abstract light verb

the head position of a vP can be occupied by a phonetically empty light verb.

active voice

a structure with no passivisation, where the subject of the clause does not originate in the object position but in the specifier position of the vP. Compare with passive voice, see also voice.

agent

one of the thematic or theta-roles, where the argument deliberately performs an action, as Jamie in Jamie sang a song or Robert in Robert kicked the cat. In terms of the UTAH the agentive theta-role is assigned to the specifier position of vP, similarly to experiencer arguments.

arguments

the participants minimally involved in an action defined by the predicate. The complements and the subject, the latter also called an external argument.

deverbal noun

a noun derived from a verb, e.g. a bite from the verb to bite.

ergative verb

a verb that can appear in a VP either (a) with a single theme argument functioning as the subject of the clause (The ship sank), similarly to unaccusative structures or (b) in the presence of a light verb together with an agentive subject (They sank the ship), when the structure is similar to the structure of transitive verbs. As opposed to unaccusative verbs, ergative verbs cannot appear in the existential there construction (unless they are ambiguous between the two readings), and they are typically verbs expressing a change of state, like break, explode, grow.

extended projection

a Verb Phrase has an extended projection into IP and CP in a clause. Similarly to it a noun phrase has an extended projection into DP which may further project into a PP.

light verb

a verb occupying the head of a vP used in combination with another element, typically a noun or verb, where the light verb’s contribution to the meaning of the whole construction is less than that of a fully thematic main verb, e.g. to take a shower=to shower. Certain verbs expressing aspectual (be, have) or modal (let) meaning also belong here. According to the proposals in the present book the following constituents can appear within the vP in a visible or abstract form (see also vP-shells):

– agentive arguments in the specifier positions

– experiencer arguments in the specifier position

– goal arguments in the double-object construction as specifiers

– the passive -en morpheme in the head of vP

– the aspectual morphemes -en and -ing in the head of vP

– the tense morpheme in the head of vP

semantics

the study of meaning. It covers both lexical meaning and the meaning of sentences with special emphasis on their truth conditions (under what circumstances a sentence is true/false).

specifier position

a position defined by X-bar Theory. The specifier is sister to X', daughter of XP. It is a phrasal position, the nature of the phrase depends on what it is the specifier of. E.g. the specifier of IP is the subject, the specifier of DP is the possessor in possessive structures.

theta role

the semantic role of the participants as required by the predicate. E.g. verbs define what kind of semantic relationship is to be established between the verb itself and the arguments of the verb, and arguments are selected accordingly. The verb kick calls for an agent subject, so its subject position cannot be occupied by e.g. my CD-player.

unaccusative verb

a verb taking one argument to which it assigns a theme theta-role in the specifier position of a VP. They may also optionally take a location or path argument expressed by a PP. Some of the unaccusative verbs in English are arrive, appear, sit, they are typically verbs of movement or location. Unaccusative verbs can appear in the existential there construction or locative inversion structures. They do not take objects of any kind, see also cognate object.

Uniform Theta-role Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH)

a Θ-role is assigned in the same structural position in all structures in which it is present.

previous next

Basic English Syntax with Exercises

5.2.4.2 Extended projections

Yet if this is so, we still face the problem that the subject of an active transitive verb is interpreted as the subject of that verb and not of some independent abstract light verb. To understand this, it is essential to understand the relationship between light verbs and thematic verbs in general. Recall that the semantic contribution of a light verb to a construction is somewhat reduced from its full thematic usage:

(82)aI gave Charlotte chocolates
bI gave Kevin a kick in the pants
cI kicked Kevin in the pants

In (82a) the verb give is used fully thematically and it contributes its full descriptive content to the whole sentence: the agent is in possession of the chocolates, and does something (i.e. gives) that results in the recipient in possession of the chocolates. But in (82b), where give is used as a light verb, it does not contribute its whole semantic content. For example, it cannot be claimed that anything has been given here and certainly Kevin does not end up in possession of a kick! Instead the main descriptive content comes from the deverbal noun and hence the similarity of meaning of (82b) and (c). It seems that semantically speaking, the complement of the light verb is the main contributor to the construction and although light verbs do contribute something, their contribution is often subtle and always dependent on the thematic complement. This shows a very different relationship between a light verb and its complement and a thematic verb and its complement. In the latter case, the thematic verb selects and imposes restrictions on its complement whereas in the former, the light verb is in some ways selected for and restricted by its complement: recall that unaccusative verbs do not appear with the abstract causative light verb, but ergatives do. Suppose then that the main semantic aspects of a light verb are determined by its thematic complement and that these are passed up to it by a process similar to projection – something which has been called extended projection, in fact. It would then depend on the thematic verb how the argument of the light verb was to be interpreted, as a causer, not directly seen as the agent of the thematic verb, or as a direct agent of that verb. We might visualise this in the following way:

(83)

If this is right, then the agent subject of the light verb involved with transitive verbs will receive its Θ-role indirectly from the main verb, via the light verb, and hence will be interpreted as the argument of the thematic verb. Of course the actual assignment of the Θ-role will be dependent on the presence of the light verb, as by the UTAH roles such as agent can only be assigned to the specifier of a light verb.

previous next