Basic English Syntax with Exercises

cognate object

5.2.1 Unaccusative verbs

These objects are clearly strongly related to the verb themselves and are called cognate objects. Unaccusative verbs, however, do not take cognate objects:

5.2.1 Unaccusative verbs

But it is clear that this is not what is meant in (18) and indeed it cannot have this meaning in the presence of a cognate object. Thus, when it has the meaning reside the verb cannot take a cognate object and this is precisely the meaning it has as an unaccusative:

5.2.1 Unaccusative verbs

Again, for the moment, we will not be concerned about why unaccusative verbs do not take cognate objects, but will use this as a diagnostic for determining whether a verb is unaccusative or not.

5.2.5 Intransitive verbs

Recall that one mark of an intransitive verb, as opposed to an unaccusative, is its ability to take a cognate object:

5.2.5 Intransitive verbs

Given the structure in (101) a number of possible analyses of cognate objects suggest themselves. One is to assume that these are like theme arguments, though obviously highly restricted by the thematic verb and hence they appear in the specifier of the VP and end up behind the verb when it raises to the light verb position:

5.2.5 Intransitive verbs

From this perspective, the only difference between a cognate object and a normal object is the restricted semantic relationship that holds between the cognate object and the intransitive verb. Another possible analysis suggests itself through the similarity between intransitive verbs with cognate objects and light verbs with deverbal noun complements:

5.2.5 Intransitive verbs

Perhaps then what a cognate object is, is not a virtually meaningless repetition of the verb as is standardly assumed, but the main predicative element in the sentence and it is the verb which has a reduced ‘light’ meaning. This analysis has possibilities, but we will not follow it up further.

5.2.5 Intransitive verbs

If intransitives are in fact formed from an underlying structure involving a ‘cognate object’ and a light verb as suggested above, then the parallel between (108a) and (b) is even stronger. We might therefore propose the following analysis of the event structure:

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.

6.3 Movement to Spec IP

In this case, the light verb assigns agent Θ-role to its specifier and so should be capable of assigning Case and in fact the possible appearance of a cognate object seems to confirm this assumption. But when there is no object, the subject still undergoes the movement, suggesting that it does not get Case from the light verb.