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)

(2)

wilted lettuce, fallen leaves, collapsed tent, burst

water pipes, vanished civilizations
*cried child, laughed clown, flown pilot

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)
(ii)

movement that implies the presence of an

agentive animate argument and
non-agentive movement.

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