The Syntax of Root Clauses (6)

Intransitive predicates (2)

N modification and unaccusatives

Past participles derived from unaccusative verbs may be used as pre-nominal modifiers, i.e. attributes. Past participles derived from unergative verbs do not function as pre-nominal attributes. (1) wilted lettuce, fallen leaves, collapsed tent, burst water pipes, vanished civilizations *cried child, laughed clown, flown pilot

(2)

N modifications and unaccusatives

Not all the past participles derived from unaccusative verbs are grammatical are pre-nominal noun modifiers. (3) *an existed solution, an appeared man, a begun show, a jingled bell, trickled water, a happened event

Q: What sense can we make of the examples in (3)?

N-modification and unaccusatives

A: If we look at what the verbs in (3) have in common in contrast with the verbs in (1/2), we find out that the first group of verbs denote atelic events, i.e. events that do not have a natural endpoint. The verbs in (1/2), on the other hand, all denote change of state. Conclusion: unaccusative verbs that denote a change of state and are interpreted as telic are grammatical as prenominal attributes. Other unaccusatives classes are excluded from this context.

N-modification and unaccusatives

Q: Why can unaccusative verbs function as pre-nominal N-modifiers but unergative verbs do not have this property? A: Keep in mind that participles derived from transitive verbs are also okay as pre-nominal N modifiers. (4) driven car, written statement, (well) understood phenomenon, repaired computer, (poorly) equipped soldier

N-modification and unaccusatives

It looks like past participles of verbs that have a direct object or an underlyingly direct object may function as attributes.
Unaccusative verbs have an underlyingly direct object (an object that cannot keep its position and becomes a subject in the end) whereas unergative verbs do not.

Resultative Phrases and intransitives

Remember that resultative phrases (Res P) are predicated of the direct object of verbs. This makes transitive verbs the ideal candidate for co-occurrence with Res P. This restriction on the distribution of Res P is known by the name of the direct object constraint (Levin and Rappaport 1995). Below, you have examples of transitives with Res P.

Resultative Phrases and intransitives

(5) a. Woolite soaks [all your fine washables [ResPclean]]. b. Sudsy cooked [them all [Res Pinto a premature death with her wild cooking]]. c. Absently, she dipped a finger in the peanut butter and licked [it [ResP clean]].

We know by now that unaccusative verbs may be followed by Res P. You have more examples in (5).

Resultative Phrases and intransitives

(6) a. The bottle broke open. b. The gate swung shut. c. This time the curtain rolled open on the court of the Caesars. d. The kettle boiled dry. Unergatives are not grammatical with Res P. (7) a. *Dora shouted hoarse. b. *The officers laughed silly. c. *His mistress grumbled calm.

Unergative verbs and Res P

Some of you may have noticed that there is a way to fix the sentences in (7) and rescue them from ungrammaticality. (8) a. Dora shouted herself hoarse. b. The officers laughed themselves silly. c. His mistress grumbled herself calm. The way to rescue the sentences in (7) is to sneak in a direct object. Now the direct object constraint is obeyed.

Unergative verbs and Res P

You may also have noticed that the direct objects in (8) are not the prototypical direct object you would expect. Why is that so? Simply because the verbs in (8) do not need internal arguments (unlike transitive verbs). Even more so, the verbs in (8) do not qualify as reflexive verbs, so they do not need a reflexive object.

Unergative verbs and Res P

This is why we refer to the direct objects in (8) as fake reflexive objects. Q: Are there any other ways of rendering an unergative verb compatible with a Res P other than adding a fake reflexive object to it? A: Yes, there are. You can add an inalienable possession object (9) or other types of unselected objects (10).

Unergative verbs and Res P

(9) Arnold cried his eyes out. (10) a. The dog barked him awake. b. Try to sleep the baby quite, please. Q: Why is it that only unaccusative verbs are compatible with Res P? A: Because Res P must predicate of a direct object and only unaccusative verbs have underlyingly direct objects that become subjects (for lack of case and to satisfy the requirement of a pre-verbal subject).

