P. 1
complementation intreg

# complementation intreg

|Views: 64|Likes:

See more
See less

01/11/2012

pdf

text

original

# 1 COMPLEMENTATION  1.1. Aim of the course.

Topics covered A presentation of the English complementation system, within the general framework of Chomsky's Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995, 1998, 1999). Range of description: the domain of complement clauses point of view Complement clauses (informal definition): subordinate clauses which function as arguments of predicates (subjects, objects). Complement clauses: a) that-clauses b) infinitive clauses c) ing-complements (gerunds, participial constructions). (1) a. He considered that it was a mistake. b. He considered it to be a mistake. c. He considered accepting their offer.  1. 2. Classification of subordinate clauses  A) The structural criterion ( informally , the nature of the introductory element: a complementizer, a relative/interrogative pronoun, a subordinative conjunction). If (most) subordinate clauses are CPs, the structural criterion concerns the type of constituents that fills the CP projection). Three types o subordinates may be identified: 1) Complement clauses: the introducer is a complementizer (C0), an abstract element whose role is to partly nominalize a clause, turning it into an argument of a predicate. a. It is spring. CP b. ...that it is spring c. I can feel that it is string C IP d. Everybody is aware that it is spring. | DP I’ that I C0 à that, for, whether, if C0 --[IP …I0 [+finite]… ] that C0 --[IP …I0 [-finite]… ] for C0 --[IP …I0 [± finite]… ] whether Complement clauses are clauses introduced by complementizers, which function as arguments of predicates. Predicates (verbs, adjectives, nouns, prepositions) c-select and s-select complements, and their subcategorial properties are listed in the lexicon. A) The structural criterion 2) Wh-complements are subordinate clauses introduced by relative or interrogative phrases (pronouns, determiners, adverbs) which move to Spec, C. a. relative clauses (nominal modifiers) Wh- complements b. interrogative complements c. cleft-sentences c1) pseudo-clefts or wh-clefts c2) it-clefts (3) a. the man on whom people have pinned their hopes/ Whoever will come will be well-received. (free relative clause) (2)

2 COMPLEMENTATION b. c1. c2. I wonder on whom they are pinning their hopes in this disaster. What she needs is a good job. It is him who brought about the whole disaster

Subject clauses: c. [That Mary was going out with him] bothered you. d. Who did [that Mary was going out with him] bother ?  B) The functional criterion Adjunct clauses Mary was bothered because Peter discussed her past. *What was Mary bothered [ because Peter discussed t ]? From other points of view, subjects and objects, which are arguments of predicates, have characteristic properties, not true of adjuncts. The Extraposition +It Insertion construction is characteristic of subjects and objects, not of adjuncts. (6) a. It was suggested to them that they should sell the house as soon as possible. b. He owes it to his father’s influence that the committee appointed him to this position.  C) The type of licensing involved This criterion concerns the semantic integration of the subordinate within the main clause. a) argumental clauses are θ -licensed (complements, adverbials) b) clauses licensed as predicates on an element of the main clause. This element functions as the subject of predication. (e.g., relative clauses are predicates on their antecedents). (7) The man who was wearing the straw hat looked exhausted. Goals: a) an explanatory account

3 COMPLEMENTATION b) a descriptively complete account, even if surely not exhaustive  Goals a. an explanatory account b. a descriptively complete account, even if surely not exhaustive  Practical skills a. identifying the complex sentence patterns of English b. a good command of the distribution of these patterns. c. understanding the relation between meaning and structure for the patterns studied d. skills a), b), c) are required in any form of manipulating these patterns: paraphrasing, translating, editing, etc.  2. 1 Plato's problem and the GB program  Distinctive features of the GB model 1. GB is modular (Modules of GB: X' Theory, θ - theory, Binding and Control, Case Theory, Move α ) 2. Through its Move α module, GB, contains a very unconstrained transformational component, because, in principle, Move α allows any category to move anywhere at any time. Possible problem: overgeneration, hence the need of filtering away incorrect representations 3. GB has four levels of representation at which various conditions are applied to filter out illicit structures: D-Structure (DS), S -Structures (SS), Logical Form (LF), and Phonological Form (PF). 4. The central grammatical relation in GB is government. This relation is what lends formal unity to otherwise rather diverse subcomponents.  Aim of GB: finding a suitable answer to Plato's problem; its success deoends on proposing plausible accounts of language variation and language acquisition.  New problem: Which of the conceivable PP models is best, and the issue is in part addressed, using conventional (not uniquely linguistic) criteria of theory evaluation.  2.2 General design of the Minimalist Program (MP) Chomsky currently considers the following questions: How well is FL designed ? How close does language come to optimal design ? More narrowly, the MP seeks to discover to what extent minimal conditions of adequacy (=success at the interfaces) suffice to determine the nature of the right theory.

if it consists solely of elements that provide instructions to that external level. the structural descriptions of a sentence / expression is . The presence of objects which are not interpretable at an interface causes a derivation to crash.3. (9)The organization of a GB Grammar Lexicon D-Structure Move α (Affect α ) S-Structure Logical Form Phonological Form (10)The organization of an MP Grammar Lexicon (Spell-out) Logical Form Phonological Form Grammar still associates structural descriptions with each sentence /expression. PF and LF can be conceived of as those parts of the linguistic system which provide instructions to the performance systems. we can ask how well the language organ satisfies the design specifications they impose.4 COMPLEMENTATION The program addresses the question of what conditions are imposed on the linguistic system by virtue of its interaction with the performance systems. S-Structure. i. Design of the MP Bare output conditions An expression converges at an interface level. a) The Articulatory-Perceptual System (A-P) b) the Conceptual-Intentional System (C-I). providing legible representation at the interface. In so far as we can discover the properties of these systems. Logical Form. But instead of associating a sentence/ expression with four representation (D-Structure. There are two linguistic levels which interface with performance modules.e. (8) Strong Minimalist Thesis Language is an optimal answer to legibility conditions (cf. Chomsky 1998)  2. thus being legible for the respective external level. Phonological Form). A-P and C-I: these are PF and LF respectively.

The following procedures are involved in building expressions: (12) (i) Select lexical items from the lexicon ( a Lexical Array. β ) and forms the new object (K (α . λ is an LF representation interpreted at the conceptual-intentional (C-I) interface. the head. The principle of endocentricity is still present in as much as. Merge. From X'-Theory to Bare Phrase Structure  Defining Merge Merge takes two syntactic objects (α . Merge is the basic combinatorial device for obtaining complex objects out of simpler or basic ones. The computational system (narrow syntax) consists of a few trivial operations Select. of the two items that combine.λ ). . P) and functional (C. 2. λ ).). The MP seeks a maximally simple design for language. Structure of an (I)-language: A lexicon and a computational procedure  3. π is a PF representation interpreted at the articulatory perceptual (A-P) interface. Select is involved in the initial choice of the Numeration. V. Move.5 COMPLEMENTATION now a pair of representations (π . the linguistic levels are taken to be only those conceptually necessary -namely PF and LF . where π is a PF representation interpreted at the articulatory perceptual (A-P) interface. Merge operates on pairs of elements chosen by Select and maps them from a pair into a single element with a more complex structure. one. and λ is an LF representation interpreted at the conceptual-intentional (C-I) interface. etc.  Conclusions 1. Given this view. a procedure for constructing or generating linguistic expressions using the items in the lexicon. β . Merge is obviously the analogue of X'-Theory. T D. A. 3. Merge. a pair (π . (14) Input Output α. β )) from them.1 The components of a language are a lexicon and a computational procedure for human languages CHL.meaning that that there are no (intermediate levels of D-Structure or S-Structure. K α β Since the possibility of Merge depends on the c-selectional/ s-selectional possibilities of the combining lexical items. and (more recently) Agree. Each expression is associated with a structural representation. as well as in providing pairs of objects that undergo Merge. Linguistic items fall into two main categories: substantive ( N. a Numeration) (ii) Map lexical items to expression.  4. that is. The relations of head-complement ( sister) and head-specifier continue to be available. is that which projects and transmits its lable.

5. the head projects. but also formal (grammatical features) (Person. Thus *We goes to school is ungrammatical because the Number feature on the subject does not match the number feature of the verbal inflection. Spell-Out Elements interpretable at the A-P interface (e. etc. which do not interact any further after the bifurcation. and the other forming λ . The only thing required under minimalist assumptions is a rule which splits the computation to form the distinct objects π and λ . the problem with there being a distinct level feeding PF and LF. The bare phrase structure theory adopted by the MP is represented by the operation Merge. formalizes the intuition that a strong feature is checked immediately and that it has visible effect (displacement). is that. The formal features of the lexical items must be checked during the derivation. After Spell-Out the lexicon will no longer be accessed. β )) from them. β ) and forms the new object K((α . semantic. Tense.2 Interpretable/Uninterpretable features . the computational system must then split into two parts. A strong feature must enter into a checking relation as soon as possible. a morphological subcomponent and it also deals with linearization. Chomsky (1993:22) dubs this operation Spell-Out. Merge takes two syntactic objects (α . one forming π . in addition to phonological rules proper. Endocentricity continues to function given that. as before.  6. Feature checking is thus an essential aspect of a derivation. PF contains. such as S-structure. S-structure was the point of this split in pre-minimalist versions of the PP theory. since it does not interface with any performance system . Gender. Intuitively. 6. so they must be eliminated in the overt component of Syntax by overt movement.6 COMPLEMENTATION Conclusions 1.). The analysis of strong (formal) features. 1995) Strong features illegible at PF.Types of features and feature checking  Why check? The items combined by Merge group features of different types: phonological. 2. and the items in the Numeration have been used up. At some point in the derivation. phonologic features) are not interpretable at the C-I interface. it is not conceptually necessary.g. 1993. From a minimalist perspective. and vice versa. of the two elements that merge. and the computation that obtains before Spell-Out is referred to as overt syntax. namely. The relations of head-complement and head-specifier are available.  6. one has to verify that each item is suitably placed in an expression. The computation from Spell-Out to LF is referred to as the covert component.(= ϕ -features). Number. 3. The computation from Spell-Out to PF is referred to as the Phonological Component. Case. only one. causing movement or insertion. Thus every substantive property attributed to S-Structure should be restated within the minimalist framework in either LF or PF terms.1 Strong/Weak features (Chomsky.

A feature like Case is always uninterpretable Number or Gender are interpretable on Nouns. Merge forms a new object by concatenating two objects that are separate phrase markers. a trace is a copy of the moved element which is deleted in the phonological component. of the same type. 7. (18) Move (from Kitahara (1997) Applied to the category Σ and α .1 Move Chomsky (1993) incorporates the copy theory of movement. A chain thus becomes a set of occurrences of a constituent in a constructed syntactic object. Move and Agree  7. chain reduction. Summarising. Chain reduction is the deletion at PF of all the copies in the chain. forming Σ ' Output: Σ ' (19) a. merge. α . Σ α Σ ' t(α ) 7.7 COMPLEMENTATION A feature is interpretable if it is legible at LF. According to the copy theory. If uninterpretable features are also "strong". therefore they must be erased before LF. Σ b. but the highest ( the head of the chain). phrases move to phrasal positions (A or A’). but is available for interpretation at LF. uninterpretable features must be eliminated as soon as possible. Move appears to be a complex operation comprised of copy. they are checked by overt movement and erased after checking. but uninterpretable on verbs. Uninterpretable features are not legible at LF. and finally. adjectives. (A slightly different description of strong uninterpretable features will be given in the next chapters). Input: Σ containing α . Move is defined as follows.1 Move While. Concatenate α and Σ . Following the same intuition. therefore they induce strict cyclicity. Therefore heads move to head positions. Move forms a new object by concatenating two objects that are in a single phrase marker. chain formation. Move forms Σ ' by concatenating α and Σ . Move observes the following two requirements: (i) Constituents always move ( to the left) to c-commanding positions. Interpretable features survive to LF and may be used several times in a derivation. It is possible to decompose Move into the simple operations of Copy and (re)merge.

the probe. 8. In the case of Agree. rendering movement unnecessary. α c-commands β d. which is the agreeing item and which is a head that possesses uninterpretable features and the goal a phrase or a head. Carstens (2000:149)). must be interpretable by the external performance systems.. Agree allows the checking and erasure of an uninterpretable feature. Economy Principles  Economy of representation is nothing other than the principle of Full Interpretation: every object at the interface must receive an "external" interpretation. Agree operates between a probe α and a goal β iff a. c. it is the closest that actually checks it. b. α has uninterpretable features. . which specifies that a constituent always travels the shortest possible distance.e. There is no closer potential goal γ such that α -commands γ commands b (25) α [-interpretable] (probe) β [+interpretable] (goal) (24) and γ c- Conclusion Move and Agree are alternative mechanisms of deleting uninterpretable features. The conditions governing Agree are summarized below (cf. According to this conception . so as to meet the legibility conditions of LF. which must be deleted for legibility. Agree Agree is a relation between two items. that if two candidates could check the same feature. β has identical interpretable features. by matching it with an identical feature of another item. in a sufficiently local domain. i.8 COMPLEMENTATION (ii) Locality The closest constituent that has the appropriate checkable feature is the one that moves. possessed of a feature that matches the feature of the agreeing head. or equivalently. Agree is driven by uninterpetable features of the probe. Locality becomes a built-in condition.2. matching of the features of the probe under identity with features of the goal is sufficient to delete the strong uninterpretable features on the probe. stated as the Minimal Link Condition or the Minimize Chain Links Condition. Full Interpretation thus determines the set of convergent derivations for a language.  7.

. LF) 2. the answer to which is the Strong Minimalist Thesis stated in (28)  (28) Language is an optimal answer to legibility conditions (cf. will. and the tensed modals may further raise to C0. I0 à Tense [± Agr] ^( Mood).e. may. occupies the position before the subject (C0): . Tense plus agreement features. properties of sound and meaning. b. the modal verbs: can. must. by “combining” the verbal stem and Tense affix during the derivation. thus entertaining formal relations with the predicate (the head . Inflection includes in addition to Tense and Agr . The only linguistically significant levels are the interface levels (PF.  (27) Shortest derivation Condition Minimize the number of operations necessary for convergence.. i. (1) (2) Sà NP ^ VP a. (1) Tense[+Agr] à s/ed The Stranded Affix Filter Tense is an affix which must be supported by a verbal root. (ii) or fall out in some natural way from the computational process THE STRUCTURE OF THE ENGLISH CLAUSE • 1. having only finite Tense froms. i. only when the C0 position is not filled by a complementizer.1 Inflection as the head of the sentence. where either the complementizer whether. Chomsky (1998)) Adopting the strong thesis has proved to have the following consequences: 1. as is apparent in the complementary distribution in (3) below. A clear indication that modals move to C0 is that I0-to-C0 takes place only in root clauses. When modals are present.9 COMPLEMENTATION  Economy of derivation requires fewer steps than in another permissible derivation. dare. The endocentricity of sentences 1. 3. or the modal auxiliary. The inclusiveness condition: No new features or symbols are introduce by CHL. Justification modals are defective.e. The interpretability condition: Linguistic items have no features other than those interpreted at the interface. The present or past form of a verb is derivationally produced. IPà DP ^ VP Inflection (I0) is considered the head of the sentence. Relations that enter into CHL either (i) are imposed by legibility conditions. 4. since it c-selects the VP and agrees with the subject DP. Instead of Conclusions  The novelty of the MP lies in its addressing the question of the optimal design of language. shall. I' à I0 ^ VP c. Modal auxiliaries In English.complement relation) and with the subject (the head-specifier relation). they support Tense. need.

He has bought a nice house. having b) Auxiliaries still have lexical uses. d) Emphatic stress (in emphatic assertions) Bob should not go there. He has not gone. he should go there. hasn’t he.2. he HAS read this. (8) IP I' . etc.  Dissimilarties between modals and auxiliaries a) Auxiliaries have a complete paradigm. shouldn’t he? He has read this. Aspect P. The projection of auxiliaries  Similarties between modals and auxiliaries (the NICE properties) a) Negation He should not go.  1. one might stress their functional nature and project them as heads of suitably labelled functional projections: Auxiliary Phrase.10 COMPLEMENTATION (3) a. modals are defective to be. under the VP. b) Interrogation Should he read this? Has he read this? c) Contracted sentences (tag-questions. Yes. Could [IP he ta be a fool]? b. *I asked you [CP whether could [IP he be a fool]] Aspectual auxiliaries (4) Aux → Tense (Modal ) ( have -en) (be-ing) Definition: An auxiliary is a verb that subcategorizes a VP. etc. Yes. with finite and non-finite forms. which c-select a VP (5) VP → V0 ^ VP (6) have → [ V[EN]] be → [V [ING] ] (7) IP I' I0 VP [+Past]V0 VP V' ed have V0+en b) Alternatively. I’m sure. a) One may treat them as lexical verbs. He has had a nice house  There are several manners of projecting auxiliaries. He has a nice house.) He should do it. I asked you [CP whether [IP he could be a fool]] c. Bob has not read this. unlike modals which are always functional. and cannot assign θ -roles.

e. adjoined to the VP. past the adverb often. to support the Tense affix. auxiliaries raise all the way up to C0. Example (9b) shows that the auxiliary have has raised out of the VP to T0. English a. English. (9) a. a. She has often visited the city. c. *He kisses often Mary. CP C' C0 I0 V0 I0 have+s she ta Has IP DP I' I0 AdvP often V0 VP VP VP ta V0 visited  Extended Projections An extended projection defines a domain of movement for the head (i. Embrasse-t-il souvent Marie ? V' DP him . d. IP DP She I' I0 V0 have I0 s VP AdvP often V0 ta VP VP visited the city  b) I-to-C An auxiliary that has moved to I0 can further continue to C0. b.. as shown in (9c). c. b. (11) French vs. b. Has she often visited the city ? b. He often kisses Mary. as shown in (10): (10) a. English lexical verbs remain in the VP.11 COMPLEMENTATION I0 [+Past] ed AuxP Aux' VP Aux0 have  The syntax of auxiliaries a) V-to-I In sentences where there are no modals. and then it may further move to C0. Il embrasse souvent Marie. She often visited the city. the highest auxiliary raises to Tense. the verb).

Verb Movement and Verbal Morphology The lexicalist analysis: Verbs enter the derivation fully inflected. the verb raises to Inflection (or the Inflectional heads) to check its features. In English the V-features are weak.e. as is apparent in the following types of well-known contrasts. If the inflectional features are strong. He often goes to movies. (16) Strong features surviving at PF cause the derivation to crash. Does he often kiss Mary? Conclusion The English clause has the following functional structure: (12) CP> IP >Vaux0 > VP I0 → Tense[+Agr]^(Modal) 2. The parametric difference between English and French is now expressed in a different manner. weak features do not. the verb does not raise overtly.  Auxiliaries One problem for this analysis of English is that English auxiliaries do raise to Tense0 and then to C0. The derivational account (bare stems +affixes) (13) TP T0 ed TP VP V walk T0 V0 The lexicalist account (inflected forms) (14) TP T0 [+Past] TP VP V walked VP V0 ed T0 VP V0 T0 walked [Past] The difference between English and French can be stated as follows (cf. and merely check their inflectional features against the functional heads. those that check features of V. (17) Delay an operation until LF whenever possible. He has often gone to movies.12 COMPLEMENTATION e *Kisses he often Mary ? f. Does he often go to movies ? .(The case of French). i. are strong. In French. whenever delaying would not cause the derivation to crash. the V-features. Strong features trigger overt movement. If the inflectional features are weak.  2. b. (18) a.. There is covert movement at LF English. c. that is. b.1. namely the strong/weak difference between inflectional V-features. Main verbs and auxiliary verbs again. Lasnik (1995)): (15) a.

Finite featural Inflection is strong in both French and English... allowing for person /number variation). if merger fails In sum. (24) ..Infl.  2. Inflection is affixal. as can be seen below: c.. This is the situation of be/ have/ do/ (modals) and all French verbs... . +F of Infl will not be checked. d) will arise. it will be a PF rule.3.. Af bare This is the case of a bare verb and an affixal Inflection (English main verbs). the gist of Lasnik's analysis is that lexical representation determines the type of Inflection.. affixal) is predictable from the type of lexical representation. the fundamental difference between English auxiliary and main verbs lies in the choice of the checking mechanism. (23) . Inflection will be featural. and the strength of features then determines whether feature checking takes place overtly or covertly.. (21) a. Lasnik re-states the difference between English auxiliaries and main verbs. but will lead to a crash. since +F is strong d. and all relevant features are checked. it is desirable that Tense should c-command the VP on which it operates.V.13 COMPLEMENTATION d. All other English verbs are bare in the lexicon. +F of V will not be checked +F *at PF also. Has he often gone to movies ?  2.2. If the lexicon lists inflected forms separately. b.. and the PF affixal requirement of Inflection is satisfied.. Two more configurations (25c.. Infl Af V *at LF. b. +F +F This configuration is well-formed.. In this configuration PF merger takes place as long as adjacency obtains.....Infl. The final necessary mechanism is Affix Hopping..Infl. Evidence for the hybrid approach : Verb Phrase Deletion (VPD) .. V raises (overtly) to Infl. since from the point of view of semantic interpretation. Inflection is freely either an affix or a set of abstract features. (22) Afix Hopping : Affixal Inflection must merge with a V. a PF process (distinct from head movement) demanding adjacency. b... Possible configurations a.. A Hybrid Approach (Lasnik 1995.V.. AH is morphophonemic.*at LF. (25) c. 1998) In the hybrid approach.. and between English and French as follows: (20) a.V. +F bare *at PF as well. if the lexicon contains the bare form of the verb. a difference that correlates with different types of lexical representations. Have and Be are fully inflected in the lexicon (possibly correlating with the fact that they are highly suppletive. The choice of Inflection type (featural.

as in (28a). and Mary will slept too. b. and Mary will sleep too. and Mary should too. and Mary will sleeping too. (26) a. Similar effects obtain with the auxiliary have. Peter will go to London and Mary will [e] too. John was sleeping. b. b. In (27a) the past tense form slept serves as antecedent for the deletion of the bare form sleep. (29) a. c. ?John should have left. John was here and Mary will be here too. * John was here. but Mary shouldn't have left. though seemingly parallel to (27). but Mary shouldn't (34) a. and Mary should sleeps too. and Mary will too. (35) Results on VPE The bare form of a verb V other than be or auxiliary have can be deleted under identity with any other form of V. as shown in (49): (31) (32) a. John sleeps. permitting tense and aspectual differences to be ignored. As Warner (1986) observes. and Mary should sleep too. c. and Mary will too. Warner (1986)): (27) a. Quirk e. Ellipsis is markedly better in (33) with identical forms of have than in (34) with distinct ones: (33) a. b. b. *John was here and Mary will was here too. and Mary will too. (30) a. but Mary shouldn't (have left). John slept and Mary will slept too. this difference does not follow directly from the degree of suppletion. c. ?John was sleeping. (36)) . John has left. John has slept and Mary will sleep too. c. John slept. *John is here. John has slept. *John has slept. The present tense form can also antecede the bare form. John should have left. and Mary will too. (1972). but Mary shouldn't-(have left). It appears that a sort of sloppy identity is at work here. *John sleeps every afternoon. nor can is antecede be. Be or auxiliary have can only be deleted under identity with the very same form. is unacceptable.a. leaving an auxiliary behind. (31a). Main Verbs VP ellipsis can ignore certain inflectional differences between the antecedent and the elided verb (cf. allowing deletion under sloppy identity (cf. b. and Mary will too. John slept. * John has left. Thus. b. requiring strict identity. (28) a. Peter should [buy the text book] and Mary should [e] too. Similarly the progressive and perfect forms can antecede the bare form. Auxiliary Verbs Ellipsis with auxiliaries is markedly different. yet the verb patterns with all the other main verbs considered above. b. and Mary will sleep too. The paradigm of go is highly suppletive. c. *John was sleeping. John sleeps every afternoon.14 COMPLEMENTATION VPD is a rule which deletes the second of two presumably identical lexical VPs. because was cannot antecede be.

Identical occurrences may be deleted in syntax. too Summing up: (41) a. Main verbs are represented with one bare form. by allowing deletion to take place at a point in the derivation where the inflected form of the main verb has not been created. 1. They come fully inflected into the derivation. John was sleeping. A form of a verb V can only be deleted under identity with the very same form. either as a bundle of abstract features or as an affix. Sag (1976) notices that all these cases could be accounted for by ordering VP deletion before Affix Hopping. Negative sentences  . and Mary will sleep too a. VP Deletion facts provide strong empirical support for the hybrid approach to English verb morphology. there is no such point in a derivation. and will simply check their inflectional features during the derivation.15 COMPLEMENTATION (36) John went. John went and now Mary will. They come uninflected into the derivation. such as that of Chomsky (1993).  3. and Mary will. and now Mary will sleep. convergent with the hybrid approach. described in (14) above. John Infl sleep. 3. and will merge with inflectional affixes during the derivation (Affix Hopping at PF). John was ing sleep. b. and now Mary will. and Mary will too. John was here and Mary will be here. and if deletion requires strictly identical forms. On a strictly lexicalist view. Forms of be and auxiliary have are introduced into syntactic structures already fully inflected. i. Sag's insight is.  Conclusion. Forms of "main" verbs are created out of lexically introduced bare forms and independent affixes. so that deletion actually operates on identical forms.. 4. Thus. (some of) the examples above are analysed as follows: (37) (38) (39) John slept. English verbal morphology can best be described by assigning different lexical representations to main verb and to auxiliary verbs. whereby English main verbs come from the lexicon as bare uninflected forms. and now Mary will sleep. *John was here and Mary will. and use it in the analysis of negation in English. since they are not formed in syntax out of Infl + be. a. Auxiliary verbs are represented with all their inflected forms in the lexicon. was or is will never be identical to be. the relevant differences is that between main verbs and auxiliaries. if auxiliaries come from the lexicon fully inflected. On the other hand. (Overt movement to functional heads). John has slept. We will adopt it. b. John has en sleep. too b. while inflected forms are produced at PF by Affix Hopping: Schematically.e. however. and now Mary will go. The lexical representation of the verbs determines the representation of Inflection. b. 2. (40) a.

It is instructive to compare pairs made of a negative sentence.2 The concept of negative sentence. isn’t she/* is she? b. b. dislike. *John is unhappy and Mary isn’t happy either. negative sentences take affirmative tags. is she/* isn’t she?  (43) . There are several tests. Neither tags require negative hosts. which is the head of the sentence. it was still raining. not only by virtue of its meaning. It is instructive to compare pairs made of a negative sentence. Under falling intonation on the tag question. Two co-ordinated sentences can have the form S1 and S2 only if the second is negative. due to Klima (1964). Mary is not happy/unhappy about her job. but also because of its syntactic properties. Types of negative sentences A sentences is negative. Mary is not happy/unhappy about her job. Jack stayed at home all day and Mary didn’t go any place either. Negative sentences have particular distributional properties. where negation is expressed by means of a negative word. Jack dislikes linguistics and so does Mary/ and neither does Mary. where negation is expressed by means of a negative word. taking scope over it.  3.  3. infelicitous. is negative. (42) He came to the party not long ago.16 COMPLEMENTATION  3. when its Inflection. There are several tests. Not -even tag sentences require a negative host sentence: (44) a. mostly prefixes: unhappy. which identify them as such. Under falling intonation on the tag question. but also because of its syntactic properties.  a. and a nearly synonymous sentence. d. due to Klima (1964).1 Negation may affect different types of constituents in a sentence. c. negative sentences take affirmative tags. didn't he? Not far away.realized by means of negative affixes. in other words. Either conjoining. Mary is happy/unhappy about her job. not even pretty ones. which identify them as such. Tag questions. A sentence is negative when its predicate is negated. b) phrasal negation: the negation not may adjoin to any phrase. Affirmative sntences are followed by so-tags (46) a. George dislikes smart girls even pretty ones /*not even pretty ones. (45) a. Types of negative sentences A sentences is negative. and it is useful to distinguish between the following types of scope of negation: a) word negation .  d. Mary is happy/unhappy about her job.2 The concept of negative sentence. and vice versa: (43) a.cases where not has sentence scope. displease. Tag questions.  c. a. not only by virtue of its meaning. Jack doesn't like lingusitics and neither does Mary / *and so does Mary b. which distinguish between negative sentences and sentences with negative constituents. John isn’t happy and Mary isn’t happy either. and vice versa: a. and a nearly synonymous sentence. George doesn’t like smart girls. isn’t she/* is she? b. Negative sentences have particular distributional properties. wasn't it ? c) Sentence negation . which distinguish between negative sentences and sentences with negative constituents. is she/* isn’t she?  b. b *Jack didn’t go anywhere all day and Mary stayed at home either.

 c) Emphatic negative sentences are sentences where the negative constituent appears to the left of the subject. these negative quantifiers are determiners (no). b *Jack didn’t go anywhere all day and Mary stayed at home either. like nobody. Syntactically. Not -even tag sentences require a negative host sentence: (44) a. b.  a) Sentences where negation is in the Auxiliary (47) a. John isn’t happy and Mary isn’t happy either. Types of negative sentences. He hasn't arrived yet. Bob has lost my respect. Bob has not lost my respect. pronouns (nobody. b. George dislikes smart girls even pretty ones /*not even pretty ones. Neither tags require negative hosts. Jack stayed at home all day and Mary didn’t go any place either. nothing) or adverbs ( never.  b) Sentences where negation is expressed by negative quantifiers. b'. It is not raining anymore. Jack doesn't like lingusitics and neither does Mary / *and so does Mary b. c. either. nothing. Bob did not abandon his pet cat. c. triggering inversion. George doesn’t like smart girls. Mary wasn't looking for any old pair of shoes. (45) a. Either conjoining. (48) a. b. c. never. nowhere). non-negative contexts (sentences). Jack dislikes linguistics and so does Mary/ and neither does Mary. Affirmative polarity items require assertive. d. Mary is here. *John is unhappy and Mary isn’t happy either. Positive Polarity Items (50) a. He saw nobody in the garden. Affirmative sntences are followed by so-tags (46) a.  d. d. d. Here are a few examples.  c. b. (49) Never before had he seen such pretty girls. Polarity items One other famous problem that relates to negation is that of polarity items (items sensitive to the polarity of the sentence). Two co-ordinated sentences can have the form S1 and S2 only if the second is negative. Mary was looking for some old pair of shoes. c. Negative polarity items require negative sentences. d'. He had never visited that city. It is still raining. Bob abandoned his pet cat. Negative Polarity Items a'.17 COMPLEMENTATION  b. not even pretty ones. He has already arrived. . He saw no rose-bush in the garden. c. too.' Mary isn't here.

may have be ? The position of NegP Following Lopez (1995). (62): (60) (61) (62) Couldn't you give me that book / a. c) There can't be two formatives n’t. such as. (52) The Negative Parameter distinguishes between: a. He has not accepted this proposal. languages where Negation is below Tense.1.  4. 1) The hierarchy of functional categories is invariant.2 The Split Inflection Hypothesis. (English) a. (58) AgrSP> TP(M) > AspP > AspP> (AgrOP)> VP s ed. (55) Not to accept this proposal (seems foolish) Neg>TP b. can't. N’t N't is an affix to the auxiliary. In this section we will pay attention to their syntactic distribution.  The hypothesis that n't is incorporated into the auxiliary explains the following: a) N't and the auxiliary raise together as in (60). particularly to the problem of how the order auxiliary verb + negation obtains.3. and they will have to check their features during the derivation: Hasn't for instance must check [+Present. (61). TP> NegP A more restrictive hypothesis regarding functional structure: (56) Hypothesis. English sentential negation can show up in two different shapes: the contracted n't or the full form not.  4.  4. languages where Negation is above Tense. +Negative]. He couldn't have been fooling around so much. b) N't attaches to the highest verbal projection of the sentence. The only thing that varies is the properties of the functional nodes (Borer 1984).3. Maria nu este in bucatarie. Forms. n't and not. 2) Functional categories are projected as a last resort. *He could haven't been fooling around so much/ **He couldn't haven't been so careful . aren't are pulled from the lexicon as fully inflected. we will assume that NegP is above TP in English as well as in UG: (59) AgrSP> NegP> TP > AspP AspP> (AgrOP) VP s n’t ed have be ? It is necessary to analyse the two items that may fill the NegP: not. (Romanian) b. it is a bound morpheme. (Chomsky 1993) (57) AgrSP > TP > AgrOP > VP s ed ? The analysis may be more detailed and extended by detailing the verbal features of Inflection. 3d Person. b.19 COMPLEMENTATION b. incorporated into a modal or an auxiliary. and n't.

except that they are generated under Tense. AgrSP  AgrS' AgrS0 [+person] NegP Neg' Neg0 [+neg] TP T' T0 AspP Asp" Asp0 hasn't VP DP V' +present V0 +3d pers +neg come Negated modals are subject to the same analysis. ultimately getting to the AgrS0 head where it checks its [Person] features. the features of n't could not be checked. the features of the lower n't would go to PF unchecked. It differs from n’t in the following ways: a. as a result. because there is only one functional head against which the two n'ts could check features and.  The assumption adopted here (following Lopez (1995). Finally the two negatives not.  4. the one that raises. Haegeman (1996)) is that the inflected auxiliary is projected under Tense ( do and the modals) or under Aspect (have. as in (66a-c). be). as in (66d). c. (63) a. There can be two nots. Neg [+neg].2. as in (61b). not must be left behind (cf. When auxiliaries raise to C0 past the subject. suggesting that they occupy different positions. there can't be two n'ts as in (62). therefore. NegP with an abstract head carrying a strong feature. In sharp contrast to n't. If n't attached to the lower auxiliary verbs. b. which must show up on the highest auxiliary. n't co-occur. causing the derivation to crash. It is not cliticized or affixed to auxiliary verbs.3.20 COMPLEMENTATION The sentences in (61) confirm the hypothesis that there is a functional category. . He shouldn't go. This hypothesis explains the fixed position of n't. not can appear in lower positions. where not may be adjoined to any of the verbal functional projections. Not Consider now the syntax of not. Mary hasn't come.This suggests that not is not a head that checks features through head to head movement the way n't does. under a category whose content it lexiclizes. against which n't checks its own feature. In the same way. b. d. e. and then successively raises to check its inflectional features. (65)). (64) a.

