Lecture 6: Verbs with Clausal Arguments

Many verbs allow clausal arguments We will consider:

The variety of verbs with just a clausal internal argument (= non-subject)

The categorial status of various clausal internal arguments

The structural position of the clausal argument in the VP

Verbs with a clausal and a non-clausal internal argument

Different verbs subcategorise for different types of clausal arguments Declarative finite:

He said [(that) we could stay]

Declarative non-finite With complementiser

We arranged [for him to stay] With no complementiser

We believed [him to be sincere] With control (PRO subject)

They tried [PRO to sound sincere]

Interrogative finite

I asked [why he stayed] I wonder [if he left]

Non-finite I wondered [when to leave] I didn’t know [whether to leave]

Often verbs can take different types of clausal argument I know [that he is smart] I know [him to be smart] I know [who is smart] I know [when to be smart]

Others are more restrictive I reckoned [that he would

stay] * I reckoned [(for) (him) to

stay] *I reckoned [why he

stayed]

I tried [PRO to stay calm] * I tried [(for) him to stay

calm] * I tried [that I stayed

calm] * I tried [when to stay

calm]

There is not much variation in verbs which take a finite clause argument The complementiser is almost always

optional I think [(that) he knows]

Exceptions Verbs of manner of communication

He whispered/shouted/hollerd [(? that) he knows]

Embedded yes-no interrogatives I wonder [(*if) he knows]

We can assume that finite clauses are always CPs The complementiser is phonologically null

in cases where it seems absent I think [CP e [IP he agrees]]

These are typically the arguments of interrogative verbs, such as ask, wonder or inquire I asked/wondered/inquired [where he lived]

Some verbs take either declarative or interrogative arguments I know [that he ran away]/[why he ran

away] I remember [that I fell]/[where I fell]

Interrogative arguments can either be finite or non-finite I wonder [if he is rich] I wonder [whether to rob him]

I asked [if he knows] I asked [when he found out] * I asked [he knows]

I wonder [where to go] I wonder [whether to

stay] * I wonder [to leave]

They always are introduced by a complementiser or a wh-phrase

Both complementisers and wh-phrases are part of the CP

So we can conclude that interrogative clauses are always CPs

Non-finite clausal arguments are much more varied than finite ones With subjects

For complementiser We were hoping [for it to snow]

Exceptional clauses I believe [him to be honest]

Without subjects Control structures

I1 attempted [PRO1 to make peace]

Raising structures He1 seems [ t1 to be unharmed]

Those with complementisers are obviously CPs

All others obligatorily lack complementisers: * I believe [for him to be intelligent] * I1 tried [for PRO1 to understand]

* he1 seems [for t1 to be well]

Why is this? Must they always have a null complementiser? Why?

We know that PRO can only go in ungoverned positions: * PRO left (nominative) * I saw PRO (accusative) * I spoke to PRO (accusative – prepositional)

We also know that for assigns accusative Case [(*for) him to leave] was the right thing to do

Therefore we have an explanation of why control clauses don’t have complementisers If they did, PRO would be governed

But are they still CPs?

What makes an exceptional verb exceptional? The Case of the subject is accusative:

I believe [him to be dead] But there is no for complementiser and the

infinitival inflection cannot assign Case Normally this would make the clause

ungrammatical * [him to be dead] is worrying

When exceptional verbs passivise, the subject of the infinitive clause moves

He1 was believed [ t1 to be dead]

Passivisation replaces the abstract verb of the passivised verb with the passive morpheme

This shows that the Case of the exceptional subject comes from the abstract verb of the exceptional verb

I believe-e [him to be dead] The passive morpheme cannot assign

Case, so the subject must move * it was believ-ed [ him to be dead]

Thus exceptional verbs have the ability to Case mark the subject of their non-finite clause argument

But this kind of Case assignment cannot happen in non-exceptional cases – even with exceptional verbs:

* I believe-e [that him is dead]

One account of this would be that exceptional Case marking cannot happen through a CP

We could say that CP counts as an impenetrable barrier to government

If this is so, there can be no CP with exceptional verb clausal arguments (they are IPs only)

If there is no CP barrier, the external abstract verb can assign Case to the subject

This would be similar to the way the for complementiser assigns Case to the infinitival subject

It follows from this that control clauses are CPs If they were not, their

subjects would be Case marked and PRO would not be able to appear

The CP barrier protects PRO from government

CP IP

Overt subject

For clause Exceptional clause

Covert subject

Control clause

Are raising clauses IPs or CPs? They never have for complementisers

* It seems [for him to be rich]

They are very similar to passivised exceptional clauses

He1 was believed [ t1 to be rich] He1 seemed [ t1 to be rich]

CP IP

Overt subject

For clause Exceptional clause

Covert subject

Control clause

Raising clauses

These observations argue that they are IPs

Although clausal arguments can appear with other (internal) arguments, they never appear with themes I promised him [that I would stay] (goal) It seems to me [that he was lying]

(experiencer) I know the answer (theme) I know [that the answer is 42] * I know the answer [that it is 42]

This would argue that clausal arguments go in the theme position Specifier of the lexical verb

As with the analysis of transitive verbs, the verb will move to support the abstract verb

The external argument will move to subject to get Case

As this example involves a finite subordinate clause, all DPs inside it get Case from internal sources

This structure helps to understand the Case marking processes with exceptional verbs

IP is not a barrier to government

So the abstract verb can Case mark the subject

The lexical verb and the external argument move, as usual

In the passive version, the abstract verb is replaced by the passive morpheme, which does not assign Case

The infinitive subject therefore has to move

The lexical verb moves to support the passive morpheme

Raising works in a very similar way

A raising verb has no external argument

So there is no abstract verb to assign Case to the infinitival subject

So this must move The raising verb

moves to support inflection or aspectual morphemes

There can be other internal arguments at the same time as a clausal argument

These can be: DPs

I promised [DP John] [that I would stay] PPs

I said [PP to Mary] [that John is a fool] Notice that the clause is always behind

the other arguments: * I promised that I would stay John *? I said that John was a fool to Mary

The DP argument preceding the clause is typically a goal or recipient I told Mary that she could wait I asked him what to do I persuaded him to eat

We know from the double object construction that these arguments are specifiers of abstract verbs below the agentive verb and above the lexical verb

As the clausal argument is in specifier of the lexical verb, it will follow the DP argument

The verb will move to the highest abstract verb

The external argument will move to subject

When a PP argument accompanies a clausal argument, the clause follows

The PP can represent a range of arguments I said to Mary that she should wait goal I arranged with Bill that he would stay recipient It looked to me that he was happy

experiencer The problem is that we have seen that the

usual PP position is complement of the lexical verb

If the clausal argument is in specifier of this verb, it should precede the PP

Bill shouted to Mary to stop ?? Bill shouted to stop to Mary

Recall that both PPs and clauses can undergo a movement to the back of the clause: A man t1 arrived [with a suit case]1

The man t1 just left [who I was telling you about]1

Moreover, ‘heavy’ DPs also undergo this movement: Bill arrested t1 last week [every drug dealer John

had contacted]1

Perhaps the order between the PP and clausal arguments is due to a backward movement of the clause

Why would this happen? Perhaps because clauses are ‘heavier’ than

PPs they prefer the final position Evidence

With a heavy PP the order is reversible: I shouted [to stop] [to everyone that would

listen to me]

Exceptional clauses never undergo extraposition: I believed with conviction [that he was

honest] * I believed with conviction [him to be

honest] This shows that the accusative subject

must be adjacent to the verb which assigns Case to it

This is called the ‘adjacency condition’ on Case assignment

Apparently, it only applies to accusative Case: He obviously will

win

Clausal arguments can be CPs All finite clauses All interrogative clauses Some non-finite clauses

With for complementiser Control clauses (PRO subject)

Or IPs Some non-finite clauses

Exceptional clauses Raising clauses

Clausal arguments occupy the theme position Specifier of the lexical verb

They follow all other internal arguments DPs –

because these are the arguments of abstract verbs which precede the lexical verb

PPs – because clauses are heavier and undergo

extraposition