Syntax Lecture 12: Extended VP

The traditional view of the verb The traditional view of verbs is that they are predicates which take arguments. This goes back to ancient Greek philosophy. The verb is the semantic centre of the meaning of the sentence (proposition) and its arguments are those things that play a role in the event that it expresses: John loves Mary. Love(John, Mary) This is the basis of the ‘thematic structure’ that is expressed by the VP.

Challenges to the tradition Some events can be expressed by a combination of two verbs: John made Bill leave

Challenges to the tradition Some events can be expressed by a combination of two verbs: John made Bill leave We might think that this is the same as verbs which take a clause argument: John thinks [Bill left]

Challenges to the tradition Some events can be expressed by a combination of two verbs: John made Bill leave We might think that this is the same as verbs which take a clause argument: John thinks [Bill left] But here there really are two clauses, with two tenses. In the first sentence, there is only one tense.

Challenges to the tradition The complement of the causative verb make appears to be just a VP

Challenges to the tradition The complement of the causative verb make appears to be just a VP no inflection (no tense), * John made Bill leaves no complementiser (no force), * John made that Bill leave

Causatives in other languages Some languages can express this with a single compound verb: Chichewa (Bantu) Mtsikana anau-gw-ets -a mtsuko Mstikana agr -fall-make-asp waterpot “Mtsikana made the waterpot fall” French

Causatives in other languages Some languages express the causative with a morpheme on the verb: Japanese Hungarian János gur-ít -ot-ta a labdá-t János roll-cause-pst-3s. the ball-acc

English causative alternation In English some verbs can be used as a causative or non-causative: The sun made the ice melt The sun melted the ice Given that these two sentences mean the same thing, it seems that the first must be seen as a single clause with a single predicate.

Conclusion on causatives Some predicates come in two parts: Causative + main verb The sun made the ice melt

Conclusion on causatives Some predicates come in two parts: Causative + main verb The causative part Adds the causative meaning Introduces the causer argument The sun made the ice melt

Conclusion on causatives Some predicates come in two parts: Causative + main verb The causative part Adds the causative meaning Introduces the causer argument The main verb part Adds the thematic meaning Introduces other argument (theme, etc.) The sun made the ice melt

Other verbs Other transitive verbs are not causative and therefore do not take part in the causative alternation: The sun melted the ice John hit Bill The ice melted * Bill hit

Passivisation However, the passivisation of a transitive verb produces pretty much the same effect: The sun melted the ice John hit Bill The ice melted Bill was hit In these cases: What was the subject of the first is missing in the second What was the object of the first is the subject of the second Could this mean that all transitive verbs are complex?

The event structure of a verb We can think of a verb as something which describes an event. Events can be simple or complex: composed of number of subevents. This structure is easy to see with causatives: Event 1 (cause): the sun does something (= shine) Event 2 (result): the ice melts

The event structure of an agentive verb Many transitive verbs also describe complex events: John hit Bill John did something (swung his fist, fired a gun, threw a stone, …) Bill was hit (result) The meaning of these transitive verbs is similar to the meaning of causative verbs Perhaps this means that their syntax is similar.

The syntax of periphrastic causatives John made the door close

The syntax of non-periphrastic causatives John closed the door This has the same meaning as the periphrastic causative So it should have the same structure as it There must be a causative verb To introduce the causative meaning To introduce the causer This must be phonologically empty The thematic verb moves The abstract causative verb must be like the tense inflection – a bound morpheme

The syntax of transitive verbs John hit Bill This has the same event structure as a causative Therefore, suppose it has the same syntactic structure as the causative It has a phonologically empty agentive verb Introducing the agent This is a bound morpheme So the thematic verb must move

The syntax of the passive Bill was killed The passive lacks an agent So presumably it lacks an abstract agentive verb But it does have an extra ‘passive’ morpheme If we assume that this replaces the agentive verb, we explain why the agent goes missing As there is no agent, the theme will move to subject The passive morpheme is a bound morpheme, so the verb will move to support it But it is overt, so the verb cannot move further Therefore, a dummy auxiliary be is inserted to support the tense. be

Intransitive verbs Some intransitive verbs have theme arguments. Bill arrived As they have no agent, we don’t need the extra VP above them The structure of the VPs they head seems to be identical to the lower VPs that we have been looking at We call these unaccusative verbs

Intransitive verbs Other intransitive verbs have agent arguments: Bill smiled Therefore, we need the extra VP We call these verbs unergative verbs There is no object – but there is room for one This accounts for why unergative verbs can appear with a cognate object, : Bill smiled an evil smile Unaccusative verbs can’t * Bill arrived an untimely arrive

Conclusion The VP is more complex than tradition allows. Most types of verb involve more than one VP: The lower VP contains the main verb which carries the descriptive content This introduces the internal arguments, such as the theme. The upper VP carries the meaning associated with the outer arguments: Causers or agents The verb which heads this VP is usually phonologically null in English (though there is an overt causative verb – make) Only unaccusative verbs (arrive), which don’t have causer or agent arguments, have just a simple VP. Intransitive verbs with agents (unergatives – smile) have the extra VP, though it only usually contains the main verb It can also contain a cognate object, however.