5.2.2 Light verbs

5.2.3 Ergative verbs

We have just seen that a verb like break can appear in a VP with a single theme argument which in the absence of a light verb will be the subject of the clause. This looks exactly like an unaccusative verb, yet there are differences between this class of verb and the unaccusatives. For one thing, these verbs are not movement or locative verbs, but typically involve a change of state:

5.2.3 Ergative verbs

Unfortunately this is an entirely different set of Θ-role assignments to what we have previously found. We concluded above that the theme Θ-role is assigned to the specifier of a thematic verb, not its complement position. The agent, on the other hand, was assigned to the specifier of a light verb taking a VP complement. If we are to maintain the UTAH, either the structure in (45) is inaccurate, or our analyses of unaccusative and light verbs is.

5.2.3 Ergative verbs

Moreover, the structure of the VP in (45) is simple, in comparison to that of verbal complexes involving light verbs, as in (32), for example. Yet the event structure expressed here is not simple. In the butler opened the door, there is an event involving the butler doing something and an event involving the door being open and clearly the first event causes the second. Hence the event structure is:

5.2.3.1 Potential problems

A second set of questions concerns the relationship between the transitive alternate and the structure with a light verb and the unaccusative alternate:

5.2.3.1 Potential problems

How come these structures mean virtually the same thing, especially as, as we have seen, light verbs are not without meaning? Note that the subject of the ergative verb in (48b) is interpreted as the causer of the ball’s bouncing, which is exactly the same interpretation given to the subject of make, a causative verb. The event structure of both examples is also the same:

5.2.3.2 Light verbs and ergatives

5.2.3.3 Unaccusatives and ergatives

Let us consider further aspects of the analysis of the ergative verbs. In the causative construction, the agent is the subject and moves to the nominative position in finite clauses. However the theme stays put inside the VP. In the non-causative, unaccusative form, however, the theme is the subject and moves to the nominative position. Thus in the causative construction the theme must be assigned Case in its original position and this position must be Caseless in the absence of the causative light verb. This clearly points to the light verbs as being responsible for the accusative Case of the theme, just as we claimed for the overt causative structure:

5.2.3.3 Unaccusatives and ergatives

All of this demonstrates that ergative verbs can be analysed in exactly the same way as unaccusatives, in their ‘intransitive’ use, and as being part of a causative construction in their ‘transitive’ use. Indeed, ergative verbs themselves are identical to unaccusatives, even in causative constructions as it is the causative light verb which supplies the extra agent argument and the causative interpretation. For this reason, many linguists refer to these kinds of verbs as unaccusatives. However, it still remains that there are differences between the unaccusative verbs we reviewed above and the ergative verbs reviewed in this section. For a start, ergatives cannot appear in the there constructions and unaccusatives cannot appear in causative constructions:

5.2.3.3 Unaccusatives and ergatives

It seems then that there is a complementary distribution between these verb types. How are we to explain this? Complementary distribution patterns appear when two elements of the same type try to occupy the same position: we can have one or the other, but not both. In the causative construction, we know that there is a light verb above the VP headed by the ergative. Could there possibly be a light verb above the unaccusative VP in the there construction?

5.2.3.3 Unaccusatives and ergatives

These similarities can be captured if we assume that the post-verbal position of the theme is achieved by movement of the verb in front of it and this necessitates the assumption of a position to which the verb moves. If we assume that this is indeed a light verb, we can account for the Case assignment to the object as well:

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

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

Now let us suppose that this connection between the light verb and its restricted subject, although it is not enough to license accusative Case, is strong enough to license a Case that can be born by indefinites (perhaps partitive). We then have an explanation for why the post-verbal theme is restricted to indefinite DPs. All in all then, the supposition of a (very) light verb in the there construction leads to quite an explanatory account of many of its properties.

