Small Clauses in English: The Nonverbal Types [Reprint 2012 ed.] 9783110861457, 9783110134872

Table of contents :
Preface
Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 2. Previous approaches
Chapter 3. Small Clauses as constituents
Chapter 4. Special constructions
Chapter 5. Extractions from Small Clauses
Chapter 6. The Small Clause node
Chapter 7. Conclusion
Appendix
Notes
References
Index

Citation preview

Small Clauses in English

Topics in English Linguistics 8 Editors

Jan Svartvik Herman Wekker

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

Small Clauses in English The Nonverbal Types

Bas Aarts

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

1992

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin.

© Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication

Data

Aarts, Bas, 1961 Small clauses in English : the non-verbal types / Bas Aarts. p. cm. — (Topics in English linguistics ; 8) Rev. and expanded version of author's 1990 doctoral thesis. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 3-11-013487-X (acid-free paper) 1. English language — Clauses. I. Title. II. Series. PE1385.A27 1992 425 — dc20 92-13313 CIP

Die Deutsche Bibliothek

— Cataloging in Publication

Data

Aarts, Bas: Small clauses in English : the nonverbal types / Bas Aarts. — Berlin ; New York : Mouton de Gruyter, 1992 (Topics in English linguistics ; 8) ISBN 3-11-013487-X NE: GT

© Copyright 1992 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., D-1000 Berlin 30 All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. N o part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printing: Ratzlow Druck, Berlin. Binding: Lüderitz & Bauer, Berlin. Printed in Germany.

Para a Laura

Preface

This monograph can be regarded as an exercise in what might be called applied Government-Binding (GB) Theory. It endeavours to describe an aspect of the syntax of the English language, Small Clauses (usually referred to as verbless clauses in the descriptive literature), on a more rigid theoretical basis than is often the case in more traditional approaches. The overall aim is not only to describe but also to explain the syntax of Small Clause constructions. Explaining why linguistic facts are as they are ultimately leads to a greater understanding of the language one is studying in particular, and all other languages more generally. This is because when one attempts to explain the facts, one is obliged to take account of the language system as a whole. I will discuss this point in more detail in chapter one. A more general aim of this monograph is to convince the reader that Small Clauses are big. There will no doubt be some linguists, notably those of more orthodox theoretical persuasion, who do not approve of the approach to English syntax that I pursue here. To them I would like to point out that my work is not primarily concerned with theoretical innovation (though there is some of that), but aims to cover a wide range of empirical data viewed from a (mostly standard) GB perspective. I believe that my work is of interest to both descriptive and theoretical linguists in that it discusses a number constructions that have hitherto received little or no attention in the current literature. I would like to gratefully acknowledge here the help, advice, encouragement and friendship I received from the following people: Flor Aarts, Valerie Adams, Dwight Bolinger, Peter Coopmans, Teun Hoekstra, Dick Hudson, Hans van de Koot, Rita Manzini, Jamal Ouhalla, And Rosta, Frits Stuurman, Jan Svartvik, Joe Taglicht, Nigel Vincent, Herman Wekker, Chris Wilder and anonymous reviewers. Special thanks are due to Sidney Greenbaum. I have benefitted greatly from his authoritative knowledge of the English language and I thank him for his openmindedness, kindness and friendship. Further special thanks are due to Bob Borsley and Ewa Jaworska for always having shown a great interest in my work. Ewa, thanks for pushing me to submit my first abstract to the LAGB. For their detailed and painstaking comments I thank Ruth Kempson and Andrew Radford. There will no doubt still be a lot for them to disagree with. Naturally, neither they, nor any of the other people mentioned can be held responsible for any remaining infelicities. I do not here want to forget to mention everyone in the Survey of English Usage at UCL, all my friends and my parents. All these people always impressed on me the need to realise that there is, as the cliche goes, a lot outside linguistics that is worth my attention. Finally, the honour of appearing in the last paragraph goes to the most special person in my life. Laura, dedico-te este livro, com muito amor. Vais ler? University College London, May 1992

Bas Aarts

Contents

Preface Chapter 1

vii Introduction

1

1.1. Aim and scope

1

1.2. Methodology

2

Chapter 2

9

Previous approaches

2.1. Introduction

9

2.2. The Standard Theory and the Extended Standard Theory 2.3. Government-Binding Theory 2.3.1. Outline 2.3.2. Small Clause Theory 2.3.3. Predication Theory 2.3.4. Recent developments in GB-theory: the Barriers model 2.4. Descriptive treatments Chapter 3 Small Clauses as constituents

9 12 12 21 25 30 35 37

3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. 3.5.

37 37 48 68 71

Introduction Evidence for the existence of Small Clauses Small Clauses as instances of dependent and controlled predication Clauses with and without to be Conclusion

Chapter 4

Special constructions

4.1. Introduction 4.2. Verb-preposition constructions and Small Clauses 4.2.1. Introduction 4.2.2. Background 4.2.3. The data 4.2.4. The analysis 4.2.5. Conclusion 4.3. Verbs of negative causation 4.3.1. Introduction 4.3.2. The status of the postverbal NP 4.3.3. The element from 4.3.4. With and without from 4.3.5. Passive pre\eat-constructions

73 73 74 74 75 77 80 89 90 90 91 95 102 108

χ

Contents

4.3.6. Discourage-type verbs 109 4.3.7. Conclusion 111 4.4. Predicative αί-constructions 111 4.4.1. Introduction 111 4.4.2. Type (a): The predicative as-string is related to the postverbal NP 112 4.4.2.1. Regard-type verbs 112 4.4.2.2. Describe-type verbs 116 4.4.3. Other predicative as-constructions 119 4.5. (Mis)take...for 122 4.6. Accuse-type verbs 123 4.7. Conclusion 127 Chapter 5 Extractions from Small Clauses

129

5.1. Introduction 5.2. Extraction possibilities from Small Clauses 5.3. Rightward extractions I: Extraposition 5.3.1. Movement of NPs 5.3.1.1. Heavy-NP-Shift 5.3.1.2 Movement of other NPs 5.3.1.2.1. Movement of light NPs in nominal SCs 5.3.1.2.2. Movement of "regular" NPs in adjectival SCs 5.3.2. Extraposition of SC subject clauses to the right 5.3.2.1. Extraposition of SC subject clauses instantiated 5.3.2.2. The landing site of extraposed SC subject clauses 5.3.2.3. Extraposition of -ing clauses 5.3.2.4. "Extraposition" of adverbial clauses 5.3.2.5. With or without dummy it 5.3.2.6. The obligatoriness of SC subject clause Extraposition 5.4. Rightward extractions II: Detachment from nominal Small Clauses 5.5. Leftward extractions 5.5.1. Ρassivisation and Raising 5.5.2. Causative have taking SC complements 5.5.3. Leftward movement of predicates 5.6. Conclusion

129 129 132 132 132 133 133 134 138 138 139 146 147 150 154 157 160 160 165 167 169

Chapter 6 The Small Clause node

171

6.1. Introduction 6.2. The analysis of Small Clauses 6.2.1. The accounts of Stowell, Manzini and Chomsky 6.2.2. Kitagawa's 1985 proposal 6.2.3. Hornstein—Lightfoot (1987)

171 171 171 176 177

Contents

xi

6.2.4. Kluender (1985) / Chung—McCloskey (1987) 6.2.5. Radford (1988a) / (1988b 6.3. A new analysis of Small Clauses 6.3.1. Small Clauses as IPs 6.3.2. Small Clause IPs and Pollock's split INFL hypothesis 6.3.3. A note on verbal Small Clauses

178 178 179 179 186 188

6.4. Conclusion

189

Chapter 7

191

Conclusion

Appendix

195

Notes

197

References

209

Index

221

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1. Aim and scope The aim of this monograph will be to investigate in detail the properties of the constructions shown in (1): (1)

V NP XP where X = N, A or Ρ

I will be interested in those structures where the phrase following the postverbal NP (which I will call the intervening NP, following Huddleston 1984) is in a subjectpredicate relation with this same NP. The constructions in which the XP is a VP are excluded from the discussion. There are two basic dependency relations. In the first there is a relation between the main verb and the intervening NP, as well as between the intervening NP and the following XP which is predicated of iL This can be represented as follows: Verb

NP

t

it

Predicative XP

t

To give an example: in the sentence they appointed her head of the department, her is the object of the verb appoint, as well as the subject of the predicative relation holding between this element and the following NP head of the department. In the second basic dependency relation there is again a subject-predicate relation between the intervening NP and the following XP, but there is also a verb-object relation between, on the one hand, the main verb and, on the other hand, the intervening NP + XP taken together: Verb

NP

Predicative XP

An example of this pattern is the sentence I wanted her happy. Here her is the subject of happy, rather than the object of the main verb. In recent generative literature the NP and XP taken together have been given the syntactic label Small Clause (SC). One of the major concerns of this book is to investigate whether Small Clauses exist as syntactic entities.

2

Introduction

1.2. Methodology The methodological approach is mainly descriptive. It will, however, be seen to be different from standard descriptive work such as, for example, Quirk et al. (1985). The difference in outlook is in keeping with a number of consequential changes that have taken place in descriptive work over the last ten years or so. In the first place, there is the tendency among a number of descriptive linguists not just to present analyses of certain linguistic phenomena as they perceive them, but to give a reasoned argumentation explaining why the analysis adopted is to be preferred over some other analysis. The following quotation from Huddleston is illustrative. He notes that his book "devotes a good deal of attention to the problem of justifying the analyses proposed (where, for example, it differs from the traditional analysis) or of choosing between alternative analyses" (Huddleston 1984: xi). Another noteworthy change is that a much greater use is now being made by many descriptive linguists of the insights of theoretical studies. In this connexion Frederick Newmeyer has observed that after the disillusionment in the seventies of many non-theoretical linguists with the possibilities of applying generative ideas, a new interest in theory has emerged recently. He notes that [w]hatever the future may hold, there is no question that generativist theory has already demonstrated that it has implications for, and applications to, a number of important language-related problems, from second language learning to natural language processing to the inequal social status of speakers of nonstandard dialects. (Newmeyer 1983: 157) In this work I will be implementing the innovative descriptive strategies noted above. Furthermore, I will be applying recent ideas from Government-Binding (GB) Theory as developed in important works such as Chomsky (1981, 1982, 1986a, 1986b) and related work. In the recent past there have been a few studies which can be said to have applied GB-theory to language description, in particular Wekker—Haegeman (1985), Rigter—Beukema (1985), Baker (1989) and perhaps Emonds (1976, 1985). What I aim to do, then, is to bridge the gap between the descriptive and the theoretical approaches to the study of English. A question that arises in this connexion is how exactly the relation between what we might call Modern Descriptive Grammar (MDG) and GB-theory should be viewed. The aims of the two approaches are disparate: GB-theory aims to characterise the abstract innate properties of language, whereas a description of syntactic phenomena in theoretical terms is the goal of MDG. In recent work Chomsky (1986a) has drawn a distinction between what he has called I-language (Internalised Language) and Ε-language (Externalised Language). Linguists who study I-language are concerned with making explicit the knowledge of language of the ideal language user, whereas linguists who study Ε-language are concerned with all the external manifestations of language. I-linguistics is theoretical in outlook and

Methodology

3

makes mentalistic assumptions. Ε-linguistics encompasses disciplines like sociolinguistics, applied linguistics and descriptive linguistics. The gap between the two is a wide one according to VJ. Cook: The opposition between these two approaches in linguistics has been long and acrimonious; neither side concedes the other's reality. It has also affected the other disciplines related to linguistics. The study of language acquisition is divided between those who look at interaction and communicative function and those who look for rules and principles; language teachers can be divided into those who advocate Ε-language methods that stress communication and behaviour and I-language methods that stress language knowledge, though the former are more in fashion at present; computational linguists roughly divide into those who analyse large stretches of text and those who write rules. An Elinguist collects samples of actual speech or actual behaviour; evidence is concrete physical manifestation. An I-linguist invents possible and impossible sentences; evidence is whether speakers know if they are grammatical. The Elinguist despises the I-Iinguist for not looking at "real" facts; the I-linguist derides the Ε-linguist for looking at trivia. The I-language versus E-language distinction is as much a difference of research methods and of admissible evidence as it is of long-term goals. (Cook 1988: 13) In my view Cook is overstating the differences between I-linguistics and Elinguistics. He presents a picture of the linguistics scene in which "never the twain shall meet". The complementarist position put forward by Chomsky in a passage which discusses the interface of traditional grammar and generative grammar seems a far more reasonable one, not only for these two approaches but for the relation between Ε-language and I-language in general: The concerns of traditional and generative grammar are, in a certain sense, complementary: a good traditional or pedagogical grammar provides a full list of exceptions (irregular verbs etc.), paradigms and examples of regular constructions, and observations at various levels of detail and generality about the form and meaning of expressions—Without too much exaggeration, one could describe such a grammar as a structured and organised version of the data presented to a child learning a language with some general commentary and often insightful observations. Generative grammar, in contrast, is concerned primarily with the intelligence of the reader, the principles and procedures brought to bear to attain full knowledge of a language. (Chomsky 1986a: 6-7) In essence this is a reasonable rendering of the current state of affairs regarding the relation between traditional grammar and generative linguistics. Transformational Grammar and Modem Descriptive Grammar should also be viewed as complementary frameworks. However, we might tighten the bond between the two

4

Introduction

approaches by applying generative theory in the descriptive process. It should be pointed out that in principle there is no reason why descriptive linguists should not implement the results of research of generative linguistics. Indeed, if it can be shown convincingly that certain generative postulates are part of our mental makeup, then this should have consequences for the way in which languages are described. With regard to GB-theory, I believe that the research that is currently being carried out in that discipline rightly concerns itself with the logical problem of language acquisition and possesses a very convincing quality. The view taken here is that the results obtained by that research should find their way into descriptive grammars. An important consequence of applying a theory in language description is that in doing so we have a framework by which certain proposed analyses can be judged to be right or wrong. A description of a language, like a theory, should be a well-evidenced account of that language where the making of analytical choices in one component may have consequences for other components. The methodology of description should thus not be one where "anything goes". Let us dwell on this issue a little longer. Assume that we adopt a descriptive approach in which a priori there have not been set down certain methodological and/or linguistic principles. In other words, assume the descriptive strategy to be an eclectic one. If we now want to set about describing syntactic phenomenon A we could do so by adopting a certain set of syntactic assumptions X. If we then proceed to describe a second phenomenon B, we might use a second set of assumptions Y. A potential problem of this approach, which is not uncommon in much descriptive work, is that the two sets of assumptions X and Y are in some sense incompatible. For the eclecticist this is not a problem, but for the linguist who has adopted a set of well-motivated interrelated principles (i.e. a theory) this situation is unacceptable. In this book the eclectic working method is rejected in favour of the principled, theory-based approach which is concerned with explaining why things are as they are. To see how theoretical concepts can play a role in language description consider a well-known example from the generative literature: the ambiguous sentence who do you want to succeed can mean either 'for which person χ do you want it to be the case that you succeed x' or 'for which person χ do you want it to be the case that χ succeeds y'.1 The sentence can be contracted to who do you wanna succeed, but notice that now only the first interpretation is available. These wannacontraction facts are thought to be a consequence of the fact that moved elements leave behind traces: (2)

a. wftOj do you want to succeed f, b. whOj do you want /, to succeed2

In the a-sentence, which corresponds to the first meaning above, the trace occurs at the end of the sentence. In the b-sentence, which corresponds to the second meaning, it occurs between want and to. In this position it blocks contraction. This

Methodology

5

explains why who do you wanna succeed can only have the first meaning given above. The account has been simplified somewhat, but the point I want to make here is that these sentences provide evidence for the fact that there are such entities as traces whose presence has overt syntactic and phonological effects. A descriptive linguist might consider to incorporate the notion trace in his description of a particular language. Despite the fact that some ideas from theoretical linguistics have been adopted in descriptive grammars, very few of the insights of the Extended Standard Theory (EST) and of GB-theory have been considered. This means that a wealth of ideas developed since 1970 (the year of publication of Chomsky's paper "Remarks on nominalisation") has not been taken into account. In view of what I have said above, I do not believe that descriptive linguists are disinclined in principle to take an interest in the recent theory, but for some reason they do not always seem to be prepared to adopt some of the current analyses. Take, for example, Rodney Huddleston's analysis of the NP a Ministry of Defence Official (1984: 111—112). The analysis of the substring Ministry of Defence is a problem for him because it is clearly a constituent, but not an NP: it does not occur in typical NP positions, nor can it take determiners (cf. *a the Ministry of Defence Official)· It is observed that the overall NP can be analysed either as in (3a) or as in (3b): (3)

a.

NP

b. NP

a

Ministry

of

Defence

Official

Huddleston recognises the fact that Ministry of Defence is a category intermediate between NP and N, but nevertheless rejects the analysis in (3b), where the categories marked * are both of this intermediate type, and adopts (3a) "for convenience of presentation". I can see no good reason why the EST/GB concept of an intermediate single bar category (see chapter two) should not be used here. A great deal of insight into phrase structure is gained if we adopt analyses of this sort, and this is a good example of an area of English grammar which can benefit from a generative treatment. For further discussion of the relationship between Modern Descriptive Grammar and theoretical linguistics see Aarts (1991) and

6

Introduction

Stuurman (1990). Let us now return to the constructions under (1). An analysis of these constructions will be set up on the basis of the following guiding principles: I. The Economy Principle Ideally, the description is maximally constrained. There are two reasons for this. The first is that on grounds of elegance a theory which covers/explains the facts making only a limited number of statements is to be preferred to a theory which makes an unlimited number of statements. This is the principle of Occam's razor. Secondly, only if we have a constrained theory can we explain the logical problem of language acquisition. I will have more to say about language acquisition in chapter two. II. The Uniformity of Representation

Principle

Where possible, syntactic statements should match semantic statements. To give an example of this principle at work, consider the sentence I believe her to be clever. In this sentence her is semantically not an argument of believe: what I believe is not her, but that she is clever. We can obtain a matching of the syntax and the semantics by analysing her as a subject, not as a direct object. The second principle is strongly linked to the first one in that a matching of syntax and semantics is a means of achieving a constrained description.3 In my research I have made some use of the computerised corpus which has been compiled at the Survey of English Usage (SEU) at University College London.4 The SEU corpus is a carefully compiled collection of several textual dimensions in both spoken and written form. It will be used with the following purposes in mind: (a) Finding syntactic evidence for the analyses which are proposed. (b) Considering as wide a range as possible of the construction types given in (1) above. (c) Investigating hew these structures are used by educated native speakers of English.5 The remainder of this book is structured as follows. In the next chapter I will give an historiographical account of the various approaches to the structures under investigation in the Standard and Extended Standard Theories of generative grammar (1957—1980), in Government-Binding (GB) Theory (1980— ) and in descriptive work. In chapter three I will discuss what evidence there is for claiming that Small Clauses actually exist. A distinction will be drawn there between two types of SC-construction. The last three chapters will be devoted to special Small

Methodology

7

Clause constructions (chapter four), to extraction phenomena from SCs (chapter five), and to a discussion of the categorial status and internal structure of Small Clauses (chapter six). The final chapter is the Conclusion.

Chapter 2 Previous approaches

2.1. Introduction In this chapter I will give an overview of earlier treatments of the constructions given in (4): (4)

[V NP XP] where X = N, A or Ρ and where NP and XP are in a subject-predicate relationship with each other.

Section 2.2 discusses work produced within the Standard Theory and Extended Standard Theory frameworks. Section 2.3 has a dual function: on the one hand it is intended as a concise introduction to the concepts and terminology of current Government-Binding Theory, while on the other hand it deals with the analyses of the constructions in (4) within that theory. In subsections 2.3.1—2.3.3 I will be describing the theory as expounded in Chomsky's 1981 book Lectures on government and binding (LGB) and related work, turning my attention to recent modifications in section 2.3.4. The reason why the earlier model is discussed is that most of the generative literature I will be referring to was written within the LGB framework. Finally, in section 2.41 take a brief look at analyses put forward within some of the descriptive linguistic frameworks.

2.2. The Standard Theory and the Extended Standard Theory Within the frameworks of the Standard Theory (roughly from 1957—1970) and of the Extended Standard Theory (1970—1980) respectively, very little attention was given to the constructions shown under (4) in the previous section. There is some discussion in Chomsky's earliest work. In Chomsky (1975a [1955]: 479ff, 1957: 76—77 and 1964: 238) it is suggested that in, for example, [V NP AP] strings the verb and adjective in some sense form a complex unit. A sentence like (5a) would then be represented as in (5b): (5)

a. They thought him foolish. b. They thought-foolish him.

The idea is picked up in later work but not developed. See Chomsky (1981: 31 Iff,

10

Previous approaches

1986a: 91f). Structures of the form [V NP to-infinitive], as in (6), generated a far greater interest among linguists: (6)

I believe Tom to be a fool.

The earliest proposals regarding the analysis of sentences like this date back to Rosenbaum (1967). He proposed a rule which raised the postverbal NP from the underlying subject position in the lower clause at Deep Structure to the object position in the higher clause in surface structure, roughly as in (7): (7)

I [yji believe

[Tom to be a fool]]

I [γρ believe Tom] [to be a fool]

Rosenbaum called this rule Pronoun Substitution. Later, in Kiparsky—Kiparsky (1970), it was dubbed Raising, a term which is now commonly used by most linguists.6 It should be emphasised that the rule we are considering here is Raisingto-Object, as opposed to Raising-to-Subject. The latter rule, which is uncontroversial, operates in structures containing predicates such as seem, happen, likely etc. The rule of Raising-to-Object was the subject of a heated and often acrimonious debate, or "monumental battle" as Bach (1977: 624) calls it. The most important publication dealing with Raising-to-Object is Postal (1974), a lengthy work which vigorously defends the existence of the rule. Postal's book was written as a critique of Noam Chomsky's paper "Conditions on Transformations" ("Conditions"), which had been published the year before but had already been in circulation for a number of years. Postal sets up four groups of verbs which can induce Raising. He calls these R-triggers: Α-verbs verbs whose complements show Subject-to-Subject Raising (happen, seem etc.). B-verbs verbs whose complements show Subject-to-Object Raising (believe, allege, hold etc.). W-verbs verbs whose complements also show Subject-to-Object raising, but which differ from B-verbs in a number of ways (want, prefer, hate, but also intend and expect). N-verbs verbs of negative causation occurring in the structure [V + NP + from + subjectless gerundive complement] {prevent, keep etc.). A-verbs are outside the scope of this study. I will deal with N-verbs in section 4.3. From the point of view of this book the Β and W-verbs are of greatest interest as many of these also occur in the [V NP XP] constructions we are discussing here.

The Standard Theory and the Extended Standard Theory 11

Postal does not deal with constructions of this form in depth, but he does refer to them. In an interesting section on 7oug/i-Movement he discusses the sentences below: (8)

(9)

a. b. c. d. a. b. c. d.

It is hard to consider Jones to be incompetent. It is hard to consider Jones incompetent. *Jones is hard to consider to be incompetent. Jones is hard to consider incompetent. It will be easy to prove Melvin to be guilty. It will be easy to prove Melvin guilty. *Melvin will be easy to prove to be guilty. Melvin will be easy to prove guilty.

He observes that the d-sentences in (8) and (9) are a problem for Chomsky's 1973 framework. In "Conditions" it is claimed that only direct object NPs can be fronted under Γοκ^Λ-Movement, as in e.g. (10): (10) a. It was easy to persuade Sam to leave. b. Sam was easy to persuade to leave. One of the main implications of the 1973 paper is that Raising-to-Object does not exist and that in a sentence like (8a) Jones is the subject of a subordinate clause which complements the verb consider. According to Chomsky, (8c) and (9c) are ungrammatical because in these sentences subjects, not objects, are fronted under 7bug/i-Movement. But what about (8d) and (9d)? As noted, these were a problem for the "Conditions" approach. Notice that the semantic relation between the verbs consider and prove to the NPs Jones and Melvin in (8a)/(9a) is the same as the relation between these verbs and these NPs in (8b)/(9b). That is, the presence of to be does not alter the thematic relations holding in (8a)/(9a) and (8b)/(9b). Following the "Conditions" line of reasoning we would therefore have to say that in (8b) and (9b) Jones and Melvin are subjects as in (8a)/(9a). But if they are, why can they be fronted under 7o«^/i-Movement, as in (8d) and (9d)? One of Chomsky's aides-decamp in the Raising debate was David Lightfoot. In a review of Postal (1974) he claimed that in (8b) and (9b) Jones and Melvin are direct objects (see Lightfoot 1976: 276—277), a position which, in view of his later writings, he would certainly not want to defend today. Taking the view that Jones and Melvin are direct objects in (8b) and (9b) means losing the obviously correct insight noted above that regardless of the presence of to be the thematic relations between the verb and the following NP are the same in (8a)/(9a) and (8b)/(9b). In sum, at the time Postal pointed out a serious problem for the "Conditions" framework. The issue is, however, not pertinent in GB-theory any more, as it is no longer assumed that the NPs Jones and Melvin are fronted under 7oug/i-Movement in the example sentences above. For more recent treatments of 7oug/z-Movement constructions, see Chomsky

12

Previous

approaches

(1977, 1981: 308ff, 1982: 30f, 1986a: 108f). For a discourse-based approach, see Mair (1990). The identical thematic relations between the various elements in the a and b-sentences in (8) and (9) have led some linguists to suppose that there exists a rule of To i>e-Deletion which would derive (8b)/(9b) from (8a)/(9a). See e.g. Stockwell—Schachter—Partee (1973) and Borkin (1973). I discuss these proposals in more detail in section 3.4. Returning to Raising-to-Object, in "Conditions" Chomsky does not discuss this rule. He only mentions it once or twice, mostly in notes. Fairly recently he has said that he became aware of the transformation only at a very late stage. In Huybregts—van Riemsdijk he remarks "in the early fifties, I was working extensively on grammar, virtually nothing else... Plenty of people thought of other things later. For example, I didn't even notice Raising. I do not think it was until Rosenbaum, or anyway, years later, that it became obvious." (Huybregts—van Riemsdijk 1982: 81) It is not until the eighties that [V NP XP] constructions are dealt with in any great depth. The analytical proposals made within what has become known as Government-Binding Theory will be discussed in sections 2.3.2/2.3.3. But first there follows a concise outline of that theory.

2.3. Government-Binding Theory 2.3.1.

Outline

Government-Binding Theory (henceforth GB-theory) is the theory of language which developed after the 1979 GLOW 7 conference at Pisa, Italy. It is an extensive revision of the Extended Standard Theory. The aim is to describe the genetically encoded principles of Universal Grammar (UG), with which every child is thought to be endowed, that is, to construct a theory of the language faculty. This has always been the goal of the Chomskyan approach to language, but at present, more than at any time, research strategies are being guided by this concern. It is argued that children eventually come to know their native language through a complex interplay of UG and experience. Language cannot be acquired on the basis of experience alone, it is argued, because the environmental stimulus is deficient in three respects. This is the so-called triple deficiency of stimulus: I

The speech a child hears in its environment is defective in that there are many ill-formed sentences, slips of the tongue etc. II The data a child hears in its environment are finite; nevertheless it will eventually be able to deal with an unrestricted number of sentences. III Certain aspects of language are known for which no direct evidence is available in the data, (adapted from Lightfoot 1982: 17)

Government-Binding Theory 13

There is, then, an intimate connexion between language as studied by generativists and the study of mind. Indeed, Chomsky likes to think of linguistics "as that part of psychology that focuses its attention on one specific cognitive domain and one faculty of mind, the language faculty" (1980: 4). The language faculty is one of the modules of the mind, and has also been called a "mental organ", which develops in much the same way as the heart or the lungs. Chomsky has also remarked that language can be seen as "a mirror of the mind". He explains this as follows: I do not mean by this simply that the concepts expressed and distinctions developed in normal language use give us insight into the patterns of thought and the world of "common sense" constructed by the human mind. More intriguing, to me at least, is the possibility that by studying language we may discover abstract principles that govern its structure and use, principles that are universal by biological necessity and not mere historical accident, that derive from natural characteristics of the species. (Chomsky 1975b: 4) Chomsky is thus making the very strong claim that the analyses arrived at are somehow encoded in the brain. Other linguists have often been critical of this assumption, even within generative grammar; see e.g. Gazdar et al. (1985: 5). It should be realised that GB-theory can also be regarded purely as a theory of language without making any assumptions about innateness. This approach has been referred to as instrumentalism. Directing our attention at UG, we can distinguish two sets of subsystems as expounded in Chomsky (1981: 5): the so-called subcomponents of the rule system of grammar, in (11), and the system of subtheories, in (12): (11)

Lexicon -Base - a.

categorial component —

-b.

transformational component

Syntax -

PF component LF component (12)

Bounding Theory Government Theory Theta Theory Binding Theory Case Theory Control Theory

Viewed from a slightly different perspective we can also represent the GB-model

14

Previous approaches

of grammar as in (13). The principles of the subtheories under (12) feed into this representation in ways to be explicated below. (13)

Lexicon

X'-theory of PS rules

D-Structure (Deep Structure) Move (a) S-Structure8

rules of anaphora rules of quantification rules of control

deletion rules filters phonological rules

I

LF (Logical Form)

PF (Phonetic Form) (adapted from van Riemsdijk—Williams 1986: 173)

The components of (11), (12) and (13) are all part of GB-theory. The subtheories in (12) are also referred to as the modules of GB-theory. The theoretical approach, then, is a modular approach. I will not be discussing the generative framework in extenso, but I will give a brief explanation of what is shown in (11)—(13). Before doing so, let us first examine in some detail a prototypical phrase marker (a representation of sentence structure in the form of a tree diagram) in the 1981 version of the theory. The Phrase Structure (PS) rules in (14) generate φ ε tree in (15): (14) a. S' b. S c. VP

COMP S NP INFL VP V Γ NP S'

s d. INFL (15)

[±tense] [AGR] S'

COMP

NP

INFL [±tense] [AGR] V

Government-Binding Theory 15

In (14) COMP is the complementiser position where both clause introducers like that and Wh-phrases may be positioned. Thus, in a sentence like (16) the complementiser that occupies the lower of the two COMP positions, as is shown in (17); the higher COMP slot remains empty: (16) 1 believe that you ate the cake. (17) COMP

S

NP

INFL [+tns][AGR] [-past][+sing]

I

V

believe

that

you

In (18) the Wh-element what occurs in COMP, as can be seen in the phrase marker in (19): (18)

What did you see?

(19) COMP

S

NP

what,

INFL [+tns][AGR] [+past][+sing]

VP V

NP

you

In moving from its D-Structure position as direct object of see to COMP, it is assumed that the Wh-element leaves behind a coindexed trace (i;). In general, moved constituents leave behind traces. The node INFL (Inflection) in (14b/d) and in the trees above is the node which determines whether a clause is finite, i.e. [± tense], and, if it is finite, whether it occurs in the present or past tense. INFL is also thought to determine the agreement

16

Previous approaches

relations between subjects and verbs in sentences through the component AGR. The structure of INFL looks like this: (20)

INFL

[± tense] [ a past]9

[AGR] I number features gender features person features

We will see in the next section that the PS rules have been abandoned in favour of category neutral rule templates. In section 2.3.4 we will turn to recent modifications of the basic phrase marker configuration shown in (15). Let us now turn to a discussion of what is shown in (11)—(13), starting with the syntactic component in (11). X'-theory is a theory of syntax. Its basic principles state that all maximal phrasal categories are of the form X".10 This category is expanded by the following Phrase Structure rules which are part of the categorial component: (21) XP — S p e c X' — - X

X' Complement(s)

Spec (=Specifier) is the position where premodifying elements, such as determiners, may occur. X' is a level in phrase structure which is intermediate between the maximal phrasal level (XP) and the head level X. To take a concrete example, let us look at the structure of the NP the mayor of Casterbridge: (22)

NP

the

mayor

of Casterbridge

Because the string mayor of Casterbridge cannot function as a prototypical NP (*Mayor of Casterbridge came to see mel */ like mayor of Casterbridge) it is analysed as being a category which is structurally intermediate between NP and N. For a fuller treatment of X'-theory, see Jackendoff (1977), Radford (1988b), Haegeman (1991). The lexicon contains morphological, phonological and syntactic information about

Government-Binding Theory 17 lexical items. D-structures are generated in the Base by inserting these lexical items into the structures generated by the categorial component, which is subject to some version of X'-theory.11 It has been suggested that the PS component of the grammar is in fact redundant, because the principles of subcategorisation, and hence phrase structure, are determined in the lexicon and are then "projected" from there to all other levels of the grammar (see (13) above) in accordance with what has been called the Projection Principle (Chomsky 1981: 29ff), later modified to incorporate the claim that all sentences have subjects (Chomsky 1982: 10). Thus, for example, in the lexicon it is specified that a transitive verb like kick takes one postverbal direct object argument. Such a specification obviates the need for a phrase structure rule of the form VP—-V NP. The transformational component in GB-theory now contains only one movement rule, called Move (a), or sometimes Affect Ca). This rule permits anything to be moved anywhere subject to the constraints of the modules in (12). Some of these constraints will be discussed below. S-structure results after the application of Move (a).

S-structures are assigned PF and LF representations by their respective components. PF assigns a phonetic representation to sentences and is the level at which stylistic operations are thought to take place. LF specifies an impoverished semantic structure which serves as the input to a more comprehensive semantic representation. Let us now turn to a description of the principles of the subtheories in (12). Bounding Theory is the subcomponent in GB-theory which is concerned with constraining the possibilities of movement. It is assumed that unbounded movement is not possible for most elements. The principle of Subjacency states that an element may move across only one Bounding Node (NP or S in English). We can formulate the principle as follows: (23) Subjacency In the configuration ...X...[BN...[ BN...Y...]] an element in position Y may not move to position X. (where BN = Bounding Node) To illustrate, consider sentence (24): (24) *Peter, is believed [s Harry to expect [s e, to eat it]]

^

*

In moving from its lower clause position to the front of the sentence the NP Peter has moved across two S-nodes, both of which are Bounding Nodes, in violation of the condition in (23). Wh-phrases are also subject to Subjacency, but they may move successive cyclically. This means that Wh-phrases may move from COMP-to-COMP. (25)

18

Previous

approaches

illustrates this process: (25) ls. [Coup whoJ [s did you think [s. [COMP e, J [s Bill saw ej)]]

t

It

I

On the first cycle the Wh-phrase moves to the lower COMP position from where it is subsequently moved on the second cycle to the higher COMP slot. Government Theory (the most important subcomponent of GB-theory) specifies the relations that hold between, usually, the heads of phrases and their dependent categories. Consider the following prototypical configurations: (26)

a. V

b.

VP

NP

Ρ

PP PP

In both (26a) and (26b) the head of the phrase governs its complement There are a number of definitions of Government. In the one which I will generally use here, an element α governs an element β in case α c-commands (constituent commands) β, and every maximal projection which dominates β also dominates α. α is a lexical category or one of its projections or the AGR element of INFL (Chomsky 1986a: 162). C-command is construed as follows: α c-commands every element of its domain that is not contained within a. The domain of α is the least maximal projection containing a. (Chomsky 1986a: 162) Also: if a governs a maximal projection β, it also governs the Specifier and head of ß. In the 1981 theory maximal projections, such as S', are barriers to government. A special kind of government, proper government, is required for traces left behind by moved elements. The Empty Category Principle (ECP) states that all traces must be properly governed. Proper government is construed as follows: α properly governs β if either α is lexical element that governs β and assigns a theta role to it (see below) or α is the antecedent of the moved element which governs β and is coindexed with it. Theta Theory deals with the assignment of thematic roles (θ-roles), such as agent-of-action, goal-of-action etc. to arguments. Theta role assignment usually takes place under Government. Thus, in (26) above the heads V and Ρ assign a Θrole to their complements. Subjects, except subjects of predicates which are realised by dummy elements such as nonreferential it or existential there, are assigned a Θrole by VP.12 The theory predicts that a string which is assigned a θ-role by a

Government-Binding Theory 19

particular lexical head is a complement of that head. Thus a verbal head can assign a θ-role to an NP, as in (26a), or to a clause as in / believe that Jo is a teacher, where the ito-clause is assigned a θ-role. To take another example, in I believe Jo to be a teacher the postverbal NP is not assigned a θ-role because it is not an argument of the verb believe. Rather, this verb assigns a θ-role to the proposition Jo to be a teacher as a whole. The Theta Criterion states that each argument must be assigned one and only one θ-role. Each θ-role may be assigned only once. Binding Theory deals with the principles that regulate the distribution of anaphors, pronouns, names and variables in relation to their antecedents. We can summarise the 1981 version of these principles as follows: (27)

Binding Theory Principles Principle A: Anaphors must be Α-bound (i.e. bound to an argument) in their governing category. Principle B: Pronouns must not be Α-bound in their governing category. Principle C: Referential Expressions (R-Expressions) and Variables must be Α-free everywhere (i.e. must not be bound to any other argument).

The governing category for an element α is the first NP or S containing α and a governor for a.13 To illustrate, consider (28)—(30): (28) (29) (30)

a. b. a. b. a. b.

[s. [s Lawrence,· likes himself ]] ls, ls Lawrence, thinks [s. that [s Peterj likes himself.$ ] ] ] ] /s. [s Lawrence, likes him]] [s. ls Lawrence, thinks [s· that [s Peterj likes him^j ] ] ] ] [s· [s Lawrence likes cakes ]] [s· who, [s do you like t, ]]

In (28a) the anaphor himself is bound in its governing category to the NP argument Lawrence (this is indicated by the identical subscript indices), hence the sentence is grammatical. (28b) is grammatical only if himself is construed as being preferential with Peter, not with Lawrence. (29a) can only be interpreted correctly if the pronoun is not bound to the argument Lawrence, but to some other argument outside the governing category. Similarly, (29b) is grammatical only if him is not bound to Peter. It may, but need not, be bound to the NP Lawrence. (30a) is straightforward: the R-Expression Lawrence may not be bound to any other argument. It may at first sight seem that sentence (30b) violates Principle C of the Binding Theory, as the trace (t) of the Wh-element, which is a variable, appears to be bound by its moved antecedent. However, the Wh-phrase has moved to COMP (see above), and as COMP is not an argument position, the sentence is well-formed.

20

Previous approaches

The Wh-trace in (30b) is said to be A'-bound (Argument-bar bound), i.e. bound by an element in an A'-position (Argument-bar position), that is, a position which is not an argument position. Case Theory is concerned with the assignment of abstract Case (usually spelt with a capital "C"), a notion which is distinct from the descriptive term in that it is claimed that all lexical (i.e. overt) NPs must receive Case, which need not always be morphologically realised. In (26) above both complement NPs must receive Case. V and Ρ are the central Case-maiking categories. If a particular overt NP does not receive Case it is said to violate the Case Filter. Subject NPs are assumed to be assigned nominative Case by the INFL node, but only if the latter is marked [+tense]: (31)

[SNP

INFL

VP]

[+tns][AGR] -Case J

In complement clauses, if INFL is marked [-tense] it is usually the matrix veito which assigns Case to their subject (if it is overt), as in (32): (32)

I believe [s Frank

INFL

be a fool]

[-tns] [AGR] to

t— Case — Believe is a so-called Exceptional Case Marking verb (ECM verb) which has deleted its complement S' in order to assign Case to the NP Frank. S'-deletion is necessary because Government is not normally possible across this node, as we have seen. Finally, Control Theory deals with the referential properties of PRO. This is a phonetically null pronominal element which appears, though not exclusively, in positions where the now generally abandoned rule of Equi-NP-Deletion applied. We distinguish Object Control in (33) from Subject Control in (34): (33) I persuaded the opera singer, [s. [s PROj to leave]] (34) /, promised the opera singer [s, [s PROj to leave]] Here again coreferentiality is indicated by identical subscripts. In the classical 1981 theory it is assumed that the PRO may not be governed. This is referred to as the PRO-theorem. The rules shown in (13) are all subject to the interacting principles of the subtheories in (12).

Government-Binding

Theory

21

Even a discussion of Government-Binding theory as brief as this shows that the framework, which, incidentally, Chomsky himself prefers to call Principles and Parameters Theory (see Chomsky—Lasnik, forthcoming), is very intricate. In fact, it is "un systöme oü tout se tient", to borrow a phrase from Meillet (1906: 16): changing the theory at one point may complicate it elsewhere. In the next two sections I will turn to a discussion of the treatment of [ V ΝΡ XP] configurations in GB-theory. In recent work within this framework much attention has been paid to these structures. However, as in the Standard Theory period, there is no consensus as to how they ought to be analysed. There are differences of opinion not only between researchers subscribing to current rival theories, but also between those working in the same theoretical framework. Within GB-theory there is a debate about these configurations comparable in some ways to the Raising debate in the late sixties/early seventies, though without the acrimony which characterised the latter. There have been two major proposals. In one of these [NP XP] sequences in [V NP XP] strings are viewed as being clausal in those cases where the NP and XP are in a subject-predicate relationship with each other and where there is no thematic relationship between V and NP. This has become known as Small Clause Theory (SC-theory). See especially Chomsky (1981, 1986a, 1986b) and Stowell (1981, 1983). SC-theory will be discussed in the next section. Arguments against SC-theory have been elaborated in the various versions of Predication Theory. See Wilhams (1980,1983); Schein (1982); Rothstein (1983,1991); Cuücover—Wilkins (1986) and Napoli (1989). In these frameworks predicative [NP XP] strings in [V NP XP] sequences are usually denied the status of clause. Predication Theory will be dealt with in section 2.3.3.

2.3.2. Small Clause Theory Small Clauses (SCs) are structures which have clausal characteristics in that they contain a subject phrase and a predicate phrase. They are, however, generally believed not to contain a complementiser position or an INFL-node (though see chapter six for discussion). The bracketed sequences in the S-Structures (35)—(41) are Small Clauses: (35) a. Ann, seems [sc /, happy] b. Nena, is [sc /, happy] (36) a. Mike considers [sc Sue intelligent] b. Suet is considered [sc i, intelligent] (37) a. I declared [sc Jo the winner] b. Jo, was declared [sc t, the winner] (38) I want [sc the dog out of the house] (39) Winnie made [sc Oscar leave] (40) Nelson saw [sc them running away]

22

Previous approaches

(41) They feared [sc Pete shot by the army]14 Not everyone who advocates the existence of Small Clauses agrees that all of these sentences involve SCs. The analysis of (35) and (39)—(41) especially is controversial. A structure such as (36a), most centrally an SC construction, is analysed as indicated on all levels of grammar on the basis of two important assumptions (cf. Chomsky 1981: 106): (a) Lexical entries are uniform. (b) The categorial component (i.e. the component which contains the phrase structure rules) lacks structure. What the first clause means is that a verb like consider always shows the same subcategorisation properties; that is, the lexicon specifies that consider occurs in either of the following frames: [— , NP] [— , clause] This must be so because this verb assigns a θ-role either to a single NP argument (as in / considered his proposal) or to a propositional (clausal) argument (as in I considered that he should tell her), but never to two arguments. In sentences like (36a) what Mike is considering is not Sue, but rather the proposition that she is intelligent. For this reason a subcategorisation frame of the shape [ — , NP AP] is not available for consider. Because the two elements following the verb are in a subject-predicate relation with each other the string Sue intelligent must be a clause. The second assumption is less straightforward, and requires a more elaborate explanation. It is the outcome of a line of reasoning in which it is argued that to a large extent subcategorisation can be dealt with in the lexicon. In older versions of the theory there was a rich structure in the categorial component with individual rewrite rules for all the phrase types. This conception of the PS component has changed radically over the last few years, as we saw above. Stowell (1981) proposes to eliminate the categorial component altogether, retaining perhaps only category neutral rules, such as, for example XP — X' —

Spec X' X Complement(s)

(=(21))

which specify that a phrasal category always has a Specifier and an X'-level, and that X' always contains the head X of XP and possible complements. Inevitably, this category-neutral rule template will overgenerate, but it is argued that the ungrammatical structures are ruled out by the interacting principles of (12) in

Government-Binding Theory 23

section 2.3.1. For example, Case Theory is crucially involved in ruling out (42): (42)

*The demolition the building was a sad sight.

The Case Filter, it will be recalled, stipulates that overt lexical NPs which are not assigned abstract Case are ruled out. In (42) the building is adjacent to a non-Case assigning noun. Inserting the Case assigning preposition of renders the sentence grammatical. The linear order of constituents in syntactic structures is also determined by the principles in (12). Thus, in (43) the object NP a novel necessarily occurs to the right of the verb because the NP needs to be assigned Case. In English verbs are instrumental in assigning objective Case to the right. (43) Leslie is always reading a novel. The subcategorisation properties of lexical items are assumed to be projected to all other levels of grammar (Deep Structure, S-Structure etc.) in accordance with the Projection Principle (see section 2.3.1). Now, if the existence of this principle is assumed, as well as an impoverished categorial component and a lexicon that specifies that a verb like consider takes an NP or a clausal argument (where a clause can also be an SC), then (36a) will necessarily be analysed with a clause as complement at all levels of grammar. In Chomsky (1986a: 86) the term semantic selection (s-selection) is introduced. Verbs s-select a number of semantic arguments such as, for example, an agent, a goal or a patient In sentences containing SCs the matrix verb s-selects a proposition (namely, the SC). It does not s-select the subject of the Small Clause, so that this element cannot be analysed as a direct object argument Chomsky observes (1986a: 91) that the subjects of SCs behave like matrix clause objects "in certain interesting respects", and tentatively proposes that the matrix verb and the predicate of the Small Clause together s-select the subject of the SC. For example: Peter

[considers-intelligent]

the student

s-selection

This idea was first proposed in standard theoretical woik discussed above (see section 2.2). It is not developed further. As we will see below, it has also been claimed that in Small Clause contructions there is a close syntactic relationship between the matrix verb and the SC-predicate. So far we have seen that in the GB-framework the XP in [V NP XP] structures can be an AP, an NP, a PP, a bare infinitive, a present participle or a past participle ((35)—(41)). What about sentences in which the intervening NP is followed by an XP in the shape of a ίο-infinitive? Such constructions are not thought to contain Small Clauses, but are instead analysed as involving clauses which contain an

24

Previous approaches

INFL-node, headed by to, with the feature [-tense]. 7o-infinitive structures are always given a clausal analysis; i.e. there is always a subject, although it need not always be phonetically realised. Let us consider the prototypical verbs believe and want. The analysis of the sentences in (44) and (45) is as in (46) and (47): (44) I believe James to be a fool. (45) a. I want Maria to read the dissertation. b. I want to leave. (46) I believe [s James to be a fool] (47) a. I want [s· (for) [s Maria to read the dissertation]] b. /, want (s· [s PROi to leave]] It may be asked how James in (46) receives Case. In this sentence there is no complementiser, and Case is assigned by the matrix verb. As we have seen in the previous section, believe and verbs like it are Exceptional Case Marking verbs, which allow the S'-node, a barrier to Case assignment, to be deleted. What is important is that a verb like believe is treated as a dyadic predicate, i.e. a predicate taking two arguments: a subject argument and a clausal object argument. As for (47), essentially following Bresnan (1970, 1972), a/or-complementiser is posited at D-Structure for wanf-type verbs. In (47a) this prepositional complementiser, which may be deleted at a later stage, is necessary in order for the NP Maria to receive Case. The matrix verb cannot perform this task because Case, which is assigned under under Government, cannot be assigned across an S'-node, which is a barrier to Government, as we have seen. (47b) is a control structure, where PRO is an empty pronominal element, the reference of which is controlled by the matrix clause subject, as indicated by the indices. There is no /or-complementiser here, because PRO may not receive Case. If it did it would be governed, and the theory disallows that, as we have seen. Let us now return to the sentences in (35)—(41). What is the categorial status of the Small Clauses? Important proposals originate from studies by Tim Stowell (1981, 1983). In these works it is proposed that all maximal projections (i.e. categories of the form XP) may have subjects. It is also claimed that verbs that subcategorise for Small Clauses are sensitive to what elements occur within these SCs. In so far as he agrees that they contain SCs Stowell would analyse (35)—(41) as follows: (48) a. Ann, seems [AP i, [A. happy]] b. Nena, is [AP i, [A. happy]] (49) a. Mike considers [AP Sue [A. intelligent]] b. Sue: is considered [sc [A. intelligent]] by Mike (50) a. / declared [NP Jo [N· the winner]] b. Jo, was declared [NP /, [„• the winner]] (51) I want [PP the dog [P. out of the house]]

Government-Binding Theory 25

(52) Wiruiy made [VF Oscar [v. leave]] (53) Nelson saw [VP them [v. running away]] (54) They feared [VP Pete [v· shot by the army]] 15 In each case an NP (or an NP-trace) occurs in the Specifier position of the XPcomplement of the matrix verb, and this NP is the subject of the Small Clause. According to Stowell the matrix verb is not "indifferent", to use his term, to the categorial status of the predicate inside the clausal structure. He cites the sentences below to show this: (55) */ expect that sailor very stupid. (56) *We feared John off the ship already. (57) */ consider John killed by the army.

(Stowell 1981: 259)

It is argued that the Small Clause constituent cannot be S, because the verb would then subcategorise for an element within an argument, namely for the predicate. Stowell remarks that: If the theory of subcategorization rules out in principle the selection of subconstituents of an argument, then it must be accepted that small clauses are X-bar projections of the lexical predicates that they contain, for then the locality of subcategorization is saved — the verb is simply subcategorizing for the category of the small clause as a whole. It follows that the subject position must be generalised across syntactic categories. (Stowell 1983: 301) Thus, for Stowell the phrases AP, NP, PP and VP in (48)—(54) are semantic arguments of the matrix verb and the subject of these phrases is a Specifier. Contreras (1987) supports Stowell's analysis. Chomsky (1981) also adopts Stowell's analysis with the proviso that SCs cannot be maximal projections. For theoryinternal reasons the lexical NP subject cannot be assigned Case if the SC is an XP. More recently Chomsky has taken a different perspective of the categorial status of SCs. In Chomsky (1986b) it is assumed that SCs can be maximal projections for reasons which will be explained in chapter six. In that chapter a number of further proposals regarding the categorial status of Small Clauses are described and assessed. Chapter six also presents my own analysis of the internal structure of SCs.

2.3.3. Predication Theory In this section I will discuss the most influential theory of predication that has appeared in the literature so far, namely that of Williams (1980). In this work Williams establishes an additional level of representation: Predicate Structure (PS). PS is derived from surface structure by applying the Rule of Predication:

26

Previous approaches

(58) The Rule of Predication Coindex NP and X

(Wilüams 1980: 205)

Thus, two elements NP and X which are in a predication relation with each other are assigned a common index. Predication is subject to the condition in (59): (59) The C-command Condition on Predication If NP and X are coindexed, NP must c-command X or a variable bound to X.16 (Wilhams 1980: 205) It is not entirely clear whether Williams's surface structure, from which the level of PS is derived, is in fact the same as S-Structure. From the following representation of his model (Wilüams 1980: 216) it would appear that these levels are identical: Surface Structure DS

I

transformations

I -SS

c-command ;

I

I -PS

•LF

predication

One might, however, also interpret the model as having done away with S-structure. Wilüams does not discuss the matter. In any case, the exact status of surface structure in Williams's approach is not crucial. Any category, including S and S', can be a predicate. We can thus have the sentences in (60a—e), taken from Williams (1980), in which the predicate is an AP, an NP, a PP, a VP and an S respectively:17 (60) a. b. c. d. e.

John [VP made [NP Bill], [AP sick], ] John lVF made [NP Bill7, [NP a doctor] John [VP kept [NP it], [PP near him], ] lNP John], [VP died]i John, promised Bill [s PRO to leave],

18

Notice that sentence (60d) differs from (60 a—c). This is a case of what Wilüams terms grammatically governed predication. Although this notion is not defined, we may take it to refer to cases where there is a predication relation between a matrix clause subject NP and another element. Other examples are John is sick and John left singing. The sentences in (60 a—c) are examples of thematically governed predication where the predicates, all occurring in VP, enter into a relation with the

Government-Binding

Theory

27

theme of the verb, i.e. one of its arguments, usually the direct object (61) If X [a predicate, BA] is in the VP, then X is predicated of the theme of V. (Williams 1980: 207)19 What is important for our purposes is that at the surface structure level the NP in the [V NP XP] string is a direct object At the level of PS the NP has the status of subject of a predication relation. It will be clear that this notion subject is not defined structurally as [NP, S], i.e. as the first NP immediately dominated by S. Instead, in Williams's framework subjects are regarded as external arguments of maximal projections: (62) The subject of a predicative phrase XP is the single argument of X that is located outside of the maximal projection of X. (Williams 1983: 287) This definition of subject of a predicative relation is an important point of difference between Predication Theory and Small Clause Theory. The latter does define subjects structurally. Of the other [VNP XP] constructions Williams discusses only two, namely those where the X-element is a ίο-infinitive or a bare infinitive. The sentences in (63) are analysed as in (64) at the PS level: (63) a. b. (64) a. b.

They knew him to be a spy. I saw her leave the room. They knew himt [s PRO to be a spy]ι /, [VP saw, herj [VP leave the room]j 7,

(64a) is an instance of what Williams calls obligatory control (1980: 208—209): referentially PRO is identical to him, which controls it. However, elements which are obligatory controllers also enter into a predicative relationship: in (64a) him is the subject of [s PRO to be a spy], where [s PRO VP] is a complex predicate. As a result, him is coindexed with S, not with PRO. Furthermore, PRO is coindexed with the VP inside the S of which it is the subject so that the full PS representation of (63a) is as shown in (65): (65) They knew him, [s PROj [VP to be a spy]j /, As for the naked (or bare) infinitive in (63b), Williams (1983: 302—303) adduces three reasons against a Small Clause analysis of these infinitives following verbs of causation and perception. The first reason is that the analysis of (66a) at the level of Logical Form should be as shown in (66b), not as in (66c):

28

Previous approaches

(66) a. John saw someone leave. b. = 3x [John saw χ leave] 'there is someone who John saw leave' c. ^ John saw [ 3x [ χ leave ]] 'John saw that there was someone who left' The subject of the naked infinitive cannot have narrow scope. Williams argues that "this would follow if the naked infinitives were not small clauses but Predicative Phrases (PXPs)" (Wilhams 1983: 302).20 In an earlier section of his paper Williams shows that for PXPs lowering of the existential quantifier, as in (67c), is not possible: (67) a. Someone seems sick. b. = 3x [ χ seems sick ] 'there is someone who seems sick' c. έ seems [ 3x [ χ sick ] 'there seems to be someone sick' Under SC-theory, the c-reading is possible, because (67) has the following structure (cf. (35) and (48) of section 2.3.2): (68) someone, seems [x ^ sick] where subscript χ = S or a projection of A Quantifier lowering in this SC-representation yields the wrong interpretation, shown in (69): (69)

*x seems [x someone, [x /, sick] where subscript χ = S or a projection of A and χ is the variable bound by the quantifier

In Predication Theory interpretations such as (67c) are ruled out, because in a representation like (70), Williams' analysis of (67), someone cannot be lowered into the AP, the reason being that there is no trace for it which can serve as a variable: (70) someone, [VP seems [AP sick], ], To return to bare infinitives, these should be analysed as PXPs, not as SCs, because in the sentences in which they occur it is also not possible for quantifier-lowering to take place (cf. (66c)). According to Williams the right predictions concerning the analysis of sentences such as (66a) are made at the level of Logical Form if PS representations like (64b) are adopted. The second reason adduced by Williams why bare infinitives should not be

Government-Binding

Theory

29

analysed as SCs is that they never show what he calls thematic independence in argument position, whereas "normal" infinitives do:21 (71) *Johni sawι leave, (72) *John, made, leave; (73) John [wants] [to leave] In (71) jaw and leave do not assign separate θ-roles to John, therefore they are not thematically independent predicates. For the same reason made and leave in (72) are not thematically independent. What this means is that bare infinitives cannot "stand on their own" with an empty subject, and must be related to a separate argument expression. In (71) and (72) this is not the case, therefore these sentences are ungrammatical. The third and final reason for not analysing bare infinitives as SCs is that they never occur in sentences like (74) with subjects of arbitrary reference: (74) *It is fun [leave] Cf. It is fun [to leave]. Williams concludes that "[i]n all respects...naked infinitives are like other naked predicates [such as PXPs], and not like infinitives." (1983: 302). The following structures are assigned to constructions containing perception and causative verbs: (75) a. /, [VP saw, Johni [VP leave]) 7, b. /, [VP made, Jofutj [VP leave]) /, Williams remarks that "[t]he SC theory would, of course, assign clausal structures to all of these, with all the problems that we have seen attend such assignments." (1983: 303). Bare infinitives are seen to constitute an additional argument against the SC-framework. However, it should be remembered that no strong claim has been made by SC-proponents that constructions involving bare infinitives should be analysed as containing Small Clauses (cf. Radford 1988b: 519 and Chomsky 1981: 45, 141, footnote 36). Furthermore, on a more general note, Stowell observes that "the scope facts bear directly only on the LF representation of small clause structures, and this leaves open the possibility that the LF structure of small clauses differs from the S-structure and D-structure representations." (Stowell 1988: 30). The difference between Small Clause Theory and Predication Theory is explained by Williams as follows: It is perhaps accurate to characterize the difference between Small Clause theory and Predication theory as a difference on the question, "which is the primitive notion, the subject-predicate relation or the clause?'. The Small Clause theory clearly takes clause as the more primitive: subject is defined in

30

Previous approaches

terms of clause, and predicate perhaps not at all. The Predication theory takes the subject-predicate relation as primitive, and clause is then simply a phrase that instantiates the subject-predicate relation. (Williams 1983: 307) It is important to realise that for Williams the relation between subject and predicate holds at his newly created level of Predicate Structure. At Surface Structure in [V NP XP] configurations the NP subject of the predication relation is syntactically a direct object. In SC-theory this NP is syntactically a subject at all levels of representation. In addition to Williams a number of other linguists have argued in favour of some form of Predication Theory, notably Schein (1982); Rothstein (1983, 1991); Culicover—Wilkins (1986) and Napoli (1989). The work of these linguists will be discussed at various points in the next chapter. Small Clause Theory and Predication Theory have provided the two dominant analyses in GB-theory of predicative [NP XP] strings in [V NP XP] constructions. In this book I will adopt SC-theory. Arguments in favour of positing the existence of Small Clauses, other than those given in section 2.3.2, will be presented in the next chapter.

2.3.4. Recent developments in GB-theory: the Barriers model It is my intention in this section to give an overview of some of the more recent ideas that were put forward by Chomsky in his monograph Barriers (Chomsky 1986b). I will not be presenting an in-depth exposition of the technicalities of this framework, only a rough sketch of the most important ideas. A more detailed discussion of these ideas can be found in the final chapters of Radford (1988b), in Lightfoot—Weinberg (1988) and in Haegeman (1991). For a comparison of the Barriers model with Phrase Structure Grammar see Borsley (1991). In Barriers Chomsky attempts to provide a unified account of the notions of Government and Movement In the Introduction to this work he remarks that The intuitive idea is that certain categories in certain configurations are barriers to government and to movement (application of the general rule Move-α). A natrral speculation would be that the same categories are barriers in the two cases...One of the questions I want to consider is whether there is a reasonable notion of barrier that has these properties. (Chomsky 1986b: 1) Barriers is a highly technical work, and the definition of the notion barrier is rather complex. In simplified terms we can define barriers as follows: (76) A barrier is a maximal projection (i.e. an XP category) which blocks Government. Movement is generally possible across one barrier.22 (adapted from Chomsky 1986b: 14)

Government-Binding

Theory

31

I will return to the notion barrier at the end of this section. Another important idea (which had already been in circulation for a while) which is developed in Barriers is the view that the head of S (i.e. a clause without a complementiser) is the inflectional element INFL, or "I" as it is called in current terminology. Recall that INFL is the node in Phrase Structure where the tense and agreement features of a clause reside. It is considered to be the head of the clause because the latter's (non)fmiteness is thought to be its most important feature. The maximal expansion of "I" is the phrasal category IP (=I"= S). A complementisercontaining clause has the complementiser (e.g. that) as its head. Complementisers occupy the position "C" in phrase markers (see below). Their maximal expansion is CP (= C", previously called S', see section 2.3.1). Consider now the structure of a prototypical tree diagram in more detail:

This phrase marker shows that canonical clauses have the status of CP, i.e. they are headed by the element "C", the complementiser. The lower clause (=IP) is regarded as the complement of the complementiser. The subject of this lower clause is positioned in the Specifier position of IP.24 The head of the lower IP clause is "I" which contains tense and agreement assigners, as we have seen. The complement of "I" is VP. Consider now sentence (78) and its representation in (79) on page 32: (78) Peter ate the pie. In order to acquire its past tense morphology it is assumed that the verb eat in (79) moves to the I-position. For a discussion of this process of Verb Movement see Radford (1988b: 401—411). In recent modifications of the Barriers model it has been proposed that in English only aspectual have and be can be moved to "I", see Pollock (1989) and Chomsky (1991). These papers will be discussed in more depth in chapter six. Modal verbs are base-generated in the "Γ-slot, as is the infinitive marker to.

32

Previous

approaches

(79) Spec

When there is subject-auxiliary inversion the modal in a sentence like (80) moves to the complementiser position "C", as is shown in (81): (80)

Can you see it?

(81) Spec

This process of modal fronting has been called I-Movement. See Radford (1988b: 411—420) for a fuller treatment. As the modal has acquired the (present) tense features, the verb see does not move to "I". Finally, Wh-elements, which were previously moved into the COMP (= "C") position when they were fronted (see section 2.3.1), are now moved into the Specifier position of CP. The tree diagram in (83) shows the derivation of the sentence in (82), which involves both Wh-Movement and I-Movement:

Government-Binding Theory 33

(82) Who can you see? (83)

CP

C

Spec C

IP Spec

r VP

V'

Spec

V Whol

canj

you

NP

see

In this book the Barriers conception of sentence structure will be adopted. Having taken a closer look at some of the structures in the Barriers model we are now in a position to characterise barriers in technical terms. They are defined as in (86), making use of the notions of Blocking Category (BC) in (84) and L-marking in (85): (84) Y is a BC for β iff Y is not L-marked and Ύ dominates β. (85) α L-marks β iff α is a lexical category that θ-governs β [i.e. assigns a θ-role to β], (86) Y is a barrier for β iff (a) or (b): a. Y immediately dominates δ, δ a BC for β; b. Y is a BC for β, Υ Φ IP. (Chomsky 1986b: 14—15) In the case of (86a) Y is a barrier by inheritance, in the case of (86b) it is a barrier intrinsically. In the remainder of this section I will illustrate with a few examples how the Barriers system works. Consider first (87a) below with its associated S-Structure in (87b): (87) a. What did you buy? b. ICP [spec What, ι [c did ] [,P [Spec you ] movement 2

r, [„ buy r, ]]]]

Jtmovement 1

In this sentence the Wh-phrase what moves from the complement position in VP

34

Previous

approaches

to the Specifier position of the clause. This movement is problematic because VP is an inherent barrier by virtue of it not being L-maiked (cf. (84) and (86)). However, in the Barriers model it is assumed, for reasons I will not go into here, that the Wh-element adjoins first to VP (movement 1). In doing so it crosses only one segment of that category. It then moves into Spec-of-CP (movement 2), again crossing only one segment of the lower VP. When movement takes place in this way, i.e. in two steps via an adjoined position, it is assumed that the category that is adjoined to does not act as a barrier. VP-adjunction thus affords an escape hatch for elements moving out of it (cf. Chomsky 1986b: 21f). Consider next (88), an instantiation of one of the well-known Island Violations (Ross 1967). This sentence exhibits a violation of the Complex Noun Phrase Contraint which, in this particular example, bars extraction from a relative clause: (88) *When did you see the book which Laura bought. This sentence is ungrammatical under the reading in which when is construed with the subordinate clause verb buy. (89) shows its S-Structure: (89) [CP fspsc wheiij ] [ c did] [,ρ you [yp tj [ w see

the book

• movement 4 [a-^sp-JjtochJ tip Laura movement 2 VP

LVP bought ti ]] tj ]]]]]]] movement

,J

movement 3

The Wh-element which moves from the complement position in the lower VP to the Specifier position of the subordinate CP via the adjoined position in VP (movements 1 and 2). Apart from crossing a VP which also crosses an IP. However, this category is not an inherent barrier, nor does it inherit barrierhood from VP. Let's now turn to the adjunct when. In (89) it is assumed that this phrase originates in a position inside the lower IP, but outside the lower VP. It first moves out of its containing IP (movement 3) into an adjoined position in the matrix VP. It cannot move into the Specifier position of the lower clause as that is already filled by which. The movement across the lower IP is not problematic because this category is not an inherent barrier. However, when also moves out of the lower CP (the relative clause). This category is a barrier because it is not L-marked: the noun book does not assign a theta role to the relative clause. Barrierhood is inherited by the NP which dominates iL The adjunct thus crosses two barriers. This results in

Descriptive treatments

35

ungrammaticality. Finally, when moves from the adjoined position in the matrix VP to the Specifier position of the matrix clause (movement 4). This movement does not cross any barriers. Notice that (88) also violates the ECP, as the lowest trace of the adjunct cannot be properly governed by its antecedent governor (the higher φ because two barriers (NP and CP) intervene. It is predicted in the Barriers model that extraction out of complements is unproblematic because these are L-marked, by definition. Consider (90) below which exemplifies extraction out of a gerundival NP: (90) a. Which theories do you like discussing? b. [Cp [Sp* Which theoriesj [c do]

you [vp t, [ w like U PRO [vp t [vp discussing tj]]]]]]

It

ι

In this example the NP which theories moves from the lowest VP to the Spec-ofCP of the matrix clause. In doing so, it adjoins twice to a VP, thus voiding the barrierhood of this category. No other barriers are crossed: the lower NP is Lmarked by the verb like and IP is not an inherent barrier, nor a barrier by inheritance. For discussion of more complex examples, see Haegeman (1991) on which this section is partially based. The Barriers model is elegant, but technically rather complex. The derivations of many constructions are often very intricate, as the above discussion shows. In what follows I will be making use of the apparatus above, albeit to a limited extent. On post-Barriers developments, see Chomsky—Lasnik (forthcoming).

2.4. Descriptive treatments It is not my aim in this section to give a comprehensive overview of what traditional grammarians have had to say in the past about predicative [V NP XP] constructions. I will restrict myself to a discussion of the most common analysis found in descriptive grammars which is one in which the postveibal NP is analysed as a direct object argument of the matrix verb. The XP is then treated as a phrase which in some sense complements the object (see e.g. Matthews 1981: 184f; Aarts—Aarts 1982: 141—142; Burton-Roberts 1986: 8 If; Huddleston 1984: 194f; Wekker—Haegeman 1985: 79; Quirk et al. 1985: 1195f and Brown—Miller 1991: 333). Predicative [V NP XP] constructions are often referred to as being complex transitive; the XP following the postverbal NP then being an object complement or objective predicative complement. Aarts (1987) discusses descriptive treatments in more depth. Notice that the analysis sketched above is conceptually very similar to Williams' Predication Theory account described in section 2.3.3. In my view the terminology used and the analyses proposed for these complex transitive patterns of verb complementation are ill-conceived. Consider the notion

36

Previous

approaches

object complement. It is only if we interpret the concept complement in a very wide sense, arguably to the point of it becoming almost meaningless, that we can construe the XP following the matrix clause object in a sentence like we appointed her chairperson as a complement. It does not really make sense to claim that chairperson in this sentence completes the meaning of her. In this regard Aarts—Aarts' term object attribute (1982: 141) and Burton-Roberts' (1986: 81) term object-predicative are much better. A further, more serious, problem with the terminology is that in the works referred to above object complement is used as a syntactic term. However, if anything, it is a semantic label. There is no sense in saying that the NP chairperson in the sentence above complements her syntactically, in the way that the PP of the book complements the nominal head review in the NP his review of the book (cf. he reviewed the book). As has been noted already in preceding sections, the NP chairperson in the example sentence quoted is a predicate and cannot therefore syntactically be a complement One grammarian's work merits special attention in this section: that of the Dane Otto Jespersen. He was the first linguist to propose analysing the predicative [NP XP] sequences of [V NP XP] constructions as constituents. In Jespersen (1909—1949, part V: 5 and 7—9; 1933a: 95f, 309f; 1933b: 316f) predicative [NP XP] strings are instances of what he calls nexus, a unit of syntax which instantiates the subject-predicate relationship. Jespersen makes a distinction between independent nexus structures, i.e. simple sentences, and dependent nexus structures, of which predicative [NP XP] strings are a subset. As the name indicates, dependent nexus constructions cannot occur on their own. Jespersen also treats as instances of dependent nexus [NP XP] strings the XP of which is either a bare infinitive (as in they made him laugh) or an -ed participle (as in he wanted it repaired), but apparently not [NP XP] strings whose XP is an -ing participle (as in we heard him laughing). It is curious that the ideas of the auctor intellectualis of the Small Clause have lain dormant for such a long time, six decades or so, and that SCs have only relatively recently started gaining interest again.

Chapter 3 Small Clauses as constituents

3.1. Introduction In this chapter the central question is: do Small Clauses exist? What evidence can be brought to bear on this issue? I will argue that SCs do exist and will present several arguments supporting the claim that in sentences like (91) the verb consider subcategorises for a Small Clause complement. (91) I consider this man an idiot. The argumentation will run as follows: if we can show that the [NP XP] string forms a unit in sentences like (91), where there is a subject-predicate relation between the postverbal NP and XP, then that unit is necessarily a clause. Thus, the semantic fact that there is a subject-predicate relation combined with the syntactic fact (to be demonstrated below) that we are dealing with an [NP XP] constituent points to a clausal analysis of the [NP XPj string. The semantic and syntactic facts on their own are not sufficient evidence for a Small Clause analysis, but combined they are. There are at least five types of evidence supporting the claim that in (91) consider subcategorises semantically and syntactically for a proposition rather than for two separate arguments. In this chapter I will be looking mainly at nominal and adjectival SC-constructions, i.e. constructions in which the XP is an NP or an AP. It should be noted that all the evidence presented here in favour of Small Clauses also constitutes evidence against theories of predication.

3.2. Evidence for the existence of Small Clauses First, notice that the string this man an idiot in sentence (91) of the previous section can be coordinated with a similar string: (92) I consider this man an idiot and that man a genius. Two [NP AP] strings can also be coordinated: (93) Scotland Yard last night justified the armed police operation which left an armed robber dead on a London street and a second wounded.25 As it is standardly assumed that we can coordinate only constituents (though see note 59, section 4.2.3) the highlighted sequences must be analysed as separate units.

38

Small Clauses as

constituents

Secondly, it is possible to have a nonreferential «-pronoun as the first NP following the verb: (94) I consider it a beautifiil day. (95) I find it rather hot. This element, because it has no semantic content, cannot be an argument of the matrix verb. In both (94) and (95) it is clearly not the case that what is being considered is it, but rather the propositions that it is a beautiful day and that it is rather hot Similarly, in (91) what is being considered is not this man, but rather the proposition that he is an idiot. In theoretical terms: the matrix verbs assign a θ-role not to the NPs it and this man in (94)/(95) and (91), but to the verbless propositions it a beautiful day, it rather hot and this man an idiot. Empty elements like it cannot be taken to be direct object sister arguments of the verbs they follow precisely because they are not assigned a θ-role by these verbs. They can only occur as subject-slot fillers (though see Postal—Pullum 1988 for a diverging view). This means that syntactically it in (94) and (95) must be the subject of a clausal complement26 Of course, the case I am making here would be stronger if it were also possible to have existential there, like nonreferential it a semantically empty element, in the postverbal NP position; that is, if it were also possible to have something like */ consider there a problem. Although the meaning of this sentence is perfectly clear, it is syntactically ruled out. Notice that it is possible to say I consider there to be a problem. As a third argument in favour of positing the existence of Small Clauses, notice that contrary to the claims of some researchers that Small Clauses do not occur other than as complements to verbs (cf. Radford 1988a: 28ff and 39), predicative [NP XP] strings may in fact occur in at least four types of position other than as complements to verbs: independently, as adjuncts, as complements to prepositions and as subjects. The fact that these [NP XP] strings express a proposition points to a clausal analysis. As an example of an independent [NP NP] Small Clause consider a sentence of the type in (96) discussed in Akmajian (1984: 2f) and Radford (1988b: 330). Akmajian has called strings like the highlighted one in B's response in (96) Mad Magazine Sentences, because they often occur in Mad Magazine. These are independent [NP XP] strings where the NP and the XP are in a subject-predicate relationship with each other. (96) A Do you consider that man an idiot? Β [That man an idiot?] You must be joking! It could be objected that the NPs that man and an idiot in (96) are syntactically unrelated separate constituents. This is unlikely, however, in view of the fact that the string that man an idiot is pronounced without an intonational break. Radford,

Evidence for the existence of Small Clauses

39

although he recognises the fact that the highlighted [NP NP] sequence in (96) must be a Small Clause, believes that the Mad Magazine phenomenon "is clearly a marked construction in a fairly obvious sense: thus, Mad Magazine Sentences seem to be limited to "echo contexts", and cannot be used to initiate a conversation" (1988b: 330) In Radford (1988a: 42, note 4) it is claimed that these sentences are probably outside core grammar. It is not entirely clear that we are dealing with a marked phenomenon here, as Small Clauses do seem to readily occur on their own and not only in Mad Magazine contexts. This is certainly the case in languages other than English, such as Russian,27 but also in English. Consider, for example, the adjectival Small Clauses in (97) and (98), which, for lack of a better term, we might call announcement SCs: (97) [$c Doors open 20.30] (98) [sc PRO Closed] I believe it is not controversial to claim that the APs in (97) and (98) are predicates. If they are, they require a subject, as most linguists would agree (cf. Rothstein 1983: 2, 1991: 5; Napoli 1989: 230- In (97) this requirement is satisfied by the NP doors, in (98) we must posit a PRO as subject, the reference of which is determined contextually.28 Consider also the following example quoted in Jespersen: John had seen Glory on the racecourse in Drake's company: he proud and triumphant, she bright and gay and happy (1909—1949, part V: 47). Other examples of independent Small Clauses in English are book titles like Women as traindrivers, or indeed the title of this chapter. Small Clauses containing the element as will be discussed in chapter four. In that chapter we will see that prepositional SCs can also occur on their own. Small Clauses may also occur as adjuncts. A sentence of the type we have in (99) is fairly common in the blurb of book covers: (99) A journalist by profession, Mr Cosmos has written an excellent book on the behaviour of British tourists on Portuguese beaches. In this sentence it would be reasonable to claim that the NP a journalist by profession does not stand alone, but is the predicate of a Small Clause: (99') [ s c PRO, a journalist by profession], Mr Cosmosj has written an excellent book on the behaviour of British tourists on Portuguese beaches. The string A journalist by profession, Mr Cosmos in (99) could also be regarded as an appositive construction because it is possible for the NP a journalist by profession to follow the NP Mr Cosmos:

40

Small Clauses as constituents

(99") Mr Cosmos, a journalist by profession has written an excellent book on the behaviour of British tourists on Portuguese beaches. In that case we would still be dealing with an adjunct SC, the only difference being that it would be part of the subject of the sentence. The appositive analysis of (99) is perhaps more appropriate because we cannot move the string a journalist by profession anywhere else other than to a position following the subject (cf. *Mr Cosmos has written an excellent book...a journalist by profession). A further example of a construction containing an appositive SC which follows the subject NP is given in (100) below: (100) Mrs. Woodford,; , [PRO; the professor of Linguistics in the University of London], voted against the motion. Presumably appositive SCs are adjoined to the X"-level of their host In both (99') and (100) the Small Clause subject is the empty pronominal element PRO which is coindexed with the NP subject of the matrix clause. The Small Clause can also appear right at the end of a sentence as in (101): (101) Ben Johnson arrived home in Canada last night a broken man,...29 This sentence plausibly has the structure given in (102): (102) Ben Johnson, arrived home in Canada last night [ s c PRO, a broken man],... Here again what appears to be a simple NP is in fact best analysed as a Small Clause of the form [NP NP], where the first (subject) NP is the empty pronominal element PRO. The highlighted strings in (99') and (102) have been called free adjuncts in the literature. This term as Beukema (1984: 56) informs us, was coined by the Dutch grammarian Kruisinga. The phenomenon of two juxtaposed NPs occurring in a subject-predicate relationship with each other is also fairly common in coordinative structures: (103) Apart from the subjective work, we cannot say that Jesus is the Lord, or [His death a death for sin], or [His resurrection the first-fruits of the new creation of God]. (W.9.1.152—2)30 (104) and as they line up # Northern Circuit has to be # on the far side # drawn one # two will be Princess Shumar # [three Marche d'Or] # [four Courts of Love] # [five # Canute's Courtier] # [six # Sea Shanty] # and [seven # the top weight # Non Proven] #... (S.10.4b.20) (105) Hugh had been 8 and [he 10] when they had first realized there was something a bit different about them. (W. 16.7.28—2)

Evidence for the existence of Small Clauses

41

(106) It is for the same reason that Frege maintains that an A4 can never be a B4 or vice versa, than an object can never be a concept or [a concept an object]. (W.9.2.141—2) All linguists would agree that in each of these sentences the bracketed strings are clauses. They would not, however, necessarily agree that they are Small Clauses. It could be argued that in each case we have ellipsis or gapping. For (103) a Small Clause analysis of the higlighted sequences poses no problem because here only the verb be and the feature Opresent tense] need to be inferred. In (104)—(106), however, the situation is a little more complex: in (104) apart from the verb be we also have to infer the modal auxiliary will. In (105) in order to interpret he 10 we have to infer from the previous clause (Hugh had been 10) the verb be as well as the features [+past] and [+perfect]. Finally, in (106) the element never of the clause than an object can never be a concept also has scope over the clause a concept an object. Furthermore, in this sentence the verb be and a modal also need to be inferred. Because of all of this and especially also in view of sentences like (107), where there is certainly no predication relation between the NPs that one and a palace, an ellipsis or gapping analysis of (103)—(106) is more plausible. (107) This photograph shows a castle and [that one a palace]. However, even though (103)—(106) do not involve Small Clauses, it is possible to find examples where there can be little doubt as to the SC-status of the [NP XP] string. Consider the following sentences: (108) She was born in 1896, daughter of a well-to-do and rigidly conventional family, her father a doctor.31 (109) The Red Cross workers entered the besieged building this morning, their flag their only protection. To interpret her father a doctor in (108) the reader need not rely on anything that precedes this string, certainly not on the presence of the verb be in she was born in 1896. If the sentence had read as in (108'): (108') She died in 1896, daughter of a well-to-do and rigidly conventional family, her father a doctor. where there is no verb be, we would still interpret her father as a subject and a doctor as a predicate. So, in (108) we again have an adjunct SC, this time with a lexical subject. (109) also contains an adjunct SC with a lexical subject.32 Not only [NP NP] Small Clauses occur as adjuncts, [NP AP] strings do so as well. The following example is from Beukema (1984: 58):

42

Small Clauses as constituents

(110) Implacable, Jones defiantly shrugged his shoulders. A plausible analysis is given in (111), where the adjectival SC has an empty subject; (111) [ s c PRO, implacable], Jones, defiantly shrugged his shoulders Here is another example: (112) It is a measure of the change in superpower relationships brought about by Mikhail Gorbachev—and Ronald Reagan—that nobody in the Western camp should be alarmed by the spectacle of the Soviet foreign minister, free at last of the Afghanistan entanglement, engaging in intensive high-level Middle East diplomacy. In (112) too there occurs an adjectival SC with a PRO subject. The subject of the [NP AP] adjunct clause can also be overt: (113) Its hands free, Moscow could turn to the great regional problem that had long defied solution: the Arab-Israel conflict and the Palestinian issue.33 In (110) and (113) the SC-adjuncts are arguably sentential adverbials, whereas the Small Clause in (112) is more plausibly analysed as an NP adjunct. The exact structural position of these SCs is not directly relevant to the discussion, however, so I will not go into this matter here. The syntactic position of sentential adjuncts will be discussed below and the Case-theoretical properties of the Small Clause constructions in (108), (109) and (112) will be discussed in chapter six. Further examples of predicative [NP XP] strings occurring other than as complements to transitive verbs are given in (114): (114) a. With Peter the referee we might as well not play the match. b. With Laura the principal actress, how could the Duras play go wrong? Here nominal Small Clauses occur as the complement of a preposition (mostly with or without in English, though see below) in the absolute construction. To satisfy the Case Filter with assigns Case to the NPs Peter and Laura. Adjectival and prepositional SCs can also appear in this construction: (115) With Jeremy happy we can now go and see that film. (116) With the boys in bed we can have a quiet cup of coffee. Persuasive evidence based on Dutch data that the [NP XP] string following the preposition is indeed clausal is given in Beukema—Hoekstra (1983,1984). In Dutch

Evidence for the existence of Small Clauses

43

non-human pronouns which are complements of prepositions are changed into socalled R-forms, specifically the element er which then precedes the preposition. The examples below are from Beukema—Hoekstra (1984: 692): (117) a. *Jan keek naar het paard en Piet keek ook naar het. Jan looked at the horse and Piet looked too at iL 'Jan looked at the horse and Piet looked at it too' b. Jan keek naar het paard en Piet keek ook er naar. Jan looked at the horse and Piet looked too it at 'Jan looked at the horse and Piet looked at it too' Thus, naar het (P + pronoun) is changed into er naar (R-pronoun + P). The crucial point now is that non-human pronouns following the met (=with) of absolute constructions are not subject to the R-suppletion rule described above: (118) a. Met dat nog allemaal voor de boeg, wilde Jan niet weggaan. with this still all ahead of him wanted Jan not leave 'With all this still ahead of him, Jan did not want to leave' b. *Daarmee nog allemaal voor de boeg, wilde Jan niet weggaan. this-with still all ahead of him, wanted Jan not leave 'With all this still ahead of him, Jan did not want to leave' 34 (Beukema—Hoekstra 1984: 692) In (118) the pronoun dat is not changed into its R-form counterpart daar. This shows that dat in (118a) is not the complement of the preposition met. As there is a subject-predicate relation between dat (nog) allemaal and voor de boeg the two phrases together should be taken to form a clausal constituent. Small Clauses can also be preceded by other prepositions. Thus, we can have She was distressed at the thought of [him alone] (from Kayne 1984a: 161, note 2835) or All works, each in their degree, are the making of [madness sane] (from Jespersen 1909—1949, part V: 29, quoting Carlyle). Jespersen also quotes the following example from Defoe: I would have given half I had in the world for [him back again], but believes, mistakenly I feel, that this sentence is no longer possible. Finally, SCs may occur after the preposition than, as sentence (126) below shows. However, it seems that in modern English only wir/i-absolutives are fully acceptable and that other Preposition+SC constructions are slowly becoming obsolete, with the exception perhaps of than+SC. Absolute constructions are problematic for Napoli's theory of predication. See Napoli (1989: 278—279). An additional set of facts confirming that Small Clauses can occur in positions other than as complements to verbs was noted in Safir (1983). He observes that SCs

44

Small Clauses as constituents

can be what he calls honorary NPs (HNPs); these are maximal projections of some type which he claims may occur as subjects only in copular or Raising constructions (cf. (119a) and (119b)), but not in other structures (cf. (119c)): (119) a. Under the bed is a cosy spot. b. Under the bed seemed to be a cosy spot. c. * Under the bed pleased the cat.

(Safir's (5a)) (Safir's (8a)) (Safir's (6a))

In (119) the HNP is a Prepositional Phrase. Safir shows that SCs can also act as HNPs, again, so he claims, only in copular or Raising environments: (120) a. Workers angry about the pay is just the sort of situation that the ad campaign was designed to avoid. (Safir's (12a)) b. Workers angry about the pay does indeed seem to be just the sort of situation that the ad campaign was designed to avoid. (Safir's (12b)) c. ^Workers angry about the pay pleases Maybelle immensely. (Safir's (12c)) Interestingly, the highlighted subject strings in (120) trigger singular verb agreement. This indicates that the APs in these sequences cannot be regarded as postmodifiers. Safir notes that "[w]hen agreement is singular, even though the NP workers is plural, workers angry about the pay must be interpreted as a situation." (1983: 732) The most plausible analysis, then, of the highlighted sequences in (120) is to regard them as clauses. In (120) we have [NP AP] Small Clauses. Safir does not mention [NP NP] SCs, but it appears that they too can marginally occur as subjects: (121) a. ??George Bush President is not something to be particularly happy about. b. ??George Bush President seems to please the Americans. These sentences are entirely acceptable when the Small Clause contains as: (122) a. George Bush as President is not something to be particularly happy about. b. George Bush as President seems to please the Americans. A plural SC subject with a singular matrix verb seems much less acceptable though, even with as: (123) a. ?*These racists policemen is not a good idea. b. ?*These racists as policemen is not a good idea. Safir's claim that SCs may occur in subject position only in copular or Raising environments is questionable.36 Consider the sentences in (124) which contain

Evidence for the existence of Small Clauses

45

nominal SCs as subjects in non-copular, non-Raising structures: (124) a. ?George Bush President distresses large groups of people all over the world. b. ?Margaret Thatcher Queen would prove quite ludicrous. When the Small Clause subjects in (124) contain as the results are again better: (125) a. George Bush as President distresses large groups of people all over the world. b. Margaret Thatcher as Queen would prove quite ludicrous. However, that the element as need not be present is shown in (126) where we have an attested instance of an adjectival SC without as occurring in subject position, again in a non-copular, non-Raising environment: (126) Will President Botha set him free to allow him to take part in that process? Or does he fear that Mandela free would pose a greater threat than Mandela behind bars.37 I will have more to say about Small Clauses containing as in the next chapter. The only general restriction on SCs occurring as subjects seems to be that they must express a situation. In view of this, Safir's sentence (120c) seems at least marginally acceptable. The reason why it seems odd is because it expresses a strange proposition: workers angry about pay is not something that normally pleases people. An alternative to (120c) is the following: Workers angry about the pay displeases the government which is fine. As noted above, sentence (126) also demonstrates the possibility of an SC occurring after the preposition than (namely Mandela behind bars)?* As a fourth piece of evidence in favour of assigning a clausal status to [NP XP] strings in which the NP and XP are in a subject-predicate relation, consider the following sentences: (127) I thought [it perhaps a pity] at the time, but his motivation was pessimism (unnecessary in his case) about academic job prospects. (W.17.2.74) (128) I must admit that I have found [these summer international schools probably the most rewarding part of my work], (W.7.6.82) What is interesting about these sentences is that the phrases perhaps and probably occur in between the NPs and XPs which are in a predicative relationship with each other. These elements are sentence adverbials which have scope over a string of words which syntactically form a clause. In this connexion note that we can paraphrase the first part of (127) as in (129a), (129b) or (129c), but not as in

46

Small Clauses as constituents

(130a), (130b) or (130c): (129) a. I thought that [it was perhaps a pity] at the time, but his motivation pessimism... b. I thought that [perhaps it was a pity] at the time, but his motivation pessimism... c. I thought that [it was a pity perhaps] at the time, but his motivation pessimism... (130) a. Perhaps I thought [it a pity] at the time, but his motivation pessimism... b. Perhaps I thought that [it was a pity] at the time, but his motivation pessimism... c. I thought perhaps that [it was a pity] at the time, but his motivation pessimism...

was was was was was was

Similarly, (128) can be paraphrased as in (131a) or (131b), but not as in (132a) or (132b): (131) a. / must admit that I have found that [these summer international schools are probably the most rewarding part of my work], b. I must admit that I have found that [probably these summer international schools are the most rewarding part of my work], (132) a. I must admit that probably I have found [these summer international schools the most rewarding part of my work], b. I must admit that I have probably found [these summer international schools the most rewarding part of my work]. Thus, the distribution of the sentence adverbials perhaps and probably in (127) and (128) strongly suggests that the bracketed strings are syntactically clauses.39 40 On adverbials in SCs see also Stowell (1988: 14—15) and chapter six. A fifth and final way of proving the clausal status of predicative [NP XP] sequences in sentences like I consider this man an idiot is to show that the postverbal NP is a syntactically a subject. This is a strategy followed in Radford (1988b). Let us look at his arguments. Radford (1988b: 324f) cites the following sentences from Napoli (1989: 319): (133) a. The president is coming himself. b. *We put the president in our car himself. c. */ looked behind the president for guards himself. It is concluded on the basis of data like this that what is called a floating emphatic reflexive can only be related to a subject expression.41 If so, then the highlighted NP in (134) is necessarily a subject:

Evidence for the existence of Small Clauses 47

(134) / thought /the prime-minister herself a controversial person] If the NP the prime minister herself is a subject then the bracketed sequence must be a clause. Radford's other two arguments centre around Postal's noi-initial (1974: 94—99) and alone-final (1974: 99—102) tests: nof-initial and α/one-final NPs are claimed to occur only in (derived) subject position (cf. [Not many houses] were built here/*I like [not many houses]; [That house alone] was paintedJ*I ate [that cake alone]). If Postal is right then the higlighted NPs in (135) must be subjects: (135) a. The head of department considers /not many students good PhD students], b. The head of department considers [MA students alone good PhD students]. Again, if not many students and MA students alone are subjects, then the bracketed strings must be clauses. The not-initial and abne-fmsi arguments are less convincing than the floating emphatic reflexive argument We can have, for example, (136): (136) I gave that girl alone £60. where clearly that girl alone is not a subject expression.42 All of the evidence presented in this section in favour of positing the existence of Small Clauses as syntactic entities is largely theory-independent Let me now briefly turn to some of the theory-internal evidence based on the work of Kayne, Hoekstra and Stowell. In Kayne (1984a) we find interesting motivation for the subjecthood of the postverbal NP in a sentence like (137) below: (137) 1 consider the father of Kathy a gentleman. Kayne assumes that only binary branching is allowed in phrase markers and that nothing can be extracted from left branches. If we combine Kayne's hypotheses with the fact that subjects are on left branches, then we must assume that the father of Kathy in (137) is a subject because we cannot extract from it: (138) *Who, do you consider the father of e, a gentleman? Extracting from phrases on right branches causes no problems: (139) a. I designed the covers of those books. b. What did you design the covers of?

48

Small Clauses as constituents

Hoekstra (1984: 253f) argues that recognising the existence of Small Clauses (in addition to making a few further assumptions) is necessary in order to give an explanatory account of verbal compounds, and Stowell (1988: 15—17) argues that an optimal account of Binding facts in English must make use of the notion Small Clause.43

3.3. Small Clauses as instances of dependent and controlled predication So far we have looked mostly at Small Clause constructions involving the prototypical verb consider, as in the sentence below: (140) I consider this man an idiot.

(=(91))

I have shown in the previous section that the NP this man is not a direct object argument of the verb consider, but rather the subject of the Small Clause [this man an idiot]. The analysis of (140) is shown in (141) (only the VP is shown):

The verb consider subcategorises a clausal complement the subject of which is this man and the predicate of which is an idiot. The internal structure of the Small Clause has been simplified here and will be discussed in more detail in chapter six. The analysis in (141) is not appropriate for all constructions containing Small Clauses: in some cases the NP of a [V NP XP] string is clearly a direct object. Consider (142): (142) We appointed her professor of logic. In this sentence her is an argument of the verb appoint. This is so because (142) entails (143): (143) We appointed her. Also, notice that appoint and verbs like it cannot be followed by semantically empty elements such as nonreferential it or existential there. We must conclude,

Small Clauses as instances of dependent controlled predication

49

then, that in (142) appoint assigns a θ-role to the postverbal NP. However, notice that in (142) there is also clearly a subject-predicate relation between the object NP and the NP professor of logic. The distinction between the construction we have in (142) and that in (140) is not always made by grammarians. There are a number of possible ways of analysing (142). A first possibility is to argue that this sentence involves a complex verb appoint-professor of logic which takes an NP argument her. For a proposal along these lines see e.g. Dowty (1976: 219f, 1979: 303). In deriving the S-Structure there would then have to be obligatory movement of some sort. We cannot take such an analysis seriously, however, as it would result in an unacceptably large lexicon which would contain countless strings such as appoint-Head of Department, appoini-senior lecturer etc. Stowell (1988) argues for a restructuring at LF of sequences like hammer NP flat as hammer-flat NP. In the syntax, however, there is no complex verb of any sort. This view is more plausible. Another possible analysis, which I would like to discuss in some detail, is presented in Hornstein—Lightfoot (1987: 27). They argue for the analysis of (144a) as in (144b): (144) a. John ate the meat raw. b. John INFL [VP [v. ate the meat] [s PRO INFL0 [AP raw]]] Eat in (144a) is like appoint, in that this verb too is followed by a direct object NP and a predicate phrase (raw). This predicate phrase is analysed in (144b) as taking a PRO subject and forms a Small Clause with iL Small Clauses are analysed as Ss taking a zero INFL node. The particulars of Hornstein—Lightfoot's analysis need not concern us here (see chapter six for further discussion); what is important is that in (144b) the SC [PRO INFL0 raw] is a sister to V'.44 It is argued that this adjectival SC is a VP-adverbial. This would seem uncontroversial. The structure of (144a) is different from that in (145a) which is analysed as in (145b): (145) a. John ate the meat naked. b. John INFL [VP [VP ate the meat] [s PRO INFL0 [AP naked]]] In (145b) the SC [PRO INFL0 naked] is regarded as a sentential adverbial and is adjoined to VP. The motivation for distinguishing (144a) from (145a) is that in the first of these sentences the AP cannot be fronted, whereas in the second it can: (146) a. *Raw, John ate the meat. b. Naked, John ate the meat. (146) appears to indicate that (144a) and (145a), examples of what we might call the meat-eating construction, are indeed syntactically different In the present study

50

Small Clauses as constituents

I propose to analyse (144a) as in (147): (147) John INFL [VP [VP ate the meat] [sc PRO raw]] That is, the SC [PRO raw] is adjoined to VP, rather than being a sister to V'. The reason for this is that I follow Chomsky (1986b) in allowing adjunction only to maximal projections. Such a limitation results in a more restrictive and hence more learnable grammar. Also, only if the SC is adjoined to VP does its PRO subject remain ungoverned as is required by the PRO-theorem (see section 2.3.1). The question now arises how to analyse (145a). If [PRO raw] in (144a) is adjoined to VP, where do we adjoin [PRO naked/? Before answering that question a few observations are in order. I would like to suggest that the sentence John ate the meat naked is in fact ambiguous. Under one reading naked is a sentential adjunct. The NP the meat and the AP naked are then separated by an intonational break, represented by a comma in writing: John ate the meat, naked. This last sentence then alternates with (146b). Under another reading naked is a VP-adjunct. The following data, taken (slightly adapted) from Andrews (1982: 313) indicate that the AP naked (or SC [PRO naked] in terms of the present study) can indeed be part of VP. See also Roberts (1988); Napoli (1989) and Malldn (1991). (148) a. John said he would eat the meat naked, and eat the meat naked he did. b. Eat the meat naked though John did, nobody thought he was crazy. c. What John did was eat the meat naked. VP-Preposing, 77ioug&-Movement and Pseudoclefting have applied to these sentences, clearly showing that the AP naked is part of VP. Napoli (1989: 153—154) observes that an advantage of taking the predicate naked in (145a) to be part of VP is that it allows us to explain the semantic differences holding between (145a) and (146b). She discusses a similar pair of sentences, namely those in (149): (149) a. The ambassador arrived nude. b. Nude, the ambassador arrived. Her claim is that (149b) makes two assertions, namely that the ambassador arrived and that he was nude, whereas (149a) makes only one assertion, namely that when the ambassador arrived he was nude. In Napoli's words "[nudeness] characterises the arrival" (Napoli 1989: 154). The different structures of (149a) and (149b) are responsible for the differences in interpretation. Roberts (1988) adduces two further arguments for taking subject-related APpredicates to be part of VP. Consider first the sentences in (150) below:

Small Clauses as instances of dependent controlled predication

(150) a. *Mary met him, [angry about John, ], b. *Sue met him, [proud of Fred{ /, c. *Who, did you meet ti [angry at i, ],

51

(from Roberts 1988: 706)

It is claimed that the ungrammaticality of the a and b-sentences is explained if we assume that the APs in each case are part of VP. The sentences are then ruled out by Principle C of the Binding Theory (see section 2.3.1) as the R-expressions inside the APs are c-commanded by the pronouns. (150c) is explained if we assume that a real gap may not c-command a parasitic gap, which is the case in (150c) if the AP-predicate is part of VP. Roberts also offers us (151): (151) Bill didn't leave [angry at John]. and claims that this sentence cannot be construed in such a way that the scope of negation extends over the main predicate alone, excluding the string angry at John. In his own words: "[151] completely lacks the reading where Bill, angry at John, didn't leave" (1988: 707). Thus, (151) can only have the readings (i) not [Bill left angry at John] and (ii) Bill left [not [angry at John]], but not (iii) [not [Bill left]] angry at John. Under reading (i) do is stressed in (151), under reading (ii) John is stressed. In his paper Roberts shows that VP-adjuncts must be inside the scope of negation, and the fact that (151) can only have the readings in (i) and (ii) confirms that the AP angry at John must be a VP-adjunct. However, what about the sentence Angry at John, Bill didn't leave? We will have to analyse this as a variant, not of (151), but of (151'): (15Π Bill didn't leave, angry at John. where there is an intonational break between leave and the AP angry at John (Roberts contrasts John didn't kiss his wife deliberately with John didn't kiss his wife, deliberately where deliberately is a VP-internal adverb in the first sentence, but a VP-external adverb in the second sentence). It now appears that a sentence like John ate the meat naked should be assigned two distinct syntactic structures. Let us consider in some more detail the reading under which naked is construed as a sentential adjunct. As we saw above, under this interpretation there is an intonational break between the meat and naked. We should now ask what is the exact position of the SC [PRO naked] in John ate the meat, naked and in Naked, John ate the meat (=(146b))? I want to suggest that when naked is construed as a sentential adjunct it is adjoined to CP. How can we show this? With regard to sentences like (146b) Napoli (1989: 114) argues that the adjunct naked (which for her is not an SC) is Chomsky-adjoined to CP. The evidence for this is that adjuncts of this type can precede a matrix clause with a filled Spec-of-CP position, as in Napoli's sentence Penniless, [Spec who] can we

52

Small Clauses as constituents

trust? I would like to extend Napoli's analysis for sentences like (146b) to John ate the meat, naked where there is an intonational break between the meat and naked. The sentences under discussion are then analysed as in (152a) and (152b) respectively : (152) a. ICP [cpJohn ate the meat] [sc PRO naked]] b. [CP [sc PRO naked] [CP John ate the meat]] Thus the adjunct Small Clause [PRO naked] is adjoined to CP in both cases. These analyses directly capture the scopal properties of [PRO naked] as a sentential adverbial in both sentences. The representations above are each other's mirror images, and we can straightforwardly account for the relation between them by assuming that we can swivel the phrase markers of (152a) and (152b) around the vertical axis that we can draw through the higher CP: CP

PRO naked

CP

PRO naked

Consider now the following set of sentences: (153) a. b. c. (154) a.

?*John said he would eat the meat nude, and eat the meat he did nude. ??Eat the meat though John did nude, nobody thought he was crazy. What John did nude was eat the meat. ??John said he would eat the meat in the nude, and eat the meat he did in the nude. b. Eat the meat though John did in the nude, nobody thought he was crazy. c. What John did in the nude was eat the meat.

These data seem to contradict, at least in part, those in (148) in that it looks as though the AP nude can (marginally) appear outside VP. However, to the extent that (153)—(154) are acceptable, they can be taken to support the CP-adjunction analysis. In other words, the AP-predicates that trail behind in these sentences ([PRO nude]/[PRO in the nude] in the present framework) have sentential scope and are adjoined to CP, and hence are not affected by VP movement processes. Not all authors make mention of an alternation between John ate the meat naked (without comma intonation) and Naked, John ate the meat, but those who do implicitly or explicitly structurally relate these two sentences (thus Hornstein—Lightfoot talk of "transportability"). They do not, however, spell out exactly how the first sentence is syntactically related to the second. In view of what I have said above, I would argue that there is no syntactic relationship between

Small Clauses as instances of dependent controlled predication

53

these sentences. In the first sentence naked is a VP-adjunct, in the second it is a sentential adjunct The second sentence alternates with John ate the meat, naked which displays comma intonation, as we have seen. A question that is yet to be answered is the following: if the SC [PRO raw] is adjoined to VP, as in (147), where do we adjoin [PRO naked] where this SC is understood as a VP-adjunct? The answer is: in exactly the same location as [PRO raw]. The structure of John ate the meat naked is then as follows: John INFL [VP [Vp ate the meat][sc PRO naked]]. That is, the subject-related VP-internal SC is also adjoined to VP. This begs the question how we can account for the following pair of sentences: (155) a. John ate the meat raw naked b. John ate the meat naked raw. These are explained if we assume that in general subject-related predicates cannot co-occur with object-related predicates inside VP in English. This is not a universal restriction as the two types of predicate do co-occur in some other languages (see Demonte 1987; Malldn 1991 for Spanish). On my claim regarding (155) see also the comments of an anonymous reviewer in Mall6n (1991: 386, footnote 13). The arguments put forward in the literature to support the thesis that VP-internal subject-related predicates occupy a different syntactic position from object-related predicates (see e.g. Roberts 1988: 708—709; Malldn 1991: 384—393 who argue that subject-related predicates are sisters of V', and object-related predicates are sisters of the head verb) are not always convincing because they are mostly based on the assumed (un)grammaticality of a number of very dubious sentences. To give one example, Mall6n (1991: 385), following Culicover—Wilkins (1984), contrasts the following sentences *John ate the meat raw, and Sam, the cauliflower cooked and John ate the meat nude, and Sam, the cauliflower in a tuxedo. The difference in acceptability between these sentences is used as an argument confirming that subject-related predicates occupy a different position from object-related predicates. If it is assumed that the rule of gapping can leave behind only one constituent inside V', and if it is further assumed that subject-related predicates are sisters of V' and object-related predicates are sisters of the head verb inside V', then the first sentence is ungrammatical because a complement NP as well as an object-related predicate have been stranded inside V'. The second sentence is grammatical as only the direct object has been left behind in V'. I find both sentences equally unacceptable and for me the argument therefore does not go through. Furthermore, the assumption that object-related predicates are sisters of the head verb inside VP is problematic, as I will show below. My own account is not entirely without problems either. Thus, it cannot structurally distinguish the ambiguity of sentences like John saw Marian naked where the subject expression of the predicate naked can be either John or Marian. In both cases naked is adjoined to VP. This is a problem also for Napoli because

54

Small Clauses as constituents

in her framework both (144a) and (145a) are analysed as involving "flat" VP structures: [VP VNP XP], She disallows adjunction, as in (147). A further problem for Napoli is noted by Malten (1991: 386—387): (156) *John put the book happy on the table. For Napoli both the PP complement and the subject-related predicate are sisters of the head verb. Under that analysis (156) ought to be possible. For the present framework (156) is not problematic as on the table is analysed as a complement of put, and hence as its sister, whereas happy (an SC with a PRO subject) is not a sister of V, but adjoined to VP, and therefore higher up in the syntactic tree representation than the PP. Let us now consider some further ways of analysing (142). Six different possible structures are shown in (157)—(162) below (recall that I am omitting Spec-of-VP wherever it is irrelevant):

Small Clauses as instances of dependent controlled predication

we

appointed

her

professor of logic

we

appointed

her,

PRO, professor of logic

her,

PRO, professor of logic

55

we

appointed

her

professor of logic

her;

her,

PRO; professor of logic

PROj professor of logic

Small Clauses as instances of dependent controlled predication

57

In (157) her is a direct object NP, and the string professor of logic is analysed as a second (predicative) sister category of the verb appoint. This kind of analysis is found in theories of predication, notably in the work of Williams (1980) (see chapter two); Rothstein (1983); Culicover—Wilkins (1986) and Napoli (1989). See also Roberts (1988) and Malldn (1991). Green (1970, 1973) and Emonds (1985) have similar analyses which are the same even for constructions containing verbs like consider. The representation in (157) has to be ruled out as it stands for two reasons. First of all it violates the Theta Criterion as defined in chapter two because the NP her is assigned a θ-role both by appoint and by the NP professor of logic. Secondly, it does not take account of the fact that there is a subject-predicate relationship between the NPs her and professor of logic. We could of course modify the Theta Criterion, as has been proposed in the work of Schein (1982: 1 and 11), Rothstein (1983: 93—95), Chomsky (1986a: 96—97) and Napoli (1989: 86), and we could then make explicit the fact that there is a subject-predicate relationship between her and professor of logic in (157) by positing predication coindexing rules which coindex subjects and predicates. Examples of such rules are Williams' (1980) Rule of Predication, which coindexes a subject and a predicate only when they ccommand each other (see chapter two), Rothstein's (1983) Predicate-Linking Rule which also operates under mutual c-command, Culicover—Wilkins' (1986) Coindex Rule and Napoli's (1989) Predication Coindexing Principles. With regard to the Theta Criterion, we will see below why a revision is not desirable. As for predication theoretical coindexing rules, as was said at the beginning of chapter three (and as Hoekstra 1984: 239 has observed regarding Williams' work) all the arguments given in favour of positing Small Clauses are also arguments against such rules. Let us take a closer look at some of the proposals made by a proponent of one version of Predication Theory, Susan Rothstein, regarding constructions such as those in (142) and (144a), repeated here as (163) and (164): (163) We appointed her professor of logic. (164) John ate the meat raw. According to Rothstein these sentences are structurally distinct. She discusses the similar sentences (165) and (166), and analyses (165a) as in (165b) and (166a) as in (166b): (165) a. John painted the car red. b. John [yp painted [NP the car] [AP red]] (166) a. Bill ate the carrots raw. b. Bill [VP, [VP ate [NP the carrots]] [AP raw]]

58

Small Clauses as constituents

The AP predicates red and raw are linked to their subjects the car and the carrots by the Predicate-Linking Rule (Rothstein 1983: 11). It is claimed that the verb paint in (165) has two sister categories: an NP argument phrase and an AP predicate phrase (cf. (157)), whereas in (166) eat takes only an NP as its sister. The AP predicate in this sentence is adjoined to VP. In the present study I have also analysed (166a) as in (166b). Rothstein terms the AP predicate in (165) resultative, and that in (166) depictive, adopting terminology introduced in Halliday (1967: 63).45 The syntactic difference between the resultative and depictive constructions in (165) and (166), she claims, is that in (165) there is a connexion between the verb and the predicate, whereas there is no such connexion in (166): "Resultative predicates, like thematic arguments of a verb [emphasis mine, BA] are selected by the semantic nature of the verb and are represented at S-structure as immediate sisters of the verb." (1983: 17)46 Also: "[W]ithin the lexicon, selectional demands are for semantically appropriate predicates, and are stated in category-neutral terms." (1983: 83) Rothstein claims that her analysis makes a number of desirable predictions. One of these is that only one resultative can appear in a sentence, not two: (167) *John washed the clothes clean white.

(=Rothstein's (29))

That is, a verb tolerates only one resultative predicate as a sister. There is no restriction on the number of depictives that can occur: (168) They eat meat raw, tender.

(=Rothstein's (30), quoting Simpson 1982)

(168) is analysed as in (169): (169) [s They [VP~ [VP· [VP eat meat] raw] tender]] The depictive predicate tender is Chomsky-adjoined to VP' (eat the meat raw) here. Another prediction which Rothstein claims her analysis makes is that if a sentence contains both a resultative and a depictive, the resultative must precede the depictive. This is because the depictive is higher up in the tree (cf. (165)/(166)). (170) We hammered the metal flat hot. (171) *We hammered the metal hot

flat.

(= Rothstein's (33a)) (=Rothstein's (33b))

Emonds (1976: 109) makes the same point as Rothstein regarding cooccurring resultatives and depictives by contrasting the a and b-sentences in (172) and (173): (172) a. They painted the house red unsanded. b. *They painted the house unsanded red

Small Clauses as instances of dependent controlled predication

59

(173) a. Bill cooked the meat dry unsalted. b. *Bill cooked the meat unsalted dry. The distinction between resultatives and depletives is clearly a valid one. Thus, in (163) the person designated as her is a professor as a result of the appointing. Similarly, the car in (165a) is red as a result of the painting process. By contrast, in (166) the predicate raw does not express a result, but rather a circumstance. This sentence can be paraphrased as 'John ate the meat while it was raw'. Within the classes of resultative and depictive predicates further semantic differences can be distinguished which I will not discuss here. I refer the reader to Green (1970, 1973). Returning now to Rothstein's claims, I agree with her that (167) is bad. However, (168) does not seem to be any better. I would say that sentences (167) and (168) are either equally good or equally bad. To me it seems to be the case that a direct object cannot occur with two resultatives nor with two depictives.47 The difference in judgements between (170) and (171), and between the a and bsentences in (172) and (173) is likewise very subtle, but here (170) is better than (171), and in (172) and (173) the a-sentences are better than the b-sentences. Rothstein's account thus seems to be making a correct prediction. I will return to these sentences below. I am not very happy with Rothstein's lexical selection analysis of resultative constructions. Are they really to be analysed as in (174), as she suggests, or perhaps as in (175), which is the analysis I assigned to depictive constructions such as he ate the meat raw? (174)

VP V

(175)

NP

XP

VP

V

NP

where XP is a resultative predicate phrase

The answer to this question lies in the nature of the relationship, or lack of a relationship, between the head verb and the resultative predicate: if such a relation obtains (174) would seem to be more appropriate, if it does not obtain (175) is to be preferred. Data which are relevant to this issue are given in (176)—(179): r beautiful^ (176) *John hammered the metal 1 safe > L tubular J

60

Small Clauses as

constituents

{ (178) *She wrenched the stick

damp Λ dirty > stained J

J broken I L tight J

(

lame paranoid wounded J

(all from Green 1972)

These sentences at first sight appear to confirm the claim made by Rothstein and others that there is a relationship between the head verb and the predicate phrase. Thus, for example, it might be argued that hammer can select flat (as in hammered the metal flat) but not beautiful, safe or tubular, as (176) shows. A question that arises, however, with the lexical selection account of resultative constructions is the following: what is the exact nature of the relationship between the verb and the resultative predicate? In (174) the resultative XP occurs in a subcategorised complement position. However, it is obviously not the case that the verb subcategorises the predicate phrase as predicates are not arguments and only arguments can be subcategorised for. The semantic restrictions holding between the matrix verb and the resultative predicate are not statable as selectional restrictions either, as these too hold between heads and arguments only. Furthermore, if we do analyse resultative constructions as in (174) we have no way of distinguishing syntactically between complements and lexically selected predicates. This would be a clear drawback for the present framework which takes as one of its starting points the desire to match as much as is possible syntactic representations with semantic representations (see chapter one) in an effort to restrict the set of possible syntactic configurations. Theories of predication have to drop the requirement of isomorphism between syntax and semantics. On this matter see especially Napoli (1989: 3—4 and 22—23). We can conclude that (175) is to be preferred over (174) as an analysis of resultative constructions. The analysis in (175) is the same as that proposed for depictive constructions (cf. (147)). In this representation the sister positions of V inside VP are reserved for complements. One way we can now deal with the data in (176)—(179) is to handle the restrictions in terms of a number of specific semantic conditions holding between subject and predicate. We need similar semantic conditions for independent reasons to state the restrictions holding between subjects and predicates in depictive constructions, which, as we have seen, are analysed as in (175) both in Rothstein (1983) and in the present study. Rothstein (1983: 84—85) states a number of such semantic conditions on depletives:

Small Clauses as instances of dependent controlled predication

61

(a) The attribute expressed by the predicate must simultaneously be an intrinsic and transitory property of its subject. (b) Subjects of depictive predicates must take either an agent or a patient θ-role. Let me illustrate the second condition first. Rothstein cites (180)

(Rothstein's (17a)) and remarks that "unread is predicated of the patient NP the book, but drunk can only be predicated of John. Despite the fact that configurational restrictions are met, Mary is the goal NP and cannot be subject of drunk." (1983: 85) The first condition is illustrated by the sentences in (181): (181) a. b. c. d.

John ate the peanuts salted/*salty. John ate the meat raw/burnt/*tasty. / met Mary drunk/in high spirits/*tall/*stupid. We eat carrots raw/*orange.

With regard to (181a) Rothstein comments: "salted is an acceptable predicate of peanuts, because it describes an intrinsic property of the subject itself, albeit a temporary property — they do not grow salted. Salty, however, describes not a property of its subject, but rather the relation between the peanuts and John (he finds them salty)." (1983: 84) Rothstein does not extend her conditions (a) and (b) in such a way that they are relevant also for the subject-predicate relation in resultative constructions because in her analysis resultatives predicates are lexically selected by the main verb. However, proposals to do something along those lines, i.e. to handle the combinatory restrictions between resultative predicates and their subjects in sentences like (176)—(179) in terms of semantic conditions have been made in McCawley (1971) and Fabb (1984). McCawley (1971: 30) conjectures that in sentences like those in (176) the predicate should denote an objective, not a subjective property. However, in the light of (182) (his (31)), (182) *He hammered the reflection of City Hall off of the fender. which his hypothesis predicts to be fine, but is in fact unacceptable, he speculates that perhaps the semantic restriction should be restated as one which stipulates that the verb hammer "requires a property of the object itself not of the object in relation to its environment" (McCawley 1971: 30). However, this modified hypothesis is also inadequate, as Green (1972:90) demonstrates by citing (183) (her (31)):

62

Small Clauses as constituents

(183) He hammered the boards apart. Here "being apart" is not a property of the boards themselves, and McCawley's hypothesis would predict this sentence to be unacceptable. A different attempt at formulating the semantic restrictions holding between resultative predicates and their subjects in sentences like (176)—(179) is made in Fabb (1984). He discusses the sentences in (184), among others (184) a. I shot the tiger dead. b. */ shot the tiger sick.

(Fabb's (3.52)) (Fabb's (3.53))

and remarks that "these grammaticality differences are due, not to lexical selection of specific adjectives, but to a semantic restriction on resultative predicates, that they tend to express extreme resulting states, often final states (so result APs often express the destruction or exhaustion of the NP)." (1984: 106) He furnishes evidence for this by citing sentences like those in (185) (1984: 227): (185) a. I froze the ice-cream solid. b. */ froze the ice-cream very solid.

(Fabb's (5.126)) (Fabb's (5.127))

where an intensifier is impossible because "being solid" is a final state. Fabb's account, although promising, is also not without problems, however. Thus, we might ask why we cannot have (178), repeated here as (186), (186) *She wrenched the stick

in which the predicates clearly express an extreme/final state and yet the sentences in which they occur are bad. What is clear from all this is that if we do have semantic restrictions holding between resultative predicates and their subjects they are very difficult to state. Furthermore, notice that it seems to be the case that not all of the sentences in (176)—(179) are equally bad. Thus, in (179) selecting lame as a predicate seems to result in a better sentence than selecting paranoid. This suggests that the observed restrictions should perhaps not be treated in terms of semantic principles, which belong to the grammar, but in terms of extra-grammatical principles whose application is context-driven. Dowty, in discussing (176)—(179), suggests the possibility that the rule responsible for producing this type of sentence is to be unrestricted and that sentences like [(176)—(179)] are to be excluded by pragmatic or stylistic considerations, if at all. I believe the careful observer will find that native

Small Clauses as instances of dependent controlled predication

63

speakers of English occasionally produce sentences of this form in casual conversation that would sound as odd as [(176)—(179)] in isolation, yet sound normal in the context of the discourse. (Dowty 1976: 218—219) This would seem to be correct, as the following constructed fragments of discourse show: (187) A I was surprised to see Clara clean the kitchen table this morning. Β Yes, I asked her to tidy up, but she didn't do a very good job. At one point she was wiping the tables, but rather than wiping them clean, she was wiping them dirty by using that filthy rag which is normally used for the loo! (188) A I hear that loony shepard was shooting at people again the other day. Β Yes, that's right, but this time things got out of hand: he shot Tim in the arm and Jeff is now lame. A He shot Jeff lame? That man should be put behind bars! It would seem, then, that the optimal treatment for the so-called hammer flatconstruction is one in which the grammar freely generates resultative [V NP XP] strings, some of which are filtered out by pragmatic principles (which I will not attempt to formulate here). We can extend this pragmatic account to depictive constructions such as those in (181), so that Rothstein's conditions (a) and (b) are in fact pragmatic, rather than semantic, in nature. Similar principles would also explain the contrast we get between (189), which contains a fronted depictive predicate, and (190), which has fronted resultative predicates: (189) *How raw did John eat the meat. (190) a. How clean did John pick the bone? b. How red did John paint the house? c. How angry did John make his friends? These sentences are from Chomsky (1986b: 82). He tentatively suggests that the difference in grammaticality judgements between (189) and (190) may be due to the fact that there is a relation of some sort between the matrix verb and the Whpredicates in (190), but not in (189). He does not discuss the nature of this relationship in any detail. I argued above against a syntactic distinction between depictive and resultative constructions in terms of lexical selection of the matrix verb. We can explain the contrast between (189) and (190) in pragmatic terms by observing that depictive predicates tend to be non-gradable, at least in the contexts under discussion, and hence also resist the type of Wh-movement we have in (189). This observation about gradability is supported by the oddness of the sentences in (191), all of which contain depictive predicates:

64

Small Clauses as constituents

(191) a. *He painted the house very unsanded. b. *He met the Director utterly drunk.48 c. *?He ate the nuts extremely salted. See also Fabb's sentence (185b) above. Notice that we cannot form Wh-echo questions from the sentences in (191): (192) a. *He painted the house how unsanded? b. *He met the Director how drunk? c. *?He ate the peanuts how salted? Clearly, as Chomsky would agree, the oddness of (191) and (192) cannot be explained in terms of lexical selection because we are dealing with adjuncts. (191) and (192) contrast with (193), the Wh-echo versions of (190): (193) a. John picked the bone how clean? b. John painted the house how red? c. John made his friends how angry? My point, then, is that the contrast between (189) and (190) comes about as the result of a pragmatic constraint, and no reference needs to be made to the presence or absence of a putative lexical selection relationship between the matrix verbs and the predicates. In the preceding paragraphs I have argued against analysing the VP constituent of (142) (=We appointed her professor of logic) as in (157) (= [VP [v appointed] [NP her] [NP professor of logic]J). In other words, I have argued against taking predicates like professor of logic to be sisters of the head verb inside VP. I have claimed that neither resultative nor depictive predicates are selected by the matrix verb and that constructions containing such predicates should therefore be assigned the structure in (175). Sentence (142) is then analysed as in (158). It might be asked how constructions involving object-related resultative or depictive predicates are interpreted differently if they are indeed syntactically the same. A very straightforward solution would be to assume that the matrix verbs of the sentences that contain them are marked in the lexicon with the feature [± resultative]. Let us now briefly return to sentences (170)/(171), (172) and (173), repeated here for convenience: (170) We hammered the metal flat hot. (171) *We hammered the metal hot flat. (172) a. They painted the house red unsanded. b. *They painted the house unsanded red.

Small Clauses as instances of dependent controlled predication

65

(173) a. Bill cooked the meat dry unsalted b. *Bill cooked the meat unsalted dry. A corollary of rejecting Rothstein's lexical selection account of resultatives is that we also have to abandon her explanation for the contrast between (170) and (171), and between the a and b-sentences of (172) and (173). For Rothstein resultative predicates are lower down in the tree than depictive predicates as they are sisters of the main veib. In the present account both resultative and depictive predicates have been claimed to be adjoined to VP as in (175). Unfortunately I have no alternative explanation to offer for the contrasts above. I do, however, believe that having an explanation for them is not a sufficient reason for adopting a lexical selection account of resultatives which is unattractive and implausible for the reasons we have discussed. It now remains to argue against (159)—(162). The analysis in (159), which is discussed in Wekker—Haegeman (1985: 97), can be ruled out by using the same argument as was used against (157): the Small Clause is analysed here as a sister of the matrix verb appoint, and therefore occurs in an argument position. This is unattractive because the SC [PRO professor of logic] has an adjunct interpretation and is not a complement (cf. also Rothstein 1983: 81; Wekker—Haegeman 1985: 88). This structure should therefore be rejected, because, as with (157), if the SC is a sister of the matrix verb, we have no syntactic way of distinguishing between complements and non-complements. Observe also that in (159) PRO is in a position in which it can be governed by the matrix verb. This is not permitted in the framework we have adopted. Let us now turn to the structure in (160). Here the Small Clause is a complement of the verb appoint which assigns a θ-role to iL The NP her is an argument not of the matrix verb, but rather of the NP predicate professor of logic. This analysis can be found in Jespersen (1909—1949, part V: 7—8 and 180 and in Hoekstra (1988). In connexion with sentences like they painted the door green Hoekstra remarks that the structure in (160) is also suggested by the observation that we are always dealing with what is traditionally called an affected objecL..even though [verbs like paint] can normally take an effected object as their complements. For example, the verb paint can take either an affected or an effected object in a simple V NP construction (cf. the ambiguity of "John paints a house"), but in the SC complement construction the postverbal NP is necessarily interpreted as an affected object, i.e. an expression referring to an entity which exists independently from the action mentioned by the verb rather than coming into existence through the action. (Hoekstra 1988: 117) Hoekstra argues that the fact that 'the door is painted' is an implication of the sentence they painted the door green. This implication, so he claims, is a result of

66

Small Clauses as constituents

what he calls a shadow interpretation. He observes that "[o]n some occasions these implications can be cancelled without any evidence as to a difference in structure (e.g. I have painted my fingers black and blue when I painted the walls in this room)." (1988: 117) I do not find Hoekstra's argumentation particularly convincing as the relation between they painted the door green and they painted the door is stronger than mere implication. As we saw above, we are dealing with entailment here. That is, the first sentence entails the second. This can easily be demonstrated by pointing out that it would be a contradiction to say "I painted the door green, but I didn't paint it" (keeping the meaning of paint constant). All this means that the postverbal NP in (160) is assigned a θ-role by appoint and should be analysed as a direct object argument of that verb. In the foregoing discussion I have analysed (142) as in (158). We should ask, however, why the SC is adjoined to VP, rather than dangling from IP, as in (161), or being adjoined to IP, as in (162). To see why (158) is correct consider the following sentences: (194) a. I said I would appoint her professor of logic, and appoint her professor of logic I did b. */ said I would appoint her professor of logic, and appoint her I did professor of logic. VP-fronting, which has applied in (194a), is a well-known test for VP-hood (see e.g. Andrews 1982; Roberts 1988). The fact that (194a) is grammatical and (194b) is not strongly suggests that the SC [PRO professor of logic] is part of VP, as in (158). We can draw the same conclusion on the basis of the sentences in (195) and (196): (195) a. Appoint her professor of logic though I did, she made it known that she wasn't interested in the chair. b. ?* Appoint her though I did professor of logic, she made it known that she wasn't interested in the chair. (196) a. What I did was appoint her professor of logic, b. *What I did professor of logic was appoint her. TTtöugÄ-Movement, which has applied in (195), and Pseudoclefting, which has taken place in (196) are two further VP-constituency tests. (195a) and (196a) indicate that the string appoint her professor of logic functions as a unit, a VP in this case. The reader will have noticed that the data in (194)—(196) are also compatible with the structures in (157), (159) and (160). I have, however, already argued against these analyses in the foregoing discussion. Observe that in (158) the matrix clause verb does not govern the PRO subject of the SC (see section 2.3.1) as required by the PRO-theorem. From what has been said so far the following picture emerges: [V NP XP]

Small Clauses as instances of dependent controlled predication

67

constructions containing a predicative [NP XP] string can belong to either of two classes, namely those given in (197) and (198) below: (197) [VF V [sc NP XP]] (198) [VP [VP V NPJ [sc PRO, XP]]

consider-class appoint-class

It is appropriate at this point to introduce some new terminology. I will refer to the canonical example of the subject-predicate relation, the sentence, as an instance of independent predication. In constructions containing this type of predication the subject is in the Spec-of-IP position, and the predicate is the VP (see chapter two). The type of predication we have in (197) will be referred to as dependent predication because the Small Clause is a complement of the main verb, and is assigned a θ-role by that verb. ECM constructions, and indeed all constructions involving clausal arguments, are also instances of dependent predication. In (198) the predicative [NP XP] string is an example of what I will call controlled predication: the subject of the adjunct Small Clause is controlled by the matrix clause object which is assigned a θ-role by the main verb. Sentences like I ate the meat naked are also instances of controlled predication, except that in these cases the controller is the matrix clause subject. Constructions which contain persuadetype verbs, i.e. verbs followed by an argument NP and a ίο-infinitive clause with a PRO subject (e.g. I persuaded [him] [PRO to leave]) are not instances of controlled predication, because the ίο-infinitival clause is a complement of the matrix verb. They are a subclass of the dependent predication structures and we might refer to them as instances of controlled dependent predication. Notice that Small Clauses can occur in all types of predication structures. An example of a controlled dependent predication construction involving an SC is the sentence / described him as a complete idiot. See (393)/(394) in section 4.4.2.2 below for further discussion. We should perhaps recognise a fourth type of predicative construction, rather problematic for SC-theory, which we might term exceptional predication. It occurs in NPs and is discussed at great length in Napoli (1989) (see especially chapters three and four). Examples are given in (199) and (200) below: (199) that crook of a chairman (200) that madman George

(Napoli 1989: 209) (Napoli 1989: 231)

In (199) there is a subject-predicate relation, or, more precisely, a predicate-subject relation, between the head of the overall NP {crook) and the NP α chairman which is buried inside the postmodifying Prepositional Phrase. In (200) the property of being a madman is predicated of George. Thus, interestingly, in these constructions the predicates linearly precede the subjects. See also Austin (1980). Returning now to (197) and (198), because consider is a prototypical verb occurring in constructions like (197) I will refer to verbs that conform to this pattern as consider-type verbs. These need to be marked in the lexicon with regard

68

Small Clauses as

constituents

to the type of Small Clause they subcategorise. Verbs conforming to pattern (198) will be referred to as appoint-type verbs. -constructions involve what Rothstein (1983) has called secondary predicates. Secondary predicates are XPs which are predicated of an argument which is assigned a θ-role by some lexical head. In Rothstein's framework they may occur as sisters of the head verb (resultatives) or in a position adjoined to VP (depictives), as we have seen. There was a total of 143 nominal Small Clause constructions in the corpus. Of these 123 (86%) involved consider-type verbs, whereas only 20 constructions contained appoint-type verbs (14%). The number of adjectival SC-constructions was significantly higher: there were 211 such structures. 187 of these involved matrix verbs from the consider-class (88.6%), and 24 (11.4%) involved verbs from the appoint-class.*9 Comparing this last set of figures to those for the nominal SCs we see that the ratio of consider-\erb& to appoint-vetbs remains constant across the nominal and adjectival SC-constructions.

3.4. Clauses with and without to be Let us now turn to a different matter. Apart from setting up two classes of verbs, the consider-class and the appoint-class, there appears to be another way in which we can subdivide [V NP XP] strings. Notice that some, but not all, verbs occurring in this configuration allow an alternative construction with to be: (201) a. b. (202) a. b. (203) a. b.

I consider that man a fool. I consider that man to be a fool. I appointed her professor of logic. ?I appointed her to be professor of logic.50 We elected her President of the Society. ?We elected her to be President of the Society.

It has been proposed (Andersson 1985: 216ff) that the b-sentences in (201)—(203) are derived from the a-sentences by inserting to be, while Stockwell—Schachter—Partee (1973: 578) and Borkin (1973) have suggested the opposite, namely that the a-sentences are derived from the b-sentences by a to bedeletion transformation. Schematically, the proposed TO-BE-DEL rule operates as follows:

Clauses with and without to be

69

PROP

NP

AUX

PROP

1 to

be

Λχ

PROP

NP

PROP

I

χ

(Stockwell—Schachter—Partee 1973: 596)

Stockwell—Schachter—Partee suggest that verbs occurring in constructions like (201)—(203) are marked for the feature [+ TO-BE-DEL]. For some verbs (e.g. consider) the rule applies optionally. For others (e.g. elect) it applies obligatorily. Borkin (1973: 44) argues against such a marking on the basis of the following sentences: (204) a. 11 find Sam to be appealing] -> I find Sam appealing. b. [I find Sam to be amusing to Charlie] -> ?I find Sam amusing to Charlie. In (204a) the verb find allows tofoe-deletion,but the same verb does not allow this process to take place in (204b). Borkin argues instead for a rule which regulates the application of to foe-deletion. In the GB framework we cannot account for the data in (201)—(203) by positing the existence of a to foe-deletion transformation. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, the exact formulation of such a rule is bound to be problematic. For example, in the formulation Stockwell—Schachter—Partee give (1973: 597), to in AUX is deleted together with be under the PROP-node (see the trees above). This means that a non-constituent is deleted. This is not allowed.51 Secondly, the rule is construction-specific. In current generative theory there has been a move towards deriving the properties of syntactic phenomena from general principles. To foedeletion has no place in such a framework. Thirdly, the to foe-deletion transformation frequently changes the meaning of the sentence. Indeed, the whole

70

Small Clauses as constituents

point of Borkin's 1973 paper is to show what are the semantic effects of the transformation. Finally, positing a to be-deletion transformation amounts to saying that all sentences without to be containing consider or appoint-type verbs are derived from sentences which originally did contain to be. It is not at all clear that this should be the case (cf. (202 a/b)). The problems noted here are a sufficient justification for rejecting a to be-deletion rule. The correct treatment would seem to be to say that verbs which subcategorise for clauses are marked in the lexicon for the type of clause(s) they subcategorise. Thus a verb like consider in (201) can take ίο-infinitival clauses, ίΑαί-clauses and Small Clauses as complements. Similarly, a verb like find in (204) subcategorises either a Small Clause or a ίο-infinitival clause. This account is much more elegant. We do, however, still have to explain why it is that in (204) I find Sam appealing is fine, whereas ?I find Sam amusing to Charlie is not. In both cases the verb subcategorises for an adjectival Small Clause. It seems reasonable to say that syntactically the sentence I find Sam amusing to Charlie is well-formed, but that semantic/pragmatic principles rule it out as being situationally anomalous. What sort of semantic/pragmatic principles can we invoke here? Although some of the main tenets of Borkin's paper should be rejected, she does make a useful suggestion with regard to this matter. Her claim is that the conditions under which tofce-lessclauses (i.e. SCs) and tofee-clausesare likely to occur are the following: Small Clauses are more appropriate if the proposition expresses a situation which is related to personal experience, whereas to fte-clauses express "an empirically oriented or discourse given proposition." (1973:44). To illustrate, consider (205) and (206) (Borkin's (10 b/c)): (205) I found this chair to be uncomfortable. (206) / find this chair uncomfortable. As Borkin suggests, (205) might be used by a speaker who has done a number of tests on the chair in question, whereas (206) expresses a personal opinion. Now, consider again the sentences in (204b), repeated here as (207 a/b): (207) a. I find Sam to be amusing to Charlie. b. ?1 find Sam amusing to Charlie. As it is pragmatically odd for the complement SC of find in (207b) to express a personally experienced situation rather than a factual one, as in (207a), the sentence is pragmatically unacceptable. To the extent that they are marginal the oddness of (202b) and (203b) is less easy to explain. In these sentences the clauses to be professor of logic and to be President of the Society are not in subcategorised positions. We cannot therefore appeal to the lexical properties of the verbs appoint and elect to explain why (202b) and (203b) are strange. The explanation is again very likely to be

Conclusion

71

semantic/pragmatic, rather than syntactic.

3.5. Conclusion In this chapter I have presented several arguments in favour of positing the existence of Small Clauses as syntactic entities. I have furthermore discussed resultative and depictive SCs, as well as subject-related Small Clauses (as in Jim, ate the meat [sc PRO; naked}) and object-related Small Clauses (as in Jim ate the meat, [sc PRO, raw}). I have distinguished between two important classes of matrix verbs, the consider-type verbs, which subcategorise for Small Clauses, and the appoint-type verbs, which do not take SC complements. Small Clauses occurring with verbs from the latter class are adjoined to VP in a base generated position. No syntactic distinction is made between resultative and depictive constructions. The differences between them are purely semantic and/or pragmatic. Many of the arguments used in this chapter for establishing the existence of Small Clauses as constituents will also be seen to play an important role in the next three chapters which discuss further properties of Small Clause constructions.

Chapter 4 Special constructions

4.1. Introduction This chapter is devoted to constructions which contain, or only appear to contain, the string [V NP PP] where there is a subject-predicate relation between the NP and the PP. Examples of the type in (208) have been discussed in the literature: (208) I want [you in the car] Apart from prototypical Small Clauses like (208) there are a number of further structures that could be said to contain prepositional Small Clauses. The first of the constructions I will be dealing with involves what have traditionally been called phrasal verbs, such as those contained in sentences (209) and (210): (209) I switched the radio off. (210) I looked the information up. In the next section I will show that in sentence (209) the postverbal NP and (intransitive) PP taken together form a Small Clause constituent Sentence (210), on the other hand, in which there is no subject-predicate relationship between the postverbal NP and the (intransitive) PP, will be argued not to contain a Small Clause. In sections 4.3—4.6 I will discuss a number of constructions which at first sight could also be said to contain prepositional Small Clauses. They are listed below: (211) a. b. (212) a. b. c. d. (213) a. b. (214) a. b.

I prevented [Andrew] [from leaving the house]. I discouraged [Andrew] [from leaving the house]. I regarded [them] [as clowns]. I regarded [them] [as being clowns]. I described [him] [as a fool]. I described [him] [as having set the record]. He took [her] [for a lawyer], She mistook [him] [for a lecturer], I accused [Jim] [of murder], / accused [Jim] [of murdering the cat].

In all these sentences, except (214a), the postverbal NP acts as the subject of what

74

Special constructions

comes after the elements from, as, for and 0/respectively. We might want to say that (211)—(214) contain prepositional SCs, where in each case the postverbal NP is the subject and what comes after the preposition the predicate. A question that will be addressed in this chapter is whether there are arguments which support such an analysis, or whether some other treatment is perhaps to be preferred. We will see that in most of these cases the elements which I have so far called prepositions should not be analysed as such. I will argue that the constructions in (211)—(213) do not contain prepositional Small Clauses. Instead, they will be analysed as ECM (Exceptional Case Marking) constructions (see chapter two) in the case of (211a), (212b) and (213a/b), and as object control structures in the case of (211b) and (212d). The elements from, as and for are taken to be inflectional elements. The sentences in (212a) and (212c) will be analysed as involving nominal Small Clauses, whereas the constructions in (214) will be argued to contain not Small Clauses but NP and PP (or perhaps NP and CP) complements.

4.2. Verb-preposition constructions and Small Clauses52 4.2.1. Introduction The analysis of verb-particle constructions, or verb-preposition constructions, as I will call them, has given rise to much debate in the linguistic literature over a long period of time. Traditionally, a bipartite classification of these structures has been assumed consisting of a class of phrasal verbs, such as those in (215) and (216), and a class of prepositional verbs, such as those in (217): (215) / switched the light off. (216) I looked the information up. (217) Look at the prospectus: it clearly states that your admission depends on your examination results. Here I will be concerned only with constructions of the type in (215) and (216). In the next section I will give a brief overview of previous theoretical treatments of the verb-preposition construction, concentrating on three important GovernmentBinding Theory treatments. In section 4.2.3 I will outline arguments which support a different, and in my view, more adequate and elegant analysis of this type of construction in GB terms. I will present this analysis in section 4.2.4. For the time being the neutral term particle will be used for the final elements in (215) and (216), though below they will be taken to be prepositions.

Verb-preposition

constructions and Small Clauses

75

4.2.2. Background In this section I will mainly be concerned with some of the theoretical proposals that have been put forward in analysing the verb-preposition construction. The more descriptive treatments (such as e.g. Bolinger 1971 and Dixon 1982), although they provide large quantities of interesting data and potentially useful ideas, are not aimed at explaining the phenomena in question. I have made some use of the very wide range of material found in these studies. Authors working in the earlier generative frameworks of the Standard Theory and the Extended Standard Theory dealt with the verb-preposition construction by making use of a rich transformational apparatus (see e.g. Chomsky 1957; Fräser 1974 and Emonds 1972, 1976). Some of these linguists have suggested that these constructions involve particle movement. Thus, Chomsky assumed that at Deep Structure the particle was adjacent to the verb, and that movement to the right across the NP yielded the alternative configuration. This rule was obligatory if the NP was a pronoun (see e.g. Chomsky 1957: 75—76 and 1964: 228). In Emonds' analysis (1976: 82) the NP is adjacent to the verb at Deep Structure. Leftward movement of the particle then derives the alternative order. Recent GB work has not paid a great deal of attention to the verb-preposition construction. The most important studies are Kayne (1984b), which provides a detailed analysis, and the discussions in Radford (1988b) and Stowell (1981). Let us look at these studies in a little more detail, starting with the latter. Stowell assumes (1981: 296ff) that the particle in sentences such as (218), (218) / switched off the light. where it is adjacent to the verb, is "incorporated" within that verb to form a complex unit. This newly-formed verb subcategorises for an NP, and the two together are dominated by V', as in (219): (219) I [VP [v· [v switched-off] - the light]] The main motivation for this analysis is the Case Adjacency Principle (1981: 113) which requires that for an NP to be assigned Case, it must be adjacent to the verb. In (219) the NP the light is adjacent to the complex verb after application of the rule of Particle Incorporation. Stowell accounts for structures such as (215), where the particle appears to the right of the NP, as follows: first the word formation rule of NP Incorporation applies, resulting in the creation of the complex verb switchedthe light; then the rule of Particle Incorporation applies to the output of this process. The resulting S-Structure is (220): (220) I [VP [y. [y [y switched-the light] - off]]]

76

Special constructions

The NP the light has the status of an incorporated object. Below I will show that there are compelling arguments against this treatment Radford (1988b: 90ff) argues for a structure like that in (221) for the sentences in (215) and (216): (221)

S

V I I I

NP I

switched looked

PP I

the light the information

off up

According to Radford this structure involves a PP rather than a bare preposition because the elements in question (off and up) can be premodified by intensifiers such as right and completely. The alternative configurations for the sentences in (215) and (216), i.e. those in (222) and (223), are assigned the structure in (224). (222) I switched off the light. (223) I looked up the information. (224)

S

I I

V

Ρ

switched looked

off up

the light the information

In this structure switch off and look up are complex verbs in which the prepositions off and up can be regarded as word-level adjuncts (1988b: 257). With regard to the relation between (221) and (224) Radford remarks (p.c.) "[t]o the extent that I envisage any rule relating the two, it's one in which the Ρ originates as part of the PP, but is incorporated into the V by REANALYSIS". Below I will argue against positing the existence of such a rule. Kayne (1984b) attempts to account for the constructions under investigation in his binary branching model (see Kayne 1984a). He argues for the analysis of (215) and (216) as in (225):

Verb-preposition

(225) lw

V switched looked

[sc NP the light the information

constructions and Small Clauses

77

Prt]] off up

The verb subcategorises for a Small Clause which is headed by the particle and whose subject is the NP. Kayne makes no syntactic distinction between (215) and (216). He does remark, however, that in (215) the particle expresses a result (1984b: 121), whereas this is not the case for the particle in sentence (216), which is said to belong to the class of verb-preposition constructions that have "an idiomatic character" (1984b: 124).53 In Kayne's framework structures such as (222) and (223), repeated here as (226) and (227), (226) I switched off the light. (227) I looked up the information. in which the particles appear in a position adjacent to the veib, are derived by moving the NPs to the right and by adjoining them to V'.54 For similar treatments see Beukema—Verheijen (1987) and Hoekstra (1988). In what follows I will adopt this rightward movement analysis. However, my treatment will be different in two respects. Firstly, the displaced NPs adjoin to VP. Secondly, and more importantly, I will be arguing that the Small Clause analysis of the constructions under investigation is warranted only for verb-preposition constructions such as (215), where there is a genuine subject-predicate relation between the NP and the particle, but not for those of the type in (216), where no such relationship holds. I will show that the semantic difference between spatialresultative constructions such as (215) and idiomatic constructions such as (216) is paralleled by the different syntactic behaviour of these two constructions. Thus, the claim here is that there are two distinct classes of verb-preposition construction. I will call verbs such as switch in (215), which I will argue take SC complements, Α-Verbs, and I will use the label B-Verbs for verbs like look up in (216), which do not subcategorise for clausal complements.

4.2.3. The data The first argument that supports the distinction between Α-verbs and B-verbs concerns the fact that only the [NP + particle] complements of A-verbs can occur elsewhere as complements. Thus in (228)—(230) below such sequences occur as the objects of prepositions in what van Riemsdijk has called absolute prepositional phrases (see van Riemsdijk (1978), although note that for him they do not involve clauses). (228) He propped the bonnet of the car up; with the bonnet up he then drove o f f .

78

Special constructions

(229) Sally pushed the lever on the amplifier down; with the lever down her CDplayer was pre-programmed. (230) Jim turned the radio o f f ; with the radio off he could finally relax. For B-verbs the absolute construction is not available: (231) *He brought the kids up by himself; with the kids up he could go on holiday. (232) *My teacher always puts his pupils down; with his pupils down he feels superior. (233) *Jim sold the car off to a friend; with the car off he could buy a boat. Notice that the [NP + particle] sequence may also occur, though perhaps only marginally for some speakers, after the comparative prepositions than and as: (234) a. The oven off is less dangerous than the oven on. b. The oven off is as dangerous as the oven on. c. The ovens off is as at least as dangerous as the ovens on. These facts clearly suggest that in (228)—(230) and in (234) the elements following the prepositions form a constituent, whereas the elements in (231)—(233) do not.55 The sentences in (234) show up another interesting property of the [NP + particle] complements to A-verbs, namely their ability to appear in subject position. The inability of the [NP+particle] strings of B-verb constructions to do the same, cf. (235) and (236), is a second argument in favour of analysing Α-verbs and Bverbs differently. (235) *The kids up is very desirable. (236) *His pupils down is terrible. The existence of a subject-predicate relation between the NP and the particle in each of the sentences in (228)—(230) and in (234) points to a Small Clause analysis for the strings following the prepositions and for the subject expressions in (234). With regard to (234), an objection to this claim might be that off and on are postmodifiers. There is, however, empirical evidence which strongly suggests that this is not the case. Firstly, if we pluralise the noun oven in these sentences, as in (234c), we find that there is no concomitant change in the verb form (cf. Safir 1983). This shows that the subject expression in (234c) is not an NP. Given the subject-predicate relation between the ovens and o f f , it must be a Small Clause. Secondly, note that (237) is possible for most speakers: (237) Botham out is a disaster for the England team.56

Verb-preposition

constructions and Small Clauses

79

As proper names cannot normally be modified, out can only be analysed as a predicative element whose subject is the NP. Case theoretical problems arise in connexion with sentences like (237). They could be analysed as CPs which take an abstract prepositional complementiser in "C" which assigns objective Case to the SC subject; ICP lc c

spoken English

without from

>

with from

where ">" is to be interpreted as 'is used more frequently than'

If the spoken language is the greater influence on determining future language use, as is generally assumed, then perhaps these data suggest that prevent-type constructions are on the way out If this is so, it would seem that, judging by their low frequencies in spoken English, the constructions with from will disappear first. Andersson (1985: 101) observes that all preve/U-constructions without from in his corpus occurred in British English and none in American English. Let us now return to (343b) and the reason for its unacceptability. Above I suggested that this may be due to a general pragmatic restriction. This may have sounded somewhat speculative but I believe my suggestion gains some credibility when we consider that the unacceptability of (343b) differs sharply from the ungrammaticality of, say, (350) below: (350) *What was he prevented leave? My point is this: considering both that sentences like (343b) have been attested recently and that despite its being odd it is perfectly comprehensible (unlike (350)), the hypothesis that what rules out (343b) is an extra-grammatical performance factor of some sort seems quite reasonable. This factor could then also explain why to is required in the passive versions of [V NP bare infinitive] constructions. Specifying what that factor might be is by no means easy. The intuitive generalisation seems to be that the passive versions of prevent and [V NP bare infinitive] constructions are difficult to process if the inflectional elements from and to are not overtly present. This difficulty in processing could be due in (343b) to the fact that we have a clause involving a stranded nonfinite V-ing phrase which follows a matrix verb with passive morphology. In (338b) (=*They were made work hard) a bare infinitival clause is stranded after a passive matrix verb. That sentences involving dangling nonfinite clauses preceded by passive matrix verbs may be hard to process, and consequently unacceptable, seems to be confirmed by the passives of [V NP -ing] constructions. Consider (351), (352) and (353):

108

Special

(351) a. b. (352) a. b. (353) a. b.

constructions

I saw them departing. They were seen departing. I watched them demolishing the church. ?They were watched demolishing the church.80 I imagined them demolishing the church. ??They were imagined demolishing the church.

Although sentences involving prototypical verbs occurring in the [V NP -ing] pattern (see, hear etc.) have regular passives, the passives of constructions involving less common verbs are rather strained, hence the question marks in (352b) and (353b). In explaining the oddness of the latter two sentences we might again appeal to the pragmatic factor invoked above: they are hard to process because a nonfinite clause is left stranded following a passive matrix verb. We would not want to say that the contrast between (351) and (352)/(353) should be explained as a difference in grammatical structure. If we did, the syntactic parallelisms between the asentences of (351)—(353) would become a mystery. To summarise what I have said so far: although there is some synchronic evidence which suggests that (303) and (304) are syntactically to be distinguished in that (303) allows passivisation, i.e. NP-Movement out of the complement clause, while (304) does not (cf. (343)/(347b)), historical data show that until comparatively recently sentences like (304) did have a passive counterpart (cf. (344)—(346)). Because major restructurings do not take place over short spans of time, this suggests that it is unlikely that (303) and (304) differ syntactically at the present time. The data in (348) and (349) corroborate this view: they show that the complement clause is not a barrier in sentences like (303) and (304) for other types of movement either. I have suggested that the restriction on passives without from is a pragmatic one. Let us now turn to some further properties of passive constructions containing verbs of negative causation.

4.3.5.

Passive prevent-constructions

A sentence like (303) (=Jim prevented the sailor from drowning the cat) takes three passives: (354) The sailor, was prevented [ti from drowning the cat] (355) Jim prevented [the cat, (from) being drowned t j (356) The cat, was prevented [i, from being drowned t j Let us refer to the structure in (354) as an external passive. This seems an appropriate name because the NP the sailor is moved from the subordinate clause subject position to the subject position of the matrix clause. We might then refer to (355) as an instance of an internal passive in that the NP the cat moves from the

Verbs of negative causation

109

direct object position of the complement clause to the subject position of the same clause. Notice that from is optional. In (356) we have a combination of an external and an internal passive: the NP the cat has moved successive cyclically from the lowest trace position via the intermediate trace position to the matrix clause subject position. In the previous section we have already discussed one restriction on passivisation, namely that from must be present in external passive preventconstructions. Further restrictions on passivisation are exhibited by (357) and (358): (357) *Therei was prevented [tjfrom being a riot] (358) *Iti was prevented [t: from raining] In these sentences the pleonastic elements there and it have been displaced under NP-Movement. For most speakers this results in ungrammaticality. By contrast, the sentences in (359)—(361) are acceptable, or, at worst, marginal: (359) ?The cake, was prevented [tifrom being eaten t j (360) Language theory, was prevented It) from influencing the students] (361) The carf was prevented [tifrom stalling] We might try to account for the ungrammaticality of (357) and (358) by again arguing that the passivisation restriction has an extragrammatical explanation such that these sentences are syntactically and semantically well-formed, but pragmatically anomalous because they pose processing difficulties (cf. the discussion of (347b) above). Let's take a closer look at them. It would seem that even a linguistically trained person requires some time to decide exactly what (357) and (358) express. The linguistically naive hearer, when confronted with sentences of this type, is even more at a loss trying to mentally compute the thematic relations. It is very likely that there in (357) is initially interpreted as an element introducing an existential main clause and it in (358) as referential it. On further processing the hearer has to abandon these hypotheses, but by that time s/he will be lost. To the extent that (359)—(361) are odd, this is probably due to processing difficulties as well. Although I have not tested this, I suspect that (359) is more difficult to process than (360) and (361) because a two-phase movement is involved. (360) in turn would be slightly more difficult to process than (361) because the verb in the subordinate clause is transitive, whereas in (361) it is intransitive.

4.3.6.

Discourage-/ype verbs

In this section I would like to discuss verbs like discourage, deter, dissuade and restrain. These were included by Postal in his class of N-verbs (verbs of negative causation). This is odd in view of the fact that he did seem aware of the differences

110

Special

constructions

between these verbs and verbs like prevent. Thus, in his 1974 book he notes that the pairs of sentences in (362) and (363) are not synonymous: (362) a. b. (363) a. b.

I I I I

discouraged the nurse from moving the patient. discouraged the patient from being moved by the nurse. deterred the nurse from moving the patient. deterred the patient from being moved by the nurse. (Postal 1974: 260, note 2)

The reason why the a and b-sentences in each case are not truth-conditionally equivalent is due to the thematic properties of the matrix verbs discourage and deter in that they assign a θ-role to the postverbal NPs, which are therefore arguments of these verbs. In addition, note that pleonastic elements like nonreferential it and there cannot occupy the postverbal NP position: (364) a. b.

*I discouraged there from being a meeting. */ deterred it from raining today.

This lends further support to the claim that these verbs behave syntactically differently from prevent-verbs. Finally, unlike prevent-type verbs, discourage-type verbs do not require the postverbal NP to express a propositional event (cf. section 4.3.2)). The most plausible analysis of discourage-constructions is one in which the verb takes an NP complement and a clausal argument This clause has a null PRO subject which is coindexed with the direct object. Under this proposal (362a) is analysed as follows: (365) I lyP discouraged [NP the nurse, ] [CP PRO, from moving the patient]] I am assuming that the CP is a complement of discourage because this verb syntactically requires the presence of a clause which is (ultimately) headed by from. This means that discourage-type verbs occur in structures similiar to those in which persuade-type verbs occur: [V NP clause], i.e. constructions involving controlled dependent predication (see chapter three). Finally, consider (366) and (367) below where from has been left out: (366) ?I discouraged the nurse moving the patient. (367) ?1 deterred the nurse moving the patient. These sentences sound somewhat odd, but are nevertheless comprehensible. They are markedly better when from is present. The oddness of (366) and (367) can be explained by appealing to a performance factor like the one discussed in section 4.3.4: processing is made difficult by the fact that a nonfinite IPRO V-ing]

Predicative

as-constructions

111

constituent has been left dangling, this time after the direct object of the matrix clause.

4.3.7.

Conclusion

I hope to have shown that in prevenf-constructions and diicourage-constructions the element from is not a preposition or a complementiser but an inflectional element. The evidence I have given is of an historical and distributional nature. In my proposal from, like the infinitive marker to, is positioned within "I" of a clause which complements the matrix verb. Prevent-type verbs are ECM (Exceptional Case Marking) verbs which subcategorise for an IP, whereas discourage-type verbs are object control verbs (like persuade) which subcategorise for an NP and a CP. Neither preveni-constructions nor discourage-constructions therefore involve prepositional Small Clauses, as was suggested as a possibility in section 4.3.1. I have furthermore argued that constructions with and without from are syntactically the same. Any differences in behaviour between the two constructions is explained by appealing to pragmatic considerations. Finally, as regards passive preventconstructions, I have claimed that the restrictions that we observed to obtain are again best explained in pragmatic terms. Some of the particularly intractable syntactic complexities of passive constructions involving verbs of negative causation are then resolved.

4.4. Predicative as-constructions 4.4.1.

Introduction

In this section I will be discussing constructions which contain the string [V NP as...] as in for example I regarded her as a genius. Here the postverbal NP is in a subject-predicate relationship with the NP following as. The problem here is: how do we analyse these constructions and what is the status of as? Postal (1974: 240—243) has argued that as-constructions are subject to Raising-to-Object. Another possibility would be to say that because as looks like a preposition superficially [VNP as...] constructions involve prepositional Small Clauses of some sort. I will refer to the element as in the constructions under investigation here as "predicative as" to distinguish it from comparative as and from the conjunction as, which will not be considered. At the outset it is useful to give a catalogue of the constructions which predicative as enters into. There are six types:

112

Special

constructions

(a) The predicative as-string is related to a postverbal NP, the function of which is yet to be determined. It is in any case not an indirect object. e.g. They regarded, him as a leader. The Board of Directors criticised her as a doctor. (b) The predicative as-string is controlled by an indirect object. e.g. ...which has given her a considerable "following" as a teacher. (W.7.6.97) (c) The predicative as-string is controlled by a prepositional object e.g. This happened to me as a child. (d) The predicative as-string is controlled by a subject NP. e.g. Jonathan came to visit me as my lawyer. (e) The predicative as-string is an NP postmodifier. e.g. His achievement as a scholar is outstanding. (0 The predicative as-string is not controlled by any overt element e.g. As a mechanic it was marvellous to spend a year in Disneyland. Notice that as can be followed by an Adjective Phrase in many, though not all, type (a) constructions; thus we can have We described the case as hopeless in our report and We regarded the outcome as obvious, but not *They elected her as incompetent. Most of these types have been discussed in the literature (cf. Emonds 1984), though never in great detail. Type (b), to my knowledge, has never been noted. In my treatment of predicative as-constructions I will be assuming that the NP following as must always have a subject. This subject may be overt, but need not be.

4.4.2.

Type (a): The predicative as-string is related to the postverbal NP

4.4.2.1. Regard-type, verbs The postverbal NP in [regard ΝΡ as...] constructions has been analysed by many grammarians as a direct object (cf. e.g. Quirk et al. 1985: 1200). It would seem that this analysis is incorrect for several reasons. Notice, first of all, that regard can be followed by the semantically empty elements it and there, as in (368): (368) a.

I regard it as foggy enough to cover our retreat. (from Postal 1974: 242, quoting J.R. Ross) b. I regarded there as being too many people present."

As we have seen a number of times already, non-referential it and existential there cannot occur in argument positions and cannot therefore be analysed as the direct objects of the matrix verbs in these sentences. Secondly, notice that [NP as NP] strings can occur as constituents elsewhere:

Predicative as-constructions

113

(369) a. Last weekend...we instigated a meeting of the whole community with Ian as chairman and laid bare our souls. (W.7.3-9) b. The Vice-Chancellor made a good case for Universities as the disseminators of wisdom. In these sentences the [NP as NP] strings are complements of the prepositions with and for respectively. Furthermore, as we have already seen in chapter three, [NP as NP] strings can also occur in subject position or independently: (370) a. Ian as chairman is not a good idea. b. The police as a corrupt organisation, (book title) Thirdly, sentences like (371) involving coordinated [NP as NP] strings suggest that Jim as a complete idiot and Maria as an equally stupid person function as constituents: (371) / regarded Jim as a complete idiot and Maria as an equally stupid person. However, coordination evidence is not wholly reliable, and we should perhaps regard it as suggestive at best. Finally, notice that the following pair of sentences is synonymous: (372) a. I regarded the vicar as having eaten the pie. b. I regarded the pie as having been eaten by the vicar. Here again we have clear evidence that the postverbal NPs in (372a) and (372b) are not arguments of the matrix verb. On the basis of these four pieces of evidence (three if we discount the coordination data) we must conclude that regard-type verbs, at least in the sense in which they are used here, do not take NP arguments.82 A sentence like (373) is therefore plausibly analysed as in (374): (373) I regarded them as clowns. (374) I regarded /Ci2il„ them as clowns] The question now arises how we should analyse the internal structure of the constituent which has provisionally been labelled "clause" in (374). Let us first concentrate on the cases where, apart from the element as, there is a verb, as in (375) and (376): (375) / regarded [them as being clowns] (376) I regarded [the policy as having no effect]

114

Special

constructions

In (375) as is followed by the main verb be, whereas in (376) it is followed by the main verb have. One way of analysing the bracketed structures in (375) and (376) is to regard the NP subjects (them and the policy) as being predicated of a PP predicate headed by as:

them, the policy;

as as

PRO; being clowns PRO, having no effect

However, here we face the same problem as we did when we discussed the possibility of analysing from in prevent constructions as a preposition: in (377) there is no subject-predicate relation between the NP and the PP (cf. *they are as being clowns/ *the policy is as having no effect), but rather between the higher NP and the lower NP. A second reason for not taking as to be a preposition is that it can be followed by an Adjective Phrase, as we have seen, which as a rule is not possible for prepositions. Finally, notice that PRO is governed in (377). This violates the PRO-theorem. A second possibility is to analyse a« as a complementiser (see Aarts 1990a). The S-Structure of the sentences in (375) and (376) would then be as in (378) below (only the relevant VP is shown):

regarded

them, the policy; as

being having

clowns no effect

Here the subjects of the IP-clause have moved from their D-Structure position in Spec-of-IP to the Spec-of-CP position in the complement clause. Although this

Predicative

^-constructions

115

analysis is not unattractive, it becomes implausible when we consider the passive counterparts of the sentences in (375) and (376): (379) They were regarded as being clowns. (380) The policy was regarded as having no effect. The D-Structures of these sentences look like this: (381) [e] were regarded [CP [Spec ] [c as] [IP them being clowns]] (382) [e] was regarded [CP [Spec ] [c as] [,P the policy having no effect]] In order to derive (379) and (380) from (381) and (382) the subjects of the IP clause would have to move via Spec-of-CP to the matrix clause subject position. This movement is illicit as the NPs in question would be moving from one Aposition to another Α-position via an A'-position. By far the most plausible analysis is to regard as as an inflectional element, like from in preveni-constructions. Sentences (375) and (376) would then be analysed as in (383) (again only the relevant VP is shown): (383)

regarded

them the policy

as as

being having

clowns no effect

Regard-type verbs, like prevent-type verbs are analysed here as ECM verbs, which can assign Case across IP. The constructions in which these verbs occur do not therefore contain prepositional Small Clauses, as was suggested as a possibility in section 4.4.1. Notice that as the verbs that occur in the IP complement clause are always nonfinite -ing forms which do not move to "I", there is never the possibility that as blocks V-Movement to "I".83 What about regard-constructions where there is no verb, as in (373), repeated here as (384)? (384) I regarded them as clowns. We have already established that the string them as clowns is a clause. The question

116

Special

constructions

is whether as is inflectional here too. I would like to claim that it is. The analysis of (384) can then be represented as in (385) (where only the relevant VP is shown): VP

(385)

SC (=IP)

regard

The complement of regard is a Small Clause here whose syntactic status I take to be IP. The lower VP in (385) is analysed as containing an implicit main verb "BE". For further discussion of the syntactic status of SCs and their internal composition, see chapter six. Notice that in constructions containing the verb regard the element as is obligatorily present. Thus, we cannot have (386): (386) *I regarded them clowns. This is not the case for all verbs which take a complement with as: (387) a. I imagined [her as a saint] b. I imagined [her 0 a saint] For verbs like imagine the element as shows the same type of idiosyncratic behaviour as from in preve/if-constructions in that it can be left out As in the case of from, I would say that in (387b) we have a phonetically null inflectional element as. Other verbs like regard...as are intend...as and take...as. Like imagine...(as) are consider...(as), deem...(as), rate...(as) and reckon...(as), among others.

4.4.2.2. Describe-type verbs I suggested earlier that describe-type verbs, which are followed by an NP and an αί-string, are different from regard-type verbs. The reason is that, unlike regardverbs, describe-\erbs do assign a θ-role to their postverbal NP. This can be shown by entailment relations of the following type:

Predicative as-constructions

117

(388) a. I described him as a fool entails I described him b. I characterised her as a genius entails I characterised her Secondly, notice that verbs like describe cannot be followed by dummy elements: (389) a. *I described there as being a riot. b. */ described it as raining all day,84 And, finally, notice that (390a) and (390b) do not mean the same, which again suggests that the postverbal NPs in these sentences are arguments of the matrix verb: (390) a. I described him as having set the record. b. I described the record as having been set by him. Thus, there is strong evidence suggesting that the postverbal NPs in describe-type constructions are assigned a θ-role directly by the matrix verb. Sentences like those in (391), which involve the verbs be and have in the as-string, can be analysed as in (392) (only the relevant VP is shown): (391) a. I described him as being a fool. b. I described him as having no manners. (392)

VP

NP

I

VP V

described

him,

PRO;

as

I

being having

NP

I

a fool no manners

The structure in (392), like constructions involving the verbs persuade and discourage, is again an instance of what I have called controlled dependent predication: the matrix clause object controls the PRO subject of the complement clause. (392) does not therefore involve a prepositional Small Clause, as was

118

Special

constructions

suggested as a possibility in section 4.4.1. Notice that as the complement clause is a CP its PRO subject is protected from being governed by describe. Describe-type verbs may also appear in structures where there is no main verb in the complement clause: (393) I described him as a complete idiot. This sentence is again plausibly analysed as a controlled dependent predication construction, as in (394) (where only the relevant VP is shown): (394)

VP

C

described

him;

IP (=SC)

NP

I

PR0 1

as

VP

BE

a complete idiot

In (392) and (394) I am analysing the CP as a complement because describe subcategorises for a clause which is (ultimately) headed by as. On the internal structure of the Small Clause see chapter six. In the present section I have claimed that regard-type verbs and describe-type verbs occur in syntactically different environments in that describe takes an NP argument, but regard does not The following sentences may appear to contradict this claim: (395) I regarded him with envy. (396) They regard him highly. As the NP him and the PP with envy in (395) are not in a subject-predicate relation we cannot analyse these two phrases taken together as a Small Clause. The same is true for him and highly in (396). In both sentences the pronoun him appears to be an argument of the matrix verb. If this is so, our earlier claim that regard does not take NP arguments is contradicted. However, it would seem that in (395) and (396) regard has meanings which differ from the meaning of the verb discussed previously. The meaning of regard in the sentences above is not 'consider', but

Predicative

as-constructions

119

rather something like 'behold' or 'look at' in (395), and 'esteem' in (396). We are therefore dealing with at least three different verbs regard. The verbs in (395) and (396) take an NP argument, whereas the verb discussed in the previous section does not

4.4.3. Other predicative as-constructions So far we have looked only at the predicative αί-strings of type (a) in section 4.4.1. How do we analyse the other constructions listed there? Let us first re-establish our earlier observation that the NP following as in ai-strings is a predicate and as such it must be predicated of something. This means that there must be a subject, be it overt or covert If we accept this, then, on the basis of the discussion in the previous sections, we must analyse the example sentences in (a)—(f) of section 4.4.1, repeated here as (397a)—(401a), as in (397b)—(401b): (397) a. ...which has given her a considerable following as a teacher. b. ...which has given hert a considerable following [IP PRO, as a teacher]] (398) a. This happened to me as a child. b. This happened to me, [,P PRO, as a child]] (399) a. Jonathan came to visit me as my lawyer. b. Jonathan, came to visit me [,P PRO{ as my lawyer]] (400) a. His achievement as a scholar is outstanding. b. [NP [NP His, achievement][ip PRO, as a scholar]] is outstanding (401) a. As a mechanic, it was marvellous to spend a year in Disneyland. b. [,p PRO as a mechanic] it was marvellous to spend a year in Disneyland. In each case the ai-strings form Small Clauses with a PRO subject Let us first turn to the sentences in (397)—(399). The analysis of their internal structure should not come as a surprise in the light of the discussion in the previous sections. I have so far left unresolved the question of the functional status of the as-strings. Are they to be regarded, perhaps, as extraposed postmodifying clauses? That is, do the aj-strings in (397)—(399) postmodify her, me and Jonathan respectively? Given the fact that in (399), and perhaps also in (397), the as-strings may not occur in a position immediately following the head noun it would appear that they are not postmodifying units: (402) ??...which has given her as a teacher a considerable following. (403) *Jonathan as my lawyer came to see me.

120

Special constructions

It is reasonable to regard the as-clauses in (397)—(399) as being adverbial because they specify how or when something happened. The IPs in question are best analysed as occurring in a base-generated position adjoined to VP: (404)

VP

V PRO; as a teacher PRO, as a child PRO, as my lawyer given her, a considerable following happened to me, came to visit me

I should mention here the English construction involving the verb strike. This verb is rather special in that it is one of a relatively small set of so-called subject control verbs. Promise is another such verb. Consider the following sentence: (405) Jim strikes me as

intelligent.

Here we have a subject-predicate relation between the subject of the matrix clause and the AP intelligent, rather than between a postverbal NP and an XP predicate. Notice that in (405) both the postverbal NP and the as-phrase appear to be obligatory: (406) *Jim strikes me.85 (407) *Jim strikes as intelligent.

This suggests that strike takes two complements, namely an NP and an SC: [Jimj [VP strikes me [sc PRO, as intelligent]]]. However, there is some evidence that argues against such an analysis. Consider (408): (408) A How did Jim strike you? Β He struck me as very tired and

fed-up.

The question posed by speaker A in (408) shows that the αί-clause in B's response has an adverbial feel to it. If this is correct perhaps (409) is a more appropriate analysis of (405) (only the relevant VP is shown):

Predicative as -constructions 121 (409)

strikes

VP

me

Here the SC is in adjunct position. Admittedly, me is semantically not a typical direct object, in that the thematic relationship between this pronoun and the verb strike is opaque, but the analysis above is justified if we regard the postverbal NP as a quasi-argument (see section 4.2.4) and strike...as constructions as being idiomatic. The structure in (409) has the added advantage that PRO remains ungovemed, as is required by the PRO-theorem (see section 2.3.1). &n£e-cons tractions can also contain regular clauses, as in (410): (410) Jim strikes me as being intelligent. which can be analysed as in (411) (again only the relevant VP is shown): (411)

strikes

VP

me

In both (409) and (411) as is positioned in "I", as in the regard and describeconstructions discussed in previous sections. We can contrast the sentences in (397)—(399) and in (402)— John said that we had betrayed him

(Emonds 1976: 124)

The claim is that (465) correctly predicts (467) to be ungrammatical as there is only one possible landing site for extraposed clauses (namely ^ 0]). By contrast, Baltin (1982: 11, 1978/1985: 143) deems sentences such as (467) not to be too bad. He argues that configurations like (468) are not excluded,102 and claims that constituency tests show that extraposed subject clauses end up at the end of VP in the position of S2 in (468). Let us look at one of these tests in detail. Baltin (1978/1985: 145) gives us the following pair of sentences (slightly amended): (469) a. Although not everybody thought that it was believed to be obvious by everybody that Fred was crazy, people who thought that it was believed to be obvious by everybody that Fred was crazy felt quite sorry for him. b. *Although not everybody thought that it was believed to be obvious by everybody that Fred was crazy, people who thought that it was — that Fred was crazy felt quite sorry for him.

142

Extractions from Small Clauses

If we apply VP-Deletion to the VP following the third was in (469a), and if it is assumed that this rule can only delete entire VP constituents, then the ungrammaticality of (469b) shows that the clause that Fred was crazy belongs to the VP in question and must be deleted along with it. Reinhart (1980: 623—624) also claims that extraposed subjects end up in VP and demonstrates this by citing sentences (470) and (471), using familiar tests: (470) VP-Fronting I warned you that it would upset Rosa that you smoke, and upset her that you smoked it certainly did. (=Reinhart's (11)) (471) Though-Movemeat a. Though it was unlikely [S2 that she would pass], Rosa still decided to take the exam. (=Reinhart's (14a)) b. Unlikely that she would pass though it was, Rosa still decided to take the exam. (=Reinhart's (14b)) In (471b) a subpart of the VP of the though-ctease has moved, namely the string following the head was in (471a). Reinhart does not make clear whether extraposed subjects end up as sisters of V, as in Baltin's framework, or in a Chomsky-adjoined position. I will return to this matter presently. Apart from the evidence surveyed so far there are further tests we can apply to establish in which structural position extraposed subject clauses end up. Consider (472) and (473): (472) Do ^-Substitution a. He said that he thought it is obvious that she likes him, and Clara does so too. b. *He said that he thought it is obvious that she likes him, and Clara does so too that she likes him. (473) Pseudoclefting a. What they did was say it was a problem that she likes him. b. *What they did that she likes him was say it was a problem. Do so-Substitution in (472) and Pseudoclefting in (473) again show that extraposed subject clauses are part of VP. It seems, then, that there is a reasonably convincing case for taking the landing site of extraposed subject clauses to be VP. However, there is also some counterevidence to this claim. Consider again the sentence in

Rightward extractions I: Extraposition

143

(471b). This sentence does not establish unambiguously that the clause that she would pass is part of the VP of the though-clause. Consider (474): (474) Unlikely though it was that she would pass, Rosa still decided to take the exam. Here again a subpart of the VP of the concessive clause (the AP unlikely) has moved, but notice that the ί/ιαί-clause has been stranded, and this could suggest that it is not part of the VP of the though-clause. Furthermore, notice that we can insert sentential adverbs in sentences with extraposed subject clauses (cf. also Emonds 1976: 123): (475) It is true, however, that the Prime-Minister made an effort to unite her cabinet. (476) It is a problem, frankly, to send books abroad Sentences (475) and (476) constitute evidence which favours an analysis in which extraposed subject clauses are immediately dominated by IP, or adjoined to IP. On balance, though, the accumulated evidence favours a VP-landing site for extraposed subject clauses. The question now arises whether extraposed subject clauses indeed end up in position S2 in (468), as Baltin has claimed, i.e. as sisters of the head verb. McCawley (1988: 98—99) adduces the sentences in (477) to show that this is not the case, and that they are instead adjoined to VP, as in (478). The reason is that "[b]oth the original VP and the combination of it with the extraposed subject complement behave as units with regard to conjoining." (McCawley 1988: 98—99) (477) a. It both surprised Alice and shocked Susan that John quit his job. b. It both surprised Alice that John quit his job and shocked her that he didn't seem concerned. (478) a.

S

NP

VP VP

it

both VP and

S VP

144

Extractions from Small Clauses

There are a number of problems with Baltin's treatment which also lead us to a VP-adjunction analysis. First, note that his account of Extraposition is not structurepreserving, as he himself observes (1982: 16). If Radford (1988b: 544—555) is right in claiming that "[a] 11 transformations are structure-preserving, and comprise either structure-preserving substitutions...or structure-preserving adjunctions" then this is undesirable. Secondly, and more importantly, if extraposed clauses do end up in the position of S2 in (468) then the Θ-Criterion is violated as this is a Θposition. Recall that the Θ-Criterion states that each argument must be assigned one θ-role only, and that every θ-role must be assigned only once. Now, in Baltin's theory the extraposed clause is assigned two θ-roles: one in its base-generated subject position and one in its derived position. We can, however, easily remedy the problems with Baltin's account if we Chomsky-adjoin the extraposed subject clause to VP, as in (478). We then have an account of Extraposition which is structure-preserving and which does not violate the Θ-Criterion.103 Extraposition of clausal subjects then operates as follows104: (479)

IP

NP

IP

I

VP

NP

it insertion

I

VP

VP

The question we must now ask is whether the landing site for extraposed clausal SC-subjects (like those in (458)—(463) of section 5.3.2.1) is also within VP. If we apply the tests we find that again the results are mixed: (480) VP-Deletion a. Although not everybody thought it credible that she was a junky, there were some who did.

Rightward extractions I: Extraposition

145

b. *Although not everybody thought it credible that she was a junky, there were some who did that she was a junky. (481) VP-Preposing a. We said we would keep it a secret that she is coming, and keep it a secret that she is coming we will. b. *We said we would keep it a secret that she is coming, and keep it a secret we will that she is coming. (482) Pseudoclefting a. What they did was keep it a secret that she is coming. b. *What they did that she is coming was keep it a secret. (483) Do io-Substitution a. Hans kept it a secret that he had inside information, and his girlfriend did so too. b. *Hans kept it a secret that he had inside information, and his girlfriend did so too that he had inside information. (484) TftoKgÄ-Movement a. Keep it a secret that he sent the information though he did, the police nevertheless found out about it. b. Keep it a secret though he did that he sent the information, the police nevertheless found out about it. (485) Adverb Insertion a. I find it a problem, however, that he did not go to University. b. I find it a problem, frankly, that he did not go to University. The sentences in (480)—(484a) suggest an analysis in which extraposed SC subject clauses "land" inside VP, whereas those in (484b) and (485) point to attachment or adjunction to IP. Here again, the weight of the evidence favours the former of these two possibilities. As with clausal subjects extraposed from matrix clauses, we will say here that extraposed clausal SC subjects are adjoined to VP, as in (486):

146

Extractions from Small Clauses

VP

VP

(486) V

VP

SC

NP

XP

V

Claus^ SC

XP

Clause

t

it

insertion

In (480)—(485) I have used ίΛαί-clauses in the landing site tests. The results are the same for extraposed to and -ing subject clauses. I leave it to the reader to apply the tests to these clause types. For extraposed adverbial subject clauses a different situation obtains. See section 5.3.2.4.

5.3.2.3. Extraposition of -ing clauses The Small Clause construction which involves an -ing clause as subject is of some interest as it is the only construction in which movement to the right of the clausal subject takes place optionally. We will see why in section 5.3.2.5. The following instance was found in the Survey of English Usage: (487) but in this there are two points # one is # we ought to go on lecturing # and the other is that we leave [it so late] # preparing it (S. 1.4.44, brackets added) There were no instances of -ing clauses moved out of nominal Small Clauses. Constructions containing extraposed -ing clauses are exceptional in two further respects. Firstly, notice that the extraposed clause in (487) is separated from the preceding lexical material by a marked intonational break (#). This is not a peculiarity of this particular sentence, but a characteristic of all sentences involving extraposed -ing clauses. Secondly, notice that the dummy /f-pronoun must be inserted in the Small Clause subject position after Extraposition of the -ing clause. Thus, sentences like (488), where no it has been inserted are impossible in English: (488) *...and the other is that we leave 0

so late preparing it.

As we will see in section 5.3.2.5, some of the other construction types involving clausal Extrapostion do not always require it to be inserted. Extraposition of -ing subject clauses is rare: the sentence in (487) was the only instance found in the SEU. Furthermore, such movement is not always possible. Quirk et al. (1985: 1393) quote the sentence in (489)

Rightward extractions I: Extraposition

147

(489) */ made it my prime objective settling the matter. where Extraposition results in ungrammaticality. We might ask why it is possible to move the -ing clause in (487) and in (460) of section 5.3.2.1 (=We consider it a disgrace/disgraceful working in the dark), but not in (489). There appears to be no grammatical or pragmatic reason for the unacceptability of (489). Indeed, one would expect it to be preferred over its non-extraposed counterpart, as the more heavy material occurs at the end of the sentence. The rather unsatisfactory conclusion is that there is no obvious explanation for the restriction in (489).

5.3.2.4. "Extraposition" of adverbial clauses In section 5.3.2.1 I gave examples of extraposed adverbial when and if clauses. Here, I also mention how, whether and why clauses as these too can be extraposed. I showed in section 5.3.2.2 that extraposed Small Clause subject clauses end up in a position where they are Chomsky-adjoined to the VP to which they belong. As adverbial clauses are rather special we might ask whether the same account works for these clauses when they are extraposed. Let's apply some tests and see. (490) VP-Deletion a. Although the professors do not consider it a crime when people blaspheme, there are some students who do. b. *Although the professors do not consider it a crime when people blaspheme, there are some students who do when people blaspheme. (491) VP-Preposing a. I said I would consider it a crime when people blaspheme and consider it a crime when people blaspheme I will. b. / said I would consider it a crime when people blaspheme and consider it a crime / will when people blaspheme. (492) Do io-Substitution a. The theology lecturer considers it a crime when people blaspheme, and his students do so too. b. ??The theology lecturer considers it a crime when people blaspheme, and his students do so too when people blaspheme.

148

Extractions from Small Clauses

(493) 77ioMg/i-Movement a. Consider it a crime when people blaspheme though I may, I nevertheless don't care if they do. b. Consider it a crime though I may when people blaspheme, I nevertheless don't care if they do. (494) Adverb Insertion a. The professors consider it a crime, however, when people blaspheme. b. You should make clear, frankly, how you propose to do it. The pseudocleft test cannot be used here because if we apply it there occurs a clash between the action verb do in the matrix clause, and the psychological verb consider in the focus clause (*What we did was consider it a crime when people blaspheme). What do sentences (490)—(494) tell us? As in the case of extraposed that, to and -ing subject clauses discussed in section 5.3.2.2, the results of applying the constituency tests are mixed. This time, however, the weight of the evidence points not to a VP landing site, but to a sentential landing site. I will explain why. Observe that only the VP-Deletion test in (490) unambiguously demonstrates the extraposed clause to be part of the Verb Phrase. Arguably, the do so substitution test in (492b) does so too, although it would also be possible to say that this sentence is bad for stylistic reasons only. The results of applying VP-Preposing and Though-Movement in (491) and (493) are compatible both with a sentential and a VP landing site. However, the results of Adverb Insertion in (494), and the sentence in (495) below, in which the adverbial clause is situated in initial position, are evidence which supports only the sentential landing site analysis: (495) When people blaspheme, I consider it a crime. This last sentence suggests that adverbial clauses of the type under investigation are sentential adjuncts (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 1392, note c). They should therefore be in a position where they have scope over the whole sentence. An analysis of these constructions should bear this out Jackendoff (1977: 97) in discussing sentences like (496) (496) I consider it a crime/criminal when people blaspheme. (=(46la) of section 5.3.2.1) suggests that the w/zen-clause is base-generated and not extraposed at all. In view of what has been said above this seems quite plausible, but does then beg the question as to what is the status of the element it. The only possibility, it would

Rightward extractions I: Extraposition

149

seem, is to analyse tbis pronoun as a base-generated referential element, not as the semantically empty nonreferential pronoun it. We could then say that in (496) the element it refers to the act of blaspheming and in (497) to the act of using the computer: (497) Do you find it a problem/problematic

if I use your

computer?

(=(46lb) of section 5.3.2.1) Such an analysis is supported by the fact that we can paraphrase (496) as in (498): (498) I consider the act of blaspheming it.

a crime/criminal,

when people engage in

If our conclusions are correct and adverbial clauses are not extraposed and not part of the VP of the main clause, then the most likely place for them to be generated is in a position adjoined to the CP node: (499)

CP

/criminal

blaspheme

This analysis accounts straightforwardly for the fact that the wAen-clause has scope over the matrix clause and can also occur sentence-initially, as in (495). Adjunction to IP is excluded because pre-IP nodes can be filled, as in the following sentence: (500) When people blaspheme,

do you consider it a criminal

Here the auxiliary do is positioned in "C".

offence?

150

Extractions from Small Clauses

5.3.2.5. With or without dummy it In most of the cases of Extraposition of clausal Small Clause subjects that we have looked at so far it was necessary to insert the pronoun it as a dummy subject in the SC. Leaving out this element resulted in ungrammatically. However, certain types of clauses, notably to and that clauses, allow non-insertion of it under certain circumstances when they are extraposed, as (462) and (463), repeated here in (501) and (502), show: (501) He thought tjfit [to dismiss the captain], (502) She made i, clear [that she wanted to resign], Table 7 in section 5.3.2.1 shows that tfctt-clauses allow this to happen more frequently than ίο-clauses. Here are four SEU examples; the first two sentences contain a dummy it, the second two sentences do not: Extraposed to and ί/ωί-clauses, with rt-insertion: (503) I've found [sc iti necessary] [to join a public library in Theobalds's Road which has a pretty good English department/, (S.3.3.42) (504) Personally I do not find [sc itι surprising] [that lenders find this sort of situation acceptable]t (W.7.11.35) Extraposed to and iftai-clauses, no ii-insertion: (505) The governor had felt earlier that he could handle the matter locally and had not thought [sc 0 fit] [to communicate with the central government] (W. 16.7.36-3) (506) ...but the first thing that you must do is to make [sc 0 quite sure] [that the purchasing power of his money is maintained...] (S.2.2&112) Notice that the movement that has taken place in (505) and (506) resembles HeavyNP-Shift in that a heavy constituent is moved to the right leaving behind a trace. However, the process instantiated by (505) and (506) differs from HNPS in that it is obligatory, whereas HNPS is never obligatory. Observe also that omission of the dummy pronoun is only ever possible in adjectival SC-constructions. We do not find anything like the following: (507) *They found 0 a problem to keep up with the teacher. (508) *He kept 0 a secret that she was coming.

Rightward extractions I: Extraposition

151

Non-insertion of dummy it is not always a possible option, as (503') and (504') show: (503') *I've found [sc 0 necessary] [to join a public library in Theobald's Road which has a pretty good English department] (504') *Personally I do not find [sc 0 surprising] [that lenders find this sort of thing acceptable] Conversely, we cannot always insert it: (509) */ saw it fit to advise you. (510) *We thought it fit not to intervene. The obvious question to ask at this point is: what are the conditions that regulate the presence or absence of the dummy subject pronoun it? We can shed some light on this problem if we consider the relationship between the matrix verb and the head of the Adjective Phrase predicate of the Small Clause. It turns out that of the 8 constructions in the corpus which involve Extraposition of a ίΛαί-clause without a dummy it having been inserted four involve the combination make...sure, three involve the combination make...clear, and one construction involves the combination think... likely. The one 0 — fo-clause construction (in (505) above) involves the combination think...fit. As a first attempt at analysing these constructions we could say that a process of Reanalysis takes place in such a way that strings like make...sure, make...clear and the like are restructured as complex verbs but only when the verb and the Adjective Phrase are juxtaposed. After Extraposition a sentence like (51 la) would be reanalysed as (51 lb): (511) a. We made [t: sure] [that he could go away], b. He [VP [Y made sure][that he could go away]] The ίΛαΐ-clause in (511b) then functions as the direct object of the newly created complex verb make sure. There are, however, a number of strong arguments against such a treatment Consider again sentence (506) above. In this particular case we would have to say that the string make quite sure is reanalysed as a complex verb. This is obviously highly undesirable as the lexicon will then contain scores of make-adverb-sure combinations such as make very sure, make entirely sure etc. A second problem is that we would have to explain why Reanalysis does not take place in sentences like (503') and (504') where insertion of dummy it is obligatory. I would like to offer an alternative explanation as to why it is not always inserted. It runs as follows: a verb like make, in addition to its most frequent subcategorisation frame

152

Extractions from Small Clauses

1 [ —,NP]

make,

has at least two additional frames, namely 2 [ — , SC]

make2

and 3 [ — » [ap—adjective...] CP ] make3 The first frame is selected for sentences like (512): (512) They make damn good coffee in the town of Twin Peaks. The second frame is selected for sentences like (513) and (514): (513) I made [sc her angry] (514) We make [sc it, perfectly clear] [that papers must be in on the first of (S.l.1.11—9) May], Finally, the third frame is chosen in those cases where no it is inserted, as in (506), which is analysed as in (506'): (506') ...but the first thing that you must do is to make [AP quite sure] [CP that the purchasing power of his money is maintained] Sentence (505), which involves the string think...fit, is analysed analogously, as in (505·): (505') The governor had felt earlier that he could handle the matter locally and had not thought [APfit] [CP to communicate with the central government] The head of the AP needs to be specified in the lexical entry, otherwise the grammar will overgenerate. In the third frame the dots represent possible modifying elements such as very, quite etc. The type of clause selected (ίο-infinitival, thatclause etc.) also needs to be specified in the lexicon. Sentences (505') and (506') cannot be assumed to pattern with the second subcategorisation frame. If they did it would be predicted that //-insertion is possible, which is not the case.105 We might refine our analysis by observing that there is a difference between (505') and (506'): the Adjective Phrase head fit in (505') cannot be modified, whereas the head sure in (506') can:

Rightward extractions I: Extraposition

153

(515) *...and [he] had not thought very fit to communicate with the central government. Compare also (516): (516) *He made very ready to jump first. Cmake ready in the sense "be prepared') All this suggests that the degree of idiomaticisation is greater for think...fit and make...ready constructions than for make...sure constructions. That is to say: the bond between the matrix verb and the head of the following AP is greater for the first type of construction than for the second. In fact, the degree of idiomaticisation is so great for the think...fit/make...ready constructions that it is quite plausible that Reanalysis applies to them, in such a way that we have the complex verbs think fit and make ready. The objection against Reanalysis which I put forward for the make...sure cases, namely that the lexicon would be cluttered with make-adverbsure combinations, does not hold for the think...fit and make...ready structures as the adjectives fit and ready are never modified, as we have just seen. It would appear that we now have to distinguish from the class of verbs taking frame 3 above a further, fourth class, namely one in which the degree of idiomaticisation has increased to the point of restructuring. We end up with the following classes: Class (a) The verb selects the frame [—, NP], e.g. make, in (512) Class (b) Λ-insertion is obligatory, the verb selects the frame [—, SC], e.g. make2 (514), find in (503), (504) and (507), keep in (508) Class (c) //-insertion is impossible, the verb selects the frame [—, [^...adjective...] CP], e.g. make3 in (506) which selects the frame [—, [ ΑΡ...sure...] CP]]. The dots represent possible modificatory elements. Class (d) Λ-inserüon is impossible, restructuring takes place such that a newly formed complex verb selects the frame [—, clause], e.g. make4 in He [VP [v made-ready] [to jump first]]. Also: think in (505)/(505'). Notice that this account straightforwardly explains the ungrammatically of (509) and (510) in that it is impossible to interpose the element it in the middle of the complex verbs see fit and think fit.

154

Extractions from Small Clauses

5.3.2.6. The obligatoriness of SC subject clause Extraposition Let us now turn to a more general problem: why is it that in the account of Extraposition described earlier in this chapter the clauses which are base-generated in SC-subject position must obligatorily be extraposed? In other words, why can we not have sentences like (517) and (518) below: (517) *I consider [sc that Jimmy said this disgracefiil] (518) */ thought [sc to allow Antoinet to leave foolish] Any treatment of a language which deals with the facts in a principled way and which is aimed at explaining the data must give an account as to why Extraposition of the subject clauses in sentences like (517) and (518) is obligatory. We can try to tackle this problem by taking a closer look at the mechanism of Case assignment. As we saw in chapter two, verbs assign objective Case to their complements, and, exceptionally, to the subject of a Small Clause or to the subject of a ίο-infinitival clause (e.g. believe assigns Case to Pat in we believe [Pat to be an honest person J). It has been suggested in the literature that if a verb has a Case to assign, it must assign it (cf. Lasnik—Uriagereka 1988: 29). Let us assume for the moment that this is so, and also that Case must be assigned to a lexical NP. We can then explain why (517) and (518) are ungrammatical. The verbs consider and think must assign objective Case to an adjacent lexical NP. In these two sentences, however, there is no adjacent lexical NP, only a nominal clause. As consider and think cannot assign Case to clauses the sentences are ungrammatical (see also the similar account of Stowell 1981: 148f, where ίΛαί-clauses and infinitival clauses are held to be Case resistant). The only way to salvage (517) and (518) is to extrapose the clausal subjects of the subordinate clauses and to insert the dummy pronoun it so that this element can receive the objective Case which the transitive verbs consider and think must assign. The account sketched above works for fo-infinitive and ί/ωί-clauses which are obligatorily extraposed. But what about sentences like (519), discussed earlier in this chapter? (519) but in this there are two points, one is that we ought to go on lecturing and the other is that we leave [sc it so late] preparing it In this sentence an -ing clause has been extraposed. But, as we have seen, and as (520) shows, Extraposition is by no means obligatory here: (520) ...and the other is that we leave [sc preparing it so late] Thus, -ing clauses behave differently syntactically from to/that-clauses. The fact that they do so is not all that surprising, however, in view of the fact that they behave

Rightward extractions I: Extraposition

155

differently in other areas of syntax too. Of the nominal clauses -ing clauses are the most NP-like: for example (521)—(523) show that they are the only type of clause that can appear as the complement of a preposition: (521) By preparing it so late, we may not have time to mark the exam. (522) *By to prepare it so late, we may not have time to mark the exam. (523) *By that we prepare it so late, we may not have time to mark the exam. We can now explain why a sentence like (520) above is grammatical and why Extraposition is not obligatory by again claiming that the verb leave can, indeed must, assign objective Case. Unlike ίο-infinitive clauses and rto-clauses, -ing clauses are sufficiently similar to lexical NPs to be assigned Case. This means that the string preparing it can be assigned objective Case. As the requirement that leave must assign Case is met in (520) Extraposition is not obligatory. When Extraposition does occur (as in (519)), Case is assigned to the empty element it after the -ing clause has been moved. Although the explanation for the phenomena discussed here in terms of Case theory looks promising, it is not without problems. For one, we need to explain passives like (524): (524) [To eat it], was considered /i, foolish] the D-Structure of which is (525): (525) [e] was considered [to eat it foolish] As (525) is not a possible surface structure the clause to eat it must move. In GBtheory movement of NPs in passive D-Structures (e.g [e] was eaten the doughnutJ) is triggered by the fact that the postverbal NP is required by the Case Filter to be assigned Case. This Case cannot be assigned by the passive matrix verb and the NP must move to the matrix clause subject position [e] to receive Case from "I" (see section 2.3.1). However, in (525), as we are assuming that /o-infinitival clauses are not assigned Case, and hence are not subject to the Case Filter, movement of this clause to position [e] remains unmotivated. Another problem occurs when we consider sentences like I considered that he was a fool. Here consider must assign Case to an adjacent lexical NP, but cannot do so. A third problem, which Andrew Radford has pointed out to me, is that in order for the proposed Case-theoretical explanations to work we would have to set up some ad hoc mechanism to prevent the it that gets inserted after the SC subject clause is moved (e.g. in (519)) from transmitting its Case to the extraposed clause. All these complications suggest that we should perhaps look for another explanation as to why SC subject clauses must be extraposed. Consider again (517) and (518). Rather than explaining that the clausal SC

156

Extractions from Small Clauses

subjects extrapose obligatorily in these sentences in terms of a rather elaborate, and perhaps ad hoc, Case theoretical principle, we could explain this fact by appealing to pragmatic considerations. Notice that (517) and (518) have the flavour of socalled garden path sentences, a phenomenon we have already come across in chapter four. These are sentences which, when heard, are initially processed in the wrong way as the hearer is led to expect a certain syntactic structure which turns out to be quite different. In (517), the hearer, on encountering the word that could initially interpret it as a subordinating conjunction introducing a direct object clause, by analogy to sentences like I consider that the funds are inadequate. It is only further towards the end of the sentence that s/he realises that this cannot be correct. Re-interpretation is then necessary. Similarly, the to-clause in (518) could initially be taken to be an object clause. Problems of this kind do not occur for sentences like (520). The interpretive problems that to and ί/ωί-clauses pose are avoided if they are extraposed. What I would like to suggest, then, is that sentences like (517) and (518) are grammatical, but unacceptable. The advantage of this pragmatic account over the purely grammatical Case-theoretical treatment is that the grammar is simplified: it freely generates sentences like (517) and (518) and makes no distinction between the different types of clauses that can occur in SC subject position. Pragmatic principles trigger the Extraposition of to and iAai-clauses that function as subjects. So far we have discussed Extraposition of ίο-infinitival clauses, ίΛαί-clauses, adverbial clauses and -ing clauses. Judging by sentence (526a) and its associated S-Structure (526b) it would appear that a fifth type of clause can be extraposed: (526) a. ...it makes it more difficult for them to raise money. b. ...it makes [sc it, more difficult] /for them to raise money/; (S.2.2a.l00) Arguably a/or-clause (i.e. a CP) has been extraposed here. (527) would be the DStructure for (526b): (527) ...it makes

Iscfor

them to raise money more difficult]

However, this is not obviously correct We might want to say that for them in (526a) is a PP which is base-generated as a complement to the adjective within the AP more difficult. The alternative D-Structure for (526a) is (528): (528) ...it makes [sc to raise money more difficult for them] It would appear that sentences like (526a) are structurally ambiguous in that both the /or-clause Extraposition analysis and the /o-clause Extraposition analysis are perfectly valid. The D-Structures in (527) and (528) can be paraphrased as in (529) and (530):

Rightward extractions II: Detachment from nominal Small Clauses

157

(529) ...it makes [their raising money more difficult] (530) ...it makes [raising money more difficult for them] One might ask whether these sentences mean the same. There seems to be a subtle difference in meaning between them in that (529) focuses both on the money raising activity as well as on the fact that it was undertaken by them, whereas (530) focuses solely on the raising of money. Who undertook it is of secondary importance. The difference in meaning between the two alternative structures in (527) and (528) brought out by (529) and (530) is obscured in (526a) for which, as noted, we have no way of knowing whether a /or-clause or a ίο-clause was extraposed.106

5.4. Rightward extractions II: Detachment from nominal Small Clauses Detachment was defined above as displacement of a relative clause or PP out of a Noun Phrase constituent. It does not occur in the corpus. Baltin claims that ...a constituent that detaches from subject position moves to a position outside the verb phrase, whereas a constituent that detaches from a noun phrase within the verb phrase ends up at the end of the verb phrase. (Baltin 1981: 266) He cites the following sentences to show that the relative clause in (531) and the PP in (532), both of which are detached from subjects, are not part of the VP which has been deleted from the position indicated by the dash: (531) Although nobody would ride with Fred who knew just him, people would — who knew his brother. (532) Although not many reviews appeared of Lucretia 's performance, one very scathy review did — of Max's performance. Consider now the sentences in (533) and (534), also from Baltin's work. In (533b) and (534b) a relative clause and a PP respectively have been detached from an NP within the VP: (533) a. b. (534) a. b.

John John John John

calls people calls people calls people calls people

who are from Boston up. up who are from Boston. from Boston up. up from Boston.107

If we apply some of the by now familiar VP-constituency tests, we see that the

158

Extractions from Small Clauses

relative clause in (533b) and the PP in (534b) remain inside the VP after movement: (535) VP-Preposing (applied to (533b)) a. John said that he would call people up who are from Boston, and call people up who are from Boston he will. (Baltin's (28a)) b. *John said that he would call people up who are from Boston, and call people up he will who are from Boston. (Baltin's (28b)) (536) 77itfwgA-Movement (applied to (533b)) a. Call people up from Boston though he may, he's generally pretty cheap about long distance calls. (Baltin's (29a)) b. *Call people up though he may who are from Boston, he 's generally pretty cheap about long-distance calls. (Baltin's (29b)) (537) VP-Preposing (applied to (534b)) a. John said that he would call people up from Boston, and call people up from Boston he will. (Baltin's (30a)) b. *John said that he would call people up from Boston, and call people up he will from Boston. (Baltin's (30b)) (538) Though-Mo\ement (applied to (534b)) a. Call people up from Boston though he may, he's generally pretty cheap about long-distance calls. (Baltin's (31a)) b. *Call people up though he may from Boston, he's generally pretty cheap about long-distance calls. (Baltin's (31b)) Baltin's claim seems to make the correct predictions in these cases. However, a problem arises when we apply his "Detachment Rule" to constructions containing Small Clauses. Consider (539): (539) I lVp consider [sc any man who smokes a fool]] Apart from it being possible to move the whole subject NP of the SC to the right (as in e.g. I consider a fool any man who smokes) we can also move only the relative clause: (540) I consider [sc any man a fool] who smokes

Rightward extractions II: Detachment from nominal Small Clauses

159

Now, notice that Baltin's claim makes two contradictory predictions. The relative clause who smokes is detached both from a subject NP and from an NP within the Verb Phrase. It is predicted, then, that the moved relative clause ends up both outside the VP and inside the VP. Obviously, only one of these predictions can be correct. If we applied the VP constituency tests to the sentence in (540), we would find that the detached relative clause remains inside VP. The question now arises whether we should reject Baltin's "Detachment Rule" because it makes contradictory predictions. The answer is "no". We can salvage his generalisation if we can find a common characteristic for a postverbal argument NP like people in (533a)/(534a) which occurs in VP and a Small Clause subject NP like any man who smokes in (539) which is also part of VP. Notice that although the NP people in (533a)/(534a) is a direct object and the NP any man who smokes in (539) a subject, what they have in common is that both NPs are assigned objective Case by the verbs call and consider respectively. The problem of the contradictory predictions noted above can now be solved if we adjust Baltin's generalisation in the following way: A constituent that is detached from a phrase that is assigned nominative Case moves to a position outside VP, whereas a constituent that is detached from a phrase that is assigned objective Case remains inside VP. It should perhaps be noted that, although there is no explicit claim about this in his work, Baltin appears not to espouse Small Clause Theory. If instead he is an adherent of Predication Theory then his framework makes the correct predictions regarding (539) because in that theory the postverbal NP is not a subject. It is only when Baltin's theory of Detachment interacts with Small Clause Theory that the problem of the contradictory predictions rears its head. It is possible to interpret the spirit of Baltin's claim to be that detached phrases are moved to a position at the end of (or adjoined to) the maximal projection that immediately dominates them, as Andrew Radford (p.c.) has suggested to me. This may well be so, but in any case the revised version of Baltin's "Detachment Rule" is an improvement of the original formulation as it stands, because the revised version is more precise and does not allow multiple interpretations. Detachment is best regarded as a stylistic rule. This view is also espoused in Baltin (1981, 1982: 13) and in Quirk et al. (1985: 1397f). Gu6ron (1980: 645) disagrees, but does not tell us why. There are a number of constraints on the operation of Detachment. For discussion, see Gu6ron (1980).

160

Extractions from Small Clauses

5.5. Leftward extractions We saw in section 5.2 that there are four types of leftward extractions: Passivisation, Raising, Wh-Movement and Topicalisation. In what follows I will not specifically be dealing with Wh-Movement and Topicalisation. These processes do, however, play a role in the ensuing discussion. Subsection 5.5.1 discusses Passivisation and Raising. The last two subsections of this chapter deal with a variety of curious special constructions. One of these, involving causative have, to be discussed in section 5.5.2, resembles a [V NP -ed] construction of the type I had my car painted, but turns out to be structurally quite different. The other constructions, to be discussed in section 5.5.3, involve predicate movements to the left under Wh-Movement and Topicalisation.

5.5.1.

Passivisation and Raising

Up to this point mostly active Small Clause constructions have been discussed. The number of passive structures, however, is quite large, at least for the nominal SCs: there were 78 passive structures, as opposed to 64 active structures. 61 of these involved consider-type verbs, whereas 17 involved appoint-type verbs. We have seen that leftward movements out of nominal SCs occur much more often than leftward movements out of adjectival SCs. For some reason adjectival Small Clauses resist leftward movement processes: there was only one case of Topicalisation, there were only 11 cases of Wh-Movement and only 16 cases of Passivisation.108 For consider-type verbs passive constructions always involve an empty subject for the Small Clause at S-Structure. To illustrate, consider (541): (541) That man was considered a fool. The D-Structure of this sentence is shown in (542a), its S-Structure in (542b): (542) a. [NP e] was considered [sc that man a fool] b. [NP that man]; was considered [sc t, a fool] The NP that man in (542a) is moved to the empty base-generated matrix clause subject position fe] at S-Structure for Case-theoretical reasons: the passive verbform considered in (542a) is unable to assign Case to the SC subject. In order not to violate the Case Filter this NP must therefore move in order to receive its Case from the INFL node in the matrix clause. Raising operates in exactly the same way. In passive and Raising constructions the Small Clause never has a lexical subject, except at D-Structure.109 The classic Raising verbs are verbs like seem and appear, but we should perhaps

Leftward extractions

161

add a verb to this class which at first sight does not seem to be a Raising predicate. I am thinking here of make in one of its senses. Consider the sentence in (543) below: (543) You would make a good professor. Notice that the verb make we have here is different from the verb make we have in sentences like / made a nice cake or I made it clear that / don't want her to come. Let us refer to make in (543) as make5 to distinguish it from the verbs makediscussed in section 5.3.2.5. My suggestion is that makes does not assign a θ-role to the NP a good professor (i.e. this phrase is not a direct object) and that the D-Structure for (543) is as in (544), where make5 subcategorises a Small Clause: (544) [e] would make [sc you a good professor] This seems a plausible analysis as the NPs you and a good professor are in a subject-predicate relationship with each other. If (544) is indeed the correct DStructure representation for (543) then we must ask what motivates movement of the NP you to the matrix clause subject position. If make, assigns Case to the SC subject there is no motivation for such movement. Let us therefore assume that make5, like verbs carrying passive morphology and like the Raising verbs, does not assign Case to the NP that immediately follows it, in this case the SC-subject. So as not to violate the Case Filter this phrase must then move to the matrix clause subject slot in order to be assigned Case by the matrix clause INFL-node. Under this analysis makes is regarded as a Raising verb. The Small Clause subject receives its θ-role from the SC-predicate, the NP α good professor. The SC as a whole is assigned a θ-role by the matrix verb. This account straightforwardly explains the ungrammaticality of (545), pointed out to me by Andrew Radford: (545) *You were made a good professor. This sentence (which contains an instance of make5) is ungrammatical for the same reason that (546) is ungrammatical: Raising verbs do not occur' in the passive. (546) *You were seemed a nice bloke. Notice that make5 in (544) subcategorises a nominal Small Clause. Constructions of this type are not possible for adjectival or prepositional Small Clauses: we cannot have anything like the sentences in (547) and (548): (547) *You: would make /f, very happy] (548) *She, would make [ti in love]

162

Extractions from Small Clauses

Consider next sentence (549): (549) He would make her a good husband. Here we again have a subject-predicate relationship between the matrix clause subject (he) and a phrase lower down in the sentence (a good husband). The paraphrase of (549) is "he would be a good husband for her'. This time, however, the verb make has a further argument, namely her. We seem to have yet another verb make here, make6, which looks like a ditransitive verb. What is the D-Structure for this sentence? We could again say that he has been raised, (550) then being its D-Structure: (550) [e] would make her [sc he a good husband] In order to explain how he moves to its S-Structure position we would have to stipulate that make6 can assign Case to her (witness the objective Case), but cannot assign (secondary) Case to the subject of the SC. He must then move to the matrix clause subject position in order to receive Case from the matrix clause INFL-node. Although the analysis of (543) in (544) as involving a Raising verb is quite plausible, the analysis of (549) as in (550) is not very satisfactory in that there seem to be no other instances of verbs like make6 which are both Case assigning predicates and Raising predicates. In any case, the Case-marking assumption is very unattractive. Analysing (549) as a control structure, as in (551), is perhaps a more plausible possibility. However, a drawback of this analysis is that we must stipulate that a CP-node dominates the SC (which I have suggested is an IP) to prevent PRO from being governed. (551) He, would [VP make her [CP [sc PROt a good husband]]] Let us now return to passives. In (542) above we illustrated the passive of constructions containing consider-type verbs. In the case of passive constructions containing appoint-type verbs the situation is different: in these structures a trace is left behind in the matrix clause object position. This is shown in the sentences below: (552) has the D-Structure in (553) and the S-Structure in (554): (552) Rear-Admiral Bryan C. Durant has been appointed Director-General of the Navy League. (W.12.1.1)110 (553) lNP e] has been appointed Rear-Admiral Bryan C. Durant, [sc PROι DirectorGeneral of the Navy League] (554) [NP Rear-Admiral Bryan C. Durant],· has been appointed i, [sc PROj DirectorGeneral of the Navy League] I would now like to discuss constructions containing nominal Small Clauses

Leftward extractions

163

which complement verbs that have a preference for occurring in the passive. Here are a few examples: (555) With regard to personal details, I am a British citizen, [aged 22], married with two children. (W.7.8.57) (556) I write in reply to your letter [dated 18 March 1980]. (W.7.6.82) (557) Silently I went to the shelf [marked sounds of pistol shots]. (S.11.3e.l2) (558) My main area of teaching at St Mary's has been a two-year course [entitled "Linguistics"] which is an important component of the BA degree. (W.7.7.18) The highlighted constructions in (555)—(558) can be regarded as reduced relative clauses whose D-Structures I propose to analyse as follows: (559) (560) (561) (562)

[e] [e] [e] [e]

be be be be

aged [sc Ο 22] dated [sc Ο 18 March 1980] marked [sc Ο sounds of pistol shots] entitled [sc Ο "Linguistics"]

"O" in these sentences represents empty Wh-operators which are (»referential with the head nouns which the relative clauses modify. In each of these sentences the matrix verbs subcategorise for a Small Clause. In deriving the S-Structures the operators move to the empty base-generated subject position of the matrix clause from where at LF they move to Spec-of-CP, an A1position. Passive be is deleted. I CP hp lSp,c

0,1

4

[VP

be

V-ed

[sc

t,

ι

NP]

]]]'"

It would appear that the degree to which matrix verbs taking nominal Small Clauses occur in the passive differs: there seems to be a gradient ranging from veibs which occur freely in the active and passive to verbs which predominantly or only occur in the passive. We might call constructions containing predominantly passive verbs taking nominal Small Clauses Fossilised Small Clause Constructions. The degree of fossilisation of the Small Clause constructions in (555)—(558) above can be said to be greatest for (555), and progressively less for (556)—(558). This becomes apparent when we consider the active counterparts of these sentences. Thus we can have We entitled the course linguistics but not *We aged him 22. Some dictionaries recognise the syntactic rigidity of constructions like (555) by entering the participles as separate lexemes. The word aged, for example, is listed in many dictionaries, and is invariably classed as an adjective. This classification is correct for aged in e.g. The woman is aged (pronounced/eid3id/), but incorrect for the word aged we are considering here (pronounced /eid^d/). Aged in (555)

164

Extractions from Small Clauses

cannot be analysed as an adjective because adjectives do not normally take NP complements.112 Notice also that this word cannot be premodified by intensifiers (cf. *very aged 22). It might be objected that no Small Clauses are involved in (555)—(558), and that instead we are dealing with ditransitive constructions whose D-Structures are as in (563)—(566): (563) (564) (565) (566)

[e] [e] [e] [e]

aged [IO who] 22] dated [IO which] 18 March 1980] marked [lo which] [po sounds of pistol shots] entitled [lo which] "Linguistics"]

where 01 = indirect object DO = direct object [e] indicates an unspecified agent We would have to assume that the indirect objects are deleted at a later stage. We can apply a syntactic test to see whether the matrix verbs here are simple transitive verbs or ditransitive verbs. Consider (567): (567) / gave the girl with the red hair a dictionary. It is a well-known fact that Heavy-NP-Shift of the indirect object to the right is impossible in ditransitive constructions in English, as (568) shows: (568) */ gave a dictionary the girl with the red hair. Notice now that to the extent that (555)—(558) have active structures, these do allow Heavy-NP-Shift of the postverbal NP: (569) / dated 18 March 1980 the letter which I sent to my little sister. (570) / marked sounds of pistol shots the shelves which had been painted red. (571) I entitled "Linguistics" a course which I had always wanted to teach. These facts suggest that the matrix verbs in (555)—(558) are not ditransitive verbs but rather simple transitive verbs. In the examples we have discussed the fossilised Small Clause constructions are regarded as relative clauses with an empty operator functioning as a relative pronoun. Consider now (572) and (573): (572) [Aged 36], this man was the oldest first-year student.

Leftward extractions 165 (573) He began with flipping baseball cards, then moved, [aged about 10], to penny poker, playing the game as though it were a shoot-out, with no reference to other people's cards."3 In these sentences the highlighted strings are probably not relative clauses, but rather adverbial clauses of time or reason, witness the fact that we can paraphrase them as in (574) and (575) below: (574) [When/because he was aged 36], this man was the oldest first-year student. (575) He began with flipping baseball cards, then moved, [when he was aged about 10], to penny poker,...

5.5.2. Causative have taking SC complements Consider the following sentence: (576) ...and we should have the whole lot made research assistants

(S. 11.2.20)

This construction appears to contain a [V NP -ed] string of the type we have in (577): (577) I had my car overhauled. Although [V NP -ed] constructions are outside the scope of this book, I would like to discuss them briefly here in order to deal with a sentence like (576). (577) is analysed as follows: (578) I had [CUmse my car overhauled] The NP my car is clearly not a direct object argument of have, and as this NP is the subject of overhauled, the clausal analysis is not unreasonable. We might wonder whether (578) is a base-generated construction or whether it is derived in some other way. There are indications that it is not base-generated. Notice that semantically my car is really the direct object of overhauled. (578) can therefore be said to have the D-Structure in (579): (579) I had [Clau„ [e] [VP overhauled my car]] The verb overhaul assigns a θ-role to the NP my car. At S-Structure this NP must appear in the empty position [e] in order to be assigned Case by the verb have (recall that passive morphology on a verb absorbs its Case-assigning properties; overhaul therefore does not assign Case to its postverbal NP). No external θ-role

166

Extractions from Small Clauses

is assigned by the VP to position [e] in (579). For an analysis of causative get along the same lines see Haegeman (1985). We have drifted away somewhat from sentence (576), our object of investigation in this section. As I noted above, this sentence resembles a [VNP -ed] construction like (577). The question arises whether (576) is structurally the same as (577). There are indeed parallels: for one, it is reasonable to say that the NP the whole lot originates in a position following the verb make. Whatever views we have about [V NP NP] constructions, it is clear that the verb make in (576) should be followed by two NPs (make NP NP, as in make her captain). Depending upon one's convictions these two NPs together form a Small Clause, or they are simply two separate NP complements of the verb. Notice, however, that in (576) only one NP follows make. If we are to satisfy the subcategorisation requirements of this verb then we have to assume that the second NP, which is not overtly present, is in some way represented at all levels of grammar. We can take care of this subcategorisation requirement by positing the following D-structure for (576): (580) ...and we should have [chmse [e] made [sc the whole lot research assistants]] In (580) there are two clauses: one embedded under have in the matrix clause, and another (an SC) embedded under make. Notice that as the NP the whole lot is in a subject-predicate relation with the NP research assistants it is reasonable to assume that these two NPs together constitute a nominal Small Clause complement to the verb make. However, (580) cannot be a surface form.114 We can explain why this is so as follows: the SC-subject the whole lot cannot be assigned Case by the passive verb-form made. It must therefore move into the empty position [e] where it can be Case-marked by have. Observe that the NP research assistants is a predicate, not an argument. By the Visibility Condition (see Chomsky 1986a: 95 and note 69 above) it does not require Case. The account I have given of (576) differs in a number of respects from the analysis of (577). Firstly, the NP that moves in (580) is a D-Structure subject, not a D-Structure direct object. Secondly, this subject NP is θ-maiked not by the verb that precedes it, but by the SCpredicate research assistants. The process which derives (576) from (580) is in fact Passivisation. The putative active counterpart of (576) is then as in (581): (581) ...and we should have [cbnist. NP make [sc the whole lot research assistants]] Notice that the passive complement clause in (576) does not contain a form of to be. We must conclude that despite some similarities (576) is structurally quite different from (577).

Leftward extractions

167

5.5.3. Leftward movement of predicates The tables in section 5.2 show that the vast majority of leftward extractions out of Small Clauses involve Passivisation. In 42 out of 77 cases a Wh-phrase has been passivised. Each time subjects have moved to the left. The tables show that predicates too can move to the left Here are a few examples of moved Whpredicates: (582) What did you say you called him? (583) What did they consider her? In both (582) and (583) the SC-predicate what has moved to the CP-Specifier position of the matrix clause. An interesting situation obtains when Wh-movement of a predicate and Passivisation take place at the same time, as in (584): (584) I dislike Margaret Thamchers, or [whatever she is called]. In the whatever-c]aase the subject and the predicate of the SC that complements call have moved to a position further to the left. (585) is the resulting S-Structure: (585) / dislike Margaret Thamchers or [CP whatever [IP shej is [VR called [sc tjj tJJJ] i

•

• I

We have a free relative (i.e. nominal) clause here, which contains an SC the predicate of which is the element whatever which moves to the Specifier-of-CP position. The SC-node is not a barrier for this movement because it is L-marked. VP, though, is inherently a barrier. However, if, in moving it up, we first adjoin the predicate to this phrase (cf. section 2.3.4) there is no problem as it then crosses only one segment of VP at a time. IP cannot be an inherent barrier. As for the SCsubject, it also crosses no barriers in moving: SC is not a barrier because it is Lmarked and VP is not a barrier either if we adjoin the subject to it first, as above. We end up with a Small Clause in (585) that contains no lexical material at all, only traces. There are also cases where there is Wh-movement of a non-overt Wh-predicate. Consider (586): (586) The new two-tier system, [as he sarcastically called it], would have "fourpenny peers" and "fivepenny peers" — the voting and the non-voting Lords. (W. 12.2.34) It is the clause introduced by as (a complementiser here, not an inflectional element as in chapter four) that is of interest here. Notice that in this clause it is not the

168

Extractions from Small Clauses

case that the he concerned 'sarcastically called the two-tier system', but rather that he 'sarcastically called it something'. In other words, the predicate is missing in the αί-clause in (586). I propose that the D-Structure of this clause is (587): (587) ...as he sarcastically called [sc it O] where "O" is an empty Wh-operator In deriving (586) from (587) the empty operator moves under Wh-Movement from its D-Structure position to the CP-Specifier position in the as-clause: (588) ICP [Spec O, J l c [c as] [IP he sarcastically [VF called fsc it tJ]]]J 4

ι

Notice that in (588) the SC is not a barrier as it is L-marked. VP and IP are also not barriers if we assume adjunction of the predicate to VP first, in the way described above.115 The sentence in (585) is not the only construction that can involve movement of both a subject and a predicate out of a Small Clause. Consider (589) which again contains the complementiser as: (589) The best theatre company in Britain is the Royal Shakespeare Company, or the RSC, [as it is sometimes called]. The S-Structure of the as-clause in (589) is (590): (590) Icp [Spec O, ] l c [c as] [,P itj is sometimes called [sc tj t j ] ] ] The predicate here is again an empty operator. The movements operate as in (585) and again result in a lexically empty Small Clause. Two final examples of SCs not containing any lexical material are given in (591) and (592): (591) What, did you appoint himj [sc PROj t j (592) [Collate or something],· il,'s called [sc i, t j

(S. 1.5.34)

In (591), an appomi-construction, the Small Clause predicate has moved under Whmovement resulting in a clause containing a PRO and a trace. In (592) the SCsubject it as well as the predicate collate or something have been fronted; the first under NP-Movement, the second under Topicalisation. A further instance of a construction that we could handle under the heading Topicalisation is given in (593): (593) lAP brilliant], though we consider [sc him t j , we will not give him the job.

Conclusion

169

In this sentence the SC-predicate has moved to the pre-complementiser position in the concessive clause, i.e. Spec-of-CP. This type of displacement, which has been given various names (Though-Attraction, Culicover 1976: 166; Though-Mowement, in this study and in Radford 1981: 178, 213; TÄowgA-Inversion, van Riemsdijk—Williams 1986: 25 and, misleadingly, A'-though Proposing, McCawley 1988: 312, 712), is not peculiar to Small Clause constructions (cf. Brilliant though we believe him to be, we didn't give him the job/ In debt though he was, we didn't give him any money/Read the book though he will, he won't really enjoy it etc.). The full S-Structure representation of the though-clnuse in (593) is shown in (594): (594) [CP [Spec brillliantj [c [c though] [,P we consider [sc him tj]]j...

5.6. Conclusion In this chapter further properties of Small Clauses have been discussed, more specifically the possibilities of extracting elements from them, both to the right and to the left. I have given accounts of Extraposition to the right of heavy, light and regular subject NPs. I have also accounted for Extraposition to the right of SC-subject clauses and for the complex conditions under which the empty element it must be inserted when such movement takes place. Furthermore, I have tried to explain why such Extrapostion is obligatory in most cases. Detachment, i.e. rightward extraction from NPs, was dealt with in section 5.4. The condition proposed in chapter four on derivations resulting after rightward movement of constituents as well as other pragmatic considerations have been seen to play an important role in this chapter. In section 5.5 I discussed leftward movements out of Small Clauses. I dealt with Passivisation and Raising, and proposed analyses of constructions which have hitherto received little or no attention in the literature. One of these involves the verb make in such sentences as he would make a good lecturer. I have also discussed what I have called Fossilised Small Clause Constructions, that is, constructions containing nominal SCs which complement matrix verbs which always or predominantly occur in the passive. Empty operator movement was posited in the analysis of these constructions. Finally, I discussed a structure involving causative have and leftward movement of predicates.

Chapter 6 The Small Clause node

6.1. Introduction Small Clauses are controversial entities. This is true in the field of linguistics as a whole but we saw in chapter two that even some Government-Binding theorists have questioned their existence. The situation turns out, however, to be more complex still because there is also no agreement among the Small Clause proponents. SC-theorists agree that Small Clauses exist as syntactic constructs; what they disagree about is the exact categorial status of the Small Clause node. In this book I have so far discussed old and new evidence in favour of recognising Small Clauses as syntactic units. I have looked at a number of special SC-constructions and I have dealt with extraction phenomena from Small Clauses. I have not, however, discussed the issue of the syntactic status of Small Clauses and their internal structure. Up to now I have mostly used the label "SC", thus not committing myself to any particular view. I have, however, tentatively suggested throughout that Small Clauses are simply IP (=S) constituents. In section 6.3 I will defend this position. But first let us look at some of the other proposals that have been put forward in the literature regarding the categorial status of the SC-node.

6.2. The analysis of Small Clauses Small Clauses are very much a phenomenon of the eighties. The first proposals regarding their analysis date back to 1981.116 In the following subsections I will look at the frameworks of Stowell (1981, 1983); Manzini (1983); Chomsky (1981, 1986b); Kitagawa (1985); Kluender (1985); Chung—McCloskey (1987); Hornstein—Lightfoot (1987) and Radford (1988a/1988b).

6.2.1. The accounts of Stowell, Manzini and Chomsky The theory of Stowell (1981) has already been discussed in chapter two. Let us briefly recapitulate his ideas. In essence he claims that Small Clauses should be analysed as in (595): (595) U

NP] X7

As an example, consider the sentence in (596) which is analysed as in (597): (596) Michael considers Sue intelligent.

172

The Small Clause node

(597) Michael considers [AP [Spec Sue] [A. intelligent]] Thus, the Small Clause Sue intelligent is taken to be an Adjective Phrase the subject of which is in the Specifier position. Why should this be? It is on the basis of sentences like those in (598) that Stowell has claimed that the matrix verb is sensitive to elements occurring inside the Small Clause: (598) a. I expect [sc that sailor off my ship] b. */ expect [sc that sailor very stupid]

(Stowell 1981: 257) (Stowell 1981: 259)

In (598) the predicate of the Small Clause can be a PP, but not an AP. Therefore, according to Stowell, expect subcategorises a Small Clause with the syntactic status of a PP. The head of the SC is the predicate, of which the Small Clause is a projection. See also Contreras (1987). Chomsky (1981: 169) largely follows Stowell's conclusions regarding the structure of SCs except that he believes that the Small Clause node cannot be a maximal projection, as Case must be assigned to the SC-subjecL In the 1981 theory Case assignment (which takes place under government) cannot occur across a maximal projection. However, Chomsky does not commit himself to any particular view of the syntactic status of Small Clauses. He simply labels them X*. In the 1986 Barriers framework it is no longer a problem for the Small Clause node to be a maximal projection. In that theory the SC is L-marked (lexically marked), and hence not a barrier (see section 2.3.4). Chomsky's revised analysis of SCs is essentially that of Manzini (1983, 1989). It involves an adjunction structure, in which the SC-subject is adjoined to its predicate: [XP NP [XP ...]] (1986b: 20). Stowell's analysis is without doubt currently still the dominant treatment of Small Clauses. However, it is not without problems, as researchers have pointed out over the last couple of years. In what follows I will summarise some of the arguments put forward in the literature against Stowell's treatment. I will also present some new counterevidence. Kitagawa (1985: 21 If) has argued that the ungrammaticality of (598b) is due to the selectional restrictions holding between the matrix verb and its SC-complement. According to him a verb like consider selects a "state of affairs" Small Clause, whereas verbs like expect select "change of state" complements. In (599) below consider is followed by a "change of state" complement, hence the sentence is ungrammatical. In (598b) expect is followed by a "state of affairs" complement; this too leads to ungrammaticality. (599) *The doctor considers [that patient dead tomorrow]

(Kitagawa's (8a))

If Kitagawa is right, then Stowell's analysis is an unnecessary complication. A second argument put forward by Kitagawa against Stowell's proposals concerns Wh-Movement. He observes that heads of phrases cannot be Wh-moved and he

The analysis of Small Clauses

173

cites the sentences in (600) to demonstrate this: (600) a. You love [NP your pet], don't you? b. *What do you love [NP your t]?

(Kitagawa's (11))

However, movement of what is the head in Stowell's framework, is no problem: (601) a. b. (602) a. b.

You consider [sc him talented], don't you? How talented do you consider [sc him t]? He made [sc his son a good lawyer] How good a lawyer did he make [sc his son t]? (Kitagawa's (13)—(14))

In order to explain why (601) and (602) are fine one would have to allow WhMovement of heads out of SCs to be possible as a marked option. This is undesirable. Hornstein—Lightfoot (1987: 32f) put forward no fewer than five arguments against Stowell's analysis. They argue that "Stowell commits himself to some complications which range from unnecessary to unacceptable". (1987: 32) Here I will concentrate on Hornstein—Lightfoot's two main arguments against Stowell's analysis which concern what they consider the unacceptable complications of that proposal. Firstly, like Kitagawa, they argue that the ungrammaticality of a sentence like */ consider John off my ship is not due to a subcategorisation restriction between consider and off my ship. They cite the sentence As soon as he sets foot on the gangplank, I'll consider John off my ship to show that if the context is changed, the sentence becomes acceptable. The subcategorisation relation holds, they imply, between the verb and the SC as a whole. Secondly, in Stowell's framework it is possible for consider-type verbs to subcategorise an NP whose head is a maximal projection, as in / consider [NP John] [NP a friend]] (Hornstein—Lightfoot's (27), cf. also (598a) above). This would require changing the phrase structure rules. The same problem occurs in the framewoiks of Chomsky (1981) and (1986b). See Williams (1983: 297—298) who first noticed these facts. In assessing Stowell's proposals Radford (1988b: 517) makes the same point he observes that SC-predicates are probably not single bar categories. On the basis of sentences such as (603) he argues that they must be maximal projections because they may contain Specifiers:117 (603) a. I've always considered [sc John THE best player in the team]] b. I've never considered [sc John MY best friend]] c. I'd never considered [sc John [AP THAT fond of his mother]] (Radford's (187)) Radford further observes that subjects of SCs can be fronted, as in (604) and (605) (see also chapter five of the present work):

174

The Small Clause node

(604) John I consider [sc — very stupid] (605) Who do you expect [sc — off your ship by midnight]? Now, if SC-subjects are Specifiers how can we explain the grammaticality of these sentences given that in general in English Specifiers cannot be fronted (though see chapter two, note 24)? The arguments against Stowell's treatment of Small Clauses found in the literature by no means exhaust all the counterevidence. In chapter three I discussed the possibility of sentential adverbs occurring in Small Clauses. Consider again sentences (127) and (128) from section 3.2, repeated here as (606) and (607): (606) I thought [it perhaps a pity] at the time, but his motivation was pessimism (unnecessary in his case) about academic job prospects. (607) I must admit that I have found [these summer international schools probably the most rewarding part of my work]. As noted in chapter three, (606) can be paraphrased as in (608a), (608b) or (608c), but not as in (609a), (609b) or (609c): (608) a. I thought that [it was perhaps a pity] at the time, but his motivation pessimism... b. I thought that [perhaps it was a pity] at the time, but his motivation pessimism... c. I thought that [it was a pity perhaps] at the time, but his motivation pessimism... (609) a. Perhaps I thought [it a pity] at the time, but his motivation pessimism... b. Perhaps I thought that [it was a pity] at the time, but his motivation pessimism... c. I thought perhaps that [it was a pity] at the time, but his motivation pessimism...

was was was was was was

Also, (607) can be paraphrased as in (610a) or (610b), but not as in (611a) or (611b): (610) a. I must admit that I have found that [these summer international schools are probably the most rewarding part of my work], b. I must admit that I have found that [probably these summer international schools are the most rewarding part of my work], (611) a. I must admit that probably I have found [these summer international schools the most rewarding part of my work], b. I must admit that I have probably found [these summer international schools the most rewarding part of my work].

The analysis of Small Clauses

175

As adverbials with sentential scope do not occur in phrasal expansions of lexical categories we must conclude that the bracketed sequences in (606) and (607) are not NPs, as Stowell, Manzini and Chomsky would have us believe. There are some apparent counterexamples to the claim that sentential adverbs like perhaps and probably do not occur inside phrasal projections of lexical elements. In section 3.2, note 401 cited the sentences in (612) and (613) to demonstrate this: (612) Wimbledon has developed into perhaps the most prestigious tennis tournament in the world. (613) We serve probably the best coffee in town. Here we could say that perhaps in (612) is part of the NP the most prestigious tennis tournament in the world which complements the preposition into, and that probably in (613) is part of the NP the best coffee in town which complements the verb serve. Andrew Radford has suggested to me that the structure of these NPs in X-bar theoretical terms should be along the following lines: (614) [NP perhaps [NP the most prestigious tennis tournament in the world]] (615) [NP probably [NP the best coffee in town]] In his own work he has proposed this kind of treatment for NPs like even the older residents (cf. Radford 1988b: 255—256). The data in (606) and (607) Radford believes to be irrelevant because, so he claims, the strings perhaps a pity and probably the most rewarding part of my work ought to be analysed along the lines in (614)/(615). However, firstly, as regards (606) and (607), their paraphrases in (608) and (610) clearly refute an analysis of their bracketed strings as in (614)/(615). Especially (608b/c) and (610b) are telling in that here the adveibials occur either clause initially or clause finally, divorced from the NPs a pity and the most rewarding part of my work. This type of moveability is typical of sentential adverbials. Secondly, notice that the strings perhaps the most prestigious tennis tournament in the world and probably the best coffee in town in (612) and (613) have a prepositional flavour, witness the paraphrases in (616) and (617): (616) Wimbledon has developed into what perhaps is the most prestigious tennis tournament in the world. (617) We serve what probably is the best coffee in town. These sentences show that the complements of into and serve in (612) and (613) are best regarded as reduced nominal relative clauses. If this is correct we have an explanation as to why perhaps and probably can occur in strings that appear to be NPs, but are in fact clauses.118 We can conclude on the basis of the distributional behaviour of elements with sentential scope, such as perhaps and probably, which do not as a rule occur in phrasal expansions of lexical categories, that Small

176

The Small Clause node

Clauses cannot be analysed as projections of lexical elements. In view of what has been said the most reasonable thing to do is to analyse Small Clauses as IPs. More on this below. In this section I have discussed serious problems for Stowell's framework most of which carry over to the Manzini/Chomsky analysis. The general conclusion of this section must therefore be that the proposals of Stowell, Manzini and Chomsky are untenable.

6.2.2. Kitagawa's 1985 proposal Kitagawa (1985) treats all complement Small Clauses as S-bars (=CPs) containing an INFL-node (cf. also Stevenson—Coopmans 1991). He does not deal with nonsubcategorised SCs. It is argued that only if we assume that Small Clauses are Sbars do we have no violation of Subjacency (see section 2.3.1) when extracting the subject of an SC, as in (618a). Assuming that NP and S are the bounding nodes for English, Subjacency is violated in (618b) as the Wh-element moves across two Snodes. In (618c), the structure Kitagawa proposes for (618a), Subjacency is not violated because no two NP or S-nodes are crossed in one swoop. (618) a. who [s do you consider [sc t a genius]]? b. who [s do you consider [st a genius]]? c. who ls do you consider [s, t' [s t a genius]]]?

(= Kitagawa's (19)) (=Kitagawa's (19'))

If we stick to the 1981 version of GB-theory this argument makes excellent sense. However, in the 1986 Barriers framework it no longer does. The SC in (618a) is L-marked (see Chomsky 1986b: 15 and section 2.3.4), and therefore not a barrier. The higher S is not a barrier either because Ss (=IPs) are not inherent barriers nor does this node inherit barrierhood from another phrase. Therefore, in moving up, the Wh-element in (618a) does not violate Subjacency. The corollary of this is that in the Barriers model the structure in (618b) is a possible representation for (618a): the lower S is L-marked and therefore not a barrier, nor is the higher S, as before. (618c) is ruled out in the Barriers framework for Case-theoretical reasons: the position t within S cannot be assigned Case by consider because S' (=CP), although L-marked, is a barrier by inheritance from S, a blocking category. There are other serious problems with Kitagawa's account One of these concerns the question how subjects of Small Clauses receive Case. Schematically the structure of SCs in Kitagawa's view is as in (619): (619) Ischls

NP [INFL BE ] XP ]]

Following Williams (1984), he posits a phonetically null empty copula in INFL which he refers to as BF. Now, notice that the NP-subject of the SC cannot receive

The analysis of Small Clauses

177

Case from a preceding matrix verb because the S' is a barrier to government in the model Kitagawa is assuming. The only option available is for the INFL-node within the SC to assign Case to the SC-subjecL However, this is problematic for two reasons. Firstly, if Kitagawa is right in assuming there to be an empty copula BE in INFL, which is intuitively appealing, then the question immediately arises how this INFL-node assigns Case to the SC-subject. It is reasonable to assume that INFL in (619) is untensed and an INFL-node which is marked [-tense] does not assign Case. Even if we were to find a solution to this there is still a second problem: SCsubjects require objective Case (cf. *I consider he a fool). INFL, however, assigns nominative Case. So, for Kitagawa's account to go through we would have to exceptionally allow an INFL-node which is marked [-tense] to assign accusative Case. This is an unnecessary complication of the theory. On the basis of the above observations I reject Kitagawa's claim that complement Small Clauses are S-bars/CPs.

6.2.3. Hornstein—Lightfoot (1987) Some of the details of Hornstein—Lightfoot's analysis of Small Clauses have already been discussed in chapter three. Their main contention is that Small Clauses are analysed as Ss containing a zero INFL-node, as in (620): (620) [SC(mS) NP INFL0 XP] where X = N, A or Ρ The node INFL0 takes NP, AP or PP complements. When INFL is marked [+tense] or [-tense] its complement is a VP. The article makes a number of further claims regarding the element PRO which need not concern us here. The most important problem I can see in Hornstein-—Lightfoot's proposal is that it necessitates a complication of the theoretical apparatus. We now have two types of INFL-node: "regular" INFL which takes a VP as its complement and INFL0, which takes NP, AP or PP complements. A related problem concerns the fact that under Hornstein—Lightfoot's analysis Small Clauses are regarded as being neither finite nor nonfinite. Such a view does not square very well with linguistic intuitions. A final problem is that if INFL in Small Clauses is indeed empty we have no way of accounting for agreement phenomena holding between subjects and predicates of Small Clauses. That there is agreement between the subjects of SCs and their predicates can easily be demonstrated. Consider the sentence in (621). It is ungrammatical because there is no number agreement between the two NPs inside the SC:

178

The Small Clause node

(621) *77ley considered [sc the man fools] Bob Borsley (p.c.) notes that in order to have agreement between two elements an INFL node need not necessarily be present. He gives the example of agreement between attributive adjectives and nouns in many languages. His observation is correct. However, if we do not use INFL we will have to find some other mechanism which takes care of the agreement requirement in sentences like (621). On general theoretical grounds it is desirable not to have to add extra machinery of any sort to the existing system. Below I will propose a mechanism which handles the agreement phenomenon in sentences like (621) and which requires the presence of an INFL-node.

6.2.4. Kluender (1985) / Chung—McCloskey (1987) On the basis of German and Irish data repectively, Kluender (1985) and Chung—McCloskey (1987) conclude, like Hornstein—Lightfoot, that Small Clauses are of the category S. However, their proposal, unlike that of Hornstein—Lightfoot and unlike the proposal to be presented in section 6.3, does not allow an INFL-node in SCs. Chung—McCloskey's analysis is unattractive for a number of reasons. First of all, there again seems to be no provision to deal with agreement phenomena of the type in (621) above. In the absence of INFL some other as yet unknown mechanism is then needed. Secondly, as Kluender and Chung—McCloskey admit, their Small Clauses are exocentric structures in that they are not properly headed. This means that they do not conform to X'-theory. As a result, we lose the account of cross-categorial generalisations that X'-theory furnishes. It may well be that Chung—McCloskey are right in saying that it is "necessary for the theory of grammar to allow at least some (language particular) phrase structure configurations that conform to no principled cross-categorial pattern" (1987: 235), but it seems that for English at least the crosscategorial symmetries are well-established, and exocentric structures should not be allowed.

6.2.5. Radford (1988a) / (1988b) Radford (1988a/1988b) does not firmly commit himself to a position regarding the status of Small Clauses. He does, however, suggest (1988b: 324 and 518) that they have the structure in (622): (622) [ s c NP XP]

A new analysis of Small Clauses

179

He presents arguments supporting the view that SCs lack a C-system and an Isystem. That is, he believes that Small Clauses do not have a complementiser node or an I-node. That Small Clauses do not contain a COMP-node, and are therefore not of the category CP, seems to be correct If they were it would be impossible for the SC-subject to receive Case as the CP would be a barrier (by inheritance from IP, which is a blocking category). See section 6.2.2 above. Radford's other claim, namely that SCs do not contain an I-node, seems to me to be untenable for the same reason that Hornstein—Lightfoot's positing of an INFL0-node is dubious: if there is no INFL-node, how do we then account for the fact that there is agreement between subjects and predicates of Small Clauses without positing the existence of additional machinery? Consider also the following statement: A fourth difference between Ordinary Clauses [=S-bars] and Small Clauses is that because Ordinary Clauses contain an I constituent carrying Tense and Agreement properties whereas Small Clauses do not, it follows that Small Clauses may not contain Verbs marked for Tense and Agreement, but rather may only contain Verbs which are tenseless and agreementless. (Radford 1988a: 8)119 What Radford intends to say is that SCs "[carry] no specification (positive or negative) of tense/agreement" (p.c.). This position is similar to that of Hornstein—Lightfoot and intuitively odd in that SCs are then neither finite nor nonfinite. A final problem with Radford's account is that his Small Clauses, like those of Kluender and Chung—McCloskey, are exocentric structures which are incompatible with the principles of X'-theory.

6.3. A new analysis of Small Clauses 6.3.1.

Small Clauses as IPs

With regard to the syntactic status of Small Clauses and their internal structure we can summarise the preceding sections as in table 8 below. My own proposal, to be discussed presently, has been included.

180

The Small Clause node

Table 8. The syntactic status of Small Clauses and their internal structure Status

COMP-node

INFL-node

Stowell (1981)

XP

No

No

Chomsky (1981)

X*

No

No

Manzini (1983, 1989)/ Chomsky (1986b)

XP 120

No

No

Kitagawa (1985)

S'

Yes

Yes (regular)

Hornstein—Lightfoot (1987)

s

No

Yes

(INFLo) Kluender (1985)/ Chung—McCloskey (1987)

s

No

No

Radford (1988a/1988b)

—

No

No

Aarts (1992)

IP

No

Yes (regular)

I will now turn to my own proposal regarding the analysis of Small Clauses. So far I have argued that Small Clauses must be sentential constituents not phrasal expansions of lexical categories. Two possibilities now present themselves: either SCs are CPs (as in Kitagawa (1985), see section 6.2.2), or they are IPs. I have already argued against the CP-analysis by observing that if SCs were CPs there would be no way for the SC-subject to receive Case. I therefore take Small Clauses to be IPs. What remains to be done now is to discuss the internal structure of Small Clauses. Again, two possibilities present themselves: either Small Clause IPs have an unmarked structure or they have a marked structure. Of these possibilities I propose to adopt the former as it is the null hypothesis. I will thus take SCs to have an I-node as well as a VP-node. The I-node is necessarily marked [-tense] as there is no sense in assuming a clause without a lexically realised verb to be tensed. Also, if "I" were marked [+tense] it would assign nominative Case to the subject position. We saw above that this generates ungrammatical sentences as SC-subjects

A new analysis of Small Clauses

181

take objective Case which is assigned by a preceding matrix verb. I furthermore propose that "I" mediates between subjects and predicates of Small Clauses in bringing about the agreement relation that holds between these phrases. I will return to this below. In the present analysis I will follow Kitagawa's suggestion that SCs contain an empty copular verb BE. My treatment differs from his, however, with regard to the location of this verb. In Kitagawa's account BE is located in INFL. I will take this verb to be a phonetically null lexical verb which functions as the head of VP and takes NP, AP or PP complements. It is licensed by the semantics of Small Clause structures of the type under discussion, which always receive a copular interpretation. In sum, I propose to analyse Small Clauses as in (623):

where X= N, A or Ρ Let us now return to the I-node and to the question how we can account for the agreement relation that holds between subjects and predicates of Small Clauses, as in (624): (624) a. I consider [this teacher a megalomaniac] b. I consider [these teachers megalomaniacs] A possible way of accounting for this phenomenon is as follows: in the structure in (623) we assume that the Specifier and Head share features (this has been called Spec-Head Agreement, see Chomsky 1986b: 24). That is, the subject of the Small Clause agrees with its head "I" in number and other features. These features are then lowered onto BE, and transmitted onto the predicate XP under government. The advantage of this proposal is that it is simple and uses already existing structure to bring about the requisite agreement relation. With regard to the question whether or not BE raises to "I" (see Pollock 1989; Chomsky 1991 and below), the most natural assumption is that it does not The movement would be vacuous and in any case, "I" is untensed. Instead, as we have seen, the features of "I" are lowered into VP. Apart from its mediating role in bringing about agreement between subjects and predicates of Small Clauses there is another, rather technical, reason for assuming the presence of "I" in SCs. Consider (625) below:

182

The Small Clause node

(625) [Of which frescos disaster]]]

do you consider

[IP(=SQINP

restoration tj[vp BE [NP a

In this sentence the subject NP the restoration of the lower clause, which is positioned in Spec-of-IP, is not L-marked by consider and hence a blocking category and a barrier. The IP which immediately dominates it is then also a barrier (by inheritance, see section 2.3.4). It is thus predicted that (625), in which the PP of which frescos has moved out of its containing NP, is ungrammatical. This prediction is wrong because (625) is fine. Chomsky (1986b: 25) discusses this problem with regard to [V NP to VP/-constructions (i.e. Exceptional Case Marking constructions). He assumes that a verb like believe L-marks its complement IP, its head (="1" containing to) and (under Spec-Head agreement) its subject. If the subject of IP is L-marked in this way it cannot be a blocking category, and IP will then not inherit barrierhood from it. Chomsky observes that [t]he argument will extend to [SC-constructions] on either of two assumptions: that there is indeed an I in small clause constructions...or that an "agreement" relation of the relevant sort holds between the subject and head of the small clause, so that L-marking is extended to this case in the manner just described. (Chomsky 1986b: 25) The advantage of the present analysis of SCs is that the mechanism that voids the barrierhood of IP in fte/ieve-constructions with regard to extraction from the subject position also voids the barrierhood of Small Clause IPs when such extraction takes place because SCs are analysed here as containing an "I"-node. Thus, if we take SCs to be IPs there is no need to make any stipulations about the existence of "an agreement relation of the relevant sort" between subjects and heads of Small Clauses. A further motivation for taking Small Clauses to be IPs containing an INFL-node is that such an analysis allows us to account in a straightforward way for SCs containing the element as (e.g. in I regard them as wicked, see section 4.4). We have seen that there are reasons for regarding as not as a preposition, but rather as an inflectional word positioned in INFL. SCs containing as are a problem for the other frameworks we discussed because they have no obvious way of accommodating this element. My final reason for analysing Small Clauses as containing an "Γ-node, alluded to in previous sections, runs as follows: if, as I have argued, Small Clauses are sentential constituents, not phrasal expansions of some lexical head, then SCs must be either finite or nonfinite. In other words, they cannot not be marked for the feature [±tense] and hence they cannot not have an I-node. To put it another way, if SCs did not have an I-node we would end up with clauses which are neither finite nor nonfinite. That would be rather like having human beings who are neither male nor female.

A new analysis of Small Clauses

183

We need to tie up some loose ends regarding the assignment of Case to the subjects of independent Small Clauses and to the subjects of SCs that themselves function as subjects. Let us consider both these cases in turn. Consider first some examples of independent SCs taken from previous chapters: (626) The room was extremely noisy: children shouting [the tv on], [the record player on}, and little Jimmy kicking the cat. (627) [Doors open 20.30] (628) [PRO closed] A problem with the bracketed SC-structures is how their subjects receive Case. As there is no verbal or prepositional Case assigner there is no straightforward way in which Case can be assigned. I can see two possible ways of approaching this problem. One of these was hinted at in chapter four. We could posit the existence of a covert prepositional complementiser which is instrumental in assigning Case to the subject of the independent SC as follows: [ lCa] lsc NP XP ]] Case

Such an account is problematic, however, in view of cases like (628) where the SC has a PRO subject which would be governed by the abstract prepositional complementiser. A more viable approach would be to say that subjects of independent SCs receive what has been referred to as default Case (see e.g. Chung—McCloskey 1987: 188, footnote 11) which, for English at least, is objective. Let us now turn to Small Clauses which function as subjects. Consider sentence (629) below with the structure in (630): (629) The Yorkshire Ripper free poses a greater threat than the Yorkshire Ripper behind bars.

184

The Small Clause node

(630)

The Yorkshire Ripper

poses a greater threat than the Yorkshire Ripper behind bars

As noted in chapter four, subjects of Small Clauses which are themselves subjects always carry objective rather than nominative Case (cf. Him free poses a greater threat than him behind bars). The question is: how do these NPs acquire this objective Case-marking? Notice that the closest governor and Case assigner for the NP the Yorkshire Ripper in the structure in (630) is the higher I-node (the lower "I" is marked [-tense] and cannot therefore assign Case). This node governs the subject of the SC. That this is so is confirmed by the following facts (taken from Contreras 1987: 233): (631) (632) (633) (634)

*[PRO bashful] would be a shame. [Mary sad] would be hard to deal with. [PRO to be bashful] would be a shame. *[Mary to be bashful] would be a shame.

These data can be accounted for straightforwardly if we take Small Clauses to be IPs, as suggested, whose subjects are governed by the matrix clause "I", and clauses containing the infinitival marker to to be CPs. The ungrammatically of (631) and (634) then follows from the fact that in (631) PRO is governed violating the PROtheorem, and in (634) Mary is not governed (CP being a barrier), and hence not assigned Case, thus violating the Case Filter.122 The problem now is that "I" normally assigns nominative Case. I propose to resolve this complication along the following lines: let us make a terminological distinction between two types of government: direct government and indirect government. The first type operates within one maximal projection, i.e. with no maximal projections intervening between the governor and the govemee, as in (635):

A new analysis of Small Clauses

( 6 3 5 ) a.

VP

b. NP

PP

IP

C.

NP

185

NP I

VP

Indirect government, by contrast, is what we get in all other cases, for example in Exceptional Case Marking constructions where the subject of IP (in Spec-of-IP) is governed in the following way: (636)

indirect government

Here V governs IP, but also its Specifier and head (see chapter two). If we now assume that under indirect government only objective Case can be assigned we have an explanation for the fact that subjects of Small Clauses which themselves function as subjects always take objective Case. The higher I-node in (630) then assigns objective Case to the SC-subject the Yorkshire Ripper. The lower I-node, because it is marked [-tense], does not assign Case, as we have seen.123 This proposal has the additional benefit that it allows us to account straightforwardly for the fact that subjects of gerund subject clauses also carry objective Case: (637) /Her eating all the pies] was a disgusting sight. Andrew Radford suggests (p.c.) that in some cases subjects of Small Clauses in subject position are nominative: (638) [He in the front seat] and [she in the back seat] would be safer. The fact that there is nominative rather than objective Case-marking on the SCsubjects here may have something to do with the fact that we have coordinated SCs in (638), as shown below: (639)

SC (=IP) SC

and

SC

186

The Small Clause node

In this structure the higher SC is a barrier (by inheritance) to government, and hence to Case assignment Case appears to be acquired in a random way in coordinate structures, witness also the facts in (640)—(645) (see also Parker—Riley—Meyer 1988): (640) (641) (642) (643) (644) (645)

[Tom and I] left. [Tom and me] left. [I and he] left. [He and I] left. [Me and her] left. [Her and me] left.

Some of these sentences are no doubt substandard. This is not, however, relevant to the point made which is that Case in coordinate structures seems to be acquired randomly. To conclude this section I would like to claim that my proposal regarding the syntactic status and internal structure of Small Clauses is maximally simple. It does not require any additional complicated machinery in the theory, nor does it require the existence of marked options. Furthermore, it avoids all the problems we encountered with the earlier proposals.

6.3.2. Small Clause IPs and Pollock's split INFL hypothesis In this section I would like to discuss the implications of two papers, Pollock (1989) and Chomsky (1991), for the treatment of Small Clauses presented above. In these studies, dealing mostly with English and French, it is suggested that the structure of the I-node is more complex than was previously assumed in GBtheory. Pollock (1989:379) proposes the following structure for CPs (irrelevant details are omitted): (646)

CP

C

TP

NP

TP'

Τ

NegP Neg

AgrP Agr

VP (Adv)

V

A new analysis of Small Clauses

187

In this proposal IP is re-interpreted as TP (Tense Phrase). The head of this phrase, "T", is complemented by a NegP (Negative Phrase), the head of which, "Neg", is in its turn complemented by AgrP (Agreement Phrase). Chomsky largely follows Pollock but proposes a modification of the structure in (646), roughly that in the phrase marker below (1991: 16):124

The differences between (646) and (647) are the following: in Pollock's proposal subjects of clauses are positioned in Spec-of-TP, for Chomsky they are positioned in Spec-of-IP. Furthermore, in Chomsky's framework there are two Agreement positions: AGR-S which regulates subject-verb concord (this node corresponds to "I" in the Barriers framework), and AGR-0 which takes care of agreement between verbs and their objects. The latter type of agreement is illustrated in the following sentence: (648) Combien de tables Paul a repeintes.

(from Chomsky 1991: 16)

Chomsky assumes that the participle repeintes moves to AGR-0 and that the Whphrase combien de tables, before moving to Spec-of-CP, adjoins to the AGR-O Phrase. Here it will be in a government relation with the participle, thus establishing agreement between itself and this verb. It is not immediately obvious how my proposal that SCs are IPs fits into either of the two frameworks discussed here. The Structure of IP is very much an area of ongoing research (cf. Iatridou 1990; Baker 1991; Chomsky 1992; Chomsky—Lasnik forthcoming), so what I will have to say below will be speculative. We might assume, as an anonymous reader suggests, that Small Clause IPs

188

The Small Clause node

correspond to Pollock's AgrP (Chomsky's AGR-O Phrase). This seems unlikely for two reasons. Firstly, SCs would lack an S-Structure subject position. Spec-of-VP is a possible subject slot in (646), but only at D-Structure. Furthermore, I have argued that Small Clauses are untensed and should therefore have a position where the [-tense] feature can be located. In Pollock's analysis that position would be "T". We are thus led to the possibility that SCs are TPs. However, Pollock assumes TPs, but not AgrPs, to be inherent barriers (Pollock 1989: 397). This poses no problems for material that is extracted out of L-marked SCs, as in cons/der-constructions, but it does pose problems for elements extracted out of adjunct SCs (which are not Lmarked), as in αρ/joini-constructions. Such elements would be crossing more than one barrier when movement takes place to Spec-of-CP (namely the SC (=TP) itself and the matrix TP). We can overcome this complication by assuming that the inherent barrierhood of TP is voided in some way or other. One possible way of achieving this is allowing for adjunction to TP in such a way that when material is extracted it never crosses more than one segment of this category (cf. the discussion of adjunction to VP in section 2.3.4). Pollock (1989: 406, footnote 38), citing Frampton (1987), in fact mentions this possibility. Alternatively, we can follow Chomsky's suggestion that IPs are structured as in (647). We can then extract subjects from complement SCs freely. However, under Chomsky's proposal subjects and predicates moved from adjunct SCs and predicates moved from complement SCs (cf. chapter five) cross a barrier, namely TP. In the Barriers model movement across one barrier is permitted, though this normally results in decreased acceptability. As subject and predicate extraction from adjunct SCs and predicate extraction from complement SCs doesn't result in decreased acceptability (cf. Who, did you appoint [t, Senior Producer?]/How bright yellow, did you paint [the wall tj? How generous, do you consider [him tj?) we are again led to the possibility that adjunction to TP is a plausible option. Summing up, under the split INFL hypothesis Small Clauses are either TPs, as in (646), or IPs, as in (647).

6.3.3.

A note on verbal Small Clauses

Although verbal Small Clauses are outside the scope of this book, I cannot here totally ignore them, as the proposals I have made in this chapter have consequences for their analysis. What I will have to say about them is speculative. There are three types of construction that are of interest, namely those in (649)—(651): (649) We saw her laughing out loud. (650) We made her laugh. (651) We had the bike repaired.125

A new analysis of Small Clauses

189

In (649) the matrix verb is followed by an NP and a verb with an -ing ending, in (650) by an NP and a bare infinitive, and in (651) by an NP and an -ed form. Researchers have pointed out problems for a Small Clause analysis of these sentences. It could be that none of them in fact involve SCs. Reuland (1983) discusses [V NP -ing] constructions and concludes that their [NP -ing] substrings are tensed S'-constituents. Williams has discussed sentences of the type in (650), and rejects an SC-analysis of them (see section 2.3.3). One of the reasons why the construction is problematic is that its passive counterpart contains the element to (cf. She was made to laugh). Hornstein—Lightfoot (1987: 51) remark that "[o]f course, this is an old problem to which there has been no satisfactory solution". For the sake of argument let us assume that an analysis in which (649)—(651) contain Small Clauses is correct. One good reason for taking such a position is that the postverbal NPs in each of these sentences are not direct objects. That is, they are not assigned θ-roles by the matrix verbs. This can easily be demonstrated by citing sentences like (652): (652) We saw it snowing. where the verb see is followed by a nonreferential element. If these observations are correct, the analysis of (649)—(651) is as in (653)—(655): (653) We saw [sc her laughing out loud] (654) We made [sc her laugh] (655) We had [sc the bike repaired] It would seem, though, that verbal Small Clauses should receive a different treatment from nonverbal SCs as far as their internal structure is concerned. The reason is that the two types of SC differ in at least one important respect: in nonverbal Small Clauses there is a copular relationship between the subject and the predicate. For this reason I posited a phonetically null copular verb BE in SCs (cf. (623) above). There is no such relationship in verbal Small Clauses. This being so, the picture that emerges is one in which we have two classes of Small Clauses: a class of copular SCs (i.e. nominal, adjectival and prepositional SCs) and a class of verbal SCs (i.e. those in (653)—(655)).

6.4. Conclusion In this chapter I have critically examined the proposals that have been made in the literature regarding the categorial status and internal structure of Small Clauses. I have shown that each of these proposals is problematic in one way or another. These problems can be overcome if we analyse SCs as IPs.

Chapter 7 Conclusion

In this book I have examined the properties of nonverbal Small Clauses in English making use of the Government-Binding framework of Chomsky (1981, 1986b) and related work. I have made and defended a number of claims. The most fundamental of these is that Small Clauses exist as syntactic constructs. Various researchers have already put forward some of the evidence for this contention, but here for the first time this evidence is brought together. I have furthermore presented some new evidence bearing on this issue. Another claim I have made is that Small Clauses can appear in two syntactically different environments: in complement positions and in non-complement positions. Complement SCs are assigned a θ-role by a verb from a group of verbs which I have called the consider-cla&s or by a preposition in so-called absolute constructions. Non-complement Small Clauses are not assigned a θ-role by a subcategorising element. They can appear in four positions. The first of these is a position which is Chomsky-adjoined to VP, the head of which is a member of a group of verbs which I have called the appoint-class. The second position is at sentence boundaries; that is, preceding or following the matrix clause (e.g. Naked, Jill ate the meat/Jill ate the meat, naked). Small Clauses of this type have a PRO subject and function as sentence adjuncts. They can also appear in a position adjoined to VP, but they then have a slightly different interpretation. A third possible position for non-complement SCs is the subject position, as in [The Yorkshire Ripper free] poses a threat to society. Here the subject-SC is assigned a θ-role by the matrix clause predicate. This particular sentence refutes the claim repeatedly made in the literature that Small Clauses may only appear in subject position in copular and Raising environments. Finally, again contrary to claims made by some researchers, Small Clauses may occur independently, as in the following sentences: The room was extremely noisy: children shouting, [the tv on], [the record player on], and little Jimmy kicking the cat! [Hands up!]/ [PRO closed], I have referred to constructions containing verbs from the consider-class as instances of dependent predication and to constructions containing verbs from the appoint-class as instances of controlled predication. In chapter four I discussed a number of special constructions which involve, or at least at first sight appear to involve, Small Clauses. The first of these constructions concerns a group of verbs which have traditionally been called phrasal verbs. I argue that these do not exist. Instead we should recognise the existence of two classes of verb-preposition construction: a class that involves a group of verbs that subcategorises a prepositional Small Clause (e.g. switch in I switched [sc the light on], where the element on is analysed as an intransitive PP), and a class that involves a group of verbs that does not subcategorise an SC, but instead

192

Conclusion

subcategorises an NP and an intransitive PP (e.g. look NP [PP up] in / looked the information up). The second special construction concerns the group of so-called verbs of negative causation, prevent being a prototypical member of this class. /Yeveni-constructions (e.g. I prevented language theory from influencing the students) appear to conform to the pattern [V NP PP] the NP and PP of which taken together could be said to constitute a Small Clause. They are, however, analysed quite differently here: it is argued that verbs like prevent are Exceptional Case Marking verbs, that is, verbs that subcategorise an IP complement whose subject they Case-mark. The element from is regarded as an inflectional element, which, like the inflectional marker to, is positioned in INFL. Constructions that contain the verb discourage (or other verbs like it), which also involve the element from, are taken to be control structures, that is, the matrix verb subcategorises an NP direct object and a clause with a PRO subject Dwcowrage-constructions have been referred to as instances of controlled dependent predication. The next group of special constructions that were discussed in chapter four involve the element as. Although a preposition in appearance, this element, like from, is regarded as being inflectional. Verbs that typically occur in constructions with as are regard and describe. The first of these verbs subcategorises a Small Clause complement headed by as. Describe subcategorises an NP direct object and a clausal complement. In this respect it is like persuade and discourage in that like these verbs it occurs in controlled dependent predication constructions. A number of further constructions with as are also dealt with. In constructions involving the string (mis)take...for, as in the sentence They (mis)took me for a mathematician, the element for could also be regarded as being inflectional, but this is by no means as clear as in the cases of from and as mentioned above. For constructions containing accuse- type verbs (e.g. I accused John of murdering the cat) two possible analyses are presented. In one of these of is a preposition; in the other it is a complementiser. The first analysis is adopted. Throughout this book movements of strings to the right and to the left out of Small Clauses have been discussed. I have argued that all the derivations resulting after rightward movement are subject to condition (259) of section 4.2 which states that A maximal projection A may appear in an adjoined position after rightward movement across a maximal projection Β only if A is more heavily weighted than B. This condition turns out to have great explanatory force, not only in chapter four in the analysis of verb-preposition constructions, where it is first proposed, but also in chapter five, where there is a more detailed discussion of extractions from Small Clauses.

Conclusion

193

The most important extraction processes are Extraposition and Detachment. In chapter five I give accounts of Extraposition to the right of heavy, light and regular subject NPs and of clauses which function as subjects in SCs. I show that these clauses are adjoined to VP after they are extraposed out of their containing SCs. Such Extraposition is always obligatory except for -ing subject clauses. Insertion of the dummy pronoun it is not always necessary, -ing clauses again being an exception: when these are extraposed it must be inserted. I have attempted to give an explanation for the complex array of structural possibilities and impossibilities resulting after extraction. With regard to Detachment, I have argued that Baltin's treatment, though largely correct, requires some adjustment. In chapter six a contribution is made to the ongoing debate on the exact categorial status and internal structure of Small Clauses. I give an overview of earlier work on this topic and argue that SCs are not phrasal expansions of lexical categories, as in Stowell's dominant framework, nor CPs or defective Ss, but simple IPconstituents. Small Clauses differ from ordinary clauses in that the former contain an abstract copular verb BE which heads VP. As for verbal Small Clauses, their internal structure seems to be different from the structure of nonverbal SCs: in the latter a copular relationship holds between the subject and the predicate, whereas there is no such relationship between subjects and predicates in verbal SCs. In attempting to explicate the structural properties of constructions involving Small Clauses I have had recourse to pragmatic principles on quite a few occasions. This strategy has allowed me to deal with a number of obstinate syntactic problems in a straightforward way without there being a need for complex and intuitively implausible syntactic descriptions. As an example, consider again the following set of sentences from chapter four: (656) (657) (658) (659) (660)

The car was prevented, from stalling. Language theory was prevented from influencing the students. ?The cake was prevented from being eaten. *It was prevented from raining. *There was prevented from being a riot.

I have argued that the acceptability of these sentences decreases and that this is due to increasing processing difficulties. Thus, (656) which involves NP-Movement from a subordinate clause containing an intransitive verb poses no particular problems. (657) and (658), by contrast, are slightly more difficult to interpret because NP-Movement takes place from a subordinate clause containing a transitive verb and from a clause containing a passive verb respectively. The unacceptability of (659) and (660) can be explained by conjecturing that it and there, semantically empty elements, are initially interpreted wrongly by hearers; the pronoun as referential it, and there as an element which introduces an existential main clause. All these sentences are syntactically well-formed but pragmatically deviant to some extent. Sentence (660) especially has puzzled quite a few linguists who have tried

194

Conclusion

to account for the passivisation restriction in grammatical terms. In the present framework the judgements in (656)—(660) are explained in a straightforward fashion by appealing to pragmatic factors, without having recourse to complex structural conditions. Allowing pragmatic considerations to play a role in explaining linguistic structure tidies up and unburdens the syntax and should not be seen as an escapist strategy. I hope to have shown that Small Clauses have an important role to play in the syntactic description of English. Their existence should have consequences for other areas of linguistics too (on this see Aarts, forthcoming). Small Clauses will probably remain controversial for some time to come, but they are undoubtedly here to stay.

Appendix

Unless otherwise indicated the phrase the corpus in this book refers to the following set of texts (each containing 5,000 words), all from the Survey of English Usage at University College London. The S-texts (20 in number) are spoken. The W-texts (also 20 in number) are written. The total number of words is 200,000.

S-texts

W-texts

S.l.l S.1.2 S.1.4 S.1.5 S.1.7

surreptitiously recorded conversations between intimates

W.7.2 W.7.3 W.7.4 W.7.31 W.7.32

S.2.2 S.2.3 S.3.3 S.3.4

surreptitiously recorded conversations between equals

W.7.6 W.7.7 W.7.8 W.7.11 W.17.1

S.4.2

non-surreptitiously recorded conversation between intimates

S.5.1 S.5.6 S.5.7 S.5.8 S.5.9

non-surreptitiously recorded conversations between equals

S.10.5 S.10.6 spontaneous commentary S.10.8 5.11.2 spontaneous oration 5.11.3

social/intimate letters

business letters

W.11.3 W.12.1 non-fiction: W.12.2 press and W.12.3 general W.12.4 W.16.2 W.16.3 W.16.6 prose fiction W.16.7 W.16.8

Notes

1. 2. 3.

4. 5.

6. 7. 8.

9. 10.

11.

We can disregard a third irrelevant meaning here: 'who do you want to be successful'. The indices denote coreferentiality and t is the trace left behind by the Whelement. The first requirement is in keeping with GB-theory. The second was, and perhaps still is, controversial in view of the autonomous syntax thesis. In current GB-theory the Projection Principle (which will be discussed in chapter two) guarantees that the second requirement is satisfied. On the syntax-semantics interface see also Chierchia—McConnell-Ginet (1990: 7). A description of the corpus is given in the Appendix. The use of corpora in linguistic research is not uncontroversial. For those who are not familiar with corpus-based studies it is easy to undervalue or misunderstand the use of these databases. The approach is undervalued if it is thought that the sole use of corpora is to furnish examples of certain linguistic phenomena. Corpora do serve this purpose, but it is not their only use. The approach is misunderstood if it is thought that corpus linguists equate their corpus to a particular language. In fact, no linguist working in this paradigm would claim anything other than that their corpus is a welldifferentiated sample of some language. Another possible misunderstanding is to think that corpora are regarded by corpus linguists as constituting raw data on which discovery procedures are performed, in the way American structuralists did. Such thinking is misguided. At least two other names for the rule have been used in the past: ItReplacement (Ross) and Expletive Replacement (Langendoen). Generative Linguists of the Old World. Nobody really seems to know what S-Structure is short for. Chomsky (1977: 6) talks about shallow structures, and takes these to denote "a class of near surface structures". The abbreviation is also taken to mean simply syntactic structure. This feature is only relevant when the tense feature is "+". Χ" (X double bar) is an alternative notation both for χ and for XP. Henceforth I will use the XP notation for phrasal categories. For the single bar level the prime notation will be used, i.e. X' rather than χ. The phrase "subject to some version of X'-theory" has attracted much criticism in the literature, because it is felt that the principles of X'-theory ought to be defined rigidly. See Gazdar et al. (1985: ix) and Pullum (1985), who remarks that Like the Bermuda Triangle, X-bar Theory has been claimed to exist in a number of widely-read works, and credited with explanatory power,

198

Notes

without ever being delineated with much precision, and thus is generally not referred to at all in woiics dealing with a more technical orientation. (Pullum 1985: 323)

12. 13. 14.

However, in recent years most linguists have started making use of the standard version of X'-theory which is discussed here. On pleonastic it see also Bennis (1986) who has claimed that it is referential. The definition of governing category is in fact somewhat more complex, but for present purposes the definition in the text will do. In the work of R.S. Kayne double object constructions and particle constructions are also analysed as SCs: (i) I gave [sc Mel a book] (ii) I looked [sc the information up]

15.

16. 17. 18. 19.

See Kayne (1984a, 1984b). The second of these two constructions will be discussed in detail in section 4.2. In fact, he has PrtP (Participle Phrase) instead of VP; the lower bracketed string is not labelled. For further discussion of the verbal Small Clause constructions in (52)—(54), see section 6.3.3. For a definition of c-command see section 2.3.1. Williams gives no clear examples of S' as predicate. Emonds (1985: 36) has a similar analysis, without the coindexing. Here again, Williams does not define the exact meaning of a new term he introduces. All the reader is offered is the following: The use of the notion theme is not critical here. In the worst possible case, it will be necessary to specify which NP a VP-dominated predicate modifies. In this worst case, theme is being used as a purely diacritic rule feature. In a large number of cases, though, theme seems to give the correct answer, at least to the extent that the notion theme is clear in the first place. (Williams 1980: 207)

20. 21.

PXPs are predicative phrases of the type XP. For example, in Pete considers Jim foolish the PXP is an AP. Cf. Williams (1983: 290): I would like to propose the theory neutral term thematic independence to designate the situation in which two predicates each assign a theta role [thematic role] to the same NP — where they do, we will say that they are thematically independent. For example, in [John wants [PRO to be deadJ] both want and dead [in (73): want and leave] assign a theta role to John, hence the two predicates are thematically independent.

Notes

22. 23. 24.

25. 26.

199

If there is movement across two barriers the resulting sentence is much less acceptable than in those cases where only one barrier is crossed. In following chapters the level of V' will only be shown if it is relevant to the discussion. Various researchers have proposed that the D-Structure position of subjects is Spec-of-VP. From there they move to Spec-of-IP at S-Structure. See e.g. Contreras (1987), Kitagawa (1986), Sportiche (1988) and especially Koopman—Sportiche (1990). For our purposes the D-Structure position of the subject is of no importance and I will assume that subjects are generated in Spec-of-IP. The Times, 24 November 1987. We do of course find sentences like (i) where it appears to occur in direct object position: (i) If it wasn 7 for Tom's testimony, I wouldn 't have believed it that Jay hit Harry.

27. 28. 29. 30.

31. 32.

The it we have here is also a dummy element However, we can account for (i) as follows: first a θ-role is assigned to the direct object r/wr-clause before it is extraposed. Then, after extraposition, the dummy pronoun it is inserted. See also chapter 5 of the present work. For example, the Russian for Ivan is a student is Ivan student, see e.g. Kayne (1984a: 135). In fact (97) is ambiguous: open could be taken to be a verb as well as an adjective. The Independent, 29 September 1988. In this book all sentences with a classification number preceded by "W" (written text) or "S" (spoken text) are taken from the Survey of English Usage. A list and short description of the texts that were used is given in the Appendix. The Independent, 7 January 1989. Incidentally, it would seem that the string daughter of a well-to-do and rigidly conventional family in (108) is perhaps also best regarded as a Small Clause. It would be another example of an SC which does not occur in complement position and would be analysed as in (i): (i) Isc PRO daughter of a well-to-do and rigidly conventional family]

33. 34.

The empty pronominal subject refers to the subject she of the matrix clause. Both (112) and (113) are taken from The Independent of 23 February 1989. Mee is the postposition form of met.

200

Notes

35.

It should be noted that Kayne rejects an SC analysis for the bracketed string (on the basis of sentences like *She was distressed at the thought of there likely to be another war). He assigns it the structure [NP NP X]. See also Hornstein—Lightfoot (1987: 32, footnote 8) and Napoli (1989: 152). In these studies Safir's claim regarding the distribution of HNPs is repeated. Tim Stowell claims that SCs in subject position can only occur if the matrix verb is identificational be (1988: 12). The Independent 11 June 1988. It has been suggested to me by Andrew Radford that the data in (120) are not significant in view of sentences such as those quoted in (i) and (ii) below:

36.

37. 38.

(i) Persistent abuses of civil rights was one of the main reasons why the system was reformed. (ii) Twelve roses is more romantic than seven. However, notice that we could argue that the strings persistent abuses and twelve roses are predicates too, just like angry about the pay in (120). This observation is supported by the fact that we can paraphrase (i) and (ii) as in (iii) and (iv), albeit somewhat clumsily: (iii) There being persistent abuses of civil rights was one of the main reasons why the system was reformed. (iv) There being twelve roses is more romatic than there being seven. 39. 40.

See also Suzuki (1988: 61) who has independently made a similar observation. There are cases where elements such as perhaps and probably could be said to be part of NPs. Consider the bracketed strings in (i) and (ii) which can be argued to be NPs complementing a preposition in (i) and a verb in (ii): (i) Wimbledon has developed into [perhaps the most prestigious tennis tournament in the world]. (ii) We serve [probably the best coffee in town]. Witness the paraphrases in (129) and (131) in the text, however, perhaps and probably in (127) and (128) do not occur in NPs. With regard to (i) and (ii), notice that there arc reasons to believe that the complements of into and serve are in fact reduced nominal relative clauses (cf. Wimbledon has developed into [what perhaps is the most prestigious tennis tournament in the world]/We serve [what perhaps is the best coffee in town]). If this is so, we then have an explanation as to why perhaps and probably can appear in (i) and (ii) inside what seem to be ordinary NPs, but are really clauses. For further discussion see section 6.2.1.

Notes

41. 42.

43. 44.

45.

201

See also Postal (1974: 196). However, see Kayne (1984a; 133ff) where strings like that girl alone are analysed as Small Clauses with the NP that girl acting as the subject. Kayne's binary branching hypothesis, which allows no more than two branches to originate in any one node, forces him to adopt an analyses of this sort. Analysing that girl alone as an SC seems highly counterintuitive. For that reason I will not adopt Kayne's hypothesis in this book. On binding, see also Contreras (1987: 228). It is not entirely clear what the exact structure of the VP is in (144b), i.e. whether or not the SC is adjoined to V' or merely its sister. It should be noted that Hornstein—Lightfoot allow government of PRO in their framework. Depictive SCs can also appear in constructions involving intransitive verbs, as in (i) below: (i) She died unhappy. Resultative SCs, because of their nature, can only appear in transitive constructions. We do have (ii) The door slammed shut. (iii) The river froze solid.

46. 47.

(Levin—Rappaport 1989: 9)

but these are in fact unaccusative structures. See also Chomsky (1986b: 82). As noted above, the combination of an object-related (depictive or resultative) predicate with a subject-related depictive predicate, as in (i) and (ii) below, is also ruled out: (i) *He ate the meat raw happy. =object-related depictive + subject-related depictive (ii) *He painted the house red happy. =object-related resultative + subject-related depictive

48. 49.

50. 51. 52.

Where drunk is construed with the Director. Because they occur so very frequently Raising constructions and copular constructions (see section 5.5.1) and SCs occurring outside VP were not counted. Andersson (1985: 246) notes that appoint-type verbs taking the construction with to be are very infrequent Although presumably to and be could be deleted at different stages. This section is a revised and expanded version of Aarts (1989).

202

Notes

53.

The two most important reasons why the the strings in (215) and (216) are regarded by Kayne as being syntactically identical in structure are the following: the first is that their nominalised counteiparts in both cases are ungrammatical, cf. (i) and (ii): (i) *the switching of the light o f f . (ii) *the looking of the information up.

54. 55.

56. 57. 58. 59.

60.

61. 62.

63.

This would be as expected in Kayne's framework, because, as he has observed, SCs in general cannot be nominalised (cf. *my consideration of the mayor efficient). The second reason is that particle constructions exhibit socalled left-branch effects (see chapter three). In the next section I will present persuasive evidence which shows that the structures of the sentences in (215) and (216) are different. All of this evidence is problematic for Kayne's analysis. As this is not a maximal projection Kayne's analysis violates Chomsky's (1986b: 6) Adjunction Condition (see below). See Beukema—Hoekstra (1983, 1984) for an SC-analysis of ννιίΛ-ΝΡ-ΡΡ constructions such as With George Bush in the White House America is doomed. See also chapter three. I thank Bob Borsley for suggesting this example to me. Survey of English Usage S. 10.1.76—30. The # indicates a tone unit boundary. Anja Boing drew my attention to this type of imperative SC. There are exceptions to the assumption above about coordination. Thus we can have I gave Vincent a book and Caroline a newspaper, where we would not want to say that Vincent a book and Caroline a newspaper are constituents. However, this problem is not peculiar to the present analysis. See Larson (1988) and Hudson (1988) for discussion and possible solutions. It could be objected that these sentences are unacceptable becauses they involve zeugma. While this is arguably the case for (244), it is not true for (245) where the meaning of the matrix verb remains constant. However, see chapter six where a proposal regarding the categorial status of Small Clauses and their internal structure will be made. Kayne's (1984b) analysis also makes use of rightward movement of the NP. One difference with the present framework, as noted above, is that the moved NP adjoins to V' (cf. Kayne (1984b: 125)). A second difference is that for Kayne Α-verbs and B-verbs are syntactically indistinguishable. Radford notes (p.c.) that his (1988: 4480 account of Extraposition predicts that adjunction to Small Clauses takes place in cases like (i): (i) I want [several copies available] of the chairman's report.

Notes

64.

65.

203

However, it is difficult, if not impossible, to show (by using constituency tests) that the extraposed PP is adjoined to the SC, rather than to the VP, the reason being that the PP remains inside VP if it is adjoined to the Small Clause. See also chapter five. In this type of construction and in general. Thus, for example, in the Binding Theory they are subject to a special condition to which regular nouns are not subject. Cf. also (i) and (ii): (i) */ cut right off the tree the branch. (ii) I cut right off the tree all the branches that were keeping out the light.

66. 67. 68.

69.

70. 71. 72.

73.

74.

75. 76.

The (im)possibility of these sentences can be explained in a similar fashion. Heavy-NP-Shift will be discussed further in chapter five. Pronounced without an intonational break. With regard to the question how those files in (289) and a note in (290) acquire Case we might extend the adjacency condition on Case marking along the lines suggested in Chomsky (1981: 94) in such a way that the matrix verb assigns a secondary Case to the traces of these NPs in (295) and (296) which is subsequently transmitted to the displaced constituents. If the Case Filter is formulated in terms of Visibility the predicate of the SC, a fool, need not be assigned Case as it is not an argument. See Chomsky (1986a: 95). The analysis proposed here supersedes that of Aarts (1990b). I am indebted to Valerie Adams for pointing this out to me. Some of these arguments extend to the sequence the sailor drowning the cat in (304), but I will here assume that strings containing -ing forms following verbs of negative causation are nominal only if they involve a genitival NP subject. It is because the sequence the sailor drowning the cat has a prepositional SVO structure that I am denying it the status of NP (see below). The most well-known example of the garden path phenomenon (first discussed in Bever 1970) is the sentence the horse raced past the barn fell. When processing it hearers initially wrongly take the verb race to be the matrix verb. Visser was not always accurate. Where possible I have checked the original sources. This has resulted in a few minor changes in the quotations given here and elsewhere in this section. In places I have also given more accurate references for Visser's sources. Rötung was originally nominal. Dick Hudson has pointed out to me that in keep...from constructions from can be followed by an NP. For example: I kept John from murder. However, we could argue here that keep subcategorises a PP in addition to an NP.

204

Notes

77. 78.

These sentences were pointed out to me by Andrew Radford. For a discussion of syntactic contamination in Middle English, see Phillipps (1954). The sample is from the Survey of English Usage. It consisted of about 390,000 words of spoken material and about 390,000 words of written material. To find all the occurrences of prevent the computer programme KAYE, the KWIC analyser, developed by Geoffrey Kaye at IBM UK, was used. This programme is capable of finding lexical items specified by the user. Because I have not taken account of the varieties of textual material in the samples, these figures should be interpreted as giving only a general impression of the occurrences of prevent in written and spoken British English. Cf. Quirk et al. (1985: 1207). This sentence was pointed out to me by Ruth Kempson. In the next section the other senses of regard will be discussed. Regard-type verbs also occur in [VNP to-infinitive] constructions, albeit very rarely. The following example is from Andersson (1985: 232, note 6):

79.

80. 81. 82. 83.

(i) We regard the adequate filming of stories of acknowledged literary merit to be a matter of primary importance.

84.

An example like this confirms that regard and verbs like it are indeed ECM verbs. A sentence like that in (i) is not a counterexample to the claim made in the text: (i) I described it as ridiculous that he was angry.

85. 86. 87.

Here the clause that he was angry is assigned a θ-role in its D-Structure position following the verb describe. Then, after it has been extraposed, the dummy element it is inserted. Thus, the claim that the position following describe is a θ-position is upheld. There is more on Extraposition in chapter five. This sentence is of course grammatical if strike has the sense hit. The Ρ is in italics as its syntactic status is at issue. Frits Stuurman (p.c.) claims that sentence (i), which contains the veib suspect, which is like accuse, is possible: (i) I suspect it of being true that John is dead. However, in this sentence (if it is grammatical, it seems to me not to be) a theta role is assigned to the ίΛαί-clause in its postverbal D-Structure position. The empty pronoun is inserted after this clause has been extraposed. See

Notes

88.

89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95.

205

chapter five for an account of Extraposition. 40 of which involve Passivisation of a Wh-element. In table 5 passive SC constructions involving appoint-type verbs have not been counted. The reason for this is that in these cases a direct object is fronted and the [PRO NP] adjunct Small Clause is left intact (see chapter three). Other than movement to the left under Passivisation. 2 of which involve Passivisation of a Wh-element. See also note 88 regarding appoint-se rbs. Other than movement to the left under Passivisation. Movements of NPs, as in (432a), do not fall under the heading Extraposition in Baltin's woik; they do here. Recall that a heavy NP is an NP containing a postmodifying PP or clause. The terms regular XP and light XP are defined in section 4.2. The meaning of some of these idiomatic expressions is not always transparent. Consider (i): (i) We cut the postman dead whenever he walks past. ('pretend not to know')

96. 97.

98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104.

There appears to be no subject-predicate relation between the NP the postman and the AP dead in this sentence. We will have to say that in (i) the verb cut subcategorises an NP and an AP, rather than an adjectival SC-complement. The NP the postman is then a quasi-argument. See section 4.2. Alternatively, we might say that we do have an SC in (i) and that the subject-predicate relationship is a metaphorical one, as Andrew Radford has suggested to me. Notice that, in accordance with condition (259), if the NPs her boyfriend and her country are heavy these sentences are fine. Incidentally, notice that (452) and (453) can be used as strong arguments against a Reanalysis treatment in which make happy and consider beautiful are regarded as complex verbs. The word Extraposed is in inverted commas as it will turn out that we only seemingly have Extraposition here. It must be inserted in nominal SCs the clausal subject of which has moved to the right Including one case with a zero subordinator. Though see Bennis (1986). In that work it is claimed that the it in structures like those under discussion is referential. See also Bolinger (1977: 66ff). Baltin has S-bars instead of Ss in (468). See also Gu6ron (1980: 641, note 5) who deals with Extraposition from NP (to be discussed below). As noted before, I am following Chomsky (1986b) in assuming that adjunction is possible only to non-argument maximal projections. Andrew Radford (p.c.) observes that (479) is problematic because it involves a

206

105.

106.

107. 108. 109.

Notes

lowering rule. The same is true for Baltin's account. Radford suggests that this problem is solved if we base-generate the subject clause in Spec-of-VP and then raise it to the adjoined position in VP. The element it would then have to be base-generated in Spec-of-IP. Notice that when the third subcategorisation frame is selected Extraposition does not take place. If this is correct adjustment of the figures in the table in 5.3.2.1 is necessary. There are then nine fewer cases of rightward movement. There was one more instance of a construction like (526) in the corpus. In the table in section 5.3.2.1 I have analysed both sentences as involving an extraposed ίο-infinitive clause. Where the PP from Boston is construed with people. Strictly speaking, in passive appomi-constructions the Small Clause remains intact. See note 88 and below. Burzio (1986) extends the process shown in (542) to copular constructions. In his analysis (i) is derived from the D-Structure in (ii): (i) (ii)

Jim is a fool. [e ] is [sc Jim a fool]

110. I have changed the original sentence slightly. 111. Notice that in (559)—(562) we could also posit overt Wh-elements as SCsubjects at D-Structure, which, like passive be, would then later need to be deleted, (i) is the alternative D-Structure for (559): (i) [e] be aged [sc who 22] 112. There are a few apparent exceptions. Consider like and worth in He is much like his brother, it is worth £10. See Huddleston (1984: 307). We can, however, also analyse these elements as prepositions. Near, as in we came nearer a solution, seems a real exception, as nearer takes the comparative -er ending, and cannot therefore be analysed as a preposition. 113. The Independent Magazine, 18 February 1989. 114. Notice that the string We should have made the whole lot research assistants can of course be a surface form if have is construed as an aspectual auxiliary. In (580), however, have is a main verb. 115. We also have an empty operator in the lower clause of (i), the S-Structure/LF representation of which is shown in (ii): (i) (ii)

She was hopeless as a Prime-Minister, as was obvious from her disastrous policies. ...[CP [Spec Ο J [c [c as] [,p t, was obvious from her disastrous policies]]]

Notes

207

116. The term Small Clause, however, was first used in print much earlier by Edwin Williams in the title of his 1975 paper "Small Clauses in English". 117. It should be noted that under the proposals of Abney (1987) these sentences cease to be problematic. I will not go into this here. 118. I do not here want to go into the exact relation between (612)/(613) and (616)/(617). Presumably (612) and (613) contain empty elements of some sort. 119. Radford also regards [NP bare infinitive/-ing/-ed] strings in constructions containing perception or causative verbs as Small Clauses. 120. Adjunction structure. 121. I am assuming here that the SC-subject is base-generated in Spec-of-IP, thus remaining neutral with regard to the question whether perhaps it originates in Spec-of-VP. 122. Contreras (1987) accounts for the facts in (631)—(634) in a way that cannot be correct. For (632) he has the structure in (i) (following Stowell Small Clauses are analysed as XPs headed by X'): (i)

CP

NP

A'

I

VP

[+fin]

He assumes that the empty C is lexical and functions like the prepositional complementiser for, but only if it is coindexed with a tensed "I", as is the case here. "C" then assigns Case to the subject of the adjectival Small Clause. However, notice that in (i) the Small Clause AP is a blocking category as it is not L-marked. This means that IP is a barrier (by inheritance). C cannot therefore govern the NP subject of the Small Clause which must remain Caseless and thus violates the Case Filter. 123. A complication here is that the Minimality Condition is violated (Chomsky 1986b: 10). This condition states that an element a does not govern a phrase c is there is a closer governor b. In (630) the lower "I" is a closer governor for the subject of the SC than the higher "I". We can get around this problem by stipulating that [-tense, +AGR] governors do not count for the Minimality Condition. 124. Page references are to the manuscript version of this paper. 125. Perhaps also (i): (i) I need my car looking at.

See Radford (1978: 45)

References

Aarts, Bas 1987

Complex transitive complementation revisited. [Unpublished Master's dissertation, University of Utrecht] 1989 "Verb-preposition constructions and small clauses", Journal of Linguistics 25 (2): 277—290. 1990a Small Clauses in English: The prepositional, nominal and adjectival types. [Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of London.] 1990b "Prevent-type verbs in a GB framework", UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2: 147—164. 1991 "Descriptive linguistics and theoretical linguistics: Some new thoughts on a (still) uneasy relationship". [Paper presented at the inaugural conference of the European Society for the Study of English. To appear in the proceedings. D. Kastovsky (ed.)] forthcoming "Applying Government-Binding theory: A case study", in: Ma Adelaide Jurado Spuch (ed.). Aarts, Flor — Jan Aarts 1982 English syntactic structures. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Abney, Steve 1987 The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. [Unpublished Phd dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.] Akmajian, Adrian 1984 "Sentence types and the form-function fit", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2: 1—23. Andersson, Evert 1985 On verb complementation in written English. (Lund Studies in English 71.) Lund: Gleerup/Liber. Anderson, Stephen R. — Paul Kiparsky (eds.) 1973 A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Andrews, Avery 1982 "A note on the constituent structure of adverbials and auxiliaries", Linguistic Inquiry 13 (3): 313—317. Austin, Frances O. 1980 " Ά crescent-shaped jewel of an island': appositive nouns in phrases separated by o f , English Studies 61: 357—366. Bach, Emmon 1977 Review article of Postal (1974), Language 53 (3): 621—654. Baker, Carl L. — John J. McCarthy (eds.) 1981 The logical problem of language acquisition. Cambridge MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

210

References

1989 1991 Baltin, Mark 1978

1985 1981 1982

English syntax. Cambridge MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. "The syntax of English not: The limits of core grammar, Linguistic Inquiry 22 (3): 387-429. Toward a theory of movement rules. [Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Published as Baltin 1985.] Toward a theory of movement rules. New York — London: Garland. "Strict bounding", in: Carl L. Baker — John J. McCarthy (eds.), 257—295. "A landing site theory of movement rules", Linguistic Inquiry 13 (1): 1—38.

Bennis, Hans 1986 Gaps and dummies. Dordrecht: Foris. Beukema, Frits 1984 Seven studies on free adjuncts. [Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leiden.] Beukema, Frits — Teun Hoekstra 1984 "Extractions from vw'fA-constructions", Linguistic Inquiry 15 (4): 689—698. 1985 "Met met pro of met zonder PRO: Een absolute constructie", De Nieuwe Taalgids 76 (6): 532—548. Beukema, Frits — Ron Verheijen 1987 "Particle constructions in English", in: G. Η. V. Bunt et al. (eds.), 109—125. Bever, Thomas G. 1970 "The cognitive basis for linguistic structures", in: John R. Hayes (ed.), 279—363. Bierwisch, Manfred — Karl E. Heidolph (eds.) 1970 Progress in linguistics. The Hague: Mouton. Bolinger, Dwight 1971 The phrasal verb in English. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. 1977 Meaning and form. London: Longman. Borkin, Ann 1973 "To be and not to be", in: Papers from the ninth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, CLS 9: 44—56. Borsley, Robert D. 1991 Syntactic theory: a unified approach. London: Edward Arnold.

References

211

Bresnan, Joan W. 1970 "On complementizers: Toward a syntactic theory of complement types", Foundations of Language 6: 297—321. 1972 Theory of complementation in English syntax. [Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Published as Bresnan 1979.] 1976 "Nonarguments for raising", Linguistic Inquiry 7 (3): 485—501. 1979 Theory of complementation in English syntax. New York — London: Garland. Brown, Keith — Jim Miller 1991 Syntax: A linguistic introduction to sentence structure (2nd edition). London: HarperCollins. Bunt, G. Η. V. — Eric S. Kooper — J. Lachlan Mackenzie — David R. M. Wilkinson (eds.) 1987 One hundred years of English studies in Dutch universities. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Burton-Roberts, Noel 1986 Analysing sentences: An introduction to English syntax. London — New York: Longman. Burzio, Luigi 1986 Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel. Cardinaletti, Anna — Guglielmo Cinque — Giuliana Giusti (eds.) 1989 Constituent structure. (Papers from the 1987 GLOW Conference.) Dordrecht Foris. Chierchia, Gennaro — Sally McConnell-Ginet 1990 Meaning and grammar: An introduction to semantics. Cambridge MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Chomsky, Noam 1957 Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton. 1964 "A transformational approach to syntax", in: Jerry A. Fodor — Jerrold J. Katz (eds.), 211—245; also in Archibald A. Hill (ed.), 124—158. 1965 Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. 1970 "Remarks on nominalisation", in: Roderick A. Jacobs — Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds.), 184—221. 1973 "Conditions on transformations", in: Stephen R. Anderson — Paul Kiparsky (eds.), 232—286. [Page references are to Chomsky 1977.] 1975a The logical structure of linguistic theory. New York — London: Plenum Press. [MS, 1955—1956.] 1975b Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon. 1977 Essays on form and interpretation. New York: North Holland. 1980 Rules and representations. Oxford: Blackwell.

212

References

1981 1982

Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. 1986a Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. New York — Westport — London: Praeger. 1986b Barriers. Cambridge MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. 1991 "Some notes on economy of derivation and representation", in: Robert Freidin (ed.). [Page references are to the MS version of this paper.] 1992 "A minimalist program for linguistic theory". [MS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.] Chomsky, Noam — Howard Lasnik forthcoming "Principles and parameters theory", in: J. Jacobs et al. (eds.). Chung, Sandra — James McCloskey 1987 "Government, barriers and small clauses in modern Irish", Linguistic Inquiry 18 (2): 173—237. Cole, Peter (ed.) 1978 Syntax and semantics. Vol. 9. New York — San Francisco — London: Academic Press. Contreras, Heles 1987 "Small clauses in Spanish and English", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5 (2): 225—243. Cook, Vivian J. 1988 Chomsky's universal grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Culicover, Peter W. 1976 Syntax. New York: Academic Press. Culicover, Peter W. — Wendy Wilkins 1984 Locality in linguistic theory. New York: Academic Press. 1986 "Control, PRO and the projection principle", Language 62 (1): 120—153. Demonte, Violeta 1987 "Remarks on secondary predicates: C-command, extraction, and reanalysis", The Linguistic Review 6 (1): 1—39. Dixon, Robert M. W. 1982 "The grammar of English phrasal verbs", Australian Journal of Linguistics 2: 1—42. Dowty, David 1976 "Montague grammar and the lexical decomposition of causative verbs", in: Barbara H. Partee (ed.), 201—245. 1979 Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.

References

213

Emonds, Joseph 1972 "Evidence that indirect object movement is a structure-preserving rule", Foundations of Language 8: 546—561. 1976 A tranformational approach to English syntax. New York: Academic Press. 1984 "The prepositional copula as", Linguistic Analysis 13 (2): 127—144. 1985 A unified theory of syntactic categories. Dordrecht: Foris. Fabb, Nigel 1984 Syntactic affixation. [Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.] Fodor, Jerry A. — Jerrold J. Katz (eds.) 1964 The structure of language: Readings in the philosophy of language. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall Inc. Frampton, J. 1987 "Parasitic gaps and the theory of Wh-chains". [MS, Northeastern University, Boston MA.] Fraser, Bruce 1974 The verb-particle combination in English. Tokyo: Taishukan Publishing Company. Freidin, Robert (ed.) 1991 Principles and parameters in comparative grammar. Cambridge MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Gazdar, Gerald — Ewan Klein — Geoffrey Pullum — Ivan Sag 1985 Generalised phrase structure grammar. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Green, Georgia M. 1970 "How abstract is surface structure?", in: Papers from the sixth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, CLS 6: 270—281. 1972 "Some observations on the syntax and semantics of instrumental veibs", in: Papers from the eighth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, CLS 8: 83—97. 1973 "A syntactic syncretism in English and French", in: Braj B. Kachru et al. (eds.), 257—278. Gu6ron, Jacqueline 1980 "On the syntax and semantics of PP extraposition", Linguistic Inquiry 11 (4): 637—678. Gu6ron, Jacqueline — Hans-Georg Obenauer — Jean-Yves Pollock (eds.) 1984 Grammatical representation. Dordrecht: Foris. Haegeman, Liliane 1985 "The gei-passive and Burzio's generalisation", Lingua 66: 53—77. 1991 Introduction to government and binding theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

214

References

Halliday, Michael A. K. 1967 "Notes on transitivity and theme in English". (Part 1). Journal of Linguistics 3 (1): 37—81. Hayes, John R. (ed.) 1970 Cognition and the development of language. New York: J. Wiley and Sons. Hill, Archibald A. (ed.) 1962 Proceedings of the third Texas conference on problems of linguistic analysis in English. Austin TX: University of Texas Press. Hoekstra, Teun 1984 Transitivity: Grammatical relations in government-binding theory. Dordrecht: Foris. 1988 "Small clause results", Lingua 74: 101—139. Hornstein, Norbert — David W. Lightfoot 1987 "Predication and PRO", Language 63 (1): 23—52. Huddleston, Rodney 1984 Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hudson, Richard A. 1988 "Coordination and grammatical relations", Journal ofLinguistics 24 (2): 303—342. Huybregts, Rini — Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.) 1982 Noam Chomsky on the generative enterprise. Dordrecht: Foris. Iatridou, Sabine 1990 "About Agr(P)", Linguistic Inquiry 21 (4): 551—577. Jacobs, J. — A. von Stechow — W. Sternefeld — Τ. Vennemann (eds.) forthcoming Syntax: An international handbook of comtemporary research. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Jacobs, Roderick A. — Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds.) 1970 Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham MA: Ginn and Co. Jackendoff, Ray 1977 X'-Syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Jespersen, Otto 1909—49 A modern English grammar on historical principles. London — Copenhagen: George Allan & Unwin and Munksgaard. 1933a Essentials of English grammar. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd. 1933b "The system of grammar", in Jespersen 1933c. 1933c Linguistica: Selected papers in English, French and German. Copenhagen: Levin and Munksgaard/ London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.

References

215

Jurado Spuch, Ma Adelaida (ed.) forthcoming Linguistic Inquiry: Applications, Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 25. Kahn, John E. (ed.) 1985 The right word at the right time: A guide to the English language and how to use it. London: Reader's Digest. Kachru, Braj B. — Robert B. Lees — Yakov Malkiel — Angelina Pietrangeli — Sol Saporta 1973 Issues in linguistics: Papers in honor of Henry and Renee Kahane. Urbana — Chicago — London: University of Illinois Press. Kayne, Richard S. 1984a Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris. 1984b "Principles of particle constructions", in: Jacqueline Gudron et al. (eds.), 101—140. Kimball, John P. (ed.) 1975 Syntax and semantics. Vol. 4. New York — San Francisco — London: Academic Press. Kiparsky, Paul — Carol Kiparsky 1970 "Fact", in: Manfred Bierwisch — Karl E. Heidolph (eds.), 143—173. Kitagawa, Yoshihisa 1985 "Small but clausal", in: Papers from the general session at the twenty-first regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, CLS 21: 210—220. 1986 Subject in Japanese and English. [Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst] Kluender, Robert 1985 "Sätzchen: German small clauses as S's", NELS 16: 274—292. Koopman, Hilda — Dominique Sportiche 1990 "The position of subjects". [Unpublished MS, University of California at Los Angelis.] Larson, Richard 1988 "On the double object construction", Linguistic Inquiry 19 (3): 335—391. Lasnik, Howard — Juan Uriagereka 1988 A course in GB syntax. Cambridge MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Levin, Beth — Malka Rappaport 1989 "An approach to unaccusative mismatches", NELS 19: 1—16. Lightfoot, David W. 1976 "The theoretical implications of subject raising", Foundations of Language 14: 257—286.

216

References

1982

The language lottery: Toward a biology of grammars. Cambridge MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Lightfoot, David W. — Amy Weinberg 1988 Review article of Chomsky (1986b). Language 64 (2): 366—383. Mair, Christian 1990 Infinitival complement clauses in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Malten, Enrique 1991 "A syntactic analysis of secondary predication in Spanish", Journal of Linguistics 27 (2): 375—403. Manzini, M. Rita 1983 Restructuring and reanalysis. [Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.] 1989 "Constituent structure and locality", in: Anna Cardinaletti et al., 157—201. Matthews, Peter H. 1981 Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McCawley, James D. 1971 "Prelexical syntax", in: 22nd Annual Round Table, Georgetown University monograph series on language and linguistics 24: 19—33. 1988 The syntactic phenomena of English. 2 vols. Chicago — London: The University of Chicago Press. Meillet, Antoine 1906 "L'6tat actuel des etudes de linguistique g6n6rale". [Inaugural Lecture.] Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960 A middle English syntax. (Part 1: parts of speech). Helsinki: Soci6t£ N6ophilologique. Napoli, Donna J. 1989 Predication theory: A case study for indexing theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1983 Grammatical theory: Its limitations and its possibilities. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Parker, Frank — Kathryn Riley — Charles Meyer 1988 "Case assignment and the ordering of constituents in coordinate constructions", American Speech 63 (3): 214—233. Partee, Barbara H. (ed.) 1976 Montague grammar. New York — San Francisco — London: Academic Press.

References 217 Phillipps, Κ. C. 1954 "Contamination in late ME", English Studies 35: 17—20. [Part II: English Studies 37: 12—14.] Pollock, Jean-Yves 1989 "Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP", Linguistic Inquiry 20 (3): 365—424. Postal, Paul 1974 On raising. Cambridge MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Postal, Paul — Geoffrey K. Pullum 1988 "Expletive noun phrases in subcategorized positions", Linguistic Inquiry 19 (4): 635—670. Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1985 "Assuming some version of X-bar theory", in: Papers from the general session at the twenty-first regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, CLS 21: 323—353. Pyles, Thomas 1982 The origins and development of the English language. (3rd edition.) New York etc.: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Quirk, Randolph — Sidney Greenbaum — Geofffrey Leech — Jan Svartvik 1972 A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman. 1985 A comprehensive grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Radford, Andrew 1978 "Agentive causatives in Romance: accessibility versus passivisation", Journal of Linguistics 14 (1): 35—58. 1981 Transformational syntax: A student's guide to Chomsky's Extended Standard Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1988a "Small children's small clauses", Transactions of the Philological Society 86 (1): 1—43. Also in Research Papers in Linguistics 1: 1—38, University College of North Wales. 1988b Transformational grammar: A first course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reinhart, Tanya 1980 "On the position of extraposed clauses", Linguistic Inquiry 11 (3): 621—624. Reuland, Eric J. 1983 "Governing -ing", Linguistic Inquiry 14 (1): 101—136. Riemsdijk, Henk van 1978 A case study in syntactic markedness: The binding nature of prepositions. Dordrecht: Foris.

218

References

Riemsdijk, Henk van — Edwin S. Williams 1986 Introduction to the theory of grammar. Cambridge MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Rigter, Bob — Frits Beukema 1985 A government and binding approach to English sentence structure. Apeldoorn: van Walraven. Roberts, Ian 1988 "Predicative APs", Linguistic Inquiry 19 (4): 703—710. Rosenbaum, Peter S. 1965 The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Ross, John R. 1967 Constraints on variables in syntax. [Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.] Rothstein, Susan 1983 The syntactic forms of predication. [Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Distributed in 1985 by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.] 1991 "Syntactic predication: a syntactic primitive or a thematic relation?". [MS, Bar-Ilan University.] Safir, Ken 1983 "On small clauses as constituents", Linguistic Inquiry 14 (4): 730—735. Schein, Barry 1982 "Small clauses and predication". [MS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.] Schmerling, Susan 1978 "Synonymy judgments as syntactic evidence", in Peter Cole (ed.), 299—313. Simpson, J. 1982 "Secondary predicates in English, Icelandic and Finnish". [MS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.] Sperber, Dan — Deirdre Wilson 1986 Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Sportiche, Dominique 1988 "A theory of floating quantifiers and its colloraries for constituent structure", Linguistic Inquiry 19 (3): 425—449. Stevenson, Suzanne — Peter Coopmans 1991 "How extraction from finite and infinitival complements: A surprising asymmetry", Linguistic Inquiry 22 (2): 359—367. Stockwell, Robert P. — Paul Schachter — Barbara H. Partee 1973 The major syntactic structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc.

References

Stowell, Tim 1981 1983 1988

219

Origins of phrase structure. [Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.] "Subjects across categories", The Linguistic Review 2: 285—312. "Small clause restructuring". [MS, University of California at Los Angelis.]

Stuurman, Frits 1990 Two grammatical models of modern English. London — New York: Routledge. Suzuki, Torn 1988 "An analysis of small clauses and perception verb complements", English Linguistics 5: 54—70. Visser, Frans Th. 1973 An historical syntax of the English language. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill. Wekker, Herman — Liliane Haegeman 1985 A modern course in English syntax. London: Croom Helm. Whitney, Rosemarie 1982 "The syntactic unity of wA-movement and complex NP shift", Linguistic Analysis 10 (4): 299—319. 1983 "The place of dative movement in a generative theory", Linguistic Analysis 12 (3): 315—322. Williams, Edwin S. 1975 "Small clauses in English", in: John P. Kimball (ed.), 249—273. 1980 "Predication", Linguistic Inquiry 11 (1): 203—238. 1983 "Against small clauses", Linguistic Inquiry 14 (2): 287—308. 1984 "77iere-insertion", Linguistic Inquiry 15 (1): 131—153.

Index

Α-bound (Argument bound) 20 A'-bound (Argument-bar bound) 20 Α-position (Argument position) 20 A'-position (Argument-bar position) 20 A-verbs 10, 77f Aarts, F. and J. vii, 35, 36 Abney, S. 207 note 117 Absolute construction 42, 78 Abstract prepositional complementiser see Complementiser Accuse-type verbs 123f Adams, V. vii, 203 note 71 Adjectival particle 135 Adjective phrasal verbs 135 Adjunction Condition 202 note 54 Adverb Insertion 145, 148 Affect (a) 17 AGR 16, 18, 186—188 — AGR-O 187 — AGR-S 187 AgrP (Agreement Phrase) 186—187 Akmajian, A. 38 allow 93—94 Alone-final NP 47 American structuralists 197 note 5 Anaphor 19 see also Binding Theory Andersson, E. 201 note 50, 93, 107, 204 note 83, 126, 127 Andrews, A. 50, 66 Appoint-class 67 Argument — external 27 — position 20 bar position 20 as — as a complementiser 114—115 — as an inflectional element 115—116, 117—118 clause 168 constructions 11 If, 182 Austin, F. 67 B-verbs 10, 77f

Bach, E. 10 Baker, C.L. 2, 187 Baltin, Μ. 131, 140f, 157f, 193 Bare infinitive 23, 27, 36, 179, 189 see also Naked infinitive Bare infinitive construction 104 Barrier 30, 33, 167f, 172, 176, 186f — by inheritance 33 — inherent/intrinsic 33 Barriers model 30f BE — empty copula 176 — phonetically null main verb 181 believe 10, 19, 20, 24, 96, 154, 182 Bennis, H. 198 note 12, 205 note 101 Beukema, F. 2, 40, 41, 42—43, 77, 202 note 55 Bever, T. 203 note 73 Binding (Theory) 13, 19, 48, 51, 203 note 64 see also A/A'-binding Blocking Category (BC) 33 Bolinger, D. vii, 75, 81, 135f, 205 note 101 Borkin, A. 12, 68f Borsley, R. vii, 30, 202 note 56, 178 Bounding — node 17 — Theory 13, 17 Bresnan, J. 24, 91 Brown, K. 35 Burton-Roberts, N. 35, 36 Burzio, L. 206 note 109 C(omplementiser) see Complementiser C-command 18, 26, 51, 57 C-Command Condition on Predication 26 Case — Adjacency Principle 75, 100 — assignment to subjects of independent SCs 183 — assignment to the subjects of SC-subjects 79, 183f

222

Index

— Default 183 — Filter 20, 23, 42, 85, 89, 155, 160, 161, 184 — Theory 13, 20, 23, 155 Categorial component 13, 16, 17, 22, 23 Chierchia, G. 197 note 3 Chomsky, Ν. 2, 3, 5, 9—14, 17—18, 21—23, 25, 29—31, 33—35, 50—51, 57—58, 63—64, 75, 77, 81, 83 Chung, S. 171, 178—180, 183 Coindex Rule 57 COMP see Complementiser COMP-to-COMP movement 17—18 Complement 16, 35—36 Complementiser 14—15, 24, 31, 97, 114, 126 — abstract prepositional 79, 183 — as 114—115 —for 24 —from 97f — Phrase (CP) 31 — prepositional 24 Complex transitive constructions 35 Complex verb 49, 75, 81, 82, 85, 86, 151, 153 see also Incorporation; Reanalysis Condition (259) 83—84, 87, 126—127, 132f, 192 "Conditions on transformations" ("Conditions") 10—12 Consider-class 67 Contamination 102 Contreras, H. 25, 199 note 24, 201 note 43, 172, 207 note 122 Control 14, 24, 27, 74, 91, 111, 120, 162, 192 — Object 20, 74, 91, 111 — Obligatory 27 — Subject 20, 120 — Theory 13, 20 Controlled dependent predication see Predication — predication see Predication Cook, V. 3 Coopmans, P. vii, 176

Coordination 37, 80, 86, 113, 185—186 Copular constructions 68, 79, 206 note 109, 189 Corpus 6, 68, 107, 130, 132, 139, 151, 157, 195 CP see Complementiser Phrase CP-Adjunction 51—52, 149 Culicover, P. 21, 30, 53, 57, 169 D(eep)-Structure 14 Deletion rules see Rules Demonte, V. 53 Dependent predication see Predication Depictive predicate see Predicate Describe-type verbs 116f Descriptive linguistics 3 Detachment 131, 157f — Rule 157, 159 Discourage-type verbs 109f Discovery procedures 197 note 5 Dixon, R. M. W. 75 Do io-Substitution 142, 145, 147 Domain 18 Dowty, D. 49, 62—63 Dummy it see Nonreferential it E-language 2—3 ECM see Exceptional Case Marking Economy Principle 6 ECP see Empty Category Principle Emonds, J. 2, 198 note 18; 57, 58, 75, 81, 112, 140—141, 143 Empty Category Principle (ECP) 18, 35, 83 Empty operator see Operator EST see Extended Standard Theory

Index Exceptional — Case Marking (ECM) 20, 24, 67, 74, 96, 99, 111, 115, 182, 185, 192 — predication see Predication Expletive Replacement 197 note 6 see also Raising Extended Standard Theory (EST) 5, 9, 12, 75 External argument see Argument Extractions 129f — from nominal SCs 130 — from adjectival SCs 130, 139 Extraposition 199 note 26, 83, 204 note 84, 204 note 87, 131, 132f, 169, 193 — it — adverbial clause 131, 138, 147f — it — ing-clause 131, 138, 146f — it — that-clause 131, 138, 150f — it — to-clause 131, 138, 150f — Movement of NPs 131, 132f — of subject clauses instantiated 138 — 0 — that-clause 131, 150f — 0 — fo-clause 131, 150f Fabb, N. 61, 62, 64 Filter see Case Filter Floating emphatic reflexive 46 for 73, 74, 122—123 For-complementiser see Complementiser Fossilised Small Clause Constructions 163f, 169 Frampton, J. 188 Fräser, B. 75 Free adjunct 40 from 95f — as a complementiser 97f — as an inflectional element lOOf Gapping 41, 86 Garden path sentence 94, 156 Gazdar, G. 13, 197 note 11 GB/GB-theory see Government-Binding Theory Gender features 16 Generative theory 4, 69

223

Gerund subject clauses 185 Governing category 19 see also Domain; Government Government 18 — proper 18 — Theory 13, 18 Government-Binding Theory (GB-theory) 2, 4—6, 12f Green, G. 57, 59—61 Greenbaum, S. vii see also Quirk et al. Gueron, J. 205 note 103, 159 Haegeman, L. 2, 16, 30, 35, 65, 166 Halliday, Μ. A. K. 58 Hammer/fai-construction 49, 58f see also Predicate (resultative) have (causative) 165f Head 16 Heaviness see Weight Heavy XP 84, 134 see also Weight Heavy-NP-Shift (HNPS) 83, 85—88, 126, 131, 132, 150, 164 Hoekstra, T. vii, 42, 43, 47, 48, 57, 65—66, 77, 202 note 55 HNPS see Heavy-NP-Shift Honorary NP (HNP) 44 Hornstein, Ν. 200 note 36, 49, 52, 171, 173, 177—180, 189 Huddleston, R. 1, 2, 5, 35, 206 note 112 Hudson, R. vii, 202 note 59, 203 note 76 Huybregts, R. 12 I(nflection) see INFL I-language 2—3 I-Movement 32 Iatridou, S. 187 imagine 116 Incorporation 75, 76, 82, 85 see also Reanalysis; Complex verb Independent — predication see Predication — Small Clause see Small Clause

224

Index

INFL (Inflection) 14—16, 176, 180f, 186f Inflection Phrase (IP) 31 Informational weight 87, 134, 137 see also Weight Inherent barrier see Barrier Intervening NP 1 Intransitive preposition 81 Intrinsic barrier see Barrier IP see Inflection Phrase //-Replacement 197 note 6 Jackendoff, R. 16 Jaworska, E. vii Jespersen, O. 36, 39,43, 65,91, 103—105 Kahn, J. 102 Kayne, R. 199 note 27, 43, 47, 75—77, 83, 91 Kempson, R. vii, 204 note 81 Kiparsky, P. and C. 10 Kitagawa, Y. 199 note 24, 171—173, 176—177, 180, 181 Kluender, R. 171, 178—180 Koopman, H. 199 note 24 Koot, H. van de vii Kruisinga, E. 40 L-marking 33 Landing site 139 — of extraposed SC subject clauses 139f see also Extraposition Larson, R. 202 note 59 Lasnik, H. 21, 35, 154, 187 Lectures on Government and Binding (LGB) 9 Leftward Extractions 129, 131, 160f — Passivisation 131, 160 — Raising 131, 160f — Topicalisation 131, 160, 168 — Wh-Movement 131, 160 Leftward movement of predicates 129, 167f Levin, B. 201 note 45

Lexicon 13, 14, 16—17, 22—23, 49, 58, 64, 67, 70, 151—153 LF see Logical Form LGB see Lectures on Government and Binding Light XP 84, 133—134 see also Weight Lightfoot, D. 11, 12, 30, 200 note 36, 49, 52, 171, 173, 177—180, 189 Logical Form (LF) 13,14, 17, 26—29,49, 163, 206 note 115 — component 13 Mad Magazine Sentences 38—39 Mair, C. 12 make — as a Raising verb 161 make...clear 151 make...ready 153 make...sure 151, 153 make^ 153 make5 161 make6 162 Mallen, Ε. 50, 53, 54, 57 Manzini, Μ. R. vii, 171, 172, 175, 176, 180 Matthews, P. 35 McCawley, J. 61, 62, 91, 94, 143, 169 McCloskey, J. 171, 178—180, 183 McConnell-Ginet 197 note 3 MDG see Modern Descriptive Grammar Meat-eating construction 49 Meillet, A. 21 Mental organ 13 Meyer, C. 186 Miller, J. 35 Mirror of the mind 13 (mis)take...for 122—123, 128, 192 Modern Descriptive Grammar (MDG) 2f Move (a) 17, 84 Movement of NPs — Heavy-NP-Shift 131, 132 — Movement of other NPs 131, 133f

Index — of light NPs in nominal SCs 133—134 — of "regular" NPs in adjectival SCs 134f Mustanoja, T. 104 Naked infinitive 28 see also Bare infinitive Napoli, D. 21, 30, 39, 43, 200 note 36, 46, 50—52, 54, 57, 60, 67 NegP (Negative Phrase) 187 Newmeyer, F. 2 Nexus — independent; dependent 36 Nonreferential it 18, 38, 48, 92, 109, 110, 117, 124, 149, 150f, 154, 155 Nor-initial NP 47 NP — Incorporation 75 — Movement see Passivisation; Raising Number features 16 Object — attribute 36 — complement 35 — predicative 36 — Control see Control Objective predicative complement 35 Obligatory control see Control Operator — empty 168, 206 note 115 Ouhalla, J. vii Parker, F. 186 Partee, B. 12, 68f Particle 74, 75, 77f, 81, 83, 135 — Incorporation 75 — movement 75 Passive — external; internal 108 Passivisation 90,103, 108f, 124,130,131, 160f, 166, 167, 169 Person features 16 persuade 67, 110, 111, 117, 192 PF see Phonetic Form

225

Phillipps, K. 204 note 78 Phonetic Form (PF) 13—14, 17, 84, 88, 127, 134, 137 — component 13 Phonological rules see Rules Phrasal verb 74, 89 see also Prepositional verb; Verb preposition construction Phrase Structure rules (PS rules) 14, 16, 22, 173 Pollock, J.-Y. 31, 181, 186f Postal, P. 10, 11, 38, 201 note 41, 47, 90—92, 100, 109—112 Predicate — depictive 58f — movement 129 leftward 129, 130, 167f rightward 129, 130 — resultative 58f, 71, 77 — secondary 68 — Structure (PS) 25—26, 30 — Linking Rule 57 Predication — Coindexing Principles 57 — controlled 67 — controlled dependent 67 — dependent 67 — exceptional 67 — grammatically governed 26 — independent 67 — Rule of 25, 26, 57 — thematically governed 26 — Theory 21, 25f, 35, 57, 159 Predicative as-constructions 11 If Prepositional complementiser 24 — abstract 79, 183 Prepositional verb 74 — intransitive 89 — transitive 89 see also Phrasal verb; Verb-preposition construction freveni-constructions 90f — passive 103—104, 106, 108f see also Verbs of negative causation Principles and Parameters Theory 21

226

Index

PRO 20, 24, 39—42, 49—50, 52—54, 67, 110, 128, 162, 168, 177, 184, 191, 192 theorem 20 Projection Principle 197 note 3, 17, 23, 94—95 Pronoun 10, 19, 43, 83, 84, 128, 141 — Substitution 10 see also Binding Theory Proper government see Government PS rules see Phrase Structure rules Pseudoclefting 50, 66, 142, 145 Pullum, G. 197 note 11, 38, 91, 92, 100 Pyles, T. 102 Quantifier lowering 28 Quasi-argument 81, 121, 205 note 95 Quirk et al. 2, 35, 91, 204 note 80, 112, 126, 127, 146, 148, 159 R-expression see Referential expression R-pronoun 43 R-triggers 10 Radford, A. vii, 16, 29—32, 38—39, 200 note 38, 4 6 - ^ 7 , 75—76, 81—82, 202 note 63, 85—87, 93, 98, 204 note 77, 104, 122, 205 note 95, 144, 155, 159, 161, 169, 171, 173, 175, 178—180, 185, 207 note 125 Raising 10—12, 21, 44, 45, 201 note 49, 91, 92, 94, 111, 130, 131, 160—162, 169, 191 — to-Object 10—12, 91, 92, 94, 111 — to-Subject 10 Rappaport, M. 201 note 45 Reanalysis 76, 82, 85—87, 205 note 97, 151, 153 see also Complex verb; Incorporation, Referential Expression (R-expression) 19 see also Binding Theory Regard-type verbs 112f Regular XP 84, 87, 134f see also Weight Reinhart, Τ. 142

"Remarks on Nominalisation" ("Remarks") 5 Resultative predicate see Predicate Reuland, E. 189 Riemsdijk, H. van 77 Rightward Extractions 129—131, 132f, 157f Rigter, B. 2 Riley, K. 186 Roberts, I. 50—51, 53, 57, 66 Rosenbaum, P. 10, 12, 91, 97 Ross, J. 197 note 6, 34, 112 Rosta, A. vii Rothstein, S. 21, 30, 39, 57—61, 63, 65, 68 Rule of Predication see Predication Rules — of anaphora 14 — of control 14 — of deletion 14 — of quantification 14 — phonological 14 S'-deletion (S-bar deletion) 20 S-selection see Semantic selection S-Structure 14, 17 Safir, K. 43—45, 78 Schachter, P. 68f Schein, Β. 21, 30, 57 Schmerling, S. 93—94 Secondary predicate see Predicate Semantic selection (S-selection) 23 Sentence adverbs 45, 174 SEU see Survey of English Usage Simpson, J. 58 Single bar category 5, 16 see also X'-theory Small Clause (SC) 1 — announcement 39 — as adjunction structures 172, 180 — as adjuncts 39

Index — as complements of prepositions 42, 78 — as CPs 176—177, 179, 180 — as IPs 179f — as projections of lexical categories 24—25, 171f, 180 — as S's 177-178, 180 — fossilised construction 163f, 169 — independent 38, 79, 183 — in subject position 78, 183f — overview of previous analyses 180 — Theory (SC-theory) 21f — verbal 188—189 Spec-Head agreement 181 Specifier 16, 18, 22, 25, 31, 133, 172, 181, 185 see also Head; X'-theory Sperber, D. 137 Split INFL hypothesis 186f Sportiche, D. 199 note 24 Standard Theory (ST) 9, 21, 75 Stevenson, S. 176 Stockwell, R. 68f Stowell, T. 21, 22, 24, 25, 29, 200 note 36, 46—49, 75, 81, 83, 154, 171—176, 180, 207 note 122, 193 strike 120 Stuurman, F. vii, 6, 204 note 87 Subjacency 17, 176 see also Bounding Theory Subject 27, 46 auxiliary inversion 32 — Control see Control — movement 129 leftward 130 rightward 130 — of a predication relation 27 predicate relation 1, 22, 29—30, 37, 43, 45, 49, 61, 67, 73, 77, 78, 80, 88, 114, 118, 120, 122, 129, 205 note 95, 166 Successive cyclic movement 17—18 Survey of English Usage (SEU) 6, 199 note 30, 202 note 57, 106, 146, 150, 195 Suzuki, T. 200 note 39

227

Svartvik, J. vii see also Quirk et al. Syntax-semantics interface 197 note 3, 60 Taglicht, J. vii Tense Phrase (TP) 186—188 The Uniformity of Representation Principle 6 Thematic — independence 29 — roles see Theta role there 18, 38, 48, 92, 109, 110, 117, 124 Theta — Criterion 19, 57, 94—95 — role (Θ-role) 18 — Theory 13, 18 think...fit 151-153 think...likely 151 Though Attraction 169 Inversion 169 Movement 50, 66, 142, 145, 148, 158, 169 to be 68f deletion 68f insertion 68 Topicalisation 130, 131, 160, 168 7oKg/i-Movement 11—12 TP see Tense Phrase Trace 4—5, 15 Traditional grammar 3 Transformational — component 13, 14, 17 — grammar 3 Triple deficiency of stimulus 12 UG see Universal Grammar Unaccusative construction 201 note 45 Uniformity of Representation Principle 6 Universal Grammar 12—13 Uriagereka, J. 154 [V NP to-infinitive] 10, 23—24 Variable 19, 26, 28, 83 Verb Movement 31—32

228

Index

Verbs of negative causation 10, 90f, 192 see also Preveni-constructions Verb-preposition constructions 74f see also Phrasal verb; Prepositional verb Verbal Small Clause see Small Clause Verheijen, R. 77 Vincent, N. vii Visser, F. 95, 101—102 VP — -Adjunction 34, 49f, 55, 59, 66, 67, 82—83, 120—121,144,145—146, 167—168 Deletion 142, 144, 147, 148 — -Proposing 50, 145, 147, 148, 158 wwimj-contraction 4—5 want 10, 21, 24, 29, 73, 87, 98, 100 Weight 83—84 — condition on derivations see Condition (259) Weinberg, A. 30 Wekker, H. vii, 2, 35, 65 Wh-Movement 15,32, 63,130—131, 160, 167—168, 172—173 Whitney, R. 83—84 Wilder, C. vii Wilkins, W. 21, 30, 53, 57 Williams, E. 14, 21, 25—30, 35, 57, 169, 207 note 116, 173, 176, 189 Wilson, D. 137 X-bar see Single bar category X'-Theory 14, 16 Zero INFL node 177