Argument Structure: some debates and possible

insight from language change

Elly van GelderenCentre for the Study of Mind in Nature

Oslo, 1 October 2015

OutlineHow linguists see Argument Structure: Theta-roles and aspect

Relevance beyond language: ToM, moral grammar

Debates: Lexicon (Levin), Syntax (Hale & Keyser), Conceptual Structure (Jackendoff)

Changes: Unaccusative verbs > adding light verbs + labile

and unergatives > transitive + particle verbsUnaccusatives > copulas Unaccusatives > unergatives; Unergatives > unaccusatives ̸̸�� ̸̸��Psych-verbs: ObjExp > SuExp; but not the other way round.

Argument Structure(1) rain, snow: 0 arguments, as in

`It rained.’(2) swim, arrive: 1 argument, as in

`They swam.’(3) eat, see: 2 arguments, as in

`He ate an apple.’(4) give, tell: 3 arguments,

`They gave us work.’

Aspectual class is very important for AS

durative, a-telic:(5) He ran for hours/*in 5 minutesadd a goal > telic(6) He ran to the store in five minutesdefinite object > telic(7) He ate the turkey -ing > durative, atelic(8) He was eating turkey for hours.

Hopper & Thompson (1980: 252)

Theta-roles: Gruber (1965), Fillmore (1968), and

Jackendoff (1972), Chomsky (1981: 34ff)Verbs are listed in the lexicon with their theta-roles (theta-grids) and there needs to be a matching number of arguments to theta-roles in the syntax. If eat is listed as needing two theta-roles (Agent and Theme), there will need to be two arguments (now DPs) and to each argument a theta-roles will have to be assigned.Theta-roles incorporate some aspect etc.

Agent: an animate entity that deliberately brings about the event.Causer: entity responsible for (initiating) an eventExperiencer: an animate entity that experiences the

eventTheme: person or object affected by the actionGoal: animate entity that the event is done to or forResult: state resulting from the eventPath: path of the eventManner: manner of the eventInstrument: instrument through which the event occurs

Intransitives can have a Theme (fall) or Agent (work)

Agent vs ThemeUnergative (Agent) Unaccusative (Theme)-deliberately is ok deliberately is not ok-Agent is human/animate Agent can be +/-animate-a Theme can be added no Theme can be added-V+er *V+er-*nominalization with of nominalization with of ok

Dowty (1991) typed unergatives as atelic and unaccusatives as telic and Tenny (1987: 264) writes that unergatives “tend to describe non-delimited events, while unaccusatives tend to describe delimited events”

Unergativesbicycle, burp, cough, crawl, cry, dance, daydream, frown, grin, hop, jog, kneel, laugh, limp, resign, run, scream, shout, smile, swim, speak, sneeze, sleep, talk, walk, work, yell.

UnaccusativesAlternating: begin, burn, decrease, drop, fall, freeze, grow, increase, melt, reduce, stop, spread, widenNon-alternating: appear, arise, arrive, come, depart, emerge, ensue, exist, follow, occur, remain, sit

AcquisitionBloom et al (1980) show that children are conscious of aspectual verb classes very early on. Thus, –ed morphemes go with non-durative events, -ing with durative non-completive activities, and infinitives with stative verbs. Various researchers agree on this, e.g. Broman Olsen & Weinberg (1999) likewise show that a telic verb correlates with the presence of –ed and that –ing is frequent with dynamic and durative verbs. The next slide lists all the adjectives and verbs for Eve at the time of her first recording. All types of verbs are there and a few of the activity verbs are marked with –ing (swimming and writing) and a past is marked on an unaccusative (broke).

