THE SYNTAX OF NATURAL LANGUAGE

1. Foundational issues
a. Prescriptive versus descriptive grammar
b. Rule formation in language acquisition
i. A thought experiment
ii. Rule-based word formation
iii. Question formation
c. More evidence for syntactic structure
i. Intuitions about words belonging together
ii. Structural ambiguity
d. Universal Grammar
i. Formal universals
ii. Recursion
iii. Parameters
e. Generative Grammar
i. Elementary trees and substitution
ii. Grammaticality
iii. Grammar versus language
f. Notes
g. Exercises and problems
h. Supplementary material
i. Expletive elements in English
ii. Modals and auxiliary verbs in English
2. Syntactic constituenhood
a. Tests for constituenhood
i. Substitution
ii. Movement
iii. Questions and sentence fragments
iv. It cleft focus
b. Some complications
i. Mismatches between syntax and prosody
ii. Phrasal versus lexical constituents
iii. Verb phrases
c. Representing constituenhood
d. Notes
e. Exercises and problems
f. Supplementary material
i. Node relations
ii. Verb forms and finiteness in English
3. Some basic linguistic relations
a. Argumenthood
i. Semantic valency
ii. Transitivity
b. Modification
c. Predication
i. Expletive it
ii. Aristotelian versus Fregean predicates
 iii. Expletive there
iv. Some special cases
d. Notes
e. Exercises and problems
f. Supplementary material
i. Grammatical relations
ii. Reference and related notions
iii. Thematic roles
iv. Verb forms and finiteness in English
4. Introducing the X schema of phrase structure
a. The X schema for elementary trees
i. Transitive elementary trees
ii. The X schema
iii. Intransitive elementary trees
iv. Deriving simple sentences
v. Deriving complex sentences
b. The adjunct relation
i. Modification is different
ii. The need for an adjunction operation
iii. A typology of syntactic dependents
iv. More on the distinction between complements and adjuncts
c. Notes
d. Exercises and problems
e. Supplementary material
i. Modals and auxiliary verbs in English
ii. Reference and related notions
iii. Thematic roles
5. Extending the X schema
a. Noun phrases
i. Parallels and differences between noun phrases and sentences
ii. Noun phrases as DPs
iii. More on determiners
iv. Modification and related issues
b. Adjective phrases
c. Prepositional phrases
d. Crosslinguistic variation in headedness
e. Notes
f. Exercises and problems
g. Supplementary material
i. Nouns
6. The verb movement parameter
a. Verb raising: V movement to I
i. The French future tense
ii. The order of adverbs and verbs in French
b. Tense lowering: I movement to V
i. The order of adverbs and verbs in English
ii. Do support in English
c. Cues for the acquisition of verb raising
 d. Verb raising and related issues in the history of English
i. The loss of verb raising
ii. A change in the status of not
iii. The emergence of do support
iv. The emergence of modals
v. Remnants of verb raising in modern English
e. Notes
f. Exercises and problems
g. Supplementary material
i. Modals and auxiliary verbs in English
ii. Node relations
7. VP shells
a. Double-object sentences
i. The structure of ordinary causative sentences
ii. Parallels between causative sentences and double-object sentences
iii. Abstract verb movement
b. Double-complement sentences
i. Give and send
ii. Put
iii. Persuade
c. The causative sentences
i. Manner of motion verbs
ii. Get
d. Further issues
i. Locality constraints on idioms
ii. Small clauses revisited
e. Notes
f. Exercises and problems
g. Supplementary material
i. Thematic roles
8. Case theory
a. A first look at case
i. The basic purpose of case
ii. Case government
iii. Synthetic versus analytic case marking
b. Case features
c. Case licensing
i. Spec-head licensing
ii. Head-spec licensing
iii. Head-comp licensing
iv. Nonstructural conditions on case licensing
v. The dative-accusative distinction
d. Notes
e. Exercises and problems
f. Supplementary material
i. Grammatical relations
9. Nonfinite clausal complements
a. Selectional restrictions
 b. Subject control
i. Evidence for two clauses
ii. Deriving subject control sentences
c. Raising
i. A detour
ii. Nonthematic subject positions
iii. Deriving raising sentences
iv. Tend and occur
v. Promise
d. Object control
e. More nonthematic subjects
i. Subject idiom chunks
ii. Weather it
iii. Summary
f. Notes
g. Exercises and problems
10. Passive
a. Characteristics of the passive
b. A movement analyis of the passive
i. Object idiom chunks
ii. Analysis
c. The passive and nonfinite complementation
d. The passive and VP shell constructions
e. Exercises and problems
11. Wh-movement: Ross’s island constraints
a. Evidence for a movement analysis of questions
i. Complementation
ii. Why a silent complementizer?
iii. Case checking
iv. Direct wh-questions
b. The island constraints
i. The apparent unboundedness of wh-movement
ii. A typology of islands
c. Other instances of wh-movement
i. Wh-relative clauses
ii. That relative clauses
iii. Doubly marked relative clauses
iv. Zero relative clauses
v. Topicalization
d. Notes
e. Exercises and problems
f. Supplementary material
i. Questions
12. Wh-movement: Subjacency and the ECP
a. Subjacency
i. Two possible derivations for long-distance wh-movement
ii. IP as a barrier to wh-movement
iii. DP as a barrier to wh-movement
 iv. The coordinate structure constraint revisited
b. The Empty Category Principle (ECP)
i. Antecedent government
ii. Lexical government
c. Further issues and refinements
i. Is subjacency and indepent principle?
ii. Movement out of ECM complements
iii. Movement out of DP
d. Exercises and problems
e. Supplementary material
i. Node relations
13. The verb-second (V2) phenomenon
a. V2 in German
i. The linear position of the finite verb
ii. The structural position of the finite verb
iii. Movement to C as adjunction
iv. Verb movement to C in declaratives
b. V2 in the history of English
i. V2 in Middle English
ii. A remnant of V2 in modern English
c. Notes
d. Exercises and problems
14. Binding theory: Syntactic constraints on the interpretation of noun phrases
a. Coreference and coindexing
b. Hellan 1988
i. The co-argument condition
ii. The predication condition
iii. The tensed IP condition
iv. Strict vs. Non-strict co-arguments
c. Extending Hellan’s binding theory to English
i. The co-argument condition
ii. The predication condition
iii. The tensed IP condition
d. Chomsky 1981
i. Principle A
ii. Principle B
iii. Principle C
e. Notes
15. Glossary
16. List of supplementary material
a. Expletive elements in English
b. Grammatical relations
c. Modals and auxiliary verbs in English
d. Node relations
e. Nouns
f. Questions
g. Reference and related notions
h. Thematic roles
i. Verbs
 1. FOUNDATIONAL ISSUES

Prescriptive versus descriptive grammar

In the everyday sense, 'grammar' refers to a collection of rules concerning what counts as
socially acceptable and unacceptable language use. Some of these rules, like the ones in (1),
make reference to particular words and apply to both spoken and written language.

(1) a.   Don't use ain't.

b. Don't use seen as the past tense of see (as in I seen him at the party last night).

But mainly, the rules in question concern the proper composition of sentences in written
language, and you may recall being taught rules like those in (2) at school.

(2) a. Don't start a sentence with a conjunction.

b. Don't use contractions.
c. Don't use sentence fragments.
d. Don't end a sentence with a linking verb.
e. Don't use dangling participles.
f. Don't end a sentence with a preposition.
g. Don't use an object pronoun for a subject pronoun in a conjoined subject.
h. Don't use a plural pronoun to refer back to a singular noun like everyone, no-
one, someone, and the like.
i. Don't split infinitives.
j. Use whom, not who, as the object of a verb or preposition.

Someone who composes sentences in accordance with rules like those in (2) is said to have
good grammar, whereas someone said to have bad grammar doesn't apply the rules when they
ought to be applied,1producing sentences like (3).

(3) a.   Over there is the guy who I went to the party with. violates (2f), (2j)
b. Bill and me went to the store. violates (2g)

From the attention that people pay to rules like those in (1) and (2), it is easy to get the
impression that they are the only linguistic rules there are. But it is also easy to see that that
can't be so. The reason is that even people who don't follow the rules don't produce rampantly
variable, confusing word salad. For instance, even people who routinely produce sentences like
those in (3) do not produce the likes of (4).

(4) a.   Over there is guy the who I went to party the with.
b. Over there is the who I went to the party with guy.
c. Bill and me the store to went.

The sentences in (3) may be instances of bad grammar in the everyday sense, but they are still
English sentences. By contrast, we don't need to rely on school rules to tell us that the examples
in (4) are not English sentences - even though they contain exactly the same words as the
sentences in (3).

Since native speakers of English do not produce a variable mishmash of words of the sort in (4),
there must be another sort of rules according to which sentences are composed. We can
determine what some of them are by taking a closer look at the sequences in (4). Why exactly is
it that they are word salad? In (4a), the article the is in the wrong order with respect to the nouns
that it belongs with, guy and party.In (4b), the relative clause (who I went to the party with) is in
the wrong order with respect to the noun that it modifies (guy). In (4c), the preposition to is in
the wrong order with respect to its object (the store). In other words, the sentences in (4) do not
follow the rules in (5).

(5) a.   Articles precede the nouns that they belong with.

b. Relative clauses follow the noun that they modify.
c. Prepositions precede their objects.

(There's a further rule that's not followed in (4), which you are asked to formulate in
the Exercises.)

Rules like those in (5) have a different intention than those in (2). The rules in (2)
are prescriptive, whereas those in (5) are descriptive. Rules of prescriptive grammar have the
same status as rules of etiquette (like table manners or dress codes) or the laws of society, which
divide the spectrum of possible human behavior into socially acceptable or legal behavior, on
the one hand, and socially unacceptable or illegal behavior, on the other. Rules of prescriptive
grammar make statements about how people ought to use language. In contrast, rules of
descriptive grammar have the status of scientific observations, and they are intended as
insightful generalizations about the way that human language is used in fact, rather than about
how it ought to be used. Descriptive rules are more general and more fundamental than
prescriptive rules in the sense that all sentences of a language are formed in accordance with
them, not just the subset of sentences that count as correct or socially acceptable. A useful way
to think about the descriptive rules of a language (to which we return in more detail  below) is
that they produce all the sentences of a language. The prescriptive rules can then be thought of
as filtering out some (relatively minute) portion of the entire output of the descriptive rules.

In syntax, as in modern linguistics more generally, we adopt a resolutely descriptive perspective

concerning language. In particular, when linguists say that a sentence is grammatical, we don't
mean that it is correct from a prescriptive point of view, but rather that it conforms to
descriptive rules like those in (5). In order to indicate that a sequence of words or morphemes is
ungrammatical (in the descriptive sense), we prefix it with an asterisk. Grammatical sentences
are usually not specially marked, but sometimes we prefix them with 'ok' for clarity. These
conventions are illustrated in (6) and (7).

(6) a. * Over there is guy the who I went to party the with. (= (4a))
b. * Over there is the who I went to the party with guy. (= (4b))
(7) a. ok Over there is the guy who I went to the party with. (= (3a))
b. ok Over there is the guy with whom I went to the party.

Prescriptive grammar is based on the view that there is a right way to do things and a wrong
way to do things. When there is more than one way of saying something, prescriptive grammar
is often concerned with declaring one (and only one) of the variants to be correct. The favored
variant is usually justified as being better (whether more logical, more euphonious, or more
desirable on some other grounds) than the deprecated variant. In the same situation of linguistic
variability, the basic aim of descriptive grammar is simply to document the variants - without
passing judgment on them.

For instance, consider the variable subject-verb agreement pattern in (8). In (8a), the singular
verb is (contracted to 's) agrees in number with the preverbal expletive subject there (in red),
whereas in (8b), the plural verb are agrees with the postverbal logical subject some boxes (in
blue). The color of the verb indicates which of the two subjects it agrees with.
(8) a.   There 's some boxes left on the porch.
b. There are some boxes left on the porch.

The prescriptive and descriptive rules concerning this pattern are given in (9). The differences
between the two rules are emphasized by underlining.

(9) In a sentence containing both the singular expletive subject there and a plural logical

subject ...
a. Prescriptive   ... the verb should agree in number with the logical subject.
rule:
b. Descriptive   ... the verb can agree in number with either the expletive subject or with
rule: the logical subject.

To take another example, let's consider the prescriptive rule that says, "Don't end a sentence
with a preposition."2 A prescriptivist might argue that keeping the preposition (in italics)
together with its object (in boldface), as in (10a), makes sentences easier to understand than
does separating the two, as in (10b).

(10) a. With which friend did you go to the party?

b. Which friend did you go to the party with?

But by that reasoning, (11a), where the verb and its object are kept together, ought to be
preferable to (11b), where they are separated. In fact, however, (11a) is completely
ungrammatical in English.

(11) a. * Adopt which cat did your friend?

b. ok Which cat did your friend adopt?

It is important to understand that there is no conceptual or semantic reason that prepositions can
be separated from their objects in English, but that verbs can't. From a descriptive perspective,
the grammaticality contrast between (10a) and (11a) is simply a matter of fact, irreducible to
more basic considerations given our present state of knowledge. (12) highlights the difference
between the relevant prescriptive and descriptive rules.

(12) When the object of a preposition appears in a position other than its ordinary one (as in a
question), ...
a. Prescriptive   ... it should be preceded by the preposition.
rule:
b. Descriptive   ... it can either be preceded by the preposition, or it may stand alone,
rule: with the preposition remaining in its ordinary position.

The contrasting attitude of prescriptive and descriptive grammar towards linguistic variation has
a quasi-paradoxical consequence: namely, that prescriptive rules are never descriptive rules. The
reason for this has to do with the way that social systems (not just language) work. If everyone
in a community consistently behaves in a way that is socially acceptable in some respect, then
there is no need for explicit prescriptive rules to ensure the behavior in question. It is only when
behavior that is perceived as socially unacceptable becomes common that prescriptive rules
come to be formulated to check the unacceptable behavior. For example, if every customer
entering a store invariably wears both a shirt and shoes, there is no need for the store owner to
put up a sign that says "No shirt, no shoes, no service." Conversely, it is precisely at illegal
dump sites that we observe "No dumping" signs. In an analogous way, in the domain of
language use, rules of prescriptive grammar are only ever formulated in situations where
linguistic variation is common. But being prescriptive, they cannot treat all of the occurring
variants as equal - with the result that they can't ever be descriptive.

Rule formation in language acquisition

As we have just seen, prescriptive and descriptive rules of grammar differ in intention. In
addition, they differ in how they come to be part of a speaker's knowledge. Prescriptive rules are
taught at school, and because they are taught, people tend to be conscious of them, even if they
don't actually follow them. By contrast, we follow the rules of descriptive grammar
consistently3 and effortlessly, yet without learning them at school. In fact, children have
essentially mastered these rules on their own by first grade. Ordinarily, we are completely
unconscious of the descriptive rules of language. If we do become conscious of them, it tends to
be in connection with learning a foreign language whose descriptive grammar differs from that
of our native language. In order to emphasize the difference between the unconscious way that
we learn a native language (or several) in early childhood and the conscious way that we learn a
foreign language later on in life, the first process is often called language acquisitionrather than
language learning.

As you consider descriptive rules like those in in (5), you might not find it all that surprising
that a child raised in an English-speaking community would acquire, say, the rule that articles
precede nouns. After all, you might say, all the child ever hears are articles and nouns in that
order.4 So why would it ever occur to such a child to put the article and the noun in the other
order? Isn't it just common sense that children learn their native language by imitating older
speakers around them?

Well, yes and no. It is true that children learn some aspects of their native language by imitation
and memorization. Children in English-speaking communities learn English words, children in
Navajo-speaking communities learn Navajo words, children in Swahili-speaking communities
learn Swahili words, and so on. But language acquisition isn't purely a process of memorization.
In fact, given current human life spans, it couldn't possibly be!

A thought experiment

To see this, let's consider a toy version of English that contains three-word sentences consisting
of a noun, a transitive verb, and another noun. The toy version contains sentences like (13) that
are sensible given the real world as well as sentences like (14) that aren't, but that might be
useful in fairy tale or science fiction contexts.

(13) a.   Cats detest lemons.     (14) a.   Lemons detest cats. ("Secret life of citrus fruits")
b. Children eat b. Tomatoes eat children. ("Attack of the genetically
tomatoes. modified tomatoes")
c. Cheetahs chase c. Gazelles chase cheetahs. ("Avenger gazelle")
gazelles.

Again for the sake of argument, let's assume a (small) vocabulary of 1,000 nouns and 100 verbs.
This gives us a list of 1,000 x 100 x 1,000 (= 100 million) three-word sentences of the type in
(13) and (14). Numbers of this magnitude are difficult to put in human perspective, so let's
estimate how long it would take a child to learn all the sentences on the list. Again, for the sake
of argument, let's assume that children can memorize sentences very quickly, at a rate of one
sentence a second. The entire list of three-word sentences could then be memorized in 100
million seconds, which comes to 3.17 years. So far, so good. However, the minute we start
adding complexity to Toy English, the number of sentences and the time it would take to
memorize them quickly mushrooms. For instance, adding only 10 adjectives to the child's
vocabulary would cause the number of five-word sentences of the form in (15) to grow to 10
billion (100 million x 10 x 10).

(15) a.   Black cats detest green peas.

b. Happy children eat ripe tomatoes.
c. Hungry cheetahs chase speedy gazelles.

Even at the very quick rate of one sentence per second that we're assuming, the list of all such
five-word sentences would take a bit over 317 years to learn. Clearly, this is an absurd
consequence. For instance, how could our memorious child ever come to know, as every
English speaker plainly does, that the sentence in (16) is ungrammatical? If grammatical
knowledge were based purely on rote memorization, the only way to determine this would be to
compare (16) to all of the 10 billion five-word sentences and to find that it matches none of
them.

(16) * Cats black detest peas green.

And even after all that time, our fictitious language learner still wouldn't have the faintest clue
as to why (16) is ungrammatical!

In addition to this thought experiment with its comically absurd consequences, there is another
reason to think that language acquisition isn't entirely based on rote memorization - namely, that
children use what they hear of language as raw material to construct linguistic rules. How do we
know this? We know because children sometimes produce rule-based forms that they have
never heard before.

Rule-based word formation

One of the earliest demonstrations that children acquire linguistic rules, rather than simply
imitating the forms of adult language, was the well-known wug experiment (Berko 1958). In it,
the psycholinguist Jean Berko used invented words to examine (among other things) how
children between the ages of 4 and 7 form plurals in English. She showed the children cards
with simple line drawings of objects and animals and elicited plurals from them by reading them
accompanying texts like the one in (17).

(17)     This is a wug. Now there is another one. There are two of them. There are two ___.

More than 75% of the children pluralized the invented words cra, lun, tor, and wug in exactly
the same way that adults did in a control group: they added the sound  -z to the word (Berko
1958:159-162).5Since none of the children had encountered the invented words before the
experiment, their response clearly indicates that they had acquired a plural rule and were using
it to produce the novel forms.

Children are also observed to produce novel rule-based forms instead of existing irregular adult
forms (for instance, comed or goed instead of came or went). This process, which is known
asoverregularization, is further illustrated in (18) (Marcus et al. 1992:148-149, based
on Brown 1973).

(18) a.   beated, blowed, catched, cutted, doed, drawed, drived, falled, feeled, growed, holded,
maked, sleeped, standed, sticked, taked, teached, throwed, waked, winned (Adam,
between the ages of 2 and 5)
b. drinked, seed, weared (Eve, between the ages of 1 1/2 and 2)
Overregularizations don't amount to a large fraction of the forms that children produce overall
(less than 5% in the case of past tense forms, according to Marcus et al. 1992:35), but they are
important because they clearly show that even the acquisition of words can't be completely
reduced to rote memorization.

Question formation

In addition to morphological rules (which concern the structure of words), children also acquire
syntactic rules (which concern the structure of sentences). Some of these rules are of particular
interest because they differ from the corresponding adult rules that the children eventually
acquire. At the same time, however, the children's novel rules don't differ from the rules of the
adult grammar in completely arbitrary ways. Rather, the children's rules share certain abstract
properties with the adult rules, even when they differ from them.

To see this, let's consider how young children form yes-no questions (that is, questions to which
the expected answer is either 'yes' or 'no'). Some 3- to 5-year-olds form such questions from
declarative sentences by copying the auxiliary element to the beginning of the sentence, as in
(19) (Crain and Nakayama 1987:536). (We use the term 'auxiliary element' as a convenient term
for be, can and other similar elements which invert with the subject in (adult) English questions.
See Modals and auxiliary verbs in English for more details.)

(19) a.   The girl is tall. ---> Is the girl is tall?

b. The red pig can stand on the house. ---> Can the red pig can stand on the house?

In the course of language acquisition, the questions in (19) give way to those in (20), where we
can think of the auxiliary element as having been moved rather than copied.

(20) a.   Is the girl ___ tall?

b. Can the red pig ___ stand on the house?

But now notice a striking indeterminacy, first pointed out by Chomsky 1971:26-27. When
children produce questions like those in (20), there is no way of telling whether they are using
the adult rule for question formation in (21a) or the logically possible alternative rule in (21b).

(21) a.   Adult question To form a question from a declarative sentence containing an

formation rule: auxiliary element, find the subject of the sentence, and invert the
subject and the auxiliary.
b.   Logically possible To form a question from a declarative sentence containing an
alternative: auxiliary element, find the first auxiliary element, and move it to the
beginning of the sentence.
Don't confuse 'subject' with 'simple subject.'

Subjects, in contrast to simple subjects, are possible responses to questions like Who is

tall? and Who can stand on the house? The subjects in (20) are the noun phrases the
girl and the red pig. If the subject consists of a single word or of a clause, then the
simple subject is identical to the subject; otherwise, the simple subject of a sentence is
obtained by stripping the subject of any modifiers (yielding girl and pig as the simple
subjects of (20)).

The notion of subject is basic to syntactic theory, but we will have no further use for the
notion of simple subject.
Both rules in (21) give the same result for simple sentences, which are likely to form most of the
data that young children attend to. Both rules also require children to identify auxiliary
elements. However, the adult rule additionally requires children to identify the subject of the
sentence by grouping together sequences of words such as the girl or the red pig into a single
abstract structural unit. Because of this grouping requirement, the adult rule is called structure-
dependent. By contrast, the alternative rule in (21b) is not structure-dependent, since it requires
the child only to classify words according to their syntactic category (Is this word an
auxiliary element?), but not to group the words into structural units. The rule in (21b) is simpler
in the sense that it relies on fewer cognitive operations as well as computationally less complex
ones, and children might reasonably be expected to experiment with it in the course of acquiring
question formation. Nevertheless, Chomsky 1971 predicted that children would use only
structure-dependent rules in the course of acquisition.

As we mentioned, both rules give the same result for simple sentences. So how could we
possibly tell which of the two rules a child was actually using? Well, forming yes-no questions
is not restricted to simple sentences. So although we can't tell which rule a child is using in the
case of simple sentences like (19), the rules in (21) give different results for a complex sentence
like (22), which contains a relative clause (who was holding the plate). In particular, what is
relevant is that the sentence in (22) contains two auxiliary elements - one for the relative clause
(was), and a distinct one (is) for the entire sentence (the so-called matrix sentence, which
contains the relative clause).

(22)     The boy who was holding the plate is crying.

A child applying the structure-dependent question formation rule to (22) would first identify the
subject of the matrix sentence (the boy who was holding the plate) and then invert the entire
subject - including the relative clause and the auxiliary contained within it (was) - with the
matrix auxiliary (is). On the other hand, a child applying the structure-independent rule would
identify the first auxiliary (was) and move it to the beginning of the sentence. In this case, the
two rules have very different results, as shown in (23).

(23) a.   Structure-dependent rule:

[ The boy who was holding the plate ] is crying. 
---> 
Is [the boy who was holding the plate] ___ crying?
b. Structure-independent rule:
The boy who was holding the plate is crying. 
---> 
Was the boy who ___ holding the plate is crying?

Recall that Chomsky predicted that children would not use structure-independent rules, even
though they are simpler than structure-dependent ones. This prediction was tested in an
experiment with 3- to 5-year-old children by Crain and Nakayama 1987. In the experiment, the
experimenter had the children pose yes-no questions to a doll (Jabba the Hut from Star Wars).
For instance, the experimenter would say to each child Ask Jabba if the boy who was holding
the plate is crying. This task elicited various responses. Some children produced the adult
question in (23a), whereas others produced the copy question in (24a) or the restart question in
(24b).

(24) a.   Is [the boy who was holding the plate] is crying?

b. Is [the boy who was holding the plate], is he crying?
Although neither of the questions in (24) uses the adult rule in (21a), the rules that the children
used to produce them are structure-dependent in the same way that the adult rule is. This is
because children who produced (24a) or (24b) must have identified the subject of the sentence,
just like the children who produced (23a). What is also noteworthy is that out of the 155
questions that the children produced, none were of the structure-independent type in (23b).
Moreover, no child produced the structure-independent counterpart of (24a), shown in (25),
which results from copying (rather than moving) the first auxiliary element in the sentence.

(25)     Was the boy who was holding the plate is crying?

In other words, regardless of whether a child succeeded in producing the adult question in (23a),
every child in the experiment treated the sequence the boy who was holding the plate as a unit,
thus confirming Chomsky's prediction.

Syntactic structure

We have seen that young children are capable of forming and applying both morphological and
syntactic rules. Moreover, as we have seen in connection with question formation, children do
not all immediately acquire the rules of the adult grammar. Nevertheless, the syntactic rules that
children are observed to use in the course of acquisition are a subset of the logically possible
rules that they might postulate in principle. In particular, as we have just seen, children's
syntactic rules are structure-dependent. Another way of putting this is that the objects that
syntactic rules operate on (declarative sentences in the case of the question formation rule) are
not simply strings of words, but rather groups of words that belong together, so-called syntactic
constituents.

Intuitions about words belonging together

Evidence for syntactic constituent structure, often simply called syntactic structure, isn't

restricted to data from child language acquisition. Further evidence comes from the intuitions
that adults (and even children) have that certain words in a sentence belong together, whereas
others do not. For instance, in a sentence like (26), we have the strong intuition that the
first the belongs with dog, but not with did,even though the is adjacent to both.

(26)     Did the dog chase the cat?

Similarly, the second the in (26) belongs with cat and not with chase. But a word doesn't always
belong with the following word. For instance, in (27), the first the belongs with dog, just as in
(26), but dogdoesn't in turn belong with the second the.

(27)     Did the dog the children like chase the cat?

Words that belong together can sometimes be replaced by placeholder elements such as
pronouns. This is illustrated in (28).

The term 'pronoun' is misleading since it suggests that pronouns substitute for nouns
regardless of syntactic context. In fact, what pronouns substitute for is noun phrases (as
will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 2). A less confusing term for them would be
'pro-noun phrase,' but we'll continue to use the traditional term.
(28) a.   Did the dog chase the cat? --->   Did she chase him?
b.   Did the dog the children like chase the cat? --->   Did the dog they like chase him?
It's important to recognize that pronouns don't simply replace strings of words regardless of
context. Just because a string like the dog is a constituent in (28a) doesn't mean that it's always a
constituent. We can see this by replacing the dog by a pronoun in (28b), which leads to the
ungrammatical result in (29).

(29)     Did the dog the children like chase the cat? ---> * Did she the children like chase the cat?

The ungrammaticality in (29) is evidence that the and dog belong together less closely in (28b)

than in (28a). In particular, in (28b), dog combines with the relative clause, and the combines
with the result of this combination, not with dog directly, as it does in (28a).

In some sentences, we have the intuition that words belong together even when they are not
adjacent. For instance, see and who in (30a) belong together in much the same way
as see and Bill do in (30b).

(30) a.   Who will they see?

b. They will see Bill.

Finally, we can observe that there are various sorts of ways that words can belong together. For
instance, in a phrase like the big dog, big belongs with dog, and we have the intuition
that big modifies dog. On the other hand, the relation between saw and Bill in (30b) isn't one of
modification. Rather, we have the intuition that Bill is a participant in a seeing event.

In the course of this book, we will introduce more precise ways of expressing and representing
intuitions like the ones just discussed. For the moment, what is important is that we have strong
intuitions that words belong together in ways that go beyond adjacency.

Structural ambiguity

A particularly striking piece of evidence for the existence of syntactic structure is the
phenomenon of structural ambiguity. The classified advertisement in (31) is a humorous
illustration.
(31)     Wanted: Man to take care of cow that does not smoke or drink.

World knowledge tells us that the intent of the advertiser is to hire a clean-living man to take
care of a cow. But because of the way the advertisement is formulated, it also has an
unintentionally comical interpretation - namely, that the advertiser has a cow that does not
smoke or drink and that the advertiser wants a man (possibly a chain-smoking alcoholic) to take
care of this clean-living cow. The intended and unintended interpretations describe sharply
different situations; that is why we say that (31) is ambiguous, rather than that it is vague.
Moreover, the ambiguity of the sentence can't be pinned on a particular word, as it can be in the
ambiguous sentences in (32).

(32) a.   As far as I'm concerned, any gender is a drag. (Patti Smith)

b. Our bikinis are exciting. They are simply the tops.

Sentences like (32) are examples of lexical ambiguity; their ambiguity is based on a lexeme (=
vocabulary item) with two distinct meanings. In (31), on the other hand, the words themselves
have the same meanings in each of the two interpretations, and the ambiguity derives from the
possibility of grouping the words in distinct ways. In the intended interpretation, the relative
clause that does not smoke or drink modifies man; in the unintended interpretation, it
modifies cow.
To avoid any confusion, we should emphasize that we are here considering structural ambiguity
from a purely descriptive perspective, focusing on what it tells us about the design features of
human language and disregarding the practical aim of effective communication. As writers of
advertisements ourselves, of course, we would take care not to use (31), but to disambiguate it
by means of an appropriateparaphrase. For the ordinary interpretation of (31), where the
relative clause modifies man, we would move the relative clause next to the intended modifiee,
as in (33a). The comical interpretation of (31), on the other hand, cannot be expressed
unambiguously by moving the relative clause. If it were the desired interpretation, we would
have to resort to a more drastic reformulation, such as (33b).

(33) a.   Wanted: Man that does not smoke or drink to take care of cow.
b. Wanted: Man to take care of nonsmoking, nondrinking cow.

Universal Grammar

Formal universals

The structure-dependent character of syntactic rules is a general property of the

human language faculty (the part of the mind/brain that is devoted to language), often also
referred to as Universal Grammar,especially when considered in abstraction from any
particular language. There are two sources of evidence for this. First, as we have seen, the
syntactic rules that children acquire even when they are not the rules that adults use, are
structure-dependent. Second, even though structure-independent rules are logically possible and
computationally tractable, no known human language actually has rules that disregard syntactic
structure as a matter of course. For instance, no known human language has either of the
computationally very simple question formation rules in (34).

(34) a.   To form a question, switch the order The girl is tall. ---> Girl the is tall?
of the first and second words in the
corresponding declarative sentence.
The blond girl is tall. ---> Blond the girl is tall?
b. To form a question, reverse the order The girl is tall. ---> Tall is girl the?
of the words in the corresponding
declarative sentence.
The blond girl is tall. ---> Tall is girl blond the?

The structure-dependent character of syntactic rules (often referred to more briefly as structure
dependence) is what is known as a formal universal of human language - a principle shared by
all human languages that is independent of the meanings of words. Formal universals are
distinguished from substantive universals, which concern the substance, or meaning, of
linguistic elements. An example of a substantive universal is the fact that all languages
have indexical elements such as I, here, and now. These words have the special property that
their meanings are predictable in the sense that they denote the speaker, the speaker's location,
and the time of speaking, but that what exactly they refer to depends on who the speaker is.

Recursion

Human language exhibits another formal universal: the property of recursion. A simple
illustration of this property is the fact that it is possible for one sentence to contain another. For
instance, the simple sentence in (35a) forms part of the complex sentence in (35b), and the
resulting sentence can form part of a still more complex sentence. Recursive embedding is
illustrated in (35) up to a level of five embeddings.
(35) a. She won.
b. The Times reported that 
      [she won].
c. John told me that 
      [the Times reported that 
            [she won]].
d. I remember distinctly that 
      [John told me that 
            [the Times reported that 
                  [she won]]].
e. They don't believe that 
      [I remember distinctly that 
            [John told me that 
                  [the Times reported that 
                        [she won]]]].
f. I suspect that 
      [they don't believe that 
            [I remember distinctly that 
                  [John told me that 
                        [the Times reported that 
                              [she won]]]]].

Parameters

Formal universals like structure dependence and recursion are of particular interest to linguistics
in the Chomskyan tradition. This is not to deny, however, that individual languages also differ
from one another, and not just in the sense that their vocabularies differ. In other words,
Universal Grammar is not completely fixed, but allows some variation. The ways in which the
grammars of languages can differ are called parameters.

One simple parameter concerns the order of verbs and their objects. In principle, two orders are
possible: verb-object (VO) or object-verb (OV), and different human languages use either one
or the other. As illustrated in (36) and (37), English and French are languages of the verb-object
(VO) type, whereas Hindi, Japanese, and Korean are languages of the object-verb (OV) type.

(36) a. English Peter read the book.

b. French Pierre lisait le livre.
Pierre was.reading the book
'Pierre was reading the book.'
(37) a. Hindi Peter-ne kitaab parh-ii.
b. Japanese Peter-ga hon-o yon-da.
c. Korean Peter-ka chayk-ul il-ess-ta.
Peter book read
'Peter read the book.'

Another parameter of Universal Grammar concerns the possibility, mentioned earlier in

connection with prescriptive rules, of separating a preposition from its object, or preposition
stranding. (The idea behind the metaphor is that the movement of the object of the preposition
away from its ordinary position leaves the preposition stranded high and dry.) The parametric
alternative to preposition stranding goes by the name of pied piping,6 by analogy to the Pied
Piper of Hameln, who took revenge on the citizens of Hameln for mistreating him by luring the
town's children away with him. In pied piping of the syntactic sort, the object of the preposition
moves away from its usual position, just as in preposition stranding, but it takes the preposition
along with it. An example of each parametric option is given in (38).

(38) a. Preposition stranding: ok Which house does your friend live in?

b. Pied piping: ok In which house does your friend live?

Just as in English, preposition stranding and pied piping are both grammatical in Swedish. (In
Swedish, it is preposition stranding that counts as prescriptively correct! Pied piping is frowned
upon, on the grounds that it sounds stiff and artificial.)

(39) a. Swedish ok Vilket hus bor din kompis i?

which house lives your friend in
'Which house does your friend live in?'
b. ok I vilket hus bor din kompis?

In other languages, such as French and Italian, preposition stranding is ungrammatical. Speakers
of these languages reject examples like (40) as word salad, and accept only the corresponding
pied-piping examples in (41).

(40) a. French * Quelle maison est-ce que ton ami habite dans?
which house is it that your friend lives in
Intended meaning: 'Which house does your friend live in?'
b. Italian * Quale casa abita il tuo amico in?
which house lives the your friend in
Intended meaning: 'Which house does your friend live in?'
(41) a. French ok Dans quelle maison est-ce que ton ami habite?
b. Italian ok In quale casa abita il tuo amico?

Generative grammar

At the beginning of this chapter, we said that this book was an introduction to generative
grammar from a Chomskyan perspective. Until now, we have clarified our use of the term
'grammar,' and we have indicated that a Chomskyan perspective on grammar is concerned with
the formal principles that all languages share as well as with the parameters that distinguish
them. Let's now turn to the notion of a generative grammar.
(42)   A generative grammar is an algorithm for specifying, or generating, all and only the
grammatical sentences in a language.

What's an algorithm? It's simply any finite, explicit procedure for accomplishing some task,
beginning in some initial state and terminating in a defined end state. Computer programs are
the algorithms par excellence. More ordinary examples of algorithms include recipes, knitting
patterns, the instructions for assembling an Ikea bookcase, or the steps on the back of a bank
statement for balancing your checkbook.

An important point to keep in mind is that it is often difficult to construct an algorithm for even
trivial tasks. A quick way to gain an appreciation for this is to describe how to tie a bow. Like
language, tying a bow is a skill that most of us master around school age and that we perform
more or less unconsciously thereafter. But describing (not demonstrating) how to do it is not
that easy, especially if we're not familiar with the technical terminology of knot-tying. In an
analogous way, constructing a generative grammar of English is a completely different task than
speaking the language, and much more difficult (or at least difficult in a different way)!
Just like a cooking recipe, a generative grammar needs to specify the ingredients and procedures
that are necessary for generating grammatical sentences. We won't introduce all of these in this
first chapter, but in the remainder of the section, we'll introduce enough ingredients and
procedures to give a flavor of what's to come.

Elementary trees and substitution

The raw ingredients that sentences consist of are vocabulary items. These belong to

various syntactic categories, like noun, adjective, transitive verb, preposition, and so forth.
Depending on their syntactic category, vocabulary items combine with one another to form
constituents, which in turn belong to syntactic categories of their own. For instance, determiners
(a category that includes the articles a and theand the demonstratives this, that, these and those)
can combine with nouns to form noun phrases, but they can't combine with other syntactic
categories like adverbs, verbs, or prepositions.

(43) a. ok a house (44) a. * a slowly

b. ok the cats b. * the went
c. ok those books c. * those of

It's possible to represent the information contained in a constituent by using labeled

bracketing. Each vocabulary item is enclosed in brackets that are labeled with the appropriate
syntactic category. The constituent that results from combining vocabulary items is in turn
enclosed in brackets that are labeled with the constituent's syntactic category. The labeled
bracketings for the constituents in (43) are given in (45).

(45) a.   [NounPhr [Deta ] [Noun house ] ]

b.   [NounPhr [Detthe ] [Noun cats ] ]
c.   [NounPhr [Detthose ] [Noun books ] ]

Noun phrases can combine with other syntactic categories, such as prepositions or transitive
verbs. Prepositions combine with a single noun phrase to form prepositional phrases. A
transitive verb combines with one noun phrase to form a verb phrase, which in turn combines
with a second noun phrase to form a complete sentence.

(46) a.   [PrepPhr [Prep on ] [NounPhr [Detthe ] [Noun table ] ] ]

b.   [VerbPhr [TrVerb drafted ] [NounPhr [Deta ] [Noun letter ] ] ]
c.   [Sentence [NounPhr [Detthe ] [Noun secretary ] ] [VerbPhr [TrVerb drafted ] [NounPhr [Deta ] [Noun letter ] ] ] ]

Again, however, noun phrases don't combine with any and all syntactic categories. For instance,
noun phrases can't combine with adverbs or determiners.

(47) a. * slowly the letter

b. * the this letter

As constituent structure grows more complex, labeled bracketings very quickly grow difficult
for humans to process, and it's often more convenient to represent constituent structure with tree
diagrams. Tree diagrams, or trees for short, convey exactly the same information as labeled
bracketings, but the information is presented differently. Instead of enclosing an element in
brackets that are labeled with a syntactic category, the category is placed immediately above the
element and connected to it with a line or branch. The labeled bracketings that we have seen so
far translate into the trees in (48) and (49). 7
(48) a.       b.       c.  

(49) a.       b.       c.  

Trees like those in (48) and (49) resemble dishes that are ready to serve; they don't provide a
record of how they were brought into being. We can provide such a record by representing
vocabulary items themselves in the form of trees that include combinatorial information. For
example, prepositions and transitive verbs can be represented as trees with empty slots for noun
phrases to fit into, as shown in (50).

(50) a.       b.  

We'll refer to trees for vocabulary items like those in (50) as elementary trees. The purpose of
elementary trees is to represent a vocabulary item's combinatorial possibilities, and so they
ordinarily contain unfilled nodes. Such nodes are called substitution nodes, and they are filled
by a substitution operation, as defined in (51).

(51) a.       b.       c.  

The root (= topmost) node Substitution occurs when

Tree (a) has a
in Tree (b) has the same the root node of Tree (b) is
substitution node
syntactic category as the identified with the
of some syntactic
substitution node in Tree substitution node in Tree
category.
(a). (a).

Elementary trees don't necessarily contain substitution nodes, though; ones that invariably play
the role of Tree No. 2 in the substitution operation don't. The elementary tree for the noun in
(52b) is an example.

Notice, by the way, that there are two conceivable ways to arrive at trees for noun phrases
like those cats, depending on whether it is the noun that is taken as the substitution node, as in
(52), or the determiner, as in (53). At this point, there is no reason to prefer one way over the
other, but in Chapter 5, we will adopt a variant of (52).

(52) a.       b.  

(53) a.       b.  
In summary, a generative grammar as we've constructed it so far consists of a set of elementary
trees, which represent the vocabulary items in a language and the range of their combinatorial
possibilities, and a substitution operation, by means of which the elementary trees combine into
larger constituents and ultimately into grammatical sentences. In Chapter 4, we will introduce
two further formal operations. The first, adjunction, will enable the grammar to generate
sentences containing modifiers, such as adjectives or relative clauses modifying nouns
(the big dog, the dog that the children like). The second,movement, will enable the grammar to
represent both the similarities and the differences between declarative sentences (They will see
Bill) and questions corresponding to them (Will they see Bill?, Who(m) will they see?).

Grammaticality

The aim of a generative grammar is to generate all and only the grammatical sentences of a
language. Since the notion of grammaticality is basic to syntactic theory, it is important to
distinguish it from notions with which it is easily confused.

First and foremost, 'is grammatical' is not the same thing as 'makes sense.' The sentences in (54)
all 'make sense' in the sense that it is easy to interpret them. Nevertheless, as indicated by the
asterisks, they are not grammatical.8

(54) a. * Is our children learning?

b. * Me wants fabric.
c. * To where are we be taking thou, sir?
d. * The introduction explained that "the Genoese people, besides of hard worker, are good
eater too, and even 'gourmand,' of that honest gourmandise which will not drive a man
to hell but which is, after all, one of the few pleasures that mankind can enjoy in this
often sorrowful world."

Conversely, sentences can be grammatical, but not 'make sense.' The 'fairy tale' or 'science
fiction' sentences in (14) are of this type. Two further examples are given in (55). Since the
sentences are grammatical, they aren't preceded by an asterisk. However, a prefixed pound sign
can be used to indicate their semantic anomaly.

(55) a. # Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. cf. Revolutionary new ideas appear
(Chomsky 1965:149) infrequently.
b. # I plan to travel there last year. cf. I plan to travel there next year.

Second, 'grammatical' must be distinguished from 'easily processable by human beings.' This is
because it turns out that certain well-motivated simple grammatical operations can be applied in
ways that result in sentences that are virtually impossible for human beings to process. For
instance, it is possible in English to modify a noun with a relative clause, and sentences
containing nouns that are modified in this way, like those in (56), are ordinarily perfectly
acceptable and easily understood. (Here and in the following examples, the relative clauses are
bracketed and the modified noun is underlined.)

(56) a.   The mouse [that the cat chased] escaped.

b.   The cat [that the dog scared] jumped out the window.

But now notice what happens when we modify the noun within the relative clause in (56a) with
a relative clause of its own.

(57)     The mouse [that the cat [that the dog scared] chased] escaped.

Even though (57) differs from (56a) by only four additional words and a single additional level
of embedding, the result is virtually uninterpretable without pencil and paper. The reason is not
that relative clause modification can't apply more than once, since the variant of (56a) in (58),
which contains exactly the same words and is exactly as long, is perfectly fine (or at least isn't
uninterpretable).

(58)     The mouse escaped [that the cat chased ] [that the dog scared].

The reason that (57) is virtually uninterpretable is also not that it contains recursive structure
(the relative clause that modifies mouse contains the relative clause that modifies cat). After all,
the structures in (35) are recursive, yet they don't throw us for a loop the way (57) does.

Instead, (57) is unacceptable not because of its linguistic properties, but because of certain
limitations on human short-term memory (Chomsky and Miller 1963:286, Miller and Chomsky
1963:471). Specifically, notice that in the (relatively) acceptable (58), the subject of the main
clause the mouse doesn't have to "wait" (that is, be kept active in short-term memory) for its
verb escaped since the verb is immediately adjacent to the subject. The same is true for the
subjects and verbs of each of the relative clauses (the cat and chased, and the dog and scared).
In (57), on the other hand, the mouse must be kept active in memory, waiting for its
verb escaped, for the length of the entire sentence. What is even worse, however, is that the
period during which the mouse is waiting for its verb escaped overlaps the period during
which the cat must be kept active, waiting for its verb chased. What makes (57) so difficult,
then, is not the mere fact of recursion, but that two relations of exactly the same sort (the
subject-verb relation) must be kept active in memory at the same time. In none of the other
relative clause sentences is such double activation necessary. For instance, in (56a), the
mouse must be kept active for the length of the relative clause, but the subject of the relative
clause (the cat) needn't be kept active since it immediately precedes its verb chased.

Sentences like (56) and (57) are often referred to as center-embedding structures,

and they are said to contain nested dependencies.
The mouse that the cat chased escaped.
| |______| |
|____________________________|

The mouse that the cat that the dog scared chased escaped.
| | |______| | |
| |__________________________| |
|_________________________________________________|

A final important point to bear in mind is that any sentence of a language is an expression that is
paired with a particular interpretation. Grammaticality is always determined with respect to a
pairing of form and meaning. This means that a particular string can be grammatical under one
interpretation, but not under another. For instance, (59) is ungrammatical under an subject-
object-verb (SOV) interpretation (that is, when the sentence is interpreted as Sue hired Tom).

(59)     Sue Tom hired.

(59) is grammatical, however, under an object-subject-verb (OSV) interpretation (that is, when
it is interpreted as Tom hired Sue; cf. Sue, Tom hired; Tim, he insulted). On this
interpretation, Sue receives a special intonation marking contrast, which would ordinarily be
indicated in writing by setting off Sue from the rest of the sentence by a comma. In other words,
the grammaticality of (59) depends on whether its interpretation is analogous to (60a) or (60b).
(60) a. ok Her, he hired. (The other job candidates, he didn't even call back.)
b. * She him hired.

Grammar versus language

We conclude this chapter by considering the relationship between the two concepts of grammar
and language. The notion of language seems straightforward because we are used to thinking
and speaking of "the English language," "the French language," "the Swahili language," and so
forth. But these terms are actually much vaguer than they seem at first glance because they
cover a plethora of varieties, including ones that differ enough to be mutually unintelligible. For
instance, Ethnologue distinguishes 32 dialects of English in the United Kingdom alone. In
addition, distinct dialects of English are spoken in former British colonies, including Canada,
the United States, Australia, New Zealand, India, and many African, Asian, and Caribbean
nations, and many of these dialects have subdialects of their own. Similarly, Ethnologue
distinguishes 11 dialects of French in France and 10 dialects of Swahili in Kenya; there are
further dialects in other countries in which these languages are spoken. Moreover, we use terms
like "the English language" to refer to historical varieties that differ as profoundly as present-
day English does from Old English, which is about as intelligible to a speaker of modern
English as German (in other words, not very).

Although the most salient differences between dialects are often phonological (that is, speakers
of different dialects often have different accents), dialects of a so-called single language can
differ syntactically as well. For instance, in standard French, as in the Romance languages more
generally, adjectives ordinarily follow the noun that they modify. But that order is reversed
in Walloon, a French dialect spoken in Belgium. The two parametric options are illustrated in
(61) (Bernstein 1993:25-26).

(61) a.   Standard French un chapeau noir

a hat black
b.   Walloon on neûr tchapê
a black hat
'a black hat'

Another example of the same sort, though considerably more cathected for speakers of English,
concerns multiple negation in sentences like (62a).

(62) a.   The kids didn't eat nothing.

b.   The kids didn't eat anything.

In present-day standard English, didn't and nothing each contribute their negative force to the

sentence, and the overall force of (62a) isn't negative; rather, the sentence means that the kids
ate something. In many nonstandard varieties of English, however, (62a) conveys exactly the
same meaning as standard English (62b); that is, the sentence as a whole has negative force. In
these dialects, the negation innothing can be thought of as agreeing with (and reinforcing) the
negation in didn't rather than cancelling it; hence the term negative concord for this
phenomenon ('concord' is a variant term for 'agreement'). Negative concord is routinely
characterized as "illogical" by prescriptivists, 9 and it is one of the most heavily stigmatized
features in present-day English.10 However, it was productive in earlier forms of English, and it
is attested in renowned masters of the language such as Chaucer and Shakespeare. Moreover,
negative concord is part of the standard forms of languages like French, Italian, Spanish, and
modern Greek. From a descriptive and generative point of view, negative concord is simply a
parametric option of Universal Grammar just like any other, and negative concord is no more
illogical than the noun-adjective order in (61a) or preposition stranding.
In both of the examples just discussed, we have dialects of "the same language" (English and
French, respectively) differing with respect to a parameter. The converse is also possible: two
"different languages" that are parametrically (all but) indistinguishable. For example, the same
linguistic variety spoken on the Dutch-German border may count as a dialect of Dutch or
German depending on which side of the political border it is spoken, and the same is true of
many other border dialects as well. According to Max Weinreich, "a language is a dialect with
an army and a navy." A striking (and sad) confirmation of this aphorism concerns the recent
terminological history of Serbo-Croatian. When Yugoslavia was a federal state under Tito, this
variety was considered a single language with a number of regional dialects. The 14th edition of
Ethnologue, published in 2000, still has a single entry for Serbo-Croatian. In the 15th edition,
published in 2005, the single entry is replaced by three new entries forBosnian, Croatian,
and Serbian.

As the previous discussion has shown, the notion of "language" is based more on sociopolitical
considerations than on strictly linguistic ones. By contrast, the term "grammar" refers to a
particular set of parametric options that a speaker acquires. For this reason, the distinction
between language and grammar that we have been drawing has been referred to as the
distinction between E-language and I-language (mnemomic for 'external' and 'internal'
language) (Chomsky 1986).

As we have seen, the same language label can be associated with more than one grammar (the
label "English" is associated with grammars both with and without negative concord), and a
single grammar can be associated with more than one language label (as in the case of border
dialects). It is important to distinguish the concept of shared grammar from mutual
intelligibility. To a large extent, standard English and many of its nonstandard varieties are
mutually intelligible even where their grammars differ with respect to one parameter or another.
On the other hand, it is perfectly possible for two or more varieties that are mutually
unintelligible to share a single grammar. For instance, in the Indian village of Kupwar
(Gumperz and Wilson 1971), the three languages Marathi, Urdu, and Kannada, each spoken by
a different ethnic group, have been in contact for about four hundred years, and most of the men
in the village are bi- or trilingual. Like the standard varieties of these languages, their Kupwar
varieties have distinct vocabularies, thus rendering them mutually unintelligible to monolingual
speakers, but in Kupwar, the considerable grammatical differences that exists among the
languages as spoken in other parts of India have been virtually eliminated. The difference
between standard French and Walloon with respect to prenominal adjectives is a less drastic
instance of this same convergence phenomenon. Here, too, the adjective-noun order in Walloon
is due to language contact, in this case between French and Flemish, the other language spoken
in Belgium; in Flemish, as in the Germanic languages more generally, adjectives ordinarily
precede the nouns that they modify.

It is worth noting that it is perfectly possible for a single speaker to acquire more than one
grammar. This is most strikingly evident in balanced bilinguals. Speakers can also acquire more
than one grammar in situations of syntactic change. For instance, late Old English and Middle
English went from being object-verb (OV) languages to being verb-object (VO) languages, and
individual speakers during the transition period acquired and used both parametric options.
Finally, speakers can acquire more than one grammar in situations of stable variation between
parametrically distinct varieties of a single "language." For instance, English speakers whose
first dialect is a negative concord dialect might acquire the standard dialect in the course of their
schooling.

Notes
1. It's also possible to overzealously apply rules like those in (2), even in cases where they
shouldn't be applied, a phenomenon known as hypercorrection. Two common instances are
illustrated in (i).

Hypercorrect example Explanation

(i) a. Over there is the guy whom I Should be: the guy who I think took her to the party; 
think took her to the party. (the relative pronoun who is the subject of the relative
clause, not the object; cf. the guy { who, *whom } took her
to the party)
b. This is strictly between you Should be: between you and me 
and I. (the second pronoun is part of the object of the
preposition between, not part of a subject)

2. The prescriptive rule is actually better stated as "Don't separate a preposition from its object,"
since the traditional formulation invites exchanges like (i).

(i) A: Who are you going to the party with?

B: Didn't they teach you never to end a sentence with a preposition?
A: Sorry, let me rephrase that. Who are you going to the party with, Mr. Know-it-all?

3. As William Labov has often pointed out, everyday speech (apart from false starts and other
self-editing phenomena) hardly ever violates the rules of descriptive grammar.

4. Actually, that's an oversimplification. Not all the articles and nouns an English-speaking child
hears appear in the article-noun order. To see why, carefully consider the underlined sentence in
this footnote.

5. When children didn't respond this way, they either repeated the original invented word, or
they didn't respond at all. It's not clear what to make of these responses. Either response might
indicate that the children were stumped by the experimental task. Alternatively, repetition might
have been intended as an irregular plural (cf. deer and sheep), and silence might indicate that
some of the invented words (for instance, cra) struck the children as phonologically strange.

6. The term 'pied piping' was invented in the 1960's by John Robert Ross, a syntactician with a
penchant for metaphorical terminology.

7. Online corpora that are annotated with syntactic structure, such as the Penn Treebank,
the Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpora of Middle English and of Early Modern English, and others
like them, tend to use labeled bracketing because the resulting files are computationally
extremely tractable. The readability of such corpora for humans can be improved by suitable
formatting of the labeled bracketing or by providing an interface that translates the bracketed
structures into tree diagrams.

8. (54a) is from a speech by George W. Bush in Florence, SC on January 11, 2000

(http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms2000.htm). (54b) was the subject line of an
email message in response to an offer of free fabric; the author is humorously attempting to
imitate the language of a child greedy for goodies. (54c) is from "Pardon my French" (Calvin
Trillin. 1990. Enough's enough (and other rules of life). 169). (54d) is from "Connoisseurs and
patriots" (Joseph Wechsberg. 1948. Blue trout and black truffles: The peregrinations of an
epicure. 127).

9. Two important references concerning negative concord and the supposed illogicality of
negative concord (and of nonstandard English more generally) are Labov 1972a, 1972b.
Those who argue that negative concord is illogical often liken the rules of grammar to those of
formal logic or arithmetic, where one negation operator or subtraction operation cancels out
another; that is,(NOT (NOT A)) is identical to A, and (-(-5)) = +5. Such prescriptivists never
distinguish between sentences containing even and odd numbers of negative expressions. By
their own reasoning, (i.a) should have a completely different status than (i.b) - not illogical, but
at worst redundant.

(i) a.   They never told nobody nothing.

b.   They never told nobody.

10. Because of the social stigma associated with it, it is essentially impossible to study negative
concord in present-day English. This is because even for those speakers of negative concord
varieties who don't productively control standard English as a second dialect, the influence of
prescriptive grammar is so pervasive that when such speakers reject a sentence as unacceptable,
we don't know whether they are rejecting it for grammatical or for social reasons.

Exercises and problems

Exercise 1.1

The sentences in (4) violate several descriptive rules of English, three of which were given in
(5). As mentioned in the text, there is a fourth descriptive rule that is violated in (4). Formulate
it (you shouldn't need more than a sentence).

Exercise 1.2

(1)-(4) illustrate the facts of subject-verb agreement in the nonstandard variety of English
spoken in Belfast, Ireland (data from Henry 1995, chapter 2). Describe the data given as clearly
and briefly as you can.

In order to avoid conflating morphological form with semantic content, you can refer

to "is" and "are" as "the i- form" and "the a- form", rather than as "singular" and
"plural".
(1) a. ok The girl is late.     (2) a. * The girl are late.
b. ok She is late.     b. * She are late.
c. ok Is { the girl, she } late?     c. * Are { the girl, she } late?
(3) a. ok The girls are late.     (4) a. ok The girls is late.
b. ok They are late.     b. * They is late.
c. ok Are { the girls, they } late?     c. * Is { the girls, they } late?

Exercise 1.3

Which of the newspaper headlines in (1) are lexically ambiguous, which are structurally
ambiguous, and which are a mixture of both types of ambiguity? Explain.

(1) a.   Beating Witness Provides Names

b. Child teaching expert to speak
c. Drunk gets nine months in violin case
d. Enraged cow injures farmer with ax
 e. Prostitutes appeal to Pope
f. Teacher Strikes Idle Kids
g. Teller Stuns Man with Stolen Check

Exercise 1.4

In the text, we showed that sentences are recursive categories. In other words, one instance of
the syntactic category 'sentence' can contain another instance of the same category. Provide
evidence that noun phrases and prepositional phrases are recursive categories as well.

Be careful to give examples that are recursive, and not just ones in which the syntactic
category in question occurs more than once. For instance, (1) does not provide the
evidence required in this exercise, because the second prepositional phrase is not
contained in the first. This is clearly shown by the fact that the order of the
prepositional phrases can be switched.
(1)     The cat jumped [PP onto the table ] [PP without the slightest hesitation ].

Exercise 1.5

Which, if any, of the sentences in (1)-(4) are ungrammatical? Which, if any, are semantically or
otherwise anomalous? Briefly explain.

(1) a.   They decided to go tomorrow yesterday.

b. They decided to go yesterday tomorrow.
(2) a. They decided yesterday to go tomorrow.
b. They decided tomorrow to go yesterday.
(3) a. Yesterday, they decided to go tomorrow.
b. Tomorrow, they decided to go yesterday.
(4)     They decided to go yesterday yesterday.
(5)     How long didn't Tom wait?

Exercise 1.6

A. The following expressions are structurally ambiguous. For each reading (= interpretation),
provide a paraphrase that is itself unambiguous.

(1) a. chocolate cake icing

b. clever boys and girls
c. John will answer the question precisely at noon.
d.   Watch the man from across the street.
e. They should decide if they will come tomorrow.

B. Provide a tree diagram for each reading. To do so, use the Trees program together with
the tree-drawing grammar tool. You can build your trees using any of the premade structures in
the grammar tool, adding or deleting nodes as needed. For the purposes of this exercise, all that
is relevant is the structure of the trees that you build (that is, the way the nodes are grouped, not
the way they are labeled). Therefore, you can simply label all nonterminal nodes (= nodes other
than words) with a dummy symbol like 'X'.

Exercise 1.7
A. How many elements does an expression need to contain to be three-ways ambiguous?

B. If an expression contains four elements, how many ways ambiguous can it be in principle?

Problem 1.1

Are syntactic structure and recursion equally basic properties of human language? Explain in a
few sentences.

Problem 1.2

Can you come up with a sentence (or other expression) that is structurally ambiguous more than
two ways? Paraphrase the distinct readings, and draw a tree for each reading. Feel free to use
the tree-drawing grammar tool.

Problem 1.3

2. Download the grammar tool in which grammar?, and open it in the Trees program with the
file menu item "Choose Grammar." Then select "New" from the file menu. You will see an
empty workspace on the right and a window containing a lexicon of one-letter expressions on
the upper left. Click on one of the expressions. A copy of the expression will appear in the
lexical items window on the lower left. Click on this copy and drag it into the workspace. You
can build complex expressions out of simpler ones by dragging them on top of each other or
onto other nodes that appear in the course of a derivation. Before beginning a derivation, you
must select a grammar (G1 or G2) in the "choose-grammar" menu above the workspace. The
grammar tool requires you to produce the first combination by dragging one Roman letter onto
the Greek phi. Play with the tool to see what happens next. Once you are able to construct
complex expressions, briefly answer the following questions.

 What is the difference between G1 and G2?

 If presented with substrings generated by G1 and G2 containing only Roman letters
(i.e., if the phi were somehow invisible), is it possible to tell which grammar has
generated the string?

Problem 1.4

The grammars of Early Modern English (1500-1710) and present-day English differ enough for
certain Early Modern English sentences to be ungrammatical today. Find several such
sentences, and briefly describe the source of the ungrammaticality as best as you can. Early
Modern English texts that are easily accessible on the Web include Shakespeare's plays and the
Authorized Version of the Bible (also known as the King James Bible).

2. SYNTANTIC CONSTITUENHOOD

Tests for constituenthood

Substitution

The most basic constituenthood test is the substitution test. The reasoning behind the test is
simple. A constituent is any syntactic unit, regardless of length or syntactic category. A single
word is the smallest possible constituent belonging to a particular syntactic category. So if a
single word can substitute for a string of several words, then that's evidence that the single word
and the string are both constituents of the same category.
We mentioned in Chapter 1 that pronouns can substitute for noun phrases. Some further
examples are given in (1).

(1) a.   The little boy fed the cat. --->   He fed her.

b.   Black cats detest green peas. ---> They detest them.

As we already said in Chapter 1, it's important to understand that a particular string of words
can be a noun phrase in one syntactic context, but not in another. For instance, the substitution
test tells us that the underlined strings are noun phrases in (1), but not in (2).

(2) a.   The little boy from next door fed the --- * He from next door fed her without a
cat without a tail. > tail.
b.   These black cats detest those green peas. --- * These they detest those them.
>

Rather, in these sentences, it is the longer underlined strings in (3) that are noun phrases.

(3) a.   The little boy from next door fed the cat without a tail. --->   He fed her.
b.   These black cats detest those green peas. ---> They detest them.

Pronouns are not the only placeholder elements, or pro-forms. For instance, adverbs such
as here or there can substitute for constituents that refer to locations or directions. As in the case
of noun phrases, whether a particular string is a constituent depends on its syntactic context.

(4) a.   Put it on the table. ---> Put it there.

b.   Put it over on the table. ---> Put it over there.
c.   Put it over on the table. ---> Put it there.
(5) a.   Put it on the table that's by the door. ---> * Put it there that's by the door.
b.   Put it over on the table that's by the door. ---> * Put it over there that's by the door.
c.   Put it over on the table that's by the door. ---> * Put it there that's by the door.

The word so can substitute for adjective phrases (here, the most natural-sounding results are
obtained in contexts of comparison). As usual, the same string sometimes is a constituent and
sometimes isn't.

(6) a.   I am very happy, ... ... and Linda is so, too.

b.   I am very fond of Lukas, ... ... and Linda is so, too.
c.   I am very fond of my nephew, ... * ... and Linda is so of her niece.

Finally, pronouns and sometimes the word so can substitute for subordinate clauses introduced
by that, as illustrated in (7).

(7) a.   I { know, suspect } that they're invited. ---> I { know, suspect } it.
b.   I { imagine, think } that they're invited. ---> I { imagine, think } so.

Movement

Substitution by pro-forms is not the only diagnostic for whether a string is a constituent. If it is
possible to move a particular string from its ordinary position to another position - typically, the
beginning of the sentence - that, too, is evidence that the string is a constituent. In order to make
the result of movement completely acceptable, it's sometimes necessary to use a special
intonation or to invoke a special discourse context, especially in the case of noun phrases. In
what follows, "___" indicates the ordinary position that a constituent has moved from, and
appropriate discourse material is enclosed in parentheses.
(8) a.   I fed the cats. --- The cats, I fed ___. (The dogs, I didn't.)
>
b.   I fed the cats with long, --- The cats with long, fluffy tails, I fed ___. (The other
fluffy tails. > cats, I didn't.)

Movement of constituents other than noun phrases is illustrated in (9).

(9) a. Prepositional The cat strolled across the --- With a confident air, the cat
phrase: porch with a confident air. > strolled across the porch ___.
b. Adjective Ali Baba returned from his --- Wiser than before, Ali Baba
phrase: travels wiser than before. > returned from his travels ___.
c. Adverb phrase: They arrived at the concert --- More quickly than they had
hall more quickly than they had > expected, they arrived at the
expected. concert hall ___.

(10) shows the ungrammatical results of moving strings that aren't constituents.

(10) a.   I fed the cats with long, fluffy tails.--- * The cats, I fed ___ with long, fluffy tails.1
>
b.   The cat strolled across the porch with --- * With a, the cat strolled across the porch
a confident air. > ___ confident air.
c.   Ali Baba returned from his --- * Wiser than, Ali Baba returned from
travels wiser than before. > his travels ___ before.
d.   They arrived at the concert hall more --- * More quickly than they, they arrived at the
quickly than they had expected. > concert hall ___ had expected.

Questions and sentence fragments

Another way to tell whether a string is a constituent is to see whether it can function as a
sentence fragment in response to a question. The question itself also functions as a diagnostic
test, since we can think of question formation as involving the substitution of a question word
for a string and the subsequent movement of the question word. (11) illustrates this pair of tests
for a variety of constituent types.

(11) a. Noun phrase:   What do you like? The cats. 

Cats with long, fluffy tails. 
The cats with long, fluffy tails.
b. Prepositional   How did the cat stroll across the With a confident air.
phrase: porch?
c.   Where did Ali Baba go? On a long journey. 
To New York.
d. Adjective phrase:   How did Ali Baba return? Wiser than before. 
Fairly jeg-lagged.
e. Adverb phrase:   How did they do? Not badly. 
Surprisingly well. 
Much better than they had
expected.

Once again, attempting to question nonconstituents is ungrammatical.

(12) a. * What did you feed ___ long, fluffy tails? ---> * The cats with.
b. * How did the cat stroll across the porch ___ confident ---> * With a.
air?
c. * How did Ali Baba return from his travels ___ before? ---> * Wiser than.
d. * How did they arrive at the concert hall ___ had ---> * More quickly than they.
expected?

Notice, incidentally, that so substitution for adjective phrases and subordinate clauses has a
variant that is reminiscent of questions. In addition to just substituting for the string of interest,
as illustrated earlier,so can move to the beginning of the sentence, which then
undergoes subject-aux inversion - the same process that turns declarative sentences into yes-no
questions. This variant of so substitution is illustrated in (13) and (14).

(13) a.   I am very happy, ... ... and so is Linda.

b.   I am very fond of Lukas, ... ... and so is Linda.
c.   I am very fond of my nephew, ... * ... and so is Linda of her niece.
(14)     I { imagine, think } that they're invited, ... ... and so do they.

It cleft focus

The final constituent test that we'll consider is based on a special sentence type known
as it clefts. It clefts are derived from ordinary declarative sentences as follows. We can often
divide an ordinary sentence into two parts: a part that contains background information that is
presupposed and a part that is particularly informative, the focus. In an it cleft, the background
information and the focus are indicated unambiguously by the way that they fit into a syntactic
frame consisting of it, a form of the copula to be, and the element that. In the examples in (15),
the frame is in black, the background information is in blue, and the focus is in red. Notice that
one and the same sentence can be divided up into background and focus in more than one way,
giving rise to more than one it cleft.

(15) a.   Ordinary cats detest the smell of ---   It is ordinary cats that detest the smell of
citrus fruits. > citrus fruits.
b.   Ordinary cats detest the smell of ---   It is the smell of citrus fruits that ordinary
citrus fruits. > cats detest.

If a string can appear as the focus of an it cleft, then it is a constituent. Some examples for
various constituent types are given in (16). It is important to realize that it clefts don't always
sound entirely natural out of the blue. Nevertheless, it clefts where the focus is a constituent, as
in (16), contrast sharply with the word salad that results from attempting to focus a string that
isn't a constituent, as in (17).

(16) a. Prepositional   The cat strolled across the ---   It was with a confident air that the
phrase porch with a confident air. > cat strolled across the porch ___.
b. Adjective   Ali Baba returned from his ---   It was wiser than before that Ali
phrase travels wiser than before. > Baba returned from his travels ___.
c. Adverb phrase   They arrived at the concert ---   It was more quickly than they had
hall more quickly than they > expected that they arrived at the
had expected. concert hall ___.
(17) a.   Ordinary cats detest the smell --- * It is the smell of that ordinary cats detest
of citrus fruits. > ___ citrus fruits.
b. The cat strolled across the porch with --- * It was with a confident that the cat strolled
a confident air. > across the porch ___ air.
 c. Ali Baba returned from his --- * It was wiser than that Ali Baba returned
travels wiser than before. > from his travels ___ before.
d. They arrived at the concert hall --- * It was quickly than they had expected that
more quickly than they had expected. > they arrived at the concert hall more ___.

Some complications

Mismatches between syntax and prosody

We mentioned earlier that it is not always self-evident whether a particular string of words is a
constituent. For instance, in reading a sentence like (18) out loud, we can observe an intonation
break betweencat and that (indicated by the slash).
(18)   This is the cat / that chased the rat.

Because the intonation break is clearly audible, it is very tempting to equate the sentence's
abstract syntactic structure with its relatively concrete prosodic structure. Specifically,
because the cat does not belong to the same prosodic unit as the relative clause that chased the
rat, it is tempting to treat the cat as a syntactic constituent.

As it turns out, however, there are two pieces of evidence against doing so. First, substituting a
pronoun for the string the cat is ungrammatical (in the context of (18), though not in principle).

(19) a.   This is the cat that chased the rat. ---> * This is it that chased the rat.
b.   This is the cat. ---> ok This is it.

Second, the string cat that chased the rat is shown to be a constituent by the grammaticality of
substituting the pro-form one. (One substitution is discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.)

(20)     This is the cat that chased the rat. ---> ok This is the one.

The facts in (19a) and (20) converge to tell us that the word cat first combines with the relative
clause, and that it is the resulting constituent that the combines with, rather than with cat on its
own. It is worth noting that the syntactic structure just described is congruent with the way that
the entire noun phrase the cat that chased the rat is interpreted compositionally from smaller
expressions. In a simple semantics, the term cat refers to the set of all cats. Combining cat with
the relative clause yields cat that chased the rat, which refers to a subset of all cats - namely,
those with the property of having chased the rat. Finally, combining cat that chased the rat with
the definite article the refers to some unique individual within the rat-chasing subset of cats
(exactly which individual this is depends on the discourse context).

As a first approximation, syntactic structure represents the way that the meaning of an
expression is composed. This is already evident from the correspondence between noun phrases
and individuals, between adjective phrases and properties, between prepositional phrases and
locations, directions, etc., between verb phrases and events, states, etc., and so on. However,
having said this, it is important to realize that there can be considerable mismatches between
syntactic structure and structures at other levels of linguistic representation (prosody,
morphology, semantics, and others).

Phrasal versus lexical constituents

A second complication in connection with applying syntactic constituenthood tests is that single
words don't necessarily function on a par with multiword constituents, even though, being
indivisible units, they are constituents by definition. In (21), for instance, cats doesn't pass the
constituenthood tests reviewed in the last section, whereas in (22), it does.
(21) a.   The cats are hungry. ---> * The they are hungry.
b.   Tabby cats are quite common. ---> * Tabby they are quite common.
c.   Cats without tails are relatively rare. ---> * They without tails are relatively rare.
d.   Those cats that have no tails are Manx ---> * Those they that have no tails are Manx
cats. cats.
(22)     Cats are not social animals. --->   They are not social animals.

The reason for the grammaticality contrast in (21) and (22) is that there is a systematic
difference between the syntactic contexts in these examples. In (21), cats is accompanied either
by a determiner or a modifier of some sort, indicated by italics. In such contexts, cats combines
with these other words to form a noun phrase, but it isn't a noun phrase in its own right. In (22),
on the other hand, cats is a bare (= unmodified) noun and functions as a simple noun and as a
noun phrase at the same time. In other words, there are two levels of constituenthood:
the lexical level, where single words are constituents by definition, and the phrasal level, where
single words don't necessarily behave on a par with multiword constituents.

The constituenthood tests reviewed in the last section turn out to be diagnostic for
constituenthood at the phrasal level only. (23) illustrates the ungrammatical sentences that result
from attempting to move, question, and focus lexical rather than phrasal constituents. Italics
indicate any words that belong to the same phrasal constituent as the underlined item.

