Citation
The asymmetry principle

Material Information

Title:
The asymmetry principle a functional investigation of transitivity and topic-comment structuring in English
Creator:
Schafer, Michelle Suzanne
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
viii, 153 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Cognitive linguistics ( jstor )
Discourse ( jstor )
Language ( jstor )
Linguistics ( jstor )
Mathematical transitivity ( jstor )
Narratives ( jstor )
Semantics ( jstor )
Sentences ( jstor )
Trajectories ( jstor )
Verbs ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Linguistics -- UF ( lcsh )
Linguistics thesis, Ph.D ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 1998.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 146-151).
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Michelle Suzanne Schafer.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
029546630 ( ALEPH )
40154149 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












THE ASYMMETRY PRINCIPLE:
A FUNCTIONAL INVESTIGATION OF TRANSITIVITY AND TOPIC-COMMENT
STRUCTURING IN ENGLISH













By

MICHELLE SUZANNE SCHAFER





















A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

1998






























This project is dedicated to Dr. Gerald Eugene Merwin,
My Father,
who is not alive to see its completion
yet has everything to do with it being done.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


There are many people without whom finishing this dissertation would have been difficult, if

not impossible. First, I would like to thank my committee members, each of whom contributed

something unique: Dr. Chauncey Chu, for his support, leadership, faith, and ability to give me

a swift kick when it was time to get going; Dr. Michel Achard, for the inspiration and challenges

he offered; Dr. Galia Hatav, for her faith in my abilities and the opportunity to assist with her

own work which lead to my first real "breakthrough"; Dr. William Sullivan, for his support,

guidance through bureaucracy, and good questions; and Dr. Douglas Dankel, for the

opportunity to think about my ideas in a different context which was instructive and refreshing.

I would also like to thank Cindy Powell and the staff of Anderson 112 for their patience in

answering the same questions year after year; Gordon Tapper and Lucy Pickering, of

Academic Spoken English, for many years of conversation and support; Kathy Kidder and

Anne Wyatt-Brown, two of the finest "bosses" I've ever had, both of whom allowed me plenty

of room for the creative application of linguistics; and to my students over the years, all of

whom have enjoyed (or suffered) my experimentation in classroom application, usually without

being aware that they were the guinea pigs in my latest test run.

Finally, these acknowledgments would not be complete without special thanks to my family,

especially my mother and husband. My mother has always believed in my abilities, supported

my goals, and certainly helped finance the trip from there to here. My husband, who came

along a couple of years into the process, gave me fantastic support and lots of room to think

and do whatever needed to be done. Most importantly, he gave to me extraordinary love and

inspired in me courage that I didn't know I had.















TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.............. ...................................................... iii

LIS T O F F IG U R E S ............................................................................ vi

A B S T R A C T ........................................................................................ ............. v ii

CHAPTERS

1 FUNCTIONAL AND DISCOURSE MODELS OF TRANSITIVITY ............. 1
1.1 Introduction................................................... ........................... 1
1.2 M .A .K H alliday..................................................... .................. 3
1.3 Approaches to Transitivity........................................................ 5
1.3.1 Verb-Oriented Theories.................................................. 6
1.3.2 Clause-O oriented Theories............................................... 8
1.3.2.1 Propositional models...................................... 8
1.3.2.2. Hopper and Thompson, 1980........................... 11
1.3.3.3 Cognitive models............................................ 12
1.3.3 Extra-Clause Oriented Theories.................................. 15
1.3.4 Transitivity and Text............................ ................ 19
1.4 Overview of Project................... .. ... ............... 20

2 TOWARDS A WORKING DEFINITION OF TRANSITIVITY................... 23
2.1 Introduction to the Problem.......................................................... 23
2.2 Syntax................ ................... ........... ............ 25
2.2.1 Grammatical Behavior.............................................. 26
2.3 The Semantics of Transitivity...................................................... 27
2.3.1 The Active, Affirmative, Declarative Prototype.............. 29
2.3.2 The Transitive Prototype: One or Many?........................ 30
2.3.2.1 Berman and Slobin revisited--event construal 40
2.3.2.2 Degrees of transitivity.................................... 42
2.3.3 Event Structure and Transitivity............................. ....... 43
2.3.4 "Agent," "Patient," and Other Labels............................ 46
2.3.5 Verbal Modality...................................... .................. .. 50
2.3.5.1 Fast-paced.................................................. 50
2.3.5.2 Completed................................................ 51
2.3.5.3 Perceptually-cognitively salient..................... 52
2.4 Transitivity and Tim e................................................................. 55
2.5 The Asymmetry Principle in Cognition and Communication....... 60
2.6 Concluding Remarks..................................... ..................... 62

3 TOWARDS A MULTI-VARIABLE DISCOURSE MODEL OF TRANSITIVITY
IN ENG LISH ........................................................... ............................. 65
3.1 Opening Remarks........................................ .................. .......... 65
3.1.1 Thematic Coherence............................... ....... ............ 66
3.1.2 Perspective.......... ........ .... ........ ........................... 67
3.1.3 Management of Perspective......................................... 68










3.1.4 The M odel in Brief................................... ................ 69
3.2 D iscourse Topicality.................................................................. 72
3.3 Perspectival Distance....................................................... 79
3.4 The Four Clause Types of Transitivity.................................... 83
3.4.1 Telic Transitives ............................................................ 84
3.4.2 Atelic Transitives......... ........... ............ ................. 88
3.4.3 Intransitives/Durative Transitives................................. 95
3.4.4 Dispersed Transitives................................................... 96
3.5 Deep and Shallow Transitivity................................................... 99
3.6 Quantitative Patterns........................... ...... ............. 103
3.7 Concluding Remarks ..................................... 105

4 TRANSITIVITY IN EXPOSITORY TEXT......................... ......... ....... 107
4.1 O opening Rem arks ............................................. ......... ..... 107
4.2 Towards a Linguistic Definition of Expository Text..................... 108
4.2.1 Narrative versus Expository Text................................ 108
4.2.1.1 Differences....... ..... ................................ 108
4.2.1.1.1 Them e............. .......................... 109
4.2.1.1.2 Linkage................... .................... ... 111
4.2.1.2 Sim ilarities.................................. ........ .. 115
4.2.1.2.1 Argument Line................................... 115
4.2.1.2.2 Illocutionary Force............................. 117
4.3 Topic-Comment Structuring in Expository Text.......................... 119
4.3.1 The Role of Adverbial Expressions: Continuation Spans. 120
4.3.2 The Role of Transitivity in Expository Text: Transition
Spans ........................................................................ 126
4.3.2.1 Transitivity and topic-switching.......................... 126
4.3.2.2 Micro-texts and bridge spans........................... 127
4.3.3 Bridge Spans and Transitivity........................................ 131
4.3.4 Passives in Expository Text......................................... 134
4.4 Concluding Remarks: Topic-Comment Structuring and Asymmetry 137

5 TRANSITIVITY: CREATIVITY AND CONSTRAINT.......................... 139
5.1 Summary of Results ..................................................................... 139
5.2 Final Remarks ........................................ .............................. 143

B IB LIO G R A P H Y .................................................................. ............................ 146

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................ ............ .... 153
















LIST OF FIGURES


FIGURES page

Figure 1.1 Halliday's Six Categories of Clause Types......................... 4

Figure 2.1 Statement of Transitivity................................ 24

Figure 2.2 Mandler's Image Schemas of Motion.................................. 32

Figure 2.3 Mandler's Image Schema of Caused Motion...................... 32

Figure 2.4 Mandler's Image Schema of Agency.................................. 33

Figure 2.5 Croft's Event Views....................................................... 36

Figure 2.6 Kemmer's Event Schema.................................................. 37

Figure 2.7 The Four Clause Types of Transitivity........................... 63

Figure 3.1 Referential Specificity, Information Value, and Grammatical
R elations.......................... ................. ......... .... 79

Figure 3.2 Quantitative Analysis of Clause Types with Percentages of
O ccurrence........... ... ..................................... ..... 103

Figure 3.3 Raw Count and Percentages Clause Types in Adult
Narrative................................................... .......... 103

Figure 3.4 Time Line and Clause Types--raw score out of total/percentage
in text............................................................... ... 105

Figure 4.1 Topic/Subtopic .................. ..... ............................ 123

Figure 4.2 Topic/Subtopics Specified........................... ... ..... 124

Figure 4.3 Complete Topic/Subtopics of excerpt "Speech Acts".......... 125















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree

THE ASYMMETRY PRINCIPLE:
A FUNCTIONAL INVESTIGATION OF TRANSITIVITY AND TOPIC-COMMENT
STRUCTURING IN ENGLISH

By

Michelle Suzanne Schafer

August, 1998

Chairman: Dr. Chauncey Chu
Major Department: Linguistics

Current models of transitivity have been based on the examination of isolated sentences

or text taken almost exclusively from the genre of narrative. The result has been the confusion

of transitivity with linguistic features particular to narrative. This confusion has found its way into

both prototype models of transitivity and discourse-functional approaches. To ameliorate this

situation, this project extended the investigation of transitivity into the genre of expository text.

Narrative texts were first examined to determine what might properly be called transitivityy" and

what was actually a linguistic property of narrative. Then, texts were examined to determine the

function of transitivity in narrative. Finally, expository texts were examined to determine if first,

the model proposed to account for the data in the investigation of narrative would extend to

expository text and second, if transitivity functioned differently in expository text. A model of

transitivity is proposed which better accounts for the surface realization of transitivity by limiting

prototype effects to four sentence types found in English: the telic transitive, the atelic transitive,

the dispersed transitive, and the intransitive or durative transitive. Second, a functional model is

proposed which shows that in narrative, transitivity is a continuation device which contributes to

the management of perspective; in expository text, transitivity is a transition device which

creates bridges from one span of text to another. Overall, this study demonstrated that while









transitivity is indeed a grammatical system for the expression of events, its use as such is only

exploited in those discourse types which turn on events. In non-event-driven discourse,

transitivity gives way to alternative forms of grammatical realization. The principle of asymmetry

guiding grammatical cognition motivates this difference. In discourse types skewed towards

linear organization, linear structures such as event-driven transitivity dominate. In discourse

types favoring non-linear organization, non-linear structures which realize situations and states

dominate. This tendency seems well-encoded by the differences between transitivity and topic-

comment structuring in English.















CHAPTER ONE
FUNCTIONAL AND DISCOURSE MODELS OF TRANSITIVITY


"Many words are subject to a distinction which is designated by different names and
therefore not perceived as essentially the same wherever found, namely that of a word
complete in itself (or used for the moment as such) and one completed by some addition,
generally of a restrictive nature. Thus we have the complete verb in he sings, he plays, he
begins: and the same verb followed by a complement in he sings a song, he plays the piano,
he begins work. In this case it is usual to call the verb intransitive in one case and transitive
in the other, while the complement is termed its object"
Jesperson, 1924. 88


1.1. Introduction

A fundamental assumption of functional grammarians is that the primary purpose of

language is communication; therefore, the ultimate goal of studying language is the investigation

into this relationship: "The theme unifying the various functional approaches is the belief that

language must be studied in relation to its role in human communication. Language is thus

viewed as a system of human communication..." (Foley and Van Valin, 1984:7).

One question which emerges from this perspective is: what is it that human beings use

language to communicate? The functional response is "If one is concerned with the role of

language in social interaction, then aspects of linguistic structure which serve to signal social as

opposed to purely referential meaning share center stage with purely referential elements..."

(Foley and Van Valin, 1984:9). Lambrecht puts it another way: "...certain formal properties of

sentences cannot be fully understood without looking at the linguistic and extralinguistic contexts

in which sentences have these properties are embedded." (Van Valin, 1993:2). Perhaps the

finest statement for why functional insights are necessary to the study of language comes from

Leonard Talmy, a cognitive scientist. Talmy (1988) states that one of the principal functions of

structure is to provide conceptual coherence. For language this means grammar, which is the

way of "...unifying contentful material within a single conceptual system and rendering it









manipulable--i.e., amenable to transmission, storage, and processing- and that its absence

would render content an intractable agglomeration" (Talmy, 1988:196).

"Unifying contentful material" at the sentence level, though, is insufficient; the result

would be an intractable agglomeration of individual grammatical constructions. In order to

achieve coherence through time (a factor critical to successful communication), the grammatical

structures themselves must be organized. This is one function of discourse structure: the

structural organization of grammatical constructions for the purpose of managing information

flow through text and time. This study, too, will examine a structural system, transitivity, with

respect not only to its referential meaning at the sentence level but to its communicative and

contextual functions through time and text.

Transitivity has enjoyed a resurgence of interest in response to functional inquiry. There

have been at least two major functions proposed for transitivity; first, the sentence-level coding

of events (Langacker, 1990; Rice, 1987; Giv6n, 1993:vol.1) in which transitivity is described in

terms of coding participants and action/event relationships; second, the discourse-level coding of

grounding (Hopper and Thompson, 1980; DuBois, 1987; Giv6n, 1995) in which transitivity codes

foregrounded information and manages information flow in connected texts. Both viewpoints

use much of the same theoretical apparatus (energy flow, attention, framing, agency, etc.)

though neither has been set vis-A-vis the other in a clearly explicated manner. Transitivity

provides fertile ground for such an examination as it appears to extend to both "levels" of

linguistic exploration: the local, particular grammatical instantiation of any referent scene and

the connection of that instantiation with others of its kind. The explicit purpose of this study is

to distill from the various claims made about transitivity what this relationship might be.

Theoretical approaches to transitivity can be roughly classified along three dimensions:

verb-oriented, clause-oriented, and extra-clause oriented. In the first, transitivity is understood

mainly as a property of verbs. In the second, it is a property of logical propositions or events. In

the third, transitivity is a matter of perspective or speaker construal (though in practice, it is often

difficult to separate semantics and pragmatics of the various approaches). Within each

dimension, theorists employ a variety of devices to account for transitivity, and while









grammarians are obliged to give transitivity some mention because of its intimate link to clause

structure, there is considerable variation in the degree of centrality accorded it.

1.2 M.A.K. Halliday

Before discussing each of the approaches above, some mention of M.A.K. Halliday must

be made. Halliday (1967) started the serious discussion of transitivity in a three part work titled

"Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English." While it is not within the scope of this study to

review the whole work, Halliday's basic claims are adhered to in subsequent work (though he is

not always explicitly cited).

For Halliday, transitivity was part of three systems whose point of origin is the matrix

clause, that clause which contains the major predication of the sentence. (The centrality of

predication as the starting point for linguistic discussion is still valid for many linguists:

"Regardless of the type of discourse under consideration, the clauses which constitute the

discourse are constructed around predications consisting of a predicate and its argument" (Foley

and Van Valin, 1984:27).) In particular, the transitivity systems "...are concerned with the type of

process expressed in the clause, with the participants in this process, animate and inanimate,

and with various attributes and circumstances of the process and participants" (38). For

Halliday, transitivity is the system which provides sets of options relating to "cognitive content,

the linguistic representation of extralinguistic experience, whether...of the external world or of

feelings, thoughts, perceptions" (Halliday, 1967b:198). As we will see, transitivity as a cognitive

phenomenon is still a critical, definitive notion.

The basic types of processes Halliday proposes are directed and non-directed action,

meaning activities which are directed or not directed towards producing a specific effect on a

participant. The relationships among participants and processes are thus very important. The

first relationship Halliday describes is that of the grammatical subject of the clause (for English,

every clause must have a subject). The subject has one of two semantic roles, the actor (the

one performing the action) and initiator (one who is energy source of the action). The

grammatical object has one principal role, the goal of the action. Subjects and objects










participate in one of three types of clauses: operative, middle, and receptive. Six relationships

emerge from crossing processes, participants, and clause types.



operative middle receptive


directed


non-
directed


Figure 1.1: Halliday's Six Categories of Clause Types


Halliday locates transitivity within the clause and in doing so retums to features of the

clause as the organizing rubric for his discussion. Thus "subject as actor" or "subject as initiator"

are unnecessary labels as they fall out naturally from directed and non-directed clause types:

"Treatment in terms of clause types enables us to generalize by saying that there are in fact

three distinct types of subject, or subject functions, determined by the transitivity systems; these

could be labeled 'ergative', 'nominative' and 'accusative'" (Halliday, 1967a:46). Halliday

distinguishes clause features, subject type, and participant role as follows.


Clause Feature Subject Type Participant Role
operative ergative actor (not goal) in directed;
initiator (not actor) in non-directed
middle nominative actor/goal in directed;
initiator/actor in non-directed
receptive accusative goal (not actor) in directed;
actor (not initiator) in non-directed

The point so far critical to this study is the emergence of clause types in terms of

transitivity resulting from the interactions between processes and participants. Halliday comes

back to this point again and again throughout all three sections culminating in an argument for

the linguistic uselessness of the binary opposition "transitive" versus "intransitive." In particular,

Halliday points out the difficulty in ascribing verbs this characteristic (a "dictionary analysis")

since so many verbs in English participate in clauses with and without goal participants. That is,


S actor S actor/goal S goal
she washed the she washed the clothes were
clothes washed


s initiator S initiatoractor 5 actor
he marched the the prisoners the psoners were
prisoners marched marched









the presence of a goal participant is often not fully predictable from the meaning of the verb

itself: "The potential distinction, in other words, between verbs which are inherently goal-directed

and verbs which are not, is less useful as a generalization than the actual distinction between

clauses which contain a goal, or rather (an important difference) a feature of goal-directedness,

and those which do nor (Halliday, 1967c:182; emphasis added). This being the case, the

opposition of transitive and intransitive is not useful for linguistic analysis. Instead, we should

employ a full range of transitivity distinctions as associated with the process-participant relations

within the clause.

Halliday's notion that there must be a scale of transitivity distinctions has emerged as

one of the crucial arguments in current functional and discourse grammars. However, in

unlikely contrast, the labels "transitive" and "intransitive" have also remained, confusing the

study of transitivity considerably. One of the principal tasks of this study is to clarify such

confusion, and this point will be taken to task at length in Chapter Two.

The second insight of Halliday's which can be found throughout the literature and which

is also critical to this study is the notion "goal-directedness." Evidence for goal-directedness as

the primary semantic relationship in transitivity is found in both discourse studies (such as

DuBois, 1987) and cognitive studies (Rice, 1987). As such, it enjoys considerable elaboration in

Chapter Two.

Finally, Halliday's contention that the clause is the proper domain of transitivity has also

emerged as fundamental. This notion is taken up briefly in the following discussion and is

elaborated upon in Chapter Two.

1.3 Approaches to Transitivity

There are three primary theoretical approaches to transitivity: verb-oriented approaches

in which the verb controls argument structure; clause-oriented studies in which transitivity is seen

as a property of events realized at the clause level; and extra-clause oriented studies which offer

pragmatic and discourse explanation of transitivity.









1.3.1 Verb-Oriented Theories of Transitivity

Verb-centered theories of transitivity are the most traditional and well-known. These

construe transitivity as a matter of predicate argument structure identifying particularly the role of

the verb and direct object: a verb is transitive if it requires a direct object or if there is a direct

object present. Early theories didn't discriminate among types of verbs nor classify according to

grammatical alternations; any verb which required some kind of object was transitive. Thus, a

representative definition would be "a transitive verb denotes an action which passes over from

the doer of the action to the object of it" but "an intransitive verb denotes a state or simple action

without any reference to an object" (Curme, 1947: 22-23; emphasis added). Curme included

reflexive verbs with the transitive, stating simply that the receiver and doer happen to be the

same person. Other examples include We make fudge, I remember Tony well, or She has no

brothers and sisters (Long,1961 as cited in Rice,1987). More recent theorists, though, do classify

verbs according to type and recognize that different types correlate with different grammatical

behaviors. Thus, we have action verbs, state verbs, process verbs, psychological verbs,

reflexive verbs, verbs with cognate objects, etc., or the aktionsart classes: state, activity,

achievement, and accomplishment (Vendler,1967; Dowty,1979; Van Valin,1993). Moreover, the

definition of transitivity vis-a-vis these verbs has developed so that only those that passivize are

recognized as "fully" transitive, or in some cases, verbs are categorized as transitive and sub-

categorized as also passivizable.

Nevertheless, the syntactic approach to transitivity is not limited to traditional

grammarians. Indeed, this approach finds representation in both current formal and functional

approaches. Configurational and structural approaches championed by Chomsky (1981) and

most recently by Hale and Keyser (1985) define transitivity as a derivative of the syntactic or

semantic configuration of the sentence. In the Aspects model, a verb is transitive because it

subcategorizes for a noun phrase. A verb which has both transitive and intransitive instantiations

would be marked exceptional. In the Govemment-Binding model, a verb is transitive because it

binds its direct object via government relations. Although Hale and Keyser do allow extra-









propositional elements to influence the clause, the mapping between the components which link

perspectives on an event (Lexical Conceptual Structure) with clausal instantiation (Lexical

Structure) is unclear. And still, in all of these cases, the verb is the element responsible for

transitivity; no appeal is made to other elements in the clause which may contribute. Yet

semantic research as early as 1979 (Dowty) and still continuing (Hinrichs, 1985; Verkuyl, 1993)

cites the importance of the NP in determining the syntactic behavior of the clause. A sentence

with an NP object which is not specifically quantified does not perform the same as one which is:

Judith ate sandwiches/Judith ate the sandwiches --> ?Sandwiches were eaten by Judith/The

sandwiches were eaten by Judith. As the passive sentences show, when the NP is not

quantified, passivizability suffers.

Van Valin (1993) also locates transitivity as a property of the verb, though he defines it

as "semantic transitivity." In Role and Reference Grammar (hereafter, RRG), there are two

types of transitivity recognized, macrorole transitivity and syntactic transitivity. The latter more

or less follows the traditional definition above, whereas the former is specifically related to RRG.

Macroroles are universal semantic structures which create the syntactic and semantic behavior

of participants in discourse. Though most familiar when expressed as "agent" and "patient," Van

Valin terms these roles "actor" and "undergoer" which subsume the more specific roles of agent

and patient. There are at most two macroroles represented in any sentence, and as little as

none. Further, it is the number of macroroles that has the most influence on syntactic behavior

rather than the number of "syntactic" arguments. Consequently, transitivity "is understood in

RRG as semantic transitivity, and is defined in terms of the number of macroroles a verb

takes: 2=transitive, 1=intransitive, and 0= atransitive" (Van Valin, 1993:48; emphasis added).

Thus, from the perspective of this study, regardless of the fact that Van Valin defines transitivity

in terms of universal semantic roles, he still defines it as a property of the verb.

Even the brief examination above yields two major criticisms of strictly verb-oriented, or

syntactic, approaches to transitivity. First, these approaches assume that transitivity is

structurally derived from the verb, and do not recognize the contribution of the object NP.

Second, because transitivity is a property of the verb, verbs with more than one instantiation









must be marked so in the lexicon, or have more than one representation in the lexicon. If indeed

transitivity is something relevant to the entire clause, then at some point, all clauses must be

included in the lexicon, seriously compromising the validity of maintaining it as a separate

grammatical component (Rice, 1987:34). On the other hand, syntactic approaches to transitivity

offer two valuable and time-honored insights. First, a direct object (of some sort) plays a role in

determining transitivity. Second, syntactic behavior often provide a litmus test for transitivity. A

sentence which passivizes is considered "fully" transitive. Sentences which marginally passivize

are not "fully" transitive, though may be distinguished from intransitive sentences which do not

have a direct object. So critical is this notion that Rice uses passivizability as the primary test of

transitivity. These two points are the contributions made to the study of transitivity by researchers

who employ essentially syntactic, or verb-based, definitions.

1.3.2 Clause-Oriented Theories of Transitivity

Clause-oriented approaches to transitivity are semantic in nature, and may be roughly

divided into formal models which deal primarily with propositions, and cognitive models which

deal with conceptual structures. As stated above, it is sometimes difficult to tease apart

semantic models and discourse models of transitivity particularly since the authors of the former

are often making claims for the latter based on the semantics in question.

1.3.2.1 Propositional models

M6I'COk (1993) discusses transitivity in relation to voice. For him, there are two "levels"

of semantics at work in the clause: first, the "deep" level of semantic structure where

propositional information works; second, the "surface" level of semantic structure where

communicative effects are created. The propositional meaning is the "literal," actual,

communicatively unmotivated representation of the event-- and, as is formally common, is

"logically" read from the perspective of the verb (as a sort of basic-level meaning): V [x,y] (or

whatever representation is used). Each of the NPs is termed an "actant": the subject or actor is

the first actant and the object or undergoer is the second actant. Communicative meaning,

however, is not "literal" or without organizational intent, but is the "level" of meaning

representing the speaker's intent or organization or interpretation of the event (Giv6n's









'discourse-pragmatic" level). It is read, as is also common practice, from the actual or "surface"

order of the lexical units.

M6I'COk defines changes in transitivityy" as affecting communicative meaning but not

propositional meaning since voice is an inflectional category, but transitivation (his term) is NOT

(though sometimes closely resembles it): "Just like voice, the transitivation achieves

[communicative structure] through manipulation of COMMUNICATIVE SALIENCY of the verb's

actants "(M6l'C6k,1993:30; caps in original). Transitivation differs from voice in that voice can

affect any actant, where transitivation only acts upon the second actant under the condition that

its surface realization is as the "direct object". Furthermore, voice operates at the "deep" level

of semantic structure while transitivation only acts at the surface level. Ml6'COk follows Keenan

and Comrie's 1977 hierarchy concluding that "all things being equal, the higher the syntactic rank

of a sentence element, the higher its communicative salience...It is this trait that is exploited by

the transitivation: it allows the speaker to modify, according to his communicative needs, the

syntactic rank of the phrase whose communicative salience interests him" (30-1). Specifically,

then, Mi6'COk defines transitivation with the modification of the second actant (main object)

without affecting propositional content. Detransitivation works the same way, but with a two-

actant verb.

Giv6n (1993) also maintains different semantic levels in order to account for the

communicative effects of different sentences. As with M61'COk, he also calls them "deep" and

"surface" structure, though ostensibly these are syntactic levels. The deep syntactic structure

most closely corresponds to the semantic structure-- or propositional meaning of the sentence.

In simple sentences (main, declarative, affirmative, active), the relationship between

propositional meaning and surface syntactic structure is straightforward, hence semantically

transparent. In most complex clauses, though, the surface structure is at odds with the

propositional meaning, so much so that they are most easily described independently. In this

case, the semantic structure of the sentence is opaque.

Giv6n justifies these two claims pragmatically. The reason why syntactic complexity

results in propositional opacity is that a complex surface structure communicates "discourse-









pragmatic functions...discourse-pragmatics and propositional semantics are here in direct

competition for coding resources" (1993:30). Thus, the overall structure of complex sentences

is a communicative compromise between the distinct goals of communicating propositional

information and discourse-pragmatic information.

Giv6n goes one step further and assigns each of the "parts" of a sentence to particular

semantic functions. The word level encodes lexical meaning. The clause level encodes

propositional information. The discourse level encodes textual coherence. As a result,

transitivity acts across all three levels at once as instantiated at the level of the clause.

Syntactically, verbs and clauses that have a direct object are transitive. Thus, at a word level,

verbs which require direct objects are transitive, or clauses which have an overt direct object are

transitive. Semantically, transitive clauses encode prototypical semantic features, each of which

focuses on the subject of the verb (agentivity), object of the verb affectednesss), or construal of

event itself (perfectivity). Prototypically, the subject should be a deliberately acting agent; the

object should be concrete and visibly affected; the event should be bounded, terminated, fast-

changing, and in real-time. Since there is a good deal of variation possible with these features,

transitivity is potentially scalar in nature. The final dimension of transitivity is the discourse-

pragmatic: "By 'pragmatic' one means here that the very same semantically-defined transitive

event, coded by the very same combination of verb, agent and patient, may be rendered from

more than one perspective. By 'discourse' we mean the discourse context within which the

semantically-transitive clause is embedded" (1993: 46).

For Giv6n, as for Mdl'COk, transitivity acts on the "communicative" or discourse-

pragmatic level of language. The "semantic" level which communicates propositional structure

remains the same, but some rearrangement on the surface results in a change in perspective.

Giv6n goes one step further by adding the notion of prototypical semantic features.

Semantically, it is not the mere presence of subject and object which are sufficient, but a

particular kind of subject and object together with a particular kind of event. The prototypicality

of transitive events has been excellently investigated by Sally Ann Rice in her 1987 dissertation.

Before discussing Rice, though, a brief look at Hopper and Thompson (1980) is in order. It is









with this paper that transitivity as a complex and crucial grammatical structure re-entered

linguistic theory in full force.

1.3.2.2 Hopper and Thompson (1980)

Most studies of transitivity are intended to explain either transitive/intransitive

classifications or active/passive alternations. A scalar approach, introduced in 1980 by Hopper

and Thompson, paved the way for an alternative understanding based on degrees of transitivity

rather than binary distinctions. In their approach, a clause could be high or low in transitivity

depending on the number and type (high/low) of prototypical semantic features it possessed.

They proposed more than just the three features distilled by Giv6n. In short, there are several

features pertinent to actions and objects and one feature critical to subjects. Each has a high

and low value. As the low value is simply the inverse of the high, I will only list the high values.

Of course, the first feature is that the ideal transitive clause should have two participants. The

ideal subject is high in potency. The ideal action is kinetic, telic, punctual, volitional, affirmative,

and real. The ideal object is totally affected and highly individuated. Individuation has

properties as well: proper, human/animate, concrete, singular, countable, and

referential/definite. Hopper and Thompson understand these features to be the component parts

which make up the "traditional" semantic notion of transitivity: "...[the] carrying over or

transferring [of] an action from one participant to another" (1980:253).

Hopper and Thompson also specify that languages vary according to which features (or

clusters of features) are critical to changes in transitivity. Further, they propose a relationship

between transitivity and grounding, claiming that clauses high in transitivity are also

foregrounded events in narrative. Several language specific studies emerged (see Hopper and

Thompson, Syntax and Semantics, 1982) which corroborated their claims. However, two

difficulties with their work have been pointed out. First, transitivity and grounding do not have an

absolute relationship and it may be necessary to refine which aspects of narrative are actually

related to transitivity, supposing that such a relationship indeed exists (Kalmar, 1982). Second,

the semantic features proposed do not necessarily covary consistently or correlate with

transitivity alternations such as passive, nor must they be morphological in nature (Rice, 1987).









There is also language-specific evidence that morphological indicators of transitivity may not

correspond to particular features, but simply indicate overall changes in transitivization (Kibrik,

1993). Nevertheless, Hopper and Thompson opened the door to a more sophisticated notion of

transitivity, and firmly established the relevance of both semantic and pragmatic factors to its

study.

1.3.3.3 Cognitive models

For Rice, transitivity is ultimately "...a linguistic device optionally employed by a speaker

to conceptualize and organize the actions of entities in the world in order to convey a certain

attitude about an overall event to someone else" (1987:5). As with most theorists, she finds

transitivity a semantic matter with discourse-pragmatic functions. However, she firmly places

herself within a cognitive school of linguistics which takes the work on prototype theory by Rosch

quite seriously (see Lakoff, 1987):


In what is increasingly becoming the accepted view, categories are assumed
to be organized around prototypical or canonical instances. Less canonical
instances extend or radiate outwards from this prototypical center. In fact,
categories may have several centers or may be able to sustain several
prototypical instances. Furthermore, the creation of categories is understood
to be a dynamic process and one that grows out of contact and interaction by
a human with individual members of a category. Naturally, in the developing
infant, physical objects will be the first to be encountered, recognized, and
categorized. Over time, however, abstract entities like linguistic forms
and even events will be experienced, assessed, and categorized in
relation to some prototype or prototypes, which might enjoy either
experiential primacy, superior frequency or perceptual salience, a clear
utility, or higher resemblance relative to other members of the category
(Rice, 1987:4).

Rice is an "extreme" cognitivist, insofar as she understands the conceptual categories she

investigates as primarily non-linguistic, though they may be manifested in a linguistic form. My

view is somewhat more moderate. While I agree that conceptual categories do underlie much of

language acquisition (the research into conceptual categories throughout language is quite

convincing; see Vandeloise, 1984; Herskovitz, 1989; Johnson, 1987, etc.) I also hold that at

some point in the acquisition process, critical mass attains and language becomes a system

acting on its own. It is a cognitive system, yes, but also has its own rules, structures, purposes,









functions, and forms which are very much linguistic in nature. Nevertheless, Rice's line of

reasoning has led to significant insights into the nature of transitivity.

The prototypical transitive event, according to Rice, has many of the same

characteristics as mentioned above: the activity is unilateral, thus the entities are in an

asymmetrical relationship; contact between the entities is important; the second entity is affected

by the first; and the entities are distinct from one another, their locale or setting, and from the

speaker/conceptualizer. However, transitivity is as much a function of the describer's

interpretation of the event as it is the content of the event being described. It is this observation

that accounts for metaphoric extension from the realm of the physical as well as variability in

speakers' acceptance of passives. It is the first point which I find particularly significant.

In Rice's cognitive model, transitivity is prototypically a dynamic event in which the

participants are in an asymmetrical relationship and some change to the "object" is due to an

action/effect which traveled along some kind of directional path from the first participant to the

second. Thus, conceptually, several factors are crucial. First, the two participants are in an

asymmetrical relationship; in other words, one participant must have the means to affect the

other or one participant must have the capacity to be affected. Second, the action must be

kinetic and/or forceful. Third, there must be some kind of path construed between the

participants, even if the activity itself takes place instantaneously. Fourth, the receiver of the

action must be affected in some way, though this can cover a wide range of possibilities,

including change of state, change of location, etc. Of course, the change itself may be

construed from experience. In the well-worn example, John hit Bill, the change to Bill is not

made obvious in the sentence but construed from our experience with the world.

In the cognitivist model, reality is constructed, paving the way for important links

between language and cognition. One of these links is metaphoric extension from "bodily

images" (Johnson, 1987) to non-physical domains. Rice brilliantly makes this point for

transitivity in mental domains and communicative or interpersonal domains. That is, for each of

the primary domains in which we act -- physical, mental, social -- there are prototypical transitive










events which make use of the above semantic components (though inequally). Her examples

serve to demonstrate the most typical aspects of each event.

In the physical world, John deliberately kicked the sleeping poodle, represents two

maximally distinct participants in a single event in which one participant is active and powerful

and the other is passive and defenseless. There is forceful contact which travels along a path

designated by the physics and geometry of the body in one direction. The dog is presumably

both awakened and injured, inducing both an internal and external change of state.

In the mental domain, Rice uses the following examples: Eileen heard the gunfire, Steve

despises Christmas, John solved the equation. In each, there is at least one active, animate

participant, but no restrictions on the type of passive participants. Further, each of the active

participants acts on an entity external to itself. The contact is inferred as a function of the active

participant and the event in question. However, the change that takes place is internal to the

active participant rather than the passive participant; the nature of gunfire, Christmas, and

equations does not change. Thus, in mental domains, the path is understood to "circle back" to

the active participant. This is really not as odd a relationship as it first seems if we consider how

we ascribe information to participants. In Eileen heard gunfire/Gunfire was heard by Eileen, the

state of our knowledge about Eileen has changed, just as the state of our knowledge about the

poodle changed in the example above. In mental domains, there is still change and still two

distinct participants, even though the relationships among them differ somewhat.

In the social domain, Rice cites The policeman questioned Bill. Again, there are two

participants, and while both are human and animate, their distinctiveness rises out of authority

relations. The action is presumably goal-directed; the questions travel a "path" from the

policeman to Bill, not the other way around. A number of possible emotional or mental changes

can be inferred for Bill, from fear and nervousness, to sweating, to silence. Rice also makes the

point that contact and directedness are important semantic properties of social events, and her

investigation into verb and preposition combinations resulting in transitive events contains a high

number of social events.









The strengths of the semantic theories of transitivity include a commitment to finding

coherence underlying apparently disparate examples, and a careful attention to details that

systematically distinguish different types of meaning. While I don't necessarily accept the

syntactic distinction of deep and surface levels, theoretically there is a need to distinguish some

kind of propositional meaning from discourse-pragmatic meaning. Nor do I accept prototype

theory outright, though it is convenient to our discussion to use it as a possible model. This

model will be taken up with greater diligence in Chapter Two. Nevertheless, Rice's careful

explication of transitivity in English using both canonical and marginal examples is compelling.

The primary strength of Giv6n and Rice is their commitment to a view of transitivity as a single

dynamic entity with a complex of components versus a pick-and-choose list approach. The

notion that structurally, transitivity has both semantic and discourse-pragmatic components, and

functionally, it serves to manipulate perspectives on a scene, has profoundly influenced my own

understanding and is foundational to this paper.

1.3.3 Extra-Clause Oriented Theories of Transitivity

Extra-clause oriented theories of transitivity focus on the level of discourse. These

theories of transitivity begin with the notion of construal of an event and end with the notion of

information structuring in a text. There are two levels at which an event can be construed. First,

the clause-level, in which the structure of the individual clause encodes the speaker's construal

of a particular event. Second, the discourse-level, where the structure of an individual clause is

construed relative to other events in the text. Rice deals primarily with the first of these in her

dissertation: the particular ways a speaker represents a particular event vis-a-vis the event and

the conceptual structures the speaker has access to. Giv6n makes use of both in his model.

First, there is the propositional structure of the event which does not change. Second, there is

the particular construal of the event relative to the speaker's intentions and contextual

environment. The second notion is also what Hopper and Thompson were discussing when they

claimed that highly transitive clauses encode foregrounded events in narrative. (In fact, this is

not strictly the case. Rather, highly transitive events typically correlate with temporally-grounded









events in a narrative; those actions which drive the story forward through time and require both

an agent and patient of some kind.)

The pragmatic side of transitivity is the least explored, as the relative paucity of

explanation given by Giv6n attests. However, there are some tantalizing possibilities offered in

various accounts of the relationships between discourse and grammar. DuBois (1987) discusses

the statistical correlations between clause-type (transitive/ intransitive with lexically specified

arguments) and information structuring/flow (particularly the introduction of new participants) as

they relate to ergative patterns in grammar. There was an overwhelming tendency in his

transcripts of narrative discourse for any clause, intransitive or transitive, to have only a single

lexical argument fully specified (only 2.8% of transitive clauses had both arguments lexically

specified, representing just five sentences in the data). His conclusion was that ergative

patterning in discourse forms the basis of ergative patterning of grammatical phenomenon.

DuBois works within Dixon's (1972) semantic division of participant roles, intended to

allow cross-theoretical discussion of ergative/absolutive and nominative/accusative languages.

Dixon discriminates three basic semantic roles as they relate to the predicate: "A" designating

the subject/actor of a transitive (two participant) clause; "0" designating the object/goal of a

transitive (two participant) clause; and "S" designating the single participant of an intransitive

(one participant) clause. Thus, in nominative/accusative languages, "A/S" pattern together,

meaning that the actor/subject of a transitive clause and single participant of an intransitive

clause take the same verbal morphology (nominative). It is the object/goal relationship which

takes accusative marking. On the other hand, in ergative/absolutive languages, it is the single

participant of an intransitive clause and object/goal of a transitive which pattern together and

take absolutive morphology, while the actor/subject of a transitive clause takes ergative marking.

DuBois maintains that part of discourse management is a restriction against using more

than one lexical specification per clause. When broken down according to ergative/absolutive

cases, only 6.1% of 619 lexically specified arguments occurred in the "A" position-the vast

majority of cases were "S" and "O". Thus information flow was managed in terms of a constraint

against using lexical transitive subjects. DuBois interprets this pragmatically as meaning only









one new argument can be introduced at a time (this notion is also found in Giv6n, 1990a/b and

Chafe, 1994, though both authors suggested as much in earlier publications). Further, the new

argument is preferably an intransitive subject or transitive object. In terms of the discourse basis

of ergativity, DuBois concludes: "It appears, then, that speakers often select an intransitive verb,

not necessarily for its conceptual or semantic one-placeness, but for its compatibility with

constraints on information flow" (1987:831). DuBois also found evidence for the same type of

patterning in nominative/accusative languages; my own work in Cree suggests that statistically,

clause type and full lexical specification of NPs correlates with function in narrative discourse.

Yet another discourse perspective on transitivity is presented by Berman and Slobin

(1994). They conducted a cross-generational, cross-linguistic study of the acquisition of

narrative competence. Briefly, Berman and Slobin propose that in a skillful narrative, events are

not presented in a simple linear chain of successive occurrences in time and space. Rather,

events are "packaged" into hierarchical constructions. Part of that packaging arises from a

filtering process whereby speakers construe events over four dimensions: topic, locus of control

and effect, event view (Cause, Become, State), and degree of agency (1994:519).

Topic represents the speaker's choice of protagonist, the participant from whose

viewpoint the narrative is constructed or who the listener is intended to have "empathy" for (in

Kuno's sense of the term). Loci of control and effect represents the energy source of the event

which may or may not be the same as the topic. In a passive sentence, for instance, with an

overt "by-phrase," the affected participant is the topic but the energy source for the event is also

present.

The selection of event view is the speaker's means of representing the semantic nature

of the event-as-process. A Cause-View represents one participant causing a change of state in

another. A Become-View represents a change of state without mention of a causative force. A

State-View simply represents a state itself. These three views are strikingly similar to Halliday's

three clause types, particularly as they interact with locus of control and effect.

Degree of Agency is the means by which the speaker represents the overall dynamism

of the event: "...its dynamic and motivational loading, the extent of its consequences, etc."









(Berman and Slobin, 1994:519). Agency can be strengthened or weakened via choice of verb,

choice of adverbs, and use of subordinate clauses. Berman and Slobin propose three levels of

agency: high, mid, and low. Any particular level comes about via the other three aspects of

filtering as well as voice and lexical options. In their treatment, though, the choices made when

"filtering" an event for expression go beyond mere representation of the experiential event (as is

the case with Halliday and Rice) and have encoding consequences beyond the level of the

clause. For example, construing the following participants and event with different combinations

of topic, locus, event view, and agency impacts the content of the next clause.


Participants: dog, cat event: fast movement of one participant from the other
(1) Topic: dog (2) Topic: dog
Locus of control and effect: dog Locus of control and effect: cat
Event View: Cause-View Event View: Become-View
Agency: high Agency: mid

Discourse One: The dog attacked the cat, barking furiously his right to sit on that bit of
sidewalk next to his house. The cat swiped his nose once with her paw, and that was the
end of that day's battle.

Discourse Two: The dog fled, nose scratched and bleeding. He had to reconsider battle
strategy before challenging the feline next door again.


The impact on the second sentence of each is significant. When the dog is both topic

and loci of control and effect, it left the cat as not only the affected participant but also the new

information. The response of the cat is the next "logical" step in the discourse as it is this

participant the listener has least information about and must know in order to make pragmatic

sense of the following information. In Discourse Two, however, the cat is the controlling force

but is not overtly mentioned, leaving the dog as a possible topic for the next predication.

We are thus brought full circle -- from Rice's compelling arguments for the conceptual

basis for transitivity across physical, mental, and social domains, DuBois' evidence for the

effects of discourse management on clause structure and Berman and Slobin's insights into the

interplay from clause to clause -- to the original hypothesis that transitivity is not a unitary

phenomenon but one which straddles the three principle levels of language structure--syntax,

semantics, and discourse--for the purposes of communication. What remains to be done is a









thorough-going investigation into these interactions. While each of the above researchers has

admirably investigated the particular side of the issue he or she is interested in, no one

investigator has attempted an in-depth study of these at once, particularly as they attain beyond

the genre of narrative. That is the purpose of this project: to investigate the various definitions

of transitivity and particularly its use with the aim of determining what might properly be called

transitivityy" and its functions. This work should be viewed with respect to emerging notions

about discourse such as those laid out by Hopper and Thompson (1980), DuBois (1987), Berman

and Slobin (1994) and Chafe (1994) which hold that the grammatical system itself is closely

linked to discourse forces such as focus and topicality, and the structure of clauses is similarly

linked to the needs of information structuring, cognitive processing, and communication. Thus

the play of any clause is not only a matter of semantics and construal, but also constrained by

the needs and forces of discourse and cognition.

1.3.4 Transitivity and Text

Because transitivity has implications across the semantic, syntactic, and discourse-

pragmatic levels of language, it has been the subject of several discourse studies, as the section

entitled "Extra-clause oriented" demonstrates. The overwhelming majority of these studies have

taken place within the genre of narrative, both spoken and written. Initially, this seems like a

good strategy. Narrative is an intuitively well-understood discourse type, easily recognized and

produced by speakers, with a few clear linguistic structures associated with it; namely, narrative

is past tense, action oriented, and proceeds from beginning to end chronologically.

Nevertheless, while linguistics has long been cautioned by practitioners such as

Longacre (1977, 1983) to be mindful of the connections between notional type and surface

structure, this has rarely been the case. While linguists do take pains to mention the notional

type they are culling data from, there is left implicit the assumption that the language itself-- the

grammatical or semantic structures in question-- are wholly distinct from the environment within

which they are occurring. Even discourse linguists who devote their time to studying these

connections seem to carry this same hidden belief: while genre has an effect, it is more of a

loose framework around the language within; it has no real impact on structure itself. In other









words, a given grammatical or semantic construction has structure and function which is

defining, and the structure and function hold regardless of the text type in which they are

participating.

Of course, not every linguist holds this assumption. DuBois' (1987) study discussed in

the previous section is an excellent counter-example. His work on the discourse basis of

ergativity specifically comes to the conclusion that there are discourse preferences for syntactic

structures. These preferences act independently of the semantics of syntactic structures by

exerting selectional pressures for the purposes of cognitive processing. In other words, there are

"top down" linguistic forces at work which are every bit as powerful as the "bottom up" pattems

we are accustomed to assuming for linguistic structure.

Thus, a careful distinction must be drawn between the structure and function of any

grammatical construction and the notional type in which that structure occurs. Further, attention

must be paid to teasing apart the linguistic features characterizing a discourse type which may

be having an effect on surface structure. This has not been done for transitivity and narrative.

Many of the proposals for the structure and function of transitivity have been made without

sufficient regard to the effects of narrative. This difficulty will be addressed in three ways in this

project. First, a "cumulative" structure/function definition of transitivity will be proposed followed

by a point-by-point investigation of the validity of each of the claims. Second, the linguistic

features of narrative will be investigated and subtracted from the definition of transitivity where

that seems appropriate. Third, the resulting "definition" of transitivity will be taken into both

narrative and expository texts for refinement, and to investigate the functions) of transitivity in

these two contrasting text types.

1.4 Overview of Proiect

A couple of assumptions central to this project should be expressed at this point. Of the

various linguistic meta-approaches to language, I fall in the camp of the interactionistt." This is

my own designation and includes perspectives such as those expressed by DuBois (1985a:363)

that "grammars code best what speakers do most" and by Elizabeth Bates (pc) that language as

a system is characterized by the mapping of a "hyper rich dimensional system" (meaning) onto a









"low dimension communicative apparatus" (grammar) resulting in a dynamic system wherein the

vast, fluid world of meaning must be relayed via a comparatively rigid means of communication.

Talmy (1994) as mentioned earlier says basically the same thing: language serves the needs of

communication but is constrained by the cognitive requirements of comprehensibility.

For these reasons, I reject models of grammar which propose various sorts of endlessly

embedded continue, imposed upon one another, and resulting via this imposition in a coherent

set of constructions with surface realizations of clauses and phrases. This is the "feel" of many

purely cognitive or purely discourse models of grammar. Instead, I side with likes of Bates,

Talmy, Giv6n, and Slobin who envision grammar as the dynamic system which emerges from

the tension of two distinct forces in linguistic communication: the richness of meaning as

expressed through the constraints of cognition.

Thus, my model of transitivity by and large rejects the prototype models of transitivity

currently in favor (Hopper and Thompson, 1980; Rice, 1987; Giv6n, 1995). Instead, I propose a

model of transitivity which has its base in the semantic-cognitive system but is realized

syntactically through four different clause types: telic transitive, atelic transitive, dispersed

transitive, and intransitive (or durative transitive). These clause types are particular to English in

keeping with Slobin's proposition that different languages select different "aspects of the mental

image" to be realized grammatically (1996:72). In Slobin's words (1996:76):

.The expression of experience in linguistic terms constitutes thinking for
speaking a special form of thought that is mobilized for communication.
Whatever effects grammar may or may not have outside the act of speaking,
the sort of mental activity that goes on while formulating utterances is not trivial
or obvious, and deserves our attention We encounter the contents of the mind
in a special way when they are being accessed for use. That is, the activity of
thinking takes on a particular quality when it is employed in the activity of
speaking In the evanescent time frame of constructing utterances in discourse
one fits one's thoughts into available linguistic frames 'Thinking for speaking'
involves picking those characteristics of objects and events that (a) fit some
conceptualization of the event, and (b) are readily encodable in the [native]
language


This perspective does not contradict Rice's claim that "...a verb/proposition/event is not so much

transitive as it considered transitive by the speaker/conceptualizer"; rather, it constrains this

claim by proposing that transitivity has language-specific surface realizations according to the









needs of communicative coherence. The model of transitivity will be taken up primarily in

Chapter Two.

Functionally, the two principle claims made for transitivity is that it manages perspective

on participants and events and signals foregrounded information. My own research confirms the

first conclusion and disconfirms the second. Transitivity does indeed manage participants and

events in narrative, but the second claim is more an accident of the interaction of transitivity and

narrative than a quality of transitivity itself. These issues will be introduced in Chapter Two and

developed in Chapter Three.

When transitivity is explored in expository text, our assumptions about the centrality of

function as part of a definition of a structure is challenged. Since expository text does not

employ participants and events as its main notional structures, transitivity plays a different role

than in narrative. In particular, transitivity is employed functionally at textual points of transition,

signaling movement from one major part of the text to another as well as textual material which

is off the main argument line. This subject is the task of Chapter Four.

The final chapter concludes the project by examining the role of transitivity in narrative

and expository texts and hypothesizing how these results either support or challenge traditional

assumptions about the interaction of notional type, surface structures, and grammar as a system.














CHAPTER TWO
TOWARDS A WORKING DEFINITION OF TRANSITIVITY


2.1 Introduction to the Problem

This project assumes that grammar is the system which emerges to mediate the rich

world of internal representation with the particular cognitive and production constraints of

communication. The purpose of this chapter is to propose a working--and workable-definition of

transitivity. Presently, there is a wide range of possibilities in the literature which need to be

evaluated, amended, salvaged, or discarded. Major claims frequently made for transitivity which

need particular attention include: first, transitivity is or has a structural prototype; second, there

are degrees of transitivity; third, the passive construction is the only legitimate test for transitivity;

fourth, transitivity is conceptual, not linguistic; fifth, because transitivity has structure, that

structure is universal in nature; sixth, transitivity functions to foreground information in texts. A

more complete compilation of the extensive claims made for transitivity can be found in the

"Statement of Transitivity' on the following page. This statement will provide an organizational

blueprint for the initial discussion.

A second issue must be dealt with as well. Most linguistic research which takes context

into account has been done within the genre of narrative. Transitivity is no exception; it has

been investigated exclusively through written or oral narrative. This has had some unfortunate

consequences for understanding the function of transitivity since narrative itself is a genre

marked by unique configurations of linguistic structure (see Fleischmann, 1990). In order to

understand what is happening with transitivity at a discourse level, the linguistic structure of

narrrative--in particular, tense and aspect--must be separated from whatever it is that transitivity

is doing. Once this has been accomplished, it will be much simpler to investigate the function of

transitivity in both narrative and non-narrative texts. The bulk of this task is taken up in Chapter

Three, but the work is begun in this chapter.










We begin with the "Statement of Transitivity" as the starting point of our investigation

into what properly belongs to transitivity and what properly belongs to narrative. Excerpts will be

used where appropriate to validate points although the bulk of Chapter Two is dedicated to

transitivity at the level of the clause, i.e., the syntactic and semantic claims. The discourse and

functional nature of transitivity will be taken up primarily in Chapter Three and will include more

extensive use of texts.


Figure 2.1: Statement of Transitivity
Structure-Function Definition: Transitivity is a complex phenomenon involving syntactic,
semantic, and pragmatic components which functions to conceptualize and organize events and
participants in the world so that their relationships to one another may be communicated
according to the attitudes and intentions of the speaker in a manner which is cognitively coherent
and manageable, and which is grammatically verified by the availability of the passive form.
The above are understood to be (possibly) prototypical in nature, thus scalar and capable of
metaphoric extension as well.

Structural Components
Syntactic- There is one syntactic component to transitivity and a necessary property
of that component, syntactic manipulation is the principal grammatical
test for the fully transitive statement:
(i) there must be at least two participants structurally bound by the same
clause; the two participants must be distinct entities "in the world"
(ii) the availability of the passive alternation is the strongest grammatical
test for transitivity
Semantic- There are four semantic relationships identified for transitivity:
(i) Asymmetry the participants must be in an asymmetrical relationship
generally due to the unidirectional nature of the action, but
sometimes falling out from the inherent nature of the participants
themselves or their relationship
(ii) Agentivity one of the participants is a deliberately acting agent,
capable of instigating the action or is the source of the action
(iI) Affectedness one of the participants must undergo some kind of
change or experience some kind of effect due to the action; this change
or effect may be understood from world knowledge or inherent to the
the meaning of the action itself
(iv) Perfectivity the action should be bounded, terminated, fast-changing,
and take place in real time
Discourse-Pragmatic- There is one pnncipal discourse component to transitivity:
(i) Constraint of Information there must be a limited number of participants
and forms of expression of those participants

Functional Claims
There are four proposed functions of transitivity:
(1) Propositional meaning the semantic components of the transitive clause serve to create the basic,
propositional, non-communicatively influenced meaning of the expression
(2) Perspective transitivity permits the language user to express a given situation,
action, or event from more than one perspective in order to create the desired communicative effect
(3) Management of Information Flow transitivity provides the site over which participant relationships
are arrayed in order to constrain the introduction of new information during communication, in part
maintaining and managing communicative coherence
(4) Grounding high or prototypical transitive clauses correlate with foregrounded information










2.2 Syntax

The claim for syntax is that there must be at least two participants who are distinct in the

world (in other words, are not co-extensive) and bound structurally within the same clause. The

necessity of two participants is a claim made by nearly all linguists regarding transitivity, even

those who propose a scalar model. Hopper and Thompson (1980) do make the strongest

attempt at a scalar model, but to a great extent still regard High transitivity with two participants

as the prototypical and basic level against which less transitive statements should be measured.

If transitivity is to be a useful designation, then the simple binary opposition of transitive/

intransitive where the former is transitivityy" (in which two participants is a necessary but not

sufficient condition) and the latter is not transitivityy" (because it is not transitive) needs

amending. This is not simply a matter of eliminating terminological confusion but of creating

theoretical clarity. There are three options possible: first, keep the term transitivityy" for the

theoretical construct and use other terms for thebinary opposition itself, such as valency (if,

indeed, the binary opposition holds true); second, use some other term for the theoretical

construct, perhaps "argument structure" and.keep the terms transitive and intransitive (same

caveat as above); third, keep the term transitivijy" for the theoretical construct and reform our

understanding of that construct so that it is useful for linguistic analysis. Option three is the

choice of this study.

Initially, I will follow Rice, Hopper and Thompson, Givon, Halliday, and Berman and

Slobin in proposing that transitivity is a scalar phenomenon. However, I will take this to its

logical extreme by avoiding the traditional notion that transitive statements must have two

participants, claiming rather that if there are degrees of transitivity, then the number and nature

of participants is simply one component. In order to substantiate this claim, first the "nature" of

the participants must be made clear (as it turns out, "co-extensive" is more a matter of construal

than strict pragmatic or logical "in the worldness") as well as the "nature" of the activity (to be

discussed further in the semantics section). Second, what is meant by "scalar" or "degrees" must

also be made clear and useful.









2.2.1 Grammatical Behavior

In order for "degree of transitivity" to be more than intuitively convenient, evidence must

be found in the grammatical behavior of languages themselves. For an issue such as transitivity

and the broad claims made for it, the grammatical behavior should be found not only at the level

of the clause, but also at the level of discourse. The first question is what counts as the clause-

level behavior of transitivity?

In English, the attraction of the active-passive alternation is the clarity and economy of

their connection. The passive is so obviously a structure which "re-expresses" an event by

shifting the topic-focus relationships (a discourse phenomenon) while maintaining role

relationships (a semantic phenomenon). The popularity of the passive as a teaching tool and

starting place is the simplicity and elegance of the transformation. Are there other structures

equally instructive? For example, what distinguishes the passive from the middle voice? Simply

speaking, there is a single "fact" with grammatical consequences: in the middle, the force or

effector role is not available syntactically which opens the door for alternative expressions not

allowed by the passive.

(1) Olaf opened the door/The door was opened (by Olaf)
(2) The door opened/ *The door opened by Olaf
(3) ?Olaf opened the door with a creak/?The door was creaked open (*by Olaf)
(4) The door opened with a creak/The door creaked open
(5) Olaf, opened his, door/His, door was opened (*by Olaf,)
(6) His door opened/Olafs door opened
(7) His door creaked open/Olafs door creaked open

In these sentences, the middle construction makes it possible to incorporate manner into

the verb (a productive process in English), whereas the passive partially or completely blocks

this movement. That is, in a passive sentence, although the affected participant is the subject, it

is still not the source or effector of the activity (the original roles are maintained). Manner cannot

be attributed to the verb when the locus of force is either implied or stated in the adjunct. In

other words, the conceptual iconicity in an active "transitive" sentence is violated in the passive

but preserved in the middle. Only when the single overt participant is both the topic of discourse

and the locus of force of the verb can manner be incorporated. In the middle voice, this is the

case: the single participant is the only participant, and is the discourse topic, grammatical









subject, and locus of force. In many languages, the middle is marked by a distinctive case, such

as absolutive, further distinguishing it from "normal" subject-verb-object relationships.

The possessive also has a powerful effect grammatically. Although there appear to be

two distinct entities in the world (certainly Olaf and the door are not one and the same thing),

they are not construed as distinct, as evidenced by the non-availability of the passive. In the

middle voice, though, there is a single effector/affected, and the possessive does not interfere

with the predication options available to it.

Thus, it can be argued that in English, there are both syntactic and discourse

consequences when the relationship between participants and event is differently

construed. Simply shifting topic-focus relationships does not induce a change in participant-

event relationships. Rather, there are grammatical constructions which instantiate changes in

these relationships which in turn have consequences for other levels of grammar. Therefore, it

is theoretically palatable to label participant-event relationships differently, and this "label" is

called transitivityy."

As the examples above show, it is not merely the number of participants bound by the

predicate, but the nature of that relationship which affects grammar. On the other hand, the

passive alternation is only available to clauses with two distinctly construed participants. Hence

the number of participants is not irrelevant, either. If the statement bolded above is reasonable,

then it's necessary not to limit the discussion of transitivity to only those sentences with two

participants. An alternative must be found which accounts for participant-event relationships,

includes a place for two-participant constructions, but is not limited to them. Immediately, as we

shall see, an appeal has to be made to semantics.

2.3 The Semantics of Transitivity

As the brief discussion of transitivity and syntax shows, "syntax" is not the crux of the

problem. Semantics, on the other hand, is quite the opposite. There is a bewildering array of

semantic explanations of transitivity traversing a number of theoretical approaches. For some

theories, such as Role and Reference Grammar (Van Valin, 1993), transitivity is a straight-









forward matter of semantic macro-roles and not that complicated a matter. For the cognitive

camps, however, transitivity is--or is related to-conceptual structure and is quite complex.

Currently, cognitive models of transitivity are producing considerable results so it is to these

models our investigation turns.

There are, by and large, two principle processes currently competing for attention in

cognitive theory: prototype theory and implicature. Prototype theory (Rosch 1973, 1975, 1977,

1978 and 1981; Lakoff, 1987) proposes that categories are organized around prototypical or

canonical instances. In some cases, the canonical example itself is the prototypical image

against which categorization is made. In other cases, characteristics are abstracted from

canonical members and it is these characteristics which form the prototype. Implicature (Grice,

1975) is a different process altogether. Implicature is not concerned with the organization of

categories but with the processing of information. This is "linguistic cognition" (Giv6n, 1995)

which takes place between overt linguistic information (such as the sentence) and covert

information (such as the knowledge brought to that sentence by speaker and hearer).

Implicature may be defined as "stable linguistic inferencing," a linguistic-cognitive process which

is part of normal linguistic functioning.

Prototype theory has enjoyed quite a bit of attention and many theorists subscribe to

prototype analyses for an enormous range of linguistic behavior. Implicature is less used, yet is

probably the more appropriate choice for much of what passes for discourse-level and pragmatic

processes. A closer look needs to be aimed at some of the uses of prototype theory. For

example, does it really make sense to say there is a prototypical sentence type? A basic model

against which all sentences are created and judged? The arguments for such are based on

cognitive models, such as Lakoffs "idealized cognitive models," and these kinds of highly

abstract grammatical schemas are generally supported by those who study the development of

the human conceptual system (Mandler, 1991). However, there are equally compelling reasons

to believe that at a certain point of complexity--i.e. discourse-- prototype theory is an insufficient

or an inappropriate account for linguistic behavior; it is not that prototype theory is wrong, but

rather that it is applied with too broad a brush stroke.









2.3.1 The Active, Affirmative, Declarative Prototype

Giv6n (1995) proposes quite forcefully that there are three dimensions essential to the

semantics of transitivity corresponding to the "prototypical transitive event" (76):


Agent: The prototypical transitive clause involves a volitional,
controlling, actively-initiating agent who is responsible for the event, thus its
salient cause.
Patient: The prototypical transitive event involves a non-volitional,
inactive non-controlling patient who registers the event's changes-of-state,
thus its most salient effect.
Verbal Modality: The verb of the prototypical transitive clause
codes an event that is perfective (non-durative), sequential (non-perfect) and
realis (non-hypothetical). The prototypical transitive event is thus fast-paced,
completed, real, and perceptually-cognitively salient.


Giv6n explicitly justifies his definition by appealing to methodology: "... one studies the

pragmatics of voice while holding the transitive semantic frame more or less constant...For this

reason, I will exclude from the discussion here a group of de-transitive voice constructions that,

in one way or another, tamper with the semantic core of the transitive event" (76, emphasis

added). There are several problems with the above statements which will first be noted, then

taken up one by one. The discussion below intends to investigate more closely the claims made

for a semantic-transitive core, one which Giv6n gives the most clear and concise expression to

and to which most researchers in this area appear to subscribe.

The first difficulty with this approach is not the methodology itself but the foundation

upon which the method is based: that there is such a thing as a single, unitary transitive

prototype against which ALL clauses not exhibiting the semantic prototype should be assessed.

It is, in essence, a non-enlightening definition, claiming that all sentences which are not

"perfectly" transitive are not so because they do not have the defining components of the

transitive event which make for prototypical transitivity. At issue here is not whether voice

alternations exist, or whether they can be compared, but whether all should be related back to

the same semantic core.

The second difficulty is in the labeling of "agent" and "patient" for most salient cause

and effect. Cognitively, the most salient cause and effect may be quite distant from the









semantics normally associated with "agent" and "patient," namely that of a human agent and a

non-human patient. As we will see, there is interesting evidence showing that "agent" is too

strong a role to be at the core and "patient" has a dine of its own which affects grammatical

behavior. Further, there is also evidence that the non-human patient, at least in English,

participates in a unique structural pattern which should be included in the array of options

accorded transitivity.

The third difficulty is actually comprised of many sub-difficulties relating to the notion of

verbal modality. For the most part, these stem from the association of transitivity and narrative,

even among researchers who simply wish to investigate the clause. That is, there is a close

historical connection between the study of transitivity, the study of voice and modality, and the

study of narrative. The result has been some blurring of the lines separating each. For

example, there is relatively little evidence when sentences are studied in isolation that

perfectivity is a necessary component to semantic transitivity. That is, relatively durative

activities still enjoy many of the de-transitivizations that Giv6n discusses. However, in context,

many such activities are grounds against which more punctual events occur. Second, the notion

of "sequential" is also problematic since frequently the inherent semantics of a given event do

not suggest definition as a time-bounded entity. Rather, sequentiality is inferred as a matter of

temporal juncture between two events, suggesting instead that boundedness by time is an

implicature. Finally, there is an array of data showing that the perceptual saliency of the

transitive event is a function of two participants interacting, a relatively limited occurrence

textually. In fact, the salience of any particular event is figured not by its number of participants

but by the event itself relative to other events in context. This necessarily includes many events

which are not transitive in the sense of having two participants.

2.3.2 The Transitive Prototype: One or Many?

Any discussion of a transitivity prototype necessarily begins with the distinction between

event structure and transitivity. Event structure is a pre-linguistic cognitive structure

representing a conceptual stage of processing whereby portions of the stream of experience are

excerpted or "stamped out" into a particular sub-unit with particular characteristics. Event









structure is eventually expressed via the grammatical unit, the clause. But what characterizes

event structure? What evidence indicates that it is pre-linguistic? And how does it relate to

transitivity?

In part, the notion of event structure arises from the need to account for language

acquisition. That is, at some point in the child's development, the non-linguistic world inside the

head gets "mapped onto" a linguistic world through which it is expressed. Developmental

linguists, such as Slobin (1972, 1982, 1994, 1996, 1997), have begun to address what kinds of

concepts must be represented at the onset of language acquisition with regard to what actually is

expressed in the early stages of speech. Mandler (1991) argues "Language is unlikely to be

mapped directly onto sensorimotor schemas. There is a missing link: a conceptual system that

has already done some of the work required for mapping to take place" (414). Specifically, she

argues that it would be "extraordinarily difficult" for the child to make a leap from the continuous

stream of physical data to the symbolic representational world of language. Some mediating

system intervenes to parse "...the movement involved in picking up one object and placing it into

another to the statement, 'The marble is put into the cup.' Some kind of conceptual summary of

what is happening in this situation is needed; it is this conceptual summary that is mapped,

rather than the sensorimotor schemas themselves" (414).

Mandler notes that the abstract schemas proposed by cognitive linguists such as Lakoff,

Langacker, and Talmy represent the same kind of material that psychologists investigating the

foundations of the human conceptual system also propose. First, she cites evidence that infants

are able to parse the world into coherent bounded objects as early as 3 months old, if not sooner

(415) and that they are able to encode the causal relationships into which objects enter as early

as 4-6 months (416). She is careful to state that while the extent to which these accomplish-

ments are perceptual versus conceptual is unclear, it is clear that the information is available to

be operated on.

Mandler shows that the kinds of concepts which seem to be formed in infancy are well-

represented by image-schema notions. Together with evidence from Slobin inter alia it is also

clear that many of these notions apply directly to event schemas and their linguistic expression.








First, infants are able to distinguish objects that engage in "biological motion" from those that do
not. They are also able to distinguish caused and non-caused motion. Mandler cites the work of
Bertenthal, Proffitt, Kramer and Spetner (1987) and Leslie (1984), respectively for each of these
points. Thus there is a sensorimotor capability of distinguishing motion which is self-caused from
motion which is other-caused. She further argues that while the image-schema of PATH is
indeed simple and basic, paths do not happen without starting points; hence one kind of image
schema emerges for the notion 'self-caused motion" designating the simple idea that an
Endpoint does so from a point of origin outwards along a path. A second image-schema for
animate motion characterizes the trajectory itself--when an Endpoint moves, it does so in a
particular manner. The two schemas simply distinguish an Endpoint-oriented image of motion
from a trajectory-oriented image of motion.


SELF-CAUSED MOTION ANIMATE MOTION







Figure 2.2: Mandler's Image Schemas of Motion

Finally, she (420) also notes that infants are "inordinately attracted by all moving objects,
and of course, many of those are inanimate... Inanimate objects are those that begin motion only
through the interaction of other objects; specifically, they are caused to move" [emphasis added].

Thus a third image-schema emerges outlining caused motion:

CAUSED MOTION



[o--> -1


Figure 2.3: Mandler's Schema of Caused Motion









Mandler (420) introduces one more leap which brings us a step closer to what happens

at the level of linguistic representation. She combines the schemas of animate motion and

caused motion to produce a schema which she says accounts for the notion agency:


AGENCY







Figure 2.4: Mandler's Image Schema of Agency


This schema combines all the above aspects together. An animate Endpoint causes itself to

move and in doing so, moves an second Endpoint. The result is a complex image-schema

sensitive to both Endpoints of an event as well as the trajectory.

While Mandler admits that we do not know when such a conceptualization arises in

infancy, she cites Leslie (1982,1984) which shows that infants between 4 and 7 months old show

surprise responses when animate objects move inanimate objects without contact between the

two while also showing no surprise when inanimate objects do so. In other words, by 7 months

there appears to be evidence for some basic notion of agency as it relates to animate-inanimate

interaction.

Linguistically, there is evidence that as children acquire language, they are sensitive to

the above distinctions. Developmentally, the various parts of motion are among the first to be

expressed linguistically. Slobin (1982) cites an example with the ergative language, Kaluli. In

Kaluli, there is an ergative noun suffix which attaches only to agents of actions, that is actions

where an agent acts upon another human or non-human and causes a change of state or

location. The ergative suffix is attached to sentences such as Mother is cooking but not to

sentences such as Mother is sleeping. Two remarkable facts occur developmentally. First, as

early as 26 months old, the child consistently marks the ergative suffix in two word utterances,

particularly with highly dynamic verbs such as give, take, grab, and hit. Second, the ergative

suffix is never over-extended to the subjects of sentences such as Mother is sleeping.









On the other side of the grammatical fence, additional evidence is found in accusative

languages. In Russian, for example, the accusative suffix attaches to any object in an

affirmative sentence regardless of the type of action involved. Thus, "book" in I read the book, I

saw the book, I threw the book all receive the same accusative inflection. If the inflection simply

relates to the grammatical notion "object of activity", then it should be applied equally across all

instances as it is being acquired. However, Slobin cites a study by Gvozdev (1949) which shows

this is not the case. Children did not acquire the inflection equally, but applied it first to a

particular subset of events, namely those involved in direct, physical action on things: give,

carry, put, throw.

Slobin concludes that the Russian underextension makes the same point as the lack of

Kaluli overextension: the child seems to be encoding aspects of a "prototypical event of object

manipulation"(412):


It seems that the child does not begin with categories, such as 'actor,' or 'agent',
looking for the linguistic expressions of such notions in his or her native language.
What the child may begin with is much more limited and childlike ways of
conceiving basic events and situations, at first matching grammatical expression to
primary or basic event schemata [such as 'causal agent']...It is such prototypical
events, rather than case categories, that seen to provide the initial conceptual
framework for grammatical marking.


Thus there is linguistic evidence for the conceptual underpinnings of event structure and

its subsequent linguistic expression. What I would like to point out, leading to the following point

on the possible nature of these conceptual image-schemas, is that developmentally, both in

terms of the infant studies and early language acquisition studies, it is not necessarily the whole

of the event which is attended to, but one part of it. That is, the infants studies cited by Mandler

and the acquisition studies analyzed by Slobin show sensitivity to the starting and endpoints of

an event, as well as the path itself, not just to the event as a whole. Mandler even suggests that

her schema of caused motion (the "prototypical transitive event" Slobin defines) is slightly more

complex and therefore a slightly later conceptual creation. Developmentally, concepts of object

permanence precede concepts of motion which precede concepts of agency. Thus it makes

sense that humans have very early schemas for objects, then for objects in motion (both self-










and other-caused as Mandler suggests), then for objects which cause motion in other objects.

For the notion of a unitary transitive prototype, it is critical to understand that the image

schema proposed for the "prototypical transitive event", including a probably human agent with a

probably non-human patient causing a change of state or location, is a slightly later acquisition

COMBINING the earlier schemas of independent, animate motion/ change of state and non-

independent, non-animate motion/change of state. This conforms remarkably well to the three

"levels" of transitivity most commonly proposed: high transitive (two participants engaged in a

unilateral activity with a clearly causal agent and clearly affected patient); "mid"-transitive (one

participant engaged in a change of state or location without external cause); and "low" transitive

(one participant engaged in a durative state involving little to no change-these latter two are

often referred to as "intransitive"). The evidence above suggests the more appropriate

explanation would include three prototypes (or three typical instantiations of a single event

complex), rather than just one. This is precisely what Croft (1994), Kemmer (1994), and Bakker

(1994) variously propose.

Croft (1994:92) presents seven characteristics typifying a "simple event," two of which

are of particular interest here:

(f) simple event structure consists of the three-segment causal chain:
cause-become-state;
(g) simple event structure is endpoint-oriented: possible verbs consist of
the last segment (stative), the second and last segments inchoativee),
or the whole three segments (causative).

Basically, he is claiming that verbs have an underlying Idealized Cognitive Model (hereafter ICM,

following Lakoff, 1987) which represents a "self-contained event...isolated from the causal

network and individualized for various purposes...Subjects and objects represent the starting

point and end point respectively" (92). However, these ICMs do not create verb classes or event

classes, rather they correspond to the unmarked event view associated with the verb: causative,

inchoative, and stative. Thus in an interesting twist on the problem of transitivity, Croft argues

for an underlying event conceptualization (see figure below) which can have all or any part of it

"contained" for the purposes of representing an event. Further, the events denoted by verbs are










typically associated with one part (or all) of the idealized event; these are the event views. The

astericks and parentheses mark the point at which the "typical association" ends.


Causative. The rock broke the window

rock window (window) (window)
"-------> ----(*).-
cause become state

Inchoative* The window broke

window (window) (window)
""-------- (*)"----('*
become broken

Stative: The window is broken

window (window)
"--------0('

Figure 2.5: Croft's Event Views


Croft then argues that verbal markedness patterns found in various languages (English, French,

Japanese, Korean) represent the most "natural" or "typical" event view associated with the verb

(100-101):


This construal is based on human experience of the event, and is not surprising. In
general, unmarked statives are found with verbs denoting events that in human
experience most commonly are inherent properties, not implying any intemal
cause.... Unmarked causatives are found in verbs denoting events that frequently
or almost always occur in human experience with an external cause.... Unmarked
intransitives...are found in verbs denoting events that are commonly not permanent
(i.e. they can change) and most frequently occur-or are construed to occur-
without an external cause.


Basic and derived forms can be found with each of the basic event views:

Causative->lnchoative->Stative on Causative Event View
(1) Olaf opened the door.
(2) The door opened.
(3) The door is open.

Inchoative->Stative on Inchoative Event View
(4) Sven fishes.
(5) Sven's a good fisherman.

Stative->Caused Stative on Stative Event View
(6) pure sugar
(7) purified sugar









Croft then ties together various linguistic perspectives on events by showing that causative-

inchoative-stative, transitive-intransitive-adjective, and active-middle-passive are semantically

different manifestations of the basic tripartite ICM of events as figured above (102):


Verb Form Event Views
Derived causative inchoative stative(resultative)
Simple transitive intransitive adjective(stative)
Basic Voice active middle passive/resultative


Hence, in the end, Croft is arguing for a model with three "basic" forms, each of them

representing a portion of the ICM of events, but each of them also forming a natural "locus"

against which events construed as corresponding to that center are assessed thus producing

marked and unmarked forms for EACH of the event views.

Kemmer (1994) adds to the discussion the notion "relative elaboration of events" which

is not unlike Croft's event views, though she introduces the specific aspects of events which are

manipulated to produce different event perspectives. She explains the "relative elaboration of

events" as "the degree to which different schematic aspects of a situation are separated out and

viewed distinct by the speaker. The speaker in effect can choose to tum up' or turn down' the

resolution with which a particular event is viewed in order to highlight its internal structure to a

greater or lesser extent" (211).

Two important "schematic aspects" are the distinguishability of participants and

distinguishability of sub-components of the event itself. Kemmer also uses the by-now-familiar

event schema to represent what she simply terms a "2 participant Event Schema":

2 PARTICIPANT EVENT SCHEMA






Figure 2.6: Kemmer's Event Schema

She uses the terms "Initiator" and "Endpoint" to capture both the schematic placement and

semantic characterization of the participants themselves. She is specifically claiming that the









distinguishability of participants is one semantic parameter along which the dine from "transitive"

to "intransitive" differ (209):

TWO-PARTICIPANT REFLEXIVE MIDDLE ONE-PARTICIPANT
EVENT EVENT

+ -

Kemmer observes that two-participant events encode maximal distinguishability of

participants, reflexives encode an event where essentially the Initiator and Endpoint are the

same participant (though linguistically marked with "two" participants through reflexive pronouns,

clitics, etc.), middles encode a similar situation but without the linguistic marking of two

participants, and one-participant events code a single participant who may be either Initiator or

Endpoint. Striking in her analysis is the notion that the semantic characteristics of the

participants and the number of participants are two separate issues; events may be construed as

having two participants with fully distinguished semantic characters, as having one participant

with either semantic character, or some blend within (the particular combinations limited, of

course, by individual languages). This separation allows a much neater and satisfying

explanation for constructions like the English get-passive which combines the semantic

characters Initiator/Endpoint with a construction traditionally associated with a topicalized

Endpoint, thereby preserving the pragmatic impact of the passive voice with the semantic import

of a reflexive and explaining the constraint against any mention of an extemal cause. It also

provides an explanation for why intransitive constructions are generally of two basic types:

intransitive activity (a single participant activity with an Initiator) versus an intransitive stative (a

single participant activity with an Endpoint).

Bakker (1994) is also interested in explaining the linguistic behavior of middles,

particularly in Ancient Greek. His anaylsis, though, offers some provocative insights into the

relationship between events and the semantic parameters informing them. He locates the crux

of transitivity in Ancient Greek in the subject/agent-related parameters given by Hopper and

Thompson (1980): Volitionality, Agency, andi adding Causation. Volitionality, Agency, and

Causation are separated basically by telicity, where Volitionality is simply free will of the subject,









Agency is goal-directed volitional action (to self or other participant), and Causation is other-

participant goal-directed volitional action producing an effect. Transitivity, according to Bakker,

is on a bi-direction dine in relation to these elements (25):



VOLIUIONALITY > AGENCY > CAUSATION


LOW ( TRANSITIVITY HIGH



Thus, a causative event with two participants is high in transitivity while a volitional event with a

single participant is low in transitivity. When the parameter of affectedness is added, it can be

found in either end of the subject/agent spectrum: the subject/agent can be affected or can do

the affecting. In the former case, the middle arises (either as a "natural" situation type as in

growing up or as a construed property expressed by the middle form).

Again, what is noteworthy about Bakker with regards to this discussion is the separation

of transitivity" into natural types according to the semantic characteristics of the participants and

inherent semantics of events themselves. Thus a picture emerges of "prototypical" transitivity

which is not adequately captured by proposing a single two-participant event with a complex of

features, but calls for a range of at least three "prototypes" each crossed by the dine of

participant characterization from responsible Initiator/Effector/Causal Endpoint to non-

responsible Affected/Non-Causal Endpoint. Recalling Mandler's basic motion schemata and

Slobin's early language patterns provides additional support for the notion that event structure is

best represented by the three "stages" of a causative event: first, a single participant capable of

volitional activity (animate, biologically caused motion and early acquisition of ergative

morphology); second, a single participant undergoing some change (inanimate, non-biologically

caused motion and early acquisition of accusative morphology); third, two participants interacting

where one causes a change of state or location in the other (animate, biologically caused motion

acting to effect inanimate, non-biologically caused motion and the relatively early acquisition of









SVO word order patterns versus the relatively later acquisition of fully passive forms, "OV-ed by

S").

These basic event structures form the conceptual basis which the linguistic system of

transitivity expresses. Specifically, transitivity expresses the event view (Croft) or event

perspective (Slobin, Berman and Slobin) of cognitive/conceptual event structures (this will be

discussed in greater detail below). There appear to be three basic event views expressed by the

transitivity system, as the discussion above proposes. There is, though, the puzzling absence of

a fourth, the purely stative. That is, one would guess that the first, and most basic perception of

an infant is "existence." Since children first learn the names of objects, there is even some

developmental support for this notion. Croft suggests as much with his "stative" event view

which is often grammaticized by adjectives. However, it seems to me that pure states such as

identification and ascription-while predications--are not really events at all. Cross-linguistically,

there is better evidence via the number of languages which create states through adjectival

constructions that pure states should be considered a conceptual model of its own, separate from

the event structures relating to transitivity. I will assume as much for this project.

2.3.2.1 Berman and Slobin revisited--event construal

As discussed briefly in Chapter One, Berman and Slobin identify four dimensions of

event construal (selection of topic, loci of control, event view, and degree of agency).

Specifically, they make the claim that these dimensions are part of the preverbal message:

"Before one can say anything, one must decide what one wants to say. As Levelt has put it:

'The construction of a preverbal message is a first step in the generation of speech' (1989, p.

107). We propose that, in constructing a preverbal message, the speaker must make decisions

on at least four dimensions of event construal..." (517). Once the dimensions are decided

upon, various grammatical options are entailed, of which transitivity is one system. Transitivity,

then, is part of the grammatical system but not the underlying cognitive system; that is, I accept

for this project that Berman and Slobin's preverbal dimensions are (part of) the general cognitive

orientations available, probably throughout the cognitive system, but linguistically, transitivity is









one grammatical system through which these dimensions are realized. This represents a

departure from Rice (1987) who seems to claim that transitivity is the "underlying system" which

is realized verbally: "...transitivity [can be] viewed as a continuous phenomenon and as a

phenomenon (or as a family of phenomena ranging across different cognitive domains) that can

be explained in an essentially non-linguistic way" (7). My claim is that Event construal and its

dimensions are the underlying, preverbal system, and transitivity is one of the linguistic systems

instantiating them. Other options, as discussed by Berman and Slobin, include, for instance, the

lexical system which provides means for expressing degree of agency, as with adverbs such as

"unintentionally" and "deliberately" which modify the interpretation of the event through non-

grammatical means.

Specifically, it is my claim that transitivity realizes the selection of Event view. Event

view refers to the "cognitive perspectives on events, rather than to verbs" (Berman and Slobin,

519). Berman and Slobin identify three choices for event view: Cause, Become, and State. In

Cause view, the event is represented with an actor who causes a change of state in the

undergoer (Berman and Slobin make use of Van Valin's macrorole terms, actor and undergoer,

as mentioned in Chapter One). In the Become view, a change of state takes place without

mention of external force. For the State view, reference is made only to the continuing state of

the participant. While Berman and Slobin draw the obvious connections between Cause-

Become-State to the verbal systems proposed by Vendler, Dowty, and Van Valin, I would

hazard these three Events views are realized at the level of the clause as the three prototypes of

transitivity rather than lexically as verbal categories. In summary, if the overall function of

grammar is to mediate internal, mental representation with communicative needs and intents,

then transitivity specifically mediates the internal (preverbal) representation of Event view and

the communicative intent of perspective (discussed in detail in Chapter Three). Transitivity as a

system is limited to the expression of Event view only-- the whole of event construal and its

communication employs a vaster amount of linguistic (and probably non-linguistic) material.









2.3.2.2 Degrees of transitivity

Given the argument above, the question of whether there are "degrees" of transitivity

becomes an even more interesting issue. Traditionally, there have been two alternatives

proposed to this problem. The first is a continuum from "High" to "Low" (Hopper and Thompson,

1980; Rice, 1984); the second offers specific levels of high, mid, and low (Halliday, 1967). While

to some extent both claim the same thing, Halliday's specific levels seem to find greater validity

grammatically. That is, grammar in general does not tend to operate along smooth dines

between endpoints, but to manifest particular forms according to particular points between two

endpoints. The lexicon compensates for grammar's relative intransigence by offering the

possibility for the kind of subtle and continuous changes implied by the notion "continuum."

This interpretation fits well with the notion of three basic event schematas which are

realized through various transitivity options. It is something of a misnomer to claim "high," "mid,"

and "low" levels of transitivity when each of the clause structures typically associated with these

labels is actually a prototype in and of itself. Rather, there are degrees of transitivity within each

of the basic types, probably with their own, separate semantics. For example, "really high"

transitivity may be distinguished from merely high transitivity through the agency/patient

implicatures discussed below. "Very low" transitivity can be distinguished from simple "low"

transitivity by the distinction of durative action versus state. It is the "middle" transitives that are

the most interesting, encompassing as they do varied combinations of participant semantics and

clausal expression. In the end, rather than conceptualizing three degrees of transitivity, we

instead should conceptualize three event structures realized via transitivity, each with its own

possible dines and opportunities for grammatical expression.

This argument is essentially what Croft, Kemmer, and Bakker are claiming: there are a

variety of basic event types possible--Mandler provides independent evidence in her

speculations on the physical origins of event structure: "self-caused" animate, biologically

inherent motion and "other-caused" non-animate, non-biologically inherent motion. I would add

to that a third category, also readily available to the child: non-caused motion which are changes

of state and/or location without external cause but also without integral "control" such as









sleeping, breathing, living, etc. These three also correspond well to ALL of the sides of an event:

before, during, and after which are all grammaticized: -->A/ A---->B/ B--->.

For example, what makes for a sentence which passivizes well need not be something

prototypical, but a particular collocation of semantic factors in the event structure. In particular,

one in which minimally, affectedness can be deduced (either by change of location or change of

state) and (ideally) where the trajectory of the event and the endpoint of the event are one and

the same. Interestingly enough, in English, following Slobin (1994), Talmy (1991), and Hopper

(1991), this is NOT necessarily the norm. In English, very often predication is spread out over

several members of the clause, most often over a combination of the verb (incorporating

manner) and a prepositional element (indicating path). Statistically, this is a quite common

phenomenon, so much so that it seems rather absurd to claim that the active, declarative, with

human subject and non-human affected patient is THE prototypical eventive sentence in English.

Rather, it is the sentence on the far end of the affectedness and trajectory scale-highest in

eventive dynamism, perhaps. Thus, what is most typical is a combination of endpoints and

trajectory: either an endpoint which is capable of self-trajectory (mid-transitive, "become" or

"act," single-argument clause); an endpoint not capable of self-trajectory (a low transitive, "state",

single-argument clause); and two endpoints sharing a trajectory (a high transitive, "cause", two-

argument clause OR a mid-high transitive with two endpoints sharing a trajectory spead out over

a clause + phrase combination). Within each "prototype," there are a range of better members.

2.3.3. Event Structure and Transitivity

It is the contention of this project that Event Structure is the cognitive system and

transitivity the linguistic system. In fact, given Mandler's hypotheses about the possible origin's

for the expression of events, it seems likely that transitivity is to some extent "inferred" by the

child as a later, or second, step in this acquisition process. According to Mandler, the child first

distinguishes biological movement from non-biological movement, and "recognizes" or "infers"

the second is caused motion (see also Bruner, 1989). Another way of viewing the matter is that

the infant begins to recognize which endpoint of motion or change is responsible for the activity

and which is not. This is the possible beginning of perspective. The notion that affectedness is









also interpretable as "the party not responsible for the change" is linguistically verifiable by

grammatical behavior of components which are construed as both affected and responsible in

some manner, ie. the get-passive in English, reflexive constructions, and middle constructions.

Thus, in the structure of events, several components are basic which find themselves coded by a

variety of linguistic expressions (none of which should rightfully be called more basic or

prototypical than the other):

(1)-- The Trajectory Component

This component is part of two based in the notion of caused, other-caused, or non-

caused motion begun in the perception of biologically and non-biologically rooted motion

(Mandler, 1991). It is where the notion "unilateral activity" in transitivity originates.

(2)-- The EndPoint/s Component

This is the second part of the two bases in the various notions of caused motion.

Basically, the motion is seen in its relationship to where it begins and where it ends (hereafter

distinguished as Starting point and Ending point, respectively). This is ultimately where the

conceptual notions of causation, intention, and responsibility originate since these are the

various semantic/pragmatic perspectives ascribable to the endpoints involved. Thus,

linguistically, this is also where such notions as "agent" and "patient" evolve from.

(1) + (2) = (3)-- The EndPoint and Trajectory Complex

These two together act as the basis of Event Structure (Croft, Langacker, Lakoff,

Kemmer, Rice, Mandler, Talmy). However, contrary to the claims of Rice and Giv6n, the

particular combination of two endpoints plus a unilateral trajectory is not more basic than any of

the other combinations. Thus, I am following Croft and Kemmer who propose that there are a

range of possible prototypes which in turn are coded by a variety of linguistic expressions each

with a probable most "typical" or "canonical" form. Berman and Slobin (1994), Slobin (1994),

Talmy (1991), and Hopper (1991) among others imply as much with their particular

interpretations. Slobin (inter alia) recognizes three basic event types to Event Construal: Cause,

Become, and State. Talmy shows that typologically, different languages convey endpoint +









trajectory complexes in typical ways with different linguistic parsings of the whole. Hopper shows

that English often chooses to array two enpoints + trajectory complexes over several elements in

the sentence, rather than in just the traditional "transitive" construction. Luchjenbroers (1996)

shows how the complex constructions Hopper investigates have real and verifiable discourse

effects in terms of information packaging. Bruner (1986) summarizes the various infant studies

suggesting that we are sensitive to the roles of causation and intention at very young ages.

Giv6n and Lang (1994), without really intending to, give additional support in their diachronic

treatment of the get-passive in English by demonstrating how this unique construction developed

as a means of expressing both affectedness and responsibility simultaneously. Hargreaves

(1996) also demonstrates inflectional categories which are directly sensitive to the knowability of

intention in the morphology of control verbs in Newari.

The event complex (here really a simpler version compared to others), then, is a basic

cognitive, conceptual structure which gets coded through a variety of linguistic devices, including

participant semantics and transitivity. Transitivity, though, is not the cognitively basic structure;

it is one linguistic/grammatical system expressing a certain part of the event complex, that part

being the particular array of endpoint and trajectory relationships. At the level of syntax, this

results in clause structures as stamped out by circumscribing endpoint + trajectory relationships

marked by language-specific renderings of the "responsibility" of the endpoints (as in accusative

versus absolutive languages). At the level of semantics, this results in the various sentence

types and alternations allowed and disallowed as expressions of energy flow and participant

relationships (influenced, I would contend, by pragmatics in the guise of cultural and "real world"

knowledge). At the level of discourse, this means participants and "event" relationships PLUS

perspective-- a discourse-semantic interaction, construed variously in languages according to

what the transitivity system allows together with language-specific constraints on coherence.

Since transitivityy" as a term is fast-losing its significance due to overextension, we

confine it to the grammatical level of expressing EndPoint-Trajectory relationships (hereafter P/T

relationships). Each language encodes these relationships differently, and in a manner I believe

is well-described by Talmy's "verb-framed" and "satellite-framed" typological distinction (1985).









Slobin (1996) confirms as much in his comparison of texts in English and Spanish, showing that

while event structure conceptually encompasses the whole of P/T relationships, there are regular

patterns instantiated in various languages. In English, very often P/T relationships are not coded

within a single clause but in clause-phrase combinations (see Hopper and Luchjenbroers cited

above), as in Cora swung his blade and cut down the opposing swordswoman. Spanish,

however, tends to code both the "manner" of the activity and its trajectory in a single verb. This

difference results in both different lexicalizations of verbs and also different pattern of discourse.

For English, transitivity actually has FOUR forms in which it is expressed, each

instantiating particular P/T relationships and clause structure. These are the four clause-types of

transitivity in English (please see Figure at chapter's end for a schematic representation and

textual examples).

Intransitive(Durative transitive)- Endpoint but little Trajectory, bound by the same clause
Atelic Transitive- single Endpoint plus Trajectory in either direction, bound by the same clause
Telic Transitive- two Endpoints plus Trajectory, bound by the same clause
Dispersed Transitive- two Endpoints plus Trajectory specified across a clause and a phrase

These forms are descriptive in nature, although they have theoretical and typological bases.

They will also be used as working terms throughout the project. Ultimately, I believe the above

terms are more accurate than the concept of degrees since, as shown above, there are not

degrees of transitivity from a single prototype, but (at least) three different "prototypes" each with

its own "degrees." Languages are more properly investigated for how they express

Point/Trajectory complexes than for their "degrees" of transitivity. At the level of text, participant

semantics, lexical semantics, and pragmatics also come into play to create the entire implicature

normally labeled transitivityy." Throughout this project, I will use the terms Starting point, Ending

point, Trajectory, and P/T complex when referring to the purely schematic aspects of transitivity.

2.3.4 "Agent," "Patient" and Other Labels

Having dealt with the extension of prototype to transitivity and discarded the notion of a

single prototype in favor of at least three prototypes expressed via four clause types, we now

move to a different level of meaning--participant semantics. Recall that Giv6n, Hopper and

Thompson, and Rice among others accept the roles "agent" and "patient" as core relationships









within transitivity. An alternative approach exemplified by Croft and Kemmer is to separate the

semantic labels attached to participants from their schematic roles. Taken together, there is

convincing evidence that event participants code at least two different sets of parameters (at the

level of the clause): first, the purely schematic, abstract position in event structure, either as

starting point or ending point; second, a semantic character expressing the relationship of

participant to event, generally as the initiating, responsible party or the affected party undergoing

a change of state. The most common labels for the semantic roles has been "agent" and

"patient," respectively.

Rice (1987) argues that in order for there to be a transfer of effect from one participant to

another, one participant must possess the means to affect the second in an activity which is

forceful and flows in only one direction. The means possessed by the first participant may be

inherent to the activity, the first participant, or the relationship between participants and may be

understood from real world knowledge as well as linguistic knowledge. Hopper and Thompson

make similar claims, stating there must be two participants for High transitivity, and that one

participant is an Agent high in potency and volition. The other participant, which is highly

individuated, contrasts by being totally affected by the kinetic action.

Van Valin and Wilkins (1996) argue against "agent" as a prototype. They base their

conclusion on the work of Holisky (1987), who demonstrated that agency is actually an

implicature at the "...intersection of the semantics of the clause (the semantics of both the actor

NP and the predicate) and general principle of conversation (cf. Grice, 1975)" (309). Holisky

designates a pragmatic principle in the process, designated by her as Pragmatic Principle [8]:

You may interpret effectors and effector-themes which are human as agents (in the absence of

evidence to the contrary). Where Holisky based her assertions on evidence in Tsova-Tush, Van

Valin and Wilkins offer straightforward examples from English.

(8) Larry killed the deer.
(9) Larry intentionally killed the deer.
(10) Larry accidently killed the deer.
(11) The explosion killed the deer.









In (8), there is no explicit mark for whether the actor is an agent or not (though by Holisky's

principle [8] above, we interpret it to be so), while (9) confirms this as a potential interpretation.

On the other hand, (10) provides "information to the contrary," disconfirming the agentive nature

of "Larry" and leaving him merely as a causal participant. Sentence (11) shows that the actor

need not be animate at all, and therefore no appeal is made to Holisky's pragmatic principle.

It is not the case that NO verbs have an inherent agent. Obviously, murder does. But

inherent agency is relatively rare. Van Valin and Wilkins argue:


This has important implications for the notion 'agent prototype' and the idea that
relations like force and instrument are just 'less good' members of the category of
which agent is the central member. The features in question do not in fact define
a prototype, but rather constitute the relevant information on the basis of which
the agent implicature is made Moreover, force and instrument are not variants on
agent at all but rather are variants of the effector role which underlies agent as
well. All three roles are doers which differ in certain crucial ways along the
dimensions of the lexical properties of the NP and their position in the causal
sequence defined by the verb. (320) [emphasis added]


While the entirety of their proof is too extensive to go into here, basically, the NP

properties they are referring to are "animate/non-animate" and "instigator/non-instigator."

Animacy distinguishes effectors capable of feeling, self-expression, and self-movement from

those incapable of the same. Instigation refers to whether the effector is "self-energetic", that is,

has an inherent energy source, as with natural forces. In combination, the three primary starting

point/effector roles emerge: the agent who is animate, instigator and preferably human (though

animacy can also be ascribed to culture-specific entities); the force which is non-animate but

instigator; the instrument which is non-animate, non-instigator, but still the effector.

There are two striking consequences of the above analysis. First, a more constrained

and thoughtful approach is taken to the ubiquitous notion of prototype. Second, a viable

alternative linguistic process--implicature--is offered to balance the picture. As we shall see in

the subsequent chapters, implicature is an important factor to processing at the level of

discourse.

Just as "agent" is not necessarily a prototypical participant, "patient" is equally dubious.

As Bakker demonstrates, the "prototypical" patient actually reduces transitivity in Ancient Greek









by lowering the volitionality, hence the overall measure of transitivity for the event (1994, 43).

This should not be surprising since something similar happens in English when the whole of

event structure is spread out over the verb phrase plus a prepositional phrase: Cora swung his

blade and cut down the opposing swordswoman. While the first predication, Cora swung his

blade is "transitive" in the sense of having a syntactic direct object, the entire event in question

has two parts: the initiating event (swinging the blade) and the ending result (cutting down the

opponent). Recall that Kemmer's elaboration of events allows various levels of focus on the

event so that a whole structure such as might be expressed in a basic transitive clause, i.e. Cora

killed the opposing swordswoman, can be expressed via attention to any of its parts.

Nevertheless, "the blade" in question, while a prototypical patient (it is affected by change of

location, non-human) is really but an instrument in the overall event; it is not the instigating

force, and is not the locus of effect.

Just as "agent" is an implicature from a more basic role, Effector, "patient" is likewise an

implicature based on lexical, semantic, and pragmatic factors. The appeal of agency and

patienthood as necessary qualities derives from their antonymical quality; they are not merely

distinct, they are maximally distinct. Yet they are not essential to high transitivity. Instead, they

mark the far endpoints, the points at which transitivity as a system is easiest to see. Indeed, the

semantic characterization at work here seems to be "asymmetry." In "really high" transitivity,

there are indeed both highly agentitive subjects and highly affected participants, e.g. John kicked

the sleeping poodle/Brutus smashed the antique vase. On the other hand, for merely "high"

transitivity, (as defined by the possibility of passive and/or middle alterations), only one of the

participants need be capable of effecting or of being affected: Olafjumped the fence; Bertha

danced Swan Lake beautifully; The moon orbits the earth; Sven broke the glass; Gertrude drove

the car; The wind blew the leaves gently.

Participant asymmetry, "skewing" as it is termed here, has actual structural effects. That

which is not skewed towards the affected participant (or which is not neutral with regards to either

end) has limitations. Thus, the difference between Brutus shattered the glass and Brutus









smashed the glass is that the first is skewed towards the Affected and the second towards the

Effector. As a result, the middle construction is available to the first, but not to the second: The

glass shattered/* The glass smashed. There are discourse consequences as well. Whichever

participant end is skewed towards is also more likely to continue as topic in subsequent

discourse. It should be remembered, though, that P/T complexes alone do not have this quality.

The P/T complex is schematic, conceptual, but lacks the semantic richness of participant

semantics.

For this study, the term "patient" will be avoided, and instead the term "Affected" will be

used for the participant which is the locus of effect. In the same vein, "Effector" will be the term

used for the semantic character of the participant which initiates or causes the activity in an

event. For participants, then, "Starting point" and "Ending point" will be used when the reference

is to event structure, while "Effector" and "Affected" will be used when the reference is to

participant semantics.

2.3.5 Verbal Modality--Teasing Apart Semantics and Pragmatics

There are still a few issues which need to be settled. Recall that Giv6n claims that the

prototypical verb in a transitive clause is "fast-paced, completed, real, and perceptually-

cognitively salient." We shall take each of these one by one and see what a closer examination

yields for transitivity.

2.3.5.1 Fast-paced

The notion "fast-paced" is characterized as transfer of effect from source to goal which is

so fast as to be instantaneous. Yet even for telic transitive clauses, there seems to be little

support for this: Sven kicked the dog/The dog was kicked by Sven; Sven cooked the dinner/The

dinner was cooked by Sven;/Sven studied the questions/The questions were studied by Sven;

Sven studied chemistry/?Chemistry was studied by Sven. In the examples above, there is a

clear decrease in the instantaneous nature of the event, yet all but one passivize; only in the

case where the goal is not quantified does passivization suffer. The instantaneous quality of the

action seems to have less to do with transitivity than is supposed. All the sentences above are

telic transitive clauses despite the range from "fast-changing" to "slow changing" to durative









event. The lack of importance of instantaneous effect is not surprising given the components of

transitivity proposed thus far; it is not how quick the verb is but the particular set of asymmetries

instantiated in the clause.

2.3.5.2 Completed

A completed event is linguistically defined as one which is bounded. Boundedness,

according to Giv6n, is a verbal quality meaning "non-lingering" (p. 46, vol. II). "Non-lingereing"

as a terms seems to imply time; in fact, it is more accurately understood as "completion of the

event." Yet another way of looking at it may be that when the activity is over, all of the goal is

affected, not just part of it. Verkuyl (1990) argues persuasively for the contribution of the object

to the "inner aspect" of the predicate. When the object is of a "specified quantity," the phrase

yields a bounded event because the quantity of the object is exhausted by the activity. However,

it is not necessarily the case that the goal is not affected in non-bounded situations, but that the

effect is not complete.

Completedness is easiest to reckon within telic transitives. In these clauses, the end of

the activity is signaled by overt mention--the affected object itself. In essense, the event finishes

itself by completing the change of state or location of the Affected participant.

(12) Olaf ate the fish.
(13) Olaf cooked the fish.
(14) Olaf put the fish in the refrigerator.


Thus it is easy to see how telic transitives include a strong element of completion. Nevertheless,

atelic transitives also have a sense of completion except that it is generally inherent to the verb

itself.

(15) Svenjumped.
(16) Gertrude sneezed.
(17) Brutus grinned wickedly.
(18) Brunhilda chortled in joy.

Each of these is a "completed" activity--the activity does not linger (for example, although we

don't normally conceptualize a grin as punctual, to make it non-punctual additional information

must be added to the sentence: Brutus kept grinning wickedly). Thus it is clear that the activity









is not bound by a change-of-state of a second participant but by the inherent semantics of the

verb itself as it refers to the one engaged in the activity.

Obviously, it is the intransitive clause which has the least sense of completion.

However, as these sentences show, it is not completion which is the semantic factor, but the

durativity of the events themselves.

(19) Bertha grew up in Minnesota.
(20) Sven knew all the answers.
(21) Elvira lived in New York for ten years.

One other factor influences our sense of verbal completedness: tense. Any activity in

the past tense carries with it a sense of "doneness." Thus, if (12) were re-written Olaf eats the

fish/fish, our sense of boundedness is completely changed. The question is--has the transitivity

of the event changed as well? According to the explanation above, transitivity has not changed.

There is still a P/T complex with an Starting Point, an Ending Point, and a Trajectory joining

them. There is still and Effector and Affected. What has changed is not the transitivity of the

clause, but the speaker-hearer relationship to the event. The pragmatics are different, not the

semantics. Completedness is more properly understood as a pragmatic implication related to

tense than as a semantic element of transitivity.

2.3.5.3 Perceptuallv-cognitively salient

Many authors have argued that dynamism--the degree of "activity inherent to the verb"-

is an important aspect of transitivity. Intuitively this seems to be the case, and this is no doubt

where the attribute "fast-changing" originated. Yet there is no quantifiable or explanatory

definition by which dynamism can be assessed. I would like to offer one in terms of transitivity

as hypothesized thus far. This discussion springs from the observation of many linguists, but

primarily those from functional and cognitive schools, and may serve as an explanatory device

for dynamism.

At first glance, it appears simple enough to appeal to the Affectedness relationship in

measuring dynamism. Intuitively, break and shatter are in a degree relationship in which the

goal of shatter is more affected than the goal of break. This observation holds true for other

verbs as well: drink-gulp-quaff, nibble-eat-gorge; throw-hurl, etc. On the other hand, there are










lexical sets which change the effectiveness of the source instead: kill-murder; clean-scrub-scour,

hit-punch. There are still other alternations, skewed so far in the direction of source or goal that

different lexical forms are used: kill-die; sit-set; teach-learn; buy-sell; etc.

Notably, the difference in these pairs of terms is not just the number of arguments the

verb can take but the semantic roles of the arguments themselves. That is, for many actions,

there are both lexical and grammatical options for selecting which perspective on a situation is

opted for in discourse. In the sentences below, (25) and (26) demonstrate that English allows

both the pragmatically understood force and instrument to be the "source" of the action.

Example (27) shows that both of the above can passivize. In (28)-(35) various grammatical

forms topicalize the affected participant whereas (28), (29), (30) and (35) show that lexical

choice also contributes to the clausal combinations permitted by the grammar of English.

(22) John broke the window.
(23) The rock broke the window.
(24) The window was broken by John/the rock.
(25) The window broke/*by John.
(26) The window broke easily/with difficulty/*difficultly.
(27) *The windows break easily/Windows break easily.
(28) The windows break easily, but the wooden frames do not.
(29) Windows broke easily; wood was but little harder.
(30) (John threw the rock) The window broke/shattered.
(31) John broke/destroyed/crushed the window with a rock.
(32) *The window destroyed/crushed.


Both the Effector and Affected roles get lexicalized in English, and certain constructions such as

the middle are also Affected-oriented.

Weirzbicka (1988) offers an intriguing analysis of causation and lexicalization. English,

she proposes, is filled with many level of causative, instantiated in lexical causatives as well as

periphrastic causal constructions. The list of lexical causatives (252-3) which "pays attention to

different strategies of human causation" rather neatly dichotomizes between Effector-oriented

and Affected-oriented lexical items: order, command, demand, require, suggest, advocate,

instruct, persuade, decree, ordain, authorize, commission; beg, implore, beseech, entreat, plead,

intercede, apply, appeal, enjoin. There were a few items difficult to classify either way, which

seem to form the "basic" category against which the others are organized: ask, request, tell.









This list further substantiates the idea that given an event, the whole of the event is conceptually

available but certain highly relevant, highly predictable relationships are the ones that actually

become lexicalized items.

Is there anything in our discussion so far which might explain or provide an

organizational umbrella for the behavior described above? I believe the cognitive relationship of

asymmetry, as discussed by Rice but made linguistically relevant by Slobin, may be the answer.

Slobin (1973) makes strong arguments for the cognitive impact of asymmetry as a basic

organizing principle in human beings. Infants very quickly show a preference for asymmetrical

relationships such as handedness. Other infant studies show surprise responses can be

provoked when certain basic asymmetrical relationships are violated. Further, one of the

hallmarks of linguistic sophistication in terms of narrative is the degree to which speakers can

differently construe cause-effect relationships among events (Berman and Slobin, 1994). Less

mature narrators tend to string events together using a simple conjunctive "and." As speakers

mature, they form hierarchical relationships in the narrative, beginning with simpler causal chains

(and then he did x because...), gradually incorporating the sophisticated tense/aspect and lexical

"complexes" we associate with adult narration.

Loosely speaking, this language development is understood by these authors as a

manifestation of our cognitive predisposition towards asymmetry. Lexically, asymmetry

manifests itself in the sort of relationships discussed by Bybee, Langacker, and Weirzbecka.

Lexical choice has an effect on transitivity insofar as any verb is "skewed" towards one end of

the Effector-Affected continuum. Those verbs which include both the source and goal

semantically, generally speaking, participate in telic transitive clauses. Those skewed strongly to

either Effector or Affected result in atelic transitives. Thus "perceptual-cognitive salience" of a

verb may be partially defined as the degree to which the lexical item is skewed towards the

affected participant in an action. Halliday (1985) suggests as much himself when he claims the

transitivity alternations in English are less a matter of inherent meaning than whether the event

was viewed from the perspective of the source or the goal.









There is not to my knowledge any kind of list composed according to these parameters

(skewed towards source, goal, or neither; but see Levin, 1993), and it is outside the scope of this

study to do so. Nevertheless, I will appeal to this notion with the hopes that someone may find it

useful for further work.

2.4 Transitivity and Time

The following excerpts will provide examples for the semantic character of transitivity as it is

delimited by discourse. Actually, most of this discussion is directly germaine to Chapter Three

and will be explored in greater detail at that point.

Uttering a curse in his well-practiced falsetto, Cora swung his blade and cut down
the opposing swordswoman. His contoured breastplate emphasized features
which were not truly present.
From "Lady of Steel", R. Zelazny

There was still a company of archers that held their ground among the burning
houses. Their captain was Bard, whose friends had accused him of prophesying
flood and poisoned fish, though they know his worth and courage. He was a
descendant in the line of Girion, Lord of Dale, whose wife and child had escaped
down the Running River from the ruin long ago. Now he used a great yew bow,
loosing arrows at the dragon until all of them but one were spent. The flames were
near him. His companions were leaving him. He bent his bow for the last time.

From The Hobbit, J.R.R. Tolkien


Each of the above excerpts is the initial paragraph of the episodes in question. The first is the

first paragraph of a (very) short story. The second is the beginning to a particular episode in The

Hobbit, marked by a change of scene and the eventual closure to this string of events. Of

particular interest here are the last two sentences of each (which in the Zelazny text includes the

whole of the paragraph).

The two sentences, His contoured breastplate emphasized features which were not truly

present and His companions were leaving him, both have many of the elements required of

"high" transitivity. There are two participants, a grammatical subject and object, and a path of

movement (the first perceptual, the second physical). Both sentences passivize, and textually,

could passivize with little or no distortion to the story-line (again, this is a discourse constraint on

the perspective-providing function of transitivity and will be explained in greater depth in the

following chapter).










Uttering a curse in his well-practiced falsetto, Cora swung his blade and cut down
the opposing swordswoman. Features were emphasized on his contoured
breastplate which were not truly present.
From "Lady of Steel", R. Zelazny

There was still a company of archers that held their ground among the buying
houses. Their captain was Bard, whose friends had accused him of prophesying
flood and poisoned fish, though they know his worth and courage. He was a
descendant in the line of Girion, Lord of Dale, whose wife and child had escaped
down the Running River from the ruin long ago. Now he used a great yew bow,
loosing arrows at the dragon until all of them but one were spent. The flames were
near him. He was being left by his companions. He bent his bow for the last
time.

From The Hobbit, J.R.R. Tolkien


Nevertheless, it is intuitively obvious that these sentences, while subscribing to the

structural dictates most frequently associated with transitivity, don't "feel" particularly transitive.

Given the propositions above--namely, that there is more than one Event Structure prototype

and that the semantic character of Starting points and Ending points in Event Structure are

derived by implicature rather prototype--we can see these sentences conform to a structural

prototype while differing in participant and verbal semantics, much as Kemmer suggests for the

distinction between reflexives and middles.

For the sentence, His contoured breastplate emphasized features which were not truly

present, two dimensions of participant semantics are played with: the Effector/Affected

dimension and predicate causality. First, his contoured breastplate is in the subject slot, hence

the Effector role, but according to Van Valin and Wilkin's features, has neither animacy or

instigator qualities. The NP is not capable of self-motion nor is it self-energetic. Thus, it is more

of an instrument than either an agent or force. But it is an instrument of what? We will return to

this question shortly.

The object, features, is also not an easily identified endpoint because it is poorly

distinguished from the initiator in the event. In fact, ultimately, the features and the breastplate

are one and the same item, separated from one another by an act of description. Finally, the

predication itself is hardly "eventive" in the sense that it points back to itself; the verb

"emphasize" means to make more perceptually salient some part of an existing state.









Despite the above, these not-very-distinct participants and this not-very-dynamic event

are cast together in a clause structure prototypically associated with just the opposite. This

results in an "act of description" or an "event of description." In narrative theory (Fleischmann,

1990; Labov, 1972), descriptive events are labeled "evaluative" in terms of story function and

often provide the ground against which a "complicating action" (an event which moves the time-

line of the narrative forward) is figured. Descriptive events are also used to draw the reader's

attention to some salient fact which provides essential plot-line information. This is precisely the

function of this sentence. His contoured breastplate is the instrument used to ground the

information that the state being predicated is somehow false. It presages an account for the

gender mis-match between the name, Cora, and the male pronoun references. For this story (in

the appendix), this information is the key knowledge against which the plot unfolds.