Unergative verbs and Res P

This conclusion is backed up by what happens with unergative verbs that can be followed by Res P. We have just seen that unergatives accept Res P on condition that we can sneak in a direct object, an unselected object, in the sense that it is not part of the argument structure of the respective unergative verb.

The locative inversion and intransitives

We know now that only unaccusative verbs appear in the locative inversion context. Compare (11) to (12). (11) a. b. c. d. Out of the house came a tiny old lady. Outside were five police officers. Down the hill rolled the baby carriage. On the desk sat a large envelope.

The locative inversion and intransitives

(12) a. *In the cafs of Paris talk many residents. b. *In the nursery smile half a dozen newborn babies. c. *In government offices complain many disgruntled people. d. *At the supermarket on Main St. shop local residents. (examples from Levin & Rappaport-Hovav)

The locative inversion and intransitives

Note that the descriptive generalization that we have tried to establish starting from the difference in grammaticality between (11) and (12) does not seem to be water tight. Consider first (13): (13) a. *On the street died that poor man. b. *In the garden budded the roses. c. *At the bottom of the ocean sank the ship. d. *In the pond drowned the duck.

The locative inversion and intransitives

Examining the verbs in (13), we notice that all of them denote changes of state. Conclusion: unaccusative verbs may occur in the locative inversion context on condition that they do not denote change of state. Only those unaccusatives that are interpreted as atelic (see (11)) are compatible with the locative inversion.

The locative inversion and intransitives

Second, Levin & Rappaport Hovav note that some unergative verbs may also occur in locative inversion structures (the examples are theirs): (14) a. Down the dusty Chisholm Trail into Abilene rode taciturn Spit Weaver b. Into this scene walked Corkys sister, Vera c. At one end, in crude bunks, slept Jed and Henry. d. Inside swam fish from an iridiscent spectrum of colors.

The locative inversion and intransitives

The possibility to construct examples such as (14) has led Levin & Rappaport to believe that structures with the locative inversion can be accounted for in discourse / functional terms. The verbs that appear in locative inversion structures must meet a discourse condition: they must not represent new information; they must be informationally light.

The locative inversion and intransitives

A verb is informationally light if it brings little or no information in discourse. The prototypical example of light verb is copula be. Therefore, by extension, verbs of existence and appearance (i.e. the verbs that are most frequently used in the locative inversion) belong to the class of informationally light verbs. Change of state unaccusatives and transitives, on the other hand, do bring discourse-new information. Hence, they are not used in locative inversions.

The locative inversion and intransitives

Q: Why are unaccusatives compatible with the locative alternation? A: Because their subjects may also remain in postverbal position, unlike the subjects of unergatives. And they can stay in post-verbal position because that is the position they originate in (if we take into account the fact that these subjects take on the Patient / Theme role).

The causative alternation and intransitives

We mentioned in our last class that unaccusative verbs may appear in the causative alternation while unergatives do not have this option.

Q: There is a class of manner of motion verbs, whose subjects control the event denoted by the verb. These verbs count as unergative and may nevertheless participate in the causative alternation. Here are some examples (15, 16, 17). How is that possible?

The causative alternation and intransitives

(15) a. b. (16) a. b.
(17) a. b.

The horse jumped over the fence. The rider jumped the horse over the fence. The soldiers marched to the tents. The general marched the soldiers to the tents. The mouse ran through the maze. The researcher ran the mouse through the maze.

The causative alternation and unergatives

Note, however, that the unergative verbs that occur in the causative alternation show some special behavior. First, of all the direct objects in the transitive pair retain their agentive interpretation, i.e. the soldiers marching to the tents is a volitional act as is the horse jumping over the fence and the mouse running in the maze.

The causative alternation and unergatives

Second, the cause argument can only be an agent. Note what happens if this argument cannot be the agent. (18) a. *The downpour marched the soldiers to the tent. b. *The tear-gas marched the soldiers to the tent. Unaccusative verbs in the causative alternation need not meet this second requirement. (19) The stone broke the window.

