1. 1
S. E. Maclean-Morris (10848452)
Term Paper: General Linguistics
Prof. dr. K. Hengeveld
Semester 1, 2015
How are differences in the mapping of Emotion Verbs accounted for in a
Functional Discourse Grammar Account?
0. Introduction
This paper examines how Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG) assigns
semantic functions within emotion experiencer constructions typologically. FDG offers
three main semantic function classes, Actor, Undergoer and Locative, which are
believed to be universal (Hengeveld & Mackenzie 2008:199), with variation within
these categories in individual languages. Other thematic roles can be found within the
Locative, such as Ablative, Perlative, Recipient and Goal. However, one role FDG does
not account for, is Experiencer. Clearly not a Locative, yet with no evident sub-
categories in Actor and Undergoer, is there a place for it, firstly in Emotion Experiencer
constructions, and secondly within a Functional Grammar Framework?
Functional Discourse Grammar, has its foundation in Dik’s (1978) Functional
Grammar, providing prominence to discourse; the discourse act is ‘the basic unit of
analysis’ (Hengeveld & Mackenzie 2008:1). It operates on a top-down basis, as in
psycholinguistic studies with four different levels. The first, the Interpersonal accounts
for pragmatic aspects, the second, the Representational Level for semantic aspects, and
which along with the Interpersonal deal with Formulation of an utterance. The third, the
Morphosyntactic Level, deals with syntactic and morphological properties, and along
with the fourth level, the Phonological relate to the encoding of an utterance
(Hengeveld & Mackenzie 2008:3).
With the allowance of pragmatic and semantic analyses, FDG appears well
equipped to deal with emotion verbs, acknowledging that communication begins with a

2. 2
speaker’s intention and ends with the articulation of said intention (Hengeveld &
Mackenzie 2008:2).
This paper will examine transitive emotion verbs, employing a typological
analysis of four different languages, English, Japanese, German and Standard Modern
Hindi in two-place predicates within a Functional Discourse Grammar analysis,
specifically at the Representational Level. It will discuss how emotion verbs compare
typologically across languages in their meaning and surface expression. Unfortunately,
English has set the benchmark for comparing languages and as a result, it is too easy to
look at another language and classify it on the basis of how it differs from English. At
this point it is important to state that there isn’t always a perfect translation between
verbs cross-linguistically, and some concepts exist in the form of verbs in some
languages, with no direct translation in another.
1. Verb Classification
This paper deals with transitive emotion experiencer verbs. Therefore it is
important to briefly clarify the decision for this choice, as well as the other options
available in verb classification. Transitive verbs take two nominal arguments, as
opposed to Intransitive that take just one, and Ditransitive that take three (Wunderlich
2005: 3). As Experiencer verbs require an Experiencer and a Stimulus, it seems that at
least a transitive verb would be required to accommodate these functions, and this will
be seen in this paper. Despite this, German is an unusual exception with a class of
intransitive experiencer verbs, applying Accusative marking, as in the following
example with the weak verb frösteln (to shiver/to feel chilly).
(1) Mich fröste-lt
1.sg.ACC be.chilly-3.sg.
“I am shivering (with cold).” Or “I feel chilly.”
It seems in this instance that there is incorporation (albeit abstract) of the Stimulus
within the verb. With accusative marking, the above example would be non-agentive,
and mich would be labelled as Experiencer, or Undergoer.

3. 3
Absent from Intransitive predicates, there are sometimes discrepancies between
Agent and Patient in transitives, (Dowty 1991:553) especially with verbs such as marry
where it can be argued both participants are symmetric.
Consider the following example:
(2) John marries Mary.
Although at first it is presumed that John is Actor and Mary is Undergoer, Mary also
marries John and could take the Actor function as well. Psychological predicates can
also behave ambiguously. Firstly, the Experiencer is sentient, whereas the Stimulus is
not, but the latter ‘causes some emotional reaction or cognitive judgement in the
Experiencer’ (Dowty 1991:580). Therefore both can have claim, even if weak, to being
Agent or Subject. Sometimes syntax is required along with semantics to define
functions and as a result, various semantic hierarchies have been developed in order to
map onto grammatical ones. Dowty (1991) proposes that a Protopatient role is given to
the ‘lower’ argument, which is nearer the verb and the Protoagent given to the higher
argument in a transitive clause.
2. Semantic Functions
Functional Discourse Grammar proposes that semantic representations are not
identical across languages, but are instead determined individually through certain
grammatical features of a language (Hengeveld & Mackenzie 2008:194).
As suggested by Hengeveld & Mackenzie, ‘semantic functions are grammatical
reflexes of the cognitive awareness, that participants in a State-of-Affairs’ play the
same, different or no roles (2008: 195).
Dynamic two-place properties demonstrate clearly how participants play different roles
in a State-of-Affairs (SOA). Consider the following sentence:
(3) The dog bites the man.
(ei:[(fi:[(fj:-bite-(fj)) (xi: -dog- (xi))A (xj:-man-(xj))U] (fi)]) (ei))
The verb bite is dynamic, and gives the subject ‘the dog’ the semantic function Actor
due to its active participation in the act. Thus ‘the man’, is affected by this state-of-
affairs and takes on the semantic function Undergoer.

