grammatical Relation Subject Object

 46

Semantic Role Agent Theme

The verb within this data is also considered as transitive verb as it takes two

arguments, I and a rum and coke. The verb get is performed with modal auxiliary will

in front of it. These arguments are regarded as subject and object respectively. The

first argument can be considered as subject as its position has shown that it comes

before the verb. Moreover, it is performed with subject pronoun I, first person

singular form of subject. On the other hand, the following argument stands after the

verb. Although no pronoun form is performed within the object, the position has

proved its function. Moreover, when tested with content question, it shows the same

evidence, who will get a rum and coke? and what will you get? First question word

replaces the subject without interfering the rest of the clause; on the other hand, the

second content question has a slight change by the auxiliary verb will and different

order. Moreover, the following argument is regarded as object, in this case primary

object, as the object is the only object and it comes directly after the verb. It does not

have following object, and the clause does not have a secondary object.

As presented within the data, the semantic role of the subject is agent; this

argument is regarded as agent since it represent a human being who initiates an action

of getting. The object of the clause is regarded as patient theme as it moves from a

particular place or point.

Data 14

I know you’re going to be so busy with all your bestman duties

 47

Know < I, >

you’re going to be so busy
with all your bestman
duties
Grammatical Relation Subject Object

Semantic Role Experiencer Stimulus

Having similar notion to previous data, this data also seems complex as it has

clause within the clause. A pronoun form occupies the first argument, and the second

argument is occupied by a clause. The verb within this data is also considered as

transitive verb as it takes two arguments, I and you’re going to be so busy with all

your bestman duties. The verb know is performed with a present form which is in

agreement in form. These arguments are regarded as subject and object respectively.

The first argument can be considered as subject as its position has shown that it

comes before the verb. Moreover, it is performed with subject pronoun I, first person

singular form of subject. On the other hand, the following argument stands after the

verb. Although no pronoun form is performed within the object, the position has

proved its function. Moreover, when tested with content question, it shows the same

evidence, who know you’re going to be so busy with all your bestman duties? and

what do you know? First question word replaces the subject without interfering the

rest of the clause; on the other hand, the second content question has a slight change

by the auxiliary verb do and different order. Moreover, the following argument is

regarded as object, in this case primary object, as the object is the only object and it

comes directly after the verb. It does not have following object, and the clause does

not have a secondary object.

 48

Related to the meaning of the clause and the distribution of the arguments, the

verb know is also involved to a cognitive verb which makes the argument who

undergoes the cognitive process of knowing or recognizing become an experiencer

and the argument which stimulates the process of recognizing become a stimulus.

Based on that it is clear that the first argument I is the experiencer and the object

argument is the stimulus.

Data 15

She stared curiously at Nicholas

Stared < She Nicholas>

Grammatical Relation Subject Oblique

Semantic Role Experiencer Stimulus

The verb in this clause is stared which performs a past tense. The only term

assigned by the verb is the term she. Based on its order, it is clear that the term stands

as the subject. The argument comes at the beginning of the clause, or precisely before

the verb. This argument does perform a pronoun form, subject pronoun. Referring to

the agreement, past tense with the second form of verb does not show any agreement.

However, the second form of verbs is agreed with any subject, without having any

circumstances with what subject it takes. The only wh-question word could replace

the subject is who without changing any order or form of the clause. Therefore, it is

clear that this argument stands as the subject of the clause. On the other hand, the
 49

following argument occur within the argument structure is an oblique Nicholas. This

argument is considered as close to the verb as what is perceived is explicitly

performed within the structure.

However, an adverb is left from the argument structure since it is not

considered as term or oblique. Although curiously shows how the action is

performed, this unit does not have close relation to the verb as it is not required by the

verb. In other word, nearby is regarded as adjunct. The semantic role that is assigned

to the only term is experiencer as it is associated with the process of perceiving which

is stimulated by a stimulus, the role of the oblique argument.

Data 16

I thought you were in Singapore

Though <I you were in Singapore>

Grammatical Relation Subject Object

Semantic Role Experiencer Stimulus

Having similar notion to previous data, this data also seems complex as it has

clause within the clause. A pronoun form occupies the first argument, and the second

argument is occupied by a clause. The verb within this data is also considered as

transitive verb as it takes two arguments, I and you were in Singapore. The verb

thought is performed with a past form which is in agreement in form. These

 50

arguments are regarded as subject and object respectively. The first argument can be

considered as subject as its position has shown that it comes before the verb.

Moreover, it is performed with subject pronoun I, first person singular form of

subject. On the other hand, the following argument stands after the verb. Although no

pronoun form is performed within the object, the position has proved its function.

Moreover, when tested with content question, it shows the same evidence, who

thought you were in Singapore? and what did you think? First question word replaces

the subject without interfering the rest of the clause; on the other hand, the second

content question has a slight change by the auxiliary verb did and different order.

Moreover, the following argument is regarded as object, in this case primary object,

as the object is the only object and it comes directly after the verb. It does not have

following object, and the clause does not have a secondary object.

Related to the meaning of the clause and the distribution of the arguments, the

verb thought is also involved to a cognitive verb which makes the argument who

undergoes the cognitive process of thinking become an experiencer and the argument

which stimulates the process of recognizing become a stimulus. Based on that it is

clear that the first argument I is the experiencer and the object argument is the

stimulus.
 51

CHAPTER IV

CONCLUSION

The data that were taken from the novel Crazy Rich Asian have been analyzed

and presented in the previous chapter. Based on the analysis of the data regarding to

argument structure, grammatical relation, and semantic role in active clause, the

conclusions are presented as follows.

