CHAPTER 5

PATIENT PRAMES

Patient Frames are cognitive valency patterns involving Patient Argument which is the
cognitive diagnostic marker of this type of frames. Before outlining this crucial diagnostic
marker, let us summarize the coding and structural markers of the frame including the tests
for the post-Verb component.

1. Coding markers:

On the surface, Patient Frames must include an Object Argument. The Object Argument slot
may either occur as a single post-V Argument, or it may be followed by any of the following:
another Object, Object Complement or Adverbial. The coding chains realizing Patient Frames
therefore include the following:

SVOd: He painted the wall.

SVOdOi: John gave Jane the book.

SVOdA: She put the pen into a bag. (to be analysed in Chapter 6)

SVOdCo: They considered him guilty. (to be analysed in Chapter 8)

The diagnostic coding markers include word order, object case of pronouns, lack of V/O
concord and passive transformation.

1.1 Grammaticalized word order

As mentioned in Chapter 4, in English the S/O contrast is activated by the position relative to
the verb, i.e. the immediate post-Verb position is reserved for the Object. Word order is fixed
in English to such a degree that is can be used as grammaticalizer, which means that it is
employed to distinguish clause elements, i.e. the Subject from the Object; in
inflectional/synthetic languages it is the grammatical affixes, i.e. inflections, which are used
to distinguish the Subject from the Object (also see Chapter XXX, p. for distinction between
animate and inanimate chains in Slovak, and Chapter XXX p. for FSP function of word order
in Slovak).
Peter loves Jane. (SVO) Peter ľúbi Janu. (SVO)

Jane loves Peter. (SVO) Janu ľúbi Peter. (OVS)

There are two types of surface Objects, namely Direct Object and Indirect Object,
differing from each other by their mutual position and distinct case form in inflectional
languages (Accusative for the Direct Object, Dative for the Indirect Object). As surface cases
are no longer morphologically flagged in English, the cognitive cases (i.e. cognitive
Arguments) identifiable as Theme for the Direct Object and Donee for the Indirect Object are
activated by the post-Verb position relative to each other depending on the type of structure
realizing them. If the Indirect Object is realized by a noun phrase, it precedes the Direct
Object, if it is realized by a prepositional phrase, it follows the Direct Object.

Peter gave Oi(Jane) Od(some flowers).

Peter gave Od(some flowers) Oi(to Jane).

Although Indirect Object is positionally more central, as it is placed closer to the Verb
positionally (unless realized by a preposition phrase), cognitively it is more peripheral, i.e. its
surface omission affects the cognitive reading of the Verb and its cognitive Arguments:

He sold me his bike. (me – Donee, his bike – Theme)

The Omission Test would show that the Donee/Indirect Object is implicitly present if
omitted on the surface, while the omission of the Theme/Direct Object would result in
changing the cognitive role of the Indirect Object into Theme.

He sold his bike. (bike – Theme; Donee is implicitly present)

He sold me. (me – Theme) (a shift of the cognitive role occurs along with the change of
Indirect Object to Direct Object)

1.2 Object case of pronouns

The Object case of nouns is formally identical with the common case of nouns and pronouns,
except for personal pronouns (I-me, he-him, she-her, we-us, they-them plus interrogative and
relative pronoun who-whom, while the pronoun what shows “case syncretism”, although in an
uninflected form):
What caused the death? What did the death cause?
S V O O V S V

1.3 Lack of Verb/Object Concord

Unlike the concord between the Subject and the Verb, there is no Verb/Object concord,
which is a coding marker that shows a different degree of grammatical interdependence
obtaining between the Verb and the Subject, on the one hand, and that between the Verb and
the Object, on the other. In English, on the surface the Subject commands the form of the
Verb as to person and number (in Slovak, even the gender may be indicated by verbal
inflections in the past tense -l,-la, -lo). The lack of V-O concord may be demonstrated as
follows:

The children are reading a book/books.