21 COMPLEMENTATION (65) (66) a. Could you not stay home tonight for a change? b. *Could not you stay home tonight for a change? a. He could not have been fooling around so much. b. He could have not been fooling around so much. c. He could have been not fooling around so much. d. He could not have not been fooling around so much. e. He couldn't not do his homework

The following result has been obtained: 1) N't is an affixal head that checks features with an abstract functional category. 2) Not does not have to check features and does not have to be associated to sentence negation. Actually, not can be adjoined to verbal as well as to non-verbal projections as well, so that an adjunction configuration like (67c) below is generally available. (67) a. Not everyone can swim. b. He came here not long ago. c. XP Neg not XP

22 COMPLEMENTATION 2. The NegP is uniformly projected above the TP. Tense and negation are conceptually related, since what sentence negation denies is that the event holds at a particular time interval. 3. The Auxiliary verb + negation word order is due to the existence of a higher AgrS phrase,where the Auxiliary verb checks its [Person , Number] features. 4. Sentential Neg is a functional head whose content is retrieved in two ways, by checking with the affix n't, or by specifier- head agreement with not. Move is involved in both checking operations. The derivation of a negative sentence relies on the mechanisms presented in (71), and (72) (71) (72) [AgrSP φ [NegP NEG [TP [± PAST ] [AuxP hasn't]]] [AgrSP φ [NegP not [Neg' NEG [TP [± PAST ] [AuxP has]]]

[AgrSP hasn't [NegP t [TP t [AuxP t]]] [AgrSP has [NegP not [TP t [AuxP t]]] 5. Do-Support (73) (74) He did not come. (a) NegP Neg not Neg' Neg0 [+neg] DPsubj T0 -ed DP tsubj V0 come 5. Do-Support (b) AgrSP AgrS' AgrS0 [+ 3d person] NegP Neg not Neg0 [+neg] Neg' TP T‘ TP T' VP V' ...

23 COMPLEMENTATION T0 VP did/*ed [+past] [+ 3d person] V0 come (75) (76) He didn't come. AgrSP AgrS' AgrS0 [3d person] NegP Neg' Neg0 [+neg] TP T' T0 didn't    VP V' [3d person] V0 [+past] come [+neg]  5.1. Extending the analysis. Emphatic assertion

V'

The analysis can be extended to other contexts where do appears, namely: questions, emphatic assertions, short answers and VP-ellipsis: (77) a. Do you know this man ? b. Of course, I DO know the truth. c. Of course, I do.

In all of the cases do supports an abstract morpheme that is not phonetically overt, and which is above T: the question morpheme in (77a), the emphatic assertion morpheme in (77b). Consider emphatic assertions first, by examining the following paradigm: (78) a. Mary left. b. Mary didn't leave. c. *Mary did leave. d. Mary DID leave AgrSP AgrS‘ AgrS0 [3d person] AffP

(79) (80)

V' V0 leave Questions are CPs. the wh feature is the syntactic marker of a family of related constructions all of which involve wh-Movement (questions. Has she come ? b. Yes. and since only finite auxiliaries undergo movement to C0. cleft sentences). Since the question feature is checked by moving a verb. it has to be conceived as some sort of verbal feature. The question feature is strong in root questions and must be checked by moving an auxiliary verb to C0. she did. We will accept that root questions contain a Tense feature in C0. have. What did she sell ? c. Could he still go there ? (86) CP C' C0 uTense uwh T/AgrP DP she T/Agr0 [+Present] AspP Asp' Asp0 VP has come Licensing NPIs: NPIs are always in the command domain of overt negation: a. Is she still working with that company ? c. finally checking the Tense and wh features. a feature which must attract an appropriate verb. do. the aspectual auxiliary have will raise all the way up to C0. This is the familiar rule T/Agr0-to. finite Tense being the common property of modals.2. containing a question feature and a wh feature in C0. In (85a).3 (87) . Bill didn’t buy any books. relative clauses. the Q feature may be viewed as an uninterpretable Tense feature.C0 (I0 -to -C0). T/Agr'  5. Did she go ? b. Questions and short answers: (84) a. The question feature carries the interrogative meaning. (85) a. be.24 COMPLEMENTATION Aff' Aff0 [+aff] TP T' T0 VP DID [3rd person] [+past] [+aff]  5.

(91) a.g. either. d. *Nimeni a venit c.  6. unchecked. The standard analysis of examples like these relies on the insight that sentences with Neg quantifiers contain a NegP. They found nothing in the garden. did they? b. 4. not even her brother. +uTense.1. Thus in Romanian. not even old coins.25 COMPLEMENTATION b. headed by a [+neg] feature. and forces the use of an auxiliary which can successively raise to check all the features. c. +aff. (92) a. did they ? b. (90) either. and which would remain invisible. therefore above the position of the affixes s/ed. The presence of these abstract heads bearing strong features forces Inflection to be featural. b) These sentences must be "marked" as negative by Spell-Out.) *Anyone didn’t come. where the sentence negator must appears on the verb. They found nothing in the first room and they didn't find much in the second room. because they overtly show the behaviour of negative sentences. (*Anyone will lift a finger to help. N-au gasit nimic. In all of them do supports an abstract morpheme (e. d. nu always shows up in sentences with nimeni. and no one showed up for the party . The requirement that these abstract features should be supported by do is a PF not an LF requirement 5. Other types of negative sentences  6. Romanian). nimic. c. d. Nimeni nu a venit b. *Au gasit nimic. These examples point out to two things: a) Sentences with negative quantifiers are syntactically negative and pass all the tests for sentence negation. They found nothing in the attic. +neg. possibly to C0. in order to license the negative QPs. if it has sentence scope. Sentences with negative quantifiers Consider the following sets of examples. 2. Given its morphology. containing negative quantifiers. Bill is not sure that anyone will lift a finger to help. Nobody came to the party.g..Do Support occurs in a variety of environments. Nobody likes him. and it is this Neg head which licenses the negative quantifier. 3. Few people showed up for the lecture. Such a view is strengthened by the existence of negative concord languages (e. do is inserted under Tense and must raise further at least as far as Agreement. c. a. Nobody came to the party. neither do I. To claim that there is only one negation in an English sentence is to claim that the abstract Neg head licenses only one negative constituent. Didn’t anyone come? Conclusions 1. +Agr) which appears above Tense.

(94) a. b. Mary bought nothing b. A negative head X0 must be in a spec-head agreement configuration with a negative operator. AgrsP DP No one AgrS0 has AgrS' NegP Neg‘ Neg0 ta TP T' T0 ta AspP Asp’ Asp0 VP ta come yet  (96) a. Nobody came b. NegP DP Nobody [+neg] Neg' Neg0 [+neg] T/AgrP DP T/Agr' tnobody T/Agr0 VP ed come (98) a.26 COMPLEMENTATION As to the specific licensing strategy. a frequently invoked solution is the Neg Criterion: (93) a. No one has come yet. NegP Neg' Neg0 DP Mary T/Agr0 ed T/AgrP T/Agr' VP Op [+neg] . A negative operator (QP) must be in a Spec head relation with an [+negative] X0 head. A negative operator is a negative phrase in a scope A' position. b.

2. Not until yesterday did he change his mind. In no small measure. Not unreasonably.  6. b. (101) a. The last type of negative sentences considered are emphatic negative sentences. negative QPs are licensed by vebal negation. 2. Negative Quantifiers are licensed by the Neg Criterion. Seldom do I see him nowadays. Not often did he digress from the topic. Mary has heard nothing. so that sentences containing them pass al the tests for sentence negation. one may expect results from him. b. it is his attitude that is blocking progress. Never before had he seen such a crowd. Neg QPs may have sentence scope. (100) a. VP V' DP nothing DP nothing [+neg] . c. b. AgrSP DP Mary Agrs0 has Op [+neg] Neg0 [+neg] Agrs' NegP Neg' TP T' T0 AspP Asp' Asp0 V0 [+neg] Conclusions 1. Emphatic negative sentences. therefore by the NegP. d. Not long ago it rained. 3. When they have sentence scope.27 COMPLEMENTATION V' V0 buy (99) a. c.

1. (2) a. Prepositional O(bject)). object. selecting a clause substitute which is [+Neuter. c. that. (V. from which all the other differences between DP and CP syntax can be derived. that-clauses often code discourse function.2 Introducing Extraposition In this pattern regardless of its syntactic role ((Su(bject). The distribution of CPs is not determined by the Case Filter. or Agent. DPs and CPs share several properties: a. this." b. I claim that he is right. c. DPs have case features which must be checked during the derivation.1. Thus the Longman Grammar (1999) states that "Complement clauses are sometimes called nominal clauses. Through their syntactic position. b. Experiencer. It seems to me that he is right. Similarities (continued) c. The absence of Case is the main syntactic difference between DPs and CPs. I thought that it looked good. they also s-select a human role. This is because clauses too have default ϕ -features. CPs do no have to be case-licensed. These two θ -roles appear in various syntactic functions. because they typically occupy a noun phrase slot. or N) which combine with that complements have characteristic s-selectional properties. A. DPs and CPs accept (some of) the same pronominal substitutes: it. the complement clause appears at the right periphery of the sentence. +Singular]. I believe this/ that / it. He is aware that he is mistaken. b. As a result. It is important (for all of us) that he is still here.29 COMPLEMENTATION Conclusions In the following description of English complementation. I believe that God is good. or predicative. Both DPs and CPs occur as arguments of predicates. d. Predicates. D(irect) O(bject). They accept an abstract argument. (1) a. f. i. It surprised me that he was right. Differences between DPs and CPs: DPs must be case-licensed. such as subject. DPs and CPs merge in θ .positions and are θ . and more often than not.marked by predicates that c-select and sselect them. the finite clause will be assumed to have (at least) the following structure: CP>AgrSP> NegP> TP> AspP1> AspP2 > VP THAT COMPLEMENTS SYNTACTIC PROPERTIES OF THAT COMPLEMENTS 1. while the . a Proposition/Theme.e. [That he knows the truth] is not sure. Similarities and differences between DPs and CPs 1. The Case Filter bars the occurrence of DPs which lack Case. e. the distribution of CPs is less constrained by syntactic factors and more dependent on discourse factors. like focus or topic.

Direct object a. (6) DP I0 VP It V0 surprises DP me IP I' VP CP that he didn't come The term “extraposition” is due to Jespersen. c. The pronoun it is the so-called “introductory-anticipatory it”. so the CP must be devoid of case. I insisted on Mary's departure. thus indicating its syntactic function. That Pauline moved to Kansas surprised me indeed. b. (7) a. . b. Can you swear [ that the accused man was at your house all Friday evening? ]. the pronoun it occupies the Nom case position. the case difference between CPs and DPs follows from a dfference between categories which assign case and categories which are case-marked. stated in (9). The introductory-anticiptory it is regarded as a type of formal subject or object. *I insisted Mary's departure. since it introduces and anticipates the real object of the sentence. (8) a. 2. Can you swear to it [ that the accused man was at your house all Friday evening?].[ According to Stowell. The extraposed clause is adjoined to the VP. the transitive verb checks the Acc feature of the object.1. The difference between DPs and CPs with respect to case has noticeable empirical consequences. c. The engineer wrongly figured out [that the bridge would hold ]. b. The first attempt to precisely state this difference between CPs and DPs is Stowell's 1981 Case Resistance Principle. The engineer wrongly figured it out [ that the bridge would hold ].30 COMPLEMENTATION pronoun it appears in the position which ought to have been occupied by the clause. as in (6) . I insisted that Mary should depart in the morning. b. a "meaningless" or expletive pronoun. In (6). The Case Resistance Principle 2. (3) Subject a. MEG. It surprises me indeed [that Pauline moved to Kansas]. I am happy that he left. b* I am happy his leaving. I am happy about his leaving. (4) (5) Prepositional object a.

there is more than one preverbal position in English. c) The Nominative position Sentence (13a). c) the Nominative position. in a position where it has been assigned Nom. a) The prepositional context: In English. (10) a. Such operator-variable constructions include relativization. The CP is θ -marked by the subordinate infinitive predicate. rather than subject position. the killer struck again. Simple examples with DP operators show that variables are case-marked: . i. On the other hand. since they involve CPs that have moved through case-positions. this leading to ill-formedness. since in English CPs are excluded from the following three basic (structural) case-checking positions: a) the position after prepositions. the consequence of the CRP is that CPs will be banned from positions of case-checking. but gets case from the main verb. a. As suggested by examples like (13b). question formation. Last night. in London. Given the ungrammaticality of (13e). and would get case from the main verb (consider). the Acc is structural.*I insited on that Mary should depart in the morning. bear [+Tense].o.e. the killer strike again ? e. English supports the CRP to a considerable extent. where what moves is the CP. It is well known that an operator's trace. CPs cannot be sisters to prepositions. the case assigning feature that CPs bear is [+Tense]. b *I consider[ [CP that Mary left] to be a big mistake]. a verbal case assigning feature. where the Auxiliary has moved to Comp is ungrammatical. Could this be true ? d.2. According to Stowell. last night and in London are topicalized phrases. topicalization. with the subject clause in preverbal position. I consider [ this statement] to be a big mistake]. and cannot be assigned case as a consequence. movement constructions. in London. the CRP is too strong and there are empirical facts which disprove it. Since the Case source is not the θ -assigner. (=a variable).31 COMPLEMENTATION (9) The Case-Resistance Principle ( CRP) Case must not be assigned to a category bearing a case-assigning feature. The example in (11b) is analogous. b) the structural Accusative position. must be in a case-marked position. Nevertheless. CPs may have to pass through case-marked positions Stowell's insight that DPs and CPs differ in terms of case is correct. In (13b). One example is that of operator-variable constructions. (consider). c. a' [[ TP That John hates Mary] [TP tCP [T'could be true]]]. CPs. * Could [that he hates her] be true ? 2. as stated in (9). (13) a. The CP is in a structural Acc position. sentence (13e). acting as a syntactic operator. I insisted that Mary should depart in the morning b. may be taken to show that the subject clause is in SpecT. Assuming that there is a difference between θ -positions and case positions. b. unlike DPs. which is involved in the assignment of Nom case in finite clauses. The Acc (in italics in (11)) is θ -marked by the infinitive verb. b) Structural Acc: the Acc+ Inf construction. it is likely that in the well-formed (13a) the clause is in topic.*Did last night. even if they do not remain there. That John hates Mary could be true. (11) a. tough-movement.

The principle at work is Lasnik's 1995 Enlightened self interest: a constituent. in this case Tense (Inflection). while the extraposed clause cannot. the topicalized CP. against the CRP. The adjective happy in (15b) cannot case-mark the DP-trace.Given the data in (17-19). *That Susan would be late John didn't think [ it was very likely tCP] (18) a. (16b) are ill-formed since the trace is not case marked. That we won't abandon him you may definitely depend on tCP. That Susan would be late John didn't think [ tCP was very likely] b. At least sometimes. one might claim that in (17).* That he had solved the problem we didn't really find [it to be very surprising tCP] (19) a. the CRP cannot be maintained in the strong form initially proposed by Stowell.32 COMPLEMENTATION (15) (16) a. the chains are incorrectly formed. which binds a variable. In every pair. The passive verb in (16b) cannot case-mark the DP trace either. they leave behind case-marked traces.e. Who tDP wrote it? b. Who was it written by tDP ? Examples (15b. because the latter possesses ϕ features. 3. they cannot participate in operator-variable constructions. moves to satisfy the needs of another constituent. In contrast the trace of the extraposed clause is not in a case-marked position. Thus. *That we won't abandon him you may definitely depend on it tCP. Therefore. and predictably. a trace in a case-marked position. as in (16c) Safir(1985) investigates the behaviour of clauses in operator-variable constructions. . Tense may attract the CP. Conclusions 1. What are you so happy about tDP b*What are you so happy tDP a. The operator does not bind a variable in (17b)-(19b). systematically comparing extraposed and unextraposed clauses. so severe ungrammaticality results. The essential observation is that only unextraposed clauses participate in operator-variable constructions. The chains in examples (17a)-(19a) are correctly formed. This rule moves a DP/CP to the left periphery. the CP moves from Spec VP to SpecTP. That he had solved the problem we didn't really find [tCP to be very surprising] b. CPs must pass through positions where case is licensed. containing the operator.. i. 2. Thus Case may not be the right way of eliminating the ungramamtical sentences in (10-13) above. in this case the CP. leaving behind a case-marked trace. so the preposition by is necessary to case-license the trace. The operator-variable construction considered below is Topicalization. b. only the unextraposed clause can be topicalized. One might interpret this as a sign that a CP may be used to check the strong case feature of some head. (17) a. and perhaps further on in order to check the strong features of Tense in English. that is. * Who was it written tDP ? c. Extraposed clauses are in caseless position.

This interpretation is based on the intuition that predicates/heads should be categorially distinct from their arguments or. This forces clauses to move out of these positions. at least when they are antecedents in operator-variable cosntructions. which are also traditionally described as [-N. *Although [that she had done her work]. *They complained about [ that salaries were too low]. Conclusions 1. The engineer wrongly figured out [ that the bridge would hold ]. CPs can be attracted to case positions. 3. -V].33 COMPLEMENTATION 2. CPs do not have to be Case-licensed. That Pauline moved to Kansas surprised me indeed. more generally from the constituents they govern. The engineer wrongly figured it out [ that the bridge would hold ]. 3. this allowing them to appear in operator variable constructions. Prepositional object . The Extraposition Structure (26) Subject a. such as the position of sister to a preposition. Direct object a. 2. (20) A head and its complement must be distinct in terms of their categorial features. This property is not available to clauses in extraposed position precisly because they do not acquire a case feature. Nevertheless. the master was displeased. b. It surprises me indeed [ that Pauline moved to Kansas ]. More recently.Unlike DPs. 4. Stowell's CRP has been reinterpreted as a categorial filter. They may also be viewed as [-V]. *I ^IP. they are non-distinct from prepositions and subordinating conjunctions. which is why they do not need case. this allows them the possibiity to be θ -marked arguments. Categorially speaking. This categorial filter is sufficient to eliminate sequences of type *P^CP.-V]. CPs are surely [-N]. By virtue of their categorial properties CPs are filtered away from certain environments. b.3. etc are usually unacceptable. Evidence for a categorial filter comes from the fact that sequences of type *N NP (*destruction the city vs destruction of the city). The proposal is that the CP category is categorially unsuited in certain configurations. IF CPs are [-N. b. As they pass through positions of case checking. We derive the unacceptability of (22) (22) a. they will be case-marked.

If it were true that extraposed clauses inherit case from the expletive it. (32) (33) a. Examples (31a-d) prove that DPs cannot occur in the position of the extraposed clause. it would not matter. b. That Susan would be late John didn't think [ tCP was very likely] b. Since the relative pronoun itself is a DP. *It was bizarre Mary's departure. while the trace of the extraposed clause is in a non-case marked position. Evidence that extraposed clauses do not inherit Case from the expletive it comes from operator-variable constructions. Can you swear to it [ that the accused man was at your house all Friday evening? ]. while the extraposed clause cannot. It was bizarre that Mary left. *That Susan would be late John didn't think [ it was very likely tCP] a. for the following reasons: a) CPs do not have to be in a case-marked θ -chain. in operator variable constructions. 2. and it should leave behind a trace in a case-assigned position. Consider then the examples in (31): (30) (31) Whom did you see t ? a. It was noticed that Mary left. this expectation is no confirmed. whether the (unextraposed )clause is itself in a case position or whether the (extraposed) clause merely inherits case from the expletive it. e. That he had solved the problem we didn't really find [tCP to be very surprising] b. c. Let us turn to claims a) and b). Only the unextraposed clause can be topicalized. A that-complement can serve as the antecedent of an appositive clause only if the trace it ultimately binds through the mediation of the relative pronoun is in a case position. *It was noticed Mary's departure. This is because the trace of the unextraposed clause is in a case marked position (a subject trace in (32). b. a direct object trace in (33). b) CPs do not inherit case form it. a) Topicalization The topicalized clause moves to the CP field. rather than a CP. *That he had solved the problem we didn't really find [it to be very surprising tCP] b) Appositive relative clauses.There seems to be a man under your bed. whom in SpecCP in (30) is Acc-marked and so is its trace in DO position.34 COMPLEMENTATION a. Can you swear [ that the accused man was at your house all Friday evening? ]. Evidence that extraposed clauses do not inherit Case from the expletive it comes from operator-variable constructions. The CP is caseless when extraposed. For example. under the standard assumption that Case is inherited along the members of a chain. the requirement that the relative pronoun should check case is natural. However. because that is a caseless position and DPs need case.2 Establishing a link between it and the CP The it+CP configuration does not represent a chain of type expletive +associate. d. .

This asymmetry is motivated by structural as well as by functional considerations. It was [ a brand new fur coat ] that John purchased for his wife.[That Mary was leaving]i .a. Conclusions 1. d. The semantic relation between it and the CP is that the CP is an adjunct which specifies the content of the pronoun. Thus the evidence from operator-variable constructions shows that there is no case transmission between it and the CP. According to these two principles. In both instances the constituent which occurs after be is focussed. Presupposition: Someone bought a brand new fur coat for his wife. Mary wants something. (39) a.35 COMPLEMENTATION (34) a. Assertion: (Mary wants) a rich husband. What does Mary want ? b. What Mary wants is a rich husband. Cullicover and Rochemont (1990). Structural Focus English disposes of two syntactic structures specifically designed to place a constitiuent in focus. is that this structure is extremely frequent if not quasi-obligatory for subject clauses and marginal for DO and PO clauses. These are the cleft sentence. It was [ John] who purchased a brand new fur coat for his wife c. include Extraposition in a large class of constructions which are motivated by functional considerations. b. Quirk e. Focus: A brand new fur coat. The evidence argues both against Case-transmission from it to the CP 2. and the pseudo-cleft sentence. d. the fact that he has abandoned his former love). (1972) mention the two discourse principles of End-Focus and End-Weight. upset Joe. Safir (1985) proposes that it and the CP are simply related as members of a configuration. very much like an appositive clause. constituents which are focussed and constituents which are "long" and heavy tend to occur towards the end of the sentence. Presupposition: He purchased something for his wife. a. whichi iti was noticed at once ti upset Joe. c. The examination of the motivation for extraposition will help us choose among the various proposals on how to analyse Extraposition syntactically. Focus. while the rest of the sentence contains presuppostional information. 4. What did he purchase for his wife? b.g. d. in work on Focus constructions. John (purchased a new fur coat for his wife).1 More on End-focus and End-weight. Who purchased a brand new fur coat for his wife? b. (40) (41) . whichi ti was noticed at once. Presupposition. c. so that it +CP are not members of a chain.[ That Mary was leaving]i .. in (39)&(40). The subject-object asymmetry in Extraposition constructions On the motivaton of extraposition A fundamental remark regarding Extraposition in English. other things being equal. 4. in (41). a. which specifies the content of the antecedent (e. which play a major role in determining word-order in English.

On the other hand. . there is no requirement to lexically realize the Acc DO position. DO/PO extraposition is functionally superfluous and therefore. If an object clause does not appear in its θ -position. a formal. features which require checking by moving an (appropriate) constituent to SpecT. as is the case with extraposed subject clauses. 'meaningless' it subject is needed tocheck the strong feature of T and satisfy the EPP.2. a. When there are reasons for the semantic "real" subject to be post-verbal. the motivation for extraposition+it insertion comes from the Extended Projection Principle and from Case Theory (see next section). as in (46b). c. ?That inflation was running so high annoyed him. John has known tCP for a long time that Mary will leave him. The topic is thus an informationally given element. In a simple declarative transitive SVO senetnce with neutral intonation. It annoyed him that inflation was running so high. the O is the expected focus. the constituent which bridges between the given sentence and the preceding discourse. While for the reasons explained. the resulting structure has characterstic semantic and pragmatic properties. which is a heavy constituent. b. to occur in final position. Reinterpreting the EPP in feature-checking terms. John regretted it that he had abandoned the race. Topicalization is a syntactic rule designed to indicate the topic of discourse or a link. English is a SVO language that requires an overt subject in preverbal position. 4. as in (46a) or it may be filled by the introductory anticipatory pronoun it. Topicalization is possible only if there is a case-marked trace in the initial position of the topic. since it enables a Su clause. (46) a. He had found out that inflation was running high. Extraposition from object position is not motivated by the same considerations. (see below).36 COMPLEMENTATION 4. He kept complaining. John has known it for a long time that Mary will leave him. the fact that a subject in SpecT is always required in English means that the T head has strong features. The structural perspective Structurally.1 More on End-focus and End-weight. often containing new information.3. the latter may remain empty. (42) A: They would like to offer you roses. He kept complaining. The functional perspective Extraposition of a Su clause is functional. b. infrequent. B: Roses I heartily dislike t. SV O clause => SV it O (46) John regretted [that he had abandoned the race]. b. 4. S clause V O => it V O S clause (43) a. when DO/PO extraposition does occur. since object clauses already satisfy the principles of End-Focus and End-Weight. the Nom Su position must be lexically filled . Hence.

37 COMPLEMENTATION

Conclusions. 1. Extraposition is a discourse-related rule, which places a clausal constituent in Focus position and at the right periphery, satisfying End Focus and End Weight. 2. Extraposition is quasi-obligatory for Su clauses, but infrequent for DO/PO clauses. 3. The subject /object asymmetry is important enough to be looked upon as a structural phenomenon, therefore as a matter of syntax, rather than a matter of stylistic preference. 5. On the English expletives A central claim about expletives is that they occur only in subject position. The Su receives its θ -role in SpecVP. It follows that the Su position, Spect TP, is projected for purely syntactic reasons, having to do with the strong features of Tense and must therefore be filled even when it has no semantic relevance. Consider the passives below. The passive is an ergative configuration which lacks a thematic subject, but where the syntactic subject SpecT position must be filled nevertheless. It may be filled by the clause itself, or it may be filled by an expletive pronoun: (47) a. That the earth was flat was widely believed in ancient times. b. It was widely believed that the earth was flat in ancient times.

