The introduction and thematic licensing of external arguments
Creators: name: Mitchley, Hazel Jean
Publisher: name: No Publisher Supplied
Year: 2023

description: A variety of linguistic functions are often attributed to Voice: it has been credited with introducing the theta role for the external argument ('theta-licensing' the external argument), merging the external argument in its specifier, checking accusative case on the internal argument (Kratzer 1996) and delimiting a phase boundary (Chomsky 2001). However, a close examination of a wide variety of constructions across different languages reveals that the theta-licensing of the external argument does not seem to go hand-in-hand with the other three functions attributed to Voice. This dissertation therefore argues for the bifurcation of VoiceP into two distinct projections. The lower one, which I call the theta-Licensing Phrase (LP) is responsible for theta-licensing the external argument – i.e. it introduces a lambda bound variable associated with a theta role. The higher projection, VoiceP, is where this variable is then either lexically saturated (a DP merges in the specifier of active VoiceP) or existentially bound (by the passive Voice head). Based on data from transitivization - specifically cases where transitive verbs are derived from unaccusative verbs - I show that the transitivizing head cannot be a realization of Voice, not under a Kratzerian view, where Active and Passive Voice are different versions of Voice, nor under a Voice-layering analysis of Voice, à la Bruening (2013) and Alexiadou et al. (2015), where Active Voice retains all of the functions traditionally attributed to it, but instead of alternating with Passive Voice, is selected by a Passive head when the verb is passivized. I also show that the transitivizing head is not v or Cause, and therefore conclude that it must be the realization of a distinct head which is responsible for thematically introducing the external argument. I show that this distinction has implications for Pylkkänen's (2002/2008) typology of causatives, as the complement of Cause can include the head which theta-licenses the causee (the external argument of the caused event), but lack properties associated with phasehood. I thus argue that phasehood does not come concomitant with the theta-licensing of the external argument, and that delimiting a phase boundary should remain the purview of a higher head. Finally, I show that the LP/VoiceP bifurcation accounts for one of the major defining properties of Complex Event Nominals. Complex Event Nominals (CENs) are deverbal nominals which retain event structure and argument structure. One of the defining characteristics of CENs is that the IA is obligatory; the EA, on the other hand, is always optional. Some analyses of CENs account for this EA/IA asymmetry by arguing that the nominalizing head, n, merges before the EA has been thematically licensed, and thus the EA is not required. However, I show that CENs in English, Japanese and Kinande all pass the diagnostic tests for agentivity, which suggests that the EA is fact theta-licensed below the n head. I then provide evidence which shows that the n head does not embed Voice in these nominals, and argue that the EA/IA asymmetry arises from the fact that although EA is theta-licensed below n, there is no argument position (Spec-VoiceP) where it can merge. This then supports the distinction between a projection which theta-licenses the EA (the LP) and one which provides the argument position (VoiceP). Furthermore, the fact that accusative case is not available for the IA in CENs suggests that the case-assigning function which is traditionally associated with the EA-introducing head (cf. Kratzer 1996) is a property of Voice, rather than L.