a study into raising and control in - au purepure.au.dk/portal/files/2555/speciale.pdf · a study...

Anders Jørgensen

A Study into Raising and Control in Adjective Complement Clauses and Result Clauses

1

Speciale til kandidatuddannelsen som translatør og tolk i engelsk Handelshøjskolen, Århus Universitet


Anders Jørgensen Studienr.: 252115 Vejleder: Torben Thrane Afleveringsdato: 28.04.08

Anders Jørgensen


2

Control, control! You must have control!

Yoda .

Anders Jørgensen


3

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the control of PRO in sentences

such as:

(1) Mary was afraid [PRO to leave].

(2) Mary was difficult [PRO to leave].

(3) Mary is too weak [PRO to run].

(4) Mary is too weak [PRO to abandon].

In (1) and (3), control seems to be obligatory, i.e. Mary controls PRO, whereas in (2)

and (4), control is arbitrary, i.e. someone not mentioned in the sentence does the

leaving. The puzzling thing is that in (1) and (2), it seems to be the matrix predicate that

decides the control relations, whereas in (3) and (4), it seems to be the embedded

predicate that decides the control relations. The question is why.

The answer seems to be that the embedded clause in (1) is an ordinary complement

clause of the adjective, and that control into complement clauses is always obligatory.

The embedded clause in (2) is also a complement clause of the matrix predicate, but it is

a raising construction. The subject of the matrix clause has been raised from the

complement position of the embedded clause. Perhaps the reason that PRO is arbitrary

is that the arguments of a predicate cannot refer to the same entity:

(5) * Jimi abandoned Jimi.

Therefore PRO must be arbitrary in (2) because it, too, cannot refer to Mary.

Sentence (4) is what I call a too-construction; the embedded clause is a result

clause licensed by too and is thus not a complement of the predicate. I will argue that

structures, like those in (3) and (4), are related to raising constructions. In contrast to

true raising constructions, the matrix predicate has no impact on which element is

raised. Whether the subject or the complement is raised is a matter of the transitivity of

the verb of the result clause. With intransitive verbs, the subject is raised to become the

subject of the matrix sentence. This is what we see in (3), thus the notation of PRO is

actually incorrect and should be a trace. With transitive verbs, it is the complement of

the embedded verb that is raised to become the subject of the matrix clause. As with

Anders Jørgensen


4

object-raising structures, if the complement of the result clause has been raised to

become the subject of the embedded clause, it cannot also control PRO in the sentence

from which it has been raised.

Another question raised in this thesis is why (6), (7), (8) are grammatical, while (9)

is ungrammatical:

(6) Mary is too afraid [to leave].

(7) Mary is afraid [to leave].

(8) Mary is too weak [to leave].

(9) * Mary is weak [to leave].

As it turns out, in (6) and (8), the embedded clauses are result clauses licensed by too.

In (7), the embedded clause is the complement clause of the transitive predicate afraid,

thus licensed by afraid. Weak, on the other hand, is an intransitive predicate that does

not select a complement; thus the embedded clause in (9) is not licensed.

Anders Jørgensen


5

Contents 1. Introduction......................................................................................................................................7

1.1. Methodological Approach.........................................................................................................8

1.2. Traditional Grammar and Generative Grammar.......................................................................9

1.3. The Science of Grammar ........................................................................................................10

1.4. The Structure of this Paper......................................................................................................13

1.5. Standard Pages ........................................................................................................................14

2. Phrase Structure .............................................................................................................................15

2.1. Verb Phrases (VPs) .................................................................................................................16

2.2. Noun Phrases (NPs) ................................................................................................................17

2.3. Determiner Phrases (DPs).......................................................................................................21

2.4. Adjective Phrases (APs)..........................................................................................................22

2.5. Prepositional Phrases (PPs).....................................................................................................23

2.6. Tense Phrases (TPs) ................................................................................................................24

2.7. Complementiser Phrases (CP) ................................................................................................26

2.8. Infinitival to.............................................................................................................................30

2.9. Passivisation............................................................................................................................32

2.10. Shell Structures .....................................................................................................................34

2.11. Abstractions ..........................................................................................................................36

3. Argument Structure and Subcategorisation ...................................................................................37

3.1. Verbal Predicates ....................................................................................................................37

3.2. Auxiliaries and Copular be .....................................................................................................38

3.3. The Projection Principle..........................................................................................................39

3.4. Problem: Implicit Arguments and Cognate Objects ...............................................................40

3.5. Adjectival Predicates ..............................................................................................................41

4. Theta Theory ..................................................................................................................................42

4.1. The Theta Criterion.................................................................................................................43

4.2. Argument Types and Theta Roles...........................................................................................44

4.3. Theta-Grids .............................................................................................................................45

4.4. Expletive Pronouns .................................................................................................................46

4.5. The Extended Projection Principle .........................................................................................48

Anders Jørgensen


6

4.6. Theta-Marking and Syntactic Relations..................................................................................49

5. Arguments for the Existence of PRO.............................................................................................51

5.1. Non-Finite to Finite Paraphrasing...........................................................................................51

5.2. Distribution of Reflexive Anaphors........................................................................................52

5.3. Together ..................................................................................................................................52

5.4. Danish selv..............................................................................................................................53

6. Types of Control ............................................................................................................................55

7. Raising and Control .......................................................................................................................59

7.1. Subject-to-Subject Raising Adjectives....................................................................................59

7.2. Subject Control Adjectives .....................................................................................................61

7.3. Complements or Adjuncts of the Adjective............................................................................62

7.4. Object-to-Subject Raising.......................................................................................................66

7.5. Comparing Subject-Raising and Object-Raising ....................................................................70

7.6. Partial Conclusion...................................................................................................................71

8. Too-Constructions..........................................................................................................................73

8.1. The Structure of Too-Constructions .......................................................................................73

8.2. PRO and Traces in Simple Too-Constructions .......................................................................77

8.3. The Case of the Missing Argument ........................................................................................83

8.4. PRO and Traces in Complex Too-Constructions....................................................................88

8.5. Too-Constructions and Subject-Raising Adjectives ...............................................................92

8.6. Too-Constructions and Object-Raising Adjectives.................................................................95

8.7. Partial Conclusion...................................................................................................................97

9. Conclusions..................................................................................................................................101

10. Perspectives................................................................................................................................104

11. References..................................................................................................................................107

Anders Jørgensen


7

1. Introduction The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the interpretation of non-overt subjects in complement

clauses of adjectives and in so-called result clauses. The study of these non-overt subjects is known

as control theory. Simplifying somewhat, there are generally two ways that a non-overt subject

(known as PRO) can be interpreted. Either PRO refers to another entity in the sentence, as in (1a),

or it does not, as in (1b):

(1a) Mary is afraid [PRO to leave].

(1b) Mary is difficult [PRO to leave].

In sentence (1a), PRO is interpreted to refer to Mary, i.e. Mary is the one who (potentially) does the

leaving. The terminology is that Mary controls PRO. This is in contrast to (1b) where Mary does

not seem to be doing any leaving. Here it seems that someone else, not mentioned in the sentence, is

doing the leaving of Mary. Sentence (1a) is said to be an instance of obligatory control, whereas

(1b) is an instance of arbitrary control.

PRO also obtains in what is known as result clauses, such as the bracketed clauses below:

(2a) Mary is too weak [PRO to run].1

(2b) Mary is too weak [PRO to abandon].

In (2a), Mary controls PRO, whereas in (2b), someone not mentioned in the sentence seems to be

doing the abandoning of Mary, i.e. it is an instance of arbitrary control. I wonder what the cause of

these different interpretations of PRO is. I also wonder why (3a), (3b) and (3c) are all grammatical,

while (3d) is clearly ungrammatical:

(3a) Mary is too afraid [to leave].

(3b) Mary is afraid [to leave].

(3c) Mary is too weak [to leave].

(3d) * Mary is weak [to leave].

1 Later, it will be argued that it is not PRO that occupies the subject position of run, but in fact a trace.

Anders Jørgensen


8

If we consider excited and exhausted as adjectives, we find the same pattern:

(4a) Mary was too excited [to leave].

(4b) Mary was excited [to leave].

(4c) Mary was too exhausted [to leave].

(4d) * Mary was exhausted [to leave].

It will be the object of this thesis to answer those two questions: what causes PRO to be interpreted

the way it does in adjectival complement clauses and in result clauses and why is (3d) and (4d)

ungrammatical while the other sentences are fine?

1.1. Methodological Approach

The main theoretical framework of this thesis will be the Principles and Parameters (P&P) approach

described in Carnie (2002). This is the second to last step in the generative tradition of Chomsky. In

the 80s, the theory that would become the P&P theory was known as Government and Binding

(GB), and later, in the 1990s and at present, the theory is known as the Minimalist Programme (MP)

or Minimalism. The latter was initiated in order to weed out the vastness of complex syntactic rules

that had developed in the GB period (Carnie 2002: 5).

An account of GB theory is found in e.g. Haegeman (1991) and an account of Minimalism is

found in Radford (2004). Comparing the P&P approach in Carnie (2002) and the Minimalist

approach in Radford (2004), most of the basic theory seems to be identical. In Minimalism,

however, we seem to find an extended model of language, which includes notions such as Phonetic

Form and Logical Form, as well as another new idea called phases. The main assumptions about

syntactic structure, however, seem to be the same.

Though this thesis is based primarily on the P&P approach as described in Carnie (2002),

there will be instances of reference to Haegamen (1991) mainly in the section about argument

structure, and to Radford (2004) in cases where the theory in Carnie (2002) does not cover a

theoretical point needed later in the paper.

Anders Jørgensen


9

1.2. Traditional Grammar and Generative Grammar

Traditional grammar is usually divided into two sub-branches: prescriptive grammar and descriptive

grammar. Prescriptive grammar concerns rules that teach people how to write and speak. Classic

English examples of prescriptive rules are: Don’t end a sentence with a preposition and don’t split

an infinitive (Carnie (2002: 7)). Prescriptive grammar is usually based on tradition or on opinion

about language, or they may be based on descriptive grammar, especially if they are used in foreign

language education. A prescriptive rule based on description would be a Danish student of English

who might learn the rule: In English, small adverbs are placed between the subject and the verb,

but never after the verb (in contrast to Danish)2:

(1a) He never went to school.

(1b) * He went never to school.

(1c) Han gik aldrig i skole.

The rule is an example of a prescriptive rule based on description. Descriptive grammar, then, as

suggested, deals with describing sentence structure, placing words in word classes and labelling

strings of words that belong together in constituents that form sentences, and with describing how

words and constituents are placed relative to each other in a particular language.

Generative grammar is like descriptive grammar in some ways. It is argued (Carnie (2002: 4))

that linguistics (syntax in particular) is a cognitive science, which is a cover term for all the

disciplines that aim at describing and explaining humans’ ability to think, particularly about abstract

notions. Most researchers agree that humans have a language centre in the brain that enable us to

speak, but Chomsky takes it a step further and claims that some of the rules that humans need in

order to form and understand sentences are innate, i.e. that humans are born with these rules (Carnie

(2002: 13)). It is an extraordinary (and to some, controversial) idea that grammatical rules are

innate. Some rules are not innate, of course; otherwise language variation could not be explained.

The fact that a transitive verb selects an object seems to be a universal rule, but whether the verb

precedes the object or the object precedes the verb needs to be learnt (Carnie (2002: 18)).

2 The rule is oversimplified, but it is used in conjunction with other sentence structure rules in English teaching in Danish schools.

Anders Jørgensen


10

There are several arguments that humans are equipped with rules that are innate. One

argument is that language is so productive and creative that virtually no two sentences are the same.