Since the object position is projected only from thematic structure, therefore only if the verb assigns a θ role in object position, expletive pronouns would not be expected to occur as objects. However, it has been claimed (cf. Postal and Pullum (1988)) that there are many counterexamples to this claim, such as those in (48) and (49). In each case there seems to be an expletive pronoun in what should be a θ -position, against GB theory. (48) a. I consider it obvious that you should have done that. b. I prevented/ kept it from being obvious that we were late. (49) a. I regretted (it) that he was late. b. They never mentioned (it) to the candidate that the jog was poorly paid. c. I resent it every time you say that. d. I hate it when you are late. The following claims will be defended here, following Rothstein (1995): 1) Expletives occur only in subject position and this follows from the distinguished syntactic nature of the subject position. 2) The examples in (48) are not counterexamples to the theory, since the pronoun is projected as a subject and is (at most) a derived object. 3) When the neuter pronoun it is an object (the examples in (49)), it is not an expletive, but an ordinary pronoun, which receives a θ role. 4) This leads to a disunitary analysis of textraposition, since only in the case of extraposition from subject position will the clause be initially projected in a θ -position (SpecVP). For the other cases, the neuter pronoun will be projected in the (prepositional or direct) object position, while the clause will be projected as an adjunct or in some other position. If this analysis is adopted, it is important to define the semantic relation holding between the pronoun and the clause, when the pronoun is not an expletive. 5.1. Licensing subject expletives. The EPP feature of Tense The expletive it is a neuter pronoun, whose main property is that it does not receive any θ role. As a result it appears in contexts where lexical DPs, which must be thematic, are banned.

38 COMPLEMENTATION In (50), the only overt) θ -role of the passive verb goes to the CP, so the lexical DP in (50b) cannot be interpreted and violates the θ - Criterion. (50) a. It was widely believed that the world was flat. b. *The hypothesis was widely believed that the world was flat.

Because expletives fail to be θ -marked, they cannot be questioned. (51) a. That he came was a blessing for them. b. What was a blessing for them ? c. It was a blessing for them that he came. d.*What was a blessing for them that he came? Expletive as quasi-arguments Since, in principle, pleonastic elements are devoid of content, it was proposed (cf. Chomsky (1991)) that these elements are deleted at LF, because they simply satisfy formal features which have no interpretation. This analysis proved to be problematic for at least two reasons: a) Different expletive elements with the same role, say different formal subjects, do not contribute in the same way to the interpretation of the sentence (cf. (53)) b) Secondly, sentences with expletives are not semantically equivalent with sentences without expletives. Thus, in (54), the variant without there, with the phrase some ghosts in SpecT, presupposes the existence of ghosts, while the sentence witht there in SpecT does not presuppose the existence of ghosts. (53) a. It was a man. (Who was it ?) b. There was a man. (Was there anyone in the room?) (54) a. There were som ghosts in the pantry. b. Some ghosts were in the pantry. The position on expletives adopted here is that expletives are legitimate LF objects with 'null' reference, since they make no contribution to the truth conditions of the sentence. It then becomes necessary to specify for it / there how they are licensed (legitimacy) and what interpretative contribution ( if any) they have. Assuming the principle of Full Interpretation, a natural question is what principles of the grammar license pleonastics. Currently there are two (convergent) ways of stating the intuition that expletive pronoun occur to fill a synatctic subject position: a) the syntactic predication account; b) the EPP account. a) The syntactic predication account (Rothstein (1995) claims that subjects occur to satisfy the condition that syntactic predicates must have subjects. This idea is stated as a Predicate Condition: (59) Predicate Condition Every syntactic predicate must be syntactically saturated. A syntactic predicate is an open maximal projection that needs to be saturated by being linked to a syntactic argument, its subject. Crucially, predicates need not have a thematic relation with their subjects, though they must have a thematic relation with their objects. It follows that expletive elements are licensed only as subjects. A pleonastic subject denotes the null element, since it is has no θ -role and, when the predicate takes a pleonastic subject, the truth value of the proposition is fully determined by the content of the predicate. The ergative verb

39 COMPLEMENTATION + its object represents a complex syntactic predicate which needs a subject. The subject is licensed only syntactically, to satisfy the needs of the (non-lexical) syntactic predicate. (60) a. It was obvious that we would be late. b. That we'd be late was obvious. c. It was obvious. The expletive interpretation is one way of reading an otherwise ordinary pronoun like it, in thoses cases where the syntactic predicate is completely responsible for the semantic interpretation of the sentence; therefore, the pleonastic appears as a default reading, made available by the interaction of the principles of interpretation and the properties of pronominals. b) The EPP account The analysis in terms of syntactic predication does not, however, explain the difference between English and, say, Romanian, where the semantic process is similar to English, and there are also cases when an ergative verb with its object expresses a complete proposition, but no pleonastic element is overtly present. The fact that the Su is overt in English is related to the well-known fact that English is non-pro-drop a language, that is a language where the Su is obligatory. The presence of the Su is related to the EPP. The obligatory preverbal Su position in SpecT is the effect of the features of the functional head T. T is assumed to have a strong D/N feature which can only be satisfied by Merging or Moving a DP/NP in the (lowest) specifier of T. 5.2. On the English Expletives. There and it behave differently, at least with respect to agreement. (61) a. There is a boy in the room. b. There are boys in the room.

The different agreement pattern follows from the obvious morpho-syntactic difference between it and there. There is an adverbial expletive, so it lacks ϕ -features. This is why in there sentences agreement features are checked with the lexical subject, which possesses ϕ features It is a pronominal expletive which has ϕ -features: it is a [+3d person, +neuter, +singular] pronoun. Subject it always imposes singular agreement on the verb. This is apparent under co-ordination: (62) a. That the president will be re-elected and that he will be impeached are both likely at this point. b. It is /*are equally likely at this point [CP that the president will be re-elected and that he will be impeached] Let us turn to the expletive there. There may be analysed as a DP that checks the case and EPP features, but cannot value the ϕ -features of Tense. The simplest analysis is to assume that there originates as a small clause subject and agrees with the predicative inside the small clause. There is thus a defective DP, lacking the ϕ - features of person and number, but bearing a case feature checked by T. This analysis suggets that Case may be checked without simultneously checking Agreement.

I hate it when you are late. c..2. Object Expletives tThere I’ VP XP X’ NP monsters 5. The children enjoy it every time you tell them a story. It is a variable that ranges over events of having dinner with John (example a). b. The . It as an event variable bound by a quantifier over times We refer to examples of type (64 c. They announced it publicly every time they decided to move house. quantified over by the adverbial (65) a. I resent it every time you say that. In (65a-c) the adverbial is a quantified DP (every time I have dinner with John. while in (65e). d. I regret that event". (63) I find it impossible to live under these circumstances. but are case-marked by the verb above them. There are three types of licensing such a phrase. consituents which start out as (expletive) subjects.2. the DO it is followed by a Time Adverbial Quantifier. etc). it is followed by a when(ever) time clause.2 It is a θ -marked pronoun in other cases: (64) a. that is.40 COMPLEMENTATION (62) There are monsters IP DP I V DP X There are tbe 5. or events of deciding to move house ( example c).2. d) or (65) below. It designates an event variable. In such cases. I regret it every time I have dinner with John. I regretted (it) that he was late. They never mentioned (it) to the candidate that the job was poorly paid. He used to like it when(ever) it thundered late. b. but it is instrumental in understanding the object it +CP construction. Sentence (65a) means "for every event of having dinner with John. the extraposed CP/XPs must be independently licensed. One of them does not involve an it+ CP structure. 5. In such examples is that it desgnates an event-variable.1 A real expletive The only case of true expletive objects is that of derived objects. c. a. d.

The pronoun it designates a specific event. 80a) entail the truth of their complements. They expected that she'd be arrestd. Who would have thought (it) that things would turn out this way ? b.42 COMPLEMENTATION b. As to how the relation between it and the CP is established. whereas the corresponding examples without it do not. I expected it that the baby would be up all night. It as a means of factivizing a predicate Some propositional verbs (= verbs that may select propositions. c. Bolinger (1977) mentions several factors that may favour a referential interpretation of the pronoun as designating a specific event. the complement designates contextually salient events. (81) illustrate). the neuter pronoun it is licensed under θ -marking. He pretended (*it) that he was the one. b. Expectedly. in examples of the second type. d. I depend upon it that their paper will expose crooked politicians. b. b. 77). as ((80b). and were relieved when she wasn't. I presume (*it) that you are Dr. and were relieved when she wasn't c. They suspected that he was a spy (81) a.They suspected it that he was a spy. factive verbs allow this structure. d. You shouldn't regret it that you were helpful. cf. (78)) may also appear in the it+CP construction (cf. What do you make of it that he is late ? Summing up. not events as their internal argument. Sentences (79. c. Who would have supposed (*it) that things would turn out this way ? c.normally having to do with bringing forward something new . (73) They didn't mind it that a crowd was beginning to gather in the street. The meaning of the main verb is one factor which influences the acceptability of "extraposition from object position". Non-factive. I never supposed it that they would help. The same neuter it can also be the object of a preposition in it+CP structures: (72) a.generally exclude the it+CP construction: (74) a. b. a. (78) In order to interpret these cases. I was counting on it that you would be there. just as any other argument. You just assumed/ believed it that he would help. They suspected it that he was a spy. notice first that the semantic effect of adding the pronoun is the same as in the preceding cases. *They suspected/ assumed/ believed John's stealing the diamonds. Concluding. The verbs in (77) are factive when the pronoun it is present and are not factive when it is omitted. (77) a. ????They had been expecting it that she might be arrested. so the effect of using these non-factive verbs in this configuration is to reanalyze them as factive. the easiest solution is to treat it as the subject of a small clause with the CP as a predicate. propositional verbs which express suppositions. (79) (80) They had suspected it that she would be arrested. . Levingstone. ?????They had expected it that she'd be arrested. c.

. We have it on good authority that a man will give all that he has to save his life. the contrast induced by the presence of it +CPis between something previously unknown (it is absent) and something already settled (it is present. *Did you find it out that the cheques was bad / e. The resulting structures are often metaphorical and the use of it is mandatory. since there is no propositional (non-factive) reading. (86)a. Here are examples: (85) a. I shall take the responsibility of ordering it that he be fired.that we were responsible. it appears that the same construction functions as a means of recategorizing a non-CP taking verb into a verb that accepts a CP. b. with the (normally non-factive) verbs of reporting in examples (82). or in order to satisfy the EPP.43 COMPLEMENTATION Extraposition from object positions is thus a means of turning a non-factive verb into a factive one. I guess (*it) that you will win. d. c. b. They pooh-poohed it / * . and the verb is factive): (82) a. d. When did you find (it) out that the cheque was bad ? The pronoun is felicitously interpreted as designating a specific event. usually with a factive reading. b. I was the one who ordered (it) that he should be fired tomorrow. Did you find out that the cheques was bad ? d. He can't swallow it /*-that you dislike him. The CP is licensed by predication as before. This is not to say that a future event in the complement clause always excludes the it+CP construction. Conclusions 1. or in other types of contexts which clearly indicate that the content of the complement clause is presupposed. You might at least have announced that you were moving in on us. (84) Since we are agreed on the action. While so far the object it+CP structure was shown to be able to turn a non-factive verb into a factive one. But the complement of a factive verb may designate a specific event.out of the bag that you were a thief.that I meant no harm. They finally got it/* . the matter has already been broached or predetermined. He let it / *. e. but where this construction is used. I was the one who guessed (it) that you would win. Pleonastic elements are generally licensed only in subject position. She hid it /*-that she was involved b. *I take that you will start at once. To give one more example. You might at least have announced it that you were moving in on us. in order to saturate a syntactic predicate. or a fact especially if the main verb is in the past. The pronoun it is an expletive only in subject position. Are you going to order (*it) that he be fired tomorrow. c. Here are some of Bolinger's examples: (83) a. He spilled it /*-that you were a thief. It may be concluded that the object it +CP is a hall-mark of factive readings in English. c. c. I take it that you will start at once. d.

using the result obtained above. The CP is licensed as a predicate on this pronominal subject. We will settle for a variant of the second position (Extraposition is part of (narrow) syntax). In fact. (88) a. must move out of their θ . In object position it is a θ -marked argument ( a Theme/Event).* I judge [ that he went there] to have been a mistake. 6. is that Extraposition is a Focus -related rule. rendering the CRP superfluous. namely. b) At the same time. so Extraposition operates producing the right results. i. a clause in "structural Acc position" is also VP internal. derived from the functional analysis. 6.2. Two descriptions of Extraposition will be offered. b. as part of narrow syntax rather than stylistics and phonology. One of them (Landau (1999). inspired by Kayne (1998) regards Extraposition. so this situation reduces to the preceding one. or it may be a referential 9event-designating) expression. I judge it to have been a mistake that he went there.. a'. The pronoun merges in the θ -marked object position. Extraposition ia a repair strategy that filters away clauses in structural Acc position. A second result. clauses in structural Acc position merge as Sus of the infinitive clause.position. McClosky (1999) regards Extraposition as a PF rule. Back to the Analysis of Extraposition It is time to return to the analysis of Extraposition. Extrapostion vs. Only the subject is VP internal. Given the canonical configuration of the subject and the object. the fact that apparently only Su clauses extrapose. I consider it to be outerageous that he lied to us like that. The object it+CP construction does not involve movement. The clausal it may be a variable bound by a QP. as shown by the examples below. while trying to do justice to the special properties of rules like Extraposition.44 COMPLEMENTATION 2. Landau's Analysis Landau (1999) proposes the following formulation of Extraposition: (87) Extraposition VP-internal clauses must be peripheral (at PF).1. *I consider [ that he lied to us like that] to be outrageous. Topicalization of subject clauses . an object CP is already peripheral with respect to the VP.e. b’. having a predicative role with respect to the thematic object it. as shown by the fact that there is s-selection: the it+ CP structure is preferred by verbs whose complement may be an event. The other one. as discussed above. Extraposition is adjunction to VP and (as is standardly assumed) an adjunct is not dominated by its host category. while the clause is VP adjoined 6. Seemingly extraposed object clauses may be CPs projected in positions of adjunction. applying after Spell-out. rather than simply a proposition. 3. Several consequences follow from this formulation: a) Extraposition will always apply from subject position.

leaving behind an auxiliary verb. therefore it was analysed as still inside the VP. (104) a. (105) VP Ellipsis.1 Several constituency tests indicate that the shifted object is still in the VP. . A complex DP is one which contains a PP or a clause (103) a. Mary said flatly that she wouldn't come. ?*Mary said that she wouldn't come flatly. The empirical phenomenon at stake is the occurrence of an object XP (DP or CP) at the right periphery of the sentence. (102) a. John regretted deeply that Georgina was pregnant. b) Pseudoclefting in (106) brings further evidence. Mary gave to Joe every help that he demanded. He threw the letter into the basket.e. (101) a. which is very strict otherwise. b. I said I would give to Peter everything that he demanded and give to Peter everything that he demanded I will. in a position different from its θ . a. b. because it is included in the VP. to the VP in the general case. b. (106)Pseudoclefting of VP. (107)VP Preposing a.47 COMPLEMENTATION Heavy NP Shift (HNPS) and Clause Shift. In (106).1. Our discussion will concentrate on HNPS.position. but also clauses. afther the verb be). Heavy NP Shift.*He threw into the basket the letter. which are by definition "complex". c. Inside the focussed VP in (106b). 7. It is known that a "long" or complex DO can be separated from the verb by another constituent. John gave to Mary a picture of Bill Clinton. 7. John read in The Times a scathing review of his new book and Sally did too. He threw into the basket the letter which he had just decoded. i. the complex DO has moved over the IO or over a locative PP.e. This rule places one phrase in focus position (i.. a) VP ellipsis (105) "deletes" a lexical VP. b) no (expletive) pronoun marks the initial position of the clause.. may appear at the right periphery. In the examples in (105). against the V+DO adjacency requirement. Mary gave every help that he demanded to Joe. We require of our employees that they wear a tie. What John did was buy for Mary every book he could find. by Clause Shift. a. since a VP that is fronted for emphasis may contain a shifted object. Rules that affect the VP as a whole affect the shifted DP as well. It was also shown that not only DPs. HNPS is a right-movement rule which adjoins the object to the phrase containing it. b. b.1. never to subjects. the DO has been moved to the right. b. but analogous statements could be made about Clause Shift. Nevertheless the DO is still part of the elided XP. c) VP preposing (in (107)) is another test that confirms that the shifted DP is iniside the VP. and Bill did too. Clause Shift differs from Extraposition in two respects: a) it applies only to objects. What Mary did was put on the mantel an old soiled portrait of her husband. the Focus is the VP phrase.

Two phenomena support this claim: a) The shifted DP is an island for extraction. Thus. The adverbial modifies only the lower clause. Clause Shift as Heavy NP Shift Clauses are by definition "heavy" constituents which tend to appear at the periphery. sentence (114) below is a suitable answer for (115a). 7.3. Sentence (113a). b) The shifted DP licenses parasitic gaps (PGs). but not for (115b).2 From a functional perspective. At the same time. as in (113) below.4.). HNPS is a manifestation of the discourse principles of End-Weight / End-Focus. The FBI believed to be in a hiding for a time the man they were after.. That HNPS is focus related has been stressed by all analysts (Rochemont (1997). (i. but a pronoun in a case position indicates its syntactic function. the application of HNPS may have consequence for the scopal interpretation of certain adverbials . (110) a.1. The second .1. and the object is definitely in the main clause now that it has been HNPSed. (111) What did John purchase for his wife? b.48 COMPLEMENTATION b. The examples below prove that HNPS too is a construction in which there is an obligatory focus interpretation for the phrase which moves to the right. for a time. ?For whom did John purchase a new coat? John purchased for his wife a brand new fur coat. sentence (114) below is a suitable answer for (115a). In this case the clause appears at the right periphery. may modify either the matrix sentence ( i. The adverbial phrase. 7.o. HNPS is a manifestation of the discourse principles of End-Weight / End-Focus.. by virtue of End-Weight and End-Focus.e.4 From a functional perspective. Thus.).1. (111) What did John purchase for his wife? b. 7.1. There are two strategies which allow argument clauses to appear at the right periphery: the first is Extraposition (functional for subjects and objects alike). (110) a.e. The FBI believed the man they were after to be in hiding for a time. including the moved NP. b. as in (113b). as well as the interpretation of sentences containing PGs. Mc Closky (1999) a. 7.o. where the DO occupies its canonical position is ambiguous. the verb to be in hiding): (113) a. The available evidence proves that the shifted DP occupies an A' position. ?For whom did John purchase a new coat? John purchased for his wife a brand new fur coat. The examples below prove that HNPS too is a construction in which there is an obligatory focus interpretation for the phrase which moves to the right. That HNPS is focus related has been stressed by all analysts (Rochemont (1997). 7. a position of adjunction to the right of the phrase that initially contained it. Once HNPS applies to the former embedded subject the man they werer after. Thus. It is important that HNPS has semantic effects as well. the verb believe) or the embedded clause. since the object must be attached to the end of its own clause.2. HNPS has an important interpretative contribution regarding scope phenomena. but not for (115b). * I said that I would give to Peter everything that he demanded and give to Peter I will everything that he demanded. the interpretation of the adverbial is unambiguous. Mc Closky (1999) a.

7. Since a clausal object is normally a focus and is heavy. (Clause Shift) b'.5. A Minor Problem ? 8. The clause is simply adjoined to the phrase. Clause Shift applies only to object clauses. They never mentioned to the candidate that the job was poorly paid. John regretted it deeply that Georgina was pregnant.49 COMPLEMENTATION strategy is Clause Shift. b) Both of them involve prosodic and pragmatic properties: the constituent which is moved is often an (informational) focus. sentences where Clause shift does not apply are fairly awkward. it is not possible for subject clauses. 1991). d. but it is constrained by register and other stylistic factors. (133) John says [the key opens the chest]. e) Both are optional. John regretted deeply that Georgina was pregnant.(extrapsed constructions) b. for object clauses the rule is in principle possible. More on the status of these rules. While for preverbal clauses that Deletion is impossible. Clause Shift does not need to leave behind a case-marked trace (Webelhuth. A re-analysis of right movement rules The similarity between HNPS and Extraposition cannot have gone unnoticed. c. ?*John knew that the law was unfair from experience c' ?They wrote that the firm was going bankrupt to the lawyers. The facts. a' ?*Mary said [that she wanted to drive] quietly. .1. a) Both of them relate to discourse rules ("heaviness"). c'. Extraposition and Heavy NP Shift . Here are comparative examples. An example is provided by sentence (123d). d) Both appear to involve movement to the right. 8. We require it of our employees that they wear a tie. (122) a. as can be seen by comparing the examples below: (123) a. containing it. that is. ?They informed me [that we had lost the war] yesterday. usually the VP. A second remark is that. b'. Mary said t quietly [that she wanted to drive]. We require of our employees that they wear a tie. c. They never mentioned it to the candidate [that the job was poorly paid]. *Mary had left nobody had noticed. at least sometimes. The absence of the complementizer is not possible in preverbal position. or for topiclaized object clauses. John knew t from experience [that the law was unfair].That Deletion. b. c) Both of them involve interpretational (semantic) effects. They wrote to the lawyers that the firm was going bankrupt. It is well known that the complementizer that can be omitted in post-verbal object clauses. which exhibits movement out of a position which is not case-marked. (134) *He is here is nice. if not downright ungrammatical. a'.

In other words (181a'-c') are not properly clause-typed and cannot satisfy the c/s-selction requirements of the main verbs. That complements allow that-Deletion. 3. as shown by the fact that they select particular substitutes. more generally.52 COMPLEMENTATION c. CPs do not need Case. THE DISTRIBUTION OF THAT COMPLEMENTS I' VP see anything wrong. As shown in Watanabe (1992) clauses must be typed for syntactic. 1. Such sentences thus exhibit CP recurssion as shown in the phrase marker below: (182) V' V0 think C that CP CP AdvP only C then did C' IP DP I0 Leslie tv General Conclusions The syntax of that complements specifies the following properties. C is that. 7. In both cases what is nedded is a constituent that carries a Tense feature. That clauses are headed by the complementizer that. That complements appear in the extraposition structure. That complements are licensed as arguments. Finite embedded complements should start with that or with the subject in SpecCP. I knew that not even for one moment had Leslie given a damn about the budget.b') are wrong is that they are not identifiable as finite declarative embedded complements. as well as semantic reasons. 8. and there is no specifier. . The intuitive reason for which the examples in (182a'. That complements. This is why Merge applies again. As already discussed this exception is the Nom subject. 5. Examples of type (182a'-c') have a filled specifier and nothing in C. Wh complements on the other hand typically have a wh-specifier phrase in SpecC. with the possible exception of a specifier which like C carries uT. English finite complements are of two types: that complements and whcomplements. 6. 4. The starred sentences fail to satisfy this requirement. combining the clause with inversion with the complementizer. That complements have ϕ -features. That complements may undergo Clause Shift. and. theta-marked by predicates. Their surface distribution is in line with their discourse role. With that-complemnts. topic or focus. 2. Their distribution is not constrained by the Case-Filter.

/ I know it’s not right for me to talk like this about my father./ I noticed (that) he left early. b) the occurrence of a (coreferent) pronominal subject in the subordinate clause. /I dare say you are British. the retention of that is the norm in academic prose. a) First that tends to be retained under co-ordination: (8) The major conclusion of both studies was that the nation and particularly the state of Florida must quickly reduce their large reliance on foreign oil and that conservation measures and increased reliance on the abundant national supply of coal were the major alternatives. / Although she didn’t say anything./ I dreamt I could fly. c) Proximity or distance to the main verb is also important. At the opposite end. / I presume (that) you still want to come. / She pretended (that) she was not at home when we rang the bell. Here are a few examples in sentences: (6) The prisoner alleges he was at home on the night of the crime./ I’d recommend (that) you see a solicitor. Topicalization. An intervening NP. midway between syntax and discourse. / God / Heaven forbid (that) she’s fallen down the cliff. marking the boundary of the clause: (7) a. AdvP etc. I automatically assumed he had told her./ We all feel our luck was about to turn. while the retention of that is exceptional. Direct Object clauses may be topicalized./ I grant (that) she’s a clever woman. . b. Several factors. and represent known information with respect to previous discourse and with the rest of the complex sentence. (11) [That Oliver is a spy] the police have known all along t./ / I reckon (that) he’s too old for the job. PP. / He said (that) his friend’s name was Sam.2. He said he probably would not have come back before President Gorbachev launched his perestroika policy. favours the retention of that: (10) He testified under oath that he had not been at the scene of the crime 2. / I fear he may die. /She still believe the world was flat. / Imagine you are on a desert island. / She felt she was on the way to worshipping him. the omission of that is the norm. / What makes you suppose (that) I’m against it? / We can only surmise (that) he must have had an accident. I own (that) it was entirely my fault. but I wouldn’t want to work for her. I think I'll make a shopping list today. / I heard you were ill.56 COMPLEMENTATION The lexical factor: selection of the appropriate verb: Only some verbs (listed in (2b) above) allow that Deletion. I sensed (that) she didn’t like the idea. but you still need a passport to prove it. Other factors that favour the retention of that. They appear in sentence initial position. / I expect I’ll be back on Sunday./ She noted his hands were dirty. Did you forget I was coming?/ I gather you wanted to see me. b) A passive main clause also favours the retention of that (9) I was told that both the new right and those who support the government's view had been excluded. Longman Grammar) :the use of frequent main verbs like think or say in the MC. Register In conversation. may favour the omission of that ( cf./ I figured you wouldn’t come.

there is a class of idiomatic constructions where the extraposed construction is obligatory: have it that. and secondly that I was privileged to see ghosts and spirits. (13a).. Thirdly. the topicalized clause moves to some left periphery position. It was declared by my nurse first that I was destined to be unlucky in life./ He knew from experience[ that the boy hated being asked what he was reading]. (12 ) Antonia suggested of her own accord [that she might go down and stay with Alexander at Rambers]. know. When the topicalized clause is a Direct Object. 2. as in (14c). lay it down that. Topicalization is an operator variable construction. I shall prove to you that the witness is lying. It was enacted that offenders be brought before Council 2. over a PP. etc. or an AdvP. the trace left behind is case-marked by the main clause verb. c./ I think honestly [that this is a good thing].. the DO clause may be replaced by so in addition to the prono-minal substitutes it/ that. ‘Will you be late?’ ‘I expect so.’ c. Three practical points have been established: a. (13) a. (14) a. etc. but with other verbs as well ( e. in operator position . The CP is presupposed to be true. b. d. e. It has been decided that the book should be revised.g. ‘Is he coming?’ ‘I believe so. That he would let her do it sooner or later was expected by all of them./ She minded very much[ that he had not come]. Clausal substitutes. The it+CP . c.. He loves to say ‘I told you so’ when things go wrong. take it from smb that. which means that the trace left behind should be case-marked.3.57 COMPLEMENTATION Technically. They’ve split up – or so I’ve been told. so that the verb either is factive or acquires a factive reading.’ b.6. You knew bloody well [that this would hurt me]. d.5. rather than merely a proposition. Passivization. Heavy NP Shift. d. b. and it appears in idiomatic constructions such as I told you so. 2. It must be admitted that on this particular Sunday morning he had received and refused two invitations. This construction is possible when the pronoun it may be interpreted as designating an event. With weak assertive verbs generally. as in (13 b-e). Object Extraposition This structure has already been discussed in detail. So may be fronted. A direct object clause may be passivized as in (4e). Passive may combine with Extraposition. declare). The DO clause is focussed and thus undergo Heavy NP Shift.4. (15) The police know it for a fact that he is a spy. see to it that. 2.

will now take three weeks to process. beg. (LONG) b. etc. (35) a. (29) VP V0 CP VP V' him to that V0 PP he was explain to John wrong Passive variants In the prepositional constructions. b. He was told that she had checked out of the hospital. as in (29). They suggested a good solution to us. / c. (28) Extraposition a. (33) a. Other verb classes In addition to the subclass of Dative Movement verbs. there are several verbs that take a clausal DO and a [+Human] PO: (34) blame. I requested of him the she he ( should ) leave. b. And worried executives of the Australian news network have been told that visas to Indonesian Timor. (31) a. ask. The IO is also passivizable in the double object construction. The DO complement clause may be passivized in patterns with prepositional Datives. / I put it you that you are the only person who had a motive for the crime. They suggested to us that it might be better to wait. It was in vain to represent to her that some conveniences. normally available within three days. Passive may be accompanied by Extraposition ( and HNPS of the former object clause. b. It was suggested to us by them that it might be better (32) a. e. He blamed it on me that we had had an accident. (30) a. I requested it of them. That clauses as Subjects . It has often been said to the press that it was the African and Arabs who prevented Israel from becoming a member of the European regional group. The lawyer represented to the court that the defendant was mentally unstable h. That it might be better to wait was suggested to us by them c. resulted from this objectionable practice. Ely confided to me that something out of this world had taken place. the DO merges as the specifer of a lower verb shell. request. require. I explained it to John that the car was out of order. teaperhaps included. b. / We owe it to our customers to give them the best possible service. I begged of them that I may be allowed to go. as in (32)).59 COMPLEMENTATION d. 4. d.(Di) g. I put it to you that he knew everything from the beginning. She has intimated to us that she no longer wishes to be considered for the post. He owes it to his father's influence that the committee appointed to the position. A good solution was suggested to them by us. c.

as in (45). k. accessible to a DP. i. b. It appears (to me)that there has been a mistake. but only by the (caseless) adverbial clausal substitute so. c.’ ‘So it seems. c. it so happens that I have. so is in complementary distribution with it or this: (44) a. in simple sentence constructions. Properties. I believe that /this/so. It surprised me that this is the beginning of a revolutionary process. This attitude surprises me. This surprises me. d. It occurred to me that I might have made a mistake. with Acc assigners like believe. It appears /seems /occurred to me that this is the beginning of a revolutionary process. d. the object position of seem cannot be occupied by a nominal. (43) a. whose unique clausal argument is internal (an object clause). h.61 COMPLEMENTATION (41) a. which accept so as a clause substituete. / d. She’s not in the office but it doesn’t necessarily follow that she’s ill. It turned out that she was a friend of my sister. The only structure they accept is the it+CP ("extraposed") one: (42) a. ‘You haven’t got a pair of scissors in your bag. It seems so. *It seems that / this / c. while the subject position of seem verbs is non-thematic.’ e. It seems (to him) that she is right. In contrast. Result: The subject position of seem is non-thematic and the object position of seem is caseless. accessible only to the expletive pronoun it. b. therefore.’ ( IDM it so happens that. This distribution suggests that the subject position of surprise verbs is thematic. The expletive argument is inserted in Sepc IP to check the strong feature of Tense. b. c.. *That this is the beginning of a revolutionary process appears / seems/ occurs to me. It emerged that officials had taken bribes. / b. Differences between seem verbs and surprise verbs(psych-verbs) just a. It suddenly came to her that she had been wrong all along. In contrast. (45) IP DP It I0 I VP . * This attitude seems. It chanced that she was in when he called.) l. That this is the beginning of a revolutionary process surprises me b. Such properties indicate that seem verbs are unaccusatives. It transpired that the gang had had a contact inside the bank. have you?’ ‘Well. g. It happened that she was out when I called. The DO position of the verb surprise is an Acc (usative) position. The subject position of surprise verbs may be occupied by a thematic DP. Seem verbs do not allow the topicalization of their CP complement. the subject position of appear verbs cannot be occupied by any lexical DP in a simple construction. j. ‘She’s leaving. f.

and the internal argument of seem-verbs is not in a case position. they need not do so: (76) a. escape smb's (79) a. c. Other verbs that take subject that-complements: unergative verbs. These complements pass this test too. dawn on smb. unlikely. a‘.6. Only internal arguments may wh-move with a head. suggest. indicate. likely. I am likely [ t to win b. 4. as is likely b. It never crossed my mind that she might lose. He is certain to win.). enter smb's mind. etc. as is possible. of course. certain. 4. It might have escaped your notice that I’ve been unusually busy recently c. English also disposes of a fairly restricted class of ergative adjectives which select that complements: a) raising adjectives: certain. as was certain / obvious from the start. sure (These allow the Nom+Inf construction) (73) It is certain/ likley sure that john will win John is sure/ likley / certain [ t to win b) some other adjectives like possible. b. obvious: (74) a. cross one's mind. though. b. I'm likely to win. unlikely (75) a. If we are late. Only internal arguments undergo ellipsis in as structures. imply. It strikes me that nobody is really in favour of the changes 4. they will be analysed on the model of the appear verbs that have just been discussed. Since these adjectives are ergative. verbs which accept clauses as both subjects and objects: .. If we are late. How certain/ obvious that he'll win is it ? c. d. sure. How likely that I'll be on time is it ? b. e. entail. They'll pass. (77) a. that is. mean. It never entered my mind that she would tell him about me. Evidence that the complement clause is an internal arguments.62 COMPLEMENTATION V V0 s seem C0 that CP C IP he is late The complement clause cannot be topicalized. Subject raising: likely. show. since topicalization leaves behind a casemarked trace. attention. It is possible that I'll pass the course. It finally dawned on me that he had been lying all the time.4. How possible for me to pass the course is it ? c. a few other (in)transitive verbs or verbal idioms: (78) strike smb as. b. etc. Subject that clauses also occur with the so-called bisentential verbs ( prove. It is obvious that he will win.7..

