1. Syntax
Lecture 9:
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: 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

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

23. The object of the transitive
The ‘complex’ analysis means there is one place where we find themes
and one place for agent and causers

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. Non-agentive transitives
All that is needed is another abstract verbal element which has an experience interpretation and an experiencer argument

30. 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

31. 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