2ND YEAR AAPLIED MODERN LANGUAGES SYNTAX 1 COURSE INSTRUCTOR: ROXANA-CRISTINA PETCU, PhD

TRANSITIVE PREDICATES We shall focus on the properties of a different class of predicates, namely transitive predicates. Eg.(1) Mary built a house. * Mary built. *Mary built last year a house. (2)Mary offered a gift to her sister. *Mary offered a gift. *Mary offered to her sister. They have an external argument, the subject An internal argument, the syntactic function of which is that of direct object. It is not possible to omit the direct object (as a result of the application of the Projection Principle) The verb assigns Accusative case to its internal argument if the argument is adjacent to the verb (in other words nothing can intervene between the verb and its argument) The internal argument (direct object) can be either an affected object (denoting an entity affected by the action the predicate refers to) or an effected object (denoting an entity that is the result of the event described by the verb). Eg. Affected objects cut the bread, eat a cake, chop a tree, carve the steak Effected objects build a house, bake a cake, compose a song, write a book The same verb may take either an affected object or an effected object Eg. Cut the bread/ cut a road in the jungle; paint a house/paint a portrait; carve the steak/carve a statue; press the juice/press the button The internal argument may be a Theme or a Patient We call such verbs monotranstive verbs There are transitive verbs that take two internal arguments- two NP complements (the examples under 2). The first NP functions as a direct object, while the second NP functions as an indirect object or an adverbial modifier of place. We call such verbs ditransitive verbs. Eg. He offered flowers to his wife. (Agent, Theme, Goal) Grandma made a cake for her grandsons. (Agent, Theme, Beneficiary) John put the books on the table. (Agent, Theme, Location) With the first category of ditransitives it is possible to reverse the order of the two NP complements.This reversal is accompanied by the deletion of the preposition to/for. Such a construction is called the double object construction. With some ditransitive verbs it is possible to delete one of the two objects Eg. The president assigned the task to the secretary. The president assigned the secretary the task. The president assigned the task. The president assigned the secretary.

The Location/Locatum alternation a) bag, bottle, box, cage, can, corral, garage, jail, shelve (location) b) bandage, bar, bell, blindfold, clothe, curtain, fund, saddle (locatum) Eg. I put the glasses on the shelf. / I shelved the glasses. (LOCATION) He fitted the saddle on the horse. / He saddled the horse. (LOCATUM)

The second sentences in the pairs above are syntactic counterparts of the analytic sentences containing put or fit. The difference between the sentences in these pairs is that the preposition is not overt and the upper verbal head which is occupied by put or fit in the first alternants in the examples above is also empty. In the sentences allowing the Location alternation, the location (the NP inside the PP indicating location) becomes verb a verb in the monotransitive variant of the sentence, In the sentence allowing the Locatum alternation, the the Direct Object of the ditransitive sentence becomes a verb in the monotransitive sentence, as the DO indicates the object to be located somewhere. Eg. John corralled the cows. (put the cows in the corral) *John cowed the corral. Eg. We put the apples in the box. *We appled the box. (We boxed the apples) . They fitted the house with a roof *They housed with a roof. / They roofed a house.

Eg. He put the bandage on the wound. He bandaged the wound. The Ergative alternation Eg. The enemy sank the ship. / The ship sank. They stopped the machine. / The machine stopped. Derived unaccusatives One argument verbs, namely the internal one, a Theme which is projected in the object position at D-structure and moves to [Spec,IP] at S-structure to be assigned case, as the intransitive counterpart is unaccusative, it lacks an external argument, therefore cannot case-mark the internal argument. The transitive variant is causative. They do not allow there-insertion (*There sank a ship.)

One can prove that such verbs are unaccusatives, namely that they lack an agent role since we cannot insert an instrument role which is licensed only if an agent is present overtly or implicitly. Eg. *The ship sank with a cannonball. *The machine stopped with a stick. Unaccusatives cannot control PRO. Generally, PRO can be controlled if the original role exists, which is not the case of unaccusatives. Eg. He wants PRO to do that. PRO is controlled by the subject of the verb in the matrix clause, in the sense that we can identify the empty category PRO, the subject of the non-finite infinitive with the help of the overt subject of the verb want, the two being identical. With unaccusatives it is not possible. Eg. *Babies often roll/turn after PRO putting them to bed.