Quite a few of them may also take a prepositional Indirect Object with to. b. The pronoun it in (85b) is an expletive place holder for the subject. doubtful. considerable. The finite clause is the subject of the small clause. (im)possible.63 COMPLEMENTATION (80) [That his fingerprints] were on her throat] shows/means/ proves/ entails [that he was unfond of her] Bisentential verbs are subject The Same Side Filter Constraint due to Ross (1973): (81) The Same Side Filter No sentence can have both complements of a bisentential verb on the same side of the verb. ironical. b. likely. *That she was guilty that her knife was bent demonstrated conclusively. odd. awkward. etc. It was essential (to his wife) that John won. loathsome. important. sufficient. helpful. splendid. (85) a. Extraposition is impossible for the subject clause of these verbs (82) That he was dripping wet proved that it had been raining. b. fine. (un)certain. The clause is either topicalized or extraposed. Unergative adjectives that occur with subject that clauses. The copula be takes an adjectival small clause.8. fair. natural. (84) a. true. etc. normal. *It proved that it had ben raining that he was dripping. quaint. since its outcome would place both complement of the verbs to the left of the main verb: (83) That her knife was bent demonstrated conclusively that she was guilty. essential. immaterial. The two clauses are represented below: (86) a. evident. 4. appropriate. funny. alarming. meet and proper. of . good. for. incredible. queer. astonishing. That John won was essential ( to his wife). lucky. definite. feasible. DP TP T' . That John won was essential ( to his wife). bad. clever. insulting. crucial. fantastic. Topicalization is impossible for the object clause of these verbs. anomalous. burdensome. gratifying. probable. b. inconvenient. Semantically they are modal or evaluative ( emotive). TP CP That John won T' T0 V0 was CP tCP VP V' SC AP essential (86’) a. surprising. fortunate. unlikely. It was essential (to his wife) that John won.

g. (1991)): first. the conversational background was epistemic. It is believed by the police that Tom is the murderer (but they are wrong). Kratzer (1981). Thus. for (1b) to be true. sentences (1b) and (1c) contain modal operators and express modalized assertions. says that given what is known. etc.e. Tom might be the murderer. Let us refer to this as the conversational background. In contrast. as well as by functional elements such as the English modal verbs or the grammatical moods of the verb. there is a conversational background which contributes the premises from which the conclusions are drawn. since they are taken as implicit premises in the judgements speakers make. the modal operators (italicized) express attitudes towards the proposition Tom is the murderer. (1) a. when it is appended to a proposition. f. For (1c) to be true it is enough that the proposition that Tom is the murderer should be true in one world consistent with what is known. Conversation unfolds against a common ground. d. e.e.. yields another proposition. In the examples above. containing all the worlds in which these propositions are true. by virtue of what is reasonable. Tom is the murderer. The propositions in the conversational background play an important role in human reasoning. These examples show what ingredients are involved in the interpretation of modalized assertions (cf. In uttering (1a). the set of propositions taken for granted in a context. the modal operator expresses an attitude towards the operand proposition. A modal operator is one which.70 COMPLEMENTATION means (verbs.. the proposition Tom is the murderer must be true in all the worlds which are epistemically possible. These implicit premises are sometimes explicitly signalled by using phrases of the type: by virtue of what is known. the set of premises (propositions) made use of in the modal judgement) determines the set of worlds with respect to which the truth of the modalized proposition is evaluated.. b. since the modal base is the set of worlds where all the propositions considered as premises in the modal inference are true. i. determined by the conversational background. it is not impossible for Tom to be the murderer. Sentence (1c). i.  Some key notions of modal semantics Consider now the interpretation of the examples in (1 a-g). given what is known in the current situation. In contrast to (1a). Sentence (1a) must also be true in all of the context worlds. Therefore they rely on an epistemic conversational background. Sentences (1b) and (1c) differ regarding the strength of the conclusion. containing the modal might. The term modal base is thus a more technical term for 'type of conversational background'. The propositions in the conversational background determine a set of contexts worlds. in agreement with what is known. A modal base is the set of worlds where all the premises considered true in the modal inference are true. It is possible that Tom is the murderer. Tom is the murderer. A similar idea is expressed in (1e). in all the examples below. The police declared that Tom was the murderer. Necessarily. A second ingredient in interpreting modality is the modal relation. which has truth conditions quite similar to (1c). If the modal . the speaker makes an (unmodalized) assertion. except that the modal operator is the adjective possible. Tom must be the murderer. adjectives). The logical notion of modality presupposes the existence of modal operators. since the evidence involved in drawing the modalized conclusions represented what was known in the context. His statement expresses a commitment that the proposition that Tom is the murderer is true in the real world. which determines the force of the conclusions drawn with respect to some background or modal base.e. Roughly speaking. c. Sentences (1b) and (1c) are conclusions that the speaker may draw on the basis of what is known in the context. The background (i.

orders the worlds in the modal base according to the degree in which they realise the ideal described by the ordering source itself. It is important to notice that asserted propositions like (1a) are evaluated with respect to a totally realistic background. They prefer that the building should be restored at once. the modal relation differentiates between epistemic possibility (might. etc. Such modal operators not only introduce a set of alternatives.e. c. In sentence (1d). but also of deontic modal verbs like should. according to what is desirable. a context which is determined at least in part by the modal operator. What changes is the type of world or situation where the modalized proposition is evaluated (e. as in (1g)). Notice. and often does have. etc. the realization of all one's wishes etc. A modal base or conversational background is totally realistic when it represents a set of propositions which characterize the given world uniquely. i. Modal operators express different types of commitments to the truth of the modalized proposition. because what we say or declare is not completely based on what is known to be true in the context.). i. the modal base may or may not include the real world. Students should be polite to their professors.. but also order them function of how close they come to the envisaged ideals. Such is the context created by the verbs like say. etc.. but also an ordering source. b. in the examples discussed ). possibly) and epistemic necessity (must. People reason function of ideals which represent perfect behaviour. etc. according to the normal course of events. according to the law. . Ordering sources capture the observation that the understanding of a modalised sentence often implies the use of idealised states of affairs. may . It follows that a realistic conversational background is a subset of the common ground. as suggested by the bracketed continuation in (1d). in view of facts of such and such kind. worlds compatible with what is known. Thus. wish. Such a background may be signalled by expressions like in view of what is the case. prefer.. Ordering sources may be explicitly introduced by such phrases as. A weakly realistic conversational background is a set of propositions that merely has an intersection with the common ground.  Types of modal base A conversational background or modal base is realistic when it represents a set of propositions which are true in the given world. This is typically the case of modal operators like want. It is signalled by phrases like. One ought to do one's duty.71 COMPLEMENTATION base is epistemic. a set of principles /propositions imposing an ordering among the considered alternatives. it includes the propositions which are believed to be true by the police. An ordering source. how close they get to the ideal. a strong normative component. The modality of the sentence thus signals the context of evaluation of the modalized proposition. Sentence (1d) is true if the proposition that Tom is the murderer is true in those worlds which are consistent with the police's beliefs. etc. which is also a set of propositions describing the ideal. the modal base introduced by the modal operator believe is doxastic.g. (2) a. Worlds in the modal base are ordered according to how many propositions in the ordering source (in the ideal) they realise. desire. worlds compatible with what someone believes.). Modal judgements of these type imply not only a modal base (a set of alternative worlds).. describing the world as it should be (according to the law. The ordering source A particularly salient ingredient in interpreting modality is that it may have.e. in view of what is normal. more generally. ought. declare. that what is believed by the police does not have to be true in the real world.

In that sense. but function of ideals which may never be actually realized. Grammatical mood is a manifestation of a binary classification of the contexts with respect to which propositions are evaluated (cf. Back to grammatical mood. The standard context is that of a totally realistic base (the common ground). The rationale of this idea is that notional mood (modality) is a way of classifying sentences with respect to the standard constituted by simple assertions. In this case the base is totally realistic. A plausible account of grammatical mood must incorporate the distinction between 'notional mood' or modality. but in a different possible world. a set of propositions with respect to which the speaker chooses to consider a particular proposition. The modality of the sentence signals the context of evaluation of the modalized proposition. The worlds in the modal base are possibly ordered by the ideals in the ordering source. namely that mood describes a characteristic of sentence use. as already seen. The scale moves from contexts where the ordering source is non-null. Giorgi and Pianesi (1997)). Grammatical mood is (one of ) the linguistic manifestation(s) of semantic modality. The subjunctive appears when the complement is not supposed to be true in the real world. It is the notion of speaker commitment that was formalised in terms of the semantic environment where a sentence is to be evaluated. which. In this view. The contexts are classified function of a basic designated one. Contexts of evaluation are ordered function of their similarity to this standard. It is possible to set up the following hierarchy of contexts of evaluation. (apud Giorgi & Pianesi (1997)). Conclusion on the semantics of modality. Kratzer (1981). We judge not function of what is the case. contexts sufficiently remote from the basic one use the subjunctive. the indicative mood appears whenever the complement proposition is asserted or at least evaluated with respect to the real world. so that the sentence is judged to be true in possible worlds conforming to the ideals in the ordering . is a semantic classification of the evaluation contexts and grammatical mood. A modal base specifies the world(s) in which the proposition in the scope of the modal is evaluated. Contexts sufficiently alike to the basic one use the indicative. The joint effect of the modal base and the ordering source is to force the evaluation of the modalised proposition in those worlds of the modal base that better realise the given ideal or norm. if the respective modality implies one.72 COMPLEMENTATION Verbs and other operators which have a stronger or weaker normative component invariably imply a non-realistic modal base. modality signals a particular attitude of the speaker. The view of modality proposed above comes very close to that proposed by Jespersen (1924). (1991)). identifiable as that of basic simple assertion. More precisely. Two semantic parameters are essential in the analysis of modality: the modal base and the ordering source (cf.  2. in the sense that we do not require that there should be any intersection between the worlds determined by the conversational contexts and these ideals. it concerns the speaker's commitment about the truth of the sentence in the actual world.

i. so one alternative course of affairs is sufficient. nouns) or they may be functional categories. even though they express modal concepts. hope are labelled weak intensional. verbs like desire. Farkas (1982) offers an insightful characterization of the difference between verb like believe. consistently. the indicative/subjunctive divide. 3. Talk in terms of ordering implies the existence of more . we shall mostly be concerned with the lexically licensed subjunctive. the following: the modal operator. there are a number of contexts where the indicative is consistently used across languages and there are also contexts where the subjunctive is used. 3. crosslinguistically. that possible situation/world where the proposition believed or hoped for is true. (4) a. since it is the main verb which is the modal operator chiefly responsible for the selection of a particular modal base and ordering source. Lexical licensers of modality. Generally the occurrence of the subjunctive in a sentence is the effect of the (implicit or explicit) presence of a modal operators. Operator licensed and lexically licensed subjunctive. determining the context of evaluation for the subordinate clause. They introduce ideals and thus impose an ordering on the alternative courses of affairs. wish. b. Modal operators may be lexical categories (verbs.73 COMPLEMENTATION source. On the other hand.e. Contexts of evaluation similar to the standard one require the indicative. determines the context of evaluation. They require that new solutions should be sought. such as negation. function of the semantics of the main verbs. prefer are strong intensional verbs. to contexts which take into account only what is the case in the particular context of utterance. whereas those classified as different require the subjunctive. The semantic mechanism is. (3) non-null > non-realistic > weakly realistic > realistic> totally realistic ordering base. expectedly. there is a distinction between lexically licensed subjunctive and operator licensed subjunctive. Similarity to the basic context is. wish. likewise. I don't believe that he should win the competition As a result. a matter of degree. Since we are interested in mood choice in subordinate clauses. corresponds to a simplification of such a classification into a binary one. This is why. the main verb. subjunctive). Several semantic features which may characterise verbal concepts prove to be relevant in classifying of evaluation contexts and thus in determining mood choice. Verbs like believe. roughly. and verbs like desire.1. Strong and Weak Intensional Verbs To understand why the subjunctive and the indicative appear where they do a classification of the subordinate contexts is needed. adjectives. Grammatical mood. and the context of evaluation is signalled by the choice of grammatical mood (indicative vs. which use the subjunctive. Since normativity (=an ordering source) is not involved. hope which use the indicative. They may be said to introduce just one alternative to the context-world. it is not necessary to introduce an ordering on possible worlds.

They hope that he will be here. The distribution of the Indicative and the Subjunctive in English 3. In such cases the modal base is totally realistic. differs from desire. clauses embedded under assertive verbs. In other words. Hope requires a weakly realistic modal basis and this explains why the indicative is used. They desire that he be here. Portner (1994)) is thus a very general notion of normativity. (semi-factive verb) They have discovered that they have been defeated. The intersection of this world with the common background is non-null. strong intensional verbs employ the subjunctive. a. and in which the complement clause is true. they are weak intensional verbs. In English. referential discourse. (strong assertive verb) They claim that the enemy has been defeated. Since the ordering bases is non-null. clauses whose complements make assertions (truth claims) also select the indicative. Using the terms of Farkas (1982). The semantic characteristic of these verbs is that their complements are evaluated with respect to non-realistic backgrounds.a.74 COMPLEMENTATION than on possible world. with what is known to be possible in the real world. directly or indirectly placing an event in real time. these verbs. Indicative tenses are deictic.e. Several characteristics follow from this characterization. Indicative propositions are typical for informative.3 Subjunctive triggers At the other end of the mood scale one finds verb classes which always select subjunctive complements.2 Indicative triggers a) The indicative is typically the mood of root non-modalised assertions. i. b) Expectedly. etc. ideals and norms. legal.. presenting the world " as it is". are extensionally anchored. Hope. i. *They desire that he is here. It is possible to hope only as long as one still believes there is a chance of satisfaction. semi factive and weak assertive verbs) select the indicative.. (7) They have realized that they are defeated. the modal base of hope intersects with the common ground. so that the modal base is weakly realistic. * They hope that he be there. since. 3.'*They desire that he will be here. b. (5) Tom was here. The mandative subjunctive . These verbs are weak intensional. The most general single meaning associated with the subjunctive in argument clauses (cf. (6) They have just reported that the enemy has been defeated. (weak assertive verb) The indicative appears to be the mood of assertion ( see Quirk e. The main verb introduces one world. all assertive verbs (strong assertive. descriptive. even if they are modal operators. Weak intensional verbs often use the indicative. showing contrasting mood choices: (9) (10) a. as explained. in which the complement is evaluated. The indicative is factual. a. Additionally an act of hoping is also a situation in which something is obliged. extensionally anchored. The ordering base is null. more than one alternative to the actual world is taken into account and these alternatives differ in terms of how close they are to moral. Compare the following examples in American English. (1972)). they introduce one world with respect to which the complement is evaluated. (8) They believe that they will win. an indicative selector.e. incorporating the senses 'ought to be' (desirability) and 'ought to do' (obligation)". as discussed above. b. involving non-null ordering bases.

demand. which are future. prescriptive. This is why the meaning of hope is incompatible with the mandative subjunctive. forbid. The carrier proposed that my pocket handkerchief should be spread upon the horse's back to dry. Let us examine some of the subjunctive triggers. give orders. I regret that he should have believed me capable of dishonesty. (13) She demanded that I should stay with her. The verb in the complement clause should be non-stative. b. b. c) are ungrammatical: . etc. essentially involved in the choice and evaluation of human agency. non-factual nature of the subjunctive. Now they ask that this sordid episode be sealed from public knowledge. decide. with respect to which the complement clause is evaluated. (14) We ask that this food be blessed. The Past Subjunctive. Intuitively. These explain why sentences (16b. The subjunctive "tenses" are not deictic.75 COMPLEMENTATION requires that its reference situation be an obliging situation. The verbs which require the subjunctive are strong intensional verbs. (10a). They do not place an event in real time. beg. since. desires are for states of affairs that are believed to be unrealized as of yet. suggest. A nonrealistic modal base and an ordering source are clearly present (the 'ought to do' component of the subjunctive). e. (ALD) Is it ordained in heaven that women should work in the home (ALD) These sentences report exercitive acts. and should denote a volitional. as already explained. acts whose point is to bring about the fulfilment of some volitional act denoted by the complement clause and carried out by an explicit or implicit Agent in the subordinate clause.e. command. factual nature of the indicative. This explains why the subjunctive is compatible with desire. in contrast with the descriptive. and (10b)). advise. a) The first verb class almost exclusively used with the subjunctive is that of exercitive verbs. The time sphere of the complement is future. decree. but undetermined as to whether they will be actualized (cf. order. There are a number of constraints on the propositional content of the complement clause. prohibit. I regret that he should believe me capable of dishonesty. The desired situation thus must be future. but one where you will find and give happiness. One cannot desire a type of situation unless one believes both that the situation does not exist in the real world (i. but not with hope. Exercitive verbs may be verbs of command or verbs of permission. d. c. The subjunctive is normative. so that the ordering base is non-null and the modal base is non-realistic. On the other hand. interdict. Notice the prescriptive.. Carol suggested that the lady stay for supper and that Kennicott invite Guy Pollock. they need to introduce a set of (ideally ordered) worlds. (LG) (15) He demands that he be told everything. merely expresses anteriority with respect to a reference expressed in the main clause. recommend. (11) a. instruct. In Austin's definition exercitive verbs "give a decision in favour or against a course of action". God forbid that you should take any road. (LG) The medicine man then ordered that there should be no mourning for the dead child. The following represent the most frequently used exercitive verbs of command: (12) ask. The subjunctive always signals the presence of norms and ideals. rule. crucially involving the "ought to do" component of the subjunctive. the modal base is non-realistic) and that it still could come to exist. the verb desire naturally calls for the subjunctive. controllable act of an Agent.

*He ordered that she should grow taller. (22) a. can't stand. anxious. Exercitive verbs of command and permission very clearly illustrate the normative. It is impossible that he should succeed. prefer. the clause will be true in (some of) these future alternatives. reluctant. possible. the referent of the object is either coreferential with the subordinate clause Agent. b. the volitional act denoted by the subordinate act is not prevented from occurring: (18) a. conceivable select a subjunctive with may. The doctor allowed that John should drink a glass of whisky every evening. often to the exclusion of the indicative. intend. *He ordered that she should have left. They arranged that we should be met at the station. can't bear. impossible. planning or activity intended to prepare the fulfilment of some desirable state of affairs. forbids. likely. sentence (17c) below is felicitous only if the referent of the Indirect Object to him is responsible for seeing that the next recital is indeed shorter. (20) It is conceivable that he may win. c.76 COMPLEMENTATION (16) a. In this case. even though they are hardly emotive. b) adjectives : eager. In such cases. that is they can hardly be said to express an emotional reaction: (un)necessary. expressing volition. They recommended to him that he should read the instructions carefully. etc. or is responsible for fulfilment of the volitional act denoted by the subordinate sentence. desire. We suggested to him that the next recital should be shorter. are volitional verbs. suffer. prescriptive dimension of the subjunctive. c. permit. wish. A second group of verbs that select the subjunctive. actualizing some state of affairs. There are several verbs and adjectives in this class: (21) a) verbs: want. Thus. etc.. authorize. b. in the alternative courses of affairs introduced by the main verb. We advised Mary that she should wait. proposes. (17) a. I want / am anxious that he should get the job. b. There are also a few modal adjectives which are non-factive. Each of these main verbs introduces sets of future possible worlds consistent with what the main clause subject demands. etc. The subjunctive is also required after exercitive verbs of permission: allow. The adjectives possible. He ordered that she should leave b. arrange. They are nearly always used with the subjunctive. Their antonymic pairs select the should subjunctive. unlikely. The use of the subjunctive with these verbs is related to the notion of 'imperative sentence'. intention. If the exercitive act is felicitous. Remark. Some of these verbs appear with Direct Objects or Indirect Objects (see (17)). Do you permit that I should smoke in here ? b. (19) It is necessary that one should pay one's taxes. suggests. Who will see to it that things should turn out well ? . of ' bringing it about that p'. The committee allowed that the bridge should be restored. willing. c. imperative. c. see to. by a sort of modal agreement between the main predicate and the auxiliary in the complement clause.

It is interpreted in a weakly realistic background. The normative.(Giorgi & Pianesi (1997)).4. Here are some more examples: (26) a. I told / convinced Maryi that she should go to the conference. point out. . the act is felicitous if in some future course of action Mary goes to that conference. The complement clause is evaluated with respect to these alternatives. since the verb is extensionally anchored. ideal semantic component is again clear. not with respect to the real world. Dual mood choice While so far we have examined only predicates that consistently select one mood. repeat. When the complement clause is in the indicative. Verbs of communication (23) agree. etc. there is a modal assertion. like exercitive verbs may be described as strong intensional verbs. In (24b. say. confess. controlled by an Agent. The referent of the direct object. b) Mother convinced me that I should keep indoors another day.1. c. I told / convinced Mary that Paul was right. explain. intended. or at least understood as responsible for fulfilment of the action in the complement clause. Mary is responsible for fulfilment of the action in the complement clause. which is why volitional verbs select the subjunctive cross-linguistically.77 COMPLEMENTATION Volitional verbs. as described above. I insist that the concert finished at ten (=I claim that it is true that it finished at ten). they are interpreted as exercitive verbs. The predicate in the complement clause is non-stative. When they are used with the subjunctive. bad. wrong. it is either coreferential with the Agent in the subordinate clause. suggest. and express evaluative modalities: good. I insist that the concert should finish at ten ( I demand that it should finish at ten) In (24a) the verb is exercitive. In (24b) the assertion in the subordinate clause is not modalised. a. 3. Since they become exercitive verbs. These differences are clearly brought out by pairs of examples like the following: (24) a . convince. write. better. warn. and there are no constraints on the propositional content of the complement clause. state. persuade. prepared. (25) a. The interpretation of the two moods is clearly different. above. telephone. tell. c) the main verb is assertive and takes the indicative mood. Bill told Suzy that she should go to the dentist's. c. ordered function of the ideal of what is wanted. The secretary informed the students that they should take the final test on the 25th of May. they observe all the constraints mentioned above for exercitive verbs: The complement clause should denote a volitional act. the complement clause makes an assertion. best. etc. in this use. right. remark. these verbs are used as (strong) assertive verbs. b. b) Evaluative predicates/ emotive predicates b1) Non -factive emotives. should is interpreted as a deontic modal operator. in (24c). b. This use of the verbs is the one described in 3. This semantic class includes a large number of adjectives that take subject clauses. Should is a subjunctive auxiliary in this case. If there is a direct or indirect object.I told / convinced Maryi that shei should go to that conference a' * I told / convinced Maryi that should be tall. They introduce set of alternative worlds. declare. inform. and follows from the semantics of the two moods. there are also many predicates which systematically allow either mood.

will happen and they may be proved wrong in their beliefs. emotive factive predicates express reactions or emotions to situations. their complements are/ may be interpreted factively. b. I regret it that he didn't come (37) I would resent it if you were famous. On the other hand. but that "it is imagined as true". taking into accounts their own normative standards people may express emotional reactions on the strength of beliefs that something has happened. but I know that the shamming. It irritated Mor that his wife should combine a grievance about her frustrated gifts with a lack of any attempt to concentrate. rather than to non-existent fictitious ones.e. Since the factive component can be suspended. (35) a. but they are not presupposed in all the tenses or moods of the verb. It is desirable that it be both lined and insulated. or relate situations to an implicit set of normative criteria. c.". It seemed to Mor a little quaint that she should refer to the boys as children. whose specific interpretation has long been noted by grammarians.. that is. one understands why these verbs allow a modal normative reading. I'm ashamed that you should have me for a mother. On the one hand. the proposition often refers to actual events only "due to a pragmatic principle of emotional reactions" which says that "people react emotionally to states and events that exist. In order to better understand double mood selection with these verbs. (1972) remarks that when the subjunctive is used with these verbs. It is not strange therefore that the Tudors should have been able to exercise a great influence. d. the complement is merely possible. (34) behaviour to It is essential that the two instruments should run parallel to the microscope stage.79 COMPLEMENTATION (33) It is sensible that the breeding animals receive the highest protection. As aptly . Their complements are indeed presupposed when the main predicate is in an episodic tense (such as the Past Tense or the Present). (36) I would it regret it if he didn't come. little pert is Thus in a sense the use of the subjunctive signals the absence of factivity. or rather it signals lack of concern for what is actual. (38) He regrets that that the little girl should be sick. It is vital that leaking water is avoided It is important that it be well sealed from air leakage." However. Quirk e.a. not descriptive. with Quer (1998:95) "that factivity (in the sense of presupposed truth of the complement clause) is not an inherent property of the lexical semantics of these predicates. but depends on the contexts where they are used. may happen. and this makes them compatible with the subjunctive. this makes them compatible with the indicative. I resent it that you are famous. they are presupposed to be true in the real world. It is preferable that the marked cells should be identical in their the unmarked cells. Notice the different interpretation of the complement clauses in the examples below. Rosenberg (1975) stresses that with emotive factives. i. one should notice. c) Factive predicates Quer (1998: 94) comments that these predicates have two components in their meaning. what counts is not that the complement is true. The judgement is evaluative.

such as negation. When the subjunctive is used the presuppositions of the complement clause are not accepted as common ground presuppositions." 3. the presuppositions of the complement sentence normally become part of the common ground. as general principles rather than facts.5 Operator licensed subjunctives. and then present a group of verbs for which the use of the subjunctive in the complement clause has the same effect as that of the polarity subjunctive (40) a. etc. complain. I doubt that he should succeed. This is the so called contrary to expectations subjunctive. reproach. as shown by the difference between the affirmative sentence and its negative counterpart: (39) I believe that he is here. The contexts are classified function of a basic designated one. The dean does not believe that the students should deserve a prize. But this subjunctive also may appear with verbs that fail to express uncertainty. imagine. fancy. b. In this paragraph we examine the effect of mood shift with the polarity subjunctive. /* I believe that he should be here. To think that he should have done it at last! d. uncertainty. The use of the subjunctive signals that the complement proposition is contrary to the common ground expectations or presuppositions. The indicative and the subjunctive represent the main propositional modalities of English. The subjunctive may also be licensed by other operators. 2 Grammatical mood is (one of ) the linguistic manifestation(s) of semantic modality. but I can 1. believe.80 COMPLEMENTATION expressed by Curme (1947) " even when the subjunctive is used of actual facts. matter. such as: doubt. (cf. The indicative/ subjunctive dichotomy represents a binary classification of the contexts with respect to which propositions are evaluated. Each of the two grammatical moods is associated with a semantic content that limits its distribution. Conclusions it. think. but also with lexical predicates that include an element of doubt. Quer (1998). but I do. rather than by the main verb. implicit negation. Here are examples: (42) a. It doesn't matter that Max should have bought a Cadillac. They do not believe that Godot will come. the subjunctive is triggered by negation. In this case the base is totally . And that you should deceive me – well. The contrary to expectations subjunctive is found not only with negation. When the indicative is used. etc./ I don't believe that he is here. Quer comments that there is a difference between such pairs. They do not believe that Godot should come. the question operator. to suggest that the complement clause is contrary to the presuppositions in the common ground. and neither do I (41) a. c. identifiable as that of basic simple assertion. b. I don't exactly understand imagine it. b. it presents them as conceptions of the mind. Giorgi & Pianesi (1997)) Thus in the example below. ?The dean does not believe that the students should deserve a prize. I don't believe that he should be here.