(23) a. Attempt to   I fed the cats. -- * Cats, I fed the ___.

move: ->
b.   The cat strolled across the -- * With, the cat strolled across
porch with a confident air. -> the porch ___ a confident air.
c.   Ali Baba returned from his -- * Wiser, Ali Baba returned from
travels wiser than before. -> his travels ___ than before.
d.   They arrived at the concert -- * Quickly, they arrived at the
hall more quickly than they had -> concert hall more ___ than they
expected. had expected.
(24) a. Attempt to * What did you feed the ___? -- * Cats.
question: ->
b. * How did the cat stroll across -- * With.
the porch ___ a confident air? ->
c. * How did Ali Baba return from -- * Wiser.
his travels ___ than before? ->
d. * How did they arrive at the concert -- * Quickly.
hall more ___ than they had ->
expected?
(25) a. Attempt to Ordinary cats detest the smell of -- * It is smell that ordinary cats
focus: citrus fruits. -> detest the ___ of citrus fruits.
b. The cat strolled across the -- * It was with that the cat strolled
porch with a confident air. -> across the porch ___ a confident
air.
c. Ali Baba returned from his -- * It was wiser that Ali Baba
travels wiser than before. -> returned from his travels
___ than before.
d. They arrived at the concert -- * It was quickly that they arrived at
hall more quickly than they had -> the concert hall more ___ than
expected. they had expected.
(26), on the other hand, illustrates the grammatical results of moving, questioning, and focusing
phrasal constituents that happen to consist of a single word. (Notice the absence of italicized
material in this case.)

(26) a. Movement:   I like cats. --- ok Cats, I like ___.

>
b.   Ali Baba returned from --- ok Wiser, Ali Baba returned from
his travels wiser. > his travels ___.
c.   They arrived at the --- ok Quickly, they arrived at the
concert hall quickly. > concert hall ___.
(27) a. Question/sentence ok What do you like ___? --- ok Cats.
fragment: >
b. ok How did Ali Baba return --- ok Wiser.
from his travels ___? >
c. ok How did they arrive at --- ok Quickly.
the concert hall ___? >
(28) a. It cleft focus: Ordinary cats --- ok It is citrus that ordinary cats
detest citrus. > detest.
b. Ali Baba returned from --- ok It was wiser that Ali Baba
his travels wiser. > returned from his travels ___.
c. They arrived at the --- ok It was quickly that they arrived
concert hall quickly. > at the concert hall ___.

Verb phrases

There is one category of constituent that we haven't discussed so far - verb phrases. Testing for
the constituenthood of verb phrases differs from the case of other syntactic categories in two
respects.

First, the pro-forms for verb phrases aren't simple vocabulary items, but are complex: do so for
substitution and do what for questions. (Notice that it's only what, rather than the entire pro-
form do what, that moves to the beginning of a question.)2

(29) a. Substitution:   She will write a book. --- ok She will do so.

>
b.   The two boys could order tuna --- ok The two boys
salad sandwiches. > could do so.
(30) a. Question/sentence   What will she do? --- ok Write a book.
fragment: >
b.   What could the two boys do? --- ok Order tuna salad
> sandwiches.

Second and more importantly, verbs and the verb phrases that contain them come in two
varieties, finite and nonfinite (see Verb forms and finiteness in English for discussion). Now,
two of the constituenthood tests - substitution and the question/sentence fragment test - yield
grammatical results regardless of a verb phrase's finiteness, as shown in (31) and (32).

(31) a. Substitution, nonfinite verb   She will write a --- ok She will do

phrase: book. > so.
b. finite verb phrase:   She wrote a book. --- ok She did so.
>
(32) a. Question/sentence nonfinite verb What will she do? --- ok Write a book.
 fragment, phrase: >
b. finite verb phrase: What did she do? --- ok Wrote a
> book.

The results from the other two tests are more complex. Movement of nonfinite verb phrases is
grammatical,3 but movement of finite ones is not.

(33) a. Movement, nonfinite verb   (She said that) she --- ok (and) write a book,
phrase: will write a book, > she will ___.
b. though she may write a --- ok write a book though
book > she may ___
(34) a. finite verb   (She said that) she wrote --- * (and) wrote a book, she
phrase: a book, > ___.
b. though she wrote a book --- * wrote a book though she
> ___

In it clefts, nonfinite verb phrases are marginally acceptable in focus, whereas finite verb
phrases are again clearly ruled out.

(35) a. It cleft nonfinite verb She will write a --- ? It is write a book that she will
focus, phrase: book. > ___.
b. finite verb phrase: She wrote a book. --- * It is wrote a book that she ___.
>

To summarize: we have good evidence that nonfinite verb phrases are constituents. In the case
of finite verb phrases, we have evidence for constituenthood from two of the four
constituenthood tests. Given this slightly complex state of affairs, we will proceed as follows.
We will make the simplifying assumption that the ungrammaticality of moving or focusing
finite verb phrases has nothing to do with their constituenthood, but that it is due to some other
reason, yet to be determined. Having made this assumption, we are then free to treat finite verb
phrases as constituents on a par with their nonfinite counterparts even though the syntactic
behavior of the two types of verb phrases is not identical in all respects.

Chances are that you are a bit leery of the simplifying assumption just described. If so, think
about it as comparable to taking out a loan. True, taking out a loan is risky, and taking out loans
in an uncontrolled or irresponsible way can lead to financial disaster. Nevertheless, the credit
market is a necessary and productive part of any modern economy. In a similar way, making
simplifying assumptions in science can help us to make progress where otherwise we would be
stumped by the complexity of the phenomena that we are investigating. Of course, we have to
be careful about what simplifying assumptions we make. Otherwise, we end up fooling
ourselves into believing that we are making progress, when in fact we are working on such a
distorted model of reality that our work is worthless.

Apart from this wrinkle concerning finiteness, verb phrases behave just as we have come to
expect from other constituent types. The tests yield grammatical results only for complete verb
phrases, not for substrings of them.

(36) a. Substitution:   She will write a book. --- * She will do so a book.
>
b. Movement:   (She said that) she --- * ... and write, she will ___ a
will write a book, ... > book.
c.   though she may write a book --- * write though she
> may ___ a book
 d. Question/sentence * What will she do a book? --- * Write.
fragment: >
e. It cleft focus:   She will write a book. --- * It is write that she will
> ___ a book.

And once again, particular strings can be phrasal constituents in certain syntactic contexts, but
not in others. For instance, although write isn't a verb phrase when it combines with a direct
object, it is a verb phrase on its own, as is evident from comparing the examples in (37) to their
counterparts in (36).

(37) a. Substitution:   She will write. --- ok She will do so.

>
b. Movement:   (She said that) she --- ok ... and write, she
will write, ... > will ___.
c.   though she may write --- ok write though she
> may ___
d. Question/sentence * What will she do? --- ok Write.
fragment: >
e. It cleft focus:   She will write. --- ? It is write that she will
> ___.

Representing constituenthood

In Chapter 1, we introduced tree diagrams as a convenient way of representing constituent

structure. For a mathematician working in the field of graph theory, the formal properties of tree
diagrams are interesting in their own right, but for a syntactician, the interest of trees lies in the
fact that they are representations, or models, of constituent structure. In other words, the
graphic structure of a tree on the page is intended as a statement about the way that a speaker
groups together syntactic elements in his or her mind. In any good model, we want the
properties of the model to correspond straightforwardly to the properties of the domain of
inquiry. Such a close correspondence allows us to state observations and generalizations about
the domain of inquiry without undue complication. Moreover, if we're lucky, we might even be
able to use our understanding of the model's formal properties as a sort of conceptual lever to
generate hypotheses and to discover generalizations concerning the domain of inquiry that
would otherwise go unnoticed.

In light of these considerations, let's consider the sentence in (38), focusing particularly on the
constituenthood of the underlined string.

(38)     The secretary drafted the letter.

According to the two tests that apply to finite verb phrases, the string drafted the letter is a
constituent.

(39) a. Substitution:   The secretary drafted the letter. ---> The secretary did so.
b. Question/sentence fragment: What did the secretary do? ---> Drafted the letter.

Having established this fact, let's now consider two alternative representations of the sentence.
We've already encountered (40a) in Chapter 1. (40b) is an alternative, 'flatter' tree.
(40) a.       b.  

At first glance, the flatter tree might seem preferable on the grounds that it is simpler in the
sense of containing fewer nodes. But let's focus on the question of which tree is a better
representation of the sentence. Another way of putting this question is to ask whether either of
the trees in (40) has some graphic property that corresponds to the results of the constituenthood
tests in (39). In (40a), the answer is 'yes,' since there is a single node (the one
labeled VerbPhr) that exhaustively dominates the string drafted the letter (see the section
on exhaustive dominance in Node relations for a definition). The tree in (40b), on the other
hand, lacks such a node and has no other graphic property that corresponds to the string's
constituenthood. Clearly, then, (40a) is a better representation of the sentence, because it
follows the natural convention in (41).

(41)     Syntactic constituents are represented graphically as nodes in a tree.

We will conclude this discussion of the model character of syntactic representations by

emphasizing that models are just that - models, and not the actual domain of inquiry itself. The
purpose of any model is to help us understand some part of reality that is too complex to
understand in all of its detail, at least all at once. This means that models are partial in two
respects. First, models often leave out many properties of a phenomenon that aren't relevant
from a particular point of view. This fact is often stated in the form of the maxim "Don't mistake
the map for the territory." For instance, a mountaineer's map might show topographical
information in great detail, but completely ignore political boundaries, whereas a diplomat's
map might do the reverse. Analogously, in linguistics, syntactic models leave out many
important properties of language, such as real-world plausibility, pragmatic felicity, the location
of intonation breaks, and so on. These are the focus of other subdisciplines of linguistics.

A second way that models are partial is that they are subject to revision as our understanding of
a particular domain improves and deepens. This is simply another way of saying that scientific
progress is possible. Although we will not recapitulate all of the revisions that have been made
in syntactic theory, we will encounter some of them in the further course of the book.

Notes

1. As we mentioned in Chapter 1, the grammaticality of a sentence depends on its interpretation.

Specifically, (i) (= (10a)) is ungrammatical under the ordinary interpretation where the
prepositional phrasewith long, fluffy tails modifies cats.
(i)     The cats, I fed with long, fluffy tails.

But (i) also has an outlandish interpretation that can be paraphrased as I fed long, fluffy tails to
the cats. Under this interpretation, (i) is grammatical. In other words, in the pre-movement
version of (i) given in (ii), the string the cats is a constituent in the outlandish interpretation,
though not in the ordinary one.

(ii)     I fed the cats with long, fluffy tails.

Conversely, the string the cats with long, fluffy tails is a constituent in the ordinary
interpretation of (ii), but not in the outlandish one. This is evident from the fact that (iii) has
only the ordinary interpretation.

(iii)     The cats with long, fluffy tails, I fed. (The other cats, I didn't.)

2. For completeness, we should mention that do so substitution and the question test for verb
phrases are subject to a semantic restriction. Specifically, do so and do what cannot substitute
for verb phrases with so-called stative verbs like know or want.

(i) a.   They know her parents; they want the ---> * They do so.

cookies.
b.   What do they do? ---> * Know her parents; want the cookies.

As their name implies, stative verbs refer to states (rather than to activities or accomplishments),
and a reasonably reliable diagnostic for them is their inability to appear in the progressive
construction.

(ii) a. Stative verb * They are knowing her parents; they are wanting the cookies.

b. Nonstative verb ok They are meeting her parents; they are eating the cookies.

Since do is the prototypical activity verb, it is not surprising that expressions containing it,
like do so and do what, cause a semantic mismatch when they substitute for verb phrases
containing stative verbs.

3. Movement of nonfinite verb phrases in out-of-the-blue contexts, as in (i), is not very

felicitous.

(i)   Write a book, she will ___.

But it is clearly grammatical given appropriate discourse contexts or in certain syntactic

constructions, as the examples in the text show.

Exercises and problems

Exercise 2.1

Using the constituenthood tests reviewed in this chapter, determine whether the underlined
strings in the following sentences are (phrasal) constituents. Be sure to include the evidence on
which your conclusions are based.

(1) a.   I put the car in the garage.

b.   I put the car in the garage.
c.   I put the car in the garage.
(2) a.   I know the guy with the fedora.
b.   I know the guy with the fedora.
(3) a.   They threw in the towel.
b.   They threw the towel in the closet.

Exercise 2.2
How well does each of the trees in (1) and (2) represent the syntactic structure of the sentence it
is intended to represent? Your discussion should be concise, but detailed enough to answer the
following questions:

 Are any strings represented as constituents that shouldn't be?

 Are any strings not represented as constituents that should be?
 Are any of the trees misleading in other respects?

State the linguistic evidence on which your conclusions are based. (If you have done Exercise
2.1, you can simply refer to the evidence there rather than restating it.)

(1) a.       b.  

c.  

(2) a.       b.  

c.  

Exercise 2.3

In addition to it clefts, English has wh- clefts, so called because they are introduced by question
words, almost all of which begin with wh- in English (the exception is how, which counts as an
honorary wh-word). Wh- clefts begin with an indirect question, and end with the focus of the
cleft, which, just as with it clefts, is a (phrasal) constituent. The two parts of a wh- cleft are
connected by a form of the copula. In the examples in (1), the indirect question is in blue, the
copula is in black, and the focus is in red.
(1) a. Noun phrase:   What she ate was an apple.
 b. Prepositional phrase:   Where we'll meet is in Houston Hall.
c. Adjective phrase:   What they are is surprisingly arrogant.

Is it possible to use the wh- cleft construction as evidence that verb phrases are constituents? Do

finite and nonfinite verb phrases differ with respect to wh- clefting? Explain, giving examples.

Exercise 2.4

Is the do of do so substitution the main verb or the homonymous auxiliary? Answer with
reference to the three properties in (41) in Modals and auxiliary verbs in English.

Problem 2.1

The substitution test introduced in Chapter 1 and discussed in further detail in this chapter and
the substitution operation introduced in Chapter 1 are not identical, but they are related. In a
brief paragraph, explain how.

Problem 2.2

Is (1) lexically or structurally ambiguous? Explain, giving the results of any constituenthood
tests that you use and discussing their limitations, if any.
(1)   They decided on the boat.

3. SOME BASIC LINGUISTIC RELATIONS

Argumenthood

Semantic valency

The most obvious factor that determines how vocabulary items combine has to do with their
meaning, a point most conveniently illustrated with verbs. From the point of view of a very
simple formal semantics, the verb laugh denotes the set of laughing entities, as illustrated in (1).
(1)     laugh = { Beatrice, Chris, Eva, Gary, Lukas, Tina, ... }

Laugh can combine with a single argument, which denotes an entity. Intuitively, we can think

of arguments as the central participants in a situation. Combining laugh with an argument
(say, Lukas) has a syntactic effect and a corresponding semantic effect. The syntactic effect is to
yield the sentence in (2a). The corresponding semantic effect is to select the entity denoted by
the argument and to yield the proposition that the selected entity belongs to the set of laughing
entities, as expressed in (2b). (For simplicity, we disregard the past tense morpheme -ed, which
has the further effect of anchoring the proposition in the past.)

(2) a.   Lukas laughed.

b.   The entity 'Lukas' is-a-member-of the set 'laugh'.

In addition to denoting sets, verbs can also denote relations between sets. Let's say, for instance,
that (3a) is a set of hosts and (3b) is a set of guests.

(3) a.   host = { Andy, Bill, Chris }

 b.   guest = { Dave, Elmer, Fred, Gideon, Harrison }

Then the verb invite denotes the relation between these two sets, which can be represented as
the set of ordered pairs in (4).

(4)     invite = {<Andy, Dave>, <Andy, Elmer>,

<Andy, Fred>, <Andy, Gideon>, <Andy,
Harrison>,
<Bill, Dave>, <Bill, Elmer>, <Bill, Fred>,
<Bill, Gideon>, <Bill, Harrison>,
<Chris, Dave>, <Chris, Elmer>, <Chris,
Fred>, <Chris, Gideon>, <Chris,
Harrison> }

Combining invite with a theme argument (say, Dave) has the syntactic effect of yielding the

phrase in (5a). The corresponding semantic effect is to select a subset of the ordered pairs in (4),
given in (5b), and to yield the proposition in (5c). (Once again, we disregard the past tense
morpheme for simplicity.)

(5) a. invited Dave

b.   invite1 = { <Andy, Dave>, <Bill, Dave>, <Chris, Dave> }
c.   The ordered pair in the set 'invite1' are-members-of the set 'invite'.

Further combining invite with an agent argument (say, Chris), as in the sentence in (6), has the

semantic effect of yielding the further subset in (6b), with the property in (6c).

(6) a.   Chris invited Dave.

b.   invite2 = { <Chris, Dave> }
c.   The ordered pair <Chris, Dave> is-a-member-of the set 'invite 1' (and, by logical
transitivity,1 is-a-member-of the original set 'invite')

Verbs like laugh and invite are instances of one-place and two-place predicates, respectively.

The term predicate here refers to a vocabulary item, with a focus on its capacity to combine
with one or more arguments. The number of arguments that a predicate requires is its
semantic valency.

The relations denoted by predicates can involve more than two arguments. An example of a
three-place predicate is give, which denotes the relation among a set of givers, a set of gifts, and
a set of recipients. Even more complex relations are possible. For instance, rent is a five-place
predicate denoting a relation among landlords or other sorts of owners, tenants, rental property,
amounts of money, and lengths of time (lease terms).

Transitivity

In principle, a predicate's valency might completely determine the syntactic structure that it
appears in. The ungrammaticality of the sentences in (7) would directly fall out from such a
system.
(7) a. * Lukas laughed the train. (one-place predicate; superfluous argument)
b. * Andy invited. (two-place predicate; missing theme argument)
The actual situation, however, is more complex. For instance, eat denotes a relation between
eaters and food. It is therefore a two-place predicate, like invite. However, unlike invite, eat has
both a transitiveand an intransitive use, as illustrated in (8).

(8) a. Transitive:   The children have eaten their supper.

b. Intransitive:   The children have eaten.

Notice that the semantic properties of eat remain constant in (8). In other words, (8a) and (8b)
are both interpreted as involving the ingestion of food, even though there is no explicit mention
of food in (8b).

In view of the mismatch between the semantic and syntactic properties of eat in sentences like
(8b), it is useful to distinguish between semantic and syntactic arguments. As mentioned earlier,
we can think of semantic arguments as central participants in a situation. Syntactic arguments,
on the other hand, are constituents that appear in particular syntactic positions (see Chapter 4 for
further discussion). Semantic arguments are typically expressed as syntactic arguments, but the
correspondence between the two is not perfect, as (8b) shows.

The term transitivity refers to the number of arguments that a verb combines with in syntactic
structure, and we can divide verbs into three subcategories as in (9).

We are using the term 'transitivity' in a slightly unorthodox way. Traditionally, the term
refers to the number of a verb's objects, which is one less than the number of its
arguments. Thus, as the terms imply, an intransitive takes no objects, and a ditransitive
takes two.

(9) Transitivity Number of syntactic arguments

Intransitive 1
Transitive 2
Ditransitive 3

Because of mismatches as in (8), it turns out to be quite rare for verbs to belong to just one
syntactic subcategory. (10) shows some two-place verbs besides eat that can be used either
transitively or intransitively. The slashes separate the arguments from the predicate and each
other.

Basically transitive Intransitive

(10) a. He / interrupted / the meeting. He / interrupted.
b. Amy / knits / sweaters. Amy / knits.
c. They / are reading / a book. They / are reading.

Conversely, certain one-place verbs can be used not only intransitively, but transitively as well,
as illustrated in (11). Notice that the verb and its object in the transitive examples are
etymologically related, or cognate. For this reason, the transitive use of one-place verbs as in
(11) is known as the cognate object construction.

Basically intransitive Transitive

(11) a. Dennis / died. Dennis / died / a peaceful death.
b. Lukas / laughed. Lukas / laughed / an infectious laugh.
 c. Mona Lisa / was smiling. Mona Lisa / was smiling / a mysterious smile.

Further, it is possible to use some basically three-place verbs not just ditransitively, but
transitively and even intransitively.

Basically ditransitive Transitive Intransitive

(12) a. We / teach / college students / syntax. We / teach / college students.  We / teach.
We / teach / syntax.
b. He / told / me / the whole story. He / told / me.  He / better not tell.
He / told / the whole story.

Finally, it is possible to use basically two-place verbs ditransitively.

Basically transitive Ditransitive

(13) a. I / baked / a delicious cake. I / baked / my friends / a delicious cake.
b. The lions / killed / a gazelle. The lions / killed / themselves / a gazelle.
c. She / sang / a lullaby. She / sang / her baby / a lullaby.

Modification

Events are associated with more or less central participants and properties. The central
participants are the semantic arguments just discussed. Properties of a situation typically taken
to be less central, such as manner, time (point in time, duration, frequency), place (location,
origin, destination), reason (cause, purpose), and so on, can be expressed by modifiers.

Arguments and modifiers both introduce restrictions on the denotation of a predicate,

and the relationships of argumenthood and modification do not differ semantically in this
respect. For instance, the situations denoted by invite Dave are a subset of those denoted
by invite, just as the situations denoted by laugh uproariously are a subset of those
denoted by laugh.

Modifiers of verb phrases are typically adverbial phrases or prepositional phrases, but noun
phrases can serve as modifiers as well (you will be asked to illustrate this latter fact in
the Exercises). In the following examples, the modifier is in italics, and the verb phrase that it
modifies is underlined.

(14) a. Manner: He read the letter carefully.

b. Point in time: They discussed the proposal in the afternoon.

c. Duration: You should keep your tax records for several years.

d. Frequency: I read the Times quite often.

e. Location: We met in my office.

f. Origin: We set out from Bangalore.

g. Destination: We arrived in Benares.

h. Cause: He threw it away out of spite.

i. Purpose: I sent the message to warn everyone.
Because of their semantically peripheral character, modifiers are syntactically optional. The
converse is emphatically not true, however. Not all syntactically optional constituents are
modifiers; recall from (8b) that semantic arguments aren't always expressed.

Verbs are not the only category that can be modified. For instance, nouns are often modified by
adjective phrases, prepositional phrases, or relative clauses.2

(15) a. a very important period

b. a period of great import
c. the car that just turned the corner

Moreover, adjective phrases and prepositional phrases, the quintessential modifier phrases, can
themselves be modified.

(16) a. very proud of her progress

b. surprisingly good to eat
(17) a. almost in the dark
b. right behind the shed

Predication

The two linguistic relations discussed so far---argumenthood and modification---are basically

semantic notions that are optionally expressed in the syntax. In this section, we introduce a third
relation,predication, which differs from argumenthood and modification in being an irreducibly
syntactic relation. By this, we mean that predication is not always semantically motivated.

Expletive it

In (18a), the italicized that clause functions as the sole syntactic argument of the

adjective evident, on a par with the noun phrase in (18b). (For simplicity, we disregard the
copula as semantically vacuous.)

(18) a.   That they are corrupt is evident.

b.   Their corruption is evident.

An indication of the semantic equivalence of the two phrases is the fact that they can both be
elicited by the same question.

(19) a.   What is evident?

b.   That they are corrupt. 
Their corruption.

In addition to (18a), a synonymous variant, (20), is available in which the that clause appears at

the end of the entire sentence and the original position of the that clause is occupied by
the expletive pronounit.

(20)     It is evident that they are corrupt.

The term 'expletive' means that the pronoun does not refer to a discourse entity in the ordinary
way that pronouns do. Ordinary referential it has some referent, whereas expletive it doesn't.
As a result, the question-answer sequence in (21) is possible, whereas the one in (22) is not.
(21) a. What bit the zebu?
b. (pointing to a tsetse fly) It did.
(22) a. * What is evident that they are corrupt?
b. * It is.

Given that the that clause satisfies the semantic requirement of evident for an argument in both
(18a) and (20), the presence of the expletive pronoun in (20) is striking. From a semantic point
of view, it is unnecessary, and one might therefore expect it to be optional. But this is not the
case, as the ungrammaticality of (23) shows.

(23)   * Is evident that they are corrupt.

The ungrammaticality of (23) leads us to conclude that there exists a purely syntactic well-
formedness condition requiring all clauses to have a subject.

Earlier, we saw that it is possible for arguments to be semantically necessary and yet not to be
expressed in the syntax. Expletive subjects represent roughly the converse of this situation,
being cases where an expression that is not motivated by semantic considerations is nevertheless
obligatory in the syntax.

Aristotelian versus Fregean predicates

We will refer to the requirement just mentioned as the subject requirement. According to it,

every clause consists of a subject and a predicate (independently of semantic requirements).
Here, the term 'predicate' has a different sense than in our earlier discussion concerning
argumenthood; it simply refers to what remains of a clause when its subject is removed.

Remember not to confuse 'subject' with 'simple subject.'

For clarity, we can use the term 'Aristotelian predicate' for this sense, since the observation that
all sentences consist of a subject and a predicate goes back to Aristotle (384-322
BCE). Predication is the relation between a subject and an Aristotelian predicate. So (24a) and
(24b) are two alternative ways of stating the subject requirement.

(24) a.   Every clause has a subject.

b.   Every clause is an instance of predication.

The sense of 'predicate' that we used earlier, in which the term refers to a single vocabulary
item, is much more recent and can be attributed to one of the founders of modern logic, the
mathematician and philosopher Gottlob Frege (1848-1925). Accordingly, we can use the term
'Fregean predicate' for this sense. What Frege made explicit is that Aristotle's division of a
clause into subject and predicate is simply the first of a potential series of such bifurcations. Just
as it is possible to peel off, as it were, the subject of a clause, leaving the Aristotelian predicate,
it is possible to further peel off any arguments (and modifiers) contained within the Aristotelian
predicate, yielding in the final instance a single vocabulary item, the Fregean predicate.

Fruitful as Frege's analytic insight is, we should not let it obscure the key difference between
subjects and other constituents of a clause: namely, that constituents contained within an
Aristotelian predicate must be licensed by semantic considerations (in other words, these
constituents are present because of semantic considerations), whereas the subject, which is
external to the Aristotelian predicate and combines with it, is required independently of
semantic considerations.
In the following examples, the Aristotelian predicate of the largest clause is in italics, and the
Fregean predicate is underlined. As the increasingly complex sentences show, Aristotelian
predicates are recursive categories. Fregean predicates, on the other hand, not being phrases, are
not.

(25) a. The tabby cat enjoys catnip immensely.

b. They have found that the tabby cat enjoys catnip immensely.
c. My downstairs neighbor suspects that they have found that the tabby cat enjoys catnip
immensely.

Expletive there

In English, further evidence for the purely syntactic character of the subject requirement comes
from the expletive there construction. (26) illustrates an ordinary sentence and its counterpart
with expletivethere.
(26) a.   Several vexing questions remain.
b.   There remain several vexing questions.

Expletive there differs from ordinary there in much the same way as expletive it differs from

referential it. Ordinary there substitutes for phrases with a locative or directional meaning.
Accordingly, the phrases right here and over there render (27a) and (27b) contradictory and
redundant, respectively.

(27) a. # There comes the train right here.

b. There comes the train over there.

Expletive there, on the other hand, has no such locative meaning, and so both sentences in (28)
are completely acceptable and unexceptional.

(28) a. There is a clean shirt right here.

b. There is a clean shirt over there.

A related difference is that expletive there, unlike ordinary there, is incompatible with stress.

Just as expletive it occupies the position that would otherwise be occupied by a clausal subject,
expletive there occupies the position that would otherwise be occupied by a noun phrase
subject. And just as in the case of expletive it, omitting expletive there results in
ungrammaticality.

(29)   * Remain several vexing questions.

It should be pointed out that not every English sentence has an expletive there counterpart.
Rather, expletive there is subject to a licensing condition (a necessary condition for its
occurrence) that can be stated roughly as in (30).

(30)     Expletive there must be the subject of a verb of existence or coming into existence.

In the following examples, the licensing (Fregean) predicate is highlighted in green.

(31) a. After their military defeat, there arose among the Plains tribes a powerful spiritual
movement.
b. There is a problem.
 c. There began a reign of terror.
d. In the end, there emerged a new caudillo.
e. There ensued a period of unrest and lawlessness.
f. There exists an antidote.
g. There follows a section on the care of gerbils.
h. There has occurred an unfortunate incident.
i. There remains a single course of action.

Predicates that aren't verbs of (coming into) existence don't license expletive there. This is the
reason that the following examples are ungrammatical; the non-licensing (Fregean) predicates
are highlighted in red.

(32) a. * There came more than sixty dignitaries.

b. * There continued the same problem.
c. * There rang the mail carrier.
d. * There sang an impressive choir from Russia.
e. * There walked a poodle into the room.

Some special cases

Nonfinite clauses. The instances of predication provided so far have all been finite clauses like
those in (33).

(33) a.   He laughed uproariously.

b. It will seem that they won the game.
c. There is a problem.

Nonfinite clauses like those in (34) are also instances of predication; the clauses at issue are set
off by brackets.

(34) a.   We expected [ him to laugh uproariously ].

b. We expected [ it to seem that they won the game ].
c. We expected [ there to be a problem ].

At first glance, it might seem preferable to treat the italicized noun phrases in (34) as objects
of expected, rather than as subjects of the embedded nonfinite clause the way we have done.
However, such an approach faces at least two difficulties. First, the relation between the
italicized and the underlined constituents in the nonfinite embedded clauses in (34) is intuitively
analogous to the relation between the undoubted subjects and predicates of the finite embedded
clauses in (35).

(35) a.   We expected that [ he would laugh uproariously ].

b. We expected that [ it would seem that they won the game ].
c. We expected that [ there would be a problem ].

Second, in (34a), the thematic relation of agent that the noun phrase him bears to the phrase to
laugh uproariously is the same as that between the subject he and its predicate laughed
uproariously in (35a). Ifhim were the object of expected rather than the subject of the nonfinite
clause, we would be forced to admit the otherwise unprecedented pairing of the thematic role of
agent with the grammatical relation of object.
Small clauses. Because of the parallel between the nonfinite and finite embedded clauses in
(34) and (35), it makes sense to treat to in to infinitive clauses as the nonfinite counterpart of a
modal like would.There also exist instances of predication without any overt element at all that
corresponds to a modal. Such instances of predication are called small clauses (the idea behind
the name is that the absence of a modal element makes them smaller than an ordinary clause).
(36)-(39) provide some examples of small clauses; the captions indicate the syntactic category
of the small clause's predicate.

(36) a. Adjective phrase We consider [ the proposed solution completely inadequate ] .

b. They proved [ the theory false ] .
(37) a. Noun phrase They called [ the actor a traitor ] .
b. I consider [ Mark Judy's closest collaborator ].
(38) a. Prepositional phrase They made [ him into a star ] .
b. I want [ everyone off the boat ] .
(39) a. Verb phrase (bare verb) God let [ there be light ] .
b. Verb phrase (gerund) I hear [ the cat scratching at the door ] .

Small clauses are typically arguments of verbs, but they can also be arguments of (certain)
prepositions. This is illustrated in (40) for with.

(40) a. Adjective phrase: With the weather much less turbulent, flights were able resume for
the first time in days.
b. Noun phrase: With his wife an airline industry lobbyist, the senator's support for
the bailout was hardly surprising.
c. Prepositional With all of their three kids in college, their budget is pretty tight.
phrase:
d. Verb phrase   With the parade passing right outside her living-room window,
(gerund): Jenny could hardly have had a better view of it.

Imperatives. Although imperative sentences like (41) appear to lack a subject, there is reason to
believe that they contain a second-person subject comparable to the pronoun you except that it is
silent (the "you understood" of traditional grammar).

(41)     Come over here.

For one thing, (41) has the variant in (42) in which the subject is explicitly expressed.

(42)     You come over here.

Another reason to assume that all imperatives contain a syntactically active, even if silent,
subject is that the grammaticality pattern in (43), where the subject is overt, has an exact
counterpart in (44).

(43) a.   You shave { yourself, yourselves. }

b. * You shave you.
c. * You shave themselves.
(44) a.   Shave { yourself, yourselves. }
b. * Shave you.
c. * Shave themselves.
Notes

1. A logically transitive relationship is one that has the following property:

If the relationship holds between A and B, and also holds between B and C, then the
relationship necessarily holds between A and C.

For instance, the sibling and ancestor relations are logically transitive, as is the subset relation
invoked in (6b), but the parent relation is not.

2. The alert reader will notice that in the examples we give, it is verb phrases, adjective phrases,
and prepositional phrases that are modified, but nouns (rather than noun phrases). You will be
able to explain this apparent asymmetry after reading Chapter 5.

Exercises

Exercise 3.1

A. Imagine a language Hsilgne that is exactly like English except that transitive predicates
combine first with the agent, and then with the theme. Does (1) mean the same thing in Hsilgne
as it does in English? Explain, using the discussion in connection with (3)-(6) in the text as a
model.
(1)     Chris invited Dave.

B. Are you sure that you speak English and not Hsilgne? What's the evidence for your
conclusion?

Exercise 3.2

A. In your own words, discuss the difference between the terms 'modify' and 'refer'? Feel free to
use illustrative examples, but be as concise as possible.

B. In your own words, discuss the difference between 'modify' and 'predicate'? Feel free to use
illustrative examples, but be as concise as you can.

C. In traditional grammar, the term 'modifier', which refers to any expression that adds
information about some other expression, is often used interchangeably with the term 'adjective'.
By contrast, it is customary in linguistics to distinguish between the two terms and to define
adjectives not with reference to their function, but on the basis of morphosyntactic criteria. For
instance, many adjectives can appear in a comparative (better, more acceptable) or superlative
(best, most acceptable) form. Moreover, in many languages (though not in English), adjectives
are inflected for case, number, and gender to agree with the nouns that they modify or that they
are predicated of.

Assuming the linguistic rather than the traditional definition of 'adjective', give an example of
an adjective (or adjective phrase) that is not a modifier, and give an example of a modifier that
is not an adjective. No discussion is necessary beyond the examples.

D. This part of the exercise is designed to help you get a better feel for the concept of 'small
clause,' which many students find difficult. Make up three sentences that you think might
contain small clauses. Clearly indicate the sequence that you think is the small clause, and note
how sure you are whether it is a small clause or not. You should feel free to make up three
examples about which you are very unsure, since that way, your examples and our feedback on
them will be maximally informative to both of us.

Exercise 3.3

For each of the various instances of the modification relation illustrated in (1a-h) (= (14b-i) in
the text), try to provide a sentence (possibly using another verb) in which modification is
expressed by a noun phrase, rather than by a prepositional or adverbial phrase. (This is not
necessarily possible in every case.) (2) gives an example.
(1) a. Point in time: They discussed the proposal in the afternoon.

b. Duration: She kept their books for five years.

c. Frequency: I read the Times quite often.

d. Location: We met the students in my office.

e. Origin: We set out from Bangalore.

f. Destination: We arrived in Benares.

g. Cause: He threw it away out of spite.

h. Purpose: I sent the message to warn everyone.
(2) Illustration for manner: They solved the problem another way.

Exercise 3.4

A. Assuming the licensing condition on expletive there in (30), explain for each of the
following grammaticality judgments whether it is expected or not. The brackets indicate the
boundaries of to infinitive clauses or small clauses and are added for clarity. Assume the
judgments given even if you do not share them.
(1) a. ok Feynman suspected [ there to be a problem with the O-ring ] .
b. * Feynman suspected [ there a problem with the O-ring ] .
c. ok There was suspected [ to be a problem with the O-ring ] .
d. * There was suspected [ a problem with the O-ring ] .

B. Is the following argument valid?

The contrast in (2) shows that expletive there cannot be an object; hence, it cannot be an object
in (3), but must rather be the subject of the to infinitive clause.
(2) a. ok There is a fly in the soup.
b. * I dislike there in the soup.
(3) ok I don't want there to be a fly in the soup.

Exercise 3.5

A. Discuss the syntactic difference(s) between the two sentences in (1), focusing on the
concepts introduced in this chapter. (Source: http://www.meredith.edu/grammar/modifier.htm)
(1) a.   Winston considered the judges careful.
b.   Winston considered the judges carefully.
B. According to the source of the sentences in (1), consider is a linking verb in (1a). This view
is nonsense, but what might have led the author of the website to reach it?

Exercise 3.6

Using the concepts introduced in this chapter and the supplementary readings, explain why the
following instances of linguistic humor are funny.
(1) a.   Greeks Fine Hookers
b.   Lawmen from Mexico Barbecue Guests
c.   Lawyers Give Poor Free Legal Advice
d. Lung Cancer in Women Mushrooms
(2)     Q. What did the Zen master say to the guy at the hot dog stand? 
A. Make me one with everything.
(3)     It used to be that if someone spilled coffed in their lap, they simply called themselves
clumsy. Today, too many people are calling themselves an attorney.
(http://www.mlaw.org/wwl, accessed 30 Jan 03)
(4)     The comedian Dick Gregory tells of walking up to a lunch counter in Mississippi during
the days of racial segregation. The waitress said to him, "We don't serve colored people."
"That's fine," he replied, "I don't eat colored people. I'd like a piece of chicken." 
(Steven Pinker. 1994. The language instinct. How the mind creates language. New York:
Morrow. 115.)

Problem 3.1

A. Nonfinite clauses like the bracketed sequence in (1) are prima facie counterexamples to the
subject requirement.
(1)     I promised [ to come on time ].

Provide as much evidence as you can for the existence of a silent subject in (1) and nonfinite
clauses like it.

B. The availability of (2) in vernacular usage might tempt one to conclude that expletive  it is
optional, and that the subject requirement is not absolute.

(2)     Seems like they're finally getting somewhere.

Does (2) really show that expletive subjects are optional? Discuss, providing evidence.

Problem 3.2

B. The there sentences in (2) are acceptable in modern English (though quite formal in style).
Discuss.

(2) a. At the end of the intermission, there sounded a silvery bell.

b. Then the curtain rose, and there waltzed onto the stage an exquisitely, but strangely
dressed apparition.

4. INTRODUCING THE XI SCHEMA OF PHRASE STRUCTURE

The X' schema for elementary trees

Transitive elementary trees

We begin our investigation of the internal structure of elementary trees by considering how a
transitive verb like ate combines with its two arguments in a sentence like (1).
(1)     The children ate the pizza.

From the possibility of pronoun substitution, as in (2), we know that the two arguments are
constituents (specifically, noun phrases).

(2)     They ate it.

In principle, the verb could combine with its two noun phrase arguments in either order, or with
both at once. The three possibilities are represented by the schematic structures in (3) (we
address the question of which syntactic category to assign to the nodes labeled by question
marks in a moment).

(3) a.       b.       c.  

However, as we already know from the discussion in Chapter 2, only the representation in (3a)
is consistent with the do so substitution facts in (4).

(4)     The children ate the pizza; the children did so.

In other words, transitive verbs combine first with their object, with the resulting constituent in
turn combining with the subject.

What is the syntactic category of the constituents that result from these two combinations? In
principle, the result of combining a verb with a noun phrase might be a phrase with either verbal
or nominal properties. But clearly, a phrase like ate the pizza doesn't have the distribution of a
noun phrase. For instance, it can't function as the object of a preposition (even a semantically
bleached one like of) Nor does it pattern like a noun phrase in other respects. For instance, as we
have just seen, the appropriate pro-form for it is not a pronoun, but a form of  do so, just as
would be the case if the predicate of the sentence were an intransitive verb. In other words, for
the purposes of do so substitution, the combination of a verb and its object is equivalent to an
intransitive verb (say, intransitive eat); cf. (4) with (5).

(5)     The children ate; the children did so.

However, it won't do to simply assign the syntactic category V to the verb-object combination,
on a par with the verb that it contains, since that would leave unexplained the contrast between
(4) and (6) with respect to do so substitution (again, recall the discussion in Chapter 2).

(6)     The children ate the pizza; *the children did so the pizza.

Notice furthermore that the syntactic category of the verb-object constituent is distinct from the
syntactic category of the constituent that includes the subject. This is evident from the contrast
in (7), which would be unexpected if both constituents belonged to the same syntactic category.
(7) a.   We saw the children eat the pizza.
b. * We saw eat the pizza.

In order to represent the facts in (4)-(7), the following notation has been developed. Verbs are
said to project three bar levels, conventionally numbered from zero to two. The lowest bar
level, V0, is a syntactic category for vocabulary items; it is often indicated simply by V without
a superscript. The next bar level is V' (read as 'V-bar'), 1 the syntactic category of a transitive
verb and its object. The highest bar level is V" (read as 'V-double-bar'), which is the result of
combining a V' with a subject. Note that for a transitive verb, each bar level corresponds to the
number of arguments with which the verb has combined.

Somewhat confusingly, the verb's second projection, V", is more often than not labeled VP. In
early work in generative grammar, the label VP was intended to be a mnemonic abbreviation for
the verb phrase of traditional gramar and did indeed correspond to that category. In current
phrase structure theory, however, the label that corresponds to the traditional verb phrase is V',
whereas VP includes a verb's subject, which the traditional verb phrase does not. The idea is
that the highest bar level projected by a verb contains all of its arguments. For clarity, we will
avoid using the term 'verb phrase', but if we do use it, we mean the traditional verb phrase that
excludes the subject (V', not VP). When we mean the projection that contains all of the verb's
arguments, we will always say 'VP'.

The fully labeled structure for (1), with the standard labels for the three verbal projections, is
given in (8).

(8)    

From (8), we can derive the elementary tree for ate in (9) by 'un-substituting' the two arguments.

(9)    

The X' schema

As we show later on in this chapter and in Chapter 5, the basic form of the elementary tree in (8)
can be extended to other syntactic categories. In other words, (8) is an instantiation of a general
phrase structure template, shown in (10) and known as the X' schema (read: X-bar schema) of
phrase structure; X, Y, and Z are variables over syntactic categories.

(10)    

A number of standard terms are in use in connection with the X' schema. X (= X0) is the lexical
projection of the vocabulary item that it dominates, X' the intermediate projection, and XP (=
X") themaximal projection (sometimes also called phrasal projection). The correspondence
between projections and the bar levels introduced earlier is summarized in (11).

The terms 'intermediate' and 'phrasal' are somewhat misleading, since they both suggest
that the syntactic status of intermediate projections is somehow intermediate between
lexical and phrasal constituents. This is not the case. Intermediate projections are full-
fledged phrases, and 'intermediate' simply refers to the position of the projection in the
tree structure.

(11)     Label Projection Bar level

X (= X0) Lexical 0
X' Intermediate 1
XP (= X") Maximal, phrasal 2

X is known as the head of the structure in (10) (the term is sometimes also used to refer to the
vocabulary item dominated by the lexical projection). The three projections of the head form
what we will call the spine of the elementary tree. Following traditional terminology, the sister
of the head---YP in (10)---is called its complement. As we discuss in the next subsection,
elementary trees need not include a complement position.

Note the spelling of complement with e (not i). The idea is that complements complete

the meaning of the head.

The sister of the intermediate projection---ZP in (10)---is called the specifier. Each elementary

tree has at most one specifier, and elementary trees can lack a specifier altogether, as we will
see later on in this chapter. The specifier and complement positions of a head are its
(syntactic) argument positions. In other words, an elementary tree consists of a spine and up to
two argument positions.

The terms 'specifier,' 'complement,' and 'argument' can be used to refer to the constituents that
substitute into the positions just described, but they can also refer to the structural positions
themselves. (This is analogous to the way we can use a nontechnical term like 'box' to refer
either to the contents of a container or to the container itself.) If it is necessary to avoid
confusion between the two senses, we can distinguish between 'specifier position' and 'specifier
constituent' (and analogously for 'complement' and 'argument').

An important question that arises in connection with the X' schema in (10) is how to represent
predicates with more than two semantic arguments (say, rent or give). The most obvious
approach is to allow elementary trees with more than two complements. Plausible as this
approach may seem, however, it is now widely assumed that syntactic structure is at
most binary-branching (in other words, binary-branchingness is assumed to be a formal
universal). If a predicate has more than two semantic arguments, there are two ways in which
the additional arguments can be integrated into syntactic structure. In some cases (as with rent),
the supernumerary arguments are integrated into syntactic structure by adjunction, an operation
distinct from substitution that we introduce later in this chapter. This case involves asyntax-
semantics mismatch, since a semantic argument ends up occupying a position that is not a
syntactic argument position. In other cases (as with give), the apparently atomic predicate is
decomposed semantically and syntactically into more than one head, thus yielding a total of
more than two argument positions. This second case is discussed in detail in Chapter 7.
Intransitive elementary trees

So far, we have discussed the internal structure of the elementary trees required for transitive
verbs (and transitive categories more generally). In this section, we address the internal structure
of the elementary trees required for intransitive verbs---for instance, intransitive eat. The two
structures in (12) come to mind as possibilities.

(12) a.       b.  

The trees differ in the presence of an intermediate projection, and (12b) might at first glance
seem preferable because it is simpler (in the sense of containing fewer nodes). Nevertheless, we
will prefer (12a) on the grounds that adopting it results in a simplification of the grammar as a
whole---that is, a simplification not just of the elementary trees themselves, but also of rules and
definitions stated over them. For instance, adopting (12a) allows us to summarize the facts
concerning do so substitution illustrated in (4)-(6) by means of the succinct generalization in
(13).

(13)     Do so substitutes for instances of V'.

Given (12b), the corresponding generalization in (14), being a disjunctive statement (a

statement that contains or) is more cumbersome.

(14)     Do so substitutes for instances of V' or of V without a complement.

A second, similar reason to prefer (12a) is that it permits the succinct definition of the notion of
specifier in (15a) rather than the disjunctive statement in (15b).

(15) a.   Specifiers are sisters of intermediate projections.

b. Specifiers are sisters of intermediate projections or of lexical projections without a
complement.

In concluding this section, we will make explicit a point that is implicit in the preceding
discussion. Obligatorily transitive and obligatorily intransitive verbs project (= are associated in
the lexicon with) a single elementary tree of the right shape. Verbs that can be used either
transitively or intransitively, such as eat, project two elementary trees. More generally, we will
allow a vocabulary item of any syntactic category to project one or more elementary trees, as
required by its combinatorial properties.

Deriving simple sentences

We are almost at the point of being able to construct representations of complete sentences, but
before we can, we need to address the syntactic representation of tense. The following
discussion relies on the notion of do support and on the status of modals and auxiliary do as
members of the syntactic category I(nflection); see Modals and auxiliary verbs in English for
more details.

In a sentence like (16), the verb waited contains the bound morpheme -ed, which expresses past

tense.
(16)     He waited.

If tense morphemes were invariably expressed on the verb in this way, then complete structures
for full sentences could be derived by substituting appropriate structures into the argument
positions of the verb's elementary tree. However, this is not a general solution, because tense is
not always expressed as a bound morpheme on the verb. For instance, in (17), the future tense
counterpart of (16), the future tense is expressed by a free morpheme---the modal will.

(17)     He will wait.

Even more strikingly, the past tense in English, though ordinarily expressed as a bound
morpheme on the verb, must be expressed by a free morpheme in do support contexts, as shown
in (18).

(18) a. Emphasis: He did wait.

b.   Negation: He didn't wait.
c. Question: Did he wait?

The morphologically variable expression of tense as a free or bound morpheme raises two
related syntactic questions. First, what is the representation of sentences like (17) and (18a),
where tense is expressed as a free morpheme? (We postpone discussion of negated
sentences and questions until later chapters.) Second, and more generally, how can we represent
all sentences in a syntactically uniform way, regardless of how tense is expressed
morphologically? The reason that we want a syntactically uniform representation is that from a
semantic point of view, both past and future are semantically parallel functions, taking
situations (denoted by VPs) as input and returning as output situations that are located in time,
either before or after the time of speaking. 2

We begin by answering the first question in several steps. First, it is clear that (17) and (18a)
share a common predicate-argument structure. That is, both of these sentences denote a
situation in which someone is waiting, with the sentences differing only as to which point in
time the situation holds. We can capture this commonality by taking the elementary tree for the
verb wait in (19a) and substituting an argument constituent in the specifier position, yielding
(19b).

(19) a.       b.  

Second, in line with the general approach to syntactic structure that we have been developing,
modals and auxiliaries, like all vocabulary items, project elementary trees. For instance, the
elementary trees forwill and auxiliary did are shown in (20).

(20) a.       b.  

Next, we substitute the structure in (19b) into each of the elementary trees in (20), yielding
(21).3
(21) a.       b.  

The structures in (21) neatly reflect the semantic relation between tense and situations. The
element in I corresponds to the tense function, the complement of I (VP) corresponds to the
function's input (the situation), and the maximal projection of I (IP) corresponds to the
function's output (the situation located in time). There is a problem, however: the I element and
the subject of the sentence are in the wrong order in (21). This problem can be solved by
introducing a movement operation that transforms the structures in (21) into those in (22).

(22) a.       b.  

A few remarks are in order about this operation. Movement is best understood as a convenient
way of representing mismatches between various aspects of a sentence or its constituents.
Specifically, in the case at hand, he satisfies two distinct functions. First, it is a semantic
argument of the verb wait. Second, it is the subject of the entire sentence, which is headed by I.
It is important to recognize that these two functions are distinct. This is clearly shown by the
existence of passive sentences. For instance, in the active sentence in (23a), it is the agent
argument that functions as the subject, whereas in its passive counterpart in (23b), it is
the theme argument.

(23) a.   Susie drafted the letter.

Agent Theme
Subject Object
b. The letter was drafted (by Susie).
Theme Agent
Subject Prepositional phrase

In order to clearly express a phrase's multiple functions, we do not simply move the phrase from
one position to another. Instead, movement leaves a trace in the phrase's original position, and
the two positions share an index. In the syntactic literature, indices for movement are
represented by the same alphabetical subscripts as referential indices. For clarity, we diverge
from this practice and use the natural numbers as referential indices, and the lowercase letters  i,
j, k, and so on, as movement indices. A constituent and its traces of movement (possibly none,
in the absence of movement) are called a chain. The elements of a chain are its links. Higher
links in a chain are often referred to as the antecedents of lower ones. Finally, the highest and
lowest links in a chain are sometimes referred to as the chain's head andtail, respectively.
 Don't confuse this sense of the term 'head' with the sense introduced earlier in connection
with X' structures. The head of an X' structure is the structure's lexical projection (or
sometimes the vocabulary item dominated by it). The head of a movement chain is the
highest constituent in a chain; the constituent's X' status is irrelevant). Which sense is
meant is generally clear from the context.

Is the head of the movement chains in (22) a head in the X' sense? No. The reason is that
it is possible to replace it by what is clearly a phrase, say, by the student in the red
sweater. It is possible, however, for the head of a chain to be a head in the X' sense, as
we will see in Chapter 6 in connection with verb movement.

We are now in a position to answer the second question posed earlier---namely, how can
sentences be represented in a syntactically uniform way regardless of the morphological
expression of tense? A simple answer to this question is possible if we assume that English has
tense elements that are structurally analogous to auxiliary do, but not pronounced, as shown in
(24); we will use square brackets as a convention to indicate such silent elements.

(24) a.       b.  

Elementary trees as in (24) make it possible to derive structures for sentences in which tense is
expressed as a bound morpheme on the verb along the same lines as for sentences containing a
modal or auxiliary do. In (25), we illustrate the derivation of He waited.

(25) a.       b.       c.       d.  

Substitute predicate-
Select argument structure
Substitute Move subject from
elementary in (25b) into
argument Spec(VP) to Spec(IP)
tree for verb elementary tree for
tense

Deriving complex sentences

This section is devoted to the derivation of sentences that contain complement clauses. Some
examples are given in (26); the complement clauses, which are also called clausal
complements, are in italics.
(26) a. We will ask if she left.
b. They believe that he came.

Although sentences with complement clauses can become quite long and complex (recall the
instances of recursion in Chapter 1), deriving structures for them proceeds straightforwardly
along the lines already laid out. If and that are both complementizers, so called because they
have the effect of turning potentially independent sentences into the complements of
a matrix verb, and they project the elementary trees in (27).

(27) a.       b.  

Given elementary trees like (27), we can derive the italicized complement clause in (26a) as in
(28).

(28) a.       b.  

Elementary tree
for complement Substitute argument
clause verb

c.       d.       e.  

Substitute (28b) in
Move subject in Substitute (28d) in elementary tree
elementary tree for
complement clause for complementizer (27a)
tense (24b)

The structure in (28e) in turn allows us to derive the entire matrix clause, as in (29).

(29) a.       b.  
 Elementary tree for matrix clause Substitute arguments, including clausal
verb complement (28e)

c.       d.  

Substitute (29b) in elementary tree for

Move subject in matrix clause
modal (20a)

Given the representation in (29d), we can now formally characterize recursive structures as in

(30).

(30) a.   A structure is recursive iff it contains at least one recursive node.

b. A node is recursive iff it dominates a node distinct from it, but with the same label.
The recursive nodes in (29d) are the upper IP, I', VP, and V' nodes (and no others). Note
that a recursive node need not be the root node of a tree, and that it can be any projection
(XP, X', or X).

The lower IP, I', VP, and V' nodes are not recursive nodes, since they don't dominate
another instance of the same category.

For a node to be recursive, it is not enough that the tree contains a second instance of the
category somewhere. The first node has to dominate the second one. For instance, none
of the NounPhr nodes in (29d) is recursive.

The adjunct relation

Modification is different

The elementary trees introduced in the first part of this chapter allow us to represent two of the
three basic linguistic relations discussed in Chapter 3: namely, argumenthood and predication.
As we have seen, semantic arguments of a verb can be expressed as syntactic arguments,
substituting into one of the two argument positions in the verb's elementary tree: either the
complement position or the specifier position. VPs and IPs can be treated as arguments
(specifically, as complements) of I and C, respectively. And finally, although predication is not
reducible to argumenthood (recall from Chapter 3 that expletive subjects are required
independently of a verb's semantic requirements), it does not require a structural relationship
uniquely associated with it, since subjects occupy specifier positions regardless of whether they
are semantic arguments or not. An important remaining question is how to represent the
modification relation using the X' schema developed so far.

In principle, modification might resemble predication in not requiring a structural relation of its
own. As it turns out, however, neither the head-complement relation nor the head-specifier
relation adequately represents the relation between a head and its modifier. Recall that when a
verb combines with a complement, the category of the resulting constituent (V') is distinct from
that of the verb (V) (recall the contrast between (4) and (6)), and that when the verb and the
complement in turn combine with the specifier, the category of the resulting constituent (VP) is
distinct yet again (see (7)). By contrast, modifying a verb-complement combination like ate the
pizza in (31) does not change the syntactic category of the resulting constituent, which remains
V' (the modifier is in italics).

(31) a.   The children ate the pizza.

b.   The children ate the pizza with gusto.

This is evident from the do so substitution facts in (32), where either the unmodified or the
modified verb-complement combination can be replaced by a form of do so.

(32) a.   The children ate the pizza with gusto; the children did so with gusto.
b.   The children ate the pizza with gusto; the children did so.

The same pattern holds for intransitive verbs that combine with a modifier.

(33) a.   The children ate with gusto; the children did so with gusto.

b.   The children ate with gusto; the children did so.

The do so substitution facts just discussed motivate the syntactic structure for (31) that is given
in (34) (for simplicity, we focus on the internal structure of the VP, omitting the projection of
the silent past tense element and subject movement).

(34)    

The structural relation of the modifier with gusto to the spine of the V projection is known as
the adjunct relation, and the modifier itself is said to be an adjunct. Modifiers are always
represented as adjuncts in syntactic structure. As a result, 'modifier' and 'adjunct' tend to be used
somewhat interchangeably. In this book, however, we will distinguish between the two terms as
follows. We will use 'modifier' to refer to a phrase's semantic function of qualifying or
restricting the constituent being modified. For instance, as we mentioned in Chapter 3, a verb
like laugh denotes the set of entities that laugh. Combining the verb with a modifier
like uproariously yields the expression laugh uproariously, which denotes a subset of the set
denoted by laugh. By contrast, we will use the term 'adjunct' to refer to a purely structural
relation. As we will see later on, it is possible for semantic arguments to be represented as
syntactic adjuncts. This does not change the semantic argument into a modifier, however!

The need for an adjunction operation

The structure in (34) raises the question of what elementary tree for transitive ate is involved in
its derivation. 'Un-substituting' both arguments and the modifier, as we did earlier with just
arguments, yields the structure in (35).

(35)    

Is the structure in (35) a satisfactory elementary tree? Clearly, allowing it means that our
grammar now contains two elementary trees for transitive ate. At first glance, this doesn't seem
serious, since we already allow distinct elementary trees for transitive and intransitive ate.

(36) a.       b.  

But (35) differs in one important respect from the structures in (36): it is a recursive structure.
This has a conceptually very undesirable consequence: namely, that if we decided to derive
structures like (34) by means of elementary trees like those in (35), there would be no principled
way to avoid an unbounded number of such elementary trees. For instance, the derivations of
the sentences in (36), with their increasing number of modifiers, would each require a distinct
elementary tree for drink.

(36) a.   We would drink lemonade.

b.   We would drink lemonade in summer.
c.   We would drink lemonade in summer on the porch.
d.   We would drink lemonade in summer on the porch with friends.

In order to avoid such a proliferation of elementary trees, we will require them to be non-
recursive structures. This has the consequence that adjuncts cannot be integrated into larger
syntactic structures bysubstitution, and accordingly, we introduce a further tree operation
called adjunction. For clarity, the operation of interest to us is sometimes called Chomsky-
adjunction, to distinguish it from Joshi-adjunction, a different formal operation that plays a
central role in Tree-Adjoining Grammar (Joshi, Levy, and Takahashi 1975).

For the moment, we will be using the adjunction operation to integrate modifiers into syntactic
structures. As we will see in Chapter 6, the adjunction operation is also used for other purposes.
Whatever its linguistic purpose, however, it is always the same formal (= graph-
theoretical) operation: namely, a two-step process that targets a particular node. When the
purpose of adjunction is to integrate a modifier, as it is here, the target of adjunction is an
intermediate projection, indicated in red in (37a). The first step in carrying out adjunction is to
make a clone of the target of adjunction that immediately dominates the original node, as in
(37b). The second step is to attach the tree for the modifier as a daughter of the newly created
clone, as in (37c).
(37) a.       b.       c.  

Select target of Clone target of Attach modifier as daughter

adjunction adjunction of clone

Deriving the rest of the structure for the entire sentence proceeds as outlined earlier, as shown in
(38).

(38 a b c
             
) . . .

Substitute (38a) in
Substitute arguments Move subject
elementary tree for tense

For expository reasons, we have chosen to derive the sentence with adjunction preceding
substitution and movement. However, the order of adjunction with respect to the other
operations is irrelevant.

In concluding this section, we raise a general point concerning intermediate projections and
adjunction to them. Given that words (or syntactic atoms of some sort) combine with one
another to form phrases, any theory of syntax must assume heads and projections. However,
distinguishing between two types of phrases (intermediate projections vs. maximal projections)
seems uneconomical, and attempts have therefore been made to eliminate the need for
intermediate projections, along with the possibility of adjunction to them. For instance, given
our current assumptions, sentences like (39) force us to allow adjunction to X'.

(39) a.   [IP They [I' never [I' will agree to that. ] ] ]

b.   God let [VP there [V' suddenly [V' be light. ] ] ]

However, if the IP and the small clause VP in such sentences were 'split up' into two separate
projections, it would be possible to eliminate the intermediate projections and to adjoin the
modifiers to maximal projections instead. This is illustrated in (40), where IP has been split into
Agr(eement)P and T(ense)P, and Pred(ication)P has been added to the small clause VP. We plan
to discuss such structures in detail in a later chapter (to be written).

(40) a.   [AgrP They [TP never [TP will agree to that. ] ] ]

b.   God let [PredP there [VP suddenly [VP be light. ] ] ]

A related question is whether, even in a system with intermediate projections such as we

continue to assume for the moment, adjunction can indiscriminately target either intermediate or
maximal projections. We remain agnostic on this issue, but since we know from (39) that
adjunction must be able to target intermediate projections under our current assumptions, we
will consistently represent it as doing so for expository simplicity.

A typology of syntactic dependents

Each of the three types of syntactic dependents that we have been discussing---complements,

specifiers, and adjuncts---stands in a unique structural relation to the head and to the spine of the
head's projection. Complements and adjuncts are both daughters of intermediate projections, but
they differ in that complements are sisters of heads, whereas adjuncts are sisters of the next
higher projection level. As sisters of intermediate projections, adjuncts resemble specifiers. But
again, the two relations are distinct because adjuncts are daughters of intermediate projections,
whereas specifiers are daughters of maximal projections. These structural relations and
distinctions are summarized in (41). For convenience, we also include the formal operations that
fill or create the positions in question.

(41)     Relation to head Sister of ... Daughter of ... Formal operation

Complement Head Intermediate projection Substitution

Adjunct Intermediate projection Intermediate projection Adjunction
Specifier Intermediate projection Maximal projection Substitution

More on the distinction between complements and adjuncts

Given the table in (41), it is easy to tell whether a constituent is represented in a particular tree
structure as a complement or as an adjunct. However, it is not always self-evident whether a
phrase is a complement or an adjunct as a matter of linguistic fact.
Remember that tree structures are models of linguistic facts. Just because it is possible to
build a tree that represents a certain phrase as a complement of a certain head doesn't
mean that the phrase actually is a complement. In other words, trees can "lie".

The most reliable way to determine the relation of a particular phrase to a verb is to use do
so substitution. If a phrase need not be included as part of the sequence being replaced by do
so, then it is an adjunct. If it must be included, then it is a complement. Using this test, we find
that phrases specifying cause or rationale, time, location, or manner are generally adjuncts, even
if they are bare noun phrases. Some examples, including the results of do so substitution, are
given in (42); the adjuncts are in italics.

(42) a. Rationale   They waited for no good reason, but we did so for a very good one.
b. Duration   They waited (for) a day, but we did so (for) a month.
c. Location They waited in the parking lot, but we did so across the street.
d. Manner They waited patiently, but we did so impatiently.

In the examples we have seen in this book so far, semantic arguments are expressed in a
syntactic tree as syntactic arguments (or not at all), and modifiers are expressed as adjuncts. It is
possible, however, for semantic arguments to be expressed in the syntax as adjuncts (this is  the
mismatch case mentioned earlier in connection with binary-branchingness). For example, as we
mentioned in Chapter 3, rent, from a semantic point of view, is a five-place predicate taking five
arguments that denote landlords, tenants, rental properties, amounts of money, and lengths of
time (lease terms). Some of these semantic arguments are expressed as syntactic arguments. For
instance, in (43), the phrase denoting the rental property is a complement, as is evident from the
results of do so substitution.
(43) a.   Dennis rented the apartment to Lois.
b. * ... and David did so the studio to Rob.

On the other hand, do so substitution shows that the phrase denoting the lease term is an
adjunct, even though lease terms are semantic arguments of rent on a par with rental properties.

(44) a.   Dennis rented Lois the apartment for two months.

b. ok ... and David did so for a whole year.

A final word should be said about the correlation between a syntactic dependent's obligatory or
optional character and its status as a complement or adjunct. It is tempting to assume the
biconditional relationship in (45).

(45) a.   If a syntactic dependent is obligatory, then it is a complement.        TRUE

b.   If a syntactic dependent is a complement, then it is obligatory. FALSE

But as the annotation indicates, the biconditional in (45) is not valid. It is true that obligatory
syntactic dependents are complements. For instance, the contrast in (46) is evidence that the
noun phrase following devour is a complement, a conclusion that is borne out by do
so substitution in (47).

(46)     Every time I see him, ...

a. * ... he's devouring.
b. ... he's devouring a six-inch steak.
(47) a.   He devoured a hamburger and french fries, and I did so, too.
b. * He devoured a hamburger and french fries, and I did so six samosas.

But not all complements are obligatory. The grammaticality of (48a) shows that the
phrase French fries is optional, but the ungrammaticality of (48c) shows that it is nevertheless a
complement.

(48) a.   He ate, and I did so, too.

b.   He ate French fries, and I did so, too.
c. * He ate French fries, and I did so three samosas.

Although (45b) is false, (45a) does have the consequence in (49) (derived by the modus
tollens rule of propositional logic).

(49)     If a syntactic dependent is not a complement, it is not obligatory.

The two valid generalizations in (45a) and (49) can be summarized succinctly as in (50).

(50) a.   Obligatory syntactic dependents are complements.

b.   Adjuncts are optional.

Notes

1. Why is V' read as V-bar when it contains not a bar, but a prime symbol? The reason is that
when the idea of bar levels was introduced in the 1970s, the various levels were distinguished
by horizontal bars over a syntactic category. The lowest level had no bars, the first level one,
and the second two. But back in the days of typewriters, such overbars were cumbersome to
type (you typed the symbol, --* rolled up the platen a bit, backspaced, typed an overbar *--,
repeated from --* to *-- for each overbar, and then rolled the platen down again the right
amount). Overbars are also expensive to typeset, and even today, they aren't part of the standard
character sets for HTML documents such as this one. Therefore, it was and continues to be
convenient to substitute prime symbols for overbars. However, linguists have failed to update
their terminology (terminological inertia), and so the old term 'bar' is still with us.

2. The semantics of tense we are assuming here is oversimplified, but sufficient for our
purposes.

3. The representations in (21) look like appropriate representations for the questions Will he
wait? and Did he wait? However, as we will see in Chapter 11, there is reason to postulate an
additional layer of structure in the representations of questions.

Exercises and problems

Exercise 4.1

What is the X' status of Fregean and of Aristotelian predicates? You should be able to answer in
one or two brief sentences.

Exercise 4.2

The trees in (1) fail to correctly account for certain grammaticality judgments. What are the
judgments?

(1) a.       b.  

Exercise 4.3

A. Are the italicized phrases in (1) syntactic arguments or adjuncts? Explain. Your discussion
needn't be extensive, but you must include the syntactic evidence (do so substitution facts) on
which you base your conclusions.

(1) a.   They waited for us.

b. This program costs twenty dollars.
c. We drove to Denver.
d. We worded the letter carefully.
e. They are behaving very inconsiderately.
f. This volcano might erupt any minute.
B. Using the grammar tool in x-bar 1, build structures for the sentences in (1). Needless to say,
the structures you build should be consistent with the evidence you gave in A.

Exercise 4.4

A. Using the grammar tool in x-bar 1, build structures for the sentences in (1).

(1) a.   They demolished the house.

b. Mona Lisa called the other neighbor.
c. Mona Lisa called the other day.
d. You will recall that her smile amazed everyone.
e. Most people doubt that Mona Lisa lives in Kansas.
f. My friend wondered if Mona Lisa would come to his party.

B. Indicate all recursive nodes in the structures that you build for (1). You can do this by using
the grammar tool's highlighting feature (see the "Instructions" menu).

Exercise 4.5

A. (1) is structurally ambiguous. Paraphrase the two relevant interpretations. (Don't be

concerned with the referential vagueness of they.)

(1)     They claimed that they paid on the 15th.

B. Using the grammar tool in x-bar 1, build a structure for each of the interpretations, indicating
which structure goes with which interpretation.

C. Indicate all recursive nodes in the structures that you build for (1). You can do this by using
the grammar tool's highlighting feature (see the "Instructions" menu).

Exercise 4.6

A. Make up a sentence that contains two adjuncts. Provide syntactic evidence that the adjuncts
are adjuncts rather than syntactic arguments. Then build the structure for the sentence using the
grammar tool inx-bar 1. Finally, switch the linear order of the adjuncts, and build the structure
for the resulting word order variant of your original sentence.

B. Make up a simple sentence in which one of the semantic arguments of the verb is expressed
in the syntax as an adjunct. Provide evidence that the adjunct is one. Finally, build the structure
for your sentence using the grammar tool in x-bar 1.

Problem 4.1

A. Is it possible for an adjunct to immediately precede a complement? Explain, taking into

account both VO and OV languages. (You may find it helpful to use the grammar tool in spines
1.)

B. Is it possible for two adjuncts to be sisters? Explain.

Problem 4.2
Imagine a variant of X' theory that distinguishes heads from phrases (= maximal projections),
but does not have the concept of intermediate projection. Such a theory is attractive because the
notion of intermediate projection is not terribly natural (an intermediate projection is a phrase,
after all, just like a maximal projection). However, a theory with two bar levels does run up
against a conceptual problem. What is the problem, and how can it be resolved?

Hint: Redo (41) using two bar levels.

5. EXTENDING THE XI SCHEMA

Noun phrases

Parallels and differences between noun phrases and sentences

The X' schema of phrase structure that we introduced in Chapter 4 is a specific expression of a
more general idea - namely, that lexical items of different syntactic categories show
significant cross-categorialparallels. In the history of generative grammar, this idea was
primarily based on the cross-categorial parallels between noun phrases and sentences (Chomsky
1970). In what follows, we review these parallels, as well as some differences between the two
categories.

Argument structure. Early in the history of generative grammar (Lees 1960), it was observed
that sentences like (1a) and noun phrases like (1b) share several important properties.

(1) a.   The army destroyed the city.

b. the army's destruction of the city

The semantically central element of the sentence in (1a) is the verb destroyed, and its semantic
arguments, the agent the army and the theme the city, are both expressed as syntactic arguments
of the sentence. In a parallel way, the semantically central element in the noun phrase in (1b) is
the nominal counterpart of destroy, the noun destruction. Like the verb, the noun is associated
with an agent argument and a theme argument that are both overtly expressed - in this case, as
the possessive expression the army's and the prepositional phrase of the city.

The correspondence in (1) is supported by that between the passive sentence in (2a) and its
passive-like noun phrase counterpart in (2b).

(2) a.   The city was destroyed (by the army).

b. the city's destruction (by the army)

In both of these examples, the argument preceding the head is now the theme  the city('s), and
the agent argument is expressed by an optional by phrase.

Modification. In both sentences and noun phrases, the semantically central element - the verb
or the noun - can be modified in similar ways, as illustrated in (3) and (4).

(3) a. Prepositional phrase She gives money to the organization on a regular basis.

b. Adverb   She regularly gives money to the organization.
(4) a. Prepositional phrase her gifts of money to the organization on a regular basis
b. Adjective her regular gifts of money to the organization
Some cross-categorial differences. Sentences and noun phrases also exhibit certain
differences. First, arguments and modifiers are not always expressed in exactly the same way
across sentences and noun phrases. For instance, the agent argument is expressed as an ordinary
noun phrase in a sentence like (1a), but as a possessive noun phrase in a noun phrase like (1b).
In a sentence, the theme argument is expressed as a noun phrase, but in a noun phrase, it must
be part of a prepositional phrase, usually an of phrase. Finally, although verbs and nouns can
both be modified by prepositional phrases, verbs are modified by adverbs, whereas nouns are
modified by adjectives. In connection with this difference, notice that adverbs can precede or
follow the verb they modify, whereas adjectives are ordinarily restricted to prenominal position.

(5) a. Adverb The kids regularly donate their old toys.

b. The kids donate their old toys regularly.
(6) a. Adjective the kids' regular donation of their old toys
b. * the kids' donation of their old toys regular

A second and even more fundamental difference between sentences and noun phrases concerns
the subject requirement. As we saw in Chapter 3, all sentences require a syntactic subject, even
when it corresponds to no semantic argument, as is evident from the contrast between (7) and
(8).

(7) a.   It appears that the manuscript has been found.

b. There exists a solution.
(8) a. * Appears that the manuscript has been found.
b. * Exists a solution.