The causative alternation and unergatives

Conclusion: unergative verbs may appear in the causative alternation on condition that (i) the direct object in the transitive counterpart has agentive interpretation (ii) the cause argument is also an Agent.

The causative alternation and unaccusatives

Not all unaccusative verbs are grammatical in the causative alternation. (20) a. My mother lived in Boston. b. *Her job lived my mother in Boston. (21) a. A picture appeared on the screen. b. *The programmer appeared a picture on the screen. (22) a. The bicycle disappeared from the garage. b. *The thief disappeared the bicycle from the garage.

The causative alternation and unaccusatives

Avram (2003) refers to the unaccusatives that are not grammatical in the causative alternation by the term prototypical unaccusatives, i.e. those that get an atelic intepretation. The unaccusatives that are okay in the alternation are derived unaccusatives. i.e. those change of state verbs that are interpreted as telic.

Unaccusative unergative ambiguity

There are some classes of intransitive verbs that show a split behavior in the sense that some sub-classes belonging to them are unaccusative verbs, whereas other sub-classes behave as unergative. We will have a closer look at them.

Unaccusative unergative ambiguity: manner of motion Vs

There is a distinction between (i) movement that implies the presence of an agentive animate argument and non-agentive movement.

(ii)

In the latter case, the argument does not head to a particular direction deliberately

Unaccusative unergative ambiguity: manner of motion Vs

Agentive swim behaves as an unergative. It cannot take a Res P (23) unless it combines first with an unselected direct object (24).
(23) *Dont expect to swim sober. (24) Dont expect to swim yourself sober.

Unaccusative unergative ambiguity: manner of motion Vs

When verbs of agentive movement like swim combine with a directional phrase, they become unaccusative. (25) They slowly swam apart. apart = directional phrase We know this is so because adding an unselected object to swim in this case still does not allow it to take a Res P. (26) *They swam themselves apart.

Unaccusative unergative ambiguity: sound emission Vs

When verbs of sound emission have non-agentive subjects, they behave as unaccusatives. In this case, they combine with Res P without taking unselected direct objects (cf. 27). (27) The lid of the boilder clunked shut. Conversely, when verbs of sound emission have agentive subjects, they behave as unergatives. As such, they combine with unselected objects when followed by a Res P. (28) Harry shouted himself hoarse.

Unaccusative unergative ambiguity: spatial configuration Vs

When verbs of spatial configuration denote the position with respect to a certain location, with no agentivity implied, they behave as unaccusatives, cf. 29. As unaccusatives, they are grammatical in there-sentences, cf. 30. (29) Six statues of the martyrs stood on the palace lawn. (30) There stood six statues of the martyrs on the palace lawn.

Unaccusative unergative ambiguity: spatial configuration Vs

When verbs of spatial configuration relate to the fact that the subject deliberately placed itself at a certain location or deliberately maintains a location, they are unergative, cf. 31. As such, they combine with unselected objects when they are followed by a resultative, cf. 32. (31) Carla sat in the driveway. (32) Carla impatiently sat the meeting out.

Unaccusative predicates in Romanian

(i) Change of state verbs a. reflexive: a se abigui, a se cloci, a se nnora, a se descompune, a se desface (despre flori), a se scoroji, a se stafidi, etc. b. reflexive / non-reflexive: a (se) mucegi, a (se rugini, a (se) nglbeni, etc. c. non-reflexive: a aipi, a deveni, a evolua, a expira, a nflori, a cheli, a orbi, a paraliza, a ntineri, a seca, a nvia, a crete, a decdea (verb list from Dragomirescu 2010)

Unaccusative predicates in Romanian

The type of subject determines the classification of these verbs as (i) unaccusative or (ii) unergative: - Inanimate / non-agentive subject unaccusative (33) a. Sistemul economic evolueaz ncet, dar sigur. b. sistem evoluat - Animate / agentive subject unergative (34) a. Ion evolueaz rapid n nvarea japonezei. b. *om evoluat la nvarea japonezei (examples from Dragomirescu 2010)