The children is reading a book/books.*

1.4 Passivization Test

The Passivization Test is the major coding Object-diagnostic test. It is fully feasible with
Agentive Patient Frames where the Agent performs, instigates or causes the action which
subsequently involves/affects the Patient. Since the main purpose of passive transformations
is to rhematize the Agent or the Action (see Chapter XXX, p.), the Object is thematized by
being transposed to the Subject slot (see chapter XXX p. for FSP of passive transformations).

John painted this picture. >>> This picture was painted by John.

The Passivization Test is also possible with Experiencer Frames, it is less straightforward
with Circumstantial Patient Frames:

John loves Jane. SVO → Jane is loved by John. passSVO

He smiled an ironic smile. SVO → An ironic smile was smiled by him.*

In SVOO kernel chains both the Direct and Indirect Objects meet the Passivization Test:

S
(Peter) gave Od(some flowers) Oi(to Jane).

(Some flowers) were given (to Jane) (by Peter).

(Jane) was given (some flowers) (by Peter).

2. Structural markers

Diagnostic structural realization of Object: NOUN PHRASE

The structural diagnostic test for Object is its Replaceability by/Reduceability to a simple
noun phrase.

Table XXX Structural realization of Object by types of structures and their exemplification
1. NP headed by noun I kicked the ball as hard as I could. Camb. D.
- common case noun
I like Peter´s more.
- possessive case noun
- substantivized adjective/participle She gives a lot of money to the poor. Camb.D.

2. NP headed by pronoun
personal/objective case pronoun
She didn´t like him.

possessive pronoun She didn´t like his.

demonstrative pronoun He didn´t know that.

indefinite pronoun You can take anything you like.

reflexive pronoun At dawn, he found himself in a thick bed of

reeds.

relative pronoun I know what he is hiding up his sleeve.

3. NP headed by numeral Could you take only three.

 - ordinal I found the third.
- cardinal
4. Prepositional phrase They provided us with shelter.

5. Finite dependent clause That´s what he looks. (Hem, p. 4)

6. Infinitive semi-clause/non-finite clause She loves to watch detective films.

7. Gerundial semi-clause/non-finite clause Both spouses admitted attempting to hide

the true extent of their assets.

3. Cognitive markers

Diagnostic cognitive role of Object: PATIENT

The Patient macro-role is generally used to refer to the cognitive roles of Animate or
Inanimate Entities which are not directly involved in Actions or States, but are somehow
affected by them, or come into existence through their operation. The Cognitive Question Test
consists in triggering various micro-roles of Patient: What did he paint? Whom did she give it
to? What did he hit? etc. Patient Frames may be cognitively sub-classified into Agentive
Patient Frames, Experiential Patient Frames and Circumstantial Patient Frames.

3.1 Agentive Patient Frames

Agentive Patient Frames are activated by causative verbs lexicalizing Agent of various
subtypes (as listed in Chapter 4) combining it with various micro-roles of Patient. They may
be realized by SVO, SVOO and SVOA kernel chains.

A) Agentive Patient Frames realized as kernel SVO

Table XXX Agentive Patient Frames realized as kernel SVO

Type of Agent in the Example Type of Patient in the

Subject slot Object slot
Doer She kissed him on Affected Entity
the mouth.
Doer Jane made a cake. Resultant Entity
Doer/External Causer In 1906 the Affected Entity
 earthquake
destroyed San
Francisco. (Cambr.
Dict)
Doer I don’t play poker. Action specifier
(G:120)
He climbed Mt.
Gerlach. Locative Specifier
Initiator He marched the Affective Entity/ Doer
company up the hill.
Permitter John grows his Bearer
beard in winter.
Doer Experiencer He was watching a Focus
film.
Stimulus His jokes amused Affected
me. Entity/Experiencer
Instrument The key opened the Affected Entity
door.

