Unaccusatives and ergatives

(58) vP

DP v'

( ) v VP

gur1 v DP V'

-ít a labdát V

t1

Thus the main verb stem moves to the causative light verb morpheme in order to bind it. The product of the movement would obviously have to undergo further morphological processes in order to show the appropriate tense and agreement forms, but this is unimportant for the point being made here. Suppose English works in exactly the same way as this. The English causative light verb is a bound morpheme, though a phonologically null one, and differs only in this way from the non-null causative make. Thus it must be attached to the main verb and this happens by the main verb moving to adjoin to it. This would then give us an independent motivation for the movement of the verb.

construction in their ‘transitive’ use. Indeed, ergative verbs themselves are identical to unaccusatives, even in causative constructions as it is the causative light verb which supplies the extra agent argument and the causative interpretation. For this reason, many linguists refer to these kinds of verbs as unaccusatives. However, it still remains that there are differences between the unaccusative verbs we reviewed above and the ergative verbs reviewed in this section. For a start, ergatives cannot appear in the there constructions and unaccusatives cannot appear in causative constructions:

(60) a *there rolled a ball across the pitch b *there broke a glass in the cupboard (61) a *Andrew arrived the letter

b *Lucy lived Ian in Scotland

It seems then that there is a complementary distribution between these verb types.

How are we to explain this? Complementary distribution patterns appear when two elements of the same type try to occupy the same position: we can have one or the other, but not both. In the causative construction, we know that there is a light verb above the VP headed by the ergative. Could there possibly be a light verb above the unaccusative VP in the there construction?

In order to evaluate this suggestion, let us consider the properties of the there construction. The most obvious property is the fact that in this construction the subject position is taken by there. This is a meaningless subject that bears no thematic role.

Such things are often called pleonastic or expletive subjects and their function seems to be to act as a ‘place holder’ for the subject when no thematic element will occupy this position. For example, consider the following:

(62) a Tim1 seems [t1 to be tall]

b it seems [that Tim is tall]

This is a case of raising, as introduced in chapter 3. In (62a) the subject of the lower clause is raised into the subject position of the raising verb seem, demonstrating that this position must have been empty at D-structure. In (62b), however, the thematic subject of the lower clause does not move out of this clause. In this case the subject position is filled by another expletive element it. It would be ungrammatical for this position to be left empty, an indication that all English sentences must have subjects regardless of whether one is semantically demanded or not. We will return to this observation in the next chapter. Note however that this expletive subject differs from the one used in there constructions, though their function (to fill a vacant subject position) seems to be similar. It would be ungrammatical to use a there in raising structures and it in there constructions:

(63) a *there seems [that Tim is tall]

b *it arrived a letter

This observation clearly calls out for an explanation. Another thing in need of explanation is the fact the post-verbal theme obviously receives Case in this position and does not have to move to subject position. It seems that this fact goes hand in hand with the presence of the there subject as, in its absence, the theme must move to the

subject position to get Case. This has led some to the conclusion that the there somehow has a role in the assignment of Case to the theme. One possibility is that the difference between an expletive there and an expletive it is that the former has the ability to transmit the Case that it receives by occupying the subject position. If this is so, then the post-verbal theme should get nominative Case as this is the Case that the expletive gets:

(64) there might have [ _VP settled some snow on the lawn]

It is unfortunately impossible to check this in English as we can only see visible Case morphemes on personal pronouns and these are excluded from the post-verbal position in the there construction as they are definite and only indefinite DPs can occupy this position:

(65) a *there departed him b *there lived he

A second problem with this assumption is that if there is able to transmit Case to otherwise Caseless positions, it is not entirely clear why it is not used more often to overcome similar problems when we find DPs sitting in Caseless positions.