The linguistic signalling of this information comes in the particular combination of

features. I would like to reiterate that this effect is not accomplished by prototype violation-there

is no violation of the structural prototype as the passivization attests. Rather, there is a

systematic combination of features along various parameters "signalling" to the reader that an

inference must be made in order to complete the meaning (for an excellent discussion of the

difference between inferencing as a process and linguistic cognition as a process, please see

Giv6n, 1995, chapter 8). For discourse, implicatures are created which are then 'tested" against

subsequent information. The various parameters involved include, at least:

Event Structure-prototypical dimension of clause meaning based on
early-acquired conceptual schemas of motion
Participant Semantics- derived by implicature according to lexical
semantics, pragmatics from underspecified semantic roles
Discourse Coherence--implicature-driven processing involving clausal
semantics, pragmatics, topic chains, etc.

As we shall see in Chapters Three and Four, the latter two play a crucial role in licensing the

appropriate use of alternative realizations of transitivity, such as the passive and middle.

In the second example sentence, His companions were leaving him, a different set of

features are played with, almost exclusively confined to the level of discourse. A momentary

diversion needs to be made at this point to the linguistic structure of narrative. The features










mentioned above have to do with the nature of narrative as a past-time, event-driven construct

(Longacre, 1983; Fleischmann, 1990; Schiffrin, 1981; Hatav, 1996). Specifically, they have to

do with the contention that preterite as a tense has no inherent sequential meaning. This has

been a somewhat controversial point since the perfective nature of the simple past is "...ideally

suited to reporting experience that has been cognitively packaged into synthetic units amenable

to representation as points along a time line" (Fleischmann, 24). Nevertheless, as Comrie has

argued, a weak point of linguistic analysis has been the failure to differentiate context-

independent, inherent meaning from context-dependent, derived meaning (Fleischmann citing

Comrie, 1985). Fleischmann summarizes the argument thusly (24-25):


Several investigators...have therefore argued that the basic function of this PAST is
to mark the foreground of discourse, while the background is marked by its IPFV
counterparts...[yet] neither the figural quality of the PRET nor its sequential quality
is an intrinsic part of its meaning; rather, these properties emerge from the
interaction of its basic meaning (PAST time + PFV aspect) with a specific
discourse context--narrative. In other words, the foregrounding ability of the PRET
and the backgrounding ability of the IMP are contextual implicatures derivable
from the synthetic and analytic visions of their respective aspects. [emphasis
added]


Early investigations into the function of transitivity (most notably, the well-cited Hopper

and Thompson, 1980, and Hopper and Thompson, ed., 1982) made precisely the claim that the

purpose of "high" transitive constructions in discourse was to foreground information; most

particularly, to place a clause and the events it was depicting on the time-line. Yet, our example

sentence easily and clearly passivizes; another feature of "high" transitivity. Given the

discussion above, it is simple enough to distinguish the inherent meaning of transitivity (which is

to provide the three event perspectives introduced above) and its discourse function (which is, I

will contend in the following chapter, to provide the grammatical base for the manipulation of

perspective according to the constraints of discourse coherence) from the textual function of

tense-aspect configurations. In other words, transitivity in and of itself has little or nothing to do

with grounding or figuring of time-line information. This is the primary task of tense-aspect in

discourse. Thus our example sentence is "high" in transitivity insofar as it depicts an event with

distinct Starting and Ending points, a unilateral trajectory, and a change in the circumstances of









the affected participant. However, it is not on the time-line because it is cast in the imperfective,

providing the ground for the subsequent action.

On the other end of the spectrum are so-called intransitive events which are indeed on

the time-line. These are events featuring either of the single-participant event structures: a

participant causing a change of state with no clause-bound mention of the endpoint or a

participant undergoing a change of state with no clause-bound mention of an extemal cause.

One brief excerpt from "Lady of Steel" will suffice to demonstrate.

Simultaneous then, attacks came from the right and the left. Beginning his battle-
song, he parried to the left, cut to the right, parried left again, cut through that warrior,
parried right, and thrust. Both attackers fell.

In this paragraph (the second full paragraph of the story), it is obvious that each of the chained

clauses represents a new point on the time-line. The implicature is made by the use of the

simple past in perfective form, the use of prepositional phrases specifying change of direction

("dynamic location"), and our knowledge that sword fights are fought by independent series of

strokes through time (versus a bomb, which kills en masse with a single discharge). Additionally,

the zero marking of the subject/topic clinches the reader's knowledge that the same participant is

being talked about. The use of the comma to separate events instead of a period is a signal

given by the writer that these events, while sequential, nevertheless happen in very short time

intervals. It is a kind of "close focus" camera effect, a metaphor used by a number of linguists

(Kemmer, Hopper, Talmy, etc.) and one which will be developed rather extensively in Chapter

Three.

Finally, not only do we find single-participant clauses on the time-line, but single

participant clauses from both perspectives on the event: Starting and Ending points. First, we

have as Initiator, Cora, who is the subject/topic of the entire chained sequence of events.

Second, we have as Ending points the attackers who are finally defeated in the final clause. It is

important to note here that pragmatically, that is, by inference, the reader understands perfectly

well that what is happening here is a highly transitive series of events: Cora is attacked--> Cora

fights back--> the attackers are killed. What the writer has done is gone inside the events, so to

speak, and presented them from a close-focus perspective, the view of the participants.









Grammatically, this is expressed via individual, single participant clauses. Thus even while

there is a kind of "macro-Event Structure" implied, the expression of that structure is not

constrained to just one view. It is, however, constrained to the view of the participants.

Nevertheless, there is a cognitive basis for the confusion of time-lines, plot-lines, and

transitivity. The two-participant transitive sentence (in English) captures two aspects of events,

force dynamics and passage of time, and construes them in a parallel fashion to how they are

understood. That is, in a sentence such as Bill kicked the sleeping poodle both the "line" of force

and the "line" of time as the event happens are iconic with the grammatical construal and order

of participants: from Bill to the dog both in terms of trajectory and time. It's a rather natural leap

to claim that the iconcity operates on the discourse level as well, especially since that is

sometimes the case. Part of the challenge of this study is to take this notion of transitivity into

realms other than narrative and determine its validity and usefulness in contexts where

information flow is separate from time flow.

2.5 The Asymmetry Principle in Cognition and Communication

Thus far in the discussion on semantics, the goal has been to reduce the proliferation of

components by searching for commonalities that may unite them on a more abstract level. The

particular relationship singled out has been "asymmetry." The discussion was not meant to

discredit or detract from the semantic work done so far; indeed, Rice's excellent semantic/

cognitive explanation of transitivity has been formative in my own work. Rather, the question is

not whether there are cognitive or semantic aspects to transitivity--certainly, there are-but what

it means that it is these aspects which are grammatically specified. Why should there be

conceptual endpoints in event structure? Why should skewing towards one end of the

Effector/Affected relationship be significant? A preliminary answer lies in the statement above:

asymmetry. Grammatically, where grammar is understood to be the system mediating intemal

representation and communication by providing "...a set of options for schematizing experience

for the purposes of verbal expression" (Slobin, 1996:75), asymmetry provides one means by

which this goal is accomplished. Specifically, asymmetry organizes grammar by presenting sets

of salience relationships that can be systematically attended to through time. That is, one way of









organizing information through time so that it is both processable and communicates what the

speaker intends is through marking salience so that the hearer knows which information is to be

attended to most closely. Regarding transitivity, salience applies to event semantics, participant

semantics, and participant-event relationships as instantiated in the clause.

The "Asymmetry Principle" is simply a label for a set of relationships the linguistic

community has long noted: heads and tails, verb and satellite, topic and comment, source and

goal, binary branching nodes, etc. The only "leap" being made is to say that this is not merely

coincidence, but in fact the cognitive principle along which grammar is largely organized. Note

the claim is being made for grammar only. If, as Talmy (1994) claims, grammar is the cognitive

system mediating what's in the brain and what is communicated, then asymmetry is the (or one

of the) cognitive principles) doing the organizing. One way of doing this is by systematically

creating salience relationships so that at any one time, both speaker and hearer are aware of and

can manage attention to the various elements in the discourse. In the case of human beings, the

central elements appear to be the participants--this is our locus of concern. And our way of

creating and maintaining order is through sets of asymmetrical relationships which manifest

salience relationships so that we know where our attention is to be directed.

If asymmetry as an explanatory grammatical principle is to be taken seriously-as a

reasonable explanation for the patterns evident in transitivity--then it must also be asked why the

set of distinctions clustering in transitivity should do so? Why this particular group of features? I

would propose that the set of features distinguishing transitivity as a system do so because they

are event-oriented--transitivity is a grammatical structuring of events, a kind of event gestalt.

The characterizing element of an event is its linearity, both of motion and of time in an iconic

relationship. Transitivity realizes the most perceptually salient parts of event structure- the

endpoints and the trajectory connecting them. But as Talmy (1994) has pointed out, languages

homologize not only time, but space as well. If transitivity is the grammatical structuring of

events, of "linear" information, then it may be reasonably asked if language does not also

grammaticize "non-linear" information? Does language have a grammatical structure for

information arranged not through time, but in space? Asked in another way, is information ever









conveyed in structures that are not event-driven? As will become apparent, this is not an empty

line of inquiry, but essential to understanding the functional and discourse nature of transitivity.

The role of the assymetry principle will be taken up again in Chapters Three and Four as it

relates to the discourse structuring of narrative and expository texts.

2.6 Concluding Remarks

Transitivity, as we now see, is a well-constrained system expressing certain aspects of

event structure-Starting points, Endpoints, and Trajectories. It is most properly viewed as one

component in the ecology of the clause, specifically that component concerned with the

semantics and pragmatics of Point-Trajectory relationships. At the level of discourse, though,

the effects to which transitivity is put are largely constrained by coherence-and not simply

coherence as a cognitive mechanism, but coherence as it is arrayed by different genres in

different contexts. In fact, at the "level" of discourse, much of what is crucially important for the

formation of clauses is not that critical anymore, and becomes a new and larger "chunk" which is

put to use for even more abstract informational purposes. Like a symphony, if the clause is the

individual player--and the sentence the entire brass or woodwind section- then discourse is

ultimately the conductor.








Figure 2.7: The Four Clause Types of Transitivity

Legend: non-bold graphics--optional elements (probably language specific)
T-- "Little Turtle's Big Adventure"--David Lee Harrison
C-- "Lady of Steel"--Roger Zelazny
H--The Defeat of Smaug, excerpt from The Hobbit--J.R.R. Tolkien
A/B-different participants


TELIC TRANSITIVE
P/T Complex: two Points, directed Trajectory
Syntax: bound in same clause
Semantics: two participants, Effector/Affected
Discourse: Basic Perspectival Distance


->0






0->


One morning, a rumble like thunder woke the
little turtle. (T)
Finally, warm rain melted the snow. (T)
Then one day, a boy saw the turtle. (T)
Now he used a great yew bow. (H)
His last throes splintered it to sparks and
gledes.
(H)
...she bathed the wound. (C)
He heard her gasp. (C)


1) Full on the town he fell. (H)
Both attackers fell. (C)
His arms ached by the time he had dealt with
the second. (C)
He started, but it was only an old thrush. (H)
...Smaug shot spouting into the air, turned over...(H).
His battle song broke as he... (C)

2) Birds scolded./Autumn came. /Snow fell. (T)
Everyday, the little turtle walked. (T).
The great bow twanged. (H)
An axe flashed.. (C)


ATELIC TRANSITIVE
1-Affected/2-Effector
P/T Complex: one Point, directed Trajectory
Syntax: bound in same clause
Semantics: one participant, Effector OR Affected
Discourse: Constrained Perspectival Distance
(close-focus)


















DURATIVE TRANSITIVE

P/T Complex: one Point, undirected Trajectory
Syntax: bound in one clause
Semantics: one participant, Affected
Discourse: Unconstrained Perspectival Distance
(panoramic)


He lay there, clutching his thigh... (C)
..and all seemed anxious to claim the glory...(C)
But the wound extended higher. (C)

(complex constructions)
Marvelling, he found he could understand its
tongue, for he was of the race of Dale. (H)
He could watch mice scamper. (T)
But the little turtle kept on looking. (T)
He tried living in the forest. (T)


And he picked him up and carried down a
shady path. (T)
Suddenly, she had drawn aside his loincloth
to continue her ministrations. (C)
After a time, Edwina helped him to his feet.
(C)


2. Perspiration broke out on his brow...(C)
..and his final assailant's head rolled away
after her departing sisters (C)
SThe black arrow sped straight from the string,
straight for the hollow...(H)
0- 00Early one morning, the little turtle started out.
m
Unafraid, it perched by his ear... (H)
Men with steam shovels and bulldozers were
DISPERSED TRANSITIVES working in the clover fields. (T)
1-two participants
2-single participant

P/T Complex: 1--two Points, directed Trajectory+path
2--one Point, directed Trajectory+path
Syntax: specified across clause plus phrase
Semantics: 1--Effector/Affected
2--Effector OR Affected
Discourse: Constrained Perspectival Distance
(close-focus)















CHAPTER THREE
TOWARDS A MULTI-VARIABLE DISCOURSE MODEL OF TRANSITIVITY IN ENGLISH



3.1 Opening Remarks

Transitivity has long been labeled a complex phenomenon. Indeed, Chapter Two

demonstrated as much at the clause level. The transitivity system is sensitive to the

conceptualization of events, the dynamics of participant semantics, and the communicative

intent of the speaker.

The discourse functioning of transitivity is no less complex, though this complexity arises

more from the interaction of several elements than through the quality of transitivity alone. That

is, just as identifying the semantic responsibilities of the transitivity system entailed teasing out

that which properly belongs to transitivityy" and that which is part of a different system (tense, for

instance), the discourse functioning of transitivity requires the same discriminating eye. DuBois

makes a similar claim: sometimes choosing an "intransitive" was a matter of meaning,

sometimes a matter of discourse (1987:831-832). The same can be said of the transitivity

system in general. Care must therefore be taken not to become too absolute in the assigning of

a "function" to any particular transitive clause. Sometimes a telic transitive is just a telic

transitive. It is only in combination with other discourse elements that transitivity makes its

contribution to the clause as a whole, and by extension, to the discourse needs of speakers and

hearers.

Nevertheless, there is a discourse function specific to transitivity: the management of

perspective for the purposes of thematic coherence. Several aspects of this statement

must be considered. First, what is "perspective" and what relationships does it have to other

levels of grammar? Second, what about perspective is being "managed" and to what effect?

Finally, what specific role does perspective management play for the purposes of thematic









coherence? To begin this discussion, we must start with "thematic coherence" since, at the

level of discourse, this is the ultimate purpose transitivity serves.

3.1.1 Thematic Coherence

Coherence is intuitively understood as the degree of relevance the concepts and

relationships in a text have with regard to one another which permits plausible inference to be

made about underlying meaning (Crystal, 1987:119). Hence, the content of any given clause

should support what has gone before, add to it, and help predict what is to come next. A good

deal of the research in discourse on topicality, for example, investigates the structural cues by

which predictability and continuity are created.

Giv6n gives a somewhat different structural definition of coherence (1995:327): "The

paragraph (or clause-chain) boundary in discourse [is]...where all types of discontinuity cluster-

discontinuities of reference, spatiality, temporality, aspectuality, modality, perspective, etc.

Taken together, they are the visible, measurable manifestations of a single epiphenomenon--

thematic coherence."

According to Giv6n's definition, thematic coherence is understood by language users at

the beginning or endpoint of a sequence of utterances. His claim is quite specific-- we process

coherence at the level of discourse through discontinuity as opposed to cohesion. Cohesion is

the clause-to-clause link which tells the hearer that this stretch of discourse still belongs together.

When cohesion breaks--is made discontinuous--the hearer understands that a new thematic

block is beginning. This is a highly testable claim and one which the transitivity system by and

large supports.

The function proposed for transitivity is that it manages perspective for the purpose of

thematic coherence, and by inference, for the purposes of cohesion. It seems, as will be shown

throughout the chapter, that transitivity at the level of discourse provides a site for the

management of perspective and, as a clause-level system, contributes to both cohesion and

coherence. This cohesion is not created through linking the transitivity of one clause to another,

nor by linking even one transitive clause type to another. The transitivity of any given clause

doesn't "predict" the transitivity of the following clause so much as it predicts the perspective









from which the following clause may be viewed. Transitivity as a semantic system is about the

whole of cognitive events; transitivity at the level of discourse is about the endpoints of events.

Thus my conception of how transitivity works in discourse is similar to what DuBois claims for

Preferred Argument Structure: it is not a discourse structure, per se, but a discourse preference

for syntactic structure (1987:823).

3.1.2 Perspective

The notion that transitivity encodes perspective, or something like it, is not new. Rice

(1987) states as much in a variety of ways--"At heart, transitivity is a linguistic device optionally

employed by a speaker to conceptualize and organize the actions of entities in the world in order

to convey a certain attitude about an overall event to someone else" (p.5), transitivityy is...a

function of a speaker's evaluation of an event" (p.36), and "...transitivity is as much a function of

the content of the event being described as it is of the describer's interpretation of that event"

(p.38). Hopper and Thompson (1980) make a similar claim when they associate transitivity and

foregrounding, particularly as their claim relates to "telic predicates"--those that are bounded by

tense and participants into a single, "whole" event.

Berman and Slobin (1984) provide the most detailed model of clause-level discourse

negotiation in narrative with their four dimensions of event construal. Briefly, event construal

includes the selection of topic, selection of loci of control and effect, selection of event view, and

selection of degree of agency. Selection of topic is essentially the selection of who or what the

clause will be about. Selection of loci of control and effect is the selection of who or what is

actor and undergoer. Berman and Slobin point out, much as Kemmer does, that the topic need

not be the actor; these two choices are distinct. The topic can be either actor or undergoer (in

my terms, Effector or Affected). Selection of event view is the choice of the event-participant

relationship (Cause, Become, State). And selection of agency is how much "motivation loading"

the entire scene is given. To some extent, selection of agency corresponds to my discussion of

asymmetry as it pertains to slanting towards the Effector or Affected participant. These four

dimensions act together in the construction of a clause and have a subsequent effect on what

can follow in discourse. If there is a fault in Berman and Slobin's approach, it is their total









reliance on semantic parameters with little to no explanation for the structural elements which

link clauses. My approach attempts to fill in this gap.

I claimed in Chapter Two that transitivity is the system underlying "event view," which

Berman and Slobin designate with three views Cause, Become, and State. Here, I am proposing

to operationalize what is meant by the attitude, interpretation, or selectional affect of transitivity.

Simply put, the particular transitive clause type chosen frees up or constrains the participant

perspective available in the subsequent clause. In other words, perspective here is not a

loosely defined or intuitive notion but is actually constrained to participant points of view. As we

shall see, each of the four clause types of transitivity in English has certain freeing or

constraining effects as it interacts with other discourse dimensions (similar to, but not the same

as, Berman and Slobin's). But these effects are limited to predictions about participants.

3.1.3 Management of Perspective

According to above discussion, what is being "managed" is the availability of perspective

through participants. Availability in this case encompasses both anaphoric and cataphoric

signals. Anaphorically, for a participant to be recognized as thematically continuous, it must

already be established in discourse and marked accordingly. Cataphorically, for a participant to

be expected to continue, it must be cast in a grammatical form that hearers know mark thematic

importance. In either case, the form some participant takes opens up, closes down, or maintains

the hearer's interpretation that this participant is thematically important.

There are two widely recognized means by which availability is managed. First is the

nominal form the participant takes. Whether something is fully specified or pronominalized,

definite or indefinite, specific or generic gives critical information to the hearer as to the thematic

importance of the participant. The second strategy is clause structure. Participants in main

clauses tend to be more thematic than those in subordinate clauses. Subjects tend to be more

thematic than objects. For the management of perspective via transitivity, both of these

strategies work together with the four clause types to form stable implicatures by which the

hearer may infer which participants and/or events are likely to continue. As we shall see below,

intransitives provide the least discourse constraint, atelic and dispersed provide the greatest










constraint, and telic transitives provide a middle ground by establishing a limited yet robust

choice of viable participants.

3.1.4 The Model in Brief

When discussing thematic coherence above, Giv6n offered several structural means by

which thematic coherence is established: aspectuality, spatiality, temporality, referentiality,

perspective, and so on. He also goes on to warn discourse researchers to keep in mind that the

visible elements encountered are but heuristic measures through which the unseen, theoretical-

cognitive entity--thematic coherence--is known. It is in this spirit the following model is offered.

The particular play of transitivity in English is not itself a universal; at this point, I cannot even

claim typological ramifications. Rather, transitivity as a system instantiated through the four

clause types has a function which serves the needs of thematic coherence. Specifically,

transitivity provides a grammatical-semantic site over which the construal of perspective may

take place. In English, it is the primary clause-level system through which participants are

introduced, maintained, or removed from narrative discourse.

Nonetheless, given the nature of transitivity as a semantic system, it is hardly mysterious

that it should fulfill the duty of perspective manager at the level of discourse. After all, it is the

transitivity system which takes care of the number of participants and their event-driven

relationships. Nor does transitivity, as we shall soon see, act alone. At least three other

discourse elements conspire with transitivity for the purposes of thematic coherence. They are

treated as part of a "multi-variable model of transitivity in discourse" because, in use, it is rather

difficult to separate them from one another.

The four discourse elements to be considered are:

(1) the relative discourse topicality of the participants of a given clause;
(2) perspectival distance;
(3) the four clause types of transitivity;
(4) the "depth" of transitivity given discourse context.

The first element, discourse topicality, assesses how hearers know the topical status of a

given participants. Two factors must be taken into account here, referential specificity and

information value. The first is my term for the degree of referentiality accorded a participant.










Traditionally, we understand this as a continuum from full lexicalization to zero anaphor,

indefinite to definite. For discourse, the degree of referentiality specified for a participant relative

to surrounding participants is a crucial indicator of thematic importance. In a telic transitive, for

instance, the referential specificity of each participant vis-a-vis the other tells the hearer which

participant will likely continue as topic, hence whose perspective is available for comment.

Information value is a more global term, encompassing but not limited to referential

specificity. It was introduced by Chu (1996:5) to explain topic chaining, overt and zero anaphor,

and word order in Chinese. Basically, Chu distinguishes topichood as operating across two

information structure tiers, the source tier and the management tier. The source tier "is

concerned with where a piece of information comes from" and functions to signal relative

giveness and newness to discourse. The information management tier "..is concerned with how

a linguistic form in used in terms of informative value". The management tier incorporates a

scale from High value to Low value. As will be shown, it is the effects of discourse topicality on

the management tier which works with transitivity to manage perspective.

The second discourse element, perspectival distance, is the "ground" against which

transitivity is "figured." That is, since Hopper and Thompson's influential 1980 paper, much has

been said in support of their notion that High transitivity (my telic transitives) communicate

foregrounded information. Most often "foregrounded information" has been interpreted to mean

information on the narrative time-line--information which advances the story forward. A few

researchers, notably Kalmar (1982) have argued otherwise, claiming that where high transitivity

may correlate with time line information, it cannot be said that this is the only foregrounded

information in the text. Some other explanation must be sought.

My answer to this question is "perspectival distance." This is a notion introduced by

Talmy (1993,1996) but used intuitively by many discourse linguists with the reference to the

"camera" effects of clause structure. Perspectival distance refers to the distance from a scene or

event created by a particular linguistic construct. A more distant perspective is created via more

inclusive and indefinite nouns with more stative verbs. A closer distance is created with more










specific nouns and more active verbs. In narrative, the closest distance is direct speech where

participants are most immediately engaged with one another.

As will be shown, perspectival distance provides a better measure of the narrative

structure to which transitivity relates. Each of the clause types suggests a range of perspectival

distance. Cognitively, this range constrains what can happen next by creating boundaries

around the scene thereby limiting the number of potential subsequent actions. At the furthest

point, instantiated by intransitives, perspectival distance is constrained fairly little; it serves more

a framing function, suggesting the general direction participants might go given the schematic

knowledge aroused by the scene. Telic transitives are at a "basic" distance, one encompassing

both participants and the event joining them, but excluding surrounding participants. Atelic and

dispersed correspond with a fairly close perspectival distance, where only one participant "fills

the screen" and time segments are shorter. Thus, it is distance from the event and the discourse

implications therein that transitivity realizes, rather than points on the time-line itself.

The third element of the model, the four clause types, takes into account the previous

two. This section gives a fuller explanation of the four clause types and the kind of perspective-

taking they entail. This section takes both a qualitative and quantitative approach in an attempt

to get a feel for the discourse patterning of the four clause types in English narrative.

The fourth element investigates what transitivity and its alternations mean at the level of

discourse. I am proposing here that discourse puts considerable constraints on the kind of

perspective shifting allowed. Thus, where a telic transitive clause out of context may be fully

capable of passivizing, in context, there are allowed and disallowed instances. When alterations

are permitted, I call this "deep transitivity": perspective-shifting which is allowed from the level of

discourse down through both semantics and syntax. "Shallow transitivity" is when shifting is not

allowed and this has a variety of underlying causes. One final note: in this chapter, examples

which are my own are presented in the same font as the main text. Other authors are presented

in an alternative font-type.










3.2 Discourse Topicality

The question of topicality is widely discussed in the linguistics literature. And while an

intuitive or notional definition is still theoretically unsatisfying, it is not entirely erroneous given

the nature of topicality itself. Like "thematic coherence," topicality is largely an invisible entity, a

"felt" understanding which evolves as the speaker and hearer negotiate text. Certainly, topicality

has its visible, measurable markers (pronouns, zero anaphora, topic-chains, etc.) but these are

the overt, linguistic clues to the unseen cognitive entity. Most importantly, topicality functions as

an anchor within text; only within an understood frame of reference can coherent communication

take place. At the discourse level, topics establish boundaries by eliminating other possible

topics and together with general knowledge arouse sets of expectations on the hearer's part onto

which information is pegged. (For an excellent discussion of approaches to topicality, see

Goutsos, 1997.)

Intuitively speaking, topicality is the quality of being "about" something, wherein the

speaker has established a discourse within which some particular participant, event, or scene is

understood by the hearer to be referred to and/or is expected to continue. Topicality is

established through repeat reference to wholes and to parts of participants, events, or scenes.

Discourse topics are most often established through reference to parts. The hearer has an

expectation of what is going on--a schema or script--and the hearer's understanding of the

speaker's actual discourse topic is created through the negotiation of expectation based on the

schematic knowledge and speaker's actual linguistic cues. Thus, essentially, it is a matter of

inference. In this case, not merely inference, but stable linguistic inference-an expected and

normal part of linguistic competence--hence a matter of implicature.

Topicality has three measurable levels, the clause-level, paragraph or inter-clausal level,

and the discourse level, yet these three levels are not often distinguished in the literature. Most

often, "topic" is defined at the clause-level with the somewhat unenlightening phrase "what the

sentence is about," including descriptors such as the initial element in the sentence, the

proposition about which the speaker is providing more information, or the given elements of the

utterance (Chu, 1983;Gundel, 1988). More satisfying definitions were offered by Chu (1983),










Prince (1981), Chafe (1994), etc. who defined topic in terms of its cognitive status in the

discourse: "Semantically, a topic is definite in the sense that it has to be a particular entity or

event that has already occupied the mind of the speaker and hearer" (Chu, 1983:132). Prince

and Chafe developed models of "activation states" to account for the variety of definite noun

phrases that occur in discourse, including those that the original conceptions of topic could not

account for: I saw a new house today, but I didn't like the kitchen. It was too small/I saw a new

house today, but I didn like the neighborhood. It was too crowded/I wanted to see houses

today, but the realtor wasn't feeling well We have to schedule for next week. In each of these

sentences, the conjunct clause contains a noun phrase which is new to the discourse, occurs in

the site of new information, but is definite and the topic of the next sentence. Prince explains

this through types of inference wherein any nominal excites a field of related terms which are

allowed into the discourse without explicit previous mention. The nominal are all inferrable

from various kinds of pragmatic knowledge. More recently, Prince has proposed discourse-

based degrees of givenness from the perspective of hearer-discourse interaction (1992,

summarized in Chu, 1996):


Hearer Discourse
old old already evoked
old new has not been evoked; speaker believes it's
old to hearer
new new has not been evoked; speaker believes it's
new to hearer
new old has been evoked; speaker believes hearer
is not aware of it

Prince's proposals together have the advantage of covering at least two sources of discourse

information, semantic/pragmatic and discourse-negotiated.

Other distinctions created in discussions of topic include such categories as discourse

topic versus sentence topic. Where Ochs, Keenan, and Scheifflin explicitly identify their topic as

a discourse topic, Lambrecht (1994) claims his discussion is of a sentence topic and is to

explicitly contrast the "focus" of the sentence, which is the new information. But what linguistic

features actually distinguish a "discourse topic" from a sentential topic? Givbn claims the

distinction is quantitative in nature "...the main behavioral manifestation of important topics in










discourse is continuity, as expressed by frequency of occurrence (1984:138). For example,

pronominalization is a direct indication of activation status in discourse; whatever is

pronominalized must be known to both speaker and hearer already. However, this does not

much help in determining topicality in discourses where there are multiple participants. Nor does

it provide a means to distinguish a discourse topic from a sentential topic since that which is

sententially frequent is also important to the discourse.

Chu (1996:5) provides a better explanation of the distinction by proposing instead two

information tiers with different discourse functions, the source tier and the management tier.

"The source tier is concerned with where a piece of information comes from while the

management tier is conceded with how a linguistic form is used in terms of informative value".

For Chu, then, the previous definitions of topic in terms of cognitive activation status are

explanations of the source tier--where the information comes from. Giv6n and Lambrecht's

propositions discuss topic from the perspective of management, what happens to information

once introduced into the discourse.

Another difficulty with Lambrecht's contrast of topic and focus is the conflict arising when a

topical noun receives focal stress as in "Who left the dishes on the coffee table? Your father, of

course"? It would be absurd to claim that "your father" is not a known element. At the same

time, the phrase is clearly the focus element, the "new" information insofar as it is the answer to

the question. Chu (1996:5) also provides an answer to this dilemma by proposing that topic be

understood not simply in terms of given and new information, but functionally as high or low

information value: "A better way to interpret it is whether and to what extent a linguistic form

serves to add information to what has already existed in the repertoire of the hearer/reader".

Chu further proposes that high informative value and low informative value (hereafter, HI-value

and LO-value, respectively) represent a dine of values, not a binary opposition:

LO-value<------------------------------- -----------------------.--. HI-value

subj w/ < subj. w/ < assert. pred. < assert. pred.
given info new info w/ given info w/new info










The discrimination of a source tier and management tier significantly impacts our

understanding of topichood. Much of the work that has been done on sentence-level topics has

dealt with the source tier; and much of the work on that tier has been aimed towards

understanding how various discourse markers such as definiteness are used with "new"

nominal. Chu brings to the table another aspect of discourse structure, the information value of

any given nominal. This concept focuses not on where information comes from, but how it is

used, "managed," in discourse. Further, "information value" allows us to operationalize the

impact of any given nominal by defining "new" information or "focus" as any information which

adds to or amends the state of knowledge of the hearer. Thus, what is "new" in terms of its

source does not have to be high in information value, nor is what is given necessarily low in

information value.

It quickly becomes evident that "source" and "management" work together. In English, it

has been traditionally claimed that given/new distinctions are associated with the subject and

object positions, respectively. When a nominal occurs in the subject position, it is considered to

be the sentential topic, and by definition known to speaker and hearer. By contrast, the nominal

in the object position is the "focus" because it is part of the asserted information. These

correlations hold in default cases; that is, if they are not otherwise challenged. Complications do

arise when texts are investigated.


(I) Uttering a curse in his well-practiced falsetto. Cora swung his blade
and cut down the opposing swordswoman.
"Lady of Steel." Roger Zelazny

(2) She came into my shop with a gash in her thigh and blood seeping
out a wound in her stomach.
"Bra Melting." Janni Lee Simner

(3) "But you don t tax jockstraps!" Mirabel Stonefist glared.
"And the Ladies of the Club," Elizabeth Moon


Each of the texts above not only introduces a new participant, but is the first line of the story. In

fact, it is not unusual to begin a short story in English with the introduction of a new participant










rather than a scene-setting. In these cases, the first appearance of a nominal in the text is also

its first use. Just as givenness alone does not determine information value (information value is

determined by use), neither does the grammatical role determine information value.

In these three excerpts, the new participant is in the subject slot, the site of "given"

information. As stated above, it is also the site of topical information. In other words, one way of

introducing a topical participant into the discourse is to place them in the subject slot, thereby

indicating to the reader the relative importance of the participant. It's as though the participant is

simultaneously being flagged as "new" and "given" at the same time; in fact what is happening is

the participant is being flagged as "new" and topical" at the same time. In terms of source, the

participant is brand-new; in terms of management, the participant is high in information value.

At the same time, not all participants making their first appearance in the object position

of the asserted predicate are HI-value; in fact, many are not. In the Zelazny text, the second

"participant" occurs in the site most frequently associated with High information value: Cora

swung his blade and cut down the opposing swordswoman. According to Chu's management

continuum, this is typically the position of HI-value participants. However, according to Prince's

"source" categories, this participant is contextually inferable. We rather expect as readers that

anyone uttering curses in a well-practiced voice while swinging blades is most likely cutting down

an opponent (as opposed to cutting down trees, for example). That it is a swordswoman is

interesting, but does not hold our attention; though marked with the definite article, the

swordswoman is not mentioned by name, is not specified for the reader. If instead the sentence

read Cora swung his blade and cut down the opposing swordswoman, Hilda we would be

disturbed as readers when the following sentence began with "His contoured breastplate"

referring back to Cora (rather than to Hilda).

We need to explain why participants new to the discourse and subsequently topical may

be used in the subject position when first introduced. And likewise, why participants in the object

slot, such as the opposing swordswoman, are not topical. It's obviously inadequate to label

subject and object positions as merely slots for old and new information respectively. Rather,

there is a collocation of functions for each position which serve to designate information value.









These include referentiality, action schemata, and perspectival distance. (Perspectival distance

will be taken up in greater detail in the following section. Suffice to say here that you should find

low occurrences of "close focus" constructions with new participants unless placed within highly

recognized activities, such as the conversation in (3).)

Giv6n (1995:379) states much the same thing: "The grammatical subject, the clause's

primary topic, code the event participant that is most continuous--both anaphorically and

cataphorically" (emphasis added). Subjects tend to have greater continuity, greater topicality,

head action chains, and have lower information value. Objects tend to have less referential

distance and less topicality but are receivers of action and also tend to have higher information

value. English has worked out a system where participants are referentially coded apart from

grammatical position so that the semantics of an event can play itself out unhampered. I call

this system "referential specificity." Essentially, given two participants, whichever one has a

stronger degree of referentiality is regarded as topical. Degrees of referentiality are assessed on

two scales, the definiteness hierarchy from zero anaphor to generic and the animacy hierarchy.


DEFINITENESS: zero --> I/you --> proper noun --> definite --> indefinite --> generic
ANIMACY: human --> self-instigating animate --> non-self-instigating animate --> inanimate


(4) A headache the size of her healthcare plan--no, better make that the
national deficit--was turning Hillary Rodham Clinton's skull into the
local percussion section.
"Exchange Program." Susan Schwartz

(5) It was shortly after Mrs. Batchett left the planetarium that she saw
the fairy, the elf. and the gnome.
"On the Road of Silver," Mark Bourne


In (4), the two scales work together. A headache, although the Effector, is clearly not the

thematically important participant, for two reasons. First, it is lower in referential specificity

(hereafter, RS) than the second participant-a proper name is higher on the definiteness scale

than an indefinite. Second, it is inanimate and non-human whereas the object is human. Also,

'Hillary Rodham Clinton' is a well-known figure and is occurring in the site typically associated










with High information value. Contrast this sentence with (1), from "Cora." In this opener, the

subject of the sentence is the Effector--the most unmarked of action chains--and is named by a

proper name. The object, while also human and strongly Affected is not named, but referred to

via a definite descriptive noun phrase. Because the Affected participant has a lower RS than the

Effector, the tendency for the object to become the subsequent clausal topic is overruled. Note

that the author could have chosen a combination of atelic transitive and a subordinate clause,

thereby eliminating the coding competition for topic (generally speaking, subordination is a

stronger discourse factor in backgrounding): Uttering a curse in his well-practiced falsetto, Cora

swing his blade forcefully, cutting down the opposing swordswoman. In this sentence, there is no

competition for clause-level topic and no need for RS as a deciding discourse factor.

Example (5) combines an interesting mix of definiteness and clause structure to cue the

reader in on who the topical participants are. Obviously, Mrs. Batchett is the prime candidate for

immediate sentential topic because she is both in the subject position and of higher RS than the

other participants mentioned. On the other hand, the It in the opening phrase It was shortly after

Mrs. Batchett left sets up the reader to expect the situation the pronoun obliquely refers to. As a

result, although the reader knows that Mrs. Batchett is immediately the most important character,

the definite form of the other participants together with the oblique reference at the very

beginning of the story alludes to the later importance of the fairy, the gnome, and the elf. In fact,

these three do play significant roles later in the narrative.

Sentence topics, which can be either events or participants, are also established through

repeat reference to their wholes or parts. Further, it is at the level of the sentence that referential

specificity plays a part in the setting up of hearer's expectations about what is coming next.

Basically, given two participants, whichever has the highest referential specificity is expected to

continue. If both are of equal value, the participant in the object slot is more likely to be topic in

the next sentence because the object is the site of higher information value. However, if both

participants are already established in discourse, then it could be either participant or the event

which gets topicalized for the next sentence.










Finally, the various discourse effects of subject and object, given and new, referential

specificity, and high and low information value all act together to form the "discontinuities" Giv6n

refers to as marking thematic boundaries. When the above factors combine to counter reader

expectations, this is also a signal that a juncture has occurred. The chart below summarizes

these effects. Subject and object are crossed by given/new and higher or lower RS. These

result in information values which then signal various states of thematic continuity and

coherence.

GIVEN/ HIGHER RSI HI-VALUEI
NEW LOWER RS LO-VALUE

HI-Value -- "discontinuity" discourse juncture
SUBJECT NEW HIGHER RS
GIVEN LOWER RS LO-Value "continuity" thematically established


OBJECT NEW HIGHER RS HI-Value "discontinuity" new clausal topic

GIVEN LOWER RS LO-Value "continuity" est. topic continues


Figure 3.1: Referential Specificity, Information Value, and Grammatical Relations


If the subject is new and has a higher RS than the object, then it also has higher information

value and is likely occurring at a discourse juncture (a new paragraph, for instance).

3.3 Perspectival Distance

We've already seen that the narrative time-line is structurally a matter of implicature

rather than a linguistic entity in its own right. We also have shown that events on the time-line

do not have to be telic transitives, but may be atelic and dispersed transitives as well. Yet, there

is certainly evidence indicating that there are textual interactions between transitivity and

narrative. If neither time-line or plot-line are sufficient guides, what else could account for the

regularities observed so far?

Talmy (1994) offers a possibility with his notion of perspectival distance. In essence,

Talmy shows that regularities in certain transformations are most easily explained as a matter of

implied/perceived distance from the event. The further "away" from an event a linguistic










description is cast, the less detail of the event is implied in the description. The "closer" the

linguistic depiction is, the more detail is implied. For example, the following sentences can be

understood not simply as aspectual distinctions, but as a matter of distance from the event.

(6) There was a cat and dog running down the sidewalk.
(7) The cat ran after/chased the dog.
(8) The dog fled.


In (6), the perspectival distance is far away, what I term a "panoramic view." Essentially,

an event is construed as a state; the distance is so far away that the action itself is seen as an

entire picture, a framed Point-Trajectory complex, rather than as movement from one endpoint

to another. From the point of view of discourse, just about anything can follow this kind of

sentence as long as it stays within the very loose constraints imposed by the overall action-in

this scene, that of a neighborhood.


(9) There was a dog and cat running down the sidewalk, children swinging
in backyard playgrounds, and a light playful breeze nipping at the leaves
and swishing little girls' ponytails this way and that.
(10) There was a dog and cat running down the sidewalk. I opened the door
slowly, peeking out again to make sure the coast was clear.
(11) There was a dog and cat running down the sidewalk. Without warning,
a bomb ripped the morning's peace to shreds. No more dog. No more cat.
No more sidewalk.


The perspectival distance in (7) is what I term "basic." Similar to Lakoffs notion of basic

level terms, this is the sort of sentence most often given when someone asks for an example

sentence. There are two endpoints and a trajectory given, but instead of being framed from a

distance, they are framed at the level just enclosing the activity and participants. Often,

additional information is excluded at the level of the clause; if there is additional information

about direction and such, it has a much more "adjunct" interpretation. This is also the level at

which discourse constraints begin to assert themselves. This example includes an Effector and

Affected with equal referential specificity engaged in a purposeful, unilateral activity. It is NOT

the case that just anything may follow this statement. Rather, as will be discussed in the next

section, we expect that the Effector, Affected, or Predication will follow. This is considerably

more constraint than the panoramic view entailed.










(12) The cat chased the dog. The dog scrambled down the sidewalk, yelping
in despair.
(13) The cat chased the dog down the sidewalk. It meowled fiercely as it
closed in on the hapless Rottweiler.
(14) The cat chased the dog down the sidewalk. But it was a humid day
with a baking sun, and the chase ended as quickly as it began.
(15) ? The cat chased the dog. The earth tilted slightly on its axis and
a car backfired in Detroit.


The final perspectival distance I call "close-focus." Essentially, it is as though the

linguistic camera were directly on top of the scene with only a single participant filling the lens.

Time sequence here is very short, a matter of moment-to-moment experience. Discourse

constraints are strong, limited to participants only. Further, only participants set up by discourse

frames or directly entailed by the predicates chosen are allowed. Narratively, close-focus is

often experienced as fast-paced, action-filled, tense, and dramatic sequences of central

importance to the plot. Also, note that with (7), the verb "fled" implies something from which the

dog is fleeing and potentially, something to which the dog flees.


(16) The dog fled. It ran faster and faster until it escaped the cat.
(17) The dog fled. The cat leaped. The dog snarled in fury as
the feline landed on its back. Raising a pad of extended claws,
the cat went to scratch, but too slowly! With a snap, the dog chomped
the proffered paw. And that is how the neighborhood tabby became
known as Tripod Tom.
(18) ? The dog fled. The sun rose. Sally baked chocolate chip cookies for breakfast.


It is obvious at this point that there is a connection between perspectival distance and

transitivity. Panoramic views correlate with intransitives, basic views with telic transitives, and

close-focus with atelic and dispersed transitives. While I am not ready to claim that transitivity is

the encoding of events vis-A-vis linguistic space (as does Langacker, for instance), it is clear that

at the level of discourse, narrative structure can easily be visualized as a matter of distance from

events. The narrative introduction, particularly in longer works, usually begins at a panoramic

distance describing the general scene. Thematic participants and events are introduced through

actions while the narrative proceeds to climactic moments. These are often construed as close-

focus scenes, with all the reader's attention taken up with actions and events portrayed moment-

by-moment. The denouement goes back through the basic level to the panoramic as the scene










or story winds down to a point of resolution. In a novel, this pattern repeats itself again and

again. It is violated to great effect in multi-participant stories where each chapter focuses on a

single thematic character and the middle chapters of the book end in cliffhangers until all the

participants can be brought together in a final resolution.

There is a fourth level of narrative distance I call "immediate." This is the domain of

direct and indirect speech. These two, particularly the former, are the most cognitively involving

aspects of narrative, even though presented in past tense morphology (s/he "said.") Direct

speech has a sense of being close to the present moment, as though the reader where sitting

very near the participants. This may be why in spoken narrative, direct speech so often happens

in the historical present. There is considerable debate about whether direct speech should be

considered a transitive event (see Longacre, 1983). While it is possible to passivize speech

statements (using "was said by him/her" instead of "s/he said"), it is rarely used in practice.

Further, there is better evidence cross-linguistically that direct and indirect speech forms are

formulaic and thus distinct from grammar. I agree that direct and indirect speech are "different"

on several linguistic accounts and probably should not be considered as telic ditransitive events

(passivization implies the rather odd notion that speech is a physical object given to another

participant). As a speech act, direct and indirect speech match up with atelic transitives which

feature a single participant at an extremely close distance. Suffice to say at this point that direct

and indirect speech present a problem this project does not solve. They will not be considered in

the data as events coded by the transitivity system, but as speech acts with cultural expectations

that go along with them. These expectations may interact with transitivity or they may not.

At this level of discourse, it must be remembered that patterns are correlations. In other

words, telic transitives do not mean "basic level perspectival distance." They mean an event

encoded to include both points and the trajectory in a single linguistic unit. The appropriate way

to view this matter is from the perspective of the largest structural unit, the narrative itself.

Narrative structure has a format and induces a set of reader expectations. The author has at his

or her disposal all of the lexical and grammatical options of the language they are writing in.

Certain of these options better fulfill the structural requirements of narrative at its various points.










But as long as the narrative expectations are fulfilled, there is relatively little constraint as to

which option the author chooses. This is, more or less, a linguistic definition of style. It also

helps account for why statistical analyses are useful at the level of discourse. Given a particular

point in a narrative, there is approximately a 70-80% chance of finding structure X. There is a

20-30% likelihood of finding structure Y or Z since both fulfill the structural need in question. It is

simply a matter of conventional expectation and style that determine X, Y, or Z.

Nevertheless, at some point it becomes a "chicken-and-egg question" to ask whether

some given grammatical structure "has" some given discourse function or whether discourse

"makes use" of the semantic/pragmatic potentialities inherent to any grammatical construction.

The whole question is most likely wrong. It is not a matter of what comes first, but a matter of

linguistic ecology. Grammar and discourse have a relationship and to suppose either is more

fundamental is erroneous.

In conclusion, if we separate perspectival distance from time line, and associate

transitivity with the former, we get a more accurate picture of what transitivity accomplishes in

narrative. The time-line is essentially a structural artifact of narrative, created through

implicature by the tense-aspect configurations of successive predications. Perspectival distance

is the linguistic boundaries imposed on a scene at any point in narrative. Transitivity is one

linguistic system available to the speaker for this purpose. The specifics of how transitivity works

to fulfill this function will be taken up in the following section.

3.4 The Four Clause Types of Transitivity

It was claimed in Chapter Two that Endpoint-Trajectory (hereafter P/T) relationships are

expressed by four basic grammatical types in English--intransitive, atelic transitive, telic

transitive, and dispersed transitive (with the caveat that intransitives may be more property

understood as durative, unbounded actions, and states should be considered a

semantic/conceptual case in their own right). This chapter proposes that the discourse function

of P/T relationships is the control of communicative intent through manipulation of perspective.

Simply put, perspective is the participant-event relationship as it operates at the level of

discourse. In terms of grammar, perspective is understood to be the grammatically available










points of view from which a scene/event may be construed. For English, there are three basic

points of view: the Initiating Point, the Ending Point, and the Trajectory itself. Semantically,

these correspond to the Effector, Affected, and Predication, respectively. In terms of clause

structure, the three points of view get played out in the four clause types of transitivity.

For discourse, perspective-taking opens up or closes down participant availability. That

is, given context and transitivity, regular predictions can be made about who or what is coming

next in a text. Each of the clause types of transitivity interact with discourse topicality and

perspectival distance to form the part of the implicatures we recognize as thematic coherence.

3.4.1 Telic Transitives

At the level of discourse, the particular P/T configuration lets the reader know who is

available for perspective shifts or changes. The choice of a configuration either opens up or

limits what can come next. In the broadest sense, given a telic transitive, there are three basic

perspectives that can be appealed to: Effector, Affected, and Predication. In the following

example, the subsequent sentence can topicalize the Effector, Affected, or even the action itself.

Further, for the last option, the sentence can be skewed towards the Effector or Affected

participant or simply comment on the action itself.


(19) John kicked Bill. He punched Bill/him. (Effector)
(20) John kicked Bill. Bill yelped in pain. (Affected)
(21) John kicked Bill. It was a really hard kick. (Predication)
The kick really hurt. (Affected)
The kick was really hard. (Effector)


Even these simple sentences show some interesting things regarding reader

expectation. With sentence (19), where both Effector and Affected have equal referential

specificity (hereafter, RS), it is somewhat awkward to continue the Effector role as topic without

additional maneuverings. Note the sentence reads better if temporal adverbs are added in.

(22) First, John kicked Bill. Next, he punched him.

As stated in the discussion of discourse topicality, if both Effector and Affected are of equal

referential value, the Affected role generally wins the role of topic because of the association of

new information with the object slot. Thus in (19), despite the fact that according to sheer










transitivity both participants and the action are available for topicalization, the likelihood is tipped

away from the Effector role. If the Effector is to continue as topic, then the balance must be re-

shifted somehow. This can be partially done through pronominalization, though with an activity

of such violent energy, pronominalization alone doesn't quite work; the two sentences still don't

"flow." Coherence is better accomplished here through temporal adverbs which make salient the

linear aspect of the activity. In other words, once the reader knows that John "first" did

something, the reader expects to know what John did next. Adverbs impose an overt temporal/

spatial structure on a text, creating strong expectations about what will follow.

The second example, with the Affected taking the topic role, is the most straightforward

and unmarked of the options. Effector and Affected have equal RS and the Affected participant

is the site of highest information value. This role is allowed just about any kind of response,

though; new information is not confined to nominal.


(22) John kicked Bill. Bill yelped in pain.
(23) John kicked Bill. Bill yelped in pain, then kicked him back.
(24) John kicked Bill. Yelping in pain, Bill kicked him back.
(25) John kicked Bill. Bill slugged him.
(26) John kicked Bill. Bill started to cry.
(27) John kicked Bill. Bill stared at him in astonishment.


Obviously, we are confined to our expectations of the scene, the action schemata, a factor

essential to coherence.

(28) ?John kicked Bill. Bill painted flowers.

As a testament to our desire for coherence, many readers of this sentence unconsciously assert

some sort of modifier to make coherence kick in:

(29) John kicked Bill. Bill continued painting flowers.

The addition of "continued" makes the proposition refer back to a previous state which had been

interrupted by John's kick. Even though we don't know what this state is exactly, we are satisfied

that the sentence "makes sense."

The final option that a telic transitive allows is some comment on the Predication itself.

In this case, the term "Predication" includes the whole of what the scene implies. Thus, given










any particular activity, subparts of the activity are available as well as the whole of the activity

itself.


John kicked Bill. Part of Activity/Skewing
(30) The kick was really hard. whole/ Effector
(31) It really hurt. whole/ Affected
(32) It was a really hard kick. whole/ Predication
(33) His foot made hard contact with Bill's shin. subpart/ Effector
(34) His boot swung in a long arc toward Bill's leg. subpart/ Effector
(35) His pants nearly ripped with the effort, subpart/ Effector


The sentences (33) -(35) show two things. First, what is available in terms of Predication is

limited by the action itself and what the reader knows must be the case in the scene. But within

that context, anything is fair game from some comment on the activity to the clothes the Effector

is presumably wearing. Second, when referring to a subpart of the activity, it is very difficult to

skew towards the Affected participant without first topicalizing that participant, or at least re-

mentioning it. The energy of the activity flows from Effector to Affected and thus the subparts of

the activity follow the same path. This is not true for the whole of the activity because by

definition the trajectory in a telic transitive has both an Initiating Point and an Ending Point,

hence both points are available semantically.

Narrative examples of the above points are as follows. In the first one, we see an

example of a telic transitive followed by another telic with the Predication as the thematic

participant of the sentence. The second excerpt shows the case of a telic followed by a clause in

which the object has become the subsequent topic


Uttering a battle-cry in his well-practiced falsetto, Cora swung his
blade and 0 cut down the opposing swordswoman. His contoured
breastplate emphasized features which were not truly present.
"Cora," Roger Zelazny

Polyta stepped over to Colleen and 0 rubbed the dog's head for
comfort. Colleen whined softly in response and 0 rubbed her cheek
against the woman s thigh.
Manannan s Isle, L.S. O'Brien










Excerpt three is a good example of telic transitives working with information value to produce a

text in which the anthropomorphized machines are cast as the villains. The third excerpt also

shows the range of exceptions to which text is prone.

One morning a rumble like thunder woke the little turtle. Men with
steam shovels and bulldozers were working in the clover fields. The
machines pushed over trees. They dug up clover. They tore down hills
and 0 filled up holes. The machines made so much noise that the turtle
couldn't hear the birds or the frogs.
"Little Turtle's Big Adventure," David Lee Harrison

Here, the first sentence sports an indefinite subject acting as Effector on the established

protagonist. The object, the little turtle, has low information value compared to the subject,

which is indefinite, Effector, and occupying the site of thematic continuity. This combination

fairly begs explanation and overwhelms RS as a deciding factor in participant topicality.

It is also interesting to note how similar in effect the semantics and pragmatics of this

construction is to inverse marking in proximate-obviative languages. For example, in Cree, an

Algonquian language, a third-person narrative must consistently mark proximate and obviative

participants. Briefly, the proximate participant is the one whom the reader is intended to keep

track of--it is the changes to the proximate participant which are of greatest concern. All other

participant are morphologically tagged as obviative. Literarily, the obviative encompasses roles

as diverse as "companion," "antagonist," and "narrative prop."

Pragmatically, there is also pressure put on the text to conflate "agent" and "proximate

participant." When this is not possible because the proximate participant is being acted upon,

special morphology is used to signal this: inverse markers. The inverse form is statistically rare

and marks those sentences in which the pragmatics of the proximate-obviative distinction

conflicts with the semantics of the event being communicated. Inevitably, these are points of

high drama during which the proximate participant faces some great challenges to be resolved

throughout the rest of the story.

English marks this kind of conflict as well, though not morphologically. Instead, various

semantic and syntactic structures are used to "re-arrange" the reader's perception of who the

"proximate" and "obviative" characters are. Semantically, this contrast is created through the










amounts and kinds of information given about a participant. The more the reader's knows about

the character's motivations, intention, history, and reactions to a given event, the more likely that

character is playing a "proximate" role. This is the literary protagonist; morphologically marked

in Cree and notionally tagged in English. The antagonist or narrative props are those

participants who act in an English narrative, but whose motivations, intentions, and history are

less known. All in all, the "bad guy" is the least known character in an English narrative.

In the "Turtle" text, these relationships are being established in the first sentence. This is

the second paragraph of the story and provides the motivating event for the conflict the

protagonist must resolve. Grammatically, this sentence features a force working upon the

protagonist. Now, it would have equally felicitous to have written the sentence One morning the

little turtle was awakened by a rumble like thunder. There is no grammatical discontinuity

whatsoever and the event of "waking up" is sufficiently familiar to children to ameliorate the

effects of using a passive. But the pragmatic force of the sentence would be lost; the sentence

as written succeeds in being dramatic and focal precisely because it flouts conventional

expectations of participant relationships. Like the inverse construction in Cree, and indefinite

Effector in English provides information on both the semantic and pragmatic levels of

communication.

3.4.2 Atelic Transitives

Atelic transitives provide the most profound perspective shifts in that they present only

one side of the story, so to speak. Functionally, atelic transitives are important for two reasons:

(1) the introduction of new participants, especially in verbal narratives; (2) close-focus scenes

when the action is presented in very small time periods.

In verbal narratives, DuBois (1987) demonstrates that one-place predicates occur for at

least two reasons, the introduction of new protagonists and semantic necessity. He offers

quantitative evidence from several studies to show that when speakers bring into a text a new

protagonist--a participant who will continue thematically and from whose perspective some part

of the tale is told--they do so overwhelmingly in one-place predicates. Other uses of one-place









predicates are dictated by semantic necessity, he claims. Speakers use them because they

have the right meaning.

In written narrative, the patterns are somewhat different. First, new participants may be

introduced into the text in any number of ways, though the most common are through telic

transitives (where the second participant is of lower RS) and atelic transitives. The atelic

transitive, though, embraces two possibilities. First, the classic scene-setting introduction which

begins with a description of a place and narrows down to a statement about the central

participant. This sort of introduction is the norm in novels and longer short stories, but is also

found in truly "short" short stories as well. The second use is not exactly atelic--the use of

opening conversation. In this case, as stated previously, it is difficult to know whether direct

speech is telic, atelic, or neither. It is most definitely a case of one-sided perspective which is

a feature of atelic transitives. Direct speech also strongly implies a second participant, someone

who is being addressed. What we find with stories that have conversation as their opening lines

is the same use of RS that we find in telic transitives. If one of the two conversationalists has a

higher RS, that participant is interpreted as the topical participant (in narrative terms, the

protagonist; but this is a limiting term since sometimes stories are about more than one person,

and when this is the case, the story is "about" them both, or even about an unseen discourse

topic). If they have equal RS, more of the story must take place to settle the difference. In

some cases, the reader comes to find that both of the participants are topical, and some third

character or some other event intervenes which confirms their equal role.

It is important to note at this point that I am not claiming that transitivity itself has

anything to do with the setting of a protagonist through direct speech. Rather, the fact that

conversation in narrative follows similar patterns as transitivity demonstrates that it is the

discourse functioning of perspective that is the driving force. In both cases, conversation and

clause structure, aspects of topicality are put to use in order to achieve thematic coherence.


"But you don't tax jockstraps!" Mirabel glared.
"No," said the king. "They're a necessity."
"For you. maybe. How do you expect me to fight without my bronze
bra?"










"Men can fight without them," the king said. "It's far more
economical to hire men, anyway. Do you have any idea of what the
extra armor for the women in my army costs? I commissioned a military
cost-containment study, and my advisors said women's uniforms were
always running over budget." The king smirked at the queen, on her
throne a few feet away, and she smirked back. "'I've always said the
costs to society are too high if women leave their family and
responsibilities--
"We'll see about this." Mirabel said. She would like to have seen
about it then and there, but the king's personal guards--all male this
morning, she noticed--looked too alert.

"And the Ladies of the Club," Elizabeth Moon


The above text is the opening paragraphs of the story. Two things establish Mirabel's

place as topical participant. First, she has highest RS; her proper name is used while both the

king and queen, participants of greater social power than Mirabel's, are named only through

definite reference. Second, Mirabel is grammatically topicalized in the final paragraph through

repeated pronominal reference. The king, on the other hand, though he is the second

conversationalist, never gets pronominalized and is consistently marked as a non-topical

participant because of this.

The next examples are taken from the opening lines of Star Trek: New Frontier, a series

of four novellas. All four books are related to one another not only by use of characters and

setting, but through close chronology. The four smaller books are in essence one long story.


Book One. House of Cards
Falkar regarded the remains of his troops and, as the blazing Xenex sun
beat down upon them. 0 decided to wax philosophical about the situation.
"It is not uncommon to desire killing a teenager," he said. "However, it is
not often that one feels the need to send soldiers to do the job."

Book Two, Into the Void
Elizabeth Paula Shelby, gaped at Admiral Edward Jellicoj. Hej could
not have gotten a more stunned reaction out of heri if he'd suddenly
ripped off hisj own face and revealed himself to be a Gorn wearing an
exceptionally clever disguise.










Book Three. The Two-Front War
"1 want to blow those bastards out of space." 0
The Excahbur had just been rocked by the opening salvo from the
black-and-silver ship that hung 100.000 kilometers to starboard.

Book Four. End Game
The refugees from the Cambon bleated in fear as they were herded into
a large auditorium. Pacing the front of the room was the woman whom
they knew to be Laheeraj...apparently, a high muck-a-muck in the
hierarchy of the world of Nelkar. Shej looked at them angrily, her fury
seeming to radiate from her in such a manner that is measurable by
instrumentation


The first excerpt begins with a telic transitive, though a fairly "shallow" one. It wouldn't

be grammatically impossible for this sentence to passivize, however it would be highly unlikely,

given the overall context. It is the opening sentence, the subject of the sentence is the Effector,

and the object is of lower RS. The reader expects that Falkar is the topical participant and this is

the case.

The second excerpt begins with, according to Rice (1987), a prepositional telic transitive.

Again, the sentence could grammatically passivize (though there is greater disagreement among

native speakers with prepositional telics). Further, should the sentence passivize, the following

sentence could still be used and would still make sense. This is an example of "deep"

transitivity. Nevertheless, the author has chosen to go with a straightforward telic with equal

participant RS, skewing reader expectations towards the object. And this is precisely what

happens. The following sentence features Jellico as sentential topic, albeit it in a somewhat

unusual example of dispersed transitivity-the path aspect is construed across the "mental"

domain which encompasses both intellectual and emotional states. Two features of thematic

coherence are preserved. First, the greater thematic continuity of topic is retained; even though

Shelby is not the subject of the second sentence, the statement is still about her reactions, not

his. Second, intra-clausal cohesion is maintained by following the pattern expected of telic

transitives with equal RS. Jellico does become the subject of the following sentence. In fact, the

author has made very effective use of the competing motivations of the subject and object roles

in English.










The third excerpt appears misleading until it is remembered that this is a series of books

in close chronological succession. Book Two ends on a cliff-hanger; Book Three begins

precisely where Two leaves off. Book Three begins with direct speech from Captain MacKenzie,

who is the central participant of the series; the four books are about him. Thus there is no

reference to him as speaker. Rather, the reader picks up the story just after the ship has been

hit. The passive used in the second sentence places MacKenzie's ship, the Excalibur, as topical

participant, the receiver of the action and also the object of the reader's sympathies. The

narrative continues from there. It is also clear here that scenes need not begin with any

particular kind of transitive clause. Functionally, the scene must begin and narrative exploits a

number of possible ploys to do so.

The fourth excerpt is an example of the atelic introduction. Although the reader knows

all the participants involved, Book Four begins at a new place (unlike Book Three). The

refugees are established as the topical participant with an atelic clause joined to a subordinate in

which they are the subject of a passive. Recall that with a telic transitive, any of the three

possible topicalizations are available: Effector, Affected, Predication. The same holds for the

passive which is simply a telic transitive with a topicalization switch. Thus, aspects of the scene

which are available include who is doing the herding of the refugees. That is what comes next.

The refugees are herded into an auditorium, information which is offered in the same clause.

Thus it is unlikely that the environment the scene is taking place in will be topicalized. The next

participant who is introduced is Laheera, whom the reader knows is the "bad guy" behind the

current troubles. She is still presented from the refugees' point of view; they as yet do not

understand that she is the antagonist. Hence she is consistently spoken of in either the passive

(sustaining the implication that she is the subject of someone else's actions/attention) or with

telic transitives, thereby keeping the refugees as part of the scene.

We have seen in the above texts that the task of introducing participants and managing

perspective takes place in narrative via a number of devices. Among those devises are the telic

and atelic transitive. Atelic transitives also serve a second function. DuBois states that one-

place predicates are also used when they are semantically appropriate. Even so, atelics serve a




Full Text
1.3.1 Verb-Oriented Theories of Transitivity
Verb-centered theories of transitivity are the most traditional and well-known. These
construe transitivity as a matter of predicate argument structure identifying particularly the role of
the verb and direct object: a verb is transitive if it requires a direct object or if there is a direct
object present. Early theories didn't discriminate among types of verbs nor classify according to
grammatical alternations; any verb which required some kind of object was transitive. Thus, a
representative definition would be a transitive verb denotes an action which passes over from
the doer of the action to the object of it" but an intransitive verb denotes a state or simple action
without any reference to an object" (Curme, 1947: 22-23; emphasis added). Curme included
reflexive verbs with the transitive, stating simply that the receiver and doer happen to be the
same person. Other examples include We make fudge, I remember Tony well, or She has no
brothers and sisters (Long,1961 as cited in Rice,1987). More recent theorists, though, do classify
verbs according to type and recognize that different types correlate with different grammatical
behaviors. Thus, we have action verbs, state verbs, process verbs, psychological verbs,
reflexive verbs, verbs with cognate objects, etc., or the aktionsart classes: state, activity,
achievement, and accomplishment (Vendler,1967; Dowty,1979; Van Valin,1993). Moreover, the
definition of transitivity vis--vis these verbs has developed so that only those that passivize are
recognized as "fully" transitive, or in some cases, verbs are categorized as transitive and sub
categorized as also passivizable.
Nevertheless, the syntactic approach to transitivity is not limited to traditional
grammarians. Indeed, this approach finds representation in both current formal and functional
approaches. Configurational and structural approaches championed by Chomsky (1981) and
most recently by Hale and Keyser (1985) define transitivity as a derivative of the syntactic or
semantic configuration of the sentence. In the Aspects model, a verb is transitive because it
subcategorizes for a noun phrase. A verb which has both transitive and intransitive instantiations
would be marked exceptional. In the Government-Binding model, a verb is transitive because it
binds its direct object via government relations. Although Hale and Keyser do allow extra-


122
topic is secure from pronominal use. Immediately, the reader encounters information which
expands" their knowledge of the topic: all of them, intentional and goal-directed, although
execution of several is undoubtedly subconsciously controlled. The reader knows then,
that the topic is speech acts" and that speech acts are characterized by being intentional, goal-
directed, but subconsciously controlled. In and of itself, this information is not that different from
the kind of information one encounters with a newly Introduced or re-introduced topic in
narrative:
The dragon swooped once more lower than ever, and as he turned and dived down
his belly glittered white with gems-but not in one place.
The Hobbit, Tolkien
In this passage, the dragon is both subject and topic (re-introduced, which Is why it can easily be
both subject and topic), Its the dragons activities about which the reader is being informed, and
the author has even introduced a conflictive conjunction, much as in the speech acts" line
above. What the reader knows about the dragon is that It is swooping, diving, and glittering all
over except In one place.
The difference in terms of organization of information Is subtle. For the narrative piece,
it is the activities on the narrative time-line which drive the text forward. In the expository text,
though, it is not activities which organize but adverbials qualifying the topic. "Intentional" and
goal-directed" are not activities, but qualities of the topic the reader is to add to their current
state of knowledge. Similarly, the reader is to further understand that the activity controlling this
linguistic behavior (nominalized in the execution of several") Is subconsciously controlled,
information which further qualifies the nature of the qualities mentioned above. The
relationships among the information is similarly signaled. First, the simple use of the comma
with no intervening semantic bit indicates a simple additive relationship, whereas the use of
although adds a semantic quality to the new information. Thus, in terms of overall
organization, the new information does not create any kind of linear progression but rather a
constellation of information about the topic.
(2)-(3) First, hej performs what the English philosopher J.L. Austin (1962) called a
phonetic actproducing the articulation of tongue, jaw, diaphragm, larynx, and so on that


75
The discrimination of a source tier and management tier significantly impacts our
understanding of topichood. Much of the work that has been done on sentence-level topics has
dealt with the source tier; and much of the work on that tier has been aimed towards
understanding how various discourse markers such as definiteness are used with new"
nominis. Chu brings to the table another aspect of discourse structure, the information value of
any given nominal. This concept focuses not on where information comes from, but how it Is
used, managed," in discourse. Further, information value" allows us to operationalize the
impact of any given nominal by defining new" information or focus" as any information which
adds to or amends the state of knowledge of the hearer. Thus, what is new" in terms of Its
source does not have to be high in information value, nor is what Is given necessarily low in
information value.
It quickly becomes evident that source" and management" work together. In English, it
has been traditionally claimed that given/new distinctions are associated with the subject and
object positions, respectively. When a nominal occurs in the subject position, it is considered to
be the sentential topic, and by definition known to speaker and hearer. By contrast, the nominal
In the object position is the focus" because it is part of the asserted information. These
correlations hold in default cases; that Is, If they are not otherwise challenged. Complications do
arise when texts are investigated.
(1) Uttering a curse in his well-practiced falsetto. Cora swung his blade
and cut down the opposing svvordswoman.
Lady of Steel, Roger Zelazny
(2) She came into my shop with a gash in her thigh and blood seeping
out a wound in her stomach.
Bra Melting, Janni Lee Simner
(3) "But you don't tax jockstraps! Mirabel Stonefist glared.
And the Ladies of the Club, Elizabeth Moon
Each of the texts above not only introduces a new participant, but is the first line of the story. In
fact, it is not unusual to begin a short story In English with the introduction of a new participant


2
manipulable-i.e., amenable to transmission, storage, and processing-- and that its absence
would render content an intractable agglomeration" (Talmy, 1988:196).
"Unifying contentful material" at the sentence level, though, is insufficient; the result
would be an intractable agglomeration of individual grammatical constructions. In order to
achieve coherence through time (a factor critical to successful communication), the grammatical
structures themselves must be organized. This is one function of discourse structure; the
structural organization of grammatical constructions for the purpose of managing information
flow through text and time. This study, too, will examine a structural system, transitivity, with
respect not only to its referential meaning at the sentence level but to its communicative and
contextual functions through time and text.
Transitivity has enjoyed a resurgence of interest in response to functional inquiry. There
have been at least two major functions proposed for transitivity; first, the sentence-level coding
of events (Langacker, 1990; Rice, 1987; Givn, 1993:vol.1) in which transitivity is described in
terms of coding participants and action/event relationships; second, the discourse-level coding of
grounding (Hopper and Thompson, 1980; DuBois, 1987; Givn, 1995) in which transitivity codes
foregrounded information and manages information flow In connected texts. Both viewpoints
use much of the same theoretical apparatus (energy flow, attention, framing, agency, etc.)
though neither has been set vis-a-vis the other in a clearly explicated manner. Transitivity
provides fertile ground for such an examination as it appears to extend to both levels" of
linguistic exploration: the local, particular grammatical instantiation of any referent scene and
the connection of that instantiation with others of its kind. The explicit purpose of this study is
to distill from the various claims made about transitivity what this relationship might be.
Theoretical approaches to transitivity can be roughly classified along three dimensions:
verb-oriented, clause-oriented, and extra-clause oriented. In the first, transitivity is understood
mainly as a property of verbs. In the second, it is a property of logical propositions or events. In
the third, transitivity is a matter of perspective or speaker construal (though in practice, it is often
difficult to separate semantics and pragmatics of the various approaches). Within each
dimension, theorists employ a variety of devices to account for transitivity, and while


44
also interpretable as the party not responsible for the change Is linguistically verifiable by
grammatical behavior of components which are construed as both affected and responsible in
some manner, ie. the gef-passlve in English, reflexive constructions, and middle constructions.
Thus, in the structure of events, several components are basic which find themselves coded by a
variety of linguistic expressions (none of which should rightfully be called more basic or
prototypical than the other):
(1) The Trajectory Component
This component is part of two based in the notion of caused, other-caused, or non-
caused motion begun in the perception of biologically and non-biologically rooted motion
(Mandler, 1991). It is where the notion "unilateral activity in transitivity originates.
(2)-- The EndPoint/s Component
This is the second part of the two bases in the various notions of caused motion.
Basically, the motion is seen in its relationship to where it begins and where it ends (hereafter
distinguished as Starting point and Ending point, respectively). This is ultimately where the
conceptual notions of causation, intention, and responsibility originate since these are the
various semantic/pragmatic perspectives ascribable to the endpoints involved. Thus,
linguistically, this is also where such notions as agent and "patient evolve from.
(1) + (2) = (3)-- The EndPoint and Trajectory Complex
These two together act as the basis of Event Structure (Croft, Langacker, Lakoff,
Kemmer, Rice, Mandler, Talmy). However, contrary to the claims of Rice and Givn, the
particular combination of two endpoints plus a unilateral trajectory Is not more basic than any of
the other combinations. Thus, I am following Croft and Kemmer who propose that there are a
range of possible prototypes which in turn are coded by a variety of linguistic expressions each
with a probable most typical" or canonical" form. Berman and Slobin (1994), Slobin (1994),
Talmy (1991), and Hopper (1991) among others imply as much with their particular
interpretations. Slobin (inter alia) recognizes three basic event types to Event Construal: Cause,
Become, and State. Talmy shows that typologically, different languages convey endpoint +


3.1.4 The Model in Brief 69
3.2 Discourse Topicality 72
3.3 Perspectival Distance 79
3.4 The Four Clause Types of Transitivity 83
3.4.1 Telic Transitives 84
3.4.2 Atelic Transitives 88
3.4.3 Intransitives/Durative Transitives 95
3.4.4 Dispersed Transitives 96
3.5 Deep and Shallow Transitivity 99
3.6 Quantitative Patterns 103
3.7 Concluding Remarks 105
4 TRANSITIVITY IN EXPOSITORY TEXT 107
4.1 Opening Remarks 107
4.2 Towards a Linguistic Definition of Expository Text 108
4.2.1 Narrative versus Expository Text 108
4.2.1.1 Differences 108
4.2.1.1.1 Theme 109
4.2.1.1.2 Linkage 111
4.2.1.2 Similarities 115
4.2.1.2.1 Argument Line 115
4.2.1.2.2 Illocutionary Force 117
4.3 Topic-Comment Structuring in Expository Text 119
4.3.1 The Role of Adverbial Expressions: Continuation Spans. 120
4.3.2 The Role of Transitivity in Expository Text: Transition
Spans 126
4.3.2.1Transitivity and topic-switching 126
4.32.2 Micro-texts and bridge spans 127
4.3.3 Bridge Spans and Transitivity 131
4.3.4 Passives in Expository Text 134
4.4 Concluding Remarks: Topic-Comment Structuring and Asymmetry 137
5 TRANSITIVITY: CREATIVITY AND CONSTRAINT 139
5.1 Summary of Results 139
5.2 Final Remarks 143
BIBLIOGRAPHY 146
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 153
v


121
The following excerpt from Georgia Green exemplify this use particularly well. The excerpt
was taken at random from the book Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding (Green,
1989:64). Following the excerpt, a Ilne-by-llne analysis examining the role of adverbials
expression will commence.
Speech Acts and Illocutionary Force
When James says, We're adopted,' in the passage quoted above, he
performs, simultaneously, a number of different kinds of SPEECH ACTS,
all of them intentional and goal-directed, although the execution of several
Is undoubtedly subconsciously controlled. First, he performs what the
English philosopher J.L Austin (1962) called a phonetic act-producing the
articulation of tongue, jaw, diaphragm, larynx, and so on that results in
connected speech sounds. Presumably, the goal of the phonetic act is to
produce an acoustic object that the addressee (Gram) will recognize as
speech sounds (and not, e g., as involuntary vocalizations such as belches
or sneezes). Simultaneously, and by means of the phonetic act, James
performs the act of uttering linguistic expressions, producing a series of
tokens of forms according to the grammar of a certain language, and with a
certain intonation (Austin's 'phatic act'), with the intention that it be
recognized as belonging to that language. At the same time, in order that
his utterance be recognized as connected discourse about some
proposition, James performs the acts of referring (with we), and predicating
(with re adopted) intending the forms he uses to be taken as referring to
individuals, actions, events, and so forth, according to the conventions of
the language and culture of the community he shares with the addressee
(Austin's 'rhetic act').
The Speech Acts" text is so-called because "speech acts" is the topic of the paragraph.
This is linguistically marked in two ways. First, by the capitalization of the phrase, indicating the
author is giving salience to it. This is not unlike a topicalization structure, except that it marks a
standard sentence with focal stress via the use of media. In other words, if the text were spoken
out loud, say as a lecture, the lecturer would know at this point to use emphatic stress. Second,
the remainder of this sentence and the following sentences have a particular relationship back to
this topic, marked as discussed below.
(1) When Jamesj says, Were adopted,' in the passage quoted above, he performs,
simultaneously, a number of different kinds of SPEECH ACTS¡, all of them¡ intentional and
goal-directed, although execution of several is undoubtedly subconsciously controlled.
After the introduction of the theme via the title of the passage, a different kind of
organization begins which Is quite distinct from that of event-driven discourse. Knowledge of the


CHAPTER THREE
TOWARDS A MULTI-VARIABLE DISCOURSE MODEL OF TRANSITIVITY IN ENGLISH
3.1 Opening Remarks
Transitivity has long been labeled a complex phenomenon. Indeed, Chapter Two
demonstrated as much at the clause level. The transitivity system is sensitive to the
conceptualization of events, the dynamics of participant semantics, and the communicative
intent of the speaker.
The discourse functioning of transitivity is no less complex, though this complexity arises
more from the interaction of several elements than through the quality of transitivity alone. That
is, just as identifying the semantic responsibilities of the transitivity system entailed teasing out
that which properly belongs to transitivity" and that which is part of a different system (tense, for
instance), the discourse functioning of transitivity requires the same discriminating eye. DuBois
makes a similar claim: sometimes choosing an intransitive was a matter of meaning,
sometimes a matter of discourse (1987:831-832). The same can be said of the transitivity
system in general Care must therefore be taken not to become too absolute in the assigning of
a "function" to any particular transitive clause. Sometimes a telic transitive is just a telic
transitive. It is only in combination with other discourse elements that transitivity makes its
contribution to the clause as a whole, and by extension, to the discourse needs of speakers and
hearers.
Nevertheless, there is a discourse function specific to transitivity: the management of
perspective for the purposes of thematic coherence. Several aspects of this statement
must be considered. First, what is perspective" and what relatlonship/s does it have to other
levels of grammar? Second, what about perspective is being "managed and to what effect?
Finally, what specific role does perspective management play for the purposes of thematic
65


138
Unlike transitivity, which names the potential topics and dresses them in different
grammatical garb depending on information importance, Topic-Comment structuring succeeds
by disguising potential rivals for topichood. In an expository text, the theme, even if known
outright, is still an emergent grammatical phenomenon, arising not simply through explicit
mention but by persistent non-mention of other possibilities. Nominalization is carefully
controlled by the use of adverbial expressions so that the theme is never lost in the blizzard of
information otherwise available in even the cleanest academic prose. Like transitivity in
narrative, Topic-Comment structuring serves to signal to reader where and how attention should
be focused.
We have seen in this chapter a variety of uses for transitivity in expository text, almost
all of which occur in transition spans. Thus a neat sort of balance is maintained between
narrative and expository discourse. So often cast as opposites, in fact they emerge as
complementary structures. However, this relationship is not notional in character, but one of
form. It is not the case the narrative micro-texts are necessarily telling little stories, but that the
transitive surface forms commonly associated with narrative signal off-line information in
expository text. Even where transitivity does seem to be the organizing clause structure in
expository discourse, these sections consistently mark transition points, though at a level of
information structure higher than the clause.
Finally, this chapter also makes clear the strong need for a more rigorous and
theoretically satisfying account of macro- and micro- information structuring in expository text.
Much less is understood about how language operates in non-narrative communication than is
understood about the linguistic nature of telling of stories. This chapter has barely scratched the
surface of this study. Topic-Comment structuring is a far-reaching phenomenon which bears
further investigation. Just as transitivity has been shown to have effects in non-narrative
discourse, so too, Topic-Comment structuring might have effects in non-expository text.


87
Excerpt three is a good example of telic transitives working with information value to produce a
text in which the anthropomorphized machines are cast as the villains. The third excerpt also
shows the range of exceptions to which text is prone.
One morning a rumble like thunder woke the little turtle. Men with
steam shovels and bulldozers were working in the clover fields. The
machines pushed over trees. They dug up clover. They tore down hills
and 0 filled up holes. The machines made so much noise that the turtle
couldn't hear the birds or the frogs.
"Little Turtle's Big Adventure." David Lee Harrison
Here, the first sentence sports an indefinite subject acting as Effector on the established
protagonist. The object, the little turtle, has low information value compared to the subject,
which is indefinite, Effector, and occupying the site of thematic continuity. This combination
fairly begs explanation and overwhelms RS as a deciding factor in participant topicality.
It is also interesting to note how similar in effect the semantics and pragmatics of this
construction is to inverse marking in proximate-obviative languages. For example, in Cree, an
Algonquian language, a third-person narrative must consistently mark proximate and obviative
participants. Briefly, the proximate participant is the one whom the reader is intended to keep
track ofit is the changes to the proximate participant which are of greatest concern. All other
participant are morphologically tagged as obviative. Literarily, the obviative encompasses roles
as diverse as companion," antagonist," and narrative prop.
Pragmatically, there is also pressure put on the text to conflate agent and proximate
participant." When this is not possible because the proximate paricipant is being acted upon,
special morphology is used to signal this: inverse markers. The inverse form is statistically rare
and marks those sentences in which the pragmatics of the proximate-obviative distinction
conflicts with the semantics of the event being communicated. Inevitably, these are points of
high drama during which the proximate participant faces some great challenges to be resolved
throughout the rest of the story.
English marks this kind of conflict as well, though not morphologically. Instead, various
semantic and syntactic structures are used to re-arrange" the readers perception of who the
proximate" and obviative" characters are. Semantically, this contrast is created through the


LD
lift O
\Q92>
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
3 1262 08556 6809


116
increasingly clear that in order to account for states of knowledge as they are negotiated in
discourse, and signaled by various structural cues, linguistics will need to develop more
sophisticated accounts of the notional structure of texts. This is required both on the macro-level
encompassing concepts like script" (Schank, 1973; Jones, 1977; Longacre, 1983; Yule, 1995)
and schema" (Yule, 1995; Givn, 1994), as well as on more local levels (Longacre, 1983; Mann
and Thompson, 1987,1988; Berman and Slobin, 1994). Certainly, Longacre, Jones, Goutsos,
and Berman and Slobin contend that surface structure cannot be understood apart from notional
structure, and all of them put a great deal of effort into constructing models of how these
relationships work. The general conclusion seems to be that if surface structure encodes
information structure, then there should be an information structure to be encoded.
Since this project is not trying to build a model of expository text as such, the entirety of
the above works is not necessary. What will be used, though, are two principle insights. First,
expository discourse-like narrativehas a main event line" carrying the thematic load of the
text. For expository, I shall call this the argument line" (a term sometimes used by Longacre).
Second, linguistic information is organized broadly in two domains: through time and in space.
The former is what Goutsos explicitly identifies as the sequential relationships and strategies
borne of the fact that human beings produce and process language through time. The latter is
implicit in all discourse and information studies. While we process language through time, the
semantic and pragmatic information communicated therein is (often) non-linear in nature. There
is considerable psycholinguistic evidence that language is stored in networks and linguistic
models of information structure bear this out. As is no doubt obvious by now, these two
complementary domains are present in all forms of linguistic communication, and may be
considered parametric as well. Some text types, such as narrative, show greater structural
leanings towards linear organization while others, such as expository, show the same tendency
towards non-linear organization. These notions will be taken up in greater detail and
exemplified in the section Transitivity and Expository Text" below.


54
This list further substantiates the idea that given an event, the whole of the event is conceptually
available but certain highly relevant, highly predictable relationships are the ones that actually
become lexicalized items.
Is there anything in our discussion so far which might explain or provide an
organizational umbrella for the behavior described above? I believe the cognitive relationship of
asymmetry, as discussed by Rice but made linguistically relevant by Slobin, may be the answer.
Slobin (1973) makes strong arguments for the cognitive impact of asymmetry as a basic
organizing principle in human beings. Infants very quickly show a preference for asymmetrical
relationships such as handedness. Other infant studies show surprise responses can be
provoked when certain basic asymmetrical relationships are violated. Further, one of the
hallmarks of linguistic sophistication in terms of narrative is the degree to which speakers can
differently construe cause-effect relationships among events (Berman and Slobin, 1994). Less
mature narrators tend to string events together using a simple conjunctive and." As speakers
mature, they form hierarchical relationships in the narrative, beginning with simpler causal chains
(and then he did x because...), gradually incorporating the sophisticated tense/aspect and lexical
complexes" we associate with adult narration.
Loosely speaking, this language development is understood by these authors as a
manifestation of our cognitive predisposition towards asymmetry. Lexically, asymmetry
manifests itself in the sort of relationships discussed by Bybee, Langacker, and Weirzbecka.
Lexical choice has an effect on transitivity insofar as any verb is skewed" towards one end of
the Effector-Affected continuum. Those verbs which include both the source and goal
semantically, generally speaking, participate in telic transitive clauses. Those skewed strongly to
either Effector or Affected result in atelic transitives. Thus "perceptual-cognitive salience" of a
verb may be partially defined as the degree to which the lexical item is skewed towards the
affected participant in an action. Halliday (1985) suggests as much himself when he claims the
transitivity alternations in English are less a matter of inherent meaning than whether the event
was viewed from the perspective of the source or the goal.


79
Finally, the various discourse effects of subject and object, given and new, referential
specificity, and high and low Information value ail act together to form the discontinuities Givn
refers to as marking thematic boundaries. When the above factors combine to counter reader
expectations, this Is also a signal that a juncture has occurred. The chart below summarizes
these effects. Subject and object are crossed by given/new and higher or lower RS. These
result In Information values which then signal various states of thematic continuity and
coherence.
GIVEN/
HIGHER RSI
HI-VALUE /
NEW
LOWER RS
LO-VALUE
Hl-Value "discontinuity" discourse juncture
LO-Value "continuity" thematically established
Hl-Value "discontinuity" new clausal topic
LO-Value "continuity" est. topic continues
Figure 3.1: Referential Specificity, Information Value, and Grammatical Relations
If the subject is new and has a higher RS than the object, then it also has higher information
value and Is likely occuring at a discourse juncture (a new paragraph, for Instance).
3.3 Perspectival Distance
Weve already seen that the narrative time-line is structurally a matter of Impllcature
rather than a linguistic entity in Its own right. We also have shown that events on the time-line
do not have to be telle transitives, but may be atellc and dispersed transitives as well. Yet, there
is certainly evidence Indicating that there are textual Interactions between transitivity and
narrative. If neither time-line or plot-line are sufficient guides, what else could account for the
regularities observed so far?
Talmy (1994) offers a possibility with his notion of perspectival distance. In essence,
Talmy shows that regularities in certain transformations are most easily explained as a matter of
Implled/perceived distance from the event. The further away" from an event a linguistic
NEW
HIGHER RS
GIVEN
LOWER RS
NEW
HIGHER RS
GIVEN
LOWER RS


Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree
THE ASYMMETRY PRINCIPLE:
A FUNCTIONAL INVESTIGATION OF TRANSITIVITY AND TOPIC-COMMENT
STRUCTURING IN ENGLISH
By
Michelle Suzanne Schafer
August, 1998
Chairman: Dr. Chauncey Chu
Major Department: Linguistics
Current models of transitivity have been based on the examination of isolated sentences
or text taken almost exclusively from the genre of narrative. The result has been the confusion
of transitivity with linguistic features particular to narrative. This confusion has found its way into
both prototype models of transitivity and discourse-functional approaches. To ameliorate this
situation, this project extended the investigation of transitivity into the genre of expository text.
Narrative texts were first examined to determine what might properly be called transitivity" and
what was actually a linguistic property of narrative. Then, texts were examined to determine the
function of transitivity in narrative. Finally, expository texts were examined to determine if first,
the model proposed to account for the data in the investigation of narrative would extend to
expository text and second, if transitivity functioned differently in expository text. A model of
transitivity is proposed which better accounts for the surface realization of transitivity by limiting
prototype effects to four sentence types found in English: the telic transitive, the atelic transitive,
the dispersed transitive, and the intransitive ordurative transitive. Second, a functional model is
proposed which shows that in narrative, transitivity is a continuation device which contributes to
the management of perspective; in expository text, transitivity is a transition device which
creates bridges from one span of text to another. Overall, this study demonstrated that while
vii


127
The first of the above examples, he performs...a number of different kinds of SPEECH
ACTS, is not only a telic transitive, but discourse-pragmatically, it is a deep transitive as well.
Thus, if the sentence were passivized, no meaningful difference would result in terms of
subsequent organization: a number of different SPEECH ACTS were performed. Each of the
following sentences could maintain their form. The same cannot be said of the rest of the
sentences, each of which would be less acceptable passivized. This is very much analogous to
the situation found in narrative. Telic transitives are also deep transitives only at points of
transition. This occurs at major junctures in text; at those point of topic changes, not merely
subtopic switches.
The other three sentences each follow the parallel form of the first, copying some part of
the information already known and introducing the next subtopic in the object, or Affected," slot.
Each of these sentences follows the structure of the first; hence, they are parallel to one another.
Recall that the telic transitive leaves open the possibility of three choices: Effector, Affected,
and Predication. The use of parallelism enhances reader comprehension by increasing the
predictably of the actual topic of each clause.
The use of telic fransitivity in this paragraph is not really one producing event-driven"
discourse. Rather, the repeated parallel use of the same Effector and Predication, James
performs..., signals to the reader that this sentence is serving a particular function with regards to
the expository purpose of the text. In each use of the sentence, a new aspect of the topic is
introduced. Thus, on the one hand, the basic function of telic transitivity is exploited: the
management of participant perspective. On the other hand, the information structure formed is
not one of linear succession. Instead, as the analysis in 4.3.1 above demonstrates, what
emerges despite the persistent use of a telic transitive is a constellation of information which
points back to and expands upon the theme, the performance of speech acts".
4.3.2.2 Micro-texts and bridge spans
Longacre provides an important discussion of embedded discourse types (1983:13-14).
Basically, while there are surface structures and communicative purposes which define a


41
one grammatical system through which these dimensions are realized. This represents a
departure from Rice (1987) who seems to claim that transitivity is the underiying system" which
is realized verbally: ...transitivity [can be] viewed as a continuous phenomenon and as a
phenomenon (or as a family of phenomena ranging across different cognitive domains) that can
be explained in an essentially non-linguistic way" (7). My claim is that Event construal and its
dimensions are the underlying, preverbal system, and transitivity is one of the linguistic systems
instantiating them. Other options, as discussed by Berman and Slobin, include, for instance, the
lexical system which provides means for expressing degree of agency, as with adverbs such as
unintentionally and deliberately" which modify the interpretation of the event through non-
grammatical means
Specifically, it is my claim that transitivity realizes the selection of Event view. Event
view refers to the cognitive perspectives on events, rather than to verbs" (Berman and Slobin,
519). Berman and Slobin identify three choices for event view: Cause, Become, and State. In
Cause view, the event is represented with an actor who causes a change of state in the
undergoer (Berman and Slobin make use of Van Valins macrorole terms, actor and undergoer,
as mentioned in Chapter One). In the Become view, a change of state takes place without
mention of external force. For the State view, reference is made only to the continuing state of
the participant. While Berman and Slobin draw the obvious connections between Cause-
Become-State to the verbal systems proposed by Vendler, Dowty, and Van Valin, I would
hazard these three Events views are realized at the level of the clause as the three prototypes of
transitivity rather than lexically as verbal categories. In summary, if the overall function of
grammar is to mediate internal, mental representation with communicative needs and intents,
then transitivity specifically mediates the internal (preverbal) representation of Event view and
the communicative intent of perspective (discussed in detail in Chapter Three). Transitivity as a
system is limited to the expression of Event view only-- the whole of event construal and Its
communication employs a vaster amount of linguistic (and probably non-linguistic) material.


100
the event is being communicated and the speaker selects the linguistic vantage point from which
the event will be viewed. Perspective changes are more drastic shifts which exclude other
participants. This is the domain of the atelic transitive. The chief distinction between these two
is that for an atelic to succeed, it must be contextually set up. Telle transitives, though, provide
their own context semantically, and to some degree, pragmatically as well. As an alternation,
what makes the passive such an Interesting construction is the semantic trail it leaves behind:
even when the Effector Is not explicitly mentioned, it is semantically available.
There are basically three levels at which perspective shifting can take place-the
syntactic, the semantic, and the discourse-pragmatic. The syntactic level of shifting is simply the
grammatical prerequisite of a legitimate direct object.
(36) Olaf kissed Gertrude/ Gertrude was kissed by Olaf.
(37) The dog barked at the cat/ The cat was barked at by the dog.
However, we know from many linguistic sources that the mere presence of a direct object is not
sufficient to allow perspective shifting. There are semantic constraints as well such as unilateral
activity, an affected participant, and an initiating participant or force. Shifts such as passive
suffer when these basic parameters are stretched too thin.
(38) Olaf knew the answers/ ?The answers were known by Olaf.
(39) Thor swung his mighty hammer/ *Hls mighty hammer was swung by Thor
Thus any clause has at least syntactic and semantic factors to consider.
There are discourse factors as well. In text, a clause shifts if and only If the perspective
shift does not violate expectations set up by previous discourse. Here is where the three levels
work together. The perspective of any given participant cannot be taken If the participant is not
established in discourse, either through topicality or through explicit telic clauses. The shift must
follow the expectations of the hearer. Once the schemata are minimally established, shifting can
take place. But expectations about who is acting cannot be violated.
For example, in the paragraph from Little Turtle s Big Adventure" quoted again below,
passivization is possible because both particlpants--the little turtle (protagonist) and the
machines (antagonist)-are topical. The little turtle has been established in the first paragraph as


I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards
of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 7
Chincey Chu, Chairman
Professor of Linguistics
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards
of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
livan
Professor of German and Slavic
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards
of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
G Via c, (J
Galia Hatav
Assistant Professor of Linguistics
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards
of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and cmalityi as a dissertation for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
MichejrAchard
Assistant Professor of Romance Languages
and Literatures
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards
of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Douglas Dankel
Assistant Professor of Computer and
Information Science and Engineering
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Program in Linguistics in the
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and the Graduate School and was accepted as partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
August, 1998
Dean, Graduate School


76
rather than a scene-setting. In these cases, the first appearance of a nominal in the text is also
its first use. Just as givenness alone does not determine information value (information value is
determined by use), neither does the grammatical role determine information value.
In these three excerpts, the new participant is in the subject slot, the site of given
information. As stated above, it is also the site of topical information. In other words, one way of
introducing a topical participant into the discourse is to place them in the subject slot, thereby
indicating to the reader the relative importance of the participant. It's as though the participant is
simultaneously being flagged as new" and "given" at the same time; in fact what is happening is
the participant is being flagged as new" and topical" at the same time. In terms of source, the
participant is brand-new; in terms of management, the participant is high in information value.
At the same time, not all participants making their first appearance in the object position
of the asserted predicate are Hl-value; in fact, many are not. In the Zelazny text, the second
participant" occurs in the site most frequently associated with High information value; Cora
swung his blade and cut down the opposing swordswoman. According to Chu's management
continuum, this is typically the position of Hl-value participants. However, according to Princes
source" categories, this participant is contextually inferable. We rather expect as readers that
anyone uttering curses in a well-practiced voice while swinging blades is most likely cutting down
an opponent (as opposed to cutting down trees, for example). That it is a swordswoman is
interesting, but does not hold our attention; though marked with the definite article, the
swordswoman is not mentioned by name, is not specified for the reader. If instead the sentence
read Cora swung his blade and cut down the opposing swordswoman, Hilda we would be
disturbed as readers when the following sentence began with His contoured breastplate
referring back to Cora (rather than to Hilda).
We need to explain why participants new to the discourse and subsequently topical may
be used in the subject position when first introduced. And likewise, why participants in the object
slot, such as the opposing swordswoman, are not topical. It's obviously inadequate to label
subject and object positions as merely slots for old and new information respectively. Rather,
there is a collocation of functions for each position which serve to designate information value.


93
particular function within their semantic domain. Specifically, they effect close-focus perspective
changes.
Generally speaking, close-focus scenes which are action driven (as opposed to direct
speech driven) are not introductory. They happen within well-established scenes where the
viewpoints of the participants are highly constrained. It works rather like a tennis match.
Clauses switch back and forth between participants, each action requiring some response from
the other until a conclusion is reached. Participants may or may not be of equal RS. When they
are not, the topical participant is often portrayed via a series of actions with no overt mention of
the other. Also, the topical participant generally "wins." This win, however, often leads to or is
part of a longer movement towards a more definitive climax. When the participants are of equal
RS, the exchange is one of high drama where some action-driven climax is reached. The two
passages below demonstrate each of these states: unequal RS and equal RS, respectively.
Simultaneous then. attacksk came from the right and the left. Beginning
his, battle song. he¡ parried to the left. 0, cut to the right. 0, parried left
again. 0, cut through that warriorj. 0* parried right, and 0, thrust. Both
attackersj fell.
Lady of Steel Roger Zelazny, second paragraph
The dragon: swooped once more lower than ever, and as he: turned and
dived down his belly glittered white with gemsbut not in one place The
great bowj twanged. The black arrowj sped straight from the string,
straight for the hollow by the left breast where the foreleg was flung wide.
In itj smote and Oj vanished, barb, shaft, and feather, so fierce was its
flight With a shriek that deafened men. felled trees, and split stone,
Smaug: shot spouting into the air, 0, turned over, and 0, crashed down
from on high in ruin.
scene from The Hobbit, J.R.R. Tolkien
In the first excerpt, Cora is the not only the topical participant, but the protagonist of the
story. He is topicalized through both pronominal mention and zero anaphor. The other
participants, his combatants, appear only twice as the object of the action "cut through that
warrior and in the final atelic transitive where "both attackers fell. It is difficult to tell from this


90
Men can fight without them.' the king said. Its far more
economical to hire men. anyway. Do you have any idea of what the
extra armor for the women in my army costs? I commissioned a militan
cost-containment study, and my advisors said women's uniforms were
always running over budget. The king smirked at the queen, on her
throne a few feet away, and she smirked back. Ive always said the
costs to society are too high if women leave their family and
responsibilities"
"We'll see about this." Mirabel said. She would like to have seen
about it then and there, but the king's personal guardsall male this
morning, she noticedlooked too alert.
"And the Ladies of the Club, Elizabeth Moon
The above text is the opening paragraphs of the story. Two things establish Mirabels
place as topical participant. First, she has highest RS; her proper name is used while both the
king and queen, participants of greater social power than Mirabels, are named only through
definite reference. Second, Mirabel is grammatically topicalized in the final paragraph through
repeated pronominal reference. The king, on the other hand, though he is the second
conversationalist, never gets pronominalized and is consistently marked as a non-topical
participant because of this.
The next examples are taken from the opening lines of Star Trek: New Frontier, a series
of four novellas. All four books are related to one another not only by use of characters and
setting, but through close chronology. The four smaller books are in essence one long story.
Book One. House of Cards
Falkar regarded the remains of his troops and. as the blazing Xenex sun
beat down upon them. 0 decided to wax philosophical about the situation.
It is not uncommon to desire killing a teenager. he said. However, it is
not often that one feels the need to send soldiers to do the job.
Book Two, Into the Void
Elizabeth Paula Shelby ¡ gaped at Admiral Edward Jellicoj Hej could
not have gotten a more stunned reaction out of her¡ if hedj suddenly
ripped off hisj own face and revealed himselfj to be a Gom wearing an
exceptionally clever disguise.


101
the main participant in the text while the machines are being established as the topical
participant in this particular paragraph.
One morning a rumble like thunder woke the little turtle. Men with
steam shovels and bulldozers were working in the clover fields. The
machines pushed over trees. They dug up clover. They tore down hills
and 0 filled up holes. The machines made so much noise that the turtle
couldnt hear the birds or the frogs.
"Little Turtle's Big Adventure." David Lee Harrison
One morning, the little turtle was awakened by a rumble like thunder.
Men with steam shovels and bulldozers were working in the clover fields.
Trees were pushed over by the machines. Clover was dug up. Hills were
tom down and holes were filled up. So much noise was made that the
little turtle couldn't hear the birds or the frogs.
Contrast this to a section later in the story when the little turtle encounters a boy. Here,
the turtle is still the main participant. The boy enters the story briefly to effect the change the
turtle is looking for. At the places bolded, it would be difficult to change the form used because it
would interrupt the perspective from which the tale is told.
Every day the turtle walked. He saw more forest and more hills and
more fields. But nowhere could he find a place that looked just right for a
little turtle.
Then one day a boy saw the turtle. The turtle had never seen a boy
before.
"This is no place for a little turtle/ the boy said. And he picked him
up and carried him down a shady path. The turtle hid inside his shell. He
had never been carried before.
In the sentence, The turtle had never seen a boy before, the active voice is necessary to
continue the perspective of the turtle; the preceding sentence introduces the boy, but does so
with the indefinite and in the subject slot. The subsequent clause, though, features the boy not
as a specific object, but as a generic. To passivize the sentence-^ boy had never been seen by
the turtle before--simply makes no sense since boy is not specific. On the other hand, even if
the object of the turtles seeing had been made definite--The boy had never been seen by the
turtle before-the sentence still fails contextually. The reader knows the turtle has never


96
Much to her amazement and everyone else's. it all worked out
Ella moved into the castle of her Haptigan prince, and put her
stepmother and her stepsisters up in the east wing. The castle was big
enough she rarely saw them, so they didn't drive her crazy El's
husband, the prince, settled down--and. at her request, added on a dairy-
farm to the establishment, though for reasons he could never figure out.
he got less milk out of his cows than any other dairy- farmer in the
kingdom He didnt get away with anything, eitherhis wife knew
exactly what he intended to do from the instant he came up with any idea.
From time to time, he thought he saw some of those glowing red eyes
around the castle, but he never dared ask For one thing, El was not the
sort of w oman to press on issues she didn't w-ant to talk about.
For another, she did know how to use a whip.
The Whistling Two-Handed Circles were his favorite stroke.
Widdershins and all his friends loved their new home.
Armor-Ella, by Holly Lisle
As these passages show, intransitives as opposed to atelic transitives have a durative
quality; they are often states of mind or states of being" that persist over time. Because of
their semantic quality, they mix well with states and negation of activities (since negation of an
activity is a state of mind or being in the persistent form of not-happening or not-being). Its also
quite noticeable that the introductory passage leads from a non-referential participant they" of
very low RS to the introduction of the main participant but via a low-energy predicate. The
conclusion, on the other hand, is about a state of affairs and references many participants at
once (though the reader can tell from the various types of RS that Ella and Widdershins were the
more important participants in terms of plot).
3.4.4 Dispersed Transitives
Dispersed transitives are defined as transitive events wherein the entire Point-Trajectory
complex is expressed across a combination of a clause and a prepositional phrase. They are
most commonly expressed using verbs of movement, though as we have seen above, the
movement may be physical or metaphorical. Thus there are two unique factors to dispersed
transitives. First, they encode events with explicit directionality, a semantic parameter normally
left implicit in English. These are events bounded by a point in space or time. Second, there is
an iconic match between the semantics and syntax of the event. The semantic specification of


31
structure is eventually expressed via the grammatical unit, the clause. But what characterizes
event structure? What evidence indicates that it is pre-linguistic? And how does it relate to
transitivity?
In part, the notion of event structure arises from the need to account for language
acquisition. That is, at some point in the child's development, the non-llngulstlc world Inside the
head gets mapped onto" a linguistic world through which It is expressed. Developmental
linguists, such as Slobin (1972, 1982, 1994, 1996, 1997), have begun to address what kinds of
concepts must be represented at the onset of language acquisition with regard to what actually Is
expressed in the early stages of speech. Mandler (1991) argues Language is unlikely to be
mapped directly onto sensorimotor schemas. There is a missing link: a conceptual system that
has already done some of the work required for mapping to take place" (414). Specifically, she
argues that It would be "extraordinarily difficult" for the child to make a leap from the continuous
stream of physical data to the symbolic representational world of language. Some mediating
system Intervenes to parse ...the movement involved in picking up one object and placing it into
another to the statement, The marble is put Into the cup.' Some kind of conceptual summary of
what is happening in this situation is needed; it is this conceptual summary that is mapped,
rather than the sensorimotor schemas themselves" (414).
Mandler notes that the abstract schemas proposed by cognitive linguists such as Lakoff,
Langacker, and Talmy represent the same kind of material that psychologists investigating the
foundations of the human conceptual system also propose. First, she cites evidence that infants
are able to parse the world into coherent bounded objects as early as 3 months old, If not sooner
(415) and that they are able to encode the causal relationships into which objects enter as early
as 4-6 months (416). She is careful to state that while the extent to which these accomplish
ments are perceptual versus conceptual is unclear, it is clear that the Information is available to
be operated on.
Mandler shows that the kinds of concepts which seem to be formed in infancy are well-
represented by image-schema notions. Together with evidence from Slobin inter alia it is also
clear that many of these notions apply directly to event schemas and their linguistic expression.


TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
LIST OF FIGURES vl
ABSTRACT vil
CHAPTERS
1 FUNCTIONAL AND DISCOURSE MODELS OF TRANSITIVITY 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 M.A.K. Halliday 3
1.3 Approaches to Transitivity 5
1.3.1 Verb-Oriented Theories 6
1.3.2 Clause-Oriented Theories 8
1.3.2.1 Propositional models 8
1.3.2.2. Hopper and Thompson, 1980 11
1.3.3.3Cognitive models 12
1.3.3 Extra-Clause Oriented Theories 15
1.3.4 Transitivity and Text 19
1.4 Overview of Project 20
2 TOWARDS A WORKING DEFINITION OF TRANSITIVITY 23
2.1 Introduction to the Problem 23
2.2 Syntax 25
2.2.1 Grammatical Behavior 26
2.3 The Semantics of Transitivity 27
2.3.1 The Active, Affirmative, Declarative Prototype 29
2.3.2 The Transitive Prototype: One or Many? 30
2.3.2.1 Berman and Slobin revisited-event construal 40
2.3.2.2 Degrees of transitivity 42
2.3.3 Event Structure and Transitivity 43
2.3.4 Agent, Patient," and Other Labels 46
2.3.5 Verbal Modality 50
2.3.5.1Fast-paced 50
2.3.52 Completed 51
2.3.5.3 Perceptually-cognitively salient 52
2.4 Transitivity and Time 55
2.5 The Asymmetry Principle in Cognition and Communication 60
2.6 Concluding Remarks 62
3 TOWARDS A MULTI-VARIABLE DISCOURSE MODEL OF TRANSITIVITY
IN ENGLISH 65
3.1 Opening Remarks 65
3.1.1 Thematic Coherence 66
3.1.2 Perspective 67
3.1.3 Management of Perspective 68
iv


125
the verbs were switched; no semantic difference would attain. The motivation for using one
predication versus the other is a matter of discourse coherence-it depends which part of the
predication is given and which is new to the discourse.
The phrases heading the following expansions, according to...and with...with the intention
that, all expand upon the new subtopic2--the linguistic expressions and their qualities.
(5) At the same time, in order that his utterance be recognized as connected discourse
about some proposition, James performs the acts of referring (with tve), and predicating
(with re adopted), intending the forms he uses to be taken as referring to individuals,
actions, events, and so forth, according to the conventions of the language and culture of
the community he shares with the addressee (Austins rhetic act").
At the same time" clearly orients the reader to subtopic3, referring and predicating. The phrase
in order that..." overtly mentions subtopic2, creating another link necessary for coherence, and
also sets up the reader to expect new information in the subsequent clause. Intending the
forms and according to are additional expansions upon the nature and limits of subtopic3.
The overall structure attained in the discourse can be schematicized as follows.
What is produced is a network" of information, presented linearly but creating a final
informational (or propositional) structure which is non-linear. It is organized not by contingent
succession (despite the use of telic transitives), but through logical linkage according to the
imposition of proposed relationships among the predications themselves.


CHAPTER FOUR
TRANSITIVITY IN EXPOSITORY TEXT
4.1 Opening Remarks
This chapter necessarily begins with a linguistic description of expository text. As it turns
out, this is more easily said than done. While there is a considerable body of work on the
linguistic particulars of narrative structure, much less has been done with non-narrative texts.
Attempts to define expository text are made more difficult by the breadth of what the term
encompasses, Including newspaper reports, editorials, how-to manuals, academic essays and
lectures, sermons, textbooks, and cookbooks, just to name a few. The temptation is to throw in
the towel, so to speak, and conclude that ...expository discourse cannot be narrowly defined, but
only with a certain degree of arbitrariness. Thus, our material involves texts that have typical
expository functions in general. Typicality Is not taken in any theoretical sense, but in the
intuitive sense of what is a characteristic instantiation of nonfictional informative writing
(Goutsos, 1997:39, emphasis added). While I do not disagree with Goutsos claim that
expository text is intuitively recognized by its primary function as informative discourse, in order
to understand the function of transitivity in expository text, some linguistic rendering of the notion
expository" text must be tried. This will be the first task of this chapter. The interactions of
transitivity and expository text will then be investigated.
4.2 Towards a Linguistic" Definition of Expository Text
The principle works referred to in this section are Jones (1977), Longacre (1983), and
Goutsos (1997). While these three authors do not represent the entire range of linguistic work on
expository text, each represents a critical aspect of its investigation. (For a more thorough
review of the literature, please see Goutsos, 1997, pp. 35-41.) Specifically, Jones uses the
(admittedly undefined) term network" to describe the propositional relationships inherent to
expository text. While she uses the term intuitively, it emerges as a more than adequate term
107


35
and other-caused as Mandler suggests), then for objects which cause motion in other objects.
For the notion of a unitary transitive prototype, it is critical to understand that the image
schema proposed for the prototypical transitive event", including a probably human agent with a
probably non-human patient causing a change of state or location, is a slightly later acquisition
COMBINING the earlier schemas of independent, animate motion/ change of state and non-
independent, non-animate motion/change of state. This conforms remarkably well to the three
levels" of transitivity most commonly proposed: high transitive (two participants engaged in a
unilateral activity with a clearly causal agent and clearly affected patient); mid"-transitive (one
participant engaged in a change of state or location without external cause); and low transitive
(one participant engaged in a durative state involving little to no change-these latter two are
often referred to as intransitive"). The evidence above suggests the more appropriate
explanation would include three prototypes (or three typical instantiations of a single event
complex), rather than just one. This is precisely what Croft (1994), Kemmer (1994), and Bakker
(1994) variously propose.
Croft (1994:92) presents seven characteristics typifying a simple event," two of which
are of particular interest here:
(f) simple event structure consists of the three-segment causal chain:
cause-become-state;
(g) simple event structure is endpoint-oriented: possible verbs consist of
the last segment (stative), the second and last segments (inchoative),
or the whole three segments (causative).
Basically, he is claiming that verbs have an underlying Idealized Cognitive Model (hereafter ICM,
following Lakoff, 1987) which represents a self-contained event...isolated from the causal
network and individualized for various purposes Subjects and objects represent the starting
point and end point respectively" (92). However, these ICMs do not create verb classes or event
classes, rather they correspond to the unmarked event view associated with the verb: causative,
inchoative, and stative. Thus in an interesting twist on the problem of transitivity, Croft argues
for an underlying event conceptualization (see figure below) which can have all or any part of it
contained" for the purposes of representing an event. Further, the events denoted by verbs are


113
Pragmatic Coherence
A little mentioned contrast between narrative and expository text is that of "audience
engagement (my own term). The concept suspension of disbelief is well-associated with
narrative text. It refers to one sort of expectation about pragmatic coherence that the audience
is supposed to bring to the text. In narrative, there is an implicit contract that the audience will
accept the events and the order of events as the author has laid them out. This is why one of the
challenges of fiction writing is to create characters and circumstances that are believable; they
must not violate the audience engagement contract. A reader will throw down a story in disgust
if the believability of the necessary connection between participants and events is stretched too
thin.
No such suspension of disbelief exists for expository writing. In fact, it is quite the
opposite: the engagement of disbelief. The reader is expected to be a critical one, paying
padicular attention to connections among the various sets of information offered. The writer
knows that the audience is actively involved, even hostile, and engages the reader directly quite
often throughout the text. This is another formal difference between narrative and expository. In
narrative text, it is unusual for the author to speak to the reader directly, even in first person
accounts. However, in expository text, it is quite normal for the author to speak to" the reader
and the use of commands, questions, and performatives is not at all unusual.
Again, the above excerpts both demonstrate this point. The Discourse Communities text
begins with a question which the writers are supposed to answer. The question gets the readers
attention since this is the main theme of the entire book. A very careful trail of examples is laid
out to demonstrate the validity of the definition before it is even given. In the Sphere text,
though, leaps in logic are made from action to action with virtually no explanation given. Why
does Norman need to look at Harry's swollen face? Is this the reason for the adjustment to the
intravenous drip? How can one know to make such an adjustment based on looking at
someones face? Why did Beth fail so many times to get the IV started? Why does Harrys
breath smell sour, like tin, and what impact does this have on the logic of the events? Is the bad
breath really meant to be the counterpoint to otherwise he was okay? While these question


21
"low dimension communicative apparatus (grammar) resulting in a dynamic system wherein the
vast, fluid world of meaning must be relayed via a comparatively rigid means of communication.
Talmy (1994) as mentioned earlier says basically the same thing: language serves the needs of
communication but is constrained by the cognitive requirements of comprehensibility.
For these reasons, I reject models of grammar which propose various sorts of endlessly
embedded continua. Imposed upon one another, and resulting via this imposition in a coherent
set of constructions with surface realizations of clauses and phrases. This is the feel" of many
purely cognitive or purely discourse models of grammar. Instead, I side with likes of Bates,
Talmy, Givon, and Slobln who envision grammar as the dynamic system which emerges from
the tension of two distinct forces in linguistic communication: the richness of meaning as
expressed through the constraints of cognition.
Thus, my model of transitivity by and large rejects the prototype models of transitivity
currently in favor (Hopper and Thompson, 1980; Rice, 1987; Givn, 1995). Instead, I propose a
model of transitivity which has its base in the semantic-cognitive system but is realized
syntactically through four different clause types: telic transitive, atelic transitive, dispersed
transitive, and intransitive (or durative transitive). These clause types are particular to English In
keeping with Slobin's proposition that different languages select different "aspects of the mental
image to be realized grammatically (1996:72). In Slobins words (1996:76):
...The expression of experience in linguistic terms constitutes thinking for
speaking a special form of thought that is mobilized for communication.
Whatever effects grammar may or may not have outside the act of speaking,
the sort of mental activity that goes on while formulating utterances is not trivial
or obvious, and deserves our attention. We encounter the contents of the mind
in a special way when they are being accessed for use That is, the activity of
thinking takes on a particular quality when it is employed in the activity of
speaking. In the evanescent time frame of constructing utterances in discourse
one fits ones thoughts into available linguistic frames. Thinking for speaking
involves picking those characteristics of objects and events that (a) fit some
conceptualization of the event, and (b) are readily encodable in the [native]
language.
This perspective does not contradict Rice's claim that "...a verb/proposition/event is not so much
transitive as it considered transitive by the speaker/conceptualizer; rather, it constrains this
claim by proposing that transitivity has language-specific surface realizations according to the


134
literature which follows the tradition of dry prose more strictly. The narrative-like structure also
has the effect of persuading the reader to take the Information at face value-- or, at least, to
accept It as a premise of the authors with less question-- because of narrative's association with
suspension of disbelief. Nevertheless, while these excerpts are certainly more narrative-like
insofar as some features of narrative are present, the one missing element is perspectival
distance. At no point in either text is the reader led to interpret a close up effect linguistically.
The changes in transitivity appear divorced from the semantic aspect of eventhood.
It would seem that such examples contradict the earlier hypothesis that overall, the use
of the whole range of transitivity forms a relative aberration in expository text which marks points
of transition. In fact, upon closer Inspection, it turns out this is not the case. Paragraphs such as
the above tend to occur at transition spans vis--vis the entire discourse, In other words, they
occur at those points in text where moves are being made from one major section to another at
the level of paragraph or higher: Introductions, conclusions, and other such bridge points. It is
interesting to note that the same thing occurs in narrative text, but in the other direction.
Relatively statlve episodes In narrative occur in transition spans between episodes. These are
not considered expository sections simply because they have the surface features of expository
text. The same should be considered for expository discourse: transition spans are marked by
transitive surface structure but should not be considered actual embedded narrative texts.
4.3.4 Passives in Expository Text
The use of passives in expository text deserves special attention simply because of the
strong traditional relationship assumed between passive and transitive surface structures. There
are two principle kinds of passive that occur in expository discourse. The first is most familiar,
the so-called scientific" or academic" passive. The second I call a propositional" passive. This
type has the pragmatic force of a typical passive but thematicizes an entire proposition rather
than a participant. A sub-type of the propositional passive bears a strong resemblance to the
"impersonal passive." It has little In common with a typical passive except for surface form
though It also serves to communicate an entire proposition.


