Basic English Syntax with Exercises

vP

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

Note that the complex event structure is mirrored by the complex VP structure. There are two sub-events and two parts to the VP, an upper vP and a lower VP. Moreover, the vP corresponds to the first sub-event and the causative connection between the sub-events. The VP corresponds to the sub-event that results from the first. This indicates that there is a connection between event structure and syntactic structure, specifically the more complex the event structure, the more complex the syntactic structure used to represent it.

5.3 Aspectual Auxiliary Verbs

Remember, that what we are looking at there is the D-structure, before movement takes place. Thus this structure is that of a declarative VP, not an interrogative one. At S-structure the subject will move out of the vP to the clausal subject position, where it will get Case:

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.

5.5 Conclusion

In this chapter we have taken a detailed look into various aspects of the structure of the VP. We have seen how the semantics of the verb, particularly in its argument and event structures, influence the way the VP is built. The argument structure to a large extent determines the complementation of the verb and the event structure plays a role in determining the extension of the VP into various vPs built on top of it.

6.1 The structure of IP

We also suggested in chapter 1 that inflectional elements take verbal complements on the observation that they are always followed by a VP (or perhaps a vP, depending on the properties of the verb). From an X-bar point of view, this suggests that inflections are to be treated as heads as only a head takes a complement. If this is right, then we predict that there will be a phrase that the inflection heads; an IP:

6.1 The structure of IP

What is the nature of the IP and what else does it contain? Just as inflections are always followed by the VP, they are also typically preceded by the subject in its surface position, though as we pointed out the subject originates inside the VP (vP) at D-structure and moves to get Case:

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.

6.1 The structure of IP

These data not only suggest that there is a difference between finite and non-finite clauses, but also that the infinitive and the participles have a different status, perhaps indicating that while the infinitive has an IP status, the participles are really vPs. The main point is, however, that different clauses distribute differently and this correlates with which inflectional element they contain. All this adds up to the conclusion that the inflection does behave like a head in that it projects its properties to the whole construction and as we saw in chapter 2 it is heads that do this.

6.1 The structure of IP

More supporting evidence for the head status of the inflection comes from its relationships to the other clausal elements. As a head we should expect the inflection to impose restrictions on its complement and specifier positions. Of course, we would not expect these to be based on Θ-roles as the inflection is a functional element and plays no role in Θ-role assignment. Instead we would expect these restrictions to be similar to those found within the DP discussed in chapter 3. Recall that determiners always take NP complements and no other phrase can appear in this position. The complement of an inflection is always a verbal phrase, be it vP or VP and again no other phrase can appear in this position. We can make this more precise if we use categorial features to describe the situation. The phrase that sits in the complement position of the inflection must be headed by an element with the categorial features [(–F), –N, +V], that is, by a non-functional verb including V and v. We can therefore suggest a very restrictive template for the lexical entries of all inflections:

6.2.1 Inserting auxiliaries into I

In both of these examples, the verb moves from the V position to support the aspectual morphemes. As a consequence of English stems being unable to support more than one overt morpheme, the verb cannot move further. As the inflection is a bound morpheme it needs supporting and in this case the auxiliaries are inserted directly into the inflectional slot. Note that which auxiliary is used depends on the aspectual element heading the vP complement of the inflectional element. A perfective aspectual morpheme determines the supporting auxiliary to be have while the progressive morpheme determines the supporting auxiliary to be be. With a slightly more complex example, we see that this is a very general process:

6.2.2 Do-insertion

The movement represented in (26a) appears to be grammatical whereas that in (26b) is ungrammatical. Again the difference between the two is that the grammatical movement is shorter. But if we want to use the HMC to account for the phenomena, it must be the case that the negative is a head as it is moving over this element that causes the problem. But, what kind of a head is the negative? It is situated between the inflectional element and the v/VP:

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:

6.2.3 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!

6.2.4 Movement to tense and I

As we have seen, adverbs and the negative head can appear in a number of positions within the v/VP, with adverbs being able to adjoin to most phrases above the verb and negation taking most phrases above the verb as its complement:

6.2.4 Movement to tense and I

Both negation and VP adverbs can also precede the non-finite marker, indicating that this is a tense element that stays inside the vP:

6.2.4 Movement to tense and I

It thus seems that these elements appear anywhere inside the vP as long as they are below the I and above the surface position of the verb.

6.2.4 Movement to tense and I

However, these approaches are based on the assumption that the position of the adverb is rigidly fixed and so if the verb follows the adverb it must be inside the vP. But we have seen that adverbial placement is not so rigid, although it is subject to some restrictions. It would seem to me to be more straightforward to assume that in the case of a finite main verb, the verb does occupy the inflection position and what needs accounting for is the position of the adverb.

6.3 Movement to Spec IP

Up to this point we have been assuming that the subject of the clause originates fairly low in the clause, inside the VP or a vP just above it. We have said this DP will move from its original position to the specifier of IP to get Case and thus avoid a Case Filter violation which would render the sentence ungrammatical. Two aspects of this analysis are in need of elaboration. First it must be accounted for that the subject’s original position is a Caseless one and second it must be established exactly where in the complex clause structure we have been arguing for the subject moves to and why this is a Case position.

7.1 The structure of CP

Another claim made in (9) is that the IP is the complement of the complementiser. Can this be substantiated? One obvious relevant observation is that the IP follows the complementiser and as we know complements follow heads in English. Thus the claim that the complementiser is the head and the IP its complement accounts for this fact about English word order without resorting to stipulation. Furthermore, we have seen that functional heads such as determiners and inflections have a very limited range of possible complements: determiners always have NP complements and inflections always have v/VP complements. The element which follows a complementiser is always an IP and so this fits the pattern very well. Finally, note that different complementisers introduce different IPs. If and that both introduce finite IPs, while for introduces a non-finite IP. As heads select for their complements, this is again an indication that the complementisers are heads selecting for different types of IP complements. This is very similar to plural determiners selecting for plural NP complements and singular determiners selecting for singular ones.

8.1.1 Clauses without CP

The two immediate consequences of this are that the experiencer Θ-role fails to be assigned, leaving the specifier position of the vP empty, and the subject of the exceptional clause is left without Case given our assumption that the passive morpheme is not a Case assigner and neither is the non-finite inflection. Thus if the subject were to stay in this position, it would violate the Case Filter, which demands all DPs to receive Case, and hence the sentence would be ungrammatical, which it is:

8.1.2 Clauses without IP

Besides the problem that under this analysis the head of the predicate is not the head of the clause, a major problem facing it is that it forces us to assume that the inflection can subcategorise for a whole set of different complements, ranging from DPs to PPs. But functional heads do not normally display this amount of freedom in their complement taking abilities. In all the cases we have considered so far, the agreement head selects for a v/VP complement, i.e. complements with [–N, +V] features. But if I can select for DP, AP and PP complements as well, i.e. [+F, +N, –V], [–F, +N, +V] and [–F, –N, –V], this must mean that it imposes no categorial conditions on its complement whatsoever. This is not true as bare NPs, non-thematic vPs, IPs and CPs cannot act as predicates inside small clauses:

8.1.2 Clauses without IP

The debate continues and we will not attempt to put an end to it here. Stowell’s analysis does seem to be able to address the problematic issue of the selection of small clause complements, but his analysis of how the predicate can appear to behave like a phrase rests on the validity of the suggested subject movement, and it is not at all clear that there is a well motivated position for the subject to move to, even assuming a more articulated structure of the vP.

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

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:

8.3 The Gerund

The analysis of (96a) and (b) are fairly straightforward. In both cases the nominalising ing is inserted above the relevant aspectual morpheme, taking the vP that it heads as a complement. The verb will move to support the lower morpheme, i.e. the aspectual which will leave ing unsupported. As it is a bound morpheme this will trigger the insertion of an auxiliary to bind it. The choice of the auxiliary will, as usual, be determined by the lower aspectual morpheme: