出版社：Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto
摘要：In this paper, we compare the English causative verbs, have and make. From the examples in (1), it appears that the syntactic category of the complement clause might be identical for have and make -- with the only real difference being the degree of authority assumed by the matrix subject. However, we will argue that in fact these two verbs differ at all levels of the grammar. We will focus on differences between the two verbs at the level of argument structure and at the level of syntactic structure. Specifically, have, but not make, forms a complex predicate with the embedded verb in the argument structure, and consequently, have, but not make, selects a VP complement in the syntax. In fact, with respect to complement selection, the causative use of have is like the auxiliary use of have: both take a VP complement (cf. Kayne, 1989). We will present evidence showing that make selects an AgrP complement, (i.e. the functional projection immediately dominating VP, which Pollock (1989) has called AgrP). (1) a. John had Bill read the article. b. John made Bill read the article. (Before we go any further we should also make it clear that we are using the term clausal complement to refer to the complement of the causative verb, regardless of its category label. In other words, we are calling both the VP embedded under have, and the AgrP embedded under make, clausal.) In addition, we will argue that the difference in the syntactic category of the complement to have and make follows directly from a difference in the argument structure representations of the two verbs. In particular, have forms a complex predicate with the embedded verb. This complex predicate has a single argument structure which contains all the arguments of both verbs. On the other hand, make does not form a complex predicate with its complement verb. The argument arrays of these two verbs remain independent. The differences in the argument structure representations derive from a crucial difference in the LCS representations of have and make. Make, like most verbs, specifies as part of its meaning whether it is a state or an event. In contrast, have lacks this type of specification. This defect in the meaning of have forces complex predicate formation.