74
discourse is continuity, as expressed by frequency of occurrence (1984:138). For example,
pronominalization is a direct indication of activation status in discourse; whatever is
pronominalized must be known to both speaker and hearer already. However, this does not
much help in determining topicality in discourses where there are multiple participants. Nor does
it provide a means to distinguish a discourse topic from a sentential topic since that which is
sententially frequent is also important to the discourse.
Chu (1996:5) provides a better explanation of the distinction by proposing instead two
information tiers with different discourse functions, the source tier and the management tier.
The source tier is concerned with where a piece of information comes from while the
management tier is concerned with how a linguistic form is used in terms of informative value".
For Chu, then, the previous definitions of topic in terms of cognitive activation status are
explanations of the source tier--where the information comes from. Givn and Lambrecht's
propositions discuss topic from the perspective of management, what happens to information
once introduced into the discourse.
Another difficulty with Lambrecht's contrast of topic and focus is the conflict arising when a
topical noun receives focal stress as in Who left the dishes on the coffee table? Your father, of
courser? It would be absurd to claim that your father" is not a known element. At the same
time, the phrase is clearly the focus element, the new" information insofar as it is the answer to
the question. Chu (1996:5) also provides an answer to this dilemma by proposing that topic be
understood not simply in terms of given and new information, but functionally as high or low
information value: A better way to interpret it is whether and to what extent a linguistic form
serves to add information to what has already existed in the repertoire of the hearer/reader.
Chu further proposes that high informative value and low informative value (hereafter, Hl-value
and LO-value, respectively) represent a cline of values, not a binary opposition:
LO-value< > Hl-value
subj w/ < subj. w/ < assert, pred. < assert, pred.
given info new info w/ given info w/new info


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
There are many people without whom finishing this dissertation would have been difficult, if
not impossible. First, I would like to thank my committee members, each of whom contributed
something unique: Dr Chauncey Chu, for his support, leadership, faith, and ability to give me
a swift kick when it was time to get going; Dr. Michel Achard, for the inspiration and challenges
he offered; Dr. Galla Hatav, for her faith in my abilities and the opportunity to assist with her
own work which lead to my first real breakthrough"; Dr. William Sullivan, for his support,
guidance through bureaucracy, and good questions; and Dr. Douglas Dankel, for the
opportunity to think about my ideas in a different context which was instructive and refreshing.
I would also like to thank Cindy Powell and the staff of Anderson 112 for their patience in
answering the same questions year after year; Gordon Tapper and Lucy Pickering, of
Academic Spoken English, for many years of conversation and support; Kathy Kidder and
Anne Wyatt-Brown, two of the finest bosses" Ive ever had, both of whom allowed me plenty
of room for the creative application of linguistics; and to my students over the years, all of
whom have enjoyed (or suffered) my experimentation In classroom application, usually without
being aware that they were the guinea pigs in my latest test run.
Finally, these acknowledgments would not be complete without special thanks to my family,
especially my mother and husband. My mother has always believed in my abilities, supported
my goals, and certainly helped finance the trip from there to here My husband, who came
along a couple of years Into the process, gave me fantastic support and lots of room to think
and do whatever needed to be done. Most importantly, he gave to me extraordinary love and
inspired in me courage that I didn't know I had.
iii


CHAPTER FIVE
TRANSITIVITY: CREATIVITY AND CONSTRAINT
5.1 Summary of Results
This study set out to address the question of what happens when transitivity Is
Investigated outside the domain of narrative. The initial worrisome result was that transitivity
does not seem to play a role in expository text. This proved to be inaccurate, but not before
being forced to go back to models of transitivity and investigate why they were not revealing
themselves outside of narrative The result was the model of transitivity presented in Chapter
Two.
The current models of transitivity addressed in this study proposed that transitivity is a
semantic system organized according to prototypes. On the one hand, l do not disagree with this
analysis; Sally Rices dissertation is a powerful statement of the effectiveness of a prototype
model for the semantics of transitivity. The conflict emerges at the point of surface realization.
It is one thing to say that transitivity as a system has semantic elements which are prototypical in
nature and quite another to say that the surface realization of transitivity is itself prototypical.
Indeed, cross-linguistic child language studies point to certain relationships which appear to be
universal, the endpoints of events together with the path which connects them. But cross-
linguistic adult language studies point to an astonishing diversity for how these relationships are
realized. Chapter two simply proposed a possible model for how the semantics of transitivity are
instantiated at the level of the clause in English. However, rather than viewing clause structure
as the ultimate linguistic realization of a dozen or so semantic parameters competing for
expression, this model follows Berman and Slobln's approach which says that languages have In
place structures which predispose speakers towards the selection of certain semantic parameters
for expression. For English, in terms of obligatory clause structure, these parameters appear
to be Endpoint-oriented. Certain results are entailed by this selectional preference. First, verbs
139


43
sleeping, breathing, living, etc. These three also correspond well to ALL of the sides of an event:
before, during, and after which are all grammaticized: >A/ A>B/ B>.
For example, what makes for a sentence which passivizes well need not be something
prototypical, but a particular collocation of semantic factors in the event structure. In particular,
one in which minimally, affectedness can be deduced (either by change of location or change of
state) and (ideally) where the trajectory of the event and the endpoint of the event are one and
the same. Interestingly enough, in English, following Slobin (1994), Talmy (1991), and Hopper
(1991), this is NOT necessarily the norm. In English, very often predication is spread out over
several members of the clause, most often over a combination of the verb (incorporating
manner) and a prepositional element (indicating path). Statistically, this is a quite common
phenomenon, so much so that it seems rather absurd to claim that the active, declarative, with
human subject and non-human affected patient is THE prototypical eventive sentence in English.
Rather, it is the sentence on the far end of the affectedness and trajectory scale--highest in
eventive dynamism, perhaps. Thus, what is most typical is a combination of endpoints and
trajectory: either an endpoint which is capable of self-trajectory (mid-transitive, become" or
act, single-argument clause); an endpoint not capable of self-trajectory (a low transitive, state,
single-argument clause); and two endpoints sharing a trajectory (a high transitive, cause", two-
argument clause OR a mid-high transitive with two endpoints sharing a trajectory spead out over
a clause + phrase combination). Within each prototype," there are a range of better members.
2.3.3. Event Structure and Transitivity
It is the contention of this project that Event Structure is the cognitive system and
transitivity the linguistic system. In fact, given Mandlers hypotheses about the possible origins
for the expression of events, it seems likely that transitivity is to some extent inferred by the
child as a later, or second, step in this acquisition process. According to Mandler, the child first
distinguishes biological movement from non-biological movement, and recognizes" or infers"
the second is caused motion (see also Bruner, 1989). Another way of viewing the matter is that
the infant begins to recognize which endpoint of motion or change is responsible for the activity
and which is not. This is the possible beginning of perspective. The notion that affectedness is


104
What the numbers show is that contrary to expectation, telic transitives do not dominate
text. In fact, atelic transitives tend to play a larger role. Upon consideration, this makes good
sense. If an entire narrative is understood as bound in space by cultural expectations of
structure (and linguistic junctures such as proposed by Givn) and moved through by time" (the
implicatures resulting in the chronology of events), then the movement itself from one end of the
text to the other must be carefully managed to remain comprehensible. Both time and space
must be taken into account. Telic transitives set a basic-level distance in space, thereby
narrowing the potential field of participants, but they do not do so overiy much. A basic-level
perspectival distance still leaves too many participant the wherewithal to act. On the other hand,
atelic transitives narrow the field to a single participant (per clause) upon which a reader may
focus full attention. Atelics lend high predictability to discourse, hence higher cognitive
comprehensibility.
Children's narrative also shows regular statistical differences with adult narrative. Two
major things stand out. First, there is a higher percentage of telic transitives; in other words,
more of the action is explained and less is left to context. Second, there are fewer subordinate
clauses. The number of clauses sporting some kind of transitive and the number of overall
clauses is much closer This means that there is less information being presented in subordinate
and other kinds of complex constructions in childrens literature. We would expect as much but it
is interesting nevertheless to see it played out statistically.
Another interesting point has to do with time-lines and telic transitives. As mentioned
above. Hopper and Thompson (1980) claimed that high transitive clauses should be
foregrounded information, hence on the time-line, whereas lower transitivity clauses should not.
It has already been demonstrated that this is not true for atelic transitives; indeed, many atelics
are on the time-line of the narrative. But what of the first claim? We see below that as Hopper
and Thompson predicted, most telic transitives are on the time-line of the narrative. The
following counts exclude any textual subnarratives (which are not on the time-line of the story,
but create alternate time-lines to the main narrative).


20
words, a given grammatical or semantic construction has structure and function which is
defining, and the structure and function hold regardless of the text type in which they are
participating.
Of course, not every linguist holds this assumption. DuBois (1987) study discussed in
the previous section is an excellent counter-example. His work on the discourse basis of
ergativity specifically comes to the conclusion that there are discourse preferences for syntactic
structures. These preferences act independently of the semantics of syntactic structures by
exerting selectional pressures for the purposes of cognitive processing. In other words, there are
top down" linguistic forces at work which are every bit as powerful as the bottom up patterns
we are accustomed to assuming for linguistic structure.
Thus, a careful distinction must be drawn between the structure and function of any
grammatical construction and the notional type in which that structure occurs. Further, attention
must be paid to teasing apart the linguistic features characterizing a discourse type which may
be having an effect on surface structure. This has not been done for transitivity and narrative.
Many of the proposals for the structure and function of transitivity have been made without
sufficient regard to the effects of narrative. This difficulty will be addressed in three ways in this
project. First, a cumulative" structure/function definition of transitivity will be proposed followed
by a point-by-point investigation of the validity of each of the claims. Second, the linguistic
features of narrative will be investigated and subtracted from the definition of transitivity where
that seems appropriate. Third, the resulting definition" of transitivity will be taken into both
narrative and expository texts for refinement, and to investigate the function(s) of transitivity in
these two contrasting text types.
1.4 Overview of Project
A couple of assumptions central to this project should be expressed at this point. Of the
various linguistic meta-approaches to language, I fall in the camp of the interactionist." This is
my own designation and includes perspectives such as those expressed by DuBois (1985a:363)
that grammars code best what speakers do most" and by Elizabeth Bates (pc) that language as
a system is characterized by the mapping of a hyper rich dimensional system" (meaning) onto a


3
grammarians are obliged to give transitivity some mention because of its intimate link to clause
structure, there is considerable variation in the degree of centrality accorded it.
1.2 M.A.K. Hallidav
Before discussing each of the approaches above, some mention of M AX. Halliday must
be made. Halliday (1967) started the serious discussion of transitivity in a three part work titled
Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English." While it is not within the scope of this study to
review the whole work, Halliday's basic claims are adhered to in subsequent work (though he is
not always explicitly cited).
For Halliday, transitivity was part of three systems whose point of origin is the matrix
clause, that clause which contains the major predication of the sentence. (The centrality of
predication as the stariing point for linguistic discussion is still valid for many linguists:
Regardless of the type of discourse under consideration, the clauses which constitute the
discourse are constructed around predications consisting of a predicate and its argument" (Foley
and Van Valin, 1984:27).) In particular, the transitivity systems ...are concerned with the type of
process expressed in the clause, with the participants in this process, animate and inanimate,
and with various attributes and circumstances of the process and participants" (38). For
Halliday, transitivity is the system which provides sets of options relating to cognitive content,
the linguistic representation of extralinguistic experience, whether of the external worid or of
feelings, thoughts, perceptions" (Halliday, 1967b:198). As we will see, transitivity as a cognitive
phenomenon is still a critical, definitive notion.
The basic types of processes Halliday proposes are directed and non-directed action,
meaning activities which are directed or not directed towards producing a specific effect on a
participant. The relationships among participants and processes are thus very important. The
first relationship Halliday describes is that of the grammatical subject of the clause (for English,
every clause must have a subject). The subject has one of two semantic roles, the actor (the
one performing the action) and initiator (one who is energy source of the action). The
grammatical object has one principal role, the goal of the action. Subjects and objects


132
below, it is clear that the various ideas being discussed are also posited as Effector and Affected
participants.
Transitivity, then, viewed in the most conventional and traditional way
possible-as a matter of carrying-over or transferring an action from one
participant to another-can be broken down into its component parts, each
focusing on a different facet of this carrying-over in a different part of the
clause. Taken together, they allow clauses to be characterized as MORE or
LESS Transitive: the more features a clause has in the high column in 1A-J,
the more Transitive it is--the closer it is to CARDINAL Transitivity. Again, this
notion is in general consonant with our pre-theoretical understanding of
Transitivity (Hopper and Thompson, 1980:253).
The phenomenon of ergativity has long constituted a problem' for general
linguistics. With recent expansion of interest in language universal, the
problematic implications have only been heightened. The bluntness with
which the ergative/absolutive pattern stands opposed to the more familiar
nominative/accusative pattern has made ergativity difficult to dismiss as
inconsequential, or to eliminate by formal sleight-of-hand (although mirror-
image formal models continue to attract some with their simplicity).
Seemingly, ergativity stands as a challenge to the view that all languages are
built on one universal archetype, or one archetypical set of grammar modules.
(DuBois, 1987: 805).
The use of non-prototypical nominis has been discussed in the literature and need not
concern us here (Hopper and Thompson, 1984). What is interesting, though, is the degree to
which even unusual instances of participants occur in seemingly straightforward uses of
transitivity. I would propose that this use of transitivity is a further metaphorical extension of the
mental domain proposed by Sally Rice (1987). From a semantic point of view, the paragraphs
above exploit the association of transitivity with narrative, though each does so using different
clause types. The first makes use of the telic transitive and its function as a topic-shifting
structure. The second one makes greater use of atelic and dispersed transitives which function
to maintain topical cohesion.
In the first excerpt, the first sentence has as its matrix subject and verb the passivization
Transitivity...can be broken down. While this is a classic academic passive" (discussed in the
following section) and the reader intuitively understands the actor to be the unmentioned
linguistic researcher, the telic transitive alternation successfully leads the reader to the point of
the sentence: the component parts which are to become the topic of the next sentence. The


70
Traditionally, we understand this as a continuum from full lexicalization to zero anaphor,
indefinite to definite. For discourse, the degree of referentiality specified for a participant relative
to surrounding participants is a crucial indicator of thematic importance. In a telle transitive, for
instance, the referential specificity of each participant v/s--v/s the other tells the hearer which
participant will likely continue as topic, hence whose perspective is available for comment.
Information value is a more global term, encompassing but not limited to referential
specificity. It was introduced by Chu (1996:5) to explain topic chaining, overt and zero anaphor,
and word order in Chinese. Basically, Chu distinguishes topichood as operating across two
information structure tiers, the source tier and the management tier. The source tier is
concerned with where a piece of information comes from and functions to signal relative
giveness and newness to discourse. The information management tier ..is concerned with how
a linguistic form in used in terms of informative value". The management tier incorporates a
scale from High value to Low value. As will be shown, it is the effects of discourse topicality on
the management tier which works with transitivity to manage perspective.
The second discourse element, perspectival distance, is the ground" against which
transitivity is figured. That is, since Hopper and Thompson's influential 1980 paper, much has
been said in support of their notion that High transitivity (my telic transitives) communicate
foregrounded Information. Most often foregrounded information" has been interpreted to mean
information on the narrative time-line-information which advances the story forward. A few
researchers, notably Kalmar (1982) have argued otherwise, claiming that where high transitivity
may correlate with time line information, it cannot be said that this is the only foregrounded
information in the text. Some other explanation must be sought.
My answer to this question is perspectival distance." This is a notion introduced by
Talmy (1993,1996) but used intuitively by many discourse linguists with the reference to the
camera" effects of clause structure. Perspectival distance refers to the distance from a scene or
event created by a particular linguistic construct. A more distant perspective is created via more
inclusive and indefinite nouns with more stative verbs. A closer distance is created with more


77
These include referentiality, action schemata, and perspectival distance. (Perspectival distance
will be taken up in greater detail in the following section. Suffice to say here that you should find
low occurrences of close focus constructions with new participants unless placed within highly
recognized activities, such as the conversation in (3).)
Givn (1995:379) states much the same thing: The grammatical subject, the clause's
primary topic, code the event participant that is most continuous-both anaphorically and
cataphorically (emphasis added). Subjects tend to have greater continuity, greater topicality,
head action chains, and have lower information value. Objects tend to have less referential
distance and less topicality but are receivers of action and also tend to have higher information
value. English has worked out a system where participants are referentially coded apart from
grammatical position so that the semantics of an event can play itself out unhampered. I call
this system referential specificity." Essentially, given two participants, whichever one has a
stronger degree of referentiality is regarded as topical. Degrees of referentiality are assessed on
two scales, the definiteness hierarchy from zero anaphor to generic and the animacy hierarchy.
DEFINITENESS: zero --> I/you ~> proper noun ~> definite ~> indefinite ~> generic
ANIMACY: human --> self-instigating animate --> non-self-instigating animate --> inanimate
(4) A headache the size of her healthcare plan-no, better make that the
national deficitwas turning Hillary' Rodham Clintons skull into the
local percussion section.
Exchange Program, Susan Schwartz
(5) It was shortly after Mrs. Batchett left the planetarium that she saw
the fairy, the elf. and the gnome.
On the Road of Silver, Mark Bourne
In (4), the two scales work together. A headache, although the Effector, is clearly not the
thematically important participant, for two reasons. First, it is lower in referential specificity
(hereafter, RS) than the second participant-a proper name is higher on the definiteness scale
than an indefinite. Second, it is inanimate and non-human whereas the object is human. Also,
Hillary Rodham Clinton is a well-known figure and is occurring in the site typically associated


83
But as long as the narrative expectations are fulfilled, there is relatively little constraint as to
which option the author chooses. This Is, more or less, a linguistic definition of style. It also
helps account for why statistical analyses are useful at the level of discourse. Given a particular
point In a narrative, there Is approximately a 70-80% chance of finding structure X. There is a
20-30% likelihood of finding structure Y or Z since both fulfill the structural need in question. It is
simply a matter of conventional expectation and style that determine X, Y, or Z.
Nevertheless, at some point it becomes a chlcken-and-egg question" to ask whether
some given grammatical structure has" some given discourse function or whether discourse
makes use" of the semantic/pragmatic potentialities inherent to any grammatical construction.
The whole question is most likely wrong. It is not a matter of what comes first, but a matter of
linguistic ecology. Grammar and discourse have a relationship and to suppose either is more
fundamental is erroneous.
In conclusion, if we separate perspectival distance from time line, and associate
transitivity with the former, we get a more accurate picture of what transitivity accomplishes in
narrative. The time-line is essentially a structural artifact of narrative, created through
Implicature by the tense-aspect configurations of successive predications. Perspectival distance
Is the linguistic boundaries imposed on a scene at any point in narrative. Transitivity is one
linguistic system available to the speaker for this purpose. The specifics of how transitivity works
to fulfill this function will be taken up in the following section.
3.4 The Four Clause Types of Transitivity
It was claimed in Chapter Two that Endpoint-Trajectory (hereafter P/T) relationships are
expressed by four basic grammatical types In English-intransitive, atelic transitive, telic
transitive, and dispersed transitive (with the caveat that intransitives may be more properly
understood as durative, unbounded actions, and states should be considered a
semantic/conceptual case in their own right). This chapter proposes that the discourse function
of P/T relationships is the control of communicative intent through manipulation of perspective.
Simply put, perspective is the participant-event relationship as it operates at the level of
discourse. In terms of grammar, perspective is understood to be the grammatically available


7
propositional elements to influence the clause, the mapping between the components which link
perspectives on an event (Lexical Conceptual Structure) with clausal instantiation (Lexical
Structure) is unclear. And still, in all of these cases, the verb is the element responsible for
transitivity; no appeal is made to other elements in the clause which may contribute. Yet
semantic research as early as 1979 (Dowty) and still continuing (Hinrichs, 1985; Verkuyl, 1993)
cites the importance of the NP in determining the syntactic behavior of the clause. A sentence
with an NP object which is not specifically quantified does not perform the same as one which is:
Judith ate sandwiches/Judith ate the sandwiches -> ?Sandwiches were eaten by Judith/The
sandwiches were eaten by Judith. As the passive sentences show, when the NP is not
quantified, passivizability suffers.
Van Valin (1993) also locates transitivity as a property of the verb, though he defines it
as semantic transitivity. In Role and Reference Grammar (hereafter, RRG), there are two
types of transitivity recognized, macrorole transitivity and syntactic transitivity. The latter more
or less follows the traditional definition above, whereas the former is specifically related to RRG.
Macroroles are universal semantic structures which create the syntactic and semantic behavior
of participants in discourse. Though most familiar when expressed as agent" and patient, Van
Valin terms these roles actor" and undergoer" which subsume the more specific roles of agent
and patient. There are at most two macroroles represented in any sentence, and as little as
none. Further, it is the number of macroroles that has the most influence on syntactic behavior
rather than the number of syntactic" arguments. Consequently, transitivity is understood in
RRG as semantic transitivity, and is defined in terms of the number of macroroles a verb
takes: 2=transitive, 1 intransitive, and 0- atransitive" (Van Valin, 1993:48; emphasis added).
Thus, from the perspective of this study, regardless of the fact that Van Valin defines transitivity
in terms of universal semantic roles, he still defines it as a property of the verb.
Even the brief examination above yields two major criticisms of strictly verb-oriented, or
syntactic, approaches to transitivity. First, these approaches assume that transitivity is
structurally derived from the verb, and do not recognize the contribution of the object NP.
Second, because transitivity is a property of the verb, verbs with more than one instantiation


140
of motion in English leave the result of the action implied, though manner is easily incorporated.
Thus, you can kick a ball and have it land ten feet away, but you cannot kick-and-land a ball ten
feet away. You can look for and find a missing piece of jewelry but you cannot look-for-and-find
the same. Compare this to verbs such as fix and break in which the result of the action is
entailed as part of the lexical meaning. In fact, the resulting change of state is by far the
semantically most prominent part of the meaning. The answer to the question Is the car fixed
yet? is not a blow-by-blow account of how the car came to be repaired, but a simple response to
whether or not the change-of-state has been realized. Both of these verb types' are statements
about the goings-on of the Endpoints in the activity. Much of what happens in Trajectories
(directionality, in particular) must be specified through particles and prepositional phrases
(Slobin, 1996:83).
For transitivity and its alternative realizations, the nature of the Endpoints is critical. If
two Endpoints are present and connected by any kind of Trajectory, then a passive can usually
result. It does not really matter if the trajectory is high or low" energy. Thus, passive
statements include a range from BUI was killed by John, Olaf was kicked by Sven to The earth is
orbited by the moon, The ground was warmed by the sun where the first include fairly punctual
verbs and the latter fairly durative ones. For English, what is significant is not the nature of the
Trajectory so much as the nature of the change upon the Endpoint: the more significant the
change, the greater the surface variability. Thus the model proposed in Chapter Two takes into
account not only the semantics of transitivity but its pattern of expression in English. The result
was a four-part classification of clause types which realize the basic patterns of transitivity as
they occur in adult English: the telic transitive, atelic transitive, dispersed transitive, and
intransitive or durative transitive.
Chapter Three took this model into narrative to investigate function. Two basic claims
had been made for the function of transitivity. The first was that high transitive clauses
encoded foregrounded information. The second was that transitivity and its alternative
realizations signaled perspective shifts. It was found that by and large, high" transitive clauses,
interpreted here as telic transitives, did not encode foregrounded information. In fact, for


10
pragmatic functions., discourse-pragmatics and propositional semantics are here in direct
competition for coding resources" (1993:30). Thus, the overall structure of complex sentences
is a communicative compromise between the distinct goals of communicating propositional
information and discourse-pragmatic information.
Givn goes one step further and assigns each of the parts of a sentence to particular
semantic functions. The word level encodes lexical meaning. The clause level encodes
propositional information. The discourse level encodes textual coherence. As a result,
transitivity acts across all three levels at once as instantiated at the level of the clause.
Syntactically, verbs and clauses that have a direct object are transitive. Thus, at a word level,
verbs which require direct objects are transitive, or clauses which have an overt direct object are
transitive. Semantically, transitive clauses encode prototypical semantic features, each of which
focuses on the subject of the verb (agentivity), object of the verb (affectedness), or construal of
event itself (perfectivity). Prototypically, the subject should be a deliberately acting agent; the
object should be concrete and visibly affected; the event should be bounded, terminated, fast
changing, and in real-time. Since there is a good deal of variation possible with these features,
transitivity is potentially scalar in nature. The final dimension of transitivity is the discourse-
pragmatic: By 'pragmatic' one means here that the very same semantically-defined transitive
event, coded by the very same combination of verb, agent and patient, may be rendered from
more than one perspective By discourse' we mean the discourse context within which the
semantically-transitive clause is embedded" (1993: 46).
For Givn, as for Ml'Ck, transitivity acts on the communicative" or discourse-
pragmatic level of language. The semantic" level which communicates propositional structure
remains the same, but some rearrangement on the surface results in a change in perspective.
Givn goes one step further by adding the notion of prototypical semantic features.
Semantically, it is not the mere presence of subject and object which are sufficient, but a
particular kind of subject and object together with a particular kind of event. The prototypicality
of transitive events has been excellently investigated by Sally Ann Rice in her 1987 dissertation.
Before discussing Rice, though, a brief look at Hopper and Thompson (1980) is in order. It is


103
this point in the story, the three main participants-Polyta, Origen, and Colleen, the dogare
already well-established.
3.6 Quantitative Patterns
When this project was first begun, it was assumed that because narrative is an event-
driven structure, telic transitives would play a large role statistically. In fact, as the following
percentages show, telic transitives do not play a major role quantitatively. Instead, atelic
transitives tend to have the greatest statistical effect. The numbers below are gathered from
three sources: Cora, Bard Defeats Smaug" (excerpt from The Hobbit), and Little Turtles Big
Adventure (a children's story). It should also be noted that not every clause need have a
transitivity value. For example, states are not included below.
Little Turtles Bia Adventure
Telics
Atelic
Intransitive
Dispersed
Totals
total number of clauses: 88
(excluding speech acts
and subordinate clauses)
26
27
14
9
76
Cora
total number of clauses: 47
(excluding speech acts
and subordinate clauses)
16
24
4
0
44
Bard Defeats Smaua
total number of clauses: 35
(excluding speech acts
and subordinate clauses)
4
19
1
1
25
Totals: 170
46
70
20
10
145
Percentages:
32%
48%
13%
7%
Figure 3.2: Quantitative Analysis of Clause Types with
Percentages of Occurence
Adult Narratives Only 82
(excluding Turtle")
20
43
5
1
69
Percentages
29%
62%
8%
1%
Figure 3.3: Raw Count and Percentages Clause Types in Adult Narratives


82
or story winds down to a point of resolution In a novel, this pattern repeats itself again and
again. It is violated to great effect in multi-participant stories where each chapter focuses on a
single thematic character and the middle chapters of the book end in cliffhangers until all the
participants can be brought together in a final resolution.
There is a fourth level of narrative distance I call immediate. This is the domain of
direct and indirect speech. These two, particularly the former, are the most cognitively involving
aspects of narrative, even though presented in past tense morphology (s/he said.") Direct
speech has a sense of being close to the present moment, as though the reader where sitting
very near the participants. This may be why in spoken narrative, direct speech so often happens
in the historical present There is considerable debate about whether direct speech should be
considered a transitive event (see Longacre, 1983). While It is possible to passivize speech
statements (using was said by him/her instead of s/he said), it is rarely used in practice.
Further, there is better evidence cross-linguistically that direct and indirect speech forms are
formulaic and thus distinct from grammar. I agree that direct and indirect speech are different
on several linguistic accounts and probably should not be considered as telic ditransitive events
(passivization implies the rather odd notion that speech is a physical object given to another
participant). As a speech act, direct and indirect speech match up with atelic transitives which
feature a single participant at an extremely close distance. Suffice to say at this point that direct
and indirect speech present a problem this project does not solve. They will not be considered in
the data as events coded by the transitivity system, but as speech acts with cultural expectations
that go along with them. These expectations may interact with transitivity or they may not.
At this level of discourse, it must be remembered that patterns are correlations. In other
words, telic transitives do not mean basic level perspectival distance. They mean an event
encoded to include both points and the trajectory in a single linguistic unit. The appropriate way
to view this matter is from the perspective of the largest structural unit, the narrative itself.
Narrative structure has a format and induces a set of reader expectations. The author has at his
or her disposal all of the lexical and grammatical options of the language they are writing in.
Certain of these options better fulfill the structural requirements of narrative at its various points.


92
The third excerpt appears misleading until it is remembered that this is a series of books
in close chronological succession. Book Two ends on a cliff-hanger; Book Three begins
precisely where Two leaves off. Book Three begins with direct speech from Captain MacKenzie,
who is the central participant of the series; the four books are about him. Thus there is no
reference to him as speaker. Rather, the reader picks up the story just after the ship has been
hit. The passive used in the second sentence places MacKenzie's ship, the Excalibur, as topical
participant, the receiver of the action and also the object of the readers sympathies. The
narrative continues from there. It is also clear here that scenes need not begin with any
particular kind of transitive clause. Functionally, the scene must begin and narrative exploits a
number of possible ploys to do so.
The fourth excerpt is an example of the atelic introduction. Although the reader knows
all the participants involved, Book Four begins at a new place (unlike Book Three). The
refugees are established as the topical participant with an atelic clause joined to a subordinate in
which they are the subject of a passive. Recall that with a telic transitive, any of the three
possible topicalizations are available: Effector, Affected, Predication. The same holds for the
passive which is simply a telic transitive with a topicalization switch. Thus, aspects of the scene
which are available include who is doing the herding of the refugees. That is what comes next.
The refugees are herded into an auditorium, information which is offered in the same clause.
Thus it is unlikely that the environment the scene is taking place in will be topicalized. The next
participant who is introduced is Laheera, whom the reader knows is the "bad guy" behind the
current troubles. She is still presented from the refugees' point of view; they as yet do not
understand that she is the antagonist. Hence she is consistently spoken of in either the passive
(sustaining the implication that she is the subject of someone elses actions/attention) or with
telic transitives, thereby keeping the refugees as part of the scene.
We have seen in the above texts that the task of introducing participants and managing
perspective takes place in narrative via a number of devices. Among those devises are the telic
and atelic transitive. Atelic transitives also serve a second function. DuBois states that one-
place predicates are also used when they are semantically appropriate. Even so, atelics serve a


58
mentioned above have to do with the nature of narrative as a past-time, event-driven construct
(Longacre, 1983; Fleischmann, 1990; Schiffrin, 1981; Hatav, 1996). Specifically, they have to
do with the contention that preterite as a tense has no inherent sequential meaning. This has
been a somewhat controversial point since the perfective nature of the simple past is ...ideally
suited to reporting experience that has been cognitively packaged into synthetic units amenable
to representation as points along a time line (Fleischmann, 24). Nevertheless, as Comrie has
argued, a weak point of linguistic analysis has been the failure to differentiate context-
independent, inherent meaning from context-dependent, derived meaning (Fleischmann citing
Comrie, 1985). Fleischmann summarizes the argument thusly (24-25):
Several investigators...have therefore argued that the basic function of this PAST is
to mark the foreground of discourse, while the background is marked by its IPFV
counterparts...[yet) neither the figural quality of the PRET nor its sequential quality
is an intrinsic part of its meaning; rather, these properties emerge from the
interaction of its basic meaning (PAST time + PFV aspect) with a specific
discourse context-narrative. In other words, the foregrounding ability of the PRET
and the backgrounding ability of the IMP are contextual implicatures derivable
from the synthetic and analytic visions of their respective aspects, [emphasis
added]
Early investigations into the function of transitivity (most notably, the well-cited Hopper
and Thompson, 1980, and Hopper and Thompson, ed., 1982) made precisely the claim that the
purpose of high" transitive constructions in discourse was to foreground information; most
particularly, to place a clause and the events it was depicting on the time-line. Yet, our example
sentence easily and clearly passivizes; another feature of high transitivity. Given the
discussion above, it is simple enough to distinguish the inherent meaning of transitivity (which is
to provide the three event perspectives introduced above) and its discourse function (which is, I
will contend in the following chapter, to provide the grammatical base for the manipulation of
perspective according to the constraints of discourse coherence) from the textual function of
tense-aspect configurations. In other words, transitivity in and of itself has little or nothing to do
with grounding or figuring of time-line information. This is the primary task of tense-aspect in
discourse. Thus our example sentence is high" in transitivity insofar as it depicts an event with
distinct Starting and Ending points, a unilateral trajectory, and a change in the circumstances of


47
within transitivity. An alternative approach exemplified by Croft and Kemmer is to separate the
semantic labels attached to participants from their schematic roles. Taken together, there is
convincing evidence that event participants code at least two different sets of parameters (at the
level of the clause): first, the purely schematic, abstract position in event structure, either as
starting point or ending point; second, a semantic character expressing the relationship of
participant to event, generally as the initiating, responsible party or the affected party undergoing
a change of state. The most common labels for the semantic roles has been agent and
patient," respectively.
Rice (1987) argues that in order for there to be a transfer of effect from one participant to
another, one participant must possess the means to affect the second in an activity which is
forceful and flows in only one direction. The means possessed by the first participant may be
inherent to the activity, the first participant, or the relationship between participants and may be
understood from real world knowledge as well as linguistic knowledge. Hopper and Thompson
make similar claims, stating there must be two participants for High transitivity, and that one
participant is an Agent high in potency and volition. The other participant, which is highly
individuated, contrasts by being totally affected by the kinetic action.
Van Valin and Wilkins (1996) argue against agent" as a prototype. They base their
conclusion on the work of Holisky (1987), who demonstrated that agency is actually an
implicature at the ...intersection of the semantics of the clause (the semantics of both the actor
NP and the predicate) and general principle of conversation (cf. Grice, 1975)" (309). Holisky
designates a pragmatic principle in the process, designated by her as Pragmatic Principle [8]:
You may interpret effectors and effector-themes which are human as agents (in the absence of
evidence to the contrary). Where Holisky based her assertions on evidence in Tsova-Tush, Van
Valin and Wilkins offer straightforward examples from English.
(8) Larry killed the deer.
(9) Larry intentionally killed the deer.
(10) Larry accidently killed the deer.
(11) The explosion killed the deer.


88
amounts and kinds of information given about a participant. The more the readers knows about
the characters motivations, intention, history, and reactions to a given event, the more likely that
character is playing a proximate" role. This is the literary protagonist; morphologically marked
in Cree and notionally tagged in English. The antagonist or narrative props are those
participants who act in an English narrative, but whose motivations, intentions, and history are
less known. All in all, the bad guy" is the least known character in an English narrative.
In the "Turtle text, these relationships are being established in the first sentence. This is
the second paragraph of the story and provides the motivating event for the conflict the
protagonist must resolve. Grammatically, this sentence features a force working upon the
protagonist. Now, it would have equally felicitous to have written the sentence One morning the
little turtle was awakened by a rumble like thunder. There is no grammatical discontinuity
whatsoever and the event of waking up" is sufficiently familiar to children to ameliorate the
effects of using a passive. But the pragmatic force of the sentence would be lost; the sentence
as written succeeds in being dramatic and focal precisely because it flouts conventional
expectations of participant relationships. Like the inverse construction in Cree, and indefinite
Effector in English provides information on both the semantic and pragmatic levels of
communication.
3.4.2 Atelic Transitives
Atelic transitives provide the most profound perspective shifts in that they present only
one side of the story, so to speak. Functionally, atelic transitives are important for two reasons:
(1) the introduction of new participants, especially in verbal narratives; (2) close-focus scenes
when the action is presented in very small time periods.
In verbal narratives, DuBois (1987) demonstrates that one-place predicates occur for at
least two reasons, the introduction of new protagonists and semantic necessity. He offers
quantitative evidence from several studies to show that when speakers bring into a text a new
protagonist--a participant who will continue thematically and from whose perspective some part
of the tale is told-they do so overwhelmingly in one-place predicates. Other uses of one-place


85
transitivity both participants and the action are available for topicalizatlon, the likelihood is tipped
away from the Effector role. If the Effector is to continue as topic, then the balance must be re
shifted somehow. This can be partially done through pronominallzatlon, though with an activity
of such violent energy, pronominallzatlon alone doesn't quite work; the two sentences still don't
"flow." Coherence is better accomplished here through temporal adverbs which make salient the
linear aspect of the activity. In other words, once the reader knows that John first" did
something, the reader expects to know what John did next. Adverbs impose an overt temporal/
spatial structure on a text, creating strong expectations about what will follow.
The second example, with the Affected taking the topic role. Is the most straightforward
and unmarked of the options. Effector and Affected have equal RS and the Affected participant
is the site of highest information value. This role is allowed just about any kind of response,
though; new information is not confined to nominis.
(22) John kicked Bill
(23) John kicked Bill
(24) John kicked Bill
(25) John kicked Bill
(26) John kicked Bill
(27) John kicked Bill
Bill yelped in pain.
Bill yelped in pain, then kicked him back.
Yelping in pain, Bill kicked him back.
Bill slugged him.
Bill started to cry.
Bill stared at him in astonishment.
Obviously, we are confined to our expectations of the scene, the action schemata, a factor
essential to coherence.
(28) ?John kicked Bill. Bill painted flowers.
As a testament to our desire for coherence, many readers of this sentence unconsciously assert
some sort of modifier to make coherence kick in:
(29) John kicked Bill. Bill continued painting flowers.
The addition of continued" makes the proposition refer back to a previous state which had been
interrupted by Johns kick. Even though we don't know what this state is exactly, we are satisfied
that the sentence makes sense."
The final option that a telic transitive allows is some comment on the Predication itself.
In this case, the term Predication" includes the whole of what the scene Implies. Thus, given


71
specific nouns and more active verbs. In narrative, the closest distance is direct speech where
participants are most immediately engaged with one another.
As will be shown, perspectival distance provides a better measure of the narrative
structure to which transitivity relates. Each of the clause types suggests a range of perspectival
distance. Cognitively, this range constrains what can happen next by creating boundaries
around the scene thereby limiting the number of potential subsequent actions. At the furthest
point, instantiated by intransitives, perspectival distance is constrained fairly little; It serves more
a framing function, suggesting the general direction participants might go given the schematic
knowledge aroused by the scene. Telic transitives are at a basic" distance, one encompassing
both participants and the event joining them, but excluding surrounding participants. Atelic and
dispersed correspond with a fairly close perspectival distance, where only one participant fills
the screen" and time segments are shorter. Thus, it is distance from the event and the discourse
implications therein that transitivity realizes, rather than points on the time-line itself.
The third element of the model, the four clause types, takes into account the previous
two. This section gives a fuller explanation of the four clause types and the kind of perspective
taking they entail. This section takes both a qualitative and quantitative approach in an attempt
to get a feel for the discourse patterning of the four clause types in English narrative.
The fourth element Investigates what transitivity and its alternations mean at the level of
discourse. I am proposing here that discourse puts considerable constraints on the kind of
perspective shifting allowed. Thus, where a telic transitive clause out of context may be fully
capable of passivizing, in context, there are allowed and disallowed instances. When alterations
are permitted, I call this deep transitivity": perspective-shifting which is allowed from the level of
discourse down through both semantics and syntax. Shallow transitivity" is when shifting is not
allowed and this has a variety of underlying causes. One final note: in this chapter, examples
which are my own are presented in the same font as the main text. Other authors are presented
in an alternative font-type.


22
needs of communicative coherence. The model of transitivity will be taken up primarily in
Chapter Two.
Functionally, the two principle claims made for transitivity is that it manages perspective
on participants and events and signals foregrounded information. My own research confirms the
first conclusion and disconfirms the second. Transitivity does indeed manage participants and
events in narrative, but the second claim is more an accident of the interaction of transitivity and
narrative than a quality of transitivity itself. These issues will be introduced in Chapter Two and
developed in Chapter Three.
When transitivity is explored in expository text, our assumptions about the centrality of
function as part of a definition of a structure is challenged. Since expository text does not
employ participants and events as its main notional structures, transitivity plays a different role
than in narrative. In particular, transitivity is employed functionally at textual points of transition,
signaling movement from one major part of the text to another as well as textual material which
is off the main argument line. This subject is the task of Chapter Four.
The final chapter concludes the project by examining the role of transitivity in narrative
and expository texts and hypothesizing how these results either support or challenge traditional
assumptions about the interaction of notional type, surface structures, and grammar as a system


115
In the Sphere text, tense/aspect and transitivity are the transition devices. Tense/aspect, as
mentioned in the above section, signals information off and on the time line. The intransitive
states of the first and last sentences signal the beginning and end of the paragraph.
The entire inventory of continuation and transition devices is too extensive to go into
here. Rather, as will be demonstrated below, where transitivity is a continuation device in
narrative structure, it serves quite the opposite function in expository discourse.
4.2.1.2 Similarities
There are two principle similarities between narrative and expository text: linear
progression and illocutionary force. These are, in fact, similarities attaining among any kinds of
texts. Linear progression encompasses both a notional structure and surface structure. The
surface structure, continuation spans and transition spans, are discussed above. The notional
structure of expository text will be discussed below. Illocutionary force also has notional and
structural sides. The notional side is the concept suspension of disbelief," introduced in an
earlier discussion and expanded below. The surface structure implications of this will also be
explored.
4.2.1.2.1 Argument line
One of the principle similarities mentioned for narrative and expository text was the need
for some structural means of getting from one end of the text to the other. There are two basic
linguistic approaches to this problem. The first is structural and answers the question of what
linguistic clues does the reader need in order to understand the sequential relationships in the
text. These clues" are surface structure features such as tense/aspect configurations, adverbs,
and subordination. These structures organize the reading experience through time in the form of
sequential strategies and in space in terms of prioritizing information. This approach is more
familiar to linguistics and is responsible for such narrative concepts as off" and on the time
line.
The second approach is notional in nature and seeks to explain in more depth the
information relationships in text. While commonly associated with applied analyses In
composition, such an approach is becoming more important to linguistics as well. It is becoming


95
3.4.3 Intransitives/Durative Transitives
First, I separate in this discussion states" from intransitives." States are such items as
identifications (She is a teacher), ascriptions (He is handsome), and locations (There were
six men). I believe that states are their own linguistic animal and should be treated
independently of transitivity. Although states and intransitives often occur near one another,
especially at the beginnings of stories, I will treat them as distinct entities and confine my
discussion to intransitives.
Functionally, intransitives provide a panoramic view which imposes the least constraint
on participants in discourse. There are always many possible directions any information
subsequent to intransitives may go, though this is confined to at least some connection to the
mentioned participant. Because of their loose constraint, intransitives tend to appear at the
beginning and ending of stories. At the beginning, they are often used to introduce characters.
At the end, they are often summary-type statements which name the ending state of affairs.
However, they are not always the very conclusion of the story, but at the end of whatever action
series is the climax. The following examples show both, first with introductions, second with
conclusions.
March Mire lay at the heart of the great moors, a swamp so
dangerous that none but fools would venture into it. and seldom did they
come out. There were however local legends of a person who lived within
the mire itself, a creature that knew' the two or three safe paths across the
mud. Generally they were said to be mad people, for if not crazy to begin
w ith, the gloom, vapours, and weird sights of the bog soon sent them that
way. They dwelled in lopsided hovels perched upon the quag and made
their soup from peculiar plants, ate frogs even, and perhaps godlessly
worshipped the stars. Now and then, tales were told of encounters on the
moor with phantom phosphorescent dogs and men who had webbed hands
and feet, and mostly all the stories were as apocryphal as these.
Nevertheless, it was true. Louisa lived with her aunt in a cottage on
the mire and for nineteen years knew no other life.
Her mother had died giving birth, and her father perished some time
before...
Louisa the Poisoner by Tanith Lee


72
3.2 Discourse Topicality
The question of topicality is widely discussed in the linguistics literature. And while an
intuitive or notional definition is still theoretically unsatisfying, it is not entirely erroneous given
the nature of topicality itself Like thematic coherence," topicality is largely an invisible entity, a
"felt" understanding which evolves as the speaker and hearer negotiate text. Certainly, topicality
has its visible, measurable markers (pronouns, zero anaphora, topic-chains, etc.) but these are
the overt, linguistic clues to the unseen cognitive entity. Most importantly, topicality functions as
an anchor within text; only within an understood frame of reference can coherent communication
take place. At the discourse level, topics establish boundaries by eliminating other possible
topics and together with general knowledge arouse sets of expectations on the hearers part onto
which information is pegged. (For an excellent discussion of approaches to topicality, see
Goutsos, 1997.)
Intuitively speaking, topicality is the quality of being about" something, wherein the
speaker has established a discourse within which some particular participant, event, or scene is
understood by the hearer to be referred to and/or is expected to continue. Topicality is
established through repeat reference to wholes and to parts of participants, events, or scenes.
Discourse topics are most often established through reference to parts. The hearer has an
expectation of what is going on-a schema or script-and the hearers understanding of the
speakers actual discourse topic is created through the negotiation of expectation based on the
schematic knowledge and speakers actual linguistic cues. Thus, essentially, it is a matter of
inference. In this case, not merely inference, but stable linguistic inference-an expected and
normal part of linguistic competence-hence a matter of implicature.
Topicality has three measurable levels, the clause-level, paragraph or inter-clausal level,
and the discourse level, yet these three levels are not often distinguished in the literature. Most
often, topic" is defined at the clause-level with the somewhat unenlightening phrase what the
sentence is about," including descriptors such as the initial element in the sentence, the
proposition about which the speaker is providing more information, or the given elements of the
utterance (Chu, 1983;Gundel, 1988). More satisfying definitions were offered by Chu (1983),


130
In the rest of the paragraph, Thomas makes this point His linguistic weapon of choice is
the telic transitive: he strings together several highly dynamic predicates using a surface
structure form often associated with intentionality (hence humanness"). The result is an
extended example breaking two rules" at once. First, he flouts the ants in dynamic, human-like
actions, apparently in violation of scientific norm, though leaves the comparison largely implicit.
Recall from the discussion above on theme that this is a common strategy in expository text.
Second, he breaks away from the normal expository surface structure and employs a form not
merely different, but from a notional type considered most antithetical to expository discourse.
What is notable about the third paragraph, however, it is lack of narrative-structure.
There is no contingent succession among these activities (the lack of past perfective prohibits
the implicature from being made); it is simply a list of dynamic events. This is obviously
merely" an example to prove a point, albeit a quite vivid and successful example. The use of
the telic transitive provides a marked contrast compared to the stative predicates primarily used
in expository writing. The relative lack of nominalization is also marked; rather than the more
common equative sentences or nominalized propositions typical of expository text, there are
simple participants engaged in activities. The rhythm, as Goutsos would say, has changed
considerably. The combined force of the semantics and pragmatics of telic transitives clearly
marks this paragraph as not only having a particular function with regards to the text-- to
exemplify- but as taking place off the main argument line as well. Overall, this is an excellent
example of Givn's warning that much of linguistic form-function pairs are one-way directionals.
While Longacres contention that you cannot separate notional type from surface structure is
true, it only works in one direction: notional type entails surface structure, but surface structure
does not entail notional type.
There is also an intuitive feel that at this point in the essay, Thomas is still tip-toeing his
way around his theme (especially since it is to be a violation of the biological sciences norm!).
He engages in a more distinctively narrative micro-text in paragraph six. After having returned
to the unmarked situational predicates in paragraphs four and five, he once returns to transitivity
to form his exemplification. Paragraph six begins a brief, narrative micro-text, telling the story of


18
(Berman and Slobin, 1994:519). Agency can be strengthened or weakened via choice of verb,
choice of adverbs, and use of subordinate clauses. Berman and Slobin propose three levels of
agency: high, mid, and low. Any particular level comes about via the other three aspects of
filtering as well as voice and lexical options. In their treatment, though, the choices made when
filtering" an event for expression go beyond mere representation of the experiential event (as is
the case with Halliday and Rice) and have encoding consequences beyond the level of the
clause. For example, construing the following participants and event with different combinations
of topic, locus, event view, and agency impacts the content of the next clause.
Participants: dog, cat event: fast movement of one participant from the other
(1) Topic: dog (2) Topic: dog
Locus of control and effect: dog Locus of control and effect: cat
Event View: Cause-View Event View: Become-View
Agency: high Agency: mid
Discourse One: The dog attacked the cat, barking furiously his right to sit on that bit of
sidewalk next to his house. The cat swiped his nose once with her paw, and that was the
end of that days battle.
Discourse Two: The dog fled, nose scratched and bleeding. He had to reconsider battle
strategy before challenging the feline next door again.
The impact on the second sentence of each is significant. When the dog is both topic
and loci of control and effect, it left the cat as not only the affected participant but also the new
information. The response of the cat is the next logical" step in the discourse as it is this
participant the listener has least information about and must know in order to make pragmatic
sense of the following information. In Discourse Two, however, the cat is the controlling force
but is not overtly mentioned, leaving the dog as a possible topic for the next predication.
We are thus brought full circle from Rices compelling arguments for the conceptual
basis for transitivity across physical, mental, and social domains, DuBois' evidence for the
effects of discourse management on clause structure and Berman and Slobin's insights into the
interplay from clause to clause to the original hypothesis that transitivity is not a unitary
phenomenon but one which straddles the three principle levels of language structuresyntax,
semantics, and discourse-for the purposes of communication. What remains to be done is a


transitivity is indeed a grammatical system for the expression of events, its use as such is only
exploited in those discourse types which turn on events. In non-event-driven discourse,
transitivity gives way to alternative forms of grammatical realization. The principle of asymmetry
guiding grammatical cognition motivates this difference. In discourse types skewed towards
linear organization, linear structures such as event-driven transitivity dominate. In discourse
types favoring non-linear organization, non-linear structures which realize situations and states
dominate. This tendency seems well-encoded by the differences between transitivity and topic-
comment structuring in English.


111
The first excerpt (hereafter Discourse Communities text") defines discourse
communities and is, in effect, a series of propositions leading from the question What are
discourse communities?" to the answer that they are the systems of meanings" which will be the
center of how individuals interact with others and the world. The main idea" of the paragraph is
realized through these two statements and may be expressed as Discourse communities are the
systems of meanings which are at the center of how individuals interact with others and the
world. The material between the first and last lines is merely exemplification or explanation of
this theme One of the hallmarks of expository theme is its implicational nature. More often
than not, it is communicated about without being explicitly mentioned sentence to sentence. The
reader is expected to infer the connections from statement to statement as signaled by surface
structure. (These structures will be discussed below in various sections, including predicate
type and transitivity and expository text" ) Most relevant here is the recognition that the theme
of this excerpt is the definition of discourse communities-in other words, a proposition about the
state of affairs being asserted by the authors to be the abstract entity "discourse community."
The second excerpt (hereafter, the Sphere text) is quite obviously about individuals and
the actions they are engaging in and being affected by. This is most clearly signaled by repeat
reference to specific participants and their actions. Names are used frequently along with
pronominal reference to these participants.
4.2.1.1.2 Linkaoe
The surface structure of linking elements is intimately related to the topic orientation of
the text (participant or theme). The discussion of linkage involves three parameters: predicate
type, pragmatic coherence, and continuation and transition spans.
Predicate Tvoe
In narrative, participants are linked together in series of contingent EVENTS through
time (hence the primacy given to the transitivity system in narrative discourse). In expository
text, themes, which are propositions, are linked through predications about SITUATIONS AND
STATES: ...each surface structure type has characteristic tense/aspect/voice features in the
verbs that occur on its main line...Expository discourse is generally quite distinct in its preference


CHAPTER TWO
TOWARDS A WORKING DEFINITION OF TRANSITIVITY
2.1 Introduction to the Problem
This project assumes that grammar is the system which emerges to mediate the rich
world of internal representation with the particular cognitive and production constraints of
communication. The purpose of this chapter is to propose a working--and workable-definition of
transitivity. Presently, there Is a wide range of possibilities in the literature which need to be
evaluated, amended, salvaged, or discarded. Major claims frequently made for transitivity which
need particular attention include: first, transitivity is or has a structural prototype; second, there
are degrees of transitivity; third, the passive construction Is the only legitimate test for transitivity;
fourth, transitivity is conceptual, not linguistic; fifth, because transitivity has structure, that
structure is universal in nature; sixth, transitivity functions to foreground information In texts. A
more complete compilation of the extensive claims made for transitivity can be found In the
Statement of Transitivity on the following page. This statement will provide an organizational
blueprint for the initial discussion.
A second issue must be dealt with as well. Most linguistic research which takes context
into account has been done within the genre of narrative. Transitivity is no exception; it has
been investigated exclusively through written or oral narrative. This has had some unfortunate
consequences for understanding the function of transitivity since narrative itself is a genre
marked by unique configurations of linguistic structure (see Fleischmann, 1990). In order to
understand what is happening with transitivity at a discourse level, the linguistic structure of
narrrative-in particular, tense and aspect-must be separated from whatever it is that transitivity
is doing. Once this has been accomplished, it will be much simpler to Investigate the function of
transitivity in both narrative and non-narrative texts. The bulk of this task Is taken up in Chapter
Three, but the work is begun in this chapter.
23


150
Schwartz, S. 1995. "Exchange Program. Chicks in Chainmail. E. Friesner (ed). 31-54.
Riverdale, New York: Baen Publishing.
Simner, J.L. 1995. "Bra Melting." Chicks in Chainmail. E. Friesner (ed). 197-202. Riverdale,
New York: Baen Publishing Enterprises.
Slobin, D.l. 1996a. "From 'Thought and Language to Thinking for Speaking'. Rethinking
Linguistic Relativity. J.J. Gumperz and S.C. Levinson (eds). 70-95. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
1996b. "Two Ways to Travel: Verbs of Motion in English and Spanish." Grammatical
Constructions: Their Form and Meaning. M. Shibatani and S.A. Thompson (eds).
195-219. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
1994. Passive and Alternatives in Children s Narratives in English, Spanish, German,
and Turkish." Voice: Form and Function. B. Fox and P.J. Hopper (eds). 341-364.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
(ed). 1985. Cross-Linguistic Study of Language Acquisition. Vot 2: Theoretical Issues.
Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
1982. The Origin of the Grammatical Coding of Events Semantics and Syntax Studies
in Transitivity. P. Hopper and S.A. Thompson (eds). New York: Academic Press.
(ed). 1972. Cross-Linguistic Study of Language Acquisition. Vol. 1. Hillsdale, New
Jersey: Erlbaum.
Talmy, L. 1996. The Windowing of Attention in Language." Grammatical Constructions: Their
Form and Meaning M. Shibatani and S.A. Thompson (eds). 235-288. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
1994. How Grammar Structures Concepts. unpublished manuscript.
1991. Path to Realization: A Typology of Event Conflation." Proceedings of
the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 17:480-519. Berkeley
Linguistics Society.
1988. "The Relation of Grammar to Cognition. Current Issues in Linguistic
Theory, vol. 50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Thomas, L. 1974. The Lives of a Cell: Notes of a Biology Watcher. New York: New
American Library.
Tolkein, J.R.R. 1965. The Hobbit. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company.
Tomlin, R.S. (ed). 1987. Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Vandeloise, C.. 1984. La Preposition dans et la Relation Contenant/Contenu. Preprints
van het Departement Linguistiek 97, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
van Oosten, J. 1986 The Nature of Subject, Topic, and Agent: A Cognitive Explanation.
Bloomington, Indiana: dissertation, Indiana University.


11
with this paper that transitivity as a complex and crucial grammatical structure re-entered
linguistic theory in full force.
1.3.2.2 Hopper and Thompson (1980)
Most studies of transitivity are intended to explain either transitive/intransitive
classifications or active/passive alternations. A scalar approach, introduced in 1980 by Hopper
and Thompson, paved the way for an alternative understanding based on degrees of transitivity
rather than binary distinctions. In their approach, a clause could be high or low in transitivity
depending on the number and type (high/low) of prototypical semantic features it possessed.
They proposed more than just the three features distilled by Givn. In short, there are several
features pertinent to actions and objects and one feature critical to subjects. Each has a high
and low value. As the low value is simply the inverse of the high, I will only list the high values.
Of course, the first feature is that the ideal transitive clause should have two participants. The
ideal subject is high in potency. The ideal action is kinetic, telic, punctual, volitional, affirmative,
and real. The ideal object is totally affected and highly individuated. Individuation has
properties as well: proper, human/animate, concrete, singular, countable, and
referential/definite. Hopper and Thompson understand these features to be the component parts
which make up the traditional" semantic notion of transitivity: "...[the] carrying over or
transferring [of] an action from one participant to another (1980:253).
Hopper and Thompson also specify that languages vary according to which features (or
clusters of features) are critical to changes in transitivity. Further, they propose a relationship
between transitivity and grounding, claiming that clauses high in transitivity are also
foregrounded events in narrative. Several language specific studies emerged (see Hopper and
Thompson, Syntax and Semantics, 1982) which corroborated their claims. However, two
difficulties with their work have been pointed out. First, transitivity and grounding do not have an
absolute relationship and it may be necessary to refine which aspects of narrative are actually
related to transitivity, supposing that such a relationship indeed exists (Kalmar, 1982). Second,
the semantic features proposed do not necessarily covary consistently or correlate with
transitivity alternations such as passive, nor must they be morphological in nature (Rice, 1987).


37
Croft then ties together various linguistic perspectives on events by showing that causative-
inchoative-stative, transitive-intransitive-adjective, and active-middle-passive are semantically
different manifestations of the basic tripartite ICM of events as figured above (102):
Verb Form Event Views
Derived causative
Simple transitive
Basic Voice active
inchoative
intransitive
middle
stative(resultative)
adjective(stative)
passive/resultative
Hence, in the end, Croft is arguing for a model with three basic" forms, each of them
representing a portion of the ICM of events, but each of them also forming a natural locus
against which events construed as corresponding to that center are assessed thus producing
marked and unmarked forms for EACH of the event views.
Kemmer (1994) adds to the discussion the notion relative elaboration of events which
is not unlike Crofts event views, though she introduces the specific aspects of events which are
manipulated to produce different event perspectives. She explains the relative elaboration of
events" as the degree to which different schematic aspects of a situation are separated out and
viewed distinct by the speaker. The speaker in effect can choose to turn up or turn down the
resolution with which a particular event is viewed in order to highlight its internal structure to a
greater or lesser extent" (211).
Two important schematic aspects" are the distinguishability of participants and
distinguishability of sub-components of the event itself. Kemmer also uses the by-now-familiar
event schema to represent what she simply terms a 2 participant Event Schema:
2 PARTICIPANT EVENT SCHEMA
r
v
J
Figure 2.6: Kemmers Event Schema
She uses the terms Initiator" and Endpoint" to capture both the schematic placement and
semantic characterization of the participants themselves. She is specifically claiming that the


30
semantics normally associated with "agent" and patient," namely that of a human agent and a
non-human patient. As we will see, there is interesting evidence showing that agent" is too
strong a role to be at the core and patient" has a cline of its own which affects grammatical
behavior. Further, there is also evidence that the non-human patient, at least in English,
participates in a unique structural pattern which should be included in the array of options
accorded transitivity.
The third difficulty is actually comprised of many sub-difficulties relating to the notion of
verbal modality. For the most part, these stem from the association of transitivity and narrative,
even among researchers who simply wish to investigate the clause. That is, there is a close
historical connection between the study of transitivity, the study of voice and modality, and the
study of narrative. The result has been some blurring of the lines separating each. For
example, there is relatively little evidence when sentences are studied in isolation that
perfectivity is a necessary component to semantic transitivity. That is, relatively durative
activities still enjoy many of the de-transitivizations that Givn discusses. However, in context,
many such activities are grounds against which more punctual events occur. Second, the notion
of sequential" is also problematic since frequently the inherent semantics of a given event do
not suggest definition as a f/me-bounded entity. Rather, sequentiality is inferred as a matter of
temporal juncture between two events, suggesting instead that boundedness by time is an
implicature Finally, there is an array of data showing that the perceptual saliency of the
transitive event is a function of two participants interacting, a relatively limited occurrence
textually. In fact, the salience of any particular event is figured not by its number of participants
but by the event itself relative to other events in context. This necessarily includes many events
which are not transitive in the sense of having two participants.
2.3.2 The Transitive Prototype: One or Many?
Any discussion of a transitivity prototype necessarily begins with the distinction between
event structure and transitivity. Event structure is a pre-linguistic cognitive structure
representing a conceptual stage of processing whereby portions of the stream of experience are
excerpted or stamped out" into a particular sub-unit with particular characteristics. Event


110
participant and discourse or thematic theme"! However, the structurally parallel term,
thematicant," is aesthetically unappealing (to say the least) and would burden linguistics with yet
another Improbable label.
Thus, the best decision seems to be to stay In keeping with tradition and use the term
theme" albeit with the following comments. This use of the term is distinct from the Hallidayan
theme or the Prague school theme. It is not a sentential notion (though, of course, the theme
can be realized sententlally). Notlonally, theme Is the referential nucleus" of an expository text
(Jones, 1977:130). The referential nucleus of a text Is a structure-defining element Insofar as It
gives characteristic patterning (structure) to sentences and conversations" (131). The theme of
an expository text Is the main Idea" or main thread" of the text and as such, enjoys referential
prominence; themes structure the text by being the thing the text must be about. In sum,
"theme" Is the expository text analog to participant" In narrative text. The major difference
between the two Is that while participants are (mostly) individual entitles capable of effecting or
being affected by change, themes are asserted situations and states of affairs. In other words,
themes are PROPOSITIONS The two paragraphs below demonstrate this difference.
What is a discourse community? In general terms, It is a group of
people who share ways to claim, organize, communicate, and evaluate
meanings. More specifically, If you and a friend have one or more
discourse communities In common, the two of you will probably spend a
significant amount of time focusing your attention on the same issues
and things. And both of you will probably have a firm sense of why you
focus on those issues and things. Moreover, the two of you will share
many ways to evaluate your thinking and communicating. Finally, the
two of you will agree about many kinds of actions that your thinking and
communicating can and should lead to. In great measure, then, the
systems of meanings associated with the discourse communities that
you belong to will be at the center of how you Interact with others and
the world.
Schmidt and Vande Kopple, 1993, p.2
The blood had stopped flowing from Harry's broken nose and now he
seemed to be breathing more regularly, more easily. Norman lifted the
icepack to look at the swollen face, and adjusted the flow of the
Intravenous drip in Harrys arm. Beth had started the intravenous line In
Harry's hand after several unsuccessful attempts. They were dripping
an anaesthetic mixture into him. Harry's breath smelled sour, like tin.
But otherwise he was okay. Out cold.
Sphere, Crichton, 1987, p. 292


89
predicates are dictated by semantic necessity, he claims. Speakers use them because they
have the right meaning.
In written narrative, the patterns are somewhat different. First, new participants may be
introduced into the text in any number of ways, though the most common are through telic
transitives (where the second participant is of lower RS) and atelic transitives. The atelic
transitive, though, embraces two possibilities. First, the classic scene-setting introduction which
begins with a description of a place and narrows down to a statement about the central
participant. This sort of introduction is the norm in novels and longer short stories, but is also
found in truly short" short stories as well. The second use is not exactly atelic-the use of
opening conversation. In this case, as stated previously, it is difficult to know whether direct
speech is telic, atelic, or neither. It is most definitely a case of one-sided perspective which is
a feature of atelic transitives. Direct speech also strongly implies a second participant, someone
who is being addressed. What we find with stories that have conversation as their opening lines
is the same use of RS that we find in telic transitives. If one of the two conversationalists has a
higher RS, that participant is interpreted as the topical participant (in narrative terms, the
protagonist; but this is a limiting term since sometimes stories are about more than one person,
and when this is the case, the story is "about" them both, or even about an unseen discourse
topic). If they have equal RS, more of the story must take place to settle the difference. In
some cases, the reader comes to find that both of the participants are topical, and some third
character or some other event intervenes which confirms their equal role.
It is important to note at this point that I am not claiming that transitivity itself has
anything to do with the setting of a protagonist through direct speech. Rather, the fact that
conversation in narrative follows similar patterns as transitivity demonstrates that it is the
discourse functioning of perspective that is the driving force. In both cases, conversation and
clause structure, aspects of topicality are put to use in order to achieve thematic coherence.
But you don't tax jockstraps! Mirabel glared.
No, said the king. "They're a necessity.
"For you. maybe. How do you expect me to fight without my bronze
bra?


39
Agency is goal-directed volitional action (to self or other participant), and Causation is other-
participant goal-directed volitional action producing an effect. Transitivity, according to Bakker,
is on a bi-direction cline in relation to these elements (25):
VOLraONALITY > AGENCY > CAUSATION
TRANSITIVITY
Thus, a causative event with two participants is high in transitivity while a volitional event with a
single participant is low in transitivity. When the parameter of affectedness is added, it can be
found in either end of the subject/agent spectrum: the subject/agent can be affected or can do
the affecting. In the former case, the middle arises (either as a natural" situation type as in
growing up or as a construed property expressed by the middle form).
Again, what is noteworthy about Bakker with regards to this discussion is the separation
of transitivity" into natural types according to the semantic characteristics of the participants and
inherent semantics of events themselves. Thus a picture emerges of prototypical" transitivity
which is not adequately captured by proposing a single two-participant event with a complex of
features, but calls for a range of at least three "prototypes" each crossed by the cline of
participant characterization from responsible Initiator/Effector/Causal Endpoint to non-
responsibie Affected/Non-Causal Endpoint. Recalling Mandlers basic motion schemata and
Slobins early language patterns provides additional support for the notion that event structure is
best represented by the three stages" of a causative event: first, a single participant capable of
volitional activity (animate, biologically caused motion and early acquisition of ergative
morphology); second, a single participant undergoing some change (inanimate, non-biologically
caused motion and early acquisition of accusative morphology); third, two participants interacting
where one causes a change of state or location in the other (animate, biologically caused motion
acting to effect inanimate, non-biologically caused motion and the relatively early acquisition of


52
is not bound by a change-ot-state of a second participant but by the inherent semantics of the
verb itself as it refers to the one engaged in the activity.
Obviously, it is the intransitive clause which has the least sense of completion.
However, as these sentences show, it is not completion which is the semantic factor, but the
durativity of the events themselves.
(19) Bertha grew up in Minnesota.
(20) Sven knew all the answers.
(21) Elvira lived in New York for ten years.
One other factor influences our sense of verbal completedness: tense. Any activity in
the past tense carries with it a sense of doneness." Thus, if (12) were re-written Olafeats the
fsh/fish, our sense of boundedness is completely changed. The question is~has the transitivity
of the event changed as well? According to the explanation above, transitivity has not changed.
There is still a P/T complex with an Starting Point, an Ending Point, and a Trajectory joining
them. There is still and Effector and Affected. What has changed is not the transitivity of the
clause, but the speaker-hearer relationship to the event. The pragmatics are different, not the
semantics. Completedness is more properly understood as a pragmatic implication related to
tense than as a semantic element of transitivity.
2.3.5.3 Perceptuallv-cognitivelv salient
Many authors have argued that dynamism--the degree of activity inherent to the verb"~
is an important aspect of transitivity. Intuitively this seems to be the case, and this is no doubt
where the attribute "fast-changing originated. Yet there is no quantifiable or explanatory
definition by which dynamism can be assessed. I would like to offer one in terms of transitivity
as hypothesized thus far. This discussion springs from the observation of many linguists, but
primarily those from functional and cognitive schools, and may serve as an explanatory device
for dynamism.
At first glance, it appears simple enough to appeal to the Affectedness relationship in
measuring dynamism. Intuitively, break and shatter are in a degree relationship in which the
goal of shatter is more affected than the goal of break. This observation holds true for other
verbs as well: drink-gutp-quaff; nibble-eat-gorge; throw-hurl, etc. On the other hand, there are


144
1987:262); Transitivity is a crucial relationship in language, having a number of universally
predictable consequences in grammar (Hopper and Thompson, 1980:251). The intention was
not to challenge the importance of transitivity as a linguistic structure, but to investigate whether
the claims for its basicness were supportable. Specifically, I wished to explore prototype
analyses as they were applied to transitivity. These were applied over both the semantics of
transitivity (by Rice and Hopper and Thompson, for example) and clause structure (by Glvn,
principally) with some apparent contradictions. While most prototype proponents agreed that
semantically, transitivity could not be located simply in a verb or even assigned to a clause type,
at the same time prototype analyses of clause structure were making such claims-collapsing the
semantics of transitivity into the surface structure of the clause by proposing the former was part
of the propositional level of meaning while the latter was the communicatively-driven expression
of those underlying relationships. Complicating the picture was the overwhelming tendency
towards discourse analyses which were either sentence level or confined to narrative structure.
Since transitivity was admitted by all to be the realization of events at the level of the clause, and
events take place mostly In narrative, this did not seem that problematic a situation.
Nevertheless, If transitivity is claimed to be foundational to clause structure, especially if
it is linked prototypically to the realization of any clause, then its exploration within only one
genre is scientifically Intolerable. A claim for the prototypicality of all clause structure cannot
come from a single discourse type unless it is believed that surface structure is independent of
genre. This has been a persistent falling on the part of linguistics. The grammar of a language
as a whole has been confused with the specific realization of that grammar in use. If instead we
were to take seriously DuBois' assertion that grammars code best what speakers do most", then
what emerges is a portrait of any individual language with form-function pairings featured in
relationship to the purposes of the discourses which entail their use. Thus, a somewhat different
picture of the language would be had depending on the notional structure in question. Different
patterns of grammatical realization would be seen depending on the nature of what was being
said.


105
On Time-line:
Telic/%
Atelic/%
Dispersed/%
lntransitive/%
Little Turtle's Bia Adventure
21/81%
23/ 85%
9/100%
0
Cora
12/ 92%
18/100%
4/100%
0
Bard Defeats Smauq
3/ 75%
18/ 94%
2/100%
0
Average %:
82.7%
95%
100%
0%
Figure 3.4: Time Line and Clause Types-raw score out of total/percentage in text
What the above averages suggest is that there is a one-directional correlation between
telic transitives and the time-line. That is, if a clause is telic, it is most likely on the time-line.
However, the reverse-if a clause is on the time-line, it is telicis not true. A note of caution
must be added here: this is a fairly small sample size and certain results should not be taken too
absolutely. In particular, the likelihood that all dispersed transitives are on the time-line needs to
be further tested. On the one hand, it seems likely that these clauses should be on the time-line
since they are about motion or activity. Given their intermediary status between telics and
atelics, this should be a high correlation. On the other hand, very little at the level of text ever
works out to be one hundred percent. It could be that these are consistent realizations of the
unmarked form (Sullivan, 1998:pc); it is also possible this figure is an accident of the data.
3.7 Concluding Remarks
This chapter has demonstrated that transitivity has a function in narrative discourse,
though it works with other discourse elements in producing this effect. Specifically, the four
clause types work in concert with topicality and perspectival distance to achieve the
management of perspective. This in turn leads to increased comprehensibility. Transitivity and
its alternative realizations must respond to discourse pressures-for a choice such as
passivization, it must be sanctioned through all three levels of grammatical structure- the
syntactic, semantic, and discourse-pragmatic. Finally, the four clause types have a unique
quantitative distribution which is different from popular expectation. Atelic transitives dominate
statistically. Two factors contribute to this fact. First, both atelic and dispersed transitives occur
on the time-line, a fact not taken into account in previous studies. Second, and more
importantly, both atelic and dispersed transitives constrain perspective more completely, hence


45
trajectory complexes in typical ways with different linguistic parsings of the whole. Hopper shows
that English often chooses to array two enpoints + trajectory complexes over several elements in
the sentence, rather than in just the traditional transitive" construction. Luchjenbroers (1996)
shows how the complex constructions Hopper investigates have real and verifiable discourse
effects in terms of information packaging. Bruner (1986) summarizes the various infant studies
suggesting that we are sensitive to the roles of causation and intention at very young ages.
Givn and Lang (1994), without really intending to, give additional support In their diachronic
treatment of the gef-passive in English by demonstrating how this unique construction developed
as a means of expressing both affectedness and responsibility simultaneously. Hargreaves
(1996) also demonstrates inflectional categories which are directly sensitive to the knowability of
Intention in the morphology of control verbs in Newari.
The event complex (here really a simpler version compared to others), then, is a basic
cognitive, conceptual structure which gets coded through a variety of linguistic devices, including
participant semantics and transitivity. Transitivity, though, is not the cognitively basic structure;
it is one linguistic/grammatical system expressing a certain part of the event complex, that part
being the particular array of endpoint and trajectory relationships. At the level of syntax, this
results in clause structures as stamped out by circumscribing endpoint + trajectory relationships
marked by language-specific renderings of the responsibility" of the endpoints (as in accusative
versus absolutive languages). At the level of semantics, this results in the various sentence
types and alternations allowed and disallowed as expressions of energy flow and participant
relationships (influenced, I would contend, by pragmatics in the guise of cultural and real worid
knowledge). At the level of discourse, this means participants and event" relationships PLUS
perspective- a discourse-semantic interaction, construed variously in languages according to
what the transitivity system allows together with language-specific constraints on coherence.
Since transitivity" as a term is fast-losing its significance due to overextension, we
confine it to the grammatical level of expressing EndPoint-Trajectory relationships (hereafter P/T
relationships). Each language encodes these relationships differently, and in a manner I believe
is well-described by Talmy's verb-framed" and satellite-framed" typological distinction (1985).


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E1KE1BNW9_R8200Q INGEST_TIME 2013-09-28T01:02:44Z PACKAGE AA00014289_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES


4
participate in one of three types of clauses: operative, middle, and receptive. Six relationships
emerge from crossing processes, participants, and clause types.
directed
non-
directed
operative middle receptive
S actor
she washed the
clothes
S actor/goal
she washed
S goal
the clothes were
washed
S initiator
he marched the
prisoners
S initiator/actor
the prisoners
marched
S actor
the prisoners were
marched
Figure 1.1: Halliday's Six Categories of Clause Types
Halliday locates transitivity within the clause and in doing so returns to features of the
clause as the organizing rubric for his discussion. Thus subject as actor" or subject as initiator"
are unnecessary labels as they fall out naturally from directed and non-directed clause types:
Treatment in terms of clause types enables us to generalize by saying that there are in fact
three distinct types of subject, or subject functions, determined by the transitivity systems; these
could be labeled ergative, nominative and accusative (Halliday, 1967a:46). Halliday
distinguishes clause features, subject type, and participant role as follows.
Clause Feature
operative
middle
receptive
Subject Type
ergative
nominative
accusative
Participant Role
actor (not goal) in directed;
initiator (not actor) in non-directed
actor/goal in directed;
initiator/actor in non-directed
goal (not actor) in directed;
actor (not initiator) in non-directed
The point so far critical to this study is the emergence of clause types in terms of
transitivity resulting from the interactions between processes and participants. Halliday comes
back to this point again and again throughout all three sections culminating in an argument for
the linguistic uselessness of the binary opposition transitive" versus "intransitive. In particular,
Halliday points out the difficulty in ascribing verbs this characteristic (a dictionary analysis")
since so many verbs in English participate in clauses with and without goal participants. That is,


145
Such a view of grammar would alleviate claims as to the overarching import of any one
structure. If we are to believe that transitivity is a foundational structure, then we are forced Into
claiming that expository discourse is relatively structure free. Very little of what passes for
transitivity In narrative structure Is to be found In expository text. When it does occur, some of
the semantics may be present, or some of the discourse-pragmatics, but not both. Instead,
motivation for linguistic organization must be sought on more abstract grounds, In principles
long-held to be critical to language as a system: language as a communication system Is
creative because Its purpose is to encode and express any of the Ideas and experiences of its
user AND language as a system must be constrained to ensure to the mutual comprehensibility
entailed by its purpose as a communication system. This is not a new idea in linguistics, and
prototype analyses of transitivity are not insufficient because they did not take rule-governed
creativity into account. Rather, as a scientific pursuit, linguistics must broaden its perspective as
to the sources of the rule governing" and the effects it produces on language as a system. The
constraints on linguistic creativity are every bit as pervasive as the creativity itself. I hope that
this study contributed to linguistics simply by demonstrating this process on a single linguistic
structure in one language: transitivity is indeed a grammatical system for the expression of
events but its use as such is exploited in only those discourse types which turn on events. In
non-event driven discourse, transitivity takes a back seat to alternative forms of grammatical
realization. The principle of asymmetry guiding grammatical cognition motivates this difference.
In discourse types skewed toward linear organization, linear-friendly structures dominate. In
discourse types skewed toward non-linear organization, non-linear-friendly structures dominate.
This tendency seems well-encoded by the differences between transitivity and topic-comment
structuring in English.


119
sequential strategies into continuation spans and transition spans, even a cursory look through
expository texts reveals that these speech acts occur overwhelmingly in transition spans. In fact,
like telic transitives, they appear to form part of the list of transition devices available to writers
for the purpose of guiding readers through the complex networks of information connected
throughout expository text.
In summary, the linguistic characteristics of expository text include preference for and
extensive use of situations and states. These form networks of propositions about a single
theme, the connection of which forms the main argument line of the text. In terms of
illocutionary force, the reader is critical and engaged, resulting in a proliferation of speech act
forms intended for the reader. Syntactically, expository text is marked by heavy use of
nominalization and employs predicates in the present tense. What remains to be ascertained is
which linguistic form provides the kind of information structuring in expository text that transitivity
provides in narrative.
4.3 Topic-Comment Structuring in Expository Text
Recall that in narrative, transitivity has a structuring function in terms of information
packaging: it opens up or closes down the range of potential sentential topics. Semantically,
transitivity provided a range of options for expressing perspective on a scene and does so as a
function of linguistically construed distance (perspectival distance). Hence, transitivity has
influence in three domains-the semantic, syntactic, and discourse-pragmatic. In expository text,
topic-comment relationships have an analogous function.
Notionally speaking, topic-comment structuring (hereafter, T-C structuring) is not the term for
the sententially instantiated relationship: however, the sentential topic can signal information
about T-C structuring in general. Rather, the notion is intended to encompass the organizational
relationships attaining between a theme and the propositional network instantiating that theme.
At first glance, this is a subtler relationship than transitivity which has clear endpoints, directions,
expected results. T-C structuring is a broader organization tactic, encoding relationships at the
discourse-pragmatic level of the text. Of course, in so-called topic-prominent languages, these
relationships also have grammatical manifestations (see Chapter Two for comment; Chu, 1997,


143
system having semantic content and discourse-pragmatic functions of its own. Because it
participates as a grammatical system, the classification proposed is based on the imposition of
discrete, syntactic categories upon the more fluid semantic system. This produces a four-way
categorization in English: telic transitives, atelic transitives, dispersed transitives, and durative
transitives with the caveat that true states require their own model of use, separate from
transitivity. The justification for this model is simple: it appears initially to account better for
both the more rigid requirements of grammatical parsing and the fluidity and range of event
semantics. Further, the model was shown to interact with other discourse-pragmatic structures
(topicality, referential specificity, perspectival distance) to realize a particular discourse function:
the management of perspective.
When we come to expository text, we are brought up against popular ideas of semantic-
syntactic-discourse/pragmatic interactions. Where in narrative, the various structural levels of
transitivity work closely together, in expository text, these same connections are dismantled.
Transitivity lends itself to narrative structure due to the iconicity of time, trajectory, and
contingent succession. Expository text is structured in space, not time, and makes use of the
components of transitivity piecemeal: when a perspective change is needed as a transition
device or when a vivid example is required. Its rare to find transitivity used for the purpose of
chronological linkage. When it happens, it takes place in narrative micro-texts or extended
transition spans, and remains divorced from extended cause and effect chains and from
perspectival distance This would seem to challenge linguistic tradition which suggests that
form, meaning, and function are not merely intertwined, but permanently linked in a given
configuration. Instead, this project suggests a different possibility- while there are indeed form
meaning-function configurations, they tend to be strongly linked only within a given discourse
type. Outside that type, form, meaning, and function can be separated and put to independent
use in the service of communication.
5.2 Final Remarks
This dissertation was originally motivated by statements about the underlying importance
of transitivity: The transitive clause is a ...fundamental template at the syntactic level (Rice,


15
The strengths of the semantic theories of transitivity include a commitment to finding
coherence underlying apparently disparate examples, and a careful attention to details that
systematically distinguish different types of meaning. While I don't necessarily accept the
syntactic distinction of deep and surface levels, theoretically there is a need to distinguish some
kind of propositional meaning from discourse-pragmatic meaning. Nor do I accept prototype
theory outright, though it is convenient to our discussion to use it as a possible model. This
model will be taken up with greater diligence in Chapter Two. Nevertheless, Rices careful
explication of transitivity in English using both canonical and marginal examples is compelling.
The primary strength of Givn and Rice is their commitment to a view of transitivity as a single
dynamic entity with a complex of components versus a plck-and-choose list approach. The
notion that structurally, transitivity has both semantic and discourse-pragmatic components, and
functionally, it serves to manipulate perspectives on a scene, has profoundly influenced my own
understanding and is foundational to this paper.
1.3.3 Extra-Clause Oriented Theories of Transitivitv
Extra-clause oriented theories of transitivity focus on the level of discourse. These
theories of transitivity begin with the notion of construal of an event and end with the notion of
information structuring in a text. There are two levels at which an event can be construed. First,
the clause-level, in which the structure of the individual clause encodes the speaker's construal
of a particular event. Second, the discourse-level, where the structure of an individual clause is
construed relative to other events in the text. Rice deals primarily with the first of these in her
dissertation: the particular ways a speaker represents a particular event vis-a-vis the event and
the conceptual structures the speaker has access to. Givn makes use of both in his model.
First, there is the propositional structure of the event which does not change. Second, there is
the particular construal of the event relative to the speaker's Intentions and contextual
environment. The second notion is also what Hopper and Thompson were discussing when they
claimed that highly transitive clauses encode foregrounded events in narrative. (In fact, this is
not strictly the case. Rather, highly transitive events typically correlate with temporally-grounded


53
lexical sets which change the effectiveness of the source instead: kill-murder; clean-scrub-scour,
hit-punch. There are still other alternations, skewed so far in the direction of source or goal that
different lexical forms are used: kill-die; sit-set; teach-leam; buy-sell; etc.
Notably, the difference In these pairs of terms Is not just the number of arguments the
verb can take but the semantic roles of the arguments themselves. That is, for many actions,
there are both lexical and grammatical options for selecting which perspective on a situation is
opted for in discourse. In the sentences below, (25) and (26) demonstrate that English allows
both the pragmatically understood force and Instrument to be the source of the action.
Example (27) shows that both of the above can passivize. In (28)-(35) various grammatical
forms topicallze the affected participant whereas (28), (29), (30) and (35) show that lexical
choice also contributes to the clausal combinations permitted by the grammar of English.
(22) John broke the window.
(23) The rock broke the window.
(24) The window was broken by John/the rock.
(25) The window broke/*by John.
(26) The window broke easily/with difficulty/'difficultly.
(27) *The windows break easily/Windows break easily.
(28) The windows break easily, but the wooden frames do not.
(29) Windows broke easily; wood was but little harder.
(30) (John threw the rock) The window broke/shattered.
(31) John broke/destroyed/crushed the window with a rock.
(32) *The window destroyed/crushed.
Both the Effector and Affected roles get lexicalized in English, and certain constructions such as
the middle are also Affected-oriented.
Welrzblcka (1988) offers an intriguing analysis of causation and lexicalization. English,
she proposes, is filled with many level of causative, instantiated in lexical causatives as well as
periphrastic causal constructions. The list of lexical causatives (252-3) which "pays attention to
different strategies of human causation" rather neatly dichotomizes betweent Effector-oriented
and Affected-oriented lexical items: order, command, demand, require, suggest, advocate,
instruct, persuade, decree, ordain, authorize, commision; beg, implore, beseech, entreat, plead,
intercede, apply, appeal, enjoin. There were a few items difficult to classify either way, which
seem to form the basic category against which the others are organized: ask, request, tell.


12
There is also language-specific evidence that morphological indicators of transitivity may not
correspond to particular features, but simply indicate overall changes in transitivization (Kibrik,
1993). Nevertheless, Hopper and Thompson opened the door to a more sophisticated notion of
transitivity, and firmly established the relevance of both semantic and pragmatic factors to its
study.
1.3.3.3 Cognitive models
For Rice, transitivity is ultimately ...a linguistic device optionally employed by a speaker
to conceptualize and organize the actions of entities in the world in order to convey a certain
attitude about an overall event to someone else" (1987:5). As with most theorists, she finds
transitivity a semantic matter with discourse-pragmatic functions. However, she firmly places
herself within a cognitive school of linguistics which takes the work on prototype theory by Rosch
quite seriously (see Lakoff, 1987):
In what is increasingly becoming the accepted view, categories are assumed
to be organized around prototypical or canonical instances. Less canonical
instances extend or radiate outwards from this prototypical center. In fact,
categories may have several centers or may be able to sustain several
prototypical Instances. Furthermore, the creation of categories is understood
to be a dynamic process and one that grows out of contact and interaction by
a human with individual members of a category. Naturally, in the developing
Infant, physical objects will be the first to be encountered, recognized, and
categorized. Over time, however, abstract entities like linguistic forms
and even events will be experienced, assessed, and categorized in
relation to some prototype or prototypes, which might enjoy either
experiential primacy, superior frequency or perceptual salience, a clear
utility, or higher resemblance relative to other members of the category
(Rice, 1987:4).
Rice is an extreme" cognitivist, insofar as she understands the conceptual categories she
investigates as primarily non-linguistic, though they may be manifested in a linguistic form. My
view is somewhat more moderate. While I agree that conceptual categories do underlie much of
language acquisition (the research into conceptual categories throughout language is quite
convincing; see Vandeloise, 1984; Herskovitz, 1989; Johnson, 1987, etc.) I also hold that at
some point In the acquisition process, critical mass attains and language becomes a system
acting on its own. It Is a cognitive system, yes, but also has Its own rules, structures, purposes,


98
used when topical participants are preparing for something or when a cluster of activities lead to
some major event.
In terms of perspectival distance, dispersed transitives again pattern somewhere
between atelics and telics. As with atelics, there is a single topical participant at fairly close
focus insofar as the single participant's activities are what is important. However, unlike atelics,
dispersed transitives can cover longer time periods resembling the more basic distance
suggested by telic transitives. Finally, dispersed transitives share with atelic transitives the
single perspective on just one participant. They differ by being paired most often with non
human or non-self-instigating participants. The reader expects then that the only perspective
available is the single topical participant, Olat Olaf cut the trout into 1pieces for the stew. ??lt
was an old recipet was a beautiful fish with rainbow sides. It reads much more smoothly to
keep Olaf the topical participant as the following examples show.
(33) Olaf cut the trout into 1" pieces for the stew. Hed caught the fish
early that morning, just after daybreak, before the Smoky Mountain
mists had yet cleared the streams.
(34) Olaf cut the trout into 1 pieces for the stew. He was particularly
fond of this recipe, an old family favorite passed down from
grandfather to father, father to son, always over a cutting board
and stew pot but never, never written down.
Now, it is acceptable to refer to the other participants so long as they are contextually attached to
the topical participant.
(35) Olaf cut the trout into 1" pieces for the stew. The recipe was an
family favorite, passed down. ..
(36) Olaf cut the trout into 1" pieces for the stew. Trout was a family
favorite, especially when caught first thing in the morning before
the Smoky Mountain mists had cleared.
In both of these cases, while the non-human participants occupy the subject position, they are
not discourse topics. The story is still about Olaf (and his family) though approached via
subjects other than Olafs personal activities or states of mind.
This sort of dispersed transitive is a way of deepening the reader's understanding of the
main participant by providing narrative potential for further exploration of the participants
character through activities rather than simple descriptive statements. Also, it is frequently opted


84
points of view from which a scene/event may be construed. For English, there are three basic
points of view: the Initiating Point, the Ending Point, and the Trajectory itself. Semantically,
these correspond to the Effector, Affected, and Predication, respectively. In terms of clause
structure, the three points of view get played out in the four clause types of transitivity.
For discourse, perspective-taking opens up or closes down participant availability. That
is, given context and transitivity, regular predictions can be made about who or what is coming
next in a text. Each of the clause types of transitivity interact with discourse topicality and
perspectival distance to form the part of the implicatures we recognize as thematic coherence.
3.4.1 Telic Transitives
At the level of discourse, the particular P/T configuration lets the reader know who is
available for perspective shifts or changes. The choice of a configuration either opens up or
limits what can come next. In the broadest sense, given a telic transitive, there are three basic
perspectives that can be appealed to: Effector, Affected, and Predication. In the following
example, the subsequent sentence can topicalize the Effector, Affected, or even the action itself.
Further, for the last option, the sentence can be skewed towards the Effector or Affected
participant or simply comment on the action itself.
(19) John kicked Bill. He punched Bill/him.
(20) John kicked Bill. Bill yelped in pain.
(21) John kicked Bill. It was a really hard kick.
The kick really hurt.
The kick was really hard.
(Effector)
(Affected)
(Predication)
(Affected)
(Effector)
Even these simple sentences show some interesting things regarding reader
expectation. With sentence (19), where both Effector and Affected have equal referential
specificity (hereafter, RS), it is somewhat awkward to continue the Effector role as topic without
additional maneuverings. Note the sentence reads better if temporal adverbs are added in.
(22)First, John kicked Bill. Next, he punched him.
As stated in the discussion of discourse topicality, if both Effector and Affected are of equal
referential value, the Affected role generally wins the role of topic because of the association of
new information with the object slot. Thus in (19), despite the fact that according to sheer



PAGE 1

7+( $6<00(75< 35,1&,3/( $ )81&7,21$/ ,19(67,*$7,21 2) 75$16,7,9,7< $1' 723,&&200(17 6758&785,1* ,1 (1*/,6+ %\ 0,&+(//( 68=$11( 6&+$)(5 $ ',66(57$7,21 35(6(17(' 72 7+( *5$'8$7( 6&+22/ 2) 7+( 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ ,1 3$57,$/ )8/),//0(17 2) 7+( 5(48,5(0(176 )25 7+( '(*5(( 2) '2&725 2) 3+,/2623+< 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$

PAGE 2

7KLV SURMHFW LV GHGLFDWHG WR 'U *HUDOG (XJHQH 0HUZLQ 0\ )DWKHU ZKR LV QRW DOLYH WR VHH LWV FRPSOHWLRQ \HW KDV HYHU\WKLQJ WR GR ZLWK LW EHLQJ GRQH

PAGE 3

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fEUHDNWKURXJK 'U :LOOLDP 6XOOLYDQ IRU KLV VXSSRUW JXLGDQFH WKURXJK EXUHDXFUDF\ DQG JRRG TXHVWLRQV DQG 'U 'RXJODV 'DQNHO IRU WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR WKLQN DERXW P\ LGHDV LQ D GLIIHUHQW FRQWH[W ZKLFK ZDV LQVWUXFWLYH DQG UHIUHVKLQJ ZRXOG DOVR OLNH WR WKDQN &LQG\ 3RZHOO DQG WKH VWDII RI $QGHUVRQ IRU WKHLU SDWLHQFH LQ DQVZHULQJ WKH VDPH TXHVWLRQV \HDU DIWHU \HDU *RUGRQ 7DSSHU DQG /XF\ 3LFNHULQJ RI $FDGHPLF 6SRNHQ (QJOLVK IRU PDQ\ \HDUV RI FRQYHUVDWLRQ DQG VXSSRUW .DWK\ .LGGHU DQG $QQH :\DWW%URZQ WZR RI WKH ILQHVW fERVVHV ,fYH HYHU KDG ERWK RI ZKRP DOORZHG PH SOHQW\ RI URRP IRU WKH FUHDWLYH DSSOLFDWLRQ RI OLQJXLVWLFV DQG WR P\ VWXGHQWV RYHU WKH \HDUV DOO RI ZKRP KDYH HQMR\HG RU VXIIHUHGf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nW NQRZ KDG LLL

PAGE 4

7$%/( 2) &217(176 SDJH $&.12:/('*0(176 LLL /,67 2) ),*85(6 YO $%675$&7 YLO &+$37(56 )81&7,21$/ $1' ',6&2856( 02'(/6 2) 75$16,7,9,7< ,QWURGXFWLRQ 0$. +DOOLGD\ $SSURDFKHV WR 7UDQVLWLYLW\ 9HUE2ULHQWHG 7KHRULHV &ODXVH2ULHQWHG 7KHRULHV 3URSRVLWLRQDO PRGHOV +RSSHU DQG 7KRPSVRQ &RJQLWLYH PRGHOV ([WUD&ODXVH 2ULHQWHG 7KHRULHV 7UDQVLWLYLW\ DQG 7H[W 2YHUYLHZ RI 3URMHFW 72:$5'6 $ :25.,1* '(),1,7,21 2) 75$16,7,9,7< ,QWURGXFWLRQ WR WKH 3UREOHP 6\QWD[ *UDPPDWLFDO %HKDYLRU 7KH 6HPDQWLFV RI 7UDQVLWLYLW\ 7KH $FWLYH $IILUPDWLYH 'HFODUDWLYH 3URWRW\SH 7KH 7UDQVLWLYH 3URWRW\SH 2QH RU 0DQ\" %HUPDQ DQG 6ORELQ UHYLVLWHGHYHQW FRQVWUXDO 'HJUHHV RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ (YHQW 6WUXFWXUH DQG 7UDQVLWLYLW\ f$JHQWf f3DWLHQW DQG 2WKHU /DEHOV 9HUEDO 0RGDOLW\ )DVWSDFHG &RPSOHWHG 3HUFHSWXDOO\FRJQLWLYHO\ VDOLHQW 7UDQVLWLYLW\ DQG 7LPH 7KH $V\PPHWU\ 3ULQFLSOH LQ &RJQLWLRQ DQG &RPPXQLFDWLRQ &RQFOXGLQJ 5HPDUNV 72:$5'6 $ 08/7,9$5,$%/( ',6&2856( 02'(/ 2) 75$16,7,9,7< ,1 (1*/,6+ 2SHQLQJ 5HPDUNV 7KHPDWLF &RKHUHQFH 3HUVSHFWLYH 0DQDJHPHQW RI 3HUVSHFWLYH LY

PAGE 5

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

PAGE 6

/,67 2) ),*85(6 ),*85(6 SDJH )LJXUH +DOOOGD\nV 6L[ &DWHJRULHV RI &ODXVH 7\SHV )LJXUH 6WDWHPHQW RI 7UDQVLWLYLW\ )LJXUH 0DQGOHUnV ,PDJH 6FKHPDV RI 0RWLRQ )LJXUH 0DQGOHUnV ,PDJH 6FKHPD RI &DXVHG 0RWLRQ )LJXUH 0DQGOHUfV ,PDJH 6FKHPD RI $JHQF\ )LJXUH &URIWfV (YHQW 9LHZV )LJXUH .HPPHUfV (YHQW 6FKHPD )LJXUH 7KH )RXU &ODXVH 7\SHV RI 7UDQVLWLYLW\ )LJXUH 5HIHUHQWLDO 6SHFLILFLW\ ,QIRUPDWLRQ 9DOXH DQG *UDPPDWLFDO 5HODWLRQV )LJXUH 4XDQWLWDWLYH $QDO\VLV RI &ODXVH 7\SHV ZLWK 3HUFHQWDJHV RI 2FFXUUHQFH )LJXUH 5DZ &RXQW DQG 3HUFHQWDJHV &ODXVH 7\SHV LQ $GXOW 1DUUDWLYH )LJXUH 7LPH /LQH DQG &ODXVH 7\SHVUDZ VFRUH RXW RI WRWDOSHUFHQWDJH LQ WH[W )LJXUH 7RSLF6XEWRSLF )LJXUH 7RSLF6XEWRSLFV 6SHFLILHG )LJXUH &RPSOHWH 7RSLF6XEWRSLFV RI H[FHUSW f6SHHFK $FWV YL

PAGE 7

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f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

PAGE 8

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

PAGE 9

&+$37(5 21( )81&7,21$/ $1' ',6&2856( 02'(/6 2) 75$16,7,9,7< f0DQ\ ZRUGV DUF VXEMHFW WR D GLVWLQFWLRQ ZKLFK LV GHVLJQDWHG E\ GLIIHUHQW QDPHV DQG WKHUHIRUH QRW SHUFHLYHG DV HVVHQWLDOO\ WKH VDPH ZKHUHYHU IRXQG QDPHO\ WKDW RI D ZRUG FRPSOHWH LQ LWVHOI RU XVHG IRU WKH PRPHQW DV VXFKf DQG RQH FRPSOHWHG E\ VRPH DGGLWLRQ JHQHUDOO\ RI D UHVWULFWLYH QDWXUH 7KXV ZH KDYH WKH FRPSOHWH YHUE LQ KH VLQJV KH SOD\V KH EHJLQV DQG WKH VDPH YHUE IROORZHG E\ D FRPSOHPHQW LQ KH VLQJV D VRQJ KH SOD\V WKH SLDQR KH EHJLQV ZRUOF ,Q WKLV FDVH LW LV XVXDO WR FDOO WKH YHUE LQWUDQVLWLYH LQ RQH FDVH DQG WUDQVLWLYH LQ WKH RWKHU ZKLOH WKH FRPSOHPHQW LV WHUPHG LWV REMHFWf -FVSHUVRQ ,QWURGXFWLRQ $ IXQGDPHQWDO DVVXPSWLRQ RI IXQFWLRQDO JUDPPDULDQV LV WKDW WKH SULPDU\ SXUSRVH RI ODQJXDJH LV FRPPXQLFDWLRQ WKHUHIRUH WKH XOWLPDWH JRDO RI VWXG\LQJ ODQJXDJH LV WKH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ LQWR WKLV UHODWLRQVKLS f7KH WKHPH XQLI\LQJ WKH YDULRXV IXQFWLRQDO DSSURDFKHV LV WKH EHOLHI WKDW ODQJXDJH PXVW EH VWXGLHG LQ UHODWLRQ WR LWV UROH LQ KXPDQ FRPPXQLFDWLRQ /DQJXDJH LV WKXV YLHZHG DV D V\VWHP RI KXPDQ FRPPXQLFDWLRQ )ROH\ DQG 9DQ 9DOLQ f 2QH TXHVWLRQ ZKLFK HPHUJHV IURP WKLV SHUVSHFWLYH LV ZKDW LV LW WKDW KXPDQ EHLQJV XVH ODQJXDJH WR FRPPXQLFDWH" 7KH IXQFWLRQDO UHVSRQVH LV ,I RQH LV FRQFHUQHG ZLWK WKH UROH RI ODQJXDJH LQ VRFLDO LQWHUDFWLRQ WKHQ DVSHFWV RI OLQJXLVWLF VWUXFWXUH ZKLFK VHUYH WR VLJQDO VRFLDO DV RSSRVHG WR SXUHO\ UHIHUHQWLDO PHDQLQJ VKDUH FHQWHU VWDJH ZLWK SXUHO\ UHIHUHQWLDO HOHPHQWV )ROH\ DQG 9DQ 9DOLQ f /DPEUHFKW SXWV LW DQRWKHU ZD\ FHUWDLQ IRUPDO SURSHUWLHV RI VHQWHQFHV FDQQRW EH IXOO\ XQGHUVWRRG ZLWKRXW ORRNLQJ DW WKH OLQJXLVWLF DQG H[WUDOLQJXLVWLF FRQWH[WV LQ ZKLFK VHQWHQFHV KDYH WKHVH SURSHUWLHV DUH HPEHGGHG 9DQ 9DOLQ f 3HUKDSV WKH ILQHVW VWDWHPHQW IRU ZK\ IXQFWLRQDO LQVLJKWV DUH QHFHVVDU\ WR WKH VWXG\ RI ODQJXDJH FRPHV IURP /HRQDUG 7DOP\ D FRJQLWLYH VFLHQWLVW 7DOP\ f VWDWHV WKDW RQH RI WKH SULQFLSDO IXQFWLRQV RI VWUXFWXUH LV WR SURYLGH FRQFHSWXDO FRKHUHQFH )RU ODQJXDJH WKLV PHDQV JUDPPDU ZKLFK LV WKH ZD\ RI fXQLI\LQJ FRQWHQWIXO PDWHULDO ZLWKLQ D VLQJOH FRQFHSWXDO V\VWHP DQG UHQGHULQJ LW

PAGE 10

PDQLSXODEOHLH DPHQDEOH WR WUDQVPLVVLRQ VWRUDJH DQG SURFHVVLQJ DQG WKDW LWV DEVHQFH ZRXOG UHQGHU FRQWHQW DQ LQWUDFWDEOH DJJORPHUDWLRQ 7DOP\ f 8QLI\LQJ FRQWHQWIXO PDWHULDO DW WKH VHQWHQFH OHYHO WKRXJK LV LQVXIILFLHQW WKH UHVXOW ZRXOG EH DQ LQWUDFWDEOH DJJORPHUDWLRQ RI LQGLYLGXDO JUDPPDWLFDO FRQVWUXFWLRQV ,Q RUGHU WR DFKLHYH FRKHUHQFH WKURXJK WLPH D IDFWRU FULWLFDO WR VXFFHVVIXO FRPPXQLFDWLRQf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f LQ ZKLFK WUDQVLWLYLW\ LV GHVFULEHG LQ WHUPV RI FRGLQJ SDUWLFLSDQWV DQG DFWLRQHYHQW UHODWLRQVKLSV VHFRQG WKH GLVFRXUVHOHYHO FRGLQJ RI JURXQGLQJ +RSSHU DQG 7KRPSVRQ 'X%RLV *LYQ f LQ ZKLFK WUDQVLWLYLW\ FRGHV IRUHJURXQGHG LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG PDQDJHV LQIRUPDWLRQ IORZ ,Q FRQQHFWHG WH[WV %RWK YLHZSRLQWV XVH PXFK RI WKH VDPH WKHRUHWLFDO DSSDUDWXV HQHUJ\ IORZ DWWHQWLRQ IUDPLQJ DJHQF\ HWFf WKRXJK QHLWKHU KDV EHHQ VHW YLVDYLV WKH RWKHU LQ D FOHDUO\ H[SOLFDWHG PDQQHU 7UDQVLWLYLW\ SURYLGHV IHUWLOH JURXQG IRU VXFK DQ H[DPLQDWLRQ DV LW DSSHDUV WR H[WHQG WR ERWK f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f :LWKLQ HDFK GLPHQVLRQ WKHRULVWV HPSOR\ D YDULHW\ RI GHYLFHV WR DFFRXQW IRU WUDQVLWLYLW\ DQG ZKLOH

PAGE 11

JUDPPDULDQV DUH REOLJHG WR JLYH WUDQVLWLYLW\ VRPH PHQWLRQ EHFDXVH RI LWV LQWLPDWH OLQN WR FODXVH VWUXFWXUH WKHUH LV FRQVLGHUDEOH YDULDWLRQ LQ WKH GHJUHH RI FHQWUDOLW\ DFFRUGHG LW 0$. +DOOLGDY %HIRUH GLVFXVVLQJ HDFK RI WKH DSSURDFKHV DERYH VRPH PHQWLRQ RI 0 $; +DOOLGD\ PXVW EH PDGH +DOOLGD\ f VWDUWHG WKH VHULRXV GLVFXVVLRQ RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ LQ D WKUHH SDUW ZRUN WLWOHG f1RWHV RQ 7UDQVLWLYLW\ DQG 7KHPH LQ (QJOLVK :KLOH LW LV QRW ZLWKLQ WKH VFRSH RI WKLV VWXG\ WR UHYLHZ WKH ZKROH ZRUN +DOOLGD\nV EDVLF FODLPV DUH DGKHUHG WR LQ VXEVHTXHQW ZRUN WKRXJK KH LV QRW DOZD\V H[SOLFLWO\ FLWHGf )RU +DOOLGD\ WUDQVLWLYLW\ ZDV SDUW RI WKUHH V\VWHPV ZKRVH SRLQW RI RULJLQ LV WKH PDWUL[ FODXVH WKDW FODXVH ZKLFK FRQWDLQV WKH PDMRU SUHGLFDWLRQ RI WKH VHQWHQFH 7KH FHQWUDOLW\ RI SUHGLFDWLRQ DV WKH VWDULLQJ SRLQW IRU OLQJXLVWLF GLVFXVVLRQ LV VWLOO YDOLG IRU PDQ\ OLQJXLVWV f5HJDUGOHVV RI WKH W\SH RI GLVFRXUVH XQGHU FRQVLGHUDWLRQ WKH FODXVHV ZKLFK FRQVWLWXWH WKH GLVFRXUVH DUH FRQVWUXFWHG DURXQG SUHGLFDWLRQV FRQVLVWLQJ RI D SUHGLFDWH DQG LWV DUJXPHQW )ROH\ DQG 9DQ 9DOLQ ff ,Q SDUWLFXODU WKH WUDQVLWLYLW\ V\VWHPV fDUH FRQFHUQHG ZLWK WKH W\SH RI SURFHVV H[SUHVVHG LQ WKH FODXVH ZLWK WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV LQ WKLV SURFHVV DQLPDWH DQG LQDQLPDWH DQG ZLWK YDULRXV DWWULEXWHV DQG FLUFXPVWDQFHV RI WKH SURFHVV DQG SDUWLFLSDQWV f )RU +DOOLGD\ WUDQVLWLYLW\ LV WKH V\VWHP ZKLFK SURYLGHV VHWV RI RSWLRQV UHODWLQJ WR fFRJQLWLYH FRQWHQW WKH OLQJXLVWLF UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ RI H[WUDOLQJXLVWLF H[SHULHQFH ZKHWKHU RI WKH H[WHUQDO ZRULG RU RI IHHOLQJV WKRXJKWV SHUFHSWLRQV +DOOLGD\ Ef $V ZH ZLOO VHH WUDQVLWLYLW\ DV D FRJQLWLYH SKHQRPHQRQ LV VWLOO D FULWLFDO GHILQLWLYH QRWLRQ 7KH EDVLF W\SHV RI SURFHVVHV +DOOLGD\ SURSRVHV DUH GLUHFWHG DQG QRQGLUHFWHG DFWLRQ PHDQLQJ DFWLYLWLHV ZKLFK DUH GLUHFWHG RU QRW GLUHFWHG WRZDUGV SURGXFLQJ D VSHFLILF HIIHFW RQ D SDUWLFLSDQW 7KH UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ SDUWLFLSDQWV DQG SURFHVVHV DUH WKXV YHU\ LPSRUWDQW 7KH ILUVW UHODWLRQVKLS +DOOLGD\ GHVFULEHV LV WKDW RI WKH JUDPPDWLFDO VXEMHFW RI WKH FODXVH IRU (QJOLVK HYHU\ FODXVH PXVW KDYH D VXEMHFWf 7KH VXEMHFW KDV RQH RI WZR VHPDQWLF UROHV WKH DFWRU WKH RQH SHUIRUPLQJ WKH DFWLRQf DQG LQLWLDWRU RQH ZKR LV HQHUJ\ VRXUFH RI WKH DFWLRQf 7KH JUDPPDWLFDO REMHFW KDV RQH SULQFLSDO UROH WKH JRDO RI WKH DFWLRQ 6XEMHFWV DQG REMHFWV