Eve at 1;6unaccusative unergativetransitive otherblock broke (fish are) swimming Eve pencil that radio(Neil) sit wait, play, cook I did itdown, busy, gone look Eve/you find itMommy down, open Eve writing see yacome down, stand dance doll eat celerysit down, fall down Mommy step read the puzzle(finger) stuck Mommy swing? change herlie down stool man (no) taste it

get her/itfix (it)/ Mommy fixbring itwant Mommy letterwrite a paperman/papa have it

(you) find it play (step)

Naima’s first words0;11.28 delicious, down, good, eat, there1;0.28 beep, beeper, down, go1;1.11 late, roll, where’d it go?1;1.25 get baby, slide, truck went by, good1;2.07 buy, down1;2.23 bumping, down, keep it, sink, sleeping, sleepy, slide, squeeze, up1;3.07 beep beep, buy, clean(ed), cold, give Mommy, gone, hot, messy, on, pick music, play tower, slide, up

Theme-arguments (down, good, late, roll, slide, went by); transitive (eat, buy), labile (clean, sink), Unergative (sleep, beep). Aspect: unaccusative/causative has –ed (cleaned) and unergative/transitive has –ing (bumping, sleeping).

Broader relevanceArgument structure forms the basis of our propositions and, without it, there is no meaning. It is likely that AS is part of our larger cognitive system and not restricted to the language faculty. `Mistakes’ in acquisition minor so AS is part of the Conceptual StructureAS plays a role in our moral grammar where agents are assigned more responsibility than causers.

Bickerton (1990: 67) puts it, “[a]rgument structure ... is universal.” All languages have verbs for eating and drinking and those verbs would have an Agent and a Theme connected with them. Arguments are also represented in the syntax in predictable ways. An Agent will be higher in the hierarchical structure than a Theme, unless they are clearly marked as not following the Thematic Hierarchy.

Bickerton (1990: 185) suggests that the “universality of thematic structure suggests a deep-rooted ancestry, perhaps one lying outside language altogether.”

If argument/thematic structure predates the emergence of language, an understanding of causation, intentionality, volition - all relevant to determining theta-structure - may be part of our larger cognitive system and not restricted to the language faculty. It then fits that argument structure is relevant to other parts of our cognitive make-up, e.g. the moral grammar. Gray et al. (2007), for instance, argue that moral judgment depends on mind perception, ascribing agency and experience to other entities. De Waal (e.g. 2006) has shown that chimps and bonobos show empathy, planning, and attribute minds to others.

Agency, intention, animacyPre-linguistic children connect agency with intention (Metzoff 1995) and with animacy (Golinkoff 1985), and know causality (Leslie & Keeble 1987). Hauser et al (2007) have shown that moral judgments are not the same as justifications and that the former are likely part of a moral grammar. As for theta-roles, Snyder, Hyams & Crisma (1995), Costa & Friedmann (2012), and Ryan (2012) show that children distinguish intransitive verbs with Agents from those with Themes from when they start using these verbs. Pre-linguistic children know causality. Lakusta & Carey (2015) show that the Goal is more salient to one-year olds than the Source.

Debates: in lexicon/conceptual structure or added?

Assume that argument structure is universal, is it directly tied to the conceptual structure, as argued by Jackendoff in various publications (e.g. 1997) and only indirectly to the syntax?Ramchand (2008) has similar ideas about how the meaning of a verb consists of a start, process, and result and these translate into syntactic structure, or vP-shell.Borer (2005) and Lohndal (2014): no AS in the lexicon.

AS and changeIf AS is outside the linguistic system, humans without language could have had it and so can other species. The language learner has an active role in language change. If a verb becomes ambiguous, as happens with morphological erosion or aspectual coercion, the learner may analyze it in a different way from the speakers s/he is listening toSince argument structure is often seen as the least variable part of language, it makes sense to see if this holds in language change and what we can learn from change.

