<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Dear everybody,<br>
<br>
many thanks for your help. At least some of the discussion seems to
converge on the following points:<br>
<br>
Fillmore-style semantic roles (i.e. semantic relations between a
referent and a situation core, conceived at a level of generality
that can cover different situation cores [coded by different verbs])
are best analyzed in terms of primitive predicates. (I could have
known this; s.:<br>
Lehmann, Christian 2006, “Les rôles sémantiques comme prédicats”. <i>Bulletin
de la Société de Linguistique de Paris</i> 101/1:67-88.[<a
href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251003441_Les_roles_semantiques_comme_predicats"
moz-do-not-send="true">télécharger<img
src="https://www.christianlehmann.eu/fundus/pdf.gif"></a>])<br>
<br>
Then the meaning of 'X <i>lacks</i> Y' may boil down to 'X does not
have Y'.<br>
The meaning of 'X <i>needs</i> Y' would include this proposition
and another one like 'for X not to have Y affects X negatively' or
alternatively 'for X to have Y would be positive for X' (with
obvious choices for more formalization). This would encompass
Volker's notion of 'modalized possessor'.<br>
<br>
Now assuming that <i>lack</i> has the meaning indicated, then 'for
X not to have Y affects X negatively' may be a conversational
implicature. On this basis, a language (maybe Yankunytjatjara) may
have 'lack' and lack 'need'. On the other hand, there are languages
like German and Cabecar which have 'need', but lack 'lack'.<br>
<br>
Returning to semantic roles: Given 'X does not have Y', X clearly
has the possessor role. However, 'X does not have Y' is not the
"point" in the meaning of 'need'; the point is that it would be
better for X to have Y. Then the question remains whether there is
any semantic role (already known) which covers this relation of X.
Randy argues that the case is analogous to 'love', so the role is
experiencer. It is also true that the role of X in 'X needs Y' is
often coded as some sort of dative dependent, which would fit the
experiencer interpretation. However, it also fits the possessor
interpretation, so this may not be decisive. On the basis of
Jürgen's paraphrase, X would be affected. This would be covered by
the role of patient. However, no data have been adduced where X in
'X needs Y' would be in some kind of undergoer role.<br>
<br>
Maybe the affectation of X here is not the immediate affectation of
a patient, but rather the mediate affectation undergone by the
participant bearing a benefactive role. Then the role of X in 'Z is
(not) good for X' would be the malefactive role; if it is converted
into 'it would be good for X if Z were the case', it is the
benefactive role. This would again be compatible with the dative
often associated with 'need'.<br>
<br>
It remains to say that the experiencer and the benefactive roles are
not entirely disjunct, as far as definitions known to me go.<br>
<br>
Christian<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<p style="font-size:90%">Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann<br>
Rudolfstr. 4<br>
99092 Erfurt<br>
<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Deutschland</span></p>
<table style="font-size:80%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Tel.:</td>
<td>+49/361/2113417</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>E-Post:</td>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:christianw_lehmann@arcor.de">christianw_lehmann@arcor.de</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Web:</td>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.christianlehmann.eu">https://www.christianlehmann.eu</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</body>
</html>