PAGE 12

SDUWLFLSDWH LQ RQH RI WKUHH W\SHV RI FODXVHV RSHUDWLYH PLGGOH DQG UHFHSWLYH 6L[ UHODWLRQVKLSV HPHUJH IURP FURVVLQJ SURFHVVHV SDUWLFLSDQWV DQG FODXVH W\SHV GLUHFWHG QRQ GLUHFWHG RSHUDWLYH PLGGOH UHFHSWLYH 6 DFWRU VKH ZDVKHG WKH FORWKHV 6 DFWRUJRDO VKH ZDVKHG 6 JRDO WKH FORWKHV ZHUH ZDVKHG 6 LQLWLDWRU KH PDUFKHG WKH SULVRQHUV 6 LQLWLDWRUDFWRU WKH SULVRQHUV PDUFKHG 6 DFWRU WKH SULVRQHUV ZHUH PDUFKHG )LJXUH +DOOLGD\nV 6L[ &DWHJRULHV RI &ODXVH 7\SHV +DOOLGD\ ORFDWHV WUDQVLWLYLW\ ZLWKLQ WKH FODXVH DQG LQ GRLQJ VR UHWXUQV WR IHDWXUHV RI WKH FODXVH DV WKH RUJDQL]LQJ UXEULF IRU KLV GLVFXVVLRQ 7KXV fVXEMHFW DV DFWRU RU fVXEMHFW DV LQLWLDWRU DUH XQQHFHVVDU\ ODEHOV DV WKH\ IDOO RXW QDWXUDOO\ IURP GLUHFWHG DQG QRQGLUHFWHG FODXVH W\SHV f7UHDWPHQW LQ WHUPV RI FODXVH W\SHV HQDEOHV XV WR JHQHUDOL]H E\ VD\LQJ WKDW WKHUH DUH LQ IDFW WKUHH GLVWLQFW W\SHV RI VXEMHFW RU VXEMHFW IXQFWLRQV GHWHUPLQHG E\ WKH WUDQVLWLYLW\ V\VWHPV WKHVH FRXOG EH ODEHOHG fHUJDWLYHf fQRPLQDWLYHf DQG fDFFXVDWLYHff +DOOLGD\ Df +DOOLGD\ GLVWLQJXLVKHV FODXVH IHDWXUHV VXEMHFW W\SH DQG SDUWLFLSDQW UROH DV IROORZV &ODXVH )HDWXUH RSHUDWLYH PLGGOH UHFHSWLYH 6XEMHFW 7\SH HUJDWLYH QRPLQDWLYH DFFXVDWLYH 3DUWLFLSDQW 5ROH DFWRU QRW JRDOf LQ GLUHFWHG LQLWLDWRU QRW DFWRUf LQ QRQGLUHFWHG DFWRUJRDO LQ GLUHFWHG LQLWLDWRUDFWRU LQ QRQGLUHFWHG JRDO QRW DFWRUf LQ GLUHFWHG DFWRU QRW LQLWLDWRUf LQ QRQGLUHFWHG 7KH SRLQW VR IDU FULWLFDO WR WKLV VWXG\ LV WKH HPHUJHQFH RI FODXVH W\SHV LQ WHUPV RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ UHVXOWLQJ IURP WKH LQWHUDFWLRQV EHWZHHQ SURFHVVHV DQG SDUWLFLSDQWV +DOOLGD\ FRPHV EDFN WR WKLV SRLQW DJDLQ DQG DJDLQ WKURXJKRXW DOO WKUHH VHFWLRQV FXOPLQDWLQJ LQ DQ DUJXPHQW IRU WKH OLQJXLVWLF XVHOHVVQHVV RI WKH ELQDU\ RSSRVLWLRQ fWUDQVLWLYH YHUVXV LQWUDQVLWLYHf ,Q SDUWLFXODU +DOOLGD\ SRLQWV RXW WKH GLIILFXOW\ LQ DVFULELQJ YHUEV WKLV FKDUDFWHULVWLF D fGLFWLRQDU\ DQDO\VLVf VLQFH VR PDQ\ YHUEV LQ (QJOLVK SDUWLFLSDWH LQ FODXVHV ZLWK DQG ZLWKRXW JRDO SDUWLFLSDQWV 7KDW LV

PAGE 13

WKH SUHVHQFH RI D JRDO SDUWLFLSDQW LV RIWHQ QRW IXOO\ SUHGLFWDEOH IURP WKH PHDQLQJ RI WKH YHUE ,WVHOI f7KH SRWHQWLDO GLVWLQFWLRQ LQ RWKHU ZRUGV EHWZHHQ YHUEV ZKLFK DUH LQKHUHQWO\ JRDOGLUHFWHG DQG YHUEV ZKLFK DUH QRW LV OHVV XVHIXO DV D JHQHUDOL]DWLRQ WKDQ WKH DFWXDO GLVWLQFWLRQ EHWZHHQ FODXVHV ZKLFK FRQWDLQ D JRDO RU UDWKHU DQ LPSRUWDQW GLIIHUHQFHf D IHDWXUH RI JRDOGLUHFWHGQHVV DQG WKRVH ZKLFK GR QRW +DOOLGD\ F HPSKDVLV DGGHGf 7KLV EHLQJ WKH FDVH WKH RSSRVLWLRQ RI WUDQVLWLYH DQG LQWUDQVLWLYH LV QRW XVHIXO IRU OLQJXLVWLF DQDO\VLV ,QVWHDG ZH VKRXOG HPSOR\ D IXOO UDQJH RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ GLVWLQFWLRQV DV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH SURFHVVSDUWLFLSDQW UHODWLRQV ZLWKLQ WKH FODXVH +DOOLGD\nV QRWLRQ WKDW WKHUH PXVW EH D VFDOH RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ GLVWLQFWLRQV KDV HPHUJHG DV RQH RI WKH FUXFLDO DUJXPHQWV LQ FXUUHQW IXQFWLRQDO DQG GLVFRXUVH JUDPPDUV +RZHYHU ,Q XQOLNHO\ FRQWUDVW WKH ODEHOV fWUDQVLWLYHf DQG LQWUDQVLWLYHf KDYH DOVR UHPDLQHG FRQIXVLQJ WKH VWXG\ RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ FRQVLGHUDEO\ 2QH RI WKH SULQFLSDO WDVNV RI WKLV VWXG\ LV WR FODULI\ VXFK FRQIXVLRQ DQG WKLV SRLQW ZLOO EH WDNHQ WR WDVN DW OHQJWK LQ &KDSWHU 7ZR 7KH VHFRQG LQVLJKW RI +DOOLGD\nV ZKLFK FDQ EH IRXQG WKURXJKRXW WKH OLWHUDWXUH DQG ZKLFK LV DOVR FULWLFDO WR WKLV VWXG\ LV WKH QRWLRQ fJRDOGLUHFWHGQHVVf (YLGHQFH IRU JRDOGLUHFWHGQHVV DV WKH SULPDU\ VHPDQWLF UHODWLRQVKLS LQ WUDQVLWLYLW\ LV IRXQG LQ ERWK GLVFRXUVH VWXGLHV VXFK DV 'X%RLV f DQG FRJQLWLYH VWXGLHV 5LFH f $V VXFK LW HQMR\V FRQVLGHUDEOH HODERUDWLRQ LQ &KDSWHU 7ZR )LQDOO\ +DOOLGD\f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

PAGE 14

9HUE2ULHQWHG 7KHRULHV RI 7UDQVLWLYLW\ 9HUEFHQWHUHG WKHRULHV RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ DUH WKH PRVW WUDGLWLRQDO DQG ZHOONQRZQ 7KHVH FRQVWUXH WUDQVLWLYLW\ DV D PDWWHU RI SUHGLFDWH DUJXPHQW VWUXFWXUH LGHQWLI\LQJ SDUWLFXODUO\ WKH UROH RI WKH YHUE DQG GLUHFW REMHFW D YHUE LV WUDQVLWLYH LI LW UHTXLUHV D GLUHFW REMHFW RU LI WKHUH LV D GLUHFW REMHFW SUHVHQW (DUO\ WKHRULHV GLGQnW GLVFULPLQDWH DPRQJ W\SHV RI YHUEV QRU FODVVLI\ DFFRUGLQJ WR JUDPPDWLFDO DOWHUQDWLRQV DQ\ YHUE ZKLFK UHTXLUHG VRPH NLQG RI REMHFW ZDV WUDQVLWLYH 7KXV D UHSUHVHQWDWLYH GHILQLWLRQ ZRXOG EH fD WUDQVLWLYH YHUE GHQRWHV DQ DFWLRQ ZKLFK SDVVHV RYHU IURP WKH GRHU RI WKH DFWLRQ WR WKH REMHFW RI LW EXW fDQ LQWUDQVLWLYH YHUE GHQRWHV D VWDWH RU VLPSOH DFWLRQ ZLWKRXW DQ\ UHIHUHQFH WR DQ REMHFW &XUPH HPSKDVLV DGGHGf &XUPH LQFOXGHG UHIOH[LYH YHUEV ZLWK WKH WUDQVLWLYH VWDWLQJ VLPSO\ WKDW WKH UHFHLYHU DQG GRHU KDSSHQ WR EH WKH VDPH SHUVRQ 2WKHU H[DPSOHV LQFOXGH :H PDNH IXGJH UHPHPEHU 7RQ\ ZHOO RU 6KH KDV QR EURWKHUV DQG VLVWHUV /RQJ DV FLWHG LQ 5LFHf 0RUH UHFHQW WKHRULVWV WKRXJK GR FODVVLI\ YHUEV DFFRUGLQJ WR W\SH DQG UHFRJQL]H WKDW GLIIHUHQW W\SHV FRUUHODWH ZLWK GLIIHUHQW JUDPPDWLFDO EHKDYLRUV 7KXV ZH KDYH DFWLRQ YHUEV VWDWH YHUEV SURFHVV YHUEV SV\FKRORJLFDO YHUEV UHIOH[LYH YHUEV YHUEV ZLWK FRJQDWH REMHFWV HWF RU WKH DNWLRQVDUW FODVVHV VWDWH DFWLYLW\ DFKLHYHPHQW DQG DFFRPSOLVKPHQW 9HQGOHU 'RZW\ 9DQ 9DOLQf 0RUHRYHU WKH GHILQLWLRQ RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ YLV£YLV WKHVH YHUEV KDV GHYHORSHG VR WKDW RQO\ WKRVH WKDW SDVVLYL]H DUH UHFRJQL]HG DV IXOO\ WUDQVLWLYH RU LQ VRPH FDVHV YHUEV DUH FDWHJRUL]HG DV WUDQVLWLYH DQG VXEn FDWHJRUL]HG DV DOVR SDVVLYL]DEOH 1HYHUWKHOHVV WKH V\QWDFWLF DSSURDFK WR WUDQVLWLYLW\ LV QRW OLPLWHG WR WUDGLWLRQDO JUDPPDULDQV ,QGHHG WKLV DSSURDFK ILQGV UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ LQ ERWK FXUUHQW IRUPDO DQG IXQFWLRQDO DSSURDFKHV &RQILJXUDWLRQDO DQG VWUXFWXUDO DSSURDFKHV FKDPSLRQHG E\ &KRPVN\ f DQG PRVW UHFHQWO\ E\ +DOH DQG .H\VHU f GHILQH WUDQVLWLYLW\ DV D GHULYDWLYH RI WKH V\QWDFWLF RU VHPDQWLF FRQILJXUDWLRQ RI WKH VHQWHQFH ,Q WKH $VSHFWV PRGHO D YHUE LV WUDQVLWLYH EHFDXVH LW VXEFDWHJRUL]HV IRU D QRXQ SKUDVH $ YHUE ZKLFK KDV ERWK WUDQVLWLYH DQG LQWUDQVLWLYH LQVWDQWLDWLRQV ZRXOG EH PDUNHG H[FHSWLRQDO ,Q WKH *RYHUQPHQW%LQGLQJ PRGHO D YHUE LV WUDQVLWLYH EHFDXVH LW ELQGV LWV GLUHFW REMHFW YLD JRYHUQPHQW UHODWLRQV $OWKRXJK +DOH DQG .H\VHU GR DOORZ H[WUD

PAGE 15

SURSRVLWLRQDO HOHPHQWV WR LQIOXHQFH WKH FODXVH WKH PDSSLQJ EHWZHHQ WKH FRPSRQHQWV ZKLFK OLQN SHUVSHFWLYHV RQ DQ HYHQW /H[LFDO &RQFHSWXDO 6WUXFWXUHf ZLWK FODXVDO LQVWDQWLDWLRQ /H[LFDO 6WUXFWXUHf LV XQFOHDU $QG VWLOO LQ DOO RI WKHVH FDVHV WKH YHUE LV WKH HOHPHQW UHVSRQVLEOH IRU WUDQVLWLYLW\ QR DSSHDO LV PDGH WR RWKHU HOHPHQWV LQ WKH FODXVH ZKLFK PD\ FRQWULEXWH
PAGE 16

PXVW EH PDUNHG VR LQ WKH OH[LFRQ RU KDYH PRUH WKDQ RQH UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ LQ WKH OH[LFRQ ,I ,QGHHG WUDQVLWLYLW\ ,V VRPHWKLQJ UHOHYDQW WR WKH HQWLUH FODXVH WKHQ DW VRPH SRLQW DOO FODXVHV PXVW EH LQFOXGHG ,Q WKH OH[LFRQ VHULRXVO\ FRPSURPLVLQJ WKH YDOLGLW\ RI PDLQWDLQLQJ LW DV D VHSDUDWH JUDPPDWLFDO FRPSRQHQW 5LFH f 2Q WKH RWKHU KDQG V\QWDFWLF DSSURDFKHV WR WUDQVLWLYLW\ RIIHU WZR YDOXDEOH DQG WLPHKRQRUHG LQVLJKWV )LUVW D GLUHFW REMHFW RI VRPH VRUWf SOD\V D UROH LQ GHWHUPLQLQJ WUDQVLWLYLW\ 6HFRQG V\QWDFWLF EHKDYLRU RIWHQ SURYLGH D OLWPXV WHVW IRU WUDQVLWLYLW\ $ VHQWHQFH ZKLFK SDVVLYL]HV LV FRQVLGHUHG fIXOO\f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f&N f GLVFXVVHV WUDQVLWLYLW\ LQ UHODWLRQ WR YRLFH )RU KLP WKHUH DUH WZR fOHYHOV RI VHPDQWLFV DW ZRUN LQ WKH FODXVH ILUVW WKH fGHHSf OHYHO RI VHPDQWLF VWUXFWXUH ZKHUH SURSRVLWLRQDO LQIRUPDWLRQ ZRUNV VHFRQG WKH fVXUIDFH OHYHO RI VHPDQWLF VWUXFWXUH ZKHUH FRPPXQLFDWLYH HIIHFWV DUH FUHDWHG 7KH SURSRVLWLRQDO PHDQLQJ LV WKH fOLWHUDO DFWXDO FRPPXQLFDWLYHO\ XQPRWLYDWHG UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ RI WKH HYHQWf§ DQG DV LV IRUPDOO\ FRPPRQ ,V ORJLFDOO\ UHDG IURP WKH SHUVSHFWLYH RI WKH YHUE DV D VRUW RI EDVLFOHYHO PHDQLQJf 9 >[\@ RU ZKDWHYHU UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ LV XVHGf (DFK RI WKH 13V LV WHUPHG DQ fDFWDQW WKH VXEMHFW RU DFWRU LV WKH ILUVW DFWDQW DQG WKH REMHFW RU XQGHUJRHU LV WKH VHFRQG DFWDQW &RPPXQLFDWLYH PHDQLQJ KRZHYHU LV QRW fOLWHUDO RU ZLWKRXW RUJDQL]DWLRQDO LQWHQW EXW LV WKH fOHYHO RI PHDQLQJ UHSUHVHQWLQJ WKH VSHDNHUfV LQWHQW RU RUJDQL]DWLRQ RU LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WKH HYHQW *LYQfV

PAGE 17

GLVFRXUVHSUDJPDWLFf OHYHOf ,W LV UHDG DV LV DOVR FRPPRQ SUDFWLFH IURP WKH DFWXDO RU fVXUIDFHf RUGHU RI WKH OH[LFDO XQLWV 0Of&N GHILQHV FKDQJHV LQ WUDQVLWLYLW\ DV DIIHFWLQJ FRPPXQLFDWLYH PHDQLQJ EXW QRW SURSRVLWLRQDO PHDQLQJ VLQFH YRLFH LV DQ LQIOHFWLRQDO FDWHJRU\ EXW WUDQVLWLYDWLRQ KLV WHUPf LV 127 WKRXJK VRPHWLPHV FORVHO\ UHVHPEOHV LWf -XVW OLNH YRLFH WKH WUDQVLWLYDWLRQ DFKLHYHV >FRPPXQLFDWLYH VWUXFWXUH@ WKURXJK PDQLSXODWLRQ RI &20081,&$7,9( 6$/,(1&< RI WKH YHUEfV DFWDQWV 0On&N FDSV LQ RULJLQDOf 7UDQVLWLYDWLRQ GLIIHUV IURP YRLFH LQ WKDW YRLFH FDQ DIIHFW DQ\ DFWDQW ZKHUH WUDQVLWLYDWLRQ RQO\ DFWV XSRQ WKH VHFRQG DFWDQW XQGHU WKH FRQGLWLRQ WKDW LWV VXUIDFH UHDOL]DWLRQ LV DV WKH GLUHFW REMHFWf )XUWKHUPRUH YRLFH RSHUDWHV DW WKH GHHS OHYHO RI VHPDQWLF VWUXFWXUH ZKLOH WUDQVLWLYDWLRQ RQO\ DFWV DW WKH VXUIDFH OHYHO 0Of&N IROORZV .HHQDQ DQG &RPULHfV KLHUDUFK\ FRQFOXGLQJ WKDW DOO WKLQJV EHLQJ HTXDO WKH KLJKHU WKH V\QWDFWLF UDQN RI D VHQWHQFH HOHPHQW WKH KLJKHU LWV FRPPXQLFDWLYH VDOLHQFH,W LV WKLV WUDLW WKDW LV H[SORLWHG E\ WKH WUDQVLWLYDWLRQ LW DOORZV WKH VSHDNHU WR PRGLI\ DFFRUGLQJ WR KLV FRPPXQLFDWLYH QHHGV WKH V\QWDFWLF UDQN RI WKH SKUDVH ZKRVH FRPPXQLFDWLYH VDOLHQFH LQWHUHVWV KLP f 6SHFLILFDOO\ WKHQ 0Of&N GHILQHV WUDQVLWLYDWLRQ ZLWK WKH PRGLILFDWLRQ RI WKH VHFRQG DFWDQW PDLQ REMHFWf ZLWKRXW DIIHFWLQJ SURSRVLWLRQDO FRQWHQW 'HWUDQVLWLYDWLRQ ZRUNV WKH VDPH ZD\ EXW ZLWK D WZR DFWDQW YHUE *LYQ f DOVR PDLQWDLQV GLIIHUHQW VHPDQWLF OHYHOV LQ RUGHU WR DFFRXQW IRU WKH FRPPXQLFDWLYH HIIHFWV RI GLIIHUHQW VHQWHQFHV $V ZLWK 0Of&N KH DOVR FDOOV WKHP fGHHS DQG VXUIDFH VWUXFWXUH WKRXJK RVWHQVLEO\ WKHVH DUH V\QWDFWLF OHYHOV 7KH GHHS V\QWDFWLF VWUXFWXUH PRVW FORVHO\ FRUUHVSRQGV WR WKH VHPDQWLF VWUXFWXUH RU SURSRVLWLRQDO PHDQLQJ RI WKH VHQWHQFH ,Q VLPSOH VHQWHQFHV PDLQ GHFODUDWLYH DIILUPDWLYH DFWLYHf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

PAGE 18

SUDJPDWLF IXQFWLRQV GLVFRXUVHSUDJPDWLFV DQG SURSRVLWLRQDO VHPDQWLFV DUH KHUH LQ GLUHFW FRPSHWLWLRQ IRU FRGLQJ UHVRXUFHV f 7KXV WKH RYHUDOO VWUXFWXUH RI FRPSOH[ VHQWHQFHV LV D FRPPXQLFDWLYH FRPSURPLVH EHWZHHQ WKH GLVWLQFW JRDOV RI FRPPXQLFDWLQJ SURSRVLWLRQDO LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG GLVFRXUVHSUDJPDWLF LQIRUPDWLRQ *LYQ JRHV RQH VWHS IXUWKHU DQG DVVLJQV HDFK RI WKH fSDUWVf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f REMHFW RI WKH YHUE DIIHFWHGQHVVf RU FRQVWUXDO RI HYHQW LWVHOI SHUIHFWLYLW\f 3URWRW\SLFDOO\ WKH VXEMHFW VKRXOG EH D GHOLEHUDWHO\ DFWLQJ DJHQW WKH REMHFW VKRXOG EH FRQFUHWH DQG YLVLEO\ DIIHFWHG WKH HYHQW VKRXOG EH ERXQGHG WHUPLQDWHG IDVWn FKDQJLQJ DQG LQ UHDOWLPH 6LQFH WKHUH LV D JRRG GHDO RI YDULDWLRQ SRVVLEOH ZLWK WKHVH IHDWXUHV WUDQVLWLYLW\ LV SRWHQWLDOO\ VFDODU LQ QDWXUH 7KH ILQDO GLPHQVLRQ RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ LV WKH GLVFRXUVH SUDJPDWLF f%\ nSUDJPDWLFn RQH PHDQV KHUH WKDW WKH YHU\ VDPH VHPDQWLFDOO\GHILQHG WUDQVLWLYH HYHQW FRGHG E\ WKH YHU\ VDPH FRPELQDWLRQ RI YHUE DJHQW DQG SDWLHQW PD\ EH UHQGHUHG IURP PRUH WKDQ RQH SHUVSHFWLYH %\ GLVFRXUVHn ZH PHDQ WKH GLVFRXUVH FRQWH[W ZLWKLQ ZKLFK WKH VHPDQWLFDOO\WUDQVLWLYH FODXVH LV HPEHGGHG f )RU *LYQ DV IRU 0On&N WUDQVLWLYLW\ DFWV RQ WKH fFRPPXQLFDWLYH RU GLVFRXUVH SUDJPDWLF OHYHO RI ODQJXDJH 7KH f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f LV LQ RUGHU ,W LV

PAGE 19

ZLWK WKLV SDSHU WKDW WUDQVLWLYLW\ DV D FRPSOH[ DQG FUXFLDO JUDPPDWLFDO VWUXFWXUH UHHQWHUHG OLQJXLVWLF WKHRU\ LQ IXOO IRUFH +RSSHU DQG 7KRPSVRQ f 0RVW VWXGLHV RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ DUH LQWHQGHG WR H[SODLQ HLWKHU WUDQVLWLYHLQWUDQVLWLYH FODVVLILFDWLRQV RU DFWLYHSDVVLYH DOWHUQDWLRQV $ VFDODU DSSURDFK LQWURGXFHG LQ E\ +RSSHU DQG 7KRPSVRQ SDYHG WKH ZD\ IRU DQ DOWHUQDWLYH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ EDVHG RQ GHJUHHV RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ UDWKHU WKDQ ELQDU\ GLVWLQFWLRQV ,Q WKHLU DSSURDFK D FODXVH FRXOG EH KLJK RU ORZ LQ WUDQVLWLYLW\ GHSHQGLQJ RQ WKH QXPEHU DQG W\SH KLJKORZf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fWUDGLWLRQDO VHPDQWLF QRWLRQ RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ >WKH@ FDUU\LQJ RYHU RU WUDQVIHUULQJ >RI@ DQ DFWLRQ IURP RQH SDUWLFLSDQW WR DQRWKHUf f +RSSHU DQG 7KRPSVRQ DOVR VSHFLI\ WKDW ODQJXDJHV YDU\ DFFRUGLQJ WR ZKLFK IHDWXUHV RU FOXVWHUV RI IHDWXUHVf DUH FULWLFDO WR FKDQJHV LQ WUDQVLWLYLW\ )XUWKHU WKH\ SURSRVH D UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WUDQVLWLYLW\ DQG JURXQGLQJ FODLPLQJ WKDW FODXVHV KLJK LQ WUDQVLWLYLW\ DUH DOVR IRUHJURXQGHG HYHQWV LQ QDUUDWLYH 6HYHUDO ODQJXDJH VSHFLILF VWXGLHV HPHUJHG VHH +RSSHU DQG 7KRPSVRQ 6\QWD[ DQG 6HPDQWLFV f ZKLFK FRUURERUDWHG WKHLU FODLPV +RZHYHU WZR GLIILFXOWLHV ZLWK WKHLU ZRUN KDYH EHHQ SRLQWHG RXW )LUVW WUDQVLWLYLW\ DQG JURXQGLQJ GR QRW KDYH DQ DEVROXWH UHODWLRQVKLS DQG LW PD\ EH QHFHVVDU\ WR UHILQH ZKLFK DVSHFWV RI QDUUDWLYH DUH DFWXDOO\ UHODWHG WR WUDQVLWLYLW\ VXSSRVLQJ WKDW VXFK D UHODWLRQVKLS LQGHHG H[LVWV .DOPDU f 6HFRQG WKH VHPDQWLF IHDWXUHV SURSRVHG GR QRW QHFHVVDULO\ FRYDU\ FRQVLVWHQWO\ RU FRUUHODWH ZLWK WUDQVLWLYLW\ DOWHUQDWLRQV VXFK DV SDVVLYH QRU PXVW WKH\ EH PRUSKRORJLFDO LQ QDWXUH 5LFH f

PAGE 20

7KHUH LV DOVR ODQJXDJHVSHFLILF HYLGHQFH WKDW PRUSKRORJLFDO LQGLFDWRUV RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ PD\ QRW FRUUHVSRQG WR SDUWLFXODU IHDWXUHV EXW VLPSO\ LQGLFDWH RYHUDOO FKDQJHV LQ WUDQVLWLYL]DWLRQ .LEULN f 1HYHUWKHOHVV +RSSHU DQG 7KRPSVRQ RSHQHG WKH GRRU WR D PRUH VRSKLVWLFDWHG QRWLRQ RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ DQG ILUPO\ HVWDEOLVKHG WKH UHOHYDQFH RI ERWK VHPDQWLF DQG SUDJPDWLF IDFWRUV WR LWV VWXG\ &RJQLWLYH PRGHOV )RU 5LFH WUDQVLWLYLW\ LV XOWLPDWHO\ fD OLQJXLVWLF GHYLFH RSWLRQDOO\ HPSOR\HG E\ D VSHDNHU WR FRQFHSWXDOL]H DQG RUJDQL]H WKH DFWLRQV RI HQWLWLHV LQ WKH ZRUOG LQ RUGHU WR FRQYH\ D FHUWDLQ DWWLWXGH DERXW DQ RYHUDOO HYHQW WR VRPHRQH HOVH f $V ZLWK PRVW WKHRULVWV VKH ILQGV WUDQVLWLYLW\ D VHPDQWLF PDWWHU ZLWK GLVFRXUVHSUDJPDWLF IXQFWLRQV +RZHYHU VKH ILUPO\ SODFHV KHUVHOI ZLWKLQ D FRJQLWLYH VFKRRO RI OLQJXLVWLFV ZKLFK WDNHV WKH ZRUN RQ SURWRW\SH WKHRU\ E\ 5RVFK TXLWH VHULRXVO\ VHH /DNRII f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f 5LFH LV DQ fH[WUHPH FRJQLWLYLVW LQVRIDU DV VKH XQGHUVWDQGV WKH FRQFHSWXDO FDWHJRULHV VKH LQYHVWLJDWHV DV SULPDULO\ QRQOLQJXLVWLF WKRXJK WKH\ PD\ EH PDQLIHVWHG LQ D OLQJXLVWLF IRUP 0\ YLHZ LV VRPHZKDW PRUH PRGHUDWH :KLOH DJUHH WKDW FRQFHSWXDO FDWHJRULHV GR XQGHUOLH PXFK RI ODQJXDJH DFTXLVLWLRQ WKH UHVHDUFK LQWR FRQFHSWXDO FDWHJRULHV WKURXJKRXW ODQJXDJH LV TXLWH FRQYLQFLQJ VHH 9DQGHORLVH +HUVNRYLW] -RKQVRQ HWFf DOVR KROG WKDW DW VRPH SRLQW ,Q WKH DFTXLVLWLRQ SURFHVV FULWLFDO PDVV DWWDLQV DQG ODQJXDJH EHFRPHV D V\VWHP DFWLQJ RQ LWV RZQ ,W ,V D FRJQLWLYH V\VWHP \HV EXW DOVR KDV ,WV RZQ UXOHV VWUXFWXUHV SXUSRVHV

PAGE 21

IXQFWLRQV DQG IRUPV ZKLFK DUH YHU\ PXFK OLQJXLVWLF LQ QDWXUH 1HYHUWKHOHVV 5LFHn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fV LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WKH HYHQW DV LW LV WKH FRQWHQW RI WKH HYHQW EHLQJ GHVFULEHG ,W LV WKLV REVHUYDWLRQ WKDW DFFRXQWV IRU PHWDSKRULF H[WHQVLRQ IURP WKH UHDOP RI WKH SK\VLFDO DV ZHOO DV YDULDELOLW\ LQ VSHDNHUVn DFFHSWDQFH RI SDVVLYHV ,W LV WKH ILUVW SRLQW ZKLFK ILQG SDUWLFXODUO\ VLJQLILFDQW ,Q 5LFHn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f WR QRQSK\VLFDO GRPDLQV 5LFH EULOOLDQWO\ PDNHV WKLV SRLQW IRU WUDQVLWLYLW\ LQ PHQWDO GRPDLQV DQG FRPPXQLFDWLYH RU LQWHUSHUVRQDO GRPDLQV 7KDW LV IRU HDFK RI WKH SULPDU\ GRPDLQV LQ ZKLFK ZH DFW f§ SK\VLFDO PHQWDO VRFLDO WKHUH DUH SURWRW\SLFDO WUDQVLWLYH

PAGE 22

HYHQWV ZKLFK PDNH XVH RI WKH DERYH VHPDQWLF FRPSRQHQWV WKRXJK LQHTXDOO\f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fFLUFOH EDFNf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fSDWK IURP WKH SROLFHPDQ WR %LOO QRW WKH RWKHU ZD\ DURXQG $ QXPEHU RI SRVVLEOH HPRWLRQDO RU PHQWDO FKDQJHV FDQ EH LQIHUUHG IRU %LOO IURP IHDU DQG QHUYRXVQHVV WR VZHDWLQJ WR VLOHQFH 5LFH DOVR PDNHV WKH SRLQW WKDW FRQWDFW DQG GLUHFWHGQHVV DUH LPSRUWDQW VHPDQWLF SURSHUWLHV RI VRFLDO HYHQWV DQG KHU LQYHVWLJDWLRQ LQWR YHUE DQG SUHSRVLWLRQ FRPELQDWLRQV UHVXOWLQJ LQ WUDQVLWLYH HYHQWV FRQWDLQV D KLJK QXPEHU RI VRFLDO HYHQWV

PAGE 23

7KH VWUHQJWKV RI WKH VHPDQWLF WKHRULHV RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ LQFOXGH D FRPPLWPHQW WR ILQGLQJ FRKHUHQFH XQGHUO\LQJ DSSDUHQWO\ GLVSDUDWH H[DPSOHV DQG D FDUHIXO DWWHQWLRQ WR GHWDLOV WKDW V\VWHPDWLFDOO\ GLVWLQJXLVK GLIIHUHQW W\SHV RI PHDQLQJ :KLOH GRQnW QHFHVVDULO\ DFFHSW WKH V\QWDFWLF GLVWLQFWLRQ RI GHHS DQG VXUIDFH OHYHOV WKHRUHWLFDOO\ WKHUH LV D QHHG WR GLVWLQJXLVK VRPH NLQG RI SURSRVLWLRQDO PHDQLQJ IURP GLVFRXUVHSUDJPDWLF PHDQLQJ 1RU GR DFFHSW SURWRW\SH WKHRU\ RXWULJKW WKRXJK LW LV FRQYHQLHQW WR RXU GLVFXVVLRQ WR XVH LW DV D SRVVLEOH PRGHO 7KLV PRGHO ZLOO EH WDNHQ XS ZLWK JUHDWHU GLOLJHQFH LQ &KDSWHU 7ZR 1HYHUWKHOHVV 5LFHfV FDUHIXO H[SOLFDWLRQ RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ LQ (QJOLVK XVLQJ ERWK FDQRQLFDO DQG PDUJLQDO H[DPSOHV LV FRPSHOOLQJ 7KH SULPDU\ VWUHQJWK RI *LYQ DQG 5LFH LV WKHLU FRPPLWPHQW WR D YLHZ RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ DV D VLQJOH G\QDPLF HQWLW\ ZLWK D FRPSOH[ RI FRPSRQHQWV YHUVXV D SOFNDQGFKRRVH OLVW DSSURDFK 7KH QRWLRQ WKDW VWUXFWXUDOO\ WUDQVLWLYLW\ KDV ERWK VHPDQWLF DQG GLVFRXUVHSUDJPDWLF FRPSRQHQWV DQG IXQFWLRQDOO\ LW VHUYHV WR PDQLSXODWH SHUVSHFWLYHV RQ D VFHQH KDV SURIRXQGO\ LQIOXHQFHG P\ RZQ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ DQG LV IRXQGDWLRQDO WR WKLV SDSHU ([WUD&ODXVH 2ULHQWHG 7KHRULHV RI 7UDQVLWLYLWY ([WUDFODXVH RULHQWHG WKHRULHV RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ IRFXV RQ WKH OHYHO RI GLVFRXUVH 7KHVH WKHRULHV RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ EHJLQ ZLWK WKH QRWLRQ RI FRQVWUXDO RI DQ HYHQW DQG HQG ZLWK WKH QRWLRQ RI LQIRUPDWLRQ VWUXFWXULQJ LQ D WH[W 7KHUH DUH WZR OHYHOV DW ZKLFK DQ HYHQW FDQ EH FRQVWUXHG )LUVW WKH FODXVHOHYHO LQ ZKLFK WKH VWUXFWXUH RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO FODXVH HQFRGHV WKH VSHDNHUn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nV ,QWHQWLRQV DQG FRQWH[WXDO HQYLURQPHQW 7KH VHFRQG QRWLRQ LV DOVR ZKDW +RSSHU DQG 7KRPSVRQ ZHUH GLVFXVVLQJ ZKHQ WKH\ FODLPHG WKDW KLJKO\ WUDQVLWLYH FODXVHV HQFRGH IRUHJURXQGHG HYHQWV LQ QDUUDWLYH ,Q IDFW WKLV LV QRW VWULFWO\ WKH FDVH 5DWKHU KLJKO\ WUDQVLWLYH HYHQWV W\SLFDOO\ FRUUHODWH ZLWK WHPSRUDOO\JURXQGHG

PAGE 24

HYHQWV LQ D QDUUDWLYH WKRVH DFWLRQV ZKLFK GULYH WKH VWRU\ IRUZDUG WKURXJK WLPH DQG UHTXLUH ERWK DQ DJHQW DQG SDWLHQW RI VRPH NLQGf 7KH SUDJPDWLF VLGH RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ LV WKH OHDVW H[SORUHG DV WKH UHODWLYH SDXFLW\ RI H[SODQDWLRQ JLYHQ E\ *LYQ DWWHVWV +RZHYHU WKHUH DUH VRPH WDQWDOL]LQJ SRVVLELOLWLHV RIIHUHG LQ YDULRXV DFFRXQWV RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ GLVFRXUVH DQG JUDPPDU 'X%RLV f GLVFXVVHV WKH VWDWLVWLFDO FRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ FODXVHW\SH WUDQVLWLYH LQWUDQVLWLYH ZLWK OH[LFDOO\ VSHFLILHG DUJXPHQWVf DQG LQIRUPDWLRQ VWUXFWXULQJIORZ SDUWLFXODUO\ WKH LQWURGXFWLRQ RI QHZ SDUWLFLSDQWVf DV WKH\ UHODWH WR HUJDWLYH SDWWHUQV LQ JUDPPDU 7KHUH ZDV DQ RYHUZKHOPLQJ WHQGHQF\ LQ KLV WUDQVFULSWV RI QDUUDWLYH GLVFRXUVH IRU DQ\ FODXVH LQWUDQVLWLYH RU WUDQVLWLYH WR KDYH RQO\ D VLQJOH OH[LFDO DUJXPHQW IXOO\ VSHFLILHG RQO\ b RI WUDQVLWLYH FODXVHV KDG ERWK DUJXPHQWV OH[LFDOO\ VSHFLILHG UHSUHVHQWLQJ MXVW ILYH VHQWHQFHV LQ WKH GDWDf +LV FRQFOXVLRQ ZDV WKDW HUJDWLYH SDWWHUQLQJ LQ GLVFRXUVH IRUPV WKH EDVLV RI HUJDWLYH SDWWHUQLQJ RI JUDPPDWLFDO SKHQRPHQRQ 'X%RLV ZRUNV ZLWKLQ 'L[RQfV f VHPDQWLF GLYLVLRQ RI SDUWLFLSDQW UROHV LQWHQGHG WR DOORZ FURVVWKHRUHWLFDO GLVFXVVLRQ RI HUJDWLYHDEVROXWLYH DQG QRPLQDWLYHDFFXVDWLYH ODQJXDJHV 'L[RQ GLVFULPLQDWHV WKUHH EDVLF VHPDQWLF UROHV DV WKH\ UHODWH WR WKH SUHGLFDWH f$f GHVLJQDWLQJ WKH VXEMHFWDFWRU RI D WUDQVLWLYH WZR SDUWLFLSDQWf FODXVH 2 GHVLJQDWLQJ WKH REMHFWJRDO RI D WUDQVLWLYH WZR SDUWLFLSDQWf FODXVH DQG f6 GHVLJQDWLQJ WKH VLQJOH SDUWLFLSDQW RI DQ LQWUDQVLWLYH RQH SDUWLFLSDQWf FODXVH 7KXV LQ QRPLQDWLYHDFFXVDWLYH ODQJXDJHV f$6 SDWWHUQ WRJHWKHU PHDQLQJ WKDW WKH DFWRUVXEMHFW RI D WUDQVLWLYH FODXVH DQG VLQJOH SDUWLFLSDQW RI DQ LQWUDQVLWLYH FODXVH WDNH WKH VDPH YHUEDO PRUSKRORJ\ QRPLQDWLYHf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b RI OH[LFDOO\ VSHFLILHG DUJXPHQWV RFFXUUHG LQ WKH f$f SRVLWLRQWKH YDVW PDMRULW\ RI FDVHV ZHUH f6 DQG f2f 7KXV LQIRUPDWLRQ IORZ ZDV PDQDJHG LQ WHUPV RI D FRQVWUDLQW DJDLQVW XVLQJ OH[LFDO WUDQVLWLYH VXEMHFWV 'X%RLV LQWHUSUHWV WKLV SUDJPDWLFDOO\ DV PHDQLQJ RQO\

PAGE 25

RQH QHZ DUJXPHQW FDQ EH LQWURGXFHG DW D WLPH WKLV QRWLRQ LV DOVR IRXQG LQ *LYQ DE DQG &KDIH WKRXJK ERWK DXWKRUV VXJJHVWHG DV PXFK LQ HDUOLHU SXEOLFDWLRQVf )XUWKHU WKH QHZ DUJXPHQW LV SUHIHUDEO\ DQ LQWUDQVLWLYH VXEMHFW RU WUDQVLWLYH REMHFW ,Q WHUPV RI WKH GLVFRXUVH EDVLV RI HUJDWLYLW\ 'X%RLV FRQFOXGHV f,W DSSHDUV WKHQ WKDW VSHDNHUV RIWHQ VHOHFW DQ LQWUDQVLWLYH YHUE QRW QHFHVVDULO\ IRU LWV FRQFHSWXDO RU VHPDQWLF RQHSODFHQHVV EXW IRU LWV FRPSDWLELOLW\ ZLWK FRQVWUDLQWV RQ LQIRUPDWLRQ IORZ f 'X%RLV DOVR IRXQG HYLGHQFH IRU WKH VDPH W\SH RI SDWWHUQLQJ LQ QRPLQDWLYHDFFXVDWLYH ODQJXDJHV P\ RZQ ZRUN LQ &UHH VXJJHVWV WKDW VWDWLVWLFDOO\ FODXVH W\SH DQG IXOO OH[LFDO VSHFLILFDWLRQ RI 13V FRUUHODWHV ZLWK IXQFWLRQ LQ QDUUDWLYH GLVFRXUVH
PAGE 26

%HUPDQ DQG 6ORELQ f $JHQF\ FDQ EH VWUHQJWKHQHG RU ZHDNHQHG YLD FKRLFH RI YHUE FKRLFH RI DGYHUEV DQG XVH RI VXERUGLQDWH FODXVHV %HUPDQ DQG 6ORELQ SURSRVH WKUHH OHYHOV RI DJHQF\ KLJK PLG DQG ORZ $Q\ SDUWLFXODU OHYHO FRPHV DERXW YLD WKH RWKHU WKUHH DVSHFWV RI ILOWHULQJ DV ZHOO DV YRLFH DQG OH[LFDO RSWLRQV ,Q WKHLU WUHDWPHQW WKRXJK WKH FKRLFHV PDGH ZKHQ fILOWHULQJ DQ HYHQW IRU H[SUHVVLRQ JR EH\RQG PHUH UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ RI WKH H[SHULHQWLDO HYHQW DV LV WKH FDVH ZLWK +DOOLGD\ DQG 5LFHf DQG KDYH HQFRGLQJ FRQVHTXHQFHV EH\RQG WKH OHYHO RI WKH FODXVH )RU H[DPSOH FRQVWUXLQJ WKH IROORZLQJ SDUWLFLSDQWV DQG HYHQW ZLWK GLIIHUHQW FRPELQDWLRQV RI WRSLF ORFXV HYHQW YLHZ DQG DJHQF\ LPSDFWV WKH FRQWHQW RI WKH QH[W FODXVH 3DUWLFLSDQWV GRJ FDW HYHQW IDVW PRYHPHQW RI RQH SDUWLFLSDQW IURP WKH RWKHU f 7RSLF GRJ f 7RSLF GRJ /RFXV RI FRQWURO DQG HIIHFW GRJ /RFXV RI FRQWURO DQG HIIHFW FDW (YHQW 9LHZ &DXVH9LHZ (YHQW 9LHZ %HFRPH9LHZ $JHQF\ KLJK $JHQF\ PLG 'LVFRXUVH 2QH 7KH GRJ DWWDFNHG WKH FDW EDUNLQJ IXULRXVO\ KLV ULJKW WR VLW RQ WKDW ELW RI VLGHZDON QH[W WR KLV KRXVH 7KH FDW VZLSHG KLV QRVH RQFH ZLWK KHU SDZ DQG WKDW ZDV WKH HQG RI WKDW GD\fV EDWWOH 'LVFRXUVH 7ZR 7KH GRJ IOHG QRVH VFUDWFKHG DQG EOHHGLQJ +H KDG WR UHFRQVLGHU EDWWOH VWUDWHJ\ EHIRUH FKDOOHQJLQJ WKH IHOLQH QH[W GRRU DJDLQ 7KH LPSDFW RQ WKH VHFRQG VHQWHQFH RI HDFK LV VLJQLILFDQW :KHQ WKH GRJ LV ERWK WRSLF DQG ORFL RI FRQWURO DQG HIIHFW LW OHIW WKH FDW DV QRW RQO\ WKH DIIHFWHG SDUWLFLSDQW EXW DOVR WKH QHZ LQIRUPDWLRQ 7KH UHVSRQVH RI WKH FDW LV WKH QH[W fORJLFDO VWHS LQ WKH GLVFRXUVH DV LW LV WKLV SDUWLFLSDQW WKH OLVWHQHU KDV OHDVW LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW DQG PXVW NQRZ LQ RUGHU WR PDNH SUDJPDWLF VHQVH RI WKH IROORZLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ ,Q 'LVFRXUVH 7ZR KRZHYHU WKH FDW LV WKH FRQWUROOLQJ IRUFH EXW LV QRW RYHUWO\ PHQWLRQHG OHDYLQJ WKH GRJ DV D SRVVLEOH WRSLF IRU WKH QH[W SUHGLFDWLRQ :H DUH WKXV EURXJKW IXOO FLUFOH IURP 5LFHfV FRPSHOOLQJ DUJXPHQWV IRU WKH FRQFHSWXDO EDVLV IRU WUDQVLWLYLW\ DFURVV SK\VLFDO PHQWDO DQG VRFLDO GRPDLQV 'X%RLVn HYLGHQFH IRU WKH HIIHFWV RI GLVFRXUVH PDQDJHPHQW RQ FODXVH VWUXFWXUH DQG %HUPDQ DQG 6ORELQnV LQVLJKWV LQWR WKH LQWHUSOD\ IURP FODXVH WR FODXVH WR WKH RULJLQDO K\SRWKHVLV WKDW WUDQVLWLYLW\ LV QRW D XQLWDU\ SKHQRPHQRQ EXW RQH ZKLFK VWUDGGOHV WKH WKUHH SULQFLSOH OHYHOV RI ODQJXDJH VWUXFWXUHf§V\QWD[ VHPDQWLFV DQG GLVFRXUVHIRU WKH SXUSRVHV RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ :KDW UHPDLQV WR EH GRQH LV D

PAGE 27

WKRURXJKJRLQJ LQYHVWLJDWLRQ LQWR WKHVH LQWHUDFWLRQV :KLOH HDFK RI WKH DERYH UHVHDUFKHUV KDV DGPLUDEO\ LQYHVWLJDWHG WKH SDUWLFXODU VLGH RI WKH LVVXH KH RU VKH LV LQWHUHVWHG LQ QR RQH LQYHVWLJDWRU KDV DWWHPSWHG DQ LQGHSWK VWXG\ RI WKHVH DW RQFH SDUWLFXODUO\ DV WKH\ DWWDLQ EH\RQG WKH JHQUH RI QDUUDWLYH 7KDW LV WKH SXUSRVH RI WKLV SURMHFW WR LQYHVWLJDWH WKH YDULRXV GHILQLWLRQV RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ DQG SDUWLFXODUO\ LWV XVH ZLWK WKH DLP RI GHWHUPLQLQJ ZKDW PLJKW SURSHUO\ EH FDOOHG fWUDQVLWLYLW\f DQG LWV IXQFWLRQV 7KLV ZRUN VKRXOG EH YLHZHG ZLWK UHVSHFW WR HPHUJLQJ QRWLRQV DERXW GLVFRXUVH VXFK DV WKRVH ODLG RXW E\ +RSSHU DQG 7KRPSVRQ f 'X%RLV f %HUPDQ DQG 6ORELQ f DQG &KDIH f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f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f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

PAGE 28

ZRUGV D JLYHQ JUDPPDWLFDO RU VHPDQWLF FRQVWUXFWLRQ KDV VWUXFWXUH DQG IXQFWLRQ ZKLFK LV GHILQLQJ DQG WKH VWUXFWXUH DQG IXQFWLRQ KROG UHJDUGOHVV RI WKH WH[W W\SH LQ ZKLFK WKH\ DUH SDUWLFLSDWLQJ 2I FRXUVH QRW HYHU\ OLQJXLVW KROGV WKLV DVVXPSWLRQ 'X%RLVf f VWXG\ GLVFXVVHG LQ WKH SUHYLRXV VHFWLRQ LV DQ H[FHOOHQW FRXQWHUH[DPSOH +LV ZRUN RQ WKH GLVFRXUVH EDVLV RI HUJDWLYLW\ VSHFLILFDOO\ FRPHV WR WKH FRQFOXVLRQ WKDW WKHUH DUH GLVFRXUVH SUHIHUHQFHV IRU V\QWDFWLF VWUXFWXUHV 7KHVH SUHIHUHQFHV DFW LQGHSHQGHQWO\ RI WKH VHPDQWLFV RI V\QWDFWLF VWUXFWXUHV E\ H[HUWLQJ VHOHFWLRQDO SUHVVXUHV IRU WKH SXUSRVHV RI FRJQLWLYH SURFHVVLQJ ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV WKHUH DUH fWRS GRZQ OLQJXLVWLF IRUFHV DW ZRUN ZKLFK DUH HYHU\ ELW DV SRZHUIXO DV WKH fERWWRP XSf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fFXPXODWLYH VWUXFWXUHIXQFWLRQ GHILQLWLRQ RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ ZLOO EH SURSRVHG IROORZHG E\ D SRLQWE\SRLQW LQYHVWLJDWLRQ RI WKH YDOLGLW\ RI HDFK RI WKH FODLPV 6HFRQG WKH OLQJXLVWLF IHDWXUHV RI QDUUDWLYH ZLOO EH LQYHVWLJDWHG DQG VXEWUDFWHG IURP WKH GHILQLWLRQ RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ ZKHUH WKDW VHHPV DSSURSULDWH 7KLUG WKH UHVXOWLQJ fGHILQLWLRQ RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ ZLOO EH WDNHQ LQWR ERWK QDUUDWLYH DQG H[SRVLWRU\ WH[WV IRU UHILQHPHQW DQG WR LQYHVWLJDWH WKH IXQFWLRQVf RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ LQ WKHVH WZR FRQWUDVWLQJ WH[W W\SHV 2YHUYLHZ RI 3URMHFW $ FRXSOH RI DVVXPSWLRQV FHQWUDO WR WKLV SURMHFW VKRXOG EH H[SUHVVHG DW WKLV SRLQW 2I WKH YDULRXV OLQJXLVWLF PHWDDSSURDFKHV WR ODQJXDJH IDOO LQ WKH FDPS RI WKH fLQWHUDFWLRQLVW 7KLV LV P\ RZQ GHVLJQDWLRQ DQG LQFOXGHV SHUVSHFWLYHV VXFK DV WKRVH H[SUHVVHG E\ 'X%RLV Df WKDW fJUDPPDUV FRGH EHVW ZKDW VSHDNHUV GR PRVW DQG E\ (OL]DEHWK %DWHV SFf WKDW ODQJXDJH DV D V\VWHP LV FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ WKH PDSSLQJ RI D fK\SHU ULFK GLPHQVLRQDO V\VWHP PHDQLQJf RQWR D

PAGE 29

ORZ GLPHQVLRQ FRPPXQLFDWLYH DSSDUDWXVf JUDPPDUf UHVXOWLQJ LQ D G\QDPLF V\VWHP ZKHUHLQ WKH YDVW IOXLG ZRUOG RI PHDQLQJ PXVW EH UHOD\HG YLD D FRPSDUDWLYHO\ ULJLG PHDQV RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ 7DOP\ f DV PHQWLRQHG HDUOLHU VD\V EDVLFDOO\ WKH VDPH WKLQJ ODQJXDJH VHUYHV WKH QHHGV RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ EXW LV FRQVWUDLQHG E\ WKH FRJQLWLYH UHTXLUHPHQWV RI FRPSUHKHQVLELOLW\ )RU WKHVH UHDVRQV UHMHFW PRGHOV RI JUDPPDU ZKLFK SURSRVH YDULRXV VRUWV RI HQGOHVVO\ HPEHGGHG FRQWLQXD ,PSRVHG XSRQ RQH DQRWKHU DQG UHVXOWLQJ YLD WKLV LPSRVLWLRQ LQ D FRKHUHQW VHW RI FRQVWUXFWLRQV ZLWK VXUIDFH UHDOL]DWLRQV RI FODXVHV DQG SKUDVHV 7KLV LV WKH fIHHO RI PDQ\ SXUHO\ FRJQLWLYH RU SXUHO\ GLVFRXUVH PRGHOV RI JUDPPDU ,QVWHDG VLGH ZLWK OLNHV RI %DWHV 7DOP\ *LYRQ DQG 6OREOQ ZKR HQYLVLRQ JUDPPDU DV WKH G\QDPLF V\VWHP ZKLFK HPHUJHV IURP WKH WHQVLRQ RI WZR GLVWLQFW IRUFHV LQ OLQJXLVWLF FRPPXQLFDWLRQ WKH ULFKQHVV RI PHDQLQJ DV H[SUHVVHG WKURXJK WKH FRQVWUDLQWV RI FRJQLWLRQ 7KXV P\ PRGHO RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ E\ DQG ODUJH UHMHFWV WKH SURWRW\SH PRGHOV RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ FXUUHQWO\ LQ IDYRU +RSSHU DQG 7KRPSVRQ 5LFH *LYQ f ,QVWHDG SURSRVH D PRGHO RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ ZKLFK KDV LWV EDVH LQ WKH VHPDQWLFFRJQLWLYH V\VWHP EXW LV UHDOL]HG V\QWDFWLFDOO\ WKURXJK IRXU GLIIHUHQW FODXVH W\SHV WHOLF WUDQVLWLYH DWHOLF WUDQVLWLYH GLVSHUVHG WUDQVLWLYH DQG LQWUDQVLWLYH RU GXUDWLYH WUDQVLWLYHf 7KHVH FODXVH W\SHV DUH SDUWLFXODU WR (QJOLVK ,Q NHHSLQJ ZLWK 6ORELQnV SURSRVLWLRQ WKDW GLIIHUHQW ODQJXDJHV VHOHFW GLIIHUHQW DVSHFWV RI WKH PHQWDO LPDJHf WR EH UHDOL]HG JUDPPDWLFDOO\ f ,Q 6ORELQfV ZRUGV f 7KH H[SUHVVLRQ RI H[SHULHQFH LQ OLQJXLVWLF WHUPV FRQVWLWXWHV WKLQNLQJ IRU VSHDNLQJ D VSHFLDO IRUP RI WKRXJKW WKDW LV PRELOL]HG IRU FRPPXQLFDWLRQ :KDWHYHU HIIHFWV JUDPPDU PD\ RU PD\ QRW KDYH RXWVLGH WKH DFW RI VSHDNLQJ WKH VRUW RI PHQWDO DFWLYLW\ WKDW JRHV RQ ZKLOH IRUPXODWLQJ XWWHUDQFHV LV QRW WULYLDO RU REYLRXV DQG GHVHUYHV RXU DWWHQWLRQ :H HQFRXQWHU WKH FRQWHQWV RI WKH PLQG LQ D VSHFLDO ZD\ ZKHQ WKH\ DUH EHLQJ DFFHVVHG IRU XVH 7KDW LV WKH DFWLYLW\ RI WKLQNLQJ WDNHV RQ D SDUWLFXODU TXDOLW\ ZKHQ LW LV HPSOR\HG LQ WKH DFWLYLW\ RI VSHDNLQJ ,Q WKH HYDQHVFHQW WLPH IUDPH RI FRQVWUXFWLQJ XWWHUDQFHV LQ GLVFRXUVH RQH ILWV RQHfV WKRXJKWV LQWR DYDLODEOH OLQJXLVWLF IUDPHV f7KLQNLQJ IRU VSHDNLQJf LQYROYHV SLFNLQJ WKRVH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI REMHFWV DQG HYHQWV WKDW Df ILW VRPH FRQFHSWXDOL]DWLRQ RI WKH HYHQW DQG Ef DUH UHDGLO\ HQFRGDEOH LQ WKH >QDWLYH@ ODQJXDJH 7KLV SHUVSHFWLYH GRHV QRW FRQWUDGLFW 5LFHnV FODLP WKDW D YHUESURSRVLWLRQHYHQW LV QRW VR PXFK WUDQVLWLYH DV LW FRQVLGHUHG WUDQVLWLYH E\ WKH VSHDNHUFRQFHSWXDOL]HUf UDWKHU LW FRQVWUDLQV WKLV FODLP E\ SURSRVLQJ WKDW WUDQVLWLYLW\ KDV ODQJXDJHVSHFLILF VXUIDFH UHDOL]DWLRQV DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH

PAGE 30

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

PAGE 31

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‘6WDWHPHQW RI 7UDQVLWLYLW\f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f ,Q RUGHU WR XQGHUVWDQG ZKDW LV KDSSHQLQJ ZLWK WUDQVLWLYLW\ DW D GLVFRXUVH OHYHO WKH OLQJXLVWLF VWUXFWXUH RI QDUUUDWLYHLQ SDUWLFXODU WHQVH DQG DVSHFWPXVW EH VHSDUDWHG IURP ZKDWHYHU LW LV WKDW WUDQVLWLYLW\ LV GRLQJ 2QFH WKLV KDV EHHQ DFFRPSOLVKHG LW ZLOO EH PXFK VLPSOHU WR ,QYHVWLJDWH WKH IXQFWLRQ RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ LQ ERWK QDUUDWLYH DQG QRQQDUUDWLYH WH[WV 7KH EXON RI WKLV WDVN ,V WDNHQ XS LQ &KDSWHU 7KUHH EXW WKH ZRUN LV EHJXQ LQ WKLV FKDSWHU

PAGE 32

:H EHJLQ ZLWK WKH f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f SURWRW\SLFDO LQ QDWXUH WKXV VFDODU DQG FDSDEOH RI PHWDSKRULF H[WHQVLRQ DV ZHOO 6WUXFWXUDO &RPSRQHQWV 6\QWDFWLFf§ 7KHUH LV RQH V\QWDFWLF FRPSRQHQW WR WUDQVLWLYLW\ DQG D QHFHVVDU\ SURSHUW\ RI WKDW FRPSRQHQW V\QWDFWLF PDQLSXODWLRQ LV WKH SULQFLSDO JUDPPDWLFDO WHVW IRU WKH IXOO\ WUDQVLWLYH VWDWHPHQW Lf WKHUH PXVW EH DW OHDVW WZR SDUWLFLSDQWV VWUXFWXUDOO\ ERXQG E\ WKH VDPH FODXVH WKH WZR SDUWLFLSDQWV PXVW EH GLVWLQFW HQWLWLHV LQ WKH ZRUOG LLf WKH DYDLODELOLW\ RI WKH SDVVLYH DOWHUQDWLRQ LV WKH VWURQJHVW JUDPPDWLFDO WHVW IRU WUDQVLWLYLW\ 6HPDQWLFf§ 7KHUH DUH IRXU VHPDQWLF UHODWLRQVKLSV LGHQWLILHG IRU WUDQVLWLYLW\ Lf $V\PPHWU\ f§ WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV PXVW EH LQ DQ DV\PPHWULFDO UHODWLRQVKLS JHQHUDOO\ GXH WR WKH XQLGLUHFWLRQDO QDWXUH RI WKH DFWLRQ EXW VRPHWLPHV IDOOLQJ RXW IURP WKH LQKHUHQW QDWXUH RI WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV WKHPVHOYHV RU WKHLU UHODWLRQVKLS LLf $JHQWLYLW\ RQH RI WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV LV D GHOLEHUDWHO\ DFWLQJ DJHQW FDSDEOH RI LQVWLJDWLQJ WKH DFWLRQ RU LV WKH VRXUFH RI WKH DFWLRQ LLLf $IIHFWHGQHVV RQH RI WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV PXVW XQGHUJR VRPH NLQG RI FKDQJH RU H[SHULHQFH VRPH NLQG RI HIIHFW GXH WR WKH DFWLRQ WKLV FKDQJH RU HIIHFW PD\ EH XQGHUVWRRG IURP ZRUOG NQRZOHGJH RU LQKHUHQW WR WKH WKH PHDQLQJ RI WKH DFWLRQ LWVHOI LYf 3HUIHFWLYLW\ f§ WKH DFWLRQ VKRXOG EH ERXQGHG WHUPLQDWHG IDVWFKDQJLQJ DQG WDNH SODFH LQ UHDO WLPH 'LVFRXUVH3UDJPDWLF 7KHUH LV RQH SULQFLSDO GLVFRXUVH FRPSRQHQW WR WUDQVLWLYLW\ Lf &RQVWUDLQW RI ,QIRUPDWLRQ f§ WKHUH PXVW EH D OLPLWHG QXPEHU RI SDUWLFLSDQWV DQG IRUPV RI H[SUHVVLRQ RI WKRVH SDUWLFLSDQWV )XQFWLRQDO &ODLPV 7KHUH DUH IRXU SURSRVHG IXQFWLRQV RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ f 3URSRVLWLRQDO PHDQLQJ f§ WKH VHPDQWLF FRPSRQHQWV RI WKH WUDQVLWLYH FODXVH VHUYH WR FUHDWH WKH EDVLF SURSRVLWLRQDO QRQFRPPXQLFDWLYHO\ LQIOXHQFHG PHDQLQJ RI WKH H[SUHVVLRQ f 3HUVSHFWLYH f§ WUDQVLWLYLW\ SHUPLWV WKH ODQJXDJH XVHU WR H[SUHVV D JLYHQ VLWXDWLRQ DFWLRQ RU HYHQW IURP PRUH WKDQ RQH SHUVSHFWLYH LQ RUGHU WR FUHDWH WKH GHVLUHG FRPPXQLFDWLYH HIIHFW f 0DQDJHPHQW RI ,QIRUPDWLRQ )ORZ WUDQVLWLYLW\ SURYLGHV WKH VLWH RYHU ZKLFK SDUWLFLSDQW UHODWLRQVKLSV DUH DUUD\HG LQ RUGHU WR FRQVWUDLQ WKH LQWURGXFWLRQ RI QHZ LQIRUPDWLRQ GXULQJ FRPPXQLFDWLRQ LQ SDUW PDLQWDLQLQJ DQG PDQDJLQJ FRPPXQLFDWLYH FRKHUHQFH f *URXQGLQJ f§ KLJK RU SURWRW\SLFDO WUDQVLWLYH FODXVHV FRUUHODWH ZLWK IRUHJURXQGHG LQIRUPDWLRQ

PAGE 33

6\QWD[ 7KH FODLP IRU V\QWD[ LV WKDW WKHUH PXVW EH DW OHDVW WZR SDUWLFLSDQWV ZKR DUH GLVWLQFW LQ WKH ZRUOG LQ RWKHU ZRUGV DUH QRW FRH[WHQVLYHf DQG ERXQG VWUXFWXUDOO\ ZLWKLQ WKH VDPH FODXVH 7KH QHFHVVLW\ RI WZR SDUWLFLSDQWV LV D FODLP PDGH E\ QHDUO\ DOO OLQJXLVWV UHJDUGLQJ WUDQVLWLYLW\ HYHQ WKRVH ZKR SURSRVH D VFDODU PRGHO +RSSHU DQG 7KRPSVRQ f GR PDNH WKH VWURQJHVW DWWHPSW DW D VFDODU PRGHO EXW WR D JUHDW H[WHQW VWLOO UHJDUG +LJK WUDQVLWLYLW\ ZLWK WZR SDUWLFLSDQWV DV WKH SURWRW\SLFDO DQG EDVLF OHYHO DJDLQVW ZKLFK OHVV WUDQVLWLYH VWDWHPHQWV VKRXOG EH PHDVXUHG ,I WUDQVLWLYLW\ LV WR EH D XVHIXO GHVLJQDWLRQ WKHQ WKH VLPSOH ELQDU\ RSSRVLWLRQ RI WUDQVLWLYH LQWUDQVLWLYH ZKHUH WKH IRUPHU LV fWUDQVLWLYLW\ LQ ZKLFK WZR SDUWLFLSDQWV LV D QHFHVVDU\ EXW QRW VXIILFLHQW FRQGLWLRQf DQG WKH ODWWHU LV QRW fWUDQVLWLYLW\f EHFDXVH LW LV QRW WUDQVLWLYHf QHHGV DPHQGLQJ 7KLV LV QRW VLPSO\ D PDWWHU RI HOLPLQDWLQJ WHUPLQRORJLFDO FRQIXVLRQ EXW RI FUHDWLQJ WKHRUHWLFDO FODULW\ 7KHUH DUH WKUHH RSWLRQV SRVVLEOH ILUVW NHHS WKH WHUP fWUDQVLWLYLW\f IRU WKH WKHRUHWLFDO FRQVWUXFW DQG XVH RWKHU WHUPV IRU WKHELQDU\ RSSRVLWLRQ LWVHOI VXFK DV YDOHQF\ LI LQGHHG WKH ELQDU\ RSSRVLWLRQ KROGV WUXHf VHFRQG XVH VRPH RWKHU WHUP IRU WKH WKHRUHWLFDO f r FRQVWUXFW SHUKDSV fDUJXPHQW VWUXFWXUH DQG NHHS WKH WHUPV WUDQVLWLYH DQG LQWUDQVLWLYH VDPH FDYHDW DV DERYHf WKLUG NHHS WKH WHUP f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fFRH[WHQVLYH ,V PRUH D PDWWHU RI FRQVWUXDO WKDQ VWULFW SUDJPDWLF RU ORJLFDO f,Q WKH ZRUOGQHVVf DV ZHOO DV WKH fQDWXUH RI WKH DFWLYLW\ WR EH GLVFXVVHG IXUWKHU LQ WKH VHPDQWLFV VHFWLRQf 6HFRQG ZKDW LV PHDQW E\ fVFDODU RU fGHJUHHVf PXVW DOVR EH PDGH FOHDU DQG XVHIXO

PAGE 34

*UDPPDWLFDO %HKDYLRU ,Q RUGHU IRU fGHJUHH RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ WR EH PRUH WKDQ LQWXLWLYHO\ FRQYHQLHQW HYLGHQFH PXVW EH IRXQG LQ WKH JUDPPDWLFDO EHKDYLRU RI ODQJXDJHV WKHPVHOYHV )RU DQ LVVXH VXFK DV WUDQVLWLYLW\ DQG WKH EURDG FODLPV PDGH IRU LW WKH JUDPPDWLFDO EHKDYLRU VKRXOG EH IRXQG QRW RQO\ DW WKH OHYHO RI WKH FODXVH EXW DOVR DW WKH OHYHO RI GLVFRXUVH 7KH ILUVW TXHVWLRQ LV ZKDW FRXQWV DV WKH FODXVH OHYHO EHKDYLRU RI WUDQVLWLYLW\" ,Q (QJOLVK WKH DWWUDFWLRQ RI WKH DFWLYHSDVVLYH DOWHUQDWLRQ LV WKH FODULW\ DQG HFRQRP\ RI WKHLU FRQQHFWLRQ 7KH SDVVLYH LV VR REYLRXVO\ D VWUXFWXUH ZKLFK fUHH[SUHVVHV DQ HYHQW E\ VKLIWLQJ WKH WRSLFIRFXV UHODWLRQVKLSV D GLVFRXUVH SKHQRPHQRQf ZKLOH PDLQWDLQLQJ UROH UHODWLRQVKLSV D VHPDQWLF SKHQRPHQRQf 7KH SRSXODULW\ RI WKH SDVVLYH DV D WHDFKLQJ WRRO DQG VWDUWLQJ SODFH LV WKH VLPSOLFLW\ DQG HOHJDQFH RI WKH WUDQVIRUPDWLRQ $UH WKHUH RWKHU VWUXFWXUHV HTXDOO\ LQVWUXFWLYH" )RU H[DPSOH ZKDW GLVWLQJXLVKHV WKH SDVVLYH IURP WKH PLGGOH YRLFH" 6LPSO\ VSHDNLQJ WKHUH LV D VLQJOH fIDFW ZLWK JUDPPDWLFDO FRQVHTXHQFHV LQ WKH PLGGOH WKH IRUFH RU HIIHFWRU UROH LV QRW DYDLODEOH V\QWDFWLFDOO\ ZKLFK RSHQV WKH GRRU IRU DOWHUQDWLYH H[SUHVVLRQV QRW DOORZHG E\ WKH SDVVLYH f 2ODI RSHQHG WKH GRRU7KH GRRU ZDV RSHQHG E\ 2ODIf f 7KH GRRU RSHQHG r7KH GRRU RSHQHG E\ 2ODI f "2ODI RSHQHG WKH GRRU ZLWK D FUHDN"7KH GRRU ZDV FUHDNHG RSHQ rE\ 2ODIf f 7KH GRRU RSHQHG ZLWK D FUHDN7KH GRRU FUHDNHG RSHQ f 2ODI RSHQHG KLV GRRU+LV GRRU ZDV RSHQHG rE\ 2ODIf f +LV GRRU RSHQHG2ODI V GRRU RSHQHG f +LV GRRU FUHDNHG RSHQ2ODInV GRRU FUHDNHG RSHQ ,Q WKHVH VHQWHQFHV WKH PLGGOH FRQVWUXFWLRQ PDNHV LW SRVVLEOH WR LQFRUSRUDWH PDQQHU LQWR WKH YHUE D SURGXFWLYH SURFHVV LQ (QJOLVKf ZKHUHDV WKH SDVVLYH SDUWLDOO\ RU FRPSOHWHO\ EORFNV WKLV PRYHPHQW 7KDW LV LQ D SDVVLYH VHQWHQFH DOWKRXJK WKH DIIHFWHG SDUWLFLSDQW LV WKH VXEMHFW LW LV VWLOO QRW WKH VRXUFH RU HIIHFWRU RI WKH DFWLYLW\ WKH RULJLQDO UROHV DUH PDLQWDLQHGf 0DQQHU FDQQRW EH DWWULEXWHG WR WKH YHUE ZKHQ WKH ORFXV RI IRUFH LV HLWKHU LPSOLHG RU VWDWHG LQ WKH DGMXQFW ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV WKH FRQFHSWXDO LFRQLFLW\ LQ DQ DFWLYH fWUDQVLWLYH VHQWHQFH LV YLRODWHG LQ WKH SDVVLYH EXW SUHVHUYHG LQ WKH PLGGOH 2QO\ ZKHQ WKH VLQJOH RYHUW SDUWLFLSDQW LV ERWK WKH WRSLF RI GLVFRXUVH DQG WKH ORFXV RI IRUFH RI WKH YHUE FDQ PDQQHU EH LQFRUSRUDWHG ,Q WKH PLGGOH YRLFH WKLV LV WKH FDVH WKH VLQJOH SDUWLFLSDQW LV WKH RQO\ SDUWLFLSDQW DQG LV WKH GLVFRXUVH WRSLF JUDPPDWLFDO

PAGE 35

VXEMHFW DQG ORFXV RI IRUFH ,Q PDQ\ ODQJXDJHV WKH PLGGOH ,V PDUNHG E\ D GLVWLQFWLYH FDVH VXFK DV DEVROXWLYH IXUWKHU GLVWLQJXLVKLQJ LW IURP fQRUPDO VXEMHFWYHUEREMHFW UHODWLRQVKLSV 7KH SRVVHVVLYH DOVR KDV D SRZHUIXO HIIHFW JUDPPDWLFDOO\ $OWKRXJK WKHUH DSSHDU WR EH WZR GLVWLQFW HQWLWOHV ,Q WKH ZRUOG FHUWDLQO\ 2ODI DQG WKH GRRU DUH QRW RQH DQG WKH VDPH WKLQJf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fODEHOf LV FDOOHG fWUDQVLWLYLW\f $V WKH H[DPSOHV DERYH VKRZ LW LV QRW PHUHO\ WKH QXPEHU RI SDUWLFLSDQWV ERXQG E\ WKH SUHGLFDWH EXW WKH QDWXUH RI WKDW UHODWLRQVKLS ZKLFK DIIHFWV JUDPPDU 2Q WKH RWKHU KDQG WKH SDVVLYH DOWHUQDWLRQ LV RQO\ DYDLODEOH WR FODXVHV ZLWK WZR GLVWLQFWO\ FRQVWUXHG SDUWLFLSDQWV +HQFH WKH QXPEHU RI SDUWLFLSDQWV ,V QRW LUUHOHYDQW HLWKHU ,I WKH VWDWHPHQW EROGHG DERYH LV UHDVRQDEOH WKHQ ,WfV QHFHVVDU\ QRW WR OLPLW WKH GLVFXVVLRQ RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ WR RQO\ WKRVH VHQWHQFHV ZLWK WZR SDUWLFLSDQWV $Q DOWHUQDWLYH PXVW EH IRXQG ZKLFK DFFRXQWV IRU SDUWLFLSDQWHYHQW UHODWLRQVKLSV LQFOXGHV D SODFH IRU WZRSDUWLFLSDQW FRQVWUXFWLRQV EXW ,V QRW OLPLWHG WR WKHP ,PPHGLDWHO\ DV ZH VKDOO VHH DQ DSSHDO KDV WR EH PDGH WR VHPDQWLFV 7KH 6HPDQWLFV RI 7UDQVLWLYLWY $V WKH EULHI GLVFXVVLRQ RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ DQG V\QWD[ VKRZV fV\QWD[ LV QRW WKH FUX[ RI WKH SUREOHP 6HPDQWLFV RQ WKH RWKHU KDQG LV TXLWH WKH RSSRVLWH 7KHUH LV D EHZLOGHULQJ DUUD\ RI VHPDQWLF H[SODQDWLRQV RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ WUDYHUVLQJ D QXPEHU RI WKHRUHWLFDO DSSURDFKHV )RU VRPH WKHRULHV VXFK DV 5ROH DQG 5HIHUHQFH *UDPPDU 9DQ 9DOLQ f WUDQVLWLYLW\ LV D VWUDLJKW

PAGE 36

IRUZDUG PDWWHU RI VHPDQWLF PDFURUROHV DQG QRW WKDW FRPSOLFDWHG D PDWWHU )RU WKH FRJQLWLYH FDPSV KRZHYHU WUDQVLWLYLW\ LVRU LV UHODWHG WRFRQFHSWXDO VWUXFWXUH DQG LV TXLWH FRPSOH[ &XUUHQWO\ FRJQLWLYH PRGHOV RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ DUH SURGXFLQJ FRQVLGHUDEOH UHVXOWV VR LW LV WR WKHVH PRGHOV RXU LQYHVWLJDWLRQ WXUQV 7KHUH DUH E\ DQG ODUJH WZR SULQFLSOH SURFHVVHV FXUUHQWO\ FRPSHWLQJ IRU DWWHQWLRQ LQ FRJQLWLYH WKHRU\ SURWRW\SH WKHRU\ DQG LPSOLFDWXUH 3URWRW\SH WKHRU\ 5RVFK DQG /DNRII f SURSRVHV WKDW FDWHJRULHV DUH RUJDQL]HG DURXQG SURWRW\SLFDO RU FDQRQLFDO LQVWDQFHV ,Q VRPH FDVHV WKH FDQRQLFDO H[DPSOH LWVHOI LV WKH SURWRW\SLFDO LPDJH DJDLQVW ZKLFK FDWHJRUL]DWLRQ LV PDGH ,Q RWKHU FDVHV FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DUH DEVWUDFWHG IURP FDQRQLFDO PHPEHUV DQG LW LV WKHVH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV ZKLFK IRUP WKH SURWRW\SH ,PSOLFDWXUH *ULFH f LV D GLIIHUHQW SURFHVV DOWRJHWKHU ,PSOLFDWXUH LV QRW FRQFHUQHG ZLWK WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ RI FDWHJRULHV EXW ZLWK WKH SURFHVVLQJ RI LQIRUPDWLRQ 7KLV LV fOLQJXLVWLF FRJQLWLRQ *LYQ f ZKLFK WDNHV SODFH EHWZHHQ RYHUW OLQJXLVWLF LQIRUPDWLRQ VXFK DV WKH VHQWHQFHf DQG FRYHUW LQIRUPDWLRQ VXFK DV WKH NQRZOHGJH EURXJKW WR WKDW VHQWHQFH E\ VSHDNHU DQG KHDUHUf ,PSOLFDWXUH PD\ EH GHILQHG DV f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nV fLGHDOL]HG FRJQLWLYH PRGHOV DQG WKHVH NLQGV RI KLJKO\ DEVWUDFW JUDPPDWLFDO VFKHPDV DUH JHQHUDOO\ VXSSRUWHG E\ WKRVH ZKR VWXG\ WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH KXPDQ FRQFHSWXDO V\VWHP 0DQGOHU f +RZHYHU WKHUH DUH HTXDOO\ FRPSHOOLQJ UHDVRQV WR EHOLHYH WKDW DW D FHUWDLQ SRLQW RI FRPSOH[LW\LH GLVFRXUVH SURWRW\SH WKHRU\ LV DQ LQVXIILFLHQW RU DQ LQDSSURSULDWH DFFRXQW IRU OLQJXLVWLF EHKDYLRU LW LV QRW WKDW SURWRW\SH WKHRU\ LV ZURQJ EXW UDWKHU WKDW LW LV DSSOLHG ZLWK WRR EURDG D EUXVK VWURNH

PAGE 37

7KH $FWLYH $IILUPDWLYH 'HFODUDWLYH 3URWRW\SH *LYQ f SURSRVHV TXLWH IRUFHIXOO\ WKDW WKHUH DUH WKUHH GLPHQVLRQV HVVHQWLDO WR WKH VHPDQWLFV RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ FRUUHVSRQGLQJ WR WKH fSURWRW\SLFDO WUDQVLWLYH HYHQW f $JHQW 7KH SURWRW\SLFDO WUDQVLWLYH FODXVH LQYROYHV D YROLWLRQDO FRQWUROOLQJ DFWLYHO\LQLWLDWLQJ DJHQW ZKR LV UHVSRQVLEOH IRU WKH HYHQW WKXV LWV VDOLHQW FDXVH 3DWLHQW 7KH SURWRW\SLFDO WUDQVLWLYH HYHQW LQYROYHV D QRQYROLWLRQDO LQDFWLYH QRQFRQWUROOLQJ SDWLHQW ZKR UHJLVWHUV WKH HYHQWnV FKDQJHVRIVWDWH WKXV LWV PRVW VDOLHQW HIIHFW 9HUEDO 0RGDOLW\ 7KH YHUE RI WKH SURWRW\SLFDO WUDQVLWLYH FODXVH FRGHV DQ HYHQW WKDW LV SHUIHFWLYH QRQGXUDWLYHf VHTXHQWLDO QRQSHUIHFWf DQG UHDOLV QRQK\SRWKHWLFDOf 7KH SURWRW\SLFDO WUDQVLWLYH HYHQW LV WKXV IDVWSDFHG FRPSOHWHG UHDO DQG SHUFHSWXDOO\FRJQLWLYHO\ VDOLHQW *LYQ H[SOLFLWO\ MXVWLILHV KLV GHILQLWLRQ E\ DSSHDOLQJ WR PHWKRGRORJ\ f RQH VWXGLHV WKH SUDJPDWLFV RI YRLFH ZKLOH KROGLQJ WKH WUDQVLWLYH VHPDQWLF IUDPH PRUH RU OHVV FRQVWDQW )RU WKLV UHDVRQ ZLOO H[FOXGH IURP WKH GLVFXVVLRQ KHUH D JURXS RI GHWUDQVLWLYH YRLFH FRQVWUXFWLRQV WKDW LQ RQH ZD\ RU DQRWKHU WDPSHU ZLWK WKH VHPDQWLF FRUH RI WKH WUDQVLWLYH HYHQWn HPSKDVLV DGGHGf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fSHUIHFWO\ WUDQVLWLYH DUH QRW VR EHFDXVH WKH\ GR QRW KDYH WKH GHILQLQJ FRPSRQHQWV RI WKH WUDQVLWLYH HYHQW ZKLFK PDNH IRU SURWRW\SLFDO WUDQVLWLYLW\ $W LVVXH KHUH LV QRW ZKHWKHU YRLFH DOWHUQDWLRQV H[LVW RU ZKHWKHU WKH\ FDQ EH FRPSDUHG EXW ZKHWKHU DOO VKRXOG EH UHODWHG EDFN WR WKH VDPH VHPDQWLF FRUH 7KH VHFRQG GLIILFXOW\ LV LQ WKH ODEHOLQJ RI fDJHQWf DQG fSDWLHQW IRU PRVW VDOLHQW FDXVH DQG HIIHFW &RJQLWLYHO\ WKH PRVW VDOLHQW FDXVH DQG HIIHFW PD\ EH TXLWH GLVWDQW IURP WKH

PAGE 38

VHPDQWLFV QRUPDOO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK DJHQW DQG fSDWLHQW QDPHO\ WKDW RI D KXPDQ DJHQW DQG D QRQKXPDQ SDWLHQW $V ZH ZLOO VHH WKHUH LV LQWHUHVWLQJ HYLGHQFH VKRZLQJ WKDW fDJHQW LV WRR VWURQJ D UROH WR EH DW WKH FRUH DQG f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f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fVWDPSHG RXW LQWR D SDUWLFXODU VXEXQLW ZLWK SDUWLFXODU FKDUDFWHULVWLFV (YHQW

PAGE 39

VWUXFWXUH LV HYHQWXDOO\ H[SUHVVHG YLD WKH JUDPPDWLFDO XQLW WKH FODXVH %XW ZKDW FKDUDFWHUL]HV HYHQW VWUXFWXUH" :KDW HYLGHQFH LQGLFDWHV WKDW LW LV SUHOLQJXLVWLF" $QG KRZ GRHV LW UHODWH WR WUDQVLWLYLW\" ,Q SDUW WKH QRWLRQ RI HYHQW VWUXFWXUH DULVHV IURP WKH QHHG WR DFFRXQW IRU ODQJXDJH DFTXLVLWLRQ 7KDW LV DW VRPH SRLQW LQ WKH FKLOGnV GHYHORSPHQW WKH QRQOOQJXOVWOF ZRUOG ,QVLGH WKH KHDG JHWV fPDSSHG RQWR D OLQJXLVWLF ZRUOG WKURXJK ZKLFK ,W LV H[SUHVVHG 'HYHORSPHQWDO OLQJXLVWV VXFK DV 6ORELQ f KDYH EHJXQ WR DGGUHVV ZKDW NLQGV RI FRQFHSWV PXVW EH UHSUHVHQWHG DW WKH RQVHW RI ODQJXDJH DFTXLVLWLRQ ZLWK UHJDUG WR ZKDW DFWXDOO\ ,V H[SUHVVHG LQ WKH HDUO\ VWDJHV RI VSHHFK 0DQGOHU f DUJXHV f/DQJXDJH LV XQOLNHO\ WR EH PDSSHG GLUHFWO\ RQWR VHQVRULPRWRU VFKHPDV 7KHUH LV D PLVVLQJ OLQN D FRQFHSWXDO V\VWHP WKDW KDV DOUHDG\ GRQH VRPH RI WKH ZRUN UHTXLUHG IRU PDSSLQJ WR WDNH SODFH f 6SHFLILFDOO\ VKH DUJXHV WKDW ,W ZRXOG EH H[WUDRUGLQDULO\ GLIILFXOW IRU WKH FKLOG WR PDNH D OHDS IURP WKH FRQWLQXRXV VWUHDP RI SK\VLFDO GDWD WR WKH V\PEROLF UHSUHVHQWDWLRQDO ZRUOG RI ODQJXDJH 6RPH PHGLDWLQJ V\VWHP ,QWHUYHQHV WR SDUVH fWKH PRYHPHQW LQYROYHG LQ SLFNLQJ XS RQH REMHFW DQG SODFLQJ LW LQWR DQRWKHU WR WKH VWDWHPHQW 7KH PDUEOH LV SXW ,QWR WKH FXSn 6RPH NLQG RI FRQFHSWXDO VXPPDU\ RI ZKDW LV KDSSHQLQJ LQ WKLV VLWXDWLRQ LV QHHGHG LW LV WKLV FRQFHSWXDO VXPPDU\ WKDW LV PDSSHG UDWKHU WKDQ WKH VHQVRULPRWRU VFKHPDV WKHPVHOYHV f 0DQGOHU QRWHV WKDW WKH DEVWUDFW VFKHPDV SURSRVHG E\ FRJQLWLYH OLQJXLVWV VXFK DV /DNRII /DQJDFNHU DQG 7DOP\ UHSUHVHQW WKH VDPH NLQG RI PDWHULDO WKDW SV\FKRORJLVWV LQYHVWLJDWLQJ WKH IRXQGDWLRQV RI WKH KXPDQ FRQFHSWXDO V\VWHP DOVR SURSRVH )LUVW VKH FLWHV HYLGHQFH WKDW LQIDQWV DUH DEOH WR SDUVH WKH ZRUOG LQWR FRKHUHQW ERXQGHG REMHFWV DV HDUO\ DV PRQWKV ROG ,I QRW VRRQHU f DQG WKDW WKH\ DUH DEOH WR HQFRGH WKH FDXVDO UHODWLRQVKLSV LQWR ZKLFK REMHFWV HQWHU DV HDUO\ DV PRQWKV f 6KH LV FDUHIXO WR VWDWH WKDW ZKLOH WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK WKHVH DFFRPSOLVKn PHQWV DUH SHUFHSWXDO YHUVXV FRQFHSWXDO LV XQFOHDU LW LV FOHDU WKDW WKH ,QIRUPDWLRQ LV DYDLODEOH WR EH RSHUDWHG RQ 0DQGOHU VKRZV WKDW WKH NLQGV RI FRQFHSWV ZKLFK VHHP WR EH IRUPHG LQ LQIDQF\ DUH ZHOO UHSUHVHQWHG E\ LPDJHVFKHPD QRWLRQV 7RJHWKHU ZLWK HYLGHQFH IURP 6ORELQ LQWHU DOLD LW LV DOVR FOHDU WKDW PDQ\ RI WKHVH QRWLRQV DSSO\ GLUHFWO\ WR HYHQW VFKHPDV DQG WKHLU OLQJXLVWLF H[SUHVVLRQ

PAGE 40

)LUVW LQIDQWV DUH DEOH WR GLVWLQJXLVK REMHFWV WKDW HQJDJH LQ fELRORJLFDO PRWLRQ IURP WKRVH WKDW GR QRW 7KH\ DUH DOVR DEOH WR GLVWLQJXLVK FDXVHG DQG QRQFDXVHG PRWLRQ 0DQGOHU FLWHV WKH ZRUN RI %HUWHQWKDO 3URIILWW .UDPHU DQG 6SHWQHU f DQG /HVOLH f UHVSHFWLYHO\ IRU HDFK RI WKHVH SRLQWV 7KXV WKHUH LV D VHQVRULPRWRU FDSDELOLW\ RI GLVWLQJXLVKLQJ PRWLRQ ZKLFK LV VHOIFDXVHG IURP PRWLRQ ZKLFK LV RWKHUFDXVHG 6KH IXUWKHU DUJXHV WKDW ZKLOH WKH LPDJHVFKHPD RI 3$7+ LV LQGHHG VLPSOH DQG EDVLF SDWKV GR QRW KDSSHQ ZLWKRXW VWDUWLQJ SRLQWV KHQFH RQH NLQG RI LPDJH VFKHPD HPHUJHV IRU WKH QRWLRQ fVHOIFDXVHG PRWLRQ GHVLJQDWLQJ WKH VLPSOH LGHD WKDW DQ (QGSRLQW GRHV VR IURP D SRLQW RI RULJLQ RXWZDUGV DORQJ D SDWK $ VHFRQG LPDJHVFKHPD IRU DQLPDWH PRWLRQ FKDUDFWHUL]HV WKH WUDMHFWRU\ LWVHOIZKHQ DQ (QGSRLQW PRYHV LW GRHV VR LQ D SDGLFXODU PDQQHU 7KH WZR VFKHPDV VLPSO\ GLVWLQJXLVK DQ (QGSRLQWRULHQWHG ,PDJH RI PRWLRQ IURP D WUDMHFWRU\RULHQWHG LPDJH RI PRWLRQ )LJXUH 0DQGOHUfV ,PDJH 6FKHPDV RI 0RWLRQ )LQDOO\ VKH f DOVR QRWHV WKDW LQIDQWV DUH fLQRUGLQDWHO\ DWWUDFWHG E\ DOO PRYLQJ REMHFWV DQG RI FRXUVH PDQ\ RI WKRVH DUH LQDQLPDWH,QDQLPDWH REMHFWV DUH WKRVH WKDW EHJLQ PRWLRQ RQO\ WKURXJK WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ RI RWKHU REMHFWV VSHFLILFDOO\ WKH\ DUH FDXVHG WR PRYHf >HPSKDVLV DGGHG@ 7KXV D WKLUG LPDJHVFKHPD HPHUJHV RXWOLQLQJ FDXVHG PRWLRQ &$86(' 027,21 $1,0$7( 027,21 ? &.:A Y f 6(/)&$86(' 027,21 )LJXUH 0DQGOHUnV 6FKHPD RI &DXVHG 0RWLRQ

PAGE 41

0DQGOHU f LQWURGXFHV RQH PRUH OHDS ZKLFK EULQJV XV D VWHS FORVHU WR ZKDW KDSSHQV DW WKH OHYHO RI OLQJXLVWLF UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ 6KH FRPELQHV WKH VFKHPDV RI DQLPDWH PRWLRQ DQG FDXVHG PRWLRQ WR SURGXFH D VFKHPD ZKLFK VKH VD\V DFFRXQWV IRU WKH QRWLRQ DJHQF\ $*(1&< ? 2 f‘ 9 )LJXUH 0DQGOHUfV ,PDJH 6FKHPD RI $JHQF\ 7KLV VFKHPD FRPELQHV DOO WKH DERYH DVSHFWV WRJHWKHU $Q DQLPDWH (QGSRLQW FDXVHV LWVHOI WR PRYH DQG LQ GRLQJ VR PRYHV DQ VHFRQG (QGSRLQW 7KH UHVXOW LV D FRPSOH[ LPDJHVFKHPD VHQVLWLYH WR ERWK (QGSRLQWV RI DQ HYHQW DV ZHOO DV WKH WUDMHFWRU\ :KLOH 0DQGOHU DGPLWV WKDW ZH GR QRW NQRZ ZKHQ VXFK D FRQFHSWXDOL]DWLRQ DULVHV LQ LQIDQF\ VKH FLWHV /HVOLH f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f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

PAGE 42

2Q WKH RWKHU VLGH RI WKH JUDPPDWLFDO IHQFH DGGLWLRQDO HYLGHQFH LV IRXQG LQ DFFXVDWLYH ODQJXDJHV ,Q 5XVVLDQ IRU H[DPSOH WKH DFFXVDWLYH VXIIL[ DWWDFKHV WR DQ\ REMHFW LQ DQ DIILUPDWLYH VHQWHQFH UHJDUGOHVV RI WKH W\SH RI DFWLRQ LQYROYHG 7KXV fERRN LQ UHDG WKH ERRN VDZ WKH ERRN WKUHZ WKH ERRN DOO UHFHLYH WKH VDPH DFFXVDWLYH LQIOHFWLRQ ,I WKH ,QIOHFWLRQ VLPSO\ UHODWHV WR WKH JUDPPDWLFDO QRWLRQ fREMHFW RI DFWLYLW\ WKHQ LW VKRXOG EH DSSOLHG HTXDOO\ DFURVV DOO LQVWDQFHV DV LW LV EHLQJ DFTXLUHG +RZHYHU 6ORELQ FLWHV D VWXG\ E\ *YR]GHY f ZKLFK VKRZV WKLV ,V QRW WKH FDVH &KLOGUHQ GLG QRW DFTXLUH WKH LQIOHFWLRQ HTXDOO\ EXW DSSOLHG LW ILUVW WR D SDUWLFXODU VXEVHW RI HYHQWV QDPHO\ WKRVH LQYROYHG LQ GLUHFW SK\VLFDO DFWLRQ RQ WKLQJV JLYH FDUU\ SXW WKURZ 6ORELQ FRQFOXGHV WKDW WKH 5XVVLDQ XQGHUH[WHQVLRQ PDNHV WKH VDPH SRLQW DV WKH ODFN RI .DOXOL RYHUH[WHQVLRQ WKH FKLOG VHHPV WR EH HQFRGLQJ DVSHFWV RI D fSURWRW\SLFDO HYHQW RI REMHFW UQDQLSXODWLRQf ,W VHHPV WKDW WKH FKLOG GRHV QRW EHJLQ ZLWK FDWHJRULHV VXFK DV fDFWRUf RU fDJHQWf ORRNLQJ IRU WKH OLQJXLVWLF H[SUHVVLRQV RI VXFK QRWLRQV LQ KLV RU KHU QDWLYH ODQJXDJH :KDW WKH FKLOG PD\ EHJLQ ZLWK LV PXFK PRUH OLPLWHG DQG FKLOGOLNH ZD\V RI FRQFHLYLQJ EDVLF HYHQWV DQG VLWXDWLRQV DW ILUVW PDWFKLQJ JUDPPDWLFDO H[SUHVVLRQ WR SULPDU\ RU EDVLF HYHQW VFKHPDWD >VXFK DV FDXVDO DJHQWf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fSURWRW\SLFDO WUDQVLWLYH HYHQW 6ORELQ GHILQHVf LV VOLJKWO\ PRUH FRPSOH[ DQG WKHUHIRUH D VOLJKWO\ ODWHU FRQFHSWXDO FUHDWLRQ 'HYHORSPHQWDOO\ FRQFHSWV RI REMHFW SHUPDQHQFH SUHFHGH FRQFHSWV RI PRWLRQ ZKLFK SUHFHGH FRQFHSWV RI DJHQF\ 7KXV LW PDNHV VHQVH WKDW KXPDQV KDYH YHU\ HDUO\ VFKHPDV IRU REMHFWV WKHQ IRU REMHFWV LQ PRWLRQ ERWK VHOI

PAGE 43

DQG RWKHUFDXVHG DV 0DQGOHU VXJJHVWVf WKHQ IRU REMHFWV ZKLFK FDXVH PRWLRQ LQ RWKHU REMHFWV )RU WKH QRWLRQ RI D XQLWDU\ WUDQVLWLYH SURWRW\SH LW LV FULWLFDO WR XQGHUVWDQG WKDW WKH LPDJH VFKHPD SURSRVHG IRU WKH fSURWRW\SLFDO WUDQVLWLYH HYHQW LQFOXGLQJ D SUREDEO\ KXPDQ DJHQW ZLWK D SUREDEO\ QRQKXPDQ SDWLHQW FDXVLQJ D FKDQJH RI VWDWH RU ORFDWLRQ LV D VOLJKWO\ ODWHU DFTXLVLWLRQ &20%,1,1* WKH HDUOLHU VFKHPDV RI LQGHSHQGHQW DQLPDWH PRWLRQ FKDQJH RI VWDWH DQG QRQ LQGHSHQGHQW QRQDQLPDWH PRWLRQFKDQJH RI VWDWH 7KLV FRQIRUPV UHPDUNDEO\ ZHOO WR WKH WKUHH fOHYHOV RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ PRVW FRPPRQO\ SURSRVHG KLJK WUDQVLWLYH WZR SDUWLFLSDQWV HQJDJHG LQ D XQLODWHUDO DFWLYLW\ ZLWK D FOHDUO\ FDXVDO DJHQW DQG FOHDUO\ DIIHFWHG SDWLHQWf fPLGWUDQVLWLYH RQH SDUWLFLSDQW HQJDJHG LQ D FKDQJH RI VWDWH RU ORFDWLRQ ZLWKRXW H[WHUQDO FDXVHf DQG fORZf WUDQVLWLYH RQH SDUWLFLSDQW HQJDJHG LQ D GXUDWLYH VWDWH LQYROYLQJ OLWWOH WR QR FKDQJHWKHVH ODWWHU WZR DUH RIWHQ UHIHUUHG WR DV fLQWUDQVLWLYHf 7KH HYLGHQFH DERYH VXJJHVWV WKH PRUH DSSURSULDWH H[SODQDWLRQ ZRXOG LQFOXGH WKUHH SURWRW\SHV RU WKUHH W\SLFDO LQVWDQWLDWLRQV RI D VLQJOH HYHQW FRPSOH[f UDWKHU WKDQ MXVW RQH 7KLV LV SUHFLVHO\ ZKDW &URIW f .HPPHU f DQG %DNNHU f YDULRXVO\ SURSRVH &URIW f SUHVHQWV VHYHQ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV W\SLI\LQJ D fVLPSOH HYHQW WZR RI ZKLFK DUH RI SDUWLFXODU LQWHUHVW KHUH If VLPSOH HYHQW VWUXFWXUH FRQVLVWV RI WKH WKUHHVHJPHQW FDXVDO FKDLQ FDXVHEHFRPHVWDWH Jf VLPSOH HYHQW VWUXFWXUH LV HQGSRLQWRULHQWHG SRVVLEOH YHUEV FRQVLVW RI WKH ODVW VHJPHQW VWDWLYHf WKH VHFRQG DQG ODVW VHJPHQWV LQFKRDWLYHf RU WKH ZKROH WKUHH VHJPHQWV FDXVDWLYHf %DVLFDOO\ KH LV FODLPLQJ WKDW YHUEV KDYH DQ XQGHUO\LQJ ,GHDOL]HG &RJQLWLYH 0RGHO KHUHDIWHU ,&0 IROORZLQJ /DNRII f ZKLFK UHSUHVHQWV D fVHOIFRQWDLQHG HYHQWLVRODWHG IURP WKH FDXVDO QHWZRUN DQG LQGLYLGXDOL]HG IRU YDULRXV SXUSRVHV 6XEMHFWV DQG REMHFWV UHSUHVHQW WKH VWDUWLQJ SRLQW DQG HQG SRLQW UHVSHFWLYHO\ f +RZHYHU WKHVH ,&0V GR QRW FUHDWH YHUE FODVVHV RU HYHQW FODVVHV UDWKHU WKH\ FRUUHVSRQG WR WKH XQPDUNHG HYHQW YLHZ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH YHUE FDXVDWLYH LQFKRDWLYH DQG VWDWLYH 7KXV LQ DQ LQWHUHVWLQJ WZLVW RQ WKH SUREOHP RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ &URIW DUJXHV IRU DQ XQGHUO\LQJ HYHQW FRQFHSWXDOL]DWLRQ VHH ILJXUH EHORZf ZKLFK FDQ KDYH DOO RU DQ\ SDUW RI LW fFRQWDLQHG IRU WKH SXUSRVHV RI UHSUHVHQWLQJ DQ HYHQW )XUWKHU WKH HYHQWV GHQRWHG E\ YHUEV DUH

PAGE 44

W\SLFDOO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK RQH SDUW RU DOOf RI WKH LGHDOL]HG HYHQW WKHVH DUH WKH HYHQW YLHZV 7KH DVWHULFNV DQG SDUHQWKHVHV PDUN WKH SRLQW DW ZKLFK WKH fW\SLFDO DVVRFLDWLRQf HQGV &DXVDWLYH 7KH URFN EURNH WKH ZLQGRZ URFN ZLQGRZ ZLQGRZf ZLQGRZf FDXVH EHFRPH VWDWH ,QFKRDWLYH 7KH ZLQGRZ EURNH ZLQGRZ ZLQGRZf ZLQGRZf r Q r EHFRPH EURNHQ 6WDWLYH 7KH ZLQGRZ LV EURNHQ ZLQGRZ ZLQGRZf Q )LJXUH &URIWfV (YHQW 9LHZV &URIW WKHQ DUJXHV WKDW YHUEDO PDUNHGQHVV SDWWHUQV IRXQG LQ YDULRXV ODQJXDJHV (QJOLVK )UHQFK -DSDQHVH .RUHDQf UHSUHVHQW WKH PRVW fQDWXUDO RU fW\SLFDOf HYHQW YLHZ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH YHUE f 7KLV FRQVWUXDO LV EDVHG RQ KXPDQ H[SHULHQFH RI WKH HYHQW DQG LV QRW VXUSULVLQJ ,Q JHQHUDO XQPDUNHG VWDWLYHV DUH IRXQG ZLWK YHUEV GHQRWLQJ HYHQWV WKDW LQ KXPDQ H[SHULHQFH PRVW FRPPRQO\ DUH LQKHUHQW SURSHUWLHV QRW LPSO\LQJ DQ\ LQWHUQDO FDXVH 8QPDUNHG FDXVDWLYHV DUH IRXQG LQ YHUEV GHQRWLQJ HYHQWV WKDW IUHTXHQWO\ RU DOPRVW DOZD\V RFFXU LQ KXPDQ H[SHULHQFH ZLWK DQ H[WHUQDO FDXVH 8QPDUNHG LQWUDQVLWLYHVDUH IRXQG LQ YHUEV GHQRWLQJ HYHQWV WKDW DUH FRPPRQO\ QRW SHUPDQHQW LH WKH\ FDQ FKDQJHf DQG PRVW IUHTXHQWO\ RFFXURU DUH FRQVWUXHG WR RFFXU ZLWKRXW DQ H[WHUQDO FDXVH %DVLF DQG GHULYHG IRUPV FDQ EH IRXQG ZLWK HDFK RI WKH EDVLF HYHQW YLHZV &DXVDWLYH!OQFKRDWLYH!6WDWLYH RQ &DXVDWLYH (YHQW 9LHZ f 2ODI RSHQHG WKH GRRU f 7KH GRRU RSHQHG f 7KH GRRU LV RSHQ OQFKRDWLYHa!6WDWLYH RQ ,QFKRDWLYH (YHQW 9LHZ f 6YHQ ILVKHV f 6YHQfV D JRRG ILVKHUPDQ 6WDWLYHf§!&DXVHG 6WDWLYH RQ 6WDWLYH (YHQW 9LHZ f SXUH VXJDU f SXULILHG VXJDU

PAGE 45

&URIW WKHQ WLHV WRJHWKHU YDULRXV OLQJXLVWLF SHUVSHFWLYHV RQ HYHQWV E\ VKRZLQJ WKDW FDXVDWLYH LQFKRDWLYHVWDWLYH WUDQVLWLYHLQWUDQVLWLYHDGMHFWLYH DQG DFWLYHPLGGOHSDVVLYH DUH VHPDQWLFDOO\ GLIIHUHQW PDQLIHVWDWLRQV RI WKH EDVLF WULSDUWLWH ,&0 RI HYHQWV DV ILJXUHG DERYH f 9HUE )RUP (YHQW 9LHZV 'HULYHG FDXVDWLYH 6LPSOH WUDQVLWLYH %DVLF 9RLFH DFWLYH LQFKRDWLYH LQWUDQVLWLYH PLGGOH VWDWLYHUHVXOWDWLYHf DGMHFWLYHVWDWLYHf SDVVLYHUHVXOWDWLYH +HQFH LQ WKH HQG &URIW LV DUJXLQJ IRU D PRGHO ZLWK WKUHH fEDVLF IRUPV HDFK RI WKHP UHSUHVHQWLQJ D SRUWLRQ RI WKH ,&0 RI HYHQWV EXW HDFK RI WKHP DOVR IRUPLQJ D QDWXUDO fORFXVf DJDLQVW ZKLFK HYHQWV FRQVWUXHG DV FRUUHVSRQGLQJ WR WKDW FHQWHU DUH DVVHVVHG WKXV SURGXFLQJ PDUNHG DQG XQPDUNHG IRUPV IRU ($&+ RI WKH HYHQW YLHZV .HPPHU f DGGV WR WKH GLVFXVVLRQ WKH QRWLRQ fUHODWLYH HODERUDWLRQ RI HYHQWVf ZKLFK LV QRW XQOLNH &URIWfV HYHQW YLHZV WKRXJK VKH LQWURGXFHV WKH VSHFLILF DVSHFWV RI HYHQWV ZKLFK DUH PDQLSXODWHG WR SURGXFH GLIIHUHQW HYHQW SHUVSHFWLYHV 6KH H[SODLQV WKH fUHODWLYH HODERUDWLRQ RI HYHQWV DV fWKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK GLIIHUHQW VFKHPDWLF DVSHFWV RI D VLWXDWLRQ DUH VHSDUDWHG RXW DQG YLHZHG GLVWLQFW E\ WKH VSHDNHU 7KH VSHDNHU LQ HIIHFW FDQ FKRRVH WR WXUQ XSf RU fWXUQ GRZQf WKH UHVROXWLRQ ZLWK ZKLFK D SDUWLFXODU HYHQW LV YLHZHG LQ RUGHU WR KLJKOLJKW LWV LQWHUQDO VWUXFWXUH WR D JUHDWHU RU OHVVHU H[WHQW f 7ZR LPSRUWDQW fVFKHPDWLF DVSHFWV DUH WKH GLVWLQJXLVKDELOLW\ RI SDUWLFLSDQWV DQG GLVWLQJXLVKDELOLW\ RI VXEFRPSRQHQWV RI WKH HYHQW LWVHOI .HPPHU DOVR XVHV WKH E\QRZIDPLOLDU HYHQW VFKHPD WR UHSUHVHQW ZKDW VKH VLPSO\ WHUPV D f SDUWLFLSDQW (YHQW 6FKHPDf 3$57,&,3$17 (9(17 6&+(0$ U Y )LJXUH .HPPHUfV (YHQW 6FKHPD 6KH XVHV WKH WHUPV f,QLWLDWRU DQG f(QGSRLQW WR FDSWXUH ERWK WKH VFKHPDWLF SODFHPHQW DQG VHPDQWLF FKDUDFWHUL]DWLRQ RI WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV WKHPVHOYHV 6KH LV VSHFLILFDOO\ FODLPLQJ WKDW WKH

PAGE 46

GLVWLQJXLVKDELOLW\ RI SDUWLFLSDQWV LV RQH VHPDQWLF SDUDPHWHU DORQJ ZKLFK WKH FOLQH IURP fWUDQVLWLYHf WR fLQWUDQVLWLYH GLIIHU f 7:23$57,&,3$17 5()/(;,9( 0,''/( 21(3$57,&,3$17 (9(17 (9(17 .HPPHU REVHUYHV WKDW WZRSDUWLFLSDQW HYHQWV HQFRGH PD[LPDO GLVWLQJXLVKDELOLW\ RI SDUWLFLSDQWV UHIOH[LYHV HQFRGH DQ HYHQW ZKHUH HVVHQWLDOO\ WKH ,QLWLDWRU DQG (QGSRLQW DUH WKH VDPH SDUWLFLSDQW WKRXJK OLQJXLVWLFDOO\ PDUNHG ZLWK fWZR SDUWLFLSDQWV WKURXJK UHIOH[LYH SURQRXQV FOLWLFV HWFf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f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f YHUVXV DQ LQWUDQVLWLYH VWDWLYH D VLQJOH SDUWLFLSDQW DFWLYLW\ ZLWK DQ (QGSRLQWf %DNNHU f LV DOVR LQWHUHVWHG LQ H[SODLQLQJ WKH OLQJXLVWLF EHKDYLRU RI PLGGOHV SDUWLFXODUO\ LQ $QFLHQW *UHHN +LV DQD\OVLV WKRXJK RIIHUV VRPH SURYRFDWLYH LQVLJKWV LQWR WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ HYHQWV DQG WKH VHPDQWLF SDUDPHWHUV LQIRUPLQJ WKHP +H ORFDWHV WKH FUX[ RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ LQ $QFLHQW *UHHN LQ WKH VXEMHFWDJHQWUHODWHG SDUDPHWHUV JLYHQ E\ +RSSHU DQG 7KRPSVRQ f 9ROLWLRQDOLW\ $JHQF\ DQGL DGGLQJ &DXVDWLRQ 9ROLWLRQDOLW\ $JHQF\ DQG &DXVDWLRQ DUH VHSDUDWHG EDVLFDOO\ E\ WHOLFOW\ ZKHUH 9ROLWLRQDOLW\ LV VLPSO\ IUHH ZLOO RI WKH VXEMHFW

PAGE 47

$JHQF\ LV JRDOGLUHFWHG YROLWLRQDO DFWLRQ WR VHOI RU RWKHU SDUWLFLSDQWf DQG &DXVDWLRQ LV RWKHU SDUWLFLSDQW JRDOGLUHFWHG YROLWLRQDO DFWLRQ SURGXFLQJ DQ HIIHFW 7UDQVLWLYLW\ DFFRUGLQJ WR %DNNHU LV RQ D ELGLUHFWLRQ FOLQH LQ UHODWLRQ WR WKHVH HOHPHQWV f 92/UD21$/,7< $*(1&< &$86$7,21 75$16,7,9,7< 7KXV D FDXVDWLYH HYHQW ZLWK WZR SDUWLFLSDQWV LV KLJK LQ WUDQVLWLYLW\ ZKLOH D YROLWLRQDO HYHQW ZLWK D VLQJOH SDUWLFLSDQW LV ORZ LQ WUDQVLWLYLW\ :KHQ WKH SDUDPHWHU RI DIIHFWHGQHVV LV DGGHG LW FDQ EH IRXQG LQ HLWKHU HQG RI WKH VXEMHFWDJHQW VSHFWUXP WKH VXEMHFWDJHQW FDQ EH DIIHFWHG RU FDQ GR WKH DIIHFWLQJ ,Q WKH IRUPHU FDVH WKH PLGGOH DULVHV HLWKHU DV D fQDWXUDO VLWXDWLRQ W\SH DV LQ JURZLQJ XS RU DV D FRQVWUXHG SURSHUW\ H[SUHVVHG E\ WKH PLGGOH IRUPf $JDLQ ZKDW LV QRWHZRUWK\ DERXW %DNNHU ZLWK UHJDUGV WR WKLV GLVFXVVLRQ LV WKH VHSDUDWLRQ RI fWUDQVLWLYLW\ LQWR QDWXUDO W\SHV DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH VHPDQWLF FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV DQG LQKHUHQW VHPDQWLFV RI HYHQWV WKHPVHOYHV 7KXV D SLFWXUH HPHUJHV RI fSURWRW\SLFDO WUDQVLWLYLW\ ZKLFK LV QRW DGHTXDWHO\ FDSWXUHG E\ SURSRVLQJ D VLQJOH WZRSDUWLFLSDQW HYHQW ZLWK D FRPSOH[ RI IHDWXUHV EXW FDOOV IRU D UDQJH RI DW OHDVW WKUHH SURWRW\SHV HDFK FURVVHG E\ WKH FOLQH RI SDUWLFLSDQW FKDUDFWHUL]DWLRQ IURP UHVSRQVLEOH ,QLWLDWRU(IIHFWRU&DXVDO (QGSRLQW WR QRQ UHVSRQVLELH $IIHFWHG1RQ&DXVDO (QGSRLQW 5HFDOOLQJ 0DQGOHUfV EDVLF PRWLRQ VFKHPDWD DQG 6ORELQfV HDUO\ ODQJXDJH SDWWHUQV SURYLGHV DGGLWLRQDO VXSSRUW IRU WKH QRWLRQ WKDW HYHQW VWUXFWXUH LV EHVW UHSUHVHQWHG E\ WKH WKUHH fVWDJHV RI D FDXVDWLYH HYHQW ILUVW D VLQJOH SDUWLFLSDQW FDSDEOH RI YROLWLRQDO DFWLYLW\ DQLPDWH ELRORJLFDOO\ FDXVHG PRWLRQ DQG HDUO\ DFTXLVLWLRQ RI HUJDWLYH PRUSKRORJ\f VHFRQG D VLQJOH SDUWLFLSDQW XQGHUJRLQJ VRPH FKDQJH LQDQLPDWH QRQELRORJLFDOO\ FDXVHG PRWLRQ DQG HDUO\ DFTXLVLWLRQ RI DFFXVDWLYH PRUSKRORJ\f WKLUG WZR SDUWLFLSDQWV LQWHUDFWLQJ ZKHUH RQH FDXVHV D FKDQJH RI VWDWH RU ORFDWLRQ LQ WKH RWKHU DQLPDWH ELRORJLFDOO\ FDXVHG PRWLRQ DFWLQJ WR HIIHFW LQDQLPDWH QRQELRORJLFDOO\ FDXVHG PRWLRQ DQG WKH UHODWLYHO\ HDUO\ DFTXLVLWLRQ RI