Arguments Structure in Old English

(1) & hit rine & sniwe & styrme ute.and it rain and snow and storm out`and it rains, snows, and storms outside.’ (OED, Bede ii. x. 134)

(2) Ða geseah he swymman scealfran on flode. Then saw he swim (diver) birds in the flow (of water)‘Then he saw birds swim in the water.’ (OED, Ælfric Homilies II. 516)

(3) Se hæfð ece lif þe ytt min flæsc. he has eternal life that eats my flesh(OED, West Saxon Gospels, John, Corpus Cambr. vi. 54)

(4) Him scippend gaf wuldorlicne wlite.him lord gave wonderful appearance`The lord gave him a wonderful appearance.’ (OED, Solomon & Saturn 56)

Unergative and unaccusative in OE(1) Heo on wrace syððan seomodon swearte siðe,

ne þorfton hlude hlihhan They in exile since continued black occasion, not needed loudly laugh

`From then on, those spirits dwelt in exile; they had no need to laugh loudly.’ (Genesis 71)(2) Næfre on ore læg widcuþes wig,

ðonne walu feollon.never on front lay.down famous fight, then slaughtered.ones fell.

`He was always in front when others fell around him.’ (Beowulf 1041-2)

Unaccusative has passive participle(3) Fyr, forst, hægel and gefeallen snaw, is and yste,

fire, frost, and fallen snow, ice and storm(Paris Psalter 148.8)

and be/have is sometimes telling:(4) Þa hie ða hæfdon feorðan dæl þære ea geswummen,

then they then had fourth part that river swum`When they had swum a quarter of that river, ...’.

(Alexander's Letter to Aristotle: Orchard, 1995 224-52, 15.12)(5) hu sio lar Lædengeðiodes ær ðissum

how that knowledge of.Latin before thisafeallen wæs giond Angelcynn, ...fallen was throughout England

`how the knowledge of Latin had decayed throughout England.’ (Alfred, Pastoral Care, 7.15-6).

a. (self)willes appears %(self)willesb. a Theme can be added no Theme can appearc. V+er %V+erd. Imperative appears no imperativee %prenominal past prenominal past

participle participlef. be + perfect participlehave + perfect part g. Impersonal passive: occurs with either verb type; possible causativeh. SV and VS more VS in subordinate

clauses

From OE>ME: Loss of Intransitivesa) a complete loss of the verb, e.g. bifian `to

shake’, b) the loss of prefixes and addition of resultative

particles, e.g. aberstan `burst out, escape’, c) the replacement by light verbs and adjective

or noun, e.g. emtian `become empty’, d) a change to labile verbs, e.g. dropian `drop’,

i.e. alternating between causative and unaccusative, and

e) increase in (manner of) motion (Fanego 2012)

80 intransitives from Visseraberstan `burst out, escape’ Th particle verbablican `shine’ Th obsoleteablinan `cease, desist’ Th obsoleteæfnian `become evening’ 0 light væmtian/emtian `become empty’ Th light v (and labile)ærnan `run’ A labile (caus, unerg, unacc)ætfellan `fall away’ Th particle verbætglidan `disappear, glide away’ Th particle verbætslidan `slip, slide’ Th labileætspringan `rush forth’ Th obsoleteaferscan `become fresh’, Th light vafulian `become fowl, rot’ Th light valatian `to grow sluggish’ Th obsoletealeoran `to depart/flee’ Th obsoleteascortian `become short/pass away’ Th light vaslapan `slumber, fall asleep’ Th obsolete

berstan `burst’ Th burst labile (causative rare)bifian `tremble/shake’ A obsoleteblinnan `cease’ Th obsoletebrogdian, brogdettan `tremble’ A obsoletebugan `bow down/bend’ Th obsoletecidan `quarrel, complain’ A transitivecirman `cry (out)’ A obsoleteclimban (upp) `climb’ A (same and) transitivecloccian `cluck, make noise’ A transitive (archaic)clum(m)ian `mumble, mutter’ A obsoleteclymmian `climb’ A (particle verb and) transitivecneatian `argue’ A obsoletecneowian `kneel down’ A obsoletecnitian `dispute’ A obsoletecreopan `crawl’ A same: creepcuman `come, approach, arrive’ Th same: come (to)

Results

Obsolete 44Unchanged 11Light v 8Particle 6Labile 6Transitive 5Total 80

Conclusions from the 80 verbsThe verbs that are replaced by light verbs are deadjectival and denominal verbs, namely æfnian, æmtian, aferscan, afulian, ascortian, dimmian, fordragan, and gegyltan: all unaccusative verbs in Old English but the new light verb determines whether it is unaccusative or causative.