81 COMPLEMENTATION realistic. The Dative thus consisted of a distinctive Dative form. and whose Dative was to writenne or writanne.  b) The for-to complement  The infinitive has a lexical subject different from the matrix subject and the infinitive is introduced by the complementizer for. contexts sufficiently remote from the basic one use the subjunctive. (1) ich .  (4) a. The indicative mood appears whenever the complement proposition is asserted or at least evaluated with respect to a realistic background.  The Dative preposition to has turned into a tense/mood marker. whose Nominative / Accusative form was writan.  b. This is in line with its normative ('ought to be'). The classification of infinitive constructions relies on the way in which they express or fail to (overtly) express their subject. and was a prepositional object modifying the verb. They tried to arrive in time. an empty (= lacking phonological features) pronoun PRO is used to stand for the missing subject of the infinitive. The company persuaded him to resign. Support for the categorial change from P to T comes from the emergence of perfect infinitives in Middle English. The change in categorial status from a P0 to a T0 constituent.  b. General Remarks  Origin The infinitive was originally a verbal noun. a functional category of the verb. thus meant "drove him toward the doing of it".  a) The PRO-TO construction: The infinitive lacks an overt subject. To represent this knowledge.  (2) a. The complementizer for serves as an assigner . The DP in the main clause with which PRO is co. The preposition to meant "toward" and pointed to the goal toward which the activity of the main verb was directed. The company persuaded him1 [PRO1 to resign]. the sentence above indicates that to shifted its category from P to T in ME. which later acquired verbal properties. COURSE 6 INFINITIVE CLAUSES GENERAL PROPERTIES OF INFINITIVE COMPLEMENTS 1. apparently took place in Middle English (Curme. "Jealousy drove him to do it". An infinitive verb like' to write' descends from a verbal noun.referential is called the controller of PRO. this is in line with its factual descriptive nature.  c. She promised her mother to study for the exam. 1931:455. She2 promised her mother [PRO2 to study for the exam].  2. plus the preposition to. Contexts sufficiently alike to the basic one use the indicative. 4. Fischer (1992). The subjunctive signals a non-realistic conversational background and the presence of an ordering source. writenne. etc.schulde mid rihte beon more scheomful uorte hebben i speken. They1 tried [PRO1 to arrive in time].  The implicit subject is understood to be coreferential with a nominal in the main clause. 3. prescriptive ( 'ought to do') character. c. Tomoyuki (1997)). ase ich spec 'I should rightly be more ashamed to have spoken as I spoke'  Given the assumption that perfect auxiliaries must be syntactically licensed by T.

84 COMPLEMENTATION the students T0 to

VP QP all

VP DP V' tthe students Evidence that the subject moves out of SpecVP comes from the distribution of floating quantifiers like all, both, each. Floating quantifiers appear only in front of syntactic predicates, i.e., predicative constituents which are c-commanded by a subject (cf. Baltin (1994)). If the QP is adjoined to the VP, and the subject has raised out of the VP, then the subject is in a position of c- command with respect to the VP, and the QP indeed precedes a syntactic predicate. Thus, the floating quantifier all is licensed in (30b), since the subject has surely moved out of the VP  Consider the negative infinitive clauses now (examples (31)). Apparently, at least in negative clauses, the subject sits in Spec AgrS, above not, a position where it is accessible to C0 for, which checks its case by Agree. The subject should be the closest Spec, or else Agree is blocked. This forces the projection of an AgrS projection in negative clauses , as in (33). (33) C' C0 AgrSP for DP AgrS' him AgrS0 NegP Neg Neg‘ not Neg0 TP [+neg] DP T' thim T0 VP to DP V thim  4.3. The Semantics of the for-to construction C0 for appears with a particular class of verbs, with which it is semantically compatible. A general property of these predicates is that they are [+ Emotive] or [+Evaluative], as first stated by Kiparsky and Kiparsky (1970). Bresnan (1972) argues that the complementizer for is semantically active. It expresses subjective reason or cause, purpose, or goal. Given Bresnan's proposal, one could let for freely appear in any infinitival complement, as long as its meaning is compatible with the semantics of the higher predicate. It is this second position that appears to have more empirical support. In later work, Pesetsky (2000) also argues that whether or not an infinitival complement can be introduced by for is determined by the semantics of the higher predicate, in fact, of the whole higher clause. For-to complements have a particular interpretation. On the one hand, he claims, for- to complements are understood as if they contained an irrealis modal verb; this is why they are felicitous in the company of irrealis subjunctive main clauses, an observation which has often been made (cf. (34a, c)). On the other hand, they may receive a generic interpretation, again in harmony with a generic matrix (cf. (34b, d)). A generic interpretation shares with an irrealis subjunctive one the fact that both are intensional constructions, judged to be true in ideal settings. Predicates that are compatible with for either select unrealized

Being a "minimal" pronoun. though they do not cover the same portion of the hierarchy. where the matrix has an episodic past reading and the main verb is factive or implicative: (35) # FOR non-generic matrix factive/implicative complement. dicendi verbs (say. with the appropriate types of verbs for-to may appear in subject position. and that for-to complements have a T feature explains why. assert. Licensing PRO: PRO has null case. as will be seen soon. and perhaps other features as well.). consider. Before examining the type of evaluation setting presupposed by infinitive complements. etc. which is not accepted by lexical DPs. into weak intensional verbs and strong intensional verbs (cf. On the modal temporal properties of the infinitive 6. Expectedly. since it is incompatible with other types of case. [generic matrix] For-to is excluded with realis complements. Recall that phonologically realized DPs have case. It is indeed true. a. As with that complements. the subjunctive or the infinitive. The expectation of such a point of view is that each non-indicative mood is associated with a continuous segment of this hierarchy. commissive (promising) verbs (promise. believe. This suggested that PRO occurs in caseless positions (caseless because they were ungoverned. understand. #Bill hated (it) for Mary to know French. A property of PRO is that it occurs in positions where lexical DPs are forbidden. Farkas (1994)).85 COMPLEMENTATION states of affairs as complements (the case of emotive verbs) or else are themselves used generically. it is important to recall an important classification of main predicates. Bill would hate (it) for Mary to learn about her misfortune. it is in this world that the complement . Therefore. so PRO is assigned null Case.1. 5. I always prefer for my students to buy their own books [generic matrix] c. the infinitive and the subjunctive also differ as to finiteness. 6. tell. The Contexts of evaluation scale (56) non-null > non-realistic > weakly realistic > realistic > totally realistic ordering base Grammatical mood roughly corresponds to a simplification of such a classification into a binary one. Weak intensional predicates include epistemic verbs (know. (34) Irrealis / generic infinitive clauses. [irrealis] b. that the infinitive and the subjunctive cover continuous segments of this hierarchy. etc). it has been argued by Pesetsky that the complementizer for lexicalizes an uninterpretable Tense feature in C0. PRO is excluded from regular case -marked positions. PRO is the only formative compatible with this type of case. In addition to the type of evaluation setting presupposed. Romario tried to [PRO to score the winning goal]. as in (40). (36) a. swear. (40) a. These verbs are modal operators which introduce only one possible situation or possible world into the context. [irrealis] d. Bill hates (it) for people to learn about their misfortunes. I would like (very much) for Sue to buy this book. etc). in SpecT. etc). opposing the indicative mood in different ways. Chomsky & Lasnik (1993) propose a compromise: like any DP. The fact that for is a mark of tense. PRO and lexical DPs are (nearly always) in complementary distribution. doxastic verbs (think. They assume that non-finite Tense can check only null Case. b. For him not to confess the truth would be at once idle and perilous. PRO needs Case in order to be visible and interpretable at LF. Contexts of evaluation similar to the standard one require the indicative. *Romario tried [Bebeto to score the winning goal]] To simplify the theory. whereas those classified as different require a non-indicative mood.

They promise [PRO to return the money tomorrow]. They managed to buy the house b. He is believed to have arrived last night.86 COMPLEMENTATION clause is supposed to be true. These verbs have the property of entailing the truth / falsity of their complements. etc) presupposes a weakly realistic base. like the subjunctive expresses possible. e. I knew him to be lying at once. (59) a. command. assertive. communicated.). In such cases the ordering source is null. even if the verbs are intensional modal operators: (57) He believes / knows / says / promises that he will win. dicendi. In other words what is known is part of what is true.g. etc. The infinitive complement selected by weak intensional verbs (doxastic.e. He regretted to lose so much money. bearing a [-realis] feature. c. Strong intensional verbs.e. epistemic. It is believed that he arrived last night. He lost much money . i. is in the subjunctive. and the infinitive inflection bears a [+realis] mood feature. with truth in the actual world. The infinitive is thus compatible a) with weakly realistic bases (e. The complement proposition is said to be extensionally anchored. The finite [+realis] feature is standardly associated with the indicative. the infinitive of weak intensional verbs). not real action.2. The complement proposition is said to be intensionally anchored. because its truth is believed or implied (determined) in the possible world introduced by the verb. what is known. evaluative / emotive modalities (be bizarre / odd / bad.. the infinitive of strong intensional verbs). The modal base has an intersection with the common ground. the complement clause of these verbs may use the indicative mood. etc. Considering the context of evaluation scale in (56) it appears that the cut-off point for the use of the infinitive is that of an at most weakly-realistic basis. the infinitive clause is supposed to be true in the unique evaluation world introduced by the main verb. exercitive verbs of command (order. They bought the house.g. Moreover the set of propositions true in the possible world i. Let us assume that in complements of weakly intensional verbs. (60) a. in as much as its truth is not at stake. c. (58) They demand that their salaries should be raised 6.. The infinitive complement may have an indicative paraphrase. would like). etc.) always intersects with the common ground. The infinitive modality A general characterization of the infinitive mood against this background would be that the use of the infinitive signals a non-(total)ly realistic setting even when the infinitive is used in the main clause. The evaluation context presupposed is weakly realistic. necessarily constrained by some ordering source. f.. introduce a set of possible worlds. They continued to lose money d. Strong intensional verbs are desiderative verbs (want. thought. They lost the money. what is believed is in part what is true etc. I knew that he was lying at once. b. since one obviously cannot order a set containing only one world. One more situation of [+realis] infinitive is the complement of implicative verbs (Karttunen (1977)) aspectual verbs and factive verbs. therefore the infinitive. Notice that since a weakly realistic evaluation context is close enough to a totally realistic one. the Inflection (finite or nonfinite) head bears a [+realis] feature. They promise that they will return the money tomorrow. b) with nonrealistic bases with non-null ordering bases (e. desire.). In English the finite complement of a strong intensional verb. as also stressed by Pesetsky (1991). if available.

stop. as already shown above. fail. who observed that infinitives typically describe "hypothetical or unrealized" events. Propositional: claim. Interrogatives: wonder. 7.87 COMPLEMENTATION The complement clause is obviously evaluated in the same world as the main clause. It is good [PRO to spend Christmas with one’s family. languages like Greek have completely eliminated the infinitive. force. They wish that he should become president. interrogate. inquire. The Inflection of the infinitive clause bears an irrealis ([-realis]) mood feature. (63) a. a’. Modal: have. if available. finish. unclear. promise. resolve. mean intend. agree. b. arrange. f. aspire. surprised. fail. retaining only the subjunctive. plan. know. (factive predicates also select For complements). partly because of neglecting the fact that the infinitive is a mood. the infinitive clause is true in the same world. compel. d. loath. like. The meaning of the infinitive is thus more general than that of the subjunctive. continue. the infinitive is paraphrasable as either an indicative or a subjunctive: (62) a. Implicative: manage. (61) a. c'. offer. introduced by strong intensional verbs (desideratives. is able. evaluative modalities). imperative verbs. I knew at once that he was lying. There has been a lively debate around the correct description of the temporal properties of the infinitive. The paraphrase. avoid. eager. which. sorry. forgot. . We briefly survey the positions which have been expressed. On the other hand the considerable area of overlap between the indicative and the subjunctive (e. deliberate. demand.g. condescended.understand. refuse. I wanted [PRO to have a nice family-holiday]. If the main clause is true in the real world. find out. I knew him to be lying. the complement is intensionally anchored. Desiderative: want.] a' It is good that one should send Christmas with one's family. Factives: glad. grasp.. may. afraid. Aspectual: begin. 7. hate. while. (All of them also select for) g. They wish for him to become president. should. since in such cases the event of the subordinate clause is oriented to its own RT rather than (directly) to the matrix ET. neglect. resume. need. depending on the setting presupposed by the main verb/predicate. both are compatible with strong intensional predicates) explains why the infinitive has replaced the subjunctive in many contexts in English.1. b. prefer. contemplate. strive. decline. dislike. start. c. not a Tense of English. More technically. c. The temporal interpretation of the infinitive clause In this paragraph we will try to ascertain whether infinitive complement have a contentful [+Tense] feature in T0. choose. presupposed a non-realistic base and a non-null ordering basis. It is good [PRO to spend Christmas with one’s family]. refrain. bother. regret. decide. The infinitive is also compatible with non-realistic bases with non-null ordering sources. shocked. sad. b. It is good that one should spend Christmas with one’s family. guess. As a result. b’. hope. see fit. Stowell (1981. Intuitively the question is whether the infinitive verbs may denote a different time sphere from the main clause. Are infinitives tensed or untensed complements? The idea that infinitives have their own tense can be traced back to Bresnan (1972). remembered. The following classes of control taking verbs will be mentioned in the discussion. must. is subjunctive. ask. the problem is whether the infinitive clause may establish its own RT. the truth of the complement clause is not at stake. In this case. e. yearn. since we have already proved that a syntactic T position is available in infinitives. ready.

Therefore in this case the simple form may be associated with an event reading. b. +tense]. Accordingly. where the anchoring point is now (always momentary) and in the infinitive construction where the anchoring event is the main clause. A good starting point is the comparison of the interpretation of the infinitive with the indicative complements of the same epistemic verbs: (80) Tom believed Mary to be pregnant. George is eating an apple. This problem does not arise for the future interpretation of the bare stem form. Tom believed that Mary was pregnant. *George eats an apple now. however. one uses the progressive present in independent sentences or the progressive present in the infinitive complement. We suggest to compare that complements and infinitives with respect to their temporal properties. b). As a result the durative. allowing the for-to construction as well as the PRO-to construction.realis. both in independent sentences. A durative. Moreover. and in complement clauses: (79) He starts work tomorrow. . tragic. the ET of the main clause) is punctual. a perfective event (which is inherently structured. I believe George to be eating an apple now.90 COMPLEMENTATION infinitive-taking factives. odd. the English bare infinitive form is inherently [+perfective]. but forces the ET/RT of the main clause to function as RT.. imperfective stative progressive form must be used both at the present. (78) He is reading. examples ((66a. I want him to start work him tomorrow. in the framework suggested by Giorgi and Pianesi (1997). I regret [PRO to say] that your son.e. non punctual form must be used instead. b). It is strange for him to act like that. Several explanations are available (see Gueron (1995) or Giorgi and Pianesi (1997)). Captain Brown has been killed in action. the use of the simple infinitive to show a perfective singular event is impossible. but may be derived from other morpho-synatctic properties of the English tense system. that the simple form of the infinitive is compatible with eventive predications. rather than a deictic present. and thus non-punctual) cannot be mapped onto a point. and since at least examples like (76a) accept both a [+realis] indicative and a [-realis] subjunctive paraphrase. The finite clause has both a shifted reading and a simultaneous reading. We would like to consider a different argument meant to show that the infinitive complement of raising verb does not establish its own RT. as always with subordinate clauses. is not necessarily an argument that the infinitive is untensed. First it will be seen that the fact that the raising complements cannot have an individual eventive reading (cf. and according to the punctuality constraint. allows only the simultaneous reading. we will assign factives the feature [. c. because the future does not overlap. imperfective use in English. it is precisely because the time sphere of control constructions is a "hypothetical future". (67a) to the more general fact that the simple present may not have a deictic. unlike other languages: (77) a. c) Let us consider raising complements now. *I believe George to eat an apple now. They claim that. but follows the anchoring event. (76) a. (67a)) above). Since for-to complements are tensed. In other words. On the other hand. as discussed in the SOT clauses. All of them relate to the impossibility of sentences like (66a. This restriction has already been discussed above. maintaining the generalization that the feature [-realis] and [+ tense] correlate. b. while correct. the RT of the subordinate clause is the event (ET) of the main clause and establish that any anchoring event (i. d. are all emotives as well. like regret. The infinitive clause. as suggested so far. I know him to be reading now.

tense].indexed with the ET/RT of the main clause. the that clause behaves as if it were Tenseless. the situation denoted by the main clause.e. The only difference is that the subordinate RT is determined by the main sentence. I would be surprised [PRO to find myself underwater] b. assuming as we did that tense is the relational predicate. Like tensed clauses. the infinitive clause is then [+realis. I would be surprised [FOR him not to win the prize]. anteriority with respect to its RT.commanded by the main clause Past Tense. while raising complements are untensed. a'. The situation denoted by the complement clause develops out of the one denoted by the main clause. since in that complements. In contrast. we have argued that in the simultaneous reading.91 COMPLEMENTATION As known. 8. which is sharpened only in combination with the main verbs. we assumed that in the shifted reading the external argument of Tense is a PRO operator which is co-indexed by the c-commanding matrix clause ET argument. The conclusion we have reached supports Stowell's original claim that some control complements are tensed. The event in the complement clause is non-anterior to that of the main clause. *I consider [[PRO to come] to be easy]] b. This gives the simultaneity effect. The shifted reading is thus possible because the that complement clause can identify its own RT. which attempts to capture the core meaning of this form. being equated with the ET of the main clause. Infinitive clauses appear to be non-unitary regarding their temporal properties. This is due to the rather vague meaning of the infinitive. . at least in Inversion structure. This conclusion is also in keeping with the view that raising complements are IPs. The SOT rule which was proposed by Ogihara (1996) deletes the Past Tense c." This formulation has the advantage of suggesting a certain time relation between the main clause (the reference situation) and the complement clause. (84) a. the external argument of Tense is a free variable bound by the main clause tense.. The clause is [-Tense]. More technically. The shifted reading shows pastness. *Would [for him to win instead of you] be a problem for you? . rather than CPs. Working in the framework of situation semantics. Infinitives like that complements show CRP effects. it is natural to attribute to it the same analysis. The Tense head. *Is [PRO to win this competition] a problem for you? b. Portner asserts that the infinitive denotes an alternative situation that develops out of a duplicate of the reference situation. Similarly they cannot occupy the structural Accusative position in Acc + Inf constructions. it may be future (the irrealis complements) or simultaneous (the realis complements). co. must be construed as a free variable.1. due to Portner (1994). the Past Tense of the main clause. they may never appear as objects of prepositions (82) a. The complement clause denotes "a situation which may be viewed as a continuation of the reference situation introduced by the main verb. (83) a. Other syntactic properties of for-to and PRO-to complements 8. i. functions as a true past. expressing anteriority to an RT established by the complement clause. or the external argument of the Tense head. Since the infinitive clause only has the simultaneous reading. *Bill showed [[for Bill to have won] to be a fact] Finally they cannot occupy the Nominative position. * I would be surprised at for him not to win the prize]. With propositional verbs. We close by quoting a description of the infinitive. *I would be surprised at [PRO to find myself underwater]. an RT different from that of the main clause could only be the effect of having the external argument of T in CP. b'. identical to the main clause ET. in the shifted reading. This amounts to saying that the complement clause cannot define an independent RT.

[For you to take this course would help you. (88) a. object clauses may not. contrary to what is claimed in Stowell (1981). *To get rid of his old car was failed by Tom. because they cannot in principle appear in SpecT. prepositional object. It is indeed the case that the complements of implicative and aspectual verbs do not passivize: (91) John began / continued / started to write. b. Notice that the verbs involved are desideratives and exercitives. *To get rid of his old car was managed by John. Stowell (1981)). infinitive clauses show an asymmetry. (92) John managed to get rid of his old car. Extraposition may characterize all case argument positions: subject. there are two saving devices: the clause may be preverbal when it is a topic. (90) a.92 COMPLEMENTATION As with tensed clauses. b. Again we expect untensed infinitives to be unable to passivize. (for)-to -infinitives do not behave quite like tensed clauses or gerunds. On the other hand passivization of tensed infinitives is attested. (89) a. Subject clauses merge in SpecVP and cannot remain there. (93) Tom failed to get rid of his old car. where they are case-identified as a consequence of SHA with the finite T head. The difference is probably related to Case. b. John has promised [PRO to help us] repeatedly. direct object. 8. c) With respect to topicalization. with sources indicated. (94) Mary know it had been recommended [PRO to behave herself in public] (Manzini (1983)) Mary know it had been prohibited [PRO to reveal herself in public] (95) It was prohibited [to speak loudly] (Landau (1999)) (96) It was decided [PRO to leave earlier] (Chierchia 1989)) It was recommended [PRO to see the movie]. It was begun / continued / started by John to write. This allows them to reach SpecTP. In other respects. b) Passivization of the infinitive complements is very problematic. Alongside of the tense factor. John explained 'how to open the jar to Bill. a) First of all infinitival clauses are more or less freely ordered with respect to other arguments in the VP such as PPs and adverbials". but must move out of their position to satisfy their own needs. the difficulty of passivizing the infinitive must be related to its categorial status as partly a PP. (cf. John has promised repeatedly [PRO to help us]. Here are examples. The Extraposition structure is thus an important property of CP complements. displaying certain properties characteristic of PPs. John explained to Bill how to open the jar. (86) Extraposition from Subject It is fun [PRO to swim]. (87) Extraposition from object position I suggested it to you [PRO speak to the girl at once]. Notice also that all examples involve extraposition. Frank wants to visit you very badly. or it can undergo extraposition. *To write was begun / continued / started by John. Frank wants [very badly] [PRO to visit you]. Subject clauses may topicalize. b. This allows them to move to the Topic position .2. For-to complements and PRO-to complements extrapose. It would help you for you to take this course. which are tensed complements. (85) a. whether they are that complements or infinitives.

say Spec AgrO.e. It is plausible to relate impossibility of Topicalization to their PP nature. Identification of null pronoun pre-supposes identifying a controller. (realis. By analogy to the subject case. In a) the Indirect Object (=IO) is the required controller. 1. Obligatory and non-obligatory control Control is the relation between an antecedent and the missing PRO subject. Hence topicalization of object infinitives does not occur. we mention again the properties of PRO assumed in the discussion that follow: a. it is the relation between PRO and its controller.. This will reveal the richness of the control phenomenon. in its absence the sentence is ungrammatical.93 COMPLEMENTATION leaving behind a case marked trace. . b. (1) a. in e) and g) the expected controller is the main clause subject. I ordered to them [PRO to leave]. -tense) [PRO to lose the game] would proved they are idiots (irrealis. More technically. PRO is theta marked by predicates like any regular DPs. Here we concentrate on the first category of situations. in c) the needed controller is the direct object (=DO). a DP that lacks phonological properties.e. After movement operations have applied.e. I never expected [PRO to be invited] b' *[To be invited].. by non-finite inflection. PRO is a null pronoun. Towards a typology of control constructions. PRO is thus licensed by Theta-Theory. I asked John[who to visit] a' *Who to visit I asked John b. +tense) Object clauses have no reason to leave their base position. PRO ends up in subject position and is assigned null case. it may be viewed as an anaphoric element. Since PRO is understood function of an antecedent. i. The domain of Control Theory (=CT). A first relevant empirical distinction is that between obligatory control and optional control. I never expected. Before presenting the various cases that fall under control theory. Thus Topicalization is helped by the fact that Greed pushes the subject clause out of its base position to position where case can be checked. The term obligatory control designates configurations that lead to ungrammaticality if a suitable controller is not overtly present. its absence leads to ungrammaticality. the problem of the identification of the empty categories. Control theory deals with problems of the following type: a) What elements can control? b) What is the exact nature of the relation between PRO and the controller? Is it an obligatory or an optional relation? Is it a one-to-one relation? c) How is a controller picked up in a given structure ? In this section we survey the variety of empirical phenomena that fall under CT. a DP that is fully or partly identical with PRO. movement to the Topic position should go through a case-assigning position. c. i. Strategies of identification may be syntactic or semantic. As already discussed the possibility of an infinitival complement appearing in SpecT depends on its temporal properties. (98) a.. The main problem regarding empty elements is that of their interpretation. The empirical phenomena. i. but it is reasonable to claim that due to their similarity to PPs infinitives cannot move through the Spec of the Acc Case projection. so that untensed infinitives do not topicalize cf. establishing a typology of control. LECTURE VII Control Theory and the Identification of PRO A. (Pesetsky 2000) (97) ??[PRO to lose the game] proved they were idiots.

a. obligatory control (=OC) is the LF configuration in which the controller and the infinitive complement containing PRO are co-arguments of the same predicate. The examples show that the controller of PRO is. 1. a. Arbitrary control is impossible with OC. notice the presence of the reflexive oneself and of the possessive one's in examples (3): (3) a.94 COMPLEMENTATION b.o. g. This is said to be a situation of long-distance control. for instance. Obligatory control (=OC) obtains when the controller and the infinitive are clause-mates. promise. is in a clause higher than the main clause. b. and yet the sentences are grammatical. force. promise and try are verbs of obligatory subject control. in which case there is arbitrary control. Verbs of obligatory control always require PRO-TO complements and are incompatible with FOR-TO complements. or the controller is in a clause different from the main clause. That the interpretation of PRO is one is shown by agreement phenomena. Non-obligatory control (=NOC) refers to cases where the infinitive need not be controlled by a clause-mate DP (see below). since the infinitive clause and the controller are not clause-mates. 1. try have often been described as verbs of obligatory control.1. Mary knew that it damaged John [ PRO to do it]. Conclusions. c They forced them [PRO to leave]. Notice that an . Mary. order is a verb of obligatory IO control. The following empirical properties differentiate OC from NOC.s. In example a). I promised him [PRO not to perjure myself]. roughly equivalent with one. *I ordered [PRO to leave]. [PRO arb to love one's neighbour ] is a Christian duty. Verbs like order. Thus. possible with NOC. as shown by the agreement with the reflexive in (2b). an argument of the main clause predicate. which are also examples of non-obligatory control: this time there is no controller. Defining obligatory control From the more general perspective of control theory. in example g). Let us briefly review the relevance of these properties: a. Notice that the second controller DP. (2) a. b. the controller and the infinitive complement are co-arguments of the verb order. Two distinct situations fall under NOC. force is a verb of obligatory DO control.Two types of control configurations have been identified: obligatory control and nonobligatory control 2. jointly defining the categories of OC and NOC. Non-obligatory control (=NOC) obtains when the controller and the infinitive are not clause mates. Mary knew that it damaged John [ PRO to perjure himself/ herself]. possible with NOC. The interpretation of PRO in such examples is that of an arbitrary indefinite generic pronoun. c. Long-Distance Control (=LD) The term LD control refers to cases where the controller of PRO is not an argument of the clause immediately containing the infinitive. a situations referred to as long distance control. f. 3. like the infinitive clause containing PRO. [PRO arb to vote for oneself ] would be a mistake. the controller is the subject and the complement clause the direct object of the verb try. *I promised him [PRO not to perjure himself. being co-arguments of the same predicate (at LF). d *They forced [PRO to leave] e. Exactly which argument is the controller depends on the lexical properties of the verb. [PRO arb to see] is [ PRO arb to believe]. there is no controller. b. I tried [PRO to give up smoking]. Consider now sentences like (3). Long-Distance Control is impossible with OC. Empirical differences between OC and NOC. In (2a) the controller is either Mary or John.

