Syntax

1
Syntax

• Lecture 8
• Verb Types 1

2
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

3
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

4
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

5
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

6
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

7
Causatives
8
Causatives

• But we also have in English another causative
• He melted the ice
• Its structure seems to be

9
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

10
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

11
Causatives
12
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

13
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

14
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

15
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

16
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

17
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

18
Reasons to favour the double VP analysis

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

19
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

20
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?)

21
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
22
The object of the transitive

• The complex analysis means there is one place
  where we find themes
• and one place for agent and causers

23
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 dont 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

24
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

25
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

26
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

27
Non-agentive transitives

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

28
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