PAGE 48

692 ZRUG RUGHU SDWWHUQV YHUVXV WKH UHODWLYHO\ ODWHU DFTXLVLWLRQ RI IXOO\ SDVVLYH IRUPV f29HG E\ 6ff 7KHVH EDVLF HYHQW VWUXFWXUHV IRUP WKH FRQFHSWXDO EDVLV ZKLFK WKH OLQJXLVWLF V\VWHP RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ H[SUHVVHV 6SHFLILFDOO\ WUDQVLWLYLW\ H[SUHVVHV WKH HYHQW YLHZ &URIWf RU HYHQW SHUVSHFWLYH 6ORELQ %HUPDQ DQG 6ORELQf RI FRJQLWLYHFRQFHSWXDO HYHQW VWUXFWXUHV WKLV ZLOO EH GLVFXVVHG LQ JUHDWHU GHWDLO EHORZf 7KHUH DSSHDU WR EH WKUHH EDVLF HYHQW YLHZV H[SUHVVHG E\ WKH WUDQVLWLYLW\ V\VWHP DV WKH GLVFXVVLRQ DERYH SURSRVHV 7KHUH LV WKRXJK WKH SX]]OLQJ DEVHQFH RI D IRXUWK WKH SXUHO\ VWDWLYH 7KDW LV RQH ZRXOG JXHVV WKDW WKH ILUVW DQG PRVW EDVLF SHUFHSWLRQ RI DQ LQIDQW LV fH[LVWHQFH 6LQFH FKLOGUHQ ILUVW OHDUQ WKH QDPHV RI REMHFWV WKHUH LV HYHQ VRPH GHYHORSPHQWDO VXSSRUW IRU WKLV QRWLRQ &URIW VXJJHVWV DV PXFK ZLWK KLV f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f 6SHFLILFDOO\ WKH\ PDNH WKH FODLP WKDW WKHVH GLPHQVLRQV DUH SDUW RI WKH SUHYHUEDO PHVVDJH f%HIRUH RQH FDQ VD\ DQ\WKLQJ RQH PXVW GHFLGH ZKDW RQH ZDQWV WR VD\ $V /HYHOW KDV SXW LW 7KH FRQVWUXFWLRQ RI D SUHYHUEDO PHVVDJH LV D ILUVW VWHS LQ WKH JHQHUDWLRQ RI VSHHFKf S f :H SURSRVH WKDW LQ FRQVWUXFWLQJ D SUHYHUEDO PHVVDJH WKH VSHDNHU PXVW PDNH GHFLVLRQV RQ DW OHDVW IRXU GLPHQVLRQV RI HYHQW FRQVWUXDO f 2QFH WKH GLPHQVLRQV DUH GHFLGHG XSRQ YDULRXV JUDPPDWLFDO RSWLRQV DUH HQWDLOHG RI ZKLFK WUDQVLWLYLW\ LV RQH V\VWHP 7UDQVLWLYLW\ WKHQ LV SDUW RI WKH JUDPPDWLFDO V\VWHP EXW QRW WKH XQGHUO\LQJ FRJQLWLYH V\VWHP WKDW LV DFFHSW IRU WKLV SURMHFW WKDW %HUPDQ DQG 6ORELQfV SUHYHUEDO GLPHQVLRQV DUH SDUW RIf WKH JHQHUDO FRJQLWLYH RULHQWDWLRQV DYDLODEOH SUREDEO\ WKURXJKRXW WKH FRJQLWLYH V\VWHP EXW OLQJXLVWLFDOO\ WUDQVLWLYLW\ LV

PAGE 49

RQH JUDPPDWLFDO V\VWHP WKURXJK ZKLFK WKHVH GLPHQVLRQV DUH UHDOL]HG 7KLV UHSUHVHQWV D GHSDUWXUH IURP 5LFH f ZKR VHHPV WR FODLP WKDW WUDQVLWLYLW\ LV WKH fXQGHUL\LQJ V\VWHP ZKLFK LV UHDOL]HG YHUEDOO\ fWUDQVLWLYLW\ >FDQ EH@ YLHZHG DV D FRQWLQXRXV SKHQRPHQRQ DQG DV D SKHQRPHQRQ RU DV D IDPLO\ RI SKHQRPHQD UDQJLQJ DFURVV GLIIHUHQW FRJQLWLYH GRPDLQVf WKDW FDQ EH H[SODLQHG LQ DQ HVVHQWLDOO\ QRQOLQJXLVWLF ZD\ f 0\ FODLP LV WKDW (YHQW FRQVWUXDO DQG LWV GLPHQVLRQV DUH WKH XQGHUO\LQJ SUHYHUEDO V\VWHP DQG WUDQVLWLYLW\ LV RQH RI WKH OLQJXLVWLF V\VWHPV LQVWDQWLDWLQJ WKHP 2WKHU RSWLRQV DV GLVFXVVHG E\ %HUPDQ DQG 6ORELQ LQFOXGH IRU LQVWDQFH WKH OH[LFDO V\VWHP ZKLFK SURYLGHV PHDQV IRU H[SUHVVLQJ GHJUHH RI DJHQF\ DV ZLWK DGYHUEV VXFK DV fXQLQWHQWLRQDOO\f DQG fGHOLEHUDWHO\ ZKLFK PRGLI\ WKH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WKH HYHQW WKURXJK QRQ JUDPPDWLFDO PHDQV 6SHFLILFDOO\ LW LV P\ FODLP WKDW WUDQVLWLYLW\ UHDOL]HV WKH VHOHFWLRQ RI (YHQW YLHZ (YHQW YLHZ UHIHUV WR WKH fFRJQLWLYH SHUVSHFWLYHV RQ HYHQWV UDWKHU WKDQ WR YHUEV %HUPDQ DQG 6ORELQ f %HUPDQ DQG 6ORELQ LGHQWLI\ WKUHH FKRLFHV IRU HYHQW YLHZ &DXVH %HFRPH DQG 6WDWH ,Q &DXVH YLHZ WKH HYHQW LV UHSUHVHQWHG ZLWK DQ DFWRU ZKR FDXVHV D FKDQJH RI VWDWH LQ WKH XQGHUJRHU %HUPDQ DQG 6ORELQ PDNH XVH RI 9DQ 9DOLQfV PDFURUROH WHUPV DFWRU DQG XQGHUJRHU DV PHQWLRQHG LQ &KDSWHU 2QHf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f UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ RI (YHQW YLHZ DQG WKH FRPPXQLFDWLYH LQWHQW RI SHUVSHFWLYH GLVFXVVHG LQ GHWDLO LQ &KDSWHU 7KUHHf 7UDQVLWLYLW\ DV D V\VWHP LV OLPLWHG WR WKH H[SUHVVLRQ RI (YHQW YLHZ RQO\ WKH ZKROH RI HYHQW FRQVWUXDO DQG ,WV FRPPXQLFDWLRQ HPSOR\V D YDVWHU DPRXQW RI OLQJXLVWLF DQG SUREDEO\ QRQOLQJXLVWLFf PDWHULDO

PAGE 50

'HJUHHV RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ *LYHQ WKH DUJXPHQW DERYH WKH TXHVWLRQ RI ZKHWKHU WKHUH DUH fGHJUHHV RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ EHFRPHV DQ HYHQ PRUH LQWHUHVWLQJ LVVXH 7UDGLWLRQDOO\ WKHUH KDYH EHHQ WZR DOWHUQDWLYHV SURSRVHG WR WKLV SUREOHP 7KH ILUVW LV D FRQWLQXXP IURP f+LJK WR f/RZ +RSSHU DQG 7KRPSVRQ 5LFH f WKH VHFRQG RIIHUV VSHFLILF OHYHOV RI KLJK PLG DQG ORZ +DOOLGD\ f :KLOH WR VRPH H[WHQW ERWK FODLP WKH VDPH WKLQJ +DOOLGD\nV VSHFLILF OHYHOV VHHP WR ILQG JUHDWHU YDOLGLW\ JUDPPDWLFDOO\ 7KDW LV JUDPPDU LQ JHQHUDO GRHV QRW WHQG WR RSHUDWH DORQJ VPRRWK &OLQHV EHWZHHQ HQGSRLQWV EXW WR PDQLIHVW SDUWLFXODU IRUPV DFFRUGLQJ WR SDUWLFXODU SRLQWV EHWZHHQ WZR HQGSRLQWV 7KH OH[LFRQ FRPSHQVDWHV IRU JUDPPDUnV UHODWLYH LQWUDQVLJHQFH E\ RIIHULQJ WKH SRVVLELOLW\ IRU WKH NLQG RI VXEWOH DQG FRQWLQXRXV FKDQJHV LPSOLHG E\ WKH QRWLRQ fFRQWLQXXP 7KLV LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ ILWV ZHOO ZLWK WKH QRWLRQ RI WKUHH EDVLF HYHQW VFKHPDWDV ZKLFK DUH UHDOL]HG WKURXJK YDULRXV WUDQVLWLYLW\ RSWLRQV ,W LV VRPHWKLQJ RI D PLVQRPHU WR FODLP fKLJK fPLG DQG fORZ OHYHOV RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ ZKHQ HDFK RI WKH FODXVH VWUXFWXUHV W\SLFDOO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKHVH ODEHOV LV DFWXDOO\ D SURWRW\SH LQ DQG RI LWVHOI 5DWKHU WKHUH DUH GHJUHHV RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ ZLWKLQ HDFK RI WKH EDVLF W\SHV SUREDEO\ ZLWK WKHLU RZQ VHSDUDWH VHPDQWLFV )RU H[DPSOH UHDOO\ KLJK WUDQVLWLYLW\ PD\ EH GLVWLQJXLVKHG IURP PHUHO\ KLJK WUDQVLWLYLW\ WKURXJK WKH DJHQF\SDWLHQW LPSOLFDWXUHV GLVFXVVHG EHORZ f9HU\ ORZf WUDQVLWLYLW\ FDQ EH GLVWLQJXLVKHG IURP VLPSOH fORZ WUDQVLWLYLW\ E\ WKH GLVWLQFWLRQ RI GXUDWLYH DFWLRQ YHUVXV VWDWH ,W LV WKH f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fVHOIFDXVHG DQLPDWH ELRORJLFDOO\ LQKHUHQW PRWLRQ DQG fRWKHUFDXVHG QRQDQLPDWH QRQELRORJLFDOO\ LQKHUHQW PRWLRQ ZRXOG DGG WR WKDW D WKLUG FDWHJRU\ DOVR UHDGLO\ DYDLODEOH WR WKH FKLOG QRQFDXVHG PRWLRQ ZKLFK DUH FKDQJHV RI VWDWH DQGRU ORFDWLRQ ZLWKRXW H[WHUQDO FDXVH EXW DOVR ZLWKRXW LQWHUQDO fFRQWURO VXFK DV

PAGE 51

VOHHSLQJ EUHDWKLQJ OLYLQJ HWF 7KHVH WKUHH DOVR FRUUHVSRQG ZHOO WR $// RI WKH VLGHV RI DQ HYHQW EHIRUH GXULQJ DQG DIWHU ZKLFK DUH DOO JUDPPDWLFL]HG f§!$ $f§!% %f§! )RU H[DPSOH ZKDW PDNHV IRU D VHQWHQFH ZKLFK SDVVLYL]HV ZHOO QHHG QRW EH VRPHWKLQJ SURWRW\SLFDO EXW D SDUWLFXODU FROORFDWLRQ RI VHPDQWLF IDFWRUV LQ WKH HYHQW VWUXFWXUH ,Q SDUWLFXODU RQH LQ ZKLFK PLQLPDOO\ DIIHFWHGQHVV FDQ EH GHGXFHG HLWKHU E\ FKDQJH RI ORFDWLRQ RU FKDQJH RI VWDWHf DQG LGHDOO\f ZKHUH WKH WUDMHFWRU\ RI WKH HYHQW DQG WKH HQGSRLQW RI WKH HYHQW DUH RQH DQG WKH VDPH ,QWHUHVWLQJO\ HQRXJK LQ (QJOLVK IROORZLQJ 6ORELQ f 7DOP\ f DQG +RSSHU f WKLV LV 127 QHFHVVDULO\ WKH QRUP ,Q (QJOLVK YHU\ RIWHQ SUHGLFDWLRQ LV VSUHDG RXW RYHU VHYHUDO PHPEHUV RI WKH FODXVH PRVW RIWHQ RYHU D FRPELQDWLRQ RI WKH YHUE LQFRUSRUDWLQJ PDQQHUf DQG D SUHSRVLWLRQDO HOHPHQW LQGLFDWLQJ SDWKf 6WDWLVWLFDOO\ WKLV LV D TXLWH FRPPRQ SKHQRPHQRQ VR PXFK VR WKDW LW VHHPV UDWKHU DEVXUG WR FODLP WKDW WKH DFWLYH GHFODUDWLYH ZLWK KXPDQ VXEMHFW DQG QRQKXPDQ DIIHFWHG SDWLHQW LV 7+( SURWRW\SLFDO HYHQWLYH VHQWHQFH LQ (QJOLVK 5DWKHU LW LV WKH VHQWHQFH RQ WKH IDU HQG RI WKH DIIHFWHGQHVV DQG WUDMHFWRU\ VFDOHKLJKHVW LQ HYHQWLYH G\QDPLVP SHUKDSV 7KXV ZKDW LV PRVW W\SLFDO LV D FRPELQDWLRQ RI HQGSRLQWV DQG WUDMHFWRU\ HLWKHU DQ HQGSRLQW ZKLFK LV FDSDEOH RI VHOIWUDMHFWRU\ PLGWUDQVLWLYH fEHFRPH RU fDFWf VLQJOHDUJXPHQW FODXVHf DQ HQGSRLQW QRW FDSDEOH RI VHOIWUDMHFWRU\ D ORZ WUDQVLWLYH fVWDWHf VLQJOHDUJXPHQW FODXVHf DQG WZR HQGSRLQWV VKDULQJ D WUDMHFWRU\ D KLJK WUDQVLWLYH fFDXVH WZR DUJXPHQW FODXVH 25 D PLGKLJK WUDQVLWLYH ZLWK WZR HQGSRLQWV VKDULQJ D WUDMHFWRU\ VSHDG RXW RYHU D FODXVH SKUDVH FRPELQDWLRQf :LWKLQ HDFK fSURWRW\SH WKHUH DUH D UDQJH RI EHWWHU PHPEHUV (YHQW 6WUXFWXUH DQG 7UDQVLWLYLW\ ,W LV WKH FRQWHQWLRQ RI WKLV SURMHFW WKDW (YHQW 6WUXFWXUH LV WKH FRJQLWLYH V\VWHP DQG WUDQVLWLYLW\ WKH OLQJXLVWLF V\VWHP ,Q IDFW JLYHQ 0DQGOHUfV K\SRWKHVHV DERXW WKH SRVVLEOH RULJLQfV IRU WKH H[SUHVVLRQ RI HYHQWV LW VHHPV OLNHO\ WKDW WUDQVLWLYLW\ LV WR VRPH H[WHQW fLQIHUUHGf E\ WKH FKLOG DV D ODWHU RU VHFRQG VWHS LQ WKLV DFTXLVLWLRQ SURFHVV $FFRUGLQJ WR 0DQGOHU WKH FKLOG ILUVW GLVWLQJXLVKHV ELRORJLFDO PRYHPHQW IURP QRQELRORJLFDO PRYHPHQW DQG fUHFRJQL]HV RU fLQIHUV WKH VHFRQG LV FDXVHG PRWLRQ VHH DOVR %UXQHU f $QRWKHU ZD\ RI YLHZLQJ WKH PDWWHU LV WKDW WKH LQIDQW EHJLQV WR UHFRJQL]H ZKLFK HQGSRLQW RI PRWLRQ RU FKDQJH LV UHVSRQVLEOH IRU WKH DFWLYLW\ DQG ZKLFK LV QRW 7KLV LV WKH SRVVLEOH EHJLQQLQJ RI SHUVSHFWLYH 7KH QRWLRQ WKDW DIIHFWHGQHVV LV

PAGE 52

DOVR LQWHUSUHWDEOH DV fWKH SDUW\ QRW UHVSRQVLEOH IRU WKH FKDQJHf ,V OLQJXLVWLFDOO\ YHULILDEOH E\ JUDPPDWLFDO EHKDYLRU RI FRPSRQHQWV ZKLFK DUH FRQVWUXHG DV ERWK DIIHFWHG DQG UHVSRQVLEOH LQ VRPH PDQQHU LH WKH JHISDVVOYH LQ (QJOLVK UHIOH[LYH FRQVWUXFWLRQV DQG PLGGOH FRQVWUXFWLRQV 7KXV LQ WKH VWUXFWXUH RI HYHQWV VHYHUDO FRPSRQHQWV DUH EDVLF ZKLFK ILQG WKHPVHOYHV FRGHG E\ D YDULHW\ RI OLQJXLVWLF H[SUHVVLRQV QRQH RI ZKLFK VKRXOG ULJKWIXOO\ EH FDOOHG PRUH EDVLF RU SURWRW\SLFDO WKDQ WKH RWKHUf ff§ 7KH 7UDMHFWRU\ &RPSRQHQW 7KLV FRPSRQHQW LV SDUW RI WZR EDVHG LQ WKH QRWLRQ RI FDXVHG RWKHUFDXVHG RU QRQ FDXVHG PRWLRQ EHJXQ LQ WKH SHUFHSWLRQ RI ELRORJLFDOO\ DQG QRQELRORJLFDOO\ URRWHG PRWLRQ 0DQGOHU f ,W LV ZKHUH WKH QRWLRQ XQLODWHUDO DFWLYLW\f LQ WUDQVLWLYLW\ RULJLQDWHV f 7KH (QG3RLQWV &RPSRQHQW 7KLV LV WKH VHFRQG SDUW RI WKH WZR EDVHV LQ WKH YDULRXV QRWLRQV RI FDXVHG PRWLRQ %DVLFDOO\ WKH PRWLRQ LV VHHQ LQ LWV UHODWLRQVKLS WR ZKHUH LW EHJLQV DQG ZKHUH LW HQGV KHUHDIWHU GLVWLQJXLVKHG DV 6WDUWLQJ SRLQW DQG (QGLQJ SRLQW UHVSHFWLYHO\f 7KLV LV XOWLPDWHO\ ZKHUH WKH FRQFHSWXDO QRWLRQV RI FDXVDWLRQ LQWHQWLRQ DQG UHVSRQVLELOLW\ RULJLQDWH VLQFH WKHVH DUH WKH YDULRXV VHPDQWLFSUDJPDWLF SHUVSHFWLYHV DVFULEDEOH WR WKH HQGSRLQWV LQYROYHG 7KXV OLQJXLVWLFDOO\ WKLV LV DOVR ZKHUH VXFK QRWLRQV DV fDJHQWf DQG SDWLHQWf HYROYH IURP f f f 7KH (QG3RLQW DQG 7UDMHFWRU\ &RPSOH[ 7KHVH WZR WRJHWKHU DFW DV WKH EDVLV RI (YHQW 6WUXFWXUH &URIW /DQJDFNHU /DNRII .HPPHU 5LFH 0DQGOHU 7DOP\f +RZHYHU FRQWUDU\ WR WKH FODLPV RI 5LFH DQG *LYQ WKH SDUWLFXODU FRPELQDWLRQ RI WZR HQGSRLQWV SOXV D XQLODWHUDO WUDMHFWRU\ ,V QRW PRUH EDVLF WKDQ DQ\ RI WKH RWKHU FRPELQDWLRQV 7KXV DP IROORZLQJ &URIW DQG .HPPHU ZKR SURSRVH WKDW WKHUH DUH D UDQJH RI SRVVLEOH SURWRW\SHV ZKLFK LQ WXUQ DUH FRGHG E\ D YDULHW\ RI OLQJXLVWLF H[SUHVVLRQV HDFK ZLWK D SUREDEOH PRVW fW\SLFDO RU fFDQRQLFDO IRUP %HUPDQ DQG 6ORELQ f 6ORELQ f 7DOP\ f DQG +RSSHU f DPRQJ RWKHUV LPSO\ DV PXFK ZLWK WKHLU SDUWLFXODU LQWHUSUHWDWLRQV 6ORELQ LQWHU DOLDf UHFRJQL]HV WKUHH EDVLF HYHQW W\SHV WR (YHQW &RQVWUXDO &DXVH %HFRPH DQG 6WDWH 7DOP\ VKRZV WKDW W\SRORJLFDOO\ GLIIHUHQW ODQJXDJHV FRQYH\ HQGSRLQW

PAGE 53

WUDMHFWRU\ FRPSOH[HV LQ W\SLFDO ZD\V ZLWK GLIIHUHQW OLQJXLVWLF SDUVLQJV RI WKH ZKROH +RSSHU VKRZV WKDW (QJOLVK RIWHQ FKRRVHV WR DUUD\ WZR HQSRLQWV WUDMHFWRU\ FRPSOH[HV RYHU VHYHUDO HOHPHQWV LQ WKH VHQWHQFH UDWKHU WKDQ LQ MXVW WKH WUDGLWLRQDO fWUDQVLWLYH FRQVWUXFWLRQ /XFKMHQEURHUV f VKRZV KRZ WKH FRPSOH[ FRQVWUXFWLRQV +RSSHU LQYHVWLJDWHV KDYH UHDO DQG YHULILDEOH GLVFRXUVH HIIHFWV LQ WHUPV RI LQIRUPDWLRQ SDFNDJLQJ %UXQHU f VXPPDUL]HV WKH YDULRXV LQIDQW VWXGLHV VXJJHVWLQJ WKDW ZH DUH VHQVLWLYH WR WKH UROHV RI FDXVDWLRQ DQG LQWHQWLRQ DW YHU\ \RXQJ DJHV *LYQ DQG /DQJ f ZLWKRXW UHDOO\ LQWHQGLQJ WR JLYH DGGLWLRQDO VXSSRUW ,Q WKHLU GLDFKURQLF WUHDWPHQW RI WKH JHISDVVLYH LQ (QJOLVK E\ GHPRQVWUDWLQJ KRZ WKLV XQLTXH FRQVWUXFWLRQ GHYHORSHG DV D PHDQV RI H[SUHVVLQJ ERWK DIIHFWHGQHVV DQG UHVSRQVLELOLW\ VLPXOWDQHRXVO\ +DUJUHDYHV f DOVR GHPRQVWUDWHV LQIOHFWLRQDO FDWHJRULHV ZKLFK DUH GLUHFWO\ VHQVLWLYH WR WKH NQRZDELOLW\ RI ,QWHQWLRQ LQ WKH PRUSKRORJ\ RI FRQWURO YHUEV LQ 1HZDUL 7KH HYHQW FRPSOH[ KHUH UHDOO\ D VLPSOHU YHUVLRQ FRPSDUHG WR RWKHUVf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fUHVSRQVLELOLW\ RI WKH HQGSRLQWV DV LQ DFFXVDWLYH YHUVXV DEVROXWLYH ODQJXDJHVf $W WKH OHYHO RI VHPDQWLFV WKLV UHVXOWV LQ WKH YDULRXV VHQWHQFH W\SHV DQG DOWHUQDWLRQV DOORZHG DQG GLVDOORZHG DV H[SUHVVLRQV RI HQHUJ\ IORZ DQG SDUWLFLSDQW UHODWLRQVKLSV LQIOXHQFHG ZRXOG FRQWHQG E\ SUDJPDWLFV LQ WKH JXLVH RI FXOWXUDO DQG fUHDO ZRULGf NQRZOHGJHf $W WKH OHYHO RI GLVFRXUVH WKLV PHDQV SDUWLFLSDQWV DQG fHYHQW UHODWLRQVKLSV 3/86 SHUVSHFWLYH D GLVFRXUVHVHPDQWLF LQWHUDFWLRQ FRQVWUXHG YDULRXVO\ LQ ODQJXDJHV DFFRUGLQJ WR ZKDW WKH WUDQVLWLYLW\ V\VWHP DOORZV WRJHWKHU ZLWK ODQJXDJHVSHFLILF FRQVWUDLQWV RQ FRKHUHQFH 6LQFH fWUDQVLWLYLW\ DV D WHUP LV IDVWORVLQJ LWV VLJQLILFDQFH GXH WR RYHUH[WHQVLRQ ZH FRQILQH LW WR WKH JUDPPDWLFDO OHYHO RI H[SUHVVLQJ (QG3RLQW7UDMHFWRU\ UHODWLRQVKLSV KHUHDIWHU 37 UHODWLRQVKLSVf (DFK ODQJXDJH HQFRGHV WKHVH UHODWLRQVKLSV GLIIHUHQWO\ DQG LQ D PDQQHU EHOLHYH LV ZHOOGHVFULEHG E\ 7DOP\nV fYHUEIUDPHG DQG fVDWHOOLWHIUDPHG W\SRORJLFDO GLVWLQFWLRQ f

PAGE 54

6ORELQ f FRQILUPV DV PXFK LQ KLV FRPSDULVLRQ RI WH[WV LQ (QJOLVK DQG 6SDQLVK VKRZLQJ WKDW ZKLOH HYHQW VWUXFWXUH FRQFHSWXDOO\ HQFRPSDVVHV WKH ZKROH RI 37 UHODWLRQVKLSV WKHUH DUH UHJXODU SDWWHUQV LQVWDQWLDWHG LQ YDULRXV ODQJXDJHV ,Q (QJOLVK YHU\ RIWHQ 37 UHODWLRQVKLSV DUH QRW FRGHG ZLWKLQ D VLQJOH FODXVH EXW LQ FODXVHSKUDVH FRPELQDWLRQV VHH +RSSHU DQG /XFKMHQEURHUV FLWHG DERYHf DV LQ &RUD VZXQJ KLV EODGH DQG FXW GRZQ WKH RSSRVLQJ VZRUGVZRPDQ 6SDQLVK KRZHYHU WHQGV WR FRGH ERWK WKH fPDQQHU RI WKH DFWLYLW\ DQG LWV WUDMHFWRU\ LQ D VLQJOH YHUE 7KLV GLIIHUHQFH UHVXOWV LQ ERWK GLIIHUHQW OH[LFDOL]DWLRQV RI YHUEV DQG DOVR GLIIHUHQW SDWWHUQ RI GLVFRXUVH )RU (QJOLVK WUDQVLWLYLW\ DFWXDOO\ KDV )285 IRUPV LQ ZKLFK LW LV H[SUHVVHG HDFK LQVWDQWLDWLQJ SDUWLFXODU 37 UHODWLRQVKLSV DQG FODXVH VWUXFWXUH 7KHVH DUH WKH IRXU FODXVHW\SHV RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ LQ (QJOLVK SOHDVH VHH )LJXUH DW FKDSWHUnV HQG IRU D VFKHPDWLF UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG WH[WXDO H[DPSOHVf OQWUDQVLWLYH'XUDWLYH WUDQVLWLYHff§ (QGSRLQW EXW OLWWOH 7UDMHFWRU\ ERXQG E\ WKH VDPH FODXVH $WHOLF 7UDQVLWLYH VLQJOH (QGSRLQW SOXV 7UDMHFWRU\ LQ HLWKHU GLUHFWLRQ ERXQG E\ WKH VDPH FODXVH 7HOLF 7UDQVLWLYHf§ WZR (QGSRLQWV SOXV 7UDMHFWRU\ ERXQG E\ WKH VDPH FODXVH 'LVSHUVHG 7UDQVLWLYHf§ WZR (QGSRLQWV SOXV 7UDMHFWRU\ VSHFLILHG DFURVV D FODXVH DQG D SKUDVH 7KHVH IRUPV DUH GHVFULSWLYH LQ QDWXUH DOWKRXJK WKH\ KDYH WKHRUHWLFDO DQG W\SRORJLFDO EDVHV 7KH\ ZLOO DOVR EH XVHG DV ZRUNLQJ WHUPV WKURXJKRXW WKH SURMHFW 8OWLPDWHO\ EHOLHYH WKH DERYH WHUPV DUH PRUH DFFXUDWH WKDQ WKH FRQFHSW RI GHJUHHV VLQFH DV VKRZQ DERYH WKHUH DUH QRW GHJUHHV RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ IURP D VLQJOH SURWRW\SH EXW DW OHDVWf WKUHH GLIIHUHQW fSURWRW\SHVf HDFK ZLWK LWV RZQ fGHJUHHV /DQJXDJHV DUH PRUH SURSHUO\ LQYHVWLJDWHG IRU KRZ WKH\ H[SUHVV 3RLQW7UDMHFWRU\ FRPSOH[HV WKDQ IRU WKHLU fGHJUHHV RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ $W WKH OHYHO RI WH[W SDUWLFLSDQW VHPDQWLFV OH[LFDO VHPDQWLFV DQG SUDJPDWLFV DOVR FRPH LQWR SOD\ WR FUHDWH WKH HQWLUH LPSOLFDWXUH QRUPDOO\ ODEHOHG WUDQVLWLYLW\ 7KURXJKRXW WKLV SURMHFW ZLOO XVH WKH WHUPV 6WDUWLQJ SRLQW (QGLQJ SRLQW 7UDMHFWRU\ DQG 37 FRPSOH[ ZKHQ UHIHUULQJ WR WKH SXUHO\ VFKHPDWLF DVSHFWV RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ f$JHQWf f3DWLHQW DQG 2WKHU /DEHOV +DYLQJ GHDOW ZLWK WKH H[WHQVLRQ RI SURWRW\SH WR WUDQVLWLYLW\ DQG GLVFDUGHG WKH QRWLRQ RI D VLQJOH SURWRW\SH LQ IDYRU RI DW OHDVW WKUHH SURWRW\SHV H[SUHVVHG YLD IRXU FODXVH W\SHV ZH QRZ PRYH WR D GLIIHUHQW OHYHO RI PHDQLQJSDUWLFLSDQW VHPDQWLFV 5HFDOO WKDW *LYQ +RSSHU DQG 7KRPSVRQ DQG 5LFH DPRQJ RWKHUV DFFHSW WKH UROHV fDJHQW DQG fSDWLHQW DV FRUH UHODWLRQVKLSV

PAGE 55

ZLWKLQ WUDQVLWLYLW\ $Q DOWHUQDWLYH DSSURDFK H[HPSOLILHG E\ &URIW DQG .HPPHU LV WR VHSDUDWH WKH VHPDQWLF ODEHOV DWWDFKHG WR SDUWLFLSDQWV IURP WKHLU VFKHPDWLF UROHV 7DNHQ WRJHWKHU WKHUH LV FRQYLQFLQJ HYLGHQFH WKDW HYHQW SDUWLFLSDQWV FRGH DW OHDVW WZR GLIIHUHQW VHWV RI SDUDPHWHUV DW WKH OHYHO RI WKH FODXVHf ILUVW WKH SXUHO\ VFKHPDWLF DEVWUDFW SRVLWLRQ LQ HYHQW VWUXFWXUH HLWKHU DV VWDUWLQJ SRLQW RU HQGLQJ SRLQW VHFRQG D VHPDQWLF FKDUDFWHU H[SUHVVLQJ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI SDUWLFLSDQW WR HYHQW JHQHUDOO\ DV WKH LQLWLDWLQJ UHVSRQVLEOH SDUW\ RU WKH DIIHFWHG SDUW\ XQGHUJRLQJ D FKDQJH RI VWDWH 7KH PRVW FRPPRQ ODEHOV IRU WKH VHPDQWLF UROHV KDV EHHQ fDJHQWf DQG fSDWLHQW UHVSHFWLYHO\ 5LFH f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f DUJXH DJDLQVW fDJHQW DV D SURWRW\SH 7KH\ EDVH WKHLU FRQFOXVLRQ RQ WKH ZRUN RI +ROLVN\ f ZKR GHPRQVWUDWHG WKDW DJHQF\ LV DFWXDOO\ DQ LPSOLFDWXUH DW WKH fLQWHUVHFWLRQ RI WKH VHPDQWLFV RI WKH FODXVH WKH VHPDQWLFV RI ERWK WKH DFWRU 13 DQG WKH SUHGLFDWHf DQG JHQHUDO SULQFLSOH RI FRQYHUVDWLRQ FI *ULFH f f +ROLVN\ GHVLJQDWHV D SUDJPDWLF SULQFLSOH LQ WKH SURFHVV GHVLJQDWHG E\ KHU DV 3UDJPDWLF 3ULQFLSOH >@
PAGE 56

,Q f WKHUH LV QR H[SOLFLW PDUN IRU ZKHWKHU WKH DFWRU ,V DQ DJHQW RU QRW WKRXJK E\ +ROOVN\fV SULQFLSOH >@ DERYH ZH LQWHUSUHW LW WR EH VRf ZKLOH f FRQILUPV WKLV DV D SRWHQWLDO ,QWHUSUHWDWLRQ 2Q WKH RWKHU KDQG f SURYLGHV fLQIRUPDWLRQ WR WKH FRQWUDU\ GLVFRQILUPLQJ WKH DJHQWLYH QDWXUH RI f/DUU\f DQG OHDYLQJ KLP PHUHO\ DV D FDXVDO SDUWLFLSDQW 6HQWHQFH f VKRZV WKDW WKH DFWRU QHHG QRW EH DQLPDWH DW DOO DQG WKHUHIRUH QR DSSHDO LV PDGH WR +ROLVN\nV SUDJPDWLF SULQFLSOH ,W LV QRW WKH FDVH WKDW 12 YHUEV KDYH DQ ,QKHUHQW DJHQW 2EYLRXVO\ PXUGHU GRHV %XW ,QKHUHQW DJHQF\ LV UHODWLYHO\ UDUH 9DQ 9DOLQ DQG :LONLQV DUJXH 7KLV KDV LPSRUWDQW LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU WKH QRWLRQ nDJHQW SURWRW\SHn DQG WKH LGHD WKDW UHODWLRQV OLNH IRUFH DQG LQVWUXPHQW DUH MXVW fOHVV JRRGn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f >HPSKDVLV DGGHG@ :KLOH WKH HQWLUHW\ RI WKHLU SURRI LV WRR H[WHQVLYH WR JR LQWR KHUH EDVLFDOO\ WKH 13 SURSHUWLHV WKH\ DUH UHIHUULQJ WR DUH fDQLPDWHQRQDQOPDWH DQG fLQVWLJDWRUQRQLQVWLJDWRUf $QLPDF\ GLVWLQJXLVKHV HIIHFWRUV FDSDEOH RI IHHOLQJ VHOIH[SUHVVLRQ DQG VHOIPRYHPHQW IURP WKRVH LQFDSDEOH RI WKH VDPH ,QVWLJDWLRQ UHIHUV WR ZKHWKHU WKH HIIHFWRU LV fVHOIHQHUJHWLFf WKDW LV KDV DQ LQKHUHQW HQHUJ\ VRXUFH DV ZLWK QDWXUDO IRUFHV ,Q FRPELQDWLRQ WKH WKUHH SULPDU\ VWDUWLQJ SRLQWHIIHFWRU UROHV HPHUJH WKH DJHQW ZKR ,V DQLPDWH LQVWLJDWRU DQG SUHIHUDEO\ KXPDQ WKRXJK DQLPDF\ FDQ DOVR EH DVFULEHG WR FXOWXUHVSHFLILF HQWLWLHVf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fSDWLHQW LV HTXDOO\ GXELRXV $V %DNNHU GHPRQVWUDWHV WKH fSURWRW\SLFDO SDWLHQW DFWXDOO\ UHGXFHV WUDQVLWLYLW\ LQ $QFLHQW *UHHN

PAGE 57

E\ ORZHULQJ WKH YROLWLRQDOLW\ KHQFH WKH RYHUDOO PHDVXUH RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ IRU WKH HYHQW f 7KLV VKRXOG QRW EH VXUSULVLQJ VLQFH VRPHWKLQJ VLPLODU KDSSHQV LQ (QJOLVK ZKHQ WKH ZKROH RI HYHQW VWUXFWXUH LV VSUHDG RXW RYHU WKH YHUE SKUDVH SOXV D SUHSRVLWLRQDO SKUDVH &RUD VZXQJ KLV EODGH DQG FXW GRZQ WKH RSSRVLQJ VZRUGVZRPDQ :KLOH WKH ILUVW SUHGLFDWLRQ &RUD VZXQJ KLV EODGH LV fWUDQVLWLYH LQ WKH VHQVH RI KDYLQJ D V\QWDFWLF GLUHFW REMHFW WKH HQWLUH HYHQW LQ TXHVWLRQ KDV WZR SDUWV WKH LQLWLDWLQJ HYHQW VZLQJLQJ WKH EODGHf DQG WKH HQGLQJ UHVXOW FXWWLQJ GRZQ WKH RSSRQHQWf 5HFDOO WKDW .HPPHUnV HODERUDWLRQ RI HYHQWV DOORZV YDULRXV OHYHOV RI IRFXV RQ WKH HYHQW VR WKDW D ZKROH VWUXFWXUH VXFK DV PLJKW EH H[SUHVVHG LQ D EDVLF WUDQVLWLYH FODXVH LH &RUD NLOOHG WKH RSSRVLQJ VZRUGVZRPDQ FDQ EH H[SUHVVHG YLD DWWHQWLRQ WR DQ\ RI LWV SDUWV 1HYHUWKHOHVV fWKH EODGH LQ TXHVWLRQ ZKLOH D SURWRW\SLFDO SDWLHQW LW LV DIIHFWHG E\ FKDQJH RI ORFDWLRQ QRQKXPDQf LV UHDOO\ EXW DQ LQVWUXPHQW LQ WKH RYHUDOO HYHQW LW LV QRW WKH LQVWLJDWLQJ IRUFH DQG LV QRW WKH ORFXV RI HIIHFW -XVW DV fDJHQWf LV DQ LPSOOFDWXUH IURP D PRUH EDVLF UROH (IIHFWRU fSDWLHQWf LV OLNHZLVH DQ LPSOLFDWXUH EDVHG RQ OH[LFDO VHPDQWLF DQG SUDJPDWLF IDFWRUV 7KH DSSHDO RI DJHQF\ DQG SDWOHQWKRRG DV QHFHVVDU\ TXDOLWLHV GHULYHV IURP WKHLU DQWRQ\PLFDO TXDOLW\ WKH\ DUH QRW PHUHO\ GLVWLQFW WKH\ DUH PD[LPDOO\ GLVWLQFW
PAGE 58

VPDVKHG WKH JODVV LV WKDW WKH ILUVW LV VNHZHG WRZDUGV WKH $IIHFWHG DQG WKH VHFRQG WRZDUGV WKH (IIHFWRU $V D UHVXOW WKH PLGGOH FRQVWUXFWLRQ LV DYDLODEOH WR WKH ILUVW EXW QRW WR WKH VHFRQG 7KH JODVV VKDWWHUHG r 7KH JODVV VPDVKHG 7KHUH DUH GLVFRXUVH FRQVTXHQFHV DV ZHOO :KLFKHYHU SDUWLFLSDQW HQG LV VNHZHG WRZDUGV LV DOVR PRUH OLNHO\ WR FRQWLQXH DV WRSLF LQ VXEVHTXHQW GLVFRXUVH ,W VKRXOG EH UHPHPEHUHG WKRXJK WKDW 3W7 FRPSOH[HV DORQH GR QRW KDYH WKLV TXDOLW\ 7KH 3,7 FRPSOH[ LV VFKHPDWLF FRQFHSWXDO EXW ODFNV WKH VHPDQWLF ULFKQHVV RI SDUWLFLSDQW VHPDQWLFV )RU WKLV VWXG\ WKH WHUP fSDWLHQW ZLOO EH DYRLGHG DQG LQVWHDG WKH WHUP f$IIHFWHGf ZLOO EH XVHG IRU WKH SDUWLFLSDQW ZKLFK LV WKH ORFXV RI HIIHFW ,Q WKH VDPH YHLQ f(IIHFWRUf ZLOO EH WKH WHUP XVHG IRU WKH VHPDQWLF FKDUDFWHU RI WKH SDUWLFLSDQW ZKLFK LQLWLDWHV RU FDXVHV WKH DFWLYLW\ LQ DQ HYHQW )RU SDUWLFLSDQWV WKHQ f6WDUWLQJ SRLQW DQG f(QGLQJ SRLQW ZLOO EH XVHG ZKHQ WKH UHIHUHQFH LV WR HYHQW VWUXFWXUH ZKLOH f(IIHFWRUf DQG f$IIHFWHG ZLOO EH XVHG ZKHQ WKH UHIHUHQFH LV WR SDUWLFLSDQW VHPDQWLFV 9HUEDO 0RGDOLW\7HDVLQJ $SDUW 6HPDQWLFV DQG 3UDRPDWLFV 7KHUH DUH VWLOO D IHZ ,VVXHV ZKLFK QHHG WR EH VHWWOHG 5HFDOO WKDW *LYQ FODLPV WKDW WKH SURWRW\SLFDO YHUE ,Q D WUDQVLWLYH FODXVH LV fIDVWSDFHG FRPSOHWHG UHDO DQG SHUFHSWXDOO\ FRJQLWLYHO\ VDOLHQW :H VKDOO WDNH HDFK RI WKHVH RQH E\ RQH DQG VHH ZKDW D FORVHU H[DPLQDWLRQ \LHOGV IRU WUDQVLWLYLW\ )DVWSDFHG 7KH QRWLRQ fIDVWSDFHG LV FKDUDFWHUL]HG DV WUDQVIHU RI HIIHFW IURP VRXUFH WR JRDO ZKLFK LV VR IDVW DV WR EH LQVWDQWDQHRXV
PAGE 59

HYHQW 7KH ODFN RI LPSRUWDQFH RI LQVWDQWDQHRXV HIIHFW LV QRW VXUSULVLQJ JLYHQ WKH FRPSRQHQWV RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ SURSRVHG WKXV IDU LW LV QRW KRZ TXLFN WKH YHUE LV EXW WKH SDUWLFXODU VHW RI DV\PPHWULHV LQVWDQWLDWHG LQ WKH FODXVH &RPSOHWHG $ FRPSOHWHG HYHQW LV OLQJXLVWLFDOO\ GHILQHG DV RQH ZKLFK LV ERXQGHG %RXQGHGQHVV DFFRUGLQJ WR *LYQ LV D YHUEDO TXDOLW\ PHDQLQJ fQRQOLQJHULQJ S YRO ,,f f1RQOOQJHUHLQJ DV D WHUPV VHHPV WR LPSO\ WLPH LQ IDFW LW LV PRUH DFFXUDWHO\ XQGHUVWRRG DV fFRPSOHWLRQ RI WKH HYHQW
PAGE 60

LV QRW ERXQG E\ D FKDQJHRWVWDWH RI D VHFRQG SDUWLFLSDQW EXW E\ WKH LQKHUHQW VHPDQWLFV RI WKH YHUE LWVHOI DV LW UHIHUV WR WKH RQH HQJDJHG LQ WKH DFWLYLW\ 2EYLRXVO\ LW LV WKH LQWUDQVLWLYH FODXVH ZKLFK KDV WKH OHDVW VHQVH RI FRPSOHWLRQ +RZHYHU DV WKHVH VHQWHQFHV VKRZ LW LV QRW FRPSOHWLRQ ZKLFK LV WKH VHPDQWLF IDFWRU EXW WKH GXUDWLYLW\ RI WKH HYHQWV WKHPVHOYHV f %HUWKD JUHZ XS LQ 0LQQHVRWD f 6YHQ NQHZ DOO WKH DQVZHUV f (OYLUD OLYHG LQ 1HZ
PAGE 61

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f DQG f GHPRQVWUDWH WKDW (QJOLVK DOORZV ERWK WKH SUDJPDWLFDOO\ XQGHUVWRRG IRUFH DQG ,QVWUXPHQW WR EH WKH fVRXUFHf RI WKH DFWLRQ ([DPSOH f VKRZV WKDW ERWK RI WKH DERYH FDQ SDVVLYL]H ,Q ff YDULRXV JUDPPDWLFDO IRUPV WRSLFDOO]H WKH DIIHFWHG SDUWLFLSDQW ZKHUHDV f f f DQG f VKRZ WKDW OH[LFDO FKRLFH DOVR FRQWULEXWHV WR WKH FODXVDO FRPELQDWLRQV SHUPLWWHG E\ WKH JUDPPDU RI (QJOLVK f -RKQ EURNH WKH ZLQGRZ f 7KH URFN EURNH WKH ZLQGRZ f 7KH ZLQGRZ ZDV EURNHQ E\ -RKQWKH URFN f 7KH ZLQGRZ EURNHrE\ -RKQ f 7KH ZLQGRZ EURNH HDVLO\ZLWK GLIILFXOW\nGLIILFXOWO\ f r7KH ZLQGRZV EUHDN HDVLO\:LQGRZV EUHDN HDVLO\ f 7KH ZLQGRZV EUHDN HDVLO\ EXW WKH ZRRGHQ IUDPHV GR QRW f :LQGRZV EURNH HDVLO\ ZRRG ZDV EXW OLWWOH KDUGHU f -RKQ WKUHZ WKH URFNf 7KH ZLQGRZ EURNHVKDWWHUHG f -RKQ EURNHGHVWUR\HGFUXVKHG WKH ZLQGRZ ZLWK D URFN f r7KH ZLQGRZ GHVWUR\HGFUXVKHG %RWK WKH (IIHFWRU DQG $IIHFWHG UROHV JHW OH[LFDOL]HG LQ (QJOLVK DQG FHUWDLQ FRQVWUXFWLRQV VXFK DV WKH PLGGOH DUH DOVR $IIHFWHGRULHQWHG :HOU]EOFND f RIIHUV DQ LQWULJXLQJ DQDO\VLV RI FDXVDWLRQ DQG OH[LFDOL]DWLRQ (QJOLVK VKH SURSRVHV LV ILOOHG ZLWK PDQ\ OHYHO RI FDXVDWLYH LQVWDQWLDWHG LQ OH[LFDO FDXVDWLYHV DV ZHOO DV SHULSKUDVWLF FDXVDO FRQVWUXFWLRQV 7KH OLVW RI OH[LFDO FDXVDWLYHV f ZKLFK SD\V DWWHQWLRQ WR GLIIHUHQW VWUDWHJLHV RI KXPDQ FDXVDWLRQ UDWKHU QHDWO\ GLFKRWRPL]HV EHWZHHQW (IIHFWRURULHQWHG DQG $IIHFWHGRULHQWHG OH[LFDO LWHPV RUGHU FRPPDQG GHPDQG UHTXLUH VXJJHVW DGYRFDWH LQVWUXFW SHUVXDGH GHFUHH RUGDLQ DXWKRUL]H FRPPLVLRQ EHJ LPSORUH EHVHHFK HQWUHDW SOHDG LQWHUFHGH DSSO\ DSSHDO HQMRLQ 7KHUH ZHUH D IHZ LWHPV GLIILFXOW WR FODVVLI\ HLWKHU ZD\ ZKLFK VHHP WR IRUP WKH fEDVLFf FDWHJRU\ DJDLQVW ZKLFK WKH RWKHUV DUH RUJDQL]HG DVN UHTXHVW WHOO

PAGE 62

7KLV OLVW IXUWKHU VXEVWDQWLDWHV WKH LGHD WKDW JLYHQ DQ HYHQW WKH ZKROH RI WKH HYHQW LV FRQFHSWXDOO\ DYDLODEOH EXW FHUWDLQ KLJKO\ UHOHYDQW KLJKO\ SUHGLFWDEOH UHODWLRQVKLSV DUH WKH RQHV WKDW DFWXDOO\ EHFRPH OH[LFDOL]HG LWHPV ,V WKHUH DQ\WKLQJ LQ RXU GLVFXVVLRQ VR IDU ZKLFK PLJKW H[SODLQ RU SURYLGH DQ RUJDQL]DWLRQDO XPEUHOOD IRU WKH EHKDYLRU GHVFULEHG DERYH" EHOLHYH WKH FRJQLWLYH UHODWLRQVKLS RI DV\PPHWU\ DV GLVFXVVHG E\ 5LFH EXW PDGH OLQJXLVWLFDOO\ UHOHYDQW E\ 6ORELQ PD\ EH WKH DQVZHU 6ORELQ f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f /HVV PDWXUH QDUUDWRUV WHQG WR VWULQJ HYHQWV WRJHWKHU XVLQJ D VLPSOH FRQMXQFWLYH fDQG $V VSHDNHUV PDWXUH WKH\ IRUP KLHUDUFKLFDO UHODWLRQVKLSV LQ WKH QDUUDWLYH EHJLQQLQJ ZLWK VLPSOHU FDXVDO FKDLQV DQG WKHQ KH GLG [ EHFDXVHf JUDGXDOO\ LQFRUSRUDWLQJ WKH VRSKLVWLFDWHG WHQVHDVSHFW DQG OH[LFDO fFRPSOH[HV ZH DVVRFLDWH ZLWK DGXOW QDUUDWLRQ /RRVHO\ VSHDNLQJ WKLV ODQJXDJH GHYHORSPHQW LV XQGHUVWRRG E\ WKHVH DXWKRUV DV D PDQLIHVWDWLRQ RI RXU FRJQLWLYH SUHGLVSRVLWLRQ WRZDUGV DV\PPHWU\ /H[LFDOO\ DV\PPHWU\ PDQLIHVWV LWVHOI LQ WKH VRUW RI UHODWLRQVKLSV GLVFXVVHG E\ %\EHH /DQJDFNHU DQG :HLU]EHFND /H[LFDO FKRLFH KDV DQ HIIHFW RQ WUDQVLWLYLW\ LQVRIDU DV DQ\ YHUE LV fVNHZHG WRZDUGV RQH HQG RI WKH (IIHFWRU$IIHFWHG FRQWLQXXP 7KRVH YHUEV ZKLFK LQFOXGH ERWK WKH VRXUFH DQG JRDO VHPDQWLFDOO\ JHQHUDOO\ VSHDNLQJ SDUWLFLSDWH LQ WHOLF WUDQVLWLYH FODXVHV 7KRVH VNHZHG VWURQJO\ WR HLWKHU (IIHFWRU RU $IIHFWHG UHVXOW LQ DWHOLF WUDQVLWLYHV 7KXV SHUFHSWXDOFRJQLWLYH VDOLHQFH RI D YHUE PD\ EH SDUWLDOO\ GHILQHG DV WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK WKH OH[LFDO LWHP LV VNHZHG WRZDUGV WKH DIIHFWHG SDUWLFLSDQW LQ DQ DFWLRQ +DOOLGD\ f VXJJHVWV DV PXFK KLPVHOI ZKHQ KH FODLPV WKH WUDQVLWLYLW\ DOWHUQDWLRQV LQ (QJOLVK DUH OHVV D PDWWHU RI LQKHUHQW PHDQLQJ WKDQ ZKHWKHU WKH HYHQW ZDV YLHZHG IURP WKH SHUVSHFWLYH RI WKH VRXUFH RU WKH JRDO

PAGE 63

7KHUH LV QRW WR P\ NQRZOHGJH DQ\ NLQG RI OLVW FRPSRVHG DFFRUGLQJ WR WKHVH SDUDPHWHUV VNHZHG WRZDUGV VRXUFH JRDO RU QHLWKHU EXW VHH /HYLQ f DQG LW LV RXWVLGH WKH VFRSH RI WKLV VWXG\ WR GR VR 1HYHUWKHOHVV ZLOO DSSHDO WR WKLV QRWLRQ ZLWK WKH KRSHV WKDW VRPHRQH PD\ ILQG LW XVHIXO IRU IXUWKHU ZRUN 7UDQVLWLYLW\ DQG 7LPH 7KH IROORZLQJ H[FHUSWV ZLOO SURYLGH H[DPSOHV IRU WKH VHPDQWLF FKDUDFWHU RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ DV LW LV GHOLPLWHG E\ GLVFRXUVH $FWXDOO\ PRVW RI WKLV GLVFXVVLRQ ,V GLUHFWO\ JHUPDLQH WR &KDSWHU 7KUHH DQG ZLOO EH H[SORUHG LQ JUHDWHU GHWDLO DW WKDW SRLQW 8WWHULQJ D FXUVH LQ KLV ZHOOSUDFWLFHG IDOVHWWR &RUD VZXQJ KLV EODGH DQG FXW GRZQ WKH RSSRVLQJ VZRUGVZRPDQ +LV FRQWRXUHG EUHDVWSODWH HPSKDVL]HG IHDWXUHV ZKLFK ZHUH QRW WUXO\ SUHVHQW )URP f/DG\ RI 6WHHOf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f VKRUW VWRU\ 7KH VHFRQG LV WKH EHJLQQLQJ WR D SDUWLFXODU HSLVRGH LQ 7KH +REELW PDUNHG E\ D FKDQJH RI VFHQH DQG WKH HYHQWXDO FORVXUH WR WKLV VWULQJ RI HYHQWV 2I SDUWLFXODU LQWHUHVW KHUH DUH WKH ODVW WZR VHQWHQFHV RI HDFK ZKLFK LQ WKH =HOD]Q\ WH[W LQFOXGHV WKH ZKROH RI WKH SDUDJUDSKf 7KH WZR VHQWHQFHV +LV FRQWRXUHG EUHDVWSODWH HPSKDVL]HG IHDWXUHV ZKLFK ZHUH QRW WUXO\ SUHVHQW DQG +LV FRPSDQLRQV ZHUH OHDYLQJ KLP ERWK KDYH PDQ\ RI WKH HOHPHQWV UHTXLUHG RI fKLJK WUDQVLWLYLW\ 7KHUH DUH WZR SDUWLFLSDQWV D JUDPPDWLFDO VXEMHFW DQG REMHFW DQG D SDWK RI PRYHPHQW WKH ILUVW SHUFHSWXDO WKH VHFRQG SK\VLFDOf %RWK VHQWHQFHV SDVVLYL]H DQG WH[WXDOO\ FRXOG SDVVLYL]H ZLWK OLWWOH RU QR GLVWRUWLRQ WR WKH VWRU\OLQH DJDLQ WKLV LV D GLVFRXUVH FRQVWUDLQW RQ WKH SHUVSHFWLYHSURYLGLQJ IXQFWLRQ RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ DQG ZLOO EH H[SODLQHG LQ JUHDWHU GHSWK LQ WKH IROORZLQJ FKDSWHUf

PAGE 64

8WWHULQJ D FXUVH LQ KLV ZHOOSUDFWLFHG IDOVHWWR &RUD VZXQJ KLV EODGH DQG FXW GRZQ WKH RSSRVLQJ VZRUGVZRPDQ )HDWXUHV ZHUH HPSKDVL]HG RQ KLV FRQWRXUHG EUHDVWSODWH ZKLFK ZHUH QRW WUXO\ SUHVHQW )URP f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fW f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f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fHYHQWLYHf LQ WKH VHQVH WKDW LW SRLQWV EDFN WR LWVHOI WKH YHUE fHPSKDVL]Hf PHDQV WR PDNH PRUH SHUFHSWXDOO\ VDOLHQW VRPH SDUW RI DQ H[LVWLQJ VWDWH

PAGE 65

'HVSLWH WKH DERYH WKHVH QRWYHU\GLVWLQFW SDUWLFLSDQWV DQG WKLV QRWYHU\G\QDPLF HYHQW DUH FDVW WRJHWKHU LQ D FODXVH VWUXFWXUH SURWRW\SLFDOO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK MXVW WKH RSSRVLWH 7KLV UHVXOWV LQ DQ fDFW RI GHVFULSWLRQ RU DQ fHYHQW RI GHVFULSWLRQ ,Q QDUUDWLYH WKHRU\ )OHLVFKPDQQ /DERY f GHVFULSWLYH HYHQWV DUH ODEHOHG fHYDOXDWLYH LQ WHUPV RI VWRU\ IXQFWLRQ DQG RIWHQ SURYLGH WKH JURXQG DJDLQVW ZKLFK D fFRPSOLFDWLQJ DFWLRQ DQ HYHQW ZKLFK PRYHV WKH WLPHn OLQH RI WKH QDUUDWLYH IRUZDUGf LV ILJXUHG 'HVFULSWLYH HYHQWV DUH DOVR XVHG WR GUDZ WKH UHDGHUfV DWWHQWLRQ WR VRPH VDOLHQW IDFW ZKLFK SURYLGHV HVVHQWLDO SORWOLQH LQIRUPDWLRQ 7KLV LV SUHFLVHO\ WKH IXQFWLRQ RI WKLV VHQWHQFH +LV FRQWRXUHG EUHDVWSODWH LV WKH LQVWUXPHQW XVHG WR JURXQG WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ WKDW WKH VWDWH EHLQJ SUHGLFDWHG LV VRPHKRZ IDOVH ,W SUHVDJHV DQ DFFRXQW IRU WKH JHQGHU PLVPDWFK EHWZHHQ WKH QDPH &RUD DQG WKH PDOH SURQRXQ UHIHUHQFHV )RU WKLV VWRU\ LQ WKH DSSHQGL[f WKLV LQIRUPDWLRQ LV WKH NH\ NQRZOHGJH DJDLQVW ZKLFK WKH SORW XQIROGV 7KH OLQJXLVWLF VLJQDOOLQJ RI WKLV LQIRUPDWLRQ FRPHV LQ WKH SDUWLFXODU FRPELQDWLRQ RI IHDWXUHV ZRXOG OLNH WR UHLWHUDWH WKDW WKLV HIIHFW ,V QRW DFFRPSOLVKHG E\ SURWRW\SH YLRODWLRQWKHUH ,V QR YLRODWLRQ RI WKH VWUXFWXUDO SURWRW\SH DV WKH SDVVLYL]DWLRQ DWWHVWV 5DWKHU WKHUH ,V D V\VWHPDWLF FRPELQDWLRQ RI IHDWXUHV DORQJ YDULRXV SDUDPHWHUV fVLJQDOOLQJf WR WKH UHDGHU WKDW DQ LQIHUHQFH PXVW EH PDGH LQ RUGHU WR FRPSOHWH WKH PHDQLQJ IRU DQ H[FHOOHQW GLVFXVVLRQ RI WKH GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ LQIHUHQFLQJ DV D SURFHVV DQG OLQJXLVWLF FRJQLWLRQ DV D SURFHVV SOHDVH VHH *LYHQ FKDSWHU f )RU GLVFRXUVH LPSOOFDWXUHV DUH FUHDWHG ZKLFK DUH WKHQ f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

PAGE 66

PHQWLRQHG DERYH KDYH WR GR ZLWK WKH QDWXUH RI QDUUDWLYH DV D SDVWWLPH HYHQWGULYHQ FRQVWUXFW /RQJDFUH )OHLVFKPDQQ 6FKLIIULQ +DWDY f 6SHFLILFDOO\ WKH\ KDYH WR GR ZLWK WKH FRQWHQWLRQ WKDW SUHWHULWH DV D WHQVH KDV QR LQKHUHQW VHTXHQWLDO PHDQLQJ 7KLV KDV EHHQ D VRPHZKDW FRQWURYHUVLDO SRLQW VLQFH WKH SHUIHFWLYH QDWXUH RI WKH VLPSOH SDVW LV fLGHDOO\ VXLWHG WR UHSRUWLQJ H[SHULHQFH WKDW KDV EHHQ FRJQLWLYHO\ SDFNDJHG LQWR V\QWKHWLF XQLWV DPHQDEOH WR UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ DV SRLQWV DORQJ D WLPH OLQHf )OHLVFKPDQQ f 1HYHUWKHOHVV DV &RPULH KDV DUJXHG D ZHDN SRLQW RI OLQJXLVWLF DQDO\VLV KDV EHHQ WKH IDLOXUH WR GLIIHUHQWLDWH FRQWH[W LQGHSHQGHQW LQKHUHQW PHDQLQJ IURP FRQWH[WGHSHQGHQW GHULYHG PHDQLQJ )OHLVFKPDQQ FLWLQJ &RPULH f )OHLVFKPDQQ VXPPDUL]HV WKH DUJXPHQW WKXVO\ f 6HYHUDO LQYHVWLJDWRUVKDYH WKHUHIRUH DUJXHG WKDW WKH EDVLF IXQFWLRQ RI WKLV 3$67 LV WR PDUN WKH IRUHJURXQG RI GLVFRXUVH ZKLOH WKH EDFNJURXQG LV PDUNHG E\ LWV ,3)9 FRXQWHUSDUWV>\HWf QHLWKHU WKH ILJXUDO TXDOLW\ RI WKH 35(7 QRU LWV VHTXHQWLDO TXDOLW\ LV DQ LQWULQVLF SDUW RI LWV PHDQLQJ UDWKHU WKHVH SURSHUWLHV HPHUJH IURP WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ RI LWV EDVLF PHDQLQJ 3$67 WLPH 3)9 DVSHFWf ZLWK D VSHFLILF GLVFRXUVH FRQWH[WQDUUDWLYH ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV WKH IRUHJURXQGLQJ DELOLW\ RI WKH 35(7 DQG WKH EDFNJURXQGLQJ DELOLW\ RI WKH ,03 DUH FRQWH[WXDO LPSOLFDWXUHV GHULYDEOH IURP WKH V\QWKHWLF DQG DQDO\WLF YLVLRQV RI WKHLU UHVSHFWLYH DVSHFWV >HPSKDVLV DGGHG@ (DUO\ LQYHVWLJDWLRQV LQWR WKH IXQFWLRQ RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ PRVW QRWDEO\ WKH ZHOOFLWHG +RSSHU DQG 7KRPSVRQ DQG +RSSHU DQG 7KRPSVRQ HG f PDGH SUHFLVHO\ WKH FODLP WKDW WKH SXUSRVH RI fKLJK WUDQVLWLYH FRQVWUXFWLRQV LQ GLVFRXUVH ZDV WR IRUHJURXQG LQIRUPDWLRQ PRVW SDUWLFXODUO\ WR SODFH D FODXVH DQG WKH HYHQWV LW ZDV GHSLFWLQJ RQ WKH WLPHOLQH
PAGE 67

WKH DIIHFWHG SDUWLFLSDQW +RZHYHU LW LV QRW RQ WKH WLPHOLQH EHFDXVH LW LV FDVW LQ WKH LPSHUIHFWLYH SURYLGLQJ WKH JURXQG IRU WKH VXEVHTXHQW DFWLRQ 2Q WKH RWKHU HQG RI WKH VSHFWUXP DUH VRFDOOHG LQWUDQVLWLYH HYHQWV ZKLFK DUH LQGHHG RQ WKH WLPHOLQH 7KHVH DUH HYHQWV IHDWXULQJ HLWKHU RI WKH VLQJOHSDUWLFLSDQW HYHQW VWUXFWXUHV D SDUWLFLSDQW FDXVLQJ D FKDQJH RI VWDWH ZLWK QR FODXVHERXQG PHQWLRQ RI WKH HQGSRLQW RU D SDUWLFLSDQW XQGHUJRLQJ D FKDQJH RI VWDWH ZLWK QR FODXVHERXQG PHQWLRQ RI DQ H[WHUQDO FDXVH 2QH EULHI H[FHUSW IURP /DG\ RI 6WHHOn ZLOO VXIILFH WR GHPRQVWUDWH 6LPXOWDQHRXV WKHQ DWWDFNV FDPH IURP WKH ULJKW DQG WKH OHIW %HJLQQLQJ KLV EDWWOH VRQJ KH SDUULHG WR WKH OHIW FXW WR WKH ULJKW SDUULHG OHIW DJDLQ FXW WKURXJK WKDW ZDUULRU SDUULHG ULJKW DQG WKUXVW %RWK DWWDFNHUV IHOO ,Q WKLV SDUDJUDSK WKH VHFRQG IXOO SDUDJUDSK RI WKH VWRU\f LW LV REYLRXV WKDW HDFK RI WKH FKDLQHG FODXVHV UHSUHVHQWV D QHZ SRLQW RQ WKH WLPHOLQH 7KH LPSOLFDWXUH LV PDGH E\ WKH XVH RI WKH VLPSOH SDVW LQ SHUIHFWLYH IRUP WKH XVH RI SUHSRVLWLRQDO SKUDVHV VSHFLI\LQJ FKDQJH RI GLUHFWLRQ G\QDPLF ORFDWLRQf DQG RXU NQRZOHGJH WKDW VZRUG ILJKWV DUH IRXJKW E\ LQGHSHQGHQW VHULHV RI VWURNHV WKURXJK WLPH YHUVXV D ERPE ZKLFK NLOOV HQ PDVVH ZLWK D VLQJOH GLVFKDUJHf $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKH ]HUR PDUNLQJ RI WKH VXEMHFWWRSLF FOLQFKHV WKH UHDGHUnV NQRZOHGJH WKDW WKH VDPH SDUWLFLSDQW LV EHLQJ WDONHG DERXW 7KH XVH RI WKH FRPPD WR VHSDUDWH HYHQWV LQVWHDG RI D SHULRG LV D VLJQDO JLYHQ E\ WKH ZULWHU WKDW WKHVH HYHQWV ZKLOH VHTXHQWLDO QHYHUWKHOHVV KDSSHQ LQ YHU\ VKRUW WLPH LQWHUYDOV ,W LV D NLQG RI FORVH IRFXV FDPHUD HIIHFW D PHWDSKRU XVHG E\ D QXPEHU RI OLQJXLVWV .HPPHU +RSSHU 7DOP\ HWFf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} &RUD ILJKWV EDFNf§} WKH DWWDFNHUV DUH NLOOHG :KDW WKH ZULWHU KDV GRQH LV JRQH LQVLGH WKH HYHQWV VR WR VSHDN DQG SUHVHQWHG WKHP IURP D FORVHIRFXV SHUVSHFWLYH WKH YLHZ RI WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV

PAGE 68

*UDPPDWLFDOO\ WKLV ,V H[SUHVVHG YLD LQGLYLGXDO VLQJOH SDUWLFLSDQW FODXVHV 7KXV HYHQ ZKLOH WKHUH LV D NLQG RI PDFUR(YHQW 6WUXFWXUHf LPSOLHG WKH H[SUHVVLRQ RI WKDW VWUXFWXUH LV QRW FRQVWUDLQHG WR MXVW RQH YLHZ ,W LV KRZHYHU FRQVWUDLQHG WR WKH YLHZ RI WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV 1HYHUWKHOHVV WKHUH LV D FRJQLWLYH EDVLV IRU WKH FRQIXVLRQ RI WLPHOLQHV SORWOLQHV DQG WUDQVLWLYLW\ 7KH WZRSDUWLFLSDQW WUDQVLWLYH VHQWHQFH LQ (QJOLVKf FDSWXUHV WZR DVSHFWV RI HYHQWV IRUFH G\QDPLFV DQG SDVVDJH RI WLPH DQG FRQVWUXHV WKHP LQ D SDUDOOHO IDVKLRQ WR KRZ WKH\ DUH XQGHUVWRRG 7KDW LV LQ D VHQWHQFH VXFK DV %LOO NLFNHG WKH VOHHSLQJ SRRGOH ERWK WKH OLQHf RI IRUFH DQG WKH fOLQH RI WLPH DV WKH HYHQW KDSSHQV DUH LFRQLF ZLWK WKH JUDPPDWLFDO FRQVWUXDO DQG RUGHU RI SDUWLFLSDQWV IURP %LOO WR WKH GRJ ERWK LQ WHUPV RI WUDMHFWRU\ DQG WLPH ,Wf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fDV\PPHWU\ 7KH GLVFXVVLRQ ZDV QRW PHDQW WR GLVFUHGLW RU GHWUDFW IURP WKH VHPDQWLF ZRUN GRQH VR IDU LQGHHG 5LFHnV H[FHOOHQW VHPDQWLF FRJQLWLYH H[SODQDWLRQ RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ KDV EHHQ IRUPDWLYH LQ P\ RZQ ZRUN 5DWKHU WKH TXHVWLRQ LV QRW ZKHWKHU WKHUH DUH FRJQLWLYH RU VHPDQWLF DVSHFWV WR WUDQVLWLYLW\f§FHUWDLQO\ WKHUH DUHEXW ZKDW LW PHDQV WKDW LW LV WKHVH DVSHFWV ZKLFK DUH JUDPPDWLFDOO\ VSHFLILHG :K\ VKRXOG WKHUH EH FRQFHSWXDO HQGSRLQWV LQ HYHQW VWUXFWXUH" :K\ VKRXOG VNHZLQJ WRZDUGV RQH HQG RI WKH (IIHFWRU$IIHFWHG UHODWLRQVKLS EH VLJQLILFDQW" $ SUHOLPLQDU\ DQVZHU OLHV LQ WKH VWDWHPHQW DERYH DV\PPHWU\ *UDPPDWLFDOO\ ZKHUH JUDPPDU LV XQGHUVWRRG WR EH WKH V\VWHP PHGLDWLQJ LQWHUQDO UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG FRPPXQLFDWLRQ E\ SURYLGLQJ fD VHW RI RSWLRQV IRU VFKHPDWL]LQJ H[SHULHQFH IRU WKH SXUSRVHV RI YHUEDO H[SUHVVLRQ 6ORELQ f DV\PPHWU\ SURYLGHV RQH PHDQV E\ ZKLFK WKLV JRDO LV DFFRPSOLVKHG 6SHFLILFDOO\ DV\PPHWU\ RUJDQL]HV JUDPPDU E\ SUHVHQWLQJ VHWV RI VDOLHQFH UHODWLRQVKLSV WKDW FDQ EH V\VWHPDWLFDOO\ DWWHQGHG WR WKURXJK WLPH 7KDW LV RQH ZD\ RI

PAGE 69

RUJDQL]LQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ WKURXJK WLPH VR WKDW LW LV ERWK SURFHVVDEOH DQG FRPPXQLFDWHV ZKDW WKH VSHDNHU LQWHQGV LV WKURXJK PDUNLQJ VDOLHQFH VR WKDW WKH KHDUHU NQRZV ZKLFK LQIRUPDWLRQ LV WR EH DWWHQGHG WR PRVW FORVHO\ 5HJDUGLQJ WUDQVLWLYLW\ VDOLHQFH DSSOLHV WR HYHQW VHPDQWLFV SDUWLFLSDQW VHPDQWLFV DQG SDUWLFLSDQWHYHQW UHODWLRQVKLSV DV LQVWDQWLDWHG LQ WKH FODXVH 7KH $V\PPHWU\ 3ULQFLSOH LV VLPSO\ D ODEHO IRU D VHW RI UHODWLRQVKLSV WKH OLQJXLVWLF FRPPXQLW\ KDV ORQJ QRWHG KHDGV DQG WDLOV YHUE DQG VDWHOOLWH WRSLF DQG FRPPHQW VRXUFH DQG JRDO ELQDU\ EUDQFKLQJ QRGHV HWF 7KH RQO\ OHDS EHLQJ PDGH LV WR VD\ WKDW WKLV LV QRW PHUHO\ FRLQFLGHQFH EXW LQ IDFW WKH FRJQLWLYH SULQFLSOH DORQJ ZKLFK JUDPPDU LV ODUJHO\ RUJDQL]HG 1RWH WKH FODLP LV EHLQJ PDGH IRU JUDPPDU RQO\ ,I DV 7DOP\ f FODLPV JUDPPDU LV WKH FRJQLWLYH V\VWHP PHGLDWLQJ ZKDWnV LQ WKH EUDLQ DQG ZKDW LV FRPPXQLFDWHG WKHQ DV\PPHWU\ LV WKH RU RQH RI WKHf FRJQLWLYH SULQFLSOHVf GRLQJ WKH RUJDQL]LQJ 2QH ZD\ RI GRLQJ WKLV LV E\ V\VWHPDWLFDOO\ FUHDWLQJ VDOLHQFH UHODWLRQVKLSV VR WKDW DW DQ\ RQH WLPH ERWK VSHDNHU DQG KHDUHU DUH DZDUH RI DQG FDQ PDQDJH DWWHQWLRQ WR WKH YDULRXV HOHPHQWV LQ WKH GLVFRXUVH ,Q WKH FDVH RI KXPDQ EHLQJV WKH FHQWUDO HOHPHQWV DSSHDU WR EH WKH SDUWLFLSDQWVf§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f KDV SRLQWHG RXW ODQJXDJHV KRPRORJL]H QRW RQO\ WLPH EXW VSDFH DV ZHOO ,I WUDQVLWLYLW\ LV WKH JUDPPDWLFDO VWUXFWXULQJ RI HYHQWV RI OLQHDU LQIRUPDWLRQ WKHQ LW PD\ EH UHDVRQDEO\ DVNHG LI ODQJXDJH GRHV QRW DOVR JUDPPDWLFL]H QRQOLQHDU LQIRUPDWLRQ" 'RHV ODQJXDJH KDYH D JUDPPDWLFDO VWUXFWXUH IRU LQIRUPDWLRQ DUUDQJHG QRW WKURXJK WLPH EXW LQ VSDFH" $VNHG LQ DQRWKHU ZD\ LV LQIRUPDWLRQ HYHU

PAGE 70

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fOHYHO RI GLVFRXUVH PXFK RI ZKDW LV FUXFLDOO\ LPSRUWDQW IRU WKH IRUPDWLRQ RI FODXVHV LV QRW WKDW FULWLFDO DQ\PRUH DQG EHFRPHV D QHZ DQG ODUJHU fFKXQNf ZKLFK LV SXW WR XVH IRU HYHQ PRUH DEVWUDFW LQIRUPDWLRQDO SXUSRVHV /LNH D V\PSKRQ\ LI WKH FODXVH LV WKH LQGLYLGXDO SOD\HUDQG WKH VHQWHQFH WKH HQWLUH EUDVV RU ZRRGZLQG VHFWLRQ WKHQ GLVFRXUVH LV XOWLPDWHO\ WKH FRQGXFWRU

PAGE 71

)LJXUH 7KH )RXU &ODXVH 7\SHV RI 7UDQVLWLYLW\ /HJHQG QRQEROG JUDSKLFVRSWLRQDO HOHPHQWV SUREDEO\ ODQJXDJH VSHFLILFf 7f§ /LWWOH 7XUWOHnV %LJ $GYHQWXUHf'DYLG /HH +DUULVRQ &a /DG\ RI 6WHHOn5RJHU =HOD]Q\ +7KH 'HIHDW RI 6PDXJ H[FHUSW IURP 7KH +REELWf§-55 7RONLHQ $%GOIIHUHQW SDUWLFLSDQWV 7(/,& 75$16,7,9( 37 &RPSOH[ WZR 3RLQWV GLUHFWHG 7UDMHFWRU\ 6\QWD[ ERXQG ,Q VDPH FODXVH 6HPDQWLFV WZR SDUWLFLSDQWV (IIHFWRU$IIHFWHG 'LVFRXUVH %DVLF 3HUVSHFWLYDO 'LVWDQFH 2QH PRUQLQJ D UXPEOH OLNH WKXQGHU ZRNH WKH OLWWOH WXUWOH 7f )LQDOO\ ZDUP UDLQ PHOWHG WKH VQRZ 7f 7KHQ RQH GD\ D ER\ VDZ WKH WXUWOH 7f 1RZ KH XVHG D JUHDW \HZ ERZ +f +LV ODVW WKURHV VSOLQWHUHG LW WR VSDUNV DQG JOHGHV +f VKH EDWKHG WKH ZRXQG &f +H KHDUG KHU JDVS &f f )XOO RQ WKH WRZQ KH IHOO +f %RWK DWWDFNHUV IHOO &f +LV DUPV DFKHG E\ WKH WLPH KH KDG GHDOW ZLWK WKH VHFRQG &f +H VWDUWHG EXW LW ZDV RQO\ DQ ROG WKUXVK +f 6PDXJ VKRW VSRXWLQJ LQWR WKH DLU WXUQHG RYHU+f +LV EDWWOH VRQJ EURNH DV KH &f f %LUGV VFROGHG$XWXPQ FDPH 6QRZ IHOO 7f (YHU\GD\ WKH OLWWOH WXUWOH ZDONHG 7f 7KH JUHDW ERZ WZDQJHG +f $Q D[H IODVKHG &f $7(/,& 75$16,7,9( $IIHFWHG(IIHFWRU 37 &RPSOH[ RQH 3RLQW GLUHFWHG 7UDMHFWRU\ 6\QWD[ ERXQG LQ VDPH FODXVH 6HPDQWLFV RQH SDUWLFLSDQW (IIHFWRU 25 $IIHFWHG 'LVFRXUVH &RQVWUDLQHG 3HUVSHFWLYDO 'LVWDQFH FORVHIRFXVf

PAGE 72

+H OD\ WKHUH FOXWFKLQJ KLV WKLJK &f DQG DOO VHHPHG DQ[LRXV WR FODLP WKH JORU\&f %XW WKH ZRXQG H[WHQGHG KLJKHU &f FRPSOH[ FRQVWUXFWLRQVf 0DUYHOOLQJ KH IRXQG KH FRXOG XQGHUVWDQG LWV WRQJXH IRU KH ZDV RI WKH UDFH RI 'DOH +f +H FRXOG ZDWFK PLFH VFDPSHU 7f %XW WKH OLWWOH WXUWOH NHSW RQ ORRNLQJ 7f +H WULHG OLYLQJ LQ WKH IRUHVW 7f 37 &RPSOH[ RQH 3RLQW XQGLUHFWHG 7UDMHFWRU\ 6\QWD[ ERXQG LQ RQH FODXVH 6HPDQWLFV RQH SDUWLFLSDQW $IIHFWHG 'LVFRXUVH 8QFRQVWUDLQHG 3HUVSHFWLYDO 'LVWDQFH SDQRUDPLFf $QG KH SLFNHG KLP XS DQG FDUULHG GRZQ D VKDG\ SDWK 7f 6XGGHQO\ VKH KDG GUDZQ DVLGH KLV ORLQFORWK WR FRQWLQXH KHU PLQLVWUDWLRQV &f $IWHU D WLPH (GZLQD KHOSHG KLP WR KLV IHHW &f 3HUVSLUDWLRQ EURNH RXW RQ KLV EURZ &f DQG KLV ILQDO DVVDLODQWnV KHDG UROOHG DZD\ DIWHU KHU GHSDUWLQJ VLVWHUV &f 7KH EODFN DUURZ VSHG VWUDLJKW IURP WKH VWULQJ VWUDLJKW IRU WKH KROORZ +f (DUO\ RQH PRUQLQJ WKH OLWWOH WXUWOH VWDUWHG RXW 7f 8QDIUDLG LW SHUFKHG E\ KLV HDU +f 0HQ ZLWK VWHDP VKRYHOV DQG EXOOGR]HUV ZHUH ZRUNLQJ LQ WKH FORYHU ILHOGV 7f 37 &RPSOH[ WZR 3RLQWV GLUHFWHG 7UDMHFWRU\SDWK RQH 3RLQW GLUHFWHG 7UDMHFWRU\SDWK 6\QWD[ VSHFLILHG DFURVV FODXVH SOXV SKUDVH 6HPDQWLFV (IIHFWRU$IIHFWHG (IIHFWRU 25 $IIHFWHG 'LVFRXUVH &RQVWUDLQHG 3HUVSHFWLYDO 'LVWDQFH FORVHIRFXVf ',63(56(' 75$16,7,9(6 WZR SDUWLFLSDQWV VLQJOH SDUWLFLSDQW

PAGE 73

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fWUDQVLWLYLW\ DQG WKDW ZKLFK LV SDUW RI D GLIIHUHQW V\VWHP WHQVH IRU LQVWDQFHf WKH GLVFRXUVH IXQFWLRQLQJ RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ UHTXLUHV WKH VDPH GLVFULPLQDWLQJ H\H 'X%RLV PDNHV D VLPLODU FODLP VRPHWLPHV FKRRVLQJ DQ fLQWUDQVLWLYHf ZDV D PDWWHU RI PHDQLQJ VRPHWLPHV D PDWWHU RI GLVFRXUVH f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fSHUVSHFWLYH DQG ZKDW UHODWORQVKLSV GRHV LW KDYH WR RWKHU OHYHOV RI JUDPPDU" 6HFRQG ZKDW DERXW SHUVSHFWLYH LV EHLQJ PDQDJHGf DQG WR ZKDW HIIHFW" )LQDOO\ ZKDW VSHFLILF UROH GRHV SHUVSHFWLYH PDQDJHPHQW SOD\ IRU WKH SXUSRVHV RI WKHPDWLF

PAGE 74

FRKHUHQFH" 7R EHJLQ WKLV GLVFXVVLRQ ZH PXVW VWDUW ZLWK fWKHPDWLF FRKHUHQFH VLQFH DW WKH OHYHO RI GLVFRXUVH WKLV LV WKH XOWLPDWH SXUSRVH WUDQVLWLYLW\ VHUYHV 7KHPDWLF &RKHUHQFH &RKHUHQFH LV LQWXLWLYHO\ XQGHUVWRRG DV WKH GHJUHH RI UHOHYDQFH WKH FRQFHSWV DQG UHODWLRQVKLSV LQ D WH[W KDYH ZLWK UHJDUG WR RQH DQRWKHU ZKLFK SHUPLWV SODXVLEOH LQIHUHQFH WR EH PDGH DERXW XQGHUO\LQJ PHDQLQJ &U\VWDO f +HQFH WKH FRQWHQW RI DQ\ JLYHQ FODXVH VKRXOG VXSSRUW ZKDW KDV JRQH EHIRUH DGG WR LW DQG KHOS SUHGLFW ZKDW LV WR FRPH QH[W $ JRRG GHDO RI WKH UHVHDUFK LQ GLVFRXUVH RQ WRSLFDOLW\ IRU H[DPSOH LQYHVWLJDWHV WKH VWUXFWXUDO FXHV E\ ZKLFK SUHGLFWDELOLW\ DQG FRQWLQXLW\ DUH FUHDWHG *LYQ JLYHV D VRPHZKDW GLIIHUHQW VWUXFWXUDO GHILQLWLRQ RI FRKHUHQFH f f7KH SDUDJUDSK RU FODXVHFKDLQf ERXQGDU\ LQ GLVFRXUVH >LV@ZKHUH DOO W\SHV RI GLVFRQWLQXLW\ FOXVWHU GLVFRQWLQXLWLHV RI UHIHUHQFH VSDWLDOLW\ WHPSRUDOLW\ DVSHFWXDOLW\ PRGDOLW\ SHUVSHFWLYH HWF 7DNHQ WRJHWKHU WKH\ DUH WKH YLVLEOH PHDVXUDEOH PDQLIHVWDWLRQV RI D VLQJOH HSLSKHQRPHQRQ WKHPDWLF FRKHUHQFH $FFRUGLQJ WR *LYQfV GHILQLWLRQ WKHPDWLF FRKHUHQFH LV XQGHUVWRRG E\ ODQJXDJH XVHUV DW WKH EHJLQQLQJ RU HQGSRLQW RI D VHTXHQFH RI XWWHUDQFHV +LV FODLP LV TXLWH VSHFLILF ZH SURFHVV FRKHUHQFH DW WKH OHYHO RI GLVFRXUVH WKURXJK GLVFRQWLQXLW\ DV RSSRVHG WR FRKHVLRQ &RKHVLRQ LV WKH FODXVHWRFODXVH OLQN ZKLFK WHOOV WKH KHDUHU WKDW WKLV VWUHWFK RI GLVFRXUVH VWLOO EHORQJV WRJHWKHU :KHQ FRKHVLRQ EUHDNVLV PDGH GLVFRQWLQXRXVWKH KHDUHU XQGHUVWDQGV WKDW D QHZ WKHPDWLF EORFN LV EHJLQQLQJ 7KLV LV D KLJKO\ WHVWDEOH FODLP DQG RQH ZKLFK WKH WUDQVLWLYLW\ V\VWHP E\ DQG ODUJH VXSSRUWV 7KH IXQFWLRQ SURSRVHG IRU WUDQVLWLYLW\ LV WKDW LW PDQDJHV SHUVSHFWLYH IRU WKH SXUSRVH RI WKHPDWLF FRKHUHQFH DQG E\ LQIHUHQFH IRU WKH SXUSRVHV RI FRKHVLRQ ,W VHHPV DV ZLOO EH VKRZQ WKURXJKRXW WKH FKDSWHU WKDW WUDQVLWLYLW\ DW WKH OHYHO RI GLVFRXUVH SURYLGHV D VLWH IRU WKH PDQDJHPHQW RI SHUVSHFWLYH DQG DV D FODXVHOHYHO V\VWHP FRQWULEXWHV WR ERWK FRKHVLRQ DQG FRKHUHQFH 7KLV FRKHVLRQ LV QRW FUHDWHG WKURXJK OLQNLQJ WKH WUDQVLWLYLW\ RI RQH FODXVH WR DQRWKHU QRU E\ OLQNLQJ HYHQ RQH WUDQVLWLYH FODXVH W\SH WR DQRWKHU 7KH WUDQVLWLYLW\ RI DQ\ JLYHQ FODXVH GRHVQnW fSUHGLFWf WKH WUDQVLWLYLW\ RI WKH IROORZLQJ FODXVH VR PXFK DV LW SUHGLFWV WKH SHUVSHFWLYH

PAGE 75

IURP ZKLFK WKH IROORZLQJ FODXVH PD\ EH YLHZHG 7UDQVLWLYLW\ DV D VHPDQWLF V\VWHP LV DERXW WKH ZKROH RI FRJQLWLYH HYHQWV WUDQVLWLYLW\ DW WKH OHYHO RI GLVFRXUVH LV DERXW WKH HQGSRLQWV RI HYHQWV 7KXV P\ FRQFHSWLRQ RI KRZ WUDQVLWLYLW\ ZRUNV LQ GLVFRXUVH LV VLPLODU WR ZKDW 'X%RLV FODLPV IRU 3UHIHUUHG $UJXPHQW 6WUXFWXUH LW LV QRW D GLVFRXUVH VWUXFWXUH SHU VH EXW D GLVFRXUVH SUHIHUHQFH IRU V\QWDFWLF VWUXFWXUH f 3HUVSHFWLYH 7KH QRWLRQ WKDW WUDQVLWLYLW\ HQFRGHV SHUVSHFWLYH RU VRPHWKLQJ OLNH LW LV QRW QHZ 5LFH f VWDWHV DV PXFK LQ D YDULHW\ RI ZD\Vf$W KHDUW WUDQVLWLYLW\ LV D OLQJXLVWLF GHYLFH RSWLRQDOO\ HPSOR\HG E\ D VSHDNHU WR FRQFHSWXDOL]H DQG RUJDQL]H WKH DFWLRQV RI HQWLWLHV LQ WKH ZRUOG LQ RUGHU WR FRQYH\ D FHUWDLQ DWWLWXGH DERXW DQ RYHUDOO HYHQW WR VRPHRQH HOVH Sf fWUDQVLWLYLW\ LVD IXQFWLRQ RI D VSHDNHUnV HYDOXDWLRQ RWDQ HYHQW Sf DQG fWUDQVLWLYLW\ LV DV PXFK D IXQFWLRQ RI WKH FRQWHQW RI WKH HYHQW EHLQJ GHVFULEHG DV LW LV RI WKH GHVFULEHUnV LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WKDW HYHQW Sf +RSSHU DQG 7KRPSVRQ f PDNH D VLPLODU FODLP ZKHQ WKH\ DVVRFLDWH WUDQVLWLYLW\ DQG IRUHJURXQGLQJ SDUWLFXODUO\ DV WKHLU FODLP UHODWHV WR fWHOLF SUHGLFDWHVWKRVH WKDW DUH ERXQGHG E\ WHQVH DQG SDUWLFLSDQWV LQWR D VLQJOH fZKROH HYHQW %HUPDQ DQG 6ORELQ f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f 6HOHFWLRQ RI HYHQW YLHZ LV WKH FKRLFH RI WKH HYHQWSDUWLFLSDQW UHODWLRQVKLS &DXVH %HFRPH 6WDWHf $QG VHOHFWLRQ RI DJHQF\ LV KRZ PXFK fPRWLYDWLRQ ORDGLQJ WKH HQWLUH VFHQH LV JLYHQ 7R VRPH H[WHQW VHOHFWLRQ RI DJHQF\ FRUUHVSRQGV WR P\ GLVFXVVLRQ RI DV\PPHWU\ DV LW SHUWDLQV WR VODQWLQJ WRZDUGV WKH (IIHFWRU RU $IIHFWHG SDUWLFLSDQW 7KHVH IRXU GLPHQVLRQV DFW WRJHWKHU LQ WKH FRQVWUXFWLRQ RI D FODXVH DQG KDYH D VXEVHTXHQW HIIHFW RQ ZKDW FDQ IROORZ LQ GLVFRXUVH ,I WKHUH LV D IDXOW LQ %HUPDQ DQG 6ORELQfV DSSURDFK LW LV WKHLU WRWDO

PAGE 76

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fVf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f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

PAGE 77

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f WKH UHODWLYH GLVFRXUVH WRSLFDOLW\ RI WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV RI D JLYHQ FODXVH f SHUVSHFWLYDO GLVWDQFH f WKH IRXU FODXVH W\SHV RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ f WKH fGHSWK RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ JLYHQ GLVFRXUVH FRQWH[W 7KH ILUVW HOHPHQW GLVFRXUVH WRSLFDOLW\ DVVHVVHV KRZ KHDUHUV NQRZ WKH WRSLFDO VWDWXV RI D JLYHQ SDUWLFLSDQWV 7ZR IDFWRUV PXVW EH WDNHQ LQWR DFFRXQW KHUH UHIHUHQWLDO VSHFLILFLW\ DQG LQIRUPDWLRQ YDOXH 7KH ILUVW LV P\ WHUP IRU WKH GHJUHH RI UHIHUHQWLDOLW\ DFFRUGHG D SDUWLFLSDQW

PAGE 78

7UDGLWLRQDOO\ ZH XQGHUVWDQG WKLV DV D FRQWLQXXP IURP IXOO OH[LFDOL]DWLRQ WR ]HUR DQDSKRU LQGHILQLWH WR GHILQLWH )RU GLVFRXUVH WKH GHJUHH RI UHIHUHQWLDOLW\ VSHFLILHG IRU D SDUWLFLSDQW UHODWLYH WR VXUURXQGLQJ SDUWLFLSDQWV LV D FUXFLDO LQGLFDWRU RI WKHPDWLF LPSRUWDQFH ,Q D WHOOH WUDQVLWLYH IRU LQVWDQFH WKH UHIHUHQWLDO VSHFLILFLW\ RI HDFK SDUWLFLSDQW YV£YV WKH RWKHU WHOOV WKH KHDUHU ZKLFK SDUWLFLSDQW ZLOO OLNHO\ FRQWLQXH DV WRSLF KHQFH ZKRVH SHUVSHFWLYH LV DYDLODEOH IRU FRPPHQW ,QIRUPDWLRQ YDOXH LV D PRUH JOREDO WHUP HQFRPSDVVLQJ EXW QRW OLPLWHG WR UHIHUHQWLDO VSHFLILFLW\ ,W ZDV LQWURGXFHG E\ &KX f WR H[SODLQ WRSLF FKDLQLQJ RYHUW DQG ]HUR DQDSKRU DQG ZRUG RUGHU LQ &KLQHVH %DVLFDOO\ &KX GLVWLQJXLVKHV WRSLFKRRG DV RSHUDWLQJ DFURVV WZR LQIRUPDWLRQ VWUXFWXUH WLHUV WKH VRXUFH WLHU DQG WKH PDQDJHPHQW WLHU 7KH VRXUFH WLHU fLV FRQFHUQHG ZLWK ZKHUH D SLHFH RI LQIRUPDWLRQ FRPHV IURPf DQG IXQFWLRQV WR VLJQDO UHODWLYH JLYHQHVV DQG QHZQHVV WR GLVFRXUVH 7KH LQIRUPDWLRQ PDQDJHPHQW WLHU fLV FRQFHUQHG ZLWK KRZ D OLQJXLVWLF IRUP LQ XVHG LQ WHUPV RI LQIRUPDWLYH YDOXH 7KH PDQDJHPHQW WLHU LQFRUSRUDWHV D VFDOH IURP +LJK YDOXH WR /RZ YDOXH $V ZLOO EH VKRZQ LW LV WKH HIIHFWV RI GLVFRXUVH WRSLFDOLW\ RQ WKH PDQDJHPHQW WLHU ZKLFK ZRUNV ZLWK WUDQVLWLYLW\ WR PDQDJH SHUVSHFWLYH 7KH VHFRQG GLVFRXUVH HOHPHQW SHUVSHFWLYDO GLVWDQFH LV WKH fJURXQG DJDLQVW ZKLFK WUDQVLWLYLW\ LV fILJXUHGf 7KDW LV VLQFH +RSSHU DQG 7KRPSVRQnV LQIOXHQWLDO SDSHU PXFK KDV EHHQ VDLG LQ VXSSRUW RI WKHLU QRWLRQ WKDW +LJK WUDQVLWLYLW\ P\ WHOLF WUDQVLWLYHVf FRPPXQLFDWH IRUHJURXQGHG ,QIRUPDWLRQ 0RVW RIWHQ fIRUHJURXQGHG LQIRUPDWLRQ KDV EHHQ LQWHUSUHWHG WR PHDQ LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ WKH QDUUDWLYH WLPHOLQHLQIRUPDWLRQ ZKLFK DGYDQFHV WKH VWRU\ IRUZDUG $ IHZ UHVHDUFKHUV QRWDEO\ .DOPDU f KDYH DUJXHG RWKHUZLVH FODLPLQJ WKDW ZKHUH KLJK WUDQVLWLYLW\ PD\ FRUUHODWH ZLWK WLPH OLQH LQIRUPDWLRQ LW FDQQRW EH VDLG WKDW WKLV LV WKH RQO\ IRUHJURXQGHG LQIRUPDWLRQ LQ WKH WH[W 6RPH RWKHU H[SODQDWLRQ PXVW EH VRXJKW 0\ DQVZHU WR WKLV TXHVWLRQ LV fSHUVSHFWLYDO GLVWDQFH 7KLV LV D QRWLRQ LQWURGXFHG E\ 7DOP\ f EXW XVHG LQWXLWLYHO\ E\ PDQ\ GLVFRXUVH OLQJXLVWV ZLWK WKH UHIHUHQFH WR WKH fFDPHUD HIIHFWV RI FODXVH VWUXFWXUH 3HUVSHFWLYDO GLVWDQFH UHIHUV WR WKH GLVWDQFH IURP D VFHQH RU HYHQW FUHDWHG E\ D SDUWLFXODU OLQJXLVWLF FRQVWUXFW $ PRUH GLVWDQW SHUVSHFWLYH LV FUHDWHG YLD PRUH LQFOXVLYH DQG LQGHILQLWH QRXQV ZLWK PRUH VWDWLYH YHUEV $ FORVHU GLVWDQFH LV FUHDWHG ZLWK PRUH

PAGE 79

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fEDVLF GLVWDQFH RQH HQFRPSDVVLQJ ERWK SDUWLFLSDQWV DQG WKH HYHQW MRLQLQJ WKHP EXW H[FOXGLQJ VXUURXQGLQJ SDUWLFLSDQWV $WHOLF DQG GLVSHUVHG FRUUHVSRQG ZLWK D IDLUO\ FORVH SHUVSHFWLYDO GLVWDQFH ZKHUH RQO\ RQH SDUWLFLSDQW fILOOV WKH VFUHHQ DQG WLPH VHJPHQWV DUH VKRUWHU 7KXV LW LV GLVWDQFH IURP WKH HYHQW DQG WKH GLVFRXUVH LPSOLFDWLRQV WKHUHLQ WKDW WUDQVLWLYLW\ UHDOL]HV UDWKHU WKDQ SRLQWV RQ WKH WLPHOLQH LWVHOI 7KH WKLUG HOHPHQW RI WKH PRGHO WKH IRXU FODXVH W\SHV WDNHV LQWR DFFRXQW WKH SUHYLRXV WZR 7KLV VHFWLRQ JLYHV D IXOOHU H[SODQDWLRQ RI WKH IRXU FODXVH W\SHV DQG WKH NLQG RI SHUVSHFWLYHn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fGHHS WUDQVLWLYLW\ SHUVSHFWLYHVKLIWLQJ ZKLFK LV DOORZHG IURP WKH OHYHO RI GLVFRXUVH GRZQ WKURXJK ERWK VHPDQWLFV DQG V\QWD[ f6KDOORZ WUDQVLWLYLW\ LV ZKHQ VKLIWLQJ LV QRW DOORZHG DQG WKLV KDV D YDULHW\ RI XQGHUO\LQJ FDXVHV 2QH ILQDO QRWH LQ WKLV FKDSWHU H[DPSOHV ZKLFK DUH P\ RZQ DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ WKH VDPH IRQW DV WKH PDLQ WH[W 2WKHU DXWKRUV DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ DQ DOWHUQDWLYH IRQWW\SH

PAGE 80

'LVFRXUVH 7RSLFDOLW\ 7KH TXHVWLRQ RI WRSLFDOLW\ LV ZLGHO\ GLVFXVVHG LQ WKH OLQJXLVWLFV OLWHUDWXUH $QG ZKLOH DQ LQWXLWLYH RU QRWLRQDO GHILQLWLRQ LV VWLOO WKHRUHWLFDOO\ XQVDWLVI\LQJ LW LV QRW HQWLUHO\ HUURQHRXV JLYHQ WKH QDWXUH RI WRSLFDOLW\ LWVHOI /LNH fWKHPDWLF FRKHUHQFH WRSLFDOLW\ LV ODUJHO\ DQ LQYLVLEOH HQWLW\ D IHOW XQGHUVWDQGLQJ ZKLFK HYROYHV DV WKH VSHDNHU DQG KHDUHU QHJRWLDWH WH[W &HUWDLQO\ WRSLFDOLW\ KDV LWV YLVLEOH PHDVXUDEOH PDUNHUV SURQRXQV ]HUR DQDSKRUD WRSLFFKDLQV HWFf EXW WKHVH DUH WKH RYHUW OLQJXLVWLF FOXHV WR WKH XQVHHQ FRJQLWLYH HQWLW\ 0RVW LPSRUWDQWO\ WRSLFDOLW\ IXQFWLRQV DV DQ DQFKRU ZLWKLQ WH[W RQO\ ZLWKLQ DQ XQGHUVWRRG IUDPH RI UHIHUHQFH FDQ FRKHUHQW FRPPXQLFDWLRQ WDNH SODFH $W WKH GLVFRXUVH OHYHO WRSLFV HVWDEOLVK ERXQGDULHV E\ HOLPLQDWLQJ RWKHU SRVVLEOH WRSLFV DQG WRJHWKHU ZLWK JHQHUDO NQRZOHGJH DURXVH VHWV RI H[SHFWDWLRQV RQ WKH KHDUHUfV SDUW RQWR ZKLFK LQIRUPDWLRQ LV SHJJHG )RU DQ H[FHOOHQW GLVFXVVLRQ RI DSSURDFKHV WR WRSLFDOLW\ VHH *RXWVRV f ,QWXLWLYHO\ VSHDNLQJ WRSLFDOLW\ LV WKH TXDOLW\ RI EHLQJ fDERXW VRPHWKLQJ ZKHUHLQ WKH VSHDNHU KDV HVWDEOLVKHG D GLVFRXUVH ZLWKLQ ZKLFK VRPH SDUWLFXODU SDUWLFLSDQW HYHQW RU VFHQH LV XQGHUVWRRG E\ WKH KHDUHU WR EH UHIHUUHG WR DQGRU LV H[SHFWHG WR FRQWLQXH 7RSLFDOLW\ LV HVWDEOLVKHG WKURXJK UHSHDW UHIHUHQFH WR ZKROHV DQG WR SDUWV RI SDUWLFLSDQWV HYHQWV RU VFHQHV 'LVFRXUVH WRSLFV DUH PRVW RIWHQ HVWDEOLVKHG WKURXJK UHIHUHQFH WR SDUWV 7KH KHDUHU KDV DQ H[SHFWDWLRQ RI ZKDW LV JRLQJ RQD VFKHPD RU VFULSWDQG WKH KHDUHUfV XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH VSHDNHUfV DFWXDO GLVFRXUVH WRSLF LV FUHDWHG WKURXJK WKH QHJRWLDWLRQ RI H[SHFWDWLRQ EDVHG RQ WKH VFKHPDWLF NQRZOHGJH DQG VSHDNHUfV DFWXDO OLQJXLVWLF FXHV 7KXV HVVHQWLDOO\ LW LV D PDWWHU RI LQIHUHQFH ,Q WKLV FDVH QRW PHUHO\ LQIHUHQFH EXW VWDEOH OLQJXLVWLF LQIHUHQFHDQ H[SHFWHG DQG QRUPDO SDUW RI OLQJXLVWLF FRPSHWHQFHKHQFH D PDWWHU RI LPSOLFDWXUH 7RSLFDOLW\ KDV WKUHH PHDVXUDEOH OHYHOV WKH FODXVHOHYHO SDUDJUDSK RU LQWHUFODXVDO OHYHO DQG WKH GLVFRXUVH OHYHO \HW WKHVH WKUHH OHYHOV DUH QRW RIWHQ GLVWLQJXLVKHG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH 0RVW RIWHQ fWRSLF LV GHILQHG DW WKH FODXVHOHYHO ZLWK WKH VRPHZKDW XQHQOLJKWHQLQJ SKUDVH fZKDW WKH VHQWHQFH LV DERXW LQFOXGLQJ GHVFULSWRUV VXFK DV WKH LQLWLDO HOHPHQW LQ WKH VHQWHQFH WKH SURSRVLWLRQ DERXW ZKLFK WKH VSHDNHU LV SURYLGLQJ PRUH LQIRUPDWLRQ RU WKH JLYHQ HOHPHQWV RI WKH XWWHUDQFH &KX *XQGHO f 0RUH VDWLVI\LQJ GHILQLWLRQV ZHUH RIIHUHG E\ &KX f

PAGE 81

3ULQFH f &KDIH f HWF ZKR GHILQHG WRSLF LQ WHUPV RI LWV FRJQLWLYH VWDWXV LQ WKH GLVFRXUVH f6HPDQWLFDOO\ D WRSLF LV GHILQLWH LQ WKH VHQVH WKDW LW KDV WR EH D SDUWLFXODUV QWLW\ RU HYHQW WKDW KDV DOUHDG\ RFFXSLHG WKH PLQG RI WKH VSHDNHU DQG KHDUHU &KX f 3ULQFH DQG &KDIH GHYHORSHG PRGHOV RI fDFWLYDWLRQ VWDWHV WR DFFRXQW IRU WKH YDULHW\ RI GHILQLWH QRXQ SKUDVHV WKDW RFFXU LQ GLVFRXUVH LQFOXGLQJ WKRVH WKDW WKH RULJLQDO FRQFHSWLRQV RI WRSLF FRXOG QRW DFFRXQW IRU VDZ D QHZ KRXVH WRGD\ EXW GLGQnW OLNH WKH NLWFKHQ ,W ZDV WRR VPDOO VDZ D QHZ KRXVH WRGD\ EXW GLGQnW OLNH WKH QHLJKERUKRRG ,W ZDV WRR FURZGHG ZDQWHG WR VHH KRXVHV WRGD\ EXW WKH UHDOWRU ZDVQnW IHHOLQJ ZHOO W9H KDYH WR VFKHGXOH IRU QH[W ZHHN ,Q HDFK RI WKHVH VHQWHQFHV WKH FRQMXQFW FODXVH FRQWDLQV D QRXQ SKUDVH ZKLFK LV QHZ WR WKH GLVFRXUVH RFFXUV LQ WKH VLWH RI QHZ LQIRUPDWLRQ EXW LV GHILQLWH DQG WKH WRSLF RI WKH QH[W VHQWHQFH 3ULQFH H[SODLQV WKLV WKURXJK W\SHV RI LQIHUHQFH ZKHUHLQ DQ\ QRPLQDO H[FLWHV D ILHOG RI UHODWHG WHUPV ZKLFK DUH DOORZHG LQWR WKH GLVFRXUVH ZLWKRXW H[SOLFLW SUHYLRXV PHQWLRQ 7KH QRPLQ£LV DUH DOO LQIHUUDEOH IURP YDULRXV NLQGV RI SUDJPDWLF NQRZOHGJH 0RUH UHFHQWO\ 3ULQFH KDV SURSRVHG GLVFRXUVH EDVHG GHJUHHV RI JLYHQQHVV IURP WKH SHUVSHFWLYH RI KHDUHUGLVFRXUVH LQWHUDFWLRQ VXPPDUL]HG LQ &KX f +HDUHU ROG ROG QHZ QHZ 'LVFRXUVH ROG DOUHDG\ HYRNHG QHZ KDV QRW EHHQ HYRNHG VSHDNHU EHOLHYHV LWfV ROG WR KHDUHU QHZ KDV QRW EHHQ HYRNHG VSHDNHU EHOLHYHV LWfV QHZ WR KHDUHU ROG KDV EHHQ HYRNHG VSHDNHU EHOLHYHV KHDUHU LV QRW DZDUH RI LW 3ULQFHfV SURSRVDOV WRJHWKHU KDYH WKH DGYDQWDJH RI FRYHULQJ DW OHDVW WZR VRXUFHV RI GLVFRXUVH LQIRUPDWLRQ VHPDQWLFSUDJPDWLF DQG GLVFRXUVHQHJRWLDWHG 2WKHU GLVWLQFWLRQV FUHDWHG LQ GLVFXVVLRQV RI WRSLF LQFOXGH VXFK FDWHJRULHV DV GLVFRXUVH WRSLF YHUVXV VHQWHQFH WRSLF :KHUH 2FKV .HHQDQ DQG 6FKHLIIOLQ H[SOLFLWO\ LGHQWLI\ WKHLU WRSLF DV D GLVFRXUVH WRSLF /DPEUHFKW f FODLPV KLV GLVFXVVLRQ LV RI D VHQWHQFH WRSLF DQG LV WR H[SOLFLWO\ FRQWUDVW WKH IRFXV RI WKH VHQWHQFH ZKLFK LV WKH QHZ LQIRUPDWLRQ %XW ZKDW OLQJXLVWLF IHDWXUHV DFWXDOO\ GLVWLQJXLVK D fGLVFRXUVH WRSLFf IURP D VHQWHQWLDO WRSLF" *LYRQ FODLPV WKH GLVWLQFWLRQ LV TXDQWLWDWLYH LQ QDWXUH fWKH PDLQ EHKDYLRUDO PDQLIHVWDWLRQ RI LPSRUWDQW WRSLFV LQ

PAGE 82

GLVFRXUVH LV FRQWLQXLW\ DV H[SUHVVHG E\ IUHTXHQF\ RI RFFXUUHQFH f )RU H[DPSOH SURQRPLQDOL]DWLRQ LV D GLUHFW LQGLFDWLRQ RI DFWLYDWLRQ VWDWXV LQ GLVFRXUVH ZKDWHYHU LV SURQRPLQDOL]HG PXVW EH NQRZQ WR ERWK VSHDNHU DQG KHDUHU DOUHDG\ +RZHYHU WKLV GRHV QRW PXFK KHOS LQ GHWHUPLQLQJ WRSLFDOLW\ LQ GLVFRXUVHV ZKHUH WKHUH DUH PXOWLSOH SDUWLFLSDQWV 1RU GRHV LW SURYLGH D PHDQV WR GLVWLQJXLVK D GLVFRXUVH WRSLF IURP D VHQWHQWLDO WRSLF VLQFH WKDW ZKLFK LV VHQWHQWLDOO\ IUHTXHQW LV DOVR LPSRUWDQW WR WKH GLVFRXUVH &KX f SURYLGHV D EHWWHU H[SODQDWLRQ RI WKH GLVWLQFWLRQ E\ SURSRVLQJ LQVWHDG WZR LQIRUPDWLRQ WLHUV ZLWK GLIIHUHQW GLVFRXUVH IXQFWLRQV WKH VRXUFH WLHU DQG WKH PDQDJHPHQW WLHU f7KH VRXUFH WLHU LV FRQFHUQHG ZLWK ZKHUH D SLHFH RI LQIRUPDWLRQ FRPHV IURP ZKLOH WKH PDQDJHPHQW WLHU LV FRQFHUQHG ZLWK KRZ D OLQJXLVWLF IRUP LV XVHG LQ WHUPV RI LQIRUPDWLYH YDOXH )RU &KX WKHQ WKH SUHYLRXV GHILQLWLRQV RI WRSLF LQ WHUPV RI FRJQLWLYH DFWLYDWLRQ VWDWXV DUH H[SODQDWLRQV RI WKH VRXUFH WLHUZKHUH WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ FRPHV IURP *LYQ DQG /DPEUHFKWnV SURSRVLWLRQV GLVFXVV WRSLF IURP WKH SHUVSHFWLYH RI PDQDJHPHQW ZKDW KDSSHQV WR LQIRUPDWLRQ RQFH LQWURGXFHG LQWR WKH GLVFRXUVH $QRWKHU GLIILFXOW\ ZLWK /DPEUHFKWnV FRQWUDVW RI WRSLF DQG IRFXV LV WKH FRQIOLFW DULVLQJ ZKHQ D WRSLFDO QRXQ UHFHLYHV IRFDO VWUHVV DV LQ f:KR OHIW WKH GLVKHV RQ WKH FRIIHH WDEOH"
PAGE 83

7KH GLVFULPLQDWLRQ RI D VRXUFH WLHU DQG PDQDJHPHQW WLHU VLJQLILFDQWO\ LPSDFWV RXU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WRSLFKRRG 0XFK RI WKH ZRUN WKDW KDV EHHQ GRQH RQ VHQWHQFHOHYHO WRSLFV KDV GHDOW ZLWK WKH VRXUFH WLHU DQG PXFK RI WKH ZRUN RQ WKDW WLHU KDV EHHQ DLPHG WRZDUGV XQGHUVWDQGLQJ KRZ YDULRXV GLVFRXUVH PDUNHUV VXFK DV GHILQLWHQHVV DUH XVHG ZLWK fQHZ QRPLQ£LV &KX EULQJV WR WKH WDEOH DQRWKHU DVSHFW RI GLVFRXUVH VWUXFWXUH WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ YDOXH RI DQ\ JLYHQ QRPLQDO 7KLV FRQFHSW IRFXVHV QRW RQ ZKHUH LQIRUPDWLRQ FRPHV IURP EXW KRZ LW ,V XVHG fPDQDJHG LQ GLVFRXUVH )XUWKHU fLQIRUPDWLRQ YDOXH DOORZV XV WR RSHUDWLRQDOL]H WKH LPSDFW RI DQ\ JLYHQ QRPLQDO E\ GHILQLQJ fQHZ LQIRUPDWLRQ RU fIRFXV DV DQ\ LQIRUPDWLRQ ZKLFK DGGV WR RU DPHQGV WKH VWDWH RI NQRZOHGJH RI WKH KHDUHU 7KXV ZKDW LV fQHZ LQ WHUPV RI ,WV VRXUFH GRHV QRW KDYH WR EH KLJK LQ LQIRUPDWLRQ YDOXH QRU LV ZKDW ,V JLYHQ QHFHVVDULO\ ORZ LQ LQIRUPDWLRQ YDOXH ,W TXLFNO\ EHFRPHV HYLGHQW WKDW fVRXUFH DQG fPDQDJHPHQW ZRUN WRJHWKHU ,Q (QJOLVK LW KDV EHHQ WUDGLWLRQDOO\ FODLPHG WKDW JLYHQQHZ GLVWLQFWLRQV DUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH VXEMHFW DQG REMHFW SRVLWLRQV UHVSHFWLYHO\ :KHQ D QRPLQDO RFFXUV LQ WKH VXEMHFW SRVLWLRQ LW LV FRQVLGHUHG WR EH WKH VHQWHQWLDO WRSLF DQG E\ GHILQLWLRQ NQRZQ WR VSHDNHU DQG KHDUHU %\ FRQWUDVW WKH QRPLQDO ,Q WKH REMHFW SRVLWLRQ LV WKH fIRFXV EHFDXVH LW LV SDUW RI WKH DVVHUWHG LQIRUPDWLRQ 7KHVH FRUUHODWLRQV KROG LQ GHIDXOW FDVHV WKDW ,V ,I WKH\ DUH QRW RWKHUZLVH FKDOOHQJHG &RPSOLFDWLRQV GR DULVH ZKHQ WH[WV DUH LQYHVWLJDWHG f 8WWHULQJ D FXUVH LQ KLV ZHOOSUDFWLFHG IDOVHWWR &RUD VZXQJ KLV EODGH DQG FXW GRZQ WKH RSSRVLQJ VYYRUGVZRPDQ f/DG\ RI 6WHHOf 5RJHU =HOD]Q\ f 6KH FDPH LQWR P\ VKRS ZLWK D JDVK LQ KHU WKLJK DQG EORRG VHHSLQJ RXW D ZRXQG LQ KHU VWRPDFK f%UD 0HOWLQJf -DQQL /HH 6LPQHU f %XW \RX GRQnW WD[ MRFNVWUDSVf 0LUDEHO 6WRQHILVW JODUHG f$QG WKH /DGLHV RI WKH &OXEf (OL]DEHWK 0RRQ (DFK RI WKH WH[WV DERYH QRW RQO\ LQWURGXFHV D QHZ SDUWLFLSDQW EXW LV WKH ILUVW OLQH RI WKH VWRU\ ,Q IDFW LW LV QRW XQXVXDO WR EHJLQ D VKRUW VWRU\ ,Q (QJOLVK ZLWK WKH LQWURGXFWLRQ RI D QHZ SDUWLFLSDQW