The observation that the post-verbal DP is limited to indefinites has led to the claim that neither nominative nor accusative Case is assigned to this position, but a special Case which can only be born by indefinite DPs. Belletti (1988) proposed that partitive Case is incompatible with definite DPs for semantic reasons and therefore only indefinites can bear it. Thus if we assume that partitive Case is assigned to the post-verbal position in there constructions, we can account for why only indefinite DPs can appear in this position. The problem with this is that under these assumptions it is not entirely clear why we have a there expletive and not an it. It would seem then that the key to the proper analysis of this construction is the link between the there subject and the Case marked indefinite DP in the post-verbal position.

Of course, we also need to explain why the theme argument, that we have claimed to be generated in the specifier of the VP, sits behind the verb, not in front of it, in the there construction:

(66) a there arrived a letter b *there a letter arrived

Some of the properties of the there construction are similar to the causative construction: a Case marked theme which follows the surface position of the verb and some other element in the subject position:

(67) a there lived a dragon (in the hills) b they opened the window

These similarities can be captured if we assume that the post-verbal position of the theme is achieved by movement of the verb in front of it and this necessitates the

nominative

Case transmission

assumption of a position to which the verb moves. If we assume that this is indeed a light verb, we can account for the Case assignment to the object as well:

(68) vP

DP v'

there v VP

arrived1 v DP V'

e a letter V

t1

Obviously, this light verb is not the same as the one we get in the causative construction as there is no causative interpretation here and no agent -role assigned.

In fact, this verb does not appear to have much of a meaning at all. But this might be an advantage in accounting for the other properties of the there construction. Recall Burzio’s generalisation: only a verb which assigns a -role to its subject assigns an accusative Case. The causative light verb fits this restriction well: it assigns an agent -role to its subject and an accusative Case to the theme in the specifier of the VP. If the abstract light verb in the there construction is restricted by this, then the fact that it assigns no -role to the there subject, accounts for why we do not find simple accusative DPs in the theme position.

However, we do not want to say that there is absolutely no connection between the abstract light verb and its subject, as there are restrictions placed on it: the subject must be there and not it. Thus, suppose that there is a special argument of this predicate, which receives no actual -role from it but is restricted by it. A similar notion of

‘quasi-argument’ has been proposed for cases such as:

(69) a it rained b it snowed c it’s windy

The it subjects that accompany weather predicates are clearly not arguments as they have no referential content, but they are somehow not quite as empty as the expletive it in examples like (62b).

One indication of the difference between the quasi-argument it and the expletive it is that only with the former is a purpose clause licensed, i.e. a clause that acts to modify a predicate by providing a purpose for the described event:

(70) a it rains [to feed the plants]

b *it seems [that Rob is rich] [to impress the neighbours]

c Rob seems [to be rich] [to impress the neighbours]

The intended interpretation of (70b) is that Rob pretends to be rich in order to impress the neighbours, an thus it is the ‘seeming’ rather than the ‘being rich’ that is being

Case

modified by the purpose clause. The ungrammaticality of this sentence with this interpretation demonstrates that expletive it is unable to license this kind of modifier.

When the thematic subject is raised, however, the purpose clause is grammatical. The quasi-argument weather predicate it appears to behave like a thematic argument in this respect as it does license a purpose clause. Obviously I do not want to claim that the there subject in there constructions is the same thing as a weather predicate’s quasi-argument subject.

But I have discussed this phenomenon to demonstrate that there are different degrees of argumenthood and the claim I want to make is that there is somewhere between a thematic argument and an expletive, which is supported by the fact that purpose clauses can appear with there subjects:

(71) a water ran down the cliff face [to hide the mouth of the cave]

b there ran water down the cliff face [to hide the mouth of the cave]

Now let us suppose that this connection between the light verb and its restricted subject, although it is not enough to license accusative Case, is strong enough to license a Case that can be born by indefinites (perhaps partitive). We then have an explanation for why the post-verbal theme is restricted to indefinite DPs. All in all then, the supposition of a (very) light verb in the there construction leads to quite an explanatory account of many of its properties.