This sentence cannot possible be interpreted as meaning that those who put the babies in bed as also the ones that roll/turn them, therefore control is not possible. These two tests prove that such verbs do not have a causative structure, so they do not contain a light p. Not all transitives have an ergative counterpart. There are transitive verbs that only select an agent as their external theta role, but there are other transitives that select other roles as external arguments. Eg.(a) The baby ate the soup. /*The spoon ate the soup. /*Hunger ate the soup The barber shaved father. / *The razor shaved father. (b) Mike opened the door. / The key opened the door. / The wind opened the door. Verbs that have similar selectional properties roll, redden, break, drown, enlarge Where do these differences come from? Causality plays an important role in deciding thematic structures. There is an overlap between Cause and Agent in the sense that if an argument is the agent of a change of state it is also the cause of that change. The main difference between agency and causality may be stated as the fact that agentivity involves properties of volition and intention where as causality does not. If the verb is specified for both causality and agency (volition, intention) (like eat, shave) it can only select an Agent. If a verb is specified only for causality (like open, break) it can select both and agent and an instrument (cause) as external argument. In other words, only those transitives that are specified only for causality, but not for volition, intention enter the ergative alternation. De-adjectival ergative verbs Eg. Thin, narrow, cool, thicken, harden, soften, widen, lengthen, shorten, broaden, loosen, tighten, darken, redden, deepen, lower, enlarge Eg. His eyes narrowed. / He narrowed his eyes and grinned. The screen cleared when I bumped the keyboard./ I cleared the screen when I bumped the keyboard. De-adjectival verbs also have analytical counterparts which can be either transitive or intransitive. Eg. The leaves turned red./ The cold turned the leaves red. The liquid froze solid. / We froze the liquid solid. The safe blew open. / The charge blew the safe open. The first sentence may be interpreted as a sentence containing a copula-like verb which subcategorizes for a small clause, that is in fact a resultative phrase. Such sentences may be interpreted as describing a change resulting in a state. (The cold does something such that the leaves come to be red.

THE CAUSATIVE ALTERNATION Transitivisation of an intransitive verb by the addition of the feature of causation. Induced Action Alternation Eg. The horse jumped over the fence./The rider jumped the horse over the fence./ The dog walked./ I walked the dog. /

 More restrictive only intransitive agentive verbs of manner of motion (in the presence of a directional phrase) are allowed to be used transitively Eg. Drive, fly, gallop, leap, march, race, run, swim, walk, etc The causee is generally an animate entity induced to act by the causer Eg. She hurried him to the door. He was running the horse down the hill. Other instances of causative alternation Other basically intransitive verbs which denote internally controlled actions can, in certain cases be used transitively, when externally controlled. Eg. Bang, buzz, ring, clang, beam, flash, bleed Fly, dangle, hang, stand, swing, sit Lodge, burp Eg. The visitors rang the bell./ The bell rang. They stood the statue on the pedestal. / The statue stood on the pedestal. The soldiers lodge in the schoolhouse. / The army lodged the soldiers in the schoolhouse. The nurse burped the baby. / The baby burped. Intransitives recategorized as causative transitives Eg. He walked the horses up and down. They generally graze their sheep on the neighbouring meadows. The general worked his men ruthlessly. You may sit down ten people with ease. All the verbs in the sentences above are inherently intransitive verbs recategorized as transitive causative verbs. Two main subcategories : A) transitives with a DO and an optional Adv of Place B) transitives with a DO and an obligatory Adv of Place A.1. motion verbs amble, dance, float, gallop, hurry, jump. march, quiver, retire, roll, run, tumble, walk Eg. He was ambling his horses along the river. She hurried the guest to the door. The king marched the army into the Capital city. Dont run him on a tight rope! They all marched to London A.2. positional verbs sit down , stand Eg. I sat the old man down in a chair. The mother stood the baby upon the floor. Most recategorized verbs in the sentences above may undergo passivization Eg. They were all marched to London by their commanders. B.1. [-animate], [-abstract]DO and an obligatory Adv of Place. The DO usually has an instrumental meaning.

Eg. She leant her elbows on the table (she caused her elbows to lean on the table) She stayed her arms on her knees. She struck her hand against a stone. She dabbed a powder-puff across her forehead.

Phrasal transitives Eg. Bob put his coat on. Bob put on his coat. Phrasal verbs verb + particle (or verb+preposition / verb+particle+preposition/ verb+adverb) But such a verb can be interpreted as a verb phrase containing a verb and a particle inside which a direct object can intrevene between the verb and the particle without any change in the grammaticality or semantics of the phrase. The verb and the particle form a semantic unit and can be paraphrased by a lexical verb Eg. Give up=renounce Put off=postpone Build up=develop This analysis is supported by the idiomatic character of many phrasal verbs, in which the particle deviates from its literal meaning Eg. Turn down, blow up, figure out If the particle preserves its literal meaning, it is more likely that the predicate will allow Particle movement Eg. He put on his hat. / He put his hat on If the complex phrasal verb is idiomatic Particle Movement is blocked. Eg. The terrorists blew up the building. / *The terrorists blew the building up. No adverbial , not even right or straight can intervene in the V Prt NP structure Eg. He put on his hat. / *He put right on his hat. If the NP is heavy (for instance a very long NP, or an NP modified by a relative clause), a modifier can intervene between the partcle and the verb Eg. He looked up the answer I had given him. / He looked right up the asnwer I had given him. . If the complement is a pronoun Particle movement is obligatory Eg. *He took off it. / He took it off. If the object is very heavy it cannot intervene between the verb and the particle Eg. He turned off the light. *He turned the light which I had forgotten on off. If the direct object is clausal it cannot intervene between the verb and the particle Eg. He gave away all the books. *He gave what he had been able to gather throughout his life away. Ditransitive phrasal verbs Eg. He gave back the book to John. *He have back John the book. (double object construction is ungrammatical) He gave the book back to John. (Particle Movement possible across the direct object in the prepositional variant of the sentence) *He gave the book to John back. (Particle Movement is blocked across both objects).