5.2.4 Transitive verbs

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:

5.2.4 Transitive verbs

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:

5.2.4 Transitive 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:

5.2.4.1 Evidence from passives

Interestingly, the passive is a construction which conforms to Burzio’s generalisation: the verb stops assigning a Θ-role to its subject and loses the ability to assign accusative to its object. But Burzio’s generalisation is a description of a state of affairs, it is not an explanation of that state of affairs. What we need is something that links the two properties. In previous examples we have seen a way to link the Θ-role assignment to the subject and the accusative Case assignment to the object: through the light verb which is assumed to do both:

5.2.4.1 Evidence from passives

If the light verb ceased to be there, both the agent Θ-role and the accusative Case would be lost in one step. What would be left is the main verb with its patient argument which would lack Case and hence have to move to subject position:

5.2.4.1 Evidence from passives

Thus, if we analyse the passive construction as involving the loss of the light verb, we readily account for its two most salient properties.

5.2.4.1 Evidence from passives

In all these examples however, the passive verb has the passive morpheme. We can incorporate this into our analysis of the passive making use of an idea presented above, that certain bound morphemes can be analysed as light verbs. Suppose we assume that the passive morpheme is a light verb which replaces the agentive light verb of the active. As the passive light verb does not assign a Θ-role to its subject, it will not be able to assign a Case to the theme in the specifier of the VP and hence this argument will have to move to subject position. Moreover, the bound morpheme status of the passive light verb will force the main verb to move in order to support it:

5.2.4.1 Evidence from passives

From this perspective, then, the analysis of the passive involves replacing the agentive light verb with a non-agentive passive light verb, most of the other aspects of the passive construction follow straightforwardly from this.

5.2.4.1 Evidence from passives

From this perspective, then, the analysis of the passive involves replacing the agentive light verb with a non-agentive passive light verb, most of the other aspects of the passive construction follow straightforwardly from this.

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:

5.2.4.2 Extended projections

If this is right, then the agent subject of the light verb involved with transitive verbs will receive its Θ-role indirectly from the main verb, via the light verb, and hence will be interpreted as the argument of the thematic verb. Of course the actual assignment of the Θ-role will be dependent on the presence of the light verb, as by the UTAH roles such as agent can only be assigned to the specifier of a light verb.

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

Assuming that the agent is in the specifier of a light verb, these observations suggest that the experiencer is in the specifier of the thematic verb, like theme arguments:

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:

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:

5.2.4.4 Multiple light verbs

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.

5.2.4.4 Multiple light verbs

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:

5.2.4.4 Multiple light verbs

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:

5.2.4.4 Multiple light verbs

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:

5.2.4.4 Multiple light verbs

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.

5.2.5 Intransitive verbs

Intransitive verbs are verbs with one argument, but unlike unaccusatives this argument is either an agent or an experiencer, i.e. one of the Θ-roles assigned to the specifier of a light verb. Accordingly then, we may analyse them as involving the following structure:

5.2.5 Intransitive verbs

The one argument will move to the subject position in order to get Case and presumably the verb will move to support the light verb.

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

If we analyse intransitives as involving a light verb, the question arises as to why we cannot passivise an intransitive:

5.2.5 Intransitive verbs

This is to be expected given our analysis of the passive and the fact that unaccusatives do not involve light verbs.

5.2.5 Intransitive verbs

The event structure of intransitives is also a little problematic as we predict it to be complex if intransitives involve light verbs, but a sentence like Sam smiled does not obviously express a complex event structure. However, it is not impossible to think of this as involving a situation in which Sam does something which results in a smile, which is made more plausible by comparison with the overt light verb construction:

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:

5.2.6 Multiple complement verbs

Verbs with more than two arguments have therefore been considered as problematic. However, once we consider the role of light verbs as assigners of Θ-roles regulated by the thematic verb, we can see that it is possible to extend the Θ-roles assigning domain of a thematic verb to more than two positions. This is essentially the approach we will adopt here.

5.2.6 Multiple complement verbs

Each of these predicates involves an agent, a theme and a locative. It is fairly obvious what the structure should be from what we have discussed so far. The agent is introduced as the specifier of a light verb, the theme is the specifier of the thematic VP and the locative PP is in the complement position:

5.2.6 Multiple complement verbs

Of course, the verb moves to the light verb position and the word order is as predicted. That the complement position of the thematic verb is the position to which the locative Θ-role is assigned is supported by the fact that this seems to be where we find locative PPs with unaccusative verbs, which we have argued do not involve a light verb:

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.