4. 4
Actor and Undergoer however are not the only semantic functions available, a
third, the Locative function also exists in dynamic States-of-Affairs, with a range of
different ‘spatial distinctions’ (Hengeveld & Mackenzie 2008: 197).
(4) The boy jumped from the swing.
(ei:[(fi:[(fj:- jump- (fj)) (xi:-boy-(xi))A (xj:-swing-(xj))ABL (fi)]) (ei))
From the swing is Locative, more specifically, ABLATIVE, which specifies the source
of movement. However, within the Locative function, there is also PERLATIVE, which
indicates the path of movement, ALLATIVE, which specifies the end point of
movement as well as presenting RECIPIENT and BENEFICIARY, and finally
APPROACH, the point at which there is movement towards (ibid 2008:197).
So far this paper has only looked at the available semantic functions in
Functional Discourse Grammar. However, it is beneficial to consider other types and
realisations of semantic roles from other work.
Aarts (1997), lists nine different types of thematic or semantic roles. These are,
Agent (Actor), Patient (Undergoer), Theme, Experiencer, Goal, Benefactive, Source,
Instrument and Locative. I would place Agent in a FDG Actor function, with Patient,
and Theme in that of the Undergoer, with Goal, Benefactive, Source, & Locative in
FDG Locative. However, Experiencer is a little more complex. Aarts, describes it as
‘the living entity that experiences the action or event denoted by the predicate’
(1997:88). This might at first simply point towards an Undergoer analysis, however it
then raises questions how to classify the Stimulus.
Example (4) concerns what Hengeveld & Mackenzie define as an external
reality, something dynamic, happening in the world as we see it. How, then, does
Functional Discourse Grammar account for internal reality?
3. Experiencer Verbs
Continuing from the end of the previous section, this section concerns internal
reality and Experiencer verbs and in the first instance will recount the three main
semantic functions Functional Discourse Grammar offers, Actor, Undergoer and
Locative. Within the Locative function, ‘spatial distinctions’ can be embedded in an

5. 5
internal reality; the mental processes, states and experiences (Hengeveld and
Mackenzie 2008: 201).
Consider the Portuguese example below from Hengeveld & Lachlan Mackenzie (2008,
201):
(5) Eu gost-o de morango-s
“I like strawberries.”
(ei:[(fi:[(fj:-gostar- (fj)) (xi)U (mc
xj :-morango-(xj))ABL (fi)]) (ei))
The first person Experiencer ‘Eu’ in Portuguese assumes the Undergoer role due to the
verb gostar, and the strawberries ascribed the ABLATIVE locative role, by the
preposition ‘de’, indicating the source of pleasure. According to Functional Discourse
Grammar, this Portuguese sentence would be a non-dynamic State-of-Affairs, due to
the absence of an Actor.
This is in contrast to the English equivalent of this sentence, whereby ‘I’ would be
ascribed Actor role, and ‘Strawberries’, Undergoer, undergoing the Experiencer verb
‘like’.
(ei:[(fi: [(fj:-like-(fj))(xi)A(mc
xj:-strawberry-(xj))U (fi)]) (ei))
An Experiencer verb expresses either a physical or mental state, or a process. It is
accompanied by a participant who is experiencing the state or process (Hook 1990:
255). The Experiencer is expressed by employing an Experiencer noun, specifying the
person undergoing the state, and when a two-place predicate, a patient noun expresses
the Stimulus. If the Experience is in a Patient role, or in Experiencer-Object position,
then they are causally affected by the stimulus.
Hengeveld and Mackenzie (2008:201) state that experiences tend not to have
their own grammar, with grammar modelled upon those of non-experiences. Although
for the most part the grammar of experience is restricted to Undergoer and Locative, in
English the Actor-Undergoer model of the dynamic external reality is used.
According to Dirven (1989:36), Experiencer verbs that denote a mental state are
known as Psychological Verbs, and can be further categorised into three subclasses.
These are;

6. 6
Verbs of cognition: know, think, believe, doubt.
Verbs of perception: see, hear, taste, sound.
Verbs of emotion and volition. Love, like, hate, admire, enjoy, want, wish, hope,
need.
Talmy (2007: 135) states that verbs of affect ‘incorporate focus on either the
qualities of the Stimulus or the state of the Experiencer’. As a result, either the Stimulus
or Experiencer can be the subject. Example (6) in Modern Greek is an Experiencer-
Subject Emotion Verb Construction, whereas (7) is an Experiencer-Object construction
with the stimulus Maria as the Subject.
(6) O Gianis misi to scholio
The Gianis.N hate.3S the school.A
“John hates school.”
(7) I Maria eksorgizi ton Giani.
The Maria.N enrage.3S the Giani.A
“Mary enrages John.”
(Kordoni 2001:198)
Different languages favour different lexicalisations. English favours lexicalizing
the Stimulus as the subject, whereas Japanese prefers Experiencer-Subject verbs. In
Atsugewi, verbs takes the Experiencer as subject almost exclusively (Talmy 2007:136).
4. Emotion Verbs
Emotion verbs are part of a sub group of Psychological verbs (psych-verbs),
which denote internal realities as defined by Dirven (1989), who puts them together
with volition verbs into one class. They express mental states, such as admire and
annoy. In English, Hartshorne et al. (2012) found that Experiencer-Object emotion
verbs ‘were significantly more subject-biased’ (2012: 187).
A Functional Grammar approach posits that the difference between Experiencer
Subject (like) and Experiencer-Object (please) is in dynamicity. Firstly, a dynamic