By contrast, noun phrases never require a subject. For instance, the agent argument of a noun
can be expressed, but it needn't be, as shown in (9). 1

(9) a.   the committee's criticism of the proposal

b.   the criticism of the proposal

What is even more striking is that sentences with expletive subjects have no noun phrase
counterparts. As (10) shows, the very expletive expressions that are obligatory in (7) are
ungrammatical in noun phrases.2

(10) a. * { it, its } appearance that the manuscript has been found
b. * { there, there's } existence of a solution

In summary, noun phrases resemble sentences in that their semantic core categories - nouns and
verbs, respectively - have semantic arguments that can be expressed as syntactic arguments in
partly similar ways. Nouns and verbs can also be modified in largely similar fashion. In the
remainder of this part of the chapter, our focus will be on how to represent these parallel aspects
of noun phrases and sentences. As we have seen, however, the two categories also differ
fundamentally with respect to the subject requirement.

Noun phrases as DPs

A striking fact about nouns is that they cannot in general function as arguments on their own,
but must be accompanied by a determiner.

(11) a. * Assignment is not difficult.

b. * You should hand in assignment.
(12) a.   { The, this, that } assignment is not difficult.
b. You should hand in { the, this, that } assignment.

We conclude from this that noun phrases are the result of composing two projections, one
headed by the noun and the other by the determiner, as shown in (13).

(13) a.       b.       c.  

Given the structure in (13c), the traditional term 'noun phrase' is a misnomer since noun phrases
are maximal projections of D rather than of N. Because the term 'noun phrase' is firmly
established in usage, we continue to use it as an informal synonym for 'DP'. However, in order
to avoid confusion, we will use the term 'NP' only to refer to the subconstituent of a noun phrase
that is the complement of a determiner. We will never use it to refer to an entire noun phrase
(that is, a DP).

In the simplest case, the elementary tree for a noun consists of just a spine, as in (13b). But like
verbs, nouns can have both complements and specifiers. For instance, depending on which of
the noun phrases in (14) it appears in, criticism is associated with one of the elementary trees in
(15).

(14) a.   They refuted the criticism.

b. They refuted the criticism of the proposal.
c. They refuted the committee's criticism.
d. They refuted the committee's criticism of the proposal.

(15) a.       b.       c.       d.  

In (14a), the phrase the criticism is derived in exactly the same way as the assignment in (13) -
by substituting the NP in (15a) as the complement of the determiner. In (15b), the noun phrase
containingcriticism is derived as in (16). For simplicity, we disregard the internal structure of
the PP for the moment.

(16) a.       b.       c.  

Elementary tree for Substitute theme Substitute (16b) in elementary

N (15b) argument tree for D

In (14c), an agent argument substitutes into the specifier position of the elementary tree for the
noun, the resulting NP then substitutes into the complement position of the possessive
head 's, and the argument in Spec(NP) moves to Spec(DP) in a manner analogous to subject
movement in sentences.3

(17) a.       b.       c.  

Elementary tree for Elementary tree for

Substitute agent argument
N (15c) possessive 's

d.       e.  

Substitute (17b) in Move specifier from

(17c) Spec(NP) to Spec(DP)

Finally, deriving (14d) involves substituting both the agent and theme arguments in the
elementary tree in (15d). The remainder of the derivation is identical to that of (14c), as shown
in (18).

(18) a.       b.       c.  

Elementary tree
Elementary tree for N for
Substitute arguments
(15d) possessive 's (17c
)

d.     e.  
 Substitute (18b) in Move specifier from
elementary tree for D Spec(NP) to Spec(DP)

In (19), we repeat the tree for the noun phrase in (18e) side by side with the tree for the
corresponding sentence. (In order to underline the topological parallel between the two trees, we
have omitted the internal structure of the theme DP in (19b).) As is evident, apart from the
labels for the syntactic categories, the two-layered structure for noun phrases (NP, DP)
presented here is analogous to the two-layered structure for simple sentences from Chapter
4 (VP, IP).

(19) a.       b.  

In view of the structural parallel in (19), it is convenient to generalize the notion of subject to
include both Spec(IP) and Spec(DP). Accordingly, we will use the term 'subject movement' to
subsume both movement from Spec(VP) to Spec(IP) and movement from Spec(NP) to
Spec(DP).

The structural parallel between the two trees in (19) is further supported by the following
semantic parallel. In a formal semantics that is simple but sufficient for our purposes, an NP
constituent denotes a set of individuals. For instance, the NP dominating woman denotes the set
of all women, and the NP dominating president of the United States denotes the set of all
presidents of the United States - past, present, and future. Combining an NP with a determiner
like this or those has the syntactic effect of yielding a DP and the semantic effect of picking out
a particular individual (or individuals, in the case of a plural noun) from the set denoted by the
NP. Which particular individuals are actually picked out depends not just on the meaning of the
NP and the determiner, but also on the particular discourse context in which the DP is used.
This is what allows a noun phrase like the cat to refer to different cats in different discourse
contexts. In a similar way, we can think of VPs as denoting situations. For instance, a VP
like these cats jump onto the dresser denotes the set of all situations in which the individuals
denoted by these cats jump onto the piece of furniture denoted by the dresser. Combining a VP
with a tense morpheme in I then picks out one of these situations, at least under some theories of
tense. For instance, the tensed IP These cats jumped onto the dresser picks out one of the
situations that occurred before the time of speaking (how the silent past tense morpheme
combines with the verb to yield jumped is discussed in detail in Chapter 6). Once again, the
particular situation picked out depends in part on the discourse context, so that the same
sentence can be used to refer to more than one situation.

In concluding this section, we draw attention to the fact that in the noun phrases that we have
considered so far, any constituents in Spec(DP) have expressed arguments of the noun and have
hence undergone subject movement. However, subjects of noun phrases don't necessarily
originate in the NP projection. In a noun phrase like the student's program, for instance, it
makes sense to treat the student as an argument of the possessive morpheme rather than of the
noun. Accordingly, we give the noun phrase the structure in (20), where N doesn't project a
specifier and the subject of the noun phrase is substituted directly into Spec(DP). (For
simplicity, we omit the internal structure of the specifier.)
(20)    

More on determiners

Subcategories of determiners. Like verbs and nouns, determiners have different degrees of

transitivity. For instance, the definite article the and the indefinite article a(n) are obligatorily
transitive, whereas the demonstratives this and that are optionally so.

(21) a.   I'll buy { the, a } book.

b. * I'll buy { the, a. }
(22) a.   I'll buy { this, that } book.
b. I'll buy { this, that. }

Certain ordinary pronouns pattern just like demonstratives, as shown in (23), and so we will
treat them, too, as optionally transitive determiners.

(23) a.   we Americans, you fool(s)

b. we, you

Finally, ordinary pronouns can also behave like obligatorily intransitive determiners, as shown
in (24).

(24) a.   I, he, she, it, they

b. * I idiot, he fool, she linguist, it piece of junk, they traitors

In this connection, recall the warning in Chapter 1 that the term 'pronoun' is potentially
misleading. It suggests that pronouns are a subclass of nouns. If that were so, then pronouns
should combine with articles and demonstratives in the same way that other nouns do. In fact,
however, pronouns behave exactly like complete noun phrases in this regard, as shown in (25).
The facts in (25) thus provide strong evidence for the analysis of pronouns as determiners just
presented.

(25) a. Noun the people, this woman, that addressee

b. Noun phrase (= DP) * the these people, this the woman, that the addressee
c. Pronoun (= pro-DP) * the they, this she, that you

Elementary trees for the various types of determiners that we have just discussed are given in
(26).

(26) a.       b.       c.       d.       e.       f.  

Silent determiners. As shown in (27), plural indefinite count nouns and indefinite mass nouns
are apparently not accompanied by an article, in contrast to their singular and definite
counterparts.

(27) a.   ___ cars, ___ apples; ___ rice

b.   a car, an apple; the rice

However, we assume for conceptual reasons that the examples in (27a) contain a silent article
that is semantically roughly comparable to the unstressed some in I would like some apples and
some rice. We assume that the silent article has a singular and a plural form, as shown in (28).
The singular form combines with mass nouns, and the plural form with plural count nouns.

(28) a.       b.  

Our reasons for assuming the existence of silent determiners are as follows. First, this
assumption allows us to minimize the difference between English and a language like Spanish,
where the indefinite article has singular and plural forms that are both overt. The resulting
correspondence between English and Spanish determiners is shown in (29); the plural indefinite
articles are in boldface. For simplicity, we give only the masculine forms of the Spanish
determiners.

(29)     English Spanish

Sg Pl Sg Pl

Demonstrative this these este estos

that those ese esos
Definite article the the el los
Indefinite article a(n) [indef pl] un unos

Second, assuming the silent determiner allows us to maintain that all noun phrases are DPs.
Sentences like (30) can then all be derived using the single elementary tree for brought in (31).

(30) a.   Some butlers brought some tea.

b.   Some butlers brought tea.
c.   Butlers brought some tea.
d.   Butlers brought tea.

(31)    

We show the complete structure for the apparently articleless butlers and tea in (32), but in (33)
we simplify the structure for the noun phrases in order to make it easier to focus on the
structural similarity across all four sentences.
(32) a.       b.  

(33) a.       b.  

c.       d.  

In principle, we could take an alternative tack. If it were our goal to assign the least possible
amount of structure (that is, the structures with the fewest nodes) to each sentence in (30), we
would reject the silent determiner in (28) and we would represent butlers and tea using the trees
in (34) rather than those in (32).

(34) a.       b.  

The alternative structures for (30d) are given in (35). (35a) is simply (33d), but with the internal
structure of both DPs fully shown.

(35) a.       b.  

Clearly, the tree in (35b) is simpler than its counterpart in (35a) in the sense of containing fewer
nodes. However, this simplicity comes at the price of a veritable explosion in the number of
elementary trees in the grammar, since every argument position that can be filled by a noun
phrase would need to be associated with two elementary trees (one with a DP substitution node,
and one with an NP substitution node). For instance, instead of the single elementary tree
for brought in (36a), we would need the three additional trees in (36b-d).
(36) a.       b.       c.       d.  

More generally, obligatorily intransitive verbs would require two elementary trees rather than
one, obligatorily transitive verbs - the case just illustrated - would require four (2 x 2) rather
than one, and optionally transitive verbs would require six (4 + 2) rather than two (1 + 1). This
result seems unappealing on computational grounds. Moreover, the whole idea of simplifying
the representations of individual sentences is inconsistent with the Chomskyan paradigm of
language. Why? From a Chomskyan perspective, what syntactic theory attempts to model and
understand is grammar in the sense of the mental capacity to generate sentences, not the set of
phrases and sentences that is the output of the grammar. A reasonable working hypothesis is
that the best model for this capacity is the simplest possible grammar. From a Chomskyan
perspective, striving to simplify the representations of sentences at the expense of complicating
the grammar itself is missing the whole point of constructing grammars in the first place!

Modification and related issues

N' as target of adjunction. As we noted in our introductory review of the parallels between
noun phrases and sentences, nouns and verbs can be modified in similar ways. In (37), for
instance, the same prepositional phrase in the hospital modifies the noun stay and the
morphologically related verb stayed.

(37) a.   Mike's stay in the hospital

b. Mike stayed in the hospital.

Extending the approach to representing modification introduced in Chapter 4, we can derive the
structure for the noun phrase in (37a) as in (38). (For simplicity, we omit the internal structure
of the proper noun in the specifier.)

(38) a.       b.       c.  

Elementary tree Substitute (38b) in elementary tree

Substitute argument
for N for possessive 's
 d.       e.       f.  

Select N' as target of Adjoin PP at target of adjunction

Move subject
adjunction in (38e)

Apart from the category labels, the resulting structure in (38f), repeated for convenience as
(39a), is analogous to the structure for the corresponding sentence in (39b).

(39) a.       b.  

Leftward adjunction. So far, we have discussed modifiers that follow the head, whose
representation involves rightward adjunction. Structures for examples like (40), where the
modifier precedes the head it modifies, can be derived by leftward adjunction, with the results in
(41).

(40) a.   Kelly's nervous grimace
b. Kelly nervously grimaced.

(41) a.       b.  

One substitution. As discussed in Chapter 4, do so substitution allows us to distinguish

between complements and adjuncts in the verbal system. A similar diagnostic is available in the
nominal system - onesubstitution, which is illustrated in (42).
(42) a.   this book on the floor and that one
b. this book on the floor and that one on the table

In the most natural interpretation of (42a), one is interpreted as book on the floor. In (42b), on
the other hand, one is interpreted as simply book. We can represent these facts by assuming that
the first conjunct in both cases has the structure in (43).

(43)    

According to (43), the noun book has no complement, and the PP on the floor is an adjunct. The
pro-form one substitutes for instances of N', just as do so substitutes for instances of
V'. One substitutes for the higher N' in (42a), and for the lower N' in (42b).

As in the case of V', adjunction to N' can apply more than once, yielding multiply recursive
structures like (44).

(44)    

The complement-adjunct distinction in the nominal system. Given the semantic parallel

between the sentence in (45a) and the noun phrase in (45b), it is reasonable to treat the  of phrase
in (45b) as a complement of the noun author.

(45) a. This man authors murder mysteries.

b. this author of murder mysteries

That is, the elementary tree for author needed to derive (45b) is as in (46a), and the structure for
the entire noun phrase is (46b).

(46) a.       b.  
Since one is analogous to do so in substituting for intermediate rather than for lexical
projections, we expect the contrast between (47) and (48), and this accurately reflects the
judgment of many speakers.

(47) a.   This man authors murder mysteries, and that woman does so, too.

b. this author of murder mysteries and that one
(48) a. * This man authors murder mysteries, and that woman does so nature guides.
b. * this author of murder mysteries and that one of nature guides

Some speakers, however, accept (48b), or at least do not completely reject it. How can we make
sense of this variation among speakers' judgments? Recall that complements of nouns, unlike
those of verbs, are always expressed as prepositional phrases. This means that the evidence
whether a particular phrase is a complement or an adjunct is murkier in the case of nouns than
in the case of verbs, both for children acquiring the language and for adult speakers. A further,
probably related, complication is that even nouns that are morphologically derived from
obligatorily transitive verbs are themselves optionally intransitive (for instance,
compare consume, destroyer, employ with consumer, destroyer, employer). Moreover, the
intransitive use of these nouns might be more frequent than their transitive use. As a result, the
mental grammar of some speakers might include only the intransitive elementary tree in (49a),
and not the transitive elementary tree in (46a). Such speakers would have no way of deriving the
structure in (46b), but they would be able to derive the alternative structure in (49b) by
adjoining the of phrase, rather than by substituting it.

(49) a.       b.  

For such speakers, author in (48b) would be an N', rather than an N, and so they would accept
(48b) rather than rejecting it as ungrammatical.

Notice furthermore that the intransitive elementary tree in (49a) is available even for speakers
whose mental grammar includes the transitive elementary tree in (46a), since all speakers of
English accept (50).

(50)     this author and that one

If some of these speakers allow the of phrase to adjoin into the intransitive elementary tree in
addition to substituting into the transitive one, then they, too, would judge (48b) to be
acceptable (at least marginally so). 

Restrictions on one substitution. A cautionary note is in order about one substitution.

Although one can substitute in principle for all instances of N', it is subject to several
restrictions, which are important to keep in mind when using one substitution as a diagnostic for
syntactic structure. The first, which makes some sense given its meaning, is that one can
substitute only for count nouns, as illustrated in (51).

(51) a.   I have swum in this { ocean, pool, river, } and you have swum in that one.
b. * I have swum in this water, and you have swum in that one.
A second and more mysterious restriction is that one cannot immediately follow the indefinite
article, a cardinal number, a possessive noun phrase, or, for many speakers, the plural
demonstratives these andthose. This restriction is very superficial, since an intervening word
renders the ungrammatical (a) examples in (52)-(55) grammatical. 4

(52) a. Indefinite article * I bought a book, and you bought a one, too.
b. I bought a blue book, and you bought a red one.
(53) a. Cardinal number * I bought { two , ten } books, and you bought { two, ten } ones,
too.
b. I bought { two, ten } blue books, and you bought { two, ten } red
ones.
(54) a. Possessive * I like { Mary's, her } book, and you like { John's, his } one.
b. I like { Mary's, her } blue shirt, and you like { Mary's, her } red
one.
(55) a. Plural * I like these books, and you like those ones.
demonstrative
b. I like these blue books, and you like those red ones.

Structural ambiguity. Having introduced N' as a possible target of modification, we are now in

a position to associate structurally ambiguous sentences like (56) with two distinct syntactic
representations.

(56)     They ate the pizza in the living room.

(56) has two interpretations, which can be paraphrased as in (57).

(57) a. Verbal modifier   It was in the living room that they ate the pizza (though the
interpretation pizza may have started out elsewhere).
b. Nominal modifier   It was the pizza in the living room that they ate (though
interpretation perhaps they took it and ate it elsewhere).

On the verbal modifier interpretation in (57a), the prepositional phrase in the living
room modifies the verb ate, and (56) has the structure in (58a). On the nominal modifier
interpretation in (57b), the prepositional phrase modifies the noun pizza, and the sentence has
the structure in (58b).

(58) a.       b.  

Verbal modifier  Nominal modifier 

High attachment Low attachment
The structures in (58) are consistent with the results of relevant constituenthood tests. For
instance, substituting the ordinary pronoun it for the pizza and substituting did so for ate the
pizza yields (59a) and (59b), respectively.

(59) a.   They ate it in the living room.

b.   They did so in the living room.

In both sentences, the prepositional phrase is unambiguously interpreted as a verbal modifier, as

expected given that the pizza and ate the pizza are represented as constituents in (58a), but not
in (58b).

Conversely, in the question-answer pair in (61), the prepositional phrase is unambiguously

associated with a nominal modifier interpretation. Again, this is expected, since the pizza in the
living room is represented as a constituent in (58b), but not in (58a).

(61) a.   What did they eat? The pizza in the living room.

Adjective phrases

In this section, we discuss the structure of adjective phrases, beginning with examples like those
in (62) and (63), where the prepositional phrase following the adjective is optional.
(62) a.   They are proud.
b. They are proud of their grandson.
(63) a. They are happy.
b. They are happy with their car.

Recall from Chapter 2 that the pro-form so substitutes for adjective phrases. More specifically,
examples like those in (64) and (65) allow us to conclude that the of phrase is a complement
of proud in (64), but that the with phrase is an adjunct of happy in (65).

(64) a.   They are proud, and we are so, too.

b. They are proud of their grandson, and we are so, too.
c. * They are proud of their grandson, and we are so of him, too.
(65) a. They are happy, and we are so, too.
b. They are happy with their car, and we are so, too.
c. They are happy with their car, and we are so with our bikes.

We can represent these facts by associating the two adjectives with the elementary trees in (66)
and by stating that so substitutes for instances of A'.

(66) a.       b.       c.  

Most adjectives in English, like the two just discussed, are optionally or obligatorily
intransitive, but fond is obligatorily transitive.5 The contrast in (67) is evidence for the
complement status of the of phrase (recall from Chapter 4 that obligatory syntactic dependents
are complements), and that status is confirmed by the results of so substitution.

(67) a. * They are fond.

 b. They are fond of their grandson.
(68) a. They are fond of their grandson, and we are so, too.
b. * They are fond of their grandson, and we are so of him, too.

In view of the facts in (67) and (68), fond is associated with the single elementary tree in (69).

(69)    

Prepositional phrases

The syntactic category P corresponds closely to the traditional part of speech of preposition, but
is not identical to it. We address two differences between the syntactic category and the
traditional part of speech in the next two subsections.
Following standard usage in the syntax literature, we sometimes use the term
'preposition' to refer to the syntactic category P in contexts where the difference is either
clear or immaterial.

Transitivity

The etymology of the term 'preposition' (< Latin prae 'before' and positio 'position') implies that
all prepositions should precede a complement, and English does in fact have a number of
obligatorily transitive prepositions, some of which are illustrated in (70). The asterisk outside
the parenthesized material is a conventional way of indicating that the parenthesized material is
obligatory.
(70) a.   They drove from *(Boston).
b. He's the inventor of *(that gizmo).
c. She dove into *(the water).
d. They jumped onto *(the bandwagon).

But X' theory leads us to expect that there should also be intransitive Ps, and as the examples in
(71) show, this expectation is fulfilled.

(71) a.   I've never seen him before (this meeting).

b. Are you for (the proposal) or against (it)?
c. The bird flew { in, out } (the window).
d. It's time to get { off, on } (the train).
e. They jumped over (the ditch).
f. We've been fast friends ever since (that time).
g. She came to (her senses).
h. Have you looked underneath (the sombrero)?

In traditional grammar, Ps that are used intransitively are known as adverbs or particles, rather
than as prepositions, but this terminology goes against the spirit of X' theory, which seeks to
maximize the parallels among categories. From our point of view, there is as little reason for the
syntactic category of a lexical item to depend on its transitivity in the case of a P like since as in
the case of a V like eat. In both cases, the intransitive variant has a semantic argument that is
not expressed in the syntax, but is supplied in the course of interpretation, based on the
discourse context.
The elementary trees for of and over are shown in (72), and the full structures for the PPs
headed by them in (70) and (71) are shown in (73). Note the identity of (72c) and (73c).

(72) a.       b.       c.  

(73) a.       b.       c.  

Clausal complements

As we saw in Chapter 4, verbs can take either noun phrase or clausal complements. (74) gives a
further example.
(74) a. He reported the monkey's dislike of camphor.
b. He reported that the monkey dislikes camphor.

The examples of transitive prepositions discussed so far have all had noun phrase complements,
but given the parallel between verbs and prepositions concerning transitivity, we might expect
Ps to allow clausal complements as well. Once again, this expectation is borne out, as shown in
(75).

(75) a.   Noun phrase complement: { after, before, since } the war

b. Clausal complement: { after, before, since } the war ended

In traditional grammar, Ps that take clausal complements are classified as subordinating

conjunctions (along with if and that), but as in the case of intransitive Ps, we again reject the
traditional approach. First, it is conceptually uneconomical. Specifically, it redundantly
expresses the difference between (75a) and (75b) in terms of the syntactic category of the heads
(preposition vs. subordinating conjunction) and again in terms of the syntactic category of the
complement (noun phrase vs. clause). Second, the items in (75) share roughly the same
semantic content, regardless of the categorial status of their complement. In
contrast, if and that are relatively contentless and give the impression of functioning purely as
'grammatical glue.' In the approach that we are advocating, the contentful and contentless
subordinating conjunctions belong to different syntactic categories (P and C, respectively).

We have not yet said what syntactic category clausal complements of prepositions belong to. At
first glance, examples like (75b) suggest that the answer to this question is IP. The elementary
tree for after in (75b) would then be as in (76), and the elementary trees
for before and since would be analogous.

(76)    
There is good reason to believe, however, that clausal complements (specifically, finite clausal
complements) of P are CPs rather than IPs. As illustrated in (77a), the clausal complement
of after and prepositions like it would be headed by a silent counterpart of the
complementizer that, resulting in (77b) as the structure for after the war ended (for simplicity,
the internal structure of IP is omitted).

(77) a.       b.  

There are a number of empirical arguments for preferring the elementary tree in (77a) over the
one in (76). First, at least one preposition in English allows - indeed, requires - CP complements
headed by an overt complementizer, as shown in (78).

(78)     They differ in *(that) they hold sharply opposing views on educational reform.

A second reason for preferring (77a) over (76) is that even though sentences like (79), with an
overt complementizer, are ungrammatical in modern English, such examples occurred freely in
Middle English. Some examples are given in (80). '+g' and '+t' stand for the special Middle
English characters yogh (corresponding to g and y) and thorn (corresponding to the two
phonetic values of th in thorn and this).

(79)   * { after, before, since } that the war ended

(80) a. And after +tat +tis bataile was done, +te Britons assemblede ham, and went +tens 
'and after this battle was over, the Britons assembled (themselves) and went away'
(PPCME2, CMBRUT3,100.3011-3013)
b. +Git bifore that Dauith cam to Jerusalem, a new debate roos bitwixe the men of Israel
and the men of Juda
'Yet before David came to Jerusalem, a new debate arose between the men of Israel and
the men of Juda' (PPCME2, CMPURVEY,I,11.415)
c. Now, sith that i have toold yow of which folk ye sholde been conseilled, now wol I
teche yow which conseil ye oghte to eschewe.
'Now, since I have told you what kind of people you should be advised by, now I will
teach you which advice you ought to eschew' (PPCME2, CMCTMELI,223.C1.247)

Finally, analyzing clausal complements of prepositions as CPs allows us to treat prepositions in

English in the same way as prepositions in other languages such as French, where it is clear that
the clausal complements are CP complements.6

(81) a.   { après, depuis, pendant } la danse

after since during the dance
'{ after, since, during } the dance'
b. { après, depuis } que Jean a dansé; pendant que Jean
dansait
after since that Jean has danced while that Jean
was.dancing
'{ after, since } Jean danced; while Jean danced'
c. * { après, depuis } Jean a dansé; pendant Jean dansait
In addition to these three empirical arguments, there are also important conceptual reasons to
analyze finite clausal complements of prepositions as CPs rather than IPs. An IP analysis would
force us to complicate the theory of case checking that we present in Chapter 8 as well as the
theory of wh- movement that we present in Chapters 11 and 12.

Crosslinguistic variation in headedness

As illustrated in (82)-(88), heads in English precede their complements, and English is therefore
said to be a head-initial language. The headedness of a language (or of a category or lexical
item) always refers to the order of heads and complements. In other words, headedness is
determined with respect to the intermediate projection of elementary trees, not with respect to
the maximal projection. For instance, English determiners can be medial in their maximal
projection (the possessive morpheme 's must be preceded by a DP in Spec(DP)), and English
verbs and modals must be medial in their maximal projections, but they all count as head-initial
because they are the leftmost elements in the intermediate projections of their elementary trees.
(82) a. V   They [V' pursued [DP their objective. ] ]
b. She [V' submitted [DP her application. ] ]
(83) a. I   They [I' should [VP pursue their objective. ] ]
b. She [I' could [VP submit her application. ] ]
(84) a. C   They agreed [C' that [IP they should pursue their objective. ] ]
b. She wondered [C' if [I' she could submit her application. ] ]
(85) a. N the [N' pursuit [PP of their objective ] ]
b. the [N' submission [ PP of her application ] ]
c. Lisa's [N' pride [PP in her work ] ]
(86) a. D [D' the [NP pursuit of their objective ] ]
b. [D' the [NP submission of her application ] ]
c. Lisa [D' 's [NP pride in her work ] ]
(87) a. A She is [A' proud [PP of her work. ] ]
b. He is [A' fond [PP of his children. ] ]
(88) a. P [P' over [DP the next five years ] ]
b. [P' with [DP great fanfare ] ]

But universal grammar by no means prescribes head-initial phrase structure. Rather, many
languages exhibit consistently head-final phrase structure; two such languages are Japanese and
Korean. The examples in (89)-(93) are from Korean. In order to avoid using 'head-final
preposition,' which is an etymological contradiction in terms, linguists have coined the
term postposition for vocabulary items likehamkkey 'with' in (93). The term adposition is a
cover term for prepositions and postpositions (that is, for Ps regardless of headedness).
Examples for I and D are missing because Korean has neither overt modals of the English sort
nor overt articles; the abbreviations in the glosses are explained in the notes, 7 but are not crucial
for present purposes.

(89) a. V   kutul-un [V' [DP mokcek-ul ] chukwuha-yess-ta. ]

they-Top objective-Acc pursue-Past-Decl
'They pursued their objective.'
b. ku-nun [V' [DP ciwonse-lul ] ceychwulha-yess-ta. ]
3.ps.sg-Top application-Acc submit-Past-Decl
'He submitted his application.'
(90) a. C [C' [IP kutul-un mokcek-ul chukwuhayya ha-n ]
tako ] tonguyha-yess-ta.
they-Top objective-Acc pursue must-Pres that
agree-Past-Decl
 'They agreed that they should pursue their objective.'
b. [C' [IP ku-nun ciwonse-lul ceychwulhayto toy ]
nunci ] kwungkumha-yess-ta.
3.ps.sg-Top application-Acc submit be-able
if wonder-Past-Decl
'He wondered if he could submit his application.'
(91) a. N   kutul-uy [N' [DP mocek-uy ] chukwu ]
they-Gen objective-Gen pursuit
'their pursuit of their objective'
b. ku-uy [N' [DP ciwonse-uy ] ceychwul ]
3.ps.sg-Gen application-Gen submission
'his submission of his application'
c. Lisa-uy [N' [PP il-ey tayhan ] capwusim ]
Lisa-Gen work-in regarding pride
'Lisa's pride in her work'
(92) a. A [A' [DP il-i ] calangsule-un ] saram
work-Nom proud-Mod man
'a man proud of his work'
b. [A [DP aitul-i ] coh-un ] saram
children-Nom fond-Mod man
'a man fond of his children'
(93) a. P   [P' [DP taum o nyen ] tongan ]
next five years over
'over the next five years'
b. [P' [DP tay phanphalay-wa ] hamkkey ]
big fanfare-with with
'with big fanfare'

Languages tend to be harmonic with respect to headedness; that is, they tend to be consistently
head-initial or head-final. However, in certain languages, some syntactic categories project
head-initial trees and others project head-final ones. Such mixed phrase structure is found, for
instance, in Dutch and German. The examples in (94)-(99) are from German; the reason that
they are all subordinate clauses is that main clauses in German (and Dutch) involve a
complication that obscures the position of finite verbs (see Chapter 13). As the examples show,
V and A are head-final in German, whereas C, N, D, and P are head-initial. I is missing from the
examples because German lacks modals of the English type, so that there is no conclusive
evidence for the position of I.

(94) a. V   dass sie [V' [DP ihr Ziel ] verfolgten ]

that they their objective pursued
'that they pursued their objective'
b. ob sie [V' [DP ihre Bewerbung ] einreichte ]
if she her application submitted
'if she submitted her application'
(95) a. A   [A' [DP seinen Prinzipien ] treu ]
his principles-Dat loyal
'loyal to this principles'
b. [A' [PP auf seine Kinder ] stolz ]
on his children proud
'proud of his children'
(96) a. C   [C' dass [IP sie ihr Ziel verfolgten ] ]
that they their objective pursued
'that they pursued their objective'
b. [C' ob [IP sie ihre Bewerbung einreichte ] ]
 if she her application submitted
'if she submitted her application'
(97) a. N   die [N' Verfolgung [DP ihres Ziels ] ]
the pursuit their-Gen objective-Gen
'the pursuit of their objective'
b. diese [N' Treue [PP zu seinen Prinzipien ] ]
this loyalty to his principles
'this loyalty to his principles'
(98) a. D   [D' die [NP Verfolgung ihres Ziels ] ]
the pursuit their-Gen objective-Gen
'the pursuit of their objective'
b. [D' diese [NP Treue zu seinen Prinzipien ] ]
this loyalty to his principles
'this loyalty to his principles'
(99) a. P   [P' über [DP die nächsten fünf Jahre ] ]
over the next five years
'over the next five years'
b. [P' mit [DP großem Trara ] ]
with great fanfare
'with great fanfare'

To complicate matters yet further, German allows postpositions, as in (100).

(100)     [P' [DP den Fluss ] entlang ]

the river along
'along the river'

And finally, to really liven things up, certain adpositions in Dutch and German can either
precede or follow their complements. This is illustrated in (101) and (102), again for German;
the (a) and (b) examples share the same meaning.

(101) a.   [P' wegen [DP des Wetters ] ]

because.of the weather
'because of the weather'
b. [P' [DP des Wetters ] wegen ]
(102) a.   [P' gegenüber [DP der Kirche ] ]
across.from the church
'across from the church'
b. [P' [DP der Kirche ] gegenüber ]

Dutch, too, allows such variation between head-initial and head-final adpositions, and in that
language, it is even accompanied by a systematic meaning difference. Specifically, when
adpositions with variable headedness are postpositions, their meaning is always directional, but
when they are prepositions, their meaning is generally locative. This is illustrated in (103) and
(104) (Kroch 1994).

(103) a.   Ik fiets in de straat.

I bike in the street
'I ride my bike in the street.' (locative)
b.   Ik fiets de straat in.
I bike the street in
'I ride my bike into the street.' (directional)
(104) a.   Ik klim in de boom.
 I climb in the tree
'I climb in the tree.' (locative)
'I climb into the tree.' (directional)
b.   Ik klim de boom in.
I climb the tree in
'I climb into the tree.' (only directional)

In case the German and Dutch examples just discussed sound exotic, it is worth noting that
English sports two postpositions of its own, as illustrated in (105).8

(105) a.   They searched the whole world over.

b. They work the whole week through.

In conclusion, we note that it is not uncommon for languages to undergo phrase structure
change. For instance, the phrase structure of Old English (ca. 800-ca. 1100 C.E.) is reminiscent
of that of modern German and Dutch; in particular, verbs were head-final for most of the Old
English period. (The three languages are closely related historically, so the syntactic similarity
is not surprising.) The first instances of verb-initial phrase structure appeared in late Old
English. Early Middle English was characterized by rampantly variable headedness in the verb
phrase (Kroch and Taylor 2000b), but by ca. 1350, the change from head-final to head-initial
verb phrases was essentially complete in all dialects of Middle English. Since Chaucer lived
from 1342 to 1400, his language is already modern in this respect, though his syntax differs
quite strikingly from that of the modern language in other ways, as we will discuss in later
chapters. In the modern language, only isolated relics of the old verb-final phrase structure
survive, like the saying Indictments do not a conviction make.9

Notes

1. It is not just the expression of agent arguments that is freer in noun phrases than in clauses.
As the contrast between (i) and (ii) shows, the same is true of theme arguments.

(i) a.   The mills employed thousands; their practices damaged the environment.
b. * The mills employed; their practices damaged.
(ii) a.   an employer of thousands; the damage to the environment
b. an employer; the damage

2. Notice also the related contrast in (i); the construction in (i.a) is discussed in Chapter 9.

(i) a. The manuscript appears to have been found.

b. * the manuscript's appearance to have been found

3. For expository convenience, we show the possessive morpheme 's in D. In possessive

pronouns, however, 's is absent, showing that it is necessary to posit an abstract possessive
morpheme in English. This abstract morpheme combines with pronouns (or with their
grammatical features), and the possessive pronouns themselves represent the spellout of that
combination. For instance, the grammatical features 1st person plural (we) combines with the
silent possessive morpheme to yield our.

The abstract possessive pronoun just introduced makes available an alternative analysis for the
possessive form of ordinary noun phrases than the one in (17). Under this alternative analysis of
a noun phrase like the committee's criticism, Spec(DP) contains the committee, just as in (17),
but D contains a abstract possessive morpheme just like our criticism. The committee's then
represent the spellout of the noun phrase in Spec(DP) and the abstract possessive morpheme. An
empirical argument in favor of the analysis with the abstract morpheme is that it is consistent
with the substitutability of possessive pronouns for possessive ordinary phrases (the
committee's criticism, its criticism), which is unexpected given the structure in (17).

4. More evidence for the idiosyncratic character of the constraint against (52a) comes from the
acceptability of (i) (at least in formal registers) (thanks for Sonali Mishra for drawing such
examples to our attention).

(i)     not a one, such a one

5. Strictly speaking, this statement is true only of fond in predicative position, not in prenominal
position.

(i) a. Predicative: * Their parents are fond.

b. Prenominal: ok their fond parents

6. In (81), some French speakers prefer or require the subjunctive form of the auxiliary (ait)
rather than the indicative form (a). For present purposes, this variation, which is comparable to
that found in English between If I was a rich man and If I were a rich man, is irrelevant.

7. Acc = accusative (case of direct object), Gen = genitive (possessive case), Decl = declarative
clause, Mod = modifier, Pres = present tense, ps = person, sg = singular, Top = topic of
sentence.

8. A further potential instance of a postposition in English is ago, whose proper synchronic

analysis of is not entirely clear. Diachronically, ago is derived from the participle (a)gone, and
phrases like three years ago are absolute small clauses (that is, small clauses that aren't
complements of some head).

9. Cf. the parallel token in (i).

(i)     There had appeared to him something rather fine in his policy of refusing to identify
himself in any way with Sedleigh, a touch of the stone-walls-do-not-a-prison-make sort of
thing. 
(P.G. Wodehouse. 1974. The world of Psmith. London: Barrie & Jenkins. 114.)

10. Many thanks to Amy Forsyth for example (1) in Exercise 5.8.

Exercises and problems

Be sure to use the grammar tools for this chapter, not the versions of them from the
previous chapter.

Exercise 5.1

What is the syntactic difference between standard and nonstandard them?

(1)     This is definitely one of them jobs, man, if you're one of them worriers … 

 (Overheard at a lunch truck on the southwest corner of 34th Street and Walnut Street,
Philadelphia, PA, 31 August 1999)

Exercise 5.2

A. Formally, the structures in (1) are consistent with X' theory. Empirically, however, they are
unsatisfactory representations because they are inconsistent with certain linguistic judgments.
What are the judgments in question?
In your answer, you should feel free to substitute other determiners for the and
singular for plural nouns.

(1) a.       b.

B. The representation in (2) violates X' theory. In addition, (2) doesn't properly represent the
constituenthood of one or more strings in the sentence. Using appropriate substitution tests,
identify all the strings in question. Your answer should include the strings as well as the
evidence that you used to make your decision.

The sentence in (2) is structurally ambiguous. Disregard the ambiguity, and focus on the
ordinary interpretation of the sentence.

(2)    

Exercise 5.3

This exercise assumes that you are familiar with the distinction between noun
complement clauses and that relative clauses. If you're not, please refer to the
information at the end of the exercise.

A. Subordinate clauses of the type illustrated in (1) are traditionally called noun complement
clauses.

(1) a.   The idea that Columbus was the first European to discover America is incorrect.
b. The fact that they are wrong is lost on them.
Are such clauses syntactic arguments of the noun in boldface, or are they adjuncts? In other
words, given the way that the term 'complement' is used in X' theory, is the term 'noun
complement clause' for these clauses a misnomer, or not? Explain, giving the linguistic facts
that you base your decision on.

B. Are relative clauses, illustrated in (2), arguments or adjuncts of the noun they modify?
Explain.

(2) a.   The idea that Columbus was working with was incorrect.

b. The fact that they have discovered is important.
Here are two diagnostics for distinguishing noun complement clauses and that relative
clauses. First, stripping away the complementizer that leaves a complete sentence in
the case of a noun complement clause, but something incomplete in the case of a
relative clause (it feels like there is a gap, as indicated by the underlining).
(i) a.   Columbus was the first European to discover America.
b. They are wrong.
(ii) a. * Columbus was working with ___.
b. * They have discovered ___.
Second, the complementizer that can generally be replaced by a wh- word in a relative
clause, but not in a noun complement clause.

(iii) a. * The idea which Columbus was the first European to discover America is

incorrect.
b. * The fact which they are wrong is lost on them.
(iv) a.   The idea which Columbus was working with was incorrect.
b. The fact which they have discovered is important.

Exercise 5.4

A. Using the grammar tool in x-bar 2, build trees for the (a) examples in (1)-(3).

Don't build structures for the examples after (a); they're there to provide guidance
concerning the intended interpretation and structure for the (a) examples.
(1) a.   the monster's mother's lair
b.   the monster
c.   the monster's mother
(2) a.   the hero of the poem's name
b.   the hero
c.   the hero of the poem
(3) a.   the mother of the monster's dislike of the poem's hero
b.   the monster
c.   the mother of the monster
d.   the poem
e.   the poem's hero

B. Using the same grammar tool, build structures for the noun phrases in (4).

(4) a.   yesterday's lecture

b.   this week's unseasonably high temperatures
Exercise 5.5

A. Can you think of obligatorily transitive adjectives other than fond?

B. Can you think of plausible candidates for obligatorily intransitive prepositions?

Exercise 5.6

A. What is the syntactic difference between the prepositions in (1a) and (1b)? You should be
able to answer in a sentence or two.

The exercise calls for a syntactic difference, so don't give a semantic difference as your
answer.
(1) a.   at, despite, during, of
b. along, besides, between, by, plus, under

B. Does with belong with the prepositions in (1a) or in (1b)? Explain. (For fun, you might ask a
few of your friends whether they agree with you. Make sure to pick native speakers of English.)

Exercise 5.7

As first mentioned in Chapter 1, human language is characterized by structural ambiguity. For

instance, the noun phrase in (1) has two distinct interpretations, which can be paraphrased as in
(2).
(1)     the houses on the corner with a sign
(2) a. the houses on the corner that have a sign
b. the houses on the corner that has a sign

A. Using the grammar tool in x-bar 2, build two distinct structures for the noun phrase in (1),
and indicate which structure goes with which interpretation in (2).

B. Give paraphrases for the two interpretations available for (3), and use the grammar tool to
build the structures corresponding to them, indicating which structure(s) goes with which
interpretation.

(3)     I enthusiastically recommend this candidate with no qualifications.

Exercise 5.8

A. The sentences in (1) and (2) are many-ways ambiguous (don't assume that they have the
same number of interpretations).10 Find as many interpretations as you can, clearly describing
the relevant situations you have in mind (see (3) and (4) for model descriptions). Using the
grammar tool in x-bar 2, build trees for each interpretation you find, clearly indicating which
tree is associated with which interpretation.

(1)     The officer poked the man in the car with the gun.
(2)     The trainer tapped the seal with the ball on its nose.

B. Many-ways ambiguous though (1) is, it cannot be used to describe the situation in (3). Why
not?
(3)     There is a car, and outside the car are a man with a gun and an officer. The officer pokes
the man (with something or other).

C. Many-ways ambiguous though (2) is, it cannot be used to describe the situation in (4). Why
not?

(4)     There is a seal balancing on its nose, and the trainer taps the seal with a ball.

Exercise 5.9

Recall the syntactically ambiguous expressions from Exercise 1.6, repeated here in (1). Relying
on your more sophisticated knowledge of phrase structure, use the grammar tool in x-bar 2 to
build structures for each possible interpretation of the expressions. Indicate clearly which
interpretation each structure is intended to represent.

If you encounter difficulties, briefly describe them and implement a solution if you can.

(1a) is trickier than it seems.

(1) a. chocolate cake icing

b. clever boys and girls
c. John will answer the question precisely at noon.
d.   Watch the man from across the street.
e. They should decide if they will come tomorrow.

Exercise 5.10

As noted at the end of this chapter, English has undergone a phrase structure change in the
course of its history. In early Old English, V and I were both consistently head-final. Over the
course of Old English, I became head-initial. In other words, in addition to old structures in
which I followed VP, new ones became available in which I preceded VP. By the beginning of
Middle English (approx. 1100), I had become exclusively head-initial, but V continued to be
variably head-final or head-initial. Finally, by late Middle English (approx. 1450), V became
consistently head-initial.

Given this historical sketch, use the grammar tool in spines 2 to build trees for all of the phrase
structure variants of (1) that were possible during the course of the history of English. (For the
non-modern stages, simply use modern vocabulary items, but arranged according to the relevant
parameter settings.

(1) a.   Beowulf will slay Grendel.

b.   The hero will slay the monster.
c.   The hero of the poem will slay the monster's mother.

Exercise 5.11

A. What is the syntactic category of hiring in (1a) and (1b)? Explain.

(1) a.   Kim's impulsive hiring of incompetents is damaging the company.
b.   Kim's impulsively hiring incompetents is damaging the company.
B. Using the grammar tool in x-bar 2, build structures for the underlined gerund phrases in (1).
(You don't have to build the structure for the entire sentence.)

Problem 5.1

If a given string is structurally ambiguous (that is, it has more than possible structural
representation), is it necessarily associated with more than one meaning? Explain, giving
examples.

Hint: Think carefully about Exercise 5.7, B.

Problem 5.2

For all speakers of English, the sentence in (1) can have either of the interpretations in (2).

(1)   Jane has a big black dog, and Jean has a small one.
(2) a. Jane has a big black dog, and Jean has a small dog.
b. Jane has a big black dog, and Jean has a small black dog.

On the other hand, (3) means only (4a) for most speakers of English. However, some speakers
are able to interpret (3) as (4b) (Radford 1988) (such variable judgments among different
speakers are conventionally indicated by a percent sign).

(3)   Jane has a big black dog, and Jean has a brown one.
(4) a. Jane has a big black dog, and Jean has a brown dog.
b. % Jane has a big black dog, and Jean has a big brown dog.

A. Which of the interpretations of (1) and (3) is problematic? Explain.

B. Can you think of a way of resolving the problem you laid out in your answer to (A)?

Problem 5.3

The structures in (1) are intended to represent the second conjunct in (2).

(1) a.       b.       c.  

(2)     the book on the table, and that on the shelf

Discuss the relative merits of the three structures in (1). In other words, what considerations
(whether empirical or conceptual) make each of the structures attractive or unattractive?

Problem 5.4
In (53) of Chapter 1, we mentioned an alternative approach to noun phrase structure than the
one presented in this chapter. According to the alternative approach (updated to be in
accordance with the X' schema), all determiners are intransitive, and all nouns have substitution
nodes in the specifier position for (possibly silent) determiners, as shown in (1).

(1) a.       b.  

Discuss the relative merits of this approach compared to the one presented in the text. In other
words, what considerations (whether empirical or conceptual) would make one adopt or reject
this alternative approach to noun phrase structure? Assume that N can be intransitive, as in (1b),
but that it can also take complements (to account for expressions like criticism of the proposal).

6. THE VERB MOVEMENT PARAMETER

Verb raising: V movement to I

The French future tense

As we mentioned, the merger of tense and the verb when tense is expressed synthetically can
take place in two directions: either the verb moves up to the tense morpheme, or the tense
morpheme moves down to the verb. We begin with the verb raising case. In this connection, it is
informative to consider the future tense in French, which is formed by attaching suffixes to a
verb's infinitive.

(3)     Future tense of  Present tense of 

chanter 'to sing' avoir 'to have'

je chanter-ai 'I will sing' j'ai 'I have'

tu chanter-as 'you.sg will sing'        tu as 'you.sg have'
il, elle chanter-a 'he, she will sing' il, elle a 'he, she has'
nous chanter-ons 'we will sing' nous avons 'we have'
vous chanter-ez 'you.pl will sing' vous avez 'you.pl have'
ils, elles chanter-ont 'they will sing' ils, elles ont 'they have'

As is evident from (3), the future tense affixes are nearly identical to the present tense forms of
the verb avoir 'to have', the only difference being that the affixes are truncated in the first and
second person plural by comparison to the full two-syllable forms of avoir. This correspondence
suggests that the future tense in French developed via a semantic shift from 'they have to V' to
'they will V'.3 In addition, and more immediately relevant for the present discussion, the
originally free forms of avoir were reanalyzed as bound morphemes. 4 The analytic roots of the
synthetic French future tense thus indicate that the two ways of expressing tense (analytic or
synthetic) are not just semantically parallel, but that they are also not as unrelated
morphologically as they seem to be at first glance. In particular, what the French case suggests
is that bound tense morphemes can project syntactic structure on a par with free tense
morphemes. The elementary trees for the future tense suffixes in (3) are then as in (4).
(4) a.       b.     c.     d.     e.     f.

Given these elementary trees, sentences like (5) can be derived as follows.

(5)     Nous chanter-ons une chanson.

we sing fut a song
'We will sing a song.'

We begin with the elementary tree for the verb chanter in (6a) and substitute it as the
complement of the elementary tree for the future tense marker to yield the structure in (6b).

(6) a.       b.  

Substitute (6a) in elementary tree 

Elementary tree for chanter
of future tense suffix (4d)

The synthetic future tense form can then be created by moving the verb and adjoining it to the
left of the tense morpheme. This is shown in the step-by-step derivation in (7).

(7 a b c
             
) . . .

Select target of Clone target of Attach V as left daughter of higher

adjunction adjunction clone

The remaining steps of the derivation are identical to the ones that would be required to derive
the corresponding English sentence We will sing a song. These steps (substitution of the subject
and object arguments and subject movement) are shown in (8).
(8) a.       b.  

Substitute arguments Move subject

Our use of adjunction in building morphologically complex words differs in certain respects
from our earlier use of it, as summarized in (9). In particular, our present use of adjunction is
combined with movement, a fact that is highlighted by the term head movement. Nevertheless,
adjunction consists of the same formal operation in both cases: selecting a target of adjunction,
cloning it, and attaching a suitable constituent as a daughter of the higher clone.

(9)     Use of adjunction for ... Modification Head movement

Adjunction structure Semantic relation  Morphological relation 

represents (between modifier and (between stem and
modifiee) affix)
Target of adjunction Intermediate projection Head
Adjoined constituent Maximal projection Head
Movement involved? No Yes

The order of verbs and adverbs in French

The facts of French presented so far are actually consistent not only with an analysis according
to which V raises to I, but also with one in which I lowers to V. However, there is evidence in
favor of the verb raising analysis that is based on the order of verbs and adverbs ( Emonds
1978).

As illustrated in (10)-(12), there are certain adverbs in French (in italics) that must ordinarily
precede the main verb of a sentence (in boldface), rather than follow it.

(10) a.   Elle va à peine travailler trois heures.

she goes hardly work three hours
'She is going to hardly work three hours.'
b. Mon ami va complètement perdre la tête.
my friend goes completely lose the head
'My friend is going to completely lose his head.'
c. Je vais presque oublier mon nom.
I go almost forget my name
'I'm going to almost forget my name.'
(11) a. * Elle va travailler à peine trois heures.
 b. * Mon ami va perdre complètement la tête.
c. * Je vais oublier presque mon nom.
(12) a. * Elle va travailler trois heures à peine.
b. * Mon ami va perdre la tête complètement.
c. * Je vais oublier mon nom presque.
Be sure to focus on the French grammaticality judgments, especially in (12). Adverbs
don't necessarily behave syntactically like their translation equivalents, as highlighted by
the grammaticality contrast in (i).
(i) a. * perdre la tête complètement
b. ok lose one's head completely

These word order facts reflect the fact that the adverbs in question must adjoin to the left of V',
as shown schematically in (13), rather than to the right.

(13)    

In reading the following discussion, bear in mind that our focus is not on the distribution
of adverbs per se. In particular, we are not claiming that all, or even most, adverbs left-
adjoin to V' in French; in fact, there are many that right-adjoin. Rather, the idea is that
we will use the particular subset of adverbs that left-adjoin to V' as a diagnostic tool to
determine the position of finite verbsin French.

Participles behave analogously to infinitives, as shown in (14)-(16).

(14) a.   Elle avait à peine travaillé trois heures.

she had hardly worked three hours
'She had hardly worked three hours.'
b. Mon ami a complètement perdu la tête.
my friend has completely lost the head
'My friend completely lost his head.'
c. J'avais presque oublié mon nom.
I had almost forgotten my name
'I had almost forgotten my name.'
(15) a. * Elle avait travaillé à peine trois heures.
b. * Mon ami a perdu complètement la tête.
c. * J'avais oublié presque mon nom.
(16) a. * Elle avait travaillé trois heures à peine.
b. * Mon ami a perdu la tête complètement.
c. * J'avais oublié mon nom presque.

Moreover, the negative marker pas behaves like an adverb in French.5

(17) a. Nous allons (ne) pas écouter la radio.

we go NE not listen the radio
'We are going not to listen to the radio.'
 b. * Nous allons (ne) écouter pas la radio.
c. * Nous allons (ne) écouter la radio pas.
(18) a. Nous (n') avons pas écouté la radio.
we NE have not listened the radio
'We haven't listened to the radio.'
b. * Nous (n') avons écouté pas la radio.
c. * Nous (n') avons écouté la radio pas.

However, when the the main verb of the sentence is finite, the adverb-verb order that is
obligatory with infinitives and participles is ungrammatical.

(19) a. * Elle à peine travaillera trois heures.

she hardly work.fut three hours
'She will hardly work three hours.'
b. * Mon ami complètement perdra la tête.
my friend completely lose.fut the head
'My friend will completely lose his head.'
c. * Je presque oublierai mon nom.
I almost forget.fut my name
'I will almost forget my name.'
d. * Nous (ne) pas écouterons la radio.
we NE not listen.fut the radio
'We won't listen to the radio.'

Instead, the adverb must follow the verb, although it still cannot follow the entire V'.

(20) a.   Elle travaillera à peine trois heures.

b. Mon ami perdra complètement la tête.
c. J'oublierai presque mon nom.
d. Nous (n') écouterons pas la radio.
(21) a. * Elle travaillera trois heures à peine.
b. * Mon ami perdra la tête complètement.
c. * J'oublierai mon nom presque.
d. * Nous (n') écouterons la radio pas.

We can make sense of these facts if we continue to assume that the adverbs under discussion
adjoin to the left of V' regardless of the finiteness of the verb that they modify. This gives the
correct adverb-verb order for infinitives and participles, and it also immediately explains the
ungrammaticality of (21). The contrast between (19) and (20) follows straightforwardly as well
if finite verbs move to I to merge with the tense morpheme, as shown in (22).

(22) a.       b.  
Under an analysis according to which I lowers to V, it is difficult to see how the contrast
between (10) and (11) on the one hand and that between (19) and (20) on the other could be
handled in a principled way. It is these contrasts that lead us to conclude that V raises to I in
French, rather than that I lowers to V.

As (23) and (24) show, the adverb facts for other simple tenses in French are parallel to those
for the future tense.

(23) a.   Elle travaillait à peine trois heures.

she work.imperf hardly three hours
'She used to hardly work three hours.'
b. Mon ami perd complètement la tête.
my friend lose.pres completely the head
'My friend completely loses his head.'
c. J' oublie presque mon nom.
I forget.pres almost my name
'I am almost forgetting my name.'
d. Nous (n') écoutions pas la radio.
we NE listen.imperf not the radio
'We weren't listening to the radio.'
(24) a. * Elle à peine travaillait trois heures.
b. * Mon ami complètement perd la tête.
c. * Je presque oublie mon nom.
d. * Nous (ne) pas écoutions la radio.

On the strength of this evidence, we extend the verb raising analysis to these other tenses as
well.

Tense lowering: I movement to V

The order of verbs and adverbs in English

Let's now turn to English and investigate simple-tense verbs, using exactly the same diagnostic
that we did in French - namely, the position of adverbs. As in French, certain adverbs in English
obligatorily precede nonfinite verbs.

(25) a. They will { always, never } apply.

b. They have { always, never } applied.
c. They are { always, never } applying.
(26) a. * They will apply { always, never. }
b. * They have applied { always, never. }
c. * They are applying { always, never. }

But unlike French, these adverbs precede the main verb of a sentence even when the verb is
finite.

(27) a.   They { always, never } applied.

b. * They applied { always, never. }

The ungrammaticality of (27b) means that the verb raising analysis that is successful for French
cannot be extended to English. But recall the second option that we mentioned earlier: that tense
and the verb might merge in the other direction, by means of I lowering onto V. The simplest
way of implementing this idea would be to have -ed project an elementary tree, as in (28a). The
past tense marker would then take a VP complement, as shown in (28b), and rightward
adjunction of the tense marker to the verb would result in the structure in (28c).

(28) a.       b.       c.  

Elementary tree for bound Substitute VP in Lower tense morpheme

morpheme (28a) from I to V
Unsatisfactory analysis

But although such an analysis would allow us to derive regular past tense verbs, it doesn't
extend to irregular past tense forms like brought, sang, taught, and so on. In order to derive both
regular and irregular past tense forms in a uniform way, we will therefore assume a silent past
tense morpheme as in Chapter 4. It is this silent morpheme that lowers onto the verb. A question
that remains open is the exact form of the verb that merges with tense. On the one hand, V
might dominate a form that is already inflected for past tense, as in (29a). On the other hand, V
might dominate the bare form of the verb, as in (29b).

(29) a.       b.  

The idea is that structures like (29b) are passed on to a morphological component of the
grammar, which contains rules for how to spell out the terminal nodes of syntactic structures.
According to these rules, the past tense morpheme in English is ordinarily spelled out as -
ed. With irregular verbs, however, it is the entire combination of verb and tense that is spelled
out in more or less idiosyncratic fashion. Thus, the regular watch + [past] is spelled out
as watched, whereas the irregular sing + [past] is spelled out as sang. Although the choice
between the two approaches in (29) is not completely straightforward, we prefer the second
approach for the following reason. According to the first approach, the morphological
component of the grammar generates verb forms bearing certain properties,
or features, including tense. These verb forms then project elementary trees in the syntax that
combine with other elementary trees, possibly yielding ungrammatical structures. For instance,
a present tense I might take a VP complement headed by a past tense form. In order to rule out
structures with such feature mismatches, it would be necessary to institute a special checking
procedure, either as part of tense lowering itself or as a sort of quality control on the structures
resulting from it. The second approach avoids the need for such a procedure. The idea is that
terminal nodes dominated by V contain no tense features of their own, thus eliminating the
possibility of feature mismatches in the syntax. When the syntactic structures are passed on to
the morphological component, the tense-verb combinations are simply spelled out appropriately
according to the morphological rules of the language.
Note, incidentally, that a morphological component is necessary not just in tense-lowering
languages like English, but in verb-raising languages like French as well. As discussed in the
previous section, the future tense in French is formed for regular verbs by combining the future
tense morpheme with a verb's infinitive. In the case of irregular verbs, however, what combines
with the tense morpheme is not the infinitive, but a special stem. For instance, the future tense
of être 'to be' is formed with the stem ser-, yielding the future tense forms je ser-ai 'I will be', tu
ser-as 'you will be', and so on. The approach in (29b) can be extended to this case
straightforwardly. The idea is that in a syntactic structure like (30), the morphological rules of
French spell out the terminal nodes être + -ai as serai rather than as *êtrai.

(30)    

Do support in English

In this section, we turn to an apparently idiosyncratic and quirky consequence of the fact that
English has tense lowering - namely, the do support that is necessary in sentences negated
with not. In order to clearly show the conditions under which do support takes place, we will
contrast sentences containing not with ones containing other negative elements, such
as never, which don't require do support.

In vernacular English, never often functions as simple sentence negation, without its literal

meaning of not ever.

(31) a.     Did you get a chance to talk to Tom at the party?

b. i. Nope, I never did.
ii. Nope, I didn't.

But despite their functional equivalence in contexts like (31), the negative
elements not and never exhibit a striking syntactic difference: not obligatorily
triggers do support, whereas never doesn't. (All forms of do in this section are to be read without
emphatic stress.)

(32) a. * He not applied.
b. He { did not, didn't } apply.
(33) a. He never applied.
b. * He did never apply.

In order to explain this puzzling fact, we will develop an analysis of do support that relies on
two main ideas: first, that never and not are integrated into the structure of English sentences in
different ways, and second, that Universal Grammar allows tense lowering (and head movement
more generally) only under certain structural conditions. 6

A syntactic difference between never and not. As shown in (34), never is intransitive and

hence a maximal projection in its own right, whereas not is transitive and hence a head, rather
than a complete phrase.
(34) a.       b.  

There are several pieces of evidence for this distinction. The first comes from negative
inversion, a construction reminiscent of the so am I construction discussed in Chapter 2 in
connection with the constituenthood of adjective phrases. (35a) shows an ordinary negative
sentence, and (35b) shows its negative inversion counterpart, in which the negative constituent
(in boldface) has moved to the beginning of the sentence, and the subject (underlined) has
inverted with the auxiliary (in italics).

(35) a.   They would appreciate no present more than another novel by Wodehouse.

b.   No present would they appreciate more than another novel by Wodehouse.
We discuss the structure of sentences with inversion in Chapter 13.

An important property of this construction is that the material preceding the auxiliary must be a
maximal projection. Thus, in contrast to the DP no present in (35b), the head of the DP, the
negative determinerno, cannot undergo negative inversion on its own.

(36)   * No would they appreciate present more than another novel by Wodehouse.

Bearing in mind this fact about negative inversion, consider the canonical and negative
inversion sentences in (37).

(37) a.   They will never tolerate this mess.

b.   Never will they tolerate this mess.

(38) illustrates the beginning of the derivation of (37a). (38a) is the structure for the positive
sentence corresponding to (37a) (where irrelevant, we omit the internal structure of maximal
projections). Adjoining never as a verbal modifier then yields (38b).

(38) a.       b.  

As noted earlier, we discuss the structure for sentences with inversion in Chapter 13, but what is
important for now is that never in the canonical variant is a maximal projection, and hence a
candidate for negative inversion.

Now consider the not variant of (37a) in (39).

(39)     They will not tolerate this mess.

Making the reasonable assumption that I can take either NegP or VP complements, we can give
(39) the structure in (40).
(40)    

Given this structure, not on its own is not a maximal projection, and so not, like no but
unlike never, should not be able to undergo negative inversion. As (41) shows, this expectation
is confirmed.

(41)   * Not will they tolerate this mess.

A second piece of evidence for the status of not (and its variant n't) as a head comes from the
fact that it optionally raises and adjoins to I, forming a complex head that can exhibit
morphological irregularities. For instance, shall-n't and will-n't are spelled out
as shan't and won't, respectively. Such irregularities are typical of what is possible when two
heads combine. Although the direction of movement is different, we have seen comparable
examples in connection with irregular past tense forms in English, where the combination of
two heads like sing and [past] is spelled out as sang. Other well-known examples of the same
phenomenon include the idiosyncratic spell-outs for preposition-determiner combinations like
those in (42).

(42) a. French de + le > du; de + les > des; à + le > au; à + les
> aux
of the.m.sg of the.pl to the.m.sg to
the.pl
b. German an + dem > am; in + dem > im; zu + dem > zum;
zu + der > zur
to the.m.dat.sg in the.m.dat.sg to
the.m.dat.sg to the.f.dat.sg
c. Italian con + il > col; in + il > nel; su + il > sul
with the.m.sg in the.m.sg on the.m.dat.sg

A constraint on tense lowering. We turn now to the second piece of our solution to the puzzle
presented by the contrast between (32) and (33), repeated here as (43) and (44).

(43) a. * He not applied.
b. He { did not, didn't } apply.
(44) a. He never applied.
b. * He did never apply.

The idea is that tense lowering (though not verb raising) is subject to the locality condition in
(45).

(45) a.   When a head A lowers onto a head B, A and B must be in a local relation in the sense
that no projection of a head distinct from A and B intervenes on the path of branches
that connects A and B.
b.   An element C, C distinct from A and B (and projections of A and
 B), intervenes between two elements A and B iff A (or some projection of A)
dominates C and C (or some projection of C) dominates B.

It is important to understand that intervention is defined not in terms of linear precedence, but in
terms of the structural relation 'dominate.' This means that the place to look for whether the
locality condition in (45) is satisfied or violated is not the string of terminal nodes beginning
with A and ending with B, but the path of branches that connects A with B in the tree.

The structure for (44a) is given in (46). In this structure, tense lowering is consistent with the
locality condition in (45), since adjoining never at V' results in the adverb being too low in the
tree to intervene between I and V. (In other words, AdvP isn't on the green path from I to V.)

(46)    

In the structure in (47a), on the other hand, tense lowering violates the locality condition
because the red projections of Neg intervene on the path between I and V, indicated in green. As
a result, only the dosupport variant of (47a) is grammatical, which is shown in (47b). Although
the intermediate and the maximal projections of Neg intervene between I and V in (47b) as well,
forms of do, being free morphemes, don't need to lower onto the verb. Since the locality
constraint is a constraint on tense lowering, not a constraint on syntactic trees in general, (45) is
irrelevant and hence not violated in (47b).

(47) a.       b.  

Cues for the acquisition of verb raising

In this section, +d and +t stand for the Icelandic characters eth and thorn, which
represent the voiced and voiceless 'th' sounds in this, eth and thin, thorn, respectively.

Our discussion so far has treated movement from V to I and from I to V as two symmetrical
parametric options provided by Universal Grammar. However, the languages in which the two
options have been studied in greatest detail - the Germanic and Romance languages - suggest
that they are ranked and that it is the V-to-I option that is preferred, all other things being equal. 7
Of course, we need to take into account that in this case, as in life generally, all other things
aren't equal. Among the Germanic and Romance languages, we can distinguish two groups,
which have to do with the expression of subject agreement on finite verbs. 8 All of these
languages resemble English in distinguishing three grammatical persons and two grammatical
numbers (singular and plural). In principle, therefore, a language might have six (= 3 x
2) distinct agreement morphemes, one for each person-number combination. In languages like
Italian and Spanish, this is exactly what we find, and French makes up to four distinctions. In
Germanic, no language makes six distinctions, but Icelandic makes up to five and Yiddish
makes four. The agreement paradigms for these rich agreement languages are illustrated in
(48). Square brackets enclose material that is silent.

We focus on the number of distinctions that are made in speech, because that is what
children hear. They only learn to read and write later on, once language acquisition is
virtually complete.

(48)     Verb paradigms in rich agreement languages

Italian Spanish French Icelandic Yiddish

'I speak' 'I speak' 'I will speak' 'I say' 'I say'

1 sg parl-o habl-o parler-ai seg-i zog

2 sg parl-i habl-as parler-a[s] seg-ir zog-st
3 sg parl-a habl-a parler-a seg-ir zog-t
1 pl parl-iamo habl-amos parler-on[s] segj-um zog-n
2 pl parl-ate habl-áis parler-e[z] seg-i+d zog-t
3 pl parl-ano habl-an parler-on[t] segj-a zog-n

By contrast, the mainland Scandinavian languages (Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish) exhibit
no agreement morphology at all, even with a verb like 'be', which in English preserves
agreement distinctions that are not expressed elsewhere in the language. For ordinary verbs,
English expresses only one distinction in the present tense and none at all in the past tense. (49)
gives some paradigms for these poor agreement languages.

(49)     Verb paradigms in poor agreement languages

Danish Swedish English

'I throw' 'I am' 'I throw' 'I am' 'I throw' 'I am'

1 sg kaster er kaster är throw am

2 sg " " " " " are
3 sg " " " " throw-s is
1 pl " " " " throw are
2 pl " " " " " "
3 pl " " " " " "

In rich agreement languages, tense merges with the verb in the same way as we have already
seen for French; that is, the verb (in boldface) raises to I and hence precedes adverbs and
negation (in italics). This is illustrated for Icelandic and Yiddish in (50) and (51). The examples
are in the form of subordinate clauses because main clauses in Germanic introduce a
complication - briefly mentioned for Dutch and German in Chapter 5 and discussed in detail
in Chapter 13 - that eclipses verb movement to I.

(50) a. Icelandic   a+d Jón keypti { ekki, aldrei, raunverulega }

bókina
that Jón bought not never actually
book.def
'that Jón { didn't buy, never bought, actually
bought } the book'
b. Yiddish   az zey redn ( nit, avade, mistome } mame-
loshn
that they speak not certainly probably mother-
tongue
'that they { don't, certainly, probably } speak
Yiddish'
(51) a. * a+d Jón { ekki, aldrei, raunverulega } keypti bókina
b. * az zey { nit, avade, mistome } redn mame-loshn

In poor agreement languages, on the other hand, tense merges with the verb by lowering onto it,
just as in English (in those contexts that don't require do support); in this case, the finite verb
follows adverbs and negation. (52) and (53) illustrate this for Danish and Swedish.

(52) a. Danish   at Peter { ikke, ofte } drikker kaffe om morgenen

that Peter not often drinks coffee in
morning.def
'that Peter { doesn't drink, often drinks } coffee
in the morning'
b. Swedish   att Ulf { inte, faktiskt } köpte boken
that Ulf not actually bought book.def
'that Ulf { didn't buy, actually bought } the book'
(53) a. * at Peter drikker { ikke, ofte } kaffe om morgenen
b. * att Ulf köpte { inte, faktiskt } boken

We note in passing that the syntax of sentences containing negation is simpler in mainland
Scandinavian than it is in English. Negation patterns like other adverbs, and mainland
Scandinavian has no dosupport. This is consistent with the status of sentence negation in
Scandinavian as a maximal projection, as evidenced by its ability to participate in negative
inversion.9

(54) a. Swedish Inte vet jag var hon bor.

not know I where she lives
'I don't know where she lives.'
b. Icelandic Ekki veit ég hver hun byr.
not know I where she lives

We know of no rich agreement languages in which I lowers to V. Related to this is the fact that
languages that lose rich agreement also tend to lose verb movement to I over time. Although we
do not know why this correlation between richness of agreement and verb raising should hold, it
suggests that children acquiring a language prefer the parametric option of verb raising over the
tense lowering alternative, but only if they are able to detect sufficient cues for it in the
sentences that they hear. In Germanic and Romance, the cues for the verb raising option are
twofold: on the one hand, richness of agreement, and on the other, the word order that results
from verb raising (finite verb > adverb). If the language being acquired has rich agreement, then
the cues for the verb raising option are extremely robust. This is because virtually every
sentence that the child hears contains the agreement cue, which is further reinforced by the word
order cue in those sentences that contain adverbs. Under these conditions, children acquire the
verb raising option without difficulty. On the other hand, given a language with poor agreement
and without cues from word order, the idea is that children are simply unable to acquire the verb
raising option.

What happens in a language in which agreement is being lost? In such a language, agreement
first becomes variable (that is, some sentences contain agreement, whereas other do not) and
then is lost entirely. Thus, the cues from rich agreement become less frequent over time, and
children acquiring the language become increasingly dependent on the word order cue. But
since not every sentence contains adverbs of the relevant sort, the cues for the verb raising
option in a language that is losing rich agreement are nowhere near as robust as in a language
with stable rich agreement. This means that although it is possible in principle for children to
acquire the verb raising option, at least some children might acquire the tense lowering option
instead (all other things being equal). Such children would no longer produce sentences in
which the finite verb precedes the adverb. Instead, they would produce adverb-verb orders,
which are errors from the point of view of the verb raising grammar, but the only option that the
tense lowering grammar generates. Thus, the relative frequency of the word order cue would
decrease yet further, in turn decreasing the chance of other children acquiring the verb raising
option. Such a feedback mechanism would predict an overall tendency over time for the verb
raising option to disappear from the language. During a period of transition, the old parametric
option might continue to be used alongside the new one - for instance, in formal usage. But for
speakers who have acquired the tense lowering option in early childhood, the verb raising
option would never be as natural as tense lowering, and so the new parametric option would
tend to supplant the old one even in formal usage.

It is possible to track these developments in some detail in the history of the Scandinavian
languages. In Swedish, agreement begins to be lost in the 1400s, and the earliest examples of
tense lowering are from the late part of that century. During a transition period from 1500 to
1700, both verb raising and tense lowering are attested, sometimes even in the same text (as in
the (b) examples in (55) and (56)).

(55) a. Verb raising at Gudz ord kan ey vara j honom

that God's word can not be in him
'that God's word cannot be in him'
b. när thet är ey stenoghth
when it is not stony
'when it is not stony'
(56) a. Tense om den dristigheten än skulle wara onågigtt
lowering uptagen
if that boldness yet would be amiss
taken
'if that boldness would yet be taken amiss'
b. wm annar sywkdom ey krenker nokon
if another illness not afflict someone
'if someone isn't afflicted with another illness'

Finally, after 1700, the verb raising option in Swedish dies out completely.

The geographically more isolated Faroese seems to be at the very tail end of the same change.
Agreement has weakened in Faroese, and speakers do not ordinarily produce verb raising
sentences. However, when asked to give grammaticality judgments, many speakers accept both
word orders in (57), characterizing the verb raising variant in (57b) as archaic.

(57) a. Tense lowering   Hann spur, hvi tad ikki eru fleiri
(vernacular) tilikar samkomur.
he asks why there not are more such
gatherings
'He asks why there aren't more such
gatherings.'
b. Verb raising (archaic) Hann spur, hvi tad eru ikki fleiri tilikar samkomur.