The change to labile verb affects ærnan, ætslidan, berstan, droppian, droppetan, and growan. Apart from ærnan, these are all unaccusative and end up with an optional causative. The case of ærnan is complex; it is an unergative in Old English but acquires causative and unaccusative meanings.

The new particle verbs replace a prefix, as in aberstan, ætfellan, ætglidan, forscrincan, forþgangangan, and forþræsan. Like the prefixes, the new particles indicate a path or result and imply perfective aspect.

The five unergative verbs that become transitive are cidan, climban, cloccian, clymmian, and felan. Cloccian is archaic but the others acquire a regular Theme.

SoIncrease in light verbs, labile, and transitive verbsand:

21/80 are motion verbs: aberstan, ærnan, ætfellan, ætglidan, ætslidan, ætspringan, aleoran, clymmian, cneowian, creopan `crawl’, dufan ‘to dive’, dwelsian, dwolian, fleotan, fordwinan, forþfaran, forþgangan, forþræsan, forþweaxan, and glidan; cuman is unspecified. Many are manner of motion; 10/21 are particle verbs because the particle provides the path. Of these 21, 7 become obsolete so, compared to all intransitives, these are relatively resilient.

Morphological changes at the end of OE

loss of affixes-i causative (results in more labile Vs)ge-participle (results in more transitives Vs)prefixes (path/result)

development of articles and loss of object Case

increase in particles (to add path and result)increase in light verbs (to take over for –i and ge-)

Causative still productive in OE?

drēopan 'drop' drīepan 'moisten', belgan 'be/become angry‚ ābielgan 'irritate', hweorfan 'turn/go/die‚ hwierfan 'turn/destroy ',meltan 'melt, burn up, be digested‘ mieltan 'melt/purge', sincan 'sink’ sencan 'sink, submerge/drown', springan 'jump/burst forth/spread' sprengan 'scatter/burst', nesan 'escape from/be saved‚ nerian 'save/protect', sīgan 'sink/fall/move' sægan 'cause to sink/fell/destroy', scrincan 'shrink/wither‚ screncan 'cause to shrink', feallan 'fall/flow/die‚ fiellan 'fell/defeat/destroy'

Labile, 55 acc. to Visserabrecan ‘break’, abreoðan ‘unsettle/ruin’, acirran ‘turn’, acumen ‘come’, acweccan ‘shake’, acwician ‘quicken/revive’, ætiewan ‘show’, ætstandan ‘stand/remain’, aslacian ‘become/make slack’, baðian ‘bathe’, blawan ‘blow’, blissian ‘be glad/make glad’, brecan ‘break’, bregdan ‘move quickly/shake’, buan ‘live’, byrnan ‘burn’, cierran ‘turn’, clipian ‘speak, cry out’, cwanian ‘lament/mourn’, dragan ‘drag’, dwelian ‘go/lead astray’, dwellan ‘wander/lead astray’, eardian ‘live/inhabit’, fleon ‘fly/flee’, fon ‘take’, geotan ‘pour’, gladian ‘be glad/rejoice’, healdan ‘hold/procede’, hefigan ‘become/make heavy’, hildan ‘lean/hold’, hlænan ‘lean/cause to lean’, hweorfan/hwierfan ‘turn/change’, lacan ‘jump/play’, læstan ‘follow/endure’, langian ‘long for/lengthen’, mieran ‘scatter/disturb’, miswendan ‘err/abuse’, ofergan ‘traverse’, oferfaran ‘traverse’, openian ‘open’, plegan ‘move’, sadian ‘weary’, samnian ‘assemble/meet’, sargian ‘suffer/cause pain’, sarian ‘become painful/feel sorry for’, scotian ‘move rapidly’, spyrian ‘go/pursue’, tolicgan ‘lie/separate’, tostregdan ‘scatter’, tostencan ‘scatter’, tydran ‘produce’, þeostrian ‘darken’, þringan ‘press (on)’, wanian ‘diminish’, wlitigian ‘become/make beautiful’

And few (27) more > Mod E 800

āðīestrian 'darken', ahnescian 'become soft/make soft', brædan 'broaden/grow', dælan ‘divide’, gedieglan ‘hide’, drygan 'become dry/dry', hlīewan 'become warm/warm', stillan 'be still/quiet', ābiterian 'become bitter/make bitter', cwician 'come to life/enliven', gōdian 'be better/make better', heardian 'harden/make hard', hefegian 'become heavy/make heavy', hlænian 'become lean/make lean', hluttrian 'become clean/clean', lytlian 'lessen/decrease', gemetgian 'moderate oneself/moderate', micelian 'become great/increase', minsian 'diminish', nearwian 'become smaller/make smaller', openian 'open', swīðian 'become strong/strengthen', swutulian/sweotolian 'become manifest/make clear', ðiccian 'thicken', ðynnian 'become thin/make thin', yfelian 'become bad/make bad', wendan ‘change’.

ME causatives: make, -en and zeroblacken, brighten, broaden, cheapen, coarsen, dampen, darken, deafen, deepen, fasten, fatten, flatten, freshen, frighten, gladden, harden, hasten, hearten, heighten, lengthen, lessen, lighten, loosen, madden, moisten, neaten, quicken, quieten, redden, ripen, roughen, sadden, sharpen, shorten, sicken, slacken, smarten, soften, stiffen, straighten, strengthen, sweeten, tauten, tighten, toughen, waken, weaken, whiten, widen, worsen

and –ate, -ify, -ize, etc...

but English `likes’ zero:brown, clean, clear, cool, crisp, dim, dirty, dry, dull, empty, even, firm, level, loose, mellow, muddy, narrow, open, pale, quiet, round, shut, slack, slim, slow, smooth, sober, sour, steady, tame, tan, tense, thin, warm, yellow

Around 1200: a reanalysis(1) & gaddresst swa þe clene corn

`and so you gather the clear wheat.’ (Ormulum 1484-5, Holt edition)

(2) 3ho wass … Elysabæþ 3ehatenn `She was called Elisabeth.’ (Ormulum 115)

(3) & swa þe33 leddenn heore lif Till þatt te33 wærenn alde `and so they led their lives until they were old.’ (Ormulum 125-6)

(4) þin forrme win iss swiþe god, þin lattre win iss bettre. `Your earlier wine is very good, your later wine is better.’ (Ormulum 15409)

ASP > DLoss of object Case (Allen 1995)(1) þe cyng …. gyrnde heora fultumes

the king … desired their support-GEN‘The king wanted some of their support.’(Peterborough Chronicle 1087.37-39)

Loss of transitivizing prefixes(2) ærnan ‘to run’ > geærnan ‘to reach’

feran ‘to go’ > geferan ‘to reach’gan ‘to go' > gegan ‘to overrun, subdue'hyran ‘to hear’ > gehyran ‘to learn about’restan ‘to rest' > gerestan ‘to give rest'winnan ‘to labor, toil' > gewinnan ‘to gain, conquer'wadan ‘to go’ > gewadan ‘to traverse’