7. 7
State-of-Affairs requires the ‘input of energy’, and as a result, normally contains an
Actor (Hengeveld & Mackenzie 2008:196). Secondly, a controlled State-of-Affairs is
one in which a participant in a State-of-Affairs determines whether the SOA applies, or
is volitionally involved. Therefore, the Experiencer-Subject like is dynamic [+dyn], in
that its Subject is an Actor, and I would also say non-controlled [-con], as this Actor
freely applies the liking.
On the other hand, in the Experiencer-Object verb please, the Experiencer is an
Undergoer of the pleasing of the subject. Therefore it is non-dynamic [-dyn].
Furthermore, as the first argument, the subject does not have the power to determine
whether the pleasing applies, it is also non-controlled [-con].
It is important to note that semantic notions are not encoded through the same
argument structure cross-linguistically. Verhoeven (2010:216) uses the example of the
transitive Experiencer-Subject verb like and its German dative counterpart gefallen
which is an Experiencer-Object verb. She found evidence of typological variation in
Experiencer-Object Verbs with regards to agentivity and stativity, concluding that
‘experiential verb classes are not semantically and structurally homogenous across
languages’ (2010: 244).
Authors such as Belletti & Rizzi (1988), and Grimshaw (1990) believe that
emotion verbs in most languages involve the same semantic roles. The latter states that
‘the difference in argument realization is cross-linguistically stable.’ Therefore, she
posits that it is not possible for a verb in any language that has the meaning fear to have
the same argument structure as frighten (Grimshaw 1992: 22).
According to the Vender-Dowty classification, ‘the frighten class and the fear
class belong to different aspectual subclasses” (1992:22). Verbs in the same verb class
as frighten have a causative reading which is not possible in the fear class, which
instead are stative; ‘the subject causing a change in the psychological state of the
object’ (Grimshaw 1992: 22).
Initially, looking at Italian Psych-verbs, Belletti and Rizzi (1988) proposed a
three type classification to account for the peculiarities of Psych verbs. Class I is made
up of Experiencer-Subject verbs, whereby the subject is the Experiencer and object is
the Theme (temere), Class II, is one type of Experiencer-Object verbs where the subject
is the Theme, and the object is the Experiencer (preoccupare). Finally, Class III

8. 8
consists of another type of Experiencer-Object verb, whereby the subject is the theme,
with a dative Experiencer (piacere) (1988: 292). The classification can also be used to
account for psych-verbs in other languages. The Greek example (6) would be placed in
Class I, with Giani as the Experiencer-Subject and also Actor, and Scholio as
Undergoer. (7) on the other hand would be placed in Class II. Although it shares the
same Actor-Undergoer structure as Class I, here the Stimulus Maria is the subject and
Actor, with Giani as the Experiencer and Undergoer. This paper will use this
classification as a simple yet effective way to distinguish a language’s preference for
certain Experiencer Emotion constructions.
The previous section gave examples of Experiencer-Subject, and Experiencer-
Object examples in Modern Greek. However, there is also a third assignment
possibility for emotion verbs.
(8) To scholio aresi ston Giani
The school.N like.3S to-the Giani.A
“John likes school”.
(Kordoni 2001:199)
In this example, scholio is the nominative stimulus or theme taking on Subject position,
with Giani situated within a prepositional phrase. Although Kordoni translates the verb
Areso to the English like, and it is used in this manner, it is actually the verb to please.
In a Functional Discourse Model, scholio in (8) is given Undergoer function whilst
Giani would be assigned Locative function and could be represented as follows:
(fi:[(fj:-areso- (fj)) (xi:-scholio-(xi))U (xj)ALL (fi)])
Similarly, this phenomenon also occurs in Italian, within Belleti & Rizzi’s (1988) third
class of verbs. The Italian piacere, also, ‘to please’ in Italian demonstrates this with
nominative Theme and dative Experiencer (Belletti & Rizzi 1988: 292).
(9) Lui piace a tutti
He please.3s to everybody.
Emotion verbs implicate two participants, one as previously mentioned, the
Experiencer and the other the ‘theme’ (Legendre 1989: 752). In some languages, such

9. 9
as French, ‘the theme appears as a superficial subject, while the experiencer acts as an
indirect object.’ Legendre proposes that in French, the theme is actually a direct object
at a ‘deeper level’, and that the dative experiencer ‘is a subject at a deeper level’
(1989:752).
In Grimshaw’s argument structure she posits that there is a mismatch between
prominence of a set of arguments in some of Belletti and Rizzi’s classes. Within an
aspectual hierarchy, Grimshaw (1992) places Experiencer above Theme, and therefore
expects the Experiencer to be the most prominent argument, and the Theme less
prominent (Grimshaw 1992:7). This hierarchy determines which argument is ‘realized
as the subject’ (Grimshaw 1992: 31). Therefore in Class I, a verb such as fear, or love
maintains the appropriate prominence relations of the a-structure, with the most
prominent argument, the Experiencer in subject position, and object as Theme. In Class
II however, containing verbs such as frighten and disappoint, the Experiencer has
‘maximal thematic prominence’. However it is placed in object position as opposed to
prominent argument position subject, causing a clash of thematic and a-structure
prominence relations (Grimshaw 1992:9).
According to Grimshaw (1990) ‘Experiencer-Subject predicates have an external
argument in their a-structure’ due to Experiencer argument being the highest in both
thematic and aspectual hierarchies (as cited in Kordini 2001: 200). As a result, it is
believed that Experiencer-Subject predicates can then be passivized.
In Japanese for example, Experiencer-Object emotion verbs ‘are typically
constructed from Experiencer-Subject emotion verbs by adding the productive
morpheme (-s)ase-. This can be seen in the construction of the Experiencer-Object verb
kowagaraseru (frighten), derived from kowagaru (fear) (Hartshorne et al. 2012: 182).
The previous section introduced the Functional Grammar notion of Dynamicity
with respect to Experiencer verbs. Functional Discourse Grammar distinguishes
between types of psychological verbs that are dynamic, and those that are stative
(describing a state-of-being). Therefore, Japanese tanosimu (enjoy) is an experiencer-
subject verb and a [+dyn, - con] psychological verb, whereas fascinate (Science
fascinates Chloe) is an experiencer-object verb and a [-dyn, -con] psychological verb.

