grammatical foundations

Verb Types

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.

Multiple light verbs are not unheard of in languages which make more of an overt use of them than English. Consider the following Urdu example:

(96) nadyane saddafko xat lik lene diya

Nadya-erg. Saddaf-dat. letter write take-inf. give-perf.Masc.s ‘Nadya let Saddaf write a letter (completely)’

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:

(97)I made him let her take a look

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 -roles assigned by the light verbs. It has been proposed in several places that there is a hierarchy of -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:

(98)agent > experiencer > theme

The -roles lower on the hierarchy have to be discharged on to an argument before those higher up. The UTAH ensures that -roles can only be discharged in certain positions and in combination with (98) we get the following pattern. The first -role to

181

Chapter 5 - Verb Phrases

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 -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 -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.

2.5Intransitive 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 -roles assigned to the specifier of a light verb. Accordingly then, we may analyse them as involving the following structure:

(99)vP

V

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.

Examples of intransitives are as follows:

(100)a Sam smiled b Jerry danced c Richard died d Stan slept

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

(101)a Sam smiled an evil smile b Jerry danced a merry dance c Richard died a tragic death d Stan slept a restless sleep

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:

182

Verb Types

smiled1 v DP V©

e a smile V

t1

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:

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.

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

(104)a *it was smiled by Sam b *it was died by Richard

This is quite mysterious given our previous analysis of the passive. However, it should be noted that the inability to passivise intransitives is a language particular fact and not a universal truth about intransitives. German intransitive verbs, for example, can passivise:

(105)Es wurde getanzt it was danced

‘there was dancing’

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:

(106)*it was arrived (by the letter)

183

Chapter 5 - Verb Phrases

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

(108)a Sam smiled

b Sam did a smile

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:

In all then the analysis of intransitives is relatively unproblematic.

2.6Multiple complement verbs

So far we have been concerned with verbs that have either one or two arguments, but there are cases of verbs with more. In this section we will look at a number of verbs which have three arguments, again trying to maintain the UTAH and using this as a guide for the analysis of the VP’s structure.

Within the standard X-bar structure there are two positions in which we find arguments: specifier and complement:

(110)XP

YParg X©

X YParg

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

As a first case of a multiple complement verb, consider verbs of placement:

184

Verb Types

(111)a Porter put the book on the shelf

b Prudence placed the penguin on the podium c Steve stored the potatoes in the cellar

d Karen kept the hamster in a cage

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:

(112)vP

DPagent v©

v VP

DPtheme V©

V PPlocative

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 -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:

(113)VP

The event structures of these verbs however indicate that the analysis might be a little more complex than we have indicated in (112). For example, consider what is involved in ‘putting’. There is an agent who performs some action and there is a theme which undergoes a change of position and there is a location where the theme ends up. Thus the event structure seems to be:

(114)Porter put the book on the shelf

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.

Another similar set of verbs involves a PP denoting a goal or beneficiary:

185

Chapter 5 - Verb Phrases

(115)a Gary gave a present to Petunia b Sonia sent the letter to Larry

c Knut knitted a sweater for Susan d Barry baked a cake for Karen

Again, the arguments are similar, involving an agent, a theme and a PP complement expressing the goal or beneficiary and so we can expect the structure to be similar. This structure is sometimes called the dative construction. The interesting thing about these verbs is that they can often enter into another construction which means virtually the same thing as the dative, only involving two DP complements:

(116)a Gary gave Petunia a present b Sonia sent Larry the letter

c Knut knitted Susan a sweater d Barry baked Karen a cake

This is known as the double object construction as the verb has two objects, traditionally referred to as the indirect and the direct objects respectively.