 52

The grammatical relations of arguments in active clauses involve subject,

object (primary and secondary), and oblique. Verbs within active clauses in English

can be classified as intransitive, transitive, and ditransitive based on the terms the

verb assigns, one, two and three terms in sequence, and all types of clauses were

found within the novel. In addition, each type of verb, either intransitive or transitive

or ditransitive, can assign argument which is non-core argument(s) regarded as

oblique(s).

Within all of the data, all of the clauses have arguments those play the role of

agent, experience, recipient, beneficiary, instrument, theme, patient, stimulus,

location, and accompaniment.

Bibliography

Arta, P O P. (2020). Argument Structure of English Verb and the Semantic Role
(undergraduate theis). Udayana University, Denpasar.

Bungin, Burhan. (2007). Penelitian Kualitatif Komunikasi, Ekonomi, Kebijakan

Publik, dan Ilmu Sosial Lainnya. Prenanda Media Grup, Jakarta.
 53

Dewi, I G A Indah Maha. (2018). The Morphosyntax of English Deverbal Noun in

the Straits Times Website (undergraduate theis). Udayana University,
Denpasar.

Huddleston, R., and Pullum, G K. (2005). A Student’s Introduction to English

Grammar. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kreidler, Charles W. (2002). Introducing English Semantics. Routledge, New York.

Kroeger, Paul R. (2004). Analyzing Syntax A Lexical-functional Approach.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kroeger, Paul R. (2005). Analyzing Grammar An Introduction. Cambridge University

Press, Singapore.

Mateu, Jaume. (2014). Argument Structure. In: Carney, A., et al. The Routledge
Handbook of Syntax. Routledge, New York.

Miller, Jim. (2002). An Introduction to English Syntax. Edinburgh University Press,

Edinburg.

Sari, L. P. (2021). The Argument Structure of Passive Clause Found in English

Novels (undergraduate thesis). Denpasar: Udayana University.

Udayana, Nyoman. (2016). Argument Structure at Syntax-Discourse Interface. The

Third International Conference on English Across Culture. November, pp28-38.

Yani, La. (2018). Transitivity Construction of Verbal Clause in Ciacia Language.

International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture. Vol.4. No.3, pp 15-
23.

Yuniartati, Made Dwi. (2017). Syntactic Functions of Deverbal Nouns Found in

Huffington Post Website: Morphosyntactic Approach (undergraduate theis).
Udayana University, Denpasar.

Zaim, M. (2014). Metode Penelitian Bahasa: Pendekatan Struktural. FBS UNP

Press, Padang.

APPENDICES

Num Data Page

Three Chinese women stood nearby
 54

Stood < three Chinese

women>

Grammatical Relation Subject

Semantic Role Agent

Eleanor nodded in agreement

Nodded < Eleanor>

Grammatical Relation Subject

Semantic Role Agent

Eddie walked over to his younger cousins

Walked < Eddie,

his younger cousin>

Grammatical Relation Subject

Oblique

Semantic Role Agent/theme

Goal
 55

Felicity went back to where her younger sister

Alexandra Cheng stood guarding the luggage.

went < Felicity, where her younger sister

Alexandra Cheng stood
> guarding the luggage.

Grammatical Relation Subject

Oblique

Semantic Role Agent/theme

Goal

he recognized the name

recognized < he, the

name>

Grammatical Relation Subject

Object

Semantic Role Experiencer

Stimulus

you booked the Lancaster Suite

booked < you, the Lancaster

 56

Suite>

Grammatical Relation Subject

Object

Semantic Role Agent

Patient

you might think you booked the Lancaster Suite

Think < You, you booked the Lancaster

Suite
>

Grammatical Relation Subject

Object

Semantic Role Experiencer

Stimulus

Nick wished he could stop that brilliant analytical

mind of hers
 57

Think < Nick, He could stop that brilliant

analytical mind of hers
>

Grammatical Relation Subject

Object

Semantic Role Experiencer

Stimulus

I can order club sandwiches with champagne and caviar

order < I, club sandwiches with

champagne and caviar
>

Grammatical Relation Subject

Object

Semantic Role Agent

Patient
 58

Their butler always serves us caviar with little triangles of

toasted bread.
club sandwiches
with champagne
serves < their butler, us
and caviar
>

Grammatical Relation Subject

Object1 Object2

Semantic Role Agent

Beneficiary Theme

I’m getting myself a drink

getting < I,

myself a drink >

Grammatical Relation Subject

Object1 Object2

Semantic Role Agent

Beneficiary Theme

I’ll get a rum and coke

get < I,
 59

a rum and coke>

Grammatical Relation Subject

Object

Semantic Role Agent

Theme

I know you’re going to be so busy with all your bestman

duties

Know < I, you’re going to

> be so busy
with all your bestman
duties

Gr-Relation Subject Object

Semantic Role Experiencer Stimulus

She stared curiously at Nicholas

Stared < She Nicholas>

Gr-Relation Subject

Oblique

Semantic Role Experiencer Stimulus

I thought you were in Singapore

 60

Though <I you were in Singapore>

Gr-Relation Subject Object

Semantic role Experiencer Stimulus