5.2.1 Unaccusative verbs

5.2.2 Light verbs

The thematic relationships are straightforward. In the lower VP we have a situation fairly similar to the VP in the previous section. The theme argument, the vase, is in the specifier of the VP as we discovered previously. The verb break therefore looks fairly similar to an unaccusative verb (we will investigate the properties of this type of verb more fully in the next section). The specifier of the vP is interpreted as an agent and therefore the light verb is clearly not unaccusative. This is not surprising as unaccusative verbs either have no complement or prepositional ones, and here the light verb has a VP complement. In terms of the UTAH, we might therefore propose that the agent Θ-role is assigned to the specifier of a (light) verb which has a VP complement.

5.2.2 Light verbs

This is identical to what happens with unaccusative verbs (compare (31) with (22)): the theme subject receives no Case in its original VP internal position and hence has to move to the nominative subject position. So how does the theme get Case in (30)? The obvious difference is the presence of the light verb and therefore we might assume that it is this verb that is responsible for assigning accusative Case to the theme:

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

Apparent exceptions to these observations may again be accounted for by assuming an ambiguous status of the verb involved. For example, the verb grow can apparently behave like an unaccusative:

5.2.3 Ergative verbs

In these examples, however, it might be that the verb has a locative interpretation rather than a change of state interpretation. If we force the change of state interpretation, the verb ceases to behave like an unaccusative:

5.2.3 Ergative verbs

Another major difference between this group of verbs and unaccusatives is that this group can apparently appear in a transitive context:

5.2.3 Ergative verbs

These verbs that have a transitive and an unaccusative use are sometimes called ergative verbs as the subject of the unaccusative version is interpreted the same as the object of the transitive version:

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.

5.2.3.1 Potential problems

If we accept (45), a number of puzzles arise. First consider the alternation between the transitive and unaccusative uses of ergative verbs. Why does the subject go missing in this alternation and not the object and why does the object become the subject? A possible answer to the latter question is that the unaccusative verb is unable to assign Case and hence the object must move to subject position to satisfy the Case Filter:

5.2.3.1 Potential problems

If we accept (45), a number of puzzles arise. First consider the alternation between the transitive and unaccusative uses of ergative verbs. Why does the subject go missing in this alternation and not the object and why does the object become the subject? A possible answer to the latter question is that the unaccusative verb is unable to assign Case and hence the object must move to subject position to satisfy the Case Filter:

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:

5.2.3.3 Unaccusatives and ergatives

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:

5.2.5 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

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

This at least shows that in principle passivisation is not incompatible with intransitives and that the reason why intransitives cannot passivise in English must therefore be due to some other particular property of the language. Note that unaccusatives do not passivise in any language:

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.

5.2.6 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:

5.4.1 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.

8.2.1 Raising

In a number of ways this is similar to the kinds of movements we have seen previously which take a DP from one position and move it to a subject position, such as the movement of the subject from the specifier of a VP or the movement of an object of a passive or unaccusative verb. Those kinds of movements, we saw, were motivated by the fact that the DP started off in a Caseless position and hence in order to satisfy the Case filter it had to move into a Case position. The subject of a finite clause is a Case position as this is where nominative Case is assigned to by the finite inflection. In (52a) we see a DP that is moved into the subject of a finite clause, and so it may be that this movement is also Case motivated. If this is so, we expect to find that the position it moves from is a Caseless position. Is this prediction accurate? Consider the relevant structure in a little more detail.