5.2.6 Multiple complement verbs

In this structure the theme is sitting in the complement position of the thematic verb, not the specifier, and the goal is in the specifier. The indirect object is obviously interpreted in the same way as the PP is in the dative construction and so we should expect it to appear in the complement position if the UTAH holds. We might try to account for the properties of the double object construction via a movement analysis, using the dative construction as the underlying arrangement as this seems relatively unproblematic. The question is, what moves and where does it move to? A minimal assumption is that besides the verb moving to the light verb position, one of the arguments moves to change their order. Thus, either the theme moves backwards or the goal moves forwards. If the theme moves backwards, it isn’t clear what position it would move to and moreover it isn’t clear why it would move, given that the position it occupies seems to be a Case position in virtually all other cases we have looked at. The goal argument is slightly different however. In the dative construction there is a preposition and this we might assume is what is responsible for providing the argument with its Case. In the double object construction, however, this preposition is not present and hence the argument cannot be assigned Case in the same way. This would then provide the motivation for the argument to move to a position in which it could get case. Considering the problem more closely the goal must move to a phrasal position between the specifier of the VP, occupied by the theme, and the light verb to which the main verb moves. The only possibility is that there is another specifier position between the two:

5.2.6 Multiple complement verbs

The remaining problems to solve are the identity of X and how the theme argument gets Case if the goal argument gets the Case assigned by the light verb. The obvious answer to the latter is that X provides the theme with its Case, which in turn suggests that X is a Case assigning head, i.e. a verb or a preposition. If X is a verb, we have a structure which is identical to those involving multiple light verbs:

5.2.6 Multiple complement verbs

The verb movement is as we have seen before. As both light verbs are bound morphemes, both will need supporting and so the verb will move from one to the other forming a complex head adjunction structure in the top head position. As far as Case relationships are concerned, the subject DP is in a Caseless position and hence will move to the clause subject position to get nominative Case. The indirect object gets accusative from the upper light verb in the position it moves to and the direct object gets Case from the lower light verb without moving. The word order is as predicted with the verb preceding both the objects and the indirect object moved in front of the direct object.

5.2.7 Phrasal verbs

In this structure, presumably the main verb will move to support the light verb and the right word order will be achieved. It would seem reasonable to assume that the particle construction with the particle following the object is derived in exactly the same way, with the preposition heading a PP which has no other content:

5.2.7 Phrasal verbs

Again the verb will move to the light verb position and the word order is predicted. The fact that the particle heads a PP accounts for its ability to be modified by an adverb, as in (133b).

5.2.7 Phrasal verbs

The tricky part is to account for the pre-object particle. If we assume that (136) is the basic structure of the construction, then we might analyse the pre-object particle construction as derived by a movement of the preposition head to the verb, so that when the verb moves to the light verb position, the preposition is taken along with it:

5.2.8 Verbs with clausal complements

This might lead us to the conclusion that they should be treated like objects and be placed in the specifier of the VP, with the verb moving to a light verb position to precede it:

5.2.8 Verbs with clausal complements

In this, the verb moves from light verb to light verb and the DP moves to the specifier of the first light verb to get Case from the higher one. A similar structure would have to be supposed for the PP arguments. However, this structure does not seem to reflect the event structure of such verbs, which seem to consist of just two events:

5.2.8 Verbs with clausal complements

If we want to maintain the UTAH we cannot just assume that the arguments start off in different positions, however. So we want to keep the basic structure of the VP as it is in (145). We need to simplify the light verb structure, getting rid of one of these to match with the event structure and finally we need to find a way of getting the PP in front of the clause that does not assume that it undergoes a similar movement to DPs. The structure is as follows:

5.2.8 Verbs with clausal complements

But why would the clause have to move backwards in a structure like (148)? Note that the clause occupies a position to which Case is assigned: the light verb assigns accusative Case to the specifier of the VP. There is an old idea, dating back to Stowell (1981), that clauses avoid Case positions. While it might seem that clauses occupy similar positions to DPs, there are a number of reasons to think that this is not so. For example, we do not get clauses in the complement position of prepositions, a position to which Case is assigned:

5.3.1 The auxiliary as a dummy

The fist two examples in (156) show that the auxiliary have is always followed by a verbal element in the ‘en’ form (though there is irregularity here and the morpheme is not always represented like this – see chapter 1). This element may be a main verb, as in (156a) or the auxiliary be as in (156b). The auxiliary be is followed by a verbal element in its ‘ing’ form and again this can either be a main verb (156c) or another auxiliary, as in (156d), where we have the passive auxiliary be. We have already seen that the passive morpheme is another instance of en. This attaches only to main verbs, a fact which follows from the analysis given above where the morpheme was treated as a light verb immediately above the thematic VP to which the main verb will move.