10. 10
5. Research Question
The next section, will look at English, German, Hindi & Japanese emotion verbs
using a Functional Discourse Grammar analysis to compare differences, similarities and
discrepancies between them. The psych-verb classification of Belletti and Rizzi (1988)
will also be taken into account when organising sentences with certain Functional
Discourse Grammar functions into certain classes. The main question that will be
considered in the following analysis is as follows:
Are the three Semantic Functions Actor, Undergoer and Locative, as put forward
by Functional Discourse Grammar sufficient enough in analysing Emotion verbs?
6. Languages of Analysis
English
As previously mentioned, English prefers lexicalising the Stimulus as the subject,
keeping the Experiencer as an Object in transitive constructions, although examples in
this analysis also show the Experiencer as the subject (fear, like). Each verb will only
allow one realisation, either Experiencer as the Subject (to like), or Experiencer as the
object (to please). Therefore, it is not possible nor salient to have an Experiencer in
Subject position when simply using the verb to please without additional grammatical
support such as prepositions (I am pleased with it) (Leonard 2007:135).
German
Experiencer verbs in German can be split into Belletti & Rizzi’s three classes
quite easily. Class I includes verbs such as lieben ‘to love’ where the Experiencer is the
subject, and Stimulus is the object. Then, as listed by Ehrich (2002), German
Experiencer-Object verbs can be split into two groups. The first consists of those that
take an accusative object (genieren ‘embarrass’) which would fall into Class II and the
second that take a dative Experiencer-Object (gefallen ‘to please/to appeal’ (2002:313).
However, she argues that the second group should parallel English worry-type verbs,
and should take accusative rather than their dative case. However, Marelij argues that

11. 11
gefallen can be better interpreted as to appeal to (Marelij 2013:148), which shows just
how sensitive constructions can be in translation.
In a study on German psych verbs and text genres, Engelberg found that from his
sample sentences, less than a quarter of them realized the Stimulus in Subject position,
preferring the Experiencer in this position, despite both options being available to these
specific verbs (Engelberg 2014: 11).
Hindi
Unlike English, Hindi tends to have dative rather than nominative Experiencers
(Montaut 2013:91), and indeed this will be acknowledged at a later stage in this paper.
Furthermore, these Experiencers are also likely to be the subject, known as Oblique
Subjects and are also present in German (Kachru 1990:60). The only other case in
Hindi is Direct Case, and it is identified by the absence of postpositions.
It is important to note that there is no standardisation between the Hindi script
Devangari and its realisation in Roman script. As a result there are some
inconsistencies in spellings.1
In Hindi, Experiencers are marked by the case marking –koo (also spelt –ko),
which usually signals the dative as well as the patient, as in the example below;
(10) Mujh-koo ya pasand hai
I - DAT this pleasing be
(Saksena 1982: 45)
The conjugation of auxiliary verb honaa (to be) is usually added on to the end of a
sentence after the main verb indicating a stative reading (Kachru 1990:68). In Hindi
transitive constructions, the auxiliary verb must agree with the object as opposed to the
subject. As will be seen in later examples, honaa is also added on to the end of dative
constructions. It is also possible in Hindi however to express psychological states with
active constructions that take an unmarked subject (Kachru 1990:67).
Japanese
1
I have gathered my Hindi examples from a native speaker in Roman script, and there are therefore some minor
discrepancies of spelling and vocabulary as well as conflictions across several academic sources. However, this
does not affect semantic functions, nor the word order in any way.

12. 12
In Japanese, ga is used for both Experiencer and Stimulus. However, in most
grammatical contexts, either the Experiencer or Stimulus is marked with wa which
indicates Topic marking (Croft 1993: 67).
Like Hindi, Japanese is a SOV language. It lacks prepositions, and instead uses
‘postpositional particles’ to mark functional relations (Kuno 1973:4). In Japanese,
‘verbs, with only a few exceptions, represent actions, and not states. In order to refer to
the present state, action verbs must be followed by i-ru ‘be in the state of’ (Kuno 1973:
30).
For example, aisuru ‘to love’ is an action verb in Japanese, although its English
equivalent represents a state.
(11) Jon-wa Mary o aisi-te i-ru
John-TOP Mary ACC lov-ing is_in_state_of
John is in the state of loving Mary.
“John loves Mary.” (Kuno 1973: 30)
However, to be in-love in Japanese can be represented by a state verb, as below.
(12) John ga Mary to renaisite iru.
John NOM Mary with in-love is_in_the_state_of
“John is in love with Mary.”
There are two types of psych-verb constructions in Japanese, the first, takes the
accusative marking o, whereas, the second takes the less common dative marking ni
which is attached to an NP within a postpositional phrase (Matsumura 1996: 132).
According to Matsumura, O-pysch-verbs do not allow the Theme/Stimulus as subject
(1996: 139).
The next section will look at numerous emotion verbs in English, German, Hindi
& Japanese and their realisations typologically at the Representational Level in
Functional Discourse Grammar.
7. Analysis

