Syntax Lecture 9: 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: But 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 only with its theme argument: 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 This is a complex situation with no one-to-one relationship between arguments and positions: Theme  specifier OR complement Specifier  agent OR theme

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 If we accept the complex VP analysis for transitive verbs, what does the abstract verb do? 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 meaning of the abstract predicate The abstract predicate is equivalent to “do something” When this combines with e.g. 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 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 As a result, the answer is remembered Again, what is experienced is restricted by what is compatible with the interpretation of the lexical predicate 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 Causer: specifier of (abstract/non-abstract) causative verb This idea is known as the UTAH Universal Theta Assignment Hypothesis

Conclusion The causative construction consists of two verbs: The causing verb: make The lexical verb: e.g. melt That this analysis can be extended to all transitive verbs is suggested by: The single verb causative They melted the ice The fact that the subject is more distant from the verb than the object The fact that a simpler theory of argument position is obtained