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 to melt

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 • This has a very similar meaning to • He made the ice melt • But • There is no causative verb • The arguments are not related in the same way to the verb • He is not the one who melts – but it is subject of this verb • The ice is what melts – but it is the object of this verb

9. Causatives • We can account for these observations if we assume that this kind of causative is like the morphological causative – with a phonologically null morpheme

10. Causatives

11. Things to note • The subject is not an argument of the 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

12. Something to think about • Are causatives the only verbs that behave like this? • Are constructed of more than one element • Have arguments which are only indirectly related to them • Are ordered with respect to other arguments by movement

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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?)

18. 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

19. The object of the transitive • This analysis means there are two places where we find themes • But there is only one place for agent and causers complement specifier

20. More on the passive • Theta Criterion • Every argument must bear one thematic role • * John likes John has two theta roles • * John smiled Bill Bill has no theta role • Every thematic role must be given to one argument • * John likes theme is given to no argument • * John likes Bill Mary theme is given to Bill and Mary • So why can we miss out the agent in a passive? • John was murdered

21. More on the passive • One possible analysis is that passivisation involves replacing the agentive predicate with the passive morpheme • This maintains the theta criterion as the number of theta roles is also decreased

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

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

27. 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