Loss of ge-:The Peterborough Chronicle divided in 10 equal parts with numbers of ge-

and aspectual prefix loss (Brinton 1988)

adruwian ‘dry up’ aswapan ‘sweep off, clean’bedrincan ‘absorb’ belucan ‘enclose’forswelgan ‘swallow up’ formeltan ‘melt away’forðbringan ‘produce’ forðsiþian ‘go forth, die’fulfremman ‘fulfill’ fullbetan ‘satisfy’oflætan ‘give up’ oftredan ‘tread down’oferhelian ‘conceal’ ofergan ‘overrun’tobeatan ‘beat apart’ tosyndrian ‘separate’þurhtrymman ‘corroborate’ þurhdreogan ‘carry through’ymbhringan ‘surround’ ymbhycgan ‘consider’

Perfective and object affectedness:v and D take over from ASP

vP > vPv’ v’

v ASPP v VPcause DP ASP’ [i-asp]V DP

-i GEN ASP VP D NP

ge- V’ [u-asp][i-pf] V DP

Interim conclusion 1What does AS tell us:

Few mistakes in acquisitionDiachronic instability in the expression of v/ASP but very predictable change:

unaccusative > causativeunergative > transitiveAspect is stable

Next: copulas and psych-verbs

Change to copulas etc...

Curme (1935: 66-8): 60 copulas in English; “no other language shows such a vigorous growth of copulas” (67). Visser (1963: 213-9) lists over a 100 for the various stages.Unaccusative > copulaappear, become, fall, go, grow, turn, wane, break, last, remain, rest, stay, continue

Interim conclusion 2Unaccusative > causativeUnaccusative > copula Theme is stable

Old > Modern English: a reanalysis of the aspect features. Although the basic syntactic tree remains the same, there are minor changes in the v and ASP and which lexical elements occupy them.

Now: instability of Theme

ObjExp SuExpfæran/fear OE-1480 1400-nowlician/like OE-1800 1200-nowloathe OE-1600 1200-nowmarvel 1380-1500 1380-nowrelish 1567-1794 1580-now

Loss of causative –i-: many Exp verbs are causative and therefore reanalyzed fǽran < *f rjan æ̂� `frighten’

`Last’ ObjExp with `fear’(1) Þe fend moveþ þes debletis to fere Cristene

[men] fro treuþe. `The enemy moves these devils to frighten Christian men from the truth.’(MED, a1425 Wycl.Serm. Bod 788 2.328)

(2) Thus he shal yow with his wordes fere. `Thus, he’ll frighten you with his words.’ (MED, Chaucer TC 4.1483)

The addition of result/instrument in ObjExp emphasizes Change of State in the later stages.

First SuExp with `fear’(1) Fele ferde for þe freke(z), lest felle hym þe worre.

`Many feared for the man lest the worst happened to him.’

(MED, c1390 Gawain Nero A.10 1588)(2) I fere me þat I shuld stond in drede.

`I fear that I shall stand in dread.’(MED, a1500 Play Sacr. Dub 652 218)

The ambiguity depends on whether the postverbal pronoun is seen as a reflexive or not. Thus, it is not clear whether (2) means `I frighten myself that ...’ or `I fear that ...’

ChangesMany of the OE ObjExp are productive causatives:a-hwænan `vex, afflict’, gremman `enrage’, a-bylgan `anger’, swencan `harrass’, a-þrytan `weary’, wægan `vex’, and wyrdan `annoy’.

So, does the loss of the causative in ferian cause reanalysis? Possibly with ferian but not with marvel and relish.

