Re: Case or theta-role term for object of performance?

Jim Henry wrote:
'In sentences like these,

* Kate sang a madrigal.

* We played four games of Go.

* I read "The Raven" aloud.

* The troupe performed "Hamlet".

-- it seems to me there's a common element the direct objects have;
they're transitory processes called into existence while the action
of the verb is being performed. Rick Morneau classes these
kinds of verb arguments as "focus" as distinct from "patient";
they certainly aren't patients, but it seems to me they're also
different from objects-of-result as in

* Kate composed a madrigal.

* Edgar Allan Poe wrote "The Raven".

* What unknown genius invented Go?

* If Bacon wrote Hamlet, Shakepeare must have written the Organon.

This one seems to be a borderline case:

* Tom gave an extempore speech.

-- that is, it's a transitory result of a creative act.'

Jim, how important to your distinction is the degree of creativity involved?

From the perspective of modern (and perhaps, post-modern?) performers,
each performance (singing, playing, reading, presenting) of an established
work is an original creative act, of no less significance than the creative act
(composition, invention, design, writing) that established the (broad) form and
content of that work.  Equally, one might say that the work in question does
not really exist, except in the abstract, until it is "actualized" (filthy word!) by
being practiced or performed.

From a more traditional perspective, of course, all the hard or important work
is done by the original creative "artist as genius"; the work of the players,
musicians, and readers is necessary but subsidiary.  We see this approach
taken by the performers of the classic Japanese drama; innovation is not
expected here.  This point of view is also compatible with that of the
traditional public servant: one who "performed" his duties religiously, but
without an ounce of interpretation being required or even desired of him, the
duties in question having been established by a superior authority.

Having both constructed languages and spoken them; composed music and
sung or performed it; written stories and read them; invented games and
played them, I can't say that I'm actually conscious of any greater necessity
for application of my creative skills whether I'm originating a new work or
performing one.  There's always enough scope for creative interpretation to
sufficiently tax my resources!  I guess my point is this: that although I can
see the distinction you're making, in theory, it doesn't seem to be of any great
practical significance.

Nor could it be, unless in a context where the norms of performance so rigidly
proscribed innovation that the only creative act must be seen to be the
origination of the work.  Such societies have undoubtedly existed before, and
may again - but I'd never find them very congenial ...

Regards,
Yahya