How is a child supposed to learn the rules if all sentences differ? Especially when it only takes four

to six years to master the syntax of one’s native language (Carnie (2002: 15)). The solution for this

is to claim that all types of phrase (verb phrases, noun phrases, prepositional phrases, etc.) and even

sentences share the same basic structure, and they all combine with other phrases the same way. If

this information about a general syntactic phrase structure is innate, then a child is much better

equipped to learn and decipher sentences uttered in its surroundings.

Generative grammar, then, does not only describe sentences and their components and

structure; it seeks to explain sentence structure. It asks the questions: how are humans able to put

constituents together to form sentences? What generative rules can explain why some sentences are

well-formed while others are not? The exceptionally ambitious task is to find the rules that all

languages share, the rules that can generate sentences in all languages, while they, at the same time,

do not over-generate a lot of sentences in a particular language that are ill-formed.

In short, one part of the research deals with describing language, the other part, the significant

part, deals with explaining how language works.

1.3. The Science of Grammar

Over the years there have been many different takes on how to obtain knowledge from the world.

One approach is inductivism. Inductivism (and its variations, some of which are called positivism

and empiricism) is generally based on the idea that it is the job of the scientist to make observations

about the world and to make generalisations about these observations. If all the data that have been

collected suggest the same thing, the observations can be generalised to universal rules. This kind of

generalisation is called induction. Some requirements have usually been made for induction to be

legitimate. Firstly, a lot of observations must be made or data collected. Secondly, the observations

must be repeated under many different circumstances (without personal prejudice from the

observer), and thirdly, no single observation must contradict the universal rule that has been posited

(Chalmers (1995: 28-33)).

But the idea of inductivism has been heavily criticised. This is partly due to the following

arguments. Firstly, having observed a lot of data does not logically justify generalisation to

universal rules.

Anders Jørgensen


11

In logic, deduction is the way to find truth. A deductive argument consists of three steps: two

premises and one conclusion. A classic example is: 1) All men are mortal. 2) Socrates is a man. 3)

Socrates is mortal. If the premises are true, then the conclusion is necessarily true. This is in

contrast to induction. From a logical point of view, it is not a viable argument to say that 1) this

observation was made here at that time, 2) the same observation was made there at that time (and at

a number of other places at different times), ergo 3) the same observation must be true at all places

at all times (Chalmers (1995: 42)).

The second requirement (Chalmers (1995: 46)) says that the observations must be made under

many different circumstances. However, even if we have a very large number of observations that

confirm our hypothesis, we cannot readily say that the probability of the generalisation being true is

more likely than with few data. The fact is that we can in fact change the circumstances ad inifitum.

Should we try to calculate the probability of something being true, using a finite set of observations

divided by an infinite number of possibilities, the result would be zero. (Anything divided by

infinity is zero) (Chalmers (1995: 49)).

Finally, induction relies entirely and completely on the objective observer (Chalmers (1995:

47)). It needs not be argued at length that different people observe or perceive things differently due

to their personal, cultural and educational backgrounds and due to their expectations to what they

observe (Chalmers (1995: 56-7)). In fact, all people seem to have conscious or subconscious

theories about what they observe. That leads to thoughts regarding falsificationism.

Falsificationism takes the complete opposite view: whereas inductivism starts with obser-

vation and data collecting, which are then generalised into rules or theories, falsificationism starts

by making hypotheses or theories that are then tested against real-world data. If the hypothesis can

stand the testing, then it is a viable theory. Falsificationism dictates that all attempts at falsifying a

hypothesis in any way possible should be made. But whereas inductivism dictates that no personal

judgement should be made as to the circumstances under which an experiment or observation has

been made, falsificationism accepts the fact that all theories (as well as any attempt to falsify a

theory) are based on other theories, or presumptions (Chalmers (1995: 73)).

A bold theory that can account for a lot of data but which cannot be falsified is a good theory.

If it can stand the trials of continuous search for counter-examples, we have learnt something

significant and new about the world. Moreover, if a simple and every-day, commonly known

theory, which has always been considered to be true, is falsified, we have also learned something

significant about the world (Chalmers (1995: 95)).

Anders Jørgensen


12

Further it should be noted that from a logical point of view, deduction in the falsificationistic

approach is logically viable. It is a viable argument to say that: 1) This theory tells us something

about the word in this place at this time; 2) a counter-example is found at that place at that time; 3)

The theory is not true.

Falsificationism does not claim to be the way to finding the truths about the world, only that

as long as a theory has not been falsified, it is the best theory available. If there are two competing

theories, then the theory that can account for the most data or observations is the better theory

(Chalmers (1995: 83)).

The Chomskyan approach to language is much like that of falsificationism. Hypotheses are

made about the underlying system of language. The practical consequences that the hypotheses

might have are then tested experimentally. The data used, however, are somewhat different from

those used in the exact sciences. In the sciences, data from the real world (or from a laboratory) are

used and tested against the hypotheses. Chomsky uses introspection. That is, a hypothesis that can

generate sentences is made. Then it is tested whether the rule generates grammatically well-formed

sentences or ill-formed sentences, or both. The linguist uses introspection to determine whether a

sentence is grammatical or not (Arndt (2003: 249-50)).

The fact that introspection is used may pose a problem as it can be accused of being

subjective. Sometimes people disagree on what sounds grammatical. Further, it is argued that it is

necessary to focus only on the core phenomena of language and to idealise the data used, leaving

out false starts and sentences interrupted by er and uhm, etc. Therefore linguists working in the

generative framework can be accused of selecting sentences ‘by introspection’ that confirm their

hypotheses and discarding those that do not as ‘peripheral’ (Arndt (2003: 249-50)).

However, the idea that a theory that can account for more data is a better theory than a theory

that can account for less data is used all the time in the generative approach. As already mentioned,

the theories of sentence structure have been generalised so that a single rule can account for the

basic structure of all types of phrases and sentences. This must be better than a number of theories

that can explain a number of different phrases.

Concerning the PRO hypothesis, Carnie (2002: 263-4) notes that the existence of PRO is

basically a theoretical matter, and admits that without much empirical data to support the existence

of the silent pronoun (or whatever it is), one should be suspicious about the claim that PRO exists.

One thing is whether we understand a subject, another is whether this subject is actually

syntactically projected, as claimed. Carnie (ibid.) concedes that the reason for claiming the PRO

Anders Jørgensen


13

hypothesis is largely theoretical, but argues that ‘[i]t can account for most of the data having to do

with embedded infinitival clauses. Until a better theory comes along, the PRO hypothesis wins

because it can explain so much data’. This, I suppose, is in the spirit of the falsificationistic

approach to science.

It is not the object of this thesis to prove or disprove the existence of PRO (although, the

question will be addressed in sections 5. and 7.2.). Much of this thesis simply tries to describe

certain sentence structures, especially those concerning adjectival complement clauses and so-called

result clauses. In section 8, which concerns what I call too-constructions, I will make some

suggestions as to why the non-overt subjects are interpreted the way they are. I assume that the

theory used to describe the sentences is commonly known, acceptable and uncontroversial within

the P&P approach, as described in Carnie (2002).

The data used in this thesis have not been collected from the world; they have been devised

via introspection in order to prove or disprove the point at hand. Therefore, they may be criticised

for being subjective. I do, however, believe this to be necessary, as the comparison of sentences

such as (1a) and (1b) would not realistically be possible if they would have to be found in a corpus.

Most sentences are simply not that similar.

1.4. The Structure of this Paper

In order to answer the questions posed in the introduction, quite a lot of theory is needed that does

not immediately seem applicable to the questions at hand.

Section 2 concerns the structure of phrases and clauses, which cannot be left out simply

because of the terminology used in later sections. Section 3 concerns argument structure, which

concerns the number of arguments that a given predicate selects, and subcategorisation which

concerns the type of arguments that a predicate selects. This section boils down the so-called

projection principle which will pose problems for the analysis of sentences in later sections.

Section 4 concerns theta theory which deals with the semantic roles that the participants in a

sentence receive from the predicate. This section boils down to two principles: the extended projec-

tion principle, and the theta criterion. The theta criterion will, in conjunction with the projection

principle, make it difficult to explain the grammaticality of certain sentences in later sections. These

first three sections constitute the fundamental theoretical framework of this thesis.

Anders Jørgensen


14

After this rather extensive theoretical account, I will turn to control theory in sections 5 and 6.

Section 5 concerns the empirical evidence in favour of the existence of non-overt PRO, and section

6 presents a more detailed account of the types of obligatory and non-obligatory control.

Finally in sections 7 and 8, some of the questions posed in the Introduction will be answered.

The first part of section 7 is dedicated to comparing what is known as subject-raising adjectives to

subject control adjectives. They may be difficult to tell apart on the surface, since the non-overt

subject of the embedded clause is interpreted to be identical to the subject of the matrix clause in

both instances.

Later in section 7, object-raising adjectives will be presented as well as some of the problems

that these constructions pose. In this section, it will be explained why the non-overt subjects of

sentences (1a) and (1b) in the Introduction are interpreted differently and it should become clear

why sentences (3b) and (4b) are grammatical, while their counterparts (3d) and (4d) are not.

In section 8, the type of structures that I call too-constructions will be discussed. The theory

presented in section 7 will be used to explain the interpretation possibilities of the non-overt

subjects in too-constructions like those of (2a) and (2b) in the Introduction and the projection

principle and the theta criterion will be discussed as problems for these analyses. Finally it should

also become clear why sentences (3a), (3c), (4a) and (4c) are all grammatical.

The numbering of examples and figures is continuous throughout each main section. When

reference is made to an example or figure, it is implicitly understood to refer to a figure or example

within that same main section, unless otherwise expressed.

1.5. Standard Pages

This thesis consists of 108 pages or 131,857 characters, blanks excluded. According to the Study

Guide, a thesis should consist of 50 to 80 standard pages, where a standard page is defined as 2,200

characters (blanks excluded). If the figures presented in this thesis are estimated to contain roughly

the same number of characters as the space they take up had it been text, they take up is roughly

8,300 characters. Thus the total number of characters of this thesis is estimated to be 140,157,

equivalent to 64 standard pages.

Anders Jørgensen


2. Phrase Structure In this section, I will describe sentence structure of the P&P framework as it is accounted for in

Carnie (2002), but before venturing into the structure of trees, a little terminology needs to be

accounted for.

In an ordinary simple sentence, we distinguish between different functions at sentence level:

the verb, the subject, the direct object, the indirect object and adjuncts3. In the P&P approach, verbs

are placed alongside other lexical categories such as adjectives and nouns, because, it is argued,

they display some of the same properties, and a common term for the function of these lexical cate-

gories is predicate. Direct objects and indirect objects of verbs and ‘objects’ of adjectives and nouns

are known as complements. Complements and subjects of predicates are commonly known as

arguments of the predicate. The subject is sometimes referred to as the external argument and the

object is sometimes referred to as the internal argument. Modifiers of all kinds, including sentence

adverbials and modifying adjectives in noun phrases, fall under the notion of adjunct.

Now let us turn to the general structure of sentences and phrases.

One of the most remarkable ideas in the generative framework described in Carnie (2002) is that all

types of phrases (NPs, VPs, PPs, etc.) basically share the same structure. Because all types of

phrases and even clauses and sentences share the same basic structure, the term XP has been

devised to cover all types of phrases, and X as the cover term for all types of heads.

The general structure advocated for in Carnie (2002) is this:

(1) XP Specifier YP X’

15

X’ ZP Adjunct Head X WP Complement

(Based on the phrase structure rules in Carnie (2002: 129)

3 There are several more functions, e.g. subject complement and object complement, but these are not relevant to matters at hand.

Anders Jørgensen


The XP is called the maximal projection of the head; The X’s (X-bars) are also known as the

intermediate projections of the head, and the head X is also known as the minimal projection of the

head. The YP is located in the so-called specifier position (where the subject of the verb phrase is

located, as we shall see shortly); the ZP is located in the adjunct position, i.e. it is an adjunct, and

WP is located in the complement position, i.e. in a verb phrase it would be the direct object.

Let us take a look at how the basic structure in (1) translates into real phrases.

2.1. Verb Phrases (VPs)

The basic structure in (1) translates a verb phrase such as:

(2a) Peter ate the steak with great ferocity.

into a tree diagram in the following way:

(2b) VP DP V’

16

V’ PP V DP Peter ate the steak with great ferocity

In (2b), Peter is the subject and is found in the specifier position of the VP; ate is the head verb and

is located in the head position (V); the steak is the direct object and is located in the complement

position of the verb; and with great ferocity is an adjunct that describes the manner in which Peter

ate the steak and is located in the adjunct position. In contrast to what one might have expected, the

label NP has not been used for Peter and the steak. Consider DP as the abbreviation for noun phrase

for the moment.

An important note is that the complement is always a sister to the head, whereas adjuncts are

always sisters to the X-bar, (i.e. V-bar in VPs). The reasoning behind (2b) may or may not seem

Anders Jørgensen


17

straightforward at the moment, but let us turn to noun phrases in which, hopefully it will become

clear.

(The above description of VPs under Carnie’s (2002) approach is an abbreviated version of

pages 110-12; 126 and 203).

2.2. Noun Phrases (NPs)

If we look at a phrase such as:

(3) the big book of poems with the red cover

it is argued that it is not a noun phrase, but a determiner phrase headed by the determiner the which

selects its complement NP big book of poems with the red cover. I will return to this shortly; let us

ignore the for the moment and focus on the NP:

(4) big book of poems with the red cover

In (4), book is the head of the NP and in traditional grammar big, of poems and with the red cover

would be considered to be modifiers. In the generative approach outlined in Carnie (2002), of

poems is considered to be the complement of book, whereas big and with the red cover are adjuncts.

The rationale behind this idea is that (with transitive heads) there can only be one

complement, whereas there can be as many adjuncts as we like, and that adjuncts can switch places

with each other relatively freely:

(5a) (the) book of poems (head+complement)

(5b) * (the) book of poems of fiction (head+compl+compl)

(5c) (the) book of poems with the red cover (head+compl+adjunct)

(5d) (the) book with the red cover from Blackwell (head+adjunct+adjunct)

(5e) (the) book of poems from Blackwell with the red cover (head+compl+adjunct+adjunct)

(examples adapted from Carnie (2002:120-1))

whereas complements and adjuncts cannot switch places freely:

Anders Jørgensen


(5f) * (the) book with the red cover of poems (head+adjunct+complement)

(Adapted from Carnie (2002: 121))

When an adjunct is a modifying adjective, it occurs in front of the head, naturally:

(5g) (the) big book of poems with the red cover (adjunct+head+compl+adjunct)

As mentioned in section 2.1., complements must be sisters to the head, and thus it makes sense that

there can only be one complement of the head, as only binary branching trees are allowed, not

ternary branching trees:

(6) * NP N PP PP

18

book of poems of fiction

Adjuncts, on the other had, are sisters of the intermediate projection X-bar (i.e. N-bar in NPs), and

in NPs with several adjuncts, we can simply add another N-bar.

(7) NP Adjuncts, sisters to N’ specifier N’ AP N’ N’ PP N PP Complement, sister to N big book of poems with the blue cover

(Based on Carnie (2002: 108)

In Carnie’s (2002: 108) representation of this figure, the determiner the is located in the specifier

position, but this idea is later modified, so in this NP, the specifier is simply empty, which is a

common feature of NPs.

Anders Jørgensen


19

The rationale behind the intermediate layers of the tree structure in (7) is based on a

constituency test, the so-called one-replacement test (Carnie (2002: 108))4. It is argued that one can

replace N-bars but not the head N itself:

(8a) I bought the big [book of poems with the blue cover] not the small [one].

(Carnie (2002: 108))

In (8a), the speaker uses one to replace book of poems with the blue cover in order not to repeat

himself unnecessarily. Thus, in (8a), one targets the middle N-bar in (7). This is not the case in (8b):

8b) I bought the big [book of poems] with the blue cover, not the small [one] with the red

cover.

(Carnie (2002: 108))

In (8b), one replaces book of poems, and thus it targets the lowest of the N-bars in (7). In order to

target the highest N-bar, the sentence needs to be changed slightly. It is better with want as the verb

and the determiner the has to be changed to this and that, but otherwise, the test seems to show the

same thing:

(8c) I want this [big book of poems with the red cover] not that [one].

(Carnie (2002: 108))

Finally, Carnie (2002: 122) argues that one cannot replace the head N:

(8d) * I bought the [big book of poems with the blue cover] not the [one] of poems with the

red cover.

The acceptability of (8d) may depend on dialectal variation. Some dialects of English do allow for

one to replace the head N (Carnie (2002: 122fn)), but the point is that there are intermediate layers

of a phrase (i.e. V-bars and N-bars) that traditional grammar usually does not take into account.

4 There are other constituency tests that account for intermediate projections in other types of phrases. In VPs, the so-called do so test can target the intermediate V-bars of the VP (Carnie (2002: 110-1)).

Anders Jørgensen


20

Carnie develops three rules, phrase structure rules, that can account for the internal structure

of phrases:

(9) Specifier rule: XP → (YP) X’

Adjunct rule: X’ → X’ (ZP)

Complement rule: X’ → X (WP)

(Carnie (2002: 129)

The specifier rule is interpreted as follows: an XP branches into a specifier YP and an X’. The

adjuncts rule says that an X’ branches into another X’ and an adjunct ZP. The complement rule says

that an X’ branches into the head X and the complement WP.

The fact that the specifier (YP), the adjunct (ZP) and the complement (WP) are all in

parentheses simply suggests that the specifier, the adjunct and the complement need not be

projected.

These rules create the structure (1) in section 2.1. It is important to note that the X’ is repeated

in the adjunct rule; this is what allows the adding of adjuncts at will, and the property is known as

recursion.

It should also be noted that the tree may branch either way, so that the phrase structure rules

might also look like this:

(10) Specifier rule: XP → X’ (YP)

Adjunct rule: X’ → (ZP) X’

Complement rule: X’ → (WP) X

(Carnie (2002: 129)

The phrase structure rules are said to be innate, i.e. it is claimed that humans are born with these

rules. They account for the fact that, in English, adjuncts may be found on either side of the head

and that in other languages the complements precede their heads. This is known as parameterisation

and can explain much syntactic variation across languages. In English, however, the head usually

precedes its complement. Whether the head precedes its complement or vice versa has to be learnt,

naturally, and is not innate.

This concludes what I have to say about NPs; now let us turn to DPs.

Anders Jørgensen


2.3. Determiner Phrases (DPs)

In the previous section it was shown that nouns take PP complements, and it was suggested that the

determiner is not part of the NP as is usually believed in traditional descriptive grammar. It is

argued that the determiner itself heads a projection, the determiner phrase which takes an NP as its

complement, as in (11):

(11) DP specifier D’

21

D NP the book with the red cover

The idea behind this reasoning is that determiners seem to be phrasal in nature, i.e. there cannot be

two determiners in a phrase:

(12) * The that book

and it is a requirement of the phrase structure rules (cf. (1), (9) and (10)) that all elements within a

phrase, except the head itself, are phrasal (Carnie 2002: 144). Moreover, if the above structure is

accepted, it can explain the s-genitive structure.

First it is noted that an s-genitive and a determiner are in complementary distribution:

(13a) the building’s roof

(13b) * the building’s the roof

This suggests that the ’s is a determiner and not merely an ending. If this assumption is true, (13a)

can be accounted for in the following way:

(13c) DP DP D’ D NP the building ’s roof

Anders Jørgensen


In (13c), the possessor is found in the specifier of the DP (and because the building is also a DP, the

specifier is a DP), and the possessed is the complement of the determiner, viz. the NP roof.

This section on DPs is based on Carnie (2002: 144-147). Let us move on to adjective phrases.

2.4. Adjective Phrases (APs)

The structure of adjective phrases, it is argued, is similar to that of other phrases. However, for now,

we will not consider what the specifier might contain. The bracketed AP in (14):

(14) the [very bright blue] dress

is argued to have the following structure:

(15) AP spec A’

22

AdvP A’ AdvP A’ A very bright blue’

(Adapted from Carnie 2002: 112)

The adverb phrase (AdvP) bright is a modifier of the adjective head blue, and very is a modifier of

bright blue. The different interpretations as to what they modify is shown in the structure. Very

modifies bright blue which are linked in the middle A’, which is the sister to very, and bright

modifies blue, and is the sister of the lowest A’. There is no complement in (15); therefore the

lowest A’ does not branch. Some adjectives, however, do select complements, e.g. afraid and fond,

as in (16) and (17):

Anders Jørgensen


(16) I am [afraid of tigers].

(17) I am [fond of clowns].

(Carnie 2002: 113)

One reason for arguing that of tigers and of clowns are complements rather than adjunct PPs is due

to their verbal counterparts, fear and like:

(18) I fear tigers.

(19) I like clowns.

The structure of the APs in (20) and (21) would be as follows:

(20) AP (21) AP spec A’ spec A’

23

A PP A PP afraid of tigers fond of clowns

This subsection has been based on Carnie (2002: 35-7; 112-3). Let us now turn to prepositional

phrases.

2.5. Prepositional Phrases (PPs)

Prepositional phrases usually take complements as in:

(22) with the red cover

In (22), with is the head and the red cover is the complement. There is no specifier or adjuncts in

this phrase, which is common in PPs. The structure of (22) is that of (23):

Anders Jørgensen


(23) PP spec P’

24

P DP with the red cover

The account of PPs is based on Carnie (2002: 37-8; 113-4). Let us turn to tense phrases.

2.6. Tense Phrases (TPs)

Since the modal verbs are all finite in English, they are claimed to contain the tensed element, or

finite element, of the clause (Carnie 2002: 40). If we take (2a), repeated here as (24):

(24) [VP Peter ate the steak with great ferocity]

we can easily include a modal verb, such as will:

(25a) Peter will eat the steak with great ferocity.

Will is the head of a tense phrase (TP) and it selects the VP (24) as its complement:

(25b) TP specifier T’ T VP DP V’ V’ PP V DP will Peter eat the steak with great ferocity

Anders Jørgensen


This, of course, does not derive the correct word order. It is claimed that the DP Peter, which is

located (is base-generated) in the specifier position of the verb phrase, moves to the specifier

position of the tense phrase (popularly known as spec-TP) in order to receive nominative case, thus

deriving the correct word order. Peter is said to leave a trace (marked as t) in the original position:

(25c) TP

25

DP T’ T VP DP V’ V’ PP V DP Peter will t eat the stake with great ferocity

This is a transformational rule, a movement rule. It is argued (Carnie 2002:190-1) that sentences

consist of two structures: D-structures, i.e. the structure of the sentence before movement takes

place, and S-structure, i.e. the structure that is found after movement has taken place.

In sentences that do not contain modals or other finite auxiliaries, as in (24), it is still claimed

that the subject moves to spec-TP:

(26) TP DP T’ T VP DP V’ V’ PP V DP Peter t ate the stake with great ferocity

Anders Jørgensen


The above is based on Carnie (2002: 39-41; 155-7; 203).