Interestingly, there is at least one dialect of Swedish, the dialect of Älvdalen, that has retained
agreement (the paradigm for kasta 'throw' is: 1, 2, 3 sg kast-ar, 1 pl kast-um, 2 pl kast-er, 3
pl kast-a). In this dialect, as we might expect, verb raising is the only option, and tense
lowering, unlike in standard Swedish, is ungrammatical.

(58) a. um du for int gar ita ia firi brado

if you get not done this before breakfast
'if you don't get this done before breakfast'
b. fast die uar int ieme
if they were not home
'if they weren't home'
c. ba fo dye at uir uildum int fy om
just because that we would not follow him
'just because we wouldn't follow him'

Verb raising and related issues in the history of English

In this section, as in the previous one, +d and +t stand for the characters eth and
thorn, which were borrowed from Scandinavian and used in Old and Middle English
to represent the voiced and voiceless 'th' sounds in this, eth and thin,
thorn, respectively. +g stands for the Middle English character yogh, which
represents 'g' or 'y'.

This section gives a brief review of the history of the verb movement parameter in English. 10 As
we will see, this part of the grammar of modern English is the culmination of one of the most
complicated chapters in the entire history of the language, and it reflects several distinct but
interlocking developments, which include:

 the loss of agreement and verb raising,

 a change in the status of  not from a phrase like never to a head,
 the emergence of do support,
 the emergence of a distinct class of modals, and
 the retention of verb raising in the case of two lexical items (have and be).

The loss of verb raising

In Middle English, the period of the language that lasted from about 1150 to 1500, verbs
exhibited roughly as much person-number agreement as in modern French, as illustrated in (59).
Silent letters are enclosed in square brackets.

(59)     Verb tense paradigms in two dialects of Middle English and two tenses of French
 Southern Midlands French 'I sing' French 'I will sing'
1 sg sing-e sing-e chant-[e] chanter-ai
2 sg sing-est sing-est chant-[es] chanter-a[s]
3 sg sing-e+t sing-e+t chant-[e] chanter-a
1 pl " sing-en chant-on[s] chanter-on[s]
2 pl " " chant-e[z] chanter-e[z]
3 pl " " chant-[ent] chanter-on[t]

Given its richness of agreement, we would expect Middle English to exhibit verb raising, and so
it did. As the examples in (60)-(62) show, the finite verb moved to I across both adverbs and
negation, just as it does in French, Icelandic, and Yiddish.

(60) a. always   he weneth alwey that he may do thyng that he may nat do.

(CMCTMELI,222.C1.193) 
'he always thinks that he can do things that he can't do'
b. for +te Britons destroiede alwai +te cristen peple +tat seynt Austyne hade
baptisede (CMBRUT3,98.2954) 
'for the Britons always killed the Christians that St. Austin had baptized'
c. +te +gong man resortyd alwey to +te preste (CMKEMPE,57.1270) 
'the young man always resorted to the priest'
(61) a. never   for God ... +geue+t neuer two tymes to-geder (CMCLOUD,20.115) 
'for God ... never gives two times together'
b. and y ne11 sei+g neuer +te ry+gtful for-saken (CMEARLPS,44.1879) 
'and I have never seen (lit. saw never) the righteous forsaken'
c. and Engist ... ne knew neuer bifore +tat Lande. (CMBRUT3,55.1621-1622) 
'and Engist ... never knew that land before.'
d. he thought he sawe never so grete a knyght (CMMALORY,180.2433) 
'he thought he had never seen so great a knight'
e. for +tey synneden neuere. (CMWYCSER,234.204) 
'for they never sinned.'
(62) a. not This emperour Claudius was so obliuiows +tat, sone aftir he had killid his wyf,
he asked why sche cam not to soper. (CMCAPCHR,49.535) 
'This emperor Claudius was so oblivious that, soon after he had killed his wife,
he asked why she didn't come to supper.'
b. He mad eke a precept +tat no Jew into Jerusalem schuld entre, but Cristen men
he forbade not +te entre. (CMCAPCHR,52.605-606) 
'He also made a law that no Jew should enter into Jerusalem, but he did not
forbid Christians from entering (lit. the entry).'
c. Ich ne hidde nou+gt +ty mercy (CMEARLPS,49.2106) 
'I did not hide thy mercy'
d. Bott I sawe noght synne. (CMJULNOR,60.289) 
'But I did not see sin.'
e. but he wythdrowe not hir temptacyon (CMKEMPE,16.321) 
'but he did not withdraw her temptation'
f. but Balyn dyed not tyl the mydnyghte after. (CMMALORY,69.2360) 
'but Balyn didn't die till the midnight after.'

In the course of Middle English, several syntactic developments took place that culminated in
the complex grammar of modern English with respect to the verb movement parameter. First,
by 1500, the beginning of Early Modern English, the agreement system of Middle English was
simplified, and as we would expect given what we know of the history of Scandinavian, verb
raising was lost as well. For instance, between 1475 and 1525, the frequency of verb raising
dropped from roughly 65% to 10%. In the case of adverbs, the loss of verb raising simply led to
the modern word order adverb > finite verb, as is evident from the translations for (60) and (61).
But the effects of the loss of verb raising in the case of negation were quite a bit more
complicated and involved two further changes: a change in the status ofnot and the emergence
of do support. We discuss these changes in turn.

A change in the status of not

Negative inversion. There is good evidence that in early Middle English not was an ordinary

adverb on a par with never and French pas. Like never and negative phrases throughout the
history of English, it could undergo negative inversion.

(63) a.   & nohht ne stannt itt stille (CMORM,I,125.1080)

and not NE stood it still
'and it didn't stand still'
b. Acc nohht ne mihht itt oppnenn hemm +Te +gate off
heoffness blisse (CMORM,I,142.1172)
and not NE might it open them the gate of heaven's
bliss
'and it could not open the gate of heaven's bliss for
them'

In the absence of further developments, we would therefore expect the loss of verb raising in
ordinary sentences to result in a word order change from verb > not to not > verb, as happened
in mainland Scandinavian. However, in contrast to negation in Scandinavian, not in the course
of Middle English went from being an ordinary adverb to being a head (recall  the discussion of
its status as a head in connection with our discussion of do support). As a result, the modern
English counterparts of (63) are ungrammatical (as we already illustrated in (41)).

(64) a. * Not did it stand still.

b. * Not could it open the gates of heaven's bliss for them.

Adjunction to I'. There is a further piece of evidence that not changed from a phrase to a head

in the course of Middle English. In early Middle English, not could adjoin not just to V', but
also to I'.

(65) a.   +da +tinges +de hie naht ne scolden +giuen.

(CMVICES1,139.1728)
the things that they not NE should give
'the things that they shouldn't give'
b. +Tatt Jesuss nohht ne wollde Ben borenn nowwhar i +te
land (CMORM,I,122.1053)
that Jesus not NE wanted be born nowhere in the
land
'that Jesus did not want to be born anywhere in the land'

In this respect, not resembled never and other adverbs, which have preserved this ability to this
day, as shown in (66).12

(66) a. Middle English   he swore +tat Saxones neuer shulde haue pees ne reste

(CMBRUT3,69.2090)
 'he swore that the Saxons never should have peace or rest'
b. Modern   He { always, never } will admit his shortcomings.
English

However, in contrast to the other adverbs, not lost the ability to adjoin to I' in the course of
Middle English, with the result that the counterparts of (65) are ungrammatical in Modern
English.

(67) a. * the things that he not should give

b. * that Jesus not would be born anywhere in the land

The emergence of do support

The reanalysis of not from an ordinary adverb to a head was essentially complete by 1400, 13 and
shortly thereafter, the first examples of the contracted form n't are attested, as we might expect.
Agreement began to weaken around this time. What consequences did this have for children
acquiring sentences containing not in early Middle English? On the one hand, the rich
agreement cues for verb raising were weakening, but on the other hand, tense lowering was
impossible in sentences containing not given that not was a head. In other words, in the absence
of any other developments, the loss of verb raising in sentences containing not would have
resulted in a situation in which children were acquiring a grammar unable to generate ordinary
negative sentences!

One can imagine a number of different resolutions to such an impasse, each of them
representing a particular possible accident of history. For instance, speakers might have begun
using the adverb never to take over the function of the negative head not. In fact, this did
happen in the vernacular, as we saw in (31), but it never became the only way of expressing
negation. Alternatively, children might have managed to acquire verb raising solely on the
strength of the word order cue in sentences containing not. The idea is that these sentences
might have become particularly salient because of the impossibility of their verb lowering
counterparts. As we will see, this actually happened in connection with the auxiliary
verbs have and be. In the case of ordinary verbs, however, what actually happened in the history
of English was something that depended on an unrelated development in the language that had
taken place in the 1200s: the development of the verb do into an auxiliary element.

Like many languages, Middle English had a construction involving a causative verb and a lower
verb, in which the lower verb's agent could be left unexpressed. 14 We first illustrate this
construction, which has since been lost from English, for French and German in (68). The
causative verb is in boldface, and the lower verb is in italics.

(68) a. French Edouard a fait assembler une grande armée.

Edward has made assemble a great army
'Edward had a great army assembled.'
(lit. 'Edward had (someone) assemble a great army.')
b. German Eduard ließ ein großes Heer versammeln.
Edward let a great army assemble
'Edward had a great army assembled.'

In Middle English, two different causative verbs were used in this construction depending on
the dialect. The East Midlands dialect use do, as illustrated in (69), whereas the West Midlands
dialect used make.In other words, the West Midlands equivalent of (69a) would have been
(using modern spelling) Edward made assemble a great host.
(69) a. Middle English (East   Edwarde dede assemble a grete hoste
Midlands) (CMBRUT3,112.3380_ID) 
'Edward had a great army assembled' 
b. This Constantin ded clepe a gret councel at Constantinople
(CMCAPCHR,81.1484) 
'This Constantine had a great council called at Constantinople' 
(lit. 'This Constantine had (someone) call a great council at
Constantinople')
c. He ded make fer+tingis and halfpenies, whech were not used
before (CMCAPCHR,128.2962) 
'He had farthings and halfpennies made, which weren't used
before' 
(lit. 'He had (someone) make farthings and halfpennies')

Now in many discourse contexts, causative sentences like He had a great army assembled are
used more or less interchangeably with simple sentences like He assembled a great army. As a
result, in situations of dialect contact, it was possible for West Midlands speakers (those with
causative make) to misinterpret sentences with causative do from the East Midlands dialect as
just another way of saying a simple sentence. Based on this misinterpretation, they might then
themselves have begun to use do, but as an auxiliary verb bleached of its causative content
rather than as a causative verb (for which they would have continued to use their own  make).
Since the border between the East and West Midlands dialects runs diagonally through England,
the chances of dialect contact and of the reinterpretation and adoption of do as an auxiliary verb
were good. In any event, it is West Midlands speakers who first used do as an auxiliary verb.
Once the auxiliary use was established, it could then have spread to other dialects, especially in
big cities like London, where people came from many different dialect backgrounds and where
dialect distinctions were leveled as a result.

What is important from a syntactic point of view is that auxiliary do occurred rarely before
1400. However, when agreement weakened and verb raising began to be lost, auxiliary do was
increasingly pressed into service since it allowed negative sentences to be generated by the verb
lowering grammar.

The emergence of modals

Auxiliary do must either have entered the language as a modal (that is, a member of the
syntactic category I), or have been reanalyzed as one very early on, since if it had been a V, it
would have had to combine with tense and thus would have run afoul of exactly the locality
constraint that it actually helped to circumvent. In any event, auxiliary do was one of a growing
number of modals in Middle English that developed out of an earlier class of auxiliary verbs.
Historically, these so-called premodals belonged to a special class of verbs with morphological
peculiarities, and some of them were already syntactically special from the very beginning of
Middle English. For instance, the forerunners of must and shall never occur as nonfinite forms
in Middle English. Children acquiring these two premodals would therefore have had no
evidence that they moved from V to I as opposed to belonging to the category I, and so they
might already have been modals in early Middle English.

Consider now the effect of the loss of verb raising on the status of any premodals that were still
members of the syntactic category V. In particular, consider a structure like (70) (we assume
that the premodals, just like modals, took VP complements).
(70)    

In the outgoing verb raising grammar, the finite modal can combine with tense even in the
presence of negation because verb raising is not subject to the locality constraint on tense
lowering. For examples like (71), this yields a schematic derivation as in (72).

(71)     sho wil noht do it (CMBENRUL,31.1035) 

'she will not do it'

(72) a.       b.       c.  

The reason that we represent the verb as raising first to Neg and then I, rather than as skipping
Neg and raising directly to I, is because Middle English allows questions like (73), where the
negated verb inverts as a constituent with the subject.

(73)     Wil noht sho do it?

In the incoming tense lowering grammar, structures containing not are ordinarily rescued

by do support. But in contrast to sentences containing ordinary verbs, do support in a structure
like (72) might plausibly have been ruled out on the grounds that auxiliary do inherited a
constraint from causative do that is given in (74).

(74)     The complement of a causative construction cannot be headed by an auxiliary element (a

premodal, modal, or auxiliary verb like have or be).

Notice that the constraint on causative verbs in (74) is not specific to Middle English; its effects
in modern English and German are illustrated in (75) and (76). The causative verb is in italics,
and auxiliary elements are in boldface.

(75) a. No   The coach had the players run.

auxiliary
b. Auxiliary * The coach had the players be running.
c. * The coach had the players have run.
(76) a. No   Der Trainer ließ die Spieler laufen.
auxiliary the coach had the players run.
'The coach had the players run.'
b. Auxiliary * Der Trainer ließ die Spieler am Laufen sein.
 the coach had the players at.the running be
'The coach had the players be running.'
c. * Der Trainer ließ die Spieler gelaufen sein.
the coach had the players run.part be
'The coach had the players have (lit. be) run.'
d. * Der Trainer ließ die Spieler laufen { können,
wollen. }
the coach had the players run be.able
want
'The coach had the players { be able, want } to
run.'

Again, various ways out of this impasse are conceivable. For instance, the constraint in (74)
might have been relaxed for auxiliary do. What actually happened, however, was that any
remaining premodals were reanalyzed as modals along the lines of must, shall, and
auxiliary do. The schematic structure for (72) after the reanalysis is shown in (77).

(77)    

After this reanalysis, sentences like (78), with nonfinite forms of premodals
like cunnen and mowen, both meaning 'be able to', ceased to be possible in English (at least in
the standard language).

(78) a. he schuld cun best rede +te booke (CMKEMPE,4.52) 

'He should be able to read the book best.'
b. I shal not conne wel goo thyder (CMREYNAR,14.261) 
'I won't be able to go there easily.'
c. and hij shul nou+gt mow stonde (CMEARLPS,19.764) 
'and he shall not be able to stand'
d. Noo man shall mow resyst thy power in all thy lyfe. (CMFITZJA,A3R.28) 
'No man shall be able to resist your power in all your life.'

Remnants of verb raising in modern English

Despite the overall loss of verb raising in the history of English, verb raising is still possible
with two verbs in English, have and be. These two verbs, which did not belong to the
premodals, have functioned as both auxiliary verbs and main verbs throughout the history of the
language. The two uses are illustrated for modern English in (79) and (80); auxiliaries are in
boldface and main verbs are underlined. For more detailed discussion of the morphological and
syntactic properties of have and be, see Modals and auxiliary verbs in English.
(79) a. Auxiliary verb Perfect I have read that chapter.
b. Progressive I am reading that chapter.
c. Passive That material is treated in the next chapter.
(80) a. Main verb: I have that book.
b. This chapter is difficult.
We begin by considering these verbs as auxiliaries in structures like (81) (we assume for
simplicity that the elementary trees for auxiliary verbs don't have specifiers, but the assumption
isn't crucial in what follows).

(81)    

As just discussed in connection with modals, tense lowering is impossible in a structure like
(81) because not intervenes between tense and the verb, nor can the structure be rescued by
auxiliary do given the constraint suggested in (74). This is exactly the situation in which the
premodals were reanalyzed as instances of I. In the case of the premodals, this reanalysis was
possible because hardly any of them ever occurred as nonfinite forms. But an analogous
reanalysis in the case of auxiliary verbs was precluded because nonfinite
auxiliary have and be occurred very often in Middle English. Some examples are given in (82)
and (83); again, the auxiliary verbs are in boldface and the main verbs are underlined. In
addition, the element in I (modal or premodal), which guarantees the nonfiniteness of the
auxiliary verb, is in italics.

(82) a.   y shulde haue axede of here no more (CMBRUT3,19.563) 

'I should have asked no more of her'
b. and after he wolde haue conquerede al Scotland and Walys (CMBRUT3,23.687) 
'and afterwards he would have conquered all Scotland and Wales'
c. And Gutlagh wolde haue went into his countree (CMBRUT3,25.729) 
'And Gutlagh would have gone into his country'
(83) a. Bot euensang sal be saide wid foure salmes (CMBENRUL,18.626) 
'But evensong shall be said with four psalms'
b. the wordes of the phisiciens sholde been understonden in this wise
(CMCTMELI,226.C2.365) 
'the words of the physicians should be understood in this way'
c. A sone, Josias bi name, schal be born to the hous of Dauith (CMPURVEY,I,13.518) 
'A sone, Josias by name, shall be born to the house of David'

Again, of course, various ways of resolving this impasse are conceivable. For instance, the
constraint preventing do from occurring with auxiliary elements might have been relaxed.
However, what actually happened in the history of English is that children acquired the verb
raising option with precisely these two lexical items. As a result, the order of
auxiliary have and be with respect to negation in modern English parallels that in French.

English French
(84) a. Verb raising We have not read the book. Nous (ne) avons pas lu le
livre.
we NE have not read
the book
b. We are not invited. Nous (ne) sommes pas invités.
we NE are not
invited
(85) a. No verb * We (do) not have read the * Nous (ne) pas avons lu le livre.
raising book.
b. * We (do) not be invited. * Nous (ne) pas sommes invités.

(86) schematically illustrates the derivation of the English examples. (86a) is identical to (81),
and as in the analogous structure for modals in (70), the verb raises to I via Neg.

(86) a.       b.       c.  

Let us now turn to the main verb uses of have and be. We begin with have. Because of the
homonymy of main verb have and auxiliary have, main verb have for a time behaved
syntactically like auxiliaryhave, raising from V to I and otherwise exhibiting the syntactic
behavior of a modal, as illustrated in (87).

(87) a. Negation without do support   He hasn't any money; you haven't any wool.

b. Question formation without do support   Has he any money; have you any wool?

In present-day usage, however, the pattern in (87) has become archaic in American English and
is on the wane even in British English. It has been replaced by the pattern in (88), where main
verb haveexhibits the syntax of an ordinary verb, not that of a modal. 15, 16

(88) a. Negation with do support He doesn't have any money; you don't have any

wool.
b. Question formation Does he have any money; do you have any wool?
with do support

Finally, we consider main verb be, which exhibits richer agreement than any other verb in
English. Strikingly, it is also the only main verb in English that continues to raise to I.

(89) a. No do support This chapter isn't difficult.

b. Is this chapter difficult?
(90) a. Do support * This chapter doesn't be difficult.
b. * Does this chapter be difficult?

Notes

1. In what follows, we focus on the past tense since the present tense is not overtly marked at all
in English. The -s of the third person singular expresses subject agreement rather than present
tense (Kayne 1989).

2. Yiddish and the southern German dialects from which it developed are exceptions in this
regard. In these languages, the synthetic simple past has been completely replaced by the
analytic present perfect (Middle High German ich machte 'I made' > Yiddish ikh hob
gemakht, literally 'I have made').

3. A very similar shift occurred in English from 'they have to V' to 'they must V'. Such semantic
shifts, with concomitant changes in morphological status (see Note 4), are very common across
languages.

4. Such reanalysis might be the source of much, if not all, inflectional morphology. In many
cases, especially in languages that are not written, the sources of the inflections would be
obscured by further linguistic changes, primarily phonological reduction. Consider, for instance,
the development of the future tense in Tok Pisin, an English-based contact language that
originated in the 1800s and that has become the national language of Papua New Guinea. In
current Tok Pisin, particularly among speakers who learn it as a first language, the future
marker is the bound morpheme b-. We are fortunate to have written records of Tok Pisin from
the late 1800s, and so we happen to know that this morpheme is the reflex of the adverbial
phrase by and by, which the earliest speakers of Tok Pisin frequently used to indicate future
tense. Without these records, a derivation of b- from by and by would be speculation at best.

5. Historically, the negative marker in French was ne, and pas, literally 'step', was an intensifier

without negative force of its own. Modern English has comparable intensifiers, as in I don't
want to do it { one bit, at all. } In the course of the history of French, ne, being phonologically
weak, was often elided in speech, and pas was reanalyzed as carrying negative force. In modern
French, ne is characteristic of the formal language, and in some spoken varieties, such as
Montreal French, ne hardly ever occurs. In the present discussion, we disregard ne, treating it as
an optional, semantically meaningless particle.

6. Do support raises some of the thorniest problems in English syntax, and no completely
satisfactory analysis of it exists as yet. So although our analysis is adequate to explain the
contrast between (32) and (33), it does not address many other puzzling facts that have been
discovered in connection with do support.

7. The discussion in this section is based on data and ideas in Barnes 1992, Falk
1993, Holmberg and Platzack 1995, Platzack 1988, Roberts 1993, and Vikner 1995.

8. In what follows, we do not consider verb-final languages like German or Dutch. Evidence for
verb movement to I in these languages would have to come from adverbs that right-adjoin to V',
with the finite verb then moving rightward across the adverb. However, for reasons that are not
yet understood, right-adjunction to V' does not seem to possible in verb-final languages.

9. For some reason, negation cannot participate in negative inversion in Danish, perhaps
because it cannot bear prosodic stress.

10. The discussion in this section is based on data and ideas in Frisch 1997, Kroch
1989, Roberts 1993, Rohrbacher 1993, and the Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English,
second edition (Kroch and Taylor 2000a).

11. Early Middle English had a negative particle ne, etymologically cognate with French ne and
syntactically comparable to it. See Note 5. The Middle English particle was lost between 1200
and 1400.

12. The possibility of adjoining adverbs to I' complicates the assignment of structures to
sentences with adverb-verb word order once verb raising begins to be lost. This is because they
could be instances of the old verb raising grammar, with the adverb adjoined at I', or instances
of the new verb lowering grammar, with the adverb adjoined at either I' or V'. In any particular
sentence, it isn't possible to tell which is the right structure. But in a corpus of sentences, it is
possible to correct for the complication introduced by the possibility of adjunction to I', because
the frequency of adjunction to I' has remained stable from Early Middle English until today
(about 15% with never). This means that frequencies of adverb-verb order appreciably over
15% in a corpus can reliably be attributed to the verb lowering grammar.

13. Not continued to be available as an adverb with a low frequency into the 1600s. The
evidence for this is the existence, though rare, of negative sentences in Early Modern English of
the modern mainland Scandinavian type, with not preceding a finite verb, as in (i).

(i) a. they deafe mens' eares, but not edify.

b. he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him.
c. Safe on this ground we not fear today to tempt your laughter by our rustic play.

These sentences are linguistic hybrids in the sense that they contain the
adverbial not characteristic of early Middle English, but instantiate the tense lowering parameter
characteristic of modern English. As the use of adverbial not finally dies out completely in the
1600s, so do sentences of the type in (i).

14. A construction related to the agentless causative construction discussed in the text that was
retained a bit longer in the history of English is that in (i).

(i) a.   They heard say that the English had won the battle of Agincourt. 
'They heard someone say that ..., they heard it said that ...'
b.   They heard tell of the wages of sin. 
'They heard someone tell ...'

The construction in (i.a) survives in the nominalized form hearsay.

15. The syntactic divergence between auxiliary and main verb have is exactly comparable to
that between auxiliary and main verb do.

16. The replacement of (87) by (88) is complicated by the existence in both American and
British English of the have got pattern illustrated in (i), where have serves as an auxiliary verb
rather than as the main verb. Sutherland 2000 studies the competition among all three variants
(have with and without do support and have got) in both dialects of English.

(i) a. He hasn't got any money; you haven't got any wool.
b. Has he got any money; have you got any wool?

Exercises and problems

Exercise 6.1

Using the grammar tool in verb movement, build structures for the Middle English sentences in
(1).
A note on spelling: u and v were used interchangeably in Middle English.

The data raise certain issues beyond the ones concerning verb movement. For
instance, is never before a constituent? Is such a determiner or an adjective? What
about numerals? Solve the issues as best you can, and briefly describe the issues and
 justify your solutions. Assume that you can bring evidence from Modern English (or
other languages, for that matter) to bear on the structures you are building for the
Middle English sentences.
(1) a.   Engist knew neuer before +tat lande 
'Engist never before knew that land.'
b.   she saide she had neuer company of man worldely 
'She said that she never had the company of any worldly man.'
c.   Seynt Edmond vsyd euer after that prayer to his lyvys ende 
'Saint Edmund afterwards always used that prayer till the end of his life.'
d.   sche had euyr mech tribulacyon tyl sche cam to Iherusalem 
'She always had much tribulation till she came to Jerusalem.'
e.   I knewe never such two knyghtes 
'I never knew two such knights.'
f.   thes two gyauntes dredde never knyght but you 
'These two giants never feared any knight but you.'

Exercise 6.2

So-called mandative verbs, such as require and suggest (but not say or think), take subjunctive

complement clauses.
(1) a. I will require that he { come, *comes, *came. }
b. I required that he { come, *comes, *came. }

The structure for the grammatical alternative in (1a) is given in (2).

(2)    

Is the subjunctive element that heads these complement clauses a silent tense element or a silent
modal (corresponding roughly to should)? Explain. Take into account the facts in (1) and (3),
the results of negating the complement clauses in (1) and (3), and any other facts that you find
relevant.

(3) a. I will say that he { *drive, drives, drove } a Mazda.

b. I said that he { *drive, drives, drove } a Mazda.

Exercise 6.3
A. Using the grammar tool in verb movement, according to which not is a head that takes any
syntactic category as its complement, build two structures for (1) that are both consistent with
the locality condition on tense lowering discussed in this chapter. (Don't build structures for the
material in parentheses.)

(1)     She not only wrote the letter (but she sent it).

B. Now build a structure for (2).

(2)     She didn't only write the letter (but she sent it).

Be sure that the structures you build for (1) and (2) are consistent with the contrast in (3).

(3) a. * She not wrote the letter.

b. She didn't write the letter.

Exercise 6.4

African American English (AAE) distinguishes two instances of be: so-called habitual be, the
focus of this exercise, and ordinary be. Both types of be can be used as main verbs or
auxiliaries. We pose the exercise after describing the semantic and morphological differences
between the two types of be. The data are based on Green 1998.

Habitual be has no counterpart in standard English. It is used to describe situations that are

generally true, as illustrated in (1).

(1) a. Main verb   The coffee be nasty at that joint. 

'The coffee is always/usually bad at that place.'
b. Auxiliary The baby be sleeping when they call. 
'The baby is always/usually sleeping/asleep when they call.'

Ordinary be resembles standard English be in its use.

Unlike be in standard English, ordinary be can be silent in the present tense in AAE,

as indicated by the parentheses in (2). In this respect, AAE resembles languages like
Hebrew and Russian. Habitual be cannot be silent. We mention these facts for
completeness only. For the purposes of the exercise, disregard the silent option.
(2) a. Main verb   This coffee (is) nasty. 
'This coffee is bad.' (as a one-time occurrence)
b. Auxiliary   The baby (is) sleeping. 
'The baby is sleeping.' (now)

The two types of be also differ morphologically, as shown in (3).

(3)     Ordinary be Habitual be

I am be
you is "
he/she/it " "
we " "
 y'all " "
they " "

Given the facts in (1)-(3) and the further fact in (4), take a stab at what the emphatic, negated,
and interrogative versions of (1) are. Assume that the grammars of AAE and standard English
are identical unless you are forced to assume the contrary by the facts in (1)-(4).

(4)     Assume that AAE, unlike standard English, doesn't have person agreement in the present.
In other words, AAE has I, he played; I, he play; I, he did; I, he do.

Exercise 6.5

A. Explain the grammaticality contrast in (2). If necessary, invent a new syntactic category
for so to belong to.
(1)   A (challenging B):   You're lying; you didn't go to the movies.
(2) a. B (responding to the challenge):   I did so go to the movies.
b. B: * I so went to the movies.

B. Does the so in (2) have the same syntactic properties as the so in (3)? Explain briefly.

(3)     So did I.

Exercise 6.6

One of the Korean sentences in (1) is ungrammatical because it violates a principle of Universal
Grammar. Which sentence is it, and why is it ungrammatical? If you wish, you can use the
grammar tool inKorean negation to build structures for the sentences in (1).

Assume that hay-essta is a morphologically simple head of category I (despite

containing the same -essta as mek-essta).

The case morphemes for nominative and accusative case are included for
completeness. Disregard them for the purposes of the exercise.

The data are somewhat simplified in that they do not reflect a syntactic process called
scrambling. As a result, native speakers of Korean will find more than one of the
sentences in (1) unacceptable.
(1) a.   Chulswu-ka pap -ul mek-essta.
Chulswu-Nom meal-Acc eat-Past
'Chulswu ate the meal.'
b. Chulswu-ka pap -ul mekci ani hay-essta.
Chulswu-Nom meal-Acc eat not do -Past
'Chulswu did not eat the meal.'
c. Chulswu-ka pap -ul mek-essta ani.
Chulswu-Nom meal-Acc eat-Past not
'Chulswu did not eat the meal.'
d. Chulswu-ka an pap-ul mek-essta.
Chulswu-Nom not meal-Acc eat-Past
'Chulswu did not eat the meal.'
Problem 6.1

You are an archaelogist living in the 31st century C.E., and your work involves deciphering and
analyzing linguistic relics from an ancient North American empire. The oldest sentence types
that you have, from the very beginning of the 21st century, are illustrated in (1) and (2).
(1) a.   He is never late.
b.   He isn't late.
(2) a.   She never regretted her extravagances.
b.   She didn't regret her extravagances.

Based on data for the verb be, given in (3)-(5), there is evidence of three later stages of the
language (not necessarily presented in chronological order).

(3) a.   He never bees late.

b.   He doesn't be late.
(4) a.   He bees never late.
b.   He bees not late.
(5) a.   He never bees late.
b.   He not bees late.

There are only two sentence types attested in connection with ordinary verbs, the type in (2) and
that in (6) (where (6a) is identical to (2a)).

(6) a.   She never regretted her extravagances.

b.   She not regretted her extravagances.

A. What are the properties of the grammmars that generate the sentence types in (3)-(5)? Is it
possible to arrange the grammars in chonological order? Explain briefly. (The radiocarbon
dating machine or whatever archaeologists are using in the 31st century to date the media
bearing the sentences has gone on the blink, and so you are forced to arrange the data based in
internal linguistic evidence alone.)

B. Which of the variants in (2) and (6) goes with which of the variants in (3)-(5)? Explain
briefly.

Problem 6.2

In the analysis presented in the text, adverbs like pas 'not' obligatorily left-adjoin to V', and the
order finite verb - adverb is derived by moving the finite verb leftward across the adverb. An
alternative analysis is conceivable in principle, which dispenses with verb movement, and
according to which adverbs like pas can either left-adjoin or right-adjoin to verbal projections.
Assess the relative merits of the analysis presented in the text and the alternative analysis just
described.

Problem 6.3

Certain English dialects, including dialects in the southern United States, allow the so-called
double modal construction illustrated in (1).
(1) a.   I might can come to your party
b.   I might could come to your party
The second modal in the construction is essentially restricted to can or could. Propose an
analysis of the construction.

7. VP SHELLS

Double-object sentences

The structure of ordinary causative sentences

We begin our exploration of VP shells by considering ordinary causative sentences like the one
in (6), where the semantic notion of CAUSE is overtly expressed by the verb let.
(6)     God let there be light.

Recall from Chapter 3 that expletive there must be licensed as the subject of a verb of existence

(be in (6)). It follows from this that the sequence there be light forms a small clause, a minimal
instance of predication (minimal because unlike an ordinary clause, it doesn't contain any overt I
element). It is this small clause that serves as the complement of let, as shown in (7).

(7) a.       b.  

The treatment of there be light as a constituent is motivated not only in syntactic terms (with
reference to the licensing requirement on expletive there), but also by the intuition that let takes
two semantic arguments, an agent (expressed by the matrix subject) and a situation (expressed
by the small clause).

A related piece of evidence that causatives like let takes small clause complements comes from
sentences like (8).

(8)     John let it slip that the president's schedule had changed.

The it in (8) is the expletive it discussed in Chapter 3, which is associated with that clauses.

Like expletive there, expletive it must be a subject, and therefore the sequence it slip
that ... must be a small clause.

Parallels between causative sentences and double-object sentences

In certain languages, causative sentences and double-object sentences exhibit unusual parallels.
One such language is Japanese, where the case-marking of arguments is strikingly similar in
both sentence types. Case is discussed in more detail in the next chapter, but all that is important
for present purposes is that different case particles in Japanese preferentially mark certain
grammatical relations. Specifically, subjects are generally marked with the case particle -ga, as
distinct from direct objects, which are marked with the particle -o.3

(9) a.   Taroo-ga hasit-ta koto

 nom run past that
'(the fact) that Taroo ran'
b.   Taroo-ga ringo-o tabe- ta koto
nom apple acc eat past that
'(the fact) that Taroo ate an apple'

Embedding a sentence under a causative verb has the following effects on case marking. When
the complement sentence is intransitive, the matrix subject is marked with -ga, as usual, but the
subject of the complement clause is marked with -o, as shown in (10). (This is analogous to
what happens in English in They ran and We made them run.)

As the hyphens indicate, the causative verb -(s)ase is a bound morpheme. We return to

this fact shortly.
(10)     Hanako-ga Taroo-o hasir-ase- ta koto
nom acc run caus past that
'(the fact) that Hanako made Taroo run'

Given (10), one might expect embedding a transitive sentence under a causative to lead to the
case-marking pattern in (11). The object of the lower clause is expected to be marked with  -
o because it is an object (as in (9b)), and the subject of the lower clause is expected to be
marked with -o, too, by analogy to (10). (Again, this would be analogous to what happens in
English in They chased him and We madethem chase him.)

(11)   * Hanako-ga Taroo-o ringo-o tabe-sase-ta koto

nom acc apple acc eat caus past that
Intended meaning: '(the fact) that Hanako made Taroo eat an
apple'

As it turns out, however, the case-marking pattern in (11) is ungrammatical, violating what is
known in the Japanese syntax literature as the double -o constraint, which prohibits the
occurrence of more than one -o-marked noun phrase per sentence. Rather, when a transitive
sentence is embedded under a causative verb, the subject of the lower clause must be marked
with a distinct case marker -ni.

(12)   ok Hanako-ga Taroo-ni ringo-o tabe-sase-ta koto

nom dat apple acc eat caus past that
'(the fact) that Hanako made Taroo eat an apple'

What is of interest to us now is that the -ga -ni -o case-marking pattern in (12) recurs in double-

object sentences, as shown in (13a). We underline the parallel by paraphrasing (13a) with the
ordinary causative construction in (13b).

(13) a.   Hanako-ga Taroo-ni hon- o mise- ta koto

nom dat book acc show past that
'(the fact) that Hanako showed Taroo a book'
b.   Hanako-ga Taroo-ni hon- o mi- sase- ta koto
nom dat book acc see caus past that
'(the fact) that Hanako made Taroo see the book'

The identical case-marking pattern is exactly what the VP shell proposal leads us to expect,
since the relevant structures, given in (14), are analogous. (Bear in mind that the combination of
the abstract morphemes MIRU 'see' and -(S)ASE in (14a) is spelled out as a form
of miseru 'show'.)
 For expository clarity, the structures presented in this chapter generally omit the
projections of I and C that would be involved in a complete derivation of the sentences
under discussion.

(14) a.       b.  

Abstract verb movement

The Japanese causative exhibits a further property that is important for the VP shell analysis.
Unlike the English verb let, Japanese -(s)ase is a bound morpheme. As they stand, therefore, the
VP shells in (14) are not yet grammatical. The missing step is for the verb of the lower VP to
adjoin to the causative morpheme. This V-to-V movement is motivated by the same
considerations as the V-to-I movement discussed for French in Chapter 6; in both cases, a verb
moves up the tree in order to "support" a bound morpheme. The result for (14b) is shown in
(15).

(15)    

In view of the semantic and case-marking parallels between causative and double-object
sentences, it makes sense to extend the overt verb movement in (15) to the double-object case.
In other words, we will assume that verb movement applies to (14a), just as it does to (14b),
yielding (16) as the final VP shell for (13a).

(16)    

Finally, we assume that the VP shells for English double-object verbs are analogous to the ones
that we have just motivated for Japanese. (17) shows the VP shell structures, before and after
verb movement, that we are assuming for the English counterpart of (13a). From a structural
point of view, the only difference between the Japanese structures and their English
counterparts is the direction in which V takes phrasal complements.
(17) a.       b.  

Why do we continue to left-adjoin SEE to CAUSE in English? The reason is that we

are treating CAUSE by analogy to a suffix like -ify (cf. magn-ify, not *ify-magn).

(18) gives the VP shell for our original English double-object sentence in (1), both before and
after abstract verb movement, and (19) gives the structure for the entire sentence.

(18 b
a.        
) .

(19
   
)

Double-complement sentences

Give and send

Many double-object sentences have a double-complement counterpart in which the order of the
recipient (red) and theme (blue) arguments is reversed and the recipient is expressed as a PP
rather than a DP.
(20) a.   Travis gave Betsey the receipts.
b.   Travis gave the receipts to Betsey.

At first glance, double-complement sentences seem to be completely synonymous with their

double-object counterparts and to stand in a one-to-one correspondence with them. Indeed, early
on in generative grammar, it was held that any double-complement sentence could be
transformed into a double-object sentence by an operation that was known as Dative Shift
(recall that the recipient argument is marked by a dative particle in Japanese). Certain subtle
semantic restrictions on the two sentence types have been observed, however, that have led this
view to be abandoned (Green 1974, Oehrle 1976, Jackendoff 1990). For instance, recipients in
double-object sentences, but not in double-complement sentences, are apparently constrained to
be animate.4
 Double-object sentence Double-complement sentence
(21) a. Travis sent Betsey the receipts. (22) a. Travis sent the receipts to Betsey.
b. * Travis sent the post office box the b. Travis sent the receipts to the post office
receipts. box.

This effect is so strong that noun phrases that can be interpreted as inanimate in a double-
complement sentence are forced in the corresponding double-object sentence into an animate
interpretation, if that is possible. For instance, Philadelphia might be interpreted metonymically
as the people at the Philadelphia office.

(23) a.   Travis sent Philadelphia the receipts. (only metonymy reading)

b.   Travis sent the receipts to Philadelphia. (ambiguous between metonymy and location
reading)

What the facts in (21)-(23) suggest is that ascribing exactly the same thematic role (that of
recipient) to the first DP in a double-object sentence and to the PP in a double-complement
sentence is not quite correct. Rather, the PP in a double-complement sentence desigates a path
along which the theme moves. Accordingly, we will represent double-complement sentences
using VP shells in which CAUSE takes a small clause complement headed by GO. GO selects
as its complement a directional PP, designating the theme's path. The endpoint of the path can
be expressed by either a recipient (as in (22a)) or a location (as in (22b)). We give the structures
that we are assuming shortly.

This move of carefully distinguishing between recipients and locations is supported by the
parallel between (21)-(23) on the one hand and the corresponding simple 'get' and 'go' sentences
in (24) and (25) on the other.

Parallel to double-object
Parallel to double-complement sentence
sentence
(24) a.   Betsey got the receipts. (25) a. The receipts went to Betsey.
b. * The post office box got the b. The receipts went to the post office box.
receipts.
c. Philadelphia got the receipts. c. The receipts went to Philadelphia.
(only metonymy reading) (ambiguous between metonymy and location
reading)

Let us now spell out in detail how the pattern of judgments in (21)-(25) can be made to follow
from distinguishing between recipients and locations. For convenience, we introduce the notion
of argument array, by which we simply mean an unordered list of semantic arguments that are
associated with a (possibly abstract) Fregean predicate. As we already saw in Chapter 4 in
connection with optionally transitive verbs like eat, predicates can be associated with more than
one argument array. (26) gives argument arrays for eat as well as for the abstract predicates
GET and GO that are of interest here.

(26) a.   eat { agent, theme }; 

{ agent }
5
b.   GET { recipient, theme }
c.   GO { recipient, theme }; 
{ location, theme }

As we know from Chapter 4, semantic arguments are mapped onto (= associated with) positions
in syntactic structures. As it turns out, this mapping is not one-to-one. For instance, in the case
of GET, the argument array { recipient, theme } is mapped onto the structure in (27a). In the
case of GO, the same array is mapped onto the structure in (27b).

(27) a.       b.  

Given the two structures in (27), the acceptability of (24a) and (25a) follows straightforwardly.
So does the acceptability of (21a) and (22a), which simply reflect the embedding of the
structures in (27) under CAUSE.

As we have just seen, a single argument array can be mapped onto more than one syntactic
structure. Conversely, a single syntactic structure can be associated with more than one
argument array. In particular, the location argument in a { location, theme } argument array can
occupy the same structural position as the recipient argument in (27b), as shown for GO in (28).

(28)    

It is this structure that underlies (25b) and its causative counterpart in (21b), and the location
interpretations of (25c) and (23b).

As it turns out, there is no mapping between the { location, theme } argument array and the
structure in (29).6

(29)    

This is the reason for the unacceptability of (24b) and its causative variant (21b) and for the
unavailability of a location reading in (24c) and (23a). (For completeness, we must also assume
a semantic constraint that prevents locations from serving as recipients.)

At this point in our discussion, let us return to the animacy constraint stated earlier (in
connection with (21) and (22)), according to which the recipient in a double-object sentence
must be animate. More generally, the constraint would lead us to expect that any recipient of
GET must be animate. As (30) shows, however, the constraint is not actually correct.

(30) a.   Tina gave the cabinet a fancy handle.

b.   The cabinet got a fancy handle.
Having distinguished between recipients and locations allows us to give the description of the
facts in (31).

(31)     The first object in a double-object sentence must be a recipient and cannot be a location.

Statistically speaking, recipients tend to be animate, and it is this tendency that was enshrined as
a categorical generalization in early work on the topic.

In the double-complement examples presented so far, the path complement is headed by a

transitive P. Of course, as we would expect given X' theory, the projection of an intransitive P
can serve as a path complement as well (in traditional grammar, what we here call intransitive
Ps would be called adverbs).

(32)     Travis sent the receipts { here, there } .

Notice that the pro-PPs here and there must refer to locations. As expected, the double-object

counterpart of (32) in (33) is unacceptable. 7 The contrast between (32) and (33) is exactly
analogous to the contrast between (22b) and (21b).

(33)   * Travis sent { here, there } the receipts.

From what we have said so far, it is clear that not every double-complement sentence has a
double-object counterpart (double-complement sentences with location arguments don't).
However, since both recipients and locations can designate the endpoint of a path, it might still
be the case that every double-object sentence has a double-complement counterpart. But this
turns out not to be true either, because the path argument in a double-complement structure
imposes a semantic requirement of its own on the theme: namely, that the theme undergo a
transfer from one end of the path to the other. Themes in double-object sentences, on the other
hand, aren't necessarily subject to this path-related requirement. This explains how there can be
double-object sentences like (34), whose double-complement counterparts are awkward at best.

Double-object sentence Double-complement sentence

(34) a.   The scandal gave the reporter an (35) a. * The scandal gave an idea to the reporter.
idea.
b. Bright lights give Amy a migraine b. * Bright lights give a migraine headache
headache. to Amy.

In English, the experiencer of an idea or a headache is treated as a recipient, and since it is

perfectly possible for ideas or migraine headaches to be the result of certain causes, the double-
object sentences in (34) are acceptable. The reason that the double-complement sentences are
unacceptable is that the idea and the headache are taken to arise in somebody's head
spontaneously, not to travel to the head along some path. Once again, as expected, the simple
'get' and 'go' sentences in (36) and (37) are parallel to (34) and (35).

Parallel to double-object sentence Parallel to double-complement sentence

(36) a. The reporter got an idea. (37) a. * An idea went to the reporter.
b. Amy got a migraine headache. b. * A migraine headache went to Amy.

Notice that even contagious diseases don't undergo a transfer strictly speaking. In other words,
they don't move, but they spread or are shared (occupying their original location in addition to
the new location). This explains the contrast between (38) and (39).
(38) a. Jerry gave Amy his cold.
b. Amy got a cold.
(39) a. * Jerry gave his cold to Amy.
b. * A cold went to Amy.

In concluding this section, we should point out that we have implicitly focused on the
similarities between send and give. Not surprisingly, of course, the two verbs do not behave
completely identically. In particular, the argument array associated with send can contain either
a recipient or a location, whereas that associated with give must contain a recipient argument,
not a location argument. Another difference between give and send is that send, by virtue of its
irreducible meaning, imposes a path requirement on the theme even in a double-object sentence.
This explains the contrast between (38a) and (40).

(40)   * Jerry sent Amy his cold.

Put

Another double-complement verb is put, which, like send, is associated with the argument

array { agent, location, theme }. Put differs from send, however, in that its lower VP shell is
headed by BE, which selects a purely locative complement (rather than the directional
complement selected by GO).

(41)    

Unlike give or send, put is not associated with the argument

array { agent, recipient, theme }. Put therefore appears in double-complement sentences, but not
in double-object sentences, as shown in (42).8

(42) a.   Amy put the books { on the shelf, there }.

b. * Amy put { the shelf, there } the books.

Persuade

In the examples of VP shells that we have considered so far, the lowest complement has been
VP (causatives), DP (double-object verbs), or PP (double-complement verbs). In persuade, we
have a case of a VP shell in which the lowest complement is a clause, which can be
either finite or nonfinite, as illustrated in (43).
(43) a. Finite:   We persuaded him that he should do it.
b. Nonfinite:   We persuaded him to do it.

(44) gives the VP shell for the finite case.

(44)    

We defer discussion of the nonfinite case until Chapter 9, which is devoted to discussing

nonfinite complement clauses.

The causative alternation

Manner of motion verbs

This section extends the VP shell approach to the so-called causative alternation, illustrated in
(45).
(45) a.   The ball dropped. ~   The children dropped the ball.
b.   The ball rolled down the hill. ~   The children rolled the ball down the hill.
c.   The boat sank. ~   The explosion sank the boat.

In the intransitive variant on the left, the verbs drop, roll, and sink designate a manner of

motion, and the subject expresses a theme argument. In the transitive variant on the right, the
subject is an agent (or more generally, a cause) initiating the motion, and the theme argument
surfaces postverbally. These facts follow straightforwardly if we assume that the structure for
the transitive variant contains the intransitive variant embedded under CAUSE, as shown in (46)
and (47). For clarity, we show the shell structures both before and after any instances of
movement that apply.

(46)    

(47) a.       b.  

Notice that in the predicates under discussion, the simple and the causative variant are both
spelled out using the same phonological form. For instance, both DROP in (46) and DROP +
CAUSE in (47b) are spelled out as 'drop'. Any verb for which this is true (not necessarily a
manner of motion verb) is said to participate in the causative alternation. Conversely, a verb
like give and get are not said to participate in the causative alternation, even though give is
semantically a causative of get.

Get
Although give and get are not causative alternants in the sense just defined, get itself
participates in the causative alternation. In other words, the combination GET + CAUSE can be
spelled out not only asgive, but also as get, as illustrated in (48).9
(48) a.   Betsey got the receipts.
b.   Travis got Betsey the receipts.

The argument structure for GET in (48a) is already familiar from (27a) and is repeated here as
(49a). Embedding (49a) under CAUSE results in (49b). For simplicity, we show only pre-
movement structures in what follows.

(49) a.  

b.  

As we know from our earlier discussion, the { recipient, theme } argument array can also be
mapped onto a DP-PP structure. In the case of give and send, this alternative structure contains
the abstract head GO. (50a) shows that GET can head the same structure as GO, and (50b)
shows that this GET, too, participates in the causative alternation. The necessary structures are
given in (51).

(50) a.   The receipts got to Betsey.

b.   Travis got the receipts to Betsey.

(51) a.  

b.  

For simplicity, in our earlier discussion of give and send, we associated GET with the single
argument array { recipient, theme }. In fact, like GO, GET is also associated with the argument
array{ location, theme }. Again, as in the case of GO, this second argument array maps onto a
structure that is identical to (51a), except that the lowest complement is a location rather than a
recipient. The resulting structure and its causative alternation counterpart are shown in (52).
(52) a.       b.  

The sentences in (53) illustrate this argument array.

(53) a.   The receipts got to the post office box.

b.   Travis got the receipts to the post office box.

Sentences with causative get pattern as expected with respect to the distinction between

recipients and locations, as illustrated in (54).

(54) a. * Travis got { the post office box, here } the receipts. (cf. (21b), (33))
b. Travis got Philadelphia the receipts. (only metonymy reading) (cf. (23a))
c. Travis got the receipts to Philadelphia. (ambiguous between metonymy and location
reading) (cf. (23b))
d. Tina got the cabinet a fancy handle. (cf. (30a))

Moreover, just as in the case of GO, the theme in a DP-PP structure headed by GET must
undergo transfer.

(55) a. ?* An idea got to the reporter. (cf. (37a))

b. * A { migraine headache, cold } got to Amy. (cf. (37b))

Further issues

Locality constraints on idioms

It has been traditional in generative grammar to (attempt to) impose a locality constraint on
idioms along the lines of (56) (locality constraints are so called because they make reference to
relatively small, or local, domains).
(56)     All parts of an idiomatic expression must together form a constituent.

The motivation for (56) is the desire to impose a structural restriction on what can count as an
idiom in natural language, thereby preventing arbitrary combinations of words and phrases from
having idiomatic readings. For instance, (56) prohibits idioms like the made-up example in (57),
because blue and hop don't by themselves form a constituent.

(57) a.   The blue lunch at Bitar's hops. 

Intended meaning: 'The lunch at Bitar's is unusually large.'
b.   They've bred a strain of blue drosophila that hops. 
Intended meaning: 'They've bred a strain of drosophila that is unusually large.'
c.   The great apes all have blue brains that hop. 
Intended meaning: 'The great apes all have unusually large brains.'
In many cases, the constraint in (56) is trivially satisfied. For instance, red tape 'bureaucratic
difficulties' is an NP, the Big Apple 'New York City' is a DP, and kick the bucket 'die' or let the
chips fall where they may 'disregard the consequences of one's actions' are VPs. There are even
idioms that consist of entire clauses, like The shit hit the fan. Crucially, however, there shouldn't
be any idioms consisting of discontinuous chunks. At first glance, therefore, idioms like those in
(58) seem to pose a problem for the locality constraint in (56).

(58) a.   give someone the creeps 'make someone uneasy'

b.   throw someone to the wolves 'sacrifice someone'

However, just as the VP shell analysis allows us to preserve the binary-branching hypothesis in
the face of prima facie counterevidence, it also allows us to preserve the locality constraint on
idioms in the face of idioms like (58). This is because the VP shell analysis allows us to say that
what is idiomatic in (58) are the underlined VPs in (59).

(59) a.   CAUSE someone GET the creeps

b.   CAUSE someone GO to the wolves

Strong evidence for the decomposition in (59) is the existence of the related idioms in (60).

(60) a.   get the creeps

b.   go to the wolves

In addition, since heads form constituents with their complements but not with their specifiers,
potential idioms such as those in (61) are predicted not to be possible.

(61) a.   the { creeps, wolves } GET someone

b. the { creeps, wolves } GO to someone

This elegantly explains the unacceptability of sentences like (62) and (63) (on their intended
idiomatic interpretation).

(62) a. * The creeps got me.

b. * The wolves went to Felix.
(63) a. * Oscar threw the wolves Felix. (= CAUSE the wolves GET Felix)
b. * Crazy people give the creeps to me. (= CAUSE the creeps GO to me)

Small clauses revisited

We motivated the assumption of VP shells with reference to causative small clauses like (6),
repeated in (64).

(64)     God let [ there be light ] .

As we know from Chapter 3, small clauses can also contain predicates headed by syntactic
categories other than V. (65) gives some examples.

(65) a. AP They proved [ the solution completely inadequate ] .

b. DP They consider [ her a friend ].
c. PP They made [ him into a star ] .
Stowell 1983 proposed that all small clauses have a uniform structure, illustrated for (65b) in
(66).

(66)    

According to this analysis, the small clause (Aristotelian) predicate (underlined in the examples
above) is an intermediate projection. The entire small clause (in brackets) is the predicate's
maximal projection, and the subject (in italics) is the maximal projection's specifier and the
predicate's sister. Stowell's analysis is attractive because it treats small clauses as structurally
analogous to ordinary clauses. The only difference between the two clause types concerns
whether the clause contains a projection of I. Nevertheless, the analysis cannot be maintained
for DP small clauses because it fails to accommodate the minimal variant of (65b) in (67).

(67)     They consider [ her Tanya's friend ].

Here, the DP predicate contains a possessor, which under Stowell's analysis would compete
with the small clause subject for Spec(DP) (Heycock 1991).

In order to maintain binary branching, the structure for examples like (67) must include an
additional head, which we take to be a silent counterpart of the copula be. We give the structure
for (67) in (68a), and our revised structure for (66) in (68b). Notice that both structures preserve
the property of treating small clauses and ordinary clauses as structurally parallel.

(68) a.       b.  

Based on the parallel acceptability of the DP small clauses in (69) and the AP and PP small
clauses in (70) and (71), we propose to extend the structure in (68) with silent BE to the
remaining small clauses in (65).

(69) a. DP   They consider [ Dean the Democratic Party's best hope ] .

b.     With [ Dean the Democratic Party's best hope ] , ...
(70) a. AP   They consider [ the unemployment figures ominously high ] .
b.     With [ the unemployment figures ominously high ] , ...
(71) a. PP   They consider [ the patient out of danger ] .
b.     With [ the patient out of danger ] , ...
BE is not the only predicate that can head small clauses. (72) illustrates small clauses that are
headed by as, and (73) gives the structure for (72c).

(72) a.   They regard [ Dean as the Democratic Party's best hope ] .

b.   They regard [ the unemployment figures as ominously high ] .
c.   They regard [ the patient as out of danger ] .

(73)    

An apparent problem for the analysis just proposed is the fact that let can take VP small clause
complements headed by ordinary verbs, including ordinary be, but not ones headed by silent
BE.

(74) a.   We let [ Martha be Lukas's buddy ] .

b. * We let [ Martha Lukas's buddy ] .

Conversely, with doesn't allow small clauses headed by ordinary verbs, but does allow ones
headed by silent BE.

(75) a. * With [ Martha be Lukas's buddy ] , ...

b. With [ Martha Lukas's buddy ] , ...

This problem is less serious than it appears, however, since heads are able to subcategorize not
only for the syntactic category of their complements, but to specify that category's head as well.
We know this because of examples like (76), where a head selects not just a PP complement,
but a PP complement headed by a particular preposition.

(76) a.   faith { in, *at, *on, *to } your ability

b.   rely { on, *at, *in, *to } someone

Notes

1. In traditional grammar, the recipient and theme are taken to be the verb's indirect and direct
object, respectively.

2. The idea underlying the VP shell analysis goes back to Chomsky 1955 and was taken up in
Larson 1988, 1990 (see also Jackendoff 1990). The treatment in this chapter is indebted to that
in Harley 2002, though not identical to it in all details.

3. In addition to marking the grammatical relations like subject or direct object, Japanese also
marks discourse functions such as topic. In Japanese main clauses, topic -wa marking overrides
subject -gamarking. Because of this, it is customary to illustrate -ga marking using subordinate
clauses, as we do in what follows.

4. This statement is not quite correct. A more adequate version is given in (31).
5. The astute reader will observe that GET, like GO, is also associated with the argument array {
location, theme }. We return to this fact later on in the chapter.

6. We are taking the relatively weak position that what is unavailable is the mapping between
the argument array { location, theme } and the structure in (29). A more interesting claim would
be that it is the structure in (29) itself that is ruled out by some principle of Universal Grammar.
The choice between the two is beyond the scope of our discussion.

7. The alternation in (i) - specifically, the well-formedness of (i.b) - is only an apparent

exception to the statement in the text.

(i) a.   Amy sent the mail { back, off } .

b.   Amy sent { back, off } the mail.

Back and off are so-called particles, which can behave like ordinary PPs, as in (i.a), but also
more like bound affixes, as in (i.b). A detailed analysis of the syntax of particles is beyond the
scope of this discussion, but evidence for their differing syntactic status in (i) comes from
contrasts as in (ii).

(ii) a.   Amy sent the mail right { back, off } . (cf. right to the CEO)
b. * Amy sent right { back, off } the mail.

8. Again, alternations as in (i) are only apparent exceptions to the statement in the text and
reflect the status of on and back as particles; see fn. 7.

(i) a.   Amy put her sweater (right) { on, back } .

b.   Amy put (*right) { on, back } her sweater .

9. We are being a bit sloppy here. The GET + CAUSE combination that gets spelled out
as give isn't actually completely identical to the one that gets spelled out as get. In other words,
there are slightly different heads GET-1 and GET-2, with give being the spellout of GET-1 +
CAUSE, and get the spellout of GET-2 + CAUSE. A good indication that the lower heads differ
slightly is the fact that give and getdon't have exactly the same distribution (cf. Jerry { gave,
*got } Amy a cold).

Exercises and problems

Exercise 7.1

Find five double-object or double-complement verbs not mentioned in the chapter and suggest a
semantic decomposition for them.

Exercise 7.2

Make up one short sentence for each of the double-complement verbs give, send,
put, and persuade, and use the grammar tool in x-bar 2 to give complete structures for them.

Exercise 7.3
A. Using the grammar tool in vp shell spines, propose structures for each of the following
euphemisms. Assume that German and Latin are head-final.

die kill
(1) a. German um-kommen (lit. around-come) um-bringen (lit. around-bring)
b. Latin per-ire (lit. through-go) per-dere (lit. through-place)
c. Latin inter-ire (lit. between-go) inter-facere (lit. between-make)

Exercise 7.4

For the purposes of the exercise, assume the judgments given, even if they aren't your
own.

A. As succinctly and clearly as you can, explain the contrast in (1).

(1) a.   Travis { sent, got } the receipts to the post office box.
b. * Travis gave the receipts to the post office box.

B. As succinctly and clearly as you can, explain the contrast between (2) and (3).

(2)     Jerry got Amy a present.

(3) a. * Jerry got Amy a cold.
b. * The scandal got the reporter an idea.
c. * Bright lights get Amy a migraine headache.

C. As succinctly and clearly as you can, explain the pattern of judgments in (4) and (5).

(4) a.   The couch got a shove.

b.   The movers gave the couch a shove.
c. * The movers got the couch a shove.
(5) a. * A shove got to the couch.
b. * The movers gave a shove to the couch.
c. * The movers got a shove to the couch.

D. As succinctly and clearly as you can, explain the contrast in (6).

(6) a.   Crazy people give me the creeps.

b. * Crazy people get me the creeps.

E. As succinctly and clearly as you can, explain the pattern of judgments in (7) and (8).

(7) a.   The surgeon gave the patient the finger. (ambiguous between literal and idiomatic
reading)
b.   The surgeon gave the finger to the patient. (unambiguously literal)
(8) a.   The surgeon got the patient the finger. (unambiguously literal)
b.   The surgeon got the finger to the patient. (unambiguously literal)

Exercise 7.5

Explain the contrast between (1) and (2).

(1)     God let there be light.
(2) a. * They consider there light.
b. * With there light, we can start trekking.

Exercise 7.6

A. Make up two examples of small clauses. You don't need to build structures for them.

B. Using the grammar tool in x-bar 2, build structures for (1).

(1) a.   They kept the president's arrival a secret.

b.   They kept the president's arrival very secret.

Exercise 7.7

For each of the trees that you draw for this exercise, include a paraphrase for the
interpretation that the tree represents.

A. Using the grammar tool in x-bar 2, build structures for each interpretation of the following
structurally ambiguous headlines. Unlike in the chapter, give full IPs where necessary.

For simplicity, treat compound nouns (e.g., Brazil nut, orange juice) as simple nouns
without internal structure. Treat the gerund form in (1c) as a simple verb without
internal structure.
(1) a.   Lawyers Give Poor Free Legal Advice
b.   Young makes Zanzibar stop
c.   Complaints About NBA Referees Growing Ugly

B. Using the grammar tool in x-bar 2, propose structures for the intended interpretation of (2)
and for a structurally possible (but let us hope unintended!) cannibalistic interpretation.

(2)     "I want to make you my favorite sandwich." 

(Holly Hughes. 2003. Best food writing 2003. New York: Marlowe. 167.)

C. Using the grammar tool in x-bar 2, propose structures for the two interpretations of the
punchline in (3). For simplicity (contrary to the solution for Exercise 5.9, (1d)), you can treat
the imperative clause as a bare VP.

(3)     Q. What did the Zen master say to the guy at the hot dog stand?
A. Make me one with everything.

Exercise 7.8

A. Off the top of your head, propose an elementary tree for ago. Does the elementary tree differ
from other elementary trees of the same syntactic category?
You won't necessarily be able to build the tree you want with the grammar tool for
this chapter.
B. Now look up ago and its etymology in the Oxford English Dictionary. Using the grammar
tool in x-bar 2, build the elementary tree for ago that is consistent with the etymology that you
find.

C. This part of the exercise is not closely related to the material covered in this chapter, but you
will need the results to complete (D). Is the syntactic category of the quantifier many D or (say)
Adj? Give the evidence on which you base your answer.

Hint: Reread the discussion of two tymes to-geder in the solution to Exercise 6.1.

Don't give an answer based on the meaning of many. The meaning won't decide this

question for you, since some quantifiers, like no or some, are determiners, and others,
like few or two, are not.

D. On the basis of your results from (B) and (C), use the grammar tool in x-bar 2 to give the
structure for the sentence in (1).

(1)     Mark's family lived there many years ago.

Problem 7.1

There seem to be no ditransitive nouns, adjectives or prepositions. Is this an accident?

Problem 7.2

A. For some speakers, the second clause in (1) contradicts the first. For others, (1) is
semantically coherent.
(1)     They sent a rocket to Uranus, but it never arrived.

An apparently unrelated fact is that, for some speakers, (2a) entails that the students learned
syntax, whereas (2b) doesn't have that entailment. For other speakers, the sentences in (2) are
synonymous.

(2) a.   The instructor taught the students syntax.

b.   The instructor taught syntax to the students.

Can you suggest a (single) explanation for these two facts?

B. It seems that for some speakers, (2a) and (2b) are synonymous, but neither entails that the
students learned syntax. How serious a problem does this pose for the approach to ditransitive
verbs presented in this chapter?

8. CASE THEORY

A first look at case

The basic purpose of case

In order to understand the purpose of case in human language, it is useful to consider languages
in which constituent order is not as fixed as it is in English. In German, for instance, unlike
English, the subject of an ordinary declarative clause needn't precede the verb, as shown in (1)
and (2) (we discuss the structure of German sentences in more detail in a later chapter; for now,
only the variable constituent order is of interest). In the examples, boldface indicates the subject,
and italics indicates the object.
(1) a. German   Der Mann sieht den Hund.
the man sees the dog
'The man sees the dog.'
b. Den Hund sieht der Mann.
the dog sees the man
same as (1a), not the same as (2a)
(2) a. Der Hund sieht den Mann.
the dog sees the man
'The dog sees the man.'
b. Den Mann sieht der Hund.
the man sees the dog
same as (2a), not the same as (1a)

Since German speakers can't reliably identify subjects and objects in terms of their order with
respect to the verb, how is it possible for them to keep track of which constituent expresses
which grammatical relation? The answer is that grammatical relations are encoded in German in
terms of morphological case marking. In particular, the subjects of finite clauses in German
appear in a particular form called thenominative case, whereas objects generally appear in
the accusative. (3) gives a morphological analysis of the noun phrases in (1) and (2).

(3) a.   der Mann, der Hund

the.nom man the.nom dog
b.   den Mann, den Hund
the.acc man the.acc dog

Notice that in (3), the distinction between nominative and accusative case is marked once: on
the head of the noun phrase (the determiner).

In certain exceptional cases in German, case distinctions are marked on the noun phrases
redundantly: on the determiner as well on the noun. This is illustrated in (4). '0' indicates a zero
nominative suffix; -(en) is the optional accusative suffix.

(4) a. Nominative   der Bär- 0, der Student-0

the.nom bear-nom, the.nom student nom
b. Accusative   den Bär-(en), den Student-(en)
the.acc bear acc the.acc student acc

The redundant case marking in (4) is a historical relic from an earlier stage of German where
this pattern was more extensive. In certain languages, redundant case marking on the determiner
and the noun is the norm. This is illustrated for modern Greek in (5).

(5) a. Modern Greek O andr-as vlepi to skil-o.

the.nom man nom sees the.acc dog acc
'The man sees the dog.'
b. O skil-os vlepi ton andr-a.
the.nom dog nom sees the.acc man acc
'The dog sees the man.'

Finally, in languages without articles, case can be marked solely on the noun. This is illustrated
for Latin in (6).
(6) a. Latin Av- us can-em videt.
grandfather nom dog acc sees
'The grandfather sees the dog.'
b. Can-is av- um videt.
dog nom grandfather acc sees
'The dog sees the grandfather.'

To summarize the discussion in this section: noun phrases can be case-marked either on the
determiner, or on the noun, or redundantly on both. But regardless of the particular pattern, case
marking has the same basic purpose: it visibly expresses a noun phrase's function in a sentence.

Case government

In many languages, a noun phrase's particular morphological case depends not only on its
function in the entire sentence, but also on which particular lexical item that it stands in relation
to. For instance, in German, the object in a sentence appears in the dative or the
accusative,1 depending on the verb, as illustrated in (7) and (8).
(7) a. Dative ok { dem Hund, der Frau } helfen
the.dat dog the.dat woman help
'to help the { dog, woman }'
b. Accusative * { den Hund, die Frau } helfen
the.acc dog the.acc woman help
(8) a. Accusative ok { den Hund, die Frau } unterstützen
the.acc dog the.acc woman support
'to support the { dog, woman }'
b. Dative * { dem Hund, der Frau } unterstützen
the.dat dog the.dat woman support

In traditional grammar, the verb is said to govern the case of the object. For
instance, helfen 'help' governs the dative, unterstützen 'support' governs the accusative, and so
on. An attractive hypothesis is that the morphological case that a verb governs correlates with
the verb's meaning, the idea being that variation in case government as illustrated in (7) and (8)
correlates with (possibly subtle) differences in the semantics of helfen 'help'
and unterstützen 'support'. One idea that comes to mind, for instance, is
that unterstützen 'support' is a simple transitive verb, whereas helfen reflects the spellout of a VP
shell CAUSE someone GET help. Although we will not work out this idea in full in this chapter,
we present some related considerations concerning dative and accusative case-marking in VP
shells later on in the chapter.

Case government in Latin is illustrated in (9). As in German, each particular verb governs the
case of its object, but in Latin, the choice of case ranges over dative, accusative, and ablative.

(9) a. Dative   { femin-ae, *femin-am, *femin-a } { sub- venire,

suc- currere }
woman dat acc abl under-come
under-run
'to help the woman'
b. Accusative   { femin-am, *femin-ae, *femin-a } ad-iuvare
woman acc dat abl to-support
'to support the woman'
c. Ablative   { femin-a, *femin-ae, *femin-am } frui
woman abl dat acc enjoy
'to enjoy the company of the woman'
In both German and Latin, prepositions resemble verbs in governing the case of their
complement. In German, prepositions govern the accusative, the dative, or (rarely) the genitive;
in Latin, they govern the ablative or the accusative.

(10) a. German   durch die Tür, bei der Kirche, während

des Krieges
through the.acc door by the.dat church during
the.gen war
'through the door, by/near the church, during the
war'
b. Latin   de sapienti-a, ad rip- am
about wisdom abl to shore acc
'about wisdom, to the shore'

Finally, in both German and Latin, certain prepositions can govern more than one case. In such
cases, the accusative marks direction, and the other case (dative in German, ablative in Latin)
marks location.

(11) a. German   in { die, *der } Bibliothek schicken; in { der,

*die } Bibliothek arbeiten
in the.acc the dat library send in
the.dat the.acc library work
'to send into the library, to work in the library'
Latin in { bibliothec-am, *bibliothec-a } mittere; in
{ bibliothec-a, *bibliothec-am } laborare
in library acc abl send in
library abl acc work
'to send into the library, to work in the library'

Synthetic versus analytic case marking

In the languages that we have been discussing so far, case is expressed synthetically, by means
of morphologically complex words. But Universal Grammar also allows noun phrases to be
marked for case analytically. The case marker is then not an affix, but a relatively independent
syntactic head. We illustrate these two options of expressing case in connection with a brief
overview of case in the Indo-European language family, to which English belongs.

Proto-Indo-European (PIE), the reconstructed ancestor of the Indo-European language family

(which includes English) which was spoken thousands of years ago, had eight cases, which
were expressed synthetically. The nominative marked the subject of finite clauses, the
accusative and dative (and perhaps other cases) marked objects (depending on the verb, as just
discussed), and the genitive indicated possession. The PIE ablative indicated the source of
movement (as in I drove from Chicago), the locative was used for locations (as in I used to
live in Chicago), and the instrumental marked instruments or means (as in He cut it with his
pocketknife). Finally, the vocative was used to address persons (as in Hey, Tom, come on over
here).

The original PIE case system is essentially preserved in Sanskrit, although the distinction
between the ablative and the genitive is somewhat obscured because ablative and genitive forms
were often homophonous in Sanskrit. Such homophony among two or more case forms is called
case syncretism. Among living languages, the PIE system is best preserved in the Baltic
languages (Latvian and Lithuanian) and such Slavic languages as Ukrainian and Czech. In these
languages, the genitive and the ablative have merged completely, leaving seven cases. In other
words, in the history of these languages, case syncretism affected all forms of the genitive and
the ablative, not just some of them, and so children learning the language no longer had any
evidence anywhere in the language for distinguishing between the two cases. Several other
Slavic languages, including Russian, have in addition almost completely lost the vocative,
leaving only six cases. In Latin, the PIE ablative, instrumental, and locative merged into a single
case, called the ablative, which serves all three functions, leaving six cases. In Ancient Greek,
the ablative, instrumental, and locative were lost, leaving five cases. Old English had five cases
as well, having lost the ablative, locative, and vocative; in addition, the instrumental had mostly
merged with the dative. Another Germanic language, modern German, retains only four cases:
nominative, dative, accusative, and an increasingly moribund genitive. The developments just
sketched for Indo-European are summarized in (12), where "R" and "---" indicate retention and
loss, respectively.

Baltic, 
PIE, Other Ancient Old
some Latin German
Sanskrit Slavic Greek English
Slavic
Nominative R R R R R R R
Dative R R R R R R R
Accusative R R R R R R R
Genitive R merged merged R R R R
as  as 
(12)     Ablative R genitive genitive --- --- ---

Locative R R R merged --- --- ---

as  mostly
ablative merged
Instrumental R R R --- ---
with
dative
Vocative R R --- R R --- ---
Number of
8 7 6 5 4
distinct cases

(13) shows the complete case paradigms for the Latin nouns avus 'grandfather'
and femina 'woman'. These two nouns are each representative of two distinct declensions, or
word classes. Latin had a total of five such word classes, each of which was characterized by
unique endings for combinations of case and number. For instance, in the declensions to
which avus and femina belong, dative singular is marked by the suffixes -o and -
ae, respectively. In the remaining three declensions, the same combination happens to be
marked by the same suffix -i. Distinguishing three remaining declensions, rather than collapsing
them into one, is motivated by other distinctions in the paradigms. For more details, take a look
at Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar, available through the Perseus project.