PAGE 84

UDWKHU WKDQ D VFHQHVHWWLQJ ,Q WKHVH FDVHV WKH ILUVW DSSHDUDQFH RI D QRPLQDO LQ WKH WH[W LV DOVR LWV ILUVW XVH -XVW DV JLYHQQHVV DORQH GRHV QRW GHWHUPLQH LQIRUPDWLRQ YDOXH LQIRUPDWLRQ YDOXH LV GHWHUPLQHG E\ XVHf QHLWKHU GRHV WKH JUDPPDWLFDO UROH GHWHUPLQH LQIRUPDWLRQ YDOXH ,Q WKHVH WKUHH H[FHUSWV WKH QHZ SDUWLFLSDQW LV LQ WKH VXEMHFW VORW WKH VLWH RI fJLYHQf LQIRUPDWLRQ $V VWDWHG DERYH LW LV DOVR WKH VLWH RI WRSLFDO LQIRUPDWLRQ ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV RQH ZD\ RI LQWURGXFLQJ D WRSLFDO SDUWLFLSDQW LQWR WKH GLVFRXUVH LV WR SODFH WKHP LQ WKH VXEMHFW VORW WKHUHE\ LQGLFDWLQJ WR WKH UHDGHU WKH UHODWLYH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKH SDUWLFLSDQW ,WnV DV WKRXJK WKH SDUWLFLSDQW LV VLPXOWDQHRXVO\ EHLQJ IODJJHG DV fQHZ DQG JLYHQ DW WKH VDPH WLPH LQ IDFW ZKDW LV KDSSHQLQJ LV WKH SDUWLFLSDQW LV EHLQJ IODJJHG DV fQHZ DQG fWRSLFDO DW WKH VDPH WLPH ,Q WHUPV RI VRXUFH WKH SDUWLFLSDQW LV EUDQGQHZ LQ WHUPV RI PDQDJHPHQW WKH SDUWLFLSDQW LV KLJK LQ LQIRUPDWLRQ YDOXH $W WKH VDPH WLPH QRW DOO SDUWLFLSDQWV PDNLQJ WKHLU ILUVW DSSHDUDQFH LQ WKH REMHFW SRVLWLRQ RI WKH DVVHUWHG SUHGLFDWH DUH +OYDOXH LQ IDFW PDQ\ DUH QRW ,Q WKH =HOD]Q\ WH[W WKH VHFRQG fSDUWLFLSDQW RFFXUV LQ WKH VLWH PRVW IUHTXHQWO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK +LJK LQIRUPDWLRQ YDOXH &RUD VZXQJ KLV EODGH DQG FXW GRZQ WKH RSSRVLQJ VZRUGVZRPDQ $FFRUGLQJ WR &KXnV PDQDJHPHQW FRQWLQXXP WKLV LV W\SLFDOO\ WKH SRVLWLRQ RI +OYDOXH SDUWLFLSDQWV +RZHYHU DFFRUGLQJ WR 3ULQFHfV fVRXUFH FDWHJRULHV WKLV SDUWLFLSDQW LV FRQWH[WXDOO\ LQIHUDEOH :H UDWKHU H[SHFW DV UHDGHUV WKDW DQ\RQH XWWHULQJ FXUVHV LQ D ZHOOSUDFWLFHG YRLFH ZKLOH VZLQJLQJ EODGHV LV PRVW OLNHO\ FXWWLQJ GRZQ DQ RSSRQHQW DV RSSRVHG WR FXWWLQJ GRZQ WUHHV IRU H[DPSOHf 7KDW LW LV D VZRUGVZRPDQ LV LQWHUHVWLQJ EXW GRHV QRW KROG RXU DWWHQWLRQ WKRXJK PDUNHG ZLWK WKH GHILQLWH DUWLFOH WKH VZRUGVZRPDQ LV QRW PHQWLRQHG E\ QDPH LV QRW VSHFLILHG IRU WKH UHDGHU ,I LQVWHDG WKH VHQWHQFH UHDG &RUD VZXQJ KLV EODGH DQG FXW GRZQ WKH RSSRVLQJ VZRUGVZRPDQ +LOGD ZH ZRXOG EH GLVWXUEHG DV UHDGHUV ZKHQ WKH IROORZLQJ VHQWHQFH EHJDQ ZLWK f+LV FRQWRXUHG EUHDVWSODWHf UHIHUULQJ EDFN WR &RUD UDWKHU WKDQ WR +LOGDf :H QHHG WR H[SODLQ ZK\ SDUWLFLSDQWV QHZ WR WKH GLVFRXUVH DQG VXEVHTXHQWO\ WRSLFDO PD\ EH XVHG LQ WKH VXEMHFW SRVLWLRQ ZKHQ ILUVW LQWURGXFHG $QG OLNHZLVH ZK\ SDUWLFLSDQWV LQ WKH REMHFW VORW VXFK DV WKH RSSRVLQJ VZRUGVZRPDQ DUH QRW WRSLFDO ,WnV REYLRXVO\ LQDGHTXDWH WR ODEHO VXEMHFW DQG REMHFW SRVLWLRQV DV PHUHO\ VORWV IRU ROG DQG QHZ LQIRUPDWLRQ UHVSHFWLYHO\ 5DWKHU WKHUH LV D FROORFDWLRQ RI IXQFWLRQV IRU HDFK SRVLWLRQ ZKLFK VHUYH WR GHVLJQDWH LQIRUPDWLRQ YDOXH

PAGE 85

7KHVH LQFOXGH UHIHUHQWLDOLW\ DFWLRQ VFKHPDWD DQG SHUVSHFWLYDO GLVWDQFH 3HUVSHFWLYDO GLVWDQFH ZLOO EH WDNHQ XS LQ JUHDWHU GHWDLO LQ WKH IROORZLQJ VHFWLRQ 6XIILFH WR VD\ KHUH WKDW \RX VKRXOG ILQG ORZ RFFXUUHQFHV RI fFORVH IRFXVf FRQVWUXFWLRQV ZLWK QHZ SDUWLFLSDQWV XQOHVV SODFHG ZLWKLQ KLJKO\ UHFRJQL]HG DFWLYLWLHV VXFK DV WKH FRQYHUVDWLRQ LQ ff *LYQ f VWDWHV PXFK WKH VDPH WKLQJ f7KH JUDPPDWLFDO VXEMHFW WKH FODXVHnV SULPDU\ WRSLF FRGH WKH HYHQW SDUWLFLSDQW WKDW LV PRVW FRQWLQXRXVERWK DQDSKRULFDOO\ DQG FDWDSKRULFDOO\ HPSKDVLV DGGHGf 6XEMHFWV WHQG WR KDYH JUHDWHU FRQWLQXLW\ JUHDWHU WRSLFDOLW\ KHDG DFWLRQ FKDLQV DQG KDYH ORZHU LQIRUPDWLRQ YDOXH 2EMHFWV WHQG WR KDYH OHVV UHIHUHQWLDO GLVWDQFH DQG OHVV WRSLFDOLW\ EXW DUH UHFHLYHUV RI DFWLRQ DQG DOVR WHQG WR KDYH KLJKHU LQIRUPDWLRQ YDOXH (QJOLVK KDV ZRUNHG RXW D V\VWHP ZKHUH SDUWLFLSDQWV DUH UHIHUHQWLDOO\ FRGHG DSDUW IURP JUDPPDWLFDO SRVLWLRQ VR WKDW WKH VHPDQWLFV RI DQ HYHQW FDQ SOD\ LWVHOI RXW XQKDPSHUHG FDOO WKLV V\VWHP fUHIHUHQWLDO VSHFLILFLW\ (VVHQWLDOO\ JLYHQ WZR SDUWLFLSDQWV ZKLFKHYHU RQH KDV D VWURQJHU GHJUHH RI UHIHUHQWLDOLW\ LV UHJDUGHG DV WRSLFDO 'HJUHHV RI UHIHUHQWLDOLW\ DUH DVVHVVHG RQ WZR VFDOHV WKH GHILQLWHQHVV KLHUDUFK\ IURP ]HUR DQDSKRU WR JHQHULF DQG WKH DQLPDF\ KLHUDUFK\ '(),1,7(1(66 ]HUR ,\RX a! SURSHU QRXQ a! GHILQLWH a! LQGHILQLWH a! JHQHULF $1,0$&< KXPDQ VHOILQVWLJDWLQJ DQLPDWH QRQVHOILQVWLJDWLQJ DQLPDWH LQDQLPDWH f $ KHDGDFKH WKH VL]H RI KHU KHDOWKFDUH SODQQR EHWWHU PDNH WKDW WKH QDWLRQDO GHILFLWf§ZDV WXUQLQJ +LOODU\n 5RGKDP &OLQWRQfV VNXOO LQWR WKH ORFDO SHUFXVVLRQ VHFWLRQ f([FKDQJH 3URJUDPf 6XVDQ 6FKZDUW] f ,W ZDV VKRUWO\ DIWHU 0UV %DWFKHWW OHIW WKH SODQHWDULXP WKDW VKH VDZ WKH IDLU\ WKH HOI DQG WKH JQRPH f2Q WKH 5RDG RI 6LOYHUf 0DUN %RXUQH ,Q f WKH WZR VFDOHV ZRUN WRJHWKHU $ KHDGDFKH DOWKRXJK WKH (IIHFWRU LV FOHDUO\ QRW WKH WKHPDWLFDOO\ LPSRUWDQW SDUWLFLSDQW IRU WZR UHDVRQV )LUVW LW LV ORZHU LQ UHIHUHQWLDO VSHFLILFLW\ KHUHDIWHU 56f WKDQ WKH VHFRQG SDUWLFLSDQWD SURSHU QDPH LV KLJKHU RQ WKH GHILQLWHQHVV VFDOH WKDQ DQ LQGHILQLWH 6HFRQG LW LV LQDQLPDWH DQG QRQKXPDQ ZKHUHDV WKH REMHFW LV KXPDQ $OVR f+LOODU\ 5RGKDP &OLQWRQf LV D ZHOONQRZQ ILJXUH DQG LV RFFXUULQJ LQ WKH VLWH W\SLFDOO\ DVVRFLDWHG

PAGE 86

ZLWK +LJK LQIRUPDWLRQ YDOXH &RQWUDVW WKLV VHQWHQFH ZLWK f IURP f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f 8WWHULQJ D FXUVH LQ KLV ZHOOSUDFWLFHG IDOVHWWR &RUD VZLQJ KLV EODGH IRUFHIXOO\ FXWWLQJ GRZQ WKH RSSRVLQJ VZRUGVZRPDQ ,Q WKLV VHQWHQFH WKHUH LV QR FRPSHWLWLRQ IRU FODXVHOHYHO WRSLF DQG QR QHHG IRU 56 DV D GHFLGLQJ GLVFRXUVH IDFWRU ([DPSOH f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fV H[SHFWDWLRQV DERXW ZKDW LV FRPLQJ QH[W %DVLFDOO\ JLYHQ WZR SDUWLFLSDQWV ZKLFKHYHU KDV WKH KLJKHVW UHIHUHQWLDO VSHFLILFLW\ LV H[SHFWHG WR FRQWLQXH ,I ERWK DUH RI HTXDO YDOXH WKH SDUWLFLSDQW LQ WKH REMHFW VORW LV PRUH OLNHO\ WR EH WRSLF LQ WKH QH[W VHQWHQFH EHFDXVH WKH REMHFW LV WKH VLWH RI KLJKHU LQIRUPDWLRQ YDOXH +RZHYHU LI ERWK SDUWLFLSDQWV DUH DOUHDG\ HVWDEOLVKHG LQ GLVFRXUVH WKHQ LW FRXOG EH HLWKHU SDUWLFLSDQW RU WKH HYHQW ZKLFK JHWV WRSLFDOL]HG IRU WKH QH[W VHQWHQFH

PAGE 87

)LQDOO\ WKH YDULRXV GLVFRXUVH HIIHFWV RI VXEMHFW DQG REMHFW JLYHQ DQG QHZ UHIHUHQWLDO VSHFLILFLW\ DQG KLJK DQG ORZ ,QIRUPDWLRQ YDOXH DLO DFW WRJHWKHU WR IRUP WKH fGLVFRQWLQXLWLHVf *LYQ UHIHUV WR DV PDUNLQJ WKHPDWLF ERXQGDULHV :KHQ WKH DERYH IDFWRUV FRPELQH WR FRXQWHU UHDGHU H[SHFWDWLRQV WKLV ,V DOVR D VLJQDO WKDW D MXQFWXUH KDV RFFXUUHG 7KH FKDUW EHORZ VXPPDUL]HV WKHVH HIIHFWV 6XEMHFW DQG REMHFW DUH FURVVHG E\ JLYHQQHZ DQG KLJKHU RU ORZHU 56 7KHVH UHVXOW ,Q ,QIRUPDWLRQ YDOXHV ZKLFK WKHQ VLJQDO YDULRXV VWDWHV RI WKHPDWLF FRQWLQXLW\ DQG FRKHUHQFH *,9(1 +,*+(5 56, +,9$/8( 1(: /2:(5 56 /29$/8( +O9DOXH f§ GLVFRQWLQXLW\ f§ GLVFRXUVH MXQFWXUH /29DOXH FRQWLQXLW\ WKHPDWLFDOO\ HVWDEOLVKHG +O9DOXHf§ GLVFRQWLQXLW\ QHZ FODXVDO WRSLF /29DOXH f§ FRQWLQXLW\ f§ HVW WRSLF FRQWLQXHV )LJXUH 5HIHUHQWLDO 6SHFLILFLW\ ,QIRUPDWLRQ 9DOXH DQG *UDPPDWLFDO 5HODWLRQV ,I WKH VXEMHFW LV QHZ DQG KDV D KLJKHU 56 WKDQ WKH REMHFW WKHQ LW DOVR KDV KLJKHU LQIRUPDWLRQ YDOXH DQG ,V OLNHO\ RFFXULQJ DW D GLVFRXUVH MXQFWXUH D QHZ SDUDJUDSK IRU ,QVWDQFHf 3HUVSHFWLYDO 'LVWDQFH :HfYH DOUHDG\ VHHQ WKDW WKH QDUUDWLYH WLPHOLQH LV VWUXFWXUDOO\ D PDWWHU RI ,PSOOFDWXUH UDWKHU WKDQ D OLQJXLVWLF HQWLW\ LQ ,WV RZQ ULJKW :H DOVR KDYH VKRZQ WKDW HYHQWV RQ WKH WLPHOLQH GR QRW KDYH WR EH WHOOH WUDQVLWLYHV EXW PD\ EH DWHOOF DQG GLVSHUVHG WUDQVLWLYHV DV ZHOO
PAGE 88

GHVFULSWLRQ LV FDVW WKH OHVV GHWDLO RI WKH HYHQW LV LPSOLHG LQ WKH GHVFULSWLRQ 7KH fFORVHU WKH OLQJXLVWLF GHSLFWLRQ LV WKH PRUH GHWDLO LV ,PSOLHG )RU H[DPSOH WKH IROORZLQJ VHQWHQFHV FDQ EH XQGHUVWRRG QRW VLPSO\ DV DVSHFWXDO GLVWLQFWLRQV EXW DV D PDWWHU RI GLVWDQFH IURP WKH HYHQW f 7KHUH ZDV D FDW DQG GRJ UXQQLQJ GRZQ WKH VLGHZDON f 7KH FDW UDQ DIWHUFKDVHG WKH GRJ f 7KH GRJ IOHG ,Q f WKH SHUVSHFWLYDO GLVWDQFH LV IDU DZD\ ZKDW WHUP D fSDQRUDPLF YLHZ (VVHQWLDOO\ DQ HYHQW LV FRQVWUXHG DV D VWDWH WKH GLVWDQFH LV VR IDU DZD\ WKDW WKH DFWLRQ LWVHOI LV VHHQ DV DQ HQWLUH SLFWXUH D IUDPHG 3RLQW7UDMHFWRU\ FRPSOH[ UDWKHU WKDQ DV PRYHPHQW IURP RQH HQGSRLQW WR DQRWKHU )URP WKH SRLQW RI YLHZ RI GLVFRXUVH MXVW DERXW DQ\WKLQJ FDQ IROORZ WKLV NLQG RI VHQWHQFH DV ORQJ DV LW VWD\V ZLWKLQ WKH YHU\ ORRVH FRQVWUDLQWV LPSRVHG E\ WKH RYHUDOO DFWLRQLQ WKLV VFHQH WKDW RI D QHLJKERUKRRG f 7KHUH ZDV D GRJ DQG FDW UXQQLQJ GRZQ WKH VLGHZDON FKLOGUHQ VZLQJLQJ LQ EDFN\DUG SOD\JURXQGV DQG D OLJKW SOD\IXO EUHH]H QLSSLQJ DW WKH OHDYHV DQG VZLVKLQJ OLWWOH JLUOVn SRQ\WDLOV WKLV ZD\ DQG WKDW f 7KHUH ZDV D GRJ DQG FDW UXQQLQJ GRZQ WKH VLGHZDON RSHQHG WKH GRRU VORZO\ SHHNLQJ RXW DJDLQ WR PDNH VXUH WKH FRDVW ZDV FOHDU f 7KHUH ZDV D GRJ DQG FDW UXQQLQJ GRZQ WKH VLGHZDON :LWKRXW ZDUQLQJ D ERPE ULSSHG WKH PRUQLQJfV SHDFH WR VKUHGV 1R PRUH GRJ 1R PRUH FDW 1R PRUH VLGHZDON 7KH SHUVSHFWLYDO GLVWDQFH LQ f LV ZKDW WHUP fEDVLFf 6LPLODU WR /DNRII V QRWLRQ RI EDVLF OHYHO WHUPV WKLV LV WKH VRUW RI VHQWHQFH PRVW RIWHQ JLYHQ ZKHQ VRPHRQH DVNV IRU DQ H[DPSOH VHQWHQFH 7KHUH DUH WZR HQGSRLQWV DQG D WUDMHFWRU\ JLYHQ EXW LQVWHDG RI EHLQJ IUDPHG IURP D GLVWDQFH WKH\ DUH IUDPHG DW WKH OHYHO MXVW HQFORVLQJ WKH DFWLYLW\ DQG SDUWLFLSDQWV 2IWHQ DGGLWLRQDO LQIRUPDWLRQ LV H[FOXGHG DW WKH OHYHO RI WKH FODXVH LI WKHUH LV DGGLWLRQDO LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW GLUHFWLRQ DQG VXFK LW KDV D PXFK PRUH fDGMXQFW LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ 7KLV LV DOVR WKH OHYHO DW ZKLFK GLVFRXUVH FRQVWUDLQWV EHJLQ WR DVVHUW WKHPVHOYHV 7KLV H[DPSOH LQFOXGHV DQ (IIHFWRU DQG $IIHFWHG ZLWK HTXDO UHIHUHQWLDO VSHFLILFLW\ HQJDJHG LQ D SXUSRVHIXO XQLODWHUDO DFWLYLW\ ,W LV 127 WKH FDVH WKDW MXVW DQ\WKLQJ PD\ IROORZ WKLV VWDWHPHQW 5DWKHU DV ZLOO EH GLVFXVVHG LQ WKH QH[W VHFWLRQ ZH H[SHFW WKDW WKH (IIHFWRU $IIHFWHG RU 3UHGLFDWLRQ ZLOO IROORZ 7KLV LV FRQVLGHUDEO\ PRUH FRQVWUDLQW WKDQ WKH SDQRUDPLF YLHZ HQWDLOHG

PAGE 89

f 7KH FDW FKDVHG WKH GRJ 7KH GRJ VFUDPEOHG GRZQ WKH VLGHZDON \HOSLQJ LQ GHVSDLU f 7KH FDW FKDVHG WKH GRJ GRZQ WKH VLGHZDON ,W PHRZOHG ILHUFHO\ DV ,W FORVHG LQ RQ WKH KDSOHVV 5RWWZHLOHU f 7KH FDW FKDVHG WKH GRJ GRZQ WKH VLGHZDON %XW LW ZDV D KXPLG GD\ ZLWK D EDNLQJ VXQ DQG WKH FKDVH HQGHG DV TXLFNO\ DV LW EHJDQ f 7KH FDW FKDVHG WKH GRJ 7KH HDUWK WLOWHG VOLJKWO\ RQ LWV D[LV DQG D FDU EDFNILUHG LQ 'HWURLW 7KH ILQDO SHUVSHFWLYDO GLVWDQFH O FDOO f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f WKH YHUE fIOHGf LPSOLHV VRPHWKLQJ IURP ZKLFK WKH GRJ LV IOHHLQJ DQG SRWHQWLDOO\ VRPHWKLQJ WR ZKLFK WKH GRJ IOHHV f 7KH GRJ IOHG ,W UDQ IDVWHU DQG IDVWHU XQWLO LW HVFDSHG WKH FDW f 7KH GRJ IOHG 7KH FDW OHDSHG 7KH GRJ VQDUOHG LQ IXU\ DV WKH IHOLQH ODQGHG RQ LWV EDFN 5DLVLQJ D SDG RI H[WHQGHG FODZV WKH FDW ZHQW WR VFUDWFK EXW WRR VORZO\ :LWK D VQDS WKH GRJ FKRPSHG WKH SURIIHUHG SDZ $QG WKDW LV KRZ WKH QHLJKERUKRRG WDEE\ EHFDPH NQRZQ DV 7ULSRG 7RP f 7KH GRJ IOHG 7KH VXQ URVH 6DOO\ EDNHG FKRFRODWH FKLS FRRNLHV IRU EUHDNIDVW ,W LV REYLRXV DW WKLV SRLQW WKDW WKHUH LV D FRQQHFWLRQ EHWZHHQ SHUVSHFWLYDO GLVWDQFH DQG WUDQVLWLYLW\ 3DQRUDPLF YLHZV FRUUHODWH ZLWK LQWUDQVLWLYHV EDVLF YLHZV ZLWK WHOLF WUDQVLWLYHV DQG FORVHIRFXV ZLWK DWHOLF DQG GLVSHUVHG WUDQVLWLYHV :KLOH DP QRW UHDG\ WR FODLP WKDW WUDQVLWLYLW\ LV WKH HQFRGLQJ RI HYHQWV YLV£YLV OLQJXLVWLF VSDFH DV GRHV /DQJDFNHU IRU LQVWDQFHf LW LV FOHDU WKDW DW WKH OHYHO RI GLVFRXUVH QDUUDWLYH VWUXFWXUH FDQ HDVLO\ EH YLVXDOL]HG DV D PDWWHU RI GLVWDQFH IURP HYHQWV 7KH QDUUDWLYH LQWURGXFWLRQ SDUWLFXODUO\ LQ ORQJHU ZRUNV XVXDOO\ EHJLQV DW D SDQRUDPLF GLVWDQFH GHVFULELQJ WKH JHQHUDO VFHQH 7KHPDWLF SDUWLFLSDQWV DQG HYHQWV DUH LQWURGXFHG WKURXJK DFWLRQV ZKLOH WKH QDUUDWLYH SURFHHGV WR FOLPDFWLF PRPHQWV 7KHVH DUH RIWHQ FRQVWUXHG DV FORVH IRFXV VFHQHV ZLWK DOO WKH UHDGHUfV DWWHQWLRQ WDNHQ XS ZLWK DFWLRQV DQG HYHQWV SRUWUD\HG PRPHQW E\PRPHQW 7KH GHQRXHPHQW JRHV EDFN WKURXJK WKH EDVLF OHYHO WR WKH SDQRUDPLF DV WKH VFHQH

PAGE 90

RU VWRU\ ZLQGV GRZQ WR D SRLQW RI UHVROXWLRQ ,Q D QRYHO WKLV SDWWHUQ UHSHDWV LWVHOI DJDLQ DQG DJDLQ ,W LV YLRODWHG WR JUHDW HIIHFW LQ PXOWLSDUWLFLSDQW VWRULHV ZKHUH HDFK FKDSWHU IRFXVHV RQ D VLQJOH WKHPDWLF FKDUDFWHU DQG WKH PLGGOH FKDSWHUV RI WKH ERRN HQG LQ FOLIIKDQJHUV XQWLO DOO WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV FDQ EH EURXJKW WRJHWKHU LQ D ILQDO UHVROXWLRQ 7KHUH LV D IRXUWK OHYHO RI QDUUDWLYH GLVWDQFH FDOO fLPPHGLDWHf 7KLV LV WKH GRPDLQ RI GLUHFW DQG LQGLUHFW VSHHFK 7KHVH WZR SDUWLFXODUO\ WKH IRUPHU DUH WKH PRVW FRJQLWLYHO\ LQYROYLQJ DVSHFWV RI QDUUDWLYH HYHQ WKRXJK SUHVHQWHG LQ SDVW WHQVH PRUSKRORJ\ VKH fVDLGf 'LUHFW VSHHFK KDV D VHQVH RI EHLQJ FORVH WR WKH SUHVHQW PRPHQW DV WKRXJK WKH UHDGHU ZKHUH VLWWLQJ YHU\ QHDU WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV 7KLV PD\ EH ZK\ LQ VSRNHQ QDUUDWLYH GLUHFW VSHHFK VR RIWHQ KDSSHQV LQ WKH KLVWRULFDO SUHVHQW 7KHUH LV FRQVLGHUDEOH GHEDWH DERXW ZKHWKHU GLUHFW VSHHFK VKRXOG EH FRQVLGHUHG D WUDQVLWLYH HYHQW VHH /RQJDFUH f :KLOH ,W LV SRVVLEOH WR SDVVLYL]H VSHHFK VWDWHPHQWV XVLQJ fZDV VDLG E\ KLPKHUf LQVWHDG RI fVKH VDLGff LW LV UDUHO\ XVHG LQ SUDFWLFH )XUWKHU WKHUH LV EHWWHU HYLGHQFH FURVVOLQJXLVWLFDOO\ WKDW GLUHFW DQG LQGLUHFW VSHHFK IRUPV DUH IRUPXODLF DQG WKXV GLVWLQFW IURP JUDPPDU DJUHH WKDW GLUHFW DQG LQGLUHFW VSHHFK DUH fGLIIHUHQWf RQ VHYHUDO OLQJXLVWLF DFFRXQWV DQG SUREDEO\ VKRXOG QRW EH FRQVLGHUHG DV WHOLF GLWUDQVLWLYH HYHQWV SDVVLYL]DWLRQ LPSOLHV WKH UDWKHU RGG QRWLRQ WKDW VSHHFK LV D SK\VLFDO REMHFW JLYHQ WR DQRWKHU SDUWLFLSDQWf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fEDVLF OHYHO SHUVSHFWLYDO GLVWDQFHf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

PAGE 91

%XW DV ORQJ DV WKH QDUUDWLYH H[SHFWDWLRQV DUH IXOILOOHG WKHUH LV UHODWLYHO\ OLWWOH FRQVWUDLQW DV WR ZKLFK RSWLRQ WKH DXWKRU FKRRVHV 7KLV ,V PRUH RU OHVV D OLQJXLVWLF GHILQLWLRQ RI VW\OH ,W DOVR KHOSV DFFRXQW IRU ZK\ VWDWLVWLFDO DQDO\VHV DUH XVHIXO DW WKH OHYHO RI GLVFRXUVH *LYHQ D SDUWLFXODU SRLQW ,Q D QDUUDWLYH WKHUH ,V DSSUR[LPDWHO\ D b FKDQFH RI ILQGLQJ VWUXFWXUH ; 7KHUH LV D b OLNHOLKRRG RI ILQGLQJ VWUXFWXUH < RU = VLQFH ERWK IXOILOO WKH VWUXFWXUDO QHHG LQ TXHVWLRQ ,W LV VLPSO\ D PDWWHU RI FRQYHQWLRQDO H[SHFWDWLRQ DQG VW\OH WKDW GHWHUPLQH ; < RU = 1HYHUWKHOHVV DW VRPH SRLQW LW EHFRPHV D fFKOFNHQDQGHJJ TXHVWLRQ WR DVN ZKHWKHU VRPH JLYHQ JUDPPDWLFDO VWUXFWXUH fKDV VRPH JLYHQ GLVFRXUVH IXQFWLRQ RU ZKHWKHU GLVFRXUVH fPDNHV XVH RI WKH VHPDQWLFSUDJPDWLF SRWHQWLDOLWLHV LQKHUHQW WR DQ\ JUDPPDWLFDO FRQVWUXFWLRQ 7KH ZKROH TXHVWLRQ LV PRVW OLNHO\ ZURQJ ,W LV QRW D PDWWHU RI ZKDW FRPHV ILUVW EXW D PDWWHU RI OLQJXLVWLF HFRORJ\ *UDPPDU DQG GLVFRXUVH KDYH D UHODWLRQVKLS DQG WR VXSSRVH HLWKHU LV PRUH IXQGDPHQWDO LV HUURQHRXV ,Q FRQFOXVLRQ LI ZH VHSDUDWH SHUVSHFWLYDO GLVWDQFH IURP WLPH OLQH DQG DVVRFLDWH WUDQVLWLYLW\ ZLWK WKH IRUPHU ZH JHW D PRUH DFFXUDWH SLFWXUH RI ZKDW WUDQVLWLYLW\ DFFRPSOLVKHV LQ QDUUDWLYH 7KH WLPHOLQH LV HVVHQWLDOO\ D VWUXFWXUDO DUWLIDFW RI QDUUDWLYH FUHDWHG WKURXJK ,PSOLFDWXUH E\ WKH WHQVHDVSHFW FRQILJXUDWLRQV RI VXFFHVVLYH SUHGLFDWLRQV 3HUVSHFWLYDO GLVWDQFH ,V WKH OLQJXLVWLF ERXQGDULHV LPSRVHG RQ D VFHQH DW DQ\ SRLQW LQ QDUUDWLYH 7UDQVLWLYLW\ LV RQH OLQJXLVWLF V\VWHP DYDLODEOH WR WKH VSHDNHU IRU WKLV SXUSRVH 7KH VSHFLILFV RI KRZ WUDQVLWLYLW\ ZRUNV WR IXOILOO WKLV IXQFWLRQ ZLOO EH WDNHQ XS LQ WKH IROORZLQJ VHFWLRQ 7KH )RXU &ODXVH 7\SHV RI 7UDQVLWLYLW\ ,W ZDV FODLPHG LQ &KDSWHU 7ZR WKDW (QGSRLQW7UDMHFWRU\ KHUHDIWHU 37f UHODWLRQVKLSV DUH H[SUHVVHG E\ IRXU EDVLF JUDPPDWLFDO W\SHV ,Q (QJOLVKLQWUDQVLWLYH DWHOLF WUDQVLWLYH WHOLF WUDQVLWLYH DQG GLVSHUVHG WUDQVLWLYH ZLWK WKH FDYHDW WKDW LQWUDQVLWLYHV PD\ EH PRUH SURSHUO\ XQGHUVWRRG DV GXUDWLYH XQERXQGHG DFWLRQV DQG VWDWHV VKRXOG EH FRQVLGHUHG D VHPDQWLFFRQFHSWXDO FDVH LQ WKHLU RZQ ULJKWf 7KLV FKDSWHU SURSRVHV WKDW WKH GLVFRXUVH IXQFWLRQ RI 37 UHODWLRQVKLSV LV WKH FRQWURO RI FRPPXQLFDWLYH LQWHQW WKURXJK PDQLSXODWLRQ RI SHUVSHFWLYH 6LPSO\ SXW SHUVSHFWLYH LV WKH SDUWLFLSDQWHYHQW UHODWLRQVKLS DV LW RSHUDWHV DW WKH OHYHO RI GLVFRXUVH ,Q WHUPV RI JUDPPDU SHUVSHFWLYH LV XQGHUVWRRG WR EH WKH JUDPPDWLFDOO\ DYDLODEOH

PAGE 92

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f -RKQ NLFNHG %LOO +H SXQFKHG %LOOKLP f -RKQ NLFNHG %LOO %LOO \HOSHG LQ SDLQ f -RKQ NLFNHG %LOO ,W ZDV D UHDOO\ KDUG NLFN 7KH NLFN UHDOO\ KXUW 7KH NLFN ZDV UHDOO\ KDUG (IIHFWRUf $IIHFWHGf 3UHGLFDWLRQf $IIHFWHGf (IIHFWRUf (YHQ WKHVH VLPSOH VHQWHQFHV VKRZ VRPH LQWHUHVWLQJ WKLQJV UHJDUGLQJ UHDGHU H[SHFWDWLRQ :LWK VHQWHQFH f ZKHUH ERWK (IIHFWRU DQG $IIHFWHG KDYH HTXDO UHIHUHQWLDO VSHFLILFLW\ KHUHDIWHU 56f LW LV VRPHZKDW DZNZDUG WR FRQWLQXH WKH (IIHFWRU UROH DV WRSLF ZLWKRXW DGGLWLRQDO PDQHXYHULQJV 1RWH WKH VHQWHQFH UHDGV EHWWHU LI WHPSRUDO DGYHUEV DUH DGGHG LQ f)LUVW -RKQ NLFNHG %LOO 1H[W KH SXQFKHG KLP $V VWDWHG LQ WKH GLVFXVVLRQ RI GLVFRXUVH WRSLFDOLW\ LI ERWK (IIHFWRU DQG $IIHFWHG DUH RI HTXDO UHIHUHQWLDO YDOXH WKH $IIHFWHG UROH JHQHUDOO\ ZLQV WKH UROH RI WRSLF EHFDXVH RI WKH DVVRFLDWLRQ RI QHZ LQIRUPDWLRQ ZLWK WKH REMHFW VORW 7KXV LQ f GHVSLWH WKH IDFW WKDW DFFRUGLQJ WR VKHHU

PAGE 93

WUDQVLWLYLW\ ERWK SDUWLFLSDQWV DQG WKH DFWLRQ DUH DYDLODEOH IRU WRSLFDOL]DWORQ WKH OLNHOLKRRG LV WLSSHG DZD\ IURP WKH (IIHFWRU UROH ,I WKH (IIHFWRU LV WR FRQWLQXH DV WRSLF WKHQ WKH EDODQFH PXVW EH UHn VKLIWHG VRPHKRZ 7KLV FDQ EH SDUWLDOO\ GRQH WKURXJK SURQRPLQDOO]DWORQ WKRXJK ZLWK DQ DFWLYLW\ RI VXFK YLROHQW HQHUJ\ SURQRPLQDOO]DWORQ DORQH GRHVQnW TXLWH ZRUN WKH WZR VHQWHQFHV VWLOO GRQnW IORZ &RKHUHQFH LV EHWWHU DFFRPSOLVKHG KHUH WKURXJK WHPSRUDO DGYHUEV ZKLFK PDNH VDOLHQW WKH OLQHDU DVSHFW RI WKH DFWLYLW\ ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV RQFH WKH UHDGHU NQRZV WKDW -RKQ f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£LV f -RKQ NLFNHG %LOO f -RKQ NLFNHG %LOO f -RKQ NLFNHG %LOO f -RKQ NLFNHG %LOO f -RKQ NLFNHG %LOO f -RKQ NLFNHG %LOO %LOO \HOSHG LQ SDLQ %LOO \HOSHG LQ SDLQ WKHQ NLFNHG KLP EDFN
PAGE 94

DQ\ SDUWLFXODU DFWLYLW\ VXESDUWV RI WKH DFWLYLW\ DUH DYDLODEOH DV ZHOO DV WKH ZKROH RI WKH DFWLYLW\ LWVHOI -RKQ NLFNHG %LOO f 7KH NLFN ZDV UHDOO\ KDUG f ,W UHDOO\ KXUW f ,W ZDV D UHDOO\ KDUG NLFN f +LV IRRW PDGH KDUG FRQWDFW ZLWK %LOOfV VKLQ f +LV ERRW VZXQJ LQ D ORQJ DUF WRZDUG %LOOnV OHJ f +LV SDQWV QHDUO\ ULSSHG ZLWK WKH HIIRUW 3DUW RI $FWLYLWY6NHZLQJ ZKROH (IIHFWRU ZKROH $IIHFWHG ZKROH 3UHGLFDWLRQ VXESDUW (IIHFWRU VXESDUW (IIHFWRU VXESDUW (IIHFWRU 7KH VHQWHQFHV f f VKRZ WZR WKLQJV )LUVW ZKDW LV DYDLODEOH LQ WHUPV RI 3UHGLFDWLRQ LV OLPLWHG E\ WKH DFWLRQ LWVHOI DQG ZKDW WKH UHDGHU NQRZV PXVW EH WKH FDVH LQ WKH VFHQH %XW ZLWKLQ WKDW FRQWH[W DQ\WKLQJ LV IDLU JDPH IURP VRPH FRPPHQW RQ WKH DFWLYLW\ WR WKH FORWKHV WKH (IIHFWRU LV SUHVXPDEO\ ZHDULQJ 6HFRQG ZKHQ UHIHUULQJ WR D VXESDUW RI WKH DFWLYLW\ LW LV YHU\ GLIILFXOW WR VNHZ WRZDUGV WKH $IIHFWHG SDUWLFLSDQW ZLWKRXW ILUVW WRSLFDOL]LQJ WKDW SDUWLFLSDQW RU DW OHDVW UHn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n&RUD 5RJHU =HOD]Q\ 3RO\WD VWHSSHG RYHU WR &ROOHHQ DQG UXEEHG WKH GRJfV KHDG IRU FRPIRUW &ROOHHQ ZKLQHG VRIWO\ LQ UHVSRQVH DQG UXEEHG KHU FKHHN DJDLQVW WKH ZRPDQnV WKLJK 0DQDUPDQnV ,VOH /6 2n%ULHQ

PAGE 95

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nW KHDU WKH ELUGV RU WKH IURJV /LWWOH 7XUWOHn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f§LW LV WKH FKDQJHV WR WKH SUR[LPDWH SDUWLFLSDQW ZKLFK DUH RI JUHDWHVW FRQFHUQ $OO RWKHU SDUWLFLSDQW DUH PRUSKRORJLFDOO\ WDJJHG DV REYLDWLYH /LWHUDULO\ WKH REYLDWLYH HQFRPSDVVHV UROHV DV GLYHUVH DV fFRPSDQLRQ fDQWDJRQLVW DQG fQDUUDWLYH SURSf 3UDJPDWLFDOO\ WKHUH LV DOVR SUHVVXUH SXW RQ WKH WH[W WR FRQIODWH fDJHQWf DQG f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fUHDUUDQJH WKH UHDGHUfV SHUFHSWLRQ RI ZKR WKH fSUR[LPDWH DQG fREYLDWLYH FKDUDFWHUV DUH 6HPDQWLFDOO\ WKLV FRQWUDVW LV FUHDWHG WKURXJK WKH

PAGE 96

DPRXQWV DQG NLQGV RI LQIRUPDWLRQ JLYHQ DERXW D SDUWLFLSDQW 7KH PRUH WKH UHDGHUfV NQRZV DERXW WKH FKDUDFWHUfV PRWLYDWLRQV LQWHQWLRQ KLVWRU\ DQG UHDFWLRQV WR D JLYHQ HYHQW WKH PRUH OLNHO\ WKDW FKDUDFWHU LV SOD\LQJ D fSUR[LPDWH UROH 7KLV LV WKH OLWHUDU\ SURWDJRQLVW PRUSKRORJLFDOO\ PDUNHG LQ &UHH DQG QRWLRQDOO\ WDJJHG LQ (QJOLVK 7KH DQWDJRQLVW RU QDUUDWLYH SURSV DUH WKRVH SDUWLFLSDQWV ZKR DFW LQ DQ (QJOLVK QDUUDWLYH EXW ZKRVH PRWLYDWLRQV LQWHQWLRQV DQG KLVWRU\ DUH OHVV NQRZQ $OO LQ DOO WKH fEDG JX\ LV WKH OHDVW NQRZQ FKDUDFWHU LQ DQ (QJOLVK QDUUDWLYH ,Q WKH 7XUWOHf WH[W WKHVH UHODWLRQVKLSV DUH EHLQJ HVWDEOLVKHG LQ WKH ILUVW VHQWHQFH 7KLV LV WKH VHFRQG SDUDJUDSK RI WKH VWRU\ DQG SURYLGHV WKH PRWLYDWLQJ HYHQW IRU WKH FRQIOLFW WKH SURWDJRQLVW PXVW UHVROYH *UDPPDWLFDOO\ WKLV VHQWHQFH IHDWXUHV D IRUFH ZRUNLQJ XSRQ WKH SURWDJRQLVW 1RZ LW ZRXOG KDYH HTXDOO\ IHOLFLWRXV WR KDYH ZULWWHQ WKH VHQWHQFH 2QH PRUQLQJ WKH OLWWOH WXUWOH ZDV DZDNHQHG E\ D UXPEOH OLNH WKXQGHU 7KHUH LV QR JUDPPDWLFDO GLVFRQWLQXLW\ ZKDWVRHYHU DQG WKH HYHQW RI f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f WKH LQWURGXFWLRQ RI QHZ SDUWLFLSDQWV HVSHFLDOO\ LQ YHUEDO QDUUDWLYHV f FORVHIRFXV VFHQHV ZKHQ WKH DFWLRQ LV SUHVHQWHG LQ YHU\ VPDOO WLPH SHULRGV ,Q YHUEDO QDUUDWLYHV 'X%RLV f GHPRQVWUDWHV WKDW RQHSODFH SUHGLFDWHV RFFXU IRU DW OHDVW WZR UHDVRQV WKH LQWURGXFWLRQ RI QHZ SURWDJRQLVWV DQG VHPDQWLF QHFHVVLW\ +H RIIHUV TXDQWLWDWLYH HYLGHQFH IURP VHYHUDO VWXGLHV WR VKRZ WKDW ZKHQ VSHDNHUV EULQJ LQWR D WH[W D QHZ SURWDJRQLVWD SDUWLFLSDQW ZKR ZLOO FRQWLQXH WKHPDWLFDOO\ DQG IURP ZKRVH SHUVSHFWLYH VRPH SDUW RI WKH WDOH LV WROGWKH\ GR VR RYHUZKHOPLQJO\ LQ RQHSODFH SUHGLFDWHV 2WKHU XVHV RI RQHSODFH

PAGE 97

SUHGLFDWHV DUH GLFWDWHG E\ VHPDQWLF QHFHVVLW\ KH FODLPV 6SHDNHUV XVH WKHP EHFDXVH WKH\ KDYH WKH ULJKW PHDQLQJ ,Q ZULWWHQ QDUUDWLYH WKH SDWWHUQV DUH VRPHZKDW GLIIHUHQW )LUVW QHZ SDUWLFLSDQWV PD\ EH LQWURGXFHG LQWR WKH WH[W LQ DQ\ QXPEHU RI ZD\V WKRXJK WKH PRVW FRPPRQ DUH WKURXJK WHOLF WUDQVLWLYHV ZKHUH WKH VHFRQG SDUWLFLSDQW LV RI ORZHU 56f DQG DWHOLF WUDQVLWLYHV 7KH DWHOLF WUDQVLWLYH WKRXJK HPEUDFHV WZR SRVVLELOLWLHV )LUVW WKH FODVVLF VFHQHVHWWLQJ LQWURGXFWLRQ ZKLFK EHJLQV ZLWK D GHVFULSWLRQ RI D SODFH DQG QDUURZV GRZQ WR D VWDWHPHQW DERXW WKH FHQWUDO SDUWLFLSDQW 7KLV VRUW RI LQWURGXFWLRQ LV WKH QRUP LQ QRYHOV DQG ORQJHU VKRUW VWRULHV EXW LV DOVR IRXQG LQ WUXO\ f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f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f%XW \RX GRQnW WD[ MRFNVWUDSVf 0LUDEHO JODUHG f1Rf VDLG WKH NLQJ 7KH\nUH D QHFHVVLW\f )RU \RX PD\EH +RZ GR \RX H[SHFW PH WR ILJKW ZLWKRXW P\ EURQ]H EUD"f

PAGE 98

f0HQ FDQ ILJKW ZLWKRXW WKHPnf WKH NLQJ VDLG f,WfV IDU PRUH HFRQRPLFDO WR KLUH PHQ DQ\ZD\ 'R \RX KDYH DQ\ LGHD RI ZKDW WKH H[WUD DUPRU IRU WKH ZRPHQ LQ P\ DUP\ FRVWV" FRPPLVVLRQHG D PLOLWDQ FRVWFRQWDLQPHQW VWXG\ DQG P\ DGYLVRUV VDLG ZRPHQnV XQLIRUPV ZHUH DOZD\V UXQQLQJ RYHU EXGJHWf 7KH NLQJ VPLUNHG DW WKH TXHHQ RQ KHU WKURQH D IHZ IHHW DZD\ DQG VKH VPLUNHG EDFN f,fYH DOZD\V VDLG WKH FRVWV WR VRFLHW\ DUH WRR KLJK LI ZRPHQ OHDYH WKHLU IDPLO\ DQG UHVSRQVLELOLWLHVf§ :HnOO VHH DERXW WKLV 0LUDEHO VDLG 6KH ZRXOG OLNH WR KDYH VHHQ DERXW LW WKHQ DQG WKHUH EXW WKH NLQJnV SHUVRQDO JXDUGVf§DOO PDOH WKLV PRUQLQJ VKH QRWLFHGf§ORRNHG WRR DOHUW $QG WKH /DGLHV RI WKH &OXEf (OL]DEHWK 0RRQ 7KH DERYH WH[W LV WKH RSHQLQJ SDUDJUDSKV RI WKH VWRU\ 7ZR WKLQJV HVWDEOLVK 0LUDEHOfV SODFH DV WRSLFDO SDUWLFLSDQW )LUVW VKH KDV KLJKHVW 56 KHU SURSHU QDPH LV XVHG ZKLOH ERWK WKH NLQJ DQG TXHHQ SDUWLFLSDQWV RI JUHDWHU VRFLDO SRZHU WKDQ 0LUDEHOf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f,W LV QRW XQFRPPRQ WR GHVLUH NLOOLQJ D WHHQDJHUf KH VDLG f+RZHYHU LW LV QRW RIWHQ WKDW RQH IHHOV WKH QHHG WR VHQG VROGLHUV WR GR WKH MREf %RRN 7ZR ,QWR WKH 9RLG (OL]DEHWK 3DXOD 6KHOE\ c JDSHG DW $GPLUDO (GZDUG -HOOLFRM +HM FRXOG QRW KDYH JRWWHQ D PRUH VWXQQHG UHDFWLRQ RXW RI KHUc LI KHfGM VXGGHQO\ ULSSHG RII KLVM RZQ IDFH DQG UHYHDOHG KLPVHOIM WR EH D *RP ZHDULQJ DQ H[FHSWLRQDOO\ FOHYHU GLVJXLVH

PAGE 99

%RRN 7KUHH 7KH 7ZR)URQW :DU f, ZDQW WR EORZ WKRVH EDVWDUGV RXW RI VSDFH 7KH ([FDOLEXU KDG MXVW EHHQ URFNHG E\ WKH RSHQLQJ VDOYR IURP WKH EODFNDQGVLOYHU VKLS WKDW KXQJ NLORPHWHUV WR VWDUERDUG %RRN )RXU (QG *DPH 7KH UHIXJHHVM IURP WKH *DPERQ EOHDWHG LQ IHDU DV WKH\c ZHUH KHUGHG LQWR D ODUJH DXGLWRULXP 3DFLQJ WKH IURQW RI WKH URRP ZDV WKH ZRPDQM ZKRP WKH\c NQHZ WR EH /DKHHUDMDSSDUHQWO\ D KLJK PXFNDPXFN LQ WKH KLHUDUFK? RI WKH ZRUOG RI 1HONDU 6KHM ORRNHG DW WKHPc DQJULO\ KHU IXU\ VHHPLQJ WR UDGLDWH IURP KHU LQ VXFK D PDQQHU WKDW LV PHDVXUDEOH E\ LQVWUXPHQWDWLRQ 7KH ILUVW H[FHUSW EHJLQV ZLWK D WHOLF WUDQVLWLYH WKRXJK D IDLUO\ fVKDOORZf RQH ,W ZRXOGQfW EH JUDPPDWLFDOO\ LPSRVVLEOH IRU WKLV VHQWHQFH WR SDVVLYL]H KRZHYHU LW ZRXOG EH KLJKO\ XQOLNHO\ JLYHQ WKH RYHUDOO FRQWH[W ,W LV WKH RSHQLQJ VHQWHQFH WKH VXEMHFW RI WKH VHQWHQFH LV WKH (IIHFWRU DQG WKH REMHFW LV RI ORZHU 56 7KH UHDGHU H[SHFWV WKDW )DONDU LV WKH WRSLFDO SDUWLFLSDQW DQG WKLV LV WKH FDVH 7KH VHFRQG H[FHUSW EHJLQV ZLWK DFFRUGLQJ WR 5LFH f D SUHSRVLWLRQDO WHOLF WUDQVLWLYH $JDLQ WKH VHQWHQFH FRXOG JUDPPDWLFDOO\ SDVVLYL]H WKRXJK WKHUH LV JUHDWHU GLVDJUHHPHQW DPRQJ QDWLYH VSHDNHUV ZLWK SUHSRVLWLRQDO WHOLFVf )XUWKHU VKRXOG WKH VHQWHQFH SDVVLYL]H WKH IROORZLQJ VHQWHQFH FRXOG VWLOO EH XVHG DQG ZRXOG VWLOO PDNH VHQVH 7KLV LV DQ H[DPSOH RI fGHHSf WUDQVLWLYLW\ 1HYHUWKHOHVV WKH DXWKRU KDV FKRVHQ WR JR ZLWK D VWUDLJKWIRUZDUG WHOLF ZLWK HTXDO SDUWLFLSDQW 56 VNHZLQJ UHDGHU H[SHFWDWLRQV WRZDUGV WKH REMHFW $QG WKLV LV SUHFLVHO\ ZKDW KDSSHQV 7KH IROORZLQJ VHQWHQFH IHDWXUHV -HOOLFR DV VHQWHQWLDO WRSLF DOEHLW LW LQ D VRPHZKDW XQXVXDO H[DPSOH RI GLVSHUVHG WUDQVLWLYLW\f§WKH SDWK DVSHFW LV FRQVWUXHG DFURVV WKH f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

PAGE 100

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nV VKLS WKH ([FDOLEXU DV WRSLFDO SDUWLFLSDQW WKH UHFHLYHU RI WKH DFWLRQ DQG DOVR WKH REMHFW RI WKH UHDGHUfV V\PSDWKLHV 7KH QDUUDWLYH FRQWLQXHV IURP WKHUH ,W LV DOVR FOHDU KHUH WKDW VFHQHV QHHG QRW EHJLQ ZLWK DQ\ SDUWLFXODU NLQG RI WUDQVLWLYH FODXVH )XQFWLRQDOO\ WKH VFHQH PXVW EHJLQ DQG QDUUDWLYH H[SORLWV D QXPEHU RI SRVVLEOH SOR\V WR GR VR 7KH IRXUWK H[FHUSW LV DQ H[DPSOH RI WKH DWHOLF LQWURGXFWLRQ $OWKRXJK WKH UHDGHU NQRZV DOO WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV LQYROYHG %RRN )RXU EHJLQV DW D QHZ SODFH XQOLNH %RRN 7KUHHf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n SRLQW RI YLHZ WKH\ DV \HW GR QRW XQGHUVWDQG WKDW VKH LV WKH DQWDJRQLVW +HQFH VKH LV FRQVLVWHQWO\ VSRNHQ RI LQ HLWKHU WKH SDVVLYH VXVWDLQLQJ WKH LPSOLFDWLRQ WKDW VKH LV WKH VXEMHFW RI VRPHRQH HOVHfV DFWLRQVDWWHQWLRQf RU ZLWK WHOLF WUDQVLWLYHV WKHUHE\ NHHSLQJ WKH UHIXJHHV DV SDUW RI WKH VFHQH :H KDYH VHHQ LQ WKH DERYH WH[WV WKDW WKH WDVN RI LQWURGXFLQJ SDUWLFLSDQWV DQG PDQDJLQJ SHUVSHFWLYH WDNHV SODFH LQ QDUUDWLYH YLD D QXPEHU RI GHYLFHV $PRQJ WKRVH GHYLVHV DUH WKH WHOLF DQG DWHOLF WUDQVLWLYH $WHOLF WUDQVLWLYHV DOVR VHUYH D VHFRQG IXQFWLRQ 'X%RLV VWDWHV WKDW RQH SODFH SUHGLFDWHV DUH DOVR XVHG ZKHQ WKH\ DUH VHPDQWLFDOO\ DSSURSULDWH (YHQ VR DWHOLFV VHUYH D

PAGE 101

SDUWLFXODU IXQFWLRQ ZLWKLQ WKHLU VHPDQWLF GRPDLQ 6SHFLILFDOO\ WKH\ HIIHFW FORVHIRFXV SHUVSHFWLYH FKDQJHV *HQHUDOO\ VSHDNLQJ FORVHIRFXV VFHQHV ZKLFK DUH DFWLRQ GULYHQ DV RSSRVHG WR GLUHFW VSHHFK GULYHQf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c SDUULHG WR WKH OHIW FXW WR WKH ULJKW SDUULHG OHIW DJDLQ FXW WKURXJK WKDW ZDUULRUM r SDUULHG ULJKW DQG WKUXVW %RWK DWWDFNHUVM IHOO f/DG\ RI 6WHHOf 5RJHU =HOD]Q\ VHFRQG SDUDJUDSK 7KH GUDJRQ VZRRSHG RQFH PRUH ORZHU WKDQ HYHU DQG DV KH WXUQHG DQG GLYHG GRZQ KLV EHOO\ JOLWWHUHG ZKLWH ZLWK JHPVf§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f DQG LQ WKH ILQDO DWHOLF WUDQVLWLYH ZKHUH ERWK DWWDFNHUV IHOOf ,W LV GLIILFXOW WR WHOO IURP WKLV

PAGE 102

SDVVDJH LI fVLPXOWDQHRXV DWWDFNVf LV DQ RYHUW PHQWLRQ RI WKH GLVFRXUVH WRSLF RU DQ DOOXVLRQ WR WKH WZR ZDUULRU FRPEDWDQWV ,QWXLWLYHO\ EHOLHYH LW LV WKH ILUVW DQG VHUYHV D VRUW RI VFHQHVHWWLQJ IXQFWLRQ LQ WKH SDUDJUDSK ,W LV DOVR QRWHZRUWK\ WKDW WKH DWWDFNHUV DUH RI ORZHU 56 WKH\ DUH SDUW RI WKH RYHUDOO VFHQH EXW QRW WRSLFDO WKH\ DUH PHUHO\ SDUWLFLSDQW SURSV ,Q WKH VHFRQG H[FHUSW WKHUH DUH WZR FOHDUO\ HVWDEOLVKHG WRSLFDO SDUWLFLSDQWV D SURWDJRQLVW WKH %ODFN $UURZf DQG DQ DQWDJRQLVW WKH GUDJRQ 6PDXJf 7KH UHDGHU NQRZV RI WKH VSHFLDO SDUWLFLSDQW TXDOLW\ RI WKH DUURZ IURP WKH SUHYLRXV SDUDJUDSK ZKHUH WKH DUFKHU DGGUHVVHV LW IRUPDOO\ DV WKRXJK LW ZHUH DQLPDWH 7KLV LV LPSRUWDQW EHFDXVH DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH DQLPDF\ KLHUDUFK\ DQLPDWH SDUWLFLSDQWV DUH RI KLJKHU 56 WKDQ LQDQLPDWH RQHV 7KXV WKH DUURZ PXVW EH HVWDEOLVKHG DV RQ SDU ZLWK WKH GUDJRQ 7KH DFWLRQ SURFHHGV IURP DWHOLF ZLWK VXERUGLQDWH FODXVHVf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nV f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

PAGE 103

,QWUDQVLWLYHV'XUDWLYH 7UDQVLWLYHV )LUVW VHSDUDWH LQ WKLV GLVFXVVLRQ fVWDWHV IURP fLQWUDQVLWLYHV 6WDWHV DUH VXFK LWHPV DV LGHQWLILFDWLRQV f6KH LV D WHDFKHUff DVFULSWLRQV f+H LV KDQGVRPHff DQG ORFDWLRQV f7KHUH ZHUH VL[ PHQff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n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

PAGE 104

0XFK WR KHU DPD]HPHQW DQG HYHU\RQH HOVHnV LW DOO ZRUNHG RXW (OOD PRYHG LQWR WKH FDVWOH RI KHU +DSWLJDQ SULQFH DQG SXW KHU VWHSPRWKHU DQG KHU VWHSVLVWHUV XS LQ WKH HDVW ZLQJ 7KH FDVWOH ZDV ELJ HQRXJK VKH UDUHO\ VDZ WKHP VR WKH\ GLGQnW GULYH KHU FUD]\ (OnV KXVEDQG WKH SULQFH VHWWOHG GRZQDQG DW KHU UHTXHVW DGGHG RQ D GDLU\ IDUP WR WKH HVWDEOLVKPHQW WKRXJK IRU UHDVRQV KH FRXOG QHYHU ILJXUH RXW KH JRW OHVV PLON RXW RI KLV FRZV WKDQ DQ\ RWKHU GDLU\ IDUPHU LQ WKH NLQJGRP +H GLGQfW JHW DZD\ ZLWK DQ\WKLQJ HLWKHUf§KLV ZLIH NQHZ H[DFWO\ ZKDW KH LQWHQGHG WR GR IURP WKH LQVWDQW KH FDPH XS ZLWK DQ\ LGHD )URP WLPH WR WLPH KH WKRXJKW KH VDZ VRPH RI WKRVH JORZLQJ UHG H\HV DURXQG WKH FDVWOH EXW KH QHYHU GDUHG DVN )RU RQH WKLQJ (O ZDV QRW WKH VRUW RI Z RPDQ WR SUHVV RQ LVVXHV VKH GLGQnW ZDQW WR WDON DERXW )RU DQRWKHU VKH GLG NQRZ KRZ WR XVH D ZKLS 7KH :KLVWOLQJ 7ZR+DQGHG &LUFOHV ZHUH KLV IDYRULWH VWURNH :LGGHUVKLQV DQG DOO KLV IULHQGV ORYHG WKHLU QHZ KRPH f$UPRU(OODf E\ +ROO\ /LVOH $V WKHVH SDVVDJHV VKRZ LQWUDQVLWLYHV DV RSSRVHG WR DWHOLF WUDQVLWLYHV KDYH D GXUDWLYH TXDOLW\ WKH\ DUH RIWHQ fVWDWHV RI PLQGf RU fVWDWHV RI EHLQJ WKDW SHUVLVW RYHU WLPH %HFDXVH RI WKHLU VHPDQWLF TXDOLW\ WKH\ PL[ ZHOO ZLWK VWDWHV DQG QHJDWLRQ RI DFWLYLWLHV VLQFH QHJDWLRQ RI DQ DFWLYLW\ LV D VWDWH RI PLQG RU EHLQJ LQ WKH SHUVLVWHQW IRUP RI QRWKDSSHQLQJ RU QRWEHLQJf ,WfV DOVR TXLWH QRWLFHDEOH WKDW WKH LQWURGXFWRU\ SDVVDJH OHDGV IURP D QRQUHIHUHQWLDO SDUWLFLSDQW fWKH\ RI YHU\ ORZ 56 WR WKH LQWURGXFWLRQ RI WKH PDLQ SDUWLFLSDQW EXW YLD D ORZHQHUJ\ SUHGLFDWH 7KH FRQFOXVLRQ RQ WKH RWKHU KDQG LV DERXW D VWDWH RI DIIDLUV DQG UHIHUHQFHV PDQ\ SDUWLFLSDQWV DW RQFH WKRXJK WKH UHDGHU FDQ WHOO IURP WKH YDULRXV W\SHV RI 56 WKDW (OOD DQG :LGGHUVKLQV ZHUH WKH PRUH LPSRUWDQW SDUWLFLSDQWV LQ WHUPV RI SORWf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

PAGE 105

GLUHFWLRQDOLW\ LV H[SUHVVHG YLD WKH V\QWDFWLF DGGLWLRQ RI D SUHSRVLWLRQDO SKUDVH 7KH HYHQW GRHV QRW fILQLVK XQWLO WKH KHDUHUUHDGHU UHDFKHV WKH HQG RI WKH DGGHG SKUDVH $W ILUVW JODQFH LW DSSHDUV WKDW GLVSHUVHG WUDQVLWLYHV DUH UHDOO\ D VXEVHW RI DWHOLF WUDQVLWLYHV +RZHYHU WKHUH DUH VRXQG UHDVRQV IRU VHSDUDWLQJ WKH WZR )LUVW DV +RSSHU f KDV SRLQWHG RXW LQ FHUWDLQ NLQGV RI QDUUDWLYHRU DW FHUWDLQ SRLQWV LQ QDUUDWLYH LQ JHQHUDOWKLV W\SH RI VWUXFWXUH LV VWDWLVWLFDOO\ IUHTXHQW 6HFRQG IROORZLQJ 6ORELQ f WKHUH DSSHDUV WR EH D OHJLWLPDWH W\SRORJLFDO GLVWLQFWLRQ EHWZHHQ YHUEIUDPHG DQG VDWHOOLWHIUDPHG ODQJXDJHV ,Q VDWHOOLWHIUDPHG ODQJXDJHV GLUHFWLRQ WHQGV WR EH D GLVWLQFW JUDPPDWLFDO FRQVWUXFWLRQ ZKLOH YHUEn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fFXW LQWR f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

PAGE 106

XVHG ZKHQ WRSLFDO SDUWLFLSDQWV DUH SUHSDULQJ IRU VRPHWKLQJ RU ZKHQ D FOXVWHU RI DFWLYLWLHV OHDG WR VRPH PDMRU HYHQW ,Q WHUPV RI SHUVSHFWLYDO GLVWDQFH GLVSHUVHG WUDQVLWLYHV DJDLQ SDWWHUQ VRPHZKHUH EHWZHHQ DWHOLFV DQG WHOLFV $V ZLWK DWHOLFV WKHUH LV D VLQJOH WRSLFDO SDUWLFLSDQW DW IDLUO\ FORVH IRFXV LQVRIDU DV WKH VLQJOH SDUWLFLSDQWnV DFWLYLWLHV DUH ZKDW LV LPSRUWDQW +RZHYHU XQOLNH DWHOLFV GLVSHUVHG WUDQVLWLYHV FDQ FRYHU ORQJHU WLPH SHULRGV UHVHPEOLQJ WKH PRUH EDVLF GLVWDQFH VXJJHVWHG E\ WHOLF WUDQVLWLYHV )LQDOO\ GLVSHUVHG WUDQVLWLYHV VKDUH ZLWK DWHOLF WUDQVLWLYHV WKH VLQJOH SHUVSHFWLYH RQ MXVW RQH SDUWLFLSDQW 7KH\ GLIIHU E\ EHLQJ SDLUHG PRVW RIWHQ ZLWK QRQn KXPDQ RU QRQVHOILQVWLJDWLQJ SDUWLFLSDQWV 7KH UHDGHU H[SHFWV WKHQ WKDW WKH RQO\ SHUVSHFWLYH DYDLODEOH LV WKH VLQJOH WRSLFDO SDUWLFLSDQW 2ODW 2ODI FXW WKH WURXW LQWR fSLHFHV IRU WKH VWHZ ""OW ZDV DQ ROG UHFLSHW ZDV D EHDXWLIXO ILVK ZLWK UDLQERZ VLGHV ,W UHDGV PXFK PRUH VPRRWKO\ WR NHHS 2ODI WKH WRSLFDO SDUWLFLSDQW DV WKH IROORZLQJ H[DPSOHV VKRZ f 2ODI FXW WKH WURXW LQWR SLHFHV IRU WKH VWHZ +HfG FDXJKW WKH ILVK HDUO\ WKDW PRUQLQJ MXVW DIWHU GD\EUHDN EHIRUH WKH 6PRN\ 0RXQWDLQ PLVWV KDG \HW FOHDUHG WKH VWUHDPV f 2ODI FXW WKH WURXW LQWR f SLHFHV IRU WKH VWHZ +H ZDV SDUWLFXODUO\ IRQG RI WKLV UHFLSH DQ ROG IDPLO\ IDYRULWH SDVVHG GRZQ IURP JUDQGIDWKHU WR IDWKHU IDWKHU WR VRQ DOZD\V RYHU D FXWWLQJ ERDUG DQG VWHZ SRW EXW QHYHU QHYHU ZULWWHQ GRZQ 1RZ LW LV DFFHSWDEOH WR UHIHU WR WKH RWKHU SDUWLFLSDQWV VR ORQJ DV WKH\ DUH FRQWH[WXDOO\ DWWDFKHG WR WKH WRSLFDO SDUWLFLSDQW f 2ODI FXW WKH WURXW LQWR SLHFHV IRU WKH VWHZ 7KH UHFLSH ZDV DQ IDPLO\ IDYRULWH SDVVHG GRZQ f 2ODI FXW WKH WURXW LQWR SLHFHV IRU WKH VWHZ 7URXW ZDV D IDPLO\ IDYRULWH HVSHFLDOO\ ZKHQ FDXJKW ILUVW WKLQJ LQ WKH PRUQLQJ EHIRUH WKH 6PRN\ 0RXQWDLQ PLVWV KDG FOHDUHG ,Q ERWK RI WKHVH FDVHV ZKLOH WKH QRQKXPDQ SDUWLFLSDQWV RFFXS\ WKH VXEMHFW SRVLWLRQ WKH\ DUH QRW GLVFRXUVH WRSLFV 7KH fVWRU\f LV VWLOO DERXW 2ODI DQG KLV IDPLO\f WKRXJK DSSURDFKHG YLD VXEMHFWV RWKHU WKDQ 2ODIV SHUVRQDO DFWLYLWLHV RU VWDWHV RI PLQG 7KLV VRUW RI GLVSHUVHG WUDQVLWLYH LV D ZD\ RI GHHSHQLQJ WKH UHDGHUnV XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH PDLQ SDUWLFLSDQW E\ SURYLGLQJ QDUUDWLYH SRWHQWLDO IRU IXUWKHU H[SORUDWLRQ RI WKH SDUWLFLSDQWfV FKDUDFWHU WKURXJK DFWLYLWLHV UDWKHU WKDQ VLPSOH GHVFULSWLYH VWDWHPHQWV $OVR LW LV IUHTXHQWO\ RSWHG

PAGE 107

IRU LQ WKH ILUVW SHUVRQ VLJQLILFDQWO\ KHLJKWHQLQJ WKH YLFDULRXV IHHO RI H[SHULHQFLQJ D VWRU\ WKURXJK D FKDUDFWHUnV GLUHFW SHUFHSWLRQV OHW P\VHOI LQ WKURXJK WKH JDWH DQG FLUFOHG WKH QHZ FRQVWUXFWLRQ WR +HQU\fV SDWLR LQ WKH UHDU n`‘ LV IRU )XJLWLYH 6XH *UDIWRQ S PRYHG WKURXJK WKH KDOOZD\ WR WKH VPDOO EDFN EHGURRP ZDV FXUUHQWO\ FDOOLQJ KRPH f)f LV IRU )XJLWLYH 6XH *UDIWRQ S 'LVSHUVHG WUDQVLWLYHV DUH D ZD\ RI JHWWLQJ D SDUWLFLSDQW IURP RQH SRLQW WR DQRWKHUWKH\ FRPSOHWH WKH GLUHFWLRQDO FRPSRQHQW RI WKH SDWK DVSHFW RI 37 FRPSOH[ ZKHQ VXFK LV QRW RWKHUZLVH VSHFLILHG 'LVSHUVHG WUDQVLWLYHV DUH QRW FRQILQHG WR WKH ILUVW SHUVRQ WKRXJK 7KH\ DUH HTXDOO\ IHOLFLWRXV LQ D WKLUG SHUVRQ QDUUDWLYH 7KH EORRG KDG VWRSSHG IORZLQJ IURP +DUU\f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fEORRG DV WKH WRSLFDO SDUWLFLSDQW LV KDUGO\ VDWLIV\LQJ EORRG PXVW FRPH IURP VRPHZKHUH IRU VRPH UHDVRQ 7KH UHDVRQ ZDV VWDWHV LQ DQ HDUOLHU HSLVRGH 7KLV SDUWLFXODU VHFWLRQ LV GHDOLQJ ZLWK WKH UHVXOW 'HHS DQG 6KDOORZ 7UDQVLWLYLW\ ,W LV VWDWHG DERYH WKDW WUDQVLWLYLW\ DQG LWV DOWHUQDWLYH UHDOL]DWLRQV UHVXOW ,Q SHUVSHFWLYH VKLIWV DQG FKDQJHV 3HUVSHFWLYH VKLIWV DUH WKH GRPDLQ RI WHOLF WUDQVLWLYHV ZKHUHLQ WKH HQWLUHW\ RI

PAGE 108

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f 2ODI NLVVHG *HUWUXGH *HUWUXGH ZDV NLVVHG E\ 2ODI f 7KH GRJ EDUNHG DW WKH FDW 7KH FDW ZDV EDUNHG DW E\ WKH GRJ +RZHYHU ZH NQRZ IURP PDQ\ OLQJXLVWLF VRXUFHV WKDW WKH PHUH SUHVHQFH RI D GLUHFW REMHFW LV QRW VXIILFLHQW WR DOORZ SHUVSHFWLYH VKLIWLQJ 7KHUH DUH VHPDQWLF FRQVWUDLQWV DV ZHOO VXFK DV XQLODWHUDO DFWLYLW\ DQ DIIHFWHG SDUWLFLSDQW DQG DQ LQLWLDWLQJ SDUWLFLSDQW RU IRUFH 6KLIWV VXFK DV SDVVLYH VXIIHU ZKHQ WKHVH EDVLF SDUDPHWHUV DUH VWUHWFKHG WRR WKLQ f 2ODI NQHZ WKH DQVZHUV "7KH DQVZHUV ZHUH NQRZQ E\ 2ODI f 7KRU VZXQJ KLV PLJKW\ KDPPHU r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f/LWWOH 7XUWOH V %LJ $GYHQWXUH TXRWHG DJDLQ EHORZ SDVVLYL]DWLRQ LV SRVVLEOH EHFDXVH ERWK SDUWLFOSDQWVWKH OLWWOH WXUWOH SURWDJRQLVWf DQG WKH PDFKLQHV DQWDJRQLVWfDUH WRSLFDO 7KH OLWWOH WXUWOH KDV EHHQ HVWDEOLVKHG LQ WKH ILUVW SDUDJUDSK DV

PAGE 109

WKH PDLQ SDUWLFLSDQW LQ WKH WH[W ZKLOH WKH PDFKLQHV DUH EHLQJ HVWDEOLVKHG DV WKH WRSLFDO SDUWLFLSDQW LQ WKLV SDUWLFXODU SDUDJUDSK 2QH PRUQLQJ D UXPEOH OLNH WKXQGHU ZRNH WKH OLWWOH WXUWOH 0HQ ZLWK VWHDP VKRYHOV DQG EXOOGR]HUV ZHUH ZRUNLQJ LQ WKH FORYHU ILHOGV 7KH PDFKLQHV SXVKHG RYHU WUHHV 7KH\ GXJ XS FORYHU 7KH\ WRUH GRZQ KLOOV DQG ILOOHG XS KROHV 7KH PDFKLQHV PDGH VR PXFK QRLVH WKDW WKH WXUWOH FRXOGQfW KHDU WKH ELUGV RU WKH IURJV /LWWOH 7XUWOHnV %LJ $GYHQWXUH 'DYLG /HH +DUULVRQ 2QH PRUQLQJ WKH OLWWOH WXUWOH ZDV DZDNHQHG E\ D UXPEOH OLNH WKXQGHU 0HQ ZLWK VWHDP VKRYHOV DQG EXOOGR]HUV ZHUH ZRUNLQJ LQ WKH FORYHU ILHOGV 7UHHV ZHUH SXVKHG RYHU E\ WKH PDFKLQHV &ORYHU ZDV GXJ XS +LOOV ZHUH WRP GRZQ DQG KROHV ZHUH ILOOHG XS 6R PXFK QRLVH ZDV PDGH WKDW WKH OLWWOH WXUWOH FRXOGQn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f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fV VHHLQJ KDG EHHQ PDGH GHILQLWH7KH ER\ KDG QHYHU EHHQ VHHQ E\ WKH WXUWOH EHIRUHWKH VHQWHQFH VWLOO IDLOV FRQWH[WXDOO\ 7KH UHDGHU NQRZV WKH WXUWOH KDV QHYHU

PAGE 110

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f %RRN 2QH +RXVH RI &DUGV 3HWHU 'DYLG ""7KH UHPDLQV RI KLV WURRSV ZHUH UHJDUGHG E\ )DONDUc DV WKH EOD]LQJ ;HQH[ VXQ EHDW GRZQ XSRQ WKHP DQG LW ZDV GHFLGHG E\ KLPc WR ZD[ SKLORVRSKLFDO DERXW WKH VLWXDWLRQ f,W LV QRW XQFRPPRQ WR GHVLUH NLOOLQJ D WHHQDJHUf KHc VDLG f+RZHYHU LW LV QRW RIWHQ WKDW RQH IHHOV WKH QHHG WR VHQG VROGLHUV WR GR WKH MREf $OWKRXJK WKH JUDPPDWLFDO SUHUHTXLVLWHV DUH PHW LW MXVW fGRHVQfW ZRUNf WR SDVVLYL]H WKH VHQWHQFH 6LQFH QR SHUVSHFWLYH KDV EHHQ HVWDEOLVKHG DQG WKH (IIHFWRU LV DQ LPSRUWDQW SDUW RI WKH VWRU\ SDVVLYL]DWLRQ PDNHV QR VHQVH ,Q DQRWKHU H[DPSOH KRZHYHU SDVVLYL]DWLRQ LV FRQVWUDLQHG E\ V\QWDFWLF FRQVLGHUDWLRQV ,Q WKLV VHFWLRQ RI WH[W LQWHUFODXVDO FRKHVLRQ UHTXLUHV WKH WHOLFV QRW SDVVLYL]H 3RO\WD VWHSSHG RYHU WR &ROOHHQ DQG UXEEHG WKH GRJfV KHDG IRU FRPIRUW &ROOHHQ ZKLQHG VRIWO\ LQ UHVSRQVH DQG UXEEHG KHU FKHHN DJDLQVW WKH ZRPDQnV WKLJK 0DQDQQDQ nV ,VOH /6 2n%ULHQ 3RO\WD VWHSSHG RYHU WR &ROOHHQ DQG WKH GRJnV KHDG ZDV UXEEHG IRU FRPIRUW &ROOHHQ ZKLQHG VRIWO\ LQ UHVSRQVH DQG KHU FKHHN ZDV UXEEHG DJDLQVW WKH ZRPDQnV WKLJK 7KLV ODVW H[FHUSW LV DOVR D JRRG H[DPSOH RI ZKHQ D fWHOLF LV MXVW D WHOLF 7KH DFWLRQV ZLWKLQ WKHVH FODXVHV DUH VHPDQWLFDOO\ WHOLF EXW GR QRW LPSRVH DQ\ SDUWLFXODU NLQG RI GLVFRXUVH FRQVWUDLQW $W

PAGE 111

WKLV SRLQW LQ WKH VWRU\ WKH WKUHH PDLQ SDUWLFLSDQWV3RO\WD 2ULJHQ DQG &ROOHHQ WKH GRJf§DUH DOUHDG\ ZHOOHVWDEOLVKHG 4XDQWLWDWLYH 3DWWHUQV :KHQ WKLV SURMHFW ZDV ILUVW EHJXQ LW ZDV DVVXPHG WKDW EHFDXVH QDUUDWLYH LV DQ HYHQW GULYHQ VWUXFWXUH WHOLF WUDQVLWLYHV ZRXOG SOD\ D ODUJH UROH VWDWLVWLFDOO\ ,Q IDFW DV WKH IROORZLQJ SHUFHQWDJHV VKRZ WHOLF WUDQVLWLYHV GR QRW SOD\ D PDMRU UROH TXDQWLWDWLYHO\ ,QVWHDG DWHOLF WUDQVLWLYHV WHQG WR KDYH WKH JUHDWHVW VWDWLVWLFDO HIIHFW 7KH QXPEHUV EHORZ DUH JDWKHUHG IURP WKUHH VRXUFHV f&RUDf f%DUG 'HIHDWV 6PDXJ H[FHUSW IURP 7KH +REELWf DQG f/LWWOH 7XUWOHfV %LJ $GYHQWXUHf D FKLOGUHQnV VWRU\f ,W VKRXOG DOVR EH QRWHG WKDW QRW HYHU\ FODXVH QHHG KDYH D WUDQVLWLYLW\ YDOXH )RU H[DPSOH VWDWHV DUH QRW LQFOXGHG EHORZ /LWWOH 7XUWOHV %LD $GYHQWXUH 7HOLFV $WHOLF ,QWUDQVLWLYH 'LVSHUVHG 7RWDOV WRWDO QXPEHU RI FODXVHV H[FOXGLQJ VSHHFK DFWV DQG VXERUGLQDWH FODXVHVf &RUD WRWDO QXPEHU RI FODXVHV H[FOXGLQJ VSHHFK DFWV DQG VXERUGLQDWH FODXVHVf %DUG 'HIHDWV 6PDXD WRWDO QXPEHU RI FODXVHV H[FOXGLQJ VSHHFK DFWV DQG VXERUGLQDWH FODXVHVf 7RWDOV 3HUFHQWDJHV b b b b )LJXUH 4XDQWLWDWLYH $QDO\VLV RI &ODXVH 7\SHV ZLWK 3HUFHQWDJHV RI 2FFXUHQFH $GXOW 1DUUDWLYHV 2QO\ H[FOXGLQJ f7XUWOHf 3HUFHQWDJHV b b b b )LJXUH 5DZ &RXQW DQG 3HUFHQWDJHV &ODXVH 7\SHV LQ $GXOW 1DUUDWLYHV

PAGE 112

:KDW WKH QXPEHUV VKRZ LV WKDW FRQWUDU\ WR H[SHFWDWLRQ WHOLF WUDQVLWLYHV GR QRW GRPLQDWH WH[W ,Q IDFW DWHOLF WUDQVLWLYHV WHQG WR SOD\ D ODUJHU UROH 8SRQ FRQVLGHUDWLRQ WKLV PDNHV JRRG VHQVH ,I DQ HQWLUH QDUUDWLYH LV XQGHUVWRRG DV ERXQG LQ fVSDFHf E\ FXOWXUDO H[SHFWDWLRQV RI VWUXFWXUH DQG OLQJXLVWLF MXQFWXUHV VXFK DV SURSRVHG E\ *LYQf DQG PRYHG WKURXJK E\ fWLPH WKH LPSOLFDWXUHV UHVXOWLQJ LQ WKH FKURQRORJ\ RI HYHQWVf WKHQ WKH PRYHPHQW LWVHOI IURP RQH HQG RI WKH WH[W WR WKH RWKHU PXVW EH FDUHIXOO\ PDQDJHG WR UHPDLQ FRPSUHKHQVLEOH %RWK WLPH DQG VSDFH PXVW EH WDNHQ LQWR DFFRXQW 7HOLF WUDQVLWLYHV VHW D EDVLFOHYHO GLVWDQFH LQ VSDFH WKHUHE\ QDUURZLQJ WKH SRWHQWLDO ILHOG RI SDUWLFLSDQWV EXW WKH\ GR QRW GR VR RYHUL\ PXFK $ EDVLFOHYHO SHUVSHFWLYDO GLVWDQFH VWLOO OHDYHV WRR PDQ\ SDUWLFLSDQW WKH ZKHUHZLWKDO WR DFW 2Q WKH RWKHU KDQG DWHOLF WUDQVLWLYHV QDUURZ WKH ILHOG WR D VLQJOH SDUWLFLSDQW SHU FODXVHf XSRQ ZKLFK D UHDGHU PD\ IRFXV IXOO DWWHQWLRQ $WHOLFV OHQG KLJK SUHGLFWDELOLW\ WR GLVFRXUVH KHQFH KLJKHU FRJQLWLYH FRPSUHKHQVLELOLW\ &KLOGUHQnV QDUUDWLYH DOVR VKRZV UHJXODU VWDWLVWLFDO GLIIHUHQFHV ZLWK DGXOW QDUUDWLYH 7ZR PDMRU WKLQJV VWDQG RXW )LUVW WKHUH LV D KLJKHU SHUFHQWDJH RI WHOLF WUDQVLWLYHV LQ RWKHU ZRUGV PRUH RI WKH DFWLRQ LV H[SODLQHG DQG OHVV LV OHIW WR FRQWH[W 6HFRQG WKHUH DUH IHZHU VXERUGLQDWH FODXVHV 7KH QXPEHU RI FODXVHV VSRUWLQJ VRPH NLQG RI WUDQVLWLYH DQG WKH QXPEHU RI RYHUDOO FODXVHV LV PXFK FORVHU 7KLV PHDQV WKDW WKHUH LV OHVV LQIRUPDWLRQ EHLQJ SUHVHQWHG LQ VXERUGLQDWH DQG RWKHU NLQGV RI FRPSOH[ FRQVWUXFWLRQV LQ FKLOGUHQfV OLWHUDWXUH :H ZRXOG H[SHFW DV PXFK EXW LW LV LQWHUHVWLQJ QHYHUWKHOHVV WR VHH LW SOD\HG RXW VWDWLVWLFDOO\ $QRWKHU LQWHUHVWLQJ SRLQW KDV WR GR ZLWK WLPHOLQHV DQG WHOLF WUDQVLWLYHV $V PHQWLRQHG DERYH +RSSHU DQG 7KRPSVRQ f FODLPHG WKDW fKLJKf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f

PAGE 113

2Q 7LPHOLQH 7HOLFb $WHOLFb 'LVSHUVHGb OQWUDQVLWLYHb /LWWOH 7XUWOHnV %LD $GYHQWXUH b b b &RUD b b b %DUG 'HIHDWV 6PDXT b b b $YHUDJH b b b b b )LJXUH 7LPH /LQH DQG &ODXVH 7\SHVUDZ VFRUH RXW RI WRWDOSHUFHQWDJH LQ WH[W :KDW WKH DERYH DYHUDJHV VXJJHVW LV WKDW WKHUH LV D RQHGLUHFWLRQDO FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ WHOLF WUDQVLWLYHV DQG WKH WLPHOLQH 7KDW LV LI D FODXVH LV WHOLF LW LV PRVW OLNHO\ RQ WKH WLPHOLQH +RZHYHU WKH UHYHUVHLI D FODXVH LV RQ WKH WLPHOLQH LW LV WHOLFf§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f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

PAGE 114

LQFUHDVLQJ SUHGLFWDELOLW\ DQG KHOSLQJ WR IXOILOO JUDPPDUnV WDVN DV WKH OLQJXLVWLF PDQDJHU RI RQOLQH FRPSUHKHQVLRQ 7KH TXHVWLRQ UHPDLQLQJ LV ZKDW UROH GRHV WUDQVLWLYLW\ SOD\ LQ QRQQDUUDWLYH GLVFRXUVH" :KDW SHUVSHFWLYH LV PDQDJHG LQ H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W" +RZ GRHV SHUVSHFWLYDO GLVWDQFH ZRUN ZKHQ HYHQWV DUH SULPDULO\ QRQSK\VLFDO" )LQDOO\ ZKDW IXQFWLRQ GRHV D 37 FRPSOH[ KDYH LI WLPH DQG SHUVSHFWLYH DUH QRW WKH WH[WXDO FRQQHFWLYH WLVVXH" 7KHVH TXHVWLRQV ZLOO EH DGGUHVVHG LQ &KDSWHU )RXU

PAGE 115

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fH[SRVLWRU\ GLVFRXUVH FDQQRW EH QDUURZO\ GHILQHG EXW RQO\ ZLWK D FHUWDLQ GHJUHH RI DUELWUDULQHVV 7KXV RXU PDWHULDO LQYROYHV WH[WV WKDW KDYH W\SLFDO H[SRVLWRU\ IXQFWLRQV LQ JHQHUDO 7\SLFDOLW\ ,V QRW WDNHQ LQ DQ\ WKHRUHWLFDO VHQVH EXW LQ WKH LQWXLWLYH VHQVH RI ZKDW LV D FKDUDFWHULVWLF LQVWDQWLDWLRQ RI QRQILFWLRQDO LQIRUPDWLYH ZULWLQJ *RXWVRV HPSKDVLV DGGHGf :KLOH GR QRW GLVDJUHH ZLWK *RXWVRVf FODLP WKDW H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W LV LQWXLWLYHO\ UHFRJQL]HG E\ LWV SULPDU\ IXQFWLRQ DV LQIRUPDWLYH GLVFRXUVH LQ RUGHU WR XQGHUVWDQG WKH IXQFWLRQ RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ LQ H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W VRPH OLQJXLVWLF UHQGHULQJ RI WKH QRWLRQ fH[SRVLWRU\ WH[W PXVW EH WULHG 7KLV ZLOO EH WKH ILUVW WDVN RI WKLV FKDSWHU 7KH LQWHUDFWLRQV RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ DQG H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W ZLOO WKHQ EH LQYHVWLJDWHG 7RZDUGV D f/LQJXLVWLF 'HILQLWLRQ RI ([SRVLWRU\ 7H[W 7KH SULQFLSOH ZRUNV UHIHUUHG WR LQ WKLV VHFWLRQ DUH -RQHV f /RQJDFUH f DQG *RXWVRV f :KLOH WKHVH WKUHH DXWKRUV GR QRW UHSUHVHQW WKH HQWLUH UDQJH RI OLQJXLVWLF ZRUN RQ H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W HDFK UHSUHVHQWV D FULWLFDO DVSHFW RI LWV LQYHVWLJDWLRQ )RU D PRUH WKRURXJK UHYLHZ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH SOHDVH VHH *RXWVRV SS f 6SHFLILFDOO\ -RQHV XVHV WKH DGPLWWHGO\ XQGHILQHGf WHUP fQHWZRUN WR GHVFULEH WKH SURSRVLWLRQDO UHODWLRQVKLSV LQKHUHQW WR H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W :KLOH VKH XVHV WKH WHUP LQWXLWLYHO\ LW HPHUJHV DV D PRUH WKDQ DGHTXDWH WHUP

PAGE 116

IRU WKH JHQHUDO LQIRUPDWLRQ VWUXFWXUH RI H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W /RQJDFUH SURSRVHV DQG GHYHORSV D ZRUNLQJ PRGHO IRU WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ GLVFRXUVH QRWLRQDO W\SH DQG VXUIDFH VWUXFWXUH ZKLFK DUH VR RIWHQ RYHUORRNHG RU LJQRUHG LQ OLQJXLVWLF VWXGLHV HYHQ WKRVH ZKLFK DUH SXUSRUWHGO\ GLVFRXUVH RULHQWHG :KLOH KLV PRGHO KDV QRW JRQH XQFUOWOTXHG ,W VWLOO VHUYHV DV DQ H[FHOOHQW VWDWHPHQW RI D ZRUNLQJ JUDPPDU RI GLVFRXUVH VWUXFWXUH DQG KDV LQVSLUHG PXFK RI GHILQLWLRQ RIIHUHG EHORZ *RXWVRV ILOOV LQ D FULWLFDO PLVVLQJ FRPSRQHQW LQ WKH VWXG\ RI H[SRVLWRU\ WH[WWKDW RI VHTXHQWLDO UHODWLRQVKLSV DQG VWUDWHJLHV ,I LQGHHG H[SRVLWRU\ WH[WV IRUP ZKROH GLVFRXUVHV ZLWK EHJLQQLQJV PLGGOHV DQG HQGV WKHQ WKHUH PXVW EH VRPH ZD\ WR JHW IURP RQH HQG RI WKH WH[W WR WKH RWKHU DQG *RXWVRV SURYLGHV DQ H[FHOOHQW PRGHO IRU KRZ WKLV WDVN LV DFFRPSOLVKHG 7KH RUJDQL]DWLRQ IRU WKLV VHFWLRQ WKRXJK ZLOO EH EDVHG RQ WKH SDUWV RI H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W LWVHOI UDWKHU WKDQ DQ DXWKRUE\DXWKRU GLVFXVVLRQ (DFK ZLOO EH ZRUNHG ,Q DV DSSURSULDWH 1DUUDWLYH 9HUVXV ([SRVLWRU\ 7H[W 7KH GHILQLWLRQ RI RQH LWHP LQ WHUPV RI DQRWKHU LV QRW DOZD\V D SURILWDEOH IRUP RI LQYHVWLJDWLRQ EXW LQ WKLV FDVH WKH FRPSDULVRQ RI QDUUDWLYH DQG H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W SURYHV IUXLWIXO f6R GHWHUPLQDWLYH RI GHWDLO ,V WKH JHQHUDO GHVLJQ RI D GLVFRXUVH W\SH WKDW WKH OLQJXLVW ZKR LJQRUHV GLVFRXUVH W\SRORJ\ FDQ RQO\ FRPH WR JULHI /RQJDFUH f 1HYHUWKHOHVV H[SRVLWRU\ DQG QDUUDWLYH VWUXFWXUH DOVR VKDUH FUXFLDO VLPLODULWLHV f6RPHWKLQJ OLNH SORW FKDUDFWHUL]HV IRUPV RI GLVFRXUVH RWKHU WKDQ QDUUDWLYH ,I ZH JUDQW WKDW DQ\ GLVFRXUVH LV JRLQJ VRPHZKHUH ,W IROORZV WKDW LW GRHV QRW VLPSO\ VWDUW DQG VWRS EXW WKDW LW PD\ KDYH VRPH VRUW RI FXPXODWLYH H[SUHVVLRQ LQ EHWZHHQ f 7KXV WKH IROORZLQJ GLVFXVVLRQ ZLOO H[DPLQH QRW RQO\ ZKDW GLVWLQJXLVKHV QDUUDWLYH DQG H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W EXW DOVR WKH HOHPHQWV RI VWUXFWXUH WKH\ ERWK VKDUH 'LIIHUHQFHV /RQJDFUH f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

PAGE 117

7KH ODVW WZR IHDWXUHV SURMHFWLRQ DQG WHQVLRQ DUH SRWHQWLDO HOHPHQWV RI DQ\ GLVFRXUVH W\SH DQG ZLOO QRW EH GLVFXVVHG LQ GHSWK 7KH ILUVW WZR FKDUDFWHULVWLFV FRQWLQJHQW WHPSRUDO VXFFHVVLRQ DQG DJHQW RULHQWDWLRQ GR QRW PHUHO\ VHSDUDWH QDUUDWLYH IURP H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W EXW LQVWDQWLDWH FRPSRQHQWV HYHU\ GLVFRXUVH H[FKDQJH PXVW KDYH 7KHUH PXVW EH VRPH ZD\ RI JHWWLQJ IURP RQH HQG RI WKH WH[W WR WKH RWKHU DQG WKHUH PXVW EH VXUIDFH VWUXFWXUH VWUDWHJLHV IRU DFFRPSOLVKLQJ WKLV WDVN OLQHDU VXFFHVVLRQf $OVR WKHUH PXVW EH VRPH FHQWUDO UHIHUHQWLDO SRLQW RU SRLQWV ZKDW -RQHV FDOOV D fUHIHUHQWLDO QXFOHXV f LQ RUGHU IRU D WH[W WR FRJQLWLYHO\ FRKHUH ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV WH[WV DUH fDERXW VRPHWKLQJ DQG WKHUH PXVW EH OLQJXLVWLF VWUDWHJLHV IRU HVWDEOLVKLQJ DQG VLJQDOLQJ ZKDW WKHVH VRPHWKLQJV DUH WRSLF RULHQWDWLRQf 7KHVH WZR SRLQWV DUH FHQWUDO WR OLQJXLVWLF FRPPXQLFDWLRQ WH[WV DUH FRPPXQLFDWHG WKURXJK WLPH UHJDUGOHVV RI WKHLU VHPDQWLF VWUXFWXUHf DQG WH[WV FRPPXQLFDWH DERXW D OLPLWHG VHW RI WKLQJV UHJDUGOHVV RI WKHLU OLQHDU VWUXFWXUHf 7KHVH VHHPLQJO\ RSSRVLQJ IRUFHV IRUP WKH fSDUDGR[ ZKLFK FKDUDFWHUL]HV GLVFRXUVH VWXGLHV 1DUUDWLYH WH[W LV fSOXV ZLWK UHJDUGV WR ERWK FRQWLQJHQW WHPSRUDO VXFFHVVLRQ DQG DJHQW RULHQWDWLRQ 1DUUDWLYHV IROORZ D FKURQRORJLFDO HYHQWOLQH LQ RUGHU WR JHW IURP WKH EHJLQQLQJ WR WKH HQG DQG WKH\ DUH FRQFHUQHG ZLWK WKH VWDWHV DQG FKDQJH RI VWDWHV RI WRSLFDO SDUWLFLSDQWV ([SRVLWRU\ WH[WV DUH fPLQXVf FRQWLQJHQW WHPSRUDO VXFFHVVLRQ 7KDW LV H[SRVLWRU\ WH[WV GR QRW SURFHHG OLQHDUO\ DFFRUGLQJ WR HYHQWV ZKLFK FDXVH RWKHU HYHQWV 5DWKHU WKH\ IROORZ fORJLFDO OLQNDJHf /RQJDFUH f )XUWKHU H[SRVLWRU\ WH[WV GR QRW WXUQ RQ SDUWLFLSDQW UHIHUHQFH LQVWHDG WKH\ KDYH UHSHDWHG UHIHUHQFH WR fWKHPHV %RWK RI WKHVH SURSRVLWLRQV EHDU IXUWKHU H[SORUDWLRQ 7KHPH 7UDGLWLRQDOO\ WKH SHUVLVWHQW GLVFRXUVH WRSLF RI DQ H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W LV FDOOHG D fWKHPHf 7KLV WHUP LV FRQIXVLQJ IRU REYLRXV UHDVRQV /LNH WKH WHUP fWRSLFf fWKHPHf KDV PDQ\ PHDQLQJV LQ OLQJXLVWLFV ERWK QRWLRQDO DQG WHFKQLFDO DQG LV JURXQGHG LQ VHYHUDO GLIIHUHQW WKHRUHWLFDO SHUVSHFWLYHV 6LQFH fGLVFRXUVH WRSLF FDQ UHIHU WR DQ\ SHUVLVWHQW UHIHUHQWLDO HQWLW\ WKLV LV QRW D VXIILFLHQWO\ VSHFLILF WHUP IRU RXU QHHGV ,W LV WHPSWLQJ DW WKLV SRLQW WR SURSRVH VRPH WHUP SDUDOOHO WR fSDUWLFLSDQW IRU H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W WKHUHE\ DYRLGLQJ VXFK SKUDVHV DV fGLVFRXUVH RU WKHPDWLF

PAGE 118

SDUWLFLSDQWf DQG fGLVFRXUVH RU WKHPDWLF WKHPH +RZHYHU WKH VWUXFWXUDOO\ SDUDOOHO WHUP fWKHPDWLFDQW LV DHVWKHWLFDOO\ XQDSSHDOLQJ WR VD\ WKH OHDVWf DQG ZRXOG EXUGHQ OLQJXLVWLFV ZLWK \HW DQRWKHU ,PSUREDEOH ODEHO 7KXV WKH EHVW GHFLVLRQ VHHPV WR EH WR VWD\ ,Q NHHSLQJ ZLWK WUDGLWLRQ DQG XVH WKH WHUP fWKHPH DOEHLW ZLWK WKH IROORZLQJ FRPPHQWV 7KLV XVH RI WKH WHUP LV GLVWLQFW IURP WKH +DOOLGD\DQ WKHPH RU WKH 3UDJXH VFKRRO WKHPH ,W LV QRW D VHQWHQWLDO QRWLRQ WKRXJK RI FRXUVH WKH WKHPH FDQ EH UHDOL]HG VHQWHQWODOO\f 1RWORQDOO\ WKHPH ,V WKH fUHIHUHQWLDO QXFOHXV RI DQ H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W -RQHV f 7KH UHIHUHQWLDO QXFOHXV RI D WH[W ,V D VWUXFWXUHGHILQLQJ HOHPHQW ,QVRIDU DV ,W fJLYHV FKDUDFWHULVWLF SDWWHUQLQJ VWUXFWXUHf WR VHQWHQFHV DQG FRQYHUVDWLRQV f 7KH WKHPH RI DQ H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W ,V WKH fPDLQ ,GHD RU fPDLQ WKUHDG RI WKH WH[W DQG DV VXFK HQMR\V UHIHUHQWLDO SURPLQHQFH WKHPHV VWUXFWXUH WKH WH[W E\ EHLQJ WKH WKLQJ WKH WH[W PXVW EH DERXW ,Q VXP WKHPH ,V WKH H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W DQDORJ WR fSDUWLFLSDQW ,Q QDUUDWLYH WH[W 7KH PDMRU GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH WZR ,V WKDW ZKLOH SDUWLFLSDQWV DUH PRVWO\f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nV EURNHQ QRVH DQG QRZ KH VHHPHG WR EH EUHDWKLQJ PRUH UHJXODUO\ PRUH HDVLO\ 1RUPDQ OLIWHG WKH LFHSDFN WR ORRN DW WKH VZROOHQ IDFH DQG DGMXVWHG WKH IORZ RI WKH ,QWUDYHQRXV GULS LQ +DUU\fV DUP %HWK KDG VWDUWHG WKH LQWUDYHQRXV OLQH ,Q +DUU\nV KDQG DIWHU VHYHUDO XQVXFFHVVIXO DWWHPSWV 7KH\ ZHUH GULSSLQJ DQ DQDHVWKHWLF PL[WXUH LQWR KLP +DUU\nV EUHDWK VPHOOHG VRXU OLNH WLQ %XW RWKHUZLVH KH ZDV RND\ 2XW FROG 6SKHUH &ULFKWRQ S

PAGE 119

7KH ILUVW H[FHUSW KHUHDIWHU f'LVFRXUVH &RPPXQLWLHV WH[Wf GHILQHV GLVFRXUVH FRPPXQLWLHV DQG LV LQ HIIHFW D VHULHV RI SURSRVLWLRQV OHDGLQJ IURP WKH TXHVWLRQ f:KDW DUH GLVFRXUVH FRPPXQLWLHV" WR WKH DQVZHU WKDW WKH\ DUH fWKH V\VWHPV RI PHDQLQJV ZKLFK ZLOO EH WKH FHQWHU RI KRZ LQGLYLGXDOV LQWHUDFW ZLWK RWKHUV DQG WKH ZRUOG 7KH fPDLQ LGHD RI WKH SDUDJUDSK LV UHDOL]HG WKURXJK WKHVH WZR VWDWHPHQWV DQG PD\ EH H[SUHVVHG DV f'LVFRXUVH FRPPXQLWLHV DUH WKH V\VWHPV RI PHDQLQJV ZKLFK DUH DW WKH FHQWHU RI KRZ LQGLYLGXDOV LQWHUDFW ZLWK RWKHUV DQG WKH ZRUOGf 7KH PDWHULDO EHWZHHQ WKH ILUVW DQG ODVW OLQHV LV PHUHO\ H[HPSOLILFDWLRQ RU H[SODQDWLRQ RI WKLV WKHPH 2QH RI WKH KDOOPDUNV RI H[SRVLWRU\ WKHPH LV LWV LPSOLFDWLRQDO QDWXUH 0RUH RIWHQ WKDQ QRW LW LV FRPPXQLFDWHG DERXW ZLWKRXW EHLQJ H[SOLFLWO\ PHQWLRQHG VHQWHQFH WR VHQWHQFH 7KH UHDGHU LV H[SHFWHG WR LQIHU WKH FRQQHFWLRQV IURP VWDWHPHQW WR VWDWHPHQW DV VLJQDOHG E\ VXUIDFH VWUXFWXUH 7KHVH VWUXFWXUHV ZLOO EH GLVFXVVHG EHORZ LQ YDULRXV VHFWLRQV LQFOXGLQJ fSUHGLFDWH W\SHf DQG fWUDQVLWLYLW\ DQG H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W f 0RVW UHOHYDQW KHUH LV WKH UHFRJQLWLRQ WKDW WKH WKHPH RI WKLV H[FHUSW LV WKH GHILQLWLRQ RI GLVFRXUVH FRPPXQLWLHVLQ RWKHU ZRUGV D SURSRVLWLRQ DERXW WKH VWDWH RI DIIDLUV EHLQJ DVVHUWHG E\ WKH DXWKRUV WR EH WKH DEVWUDFW HQWLW\ GLVFRXUVH FRPPXQLW\ 7KH VHFRQG H[FHUSW KHUHDIWHU WKH 6SKHUH WH[Wf LV TXLWH REYLRXVO\ DERXW LQGLYLGXDOV DQG WKH DFWLRQV WKH\ DUH HQJDJLQJ LQ DQG EHLQJ DIIHFWHG E\ 7KLV LV PRVW FOHDUO\ VLJQDOHG E\ UHSHDW UHIHUHQFH WR VSHFLILF SDUWLFLSDQWV DQG WKHLU DFWLRQV 1DPHV DUH XVHG IUHTXHQWO\ DORQJ ZLWK SURQRPLQDO UHIHUHQFH WR WKHVH SDUWLFLSDQWV /LQNDRH 7KH VXUIDFH VWUXFWXUH RI OLQNLQJ HOHPHQWV LV LQWLPDWHO\ UHODWHG WR WKH WRSLF RULHQWDWLRQ RI WKH WH[W SDUWLFLSDQW RU WKHPHf 7KH GLVFXVVLRQ RI OLQNDJH LQYROYHV WKUHH SDUDPHWHUV SUHGLFDWH W\SH SUDJPDWLF FRKHUHQFH DQG FRQWLQXDWLRQ DQG WUDQVLWLRQ VSDQV 3UHGLFDWH 7YRH ,Q QDUUDWLYH SDUWLFLSDQWV DUH OLQNHG WRJHWKHU LQ VHULHV RI FRQWLQJHQW (9(176 WKURXJK WLPH KHQFH WKH SULPDF\ JLYHQ WR WKH WUDQVLWLYLW\ V\VWHP LQ QDUUDWLYH GLVFRXUVHf ,Q H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W WKHPHV ZKLFK DUH SURSRVLWLRQV DUH OLQNHG WKURXJK SUHGLFDWLRQV DERXW 6,78$7,216 $1' 67$7(6 fHDFK VXUIDFH VWUXFWXUH W\SH KDV FKDUDFWHULVWLF WHQVHDVSHFWYRLFH IHDWXUHV LQ WKH YHUEV WKDW RFFXU RQ LWV PDLQ OLQH([SRVLWRU\ GLVFRXUVH LV JHQHUDOO\ TXLWH GLVWLQFW LQ LWV SUHIHUHQFH

PAGE 120

IRU H[LVWHQWLDO DQG HTXDWLRQDO FODXVHVRIWHQ ZLWK FRQVLGHUDEOH QRPLQDOO]DWORQ /RQJDFUH f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fPHQWDO VSDFH UDWKHU WKDQ D VHULHV RI HYHQWV OLQNHG WKURXJK WLPH ,Q WKH 'LVFRXUVH &RPPXQLWLHV WH[W WKHUH LV DQ DEXQGDQFH RI DVVHUWLRQV LQYROYLQJ VLWXDWLRQV RU VWDWHV 7KH RSHQLQJ TXHVWLRQ SUHVXSSRVHV D VWDWH IRU LWV DQVZHU f,W ,V ,V XVXDOO\ WKH DQVZHU WR :KDW LV 7KH PDWHULDO ,Q EHWZHHQ SURSRVHV VHYHUDO VHWV RI K\SRWKHWLFDO VLWXDWLRQV ,Q UHODWLRQVKLS WR WKH VWDWHPHQW fLI \RX DQG D IULHQG KDYH RQH RU PRUH GLVFRXUVH FRPPXQLWLHV LQ FRPPRQ >WKHQ@f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nV KDQG 7KH\ ZHUH GULSSLQJ DQ DQDHVWKHWLF PL[WXUH LQWR KLP 7KH DFWLRQ LV OLQHDU LQ QDWXUH ZLWK RQO\ WZR RIIWLPHOLQH HYHQWV EORRG KDG VWRSSHG IORZLQJ %HWK KDG VWDUWHG WKH LQWUDYHQRXV GULSf QHLWKHU RI ZKLFK VHULRXVO\ fLQWHUUXSWV WKH WLPHOLQH (DFK DFWLRQ OHDGV WR WKH QH[W ,Q D VPRRWK IORZ IURP WKH VWDWH SURSRVHG DW WKH EHJLQQLQJ RI WKH SDUDJUDSK KH VHHPHG WR EH EUHDWKLQJ PRUH UHJXODUO\ PRUH HDVLO\f WR WKH HQGLQJ VWDWH DW LWV FORVH %XW RWKHUZLVH KH ZDV RND\ 2XW FROGf 7KH UHDGHU ,V PRYHG IRUZDUG LQ WLPH DV ,V FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI QDUUDWLYH WH[W

PAGE 121

3UDJPDWLF &RKHUHQFH $ OLWWOH PHQWLRQHG FRQWUDVW EHWZHHQ QDUUDWLYH DQG H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W LV WKDW RI DXGLHQFH HQJDJHPHQWf P\ RZQ WHUPf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fVXVSHQVLRQ RI GLVEHOLHIf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fVSHDN WR WKH UHDGHU DQG WKH XVH RI FRPPDQGV TXHVWLRQV DQG SHUIRUPDWLYHV LV QRW DW DOO XQXVXDO $JDLQ WKH DERYH H[FHUSWV ERWK GHPRQVWUDWH WKLV SRLQW 7KH 'LVFRXUVH &RPPXQLWLHV WH[W EHJLQV ZLWK D TXHVWLRQ ZKLFK WKH ZULWHUV DUH VXSSRVHG WR DQVZHU 7KH TXHVWLRQ JHWV WKH UHDGHUfV DWWHQWLRQ VLQFH WKLV LV WKH PDLQ WKHPH RI WKH HQWLUH ERRN $ YHU\ FDUHIXO WUDLO RI H[DPSOHV LV ODLG RXW WR GHPRQVWUDWH WKH YDOLGLW\ RI WKH GHILQLWLRQ EHIRUH LW LV HYHQ JLYHQ ,Q WKH 6SKHUH WH[W WKRXJK OHDSV LQ ORJLF DUH PDGH IURP DFWLRQ WR DFWLRQ ZLWK YLUWXDOO\ QR H[SODQDWLRQ JLYHQ :K\ GRHV 1RUPDQ QHHG WR ORRN DW +DUU\nV VZROOHQ IDFH" ,V WKLV WKH UHDVRQ IRU WKH DGMXVWPHQW WR WKH LQWUDYHQRXV GULS" +RZ FDQ RQH NQRZ WR PDNH VXFK DQ DGMXVWPHQW EDVHG RQ ORRNLQJ DW VRPHRQHfV IDFH" :K\ GLG %HWK IDLO VR PDQ\ WLPHV WR JHW WKH ,9 VWDUWHG" :K\ GRHV +DUU\fV EUHDWK VPHOO VRXU OLNH WLQ DQG ZKDW LPSDFW GRHV WKLV KDYH RQ WKH ORJLF RI WKH HYHQWV" ,V WKH EDG EUHDWK UHDOO\ PHDQW WR EH WKH FRXQWHUSRLQW WR fRWKHUZLVH KH ZDV RND\f" :KLOH WKHVH TXHVWLRQ

PAGE 122

PLJKW EH YDOLG LI GRLQJ D FULWLFDO DQDO\VLV RI WKH ZRUN WKH\ DUH VLPSO\ QRW SDUW RI WKH UHDGHUnV DSSURDFK WR WKH WH[W :H DUH QRW WR DVN DERXW WKH FRQQHFWLRQV EHWZHHQ HYHQWV VHQWHQFH WR VHQWHQFH EXW WR DFFHSW WKHP DV JLYHQ E\ WKH DXWKRU DV SDUW RI WKH H[SHULHQFH RI WKH VWRU\ &RQWLQXDWLRQ DQG 7UDQVLWLRQ 6SDQV ,W ZDV PHQWLRQHG DERYH WKDW D EDVLF DVVXPSWLRQ XQGHUO\LQJ GLVFRXUVH VWXG\ ,V WKH QRWLRQ RI WKH WH[W DV D VHOIFRQWDLQHG XQLW $V *RXWVRV SRLQWV RXW WKLV LV SDUWLFXODUO\ WKH FDVH IRU SULQWHG PDWHULDO f7KH W\SRJUDSKLF OD\RXW RI WKH SDJH ZLWK WKH WLWOH DW WKH WRS WKH MXVWLILFDWLRQ RI OLQHV WKH LQGLFDWLRQ RI WKH HQGLQJ DQG VR RQ FUHDWH D QXPEHU RI H[SHFWDWLRQV LQ WKH UHDGHU 7KHVH H[SHFWDWLRQV FRQIHU XQLW\ WR WKH WH[W SULRU WR DQG LQGHSHQGHQW RI DQ\ OLQJXLVWLF VLJQDOV RI FRQWLQXLW\ f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f DQG FRQMXQFWLRQV LQGLFDWLQJ GLVFRQWLQXLW\f :KLOH WKH HQWLUHW\ RI *RXWVRVf H[FHOOHQW PRGHO RI VHTXHQWLDO UHODWLRQV LQ H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W H[FHHGV WKH QHHGV RI WKLV FKDSWHU KLV QRWLRQV RI fFRQWLQXDWLRQ VSDQ DQG fWUDQVLWLRQ VSDQf DUH FULWLFDO *RXWVRV GHILQHV FRQWLQXDWLRQ DQG WUDQVLWLRQ VSDQV DV fDUHDV RI ORFDO FRQWLQXLW\ RU VWDELOLW\ LQWHUUXSWHG E\ DUHDV RI VZLIW RU DEUXSW UXSWXUHV WKDW LQWURGXFH WXUEXOHQFH RU LQVWDELOLW\ LQWR WKH WH[W7KHLU VXFFHVVLRQ SURGXFHV UK\WKP RU SHULRGLFLW\ LQ WKH ZULWLQJ ZKLFK LV VLPLODU DOWKRXJK QRW LGHQWLFDOf WR WKH JUDSKLFDOO\ PDQLIHVW VXFFHVVLRQ RI SDUDJUDSKVf f ,Q WKH 'LVFRXUVH &RPPXQLWLHV WH[W WZR WUDQVLWLRQ GHYLFHV DUH HPSOR\HG DQG RQH FRQWLQXLW\ GHYLFH 7KH ILUVW W\SH RI WUDQVLWLRQ GHYLFH LV WKH UKHWRULFDO TXHVWLRQ 7KH VHFRQG LV WKH DGYHUWDLV )RU H[DPSOH ,Q JHQHUDO WHUPV 0RUH VSHFLILFDOO\ 0RUHRYHU ,Q JUHDW PHDVXUH WKHQ 7KH SULPDU\ FRQWLQXDWLRQ GHYLFH LV WKH SDUDOOHO VHQWHQFH VWUXFWXUH DQG FRQWHQW XVHG WKURXJKRXW WKH SDUDJUDSK

