Where are thematic roles?
In ‘Where are thematic roles? Building the micro-syntax of implicit arguments in nominalizations’, Roeper attempts an approach to capture implicit arguments in a fashion that is closely linked to the projection of verbs. Roeper argues for clitic-like projections that accompany the verb, particularly evident in nominalizations: These separate the lexical Argument-theta projections of the verb from the conditions for projecting Maximal Projections which enter into syntactic operations, while the larger pattern of subject, object, and control behavior remains consistent across the syntax and the lexicon. Roeper argues that bare nominalizations (e.g. a look, a glance, a comment) all carry argument structure capable of motivating syntactic binding. Moreover, argument projections into the Possessive of nominalizations show predictable sensitivity to passive morphemes (-ed, -able) buried inside nominalizations. They allow only an object projection in nominalized Possessives precisely as they do in verbal structures. The theory of Theta-role projection must allow projection of an AGENT to Subject in little v, Subject in TP, and Subject in Possessives, and if acquisition is efficient, it should all follow automatically from UG. Roeper then argues that impersonal passives that appear in a subset of languages call for both special syntax and a special vision of possible integration into discourse structure. <206>