(13)     Latin a- declension o- declension

  'woman' 'grandfather'
Sg Pl Sg Pl

Nominative femin-a femin-ae av-us av-i

Genitive femin-ae femin-arum av-i av-orum
Dative femin-ae femin-is av-o av-is
 Accusative femin-am femin-as av-um av-os
Vocative femin-a femin-ae av-e av-i
Ablative femin-a femin-is av-o av-is

As (13) shows, Latin exhibited some case syncretism. For instance, the genitive and the dative
singular are homophonous for femina 'woman', the dative and ablative singular are
homophonous for avus'grandfather', and the dative and the ablative plural are homophonous for
both nouns.

In the descendants of Latin, the Romance languages, case continues to be expressed

synthetically on pronouns. For instance, the distinction between dative and accusative pronouns
is illustrated for French in (14). (Note that unstressed pronouns in French are clitics; unlike full
noun phrases, they precede the verb they are construed with.)

(14) a.   Je veux leur parler.

I want 3.pl.dat talk
'I want to talk to them.'
b.   Je veux les voir.
I want 3.pl.acc see
'I want to see them.'

With full noun phrases, however, the same distinction is expressed analytically by the presence
or absence of the case marker à.

(15) a.   Je veux parler à vos voisins.

I want talk your neighbors
'I want to talk to your neighbors'
b.   Je veux voir vos voisins.
I want see your neighbors
'I want to see your neighbors.'

The case marker à is etymologically related to the spatial preposition à 'to', but is distinct from
it. This is demonstrated by the fact that the pro-form for phrases in which à is a spatial
preposition is not leur (orlui in the singular), as in (14a), but y, just as it is for other spatial
prepositions like dans 'in' or sur 'on'.

(16) a.   Nous avons envoyé le vin à Toulouse; mon ami habite

à Paris.
we have sent the wine to Toulouse my friend lives
in Paris
'We sent the wine to Toulouse; my friend lives in Paris.'
b. Nous y avons envoyé le vin; mon ami y habite.
we there have sent the wine my friend there lives
'We sent the wine there; my friend lives there.'
(17) a. Le cadeau se trouve dans mon sac; nous avons mis le
cadeau sur la table.
the present refl finds in my bag we have put the
present on the table
'The present is (literally, finds itself) in the bag; we
put the present on the table.'
b. Le cadeau s' y trouve; nous y avons mis le
cadeau.
 the present refl there finds we there have put the
present
'The present is there; we put the present there.'

As mentioned earlier, Old English had five cases, which are illustrated in (18) for three
declensions. As is evident, case syncretism is more extensive in Old English than in Latin.

   Masculine Feminine Neuter

(18)
    Old English 'fox' 'learning' 'animal'
Sg Pl Sg Pl Sg Pl

Nominative fox fox-as lar lar-a deor deor2

Genitive fox-es fox-a lar-e lar-a deor-es deor-a
Dative fox-e fox-um lar-e lar-um deor-e deor-um
Accusative fox fox-as lar-e lar-a deor deor
Instrumental fox-e fox-um lar-e lar-um deor-e deor-um

In the course of Middle English (1150-1500), the old genitive case suffixes were lost, and their
function was taken over by a syntactic head - the possessive determiner 's (in the plural, the
possessive is spelled out as a silent determiner that is orthographically represented as an
apostrophe). The old synthetic genitive case is illustrated in (19). As in the previous
chapter, +t stands for the Middle English character thorn, which represented the voiceless 'th'
sound in thin and thorn.

(19)     +te king-es suster of France (CMPETERB,59.593)

the king-gen sister of France
'the king of France's sister'

Although the change itself is not yet fully understood, it is clear that the modern possessive
marker is no longer a synthetic case suffix on a noun (king), but rather analytically case-marks
an entire DP (the king of France). This is clear from the fact that it follows postnominal material
like the prepositional phrase of France in the translation of (19). The difference between the old
synthetic genitive suffix and the analytical possessive determiner that replaced it emerges even
more sharply from the contrast in (20), where the possessive determiner obligatorily follows an
element that is not even a noun. For clarity, the noun phrase that is case-marked by the
possessive determiner is underlined in (20b); the entire sequence in (20b) from the to cat is of
course also a noun phrase.

(20) a. * the guy's that I used to go out with cat

b.   the guy that I used to go out with 's cat
We ordinarily think of the possessive form of singular noun phrases as
containing 's. Under the analysis just given, however, the nominative, possessive, and
objective case of a full noun phrase are all homophonous in Modern English, and the
determiner 's in the king's is a case marker on a par with the preposition of in of the king.

Although the possessive is marked analytically on full noun phrases, it continues to be spelled
out synthetically on pronouns (recall the similar analytic/synthetic split between full noun
phrases and pronouns in French). Much as the combination of a verb like sing and a silent past
tense morpheme is spelled out as sang, a pronoun like we (or more precisely, the feature
combination first person plural) and a silent possessive morpheme is spelled out as our.

Beginning in late Old English (ca. 1000 C.E.), the distinction between the dative and the
accusative weakened, and the distinction was lost completely in the course of Middle English
(1150-1500). In what follows, we will refer to the case that resulted from the merger as
the objective. The distinction between nominative and objective case continues to be expressed
synthetically in modern English on most ordinary pronouns, as illustrated in (21).

(21)     Nominative Objective

1 sg        I        me

2 sg, pl          you        you
3 sg m, f, n        he, she, it        him, her, it
1 pl        we        us
3 pl        they          them  

As the table shows, with the two pronouns you and it, the distinction between the nominative
and the objective has been lost, and this is also true for full noun phrases. Finally, it is worth
noting that despite the efforts of prescriptive grammarians to keep a distinction alive between
nominative who and objective whom, the two forms have merged as who. James Thurber has a
diabolically witty essay on the topic.

Case features

In this section, we introduce some concepts and syntactic conditions that enable us to derive the
distribution of the various case forms of noun phrases in English and other languages. We begin
by introducing the notion of case feature.

Consider the contrast between (22) and (23).

(22) a. ok They will help her.

b. ok She will help them.
(23) a. * Them will help she.
b. * Her will help they.

Why are the sentences in (23) ungrammatical? The answer is that noun phrases in English are
subject to the requirements in (24).

(24) a. Subjects of finite clauses appear in the nominative.

b. Objects appear in the objective.

As is evident, both of the subjects in (23) are objective forms, and both of the objects are
nominative forms. Each of the sentences in (23) therefore contradicts the requirements in (24) in
two ways.

Now compare the examples in (22) and (23) with those in (25).

(25) a. You will help her.

 b. She will help you.

As we saw in (21), they and she exhibit distinct forms for the nominative and objective,

whereas you doesn't. But because case syncretism between the nominative and the objective is
not complete in English (in other words, because most of the pronouns have distinct forms for
the two cases), we will treat you as a nominative form in (25a), equivalent to they and she, but
as an objective form in (25b), equivalent tothem and her. For the same reason, we treat the noun
phrase my big brother as a nominative form in (26a) and as an objective form in (26b).

(26) a. My big brother will help her.

b. She will help my big brother.

In order to disambiguate instances of case syncretism like you and my big brother, it is useful to

associate each noun phrase in a language with a case feature. Each case feature in turn has a
value that is selected from among all the various case forms in that language (regardless of
whether the case forms are expressed synthetically or analytically). In English, for instance, a
case feature can assume the value "nominative", "possessive," or "objective". In Russian, a case
feature has a choice among six values (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, locative,
instrumental). If we need to represent a noun phrase's case feature, we can do so by means of
labels as in (27) and (28).

(27) a.   [DP-nom They ] will help [DP-obj her. ]

b.   [DP-nom You ] will help [DP-obj her. ]
c.   [DP-nom My big brother ] will help [DP-obj her. ]
(28) a.   [DP-nom She ] will help [DP-obj them. ]
b.   [DP-nom She ] will help [DP-obj you. ]
c.   [DP-nom She ] will help [DP-obj my big brother. ]

Case licensing

Earlier, we said that the purpose of case is to encode a noun phrase's function in the sentence. In
order to make the notion of function more precise, we can think of each noun phrase in a
sentence as being licensed by (= linked to) some syntactic head. A common way of putting this
is to say that the case feature on a noun phrase needs to be checked against a corresponding
case feature on the case-licensing head. In English, case-licensers must be either verbs or
prepositions, but there are languages that allow adjectives and nouns to be case-licensers as
well. If the case features on the two participants in a checking relationship don't match up (say,
one is nominative and the other is accusative) or if they don't stand in a one-to-one relationship
(say, the case feature on a head ends up checking case features on more than one noun phrase),
then the sentence is ungrammatical. On the other hand, if every case feature in a sentence stands
in a proper relationship with a matching partner, then all is well with the sentence as far as case
theory is concerned. A question that immediately comes to a syntactician's mind is whether case
checking is subject to structural constraints. If so, we are of course interested in providing as
general a formulation of those constraints as possible.

There is reason to believe that there is more than one type of case checking. We can distinguish
between case licensing, which holds between a noun phrase and a head external to the noun
phrase (say, a verb or preposition), and case agreement, which holds within a noun phrase (say,
between a determiner and a noun). In the current version of this book, we will discuss only case
licensing. In this section, we motivate various conditions (primarily structural, but also
nonstructural) on the relationship between the two participants in a case-licensing relation. In
the first half of the section, we present three structural configurations in which case licensing is
possible: the specifier-head configuration, the head-specifier configuration, and the head-
complement configuration. Beginning in the 1990's, attempts have been made to simplify the
theory of case licensing by identifying a single case-licensing configuration. For instance, it has
been proposed that complements of verbs are not directly licensed in the head-complement
configuration, but that the complement moves to the specifier of a silent head, and that case is
uniformly licensed in the specifier-head configuration. Our own discussion will remain
somewhat agnostic on this point. However, we will show that all three of the configurations
mentioned above are almost identical from a topological point of view. In the second half of the
section, we discuss three further nonstructural conditions on case
licensing: biuniqueness, exocentricity, and matching.

Spec-head licensing

In what follows, it's important to distinguish carefully between finite clauses on the one
hand and finite verbs on the other. In English, finite clauses are clauses that can stand on
their own. The clauses in (i)-(iii) are finite; the ones in (iv) are not.

(i) a. Finite clause Finite tense + finite verb  I [pres] do that; he

[pres] does that; 
I [past] did that; he
[past] did that.
(ii) a. " Finite tense + finite auxiliary +   I [pres] am doing that; he
nonfinite verb (present participle) [pres] is doing that; 
I [past] was doing that; he
[past] was doing that.
b. " Finite tense + finite auxiliary +   I [pres] have done that; he
nonfinite verb (past participle) [pres] has done that; 
I [past] had done that; he
[past] had done that.
(iii) Modal + nonfinite verb (infinitive)   I will do that; he will do that.
(iv) Nonfinite Nonfinite verb, no finite auxiliary   to do that; to be doing that; to
clause or modal have done that
Finite verbs are ones that aren't participles or infinitives (see Verb forms and finiteness
in English for details). A finite clause always contains some finite Infl element, either a
finite tense morpheme (i, ii) or a modal (iii). A finite tense morpheme in turn is always
associated with a finite verb (i) or a finite auxiliary (ii). A modal, on the other hand, is
always associated with an infinitive.

From this it follows that if a clause contains a finite verb or a finite auxiliary, the clause
itself is finite. But if a clause contains a nonfinite verb, it needn't itself be nonfinite. If it
contains a modal, it is finite (iii); only if it doesn't is it nonfinite (iv).

We begin by considering how case is licensed on the subjects of sentences. Since subjects of
sentences start out life as specifiers of verbs, one's first impulse might be to propose that
nominative case is checked by V. Although we will end up rejecting this approach, let us pursue
it for the moment in order to show why it is unsatisfactory. The proposal is that what checks the
nominative case of He (or more precisely, its trace in Spec(VP)) is the finite verb understands in
(29a) and the bare (nonfinite) form understand in (29b). This putative checking relationship
(which we are assuming for the sake of argument, but will reject) is indicated by the red boxes.
(We further assume that DPs whose case feature is checked are free to move on to other
positions in the sentence.)
(29) a.       b.  

Finite clause, finite verb form Finite clause, nonfinite verb form

Now if verbs were able to check nominative case, regardless of whether they are finite or
nonfinite, we would expect the nonfinite verb in the lower IP in (30) to be able to check
nominative case on the lowerhe, on a par with the nonfinite verb in (29b).3

(30) *  

Intended meaning: He claims that he understands Hegel.

However, (30) is completely ungrammatical. We therefore reject the idea that nominative case
is checked by V, concluding instead that it is checked by finite I. The contrast between (29) and
(30) then follows directly since I is finite in (29) ([pres], does), but not in (30) (to).

Notice, by the way, that the ungrammaticality of (30) isn't due to semantic anomaly, since the
intended meaning is both expressible and semantically well-formed, as indicated by the gloss to
(30). Neither is the ungrammaticality of (30) due to the split infinitive, since (31) is as
ungrammatical as (30).
(31)   *

One might attempt to rescue the idea that nominative case is checked by finite V by replacing
(32a) with (32b).

(32) a.   Nominative case is checked by finite I.

b.   Nominative case is licensed by finite V where possible (that is, in clauses that contain a
finite V), and by finite I otherwise.

Although there is no empirical argument against (32b), we reject it because it violates

conceptual economy. Our reasoning is as follows. A finite V in a clause implies a finite I (in the
form of a silent tense morpheme). The converse is not true, however. Although a finite I in a
clause is consistent with a finite V, as just stated, it is also consistent with a nonfinite V (the
finite I might be a modal). Clauses with finite I thus form a proper superset of clauses with finite
V. This means that (32a) and (32b) are empirically equivalent. However, the statement in (32b)
is unnecessarily more cumbersome and therefore less preferable.

The upshot of the discussion so far is that the head that checks nominative case in English is
finite I, and that the licensing configuration for checking nominative case in English is
the specifier-head configuration. This is shown in (33) (which supersedes (29)). 4 The term
'specifier' is generally abbreviated to 'spec' (read as 'speck').

(33) a.       b.  

Nominative case is not the only case to be licensed in the spec-head configuration in English. So
is possessive case. Here, the case-checking head is the possessive determiner ( 's or its silent
plural variant), as discussed earlier.

In possessive constructions like (i), there are two noun phrases: a lower one (the
possessor) and a higher one (the entire noun phrase that contains both the possessor and
 the thing possessed).

(i)       (ii)  

It is important to keep in mind that each of the two noun phrases has a case feature of its
own that needs to be checked. The lower DP has a possessive case feature. The higher
DP generally has a nominative or an objective case feature, but it might itself bear a
possessive case feature if it is part of an even larger possessive construction, as it is in
(ii).

(34) illustrates the spec-head configuration in its general form. The nodes that bear the case
features that need to be checked are the head X and its specifier YP. The path between the two
nodes is indicated in red; we return to some properties of this path in connection with the two
remaining case-licensing configurations that we discuss (head-spec, head-complement).

(34)    

Head-spec licensing

A second configuration that licenses case checking is head-spec licensing, which we motivate

on the basis of sentences like (35a).
(35) a.   He expected her to dislike him.
b.   He expected that she would dislike him.

In both sentences, what is expected is a state of affairs (= a proposition). Given this semantic

parallel, it is reasonable to suppose that expect in (35a) takes a single complement (the entire
italicized sequenceher to dislike him), rather than a sequence of two complements (the
DP her and some constituent dominating to dislike him). Assuming for simplicity
that expect takes an IP (rather than a CP) complement in (35a) gives us the structure in (36).
Notice that we treat to as the nonfinite structural counterpart of finite would.
(36)    

An additional reason for treating the noun phrase following expect as the subject of a
complement clause rather than as an object in the matrix clause concerns sentences containing
expletive there. Recall from Chapter 3 that expletive there is licensed as the subject of a clause
containing a verb of (coming into) existence. If we treat the DP immediately following expect as
a subject, the parallel between (37a) and (37b) is expected and straightforward (as is the parallel
between (37) and (35)).

(37) a.   He expected [IP there to be a fly in his soup ] .

b.   He expected that [IP there would be a fly in his soup ] .

On the other hand, if we were to treat the postverbal DP as an object, we would have to
complicate our statement of how expletive there is licensed. Moreover, even if we succeeded in
formulating a descriptively adequate licensing condition, we would still forfeit the structural
parallel between (37a) and (37b).

Having motivated the structure in (35), let's now return to our main concern: how objective case
is licensed on the embedded subjects in (35a) and (37a). Consider the schemas in (38).

(38) a.       b.  

Spec-head licensing Head-spec licensing

Notice that the head-spec configuration in (38b) is the mirror image of the spec-head
configuration in (38a), already familiar from (34), in the following sense. In both cases, the
case-licensing configuration can be characterized as in (39).

(39)     A case-licensing configuration is defined as follows:

a. a head X
b. the nonterminal node closest to X (i.e., the intermediate projection X')
c. a node closest to X' that is distinct from X
d. the specifier of the node in (c)
The difference between spec-head and head-spec licensing simply concerns the direction that
the path takes in (39c) (imagine placing a mirror along the X-X' axis in (38a), and you'd get
(38b), and vice versa). Spec-head licensing chooses the mother of the head's intermediate
projection; head-spec licensing chooses the daughter.

Given (39), we can say that objective case is checked on the complement subject in an ECM
construction by the matrix verb in the head-spec configuration.

It is standard to refer to the construction in (35a) and (37a) as the Exceptional Case-
Marking (ECM) construction. Given the analysis that we have just presented, the term is
a bit of a misnomer. If the construction is indeed exceptional, it is not for structural
reasons, but because of the crosslinguistic rarity of heads that take IP complements and
are also able to check objective case. Because the term is prevalent in the literature, we
will continue to use 'ECM construction' to refer to the construction in question and 'ECM
verb' to refer to any verb with the two properties just mentioned (takes IP complement,
able to check objective case).

ECM constructions are not the only ones where case is checked in a head-spec configuration.
The same configuration is also relevant for the constructions discussed in Chapter 7, VP shells
and small clauses. In a language like English, which does not distinguish between a dative and
an accusative case, but has only a single objective case, case checking proceeds along exactly
the same lines as described above. In (40a) (= (3) of Chapter 7), for instance, the head of the
higher VP checks objective case on the specifier of the lower VP. In (40b) (= (7a) of  Chapter
7), let checks objective case on the small clause subjectthere.

(40) a.   b.  

   

In languages with a dative-accusative distinction, case checking in VP shells and small clauses
is a bit more involved than in English, and we therefore defer discussion of these constructions
in these languages until the end of the chapter.

In concluding our discussion of the head-spec configuration, let us briefly return to nominative
case checking in English. In the previous section, we argued that nominative case is licensed in
Spec(IP) by the spec-head configuration. If this is so, then subject movement in English can be
derived from considerations of case checking. In other words, the subject must move from
Spec(VP) to Spec(IP) because nominative case can't be checked in its original position.
However, the availability of head-spec licensing opens up the alternative that nominative case is
checked in the head-spec configuration. The case-checking head continues to be finite I, for the
reasons discussed earlier. If this possibility is correct, then subject movement in English must be
derived from considerations other than case theory, such aspredication. Given the word order
facts of English, it is very difficult to determine which of the two possibilities just outlined is
correct. Currently, many generative syntacticians take the (somewhat odd) position that
nominative case is checked in the spec-head configuration, but that subject movement is
motivated by considerations of predication.

Head-comp licensing
A third and final case licensing configuration arises in connection with simple transitive
sentences like (41).
(41) a.   He expected her.

b.  

Here, objective case on her is checked by the verb expected in the head-complement

configuration, schematically indicated in its general form in (42).

(42)    

Notice that the head-complement configuration is a subconfiguration of the head-spec

configuration just discussed. This means that a general structural constraint on case licensing,
subsuming all three configurations discussed so far, can be formulated as in (43).

(43)     Structural licensing condition: 

The nodes bearing the case features in a case-checking relationship as well as the nodes
on the path connecting them must all be a (not necessarily proper) subset of the set of
nodes in (39).

The head in a case-licensing relationship always corresponds to the node specified in (39a). The
noun phrase corresponds to either (39c) (head-comp licensing) or (39d) (spec-head licensing,
head-spec licensing).

Nonstructural conditions

In what follows, we further illustrate the structural licensing condition on case checking in (43),
introducing three additional, nonstructural conditions on case-
licensing: biuniqueness, exocentricity, andmatching.

First, consider (44), where we treat their as the spellout of they and possessive 's.

(44) a.   He expected their approval.

 b.  

In (44), objective case on the higher boxed DP is checked by the verb expected, being licensed
by the head-comp relation between them. Possessive case on the lower DP is checked by the
possessive morpheme 's, being licensed by the spec-head relation between them. So far, so
good.

However, a question that arises in connection with the structure in (44) is what rules out (45)
(with the same intended meaning as (44)), where the objective case feature on expected checks
the objective case feature on them in the head-spec licensing configuration.

(45) *   He expected them approval.

b.  

The answer is as follows. Assume the case-checking relationship between expected and the

lower boxed DP them. This leaves the higher DP with a case feature that must be checked. In
principle, expectedmight check the case feature on the higher DP in the head-complement
configuration, but then a single case feature (the one on expected) would then be checking more
than one case feature in the rest of the sentence. Conversely, any case feature on the silent
determiner would not get to participate in case-checking. Because (45) is ungrammatical, we
conclude that case-checking is subject to a condition as in (46).

(46)     Biuniqueness condition: 

Case features on heads and noun phrases stand in a one-to-one relationship.

Is there any head other than expected that the higher DP in (45) could enter into a case-licensing
relationship with? The only head that is close enough is the higher DP's own head, the silent
determiner. In particular, just as the head-spec configuration is the mirror image of the spec-
head configuration, so the relation between the higher DP and its head would correspond to the
mirror image of the head-complement relationship. 5 However, assuming a case-licensing
relationship between a phrase and its own head is not sensible given that the purpose of case is
to signal the relationship between a noun phrase and the rest of the sentence. In other words, we
will impose a further condition on case licensing along the lines of (47).

(47)     Exocentricity condition: 

Case licensing is a relationship between a head and an 'outside' noun phrase (that is, a
noun phrase distinct from any projections of the case-checking head).

For completeness, let us note that (45) is impossible even if we were to assume that the silent D
bears no case feature. This is because D heads that do not bear case features (like  a or the in
English) don't license specifiers. In other words, there are no elementary trees of the form in
(48), which would be needed to derive the higher DP in (45b).

(48)    

An important joint consequence of the biuniqueness and exocentricity conditions is given in

(49).

(49)     Minimality condition on case licensing 

When a case-checking head has the possibility in principle of entering into a case-
licensing relation with either of two noun phrases, it is the minimal configuration (the
one involving the shorter path) that is the grammatical one.

The third and final nonstructural condition on case licensing is one already mentioned
informally at the very beginning of our discussion of case licensing. For ease of reference, we
now give it a name.

(50)     Matching condition: 

A case feature on a head and the corresponding case feature on a noun phrase must match
in value.

In the remainder of this section, we illustrate the interplay of the various conditions that we have
proposed, both structural and nonstructural, with reference to the German examples in (51). The
verb kennen'know' governs the accusative, and the preposition mit 'with' governs the dative.
(Unbelievable as it may seem, German speakers, including children learning the language,
really do pay attention to the tiny difference between dem and den, and have been doing so for
centuries!)

(51) a.   den Mann mit dem Hut kennen

the.acc man with the.dat hat know
'to know the man with the hat'
b. * dem Mann mit den Hut kennen
the.dat man with the.acc hat know
c. * den Mann mit den Hut kennen
the.acc man with the.acc hat know
d. * dem Mann mit dem Hut kennen
the.dat man with the.dat hat know

The schematic structure for all four verb phrases is given in (52) (recall from Chapter 4 that
verbs are head-final in German, whereas (most) prepositions are head-initial).
(52)    

In (51a), kennen checks accusative case with the higher DP, and mit checks dative case with the
lower DP, each in the head-comp licensing configuration. In other words, each head checks the
case feature of the DP closest to it.

(51b) is ruled out because it violates the matching condition in (50). Specifically, even
though kennen and the higher DP would stand in a legitimate licensing configuration (head-
comp), the accusative case feature of kennen doesn't match the dative case feature on the higher
DP. Moreover, the accusative case feature of kennen is unable to check the matching accusative
case feature on the lower DP, because the verb and the lower DP are too far apart (a checking
relationship between these two nodes would violate the structural licensing condition in (43)).
Analogous considerations hold for mit and its potential checking relationships with the lower
and higher DPs, respectively.

(51c) is ruled out as follows. Case checking on the higher DP is unproblematic; accusative case
is checked by kennen in the head-comp configuration. However, case cannot be checked on the
lower DP. Checking accusative case with mit in the head-comp configuration would violate the
matching condition (dative and accusative don't match), and checking accusative case on the
lower DP with kennen would violate both the structural licensing condition and the
biuniqueness condition on case checking. (51d) is ruled out for analogous reasons.

The dative-accusative distinction

In this section, as promised, we return to the issue of case checking in languages that, unlike
English, distinguish dative and accusative case.

(53) gives a double-complement sentence in German. 6

(53)     dass ich den Roman an den Jungen schicke

that I.nom the.acc novel to the.acc boy send
'that I am sending the novel to the boy'

(54) gives the structure for (53); for completeness, we give the structures both before and after
GO moves to CAUSE.
(54) a.       b.

From (53), we conclude that CAUSE checks accusative case, and we would therefore expect the
recipient in the double-object counterpart of (53) to appear in the accusative case as well. But
(55) shows that the recipient must instead appear in the dative case.

(55) a.   dass ich dem Jungen den Roman schicke

that I.nom the.dat boy the.acc novel send
'that I am sending the boy the novel'
b. * dass ich den Jungen den Roman schicke
that I.nom the.acc boy the.acc novel send

The structure for (55) is shown in (56); once again, we give both pre- and post-movement
structures.

(56) a.       b.

The ungrammaticality of (55b) is reminiscent of the double o constraint of Japanese mentioned

in Chapter 7; recall the contrast in (57).

(57)   Hanako-ga Taroo-ni ringo-o tabe-sase-ta koto

nom dat apple acc eat caus past that
'that Hanako made Taroo eat an apple'
  * Hanako-ga Taroo-o ringo-o tabe-sase-ta koto
nom acc apple acc eat caus past that

However, the situation in the two languages is not completely identical; indeed, the case
marking facts for the German counterpart of (57) are exactly the reverse of those in Japanese.

(58) a.   dass der Stefan den Manfred einen Apfel essen

 ließ
that the.nom the.acc an.acc apple eat
made
'that Stefan made Manfred eat an apple'
b. * dass der Stefan dem Manfred einen Apfel essen
ließ
that the.nom the.dat an.acc apple eat
made

The challenge facing us is how to make sense of three separate and apparently contradictory
case-marking facts:

1. the alternation between accusative and dative case-marking on the lower specifier in
(53) and (55),
2. the parallel constraint on double accusative marking in (55) and (57), and
3. the contrasting case-marking pattern between (57) and (58).

So far, we have been assuming that when a head and a noun phrase occur in some case-
licensing configuration, this state of affairs both licenses the noun phrase's occurrence in its
particular syntactic position (spec or comp position) and determines the particular case that
appears on the noun phrase (nominative, accusative, etc.). Let us now weaken this latter
assumption somewhat. In particular, we will allow the case that appears on a noun phrase to be
only partially determined by the case features of the head that licenses its position in the
structure; the case can also reflect further details of the structure, including the case features of
other heads. In (53) and (54), case licensing proceeds as before. GO takes a PP complement and
has no case feature. Not surprisingly, therefore, when GO adjoins to CAUSE, there is no effect
on the accusative feature of CAUSE, which we will assume gets shared by the V node formed
by adjunction (the V that dominates both GO and CAUSE in (54b)). In (55) and (56), on the
other hand, GET has an accusative feature of its own. What we propose is that once GET
adjoins to CAUSE, the presence of the case feature on GET is able to change the value of the
case feature on CAUSE from accusative to dative. This dative feature then percolates up to the
V node formed by adjunction (the V dominating both GET and CAUSE in (56b)). Because
small clauses are structurally analogous to VP shells, moving the lower verb tabe- 'eat' to the
higher causative -sase- in the Japanese causative has the same effect, changing the accusative
case feature on -sase- to dative. This still leaves us with the case-marking contrast between (57)
and (58). What could it be due to? Recall that in the previous chapter, we motivated verb
movement in the Japanese causative on the grounds that the causative morpheme -sase- is a
bound morpheme. The German verb lassen 'let', on the other hand, is not a bound morpheme
and there is no reason to assume that the lower verb moves to it. We can therefore derive the
contrast between (57) and (58) by permitting case features to be changed in the way that we
have just proposed only in connection with the movement of a case-checking head. This is
schematically illustrated in (59) (headedness irrelevant).

(59) a.       b.  

No verb movement Verb movement

Double accusative case marking Dative-accusative case marking
Case agreement

(coming eventually...)

Notes

1. A very small number of German verbs governs a third case, the genitive. We don't discuss
these verbs here, because they are felt to be archaic.

2. Note how the -s-less plural of deer, which is exceptional in modern English, goes back to Old
English, where it was simply the ordinary plural form for the declension to which deor 'animal'
belonged.

3. The structure in (30) is analogous to that of its grammatical counterpart, He claims to

understand Hegel. Details of the structure (for instance, the presence of the CP) are motivated
in the next chapter.

4. The spec-head configuration is also frequently, though somewhat misleadingly, referred to as

spec-head agreement. The reason for this is that subjects and verbs of sentences, which are in
the spec-head configuration in the VP, agree in number (the man runs/*run; the men run/*runs).
The reason that the term is misleading is that agreement relations don't necessarily imply a spec-
head configuration. For instance, determiners agree in number with the head of their NP
complement (that woman/*women; those women/*woman), but the D and the N aren't in a spec-
head configuration.

5. The relation between the silent determiner and the higher boxed DP in (44) is a mirror image
of the head-comp relation in the following sense. The path between the silent determiner and its
NP complement involves a first segment from D to D' and a downward turn at D' to give the
second segment from D' to NP. Now imagine taking an upward turn at D'. The resulting second
path segment ends at the higher boxed DP.

6. We use subordinate clauses because German main clauses involve a complication, already
mentioned in Chapter 3, that is irrelevant here.

7. Such verb movement is ruled out with verbs of perception.

(i)   * J'ai vu manger les enfants (les pommes).

I have seen eat the children the apples
'I saw the children eat (the apples).'

Exercises and problems

Exercise 8.1

According to the analysis in the text, why are the sentences in (1) ungrammatical?
(1) a. * He claims to he understand Hegel.
b. * He claims he to understand Hegel.

Exercise 8.2
A. Using the grammar tool in ***, build a ternary-branching structure for (1) (= (37a)) along the
lines that was mentioned, but rejected, in the text.

(1)     He expected there to be a fly in his soup.

B. Given the ternary-branching structure, how would the licensing condition on

expletive there have to be reformulated?

Exercise 8.3

In the chapter, we stated that nouns and adjectives aren't case-licensers in English. Provide
evidence for that statement. One piece of evidence for each category is sufficient.

Exercise 8.4

A. Using the grammar tool in x-bar 2, build structures for the sentences in (1).

For the purposes of this exercise, disregard tense lowering.

Originally a preposition, for in modern English is also a complementizer. Assume that

the complementizer retains the case-licensing ability of the preposition.
(1) a.   I waited for her.
b.   I waited for there to be a sale.
c.   It would be convenient for the parents for daycare to be available.
d.   It would be convenient for daycare to be available for the children.
e.   I suspect the class to be difficult.

B. How is case checked on each of the DPs in (1)? Your answer should include which case is
checked, by what head, and in what configuration. Feel free to collapse the description of
similar cases (!) of case checking.

Exercise 8.5

As (1) illustrates, there are no ECM adjectives or nouns in English. Is this a statistical accident,
or is there a deeper reason?

(1) a. * I was expectant there to be a problem.

b. * the expectation there to be a problem

Exercise 8.6

A. Using the grammar tool in Welsh case checking, build structures for the Welsh sentences in
(1) (data from Borsley and Roberts 1996:19, 31).
(1) a.   Gwelai Emrys ddraig.
see.conditional Emrys.nom dragon.obj
'Emrys would see a dragon.'
b. Disgwyliodd Emrys i Megan fynd i Fangor.
expected Emrys.nom to Megan.obj go.infinitive to
Bangor.obj
'Emrys expected Megan to go to Bangor.'
B. How is case checked on each of the noun phrases in (1)? (As in English, nominative case
cannot be checked in nonfinite clauses in Welsh.) Your answer should include which case is
checked, by which head, and in which licensing configuration.

C. Proto-Indo-European (the ancestor of Welsh) is reconstructed as having had rich agreement,

and so it presumably had verb raising. The Celtic languages, which are descendants of Proto-
Indo-European and to which Welsh belongs, have lost agreement, yet they still exhibit verb
raising. Why didn't the loss of agreement lead to the loss of verb raising in Celtic as it did in
Mainland Scandinavian?

Exercise 8.7

Which, if either, of the statements in (1) is true? Explain.

(1) a.   If a noun phrase bears nominative case, then it is a subject.
b.   If a noun phrase is a subject, then it bears nominative case.

Exercise 8.8

Given the discussion in the textbook so far, exactly one of the following statements is true.
Which is it? Briefly explain your choice.
(1) a.   All subjects are agents.
b.   All agents are subjects.
c.   All subjects check nominative case.
d.   All noun phrases that check nominative case are subjects.

Exercise 8.9

Both sentences in (1) are intended to have the same meaning. In a sentence or two, explain why
they contrast in grammaticality.

(1) a. ok It appears that they may solve the problem.

b. * Theyi appear that ti may solve the problem.

Problem 8.1

On the one hand, German appears to have a double accusative constraint ((55b) is
ungrammatical). On the other hand, it appears not to ((58a) is grammatical). Can you resolve the
paradox?

Problem 8.2

A. Use the grammar tool in x-bar 2 to build structures for the gerunds in (1) and (2). You can
reuse structures for (1a,b) if you have already built them in connection with Exercise 5.8. On the
basis of the structures you build, explain how case is checked on the subjects of the gerunds (the
noun phrases in boldface). Your answer should include which case is checked, by what head,
and in what configuration.

(1b) and (2a) are not identical.

(1) a.   I disapprove of Kim's impulsive hiring of incompetents.

b.   I disapprove of Kim's impulsively hiring incompetents.
(2) a.   I disapprove of Kim impulsively hiring incompetents.
 b.   I'm concerned about there not being time.
c.   I watched them running down the street.

B. Why are the sentences in (3) ungrammatical? Build trees if necessary, but where possible you
can explain your answer with reference to trees that you have built for (A).

(3) a. * I disapprove of Kim's impulsive hiring incompetents.

b. * I disapprove of Kim impulsive hiring of incompetents.

C. Some speakers accept the gerunds in (4), though not the one in (5). Explain how case is
checked on the subject of the gerunds in (4), providing the usual details, and also explain what
rules out (5).

(4) a. Kim impulsively hiring incompetents is unfortunate.

b. There not being time is unfortunate.
c. Them running down the street is unfortunate.
(5)   * Kim impulsive hiring of incompetents is unfortunate.

D. Can the analysis that you propose in (C) be extended to cover the facts in both (B) and (C)?
Why or why not?

Problem 8.3

In the text, we list several conditions on case checking: the structural licensing condition (43),
the biuniqueness condition (46), the exocentricity condition (47), and the matching condition
(50). Is it possible to eliminate at least one of these? For example, is it possible to derive the
biuniqueness condition from the structural licensing condition and the exocentricity condition?

8. NONFINITE CLAUSAL COMPONENTS

Selectional restrictions

Before addressing the topics of main concern to us in this chapter, we need to introduce the
concept of selectional restrictions. Selectional restrictions are conditions that a (Fregean)
predicate imposes on one or more of its arguments, depending on its meaning. For
instance, drink imposes a selectional restriction on its theme argument to the effect that the
theme argument must refer to a liquid (or an amount of liquid).
(10) a.   Amy drank the { lemonade, #sandwich } .
b. Lukas drank a whole { quart, #piece } .

Elapse selects a subject that refers to an explicitly quantified amount of time.

(11)     { Two hours, the shift, #two liters, #Larry } elapsed without further incident.

The felicitous use of the verb murder requires (among other conditions) that both the agent and
the theme arguments refer to humans. By contrast, kill imposes weaker selectional restrictions,
requiring only that the agent and theme arguments refer to living beings.

(12) a.   The { paramilitary, #bomb, #avalanche } murdered { her husband, #the olive tree, #her
house }.
b. The { paramilitary, bomb, avalanche } killed { her husband, the olive tree, #her house }.
Two points are important to keep in mind concerning selectional restrictions. First, notice that
we are using pound signs, rather than asterisks, in (10)-(12); in other words, we are treating the
ill-formedness of sentences that violate selectional restrictions as semantic/pragmatic deviance,
not as ungrammaticality. This approach is consistent with the fact that selectional restrictions
can be deliberately flouted for special effect. For example, the ordinary (literal) meaning of  lap
up is 'to eagerly drink up (used especially of animals)'. Based on this meaning, we would expect
it to select a nonhuman animate agent and a liquid theme. But although both restrictions are
violated in (13), the sentence does not come across as deviant.

(13)     The little girl lapped up her teacher's praise.

Rather, the violation of the selectional restrictions signals to the hearer that the sentence is
intended to be taken not literally, but figuratively (here, as an instance of metaphor). (14)
summarizes the kind of reasoning that a hearer of (13) would go through; the reasoning process
itself is ordinarily not explicit, but subconscious and lightning-quick.

(14)     The little girl lapped up her teacher's praise?? Whoa there, that's complete nonsense!

It's only nonhuman animals that lap up things. And then, whatever they're lapping up has
to be liquid, not something abstract like praise.

But the speaker seems to know English and be compos mentis, so what could they have
possibly meant by what they said?

I guess what they must have meant is that the attitude of the little girl towards her
teacher's praise resembles the eagerness with which a thirsty animal laps up some
welcome liquid.
In distinguishing figurative from literal uses of language, don't let yourself be confused
by the fact that in the vernacular, the adverb literally is routinely used to qualify
figurative statements. So we often hear people say things like My boss literally hit the
roof. In other words, literally has come to mean figuratively!

Don't, by the way, conclude from examples like (13) that selectional restrictions are in force
only intermittently (in force when language is used literally, but not in force when language is
used figuratively). Rather, it is precisely the fact that selectional restrictions are always in force
that prompts a hearer of (13) to go through a reasoning process like (14) and to come up with an
interpretation in which the selectional restrictions are met in the metaphorical interpretation.

A second point to keep in mind concerning selectional restrictions is that the criteria for set
membership that the restrictions are based on are not always crystal clear. In other words, sets
like liquid things, animate beings, potential murderers, or potential murder victims, and so on,
are somewhat fuzzy around the edges. Speakers might disagree, for instance, about whether the
sentences in (15) are deviant; the disagreement would concern whether the selectional
restrictions on murder might, on the basis of recent advances in the understanding of animal
intelligence, be relaxed to include members of species other than Homo sapiens.

(15) a.   The { chimpanzee, dolphin } murdered the explorer.

b.   The explorer murdered { the chimpanzee, dolphin } .

Fortunately, for our purposes in this chapter, locating the exact boundary between cases that
meet selectional restrictions and ones that violate them will not be necessary. The important
thing is that selectional restrictions exist, and that there are sentences in which they are clearly
met and ones in which they are clearly violated.

Subject control

Evidence for two clauses

Having introduced selectional restrictions, we now use them to show that subject control
sentences contain two separate clauses, each with their own subject. We begin by showing that
in finite complement counterparts of subject control sentences, which incontrovertibly contain
two clauses, like (16), both the matrix and the complement verbs impose separate selectional
restrictions on their respective subjects. (For simplicity, we omit referential indices in what
follows; unless otherwise noted, the intended interpretation is always the one where the
complement subject is coreferential with the matrix subject.)
(16)     The children agreed that they would dance.

We then show that subject control sentences like (17) pattern just like their finite complement
counterparts with respect to the selectional restrictions imposed by the two verbs.

(17)     The children agreed to dance.

We begin with (18) and (19), where agree takes a finite complement clause. In (18), we have
taken care to satisfy the selectional requirements of the complement clause (wet selects some
physical object as its argument, and get imposes no further selectional restrictions of its own).
We can therefore be sure that the acceptability contrast in (18) is due to the selectional
restriction imposed by the matrix verb agree,which selects human subjects.

(18) a.   The children agreed [ that they would get wet ] .

b. # The { horses, trees, rocks } agreed [ that they would get wet ] .

Conversely, in (19), we have taken care to satisfy the selectional restriction imposed
by agree. Here, the acceptability contrast is due to the selectional restrictions imposed by the
various complement verbs.

(19) a.   The children agreed [ that they would speak Twi ] .

b. # The children agreed [ that they would { elapse, evaporate } ] .

If subject control sentences contain two clauses, as we are proposing, each with their own
subjects, they ought to behave analogously to (18) and (19), and this is in fact exactly what we
find in (20) and (21).1

(20) a.   The children agreed [ PRO to get wet ] .

b. # The { horses, trees, rocks } agreed [ PRO to get wet ] .
(21) a.   The children agreed [ PRO to speak Twi ] .
b. # The children agreed [ PRO to { elapse, evaporate } ] .

One last thing. Not all subject control predicates allow a finite complement paraphrase.

(22) a.   The children tried [ PRO to learn Twi ] .

b. * The children tried [ that they would learn Twi ] .
But even for subject control predicates like those in (22), we assume a biclausal structure with a
PRO subject for the lower clause. This is because, just as in (20) and (21), the subject control
verb and the lower verb impose separate selectional restrictions on their respective subjects. We
ask you to provide the relevant evidence in Exercise 9.1A.

If you have been paying close attention to the examples, you may have noticed that agree seems
to have two slightly different meanings, depending on whether it takes a finite or a nonfinite
complement. When it takes a finite complement, the finite complement expresses a proposition,
and agree means something like 'assent to.' In this case, the subject of the complement clause
need not be coreferential with the matrix subject.

(23)     The students agreed [ that the problem was difficult ] .

We also have the semantic intuition that someone besides the agreer shares the belief in the
proposition; in other words, agree takes an optional semantic argument, expressible in the
syntax by a with phrase. So, for instance, if Sam were the last person on Earth, we might
describe him as believing that there were no other people, but it would be odd to describe him
as agreeing that there were no other people. On the other hand, when agree takes a nonfinite
complement, it means something like 'commit oneself to a course of action.' Here, part of the
irreducible meaning of agree seems to be that the agreer and the agent of the predicate of the
lower complement must be identical. As a result, a sentence like (24) is ungrammatical (or
perhaps only semantically deviant).

(24)   * The students agreed [ the problem to be difficult ] .

Here, too, there is a sense of an optional argument - an entity to whom the agreer has an
obligation to. Now, so far, we have phrased things as if the semantic differences that we have
described are associated with agree itself. However, a more attractive hypothesis is
that agree has exactly the same meaning in both cases, and that the differences in meaning come
about as a result of the different semantic properties of the complement that  agree is combining
with. Under this approach, agree would denote a commitment between a rational being and the
kind of thing that the CP complement refers to, in the presence of another rational being. In the
finite complement case, the CP expresses a proposition. A natural way to interpret commitment
between a rational being and a proposition is as intellectual assent to the proposition, and a
natural scenario is that the co-present rational being shares the belief in the proposition. We
have seen that nonfinite IPs can express propositions (I expect there to be problem is
synonymous for our purposes with I expect that there is a problem), but let us assume that
nonfinite CPs (for some reason) cannot refer to propositions, but only to events or actions.

It is tempting to say that nonfinite complements of subject control predicates are VPs
(rather than CPs). But that would leave the presence of to unexplained. Moreover,
there are subject control predicates that take indirect questions, as illustrated in (i).
(i)     They decided whether to buy the house.

A natural way to interpret commitment between a rational being and an action is as a

commitment to seeing to it that the action is carried out, and a natural scenario is that the co-
present rational being is someone to whom the agreer has an obligation. A crucial question that
we will have to leave unresolved here is why the matrix subject controls the subject of the lower
predicate in this case. In other words, what accounts for the oddness of (25a) despite its near-
synonymy with (25b)?

(25) a. # At the meeting, the higher-ups boss agreed for someone to do the job.
b.   At the meeting, the higher-ups agreed to delegate the job to someone
Deriving subject control sentences

After this excursion into semantic aspects of control, let us now consider the syntactic
representation of subject control sentences, which is straightforwardly analogous to the
representation of their finite complement counterparts. The elementary tree for agree is the
same for both cases and is given in (26).

(26)    

Substituting a finite CP complement headed by that at the CP substitution node would yield
structures for sentences like (16). Substituting a nonfinite CP complement headed by a silent
complementizer yields structures for subject control sentences like (17). In what follows, we
illustrate the derivation of (17) in detail.

(27) a.       b.       c.  

Substitute PRO in Substitute (27a) as

Substitute (27b) as
specifier position of complement of to and
complement of silent C
lower verb subject movement

Substituting the structure in (27c) as the complement of the control verb yields (28a), which in
turn becomes the complement of the matrix I element, yielding (28b).

(28) a.       b.  

Substitute (27c) as complement of Substitute (28a) as complement of

control verb matrix I
Finally, moving the matrix subject yields (29a). The structurally analogous tree for the finite
complement counterpart of (29a) (= (16)) in shown for comparison in (29b).

(29) a.       b.      

In concluding our discussion of subject control, we must point out that we will leave an
important question about PRO unresolved: namely, how its case feature (if any) is licensed.
There is evidence from languages like German and Icelandic that PRO is able to bear the same
case features that overt subjects do. Nevertheless, PRO and overt noun phrases are in
complementary distribution;2 in other words, the positions that PRO can appear in are ones
from which overt noun phrases are barred, and vice versa. It has therefore been proposed that
PRO does not bear a case feature at all (or that PRO bears a case feature unique to it - so-called
null case - which is checked by nonfinite I in the spec-head configuration). Although this
approach does not address the crosslinguistic facts and leaves it mysterious why the case
properties of PRO and overt noun phrases should differ, it does have the advantage of
straightforwardly capturing the distributional difference between PRO and overt noun phrases.

Raising

A detour

Let us turn now to raising sentences like (4b), repeated here as (30).
(30)     The children seemed [ to dance ] .

At first glance, it seems as if we could simply treat such sentences on a par with subject control
sentences. But that would leave use without an explanation for the contrast in (31) - in
particular, for the grammaticality of (31b).

(31) a. * There agreed to be a problem.

b. ok There seemed to be a problem.

The analysis in the previous section does correctly rule out (31a), to which we assign the
structure indicated schematically in (32).

(32)   * There agreed [ PRO to be a problem ] .

Given the structure in (32), the sentence is ruled out for two reasons. First, expletive there is not
licensed because it does not occupy the specifier position of a verb of (coming into) existence
(this is the reason that we mark (31a) as ungrammatical rather than as just semantically deviant).

It is true that the sentence contains the there licenser be, but there never substitutes into

its specifier position. The predicate whose specifier position there does substitute into,
namely agree, is not athere licenser (*There agreed some students).

Second, expletive there fails to satisfy the selectional restriction of agree, which, as we saw

earlier, selects human subjects. So (32) is a fine representation because it correctly rules out
(31a) as ungrammatical. But by the same token, if we give (31b) the analogous structure in (33),
we incorrectly expect (31b) to be as ungrammatical as (31a).

(33)     Incorrect structure: There seemed [ PRO to be a problem ] .

The reason, once again, is that there is not licensed in the representation in (33). The fact
that seem is not a there licenser is demonstrated in (34) (recall Exercise 3.4).

(34)   * There seemed a problem.

Be careful not to confuse the class of raising verbs with the class of there licensers.
Raising verbs like seem don't themselves license there, as we see in (34).

Nonthematic subject positions

At this point, notice that the representations in (32) and (33) are both ruled out
because there isn't licensed in the matrix clause. However, only in (32) are the selectional
restrictions of the matrix verb violated. It turns out that a crucial difference
between agree and seem is that seem imposes no selectional restrictions. We can see this by
replacing agree in (20) with seem; the acceptability contrast between (20a) and (20b) disappears
in (35). (By contrast, replacing agree with seem in (21) has no effect on the contrast. After
reading this section to the end, you will be able to explain this fact, and you are asked to do so
inExercise 9.1B.)

(35) a. ok The children seemed to get wet.

b. ok The { horses, trees, rocks } seemed to get wet.

Another noteworthy property of seem is that its specifier position is not (and, in fact, must not
be) associated with any thematic role. It is true that seem takes an argument: what for lack of a
better term we will call the proposition argument.3 However, this argument cannot be expressed
in the specifier position, as we can see in the finite complement counterparts of raising
sentences.4

(36) a.   It seemed that the problem was hard.

b. * That the problem was hard seemed.

To summarize: the subject position of seem is semantically defective in the sense that it is
associated neither with selectional restrictions nor with a thematic role. We will refer to such a
subject position as nonthematic.

Deriving raising sentences

Of course, despite being superfluous from a semantic point of view, nonthematic subject
positions are nevertheless syntactically obligatory (recall the subject requirement introduced
in Chapter 3). This makes possible the following analysis of the grammaticality of (31b) and,
more generally, of all subject raising sentences. We begin by deriving the complement clause.
Note how the eventual matrix subject there is licensed as a specifier of main verb be in (37a).
We assume that the subject moves from Spec(VP) to Spec(IP) in (37c) in order to provide the
complement clause with a subject in accordance with the subject requirement.

In the case of a nonexpletive matrix subject, as in The children seemed to dance, the

children would substitute into the specifier of dance, thereby becoming associated
with that verb's agent role.

(37) a.       b.  

Substitute eventual matrix subject as Substitute (37a) as complement of to and

specifier of lower verb subject movement

We now substitute (37b) into the elementary tree for seemed in (38a).

(38) a.       b.  

Before proceeding with the derivation, a few words about the elementary trees in (38) are in
order. First, note that both elementary trees in (38) contain a specifier position. Though
semantically unnecessary, as discussed above, this position is motivated by the syntactic
obligatoriness of expletive it in small clauses.

(39) a.   They made [ it seem that there was a problem. ]

b. * They made [ seem that there was a problem. ]

Second, the syntactic category of the clausal complement is IP in (38a), whereas it is CP in

(38b), which we would use if we wanted to derive the finite complement counterpart of (31b)
(It seemed that there was a problem). The reason that raising predicates, in contrast to control
predicates, require different elementary trees depending on the finiteness of their complement
has to do with certain structural conditions that must be satisfied by traces of movement (but not
by PRO). We simply mention the existence of these conditions here; their exact character and
their motivation go beyond the scope of this textbook.

Substituting the clause in (37c) as the complement of the elementary tree for raising seem in
(38a) yields (40a), which in turn becomes the complement of the matrix I element, yielding
(40b).
(40) a.       b.  

Substitute (37c) as complement of Substitute (40a) as complement of

raising verb matrix I

At this point in the derivation, the option arises in principle of substituting expletive it in the
matrix Spec(VP) and moving it to the matrix Spec(IP). In fact, this is what we would do if the
complement of seemwere finite. In the case of a nonfinite complement, however, this step yields
the hopelessly ungrammatical (41).

(41)   * It seemed there to be a problem.

Why is (41) ungrammatical? The reason is that there bears a nominative case feature that cannot
be checked in the lower clause. (How we know that the case feature is nominative is left to you
to determine inExercise 9.1C.) The case feature can't be checked in the lower Spec(IP) (its
position in (41)) because nonfinite I is unable to check case at all. The case feature also can't be
check in the lower Spec(VP) (its position before subject movement in the complement clause)
because V doesn't check case in the spec-head configuration.

In principle, seemed could check objective case on there in the head-spec

configuration just as expect and other ECM verbs do. However, the ungrammaticality
of (41) shows that raising verbs are in fact unable to do so. Why they should differ
from ECM verbs in this way is obviously something that needs to be explained. It has
been proposed that there is a correlation between a verb's ability to assign a thematic
role to its specifier and its ability to check objective case. This correlation, known
as Burzio's generalization, is discussed further in Chapter 10.

Since the complement subject's case feature cannot be checked within its own IP, it is forced to
move via the matrix Spec(VP) to the matrix Spec(IP), as shown in (42a). In this final position,
nominative case is checked by the finite I of the matrix clause in the spec-head configuration.
For comparison, the structure of the finite complement counterpart is shown in (42b); here, each
of the two subjects checks nominative case with its own finite I.
(42) a.       b.  

It is the movement of the subject from the complement clause to the matrix clause in (42a) that
is known as raising. Raising, like ordinary subject movement, targets the subject. In both cases,
an element that is licensed in a lower specifier position moves to a higher specifier position. In
the case of expletive there, the licensing is by an appropriate verb; in the case of nonexpletive
subjects, a natural assumption is that they need to be licensed as arguments of the lower verb. In
both cases of movement, any licensing relations are maintained by the trace of movement. And
finally, in both cases, the lower position is not a case-checking position, whereas the higher one
is. The one difference between raising and ordinary subject movement is that in the case of
raising, the subject moves out of the IP in which it originates.

Tend and occur

As was the case with subject control verbs, certain raising verbs are able to take finite
complements in addition to nonfinite ones, whereas others are restricted to nonfinite
complements. Seem, as we have seen, belongs to the first type. Tend, as shown in (44), belongs
to the second type.
(43) a. ok There seem to be huge traffic jams during rush hour.
b. ok It seems that there are huge traffic jams during rush hour.
(44) a. ok There tend to be huge traffic jams during rush hour.
b. * It tends that there are huge traffic jams during rush hour.

Despite the contrast between the (b) examples, seem and tend are both raising verbs; what is
crucial is that the (a) examples, in which the subject of the complement clause moves out of its
clause, are both grammatical.

There are also verbs with the converse pattern of tend.

(45) a.   It occurred to me that there is a solution.

b. * There occurred to me to be a solution.

Such verbs have a nonthematic subject position, just like seem and tend. However, they are not
considered raising verbs, since their complement subjects cannot move out of the clause they
originate in, as was mentioned in the introduction.

Promise
Promise has the noteworthy property of behaving either as a subject control predicate or as a
raising predicate. As a subject control predicate, promise means something like 'vow' and
selects rational agents as subjects. This promise can take either finite or nonfinite complements.
(46) a.   The { children, #horses } promised [ to eat their oatmeal ] .
b.   The { children, #horses } promised [ that they would eat their oatmeal ] .

On this interpretation, the matrix clause can contain manner adjuncts that
modify promise (notice how promise can be replaced by vow in this examples).

(47) a.   The children softly promised [ to eat their oatmeal ] .

b.   The children obediently promised [ to eat their oatmeal ] .

The grammaticality of (47a) is particularly important, since the only licenser

for softly is promise (*the children were soft); in (47b), it could be argued that obediently is
licensed as a property of the children (ok-the children were obedient).

But promise can also have a 'weaker' meaning; on this interpretation, a sentence like (48a) can
be paraphrased as (48b).

(48) a.   This filly promises to win the race.

b.   All available evidence indicated that this filly will win the race.

On this interpretation, modifying the matrix predicate by a manner adverb as in (47) is as

deviant in the original promise sentence as in the paraphrase.

(49) a. # This filly { softly, obediently } promises to win the race.

b. # All available evidence { softly, obediently } indicates that this filly will win the race.

Notice, moreover, that in the alternative paraphrase in (50), the presence of expletive  there in
matrix subject position indicates that the position is nonthematic.

(50)     There is every indication that this filly will win the race.

The nonthematic character of the matrix subject position for this interpretation of  promise is
borne out by the grammaticality of (51).

(51)     There promises to be a new version by spring.

From these facts, we conclude that the proper representation for a sentence like (51) must be the
raising structure schematically indicated in (52).

(52)     Therei promises [ ti to be a new version by spring ] .

Promise sentences with nonthematic subjects, on the other hand, are ambiguous between a
raising analysis and a subject control analysis (as long as they contain no disambiguating
adverbs). Which reading is prominent depends, as always, on the discourse context. In a
sentence like (46a), the prominent interpretation, and the only one considered so far, is the
subject control interpretation represented in (53).

(53)     The { children, #horses } promised [ PRO to eat their oatmeal ] .

However, (46a) also has the raising interpretation represented in (54a), which can be
paraphrased as in (54b).

(54) a.   [ The { children, horses } ]i promised [ ti to eat their oatmeal ] .

b.   There was every indication that the { children, horses } would eat their oatmeal.

Notice that under this interpretation, the contrast between children and horses that is due to the
selectional restrictions imposed by subject control promise disappears.

There is at least one other verb in English that clearly has the same property as promise -
namely, threaten. You are asked to provide evidence for this assertion in Exercise 9.1D.

Object control

In this section, we present an analysis of object control predicates like persuade. The analysis is

extremely simple. According to it, object control predicates are VP shell structures in which a
subject control predicate is embedded under a causative predicate (Larson 1988). Recall
from Chapter 7 that we already have a VP shell analysis of persuade when it takes finite
complements, as in (55).
(55)     We persuaded the children that they should dance.

The requisite VP shell structure is shown in (56).

(56)    

In extending the analysis of the finite complement case to the object control case, we will make
a slight revision and replace BELIEVE by COMMIT. This is because BELIEVE is a predicate
that can combine with propositions but not with actions, whereas COMMIT is general enough
to combine with either propositions or actions, along the lines discussed earlier in connection
with agree. We are not claiming, incidentally, that COMMIT is exactly identical
with agree. The two predicates differ in that COMMIT does not take an optional argument
referring to a co-present rational being. In other words, we can persuade someone that the moon
is made of green cheese without necessarily sharing that belief ourselves, and we can persuade
someone to do the dishes without their incurring an obligation to us to do so. Given this slight
change, we are now in a position to derive (57).

(57)     We persuaded the children to dance.

The derivation of the nonfinite clause to dance is exactly the same as in the case of a subject
control sentence; (58a) is identical to (27c). (58a) substitutes as the complement of COMMIT,
and substituting the children in the specifier position of COMMIT yields (58b).
(58) a.       b.       c.    

Substitute (58a) as
Reuse (27c) complement of abstract Substitute specifier in (58b)
subject control verb

Notice how the apparent matrix object the children is not actually an object, but rather a subject
of a small clause complement; in a moment, its objective case feature will be checked by
CAUSE in the spec-head configuration. (58c) substitutes as the complement of CAUSE,
yielding (59a), and then substituting the matrix subject we in the specifier position of CAUSE
and abstract verb movement yields (59b).

(59) a.       b.  

Substitute (58c) as complement of Substitute specifier in (59a) and abstract

CAUSE verb movement

Finally, the VP in (59b) substitutes into the elementary tree for the matrix I, and the matrix
subject undergoes subject movement. For simplicity, we omit these last steps of the derivation.

The analysis just presented is straightforwardly consistent with the contrast between ECM and
object control illustrated in (60).

(60) a.   We expected there to be a problem.

b. # We persuaded there to be a problem.

The structures for the two sentences are shown in (61).

(61) a.       b.  

In (61a), expletive there is licensed by originating as the specifier of main verb be in the

complement clause. (61b), on the other hand, is ruled out for exactly the same reasons as (32),
repeated here as (62).

(62)   # There agreed [ PRO to be a problem ] .

First, expletive there is not licensed, since neither COMMIT nor agree are verbs of existence.
Second, COMMIT, like agree, selects rational beings as subjects, and expletive there fails to
satisfy this selectional restriction.

More nonthematic subjects

In distinguishing among the various verb classes discussed in this chapter, we have relied
heavily on the distribution of expletive there (or, to put it another way, on the grammaticality or
ungrammaticality of sentences containing expletive there). As it turns out, expletive there is not
the only nonthematic subject (= subject that is not associated with a thematic role). In this final
section of the chapter, we present two further instances of nonthematic subjects: so-called
subject idiom chunks and weather it.

Subject idiom chunks

In Chapter 7, we introduced a constraint according to which idioms must form a constituent, and
we mentioned the existence of clausal idioms like The shit hit the fan. Subject idiom chunks are
simply the subjects of such clausal idioms. Some further examples of clausal idioms are given
in (63); the subject idiom chunks are italicized.
(63) a.   The cat is out of the bag.
b. The fur will fly.
c. The jig is up.
d. The pot is calling the kettle black.

Subject idiom chunks share two important properties with expletive there. First, just as
expletive there must be licensed by a verb of existence, the subjects in (63) have whatever
idiomatic force they have only in connection with the rest of the idiom, but not otherwise.

The relation between subject idiom chunks and their predicates is actually even
 stronger than the relationship between expletive there and its licensers, since predicate
idiom chunks also have no independent idiomatic meaning of their own, whereas
verbs of existence can occur independently of existential there.

For instance, neither cat in (63a) nor pot in (63d) have a metaphorical sense

of secret or hypocrite, respectively, in other syntactic contexts. So sentences as in (64) have
only literal interpretations.

(64) a.   The cat is safe with her. 

(can't mean: 'The secret is safe with her.')
b. # Fortunately, the pot retracted that piece of duplicitous slander. 
(can't mean: 'The hypocrite retracted that piece of duplicitous slander.')

Second, presumably because they are not interpreted literally, subject idiom chunks don't seem
to be associated with any thematic role, and so they can occupy the nonthematic subject position
of raising predicates. As a result of these two properties, contrasts as in (65) are expected.

(65) a. # The cat agreed [ PRO to be out of the bag ] .

b.   [The cat]i seems [ ti to be out of the bag ] .

(65a) is ruled out both on a literal and an idiomatic reading. Agree selects rational beings as
subjects and is therefore incompatible with the cat either as a literal or as an idiomatic
(nonthematic) subject. In addition, the cat isn't licensed as an idiom chunk in the representation
in (65a) because it doesn't form a constituent with the rest of the idiom. By contrast, both
readings, and in particular the idiomatic one, are possible in (65b). This is expected, since the
matrix subject originates in the complement clause, forming a constituent with the remainder of
the idiom.

Note that examples like (66) do not invalidate the diagnostic value of subject idiom chunks in
distinguishing between subject control and raising predicates.

(66)     The cat wanted [ PRO to be out of the bag ] . (only literal interpretation)

Here, want imposes less strict selectional restrictions on its subject. Since the subject needn't be
rational (only have a reasonably well-developed nervous system), the sentence is grammatical,
unlike (65a). However, unlike in (65b), the matrix subject position isn't nonthematic and the
matrix subject doesn't move out of the lower clause, so the sentence has only a literal
interpretation.

Weather it

The third type of nonthematic subject is weather it, the subject of verbs of precipitation.

(67)   ok It is { hailing, pouring, raining, sleeting, snowing. }

As with subject idiom chunks and their predicates, the licensing relationship between
weather it and their predicates is mutual: not only is weather it licensed by weather verbs, but
the weather verbs are in turn themselves licensed by weather it, as shown in (68).

(68)   * The { air, atmosphere, environment, precipitation, sky, weather } is { hailing, pouring,

raining, sleeting, snowing. }

Given the nonthematic character of weather it, contrasts as in (69) are expected.

(70) a. # It decided to rain at night.
b. It tends to rain at night.

Unexpectedly, given what we have said so far, sentences like (71) are not that unacceptable.

(71)   ? It's trying to rain; it finally managed to rain.

What is going on here? A simple explanation is that the selectional restrictions

of try and manage are being violated at a literal level (recall the discussion of the little girl
lapping up her teacher's praise), prompting the hearer to conceptualize the weather as an
animate being.

Summary

We have seen that expletive there is licensed as the subject of verbs of (coming into) existence.
Subject idiom chunks and their predicates stand in a mutual licensing relationship, as does
weather it with weather predicates. Because of their special licensing requirements, none of
these subjects is licensed as the subject of a subject control predicate (or as the apparent object
of an object control predicate). Nor can a control predicate's selectional restrictions not be met
by a nonthematic subject. By contrast, raising predicates neither interfere with the licensing of
nonthematic subjects (which takes place in a lower clause) nor do they impose selectional
restrictions that the nonthematic subjects cannot meet. It is precisely because of their semantic
defectiveness that they are able to act as grammatical catalysts, allowing licensing relations that
are normally confined to the same clause to extend across clause boundaries.

As we have seen, the special properties of nonthematic subjects make them useful diagnostics to
distinguish subject control from raising predicates (and, mutatis mutandis, ECM from object
control predicates). The relevant judgments are summarized in (72); for convenience, we also
include the judgments for manner adverbs discussed in connection with promise.

Subject control Raising

(72)   Expletive there * ok
Subject idiom chunk # (or only literal) ok (both idiomatic and literal)
Weather it # (or metaphorical) ok
Manner adverbs ok *

Notes

1. It might occur to a careful reader that an alternative approach to the facts in (20) and (21) is
possible, according to which control sentences contain a single subject (not two, as in the text),
which must simultaneously satisfy the selectional restrictions of both the higher and the lower
verbs. Regardless of whether such an approach might be worked out in detail for English, we do
not adopt it, since it cannot be extended to handle control constructions universally. In
particular, the approach in question fails for Icelandic, as we briefly describe in what follows.

In contrast to English (and most other languages), Icelandic has certain verbs whose subjects
appear in some non-nominative case (genitive, dative, or accusative), even in finite clauses. The
analysis of these so-called 'quirky case' subjects is beyond the scope of this textbook, but it is
well established that they are true subjects (despite the lack of subject-verb agreement) (see, for
instance, Zaenen, Maling, and Thraínsson 1985, Sigurðsson 1991, and the many references
therein). (i) gives examples of Icelandic finite clauses with an ordinary nominative subject and
with a quirky case subject. The subjects are in boldface. Note that the underlined quantifiers
agree in case with the subjects; this fact will be important directly.

(i) a. Ordinary nominative   Strákarnir komust allir i

subject skóla.
the-boys (nom) got all (nom pl m) in
school
'The boys all got to school.' (Sigurðsson
1991:***, (**))
b. 'Quirky dative' subject   Strákanum leiddist öllum i
skóla.
the-boys (dat) was-bored all (dat pl m) in
school
'The boys were all bored in school.'
(Sigurðsson 1991:***, (**))

(ii) shows that the clauses in (i) can be embedded under a subject control verb (here, vonast
til 'hope for'). As in English, the subject of the embedded clauses is silent, but note that the
quantifiers continue to exhibit the same case that they did in (i).

(ii) a. Embedded ordinary   Strákarnir vonast til að PRO komast

subject allir í skóla.
the-boys (nom) hope for Comp get all
(nom pl m) in school
'The boys hope to all get to school.'
(Sigurðsson 1991:***, (**))
b. Embedded quirky   Strákarnir vonast til að PRO leidhast
subject ekki öllum í skóla.
the-boys (nom) hope for Comp be-bored
not all (dat pl m) in school
'The boys hope to all not be bored in
school.' (Sigurðsson 1991:***, (**))

In particular, in (ii.b), the quantifier must appear in the dative. From this, we conclude that the
silent subject of the lower clause in (ii.b) checks quirky dative case in (ii.b), just as it did in the
finite clause in (i.b). The fact that the matrix and embedded subjects don't bear the same case
feature in (ii.b) provides conclusive evidence that control constructions are indeed biclausal,
since a single noun phrase cannot check more than one case (even though it might satisfy more
than one selectional restriction at the same time).

2. The statement in the text is an oversimplification. In fact, there is a bit of overlap in the
distribution of PRO and overt noun phrases - for instance, the subject position of gerunds.

(i) a.   [ PRO going out with him ] would bother me.

b.   [ { Kim's, Kim } going out with him ] would bother me.

3. For simplicity, we focus on the proposition argument of seem and disregard the optional
experiencer (It seems to me that you've solved the problem). Including the latter in our
considerations would not affect our conclusions.

4. Even clearer evidence that the specifier position at issue is the Spec(VP) associated
with seem (and not, say, some higher specifier position, such as Spec(IP)) comes from small
clauses like (i).
(i) a.   They made [ it seem [ that the problem was hard ] ] .
b. * They made [ [ that the problem was hard ] seem ] .

Exercises and problems

Exercise 9.1

A. As mentioned in the text, certain subject control predicates, like try, cannot take finite
complements. Provide evidence that in subject control sentences containing these predicates,
both the matrix predicate and the complement predicate impose their own selectional
restrictions, thus motivating a biclausal analysis even for such sentences.

B. Explain the acceptability contrast in (1).

(1) a.   The children seemed to learn Twi.

b. # The children seemed to { elapse, evaporate }.

C. What is the evidence that the case feature on there in (2) is nominative?

(2)     There seemed to be a problem.

D. Show that threaten is both a subject control verb and a raising verb.

Exercise 9.2

A. The premises of the following argument are correct, and the conclusion itself may be correct,
but the argument is invalid. Where is the fallacy?
(1) is grammatical; (2) is ungrammatical. Therefore, manage must be a subject control
predicate, not a raising predicate.
(1)     She managed to solve the problem.
(2)   * There managed to solve the problem.

B. Using the sample answers in (2)-(4) as a model, determine whether the verbs in (5) are
subject control predicates, raising predicates, or neither. For the purposes of this exercise, use
only active verb forms.

Note that sometimes two pieces of evidence are necessary to conclusively determine a

verb's status.
Evidence: Conclusion:
(2) ok There chanced to be an Chance is a raising verb.
opening.
(3) a. ok It slipped out that there Slip out is like occur. It has a nonthematic subject position
was a problem. (3a), but can't take nonfinite complements (3b), so it isn't a
b. * There slipped out to be raising verb.
a problem.
(4) a. * It resolved that there Resolve is a subject control verb.
would be a solution.
b. * There resolved to be a
solution.
(5)     agree, aspire, attempt, be, beg, cease, choose, claim, come, commence, continue, dare,
 demand, deserve, desire, determine, elect, end up, endeavor, expect, fail, forget, happen,
have, hope, intend, look, mean, need, neglect, plan, pledge, prefer, presume, pretend,
proceed, prove, purport, remember, request, start, strive, swear, tend, train, try, volunteer,
vow, wish, yearn

C. Subject control and raising predicates can be of other syntactic categories than V. The
predicates in (6) are adjectives, those in (7) are participles and it's not always completely clear
whether they are adjectives or verbs, and about in (8) is a preposition. As in (B), determine
which class each of these predicates belong to, giving the evidence on which your decision is
based.

(6)     afraid, anxious, apt, certain, content, eager, ecstatic, evident, fortunate, glad, happy,
hesitant, liable, likely, lucky, necessary, possible, ready, reluctant, sorry, sure, unlikely
(7)     bound, delighted, destined, determined, embarrassed, excited, fated, going, inclined,
itching, jonesing, prepared, scared, (all) set, supposed, thrilled
(8)     about

D. Using (9)-(11) as a model, determine whether the verbs in (12) are ECM verbs or object
control verbs. Once again, use only active verb forms. For the purpose of this exercise, do not
worry about how you would semantically decompose any object control verbs that you find.