5.3.1 The auxiliary as a dummy

One more possible use of a meaningless verbal element which follows from an analysis developed above is the use of the auxiliary be in the passive. We analysed the passive construction as involving the replacement of an agentive light verb with a non-agentive one, realised as the passive morpheme. From this perspective then, the passive morpheme is the defining element of the passive construction. Of course, most passives also make use of the passive auxiliary be:

5.3.2 The nature of the aspectual morpheme

Taking the similarity of the passive morpheme and aspectual morphemes one step further, we might argue that aspectual morphemes are another kind of light verb, which is not surprising as light verbs can affect the aspectual interpretation of the structure they are included in. The Urdu example given above and repeated here for convenience, uses a light verb lene ‘take’ to indicate the perfective status of the event described:

5.3.2 The nature of the aspectual morpheme

In all these cases, the main verb will move to support the lowest aspectual morpheme at which point it cannot move any further as its morphological structure is complete and cannot be added to. As the aspectual morphemes do not play a role in assigning Θ-roles, they also do not have the ability to assign Case as some light verbs do. Thus, the theme will have to move to subject position to get Case.

5.4.1 Adverbs

If an adjunct is placed between the head and its sister, i.e. the complement, the branches of the structure cross and this is not a possible configuration. The problem with this account, however, besides its reliance on the assumption that complements are all sisters to the head, is that it is not at all clear why various movement phenomena would not separate the head from its complement. Another account, due to Stowell (1981) assumes that the verb is responsible for assigning Case to the object and that there is an adjacency requirement on Case assigners and assignees. As we have assumed that the theme gets its Case from the light verb, we cannot use Case adjacency to account for why the verb and its theme argument cannot be separated. Even if we assume that Case assigners must be adjacent to the element they Case mark, this will not prevent the verb moving to a higher light verb position allowing an adverb to come between the two:

5.4.1 Adverbs

This structure has the adverb phrase adjoined to the lower vP and the verb moving to the higher light verb. Such a structure would be possible either when there is both an agent and an experiencer argument, or if the top light verb is an aspectual morpheme. The structure that would be produced however would be ungrammatical as the adverb would appear between the verb and its theme argument.

5.4.1 Adverbs

In (173a), given that there is no light verb with an unaccusative verb, the adverb must be adjoined to the VP. In (173b) the adverb is adjoined to a vP headed by an agentive light verb and in (173c) and (d) it is adjoined to a vP headed by aspectual morphemes. Thus there seems to be no limit in principle on what the adverb can adjoin to. In each of these cases however, the adverb is adjoined to a higher position than the verb moves to. When there is no light verb, as in (173a), the verb is not forced to move out of the VP and in this case the adverb can adjoin to the VP. If the verb moves out of the VP, however, the adverb cannot adjoin to it. Indeed, anything that the verb moves out of is out of bounds for an adjunction site for the adverb. This suggests that the adverb interacts with the movement of the verb and it is this interaction that determines the possible adjunction sites for the adverb. Specifically, it seems that the verb never moves over the top of the adverb. Hence, we may assume that in principle an adverb can adjoin to any part of the extended VP, including any light verb projection, as long as the verb remains lower than it at S-structure and does not move over its adjunction position. There are a number of ways in which we might attempt to account for this fact, but at present we will be satisfied at leaving it as a descriptive generalisation.