PAGE 123

,Q WKH 6SKHUH WH[W WHQVHDVSHFW DQG WUDQVLWLYLW\ DUH WKH WUDQVLWLRQ GHYLFHV 7HQVHDVSHFW DV PHQWLRQHG LQ WKH DERYH VHFWLRQ VLJQDOV LQIRUPDWLRQ RII DQG RQ WKH WLPH OLQH 7KH LQWUDQVLWLYH VWDWHV RI WKH ILUVW DQG ODVW VHQWHQFHV VLJQDO WKH EHJLQQLQJ DQG HQG RI WKH SDUDJUDSK 7KH HQWLUH LQYHQWRU\ RI FRQWLQXDWLRQ DQG WUDQVLWLRQ GHYLFHV LV WRR H[WHQVLYH WR JR LQWR KHUH 5DWKHU DV ZLOO EH GHPRQVWUDWHG EHORZ ZKHUH WUDQVLWLYLW\ LV D FRQWLQXDWLRQ GHYLFH LQ QDUUDWLYH VWUXFWXUH LW VHUYHV TXLWH WKH RSSRVLWH IXQFWLRQ LQ H[SRVLWRU\ GLVFRXUVH 6LPLODULWLHV 7KHUH DUH WZR SULQFLSOH VLPLODULWLHV EHWZHHQ QDUUDWLYH DQG H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W OLQHDU SURJUHVVLRQ DQG LOORFXWLRQDU\ IRUFH 7KHVH DUH LQ IDFW VLPLODULWLHV DWWDLQLQJ DPRQJ DQ\ NLQGV RI WH[WV /LQHDU SURJUHVVLRQ HQFRPSDVVHV ERWK D QRWLRQDO VWUXFWXUH DQG VXUIDFH VWUXFWXUH 7KH VXUIDFH VWUXFWXUH FRQWLQXDWLRQ VSDQV DQG WUDQVLWLRQ VSDQV DUH GLVFXVVHG DERYH 7KH QRWLRQDO VWUXFWXUH RI H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W ZLOO EH GLVFXVVHG EHORZ ,OORFXWLRQDU\ IRUFH DOVR KDV QRWLRQDO DQG VWUXFWXUDO VLGHV 7KH QRWLRQDO VLGH LV WKH FRQFHSW f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fFOXHV DUH VXUIDFH VWUXFWXUH IHDWXUHV VXFK DV WHQVHDVSHFW FRQILJXUDWLRQV DGYHUEV DQG VXERUGLQDWLRQ 7KHVH VWUXFWXUHV RUJDQL]H WKH UHDGLQJ H[SHULHQFH WKURXJK WLPH LQ WKH IRUP RI VHTXHQWLDO VWUDWHJLHV DQG LQ VSDFH LQ WHUPV RI SULRULWL]LQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ 7KLV DSSURDFK LV PRUH IDPLOLDU WR OLQJXLVWLFV DQG LV UHVSRQVLEOH IRU VXFK QDUUDWLYH FRQFHSWV DV fRII DQG fRQf WKH WLPH OLQH 7KH VHFRQG DSSURDFK LV QRWLRQDO LQ QDWXUH DQG VHHNV WR H[SODLQ LQ PRUH GHSWK WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ UHODWLRQVKLSV LQ WH[W :KLOH FRPPRQO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK DSSOLHG DQDO\VHV ,Q FRPSRVLWLRQ VXFK DQ DSSURDFK LV EHFRPLQJ PRUH LPSRUWDQW WR OLQJXLVWLFV DV ZHOO ,W LV EHFRPLQJ

PAGE 124

LQFUHDVLQJO\ FOHDU WKDW LQ RUGHU WR DFFRXQW IRU VWDWHV RI NQRZOHGJH DV WKH\ DUH QHJRWLDWHG LQ GLVFRXUVH DQG VLJQDOHG E\ YDULRXV VWUXFWXUDO FXHV OLQJXLVWLFV ZLOO QHHG WR GHYHORS PRUH VRSKLVWLFDWHG DFFRXQWV RI WKH QRWLRQDO VWUXFWXUH RI WH[WV 7KLV LV UHTXLUHG ERWK RQ WKH PDFUROHYHO HQFRPSDVVLQJ FRQFHSWV OLNH fVFULSW 6FKDQN -RQHV /RQJDFUH
PAGE 125

,OORFXWLRQDU\ IRUFH $QRWKHU VLPLODULW\ EHWZHHQ QDUUDWLYH DQG H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W LV QRW ZLGHO\ GLVFXVVHG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH WKRXJK ERWK -RQHV DQG /RQJDFUH PDNH H[WHQVLYH UHIHUHQFH WR WKH ,GHD 7KLV ,V WKH VSHHFK DFW UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ ZULWHU DQG UHDGHU )RU -RQHV WKHVH UHODWLRQVKLSV FRQVWLWXWH WKH KLJKHVW OHYHO RI OLQJXLVWLF VWUXFWXUH FDOOHG SHUIRUPDWLYH LQWHUDFWLRQ D WDJPHPLF QRWLRQf ,Q D KLHUDUFKLFDO PRGHO RI WH[W )RU /RQJDFUH VSHHFK DFW HOHPHQWV FUHDWH PRUH RI DQ fRXWHU OD\HU RI VWUXFWXUH ZKLFK QRW RQO\ RUJDQL]HV WH[W LQ D WRSGRZQ PDQQHU EXW SHUPHDWHV GLVFRXUVH GRZQ WR WKH OHYHO RI HDFK DQG HYHU\ VHQWHQFH $JDLQ ZKLOH WKLV VWXG\ GRHV QRW VXEVFULEH WR WKH ZKROH RI HLWKHU PRGHO WKH EDVLF FRQFHSW LV ,PSRUWDQW (VVHQWLDOO\ WKHUH LV D WULDQJOH RI UHODWLRQVKLS LQ DQ\ GLVFRXUVH VSHDNHUZULWHU KHDUHU UHDGHU DQG WH[W 7KHVH WKUHH HOHPHQWV IRUP WKH EDVLV RI WKH VSHHFK DFWV LQ DQ\ GLVFRXUVH 3XW PRVW VLPSO\ LW LV P\ FRQWHQWLRQ WKDWf LOORFXWLRQDU\ IRUFH DV VLJQDOHG LQ D WH[W LV D fPHDVXUH RI LQWHUDFWLRQDO GLVWDQFH EHWZHHQ WKH VSHDNHUZULWHU DQG KHDUHUUHDGHU KHUHDIWHU ZLOO XVH WKH ODWWHU SDLU VLQFH WKLV SURMHFW LV FRQFHUQHG SULPDULO\ ZLWK ZULWWHQ WH[Wf ,Q QDUUDWLYH WKH GLVWDQFH EHWZHHQ WKH ZULWHU DQG UHDGHU LV JUHDWHU 7KLV LV FRPPRQO\ NQRZQ DV fVXVSHQVLRQ RI GLVEHOLHIf DV PHQWLRQHG DERYH 7KH UHDGHU RI D QDUUDWLYH LV VXSSRVHG WR EH HQJDJHG ZLWK WKH WH[W LWVHOI DV JLYHQ QRW ZLWK WKH ZULWHU /RQJDFUH SRLQWV RXW DV PXFK LQ KLV GLVFXVVLRQ RI WKH SUHVHQFH RI WKH FRPSRVHU LQ GLVFRXUVH f ,W LV XQXVXDO IRU WKH ZULWHU RI D QDUUDWLYH WR DGGUHVV WKH UHDGHU GLUHFWO\ 7KLV FHUWDLQO\ KDSSHQV DV LW GRHV DW WKH HQG RI WKH f+REELWf VHOHFWLRQ f$QG WKDW ZDV WKH HQG RI 6PDXJ DQG (VJDURWK EXW QRW RI %DUGff EXW LW LV RXWVLGH WKH QRUP 3OHDVH QRWH WKDW WKLV LV D VHSDUDWH SKHQRPHQRQ IURP WKDW RI ILUVW RU WKLUG SHUVRQ QDUUDWLRQ )RU WKH FKDUDFWHU LQ D ILUVW SHUVRQ QDUUDWLRQ WR DGGUHVVf WKH UHDGHU LV D PDWWHU HQWLUHO\ GLIIHUHQW WKDQ IRU WKH ZULWHU WR DGGUHVV WKH UHDGHU 7KH PRYLH )HUULV %XHKOHUfV 'D\ 2II SURYLGHV D JRRG H[DPSOH VLQFH D PRYLH LV D YLVXDO QDUUDWLYH WKH FRPSDULVRQ LV ZRUNDEOHf ,Q WKLV PRYLH WKH PDLQ FKDUDFWHU )HUULV %XHKOHU QDUUDWHV WKH HQWLUH VWRU\ $W YDULRXV PRPHQWV WKURXJKRXW WKH VWRU\ WKRXJK KH fEUHDNVf ZLWK WUDGLWLRQ DQG ORRNV GLUHFWO\ DW WKH FDPHUD WR VSHDN WR WKH DXGLHQFH $W VHYHUDO SRLQWV KH HYHQ KROGV PLQLFRQYHUVDWLRQV DVNLQJ WKH YLHZHUV TXHVWLRQV WKHQ DFWLQJ DV WKURXJK KH KDG UHFHLYHG DQ DQVZHU ,W LV DQ HIIHFWLYH VWUDWHJ\ EXW PXVW EH GRQH ZLWK FDXWLRQ 6XFK DQ

PAGE 126

LQWUXVLRQ GLUHFWO\ FKDOOHQJHV WKH UHDGHUfV H[SHFWHG SULPDU\ UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK WKH WH[W UDWKHU WKDQ ZLWK WKH ZULWHU ,Q H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W WKH UHDGHU LV VLPXOWDQHRXVO\ LQYROYHG ZLWK ERWK WKH WH[W DQG WKH ZULWHU &RQWUDU\ WR QDUUDWLYH WH[W WKH UHDGHU SUDFWLFHV HQJDJHPHQW RI GLVEHOLHIf 7KH LGHDO UHDGHU LV VXSSRVHG WR EH DZDUH QRW RQO\ RI ZKDW LV EHLQJ VDLG EXW KRZ LW LV EHLQJ VDLG DQG ZKR LV VD\LQJ LW 7KLV LV FOHDUO\ VLJQDOHG LQ H[SRVLWRU\ GLVFRXUVH ZLWK WKH IUHTXHQW XVH RI LQIRUPDWLRQGLUHFWLQJ GHYLFHV DLPHG DW WKH UHDGHU PRVW RIWHQ LQ WKH IRUP RI TXHVWLRQV DQG FRPPDQGV )RU H[DPSOH LW LV QRW XQXVXDO WR HQFRXQWHU UKHWRULFDO TXHVWLRQV LQ H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W /RQJDFUH SODFHV VXFK TXHVWLRQ LQWR WKH FDWHJRU\ GUDPDfVXUIDFH VWUXFWXUHV WKDW FDQ EH XVHG LQ PDQ\ QRWLRQDO W\SHV DQG VLPSO\ VHUYH WKH SXUSRVH RI JHWWLQJ WKH UHDGHUfV DWWHQWLRQ f +RZHYHU UKHWRULFDO TXHVWLRQV DOVR SURYLGH LPSRUWDQW FXHV DERXW WKHPDWLF LQIRUPDWLRQ 4XHVWLRQV DUH DOVR XVHG QRQ UKHWRULFDOO\ RIWHQ WLPHV LQ FRQFOXGLQJ VHFWLRQV $Q DXWKRU PD\ FRQFOXGH D VHFWLRQ RU D SXEOLFDWLRQ ZLWK D VHULHV RI TXHVWLRQV VXJJHVWLQJ DUHDV RI IXWXUH UHVHDUFK WKHUHE\ H[RQHUDWLQJ WKH DXWKRU IURP GRLQJ VRf RU VLPSO\ SURYRNLQJ JUHDWHU WKRXJKW RQ WKH VXEMHFW ,Q HLWKHU FDVH ERWK DVVXPH D UHDGHU VXIILFLHQWO\ HQJDJHG WR EH FRPPXQLFDWHG ZLWK GLUHFWO\ $FDGHPLF HVVD\V DUH DOVR ULIH ZLWK fSROLWH FRPPDQGVf ZKLFK VHUYH PXFK WKH VDPH IXQFWLRQ DV UKHWRULFDO TXHVWLRQV WKH\ HOLFLW UHDGHU DWWHQWLRQ E\ VWURQJO\ GLUHFWLQJ LW WRZDUGV SRWHQWLDO WKHPDWLF FKDQJHV )RU H[DPSOH LQ 6FKLIIULQ f RXW RI SDUDJUDSKV EHJLQ ZLWK HLWKHU D TXHVWLRQ RU FRPPDQG 2I WKH UHPDLQLQJ SDUDJUDSKV PDQ\ EHJLQ ZLWK WKH LQFOXVLYH fZH DJDLQ GHPRQVWUDWLQJ WKH ZULWHUnV LQFOXVLRQ RI WKH UHDGHU LQWR WKH VSHHFK FRPPXQLW\ ([DPSOHV DUH JLYHQ EHORZ 5HWXUQ QRZ WR FRQVLGHU WKH HYDOXDWLRQ RI QDUUDWLYHV Sf 1RWH QH[W WKDW WKH SURJUHVVLYH LV DOVR DQ LQWHUQDO HYDOXDWLRQ GHYLFH Sf &RQVLGHU DOVR KRZ WKH FRQWHQW RI D GLUHFW TXRWH FDQ SURYLGH DQ LQWHUQDO HYDOXDWLRQ IRU WKH QDUUDWLYH Sf :K\ VKRXOG WHPSRUDO FRQMXQFWLRQV IDYRU WHQVHVZLWFKLQJ" Sf +RZ FDQ ZH H[SODLQ WKHQ WKH FRQVWUDLQW DJDLQVW WHQVHVZLWFKLQJ LQ YHUEDO FRQMXQFWV" Sf :KHQ ZH H[DPLQH ZKHUH WKH +3 RFFXUV ZH VHH /HW XV ILUVW H[DPLQH DFWLRQ YHUEV Sf +RZ VKRXOG WKHVH XWWHUDQFHV WR EH WUHDWHG ZLWK UHVSHFW WR WKH UHVW RI WKH HVVD\" 7KH SUREOHP LV VLPLODU WR WKH RQH IRU GLUHFW VSHHFK LQ QDUUDWLYH *LYHQ *RXWVRVf EDVLF GLYLVLRQ RI

PAGE 127

VHTXHQWLDO VWUDWHJLHV LQWR FRQWLQXDWLRQ VSDQV DQG WUDQVLWLRQ VSDQV HYHQ D FXUVRU\ ORRN WKURXJK H[SRVLWRU\ WH[WV UHYHDOV WKDW WKHVH VSHHFK DFWV RFFXU RYHUZKHOPLQJO\ LQ WUDQVLWLRQ VSDQV ,Q IDFW OLNH WHOLF WUDQVLWLYHV WKH\ DSSHDU WR IRUP SDUW RI WKH OLVW RI WUDQVLWLRQ GHYLFHV DYDLODEOH WR ZULWHUV IRU WKH SXUSRVH RI JXLGLQJ UHDGHUV WKURXJK WKH FRPSOH[ QHWZRUNV RI LQIRUPDWLRQ FRQQHFWHG WKURXJKRXW H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W ,Q VXPPDU\ WKH OLQJXLVWLF FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W LQFOXGH SUHIHUHQFH IRU DQG H[WHQVLYH XVH RI VLWXDWLRQV DQG VWDWHV 7KHVH IRUP QHWZRUNV RI SURSRVLWLRQV DERXW D VLQJOH WKHPH WKH FRQQHFWLRQ RI ZKLFK IRUPV WKH PDLQ DUJXPHQW OLQH RI WKH WH[W ,Q WHUPV RI LOORFXWLRQDU\ IRUFH WKH UHDGHU LV FULWLFDO DQG HQJDJHG UHVXOWLQJ LQ D SUROLIHUDWLRQ RI VSHHFK DFW IRUPV LQWHQGHG IRU WKH UHDGHU 6\QWDFWLFDOO\ H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W LV PDUNHG E\ KHDY\ XVH RI QRPLQDOL]DWLRQ DQG HPSOR\V SUHGLFDWHV LQ WKH SUHVHQW WHQVH :KDW UHPDLQV WR EH DVFHUWDLQHG LV ZKLFK OLQJXLVWLF IRUP SURYLGHV WKH NLQG RI LQIRUPDWLRQ VWUXFWXULQJ LQ H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W WKDW WUDQVLWLYLW\ SURYLGHV LQ QDUUDWLYH 7RSLF&RPPHQW 6WUXFWXULQJ LQ ([SRVLWRU\ 7H[W 5HFDOO WKDW LQ QDUUDWLYH WUDQVLWLYLW\ KDV D VWUXFWXULQJ IXQFWLRQ LQ WHUPV RI LQIRUPDWLRQ SDFNDJLQJ LW RSHQV XS RU FORVHV GRZQ WKH UDQJH RI SRWHQWLDO VHQWHQWLDO WRSLFV 6HPDQWLFDOO\ WUDQVLWLYLW\ SURYLGHG D UDQJH RI RSWLRQV IRU H[SUHVVLQJ SHUVSHFWLYH RQ D VFHQH DQG GRHV VR DV D IXQFWLRQ RI OLQJXLVWLFDOO\ FRQVWUXHG GLVWDQFH SHUVSHFWLYDO GLVWDQFHf +HQFH WUDQVLWLYLW\ KDV LQIOXHQFH LQ WKUHH GRPDLQVWKH VHPDQWLF V\QWDFWLF DQG GLVFRXUVHSUDJPDWLF ,Q H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W fWRSLFFRPPHQWf UHODWLRQVKLSV KDYH DQ DQDORJRXV IXQFWLRQ 1RWLRQDOO\ VSHDNLQJ WRSLFFRPPHQW VWUXFWXULQJ KHUHDIWHU 7& VWUXFWXULQJf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

PAGE 128

IRU JUHDWHU GLVFXVVLRQf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fDGYHUELDO H[SUHVVLRQV HQFRPSDVVHV QRW RQO\ VSDWLDO DQG WHPSRUDO DGYHUEV EXW DOVR FRQMXQFWLRQV 7KHVH DUH DOO OLQJXLVWLF GHYLFHV ZKR IXQFWLRQ LV WR UHODWH VXEVHTXHQW LQIRUPDWLRQ ZLWK ZKDW KDV FRPH EHIRUH ,Q WHUPV RI 7& VWUXFWXULQJ DGYHUELDOV FDQ VLJQDO HLWKHU FRQWLQXLW\ RU GLVFRQWLQXLW\ LQ VHQWHQWLDO WRSLF +RZHYHU DV ZLOO EH GHPRQVWUDWHG EHORZ DGYHUELDOV DUH SULPDULO\ UHVSRQVLEOH IRU LQIRUPDWLRQ VWUXFWXULQJ ZLWKLQ D ODUJHU FRQWLQXDWLRQ VSDQ DQG WKXV VHUYH WR FRRUGLQDWH LQIRUPDWLRQ UHODWLRQVKLSV ZLWKLQ WKH H[WHQGHG FRPPHQW RI D PDFURn WRSLF ,Q WKLV ZD\ WKH\ EHKDYH PRUH DV QRQWHOLFWUDQVLWLYHV GR LQ QDUUDWLYH WH[W $GYHUELDO H[SUHVVLRQV VLJQDO WKDW WKH FXUUHQW WRSLF HYHQ LI D VZLWFK IURP WKH SUHYLRXV FODXVH QHYHUWKHOHVV LV SDUW RI D ODUJHU WKHPDWLF QHWZRUN

PAGE 129

7KH IROORZLQJ H[FHUSW IURP *HRUJLD *UHHQ H[HPSOLI\ WKLV XVH SDUWLFXODUO\ ZHOO 7KH H[FHUSW ZDV WDNHQ DW UDQGRP IURP WKH ERRN 3UDJPDWLFV DQG 1DWXUDO /DQJXDJH 8QGHUVWDQGLQJ *UHHQ f )ROORZLQJ WKH H[FHUSW D ,OQHE\OOQH DQDO\VLV H[DPLQLQJ WKH UROH RI DGYHUELDOV H[SUHVVLRQ ZLOO FRPPHQFH 6SHHFK $FWV DQG ,OORFXWLRQDU\ )RUFH :KHQ -DPHV VD\V f:HnUH DGRSWHGn LQ WKH SDVVDJH TXRWHG DERYH KH SHUIRUPV VLPXOWDQHRXVO\ D QXPEHU RI GLIIHUHQW NLQGV RI 63((&+ $&76 DOO RI WKHP LQWHQWLRQDO DQG JRDOGLUHFWHG DOWKRXJK WKH H[HFXWLRQ RI VHYHUDO ,V XQGRXEWHGO\ VXEFRQVFLRXVO\ FRQWUROOHG )LUVW KH SHUIRUPV ZKDW WKH (QJOLVK SKLORVRSKHU -/ $XVWLQ f FDOOHG D SKRQHWLF DFWSURGXFLQJ WKH DUWLFXODWLRQ RI WRQJXH MDZ GLDSKUDJP ODU\Q[ DQG VR RQ WKDW UHVXOWV LQ FRQQHFWHG VSHHFK VRXQGV 3UHVXPDEO\ WKH JRDO RI WKH SKRQHWLF DFW LV WR SURGXFH DQ DFRXVWLF REMHFW WKDW WKH DGGUHVVHH *UDPf ZLOO UHFRJQL]H DV VSHHFK VRXQGV DQG QRW H J DV LQYROXQWDU\ YRFDOL]DWLRQV VXFK DV EHOFKHV RU VQHH]HVf 6LPXOWDQHRXVO\ DQG E\ PHDQV RI WKH SKRQHWLF DFW -DPHV SHUIRUPV WKH DFW RI XWWHULQJ OLQJXLVWLF H[SUHVVLRQV SURGXFLQJ D VHULHV RI WRNHQV RI IRUPV DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH JUDPPDU RI D FHUWDLQ ODQJXDJH DQG ZLWK D FHUWDLQ LQWRQDWLRQ $XVWLQnV nSKDWLF DFWnf ZLWK WKH LQWHQWLRQ WKDW LW EH UHFRJQL]HG DV EHORQJLQJ WR WKDW ODQJXDJH $W WKH VDPH WLPH LQ RUGHU WKDW KLV XWWHUDQFH EH UHFRJQL]HG DV FRQQHFWHG GLVFRXUVH DERXW VRPH SURSRVLWLRQ -DPHV SHUIRUPV WKH DFWV RI UHIHUULQJ ZLWK ZHf DQG SUHGLFDWLQJ ZLWK UH DGRSWHGf LQWHQGLQJ WKH IRUPV KH XVHV WR EH WDNHQ DV UHIHUULQJ WR LQGLYLGXDOV DFWLRQV HYHQWV DQG VR IRUWK DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH FRQYHQWLRQV RI WKH ODQJXDJH DQG FXOWXUH RI WKH FRPPXQLW\ KH VKDUHV ZLWK WKH DGGUHVVHH $XVWLQnV nUKHWLF DFWnf 7KH f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f :KHQ -DPHVM VD\V f:HfUH DGRSWHGn LQ WKH SDVVDJH TXRWHG DERYH KH SHUIRUPV VLPXOWDQHRXVO\ D QXPEHU RI GLIIHUHQW NLQGV RI 63((&+ $&76c DOO RI WKHPc LQWHQWLRQDO DQG JRDOGLUHFWHG DOWKRXJK H[HFXWLRQ RI VHYHUDO LV XQGRXEWHGO\ VXEFRQVFLRXVO\ FRQWUROOHG $IWHU WKH LQWURGXFWLRQ RI WKH WKHPH YLD WKH WLWOH RI WKH SDVVDJH D GLIIHUHQW NLQG RI RUJDQL]DWLRQ EHJLQV ZKLFK ,V TXLWH GLVWLQFW IURP WKDW RI HYHQWGULYHQ GLVFRXUVH .QRZOHGJH RI WKH

PAGE 130

WRSLF LV VHFXUH IURP SURQRPLQDO XVH ,PPHGLDWHO\ WKH UHDGHU HQFRXQWHUV LQIRUPDWLRQ ZKLFK fH[SDQGV WKHLU NQRZOHGJH RI WKH WRSLF DOO RI WKHP LQWHQWLRQDO DQG JRDOGLUHFWHG DOWKRXJK H[HFXWLRQ RI VHYHUDO LV XQGRXEWHGO\ VXEFRQVFLRXVO\ FRQWUROOHG 7KH UHDGHU NQRZV WKHQ WKDW WKH WRSLF LV fVSHHFK DFWV DQG WKDW VSHHFK DFWV DUH FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ EHLQJ LQWHQWLRQDO JRDO GLUHFWHG EXW VXEFRQVFLRXVO\ FRQWUROOHG ,Q DQG RI LWVHOI WKLV LQIRUPDWLRQ LV QRW WKDW GLIIHUHQW IURP WKH NLQG RI LQIRUPDWLRQ RQH HQFRXQWHUV ZLWK D QHZO\ ,QWURGXFHG RU UHLQWURGXFHG WRSLF LQ QDUUDWLYH 7KH GUDJRQ VZRRSHG RQFH PRUH ORZHU WKDQ HYHU DQG DV KH WXUQHG DQG GLYHG GRZQ KLV EHOO\ JOLWWHUHG ZKLWH ZLWK JHPVEXW QRW LQ RQH SODFH 7KH +REELW 7RONLHQ ,Q WKLV SDVVDJH WKH GUDJRQ LV ERWK VXEMHFW DQG WRSLF UHLQWURGXFHG ZKLFK ,V ZK\ LW FDQ HDVLO\ EH ERWK VXEMHFW DQG WRSLFf ,WfV WKH GUDJRQfV DFWLYLWLHV DERXW ZKLFK WKH UHDGHU LV EHLQJ LQIRUPHG DQG WKH DXWKRU KDV HYHQ LQWURGXFHG D FRQIOLFWLYH FRQMXQFWLRQ PXFK DV LQ WKH fVSHHFK DFWV OLQH DERYH :KDW WKH UHDGHU NQRZV DERXW WKH GUDJRQ LV WKDW ,W LV VZRRSLQJ GLYLQJ DQG JOLWWHULQJ DOO RYHU H[FHSW ,Q RQH SODFH 7KH GLIIHUHQFH LQ WHUPV RI RUJDQL]DWLRQ RI LQIRUPDWLRQ ,V VXEWOH )RU WKH QDUUDWLYH SLHFH LW LV WKH DFWLYLWLHV RQ WKH QDUUDWLYH WLPHOLQH ZKLFK GULYH WKH WH[W IRUZDUG ,Q WKH H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W WKRXJK LW LV QRW DFWLYLWLHV ZKLFK RUJDQL]H EXW DGYHUELDOV TXDOLI\LQJ WKH WRSLF ,QWHQWLRQDO DQG fJRDOGLUHFWHG DUH QRW DFWLYLWLHV EXW TXDOLWLHV RI WKH WRSLF WKH UHDGHU LV WR DGG WR WKHLU FXUUHQW VWDWH RI NQRZOHGJH 6LPLODUO\ WKH UHDGHU LV WR IXUWKHU XQGHUVWDQG WKDW WKH DFWLYLW\ FRQWUROOLQJ WKLV OLQJXLVWLF EHKDYLRU QRPLQDOL]HG LQ fWKH H[HFXWLRQ RI VHYHUDOf ,V VXEFRQVFLRXVO\ FRQWUROOHG LQIRUPDWLRQ ZKLFK IXUWKHU TXDOLILHV WKH QDWXUH RI WKH TXDOLWLHV PHQWLRQHG DERYH 7KH UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ LV VLPLODUO\ VLJQDOHG )LUVW WKH VLPSOH XVH RI WKH FRPPD ZLWK QR LQWHUYHQLQJ VHPDQWLF ELW LQGLFDWHV D VLPSOH DGGLWLYH UHODWLRQVKLS ZKHUHDV WKH XVH RI fDOWKRXJKf DGGV D VHPDQWLF TXDOLW\ WR WKH QHZ LQIRUPDWLRQ 7KXV LQ WHUPV RI RYHUDOO RUJDQL]DWLRQ WKH QHZ LQIRUPDWLRQ GRHV QRW FUHDWH DQ\ NLQG RI OLQHDU SURJUHVVLRQ EXW UDWKHU D FRQVWHOODWLRQ RI LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW WKH WRSLF ff )LUVW KHM SHUIRUPV ZKDW WKH (QJOLVK SKLORVRSKHU -/ $XVWLQ f FDOOHG D SKRQHWLF DFWf§SURGXFLQJ WKH DUWLFXODWLRQ RI WRQJXH MDZ GLDSKUDJP ODU\Q[ DQG VR RQ WKDW

PAGE 131

UHVXOWV LQ FRQQHFWHG VSHHFK VRXQGV 3UHVXPDEO\ WKH JRDO RI WKH SKRQHWLF DFW LV WR SURGXFH DQ DFRXVWLF REMHFW WKDW WKH DGGUHVVHH *UDPf ZLOO UHFRJQL]H DV VSHHFK VRXQGV DQG QRW HJ DV LQYROXQWDU\ YRFDOL]DWLRQV VXFK DV EHOFKHV RU VQHH]HVf 7KH VHQWHQFH EHJLQV ZLWK ZKDW LV WUDGLWLRQDOO\ FRQVLGHUHG DQ DGYHUELDO FRQMXQFWLRQ 'HVFULSWLYHO\ WKHVH PDUNHUV PD\ EH FDOOHG fRULHQWDWLRQDO DGYHUEVf EHFDXVH WKDW LV WKHLU IXQFWLRQDO UROH LQ WKH WH[W WKH\ RULHQW WKH UHDGHU WR KRZ WKH VXEVHTXHQW LQIRUPDWLRQ VKRXOG EH XQGHUVWRRG YLV£YLV ZKDW KDV JRQH EHIRUH 6HPDQWLFDOO\ fILUVWf LV D ORJLFDO HQXPHUDWRU )XQFWLRQDOO\ LW LQGLFDWHV WKH VXEVHTXHQW LQIRUPDWLRQ VKRXOG EH XQGHUVWRRG ZLWK UHVSHFW WR WKH HVWDEOLVKHG WRSLF 7KXV KH SHUIRUPV GRHV QRW VZLWFK WKH WRSLF EDFN WR -DPHV EHFDXVH LW LV FRQWDLQHG ZLWKLQ WKH VFRSH RI WKH DGYHUELDOHYHU\WKLQJ ZLWKLQ WKLV FRPPXQLFDWLYH DFW LV LQWHQGHG WR EH XQGHUVWRRG DV PRUH LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW WKH WRSLF VSHHFK DFWV 1HYHUWKHOHVV LWfV TXLWH FOHDU WKDW WKLV VHQWHQFH DOVR LQWURGXFHV D QHZ SDUWLFLSDQW fSKRQHWLF DFW 7KH UHDGHU NQRZV WKLV IRU PXFK WKH VDPH UHDVRQV JLYHQ DERYH WKH QRPLQDO RFFXUV LQ WKH WUDGLWLRQDO VLWH RI QHZ LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG VXEVHTXHQW LQIRUPDWLRQ LQ WKLV VHQWHQFH DQG WKH IROORZLQJ H[SDQGV XSRQ WKDW QRPLQDO
PAGE 132

f 6LPXOWDQHRXVO\ DQG E\ PHDQV RI WKH SKRQHWLF DFW -DPHV SHUIRUPV WKH DFW RI XWWHULQJ OLQJXLVWLF H[SUHVVLRQV SURGXFLQJ D VHULHV RI WRNHQV RI IRUPV DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH JUDPPDU RI D FHUWDLQ ODQJXDJH DQG ZLWK D FHUWDLQ LQWRQDWLRQ $XVWLQfV fSKDWLF DFWff ZLWK WKH LQWHQWLRQ WKDW LW EH UHFRJQL]HG DV EHORQJLQJ WR WKDW ODQJXDJH f6LPXOWDQHRXVO\f DV DQ RULHQWDWLRQ DGYHUE GRHV QRW VXERUGLQDWH LWV LQIRUPDWLRQ WR WKH LPPHGLDWHO\ SUHFHGLQJ WKDW FRQWDLQHG E\ fILUVWff EXW FUHDWHV D QHZ VSDFH WR EH ILOOHG 7KH UHDGHU PXVW JR EDFN WR WKH ILUVW DQG PDLQ WRSLF DQG PHQWDOO\ DOLJQ WKLV LQIRUPDWLRQ VXERUGLQDWH WR WKH PDLQ EXW RQ HTXDO IRRWLQJ ZLWK WKH ILUVW VXEWRSLF )LUVW VLPXOWDQHRXVO\ SKRQHWLF XWWHULQJ OLQJ )LJXUH 7RSLF6XEWRSLFV 6SHFLILHG 7KH SKUDVH f DQG E\ PHDQV RI WKH SKRQHWLF DFWf FUHDWHV D OLQN WR VXEWRSLF LQ VXFK D ZD\ DV WR IXUWKHU RXU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI VXEWRSLG WR VXEWRSLF 7KHUH LV D UHODWLRQDO OLQN FUHDWHG EHWZHHQ WKHP WKDW LV LQGHSHQGHQW RI WKH OLQN WR WKH PDLQ WRSLF EXW IXUWKHU FUHDWHV FRQFHSWXDO FRKHUHQFH LQ WKH WH[W DV D ZKROH 7KH SKUDVH -DPHV SHUIRUPV WKH DFW RI XWWHULQJ OLQJXLVWLF H[SUHVVLRQV SURGXFLQJ D VHULHV RI WRNHQV RI IRUPV LV D UDWKHU FRPSOH[ JUDPPDWLFDO FRQVWUXFWLRQ %HUPDQ DQG 6ORELQ f SURYLGH HYLGHQFH WKDW WKLV SDUWLFXODU W\SH RI FKDLQLQJ LV DPRQJ WKH PRVW FRPSOH[ DFURVV ODQJXDJHV LW LV QHYHU XVHG E\ FKLOGUHQ UDUHO\ XVHG E\ WHHQV DQG LV QRW HYHQ WKDW IUHTXHQW LQ DGXOW GLVFRXUVH 7KH\ VKRZ WKDW WKLV NLQG RI (YHQW FRQIODWLRQ LV DQ H[SUHVVLRQ RI D PDFURHYHQW ZKLFK LQFOXGHV ERWK WKH ILUVW DQG VHFRQG YHUE DV FRQFHSWXDO HTXDOV EXW ZKLFK FDQQRW EH H[SUHVVHG DV VXFK GXH WR D JDS LQ WKH OH[LFRQ OLQHDU SURFHVVLQJ FRQVWUDLQWV HWF ,Q (QJOLVK LW LV H[SUHVVHG WKURXJK WKH f99LQJf FRQVWUXFWLRQ ZKLOH LQ RWKHU ODQJXDJHV LW LV H[SUHVVHG WKURXJK FRQYHUEV DQG RWKHU PRUSKRORJLFDO PDUNHUV &RQFHSWXDOO\ LQ WKLV VHQWHQFH LW ZRXOG QRW PDWWHU LI

PAGE 133

WKH YHUEV ZHUH VZLWFKHG QR VHPDQWLF GLIIHUHQFH ZRXOG DWWDLQ 7KH PRWLYDWLRQ IRU XVLQJ RQH SUHGLFDWLRQ YHUVXV WKH RWKHU LV D PDWWHU RI GLVFRXUVH FRKHUHQFHLW GHSHQGV ZKLFK SDUW RI WKH SUHGLFDWLRQ LV JLYHQ DQG ZKLFK LV QHZ WR WKH GLVFRXUVH 7KH SKUDVHV KHDGLQJ WKH IROORZLQJ H[SDQVLRQV DFFRUGLQJ WRDQG ZLWKZLWK WKH LQWHQWLRQ WKDW DOO H[SDQG XSRQ WKH QHZ VXEWRSLFWKH OLQJXLVWLF H[SUHVVLRQV DQG WKHLU TXDOLWLHV f $W WKH VDPH WLPH LQ RUGHU WKDW KLV XWWHUDQFH EH UHFRJQL]HG DV FRQQHFWHG GLVFRXUVH DERXW VRPH SURSRVLWLRQ -DPHV SHUIRUPV WKH DFWV RI UHIHUULQJ ZLWK WYHf DQG SUHGLFDWLQJ ZLWK fUH DGRSWHGf LQWHQGLQJ WKH IRUPV KH XVHV WR EH WDNHQ DV UHIHUULQJ WR LQGLYLGXDOV DFWLRQV HYHQWV DQG VR IRUWK DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH FRQYHQWLRQV RI WKH ODQJXDJH DQG FXOWXUH RI WKH FRPPXQLW\ KH VKDUHV ZLWK WKH DGGUHVVHH $XVWLQfV fUKHWLF DFWf f$W WKH VDPH WLPH FOHDUO\ RULHQWV WKH UHDGHU WR VXEWRSLF fUHIHUULQJ DQG SUHGLFDWLQJf 7KH SKUDVH fLQ RUGHU WKDW RYHUWO\ PHQWLRQV VXEWRSLF FUHDWLQJ DQRWKHU OLQN QHFHVVDU\ IRU FRKHUHQFH DQG DOVR VHWV XS WKH UHDGHU WR H[SHFW QHZ LQIRUPDWLRQ LQ WKH VXEVHTXHQW FODXVH f,QWHQGLQJ WKH IRUPVf DQG fDFFRUGLQJ WRf DUH DGGLWLRQDO H[SDQVLRQV XSRQ WKH QDWXUH DQG OLPLWV RI VXEWRSLF 7KH RYHUDOO VWUXFWXUH DWWDLQHG LQ WKH GLVFRXUVH FDQ EH VFKHPDWLFL]HG DV IROORZV :KDW LV SURGXFHG LV D fQHWZRUN RI LQIRUPDWLRQ SUHVHQWHG OLQHDUO\ EXW FUHDWLQJ D ILQDO LQIRUPDWLRQDO RU SURSRVLWLRQDOf VWUXFWXUH ZKLFK LV QRQOLQHDU ,W LV RUJDQL]HG QRW E\ FRQWLQJHQW VXFFHVVLRQ GHVSLWH WKH XVH RI WHOLF WUDQVLWLYHVf EXW WKURXJK ORJLFDO OLQNDJH DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH LPSRVLWLRQ RI SURSRVHG UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ WKH SUHGLFDWLRQV WKHPVHOYHV

PAGE 134

7KH 5ROH RI 7UDQVLWLYLW\ LQ ([SRVLWRU\ 'LVFRXUVH 7UDQVLWLRQ 6SDQV ,W KDV EHHQ HVWDEOLVKHG WKDW H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W LV FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ WKHPHV LQVWHDG RI SDUWLFLSDQWV DQG VLWXDWLRQVVWDWHV LQVWHDG RI HYHQWV :KDW UROH GRHV WUDQVLWLYLW\ SOD\ LQ D QRQn SDUWLFLSDQW QRQHYHQW GULYHQ GLVFRXUVH" 7ZR SULPDU\ IXQFWLRQV HPHUJH IRU WUDQVLWLYLW\ ERWK RI WKHP DFWLQJ ZLWKLQ WUDQVLWLRQ VSDQV 7KH ILUVW LV WKH RSHQLQJ XS RI D UDQJH RI SRWHQWLDO QHZ WRSLFV (IIHFWRU $IIHFWHG RU 3UHGLFDWLRQf 7KLV IXQFWLRQ LV VKDUHG E\ ERWK QDUUDWLYH DQG H[SRVLWRU\ DQG PD\ EH VDLG WR EH WKH FHQWUDO IXQFWLRQ RI WHOLF WUDQVLWLYLW\ 7KH VHFRQG LV WKH XVH RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ WR VLJQDO LQIRUPDWLRQ ZKLFK LV RII WKH PDLQ DUJXPHQW OLQH 7KLV RFFXUV LQ WZR NLQGV RI LQVWDQFHV )LUVW fPLFURWH[WVf PD\ PDNH XVH RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ $ PLFURWH[W LV DQ H[WHQGHG SLHFH RI WH[W ZLWK D QDUUDWLYHOLNH IHHO EXW ZKLFK ODFNV HVVHQWLDO QDUUDWLYH IHDWXUHV 6HFRQG WUDQVLWLYLW\ RFFXUV LQ fEULGJH VSDQVf 7KHVH DUH H[WHQGHG WUDQVLWLRQ VSDQV EULGJLQJ RQH SDUW RI WKH WH[W ZLWK DQRWKHU QRUPDOO\ LQWURGXFWRU\ DQG FRQFOXGLQJ SDVVDJHVf ZLWKLQ ZKLFK WKH DXWKRU OHDGV WKH UHDGHU WKURXJK D OLQH RI ORJLFDO UHDVRQLQJ XVLQJ WUDQVLWLYLW\ PHWDSKRULFDOO\ 7KH ILUVW IXQFWLRQ LV XVHG UHSHDWHGO\ LQ WKH f6SHHFK $FWVf WH[W 7KH VHFRQG ZLOO EH H[HPSOLILHG XVLQJ D /HZLV 7KRPDV HVVD\ DQG RWKHU DFDGHPLF H[FHUSWV 7UDQVLWLYLW\ DQG WRSLF VZLWFKLQJ 7KH f6SHHFK $FWV WH[W PDNHV H[HPSODU\ XVH RI WHOLF WUDQVLWLYLW\ WR LQWURGXFH QHZ VHQWHQWLDO WRSLFV :KHUH WKH DGYHUELDO H[SUHVVLRQV LQ WKHVH VHQWHQFHV UHODWH WKH SURSRVLWLRQV WR RQH DQRWKHU LQ D QRQOLQHDU PDQQHU WUDQVLWLYLW\ LV XVHG LQ WKH FODVVLF VHQVH RI PDQDJLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ VWUXFWXULQJ OLQHDUO\ IURP FODXVH WR FODXVH f :KHQ -DPHV VD\V f:HfUH DGRSWHGf LQ WKH SDVVDJH TXRWHG DERYH KH SHUIRUPV VLPXOWDQHRXVO\ D QXPEHU RI GLIIHUHQW NLQGV RI 63((&+ $&76 DOO RI WKHP LQWHQWLRQDO DQG JRDOGLUHFWHG DOWKRXJK WKH H[HFXWLRQ RI VHYHUDO LV XQGRXEWHGO\ VXEFRQVFLRXVO\ FRQWUROOHG f )LUVW KH SHUIRUPV ZKDW WKH (QJOLVK SKLORVRSKHU -/ $XVWLQ f FDOOHG D SKRQHWLF DFWSURGXFLQJ WKH DUWLFXODWLRQ RI WRQJXH MDZ GLDSKUDJP ODU\Q[ DQG VR RQ WKDW UHVXOWV LQ FRQQHFWHG VSHHFK VRXQGV f 6LPXOWDQHRXVO\ DQG E\ PHDQV RI WKH SKRQHWLF DFW -DPHV SHUIRUPV WKH DFW RI XWWHULQJ OLQJXLVWLF H[SUHVVLRQV SURGXFLQJ D VHULHV RI WRNHQV RI IRUPV DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH JUDPPDU RI D FHUWDLQ ODQJXDJH DQG ZLWK D FHUWDLQ LQWRQDWLRQ $XVWLQfV fSKDWLF DFWff ZLWK WKH LQWHQWLRQ WKDW LW EH UHFRJQL]HG DV EHORQJLQJ WR WKDW ODQJXDJH f $W WKH VDPH WLPH LQ RUGHU WKDW KLV XWWHUDQFH EH UHFRJQL]HG DV FRQQHFWHG GLVFRXUVH DERXW VRPH SURSRVLWLRQ -DPHV SHUIRUPV WKH DFWV RI UHIHUULQJ ZLWK ZHf DQG SUHGLFDWLQJ ZLWK fUH DGRSWHGf LQWHQGLQJ WKH IRUPV KH XVHV WR EH WDNHQ DV UHIHUULQJ WR LQGLYLGXDOV DFWLRQV HYHQWV DQG VR IRUWK DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH FRQYHQWLRQV RI WKH ODQJXDJH DQG FXOWXUH RI WKH FRPPXQLW\ KH VKDUHV ZLWK WKH DGGUHVVHH $XVWLQfV fUKHWLF DFWff

PAGE 135

7KH ILUVW RI WKH DERYH H[DPSOHV KH SHUIRUPVD QXPEHU RI GLIIHUHQW NLQGV RI 63((&+ $&76 LV QRW RQO\ D WHOLF WUDQVLWLYH EXW GLVFRXUVHSUDJPDWLFDOO\ LW LV D GHHS WUDQVLWLYH DV ZHOO 7KXV LI WKH VHQWHQFH ZHUH SDVVLYL]HG QR PHDQLQJIXO GLIIHUHQFH ZRXOG UHVXOW LQ WHUPV RI VXEVHTXHQW RUJDQL]DWLRQ D QXPEHU RI GLIIHUHQW 63((&+ $&76 ZHUH SHUIRUPHG (DFK RI WKH IROORZLQJ VHQWHQFHV FRXOG PDLQWDLQ WKHLU IRUP 7KH VDPH FDQQRW EH VDLG RI WKH UHVW RI WKH VHQWHQFHV HDFK RI ZKLFK ZRXOG EH OHVV DFFHSWDEOH SDVVLYL]HG 7KLV LV YHU\ PXFK DQDORJRXV WR WKH VLWXDWLRQ IRXQG LQ QDUUDWLYH 7HOLF WUDQVLWLYHV DUH DOVR GHHS WUDQVLWLYHV RQO\ DW SRLQWV RI WUDQVLWLRQ 7KLV RFFXUV DW PDMRU MXQFWXUHV LQ WH[W DW WKRVH SRLQW RI WRSLF FKDQJHV QRW PHUHO\ VXEWRSLF VZLWFKHV 7KH RWKHU WKUHH VHQWHQFHV HDFK IROORZ WKH SDUDOOHO IRUP RI WKH ILUVW FRS\LQJ VRPH SDUW RI WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ DOUHDG\ NQRZQ DQG LQWURGXFLQJ WKH QH[W VXEWRSLF LQ WKH REMHFW RU f$IIHFWHG VORW (DFK RI WKHVH VHQWHQFHV IROORZV WKH VWUXFWXUH RI WKH ILUVW KHQFH WKH\ DUH SDUDOOHO WR RQH DQRWKHU 5HFDOO WKDW WKH WHOLF WUDQVLWLYH OHDYHV RSHQ WKH SRVVLELOLW\ RI WKUHH FKRLFHV (IIHFWRU $IIHFWHG DQG 3UHGLFDWLRQ 7KH XVH RI SDUDOOHOLVP HQKDQFHV UHDGHU FRPSUHKHQVLRQ E\ LQFUHDVLQJ WKH SUHGLFWDEO\ RI WKH DFWXDO WRSLF RI HDFK FODXVH 7KH XVH RI WHOLF IUDQVLWLYLW\ LQ WKLV SDUDJUDSK LV QRW UHDOO\ RQH SURGXFLQJ fHYHQWGULYHQ GLVFRXUVH 5DWKHU WKH UHSHDWHG SDUDOOHO XVH RI WKH VDPH (IIHFWRU DQG 3UHGLFDWLRQ -DPHV SHUIRUPV VLJQDOV WR WKH UHDGHU WKDW WKLV VHQWHQFH LV VHUYLQJ D SDUWLFXODU IXQFWLRQ ZLWK UHJDUGV WR WKH H[SRVLWRU\ SXUSRVH RI WKH WH[W ,Q HDFK XVH RI WKH VHQWHQFH D QHZ DVSHFW RI WKH WRSLF LV LQWURGXFHG 7KXV RQ WKH RQH KDQG WKH EDVLF IXQFWLRQ RI WHOLF WUDQVLWLYLW\ LV H[SORLWHG WKH PDQDJHPHQW RI SDUWLFLSDQW SHUVSHFWLYH 2Q WKH RWKHU KDQG WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ VWUXFWXUH IRUPHG LV QRW RQH RI OLQHDU VXFFHVVLRQ ,QVWHDG DV WKH DQDO\VLV LQ DERYH GHPRQVWUDWHV ZKDW HPHUJHV GHVSLWH WKH SHUVLVWHQW XVH RI D WHOLF WUDQVLWLYH LV D FRQVWHOODWLRQ RI LQIRUPDWLRQ ZKLFK SRLQWV EDFN WR DQG H[SDQGV XSRQ WKH WKHPH fWKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI VSHHFK DFWV 0LFURWH[WV DQG EULGJH VSDQV /RQJDFUH SURYLGHV DQ LPSRUWDQW GLVFXVVLRQ RI HPEHGGHG GLVFRXUVH W\SHV f %DVLFDOO\ ZKLOH WKHUH DUH VXUIDFH VWUXFWXUHV DQG FRPPXQLFDWLYH SXUSRVHV ZKLFK GHILQH D

PAGE 136

QRWLRQDO GLVFRXUVH W\SH RYHUDOO ZLWKLQ DQ\ GLVFRXUVH W\SH VPDOOHU SLHFHV RI WH[W PD\ EH IRXQG ZKLFK VHUYH SDUWLFXODU IXQFWLRQV ZLWK UHJDUG WR WKH ZKROH FDOO WKHVH WH[WV fPLFURWH[WV WR GLVWLQJXLVK WKHP IURP fVXEWH[WVf ZKLFK DUH HPEHGGHG H[DPSOHV RI WH[W RI WKH VDPH QRWLRQDO W\SH ,Q ZKLFK WKH\ DSSHDU VXFK DV HPEHGGHG QDUUDWLYHV SURYLGLQJ EDFNJURXQG ,QIRUPDWLRQ RQ D FKDUDFWHU LQ D QDUUDWLYH WH[Wf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fSUHHPLQHQWO\ D VXUIDFH VWUXFWXUH SKHQRPHQRQ ZKHUHE\ WKH ZULWHU RI D WH[W EUHDNV ZLWK WKH XVXDO VXUIDFH VWUXFWXUH RI D QRWLRQDO W\SH WR HOLFLW WKH UHDGHUfV DWWHQWLRQ DW D FHUWDLQ SRLQW ,Q WKH H[DPSOH EHORZ LW LV DV LI DW WKLV SRLQW LQ WKH WH[W WKH DXWKRU LV VD\LQJ f2ND\ NQRZ \RX GRQnW UHDOO\ EHOLHYH ZKDW ,nYH VDLG VR ,fP JRLQJ WR WHOO \RX D OLWWOH VWRU\ WR SURYH P\ SRLQWf 7KXV QDUUDWLYH PLFURWH[WV LQ H[SRVLWRU\ WH[WV KDYH WKH VDPH VXUIDFH UHODWLRQVKLS WR WKH ZKROH DV VXEWH[WV GR WKH\ JR RII WKH PDLQ DUJXPHQW OLQH RI WKH WH[W WR JLYH PRUH LQIRUPDWLRQ UHOHYDQW WR D SDUWLFXODU WKHPH 7KH IROORZLQJ H[DPSOH LV WDNHQ IURP /HZLV 7KRPDVn f2Q 6RFLHWLHV DV 2UJDQLVPVn LQ /LYHV RI D &HOO 7KH HVVD\ EHJLQV E\ FRPSDULQJ D ODUJH PHHWLQJ RI SHRSOH WR DQ DVVHPEODJH RI DQWV /HZLV WKHQ EHJLQV DUJXLQJ LQ WKH VHFRQG SDUDJUDSK ZKHUH WKH H[FHUSW EHJLQVf WKDW ZKLOH WKH FRPSDULVRQ PD\ EH PDGH LQ RQH GLUHFWLRQ LW FDQQRW EH PDGH LQ WKH RWKHU

PAGE 137

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f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f 7KH WUDQVLWLRQ OLQH LQ WKH QH[W SDUDJUDSK WDNHV WKH WKLUG RI WKH DERYH RSWLRQV 7KH VHQWHQFH ,W LV KDUG IRU D E\VWDQGHU QRW WR GR VR UHIHUV EDFN WR WKH SUHGLFDWLRQ RI WKH SUHYLRXV OLQH WKH YLRODWLRQ RI VFLHQFH 7KH VHFRQG VHQWHQFH H[SOLFLWO\ WLHV WKLV SDUDJUDSK EDFN WR WKH WKHPH SHRSOH DUH OLNH DQWV DQWV DUH OLNH SHRSOHf DQG HVWDEOLVKHV fDQWVf DV WKH SDUDJUDSK WRSLF RI WKLV VHFWLRQ RI GLVFRXUVH (VVHQWLDOO\ 7KRPDV LV WU\LQJ WR GHPRQVWUDWH WKDW WKH FRPSDULVRQ RI DQWV WR SHRSOH LV DV ZRUWK\ DQ DFW DV WKH RWKHU ZD\ DURXQG EXW ILUVW KH PXVW EHJLQ WKH SURFHVV RI SURYLQJ WKDW DQWV FDQ EH VDLG WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ WKH NLQGV RI DFWLYLWLHV WKDW SHRSOH GR

PAGE 138

,Q WKH UHVW RI WKH SDUDJUDSK 7KRPDV PDNHV WKLV SRLQW +LV OLQJXLVWLF ZHDSRQ RI FKRLFH LV WKH WHOLF WUDQVLWLYH KH VWULQJV WRJHWKHU VHYHUDO KLJKO\ G\QDPLF SUHGLFDWHV XVLQJ D VXUIDFH VWUXFWXUH IRUP RIWHQ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK LQWHQWLRQDOLW\ KHQFH fKXPDQQHVVf 7KH UHVXOW LV DQ H[WHQGHG H[DPSOH EUHDNLQJ WZR fUXOHV DW RQFH )LUVW KH IORXWV WKH DQWV LQ G\QDPLF KXPDQOLNH DFWLRQV DSSDUHQWO\ LQ YLRODWLRQ RI VFLHQWLILF QRUP WKRXJK OHDYHV WKH FRPSDULVRQ ODUJHO\ LPSOLFLW 5HFDOO IURP WKH GLVFXVVLRQ DERYH RQ fWKHPHf WKDW WKLV LV D FRPPRQ VWUDWHJ\ LQ H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W 6HFRQG KH EUHDNV DZD\ IURP WKH QRUPDO H[SRVLWRU\ VXUIDFH VWUXFWXUH DQG HPSOR\V D IRUP QRW PHUHO\ GLIIHUHQW EXW IURP D QRWLRQDO W\SH FRQVLGHUHG PRVW DQWLWKHWLFDO WR H[SRVLWRU\ GLVFRXUVH :KDW LV QRWDEOH DERXW WKH WKLUG SDUDJUDSK KRZHYHU LW LV ODFN RI QDUUDWLYHVWUXFWXUH 7KHUH LV QR FRQWLQJHQW VXFFHVVLRQ DPRQJ WKHVH DFWLYLWLHV WKH ODFN RI SDVW SHUIHFWLYH SURKLELWV WKH LPSOLFDWXUH IURP EHLQJ PDGHf LW LV VLPSO\ D OLVW RI G\QDPLF HYHQWV 7KLV LV REYLRXVO\ f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nV ZDUQLQJ WKDW PXFK RI OLQJXLVWLF IRUPIXQFWLRQ SDLUV DUH RQHZD\ GLUHFWLRQDOV :KLOH /RQJDFUHfV FRQWHQWLRQ WKDW \RX FDQQRW VHSDUDWH QRWLRQDO W\SH IURP VXUIDFH VWUXFWXUH LV WUXH LW RQO\ ZRUNV LQ RQH GLUHFWLRQ QRWLRQDO W\SH HQWDLOV VXUIDFH VWUXFWXUH EXW VXUIDFH VWUXFWXUH GRHV QRW HQWDLO QRWLRQDO W\SH 7KHUH LV DOVR DQ LQWXLWLYH IHHO WKDW DW WKLV SRLQW LQ WKH HVVD\ 7KRPDV LV VWLOO WLSWRHLQJ KLV ZD\ DURXQG KLV WKHPH HVSHFLDOO\ VLQFH LW LV WR EH D YLRODWLRQ RI WKH ELRORJLFDO VFLHQFHV QRUPf +H HQJDJHV LQ D PRUH GLVWLQFWLYHO\ QDUUDWLYH PLFURWH[W LQ SDUDJUDSK VL[ $IWHU KDYLQJ UHWXUQHG WR WKH XQPDUNHG VLWXDWLRQDO SUHGLFDWHV LQ SDUDJUDSKV IRXU DQG ILYH KH RQFH UHWXUQV WR WUDQVLWLYLW\ WR IRUP KLV H[HPSOLILFDWLRQ 3DUDJUDSK VL[ EHJLQV D EULHI QDUUDWLYH PLFURWH[W WHOOLQJ WKH VWRU\ RI

PAGE 139

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n WH[W LWVHOI LV PDUNHG FRPSDUHG WR WKH QRWLRQDO W\SH LW UHSUHVHQWV VLJQDOLQJ WKDW LWV XVH LV QRW D WRWDO GLYHUJHQFH IURP RQH QRWLRQDO W\SH WR DQRWKHU EXW LV VXERUGLQDWHG WR WKH GLVFRXUVH SXUSRVH RI WKH ODUJHU WH[W 7KH 7KRPDV WH[W DOVR VKRZHG DQRWKHU XVH RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ LQ H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W DV WKH VXUIDFH IRUP RI D WUDQVLWLRQ VSDQ 5HFDOO WKDW WKH ODVW VHQWHQFH RI SDUDJUDSK WZR VLJQDOHG WKH SRVVLEOH FKDQJH RI SDUDJUDSK WRSLF 7KLV VXSSRUWV QLFHO\ *RXWVRVn FODLP WKDW WKHUH LV H[SOLFLW PDUNLQJ RI VRPH NLQG GXULQJ WUDQVLWLRQV IURP RQH FRQWLQXDWLRQ VSDQ WR DQRWKHU 0\ FRQWULEXWLRQ KHUH LV VLPSO\ WR DGG WUDQVLWLYLW\ HVSHFLDOO\ WKH XVH RI WHOLF WUDQVLWLYHV WR WKH LQYHQWRU\ RI VLJQDOLQJ GHYLFHV HPSOR\HG LQ H[SRVLWRU\ WH[WV %ULGJH 6SDQV DQG 7UDQVLWLYLW\ 7KHUH DUH RWKHU LQVWDQFHV RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ LQ H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W ZKHUH DEVWUDFW VWDWHV DUH FRQVWUXHG DV SDUWLFLSDQWV LQ ZKDW VHHPV OLNH HYHQWGULYHQ GLVFRXUVH *LYHQ WKH WZR H[DPSOHV

PAGE 140

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f FROXPQ LQ $WKH PRUH 7UDQVLWLYH LW LVWKH FORVHU LW LV WR &$5',1$/ 7UDQVLWLYLW\ $JDLQ WKLV QRWLRQ LV LQ JHQHUDO FRQVRQDQW ZLWK RXU SUHWKHRUHWLFDO XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI 7UDQVLWLYLW\f +RSSHU DQG 7KRPSVRQ f 7KH SKHQRPHQRQ RI HUJDWLYLW\ KDV ORQJ FRQVWLWXWHG D SUREOHPn IRU JHQHUDO OLQJXLVWLFV :LWK UHFHQW H[SDQVLRQ RI LQWHUHVW LQ ODQJXDJH XQLYHUVDO WKH SUREOHPDWLF LPSOLFDWLRQV KDYH RQO\ EHHQ KHLJKWHQHG 7KH EOXQWQHVV ZLWK ZKLFK WKH HUJDWLYHDEVROXWLYH SDWWHUQ VWDQGV RSSRVHG WR WKH PRUH IDPLOLDU QRPLQDWLYHDFFXVDWLYH SDWWHUQ KDV PDGH HUJDWLYLW\ GLIILFXOW WR GLVPLVV DV LQFRQVHTXHQWLDO RU WR HOLPLQDWH E\ IRUPDO VOHLJKWRIKDQG DOWKRXJK PLUURU LPDJH IRUPDO PRGHOV FRQWLQXH WR DWWUDFW VRPH ZLWK WKHLU VLPSOLFLW\f 6HHPLQJO\ HUJDWLYLW\ VWDQGV DV D FKDOOHQJH WR WKH YLHZ WKDW DOO ODQJXDJHV DUH EXLOW RQ RQH XQLYHUVDO DUFKHW\SH RU RQH DUFKHW\SLFDO VHW RI JUDPPDU PRGXOHV 'X%RLV f 7KH XVH RI QRQSURWRW\SLFDO QRPLQ£LV KDV EHHQ GLVFXVVHG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH DQG QHHG QRW FRQFHUQ XV KHUH +RSSHU DQG 7KRPSVRQ f :KDW LV LQWHUHVWLQJ WKRXJK LV WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK HYHQ XQXVXDO LQVWDQFHV RI SDUWLFLSDQWV RFFXU LQ VHHPLQJO\ VWUDLJKWIRUZDUG XVHV RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ ZRXOG SURSRVH WKDW WKLV XVH RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ LV D IXUWKHU PHWDSKRULFDO H[WHQVLRQ RI WKH fPHQWDO GRPDLQf SURSRVHG E\ 6DOO\ 5LFH f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fDFDGHPLF SDVVLYH GLVFXVVHG LQ WKH IROORZLQJ VHFWLRQf DQG WKH UHDGHU LQWXLWLYHO\ XQGHUVWDQGV WKH DFWRU WR EH WKH XQPHQWLRQHG OLQJXLVWLF UHVHDUFKHU WKH WHOLF WUDQVLWLYH DOWHUQDWLRQ VXFFHVVIXOO\ OHDGV WKH UHDGHU WR WKH SRLQW RI WKH VHQWHQFH WKH FRPSRQHQW SDUWV ZKLFK DUH WR EHFRPH WKH WRSLF RI WKH QH[W VHQWHQFH 7KH

PAGE 141

IROORZLQJ VHQWHQFH DJDLQ HPSOR\V D WHOLF WUDQVLWLYH WKH\ DOORZ FODXVHV 7KXV WKH QHZ ,QIRUPDWLRQ RI VHQWHQFH RQH KDV EHHQ VXFFHVVIXOO\ WRSLFDOO]HG DV WKH (IIHFWRU RI WKH VXEVHTXHQW FODXVH
PAGE 142

OLWHUDWXUH ZKLFK IROORZV WKH WUDGLWLRQ RI GU\ SURVH PRUH VWULFWO\ 7KH QDUUDWLYHOLNH VWUXFWXUH DOVR KDV WKH HIIHFW RI SHUVXDGLQJ WKH UHDGHU WR WDNH WKH ,QIRUPDWLRQ DW IDFH YDOXH RU DW OHDVW WR DFFHSW ,W DV D SUHPLVH RI WKH DXWKRUV ZLWK OHVV TXHVWLRQ EHFDXVH RI QDUUDWLYHnV DVVRFLDWLRQ ZLWK fVXVSHQVLRQ RI GLVEHOLHIf 1HYHUWKHOHVV ZKLOH WKHVH H[FHUSWV DUH FHUWDLQO\ PRUH QDUUDWLYHOLNH LQVRIDU DV VRPH IHDWXUHV RI QDUUDWLYH DUH SUHVHQW WKH RQH PLVVLQJ HOHPHQW LV fSHUVSHFWLYDO GLVWDQFHf $W QR SRLQW LQ HLWKHU WH[W LV WKH UHDGHU OHG WR LQWHUSUHW D fFORVH XSf HIIHFW OLQJXLVWLFDOO\ 7KH FKDQJHV LQ WUDQVLWLYLW\ DSSHDU GLYRUFHG IURP WKH VHPDQWLF DVSHFW RI HYHQWKRRG ,W ZRXOG VHHP WKDW VXFK H[DPSOHV FRQWUDGLFW WKH HDUOLHU K\SRWKHVLV WKDW RYHUDOO WKH XVH RI WKH ZKROH UDQJH RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ IRUPV D UHODWLYH DEHUUDWLRQ LQ H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W ZKLFK PDUNV SRLQWV RI WUDQVLWLRQ ,Q IDFW XSRQ FORVHU ,QVSHFWLRQ LW WXUQV RXW WKLV LV QRW WKH FDVH 3DUDJUDSKV VXFK DV WKH DERYH WHQG WR RFFXU DW WUDQVLWLRQ VSDQV YLV£YLV WKH HQWLUH GLVFRXUVH ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV WKH\ RFFXU DW WKRVH SRLQWV LQ WH[W ZKHUH PRYHV DUH EHLQJ PDGH IURP RQH PDMRU VHFWLRQ WR DQRWKHU DW WKH OHYHO RI SDUDJUDSK RU KLJKHU ,QWURGXFWLRQV FRQFOXVLRQV DQG RWKHU VXFK fEULGJHf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fVFLHQWLILF RU fDFDGHPLF SDVVLYH 7KH VHFRQG FDOO D fSURSRVLWLRQDO SDVVLYH 7KLV W\SH KDV WKH SUDJPDWLF IRUFH RI D W\SLFDO SDVVLYH EXW WKHPDWLFL]HV DQ HQWLUH SURSRVLWLRQ UDWKHU WKDQ D SDUWLFLSDQW $ VXEW\SH RI WKH SURSRVLWLRQDO SDVVLYH EHDUV D VWURQJ UHVHPEODQFH WR WKH LPSHUVRQDO SDVVLYH ,W KDV OLWWOH ,Q FRPPRQ ZLWK D W\SLFDO SDVVLYH H[FHSW IRU VXUIDFH IRUP WKRXJK ,W DOVR VHUYHV WR FRPPXQLFDWH DQ HQWLUH SURSRVLWLRQ

PAGE 143

/RQJDFUH QRWHV WKUHH fFRQVLGHUDWLRQVf ZKLFK HPHUJH ZKHQ VWXG\LQJ WKH SDVVLYH f SDVVLYHV DUH OHVV VXFFHVVIXO ZKHQ XVHG ZLWK D E\f SKUDVH f SDVVLYHV DUH PRUH VXFFHVVIXO ZKHQ WKH DIIHFWHG SDUWLFLSDQW KDV XQGHUJRQH D IDLUO\ REYLRXV FKDQJH RI VWDWH f SDVVLYHV DUH PRUH VXFFHVVIXO ZLWK D fJHQHUDO UHIHUHQW ,H ZKHQ WKH DJHQW VWDWHG RU XQVWDWHG LV D JURXS RU ZKHQ WKH HQWLUH FODXVH LV JQRPLF LH JHQHUDO RU SURYHUELDO LQ WKUXVW f )XQFWLRQDOO\ DV GLVFXVVHG LQ FKDSWHUV WZR DQG WKUHH SDVVLYHV RFFXU ZKHQ WKH $IIHFWHG SDUWLFLSDQW LV WRSLFDOL]HG RU V\QWDFWLF VWUXFWXUH GHPDQGV SDUDOOHO VXEMHFWKRRG DFURVV FODXVHV ,Q H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W KRZHYHU WKH DSSURSULDWHQHVV RI D SDVVLYH LV H[SODLQHG WKURXJK D FRPELQDWLRQ RI FRQVLGHUDWLRQV f DQG f DERYH f:KLOH QDUUDWLYH GLVFRXUVH LV DJHQWRULHQWHG DQG WUHDWV IXUWKHUPRUH RI WKH DFWLRQV RI SDUWLFXODU DJHQWV H[SRVLWRU\ GLVFRXUVH ODFNV WKLV DJHQWRULHQWDWLRQ DQG GHDOV PRUH ZLWK JHQHUDOLWLHV f 7KH IROORZLQJ DUH H[DPSOHV RI DFDGHPLF SDVVLYHV 7KH VHFRQG FROXPQ RI 7DEOH ZDV FDOFXODWHG VLPSO\ E\ DJJUHJDWLQJ DOO GDWD DFURVV DOO VSHDNHUV 1DUR f $OWKRXJK WKH +3 FRQYH\V WKH VDPH UHIHUHQWLDO LQIRUPDWLRQ DV WKH 3 LWV IXQFWLRQ LQ QDUUDWLYH KDV EHHQ VDLG WR JR EH\RQG WKH HVWDEOLVKPHQW RI D UHIHUHQWLDO PHDQLQJ 6FKLIIULQ f 7UDQVLWLYLW\ KDV EHHQ WUDGLWLRQDOO\ XQGHUVWRRG DV D JOREDO SURSHUW\ RI DQ HQWLUH FODXVH VXFK WKDW DQ DFWLYLW\ LV fFDUULHG RYHUf RU fWUDQVIHUUHGf IURP DQ DJHQW WR D SDWLHQW +RSSHU DQG 7KRPSVRQ f ,Q HDFK LW ,V HLWKHU WKH UHVHDUFKHU KLPKHUVHOI RU VRPH SRUWLRQ RI WKH DFDGHPLF FRPPXQLW\ ZKR LV WKH DJHQWLYH SDUWLFLSDQW $FFRUGLQJ WR VFLHQWLILF WUDGLWLRQ WKH VFLHQWLVW LV WKH OHDVW LPSRUWDQW SDUW RI WKH ZULWHXS WKH VFLHQWLILF FRQWULEXWLRQ LV WKH PDLQ SOD\HU 7KHUHIRUH WKH VFLHQWLVW DQGRU WKH VFLHQWLILF FRPPXQLW\ PD\ EH DVVXPHG DQG WKH FRQWULEXWLRQ LWVHOI FRQVWUXHG DV WKH SULPDU\ SDUWLFLSDQW 6HPDQWLFDOO\ WKHVH SDVVLYHV EHKDYH OLNH WUDQVLWLYHV ,Q WKH fPHQWDO GRPDOQWKH fREMHFW LV QRW WKH $IIHFWHG SDUWLFLSDQW WKH (IIHFWRU LV 7KH REMHFW UHSUHVHQWV D ERXQGDU\ SRLQW LQ WKH WUDMHFWRU\ EXW WKH SDWK RI HIIHFW ORRSV EDFN RQWR WKH (IIHFWRU UHFDOO IURP FKDSWHU WZR WKDW VHPDQWLFDOO\ SDUWLFLSDQW VHPDQWLFV VKRXOG EH VHSDUDWHG IURP WUDMHFWRU\ VHPDQWLFVf 3UDJPDWLFDOO\ WKLV WUDQVLWLYH LV XVHG IRU SXUSRVHV RWKHU WKDQ WKH H[SUHVVLRQ RI DQ HYHQW ,W ,V QRW LQWHQGHG WR fWRSLFDOO]H D SDUWLFLSDQW ,W ,V UDWKHU D OLQJXLVWLF LQVWDQFH RI IXQFWLRQ IROORZLQJ IRUP

PAGE 144

ZKDW LV UHTXLUHG LV DQ H[SUHVVLRQ RI D VWDWH RI DIIDLUV ZKLFK LV WKHPDWLF DQG D VXUIDFH IRUP DOORZHG E\ (QJOLVK ZLWK WKLV HIIHFW 7KH UHVXOW LV D fSDVVLYH ZLWK QR UHDO WHOOH FRXQWHUSDUW 7KH VHFRQG W\SH RI SDVVLYH WKH fSURSRVLWLRQDO SDVVLYHf H[SORLWV WKH SUDJPDWLFV RI WKH VXUIDFH VWUXFWXUH SDVVLYH WKRXJK QRW WKH VHPDQWLFV ,Q WKLV W\SH DQ HQWLUH SURSRVLWLRQ UHTXLUHV WKHPDWLFL]DWLRQ &RQWUDVW WKH H[DPSOHV DERYH ZLWK WKH IROORZLQJ ,W VKRXOG EH HPSKDVL]HG WKDW WKH RSHQLQJ RI -HZLVK ODQJXDJHV WR HQULFKPHQW IURP D QXPEHU RI -HZLVK DQG QRQ-HZLVK VRXUFHV YHU\ RIWHQ DVVXPHV D F\FOLFDO FKDUDFWHU :H[OHU f ,W LV FRPPRQO\ EHOLHYHG WKDW DJHQWV FRQVWLWXWH D VLQJOH SULPLWLYH FDWHJRU\ GLVWLQFW IURP RWKHU FDWHJRULHV VXFK DV SDWLHQW 6DNVHPD f ,Q WKH DERYH SDVVLYHV LW FRXOG EH DUJXHG WKDW D fEHOLHYLQJf RU fHPSKDVL]LQJf FRPPXQLW\ LV REOLTXHO\ UHIHUUHG WR DV DJHQW ,W LV FRPPRQO\ EHOLHYHG E\ WKH OLQJXLVWLF FRPPXQLW\f WKDW +RZHYHU WKLV H[DPSOH EHDUV D VWULNLQJ UHVHPEODQFH WR H[LVWHQWLDO VWDWHPHQWV VXFK DV ,W LV UDLQLQJ RXWVLGH :KLOH WKHUH LV QR (IIHFWRU VXEMHFW REOLTXHO\ UHIHUUHG WR ,Q VXFK LPSHUVRQDO SDVVLYHV SUDJPDWLFDOO\ ZH XQGHUVWDQG WKHUH PXVW EH DQ REVHUYHU RU H[SHULHQFHU FDSDEOH RI PDNLQJ WKH MXGJPHQW 7KH VDPH VRUW RI SUDJPDWLF XQGHUVWDQGLQJ DWWDLQV LQ WKH H[DPSOH DERYH 7KH\ DUH DQ H[WUHPH H[DPSOH RI /RQJDFUHnV fJQRPLF SDVVLYH (VVHQWLDOO\ WZR SUDJPDWLF IRUFHV RQ WKH ZULWHUfV SDUW DUH LQ FRQIOLFW )LUVW WKHUH LV WKH QHHG WR H[SUHVV IRU DUJXPHQWn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fV QHHG IRU WKH SUHPLVH WR EH DFFHSWHG (YHQ WKH VRIWHU VWDWHPHQW /LQJXLVWV WHQG WR EHOLHYH WKDW DJHQWV LV GDQJHURXV EHFDXVH WKH VWDWHPHQW LV VWLOO DQ DVVHUWLRQ DERXW OLQJXLVWV DQG QRW DERXW OLQJXLVWLF NQRZOHGJH 7KH UHDGHU PLJKW ZHOO

PAGE 145

UHVSRQG f2K GR WKH\" DQG EHJLQ DQ LQYHVWLJDWLRQ LQWR WKDW DVVHUWLRQ $Q LPSHUVRQDO fSURSRVLWLRQDO SDVVLYH VROYHV WKH GLIILFXOW\ E\ QRW EHLQJ DERXW WKH DJHQW DW DOO EXW RQO\ EHLQJ DERXW WKH SURSRVLWLRQ LWVHOI 7KH LQLWLDO LW SRLQWV WR WKH SUHGLFDWLRQ VR FRPSOHWHO\ WKDW WKH VSHFWHU RI DJHQF\ GRHV QRW DULVH 7KH UHDGHU VLPSO\ DFFHSWV LW DV WKH ILUVW SUHPLVH RI WKH DXWKRUn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f6f92 ODQJXDJHn %HUPDQ f 7KHUH LV VRPH SUHFHGHQW IRU FRQVLGHULQJ WKLV D W\SH RI SDVVLYH +HU EHKDYLRU FRQFHUQV PH, DP FRQFHUQHG DERXWE\ KHU EHKDYLRU ,QWXLWLYHO\ LW VHHPV WKDW WKH WHOLF WUDQVLWLYH IRUP RI WKLV YHUE LV DFWXDOO\ GHULYHG IURP WKH SKUDVDO FRPELQDWLRQ fWR EH FRQFHUQHG ZLWKDERXW ,Q WKH DERYH H[DPSOH fWKH SUHVHQW VWXG\f LV EHKDYLQJ VRPHZKDW DJHQWLYHO\ DQG WKH YHUE FRXOG HDVLO\ EH H[FKDQJHG IRU fH[DPLQHV RU fLQYHVWLJDWHV ZLWK QR ORVV RI PHDQLQJ ,W LV SUREDEO\ WKH FDVH WKDW WKLV LV QRW D SDVVLYH DW DOO EXW D IRUPXODLF SKUDVH ZLWK WKH RXWHU WUDSSLQJV RI D SDVVLYH &RQFOXGLQJ 5HPDUNV 7RSLF&RPPHQW 6WUXFWXULQJ DQG $V\PPHWU\ 7KLV SURMHFW KDV WKH XQGHUO\LQJ DVVXPSWLRQ WKDW VRPHWKLQJ OLNH fDV\PPHWU\ PRWLYDWHV VRPH DVSHFWV RI JUDPPDWLFDO RUJDQL]DWLRQ 6SHFLILFDOO\ WKH FRQWHQWLRQ LV WKDW DV\PPHWU\ ZRUNV WR FUHDWH VHWV RI LPEDODQFHV ZKLFK JLYH VSHDNHUV DQG OLVWHQHUV WKH PHDQV WR PDQLSXODWH DQG PRQLWRU WKHLU DWWHQWLRQ ZLWK UHJDUGV WR VDOLHQW LQIRUPDWLRQ 0RVW RIWHQ ZH ILQG WKDW VDOLHQFH LV D PDWWHU RI LPSRUWDQW QRPLQ£LV DV ODQJXDJH XVHUV ZH ZDQW WR NQRZ WR ZKRP RU ZKDW WKH YDULRXV DFWLRQV DQG VWDWHV LQ DQ XWWHUDQFH DUH EHLQJ DVFULEHG 7UDQVLWLYLW\ KDV EHHQ VKRZQ WR KDYH D FULWLFDO IXQFWLRQ LQ WKLV UHJDUG E\ RSHQLQJ XS DQG FORVLQJ GRZQ WKH QXPEHU RI SRWHQWLDO FDQGLGDWHV IRU VDOLHQF\ 7RSLF&RPPHQW VWUXFWXULQJ DOVR ZRUNV WR FUHDWH VHWV RI LPEDODQFHV IRU WKH SXUSRVHV RI JXLGLQJ DWWHQWLRQ

PAGE 146

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

PAGE 147

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f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nV DSSURDFK ZKLFK VD\V WKDW ODQJXDJHV KDYH ,Q SODFH VWUXFWXUHV ZKLFK SUHGLVSRVH VSHDNHUV WRZDUGV WKH VHOHFWLRQ RI FHUWDLQ VHPDQWLF SDUDPHWHUV IRU H[SUHVVLRQ )RU (QJOLVK LQ WHUPV RI REOLJDWRU\ FODXVH VWUXFWXUH WKHVH SDUDPHWHUV DSSHDU WR EH (QGSRLQWRULHQWHG &HUWDLQ UHVXOWV DUH HQWDLOHG E\ WKLV VHOHFWLRQDO SUHIHUHQFH )LUVW YHUEV

PAGE 148

RI PRWLRQ LQ (QJOLVK OHDYH WKH UHVXOW RI WKH DFWLRQ LPSOLHG WKRXJK PDQQHU LV HDVLO\ LQFRUSRUDWHG 7KXV \RX FDQ NLFN D EDOO DQG KDYH LW ODQG WHQ IHHW DZD\ EXW \RX FDQQRW NLFNDQGODQG D EDOO WHQ IHHW DZD\
PAGE 149

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f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n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

PAGE 150

HQFRGHG E\ QHWZRUNV RI LQIRUPDWLRQ KHOG WRJHWKHU E\ WKH VWUXFWXUH RI SURSRVLWLRQV SUHVXSSRVLWLRQV DVVHUWLRQV DQG UHVXOWV 7KH TXHVWLRQ EHFRPHV ZKDW GRHV RQH GR ZLWK WUDQVLWLYLW\ LQ VXFK D VWUXFWXUH" 7KH QDWXUH RI GLVFRXUVH W\SH DQG VXUIDFH VWUXFWXUH FRPHV PRUH FOHDUO\ LQWR IRFXV )RU H[DPSOH WKHUH DUH SDVVLYHV LQ H[SRVLWRU\ WH[W ZKLFK DUH SUDJPDWLFDOO\ GHHS PHDQLQJ WKDW ,GHDV KDYH EHHQ FDVW DV SDUWLFLSDQWV 7KLV ZHOOVXSSRUWV WKH DVVHUWLRQ WKDW JUDPPDU FDQ EH D FRQVWUXDO SURFHVV ,Q ZKLFK SDUWV RI RQH VHPDQWLF V\VWHP DUH PHWDSKRUL]HG DV SDUWV RI DQRWKHU WKH SK\VLFDO IRU WKH PHQWDO IRU H[DPSOHf +RZHYHU RWKHU LQVWDQFHV RI SDVVLYHV DUH FOHDUO\ VKDOORZ DQG QRW LQWHQGHG WR EH VWDWHPHQWV RI WRSLFDOL]HG $IIHFWHG SDUWLFLSDQWV KRZHYHU PHWDSKRULFDOf EXW VWDWHPHQWV DERXW VWDWHV RI DIIDLUV ZKLFK KDYH HPHUJHG EHFDXVH RI DEVHQW SDUWLFLSDQWV 7KHVH DUH WKH f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fEDVLFf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f :H DUH WKXV OHDG WR FRQVLGHU WKH UDWKHU FRPSOH[ HYHQ GHOLFDWH ,QWHUDFWLRQV RI VHPDQWLFV DQG GLVFRXUVHSUDJPDWLFV 7KH PRGHO RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ SURSRVHG LQ &KDSWHU 7ZR FODLPV WKDW WUDQVLWLYLW\ LV D SDUW RI WKH JUDPPDWLFDO

PAGE 151

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f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f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n PHDQLQJIXQFWLRQ FRQILJXUDWLRQV WKH\ WHQG WR EH VWURQJO\ OLQNHG RQO\ ZLWKLQ D JLYHQ GLVFRXUVH W\SH 2XWVLGH WKDW W\SH IRUP PHDQLQJ DQG IXQFWLRQ FDQ EH VHSDUDWHG DQG SXW WR LQGHSHQGHQW XVH LQ WKH VHUYLFH RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ )LQDO 5HPDUNV 7KLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ ZDV RULJLQDOO\ PRWLYDWHG E\ VWDWHPHQWV DERXW WKH XQGHUO\LQJ LPSRUWDQFH RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ 7KH WUDQVLWLYH FODXVH LV D IXQGDPHQWDO WHPSODWH DW WKH V\QWDFWLF OHYHO 5LFH

PAGE 152

f 7UDQVLWLYLW\ LV D FUXFLDO UHODWLRQVKLS LQ ODQJXDJH KDYLQJ D QXPEHU RI XQLYHUVDOO\ SUHGLFWDEOH FRQVHTXHQFHV LQ JUDPPDU +RSSHU DQG 7KRPSVRQ f 7KH LQWHQWLRQ ZDV QRW WR FKDOOHQJH WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ DV D OLQJXLVWLF VWUXFWXUH EXW WR LQYHVWLJDWH ZKHWKHU WKH FODLPV IRU LWV fEDVLFQHVVf ZHUH VXSSRUWDEOH 6SHFLILFDOO\ ZLVKHG WR H[SORUH SURWRW\SH DQDO\VHV DV WKH\ ZHUH DSSOLHG WR WUDQVLWLYLW\ 7KHVH ZHUH DSSOLHG RYHU ERWK WKH VHPDQWLFV RI WUDQVLWLYLW\ E\ 5LFH DQG +RSSHU DQG 7KRPSVRQ IRU H[DPSOHf DQG FODXVH VWUXFWXUH E\ *OYQ SULQFLSDOO\f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n DVVHUWLRQ WKDW fJUDPPDUV FRGH EHVW ZKDW VSHDNHUV GR PRVW WKHQ ZKDW HPHUJHV LV D SRUWUDLW RI DQ\ LQGLYLGXDO ODQJXDJH ZLWK IRUPIXQFWLRQ SDLULQJV IHDWXUHG LQ UHODWLRQVKLS WR WKH SXUSRVHV RI WKH GLVFRXUVHV ZKLFK HQWDLO WKHLU XVH 7KXV D VRPHZKDW GLIIHUHQW SLFWXUH RI WKH ODQJXDJH ZRXOG EH KDG GHSHQGLQJ RQ WKH QRWLRQDO VWUXFWXUH LQ TXHVWLRQ 'LIIHUHQW SDWWHUQV RI JUDPPDWLFDO UHDOL]DWLRQ ZRXOG EH VHHQ GHSHQGLQJ RQ WKH QDWXUH RI ZKDW ZDV EHLQJ VDLG

PAGE 153

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f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

PAGE 154

%,%/,2*5$3+< %DNNHU ( f9RLFH $VSHFW DQG $NWORQVDUW 0LGGOH DQG 3DVVLYH LQ $QFLHQW *UHHN 9RLFH )RUP DQG )XQFWLRQ ) )R[ DQG 3+RSSHU HGVf $PVWHUGDP -RKQ %HQMDPLQV 3XEOLVKLQJ &RPSDQ\ %HUPDQ 5$ DQG 'O 6ORELQ 5HODWLQJ (YHQWV LQ 1DUUDWLYH +LOOVGDOH 1HZ -HUVH\ /DZUHQFH (UOEDXP $VVRFLDWHV 3XEOLVKHUV %RXUQH 0 f2Q WKH 5RDG RI 6LOYHU &KLFNV LQ &KDLQPDLO ( )UOHVQHU HGf 5LYHUGDOH 1HZ
PAGE 155

'DYLG 3HWHU D +RXVH RI &DUGV 1HZ
PAGE 156

*XQGHO 7KH 5ROH RI 7RSLF DQG &RPPHQW LQ /LQJXLVWLF 7KHRU\ 1HZ
PAGE 157

/DPEUHFKW ,QIRUPDWLRQ 6WUXFWXUH DQG 6HQWHQFH )RUP &DPEULGJH &DPEULGJH 8QLYHUVLW\ 3UHVV /DQJDFNHU 5 &RQFHSW ,PDJH 6\PERO 7KH &RJQLWLYH %DVLV RI *UDPPDU 0RXWRQ GH *UX\HU /LVOH + f$UPRU(OOD &KLFNV LQ &KDLQPDLO ( )ULHVQHU HGf 5LYHUGDOH 1HZ
PAGE 158

6FKZDUW] 6 ([FKDQJH 3URJUDPf &KLFNV LQ &KDLQPDLO ( )ULHVQHU HGf 5LYHUGDOH 1HZ
PAGE 159

9DQ 9DOLQ 5' -U $GYDQFHV LQ 5ROH DQG 5HIHUHQFH *UDPPDU $PVWHUGDP -RKQ %HQMDPLQV 3XEOLVKLQJ &RPSDQ\ DQG 3 :LONLQV f7KH &DVH IRUf(IIHFWRUf &DVH 5ROHV $JHQWV DQG $JHQF\ 5HYLVLWHG *UDPPDWLFDO &RQVWUXFWLRQV 7KHLU )RUP DQG 0HDQLQJ 0 6KLEDWDQL DQG 6$ 7KRPSVRQ HGVf 2[IRUG &ODUHGRQ 3UHVV 9HQGOHU = /LQJXLVWLFV LQ 3KLORVRSK\ &RUQHOO 8QLYHUVLW\ 3UHVV 9HUNX\O +$ 7KHRU\ RI $VSHFWXDOLW\ 7KH ,QWHUDFWLRQ EHWZHHQ 7HPSRUDO DQG $WHPSRUDO 6WUXFWXUH &DPEULGJH &DPEULGJH 8QLYHUVLW\ 3UHVV :H[OHU 3 f-HZLVK ,QWHUOLQJXLVWLFV /DQJXDJH :LHU]ELFND $ 7KH 6HPDQWLFV RI *UDPPDU $PVWHUGDP 3KLODGHOSKLD -RKQ %HQMDPLQV 3XEOLVKLQJ
PAGE 160

%,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ 0LFKHOOH 6X]DQQH 6FKDIHU UHFHLYHG KHU %DFKHORU RI $UWV GHJUHH LQ IURP 1HZ &ROOHJH RI WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 6RXWK )ORULGD 7KH GHJUHH ZDV LQ f/DQJXDJH &XOWXUH DQG 6RFLHW\ 6KH WKHQ VSHQW RQH \HDU LQ DQ LQWHQVLYH 0DVWHUnV RI 7HDFKLQJ (QJOLVK DV D 6HFRQG /DQJXDJH SURJUDP DW WKH ([SHULPHQW LQ ,QWHUQDWLRQDO /LYLQJ 7KRXJK VKH FRPSOHWHG WKH SURJUDP LQ VKH GLG QRW ILQLVK KHU WKHVLV DQG UHFHLYH WKH GHJUHH XQWLO %HWZHHQ DQG VKH WDXJKW (QJOLVK DV D 6HFRQG /DQJXDJH DW -DFNVRQYLOOH 8QLYHUVLW\ DQG DOVR OHDUQHG WKH LPSRUW H[SRUW LQGXVWU\ 0V 6FKDIHU UHWXUQHG WR JUDGXDWH VFKRRO DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD LQ 6KH VWXGLHG WKHUH IRU WZR \HDUV ZKHUHXSRQ VKH WUDQVIHUUHG WR WKH 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 1HZ
PAGE 161

, FHUWLI\ WKDW KDYH UHDG WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG TXDOLW\ DV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ &K£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‘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

PAGE 162

/' OLIW 2 ?4! 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$


99
for in the first person, significantly heightening the vicarious feel of experiencing a story through
a character's direct perceptions.
I let myself in through the gate and circled the new construction to
Henrys patio in the rear.
'}" is for Fugitive, Sue Grafton, p. 11
I moved through the hallway to the small back bedroom I was
currently calling home.
F is for Fugitive, Sue Grafton, p. 13
Dispersed transitives are a way of getting a participant from one point to another--they complete
the directional component of the path aspect of P/T complex when such is not otherwise
specified. Dispersed transitives are not confined to the first person, though. They are equally
felicitous in a third person narrative.
The blood had stopped flowing from Harrys broken nose and now he seemed
to be breathing more regularly, more easily.
Sphere, Michael Crichton
This excerpt is the first sentence of a new episode and thus needs to accomplish two
tasks. First, re-orient the reader to where in the story the scene is taking place. Second, set the
stage for the action in this chapter. The dispersed transitive does this well. The mention of the
character, Harry, tells the reader where in the overall action of the story this episode is taking
place. Further, the use of Harry in the prepositional phrase rather than the initial clause identifies
the human participant as secondary to the physical state in which he is cast. The entire
paragraph features Harry as the one who is being acted upon as the subject of medical
procedures. However, simply stating blood" as the topical participant is hardly satifsying; blood
must come from somewhere for some reason. The reason was states in an earlier episode. This
particular section is dealing with the result.
3.5 Deep and Shallow Transitivity
It is stated above that transitivity and its alternative realizations result In perspective
shifts and changes. Perspective shifts are the domain of telic transitives wherein the entirety of


50
smashed the glass is that the first is skewed towards the Affected and the second towards the
Effector. As a result, the middle construction is available to the first, but not to the second: The
glass shattered/ The glass smashed. There are discourse consquences as well. Whichever
participant end is skewed towards is also more likely to continue as topic in subsequent
discourse. It should be remembered, though, that PtT complexes alone do not have this quality.
The PIT complex is schematic, conceptual, but lacks the semantic richness of participant
semantics.
For this study, the term patient" will be avoided, and instead the term Affected will be
used for the participant which is the locus of effect. In the same vein, Effector will be the term
used for the semantic character of the participant which initiates or causes the activity in an
event. For participants, then, Starting point" and Ending point" will be used when the reference
is to event structure, while Effector and Affected" will be used when the reference is to
participant semantics.
2.3.5 Verbal Modality-Teasing Apart Semantics and Praomatics
There are still a few Issues which need to be settled. Recall that Givn claims that the
prototypical verb In a transitive clause is fast-paced, completed, real, and perceptually-
cognitively salient." We shall take each of these one by one and see what a closer examination
yields for transitivity.
2.3.5.1 Fast-paced
The notion fast-paced" is characterized as transfer of effect from source to goal which is
so fast as to be instantaneous. Yet even for telic transitive clauses, there seems to be little
support for this: Sven kicked the dog/The dog was kicked by Sven; Sven cooked the dinner/The
dinner was cooked by Sven;/Sven studied the questions/The questions were studied by Sven;
Sven studied chemistryPChemistry was studied by Sven. In the examples above, there is a
clear decrease in the instantaneous nature of the event, yet all but one passivize; only In the
case where the goal is not quantified does passlvization suffer. The Instantaneous quality of the
action seems to have less to do with transitivity than is supposed. All the sentences above are
telic transitive clauses despite the range from fast-changing" to slow changing" to durative


148
Gundel, J. 1988. The Role of Topic and Comment in Linguistic Theory. New York: Garland
Publishing.
Hale, K. and Keyser, J. 1985. Some Transitivity Alternations in English, manuscript.
MIT.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar London, England, and
Baltimore: Edward Arnold.
1967a. Notes on Transitivity and Theme In English: Part I." Journal of Linguistics. 2:
37-81
1967b. Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English: Part II ." Journal of Linguistics.
3: 199-244
1967c. Notes on Transitivity and Theme In English: Part III." Journal of Linguistics.
4: 179-215.
Hargreaves, 1996. Control Verbs in Newari. In Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and
Meaning. M. Shlbatani and S.A. Thompson (eds). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Harrison, D.L. 1969. Little Turtles Big Adventure. New York: Random House.
Hatav, G. 1997. The Semantics of Aspect and Modality: Evidence from English and Biblical
Hebrew. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hlnrichs, E. 1985. A Compositional Semantics for Aktionsarten and NP Reference in
English. Dissertation. Ohio State University.
Hopper, P. and S.A. Thompson. 1984. The Discourse Basis of Lexical Categories In Universal
Grammar." Language. 60:703-752.
1980. Transitivity In Grammar and Discourse." Language. 56: 251-299.
Hopper, P. 1991. Dispersed Verbal Predicates in Vernacular Written Narratives." Proceedings
of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 17: 402-413. Berkelely
Linguistics Society.
Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Jones, L.K. 1977. Theme in English Expository Discourse. Lake Bluff, Illinois: Jupiter Press.
Kalmr, I. 1982. Transitivity In a Czech Folktale." Syntax and Semantics: Studies in Transitivity.
P. Hopper and S.A. Thompson (eds). New York: Academic Press.
Kemmer, S. 1994. "Middle Voice, Transitivity, and the Elaboration of Events." Voice: Form
and Function. B. Fox and P.J. Hopper (eds). 179-230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Kibrik, A. 1993. Transitivity Increase in Athabaskan Languages." Causatives and Transitivity.
B. Comrie and M. Pollnsky (ed). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the
Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.


62
conveyed in structures that are not event-driven? As will become apparent, this is not an empty
line of inquiry, but essential to understanding the functional and discourse nature of transitivity.
The role of the assymetry principle will be taken up again in Chapters Three and Four as it
relates to the discourse structuring of narrative and expository texts.
2.6 Concluding Remarks
Transitivity, as we now see, is a well-constrained system expressing certain aspects of
event Structure-Starting points, Endpoints, and Trajectories. It is most properly viewed as one
component in the ecology of the clause, specifically that component concerned with the
semantics and pragmatics of Point-Trajectory relationships. At the level of discourse, though,
the effects to which transitivity is put are largely constrained by coherence-and not simply
coherence as a cognitive mechanism, but coherence as it is arrayed by different genres in
different contexts. In fact, at the level" of discourse, much of what is crucially important for the
formation of clauses is not that critical anymore, and becomes a new and larger chunk which is
put to use for even more abstract informational purposes. Like a symphony, if the clause is the
individual player-and the sentence the entire brass or woodwind section- then discourse is
ultimately the conductor.


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Michelle Suzanne Schafer received her Bachelor of Arts degree in 1987 from New
College of the University of South Florida. The degree was in Language, Culture, and Society."
She then spent one year in an intensive Master's of Teaching English as a Second Language
program at the Experiment in International Living. Though she completed the program in 1988,
she did not finish her thesis and receive the degree until 1991. Between 1988 and 1991, she
taught English as a Second Language at Jacksonville University and also learned the import/
export industry. Ms. Schafer returned to graduate school at the University of Florida in 1991.
She studied there for two years whereupon she transferred to the State University of New York at
Buffalo for one year. She returned to Florida in 1994 to finish her doctoral work in linguistics and
graduated with honors in August, 1998.
152


81
(12) The cat chased the dog. The dog scrambled down the sidewalk, yelping
in despair.
(13) The cat chased the dog down the sidewalk. It meowled fiercely as It
closed in on the hapless Rottweiler.
(14) The cat chased the dog down the sidewalk. But it was a humid day
with a baking sun, and the chase ended as quickly as it began.
(15) ? The cat chased the dog. The earth tilted slightly on its axis and
a car backfired in Detroit.
The final perspectival distance l call close-focus." Essentially, it is as though the
linguistic camera were directly on top of the scene with only a single participant filling the lens.
Time sequence here is very short, a matter of moment-to-moment experience. Discourse
constraints are strong, limited to participants only. Further, only participants set up by discourse
frames or directly entailed by the predicates chosen are allowed. Narratively, close-focus is
often experienced as fast-paced, action-filled, tense, and dramatic sequences of central
importance to the plot. Also, note that with (7), the verb fled implies something from which the
dog is fleeing and potentially, something to which the dog flees.
(16) The dog fled. It ran faster and faster until it escaped the cat.
(17) The dog fled. The cat leaped. The dog snarled in fury as
the feline landed on its back. Raising a pad of extended claws,
the cat went to scratch, but too slowly! With a snap, the dog chomped
the proffered paw. And that is how the neighborhood tabby became
known as Tripod Tom.
(18) ? The dog fled. The sun rose. Sally baked chocolate chip cookies for breakfast.
It is obvious at this point that there is a connection between perspectival distance and
transitivity. Panoramic views correlate with intransitives, basic views with telic transitives, and
close-focus with atelic and dispersed transitives. While I am not ready to claim that transitivity is
the encoding of events vis--vis linguistic space (as does Langacker, for instance), it is clear that
at the level of discourse, narrative structure can easily be visualized as a matter of distance from
events. The narrative introduction, particularly in longer works, usually begins at a panoramic
distance describing the general scene. Thematic participants and events are introduced through
actions while the narrative proceeds to climactic moments. These are often construed as close-
focus scenes, with all the readers attention taken up with actions and events portrayed moment-
by-moment. The denouement goes back through the basic level to the panoramic as the scene


55
There is not to my knowledge any kind of list composed according to these parameters
(skewed towards source, goal, or neither; but see Levin, 1993), and it is outside the scope of this
study to do so. Nevertheless, I will appeal to this notion with the hopes that someone may find it
useful for further work.
2.4 Transitivity and Time
The following excerpts will provide examples for the semantic character of transitivity as it is
delimited by discourse. Actually, most of this discussion Is directly germaine to Chapter Three
and will be explored in greater detail at that point.
Uttering a curse in his well-practiced falsetto, Cora swung his blade and cut down
the opposing swordswoman. His contoured breastplate emphasized features
which were not truly present.
From Lady of Steel, R. Zelazny
There was still a company of archers that held their ground among the burning
houses. Their captain was Bard, whose friends had accused him of prophesying
flood and poisoned fish, though they know his worth and courage. He was a
descendant in the line of Girion, Lord of Dale, whose wife and child had escaped
down the Running River from the ruin long ago. Now he used a great yew bow,
loosing arrows at the dragon until all of them but one were spent. The flames were
near him. His companions were leaving him. He bent his bow for the last time.
From The Hobbit, J.R.R. Tolkien
Each of the above excerpts is the initial paragraph of the episodes in question. The first is the
first paragraph of a (very) short story. The second is the beginning to a particular episode in The
Hobbit, marked by a change of scene and the eventual closure to this string of events. Of
particular interest here are the last two sentences of each (which in the Zelazny text includes the
whole of the paragraph).
The two sentences, His contoured breastplate emphasized features which were not truly
present and His companions were leaving him, both have many of the elements required of
high" transitivity. There are two participants, a grammatical subject and object, and a path of
movement (the first perceptual, the second physical). Both sentences passivize, and textually,
could passivize with little or no distortion to the story-line (again, this is a discourse constraint on
the perspective-providing function of transitivity and will be explained in greater depth in the
following chapter).


147
David, Peter. 1997a. House of Cards. New York: Pocket Books, a division of Simon and
Schuster.
1997b. Into the Void. New York: Pocket Books, a division of Simon and Schuster.
1997c. The Two-Front War. New York: Pocket Books, a division of Simon and Schuster.
1997d. End Game. New York: Pocket Books, a division of Simon and Schuster.
Dixon, R.M.W. 1972. The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
1979. Ergativity." Language. 55: 59-138.
Dowty, D. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.
DuBois, J. W. 1987. The Discourse Basis of Ergativity." Language. 63:805-855.
1985a. Competing Motivations." Iconicity in Syntax. J. Haiman (ed). 343-365.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Fleischman, S. 1990. Tense and Narrativity. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Foley, W.A. and R.D. Van Valin, Jr. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Givn, T. 1995. Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
1993a. English Grammar: A Function-Based Introduction. Vol I. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
1993b. English Grammar: A Function-Based Introduction. Vol II, Amsterdam:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
1990. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction. Vol II. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
1984. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction. Vol I. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Givon, T. and L. Yang. 1994. The Rise of the English GET-Passive." Voice: Form and
Function. B. Fox and P.J. Hopper (eds). 119-150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Goutsos, D. 1997. Modeling Discourse Topic: Sequential Relations and Strategies in
Expository Text. Advances in Discourse Processes, Vol. LIX. Norwood, New Jersey:
Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Grafton, S. 1989. F is for Fugitive New York: Bantam Books
Green, G.M. 1989. Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. Hillsdale, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Grice, P. 1975. Logic in Conversation. Harvard: Harvard University Press.


66
coherence? To begin this discussion, we must start with thematic coherence" since, at the
level of discourse, this is the ultimate purpose transitivity serves.
3.1.1 Thematic Coherence
Coherence is intuitively understood as the degree of relevance the concepts and
relationships in a text have with regard to one another which permits plausible inference to be
made about underlying meaning (Crystal, 1987:119). Hence, the content of any given clause
should support what has gone before, add to it, and help predict what is to come next. A good
deal of the research in discourse on topicality, for example, investigates the structural cues by
which predictability and continuity are created.
Givn gives a somewhat different structural definition of coherence (1995:327): The
paragraph (or clause-chain) boundary in discourse [is],..where all types of discontinuity cluster-
discontinuities of reference, spatiality, temporality, aspectuality, modality, perspective, etc.
Taken together, they are the visible, measurable manifestations of a single epiphenomenon-
thematic coherence."
According to Givns definition, thematic coherence is understood by language users at
the beginning or endpoint of a sequence of utterances. His claim is quite specific- we process
coherence at the level of discourse through discontinuity as opposed to cohesion. Cohesion is
the clause-to-clause link which tells the hearer that this stretch of discourse still belongs together.
When cohesion breaks-is made discontinuous-the hearer understands that a new thematic
block is beginning. This is a highly testable claim and one which the transitivity system by and
large supports.
The function proposed for transitivity is that it manages perspective for the purpose of
thematic coherence, and by inference, for the purposes of cohesion. It seems, as will be shown
throughout the chapter, that transitivity at the level of discourse provides a site for the
management of perspective and, as a clause-level system, contributes to both cohesion and
coherence. This cohesion is not created through linking the transitivity of one clause to another,
nor by linking even one transitive clause type to another. The transitivity of any given clause
doesn't predict the transitivity of the following clause so much as it predicts the perspective


26
2.2.1 Grammatical Behavior
In order for degree of transitivity" to be more than intuitively convenient, evidence must
be found in the grammatical behavior of languages themselves. For an issue such as transitivity
and the broad claims made for it, the grammatical behavior should be found not only at the level
of the clause, but also at the level of discourse. The first question is what counts as the clause-
level behavior of transitivity?
In English, the attraction of the active-passive alternation is the clarity and economy of
their connection. The passive is so obviously a structure which re-expresses" an event by
shifting the topic-focus relationships (a discourse phenomenon) while maintaining role
relationships (a semantic phenomenon). The popularity of the passive as a teaching tool and
starting place is the simplicity and elegance of the transformation. Are there other structures
equally instructive? For example, what distinguishes the passive from the middle voice? Simply
speaking, there is a single fact" with grammatical consequences: in the middle, the force or
effector role is not available syntactically which opens the door for alternative expressions not
allowed by the passive.
(1) Olaf opened the door/The door was opened (by Olaf)
(2) The door opened/ *The door opened by Olaf
(3) ?Olaf opened the door with a creak/?The door was creaked open (*by Olaf)
(4) The door opened with a creak/The door creaked open
(5) Olaf, opened his, door/His, door was opened (*by Olaf,)
(6) His door opened/Olaf s door opened
(7) His door creaked open/Olaf's door creaked open
In these sentences, the middle construction makes it possible to incorporate manner into
the verb (a productive process in English), whereas the passive partially or completely blocks
this movement. That is, in a passive sentence, although the affected participant is the subject, it
is still not the source or effector of the activity (the original roles are maintained). Manner cannot
be attributed to the verb when the locus of force is either implied or stated in the adjunct. In
other words, the conceptual iconicity in an active transitive" sentence is violated in the passive
but preserved in the middle. Only when the single overt participant is both the topic of discourse
and the locus of force of the verb can manner be incorporated. In the middle voice, this is the
case: the single participant is the only participant, and is the discourse topic, grammatical


137
respond Oh, do they?" and begin an investigation into that assertion. An impersonal,
propositional" passive solves the difficulty by not being about the agent at all, but only being
about the proposition itself. The initial it points to the predication so completely that the specter
of agency does not arise. The reader simply accepts it as the first premise of the author's
argument. There is no Effector, no Affected, and no real Trajectory. The sentence has none of
the semantics of a passive, and only a portion of the pragmatics.
A third kind of passive is similar to the propositional except that it seems only to have
the surface structure form and none of the semantics or pragmatics of transitivity: The present
study is concerned with a class of sentence-types in modern Hebrew which are analyzed as
lacking a grammatical subject, motivating a characterization of Hebrew as an (S)VO language'
(Berman, 1980:759). There is some precedent for considering this a type of passive: Her
behavior concerns me/I am concerned about/by her behavior Intuitively, it seems that the telic
transitive form of this verb is actually derived from the phrasal combination to be concerned
with/about." In the above example, the present study is behaving somewhat agentively and the
verb could easily be exchanged for examines" or investigates" with no loss of meaning. It is
probably the case that this is not a passive at all, but a formulaic phrase with the outer trappings
of a passive.
4.4 Concluding Remarks: Topic-Comment Structuring and Asymmetry
This project has the underlying assumption that something like asymmetry" motivates
some aspects of grammatical organization. Specifically, the contention is that asymmetry works
to create sets of imbalances which give speakers and listeners the means to manipulate and
monitor their attention with regards to salient information Most often, we find that salience is a
matter of important nominis: as language users, we want to know to whom or what the various
actions and states in an utterance are being ascribed. Transitivity has been shown to have a
critical function in this regard by opening up and closing down the number of potential candidates
for saliency. Topic-Comment structuring also works to create sets of imbalances for the
purposes of guiding attention.


