1 COMPLEMENTATION 1.1. Aim of the course.

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

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

3) Adverbial subordination The subordinate clause is introduced by a "subordinative conjunction", an introductory element which indicates the semantic interpretation of the clause (a time clause in (4 a) concessive clause in (4b), a comparative clause in (4c) etc. (4) a. He abandoned her before he could find out the truth. b. He abandoned her although he had found out the truth. c. He abandoned her, as if he had not found out the truth. B) The functional criterion This criterion concerns the syntactic function of the clause. It is relevant to distinguish between a. subject clauses b. object clauses c. adjunct clauses (adverbial and attributive clauses). Subject clauses and adjunct clauses pattern alike regarding certain phenomena, such as the possibility of extracting constituents out of them. Both subjects and adjunct clauses are islands for extraction, differing from object clauses, which are transparent for extraction. (5) Object clauses a. John thought that Pedro told him that the journal had published the article already. b. What did John think that Peter told him that the journal had published t already ?

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

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

4 COMPLEMENTATION The program addresses the question of what conditions are imposed on the linguistic system by virtue of its interaction with the performance systems. a) The Articulatory-Perceptual System (A-P) b) the Conceptual-Intentional System (C-I). In so far as we can discover the properties of these systems, we can ask how well the language organ satisfies the design specifications they impose, providing legible representation at the interface. (8) Strong Minimalist Thesis Language is an optimal answer to legibility conditions (cf. Chomsky 1998) 2.3. Design of the MP Bare output conditions An expression converges at an interface level, if it consists solely of elements that provide instructions to that external level, thus being legible for the respective external level. The presence of objects which are not interpretable at an interface causes a derivation to crash. There are two linguistic levels which interface with performance modules, i.e, A-P and C-I: these are PF and LF respectively. PF and LF can be conceived of as those parts of the linguistic system which provide instructions to the performance systems. (9)The organization of a GB Grammar Lexicon D-Structure Move (Affect ) S-Structure Logical Form Phonological Form (10)The organization of an MP Grammar Lexicon (Spell-out) Logical Form Phonological Form

Grammar still associates structural descriptions with each sentence /expression. But instead of associating a sentence/ expression with four representation (D-Structure, S-Structure, Logical Form, Phonological Form), the structural descriptions of a sentence / expression is

5 COMPLEMENTATION now a pair of representations ( , ). is a PF representation interpreted at the articulatory perceptual (A-P) interface. is an LF representation interpreted at the conceptual-intentional (C-I) interface. Conclusions

1. The MP seeks a maximally simple design for language. Given this view, the linguistic levels are taken to be only those conceptually necessary -namely PF and LF - meaning that that there are no (intermediate levels of D-Structure or S-Structure. 2. Each expression is associated with a structural representation, a pair ( , ), where is a PF representation interpreted at the articulatory perceptual (A-P) interface, and is an LF representation interpreted at the conceptual-intentional (C-I) interface. 3. Structure of an (I)-language: A lexicon and a computational procedure 3.1 The components of a language are a lexicon and a computational procedure for human languages CHL, that is, a procedure for constructing or generating linguistic expressions using the items in the lexicon. Linguistic items fall into two main categories: substantive ( N, V, A, P) and functional (C, T D, etc.). The following procedures are involved in building expressions: (12) (i) Select lexical items from the lexicon ( a Lexical Array, a Numeration) (ii) Map lexical items to expression.

The computational system (narrow syntax) consists of a few trivial operations Select, Merge, Move, and (more recently) Agree. Select is involved in the initial choice of the Numeration, as well as in providing pairs of objects that undergo Merge. Merge operates on pairs of elements chosen by Select and maps them from a pair into a single element with a more complex structure. Merge is the basic combinatorial device for obtaining complex objects out of simpler or basic ones. 4. Merge. From X'-Theory to Bare Phrase Structure Defining Merge Merge takes two syntactic objects ( , ) and forms the new object (K ( , )) from them. (14) Input Output , , K Since the possibility of Merge depends on the c-selectional/ s-selectional possibilities of the combining lexical items, Merge is obviously the analogue of X'-Theory. The principle of endocentricity is still present in as much as, of the two items that combine, one, the head, is that which projects and transmits its lable. The relations of head-complement ( sister) and head-specifier continue to be available.

6 COMPLEMENTATION Conclusions 1. The bare phrase structure theory adopted by the MP is represented by the operation Merge. Merge takes two syntactic objects ( , ) and forms the new object K(( , )) from them. 2. Endocentricity continues to function given that, of the two elements that merge, only one, namely, the head projects. 3. The relations of head-complement and head-specifier are available, as before. 5. Spell-Out Elements interpretable at the A-P interface (e.g. phonologic features) are not interpretable at the C-I interface, and vice versa. At some point in the derivation, the computational system must then split into two parts, one forming , and the other forming , which do not interact any further after the bifurcation. S-structure was the point of this split in pre-minimalist versions of the PP theory. From a minimalist perspective, the problem with there being a distinct level feeding PF and LF, such as S-structure, is that, since it does not interface with any performance system , it is not conceptually necessary. Thus every substantive property attributed to S-Structure should be restated within the minimalist framework in either LF or PF terms. The only thing required under minimalist assumptions is a rule which splits the computation to form the distinct objects and . Chomsky (1993:22) dubs this operation Spell-Out. After Spell-Out the lexicon will no longer be accessed, and the items in the Numeration have been used up. The computation from Spell-Out to PF is referred to as the Phonological Component. The computation from Spell-Out to LF is referred to as the covert component, and the computation that obtains before Spell-Out is referred to as overt syntax. PF contains, in addition to phonological rules proper, a morphological subcomponent and it also deals with linearization. 6.Types of features and feature checking Why check? The items combined by Merge group features of different types: phonological, semantic, but also formal (grammatical features) (Person, Number, Gender,(= -features), Case, Tense, etc.). The formal features of the lexical items must be checked during the derivation. Intuitively, one has to verify that each item is suitably placed in an expression. Thus *We goes to school is ungrammatical because the Number feature on the subject does not match the number feature of the verbal inflection. Feature checking is thus an essential aspect of a derivation. 6.1 Strong/Weak features (Chomsky, 1993, 1995) Strong features illegible at PF, so they must be eliminated in the overt component of Syntax by overt movement. A strong feature must enter into a checking relation as soon as possible, causing movement or insertion. The analysis of strong (formal) features, formalizes the intuition that a strong feature is checked immediately and that it has visible effect (displacement). 6.2 Interpretable/Uninterpretable features

7 COMPLEMENTATION

A feature is interpretable if it is legible at LF. A feature like Case is always uninterpretable Number or Gender are interpretable on Nouns, but uninterpretable on verbs, adjectives. Uninterpretable features are not legible at LF, therefore they must be erased before LF. Following the same intuition, uninterpretable features must be eliminated as soon as possible, therefore they induce strict cyclicity. If uninterpretable features are also "strong", they are checked by overt movement and erased after checking. (A slightly different description of strong uninterpretable features will be given in the next chapters). Interpretable features survive to LF and may be used several times in a derivation. 7. Move and Agree 7.1 Move While, Merge forms a new object by concatenating two objects that are separate phrase markers, Move forms a new object by concatenating two objects that are in a single phrase marker. Move is defined as follows. It is possible to decompose Move into the simple operations of Copy and (re)merge. (18) Move (from Kitahara (1997) Applied to the category and , Move forms ' by concatenating and . Input: containing . Concatenate and , forming ' Output: ' (19) a. ' t( ) 7.1 Move Chomsky (1993) incorporates the copy theory of movement. According to the copy theory, a trace is a copy of the moved element which is deleted in the phonological component, but is available for interpretation at LF. A chain thus becomes a set of occurrences of a constituent in a constructed syntactic object. Summarising, Move appears to be a complex operation comprised of copy, merge, chain formation, and finally, chain reduction. Chain reduction is the deletion at PF of all the copies in the chain, but the highest ( the head of the chain). Move observes the following two requirements: (i) Constituents always move ( to the left) to c-commanding positions, of the same type. Therefore heads move to head positions, phrases move to phrasal positions (A or A).

b.

8 COMPLEMENTATION (ii) Locality The closest constituent that has the appropriate checkable feature is the one that moves. Locality becomes a built-in condition, stated as the Minimal Link Condition or the Minimize Chain Links Condition, which specifies that a constituent always travels the shortest possible distance, or equivalently, that if two candidates could check the same feature, it is the closest that actually checks it.

7.2. Agree Agree is a relation between two items, the probe, which is the agreeing item and which is a head that possesses uninterpretable features and the goal a phrase or a head, possessed of a feature that matches the feature of the agreeing head. In the case of Agree, matching of the features of the probe under identity with features of the goal is sufficient to delete the strong uninterpretable features on the probe, rendering movement unnecessary. Agree allows the checking and erasure of an uninterpretable feature, by matching it with an identical feature of another item, in a sufficiently local domain. The conditions governing Agree are summarized below (cf. Carstens (2000:149)). According to this conception , Agree is driven by uninterpetable features of the probe, which must be deleted for legibility. Agree operates between a probe and a goal iff a. has uninterpretable features. b. has identical interpretable features. c. c-commands d. There is no closer potential goal such that -commands commands b (25) [-interpretable] (probe) [+interpretable] (goal) (24)

and c-

Conclusion Move and Agree are alternative mechanisms of deleting uninterpretable features, so as to meet the legibility conditions of LF. 8. Economy Principles Economy of representation is nothing other than the principle of Full Interpretation: every object at the interface must receive an "external" interpretation, i.e., must be interpretable by the external performance systems. Full Interpretation thus determines the set of convergent derivations for a language.

9 COMPLEMENTATION Economy of derivation requires fewer steps than in another permissible derivation.

(27) Shortest derivation Condition Minimize the number of operations necessary for convergence. Instead of Conclusions The novelty of the MP lies in its addressing the question of the optimal design of language, the answer to which is the Strong Minimalist Thesis stated in (28) (28) Language is an optimal answer to legibility conditions (cf. Chomsky (1998)) Adopting the strong thesis has proved to have the following consequences: 1. The only linguistically significant levels are the interface levels (PF, LF) 2. The interpretability condition: Linguistic items have no features other than those interpreted at the interface, properties of sound and meaning. 3. The inclusiveness condition: No new features or symbols are introduce by CHL. 4. Relations that enter into CHL either (i) are imposed by legibility conditions, (ii) or fall out in some natural way from the computational process THE STRUCTURE OF THE ENGLISH CLAUSE 1. The endocentricity of sentences 1.1 Inflection as the head of the sentence. (1) (2) S NP ^ VP a. I0 Tense [ Agr] ^( Mood). b. I' I0 ^ VP c. IP DP ^ VP

Inflection (I0) is considered the head of the sentence, since it c-selects the VP and agrees with the subject DP, thus entertaining formal relations with the predicate (the head - complement relation) and with the subject (the head-specifier relation). (1) Tense[+Agr] s/ed The Stranded Affix Filter Tense is an affix which must be supported by a verbal root. The present or past form of a verb is derivationally produced, by combining the verbal stem and Tense affix during the derivation. Modal auxiliaries In English, Inflection includes in addition to Tense and Agr , the modal verbs: can, may, shall, will, must, need, dare. Justification modals are defective, having only finite Tense froms, i.e., Tense plus agreement features. When modals are present, they support Tense, and the tensed modals may further raise to C0. A clear indication that modals move to C0 is that I0-to-C0 takes place only in root clauses, i.e., only when the C0 position is not filled by a complementizer, as is apparent in the complementary distribution in (3) below, where either the complementizer whether, or the modal auxiliary, occupies the position before the subject (C0):

10 COMPLEMENTATION

(3)

a. Could [IP he ta be a fool]? b. I asked you [CP whether [IP he could be a fool]] c. *I asked you [CP whether could [IP he be a fool]]

Aspectual auxiliaries (4) Aux Tense (Modal ) ( have -en) (be-ing)

Definition: An auxiliary is a verb that subcategorizes a VP, and cannot assign -roles. 1.2. The projection of auxiliaries Similarties between modals and auxiliaries (the NICE properties) a) Negation He should not go. He has not gone. b) Interrogation Should he read this? Has he read this? c) Contracted sentences (tag-questions, etc.) He should do it, shouldnt he? He has read this, hasnt he. d) Emphatic stress (in emphatic assertions) Bob should not go there. Yes, he should go there. Bob has not read this. Yes, he HAS read this, Im sure. Dissimilarties between modals and auxiliaries a) Auxiliaries have a complete paradigm, with finite and non-finite forms, modals are defective to be, having b) Auxiliaries still have lexical uses, unlike modals which are always functional. He has a nice house. He has bought a nice house. He has had a nice house There are several manners of projecting auxiliaries. a) One may treat them as lexical verbs, under the VP, which c-select a VP (5) VP V0 ^ VP (6) have [ V[EN]] be [V [ING] ] (7) IP I' I0 VP [+Past]V0 VP V' ed have V0+en b) Alternatively, one might stress their functional nature and project them as heads of suitably labelled functional projections: Auxiliary Phrase, Aspect P, etc. (8) IP I'

11 COMPLEMENTATION I0 [+Past] ed AuxP Aux' VP

Aux0 have The syntax of auxiliaries

a) V-to-I In sentences where there are no modals, the highest auxiliary raises to Tense, to support the Tense affix, and then it may further move to C0. Example (9b) shows that the auxiliary have has raised out of the VP to T0, past the adverb often, adjoined to the VP, as shown in (9c). (9) a. She often visited the city. b. She has often visited the city. c. IP DP She I' I0 V0 have I0 s VP AdvP often V0 ta VP VP visited the city

b) I-to-C An auxiliary that has moved to I0 can further continue to C0, as shown in (10): (10) a. Has she often visited the city ? b. CP C' C0 I0 V0 I0 have+s she ta Has IP DP I' I0 AdvP often V0 VP VP VP ta V0 visited Extended Projections An extended projection defines a domain of movement for the head (i.e., the verb). a. English, auxiliaries raise all the way up to C0, b. English lexical verbs remain in the VP. (11) French vs. English a. Il embrasse souvent Marie. b. *He kisses often Mary. c. He often kisses Mary. d. Embrasse-t-il souvent Marie ? V' DP him

12 COMPLEMENTATION e *Kisses he often Mary ? f. Does he often kiss Mary? Conclusion The English clause has the following functional structure: (12) CP> IP >Vaux0 > VP I0 Tense[+Agr]^(Modal) 2. Main verbs and auxiliary verbs again. 2.1. Verb Movement and Verbal Morphology The lexicalist analysis: Verbs enter the derivation fully inflected, and merely check their inflectional features against the functional heads. If the inflectional features are strong, the verb raises to Inflection (or the Inflectional heads) to check its features.(The case of French). If the inflectional features are weak, the verb does not raise overtly. There is covert movement at LF English. The derivational account (bare stems +affixes) (13) TP T0 ed TP VP V walk T0 V0 The lexicalist account (inflected forms) (14) TP T0 [+Past] TP VP V walked VP V0 ed

T0 VP V0 T0 walked [Past] The difference between English and French can be stated as follows (cf. Lasnik (1995)): (15) a. In French, the V-features, i.e., those that check features of V, are strong. b. In English the V-features are weak. (16) Strong features surviving at PF cause the derivation to crash. (17) Delay an operation until LF whenever possible, that is, whenever delaying would not cause the derivation to crash. The parametric difference between English and French is now expressed in a different manner, namely the strong/weak difference between inflectional V-features. Strong features trigger overt movement, weak features do not. Auxiliaries One problem for this analysis of English is that English auxiliaries do raise to Tense0 and then to C0, as is apparent in the following types of well-known contrasts. (18) a. He often goes to movies. b. He has often gone to movies. c. Does he often go to movies ?

13 COMPLEMENTATION d. Has he often gone to movies ? 2.2. A Hybrid Approach (Lasnik 1995, 1998) In the hybrid approach, the fundamental difference between English auxiliary and main verbs lies in the choice of the checking mechanism, a difference that correlates with different types of lexical representations. Lasnik re-states the difference between English auxiliaries and main verbs, and between English and French as follows: (20) a. Have and Be are fully inflected in the lexicon (possibly correlating with the fact that they are highly suppletive, allowing for person /number variation). b. All other English verbs are bare in the lexicon. (21) a. Inflection is freely either an affix or a set of abstract features. b. Finite featural Inflection is strong in both French and English.

The choice of Inflection type (featural, affixal) is predictable from the type of lexical representation. If the lexicon lists inflected forms separately, Inflection will be featural, if the lexicon contains the bare form of the verb, Inflection is affixal. The final necessary mechanism is Affix Hopping. AH is morphophonemic; it will be a PF rule, since from the point of view of semantic interpretation, it is desirable that Tense should c-command the VP on which it operates. (22) Afix Hopping : Affixal Inflection must merge with a V, a PF process (distinct from head movement) demanding adjacency. Possible configurations a. (23) ...Infl...V... +F +F This configuration is well-formed. V raises (overtly) to Infl, and all relevant features are checked. This is the situation of be/ have/ do/ (modals) and all French verbs. b. (24) ...Infl......V.... Af bare This is the case of a bare verb and an affixal Inflection (English main verbs). In this configuration PF merger takes place as long as adjacency obtains, and the PF affixal requirement of Inflection is satisfied. Two more configurations (25c, d) will arise, but will lead to a crash, as can be seen below: c. (25) c. ...Infl....V....*at LF. +F of Infl will not be checked; +F bare *at PF as well, since +F is strong d. Infl Af V *at LF. +F of V will not be checked +F *at PF also, if merger fails

In sum, the gist of Lasnik's analysis is that lexical representation determines the type of Inflection, and the strength of features then determines whether feature checking takes place overtly or covertly. 2.3. Evidence for the hybrid approach : Verb Phrase Deletion (VPD)

14 COMPLEMENTATION VPD is a rule which deletes the second of two presumably identical lexical VPs, leaving an auxiliary behind. (26) a. Peter should [buy the text book] and Mary should [e] too. b. Peter will go to London and Mary will [e] too.

Main Verbs VP ellipsis can ignore certain inflectional differences between the antecedent and the elided verb (cf. Quirk e.a. (1972), Warner (1986)): (27) a. John slept, and Mary will too. b. John slept and Mary will slept too. c. John slept, and Mary will sleep too.

In (27a) the past tense form slept serves as antecedent for the deletion of the bare form sleep. The present tense form can also antecede the bare form, as in (28a). (28) a. John sleeps every afternoon, and Mary should too. b. *John sleeps every afternoon, and Mary should sleeps too. c. John sleeps, and Mary should sleep too. Similarly the progressive and perfect forms can antecede the bare form. It appears that a sort of sloppy identity is at work here, permitting tense and aspectual differences to be ignored. (29) a. ?John was sleeping, and Mary will too. b. *John was sleeping, and Mary will sleeping too. c. John was sleeping, and Mary will sleep too. (30) a. John has slept, and Mary will too. b. *John has slept, and Mary will slept too. c. John has slept and Mary will sleep too. Auxiliary Verbs Ellipsis with auxiliaries is markedly different, requiring strict identity. Thus, (31a), though seemingly parallel to (27), is unacceptable, because was cannot antecede be; nor can is antecede be, as shown in (49): (31) (32) a. * John was here, and Mary will too. b. *John was here and Mary will was here too. c. John was here and Mary will be here too. *John is here, and Mary will too.

Similar effects obtain with the auxiliary have. Ellipsis is markedly better in (33) with identical forms of have than in (34) with distinct ones: (33) a. John should have left, but Mary shouldn't (have left). b. ?John should have left, but Mary shouldn't (34) a. * John has left, but Mary shouldn't-(have left). b. John has left, but Mary shouldn't have left. (35) Results on VPE The bare form of a verb V other than be or auxiliary have can be deleted under identity with any other form of V. Be or auxiliary have can only be deleted under identity with the very same form. As Warner (1986) observes, this difference does not follow directly from the degree of suppletion. The paradigm of go is highly suppletive, yet the verb patterns with all the other main verbs considered above, allowing deletion under sloppy identity (cf. (36))

15 COMPLEMENTATION

(36)

John went, and now Mary will go. John went and now Mary will.

Thus, the relevant differences is that between main verbs and auxiliaries. Sag (1976) notices that all these cases could be accounted for by ordering VP deletion before Affix Hopping, i.e., by allowing deletion to take place at a point in the derivation where the inflected form of the main verb has not been created, so that deletion actually operates on identical forms. On a strictly lexicalist view, such as that of Chomsky (1993), described in (14) above, there is no such point in a derivation. Sag's insight is, however, convergent with the hybrid approach, whereby English main verbs come from the lexicon as bare uninflected forms. Identical occurrences may be deleted in syntax, while inflected forms are produced at PF by Affix Hopping: Schematically, (some of) the examples above are analysed as follows: (37) (38) (39) John slept, and Mary will too. John Infl sleep, and Mary will sleep too a. John was sleeping, and Mary will. b. John was ing sleep, and now Mary will sleep. a. John has slept, and now Mary will. b. John has en sleep, and now Mary will sleep.

On the other hand, if auxiliaries come from the lexicon fully inflected, and if deletion requires strictly identical forms, was or is will never be identical to be, since they are not formed in syntax out of Infl + be. (40) a. *John was here and Mary will, too b. John was here and Mary will be here, too Summing up: (41) a. A form of a verb V can only be deleted under identity with the very same form. b. Forms of be and auxiliary have are introduced into syntactic structures already fully inflected. Forms of "main" verbs are created out of lexically introduced bare forms and independent affixes. VP Deletion facts provide strong empirical support for the hybrid approach to English verb morphology. We will adopt it, and use it in the analysis of negation in English. Conclusion. 1. English verbal morphology can best be described by assigning different lexical representations to main verb and to auxiliary verbs. 2. Main verbs are represented with one bare form. They come uninflected into the derivation, and will merge with inflectional affixes during the derivation (Affix Hopping at PF). 3. Auxiliary verbs are represented with all their inflected forms in the lexicon. They come fully inflected into the derivation, and will simply check their inflectional features during the derivation. (Overt movement to functional heads). 4. The lexical representation of the verbs determines the representation of Inflection, either as a bundle of abstract features or as an affix. 3. Negative sentences

16 COMPLEMENTATION 3.1 Negation may affect different types of constituents in a sentence, and it is useful to distinguish between the following types of scope of negation: a) word negation - realized by means of negative affixes, mostly prefixes: unhappy, infelicitous, dislike, displease. b) phrasal negation: the negation not may adjoin to any phrase, taking scope over it. (42) He came to the party not long ago, didn't he? Not far away, it was still raining, wasn't it ?

c) Sentence negation - cases where not has sentence scope. A sentence is negative when its predicate is negated, in other words, when its Inflection, which is the head of the sentence, is negative. 3.2 The concept of negative sentence. Types of negative sentences A sentences is negative, not only by virtue of its meaning, but also because of its syntactic properties. Negative sentences have particular distributional properties, which identify them as such. It is instructive to compare pairs made of a negative sentence, and a nearly synonymous sentence, where negation is expressed by means of a negative word. There are several tests, due to Klima (1964), which distinguish between negative sentences and sentences with negative constituents. a. Tag questions. Under falling intonation on the tag question, negative sentences take affirmative tags, and vice versa: (43) a. Mary is happy/unhappy about her job, isnt she/* is she? b. Mary is not happy/unhappy about her job, is she/* isnt she? b. Not -even tag sentences require a negative host sentence: (44) a. George doesnt like smart girls, not even pretty ones. b. George dislikes smart girls even pretty ones /*not even pretty ones. c. Either conjoining. Two co-ordinated sentences can have the form S1 and S2 only if the second is negative. (45) a. Jack stayed at home all day and Mary didnt go any place either. b *Jack didnt go anywhere all day and Mary stayed at home either. c. John isnt happy and Mary isnt happy either. d. *John is unhappy and Mary isnt happy either. d. Neither tags require negative hosts. Affirmative sntences are followed by so-tags (46) a. Jack doesn't like lingusitics and neither does Mary / *and so does Mary b. Jack dislikes linguistics and so does Mary/ and neither does Mary. 3.2 The concept of negative sentence. Types of negative sentences A sentences is negative, not only by virtue of its meaning, but also because of its syntactic properties. Negative sentences have particular distributional properties, which identify them as such. It is instructive to compare pairs made of a negative sentence, and a nearly synonymous sentence, where negation is expressed by means of a negative word. There are several tests, due to Klima (1964), which distinguish between negative sentences and sentences with negative constituents. a. Tag questions. Under falling intonation on the tag question, negative sentences take affirmative tags, and vice versa: a. Mary is happy/unhappy about her job, isnt she/* is she? b. Mary is not happy/unhappy about her job, is she/* isnt she?

(43)

17 COMPLEMENTATION b. Not -even tag sentences require a negative host sentence: (44) a. George doesnt like smart girls, not even pretty ones. b. George dislikes smart girls even pretty ones /*not even pretty ones. c. Either conjoining. Two co-ordinated sentences can have the form S1 and S2 only if the second is negative. (45) a. Jack stayed at home all day and Mary didnt go any place either. b *Jack didnt go anywhere all day and Mary stayed at home either. c. John isnt happy and Mary isnt happy either. d. *John is unhappy and Mary isnt happy either. d. Neither tags require negative hosts. Affirmative sntences are followed by so-tags (46) a. Jack doesn't like lingusitics and neither does Mary / *and so does Mary b. Jack dislikes linguistics and so does Mary/ and neither does Mary. Types of negative sentences. a) Sentences where negation is in the Auxiliary (47) a. Bob has lost my respect. b. Bob has not lost my respect. c. Bob abandoned his pet cat. d. Bob did not abandon his pet cat.

b) Sentences where negation is expressed by negative quantifiers, like nobody, never, nothing. Syntactically, these negative quantifiers are determiners (no), pronouns (nobody, nothing) or adverbs ( never, nowhere). (48) a. He saw no rose-bush in the garden. b. He saw nobody in the garden. c. He had never visited that city.

c) Emphatic negative sentences are sentences where the negative constituent appears to the left of the subject, triggering inversion. (49) Never before had he seen such pretty girls. Polarity items One other famous problem that relates to negation is that of polarity items (items sensitive to the polarity of the sentence). Affirmative polarity items require assertive, non-negative contexts (sentences). Negative polarity items require negative sentences. Here are a few examples. Positive Polarity Items (50) a. It is still raining. b. He has already arrived. c. Mary is here, too. d. Mary was looking for some old pair of shoes. Negative Polarity Items a'. It is not raining anymore. b'. He hasn't arrived yet. c.' Mary isn't here, either. d'. Mary wasn't looking for any old pair of shoes.

18 COMPLEMENTATION Remark Negative polarity items occur in several contexts related by their semantic properties. Klima (1964) labels them contexts that contain [+affective] triggers. Here is the list of contexts which license NPIs: a) Negative sentences Negation is the strongest [affective] trigger. Use of an API instead of a NPI may lead to ungrammaticality. Most of the other contexts permit both NPIs and APIs, but the interpretation associated with the sentences are critically different: (i) He didnt lift a finger to help. *He lifted a finger to help.

b) Questions are also sensitive to polarity. NPIs are used when a negative answer is expected. APIs are neutral or expect a positive answer. (ii) a. b. a b. Are you expecting anyone this afternoon Are you expecting someone in particular? Do you want any more beans, perhaps? Do you want some more beans, perhaps?

c) Comparative clauses allow both NPIs and APIs, but the interpretations are very different: (iii) a. b. a. b. She was more beautiful than any princess that he had seen. She was more beautiful than some princess that he head seen. He is smarter than any student I ever had. He is smarter than some student I once had.

d) Relative clauses headed by indefinite determiners like no, any, every, few, little etc., as opposed to the definite article, demonstratives, each, several, (iv) I know no politician who has ever done anything for this country. He had every reason to refuse any help they offered.

e) If-clauses are also NPIs triggers, but they license APIs as well, roughly, under the same circumstances as questions: (v) If anyone comes, tell them to wait. If someone comes, invite him in the office. 4. Negation in the Auxiliary. 4.1 The Negative Projection English sentential negation can show up in two different shapes: the contracted n't or the full form not. It is generally assumed that the two formatives spell out the content of a Negative Projection, NegP, one of the functional categories of the verb. The examination of sentences with negative operator will offer evidence for projecting NegP as an independent phrase. The Negative Parameter (Laka, 1990) (51) a. Mary is not in the kitchen

19 COMPLEMENTATION b. Maria nu este in bucatarie. (52) The Negative Parameter distinguishes between: a. languages where Negation is above Tense; (Romanian) b. languages where Negation is below Tense. (English) a.

(55)

Not to accept this proposal (seems foolish) Neg>TP b. He has not accepted this proposal. TP> NegP A more restrictive hypothesis regarding functional structure: (56) Hypothesis. 1) The hierarchy of functional categories is invariant. The only thing that varies is the properties of the functional nodes (Borer 1984). 2) Functional categories are projected as a last resort. 4.2 The Split Inflection Hypothesis. (Chomsky 1993) (57) AgrSP > TP > AgrOP > VP s ed ? The analysis may be more detailed and extended by detailing the verbal features of Inflection. (58) AgrSP> TP(M) > AspP > AspP> (AgrOP)> VP s ed, may have be ? The position of NegP Following Lopez (1995), we will assume that NegP is above TP in English as well as in UG: (59) AgrSP> NegP> TP > AspP AspP> (AgrOP) VP s nt ed have be ? It is necessary to analyse the two items that may fill the NegP: not, and n't. 4.3. n't and not. English sentential negation can show up in two different shapes: the contracted n't or the full form not. In this section we will pay attention to their syntactic distribution, particularly to the problem of how the order auxiliary verb + negation obtains. 4.3.1. Nt N't is an affix to the auxiliary; it is a bound morpheme, incorporated into a modal or an auxiliary. Forms, such as, can't, aren't are pulled from the lexicon as fully inflected, and they will have to check their features during the derivation: Hasn't for instance must check [+Present, 3d Person, +Negative]. The hypothesis that n't is incorporated into the auxiliary explains the following: a) N't and the auxiliary raise together as in (60). b) N't attaches to the highest verbal projection of the sentence, (61). c) There can't be two formatives nt, (62): (60) (61) (62) Couldn't you give me that book / a. He couldn't have been fooling around so much. b. *He could haven't been fooling around so much/ **He couldn't haven't been so careful

20 COMPLEMENTATION The sentences in (61) confirm the hypothesis that there is a functional category, NegP with an abstract head carrying a strong feature, Neg [+neg], against which n't checks its own feature. This hypothesis explains the fixed position of n't, which must show up on the highest auxiliary, the one that raises. If n't attached to the lower auxiliary verbs, as in (61b), the features of n't could not be checked. In the same way, there can't be two n'ts as in (62), because there is only one functional head against which the two n'ts could check features and, as a result, the features of the lower n't would go to PF unchecked, causing the derivation to crash. The assumption adopted here (following Lopez (1995), Haegeman (1996)) is that the inflected auxiliary is projected under Tense ( do and the modals) or under Aspect (have, be), therefore, under a category whose content it lexiclizes, and then successively raises to check its inflectional features, ultimately getting to the AgrS0 head where it checks its [Person] features. (63) a. Mary hasn't come. b. AgrSP AgrS' AgrS0 [+person] NegP Neg' Neg0 [+neg] TP T' T0 AspP Asp" Asp0 hasn't VP

DP V' +present V0 +3d pers +neg come Negated modals are subject to the same analysis, except that they are generated under Tense. (64) a. He shouldn't go. 4.3.2. Not Consider now the syntax of not. It differs from nt in the following ways: a. It is not cliticized or affixed to auxiliary verbs. b. When auxiliaries raise to C0 past the subject, not must be left behind (cf. (65)).This suggests that not is not a head that checks features through head to head movement the way n't does. c. In sharp contrast to n't, not can appear in lower positions, as in (66a-c), where not may be adjoined to any of the verbal functional projections. d. There can be two nots, as in (66d). e. Finally the two negatives not, n't co-occur, suggesting that they occupy different positions.

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

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

In sentences which are negative and pass the tests for negativity above, there is a NegP whose strong [+neg] feature must be checked. It can be checked by head to head movement, as already shown, or it can be checked by specifier -head agreement with a negative specifier. We may analyse not as a specifier of the NegP. The presence of not checks the feature [+neg] of the negative head "making the sentence negative" (i.e., negation has scope above tense). Not is a functional element. An alternative that comes to mind is to regard not as a negative adverb, in the lexical class not, never, hardly, scarcely, etc. The analysis of not as an adverb is undermined by the fact that, not triggers do-support, while the other negative adverbs do not. (68) a .* I did hardly buy Nixon's book. b. I did not buy Nixon's book. c. I hardly bought Nixon's book. d. *I not bought Nixon's book. It is also likely that not should not be analysed as a head (contra Laka (1990), Chomsky (1993)). Thus examples like the ones below, show a clear difference between n't which is affected by head to head movement, and not, which is not. If n't is a head and not is a Spec, it is predictable that auxiliaries can skip not, but cannot skip n't. (69) a. He should not have done it. b. Should he not have done it ? c. He shouldn't have done it. d. Shouldn't he have done it ? Conclusions 1. Neg sentences contain a NegP headed by a strong negative feature [+neg].

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

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

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

V'

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

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

(79) (80)

24 COMPLEMENTATION Aff' Aff0 [+aff] TP T' T0 VP DID [3rd person] [+past] [+aff] 5.2. Questions and short answers: (84) a. Did she go ? b. What did she sell ? c. Yes, she did.

V' V0 leave

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

5.3 (87)

25 COMPLEMENTATION b. c. d. Bill is not sure that anyone will lift a finger to help. (*Anyone will lift a finger to help.) *Anyone didnt come. Didnt anyone come?