5.4.3 Clausal modifiers

As agent, Harry is the specifier of an agentive light verb and as theme Freda is the specifier of the main verb. The verb will move to support the light verb as usual. We know in this case, the purpose clause can either be controlled by the subject or the object and so it must be able to attach to the structure high enough to allow subject control and low enough to allow object control. Suppose we assume that the purpose clause can adjoin either to the v' or to the V':

Chapter6 Inflectional Phrases

In the previous chapter we detailed the structure of the central part of the clause, the VP and its extensions into light verb and aspectual morpheme structures. In this chapter we will look at the further extension of the structure so far built into what we can conceive of as ‘clause structure’, though as we shall see, what is traditionally thought of as a clause is actually a number of hierarchically organised extensions of the basic VP, each of which adds a specific level of semantic and grammatical interpretation. In connection with these extra levels we will see there are specific syntactic phenomena, most of which involves the movement of elements.

6.1 The structure of IP

Note that this is a fundamentally different type of structure than the VP that we investigated in the previous chapter. In the VP, apart from the main verb itself, light verbs, both Θ-assigning and aspectual types, select verbal complements and project a verbal phrase. Hence one light verb can take a complement headed by another and a complex VP can be built. Inflections, however, take verbal complements but project an IP. This accounts straightforwardly for why there can only be one inflection per clause as there can only be one IP per clause.

6.1 The structure of IP

In the previous chapter, we analysed the morphemes in (5b) and (c) as light verbs heading a vP and so the status of the embedded ‘clauses’ in these examples is unclear at the moment: they may be clauses (i.e. IPs) or they may be simple vPs. We will not attempt to deal with this issue here, returning to it in a later chapter. But there are some similarities between these clauses and the infinitival clause in (5a) which are useful to consider. Traditionally, those clauses containing a finite inflection are called finite clauses and those containing a non-finite inflection are non-finite clauses. Thus the relationship between the inflection and the clauses has been long acknowledged. I suspect that the relative semantic unimportance of inflections and the lack of recognition of their syntactic importance have contributed to the fact that traditional grammars have failed to recognise them as heads.

6.2 The syntax of inflection

17) represents the D- and S-structures of the sentence Sam should phone Fiona. As discussed in the previous chapter, the agent originates in the specifier of a light verb, the position to which this Θ-role is assigned. It moves to the specifier of the IP, a process we will discuss in the next section. The verb heads the lower VP and moves to support the light verb. The inflectional element is unaffected by any process. Exactly the same is true for an infinitival clause:

6.2.2 Do-insertion

We know that the inflectional element takes a v/VP complement and therefore that the negative must be either V or v. As the complement of the negation is a v/VP it follows that the negative must be v, a light verb, as main verbs do not have verbal complements. Thus the analysis is:

6.2.2 Do-insertion

Besides the bound morpheme status of the negative, these languages differ from English in that verbal stems are allowed to support more than one bound morpheme and hence there is agglutination: complex words being formed from a series of inflectional morphemes. The point is that in these languages the negative element behaves like we have seen certain English light verbs do and hence they offer support for the suggestion that the negative can be analysed as a light verb.

6.2.3 Tense and Agreement

This analysis suggests that elements can move around in a structure quite freely and in particular both upward and downward movements are possible. But all the movements we have seen so far have been in an upward direction, including all the verb movements and the movement of the subject out of its original VP-internal position. It is possible that this might just be a bias of the small number of movement processes we happen to have reviewed so far. But it turns out, once one starts to investigate movements on a greater scale that the vast majority of them have an upward orientation, which might lead us to the conclusion that perhaps it is our analysis of the small number of apparent cases of downward movements that is at fault. One reason to believe that downward movements are not possible is that it is ungrammatical for certain things to move downwards, which is difficult to explain if such movements are allowable. For example, the verb always moves to the light verb positions and light verbs never move to the verb:

6.2.3 Tense and Agreement

But from our perspective, these elements appear in I by being inserted there and do not undergo movement at all and so there may be other reasons for the fact that they behave differently to main verbs. It is also not entirely clear why the verb can move within the vP, sometimes through as many as three light verb positions and not have any trouble with its Θ-assigning properties. Something rather stipulative and ultimately circular has to be claimed to try to account for this fact. For example, we might assume that the inflection has some property, which light verbs lack, that means that if a thematic verb moves to I it cannot assign its Θ-roles. Often it is claimed that the inflection is ‘too weak’ to support the verb’s Θ-assigning requirements. But the weakness of an element only correlates with the ability of the verb to move to that element, which is the very reason for proposing the notion in the first place!