Reanalysis

Renewal of Object Experiencers

anger, scare 1200 Old Norseastonish 1375 uncleargrieve 1330 Frenchplease 1350 Anglo-Normanirritate 1531 Latinstun 1700 internal change worry 1807 internal change

New ObjExp: new v-Cause(1) Suche daunsis, whiche‥dyd with vnclene

motions or countinances irritate the myndes of the dauncers to venereall lustes. (1531 Elyot Bk. named Gouernouri. xix. sig. Kijv)

(2) Impiety‥doth embitter all the conveniencies and comforts of life. (a1677 I. Barrow Serm. Several Occasions 1678: 52)

(3) Which at first did frighten people more than any-thing. (1666 S. Pepys Diary 4 Sept VII 275)

Agent and Th > Th/Cause and Exp:reintroduction of cause-v

(1) a. They kill it [a fish] by first stunning it with a knock with a mallet. (OED 1662 J. Davies tr. A. Olearius Voy & Trav. Ambassadors 165)

b. The ball, which had been nearly spent before it struck him, had stunned instead of killing him. (OED, 1837 Irving Capt. Bonneville I. 271)

(2) Why doe Witches and old women, fascinate and bewitch children? (OED 1621 R. Burton Anat Melancholy i. ii. iii. ii. 127)

Current changes: ExpSu>Agent?(1) I am liking/loving/hating it.E.g. in COCA:(2) how I got guard duty and how I'm going to be

hating that and totally tired. (3) and I am liking what I see in the classrooms(4) lately we've been loving broccoli rabe, which (5) And so everybody in town was knowing that

this was happening (6) I've been fearing the answers.

Another v-change:

Cyclical change in psych-verbs

ObjExp

stun fear `frighten’

SuAg SubExpseeing/liking it

AcquisitionEve (Brown 1973) has SuExp like, love, want but not ObjExp anger, scare; her hurt is SuExp initially. Eve love crayon (1;9), want mommy letter (1;6),want watch (1;6), want mommy out (1;6), want lunch, want down, want mommy read (1;6) ... but: hurt xxx self (1;7), hurt knee (1;9), I hurt my finger (1;11)Sarah has early want (2;3), love (2;5), and hurt as in: I hurt again (2;9.6). Her scare is late at 3;7:to scare me on the dark (3;7.16)

So is cause-v late? Probably not:Weezer break my mirror (Tomasello 1992: 337,

T. 1;8.19)How come you had a little trouble going it?

(Bowerman 1974, C. 3:5)

Ryan (2008; 2012) shows how the Theme emerges first, e.g. drop, fall, up etc. are the first predicates.

That may be why the ObjExp is reanalyzed as SuExp.

Linguistic conclusions

Changes: Unaccusative > causative (labile and light verbs)

Unergative > transitiveUnaccusative > copula

Increase in light verbs and particlesIncrease in lability: 80 > 800Changes in the light v inventory but vP shell is

stablePsych-verb and copula: Theme is crucial and

stable

Conceptual Structure?Aspectual +/-telic, +/- durative is pervasiveVerbs always have a Theme argument but they don’t always have an Agent or Causer. The latter are introduced by optional light verbs which may be overt or not. The vP shell is stable and may show the conceptual structure with an emphasis on aspect and theta-roles.

(Some) ReferencesAllen, Cynthia. 1995. Case marking and reanalysis. OUPBorer, Hagit 2005. In Name Only. OUP.Brinton, Laurel. 1988. The Development of English Aspectual Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Gelderen, Elly van 2011. Valency Changes. JHL 1.1: 106-143.Gelderen, Elly van 2014. Changes in Psych-Verbs. CJL 13: 99-122.Hale, Ken & Keyser, Samuel Jay. 2002. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. MIT Press.Jackendoff, Ray 1987. Consciousness and the Computational Mind. MIT Press.Lavidas, Nikolaos 2013. Null and cognate objects and changes in (in)transitivity: Evidence from the history of English. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 60.1: 69-106.Leiss, Elisabeth. 2000. Artikel und Aspekt. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity. MIT Press.Lohndal, Terje 2014. Phrase structure and argument structure. OUP.McMillion, Allan. 2006. Labile Verbs in English. Stockholm PhD.Pinker, Steven 1989. Learnability and Cognition. MIT Press.Ryan, John 2012. The Genesis of Argument Structure. Lambert AP.