Conclusions 1.Do Support occurs in a variety of environments. In all of them do supports an abstract morpheme (e.g. +neg, +aff, +uTense, +Agr) which appears above Tense, therefore above the position of the affixes s/ed, and which would remain invisible, unchecked. 2. The presence of these abstract heads bearing strong features forces Inflection to be featural, and forces the use of an auxiliary which can successively raise to check all the features. 3. Given its morphology, do is inserted under Tense and must raise further at least as far as Agreement, possibly to C0. 4. The requirement that these abstract features should be supported by do is a PF not an LF requirement 5. To claim that there is only one negation in an English sentence is to claim that the abstract Neg head licenses only one negative constituent. 6. Other types of negative sentences 6.1. Sentences with negative quantifiers

Consider the following sets of examples, containing negative quantifiers. (90) either. d. Nobody likes him, neither do I. (91) a. They found nothing in the garden. did they? b. They found nothing in the attic, not even old coins. c. They found nothing in the first room and they didn't find much in the second room, either. These examples point out to two things: a) Sentences with negative quantifiers are syntactically negative and pass all the tests for sentence negation. b) These sentences must be "marked" as negative by Spell-Out, because they overtly show the behaviour of negative sentences. The standard analysis of examples like these relies on the insight that sentences with Neg quantifiers contain a NegP, headed by a [+neg] feature, and it is this Neg head which licenses the negative quantifier, if it has sentence scope. Such a view is strengthened by the existence of negative concord languages (e.g., Romanian), where the sentence negator must appears on the verb, in order to license the negative QPs. Thus in Romanian, nu always shows up in sentences with nimeni, nimic. (92) a. Nimeni nu a venit b. *Nimeni a venit c. N-au gasit nimic. d. *Au gasit nimic. a. Nobody came to the party, did they ? b. Nobody came to the party, not even her brother. c. Few people showed up for the lecture, and no one showed up for the party

26 COMPLEMENTATION As to the specific licensing strategy, a frequently invoked solution is the Neg Criterion: (93) a. A negative operator (QP) must be in a Spec head relation with an [+negative] X0 head. b. A negative head X0 must be in a spec-head agreement configuration with a negative operator. A negative operator is a negative phrase in a scope A' position. (94) a. No one has come yet. b. AgrsP DP No one AgrS0 has AgrS' NegP Neg Neg0 ta TP T' T0 ta AspP Asp Asp0 VP ta come yet

(96) a. Nobody came b. NegP DP Nobody [+neg] Neg' Neg0 [+neg] T/AgrP

DP T/Agr' tnobody T/Agr0 VP ed come (98) a. Mary bought nothing b. NegP Neg' Neg0 DP Mary T/Agr0 ed T/AgrP T/Agr' VP

Op [+neg]

27 COMPLEMENTATION V' V0 buy (99) a. Mary has heard nothing. b. AgrSP DP Mary Agrs0 has Op [+neg] Neg0 [+neg] Agrs' NegP Neg' TP T' T0 AspP Asp' Asp0 V0 [+neg] Conclusions 1. Neg QPs may have sentence scope, so that sentences containing them pass al the tests for sentence negation. 2. When they have sentence scope, negative QPs are licensed by vebal negation, therefore by the NegP. 3. Negative Quantifiers are licensed by the Neg Criterion. 6.2. Emphatic negative sentences. The last type of negative sentences considered are emphatic negative sentences. (100) a. Not often did he digress from the topic. b. Not until yesterday did he change his mind. c. Seldom do I see him nowadays. d. Never before had he seen such a crowd. (101) a. Not long ago it rained. b. Not unreasonably, one may expect results from him. c. In no small measure. it is his attitude that is blocking progress. VP V' DP nothing DP nothing [+neg]

28 COMPLEMENTATION d. Not far away, it was raining very hard. It is easy to prove that sentences in (100) exhibit sentence negation, while those in (101) exhibit constituent negation, using the familiar tests. Instances of sentence negation admit neither tags, but instances of constituent negation do not. (102) Not often does Jack attend parties and neither does Jill. *Not long ago, Jack attended a party and neither did Jill. Secondly, instances of sentence negation most naturally take affirmative tags, while instances of constituent negation take negative tags. (103) Not often does Jack attend parties, does he? Not long ago Jack attended a party, didn't he ? When there is sentence negation, negative polarity items ( any, ever, etc.) are licensed, while otherwise they are not : (104) Not often does Jack attend any party. *Not long ago, Jack attended any parties. According to Rudanko (1980), phrases which trigger inversion all "seem to be principally composed of adverbials with an overt or inherent quantifier and motivational adverbs"(1980:356): not often, not always, not until, not even then, not because, not for any reason, not under any circumstances, etc. The attempt to give a sharp semantic characterization of the inversion-triggering phrases is undermined by the fact that the same element may or may not cause inversion: (105) With no job, John would be happy. With no job would John be happy. (106) In no clothes, Mary looks attractive In no clothes does Mary look attractive. This shows that it is the syntax of the sentence rather than the semantics of the phrase which is essential in the description of the contrast between examples (100) and (101) The contrast (100), (101) can be accounted for assuming that the negative constituents which trigger inversion are operators, i.e., sentence negators which have moved to a scope position satisfying the Negative Criterion. Accordingly, they will be licensed in a configuration of specifier-head agreement with a negative head. When an ordinary negated constituent is preposed, which does not qualify as an operator, it does not trigger inversion since it will not require to be in a Spec-head relation with a negative head. Inversion signals the presence of the abstract negative head. The derivation of emphatic negative sentences (107) Seldom do I see him nowadays AdvP Seldom [+neg] CP C' C0 [+neg] DP [+Tense] T/AgrSP T/AgrS' I T/Agrs0 ta AdvP tseldom V0 see him VP VP V' DP AdvP nowadays

29 COMPLEMENTATION Conclusions In the following description of English complementation, the finite clause will be assumed to have (at least) the following structure: CP>AgrSP> NegP> TP> AspP1> AspP2 > VP THAT COMPLEMENTS SYNTACTIC PROPERTIES OF THAT COMPLEMENTS 1. Similarities and differences between DPs and CPs 1.1. DPs and CPs share several properties: a. Both DPs and CPs occur as arguments of predicates. Thus the Longman Grammar (1999) states that "Complement clauses are sometimes called nominal clauses, because they typically occupy a noun phrase slot, such as subject, object, or predicative." b. DPs and CPs merge in - positions and are - marked by predicates that c-select and sselect them. Predicates, (V, A, or N) which combine with that complements have characteristic s-selectional properties. They accept an abstract argument, a Proposition/Theme, and more often than not, they also s-select a human role, Experiencer, or Agent. These two -roles appear in various syntactic functions. (1) a. I thought that it looked good. b. It surprised me that he was right. c. He is aware that he is mistaken. d. It seems to me that he is right. e. It is important (for all of us) that he is still here. f. I claim that he is right. Similarities (continued) c. DPs and CPs accept (some of) the same pronominal substitutes: it, this, that. This is because clauses too have default -features, selecting a clause substitute which is [+Neuter, +Singular]. (2) a. I believe that God is good. b. I believe this/ that / it. c. [That he knows the truth] is not sure. Differences between DPs and CPs: DPs must be case-licensed, i.e, DPs have case features which must be checked during the derivation. The Case Filter bars the occurrence of DPs which lack Case. CPs do no have to be case-licensed. The absence of Case is the main syntactic difference between DPs and CPs, from which all the other differences between DP and CP syntax can be derived. The distribution of CPs is not determined by the Case Filter. As a result, the distribution of CPs is less constrained by syntactic factors and more dependent on discourse factors. Through their syntactic position, that-clauses often code discourse function, like focus or topic. 1.2 Introducing Extraposition In this pattern regardless of its syntactic role ((Su(bject), D(irect) O(bject), Prepositional O(bject)), the complement clause appears at the right periphery of the sentence, while the

30 COMPLEMENTATION pronoun it appears in the position which ought to have been occupied by the clause, thus indicating its syntactic function. (3) Subject a. That Pauline moved to Kansas surprised me indeed. b. It surprises me indeed [that Pauline moved to Kansas]. Direct object a. The engineer wrongly figured out [that the bridge would hold ]. b. The engineer wrongly figured it out [ that the bridge would hold ].

(4)

(5)

Prepositional object a. Can you swear [ that the accused man was at your house all Friday evening? ]. b. Can you swear to it [ that the accused man was at your house all Friday evening?]. The extraposed clause is adjoined to the VP, as in (6) . In (6), the pronoun it occupies the Nom case position, the transitive verb checks the Acc feature of the object, so the CP must be devoid of case. (6) DP I0 VP It V0 surprises DP me IP I' VP CP that he didn't come

The term extraposition is due to Jespersen, MEG. The pronoun it is the so-called introductory-anticipatory it, since it introduces and anticipates the real object of the sentence. The introductory-anticiptory it is regarded as a type of formal subject or object, a "meaningless" or expletive pronoun. 2. The Case Resistance Principle 2.1. The difference between DPs and CPs with respect to case has noticeable empirical consequences. (7) a. I am happy that he left. b* I am happy his leaving. c. I am happy about his leaving. (8) a. I insisted that Mary should depart in the morning. b. *I insisted Mary's departure. c. I insisted on Mary's departure.

The first attempt to precisely state this difference between CPs and DPs is Stowell's 1981 Case Resistance Principle, stated in (9).[ According to Stowell, the case difference between CPs and DPs follows from a dfference between categories which assign case and categories which are case-marked.

31 COMPLEMENTATION (9) The Case-Resistance Principle ( CRP) Case must not be assigned to a category bearing a case-assigning feature. According to Stowell, the case assigning feature that CPs bear is [+Tense], which is involved in the assignment of Nom case in finite clauses. CPs, unlike DPs, bear [+Tense], a verbal case assigning feature, and cannot be assigned case as a consequence. Assuming that there is a difference between -positions and case positions, the consequence of the CRP is that CPs will be banned from positions of case-checking. English supports the CRP to a considerable extent, since in English CPs are excluded from the following three basic (structural) case-checking positions: a) the position after prepositions; b) the structural Accusative position; c) the Nominative position. a) The prepositional context: In English, CPs cannot be sisters to prepositions. (10) a. I insisted that Mary should depart in the morning b.*I insited on that Mary should depart in the morning. b) Structural Acc: the Acc+ Inf construction. The Acc (in italics in (11)) is -marked by the infinitive verb, but gets case from the main verb, (consider). Since the Case source is not the -assigner, the Acc is structural. The example in (11b) is analogous. The CP is -marked by the subordinate infinitive predicate, and would get case from the main verb (consider). The CP is in a structural Acc position, this leading to ill-formedness. (11) a. I consider [ this statement] to be a big mistake]. b *I consider[ [CP that Mary left] to be a big mistake]. c) The Nominative position Sentence (13a), with the subject clause in preverbal position, may be taken to show that the subject clause is in SpecT, i.e. in a position where it has been assigned Nom. On the other hand, sentence (13e). where the Auxiliary has moved to Comp is ungrammatical. Given the ungrammaticality of (13e), it is likely that in the well-formed (13a) the clause is in topic, rather than subject position. As suggested by examples like (13b), there is more than one preverbal position in English. In (13b), last night and in London are topicalized phrases. (13) a. That John hates Mary could be true. a' [[ TP That John hates Mary] [TP tCP [T'could be true]]]. b. Last night, in London, the killer struck again. c. Could this be true ? d.*Did last night, in London, the killer strike again ? e. * Could [that he hates her] be true ? 2.2. CPs may have to pass through case-marked positions Stowell's insight that DPs and CPs differ in terms of case is correct. Nevertheless, as stated in (9), the CRP is too strong and there are empirical facts which disprove it, since they involve CPs that have moved through case-positions, even if they do not remain there. One example is that of operator-variable constructions, movement constructions, where what moves is the CP, acting as a syntactic operator. It is well known that an operator's trace, (=a variable), must be in a case-marked position. Such operator-variable constructions include relativization, question formation, tough-movement, topicalization, a.o. Simple examples with DP operators show that variables are case-marked:

32 COMPLEMENTATION (15) (16) a. What are you so happy about tDP b*What are you so happy tDP a. Who tDP wrote it? b. * Who was it written tDP ? c. Who was it written by tDP ?

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

33 COMPLEMENTATION 2.3. More recently, Stowell's CRP has been reinterpreted as a categorial filter. The proposal is that the CP category is categorially unsuited in certain configurations. This forces clauses to move out of these positions. This interpretation is based on the intuition that predicates/heads should be categorially distinct from their arguments or, more generally from the constituents they govern. Evidence for a categorial filter comes from the fact that sequences of type *N NP (*destruction the city vs destruction of the city), *I ^IP, etc are usually unacceptable. (20) A head and its complement must be distinct in terms of their categorial features.

This categorial filter is sufficient to eliminate sequences of type *P^CP. Categorially speaking, CPs are surely [-N], which is why they do not need case. They may also be viewed as [-V], this allows them the possibiity to be -marked arguments. IF CPs are [-N,-V], they are non-distinct from prepositions and subordinating conjunctions, which are also traditionally described as [-N, -V]. We derive the unacceptability of (22) (22) a. *They complained about [ that salaries were too low]. b. *Although [that she had done her work], the master was displeased. Conclusions 1.Unlike DPs, CPs do not have to be Case-licensed. 2. Nevertheless, CPs can be attracted to case positions, at least when they are antecedents in operator-variable cosntructions. 3. As they pass through positions of case checking, they will be case-marked, this allowing them to appear in operator variable constructions. This property is not available to clauses in extraposed position precisly because they do not acquire a case feature. 4. By virtue of their categorial properties CPs are filtered away from certain environments, such as the position of sister to a preposition. 3. The Extraposition Structure (26) Subject a. That Pauline moved to Kansas surprised me indeed. b. It surprises me indeed [ that Pauline moved to Kansas ]. Direct object a. The engineer wrongly figured out [ that the bridge would hold ]. b. The engineer wrongly figured it out [ that the bridge would hold ]. Prepositional object

34 COMPLEMENTATION a. Can you swear [ that the accused man was at your house all Friday evening? ]. b. Can you swear to it [ that the accused man was at your house all Friday evening? ]. 2.2 Establishing a link between it and the CP The it+CP configuration does not represent a chain of type expletive +associate, for the following reasons: a) CPs do not have to be in a case-marked -chain. b) CPs do not inherit case form it. The CP is caseless when extraposed. Let us turn to claims a) and b), under the standard assumption that Case is inherited along the members of a chain. For example, whom in SpecCP in (30) is Acc-marked and so is its trace in DO position. Consider then the examples in (31): (30) (31) Whom did you see t ? a. *It was bizarre Mary's departure. b. It was bizarre that Mary left. c. *It was noticed Mary's departure. d. It was noticed that Mary left. e.There seems to be a man under your bed. Examples (31a-d) prove that DPs cannot occur in the position of the extraposed clause, because that is a caseless position and DPs need case. Evidence that extraposed clauses do not inherit Case from the expletive it comes from operator-variable constructions. Evidence that extraposed clauses do not inherit Case from the expletive it comes from operator-variable constructions. a) Topicalization The topicalized clause moves to the CP field, and it should leave behind a trace in a case-assigned position. If it were true that extraposed clauses inherit case from the expletive it, it would not matter, in operator variable constructions, whether the (unextraposed )clause is itself in a case position or whether the (extraposed) clause merely inherits case from the expletive it. However, this expectation is no confirmed. Only the unextraposed clause can be topicalized, while the extraposed clause cannot. This is because the trace of the unextraposed clause is in a case marked position (a subject trace in (32), a direct object trace in (33), while the trace of the extraposed clause is in a non-case marked position. (32) (33) a. That Susan would be late John didn't think [ tCP was very likely] b. *That Susan would be late John didn't think [ it was very likely tCP] a. That he had solved the problem we didn't really find [tCP to be very surprising] b. *That he had solved the problem we didn't really find [it to be very surprising tCP]

b) Appositive relative clauses. A that-complement can serve as the antecedent of an appositive clause only if the trace it ultimately binds through the mediation of the relative pronoun is in a case position. Since the relative pronoun itself is a DP, rather than a CP, the requirement that the relative pronoun should check case is natural.

35 COMPLEMENTATION (34) a.[ That Mary was leaving]i , whichi ti was noticed at once, upset Joe. b.[That Mary was leaving]i , whichi iti was noticed at once ti upset Joe. Thus the evidence from operator-variable constructions shows that there is no case transmission between it and the CP, so that it +CP are not members of a chain. Conclusions 1. The evidence argues both against Case-transmission from it to the CP 2. Safir (1985) proposes that it and the CP are simply related as members of a configuration. The semantic relation between it and the CP is that the CP is an adjunct which specifies the content of the pronoun, very much like an appositive clause, which specifies the content of the antecedent (e.g., the fact that he has abandoned his former love). 4. The subject-object asymmetry in Extraposition constructions On the motivaton of extraposition A fundamental remark regarding Extraposition in English, is that this structure is extremely frequent if not quasi-obligatory for subject clauses and marginal for DO and PO clauses. This asymmetry is motivated by structural as well as by functional considerations. The examination of the motivation for extraposition will help us choose among the various proposals on how to analyse Extraposition syntactically. Cullicover and Rochemont (1990), in work on Focus constructions, include Extraposition in a large class of constructions which are motivated by functional considerations. Quirk e.a. (1972) mention the two discourse principles of End-Focus and End-Weight, which play a major role in determining word-order in English. According to these two principles, other things being equal, constituents which are focussed and constituents which are "long" and heavy tend to occur towards the end of the sentence. 4.1 More on End-focus and End-weight. Structural Focus English disposes of two syntactic structures specifically designed to place a constitiuent in focus. These are the cleft sentence, in (39)&(40), and the pseudo-cleft sentence, in (41). In both instances the constituent which occurs after be is focussed, while the rest of the sentence contains presuppostional information. (39) a. What did he purchase for his wife? b. It was [ a brand new fur coat ] that John purchased for his wife. c. Focus: A brand new fur coat. d. Presupposition: He purchased something for his wife. a. Who purchased a brand new fur coat for his wife? b. It was [ John] who purchased a brand new fur coat for his wife c. Focus. John (purchased a new fur coat for his wife). d. Presupposition: Someone bought a brand new fur coat for his wife. a. What does Mary want ? b. What Mary wants is a rich husband. c. Assertion: (Mary wants) a rich husband. d. Presupposition. Mary wants something.

(40)

(41)

36 COMPLEMENTATION

4.1 More on End-focus and End-weight. Topicalization is a syntactic rule designed to indicate the topic of discourse or a link, the constituent which bridges between the given sentence and the preceding discourse. The topic is thus an informationally given element. (42) A: They would like to offer you roses. B: Roses I heartily dislike t.

Topicalization is possible only if there is a case-marked trace in the initial position of the topic. 4.2. The functional perspective Extraposition of a Su clause is functional, since it enables a Su clause, which is a heavy constituent, often containing new information, to occur in final position. S clause V O => it V O S clause

(43) a. He kept complaining. It annoyed him that inflation was running so high. b. ?That inflation was running so high annoyed him. c. He kept complaining. He had found out that inflation was running high. Extraposition from object position is not motivated by the same considerations, since object clauses already satisfy the principles of End-Focus and End-Weight. In a simple declarative transitive SVO senetnce with neutral intonation, the O is the expected focus. Hence, DO/PO extraposition is functionally superfluous and therefore, infrequent. On the other hand, when DO/PO extraposition does occur, the resulting structure has characterstic semantic and pragmatic properties. (see below). SV O clause => SV it O (46) John regretted [that he had abandoned the race]. b. John regretted it that he had abandoned the race. 4.3. The structural perspective Structurally, the motivation for extraposition+it insertion comes from the Extended Projection Principle and from Case Theory (see next section). English is a SVO language that requires an overt subject in preverbal position. Reinterpreting the EPP in feature-checking terms, the fact that a subject in SpecT is always required in English means that the T head has strong features, features which require checking by moving an (appropriate) constituent to SpecT. When there are reasons for the semantic "real" subject to be post-verbal, as is the case with extraposed subject clauses, a formal, 'meaningless' it subject is needed tocheck the strong feature of T and satisfy the EPP. While for the reasons explained, the Nom Su position must be lexically filled , there is no requirement to lexically realize the Acc DO position. If an object clause does not appear in its -position, the latter may remain empty, as in (46a) or it may be filled by the introductory anticipatory pronoun it, as in (46b). (46) a. John has known it for a long time that Mary will leave him. b. John has known tCP for a long time that Mary will leave him. a.

37 COMPLEMENTATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

40 COMPLEMENTATION

(62)

There are monsters IP DP I V DP X There are tbe 5.2. Object Expletives tThere I VP XP X NP monsters

5.2.1 A real expletive The only case of true expletive objects is that of derived objects, that is, consituents which start out as (expletive) subjects, but are case-marked by the verb above them. (63) I find it impossible to live under these circumstances.

5.2.2 It is a -marked pronoun in other cases: (64) a. I regretted (it) that he was late. b. They never mentioned (it) to the candidate that the job was poorly paid. c. I resent it every time you say that. d. I hate it when you are late. In such cases, the extraposed CP/XPs must be independently licensed. There are three types of licensing such a phrase. One of them does not involve an it+ CP structure, but it is instrumental in understanding the object it +CP construction. a. It as an event variable bound by a quantifier over times We refer to examples of type (64 c, d) or (65) below, the DO it is followed by a Time Adverbial Quantifier. In (65a-c) the adverbial is a quantified DP (every time I have dinner with John, etc), while in (65e), it is followed by a when(ever) time clause. It designates an event variable, quantified over by the adverbial (65) a. I regret it every time I have dinner with John. b. The children enjoy it every time you tell them a story. c. They announced it publicly every time they decided to move house. d. He used to like it when(ever) it thundered late. In such examples is that it desgnates an event-variable. Sentence (65a) means "for every event of having dinner with John, I regret that event".. It is a variable that ranges over events of having dinner with John (example a), or events of deciding to move house ( example c). The

41 COMPLEMENTATION pronoun it now has a semantic role, it is an e- variable bound by the quantifier of time. The semantic value of it can be appreciated by comparing (65a) with (66) where it is missing: (66) I regretted every time I had dinner with John. In (66), the every phrase is the object of the verb. In (65), where the every phrase is an operator binding the pronoun, there is a "matching relation" between events named by the every phrase and events named by the matrix verb. Sentence (65a) asserts that every event of my having dinner with John is matched with an event of my regretting having dinner with him. By contrast, (66) asserts that I regretted all the occasions of having dinner with John, but it makes no claim about how many regretting events there were. Thus (66), but not (65a) is appropriate in a situation when, after ten years of happy dinner occasions, something happens that makes me regret that I ever had dinner with John. Selectional restrictions Since it denotes an event, with this interpretation, it is allowed with just those verbs that s-select events. Regret is one such verb, but claim is not. Evidence for this comes from gerunds, which as known, can express events. Expectedly, regret appears with the gerund, claim does not: (67) He regretted doing it /that he had done it. *He claimed doing it/ that he had done it

If a verb does not allow its Theme to be an event, then the verb does not occur in bound time adverbial constructions, like (65). The verb claim, for instance, can only select a proposition for its object, so it does not appear in the it+ (quantified) adverbial construction. (68) He claimed it, but it wasn't true. He claimed it every time he saw you.

The important point is that in the it+ quantified time adverbial construction, the pronoun has semantic content, designating an event variable, bound by the adverbial quantifier. The pronoun it is not an expletive. b) It is a specific context known event. It is an ordinary anaphoric pronoun. (69) a. I regretted it that he was late. b. They confirmed it that you had passed the entrance exam. c. They announced it that she had passed her exams.

In the absence of any QP, the pronoun it is free and denotes a specific entity recoverable from the discourse. In examples (69), it is optional, but not meaningless. The neuter it is appropriate when the object of the matrix verb is a specific event. Bolinger (1977) claims that in these circumstances it "must refer to some fact already broached". It is anaphoric. (70) a. John and Mary have announced that they got married. b. John and Mary have announced it that they got married.

Sentence (70a) is appropriate as a report of the fact that John and Mary made an announcement that is new to the speaker. (70b) is more appropriate if the report announced by John and Mary is alredy known to the speaker. This also explains the differences in (71). (71) a. If he asks you to help him, just say that you regret (*it) that you can't.

42 COMPLEMENTATION b. You shouldn't regret it that you were helpful. The same neuter it can also be the object of a preposition in it+CP structures: (72) a. I depend upon it that their paper will expose crooked politicians. b. I was counting on it that you would be there. c. What do you make of it that he is late ? Summing up, in examples of the second type, the complement designates contextually salient events. Bolinger (1977) mentions several factors that may favour a referential interpretation of the pronoun as designating a specific event. The meaning of the main verb is one factor which influences the acceptability of "extraposition from object position". Expectedly, factive verbs allow this structure. (73) They didn't mind it that a crowd was beginning to gather in the street.

Non-factive, propositional verbs which express suppositions- normally having to do with bringing forward something new - generally exclude the it+CP construction: (74) a. Who would have thought (it) that things would turn out this way ? b. Who would have supposed (*it) that things would turn out this way ? c. He pretended (*it) that he was the one. d. I presume (*it) that you are Dr. Levingstone.

Concluding, the neuter pronoun it is licensed under -marking, just as any other argument. As to how the relation between it and the CP is established, the easiest solution is to treat it as the subject of a small clause with the CP as a predicate. c. It as a means of factivizing a predicate Some propositional verbs (= verbs that may select propositions, not events as their internal argument, cf. (78)) may also appear in the it+CP construction (cf. 77). (77) a.They suspected it that he was a spy. b. You just assumed/ believed it that he would help. c. I never supposed it that they would help. d. I expected it that the baby would be up all night. *They suspected/ assumed/ believed John's stealing the diamonds.

(78)

In order to interpret these cases, notice first that the semantic effect of adding the pronoun is the same as in the preceding cases. The pronoun it designates a specific event, so the effect of using these non-factive verbs in this configuration is to reanalyze them as factive. The verbs in (77) are factive when the pronoun it is present and are not factive when it is omitted. Sentences (79, 80a) entail the truth of their complements, whereas the corresponding examples without it do not, as ((80b), (81) illustrate). (79) (80) They had suspected it that she would be arrested. a. They suspected it that he was a spy. b. They suspected that he was a spy (81) a. ?????They had expected it that she'd be arrested, and were relieved when she wasn't. b. They expected that she'd be arrestd, and were relieved when she wasn't c. ????They had been expecting it that she might be arrested.

43 COMPLEMENTATION Extraposition from object positions is thus a means of turning a non-factive verb into a factive one. But the complement of a factive verb may designate a specific event. The CP is licensed by predication as before. To give one more example, with the (normally non-factive) verbs of reporting in examples (82), the contrast induced by the presence of it +CPis between something previously unknown (it is absent) and something already settled (it is present, and the verb is factive): (82) a. You might at least have announced that you were moving in on us. b. You might at least have announced it that you were moving in on us. c. Did you find out that the cheques was bad ? d. *Did you find it out that the cheques was bad / e. When did you find (it) out that the cheque was bad ?

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

44 COMPLEMENTATION 2. In object position it is a -marked argument ( a Theme/Event), as shown by the fact that there is s-selection: the it+ CP structure is preferred by verbs whose complement may be an event, rather than simply a proposition. The clausal it may be a variable bound by a QP, or it may be a referential 9event-designating) expression. The CP is licensed as a predicate on this pronominal subject. 3. The object it+CP construction does not involve movement. The pronoun merges in the -marked object position, while the clause is VP adjoined 6. Back to the Analysis of Extraposition It is time to return to the analysis of Extraposition, using the result obtained above, namely, the fact that apparently only Su clauses extrapose, i.e., must move out of their - position. Seemingly extraposed object clauses may be CPs projected in positions of adjunction, having a predicative role with respect to the thematic object it. A second result, derived from the functional analysis, is that Extraposition is a Focus -related rule. Two descriptions of Extraposition will be offered. One of them (Landau (1999), McClosky (1999) regards Extraposition as a PF rule, applying after Spell-out. The other one, inspired by Kayne (1998) regards Extraposition, as part of narrow syntax rather than stylistics and phonology. We will settle for a variant of the second position (Extraposition is part of (narrow) syntax), while trying to do justice to the special properties of rules like Extraposition. 6.1. Landau's Analysis Landau (1999) proposes the following formulation of Extraposition: (87) Extraposition VP-internal clauses must be peripheral (at PF).

Extraposition is adjunction to VP and (as is standardly assumed) an adjunct is not dominated by its host category. Several consequences follow from this formulation: a) Extraposition will always apply from subject position. Given the canonical configuration of the subject and the object, an object CP is already peripheral with respect to the VP. Only the subject is VP internal. b) At the same time, a clause in "structural Acc position" is also VP internal, as shown by the examples below, so Extraposition operates producing the right results. In fact, as discussed above, clauses in structural Acc position merge as Sus of the infinitive clause, so this situation reduces to the preceding one. (88) a. *I consider [ that he lied to us like that] to be outrageous. a'. I consider it to be outerageous that he lied to us like that. b.* I judge [ that he went there] to have been a mistake. b. I judge it to have been a mistake that he went there.

Extraposition ia a repair strategy that filters away clauses in structural Acc position, rendering the CRP superfluous. 6.2. Extrapostion vs. Topicalization of subject clauses

45 COMPLEMENTATION A clause which is originally projected in Su position, therefore in SpecVP, may avoid this position in two ways, by moving to the left or by moving to the right. In numeretions where the expletive it is not available, the clause is bound to move to the left. It must move at least as high as SpecTP to check the EPP feature and the - features of Tense, and possibly higher to a Topic position. If the clause has moved to the left, it will be interpreted as a Topic. It must represent given, "construable" information. Discourse studies have all stressed that a preverbal clause is a Topic, referring to an event specified in the discourse. Thus, the Longman Grammar (1999) remarks that: " In nearly every case when a preverbal that clause is used, it presents information as if it is factual or generally accepted, and provides an anaphoric link to the preceding discourse." Moreover, a topicalized (subject) clause often contains constituents which are anaphoric to preceding disocurse. Here is an example of a topic subject clause which provides a link with the preceding discourse, and where the pronominal subject of the topicalized clause is used anaphorically too: (89)Thare are many players who might win the Masters, many who could. But the feeling about Faldo is that if he is at the top of his game, he should win it. [That he is ranked only N04 in the world at the moment] is due to the eccentricity of the system. . 6.3. In numerations where the expletive it is available, the expletive is inserted in SpecT, serving as a syntactic Su for the complex predicate represented by the main verb+ clause and checking the EPP, case and features of Tense. The CP moves to the VP-periphery and is right-adjoined to VP, in a suitable position for being an information focus. 6.4. On Object Extraposition. We have so far taken for granted that at least for Object Extraposition the clause merges as a VP-adjunct, semantically functioning as a predicate on the thematic object pronoun, in the configuration (98) (98) a. I will see to it that he is properly paid. b. VP VP DP V V PP that he is properly paid CP

I see to it However, nothing in the formulation of Extraposition in (87) specifies the position of the Extraposed clause with respect to other VP constituents. Since it is an adjunct, it will follow subcategorized constituents, as in (99a,b), yet nothing is mentioned about its position with respect to other adjuncts. The examples in (99c-e') show that the extraposed clause is ordered with respect to other adjuncts, and such ordering conditions are more easily dealt with as locality principles on Move than as conditions on Merge: (99) a. I wrote it to him that he had been dismissed. b. I grant it to you that he wanted to hurt me. c. I regret it very much that he didn't come.

46 COMPLEMENTATION c.' I regret it that he didn't come very much. d. I will forgive it tomorrow that he was rude to me last night. d. * I will forgive it that he was rude to me last night tomorrow. e. I had forgotten it that he had arrived when I asked you about it. e'. ? I had forgotten it when I asked you about this that he had arrived. Since the clause is a predicate it is not selected, so that it is not obvious how to make sure that that the clause merges in an appropriate position. Given the data, a different analysis of Object extraposition is possible. The complement clause might simply first merge as a the predicate of a small clause whose subject is the pronoun it, in the configuration (100) for sentence (99a). A clause in this configuration will also count as VP internal, forcing VP adjunction, past the other adjunct. Extraposition continues to apply, since clauses must be VP peripheral at PF. (100) a. VP V' AdvP V0 SC very much DP CP regret it that he didn't come b. VP VP V' AdvP V0 SC very much regret DP tCP it An important advantage of this analysis is that the subject it c-commands the predicate CP, an essential requirement for syntactic predication, which fails to be met if the clause first merges as a VP adjunct. The small clause analysis is preferable on theory internal and on empirical grounds. Conclusions The following conflicting situation has emerged: 1) Extraposition mainly having discourse related effects (End-Focus and End-Weight). 2) Extraposition has interpretative consequences, so that it must be made visible to LF as well. Closer scrutiny shows that Extraposition is not the only rule exhibiting properties (1) and (2). More will be said about Extraposition, after having examined a rule with which it appears to share properties (1) and (2). THAT COMPLEMENTS (II) SYNTACTIC PROPERTIES OF THAT COMPLEMENTS 7. Heavy NP Shift and Clause Shift CP that he didn't come

47 COMPLEMENTATION Heavy NP Shift (HNPS) and Clause Shift. The empirical phenomenon at stake is the occurrence of an object XP (DP or CP) at the right periphery of the sentence, in a position different from its - position. (101) a. Mary gave every help that he demanded to Joe. b. Mary gave to Joe every help that he demanded. (102) a. ?*Mary said that she wouldn't come flatly. b. Mary said flatly that she wouldn't come. Clause Shift differs from Extraposition in two respects: a) it applies only to objects, never to subjects; b) no (expletive) pronoun marks the initial position of the clause. Our discussion will concentrate on HNPS, but analogous statements could be made about Clause Shift. 7.1. Heavy NP Shift. It is known that a "long" or complex DO can be separated from the verb by another constituent, against the V+DO adjacency requirement, which is very strict otherwise. A complex DP is one which contains a PP or a clause (103) a.*He threw into the basket the letter. b. He threw the letter into the basket. c. He threw into the basket the letter which he had just decoded. HNPS is a right-movement rule which adjoins the object to the phrase containing it, i.e., to the VP in the general case. It was also shown that not only DPs, but also clauses, which are by definition "complex", may appear at the right periphery, by Clause Shift. (104) a. We require of our employees that they wear a tie. b. John regretted deeply that Georgina was pregnant. 7.1.1 Several constituency tests indicate that the shifted object is still in the VP. Rules that affect the VP as a whole affect the shifted DP as well, because it is included in the VP. a) VP ellipsis (105) "deletes" a lexical VP, leaving behind an auxiliary verb. In the examples in (105), the complex DO has moved over the IO or over a locative PP. Nevertheless the DO is still part of the elided XP, therefore it was analysed as still inside the VP. b) Pseudoclefting in (106) brings further evidence. This rule places one phrase in focus position (i.e., afther the verb be). In (106), the Focus is the VP phrase. Inside the focussed VP in (106b), the DO has been moved to the right. c) VP preposing (in (107)) is another test that confirms that the shifted DP is iniside the VP, since a VP that is fronted for emphasis may contain a shifted object. (105) VP Ellipsis. a. John gave to Mary a picture of Bill Clinton, and Bill did too. b. John read in The Times a scathing review of his new book and Sally did too. (106)Pseudoclefting of VP. a. What John did was buy for Mary every book he could find. b. What Mary did was put on the mantel an old soiled portrait of her husband. (107)VP Preposing a. I said I would give to Peter everything that he demanded and give to Peter everything that he demanded I will.

48 COMPLEMENTATION b. * I said that I would give to Peter everything that he demanded and give to Peter I will everything that he demanded. 7.1.2 From a functional perspective, HNPS is a manifestation of the discourse principles of End-Weight / End-Focus. The examples below prove that HNPS too is a construction in which there is an obligatory focus interpretation for the phrase which moves to the right. Thus, sentence (114) below is a suitable answer for (115a), but not for (115b). That HNPS is focus related has been stressed by all analysts (Rochemont (1997), Mc Closky (1999) a.o.). (110) a. (111) What did John purchase for his wife? b. ?For whom did John purchase a new coat? John purchased for his wife a brand new fur coat.

7.1.3. The available evidence proves that the shifted DP occupies an A' position, a position of adjunction to the right of the phrase that initially contained it. Two phenomena support this claim: a) The shifted DP is an island for extraction. b) The shifted DP licenses parasitic gaps (PGs). At the same time, HNPS has an important interpretative contribution regarding scope phenomena, as well as the interpretation of sentences containing PGs. 7.1.4 From a functional perspective, HNPS is a manifestation of the discourse principles of End-Weight / End-Focus. The examples below prove that HNPS too is a construction in which there is an obligatory focus interpretation for the phrase which moves to the right. Thus, sentence (114) below is a suitable answer for (115a), but not for (115b). That HNPS is focus related has been stressed by all analysts (Rochemont (1997), Mc Closky (1999) a.o.). (110) a. (111) What did John purchase for his wife? b. ?For whom did John purchase a new coat? John purchased for his wife a brand new fur coat.

7.1.4. It is important that HNPS has semantic effects as well. Thus, the application of HNPS may have consequence for the scopal interpretation of certain adverbials , as in (113) below. Sentence (113a), where the DO occupies its canonical position is ambiguous. The adverbial phrase, for a time, may modify either the matrix sentence ( i.e., the verb believe) or the embedded clause. (i.e., the verb to be in hiding): (113) a. The FBI believed the man they were after to be in hiding for a time. b. The FBI believed to be in a hiding for a time the man they were after. Once HNPS applies to the former embedded subject the man they werer after, as in (113b), the interpretation of the adverbial is unambiguous. The adverbial modifies only the lower clause, including the moved NP, since the object must be attached to the end of its own clause, and the object is definitely in the main clause now that it has been HNPSed. 7.2. Clause Shift as Heavy NP Shift Clauses are by definition "heavy" constituents which tend to appear at the periphery, by virtue of End-Weight and End-Focus. There are two strategies which allow argument clauses to appear at the right periphery: the first is Extraposition (functional for subjects and objects alike). In this case the clause appears at the right periphery, but a pronoun in a case position indicates its syntactic function. The second

49 COMPLEMENTATION strategy is Clause Shift. The clause is simply adjoined to the phrase, usually the VP, containing it. Here are comparative examples. Clause Shift applies only to object clauses. (122) a. They never mentioned it to the candidate [that the job was poorly paid].(extrapsed constructions) b. We require it of our employees that they wear a tie. c. John regretted it deeply that Georgina was pregnant. a'. They never mentioned to the candidate that the job was poorly paid. (Clause Shift) b'. We require of our employees that they wear a tie. c'. John regretted deeply that Georgina was pregnant. Since a clausal object is normally a focus and is heavy, sentences where Clause shift does not apply are fairly awkward, if not downright ungrammatical, as can be seen by comparing the examples below: (123) a. Mary said t quietly [that she wanted to drive]. b. John knew t from experience [that the law was unfair]. c. They wrote to the lawyers that the firm was going bankrupt. a' ?*Mary said [that she wanted to drive] quietly. b'. ?*John knew that the law was unfair from experience c' ?They wrote that the firm was going bankrupt to the lawyers. d. ?They informed me [that we had lost the war] yesterday. A second remark is that, Clause Shift does not need to leave behind a case-marked trace (Webelhuth, 1991). An example is provided by sentence (123d), which exhibits movement out of a position which is not case-marked. 7.5. Extraposition and Heavy NP Shift . More on the status of these rules. A re-analysis of right movement rules The similarity between HNPS and Extraposition cannot have gone unnoticed. a) Both of them relate to discourse rules ("heaviness"). b) Both of them involve prosodic and pragmatic properties: the constituent which is moved is often an (informational) focus. c) Both of them involve interpretational (semantic) effects. d) Both appear to involve movement to the right. e) Both are optional, at least sometimes. 8.That Deletion. A Minor Problem ? 8.1. The facts. It is well known that the complementizer that can be omitted in post-verbal object clauses. (133) John says [the key opens the chest]. The absence of the complementizer is not possible in preverbal position, that is, it is not possible for subject clauses, or for topiclaized object clauses. (134) *He is here is nice. *Mary had left nobody had noticed. While for preverbal clauses that Deletion is impossible, for object clauses the rule is in principle possible, but it is constrained by register and other stylistic factors.

50 COMPLEMENTATION 8.2. The IP analysis Though that Deletion would appear to be unproblematic, it is not clear whether the complement clause is a CP with a null head, as first proposed by Stowell (1981), or whether it is simply a bare finite IP and no CP-level is projected, as proposed in Webelhuth (1991) or Doherty (1997). (135) a. John says [CP [IP the key opens the chest]]. b. John says [IP the key opens the chest]. Doherty (1997) makes a strong claim that complements where that is missing are IPs. He starts by noticing a number of anomalies of the CP hypothesis. Admittedly, the CP hypothesis has the advantage of uniform subcategorization, i.e., verbs uniformly select for CPs, instead of taking both IP and CP complements. However the required free variation between null and overt C0 raises some questions in itself: Thus, if it is assumed that null complementizers are lexically inserted, the free alternation between null and overt C0 is anomalous: there is no analogous case of free variation between a null and an overt variant of a functioanl head. Other null heads which have been positied for English (for example, D0) are either obligatorily null or obligatorily overt. Doherty's argues that predicates select both IP and CP, on the basis of empirical facts, unexplained under the hypothesis that the complementizer is present, but null. He starts form the well known fact that it is impossible to have adjunction to a phrase which is s-selected by a lexical head. Thus, given that verbs select CPs, it is not possible to adjoin anything to the CP. Thus a topic in English must appear to the right of the head, not to the left. In embedded clauses, Topicalization is grammatical only when the Topic appears to the right of the complementizer: (136) a. I hope that this book you will read. b. She claims that Guiness he likes but that whiskey he hates. (137) a. *I hope this book that you will read. b. *She claims Guiness that he likes, but whiskey that he hates. Consider now the following examples, assuming that the complements are headed by a null complementizer: (138) *I hope[ this book[ you will read]]. *She claims[CP [ IP Guiness he likes]]. The topic appears to the right of the null complementizer, as in the correct examples (136), but the sentence is ungrammatical. However, under the hypothesis that verbs select IPs, the ungrammaticality of examples (138), follows from the same prohibition of adjunction to a phrase (= the IP) selected by a lexical head. We tentatively accept that complements which are not headed by that are IPs not CPs. One still has to give an account of the distributional restrictions of that-less clauses under the IP hypothesis. Webelhuth (1992) proposes an explanation of the distributional differences between IPs and CPs, which rests on the proposal that the categorial distinction between IP and CP is equivalent to the distinction between verbal and nominal elements. More exactly, the IP is a fully verbal category, while the CP has some nominal properties as well: CPs have -features and may also check case. If we assume that verbal elements are excluded from subject position, the failure of bare IP to appear as sentential subjects, illustrated in (134) above follows. 9.5. Constraints on the omission of THAT.

51 COMPLEMENTATION a) The presence of that is (nearly) obligatory in embedded declarative clauses in which an adverbial or topicalized pharse has been fronted: (158) a. Mary is claiming that [for all intents and purposes] John is the mayor of the city. b. ?? Mary is claiming [for all intents and purposes] John is the mayor of the city. (159) a. Mary knows that [books like this] Sue will enjoy reading. b. * Mary knows [books like this] Sue will enjoy reading b) That cannot be omitted in Subject clauses and topicalized clauses. (163) a. That they will win the war is widely believed. b. *They 'll win the war is widely believed. (164) a. He doesn't believe they will win the war. b. *They'll win the war he doesn't believe. c. That they will win the war he doesn't believe. (168) He said[ CP Mary [TP-- had left an hour ago]] CP recursion and the Adverb Effect In this section we will examine a group of examples which have always been problematic since they involve inversion in an embedded clause introduced by that. This ought to be impossible since the inverted auxiliary and the complementizer would be competing for the same place. (179) I knew that not even for one moment had Leslie given a damn about the budget. Consider the following three groups of examples, all of which involve topicalized adverbial phrases. The first is of a type that we have discussed: the presence of a topicalized phrase forces the presence of that in C, as a means of eliminating the uT on C. Movement of the subject to delet uT on c is no longer available since it violates Attract Closest. The second group of examples is also familiar, involving successive wh-movement out of an embedded declarative. The wh-subject starts from a positon lower than the topic, in italics in examples (180). As a consequence of the fact that uT on C must be eliminated by merging (attracting) that, the wh- subject will raise to C only to check its uWh feature, so that the subject trace in Spec C co-occurs with that, in an anti- that-trace effect: The third group of examples is of a type not examined so far. In such sentences T-to-C has obviously applied since the auxiliary verb is in C. A negative adverbial phrase is in Spec C, yet the complementizer that is present, and, moreover, as shown by the ungrammaticality of (180b), that is obligatory. Other emphatic operator adverbials may also trigger inversion and the obligatory presence of that: (180) a. Robin said that, for all intents and purposes, this man was the mayor of the city. b. * Robin said for all intents and purposes, this man was the mayor of the city. c. Robin said that this man was the mayor of the city. d. Robin said this man is the mayor of the city. (181) a. This is the tree which I said [ t that [ just yesterday [t had resisted my shovel]]] b. I asked what Leslie said[ t that in her opinion t had made Robin give a book to Lee. c. Lee forgot which dishes Leslie had said[ t that under normal circumstances t should be put on the table]. (182) a. I thought [that at no time had Leslie left the room] a'.*I thought [at no time had Leslie left the room]. b. I realized that only then did Leslie see anything moving. b'. *I realized only then did Leslie see anything moving.

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

53 COMPLEMENTATION

1. Preliminaries The distribution of that complements will be presented according to: a) the configuration where the clause merges (the c-selectional properties of the main verb; b) the actual construction where the clause occurs, given by the operations that have applied in the derivation. The distribution of that complements will be presented in terms of the (traditional) syntactic functions assigned to that-clauses. 2. That Clauses as Direct Objects - Simple transitive verbs Verbs in group (2a) below are marked in Longman (1979) as allowing the omission of that. (2) a. admit, allege, answer, apprehend ('understand' ), arrange, assume, aver, believe, claim, certify, calculate, consider, confirm, discern, doubt, dream, estimate, expect, fancy, find, feel, fear, forget, figure out, hear, guess, imagine, gather, guarantee, hear, learn, maintain, mean, mind, know, object, prove, pretend, presume, realize, reckon, recollect, remember, regret, rejoin, see, suppose, suspect, think, understand. b. acknowledge, advocate, anticipate, add, announce, allow, affirm, adjudge, accept, ascertain, attest, aver (=state), avow, assert, bear in mind that, beg, cable, conjecture, conclude, concur, counter, charge, comprehend, choose, conjecture, confess, conceive,confide, confirm, contend, contrive, denote, decree, deduce, demand, demonstrate, denote, direct, dictate, discern, disclose, discover, dispute, divine, dread, deny, declare, desire, determine, direct, disclose, discover, exclaim, establish, enact, emphasize, envisage, estimate, explain, forebode, foreordain, forecast, forbid, foresee, foretell, gauge, gesture, grant, guarantee, hold, hypothesize, have (it) that, judge, intend, intimate, imagine, infer, insinuate, intuit, judge, imply, lament, mention, murmur, mutter, muse, mumble, moan out, order, own ('confess'), notice, note, propose, protest, prescribe, profess, pronounce, proclaim, presuppose, preordain, prefer, predicate, pledge, pray, point out, pronounce, reason, recall, recognize, recommend, reflect, repeat, reply, report, require, return, roar (out), rule, scream, smell, sense, settle, speculate, sense, settle, speculate, state, submit, suggest, smell, surmise, specify, swear, suss, testify, theorize, twig, undertake, urge, volunteer, vow, verify, watch, wish, tolerate (3) A. He had long advocated that the country should become a republic./He affirmed that he was responsible./ I cannot accept that he is to blame./ She acknowledged that the equipment had been incorrectly installed. / As a postscript to his letter, he added that he loved her. /I admit that I was wrong./ He allowed that I had the right to appeal./ The director announced that she would resign. / She answered that she preferred to eat alone. /We anticipate that demand is likely to increase./ I appreciate that you may have prior commitments./ I ascertain that the report is accurate./ She asserted that she was innocent./ She averred that there was no risk. / Id love to play tennis with you, but please bear in mind that this is only the second time Ive played. / She begged that her husband might be released./. She cabled that she would arrive on 15 May. /Scientists have calculated that the worlds population will double by the end of the century. I think I remembered to turn the oven off but youd better check up that I did./ The tribunal has commanded that all copies of the book must be destroyed./ I cannot conceive that he would wish to harm us./ The jury concluded that she was guilty./ He confessed that he had not been telling the truth. /He confided that he had applied for another job. /When asked, she confirmed that she was going to retire./ He conjectured that the population might double in ten years./ We consider that you are not to blame. / I would contend that unemployment is our most serious social evil./We contrived that she would leave early that day./ I pointed out the shortcomings of the scheme, but he

54 COMPLEMENTATION countered that the plans were not yet finished./ The king charged that his ministers had disobeyed instructions. r. The minister certified that his trip abroad was necessary. / I soon discerned that the man was lying. / I declare that the war is over. / Fate decreed that they would not meet again If a=b and b=c, we can deduce that a=c. / He demands that he be told everything./ The first six months results demonstrate convincingly that the scheme works./ The mark denotes that a word has been left out. / He denied that he had been involved./ We determined that wed make an early start./ We soon discerned that there was no easy solution./ The government disclosed that another diplomat had been arrested for spying. /We discovered that our luggage had been stolen. /There is no disputing that the treaty is important./ I dont doubt that hell come./ He emphasized that careful driving was important. /Please ensure that all the lights are switched off at night. / It is envisaged that the motorway will be completed by next spring./ Weve established that hes innocent./ Council officials estimated that the work would take three months./ He had exclaimed that he had never even met her./ He explained that his train had been delayed. /He fancied that he heard footsteps behind him./He sometimes fantasized that he had won a gold medal. / He foresaw that the job would take a long time./ The teacher forecasts that only five of these pupils would pass the examination . / She's never a cheerful person, she always forebodes that the worst will happen./ The gypsy foretold that she would never marry. / He gestured that it was time to go./ They guarantee that the debts will be paid./Can you guess her age? Id guess that shes about thirty./I still hold that the governments economic policies are mistaken. /Copernicus hypothesized that the earth and the other planets went round the sun./ Are you implying that Im wrong?/ She indicated that I should wait a minute./ It can be inferred that the company is bankrupt. / Are you insinuating that I am a liar?/ He judged that it was time to leave. /They lamented that so many hedges had been destroyed. /Learn that its no use blaming other people ./ He has always maintained that he was not guilty of the crime./ I never meant that you should come alone. / It is worth mentioning that banks often close early before a holiday./ Mr Chairman, I move that a vote be taken on this. / She mumbled that she didnt want to get up yet. / He murmured that he wanted to sleep. / I objected that he was too young for the job. / She observed that hed left but made no comment. / Fate ordained that they would never meet again. / .She perceived that he was unhappy. / The union have pledged that they will never strike./ They prayed that she would recover.. / She predicted that the election result would be close. / I would prefer that you did not print this story./ Police regulations prescribe that an officers number must be clearly visible. / Approval of the plan presupposes that the money will be made available. / The doctor pronounce that he was fit enough to return to work. / She protested that she had never seen him before./ I read that he had resigned. / She reaffirmed that she was prepared to help. / She realized that he had been lying. / He reasoned that if we started at 6 am we would be there by midday. / He reasserted that all parties should be involved in the negotiations. / She recalled that he had left early that day. / They failed to recognize that there was a problem. / I recollect that you denied it./ I regret that I cannot help./ Let me reiterate that we are fully committed to this policy. / Remember (that) were going out tonight./ He replied that he was busy. / A special news bulletin reported that he had died. / He retorted that it was my fault as much as his. / I can now reveal that the Princess is to marry in August. / The chairman ruled that the question was out of order./.Semaphore that help is needed ./

55 COMPLEMENTATION Ellen shouted that she couldnt hear properly. / The figures clearly show that her claims are false. I could smell (that) he had been smoking./ The judge ruled that he must stop beating his wife. / I could smell that the milk wasn't fresh. /A police surgeon stated that the man had died from wounds to chest and head./ The job advertisement stipulated that all applicants should have at least 3 years experience. / I must stress that what I say is confidential./ The Counsel for the defence submitted that his client was clearly innocent. / His cool response suggested that he didnt like the idea. /I strongly suspect that they are trying to get rid of me. /She swore that shed never seen him. / He taught that the earth revolves around the sun./ The hijackers threatened that they would kill all the passengers if their demands were not met. /I trust (that) shes not seriously ill. / I quite understand that you need a change./ The computer will verify that the data has been loaded correctly. He vowed that one day he would return./ They verified that he was the true owner of the house. /In his latest book, he writes that the theory has since been disproved.

B We advised that they should start early.('recommended'). / I wish you hadnt told me all this. ./ I arranged that we could borrow their car. The regulations specify that calculators may no be used in the examination. / They requested that they free the hostages. / The situation requires that I (should) be there. /The law dictates that everyone be treated equally. /The court directed that he should pay a substantial fine./ I insist that you take immediate action to put this right. /The evening didnt turned out as I intended (that it should)./ I intend that you shall take over the business after me./ The judge ordered that the prisoner should be released./ It was proposed that membership fees should be increased. /A clause in the agreement provides that the tenant shall pay for repairs to the building. / She urged that there should be no violence during the demonstration./ Structural possibilities of realizing the complement construction, with a factive verb know (4) a. The police already know that Oliver is a spy. b. The police already know Oliver is a spy. c. That Oliver is a spy, the police already know t. d. The police have known it all along that Oliver is a spy e. That Oliver is a spy is already known by the police. f. It is already known by the police that Oliver is a spy. 2.1. THAT Deletion In what follows we will examine these patterns in turn. Sentences (4b) and (5) illustrate that Deletion. (5) a. I guess youre feeling tired after your journey. b. How dare you infer (that) she is dishonest?

The omission of that is an optional rule influenced by structural, lexical and register factors. In the previous chapter we have identified the structural constraints on that deletion: namely, it is impossible for subject and topicalized clauses (i.e., in preverbal position), but possible in postverbal position.

56 COMPLEMENTATION The lexical factor: selection of the appropriate verb: Only some verbs (listed in (2b) above) allow that Deletion. Here are a few examples in sentences: (6) The prisoner alleges he was at home on the night of the crime. I automatically assumed he had told her. /She still believe the world was flat. /I dare say you are British, but you still need a passport to prove it./ I dreamt I could fly. / I expect Ill be back on Sunday. / I fear he may die./ We all feel our luck was about to turn./ I figured you wouldnt come. / God / Heaven forbid (that) shes fallen down the cliff. Did you forget I was coming?/ I gather you wanted to see me./ I grant (that) shes a clever woman, but I wouldnt want to work for her. / I heard you were ill. / Imagine you are on a desert island./ She noted his hands were dirty./ I noticed (that) he left early. I own (that) it was entirely my fault. / I presume (that) you still want to come./ / I reckon (that) hes too old for the job./ Id recommend (that) you see a solicitor. / I know its not right for me to talk like this about my father. / She pretended (that) she was not at home when we rang the bell. / He said (that) his friends name was Sam. / Although she didnt say anything, I sensed (that) she didnt like the idea. / What makes you suppose (that) Im against it? / We can only surmise (that) he must have had an accident. / She felt she was on the way to worshipping him. Register In conversation, the omission of that is the norm, while the retention of that is exceptional. At the opposite end, the retention of that is the norm in academic prose. Several factors, midway between syntax and discourse, may favour the omission of that ( cf. Longman Grammar) :the use of frequent main verbs like think or say in the MC; b) the occurrence of a (coreferent) pronominal subject in the subordinate clause, marking the boundary of the clause: (7) a. I think I'll make a shopping list today. b. He said he probably would not have come back before President Gorbachev launched his perestroika policy.

Other factors that favour the retention of that. a) First that tends to be retained under co-ordination: (8) The major conclusion of both studies was that the nation and particularly the state of Florida must quickly reduce their large reliance on foreign oil and that conservation measures and increased reliance on the abundant national supply of coal were the major alternatives. b) A passive main clause also favours the retention of that (9) I was told that both the new right and those who support the government's view had been excluded. c) Proximity or distance to the main verb is also important. An intervening NP, PP, AdvP etc. favours the retention of that: (10) He testified under oath that he had not been at the scene of the crime 2.2. Topicalization. Direct Object clauses may be topicalized. They appear in sentence initial position, and represent known information with respect to previous discourse and with the rest of the complex sentence. (11) [That Oliver is a spy] the police have known all along t.

57 COMPLEMENTATION Technically, the topicalized clause moves to some left periphery position. Topicalization is an operator variable construction, which means that the trace left behind should be case-marked. When the topicalized clause is a Direct Object, the trace left behind is case-marked by the main clause verb. 2.3. Heavy NP Shift. The DO clause is focussed and thus undergo Heavy NP Shift, over a PP, or an AdvP. (12 ) Antonia suggested of her own accord [that she might go down and stay with Alexander at Rambers]./ He knew from experience[ that the boy hated being asked what he was reading]./ I think honestly [that this is a good thing]. d. You knew bloody well [that this would hurt me]./ She minded very much[ that he had not come]. I shall prove to you that the witness is lying. 2.4. Passivization. A direct object clause may be passivized as in (4e), (13a). Passive may combine with Extraposition, as in (13 b-e). (13) a. That he would let her do it sooner or later was expected by all of them. b. It was declared by my nurse first that I was destined to be unlucky in life, and secondly that I was privileged to see ghosts and spirits. c. It must be admitted that on this particular Sunday morning he had received and refused two invitations. d. It has been decided that the book should be revised. e. It was enacted that offenders be brought before Council 2.5. Clausal substitutes. With weak assertive verbs generally, but with other verbs as well ( e.g. know, declare), the DO clause may be replaced by so in addition to the prono-minal substitutes it/ that. So may be fronted, in operator position , as in (14c), and it appears in idiomatic constructions such as I told you so, etc. (14) a. Is he coming? I believe so. b. Will you be late? I expect so. c. Theyve split up or so Ive been told. d. He loves to say I told you so when things go wrong. 2.6. Object Extraposition This structure has already been discussed in detail. Three practical points have been established: a. This construction is possible when the pronoun it may be interpreted as designating an event, rather than merely a proposition. b. The CP is presupposed to be true, so that the verb either is factive or acquires a factive reading. (15) The police know it for a fact that he is a spy.

c. Thirdly, there is a class of idiomatic constructions where the extraposed construction is obligatory: have it that..., see to it that, take it from smb that, lay it down that, etc. The it+CP

58 COMPLEMENTATION structure is a means of recategorizing the verb, which turns into a clause-taking verb with a specialised meaning: (16) a. He has it that the trains are running late. b. The Madrid rumour will have it that the leading candidate to succeed Arias eventually would be Jose Maria Areilsa. c. Looking back on the scene, I felt admiration for the way in which from the start,Palmer took it that something catastrophic and irrevocable had occurred. /I take it you wont be coming to Sophies party. d. Take it from me hell be a millionaire before hes 30. e. It is laid down that all candidates must submit three copies of their dissertation. 3. Complex Predicates that select DO that clauses. Verbs takes a clausal DO and an IO or PO. They occur in the context [--DPPP] and are mostly 'communication' verbs. Many of these verbs show the Dative alternations. (24) They read the story to the child. They read the child the story.

The Longman Grammar mentions the following s verbs as registered in the pattern verb+ to NP + that clause, thus appearing in the prepositional Dative construction (25) (notably common verbs) :suggest, indicate, prove, cable, convey, demonstrate, pray, reveal, signify, submit, write; (other verbs) admit, announce, insist, acknowledge, boast, complain, concede, confess, confide, cry, declare, demonstrate, emphasize, explain, express, explicate, grant, hint, imply, mention, mutter, point out, proclaim, propose, radio, remark, recommend, reply, read, report, reveal, respond, repeat, shout, shriek, state, stress, swear, testify telephone, vow, whisper, fax, e-mail, etc Semantically , these are speech act verbs (e.g. announce, complain, confess, declare), manner of communication verbs shout, read, write) or instrumental communication verbs (telephone, cable, fax, etc) As shown in detail in Green (1974: 86), for some of these verb, the double object construction ( the Dative Movement structure) is marginal (e.g. explain, recommend, recount), and there are also quite a few verbs of communication which permit only the prepositional Dative construction (mention, mumble, admit, shriek, confess, declare, narrate, report, utter, voice, reveal, repeat, demonstrate, explicate, confide a.o.) Structural possibilities (strategies of observing end focus and end weight): (26) The double object construction a. They telegraphed us that father had died. (Lg) b. He cabled her that she should join him at once. c. She promised him that she'd never lie to him again. She promised me (that) she would be here. d. The thief signalled his friend that the police were coming. f. We radioed (them) that we were in trouble. g. Theyve told us (that) theyre not coming. (27) Heavy NP Shift a. They acknowledged to us that they were defeated.(Lg) b. Her face betrayed to an observer that she was seriously ill.(Lg) c. The priest preached to large crowds that God would soon destroy the evil world.

59 COMPLEMENTATION d. Ely confided to me that something out of this world had taken place. e. It was in vain to represent to her that some conveniences, teaperhaps included, resulted from this objectionable practice.(Di) g. The lawyer represented to the court that the defendant was mentally unstable h. She has intimated to us that she no longer wishes to be considered for the post. (28) Extraposition a. I explained it to John that the car was out of order. b. He owes it to his father's influence that the committee appointed to the position. / We owe it to our customers to give them the best possible service. c. I put it to you that he knew everything from the beginning. / I put it you that you are the only person who had a motive for the crime. (29) VP V0 CP VP V'

him to

that V0 PP he was explain to John wrong Passive variants In the prepositional constructions, the DO merges as the specifer of a lower verb shell, as in (29). The DO complement clause may be passivized in patterns with prepositional Datives. Passive may be accompanied by Extraposition ( and HNPS of the former object clause, as in (32)). (30) a. They suggested a good solution to us. b. A good solution was suggested to them by us. (31) a. They suggested to us that it might be better to wait. b. That it might be better to wait was suggested to us by them c. It was suggested to us by them that it might be better (32) a. It has often been said to the press that it was the African and Arabs who prevented Israel from becoming a member of the European regional group. The IO is also passivizable in the double object construction. (33) a. He was told that she had checked out of the hospital. (LONG) b. And worried executives of the Australian news network have been told that visas to Indonesian Timor, normally available within three days, will now take three weeks to process. Other verb classes In addition to the subclass of Dative Movement verbs, there are several verbs that take a clausal DO and a [+Human] PO: (34) blame, beg, ask, request, require, etc. (35) a. He blamed it on me that we had had an accident. b. I requested it of them. / c. I requested of him the she he ( should ) leave. d. I begged of them that I may be allowed to go. 4. That clauses as Subjects

60 COMPLEMENTATION Transitive psychological verbs These accept a clausal subject and an Experiencer Direct Object; (hence the name Object Experiencer verbs often attributed to them (Pesetsky (1997))). (36) alarm, amaze, anger, annoy, astonish, astound, attract, baffle, bedevil, boast, bother, bore, charm, cheer, calm, comfort, compliment, concern, confuse, delight, discourage, disgust, displease, dismay, distress, elate, embarrass, enchant, enrage, frighten, floor, gladden, gratify, nonplus, humble, hurt, horrify, insult, interest, imitate, madden, rattle, pain, please, relieve, sadden, satisfy, scare, sicken, soothe, surprise, sustain, tempt, torment, trouble. Structural possibilities (37) a. That nothing came out of it intrigues me. b. It intrigues me that nothing came out of it. c. I am intrigued that nothing came out of it.

Statistically extraposed clauses are by far more frequent, but topicalised subject clauses are nevertheless possible, even if infrequent Corpus examples: (38) Topic subject clause a. That she would press me to marry her was of course out of the question. b. That I could love such a person was a revelation and something of a triumph

(39)

Extraposition+It insertion a. It stirs me that I was thought worthy. b. I was very relieved that I had not sent her the first letter. c. It grieved him that his children were almost totally indifferent to this requirement. It amazed her that he was still alive. / It astonishes me that no one has thought of this before. / It bothers me that he can be so insensitive. / It concerns me that you no longer seem to care. / It frightens me that so many countries now possess nuclear weapons. / It grieves me to have to say it, but you have only yourself to blame. / It irritates me that I have to tidy up after others. / It maddens me that she was chosen instead of me! / It pains me to have to tell you this. / It peeves me that they are so unreliable. / It riles me that he wont agree. / It saddens me to see all their efforts wasted. / It staggers me that the government are doing nothing about it. / Would it surprise you that Im thinking of leaving? / It vexed her that she had forgotten Peters birthday. (40) Passive d. I was pleased that they had recognised my work / I was appalled that the fire was spreading so rapidly. / They were astounded that anyone could survive such a crash / He was disconcerted that the other guests were formally dressed. /I was gratified that they appreciated what I did for them. / He felt mortified that he hadnt been invited. 4.2. Ergative propositional verbs The following intransitive verbs also apparently select subject that-complements: seem, appear, turn out, come about, come to somebody that, emerge, happen, follow, occur, transpire. Some of these may also accept a prepositional indirect object, seem, occur, appear, happen. Here are examples:

61 COMPLEMENTATION

(41)

a. It turned out that she was a friend of my sister. b. It transpired that the gang had had a contact inside the bank.. c. It seems (to him) that she is right. d. Shes leaving. So it seems. e. It occurred to me that I might have made a mistake. f. It appears (to me)that there has been a mistake. g. It chanced that she was in when he called. h. It suddenly came to her that she had been wrong all along. i. It emerged that officials had taken bribes. j. It happened that she was out when I called. k. You havent got a pair of scissors in your bag, have you? Well, it so happens that I have. ( IDM it so happens that.) l. Shes not in the office but it doesnt necessarily follow that shes ill. Properties. Differences between seem verbs and surprise verbs(psych-verbs)

just

a. Seem verbs do not allow the topicalization of their CP complement. The only structure they accept is the it+CP ("extraposed") one: (42) a. It appears /seems /occurred to me that this is the beginning of a revolutionary process. b. *That this is the beginning of a revolutionary process appears / seems/ occurs to me. c. It surprised me that this is the beginning of a revolutionary process. d. That this is the beginning of a revolutionary process surprises me b. The subject position of surprise verbs may be occupied by a thematic DP, the subject position of appear verbs cannot be occupied by any lexical DP in a simple construction. (43) a. This attitude surprises me. b. * This attitude seems. This distribution suggests that the subject position of surprise verbs is thematic, while the subject position of seem verbs is non-thematic, therefore, accessible only to the expletive pronoun it. c. The DO position of the verb surprise is an Acc (usative) position, accessible to a DP. In contrast, in simple sentence constructions, the object position of seem cannot be occupied by a nominal, but only by the (caseless) adverbial clausal substitute so. In contrast, with Acc assigners like believe, which accept so as a clause substituete, so is in complementary distribution with it or this: (44) a. This surprises me. / b. *It seems that / this / c. It seems so. / d. I believe that /this/so. Result: The subject position of seem is non-thematic and the object position of seem is caseless. Such properties indicate that seem verbs are unaccusatives, whose unique clausal argument is internal (an object clause), as in (45). The expletive argument is inserted in Sepc IP to check the strong feature of Tense. (45) IP DP It I0 I VP

62 COMPLEMENTATION

V V0 s seem C0 that CP C IP he is late

The complement clause cannot be topicalized, since topicalization leaves behind a casemarked trace, and the internal argument of seem-verbs is not in a case position. 4.4. English also disposes of a fairly restricted class of ergative adjectives which select that complements: a) raising adjectives: certain, likely, unlikely, sure (These allow the Nom+Inf construction) (73) It is certain/ likley sure that john will win John is sure/ likley / certain [ t to win b) some other adjectives like possible, obvious: (74) a. It is obvious that he will win. b. It is possible that I'll pass the course. Evidence that the complement clause is an internal arguments. Subject raising: likely, sure, certain, unlikely (75) a. I'm likely to win. a. I am likely [ t to win b. He is certain to win. b. Only internal arguments may wh-move with a head, though, of course, they need not do so: (76) a. How likely that I'll be on time is it ? b. How possible for me to pass the course is it ? c. How certain/ obvious that he'll win is it ? c. Only internal arguments undergo ellipsis in as structures. These complements pass this test too. (77) a. If we are late, as is likely b. If we are late, as is possible... c. They'll pass, as was certain / obvious from the start. Since these adjectives are ergative, they will be analysed on the model of the appear verbs that have just been discussed. 4.6. Other verbs that take subject that-complements: unergative verbs, a few other (in)transitive verbs or verbal idioms: (78) strike smb as, dawn on smb, cross one's mind, enter smb's mind, attention, etc. escape smb's

(79) a. It never entered my mind that she would tell him about me. b. It might have escaped your notice that Ive been unusually busy recently c. It never crossed my mind that she might lose. d. It finally dawned on me that he had been lying all the time. e. It strikes me that nobody is really in favour of the changes 4.7. Subject that clauses also occur with the so-called bisentential verbs ( prove, show, imply, entail, indicate, mean, suggest, etc.), that is, verbs which accept clauses as both subjects and objects:

63 COMPLEMENTATION

(80) [That his fingerprints] were on her throat] shows/means/ proves/ entails [that he was unfond of her] Bisentential verbs are subject The Same Side Filter Constraint due to Ross (1973): (81) The Same Side Filter No sentence can have both complements of a bisentential verb on the same side of the verb. Extraposition is impossible for the subject clause of these verbs (82) That he was dripping wet proved that it had been raining. *It proved that it had ben raining that he was dripping.

Topicalization is impossible for the object clause of these verbs, since its outcome would place both complement of the verbs to the left of the main verb: (83) That her knife was bent demonstrated conclusively that she was guilty. *That she was guilty that her knife was bent demonstrated conclusively. 4.8. Unergative adjectives that occur with subject that clauses. Semantically they are modal or evaluative ( emotive). Quite a few of them may also take a prepositional Indirect Object with to, for, of . The clause is either topicalized or extraposed. (84) a. likely, unlikely, (un)certain, true, probable, (im)possible, feasible, etc; b. quaint, definite, doubtful, evident, odd, anomalous, appropriate, awkward, loathsome, ironical, burdensome, clever, considerable, fair, fine, fantastic, meet and proper, funny, fortunate, good, bad, helpful, important, immaterial, inconvenient, incredible, crucial, essential, lucky, sufficient, natural, normal, alarming, astonishing, surprising, insulting, gratifying, splendid, queer, etc. (85) a. That John won was essential ( to his wife). b. It was essential (to his wife) that John won.

The copula be takes an adjectival small clause. The finite clause is the subject of the small clause. The pronoun it in (85b) is an expletive place holder for the subject. The two clauses are represented below: (86) a. That John won was essential ( to his wife). b. TP CP That John won T' T0 V0 was CP tCP VP V' SC AP essential

(86) a. It was essential (to his wife) that John won. b. DP TP T'

64 COMPLEMENTATION It T0 V0 SC was Here are more examples. DP tit AP essential VP V' SC CP that John left

(87) a. It is also true that, by some metamorphosis brought about by its own violence, it can live on anything. b. It was evident in a way that it was almost consoling that Antonia Palmer were very much in love. c. It was immediately and indubitably apparent that I had interrupted a of lovers. d. It was ironical that a week ago I had seemed in secure possession two women. (88) a. It was evident to me that I had not yet accepted that I had lost her. b. That the candidate did not have the slightest chance of winning the election was now clear to everyone. c. It was clever of him that he waited. d. It's only incidental to our cause that the defendant is known to be a shrewd politician.

and scene of

4.9. Nouns mostly from the same semantic area as the predicates above can also be used as predicatives selecting subject that clauses: (89) problem, thing, fact, idea , impediment, surprise, miracle, (no) wonder, mystery, etc. (90) a. It's a wonder you weren't all killed. b. But it was a sad paradox of their relationship that Tim was continually trying to please Mary by a parade of his scanty learning. 5. That Complements as Prepositional Objects. 5.1. That clauses are also selected by prepositional Verbs and adjectives selecting prepositional that-complements. The complement clauses systematically alternates with a PP, as in (92). The expected patterns occur: that-omission, HNPS and (seldom) Extraposition from PO position (91)a. agree, argue, boast (about), brag (of, about), complain (of, about), fret (about), comment (on), rejoice (at), remark, marvel (at), resolve, respond, see to, testify (to), theorize (about, on), speculate (on), worry (about), wager (on), swear (to); ~IDM : cross ones fingers b. bet (on)conceive (of), insist (on), hope (for) learn (about, of). vote (for), wonder (at, about), (Verbs in B are marked in Longman (1978), as allowing That omission), etc (92) The company insists on the highest standards from its suppliers. / I insist that he did nothing wrong. / She was always bragging about her cottage in Italy. / They bragged that they had never been defeated. (93)He agreed that I could go home early. / I argued that we needed a larger office. / He boasted that he was the best player in the team. / Holiday-makers complained bitterly that the

65 COMPLEMENTATION resort was filthy. / Asked about the date of the election, the prime minister commented that no decision had yet been made. / Im crossing my fingers that my proposal will be accepted. / I often marvel that people can treat each other so badly. / Critics remarked that the play was not original. / We rejoiced that the war was over. / When asked for his reaction, he responded that he was not surprised. / She resolved that she would never see him again. / I can only speculate that he left willingly. / Id wager that she knows more than shes saying. That-omission (94) I bet he arrives late he always does. I vote we stay here. (no passive) I dont wonder you got angry I would have done too. HNPS He reflected sadly that he had probably made the wrong decision about the job.

(95)

(96) Extraposition a. Can you swear to it ? b. Can you swear that the accused man was at your home all Friday evening? c. Can you swear to it that the accused man was at your house all Friday evening ? e. You may depend upon it hat every member of the Committee will support your proposal.(Hb). f. I will answer for it that the man is honest. Please see to it that no one comes in without identification ( =obj= that clause) He testified to it that she had seen him leaving Transitive vs. Prepositional Verbs Although on the surface there is little difference between transitive and prepositional verbs when they select clauses so that certain grammarians prefer to lump them together (an examples is Longman Grammar (2000), there are significant distributional differences between a verb like remark, insist and a verb like believe a) Only the complement of a transitive verb undergoes topicalization. (97) a. That Bob had left he didn't believe. b. *That Bob had left, he didn't remark/ warn/ wonder. b) Only the complement of transitive verbs can passivize: (98) a. It was believed that Bob had managed to leave. b. *It was warned/ boasted that Bob had managed to leave In fact both topicalization and the passivization are possible if the verb surfaces with a preposition: (99) That they should go there at once was insisted on tCP by the police. That you may lose your fortune I surely worry about. The preposition also surfaces when there is Extrapostion from object position and it is also possible to have both extraposition and passive: (100) a. I will answer for it that we get there in time. b. It was strongly insisted on by all of them that you should do it as soon as possible. The different behaviour of transitive and prepositional verbs is expected. Thus, since Topicalization is an operator-variable rule, traces of the topicalized clause should be in a

66 COMPLEMENTATION position of case. When the verb is prepositional and the preposition is absent, topicalization is impossible 5.2. Adjectival selectors of that-clauses These adjectives subcategorize for [-PP/CP]. When the clause is topicalized, extraposed or cleft the obligatory preposition reappears, as seen in (108). Attested examples are given in (109). (107) afraid of / CP, alarmed at/CP, ashamed of/CP, amazed at /CP, annoyed at/ CP, aware of/CP, angry about /CP, concerned about/CP, conscious of/CP, desirous of/CP, delighted at/CP, glad about/CP, irritated at /CP, hopeful of/CP, indicative of/CP sorry for/CP, sure of/CP confident in /CP, certain of/CP, surprised at/CP, thankful for/CP, happy about/CP. (108) a. We are fully aware of the gravity of the situation. b. Are you aware that you are sitting on my hat ? c. I wasn't fully aware of it that things were so bad. d. What she is not aware of is that her slip is showing. (109) I was thankful that Sybil was so independent and self-sufficient. She was determined that there should be no repetition of the weakness and indecision of the day before 5.3. Transitive prepositional verbs, subcategorized for [- DPCP/PP] . The clause alternates with a prepositional phrase. Since the verbs are transitive, passive constructions are available, so that these verbs, listed in (110) realize the paradigm in (111): (110) advise NP of / that, accuse NP of/that, assure NP of/CP, congratulate NP on /CP, forewarn NP of /CP, charge NP wit /CP, flatter NP CP, kid NP CP, instruct NP in /CP, (mis)inform NP of/ CP, notify NP of /CP, persuade NP of/CP, convince NP of/NP, tip NP off/ that, warn NP of/CP (111) a He informed me of their willingness to help. b. He informed the manager that he was willing to work overtime. c. We were informed that very few children continue in church membership. (112) We were not advised that the date of the meeting had been changed. / What she said convinced me that I was wrong. / We are pleased to inform you that you have been accepted for a place on our MBA course / He kidded his mother that he was ill. / She finally persuaded us that she was telling the truth. / They warned her that if she did it again she would go to prison. / He notified us that he was going to leave. / How can Japan best convince the United States it isn't shirking its defences obligations? (113) Passive It is charged that on 30 November, the accuser made an important statement. He flatters himself that he speaks French well. / We had been forewarned that violence could occur. / We are instructed by our clients that you owe them $3 000. / The police were tipped off that the criminals were planning to rob the bank. (114) HNPS I assure you sincerely that there is no such possibility. 6. That clauses as noun modifier ( attributes) Two types of nouns may select that complements as their internal arguments; these are: a) nouns that name abstract entities: proposition, idea , fact, etc. b) nominalizations of the verbs

67 COMPLEMENTATION and adjectives that select that complements: belief, conception, fear, doubt, possibility, probability, etc. (115) a. I suppose there is no doubt that I'll get in. b. A the second glance, my mother had a sure foreboding that it was Miss Betsy. c. The most dramatic evidence that Thailand's rulers are finally making some headway came last week. Attributive clauses may undergo Extraposition from NP, being right adjoined to the VP: (116) An intoxicating sense tCP possessed me [ that at last we were treated terms]. 7. That clauses as predicatives on equal

That clauses may also function as predicatives in equative sentences, where the subject is a non-complex abstract NP or even a clause. (117) a. The devil of it was that I needed both of them. b. My second and more terrible apprehension was that I was in possession of an advantage which I must not lose. 8. That complements as adverbial clauses. General considerations on adverbial clauses. a) Adverbial clauses do not subcategorize predicates. Hence they seldom appear in headcomplement configurations. b) Adverbials are not pure grammatical relations like subjects and objects, but they contract syntactic-semantic relations with their heads (s-selection). Hence they are usually classified and interpreted in terms of the semantic notions they express, rather than in terms of their structural properties. Traditionally they are described as being formed of a subordinate conjunction (although, because), or a conjunctive phrase (with a view to, on condition that) or an adverb with conjunctive role (when, where), followed by a finite or non-finite clause. Categorial analysis Adverbials show very great categorial diversity. Simple adverbials are mainly AdvPs ( yesterday, there), and PPs ( in the evening), but also NPs (last night, next week). Complex adverbials are represented by various types of embedded clauses: that-complements, infinitives, free relative clauses, etc. In this section we examine that complements as part of adverbials. According to a categorial perspective, there are several models of adverbials that may have a that complement as a constituent. 7.1. The Prepositional Phrase model There are adverbial clauses which are generated under a prepositional phrase node. In most cases, the clause is traditionally said to be headed by a "conjunctive phrase". But the conjunctive phrase is in fact a PP, and the that clause is a complement to the noun introduced by the preposition. The meaning of the head noun roughly indicates the semantic interpretation of the clause. Thus, a conjunctive phrase like on the ground that introduces an

68 COMPLEMENTATION adverbial of reason, etc. At the same time, the meaning of the noun also dictates whether the indicative or the subjunctive is chosen in the that clause. Compare: (118) a. He didn't go there for fear that he should be caught. b. He did it in the hope that they would help him. The following are some of the PPs that may be used to introduce finite adverbial clauses: (119) for fear (that), on the ground that, in order that, to the end that, in the hope that, to the intent that, on purpose that, in case(that), in the event that, on/upon condition that, by reason that, etc.// except for the fact, but for the fact that, in spite of the fact that etc. (120) a. Wine is scarce by reason that it is prohibited. b. They dislike her on the ground that she is too haughty. c. I was sent to stay with my aunt Prue in London, in order that I might attend one of the schools of art. d. She sent me after you, for fear you should offend Mr. Pendennis. I know nothing about him, save for the fact that he is very young. Less frequently, the preposition is directly followed by a that complement clause. This possibility existed for many prepositions formerly, in other words many prepositions could select CPs, as remarked by Poutsma (1929: 657) :" Adverbial clauses are introduced by a great variety of conjunctions and conjunctive expressions, most of which, on being traced to their origin, will be found to consist of an adverbial adjunct followed by either that or as." Here are a few early Modern English examples, due to Poutsma (op.cit), where prepositions no longer followed by that in contemporary English, are followed by that clauses: (121) a. They were our guides at first, until that we reached the green hills. b. Before that Philip called the, I saw thee. c. Though that the queen on special cause is here, her army is moved on. / He could not be silent long, because that his troubles increased At present, most prepositions select IPs, rather than CPs. Surveying the list of English prepositions, allowing clausal complements, several subcategories appear to be available. There are prepositions that c-select DPs or IPs, [---DP], [---IP]; this is a well-represented group: after, before, until, till, since (temporal) (see examples in (122)). There are some prepositions (e.g., because) which c- select both PPs and IPs, [--PP], [--IP] ( examples in (123)). There are many prepositions which c-select only IPs, i.e. they are always "conjunctions", [--IP]; for instance, as, although, if, though, unless, lest, since (causal) ( examples in (124). Finally, there are a few prepositions that still allow CPs, or both CPs and IPs [--CP]: in that, beyond that, save (that), except( that), besides that, but that, a.o. (122) He left after her arrival / after she arrived. Come before noon. He came before Jane left for London. (123) I did it because of my temper / because I was very angry. (124) Although he is poor, he is happy. / Unless I hear the contrary, I'll be there. / One day she spoke out, as she had told Sam she would if Matt and his lot kept bellyaching about his Squire. / I'm sure of that, though she never said it in so many words./ Since these men could not be convinced, it was determined that they would be persecuted. (125) a. You can find one reason in that she was too tired to do it. b. I can say no more beyond that you have made me inexpressibly happy. A few conjunctive connectors are composed of a specifying adverb followed by the a preposition, only if, even though, even if, or one preposition may take a PP complement as in: as if, as though, as to (126) I could be happy, if only I could get out of this place. /You look as if you've been running../ Why is she looking at me as though she knew me ? Even though I didn't know anybody at the party, I had a good time. 7.3 A number of verb-based prepositions are also available, derived from present or past participles, but entered in the lexicon as prepositions. They inherit the c-selection properties

69 COMPLEMENTATION of the verbs and select that complements: provided that, providing that, concerning that, given that, supposing that, suppose that, excepting that, granting that, etc. (127) Provided that all is safe, you may depart./You can find no reason excepting that he is young and shy./Supposing that) you fell in love with your boss, what would you do? You can borrow my bike providing that you bring it back. 7.4. The Degree Phrase model That clauses often function as result clauses. Finite result clauses employ the degree determiners so with adjectives and adverbs and such with DPs, in the illustrated in (128). Result clauses presuppose the presence of gradable predicate / property ( adjectives, adverbs, a few nouns like fool, etc.), manifested in such high degree ( so, such) that a certain result follows ( the complement clause).: (128) He is so old that he cannot dance the polka. He was so wild that we let him escape. It flies so fast that it can beat the speed record. I enjoyed it so much that I'm determined to do it again. I so much enjoyed it that I am determined to do it again. He polishes the floor so hard that you could see your face in it. It's such a good chance that we mustn't miss it. He is such a liar that nobody believes him any more. Notice that the gradual predicate may be missing, and in such cases, the degree determiner such appears with an ungradable noun, and some suitable adjective is implicit in the context. Thus such a girl in (129a) presumably means 'nice girl', 'sweet girl', etc.: (129) a. She is such a girl that we can't help loving her. b. He has lived such a life that he cannot expect sympathy now. It is also possible for such to function as a predicative adjective. Again another adjective is implicit, and such+ the implicit adjective refer to the subject DP. (130) a. The nature of power is such that even those who have not sought it, tend to acquire a taste for more. b. His answer was such that we could not doubt his veracity. Finally notice that the complement clause itself may originate inside such an adjectival phrase with an implicit head. (131) He gave an answer, such that we could not doubt his veracity. THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN THAT CLAUSES 1.On the concept of modality. Traditional grammarians have long noticed that the opposition between the indicative and the subjunctive mood is semantic, each grammatical form being suitable in a coherent class of contexts. Curme (1931) opposed the two moods as representing the mood of fact (=the indicative) vs. the mood of a mere conception of the mind (= the subjunctive). More recently (cf. Farkas (1985), Boskovics (1997)) a.o) a widespread semantic account claims that the indicative is the mood of realis contexts, whereas the subjunctive is the mood of irrealis contexts. 1.1. Mood and modality. The basic assumption is that the grammatical category of Mood is one way of expressing the general notion of modality. Modal attitudes and concepts are variously expressed by lexical

70 COMPLEMENTATION means (verbs, adjectives), as well as by functional elements such as the English modal verbs or the grammatical moods of the verb. The logical notion of modality presupposes the existence of modal operators. A modal operator is one which, when it is appended to a proposition, yields another proposition. Roughly speaking, the modal operator expresses an attitude towards the operand proposition. Thus, in all the examples below, the modal operators (italicized) express attitudes towards the proposition Tom is the murderer. Conversation unfolds against a common ground, i.e., the set of propositions taken for granted in a context. Let us refer to this as the conversational background. The propositions in the conversational background play an important role in human reasoning, since they are taken as implicit premises in the judgements speakers make. These implicit premises are sometimes explicitly signalled by using phrases of the type: by virtue of what is known, by virtue of what is reasonable, etc. The propositions in the conversational background determine a set of contexts worlds, containing all the worlds in which these propositions are true. (1) a. Tom is the murderer. b. Tom must be the murderer. c. Tom might be the murderer. d. It is believed by the police that Tom is the murderer (but they are wrong). e. It is possible that Tom is the murderer. f. Necessarily, Tom is the murderer. g. The police declared that Tom was the murderer. Some key notions of modal semantics

Consider now the interpretation of the examples in (1 a-g). In uttering (1a), the speaker makes an (unmodalized) assertion. His statement expresses a commitment that the proposition that Tom is the murderer is true in the real world. Sentence (1a) must also be true in all of the context worlds, determined by the conversational background. In contrast to (1a), sentences (1b) and (1c) contain modal operators and express modalized assertions. Sentences (1b) and (1c) are conclusions that the speaker may draw on the basis of what is known in the context. Therefore they rely on an epistemic conversational background. Sentences (1b) and (1c) differ regarding the strength of the conclusion. Sentence (1c), containing the modal might, says that given what is known, it is not impossible for Tom to be the murderer. For (1c) to be true it is enough that the proposition that Tom is the murderer should be true in one world consistent with what is known. A similar idea is expressed in (1e), which has truth conditions quite similar to (1c), except that the modal operator is the adjective possible. In contrast, for (1b) to be true, given what is known in the current situation, the proposition Tom is the murderer must be true in all the worlds which are epistemically possible, i.e., in agreement with what is known. These examples show what ingredients are involved in the interpretation of modalized assertions (cf. Kratzer (1981), (1991)): first, there is a conversational background which contributes the premises from which the conclusions are drawn. In the examples above, the conversational background was epistemic, since the evidence involved in drawing the modalized conclusions represented what was known in the context. The background (i.e., the set of premises (propositions) made use of in the modal judgement) determines the set of worlds with respect to which the truth of the modalized proposition is evaluated. A modal base is the set of worlds where all the premises considered true in the modal inference are true. The term modal base is thus a more technical term for 'type of conversational background', since the modal base is the set of worlds where all the propositions considered as premises in the modal inference are true. A second ingredient in interpreting modality is the modal relation, which determines the force of the conclusions drawn with respect to some background or modal base. If the modal

71 COMPLEMENTATION base is epistemic, the modal relation differentiates between epistemic possibility (might, possibly) and epistemic necessity (must, in the examples discussed ). In sentence (1d), the modal base introduced by the modal operator believe is doxastic; it includes the propositions which are believed to be true by the police. Sentence (1d) is true if the proposition that Tom is the murderer is true in those worlds which are consistent with the police's beliefs. Notice, as suggested by the bracketed continuation in (1d), that what is believed by the police does not have to be true in the real world. Thus, more generally, the modal base may or may not include the real world. Modal operators express different types of commitments to the truth of the modalized proposition. What changes is the type of world or situation where the modalized proposition is evaluated (e.g., worlds compatible with what is known, worlds compatible with what someone believes, etc.). The modality of the sentence thus signals the context of evaluation of the modalized proposition, a context which is determined at least in part by the modal operator. Types of modal base A conversational background or modal base is realistic when it represents a set of propositions which are true in the given world. It follows that a realistic conversational background is a subset of the common ground. It is signalled by phrases like, in view of facts of such and such kind. A modal base or conversational background is totally realistic when it represents a set of propositions which characterize the given world uniquely. Such a background may be signalled by expressions like in view of what is the case, etc. It is important to notice that asserted propositions like (1a) are evaluated with respect to a totally realistic background. A weakly realistic conversational background is a set of propositions that merely has an intersection with the common ground. Such is the context created by the verbs like say, declare, as in (1g)), because what we say or declare is not completely based on what is known to be true in the context. The ordering source A particularly salient ingredient in interpreting modality is that it may have, and often does have, a strong normative component. People reason function of ideals which represent perfect behaviour, the realization of all one's wishes etc. This is typically the case of modal operators like want, wish, desire, prefer, etc., but also of deontic modal verbs like should, ought, may . (2) a. Students should be polite to their professors. b. One ought to do one's duty. c. They prefer that the building should be restored at once.

Such modal operators not only introduce a set of alternatives, but also order them function of how close they come to the envisaged ideals. Modal judgements of these type imply not only a modal base (a set of alternative worlds), but also an ordering source, i.e., a set of principles /propositions imposing an ordering among the considered alternatives. Ordering sources capture the observation that the understanding of a modalised sentence often implies the use of idealised states of affairs, describing the world as it should be (according to the law, according to the normal course of events, according to what is desirable, etc.). An ordering source, which is also a set of propositions describing the ideal, orders the worlds in the modal base according to the degree in which they realise the ideal described by the ordering source itself. Ordering sources may be explicitly introduced by such phrases as, in view of what is normal, according to the law, etc. Worlds in the modal base are ordered according to how many propositions in the ordering source (in the ideal) they realise, i.e., how close they get to the ideal.

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

73 COMPLEMENTATION source, to contexts which take into account only what is the case in the particular context of utterance. (3) non-null > non-realistic > weakly realistic > realistic> totally realistic ordering base.

Grammatical mood, the indicative/subjunctive divide, corresponds to a simplification of such a classification into a binary one. Contexts of evaluation similar to the standard one require the indicative, whereas those classified as different require the subjunctive. Similarity to the basic context is, expectedly, a matter of degree. This is why, crosslinguistically, there are a number of contexts where the indicative is consistently used across languages and there are also contexts where the subjunctive is used, likewise, consistently. 3. Operator licensed and lexically licensed subjunctive. Generally the occurrence of the subjunctive in a sentence is the effect of the (implicit or explicit) presence of a modal operators. Modal operators may be lexical categories (verbs, adjectives, nouns) or they may be functional categories, such as negation. (4) a. b. They require that new solutions should be sought. I don't believe that he should win the competition

As a result, there is a distinction between lexically licensed subjunctive and operator licensed subjunctive. Since we are interested in mood choice in subordinate clauses, we shall mostly be concerned with the lexically licensed subjunctive, since it is the main verb which is the modal operator chiefly responsible for the selection of a particular modal base and ordering source, determining the context of evaluation for the subordinate clause. 3.1. Lexical licensers of modality. Strong and Weak Intensional Verbs To understand why the subjunctive and the indicative appear where they do a classification of the subordinate contexts is needed, function of the semantics of the main verbs. The semantic mechanism is, roughly, the following: the modal operator, i.e. the main verb, determines the context of evaluation, and the context of evaluation is signalled by the choice of grammatical mood (indicative vs. subjunctive). Several semantic features which may characterise verbal concepts prove to be relevant in classifying of evaluation contexts and thus in determining mood choice. Farkas (1982) offers an insightful characterization of the difference between verb like believe, hope which use the indicative, even though they express modal concepts, and verbs like desire, wish, which use the subjunctive. Verbs like believe, hope are labelled weak intensional. They may be said to introduce just one alternative to the context-world, that possible situation/world where the proposition believed or hoped for is true. Since normativity (=an ordering source) is not involved, it is not necessary to introduce an ordering on possible worlds, so one alternative course of affairs is sufficient. On the other hand, verbs like desire, wish, prefer are strong intensional verbs. They introduce ideals and thus impose an ordering on the alternative courses of affairs. Talk in terms of ordering implies the existence of more

74 COMPLEMENTATION than on possible world. Weak intensional verbs often use the indicative, strong intensional verbs employ the subjunctive. The distribution of the Indicative and the Subjunctive in English 3.2 Indicative triggers a) The indicative is typically the mood of root non-modalised assertions. In such cases the modal base is totally realistic. (5) Tom was here. b) Expectedly, clauses embedded under assertive verbs, i.e., clauses whose complements make assertions (truth claims) also select the indicative. These verbs are weak intensional. The main verb introduces one world, in which the complement is evaluated. The intersection of this world with the common background is non-null, so that the modal base is weakly realistic. The ordering base is null. Using the terms of Farkas (1982), these verbs, even if they are modal operators, are extensionally anchored, i.e. they introduce one world with respect to which the complement is evaluated, and in which the complement clause is true. In English, all assertive verbs (strong assertive, semi factive and weak assertive verbs) select the indicative, since, as explained, they are weak intensional verbs, extensionally anchored. (6) They have just reported that the enemy has been defeated. (strong assertive verb) They claim that the enemy has been defeated. (7) They have realized that they are defeated. (semi-factive verb) They have discovered that they have been defeated. (8) They believe that they will win. (weak assertive verb) The indicative appears to be the mood of assertion ( see Quirk e.a. (1972)). Several characteristics follow from this characterization. The indicative is factual, descriptive, presenting the world " as it is". Indicative propositions are typical for informative, referential discourse. Indicative tenses are deictic, directly or indirectly placing an event in real time, as discussed above. 3.3 Subjunctive triggers At the other end of the mood scale one finds verb classes which always select subjunctive complements. The semantic characteristic of these verbs is that their complements are evaluated with respect to non-realistic backgrounds, involving non-null ordering bases. Since the ordering bases is non-null, more than one alternative to the actual world is taken into account and these alternatives differ in terms of how close they are to moral, legal, etc., ideals and norms. The most general single meaning associated with the subjunctive in argument clauses (cf. Portner (1994)) is thus a very general notion of normativity, incorporating the senses 'ought to be' (desirability) and 'ought to do' (obligation)". Compare the following examples in American English, showing contrasting mood choices: (9) (10) a. They hope that he will be here. b. * They hope that he be there. a. *They desire that he is here. a.'*They desire that he will be here. b. They desire that he be here.

Hope, an indicative selector, differs from desire. It is possible to hope only as long as one still believes there is a chance of satisfaction. In other words, the modal base of hope intersects with the common ground, with what is known to be possible in the real world. Hope requires a weakly realistic modal basis and this explains why the indicative is used. Additionally an act of hoping is also a situation in which something is obliged. The mandative subjunctive

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

(LG) (15) He demands that he be told everything. (ALD) Is it ordained in heaven that women should work in the home (ALD) These sentences report exercitive acts, acts whose point is to bring about the fulfilment of some volitional act denoted by the complement clause and carried out by an explicit or implicit Agent in the subordinate clause. There are a number of constraints on the propositional content of the complement clause. The verb in the complement clause should be non-stative, and should denote a volitional, controllable act of an Agent. The time sphere of the complement is future. These explain why sentences (16b, c) are ungrammatical:

76 COMPLEMENTATION (16) a. He ordered that she should leave b. *He ordered that she should grow taller. c. *He ordered that she should have left.

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

77 COMPLEMENTATION Volitional verbs, like exercitive verbs may be described as strong intensional verbs. They introduce set of alternative worlds, ordered function of the ideal of what is wanted, intended, prepared, etc. The complement clause is evaluated with respect to these alternatives, not with respect to the real world. The normative, ideal semantic component is again clear, which is why volitional verbs select the subjunctive cross-linguistically.(Giorgi & Pianesi (1997)). 3.4. Dual mood choice While so far we have examined only predicates that consistently select one mood, there are also many predicates which systematically allow either mood. The interpretation of the two moods is clearly different, and follows from the semantics of the two moods, as described above. a. Verbs of communication (23) agree, tell, say, confess, declare, explain, suggest, inform, point out, write, telephone, convince, persuade, repeat, remark, state, warn, etc. When the complement clause is in the indicative, these verbs are used as (strong) assertive verbs, the complement clause makes an assertion, and there are no constraints on the propositional content of the complement clause. It is interpreted in a weakly realistic background, since the verb is extensionally anchored. This use of the verbs is the one described in 3.1. above. When they are used with the subjunctive, they are interpreted as exercitive verbs. Since they become exercitive verbs, in this use, they observe all the constraints mentioned above for exercitive verbs: The complement clause should denote a volitional act, controlled by an Agent. If there is a direct or indirect object, it is either coreferential with the Agent in the subordinate clause, or at least understood as responsible for fulfilment of the action in the complement clause. These differences are clearly brought out by pairs of examples like the following: (24) a .I told / convinced Maryi that shei should go to that conference a' * I told / convinced Maryi that should be tall. b. I told / convinced Mary that Paul was right. c. I told / convinced Maryi that she should go to the conference. (25) a. I insist that the concert finished at ten (=I claim that it is true that it finished at ten). b. I insist that the concert should finish at ten ( I demand that it should finish at ten) In (24a) the verb is exercitive, the act is felicitous if in some future course of action Mary goes to that conference. Should is a subjunctive auxiliary in this case. The predicate in the complement clause is non-stative. The referent of the direct object, Mary is responsible for fulfilment of the action in the complement clause. In (24b, c) the main verb is assertive and takes the indicative mood. In (24b) the assertion in the subordinate clause is not modalised, in (24c), there is a modal assertion, should is interpreted as a deontic modal operator. Here are some more examples: (26) a. Bill told Suzy that she should go to the dentist's. b) Mother convinced me that I should keep indoors another day. c. The secretary informed the students that they should take the final test on the 25th of May. b) Evaluative predicates/ emotive predicates b1) Non -factive emotives. This semantic class includes a large number of adjectives that take subject clauses, and express evaluative modalities: good, bad, right, wrong, best, better,

78 COMPLEMENTATION essential, legal, moral, natural, normal, urgent, vital, inconvenient, troublesome, unlikely , LOG amazing, anomalous, astonishing, awful, annoying, etc., natural, neat , nice, notable, noteworthy, okay, (un)lucky, paradoxical, peculiar, preferable, ridiculous, silly, untypical, unfair, understandable, upsetting, wonderful. There is also a group of 'importance adjectives": advisable, critical, crucial, desirable, essential, fitting, imperative, important, necessary, obligatory, vital, etc. b2) Factive emotives fall into several syntactic classes: emotive factive adjectives: odd, tragic, quaint, crazy, bizarre, amazing, surprising, bothersome, etc.; emotive subject-clause taking verbs: amaze, alarm, surprise, bother, annoy, irritate, astound, disturb, etc.; transitive emotive verbs: regret, resent, deplore, etc. Interestingly, in English, all emotive predicates, factive and non-factive alike, exhibit double mood selection. This possibility, which is attested cross-linguistically, is inherent in the semantic make-up of evaluative predicates. The meaning of an emotive predicate may be decomposed into a descriptive component and an evaluative, normative component (cf. Hare (1952)). Emotive predicates are descriptive by virtue of our knowledge of the adequate standards of functioning or behaviour which entitle us to speak about 'a good deed', 'a right decision', 'a good car'. In terms of the analysis adopted here, given their descriptive meaning, the complements of evaluative predicates may always be interpreted against a weakly realistic epistemic modal base, and are thus extensionally anchored predicates. Hence the use of the indicative

But these predicates also express normative concepts through the implicit commending or condemning attitude that they express. When one commends or condemns anything, it is always against standards and ideals, and one does so in order to guide choices (usually of action) of one's own or of other people. In other words, these predicates may make reference to ideals and norms, and when the subjunctive is used, normative judgements are made explicitly. Choice of the subjunctive over the indicative stresses the prescriptive, normative component in the meaning of the emotive predicates. The contrast can best be appreciated in pairs of the following type: (30) a. It is best that he is going there alone. b. It is best that he should be going there alone. (31) a. It is important/ essential that this book is being written. b. It is important / essential that this book should be published. (32) a. It is very natural that he should wish to meet her. b. But it was essential in her father's view that this affair should reach its climax in London. c. It was important to them that I should let them off morally, that I should spare them the necessity of being ruthless. The Longman Grammar also mentions (2000: 673, 674) that affective /evaluative adjectives, as well as, necessity and importance adjectives accept the subjunctive with should , as well as the uninflected subjunctive. These forms are most common in academic prose:

79 COMPLEMENTATION (33) It is sensible that the breeding animals receive the highest protection. It is preferable that the marked cells should be identical in their the unmarked cells. (34)

behaviour to

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

Thus in a sense the use of the subjunctive signals the absence of factivity, or rather it signals lack of concern for what is actual. The judgement is evaluative, not descriptive. As aptly

80 COMPLEMENTATION expressed by Curme (1947) " even when the subjunctive is used of actual facts, it presents them as conceptions of the mind, as general principles rather than facts." 3.5 Operator licensed subjunctives. The subjunctive may also be licensed by other operators, such as negation, the question operator, etc. (cf. Quer (1998), Giorgi & Pianesi (1997)) Thus in the example below, the subjunctive is triggered by negation, rather than by the main verb, as shown by the difference between the affirmative sentence and its negative counterpart: (39) I believe that he is here. /* I believe that he should be here. I don't believe that he should be here./ I don't believe that he is here.

In this paragraph we examine the effect of mood shift with the polarity subjunctive, and then present a group of verbs for which the use of the subjunctive in the complement clause has the same effect as that of the polarity subjunctive (40) a. The dean does not believe that the students should deserve a prize, but I do. b. ?The dean does not believe that the students should deserve a prize, and neither do I (41) a. They do not believe that Godot should come. b. They do not believe that Godot will come. Quer comments that there is a difference between such pairs. When the indicative is used, the presuppositions of the complement sentence normally become part of the common ground. When the subjunctive is used the presuppositions of the complement clause are not accepted as common ground presuppositions. The use of the subjunctive signals that the complement proposition is contrary to the common ground expectations or presuppositions. This is the so called contrary to expectations subjunctive. The contrary to expectations subjunctive is found not only with negation, but also with lexical predicates that include an element of doubt, uncertainty, implicit negation, such as: doubt, think, believe, matter, fancy, imagine, complain, reproach, etc. But this subjunctive also may appear with verbs that fail to express uncertainty, to suggest that the complement clause is contrary to the presuppositions in the common ground. Here are examples: (42) a. And that you should deceive me well, I don't exactly understand imagine it. b. It doesn't matter that Max should have bought a Cadillac. c. To think that he should have done it at last! d. I doubt that he should succeed. Conclusions it, but I can

1. The indicative and the subjunctive represent the main propositional modalities of English. Each of the two grammatical moods is associated with a semantic content that limits its distribution. 2 Grammatical mood is (one of ) the linguistic manifestation(s) of semantic modality. The indicative/ subjunctive dichotomy represents a binary classification of the contexts with respect to which propositions are evaluated. The contexts are classified function of a basic designated one, identifiable as that of basic simple assertion. In this case the base is totally

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

82 COMPLEMENTATION of Accusative case to the infinitive subject. The existence of a specific lexical complementizer indicates that at least in these cases infinitive complements are CPs. (5) a. I hope for him to win the presidential race. a' I hope [CP FOR [IP him TO win the presidential race]] b. They arranged for the woman to get the best medical treatment. b'. They arranged [CP FOR [IP the woman TO get the best medical treatment]]. The for-to construction appears in the same environments as the PRO-to, moreover, the temporal-modal interpretation of for-to resembles that of the PRO-to. Both are often equivalent to subjunctive finite complements. (6) a. He decided [PRO to go] a'. He decided that he should go. b. They convinced them to pull down the old building. b' They convinced then that they should pull down the old building. c) Nom + Inf//Acc + Inf A third possibility is that the infinitive clause may have its expressed lexical subject, but this subject surfaces in the main clause either as the main clause subject (= the Nominative + Infinitive construction) or as the main clause object (= the Accusative + Infinitive construction). (7) Melvin appears to speak fluent Japanese. (Nominative + Infinitive) It appears that Melvin speaks fluent Japanese. (8) They proved him irrefutably to be the liar. (Accusative + Infinitive) They proved irrefutably that he was a liar. These two constructions (i.e., the Nominative + Infinitive and the Accusative + Infinitive) are known as the raising infinitive constructions. They are selected by a limited number of R(aising) - triggers. Since the possibility of the construction depends on the lexical properties of the matrix predicate, these constructions are said to be lexically governed. The modal/ temporal properties of raising infinitive clauses also differ from those of control clauses. While (most) control constructions accept subjunctive paraphrases, (most) raising constructions take indicative paraphrases, as the examples above indicate. 3. On the functional structure of the infinitive clause Though it cannot express deictic tense, the infinitive clause may express a different time sphere from the main clause; this suggests the presence of a [+Tense] feature, and of a T head in the infinitive clause, so that infinitive clauses are at least TP / IP projections. (10) a. Now he claims to have lost his car keys yesterday. b. Yesterday, he decided to sell the car (in a month). Even if the infinitive clause may contain a [+Tense] feature under the T head, the absence of the specific [+Present] / [+Past] features makes impossible the occurrence of modal verbs in infinitive clauses, since modal verbs are defective; they come from the lexicon specified as [+Present] or [+Past] and must check these features. Infinitive clauses retain aspectual distinctions, perfect, progressive, perfect progressive. The infinitive clause has all aspect related functional heads. (11) a. It was a triumph to have performed the play on fifty consecutive nights. b. He had expected her to be reading at the time. c. He had expected her to have been reading at the time. The presence of aspectual auxiliaries confirms the existence of a T-chain in the infinitive clause. (cf. Gueron & Hoeckstra (1995)), as well as the existence of a syntactic T position. 3.1. The negation of the infinitive clause. There are two positions of the negative adverb not with respect to the marker to: a) The regular position of not is before to.

83 COMPLEMENTATION (12) a. You appear to me not to quite know what you are talking about. b. To be or not to be, that is the question. b) There is a second, non-standard, place for negation, a "split" infinitive position, where not appears between to and the verb. (13) a. There can be nothing to not / never talk about between us. b. I shall pledge myself to not inform on them. 3.2. The position of Auxiliary adverbs in infinitive clauses. English has a well-known class of auxiliary adverbs (ever, already, always, still, just, merely, utterly, etc). In finite clauses these adverbs appear adjoined to the main verb, or to any functional projection of the verb. (18) a. John already has been reading for an hour. (TP adjunction) b. John has already been reading for an hour. (AspP adjunction) c. John has already read this novel. (VP adjunction) Expectedly, their distribution is similar in infinitive clauses. In clauses that lack auxiliary verbs, the adverbs either precede or follow the T/M marker to. When the adverb appears between to and the verb, the structure is known as the "split infinitive". (19) Unsplit infinitive a. The girl seemed [T/MP always [T/MP to be in half mourning]]. Split Infinitive b. I undertook to partially fill up the office of parish clerk. c. The tendency of the study of science is to utterly uproot such notions. d. Ask Lucas to kindly make me a sandwich. e. They want to nobly stem tyrannic pride. The same distribution obtains in sentences with auxiliary verbs. The adverb adjoins to TP, to any AspP or AuxP or to the VP. (20) a. The former I do not remember [ever [T/MP to have seen]]. b. She seems always to have been happy. c. Life's aim is simply to be always looking for temptations. d. She seems to have always been admired. 4. The syntax of for-to complements. The categorial status of infinitive clauses The syntax of the for-to complex is not devoid of problems. The main issues to discuss are the following: 1) the status of for and, therefore, the categorial status of the for-to complement; 2) case-checking of the subject; 3) the semantics of for-to complements. 4.1. The status of for In Modern English, for is prepositional complementizer. a. It is bad for you to smoke. The role it serves is that of case licensing the subject. As is probably clear, this is a standard example of structural case checking. 4.2. The structure of the for-to clause Consider the following examples: (30) For him to do it on his own would be impossible. For the students all to accept this would be an error. (31) For him to have done that on his own is impossible. For him not to accept the truth would be an error. (32) CP C' 0 C TP for DP T'

84 COMPLEMENTATION the students T0 to

VP QP all

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

85 COMPLEMENTATION states of affairs as complements (the case of emotive verbs) or else are themselves used generically. (34) Irrealis / generic infinitive clauses. a. I would like (very much) for Sue to buy this book. [irrealis] b. I always prefer for my students to buy their own books [generic matrix] c. Bill would hate (it) for Mary to learn about her misfortune. [irrealis] d. Bill hates (it) for people to learn about their misfortunes. [generic matrix] For-to is excluded with realis complements, where the matrix has an episodic past reading and the main verb is factive or implicative: (35) # FOR non-generic matrix factive/implicative complement. #Bill hated (it) for Mary to know French. As with that complements, it has been argued by Pesetsky that the complementizer for lexicalizes an uninterpretable Tense feature in C0. The fact that for is a mark of tense, and that for-to complements have a T feature explains why, with the appropriate types of verbs for-to may appear in subject position, in SpecT. (36) a. For him not to confess the truth would be at once idle and perilous. 5. Licensing PRO: PRO has null case. Recall that phonologically realized DPs have case. A property of PRO is that it occurs in positions where lexical DPs are forbidden. This suggested that PRO occurs in caseless positions (caseless because they were ungoverned. (40) a. Romario tried to [PRO to score the winning goal]. b. *Romario tried [Bebeto to score the winning goal]] To simplify the theory, Chomsky & Lasnik (1993) propose a compromise: like any DP, PRO needs Case in order to be visible and interpretable at LF. They assume that non-finite Tense can check only null Case, so PRO is assigned null Case. Being a "minimal" pronoun, PRO is the only formative compatible with this type of case, which is not accepted by lexical DPs. Expectedly, PRO is excluded from regular case -marked positions, since it is incompatible with other types of case. Therefore, PRO and lexical DPs are (nearly always) in complementary distribution, as in (40). 6. On the modal temporal properties of the infinitive 6.1. The Contexts of evaluation scale (56) non-null > non-realistic > weakly realistic > realistic > totally realistic ordering base Grammatical mood roughly corresponds to a simplification of such a classification into a binary one. Contexts of evaluation similar to the standard one require the indicative, whereas those classified as different require a non-indicative mood, the subjunctive or the infinitive. The expectation of such a point of view is that each non-indicative mood is associated with a continuous segment of this hierarchy. It is indeed true, as will be seen soon, that the infinitive and the subjunctive cover continuous segments of this hierarchy, though they do not cover the same portion of the hierarchy, opposing the indicative mood in different ways. In addition to the type of evaluation setting presupposed, the infinitive and the subjunctive also differ as to finiteness, and perhaps other features as well. Before examining the type of evaluation setting presupposed by infinitive complements, it is important to recall an important classification of main predicates, into weak intensional verbs and strong intensional verbs (cf. Farkas (1994)). Weak intensional predicates include epistemic verbs (know, understand, etc), doxastic verbs (think, believe, consider, etc), dicendi verbs (say, tell, assert, etc), commissive (promising) verbs (promise, swear, etc.). These verbs are modal operators which introduce only one possible situation or possible world into the context; it is in this world that the complement

86 COMPLEMENTATION clause is supposed to be true. The complement proposition is said to be extensionally anchored, because its truth is believed or implied (determined) in the possible world introduced by the verb. In such cases the ordering source is null, since one obviously cannot order a set containing only one world. Moreover the set of propositions true in the possible world i.e., what is known, thought, communicated, etc.) always intersects with the common ground. In other words what is known is part of what is true, what is believed is in part what is true etc. The evaluation context presupposed is weakly realistic. Notice that since a weakly realistic evaluation context is close enough to a totally realistic one, the complement clause of these verbs may use the indicative mood, even if the verbs are intensional modal operators: (57) He believes / knows / says / promises that he will win. Let us assume that in complements of weakly intensional verbs, the Inflection (finite or nonfinite) head bears a [+realis] feature. The finite [+realis] feature is standardly associated with the indicative, i.e., with truth in the actual world. Strong intensional verbs, introduce a set of possible worlds, necessarily constrained by some ordering source. Strong intensional verbs are desiderative verbs (want, desire, would like), exercitive verbs of command (order, command, etc.), evaluative / emotive modalities (be bizarre / odd / bad, etc.). The complement proposition is said to be intensionally anchored, in as much as its truth is not at stake. In English the finite complement of a strong intensional verb, if available, is in the subjunctive, bearing a [-realis] feature. (58) They demand that their salaries should be raised 6.2. The infinitive modality A general characterization of the infinitive mood against this background would be that the use of the infinitive signals a non-(total)ly realistic setting even when the infinitive is used in the main clause, therefore the infinitive, like the subjunctive expresses possible, not real action. Considering the context of evaluation scale in (56) it appears that the cut-off point for the use of the infinitive is that of an at most weakly-realistic basis. The infinitive is thus compatible a) with weakly realistic bases (e.g., the infinitive of weak intensional verbs), b) with nonrealistic bases with non-null ordering bases (e.g. the infinitive of strong intensional verbs). The infinitive complement selected by weak intensional verbs (doxastic, epistemic, assertive, dicendi, etc) presupposes a weakly realistic base. The modal base has an intersection with the common ground, the infinitive clause is supposed to be true in the unique evaluation world introduced by the main verb. The infinitive complement may have an indicative paraphrase, and the infinitive inflection bears a [+realis] mood feature. (59) a. I knew him to be lying at once. I knew that he was lying at once. b. He is believed to have arrived last night. It is believed that he arrived last night. c. They promise [PRO to return the money tomorrow]. They promise that they will return the money tomorrow. One more situation of [+realis] infinitive is the complement of implicative verbs (Karttunen (1977)) aspectual verbs and factive verbs, as also stressed by Pesetsky (1991). These verbs have the property of entailing the truth / falsity of their complements. (60) a. They managed to buy the house b. They bought the house. c. They continued to lose money d. They lost the money. e. He regretted to lose so much money. f. He lost much money

87 COMPLEMENTATION The complement clause is obviously evaluated in the same world as the main clause. If the main clause is true in the real world, the infinitive clause is true in the same world. The infinitive is also compatible with non-realistic bases with non-null ordering sources, introduced by strong intensional verbs (desideratives, imperative verbs, evaluative modalities). In this case, the complement is intensionally anchored, the truth of the complement clause is not at stake. The paraphrase, if available, is subjunctive. The Inflection of the infinitive clause bears an irrealis ([-realis]) mood feature. (61) a. It is good [PRO to spend Christmas with ones family.] a' It is good that one should send Christmas with one's family. b. I wanted [PRO to have a nice family-holiday]. c. They wish for him to become president. c'. They wish that he should become president. The meaning of the infinitive is thus more general than that of the subjunctive, which, as already shown above, presupposed a non-realistic base and a non-null ordering basis. As a result, depending on the setting presupposed by the main verb/predicate, the infinitive is paraphrasable as either an indicative or a subjunctive: (62) a. I knew at once that he was lying. a. I knew him to be lying. b. It is good that one should spend Christmas with ones family. b. It is good [PRO to spend Christmas with ones family]. On the other hand the considerable area of overlap between the indicative and the subjunctive (e.g., both are compatible with strong intensional predicates) explains why the infinitive has replaced the subjunctive in many contexts in English, while, languages like Greek have completely eliminated the infinitive, retaining only the subjunctive. 7. The temporal interpretation of the infinitive clause In this paragraph we will try to ascertain whether infinitive complement have a contentful [+Tense] feature in T0, since we have already proved that a syntactic T position is available in infinitives. Intuitively the question is whether the infinitive verbs may denote a different time sphere from the main clause. More technically, the problem is whether the infinitive clause may establish its own RT, since in such cases the event of the subordinate clause is oriented to its own RT rather than (directly) to the matrix ET. There has been a lively debate around the correct description of the temporal properties of the infinitive, partly because of neglecting the fact that the infinitive is a mood, not a Tense of English. We briefly survey the positions which have been expressed. The following classes of control taking verbs will be mentioned in the discussion. (63) a. Aspectual: begin, start, continue, finish, stop, resume. b. Modal: have, need, may, should, is able, must. c. Implicative: manage, fail, bother, remembered, see fit, condescended, avoid, forgot, fail, refrain, decline, neglect, force, compel. d. Factives: glad, sad, regret, like, dislike, hate, loath, surprised, shocked, sorry. (factive predicates also select For complements). e. Propositional: claim. f. Desiderative: want, prefer, yearn, arrange, hope, afraid, refuse, agree, plan, aspire, decide, mean intend, resolve, strive, demand, promise, choose, offer, eager, ready. (All of them also select for) g. Interrogatives: wonder, ask, find out, interrogate, inquire, contemplate, deliberate, guess, grasp,understand, know, unclear. 7.1. Are infinitives tensed or untensed complements? The idea that infinitives have their own tense can be traced back to Bresnan (1972), who observed that infinitives typically describe "hypothetical or unrealized" events. Stowell (1981,

88 COMPLEMENTATION 1982) systematically develops this idea, relating it to the difference between raising and control complements. In his view, all and only control complements are [+Tense], since control complements express a future "unrealized", "hypothetical" time different from the time of the matrix. This is what he called "irrealis tense", a term which names a syncretic Tense/Mood property. In many infinitival control complements, the event time is clearly shifted into the future, as confirmed by the impossibility of using a perfect. Examples of the type below support Stowell's contention: (64) a. *Ginny remembered [PRO to have brought the wine]. b.* Kim decided to have gone to the party. c. * Romario promised Bebeto to have passed the ball. In contrast, Stowell shows that raising infinitives are untensed, i.e., [-Tense], since they cannot denote a time sphere of their own. In particular, in simple (non-perfect, nonprogressive) infinitive complements, the time interval denoted by the infinitive must coincide with the matrix event. (65) a. Everyone believed Rebecca to be the best basketball player at UConn. b. The doctor showed Bill to be sick. c. The defendant seemed to the DA [t to be a conspirator]. Stowell's position was taken over by Pesetsky (1991), Martin (1996) Boskovic (1997) who make a difference between the future tensed control constructions, able to license PRO, and the untensed raising structures. The strongest argument for Stowell's position that raising predicates lack tense is the inability of raising constructions to license eventive predicates in the infinitive clause. "Eventive predicates are possible in control infinitivals, but not in raising ones. There is no Tense feature which could license an event in raising complements." (66) a. *Everyone believed Rebecca to win the game right then. b.* The doctor showed [Bill to take the wrong medicine at that exact time]. c. Rebecca wanted to win the game right then. Eventive readings are licensed only under progressive be, or perfective have, not by the simple infinitive form. The simple form is stative, habitual, generic. (67) a. Bill believes Mary to often sing the Marseillaise (*right now). b. Bill believes Mary to be tall / to know the truth. c. Bill believes Mary to be singing the Marseillaise. d. Bill believes Mary to have sung the Marseillaise. In contrast, the presence of a temporal/modal element in control constructions is further proved by the possibility for this element to provide a binder for an event variable. (68) Mary is trying to sing the Marseillaise right now. Landau (1999) further complicates the picture, introducing another criterion. Tensed complements license adverbs of definite time which may establish RT. Untensed complements cannot license such adverbs. This leads to a completely different picture. Not all control complements come out [+Tense] if this criterion is adopted: Among control complement taking verbs, aspectual (begin, continue, etc.), modal (have to) and implicative verbs (manage, fail, force and many more) appear to be untensed. (69) a. * Yesterday, John began to solve the problem tomorrow. b. * Yesterday, he managed to solve the problem today. In fact, it had already been observed by Karttunen (1971) that implicative verbs do not tolerate frame adverbials, that is, tense mismatches between the matrix and the infinitive. (70) a. * John remembered to lock his door tomorrow. b.* John managed to solve the problem next week. c. *John saw fit to arrive the day after tomorrow.

89 COMPLEMENTATION Sentences like (71) may cast doubt on the claim that implicative complements cannot differ in tense from the matrix clause: (71) John managed to have finished his duties on time. But the interpretation of have in this case is strictly perfective. A past tense frame adverbial renders the sentence ungrammatical If Landau's criterion is adopted, most Acc + Inf constructions come [+Tense]: (72) a. Now I firmly believe him to have lied yesterday. ([+Tense], Raising) b. Now I firmly believe that he lied yesterday. c. Now he appears not to have called her before leaving. An exception is that of the Acc + Bare infinitive construction of perception verbs, where distinct frame adverbials cannot occur. (73) *Yesterday he saw her arrive tomorrow. 7.2. Towards an analysis The position that we defend comes closest to Stowell's analysis, but takes into account the important modal difference between realis and irrealis infinitives. Like Stowell, and like all the linguists quoted above we agree that irrealis (control) infinitives are tensed. Actually, the future hypothetical tense is best viewed as an entailment of the irrealis modality. The feature [-realis] thus entails the feature [+Tense]. The fact that irrealis control infinitives are tensed also suggests that they are CPs, with an independent Tense chain. We will assume that tensed infinitives, have the same syntactic structure as that clauses, i.e., they are CPs and have an uninterpretable tense feature in C0. On the other hand, [+realis] infinitives appear to be untensed, at least if we maintain the position that an independent Tense feature has the role of providing an independent RT, possibly acting as a binder for the event of the subordinate clause. a) Let us first consider the infinitives of aspectual and implicative verbs, which as shown by Karttunen and Landau cannot license independent frame adverbials. We believe that ability to license frame adverbials is a necessary property for a clause that has Tense. So it does follow that implicative, aspectual, infinitives are [+realis, -tense]. Against Stowell, these are untensed control complements. While ability to license a distinct frame adverbial is a necessary condition for a [+Tense] feature, it surely is not a sufficient condition. Clear evidence that this is so comes from small clauses, which, by definition, lack Tense. (74) I wanted [him to be out of my way in two days]. In fact, it is known that frame adverbials may establish reference, and thus Tense, but may equally well refer to ET, if some other reference establishing mechanism is available. This is clear in examples like (75) below. The past perfect in the complement below is anterior to the main clause which is the RT, and the adverbial of definite time at two o'clock simply designates ET: (75) Upon arrival, the police discovered that the thieves had left at two o'clock. So, we tentatively accept that aspectual and implicative complements are [+realis, -tense]. b) A clarification is necessary regarding factive verbs, which have been claimed to have [+realis, + tense] infinitive complements, invalidating the generalization that the hypothetical Tense feature depends on irrealis modality. We believe, however, that the conclusion that the infinitive complement of factive verbs is [+realis] is not mandatory. Several empirical facts apparently lead to the view that the infinitive complement of factives may better be described as [-realis]. First, as already discussed in the previous chapters, factives are compatible with both the indicative and the subjunctive moods, i.e. the inflection of their complement I0 may be either [+realis] or [-realis]. In [-realis] cases, factivity may be lost. Secondly, it is important that

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

91 COMPLEMENTATION As known, in the shifted reading, the Past Tense of the main clause, functions as a true past, expressing anteriority to an RT established by the complement clause. The only difference is that the subordinate RT is determined by the main sentence, being equated with the ET of the main clause. The shifted reading is thus possible because the that complement clause can identify its own RT, identical to the main clause ET. The shifted reading shows pastness, anteriority with respect to its RT. More technically, we assumed that in the shifted reading the external argument of Tense is a PRO operator which is co-indexed by the c-commanding matrix clause ET argument. In contrast, we have argued that in the simultaneous reading, the that clause behaves as if it were Tenseless. The SOT rule which was proposed by Ogihara (1996) deletes the Past Tense c- commanded by the main clause Past Tense. This amounts to saying that the complement clause cannot define an independent RT. The Tense head, or the external argument of the Tense head, assuming as we did that tense is the relational predicate, must be construed as a free variable, co- indexed with the ET/RT of the main clause. This gives the simultaneity effect. Since the infinitive clause only has the simultaneous reading, it is natural to attribute to it the same analysis. The clause is [-Tense], i.e., the external argument of Tense is a free variable bound by the main clause tense. The conclusion we have reached supports Stowell's original claim that some control complements are tensed, while raising complements are untensed. This conclusion is also in keeping with the view that raising complements are IPs, rather than CPs, since in that complements, an RT different from that of the main clause could only be the effect of having the external argument of T in CP. With propositional verbs, the infinitive clause is then [+realis, - tense]. Infinitive clauses appear to be non-unitary regarding their temporal properties. This is due to the rather vague meaning of the infinitive, which is sharpened only in combination with the main verbs. We close by quoting a description of the infinitive, due to Portner (1994), which attempts to capture the core meaning of this form. Working in the framework of situation semantics, Portner asserts that the infinitive denotes an alternative situation that develops out of a duplicate of the reference situation, the situation denoted by the main clause. The complement clause denotes "a situation which may be viewed as a continuation of the reference situation introduced by the main verb." This formulation has the advantage of suggesting a certain time relation between the main clause (the reference situation) and the complement clause. The situation denoted by the complement clause develops out of the one denoted by the main clause. The event in the complement clause is non-anterior to that of the main clause, it may be future (the irrealis complements) or simultaneous (the realis complements). 8. Other syntactic properties of for-to and PRO-to complements 8.1. Infinitives like that complements show CRP effects. Like tensed clauses, they may never appear as objects of prepositions (82) a. *I would be surprised at [PRO to find myself underwater]. a'. I would be surprised [PRO to find myself underwater] b. * I would be surprised at for him not to win the prize]. b'. I would be surprised [FOR him not to win the prize]. Similarly they cannot occupy the structural Accusative position in Acc + Inf constructions. (83) a. *I consider [[PRO to come] to be easy]] b. *Bill showed [[for Bill to have won] to be a fact] Finally they cannot occupy the Nominative position, at least in Inversion structure. (84) a. *Is [PRO to win this competition] a problem for you? b. *Would [for him to win instead of you] be a problem for you?

92 COMPLEMENTATION As with tensed clauses, there are two saving devices: the clause may be preverbal when it is a topic, or it can undergo extraposition. The Extraposition structure is thus an important property of CP complements, whether they are that complements or infinitives. For-to complements and PRO-to complements extrapose. (85) a. [For you to take this course would help you. b. It would help you for you to take this course. Extraposition may characterize all case argument positions: subject, direct object, prepositional object. (86) Extraposition from Subject It is fun [PRO to swim]. (87) Extraposition from object position I suggested it to you [PRO speak to the girl at once]. 8.2. In other respects, (for)-to -infinitives do not behave quite like tensed clauses or gerunds, displaying certain properties characteristic of PPs. (cf. Stowell (1981)). a) First of all infinitival clauses are more or less freely ordered with respect to other arguments in the VP such as PPs and adverbials". (88) a. John has promised repeatedly [PRO to help us]. b. John has promised [PRO to help us] repeatedly. (89) a. Frank wants [very badly] [PRO to visit you]. b. Frank wants to visit you very badly. (90) a. John explained to Bill how to open the jar. b. John explained 'how to open the jar to Bill. b) Passivization of the infinitive complements is very problematic. Again we expect untensed infinitives to be unable to passivize, because they cannot in principle appear in SpecT. It is indeed the case that the complements of implicative and aspectual verbs do not passivize: (91) John began / continued / started to write. *To write was begun / continued / started by John. It was begun / continued / started by John to write. (92) John managed to get rid of his old car. *To get rid of his old car was managed by John. (93) Tom failed to get rid of his old car. *To get rid of his old car was failed by Tom. On the other hand passivization of tensed infinitives is attested, contrary to what is claimed in Stowell (1981). Here are examples, with sources indicated. Notice that the verbs involved are desideratives and exercitives, which are tensed complements. Notice also that all examples involve extraposition. (94) Mary know it had been recommended [PRO to behave herself in public] (Manzini (1983)) Mary know it had been prohibited [PRO to reveal herself in public] (95) It was prohibited [to speak loudly] (Landau (1999)) (96) It was decided [PRO to leave earlier] (Chierchia 1989)) It was recommended [PRO to see the movie]. Alongside of the tense factor, the difficulty of passivizing the infinitive must be related to its categorial status as partly a PP. c) With respect to topicalization, infinitive clauses show an asymmetry. Subject clauses may topicalize, object clauses may not. The difference is probably related to Case. Subject clauses merge in SpecVP and cannot remain there, but must move out of their position to satisfy their own needs. This allows them to reach SpecTP, where they are case-identified as a consequence of SHA with the finite T head. This allows them to move to the Topic position

93 COMPLEMENTATION leaving behind a case marked trace. Thus Topicalization is helped by the fact that Greed pushes the subject clause out of its base position to position where case can be checked. As already discussed the possibility of an infinitival complement appearing in SpecT depends on its temporal properties, so that untensed infinitives do not topicalize cf. (Pesetsky 2000) (97) ??[PRO to lose the game] proved they were idiots. (realis, -tense) [PRO to lose the game] would proved they are idiots (irrealis, +tense) Object clauses have no reason to leave their base position. It is plausible to relate impossibility of Topicalization to their PP nature. By analogy to the subject case, movement to the Topic position should go through a case-assigning position, say Spec AgrO, but it is reasonable to claim that due to their similarity to PPs infinitives cannot move through the Spec of the Acc Case projection. Hence topicalization of object infinitives does not occur. (98) a. I asked John[who to visit] a' *Who to visit I asked John b. I never expected [PRO to be invited] b' *[To be invited], I never expected.

LECTURE VII Control Theory and the Identification of PRO A. Towards a typology of control constructions. The empirical phenomena. 1. The domain of Control Theory (=CT). Obligatory and non-obligatory control Control is the relation between an antecedent and the missing PRO subject, i.e., it is the relation between PRO and its controller. Control theory deals with problems of the following type: a) What elements can control? b) What is the exact nature of the relation between PRO and the controller? Is it an obligatory or an optional relation? Is it a one-to-one relation? c) How is a controller picked up in a given structure ? In this section we survey the variety of empirical phenomena that fall under CT, establishing a typology of control. This will reveal the richness of the control phenomenon. Before presenting the various cases that fall under control theory, we mention again the properties of PRO assumed in the discussion that follow: a. PRO is a null pronoun, i.e., a DP that lacks phonological properties. b. PRO is theta marked by predicates like any regular DPs. PRO is thus licensed by Theta-Theory. c. After movement operations have applied, PRO ends up in subject position and is assigned null case, by non-finite inflection. The main problem regarding empty elements is that of their interpretation. More technically, the problem of the identification of the empty categories. Strategies of identification may be syntactic or semantic. Here we concentrate on the first category of situations. Identification of null pronoun pre-supposes identifying a controller, i.e., a DP that is fully or partly identical with PRO. Since PRO is understood function of an antecedent, it may be viewed as an anaphoric element. A first relevant empirical distinction is that between obligatory control and optional control. The term obligatory control designates configurations that lead to ungrammaticality if a suitable controller is not overtly present. In a) the Indirect Object (=IO) is the required controller, in its absence the sentence is ungrammatical, in c) the needed controller is the direct object (=DO); its absence leads to ungrammaticality, in e) and g) the expected controller is the main clause subject. (1) a. I ordered to them [PRO to leave].

94 COMPLEMENTATION b. *I ordered [PRO to leave]. c They forced them [PRO to leave]. d *They forced [PRO to leave] e. I promised him [PRO not to perjure myself]. f. *I promised him [PRO not to perjure himself. g. I tried [PRO to give up smoking]. Verbs like order, force, promise, try have often been described as verbs of obligatory control. Verbs of obligatory control always require PRO-TO complements and are incompatible with FOR-TO complements. The examples show that the controller of PRO is, like the infinitive clause containing PRO, an argument of the main clause predicate. Exactly which argument is the controller depends on the lexical properties of the verb. Thus, order is a verb of obligatory IO control, force is a verb of obligatory DO control, promise and try are verbs of obligatory subject control. Defining obligatory control From the more general perspective of control theory, obligatory control (=OC) is the LF configuration in which the controller and the infinitive complement containing PRO are co-arguments of the same predicate. In example a), for instance, the controller and the infinitive complement are co-arguments of the verb order, in example g), the controller is the subject and the complement clause the direct object of the verb try, a.s.o. Non-obligatory control (=NOC) refers to cases where the infinitive need not be controlled by a clause-mate DP (see below). In (2a) the controller is either Mary or John, as shown by the agreement with the reflexive in (2b). Notice that the second controller DP, Mary, is in a clause higher than the main clause. This is said to be a situation of long-distance control, since the infinitive clause and the controller are not clause-mates. (2) a. Mary knew that it damaged John [ PRO to do it]. b. Mary knew that it damaged John [ PRO to perjure himself/ herself]. Consider now sentences like (3), which are also examples of non-obligatory control: this time there is no controller, and yet the sentences are grammatical. The interpretation of PRO in such examples is that of an arbitrary indefinite generic pronoun, roughly equivalent with one. That the interpretation of PRO is one is shown by agreement phenomena; notice the presence of the reflexive oneself and of the possessive one's in examples (3): (3) a. [PRO arb to vote for oneself ] would be a mistake. b. [PRO arb to love one's neighbour ] is a Christian duty. c. [PRO arb to see] is [ PRO arb to believe]. Conclusions. 1.Two types of control configurations have been identified: obligatory control and nonobligatory control 2. Obligatory control (=OC) obtains when the controller and the infinitive are clause-mates, being co-arguments of the same predicate (at LF). 3. Non-obligatory control (=NOC) obtains when the controller and the infinitive are not clause mates. Two distinct situations fall under NOC, there is no controller, in which case there is arbitrary control, or the controller is in a clause different from the main clause, a situations referred to as long distance control. 1.1. Empirical differences between OC and NOC. The following empirical properties differentiate OC from NOC, jointly defining the categories of OC and NOC. a. Long-Distance Control is impossible with OC, possible with NOC. b. Arbitrary control is impossible with OC, possible with NOC. Let us briefly review the relevance of these properties: a. Long-Distance Control (=LD) The term LD control refers to cases where the controller of PRO is not an argument of the clause immediately containing the infinitive. Notice that an

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

96 COMPLEMENTATION Partial Control a. The chair1 preferred [PRO1 to gather the committee at 6]. a'. The chair1 preferred [ PRO 1+ to gather at 6]. b. * The chair1 preferred [ PRO1+ to gather without him1] c. Mary1 thought that John2 didn't know [ where PRO 1+2 to go together]. Manage and begin are EC verbs, while prefer and know are PC verbs. Consider the minimal pair in (11a, b). The transitive gather requires a collective direct object, but imposes no condition on its subject which may be, and is, singular .The intransitive gather is a collective verb, requiring a plural subject. Since manage is an EC verb, requiring identity between PRO and the controller, and the controller of PRO is singular, (11b) is ruled out. In contrast, the PC verb prefer is grammatical in both (12a) and (12b). The relevant remark is that although the subject of prefer is singular, it may control a PRO subject which stands for a collective referent, subject of the intransitive gather. Moreover, (12b) is an example of PC, and at the same time of OC, as can be seen from (12c). In sentence (12c), Condition B would require complete disjointness between PRO and the pronoun him; in fact, however, given its controller, PRO, a clause-mate of him, includes the reference of him, in violation of Condition B of BT. The result is that the pronoun him cannot be bound from the main clause. The contrast between (11c) and (12c) illustrates the same difference between EC and PC: The adverb together forms (semantic) collective predicates which require a plural subject. Although controlled by a singular DP in both (11c) and (12c), PRO is compatible with the a semantically collective predicate only in (12c), due to the partial control effect. Conclusions: a) There are two varieties of OC: Exhaustive Control and Partial Control b) Exhaustive Control ( EC) PRO must be identical to the controller. c) Partial Control (PC) PRO must include the controller, but not the other way round. 2.1 The empirical domain of PC Before giving an account of EC and PC, one should demarcate the empirical domain of PC, as opposed to EC, since not all verbs allow both options. A limited number of verbs allow only EC. Semantically, EC-verbs are implicative (manage, fail, etc.), aspectual (begin, continue) or modal (be going to, have to). Verbs that allow PC also allow EC, since, if it is possible with these verbs that the controller is merely included in PRO (PC), naturally it is also possible for the controller to be referentially identical with PRO. Semantically, PC-verbs are, desiderative (desire, wish), verbs that take interrogative complements ( wonder, know), factive ( regret, resent, and propositional verbs (claim). Here is a reminder of these classes, with examples of each type: (13) a. Aspectual: begin, start, continue, finish, stop, resume. b. Modal: need, is able, is going to c. Implicative: manage, fail, bother, remembered, see fit, condescended, avoid, forgot, fail, refrain, decline, neglect, force, compel. d. Desiderative ( including exercitive verbs ): want, prefer, yearn, arrange, hope, afraid, refuse, agree, plan, aspire, decide, mean intend, resolve, strive, demand, promise, choose, offer, eager, ready. e. Factives: glad, sad, regret, like, dislike, hate, loath, surprised, shocked, sorry f. Interrogatives: wonder, ask, find out, interrogate, inquire, contemplate, deliberate, guess, grass, understand, know, unclear. g. Propositional: claim. Partial control configurations Distributionally, the distinctive property of PC constructions, setting them apart from EC, is the possibility of the former, and the impossibility of the latter, to control the PRO subject of a collective predicate. (12)

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

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

99 COMPLEMENTATION (28) a. John and Mary preferred [PRO to meet each other at 6 today]. b. John and Mary regretted [PRO having talked about themselves]. c. We hoped [ PRO to become members of that club ]. 2.2 On Partial Control Landau (1999) proposes that the distinction EC/ PC verbs, which regards control properties correlates with a semantic property differentiating the two verb classes and already noted above. EC complements are untensed, PC complements are tensed. (29) PC complements are tensed; EC complements are untensed. The properties of Partial Control PC shows the same properties which characterize OC in contrast to NOC. This shows that PC is a species of obligatory (therefore syntactic control). (30) Properties of PC: a. Arbitrary control is impossible. b. Long-Distance Control is impossible. Let us give evidence supporting properties (30a-b). a. Arbitrary control is impossible. Consider sentence (31), containing the desiderative verb want. In (31a), this verb is compatible with PC, as shown by the possibility for its singular subject John to control the semantically plural subject PRO of the collective predicate go there together. Yet, want disallows an arbitrary interpretation of PRO (of the type John wanted that everybody should be quiet), as shown by the ungrammaticality of (31b). The interrogative verb guess in (32) shows the same behaviour, that is, John must be included in the reference of PRO. In sum, PC contexts disallow arbitrary control. (31) a. * John1 wanted [ PROarb to be quiet] b. John1 wanted [ PRO1+ to go there together] (32) a. *John guessed [ where PROarb not to smoke]. b'. John1 guessed [ PRO1+ to go together ]. b. Long-distance control is equally impossible with PC verbs. Hope is a desiderative verb, which allows PC, but does not allow LD control, as shown in (33). Sentence (33a) illustrates PC. The singular controller Mary is sufficient to license PRO with collective interpretation. However, hope disallows LD control : example (33b), which involves coreference between a remote controller, Mary and PRO, skipping a more local controller, John, i.e., LD control is ungrammatical. (33) a. John1 told Mary that he1 hoped [PRO1+ to meet at 2 tomorrow. b. *Mary1 knew that John hoped [ PRO1 to perjure herself]. Conclusions on Partial Control 1. PC and EC are varieties of OC. There is a clear empirical difference between EC and PC. 2. PC allows the controller to be a proper subpart of PRO, i.e., to be referentially included in PRO. 3. In PC cases, PRO inherits the syntactic number of the antecedent, but may be semantically plural. 4. EC, which requires identity of PRO and the controller, is the strongest form of control. 3. Split control PC should not be mixed up with the different phenomenon of split control. Split control is a variety of NOC. The characteristic property of PC is that a semanticlly singular DP may control a collective PRO. Only one controller is overt, and the effect is semantic plurality, not syntactic plurality. This leads to the impossibility of licensing in PC contexts the class of expressions which require syntactically plural subjects, such as plural anaphors ( themselves, each other), floating quantifiers ( all, both, each), plural predicatives, etc..

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

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

102 COMPLEMENTATION In conclusion, the possibility of control shift depends on the semantics of the matrix verb, the semantics of the embedded event, pragmatic information (knowledge of authority relations, as in (50c,d), dialect factors. Control shift clearly represents a semantic aspect of control. Conclusions on the typology of control phenomena. 1.The discussion so far has allowed us to characterize the following types of control: a) Obligatory control (OC): The controller and the infinitive must be clause-mates. b) Exhaustive Control ( EC) PRO must be identical to the controller. c) Partial Control (PC) PRO must include the controller. d) Split Control: Two (matrix) arguments jointly control a plural PRO. e) Non-Obligatory Control (NOC): The infinitive need not have a clause-mate controller. f) Long -Distance Control: The controller and the infinitive are not clause-mates. g) Arbitrary Control: PRO has no argumental controller. h) Implicit Control: The controller is not syntactically expressed. 2.The relations between these situations are shown below: Control Obligatory Non-obligatory Exhaustive Partial Arbitrary Split Implicit LECTURE VIII The Distribution of Control Constructions For-To and PRO-to Preliminaries Both for-to and PRO-to structures are discussed since the distribution of for-to is a subset of the extensive distribution of PRO-to. The selection of the complementizer for is a lexicalsemantic property of a limited number of heads in English, most of which characterized as [+Emotive] or [+Evaluative]. The specificity of the surface for-to construction also comes from the semantic features conferred by the C0 for, which partly retains the meaning of the preposition for (cause, reason). 1. Control constructions as subject clauses. 1.1. The simplest structure involves one place predicates: A/ N/ a few unergative Vs whose subject position may be filled by an infinitive clause: (1) a. possible, impossible, likely, probable, (un)necessary, common, customary, normal, essential, indispensable, odd, typical, usual, right, wrong, moral, immoral, (un)pleasant, (un)safe, good, bad, natural, vital, etc. b. a pleasure, an advantage, a tragedy, it is( high) time, etc. c. will do, suffice The N/ A are evaluative, strong intensional predicates. The finite paraphrase contains a subjunctive proposition. If the PRO-to is used, PRO is given the arbitrary reading, equivalent with the indefinite generic one, as suggested by the agreement phenomena with reflexives or possessives (4). As always with subject clauses, the standard construction involves Extraposition, as in (3), (5). (2) a. For me to interfere either way would be at once idle and perilous. b. For seamen to fire upon their own people in support of an arbitrary power was quite unthinkable.

103 COMPLEMENTATION (3) a. After all, it was no common thing for an earls daughter to marry a commoner. b. Isnt it the custom for young people to give up their seats to old people in crowded buses? c. It is impossible for there to be a war between your country and mine. d. It is not unusual for the wine to be well and truly shaken before it ever comes near the table. (4) a. To restore and even to extend this practice would be a real advantage. b. To dress oneself up is fun. (5) a. It is necessary to observe that no touch of this quality ever reached the magnificent Mr. Dombey. b. Its silly to feel so guilty about ones luck, isnt it? c. Its inspiring to listen to you. d. It will not do to reply that great poets are a happy accident. e. It remains to choose a leader and to raise additional funds. f. I suppose its better to paralyze people temporarily than to blow them to pieces. 1.2. Infinitive clauses as subjects of predicates that also subcategorize and indirect object introduced by the prepositions for, to, of. The IO serves as controller in the PRO-to constructions and control is obligatory. As before, the subject clause is normally extraposed, but may be preverbal as well: (6) a. PRO to do a thing like this was unusual for him. b. To leave early was very wise of him. (7) a. Its necessary for you to make an effort and perhaps a very great and painful effort. b. Its a great pleasure to me to see you here. c. It must have been a great comfort to them to be able to pray for the dead. On the Indirect Object The three prepositions that may introduce the IOs are not interchangeable, being associated with slightly different roles. The for / to IO is known as a sentence Dative, defined as a Dative which modifies not the verb alone but the sentence as a whole. (cf. Curme 1933: 106) The to IO is closer to being an Experiencer, defined by Curme (1933:107) as the person to whom the statement seems true, in our case, the person who qualifies fulfillment of the infinitive proposition as important, vital, pleasant, easy, etc, as suggested by the paraphrase below: (10) a. Its a great pleasure to me to see you here a. I consider it a great pleasure to see you here. The for IO is interpreted as a Benefactive, or Dative of interest, denoting the person for whom realization of the infinitive proposition is important, essential, etc., as suggested by the paraphrase: (11) a. It is important for him to be there. a. It is considered to his advantage that he should be there. b. It is important to him to be there. b. He thinks it important to be there. Adjectives which require the Benefactive interpretation of the IO exclude the preposition to, selecting only for. (12) a. It is essential/ vital / unimportant for him /to him to get the job. b. It is good / right/ easy for him/* to him [PRO to marry her]. Sentence Datives introduced by to/for and controlling the subject of an infinitive clause may be co-referential with higher DPs (as in (13) below); when this happens the Dative may remain unexpressed, this giving rise to long-distance control (as in (14) below). (13) a. Jones said that it was necessary for him [PRO to see himself in the mirror

104 COMPLEMENTATION b. Jones said that it was annoying to him [PRO to shave himself every morning] a. Jones said that it was necessary --[PRO to see himself in the mirror b. Jones said that it was annoying -- [PRO to shave himself every morning] 1.3 The of IO construction. Mental Property adjectives Consider the following examples, containing "mental property" (MP) adjectives, i.e., adjectives that are equally applicable to persons and events. (16) a. Its very weak and silly of me to be so trembly and shaky from head to foot. b. I will never forget how kind it was of you to do it ! c. It was nice of them to accept! The relevant group of adjectives includes the following (cf. Stowell (1991), Bolinger (1977c)) (17) stupid, cunning, clever, mean, nice, kind, farsighted, skilful, generous, imprudent, absurd, bold, brave, civil, inconsiderate, courageous, cruel, decent, unkind, naughty, impolite, rash, rude, saucy, silly, spiteful, thoughtful, thoughtless, weak, wicked, unwise, wrong Adjectives that cannot be descriptive of persons (mistaken, unnecessary) will not appear in this construction. Adjectives that refer to people, but cannot characterize events (strong) are equally bad. (18) a. It was wrong /*mistaken of John to have said that. b. It was gratuitous of Mary /*unnecessary of Mary to say that. c. You are strong to have convinced them. d.*It is strong of you to have convinced them! At first glance, MP adjectives seem to attribute the same property to two very different kind of things: to a sentient individual, from now on the MP DP, or to an action performed by such an individual. Moreover, both the Mental Property role and the event-role may appear as either subject (19a, 20a) or complement (19b), ( 20b)). (19) a. John was clever / mean [PRO to do this]. b. It was clever / mean of John [PRO do to do this.] c. To do this was clever of John. (20) a. Men are stupid to mistreat their children. b. It is stupid of men to mistreat their children. Consider now the full syntactic paradigm of MP adjectives: (23)a. To wash the car was stupid of John. b. It was stupid of John to wash the car. c. John was stupid to wash the car. d.*It was stupid to wash the car of John The pragmatic function of the of construction is apparent by comparing pairs like those below: (28)a. It was unkind of you to do it. b. You were unkind to do it. c. It was rash of you to move in so quickly. d. You were rash to move in so quickly. The of construction is less harsh (cf. Bolinger (1977)) than the other construction. This is related to the fact that the Agent is backgrounded as a prepostional indirect object, not foregrounded as a subject. Extraposed infinitival complements in the of IO construction, may serve as a basis for exclamative sentences, where the adjective is modified by the degree adverb how! (29) a. It was hard for Tom to do it. b. How hard it was for Tom to do it. c. It was unwise of you to accept it! d. How unwise (it was) of you to accept it. 1.4. Infinitive complements may function as subjects of several classes of transitive verbs listed below: 1.4.1. Psychological verbs: (30) alarm, amaze, anger, annoy, astonish, astound, attract, baffle, bedevil, boast, bother, bore, charm, cheer, calm, comfort, compliment, concern, confuse, delight, discourage, disgust, displease, dismay, distress, elate, embarrass, enchant, (14)

105 COMPLEMENTATION enrage, frighten, floor, gladden, gratify, nonplus, humble, hurt, horrify, insult, interest, imitate, madden, rattle, pain, please, relieve, sadden, satisfy, scare, sicken, soothe, surprise, sustain, tempt, torment, trouble. The grammar of these verbs is quite complex. The DO is an Experiencer. First given their [+Emotive] nature, these verbs may select the for-to construction. The subject clause may be extraposed and the main verb may be passivized, this resulting in the following paradigm: (31) a. For Fred to have hallucinations bothers me. b. It bothers me for Fred to have hallucinations. c. I would be bothered for him to have hallucinations. The DO is an available controller, and actually an obligatory controller in sentences containing no constituents other than the main verb and the infinitive clause: (32) a. [PRO to see her naked] embarrasses you. b. It embarrasses you [PRO to see her naked]. c. You would be embarrassed [PRO to see her naked]. (33) a. It grieved me to leave you like that. b. It disturbed him to have been reminded that she had stayed at home. c. It pleased him to see them look uncomfortable. 1.5.2. Causative psychological verbs also allow long distance control: (34) a. Johni said[ that [PROi/j to make a fool of himself/ herself in public] would disturb Suej ] b. Maryi thought[ that [PROi/j to speak her/hisj mind] would please Johnj]. (35) a. *Johni said it would disturb Sue[ PROi to make a fool of himself in public. b. *Maryi thought that it pleased John [PROi to speak her mind. c. Mary thought that it pleased Johnj [PROj to speak his mind. In both (34a) and (34b) the controller is, or may be, in a clause higher than the next one. Since we are dealing with psychological predicates, Extraposition blocks long distance control by a more remote DP, in favour of the closer co-argument controller ( examples (35a,b)). 1.4.2 Public verbs, mostly causative ones, which frequently take infinitive subject clauses. Some of these constructions are highly idiomatic: (37) need, help, require, make, cause, damage, take (smb) X much time to, necessitate, etc. (38) a. It required a greater psychologist than he to describe a certain disharmony which a little marred her beauty. b. It only needs a certain degree of detachment to perceive under the lightness of his act a discipline as that of the most intellectual painters. c. It takes one a long time to learn even the simplest tasks without fingers and toes. d. To obtain this requires careful study. Such verbs provide the most permissive environments for long distance control. (39) a.Tricia claimed that [PRO to hold her breath until she turned blue] would cause Ed a heart attack. b. Herbert realizes that it is probably a pack of lies that [PRO brewing his own beer will make him live to be a hundred. (40) a. Mary knew that it damaged John [PRO to perjure himself/ herself]. b. Mary knew that [PRO to perjure himself/ herself would damage John. (41) a. Mary thought that it helped John [PRO to speak his/her mind]. b. Mary thought that [PRO to speak his/ her mind would help John].

106 COMPLEMENTATION 1.4.3. Bisentential verbs also allow infinitive clauses in subject position. The infinitive is restricted to subject position, the object position being held by that clauses or by simple DPs. (42) a. For John to eat peas shows that he must be hungry. b. *That John eats peas shows for him to be hungry. c. And indeed it seemed to me later that [PRO to ask such questions of Hugo] showed a peculiar insensitivity to his unique intellectual and moral quality. d. For him to steal money proves that he was hungry. 2. Infinitive clauses as Direct Objects General remarks a) In subject position, given the [+emotive] evaluative feature of the respective predicates, there was practically free variation between PRO-to and for-to clauses. Secondly, the infinitive proposition was systematically paraphrasble by a subjunctive finite clause, suiting the normative component of the evaluative predicate. In contrast, in object position few verbs c-select a for-to complement in addition to the PRO-to one. As remarked by Pesetsky (1995), which verbs appear with for-to complements is a matter of lexical selection. Most of the verbs that take infinitive objects c-select PRO-to complements. b) From a semantic point of view, there are differences between the for-to and the PRO-to complement. When a full for-to clause is chosen, it appears that the verb s-selects a proposition. When only a PRO-TO complement is selected, depending on the interpretation of PRO as a variable or as a referential term, one may regard the infinitive complement as either expressing a proprty ( predicate) or a proposition. Many verbs that subcategorize infinitive direct objects have no alternative that-complement. Here are the main infintive-taking transitive verbs: 2.2. Aspectual verbs: begin, continue, start, commence, finish, resume. These verbs have several important properties: a) they have intransitive doublets, which appear in SSR structures. The transitive analysis is justified by the intentional meaning of the verb, as well as by its occurrence in simple transitive sentences. (46) He willingly started the divorce procedures. He willingly started [PRO to sell those shares]. The infinitive complement of these verbs is untensed; no conflicting frame time adverbials may be licensed. This corresponds to the intuition that only one event is denoted in sentences with aspectual verbs, the event denoted in the subordinate clause, while the aspectual verb focuses on one part of the internal temporal structure of the event. (47) a. *Yesterday he started to read tomorrow. b. He began to write the essay on a wintry day. The controller must be interpreted as an Agent. It is the Agentive interpretation which distinguishes between the intransitive and the transitive use of the aspectual verbs: (48) a. The King began to slap the Queen. (PRO-to) b. The Queen began to be slapped by the King. (SSR) 2.4 Implicative verb. The name implies that if it is true that V(p) then it follows either that p or that not-p is also true. Typical Vs : manage, contrive ('manage'), fail, condescend, deign, not bother, presume ('be bold enough'), pretend, affect ('pretend'), venture, try, seek, dare, make sure, see fit, refrain, abstain, omit, etc Thus I failed to meet him entails I didnt meet him, while I saw fit to greet him implies I greeted him. These verbs also denote the same event as the complement clause; the complement clause is un-tensed, being integrated in the Tense chain of the matrix. Implicative verbs have to do with success or failure of events/ actions. The complement clause must be non-stative. (*He failed

107 COMPLEMENTATION [PRO to be tall]. Implicative verbs allow only exhaustive control ( *The chair tried [PRO to gather in the assembly room]) (49) a. Would she attempt to carry it further ? b. By what amounted to a miracle, this offspring of his had contrived [PRO to lure] a millionaires daughter into marrying him ? c. She no longer deigns to visit her friends. (Lg) d. He declined to make any comment. I wont pretend (=dare) to tell you how this machine works, because you understand it far better than I do. (lg.) e. They sought to punish him. f. He wouldnt scruple to charge you far more than its worth in wool. g. He affected [=pretended] not to hear her. h. She would never forgive me if I should presume to go to Liverpool to meet her. i. he venture to tough the dog. k. She tried to get arrested. 2.5. Modal verbs (lexical modal verbs) There is a restricted group of verbs of obligatory subject control, which have modal meaning and impose little or no semantic restriction on their complement and on their controller: need, deserve, afford: (50) a. She needed to be questioned and corrected. b. He deserves to be happy. c. Can you afford to lend me some money. ? Remark. While the verbs discussed so far do not take that complements in the meaning under discussion, some of them may have alternative that complements in other meanings: (51) (i). I learned how to do it. (ii). I learned that he had done it. (iii). I wont presume to disturb you. (iv). Let us presume that he is innocent. 2.6. The next group to consider is that of [+Emotive] verbs. They are desiderative, non -factive verbs like: want, wish, prefer, arrange, demand, ask, hope, aspire, plan, decide, mean, intend, resolve, strive, choose, expect, propose [=intend], desire,strive, endeavour, etc), as well as other emotive verbs, with factive uses sometimes: hate, cant bear, can/t stand, scorn, loath, like, dislike. These verbs have a particularly complex grammar. a) Since they are emotive, they allow not only the PRO-to, but also the for-to complement. b) Some of them allow that complements, mostly in the subjunctive mood. c) Given their factive uses, these verbs may allow Extraposition from DO position. 2.7. Propositional verbs : verbs of propositional attitude ( remember, claim, declare, deny), factive verbs ( regret, forget), verbs of communication:(say, conclude, profess, threaten ): These verbs have tensed complements and allow partial control. Some of them, the emotivefactive allow alternative for-to complements, while all of them allow alternative thatcomplements, which are usually non-equivalent with their infinitive complements. The infinitive is sometimes more constrained, selecting eventive complements (58) a. Mary explained that John had threatened [PRO not to dance together any more] b. I would deeply regret for you not to be able to pursue your carreer. c. I would resent it very much [PRO to do some silly thing. (59) a. He concluded to go. ( He concluded that he should go). b. He concluded that he was wrong. *He concluded to be wrong.. (60) a. John claims to own a car. ( John claims that he owns a car).

108 COMPLEMENTATION b. The killer threatened to murder me, if I didnt obey him. c. Did you remember to send this months money to Oxfam? Axel had never professed to believe that their relationship would last. 3. Infinitive complements as Prepositional Objects Infinitive complements are also c-selected by prepositional verbs and adjectives, belonging to the same semantic domains as the predicates mentioned so far. The infinitive clause should be analyzed as a Prepositional Object only if there is an alternative simple PP construction. 3.1. Verbs that occur in this pattern (mostly implicative, and desiderative) (61) a) apply for, consent to, persist in, insist on, plead for, pray for, strive for, bother about, hesitate about, proceed with, fail in, proceed with; b) ache over, long for, rejoice at, shudder at, care for; All of these allow the for-to as well as the PRO-to complement: (62) a. Dont bother to see us to the station. b. Dont bother about it. c. And Freddie, after cautious glance over his shoulder, immediately proceeded [PRO to fold this female in a warm embrace]. He proceeded with it (63) a. I dont care for him to see any of my usual work. b. Your father has begged for her to come. c. He stood listening for the summons to be repeated. d. Pen longed for the three years to be over. e. They were waiting for the door to open and for the servants to come in, holding the big dishes covered with their heavy metal covers. f. He could apply for the child to be made a Ward at Court. 3.2. Psychological, emotive adjectives. Expectedly they take both for-to and PRO-to complements. To the extent that factive uses are possible, Extraposition and It-Insertion become possible. (64) anxious, able, afraid, eager, careful, concerned, proud, solicitous, glad, sorry, relieved, unable, fit, inclined, disinclined, prone, disposed, angry, important, prepared, welcome, ready, willing, pleased, content, certain, wont. (65) I am anxious for you and may sister to get acquainted. (66) a. They were anxious not to seem [ PRO to patronize her]. b We must be careful [PRO to see that the stone is tilted from the inside of the car outwards. c. He was glad [PRO hear it]. d. Sorry to be such a bore, darling. e. Hilary was constitutionally unable to refuse his aid to anything that held out a hand for it. f. I was but the more inclined [PRO to attribute a spiritual worth to Hugo in proportion as it would never have crossed his mind to think of himself in such a light. g. Im curious [PRO to see how Julia will carry it off]. h. Lord Emesworth, though he would have preferred solitude, was relieved [PRO to find that the intruder was at least one of his own sex]. h. It is a name, sir, that a man is proud [PRO to recognize]. i. He never for a moment took it into account that they might be solicitous to divide the responsibility. 4. Tough Movement Tough Movement (=TM) is the name given to the rule that relates pairs of the type illustrated in (87a, b) below. TM is thus responsible for generating the very frequent structure (87b, d, f). (87) a. It is tough to park cars in Manhattan. b. Cars are tough to park in Manhattan. c. It is easy to get fond of her.

109 COMPLEMENTATION d. She is easy to get fond of e. It is difficult to give a kiss to Mary. f. Mary is difficult to give a kiss to 4.1. The classical analysis. TM was initially described as a raising rule which moves a nonsubject DP from an infinitive (subject) clause into the subject position of the main clause. Sentence (87b) was derived from (87a). In (87b) the DO has raised into the main clause, in (87d) the PO has raised, while in (87f) the main clause subject is the IO of the infinitive clause. The following adjectives and nouns are often cited as occurring in the TM construction (cf. Lasnik & Fiengo (1974:587) (88) a. tough, difficult, easy, hard, simple, dangerous, unhealthy, stimulating, boring, interesting, entertaining, uninteresting, amusing, gratifying. b. a bitch, a breeze, a pleasure, a delight, a joy, a gas, a snap, a pain in the ass/neck. (89) a. ------ is fun for Bill [PRO to tease Monica] b. Mary is fun for Bill [PRO to tease t]. The movement analysis, as sketched in (89), makes the following claims: a) The subject position of TM predicates is non- , therefore, initially empty. This allows movement into this position. Since they a have a non- , subject position, TM predicates are ergative. b) Independent evidence that the subject position of TM predicates is non- is the very fact that the derived subject of the TM construction may be replaced by an expletive it, just as with SSR: (90) a. It is a cinch [ PRO to pas the exam]. b. This exam is a cinch [PRO to pass t]. c. It seems that this exam is difficult. d. This exam seems [t to be difficult]. c) A third claim, supported by the paraphrase relations in (87), was that the infinitive complement is an argument (internal argument, under GB assumptions). There were strong arguments in favor of the movement analysis, quite apart from the parapahrase invoked so far. A central argument came from nominlizations (cf. Chomsky (1971)). DPs do not have the same functional structure as VPs; consequently, operations typical of VPs and clauses such as, in particular, raising rules, do not take place in DPs. Structures produced by raising rules cannot be nominalized. The ill-formedness of the nominalized TM structure is of the same types with the ill-formndess of the nominlized SSR and SOR structures in (91). Expectedly, eager sentences, which are not derived, have nominal counterparts. (91) a.They believe John to be honest. b. *their belief of John to be honest. c. John is easy to please. c. *Johns easiness to please. d. John is eager to please. d. Johns eagerness to please. 4.2. A property of the TM construction. The easy to please construction may take an optional IO introduced by for, as in (92), but it can never have a subject introduced by for in the infinitive clause. The proof is that DPs which are not animate, and do not qualify as Experiencer IOs cannot appear in the TM construction, as shown in (93). Moreover, if two for DPs are present, i.e., the for IO and the lexical subject, TM blocks, as illustrated in (94b,d). (92) a. She is easy for him [PROj to kiss ti ]. b. He is difficult for her [PROj to talk to tj]. (93) a. It is unpleasant for it to be hot and stuffy in the room. b. *The room is unpleasant for it to be hot and stuffy. c. It could be exciting for there to be Koala bears in the yard. d. *Koala bears would be exciting for there to be in the yard.

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

111 COMPLEMENTATION In fact the problem of controller identification has lost some of its interest, since the discovery of control shift. Specifically, it appears that even with verbs of obligatory control, the selection of the controller may change, depending on other syntactic and semantic properties of the infinitive clause. One factor that infleunces controller choice is the active or passive form of the infinitive complement. Consider the examples below: (122) a. Johni promised Billj [PROi to shave himselfi every morning] b. Johni promised Billj [PROj to be allowed tj to shave himselfj every morning] c. Johni asked Billj [PROj to shave himselfj every morning] d. Johni asked Billj [PROi to be allowed to shave himselfi every morning] Thus, in (122a) and (122c) the controller are the expected ones, the subject of promise and the object of ask. In examples (122b) and (122d), there is control shift, the IO of promise controls the PRO subject of the passive infinitive complement, while the subject of ask controls PRO in (122d): The obligatory controller simply appears to be a DP which is a co-argument of the non-finite clause and which meets certain semantic conditions. (see below). c) The question that remained un-answered is the lack of for-to constructions with these verbs. The most likely answer is that, with these verbs, for-to complements are excluded for semantic reasons. In the following we present the types of verbs of obligatory control, and of optional control. 5.1. Arguments for discriminating between verbs of obligatory control and raising Acc+Inf triggers. 1. First, in control constructions, the Acc preceding the Inf is s-selected and -marked by the main verb. Consequently, formal DPs like it, there, idiom chunks are not possible controllers ( see (123b,d), (124b). (123) a. I expect little heed to be paid to that proposal by all of the legislators. b.* I forced/ promised/ ordered more heed to be paid to that proposal by all of the legislators. c. I expected there to be a man behind the counter. d. * I forced/ promised/ ordered there to be a man behind the counter. (124) a. I expected it to rain on my birthday. b. *I forced it to rain on my birthday. Remark. Force allows referential it as DO: I dont know what it was, but I forced it to retreat. Secondly, the control verbs under discussion are three place predicates, while the SOR triggers are binary predicates. Finite paraphrases bring this difference to light at once. (125) a. I persuaded her to go to the opera every week. b. I persuaded her that she should go to the opera every week. c. I believe her to go to the opera every week. d. I believe that she goes to the opera every week. b. Passivization of the infinitive clause The different argument structure explains another contrast, first noted by Rosenbaum (1967). This is the synonymy (with SOR verbs, as in (126a, b)) versus the lack of synonymy with control verbs, as in (126c, d) under passivization of the infinitive clause. (126) a. I expected the doctor to examine the prisoner. b. I expected the prisoner to be examined by the doctor. c. I forced the doctor to examine the prisoner. d. I forced the prisoner to be examined by the doctor.

112 COMPLEMENTATION Sentences (126a, b) have the same meaning, as predicted from their argument structure. Sentences (126c, d) have a different meaning, as predicted from their different a structure. (specifically the DO is different in (126c,d). 5.2. Subclasses of verbs of obligatory DO control. 5.2.1 The first subgroup is that of verbs that c-select [ DP ^ PP] in alternation with[ DP ^ CP]. Naturally the DO may be passivised. (127) adjure (=ask), authorize, advise, assist, bind, condemn, convince, compel, challenge, condition, defy, direct, hire, engage, excite, encourage, force, incite, instigate, inform, induce, inspire, leave, lead, lure, move, oblige, obligate, persuade, provoke, prompt, predispose, reduce, send seduce, summon, trouble, tempt, trust, urge, work, will, etc. (128) a. She forced her foot into the shoe. The soldiers forced their prisoner to give up their arms. The prisoners were forced to give up their arms. b. His words incited the soldiers to anger. His words incited the soldiers to rise up against the officer. c. You inspire me to greater efforts./ I was inspired to work harder. d. She instigated the men to disobedience. She instigated the men to disobey orders. e. May I trouble you for the salt ? Can I trouble you to shut the door ? f. The warm weather seduced me away from my studies. /The warm weather seduced me to talk a walk. The warm weather seduced me to take a walk. g. She kept nagging her husband for a new car. / She kept nagging her husband to go home. h. She pressed him into service. She pressed her agent to stay a little longer. i. She assisted him in his work. Good glasses will assist you to read. j. I hired him for the job. I hired him to do the job. k. Her careless spending led her into debt. What led you to believe this ? (129) a The court condemned her to spend the rest of her days in prison. b. The rain compelled us to stay in doors. c. The King commissioned an artist to paint a picture of the Queen. d. The conditioned the dog to jump each time it heard the bell. e. I authorized the man to act for me. f. She adjured him to tell the truth. g. The policemen directed the crowd to move. h. They excited the people to rise against the king. i. They challenged the stranger to say who she was. j. Hunger prompted him to steal. k. The doctrine was an invention to enable man to act like dogs with clear conscience. l. He can be persuaded to go back in October. m. We were invited to go back where we came from. n. He would not have provoked you [PRO to wish yourself almost blindly in his place. o. He could trust her to make deception right. p. She advised Miss Denny, as a friend, to prepare herself for the worst. q. What influenced you to do it ? r. We willed him to stop. Remark 1. Some of these verbs usually occur in the passive (participle): (130) a. I felt moved to help. b. He felt obligated to visit his parents.

113 COMPLEMENTATION c. I felt obliged to say No. d. I felt constrained to do what he told me. The many verbs listed in (127) form a coherent semantic class. They are mostly implicative verbs. Most of them are causative verbs ( of linguistic or non linguistic causation), guaranteeing the truth of the complement clause; a couple of them are merely exercitive verbs (summon, provoke), which do not therefore guarantee the truth of their complement clause. Exercitive verbs impose a constraint of non-stativity on the infinitive clause. Implicative verbs too select non-stative complements, though some of them allow the complement clause to designate the resulting state (as in (132c, d). To the extent that the infinitive complement is eventive, the controller is interpreted as an Agent or an Affected Agent, at least partly responsible for the truth of the complement clause. (132) a. *I persuaded him [PRO to like music]. (causative implicative) b.* I challenged him [to like music. (exercitive) c. They conditioned him [PRO to like music ] ( causative) d. This predisposes me to like music. (causative) 5.2.2 A second group of verbs of obligatory DO control includes operative illocutionary verbs: appoint, elect, choose, nominate, name, vote. They subcategorize [---DP ^ NP/DP] or [---DP ^ PP] where the P is as, or [DP ^ CP], where the CP is an infinitive. The (second) DP/PP/ CP in these structures is not an object but a predicative constituent (object complement). (133) We appointed / chose /elected voted him to be our leader, We chose him as our leader. We nominated him man of the year. (134) We chose him to remain our president. We appointed him to rule this country. 5.2.3. A limited number of verbs subcategorize for [--PP ^ CP], with the prepositional object controlling PRO in the CP. It is not clear whether the PRO-TO clause is an argument or a modifier: rely on, count on, prevail on, depend on, look to. (135) a. You may rely on me [PRO to do it]. b. He can be depended on [PRO to do it]. c. You may depend on me to do my very best. d. I look to you [PRO to carry out the aims in which I myself have failed]. 5.3. The class of verbs of obligatory indirect object control is much more restricted; it includes exercitive verbs (command & permission): order, give orders, command, bid, permit, allow, grant, forbid, recommend, propose, as well as verbs of linguistic communication used as exercitive verbs: tell, communicate, report, answer, repeat, insinuate, suggest, mention.The IO may be prepositional (136) or the verb may be used in the double object construction, with the infinitive clause as the second object.(137). The Infintive cluse may be extraposed, as in (138): (136) Who suggested it to him ? // I suggested to him [PRO to leave by the back door]. B. She told to the servants not to announce her.(J.G) c. Hilary had written to this girl to come and see her . (137) We recommend this book to all the beginners. b. We recommend you to buy it. c. I forbid you speak to me in that way. d. Tell them in the jungle never to forget me. e. He bade me to come in. (138) I leave it to you to do it. I couldn't mention it to him to bring the dictionary.

114 COMPLEMENTATION 5.4. Finally, lets us also examine a few verbs which take infinitive object clauses, without being verbs of obligatory control, in the sense that they allow the for-to pattern alongside of the PRO-to, and even with the PRO-to compelement the controller is not always the same a rgument of the verb. The verbs under consideration are three-place predicates, where one argument is optional; they belong in the followung subclasses: a) verbs that subcategorize for [ --DP ^ PP] or [DP ^ CP, such as, beg smb. for smth, ask smb. for smth, beseech smb. for smth., etc b) verbs that subcategorize for [-- NP/CP ^ PP], such as, shout /scream /yell smth to/at smb; mumble smth to smb; request/ require/ beg / ask smth of smb., etc. c) verbs that subcategorize for [--PP ^ PP/CP], such as, plead with smb. about smth., argue with smb. about smth., agree with smb. about smth. etc. When they are used with infinitive complements all these verbs are interpreted as exercitive, having to do with " the giving of a decision for or against a certain course of action." This is why the complement clause is non-stative. Verbs of optional control exhibit different control patterns. First they are compatible with the for-to construction, as in (139). Secondly, if only the main clause subject is present, then the main clause subject must be the controller, as in (140). When the PP object is present and the infinitive clause is not passive, the IO is the controller, in agreement with the Minimal Distance Principle (sentences (141)). If the infinitive complement is passive, there is control shift, and the main clause subject controls PRO, even if the IO is present (sentences (142)). (139) a. I begged / implored Bill [for Harry to be forgiven]. b. I screamed / shouted to Bill [for Harry to be allowed to leave]. (140) a. Ii begged / asked / implored [PROi to go]. b. Ii requested / implored / asked [PROi to be given permission to leave]. (141) a. I screamed / shouted to Billi [PROi to go]. b. I begged / asked / implored / besought Billi [PROi to go]. (142) a. Ii screamed/ shouted / to Bill [PROi to be allowed to go]. b. Ii begged / asked / implored / besought Billi [PROi to be allowed to go]. When the verb is semantically symmetrical (e.g., agree, argue), the main clause subject and the oblique term share their privileges as controllers: (143) Ii agreed with Billj [ PROi/j to go]. 6. To complete the range of syntactic functions of for-to /PPR-to infintive, one should mention that they may appear as predicative clauses, attributive clauses and adverbials. 6.1. The following sentences illustrate the use of for-to and PRO-to infinitive clauses as predicatives: (144) a. The tendency was for the instruction to be more specialized]. b. A solution would be [for the shops to open at noon]. c. To admire onself is to deceive onself. d. What she hadn't asked him then was [PRO to sate to her where and how he stood for her]. d. The obvious thing now, if his torch would last long enough, was [PRO to fetch help]. 6.2. For-to and PRO-to complements may appear as attributes ( actually, complements of nouns) with both abstract underived nouns ( e.g., right, idea, power, instinct) and with nominalizations (e.g., ability, capacity, wish, desire, hope, expectation). Here are a few examples: (145) a. I had no desire [PRO to revive old memories].

115 COMPLEMENTATION b. We believed in the American dream, and in pir power to make that dream come true]. c.He knew that Mrs. B. had no right to be thus addressed. 6.3. As to the use of infinitive complements as adverbials, the following situations are more common. 6.3.1 First the infinitive clause may be a noun complement in a PP which is standardly used as a "conjunctive phrase": in order to, on purpose to, with intent to, etc. Sometimes, no introductory element is present/ (146) a. I am going there earlier in order [PRO to get a good seat]. b. I went into the shop [PRO to buy some cakes]. c. I went there myself on purpose to know the truth of it. d. He was brought up on charge of forging and altering securities, with intent [PRO to defraud]. 6.3.2 Infinitive clauses frequently function as adverbials of result in comparative structures based on the degree determiners too or on the quantifier enough. (147) a. The brown paper is too thick to light the fire with. b. The river is too deep to wade across. c. This burden is too heavy to put upon a fallible mortal. d. The weather was too severe for them to be out. e. He wasn't rich enough for her to marry him. f. She is lucky enough to have a servant who does the heavt work. The complement clause depends on the degree determiner too or the quntiifer enough, as is illustrated below: (148) a. It is too good to be true. b. * It is [] good to be true c. He is old enough to know better. d. * He is old [] to know better LECTURE IX ING COMPLEMENTS 1. The variety of ing forms 1.1 Preliminaries Traditional grammars of English acknowledge the existence of two homonymous ING forms: the gerund and the participle. Gerunds, in (1a) were defined as forms that have both nominal and verbal features, both aspects of the content being (often) apparent in the same context (Schybsbye, 1965:61). Participles differ from gerunds in that they dont have any nominal features, but verbal features exclusively. The picture is more complex than that for several reasons. First, participles have a verbal use, as in (1b), but also an adjectival use, illustrated in (1c) below: (1) a. I remember Mary's performing the concert. b. God willing, we shall succeed. c. Never flog a willing horse. Secondly, gerunds exhibit two forms, the traditionally called full gerund, whose subject is in the Gen(itive) or Poss(essive) case, and a second form, whose subject is in the Acc(usative) case, known as the half gerund. Predictably, there is also a PRO-ind construction. (2) It all depends on their helping us. (Poss-ing ) It all depends on them helping us. (Acc-ing) (3) I avoided PRO meeting him. Thirdly, there is an ing deverbal noun, a form that has only nominal properties: (4) their cruel shooting of the prisoners

116 COMPLEMENTATION 1.2. More on the properties of the -ing suffix. . If there were in fact but one ing in English, it would appear to have the following morphological properties: it suffixes to verbs, and the resulting complex lexical item may be of any category. The lack of category specification exhibited by -ing is unique among derivational affixes, at least in English. -ing is a category-neutral affix. If one takes the major lexical categories, N, V, A, P one notices the existence of Ns, Vs, As and sP derived from verbs using -ing: (5) N V A P [building]N, [avoiding]V, [(un)willing]A [concerning]P. The distribution of the -ing suffix is limited by the requirement that it should attach to verbs, i.e., that it must check a verbal [+V] feature. This amounts to saying that ing attaches to either verbs or verbal projections, appearing either as a suffix or as an inflectional head, as discussed in the case of participial small clauses. The resulting form is free to assume any syntactic categorization, given the above claim about the nature of ing; all the possible combinations of +/-N, +/-V features are available. 2.The categorial status of the gerund constructions There is a sharp contrast between gerunds /verbal nouns on the one hand, and that complements and infinitive complements on the other hand, regarding their distribution. The general point to make is that gerundial constructions are DPs, while that clauses and (control) infinitives are CPs. This hypothesis can account for the considerable distributional differences between gerunds and other types of complements and is supported by a variety of empirical facts, some of which are reviewed below: 2.1. Case. Gerund constructions occupy case-marked positions and do not manifest any Case Resistance Principle effects. As discussed above, while both clauses (CPs) and DPs may be topics, only DPs may be (non-topical) subjects. (6) a. Did Johns performing of the aria please you? b. Did Johns performing the aria please you? c. ? Would John performing the aria please you ? d. *Would (for John) to perform the aria please you? e.*Did that John performed the aria please you ? The structural Acc position is also accessible. Gerunds may be subjects of small clauses, unlike infinitive and that complements: (7) a. I consider his selling of the house a big mistake. b. I consider his selling the house a big mistake. c. I consider him selling the house a big mistake. d. *I would consider for him to sell the house a big mistake. e. *I considered that he sold the house a big mistake. The most characteristic gerund environment is the position of object of a preposition. CP complements are excluded from this position, while noun phrases are allowed: (8) a. I learned about Johns selling of the house. b. I learned about Johns selling the house. c. I learned about John selling the house. d. *I learned about (for John) to sell the house. e. *I learned about that John sold the house. 2.2 Position after sentence adverbs. Another characteristic nominal position is that of subject of a sentence following a sentence adverb like perhaps, naturally, etc. Since these adverbs are IP adjoined, the position following them is the Spec IP, Nom position: (9) a. Perhaps Johns selling of the house bothers his mother. b. Perhaps Johns selling the house bothers his mother.

117 COMPLEMENTATION c. Perhaps John selling the house bothers his mother. d. *Perhaps for John to sell the house would bother his mother. e.*Perhaps that John sold the house bothers his mother. 2.3. Topicalization Like DPs, verbal nouns, Poss-ing and Acc-ing constructions freely undergo Topicalization, while the topicalization of clauses was often problematic. Topicalization must leave behind case-marked traces, and clauses, unlike DPs need not be assigned case. (10) a. John's smoking of stogies I can't abide t. b. John's smoking stogies I can't abide t. c. John smoking stogies I can't abide t. Horn (1975) remarks that Acc-ing constructions are less good topics than Poss-ing constructions, a difference that we will come back to. 2.4. Passive Gerunds passivize, behaving like DPs from this point of view as well. (11) a. Every body practiced singing the national anthem. b. Singing the national anthem was practiced by everybody. (12) a. Everybody imagined John kissing Mary. b. John kissing Mary was imagined by everyone. 2.5. Extraposition Another characteristic property related to their DP status is that (with limited exceptions to be discussed below) gerunds do not extrapose, in sharp contrast with infinitive and that clauses. The explanation is not far to seek: verbal nouns and gerunds need case and cannot appear in caseless positions, such as the position of adjunction to VP or some other A' position characteristic of an extraposed clause: (13) a. Bills making a fortune is unlikely b. *It is unlikely Bills making a fortune. (14) a. Bill making a fortune is unlikely. b. *It is unlikely Bill making a fortune. (15) a. Bills making of a fortune is unlikely b. *It is unlikely Bills making of a fortune. Summing up this discussion, from the point of view of their external distribution, that is, their distribution within the complex sentence, verbal nouns, Poss-ing and Acc-ing constructions behave like DPs. It is plausible to assign to them the syntactic category DP; the basic function of the -ing morpheme in these constructions is to be a nominalizer, i.e., to convert a verb phrase or sentence into a DP. 3. The internal structure of the ing constructions Verbal nouns, Poss-ing and Acc-ing constructions differ considerably regarding their internal structure; they represent different degrees of nominalization: verbal nouns have pure DP syntax, Poss-ing and Acc-ing structures are more clause-like and may be shown to embed a VP or even an IP. It can be argued that gerunds are IPs embedded in DPs, i.e., gerunds are like clauses except for the operator layer. The operator layer of a clause is the CP layer, the operator layer of gerunds is the DP layer, like that of a nominal phrase. The DP projection is crucially involved in the syntax of the gerund subject. 3.1. Let us review the evidence that gerunds (i.e., Poss-ing and Acc-ing) embed a VP/IP. The first crucial difference between gerunds and verbal nouns is that only gerunds have verbal categories, specifically, aspect and voice. Verbal nouns do not have either aspect or voice, as shown by the impossibility of co-occurrence between the perfect auxiliary have and the ofmarked object in (17) (16) a. His /him having criticized the book came as a surprise. b. His /him having been reading all day long came as a surprise. c. I dislike his/ him being treated like that. (17) *His having criticized of the book came as a surprise.

118 COMPLEMENTATION The presence of verbal categories in gerund constructions indicates the presence of verbal functional categories, such as Aspect. Moreover, given the syntax of auxiliaries, the presence of auxiliaries is, as always, a hint that there is a syntactic Tense position. 3.2. The second indication that the gerund contains a VP is its ability to assign Acc case to the Direct Object. In contrast the object of a verbal noun receives case from the (dummy casemarking) preposition of: (18) a. His /him selling the house at a good price pleased her. b. His selling of the house at a good price pleased her. It is important to remark the correlation between Aspect/Tense and case. Gerunds have both, verbal nouns have neither. (19) a. his selling the house wisely b. his having come so slowly c. *his wise selling the house d. his wise selling of the house e. * his slow having coming f. his slow coming. 3.3 The gerund allows adverbial modification by -ly manner adverbs, while the verbal noun allows only adjectival modification: (20) Johns (cleverly) selling the house (cleverly) Johns clever selling of the house. 3.4. Negation also clearly differentiates between gerunds and verbal nouns. Gerunds exhibit clausal negation by not, paralleling verbs from this point of view. Verbal nouns do not accept the clausal negation not. (21) a. his not reading the book in time b. *his not reading of the book There is thus a sharp contrast between gerunds and verbal nouns in the way in which negation is expressed. Gerunds accept clausal negation, as in (22a, b), as well as negation incorporated in adverbs like never, or negative pronouns, as in (23a, b). Verbal nouns accept only negation incorporated in negative determiners or pronouns, as in (22c,.d), (23c, d). (22) a. We protested against his not receiving the grant. b. We protested against him not receiving the grant. c. no reading of the book d. No receiving of the grant was mentioned. (23) a. Their greatness seems to consist in their never having done anything to distinguish themselves. (Poutsma: 476) b. I almost expected nobody's showing up for the festival. c. She had no intention of seeing him. (She did not intend to see him.) d. Her knowledge of nothing good about him made him reject him (The fact that she did not know anything good about him) The presence of the negation not, as well as the presence of the aspectual auxiliaries indicates the presence of syntactic Tense position in gerunds, though not in verbal nouns. 3.5. There are certain structural operations that may affect only clausal domains (IPs) producing characteristic sentence patterns. Such is the case of the double object construction, of the Nom + Inf construction, produced by SSR, or of the Acc + Inf construction, produced by SOR, or of the Tough Movement construction. It is essential to remark that all these structures may have gerund counterparts, that is, the main verb is a gerund, but they do not have verbal noun counterparts (cf. Chomsky (1970)). Here are examples: Double object structures: (24) a. He gave her a kiss in public.

119 COMPLEMENTATION b. His giving her a kiss in public shocked us c. Him giving her a kiss in public shocked us. (25) *His giving of her a kiss in public shocked everybody. Subject to Subject Raising (26) a. He really appeared to still love her. b. His really appearing to still love her pleased her mother. c. Him really appearing to still love her pleased her mother. (27) * His real appearing / appearance to still love her pleased her mother. Subject to Object Raising (28) a. He believes her to be faithful to him. b. Im positive about his believing her to be faithful to him. c. Im positive about him believing her to be faithful to him. d. *Im positive about his believing of her to be faithful to him. Tough Movement (29) a. John is easy to please. b. Im sure about Johns truly being easy to please. c. Im sure about John really being easy to please. d. *Im sure about Johns real being easy to please. e. *Im sure about Johns real easiness to please. All these facts prove that gerunds embed at least VPs, and moreover, and more importantly, that gerunds have sufficient clausal functional structure to license all these constructions. The presence/ absence of determiners clearly differentiates between verbal nouns, which require determiners, and gerunds, which disallow them. (33) Waiting in the rain for hours had been unpleasant. The waiting in the rain for hours had been unpleasant. There are unexpected differences regarding the subject, even between the Poss-ing and the verbal noun constructions. The Possessive subject of a verbal noun correlates with an of construction (34a, b); this does not happen with the gerund (34c, d): (34) a. the student's slow coming. b. the slow coming of the student c. the student's coming slowly d. *the coming of the students slowly When the subject is not expressed, gerunds require controlled readings at least with certain types of verbs, specifically, private verbs (like, love, etc.), as opposed to public verbs (condemn, etc.). Verbal nouns also allow uncontrolled readings, as in (35d). This is the result of the fact that noun phrases do not have to project a subject. When there is no controller, gerunds allow arbitrary readings, much like infinitive clauses (35c): (35) a. I like diving gracefully. b. I enjoyed reading the play. c. Reading good books is rewarding d. I enjoyed a reading of the play Gerunds Gerunds have important verbal and clausal properties; 1. They have Tense/Aspect properties as well as voice 2. They allow clausal negation by means of not. 3. Transitive verbs assign Acc Case to their DO. 4. Manner adverbial modifiers are allowed and corresponding adjectives are disallowed.

120 COMPLEMENTATION 5. Typical sentence patterns such as the double object construction, the Nom+ Inf or the Acc+Inf have gerund counterparts. This strengthens the view that the functional structure of the gerund is at least partly clausal. Gerunds also have important nominal properties: 6. The subject of a Poss-ing is in the Genitive like the subject of a DP. 7. The distributions of the Poss-ing and Acc-ing is nominal. They appear in all case-positions. Verbal nouns or ing-of constructions. Verbal nouns have only nominal properties. 1. They do not have any verbal categories and do not allow any auxiliaries of aspect and voice 2. They disallow clausal negation by means of not, being negated by means of the negative determiner no, or by negative pronouns. 3. The object of verbal noun gets (analytical) Genitive case, by the preposition of. 4. Manner adverbial modifiers are disallowed and replaced by corresponding adjectives. 5. Typical sentence patterns such as the double object construction, the Nom+ Inf or the Acc + Inf have no verbal noun counterparts. This proves that the functional structure of the verbal noun is nominal, not clausal 6. The subject of a verbal noun gets (synthetic) Genitive case. 7. When there is no subject, a determiner must always precede the verbal noun. 4. Differences between Acc-ing and Poss-ing structures Although in most contexts the two gerund constructions are syntactically acceptable and (roughly) equivalent semantically, there are several syntactic, interpretative and even stylistic differences between them. Stylistically, it has been claimed that the Acc-ing has a rather marginal character (cf. Abney 1987: ). However, it will be shown that there are situations where Poss-ing is not available and Acc-ing remains the only option. 4.1 Agreement Conjoined Acc-ings in subject position, like conjoined that complements, trigger or at least allow singular agreement on the main verb. Conjoined Poss-ing complements in subject position trigger plural agreement behaving like full DPs. (36) a. John coming so often and Mary leaving so often bothers / *bother Mother. b. That John comes so often and that Mary leaves so often bothers /*bother Mother. c. Johns coming and Marys leaving *bothers / bother Mother. 4.3. Wh-movement. Elements of an Acc-ing complement may be extracted by wh-Movement. In contrast, Poss-ing constructions are islands to extraction. (38) a. We remember him describing Rome. b. What city do you remember him describing t? (39) a. We remember his describing Rome b. *What city do you remember his describing t? The subject clause of an Acc-ing construction may be questioned or otherwise wh-moved. The subject of a Poss-ing construction may not undergo wh-movement. (40) a. We approved of him studying linguistics in our department. b. Who do you approve of studying linguistics ? c. We approved of his studying linguistics in our department. d. *Whose did you approve of studying linguistics ? 4.4. Admissible range of subject DPs. The most important difference between the Acc-ing and the Poss- ing is the case of the subject, Gen for the former, Acc for the latter. This difference has significant distributional consequences. The range of acceptable Poss subjects is more limited than the range of acceptable Acc subjects. As first remarked by Ross (1973), gerunds are rather choosy in the kind of DPs that they allow as subjects. This higher selectivity has two reasons. One reason is semantic and relates to the fact that the Saxon Genitive prefers NPs higher on the animacy / personhood

121 COMPLEMENTATION scale: the bottom of the page, the mouth of the river vs. John's mouth. The Poss-ing construction is thus preferred when the subject is definite or specific, and [+ animate]. Nominals which are low on the referential scale, such as idiom chunks or expletive DPs are dispreferred in the Poss-ing construction though they are allowed in the Acc-ing construction. The subject in the Acc-ing is not subject to any constraint. Examples and grammaticality judgments belong to Ross (1973): (41) a. ?*That tack's having been taken again is incredible. b. *?Advantage's being taken of him. c. *No heed's being paid to her miffed Alice. c. ?? Its being so hot was a real shame. d.?? Its having rained on my birthday was tragic. e. *There's being no beer in the house surpised the guests. (42) a. This tack being taken on devaluation is scandalous. b. I can understand no headway being made for ten years on this problem. c. I wishd for it being sunny down here. d. I can't imagine it being likely that you'll be evicted. e. It having rained threw me off stride. f. There being no more beer in the house surprised me. Apparently older stages of modern English were more permissive regarding the types of Possing subjects. For example Poutsma [1929: 472] comments that "its as the genitive of the indefinite, or the anticipative pronoun is frequent enough before a gerund." Here are some of Poutsma's examples: (43) a. After some talk about its being hard upon Nan to have to take leave so suddenly of her governess, Clara's wish was granted. b. The notion of its being Sunday was the strongest in young ladies like Miss Phipps. c. I won't hear of its raining on your birthday. The growing restrictions on the Poss-ing construction signify the corresponding strengthening of the Acc-ing , which appears to be the only possible gerund form for idiom chunks or formal subjects like it, and especially there. The second reason for preferring the Acc- subject over the Poss subject is morphologic. Certain types of DPs such as demonstrative pronouns, certain partitive constructions, a.o. simply do not have a Poss form. In such cases, the Acc-ing is again the only possibility. (44) a. When I think of this /* this's being the last time of seeing you. b. We did it without either of us /*either of us's knowing that the other had taken up the subject. c. We stood laughing at Sir Walter and my /*[ Sir Walter and my]'s falling out 4.4. Recently, systematic investigation has brought to light differences in the semantic interpretation of these complements. Portner (1994) accepts the view that Poss-ing, as well as Acc-ing complements are DPs suggesting that Poss-ing complements are inherently definite and presuppositional, differing from Acc-ing constructions which may be indefinite. The difference between the two types of interpretations is apparent in examples of the following types (Portner (1994: 107)). (45) a. Joyce usually dreams about Mary shouting at her b. Joyce usually dreams about Mary's shouting at her. Sentence (45b), but not (45a) may have the reading indicated in (46): (46) Most of the time, when Mary shouts at her, Joyce dreams about it.

122 COMPLEMENTATION As (46) shows the Poss-ing construction presupposes that the situation described in the gerund clause is real and Joan dreams of it. The Acc-ing simply means that the situation is real in Mary's dream world, without commitment as to whether the event has taken place in the real world or not. The same difference shows up in (47): (47 ) a. Mary didn't discuss John's coming to visit her. b. Mary didn't discuss John coming to visit her. In (47a), the Poss-ing has a familiarity presupposition, the event of John's coming to visit her is at least familiar to the conversational background, if not actual. In contrast, the Acc-ing gerunds are completely indefinite, lacking even this type of familiarity presupposition. It follows that Poss-ings are always interpreted as definite DPs, while Acc-ing may also be interpreted as indefinite DPs. In certain contexts, the containing predicate suspends this difference, so that both gerunds are definite. Such a context is that of a factive predicate. (48) a. Mary didn't enjoy John's coming to visit her. b. Mary didn't enjoy John coming to visit her More on the semantics of the gerund is to be found in section 9. Conclusion: The analysis that we propose will have to account for the differences in 4.1.-4.3. above. 5. The syntax of the Poss-ing construction In the analysis of the several ing complements (Poss-ing, Acc-ing, PRO-ing), the guiding idea is that it is the nature of the available functional categories which determines the categorial features of the lexical phrase, since, as noticed above, the ing that attaches to a verb may produce a lexical category with any feature specification. Let us start with the Poss-ing construction. The Poss-ing construction offers the clearest case of mixed functional categories. It has been shown that the gerund embeds a VP or IP, a phrase headed by a [+V] constituent, and yet it has the subject and the distribution of a DP. In this section, we give a more detailed description of the internal structure of the gerund, specifying its functional categories. 5.1. One of them is Aspect. The aspectual auxiliaries have and be are not in the VP, but head Aspect Phrases. (49) a. I remembered having been waiting for him for two hours once. b. I remember having heard Shaliapin once. 5.2. The evidence is also compatible with the hypothesis that the gerund clause contains a Tense position. Evidence supporting the presence of a Tense position in gerunds is not only the existence of auxiliary verbs in gerunds, but also the fact that the gerund complement may be negated by the sentential negation not. In this respect, the gerund differs from the verbal noun which accepts only the negative determiner no.( See examples above.) As known, the sentential negation not scopes over Tense. (50) Johns not knowing the truth. *John's not knowing of the truth. As to the content of the gerund Tense/ Mood feature, the following points should be taken into account: a) Many verbs of propositional attitude: believe, know, think, etc. are not compatible with the gerund, probably because the setting they create is not suitable for evaluating the truth of a gerund clause. b) The content of the gerund comes out more clearly in contexts where it contrasts with the infinitive: (52) a. I remembered his being bald, so I brought a wig to disguise him.

123 COMPLEMENTATION b. I remembered him to be bald, so I was surprised to see him hair. (53) wearing long

a. They reported the enemy's being defeated. b. They reported the enemy to be defeated. (54) a. I regret to say that you are fired. b. I regret saying that you are a liar. In all the examples, the infinitive is compatible with future tense (see (54a) or with irrealis mood (see (52b)), while the gerund shows realis non-future tense. The gerund in the sentences above refers to real past events or situations, contrasting with the infinitive. In fact, when more gerund containers are taken into account, it appears that the gerund indeed has realis non-future Tense, and it is compatible with expressing events that overlap the main clause, as in (55), as well as with events that precede the main clause, as in (56). This difference is in fact aspectual as commented by Portner (1994:258): "An intuitive way to put the difference between (55) and (56) is to say that enjoy-class verbs (may) give an internal (imperfective) perspective on the gerund's event, while celebrate-class verbs (may) give an external (perfective) perspective. (55) a. I enjoyed building the house. b. I hated her writing the book. c. They loved travelling to Rome. d. We disliked her writing her memoirs. (56) a. I celebrated building my first house. b. They commemorated travelling to Rome. c. I praised her writing the book. d. I regretted walking to town. c) The content of the gerund Tense/Mood feature is best apparent in subject clauses, where the interpretation of the complement clause is least dependent on the main verb. Examples like the following (from Conrad (1982:97) reinforce the idea that the gerund has realis non future Tense (with respect to the main clause): (57) a. Meeting me again reminded her of her old triumphs. b. Watching all this today has made you quite excited. These examples lead to the conclusion that there is a contentful Tense position in the gerund clause. 5.3 Case-assignment inside the gerund clause presents no special problem. Summing up, it has so far been established that gerunds contain the verbal projections in (70a), with the detailed representation of the vP in (70b) : (70) a. TP > Asp P > vP b. TP > Asp P >( vP > VP) The verbal part of the gerund clause thus represents a small clause. Since the gerunds subject is in the Genitive case, the gerund clause should contain the nominal projection responsible for Genitive case assignment. Following Kayne (1994), Gueron (1995), let us assume that that the Gen assigner 's is the head of a an AgrP, bearing a strong nominal feature. At the same time, we have also mentioned empirical evidence in favour of a DP layer in the gerund construction; it is the layer that secures the nominal distribution. From this point of view, the D layer acts as a category shifter. Moreover, we have assumed that the T-chain of the gerund clause is headed by an Op in SpecD. Asher ( 1993), Portner (1993), Zucchi (1993) argue that gerunds are interpreted as quantified DPs, and they all agree that the Poss-ing gerund bears a [+definite] feature, a "silent the" as Asher claims. The complete functional structure of the Poss-ing is then the following: (71) DP > AgrSP> NegP> TP > Asp P >( vP > FP > VP)

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

125 COMPLEMENTATION Similar examples are quoted by Schachter (1976) and Ross (1973). The appearance of determiners in gerund constructions was apparently much freer until early this century. Poutsma cites numerous examples from Dickens, Thackery, Scott and other writers: (78) a. That having had to pay in full must have cramped your vacation plans. b. There is hardly any desiring to refresh such a memory as that c. The having to fight with the boisterous wind took off his attention. d. the being cheerful and fresh for the first moment, and then the being weighed down by the stale and dismal oppression of remembrance (David Copperfield) 5.5. More on the negation of the gerund clause The gerund clause contains a NegP quite similar to the NegP of a finite clause. This analysis seems to be at variance with certain interpretative contrasts between clauses and gerunds, regarding the scope of negation. However, at closer inspection, these differences fall out from the different functional structure of the gerund, in contrast with finite clauses. Consider the difference in the interpretation of the following two seemingly parallel examples. (81) a. John is [Neg P not [VP t AP happy] for five minutes each day.] b. John s [TP being [ AP not happy] for five minutes each day ] is a cause for concern. There is a scope ambiguity between not and for five minutes each day in (81a). However, in (81b), there is no reading on which not has wider scope than the temporal modifier. In the derivation of the finite sentence, the copula is goes up to T, and then to the Neg head and the AgrS0 head to check its agreement features. The negation not is in the Neg P and the temporal modifier for five minutes a day may be adjoined to the VP or to some other higher projection, such as SpecAgrS', above NegP, so that the reading becomes: 'For five minutes a day, John is not happy'. This reading is absent in the gerund example, which can only mean :' the fact that John is not happy for five minutes each day'. This difference is predictable. The verb being in the gerund clause goes no higher then T0, not is adjoined to the AP and is always lower than the durative phrase, attached as before, to the VP or to a higher projection of the gerund clause. The proposed analysis explains certain interpretative differences between gerunds and other kinds of clauses regarding negation. One of these is the interaction of negation and quantifiers. Consider the following pairs of examples: (82) a. Everyone didn t smile. b. Everyone s not smiling upset her. The finite tense sentence is ambiguous, with the two readings, 'Not everyone smiled', (x) (x smiled), as well as 'For all the people, it is not true that they smiled', ((x) (x smiled). In contrast, the Poss-ing construction allows only the wide scope interpretation of everyone. Consider the interpretation of the finite clause first. The wide scope reading of the QP results from interpreting the QP in situ, above negation. There are two ways one might seek to derive the narrow scope reading for the quantifier, a reading where not should be above everyone. One might claim that everyone reconstructs to its thematic, Spec vP position, a position which is below Negation. Such a view would run counter the more general principle that A-positions do not reconstruct, and that DPs are interpreted in their Case position or higher. Fortunately, there is a more convenient analysis: the LF adjunction of not to the IP, a position which ccommands the quantifier subject: [IP Not [IP Everyone came]]. The adjunction of not is an instance of Quantifier /Operator raising, a process which is clause-bound ( May (1985)). This analysis of the finite clause predicts that the Poss-ing clause will not be ambiguous, disallowing the wide scope negation reading, 'Not everyone came'. If negation raises at LF, it will adjoin to the AgrS projection in (82b, 73), below the subject, which continues to have wide scope. It follows that the only reading is the one where everyone has wider scope.

126 COMPLEMENTATION 6. The Acc-ing construction 6.1 Acc-ing vs. Acc+ Part(icple). At first sight the Acc+ing is not distinct from the participial clauses that have already been examined in a previous chapter. (83) a. I found him sleeping.(Acc+Part) b. I regret him leaving. (Acc-ing, gerund) There are however clear empirical differences between them. This suggests that the lexical categorization of the ing form is distinct in the two constructions. As with the Poss-ing construction, the ing-form in the Acc+ing has mixed verbal-nominal properties, even though the nominal properties are less apparent than with the Poss-ing construction. A clear difference between the Acc+Part and the Acc-ing structure is that only the latter can regularly be replaced by the Poss-ing construction, without significantly changing the interpretation. Consider the following examples: (84) a.I found him sleeping. b.*I found his sleeping. (85) a. I regret him leaving. b. I regret his leaving. (86) a. They saw him waiting. b. *They saw his waiting. (87) a. I deplore him losing his fortune. b. I deplore his losing his fortune. Secondly, only the Acc+Part, but not the Acc+ing correlates with an Acc+Inf. (88) a. I saw him coming b. I saw him come (89) a. I kept him waiting a. *I kept him to wait. The Acc+Part construction involves SOR, the Acc may become a main clause constituent and can be "passivized on the main clause cycle", more precisely the Acc+ Part correlates with a Nom + Part construction, based on SSR. In contrast, the Acc of the Acc+ing construction does not passivize. It cannot become a main clause subject, by SSR, if the main verb is passive. These data suggest that the manner of Acc case assignment is different in the two constructions, in the sense that the subject of the Acc-ing construction is assigned case clauseinternally ( see below). (90) a. He was found [t sleeping] b. *He was regretted [t leaving] c. He was kept [t waiting] d. *He was deplored [t losing his fortune] What is presumably different about the two apparently identical Acc-+ing structures is the lexical specification of the Ving. It is purely verbal [+V,-N] in the case of the participle, and has mixed features [+V +N] in the case of the gerund. This leads to a different manner of case assignment in the two clauses. In the Acc+Part construction, the ing verb is not involved in assigning case to the subject. The subject undergoes SOR and checks the Acc case feature of the main verb. A limited number of verbs may c-select the Acc +Part construction. The raised subject may undergo passive on the main clause cycle: (91) a. I saw himi [ ti running away]. b. He was seen ti [ ti running away] (92) a. I deplored [him leaving] b.*He was deplored [ t leaving]. As will be shown in detail below, in all the analyses of the Acc-ing construction (Reuland (1983), Johnson (1988) Pires (2000), the ing morpheme is somehow involved in assigning case to the subject. The Acc-ing thus counts as having, if not an 'internal' source for the

127 COMPLEMENTATION subject's case, at least an internal mechanism of case-transmission, in contrast with the Acc+Part. The several properties that differentiate the Poss-ing from the Acc-ing have been interpreted as showing that the Acc+ing is more clausal. Several important studies on the Acc-ing construction point out that the Acc-ing should be viewed like a clause, therefore an IP (cf. Reuland (1983)), Pires (2000) or even a CP (cf. Johnson (1988)), in contrast with the Poss-ing which is unquestionably a DP. It is stressed that the Acc+ing does not show any clear nominal marks, simply having a nominal distribution. A desirable analysis would have to account for the DP distribution of the Acc-ing, obvious in its ability to appear after prepositions, or in positions of structural case, while at the same time, producing appropriate explanations for the syntactic and interpretative differences between the full gerund and the half gerund. 6.2. The analysis The account that we propose is based on several important empirical facts. a) The Acc+ing is particularly frequent after prepositions and after transitive verbs, while being less felicitous in subject position: (93) a. ? Would him leaving her surprise you. b. I was surprised at him leaving her. c. I deplored him leaving her. This distribution has to be correlated with the property that verbs and prepositions share: they are Acc-case assigners, capable to check the case feature of their complement. In this, they contrast with Inflection / Tense which regularly check Nom case only by SHA. The intuition we want to capture is that the source of the Acc-Case in the Acc-ing is external to the Accing; it is the [ -Case] feature of some head in the main clause (V0, P0, I0), this feature acts as a probe ultimately checking the case feature of the Acc-ing subject through a chain of Agree relations. b) The second important fact is that the constituent that is assigned Acc remains in the subordinate clause, as demonstrated by the impossibility of SSR when the main verb is passive: (94) a. I saw him leaving her. b. He was seen leaving her. (95) a. I deplored him leaving her. b. *He was deplored leaving her. This clearly shows that no gerund subject movement is at stake in the Acc-ing construction. Case is somehow transmitted from the main clause head to the gerund subject. The most natural solution appears to be checking the case feature of the subject by Agree. c) The third fact that should be accepted is that Acc-ing constructions have a DP layer. This is natural given their distribution. At the same time, as with Poss-ing, the temporal interpretation of these constructions is best understood by claiming that they have a Tense Op in SpecD. The proposal that we want to make is that, like Poss-ings, Acc+ings are DPs that embed clauses, IPs, headed by T/ AgrS0, in a configuration of the type shown in (96): (96) V' V0 deplore Agree D0 Agree DP TP T" DP D'

128 COMPLEMENTATION him T0 DP

0

VP V"

V DP Essentially, D0 is in some sense an anaphoric case assigner, endowed with a Case feature. This makes it a Probe, in search of an appropriate Goal in suitably local search space, which is the sister node TP. The subject in [Spec, TP] is an accessible Goal. The difference between this Acc assigning silent D and the Gen-assigning overt 's, is that D0 must itself be "activated" by an overt case head, the V0 in (96). In that sense, D0 is an anaphoric assigner. The Case of the subject is thus checked by means of two Agree relations. V0 Agrees with D0, D0 Agrees with the subject DP, whose case feature is thus checked in situ. The -ing in the Acc-ing, like the -ing of the Poss-ing construction is both nominal and verbal, It is its [+N] specification that makes it compatible with the D0 head, which is thus licensed. and which is instrumental in "transmitting" case to the subject. 7. The participle 7.1 The (present) participle is a purely verbal ing-form. As known, it is used in forming the progressive aspect. The present participle can regularly be used as an adjective, a form which is [+N, +V]. The brief remarks that follow regard participial constructions in English, two of which, the Accusative + Participle and the Nominative + Participle have already been discussed. Both have been described as incomplete clauses: They are Aspect Phrases and lack the functional projections necessary to assign case to the subject. The subject is assigned case from an external source: the main clause Tense /Inflection in the Nom + Part structure and the main verb in the Acc+Part construction. (144) a. He was found sleeping in the armchair. b. They found him sleeping in the armchair. The participial constructions mentioned so far are arguments, and have corresponding syntactic functions: Direct Object (Acc+ Part) or subject ( the Nom + Part). The participle unlike the gerund does not subcategorize predicates, it normally functions as a modifier, a verb modifier, in other words, an adverbial or, a noun modifier, in other words, an attribute. (145) Having forgotten my notebook at home, I felt embarrassed. The book lying on the desk is Mary's. Participial constructions have the following properties. a) Often they are subjectless, placed in sentence initial or sentence final position, their subject is understood as coreferential with the main clause subject: (146) a. Living in seclusion on an island, the Englishmen became introspective. b. For a moment the girl sat on the edge of the desk, looking less at him than out of the window. c. Being argued ultimately on a basis of doctrine, these disputes tend to become more rigid and more bitter. b) Participial constructions may be introduced by the following subordinating conjunctions or adverbs ( constituents of category P): if, unless, as if, as though, though, although. (147) a. Morgan was rocking it backwards and forwards, as if persuading a child to sleep. b. While visiting a native school, the inspector noticed the children learning to write. Participles cannot be preceded by case-assigning prepositions, i.e., prepositions that subcategorize DPs. This means that the inflection ing in this case is not [+V,+N], as it was

129 COMPLEMENTATION with the gerund, but [+V,-N], so that the participle is purely verbal. This is consistent with the fact that the participle does not show up in case-marked positions. Also the participle is selected by subordinators (prepositions) that always subcategorize clauses not DPs, since it is a clause, not a DP. As a practical aside, note that when gerunds function as verbal or nominal modifiers, they must be preceded by prepositions, while participles are either independent, or introduced by conjunctions (non-case-assigning subordinators). Compare: (148) a. Arriving there, I found him gone ( participle) b. On arriving there I found him gone.(gerund) c. The idea obsessing him was the loss of his fortune d. The idea of losing his fortune obsessed him ( gerund) c) The adverbial participial clause has a complete functional structure, with auxiliaries and Negation: (149) a. Having known him for many years, she was sorry to hurt his feelings. b. Not knowing the truth, she didn't know what to decide. This indicates the presence of a syntactic Tense position, and of a NegP, which means that adverbial participial clauses are TPs. d) There is also the so-called Absolute Participial Construction, a construction where the participle has its own lexical subject, in the Nom case. The construction always functions as an adverbial. Here are a few examples. (150) a. God willing, we shall succeed. b. Weather permitting, we will go on the picnic. c. The child having gone to bed, we could talk undisturbed. While whenever there is comma intonation, the participle may be viewed as a sentence modifier ( i.e. the participle is adjoined to a projection of Inflection), there are also instances where the participle must be analyzed as a VP modifier. Such is the case of the examples below, where the post-verbal position seems to be obligatory, at least in the intended meaning: (152) a. She sat talking (*Talking she sat). b. He stood addressing crowds of men and women on the slopes of the Mound. c. Too often he gulped his tea standing up. 7.2 Towards an analysis. The key to a plausible analysis of the participle lies in noticing that whenever it is introduced by a conjunction or a wh-adverb, the participle is subjectless, moreover the only possible connectors that introduce participles are non-case assigning ones : conjunctions and wh- adverbs. In other words, the adjunct participle is always PRO-ing, except for the Absolute Participial construction, where it is Nom-ing. (153) a. PRO running , he fell. b. While PRO running, he fell. c. When PRO arriving, they found the house deserted d. The thief running away, the police were after him. It is well-known that adverbs like when or while, occupy the Spec CP position, having an operator role. This is a sure indication of the fact that the participial clause is not merely a TP, but a CP. If that description is accepted, the complementarity between situations when the lexical subject is possible, and those when it is not possible becomes comprehensible: a) A lexical subject is impossible if there is a wh-operator in Spec CP, so that C0 has a wh feature. b) A lexical subject is impossible if the clause is introduced by a conjunction, i.e. a CPselecting preposition in the class: if, although, though, as if ,etc. Let us assume that these

130 COMPLEMENTATION prepositions select an empty C0, which they incorporate by head to head movement at LF. The C0 may be said to check some strong feature of the conjunction, possibly a [+V] feature. This would express the intuition that conjunctions require verbal projections. What counts is that, under these assumptions, the Spec C position will not be licensed. The participle may not have a lexical subject in this configuration either. c) The lexical subject is possible only when there is no conjunctive adverb (when, while) and no conjunction. We will assume, with Gueron & Hoeckstra (1995) that, under these circumstances, the Spec C position of the clause is held by an abstract T-operator which "activates" the Agr features on Tense, the latter licensing a "default" Nom case. Such a suggestion becomes plausible by analogy with constructions in other languages, where it appears that a lexical T-operator in Spec CP licenses the case of the subject: R: Odata copiii plecati, ne-am culcat / *Copiii plecati, ne-am culcat; F Une fois les enfants venus, nous partirons. Here are two representations, respectively that of (153b) and of (153d) above. (154) CP AdvP C' C0 TP while +wh T' T0 ing DP PRO (155) AdvP Op C0 CP C' TP DP the thief T' T0/Agr ing DP PRO vP v" run away vP v" run

7.3. More instances of verbal Ving. Extraposition. We have said above that gerunds do not extrapose, behaving like DPs from this point of view. There is however a class of idiomatic exceptions. Many evaluative adjectives (it is easy/ hard,/useless/ fine/ worth/ awkward/ ill/ jolly/ awful, etc.) and nouns ( it is (not/not any/ use/ fun/ good / avail/ worth while/ an awful job, etc.) allow extraposed gerunds. Poutsma (op. cit. 959), quotes the following Poss-ing extraposed gerunds: (155) a. It was of no use my saying anything to you. b. It is exceedingly unwise his going to stay at Court. Milsark (1988:626) gives the following examples and grammaticality judgements of extraposed ing-complements, accompanied by the following comment. It has been noted only rarely that there is a striking difference in acceptability in this position between gerundives that contain overt subjects, whether genitive or accusative, and those that do not. To my own ear at least, the latter are fully grammatical, whereas the former can be given

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

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

133 COMPLEMENTATION b'. It turns out that nobody has experienced that dilemma. c. The Prime Minister happened to be in Greece at the time. c'. It happened that the Prime Minister was in Greece at the time. The Nom + Inf is a lexically governed construction, i.e., its possibility depends not only a certain syntactic configuration, but also on the presence of certain lexical items, called triggers of the construction. The most characteristic triggers of the Nom + Inf construction are the so-called A(ppear) verbs: appear, seem, happen, turn out, prove, as well as the adjectives, likely, unlikely, sure, certain. (2) a. He now seems to be leaving tomorrow, instead of the day after tomorrow. b. He now appears to have arrived last night, not the night before. 1.1 The Nom + Inf construction is derived by Subject to Subject Raising (SSR), a typical AMovement rule. Thus, all generative analyses proposed so far have somehow related the subject of the infinitive clause to that of the main clause. (3) He started to [PRO to visit her more and more often now] He appeared [ t to be more and more interested in her now] It is essential to grasp the intuitive difference between raising verbs and subject control verbs. Namely, for raising verbs there is no s-selection between the main verb and its (derived) subject; with the Nom + Inf, the main clause subject is s-selected only by the downstairs infinitive. It is the infinitive verb, not the main verb, which - marks the main clause subject. This indicates that the main clause subject is originally projected as the subject of the infinitive. Several types of empirical data prove this point There are subjects which are s-selected or even l-selected by particular verbs. All these may appear, not only with the respective verbs, but also across the verb seem, appear, etc. Such is the case of it, there, of idiomatic subjects, listed in the lexicon only as parts of the respective idioms Here are examples of this type. a. Weather it is selected by verbs like- rain, drizzle, hail, sleet, snow, and a few more. It can also figure in Nom + Inf construction, suggesting that it has raised from the infinitive clause: (4) a. It rained/drizzled/snowed for a long time. b. It seemed to have been raining/ drizzling/ snowing for a long time b. The expletive there, which appears with ergative verbs (be, go, come , etc. ) may also figure as subject of a Nom + Inf construction. Observe that control verbs like try (cf. (5c)) do not allow there subjects: (5) a. There is/*groans a man in your bed. b. There seems to be /* to be groaning a man in your bed. c. *There tried to be a man in your bed. c. Idiomatic subjects (examples (6)), which are l-selected if the idiomatic reading is not to be lost, are also possible as subjects in the Nom + Inf construction (7a, b, c), again suggesting a movement analysis. Predictably, idiom chunks do not appear across control verbs (7a', c')). (6) a. The jig is up. b. .All hell is likely to break out. c. The shoe is on the other foot. (7) a. The jig seemed [t to be up.] a' *The jig tried to be up. b. All hell is certain [ t to break out.] c. The shoe is likely [ t to be on the other foot. ] c' *The shoe is trying to be on the other foot. In other cases the surface subject is a subcategorised idiomatic direct object of the infinitive, in phrases like keep tabs on, pay heed to, make headway. The representations we assign below to such examples in (8b, d) are plausible in as much as they express the basic function of the

134 COMPLEMENTATION idiomatic noun, that of being an l-selected object of the infinitive verb. As the traces in the chain show, the object is first passivized and then raised. (8) a. They kept tabs on all of them. b. Tabs appear [ttabs to have been kept ttabs on all of them]. c. They have paid little heed to my suggestions d. Little heed seems [ t to have been paid t to my suggestions.] 1.2 The movement analysis is also theoretically feasible. An important constraint on movement bans movement into a -marked position since there is clear evidence that appear- verbs are ergative. The unique clausal argument, whether it is a that complement or an infinitive complement, merges as an internal argument. A - verbs, and other Nom+ Inf triggers are propositional ergative (unaccusative) verbs. They have a non-thematic subject position, a position that can be moved into. (9) a. It seems that he is an honest man. b. It seems so. c. * It seems this. Since the verb is unaccusative, the immediately post-verbal position can be occupied by the adverbial clausal substitute so or by a CP i.e., by categories that lacks case, but not by a pronoun, as seen in examples (9 b, c). It is a fact of English (though not of other languages) that raising verbs do not take control complements. In the infinitive examples in (10), the pronoun it can be interpreted neither as a referential pronoun, nor as en expletive. Thus in (10a, b), PRO ought to be given an arbitrary reading, as suggested by paraphrases (10a', b'), but this is not possible. On the other hand, the contrast between (10c) and (10d) shows that with appear verbs, PRO cannot be licensed event in the presence of a pronominal main clause antecedent, like him, either. (10) a. *It happens [PRO to have read those novels over the past few years ]. a' It happens that people have read those novels over the past few years] b. *It happens [PRO to walk daily along these lanes]. b'. It happens that people walk daily along these lanes. c. *It appeared to him [PRO to have read the book]. c'. It appeared to him that [he had read the book]. d.* It mattered to him [PRO to have read the book] d'. It mattered to him that he had read the book. English thus shows a complementarity between trace and PRO. (12) a. John liked Mary and Peter [I' did e] too. b. John's talk about the economy was interesting but Bill [D's e] was boring. d. *John thinks that Peter met someone but I don't believe [C' that e] e. *A single student came to the class because [D' the e] thought that it was important 1.4 The categorial status of the infinitive. While there are empirical and theory-internal reasons to treat (most) control constructions as CPs, such is not the case for raising complements. In the GB literature, there is some tension between the desire to give a uniform representation to all infinitives (the Uniformity of Selection Hypothesis ) and the fact that there is no empirical evidence that there is any CP projection in raising constructions. Thus analysts like Pesetsky (1992), Lighfoot (1991), Rooryck (1995) go for the Uniformity of Selection hypothesis, arguing from language acquisition that the learner is never presented with sufficient positive evidence enabling him to distinguish between pairs like (14), so that both should be treated identically, as CPs.

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

I' I0 VP TO be a pleasant man

I' VP V' IP

136 COMPLEMENTATION The most typical group of Acc + Inf triggers are some verbs of propositional attitude, like believe, expect, consider, find, prove, judge, etc. Intuitively, the main difference is that, with control verbs, the Acc is semantically related to the main verb whose argument it is, while with raising verbs the Acc is unrelated to the main verb. In other words, the main verb s-selects and - marks the infinitive clause, not the Acc DP. With raisers the Acc is s-selected ONLY by the infinitive, and in no way depends on the matrix verb for its interpretation. Indeed, the Acc constituent need not be in the selectional range of the main verb: (4) a. I consider the man to be crazy. b. *I consider man. c. I assumed him to have left. d.*I assumed him. In contrast, the main verb does s-select the DO with control verbs; the object DP must be in the selectional range of the verb: (5) a. I couldn't persuade him to go. b. I couldnt persuade him. Rephrasing this contrast in more technical terms, it follows that control verbs -mark the Acc DP, while raising verbs do not do so. An empirical consequence of this selectional difference is that raising verbs accept as DOs any DP, which may function as subject of the infinitive. Thus, formal subjects, like weather it in (6) or the expletive it of Extraposition in (7) surface as DOs in the Acc+Inf, but not in object control constructions. The occurrence of there in DO position in (8) also provides striking evidence that the Acc DP is justifiable and interpretable only in relation to the infinitive verb. There DPs do not appear in control constructions. (6) a. I didnt expect it to rain so hard in April. b. *They forced it to rain in March. (7) a. I expect it to be possible for him to obtain the promotion. b. I forced it to be possible for him to obtain the promotion. (8) a. I expected/ believed there to be a man behind the counter. b. *I forced/ordered/promised/vowed there to be a man behind the counter. In the same way, idiom chunks freely occur as main clause objects in the Acc+ Inf, but not in the control, constructions, even if they are undoubtedly s- selected or even l-selected by the lower verb, with which they are listed in the lexicon (e.g., keep tabs on, pay heed to, make headway, etc. ): (9) a. I expected heed to be paid to that proposal by all of the legislators. b. *I found/ordered/promised heed to be paid to that proposal by all of the legislators. In addition to s-selection and -marking, transitive control verbs differ from raising verbs regarding their - structure. Control verbs are three-place predicates, raising verbs are binary predicates. This contrast is immediately apparent when infinitive constructions are paraphrased by finite complements: (10) force [ Agent, Patient [ Affected Agent ] Proposition ]. believe [ Experiencer, Proposition ]. (11) a. They persuaded Mary to help William. b. They persuaded Mary that she should help William c. They expected Mary to help William d. They expected that Mary would help William 1.1 On the source of the Accusative In the Acc+inf construction, the main verb plays a formal part, providing case for the infinitive subject. Several facts support this view.

137 COMPLEMENTATION First, the construction is possible only with transitive verbs, since only (active) transitive verbs are Acc assigners. When the main verb is passivized, the Acc is no longer possible. The only case available in the main clause for the infinitive subject is the Nom, checked by the main clause Inflection. Thus passive-raising verbs must appear in the Nom + Inf construction, as in (12b). If the Acc had been assigned in the downstairs clause, as is the case in the for-to construction, passivization of the main verb would not have affected the Acc in the embedded clause. Compare: (12) a. We never expected them to return soon. b. They were never expected [ t to return so soon]. (13) a. We never expected for them to return soon. b. It was never expected for them to return soon. Adjacency effects also prove that the Acc is assigned by the main verb; ill-formedness results if there is any constituent between the main verb and the Acc. Notice in contrast, the position of the for phrase in the for-to construction: (14) a. *I never expected at all them to arrive so soon. b. *I want very much him to succeed. (15) a. I want very much for him to succeed. b. *I want for him very much to succeed. In conclusion, the source of the Acc on the embedded clause subject is the main verb. Conclusions 1. The Acc in the Acc+Inf construction is not -marked or s-selected by the main verb but by the infinitive. 2. The infinitive subject is gets Acc from the main verb, if the latter is active. (the Accusative + Infinitive structure). It gets Nom if the main verb is passive, raising to the subject position of the main clause. (the Nominative + Infinitive structure). 3. The Inf Inflection of the Acc + Inf lacks anaphoric agreement features, so PRO cannot be licensed. This explains why in most cases the PRO-to and the Acc+Inf construction are in complementary distribution. 4. Given that R-triggers are extensionally anchored, weak intensional verbs, the infinitive complement is interpreted in a weakly realistic setting. This explains why the Acc+Inf accepts an indicative rather than a subjunctive paraphrase. 5. The Acc+Inf is categorially an IP. 2. Important previous analyses. 2.2 The classical GB Analysis: Case assigned under government, no movement involved. Within a classic GB framework, once it is decided that the raising complement is an IP (as in Chomsky (1986)), the analysis of the construction raises no difficulties. Consider the representation below: (24) IP DP I' He I0 VP s V' 0 V IP believes DP I' her I0 VP to be beautiful

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

139 COMPLEMENTATION c) Passivisation. The analysis can also explain the behaviour of the infinitive complement when the main verb is passive, in pairs like the following: (27) a. Everyone believes him to be an addict. b. Hei is believed ti to be an addict. Since the main verb, now in the passive participle form, can no longer assign Case to the embedded subject, the latter would remain caseless if it didn't raise into the non- subject position of the passive verb, where it receives Nom from finite Inflection: The infinitive subject thus undergoes SSR. The trace left behind is properly governed by the verb. This analysis thus accounts for the most important properties of the Acc+Inf clause: the subject properties of the Acc, the passivization of the Acc on the main clause cycle, the distribution of the anaphors in the subject position of the infinitive clause. 3.3. DO properties The former subject acquires syntactic DO properties. This is a very strong and persuasive class of arguments for overt movement 3.3.1 There are, for instance, negation facts, first commented upon by Postal (1974), which unambiguously prove that the Acc in the Acc + Inf clause acquires or, at least, may acquire matrix DO status in overt syntax. One such fact is Negative Attraction. Negative Attraction is felicitous in subject position where it applies freely, but not in other positions, such as the DO one. Consider sentences (44), contrasting that and for-to complements with Acc+ Inf complements: (44) a. Harry believes that not many pilots are familiar with Racine. b. John prayed for not many of them to be fired. c. *Harry believes not many of the pilots to be familiar with

Racine.

Sentences (44a, b), where the Neg was attracted to the subject position are flawless. Sentence (44c) is infelicitous since negation has been attracted to a constituent that has turned into a DO. 3.3.2. Another useful property of negative sentences is that there cannot be more than one sentence negation per simple sentence. Bearing this in mind consider the set of sentences below: (45) a. I couldnt believe that none of these sailors kissed Sally . b. I didnt arrange for none of them to survive, it just happened that way. c. *I couldnt believe none of the sailors to have kissed Sally The that and for-to examples are flawless, since each of the two clauses contains one clausal negation, the neg clitic in the main clause, and the negative subject quantifier DP in the embedded clause. The Acc+Inf example is ill-formed since the main clause contains both a negative verb and a negative DO quantifier. This shows that the AccDP is in the main clause before Spell-Out. 3.3.3. The object status of the AccDP is also confirmed by Heavy NP Shift. As known, Heavy NP Shift applies only to objects, never to subjects. It is expected then that it will apply to the subject of an Acc+Inf, which is a DO, as a consequence of overt movement, but not to the subject of a for-to or that clause which are subjects throughout the derivation: (46) a.*Jim proved that t were innocent all of the gang members who had been caught. b. Jim proved t to be innocent all of the gang members who had been caught. This is again very strong evidence in favour of overt SOR. 3.4 Intervening matrix constituents: This is the clearest and least theory-dependent type of data. 3.4.1. As originally noted in Postal (1974), the Acc DP may occur to the left of certain matrix elements. Bowers (1993) quotes examples of type (47a), where the Inf subject (=derived DO)

140 COMPLEMENTATION is separated from the Inf by an Indirect Object licensed by the main verb. Similarly, time adjuncts (47b, c), as well as manner adverbials (47d, e) of the main verb may intervene between the Acc and the Inf. (47) a. We proved Smithi to the authorities [ti to be the thief]. ( Bowers (1993)) b. I've believed Johni for a long time now [ti to be a liar]. c. I have found Bobi recently [ti to be morose]. d. ? I proved himi conclusively [ti to be a liar]. e. I suspect himi strongly [to be a liar]. Although the data are not as clear cut as on might wish, such examples, clearly tilt the balance in favour of the overt movement analysis. Here is one attested literary example due to Poutsma (1929); the time phrase in a moment clearly modifies the main verb. (48) His features and beauty betrayed him, in a moment, to be a Frenchman At the same time, the strong ungrammaticality of the examples below indicates that the overt raising is to the canonical DO position, since the DP shows characteristic adjacency effects: (49) a. * We proved to the authorities Smith to be the thief. b. * I' ve believed for a long time now John to be a liar. b. * I have found recently Bob to be morose. d. * I proved conclusively him to be a liar. e. * I suspect strongly him to be a liar. These examples also give a hint as to what the derived position of the Acc DP is. Remember that the infinitive clause is inside the VP, in complement position with respect to the main verb. Since these matrix adverbials precede, rather than follow the infinitive clause, these adverbials can only be left adjoined to the VP where the infinitive clause merges. This means that the DO moves to a case projection (=FP) out of the VP to which the adverb is adjoined, roughly as suggested below: (50) [FP DPDO F0 [VP AdvP [VP DPSu V [IP tacc to VP]] 3.4.2. A similar quite convincing argument has to do with the position of the particle in complex verb constructions. Normally, the particle of a complex verb cannot occur in an embedded clause; this is illustrated in (51b) below, where the particle wrongly appears after the complementizer that. However, in sentence (51d) below the Acc subject of the subordinate clause precedes the particle. This proves that the Acc DP is in the matrix domain at Spell-Out. The grammaticality of sentence (51d), and the fact that this is the only possible word order lends support to the overt raising analysis. (51) a. They are trying to make out that John is a liar. b. * They are trying to make that John out is a liar. c. ?? They are trying to make out him to be a liar. d. They are trying to make him out to be a liar. THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE NOMINATIVE + INFINITIVE AND OF THE ACCUSATIVE + INFINITIVE 1. The Nominative + Infinitive. 1. A-verbs Previously the class of SSR triggers has been illustrated only by the relatively small group of active verbs and adjectives called A(ppear)-verbs. (1) appear, chance, happen, prove, turn put, seem, look like; (un)likely, sure, certain. (2) Are they likely to have heard the news ? A closer investigation of the data reveals that the class of SSR triggers is considerably more comprehensive. There are other verbs which have complements presenting all the hallmarks of SSR, except that there is no parallel finite clause, so that the effect of SSR is not immediately observable. Among the verbs that can be given a SSR analysis are included the following

141 COMPLEMENTATION 2. Inchoative verbs of the type: come, grow, remain, get are amenable to a SSR analysis, as shown by diagnostic sentences containing, weather it, formal there, or idiom chunks in subject position. Moreover these verbs are known to be ergative: (3) There came to live twenty families in that valley. He grew to like her after a while. 3. Aspectual verbs, like begin, start, continue, finish, commence, are doubly subcategorized as agentive-transitive (already analyzed in the previous chapter) and non-agentive ergative, respectively. Arguments in favour of this view come from a number of empirical facts a) Idiom chunks, expletive it and there may appear as main clause subjects selected by the infinitive verb: (4) a. Recourse began to be had to illegal methods. b. It was beginning to drizzle when he left. c. There continued to be riots in London. b) A second argument for SSR is the synonymy or truth-functional equivalence under passivization in the infinitive complement. (5) a. The noise started to annoy John. b. John started to be annoyed by the noise. c) While the transitive verbs requires animate Agent subjects, the ergative allows any type of DP as Theme. Call this the selectional argument. Even when the DP is [+ personal], it does not show volition, responsibility and control, being interpreted as if it were a Patient: (6) a. Oil began to gush from the oil-well. b. The Queen began to be slapped by the King. 4. Had better and had best are two verbal phrases that take a bare infinitive construction, which is also interpretable as an instance of SSR. (7) There had better be no flaws in your argument. 5. Other cases The SSR analysis can be extended to cover quite a few other cases of modal phrases, mostly based on the verbs be, have, need, as in to be to, to have to, to be going to, to be set to, to be supposed to, and surely ought to. (8) a. There is supposed to be a second chance for your candidate. b. There is bound to be riots in London soon. c. It is going to rain. d. There has to be a way out. e. Little headway is apt to be made on that problem. f. Tempers are about to flare. g. Tabs were supposed to be kept on all visitors. Remark. Many of these have double transitive-control vs. ergative -raising structures, which is not an uncommon situation. Compare: (9) a Bill is going to buy a house. (PRO-TO, intentional) b. Bill is going to be killed (SSR, unintentional) THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE SOR CONSTRUCTION Verbs of propositional attitude Verbs of propositional attitude are the central group of raisers, having acquired this property in the Modern English period. The Longman dictionary indicates the verbs in (10a) as raisers, Poutsma (1929), also includes the verb in (10b). (10) a. account, assert, avow, adjudge, assume; acknowledged, attest, believe, consider, conclude, confess, conjecture, construe, declare, deny, find, fancy, guess, grant, guarantee, hold, make out, imagine, know, maintain, presume; proclaim, profess, prove, remember, reckon, understand, think, suspect, suppose, take, trust, warrant; b. (Poutsma) betoken, indicate, disclose, rule, specify, recognize, interpret.

142 COMPLEMENTATION These verbs are epistemic operators (believe, know, understand) or speech act (assert, guarantee, hold) verbs. Their a-structure includes an Experiencer (for epistemic verbs) or an Agent (for speech acts verbs) and a complement proposition. All of these verbs are weak intensional predicates, introducing one world in which the complement is extenisonally anchored, i.e., assumed to be true. The finite paraphrase is mostly indicative. The characteristic property of this class of raisers is the acceptance of both the Acc+ Inf, and the Nom+ Inf, respectively derived by SOR and SSR. The PRO-to complement is generally excluded, though not with all these verbs. The exclusion of PRO is due to the properties of the infinitive inflection which lacks anaphoric features and cannot license PRO. If the complement clause subject is coreferential with the main clause subject, a reflexive pronoun shows up, as in (11d). (11) a. She believes him to be honest. b. His believed to be honest. c. *She believes [PRO to be honest] d. She believes herself to be honest. The infinitive subject can be questioned, relativized, topicalized and generally A-moved on the main clause cycle (cf. 12b-d). Likewise it may undergo HNPS, as in (12e) (12) a. They didnt remember him to have been sent to London. b. Whom dont they remember [t to have been sent to London] ? c. The man whom they didnt remember to have been sent to London is their son. d. John, they didnt remember to have been sent to London. e. I believe t to be my friend the woman I met yesterday, The infinitive complement cannot be interrogative, for lack of a SpecC position, in all likelihood. Notice the contrast between raising and control complements in this respect: (13) a. I dont know [whom [ PRO to send t]]. b. I know him to have been sent to London. c. *I dont know whom to have been sent to London? d. Whom dont you know to have been sent to London? Given the constraints on the use of the present in English, the infinitive proposition does not denote single events, but is mostly generic, denoting habitual, or stative eventualities. Notice the frequent occurrence of predicative be constructions, known to be stative, in (14), as well as the occurrence of the stative verbs in (15). Since PRO is not licensed, if the main clause and the complement cluase have coreferential subjects, the complement clause subject is a reflexive pronoun., as in (16) Single events are licensed by aspectual auxiliaries, the progressive be, in (17) or the perfect have, indicating anteriority with respect to the main clause Ev-T. (examples in (18). Finally, all the verbs allow, the Nom + Inf, as shown in (19) below. (14) a. He asserted the charge to be incorrect. b. The court adjudged him to be guilty. c. They admitted the task to be difficult. d. I assumed him to be able to read. e. They suspect him to be the murderer . f. I presumed them to be married. g. I know him to be a fool. i. He concluded her to be a witch. j. He denied this to be the case. k. We grant this to be true. l. They proclaimed the man to be a traitor.

143 COMPLEMENTATION m. I am not what you represent me to be. n. They reported the enemy to be ten miles away. o. He pointed to the washing-stand, which I had made out to be like Gumming. p. The lady trusted love to be eternal. r. The man glanced at the parish clerk, whose air of consciousness and importance plainly betokened him to be the person referred to. (15) Experience had shown the scheme to contain defects. b. It was only in Ann that she could fancy the mother to revive again. c. He would take you to mean that he was narrow minded and unentertaining. d. Can you guarantee these to wear well? (16) I found myself to be in a dark forest. b. He avowed himself to be a supporter of the new group// He professed himself to be snugly lodged. (17) We understand Portia to be hesitating for a word which shall describe herself appropriately. / She suspected him to be playing high (18) She was charged with receiving the mink-coat, knowing it to have been stolen./ Sir William remembered the coat to have been frequently worn by his nephew./ One might guess him to have been a trooper once upon a time. /Give me at least n inkling of the infamy you allege me to have committed./ /He was exceedingly incensed against Wilson, for the affront, which he construed him to have put upon his soldiers. (19) A footman and two servants are believed to have been dismissed. b He was shown to be the real offender. c The stranger was ascertained to be the murderer. d. She had written from the spot where she was stated to have been. e. A man is accounted to be innocent until he is proved to be guilty. f. He and his wife, Titania are fabled to have inhabited india. g.Children is understood to mean those under 16.a

Mrs