 In the e-lecture, lexical insertion, we define the argument structure of verbs in terms of their thematic defaults using thematic grids. For example, for a verb like C, we define its two noun phrase arguments as agent, the subject, and as theme, the object. An intransitive verb like sleep would even be simpler. Here the only argument, the noun phrase as in John is sleeping, would receive or would be associated with the thematic role agent. But what about sentences such as this tent sleeps four, meaning four people, or a sentence like this bed sleeps well. Well obviously here the two subjects, this tent and this bed are no longer agents. Now what about these sentences with their non-agentive subjects? Are they exceptions or do they follow some general principles of subject selection in present day English? Well this e-lecture makes an attempt to find out what is going on in such sentences. To solve this issue, we will define the central syntactic properties of the sentences involved first. In fact, three groups of sentences can be defined. The first can be referred to as general sentences with non-agentive subjects. Look at the two sentences that are the two examples that involve transitive verbs here. Add is a transitive verb, the author added a chapter to the book, and break is a transitive verb as in my friend broke the window with a hammer. Well in fact, in looking at the number of the arguments, the first sentence involves two arguments, the author and a chapter, the author added a chapter to the book is optional. And in the second case we have my friend, the window, and here with a hammer serves as an instrument. Both sentences involve subjects whose thematic role is defined as that of an agent. However interestingly, the other subjects can also serve as subjects. Now let's erase my arguments here and let's transform the sentences. For example, we could turn the book into a non-agentive subject. Let's erase two, we don't need that anymore and then we get the book added a chapter. Or we can use the hammer as the instrumental subject. We don't need the preposition anymore and we will get a hammer broke the window. Thus in principle it is possible in present day English to use any argument of a verb as its alternative subject. Of course not any verb exhibits this sort of subject selection hierarchy. Here the two verbs involved are causative verbs, add and break are causative verbs. That is verbs that indicate their subject, that their subject causes someone or something else to do or to be something or that cause a general change in state. Interestingly, this freedom of subject selection is impossible in other languages. Let's take German as an example. Now in German this sentence would come out as something like, in the book, in diesem Buch, ein Kapitel wurde hinzugefügt. Or in the second case we would get something like, with a hammer, mit einem Hammer kann das Fenster oder wurde das Fenster zerbrochen. Here then add and break in German would always require an agentive subject. So in both cases the German equivalent would be prepositional phrases. So that's quite interesting that some languages do allow these non-agentive subjects, for example English and others don't. Here is a second group of sentences that is quite remarkable as far as non-agentive subjects are concerned, the so-called middle constructions. Now middle constructions are generally characterized as generic sentences, so sentences with generic statements, with an obligatory adverbial. Well, here is the adverbial well and easily. Middle constructions can be defined by the following properties. They cannot relate to particular events, so this is certainly not possible. You cannot say something like, yesterday this chair sat well. They cannot be used as vocatives. So something like, sit well chair or bribe easily bureaucrats, utterances like these are impossible. They cannot be used in the progressive aspect. The chair is sitting very well is impossible just like bureaucrats are bribing easily is impossible. And finally they cannot be passivized. Well, this is quite obvious because the verbs have no object. So this chair is sat well is impossible is sat well by anyone doesn't work. Other languages like German again cannot realize these utterances without non-agentive subjects. But they would use reflexive constructions such as, dieser Stuhl sitzt sich gut. Well, that's a little bit strange. In other constructions you have something like, dieser Wein trinkt sich gut, dieses Auto fährt sich gut. This car drives well, this wine drinks well, so here it works. Well, and even in English, these constructions are especially productive in bureaucracy situations, you might want to say. For example, these letters transpose easily, messages transmit rapidly and so on and so forth. Well, middle constructions with these obligatory adverbials can be contrasted with agative constructions. Sometimes also referred to as accusative or absolutive constructions. They are used intransitively, so here melt is an intransitive verb and so is flush. And already you can see they can be used in the progressive form. So, all these utterances are used intransitively but they have a transitive counterpart. For example, the ice is melting. Well, the transitive counterpart, the ergative counterpart is something like this sun or anything else is melting the ice. And in the toilets are flushing, the ergative counterpart could be something like someone is flushing the toilets. In languages other than English, these ergative constructions are often realized as passives or they involve different verbs, which may even be the case in English. For example, in English we have the nice contrast between fall and fell. Someone is felling a tree, the trees are falling or the tree is falling. Well, ergatives can be contrasted with middles as I've already said. For example, they now can relate to particular events. For example, something like yesterday the ice was melting. They may be used as vocative constructions, something like sink, boat, the boat is sinking or open door, the door is opening. Well, this is a little bit bad, we cannot say melt ice. And as I've already said, they may occur in the progressive aspect. The boat is sinking, the ice was melting and so on and so forth. The passive option does not apply, so that's why this box has been crossed out here. Because there are intransitive verbs here, melt and flush and intransitive verbs cannot be passivized. Now let's summarize our observations. We have three groups of sentences with non-agentive subjects in present day English. Sentences with causative verbs, middle constructions and ergative constructions. Even though the principles of using these non-agentive constructions or non-agentive subjects in these cases are well defined, we have not mentioned yet why there is this relatively high degree of freedom of subject choice in present day English and not in other languages. The explanation which is based on historical insights, for example on the historical development of English from old English until the present day on the one hand. And on the results of language comparison on the other is simple. The primary factor that has led to this freedom of subject selection, that is the choice of non-agentive subjects and to the wide range of semantic interpretations of subjects in present day English, this freedom of choice is due to the weakening of the case system from originally five cases in old English to just two cases in present day English.