The Affected Entity and the Resultant Entity are different in that the latter comes into
existence or ceases to exist as a result of the Action performed, whereas the Affected Entity is
only affected by the Action. The Translation Test may be relevant for distinguishing between
the Affected and Resultant Patient Frames as it might require different lexical units in another
language:

He painted the wall. → Natrel/Vymaľoval stenu. Affected Entity

He painted the picture. → Namaľoval obraz. Resultant Entity

With animate entities in the Object position, the cognitive role of Affected Entity may overlap
with Agentive micro-roles: He marched his company up the hill. his company – Affected
Entity in the valency frame Initiator + implied Coercive Action + Affected Entity, and, at the
same time, Doer in the embedded valency frame (Doer + Action): his company marched up
the hill. Beside Doer, the Initiator Frame may also involve Affected Entity/Experiencer in the
Object slot: She tricked him into believing that she was his sister´s friend.

The Permitter Frame involves some intentionality of the Agent exerted upon the
Bearer of a process, which is the Permitter itself: John grows his beard. In Slovak this frame
is realized by a structure explicitly indicating the intentionality of the process by the use of a
semi-copular verb nechať in combination with the process verb realized as infinitive: Ján si
nechal/necháva narásť bradu.
 The Doer/Experiencer Patient Frames involve agentive use of verbs related to
perception and cognition. With some verbs there occurs alignment polysemy, in other
Experiencer and Agentive Frames (and even the Qualifying Frames) may be lexicalized by
distinct lexical units:

John heard him/John listened to him.

John saw him/John looked at him/John was watching him.

John tasted salt in the beer. /John tasted the beer.

As you get older, you tend to feel the cold more./Just feel how cold my hands are!(touch)

Table XXX Alignment polysemy versus distinct lexical units of Agentive and Experiencer
Frames:

Experiencer Doer
taste taste alignment polysemy
Smell smell alignment polysemy
Feel feel alignment polysemy
See look at /watch distinct lexical unit
Hear listen to distinct lexical unit

Stimulus and Instrument Patient Frames may be treated as transpositions of their core
underlying cognitive frames:

Stimulus: Doer + Action + Experiencer/Affected Entity + Stimulus:

A comedian amused Affected Entity/Experiencer(the audience) Stimulus(with his jokes). →

Stimulus (His jokes) amused Affected Entity/Experiencer(the audience).

The key opened the door.

The computer solved the problem.

All of the above cognitive Arguments allow to passivize the Object Argument.

B) Agentive Patient Frame realized as kernel SVOO (both cognitive sub-types allow to
passivize both of the Objects)
B1) Donation Frame

Table XXX Donation Frame

Type of Agent Example Type of Patient Type of Patient in

in the Subject in the Direct the Indirect object
slot Object slot slot
Donor/Doer She bought Oi(him) Od(a car). Donee Theme (subject-
matter of transfer)
Donor We provided Oi(them) Od(with Donee Theme
food and shelter).
Donee The mortgagor owed Donor Theme (subject-
Oi Od
(the mortgagee) (thousands matter of transfer)
euros).
Doer/false He gave Oi(the car) Od(a wash). Affected Action /Eventive
Donor Entity/quazi
Donee

Donation Frame is interrelated with the Possession Frame in that the Donee becomes
Possessor as a result of the Donation Frame. In other words, the Donation Frame entails the
Possession Frame:

John gave Jane a bunch of flowers. → Jane has a bunch of flowers.

John sold Jane a house. → Jane owns a house.

It might be pointed out that in the Donor+Donee+Theme Frame the Donor and Donee are two
parties to the transaction which are mutually interactive, i. e. they function as directional
opposites: converses (Cruse, 1986:223). If converses are subject to transpositive surface
operations (Franko, ???? ) they retain their cognitive roles under the Constancy of Cognitive
Arguments rule:

Doer/Donee (The Purchaser) purchased Theme(the house) Donor/Source(from the Seller).