John1 said that Mary thought that [ PRO1 not shaving himself] would bother Sue. [ Manzini. that is. c). (11) Exhaustive control a. It is dangerous for babies [PROarb to smoke around them]. a new quite significant empirical problem has been discovered by Landau (1999). in configurations of OC. b. b' John remembers that one should not smoke around babies. [ PROarb to behave oneself in public ] would help John. not arbitrary. While the distinction between obligatory control and optional control has been known since the seventies. It has been proved that the relation between PRO and the controller is not always one of identity. in (9). not semantic: the meaning intended in the unacceptable (5b). where the infinitive is a subject or a predicative. *The chair1 managed [PRO1+ to gather at 6].. [PRO1 storming out of the room that way after losing the game] convinced everyone that John1 is very immature. PRO and the controller do not always have the same referent. i. LD-control shows up in constructions where a closer antecedent for PRO can be skipped in favour of a remote one. (5) a. Arbitrary readings are perfectly possible in NOC configurations like (6). The two types of control configurations differ in terms of the (non) clause-mate relation between the infinitive clause and the controller. Mary knew that John1 began [PRO1 to work (* together) on the project]. The chair1 managed [PRO1 to gather the committee at 6]. Varieties of Obligatory Control: exhaustive / partial control. only a reading equivalent to (5b'') is available. either overt or covert. we will speak of Exhaustive Control ( = EC). will be said to manifest Partial Control (PC). To sum up. Typically. [ PROarb making a large profit] means [ PROarb exploiting the tenants]. b. Arbitrary control is impossible in configurations of OC. Mary1 knew that it damaged John [ PRO1 to perjure herself]. Arbitrary control With " arbitrary control". no argument of the main clause. In the infinitive construction.95 COMPLEMENTATION LD-controller need not even be higher in the structure than PRO. b. even if sameness of reference and of referential index is by far the more common situation. *John tried [PROarb to be quiet]. Thus. b'' John remembers that he should not smoke around babies. Consider examples (11) and (12) below which exhibit two varieties of obligatory control: in examples (11) PRO is referentially identical to the controller. b. as shown by example (4a). In contrast. c. [(Landau. a reading where PRO is controlled. it is impossible to understand PRO as having arbitrary generic reference (= one). When a verb imposes this sort of tight relation (identity) between PRO and the controller. (4) a. Verbs that allow this possibility. however. there is a subset-superset relation between the controller and PRO. the controller is merely referentially included in the set denoted to by PRO.e. for instance. 1999] a' It is dangerous for babies that one should smoke around them. if there is a DP that could be a controller. Notice that the problem is syntactic. c. not an object. b. the vast majority of verbs in English. therefore. 2. recently. as in (5): (6) a. 1983] c. as in (4 b. could be rendered in a finite complement like (5b'). . *John remembers [PROarb not to smoke around the babies]. PRO need not be c-commanded by the controller. is understood as the PRO controller. there appear to be clear empirical differences between obligatory control configurations and non-obligatory control configurations.

as can be seen from (12c). factive ( regret. (12) . subject of the intransitive gather. prefer. mean intend.96 COMPLEMENTATION Partial Control a. due to the partial control effect. The contrast between (11c) and (12c) illustrates the same difference between EC and PC: The adverb together forms (semantic) collective predicates which require a plural subject. grass. offer. promise. Semantically. Partial control configurations Distributionally. the distinctive property of PC constructions. deliberate. refrain. inquire. and the controller of PRO is singular.The intransitive gather is a collective verb. In contrast. see fit. * The chair1 preferred [ PRO1+ to gather without him1] c. requiring a plural subject. in violation of Condition B of BT. Conclusions: a) There are two varieties of OC: Exhaustive Control and Partial Control b) Exhaustive Control ( EC) PRO must be identical to the controller. know). it may control a PRO subject which stands for a collective referent. force. is going to c. while prefer and know are PC verbs. aspectual (begin. surprised. plan. in fact. but imposes no condition on its subject which may be. neglect. Condition B would require complete disjointness between PRO and the pronoun him. c) Partial Control (PC) PRO must include the controller. Modal: need. agree. (11b) is ruled out. yearn. Aspectual: begin. finish. sad. A limited number of verbs allow only EC. fail. Desiderative ( including exercitive verbs ): want. know. e.1 The empirical domain of PC Before giving an account of EC and PC. with examples of each type: (13) a. contemplate. shocked. start. the PC verb prefer is grammatical in both (12a) and (12b). arrange. since not all verbs allow both options. strive. requiring identity between PRO and the controller. Since manage is an EC verb. Consider the minimal pair in (11a. forgot. (12b) is an example of PC. to control the PRO subject of a collective predicate. sorry f. decide. PRO. hate. aspire. continue) or modal (be going to. Although controlled by a singular DP in both (11c) and (12c). but not the other way round. have to). resent. desiderative (desire. stop. find out. Moreover. demand. condescended. 2. dislike. and propositional verbs (claim). as opposed to EC. ready. b). Verbs that allow PC also allow EC. Propositional: claim. includes the reference of him. The transitive gather requires a collective direct object. and the impossibility of the latter. compel. fail. Interrogatives: wonder. EC-verbs are implicative (manage. like. is the possibility of the former. fail. one should demarcate the empirical domain of PC. Manage and begin are EC verbs. Factives: glad. decline. PC-verbs are.). unclear. remembered. wish). ask. etc. The relevant remark is that although the subject of prefer is singular. The chair1 preferred [ PRO 1+ to gather at 6]. In sentence (12c). naturally it is also possible for the controller to be referentially identical with PRO. avoid. a clause-mate of him. interrogate. loath. The result is that the pronoun him cannot be bound from the main clause. d. and at the same time of OC. b. afraid. b. and is. refuse. understand. continue. however. if it is possible with these verbs that the controller is merely included in PRO (PC). regret. choose. given its controller. g. Implicative: manage. is able. since. bother. The chair1 preferred [PRO1 to gather the committee at 6]. guess. Here is a reminder of these classes. Mary1 thought that John2 didn't know [ where PRO 1+2 to go together]. PRO is compatible with the a semantically collective predicate only in (12c). setting them apart from EC. verbs that take interrogative complements ( wonder. eager. Semantically. singular . hope. a'. resolve. resume.

other than John himself . so the controller (John or he) refers to a subset of the set designated by PRO. fight together in (18)-(20) below). the complement clause includes an inherently collective predicate (convene. *John told Mary that he managed [PRO ] to meet at 6. formed with the collective adverb together. there is local controller of PRO John or he (coindexed with John).97 COMPLEMENTATION (14) a) inherently collective or reciprocal predicates (gather. In each case. Mary said that John1 finally realized[ when [PRO1+ to debate this question]]. b) contextually collective predicates. *Mary learned that John condescended [PRO to fight together]. Similar effects obtain with contextually collective predicates. c. (16) a. PC-verbs ( examples (18-20 b. As shown in the examples below. b. (19) a. With verbs of EC-control.c) in each triplet illustrate PC-verbs (desiderative and interrogative). assemble. * John told Mary that he was able [PRO to win the game together]. Here are sentences containing inherently collective predicates (meet. aspectual ). convene. debate. John told Mary that he found out [PRO how to win the game together]. b. (17a) illustrate EC-verbs (implicative. The chair hated [PRO gathering without a concrete agenda]. John said that Mary wasn't certain whether to dance together at the party. c. b. (17) a. b. Mary claimed that John was ready [PRO to fight together. convene). Mary learned that John was ready [PRO to fight together]. b. c)) are not subject to this restriction. Hence (15a). because of the subset-superset relation that holds between the antecedent and PRO. (15) a. (20) a.] REMARK . Propositional complements (claim). implicative and aspectual verbs (examples (18-20a below) fail to control the PRO subject of a contextually collective predicate. derived with the adverb together (dance together. c. because PRO and the antecedent are identical. (17b. scatter. c. the controller of PRO cannot be singular. In sharp contrast. meet). John told Mary that he1 didn't know [whether PRO1+ to meet at 6 or at 8]. while PRO is interpreted as semantically plural. respectively. PRO refers at least to John and Mary.c).c). c. c.* The chair continued [PRO to convene during the strike]. c. so as to supply a salient member in the group reference of PRO. win together. the controller of PRO may be singular. as well as another DP.(16a). Mary asked John if he planned [PRO to dance together at the party]. Just as before. John told Mary that he1 preferred [PRO1+ to meet at 6 today]. This set of data establishes a clear contrast between (implicative) EC-verbs. Mary said that John regretted [PRO working together on the presentation]. c. Mary mentioned in a higher clause. Notice also the type of configuration proposed: in the examples below. Mary said that John1 wished [PRO1+ to debate this question very soon]. John told Mary that he was eager [PRO to win the game together]. (16a). with PC-verbs. b. while examples (15b. b. The chair1 has not decided yet [whether PRO1+ to convene during the strike]. PRO will also be semantically singular and it cannot be the subject of a collective predicate. separate) or a reciprocal predicate (meet). (18) a. Mary learned that John didn't know [whom PRO to fight together]. whose subject is PRO in the infinitive clause. and (desiderative and interrogative PC-verbs). propositional and factive verbs (21) are also PC verbs: (21) a. disperse. (17a) are ungrammatical. The chair1 decided [PRO1+ to convene during the strike.* Mary said that John began to debate this question recently. Examples (15a). (16b. *Mary asked John if he dared [PRO to dance together at the party].

Certain expressions may require syntactic plurality to be licensed. In PC cases. I saw the committee gathering/disappearing. It only applies when the controller is in the singular. John told Mary that he1 didn't know which club[PRO1+ to join together]. or contain a non-singular anaphors (i. but syntactically singular. (25) a. Semantic plurality is an inherent property of nouns or verbs. while syntactic plurality is the result of a combination between two morphemes: Noun + s. but semantically it may have plural interpretation including the controller in its reference. One may state the following generalisation on partial control. but cannot be inflected for plural. both). I approve of the population acting together against the new regulations. b. c. person and gender on PRO in (tensed) infinitival complements are inherited from the controller. as shown by the examples below: . The referent of PRO1+ is semantically plural and this is enough to license a reciprocal predicate like meet in (25a). c. Thus the subject of collective predicates must be semantically plural. Examine the examples below containing the verb prefer. (AE) b. Before proposing an explanation of this contrast and ascertaining its theoretical import. since elements which require syntactic plurality (listed above) are not licensed when the controller is syntactically singular.(AE) Considering only those dialects of English where the distinction between semantic and syntactic plurality is robust. The crowd / *The demonstrator /The demonstrators scattered. as shown in the examples below. PRO always inherits the syntactic number of the controller. there is good evidence that the plurality of PRO in PC contexts is semantic.. all. (27) The PC Generalization Syntactic number. being semantically plural. (23) a. PRO in PC contexts is essentially a group name. a PC verb of subject control. Given these data. because each other requires syntactic plurality. but not the other way round: (22) The committee/ *The student/ The students gathered. The contrast between semantic and syntactic plurality is obvious in (26) as well. (26) a. *The government cleared themselves /each other of any responsibility. *The class each submitted a different paper. but semantic number is not. they in (24c). but it is not enough to license the reciprocal anaphor each other in (25b). Such is the case of plural reflexive anaphors and reciprocal anaphors in American English.98 COMPLEMENTATION The discussion so far has set off EC constructions from PC ones. the embedded predicate can be lexically collective or contain together. or plural predicative nouns require subjects which are syntactically plural. The adverb together requires merely semantic plurality. not syntactic.*John1 told Mary that he1 preferred[PRO1+ to meet each other at 6 today. not syntactic plurality. one important qualification is in order: PC induces semantic plurality on PRO.John1 told Mary that he1 preferred [PRO1+ to meet at 6 today. a plural reflexive pronoun or a reciprocal anaphor). one may conclude that in a PC construction with a controller in the singular. b. * I consider the delegation (to be) idiots. Statement (27) is a genuine generalisation about partial control.e. The contrast between semantic and syntactic plurality is visible in many places that have nothing to do with Control Theory. similarly floating quantifiers (each. (24) a.*John told Mary that he1 didn't know which club[PRO1+ to become members of. Syntactic plurality entails semantic plurality. there is nothing intrinsic to the semantics of PC complements that makes them incompatible with a plural PRO. while become members of requires syntactic plurality. The controller (he1) in (25) is merely included in the reference of PRO1+. but may be syntactically singular or plural. John told Mary that they1+ agreed [ PRO1+ to meet each other at six today]. licensed by a plural controller. b.

e. Split control is a variety of NOC.. b. both. as shown by the ungrammaticality of (31b). but may be semantically plural. to be referentially included in PRO.. (31) a. John and Mary regretted [PRO having talked about themselves]. 4. want disallows an arbitrary interpretation of PRO (of the type John wanted that everybody should be quiet). each). * John1 wanted [ PROarb to be quiet] b. In (31a). is the strongest form of control. 3. Long-Distance Control is impossible. EC complements are untensed. 3. This leads to the impossibility of licensing in PC contexts the class of expressions which require syntactically plural subjects. The interrogative verb guess in (32) shows the same behaviour. This shows that PC is a species of obligatory (therefore syntactic control). which involves coreference between a remote controller. which requires identity of PRO and the controller. (30) Properties of PC: a. In sum. John1 guessed [ PRO1+ to go together ]. i. not syntactic plurality. as shown in (33). as shown by the possibility for its singular subject John to control the semantically plural subject PRO of the collective predicate go there together. EC complements are untensed. Conclusions on Partial Control 1. Hope is a desiderative verb. but does not allow LD control. plural predicatives.. Yet. Arbitrary control is impossible. Mary and PRO. John must be included in the reference of PRO. Long-distance control is equally impossible with PC verbs. Let us give evidence supporting properties (30a-b). John and Mary preferred [PRO to meet each other at 6 today]. We hoped [ PRO to become members of that club ]. Split control PC should not be mixed up with the different phenomenon of split control. In PC cases. The properties of Partial Control PC shows the same properties which characterize OC in contrast to NOC. (29) PC complements are tensed. hope disallows LD control : example (33b). which regards control properties correlates with a semantic property differentiating the two verb classes and already noted above. that is. Sentence (33a) illustrates PC. Only one controller is overt. PC allows the controller to be a proper subpart of PRO. . PC complements are tensed. floating quantifiers ( all. Arbitrary control is impossible. John1 wanted [ PRO1+ to go there together] (32) a. LD control is ungrammatical. John. this verb is compatible with PC. b. b. PC and EC are varieties of OC. However. each other). containing the desiderative verb want. i. c. b. *Mary1 knew that John hoped [ PRO1 to perjure herself]. such as plural anaphors ( themselves. b'. 2. etc.99 COMPLEMENTATION (28) a. The singular controller Mary is sufficient to license PRO with collective interpretation. Consider sentence (31). which allows PC. *John guessed [ where PROarb not to smoke]. a. and the effect is semantic plurality. (33) a. There is a clear empirical difference between EC and PC. PC contexts disallow arbitrary control. skipping a more local controller. EC. John1 told Mary that he1 hoped [PRO1+ to meet at 2 tomorrow.e.2 On Partial Control Landau (1999) proposes that the distinction EC/ PC verbs. The characteristic property of PC is that a semanticlly singular DP may control a collective PRO. 2. PRO inherits the syntactic number of the antecedent.

Thus. the subject DP binds a pronoun in the infinitive clause. 4. John) in two distinct syntactic positions. b. Mary made it clear to John that [ PRO to become members of the new club] is no simple matter. designates situations where the controller is a non-overt argument of the main clause. Suei said that [ PRO arb to buy heri nothing in Rome] would be unacceptable. split controllers may license syntactic anaphors. Remark In this context it is worth discussing the interpretation of PRO in interrogative complements since it has often been believed that in such complements PRO behaves like a pronoun. Implicit control The term implicit control. and they need not be in the same clause as the infinitive complement. At first sight. Consider examples like (37) below. The controller is local. that is. Another important feature is that PC is obligatory control. John guessed [ where PRO1+ to go together ]. they might be taken to represent genuine cases of arbitrary control in object interrogative infinitival clauses: (42) a. b. Split control is thus a variety of non-obligatory control. It is unclear [what PRO to do with him]. In conclusion. The intuition that control is more flexible in interrogative complements than in some declarative infinitive complements is probably the effect of PC control as opposed to EC. (37). Syntactically plural anaphors are licensed in this case. Mary asked [what PRO to do with him]. the unique singular controller and PRO are clause mates. Johni thought that it was wrong [ PRO arb to introduce himi to the dean ]. even in contexts where the CP projection is filled by an interrogative word. neither controller is a clause mate of PRO so these are examples of NOC. c. in the examples below. (39) a *John guessed [ where PROarb not to smoke]. as in (36). Split control is a variety of NOC. "protecting PRO" from the influence of a main clause controller. it refers and co-refers freely. b. . claiming that truly arbitrary control should never be related to any grammatical antecedent. PRO in object interrogative clauses must always include a matrix controller. John1 said [where PRO to leave him1 a message]. Consider examples (42). The counter-argument to this proposal is that an indefinite generic reading is excluded in object clauses. lacking any other possible antecedent. Moreover. b. There are two overt controllers in different syntactic positions. therefore.John told Mary that he1 didn't know which club[PRO1+ to join together]. *John told Mary that he1 didn't know which club [PRO1+ to become members of]. b. two (higher) arguments jointly control a plural PRO. differing from partial control. but must be bound by the main clause subject. Arbitrary readings are always indefinite generic readings. in (39) PRO cannot be understood generically. c.100 COMPLEMENTATION (35) a . but also syntactic plurality. Mary realised that John too considered the possibility of [ PRO applying both to the same job]. Thus. but it is not syntactically expressed. With split control. More on arbitrary control Landau (1999) proposes rigorous use of the tern "arbitrary control". The controller is represented by two distinct DPs (Mary. where PRO is the equivalent of ONE. 5. picking up some controller or having generic indefinite reference. Mary thought that John said that [ PRO helping each other] is crucial. (38) a. so that PRO must have arbitrary interpretation. The effect of split control is not only semantic. Consequently. (36) John agreed with Bill [PRO kiss Mary] (37) a.

Kimball (1971)). appears with a subject controller in (49d): (49) a. This is often the case the case with impersonal passives: (47) a. It was concluded (by the committee) [PRO to cancel the next meeting] Implicit Agents may also control into adjunct clauses (manner.101 COMPLEMENTATION However. Implicit Benefactives Several typical configurations of implicit control have been discussed in the literature. c. Bill knew she had said [PRO to behave himself. The parallelism between the implicit and the overt Benefactive below should be obvious. Mary1 said it was difficult [PRO1 to take another topic] b. (44) a. Furthermore a closer Benefactive prevents control by a more remote one (Koster (1984)): (45) a. Louise gestured / said/ signalled (to Tom) [PRO to follow her]. Such instances represent a distinct control configuration: implicit control: the controller is not syntactically expressed. . (43) a. It was decided [PRO to leave] b. One of them is control by an implicit Benefactive argument. in "special circumstances". persuade. appears with an IO controller in (49b). The game was played wearing no shoes. John said (to Mary) [PRO to listen to him] b. c. The boat was sunk [PRO to collect the insurance.Grandpa1 promised the children [PRO1 to take them to the zoo. Implicit Agents Finally. often with adjectival predicates. Jones said that it was necessary to promote himself. b. a verb of subject control. a verb of DO control. c. either the Agent or the Goal. The president was elected without considering his competence. (cf. usually related to the passivization of the infinitive clause. 6. possibly rationale clauses (for a discussion of rationale clauses see. This shows that implicit control is a species of NOC. Clark (1990) and Landau (1999): (48) a. Mary said that it was difficult for John1 [PRO1 to take another topic] Implicit Goal arguments are also possible with a couple of verbs of communication: say. b. Notice also that the overt controller in examples like (44) is not a clause-mate of the infinitive. John1 said to-x [ where PROx+ to leave him1 a message]. which were supposed to have a fixed argument designated as obligatory controller. an alternative analysis is available: Such examples may be viewed as cases of local control by implicit arguments. Mary knew it had been prohibited (to her) [PRO to behave herself in public]] e. signal. a frequent form of implicit control is control by an implicit Agent. Control Shift The phenomenon of control shift was associated with the verbs of obligatory control. Susie persuaded the teacher2 [PRO2 to leave earlier] d. Promise. Implicit control is a species of non-obligatory control. Susie2 persuaded the teacher [PRO2 to be allowed to leave earlier]. b. time clauses. b. order. Mary was asked by-x [ what PROx+ to do with him]. Here are a few characteristic examples. It is unclear to-x [ what PROx+ to do with him] c. (46) a. Grandpa promised the children2 [PRO2 to be allowed to leave early]. Roberts (1987). shout. Mary knew it had been recommended (to her) [PRO to behave herself in public]] d. Whereas in "normal" circumstances the controller of PRO is fixed either as the Agent or the Goal. as apparent in the paraphrases below. control shifts to the other argument. Jones said that it was necessary for Jones [PRO to promote himself].

The finite paraphrase contains a subjunctive proposition. For me to interfere either way would be at once idle and perilous. As always with subject clauses. suffice The N/ A are evaluative. etc. customary. as in (50c. b) Exhaustive Control ( EC) PRO must be identical to the controller.1. (2) a. The selection of the complementizer for is a lexicalsemantic property of a limited number of heads in English. bad. etc. The specificity of the surface for-to construction also comes from the semantic features conferred by the C0 for. PRO is given the arbitrary reading. If the PRO-to is used. f) Long -Distance Control: The controller and the infinitive are not clause-mates. (un)necessary. essential. g) Arbitrary Control: PRO has no argumental controller. 1. a tragedy. natural. For seamen to fire upon their own people in support of an arbitrary power was quite unthinkable. 1. equivalent with the indefinite generic one. odd. Conclusions on the typology of control phenomena. probable. 2. the standard construction involves Extraposition. strong intensional predicates. immoral. right. ‘reason’). typical. d) Split Control: Two (matrix) arguments jointly control a plural PRO. (5). an advantage. it is( high) time. wrong. as suggested by the agreement phenomena with reflexives or possessives (4). e) Non-Obligatory Control (NOC): The infinitive need not have a clause-mate controller. which partly retains the meaning of the preposition for (‘cause’. most of which characterized as [+Emotive] or [+Evaluative]. (un)pleasant. Control shift clearly represents a semantic aspect of control. a pleasure. b. c) Partial Control (PC) PRO must include the controller. (un)safe.d). the semantics of the embedded event. indispensable. b. c. common. as in (3). 1.The relations between these situations are shown below: Control Obligatory Non-obligatory Exhaustive Partial Arbitrary Split Implicit LECTURE VIII The Distribution of Control Constructions For-To and PRO-to Preliminaries Both for-to and PRO-to structures are discussed since the distribution of for-to is a subset of the extensive distribution of PRO-to. impossible. possible. normal. vital.102 COMPLEMENTATION In conclusion.The discussion so far has allowed us to characterize the following types of control: a) Obligatory control (OC): The controller and the infinitive must be clause-mates. . The simplest structure involves one place predicates: A/ N/ a few unergative Vs whose subject position may be filled by an infinitive clause: (1) a. the possibility of control shift depends on the semantics of the matrix verb. Control constructions as subject clauses. pragmatic information (knowledge of authority relations. usual. will do. dialect factors. h) Implicit Control: The controller is not syntactically expressed. good. likely. moral.

It remains to choose a leader and to raise additional funds. isn’t it? c. On the Indirect Object The three prepositions that may introduce the IOs are not interchangeable. It is considered to his advantage that he should be there. I consider it a great pleasure to see you here. in our case. when this happens the Dative may remain unexpressed. as suggested by the paraphrase: (11) a. He thinks it important to be there.103 COMPLEMENTATION (3) a. or “Dative of interest”. to. the subject clause is normally extraposed. It is important to him to be there. b.. denoting the person for whom realization of the infinitive proposition is important. It will not do to reply that great poets are a happy accident. vital. pleasant. it was no common thing for an earl’s daughter to marry a commoner. It is necessary to observe that no touch of this quality ever reached the magnificent Mr. essential. etc. b. (13) a. It’s necessary for you to make an effort and perhaps a very great and painful effort. I suppose it’s better to paralyze people temporarily than to blow them to pieces. b. f. (5) a. Infinitive clauses as subjects of predicates that also subcategorize and indirect object introduced by the prepositions for. selecting only for. easy. To dress oneself up is fun. Adjectives which require the Benefactive interpretation of the IO exclude the preposition to. After all. this giving rise to long-distance control (as in (14) below). It’s inspiring to listen to you. but may be preverbal as well: (6) a. The for IO is interpreted as a Benefactive. It must have been a great comfort to them to be able to pray for the dead.” (cf. It’s a great pleasure to me to see you here a’. Curme 1933: 106) The to IO is closer to being an Experiencer. It is essential/ vital / unimportant for him /to him to get the job. b. b. To restore and even to extend this practice would be a real advantage. etc. (12) a. It is impossible for there to be a war between your country and mine. It’s a great pleasure to me to see you here. PRO to do a thing like this was unusual for him. 1. as suggested by the paraphrase below: (10) a. defined as “a Dative which modifies not the verb alone but the sentence as a whole. To leave early was very wise of him. (7) a. It’s silly to feel so guilty about one’s luck. b. Sentence Datives introduced by to/for and controlling the subject of an infinitive clause may be co-referential with higher DPs (as in (13) below). Jones said that it was necessary for him [PRO to see himself in the mirror . The IO serves as controller in the PRO-to constructions and control is obligatory. b‘. It is good / right/ easy for him/* to him [PRO to marry her]. a’. being associated with slightly different roles. It is not unusual for the wine to be well and truly shaken before it ever comes near the table. the person who qualifies fulfillment of the infinitive proposition as important. of. e. Isn’t it the custom for young people to give up their seats to old people in crowded buses? c. b. As before.2. Dombey. d. d. The for / to IO is known as a “sentence Dative”. defined by Curme (1933:107) as the person to whom the statement seems true. It is important for him to be there. (4) a. c.

dare. (PRO-to) b. seek. Many verbs that subcategorize infinitive direct objects have no alternative that-complement. given the [+emotive] evaluative feature of the respective predicates. continue. These verbs also denote the same event as the complement clause.2. etc Thus I failed to meet him entails I didn’t meet him. As remarked by Pesetsky (1995). it appears that the verb s-selects a proposition. *Yesterday he started to read tomorrow. contrive ('manage'). For John to eat peas shows that he must be hungry. the event denoted in the subordinate clause. The King began to slap the Queen. (47) a. Typical Vs : manage. He began to write the essay on a wintry day. (46) He willingly started the divorce procedures. while I saw fit to greet him implies I greeted him. the object position being held by that clauses or by simple DPs. *That John eats peas shows for him to be hungry.4 Implicative verb.106 COMPLEMENTATION 1. which appear in SSR structures. start. abstain. d. try. (42) a. 2. see fit. one may regard the infinitive complement as either expressing a proprty ( predicate) or a proposition. in object position few verbs c-select a for-to complement in addition to the PRO-to one. For him to steal money proves that he was hungry. the infinitive proposition was systematically paraphrasble by a subjunctive finite clause. being integrated in the Tense chain of the matrix. Bisentential verbs also allow infinitive clauses in subject position. no conflicting frame time adverbials may be licensed. affect ('pretend'). Most of the verbs that take infinitive objects c-select PRO-to complements. c. The infinitive is restricted to subject position. Infinitive clauses as Direct Objects General remarks a) In subject position. The Queen began to be slapped by the King. while the aspectual verb focuses on one part of the internal temporal structure of the event. It is the Agentive interpretation which distinguishes between the intransitive and the transitive use of the aspectual verbs: (48) a. not bother. fail. deign. resume. The controller must be interpreted as an Agent. Implicative verbs have to do with success or failure of events/ actions. as well as by its occurrence in simple transitive sentences. (*He failed . b. And indeed it seemed to me later that [PRO to ask such questions of Hugo] showed a peculiar insensitivity to his unique intellectual and moral quality.4. finish. He willingly started [PRO to sell those shares]. The name implies that if it is true that V(p) then it follows either that p or that not-p is also true. make sure. there was practically free variation between PRO-to and for-to clauses. the complement clause is un-tensed. The infinitive complement of these verbs is untensed. Aspectual verbs: begin. Here are the main infintive-taking transitive verbs: 2. venture. (SSR) 2. condescend. there are differences between the for-to and the PRO-to complement. In contrast.3. omit. When a full for-to clause is chosen. which verbs appear with for-to complements is a matter of lexical selection. presume ('be bold enough'). commence. b) From a semantic point of view. The transitive analysis is justified by the intentional meaning of the verb. pretend. suiting the normative component of the evaluative predicate. refrain. The complement clause must be non-stative. b. This corresponds to the intuition that only one event is denoted in sentences with aspectual verbs. These verbs have several important properties: a) they have intransitive doublets. depending on the interpretation of PRO as a variable or as a referential term. When only a PRO-TO complement is selected. Secondly.

profess. these verbs may allow Extraposition from DO position. While the verbs discussed so far do not take that complements in the meaning under discussion.strive. desire. (lg. He deserves to be happy. with factive uses sometimes: hate. dislike. arrange. endeavour. afford: (50) a. Some of them. ? Remark. forget). Propositional verbs : verbs of propositional attitude ( remember. b. They sought to punish him. they allow not only the PRO-to. (60) a. She tried to get arrested. resolve. I would resent it very much [PRO to do some silly thing. He concluded to go. k. Mary explained that John had threatened [PRO not to dance together any more] b. can/t stand. because you understand it far better than I do. Modal verbs (lexical modal verbs) There is a restricted group of verbs of obligatory subject control. like. He affected [=pretended] not to hear her. but also the for-to complement. She would never forgive me if I should presume to go to Liverpool to meet her.5. deserve. c. 2. I learned that he had done it. I won’t pretend (=dare) to tell you how this machine works. b. as well as other emotive verbs. (iv). demand. b) Some of them allow that complements. non -factive verbs like: want. (ii). plan. He concluded that he was wrong. John claims to own a car. this offspring of his had contrived [PRO to lure] a millionaire’s daughter into marrying him ? c. ( John claims that he owns a car). wish. f. conclude. verbs of communication:(say. The infinitive is sometimes more constrained. deny). ask. while all of them allow alternative thatcomplements. aspire. She no longer deigns to visit her friends.) e. scorn. Would she attempt to carry it further ? b. he venture to tough the dog. expect. prefer. She needed to be questioned and corrected. g. I learned how to do it. By what amounted to a miracle. (iii). . h. Let us presume that he is innocent. decide. He wouldn’t scruple to charge you far more than its worth in wool. (59) a. strive. can’t bear. c) Given their factive uses. propose [=intend]. the emotivefactive allow alternative for-to complements. some of them may have alternative that complements in other meanings: (51) (i). 2. They are desiderative. mean. selecting eventive complements (58) a.6. ( He concluded that he should go). i. which are usually non-equivalent with their infinitive complements. I won’t presume to disturb you. mostly in the subjunctive mood.107 COMPLEMENTATION [PRO to be tall]. choose. 2.. c.7. which have modal meaning and impose little or no semantic restriction on their complement and on their controller: need. These verbs have a particularly complex grammar. a) Since they are emotive. hope. *He concluded to be wrong. He declined to make any comment. declare. threaten ): These verbs have tensed complements and allow partial control. loath. claim. Implicative verbs allow only exhaustive control ( *The chair tried [PRO to gather in the assembly room]) (49) a. factive verbs ( regret. intend. The next group to consider is that of [+Emotive] verbs. etc). (Lg) d. Can you afford to lend me some money. I would deeply regret for you not to be able to pursue your carreer.

a gas. TM was initially described as a raising rule which moves a nonsubject DP from an infinitive (subject) clause into the subject position of the main clause. operations typical of VPs and clauses such as. b. therefore.109 COMPLEMENTATION d. *John’s easiness to please. quite apart from the parapahrase invoked so far.They believe John to be honest. which are not derived. Lasnik & Fiengo (1974:587) (88) a. just as with SSR: (90) a. amusing. Moreover. c. supported by the paraphrase relations in (87). as in (92). b) Independent evidence that the subject position of TM predicates is non-θ is the very fact that the derived subject of the TM construction may be replaced by an expletive it. if two for DPs are present. She is easy for him [PROj to kiss ti ]. difficult. *The room is unpleasant for it to be hot and stuffy. It is difficult to give a kiss to Mary. This exam seems [t to be difficult]. a snap. initially empty. Expectedly. raising rules.. consequently. as illustrated in (94b. (91) a. uninteresting. tough. boring. This exam is a cinch [PRO to pass t]. TM blocks. hard. It could be exciting for there to be Koala bears in the yard. *their belief of John to be honest. The ill-formedness of the nominalized TM structure is of the same types with the ill-formndess of the nominlized SSR and SOR structures in (91). John is easy to please. Structures produced by raising rules cannot be nominalized. John is eager to please. easy. while in (87f) the main clause subject is the IO of the infinitive clause. b. c) A third claim. c. f. c’. have nominal counterparts. He is difficult for her [PROj to talk to tj]. The movement analysis. -----. the for IO and the lexical subject. a pain in the ass/neck. (92) a.e. but it can never have a subject introduced by for in the infinitive clause. a joy. interesting. d. *Koala bears would be exciting for there to be in the yard. This allows movement into this position. do not take place in DPs. d. d. (93) a. b. The easy to please construction may take an optional IO introduced by for. unhealthy. The classical analysis.1. entertaining. It seems that this exam is difficult. in particular. b. The proof is that DPs which are not animate. b. The following adjectives and nouns are often cited as occurring in the TM construction (cf. was that the infinitive complement is an argument (internal argument. c. Sentence (87b) was derived from (87a). makes the following claims: a) The subject position of TM predicates is non-θ . stimulating. a breeze. gratifying. In (87b) the DO has raised into the main clause. a pleasure. A central argument came from nominlizations (cf. in (87d) the PO has raised.2. as shown in (93). Chomsky (1971)). It is unpleasant for it to be hot and stuffy in the room. DPs do not have the same functional structure as VPs. as sketched in (89). and do not qualify as Experiencer IOs cannot appear in the TM construction. eager sentences. i. a delight.is fun for Bill [PRO to tease Monica] b. under GB assumptions). TM predicates are ergative. A property of the TM construction. Since they a have a non-θ . Mary is fun for Bill [PRO to tease t]. She is easy to get fond of  e. a bitch. d’.d). There were strong arguments in favor of the movement analysis. subject position. (89) a. dangerous. 4. John’s eagerness to please. simple. It is a cinch [ PRO to pas the exam]. Mary is difficult to give a kiss to  4. .