6.2.3 Tense and Agreement

These observations show that this zero morpheme is in complementary distribution with tense and thus the straightforward conclusion is that it IS tense. But how can this be if tense is an inflectional element and the zero morpheme is not in complementary distribution with modal auxiliaries, which are also inflectional elements? What the data show is that it is not modals that tense is in complementary distribution with, but the zero tense morpheme that accompanies the modal and hence the conclusion is that if modals are of the category ‘inflection’, then tense is not of this category. Given that tense is situated in front of the VP, we can assume that it is a head that selects a verbal complement and given that it follows the inflectional elements (i.e. modals) it must project a verbal phrase. In other words, tense is yet another light verb:

6.3 Movement to Spec IP

We have said that the light verb which is responsible for assigning the Θ-role to the subject is responsible for assigning Case to the object. This seems to be the locus of Burzio’s generalisation that verbs which assign a subject Θ-role assign an accusative Case. Hence the object is in a Case marked position and need not move away in order to get Case. Consider the subject: why is it not in a Case position? Note that the verbal element above the subject, the tense in this case, does not assign any Θ-roles and hence its specifier position is empty at D-structure. Clearly this is unlike the light verb. We may propose therefore that tense is not an accusative Case assigning head. But why doesn’t the light verb assign Case to its subject? One might attempt to answer this by claiming that the light verb has to assign Case to the object and assuming that accusative Case can only be assigned to one place. While this seems reasonable, it doesn’t explain why the light verb taking an intransitive verb does not assign Case to its subject:

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.

6.3 Movement to Spec IP

There are a number of possible ways to account for these observations. The simplest is to assume that Case assignment is directional and that accusative Case in English is assigned to the right. Thus, the light verb will be able to assign Case to the object as the object appears to the right. However the light verb will not be able to assign Case to the subject as the subject is in the specifier position and specifiers are to the left of the head.

6.3 Movement to Spec IP

This is too simple, however, as it is not the case that a light verb can assign Case to any element on its right. Consider a more complicated case in which we have a verb with a clausal complement. The light verb of this verb will be to the left of the complement clause and hence to the left of the subject of that clause. But it cannot assign accusative Case to this subject, allowing it to stay inside its own subject position:

6.3 Movement to Spec IP

The word order within the embedded clause shows that the subject does not get Case in its original position and that like any other subject, it has to move to get Case in the subject position of the IP. Considering where a light verb can assign Case to, i.e. the specifier of its own VP complement, and where it cannot assign Case to, i.e. the specifier of a VP inside another clause, it is obvious that there is some locality restriction on Case assignment in addition to the directional one. We are not yet in a position to be able to determine the exact nature of this locality condition and so for now we will just assume that a light verb can only Case mark elements within its own clause.

6.3 Movement to Spec IP

Having put this in place, we can see that the subject will not be able to be case marked in its original position as it is on the wrong side of the local light verb and too far from any other light verb that might have a Case to assign.

6.3 Movement to Spec IP

The point of the ‘but’ clause in this definition is to impose locality on government. If a head governs everything inside its phrase, then it can govern quite a long way if its phrase happens to be a long one. Yet government is clearly a local relationship if it is restricted to the situations in (65) and there seems to be a point beyond which government cannot hold. How this point is identified and defined is a matter for discussion, with a number of positions possible. But one thing we can conclude at this point is that VP cannot be something that blocks government, otherwise the light verb would not be able to Case-mark the object in the specifier of VP.

Chapter7 Complementiser Phrases

In this chapter we continue to present the parts of the English clause, extending it further upwards. So far we have seen that the clause has a number of layers to it, relating to certain syntactic and semantic properties. The lower layer consists of the thematic part of the VP, including the Θ-assigning light verbs, which concern argument and event structure. Above this we have the non-thematic part of the verb phrase where the morphemes of aspect and tense are introduced. Finally above this we have the IP in which agreement and modal auxiliaries are situated. The IP also provides the surface Case position for the grammatical subject.