Doer/Donor (The Seller) sells Theme(the house) Donee(to the Purchaser).

This may be found useful in translation when it is necessary to handle transpositive surface
operations dictated, for example, by FSP or the nature of complex sentence structures in
which they occur. Such operations may be conducted.

The Donation Frame is realized as NP+VP+NP+PrepP with such verbs as: to provide
with, to furnish with, to entrust with, to charge with, etc. If the Theme in the Donation Frame
is realized by a prepositional phrase, it is still passivizable as a simple noun phrase. This is
allowed by the fact that cognitively it behaves clearly as Patient Theme:

We provided Donee(them) Theme(with food and shelter).

Theme (Food and shelter) were provided Donee(to them).

Donee (They) were provided Theme(with food and shelter).

The analysis is also correlating with the Possessive Qualifying Frame parallel:

Many people had entrusted Donee (the company) (with money they intended to use in
Theme

retirement). → The company has the money.

By metaphoric extension the Donation Frames may also include verbs sub-categorizing
Theme lexicalized as ´task/authority´ (with some verbs without a preposition):

They entrusted president with broad powers.

President charged him with organizing the meeting.

The teacher assigned us 50 maths problems for homework.

In the Donee+Donor+Theme Frame sub-type, which may be termed Reversed Donation

Frame, the parties of obligor and obligee, mortgagor and mortgagee are as if falsely
lexicalized as Doer – Donee by derivational flagging -or/-ee; however, in this frame their
syntactic cognitive reading is opposite: obligor is the Donee of a debt, the party that must pay
it up, and the obligee is the creditor, i.e. the Donor, to whom the money is to be paid up. This
should be kept in mind in translation into Slovak:

S Oi
Donee (The mortgagor) owes (the mortgagee) Od Theme(thirty thousand euros). →
Donor

Hypotekárny dlžník dlhuje hypotekárnemu veriteľovi tridsaťtisíc eur.

On the other hand, the frame of verb owe is regular, i.e. Donore-Donee, where Theme is
abstract obligation:

Donor (The defendant) owed Donee(him) Theme(a duty of care).

The Doer+Action+Affected Entity+Theme Frame realized as SVOO He gave the car a wash.
is a nominalized variant of the kernel SVO chain/Agentive Patient Frame that may be
exemplified as He washed the car. The car remains readable as the Affected Entity while the
Action is distributed between the semi-copula give and nominalized Action/quazi-Theme a
wash.

The Possession Frame Test does not apply to the last two sub-types of the Donation Frame:

The mortgagee possesses the money.*

The car possesses a wash.*

B2) Dicendi Frame

The Dicendi frame involves a sub-type of cognitive verbs, so called verba dicendi, i.e. verbs
of speaking, which require Cognizer, Focus and Addressee and Focus as elaborators:

Cognizer (John) asked Addressee(him) Focus(a question). Cognizer (Jane) told Addressee(him) Focus(a story).

The rest of the Agentive Patient Frames will be dealt with in Chapter 7 and 8.

3.2 Experiencer Patient Frames

Experiencer Patient Frames are activated by verbs lexicalizing various physical, emotion and
perception states by which Experiencers are subclassified accordingly (as listed in Chapter 4).
The diagnostic Patient micro-role is Focus. They are realized by the SVO kernel chain.

Table XXX Experiencer Patient Frame

Type of Example Type of Patient in

Experiencer in the the Direct Object
Subject slot slot
Cognizer I know him. He asked a question. Focus
Emoter Mary enjoyed the play. Focus
Perceiver I can hear birds outside. Focus
Possessor/Donee John owns a house. Focus
John received a summons. Theme
Unintentional John broke his leg. Relation (Part-
Performer/Undergoe The car broke its axle. Whole) Specifier
r
Unintentional The company has incurred huge losses ov Theme/Resultant
Performer/Undergoe er the past three years
r
Focus It occurred to me that I forgot your Cognizer
birthday. SVO
It seems to me that she is quite crazy. SVO
(She reminds me of her mother.) SVOA
Experiencers are expected to be animate entities, however, by metaphoric extensions
inanimate entities may also occur in these frames, or may be understood as implicitly present,
especially in the specialist style, as in the following examples:

The Companies Act 1985 recognises a distinction between two different types of registered
companies limited by shares (Company law, p.8).