In this section we discuss infinitive complements as argument of three-place predicates. The distance between the controller and PRO was computed in terns of the number of nodes separating them. I shouted to him[PRO to leave at once] b. interpreted as an Experiencer. Shout admits both types of complements. a) Most of these verbs allow only the PRO-TO. An important class of counterexamples to the MDP is offered by verbs like promise. since Rosenbaum’s seminal work on English predicate complement constructions. It may be concluded that TM infinitives are subjectless. the verbs shout and force. Verbs of obligatory indirect object control: I ordered him [PRO to go]. where the objects are closer to PRO: (120) a. and sometimes overtly present. I convinced him [PRO to buy the cottage]. Verbs of obligatory control project a subset of the configurations of obligatory control. raise several problems. which proposed that the controller is the ”closest” matrix argument to the infinitive clause. c. not only PRO. The verbs shout in the examples above is a verb of optional control (it allows a lexical subject. The two terms. Control Shift. the verb shout was described as a verb of optional control. c. for instance. (119) a. moreover. some of them still poorly understood. as in (1117b) . I shouted to him [for [ the intruder to leave at once] (118) a. Control constructions with three –place predicates. an IO. always the same. I managed [PRO to buy the cottage]. as in (117a). The clause is a PO. In contrast. b. in the sense that the only complement that the verb accepts is the control construction. never the FOR-TO complement. Verbs of obligatory direct object control: I persuaded him [PRO to go] . The MDP correctly predicts that the subject is the controller in (120a). *The old country is exciting for Frank for his children to talk about. in which case. It is unpleasant for Frank. is awasy implicit. The first well-known answer to the determination of the controller problem was Rosenbaum’s Minimal Distance Principle.*Money is unpleasanr for Frank for Martha to borrow from him. I forced him [PRO to leave at once]. c).110 COMPLEMENTATION (94) a. b. *I forced him [for the intruder to leave at once] The verb force was described as a verb of obligatory control. Verbs of obligatory control were supposed to accept only one main clause argument as controller. obligatory control configuration and verb of obligatory control are distinct. but not contradictory terms. Following Landau (1999) we have used the term obligatory control. to characterize a particular configuration. three types of verbs were discussed. The clause is a DO. d. (117) a. in a different acceptation. even when an IO is present and closer to PRO than the subject: (121) I promised to the children [PRO to take them to the zoo]. force admits only the control construction. for his children to talk about the old country. for Martha to borrow money from him. TM cannot apply if the embedded clause has a lexical subject. These predicates. . c. that when an infinitive clause and a DP are co-arguments of a predicate. which exhibit subject control. PRO is controlled by the co-argument of the infinitive clause. I wrote to him [PRO to buy the cottage]. The clause is a DO. According to the matrix term acting as controller (and to the syntactic function of the infinitive clause). Compare. b. which have been much discussed in the literature. 5. b. but it may appears in a configuration of obligatory control. b) A second much discussed problem was the selection of the controller. but not in (120 b. Verbs of obligatory subject control: I promised him [PRO to go]. It is exciting for Frank.

d. b. Johni promised Billj [PROj to be allowed tj to shave himselfj every morning] c. d) under passivization of the infinitive clause. while the subject of ask controls PRO in (122d): The obligatory controller simply appears to be a DP which is a co-argument of the non-finite clause and which meets certain semantic conditions. (124b). Johni promised Billj [PROi to shave himselfi every morning] b. I believe her to go to the opera every week. The most likely answer is that. Specifically. Force allows referential it as DO: I don’t know what it was. d. In the following we present the types of verbs of obligatory control. This is the synonymy (with SOR verbs. formal DPs like it. the selection of the controller may change. b. Passivization of the infinitive clause The different argument structure explains another contrast. while the SOR triggers are binary predicates. Secondly. d. In examples (122b) and (122d). in control constructions.1. *I forced it to rain on my birthday. c) The question that remained un-answered is the lack of for-to constructions with these verbs. I forced the prisoner to be examined by the doctor. Consequently. Finite paraphrases bring this difference to light at once. b. but I forced it to retreat. (125) a. (123) a. b. in (122a) and (122c) the controller are the expected ones. as in (126a. the Acc preceding the Inf is s-selected and θ -marked by the main verb. I expected it to rain on my birthday.* I forced/ promised/ ordered more heed to be paid to that proposal by all of the legislators. I persuaded her that she should go to the opera every week. I expected the prisoner to be examined by the doctor. I expected there to be a man behind the counter. * I forced/ promised/ ordered there to be a man behind the counter. the subject of promise and the object of ask. Johni asked Billj [PROi to be allowed to shave himselfi every morning] Thus. the IO of promise controls the PRO subject of the passive infinitive complement. c.111 COMPLEMENTATION In fact the problem of controller identification has lost some of its interest. first noted by Rosenbaum (1967). One factor that infleunces controller choice is the active or passive form of the infinitive complement. with these verbs. c. I persuaded her to go to the opera every week. I forced the doctor to examine the prisoner. I believe that she goes to the opera every week. idiom chunks are not possible controllers ( see (123b. 1. b.d). I expect little heed to be paid to that proposal by all of the legislators. First. (see below). as in (126c. (126) a. since the discovery of control shift. 5. c. b)) versus the lack of synonymy with control verbs. I expected the doctor to examine the prisoner. Johni asked Billj [PROj to shave himselfj every morning] d. for-to complements are excluded for semantic reasons. (124) a. . Arguments for discriminating between verbs of obligatory control and raising Acc+Inf triggers. Consider the examples below: (122) a. it appears that even with verbs of obligatory control. Remark. and of optional control. there is control shift. depending on other syntactic and semantic properties of the infinitive clause. there. the control verbs under discussion are three place predicates.

He could trust her to make deception right.2. The rain compelled us to stay in doors. She pressed him into service. inform. g.d). m. direct. i. His words incited the soldiers to rise up against the officer. lure. k. f. incite. condemn. i. tempt. b. advise.1 The first subgroup is that of verbs that c-select [– DP ^ PP] in alternation with[ DP ^ CP]. engage. Remark 1. work. d) have a different meaning. as predicted from their argument structure. The policemen directed the crowd to move. I authorized the man to act for me. p. She instigated the men to disobey orders. assist. lead. She kept nagging her husband for a new car.112 COMPLEMENTATION Sentences (126a. 5. b) have the same meaning. hire. move. compel. She pressed her agent to stay a little longer. j. We willed him to stop. k. o. His words incited the soldiers to anger. inspire. He would not have provoked you [PRO to wish yourself almost blindly in his place. She forced her foot into the shoe. He felt obligated to visit his parents. Sentences (126c. I felt moved to help. persuade. (127) adjure (=ask). . l. d. authorize. challenge. May I trouble you for the salt ? Can I trouble you to shut the door ? f. j./ I was inspired to work harder. /The warm weather seduced me to talk a walk. leave. excite. as a friend. h. Subclasses of verbs of obligatory DO control. as predicted from their different a structure. trouble. e. The warm weather seduced me to take a walk. urge. h. The prisoners were forced to give up their arms. The soldiers forced their prisoner to give up their arms. q. etc. 5. force. The warm weather seduced me away from my studies. I hired him to do the job. condition. I hired him for the job. to prepare herself for the worst. The King commissioned an artist to paint a picture of the Queen. What led you to believe this ? (129) a The court condemned her to spend the rest of her days in prison. induce. They excited the people to rise against the king. / She kept nagging her husband to go home. provoke. (128) a. She assisted him in his work. She adjured him to tell the truth. oblige. She instigated the men to disobedience. He can be persuaded to go back in October. n. b. You inspire me to greater efforts. Good glasses will assist you to read. instigate. obligate. c. Her careless spending led her into debt. defy. (specifically the DO is different in (126c. will. summon. predispose. The conditioned the dog to jump each time it heard the bell. convince. They challenged the stranger to say who she was. encourage. Some of these verbs usually occur in the passive (participle): (130) a. bind. c. Naturally the DO may be passivised. g. e. We were invited to go back where we came from. d. reduce. prompt. She advised Miss Denny. send seduce.2. What influenced you to do it ? r. Hunger prompted him to steal. b. The doctrine was an invention to enable man to act like dogs with clear conscience. trust.

as well as verbs of linguistic communication used as exercitive verbs: tell. give orders. Hilary had written to this girl to come and see her . look to.(J. *I persuaded him [PRO to like music]. I felt constrained to do what he told me. c. (133) We appointed / chose /elected voted him to be our leader. or [–DP ^ CP]. (138) I leave it to you to do it. I forbid you speak to me in that way. He can be depended on [PRO to do it]. the controller is interpreted as an Agent or an Affected Agent.3. I couldn't mention it to him to bring the dictionary. (132) a. (causative implicative) b. suggest. as in (138): (136) Who suggested it to him ? // I suggested to him [PRO to leave by the back door]. report. I felt obliged to say ‘No’. (exercitive) c. bid.2. c. nominate. d. You may rely on me [PRO to do it]. Implicative verbs too select non-stative complements.2 A second group of verbs of obligatory DO control includes operative illocutionary verbs: appoint. propose. He bade me to come in. (134) We chose him to remain our president. forbid.G) c. with the infinitive clause as the second object. . She told to the servants not to announce her. though some of them allow the complement clause to designate the resulting state (as in (132c. depend on. Tell them in the jungle never to forget me.3. This predisposes me to like music. d).113 COMPLEMENTATION c.* I challenged him [to like music. recommend. To the extent that the infinitive complement is eventive. which do not therefore guarantee the truth of their complement clause. (135) a. 5. command. vote. guaranteeing the truth of the complement clause. elect. They are mostly implicative verbs. You may depend on me to do my very best. repeat. mention. d. We appointed him to rule this country. e. count on. grant. They subcategorize [---DP ^ NP/DP] or [---DP ^ PP] where the P is as. (causative) 5. insinuate. b. It is not clear whether the PRO-TO clause is an argument or a modifier: rely on. I look to you [PRO to carry out the aims in which I myself have failed]. with the prepositional object controlling PRO in the CP. We recommend you to buy it. 5. it includes exercitive verbs (command & permission): order. We chose him as our leader. The many verbs listed in (127) form a coherent semantic class. choose. name. Exercitive verbs impose a constraint of non-stativity on the infinitive clause. a couple of them are merely exercitive verbs (summon. permit. We nominated him man of the year. at least partly responsible for the truth of the complement clause. B. d.The IO may be prepositional (136) or the verb may be used in the double object construction. b. The Infintive cluse may be extraposed. The class of verbs of obligatory indirect object control is much more restricted. They conditioned him [PRO to like music ] ( causative) d. communicate. answer. The (second) DP/PP/ CP in these structures is not an object but a predicative constituent (object complement). prevail on.(137). (137) We recommend this book to all the beginners. provoke).2. A limited number of verbs subcategorize for [--PP ^ CP]. where the CP is an infinitive. Most of them are causative verbs ( of linguistic or non linguistic causation). allow.

c. Sometimes. as in (1b). He is old enough to know better. e. Secondly. gerunds exhibit two forms. We believed in the American dream.3. 1965:61). but verbal features exclusively”. Participles “ differ from gerunds in that they don’t have any nominal features. B. This burden is too heavy to put upon a fallible mortal. 6. The picture is more complex than that for several reasons. known as the half gerund. a form that has only nominal properties: (4) their cruel shooting of the prisoners . illustrated in (1c) below: (1) a. f. whose subject is in the Acc(usative) case. She is lucky enough to have a servant who does the heavt work. b. c. The brown paper is too thick to light the fire with. * He is old [] to know better LECTURE IX ING COMPLEMENTS 1. Never flog a willing horse. I went there myself on purpose to know the truth of it. and in pir power to make that dream come true]. b.2 Infinitive clauses frequently function as adverbials of result in comparative structures based on the degree determiners too or on the quantifier enough. the traditionally called full gerund. Predictably. had no right to be thus addressed. with intent [PRO to defraud].3. participles have a verbal use. (2) It all depends on their helping us. etc. He was brought up on charge of forging and altering securities. (147) a. God willing. c. the following situations are more common. there is also a PRO-ind construction.115 COMPLEMENTATION b. we shall succeed. with intent to. As to the use of infinitive complements as adverbials. 6. * It is [] good to be true c. The river is too deep to wade across. c. I went into the shop [PRO to buy some cakes]. b. in (1a) were defined as “forms that have both nominal and verbal features.1 Preliminaries Traditional grammars of English acknowledge the existence of two homonymous ING forms: the gerund and the participle.3. but also an adjectival use. and a second form. Thirdly. It is too good to be true. The variety of ing forms 1.He knew that Mrs. The complement clause depends on the degree determiner too or the quntiifer enough. no introductory element is present/ (146) a. (Acc-ing) (3) I avoided PRO meeting him. He wasn't rich enough for her to marry him. there is an ing deverbal noun. Gerunds. 6. b. whose subject is in the Gen(itive) or Poss(essive) case. First. I am going there earlier in order [PRO to get a good seat]. on purpose to. I remember Mary's performing the concert. both aspects of the content being (often) apparent in the same context (Schybsbye. (Poss-ing ) It all depends on them helping us. d. as is illustrated below: (148) a. d.1 First the infinitive clause may be a noun complement in a PP which is standardly used as a "conjunctive phrase": in order to. d. The weather was too severe for them to be out.

*It is unlikely Bill’s making a fortune. verbal nouns. Poss-ing and Acc-ing structures are more clause-like and may be shown to embed a VP or even an IP. such as the position of adjunction to VP or some other A' position characteristic of an extraposed clause: (13) a. to convert a verb phrase or sentence into a DP. verbal nouns.. It can be argued that gerunds are IPs embedded in DPs. 2. from the point of view of their external distribution. (11) a. His /him having criticized the book came as a surprise. specifically. Everybody imagined John kissing Mary. b. Bill making a fortune is unlikely.e. b. b. (15) a. c. The operator layer of a clause is the CP layer.1. *It is unlikely Bill’s making of a fortune. 2. Passive Gerunds passivize. Poss-ing and Acc-ing constructions freely undergo Topicalization. *Perhaps for John to sell the house would bother his mother. d. and clauses. . John smoking stogies I can't abide t. as shown by the impossibility of co-occurrence between the perfect auxiliary have and the ofmarked object in (17) (16) a.4. 2. in sharp contrast with infinitive and that clauses. unlike DPs need not be assigned case. Poss-ing and Acc-ing) embed a VP/IP. Horn (1975) remarks that Acc-ing constructions are less good topics than Poss-ing constructions.e. Poss-ing and Acc-ing constructions behave like DPs. (14) a. Bill’s making a fortune is unlikely b. aspect and voice. the basic function of the -ing morpheme in these constructions is to be a nominalizer. Topicalization Like DPs. (12) a. John's smoking of stogies I can't abide t. His /him having been reading all day long came as a surprise.117 COMPLEMENTATION c. Summing up this discussion. *It is unlikely Bill making a fortune. The internal structure of the ing constructions Verbal nouns. Topicalization must leave behind case-marked traces. c.. Every body practiced singing the national anthem. (17) *His having criticized of the book came as a surprise. It is plausible to assign to them the syntactic category DP.5. their distribution within the complex sentence. John's smoking stogies I can't abide t. b. 3. 3. Poss-ing and Acc-ing constructions differ considerably regarding their internal structure.3. I dislike his/ him being treated like that. Singing the national anthem was practiced by everybody. gerunds are like clauses except for the operator layer. i.. The explanation is not far to seek: verbal nouns and gerunds need case and cannot appear in caseless positions. (10) a. e. Bill’s making of a fortune is unlikely b. John kissing Mary was imagined by everyone. like that of a nominal phrase.*Perhaps that John sold the house bothers his mother. b.e. that is. they represent different degrees of nominalization: verbal nouns have pure DP syntax. the operator layer of gerunds is the DP layer. The first crucial difference between gerunds and verbal nouns is that only gerunds have verbal categories. Verbal nouns do not have either aspect or voice. a difference that we will come back to. while the topicalization of clauses was often problematic. The DP projection is crucially involved in the syntax of the gerund subject. i. Let us review the evidence that gerunds (i. Extraposition Another characteristic property related to their DP status is that (with limited exceptions to be discussed below) gerunds do not extrapose. Perhaps John selling the house bothers his mother. behaving like DPs from this point of view as well.

We remember him describing Rome. The range of acceptable Poss subjects is more limited than the range of acceptable Acc subjects. it has been claimed that the Acc-ing has a rather “marginal character” (cf. *What city do you remember his describing t? The subject clause of an Acc-ing construction may be questioned or otherwise wh-moved. One reason is semantic and relates to the fact that the Saxon Genitive prefers NPs higher on the animacy / personhood . there are several syntactic. trigger or at least allow singular agreement on the main verb. not clausal 6. 3. 4. (36) a. Typical sentence patterns such as the double object construction. This strengthens the view that the functional structure of the gerund is at least partly clausal. Elements of an Acc-ing complement may be extracted by wh-Movement. Poss-ing constructions are islands to extraction. This difference has significant distributional consequences. 7. The most important difference between the Acc-ing and the Poss. Acc for the latter. Verbal nouns have only nominal properties. the Nom+ Inf or the Acc + Inf have no verbal noun counterparts. like conjoined that complements. 4. 5. a determiner must always precede the verbal noun. Admissible range of subject DPs. We approved of his studying linguistics in our department. or by negative pronouns. The distributions of the Poss-ing and Acc-ing is nominal. Who do you approve of studying linguistics ? c. Gen for the former. Abney 1987: ). b. 4. gerunds are rather choosy in the kind of DPs that they allow as subjects. We remember his describing Rome b. b. John’s coming and Mary’s leaving *bothers / bother Mother. the Nom+ Inf or the Acc+Inf have gerund counterparts. The object of verbal noun gets (analytical) Genitive case. When there is no subject. interpretative and even stylistic differences between them. (40) a. Gerunds also have important nominal properties: 6.4. Stylistically. This higher selectivity has two reasons. This proves that the functional structure of the verbal noun is nominal. b. 1. *Whose did you approve of studying linguistics ? 4.3. As first remarked by Ross (1973). However. They appear in all case-positions. Conjoined Poss-ing complements in subject position trigger plural agreement behaving like full DPs. by the preposition of. The subject of a Poss-ing construction may not undergo wh-movement. The subject of a verbal noun gets (synthetic) Genitive case. being negated by means of the negative determiner no. The subject of a Poss-ing is in the Genitive like the subject of a DP.1 Agreement Conjoined Acc-ings in subject position. 4. They do not have any verbal categories and do not allow any auxiliaries of aspect and voice 2. That John comes so often and that Mary leaves so often bothers /*bother Mother. Differences between Acc-ing and Poss-ing structures Although in most contexts the two gerund constructions are syntactically acceptable and (roughly) equivalent semantically. Wh-movement. They disallow clausal negation by means of not.120 COMPLEMENTATION 5. c. 7. Verbal nouns or ing-of constructions. What city do you remember him describing t? (39) a. d.ing is the case of the subject. Manner adverbial modifiers are disallowed and replaced by corresponding adjectives. Typical sentence patterns such as the double object construction. it will be shown that there are situations where Poss-ing is not available and Acc-ing remains the only option. In contrast. (38) a. John coming so often and Mary leaving so often bothers / *bother Mother. We approved of him studying linguistics in our department.

and yet it has the subject and the distribution of a DP. (49) a. while Acc-ing may also be interpreted as indefinite DPs. the event of John's coming to visit her is at least familiar to the conversational background. specifying its functional categories. etc. the ing that attaches to a verb may produce a lexical category with any feature specification. probably because the setting they create is not suitable for evaluating the truth of a gerund clause. Mary didn't discuss John's coming to visit her. . without commitment as to whether the event has taken place in the real world or not. (50) John’s not knowing the truth. *John's not knowing of the truth. b. Mary didn't discuss John coming to visit her. Evidence supporting the presence of a Tense position in gerunds is not only the existence of auxiliary verbs in gerunds. The same difference shows up in (47): (47 ) a. Let us start with the Poss-ing construction.1. The syntax of the Poss-ing construction In the analysis of the several ing complements (Poss-ing. As to the content of the gerund Tense/ Mood feature. It has been shown that the gerund embeds a VP or IP. so I brought a wig to disguise him. the containing predicate suspends this difference. 5.) As known. The Poss-ing construction offers the clearest case of mixed functional categories. so that both gerunds are definite. the Acc-ing gerunds are completely indefinite. know. above. b.2. (48) a. The aspectual auxiliaries have and be are not in the VP. In contrast. the Poss-ing has a familiarity presupposition. but head Aspect Phrases.3. Conclusion: The analysis that we propose will have to account for the differences in 4. It follows that Poss-ings are always interpreted as definite DPs. a phrase headed by a [+V] constituent. PRO-ing). The evidence is also compatible with the hypothesis that the gerund clause contains a Tense position. lacking even this type of familiarity presupposition.( See examples above. I remembered his being bald. One of them is Aspect. but also the fact that the gerund complement may be negated by the sentential negation not. The Acc-ing simply means that the situation is real in Mary's dream world. 5. I remember having heard Shaliapin once. the guiding idea is that it is the nature of the available functional categories which determines the categorial features of the lexical phrase. In this respect. think. the gerund differs from the verbal noun which accepts only the negative determiner no. 5. I remembered having been waiting for him for two hours once. the following points should be taken into account: a) Many verbs of propositional attitude: believe. Such a context is that of a factive predicate. b) The content of the gerund comes out more clearly in contexts where it contrasts with the infinitive: (52) a. Acc-ing. since. Mary didn't enjoy John coming to visit her More on the semantics of the gerund is to be found in section 9. the sentential negation not scopes over Tense. b. In this section.1.-4. In certain contexts. Mary didn't enjoy John's coming to visit her. In (47a). if not actual. as noticed above.122 COMPLEMENTATION As (46) shows the Poss-ing construction presupposes that the situation described in the gerund clause is real and Joan dreams of it. we give a more detailed description of the internal structure of the gerund. are not compatible with the gerund.

I remembered him to be bald. the gerund clause should contain the nominal projection responsible for Genitive case assignment. I celebrated building my first house. Examples like the following (from Conrad (1982:97) reinforce the idea that the gerund has realis non future Tense (with respect to the main clause): (57) a. This difference is in fact aspectual as commented by Portner (1994:258): "An intuitive way to put the difference between (55) and (56) is to say that enjoy-class verbs (may) give an internal (imperfective) perspective on the gerund's event. From this point of view. Watching all this today has made you quite excited. as in (55). as in (56). d. Summing up. the D layer acts as a category shifter. Zucchi (1993) argue that gerunds are interpreted as quantified DPs. I regret to say that you are fired. let us assume that that the Gen assigner 's is the head of a an AgrP. They commemorated travelling to Rome. Asher ( 1993). In all the examples. with the detailed representation of the vP in (70b) : (70) a. so I was surprised to see him hair. while the gerund shows realis non-future tense. (53) wearing long a. it has so far been established that gerunds contain the verbal projections in (70a). Following Kayne (1994). when more gerund containers are taken into account. Portner (1993). I regret saying that you are a liar. They reported the enemy to be defeated. the infinitive is compatible with future tense (see (54a) or with irrealis mood (see (52b)). b. a "silent the" as Asher claims. These examples lead to the conclusion that there is a contentful Tense position in the gerund clause. d. we have assumed that the T-chain of the gerund clause is headed by an Op in SpecD. b. and it is compatible with expressing events that overlap the main clause. I enjoyed building the house. where the interpretation of the complement clause is least dependent on the main verb. In fact. They loved travelling to Rome. c) The content of the gerund Tense/Mood feature is best apparent in subject clauses. We disliked her writing her memoirs. Since the gerund’s subject is in the Genitive case. b. it appears that the gerund indeed has realis non-future Tense. They reported the enemy's being defeated. The gerund in the sentences above refers to real past events or situations. while celebrate-class verbs (may) give an external (perfective) perspective. as well as with events that precede the main clause. The complete functional structure of the Poss-ing is then the following: (71) DP > AgrSP> NegP> TP > Asp P >( vP > FP > VP) . we have also mentioned empirical evidence in favour of a DP layer in the gerund construction. Moreover. Gueron (1995). I regretted walking to town.3 Case-assignment inside the gerund clause presents no special problem. (56) a. c. I praised her writing the book. b. contrasting with the infinitive. TP > Asp P > vP b. b.123 COMPLEMENTATION b. c. and they all agree that the Poss-ing gerund bears a [+definite] feature. it is the layer that secures the nominal distribution. (54) a. TP > Asp P >( vP > VP) The verbal part of the gerund clause thus represents a small clause. bearing a strong nominal feature. (55) a. I hated her writing the book. At the same time. Meeting me again reminded her of her old triumphs. 5.

the combination of the verb with the –ing suffix yields a [+V. (73) DP DP D’ Mary D0 AgrsP s DP Agrs' tMary AgrS0 NegP ts not Neg' Neg0 DP T0 having Asp0 taux V0 read VP DP the book One might wonder what makes possible the combination of the Determiner with and ing gerund TP or vP.] c.. Gerunds and determiners. Consider an example: (72) Mary’s not having read her book.124 COMPLEMENTATION Since the silent D layer is contentful. The answer is that the ing suffix attached to highest verb of the small clause contributes a [+N] feature. The [+V] feature is responsible for the extended verbal projection engendering the small clause. and on the other hand.. In older stages of the language.+N] lexical head. no. while the subject of the gerund raises to SpecD. 5 cites the following examples: (77) a.e. no. b.. as was apparent in the discussion of English small clauses. as suggested by Gueron and Hoeckstra (1995). in the case of the gerund. this. Jespersen (1909.. no determiners are present in the gerund clause. the [+N] feature allows combination with the a DP: the outer functional layer is nominal. The analysis that is proposed here is thus a variant of the D0-IP analysis of the gerund. This telling lies out of school has got to stop. It is reasonable to assume that at LF the [+N] feature of the ing verb checks the [+N] feature of the determiner. that.49) vol. we will assume that the Agr morpheme -'s raises to D0 to lexicalize the definite feature. since in English such small clauses do not normally combine with determiners. so that the gerund as a whole has DP distribution. The gerund is thus a mixed [+V. any. TP T' AspP . The judgement of heaven for my wicked leaving my father′ s house[. i. +N] category. and even the. exceptionally the gerund may have been headed by lexical determiners such as. There is no enjoying life without you.

gerund) There are however clear empirical differences between them. b. only the Acc+Part. In contrast. the ing morpheme is somehow involved in assigning case to the subject.-N] in the case of the participle. (83) a. but not the Acc+ing correlates with an Acc+Inf. These data suggest that the manner of Acc case assignment is different in the two constructions. It cannot become a main clause subject. I deplore his losing his fortune. (86) a. He was kept [t waiting] d. (Acc-ing. At first sight the Acc+ing is not distinct from the participial clauses that have already been examined in a previous chapter. I regret him leaving. I deplored [him leaving] b. Johnson (1988) Pires (2000). in all the analyses of the Acc-ing construction (Reuland (1983). more precisely the Acc+ Part correlates with a Nom + Part construction. I regret him leaving. *I kept him to wait. based on SSR. A limited number of verbs may c-select the Acc +Part construction. I saw him come (89) a. This leads to a different manner of case assignment in the two clauses. without significantly changing the interpretation. This suggests that the lexical categorization of the ing form is distinct in the two constructions. by SSR. in the sense that the subject of the Acc-ing construction is assigned case clauseinternally ( see below).*I found his sleeping. The Acc-ing construction 6. the Acc may become a main clause constituent and can be "passivized on the main clause cycle". In the Acc+Part construction. The Acc-ing thus counts as having. A clear difference between the Acc+Part and the Acc-ing structure is that only the latter can regularly be replaced by the Poss-ing construction. Secondly. the Acc of the Acc+ing construction does not passivize. It is purely verbal [+V. b. even though the nominal properties are less apparent than with the Poss-ing construction. I saw himi [ ti running away]. Consider the following examples: (84) a.126 COMPLEMENTATION 6. I deplore him losing his fortune. The subject undergoes SOR and checks the Acc case feature of the main verb. the ing-form in the Acc+ing has mixed verbal-nominal properties. and has mixed features [+V +N] in the case of the gerund. the ing verb is not involved in assigning case to the subject. I kept him waiting a. They saw him waiting. *They saw his waiting.1 Acc-ing vs. if not an 'internal' source for the . b.I found him sleeping. I found him sleeping. if the main verb is passive. (90) a. The raised subject may undergo passive on the main clause cycle: (91) a. (88) a. b. As with the Poss-ing construction.(Acc+Part) b. The Acc+Part construction involves SOR. (85) a. *He was deplored [t losing his fortune] What is presumably different about the two apparently identical Acc-+ing structures is the lexical specification of the Ving. *He was regretted [t leaving] c. (87) a. He was found [t sleeping] b. b.*He was deplored [ t leaving]. Acc+ Part(icple). I saw him coming b. As will be shown in detail below. I regret his leaving. He was seen ti [ ti running away] (92) a.