Evidence: Conclusion:
(9)   ok I assumed there to be a Assume is an ECM verb.
problem.
(10) a. ok I convinced John to take Convince is an object control verb.
the job.
b. * I convinced there to be a
problem.
(11) a. ok I noticed that the Notice doesn't allow nonfinite complements; therefore it is
problem was difficult. neither an ECM verb nor an object control verb.
b. * I noticed the problem to
be difficult.
(12)     acknowledge, advise, allow, anticipate, ask, beg, blackmail, challenge, command,
consider, convince, corral, dare, deem, determine, discover, encourage, enjoin, expect,
fear, find, forbid, get, help, instruct, invite, know, order, perceive, permit, predict,
pressure, prompt, prove, provoke, remind, report, request, require, tell, tempt, urge, warn

Exercise 9.3

For this exercise, find verbs that have not been discussed in the book.

Be sure to provide the evidence (grammatical or ungrammatical sentences) on the basis

of which you decide that a particular verb belongs to a particular class. Not much in the
way of discussion is required beyond that.

A. As was mentioned in this chapter, raising verbs are logically distinct from there licensers.
There are, however, some verbs that belong to both classes (this is comparable to a single
person belonging to two distinct clubs). Can you think of any?

B. As we mentioned in this chapter, there are raising verbs that cannot take finite complements.
Can you think of other verbs besides tend with this property?
C. Expect is an ECM verb. Which other class(es) of verbs discussed in this chapter does it
belong to?

Exercise 9.4

A. Using the guidelines from Exercise 9.2, determine which class the matrix predicates in (1)
belong to. In (1e,f), you will also have to decide which syntactic category the matrix predicate
belongs to; briefly explain your decision.
(1) a.   They failed to be on time.
b.   They aspired to get the job.
c.   They reminded him to solve the problem.
d.   They aren't hesitant to move.
e.   They are fated to get the job.
f.   They are about to graduate.

B. Using the grammar tool in x-bar 2, build structures for the sentences in (1). Provide suitable
decompositions for any object control predicates.

Exercise 9.5

Explain why the following sentences are ungrammatical. The intended meaning in all cases is It
seems that they like caviar (or the semantically equivalent They seem to like caviar). If
convenient, you can use the grammar tool in x-bar 2 to build structures for the sentences.
(1) a. * There seems that they like caviar.
b. * They1 seem that they1 like caviar.
c. * Theyi seem that ti like caviar.
d. * Caviari seems that they like ti.

Exercise 9.6

A. You have been asked to review an article for Linguistic Inquiry by Professor Richard
Gerneweis, in which he concludes on the basis of the contrast in (1) that volunteer is a control
verb. What is wrong with his argument?
(1) a. ok Amy volunteered to do the job.
b. * There volunteered to do the job.

B. In your review, you graciously provide the conclusive evidence that Professor Gerneweis
should have provided himself.

Exercise 9.7

A. Using the grammar tool in x-bar 2, build structures for the ungrammatical sentences in (1).
(Assume that expletive it substitutes directly into Spec(IP).)
(1) a. * It seems Jackie to have solved the problem.
b. * Jackie seems that has solved the problem.

B. Briefly explain the contrast between the sentences in (1) and (2) in terms of the principles of
Universal Grammar covered in the class. (You don't need to build structures for the sentences in
(2).)

(2) a. ok Jackie seems to have solved the problem.

b. ok It seems that Jackie has solved the problem.
Problem 9.1

Based on the analysis of object control verbs in this chapter, explain the contrast between (1)
and (2).
(1)     I persuaded them to come.
(2) a. * I was persuasive them to come.
b. * I was persuasive of them to come.

Problem 9.2

Some of the predicates discussed in this chapter take either a finite or a nonfinite clausal
complement; others take only a nonfinite complement. Finally, some predicates that in principle
might take a nonfinite complement don't.
(1) a.   The children agreed that they would dance; the children agreed to dance.
b.   It appears that the bear is hibernating; the bear appears to be hibernating.
(2) a.   The children tried to dance; *the children tried that they would dance.
b.   The bear tends to hibernate in winter; *it tends that the bear hibernates in winter.
(3)     It is evident that there is a problem; *there is evident to be a problem.

The analysis presented in the chapter is not detailed enough to account for these facts. Suggest
how the analysis could be appropriately extended or revised.

9. PASSIVE

Characteristics of the passive

In English, as in most other languages, active sentences like (1a) have passive counterparts like
(1b).
(1) a. Active Nancy approved them.
Thematic role Agent Theme
Grammatical relation Subject Direct object
b. Passive They were approved (by Nancy).
Thematic role Theme Agent
Grammatical relation Subject Object of preposition

Passivization has a number of effects. First and foremost, the agent argument, which is
expressed as the subject of the active sentence, is demoted in the passive to an
optional by phrase. Second, the theme argument is promoted from object to subject. In other
words, the agent and theme arguments are linked to different grammatical relations in the
passive than in the active. Finally, a past participle in the passive, unlike one in the active, can't
check objective case.

(2) a. Active   Nancy has approved them.

b. Passive * Itexpl was approved them.
Intended meaning: 'They were approved.'
Sentences containing the intransitive variant of a verb that participates in the causative
alternation, as in (i), are not passive sentences.
(i)     The vase dropped.
It is true that sentences like (i) share with passives the property that their subject is a
theme, rather than an agent. However, they differ from passives in being incompatible
with the expression of an agent, as shown in (ii).1
 (ii)   * The vase dropped by the child. (ungrammatical on the relevant reading)

In English, the passive is expressed analytically by a combination of the past participle and a

form of the auxiliary verb be. Other languages allow the passive to be expressed synthetically,
as illustrated in (3) for Korean and in (4) for Latin.

(3) a.   Active Chulswu-ka kyehoyk-ul helak- ha- yessta.

Chulswu nom plans acc approve active past
Agent Theme
Subject Direct object
'Chulswu approved the plans.'
b. Passive Kyehoyk-i (chulswu-eyuyhaye) helak- toy- essta.
plans nom Chulswu by approve passive past
Theme Agent
Subject Object of postposition
'The plans were approved (by Chulswu).'
(4) a.   Active Puer-0 claud-it port-am.
boy nom close 3.sg.pres door acc
Agent Theme
Subject Direct object
'The boy is closing the door.'
b.   Passive Port-a claud-it- ur (a puer-o).
door nom close 3.sg.pres passive by boy abl
Theme Agent
Subject Object of
preposition
'The door is being closed (by the boy).'

In these languages, it is the bound morphemes -toy- and -ur that result in the effects of

passivization mentioned above. As in English, the grammatical relations of the agent and theme
arguments differ in the active and the passive. Also, as in English, passive verb forms cannot
check the case that active verb forms can.

(5) a.   * Kyehoyk-ul (chulswu-eyuyhaye) helak- toy- essta.

plans acc Chulswu by approve passive past
Intended meaning: 'The plans were approved (by Chulswu).'
b.   * Claud-it- ur port-am (a puer-o).
close 3.sg.pres passive door acc by boy abl
Intended meaning: 'The door is being closed by the boy.'

Returning to English, the properties of the passive participle suggest that it is not a verb, but
rather a deverbal adjective (that is, an adjective that is morphologically derived from a verb).
Ordinary adjectives in English can't check case, so this immediately accounts for the inability of
the passive participle to do so in (2b). The idea that passive participles are adjectives seems to
run into difficulties, though, in connection with aspectual semantics. Aspect is a complex
linguistic category having to do with the kinds of situations that verbs and verb phrases can
denote, but for present purposes, we need to distinguish only two such situations: events and
states. In English, a convenient diagnostic is that events, but not states, can appear in the
progressive.

(6) a. Eventive Non-progressive   The police arrested many demonstrators.

b. Progressive The police are arresting many demonstrators.
(7) a. Stative Non-progressive   He knows the address.
 b. Progressive * He is knowing the address.

Passive participles can be used to denote events, as in the passive counterparts of (6) that are
given in (8), whereas adjectives in English are generally stative, as shown in (9).

(8) a. Eventive Non-progressive   Many demonstrators were arrested (by the police).
b. Progressive   Many demonstrators were being arrested (by the police).
(9) a. Stative Non-progressive   She is tall; scholarships are available.
b. Progressive * She is being tall; scholarships are being available.

The aspectual contrast between (8) and (9) therefore seems to raise a difficulty for the idea that
participles are adjectives. However, though rare, it is possible for adjectives in English to be
eventive. This is shown by (10a), which is synonymous with (10b); note that early and late are
adjectives in (10a) and adverbs in (10b).

(10) a.   They were { early, late. }

b.   They arrived { early, late. }

As expected, eventive adjectives like early and late can also appear in connection with the

progressive; cf. the acceptability of both (11a) and (11b).

(11) a.   They are being { early, late } (again).

b.   They are arriving { early, late } (again).

Given the existence of eventive adjectives, then, the eventive aspectual semantics of the passive
participles in (8) turns out to be unproblematic.

In addition to the eventive aspectual semantics just discussed, passive participles can also have
stative aspectual semantics, as illustrated by the aspectual contrast in (12).

(12)     Aspect Example Discourse context

a. Event   The door is locked (by the The janitor locks the door at exactly 5 p.m.
janitor). without fail.
b. State The door is locked. It's now 5:15 p.m.

As one would expect, stative participles cannot occur in the progressive.

(13)     Aspect Example Discourse context

a. Event The door is being The janitor always locks the door at exactly 5 p.m. without
locked. fail, and it's now exactly 5 p.m.
b. State * The door is being It's now 5:15 p.m.
locked.
Finally, passive participles can go so far as to lose their verbal properties completely. They can
then appear in the comparative and superlative like ordinary gradable adjectives, and they can
form un-adjectives, as shown in (14).

(14) a.   She's more { committed, educated, enlightened, interested, satisfied } than he is.

b.   They're the most { committed, educated, enlightened, interested, satisfied } people I
know
c.   uncommitted, uneducated, unenlightened, uninterested, unsatisfied

A movement analysis of the passive

Object idiom chunks

In addition to the subject idiom chunks discussed in Chapter 9, English also has object idiom
chunks. As their name implies, these are licensed as the objects of particular verbs. Some
examples are given in (15) (Radford 1988:422). The object idiom chunks are in italics, and the
licensing verbs are in green.
(15) a.   Let's take advantage of the situation.
b. They are making some headway on a solution.
c. They will { give, pay } heed to her proposal.
d. The Prime Minister paid homage to the dead.
e. She took note of what I said.
f. The government keeps tabs on his operations.

The restriction of object idiom chunks to the complement position of the licensing verb is
thrown into striking relief by the contrast between nearly synonymous expressions such
as attention and heed, orprogress and headway (Radford 1988:423). The variants with the
ordinary expressions (attention, progress) are fine, but those with the idiom chunks (heed,
headway) are not since they are not licensed by the verbs in red.

(16) a.   He's always trying to attract my { attention, *heed. }

b. He's a child who requires a lot of { attention, *heed. }
(17) a. Please be prepared to report some { progress, *headway } by Monday.
b. We appreciate your { progress, *headway } in solving the problem.

Given their licensing requirements, it isn't surprising that object idiom chunks are generally
ungrammatical in subject position.

(18) a.   { Attention, *heed } facilitates learning.

b. More { attention, *heed } to maintenance would soon pay off in lower repair bills.
c. { Progress, *headway } is often slower than one expects.

Object idiom chunks are, however, able to occur in subject position under one condition - in
passive sentences where the passive participle is that of the licensing verb. This is illustrated by
the contrast between (19) and (20) (Radford 1988:423).

(19) a.   Little advantage was taken of the situation.

b. Some headway is being made on a solution.
c. Little heed was paid to her proposal.
d. Due homage was paid to the dead.
e. Little note was taken of what I said.
 f. Close tabs were kept on his operations.
(20) a. * My heed was attracted immediately.
b. * Your close heed is required.
c. * A bit of headway was reported at the meeting.
d. * Our headway in solving the problem wasn't sufficiently appreciated.

Analysis

We now turn to an analysis of the passive that takes into consideration the facts that we have
just presented. We begin by recalling the key assumption of the analysis of subject raising
in Chapter 9, namely that nonthematic subjects invariably originate as specifiers of their
licensing predicates. A straightforward consequence of this assumption is that when
nonthematic subjects function as the subjects of a higher clause, they must have moved there
from their original position. We can think of this process of subject raising as extending the
relation between a nonthematic subject and its licenser without giving up the locality of the
licensing relationship, which is preserved by the lowest trace in the movement chain.

As we have just seen, object idiom chunks in active sentences are locally licensed as well,
namely as the complements of a licensing verb, and this local relationship is extended in passive
sentences. In other words, although the licensing relationship differs in both cases (spec-
predicate for subject raising, head-comp for passive), the passive is analogous to subject raising
in that both constructions exhibit the extension of an otherwise very strict local licensing
relationship. Because of this fundamental similarity, it makes sense to treat the passive as a
further instance of movement.

Our movement analysis of the passive is based on the premise that theme arguments originate in
the same structural position in both the active and the passive. This means that the elementary
trees for active and passive participles both contain a complement position. However, the
elementary trees for the two categories also differ in several ways. First, as discussed earlier,
passive participles are adjectives. Second, in the active, the agent argument is
obligatorily linked to (= expressed in) Spec(VP), whereas in the passive, it is optionally linked
to an adjunct by phrase. We will represent this by omitting Spec(VP) in the elementary tree for
the passive participle. Finally, passive participles in English cannot check objective case; recall
the ungrammaticality of (2b). The elementary trees we propose for active and passive participles
are thus as shown in (21).

(21) a.       b.  

Active: [+obj] Passive: [-obj]

It is worth noticing the following correlation. Active verbs, including active participles, link
their agent argument to the specifier position and are able to check objective case, whereas
passive participles have neither property. This correlation between the linking of a head's agent
argument to its specifier position and the head's ability to check objective case is known
as Burzio's generalization (Burzio 1986).

In what follows, we illustrate the derivation of a passive sentence like (22).

(22)     The proposal was adopted.

First, we substitute the theme argument the proposal in the elementary tree in (21b). This yields
(23a). We then substitute (23a) as the complement of the passive auxiliary verb was, as in (23b).
For simplicity, we will assume that auxiliary verbs, like raising verbs and passive participles,
lack a specifier position. The resulting structure then substitutes as the complement of I, as in
(23c).

(23) a.       b.       c.  

Substitute (23a) as
Substitute theme Substitute (23b) as
complement of passive
argument in (21b) complement of I
auxiliary

Because of the inability of the passive participle to check objective case, the theme argument's
case feature cannot be checked in the complement position in a structure like (23b). Since every
case feature must be checked, the theme argument must move to the closest position in which
case can be checked. This position is Spec(IP), where it is possible for nominative case on the
theme argument to be checked by finite I. The resulting final structure is shown in (24). (For
simplicity, the tree in (24) doesn't show the verb movement of was from V to I.)

(24)    

According to the analysis just presented, the passive is analogous to subject raising in the
following way. In both cases, a noun phrase (the subject of the complement clause with subject
raising, the object with passive) originates in a position in which case can't be checked. This
forces the relevant noun phrase (complement subject, object) to move to the closest position
where case can be checked. Of course, subject raising and the passive aren't identical in every
respect. There are two important differences between the two instances of movement. First, the
path from the head of the chain to its tail contains a clause boundary (IP) in the case of subject
raising, but not in the case of the passive.

Recall that the term head has two completely different meanings that shouldn't be
confused. The head of an X' structure is the syntactic category that immediately
dominates a word or morpheme and projects an intermediate and a maximal projection.
The head of a movement chain is simply the highest element in the chain.
(25) a.       b.  

Subject raising Passive

Second, as noted earlier, the grammatical relation of the moved noun phrase changes in the
passive from object to subject. In subject raising, on the other hand, the grammatical relation of
the moved noun phrase doesn't change; it starts out as a subject and ends up as one.

The passive and nonfinite complementation

In this section, we focus on the passive of ECM verbs like expect, which were introduced in
connection with head-spec licensing in Chapter 8. Consider the sentences in (26).

(26) a.   Your folks expect you to call.

b.   You are expected to call.

The elementary tree for expect in (26a) is given in (27a). In accordance with the previous
discussion, the elementary tree for the passive participle expected is as in (27b). The difference
between the two trees is analogous to that between the trees in (21); the only difference is the
syntactic category of the complement (DP in the case of ordinary verbs, IP in the case of ECM
verbs). Note that the elementary tree in (27b) is missing a specifier position; in accordance with
Burzio's generalization, it also lacks the ability to check objective case.

(27) a.       b.  

Active: [+obj] Passive: [-obj]

In what follows, we illustrate the derivation of (26b). The derivation of the complement clause
is shown in (28); we assume that the complement subject moves from Spec(VP) to Spec(IP) to
provide the complement clause with a subject (recall the subject requirement discussed in
Chapter 3).

(28) a.       b.       c.  

Structure of Substitute (28a) as Move subject of

complement VP complement of nonfinite I complement clause
The subsequent steps of the derivation involving the matrix clause are as shown in (29).

(29
a.       b.       c.  
)

Substitute (28c) as Substitute (29a) as

Substitute (29b) as
complement of passive complement of passive
complement of matrix I
participle of ECM verb auxiliary

In (29c), the subject of the complement clause cannot check case with the participle of the ECM
verb in the head-spec configuration because the participle, being passive, lacks the ability to
check case. Therefore, the complement subject must move to the nearest position where case
can be checked. This is the matrix Spec(IP), where nominative case is checked. The resulting
structure is shown in (30).

(30)    

Consider now the chain headed by you in (30). The chain consists of three links, which occupy
the matrix Spec(IP), the complement Spec(IP), and the complement Spec(VP). Recall
from Chapter 9 that subject raising also results in chains whose links consist of these three
positions. In this respect, then, the passive of ECM verbs is analogous to subject raising, as is
evident from comparing the schematic structures in (31). The only difference is that the
structure of ECM passives is slightly more complex because of the passive auxiliary in the
matrix clause.
(31) a.       b.  

ECM passive chain Raising chain

The reason that the chains in (31) are analogous is that the passive participle of the ECM verb
and the subject raising verb both obey Burzio's generalization. In other words, as shown in (32),
both heads fail to project a specifier position, and they are both unable to check case.

(32) a.       b.  

[-obj] [-obj]

Although Burzio's generalization itself remains to be explained, it does allow us to understand

the ungrammaticality of all three sentences in (33) as stemming from a single source. In all three
sentences, the head (highlighted in italics), fails to be associated with an agent and hence fails to
project Spec(VP),2 yet contrary to Burzio's generalization case would have to be checked on the
underlined noun phrases, in either the head-spec configuration, as in (33a,b) or the head-comp
configuration, as in (33c).

(33) a. * Itexpl seems [ him to have a problem. ]

b. * Itexpl is expected [ him to have a problem. ]
c. * Itexpl was approved them.

Structural versus inherent case

In languages with morphologically richer case systems than English, there is evidence for a
distinction between two types of case: structural and inherent.

For instance, the following German examples show that the active
participle unterstützt 'supported' checks accusative case, but that the homonymous passive
participle cannot. Instead, in the passive, nominative case on the theme argument is checked by
finite I (a silent [pres] element), as in English. (The following examples are all given in the
form of subordinate clauses in order to abstract away from the so-called V2 phenomenon, a
word order constraint on main clauses in German and other Germanic languages that is
irrelevant for present purposes; it is discussed in Chapter 13.)

(34)   Active:   dass wir dies-en Kandidat-en unterstützt haben

 that we this acc candidate acc supported have
'that we have supported this candidate'
(35) a. Passive: dass dies-er Kandidat- 0 unterstützt wurde
that this nom candidate nom supported was
'that this candidate was supported'
b. * dass dies-en Kandidat- en unterstützt wurde
that this acc candidate acc supported was

In contrast to verbs that check the accusative, however, verbs that check the dative continue to
check that case even in the passive. This is shown in (36) and (37).

(36)   Active:   dass wir dies-em Kandidat- en geholfen haben

that we this dat candidate dat helped have
'that we helped this candidate'
(37) a. Passive: * dass dies-er Kandidat- 0 geholfen wurde
that this nom candidate nom helped was
Intended meaning: 'that this candidate was helped'
b. ok dass dies-em Kandidat -en geholfen wurde
that this dat candidate dat helped was

The accusative and the dative are both checked in the head-comp configuration by the
verbs unterstützen and helfen, respectively, but they differ in that the accusative alternates with
the nominative, whereas the dative doesn't. What we mean by 'alternate' is simply that an
accusative object in the active corresponds to a nominative subject in the passive, whereas a
dative object in the active remains dative in the passive. The alternating cases (nominative,
accusative) are referred to as structural cases, whereas the nonalternating case (dative) is
referred to as an inherent case.

The distinction between structural and inherent case has consequences for the proper
formulation of Burzio's generalization. In view of the facts just presented, it holds only for verbs
that check structural case.

An important question that arises in connection with (37b) is what element checks the
nominative case feature of the finite I. It is generally assumed that German has a silent expletive
element, corresponding to English expletive it or there, that checks nominative case in Spec(IP).
The structure of (37b) is then as in (38). (For simplicity, we don't show the movement of the
passive auxiliary - in this case, wurde - to the past tense I.)

(38)    

It is worth noting that the silent expletive bears a number feature with the default value
'singular'. Evidence for this comes from the number agreement pattern in (39): the overt plural
subject in (39a) agrees with a plural verb form, whereas the silent expletive in (39b) agrees with
the corresponding singular verb form.
(39) a.   dass die Kandidaten unterstützt { wurden, *wurde }
that the candidates.nom supported were was
'that the candidates were supported'
b.   dass den Kandidaten geholfen { wurde, *wurden }
that the candidates.dat helped was were
'that the candidates were helped'
literally: 'that it { was, *were } helped the candidates'

Notes

1. By the criterion just mentioned, participial constructions as in (i) are true passive
constructions, despite the absence of the passive auxiliary be.

(i) a.   The shrubs planted (by our neighbors) are azaleas.

b.   Planted in the shade (by an ignorant gardener), the cactus failed to thrive.

Note the close parallel with the constructions in (ii), which contain the passive auxiliary.

(ii) a.   The shrubs that were planted (by our neighbors) are azaleas.

b.   Having been planted in the shade (by an ignorant gardener), the cactus failed to thrive.

2. We are assuming that expletive it in (33) would substitute directly into Spec(IP).

Exercises and problems

Exercise 10.1

A. Using the xbar 2 grammar tool, build structures for the sentences in (1).
(1) a.   The puppeteers might be arrested.
b.   The puppeteers were arrested.

B. In addition to the passive auxiliary be, English has a second passive auxiliary - get - which is
illustrated in (2).

(2) a.   The puppeteers might get arrested.

b.   The puppeteers got arrested.

There is a purely syntactic difference betweeen the two passive auxiliaries be and get. What is
it?

The answer is purely syntactic.

Exercise 10.2

A. Using the xbar 2 grammar tool, build structures for the sentences in (1).
(1) a. Standard English   The car needs to be washed.
b. Pittsburgh English   The car needs washed.
B. Based on the evidence in (1), compare the syntactic properties of Standard English versus
Pittsburgh English need. Be explicit but brief.

Exercise 10.3

A. Using the xbar 2 grammar tool, build structures for the sentences in (1) and (2).
(1) a.   We expect them to make headway.
b. We expect headway to be made.
c. Headway is expected to be made.
(2) a.   The media expect the guerillas to free the journalist.
b. The media expect the journalist to be freed by the guerillas.
c. The journalist is expected to be freed by the guerillas.

B. One of the sentences in (2) is structurally ambiguous. Which one is it, and why?

Exercise 10.4

A. Using the xbar 2 grammar tool, build structures for the sentences in (1).
(1) a.   They proved there to be an error in the calculation.
b.   There proved to be an error in the calculation.

B. Which case is checked on the underlined noun phrases? How do you know?

C. In which licensing configuration(s) is case checked on the underlined noun phrases?

D. The syntactic properties of prove differ in (1a) and (1b). Briefly explain how.

Exercise 10.5

Explain the pattern in (1). Do DPs and CPs differ with respect to case-checking?
(1) a.   It was suspected that there was a problem with the O-ring.
b.   That there was a problem with the O-ring was suspected.
c.   There was suspected to be a problem with the O-ring.
d. * There to be a problem with the O-ring was suspected.

Exercise 10.6

Consider the active sentence in (1) and its two theoretically possible passive counterparts in (2).
Both sentences in (2) are intended to have the same meaning (namely, (2a)). However, as the
contrast in (2) shows, it's grammatical to turn the subject of the complement clause in (1) into
the matrix subject, but ungrammatical to do the same with the object of the complement clause.
Briefly explain why this is, making sure that your answer is exhaustive.

(1)     They will expect her to hire him.

(2) a. ok She will be expected to hire him.
b. * He will be expected { she, her} to hire.

Problem 10.1

A. The sentences in (1) are taken from answers to homework assignments for this class from
previous years. They are ungrammatical in standard English (if in doubt about what the standard
usage is, consult the Oxford English Dictionary under the entries for the verbs in question).
Why?
(1) a. * The path from I to V is intervened by an illicit node.
b. * In the next sentence, the original subject has been substituted by a pronoun.

B. Omitting the by phrase in the sentences in (1) yields the grammaticality contrast in (2). Why?

(2) a. * The path from I to V is intervened.

b. ok In the next sentence, the original subject has been substituted.

Problem 10.2

Consider the paradigm in (1) and (2), taking the case-marking and judgments, which reflect the
grammar of North American English, as given. (The grammar of British English contains
complications concerning the passive of ditransitive verbs that are well known, but not well
understood, and so you can't be expected to solve them.)

(1) a.   Betsey-nom gave him-obl the receipts-obl.

b.   He-nom was given the receipts-obl.
c. * The receipts-nom were given him-obl.
(2) a.   Betsey-nom gave them-obl to Travis.
b.   They-nom were given to Travis.
c. * To Travis { was, were } given them-obl.

Given a VP shell analysis of ditransitive verbs, the case-marking pattern in (1) and (2) is
analogous to that in (3) and (4). Although the (b) examples in (3) are a bit awkward-sounding,
the contrast with the (c) examples is very clear.

(3) a. Betsey caused him-obl to have them-obl.

b. He-nom was caused to have them-obl.
c. * They-nom were caused him-obl to have.
(4) a. Betsey caused them-obl to go to him.
b. They-nom were caused to go to him.
c. * To him { was, were } caused them-obl to go.

Cf. also (5) and (6), which are semantically unrelated, but analogous with respect to the case-
marking pattern.

(5) a. Betsey expects him-obl to have them-obl.

b. He-nom is expected to have them-obl.
c. * They-nom are expected him-obl to have.
(6) a. Betsey expects them-obl to go to him.
b. They-nom are expected to go to him.
c. * To him { is, are } expected them-obl to go.

A. In a brief paragraph, explain the case-marking pattern in (1)-(6).

B. Now consider the following facts from Japanese. For ease of comparison with English,
Japanese morphemes are replaced by their English counterparts, except for the particle ni, which
is left unglossed. Characterize the syntactic properties of ni illustrated in the dataset, and
describe the Japanese case-marking pattern, highlighting how it is similar to the American
English pattern, and how it differs from it.

(7) a.   Betsey-nom Travis-acc/*NI go-CAUS-PAST. 

'Betsey made Travis go.'
b.   Travis-nom go-CAUS-PASS-PAST. 
'Travis was made to go.'
(8) a.   Betsey-nom Travis-NI/*acc book-acc read-CAUS-PAST. 
'Betsey made Travis read the book.'
b. Travis-nom/*NI book-acc read-CAUS-PASS-PAST. 
'Travis was made to read the book.'
c. * book-nom/acc Travis-NI/acc read-CAUS-PASS-PAST. 
intended meaning: same as (8b)
(9) a.   Betsey-nom Travis-acc summit-NI climb-CAUS-PAST. 
'Betsey made Travis climb to the summit.'
b. Travis-nom summit-NI climb-CAUS-PASS-PAST. 
'Travis was made to climb to the summit.'
c. * summit-nom/NI Travis-NI/acc climb-CAUS-PASS-PAST. 
intended meaning: same as (9b)
(10) a. Betsey-nom Travis-NI/*acc receipts-acc give-PAST. 
intended meaning for (10a-d) (loose gloss): 'Betsey gave Travis the receipts.'
b. Betsey-nom receipts-acc Travis-NI/*acc give-PAST.
c. Travis-nom/*NI receipts-acc give-PASS-PAST.
d. receipts-nom/*acc Travis-NI/*acc give-PASS-PAST.

C. Finally, consider the following facts from German and compare them to the corresponding
English and Japanese facts. What is unexpected about (11b)? The examples are given in the
form of subordinate clauses in order to abstract away for the so-called V2 effect discussed later
on in the book. For the purposes of the exercise, the complementizer dass 'that' may simply be
ignored.

(11) a. dass der Hans den Beleg dem /*den Peter gab
that the-nom the-acc receipt the-dat/*acc gave
'that Hans gave Peter the receipt'
b. dass der Hans dem/*den Peter den Beleg gab
c. * dass der /dem Peter den Beleg gegeben wurde
that the-nom/dat the-acc receipt given was
intended meaning (loose gloss): 'that Peter was given the
receipt'
d. dass der Beleg dem/*den Peter gegeben wurde 
intended meaning (loose gloss): 'that Peter was given the receipt'

Problem 10.3

Radford 1997:365 reports the passive constructions in (1), in which try and attempt have

different syntactic properties than they do in ordinary usage. Describe the differences in terms
of the concepts introduced in this and previous chapters.
(1) a.   The word has tried to be defined in terms of a phonetic matrix.
b. Dialects are often attempted to be suppressed.
c. Some journalists have been attempted to be attacked.
 10. WH-MOVEMENT: ROSS’S ISLAND CONSTRAINTS

Evidence for a movement analysis of questions

Complementation

As the presence of the complementizer if in the indirect question in (1) shows, the

verb wonder takes a CP complement.
(1)     They wonder if the lions will devour the wildebeest.

The elementary trees for wonder and if are given in (2a,b), and the entire tree for (1) is given in
(2c).

(2) a.      b.      c.  

Now consider the indirect question in (3), which begins with a wh- phrase (a maximal
projection) rather than with a complementizer (a head).

(3)     They wonder which wildebeest the lions will devour.

Let's adopt the null hypothesis that wonder is associated with the same elementary tree in (3) as
in (1)—namely, with (2a). Since (3) contains no overt complementizer, the CP tree that
substitutes into the complement node of the elementary tree for wonder must then be the
projection of a silent complementizer. For reasons to be given shortly, we take this
complementizer to be a silent counterpart of that. In deriving the tree for (3), a further difficulty
remains concerning the wh- phrase which wildebeest. On the one hand, the wh- phrase must be
the object of devour, just as in (1), because devour is obligatorily transitive. But on the other
hand, the wh- phrase precedes the subject of the subordinate clause rather than following the
verb. As usual when we are confronted with a mismatch of this sort, we invoke movement in
order to allow a single phrase to simultaneously play several roles in a sentence. Specifically,
we will have the wh- phrase originate as the sister of the verb whose object it is and then move
to Spec(CP). This allows us to accommodate the word order in (3), while maintaining
that devour is a transitive verb regardless of what clause type (declarative or interrogative) it
happens to occur in. The resulting structure for (3) is shown in (4).
(4)    

The argument just presented is based on the obligatorily transitive character of devour, but it
can be extended straightforwardly to other syntactic relations. For instance, we have chosen to
represent the modification relation structurally by having the modifier adjoin at the intermediate
projection of the modifiee. Accordingly, the adverb phrase unbelievably quickly adjoins at V' in
(5a) since it modifies the verb devour. The corresponding wh- phrase how
quickly modifies devour in (5b), so it needs to adjoin to V' as well, but it precedes the subject.
Again, the mismatch between the position where the phrase is interpreted and where it is
pronounced can be resolved by movement of the modifier, as shown in (6).

(5) a.   The lions will devour the wildebeest unbelievably quickly.

b. They wonder how quickly the lions will devour the wildebeest.

(6)

Why a silent complementizer?

Let's turn now to the question of why we treat the complementizer in (4) and in (6) as as a silent
counterpart of that. There are several reasons. First, Middle English (1150–1500) routinely
allowed (though it did not require) overt that as the syntactic head of indirect wh- questions.
The examples in (7) are from the Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English. (7e) shows
that that alternated with its silent counterpart even for individual authors.

(7) a.   First the behoueth to knowe why that suche a solitary lyf was ordeyned. (cmaelr4.m4,
13) 
 'First, it behooves thee to know why such a solitary life was ordained.'
b.   … he wiste wel hymself what that he wolde answere … (cmctmeli.m3, 75) 
'he himself knew well what he would answer'
c. for ye han ful ofte assayed … how wel that I kan hyde and hele thynges (cmctmeli.m3,
149) 
'for you have very often determined how well I can hide and conceal things'
d. I wolde fayn knowe how that ye understonde thilke wordes (cmctmeli.m3, 408) 
'I would like to know how you understand these words'
e. And forther over, it is necessarie to understonde whennes that synnes spryngen,
and how they encreessen (cmctpars.m3, 352) 
'And moreover, it is necessary to understand where sins come from, and how they
increase'
f. Now shal ye understonde in what manere that synne wexeth or encreesseth in man.
(cmctpars.m3, 390) 
'Now you shall understand in what manner sin grows or increases in man.'
g. The fifthe circumstaunce is how manye tymes that he hath synned … and how ofte that he
hath falle. (cmctpars.m3, 1503) 
'The fifth circumstance is how many times he has sinned … and how often he has fallen.'
h. lettyng hym wytte in what plytte that they stode yn (cmgregor.m4, 343) 
'letting him know what plight they were in'
i. I pray you telle me what knyght that ye be (cmmalory.m4, 4655) 
'Please tell me what knight you are'

Second, the variety of English spoken at present in Belfast resembles Middle English in this
respect (Henry 1995:107).

(8) a.   I wonder which dish that they picked.

b.   They didn't know which model that we had discussed.

Third, wh- phrases followed by that continue to be attested in the unplanned usage of speakers
of modern standard English, as shown in (9) (Radford 1988:500 also gives examples).

(9) a. That tells you how many days that the car will be in the shop. 
(Kroch 1989:95, fn. 4, (i))
b. Immediately, I saw which one that you wanted me to read. 
(Beatrice Santorini, in conversation, September 1998)
c.  I realized how interesting that it was. 
(Clara Orsitti, interviewed by Vicky Barker, World Update, National Public Radio, 25
January 1999)
d.   I've got to go through them and see what order that we'll discuss them in. 
(Beatrice Santorini, in conversation, November 1999)
e.   Most of my colleagues were amazed how quickly that I recovered. 
(advertisement for Temple University Hospital, WRTI, 24 November 1999)
f.   It could be that that is why that they were understood. (high-low-high intonation
on why) 
(Joanna Labov, doctoral dissertation defense, 4 May 2000)
g.   These recounts will determine how much of a pick-up that we will have," said
Democratic National Committee Chairman Joe Andrew." 
(http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/08/house.races/)
h.   to find out what kind of a house that she was looking for 
(Amy Forsyth, in conversation, 23 Sep 2004)
i.  I don't know what floor that it is 
 (overheard at the Down Home Diner, Reading Terminal Market, Philadelphia, PA, 15
January 2005)
j.   I would tell them how that they should solve their problems (high-low-high intonation
on how 
(overheard at 4th and Pine Streets, Philadelphia, PA, 5 March 2005)
k.   It might be worth thinking about what kinds of comments that there are. 
(Beatrice Santorini, in conversation, February 2006)
l.   Whatever stuff that you found, send me the link. 
(Beatrice Santorini, in conversation, August 2006)
m.   I realize how many people that I've forgotten to put on my list. 
(overheard at 2044 Fairmount Avenue, Philadelphia, PA, 13 August 2006)
n.   He talks about how profound that he thinks it is. 
(overheard at Whole Foods, 10th and South Streets, Philadelphia, PA, 13 October 2006)
o.   I don't know what kind of food that they've been used to. 
(overheard at pet store, 2024 Fairmount Avenue, Philadelphia, PA, 22 October 2006)
p.   It doesn't matter how long that [how much time - BES] I have in the program. 
(overheard at 2044 Fairmount Avenue, Philadelphia, PA, 29 October 2006)
q.   I just didn't realize how much that I beat myself emotionally to a pulp. 
(overheard in East Dorset, VT, 10 November 2006)
r.   ... tells them which of these things that they're dealing with. 
(Mark Steedman, Linguistics Speaker Series talk, 30 November 2006)

Finally, sequences of wh- phrase + overt complementizer in indirect questions occur in

languages other than English. The complementizer in question is generally the counterpart
of that, but the counterpart ofif is attested as well.

(10) Bavarian (Bayer 1983-4:212, (8a-d))

a.   I woass ned wer dass des toa hod.
I know not who that that done has
'I don't know who did that.'
b. ... wos dass ma toa soin.
what that we do should
'... what we should do.'
c. ... wann dass da Xaver kumt
when that the comes
'... when Xaver is coming.'
d. ... wiavui dass a kriagt.
how much that he gets
'... how much he gets.'
(11) Dutch (den Besten 1989:23, (21b))
    ... welk boek (of) hij wil lezen
which book if he wants read
'... which book he wants to read'

Case checking

A further argument for wh- movement, similar to the one based on complementation, can be
constructed on the basis of case theory. Consider the contrast in (12), which reflects the fact that
finite I checks nominative, not objective case (the relevant I is the one in the complement
clause).
(12) a.   She thinks he will come.
b. * She thinks him will come.
Now consider the contrast in (13), where the nominative form who is grammatical in standard
English, but the objective form whom is not.

(13) a.   I wonder who she thinks will come.

b. * I wonder whom she thinks will come.

How is case checked on the nominative form who in (13a)? We would like to maintain the
generalization that nominative case is checked in a spec-head configuration with finite I. But
case on who cannot be checked by the I closest to it, the present tense morpheme of
the thinks clause. First of all, this would leave nominative case on she unchecked. Moreover, if
wh- phrases move to Spec(CP), as we have been assuming, then who is not in a spec-head
configuration with the I of the thinks clause. Again, the solution to this case-checking puzzle is
to invoke movement. Given the structure for (13a) in (14), nominative case on who can be
checked by will before who moves to the Spec(CP) of the thinks clause.

(14)     I wonder [CP whoi [IP she thinks [CP [IP ti will come ] ] ] ] .

The reason that (13b) is ungrammatical is that objective case cannot be checked in the subject
position of the thinks clause. Under a movement analysis, then, the contrast in (13) is parallel to
that in (12) - -a simple and intuitively appealing result.

The facts just discussed illustrate an important difference between wh- movement on the one
hand and subject raising and passive on the other. In instances of subject raising and passive, the
noun phrase undergoing movement originates in a non-case-checking position and moves to a
subject position, motivated either by considerations of case-checking or by the subject
requirement. By contrast, a noun phrase undergoing wh- movement moves from a case-
checking position to Spec(CP), a non-case-checking position.

A related difference concerns the categorial status of constituents undergoing wh- movement.
Constituents undergoing subject movement or passive are noun phrases, but ones undergoing
wh- movement can be maximal projections of other categories, as illustrated in (16).

(16) a.   I wonder [AdjP how experienced ] they should be.

b. I wonder [AdvP how quickly ] the lions will devour the wildebeest.
c. I wonder [PP under which shell ] he hid the pea.

Direct wh- questions

We have argued that wh- phrases move to Spec(CP) in indirect questions. For reasons of
uniformity, we assume that direct questions like those in (17) are derived by wh- movement as
well.
(17) a.   [AdjP How experienced ] should they be?
b. [AdvP How quickly ] will the lions devour the wildebeest?
c. [PP Under which shell ] did he hide the pea?
d. [DP Which wildebeest ] will the lions devour?

As is evident from comparing the direct questions in (17) with their indirect question
counterparts in (16) and in (3), movement to Spec(CP) in direct questions is accompanied by a
second instance of movement. In particular, whatever occupies I moves to C, with the additional
proviso that if I is occupied by a silent tense morpheme, as it is in (16c), it is replaced by the
corresponding form of do, as in (17c). We postpone more detailed discussion of this head
movement to C to Chapter 13 For the moment, we will simply assume that direct questions are
projections of a silent morpheme that occupies C and that expresses interrogative force,
represented in what follows by [?]. The structure that we assume for direct questions is
illustrated for (17d) in (18). Note that just as in the case of verb movement from V to I
discussed in Chapter 6, head movement to C involves both movement and adjunction.

(18)    

The island constraints

Apparent unboundedness of wh- movement

Given that wh- phrases in direct and indirect questions occupy the position they do as a result of
movement, the question arises of how far a wh- phrase can move from the position where it is
interpreted. Examples like (19) suggest that the distance is in principle (that is, apart from
performance considerations such as limitations on memory) unlimited,
or unbounded. Examples like (19b–e), where a wh- phrase moves out of the CP in which it
originates, are called long-distance wh- movement.
(19) a.   [CP Whati was he reading ti ] ?
b. [CP Whati did he say
[CP that he was reading ti ] ] ?
c. [CP Whati does she believe
[CP that he said
[CP that he was reading ti ] ] ] ?
d. [CP Whati are they claiming
[CP that she believes
[CP that he said 
[CP that he was reading ti ] ] ] ] ?
e. [CP Whati do you think
[CP that they are claiming
[CP that she believes
[CP that he said
[CP that he was reading ti ] ] ] ] ] ?

A typology of islands

But Ross 1967 made the important discovery that contrary to what the pattern in (19) suggests,
wh- movement is not in fact unbounded. For instance, although wh- movement out
of that clause complements to verbs is grammatical, as shown in (19b–e), wh- movement out
of that clause complements to nouns is not, as shown in (20) and (21). In the next few examples,
the heads associated with the complement clauses are underlined.

Noun complement:
(20) a.   He made the claim [ that he has met Subcomandante Marcos ] .
b. * [ Who ]i did he make the claim [ that he has met ti ] ?
(21) a.   He mentioned the fact [ that he had run into Julia Roberts ] .
 b. * [ Which celebrity ]i did he mention the fact [ that he had run into ti ] ?

Particularly striking is the contrast between (20b) and (21b) on the one hand and the essentially
synonymous examples in (22) on the other.

(22) a. [ Who ]i did he claim [ that he has met ti ] ?

b. [ Which celebrity ]i did he mention [ that he had run into ti ] ?

Ross introduced the term island to refer to constructions that do not allow a wh- phrase to
'escape' from them (the idea behind the metaphor is that the wh- phrase is marooned on the
island). Besides complement clauses to nouns, Ross identified several other types of islands:
indirect questions, relative clauses (often subsumed together with noun complement clauses
under the rubric of complex noun phrases, but more insightfully kept distinct), sentential
subjects, so-called left branches (= specifiers) of noun phrases, and coordinate structures. We
illustrate each of these types of island in turn.

(23) illustrates the island character of indirect questions.

Be sure to interpret How in (23b) as modifying the complement verb solve, as indicated

by the trace, not the matrix verb forgotten. In other words, a possible answer to (23b)
is by Fourier analysis,but not by succumbing to Alzheimer's.
Wh- complement:
(23) a.   They have forgotten [ which problem they should solve by Fourier analysis ] .
b. * Howi have they forgotten [ which problem they should solve t i ] ?

In (23b), it is important to carefully distinguish the movement of which problem in the

subordinate clause from that of how in the matrix clause. The movement of which
problem creates an island, but is itself licit. What is ungrammatical is the further movement
of how from its original position modifying solve to a position ``off island.'' In other words, wh-
movement is grammatical within the confines of an island, but not beyond its boundaries. 1

(24) and (25) illustrate the island character of relative clauses and sentential subjects.

Relative clause:
(24) a.   They met someone [ { who, that } knows Julia Roberts ] .
b. * [ Which celebrity ]i did they meet someone [ { who, that } knows ti ] ?
Sentential subject:
(25) a.   [ That he has met Subcomandante Marcos ] is extremely unlikely.
b. * Whoi is [ that he has met ti ] extremely unlikely?

Finally, (26) and (27) illustrate the island character of left branches of noun phrases and
coordinate structures. The ungrammaticality of the questions is particularly striking because
they are so much shorter and structurally simpler than the grammatical questions in (19b-e).

Left branch of noun phrase:

(26) a.   She bought [ Jonathan's ] book .
b. * [ Whose ]i did she buy [ ti ] book ?
Coordinate structure:
(27) a.   They ordered [ tiramisu and espresso ] .
b. * [ Which dessert ]i did they order [ ti and espresso ] ?
c. * [ Which beverage ]i did they order [ tiramisu and ti ] ?
Other instances of wh- movement

We turn now to some further constructions in English that are derived by wh- movement. These
include various types of relative clauses as well as so-called topicalization.

Wh- relative clauses

As (28) and (29) show, there is a striking parallel in English between questions and wh- relative
clauses: both are introduced by wh- phrases.
(28) a.   Who moved in next door? (29) a.   the people who moved in next door
b. Who(m) did you see? b.   the people who(m) you saw
c. Where did you see them? c.   the place where you met them
d. Which do you prefer? d.   the movie which you prefer
e. Whose parents did you meet? e.   the girl whose parents you met

This parallel suggests a wh- movement analysis for relative clauses, and this idea is reinforced
by the fact that wh- relative clauses exhibit the entire range of island effects, as illustrated in
(30).2

(30) a. Noun complement: * the revolutionary whoi I don't believe the claim [ that he has
met ti ]
b. Wh- complement: * the method [ by which ]i they have forgotten [ which problem
they should solve ti ]
c. Relative clause: * the revolutionary whoi I dislike the journalist [ who
interviewed ti for CNN ]
d. Sentential subject: * the addiction whichi [ { that he admitted, admitting } t i ] nearly
destroyed his career
e. Left branch of noun * the girl whosei you met [ ti parents ]
phrase:
f. Coordinate structure: * the dessert whichi you ordered [ { coffee and ti, ti and coffee } ]

The facts just reviewed follow straightforwardly if we assume that wh- relative clauses are CPs.
The wh- relative pronoun moves to Spec(CP), and the syntactic head of the clause is a silent
complementizer, just as in an indirect question. The structure of the relative clause in (29b) is
given in (31a), and adjoining the relative clause so that it modifies the noun people yields the
structure in (31b).

(31) a.       b.  
That relative clauses

In addition to wh- relative clauses, English also has that relative clauses, as illustrated in (32).
(32) a.   the people that moved in next door
b.   the people that you saw
c.   the place that you met them
d.   the movie that you prefer

Structurally, that relative clauses are completely parallel to wh- relative clauses. But in contrast
to wh- relative clauses, it is the complementizer that is overt in that relative clauses, and the wh-
element that is silent. The structures corresponding to those in (31) are given in (33).

(33) a.       b.  

It is worth noting that there are speakers for whom that has developed from a complementizer
into a relative pronoun. The evidence for this is that such speakers produce a possessive form
of that that is analogous to whose, as illustrated in (34a) and in the naturally occurring (34b).

(34) a. % the girl that's parents you met (is going to be your roommate)

b. % "... we want them to bring a product to market that's time had not yet come," said Ray
Farhung, a Southern California Edison official. 
(Bill Vlasic, "Cool Contest", The Detroit News, p. 1D, January 10, 1993; from a
Linguist List posting by John Lawler)

Doubly marked relative clauses

Given the discussion so far, we would expect to find relative clauses with an overt wh- element
in Spec(CP) combined with an overt complementizer, as in (35).

(35)     the people who(m) that you saw

Such doubly marked relative clauses are judged to be unacceptable in modern standard English.
However, just like doubly marked indirect questions, they are attested in Middle English and in
vernacular varieties of other languages, as shown in (36) (from the Penn-Helsinki Parsed
Corpus of Middle English) and (37).

(36) a.   thy freend which that thou has lorn (cmctmeli.m3, 31) 

'your friend that you have lost'
b. the conseil which that was yeven to yow by the men of lawe and the wise folk
 (cmctmeli.m3, 373) 
'the counsel that was given to you by the men of law and the wise folk'
c. the seconde condicion which that the same Tullius addeth in this matiere (cmctmeli.m3,
430) 
'the second condition that the same Tullius adds in this matter'
d. for hire olde freendes which that were trewe and wyse (cmctmeli.m3, 434) 
'for her old friends who were loyal and wise'
e. the fire of angre and of wratthe, which that he sholde quenche (cmctpars.m3, 859) 
'the fire of anger and wrath, which he should quench'
f. a squyer, whyche that was a grete captayne (cmgregor.m4, 1333) 
'a squire, who was a great captain'
Bavarian (Bayer 1983-4:213, (10a,b))
(37) a.   der Hund der wo gestern d' Katz bissn hod
the dog who that yesterday the cat bitten has
'the dog that bit the cat yesterday'
b. die Frau dera wo da Xaver a Bussl g'gem hod
the woman who.dat that the a kiss given has
'the woman that Xaver gave a kiss'

What these facts suggest is that doubly marked wh- movement constructions (both relative
clauses and indirect questions) are grammatical (= well-formed from a purely structural point of
view). However, the status of these constructions as complement clauses is marked both by the
movement of the wh- phrase and by the presence of the complementizer, and it may be that a
stylistic constraint against redundant marking has developed that keeps these constructions from
occurring in the modern literary varieties of English and other languages.

Zero relative clauses

Given the availability of silent wh- elements and silent complementizers in English, we would
expect to find relative clauses that are not introduced by any overt element at all. Such so-
called zero relative clauses (also known as contact relative clauses) are indeed possible in
English, as shown in (38).
(38) a.   the people ___ you saw
b.   the place ___ you met them
c.   the movie ___ you prefer

Given the grammaticality of (38), the status of the zero relative variants of subject relative
clauses like (29a) and (32a) is puzzling. In general, these are unacceptable, as shown in (39c).

(39) a. the people who moved in next door (are from Illinois)

b. the people that moved in next door (are from Illinois)
c. * the people ___ moved in next door (are from Illinois)

However, structurally analogous examples do occur in English, as illustrated in (40).

(40) a.   Everybody ___ lives in the mountains has an accent all to theirself. 

(Christian and Wolfram 1976, front matter)
b.   Three times a day some nurse ___ looks like Pancho Villa shoots sheep cum into my
belly. 
(Hiaasen 1995: 248-249)
(41) and (42) give further examples from Belfast English (Henry 1995:125) and American
English, classified by linguistic environment.

Existential there clause: (41) a.   There's a shortcut ___ takes you to the shops.

It cleft: b.   It was John ___ told us about it.
Copular construction: c.   John is the person ___ could help you with that.
Introduction of discourse d.   I met a man ___ can speak five languages.
entity in object position:
Existential there clause: (42) a.   "Thanks for the hurricane, there's a hundred fifty thousand
houses in Dade County ___ need new roofs," he began. 
(Hiaasen 1995:110-111)
It cleft: b.   'Tis grace ___ hath brought me safe thus far (Amazing Grace)
Copular construction: c.   You're the second guy this month ___ wants to take out trade
in this bizarre fashion. 
(Wagner 1986:119)
d.   He's the one ___ inspected the damn things. 
(Hiaasen 1995:5)
Introduction of discourse e.   how come we have … a pink-haired punk
entity in object position: granddaughter ___ got the manners of a terrorist? … Wears
somethin' ___ makes the garage door flap up? 
(Wagner 1986:81)

The proper analysis of such examples is not clear and goes beyond the scope of this textbook.
On the one hand, it has been argued that zero subject relative clauses are grammatical, but
avoided for parsing reasons, especially when they modify a noun that is itself part of a subject,
as in (40) (Bever and Langendoen 1971, especially Section 5; see also Doherty 1993). On the
other hand, Henry 1995 argues against a wh- movement analysis of zero relative clauses.

Topicalization

A further instance of a construction involving wh- movement is so-called topicalization.

The sentences in (43) are in so-called canonical order; that is, the subject (in boldface) occupies
clause-initial position.

(43) a.   They should solve the more difficult problem for next class.
b. They don't believe that he has met Subcomandante Marcos.
c. We heartily detest Julia's parents.
d. A single lion can devour a little wildebeest like that in under an hour.
e. I recognize this kind of situation from my previous job.

By contrast, in (44), a nonsubject (in italics) precedes the subject (again in boldface).

(44) a.   For next class, they should solve the more difficult problem.

b. Subcomandante Marcos, they don't believe that he has met.
c. Julia's parents, we heartily detest.
d. A little wildebeest like that, a single lion can devour in under an hour.
e. This kind of situation, I recognize from my previous job.

Clause-initial nonsubjects are often discourse topics, and the movement illustrated in (44) has
therefore come to be known as topicalization. We use the term because it is standard in the
literature, but hasten to point out that it is not entirely felicitous, since clause-initial nonsubjects
are by no means always topics (in the sense of being previously mentioned discourse entities).
Often, for instance, they are scene-setting expressions, as in (45a,b), or they may serve a
contrastive function, as in (45c).

(45) a. On the way home, he ran into Murgatroyd.

b. In Brazil, such situations are not common.
c. Under other conditions, I would agree to your request.

In an influential article, Chomsky 1977 argued that topicalization should be analyzed on a par

with wh- movement on the grounds that topicalization obeys the island constraints, as illustrated
in (46).

(46) a. Wh- complement: * [ For next class, ]i they have forgotten [ which problem they
should solve ti ] .
b. Noun complement: * [ Subcomandante Marcos, ]i they don't believe the claim [ that
he has met ti ] .
c. Relative clause: * [ Subcomandante Marcos, ]i I dislike the journalist [ who
interviewed ti for CNN ]
d. Sentential subject: * [ His addiction to gambling, ]i [ { that he admitted, admitting }
ti ] nearly destroyed his career.
e. Left branch of noun * [ Julia's, ]i we heartily detest [ ti parents ] .
phrase:
f. Coordinate structure: * [ Tiramisu, ]i two people ordered [ { coffee and t i, ti and
coffee } ] .

Following Chomsky's usage, the term wh- movement is often used to refer to any instance of
movement to Spec(CP), regardless of whether the moved constituent is a wh- phrase. More
recently, the less confusing term operator movement has gained currency as a general term for
movement to Spec(CP), subsuming wh- movement (in its original sense) and topicalization.

The structure for (45c) under (an updated version of) the analysis in Chomsky 1977 is given in
(47); note that the CP is headed by an empty head entitled, for convenience, [top]. 3

(47)    

Notes

1. In more precise structural terms (discussed in more detail in Chapter 12), an island is a
constituent dominated by some node. In (23), the node in question is the CP dominating the
indirect question, but for generality, let's refer to the relevant node as the island node. Wh-
movement is grammatical as long as the moved phrase (the head of the movement chain)
remains dominated by the island node, but becomes ungrammatical once that is no longer the
case.
2. In (30c), be careful to distinguish the two instances of wh- movement: the lower one within
the interviewed clause, which is grammatical and creates the relative clause island, and the
higher one within thedislike clause, which is one that causes the ungrammaticality.

3. According to a competing analysis, topicalization is also derived by movement, but the

moved constituent adjoins to IP rather than substituting into Spec(CP). This alternative structure
for (45c) under this analysis is then as in (i).

(i)    

Exercises and problems

Exercise 11.1

Treat your as the spellout of you and a silent possessive morpheme.

A. Using the all purpose grammar tool, build structures for both of the direct questions in (1).

(1) a. Pied piping In which house does your friend live?

b. Preposition stranding Which house does your friend live in?

B. Using the all purpose grammar tool, build structures for the sentences in (2), which
contain indirect questions (delimited by square brackets) that correspond to the direct questions
in (1).

(2) a. Pied piping I forget [ in which house your friend lives. ]

b. Preposition stranding I forget [ which house your friend lives in. ]

Exercise 11.2

A. Using the all purpose grammar tool, build structures for the noun phrases in (1).

(1) a. Pied piping   the house [ in which your friend lives ]

b. Preposition stranding   the house [ which your friend lives in ]

B. Using the same grammar tool as in (A), build structures for the noun phrases in (2)-(5).

To save trees in more than one sense of the word, feel free to build a single structure for
several structurally parallel examples. Be sure to indicate clearly which sentences each
structure is intended to represent, and how the variants differ.
 Build structures for all examples, including the ungrammatical ones.

Treat whose as the conventional orthographic representation of who + 's.

In (3), the position of silent elements is indicated by underlining. In all other examples,
silent elements may be present without being explicitly indicated.
(2) a. Wh- relative clause ok the guy [ who they met ]
b. That relative clause ok the guy [ that they met ]
c. Zero relative clause ok the guy [ they met ]
(3) a. Wh- relative clause ok the guy [ whose parents ___ they met ]
b. That relative clause * the guy [ ___'s parents that they met ] 
Intended meaning: (3a)
c. Zero relative clause * the guy [ ___'s parents ___ they met ] 
Intended meaning: (3a)
(4) a. That relative clause, pied piping * the house [ in that your friend lives ] 
Intended meaning: (1a)
b. That relative clause, preposition stranding ok the house [ that your friend lives in ]
(5) a. Zero relative clause, pied piping * the house [ in your friend lives ] 
Intended meaning: (1a)
b. Zero relative clause, preposition stranding ok the house [ your friend lives in ]

C. Formulate a single structural generalization that accounts for the ungrammaticality of (3b,c),
(4a), and (5a).

The generalization in (C) is independent of the island constraints; you'll have to make
one up on your own.

If you use the notion of 'pied piping' in your generalization (you don't need to), be sure to
give a precise definition of it.

Exercise 11.3

According to analysis of relative clauses proposed in this chapter, that relative clauses like the
italicized sequence in (1) have the structure in (2a). However, since the wh- phrase is silent, an
alternative analysis of (1) is possible in principle, according to which the wh- phrase remains in
its original position, as shown in (2b). Provide empirical (= data-based) evidence that the
movement analysis in (2a) is preferable. For the purposes of this exercise, ignore coordinate
structures.
(1)     the people that you saw
(2) a.       b.  

Movement No movement

Exercise 11.4

A. Using the all purpose grammar tool, build structures for the sentences in (1).

Don't build structures for the parenthesized sentences; they are only provided for
context.

Assume a wh- movement analysis of topicalization presented in the text, not the IP
adjuction analysis mentioned in Note 3.
(1) a.   In Brazil, he has seen such orchids (but never anywhere else).
b. The exam, she should finish immediately. 
(The assignment, she can hand in later.)
c.   Under those circumstances, she will agree.

Exercise 11.5

A. Paraphrase the ambiguous telegraphese question in (1a) (Pinker 1994:119). Indicate clearly
which paraphrase expresses the reporter's intended interpretation and which expresses the
wickedly clever twist that Cary Grant gave the question. Your paraphrase doesn't have to be in
telegraphese.

(1) a.   Reporter's telegram: How old Cary Grant?

b.   Grant's reply: Old Cary Grant fine.

B. The sentence in (2) (from an Internet movie database) is structurally ambiguous. Explain,
using paraphrase or other means.

(2)     In "What Women Want," Mel Gibson plays a man who develops the ability to understand
what women are thinking after a freak accident.

C. Using the all purpose grammar tool, build structures for each of the interpretations in (A) and
(B), indicating clearly which structure goes with which interpretation.
 Make up silent lexical items as needed in (A).

To save time and space in (B), free free to build chunks and indicate how they go
together.

Exercise 11.6

A. In addition to the finite indirect questions in (1), English also has nonfinite ones, as
illustrated in (2). Using the all purpose grammar tool, build structures for all of the nonfinite
indirect questions in (2), including the ungrammatical (2c).
(1) a. They know [ who they should invite. ]
b. They know [ which topic they should talk about. ]
c. They know [ who should speak. ]
(2) a. They know [ who to invite. ]
b. They know [ which topic to talk about. ]
c. * They know [ who to speak. ] 
Intended meaning: (1c)

B. Why is (2c) ungrammatical?

Exercise 11.7

Using the all purpose grammar tool, build the structure for the noun phrase containing the
nonstandard relative clause in (1).

(1)     a product that's time has come

Problem 11.1

Can you think of evidence bearing on whether topicalization should be treated as substitution in
Spec(CP) or adjunction to IP (see Note 3)?

11. WH-MOVEMENT: SUBJACENCY AND THE ECP

Subjacency

In this section, we present the subjacency condition, an ambitious attempt by Chomsky 1973 to

subsume the island constraints under a single structural principle.

Two possible derivations for long-distance wh- movement

When we consider examples of long-distance wh- movement like those in (3), two possible
derivations come to mind.

(3)     What did he say that he was reading?

On the one hand, the wh- phrase might move from the position in which it is interpreted,
however deeply embedded that is, to the sentence-initial Spec(CP) position in one fell swoop,
yielding a wh- movement chain with two links, as in (4). On the other hand, wh- movement
might take place in more than one step. The first step takes the moved constituent from its
original position to the nearest Spec(CP), and each subsequent step takes it to the next higher
Spec(CP). This derivation of (3), which involves two steps and yields a wh- movement chain
with three links, in shown in (5).

(4)         (5)    

The derivation in (5) is known as a cyclic derivation (the idea being that each successively
higher clause (= CP) forms a separate cycle in the derivation of the entire sentence), and the
derivation in (4) is accordingly known as noncyclic. Notice that the noncyclic and cyclic
derivations in (4) and (5) differ in the presence of an intermediate trace, which is highlighted
by a box in (5).

IP as a barrier to wh- movement

On the basis of grammatical instances of long-distance wh- movement like (6a-d) (cf. (19c-
e)) of Chapter 11, it is impossible to decide which of the two alternatives just presented is
correct, or even whether a choice must be made between them.
Parentheses indicate intermediate traces that are posited in a cyclic, but not in a
noncyclic, derivation.
(6) a.   What-i did he say [ (t-i) that he was reading t-i ? ]
b. What-i does she believe [ (t-i) that he said [ (t-i) that he was reading t-i ? ] ]
c. What-i are they claiming [ (t-i) that she believes [ (t-i) that he said [ (t-i) that he was
reading t-i ? ] ] ]
d. What do you think [ (t-i) that they are claiming [ (t-i) that she believes [ (t-i) that he said [
(t-i) that he was reading? ] ] ] ]

However, the existence of syntactic islands forces us to choose the cyclic alternative. For
instance, consider the ungrammatical question in (7a) (= (23b) of Chapter 11 and its cyclic
derivation in (7b).

Remember to interpret how in (7a) as modifying solve, not forgotten, as indicated by the

lowest trace.
(7) a. * Howi have they forgotten [ which problem they should solve t i ] ?
 b.  

If wh- movement were able to occur in one fell swoop, then there would be nothing to stop
long-distance wh- movement in (7a), and the question should be grammatical, contrary to fact.
But the ungrammaticality of the question can be made to follow from the assumption that wh-
movement is cyclic. Specifically, let's assume that wh- movement is subject to the condition in
(8), and that IPs formbarriers to movement, as indicated by the boxes in (7b).

Subjacency condition:
(8)     In a chain formed by movement, the path connecting two neighboring links must not
contain more than one barrier (in other words, on the path between A and B, there is at
most one barrier C such that A c-commands C and C dominates B).

The condition in (8) has the consequence that a wh- constituent can move out of an IP that
dominates it just in case an empty local Spec(CP) is available or can be generated as an
intermediate landing site. Bylocal Spec(CP), we mean the specifier of a CP whose head is a
sister of the IP in question. In the absence of such a landing site, as in (7b), wh- movement is
correctly ruled out as ungrammatical.

Notice that the ungrammaticality of (7a) depends on the indirect question containing two wh-
phrases: how and which problem. The representation in (7b) assumes that which problem moves
before how does (note the order of the indices), thereby preventing the complement Spec(CP)
from serving as an escape hatch for how. It is also necessary to rule out an alternative
derivation, according to which the constituent that moves first is how. In this case, the
complement Spec(CP) is empty, and how can move through it up to the matrix Spec(CP), as
shown in (9). Notice that only one IP barrier (indicated in green) intervenes between any pairs
of links in the movement chain, so that this part of the derivation does not violate the
subjacency condition in (8).

(9) a.   [IP they have forgotten [CP howi [IP they should solve which problem ti ]
b. [CP howi have [IP they forgotten [CP ti [IP they should solve which problem ti ]

But now the intermediate trace of how blocks the movement of which problem into the lower
Spec(CP). As the contrast in (10) shows, this movement is necessary for the complement clause
to be interpreted properly as an indirect question. As a result, the derivation begun in (9) fails,
and (7a) continues to be ruled out as desired.
(10) a. ok They have forgotten which problem they should solve.
b. * They have forgotten they should solve which problem.

DP as a barrier to wh- movement

If the only barriers in English were IPs, then wh- movement out of noun complements and left
branch structures like those in (11) (= (20b) and (26b) of Chapter 11) would be expected to be
grammatical, contrary to fact. The structures are given in (11); the green IP nodes are intended
to indicate that the derivation is consistent with subjacency under the (incorrect) assumption that
the only barriers are IPs.

(11) a. * Whoi did [IP he make [DP the claim [CP ti that [IP he has met ti ] ] ] ] ?

b. * Whosei did [IP she buy [DP ti book ] ] ?

However, the ungrammaticality of (11) can be derived straightforwardly if the set of barriers in
English includes not only IPs, but also DPs. This is illustrated in (12), where red indicates
barriers that cause subjacency to be violated. As before, green indicates barriers that are
consistent with subjacency.

In determining whether subjacency is violated, we can consider the relevant movement

chains in either top-down or bottom-up fashion. Here and in what follows, we have
chosen bottom-up. This choice has the consequence that the barriers that cause
subjacency to be violated in (12) are IPs, not DPs. This doesn't mean, though, that DPs
aren't barriers! If they weren't, we'd be back to the representation in (11).
(12) a. * Whoi did [IP he make [DP the claim [CP ti that [IP he has met ti ] ] ] ] ?
b. * Whosei did [IP she buy [DP ti book ] ] ?

Given the theoretical character of the subjacency condition, it should come as no surprise that it
has an empirical consequence that goes beyond the range of facts that it was intended to explain.
Specifically, it leads one to expect any movement out of a noun phrase, not just movement of a
left branch, to be ungrammatical. (13b) gives an example that behaves as expected.

(13) a.   He dropped a book about information theory.

b. * Whati did [IP he drop [DP a book about ti ] ] ?

Notice, by the way, that the unacceptability of (13b) cannot be attributed to preposition
stranding, since the pied piping counterpart of (13b) remains unacceptable, as expected given
the structure in (14).

(14)   * [ About what ]i did [IP he drop [DP a book ti ] ] ?

As we will see later on in our discussion of the ECP, the predictions made by subjacency in
connection with movement out of DPs, while correct in the case of (13b) and (14), are too strict.
In other words, subjacency (as it stands, with all instances of IP and DP as barriers) incorrectly
rules out grammatical instances of wh- movement.

The coordinate structure constraint revisited

In the previous section, you may have noticed the omission of a potential piece of evidence for
the barrierhood of DP - namely, violations of the coordinate structure constraint like those in
(15) (= (27b,c) ofChapter 11).
(15) a. * [ Which dessert ]i did they order [ ti and espresso ] ?
 b. * [ Which beverage ]i did they order [ tiramisu and ti ] ?

Although the internal structure of coordinate phrases is not well understood, it is clear that a
coordinate noun phrase like tiramisu and espresso is a recursive structure consisting of a DP
that dominates two further DPs, as in (16).

(16)     [DP [DP tiramisu ] and [DP espresso] ]

Given this structure, the ungrammaticality of the examples in (16) follows from subjacency, as
shown in (17).

(17) a. * [ Which dessert ]i did [IP they order [DP ti and espresso ] ] ?

b. * [ Which beverage ]i did [IP they order [DP tiramisu and ti ] ] ?

However, not all examples that violate the coordinate structure constraint also violate
subjacency. For instance, in (18) and (19), where syntactic categories other than DP are
coordinated, only a single IP barrier intervenes between the moved phrase in Spec(CP) and its
trace.

Take care to read the (b) examples without an intonation break before the conjunction.

(18) a.   [PP [PP On which day ] and [PP in which year ] ]i were [IP you born [PP ti ] ] ?
b. * [PP On which day ]i were [IP you born [PP [PP ti ] and [PP in which year ] ] ] ?
c. * [PP In which year ]i were [IP you born [PP [PP on which day ] and [PP ti ] ] ] ?
(19)     He said he would get out the vote and win the election, and ...
a.   [VP [VP get out the vote ] and [VP win the election ] ]i, [IP he did [VP ti ] ] .
b. * [VP get out the vote ]i, [IP he did [VP [VP ti ] and [VP win the election ] ] ] .
c. * [VP win the election ]i, [IP he did [VP [VP get out the vote ] and [VP ti ] ] ] .

A further example of this sort is shown in (20b).

(20) a.   They have [VP [VP peeled the cucumbers ] and [VP chopped up the onions ] ] .
b. * [ Which vegetables ]i have [IP they [VP [VP peeled ti ] and [VP chopped the onions ] ] ] ?

As (21) shows, (20b) violates a parallelism constraint known as the across-the-board

(ATB) constraint, according to which movement of a constituent out of a coordinate structure
must affect all co-conjuncts simultaneously.

(21)     [ Which vegetables ]i have [IP they [VP [VP peeled ti ] and [VP chopped ti ] ] ] ?

The exceptional behavior of coordinate structures with regard to subjacency (expected to be

grammatical, yet in fact not so) and the additional special restriction imposed upon them (the
ATB constraint just mentioned) strongly suggest that the coordinate structure constraint is sui
generis, and that it should not be grouped together with the other island constraints.
Accordingly, most proposals to reduce the island constraints to more general principles make no
attempt to include the coordinate structure constraint, and we, too, will make no further mention
of it.

The Empty Category Principle (ECP)

The island constraints and the subjacency condition that subsumes them correctly account for
much, but not all, of the spectrum of relevant facts concerning wh- movement. For instance,
Ross himself observed that it is more acceptable to move complements out of indirect questions
than it is to move adjuncts. Subjects (also non-complements) behave like adjuncts, giving the
pattern in (22).
(22) a. ? [ Which problem ] ]i have they forgotten howj they should solve ti tj?
b. * Howi have they forgotten [ which problem ]j they should solve tj ti?
c. * [ Which problem ]i have they forgotten [ how ]j ti should be solved ti tj?

In order to account for the contrast between complements and non-complements with respect to
long-distance wh- movement, it has been proposed that traces of movement must satisfy a
condition distinct from subjacency, the so-called Empty Category Principle (ECP). Early
formulations of the ECP (Aoun, Hornstein, and Sportiche 1982, Huang 1982, Lasnik and Saito
1984) were disjunctive; that is, they consisted of two mutually exclusive conditions. In the
course of the 1980s, attempts were made to reformulate the ECP in conjunctive terms; that is, as
two conditions that traces of movement must satisfy simultaneously. In our view, these attempts
have not been successful, because they continue to impose different conditions on the
movement of complements and of non-complements. That is, even if the ECP itself is no longer
formulated in a disjunctive way, the disjunction it contained is not resolved, but simply appears
elsewhere in the proposals in question. For instance, Rizzi 1990 distinguishes two ways of
establishing a legitimate antecedent-trace relation, one for complements, and one for non-
complements. We will therefore continue to maintain a disjunctive version of the ECP,
specifically (23).

Empty Category Principle (ECP):

(23) a.   A trace of movement must be properly governed.
b.   A trace of movement is properly governed iff
i. it is antecedent-governed, or
ii. it is lexically governed.

Antecedent government

We discuss the two conditions on traces in turn. The notion of antecedent government is
defined in (24) (see Node relations for a definition of binding).

Antecedent government:
(24)     A antecedent-governs B iff
i. A binds B, and
ii. at most one barrier intervenes on the path between A and B.

As is evident, clause (ii) of the definition of antecedent government recapitulates the subjacency
condition, and it is easy to see that the antecedent government clause of the ECP therefore
enforces cyclic movement. This of course derives the ungrammaticality of (22b,c), but leaves
the relative acceptability of (22a) unexplained. However, as we will see directly, (22a), though
violating the antecedent government condition of the ECP, satisfies the alternative lexical
government condition.

