Verb Types(90) e = e 1 : e 1 = ‘Fred fears the dark’
If there is an isomorphism between event structure and VP structure and (90) is the
correct analysis of the event structure involving an experiencer subject transitive verb,
then (87b) appears to be the correct structure of the VP.
However, an obvious disadvantage of (87b) is that the theme is placed in the
complement position which is counter to what we have previously discovered. If the
theme goes in the specifier of the thematic verb, then there is no alternative than to
include the experiencer in a higher position which would mean adding an abstract light
verb. A further disadvantage of (87b) is that transitive verbs with experiencer subjects
can be passivised. We have analysed passivisation as a process which removes the
light verb responsible for the assignment of the -role to the subject and the Case to
the object, replacing it with the passive morpheme. If there is no light verb responsible
for assigning the experiencer -role, it is not at all clear how these verbs could
undergo passivisation: what would the passive morpheme replace and why would the
experiencer -role and accusative Case go missing? Moreover, the passivisation of
these verbs casts doubt on the assumption that they have a simple event structure.
Passivisation of agentive verbs by getting rid of the agentive light verb turns a verb
with a complex event structure into one with a simple one:
(91) a Harry hit Ron
e = e 1 Æ e 2 : e 1 = ‘Harry did something’
e 2 = ‘Ron was hit’
b Ron was hit
e = e 1 : e 1 = ‘Ron was hit’
But if experiencer transitive verbs have a simple event structure and we remove the
experiencer, what are we left with? Surely we cannot be left with half an event! This
would argue that the event structure of experiencer transitives is similar to that of
agentive transitives:
(92) a Fred fears the dark
e = e 1 Æ e 2 : e 1 = ‘Fred experiences something’
e 2 = ‘the dark is feared’
b the dark is feared
e = e 1 : e 1 = ‘the dark is feared’
To argue for this in any depth, however, would take us beyond the scope of this book
and into areas such as psychology and philosophy. Therefore we will assume this to be
the case, based on the linguistic arguments so far presented.
2.4.4 Multiple light verbs
If we assume that experiencers are assigned their -roles in the specifier position of a
light verb, we face a problem in analysing verbs with agent and experiencer arguments
as in (88). What is puzzling about these verbs is how they can exist at all, given our
assumption that agent and experiencer receive their -roles in the same position. The
only analysis available to us, if we wish to maintain the UTAH, is to assume that there
are two light verbs in these constructions, one for the agent and one for the
experiencer: