Syntax

Syntax

Lecture 8:Verb Types 1

Introduction

• We have seen:– The subject starts off close to the verb, but moves

to specifier of IP– The verb starts off inside the VP, but may move to

I or C depending on the construction and other conditions

• In this lecture we will see that the verb itself is a complex entity and cannot always be analysed as a single thing

Causatives

• One obvious case of a complex verb is the following:– He made the ice melt

• Here, the ice melt has the meaning of a clause (the ice melted), but it is not an IP or CP– There can be no complementiser

• * he made that the ice melt• * he made for the ice melt

– There can be no inflection• * he made the ice will/to melt• * he made the ice melted

Causatives• The simplest analysis would

be a VP where the subject does not move:– He made [VP the ice melt]

• Make is also a verb heading its own VP and presumably takes the other VP as its complement

• This represents the structure before the subject and verb move

Causatives• The specifier of make is the

causer and the specifier of melt is the argument that undergoes the melting– Each argument is related to its

own verb• But there is only one

situation being described here– He melted the ice

• So make and melt form a single complex predicate

Causatives

• There are many languages where the complex causative predicate is expressed as an inflected form of the verb. E.g. Persian:– xordan = to eat– xorándan = feed (cause to eat)

• Presumably this works in the same way that other inflections do: the verb moves and sticks to the causative before it moves to the inflection

Causatives

Causatives

• But we also have in English another causative– He melted the ice

• Its structure seems to be:

Causatives

• This has a very similar meaning to:– He made the ice melt

• But– The arguments are not related in

the same way to this verb as they were to the other causative• He is not the one who melts – The ice

is• He is the causer – but there is no

causative verb

Causatives

• We can account for these observations if we assume that this kind of causative is like the Persian morphological causative – with a phonologically null morpheme

Causatives

Things to note

• The subject is not an argument of the overt verb, but of an independent abstract causative verb

• The object is not in complement position of the verb, but in its specifier

• The word order V O is due to the verb moving

Something to think about

• Are causatives the only verbs that behave like this?– Constructed of more than one element– Have arguments which are only indirectly related

to them– Ordered with respect to other arguments by

movement

Transitives

• Traditionally, a transitive verb is one which has an object

• They also have subjects, so there are two arguments– Typically

• Agent: the one that carries out the action and• Theme/Patient: the one who undergoes the process

– E.g.• John hit Bill• He wrote the letter• They built a house

Transitives

• The simplest analysis would appear to be

• The agent is in the specifier (before it moves to spec IP)

• The theme is in the complement position

Could transitives be like causatives?

• The agent assigned by an independent abstract predicate

• The theme in the specifier position of the lexical verb

• The V O order is produced by movement

Reasons to favour the single VP analysis

• It is simpler – far less abstract• Unlike the causative, the lexical verb cannot

appear by itself:– He melted the ice the ice melted– John hit Bill * Bill hit

Reasons to favour the double VP analysis

• The subject of the transitive is more distant from the lexical verb both semantically and syntactically

The subject of the transitive• Unlike the object, the subject of the transitive is

often only partially determined by the verb:– John broke the window– The stone broke the window– John broke his arm

• Moreover, the subject systematically goes missing in the passive– There is no similar process which makes the object

disappear• The subject therefore seems to be more distant

than the object

Reasons to favour the double VP analysis

• The subject of the transitive is more distant from the lexical verb both semantically and syntactically

• The analysis gives a more uniform treatment of argument positions (= simpler?)

The object of the transitive

• The ‘simple’ analysis means there are two places where we find themes

• But there is only one place for agent and causers

complement

specifier

The object of the transitive

• The ‘complex’ analysis means there is one place where we find themes

• and one place for agent and causers

The meaning of the abstract predicate

• The way to understand this is to break the situation described into its parts– John hit Bill

• John does something– We don’t exactly know what

• As a result of what John does, Bill comes to be hit– The abstract predicate is equivalent to “do

something”– When this combines with hit the action is restricted to

one which can result in someone getting hit• i.e. Swinging a fist or throwing a rock, but not playing the

violin or solving a problem

The meaning of the abstract predicate

• This abstract predicate is obviously present in all situations which involve an agent– John wrote a letter• John does something• As a result, a letter is written

– John ate an apple• John does something• As a result, an apple is eaten

Non-agentive transitives

• Not all transitive verbs involve agents:– John saw Bill– John loves ice cream– John remembered the answer

• These tend to be verbs of cognition, emotion or perception

• They involve an experiencer not an agent

Non-agentive transitives• However, they can be analysed in the same way– John saw Bill

• John experiences something• As a result, Bill is seen

– John remembered the answer• John experiences something• As a result, the answer is remembered

• Again, what is experienced is restricted by what is compatible with the interpretation of the lexical predicate– John saw Bill

• What is experienced is a visual perception

Non-agentive transitives

• All that is needed is another abstract verbal element which has an experience interpretation and an experiencer argument

A conclusion on argument positions

• What we have seen suggests that particular arguments have universal positions (before movement)– Theme: specifier of lexical verb– Agent: specifier of (abstract) agentive verb– Experiencer: specifier of (abstract) experience verb– Cuaser: specifier of (abstract/non-abstract) causative

verb• This idea is known as the UTAH– Universal Theta Assignment Hypothesis