Lexical government

The notion of lexical government to be presented in what follows relies on the concept
of lexical government domain (which is based on the concept of g(overnment)-
projection proposed in Kayne 1984). The term 'governor of XP' in (25a) refers to the head that
stands in a head-comp configuration with XP.1
 The term 'govern' is used here in a slightly different sense than it was in Chapter 8.
There, 'govern' referred to a morphological requirement imposed by a head on a noun
phrase expressing one of the head's arguments. Here, the term 'govern' makes no
reference to morphology, but refers instead to a purely structural relation, the head-comp
relation.
Lexical government domain:
(25)     YP is a lexical government domain for XP iff YP is the maximal projection of
i. the governor of XP, or
ii. the governor of a lexical government domain for XP.

As is evident, the definition in (25) is recursive. We begin by considering the nonrecursive case
in (i), which is very simple. Consider the configuration in (26), where we take the DP
complement of the preposition as XP and the PP as YP.

(26)    

In (26), the governor of the DP is the preposition, and so the PP (the preposition's maximal
projection) is a lexical government domain for the DP.

Now consider the more complex structure in (27), where we continue to take the DP
complement of the preposition as XP, but it is now VP that is the YP.

(27)    

Is VP a lexical government domain for the lower DP? (25.i) is not met, since the head of VP, V,
does not govern the DP in question. But V does govern PP, which we determined to be a lexical
government domain for DP in (26). Therefore, VP is a lexical government domain for DP in
(27) by (25.ii).

Given (26) and (27), it is now easy to see that any lexical government domain can be extended
simply by substituting it as a complement of a higher head; that head's maximal projection is
then in turn a lexical government domain. Thus, all the structures in (28) are lexical government
domains for the lowest complement DP.

(28) a.       b.  
 c.   d.   e.  

Lexical government itself can then be defined as in (29).

Lexical government:
(29)     A lexically governs B iff
i. A is a proper governor of B,
ii. there is an antecedent C that binds B, and
iii. C is contained in (= dominated by) a lexical government domain for B.

The notion of 'proper governor' in (29.i) is introduced in light of crosslinguistic contrasts like
that between (30) and (31).

(30) a. English   Whoi did you talk with ti ?

b. Swedish   Vem har du talat med ti ?
who have you talked with
(31) a. French * Qui as- tu parlé avec ti ?
who have you talked with
b. German * Wem hast du mit ti gesprochen?
who have you with talked

The idea is that only a proper subset of governors (= heads) is 'strong' enough to license a trace
by lexical government. Exactly which heads belong to the set of proper governors can vary by
language. For instance, prepositions are proper governors in English and Swedish, but not in
French or German. As a result, the traces in (30) are lexically governed, whereas those in (31)
are not, despite the analogous configurations in both cases. It should be emphasized that proper
government figures only in the definition of lexical government itself, not in the definition of
the concept of lexical government domain. So although the French preposition à 'to' cannot
itself license a trace, it can license the extension of a lexical government domain. This is shown
by the contrast in (32) (Kayne 1984:167). As in (30) and (31), green and red indicate heads that
are and are not proper governors, respectively.

(32) a. * Qu'i est-ce qu' elle tient à ti ?

what is it that she holds to
'What is she keen on?'
b. ok Qu'i est-ce qu' elle tient à faire ti ?
 what is it that she holds to do
'What is she keen on doing?'

At first glance, the notions of lexical government and lexical government domain might seem to
permit any complement to undergo wh- movement. But the definition is more restrictive than
that. Consider, for instance, the contrast between the (b) examples in (33) and (34), where the
constituent undergoing wh- movement is the complement of admit in both cases.

(33) a.   It can be difficult to admit one's weaknesses.

b.   What can it be difficult to admit?
(34) a.   To admit one's weaknesses can be difficult.
b. * What can to admit be difficult?

The structure of (33b) is given in (35); the successive lexical government domains for the DP
dominating the trace are indicated by boxes.

(35)    

Since the maximal lexical government domain for the trace, the matrix CP, contains the trace's
antecedent (what), (33b) satisfies the lexical government clause of the ECP, and its
grammaticality is expected. Notice, incidentally, that lexical government is satisfied regardless
of the presence of an intermediate trace in the lower Spec(CP). That is, even if the trace were
not antecedent-governed, (33b) would satisfy the disjunctive version of the ECP assumed here.

By contrast, the lexical government domain for the wh- trace in the structure for (34b), given in
(36), extends only as far as the complement IP.
(36)    

The reason that it extends no further is that the subject clause (the lower IP) is not governed (in
other words, it is not a complement). Since the infinitival subject clause does not dominate the
trace's antecedent (what), the trace of wh- movement, though governed by admit, is not lexically
governed. Moreover, two IPs intervene on the path between the trace and its antecedent, and so
the trace is not antecedent-governed either. (34b) is therefore correctly predicted to be
ungrammatical.

When there is an indepedent reason for the complement clause to be a CP (when it is an indirect
question, for instance), wh- movement within the bounds of the complement clause is possible,
as shown in (37).

(37) a.   Which of one's weaknesses to admit can be a tricky question.

b.

We leave it open here why the complement clause in (36) is an IP rather than a CP.

Further issues and refinements

Is subjacency an independent principle?

Recall the facts that motivated the proposal of the ECP - namely, the contrast in (22), repeated
here in annotated form as (38).
(38) a. ? [ Which problem ] ]i have [IP they forgotten [CP howj [IP they should solve ti tj ] ] ] ?
b. * Howi have [IP they forgotten [CP [ which problem ]j [IP they should solve tj ti ] ] ] ?
c. * [ Which problem ]i have [IP they forgotten [CP howj [IP ti should be solved ti tj ] ] ] ?

Given the role that the notion of barrier plays in both antecedent government and subjacency, it
would be desirable to eliminate subjacency as a separate condition by subsuming it under the
antecedent government clause of the ECP. Is this feasible? In light of (38a), the answer must
unfortunately be 'no.' The matrix CP in (38a) is a lexical government domain for the trace (cf.
the configuration in (28e)), and in the absence of subjacency, (38a) should therefore be
completely acceptable. The degree to which it is not, then, provides evidence in favor of
maintaining subjacency as a separate constraint on wh- movement. The acceptability contrast
between (38a) and (38b,c) could then be attributed to the violation of only one principle in the
former case, but of two in the latter.

Movement out of ECM complements

Given their status as sisters of intermediate projections rather than of heads, subjects are not in a
position to be lexically governed. In order to satisfy the ECP, subject traces must therefore be
antecedent-governed. This is possible in cases of local movement (that is, movement to a local
Spec(CP)), but not in cases of true (= noncyclic) long-distance movement, as shown by the
contrast in (39).
(39) a.   [ Which problem ]i should [IP ti be solved ti ] ?
b. * [ Which problem ]i have [IP they forgotten [CP howj [IP ti should be solved ti tj ] ] ] ?

However, if (39b) violates both clauses of the ECP, this raises the question of how subjects of
ECM complements are able to satisfy the ECP (or for that matter, subjacency), given that two
barriers intervene between the antecedent and its trace in both (39b) and (40).

(40)     [ Which candidate ]i do [IP you expect [IP ti to get the job ] ] ?

A standard proposal is to include the head-spec configuration as an instance of proper

government, along with the head-comp configuration (Kayne 1984). This would allow the trace
in (40) to satisfy the lexical government clause of the ECP. But this proposal neither explains
why such examples are completely acceptable (suggesting that they satisfy both the ECP and
subjacency), nor why it is possible to move not just subjects out of ECM complements, but
adjuncts as well, as in (41).

(41)     Howi were [IP you expecting [IP them to solve the problem ti] ] ?

An alternative that immediately comes to mind is simply that nonfinite IPs do not count as
barriers, but this proposal fails to account for the contrast in (42), which essentially parallels that
in (38).

(42) a. ? [ Which problem ]i have [IP they forgotten [CP howj [IP to solve ti tj ] ] ] ?

b. * Howi have [IP they forgotten [CP [ which problem ]j [IP to solve tj ti ] ] ] ?

However, a minor revision to the proposal that nonfinite IPs aren't barriers makes it empirically
adequate (though we know of no independent motivation for the revision). We will say that IPs
that are governed by V do not count as barriers. This has the result that the traces in the
sentences in (40) and (41) satisfy the antecedent government clause of the ECP as well as
subjacency. (43) shows our revised assumptions about these sentences; IPs that are not barriers
are highlighted in blue.

(43) a.   [ Which candidate ]i do [IP you expect [IP ti to get the job ] ] ?

b.   Howi were [IP you expecting [IP them to solve the problem ti] ] ?

Movement out of DP

As mentioned earlier, subjacency goes beyond the original island constraints in ruling out any
movement out of DP. However, in many cases, examples of such movement are completely
unexceptionable. This is puzzling given the representations in (44).
(44) a.   Whati did [IP you { read, write } [DP a book about ti ] ] ?
 b.   Whoi did [IP you take [DP a picture of ti ] ] ?
c. [ { Which, how many } states ]i do [IP you know [DP the capitals of ti ] ] ?

(45) gives some further, naturally-occurring examples (the struck-out which in (45a) is included
for clarity; it is silent in the original).

(45) a.   When I was a little boy, he teased me about a temporary but intense devotion I had to
Gene Autry, the singing cowboy--a devotion whichi [IP I would make [DP some lame
attempt [CP ti [IP to justify ti ... ] ] ] ] 
(Calvin Trillin. 1996. Messages from my father. New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux.
43-44)
b. arcane technical wisdom [ of which ] i [IP he has scarcely [DP a glimmering of [DP an
understanding ti ] ] ] 
(Jeremy Campbell. 1982. Grammatical man. Information, entropy, language, and life.
Simon and Schuster. 260-261)

The most acceptable examples of this type involve movement out of DPs without a possessor,
so it might be proposed that a further refinement of the notion of barrier is in order. In
particular, let us assume that branching DPs are barriers, whereas nonbranching ones are not.
Then the examples in (44) and (45) all satisfy subjacency, as indicated by the revised
representations in (46) and (47), whereas an example like (48) would continue to violate it.

(46) a.  Whati did [IP you { read, write } [DP a book about ti ] ] ?

b.  Whoi did [IP you take [DP a picture of ti ] ] ?
c. [ { Which, how many } states ]i do [IP you know [DP the capitals of ti ] ] ?
(47) a.  a devotion whichi [IP I would make [DP some lame attempt [CP ti [IP to justify ti ... ] ] ] ] 
(Calvin Trillin. 1996. Messages from my father. New York: Farrar, Strauss, and
Giroux. 43-44)
b. arcane technical wisdom [ of which ]i [IP he has scarcely [DP a glimmering of [DP an
understanding ti ] ] ] 
(Jeremy Campbell. 1982. Grammatical man. Information, entropy, language, and life.
Simon and Schuster. 260-261)
(48)   ? [ Which building ]i are [IP they protesting [DP the city's demolition of ti ] ] ?

Finally, given the contrast between (38a) and (38b,c), we would expect movement out of DP
that violates both subjacency and the ECP to be strongly unacceptable. Movement out of left
branches satisfies this expectation.

(49)   * [ Whose ]i are [IP they protesting [DP ti demolition of the building ] ] ?

An important remaining puzzle is why some instances of movement out of nonbranching DPs
are perfectly acceptable, whereas others (even ones that satisfy the ECP) are not. In our view, an
explanation for the successive decrease in acceptability of examples like (50) should be sought
not in syntactic, but in pragmatic factors. We indicate this explicitly by using the pound sign,
the sign for pragmatic infelicity.

(50) a. What did he { read, write } a book about?

b. # What did he sell a book about?
c. ## What did he drop a book about? 
(cf. ok What did he drop a hint about?)
We begin our attempt to explain the pattern in (50) by noting that any question is associated
with a so-called existential presupposition. The presupposition expresses the backdrop of
knowledge against which the question is raised, and the question itself solicits information that
is missing in the questioner's knowledge store. For instance, the question in (51a) is associated
with the presupposition in (51b).

(51) a.   { What, what book } is he reading?

b. There is { something, some book } that he is reading.

Now consider the existential presuppositions in (52), which range from ordinary to implausible.

(52) a. There is a topic such that he { read, wrote } a book about that topic.
b. # There is a topic such that he sold a book about that topic.
c. ## There is a topic such that he dropped a book about that topic. 
(cf. ok There is a topic such that he dropped a hint about that topic.)

If we make the plausible assumption that, all other things being equal, the acceptability of a
question matches the plausibility of the presupposition with which it is associated, then
questions that are perfectly well-formed from a grammatical point of view might nevertheless
be judged as unacceptable if they are associated with a highly implausible presupposition. This,
then, would account for the range of acceptability in the questions in (50), despite their
structural parallelism.

Notes

1. The structural notion of government (to be distinguished from the morphological notion of
case government is defined as in (i).

(i)     A governs (= is the governor of) B iff

a. A is a head,
b. B is a maximal projection, and
c. A and B are sisters (= mutually c-command each other).

Exercises and problems

Exercise 12.1

At first glance, the structure in (1a) seems preferable to that in (1b) because it is simpler in the
sense of postulating fewer nodes. It is standardly argued, however, that the structure in (1b) with
a silent complementizer is preferable. What is the motivation for the argument?
(1) a.   He thinks [IP they have read War and Peace. ]
b.   He thinks [CP [C that ] [IP they have read War and Peace. ] ]

Exercise 12.2

English has two sorts of though clauses: ordinary ones that do not involve movement, as in (1),
and ones that do, as in (2). The construction in (2) is often referred to as the  though preposing
construction.
 The term though preposing is potentially confusing. What is preposed is
not though itself, but rather some constituent in the though clause. In other
words, though preposing is XP preposing that is licensed by though.
(1) a. Ordinary (non-movement)   Though the problem is difficult, (they will solve it.)
b.   Though the students believe the problem is difficult, ...
(2) a. Though preposing (movement)   Difficult though the problem is, ...
b.   Difficult though the students believe the problem is, ...

A. Using the grammar tool in movement principles, build structures for the though preposing
clauses in (2). Make sure that the structure that you build for (2b) is in accordance with
subjacency. Here and in the remainder of this exercise, there is no need to build structures for
the parenthesized material.

B. Using the same grammar tool as in (A), build structures for the though clauses in (3). You'll
have to come up with a plausible structure for the gerund in (3c).

(3) a. Difficult though I wonder why the problem is, (I don't know for sure.)
b. Difficult though the students enjoy problems which are, (they can't always solve them.)
c. Invincible though the barbarians gave the impression of being, (their empire lasted
scarcely two generations.)
d. Difficult though the problem is very, (they plan to solve it.)

C. Which, if any, of the though clauses in (3) are expected to be ungrammatical given the

principles covered in this and previous chapters? Are the predictions of the theory consistent
with your own acceptability judgments?

Since we haven't discussed the ECP in class, don't consider it in your answer.

Exercise 12.3

A. Corresponding to the declarative clauses in (1), we have the direct questions in (2).

(1) a.   They would prefer for her to teach the course.

(2) a.   Which course would they prefer for her to teach?
b. * Which teacher would they prefer for to teach the course?

A. Using the grammar tool in movement principles, build structures for both of the questions in
(2).

B. Can the judgments in (2) be derived from the principles introduced in this chapter? Your
explanation should be succinct, but specific. For instance, if a question violates subjacency or
the antecedent government clause of the ECP, indicate which barrier causes the subjacency
violation. If a question violates the lexical government clause of the ECP, indicate which clause
in the definition of lexical government is violated.

C. Is the specifier position in the elementary tree that the grammar tool postulates for the
complementizer for necessary?

Exercise 12.4
A. Consider the sentences in (1). Does the for phrase adjoin at N' or at V'? Explain, providing
evidence from pronoun substitution and do so substitution.

(1) a.   They baked a cake for Marie.

b.   Who did they bake a cake for?

B. Using the grammar tool in movement principles, build a structure for the question in (1b) that
is consistent with your answer to (A).

C. Is the acceptability of (1b) consistent with the principles introduced in this chapter? Explain.

Exercise 12.5

A. Is the prepositional phrase in (1) is a complement or an adjunct of review? Explain.

(1)     this review of the book

B. Using the grammar tool in movement principles, build trees for the following questions.

The grammar tool provides a choice of two elementary trees for review. Use the one that
is consistent with your answer to (A).
(1) a.   Which book did you see a review of in the Times?
b.   Which book did you expect to see a review of in the Times?
c. Which book did a review of appear in the Times?
d. Which book did you expect a review of to appear in the Times?

C. Record your judgments concerning the questions (use "ok," "?," and "*" as your options).

D. For each of the questions, briefly explain whether it obeys subjacency and the ECP. Assume,
as in Further issues and refinements, that neither nonfinite IPs governed by V nor nonbranching
DPs are barriers. How do the predictions of the model of wh- movement developed in this
chapter mesh with your judgments from (B)?

Exercise 12.6

Consider the sentence in (1).

(1)     Already Agassiz had become interested in the rich stores of the extinct fishes of Europe,
especially those of Glarus in Switzerland and of Monte Bolca near Verona, of which, at
that time, only a few had been critically studied. 
(Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, Agassiz, (Jean) Louis (Rodolphe). Accessed 27 August
1999.)

A. Using the grammar tool in ***, build structures for the (simplified) subpart of (1) in (2).

In building the relative clause in (2), you may find it helpful to consider the
declarative clause Only of few of them had been critically studied.
(2)     the fishes of Europe, of which only a few had been critically studied

B. Why did you put had where you did in the structures you built in (A)?

C. The grammar tool forces you to attach of Europe as an adjunct of fishes rather than as a
complement in (A). Provide evidence in favor of the attachment.
D. Is the trace of wh- movement in (2) antecedent-governed? In your answer, indicate clearly
which nodes (if any) are barriers that intervene between the trace and its antecedent. Assume the
definition of barriers in Further issues and refinements.

E. Is the trace of wh- movement lexically governed? Explain. In your answer, indicate clearly
all (if any) lexical government domains for the trace.

F. Which (if any) clauses of the ECP does the trace of passive movement satisfy in the structure
you built for (A)? As in (D) and (E), your answer should include all (if any) barriers that
intervene between the trace of passive movement and its antecedent, and all (if any) lexical
government domains for the trace of passive movement.

Exercise 12.7

A. Which (if either) of the adjectives in (1) is a control adjective, and which (if either) is a
raising adjective? Your answer must include the sentences (and associated judgments) that you
use as the basis for making your decision.

(1) a.   Kim was ecstatic to get the job.

b.   Kim is certain to get the job.

B. Based on your answer to (A), use the all purpose grammar tool to build structures for both of
the sentences in (1).

C. Using the same grammar tool, build the structure for the variant of (1b) in (2).

(2)     Certain to get the job though Kim is, ...

Assume that nonfinite IP sisters to Adj are not barriers, on a par with nonfinite IP
sisters to V.

D. For each trace of movement in (C), briefly explain whether it satisfies the ECP. For each
case, your answer should include which clause of the ECP is satisfied, or whether both clauses
are satisfied. (Don't consider verb movement.)

Exercise 12.8

A. Using the all purpose grammar tool, build the structure for the phrase in (1). Treat every as a
determiner.

(1)     a letter of which every line was an insult (from Jane Austen)

B. Assuming that non-branching DPs are not barriers to wh-movement, is (1) consistent with
the ECP? Explain. Once again, your answer should include which clauses of the ECP are
violated or satisfied.

13. THE VERB-SECOND (V2) PHENOMENON

V2 in German

The linear position of the finite verb

As mentioned in Chapter 5, V in German is head-final, but C is head-initial. These facts are
illustrated in (1).
As was mentioned in Chapter 5, it has been a matter of debate in the literature whether I
is head-initial or head-final in German. In what follows, we will assume that German,
being a rich agreement language, has verb movement to I, with the consequence that I is
head-final.
(1) a.   [C ob ] mein Freund dem Mann gestern das Buch
[V gegeben ] [I hat ]
whether my friend the.dat man yesterday the.acc book
given has
'whether my friend gave the man the book yesterday'
b. * [C ob ] mein Freund [I hat ] dem Mann gestern das Buch [V
gegeben ]
c. * [C ob ] mein Freund [I hat ] [V gegeben ] dem Mann gestern
das Buch

A very striking fact about German is that whereas finite verbs are final in subordinate clauses,
this is not true in main clauses. This is clear from the position of the finite verb in a direct
question like (2).

(2) a.   Hat mein Freund dem Mann gestern das Buch

gegeben?
has my friend the.dat man yesterday the.acc book given
'Did my friend give the man the book yesterday?'
b. * Mein Freund dem Mann gestern das Buch gegeben hat?

The structural position of the finite verb

The contrast between (1a) and (2a) in the position of the finite verb immediately raises the
question of what structural position the finite verb in (2a) occupies. Two pieces of evidence
strongly suggest that the position is C.

Asyndetic conditional clauses. The first piece of evidence comes from the existence in German
of two types of conditional clauses. In addition to conditional clauses introduced by the overt
complementizerwenn 'if', German also allows asyndetic conditional clauses. These are marked
not by the presence of an overt complementizer, but by the position of the finite verb. Both
types of conditional clauses are illustrated in (3). 1

(3) a.   wenn mein Freund dem Mann gestern das Buch

gegeben hätte
if my friend the.dat man yesterday the.acc book given
had.conditional
'if my friend had given the man the book yesterday'
b.   hätte mein Freund dem Mann gestern das
Buch gegeben
had.conditional my friend the.dat man yesterday the.acc
book given
'had my friend given the man the book yesterday'

The finite verb in (3b) occupies exactly the same clause-initial position as the complementizer
in (3a), suggesting that the verb has moved to C. The complementizer and the finite verb in (3)
can be seen, then, as competing for the same syntactic slot. If this is so, then conditional clauses
with both a complementizer and a clause-initial verb should be ungrammatical. This in indeed
the case, as shown in (4).

(4)   * { hätte wenn, wenn hätte } mein Freund dem Mann gestern das Buch gegeben

Position of object pronouns. The second piece of evidence for verb movement to C comes
from the position of object pronouns. In addition to the variability that German exhibits in the
position of finite verbs, it allows a fair bit of word order freedom, and object pronouns regularly
occur between complementizers and the subject, as shown in (5).

(5)     wenn ihm mein Freund gestern das Buch gegeben

hätte
if him.dat my friend yesterday the.acc book given had
'if my friend had given him the book yesterday'

As expected if asyndetic conditional clauses like (3) involve verb movement to C, object
pronouns can immediately follow the finite verb, as shown in (6), just as they immediately
follow the complementizer in (5).

(6)     hätte ihm mein Freund gestern das Buch gegeben

had him.dat my friend yesterday the.acc book given
'if my friend had given him the book yesterday'

The idea that non-clause-final finite verbs in German move to C is further corroborated by the
distribution of object pronouns in direct questions. As in English (recall Chapter 11), direct yes-
no questions in German require movement to C, and direct wh-questions require the additional
movement of a wh-phrase to Spec(CP). This is shown in (7) and (8); here and in what follows,
constituents in Spec(CP) are in boldface, and the verb in C is in italics.

(7)     Hati mein Freund dem Mann gestern das Buch gegeben
ti?
has my friend the.dat man yesterday the.acc book given
'Did my friend give the man the book yesterday?'
(8) a.   Wasi hatj mein Freund dem Mann gestern ti gegeben
tj?
what.acc has my friend the.dat man yesterday given
'What did my friend give the man yesterday?'
b.   Wanni hatj mein Freund dem Mann ti das Buch gegeben
tj?
when has my friend the.dat man the.acc book given
'When did my friend give the man the book?'
c.   Wemi hatj mein Freund ti gestern das Buch gegeben tj?
who.dat has my friend yesterday the.acc book given
'Who did my friend give the book to yesterday?'
d.   Weri hatj dem Mann ti gestern das Buch gegeben
tj?
who.nom has the.dat man yesterday the.acc book given
'Who gave the man the book yesterday?'

Again, as expected, object pronouns can immediately follow the finite verb, as shown in (9) and
(10).

(9)     Hati ihm mein Freund gestern das Buch gegeben ti?
 has him.dat my friend yesterday the.acc book given
'Did my friend give him the book yesterday?'
(10) a.   Wasi hatj ihm mein Freund gestern ti gegeben tj?
what.acc has him.dat my friend yesterday given
'What did my friend give him yesterday?'
b.   Wanni hatj ihm mein Freund ti das Buch gegeben tj?
when has him.dat my friend the.acc book given
'When did my friend give him the book?'

Movement to C as adjunction

In German as in English, Spec(CP) is a substitution node; that is, it has no content until filled by
movement. But in both languages, the CP itself is the projection of a morpheme in C which,
though silent, contains information concerning what might be called the sentence's mood or
force (what we mean by this is whether the sentence is declarative, interrogative, imperative,
conditional, and so on). Like verb movement to I, verb movement to C therefore must be
adjunction. The structures before and after verb movement to C (via I) in German are shown
schematically in (11).

(11) a.       b.  

Verb movement to C in declaratives

Like English (recall the discussion of topicalization in Chapter 11), German allows ordinary (=
non-wh) phrases to move to Spec(CP). In contrast to English, however, topicalization in
German is always accompanied by verb movement to C. As a result, declarative clauses like
those in (12) are structurally parallel to their wh-question counterparts in (8).
(12) a.   Das Buchi hatj mein Freund dem Mann gestern ti gegeben tj.
the.acc book has my friend the.dat man yesterday given
'My friend gave the man the book yesterday.'
b.   Gesterni hatj mein Freund dem Mann ti das Buch gegeben tj.
c.   Dem Manni hatj mein Freund ti gestern das Buch gegeben tj.
d.   Mein Freundi hatj ti dem Mann gestern das Buch gegeben tj.

As expected, unstressed pronouns can immediately follow the finite verb in declarative main
clauses, just as in the corresponding wh-questions.

(13) a.   Das Buchi hatj ihm mein Freund gestern ti gegeben tj.
the.acc book has him.dat my friend yesterday given
'My friend gave him the book yesterday.'
b.   Gesterni hatj ihm mein Freund ti das Buch gegeben tj.

It is worth noting that German allows Spec(CP) to be filled not only by movement, but also by
direct substitution of the morpheme es 'it'. This yields sentences as in (14).
(14)     Es hati mein Freund dem Mann gestern das Buch gegeben ti.
it has my friend the.dat man yesterday the.acc book given
'My friend gave the man the book yesterday.'

Thus, in addition to the subject requirement that it shares with English, German has an
additional topic requirement. In both cases, the requirement is purely syntactic. In other words,
if the requirement is not satisfied by a semantically contentful element, it must be satisfied by an
expletive element (it or there in connection with the English subject requirement, and es 'it' in
the case of the German topic requirement).

The analysis of German clause structure that we have just presented has two striking
consequences. First, ordinary declarative clauses differ structurally from wh-questions in
English, but not in German. In English, ordinary declarative clauses are IPs and wh-questions
are CPs, whereas in German, both clause types are CPs. In other words, even though the
German sentence in (15) and its English translation in (16) exhibit the same superficial word
order, they do not share the same structure, as indicated by the bracketing.

(15)     [CP Dein Freundi [C wirdj ] ti anrufen tj. ]

your friend will call
'Your friend will call.'
(16)     [IP Your friend [I will ] call. ]

A second consequence of the analysis is that the finite verb in a German main clause is always
its second constituent. It cannot appear in third position because there is no structural slot to the
left of Spec(CP) for a constituent to occupy. This is illustrated by the grammaticality contrast
between (17) and (18).

(17) a. [CP Dein Freundi [C wirdj ] ti morgen anrufen tj. ]

your friend will tomorrow call

'Your friend will call tomorrow.'

b. [CP Morgeni [C wirdj ] dein Freund ti anrufen tj. ]

'Tomorrow, your friend will call.'
(18) a. * Morgeni [CP dein Freundj [C wirdk ] ti tj anrufen tk. ]
b. * Dein Freundi [CP morgenj [C wirdk ] ti tj anrufen tk. ]

Contrasts as in (17) and (18) are subsumed under the label of verb-second (V2)
phenomenon, and German (and other languages that resemble it with regard to these contrasts)
are referred to as V2 languages.

It is important to understand that the term V2 refers to a structural requirement, not to the
default word order of a language. So even though English verbs and modals ordinarily occupy
second position in their clause, English is not a V2 language in the sense just described. The
reason is that an English verb or auxiliary can occupy second position, but doesn't necessarily.
For instance, if the clause-initial constituent is not the subject, the verb or auxiliary in English
occupies third position (with some exceptions to be discussed directly). This is illustrated in
(19). Note particularly the grammaticality contrasts between (19b) and (17b) and between (19c)
and (18a).

(19) a. Your friend will call.

b. * Tomorrow will your friend call.
 c. Tomorrow, your friend will call.

V2 in the history of English

Ordinary declarative clauses are V2 in almost all the Germanic languages, which include the
North Germanic (= Scandinavian) languages and the West Germanic languages (Dutch, English,
Frisian, German, and Yiddish). The sole exception to this generalization is modern English,
though not earlier stages of the language. In this section, we briefly discuss the history of V2 in
English.

There is good reason to believe that V2 in Old and Middle English was a more complex
phenomenon than in any of the other V2 languages. In particular, there is evidence that Old
English (700–1150) exhibited not just one, but two types of V2. The first type was derived by
verb movement to C, as just discussed for German, and it characterized direct questions,
imperatives, certain clauses with negative force, and clauses introduced by certain adverbs.
These clause types turn out to be exactly the ones in which modern English has preserved verb
movement to C, as we will see later on in the chapter. The second type of V2, which was
obligatory in ordinary declarative clauses, was structurally distinct (it involved verb movement
to a head lower than C), and it was also superficially less transparent (sentences containing
unstressed pronouns were apparently able to violate the V2 requirement). The analysis of this
second type of V2 is beyond the scope of an introductory textbook; for discussion, the reader is
referred to Pintzuk 1991, 1993. It is this second type of V2 that was lost in the history of
English.2

In Middle English (1150–1500), evidence has recently been found of two syntactic dialects with
respect to V2 (Kroch and Taylor 1997), characteristic of the south and north of England. The
southern dialect basically maintained the Old English distinction between two types of V2: one
for ordinary declarative clauses and one for special clause types like questions and so on. In the
northern dialect, on the other hand, which was influenced by Scandinavian, all V2 clauses were
uniformly derived by verb movement to C. In other words, the two dialects differed in whether
V2 in ordinary declarative clauses involved verb movement to C. As just noted, the complexity
of the Old English V2 pattern and its direct continuation in southern Middle English made it
less transparent than the V-to-C type, and it has been proposed that speakers of the northern
dialect misanalyzed southern V2 declaratives as non-V2 (Kroch, Taylor, and Ringe 2000). The
desire to accommodate to the supposedly non-V2 southern pattern would then have led the
northern speakers to produce clauses that were truly non-V2 (that is, non-V2 for both dialects).
This development in turn might have brought about the loss of V2 in ordinary declarative
clauses that is attested during the Middle English period and that resulted in the non-V2
character of ordinary declarative clauses in modern English.

In what follows, we give some examples of V2 clauses in Middle English and modern English.
The examples from both time periods illustrate the transparent type of V2 discussed in the first
part of this chapter, which involved verb movement to C, rather than the opaque type that was
additionally possible in Old English and southern Middle English.

V2 in Middle English

Middle English encompasses the period from about 1150-1500. In contrast to Old English,
Middle English, especially its later stages, is reasonably comprehensible to speakers of the
modern language, and it seems like the 'same' language as modern English (whereas Old
English feels at least as foreign as German).

(20) gives some examples of V2 declarative clauses from The travels of Sir John Mandeville, a
bestselling travel book from the 1300s; the examples are taken from Mossé 1968, a convenient
compendium of Middle English texts. (The constituent in Spec(CP) is in boldface, and the finite
verb is in italics; the numbers after the examples indicate the page number in Mossé.)

+t  stands for the special Middle English character 'thorn', which corresponds to
modern voiceless th (as in thorn). +g stands for a character called 'yogh', which has
no exact counterpart in the modern language; it was pronounced /y/.

Notice the doubly marked indirect question in (20b).

(20) a.   +tanne wolde he make hem to drynken of a certeyn drynk. (279)
'Then he would make them drink of a certain drink.'
b.   After that +git scholde he putten hem in a fayrere paradys where +tat +tei scholde see
God. (279)
'Yet after that he would put them in a more beautiful paradise where they would see
God.'
c.   +tan wolde he schewe hem his entent. (279)
'Then he would show them his intent.'
d.   +tere scholde +tei dwellen with the most fairest damyselles +tat myghte be, and pley
with hem everemore. (279)
'There they would dwell with the fairest damsels that there might be and play with them
for ever more.'

(21) gives some further examples from the Canterbury Tales of Geoffrey Chaucer (ca. 1340-ca.
1400). Again, the first number after each example refers to the page in Mossé; the second
number refers to the verse.

(21) a.   Wel koude he rede a lessoun or a storie. (303, 709)

'He could read a lesson or a story well.'
b.   This tresor hath Fortune unto us yeven. (307, 779)
'This treasure, Fortune has given us.'
c.   Thy profit wol I telle thee anon. (308, 809)
'I will tell you right away what's in it for you.'
d.   Thanne shal al this gold departed be, my deere frend, bitwixen me and thee. (309, 831-
832)
'Then all this gold will be divided up, my dear friend, between me and you.'
e.   Thanne may we bothe oure lustes all fulfille. (309, 833)
'Then both of us can fulfill all our desires.'
f.   Into the blisse of hevene shul ye gon. (311, 912).
'You will enter the bliss of heaven.'

Vestiges of V2 in modern English

Modern English is no longer a full-fledged V2 language in the sense that it exhibits the V2
phenomenon in ordinary declarative clauses. However, in syntactic contexts in which the verb
moved to C in Old English, C is still required to dominate a modal or form of do support in the
modern language. For instance, as we mentioned in Chapter 11, a modal or form of do moves to
C in direct questions. We see a further example of vestigial V2 in the construction in (23),
introduced in Chapter 5 as a test for the constituenthood of adjective phrases.

(23)     They are proud of their grandson, and so are we.

The verbal syntax of imperatives in modern English is too complex to discuss in an introductory
textbook. However, it is clear that the auxiliary moves to C in negative imperatives, as is
evident from the obligatory inversion of the subject and auxiliary do in (24).

(24) a.   Don't you dare!

b. * You don't dare! (ungrammatical as an imperative)

Finally, sentences that begin with a non-subject negative phrase, as in (25), require a modal or
form of do in second rather than third position, as shown by the contrast between the (i) and (ii)
examples.

(25) a. i.   Never in my life have I seen such a mess.

ii. * Never in my life, I have seen such a mess.
b. i.   Under no circumstances will I agree.
ii. * Under no circumstances, I will agree.
c. i.   Not a single ally has he encountered in all that time.
ii. * Not a single ally, he has encountered in all that time.

V2 in modern English is also triggered by only-phrases, as illustrated in (26).

(26) a. i.   Only in Brazil have I seen such orchids.

ii. * Only in Brazil, I have seen such orchids.
b. i.   Only a single ally has he encountered in all that time.
ii. * Only a single ally, he has encountered in all that time.
c. i.   Only under exceptional circumstances will I agree.
ii. * Only under exceptional circumstances, I will agree.

Clearly, this is related to the fact that only sentences can be paraphrased as illustrated for (26a)
in (27).

(27)     Nowhere but in Brazil have I seen such orchids.

It is worth noting that some speakers tend to avoid using the (i) examples in (25) and (26) in
favor of the ordinary subject-initial word order in (28) and (29).

(28) a.   I have never in my life seen such a mess.

b. I will agree under no circumstances.
c. He has encountered not a single ally in all that time.
(29) a. I have seen such orchids only in Brazil.
b. He has encountered only a single ally in all that time.
c. I will agree only under exceptional circumstances.

If this tendency were to become more pronounced over time, the (i) examples in (25) and (26)
would eventually die out in usage. In the absence of positive evidence that clause-initial
negative phrases license V2, children learning English would then presumably acquire a
grammar that generates the currently ungrammatical (ii) examples.

Notes
1. As the translation of (3b) shows, English, too, allows asyndetic conditional clauses.

2. In addition to the remnants of the transparent German/Scandinavian/northern type of V2 that

are discussed in the remainder of the section, modern English continues to retain vestiges of the
complex southern V2 pattern in sentences such as (i).

(i) a.   There comes/goes the bus. (V2 with full noun phrase subject)
b.   There it comes/goes. (non-V2 with pronominal subject)

Exercises and problems

Exercise 13.1

Using the all purpose grammar tool, build structures for the sentences in (1) and (2).
(1) a.   I will call if I am not busy.
b.   If I am not busy, I will call.
(2) a.   I will call should I not be busy.
b.   Should I not be busy, I will call.

Exercise 13.2

A. Using the German V2 grammar tool, build a structure for the German clause in (1).
(1)     Mein Onkel hat bei seinen Nachbarn dreimal aus der
Schweiz angerufen.
my uncle has at his neighbors three.times from the
Switzerland called
'My uncle called his neighbors three times from
Switzerland.'

B. Given what you know about Universal Grammar and the grammar of German, are the
sentences in (2) expected to be grammatical? Explain.

(2) a.   Angerufen hat mein Onkel aus der Schweiz dreimal.

b.   Aus der Schweiz hat mein Onkel dreimal angerufen.
c.   Dreimal aus der Schweiz hat mein Onkel bei seinen Nachbarn angerufen.

Exercise 13.3

A. Using the all purpose grammar tool, build structures for any three of the modern English V2
clauses in (1).
(1) a. i.   Never in John's life has he seen such a mess.
ii.   Only in Brazil has he seen such orchids.
b. i.   Under no circumstances will she agree.
ii.   Only under those circumstances will she agree.
c. i.   Not a single ally have they encountered.
ii.   Only a single ally have they encountered.

Exercise 13.4
Using the grammar tool in Middle English verb movement, build structures for each of the
following sentences from Chaucer in (1). Assume that Chaucer instantiates the same V2 pattern
as German (that is, the northern Middle English V2 pattern described in earlier).
(1) a.   A vernycle hadde he sowed upon his cappe. (Mossé 1968:303, 685) 
'He had sewn a vernicle on his cap.'
b. Wel koude he rede a storie. (Mossé 1968:303, 709) 
'He could read a story well.'
c. This tresor hath Fortune unto us yeven. (Mossé 1968:307, 779) 
'Fortune has given this treasure to us.'

Exercise 13.5

A. Using the grammar tool in ***, build the structure for the italicized Early Modern English
sentence in (1).
(1)     and God created man after his lycknesse; after the lycknesse of god created he him.

B. Assuming that case-checking in Early Modern English and present-day English are identical,
how is case checked on he and him? Your answer should specify the case that is checked on
each noun phrase, the case-checking head, and the case-checking configuration.

Exercise 13.6

A. Based on the data in (1) and (2), how do why questions differ from how come questions in
Standard English? (For convenience, treat how come as a complex word.)
(1) a. ok Why are they making such a fuss?
b. * Why they are making such a fuss?
(2) a. * How come are they making such a fuss?
b. ok How come they are making such a fuss?

B. Based on the data in (3), how would you characterize the difference between direct questions
in African American Vernacular English (AAVE) and in Standard English?

(3) a.   Why you didn't tell me that? 

(overheard at the Salvation Army store, 22nd and Market, September 26, 1998)
b.   What you bought tickets for? 
(overheard at 30th Street Station, November 26, 1998)
c.   Where you was at? 
(overheard at Rittenhouse Square, July 20, 2001)
d.   Where you went? 
(overheard at the corner of Chestnut and 36th Street, August 13, 2001)
e.   What I told you? 
(Willie Perdomo. From where a nickel cost a dime. Real News. April 2002. 28.)

C. How does the verbal syntax of the archaicizing advertisement for B. Altman in (4) differ
from your own verbal syntax, and how doesn't it?

The two instances of be are an archaic verb form called the subjunctive. In the modern
language, the subjunctive has largely been replaced by the indicative (in this case, is).
(4)     What care I how chic it be if it not be the best for me? 
(Kim Johnson Gross and Jeff Stone. 1998. Women's wardrobe. Chic simple. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf.)
Exercise 13.7

The Middle English sentence in (1) was structurally ambiguous between the two interpretations
in (2).
(1)     Thys rememberede thei nevyr to doo.
(2) a.   They never remembered to do this.
b.   They remembered never to do this.

Using the all purpose grammar tool, build the two relevant structures for (1), indicating clearly
which structure is intended to represent which interpretation.

For simplicity, assume that never modifies the same syntactic category in both

interpretations. 
Assume further that remember has belonged to the same verb class throughout the
entire history of English.

14. BINDING THEORY: SYNTACTIC CONSTRAINTS ON THE

INTERPRETATION OF NOUN PHRASES.

Coreference and coindexing

The primary function of a noun phrase like Bill Clinton, my two cats, the king of France, Santa
Claus, or colorless green ideas is to refer - that is, to stand for a particular discourse entity,
its referent. As the examples show, referents can be entities in the actual world, entities in some
possible world, or even entities that could not possibly exist in principle. One of the
characteristic features of human language is the absence, in general, of a one-to-one relation
between noun phrases and referents. On the one hand, it is possible to use different noun
phrases to refer to the same referent. The classic example is the fact that the expressions the
morning star and the evening star both have the same referent - the planet Venus. On the other
hand, the same noun phrase can have different referents. For instance, my apartment,used either
by the same person at different points in time or by different persons at the same point in time,
can refer to lodgings of vastly different size and attractiveness in completely different locations.
Similarly, Lois's checking account balance can refer to widely differing dollar amounts.

In general, then, determining the intended referent of an expression requires recourse to a

particular discourse context (who is speaking when, to whom, and so on). But there are certain
expressions whose interpretation is particularly context-dependent - namely, pronouns. For
instance, it is perfectly felicitous to introduce a new topic in a conversation with a friend using
(1a) (provided that the speaker and the friend have in common a single acquaintance by the
name of Vanessa). But replacing the proper noun Vanessa with a pronoun, as in (1b), in the
same context (that is, as a new topic of conversation) is decidedly odd.

(1) a.   I ran into Vanessa the other day.

b. I ran into her the other day.

On the other hand, if Vanessa has already been mentioned in the discourse, then (1b) is
perfectly felicitous, as illustrated in the mini-discourse in (2).

(2)     A: Have you seen Vanessa recently?

B: Yup. I ran into her the other day.
Pronouns, then, in contrast to ordinary noun phrases, are referentially dependent on
some antecedent in the discourse. The term 'antecedent' is potentially misleading. Since it is
derived etymologically from Latin ante-cedens 'one who walks before', it suggests that
antecedents are required to precede a referentially dependent expression. However, precedence
is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for antecedenthood. For instance, a sentence
like Zelda's brother likes herself is ungrammatical even though Zelda precedes herself.. A less
misleading term might be 'referential anchor,' but we continue to use the 'antecedent' because it
is the standard term in the literature.

It is possible for a sentence to contain more than one possible antecedent for a pronoun. For
instance, in (3), he can refer to either Tim or Tom.

(3)     Tim told Tom that he needed some time off.

In any particular discourse context, of course, one interpretation may well be favored over the
other, given what is known about Tim, Tom, their respective work loads, and so on. In case the
antecedent for hemust be explicitly specified in an unambiguous way, this can be achieved as in
(4).

(4) a.   Tim told Tom that he, Tim, needed some time off.
b.   Tim told Tom that he, Tom, needed some time off.

When (3) has the interpretation in (4a), he and Tim are said to corefer. On the alternative
interpretation in (4b), it is he and Tom that corefer.

It is convenient to introduce a notation to represent coreference relations. Let us begin by

asssociating any noun phrase with a referential index. In the syntactic literature, it is standard
to use the letters of the alphabet, beginning with i (for 'index'), both as referential indices and to
indicate movement. For clarity, however, we will use the natural numbers as referential indices.
We now introduce the following convention. In order to indicate an interpretation where two
expressions refer to the same discourse entity (in other words, where they corefer), we assign
the same index to both expressions, or coindex them. On the other hand, in order to indicate an
interpretation in which two expressions refer to distinct discourse entities (that is, where they do
not corefer), we assign distinct indices to each of the two expressions. Such expressions are said
to be contraindexed. In neither case are the specific indices important - only whether the
indices are the same or not. For instance, both indexings in (5) represent the interpretation in
(4a), and both indexings in (6) represent the interpretation in (4b).

(5) a.   Tim1 told Tom2 that he1 needed some time off.

b. Tim1097 told Tom18 that he1097 needed some time off.
(6) a.   Tim1 told Tom2 that he2 needed some time off.
b. Tim380 told Tom7 that he7 needed some time off.

(7) gives a further grammatical indexing for the string in (3). Of course, in any particular
discourse, this indexing is pragmatically felicitous only if a discourse entity with the index 3
(say, Tim's brother Mike) has already been mentioned.

(7)     Tim1 told Tom2 that he3 needed some time off.

Reference and indexing must be carefully distinguished. Reference relations are actual linguistic
relations that we have intuitions about. For instance, we have the intuition that Tim and him can
corefer in (8a), but not in (8b).
(8) a.   Tim thinks that everyone admires him.
b. Tim admires him.

By contrast, indices are a notational device intended to represent arbitrary reference relations;
the indices themselves have no independent linguistic or psychological status. It is perfectly
possible to assign referential indices to noun phrases so as to represent interpretations of a
sentence that are possible in principle, but ungrammatical in fact. Two such ungrammatical
indexings are illustrated in (9).

(9) a. * Tim1 admires him1.

b. * He1 admires Tim1.

The proposition (= state of affairs) that both (9a) and (9b) are trying to express is not inherently
semantically anomalous. It can be expressed perfectly well by the grammatical sentence in (10).

(10)     Tim1 admires himself1.

Notice furthermore that what makes the sequences in (9) ungrammatical is the index
assignment. The same sequences of words as in (9) are grammatical sentences when associated
with the indices in (11).

(11) a. ok Tim1 admires him2.

b. ok He1 admires Tim2.

In other words, the grammaticality of a sentence is always determined with reference to a

particular intended interpretation.1

Representations like those in (9) and (11) are generally abbreviated as in (12). The descending
numerical order of the indices on the object noun phrases is intended to unambiguously indicate
the scope of the asterisk.

(12) a. ok Tim1 admires him2,*1.

b. ok He1 admires Tim2,*1.

Why can't we use sentences like (9a) or (9b) to express the proposition that is expressed
grammatically in (10)? This is exactly the type of question that is addressed in the rest of this
chapter.

Hellan 1988

The co-argument condition

English makes a distinction between reflexive pronouns ending in -self (myself, yourself, and so

on) and the corresponding ordinary pronouns (I, you, and so on). Norwegian, too, distinguishes
between pronouns with forms containing selv 'self' and ones without. As (13) and (14)
show, selv is in complementary distribution with zero (that is, where a form with selv can
occur, a form without selv cannot, and vice versa).
In what follows, we restrict our attention to reflexive pronouns with local or long-
distance antecedents (that is, with an antecedent in the same clause as the reflexive
pronoun or in a higher clause, respectively). Many languages also have inherently
reflexive pronouns, which are special in that they don't function as an argument of their
predicate, even though they occupy a syntactic argument position. Inherently reflexive
 pronouns are rare in English (to behave oneself, to perjure oneself), but much more
common in other languages.
(13) a. Jon1 beundrer seg selv1.
admires SEG self
b. * Jon 1 beundrer seg1.
'Jon1 admires himself1.'
(14) a. * Jon1 bad oss beundre seg selv1.
asked us admire SEG self
b. Jon1 bad oss beundre seg1.
'Jon1 asked us to admire him1.'

In an effort to understand what determines the complementary distribution, let us consider the
derivation of the sentences. Both sentences require the elementary tree in (15) for the
verb beundre(r) 'admire(s)'.

(15)    

Observe now that in the derivation of (13a), seg selv and Jon both substitute into the elementary
tree for beundrer. In the derivation of (14a), on the other hand, the subject position of the
elementary tree forbeundre is filled by PRO, which is referentially dependent on the matrix
object oss 'us', whereas Jon substitutes into the elementary tree for the matrix
predicate bad 'asked'. The structures resulting from substitution in the two cases are shown in
(16a) and (16b).

(16) a.    

b. i.       ii.  

Given this derivational difference, we can define a notion of co-argument as in (17a) and
propose the condition governing the distribution of selv in (17b).

(17) a.   Definition of co-argument (to be revised):

A and B are co-arguments iff they substitute into the argument positions (specifier or
complement) of the same elementary tree.
b. Co-argument condition (to be revised): 
Selv and its antecedent (more precisely, the minimal DP nodes dominating them) must
be co-arguments.

One type of syntax/semantics mismatch. While adequate for (13) and (14), the definition and
condition in (17) does not extend to examples like (18).

(18) a.   Jon1 snakket om seg selv1.

talked about SEG self
 b. * Jon1 snakket om seg1.
'Jon1 talked about himself1.'
(19) a. * Jon1 bad oss snakke om seg selv1.
asked us talk about SEG self
b. Jon1 bad oss snakke om seg.
'Jon1 asked us talk about himself1.'

As is evident, the distribution of selv in (18) and (19) is parallel to that in (13) and (14).
However, the grammatical (18a) violates the condition in (17b) because the DPs dominating seg
selv and its antecedent do not substitute into the same elementary tree. Rather, seg
selv substitutes into the elementary tree for om 'about', whereas its antecedent Jon substitutes
into that for snakket 'talked'.

One way of addressing this problem is to introduce a semantically-based notion of argument,

based on the idea that situations can be conceptually decomposed into events (activities, states,
qualities, and so on), on the one hand, and different types of participants in such events (agents,
experiencers, beneficiaries, goals, etc.), on the other. In general, the participants in an event
denoted by a lexical item correspond to the substitution nodes in the elementary tree associated
with that lexical item. Indeed, this correspondence is so general that substitution nodes are often
equated with participants in a situation, with both being referred to as arguments. However,
locutions like snakker om DP 'talk about DP' provide evidence that syntactic arguments
(constituents of the elementary tree projected by a lexical item) must be distinguished from
semantic arguments (participants in the event denoted by the lexical item). In such cases, there
is a mismatch between the syntax and the semantics. Specifically, the DP, being a complement
of the preposition, stands in no local syntactic relation with the verb. Nevertheless, it is a
semantic participant in the 'talking about' activity. For the purposes of binding, the prepositional
complement's status as a semantic argument is sufficient to license selv. Based on the facts
presented so far, it is therefore possible to revise (17b) to read as in (20b).

(20) a.   Semantic co-argument: 

A and B are semantic co-arguments iff they denote co-participants in the same
situation.
b. Co-argument condition (to be revised): 
Selv and its antecedent must be semantic co-arguments.

It should be noted that the status of a particular phrase as a semantic argument is not always
easy to determine, and that there is some individual variation regarding the relevant judgments.
This is reminiscent of the situation that we encountered in connection with the distinction
between syntactic arguments and adjuncts discussed in Chapter 4.

Another type of syntax/semantics mismatch. As we have just seen, a noun phrase can be a
semantic argument of a head denoting an event without being one of its syntactic arguments.
Also possible is the converse state of affairs, in which a noun phrase counts as a syntactic
argument of a head without being its semantic argument. We illustrate this second type of
syntax/semantics mismatch with reference to perception verb complements. Consider (21).

(21)     Jon1 så seg selv1 sitte i stolen.

saw SEG self sit in chair.def
'Jon1 saw himself1 sit in the chair.'

As the tree for (21) in (22) shows, the matrix verb så 'saw' takes as its complement a VP small
clause, so Jon and seg selv are not co-arguments in the sense of either (17a) or (20a). 2
(22)    

In fact, seg selv is not a semantic argument of så at all, since the complement subject position
can be occupied by expletive det, the Norwegian counterpart of expletive there.

(23)     Vi så det sitte ett spøkelse i stolen.

we saw there sit a ghost in chair.def
'We saw a ghost sit in the chair.'

The facts discussed so far motivate extending the concept of syntactic co-argument as in (24).

(24)     Syntactic argument: 

A and B are syntactic co-arguments iff they are locally head-licensed by the same head
C.

The notion of local head-licensing was introduced earlier (though not by that name) in
connection with case licensing. There, we distinguished three configurations in which case was
licensed: spec-head, head-spec, and head-complement. These structural notions are also relevant
for binding theory. In (16), Jon and seg selv are co-arguments because they stand in the spec-
head and head-complement relation, respectively, with beundrer 'admires'. In (23), (the trace
of) Jon and seg selv are co-arguments because they stand in the spec-head and head-spec
relation, respectively, with så.

Our final revision of the condition on selv is given in (25).

(25) Co-argument condition (final version): 

Selv and its antecedent must be semantic or syntactic co-arguments.

Note that the statement of the condition is not yet ideal. The fact that (25) contains a disjunction
suggests that we do not have a complete understanding of the notion of co-argument.

The predication condition

In addition to the distinction between elements with and without selv, Norwegian distinguishes

between the two third person singular forms seg and ham. Like seg, ham occurs on its own as
well as beforeselv. As (26) and (27) show, seg and ham are in complementary distribution.
Note that the noun phrases in (26) and (27) are all semantic arguments. Therefore, since
the co-argument condition in (25) is satisfied, the contrast in (26) and (27) must be due
to independent conditions governing the distribution of seg and ham.
(26)     Jon1 snakket om { seg / *ham } selv1.
talked about SEG HAM self
'Jon1 talked about himself1.'
(27) a.   Vi snakket med Jon1 om { ham / *seg } selv1.
 we talked with about HAM SEG self
'We talked with Jon1 about himself1.'
b.   Vi fortalte Jon1 om { ham / *seg } selv1.
we told about HAM SEG self
'We told Jon1 about himself1.'

The difference between the two cases is that the (potential) antecedent is a subject in (26), but
not in (27). Further evidence that the antecedent of seg must be a subject comes from (28),
which shows that what is crucial is the antecedent's status as a subject of predication.

(28)     Vi gjorde Jon1 glad i { seg / *ham } selv1.

we made fond of SEG HAM self
'We made Jon1 fond of himself1.'

The facts in (26)-(28) are accounted for by the condition in (29).

(29)     Predication condition: 

The antecedent of seg must be a subject of predication, whereas the antecedent
of ham must not be.

The co-argument condition in (25) and the predication condition in (29) are independent of one
another. This has the result that the domain in which the referentially dependent elements under
discussion can appear can be partitioned without overlap as in (30). 3

(30) Antecedent co-argument?

Antecedent subject of predication? Yes No
Yes seg selv seg
No ham selv ham

The tensed IP condition

The contrast in (31) shows that seg is subject to a final condition, given in (32).
(31) a.   Jon1 bad oss forsøke å få deg til å snakke pent
om seg1.
asked us try to get you towards to talk nicely
about SEG
'Jon1 asked us to try to get you to talk nicely about
him1.'
b. * Jon1 var ikke klar over at vi hadde snakket om seg1.
was not aware over that we had talked about SEG
'Jon1 was not aware that we had talked about him1.'
(32)     The minimal tensed IP dominating seg must also dominate its antecedent.

Strict vs. non-strict co-arguments

As we saw earlier, selv is subject to the co-argument condition in (25), repeated in (33).

(33)     Co-argument condition: 
Selv and its antecedent must be semantic or syntactic co-arguments.

The contrast in (34) might at first glance be taken to indicate that the reciprocal
pronoun hverandre 'each other' is not subject to such a condition.
(34) a. * Jon1 traff noen venner av seg selv1.
met some friends of SEG self
'Jon1 met some friends of his1.'
b.   [ Jon og Marit ]1 traff noen venner av hverandre1.
and met some friends of each other
'[ Jon and Marit ]1 met some friends of each other's1.'

Nevertheless, as (35) shows, the distribution of hverandre is not completely unconstrained.

(35)   ?* [ Jon og Marit ]1 leste mine bøker om hverandre1.

and read my books about each other
Intended meaning: 'Jon read my book about Marit, and Marit
read my book about Jon.'

It is possible to account for the contrast between (34b) and (35) by introducing a distinction
between strict and non-strict co-arguments. Strict arguments are defined as in (17) or (20), but
non-strict co-arguments are more loosely related. Consider the two configurations in (36).

(36) a.       b.  

In (36a), we will say that the absence of a specifier in BP allows B to extend its argument-taking
domain up to the first maximal projection that is 'closed off' by a specifier (in this case, AP). In
such a domain, which we will call a projection chain of B, the arguments of the heads in the
projection chain count as co-arguments in a non-strict sense. In (36b), on the other hand, the
presence of Spec(BP) prevents the formation of such a projection chain.

The similarities and differences in the distribution of selv and hverandre can now be succinctly

stated as in (37).

(37) a.   Selv and its antecedent must be strict co-arguments.

b. Hverandre and its antecedent must be co-arguments (possibly non-strict ones).

We illustrate the application of the condition in (37b) to (34b) and (35) with reference to the
structures in (38).
(38) a.     b.

(38a) is a (recursive) instantiation of the projection chain configuration in (36a). None of the
maximal projections in the object DP is closed off by a specifier, and the projection chain of the
preposition that governs hverandre therefore extends to VP. As a result, (the trace of) Jon og
Marit is a non-strict co-argument of hverandre and can serve as its antecedent. (38b) turns out
to be an instantiation of the projection chain configuration as well. But here, the projection
chain of the P containing hverandre extends only to the object DP, which is closed off
by mine. The ungrammaticality of the sentence can then be derived from the feature mismatch
(number and person) between hverandre and its potential antecedent mine.

Extending Hellan's binding theory to English

As discussed earlier, Norwegian distinguishes between two third person

pronouns: seg and ham, which can both stand alone or be combined with the
morpheme selv, yielding four referentially dependent forms (seg, seg selv, ham, and ham selv).
English lacks the distinction between seg and ham and has only two referentially dependent
forms (exemplified in what follows by him and himself). The question that guides the discussion
in this section is how these forms divide up the syntactic territory covered by the four forms of
Norwegian.

The co-argument condition

Since English -self is cognate with Norwegian selv, it is reasonable to assume that English

reflexive pronouns are subject to a condition analogous to the co-argument condition in (25).
Such a condition is given in (39a). The companion condition on ordinary pronouns in (39b)
makes explicit the complementary distribution between the two types of pronouns.
(39) a.   Reflexive pronouns and their antecedents must be (semantic or syntactic) co-arguments.
b.   Ordinary pronouns and their antecedents must not be co-arguments.

The conditions in (39) are borne out by the data in (40) and (41).

(40) a.   John1 admires { himself1 / *him1 }.

b. John1 talked about { himself1 / *him1 }.
c. We made John1 fond of { himself1 / *him1 }.
(41) a. John1 asked us to admire { him1 / *himself1 }.
b. John1 asked us to talk about { him1 / *himself1 }.
c. John1 made us fond of { him1 / *himself1 }.
In (37a), we proposed that the antecedents of Norwegian selv must be strict co-arguments, and
so we are led to wonder whether this is true of English reflexive pronouns as well. Evidence
bearing on this question comes from examples like (42), which has the structure in (43).

(42)     John1 bought some books about himself1.

(43)    

Himself, a semantic argument of books, has no strict co-arguments (the PP dominating it has no

specifier). But for precisely this reason, (43) is an instance of a projection chain. In particular,
given that the entire object DP contains no specifiers, the projection chain of about, the head
governing himself, extends to VP, making himself and (the trace of) John non-strict co-
arguments. Since (42) is grammatical, we conclude that the antecedent of himself need only be a
non-strict co-argument. In this respect, then, himself differs from Norweian seg selv and
resembles hverandre 'each other.'

As expected, if the projection chain of about is closed off by a specifier of the object DP, then it
is that DP that must contain an antecedent that agrees with himself in the relevant grammatical
features (number and gender). This is shown by the contrast in (44).

(44) a.   Mary bought John1's book about himself1.

b. * John1 bought Mary's book about himself1.

Finally, the contrast between (42) and (45) on the one hand and (44) and (46) on the other
confirms that reflexive and ordinary pronouns are in complementary distribution.

(45)   * John1 bought some books about him1.

(46) a. * Mary bought John1's book about him1.
b. John1 bought Mary's book about him1.

The predication condition

A further question that arises in comparing the English pronouns with their Norwegian
counterparts is whether himself covers the syntactic territory of seg selv alone or of both of
the selv forms (seg selv andham selv). (41) and (46) show that the antecedent of him, unlike that
of ham, can be a subject of predication, and (44a) suggests that the antecedent of himself needn't
be (we say 'suggests' rather than 'shows' because the status of prenominal genitives with respect
to predication is a bit murky). This evidence is consistent with the view that himself corresponds
to both of the selv forms, and that English reflexive and ordinary pronouns are not subject to a
predication condition analogous to the one in (29). This view is clearly confirmed by the facts in
(47), where the antecedent of himself is not a subject of predication.
(47) a. We talked with John1 about { himself1 / *him1 }.
b. We told John1 about { himself1 / *him1 }.

The tensed IP condition

Since the tensed IP condition governs the distribution of seg versus ham and English does not
distinguish between these two elements, we would expect the tensed IP condition to be
irrelevant in English. This conclusion is confirmed by the parallelism between (48a) and (48b).
(48) a.   John1 asked us to try to get you to talk nicely about { him1 / *himself1 }.
b. John1 was not aware that we had talked about { him 1 / *himself1 }.

In summary, then, English himself corresponds closely to the two selv forms of Norwegian, seg

selv and ham selv. The correspondence is not perfect, however, because the antecedent of
English himself,unlike that of the selv forms, needn't be a strict co-argument.

Chomsky 1981

We have presented an approach to binding theory that was developed in order to account for the
particularly rich data from Norwegian. In this section, we compare this approach with the
standard binding theory of Chomsky 1981, which was developed on the basis of
morphologically simpler data of English. Chomsky's binding theory contains three conditions
(or principles, as they are more commonly referred to), which govern the distribution of
reflexive and reciprocal pronouns, ordinary pronouns, and full noun phrases, respectively. We
present each of these principles in turn.

Principle A

Consider the English binding facts in (49).

(49) a. [ Zelda ]1 helped [ herself ]1.
b. [ Zelda's sister ]1 helped [ herself ]1.
c. * [ Zelda's ]1 sister helped [ herself ]1.

In Hellan's binding theory, (49a) is grammatical because herself and its antecedent Zelda are

syntactic co-arguments. The same is true of herself and Zelda's sister in (49b), and so it is
grammatical as well. In (49c), on the other hand, the intended antecedent Zelda is not a co-
argument of herself, and so the sentence is ungrammatical under the intended interpretation.

Chomsky 1981 derives the grammaticality pattern in (49) on the basis not of co-argumenthood,
but on the basis of the structural relation of c-command, defined as in (50).

(50)     A c-commands B iff (= if and only if)

a. neither A nor B dominates the other, and
b. the first branching node that dominates A also dominates B.

The structures for the sentences in (49) are shown in (51). In all three of the structures, the
intended antecedent of the anaphor herself and the anaphor itself are boxed in red. The first
branching node dominating the intended antecedent is boxed in black. Notice now that the
black-boxed nodes dominates that anaphor in (51a,b), but not in (51c). In other words, the
anaphor is c-commanded by the intended antecedent in (51a,b), but not in (51c).
(51 a b c
             
) . . .

Intende
d
anteced
ent c-
yes yes no
comma
nds
anapho
r?

These configurational relations suggest the condition in (52).

(52)     Principle A (to be revised): 

An anaphor must be c-commanded by a coindexed antecedent.
The term anaphor in Chomsky's usage refers to reflexive and reciprocal pronouns. This
usage is potentially confusing because in general linguistic usage, anaphora refers to
referential dependence regardless of morphological form. In other words, ordinary
pronouns and even full noun phrases can count as anaphors in this wide sense. Here, we
will use the restricted sense of the term, in keeping with Chomsky's usage.

(52) is generally expressed more succinctly as in (53a), where the notion of 'binding' is defined
as in (53b)

(53) a.   An anaphor must be bound.

b.   A binds B iff
i.   A c-commands B, and
ii. A and B are coindexed.

As it turns out, (53a) is a necessary but not sufficient condition on anaphors in English, since it
fails to account for data involving complex clauses like (54).

(54)     John1 thinks that Mary2 will help { herself2 / *himself1 }.

The grammaticality of the variant with herself is unproblematic (herself is bound by Mary ). But
given (53a), the ungrammaticality of the variant with himself is surprising, because himself is
bound by John.

In Hellan's version of the binding theory, John is ruled out as an antecedent of himself by the co-
argument condition in (39a). In Chomsky's version, a similar effect is achieved by introducing
the notion ofgoverning category, a locality domain within which an anaphor must be bound.
Since the definition of governing category is fairly complex, we will work our way up to it in
several steps, motivating each complication of the definition in turn.

(55)     Principle A (final version): 

An anaphor must be bound within its governing category.
(56)     Governing category (to be revised): 
The governing category for an expression is the lowest IP that contains that expression.

(55) correctly describes the contrast in (54), but is unable to account for contrasts as in (44),
repeated as (57).

(57) a.   Mary bought John1's book about himself1.

b. * John1 bought Mary's book about himself1.

In both sentences, the lowest IP that contains himself (the only IP in the sentence) also
contains John, in accordance with the definition of governing category in (56). The
ungrammaticality of (57b) is therefore unexpected.

A first step in accounting for such contrasts lies in making reference to DPs in addition to IPs in
the definition of governing category, as in (58).

(58)     Governing category (to be revised): 

The governing category for an expression is the lowest IP or DP that contains that
expression.

But now (58) overshoots the mark by incorrectly ruling out sentences like (42), repeated as (59).

(59)     John1 bought some books about himself1.

A further refinement of the definition of governing category yields (60).

(60)     Governing category (to be revised): 

The governing category for an expression is the lowest IP or DP that contains that
expression, and a specifier.

The reference to a specifier in (60) is the formal counterpart to the distinction between strict and
non-strict co-arguments in Hellan's approach to the binding theory. There is a difference,
however, in what the two approaches regard as the unmarked domain within which an anaphor
must be bound. In Hellan's approach, the availability of non-strict co-argument antecedents
extends a binding domain that would otherwise be smaller. By contrast, in Chomsky's approach,
the addition of clause (ii) in (60) restricts a binding domain that would otherwise be larger.

There remains one final revision to make to the definition of governing category. The revision is
motivated by sentences like (61a), which have the structure in (61b).

(61) a.   Joan1 believes herself1 to be indispensable.

 b  

Let's consider in detail why (61) poses a difficulty for the definition in (60). As is evident from
(61b), the lowest IP or DP that contains the anaphor and a specifier is the complement IP
(indicated by the box). (The anaphor and the specifier turn out to be the same node, but nothing
in (60) rules this out.) But since the complement IP contains no antecedent for the anaphor,
(61a) is incorrectly predicted to be ungrammatical.

In order to accommodate sentences like (61a), the governing category must be extended in just
the right way to allow matrix subjects to act as antecedents in sentences like (61a), but not in
ones like (54). This is achieved by the formulation in (62).

(62)     Governing category (final version): 

The governing category for an expression is the lowest IP or DP that contains (i) that
expression, (ii) a specifier, and (iii) the expression's case-licensing head.

Note that the addition of clause (iii) in (62) has the same effect as Hellan's extension of the
notion of syntactic argument in (24) (recall the discussion of the second type of
syntax/semantics mismatchdiscussed earlier in connection with the distribution of
Norwegian selv).

Principle B

We turn now to the distribution of pronouns.

As noted earlier, reflexive and reciprocal pronouns are combined in the Chomskyan
tradition under the rubric of anaphors. This leaves the unqualified term 'pronoun' to refer
to ordinary personal pronouns (I, you, he, and so on). Unless otherwise noted, we follow
this usage in what follows.

Replacing the anaphors in (49) by pronouns yields the sentences in (63).

(63) a. * [ Zelda ]1 helped [ her ]1.

b. * [ Zelda's sister ]1 helped [ her ]1.
c. [ Zelda's ]1 sister helped [ her ]1.

The resulting grammaticality pattern, which is the converse of that in (49), suggests the
condition in (64).

(64)     Principle B (to be revised): 

A pronoun must be free (= not bound by an antecedent).
As in the case of our first formulation of Principle A, the formulation of Principle B in (64) is
not ye quite inadequate. This time, however, the condition errs on the side of caution,
incorrectly ruling out grammatical sentences like (65).

(65)     John1 thinks Mary will help him1.

Since John c-commands him (along with everything else in the sentence), (64) incorrectly leads

us to expect (65) to be ungrammatical.

The fact that the antecedent and the pronoun are in different clauses in (65) suggests
reformulating (64) to incorporate the concept of governing category, as in (66).

(66)     Principle B (final version): 

A pronoun must be free in its governing category.

As is evident, both Hellan's and Chomsky's approaches to the binding theory agree that
anaphors and pronouns are in complementary distribution.

Principle C

Consider the sentences in (67).

(67) a. * She1 treats Mary1 well.
b. * She1 claims that they treat Mary1 well.
c. * She1 claims that we know that they treat Mary1 well.

In Hellan's approach to the binding theory, (67a) is ruled out by the condition in (39b),
according to which an ordinary pronoun and its antecedent cannot be co-arguments. It is not,
however, ruled out by Principle B, the counterpart to (39b) in Chomsky's binding theory, since
the pronoun is free. In order to rule out sentences like (67a), Chomsky's binding theory therefore
contains a third principle that governs the distribution of full noun phrases (referred to in
Chomsky's usage as r(eferential)-expressions).

(68)     Principle C: 

R-expressions must be free.

Principle C is reminiscent of Principle B, but differs from it in that the anti-binding requirement
is not relativized to a binding domain. The absolute character of the anti-binding requirement in
Principle C is borne out by the ungrammaticality of (67b,c).

The ungrammaticality of the sentences in (67b,c) means that an anti-binding condition on full
noun phrases also needs to be incorporated into Hellan's approach to binding theory. This is
because the co-argument condition in (39b), which ruled out (67a), fails to apply to (67b,c).
They must therefore be ruled out by separate means. The necessity for an independent anti-
binding condition on full noun phrases is underscored by sentences like (69).

(69)   * We made herself1 treat Mary1 well.

In Chomsky's binding theory, (69) is ruled out by both Principles A and C. But in Hellan's
version of the binding theory, (69) satisfies the co-argument condition in (39a), the equivalent
of Principle A, because Mary and herself are syntactic co-arguments (treat locally head-
licenses Mary). It is therefore only with reference to an anti-binding condition on full noun
phrases that (69) can be ruled out as required.
In traditional grammar, the examples in (67) and (69) would all be classified as instances
of cataphora, instances of referential dependence in which the antecedent follows the
referentially dependent element. It is worth pointing out explicitly that not all instances of
cataphora are ungrammatical. Examples like (70), where the referentially dependent element
precedes, but does not c-command the antecedent, are grammatical, as expected under Principle
C.

(70)     If he1 calls, tell John1 I'll be back in an hour.

The term 'anaphora' is generally used to subsume both cataphora and what might be
called strict anaphora, where the antecedent precedes the referentially dependent
element. According to the metaphor underlying the terms, discourse flows along like a
stream, with temporally earlier elements located upstream from later ones. The
antecedent is then upstream of the referentially dependent element in strict anaphora (<
Greek ana 'up, against the current'), but downstream in cataphora (< Greek kata 'down,
with the current').

A final point needs to be made about Principle C. We pointed out earlier that Principle C is an
absolute requirement in the sense that it makes no reference to binding domains. It is absolute in
a further sense as well: it makes no reference to whether the binder is a referentially dependent
element. Thus, Principle C rules out (71) on a par with (67a).