13. 13
The fear and frighten verbs in English are probably the most cited examples of
Experiencer-Subject and Experiencer-Object differences. Taking them as a starting
point, the respective equivalents in the other 3 languages can be analysed.
Firstly, consider the non-dynamic English sentence.
(13) Adam fears snakes.
According to Hengeveld and Mackenzie, in English, non-dynamic experiences are
usually modelled on the dynamic Actor-Undergoer roles (2008: 202). Therefore, in this
instance, Adam would be assigned the Actor role, with snakes taking on the Undergoer
role. Interestingly however, the snakes do not seem to naturally fit the Undergoer role
in this case, as they are not actively undergoing the ‘fear’, in the way that a ball would
be affected by being ‘hit’. Fear in this respect has more of an Eventive reading than a
Stative one. At this moment however, the paper will just assume the Actor and
Undergoer roles for this Experiencer verb, and display as follows:
(fi:[(fj:-fear-(fj)) (xi)A (mc
xj:-snake-(xj))U (fi)])
According to Belletti and Rizzi’s (1988) classification, this would fall into Class
I, whereby the subject Adam is the Experiencer, and the object snakes is the Theme.
Interestingly, Hindi treats fear differently.
(14) Adam koo saapo se daar hain.
Adam DAT snakes from fear be.3sg
“Adam fears snakes.”
According to Belletti and Rizzi (1988), this construction would fall into Class III, as
Adam is receiving the fear from the snakes (pl. saapo), and is a dative Experiencer.
This would be expressed at the FDG Representational level as follows;
(fi: [(fj- daar- (fj)) (xi)U (mc
xj-sarpa-(xj))ABL (fi)])
Although Adam is expressed in (14) as a subject, dative subjects according to Kachru
are not Actors (Kachru 1990:68). This leaves Undergoer and Locative semantic roles.
As Adam is receiving fear, he is assigned Undergoer role. As the source of the fear is
derived from the snakes, saapo would be assigned the ABLATIVE function.

14. 14
An issue with koo is that not only is it a dative marker, but it is also phonologically
identical to the postposition which marks semantic roles such as Recipient and Patient.
This is then tricky to determine exactly how to assign roles. Fortunately, se (from)
indicates a Locative function on the object.
Consider the reflexive German realisation;
(15) Adam fürchte-t sich vor Schlangen.
Adam.NOM fear-PRS.3.sg REFL.ACC of snake.pl
“Adam fears snakes.”
Here, Adam is undergoing the fear of snakes, rather than ‘fearing’ them as an Actor. As
a transitive construction, there are two arguments here.
(fi:[(fj:- fürchte- (fj)) (xi)U (mc
xj-schlange-(xj))LOC (fi)])
Finally, consider the Japanese realisation.
(16) Adam-wa hebi o kowagaru.
Adam-TOP snakes ACC fear.PRS.3.SG.
“Adam fears snakes.”
This realisation can at face value be analysed similarly in respect to the English
example as non-derived pysch-emotion verbs in Japanese can only take the Experiencer
as subject (Matsumura 1996:124)2
.
The FDG representation would be as follows;
(fi:[(fj:-kowagaru-(fj)) (xi)A (mc
xj:-hebi-(xj))U (fi)])
With frighten in English considered to be the Experiencer-Object counterpart of
fear, this paper will look at different representations in the stated languages.
Firstly, take the English sentence.
(17) The bats frighten the girl.
(fi:[(fj:-frighten-(fj)) (mc
xi:bat (xi))A (xj: girl (xj))U (fi)])
2
Matsumura (1996) found only one counterexample to this claim. Kurusine (worry) is a non-derived psych verb
which takes a stimulus as subject. (p.124)

15. 15
The German equivalent behaves the same way assigning Actor and Undergoer
functions to the Nominative and Accusative respectively.
(18) Die Fledermäuse erschrecken das Mädchen
The Bat.pl.NOM frighten.PRS.3.PL the girl.ACC
(fi:[(fj:-erschrecken-(fj)) (mc
xi: Fledermaus (xi))A (xj: Mädchen (xj))U (fi)])
The Hindi realisation expresses ladki (girl) as a dative Experiencer Object with
chamgaadadda as ABLATIVE. This is indeed the same structure as Greek example (8)
and belongs to Class III.
(19) Chamgaadadd-a ladki ko daraathe hain.
Bat-pl girl DAT frighten.pl to_be.PRS.3sg
(fi:[(fj- daraana- (fj)) (mc
xi:-chamgaadaad- (xi))U (1xj:-ladki-(xj))ABL (fi)])
. The Japanese equivalent is as follows;
(20) Koomori wa on'nanoko o kowagaraseru.
Bats Top girl ACC frighten.PRS
“The bats frighten the girl”.
(fi: [(fj:-kowagaraseru-(fj)) (xi:- Koomori- (xi))A (xj :-on’nanoko- (xj))U (fi)])
Here, the bats are causers of Experiencer on’nanoko (girl)’s being frightened.
Building on a brief mention in section 4, there are ‘no non-derived causative
psych-verbs with theme subjects’ in Japanese (Matsumura 1996:124). Unlike the
examples in the other languages which utilise two morphologically distinct verbs, the
morpheme –(s)ase is added to the stem of Japanese verb kowagaru showing the relation
between the two (Matsumura 1996:124).
Next take the English Experiencer-Subject verb like and its Experiencer-Object
counterpart please.
(21) John likes Mary.