8.1.1 Clauses without CP

But if this is true, where does the accusative Case on the subject of the non-finite clause in (6b) come from? We know that accusative Case is assigned by light verbs in other situations, could the accusative Case come from a light verb in this structure? Consider the structure in more detail. The verb believe has an experiencer subject and hence there is a light verb which assigns this Θ-role. The clausal complement of the verb sits in its specifier position and the verb will move to support the light verb:

8.1.1 Clauses without CP

While in principle this might be possible, it does place the Case assigning light verb and the DP to which it assigns Case in rather distant positions. This would not be advisable as on the whole it appears that Case assignment is a local affair and thus there are limitations on how distant the Case assigner and assignee can be. In particular, if the situation pictured in (9) were accurate, we would expect any light verb to be able to assign an accusative case to the subject of a clause appearing in the specifier of its VP complement. But this is not so:

8.1.1 Clauses without CP

One assumption that might solve a number of problems might be that with believe there is no CP, just an IP. This would account for the missing complementiser with such verbs, it would also place the subject of the non-finite clause a little nearer to the Case assigning light verb:

8.1.1 Clauses without CP

Recall from chapter 6 that the notion of government, which is relevant for Case assignment, imposes a restriction on what can be governed in that an element can govern ‘up to a point’. We left undefined what that point was in our previous discussion, but now it is important to be more precise. There are a number of ways that we might think of doing this, but one of the most intuitive is to suppose that certain nodes in a tree form barriers to government in that they ‘protect’ their constituents from government from the outside. Thus a governor may be able to govern up to a barrier, but not through a barrier. We know that a light verb can assign Case to the specifier of the VP, as this is the normal configuration in which accusative Case is assigned:

8.1.1 Clauses without CP

Another observation that supports the claim that the subject of the exceptional clause is Case marked by the light verb of the exceptional verb is that these verbs can undergo passivisation. Recall that in English it is only verbs which have a Case assigning light verb that can undergo the process, which we described as the replacement of the agentive or experiencer light verb with the passive morpheme which neither assigns a Θ-role to the subject position nor assigns Case to the specifier of the VP. Consider what happens when an exceptional verb is passivised:

8.1.1 Clauses without CP

The subject of the non-finite clause moves to the subject position of the passive verb just like the object of a passivised verb does. Given that we argued that the motivation for the object’s movement was to get Case, having been robbed of its light verb Case assigner, it is reasonable to assume that this is exactly what is going on with the movement of the subject of the exceptional clause.

8.1.1 Clauses without CP

Let us take a look at this analysis in more detail. Suppose we take a structure similar to (12) and replace the light verb with the passive morpheme:

8.1.1 Clauses without CP

In this case the subject of the complement clause gets nominative Case from its own finite inflection and so the replacement of the light verb with the passive morpheme makes no difference.

8.1.1 Clauses without CP

In conclusion, we can see that there is a class of verbs which subcategorise for exceptional non-finite IP complements. These clauses have subjects which are dependent on the light verb of the governing verb for their Case. Therefore these subjects bear accusative Case. Moreover these subjects are affected by the passivisation of the governing verb which robs them of their Case assigner. Hence they will undergo a movement to the subject position of the higher clause, just like the object of the passive verb does.

8.1.1 Clauses without CP

Presumably the reason why the subject cannot move out of the non-finite clause is because this is a CP, not an IP. Besides, passivising the verb would not affect the non-finite clause’s subject as this does not get its Case from the light verb, but from the complementiser. But if this is the reason why want does not passivise, then we must conclude that it has a CP complement, not an IP, i.e. it is not an exceptional verb. If the complement of want is a CP, then its subject must get its Case from a complementiser, but there is no complementiser visible in (21). However, the complementiser can be made visible by separating the clause from the verb by an intervening adjunct:

8.2.1 Raising

It is important to realise that, as the verb has no subject of its own, there will be no light verb to assign a Θ-role to the subject. As we know, it is the light verb which is responsible for assigning Case and hence as there is no light verb, there will be no Case assigned. The subject of the embedded clause also cannot receive Case from inside this clause as the inflection is non-finite and non-finite I does not assign Case. Thus, we can conclude that, despite the exceptional status of the embedded clause, its subject will not be assigned Case and if it remains in this position it will violate the Case Filter. Raising this subject to the next clause satisfies the Case Filter as it can get Case from the finite I of this clause:

8.2.1 Raising

The properties of a verb that allow it to be involved in raising structures are quite specific. First it must lack a light verb which is responsible for assigning a Θ-role to the subject and a Case within the VP. Without this light verb the subject position will be vacant and hence available to be moved into. If a verb has such a light verb, it will not be able to take part in raising structures for the simple reason that the subject position will be filled already and moreover, if the lower subject cannot get Case from within its own clause, it will be able to get it from the light verb. Second, it must take a clausal complement. Without the clausal complement, the subject of this clause will not be able to ‘raise’. Moreover, the complement clause must be capable of being non-finite, given that raising only happens from non-finite clause subject position, for reasons we have just discussed. A verb which has no subject of its own, but cannot select for a non-finite clause will always have a pleonastic subject and will never be involved in raising. A possible verb that fits this pattern is emerge:

8.2.1 Raising

Another structure which bears a remarkable similarity to raising structures concerns the passive exceptional verb. From what we know about the properties of exceptional verbs and the process of passivisation, it can be predicted that they will behave very much like raising verbs. As we know, an exceptional verb can take a non-finite IP complement. Normally there will be an accompanying light verb and this will assign Case to the DP subject of the complement clause. When we passivise a verb, we replace the light verb with the passive morpheme, which neither assigns a Θ-role to the subject, nor a Case to the complement. This, then, is the same set of properties that raising verbs have. We can see that such verbs do indeed behave like raising verbs:

8.2.1 Raising

When the exceptional verb has a finite complement, the subject of this clause will not move as it gets Case from its own finite inflection, making movement unnecessary. When the clause is non-finite however, its subject will not receive Case from the non-finite I and moreover will not get it from the light verb of the exceptional verb as this will have been exchanged for the passive morpheme. Thus movement will be necessary:

8.2.2 Control

If PRO must avoid Case positions, we predict that we should not be able to go in the subject position of the non-finite complement of a exceptional verb, as this is a position assigned Case by the light verb of the exceptional verb. This expectation is indeed fulfilled:

8.3 The Gerund

In this case, the ing element behaves exactly like a noun syntactically. For example it heads a phrase which can be the complement of a determiner. As we know determiners take NP complements, so the ing element must have the category of a noun. A further fact about nouns is that their DP complements cannot be assigned case, which is why there is an of preposition inserted into the structure. With a verb, its light verb will assign Case and hence there is no need to insert of. This can be clearly seen in the different behaviours of verbs and their derived nominal counterparts:

8.3 The Gerund

Let us consider the problem in more detail. One type of ing element behaves like a pure noun in that it cannot Case mark its DP complement. Verbs Case mark their DP complements via the light verb that accompanies them and thus presumably this light verb is absent in the ing structure with the nominal head, but present with the verbal ing head. One way to capture this would be to claim that ing is a nominal head that takes a verbal complement of the v/VP type. As such it can enter into a structure at various points: directly above the VP or above the vP headed by a light verb:

8.3 The Gerund

A number of consequences follow from this analysis. First, in (91a) as there is no light verb, the DP in the specifier will be Caseless and hence the preposition of will have to be inserted to salvage the structure. The presence of the light verb in (91b) renders this unnecessary as the DP will get Case in the normal way. More interestingly, the subject is present in the structure in (91b) but not in (91a). This does not mean that the subject cannot be introduced in (91a) as it is perfectly possible to have a possessive argument introduced into the NP/DP structure under normal circumstances, so there is no reason why it could not happen here. However, the point is that, as is usually the case with nouns, this will be optional and therefore the possessor/agent may or may not appear. When there is no possessor, there can be a determiner and when there is a possessor there can be no determiner, as the two are in complementary distribution:

8.3 The Gerund

However, with the presence of the light verb in (91b), the agent is obligatory. As usual, it will have to move to get Case and presumably the place it moves to is the specifier of the DP, i.e. the genitive position. For this reason, a standard determiner will not be possible with this kind of gerund:

8.3 The Gerund

One last point will be made. The assumption that the nominalising ing can be added to a verbal structure at various points accounts for the fact that gerunds can contain aspectual material as well as verbs. We have argued that aspectual morphemes are light verbs, heading vPs. As the ing head can take a vP complement, it is predicted that aspectual morphemes can be included in gerunds. To some extent this seems to be true: