LECture 3: THAT COMPLEMENT CLAUSES (I)

A. Introduction
CP
2
C’
2
C° IP
That 2
whether I’
for 2
I° VP

= complement/subordinate/embedded clauses;

- any embedded clause (a CP) has three layers/domains: 1) the lexical layer (the VP), where
theta-roles are assigned; 2) the functional layer (the IP), where functional relations are
established (i.e., Nominative case assignment to the subject) & 3) the complementizer layer
(the CP)

CP
2
C’
2
C° IP
That 4
[+ finite]

That complement clauses = those subordinate/embedded clauses introduced by the

complementizer ‘that’ (că)

(1) John believes [thatMary loves him]

↓ ↓
NOM subject T/Agr
(pres/3rd pers. sg) >> FINITE clause

► that = a functional category, a complementizer; selects a finite IP as its complement.

(2) a. I believe [that John loves Mary]/*I believe [that John loving Mary]/*[that John to love her]
b. I believe this/it.

► that nominalizes the clause, which typically occupies the position of a noun phrase (a
NP/DP) >> CPs (embedded clauses) are nominal in nature (≠ IPs are verbal)

(3) [That he came]CP is surprising. / *[He came]IP is surprising.

1
► That-complement clauses are a) theta-marked by the selecting predicate in the main clause
and are therefore b) arguments of main clause predicates (the selecting verb)
(4) I believe [that you will grow to like syntax]
→ argument of the verb ‘believe’ (i.e., ‘believe’ selects a clause as its complement)
→ bears an ‘abstract’ theta-role: that of proposition
Proposition (≠ sentence!!)
= the meaning of a sentence; its truth claim; any sentence has a truth value, i.e., it
can be true or false in a given context

B. The classification of subordinate clauses:

1. according to the functional criterion:
a. subject clauses
(5) It seems [that he is not here]/ [That he is not here] is surprising.

b. object clauses
(6) a. I believe [that he is not here] - DO clause
b. I am afraid [that he won’t come] - PO clause
c. I gave to book to [whoever wanted it] - IO clause
! subjects & objects = arguments
c. adjunct clauses: those which are not arguments (not obligatorily required by the selecting
predicate); they introduce various semantic roles and may be introduced by elements
(subordinating conjunctions or wh-elements) which give a clue as to what type of adjunct we are
dealing with)
(7) a. Before she left, she switched off the lights (adjunct clause, adverbial of time)
b. If you leave me, I’ll die (adjunct clause, adverbial of condition)
c. Even though I love you, I cannot marry you. (adjunct clause, adverbial of concession)
d. She was so tired that she fell asleep immediately. (adjunct clause, adverbial of result)
e. He will come wherever I ask him to come. (adjunct clause, adverbial of place)
f. He spoke to his mum so that she could feel at ease. (adjunct clause, adverbial of purpose)
g. She spoke as if she was my boss. (adjunct clause, adverbial of comparison)

2. according to the structural criterion, which takes into consideration the subordinating
conjunction:
a. that-complements which are introduced by that, which fills the C position
(8) a. I hope [that you will pass the test].
b. It seems [that you will pass the test.]
b. wh-complements, which are introduced by wh-words sitting in the specifier of CP and can be
further subclassified into:
- relative clauses
(9) The man who came to see me is my former teacher.
- indirect questions
(10) He asked me what time it was.
- cleft sentences
(11) It was John who solved the problem
-pseudo-cleft sentences
(12) Where I’m going is London.

2
c. adverbial clauses, introduced by meaningful conjunctions like after, before, if, although, etc.
Adverbial clauses are always adjuncts (the equivalent of the Romanian ‘circumstantiale’)

3. according to the predication relation (what is predicated of a main clause noun):

a. The problem was [that he didn’t show up for the exam] (predicative)
b. The thought [that she might leave] never occurred to him. (attributive or noun modifier)

C. SYNTACTIC PROPERTIES OF THAT COMPLEMENTS

That clauses are finite declarative subordinates - a subordinate where the C position is lexically
filled (by ‘that’).

C.1. That clauses (CPs) share important properties with DPs:

1. both DPs and CPs occur as arguments of predicates (i.e., one and the same verb may select
a NP or a CP complement, cf. (13)). Complement clauses typically occupy a noun phrase slot,
such as subject, object or predicative.
(13) a. I don’t believe [that John loves Mary]CP./ I don’t believe [him]DP/[her]DP/[this story]DP
b. The problem was [that he behaved rudely]CP / The main problem was [his behavior]NP

2. Both DPs and CPs are merged in theta-positions and are theta-marked by the predicates
that c-select and s-select them. Predicates combining with that-clauses have specific s-
selectional properties. They accept an abstract argument, a proposition, and select a human role,
experiencer or agent (the subject of the Main Clause)
(14) I thought [that it looked good]
He claims [that the demonstrators are right]
↓ ↓
agent/ complement of the main verb
experiencer theta-marked by the verb claim: bears the role of ‘proposition’

3. both DPs and CPs accept the same pronominal substitutes: it, this, that (15). This is
because clauses have default phi-features (16) (3rd person singular).
(15) a. I believe [that I will pass this test]CP
b. I believe [his version of the story]NP
= I believe it / this / that

(16) [That John loves Mary] seems obvious. / [That they came to the course] is surprising indeed.

SO, That-complement clauses (CPs) are similar to DPs (nouns) in important respects:
► arguments of main clause predicates
► bear theta roles (DPs bear the usual theta-roles (Agent, etc.), CPs bear the theta role of
proposition (a truth claim made by a human agent))
► same pronominal substitutes: it, this, that

3
C.2. CPs vs. DPs
The major difference between DPs and CPs is that DPs must be case-licensed/always
require case; they have case features which must be checked during the derivation ≠ CPs
do not require case →

The distribution of DPs is constrained by the Case Filter, which says that DPs without case
cannot survive in syntax. Unlike DPs, CPs do not have to be case-licensed and their
distribution is not constrained by the Case Filter.

(17) a. I am worried [that he left]CP

a’.*I am worried about [that he left]CP
b. *I am worried [his illness]NP
b’. I am worried about [his illness]NP

- prepositions in English assign case; only a noun (a DP/NP) can be the complement of a
preposition, because a DP needs case and this case is provided by the preposition (17b’);

CPs do not require case, hence they are illicit in the presence of a preposition (17a’)
SO,
The absence of Case is the main syntactic difference between DPs and CPs = the Case
Resistance Principle (Stowell, 1981)

“The case difference between CPs and DPs follows from a categorial difference as to the [+/-N]
feature. DPs are nominal [+N], while CPs are verbal functional projections so they are [-N], and
therefore cannot be assigned case.

Case assigners, verbs and prepositions are [-N], while case-marked categories (categories that get
assigned case), that is nouns and adjectives, are [+N].” (Cornilescu 2003:61)

the Case Resistance Principle (Stowell, 1981) = case must not be assigned to a category
bearing a case-assigning feature, i.e. the feature [-N].

CPs are supposed to be [-N] >> they resist case

In English, CPs are excluded from three basic case-checking positions:

1. the postion after prepositions (as seen above in (17) & below in (18)

(18) *I insisted on [that Mary should leave]CP vs. I insisted on [it]/[his early departure]DP

2. the structural accusative position – in the Acc+ infinitive construction. In this

construction, the ACC element is assigned a theta role by the infinitive verb, but gets case
from the main clause verb (believe – 19a, or know – 19b)

since the source of case is not the same as the source of the theta role, the accusative case
is said to be structural.
4
 (19) a. I believe him to have killed the cat.
b. I know her to have abandoned her sister.

c. *I consider [that Mary left]CP to be a big mistake vs. I consider [it]/[his departure]DP to be a big
mistake

3. the nominative position:

(20) [That she had passed the LEC exam] was a surprise to everybody.
↓
Subject that complement; Subjects typically receive Nom. case & occupy Spec IP in En.

Q: Is the that-complement clause in (20) in SpecIP? Does it occupy the SpecIP position?
To answer this, let us compare the behavior of DPs (nouns) vs. CPs as subjects in interrogative
contexts:
(21). a. [This story]DP could be true. >> Could [this story]DP be true?
(22) a. [That he hates her] could be true >> *Could [that he hates her] be true?

→ only DPs allow SAI, but not CPs

! in SAI contexts, the auxiliary moves to C° (I-to-C movement, remember lecture 1!) past the
subject DP, which resides in SpecIP; since this movement is not possible when a CP is the
subject (cf. (22a)), the conclusion is that subject that-complement clauses do not occupy the
canonical subject position (which in English is SpecIP)

The assumption is that that complement clauses which function as subjects and are placed in
sentence-initial position occupy a TOPIC position (in the CP-layer of the clause), higher than
the canonical SpecIP
SO,
► DPs are prototypical subjects (occupy the canonical Nominative case position & have case)
(23) [His illness] does not worry her. (Does [his illness] worry her? >> SAI)
►CPs (that-complement clauses) are mere subjects in a Topic position (non-case marked position)

(24) [That he is ill] does not worry her a bit. (*Does [that he is ill] worry her?)
[That he is ill] may be true. (* May [that he is ill] be true?)

TopP
[that………..] Top’
Top° IP
I’
I° VP
may be true