16. 16
(fi: [(fj:-like-(fj)) (xi)A (xj)U (fi)])
(22) Mary pleases John.
(fi: [(fj:-please-(fj)) (xi)A (xj)U (fi)])
The Experiencer Subject (John) in (21) is simply given Actor function. Mary in (22) is
Stimulus subject and given the role of Actor, even if not causing a change in state.
However, in (21), like is dynamic whereas please is non-dynamic. Like is clearly an
Experiencer-Subject construction and belongs to Class I of Belletti & Rizzi’s
classification, whereas please in English is an Experiencer-Object verb and belongs in
Class II.
Hindi, as before utilises a dative construction;
(23) John likes Mary.
John Mary ko pasand kar-ta hain.
John Mary DAT like do-impf.ms be.PRES.3sg.
(fi:[(fj:-pasand- (fj)) (xi)U (xj)Loc (fi)])
(24) Mary pleases John.
Mary John ko khush kar-ti hain.
Mary John DAT please do-impf.mpl be.PRS.3sg
(fi:[(fj:-khush- (fj)) (xi)U (xj)Loc (fi)])
What is interesting about both realisations in Hindi, is that they both utilise the same
construction for both placing them in Belletti and Rizzi’s Class III, despite the
differences between these two verbs in English and Italian.3
German also places like and please in different verb classes.
3
For several of the constructions, Japanese translations either were not available or were not accurate enough
to be included in the analysis. Consult the appendix at the end for the full list of verb constructions translated
and studied.

17. 17
(25) John mag Mary.
John.NOM like.PRS.3sg Mary.ACC
(fi:[(fj: mogen (fj)) (xi)A (xj)U (fi)])
(26) John freut sich über Mary.
John.NOM please.3sg REFL about Mary
John is pleased over Mary.
(26) is a dative construction, due to both a direct and indirect object. However, freuen
in this instance implies that John is pleased with something Mary has done as opposed
to just her as a person.
Therefore, although the following expression is a little dated, it is more apt in
conveying a stative meaning.
(27) John erfreut sich an Mary.
“Mary pleases John”
(fi:[(fj:-erfreuen-(fj)) (xi)U (xj)ABL (fi)])
John here is ascribed Undergoer function as well as being the Experiencer-Subject.
Mary is assigned ABLATIVE function, and is denoted as a prepositional phrase.
Engelberg (2014) proposes another way of classifying German emotion verbs. He
classes German verbs such as ärgern (to anger)/freuen (to please) as ‘alternating psych-
verbs’, as a separate semantic category to Directed Emotion Verbs (lieben (to love) and
hassen (to hate).
These alternating psych-verbs he states can allow in one case, a Stimulus as subject and
Experiencer as direct object, and in another allows the Experiencer as Subject, and
Stimulus as a Prepositional Phrase ‘headed by the preposition über (over)’ (Engelberg
2014: 10). Despite the use of the same verb, in these two different patterns in
Alternating German Psych-Verbs, semantic roles are assigned differently.
Consider these two examples of ärgern in German and their respective semantic
functions;

18. 18
(28) Das Mädchen ärgerte Adam.
The girl.NOM anger-3SG.PST Adam.ACC
“The girl angered Adam.”
(fi:[(fj:- ärgern-(fj)) (xi:-Mädchen-(xi))A (xj)U (fi)])
(29) Jamaal ärgerte sich über Rebeccas bösartige Bemerkung.
Jamaal.NOM anger-3SG.PST RFL over Rebecca’s malicious remark.ACC
“Jamal was/became angry about Rebecca’s malicious remark.”
(fi:[(fj:- ärgern- (fj)) (xi)U (xj:[(fk: [(fL: Bemerkung (fL)) (xk)REF]: [(fM: bösartige
(fM)]) (fk)]) (xj)LOC (fi)])
In number (28), Adam takes Experiencer Object position, with the stimulus Mädchen as
the subject.
In number (29) however, ärgern acts as an Experiencer Subject verb (albeit a reflexive
one), with Jamaal taking Subject position, and given Undergoer role, with Bemerkung
given Locative function as indicated by the preposition über.
Despite this flexibility in German, for this particular verb ärgern, it is far more likely
that the Experiencer will be expressed as Subject (Engelberg 2014:11).
These ‘Alternating Psych Verbs’ in German pose problems for Belletti & Rizzi (1988)
as well as Grimshaw’s linking theory (1990) as discussed in Section 4. 4
8. Discussion & Questions for Further Consideration
What differentiates emotion experiencer verbs from their regular counterparts is
the lack of Control [+con]. Whilst acquiring verbs and their different typological
realisations, there were ambiguities as to when a verb giving an eventive versus a
stative reading as well as volitionality of an agentive reading. Snakes might frighten
Adam, however it is a question of whether they themselves are actively frightening the
experiencer at that moment in time, or if it is just them as a being which frightens him.
4
See Pesetsky, (1987) & (1995) for further reading.