The statutory model assumes a separation of ownership and control. (Company law, p. 9)

The Experiencer Possession Frame is synonymous with Possessive Qualifying Frame (see
Chapter 5) from which it differs by the possibility of passivization, which influences the
coding interpretation of the post-verb Argument:

John owns a house. → a house is owned by John (a house – Object)

John has blue eyes. → blue eyes are had by John* (blue eyes – Subject Complement)

Duality of Possessor/Donee Arguments in this Frame indicates that it is also closely related to
the Donation Frame, however, the Experiencer Possession Frame should be distinguished
from the Agentive Donation Frame in that the latter involves active intentionality of the
Agent:

a)The Purchaser received the goods. Experiencer Possession Frame

b) The Purchaser accepted the goods. Agentive Donation Frame

This should be kept in mind in translation of English contracts into Slovak. In the legal
context the effect of the receipt of goods and the acceptance of the goods is completely
different: while the former means a mere taking-over of the goods (for an on-site inspection),
the latter implies the moment on which the contract is considered executed (with drastically
different consequences concerning a contractual withdrawal following). A lexical counterpart
of both of these verbs in Slovak is prijať which may be used in both the Agentive and
Experiencer Frames (the concept of alignment polysemy, see Chapter 3). However, the
alignment polysemy allowed by the verb prijať may cause massive misunderstanding in the
contractual domain and translators are therefore recommended to avoid it by opting for
specific lexical units to indicate this difference to receive goods – obdržať/prevziať tovar, to
accept the goods – prijať tovar.

Undergoer Patient Frame realized as SVO sub-categorizes Relation Specifier as

surface Object. The Subject Undergoer is actually a transposed Affected Entity from a
causative core Agentive Patient Frame whose Affected Entity is now split into Part and
Whole and whose Agent becomes irrelevant as some external intervener:

External Causer (Some external intervener) broke Affected Entity(John´s leg). →

Undergoer(John) broke Part-Whole Specifier- (his leg).

The Passivization Test proves the presence of the external intervener: John´s leg was broken
by an external intervener rather than by John.

In Slovak the Patient-like nature of this type of Undergoer is clearly indicated either by the
dative case reflexive pronoun (with animate entities) or the dative case of the noun phrase
(with inanimate entities) realizing the Undergoer/Affected Entity:

Ján si zlomil nohu.

Autu sa zlomila náprava.

Another non-core combination of cognitive Argument is that of a Focus Subject and

Cognizer Object with the surface Subject being doubled: anticipatory IT + postponed notional
Subject: It seems to me that she is quite crazy. In contrast to the rest of the cognitive sub-types
in this group this type of Object does not meet the Passivization Test, although its Question
Test is still nominal, although quite awkward with the verb seem: I was reminded of her
mother by her.* I am seemed…* versus Whom does she remind of her mother? To whom did
it occur?

III. Circumstantial Patient-like Frames

Circumstantial Patient Frames involve a combination of Agent/Experiencer and various

Patient-like elaborators. Whereas the full-fledged Patients are passivizable, the lesser the
Patient-like status of an Argument and the causative relation between the pre-Verb and post-
Verb Argument, the lesser the possibility to passivize the whole structure. The non-
passivizable sub-types clearly show a transient coding nature of their surface realization:
although they are of nominal nature, their surface function is transient between the Object and
the Adverbial.

