GLIM, Spring 1996, volume 2

a theme, it is still understood that he or she is referring to
some entity or event.

In the passive construction, the theme becomes syntac-
tically and semantically obligatory. Recall that according
to the passive rule, lexical entries for a transitive verb’s
passive counterpart are created by making an argument
structure just like it except that the external argument is
listed as optional inside the brackets. We know that all
components within the brackets cannot be optional, and
thus it follows that the theme is obligatory. Also notable is
that two meanings can be inferred from the passive con-
struction (1c): the speaker, using the adjectival passive, is
making a descriptive observation about the state of the
theme at a certain point in time, or he is employing the
verbal passive and referring to some “messing up” event
which took place, perhaps with an agent.

The second verb under analysis, “screw up,” essentially
follows the patterns of “mess up.”

a. I screwed up.

b. I screwed up the data. (I screwed
the data up.)

c. The data were screwed up.

The argument structures for this verb coincide with “mess

up.”

screw up:

A. Agent <(Theme)>
B. < Theme, (Agent) >


































Again, in the active construction, a
“screw upper” (agent) is required,
though a theme is syntactically
optional and semantically
necessary. When some-
one speaks of having
“screwed up” without
specifying a theme,
it is nonetheless
entailed; the per-
son “screwed up”
through __ per-
forming an
unwise action,
saying some-
thing carelessly,
or generally
causing some
sort of eventual
or perceived cat-
astrophe. Such
verbs are often
used to size up cer-
tain situations, sum-
marizing them briefly
without having to give a
detailed account to the lis-
tener. The verbs do not give
much information as to exactly
what catastrophe has occurred, but are

functional in denoting that some catastrophe has
occurred.

In the passive construction, “screw up” only requires a
theme, as “mess up” does. The adjectival and verbal pas-
sives work as previously described as well.

It seems that we could conclude that “mess up” and
“screw up” are syntactically and generally semantically
interchangeable. Examine the following:

(3) a. The Sharks messed up.
b. The Sharks screwed up.
c. Rick messed up the cake.
d. Rick screwed up the cake.
e. She messed up the kids/ messed the
kids up.
f. She screwed up the kids/ screwed the
kids up.

Semantic variance may lie in the intuitive insight that “screw
up” refers to a more specific, more purposive action. If there are
variances in meaning between these two verbs, it might be that
“mess up” is associated more with carelessness and being foolish
than with malicious intent as “screw up” may be. It seems intuitive
that Rick “messing up” the cake in 3c can be overlooked because
he was just careless about it; perhaps it is his first birthday and he
got a little “messy” with it. On the other hand, a verb like “screw
up” might more often be used to denote intention or specific (med-
itated?) action. Little Rick would normally not be said to have
“screwed up” the cake by getting his fingers in it; he instead inno-

cently “messed it up”. When the theme refers to people
as in 3e and 3f, the same variance can be
seen. By being generally negligent and
; careless, she “messed up the kids.”
By being purposely sadistic
and calculating — she
“screwed up the kids.”
Again, though the
variance in mean-
ing is extremely
subtle and debat-
able, it should
be noted.
Additionally,
we shall
observe that
the latter
verb may not
always be an
acceptable
expression for
some speakers
of English, who
would tend to see
it as a more vulgar
version of “mess up.”
“Screw over,” the
third verb in this analysis,
follows slightly different
patterns.

. ...truth. conditions Koy

mess up” in active
construction require an
agent (“mess-upper”),
ott (cum (ochvabeleamaetonte
(the “messed up”) syn-
tactically optional.

(4) a. The administration screwed

15