syntax lecture 6: missing subjects of non-finite clauses
TRANSCRIPT
Syntax
Lecture 6:Missing Subjects of Non-finite
Clauses
A Mystery
• We know that the subject is a compulsory part of the sentence:– Some argument from inside the VP must move to
subject position:• [IP -- will [VP the judge sentence the convict]]
• [IP -- will [VP be sentenced the convict]]
A Mystery
• We know that the subject is a compulsory part of the sentence:– Some argument from inside the VP must move to
subject position:• [IP the judge will [VP -- sentence the convict]]
• [IP the convict will [VP be sentenced --]]
A Mystery
• We know that the subject is a compulsory part of the sentence:– If there is no argument that can move, the
position is filled by a pleonastic element:• [IP -- [VP rained]]
• [IP -- [VP appears [CP that the convict has escaped]]]
A Mystery
• We know that the subject is a compulsory part of the sentence:– If there is no argument that can move, the
position is filled by a pleonastic element:• [IP it [VP rained]]
• [IP it [VP appears [CP that the convict has escaped]]]
A Mystery
• However, there are some sentences where the subject appears to be missing:– The convict seems [IP -- to [VP have escaped]]– The convict tried [IP -- to [VP escape]]
• These constructions are clearly IPs– They are headed by the infinitival I: to
• They are always infinitives:– * the convict seems [IP -- will [VP escape]]– * the convict expects [IP -- will [VP escape]]
A Mystery
• So, how can some clauses lack a subject when the subject is an obligatory part of the clause?
An Observation• The clauses which lack subjects always lack one of the
arguments of the verb:– The police want [IP -- to [VP -- question the witness]]– The witness wants [IP -- to [VP be questioned --]]
• Normally arguments can’t be left out:– * questioned the witness– * the police questioned
• However, it is obvious what the meaning of the missing argument/subject is:– The police want to question the witness
• The police will do the questioning– The witness wants to be questioned
• The witness will be the one that is questioned
An Observation
• The missing argument/subject is interpreted as identical to the subject of the higher clause
• The police are the ones doing the wanting
• And the police are the ones doing the questioning
Some questions
• Can one phrase be the argument of two verbs?
• Why does this only happen in the subject of an infinitive clause?
Answers
• No phrase can have more than one argument role:– John saw John saw himself– * I watched Mary danced
• no argument can be object of one verb and subject of another
Missing subjects with different properties!
• The convict seems [ -- to have escaped]• The convict planned [ -- to escape]
– In both cases, ‘the convict’ is the one interpreted as the escapee
– In the second, ‘the convict’ is the one who did the planning
– But in the first, ‘the convict’ is not the one who seems• It seems [ the convict has escaped]• * it planned [the convict has escaped]
– plan has its own subject, seem does not
Missing subjects with different properties!
• For this reason, the subject of verbs like seem can be pleonastic or idiomatic, if the missing subject has these properties:– It seems [ -- to have rained]– The cat seems [ -- to be out of the bag]
• The subject of verbs like plan can never have these interpretations:– * It planned [ -- to have rained]– * the cat planned [ -- to be out of the bag]]
With seem there is just one argument
• -- seems [ -- to have escaped]
the convict pronounced interpreted
Raising
• In cases where something is interpreted in one place but pronounced in another, a movement analysis is indicated:– The argument of a passive is pronounced in subject
position but interpreted in object position:• -- was arrested the criminal = interpretation• the criminal was arrested = pronunciation
– Wh-phrases are interpreted in a position inside the IP but pronounced in the specifier of CP
• I asked [ -- e [ they arrested who]] = interpretation• I asked [ who e [ they arrested]] = pronunciation
We call this movement Raising• the argument
starts in the lower VP– interpreted
• It moves to the lower subject position– IP must have a
subject• It moves to the
higher subject position– IP must have a
subject– pronounced
The conditions for raising
• Raising never happens out of a finite clause:– The criminal seems [ -- to have escaped]– * the criminal seems [ -- will have escaped]
• In this case, the subject stays inside the lower clause and the higher subject position is filled by a pleonastic:
No raising from finite clause
• Subject moves to lower IP specifier
• It can’t move further
• Higher IP specifier is filled by it
No raising to a non-empty subject
• If the higher subject position is already filled, raising cannot take place:– I believe [ the criminal to have escaped]– * I the criminal believe [ -- to have escaped]
Conclusions
• For raising to happen:– The higher verb must have no subject– The higher verb must take an infinitive
complement
• Verbs which have these properties are called raising verbs:– seem, appear, tend, happen, etc.
Examples
• He seems [ -- to be rich]– It seems [ he is rich]
• He appears [ -- to be intelligent]– It appears [ he is intelligent]
• He happens [ -- to be good looking]– It happens [ he is good looking]
• He tends [ -- to be sarcastic]– * it tends [ he is sarcastic]
• Some raising verbs only have non-finite complements
Raising Adjectives
• He is likely [ -- to win]– It is likely [ he will win]
• He is certain [ -- to lose]– It is certain [ he will lose]
With want there are two arguments
• -- wants [ -- to escape]
the convict pronounced interpreted
the convict interpreted unpronounced
refers to the same individual
How can two arguments refer to the same individual?
• Normally two arguments, even if they are phonologically identical, refer to different individuals:– John hates John
• But if the second is a pronoun, they can have the same referent:– John hates himself– John thinks he is ugly
• With verbs like want there is an unpronounced pronoun in the subject of the lower clause– The criminal wants [ PRO to escape]
We call this phenomenon Control
• Both subjects move to IP specifier
• PRO is controlled by the higher subject
Conditions for control
• PRO can only appear in the subject position of an infinitive:– I expect [ PRO to be paid]– * I expect [ PRO will be paid]
Conditions for control
• There must be a controller:– In Subject position (subject control)
• I promised John [ PRO to pay]
– In Object position (object control)• I persuaded John [ PRO to pay]
Conclusions
• For control to happen:– The higher verb must have a subject or object– The higher verb must take an infinitive
complement
• We call verbs with these properties control verbs:– want, expect, try, etc.
Examples
• They want [ PRO to escape]• They tried [ PRO to find them]• They expect [ PRO to be captured]
Control Adjectives
• They are anxious [ PRO to be caught]• They are willing [ PRO to pay]• They are afraid [ PRO to leave]
Conclusions• There are two constructions in English where
there appears to be no subject in an infinitive clause:– He seems [ -- to be rich]– He wants [ -- to be rich]
• Both do in fact have subjects• Though they look similar they are not
– The first appears to lack a subject because its subject has moved = raising
– The second appears to lack a subject because its subject is unpronounced = control