124
(4) Simultaneously, and by means of the phonetic act, James performs the act of uttering
linguistic expressions, producing a series of tokens of forms according to the grammar
of a certain language, and with a certain intonation (Austins phatic act), with the
intention that it be recognized as belonging to that language.
Simultaneously as an orientation adverb does not subordinate its information to the
immediately preceding (that contained by first), but creates a new space to be filled. The
reader must go back to the first and main topic and mentally align this information subordinate to
the main but on equal footing with the first subtopic.
First...
simultaneously
phonetic uttering ling.
Figure 4.2: Topic/Subtopics Specified
The phrase .. .and by means of the phonetic act creates a link to subtopic in such a way as to
further our understanding of the relationship of subtopid to subtopic2. There is a relational link
created between them that is independent of the link to the main topic but further creates
conceptual coherence in the text as a whole.
The phrase. James performs the act of uttering linguistic expressions, producing a series of
tokens of forms..., is a rather complex grammatical construction. Berman and Slobin (1994)
provide evidence that this particular type of chaining is among the most complex across
languages; it is never used by children, rarely used by teens, and is not even that frequent in
adult discourse. They show that this kind of Event conflation is an expression of a macro-event
which includes both the first and second verb as conceptual equals, but which cannot be
expressed as such due to a gap in the lexicon, linear processing constraints, etc. In English, it is
expressed through the V1,V2-ing construction while in other languages it is expressed through
converbs and other morphological markers. Conceptually in this sentence, it would not matter if


8
must be marked so in the lexicon, or have more than one representation in the lexicon. If Indeed
transitivity Is something relevant to the entire clause, then at some point, all clauses must be
included In the lexicon, seriously compromising the validity of maintaining it as a separate
grammatical component (Rice, 1987:34). On the other hand, syntactic approaches to transitivity
offer two valuable and time-honored insights. First, a direct object (of some sort) plays a role in
determining transitivity. Second, syntactic behavior often provide a litmus test for transitivity. A
sentence which passivizes is considered fully transitive. Sentences which marginally passivize
are not fully" transitive, though may be distinguished from intransitive sentences which do not
have a direct object. So critical Is this notion that Rice uses passivizabillty as the primary test of
transitivity. These two points are the contributions made to the study of transitivity by researchers
who employ essentially syntactic, or verb-based, definitions.
1.3.2 Clause-Oriented Theories of Transitivity
Clause-oriented approaches to transitivity are semantic in nature, and may be roughly
divided into formal models which deal primarily with propositions, and cognitive models which
deal with conceptual structures. As stated above, It is sometimes difficult to tease apart
semantic models and discourse models of transitivity particularly since the authors of the former
are often making claims for the latter based on the semantics in question.
1.3.2.1 Propositional models
MlCk (1993) discusses transitivity in relation to voice. For him, there are two levels"
of semantics at work in the clause: first, the deep level of semantic structure where
propositional information works; second, the surface" level of semantic structure where
communicative effects are created. The propositional meaning is the literal," actual,
communicatively unmotivated representation of the event and, as is formally common, Is
"logically" read from the perspective of the verb (as a sort of basic-level meaning): V [x,y] (or
whatever representation is used). Each of the NPs is termed an actant": the subject or actor is
the first actant and the object or undergoer is the second actant. Communicative meaning,
however, is not literal" or without organizational intent, but is the level" of meaning
representing the speakers intent or organization or interpretation of the event (Givns


133
following sentence again employs a telic transitive: ...they allow clauses.... Thus the new
Information of sentence one has been successfully topicallzed as the Effector of the subsequent
clause. Yet the new Effector is still not a traditional instigator. The embedded passive, to be
characterized, resurrects the real actor of these clauses: the linguistic researcher. Essentially,
the component parts is really a semantic instrument. Rhetorically, though, the authors wish to
make the seemingly straightforward point that if transitivity can be broken down into component
parts, and these parts may variously combine to give degrees of transitivity, then it is quite
reasonable to propose a central or prototypical notion of transitivity. And, in doing so, we have
not really as researchers strayed away from the Aristotelian pre-theoretical" understanding. The
use of telic transitives to impart this information gives a sense of logic to the argument that is not
really there; there is, in logical fact, no particular reason why this argument is valid except that
the authors wish it to be so. The use of a narrative-llke structure, however, very cleverly lends
an aura of inescapabllity to the argument because of the Implication of contingent succession.
The second excerpt makes a different use of transitivity, though the narrative-like feel Is
the same. DuBois is setting up his argument here by showing the gap" In knowledge regarding
the study and status of ergativity as a linguistic phenomenon. The paragraph begins with a
dispersed transitive squarely placing the phenomenon of ergativity as problematic entity as the
theme. The passive in the following sentence keeps ergativity topicalized while still managing to
express the Effector in the fronted subordinate clause. Even the following telic transitive
manages to have some aspect of ergativity both Effector and Affected. The most powerful
effect, though, is the use of transitivity with the present perfect: has long constituted, have been
heightened, has made. The present perfect is a tense/aspect combination classically held to be
a way of bringing up the past in relevant connection to the present. Here, its persistent use gives
an aura of historical truth to an paragraph really expressing a theoretical interpretation. It Is a
very effective persuasive strategy.
As demonstrated above, the use of transitivity in academic writing can be rhetorically
motivated. The above writing is richer, denser, and basically more interesting to read than


60
Grammatically, this Is expressed via individual, single participant clauses. Thus even while
there is a kind of "macro-Event Structure implied, the expression of that structure is not
constrained to just one view. It is, however, constrained to the view of the participants.
Nevertheless, there is a cognitive basis for the confusion of time-lines, plot-lines, and
transitivity. The two-participant transitive sentence (in English) captures two aspects of events,
force dynamics and passage of time, and construes them in a parallel fashion to how they are
understood. That is, in a sentence such as Bill kicked the sleeping poodle both the "line of force
and the line" of time as the event happens are iconic with the grammatical construal and order
of participants: from Bill to the dog both in terms of trajectory and time. Its a rather natural leap
to claim that the iconcity operates on the discourse level as well, especially since that is
sometimes the case. Part of the challenge of this study is to take this notion of transitivity into
realms other than narrative and determine its validity and usefulness in contexts where
information flow is separate from time flow.
2.5 The Asymmetry Principle in Cognition and Communication
Thus far in the discussion on semantics, the goal has been to reduce the proliferation of
components by searching for commonalities that may unite them on a more abstract level. The
particular relationship singled out has been asymmetry." The discussion was not meant to
discredit or detract from the semantic work done so far; indeed, Rice's excellent semantic/
cognitive explanation of transitivity has been formative in my own work. Rather, the question is
not whether there are cognitive or semantic aspects to transitivitycertainly, there are-but what
it means that it is these aspects which are grammatically specified. Why should there be
conceptual endpoints in event structure? Why should skewing towards one end of the
Effector/Affected relationship be significant? A preliminary answer lies in the statement above:
asymmetry. Grammatically, where grammar is understood to be the system mediating internal
representation and communication by providing ...a set of options for schematizing experience
for the purposes of verbal expression" (Slobin, 1996:75), asymmetry provides one means by
which this goal is accomplished. Specifically, asymmetry organizes grammar by presenting sets
of salience relationships that can be systematically attended to through time. That is, one way of


91
Book Three. The Two-Front War
I want to blow those bastards out of space." 0
The Excalibur had just been rocked by the opening salvo from the
black-and-silver ship that hung 100,000 kilometers to starboard.
Book Four. End Game
The refugeesj from the Gambon bleated in fear as they¡ were herded into
a large auditorium. Pacing the front of the room was the womanj whom
they¡ knew to be Laheeraj...apparently, a high muck-a-muck in the
hierarch\ of the world of Nelkar. Shej looked at them¡ angrily, her fury
seeming to radiate from her in such a manner that is measurable by
instrumentation.
The first excerpt begins with a telic transitive, though a fairly shallow one. It wouldnt
be grammatically impossible for this sentence to passivize, however it would be highly unlikely,
given the overall context. It is the opening sentence, the subject of the sentence is the Effector,
and the object is of lower RS. The reader expects that Falkar is the topical participant and this is
the case.
The second excerpt begins with, according to Rice (1987), a prepositional telic transitive.
Again, the sentence could grammatically passivize (though there is greater disagreement among
native speakers with prepositional telics). Further, should the sentence passivize, the following
sentence could still be used and would still make sense. This is an example of deep
transitivity. Nevertheless, the author has chosen to go with a straightforward telic with equal
participant RS, skewing reader expectations towards the object. And this is precisely what
happens. The following sentence features Jellico as sentential topic, albeit it in a somewhat
unusual example of dispersed transitivitythe path aspect is construed across the mental"
domain which encompasses both intellectual and emotional states. Two features of thematic
coherence are preserved. First, the greater thematic continuity of topic is retained; even though
Shelby is not the subject of the second sentence, the statement is still about her reactions, not
his. Second, intra-clausal cohesion is maintained by following the pattern expected of telic
transitives with equal RS. Jellico does become the subject of the following sentence. In fact, the
author has made very effective use of the competing motivations of the subject and object roles
in English.


129
It is permissible to say this sort of thing about humans. They do resemble,
in their most compulsively social behavior, ants at a distance. It is, however,
quite bad form in biological circles to put it the other way round, to imply that
the operation of insect societies has any relations at all to human affairs. The
writers of books on insect behavior generally take pains, in their prefaces, to
caution that insects are like creature from another planet, that their behavior is
absolutely foreign, totally unhuman, unearthly, almost unbiological. They are
more like perfectly tooled but crazy little machines, and we violate science
when we try to read human meanings in their arrangements.
It is hard for a bystander not to do so. Ants are so much like human
beings as to be an embarrassment. They farm fungi, raise aphids as
livestock, launch armies into wars, use chemical sprays to alarm and confuse
enemies, capture slaves. The families of weaver ants engage in child labor,
holding their larvae like shuttles to spin out the thread that sews the leaves
together for their fungus gardens. They exchange information ceaselessly.
They do everything but watch television.
First, note the extensive use of intransitive predicates in the first two paragraphs,
particularly the copula and state verbs: have the look of, is, would not be, resemble. There is
one dispersed transitive and one (possible) atelic: cast out a line towards and take pains to
caution, respectively. Despite the relatively sparse use of verbs, there is an enormous amount
of information being communicated, all about the same theme: from a distance, people look like
ants and further, ants look like people.
Interestingly enough, the single telic transitive occurring before the third paragraph, we
violate science, is not only a deep transitive, but occurs in the last line at a transition point
between the expository surface structure and the off-line excursion into a narrative micro-text.
Thus, when the following paragraph begins, the reader has the three points of view opened up by
a telic transitive as the topic for the following paragraph, namely we, science, or the violation of
science (Effector, Affected, and Predication, respectively).
The transition line in the next paragraph takes the third of the above options. The
sentence, It is hard for a bystander not to do so, refers back to the predication of the previous
line, the violation of science. The second sentence explicitly ties this paragraph back to the
theme (people are like ants; ants are like people) and establishes ants as the paragraph topic of
this section of discourse. Essentially, Thomas is trying to demonstrate that the comparison of
ants to people is as worthy an act as the other way around, but first he must begin the process of
proving that ants can be said to participate in the kinds of activities that people do.


27
subject, and locus of force. In many languages, the middle Is marked by a distinctive case, such
as absolutive, further distinguishing it from normal" subject-verb-object relationships.
The possessive also has a powerful effect grammatically. Although there appear to be
two distinct entitles In the world (certainly Olaf and the door are not one and the same thing),
they are not construed as distinct, as evidenced by the non-availability of the passive. In the
middle voice, though, there is a single effector/affected, and the possessive does not interfere
with the predication options available to it.
Thus, it can be argued that in English, there are both syntactic and discourse
consequences when the relationship between participant/s and event is differently
construed. Simply shifting topic-focus relationships does not Induce a change in participant-
event relationships. Rather, there are grammatical constructions which instantiate changes in
these relationships which in turn have consequences for other levels of grammar. Therefore, it
is theoretically palatable to label participant-event relationships differently, and this label is
called transitivity.
As the examples above show, it is not merely the number of participants bound by the
predicate, but the nature of that relationship which affects grammar. On the other hand, the
passive alternation is only available to clauses with two distinctly construed participants. Hence
the number of participants Is not irrelevant, either. If the statement bolded above is reasonable,
then Its necessary not to limit the discussion of transitivity to only those sentences with two
participants. An alternative must be found which accounts for participant-event relationships,
includes a place for two-participant constructions, but Is not limited to them. Immediately, as we
shall see, an appeal has to be made to semantics.
2.3 The Semantics of Transitivitv
As the brief discussion of transitivity and syntax shows, syntax" is not the crux of the
problem. Semantics, on the other hand, is quite the opposite. There is a bewildering array of
semantic explanations of transitivity traversing a number of theoretical approaches. For some
theories, such as Role and Reference Grammar (Van Valin, 1993), transitivity is a straight-


THE ASYMMETRY PRINCIPLE:
A FUNCTIONAL INVESTIGATION OF TRANSITIVITY AND TOPIC-COMMENT
STRUCTURING IN ENGLISH
By
MICHELLE SUZANNE SCHAFER
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1998


29
2.3.1 The Active. Affirmative, Declarative Prototype
Givn (1995) proposes quite forcefully that there are three dimensions essential to the
semantics of transitivity corresponding to the prototypical transitive event" (76):
Agent: The prototypical transitive clause involves a volitional,
controlling, actively-initiating agent who is responsible for the event, thus its
salient cause
Patient: The prototypical transitive event involves a non-volitional,
inactive non-controlling patient who registers the event's changes-of-state,
thus its most salient effect
Verbal Modality: The verb of the prototypical transitive clause
codes an event that is perfective (non-durative), sequential (non-perfect) and
realis (non-hypothetical). The prototypical transitive event is thus fast-paced,
completed, real, and perceptually-cognitively salient.
Givn explicitly justifies his definition by appealing to methodology: ... one studies the
pragmatics of voice while holding the transitive semantic frame more or less constant For this
reason, I will exclude from the discussion here a group of de-transitive voice constructions that,
in one way or another, tamper with the semantic core of the transitive event' (76, emphasis
added). There are several problems with the above statements which will first be noted, then
taken up one by one. The discussion below intends to investigate more closely the claims made
for a semantic-transitive core, one which Givn gives the most clear and concise expression to
and to which most researchers in this area appear to subscribe.
The first difficulty with this approach is not the methodology itself but the foundation
upon which the method is based: that there is such a thing as a single, unitary transitive
prototype against which ALL clauses not exhibiting the semantic prototype should be assessed.
It is, in essence, a non-enlightening definition, claiming that all sentences which are not
perfectly" transitive are not so because they do not have the defining components of the
transitive event which make for prototypical transitivity. At issue here is not whether voice
alternations exist, or whether they can be compared, but whether all should be related back to
the same semantic core.
The second difficulty is in the labeling of agent and patient" for most salient cause
and effect. Cognitively, the most salient cause and effect may be quite distant from the


49
by lowering the volitionality, hence the overall measure of transitivity for the event (1994, 43).
This should not be surprising since something similar happens in English when the whole of
event structure is spread out over the verb phrase plus a prepositional phrase: Cora swung his
blade and cut down the opposing swordswoman. While the first predication, Cora swung his
blade is transitive" in the sense of having a syntactic direct object, the entire event in question
has two parts: the initiating event (swinging the blade) and the ending result (cutting down the
opponent). Recall that Kemmer's elaboration of events allows various levels of focus on the
event so that a whole structure such as might be expressed in a basic transitive clause, i.e. Cora
killed the opposing swordswoman, can be expressed via attention to any of its parts.
Nevertheless, the blade" in question, while a prototypical patient (it is affected by change of
location, non-human) is really but an instrument in the overall event; it is not the instigating
force, and is not the locus of effect.
Just as agent is an impllcature from a more basic role, Effector, patient is likewise an
implicature based on lexical, semantic, and pragmatic factors. The appeal of agency and
patlenthood as necessary qualities derives from their antonymical quality; they are not merely
distinct, they are maximally distinct. Yet they are not essential to high transitivity. Instead, they
mark the far endpoints, the points at which transitivity as a system is easiest to see. Indeed, the
semantic characterization at work here seems to be asymmetry. In really high transitivity,
there are indeed both highly agentltive subjects and highly affected participants, e g. John kicked
the sleeping poodle/Brutus smashed the antique vase. On the other hand, for merely high
transitivity, (as defined by the possibility of passive and/or middle alternations), only one of the
participants need be capable of effecting or of being affected: Olaf jumped the fence; Bertha
danced Swan Lake beautifully; The moon orbits the earth; Sven broke the glass; Gertrude drove
the car; The wind blew the leaves gently.
Participant asymmetry, "skewing" as it is termed here, has actual structural effects. That
which is not skewed towards the affected participant (or which is not neutral with regards to either
end) has limitations. Thus, the difference between Brutus shattered the glass and Brutus


151
Van Valin, R.D. Jr. 1993. Advances in Role and Reference Grammar Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
and D P. Wilkins. 1996. The Case forEffector: Case Roles, Agents, and Agency
Revisited." Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning. M. Shibatani and
S.A. Thompson (eds). 289-322. Oxford: Claredon Press.
Vendler, Z. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Cornell University Press.
Verkuyl, H.J. 1993. A Theory of Aspectuality: The Interaction between Temporal and Atemporal
Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wexler, P. 1981. Jewish Interlinguistics." Language. 57:99-149.
Wierzbicka, A. 1988. The Semantics of Grammar Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing.
Yule, George. 1966. The Study of Language. Cambridge; New York. Cambridge University
Press.
Zelazny, R. 1995. Lady of Steel. Chicks in Chainmail. E. Friesner (ed). 5-7. Riverdale, New
York: Baen Publishing Enterprises.


123
results in connected speech sounds. Presumably, the goal of the phonetic act is to
produce an acoustic object that the addressee (Gram) will recognize as speech sounds
(and not, e.g., as involuntary vocalizations such as belches or sneezes).
The sentence begins with what is traditionally considered an adverbial conjunction.
Descriptively, these markers may be called orientational adverbs because that is their
functional role in the text: they orient the reader to how the subsequent information should be
understood vis--vis what has gone before. Semantically, first is a logical enumerator.
Functionally, it indicates the subsequent information should be understood with respect to the
established topic. Thus, "he performs" does not switch the topic back to James because it is
contained within the scope of the adverbial-everything within this communicative act is intended
to be understood as more information about the topic, "speech acts."
Nevertheless, its quite clear that this sentence also introduces a new participant,
phonetic act." The reader knows this for much the same reasons given above: the nominal
occurs in the traditional site of new information and subsequent information in this sentence and
the following expands upon that nominal. Yet, all of this information is contained within the
adverbial first, and will be further limited by the following assertion beginning with
simultaneously." It is clear that phonetic act" is not topical in the same way that speech acts"
is topical. Instead, "phonetic act" is a subtopic. Subtopic may be defined as a nominal element
about which information is predicated but which stands in a subordinate" role to the main topic.
It therefore has a node" of its own, with informative strands coming off of the node, but still
connected to the main topic:
r
TOPICsuhtonic.
Figure 4.1: Topic/Subtopic
Presumably" is again an orientational adverb with semantic content which does not enumerate,
but comments on, therefore does not introduce a new subtopic but continues expanding on the
establish subtopic.


108
for the general information structure of expository text. Longacre proposes and develops a
working model for the relationships between discourse notional type and surface structure, which
are so often overlooked or ignored in linguistic studies, even those which are purportedly
discourse oriented. While his model has not gone uncrltlqued, It still serves as an excellent
statement of a working grammar of discourse structure and has inspired much of definition
offered below. Goutsos fills in a critical missing component in the study of expository text--that
of sequential relationships and strategies. If indeed expository texts form whole discourses with
beginnings, middles, and ends, then there must be some way to get from one end of the text to
the other, and Goutsos provides an excellent model for how this task is accomplished. The
organization for this section, though, will be based on the parts of expository text itself rather
than an author-by-author discussion. Each will be worked In as appropriate.
4.2.1 Narrative Versus Expository Text
The definition of one item in terms of another is not always a profitable form of
investigation, but in this case, the comparison of narrative and expository text proves fruitful:
So determinative of detail Is the general design of a discourse type that the linguist who ignores
discourse typology can only come to grief (Longacre, 1983:1). Nevertheless, expository and
narrative structure also share crucial similarities: Something like plot characterizes forms of
discourse other than narrative. If we grant that any discourse is going somewhere. It follows that
it does not simply start and stop but that it may have some sort of cumulative expression in
between" (20). Thus, the following discussion will examine not only what distinguishes narrative
and expository text but also the elements of structure they both share.
4.2.1.1 Differences
Longacre (1977, 1983) employs four binary features to categorize notional types:
contingent temporal succession, agent orientation, projection, and tension. Contingent
succession refers to whether or not the reader moves through the text via events or doings which
depend on previous events or doings. Agent orientation refers to whether doers of actions form
the persistent referential framework of the text. Projection refers to whether or not the actions
and situations of a text are realized. Finally, tension reflects a conflict or struggle in the text.


25
2.2 Syntax
The claim for syntax is that there must be at least two participants who are distinct in the
world (in other words, are not co-extensive) and bound structurally within the same clause. The
necessity of two participants is a claim made by nearly all linguists regarding transitivity, even
those who propose a scalar model. Hopper and Thompson (1980) do make the strongest
attempt at a scalar model, but to a great extent still regard High transitivity with two participants
as the prototypical and basic level against which less transitive statements should be measured.
If transitivity is to be a useful designation, then the simple binary opposition of transitive/
intransitive where the former is transitivity" (in which two participants is a necessary but not
sufficient condition) and the latter is not transitivity (because it is not transitive) needs
amending. This is not simply a matter of eliminating terminological confusion but of creating
theoretical clarity. There are three options possible: first, keep the term transitivity for the
theoretical construct and use other terms for the,binary opposition itself, such as valency (if,
indeed, the binary opposition holds true); second, use some other term for the theoretical
, J <. *
construct, perhaps argument structure" and keep the terms transitive and intransitive (same
caveat as above); third, keep the term transitivity" for the theoretical construct and reform our
understanding of that construct so that it is useful for linguistic analysis. Option three is the
choice of this study.
Initially, I will follow Rice, Hopper and Thompson, Givn, Halliday, and Berman and
Slobin in proposing that transitivity is a scalar phenomenon. However, I will take this to its
logical extreme by avoiding the traditional notion that transitive statements must have two
participants, claiming rather that if there are degrees of transitivity, then the number and nature
of participants is simply one component. In order to substantiate this claim, first the "nature" of
the participants must be made clear (as It turns out, co-extensive" Is more a matter of construal
than strict pragmatic or logical In the worldness") as well as the nature" of the activity (to be
discussed further in the semantics section). Second, what is meant by scalar" or degrees must
also be made clear and useful.


28
forward matter of semantic macro-roles and not that complicated a matter. For the cognitive
camps, however, transitivity is-or is related to--conceptual structure and is quite complex.
Currently, cognitive models of transitivity are producing considerable results so it is to these
models our investigation turns.
There are, by and large, two principle processes currently competing for attention in
cognitive theory: prototype theory and implicature. Prototype theory (Rosch 1973,1975,1977,
1978 and 1981; Lakoff, 1987) proposes that categories are organized around prototypical or
canonical instances. In some cases, the canonical example itself is the prototypical image
against which categorization is made. In other cases, characteristics are abstracted from
canonical members and it is these characteristics which form the prototype. Implicature (Grice,
1975) is a different process altogether. Implicature is not concerned with the organization of
categories but with the processing of information. This is linguistic cognition" (Givn, 1995)
which takes place between overt linguistic information (such as the sentence) and covert
information (such as the knowledge brought to that sentence by speaker and hearer).
Implicature may be defined as stable linguistic inferencing," a linguistic-cognitive process which
is part of normal linguistic functioning.
Prototype theory has enjoyed quite a bit of attention and many theorists subscribe to
prototype analyses for an enormous range of linguistic behavior. Implicature is less used, yet is
probably the more appropriate choice for much of what passes for discourse-level and pragmatic
processes. A closer look needs to be aimed at some of the uses of prototype theory. For
example, does it really make sense to say there is a prototypical sentence type? A basic model
against which all sentences are created and judged? The arguments for such are based on
cognitive models, such as Lakoff's idealized cognitive models," and these kinds of highly
abstract grammatical schemas are generally supported by those who study the development of
the human conceptual system (Mandler, 1991). However, there are equally compelling reasons
to believe that at a certain point of complexity-i.e. discourse-- prototype theory is an insufficient
or an inappropriate account for linguistic behavior; it is not that prototype theory is wrong, but
rather that it is applied with too broad a brush stroke.


46
Slobin (1996) confirms as much in his comparision of texts in English and Spanish, showing that
while event structure conceptually encompasses the whole of P/T relationships, there are regular
patterns instantiated in various languages. In English, very often P/T relationships are not coded
within a single clause but in clause-phrase combinations (see Hopper and Luchjenbroers cited
above), as in Cora swung his blade and cut down the opposing swordswoman. Spanish,
however, tends to code both the manner" of the activity and its trajectory in a single verb. This
difference results in both different lexicalizations of verbs and also different pattern of discourse.
For English, transitivity actually has FOUR forms in which it is expressed, each
instantiating particular P/T relationships and clause structure. These are the four clause-types of
transitivity in English (please see Figure at chapter's end for a schematic representation and
textual examples).
lntransitive(Durative transitive) Endpoint but little Trajectory, bound by the same clause
Atelic Transitive- single Endpoint plus Trajectory in either direction, bound by the same clause
Telic Transitive two Endpoints plus Trajectory, bound by the same clause
Dispersed Transitive two Endpoints plus Trajectory specified across a clause and a phrase
These forms are descriptive in nature, although they have theoretical and typological bases.
They will also be used as working terms throughout the project. Ultimately, I believe the above
terms are more accurate than the concept of degrees since, as shown above, there are not
degrees of transitivity from a single prototype, but (at least) three different prototypes each with
its own degrees." Languages are more properly investigated for how they express
Point/Trajectory complexes than for their degrees" of transitivity. At the level of text, participant
semantics, lexical semantics, and pragmatics also come into play to create the entire implicature
normally labeled "transitivity." Throughout this project, I will use the terms Starting point, Ending
point, Trajectory, and P/T complex when referring to the purely schematic aspects of transitivity.
2.3.4 Agent, Patient" and Other Labels
Having dealt with the extension of prototype to transitivity and discarded the notion of a
single prototype in favor of at least three prototypes expressed via four clause types, we now
move to a different level of meaning-participant semantics. Recall that Givn, Hopper and
Thompson, and Rice among others accept the roles agent" and patient" as core relationships


136
what is required is an expression of a state of affairs which is thematic and a surface form
allowed by English with this effect. The result is a passive" with no real telle counterpart.
The second type of passive, the propositional passive, exploits the pragmatics of the
surface structure passive, though not the semantics. In this type, an entire proposition requires
thematicization. Contrast the examples above with the following: It should be emphasized that
the opening of Jewish languages to enrichment from a number of Jewish and non-Jewish
sources very often assumes a cyclical character (Wexler, 1981:133); It is commonly believed that
agents constitute a single primitive category, distinct from other categories such as patient
(Saksema, 1980:812).
In the above passives, it could be argued that a believing or emphasizing community
is obliquely referred to as agent: It is commonly believed (by the linguistic community) that....
However, this example bears a striking resemblance to existential statements such as It is
raining outside. While there is no Effector subject obliquely referred to In such impersonal
passives: pragmatically, we understand there must be an observer or experiencer capable of
making the judgment.
The same sort of pragmatic understanding attains in the example above. They are an
extreme example of Longacre's gnomic" passive. Essentially, two pragmatic forces on the
writers part are in conflict. First, there is the need to express for argument's sake a piece of
Information regarding activity in the linguistic community. This activity is so widespread, though,
that a citation list would be unmanageably long. On the other hand, the writer must contend with
an engaged reader who may be willing to argue with any asserted proposition. A surface form
must be used which resolves the conflict. A bald statement such as Agents constitute a single
primitive category cannot be used because the writer is not asserting the truth of this statement
but contending its truth in the face of prevailing belief. Also, the reader can forthrightly disagree
with the statement which undoes the writers need for the premise to be accepted. Even the
softer statement Linguists tend to believe that agents... is dangerous because the statement is
still an assertion about linguists and not about linguistic knowledge. The reader might well


128
notional discourse type overall, within any discourse type, smaller pieces of text may be found
which serve particular functions with regard to the whole. I call these texts micro-texts" to
distinguish them from sub-texts which are embedded examples of text of the same notional
type In which they appear (such as embedded narratives providing background Information on a
character in a narrative text). The distinguishing feature between sub-texts and micro-texts is
that the latter may have some of the features of a discourse type, but it does not have all of
them. Micro-texts serve a transition function within a text type by signaling a diversion off the
main textual line. The Instances of micro-texts can vary: descriptive texts within narrative types;
narrative texts within expository types; expository texts within hortatory types. In fact, any kind
of micro-text can be used in any kind of discourse type.
Functionally, however, micro-texts do not necessarily have the same purpose as
embedded discourses as they do as notional types. Rather, what appears to be carried over
from the notional type is the surface structure and some portion of the semantics of the original
put to use for a different function. This seems clear for the examples below. Not surprisingly, a
number of instances of transitivity in expository text occur within narrative micro-texts.
Functionally, narrative micro-texts are used to exemplify or illustrate a particular point of the
theme. The use of narrative in this way adds vividness, even drama. And as Longacre points
out, vividness is preeminently a surface structure phenomenon" whereby the writer of a text
breaks with the usual surface structure of a notional type to elicit the readers attention at a
certain point. In the example below, it is as if at this point in the text, the author is saying Okay,
I know you don't really believe what I've said so Im going to tell you a little story to prove my
point. Thus, narrative micro-texts in expository texts have the same surface relationship to the
whole as sub-texts do: they go off the main argument line of the text to give more information
relevant to a particular theme.
The following example is taken from Lewis Thomas' On Societies as Organisms' in
Lives of a Cell. The essay begins by comparing a large meeting of people to an assemblage of
ants. Lewis then begins arguing in the second paragraph (where the excerpt begins) that while
the comparison may be made in one direction, it cannot be made in the other.


106
increasing predictability, and helping to fulfill grammar's task as the linguistic manager of on-line
comprehension.
The question remaining is what role does transitivity play in non-narrative discourse?
What perspective is managed in expository text? How does perspectival distance work when
events are primarily non-physical? Finally, what function does a P/T complex have if time and
perspective are not the textual connective tissue? These questions will be addressed in Chapter
Four.


68
reliance on semantic parameters with little to no explanation for the structural elements which
link clauses. My approach attempts to fill in this gap.
I claimed in Chapter Two that transitivity is the system underlying "event view," which
Berman and Slobin designate with three views Cause, Become, and State. Here, I am proposing
to operationalize what is meant by the attitude, interpretation, or selectional affect of transitivity.
Simply put, the particular transitive clause type chosen frees up or constrains the participant
perspective available in the subsequent clause. In other words, perspective here is not a
loosely defined or intuitive notion but is actually constrained to participant points of view. As we
shall see, each of the four clause types of transitivity In English has certain freeing or
constraining effects as it interacts with other discourse dimensions (similar to, but not the same
as, Berman and Slobins). But these effects are limited to predictions about participants.
3.1.3 Management of Perspective
According to above discussion, what is being "managed" is the availability of perspective
through participants. Availability in this case encompasses both anaphoric and cataphoric
signals. Anaphorically, for a participant to be recognized as thematically continuous, it must
already be established in discourse and marked accordingly. Cataphorically, for a participant to
be expected to continue, it must be cast in a grammatical form that hearers know mark thematic
importance. In either case, the form some participant takes opens up, closes down, or maintains
the hearers Interpretation that this participant is thematically important.
There are two widely recognized means by which availability is managed. First is the
nominal form the participant takes. Whether something is fully specified or pronominalized,
definite or indefinite, specific or generic gives critical Information to the hearer as to the thematic
importance of the participant. The second strategy is clause structure. Participants in main
clauses tend to be more thematic than those in subordinate clauses. Subjects tend to be more
thematic than objects. For the management of perspective via transitivity, both of these
strategies work together with the four clause types to form stable Implicatures by which the
hearer may infer which participants and/or events are likely to continue. As we shall see below,
intransltives provide the least discourse constraint, atelic and dispersed provide the greatest


33
Mandler (420) introduces one more leap which brings us a step closer to what happens
at the level of linguistic representation. She combines the schemas of animate motion and
caused motion to produce a schema which she says accounts for the notion agency:
AGENCY
/ \
O )
V
Figure 2.4: Mandlers Image Schema of Agency
This schema combines all the above aspects together. An animate Endpoint causes itself to
move and in doing so, moves an second Endpoint. The result is a complex image-schema
sensitive to both Endpoints of an event as well as the trajectory.
While Mandler admits that we do not know when such a conceptualization arises in
infancy, she cites Leslie (1982,1984) which shows that infants between 4 and 7 months old show
surprise responses when animate objects move inanimate objects without contact between the
two while also showing no surprise when inanimate objects do so. In other words, by 7 months
there appears to be evidence for some basic notion of agency as it relates to animate-inanimate
interaction.
Linguistically, there is evidence that as children acquire language, they are sensitive to
the above distinctions. Developmentally, the various parts of motion are among the first to be
expressed linguistically. Slobin (1982) cites an example with the ergative language, Kaluli. In
Kaluli, there is an ergative noun suffix which attaches only to agents of actions, that is actions
where an agent acts upon another human or non-human and causes a change of state or
location. The ergative suffix is attached to sentences such as Mother is cooking but not to
sentences such as Mother is sleeping. Two remarkable facts occur developmentally. First, as
early as 26 months old, the child consistenly marks the ergative suffix in two word utterances,
particularly with highly dynamic verbs such as give, take, grab, and hit. Second, the ergative
suffix is never over-extended to the subjects of sentences such as Mother is sleeping.


73
Prince (1981), Chafe (1994), etc. who defined topic in terms of its cognitive status in the
discourse: Semantically, a topic is definite in the sense that it has to be a particulars ntity or
event that has already occupied the mind of the speaker and hearer" (Chu, 1983:132). Prince
and Chafe developed models of activation states" to account for the variety of definite noun
phrases that occur in discourse, including those that the original conceptions of topic could not
account for: / saw a new house today, but I didn't like the kitchen. It was too small/1 saw a new
house today, but I didn't like the neighborhood. It was too crowded/1 wanted to see houses
today, but the realtor wasn't feeling well. tVe have to schedule for next week. In each of these
sentences, the conjunct clause contains a noun phrase which is new to the discourse, occurs in
the site of new information, but is definite and the topic of the next sentence. Prince explains
this through types of inference wherein any nominal excites a field of related terms which are
allowed into the discourse without explicit previous mention. The nominis are all inferrable
from various kinds of pragmatic knowledge. More recently, Prince has proposed discourse-
based degrees of givenness from the perspective of hearer-discourse interaction (1992,
summarized in Chu, 1996):
Hearer
old
old
new
new
Discourse
old already evoked
new has not been evoked; speaker believes its
old to hearer
new has not been evoked; speaker believes its
new to hearer
old has been evoked; speaker believes hearer
is not aware of it
Princes proposals together have the advantage of covering at least two sources of discourse
information, semantic/pragmatic and discourse-negotiated.
Other distinctions created in discussions of topic include such categories as discourse
topic versus sentence topic. Where Ochs, Keenan, and Scheifflin explicitly identify their topic as
a discourse topic, Lambrecht (1994) claims his discussion is of a sentence topic and is to
explicitly contrast the "focus" of the sentence, which is the new information. But what linguistic
features actually distinguish a discourse topic from a sentential topic? Givon claims the
distinction is quantitative in nature ...the main behavioral manifestation of important topics in


112
for existential and equational clauses--often with considerable nominallzatlon" (Longacre, 1983:
8).
The result is the quite different predilection towards predicate types in the two
discourses. Narrative texts favor eventive predications precisely because the text moves its
referential nuclei through the text via contingent activities. The referential nucleus of an
expository text is not an individual actor, though: it is an entire proposition. Since the purpose of
an expository text is usually a combination of informing and persuading, the author is forced into
the activity of explaining the various presuppositions of the proposition before getting to
demonstrate the assertion itself. The result is sets of information networked in mental space"
rather than a series of events linked through time.
In the Discourse Communities text, there is an abundance of assertions involving
situations or states. The opening question presupposes a state for its answer: It Is" Is usually
the answer to "What is." The material In between proposes several sets of hypothetical
situations In relationship to the statement if you and a friend have one or more discourse
communities in common, [then].... These hypothetical situations are not related linearly to one
another. The order of items could very well be switched with no real loss or distortion of
meaning. What is created is a network-like structure around the definition of discourse
communities in a basic exemplification relationship.
The Sphere text, on the other hand, sports almost exclusively eventive predicates with
clear Effector and Affected participants: blood had stopped flowing, Norman lifted the
icepack...and adjusted the flow of the intravenous drip, Beth had started the intravenous drip in
Harry's hand..., They were dripping an anaesthetic mixture into him. The action is linear in
nature with only two off-time-line events (blood had stopped flowing, Beth had started the
intravenous drip), neither of which seriously interrupts" the time-line. Each action leads to the
next In a smooth flow from the state proposed at the beginning of the paragraph (he seemed to
be breathing more regularly, more easily) to the ending state at its close (But otherwise he was
okay. Out cold.). The reader Is moved forward in time as Is characteristic of narrative text.


13
functions, and forms which are very much linguistic in nature. Nevertheless, Rice's line of
reasoning has led to significant insights into the nature of transitivity.
The prototypical transitive event, according to Rice, has many of the same
characteristics as mentioned above: the activity is unilateral, thus the entities are in an
asymmetrical relationship; contact between the entities is important; the second entity is affected
by the first; and the entities are distinct from one another, their locale or setting, and from the
speaker/conceptualizer. However, transitivity is as much a function of the describers
interpretation of the event as it is the content of the event being described. It is this observation
that accounts for metaphoric extension from the realm of the physical as well as variability in
speakers' acceptance of passives. It is the first point which I find particularly significant.
In Rice's cognitive model, transitivity is prototypically a dynamic event in which the
participants are in an asymmetrical relationship and some change to the "object" is due to an
action/effect which traveled along some kind of directional path from the first participant to the
second. Thus, conceptually, several factors are crucial. First, the two participants are in an
asymmetrical relationship; in other words, one participant must have the means to affect the
other or one participant must have the capacity to be affected. Second, the action must be
kinetic and/or forceful. Third, there must be some kind of path construed between the
participants, even if the activity itself takes place instantaneously. Fourth, the receiver of the
action must be affected in some way, though this can cover a wide range of possibilities,
including change of state, change of location, etc. Of course, the change itself may be
construed from experience. In the well-worn example, John hit Bill, the change to Bill is not
made obvious in the sentence but construed from our experience with the world.
In the cognitivist model, reality is constructed, paving the way for important links
between language and cognition. One of these links is metaphoric extension from "bodily
images" (Johnson, 1987) to non-physical domains. Rice brilliantly makes this point for
transitivity in mental domains and communicative or interpersonal domains. That is, for each of
the primary domains in which we act physical, mental, social -- there are prototypical transitive


120
for greater discussion). English, though, in not such a language, yet also has some clausal
coding of T-C structure. Specifically, we find texts broadly structured through continuation and
transition spans, both within and between thematic sections of text. Two devices in particular
emerge as strong signposts of thematic continuity and discontinuity: adverbial expressions, and
surprisingly, telic transitivity. A third pattern, structural parallelism, is also frequently employed,
and is a powerful indicator of continuity within a single extended topic-comment structure at
points of transition; in other words, as a device for signaling subtopics. However, parallelism is
rarely used by itself, but accompanies other informational signals, usually adverbial expressions.
For this reason, it will be discussed as it occurs in the text with other devices, rather than as a
topic of its own.
Finally, because the focus of this dissertation is transitivity, it has been the grammatical
entity to receive full theoretical treatment. The theoretical structure of adverbs, of continuation
and transitions spans, even of parallelism is beyond the scope of this project. Thus, the
following discussion is largely descriptive in nature. While some research avenues are
suggested or implied, my concern is to demonstrate the role of adverbial expressions and telic
transitives as they manage information flow in expository texts with regards to topic-comment
structuring. A fuller investigation must await another time.
4.3.1 The Role of Adverbial Expressions: Continuation Spans
As a term, adverbial expressions" encompasses not only spatial and temporal adverbs, but
also conjunctions. These are all linguistic devices who function is to relate subsequent
information with what has come before. In terms of T-C structuring, adverbials can signal either
continuity or discontinuity in sentential topic. However, as will be demonstrated below,
adverbials are primarily responsible for information structuring within a larger continuation span
and thus serve to coordinate information relationships within the extended comment of a macro
topic. In this way, they behave more as non-telic-transitives do in narrative text. Adverbial
expressions signal that the current topic, even if a switch from the previous clause, nevertheless
is part of a larger thematic network.


17
one new argument can be introduced at a time (this notion is also found in Givn, 1990a/b and
Chafe, 1994, though both authors suggested as much in earlier publications). Further, the new
argument is preferably an intransitive subject or transitive object. In terms of the discourse basis
of ergativity, DuBois concludes: It appears, then, that speakers often select an intransitive verb,
not necessarily for its conceptual or semantic one-placeness, but for its compatibility with
constraints on information flow" (1987:831). DuBois also found evidence for the same type of
patterning in nominative/accusative languages; my own work in Cree suggests that statistically,
clause type and full lexical specification of NPs correlates with function in narrative discourse.
Yet another discourse perspective on transitivity is presented by Berman and Slobin
(1994). They conducted a cross-generational, cross-linguistic study of the acquisition of
narrative competence. Briefly, Berman and Slobin propose that in a skillful narrative, events are
not presented in a simple linear chain of successive occurrences in time and space. Rather,
events are packaged" into hierarchical constructions. Part of that packaging arises from a
filtering process whereby speakers construe events over four dimensions: topic, locus of control
and effect, event view (Cause, Become, State), and degree of agency (1994:519).
Topic represents the speakers choice of protagonist, the participant from whose
viewpoint the narrative is constructed or who the listener is intended to have "empathy" for (in
Kuno's sense of the term). Loci of control and effect represents the energy source of the event
which may or may not be the same as the topic. In a passive sentence, for instance, with an
overt by-phrase, the affected participant is the topic but the energy source for the event is also
present.
The selection of event view is the speaker's means of representing the semantic nature
of the event-as-process. A Cause-View represents one participant causing a change of state in
another. A Become-View represents a change of state without mention of a causative force. A
State-View simply represents a state itself. These three views are strikingly similar to Hallidays
three clause types, particularly as they interact with locus of control and effect.
Degree of Agency is the means by which the speaker represents the overall dynamism
of the event: ...its dynamic and motivational loading, the extent of its consequences, etc."


56
Uttering a curse in his well-practiced falsetto, Cora swung his blade and cut down
the opposing swordswoman. Features were emphasized on his contoured
breastplate which were not truly present.
From Lady of Steel", R. Zelazny
There was still a company of archers that held their ground among the burning
houses. Their captain was Bard, whose friends had accused him of prophesying
flood and poisoned fish, though they know his worth and courage. He was a
descendant in the line of Girion, Lord of Dale, whose wife and child had escaped
down the Running River from the ruin long ago. Now he used a great yew bow,
loosing arrows at the dragon until all of them but one were spent. The flames were
near him. He was being left by his companions. He bent his bow for the last
time.
From The Hobbit, J.R.R. Tolkien
Nevertheless, it is intuitively obvious that these sentences, while subscribing to the
structural dictates most frequently associated with transitivity, dont feel" particularly transitive.
Given the propositions above-namely, that there is more than one Event Structure prototype
and that the semantic character of Starting points and Ending points in Event Structure are
derived by implicature rather prototype-we can see these sentences conform to a structural
prototype while differing in participant and verbal semantics, much as Kemmer suggests for the
distinction between reflexives and middles.
For the sentence, His contoured breastplate emphasized features which were not truly
present, two dimensions of participant semantics are played with: the Effector/Affected
dimension and predicate causality. First, his contoured breastplate is in the subject slot, hence
the Effector role, but according to Van Valin and Wilkins features, has neither animacy or
instigator qualities. The NP is not capable of self-motion nor is it self-energetic. Thus, it is more
of an instrument than either an agent or force. But it is an instrument of what? We will return to
this question shortly.
The object, features, is also not an easily identified endpoint because it is poorly
distinguished from the initiator in the event. In fact, ultimately, the features and the breastplate
are one and the same item, separated from one another by an act of description. Finally, the
predication itself is hardly eventive in the sense that it points back to itself; the verb
emphasize means to make more perceptually salient some part of an existing state.


59
the affected participant. However, it is not on the time-line because it is cast in the imperfective,
providing the ground for the subsequent action.
On the other end of the spectrum are so-called intransitive events which are indeed on
the time-line. These are events featuring either of the single-participant event structures: a
participant causing a change of state with no clause-bound mention of the endpoint or a
participant undergoing a change of state with no clause-bound mention of an external cause.
One brief excerpt from "Lady of Steel' will suffice to demonstrate.
Simultaneous then, attacks came from the right and the left. Beginning his battle-
song, he parried to the left, cut to the right, parried left again, cut through that warrior,
parried right, and thrust. Both attackers fell.
In this paragraph (the second full paragraph of the story), it is obvious that each of the chained
clauses represents a new point on the time-line. The implicature is made by the use of the
simple past in perfective form, the use of prepositional phrases specifying change of direction
("dynamic location"), and our knowledge that sword fights are fought by independent series of
strokes through time (versus a bomb, which kills en masse with a single discharge). Additionally,
the zero marking of the subject/topic clinches the reader's knowledge that the same participant is
being talked about. The use of the comma to separate events instead of a period is a signal
given by the writer that these events, while sequential, nevertheless happen in very short time
intervals. It is a kind of "close focus" camera effect, a metaphor used by a number of linguists
(Kemmer, Hopper, Talmy, etc.) and one which will be developed rather extensively in Chapter
Three.
Finally, not only do we find single-participant clauses on the time-line, but single
participant clauses from both perspectives on the event: Starting and Ending points. First, we
have as Initiator, Cora, who is the subject/topic of the entire chained sequence of events.
Second, we have as Ending points the attackers who are finally defeated in the final clause. It is
important to note here that pragmatically, that is, by inference, the reader understands perfectly
well that what is happening here is a highly transitive series of events: Cora is attacked- Cora
fights back the attackers are killed. What the writer has done is gone inside the events, so to
speak, and presented them from a close-focus perspective, the view of the participants.


109
The last two features, projection and tension, are potential elements of any discourse type and
will not be discussed in depth.
The first two characteristics, contingent temporal succession and agent orientation, do
not merely separate narrative from expository text, but instantiate components every discourse
exchange must have. There must be some way of getting from one end of the text to the other
and there must be surface structure strategies for accomplishing this task (linear succession).
Also, there must be some central referential point or points, what Jones calls a referential
nucleus" (1977:130), in order for a text to cognitively cohere. In other words, texts are about
something" and there must be linguistic strategies for establishing and signaling what these
somethings are (topic orientation). These two points are central to linguistic communication:
texts are communicated through time (regardless of their semantic structure) and texts
communicate about a limited set of things (regardless of their linear structure). These seemingly
opposing forces form the paradox" which characterizes discourse studies.
Narrative text is plus" with regards to both contingent temporal succession and agent
orientation. Narratives follow a chronological event-line in order to get from the beginning to the
end and they are concerned with the states and change of states of topical participants.
Expository texts are minus contingent temporal succession. That is, expository texts do not
proceed linearly according to events which cause other events. Rather, they follow logical
linkage (Longacre, 1983:7). Further, expository texts do not turn on participant reference;
instead, they have repeated reference to themes". Both of these propositions bear further
exploration.
4.2.1.1.1 Theme
Traditionally, the persistent discourse topic of an expository text is called a theme.
This term is confusing for obvious reasons. Like the term topic, theme has many meanings in
linguistics, both notional and technical, and is grounded in several different theoretical
perspectives. Since discourse topic" can refer to any persistent referential entity, this is not a
sufficiently specific term for our needs. It is tempting at this point to propose some term parallel
to participant" for expository text, thereby avoiding such phrases as discourse or thematic


38
distinguishability of participants is one semantic parameter along which the cline from transitive
to intransitive" differ (209):
TWO-PARTICIPANT REFLEXIVE MIDDLE ONE-PARTICIPANT
EVENT
EVENT
Kemmer observes that two-participant events encode maximal distinguishability of
participants, reflexives encode an event where essentially the Initiator and Endpoint are the
same participant (though linguistically marked with two" participants through reflexive pronouns,
clitics, etc.), middles encode a similar situation but without the linguistic marking of two
participants, and one-participant events code a single participant who may be either Initiator or
Endpoint. Striking in her analysis is the notion that the semantic characteristics of the
participants and the number of participants are two separate issues; events may be construed as
having two participants with fully distinguished semantic characters, as having one participant
with either semantic character, or some blend within (the particular combinations limited, of
course, by individual languages). This separation allows a much neater and satisfying
explanation for constructions like the English get-passive which combines the semantic
characters Initiator/Endpoint with a construction traditionally associated with a topicalized
Endpoint, thereby preserving the pragmatic impact of the passive voice with the semantic import
of a reflexive and explaining the constraint against any mention of an external cause. It also
provides an explanation for why Intransitive constructions are generally of two basic types:
intransitive activity (a single participant activity with an Initiator) versus an intransitive stative (a
single participant activity with an Endpoint).
Bakker (1994) is also interested in explaining the linguistic behavior of middles,
particularly in Ancient Greek. His anaylsis, though, offers some provocative insights into the
relationship between events and the semantic parameters informing them. He locates the crux
of transitivity in Ancient Greek in the subject/agent-related parameters given by Hopper and
Thompson (1980): Volitionality, Agency, andi adding Causation. Volitionality, Agency, and
Causation are separated basically by teliclty, where Volitionality is simply free will of the subject,


114
might be valid if doing a critical analysis of the work, they are simply not part of the reader's
approach to the text. We are not to ask about the connections between events, sentence to
sentence, but to accept them as given by the author as part of the experience of the story.
Continuation and Transition Spans
It was mentioned above that a basic assumption underlying discourse study Is the notion
of the text as a self-contained unit. As Goutsos points out, this is particularly the case for printed
material: The typographic layout of the page with the title at the top, the justification of lines,
the indication of the ending, and so on create a number of expectations in the reader ..These
expectations confer unity to the text, prior to and independent of any linguistic signals of
continuity" (1997:42). Readers expect that text is not a randomly generated set of utterances
and will work quite hard to create coherence for themselves. Part of this coherence is the
expectation that each new sentence relates to the one before. The primary relationship set up
between sentences is that of continuity and discontinuity.
Writers must manage the task of creating a unified body of material which the reader
encounters in a linear fashion. For the simple reason that not everything can be said at once,
Information must be sequenced. A primary duty of the writer is to signal to the reader varying
levels of continuity and discontinuity. These are indicated in part by various linguistic cues, for
example, structural parallelism (indicating continuity) and conjunctions (indicating discontinuity).
While the entirety of Goutsos excellent model of sequential relations in expository text exceeds
the needs of this chapter, his notions of continuation span" and transition span are critical.
Goutsos defines continuation and transition spans as ...areas of local continuity or
stability interrupted by areas of swift or abrupt ruptures that introduce turbulence or instability into
the text...Their succession produces rhythm or periodicity in the writing, which is similar
(although not identical) to the graphically manifest succession of paragraphs (44). In the
Discourse Communities text, two transition devices are employed and one continuity device.
The first type of transition device is the rhetorical question. The second is the advertais: For
example, In general terms, More specifically, Moreover, In great measure, then... The primary
continuation device is the parallel sentence structure and content used throughout the paragraph.


149
Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Langacker, R. 1990. Concept, Image, Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Mouton
de Gruyer.
Lisle, H. 1995. Armor-Ella." Chicks in Chainmail. 66-88. E. Friesner (ed). Riverdale, New
York: Baen Publishing Enterprises.
Longacre, R E. 1983. The Grammar of Discourse. New York: Plenum Press.
1977b. Tagmemics as a Framework for Discourse Analysis." Proceedings of the
Second Annual Linguistic Metatheory Confernce. Lansing: Michigan State University.
Luchjenbroers, J. 1996. Schematic Representations of Discourse Structure." Conceptual
Structure, Discourse and Language. A.E. Goldberg (ed). 347-358. Stanford,
California: SCLI Publications.
Mandler, J. 1991. Prelinguistic Primitives." Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley
Linguistics Society. 17:414-425. Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Ml'Ck, I. 1993. Voice: Towards a Rigorous Definition. Causatives and Transitivity.
B. Comrie and M. Polinsky (ed). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Moon, E. 1995. And the Ladies of the Club. Chicks in Chainmail. E. Friesner (ed). 8-30.
Riverdale, New York: Baen Publishing Enterprises.
Naro, A.J. 1981. The Social and Structural Dimensions of Syntactic Change. Language.
57:63-98.
Prince, E. 1981. Towards a Taxonomy of Given-New Information. Radical Pragmatics. P.
Cole (ed). New York: Academic Press.
Rice, S.A. 1987. Towards a Cognitive Model of Transitivity. Dissertation: University
of California.
Rosch, E. 1973. Natural Categories." Cognitive Psychology. 4: 328-350.
1975. Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General. 104: 192-233.
1977. "Human Categorization." Studies in Cross-Cultural Psychology. N. Warren (ed).
London: Academic Press.
1978. Principles of Categorization." Cognition and Categorization. E. Rosch and B.B.
Lloyd (eds). 27-47. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
1981. Prototype Classification and Logical Classification: The Two Systems." New
Trends in Cognitive Representation: Challenges to Piagets Theory. E. Scholnick (ed).
73-86. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Schiffrin, D. 1981. Tense Variation in Narrative." Language. 57:45-62.
Schmidt, G.D. and Vande Kopple, W.J. 1993. Communities of Discourse: The Rhetoric of
Disciplines. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.


102
encountered this boy before. Thus perspective shifting in this case in not allowed. The same
holds for the second bolded clause. In terms of perspective, it is the turtle who remains constant
and his vantage point is the one from which the scene must be viewed.
A distinction must be made here between passivization constrained by context and that
constrained by syntax. In an earlier excerpt, repeated below, it was claimed that the first
sentence could passivize syntactically but would not because of discourse constraints.
Falkar regarded the remains of his troops and. as the blazing Xenex sun
beat down upon them. 0 decided to wax philosophical about the situation.
"It is not uncommon to desire killing a teenager." he said. "However, it is
not often that one feels the need to send soldiers to do the job/
Book One. House of Cards, Peter David
??The remains of his troops were regarded by Falkar¡, as the blazing
Xenex sun beat down upon them, and it was decided by him¡ to wax
philosophical about the situation. It is not uncommon to desire killing a
teenager. he¡ said. However, it is not often that one feels the need to
send soldiers to do the job.
Although the grammatical prerequisites are met, it just doesnt work to passivize the sentence.
Since no perspective has been established and the Effector is an important part of the story,
passivization makes no sense. In another example, however, passivization is constrained by
syntactic considerations. In this section of text, inter-clausal cohesion requires the telics not
passivize.
Polyta stepped over to Colleen and 0 rubbed the dogs head for
comfort. Colleen whined softly in response and 0 rubbed her cheek
against the woman's thigh.
Manannan 's Isle, L.S. O'Brien
Polyta stepped over to Colleen and the dog's head was rubbed for
comfort. Colleen whined softly in response and her cheek was rubbed
against the woman's thigh.
This last excerpt is also a good example of when a telic is just a telic." The actions within these
clauses are semantically telic but do not impose any particular kind of discourse constraint. At


64
He lay there, clutching his thigh... (C)
..and all seemed anxious to claim the glory...(C)
But the wound extended higher. (C)
(complex constructions)
Marvelling, he found he could understand its
tongue, for he was of the race of Dale. (H)
He could watch mice scamper. (T)
But the little turtle kept on looking. (T)
He tried living in the forest. (T)
P/T Complex: one Point, undirected Trajectory
Syntax: bound in one clause
Semantics: one participant, Affected
Discourse: Unconstrained Perspectival Distance
(panoramic)
1. And he picked him up and carried down a
shady path. (T)
Suddenly, she had drawn aside his loincloth
to continue her ministrations. (C)
After a time, Edwina helped him to his feet.
(C)
2. Perspiration broke out on his brow ..(C)
...and his final assailant's head rolled away
after her departing sisters (C)
The black arrow sped straight from the string,
straight for the hollow.. (H)
Early one morning, the little turtle started out.
(T)
Unafraid, it perched by his ear... (H)
Men with steam shovels and bulldozers were
working in the clover fields. (T)
P/T Complex: 1-two Points, directed Trajectory+path
2-one Point, directed Trajectory+path
Syntax: specified across clause plus phrase
Semantics: 1-Effector/Affected
2-Effector OR Affected
Discourse: Constrained Perspectival Distance
(close-focus)
DISPERSED TRANSITIVES
1-two participants
2-single participant


78
with High information value. Contrast this sentence with (1), from Cora." In this opener, the
subject of the sentence is the Effector-the most unmarked of action chains--and is named by a
proper name. The object, while also human and strongly Affected is not named, but referred to
via a definite descriptive noun phrase. Because the Affected participant has a lower RS than the
Effector, the tendency for the object to become the subsequent clausal topic is overruled. Note
that the author could have chosen a combination of atelic transitive and a subordinate clause,
thereby eliminating the coding competition for topic (generally speaking, subordination is a
stronger discourse factor in backgrounding): Uttering a curse in his well-practiced falsetto, Cora
swing his blade forcefully, cutting down the opposing swordswoman. In this sentence, there is no
competition for clause-level topic and no need for RS as a deciding discourse factor.
Example (5) combines an interesting mix of definiteness and clause structure to cue the
reader in on who the topical participants are. Obviously, Mrs. Batchett is the prime candidate for
immediate sentential topic because she is both in the subject position and of higher RS than the
other participants mentioned. On the other hand, the It in the opening phrase It was shortly after
Mrs. Batchett left sets up the reader to expect the situation the pronoun obliquely refers to. As a
result, although the reader knows that Mrs. Batchett is immediately the most important character,
the definite form of the other participants together with the oblique reference at the very
beginning of the story alludes to the later importance of the fairy, the gnome, and the elf. In fact,
these three do play significant roles later in the narrative.
Sentence topics, which can be either events or participants, are also established through
repeat reference to their wholes or parts. Further, it is at the level of the sentence that referential
specificity plays a part in the setting up of hearers expectations about what is coming next.
Basically, given two participants, whichever has the highest referential specificity is expected to
continue. If both are of equal value, the participant in the object slot is more likely to be topic in
the next sentence because the object is the site of higher information value. However, if both
participants are already established in discourse, then it could be either participant or the event
which gets topicalized for the next sentence.


16
events in a narrative; those actions which drive the story forward through time and require both
an agent and patient of some kind.)
The pragmatic side of transitivity is the least explored, as the relative paucity of
explanation given by Givn attests. However, there are some tantalizing possibilities offered in
various accounts of the relationships between discourse and grammar. DuBois (1987) discusses
the statistical correlations between clause-type (transitive/ intransitive with lexically specified
arguments) and information structuring/flow (particularly the introduction of new participants) as
they relate to ergative patterns in grammar. There was an overwhelming tendency in his
transcripts of narrative discourse for any clause, intransitive or transitive, to have only a single
lexical argument fully specified (only 2.8% of transitive clauses had both arguments lexically
specified, representing just five sentences in the data). His conclusion was that ergative
patterning in discourse forms the basis of ergative patterning of grammatical phenomenon.
DuBois works within Dixons (1972) semantic division of participant roles, intended to
allow cross-theoretical discussion of ergative/absolutive and nominative/accusative languages.
Dixon discriminates three basic semantic roles as they relate to the predicate: A designating
the subject/actor of a transitive (two participant) clause; "O" designating the object/goal of a
transitive (two participant) clause; and S" designating the single participant of an intransitive
(one participant) clause. Thus, in nominative/accusative languages, A/S" pattern together,
meaning that the actor/subject of a transitive clause and single participant of an intransitive
clause take the same verbal morphology (nominative). It is the object/goal relationship which
takes accusative marking. On the other hand, in ergative/absolutive languages, it is the single
participant of an intransitive clause and object/goal of a transitive which pattern together and
take absolutive morphology, while the actor/subject of a transitive clause takes ergative marking.
DuBois maintains that part of discourse management is a restriction against using more
than one lexical specification per clause. When broken down according to ergative/absolutive
cases, only 6.1% of 619 lexically specified arguments occurred in the A position-the vast
majority of cases were S" and O. Thus information flow was managed in terms of a constraint
against using lexical transitive subjects. DuBois interprets this pragmatically as meaning only


97
directionality is expressed via the syntactic addition of a prepositional phrase. The event does
not finish" until the hearer/reader reaches the end of the added phrase.
At first glance, it appears that dispersed transitives are really a subset of atelic
transitives. However, there are sound reasons for separating the two. First, as Hopper (1991)
has pointed out, in certain kinds of narrative-or at certain points in narrative in general-this type
of structure is statistically frequent. Second, following Slobin (1994,1996) there appears to be a
legitimate typological distinction between verb-framed and satellite-framed languages. In
satellite-framed languages, direction tends to be a distinct grammatical construction while verb
framed languages often conflate direction with the meaning of the verb itself. English is a
satellite-framed language. Structurally, the manner aspect of motion is often conflated with the
verb whereas the path aspect is specified in a prepositional phrase. Even though the
preposition is a syntactic adjunct, semantically and pragmatically the information in the adjunct is
necessary to the proper interpretation of the proposition and essential to textual flow.
For example, in the sentence Olafcutthe fish into 1" pieces for the stew, the predicate
finishes with the fish being cut into 1" pieces which is the proper endstate of the action initiated
by the Effector. Cross-linguistically, we could find this activity parsed with different combinations
of activity+endstate. We do this in English to a degree, though principally with manner: cut,
chop, slice, mince. We simply do not, to my knowledge, have a single verb which means cut
into 1 pieces."
Functionally, dispersed transitives have a unique position between telics and atelics.
Dispersed transitives feature a topical participant engaged in an activity with a clear animacy or
RS distinction between Effector and Affected. In this way, they resemble telic transitives.
However, unlike telic transitives, the Affected participant is simply not a candidate for thematic
importance. There is a strong path component to dispersed transitives which is grammatically
spread out over two phrases, the predicate and a syntactic adjunct. In this sense, they are more
like atelics, which frequently participate in texts with modifying phrases and clauses. The path
component of dispersed transitives often results in a serializing effect and they are frequently


14
events which make use of the above semantic components (though inequally). Her examples
serve to demonstrate the most typical aspects of each event.
In the physical world, John deliberately kicked the sleeping poodle, represents two
maximally distinct participants in a single event in which one participant is active and powerful
and the other is passive and defenseless. There is forceful contact which travels along a path
designated by the physics and geometry of the body in one direction. The dog is presumably
both awakened and injured, inducing both an internal and external change of state.
In the mental domain, Rice uses the following examples: Eileen heard the gunfire, Steve
despises Christmas, John solved the equation. In each, there is at least one active, animate
participant, but no restrictions on the type of passive participants. Further, each of the active
participants acts on an entity external to itself. The contact is inferred as a function of the active
participant and the event in question. However, the change that takes place is internal to the
active participant rather than the passive participant; the nature of gunfire, Christmas, and
equations does not change. Thus, in mental domains, the path is understood to circle back to
the active participant. This is really not as odd a relationship as it first seems if we consider how
we ascribe information to participants. In Eileen heard gunfire/Gunfire was heard by Eileen, the
state of our knowledge about Eileen has changed, just as the state of our knowledge about the
poodle changed in the example above. In mental domains, there is still change and still two
distinct participants, even though the relationships among them differ somewhat.
In the social domain, Rice cites The policeman questioned Bill. Again, there are two
participants, and while both are human and animate, their distinctiveness rises out of authority
relations. The action is presumably goal-directed; the questions travel a path" from the
policeman to Bill, not the other way around. A number of possible emotional or mental changes
can be inferred for Bill, from fear and nervousness, to sweating, to silence. Rice also makes the
point that contact and directedness are important semantic properties of social events, and her
investigation into verb and preposition combinations resulting in transitive events contains a high
number of social events.


57
Despite the above, these not-very-distinct participants and this not-very-dynamic event
are cast together in a clause structure prototypically associated with just the opposite. This
results in an act of description" or an event of description." In narrative theory (Fleischmann,
1990; Labov, 1972), descriptive events are labeled evaluative" in terms of story function and
often provide the ground against which a complicating action" (an event which moves the time
line of the narrative forward) is figured. Descriptive events are also used to draw the readers
attention to some salient fact which provides essential plot-line information. This is precisely the
function of this sentence. His contoured breastplate is the instrument used to ground the
information that the state being predicated is somehow false. It presages an account for the
gender mis-match between the name, Cora, and the male pronoun references. For this story (in
the appendix), this information is the key knowledge against which the plot unfolds.
The linguistic signalling of this information comes in the particular combination of
features. I would like to reiterate that this effect Is not accomplished by prototype violation-there
Is no violation of the structural prototype as the passivization attests. Rather, there Is a
systematic combination of features along various parameters signalling to the reader that an
inference must be made in order to complete the meaning (for an excellent discussion of the
difference between inferencing as a process and linguistic cognition as a process, please see
Given, 1995, chapter 8). For discourse, impllcatures are created which are then tested" against
subsequent information. The various parameters involved include, at least:
Event Structure-prototypical dimension of clause meaning based on
early-acquired conceptual schemas of motion
Participant Semantics- derived by implicature according to lexical
semantics, pragmatics from underspecified semantic roles
Discourse Coherence-implicature-driven processing involving clausal
semantics, pragmatics, topic chains, etc.
As we shall see in Chapters Three and Four, the latter two play a crucial role In licensing the
appropriate use of alternative realizations of transitivity, such as the passive and middle.
In the second example sentence, His companions were leaving him, a different set of
features are played with, almost exclusively confined to the level of discourse. A momentary
diversion needs to be made at this point to the linguistic structure of narrative. The features


118
intrusion directly challenges the readers expected primary relationship with the text rather than
with the writer.
In expository text, the reader is simultaneously involved with both the text and the writer.
Contrary to narrative text, the reader practices "engagement of disbelief. The ideal reader is
supposed to be aware not only of what is being said, but how it is being said and who is saying it.
This is clearly signaled in expository discourse with the frequent use of information-directing
devices aimed at the reader, most often in the form of questions and commands. For example,
it is not unusual to encounter rhetorical questions in expository text. Longacre places such
question into the category "drama-surface structures that can be used in many notional types
and simply serve the purpose of getting the readers attention (1983:6). However, rhetorical
questions also provide important cues about thematic information. Questions are also used non-
rhetorically, often times in concluding sections. An author may conclude a section or a
publication with a series of questions suggesting areas of future research (thereby exonerating
the author from doing so) or simply provoking greater thought on the subject. In either case,
both assume a reader sufficiently engaged to be communicated with directly.
Academic essays are also rife with polite commands which serve much the same
function as rhetorical questions: they elicit reader attention by strongly directing it towards
potential thematic changes. For example, in Schiffrin (1981), 20 out of 52 paragraphs begin with
either a question or command. Of the 32 remaining paragraphs, many begin with the inclusive
we," again demonstrating the writer's inclusion of the reader into the speech community.
Examples are given below.
Return, now, to consider the evaluation of narratives, (p.59)
Note next that the progressive is also an internal evaluation device, (p.59)
Consider, also, how the content of a direct quote can provide an internal evaluation for the
narrative, (p.59)
Why should temporal conjunctions favor tense-switching? (p.55)
How can we explain, then, the constraint against tense-switching in verbal conjuncts? (p.53)
When we examine where the HP occurs, we see.. Let us first examine action verbs, (p.57)
How should these utterances to be treated with respect to the rest of the essay? The
problem is similar to the one for direct speech in narrative. Given Goutsos basic division of


126
4.3.2 The Role of Transitivity in Expository Discourse: Transition Spans
It has been established that expository text is characterized by themes instead of
participants and situations/states instead of events. What role does transitivity play in a non
participant, non-event driven discourse? Two primary functions emerge for transitivity, both of
them acting within transition spans. The first is the opening up of a range of potential new topics
(Effector, Affected or Predication). This function is shared by both narrative and expository and
may be said to be the central function of telic transitivity. The second is the use of transitivity to
signal information which is off the main argument line. This occurs in two kinds of instances.
First, micro-texts may make use of transitivity. A micro-text is an extended piece of text with a
narrative-like feel but which lacks essential narrative features. Second, transitivity occurs in
bridge spans. These are extended transition spans bridging one part of the text with another
(normally introductory and concluding passages) within which the author leads the reader
through a line of logical reasoning using transitivity metaphorically. The first function is used
repeatedly in the Speech Acts text. The second will be exemplified using a Lewis Thomas
essay and other academic excerpts.
4.3.2.1 Transitivity and topic switching
The Speech Acts" text makes exemplary use of telic transitivity to introduce new
sentential topics. Where the adverbial expressions in these sentences relate the propositions to
one another in a non-linear manner, transitivity is used in the classic sense of managing
information structuring linearly, from clause to clause.
(1) When James says, Were adopted, in the passage quoted above, he performs,
simultaneously, a number of different kinds of SPEECH ACTS, all of them intentional
and goal-directed, although the execution of several is undoubtedly subconsciously
controlled.
(2) First, he performs what the English philosopher J.L. Austin (1962) called a phonetic
act-producing the articulation of tongue, jaw, diaphragm, larynx, and so on that results in
connected speech sounds.
(3) Simultaneously, and by means of the phonetic act, James performs the act of
uttering linguistic expressions, producing a series of tokens of forms according to the
grammar of a certain language, and with a certain intonation (Austins phatic act), with
the intention that it be recognized as belonging to that language.
(4) At the same time, in order that his utterance be recognized as connected discourse
about some proposition, James performs the acts of referring (with we), and
predicating (with re adopted) intending the forms he uses to be taken as referring to
individuals, actions, events, and so forth, according to the conventions of the language
and culture of the community he shares with the addressee (Austins rhetic act).


32
First, infants are able to distinguish objects that engage in biological motion" from those that do
not. They are also able to distinguish caused and non-caused motion. Mandler cites the work of
Bertenthal, Proffitt, Kramer and Spetner (1987) and Leslie (1984), respectively for each of these
points. Thus there is a sensorimotor capability of distinguishing motion which is self-caused from
motion which is other-caused. She further argues that while the image-schema of PATH is
indeed simple and basic, paths do not happen without starting points; hence one kind of image
schema emerges for the notion self-caused motion" designating the simple idea that an
Endpoint does so from a point of origin outwards along a path. A second image-schema for
animate motion characterizes the trajectory itself-when an Endpoint moves, it does so in a
padicular manner. The two schemas simply distinguish an Endpoint-oriented Image of motion
from a trajectory-oriented image of motion.
Figure 2.2: Mandlers Image Schemas of Motion
Finally, she (420) also notes that infants are inordinately attracted by all moving objects,
and of course, many of those are inanimate...Inanimate objects are those that begin motion only
through the interaction of other objects; specifically, they are caused to move [emphasis added].
Thus a third image-schema emerges outlining caused motion:
CAUSED MOTION
ANIMATE MOTION
( \
CKW^
v )
SELF-CAUSED MOTION
Figure 2.3: Mandler's Schema of Caused Motion


63
Figure 2.7: The Four Clause Types of Transitivity
Legend: non-bold graphics-optional elements (probably language specific)
T "Little Turtle's Big Adventure-David Lee Harrison
C~ "Lady of Steel'-Roger Zelazny
H-The Defeat of Smaug, excerpt from The HobbitJ.R.R. Tolkien
A/B-dlfferent participants
TELIC TRANSITIVE
P/T Complex: two Points, directed Trajectory
Syntax: bound In same clause
Semantics: two participants, Effector/Affected
Discourse: Basic Perspectival Distance
One morning, a rumble like thunder woke the
little turtle. (T)
Finally, warm rain melted the snow. (T)
Then one day, a boy saw the turtle. (T)
Now he used a great yew bow. (H)
His last throes splintered it to sparks and
gledes.
(H)
...she bathed the wound. (C)
He heard her gasp. (C)
1) Full on the town he fell. (H)
Both attackers fell. (C)
His arms ached by the time he had dealt with
the second. (C)
He started, but it was only an old thrush. (H)
...Smaug shot spouting into the air, turned over...(H).
His battle song broke as he... (C)
2) Birds scolded./Autumn came. /Snow fell. (T)
Everyday, the little turtle walked. (T).
The great bow twanged. (H)
An axe flashed.. (C)
ATELIC TRANSITIVE
1 -Affected/2-Effector
P/T Complex: one Point, directed Trajectory
Syntax: bound in same clause
Semantics: one participant, Effector OR Affected
Discourse: Constrained Perspectival Distance
(close-focus)


BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bakker, E. 1994. Voice, Aspect and Aktlonsart: Middle and Passive in Ancient Greek." Voice:
Form and Function. F. Fox and P.J. Hopper (eds). 23-48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Berman, R.A. and D.l. Slobin. 1994. Relating Events in Narrative. Hillsdale, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Bourne, M. 1995. On the Road of Silver." Chicks in Chainmail. E. Frlesner (ed). 178-196.
Riverdale, New York: Baen Publishing Enterprises.
Bruner, J. 1986. Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Chafe, W. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1987. Cognitive Constraints on Information Flow. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
(ed). 1980. The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative
Structure. Ablex Publishing.
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chu, C. C. to appear, a. A Discourse Grammar of Mandarin Chinese. New York and Berne:
Peter Lang.
to appear, b. Aboutness and Clause-Linking: Two Separate Functions of Topic in
Mandarin." manuscript. Festschrift to Tingchi Tang on his 65th Birthday, Special
Edition of Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies.
1997. Marked and Unmarked Topics in Mandarin." manuscript.
1996. Source and Management: Two Tiers of Information Structure." Proceedings
of NACCL-7 and ICCL-4. 37-53. T.F. Cheng and H.J. Zhang (eds). Los Angeles,
California: GSIL, University of Southern California.
1983. A Reference Grammar of Mandarin Chinese for English Speakers. New York:
Peter Lang.
Crichton, M. 1987. Sphere New York: Random House.
Croft, W. 1994. Voice: Beyond Control and Affectedness." Voice: Form and Function B. Fox
and P.J. Hopper (eds). 89-118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Crystal, D. 1987. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Curme.E. 1947. Principles and Practices of English Grammar. New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc.
146


40
SVO word order patterns versus the relatively later acquisition of fully passive forms, OV-ed by
S).
These basic event structures form the conceptual basis which the linguistic system of
transitivity expresses. Specifically, transitivity expresses the event view (Croft) or event
perspective (Slobin, Berman and Slobin) of cognitive/conceptual event structures (this will be
discussed in greater detail below). There appear to be three basic event views expressed by the
transitivity system, as the discussion above proposes. There is, though, the puzzling absence of
a fourth, the purely stative. That is, one would guess that the first, and most basic perception of
an infant is existence." Since children first learn the names of objects, there is even some
developmental support for this notion. Croft suggests as much with his stative" event view
which is often grammaticized by adjectives. However, it seems to me that pure states such as
identification and ascription-while predications-are not really events at all. Cross-linguistically,
there is better evidence via the number of languages which create states through adjectival
constructions that pure states should be considered a conceptual model of its own, separate from
the event structures relating to transitivity. I will assume as much for this project.
2.3.2.1 Berman and Slobin revisited-event construal
As discussed briefly in Chapter One, Berman and Slobin identify four dimensions of
event construal (selection of topic, loci of control, event view, and degree of agency).
Specifically, they make the claim that these dimensions are part of the preverbal message:
Before one can say anything, one must decide what one wants to say. As Levelt has put it:
The construction of a preverbal message is a first step in the generation of speech (1989, p.
107). We propose that, in constructing a preverbal message, the speaker must make decisions
on at least four dimensions of event construal..." (517). Once the dimensions are decided
upon, various grammatical options are entailed, of which transitivity is one system. Transitivity,
then, is part of the grammatical system but not the underlying cognitive system; that is, I accept
for this project that Berman and Slobins preverbal dimensions are (part of) the general cognitive
orientations available, probably throughout the cognitive system, but linguistically, transitivity is


48
In (8), there is no explicit mark for whether the actor Is an agent or not (though by Hollskys
principle [8] above, we interpret it to be so), while (9) confirms this as a potential Interpretation.
On the other hand, (10) provides information to the contrary," disconfirming the agentive nature
of Larry and leaving him merely as a causal participant. Sentence (11) shows that the actor
need not be animate at all, and therefore no appeal is made to Holisky's pragmatic principle.
It is not the case that NO verbs have an Inherent agent. Obviously, murder does. But
Inherent agency is relatively rare. Van Valin and Wilkins argue:
This has important implications for the notion 'agent prototype' and the idea that
relations like force and instrument are just less good' members of the category of
which agent is the central member. The features in question do not in fact define
a prototype, but rather constitute the relevant information on the basis of which
the agent implicature is made. Moreover, force and instrument are not variants on
agent at all but rather are variants of the effector role which underlies agent as
well. All three roles are doers which differ in certain crucial ways along the
dimensions of the lexical properties of the NP and their position in the causal
sequence defined by the verb. (320) [emphasis added]
While the entirety of their proof is too extensive to go into here, basically, the NP
properties they are referring to are animate/non-anlmate" and instigator/non-instigator.
Animacy distinguishes effectors capable of feeling, self-expression, and self-movement from
those incapable of the same. Instigation refers to whether the effector is self-energetic, that is,
has an inherent energy source, as with natural forces. In combination, the three primary starting
point/effector roles emerge: the agent who Is animate, instigator and preferably human (though
animacy can also be ascribed to culture-specific entities); the force which is non-animate but
instigator; the instrument which is non-animate, non-instigator, but still the effector.
There are two striking consequences of the above analysis. First, a more constrained
and thoughtful approach is taken to the ubiquitous notion of prototype. Second, a viable
alternative linguistic process-implicature-is offered to balance the picture. As we shall see in
the subsequent chapters, implicature is an important factor to processing at the level of
discourse.
Just as "agent" Is not necessarily a prototypical participant, patient" is equally dubious.
As Bakker demonstrates, the prototypical" patient actually reduces transitivity in Ancient Greek


69
constraint, and telic transitives provide a middle ground by establishing a limited yet robust
choice of viable participants.
3.1.4 The Model in Brief
When discussing thematic coherence above, Givdn offered several structural means by
which thematic coherence is established: aspectuality, spatiality, temporality, referentiality,
perspective, and so on. He also goes on to warn discourse researchers to keep in mind that the
visible elements encountered are but heuristic measures through which the unseen, theoretical-
cognitive entity-thematic coherence-is known. It is in this spirit the following model is offered.
The particular play of transitivity in English is not itself a universal; at this point, I cannot even
claim typological ramifications. Rather, transitivity as a system instantiated through the four
clause types has a function which serves the needs of thematic coherence. Specifically,
transitivity provides a grammatical-semantic site over which the construal of perspective may
take place. In English, it is the primary clause-level system through which participants are
introduced, maintained, or removed from narrative discourse.
Nonetheless, given the nature of transitivity as a semantic system, it is hardly mysterious
that it should fulfill the duty of perspective manager at the level of discourse. After all, it is the
transitivity system which takes care of the number of participants and their event-driven
relationships. Nor does transitivity, as we shall soon see, act alone. At least three other
discourse elements conspire with transitivity for the purposes of thematic coherence. They are
treated as part of a "multi-variable model of transitivity in discourse" because, in use, it is rather
difficult to separate them from one another.
The four discourse elements to be considered are:
(1) the relative discourse topicality of the participants of a given clause;
(2) perspectival distance;
(3) the four clause types of transitivity;
(4) the depth" of transitivity given discourse context.
The first element, discourse topicality, assesses how hearers know the topical status of a
given participants. Two factors must be taken into account here, referential specificity and
information value. The first is my term for the degree of referentiality accorded a participant.


5
the presence of a goal participant is often not fully predictable from the meaning of the verb
Itself: The potential distinction, in other words, between verbs which are inherently goal-directed
and verbs which are not, is less useful as a generalization than the actual distinction between
clauses which contain a goal, or rather (an important difference) a feature of goal-directedness,
and those which do not (Halliday, 1967c:182; emphasis added). This being the case, the
opposition of transitive and intransitive is not useful for linguistic analysis. Instead, we should
employ a full range of transitivity distinctions as associated with the process-participant relations
within the clause.
Halliday's notion that there must be a scale of transitivity distinctions has emerged as
one of the crucial arguments in current functional and discourse grammars. However, In
unlikely contrast, the labels transitive and "intransitive have also remained, confusing the
study of transitivity considerably. One of the principal tasks of this study is to clarify such
confusion, and this point will be taken to task at length in Chapter Two.
The second insight of Halliday's which can be found throughout the literature and which
is also critical to this study is the notion goal-directedness. Evidence for goal-directedness as
the primary semantic relationship in transitivity is found in both discourse studies (such as
DuBois, 1987) and cognitive studies (Rice, 1987). As such, it enjoys considerable elaboration in
Chapter Two.
Finally, Hallidays contention that the clause Is the proper domain of transitivity has also
emerged as fundamental. This notion is taken up briefly in the following discussion and is
elaborated upon in Chapter Two.
1.3 Approaches to Transitivity
There are three primary theoretical approaches to transitivity: verb-oriented approaches
in which the verb controls argument structure: clause-oriented studies in which transitivity is seen
as a property of events realized at the clause level; and extra-clause oriented studies which offer
pragmatic and discourse explanation of transitivity.


CHAPTER ONE
FUNCTIONAL AND DISCOURSE MODELS OF TRANSITIVITY
Many words arc subject to a distinction which is designated by different names and
therefore not perceived as essentially the same wherever found namely that of a word
complete in itself (or used for the moment as such) and one completed by some addition,
generally of a restrictive nature. Thus we have the complete verb in he sings, he plays, he
begins-, and the same verb followed by a complement in he sings a song, he plays the piano,
he begins worlc. In this case it is usual to call the verb intransitive in one case and transitive
in the other, while the complement is termed its object
Jcsperson, 1924. 88
1.1. Introduction
A fundamental assumption of functional grammarians is that the primary purpose of
language is communication; therefore, the ultimate goal of studying language is the investigation
into this relationship: The theme unifying the various functional approaches is the belief that
language must be studied in relation to its role in human communication. Language is thus
viewed as a system of human communication..." (Foley and Van Valin, 1984:7).
One question which emerges from this perspective is: what is it that human beings use
language to communicate? The functional response is "If one is concerned with the role of
language in social interaction, then aspects of linguistic structure which serve to signal social as
opposed to purely referential meaning share center stage with purely referential elements..."
(Foley and Van Valin, 1984:9). Lambrecht puts it another way: "...certain formal properties of
sentences cannot be fully understood without looking at the linguistic and extralinguistic contexts
in which sentences have these properties are embedded." (Van Valin, 1993:2). Perhaps the
finest statement for why functional insights are necessary to the study of language comes from
Leonard Talmy, a cognitive scientist. Talmy (1988) states that one of the principal functions of
structure is to provide conceptual coherence. For language this means grammar, which is the
way of ...unifying contentful material within a single conceptual system and rendering it
1


42
2.3.2 2 Degrees of transitivity
Given the argument above, the question of whether there are degrees" of transitivity
becomes an even more interesting issue. Traditionally, there have been two alternatives
proposed to this problem. The first is a continuum from High" to Low" (Hopper and Thompson,
1980; Rice, 1984); the second offers specific levels of high, mid, and low (Halliday, 1967). While
to some extent both claim the same thing, Halliday's specific levels seem to find greater validity
grammatically. That is, grammar in general does not tend to operate along smooth Clines
between endpoints, but to manifest particular forms according to particular points between two
endpoints. The lexicon compensates for grammar's relative intransigence by offering the
possibility for the kind of subtle and continuous changes implied by the notion continuum."
This interpretation fits well with the notion of three basic event schematas which are
realized through various transitivity options. It is something of a misnomer to claim high," mid,"
and low" levels of transitivity when each of the clause structures typically associated with these
labels is actually a prototype in and of itself. Rather, there are degrees of transitivity within each
of the basic types, probably with their own, separate semantics. For example, "really high"
transitivity may be distinguished from merely high transitivity through the agency/patient
implicatures discussed below. Very low transitivity can be distinguished from simple low"
transitivity by the distinction of durative action versus state. It is the middle" transitives that are
the most interesting, encompassing as they do varied combinations of participant semantics and
clausal expression. In the end, rather than conceptualizing three degrees of transitivity, we
instead should conceptualize three event structures realized via transitivity, each with its own
possible dines and opportunities for grammatical expression.
This argument is essentially what Croft, Kemmer, and Bakker are claiming: there are a
variety of basic event types possible-Mandler provides independent evidence in her
speculations on the physical origins of event structure: self-caused" animate, biologically
inherent motion and other-caused" non-animate, non-biologically inherent motion. I would add
to that a third category, also readily available to the child: non-caused motion which are changes
of state and/or location without external cause but also without internal control" such as


117
4.2.1.2.2 Illocutionary force
Another similarity between narrative and expository text is not widely discussed in the
literature, though both Jones and Longacre make extensive reference to the Idea. This Is the
speech act relationships between writer and reader For Jones, these relationships constitute the
highest level of linguistic structure (called "performative interaction," a tagmemic notion) In a
hierarchical model of text. For Longacre, speech act elements create more of an outer" layer of
structure which not only organizes text in a top-down manner but permeates discourse down to
the level of each and every sentence. Again, while this study does not subscribe to the whole of
either model, the basic concept is Important.
Essentially, there is a triangle of relationship in any discourse: speaker/writer, hearer/
reader, and text. These three elements form the basis of the speech acts in any discourse. Put
most simply, (it is my contention that) illocutionary force as signaled in a text is a measure" of
interactional distance between the speaker/writer and hearer/reader (hereafter, I will use the
latter pair since this project is concerned primarily with written text). In narrative, the distance
between the writer and reader is greater. This is commonly known as suspension of disbelief,
as mentioned above. The reader of a narrative is supposed to be engaged with the text itself, as
given, not with the writer. Longacre points out as much in his discussion of the presence of the
composer in discourse (1983:17-19). It is unusual for the writer of a narrative to address the
reader directly. This certainly happens, as it does at the end of the Hobbit selection (And that
was the end of Smaug and Esgaroth, but not of Bard), but it is outside the norm. Please note
that this is a separate phenomenon from that of first or third person narration. For the character
in a first person narration to "address the reader is a matter entirely different than for the writer
to address the reader. The movie Ferris Buehlers Day Off provides a good example (since a
movie is a visual narrative, the comparison is workable). In this movie, the main character,
Ferris Buehler, narrates the entire story. At various moments throughout the story, though, he
breaks with tradition and looks directly at the camera to speak to the audience. At several
points, he even holds mini-conversations, asking the viewers questions then acting as through he
had received an answer. It is an effective strategy, but must be done with caution. Such an


61
organizing information through time so that it is both processable and communicates what the
speaker intends is through marking salience so that the hearer knows which information is to be
attended to most closely. Regarding transitivity, salience applies to event semantics, participant
semantics, and participant-event relationships as instantiated in the clause.
The "Asymmetry Principle" is simply a label for a set of relationships the linguistic
community has long noted: heads and tails, verb and satellite, topic and comment, source and
goal, binary branching nodes, etc. The only "leap" being made is to say that this is not merely
coincidence, but in fact the cognitive principle along which grammar is largely organized. Note
the claim is being made for grammar only. If, as Talmy (1994) claims, grammar is the cognitive
system mediating what's in the brain and what is communicated, then asymmetry is the (or one
of the) cognitive principle(s) doing the organizing. One way of doing this is by systematically
creating salience relationships so that at any one time, both speaker and hearer are aware of and
can manage attention to the various elements in the discourse. In the case of human beings, the
central elements appear to be the participantsthis is our locus of concern. And our way of
creating and maintaining order is through sets of asymmetrical relationships which manifest
salience relationships so that we know where our attention is to be directed.
If asymmetry as an explanatory grammatical principle is to be taken seriously-as a
reasonable explanation for the patterns evident in transitivity-then it must also be asked why the
set of distinctions clustering in transitivity should do so? Why this particular group of features? I
would propose that the set of features distinguishing transitivity as a system do so because they
are event-oriented-transitivity is a grammatical structuring of events, a kind of event gestalt.
The characterizing element of an event is its linearity, both of motion and of time in an iconic
relationship. Transitivity realizes the most perceptually salient parts of event structure- the
endpoints and the trajectory connecting them. But as Talmy (1994) has pointed out, languages
homologize not only time, but space as well. If transitivity is the grammatical structuring of
events, of "linear" information, then it may be reasonably asked if language does not also
grammaticize "non-linear" information? Does language have a grammatical structure for
information arranged not through time, but in space? Asked in another way, is information ever


51
event. The lack of importance of instantaneous effect is not surprising given the components of
transitivity proposed thus far; it is not how quick the verb is but the particular set of asymmetries
instantiated in the clause.
2.3.5.2 Completed
A completed event is linguistically defined as one which is bounded. Boundedness,
according to Givn, is a verbal quality meaning non-lingering" (p. 46, vol. II). Non-llngereing"
as a terms seems to imply time; in fact, it is more accurately understood as completion of the
event." Yet another way of looking at It may be that when the activity is over, all of the goal is
affected, not just part of it. Verkuyl (1990) argues persuasively for the contribution of the object
to the inner aspect" of the predicate. When the object is of a "specified quantity, the phrase
yields a bounded event because the quantity of the object is exhausted by the activity. However,
it is not necessarily the case that the goal is not affected in non-bounded situations, but that the
effect is not complete.
Completedness is easiest to reckon within telic transitives. In these clauses, the end of
the activity is signaled by overt mention-the affected object itself. In essense, the event finishes
itself by completing the change of state or location of the Affected participant.
(12) Olaf ate the fish.
(13) Olaf cooked the fish.
(14) Olaf put the fish in the refrigerator.
Thus it is easy to see how telic transitives include a strong element of completion. Nevertheless,
atelic transitives also have a sense of completion except that it is generally Inherent to the verb
itself.
(15) Sven jumped.
(16) Gertrude sneezed.
(17) Brutus grinned wickedly.
(18) Brunhilda chortled in joy.
Each of these is a completed" activlty-the activity does not linger (for example, although we
don't normally conceptualize a grin as punctual, to make it non-punctual additional Information
must be added to the sentence; Brutus kept grinning wickedly). Thus it is clear that the activity


24
We begin with the Statement of Transitivity" as the starting point of our investigation
into what properly belongs to transitivity and what properly belongs to narrative. Excerpts will be
used where appropriate to validate points although the bulk of Chapter Two is dedicated to
transitivity at the level of the clause, i.e., the syntactic and semantic claims. The discourse and
functional nature of transitivity will be taken up primarily in Chapter Three and will include more
extensive use of texts.
Figure 2.1: Statement of Transitivity
Structure-Function Definition: Transitivity is a complex phenomenon involving syntactic,
semantic, and pragmatic components which functions to conceptualize and organize events and
participants in the world so that their relationships to one another may be communicated
according to the attitudes and intentions of the speaker in a manner which is cognitively coherent
and manageable, and which is grammatically verified by the availability of the passive form.
The above are understood to be (possibly) prototypical in nature, thus scalar and capable of
metaphoric extension as well.
Structural Components
Syntactic There is one syntactic component to transitivity and a necessary property
of that component; syntactic manipulation is the principal grammatical
test for the fully transitive statement:
(i) there must be at least two participants structurally bound by the same
clause; the two participants must be distinct entities "in the world"
(ii) the availability of the passive alternation is the strongest grammatical
test for transitivity
Semantic There are four semantic relationships identified for transitivity:
(i) Asymmetry the participants must be in an asymmetrical relationship
generally due to the unidirectional nature of the action, but
sometimes falling out from the inherent nature of the participants
themselves or their relationship
(ii) Agentivity one of the participants is a deliberately acting agent,
capable of instigating the action or is the source of the action
(iii) Affectedness one of the participants must undergo some kind of
change or experience some kind of effect due to the action; this change
or effect may be understood from world knowledge or inherent to the
the meaning of the action itself
(iv) Perfectivity the action should be bounded, terminated, fast-changing,
and take place in real time
Discourse-Pragmatic- There is one principal discourse component to transitivity:
(i) Constraint of Information there must be a limited number of participants
and forms of expression of those participants
Functional Claims
There are four proposed functions of transitivity:
(1) Propositional meaning the semantic components of the transitive clause serve to create the basic,
propositional, non-communicatively influenced meaning of the expression
(2) Perspective transitivity permits the language user to express a given situation,
action, or event from more than one perspective in order to create the desired communicative effect
(3) Management of Information Flow transitivity provides the site over which participant relationships
are arrayed in order to constrain the introduction of new information during communication, in part
maintaining and managing communicative coherence
(4) Grounding high or prototypical transitive clauses correlate with foregrounded information


34
On the other side of the grammatical fence, additional evidence is found in accusative
languages. In Russian, for example, the accusative suffix attaches to any object in an
affirmative sentence regardless of the type of action involved. Thus, book" in I read the book, I
saw the book, I threw the book all receive the same accusative inflection. If the Inflection simply
relates to the grammatical notion object of activity", then it should be applied equally across all
instances as it is being acquired. However, Slobin cites a study by Gvozdev (1949) which shows
this Is not the case. Children did not acquire the inflection equally, but applied it first to a
particular subset of events, namely those involved in direct, physical action on things: give,
carry, put, throw.
Slobin concludes that the Russian underextension makes the same point as the lack of
Kaluli overextension: the child seems to be encoding aspects of a prototypical event of object
rnanipulation"(412):
It seems that the child does not begin with categories, such as actor, or agent,
looking for the linguistic expressions of such notions in his or her native language.
What the child may begin with is much more limited and childlike ways of
conceiving basic events and situations, at first matching grammatical expression to
primary or basic event schemata [such as causal agent]...It is such prototypical
events, rather than case categories, that seen to provide the initial conceptual
framework for grammatical marking.
Thus there is linguistic evidence for the conceptual underpinnings of event structure and
its subsquent linguistic expression. What I would like to point out, leading to the following point
on the possible nature of these conceptual image-schemas, is that developmentally, both in
terms of the infant studies and early language acquisition studies, it is not necessarily the whole
of the event which is attended to, but one part of it. That is, the infants studies cited by Mandler
and the acquisition studies analyzed by Slobin show sensitivity to the starting and endpoints of
an event, as well as the path itself, not just to the event as a whole. Mandler even suggests that
her schema of caused motion (the prototypical transitive event" Slobin defines) is slightly more
complex and therefore a slightly later conceptual creation. Developmentally, concepts of object
permanence precede concepts of motion which precede concepts of agency. Thus it makes
sense that humans have very early schemas for objects, then for objects in motion (both self-


142
encoded by networks of information held together by the structure of propositions:
presuppositions, assertions, and results.
The question becomes what does one do with transitivity in such a structure? The
nature of discourse type and surface structure comes more clearly into focus. For example,
there are passives in expository text which are pragmatically deep, meaning that Ideas have
been cast as participants. This well-supports the assertion that grammar can be a construal
process In which parts of one semantic system are metaphorized as parts of another (the
physical for the mental, for example). However, other instances of passives are clearly shallow
and not intended to be statements of topicalized Affected participants (however metaphorical)
but statements about states of affairs which have emerged because of absent participants.
These are the gnomic" and "academic" passives which exploit the pragmatics of transitivity in
service of the purpose of expository discourse. It seems a bit of a stretch to extend the
semantics of events to these instances. A better approach is to ask what the surface structure
passive means to expository discourse rather than asking what elements of eventhood remain in
these expressions.
Applying transitivity as a notion to such surface types is inappropriate. Instead, they
should be investigated as their own type, having to do with the particulars of their pragmatic and
function force as realized through the restrictions of English clause structure. Thus we come to
the somewhat heretical notion that something as basic as transitivity is not that fundamental at
all. Transitivity is a powerful system but confined to the expression of events and that which can
be metaphorized or construed as events. Surface structure patterns which resemble transitive
clauses but are not events need to be approached differently.
Finally, Chapter Four concluded that while transitivity is critical to linear progression
where discourse is event-driven, it is not the principle structure for non-linear organization.
Instead, Topic-Comment structuring appears to be the primary organizational force with Its own
grammatical devices for linear strategy (adverbial expressions). We are thus lead to consider
the rather complex, even delicate, Interactions of semantics and discourse-pragmatics. The
model of transitivity proposed in Chapter Two claims that transitivity is a part of the grammatical


86
any particular activity, subparts of the activity are available as well as the whole of the activity
itself.
John kicked Bill.
(30) The kick was really hard.
(31) It really hurt.
(32) It was a really hard kick.
(33) His foot made hard contact with Bills shin.
(34) His boot swung in a long arc toward Bill's leg.
(35) His pants nearly ripped with the effort.
Part of Activitv/Skewing
whole/ Effector
whole/ Affected
whole/ Predication
subpart/ Effector
subpart/ Effector
subpart/ Effector
The sentences (33) -(35) show two things. First, what is available in terms of Predication is
limited by the action itself and what the reader knows must be the case in the scene. But within
that context, anything is fair game from some comment on the activity to the clothes the Effector
is presumably wearing. Second, when referring to a subpart of the activity, it is very difficult to
skew towards the Affected participant without first topicalizing that participant, or at least re
mentioning it. The energy of the activity flows from Effector to Affected and thus the subparts of
the activity follow the same path. This is not true for the whole of the activity because by
definition the trajectory in a telic transitive has both an Initiating Point and an Ending Point,
hence both points are available semantically.
Narrative examples of the above points are as follows. In the first one, we see an
example of a telic transitive followed by another telic with the Predication as the thematic
participant of the sentence. The second excerpt shows the case of a telic followed by a clause in
which the object has become the subsequent topic
Uttering a battle-cry in his well-practiced falsetto. Cora swung his
blade and 0 cut down the opposing swordswoman. His contoured
breastplate emphasized features which were not truly present.
'Cora." Roger Zelazny
Polyta stepped over to Colleen and 0 rubbed the dogs head for
comfort. Colleen whined softly in response and 0 rubbed her cheek
against the woman's thigh.
Manarman's Isle, L.S. O'Brien


94
passage if simultaneous attacks is an overt mention of the discourse topic or an allusion to the
two warrior combatants. Intuitively, I believe it is the first and serves a sort of scene-setting
function in the paragraph. It is also noteworthy that the attackers are of lower RS; they are part
of the overall scene, but not topical; they are merely participant props.
In the second excerpt, there are two clearly established topical participants, a
protagonist (the Black Arrow) and an antagonist (the dragon, Smaug). The reader knows of the
special participant quality of the arrow from the previous paragraph, where the archer addresses
it formally, as though it were animate. This is important because, according to the animacy
hierarchy, animate participants are of higher RS than inanimate ones. Thus the arrow must be
established as on par with the dragon. The action proceeds from atelic (with subordinate
clauses) to atelic, first topicalizing one participant and then the other. Typical of this kind of
scene, the antagonist meets his demise and the protagonist triumphs. It is obviously not
transitivity which accomplishes this, but the particular feel that consistent use of atelic transitives
creates. As readers, we are at a close-focus level, where only one participant fills the entire
scene. Time progresses in very short increments, moment-to-moment. Detail is considerable,
but only that which belongs closely to the scene. For any action of one participant, the reader
expects a reaction from another and radical perspective changes manage this. The reader's
mental eyes" go back and forth from participant to participant and the use of atelic transitives
accomplishes this move. Where telic transitives provide venues of perspective shifts, atelic
transitives provide perspective changes.
Finally, it is interesting and important to remember that in English, atelic transitives have
the greatest diversity of syntactic-semantic structure. Atelics encompass not only simple, one-
place predicates, but also reflexives, middles, and unique constructions such as the get-passive.
My discussion here by no means exhausts the potential use of atelics, but is intended to be a
starting point for the investigation of the semantic-pragmatic-discourse relationships of this
varied structure.


80
description is cast, the less detail of the event is implied in the description. The closer" the
linguistic depiction is, the more detail is Implied. For example, the following sentences can be
understood not simply as aspectual distinctions, but as a matter of distance from the event.
(6) There was a cat and dog running down the sidewalk.
(7) The cat ran after/chased the dog.
(8) The dog fled.
In (6), the perspectival distance is far away, what I term a panoramic view." Essentially,
an event is construed as a state; the distance is so far away that the action itself is seen as an
entire picture, a framed Point-Trajectory complex, rather than as movement from one endpoint
to another. From the point of view of discourse, just about anything can follow this kind of
sentence as long as it stays within the very loose constraints imposed by the overall action--in
this scene, that of a neighborhood.
(9) There was a dog and cat running down the sidewalk, children swinging
in backyard playgrounds, and a light playful breeze nipping at the leaves
and swishing little girls' ponytails this way and that.
(10) There was a dog and cat running down the sidewalk. I opened the door
slowly, peeking out again to make sure the coast was clear.
(11) There was a dog and cat running down the sidewalk. Without warning,
a bomb ripped the mornings peace to shreds. No more dog. No more cat.
No more sidewalk
The perspectival distance in (7) is what I term basic. Similar to Lakoff s notion of basic
level terms, this is the sort of sentence most often given when someone asks for an example
sentence. There are two endpoints and a trajectory given, but instead of being framed from a
distance, they are framed at the level just enclosing the activity and participants. Often,
additional information is excluded at the level of the clause; if there is additional information
about direction and such, it has a much more adjunct" interpretation. This is also the level at
which discourse constraints begin to assert themselves. This example includes an Effector and
Affected with equal referential specificity engaged in a purposeful, unilateral activity. It is NOT
the case that just anything may follow this statement. Rather, as will be discussed in the next
section, we expect that the Effector, Affected, or Predication will follow. This is considerably
more constraint than the panoramic view entailed.


9
"discourse-pragmatic level). It is read, as is also common practice, from the actual or surface
order of the lexical units.
MlCk defines changes in "transitivity" as affecting communicative meaning but not
propositional meaning since voice is an inflectional category, but transitivation (his term) is NOT
(though sometimes closely resembles it): "Just like voice, the transitivation achieves
[communicative structure] through manipulation of COMMUNICATIVE SALIENCY of the verbs
actants "(Ml'Ck, 1993:30; caps in original). Transitivation differs from voice in that voice can
affect any actant, where transitivation only acts upon the second actant under the condition that
its surface realization is as the "direct object. Furthermore, voice operates at the "deep" level
of semantic structure while transitivation only acts at the surface level. MlCk follows Keenan
and Comries 1977 hierarchy concluding that "all things being equal, the higher the syntactic rank
of a sentence element, the higher its communicative salience...It is this trait that is exploited by
the transitivation: it allows the speaker to modify, according to his communicative needs, the
syntactic rank of the phrase whose communicative salience interests him" (30-1). Specifically,
then, MlCk defines transitivation with the modification of the second actant (main object)
without affecting propositional content. Detransitivation works the same way, but with a two-
actant verb.
Givn (1993) also maintains different semantic levels in order to account for the
communicative effects of different sentences. As with MlCk, he also calls them deep" and
"surface" structure, though ostensibly these are syntactic levels. The deep syntactic structure
most closely corresponds to the semantic structure- or propositional meaning of the sentence.
In simple sentences (main, declarative, affirmative, active), the relationship between
propositional meaning and surface syntactic structure is straightforward, hence semantically
transparent. In most complex clauses, though, the surface structure is at odds with the
propositional meaning, so much so that they are most easily described independently. In this
case, the semantic structure of the sentence is opaque.
Givn justifies these two claims pragmatically. The reason why syntactic complexity
results in propositional opacity is that a complex surface structure communicates "discourse-


67
from which the following clause may be viewed. Transitivity as a semantic system is about the
whole of cognitive events; transitivity at the level of discourse is about the endpoints of events.
Thus my conception of how transitivity works in discourse is similar to what DuBois claims for
Preferred Argument Structure: it is not a discourse structure, per se, but a discourse preference
for syntactic structure (1987:823).
3.1.2 Perspective
The notion that transitivity encodes perspective, or something like it, is not new. Rice
(1987) states as much in a variety of ways--At heart, transitivity is a linguistic device optionally
employed by a speaker to conceptualize and organize the actions of entities in the world in order
to convey a certain attitude about an overall event to someone else" (p.5), transitivity is...a
function of a speaker's evaluation otan event (p.36), and ...transitivity is as much a function of
the content of the event being described as it is of the describer's interpretation of that event"
(p.38). Hopper and Thompson (1980) make a similar claim when they associate transitivity and
foregrounding, particularly as their claim relates to telic predicates"--those that are bounded by
tense and participants into a single, whole" event.
Berman and Slobin (1984) provide the most detailed model of clause-level discourse
negotiation in narrative with their four dimensions of event construal. Briefly, event construal
includes the selection of topic, selection of loci of control and effect, selection of event view, and
selection of degree of agency. Selection of topic is essentially the selection of who or what the
clause will be about Selection of loci of control and effect is the selection of who or what is
actor and undergoer. Berman and Slobin point out, much as Kemmer does, that the topic need
not be the actor; these two choices are distinct. The topic can be either actor or undergoer (in
my terms, Effector or Affected). Selection of event view is the choice of the event-participant
relationship (Cause, Become, State). And selection of agency is how much motivation loading"
the entire scene is given. To some extent, selection of agency corresponds to my discussion of
asymmetry as it pertains to slanting towards the Effector or Affected participant. These four
dimensions act together in the construction of a clause and have a subsequent effect on what
can follow in discourse. If there is a fault in Berman and Slobins approach, it is their total


141
narrative, the relative grounding of information is probably not adequately captured by a simple
two way distinction of foreground and background. Rather, two sets of information structure are
being coded simultaneously: plot-line and time-line. The first is a non-linear structure and
represents the aggregate of knowledge the reader has about the narrative at any point as well as
pragmatic knowledge such as scripts and schemas. The latter is the linear structure of the
narrative and controls how the reader progresses from one end of the story to the other. Both
are complex entities and this project did not completely explore either; rather, they are
assumptions made in the analysis. What was discovered, however, was that transitivity plays a
role in linear progression by managing the perspectives available clause-to-clause. This was
accomplished primarily by the perspectival distance" entailed by the four clause types. Atelic
and dispersed transitives entail a closer perspective, therefore a more limited range of available
perspectives. Durative transitives provide the furthest perspectival distance, hence impose the
least amount of perspective constraint. Telic transitives provide a small but robust set of
alternatives including both Endpoints and the Trajectory itself.
Despite the above, transitivity is cut through by tense/aspect configurations. A telic
transitive may be off the time-line of a narrative, expressing a highly forceful event, but not be
managing perspective. Similarly, an atelic transitive may be on the time-line therefore able to
constrain available perspectives. The key is tense/aspect. A clause which is off the time line as
signaled by various sorts of subordination may provide key plot-line information, but it does not
effect the linear progression of the text. The result in a one-way directional relationship: time
line events encode transitivity, but transitivity does not signal time-line events.
Chapter Four, the investigation of transitivity in expository text, was the chapter which
seems to most challenge linguistic assumptions regarding the importance of transitivity. Even a
brief glance into any expository text reveals a dearth of transitive clauses, regardless of type.
Instead of participants, expository text features thematic propositions. Rather than events, there
are situations and states. Moreover, where seemingly transitive structures occur, they are not
central to linear progression of the material in the way they are for narrative. Unlike narrative,
transitivity seems to signal off-argument line information. On-argument line information is


LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURES page
Figure 1.1 Halllday's Six Categories of Clause Types 4
Figure 2.1 Statement of Transitivity 24
Figure 2.2 Mandler's Image Schemas of Motion 32
Figure 2.3 Mandler's Image Schema of Caused Motion 32
Figure 2.4 Mandlers Image Schema of Agency 33
Figure 2.5 Crofts Event Views 36
Figure 2.6 Kemmers Event Schema 37
Figure 2.7 The Four Clause Types of Transitivity 63
Figure 3.1 Referential Specificity, Information Value, and Grammatical
Relations 79
Figure 3.2 Quantitative Analysis of Clause Types with Percentages of
Occurrence 103
Figure 3.3 Raw Count and Percentages Clause Types in Adult
Narrative 103
Figure 3.4 Time Line and Clause Types-raw score out of total/percentage
in text 105
Figure 4.1 Topic/Subtopic 123
Figure 4.2 Topic/Subtopics Specified 124
Figure 4.3 Complete Topic/Subtopics of excerpt Speech Acts" 125
vi


This project is dedicated to Dr. Gerald Eugene Merwin,
My Father,
who is not alive to see its completion
yet has everything to do with it being done.


135
Longacre notes three considerations which emerge when studying the passive: (1)
passives are less successful when used with a "by phrase: (2) passives are more successful
when the affected participant has undergone a fairly obvious change of state; (3) passives are
more successful with a general referent, I.e., when the agent, stated or unstated, is a group or
when the entire clause is gnomic, i.e., general or proverbial in thrust" (1983:230). Functionally,
as discussed in chapters two and three, passives occur when the Affected participant is
topicalized or syntactic structure demands parallel subjecthood across clauses. In expository
text, however, the appropriateness of a passive is explained through a combination of
considerations (1) and (3) above: While narrative discourse is agent-oriented and treats,
furthermore of the actions of particular agents, expository discourse lacks this agent-orientation
and deals more with generalities" (232).
The following are examples of academic passives: The second column of Table 8 was
calculated simply by aggregating all data across all speakers (Naro, 1981:82); Although the HP
conveys the same referential information as the P, its function in narrative has been said to go
beyond the establishment of a referential meaning (Schiffrin, 1981:46); Transitivity has been
traditionally understood as a global property of an entire clause such that an activity is carried-
over or transferred from an agent to a patient (Hopper and Thompson, 1980:251). In each, it Is
either the researcher him/herself or some portion of the academic community who is the
agentive participant. According to scientific tradition, the scientist is the least important part of
the write-up: the scientific contribution is the main player. Therefore the scientist and/or the
scientific community may be assumed and the contribution itself construed as the primary
participant. Semantically, these passives behave like transitives In the mental domaln"-the
object" is not the Affected participant, the Effector is. The object represents a boundary point in
the trajectory but the path of effect loops back onto the Effector (recall from chapter two that
semantically, participant semantics should be separated from trajectory semantics).
Pragmatically, this transitive is used for purposes other than the expression of an event. It Is not
intended to topicallze" a participant It Is, rather, a linguistic instance of function following form:


131
what ants to finish and furnish the ant hill. It is still a micro-text, though, and does not include all
the components of a narrative.
At a stage in the construction, twigs of a certain size are needed, and all
the members forage obsessively for twigs of just this size. Later, when outer
walls are to be finished, thatched, the size must change, and as though given
new orders by telephone, all the workers shift the search to the new twigs. If
you disturb the arrangement of a part of the Hill, hundreds of ants will set it to
vibrating, shifting, until it is put right again. Distant sources of food are
somehow sensed, and long lines, like tentacles, reach out over the ground,
over walls, behind boulders, to fetch it in.
This pattern now safely established, Thomas continues to make use of it in paragraphs
seven, eight, and nine. In paragraph ten, he begins the return back to explicitly arguing his
theme and the expository surface structure re-appears. Again, the purpose of the above
example has been to demonstrate that one use of transitivity in expository text is to vividly
exemplify or illustrate some point of the theme. The narrative micro-text does not display all the
notional or surface structure qualities of the narrative discourse type; rather, there is a selection
of some portion of them. Thus the micro-text is marked in two ways. First, it is different from
the expository surface structure, signaling a functional shift. Second, the structure of the micro
text itself is marked compared to the notional type it represents, signaling that its use is not a
total divergence from one notional type to another, but is subordinated to the discourse purpose
of the larger text.
The Thomas text also showed another use of transitivity in expository text: as the
surface form of a transition span. Recall that the last sentence of paragraph two signaled the
possible change of paragraph topic. This supports nicely Goutsos' claim that there is explicit
marking of some kind during transitions from one continuation span to another. My contribution
here is simply to add transitivity, especially the use of telic transitives, to the inventory of
signaling devices employed in expository texts.
4.3.3 Bridge Spans and Transitivity
There are other instances of "transitivity" in expository text where abstract states are
construed as participants in what seems like event-driven discourse. Given the two examples


19
thorough-going investigation into these interactions. While each of the above researchers has
admirably investigated the particular side of the issue he or she is interested in, no one
investigator has attempted an in-depth study of these at once, particularly as they attain beyond
the genre of narrative. That is the purpose of this project: to investigate the various definitions
of transitivity and particularly its use with the aim of determining what might properly be called
transitivity and its functions. This work should be viewed with respect to emerging notions
about discourse such as those laid out by Hopper and Thompson (1980), DuBois (1987), Berman
and Slobin (1994) and Chafe (1994) which hold that the grammatical system itself is closely
linked to discourse forces such as focus and topicality, and the structure of clauses is similarly
linked to the needs of information structuring, cognitive processing, and communication. Thus
the play of any clause Is not only a matter of semantics and construal, but also constrained by
the needs and forces of discourse and cognition.
1.3.4 Transitivity and Text
Because transitivity has implications across the semantic, syntactic, and discourse-
pragmatic levels of language, it has been the subject of several discourse studies, as the section
entitled Extra-clause oriented" demonstrates. The overwhelming majority of these studies have
taken place within the genre of narrative, both spoken and written. Initially, this seems like a
good strategy. Narrative is an intuitively well-understood discourse type, easily recognized and
produced by speakers, with a few clear linguistic structures associated with it; namely, narrative
is past tense, action oriented, and proceeds from beginning to end chronologically.
Nevertheless, while linguistics has long been cautioned by practitioners such as
Longacre (1977, 1983) to be mindful of the connections between notional type and surface
structure, this has rarely been the case. While linguists do take pains to mention the notional
type they are culling data from, there is left implicit the assumption that the language itself- the
grammatical or semantic structures in question- are wholly distinct from the environment within
which they are occurring. Even discourse linguists who devote their time to studying these
connections seem to carry this same hidden belief: while genre has an effect, It is more of a
loose framework around the language within; it has no real impact on structure itself. In other


36
typically associated with one part (or all) of the idealized event; these are the event views. The
astericks and parentheses mark the point at which the typical association ends.
Causative: The rock broke the window
rock window (window) (window)
cause become state
Inchoative The window broke
window (window) (window)
* n *
become broken
Stative: The window is broken
window (window)
n
Figure 2.5: Crofts Event Views
Croft then argues that verbal markedness patterns found in various languages (English, French,
Japanese, Korean) represent the most natural" or typical event view associated with the verb
(100-101):
This construal is based on human experience of the event, and is not surprising. In
general, unmarked statives are found with verbs denoting events that in human
experience most commonly are inherent properties, not implying any internal
cause.... Unmarked causatives are found in verbs denoting events that frequently
or almost always occur in human experience with an external cause.... Unmarked
intransitives...are found in verbs denoting events that are commonly not permanent
(i.e. they can change) and most frequently occur-or are construed to occur-
without an external cause.
Basic and derived forms can be found with each of the basic event views:
Causative->lnchoative->Stative on Causative Event View
(1) Olaf opened the door.
(2) The door opened.
(3) The door is open.
lnchoative~>Stative on Inchoative Event View
(4) Sven fishes.
(5) Svens a good fisherman.
Stative>Caused Stative on Stative Event View
(6) pure sugar
(7) purified sugar