5.2.4 Transitive verbs
It is time we turned our attention to those verbs that traditional grammars seem to consider more central: transitive and intransitive verbs. What we have said so far has far reaching repercussions for the analysis of these verbal subcategories. We will start discussing these with respect to the transitives.
A transitive verb is one that has an object, i.e. a DP complement, and a subject. The subject may be agent and the object patient, or the subject could be an experiencer and the object theme. Patient and theme, from this perspective, differ in terms of a notion of affectedness: a patient is affected by the action described by the verb while a theme is unaffected by it:
(72) | a | Sam sawed the wood (to pieces) |
b | Sam saw the wood (*to pieces) |
In (72a) we have the past tense form of the verb to saw, Sam is an agent and the wood is patient. In this cases a resultative modifier like to pieces can be used to describe the state of the object after being acted upon. In (72b) we have the past tense form of the verb to see, Sam is an experiencer and the wood is an unaffected theme. Obviously in these cases the resultative is inappropriate because nothing directly happens to the object as a result of being seen. We will put the case of the experiencer–theme type transitives to one side for the moment and start our discussion with the agent–patient type.
Above we found that the agent Θ-role was assigned by a light verb which takes a VP complement. If we assume that the patient is a kind of theme, we might expect that it is assigned to the specifier of a main verb:
(73) |
Again, if this were the final analysis of the construction we would derive the wrong order with the verb following its object. Once again, however, we might assume that the main verb raises to the light verb, presumably because of its bound morpheme status:
(74) |
Thus the transitive receives the same analysis as the causative construction, which is not surprising as causatives are the transitive use of ergative verbs.
What is the light verb in this case and how is the main verb related to the subject? We might try the assumption that the empty light verb in this case is the same as the one in causative constructions. From this point of view we would have the following correspondence:
(75) | a | Mark made the bed | = | Mark made the bed be made |
b | Harry hit Bill | = | Harry made Bill be hit | |
c | Richard wrote the letter | = | Richard made the letter be written |
But while the transitive statements in (75) do entail the relevant causative, in that if Mark makes the bed, then the bed comes to be made and Mark had a hand in causing this to come about, the two are not exactly the same. Particularly, it is not only the case that subjects in (75) caused the event described by the verb to take place, but that the subjects are the ones who actually did it! In other words, these subjects are not just agents, they are agents of the relevant predicates. This might therefore argue that the relevant structure should be:
(76) |
But then the Θ-roles are assigned to different structural positions and the UTAH cannot be maintained.
5.2.4.1 Evidence from passives
5.2.4.2 Extended projections
5.2.4.3 Agent and experiencer subjects
5.2.4.4 Multiple light verbs