19. 19
Likewise, this can also be seen in the case of please and anger/annoy. Again, is the
Stimulus angering the Experiencer at that moment in time, or is it as a result of general
behaviour?
Consider, the girl annoys Adam.
In an Experiencer analysis, Adam is undergoing annoyance from the presence or
behaviour of a girl, as a person. However it is ambiguous here if the girl is actively
annoying him, as opposed to his annoyance stemming from her in general. In a
Functional Discourse Grammar account, girl takes Actor role whilst Adam takes that of
Undergoer, whether dynamic or non-dynamic. As a result, it is hard to identify eventive
readings to their stative counterparts. In other languages however there could be a
different representation depending on dynamicity, which could potentially change
semantic functions. Interestingly, in Japanese, it is ungrammatical to impart
volitionality on the part of the Stimulus Subject.
(30) Sono hito-no uwasa-ga daremo-o nayam-ase-ta.
The person-GEN rumour-NOM everyone-ACC be annoyed-CAUSE-past
“The person’s rumour annoyed everyone.”
(31) *Soitu-no musuko-ga waxato daremo-o nayam-ase-ta.
That guy-GEN son-NOM intentionally everyone-ACC be annoyed-
CAUSE-pst.
* “That guy’s son intentionally annoyed everyone.”
(Sato 2002: 95)
Experiencer-Object verbs in English, according to Pesetsky (1995) lack causative
reading (in eventive constructions), and only allow agents (1995:79). However,
consider Greek in which at least three different types of reading are possible and
expressed for the verb enochló̱ (to annoy).
Firstly the agentive reading, whereby John is actively at that moment annoying Mary.

20. 20
(32) O Janis enohlise ti Maria epitides.
The John annoyed the Maria intentionally.
“John annoyed Mary intentionally.
In this non-agentive eventive reading, there is a preceding event that ‘triggers the
psychological state of the experiencer’, which can continue independently after the
event (Alexiadou & Lordăchioaia 2014:55).
(33) O Janis enohlise ti Maria se deka lepta.
The John annoyed the Maria in ten minutes.
“John annoyed Mary in ten minutes.”
Finally, this Stative reading concerns the emergence of Experiencer’s psychological
state at the moment of perception of the object/person causing that emotion. As soon as
the entity can no longer be perceived, the psychological state ends.
(34) I Maria ton enohlise to Jani ja mia ora.
The Maria him annoyed the John.ACC for an hour.
“Maria annoyed John for an hour.”
(Alexiadou & Lordăchioaia 2014: 54)
Referring back to Section 2, Functional Discourse Grammar has three main
semantic functions, Actor, Undergoer and Locative. Within the latter, other functions
can be accounted for dependent on language, except for Experiencer. As Experiencer is
clearly not a Locative, then how can it be incorporated into a Functional Discourse
Analysis?
Consider the earlier English example Adam fears snakes. A Functional Discourse
Grammar analysis assigns Actor function to Adam and Undergoer to snakes. However
Dolić (2011), argues that the Experiencer-Subject should be assigned role of
Experiencer, with the Stimulus as ABLATIVE in English. In Belletti & Rizzi’s
classification, the closest class to accommodate this would be Class III. However,
Adam fears snakes is not a dative construction and I feel that whilst the Experiencer and
Locative could be useful to languages such as Icelandic which actively mark
Experiencer function, I do not feel it is a strong enough argument for English.

21. 21
9. Conclusion
This paper has examined how semantic functions are mapped out in Experiencer
Emotion verb constructions. It illustrated that each of the languages displayed different
derivational patterns, such as the predominant use of dative Experiencer constructions
in Hindi, using only Undergoer and Locative functions, with no apparent requirement
for Actor function. English demonstrated a preference for Actor and Undergoer roles,
even in non-dynamic constructions. However the Subject-Experiencer verb fear raises
questions as to whether these functions are sufficient, or whether the introduction of the
thematic Experiencer role into Functional Discourse Grammar would be necessary.
Alternating psych-verbs in German allow both readings of Experiencer as
Subject and Stimulus as Object, and vice versa (although seems to prefer Experiencer-
Subject constructions).
Japanese favours Experiencer Subject verbs, shown by accusative marker o with
none of the examples in this analysis featuring a dative reading, which would have been
identified by case marker ni. As a result, Japanese emotion experiencer verbs
predominantly fall into Belletti & Rizzi’s (1988) Class I of psych-verbs, using semantic
functions Actor and Undergoer in a transitive construction, and although not analysed
here, the dative ni constructions would fall into Class III.
Therefore, returning to the research question, at the moment Functional
Discourse Grammar’s three functions Actor, Undergoer and Locative seem adequate at
present in analysing experiencer emotion verbs and in some languages not all of these
functions are even required. 5
There is certainly more work to be undertaken on
experiencer emotion verbs, and the possibility of a language for which these three
semantic functions are not sufficient enough.
5
See appendix for full list of examples in the 4 languages.

