Transcript Lecture 08 PP

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
– John hit Bill


the ice melted
* 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