5.2.4.4 Multiple light verbs
If we assume that experiencers are assigned their Θ-roles in the specifier position of a light verb, we face a problem in analysing verbs with agent and experiencer arguments as in (88). What is puzzling about these verbs is how they can exist at all, given our assumption that agent and experiencer receive their Θ-roles in the same position. The only analysis available to us, if we wish to maintain the UTAH, is to assume that there are two light verbs in these constructions, one for the agent and one for the experiencer:
(93) |
The event structure of these verbs seems to support this analysis as it does seem rather complex:
(94) | e = e1 → e2 → e3 | : e1 = ‘Fred did something’ | |
e2 = ‘I experience something’ | |||
e3 = ‘I am frightened’ |
To get the right word order we will have to assume that the verb moves to the highest light verb and in fact, the verb will have to move to them both, one after the other, if abstract light verbs are bound morphemes:
(95) | a | |
b |
The first step, represented in (95a), involves the verb moving to the lower light verb and adjoining to it. The next step in (95b), takes the light verb with the thematic verb adjoined to it and moves this to adjoin to the upper light verb. The result is a multiple head adjunction structure of the type discussed in chapter 2.
Multiple light verbs are not unheard of in languages which make more of an overt use of them than English. Consider the following Urdu example:
(96) | nadyane saddafko xat lik lene diya | |
Nadya-erg. Saddaf-dat. letter write take-inf. give-perf.Masc.s | ||
‘Nadya let Saddaf write a letter (completely)’ |
The verbal complex at the end of this single clause consists of a thematic verb (write) and two light verbs (take and give) where the inner one (take) adds some aspectual meaning of perfection and the outer one (give) seems to add a modal meaning of permission. Even in English we can have a series of light verbs stacked one on top of another:
(97) | I made him let her take a look |
But while this seems a possible analysis for these structures therefore, it does raise the question of why the light verbs are ordered as they are: why is the agentive one always higher than the experiencer one? The answer may have to do with the notion of extended projection. The essence of this is that the thematic verb to some extent controls the Θ-roles assigned by the light verbs. It has been proposed in several places that there is a hierarchy of Θ-roles which plays a part in the order in which they are assigned. For example, we might suppose that agents are higher in the hierarchy than experiencers and these in turn are higher than themes:
(98) | agent > experiencer > theme |
The Θ-roles lower on the hierarchy have to be discharged on to an argument before those higher up. The UTAH ensures that Θ-roles can only be discharged in certain positions and in combination with (98) we get the following pattern. The first Θ-role to be assigned is the theme, if there is one. As this can be assigned to the specifier of the thematic verb it will be. Next the experiencer Θ-role must be assigned, providing there is one. This can only be assigned to the specifier of a light verb so the thematic verb will extend its projection to include a light verb and the experiencer Θ-role will be assigned to its specifier. Finally, if there is an agent, again this can only be assigned to the specifier of a light verb and hence will force the verb to extend its projection. If there already is an extended projection, a second light verb will be added to accommodate the agent. Thus, the agent will always be higher in the structure than the experiencer and theme.