At his point, I would like to return to APs. It is argued (Carnie 2002: 257fn) that the comple-

ment of T does not necessarily have to be a VP, but can also be other types of phrases, e.g. an AP:

(27a) Jean is reluctant to leave.

(Carnie 2002: 255)

In (27a), it is claimed that is is the head of T and that it selects the AP reluctant to leave as its

complement:

(27b) TP DP T’

26

T AP specifier A’ A CP

Jean is reluctant to leave

(Based on Carnie 2002: 261)

Although Carnie (2002) does not mention it explicitly, I assume that Jean is base-generated in the

specifier of AP only then to move to spec-TP to receive case. Since to leave is the complement of

the adjective, it seems that adjectives, like verbs, take subjects and complements.

2.7. Complementiser Phrases (CP)

In traditional grammar complementisers are known as subordinate conjunctions, i.e. words that

introduce complement clauses. The bracketed clauses in (28) and (29) are complementiser phrases

(CPs):

(28) Heidi said [that Art loves peanut Butter].

Anders Jørgensen


(29) Colin asked [if they could get a mortgage].

(Carnie (2002: 148))

The bracketed clauses, or phrases, are headed by the complementisers that and if and they take TPs

as complements:

(30) CP specifier C’

27

C TP Heidi said that Art loves peanut butter Colin asked if they could get a mortgage

There is no specifier in the CPs in (28) and (29). The CPs themselves are, of course, complements

of the verbs said and asked, as in:

(31) V’ V CP specifier C’ C TP said that Art loves peanut putter asked if they could get a mortgage

Complementiser phrases are also found in interrogatives, such as:

(32) Will John come to the party?

(33) What will John bring?

Anders Jørgensen


Sentence (32) is a yes-no interrogative, which demands the answer yes or no. (33) is a constituent

interrogative which demands the answer to a concrete thing. (32) can be compared to its declarative

counterpart (34), whereas (33) can be compared to a so-called echo-question (35):

(34) John will come to the party.

(35) John will bring what?

Comparing (32) and (34) it is claimed that will moves from a position after the subject in (32) to a

position before the subject in (34). The structure of (32) is argued to be that of (36):

(36) CP specifier C’

28

C TP [Q] DP T’ T VP DP V’ V’ PP V Will John t t come to the party As argued earlier, the subject John is base-generated in the specifier of VP only then to move to

spec-TP in order to receive nominative case. The modal will is base-generated as the head of T, but

moves to the head C because of a question feature [Q] located in C in interrogatives.

If we compare (33) with (35), we find that in (35), will has moved to a position in front of the

subject and what has moved from the complement position of bring to a position before will. As in

the yes-no interrogative, it is claimed that will moves from T to C, and it is claimed that what moves

into the specifier position of CP:

Anders Jørgensen


(37) CP DP C’

29

C TP [Q] DP T’ T VP DP V’ V DP What will John t t bring t

Both what and will are argued to move because of the question feature in C.

At this point it may be relevant to mention the notion of c-command. C-command is a

structural relation that can be defined informally as a relation between a constituent on the one hand

and its sister and its sister’s daughters on the other (Carnie 2002: 75). It is claimed (e.g. White

1997: 11) that an element cannot move to a position which does not c-command the base-position.

As we can see, all of the positions to which an element moves c-commands the base-position of that

element.

The claim that will and other auxiliaries are located in C alongside complementisers such as if

and that may seem odd. The argument is that there is no auxiliary inversion in embedded

interrogative clauses:

(38a) Colin asked [if they could get a mortgage].

(38b) * Colin asked [if could they get a mortgage].

This suggests that auxiliary inversion and complementisers are in complementary distribution. What

this means is that if we assume that auxiliaries try to move to C in embedded interrogative clauses,

then this is simply not possible because another element (the complementiser) has been base-

generated in that position. Therefore, the auxiliary does not move and no inversion takes place.

Anders Jørgensen


30

One last thing to be noted here is that it is argued that all sentences, including declaratives,

have a CP-layer, even if no elements are overt in C and in the specifier of the CP. The head of the

CP is claimed to contain the illocutionary force of the sentence, i.e. it determines whether the

sentence is declarative, interrogative, imperative or exclamative. In declarative matrix clauses, C is

simply non-overt, whereas in embedded clauses it is marked with that. In interrogative matrix

clauses, the illocutionary force of the sentence is marked with an auxiliary or a modal and in

embedded interrogative clause, it is marked with if.

The account on complementiser phrases is based on Carnie (2002: 40-1; 147-5)

2.8. Infinitival to

In traditional grammar, infinitival to is claimed to belong to a word class of its own: the infinitive

marker. Infinitival to does not seem to conform very well to other word classes, but on the hand, it

is very odd to claim that we have to invent a word class which contains only one word. Therefore, it

has been proposed that infinitival to belongs to the category of auxiliaries (and is thus base-

generated in T). The arguments for placing infinitival to in this word class are based on its

distributional properties.

Firstly, infinitival to selects a VP complement with a bare infinitive as its head, just like

auxiliaries (Radford (2004: 50)):

(39) I wonder whether to [go home].

(40) Many people want the government to [change course].

(41) We don’t intend to [surrender].

(Radford 2004: 49)

Secondly, in many examples, infinitival to seems to be in complementary distribution with

auxiliaries (Radford (2004: 51)):

(42a) It’s vital [that John should show an interest].

(42b) It’s vital [for John to show an interest].

(Radford 2004: 51)

Anders Jørgensen


31

On a related note: since that and for also both occupy the same position in the sentences above, it is

argued that for (in this use) belongs to the category of complementisers along with that, when, if,

etc. and is thus base-generated in C. While other complementisers require a finite complement

clause (cf. (42a)), for selects a non-finite to-infinitive clause as its complement (cf. (42b)) (Radford

(2004: 53)).

Thirdly, infinitival to and auxiliaries seem to share the same elliptical properties (Börjars

and Burridge (2001: 183)). In English, ellipsis of a VP is generally only allowed if an auxiliary is

left behind and if the information it contains can be understood from the immediate linguistic

context, consider:

(43) She said that they may have been wanting to see some weird things…

… and they may.

… and they may have.

… and they may have been.

* … and they may have been wanting.

… and they may have been wanting to.

(Example: Börjars and Burridge 2001: 183)

Thus, the bracketed clauses in (42a) and (42b) are claimed to have a similar structure:

Anders Jørgensen


(44)

32

CP spec C’ C TP DP T’ T VP spec V’ V DP It’s vital that John should show an interest It’s vital for John to show an interest

In (44), I have abstracted away from the movement of the subject from the specifier position of VP

to spec-TP, leaving the specifier of VP empty. This will be common practice in the rest of this

thesis.

2.9. Passivisation

Let us now take a look at passivisation. If we compare the active sentence (45a) and its passive

counterpart (45b):

(45a) The police found no evidence of any corruption.

(45b) No evidence of any corruption was found.

(Example (45b) from Radford 2004: 260)

we see that what appears to be the complement of the active sentence appears to be the subject in

the passive sentence. Therefore, it is argued, the subject of the passive sentence is actually base-

generated as the complement of found (Carnie 2002: 231), only then to move to the specifier

position of T where the subject of sentences is found:

Anders Jørgensen


(45c) CP C TP

33

DP T’ T VP V DP

No evidence of any corruption was found t

passivisation

(Based on Radford (2004: 262))

The subject of an active sentence is not projected in a passive sentence, and because it is claimed

that sentences must have subjects, the complement moves to become the subject of the sentence.

It should also be noted that the subject of a passive construction does not necessarily need to

move. Instead the expletive pronoun there can occupy the subject position of the sentence, leaving

the complement in the complement position (Radford (2004: 260)):

(45d) There was found no evidence of any corruption.

(Radford (2004: 260))

Perhaps, so-called unaccusative verbs should be noted in the passing. Unaccusative verbs are

inherently passive intransitive verbs (Radford 254-6). Their argument is base-generated as a com-

plement, and unsurprisingly, they cannot be passivised. Examples of unaccusative verbs are arise,

occur and remain:

(46a) There have arisen several complications.

(Radford 2004: 254)

(46b) Several complications have arisen.

(46c) * Several complications have been arisen.

Anders Jørgensen


2.10. Shell Structures

It is also necessary to take a brief look at the double object construction. This is not described in

Carnie (2002), so the structure described in Radford (2004) will be used.

Double object constructions such as:

(47) He rolled [the ball] [down the hill].

(Radford 2004: 337)

pose some problems for the binary branching structure advocated for in the P&P approach in Carnie

(2002) as well as the Minimalist approach in Radford (2004). If it is true, as assumed, that

complements and verbs have to be sisters, this would suggest the following ternary branching

structure of (47):

(48) V’

34

V DP PP rolled the ball down the hill

(Radford (2004: 337))

This, however, would wrongly predict that the ball down the hill does not form a constituent. Co-

ordination using and is a type of constituency test that shows whether a string of words forms a

constituent or not. From (49) we see that the ball down the hill can, in fact, form a constituent:

(49) He rolled [the ball down the hill] and [the acorn up the mountain].

(Radford (2004: 337))

This suggests that the structure is more complex than that shown in (48). It is argued that the ball is

in a way the subject of roll down the hill, as in:

(50) The ball rolled down the hill.

Further, it is argued that (47) in a way is paraphrasable as (51):

Anders Jørgensen


(51) He made the ball roll down the hill.

To account for this, Radford (2004: 336) argues that VPs with two complements consist of two

distinct projections: an outer VP shell and an inner VP core. The abstract structure looks as follows:

(52) vP spec v’

35

v VP spec V’ V comp

For a sentence such as (47), the structure looks as follows:

(52) vP DP v’ v VP DP V’ V PP He rolled the ball t down the hill

(Based on Radford (2004: 340, fig. 42)

The verb roll is base-generated in V. It selects its complement, the PP down the hill, and forms the

V’. This in turn merges (as is the terminology in Minimalism) with the DP the ball to form the VP.

This VP then merges with v, which is assumed to contain a non-overt light verb akin to make in

(51), to form the v’. At this point, roll moves into v and adjoins to it. Finally, this v’ merges with

the DP he to form vP.

Anders Jørgensen


This idea is extended to cover double object structures that include direct and indirect objects,

such as:

(53) They will get [the teacher] [a present].

The structure of (53) and others like it pose exactly the same problem for the binary branching

theory as that of (47), but can all be accounted for by the structure of (51).

2.11. Abstractions

Since most of the relevant analyses in later sections concern the higher levels of the sentence, i.e.

the levels that concern the CP, TP and the highest lexical level (which will usually be an AP), most

of the details of the syntactic analyses will be abstracted away.

In particular, when there is no specifier in a given phrase, it will not be represented. Thus PPs,

for instance, will be presented thus:

(54) PP P DP with the red cover

It will be practice not to analyse DPs and NPs down to word level, as in (54), and, as already

mentioned, I will also abstract away from the movement of the subject in APs and VPs to spec-TP,

by simply showing the subject in the specifier position of TP

This concludes this rather major introductory section on phrase structure. It has been

presented not because it will be used to analyse sentences, but because the terminology presented

here will be used in later sections. Now, let us turn to argument structure and subcategorisation.

36

Anders Jørgensen


37

3. Argument Structure and Subcategorisation Argument structure refers to the number of arguments that a predicate selects, and subcategorisation

refers to the type of arguments that a predicate selects (Carnie (2002: 166-7)). In this section, we

will look at the argument structure and subcategorisation of verbs, auxiliaries and adjectives.