Table XXX Circumstantial Patient-like Arguments and the Passivization Test/Question Test
 Type of Example Type of Passivization Question Test
Agent/Experi Patient in the Test Nominal/Adverb
encer in the Direct Object
Subject slot slot
Affected Centipedes grow their legs Resultant Their legs are What do they grow?
Entity/Bearer at various stages of their grown by
development. centipedes.*
Doer They were dancing a Action Specifier A waltz was What were they danc
waltz. danced by them
(?)
Doer They climbed a hill. Locative A hill was What did they climb?
Specifier climbed by them.
They ran 20 miles. 20 miles were run How many miles die
Measure by them. (?) run?
Specifier
Localizer/ The broken pipe was Exponent/ Water was run by From where was w
Source running water. Undergoer the broken pipe.* running?
Doer He took a shower. Eventive A shower was What did he take?
taken by him.
Emoter He smiled his ironic smile Cognate His ironic smile How did he smile?
was smiled by
him.*

EXERCISES

1. Identify (by slashes) and label structure types in the Object slot:

The comedian tricked the audience into believing where his joke is heading.

1. Beside the diagnostic SVO kernel chain Cognition, Emotion and Perception Frames
may be realized by other minor surface structures:
Perform cross-language analysis of Experiencer. Compare the English/Slovak pairs of
sentences below, slice them into clause elements by inserting the appropriate chunks
in the boxes and identify the Experiencer (included its sub-type). Examples and
analyses are taken from the bachelor´s thesis of Daniela Skačanová
(https://opac.crzp.sk/?fn=docviewChild00061758):

EN: But there was no happiness in him …

SK:Vôbec však v sebe nenachádzal šťastie…

kernel SVA Kernel SVOA

 S Dummy S (on) Exp-
´there´ + no Emoter
happiness
V Was V nenachádzal
A in him Exp- O šťastie
Emoter
A v sebe Exp-
Emoter

EN: His head was pounding in the glare of the strip-lighting now.

SK: V Ostrom svelte ho bolela hlava.

EN SK
Kernel SV Kernel SVOA
S S
Det V
V O

EN: Harry, we´re really sorry!

SK: Harry, je nám to fakt ľúto!

EN SK
Kernel SVCs Kernel SVOCs
S S
V V
Cs O
A Cs
A

EN Whenever this thought occurred, Harry invariably slid off his bed and began pacing again.

SK: Zakaždým, keď ho prepadla táto myšlienka, zliezol z postele a znovu sa začal
prechádzať.
 EN SK
kernel SV Kernel SVO
S S
V V
O

EN: His voice sounded dim and distant.

SK: Vlastný hlas mu znel nejasne a vzdialene.

EN SK
kernel SVA Kernel SVOA
S S
V V
A O
A

EN: Harry´s heart leapt.

SK: Harrymu poskočilo srdce.

EN SK
kernel SV Kernel SVO
S S
Det V
V O

EN: His mind was racing…

SK: V hlave mu vírili myšlienky…

EN SK
Kernel SV Kernel SVOA
S S
Det V
V O
A

2. Identify cognitive roles in the Object slots:

1. Sole traders usually provide the capital with personal savings or a bank loan.
2. This hurt him.
3. Section 245 of the Insolvency Act 1986 invalidates a floating charge created within 12
months.
4. Section 245 (4) provides that a floating charge will not be invalidated if the company
was able to pay its debts. (Compl)
5. This avoids the difficulties of having to renegotiate the contract each time shares
change hands. (Compl, 142)
6. I was feeling (around)(=searching with my hand) in my bag for the keys.
7. Uncle Luke may or may not go see the family lawyer, usually a small-town ham-and-
egger who does wills and divorces and in most cases wouldn´t know a decent tort if
one hit him. (Grish:207)
8. What was left of his fortune, the Laughing Man converted into Diamonds.
(Salinger,70)
9. He looked at Ginnie. (Salinger, 70)
10. Ginnie watched him for a while. (Salinger, 70)
11. Why don´t you boy form a platoon and march home? (Salinger 51)