Basic English Syntax with Exercises

isomorphism

5.1 Event Structure and Aspect

Just like thematic structure, we will demonstrate below that event structure also has an effect on the syntactic organisation of elements within the VP. The main claim is that there is an isomorphism between event structure and the structure of the VP, so that just as a complex event may be broken up into a series of sub-events, then the VP also breaks up into ‘sub-VPs’ in a one-to-one correspondence with the sub-events. This will become clearer as we progress.

5.2.3 Ergative verbs

If (45) is the correct analysis, then there is a mismatch here between event structure and syntactic structure whereas in other cases we have seen there has been an isomorphism between the two.

5.2.3.1 Potential problems

But while the syntactic structure of (48a) is isomorphic with the event structure in (49), if we analyse the sentence in (48b) as having a structure like (45) then the syntactic isomorphism with the event structure is completely lost.

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.

5.2.4.3 Agent and experiencer subjects

What about the event structure of a transitive construction? Above we argued for an isomorphism between the structure of the VP and the structure of the event it describes such that each part of the VP corresponds to a separate sub-event. If transitive verbs involve an agentive light verb, and hence there are two parts to the verbal complex, we should expect that the event described by a transitive verb should consist of two sub-events. But we have just seen that transitives are not causative: Harry hit Ron does not mean that Harry does something that causes Ron to get hit. However, there is not necessarily a direct relationship between what the subject does and the object getting hit. Consider the following:

5.2.4.3 Agent and experiencer subjects

If there is an isomorphism between event structure and VP structure and (90) is the correct analysis of the event structure involving an experiencer subject transitive verb, then (87b) appears to be the correct structure of the VP.

5.2.6 Multiple complement verbs

An isomorphic analysis of the VP would have an extra light verb than indicated in (112). We will see that perhaps there is evidence for this.

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.