22. 22
Works Cited
Aarts, Bas. (1997). English syntax and argumentation. 3rd edition 2008. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Alexiadou, Artemis & Gianina Lordăchioaia. (2014). The Psych Causative
Alternation. Lingua 148:53-79.
Belletti, Adriana & Luigi Rizzi. (1988) Psych-Verbs and Theta-Theory. In Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory. 6:291-352.
Croft, William. (1993) Case Marking and the Semantics of Mental Verbs. In Croft,
William (ed.) Semantics and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 55-
72.
Dik, Simon. C. (1997). The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: The Structure of
the Clause. Hengeveld, Kees (ed). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dirven, René. (1989). Verbs and Verb Phrases. In Dirven, Réne and Putseys, Y. (eds.)
A User’s Grammar of English: Word, Sentence, Text, Interaction, Part A. Frankfurt am
Main: Lang. 15-52.
Dolić, Mirza. (2011). Semantic Roles of Arguments: The Case of Experiencer in
Functional Discourse Grammar. (Master’s Dissertation). University of Amsterdam
Dowty, David. (1991). Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. In Language.
67(3):547-619.
Grimshaw, Jane. (1992). Argument Structure. 4th
ed. (1994) Cambridge & London:
MIT.
Hartshorne, Joshua K., Yasutada Sudo & Miki Uruwashi. (2013). Are Implicit
Causality Pronoun Resolution Biases Consistent Across Languages and Cultures?
Experimental Psychology. 60(2): 179-196.
Hengeveld, Kees & J. Lachlan Mackenzie. (2008). Functional Discourse
Grammar:A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

23. 23
Hook, Peter. E. (1990). Experiencers in South Asian Languages: A Gallery, In
Mahendrea K. Verma & Karuvannur P. Mohanan (eds.). Experiencer Subjects in South
Asian Languages Stanford: CSLI. 319–334
Kachru, Yumuna (1990). Experiencer and Other Oblique Subjects in Hindi. In
Mahendrea K. Verma & Karuvannur P. Mohanan (eds.). Experiencer Subjects in South
Asian Languages Stanford: CSLI. 59–75.
Kordoni, Valia. (2001). Linking Experiencer-Subject Psych Verb Constructions in
Modern Greek. Dan. Flickinger & Andreas. Kathol (Eds.) CSLI Publications http://csli-
publications.stanford.edu. 198-213.
Kuno, Susumo. (1973). The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge and
London: MIT Press.
Legendre, Géraldine. (1989). Inversion with Certain French Experiencer Verbs. In
Language. 65(4): 752-782.
Marelj, Marijana. (2013). Experiencing Linking: Psych Verbs at the Interface. In Elly
van Gelderen, Michela Cennamo & Jóhanna Baðdal (eds.), Argument Structure in Flux:
The Naples-Capri Papers. 135-168.
Matsumura, Hiromi. (1996). On Japanese Psych-Verbs. IN Toronto Working Papers
in Linguistics 15: 123-140.
Montaut, Annie. (2013). The Rise of Non-Canonical Subjects and Semantic
Alignments in Hindi. In Ilja Serzant & Leonid Kulikov (eds.) The Diachronic Typology
of Non-Canonical Subjects. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. 91-
117.
Pesetsky, David. (1995). Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Saksena, Anuradha. (1982). Topics in the Analysis of Causatives with an Account of
Hindi Paradigms. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Sato, Yosuke. (2002). A dynamic semantic account of causative psych verb
constructions. Explorations in English Linguistics 17: 83-117.

24. 24
Talmy, Leonard. (2007). Lexical Typologies. In T. Shopen (ed.) Language Typology
and Syntactic Description: Volume III: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon 2nd
Ed. Cambridge University Press. 66-168.
Verhoeven, Elisabeth. (2010). Agentivity and Stativity in Experiencer Verbs:
Implications for a Typology of Verb Classes. Linguistic Typology 14(2-3):213-251.
Wunderlich, Dieter. (2005). Towards a Structural Typology of Verb Classes. In D.
Wunderlich (ed.) Advances in the Theory of the Lexicon. (2006) Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter. 57-166.

26. Appendix
With thanks to Vikram Gowda for the Hindi translations, and to Fanny Schmidt for
corrections on my German translations. I collected my Japanese examples through an online
community. However, for some constructions there appeared to be either no suitable
equivalent or too general a translation.
EN: English / HND: Hindi / DE: German / JPN: Japanese
(To frighten)
EN: The bats frighten the girl.
HND: Chamgaadadda ladki koo daraathe hain.
DE: Die Fledermäuse erschrecken das Mädchen.
JPN: Koomori wa on'nanoko o kowagaraseru.
EN: Snakes frighten Adam.
HND: Saapo Adam koo daraathe hain.
DE: Schlangen erschrecken Adam.
JPN: Hebi wa Adam o kowagaraseru.
(To fear)
EN: Adam fears snakes.
HND: Adam koo saapo se daar hain.
DE: Adam fürchtet sich vor Schlangen.
JPN: Adam wa hebi o kowagaru.
(To like)
EN: John likes Mary.
HND: John Mary koo pasand karta hain.
DE: John mag Mary.
JPN: John wa Mary ga sukidesu

27. (To please)
EN: Mary pleases John.
HND: Mary John koo khush karti hain.
DE: John freut sich über Mary /John erfreut sich an Mary.
JPN: *No equivalent found in Japanese
(To annoy)
EN: The girl annoyed Adam.
HND: Ladki Adam koo naaraaz kiya.
DE: Das Mädchen ärgerte Adam.
JPN: Adam wa sono shojo ni unzari sa rete iru. (Adam is (in the state of being) tired of the
girl)
(To shock/surprise)
EN: The news shocked the students.
HND: Khabar vidyarthiyon koo hairaan kar diya.
DE: Die Nachricht überraschte die Studenten.
JPN: Sono nyuusu wa gakusei o odorokaseta.