3.1. Verbal Predicates

As we know, verbs are very flexible as to the type of arguments they select, and indeed it seems to

be a property of the individual verb which type of arguments it subcategorises for. In traditional

grammar, we talk of intransitive, transitive and ditransitive verbs, which is a way to refer to the

number of arguments that a verb requires. This terminology is sometimes replaced with one-place

predicates, two-place predicates and three-place predicates.

Examples of intransitive verbs are dither and sleep (Haegeman 1991: 34; 37). They do not

take complements:

(1a) Mary dithered.

(1b) * Mary dithered the idea.

(2) Mary slept.

(Based on examples in Haegeman 1991: 33-4)

Transitive verbs are, for example, meet and abandon (Haegeman 1991: 33). Both meet and abandon

subcategorises for two DPs:

(3a) Peter met her parents.

(3b) * Peter met.

(4a) Peter abandoned the race.

(4b) * Peter abandoned.

Examples of ditransitive verbs are give and put. Put subcategorises for two DPs and a PP (Carnie

(2002: 167), and give may subcategorise for either tree DPs or two DPs and one PP (Haegeman

(1991: 37)):

Anders Jørgensen


38

(5a) Peter put the plates on the table.

(5b) * Peter put the plates.

(5c) * Peter put on the table.

(5d) * Peter put.

(6a) Peter gave Mary the money.

(6b) * Peter gave Mary.

(6c) * Peter gave the money.

(6d) * Peter gave.

(6e) Peter gave the money to Mary.

Other verbs may subcategorise for CPs (Haegeman (1991: 47-8); Carnie (2002: 167)).

(7a) Mary said [CP that she would come].

(7b) Mary wanted [CP to come].

The point is that different verbs require a different number of arguments and may allow for different

types of phrases as their comlpements. When an argument is missing, the phrase becomes

ungrammatical. This is, of course, in contrast to adjuncts, which may be added or deleted at will

without rendering the phrase ungrammatical.

3.2. Auxiliaries and Copular be

Auxiliaries, including modals, have no impact on argument structure (Haegeman 1991. 56-7):

(8a) Mary saw a movie.

(8b) Mary has seen a movie.

(8c) Mary may have seen a movie.

(8d) Mary may have been seeing a movie.

Anders Jørgensen


39

The adding or subtraction of auxiliaries does not change the number or type of arguments required

to make a grammatical sentence; hence argument structure and subcategorisation must be predicted

by the lexical verb.

In Haegeman (1991: 57-8) much the same argument is made with copular be.

(9) Jean is reluctant to leave.

(Carnie (2002: 255)

In (9), it is the adjective reluctant that is said to be the predicate of the sentence, and that it takes

two arguments: the DP Jean and the CP complement to leave; compare with (10), where be is an

auxiliary:

(10) Mary is seeing a movie.

Carnie (2002: 226 -7, 256, 259) implicitly assumes that copular be and the adjective (for instance is

reluctant) constitute the predicate as a unit. However one prefers to view it is immaterial to this

thesis.

3.3. The Projection Principle

What all this boils down to is the fact that syntactic information—i.e. information about argument

structure and subcategorisation—is stored in lexical items. This is summed up in the projection

principle, which may have slightly different forms, depending on the work referred to.

(11) Projection principle

Lexical information is syntactically represented (e.g. Haegeman 1991: 47).

One of the predictions the projection principle makes, I assume, is that transitive verbs always

project a complement, ditransitive verbs always project two complements, and that intransitive

verbs never project a complement.

Anders Jørgensen


40

3.4. Problem: Implicit Arguments and Cognate Objects

The system seems quite straightforward, but there are problems. First of all, some intransitive verbs

may select a cognate object, i.e. a complement DP that is the nominal equivalent of the verb:

(12) He slept a troubled sleep.

(13) He laughed a bitter laugh.

(Examples: Wikipedia, 28 January 2008, ‘cognate objects’)

In a sense, the complement modifies the verb, so that the complement in (12) tells us how he slept,

and in (13) how he laughed.

Secondly, in some circumstances, transitive verbs do not require a complement:

(14a) Peter met Mary in the store.

(14b) * Peter met in the store.

(14c) They met Mary in the store.

(14d) They met in the store.

It appears that meet is obligatorily transitive if the subject is singular, but may be either transitive or

intransitive if the subject is plural. (14d) is of course interpreted as they met each other in the store,

where the overt reciprocal pronoun each other functions as the complement of meet. In (14d), the

complement of the verb is implicit.

A verb such as leave is well-known for its ability to leave out its complement without

restrictions:

(15a) Mary left Peter

(15b) Mary left the house.

(15c) Mary left.

Also, some ditransitive verbs allow for one of the arguments to be implicit, e.g. buy (Haegeman

(1991: 38)):

Anders Jørgensen


41

(16a) Peter bought Mary a book.

(16b) Peter bought a book.

Sentence (16b) is of course interpreted as Peter bought himself a book. In (15c) and (16b), the com-

plements are also implicit.

The point is that complements are sometimes not projected. It is rare with verbs, but occurs

rather frequently with adjectives. I suppose that whether a verb must project a complement (such as

abandon) or may optionally project a complement (such as leave) is also stored in each lexical item.

3.5. Adjectival Predicates

A two-place adjective is e.g. envious. It is semantically and morphologically similar to the verb

envy, which is also a two-place predicate (Haegeman (1991: 38)):

(17a) Mary envies John.

(17b) Mary is envious of John.

(Based on examples in Haegeman 1991: 38)

The verb envy selects two DPs, whereas the adjective envious selects a DP and a PP. But while the

verb cannot leave out its complement, the adjective can:

(18a) * Mary envies.

(18b) Mary is envious.

(Based on examples in Haegeman 1991: 38)

Haegeman (1991: 35) argues that argument structure and subcategorisation are not merely primitive

properties of a given predicate. The number of arguments and their type is determined by the

meaning of the predicate; for example the verb abandon requires some participants (the abandoner

and the abandonee) without whom the sentence is ungrammatical. This is the subject of theta

theory, which will be dealt with in the next chapter.

Anders Jørgensen


42

4. Theta Theory Theta theory actually belongs in the field of semantics, but it used in syntax for several purposes,

e.g. to account for why a predicate is intransitive, transitive or ditransitive, and to argue that

sentences must have subjects.

The participants of a sentence can be said to belong to different semantic groups, which are

determined by the verb. These groups are called thematic relations. In the following, a number of

thematic relations are defined, followed by examples for illustration. The italicised argument in

each example refers to the thematic role defined in the preceding definition. All definitions and

examples have been found in Carnie (2002: 168-9)

AGENT: The entity that is the initiator or doer of an action.

(1) Brad hit Andrew.

THEME: The entity that undergoes an action, is moved, experienced or perceived.

(2) Shelley kept her syntax book.

(3) The syntactician hates phonology.

EXPERIENCER: The entity that feels or experiences an event.

(4) Becky saw the Eclipse.

(5) Syntax frightens Jim.

GOAL: The entity towards which a motion takes place, either concretely or abstractly.

(6) Millie went to Chicago.

(7) Travis was given a piña colada mix.

Anders Jørgensen


43

RECIPIENT is a type of GOAL which occurs with verbs that denote change of possession.

(8) Julie gave Jessica the book.

(9) Roy received a scolding from Jessica.

SOURCE: The entity from which a motion takes place.

(10) Bob gave Steve the syntax assignment.

(11) Stacy came directly from sociolinguistics class.

LOCATION: The place where an action occurs.

(12) Andrew is in Tucson’s finest apartment.

(13) We’re all at school.

INSTRUMENT: The object with which an action is performed.

(14) Patrick hacked the computer apart with an axe.

(15) This key will open the door to the linguistics building.

BENEFACTIVE: The entity for whose benefit an event takes place.

(16) He bought these flowers for Jason.

(17) She cooked Matt dinner.

4.1. The Theta Criterion

Carnie (2002: 169) argues that an argument can receive several thematic roles. In (18), Jason is

both the AGENT and the SOURCE:

(18) Jason gave the books to Anna.

Anders Jørgensen


44

This is in contrast to theta roles (θ-roles). According to Carnie (2002: 169), θ-roles are bundles of

thematic relations that cluster onto one argument. Often a θ-role of a specific argument is referred to

by its most prominent thematic relation5. In (18), Jason may be referred to as the AGENT θ-role.

Thus, an argument can receive several thematic roles, but it can only be assigned one θ-role.

In other words, it is argued that there is a one-to-one mapping of θ-roles and arguments. This idea is

summed up in the theta criterion (θ-criterion):

(19) θ-criterion

Each argument is assigned one and only one theta role.

Each theta role is assigned to one and only one argument.

(Carnie 2002: 171)

I allow myself to interpret the θ-criterion by arguing what I think should be obvious: that no two

predicates can assign θ-roles to one argument. This will be important for the argumentation later in

this thesis.

4.2. Argument Types and Theta Roles

Perhaps another important point to note is the fact that, even though some types of phrases and

sentence functions are typical of certain θ-roles, they are not fixed. For instance, an AGENT is

typically a subject DP, but in passive constructions, it is expressed by a non-obligatory PP, compare

active (1) (repeated here as (20a)) with its passive counterpart (20b):

(20a) Brad hit Andrew. AGENT THEME

(20b) Andrew was hit by Brad. THEME AGENT

As is obvious from (20a) and (20b), it seems that the θ-roles switch places in passive constructions.

Likewise, the θ-role of INSTRUMENT typically takes the shape of a PP with the preposition with as its

head, as in (21a), but may also occur in subject position, as in (21b):

5 This will be the practice for the remainder of this thesis.

Anders Jørgensen


45

(21a) John broke the window with a stone. AGENT THEME INSTRUMENT

(21b) A stone broke the window INSTRUMENT THEME

One type of argument that seems particularly difficult to define is the complement clause. In (22),

the CP is a complement of the adjective likely:

(22) Jean is reluctant to leave.

(Carnie (2002: 255)

Carnie (2002: 174) gets around this problem by assuming that clausal complements are assigned the

θ-role of PROPOSITION. Another label that might be used for CP complements is THEME. For now,

the PROPOSITION label will do.

4.3. Theta-Grids

A theta grid (θ-grid) is simply a way to formalise what types of θ-roles a particular predicate selects

(Carnie (2002: 170)). For instance, in the sentence:

(23) John gave the book to Mary.

give seems to select three arguments, an AGENT (John), a THEME (the book) and a RECIPIENT (to

Mary)6. This is formalised in a θ-grid such as:

(24) give, verb

AGENT THEME RECIPIENT i j k

6 Carnie (2002: 170) uses the θ-roles AGENT/SOURCE, THEME and GOAL for the verb give, however, I think AGENT is enough to distinguish John from the other arguments, and I do think that Mary is more than a GOAL; the predicate gave suggests change of possession, and therefore I believe that Mary is a RECIPIENT.

Anders Jørgensen


46

The underlined θ-role indicates that the AGENT is the external argument, or the subject, of the

sentence. In the lower row, small-case letters are indicated to indicate which θ-roles refer to which

arguments in a given sentence. Thus, the arguments of (23) would be indexed in the following way:

(25) Johni gave the bookj to Maryk.

This way of indexation, however, does not fit the purposes of this thesis. In many cases, there will

be a need for co-indexation of different arguments that are clearly not θ-marked by the same

predicate. Two examples could be:

(26a) Maryi said shei would be angry.

(26b) Maryi said shej would be angry.

Sentence (26a) means that Mary says that she, herself, will be angry, whereas in (26b) means that

Mary says that some one else would be angry. In other words, in (26a) Mary and she are co-indexed

by the letter i, which shows that the two arguments refer to the same entity in the world, whereas in

(26b), the indexation of Mary with an i and she with a j shows that Mary and she do not refer to the

same entity in the world.

Since this thesis will have greater need to show co-indexation than which arguments have

been θ-marked by which predicate, the lower row of the θ-grid will not be used in the way

suggested by Carnie (2002: 170). Instead the lower row of the θ-grid will be used to show what

types of phrases that a given predicate subcategorises for—or may subcategorise for, among other

types, as this thesis is not an investigation into the subcategorisation restrictions of given predicates.

Only those categories that are relevant to matters at hand will be shown.

4.4. Expletive Pronouns

As Carnie (2002: 176) notes: there are two kinds of it. One that has reference such as other

pronouns, and one that does not have reference and is not assigned a θ-role and hence is not an

argument of the sentence. The latter is called an expletive pronoun, and ‘weather verbs’ are

typically used to illustrate this:

Anders Jørgensen


47

(27) It rained.

(28) It snowed.

(Examples: Carnie (2002: 174))

The argument used is that, unlike referential pronominal it, expletive it cannot be replaced with this

or that (Haegeman (1991: 53)), compare:

(29a) It works.

(29b) This works.

(30a) It rains.

(30b) * This rains.

Nor can it be questioned with what (Haegeman (1991: 53)), compare:

(31a) It works.

(31b) What works?

(32a) It rains.

(32b) * What rains?

Expletive it is also used in sentences with extraposed clausal subjects, compare:

(33a) It is likely [that John will leave].

(33b) [That John will leave] is likely.

In (33a), it is an expletive, and it isn’t assigned a θ-role because likely is a one-place predicate,

which only assigns one θ-role, and that role is assigned to the clausal complement [that John left].

Since (33a) and (33b) are paraphrased near-synonymous sentences, it can be argued that it

does not provide any meaning to the sentence. It has no referential properties, and it is not assigned

a θ-role, and as such is it not an argument of likely. Thus, it seems as if it is there merely for

structural reasons, viz. that clauses must have subjects. The requirement for the sentence to have a

subject can be fulfilled in two ways: by moving the clausal complement to the subject position of

the clause, or by inserting an expletive it (Carnie (2002: 274-5)). More on this in section 7.1.

Anders Jørgensen


4.5. The Extended Projection Principle

The fact that all clauses must have subjects has resulted in a modification of the projection prin-

ciple. Besides stating that lexical information is syntactically represented, it now includes a

statement that all clauses must have subjects:

(34) Extended projection principle (EPP)

All clauses must have subjects.

Lexical information is syntactically represented.

(Carnie 2002: 175).

The requirement that clauses must have subjects is actually argued to be a feature of T. A so-called

[EPP] feature is located in T, which requires it to project a specifier in which the subject is located:

(35) CP C TP

48

DP T’ T AP [EPP] A CP C TP DP T’ T VP It is likely that John will leave The [EPP] feature in T requires the subject of the sentence. But since likely does not project a

subject, expletive it is inserted in spec-TP of the matrix clause.

Anders Jørgensen


4.6. Theta-Marking and Syntactic Relations

Most of the constituent movements accounted for in sections 2.6, 2.7 and 2.9 are based on structural

reasons. For instance, in interrogatives, the modal will moves to the head position of CP, because

will, in interrogatives, occurs in different position than in declaratives. However, one movement

seems quite superficial. Why is it argued that the subject of a verb is base-generated in the specifier

position of the VP and then moves to spec-TP? It would make no structural difference if it was

claimed that all subjects are base-generated in spec-TP, thus avoiding the movement altogether.

One of the reasons is that it makes good theory to argue that a predicate assigns its θ-roles

phrase-internally (Carnie (2002: 203)). It is easier to explain that a predicate assigns θ-roles to its

sister (the complement) and to its specifier rather than to a somewhat coincidental specifier in some

other phrase. After the θ-marking has taken place, the argument can move.

(36a) CP

49

C TP spec T’ T VP DP V’ V DP Brad t hit Andrew The dotted arrows show the θ-marking of the verb’s arguments. Brad is assigned an AGENT θ-role,

while Andrew is assigned a THEME θ-role; both in their base-positions.

This is also another reason for claiming that subjects in passive constructions are base-

generated as the complement of the verb (Carnie (2002:240). After having been θ-marked, the

complement moves to spec-TP. Compare the active (36a) with the passive (36b):

Anders Jørgensen


(36b) CP

50

C TP DP T’ T VP spec V’ V DP Andrew was hit t

Since Andrew is assigned a THEME θ-role in both the active and the passive sentence, it makes sense

to argue that the passive subject Andrew is in fact base-generated as the complement of the verb,

just as it is in the active sentence.

This concludes the section on theta theory. Now it is time to turn to control and the arguments

in favour of the existence of PRO.

Anders Jørgensen


51

5. Arguments for the Existence of PRO As one might expect, it is quite difficult to provide tangible evidence for the existence of some-

thing that cannot be seen or heard (or sensed in any other direct way). There is both theoretical and

empirical evidence in favour of the existence of PRO, albeit the empirical evidence seems to have a

flavour of being circumstantial, and the theoretical argument is, well, largely theoretical.

The theoretical arguments will be presented in section 7.2. In this section, only empirical

evidence will be presented.

5.1. Non-Finite to Finite Paraphrasing

Firstly, in some circumstances7, the non-overt PRO can become overt if the non-finite to-infinitive

clauses are paraphrased into finite clauses (Radford (2004: 109)):

(1a) I am sorry [PRO to have kept you waiting].

(1b) I am sorry [I have kept you waiting].

(2a) Jim promised [PRO to come to my party].

(2b) Jim promised [he would come to my party].

(Radford 2004: 109)

The fact that the (a) and (b) sentences are near-synonymous paraphrases suggests that there is

indeed a null-constituent (i.e. PRO) in the (a) sentences. In the embedded finite (b) clauses, the

subject refers back to the subject of the matrix clause. Since we have the same understanding of the

non-finite (a) clauses, this seems to suggest that there is a non-overt subject in subjectless non-finite

clauses.

7 Paraphrasing a to-infinitive clause is only possible in certain circumstances. For it to be possible, the verb must be able to select both a finite clause and a non-finite clause as its complement. However, some verbs only select a non-finite complement clause.

Anders Jørgensen


52

5.2. Distribution of Reflexive Anaphors

Another piece of evidence comes from reflexive anaphors. Reflexives generally require a ‘local’

antecedent, where local is taken to mean ‘contained within the same clause’. This is exemplified by

the grammatical (3a) and the ungrammatical (3b):

(3a) They want [John to help himself].

(3b) * They want [John to help themselves].

(Radford (2004: 109))

The reflexive in sentence (3a) has a local antecedent (John), shown by the fact that John and himself

share the features of [male], [singular] and [3rd person], and is thus grammatical. In (3b), however,

the reflexive does not have a local antecedent, and is ungrammatical. However, in (3c) there is no

local antecedent for the reflexive and still the sentence is grammatical:

(3c) John wants [PRO to prove himself].

(Radford 2004: 109)

This is puzzling unless we posit PRO as the subject of the infinitive clause. If we do, this fulfils the

requirement of himself to have a local antecedent and explains the grammaticality of (3c) (Radford

2004: 109).

5.3. Together

A quite similar argument is that of together. Together usually depends on an antecedent plural DP

(Haegeman (1991: 240)):

(4a) * Watson left together.

(4b) The detectives left together.

(4c) * I saw Watson together.

(4d) I saw the detectives together.

(Haegeman (1994: 240))

Anders Jørgensen


53

Sentences (3a) and (3c) are ungrammatical because of the lack of an antecedent plural DP, whereas

(3b) and (3c) fulfil this requirement and thus are grammatical. However, (5) below does not have an

antecedent plural DP:

(5) [PRO to abandon the investigation together] would be regrettable.

(Haegeman 1994: 240)

If we maintain, though, that PRO is pronominal and can acquire pronominal features such as

singular and plural, PRO can fulfil the requirement for together to have a plural antecedent.

This concludes this small section on the empirical arguments in favour of PRO. Now, let us

turn to the types of control.

5.4. Danish selv

In some instances, Danish (and I suppose other Scandinavian languages) actually seem to be

capable of projecting an overt emphatic version of PRO, e.g.:

(6a) Jamie elsker selv at danse.

Jamie loves self/even to dance.

‘Jamie loves even to dance.’ or ‘Jamie loves to dance herself’

(6b) Selv at danse elsker Jamie.

Even to dance loves Jamie.

‘Jamie loves even dancing’

(Thrane 2004: 6-7)

Thrane (2004: 6; 6fn) calls the word selv an emphatic particle, for which there may be several

English equivalents. It may be a noun, equivalent to English self; it may be roughly equivalent to

the –self part of English reflexives, or it may be an emphatic adverb roughly paraphrasable as even.

It is argued (Thrane 2004: 7) that selv is positioned in the position where PRO is otherwise

found:

(7a) Jamie elsker [VP selv at danse].

Anders Jørgensen


54

(7b) [VP Selv at danse] elsker Jamie.

(Thrane 2004: 7)

I think it makes good reason to equate selv with PRO, particularly because selv does not carry any

overt gender or number features,8 and even so, it is clear for a native Dane that Jamie ‘controls’ selv

(to use control theory terminology). The point is that because selv can occur where it does in (7a)

and (7b), there clearly is a position that can carry PRO, even though PRO is not audible.

8 and perhaps not even any person features, e.g. Du elsker selv at danse, which may be equivalent to You love to dance yourself. It could be argued, I suppose, that selv is third person by default.

Anders Jørgensen


55

6. Types of Control Landau (1999) suggests a typology of control, i.e. discusses different ways PRO can be interpreted.

Traditionally, a distinction between obligatory control and non-obligatory control has been made. In

obligatory control, PRO is obligatorily controlled by a controlling element in the matrix clause, as

in:

(1) Johni managed [PROi to behave himself].

(2) * Johni managed [PROarb to behave oneself].

(Based on examples in Haegeman 1991: 259 and Landau 1999: 15)

The ungrammaticality of (2) suggests that PRO cannot be arbitrary, in contrast to (3) and (4) which

are instances of control into interrogative clauses:

(3) Johni asked [how PROi to behave himself].

(4) Johni asked [how PROarb to behave oneself].

(Based on examples in Haegeman 1991: 259 and Landau 1999: 15)

Here the grammaticality of both himself and oneself suggests that PRO may optionally be controlled

by a matrix element or be arbitrary PRO. Landau (1999: 13-14) dismisses this view and claims that

control into all types of complement clauses is obligatory. I agree with this assumption, though,

with the exception of so-called raising constructions, cf. section 7.4.

Landau (ibid.) distinguishes between two types of obligatory control: exhaustive control and

partial control. Sentence (1) is an example of exhaustive control, i.e. where PRO is interpreted to be

identical with the controller, whereas, in (4), John is included in PRO (even if we use oneself as the

reflexive), though PRO need not be fully identical with John. The latter is partial control, which

Landau (1999) suggests should be marked with PROi+ where i refers to the controlling matrix

element and + refers to those sentence external elements that are included in PRO.

I will not go into the details of the argumentation behind this idea, but Landau concludes that

exhaustive control verbs can be distinguished from partial control verbs, by means of time adverbs.

