The Syntax of Root Clauses (5)

Intransitive Predicates
A split in the class of intransitive verbs
Intransitive predicates are one-argument predicates.

Q: Do intransitive verbs behave as a unitary class?
A: The short answer to this question is No. The topic of
todays class is (i) to identify the two main classes of
intransitive predicates and (ii) to present all the tests
that support the division of intransitive predicates in
two main classes.
A split in the class of intransitive verbs
Let us start off with a couple of examples.

Fall and work qualify as intransitive predicates, i.e. their
argument structure requires the presence of one
argument, the subject.

Q1: Can we use both these verbs in existential sentences
in which there is the formal subject?

A split in the class of intransitive verbs
Existential there-sentences

There fell a shooting star from the sky.
*There worked many men on this project.

A: No, we cannot. Fall is perfectly comfortable in an
existential there sentence, but work just doesnt work
in this type of syntactic context.


A split in the class of intransitive verbs
Q2: Are there other syntactic contexts that allow for the
occurrence of some, but not all intransitive
predicates?
A2: Yes, there are.

Noun modification
(3) Satan is a fallen angel.
(4) *The worked man felt awfully tired.



A split in the class of intransitive verbs
Adjectives derived from the past participle of verbs like
fall may be used as noun modifiers, i.e. the pre-nominal
attribute in (3).
Adjectives derived from the past participle of verbs like
work cannot be noun modifiers.

Resultative phrases
Q: Wait a sec, what is a resultative phrase?
A: An AP or PP that denotes the final state in which the
direct object of a predicate may find itself.

A split in the class of intransitive verbs
(5) The boxer beat his opponent [
AP
black and blue].
(6) John slammed the door [
AP
shut].
(7) The kid broke the vase [
PP
to pieces].

In (5), the opponent of the boxer ended up black and
blue. In (6), the door remained shut after being
slammed. In (7), the vase came to be in pieces as the
result of the kid having smashed it. The bracketed
phrases are resultative phrases.

A split in the class of intransitive verbs
Freeze and swim are intransitive predicates. Yet, only
freeze may be followed by a resultative phrase.

(8) The lake froze solid.
(9) *Dont expect to swim sober!
(as in dont expect to become sober as a result of having
swum a bit).
A split in the class of intransitive verbs
The locative inversion

We know that English sentences must start off with a
subject. Yet, in some cases, we have the option of
beginning a sentence with an adverbial of place.
(10) [
PP
Down the hill] rolled the speeding car.
(11) [
PP
from the lips of this poor soft-brained
creature] issued a flow of beautiful words (Levin
& Rappaport 1995).
A split in the class of intransitive verbs
Okay, roll and issue are intransitive predicates. And
they occur in locative inversion sentences. Note,
however, that not any intransitive predicate has this
option.

(12) *[
PP
Over his head] cried Marys mother.
(13) *[
PP
Into the pantry] ran the frightened child.
A split in the class of intransitive verbs
The causative alternation
involves the existence of pairs of intransitive and
transitive predicates in which the direct object of the
transitive verb and the subject of the intransitive verb
have the same thematic role.
(14) a. Pat broke the window.
b. The window broke. The window = Theme
(15) a. The general sank the ship.
b. The ship sank. The ship = Theme

A split in the class of intransitive verbs
There are verbs that cannot take part in the transitive
alternation.
(16) a. The children played.
b. *The teacher played the children.
(17) a. The comedian laughed.
b. *The comedian laughed the audience.
(18) a. The thief ran.
b. *The police ran the thief.

A split in the class of intransitive verbs

It looks like intransitive predicates do not behave
uniformly. The possibility of occurrence in (i)
existential there-sentences, (ii) noun modification
position, (iii) resultative phrases, (iv) the locative
inversion and (iv) the causative alternation makes us
realize that we need to posit a split in the class of
intransitive predicates. There are those that are
compatible with (i) (v) and those that are not.
The split has a name
Some intransitive predicates behave as if their unique
argument resembles a direct object rather than a
prototypical subject. This is the case of fall, freeze, roll
and intransitive break. Intuitively, the subjects of these
verbs behave like Patients / Themes.

Other intransitive predicates have the prototypical
Agent subject. We are talking about work, swim, cry,
play, laugh and run.

The split has a name
Perlmutter (1978) refers to the first category by the term
unaccusative predicates and to the second category by
the term unergative predicates. We will adopt this
terminology from now on.