Unaccusative predicates in Romanian

Whether or not the subject is understood as being in control of the event constitues another factor that determines classification as (i) unaccusative or (ii) unergative: (35) a. Ion s-a cocoat pe la 70 de ani. b. om cocoat unaccusative (36) a. Ion se ngra ca s arate mai bine. b. *tnr ngrat (ca s arate mai bine) unergative (examples from Dragomirescu 2010)

Unaccusative predicates in Romanian

(ii) Verbs of spatial configuration a. reflexive: a se afla, a se aplica, a se acoperi, a se adnci, a se fragmenta, a se intersecta, a se mpotmoli, a se ndeprta, a se nfunda, a se scufunda, a se situa, etc. b. reflexive / non-reflexive: a (se) ancora, a (se) nepeni, etc. c. Non-reflexive: a coti, a rmne, a sta, a tri, a atrna, a nlemni, a ocoli (verb list from Dragomirescu 2010)

Unaccusative predicates in Romanian

The unaccusative interpretation of these verbs denotes the existence of an entity, its location in space (a). The unergative interpretation refers to agentive localization (b). (37) a. Cea mai adnc piscin din lume se afl n Belgia. b. Preedintele se afl n Australia. (38) a. Drumul cotete la dreapta. b. Ion cotete la dreapta, spre casa Ioanei. (examples from Dragomirescu 2010)

Unaccusative predicates in Romanian

The presence of an adverbial of place brings about the unaccusative reading: (39) a. Ion triete 100 de ani. b. *om trit 100 de ani. unergative (40) a. Ion triete la ar. b. om trit (toat viaa) la ar unaccusative (examples from Dragomirescu 2010)

Unaccusative predicates in Romanian

(iii) Directed motion verbs a. reflexive: a se apropia, a se cra, a se clinti, a se cocoa, a se deplasa, a se duce, a se sui, a se urni, etc. b. reflexive / non-reflexive: a (se) cobor, a (se) urca c. non-reflexive: a ajunge, a ateriza, a fugi, a iei, a intra, a pleca, a reveni, a sosi, a veni, a demara, a ncetini (verb list from Dragomirescu 2010)

Unaccusative predicates in Romanian

Again, if the subject is understood as having control over motion, the verbs take on the unergative interpretation; otherwise, they are unaccusative: (41) a. Ion a alunecat de pe scaun i i-a rupt mna. b. copil alunecat de pe scaun (42) a. Patinatorul alunec pe ghea cu mult graie. b. *pationator alunecat pe ghea cu mult graie (examples from Dragomirescu 2010)

Unaccusative predicates in Romanian

All the motion verbs that are do not inherently denote the direction of motion and are incompatible with an adverbial of place that refers to direction do not behave as unaccusative verb: (43) a. Steagul flutur n vnt (*nspre noi) b. *steag fluturat n vnt. (44) a. Leagnul se balanseaz continuu. b. *leagn balansat continuu (examples from Dragomirescu 2010)

Unaccusative predicates in Romanian

Consider the following examples: (45) a. Ion a alergat pn la chiocul de ziare. b. Ion a zburat pn la Londra ca s se ntlneasc cu Maria. They contain directed motion verbs which are compatible with an adverbial of place referring to location. Therefore, are they unaccusative verbs? No, they are not. We cannot use adjectives derived from their past participles as noun modifiers:

Unaccusative predicates in Romanian

(46) a. *omul alergat pn la marginea pdurii b. *omul zburat pn la Londra. Moreover, the subject is in control in both (45 a/b). (examples from Dragomirescu 2010)
Bibliography: Levin, B., Rappaport Hovav, M. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax Lexical Semantics Interface, Cambridge University Press Dragomirescu, A. 2010. Ergativiatea: tipologie, sintax, semantic, Editura Universitii Bucureti