Anders Jørgensen


56

In partial control constructions, a time adverb in the matrix clause may represent a different time

from that of the embedded clause, whereas this is not possible in exhaustive control constructions:

(5) * Yesterday, John managed [PROi to behave himself tomorrow]. (Exhaustive control)

(6) Yesterday, John asked [how PROi+ to behave himself tomorrow]. (Partial control)

Thus, Landau 1999 places exhaustive control and partial control alongside each other under the

heading of obligatory control. This is in contrast to non-obligatory control, where true arbitrary

control and long-distance control is found.

Long-distance control is found in sentences where the embedded clause itself consists of two

clauses, one of which is an extraposed subject clause of the other:

(7) Maryi knew that it damaged John [PROi to perjure herself].

(Landau 1999: 20)

In (7), the perjure clause is an extraposed subject of damaged. Mary controls PRO, and this is a

case of long-distance control across another sentence. The odd thing is that in a similar, though not

identical, sentence this is not possible:

(8) * Maryi knew that it disturbed John [PROi to perjure herself].

(Landau 1999: 20)

Landau (1999: 20) explains this paradox by distinguishing the verbs damaged and disturbed. In (7),

the predicate damaged does not carry any ‘psychological entailments’ with respect to the mental

state of John, whereas, in (8), the predicate disturbed does carry a psychological entailment on

John, and with verbs that do carry an entailment, long-distance control is not possible. I will not go

further into this argumentation.

In true arbitrary control, PRO is not linked to any grammatical antecedent:

(9) Johni thought that it was wrong [PROarb to introduce himi to the dean].

(10) Suei said that [PROarb to buy heri nothing in Rome] would be unacceptable.

(Landau 1999: 13)

Anders Jørgensen


If John and him in (9) refer to the same person (as indicated by the co-indexation) and if Sue and

her in (10) refer to the same person (as indicated by the co-indexation), then there is no possible

controller for PRO in either sentence, and PRO is arbitrary in reference.

Thus, based on these assumptions, Landau 1999 designs the following diagram:

(11) Control

57

Obligatory Non-Obligatory

Exhaustive Partial Long-Distance Arbitrary

(Landau 1999: 12)

Landau (1999: 12) defines obligatory control as control in a construction where the controller and

the infinitive must be clause-mates. I take this to mean that also elements other than subjects can

control PRO in obligatory control, e.g. object control:

(12) Maryi persuaded Johnj [PRO*i/j to do the dishes].

and dative control:

(13) Johni gave Jimj a bookk [PRO*i/j/*k to read].

(Thrane 2004: 3)

Landau (1999: 12) further mentions split control, which obtains when two matrix arguments jointly

control PRO, as in:

(14) Maryi helped Johnj [PROi+j carry the cases up the stairs].

In (14), the carrying is done by both Mary and John. I suppose that split control falls under obliga-

tory control, and if the adverb test that distinguishes exhaustive control from partial control obtains,

then (14) is a partial control construction.

Anders Jørgensen


58

Thrane (2004: 3) also mentions speaker-hearer control, where PRO does not refer to just any

arbitrary person or entity but to the speaker or hearer, or perhaps both the speaker and the hearer:

(15) How about [PROspeaker/hearer going for a swim?].

(Thrane 2004: 3)

Since Landau (1999: 12) defines arbitrary control as control with no argumental controller, I

suppose that speaker-hearer control would fall under arbitrary control in Landau’s typology.

Another type of control is implicit control, which is defined as a construction in which the

controller is not syntactically expressed (Landau 1999: 12), as in:

(16) The operation was abandoned [PRO to save money].

(Haegeman 1991: 246)

In (16), PRO is not arbitrary in reference, but is controlled by the implicit AGENT of abandoned,

which has ‘disappeared’ in the course of passivisation, cf. (17):

(17) Theyi abandoned the operation [PROi to save money].

In Landau’s typology, implicit control would probably fall under arbitrary control, since no argu-

mental controller is available.

This concludes my overview of the types of control. In my analyses that follow in the next

chapters, only two types of control will be relevant: obligatory control and arbitrary control. I will

not distinguish between exhaustive and partial control.

Anders Jørgensen


59

7. Raising and Control I believe that the most fundamental argument in favour of the PRO hypothesis is theoretical. It is

based on theory developed to account for other parts of the language: the θ-criterion and the

extended projection principle (EPP). More precisely, the θ-criterion and the EPP are used to

distinguish subject control from so-called subject-to-subject raising.

7.1. Subject-to-Subject Raising Adjectives

Carnie (2002: 255ff) compares two adjective predicates: reluctant and likely, which can occur in

seemingly similar structures:

(1) Jean is likely [to leave].

(2) Jean is reluctant [to leave].

(Examples: Carnie 2002: 255)

This subsection will deal with likely, and the next with reluctant.

In (1), likely is argued to be a one-place predicate that does not project an external argument,

but only an internal clausal complement to which it assigns the θ-role of PROPOSITION.

(3) likely, adj.

PROPOSITION CP

Evidence for this structure comes from the fact that if (1) is paraphrased so that it projects a finite

that-clause, rather than a non-finite to-infinitive clause, Jean surfaces as the subject of the

embedded clause and expletive it surfaces as the subject of the matrix predicate:

(4a) It is likely [that Jean will leave]. PROPOSITION

Anders Jørgensen


60

Thus, we can conclude that likely does not assign any θ-role to its external argument. Moreover, the

entire clausal complement can occur as the subject of the matrix predicate9:

(4b) [CP That Jean will leave] is likely. PROPOSITION

On the basis of the data in (4a) and (4b), it is argued that the D-structure of (1) looks as follows:

(5) [ ___ is likely [CP Jean to leave]].

There is only one way to reach a grammatical S-structure when likely has projected a non-finite

complement clause, as in (5): Jean must move to spec-TP of the matrix clause. There are two

reasons for this. Firstly, infinitival to does not assign case, so if Jean stays as the subject of leave,

the sentence becomes ungrammatical.10 Secondly, T in the matrix clause has an EPP feature that

requires it to project an overt subject specifier. By moving to spec-TP of the matrix clause, Jean

leaves a trace in spec-TP of the embedded clause:

(6) Jeani is likely [ti to leave].

If the embedded clause is a finite that-clause, then there are two other ways to make the sentence

grammatical. The first possibility is that expletive it is inserted into spec-TP of the matrix clause as

in (4a), and the second is that the entire complement clause moves to spec-TP of the matrix clause

as in (4b).

Thus, to sum up, Jean is base-generated as the thematic subject of leave, and is θ-marked by

leave. Jean cannot stay in that position because to does not assign case to its specifier.

9 This isn’t always so. With some raising predicates, e.g. seem, extraposition is fine: It seems [that Jean will leave], but clausal subject is not: * [That Jean will leave] seems (Carnie (2002: 257fn)). 10 I will leave out case theory of this thesis for the most part. Generally speaking, an argument must receive case from a predicate. If not, either the sentence becomes ungrammatical or the DP must move or remain non-overt. Finite T assigns nominative case to its specifier, and verbs and prepositions assign accusative case to their sisters, i.e. their comple-ments. Non-finite T does not assign case, and therefore, there cannot usually be overt subjects of to-infinitives. (There may be some exceptions. One is the so-called exceptional case-marking structure (ECM structure) such as John wanted Mary to come. Here, Mary is the thematic subject of come, but is assigned accusative case by wanted. Another is when for acts as the non-finite complementiser, as in: It is too late for us to leave, where us is the thematic subject of leave and for assigns accusative case to us.

Anders Jørgensen


61

Conveniently, the finite matrix T (is) projects a specifier by virtue of its EPP feature, and thus Jean

can move there and be case-marked at the same time.

7.2. Subject Control Adjectives

Quite a different argument is made about reluctant. Carnie (2002: 259) argues that reluctant is a

two-place predicate which assigns an EXPERIENCER θ-role to its external argument and a PROPO-

SITION θ-role to its internal argument, the complement CP:

(7a) Jean is reluctant [to leave]. EXPERIENCER PROPOSITION

Evidence for this analysis comes from the fact that reluctant cannot be paraphrased with expletive

it, nor can a finite complement CP occur as the subject of the matrix predicate:

(7b) * It is reluctant [that Jean will leave].

(7c) * [That Jean will leave] is reluctant.

The ungrammaticality of (7b) and (7c) is used as an argument that reluctant is indeed a two-place

predicate, and that, in (7a), Jean cannot be base-generated as the external argument of to leave, but

rather as the external argument of reluctant.

This leaves us with two problems. The first is the breach of the extended projection principle

which dictates that all TPs must have subjects, and the embedded clause in (7a) (to leave) does not

have an overt subject. It could be argued that the extended projection principle only applies to finite

clauses, but that leaves us with a less elegant theory—a theory with an exception. The second is the

violation of the θ-criterion because leave obligatorily assigns an AGENT θ-role to its external

argument. However, there is no overt argument to receive the θ-role. Whoever does the leaving is

obviously Jean, but Jean is already assigned an EXPERIENCER θ-role by reluctant, and cannot, by the

θ-criterion, be θ-marked by another predicate. It is argued, however, that both problems can be

overcome by invoking PRO as the non-overt subject of leave:

(7d) Jeani is reluctant [PROi to leave].

Anders Jørgensen


62

In (7d), reluctant assigns the EXPERIENCER θ-role to Jean and the PROPOSITION θ-role to its CP

complement, and leave assigns an AGENT θ-role to PRO. Thus, there is no violation of the θ-

criterion and no breach of the extended projection principle. The two principles seem to

complement each other. (7d) is a case of subject control, indicated by the co-indexation of Jean and

PRO.

7.3. Complements or Adjuncts of the Adjective

It is relatively easy to discern between one-place adjectives, i.e. subject-raising adjectives, and two-

place adjectives, i.e. control adjectives, because of the expletive it test. The real problem arises in

the distinction between adjuncts and complements of the adjective. The problem is that arguments

of adjectives can often be left implicit, and adjuncts can always be left out. Let us take a look at

afraid and weak:

(8a) Mary was afraid [to climb the mountain].

(8b) Mary was afraid [of climbing the mountain].

(8c) ? Mary was afraid [from climbing the mountain].

(9a) * Mary was weak [to climb the mountain].

(9b) * Mary was weak [of climbing the mountain].

(9c) Mary was weak [from climbing the mountain].

I suppose that afraid is a two-place adjective. Someone is afraid of something just as its verbal

equivalent: someone fears something. Presumably, Mary is assigned an EXPERIENCER θ-role by

afraid, and perhaps the complements in (8a) and (8b) are assigned a THEME θ-role, just as we would

probably assign a THEME θ-role to dogs in (10)11:

(10) Mary is afraid of dogs. EXPERIENCER THEME

11 This is an alternative to Carnie’s (2002: 256) suggestion that clausal arguments are assigned a PROPOSITION θ-role. I believe, however, that it makes a less elegant theory to suggest that a predicate assigns different θ-roles to its internal argument depending on the type of argument in question. Since it makes little sense to argue that of dogs can be assigned a PROPOSITION θ-role, I believe that perhaps all types of arguments, including clauses, can be assigned a THEME θ-role.

Anders Jørgensen


63

The THEME θ-role cannot be assigned to from climbing the mountain in (8c). What Mary is afraid of

in (8c) is not from climbing the mountain. This suggests that it is an adjunct. (8c) may not be

ungrammatical, but it is odd.

Interestingly, quite the opposite pattern seems to be true with weak. Sentence (9c) is well-

formed, while (9a) and (9b) are clearly ungrammatical. In (9c), it seems that the PP from climbing

the mountain is the cause of Mary’s being weak, and I believe that causes are generally thought to

be adjuncts, as in:

(11) Mary was weak [because she had climbed the mountain]. (cf. (9c))

If we look at (8c) again, we might suggest that rephrasing with a because-clause makes it somewhat

better:

(12) Mary was afraid [because she had climbed the mountain].