Before we move on, we will make an inventory of the
sub-classes of unaccusative and unergative predicates
(listed from Perlmutter 1978, Avram 2003, 170-171).
Unaccusative verbs
1. Inchoative verbs: melt, freeze, evaporate, redden,
yellow, rot, decompose, germinate, sprout, bud, wilt,
wither, increase, decrease, blush, explode, die,
perish, choke, suffocate, open, close, scatter,
disperse, fill, vanish, disappear.
2. Verbs of existence: exist, occur, happen, take place,
result
3. Aspectual predicates: begin, commence, start, stop,
cease, continue, end, resume, halt, proceed, terminate
Unaccusative verbs
4. Verbs that denote non-voluntary emission of stimuli
that impinge on sense): shine, sparkle, glitter,
glisten, glow, jingle, clink, clang, snap, crackle, pop,
smell, stink
5. Other verbs that denote non-volitional acts: burn, fall,
drop, sink, slide, slip, glide, soar, flow, ooze, seep,
trickle, drip, gush, hang, dangle, sway, wave, tremble,
shake, languish, flourish, thrive, drown, stumble, trip,
roll, dry, boil, seethe, bend (involuntary)
Unergative predicates
1. Predicates that involve volitional acts: work, play,
speak, talk, smile, grin, frown, grimace, think,
meditate, daydream, skate, ski, swim, hunt, bicycle,
walk, skip, jog, fight, wrestle, box, agree, disagree,
knock, bang, hammer, weep, cry, laugh, dance
2. Manner of speaking verbs: whisper, shout, mumble,
grumble, growl, bellow
3. Verbs that denote sounds animals make: bark, neigh,
quack, roar, chirp, oink
4. Verbs that denote involuntary body processes: cough,
sneeze, belch, burp, vomit, sleep, cry, weep
Explaining terminology

Q: Where does the term unaccusative come from?
A: We have said that unaccusative predicates have
subjects that take on the thematic property of direct
object, i.e. the property of being a Patient / Theme. To
account for this property, it has been proposed that these
subjects actually start their life in the sentence in the
direct object position. This means that (19) starts off, at
the level of argument structure, as (20).

Explaining terminology
(19) The snow melted in the street.
(20) Melted the snow in the street.

We figure that (20) cannot stay like this for two reasons:
(i) the verb is intransitive, which means it has no
accusative case to give to its thematic direct object
(ii) English sentences must begin with an overtly
realized subject.
So, from (20) we obtain (19).
Explaining terminology
Unaccusative as a term means that the verb has a deep
structure object to which it cannot give Acc case.

Unaccusative verbs are also called ergative.

Now you can figure out that the term unergative
predicate refers to a predicate that is not ergative,
therefore a predicate that is not unaccusative.
Differences bewteen unaccusative
and unergative predicates
Subject in or out of control

Prototypically, the direct object argument of transitive
verbs takes on thematic roles such as Patient or Theme.
Neither Patient, nor Themes are understood as being
responsible for the event denoted by the verb, i.e. no
agentive interpretation.
If unaccusative verbs have derived subjects, this means
that those subjects will never be interpreted as being
agentive.
Differences bewteen unaccusative
and unergative predicates
Consider (21):

(21) a. John fell off the roof.
b. The little girl with matches froze in the street.
c. The message issued from an unreliable source.
Q: What about the interpretation of the underlined
subjects?
Differences bewteen unaccusative
and unergative predicates
It would not be reasonable to believe that the subjects of
the sentences in (21) have any control on the event
denoted by the verb.
(i) John did not fall deliberately off the roof,
(ii) the little girl did not choose of her own accord to
freeze to death,
(iii) the message did not issue deliberately from the
source (rather, somebody issued it deliberately).
Differences bewteen unaccusative
and unergative predicates
Now contrast (21) to (22):

(22) a. The little girl shouted out loud.
b. John swam across the Channel.
c. The lab rat ran away quickly.

Q: What about the interpretation of the underlined
subjects?
Differences bewteen unaccusative
and unergative predicates
All the verbs in (22) denote events for which the
subjects are responsible
(i) The little girl shouted out loud to make herself
heard.
(ii) John swam across the Channel to break the latest
record.
(iii) The lab rat ran away for a reason.
Therefore, these subjects that are in control behave as
Agents rather than Patients or Themes.
Differences bewteen unaccusative
and unergative predicates
Internal vs external argument

If we think of our two types of intransitive verbs, we
could say that unaccusatives select only for a sort of
internal argument, i.e. the derived subject.

Unergatives, on the other hand, select for a prototypical
external argument. This way, a new difference emerges
between the two classes of intransitives.



Differences bewteen unaccusative
and unergative predicates
Telic vs atelic

Telic situation types are directed towards a
goal/outcome, that is, they have a culmination point.
The goal may be intrinsic to the event, in this case
constituting its natural endpoint, as it is with
accomplishments and achievements (e.g. break).
Atelic situations, on the other hand, are not directed
towards a goal (e.g. drink).
Differences bewteen unaccusative
and unergative predicates
If a verb has an internal argument, the event denoted by
that verb may be telic because the internal argument
acts as a means to delimit the event and therefore give it
an endpoint.
The examples in (24) are meant to show that, at least in
very many cases, the presence of internal arguments
determines the telicity of an event.
(24) a. Johns thugs robbed the convenience store.
b. The man tried to eat 10 hotdogs in 2 minutes.
Differences bewteen unaccusative
and unergative predicates
Note that telic events are not limited to events
(i) that are under the control of an Agent as in (25a)
(ii) that have a visible internal argument as in (25b)

(25) a. The rock fell to the ground.
b. The man froze to death.
Differences bewteen unaccusative
and unergative predicates
In (25a) there is a final point given by the expression to
the ground, but the subject is not an Agent.
In (25b) the verb freeze does not have an internal
argument, and yet the event denoted by the verb gets a
telic interpretation.

Both fall and freeze are unaccusative verbs. They refer
to telic events the same way transitive verbs (with
internal arguments) might denote telic events.
Differences bewteen unaccusative
and unergative predicates
Q: How unergative verbs behave with respect to
telicity?

(26) a. John shouted out loud.
b. They swim in the lake outside the city
every Friday.
c. They cried when they found out the news.
Differences bewteen unaccusative
and unergative predicates

A: None of the verbs in (26) have that natural endpoint
that gives telicity. Shouting, swimming or crying can be
prolonged indeterminately. One cannot say that, after
shouting for let us say ten minutes, one has shouted and
is done with that. The same applies to swimming and
crying.
Unergative verbs denote atelic events.
NB
The telic / atelic distinction does not completely overlap
with the unaccusative / unergative one.

Remember that verbs of existence and verbs that denote
non-voluntary emission of stimuli that impinge on
sense classify as unaccusatives. However, these verbs
do not refer to telic events.
In fact, only unaccusatives that refer to change of state
are telic.
There-sentences and unaccusatives
Unaccusative verbs occur in existential there sentences.
Unergative verbs are not grammatically correct in these
sentences. Compare (1) and (2) to this extent:
(1) a. There appeared a strange man in the room.
b. There exists a way out of this deadlock.
c. There happened an accident on road 96.
(2) a. *There walked 3 gunmen out of the bank.
b. *The played lots of children in the park.
c. *There sneezed a student in my class.
There-sentences and unaccusatives
It looks like not all unaccusatives are correct when used
in there-sentences.
Q: What can we make of the examples in (3)?

(3) a. *There disappeared a child from the house.
b. *There dried all the flowers in the vase.
c. *There drowned a man in the ocean.
d. *There burned down a house in my
neighbourhood.
There-sentences and unaccusatives
A: If we try to find out what all the verbs in (3) have in
common, we will discover that all of them denote a
change of state. If we check the verbs in (1), we observe
that none of those verbs are change of state.

Conclusion: unaccusative verbs are grammatical in
existential there sentences on condition that they do not
denote a change of state.
There-sentences and unaccusatives
Q: Why is it the case that unaccusative verbs are
grammatical in existential there-sentences but
unergative verbs fail to do so?
A: We have remarked upon the fact that the subject of
unaccusative verbs have the semantic properties of a
direct object and, because of this, we may well
believe that the subjects of unaccusatives start out in
post-verbal position, i.e. the position assigned by
default to direct objects. The logical subject in there-
sentences is post-verbal.
There-sentences. NB.
There-sentences come in two guises (Milsark 1974,
Avram 2003).
First type: there-sentences that denote the existence of
an entity (possibly at a certain location) and co-occur
only with unaccusative verbs.

Second type: there-sentences that do not co-occur with
unaccusatives only, but might also show up with
unergative predicates the run class (see (4)).
There-sentences. NB.
(4) The run class (Burzio 1986, Avram 2003)
Amble, climb, crawl, creep, dance, dart, flee, float, fly,
gallop, head, hobble, hop, hurtle, jump, leap, march,
plod, prance, ride, roam, roll, run, rush, sail, shuffle,
skip, speed, stagger, step, stray, stride, stroll, strut,
swim, trot, trudge, walk.

(5) There darted into the room a little boy.
(example from Avram 2003).
There-sentences. NB.
Word order in the first type of there-sentences
(6) There V NP PP
(7) a. There stood three men in the room.
b. *There stood in the room three men.
Word order in the second type of there-sentences
(8) There V PP NP
(9) a. There darted into the room a little boy.
b. ?*There darted a little boy into the room.