Structure
Chapter 5 Verb Phrases
2 Verb Types
2.6 Multiple 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:
(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
DP V'
the table V PP
sat in the kitchen
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
e = e1→ e2→ e3 : e1 = ‘Porter did something’
e2 = ‘the book changes location’
e3 = ‘the book is 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:
(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
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:
(120) e = e1→ e2→ e3 : e1 = ‘X does something’
e2 = ‘Y changes location or possession’
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
(121) vP
DP v'
Gary1 v vP
v3 v DP v'
gave2 v e Pete v VP
e t3 DP V'
a present V DP
t2 t1
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.