M. Iriskulov, A. Kuldashev a course in Theoretical English Grammar Tashkent 2008

participant clauses (Intransitives), two-participant clauses (Transitives), three-
participant clauses (Double-object clauses). J.R. Taylor addresses the semantic 
roles of participants and their semantic expression in the clause. The question 
under discussion is how a participant with a certain semantic role (Agent, Patient, 
etc) is mapped in to the syntax, that is into particular grammatical relation (subject, 
direct object, etc.).
Among the semantic roles of the participants J.R. Taylor distinguishes: Agent, 
Instrument (dynamic processes) 
Mover – an entity which changes its location, e.g.: The guests departed (dynamic 
processes),
Patient - an entity which is affected by the process designated by the verb; the 
entity may undergo a change in state, it may occupy a new location, it can change 
ownership, etc, e.g.: John opened the door, The child put her toys away, The 
building collapsed (dynamic processes), 
Locatives – Place, Source, Goal, Path, e.g.: In the study (Place), I moved the books 
from the table (Source), I put my affairs in order (Goal) (dynamic or stative 
processes), 
Experiencer – an animate entity which is the locus of a cognitive activity or a 
cognitive state, e.g.: I know, I itch, I heard the noise (cognitive processes), 
Stimulus – an entity which causes a cognitive activity or state in the Experiencer, 
e.g.: I heard the noise, The noise startled me (cognitive processes), 
Zero – a participant which merely exists or exhibits a property, but does not 
interact with another entity, e.g.: Alice is asleep, The book costs 50 pounds (stative 
processes). 
One –participant clause (intransitive) presents a situation as involving only one 
participant, which is an Experiencer or Zero, a Mover and Patient. There are three 
types of intransitives: unergatives (a), unaccusatives (b), middles (c): 

---

170 
a) The telephone rang. The child slept; 
b) The guests departed. The building collapsed; 
c) The book sold well. The car drives smoothly. The ice-cream scoops out 
easily. The poem doesn’t translate. The food won’t keep. The dirt brushes 
off easily. I don’t photograph very well. 
In (a) the subject exhibits the role of Zero (or Experiencer (the child)), in (b) the 
subject is a Mover, in (c) the subject is a Patient-like entity. 
Two- participant clause (transitive) prototypically involves the transfer of 
energy from an Agent (the subject) to a Patient (the object), e.g.: The farmer shot 
the rabbit. The prototypical transitive clause can also be made passive, e.g.: The 
rabbit was shot by the farmer. A remarkable fact about the schema for a 
prototypical transitive clause is that it accommodates all manner of relations 
between entities. The following examples exhibit this fact, though exhibiting fewer 
and fewer characteristics of a transitive interaction: 
I remember the event. 
My car burst a tyre. 
The road follows the river. 
Joe resembles his grandfather. 
The road crosses the railway line. 
The examples also illustrate a point that the subject can instantiate all manner of 
participant roles, in addition to its prototypical use to designate an Agent. What 
unifies the subject is its function – to designate the more prominent entity in the 
conceptualization. 
Three-participant clause (double-object clause) is a clause where a second 
post-verbal object is obligatory, its presence determines the existence of the clause 
as such, e.g.: 
I’ll mail you the report. 
I’ll bake you a cake.
The three participants are the Agent, the thing that undergoes changes at the hands 
of the Agent, and the person which benefits from the change (Beneficiary). 
Characteristic of this clause type is that the Beneficiary is construed as the Patient 
of the interaction and it appears immediately after the verb, as the verb’s object (it 
means that “my” action directly affects “you”, in that “you” come to receive the 
report). In the clause we have the two objects, the syntax doesn’t “allow” to omit 
the intermediate element (Patient) in the action chain (Agent- Patient- Beneficiary) 
while profiling the relation between the initial and final elements (Agent and 
Beneficiary) by means of placing the Beneficiary immediately after the verb. In 
this respect the syntax bears the restrictions imposed by the action chain hierarchy 
– our mind permits this kind of profile of the situation but can’t leave out the 
essential, the real patient. Otherwise the object “you” appears as the real patient, 
which invokes a different situation type.
The same situation can be conceptualized in an alternative way, e.g.: 
I’ll mail the report to you. 
I’ll bake a cake for you. 

---

171 
Here the Patient is the thing that undergoes changes due to the action of the Agent. 
The Beneficiary appears in the prepositional phrase, which is often optional, e.g.: 
I’ll mail the report – is acceptable. Thus, this construction can’t be viewed as a 
prototypical double-object clause because, strictly speaking, it illustrates a two-
participant interaction, profiling the relation between the initial and intermediate 
elements of the action chain and leaving out the final element. This type of clause, 
probably, takes the intermediate position between prototypical two-participant 
clauses (prototypical transitive constructions) and prototypical three-participant 
clauses, due to the double interpretation of “you”, i.e. either as a Path қGoal or 
Benificiary, accordingly.
The existence of the two constructions for description of the same situation 
illustrates a point that the object can instantiate not only the Patient, its prototypical 
use, but also some other semantic roles. 
C l a u s e c o m b i n a t i o n, i n t e g r a t i o n o f c l a u s e s 
There are several ways of combining clauses into larger units. The criterion 
which is used for classification of clause combinations is the degree of 
integration between clauses. J.R. Taylor distinguishes minimal integration, 
coordination, subordination, complementation, clause fusion which reveals the 
highest degree of integration.
Minimal integration. Two clauses are simply juxtaposed, with no overt 
linking, e.g.: I came, I saw, I conquered. The clauses are in sequential relation to 
each other – the first mentioned was the first to occur.
Coordination. Each clause could in principle stand alone as an independent 
conceptualization. The clauses are linked by means of words such as and, but, or, 
e.g.: She prefers fish, and/but I prefer pasta. A slightly higher degree of integration 
is possible if both clauses share the same subject, e.g.: I went up to him and asked 
the way.
Subordination. Here, there are two clauses, but one is understood in terms of 
a relation (temporal, causal, etc)to each other. Typical subordinators are after, if, 
whenever, although. 
Complementation represents a closer integration of clauses, in that one clause 
functions as a participant in another. There are different syntactic forms that a 
complement clause can take. A complement clause functions as the subject or the 
object of the main verb. The complement clause may appear as: 
- an infinitive without to, e.g.: I saw them break into the house; 
- “to”-infinitive, e.g.: To finish it in time was impossible. I advise you to wait 
a while. I want to go there myself;
- “ing”-form of the verb, e.g.: I avoided meeting them. I can’t imagine him 
saying that; 
- subordinate clause, introduced by that or question words e.g.: I hope that 
we will see each other again soon, I wonder what we should do. 
The highest degree of integration (clause fusion) occurs when two clauses 
fuse into a single clause, e.g.: These cars are expensive to repair. One could 
“unpack” this sentence into two independent clauses, designating two different 
processes: “someone repairing the cars” and “this process is expensive”. In the 

---

172 
example the two clausal conceptions have fused into one. We characterize the 
cars as “expensive” with respect to a certain process.