127 COMPLEMENTATION subject's case. Case is somehow transmitted from the main clause head to the gerund subject. or in positions of structural case. as demonstrated by the impossibility of SSR when the main verb is passive: (94) a. in contrast with the Acc+Part. Johnson (1988)). they contrast with Inflection / Tense which regularly check Nom case only by SHA. The analysis The account that we propose is based on several important empirical facts. At the same time. The proposal that we want to make is that. it is the [α -Case] feature of some head in the main clause (V0. as with Poss-ing. capable to check the case feature of their complement. (95) a. I was surprised at him leaving her. In this. c) The third fact that should be accepted is that Acc-ing constructions have a DP layer. the temporal interpretation of these constructions is best understood by claiming that they have a Tense Op in SpecD. a) The Acc+ing is particularly frequent after prepositions and after transitive verbs. like Poss-ings. IPs. b) The second important fact is that the constituent that is assigned Acc remains in the subordinate clause. obvious in its ability to appear after prepositions. ? Would him leaving her surprise you. Acc+ings are DPs that embed clauses. 6. at least an internal mechanism of case-transmission. while being less felicitous in subject position: (93) a. while at the same time. c.2. Pires (2000) or even a CP (cf. producing appropriate explanations for the syntactic and interpretative differences between the full gerund and the half gerund. This clearly shows that no gerund subject movement is at stake in the Acc-ing construction. It is stressed that the Acc+ing does not show any clear nominal marks. This distribution has to be correlated with the property that verbs and prepositions share: they are Acc-case assigners. The intuition we want to capture is that the source of the Acc-Case in the Acc-ing is external to the Accing. b. I deplored him leaving her. Several important studies on the Acc-ing construction point out that the Acc-ing should be viewed like a clause. in a configuration of the type shown in (96): (96) V' V0 deplore Agree D0 Agree DP TP T" DP D' . A desirable analysis would have to account for the DP distribution of the Acc-ing. simply having a nominal distribution. therefore an IP (cf. The several properties that differentiate the Poss-ing from the Acc-ing have been interpreted as showing that the Acc+ing is more clausal. I saw him leaving her. in contrast with the Poss-ing which is unquestionably a DP. b. The most natural solution appears to be checking the case feature of the subject by Agree. *He was deplored leaving her. I0). headed by T/ AgrS0. this feature acts as a probe ultimately checking the case feature of the Acc-ing subject through a chain of Agree relations. He was seen leaving her. Reuland (1983)). b. I deplored him leaving her. P0. This is natural given their distribution.

+N].128 COMPLEMENTATION him T0 DP 0 VP V" V DP Essentially. Participial constructions have the following properties. a noun modifier.. although. whose case feature is thus checked in situ. b) Participial constructions may be introduced by the following subordinating conjunctions or adverbs ( constituents of category P): if. in other words. i. Participles cannot be preceded by case-assigning prepositions. D0 is in some sense an anaphoric case assigner. as though. The brief remarks that follow regard participial constructions in English. placed in sentence initial or sentence final position. D0 Agrees with the subject DP. +V]. For a moment the girl sat on the edge of the desk. Morgan was rocking it backwards and forwards. They found him sleeping in the armchair. (147) a. The subject is assigned case from an external source: the main clause Tense /Inflection in the Nom + Part structure and the main verb in the Acc+Part construction. an attribute. their subject is understood as coreferential with the main clause subject: (146) a. endowed with a Case feature. c. It is its [+N] specification that makes it compatible with the D0 head. looking less at him than out of the window. The participle 7. two of which. I felt embarrassed. In that sense. the Accusative + Participle and the Nominative + Participle have already been discussed. Being argued ultimately on a basis of doctrine. is that D0 must itself be "activated" by an overt case head. though. TP] is an accessible Goal. and which is instrumental in "transmitting" case to the subject. prepositions that subcategorize DPs. 7. b. and have corresponding syntactic functions: Direct Object (Acc+ Part) or subject ( the Nom + Part). unless. The -ing in the Acc-ing. The present participle can regularly be used as an adjective. like the -ing of the Poss-ing construction is both nominal and verbal. it is used in forming the progressive aspect. the Englishmen became introspective. Both have been described as incomplete clauses: They are Aspect Phrases and lack the functional projections necessary to assign case to the subject. which is thus licensed. a verb modifier. He was found sleeping in the armchair. the V0 in (96). The participial constructions mentioned so far are arguments. (145) Having forgotten my notebook at home. V0 Agrees with D0. a) Often they are subjectless. (144) a. as it was . While visiting a native school. D0 is an anaphoric assigner. The Case of the subject is thus checked by means of two Agree relations. in other words. an adverbial or. as if persuading a child to sleep. the inspector noticed the children learning to write. in search of an appropriate Goal in suitably local search space. b. these disputes tend to become more rigid and more bitter. a form which is [+N.e. which is the sister node TP. Living in seclusion on an island. This makes it a Probe. This means that the inflection ing in this case is not [+V. The book lying on the desk is Mary's. b. as if.1 The (present) participle is a purely verbal ing-form. As known. it normally functions as a modifier. The participle unlike the gerund does not subcategorize predicates. The difference between this Acc assigning silent D and the Gen-assigning overt 's. The subject in [Spec.

the complementarity between situations when the lexical subject is possible.adverbs. Also the participle is selected by subordinators (prepositions) that always subcategorize clauses not DPs. and those when it is not possible becomes comprehensible: a) A lexical subject is impossible if there is a wh-operator in Spec CP. Having known him for many years. he fell. This is consistent with the fact that the participle does not show up in case-marked positions. the participle may be viewed as a sentence modifier ( i. but [+V. Weather permitting. we could talk undisturbed. The key to a plausible analysis of the participle lies in noticing that whenever it is introduced by a conjunction or a wh-adverb. a CPselecting preposition in the class: if. since it is a clause. On arriving there I found him gone. at least in the intended meaning: (152) a. He stood addressing crowds of men and women on the slopes of the Mound. he fell. moreover the only possible connectors that introduce participles are non-case assigning ones : conjunctions and wh. Compare: (148) a. there are also instances where the participle must be analyzed as a VP modifier. I found him gone ( participle) b. b) A lexical subject is impossible if the clause is introduced by a conjunction. she didn't know what to decide. the participle is subjectless. Let us assume that these . PRO running . 7. Not knowing the truth. so that the participle is purely verbal. c. b. The idea obsessing him was the loss of his fortune d. Here are a few examples. the participle is adjoined to a projection of Inflection). (153) a. It is well-known that adverbs like when or while. the adjunct participle is always PRO-ing. or introduced by conjunctions (non-case-assigning subordinators). we will go on the picnic. b. but a CP. Such is the case of the examples below.(gerund) c. The idea of losing his fortune obsessed him ( gerund) c) The adverbial participial clause has a complete functional structure. they must be preceded by prepositions. i. occupy the Spec CP position. c. b. they found the house deserted d.e. which means that adverbial participial clauses are TPs. When PRO arriving. This indicates the presence of a syntactic Tense position. Arriving there. a construction where the participle has its own lexical subject. If that description is accepted. note that when gerunds function as verbal or nominal modifiers. although. While whenever there is comma intonation.e. While PRO running. not a DP. while participles are either independent. she was sorry to hurt his feelings. As a practical aside. Too often he gulped his tea standing up. so that C0 has a wh feature. d) There is also the so-called Absolute Participial Construction. She sat talking (*Talking she sat). except for the Absolute Participial construction. In other words. This is a sure indication of the fact that the participial clause is not merely a TP. The construction always functions as an adverbial. The thief running away. God willing.129 COMPLEMENTATION with the gerund. where the post-verbal position seems to be obligatory. the police were after him. and of a NegP.-N]. where it is Nom-ing. with auxiliaries and Negation: (149) a. though. (150) a. The child having gone to bed. in the Nom case. c.etc. having an operator role. b. as if .2 Towards an analysis. we shall succeed.

Such a suggestion becomes plausible by analogy with constructions in other languages. whether genitive or accusative. ne-am culcat / *Copiii plecati. possibly a [+V] feature. c) The lexical subject is possible only when there is no conjunctive adverb (when. (154) CP AdvP C' C0 TP while +wh T' T0 ing DP PRO (155) AdvP Op C0 CP C' TP DP the thief T' T0/Agr ing DP PRO vP v" run away vP v" run 7. cit. quotes the following Poss-ing extraposed gerunds: (155) a. We will assume.) allow extraposed gerunds. accompanied by the following comment. What counts is that. behaving like DPs from this point of view. under these circumstances. It is exceedingly unwise his going to stay at Court. etc. the latter licensing a "default" Nom case. whereas the former can be given . Here are two representations. F Une fois les enfants venus. There is however a class of idiomatic exceptions. “It has been noted only rarely that there is a striking difference in acceptability in this position between gerundives that contain overt subjects. Milsark (1988:626) gives the following examples and grammaticality judgements of extraposed ing-complements. respectively that of (153b) and of (153d) above. under these assumptions. Poutsma (op. and those that do not.130 COMPLEMENTATION prepositions select an empty C0. which they incorporate by head to head movement at LF. the Spec C position will not be licensed. It was of no use my saying anything to you. More instances of verbal Ving. Many evaluative adjectives (it is easy/ hard. The C0 may be said to check some strong feature of the conjunction. We have said above that gerunds do not extrapose. ne-am culcat. Extraposition.) and nouns ( it is (not/not any/ use/ fun/ good / avail/ worth while/ an awful job. while) and no conjunction. the Spec C position of the clause is held by an abstract T-operator which "activates" the Agr features on Tense. 959). where it appears that a lexical T-operator in Spec CP licenses the case of the subject: R: Odata copiii plecati. nous partirons.3./useless/ fine/ worth/ awkward/ ill/ jolly/ awful. b. This would express the intuition that conjunctions require verbal projections. To my own ear at least. etc. with Gueron & Hoeckstra (1995) that. the latter are fully grammatical. The participle may not have a lexical subject in this configuration either.

b. It bothers me. *VingVing. As Milsark calls attention. It was a joy encountering that book in such an out of the way shop. b. provided that the main predicate is evaluative and idiomatic. So when they are not nominal. PRO is case checked through a different mechanism ( Control).e. b. It's not very important to you. This looks like a phonological constraint.. John's big cigar. Doubling violations. Bill was enjoying reading the poem aloud. Griselda reached for the telephone.*Mary finds it a delight Fred('s)swimming for hours in mountain ponds. d. i. such as the extraposed position. (157) a. Consider the contrast between (156) and (157). then nothing forces the projection of a D-layer. He has been running. the arrogant swine. It has sometimes been asserted that gerunds do not have the progressive aspect: (160) a. If we assume that the PRO-ing can also be [+V. d. parting with her. The moved constituent is separated from the clause by comma intonation. However.-N]. John's big cigar bothers me. . b. where all examples should be read without the exaggerated comma intonation exemplified above”: (156) a. The [+N] feature licenses the D0 which is fully responsible for the mechanism of case-checking the lexical subject. seeing Brenda. the first idea that comes to mind is to say that sequences of ing verbs are disallowed. this 'doubling' constraint is again inaccurate. It's pleasant walking around the city in Dublin.e. this description is not accurate. b. c. which moves an NP to the right end of the sentence. which account for the fact that it may surface in caseless positions. Disliking drinking vodka with only her cats for company. It will be a sad thing. leaving behind a pronominal copy.131 COMPLEMENTATION some semblance of felicity only by means of the sort of heavy comma intonation that is typical of rightward topic structures in examples such as He walked right in the door and stuck a tract in my face. as well: (161) a. (158) a. Right Dislocation may operated on gerunds. at least from a syntactic perspectives. PRO-ing may have verbal properties.*It confused the chief the cops(') finding the house empty. such as the position of extraposition. Yet. i. In conclusion. (159) a. Mary finds it a delight swimming for hours in mountain ponds. *His being running. Extraposition should not be mixed up with the rule of Right Dislocation. since there are fully acceptable examples of ing sequences: (162) a. He is running. The Poss-ing and the Acc-ing constructions are [+V.+N]. PRO-ings are in fact expected to occur in caseless positions.. since there are perfectly good perfect progressive gerunds. His having been running To explain the difference in grammaticality between (160) and (161). they are partly nominal and need to appear in case-marked positions.*It's amusing John('s) walking around the city in Dublin. c. PRO-ing gerunds may undergo extraposition from subject position. b. It confused me finding the house empty. is it ? b. On the present analysis this contrast of grammaticality can easily be explained.*It was a joy Susan('s) encountering that book in such an out of the way shop.

the PRO-ing is nominal.-N]. John's playing the Sixth suite was enjoyed by the entire audience (167) a. *Bill began his playing the Sixth Suite b. while the latter can. The correct generalization probably says that a participle form. Disliking my drinking vodka with only her cats for company. If the latter occupy the CP layer. (obligatory control) b. b. . we may assume that the gerund ( PRO-ing or t-ing) is a verbal constituent.  2. Participial clauses may have a Nom subject licensed by an abstract tense operator in SpecC (The Absolute Participial Constructions). *Bill was beginning playing the Sixth Suite. that is. Preliminaries The traditionally called Nom + Inf construction is illustrated in examples of type (1a. *It is beginning[ t raining]. Ed's resenting (Ann's) getting photographed drunk is just too funny. Bill enjoyed (John('s)) playing the Sixth Suite.  3. In contrast. their ability to remain caseless correlates with the possibility of analyzing the PRO-ing construction as a purely verbal one [+V.-N] head may take a gerund complement. Extraposed gerunds are PRO-ing constructions.e. b. Ed's resenting getting photographed drunk is just too funny. Further evidence of the difference between the ing forms that give rise to doubling violations and those that do not do so is that the former cannot passivize. Ross (1972) convincingly proves that doubling violations occur only in structures where no nominal constituent could have intervened between the two Vings. b. The adverbial participial clause is a CP. a structure which is not a DP. [+V. only where there is no alternative structure where the two are kept separate.. i. a' It seems that Melvin speaks Japanese fluently. c): (1) a. (164) a. It is beginning [t to rain] (SSR) b.-N] head cannot take as complement another [+V. Bill was enjoying playing the Sixth Suite. if the latter can be interpreted as having the categorial specification [+V. introduced by conjunctions or adverbs. The participle is categorially distinct from the gerund being fully verbal [+V. John was just starting to prepare his lessons. the participle [+V. c. What these two cases have in common is that the ing complement cannot assign case to its subject. with raising verbs and with verbs of obligatory control: (163) a. Melvin seems to speak Japanese fluently. for instance. the participle may only have anaphoric agreement feature can only license PRO. if the complement has a nominal feature..-N].*John was just starting preparing his lessons. Heads and complements should be categorially distinct. Conclusions  1. c.e. b.  4. (165) a. *(Bill's) playing the sixth Suite was begun twice. LECTURE X THE NOMINATIVE + INFINITIVE CONSTRUCTION 1. i. Doubling violations occur. This is in keeping with our assumption that the ing-forms which do not produce violations are nominal: (166) a.-N] constituent.132 COMPLEMENTATION c. In all the acceptable examples of doubling. Griselda reached for the telephone. Nobody turns out to have experienced that dilemma.+N].+N] and may be replaced by a Poss-ing complement. that is a [+V.

c. The representations we assign below to such examples in (8b. prove. (2) a. as well as the adjectives. There seems to be /* to be groaning a man in your bed. there. The most characteristic triggers of the Nom + Inf construction are the so-called A(ppear) verbs: appear. suggesting that it has raised from the infinitive clause: (4) a. Namely. The jig seemed [t to be up. In other cases the surface subject is a subcategorised idiomatic direct object of the infinitive. b. sure. 1. Such is the case of it. c. All hell is certain [ t to break out.1 The Nom + Inf construction is derived by Subject to Subject Raising (SSR). but also on the presence of certain lexical items. b. The Nom + Inf is a lexically governed construction. a typical AMovement rule.All hell is likely to break out. The shoe is on the other foot. b. ] c' *The shoe is trying to be on the other foot. hail. again suggesting a movement analysis. which θ . There is/*groans a man in your bed. Predictably. The Prime Minister happened to be in Greece at the time. a. not the night before. . go. (5c)) do not allow there subjects: (5) a. with the Nom + Inf. He now seems to be leaving tomorrow. sleet. drizzle. c'. (6) a.rain. listed in the lexicon only as parts of the respective idioms Here are examples of this type. It seemed to have been raining/ drizzling/ snowing for a long time b. Weather it is selected by verbs like. of idiomatic subjects. its possibility depends not only a certain syntactic configuration. which are l-selected if the idiomatic reading is not to be lost. seem. The jig is up. This indicates that the main clause subject is originally projected as the subject of the infinitive. The shoe is likely [ t to be on the other foot.e. The expletive there. Thus.marks the main clause subject. certain. Observe that control verbs like try (cf. etc. for raising verbs there is no s-selection between the main verb and its (derived) subject. come . (3) He started to [PRO to visit her more and more often now] He appeared [ t to be more and more interested in her now] It is essential to grasp the intuitive difference between raising verbs and subject control verbs. c')). etc. d) are plausible in as much as they express the basic function of the . Idiomatic subjects (examples (6)). It rained/drizzled/snowed for a long time. Several types of empirical data prove this point There are subjects which are s-selected or even l-selected by particular verbs. All these may appear. unlikely.133 COMPLEMENTATION b'. instead of the day after tomorrow. turn out.] a' *The jig tried to be up. make headway. not only with the respective verbs. all generative analyses proposed so far have somehow related the subject of the infinitive clause to that of the main clause. pay heed to. It happened that the Prime Minister was in Greece at the time. the main clause subject is s-selected only by the downstairs infinitive. idiom chunks do not appear across control verbs (7a'.. which appears with ergative verbs (be. are also possible as subjects in the Nom + Inf construction (7a. but also across the verb seem. not the main verb. He now appears to have arrived last night. b. appear. It is the infinitive verb.] c. called triggers of the construction. i. It can also figure in Nom + Inf construction. b. It turns out that nobody has experienced that dilemma. likely. happen. c). (7) a. and a few more. snow. c. ) may also figure as subject of a Nom + Inf construction. *There tried to be a man in your bed. in phrases like keep tabs on. c. b.

The empirical problem: The intuition. (17) a. I know him to have been sent to London.135 COMPLEMENTATION (14) a. We expected the prisoner to be examined by the doctor. I don’t know [whom [ PRO to send t]]. A classical GB account Chomsky (1986a) offers the standard analysis of the SSR construction. William seems [ t to be a pleasant fellow]. b. There are also facts which seem to indicate a difference of categorial status between raising IP complements and CP complements. b. We believed him to be willing to help. b. We asked him to be willing to help. Who seems [t to be a pleasant fellow]? Sentence (17a) above would have the following D/S-structure representations (18) IP I' I0 s V0 seem VP V' IP DP William (19) IP DP William I0 s V seem DP t I0 TO I' VP be a pleasant man THE ACCUSATIVE + INFINITIVE CONSTRUCTION 1. for lack of a SpecC position. contrasting with control complements in this respect: (16) a. c. 0 I' I0 VP TO be a pleasant man I' VP V' IP . They considered the prisoner to be a traitor b. They forced the prisoner to become a traitor. He tried to be polite. (1) a. in all likelihood. b. We persuaded the prisoner to be examined by the doctor. Thus. (3) a. b. He seemed to be polite. (2) a. *I don’t know whom to have been sent to London ? 2. raising infinitive complements cannot be interrogative.

I expected/ believed there to be a man behind the counter. I didn’t expect it to rain so hard in April. *They forced it to rain in March.marks the infinitive clause. with which they are listed in the lexicon (e. I expect it to be possible for him to obtain the promotion. An empirical consequence of this selectional difference is that raising verbs accept as DOs any DP. Rephrasing this contrast in more technical terms. b. b. make headway. Proposition ]. believe [ Experiencer. I assumed him to have left. the main verb does s-select the DO with control verbs. In the same way.136 COMPLEMENTATION The most typical group of Acc + Inf triggers are some verbs of propositional attitude. (11) a. like believe. They expected Mary to help William d. like “weather” it in (6) or the expletive it of Extraposition in (7) surface as DOs in the Acc+Inf. transitive control verbs differ from raising verbs regarding their θ . *I found/ordered/promised heed to be paid to that proposal by all of the legislators. pay heed to. With raisers the Acc is s-selected ONLY by the infinitive. keep tabs on. raising verbs are binary predicates. b. Control verbs are three-place predicates. I consider the man to be crazy. Several facts support this view. The occurrence of there in DO position in (8) also provides striking evidence that the Acc DP is justifiable and interpretable only in relation to the infinitive verb. *I forced/ordered/promised/vowed there to be a man behind the counter. the main difference is that. the main verb s-selects and θ . I couldn't persuade him to go. They expected that Mary would help William 1. find. I expected heed to be paid to that proposal by all of the legislators. d. the object DP must be in the selectional range of the verb: (5) a. idiom chunks freely occur as main clause objects in the Acc+ Inf. formal subjects. while raising verbs do not do so. They persuaded Mary to help William. b. Indeed. Thus. ): (9) a. I forced it to be possible for him to obtain the promotion.selected or even l-selected by the lower verb. even if they are undoubtedly s. but not in object control constructions. In addition to s-selection and θ -marking. prove. In contrast. consider. b. expect. etc. constructions. while with raising verbs the Acc is unrelated to the main verb. not the Acc DP. it follows that control verbs θ -mark the Acc DP..*I assumed him. and in no way depends on the matrix verb for its interpretation. (7) a. with control verbs. (6) a. I couldn’t persuade him. the main verb plays a formal part.1 On the source of the Accusative In the Acc+inf construction. *I consider man.structure.g. They persuaded Mary that she should help William c. . the Acc constituent need not be in the selectional range of the main verb: (4) a. There DPs do not appear in control constructions. which may function as subject of the infinitive. In other words. b. (8) a. Patient [ Affected Agent ] Proposition ]. providing case for the infinitive subject. This contrast is immediately apparent when infinitive constructions are paraphrased by finite complements: (10) force [ Agent. judge. the Acc is semantically related to the main verb whose argument it is. but not in the control. etc. b. c. Intuitively.

The Acc in the Acc+Inf construction is not θ -marked or s-selected by the main verb but by the infinitive. Important previous analyses. It was never expected for them to return soon. so PRO cannot be licensed. (15) a. *I never expected at all them to arrive so soon. The Acc+Inf is categorially an IP. This explains why in most cases the PRO-to and the Acc+Inf construction are in complementary distribution. 2. as in (12b). the Acc is no longer possible. Conclusions 1. (the Accusative + Infinitive structure). They were never expected [ t to return so soon]. b. the construction is possible only with transitive verbs. *I want for him very much to succeed. The Inf Inflection of the Acc + Inf lacks anaphoric agreement features. since only (active) transitive verbs are Acc assigners. 5. If the Acc had been assigned in the downstairs clause. checked by the main clause Inflection. The only case available in the main clause for the infinitive subject is the Nom. I want very much for him to succeed. Given that R-triggers are extensionally anchored. This explains why the Acc+Inf accepts an indicative rather than a subjunctive paraphrase.2 The classical GB Analysis: Case assigned under government. raising to the subject position of the main clause. 4. Adjacency effects also prove that the Acc is assigned by the main verb. as is the case in the for-to construction. the position of the for phrase in the for-to construction: (14) a. the source of the Acc on the embedded clause subject is the main verb. Within a classic GB framework. (the Nominative + Infinitive structure). Compare: (12) a. no movement involved. Notice in contrast. the infinitive complement is interpreted in a weakly realistic setting. once it is decided that the raising complement is an IP (as in Chomsky (1986)). b. Thus passive-raising verbs must appear in the Nom + Inf construction. When the main verb is passivized. b. We never expected for them to return soon. Consider the representation below: (24) IP DP I' He I0 VP s V' 0 V IP believes DP I' her I0 VP to be beautiful . It gets Nom if the main verb is passive. passivization of the main verb would not have affected the Acc in the embedded clause. the analysis of the construction raises no difficulties. We never expected them to return soon. if the latter is active. 2.137 COMPLEMENTATION First. weak intensional verbs. The infinitive subject is gets Acc from the main verb. 3. (13) a. b. *I want very much him to succeed. 2. In conclusion. ill-formedness results if there is any constituent between the main verb and the Acc.

This “traditional” account holds that. . as explained above. Consider pronouns next. movement is not allowed into non-θ positions. it governs both its head and its specifier. d. or the fact that there is no -s-selection or θ -marking between the main verb and its apparent DO. Indeed. In contrast. (26) a. governs a projection. The pronoun is unbound inside the GC. which are always subjects in English. the object position of believe verbs is thematic. They believe each other to be honest. there. Condition B. The anaphors. This contrast has strong theoretical motivation: Subject-to -Subject raisers. which is also finite Inflection.138 COMPLEMENTATION The embedded subject is governed by the main verb. mentioned above. The pattern of obligatory disjoint reference which distinguishes the non-finite clause (26a) from the finite one (26b) can be explained in the same way. the subject of the main clause cannot possibly be an antecedent for the pronominal infinitive subject. which is the main verb. Therefore. This account is very straightforward and it can handle important properties of the Acc+Inf construction: a) First. since in this case the local binding domain ( governing category) for the anaphors is the main clause. Remark These facts follow from classical Binding Theory: Condition A. the Acc + Inf construction does not involve movement of the Inf subject into the main clause. such as. the subject position of the infinitive clause is governed and can be case-assigned by the main verb. This is because the main clause is the smallest projection that contains the anaphor. and an accessible SUBJECT which is the main clause Inflection. Hei believes that hei /j is honest.. as known. An anaphor is bound in its governing category.. They are allowed as subjects in the Acc+Inf clause. like seem. Remember that if a verb. (26a). himself and each other cannot be subjects in the finite complement clause (25 b. the analysis explains the subject properties of the Acc. appear. The Acc + Inf construction was analysed as merely an instance structural case-assignment under government by the main verb. and an accessible SUBJECT. Governing Category = the smallest maximal projection that contains α . the binding domain of the pronoun is the main clause. the analysis easily accounts for the distribution of reflexive and reciprocal anaphors and of personal pronouns appearing as subjects of the Inf clause. . but it can have an antecedent somewhere else. b) Secondly. Consider the contrast between finite and non-finite clauses regarding syntactic anaphors first: (25) a. inside the subordinate clause. finite Inflection with Agr features. the binding domain for the pronominal subject is the subordinate clause itself. a governor of α and a SUBJECT accessible to α . Hei believes himi*/j to be honest b. the fact that it can be expressed by expletives it. d). *They believe that each other are honest are honest.e. Transitive raisers do not have any non-thematic A-position . Hei believes [himselfi to be honest]. its governor. *Hei believes that himselfi is honest c. And. in contrast with the subject position of appear verbs.This is the most prominent nominal in some domain: specifically. i. the grammatical subject in a non-finite clause and the Genitive in a DP domain. b. i.e. in the case of the finite complement. for instance. the IP in this case. are all ergative verbs. The subordinate clause contains the pronoun. finite inflection in a finite clause. an (im)proper governor. not the subordinate clause. A pronoun is free in its governing category. unlike the Nom + Inf. Their subject position is non-thematic and is thus open to A-Movement. in the main clause. etc. because the latter defines a local domain (governing category) for binding. In the case of the infinitive complement.

Jim proved t to be innocent all of the gang members who had been caught. it just happened that way. first commented upon by Postal (1974). but not in other positions.4 Intervening matrix constituents: This is the clearest and least theory-dependent type of data. where the Neg was attracted to the subject position are flawless. Everyone believes him to be an addict.139 COMPLEMENTATION c) Passivisation. since each of the two clauses contains one clausal negation. This shows that the AccDP is in the main clause before Spell-Out. This is a very strong and persuasive class of arguments for overt movement 3. where the Inf subject (=derived DO) .1. DO properties The former subject acquires syntactic DO properties. I couldn’t believe that none of these sailors kissed Sally . b. negation facts. 3. c. The analysis can also explain the behaviour of the infinitive complement when the main verb is passive. can no longer assign Case to the embedded subject. which unambiguously prove that the Acc in the Acc + Inf clause acquires or. now in the passive participle form. 3. Negative Attraction is felicitous in subject position where it applies freely. may acquire matrix DO status in overt syntax. As known. for instance. Hei is believed ti to be an addict. where it receives Nom from finite Inflection: The infinitive subject thus undergoes SSR. and the negative subject quantifier DP in the embedded clause.3. at least.4. Bearing this in mind consider the set of sentences below: (45) a. contrasting that and for-to complements with Acc+ Inf complements: (44) a. the Acc DP may occur to the left of certain matrix elements. Bowers (1993) quotes examples of type (47a).3. Another useful property of negative sentences is that there cannot be more than one sentence negation per simple sentence. the neg clitic in the main clause. the passivization of the Acc on the main clause cycle. One such fact is Negative Attraction. The Acc+Inf example is ill-formed since the main clause contains both a negative verb and a negative DO quantifier. Consider sentences (44). b. in pairs like the following: (27) a. 3. Harry believes that not many pilots are familiar with Racine. as a consequence of overt movement.3.2. Heavy NP Shift applies only to objects. Sentences (44a. 3. It is expected then that it will apply to the subject of an Acc+Inf. This is again very strong evidence in favour of overt SOR.1 There are. *I couldn’t believe none of the sailors to have kissed Sally The that and for-to examples are flawless.3. I didn’t arrange for none of them to survive. the distribution of the anaphors in the subject position of the infinitive clause. such as the DO one. Sentence (44c) is infelicitous since negation has been attracted to a constituent that has turned into a DO. 3. Since the main verb. As originally noted in Postal (1974). which is a DO.3. the latter would remain caseless if it didn't raise into the non-θ subject position of the passive verb. John prayed for not many of them to be fired. b. The object status of the AccDP is also confirmed by Heavy NP Shift. b). b. but not to the subject of a for-to or that clause which are subjects throughout the derivation: (46) a.*Jim proved that t were innocent all of the gang members who had been caught. c. *Harry believes not many of the pilots to be familiar with Racine. This analysis thus accounts for the most important properties of the Acc+Inf clause: the subject properties of the Acc. The trace left behind is properly governed by the verb. never to subjects.