But the analysis of this construction is problematic:

(117)vP

DPagent v©

v VP

DPgoal V©

V DPtheme

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

186

Verb Types

which the main verb moves. The only possibility is that there is another specifier position between the two:

(118)vP

DPagent v©

v XP

DP X©

X VP

DPtheme V©

V DPgoal

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:

(119)vP

DPagent v©

v vP

v©

v VP

DPtheme V©

V DPgoal

Can this analysis be justified? If one thinks of the event structure involved in the meaning of these verbs they all seem to work as follows:

s3 = ‘Y is in a certain location or possession’

In other words, if Gary gives Pete a present, Gary does something which causes the book to undergo a movement or change of possession, the result of which it ends up with Pete. The middle event, involving a change of position or possession is what provides us with the position for the moved goal:

187

Chapter 5 - Verb Phrases

(121)vP

DP v©

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.

2.7Phrasal verbs

A set of verbs which demonstrate some unique properties are known as phrasal verbs. These appear with what looks to be a preposition, traditionally referred to as a particle, following them:

(122)a the plane took off b the patient came to c time ran out

One obvious fact about these verbs is that their meaning is usually idiomatic in that it is not straightforwardly computed from the meaning of the verb and the meaning of the preposition combined. To take off, for example, means ‘to become airborne’ and to come to means ‘to become conscious’.

These verbs do not behave like those which take a PP complement and the two types of verb can be distinguished in a number of ways:

(124)a in this hut, he lived for ten years b *off this hat, he took in an instant

188

Verb Types

(125)a he lived right near a mountain b *he took right off his hat

(126)a he lived near the forest and next to a river b *he took off his hat and off his coat

Much of this evidence seems to suggest that the preposition does not act as the head of a preposition phrase, but forms a unit with the verb. For example, while (124a) shows that the PP complement of a verb can be moved to the front of the clause, it seems that the particle plus the following DP cannot be moved (124b), indicating that it is perhaps not a constituent. Moreover, as we have seen in (125a) a PP can be modified by an adverb like right, but this is not possible for the particle followed by a DP (125b). Finally, we can coordinate a PP complement with another PP (126a), but we cannot coordinate the particle plus the following DP with a PP, indicating that the particle does not form a PP with the following DP. For this reason, it is often claimed that the particle forms a syntactic unit with the verb, perhaps being adjoined to it:

V DP

V P the answer

find out

However, it should also be observed that the verb and the particle do not seem to behave like a complex verb and in a number of ways, the verb is still independent of the particle, which would not be expected if (127) were the correct analysis. For one thing, the verb bears all inflections, and these are not stuck onto the end of the phrasal verb itself:

From the other side of things, the particle seems independent of the verb, in that it can move separately from the verb, as already pointed out in (123), but demonstrated again here:

A final problem for (127) is that it tends to go against the general pattern of compounding in English. When a complex head is formed from two heads by adjoining one to the other, it is generally the case that the head of the compound is the leftmost element. This is true in compound nouns and adjectives, but also with verbs:

(130)a armchair, milk jug, family film, white lie, etc.

b dark brown, ice cold, rock hard, squeaky clean, etc.

c outdo, undercut, overspend, over wrap, dry clean, etc.

189

Chapter 5 - Verb Phrases

In all these cases of compounding, the rightmost element provides the compound with its syntactic and semantic properties. So an armchair is a kind of chair not a kind of arm and a white lie is a noun not an adjective.

We might assume that these compounds are formed by adjoining the modifying element to the left of the head:

(131)X

modifier X

This is clearly the opposite of the phrasal verb, with the preceding verb being taken as the head:

(132)V

V P

When the particle is separated from the verb by an object, it seems to have properties that it cannot have when it precedes the object. For example, we have seen that, unlike a preposition, the particle cannot be modified by an adverb in (125b). However, in the post-object position it can be modified by an adverb:

(133)a *he took right off his hat b he took his hat right off

Moreover, when the particle is behind the object, it cannot have an object of its own, but it can when it follows the object:

(134)a *enough to put off his food the dog b enough to put the dog off his food

Obviously, this is a very unique kind of construction with many mysterious properties. Let us see if we can solve at least some of these mysteries. When a phrasal verb has an object, this object is often a theme and hence we would expect it to go in a specifier position of the thematic verb. This verb should follow its specifier, leaving the complement position available for a PP complement. This works fine for an example such as (134b):

(135)vP

190