Basic English Syntax with Exercises

abstract light verb

5.2.3.2 Light verbs and ergatives

Under this analysis, the UTAH can be maintained as each argument sits in exactly the position it should according to our previous analyses: the theme is the specifier of the main verb and the agent is the specifier of the abstract light verb. Moreover the event structure is represented in an isomorphic way with there being two parts to the syntactic structure each of which relate to the relevant sub-event.

5.2.3.3 Unaccusatives and ergatives

Obviously, this light verb is not the same as the one we get in the causative construction as there is no causative interpretation here and no agent Θ-role assigned. In fact, this verb does not appear to have much of a meaning at all. But this might be an advantage in accounting for the other properties of the there construction. Recall Burzio’s generalisation: only a verb which assigns a Θ-role to its subject assigns an accusative Case. The causative light verb fits this restriction well: it assigns an agent Θ-role to its subject and an accusative Case to the theme in the specifier of the VP. If the abstract light verb in the there construction is restricted by this, then the fact that it assigns no Θ-role to the there subject, accounts for why we do not find simple accusative DPs in the theme position.

5.2.3.3 Unaccusatives and ergatives

However, we do not want to say that there is absolutely no connection between the abstract light verb and its subject, as there are restrictions placed on it: the subject must be there and not it. Thus, suppose that there is a special argument of this predicate, which receives no actual Θ-role from it but is restricted by it. A similar notion of ‘quasi-argument’ has been proposed for cases such as:

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:

5.2.4.2 Extended projections

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:

5.2.4.3 Agent and experiencer subjects

The obvious question that needs to be asked is whether the experiencer subject occupies a similar position to an agent subject or a different one. The choices would seem to be to place the experiencer in the specifier of an abstract light verb, or to place it in the specifier of the thematic verb:

5.2.4.3 Agent and experiencer subjects

However, an obvious disadvantage of (87b) is that the theme is placed in the complement position which is counter to what we have previously discovered. If the theme goes in the specifier of the thematic verb, then there is no alternative than to include the experiencer in a higher position which would mean adding an abstract light verb. A further disadvantage of (87b) is that transitive verbs with experiencer subjects can be passivised. We have analysed passivisation as a process which removes the light verb responsible for the assignment of the Θ-role to the subject and the Case to the object, replacing it with the passive morpheme. If there is no light verb responsible for assigning the experiencer Θ-role, it is not at all clear how these verbs could undergo passivisation: what would the passive morpheme replace and why would the experiencer Θ-role and accusative Case go missing? Moreover, the passivisation of these verbs casts doubt on the assumption that they have a simple event structure. Passivisation of agentive verbs by getting rid of the agentive light verb turns a verb with a complex event structure into one with a simple one:

5.2.4.4 Multiple light verbs

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:

5.2.9 Summary

To summarise this fairly long discussion of the structure of the VP, we can conclude that strict adherence to the UTAH and the assumption that there is isomorphism between event structure and VP structure leads us to sometime quite surprising but enlightening analyses of the central part of the clause. The VP itself seems a hive of activity, with verbs and arguments moving about from position to position which obviously complicates its description. However, the reasons for the movements themselves are fairly straightforward. The verb moves to support the abstract light verbs which have a bound morpheme status, DP arguments move to Case positions and clausal arguments move away from Case positions. Once such things are understood, some rather mysterious properties of VPs become demystified. Phenomena such as passivisation, double object alternation, the there construction, cognate objects and phrasal verb constructions are given a fairly satisfying analysis which we can take as encouraging for this approach.