(71)   Mary1 treats Mary1 well.

It has been argued, however, that under certain discourse conditions, sentences structurally
parallel to (71) are in fact acceptable, as illustrated in (72a). Two further acceptable violations
of Principle C from unedited usage are given in (72b,c).

(72) a.   Nobody likes Oscar. Even Oscar1 doesn't like Oscar1.

b.   Phil1 said that if he2 came by, Phil1 would show him2 around.
(manager@babel.ling.upenn.edu to beatrice@babel.ling.upenn.edu)
c.   Luke1 thinks that everyone has as much integrity as Luke 1 has. (overheard at the White
Dog Cafe, Philadelphia, PA, 17 Feb 01)

However, equivalent sentences in which the full noun phrase is bound by a referentially
dependent element are degraded.

(73) a. * Nobody likes Oscar. Even he1 doesn't like Oscar1.

b. * He1 said that if { he2 / Sean2 } came by, Phil1 would show him2 around.
c. * He1 thinks that everyone has as much integrity as Luke1 has.

Although judgments regarding contrasts of the type illustrated by (72) and (73) can be delicate,
it seems reasonable to weaken Principle C to include reference to the status of the binder. This
is done in (74).

(74)     Weakened version of Principle C: 

Full noun phrases must not be bound by a referentially dependent element.

Notes

1. The same point arises in other connections as well. For instance, the question in (i) is
grammatical on the interpretation in (ii.a), but not on that in (ii.b).
(i)   How have they forgotten which problem they should solve?
(ii) a.   Howi have they forgotten ti which problem they should solve? (By succumbing to
Alzheimer's.)
b. * Howi have they forgotten which problem they should solve ti? (By using Fourier
analysis.)

2. The Trees program doesn't support the special character å, so we substitute the conventional
Scandinavian orthographic variant aa in the trees.

3. Certain difficult cases are set aside; for further discussion, see Hellan 1988, Chapter 3.

GLOSSARY

* asterisk indicates a sentence's syntactic ill-formedness (ungrammaticality)

(1)   * The had pipsqueak the nerve confront me to.
Enclosing material that is preceded by an asterisk with parentheses indicates
that including the material in parentheses is ungrammatical. Thus, (2)
abbreviates the examples in (3).

(2) a.     The (*those) cats like treats.

b.     My cats like(*s) treats.
(3) a. i.   The cats like treats.
ii. * The those cats like treats.
b. i.   My cats like treats.
ii. * My cats likes treats.
On the other hand, prefixing an asterisk to material that is enclosed in
parentheses indicates that the parenthesized material is obligatory. Thus, (4)
abbreviates the examples in (5).

(4) a. i.   They consumed *(dinner).

b.     My cat like*(s) treats.
(5) a. i. * They consumed.
ii. They consumed dinner.
b. i. * My cat like treats.
ii.   My cat likes treats.
{ } curly brackets Curly brackets enclose alternatives. For instance, (1) abbreviates the two
examples in (2).
(1)     They do { not, so } like your brother.
(2) a.   They do not like your brother.
b. They do so like your brother.
Curly brackets may be combined with parentheses.
( ) parentheses Parentheses enclose optional elements. For instance, (1) abbreviates the two
examples in (2).
(1)     They do (not) like your brother.
(2) a. They do like your brother.
b. They do not like your brother.
Parentheses may be combined with curly brackets. For instance, (3)
abbreviates the examples in (4).
(3)     They do ( { not, so } ) like your brother.
(4) a.   They do like your brother.
b. They do not like your brother.
 b. They do so like your brother.
% percent A percent sign indicates that an example is accepted as grammatical by some
speakers, but rejected by others.
(1) a. % This book was given me by my husband. (ok British; * American)
b. % We use a gas stove anymore; anymore, we use a gas stove.
(chiefly Midwest, but found throughout United States except New
England; earliest recorded examples from Northern Ireland)
# pound sign indicates a sentence's semantic or pragmatic ill-formedness
(1)   # Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
abl ablative case
acc accusative case
adposition Any P, regardless of whether it is head-initial or head-final. See Chapter
5 for examples. 
See also postposition.
algorithm An explicit, step-by-step procedure for solving a problem.

Examples: instructions for installing a water filter or for filing your income
taxes; a pesto recipe; a knitting pattern.
argument From the point of view of formal logic, an argument is an input to
a predicate (in the formal logic sense). From the point of view of syntax,
specifically X' theory, an argument is a linguistic expression occupying the
specifier or complement position of a head. Because a predicate can have
more semantic arguments than the X' schema provides, semantic arguments
are not necessarily expressed as syntactic arguments. For discussion,
see Chapter 3, Argumenthood and Chapter 4, More on the distinction
between complements and adjuncts. Conversely, not all syntactic arguments
are semantic arguments; see Expletive elements in English and Chapter
3, Predication for examples.
argument array A list of semantic arguments associated with a predicate. As we use the term
in this book, the list is unordered. The semantic arguments in the array are
mapped onto (= associated with) positions in syntactic structure. As
discussed in more detail in Chapter 7, it is possible for the same argument
array to be associated with more than one structure. Conversely, the same
structure can be associated with more than one argument array.
auxiliary  do
bound morpheme A morpheme that cannot stand alone, but must form part of a larger word,
like plural -s, un-, or -ness. In contrast, free morphemes,
like cat or happy, can stand alone. A trailing hyphen indicates that a bound
morpheme is a prefix; a leading hyphen indicates a suffix.
Burzio's A correlation according to which verbs that are not associated with a
generalization thematic role in their specifier position are unable to assign structural case.
For more discussion, see Chapter 10.
clause A constituent that contains a subject, possibly silent (in boldface), and a
predicate (in italics). Clauses can be subdivided into ordinary
clauses and small clauses. Ordinary clauses can be further subdivided
into finite clauses, which can stand alone, and nonfinite clauses, which
can't. All ordinary clauses contain an Infl element (underlined)---a modal,
auxiliary, silent tense morpheme, or the nonfinite marker to. Small clauses
differ from ordinary clauses in lacking an Infl element.
(1) a. Finite clause   Our friends must be in Cancun by now.
b.   Bill has never seen a raccoon.
c.   They are our friends.
 d.   Bill [past] arrived.
(2) a. Nonfinite clause   (John seems) ___ to be having problems.
b.   (I expect) ___ to know tomorrow.
c.   (I expect) them to know tomorrow.
d.   (We consider) them to be our friends.
(3) a. Small clause   (They made) us do it.
b.   (We consider) them our friends.
compound tense A tense that is expressed analytically, for instance, the English present
progressive she is singing or the French passé composé elle a chanté 'she
sang, she has sung'. Compound tenses contrast with simple tenses, which are
formed synthetically, like the English simple past she sang or the
French imparfait elle chantait 'she used to sing, she was singing'.

Compound tenses in one language can correspond functionally to simple

tenses in another language, and vice versa. For instance, the English
compound present progressive corresponds to a French simple present,
whereas the English simple past often corresponds to a French passé
composé.
constituent A unit of grammatical structure. Evidence for certain constituents comes
from constituenthood tests. In tree structure, constituents are represented as
nodes.
control verb A subclass of the verbs that take to infinitive complements, superficially
similar to raising verbs. In contrast to the subject of a raising verb, however,
the subject of a control verb starts out in the same clause as the control verb
itself, undergoing subject movement, but not raising. Accordingly, the
subject of the control verb's nonfinite complement is not a trace of the
matrix subject, but rather a separate silent pronoun PRO, which is coindexed
with the matrix subject. For more discussion, see Chapter 9.
count noun
dat dative case
demotion See grammatical relation.
determiner A syntactic category that includes the definite article the, the indefinite
article a and its variant an, the demonstratives this and that, and ordinary
and reflexive pronouns. English also has a silent determiner, marked by ___
in (1) below, which resembles some in that it can be used with both mass
nouns and plural count nouns (see Nouns for more information on count
nouns and mass nouns).
(1) a.   I see ___ rice on the table.
b. I heard ___ lions out in the bush last night.
direct question
empirical Concerning or pertaining to data. In the context of this course, the relevant
data have to do with the grammatical status or the interpretation of phrases
and sentences). When you are asked to give an empirical argument, your
argument must be based on judgments concerning phrases or sentences, not
on purely conceptual considerations like simplicity, economy, theory-
internal consistency, and so on.
Exceptional Case A standard term for what we call head-spec licensing.
Marking (ECM)
expletive (from Latin explere 'to fill out') A syntactic argument that isn't a semantic
argument. See Expletive elements in English for more discussion.
f feminine gender
finite Finite verbs are verbs that are inflected for tense and person-number
 agreement. Finite clauses are clauses that can stand alone.
formative A general term for an abstract meaning unit. Like morphemes, formatives
can be pronounced or silent, but they needn't be minimal meaning units.
free morpheme A morpheme that can stand alone, like cat or happy. In contrast, bound
morphemes, like plural -s, un-, or -ness) are part of a larger word.
full noun phrase Any noun phrase that is not an ordinary pronoun or a reflexive pronoun.

Examples: John, the boy next door, the dog that ate the homework, a lame
excuse, the problem with them, and Annabelle's confidence in herself.

As the last two examples show, a full noun phrase can contain an ordinary or
reflexive pronoun; it just can't entirely consist of one.
fut future tense
gen genitive case
gender A set of mutually exclusive word classes for nouns and pronouns. In many
languages, the genders of pronouns correspond to the biological sexes, but
the gender assignment for nouns is typically more arbitrary. This is
illustrated in (1) for German, a language with three genders: masculine,
feminine, and neuter.
(1) a.   die Wache, das Mädchen
the.fem sentinel the.neut girl
'the sentinel (male or female), the girl'
b.   der Hund, die Katze
the.masc dog the.fem cat
'the dog (male or female), the cat (male or
female)'
b.   der Tisch, die Tasse, das
Fenster
the.masc table the.fem cup the.neut
window
'the table, the cup, the window
English doesn't have gender as a grammatical category, since the so-called
genders of pronouns like he and she simply correspond to the sex of the
person being referred to.
government Traditionally used to refer to the requirement of certain verbs and
prepositions for their complements to appear in a particular case form. In
generative grammar, the sense of the term has been extended to refer to the
structural relation between a head and its complement.
grammatical The grammatical relations in a sentence are listed in (1); see Grammatical
relation relations for more discussion.
(1)     Subject > Direct object > Indirect object > Object of preposition
<---- promotion ------------------ demotion ---->
Various syntactic operations can change the grammatical relation of a noun
phrase. Depending on whether a noun phrase moves "up" or "down" the
hierarchy in (1), the noun phrase is said to be promoted or demoted. For
instance, the passive in English demotes the subject of an active sentence to
the object of the preposition by. In addition, it promotes the the object to
subject.
head The term head has three different meanings in syntactic theory.

First, in the theory of phrase structure, the term refers to the syntactic and
semantic core of a phrase. In X' theory, the particular theory of phrase
structure developed in this book, a head projects an intermediate and
 maximal projection, along with optional arguments.

Second, the head of a movement chain is simply the highest element in the
chain. In the case of verb movement, the head in the chain sense happens to
be a head in the X' sense. But when a maximal projection moves, the head of
the chain is a maximal projection.

Third, the term head can refer to the noun that is modified by a relative

clause. Given our analysis of relative clauses as involving wh- movement,
and hence a chain (see Chapter 11), this usage is potentially especially
confusing. In the relative clauses in (i), the head of the relative clause in this
third sense is italicized, whereas the head of the chain formed by movement
of the relative clause is underlined.

(i) a.   the book [CP [DP which ]i I am reading ti ]

b.   the author [CP [DP whose book ]i I like ti best ]
homograph One of two or more linguistic forms that are spelled alike, but different in
function or meaning or in pronunciation.

Example: bank 'river bank' and bank 'financial institution' (different

meaning) 
read (infinitive) and read (participle) (different pronunciation)
homonym Can refer to either homograph or homophone.
homophone One of two or more linguistic forms that are pronounced alike, but distinct in
function or meaning or in spelling.

Examples: bank 'river bank' and bank 'financial institution' (same spelling,

different meaning) 
reed and read (infinitive); red and read (participle) (related meaning,
different spelling)
hypercorrection The psychological process of constructing a nonstandard linguistic form by
analogy to a standard form. Also the resulting form itself.

Example: They feel badly, by false analogy to They drive badly. The

standard form is They feel bad. In They drive
badly, badly modifies drive, which is an ordinary verb. In They feel bad,on
the other hand, feel is a linking verb, and bad is a predicative adjective (it
predicates a particular property of the subject of the sentence; in other
words, it attributes the property to the subject).

They feel badly is grammatical in standard English only if it is the

verb feel that is being modified; that is, if the sentence is intended to
mean They have a bad sense of touch.
imperf imperfect
indirect question
infin infinitive
intransitive Traditionally used of verbs that take no object. We use the term in a more
general sense to refer to any syntactic category that takes no complement.
For instance, the italicized heads are transitive in the (a) examples, but
intransitive in their (b) counterparts.
(1) verb a.   We have eaten the pizza.
 b.   We have eaten.
(2) preposition a.   They crawled underneath the table.
b.   They crawled underneath.
(3) determiner a.   I like that radio.
b.   I like that.
irr irrealis mood, often expressed morphologically by subjunctive forms of the
verb
lexical ambiguity The association of a single word with more than one lexeme.
lexeme See word.
linking verb Also known as copular verb. One of a class of verbs including the
copula be, as well as (among others) appear, become, feel, get, grow, look,
prove, seem, smell, sound, taste, and turn,when used as in (1).
(1) a.   They { are, appear, became, grew, look, proved, seem } competent.
b. It { feels, looks, smells, sounds, tastes } fine.
c. He { became, got, grew } old.
d. It turned rancid.
See also feel.
m masculine gender
mass noun
matrix A structure that contains another structure. Typically used in the collocation
'matrix clause' of a CP or IP that contains another CP or IP.
morpheme A minimal meaning-bearing element.

Words are not necessarily the smallest meaning-bearing elements in a

language. For instance, cats is a single word, but consists of two
morphemes, cat and the plural morpheme -s.Unhappiness consists of the
three morphemes un-, happy, and -ness.

Morphemes can be free or bound. Free morphemes (like cat and happy) can

stand alone, whereas bound morphemes (like -s, un-, and -ness) cannot. A
trailing hyphen indicates that a bound morpheme is a prefix; a leading
hyphen indicates a suffix.
n neuter gender. Neither masculine nor feminine.
nom nominative case
nominal Of or relating to a noun or its projections (N, N', NP); more generally, of or
relating to a noun phrase (DP).
OED Oxford English Dictionary
ordinary pronoun Synonymous with personal pronoun. The following table lists the English
ordinary pronouns.
Possessive
Absolute 
Person Number Nominative Oblique Prenominal  (That book is
(That's ___
___; ___
book).
isred.)
1 I me my mine
2 you you your yours
sg
him, her,
3 he, she, it his, her, its his, hers, its
it
1 pl we us our ours
 2 you you your yours
3 they them their theirs
pl plural
postposition A head-final P. Coined in order to avoid the expression 'head-final
preposition', which offends the etymologically aware as a contradiction in
terms. See Chapter 5 for examples. 
See also adposition.
predicate The term 'predicate' in linguistics has two distinct (though related) senses,
what we will call the subject-predicate sense and the predicate-
argument sense.

The subject-predicate sense derives from traditional logic, where

propositions are divided into two parts, the subject and the predicate, and the
predicate is what is affirmed (or denied) of the subject.

In the history of formal logic, this original sense was generalized to include
relations missing more than a single argument. In the resulting predicate-
argument sense, in linguistics, the term 'predicate' refers to a head that
expresses a logical relation. Typically, predicates in this sense are verbs, but
other types of heads can function as predicates in this sense as well.

The two senses are illustrated in (1) and (2). The predicate is underlined;
notice that the two senses can pick out the same expression, as in the (b)
examples.

(1) a.   Subject-predicate sense: Bill gives money to charity.

b.   Bill swims.
(2) a.   Predicate-argument sense: Bill gives money to charity.
b.   Bill swims.
c.   Sheila's criticism of the plan
pres Present tense.
pro-form It is convenient to group together pronouns and expressions like do
so and one as pro-forms (< Latin pro 'instead of').

Note that the traditional term 'pronoun' is misleading, since pronouns

substitute for entire noun phrases, not just for nouns (the fact that Latin has
no articles may explain the traditional term). A more accurate term for
pronouns would therefore be pro–noun phrases; however, we continue to use
the traditional term, at least where there is no danger of confusion.
promotion See grammatical relation.
proposition An expression in language of something that is either true or false. Also, the
actual state of affairs so expressed.

The same proposition can be expressed by different linguistic forms.

Conversely, the same linguistic form can express different propositions.

Examples: 
Same meaning, different form: Aliens have abducted Eleanor. Eleanor has
been abducted by aliens. 
Same form, different meaning: We last saw Eleanor an hour ago (spoken on
December 11, 2000 at 3 p.m. vs. on January 14, 2002 at 5 a.m.).
ps person
 Most languages have three grammatical persons: first for speaker (or group
including speaker), second for addressee, and third for other. Some
languages distinguish between two kinds of first person plural: inclusive
(including addressee) and exclusive (excluding addressee).
raising The movement of a subject from an embedded clause to a matrix clause.
raising verb A subclass of the verbs that takes to infinitive complements, superficially
similar to control verbs. Raising verbs lack a specifier position and fail to
assign case, in accordance withBurzio's Generalization. In contrast to the
subjects of a control verb, the subject of a raising verb starts out as the
subject of that verb's nonfinite complement clause and becomes the matrix
subject by subject raising---hence, the name of the verbs class. For more
discussion, see Chapter 9.
recursive In a recursive structure, one instance of a syntactic category contains,
or dominates, another instance of the same category. The syntactic category
in question is called a recursive category.

The relation between the two instances of the same category may be
immediate dominance (the parent-child relation), but needn't be (a simple
ancestor-descendant relation is sufficient).
refl reflexive
reflexive pronoun The English reflexive pronouns are easy to identify because they all contain
a form of the morpheme self, as laid out in the following table.
  1 ps 2 ps 3 ps
himself 
sg myself yourself herself 
itself
pl ourselves yourselves themselves
sg singular
simple tense A tense that is expressed synthetically, for instance, the English simple
past she sang or the French imparfait elle chantait 'she used to sing, she was
singing'. Simple tenses contrast with compound tenses, which are formed
analytically, like the English present progressive she is singing or the
French passé composé elle a chanté 'she sang, she has sung'.

Simple tenses in one language can correspond functionally to compound

tenses in another language, and vice versa. For instance, the English simple
past often corresponds to a Frenchpassé compos´, whereas the English
compound present progressive corresponds to a French simple present.
subcategorization Lexical items are said to be subcategorized according to the syntactic
properties of their complement. For instance, verbs can be subcategorized
according to whether their elementary tree has a complement or not,
according to the syntactic category of the complement (CP, DP, IP, PP, and
so on), according to other syntactic properties of the complement, (for
instance, finiteness, case, and so on).
subject
subject movement The movement of a subject within a single clause (as opposed to raising.
Usually, the term refers to the movement of a subject from Spec(VP) to
Spec(IP). But the term can be used more generally to include movement
from Spec(NP) to Spec(DP).
subject raising See raising.
subject-aux The process that forms a yes-no question from the corresponding declarative
inversion sentence. In declarative sentences containing a modal, an auxiliary, or main
verb be, subject-aux inversion consists in switching the order of the subject
and that element (highlighted by italics below).
(1) a. Modal   He should apply to both --- Should he apply to
schools. -> both schools?
b. Auxiliary be   The guy she met last --- Is the guy she met
night is coming along. -> last night coming
along?
c. Auxiliary do   They do have to clean their --- Do they have to clean
room. -> their room?
d. Auxiliary have   The mail has come. --- Has the mail come?
->
e. Main verb be   They are superbly --- Are they superbly
qualified. -> qualified?
In all other declarative sentences, subject-aux inversion is accompanied
by do support.

(2) a.   The little girl --- The little girl next --- Does the little girl
next door goes to -> door does go to Powel. -> next door go to
Powel. Powel?
b.   He met with Bill. --- He did meet with Bill. --- Did he meet with
-> -> Bill?
tense A linguistic category associated with temporal reference (what is the relation
of the time of the event under discussion to the time of speaking?) as well as
with aspect (is the speaker's focus on the event's inception, completion,
duration, repetition, general truth, and so on?).
transitive Traditionally used of verbs that take a single object. We use the term in a
more general sense to refer to any syntactic category that takes a
single complement. 
See also intransitive.
verb
wh- question
word The term 'word' has at least three distinct meanings.

1. An orthographic word is a particular sequence of written

characters. Bank in the sense of 'river bank' and 'financial institution'
are the same orthographic word, as are read as an infinitive (to read
a book), as a past tense form (I read the book) and as a past
participle (I have read the book). See also homograph, homophone.
2. A word form is a linguistic form of a particular grammatical type.
For instance, cut can be an infinitive (to cut), a present tense form
(Whenever I stuff envelopes, I cut myself), a past tense form
(Yesterday, I cut myself), or a past participle (I have cut myself
again). In this case, four distinct word forms are associated with a
single orthographic word.
3. A lexeme is an abstract meaning unit that can subsume several
different word forms. For instance, the lexeme be subsumes the
eight word forms am, are, be, been, being, is, was,and were. The
lexeme cut subsumes the three word forms cut,
cuts, and cutting. In lexical ambiguity, the same orthographic word
is associated with more than one lexeme, as in the case of bank 'river
bank' and bank 'financial institution'.
yes-no question

LIST OF SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

EXPLETIVE ELEMENTS IN ENGLISH

Referential it versus expletive it

Ordinary referential it has some referent. As a result, it can be replaced by a more complex

description of that referent, and it can function (at least marginally) as a short answer to a
question. These facts are illustrated in (1) and (2).

(1) a.   It bit the zebu.

b. The tsetse fly bit the zebu.
(2) a. What bit the zebu?
b. ? (pointing) It.

Referential it can also receive stress in longer answers like (3).

(3) a. What bit the zebu?

b. (pointing) 'It did.

By contrast, expletive it doesn't refer, so it can't be replaced, as shown in (4).1

(4) a. It seems that the manuscript has been found.

b. * The fact seems that the manuscript has been found.

Expletive it cannot function as the short answer to a question; in fact, as (5) shows, even the
question designed to elicit the short answer is impossible.

(5) a. * What seems that the manuscript has been found?

b. * It.

Finally, expletive it is unable to receive stress in contexts where that is possible for referential it.

(6) a. * What seems that the manuscript has been found?

b. * 'It does.

Adverbial there versus expletive there

Ordinary adverbial there has a locative meaning, so that the adjuncts (right) here and (over)

there render (7a) and (7b) contradictory and redundant, respectively. It is possible to stress
ordinary there.

(7) a. # There comes the train (right) here.

b. There comes the train (over) there.

Expletive there, on the other hand, has no such locative meaning, and so both sentences in (8)
are completely acceptable. In contrast to ordinary there, expletive there can never receive stress.

(8) a. There is a clean shirt (right) here.

 b. There is a clean shirt (over) there.

Notes

1. The grammaticality of examples like (i.b) does not vitiate the conclusion in the text.
(i) a. It is evident that the manuscript has been found.
b. ok The fact is evident that the manuscript has been found.

The reason is that (i.b) need not be structurally parallel to (3b). Rather, it can be derived from
(ii) by rightward movement of the that clause.

(ii) ok The fact that the manuscript has been found is evident.

Such rightward movement is independently motivated by pairs of sentences as in (iii).

(iii) a. They will report the fact [ that he was indicted ] tomorrow.
b. They will report the fact tomorrow [ that he was indicted ] .

A corresponding derivation is not possible for (3b) because the counterpart to (iii.a), given in
(iv), is ungrammatical.

(iv) * The fact that the manuscript has been found seems.

GRAMMATICAL RELATIONS

Subjects are ordinarily the only argument to precede the predicate in English. As the examples
in (1) illustrate, a great variety of thematic roles can be expressed as subjects.

Be careful not to confuse the grammatical relation of subject with the thematic role of
agent. The existence of passive sentences is a clear indication that the two notions are
not synonymous (cf. (1a) with (4a)).
(1) a. Agent:   The lions devoured the wildebeest.
b. Instrument:   This key opens the door to the main office.
c. Cause:   Hurricane-force winds demolished much of the town.
d. Experiencer:   The rhesus monkey had never seen snow before.
e. Recipient:   The workers were given a raise.
f. Goal:   The summit wasn't attained until years later.
g. Path:   An unpaved road led up to the shanty.
h. Theme:   The wildebeest was devoured by the lions.
i. "   The ball rolled down the hill.

First objects are the noun phrase argument that typically follows a transitive verb. Again, a
wide variety of thematic roles can be expressed as first objects.

(2) a. Instrument:   You should use this key for the door to the main office.
b. Experiencer:   The children's drawings pleased their parents no end.
c. Recipient:   They gave the workers a raise.
d. Goal:   We reached our hotel after a subway ride of less than ten minutes.
e. Path:   We drove the scenic route.
 f. Measure:   The performance lasted two hours.
g. Theme:   The lions devoured the wildebeest.
h. "   We rolled the ball down the hill.

As the name implies, second objects only occur with ditransitive verbs. Unlike the other
grammatical relations, second objects are thematically very restricted---namely, to themes, as
illustrated in (3).

(3)   Theme:   They gave the workers a raise.

Nevertheless, there is no one-to-one correspondence between the thematic role of theme and the
grammatical relation of second object. This is because, although second objects must be themes,
themes don't need to be expressed as second objects. They can also be mapped onto subjects (as
in (1h,i)) or first objects (as in (2g,h)).

Finally, it should be noted that most thematic roles are not restricted to being expressed as bare
noun phrases, but can also be expressed as prepositional phrases.

(4) a. Agent:   The wildebeest was devoured by the lions.

b. Instrument:   The door to the main office can be unlocked with this key.
c. Cause:   Much of the town was demolished by hurricane-force winds.
d. Experiencer:   Snakes are feared by many people.
e. Goal:   I'd like to send this package to France.
f. Path:   Lucky raced across the lawn to the edge of the forest.

MODALS AND AUXILIARY VERBS IN ENGLISH

Modals

Historically, the modals of English, which are listed in (1), derive from a special class of verbs
in Germanic (the ancestor of English and the other Germanic languages).

(1)     can, could, may, might, must, shall, should, will, would

Modals have always differed from ordinary verbs in Germanic, and in the course of the history
of English, they have diverged from verbs even further, to the point where they now belong to a
syntactic category of their own. Because many modals have meanings that are often expressed
in other languages by verbal inflections, this syntactic category is called I(nflection).

In what follows, we review the ways that modals differ from verbs in English, both
morphologically (what forms they exhibit) and syntactically (how they combine in sentences).

Range of forms

Modals and verbs differ in the range of forms that they exhibit. English verbs appear in a
number of distinct forms (see Verb forms and finiteness), whereas modals have a single,
invariant form. Modals never end in -s, even in sentences with third person singular subjects.

(2) a. * She { can-s, may-s } play the piano.

b. She { can, may } play the piano.
Modals also lack productive past tense forms. It is true
that could, might, should, and would originated in Germanic as past tense forms
of can, may, shall, and will. But today, only could can serve as the past tense of can, and that
only in certain contexts.1

Example        Potential paraphrase

(3) a. Nowadays, you can get one for a = ... it is possible to get one ...
dollar.
b. Back then, you could get one for a = ... it was possible to get one ...
nickel.
(4) a. We can go there tomorrow. = It is possible for us to go there ...
b. We could go there tomorrow. =/= It was possible for us to go there ...
(5) a. You may ask the boss. = You are allowed to ask the boss.
b. You might ask the boss. =/= You were allowed to ask the boss.
(6) a. Shall I pick up some bread? = Is it a good idea for me to pick up some
bread?
b. Should I pick up some bread? =/= Was it a good idea for me to pick up some
bread?

Finally, modals lack present and past participles; the missing forms must be paraphrased.

(7) a. * { Cann-ing, may-ing } play the piano pleases her greatly.

b. { Being able, being allowed } to play the piano pleases her greatly.
(8) a. * She has { cann-ed, may-ed } play the piano.
b. She has { been able, been allowed } to play the piano.

Nonfinite contexts

A further difference between modals and verbs is that modals, unlike verbs, can't occur
in nonfinite contexts (for instance, in to infinitive clauses or after another modals). Once again,
the missing forms must be paraphrased.

(9) a. In to infinitive clause, modal * She wants to can speak Spanish.

b. paraphrase of modal She wants to be able to speak Spanish.
c. verb She wants to speak Spanish.
(10) a. After (another) modal, modal * She must can speak Spanish.
b. paraphrase of modal She must be able to speak Spanish.
c. verb She must speak Spanish.

Do support contexts

The inability of modals to appear in nonfinite contexts gives rise to three further differences
between verbs and modals, all of them manifestations of an important phenomenon in the
grammar of English called do support.

Emphasis. In the simplest case, do support affects affirmative sentences containing a finite verb
whose truth is being emphasized. It involves replacing the finite verb by the verb's bare form
and adding a form of auxiliary  do to the sentence in the appropriate tense (either present or past
tense). This form of do then receives emphatic stress, as indicated by underlining in (11).

(11) a. Unemphatic (without do support) He dances; she sang.

b. Emphatic (with do support) He does dance; she did sing.

By contrast, emphasizing the truth of a sentence that contains a modal is achieved by simply
stressing the modal. Do support with modals is ungrammatical.

(12) a. Emphasis without do support He can dance; she will sing.

b. Emphasis with do support * He does can dance; she does will sing.

Negation. Do support with verbs occurs not only in emphatic contexts, but in two further
syntactic contexts: negation and question formation. In both of these cases, the form of do that
is added to the affirmative or declarative sentence doesn't necessarily receive emphatic stress
(although it can).

In English, sentences containing modals are negated by simply adding not (or its contracted
form n't) after the modal. Do support is ungrammatical.

(13) a. Negation without do support He { may, must, should, will, would } not dance.
b. Negation with do support * He does not { may, must, should, will, would } dance.

Sentences without modals, on the other hand, require do support in English. As in the case
of emphasis, the verb appears in its bare form, and an appropriately tensed form of the auxiliary
verb do is added to the sentence, followed by negation.

(14) a. Negation with do support He { does, did } not dance.

b. Negation without do support * He not { dances, danced }. 
He { dances, danced } not.

Question formation. The final difference between modals and verbs concerns question
formation. If a declarative sentence contains a modal, the corresponding question is formed by
inverting the modal with the subject. Do support is ungrammatical.

(15) a. Question without do support { Can, may, must, should, will, would } he dance?
b. Question with do support * Does he { can, may, must, should, will, would } dance?

Again, however, in a sentence without a modal, question formation requires do support. That is,
it is an appropriately tensed form of do, rather than the verb itself, that inverts with the subject.

(16) a. Question with do support { Does, Did } he dance?

b. Question without do support * { Dances, Danced } he?

Auxiliary do

This section summarizes the properties of auxiliary do, introduced in the previous section in

connection with do support. Auxiliary do belongs to the same syntactic category as the
modals---namely, I(nflection), because it shares their properties with one exception (in contrast
to modals, it has an -s form).
The goal of the previous section was to establish the special status of modals, and we used the
facts of do support as a criterion for distinguishing modals from verbs. In this section, we
consider some of the same facts, but with a different focus. Rather than focusing on the
distinctive properties of modals, we focus on the morphological and syntactic properties of
auxiliary do itself.

Like all English auxiliaries (the others are be and have), auxiliary do is homonymous with an
ordinary verb - in this case, main verb do. The examples that follow explicitly contrast main
verb do with auxiliary do.

Range of forms

As just mentioned, the only difference between auxiliary do and the modals is that it has an -
s form. In this respect, it patterns with ordinary verbs, including its main verb counterpart.
(17) a. Modal I can dance the polka.
b. He { can, * can-s } dance the polka.

(18) a. Auxiliary do I do dance the polka; I do not dance the polka; do you dance the polka?
b. He do-es dance the polka; he do-es not dance the polka; do-es he dance
the polka?
(19) a. Main verb do I do the dishes.
b. He do-es the dishes.
(20) a. Other verb I dance the polka.
b. He dance-s the polka.

Nonfinite contexts

In all other respects, auxiliary do behaves like a modal rather than like an ordinary verb. For
instance, it is ungrammatical as a to infinitive, after modals, or as a gerund. Notice the clear
contrast between the judgments for auxiliary do in (22) and main verb do in (23).

(21) a. Modal, in to infinitive * They want to can dance the polka.

b. after (another) * They will can dance the polka.

modal
c. gerund * Their canning dance the polka while blindfolded is
unusual.
(22) a. Auxiliary do, in to infinitive * They claim to do dance the polka. 
Intended meaning: They claim that they do dance the
polka.
b. after modal * They will do dance the polka. 
Intended meaning: It will be the case they do dance
the polka.
c. gerund * Their doing dance the polka while blindfolded was
unwise. 
Intended meaning: That they did dance the polka
while blindfolded was unwise.

(23) a. Main in to infinitive They want to do the dishes.

verb do,
b. after modal They will do the dishes.
c. gerund Their doing the dishes was considerate.
(24) a. Other verb, in to infinitive They want to dance the polka.
b. after modal They will dance the polka.
c. gerund Their dancing the polka while blindfolded is unwise.

Do support contexts

Auxiliary do also behaves like a modal in do support contexts. Double instances of

auxiliary do are ruled out, just like double modals are (see (10a)). Once again, auxiliary do and
main verb do differ sharply, as shown in (26) and (27).

(25) a. Modal, after * He does can dance the polka.

emphatic do
b. negative * He doesn't can dance the polka.
c. question * Does he can dance the polka?
(26) a. Auxiliary do, after * He does do dance the polka. 
emphatic do Intended meaning: It is the case that he does dance the
polka.
b. negative * He doesn't do dance the polka. 
Intended meaning: It isn't the case that he does dance
the polka.
c. question * Doesn't he do dance the polka? 
Intended meaning: Isn't it the case that he does dance
the polka?

(27) a. Main verb do, after He does do the dishes.

emphatic do
b. negative He doesn't do the dishes.
c. question Does he do the dishes?
(28) a. Other verb, after He does dance the polka.
emphatic do
b. negative He doesn't dance the polka.
c. question Does he dance the polka?

Auxiliary have

Let's now turn to auxiliary have, which combines with past participles (-en forms) to form
the perfect forms of verbs. Auxiliary have behaves like a V with respect to its morphology and
its occurrence in nonfinite contexts, but like an I with respect to do support. Specifically,
auxiliary have, like auxiliary do, shares all the morphological properties of its main verb
counterpart. In addition, it can appear in nonfinite contexts (unlike auxiliary do). With respect
to do support, however, auxiliary have differs from its main verb counterpart and patterns
together with the modals and auxiliary do. The complex behavior of auxiliary have can be
captured by saying that it moves from V to I in the derivation of a sentence (see Chapter 6 for
detailed discussion of V-to-I movement).

(29) and (30) show that auxiliary have, like auxiliary do (cf. (18)), behaves morphologically like
its main verb counterpart in having an -s form.

(29) a. Auxiliary have I have adopted two cats.

b. She ha-s adopted two cats.
(30) a. Main verb have I have two cats.
b. She ha-s two cats.
Auxiliary have differs from auxiliary do (cf. (22)) and resembles main verb have in being able
to appear in nonfinite contexts.

(31) a. Auxiliary have, to infinitive They claim to have adopted two cats.

b. after modal They must have adopted two cats.
c. gerund I do not regret having adopted two cats.
(32) a. Main verb have, to infinitive They claim to have two cats.
b. after modal They must have two cats.
c. gerund I do not regret having two cats.

On the other hand, just like auxiliary do (cf. (26)) and in contrast to main
verb have, auxiliary have is ruled out in do support contexts.

(33) a. Auxiliary have, after emphatic do * He does have adopted two cats.

b. negative * He doesn't have adopted two cats.
c. question * Does he have adopted two cats?
(34) a. Main verb have, after emphatic do He does have two cats.
b. negative He doesn't have two cats.
c. question Does he have two cats?

Be (auxiliary and main verb)

The examples in (35)-(40) illustrate the behavior of auxiliary be, which is used to form the
progressive (is coming, was dancing) and the passive (is abandoned, was sold) in English.
Auxiliary be behaves just like auxiliary have. In particular, it has an -s form (irregular though
that form is), and it can appear in nonfinite contexts, but it is excluded from do support contexts.
As a result, auxiliary be can be treated just like auxiliary have: as belonging to the syntactic
category V, but moving from V to I in the course of a derivation.

Main verb be differs from main verb have and main verb do in behaving exactly like
auxiliary be. In other words, main verb be is the only main verb in modern English that moves
from V to I.

(35) a. Auxiliary be, non-third I am learning Spanish; I am invited to the ceremony.

person
b. third person She i-s learning Spanish; she i-s invited to the ceremony.
(36) a. Main non-third I am happy.
verb be, person
b. third person She i-s happy.
(37) a. Auxiliary be, to infinitive They claim to be learning Spanish; they claim
to be invited to the ceremony.
b. after modal They must be learning Spanish; they must be invited to
the ceremony.
c. gerund2 I don't regret being invited to the ceremony.
(38) a. Main verb be, to infinitive They claim to be happy.
b. after modal They must be happy.
(39) a. Auxiliary be, after * She does be learning Spanish; she does be invited to the
emphatic do ceremony.
b. negative * She doesn't be learning Spanish; she doesn't be invited to
the ceremony.
c. question * Does she be learning Spanish? Does she be invited to the
 ceremony?
(40) a. Main verb be, after * She does be happy.
emphatic do
b. negative * She doesn't be happy.
c. question * Does she be happy?

Summary

The table in (41) provides a synopsis of the morphological and syntactic properties of the items
discussed here, arranged from most to least verb-like. As is evident from the table, the syntactic
category of an item depends on whether it is the verb-like or the modal-like properties that
predominate.

Be and  Auxiliary 
(41)    
Ordinary verb< auxiliary have do Modal

Has -s form yes yes yes no

Occurs in nonfinite contexts yes yes no no
Occurs with do support yes no no no

Syntactic category V V I I

Notes

1. More precisely, we must distinguish between form (morphology) and meaning (reference).
Ordinarily, forms with past-tense morphology are used to refer to an event or state prior to the
time of speaking. However, it is possible in English to use past-tense forms to refer to events or
state contemporaneous with a reported time of speaking; this is the so-called sequence-of-tense
phenomenon in reported speech, illustrated in (i).
(i) a. Direct speech:   She said, "They make too much noise."
b. Reported speech:   She said that they made too much noise.

As is evident from (ii) and (iii), can, may, shall, and will continue to maintain a productive

morphological relationship with could, might, should, and would, respectively, in sequence-of-
tense contexts.

(ii) a. Direct speech:   She said, "That may be so."

b. He told us, "You won't last long."
(iii) a. Reported speech:   She said that might be so.
b. He told us that we wouldn't last long.

Nevertheless, in keeping with the point made in the body of the text, the morphological
relationship between the modals in (ii) and their counterparts in (iii) is purely formal, lacking
the referential underpinning evident in (iv).

(iv) a.   They make too much noise.

b.   They made too much noise.
We thank Aaron Dinkin for drawing our attention to the sequence-of-tense phenomenon.

2. For reasons not well understood, gerunds of progressive forms, as in (i), are unacceptable.

(i)   * I like be-ing learn-ing Spanish.

NODE RELATIONS

Basic terms and relations

Dominance

It is convenient to represent syntactic structure by means of graphic structures called trees;

these consist of a set of nodes connected by branches. It is sometimes useful to distinguish
between two types of nodes: terminal nodes, which are labeled with vocabulary items,
and nonterminal nodes, which are labeled with syntactic categories. In a very simple tree like
(1), the only terminal node is labeled Zelda, and the two nonterminals are labeled N and NP.

(1)    

In (1), no node has more than one branch emanating from it. The nodes in such a simple tree are
related to one another by a single relation, the dominance relation. Dominance is a theoretical
primitive; in other words, it is an irreducibly basic notion, comparable to a mathematical
concept like point. Dominance is represented graphically in terms of top-to-bottom order. That
is, if a node A dominates a node B, A appears above B in the tree. In (1), for
instance, NP dominates N and Zelda, and N dominates Zelda. The node that dominates all
other nodes in a tree, and is itself dominated by none, is called the root node.

Dominance is a transitive relation (in the logical sense of the term, not the grammatical one). In
other words, if A dominates B, and if B dominates C, then it is necessarily the case that A
dominates C.

Does a node A dominate itself? If the answer to this question is defined to be yes, then the
dominance relation is reflexive (again, in the logical sense of the term, not the grammatical
one); if not, then it isirreflexive. In principle, it is possible to build a coherent formal system
based on either answer. From the point of view of syntactic theory, it is preferable to define
dominance as reflexive because it simplifies the definitions of linguistically relevant, derived
relations such as c-command and binding.

An important subcase of dominance is immediate dominance. This is the case where the two
nodes in question are connected by a single branch without any intervening nodes. More
formally, immediate dominance is defined as in (2).

(2)     A immediately dominates B iff (= if and only if)

a. A dominates B, and
b. there is no node C, distinct from A and B, such that A dominates C and C dominates B.

Unlike dominance, immediate dominance is not a transitive relation. This is apparent from even
a simple structure like (1), where NP immediately dominates N, and N immediately
dominates Zelda, but NP does not immediately dominate Zelda.
Precedence

In general, trees are more complex than the very simple case in (1), and they contain nodes that
have more than one branch emanating from them, as in (3).

(3)    

In such trees, two nodes are related either by dominance or by a second primitive
relation, precedence. Precedence is represented graphically in terms of left-to-right order.
Dominance and precedence are mutually exclusive. That is, if A dominates B, A cannot precede
B, and conversely, if A precedes B, A cannot dominate B. Like dominance, precedence is a
transitive relation, and just as with dominance, there is a nontransitive subcase
called immediate precedence. The definition of immediate precedence is analogous to that of
immediate dominance; the term dominates in (2) is simply replaced by precedes.The difference
between precedence, which is transitive, and immediate precedence, which isn't, can be
illustrated in connection with (3). The first instance of Noun (the one that immediately
dominatessecretary) both precedes and immediately precedes TrVerb, and TrVerb in
turn both precedes and immediately precedes the second instance of NounPhr (the one that
dominates the letter). The first instance of Noun precedes the second instance
of NounPhr, but not immediately.

Derived terms and relations

Kinship terminology

Certain relations among nodes are often expressed by using kinship terms. If A dominates B,
then A is the ancestor of B, and B is the descendant of A. If A immediately dominates B, then
A is the parent of B, and B is the child of A. If A immediately dominates B and C, then B and
C are siblings. Often, the female kinship terms mother, daughter, and sister are used for the
corresponding sex-neutral ones. In (3), Sentence is the ancestor of every other node in the
tree. Secretary is the child of the first Noun. The first NounPhr and VerbPhr are sisters,
and so are TrVerb and the second NounPhr, but drafted and the second instance
of the are not (they don't have the same mother). Notice, incidentally, that syntactic trees are
single-parent families. Most theories of syntax do not allow nodes with more than one parent.

Branching

Depending on the number of daughters, nodes are classified as either nonbranching (one

daughter) or branching (more than one daughter). A more detailed system of terminology
distinguishes nodes that are unary-branching (one daughter), binary-branching (two
daughters), and ternary-branching (three daughters). Nodes with more than three daughters are
hardly ever posited in syntactic theory. Indeed, according to an influential hypothesis (Kayne
1984), Universal Grammar allows at most binary-branching nodes. According to this
hypothesis, it is a formal universal of human language that the number of branches associated
with any node cannot exceed 2.

Exhaustive dominance
Some node A exhaustively dominates two or more nodes B, C, ... iff (= if and only if) A
dominates all and only B, C, ... For instance, A dominates the string B C in (4a-c), but
exhaustively dominates it only in (4a). A doesn't exhaustively dominate B C in (4b,c), because it
runs afoul of the only condition (it dominates too much material). A also fails to exhaustively
dominate B C in (4d), because it runs afoul of the all condition (it dominates too little material).

(4) a.       b.       c.       d.  

As is evident from (4b,c), dominance is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for exhaustive
dominance.

C-command

A derived relation that is central to syntactic theory is c-command,1 which is defined as

follows.
(5)     A c-commands B iff (= if and only if)
a. neither A nor B dominates the other, and
b. the lowest branching node that dominates A also dominates B.

Notice that the notion of c-command is defined in terms of dominance and makes no mention of
precedence. It is tempting to assume that c-command logically implies precedence, or vice
versa, but it is a temptation to be firmly resisted. 2

Notice further that c-command is not necessarily a symmetric relation. In other words, a node
A can c-command a node B without B c-commanding A. For instance, in (3),  VerbPhr c-
commands secretary(because the first branching node dominating VerbPhr,
namely Sentence, dominates secretary), but not vice versa (because the first branching
node that dominates secretary, namely the first instance ofNounPhr, doesn't
dominate VerbPhr).

Although c-command isn't necessarily a symmetric relation, it is possible for two nodes to c-
command each other. This is the case when the two nodes are sisters. Syntactic sisterhood is
also known as mutual c-command or symmetric c-command.

Binding

An important derived relation that is defined in terms of c-command is the notion of binding.
(6)     A binds B iff (= if and only if)
a. A c-commands B, and
b. A and B are coindexed.

The coindexing referred to in (6b) can arise either through coreference or through movement.
These two cases are illustrated in (7).

(7) a.   Lukas1 can comb himself1. (coreference)

b. Whoi did you see ti? (movement)

If A binds B, B is bound by A (not bounded !). If A does not bind B, B is said to be free. B

is free in C if there is no A that binds B, with both A and B dominated by C.
Notes

1. The odd name c-command is short for 'constituent-command' and reflects the fact that the c-
command relation is a generalization of a relation (now obsolete) called command, defined as in
(i) (Langacker 1969:167).
(i)     A commands B iff (= if and only if)
i. neither A nor B dominates the other, and
ii. the S(entence) node that most immediately dominates A also dominates B.

2. Recently, an axiom has been proposed - the so-called Linear Correspondence Axiom -
according to which c-command relations be expressed as precedence relations (Kayne 1994).
Contrary to what is sometimes believed, this proposal underscores the logical independence of
c-command and precedence rather than eliminating it. If precedence were logically derivable
from c-command, there would be no need for an axiom postulating a correspondence between
them (indeed, given the meaning of the term 'axiom', such an axiom would be a contradiction in
terms).

NOUNS

In the traditional school definition, a noun "refers to a person, place, or thing." But as has often
been pointed out, this definition incorrectly excludes nouns like those in (1) (unless the concept
of thing is reduced to near-vacuity).

(1)     explosion, glint, mind, moment, thunder, value

As a result, modern linguists (not just generative ones) define nouns not in semantic (meaning-
based) terms, but in distributional terms---with reference to their occurrence relative to other
syntactic categories in the language. In English, for instance, a useful criterion for whether a
word is a noun is whether it can be accompanied by the determiner the. According to this
criterion, the words in curly brackets in (2a) are nouns, but those in (2b) are not.

(2) a.   the { explosion, glint, mind, moment, thunder, value }

b. * the { explodes, glinted, minded, momentous, thundered, valuable }

Count nouns and mass nouns

Nouns are traditionally divided into two major subclasses: count nouns and mass nouns. Count
nouns can be accompanied by the indefinite article, and they have a plural form, whereas mass
nouns have neither of these properties.

(3) a. Count noun a(n) { book, child, couch, explosion, invitation, job, problem, vegetable }
b. books, children, couches, explosions, invitations, jobs, problems, vegetables
(4) a. Mass noun * a(n) { advice, furniture, rice }
b. * advices, furnitures, rices

Conversely, count nouns in the singular cannot follow expressions of quantity like a lot of,
much, and so on, whereas mass nouns can.

(5) a. Count noun * a lot of { book, child, couch, explosion, invitation, job, problem, vegetable }
b. * much { book, child, couch, explosion, invitation, job, problem, vegetable }
(6) a. Mass noun a lot of { advice, furniture, rice }
b. much { advice, furniture, rice }

Although the distinction between count and mass nouns is generally clear-cut, under special
circumstances, what are ordinarily mass nouns in English can be used as count nouns---for
instance, when it is possible to impose an interpretation of a kind of X or a salient quantity of
X on the mass noun. Notice, incidentally, that (7b) has two interpretations, depending on
whether we is taken to refer to a group of cafe customers (salient quantity reading) or a
merchant (kind reading).

(7) a. Different rices have different cooking times.

b. We ordered four coffees and two teas.

The semantic availability of such interpretations is only a necessary condition, though, not a
sufficient condition, as the contrast between (8) and (9) shows.

(8) a. Some { kinds, pieces } of advice are more useful than others.

b. Some { kinds, pieces } of furniture are more comfortable than others.
(9) a. * Some advices are more useful than others.
b. * Some furnitures are more comfortable than others.

Conversely, it is possible for what are ordinarily count nouns to be pressed into service as mass
nouns. It is this possibility that gives rise to an unintentionally comical interpretation of the
newspaper headline in (10e).

(10) a. ? This recipe for carrot cake calls for { a lot of carrot, more carrot than I have on
hand } .
b. ? There's just not enough couch for all ten of you.
c. 2nd Servant: Pray heauen it be not full of Knight againe. 
1st Servant: I hope not, I had liefe as beare so much lead. 
(William Shakespeare. Merry Wives of Windsor, Act 4, Scene 2.)
d. "The article says that [Mr. Mangetout] once consumed fifteen pounds of bicycle in
twelve days ... Just as an example, I have never eaten so much as a pound of bicycle. ...
I can see myself acting with considerable restraint at a dinner party at which the main
course, is, say, queen-size waterbed. 
(Calvin Trillin. 1983. Third helpings. 3.)
e. Chester Morrill, 92, Was Fed Secretary

Finally, some nouns regularly behave as both count and mass nouns.

(11) a. Count noun a wine from Alsace, wines from Burgundy, more wines than I had ever

use heard of
b. Mass noun use a lot of wine, wine from Burgundy, more wine than we can drink tonight

Although the match between count and mass nouns across languages is reasonably good,
mismatches occur. Some examples of nouns that are mass nouns in English, but count nouns in
other languages are given in (12)-(14).

(12) a. French   un meuble, des meubles

a furniture-sg, of.the furniture-pl
'a piece of furniture, furniture'
b. un renseignement, des renseignements
 an information-sg/advice-sg, of.the information-pl/advice-pl
'a piece of information/advice, information/advice'
(13) a. German   ein Möbel, Möbel
a furniture-sg, furniture-pl
'a piece of furniture, furniture'
b. ein Ratschlag, Ratschläge
an advice-sg, advice-pl
'a piece of advice, advice'
c. eine Nachricht, Nachrichten
a news-sg, news-pl
'a piece of news, news'
(14) a. Italian   un consigilio, consigli
an advice-sg, advice-pl
'a piece of advice, advice'
b. una notizia, notizie
a news-sg, news-pl
'a piece of news, news'

Not surprisingly, when learning English as a foreign language, speakers from these languages
often produce ungrammatical examples like (9).

In conclusion, here's a question for you. Is mail a count noun or a mass noun? And how
about email? Does everyone agree with you, especially about email?

Proper nouns and common nouns

This section presupposes Chapter 5, Noun phrases as DPs.

A further distinction that is traditionally drawn is between proper nouns (also known

as proper names) and common nouns. In contrast to common nouns, proper nouns are
conventionally capitalized in English.

(15) a. Common nouns   man, collie, planet, country, state, city

b. Proper nouns John, Lassie, Jupiter, France, Illinois, Northampton

Proper nouns refer to particular individual entities. The relation between proper nouns and
individuals is not necessarily one-to-one, however. For instance, the proper noun John may
refer to many different individuals of that name. Individuals with the same proper name needn't
share any distinguishing properties (other than having the same name). So Athens, Greece and
Athens, Georgia needn't have any substantive property in common that sets them apart from
other cities, and there is nothing to stop us from giving the name Lassie to a pet without any of
the prototypical qualities of Lassie from the television show (intelligence, loyalty, and so on).
Our Lassie, in fact, needn't even be a dog. In short, proper nouns function like pointers. In the
same way that one and the same pointer can be used to point to different and unrelated items in
a presentation, the same proper noun can be used to refer to different and unrelated individuals.
In contrast, common nouns refer to sets of entities that are related by sharing certain properties.
That is, common nouns have intrinsic semantic content and cannot be used in the relatively
arbitrary way that proper nouns can be.

From the point of view of reference, then, proper nouns resemble pronouns, which also function
like pointers to individuals without themselves containing much in the way of semantic content.
At first glance, it might therefore seem that the term 'proper noun' is a misnomer, and that
proper nouns should be classified as Ds rather than as Ns. However, there are two arguments
against this misnomer view of proper nouns.

Proper nouns with and without determiners. First, although proper nouns in English
typically appear without a determiner, certain proper nouns must be accompanied by the
definite article. Some examples are given in (16).

(16)     the Bronx, the Thames, the Titanic, the Soviet Union, the United States, the White House

Pronouns, on the other hand, can't be accompanied by an article, as shown in (17).

(17)   * the { you, he, she, it, we, they }

Given the contrast between (16) and (17), the proper nouns in (16) can't be Ds, but must be Ns.
Even the misnomer view must therefore admit the existence of nouns that refer to particular
individual entities. But if the proper nouns in (16) are Ns, then there is no conceptual advantage
in assuming that those in (15b) are Ds. Instead, we could simply take the view that all proper
nouns are nouns, but that some proper nouns are complements of the definite article, whereas
others are complements of a silent counterpart of it. That is, the proper nouns in (15b) would be
structurally parallel to those in (16), as indicated in (18).

(18) a. Silent determiner   [def] John, [def] Lassie, [def] Northampton, ...
b. Overt determiner the Bronx, the Thames, the Titanic, ...

Several additional pieces of evidence, all of the same type, point in the same direction. Before
the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Soviet republic whose capital is Kiev was called the
Ukraine, but after the breakup, the newly independent country began to be called Ukraine,
without the article. Similarly, the United States is generally referred to in Spanish as los Estados
Unidos 'the United States', but in recent years, Latin American newspapers have begun to omit
the article los. According to the misnomer view, Ukraine and Estados Unidos would be Ns in
the old usage and become Ds in the new usage. It seems more straightforward to treat the proper
nouns as nouns both before and after the change and instead to consider the change as affecting
the determiner, which goes from being pronounced to being silent.

In French, names of countries and regions must be accompanied by the definite article, whereas
in English, they generally aren't (the change from the Ukraine to Ukraine thus eliminates its
exceptional status in English). Some examples are shown in (19); la and le are the feminine and
masculine forms of the French definite article, respectively.

(19) a. French la Bolivie, la Bourgogne, le Brésil, le Canada, le Danemark, la France, le Pérou

b. English Bolivia, Burgundy, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Peru

According to the misnomer view, the names of countries and regions would be Ns in French but
Ds in English. Again, it seems more reasonable to pin the difference between the two languages
not on the nouns themselves, but on whether the determiner accompanying them is overt or
silent.

In standard German, proper names stand alone in the standard language. But in the vernacular,
proper names can be accompanied by the definite article, as shown in (20); der and die are
masculine and feminine forms of the German definite article, respectively.

(20) a. Standard German Hans, Peter, Annemarie, Eva

b. Vernacular German der Hans, der Peter, die Annemarie, die Eva
According to the misnomer view, proper names would change syntactic category depending on
the speaker's register, whereas the alternative view again more straightforwardly pins the
variation on the determiner.

Finally, in modern Greek, proper names are normally accompanied by the definite article. This
is shown for the nominative (the form in which subjects of sentences appear) in
(21); o and i are masculine and feminine forms of the Greek definite article, respectively.

(21)   Greek, nominative   o Yannis, o Spiros, i Eleni, i Valia

However, modern Greek retains from its ancestor language Indo-European a

special vocative case form that is used when addressing someone. Masculine nouns lose their
final -s in the vocative, and other nouns remained unchanged, but for all nouns, the article is
obligatorily absent in the vocative, as shown in (22).

(22)   Greek, vocative   (*o) Yanni, (*o) Spiro, (*i) Eleni, (*i) Valia

Once again, under the misnomer view, proper names in Greek would change their syntactic
category depending on their case form---a decidedly unattractive consequence.

Borrowing. A second type of argument against the misnomer view of proper nouns is based on
linguistic borrowing. Speakers of one language often borrow words from another language,
either because no native words exist for certain concepts or because the borrowed word is
perceived as having a cachet that the native counterparts lack. Proper nouns are easily borrowed
in this way; we need only to think of the many geographical names in English that derive from
various indigenous languages. The prolific borrowing of proper nouns is not surprising if proper
nouns are a subcategory of nouns, since nouns are precisely the category that is most readily
borrowed. But it is unexpected under the misnomer view, since pronouns are ordinarily not
borrowed at all.

On the basis of the considerations just discussed, we conclude, then, that proper nouns are a
semantically (and often syntactically) special subtype of N.

QUESTIONS

Yes-no and wh- questions

Questions can be divided into yes-no questions (also known as polar questions) and wh-

questions (also known as constituent questions), according to the expected answer. As the name
implies, the answer to a yes-no question is either 'yes' or 'no.' The answer to a wh- question is
expressed by a constituent that corresponds to the wh- phrase in the question. Wh- phrases are
so called because they generally begin with wh- in English (who, what, which, where, when,
why). How counts as a wh- expression by virtue of its meaning, even though it doesn't begin
with wh-. The term wh- phrase is standardly used even for languages other than English.

The distinction betwen yes-no questions and wh- questions is illustrated in (1) and (2).

(1)   Yes-no question   Has he called? { Yes, no. }

(2) a. Wh- question   Who just came in? The boy from next door.
b. Who(m) did you invite? All my friends.
c. When did she call? After dinner.
d. Why did he do that? Out of ignorance.
e. How did you fix it? With the right tool.
Direct and indirect questions

Another distinction that can be drawn is between direct questions and indirect

questions. Direct questions are main clauses, whereas indirect questions are part of a larger
matrix sentence. Direct questions are generally used to elicit information. They are associated
with characteristic intonation contours, which are represented in standard orthography by a
question mark. Indirect question are generally used to report about direct questions and are not
associated with a special intonation.

The questions in (1) and (2) are all direct questions. The indirect questions corresponding to
them are given in (3) and (4). Here and in what follows, indirect questions are enclosed in
square brackets.

(3)   Indirect yes-no question   I can't remember [ { whether, if } he has called.
(4) a. Indirect wh- question   I can't remember [ who just came in. ]
b. I can't remember [ who(m) you invited. ]
c. I can't remember [ when she called. ]
d. I can't remember [ why he did that. ]
e. I can't remember [ how you fixed it. ]

(5) gives examples of various syntactic contexts in which indirect questions occur.

(5) a. Complement of adjective   I'm not sure [ whether they are coming. ]

b. Complement of The question of [ whether they are coming ] remains
preposition unresolved.
c. Complement of verb She asked [ whether they are coming. ]
d. Subject [ Whether they are coming ] remains up in the air.

Finally, indirect questions can be finite or nonfinite, as shown in (6) and (7). Notice that  if, in
contrast to whether, requires finite complements.

(6) a. Indirect yes-no finite   They can't remember [ { whether, if } they should turn off
question, the lights. ]
b. nonfinite   They can't remember [ whether to turn off the lights. ]
(7) a. Indirect wh- finite   They can't remember [ what they should pay attention
question, to. ]
b. nonfinite   They can't remember [ what to pay attention to. ]

REFERENCED AND RELATED NOTIONS

Reference

The preeminent function of a noun phrase like Bill Clinton, my two cats, the king of
France, Santa Claus, or colorless green ideas is to refer---that is, to stand for a particular
discourse entity, its referent. As the examples show, referents can be entities in the actual
world, entities in some possible world, or even entities that could not possibly exist in principle.
One of the characteristic features of human language is the absence, in general, of a one-to-one
relation between noun phrases and referents. On the one hand, it is possible to use different
noun phrases to refer to the same referent. The classic example for this is the fact that the
expressions the morning star and the evening star both have the same referent, the planet Venus
(which is not a star at all!). Conversely, the same noun phrase can have different referents. For
instance, my apartment, used either by the same person at different points in time or by different
persons at the same point in time, can refer to lodgings of vastly different size and attractiveness
in completely different locations. Similarly, my checking account balance can refer to widely
differing and varying dollar amounts.

In general, then, determining the intended referent of an expression requires recourse to a

particular discourse context (who is speaking when, to whom, and so on). The interpretation of
certain expressions, however, is particularly context-dependent. The expressions in question are
pronouns. For instance, it is perfectly natural to introduce a new topic in a conversation with a
friend using (1a) (provided that the speaker and the friend have in common a single
acquaintance by the name of Vanessa). But replacing the proper noun Vanessa with a pronoun,
as in (1b), in the same context is decidedly odd.

(1) a.   I ran into Vanessa the other day.

b. I ran into her the other day.

On the other hand, if Vanessa has already been mentioned in the discourse, then (1b) is
perfectly felicitous, as illustrated in the mini-discourse in (2).

(2)     A: Have you seen Vanessa recently?

B: I ran into her the other day.

Pronouns, then, in contrast to most other noun phrases, are referentially dependent on

some antecedent in the discourse.

The term 'antecedent' is potentially misleading. Since it is derived etymologically from

Latin ante-cedens 'one who walks before', an antecedent might reasonably be expected to be
required to precede a referentially dependent expression. It is important to realize that, contrary
to this expectation, precedence is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for
antecedenthood. In a sentence like (3), for instance, Zelda does not precede she, yet is
nevertheless able to serve as the pronoun's antecedent.

(3)     If she calls, tell Zelda that the package arrived.

On the other hand, Zelda precedes her in both examples in (4), but is unable to serve as the
antecedent of her in (4b) (the intended meaning of (4b) is 'Zelda likes herself').

(4) a.   Zelda is convinced that nobody likes her.

b.   Zelda likes her.

A less misleading term for the notion of antecedent might be 'referential anchor,' but we
continue to use the term 'antecedent' because it is a standard term.

Coreference

A discourse will often contain more than one possible antecedent for a pronoun. For instance, in
(5), he can refer to either Tim or Tom.

(5)     Tim told Tom that he needed some time off.

In any particular discourse context, of course, one interpretation may well be favored over the
other, given what is known about Tim, Tom, their respective work loads, and so on. In case the
antecedent for hemust be explicitly specified in an unambiguous way, this can be achieved as in
(6).

(6) a.   Tim told Tom that he, Tim, needed some time off.
b.   Tim told Tom that he, Tom, needed some time off.

When (5) is given the interpretation in (6a), he and Tim are said to corefer. On the alternative
interpretation in (6b), it is he and Tom that corefer.

Coindexing

It is convenient to introduce a general notational device to represent relations of coreference.

Let us begin by asssociating any noun phrase with a referential index. In the literature, it is
standard to use the letters of the alphabet as indices, beginning with i (for 'index'). But as we
will use i, j, k, ... as indices with another function in later chapters, we adopt the convention
throughout the book of using the natural numbers as referential indices. We now introduce the
following convention. In order to indicate an interpretation in which two expressions refer to the
same discourse entity (in which they corefer, in other words), we assign the same index to both
expressions. The two expressions are then said to be coindexed. On the other hand, in order to
indicate an interpretation in which two expressions refer to distinct discourse entities (that is, in
which they do not corefer), we assign distinct indices to each of the two expressions. Such
expressions are said to be contraindexed. In neither case are the specific indices important---
only whether the indices are the same or not. That is, both indexings in (7) represent the
interpretation in (6a), and both indexings in (8) represent the interpretation in (6b).

(7) a.   Tim1 told Tom2 that he1 needed some time off.

b. Tim1097 told Tom18 that he1097 needed some time off.
(8) a.   Tim1 told Tom2 that he2 needed some time off.
b. Tim380 told Tom7 that he7 needed some time off.

(9) gives a further possible indexing for the sentence in (5). Of course, in any particular
discourse, this indexing is felicitous only if a discourse entity with the index 3 (say, Tim's
brother Mike) has already been mentioned.

(9)     Tim1 told Tom2 that he3 needed some time off.

Grammatical and ungrammatical index assignments

Take good care to distinguish between reference and indexing. Reference relations are actual
linguistic relations that we have intuitions about. For instance, we have the intuition
that Tim and him can corefer in (10a), but not in (10b).

(10) a.   Tim thinks that everyone admires him.

b. Tim admires him.

The assignment of indices, on the other hand, is a notational device that is intended to represent
arbitrary reference relations; the indices themselves have no independent linguistic or
psychological status. As a result, it is perfectly possible to assign referential indices to noun
phrases so as to represent interpretations of a sentence that are possible in principle, but
impossible in fact. Two such ungrammatical indexings are illustrated in (11).

(11) a. * Tim1 admires him1.

 b. * He1 admires Tim1.

Notice that the proposition that both (11a) and (11b) are trying to express is not inherently
semantically anomalous. It can be expressed perfectly grammatically as in (12).

(12)     Tim1 admires himself1.

Notice furthermore that what makes these sequences ungrammatical is the index assignment.
The same sequences of words as in (11) are grammatical sentences when associated with the
indices in (13).

(13) a. ok Tim1 admires him2.

b. ok He1 admires Tim2.

In other words, the grammaticality of a sequence is always determined with reference to a

particular intended interpretation.

Representations like those in (11) and (13) are generally abbreviated as in (14). The descending
numerical order of the indices on the object noun phrases is intended to make clear the scope of
the asterisk.

(14) a. ok Tim1 admires him2,*1.

b. ok He1 admires Tim2,*1.

Why can't sentences like (11a) or (11b) express the proposition that is expressed grammatically
in (12)? Such questions are what binding theory seeks to answer, the topic of Chapter 14.

THEMATIC ROLES

Agents are arguments that bring about a state of affairs. The line between agents, on the one
hand, and instruments or causes, on the other, can be fuzzy, but agents are (or are perceived to
be) conscious or sentient, in a way that instruments or causes aren't. Some examples are given in
(1)-(3).
(1) a. Agent:   The lions devoured the wildebeest.
b.   The boys caught some fish.
c.   My mother wrote me a letter.
(2) a. Instrument:   This key opens the door to the main office.
b.   They must have used indelible ink.
(3) a. Cause:   Hurricane-force winds demolished much of the town.
b.   An epidemic killed off all of the tomatoes.
c.   An economic downturn put thousands of workers out of work.

Experiencers are arguments that undergo a sensory, cognitive, or emotional experience.

(4) a. Experiencer:   The rhesus monkey had never seen snow before.

b.   Many people fear snakes.
c.   Their resourcefulness struck her as admirable.

Recipients are arguments that receive something (whether good or bad) in a situation.

(5) a. Recipient:   They gave the workers a raise.
b.   He spared me his usual sob story.
c.   I paid my landlord the rent.

Recipients can be the endpoints of paths.

(6) a. Path:   I'd like to send this package to my sister. 

(my sister = recipient)
b.   Lucky raced across the lawn to the edge of the forest.
c.   We drove the scenic route.

Locations are simply places; like recipients, they can serve as endpoints of paths. (Chapter
7 contains some discussion concerning the difference between recipients and locations).

(7) a. Location:   We put the book on the shelf.

b.     I'd like to send this package to France. 
(to + France = path)
c.     Lucky raced across the lawn to the edge of the forest. 
(to + the edge of the forest = path)

Measure or amount arguments express extension along some dimension (length, duration, cost,

and so on).

(8) a. Measure:   They rowed for three days.

b.   The book costs ten dollars.

Finally, the thematic role of theme is something of a catch-all. According to one definition,
'theme' refers to an argument undergoing motion of some sort, including motion in a
metaphorical sense, such as a change of state. As is usual in the syntactic literature, we will also
use the term for arguments that are most 'affected' in a situation or for the content of an
experience.

(9) a. Theme:   The lions devoured the wildebeest.

b.   This key opens the door to the main office.
c.   Hurricane-force winds demolished much of the town.
d.   They gave the workers a raise.
e.   I'd like to send this package to France.
f.   Many people fear snakes.

VERBS

Verb forms

Verbs in English can take the various forms listed in (1)-(5).

Name Description Examples

(1)     Bare Default form in present tense sentences. They play together. 

I see.
 Also appears in various nonfinite contexts, I want to play. 
such as in to infinitive clauses, They need to see you.
after modals, They may play. 
We will see.
and in connection with do support. They don't play lacrosse. 
Do you see?

(2)     -s Special form used in the present tense to Lukas runs for miles. 

mark agreement with a third person The cat enjoys treats.
singular subject.

(3)     -ing As present participle, combines The cat is playing with the yarn. 

with auxiliary  be to express various I was seeing her until a week
aspectual nuances ago.
Also occurs on its own as the gerund. Playing with landmines is
dangerous. 
We always enjoy seeing you.

(4)     -ed (past Expresses past tense. The cat played with the yarn. 

tense) We saw a deer.

(5)     -en (past Combines with auxiliary  be to Baseball is played all over the

participle) form passive forms. world. 
She was last seen off
Mozambique.
Combines with auxiliary  have to They have
form perfect forms. never played lacrosse. 
I have seen it many times.

For all verbs, the -ing form is predictable from the bare form, being derived from it by the
affixation of -ing (play-ing, see-ing, hav-ing, be-ing). The -s form is similarly predictable for
most verbs, with major (be, is) or minor (have, has) exceptions. The past tense and past
participle forms are predictable from the bare form in some cases, but not in others. With
regular verbs, the past tense and past participle forms are homonyms and are formed by
affixing -ed to the bare form. Why bother distinguishing between the two forms? That is, why
not just post a single past form? The reason is that the past tense and the past participle are
distinct for irregular verbs such as go, see, sing, or write (past tense went, saw, sang,
wrote versus past participle gone, seen, sung, written).

A verb's bare form, past tense, and past participle (in other words, exactly the forms that aren't
predictable in general) are known as its principal parts.

Finiteness

The verb forms just discussed are classified into two categories: finite and nonfinite. The basic
difference between the two categories in English is that finite verbs can function on their own as
the core of an independent sentence, whereas nonfinite verbs cannot. Rather, nonfinite verbs
must ordinarily combine with a modal, an auxiliary verb, or the infinitival particle to.

A verb's -s form and past tense form are always finite, and the two participles (the -ing and -
en forms) are always nonfinite.
(6) a. Finite verb: ok She gives both of them a back rub.
b. ok She gave both of them a back rub.
(7) a. Nonfinite verb: ok She is giving both of them a back rub.
b. ok She has given both of them a back rub.

To complicate matters a bit, a verb's bare form can be either finite or nonfinite. Bare forms that
express the present tense are finite; otherwise, they are nonfinite. Examples are given in (8) and
(9).

(8)   Finite verb: ok We give both of them a back rub.

(9) a. Nonfinite verb: ok We will give both of them a back rub.
b. ok We promised to give both of them a back rub.

The finite character of a bare form that expresses the present tense fits with the following fact.
When the subject in (8) is replaced by a third-person singular subject, as in (10), the bare form
of the verb becomes ungrammatical and needs to be replaced by the -s form.

(10) a. * She give both of them a back rub.

b. ok She gives both of them a back rub.

Since the -s form is finite, it is sensible to classify the functionally equivalent bare form the
same way.

Summary: Correlation between verb form and finiteness

Verb form Example Finite?

3.sg present tense play-s, see-s yes

Past tense play-ed, saw "
Bare (present tense) play, see "

Bare (otherwise) play, see no

Present participle play-ing, see-ing "
Past participle play-ed, se-en "