But we still do not know what Mary is afraid of. (12) becomes more acceptable if we include

something that Mary can be afraid of:

(13) Mary was afraid of avalanches [because she had climbed the mountain].

This leads me to suspect that afraid does project a complement (albeit optionally), whereas weak

only projects one argument: the external one, which, perhaps, we may assign an EXPERIENCER θ-

role. Their θ-grids are as follows:

(14) afraid, adj.

EXPERIENCER THEME DP CP/PP

(15) weak, adj.

EXPERIENCER DP

Anders Jørgensen


64

As Carnie (2002: 255; 259-60) argues, two-place adjectives are control adjectives, i.e. control into

their complements is obligatory, and Haegeman (1991: 262) argues that control into adjuncts is

always obligatory as well. Fortunately, we do not find ourselves in too much trouble, as their

predictions seem to hold true:

(16a) Maryi was afraid [PROi/*arb to climb the mountain].

(16b) Maryi was afraid [of PROi/*arb climbing the mountain].

(16c) Maryi was weak [from PROi/*arb climbing the mountain].

Happy seems to subcategorise for a PP headed by about (instead of of) as well as an infinitival

complement, and does not allow expletive it:

(17a) Maryi was happy [PROi/*arb to leave].

(17b) Maryi was happy [about PROi/*arb leaving].

(17c) * It was happy [to leave]. (Where it is expletive)

And nervous seems to subcategorise for an infinitival complement or PPs headed by about or of,

and nervous does not allow expletive it either:

(18a) Maryi was nervous [PROi/*arb to leave].

(18b) Maryi was nervous [about PROi/*arb leaving].

(18c) Maryi was nervous [of PROi/*arb leaving].

(18d) * It was nervous [to leave] (Where it is expletive)

The θ-grids of happy and nervous seem to be identical to that of afraid.

If we treat the passive verb was excited as an adjective, we also find a pattern identical to that

of afraid:

(19a) Maryi was excited [PROi/*arb to leave].

(19b) Maryi was excited [about PROi/*arb leaving].

(19c) * It was excited [to leave]. (Where it is expletive)

Anders Jørgensen


65

Someone is excited about something. The problem here is that what someone is excited about seems

to be the cause of their excitement. However, I still do believe that the embedded CP in (19a) and

the PP in (19b) are complements rather than adjuncts. They are not causes in the same sense as in

(19d):

(19d) Mary was excited [from spending time at the circus all day].

In (19d) the PP is the cause of Mary’s being excited, but it is not what she is excited about. Perhaps

another way to look at it would be to say that there is a (near)-future time aspect concerning the

event denoted by the complement (cf. (19a) and (19b)), whereas there is a past time aspect concer-

ning the event denoted in the cause adjunct (cf. (19d)).

At this point, one might conclude that PPs headed by from (and perhaps other prepositions)

are always adjuncts, while infinitive clauses and PPs headed by of and about are always comple-

ments of the adjective. Unfortunately, it is not necessarily so.

The ‘adjective’ decomposed seems to follow the pattern of weak, where only a cause, i.e. an

adjunct, is allowed:

(20a) * The body was decomposed [to lie in the water].

(20b) * The body was decomposed [of/about lying in the water].

(20c) The body was decomposed [from lying in the water].

Sentence (20c) is fine, whereas (20a) and (20b) are not. If we claim that decomposed is a one-place

adjective, then this explains the ill-formedness of (20a) and (20b). Sentence (20b) seems beyond

saving; however, we might argue that (20a) is not ungrammatical, but only ‘unsemantical’, since we

are capable of phrasing a sentence with decomposed as the matrix predicate followed by a to-

infinitive clause:

(20d) The leaves were decomposed [to be used as compost].

This, however, does not seem to render the embedded CP a complement. It is a purpose clause

which can be clarified by the paraphrasing of in order to:

Anders Jørgensen


66

(20e) The leaves were decomposed [in order to be used as compost].

And in general, I believe that purpose clauses, just as cause clauses, are adjuncts. Unfortunately,

purpose clauses seem to denote a future event, and thus the distinction between complements and

adjuncts is not a matter of time of the event of the embedded clause relative to the time of the event

denoted in the matrix clause. In fact, it does seem quite difficult to know whether a particular

constituent is an adjunct or a complement of the adjective.

I will just take one last look at another past perfect verb acting as an adjective: exhausted.

(21a) * Mary was exhausted [to climb the mountain].

(21b) * Mary was exhausted [of/about climbing the mountain].

(21c) Mary was exhausted [from climbing the mountain].

The data in (21) seems to show that exhausted follows the pattern of weak and decomposed.

7.4. Object-to-Subject Raising

Carnie (2002) does not mention object-to-subject raising constructions, which are also known as

tough constructions. (Object-raising constructions, for short.) Perhaps because the structure does

not fit as nicely into the general theory as subject-to-subject raising and subject control do. In

Kawai (2002) a number of object-raising adjectives are mentioned, e.g. difficult, important,

impossible, depressing, exhausting and annoying.

I believe that an extension from subject-to-subject raising is easily made to object-to-subject

raising. Simple tests that are analogous to those used for identification of subject-raising adjectives

seem quite clearly to back the theory of object-raising structures, i.e. structures in which the

complement (rather than the subject) of the embedded clause is raised to spec-TP of the matrix

clause, for example:

(22a) Mary is difficult [to leave].

(22b) It is difficult [to leave Mary].

(22c) [To leave Mary] is difficult.

(22d) * It is difficult [that Mary would leave].

Anders Jørgensen


67

Sentence (22a) seems to be paraphrasable as (22b) and (22c), rather than (22d)12. From (22b) and

(22c), we can see that difficult does not project an external argument, since both expletive it and the

complement clause can occupy the subject position. Therefore it only projects a CP complement.

This leaves us to speculate that the D-structure of (22a), (22b) and (22c) is (23):

(23) [ ___ is difficult [to leave Mary]].

To reach S-structure, three operations are possible: the movement of the complement Mary to spec-

TP of the matrix clause, as in (22a); insertion of expletive it, as in (22b), or by moving the entire

complement clause to subject position as in (22c).

One of the problems concerning object-raising may concern case-assignment. If we use a

pronoun instead of Mary, we see that the pronoun is assigned a different case depending on where it

surfaces:

(24a) Shei is difficult [to leave ti].

(24b) It is difficult [to leave her].

Therefore, we cannot argue that Mary moves to spec-TP of the matrix clause in order to receive

case. The argument Mary has already received case by virtue of being the complement of leave. In

subject-to-subject raising, Carnie (2002: 258-9) argues that the subject of the embedded clause

moves in order to receive case and to satisfy the EPP feature in T. Perhaps just one of the

requirements is enough, i.e. the satisfaction of the EPP.

The θ-grid for object-raising adjectives such as difficult seems to be identical to that of a

subject-raising adjective:

(25) difficult, adj.

PROPOSITION CP

As with subject control adjectives, there is a violation of the extended projection principle in the

embedded clauses in (22a), (22b) and (22c), since there is no overt subject in these clauses. Because

12 (1d) is ungrammatical with an object-raising adjective, but would have been fine with a subject-raising adjective.

Anders Jørgensen


68

there is no trace in spec-TP of the embedded clause (the trace is found in the complement position),

we can assume PRO as we did in constructions concerning two-place adjectives. We may ask: who

does the leaving, and the fact is that we do not know. The leaving is done by someone not

mentioned in the sentence. This is control without an argumental controller, which is Landau’s

(1999: 12) definition of arbitrary control:

(26a) Maryi was difficult [PROarb to leave ti].

(26b) It was difficult [PROarb to leave Mary].

(26c) [PROarb to leave Mary] was difficult.

However, according to Landau (1999: 14) all complement infinitives fall under OC (OC =

obligatory control), but then, Landau (1999) only considers control verbs, and not potential object-

raising adjectives. Mary does not control PRO in (26a). In (26b), expletive it is a potential

controller, but we may wonder whether non-arguments can be controllers. Finally in (26c), there is

no potential c-commanding controller for PRO at all. It seems that PRO in complement clauses is

always obligatory, except when there is no potential controller in the matrix clause in D-structure

(cf. (23)). We might suggest that control relations are determined at D-structure.

There is another problem with object-raising adjectives (besides the case-marking problem)

which concerns the θ-grid of object-raising adjectives. In (22a), (22b) and (22c), it may be argued

that Mary is θ-marked by leave, and is thus assigned a THEME θ-role. But what about a sentence

without a CP complement:

(27) Maths is difficult.

Firstly, there is no CP complement from which maths has been raised, secondly, maths must be θ-

marked in order to surface, and the only potential θ-marker is difficult. To account for this, it may

be argued that difficult has two different θ-grids, one in which difficult subcategorises for a CP

complement (as in (25)), and another in which difficult subcategorises for an external DP argument,

which we may argue is assigned a THEME θ-role, as in (28):

Anders Jørgensen



THEME DP

This is the least elegant theory because we would have to assume two different θ-grids for difficult

for no particular reason. Another possibility is to suggest that the subject DP in (6) is base-gene-

rated as the complement of difficult, just as the CP is, only then to move to the subject position; not

unlike the structure of unaccusative verbs (see section 2.9).

(29) Mathsi is difficult ti

69

Further, we might speculate that CPs are not assigned a PROPOSITION θ-role (as suggested in Carnie

(2002: 256)), but a THEME θ-role. This would only require one θ-grid:


THEME DP/CP

A third possibility is to argue that a CP complement is indeed projected, from which the DP maths

is moved to spec-TP of the matrix clause. After movement has taken place, the remaining comple-

ment is deleted, as a kind of ellipsis (This analysis is mentioned in Kawai (2002: 1fn):

(31) Mathsi is difficult [PROarb to understand ti].

If this analysis is right, the θ-grid in (25) will suffice. I will not go into an argumentation about

these possibilities, but will assume the second possibility because it seems to provide a sufficient

level of generalisation without making it too speculative.

Anders Jørgensen


70

7.5. Comparing Subject-Raising and Object-Raising

If we compare subject-raising adjectives and object-raising adjectives, we find that they place re-

strictions on their complement clauses. Let us take a look at likely and difficult as matrix predicates

and run, abandon and leave as embedded predicates:

(32a) Mary is likely [to run].

(32b) * Mary is difficult [to run].13

(33a) * Mary is likely [to abandon].

(33b) Mary is difficult [to abandon].

(34a) Mary is likely [to abandon Peter].

(34b) * Mary is difficult [to abandon Peter].

(35a) Mary is likely [to leave].

(35b) Mary is difficult [to leave].

The differences between the (a) sentences and the (b) are based on the raising properties of the

adjective and on the argument structure of the embedded verb. Sentence (32a) is grammatical, while

(32b) is ungrammatical. This is because run projects a subject, and in subject-raising constructions,

such as (32a), the subject is raised to become the subject of the matrix clause. Sentence (32b) is an

object raising construction and it is ungrammatical because run is an intransitive verb that does not

project a complement. Therefore Mary cannot be base-generated as the complement and cannot be

raised to become the subject of the matrix clause.

Sentences (33a) and (33b) show the opposite pattern. (33b) is an object raising construction

and is grammatical because abandon is a transitive verb that does project a complement (Mary),

which can be raised to become the subject of the matrix clause. The subject-raising construction

(33a) is not ungrammatical because no subject is raised, but simply because there is no complement

of abandon (and abandon must project a complement, see section 3.1.)

13 Where Mary is a person, and run is understood as moving your feet quickly.

Anders Jørgensen


71

This is in contrast to the subject raising construction in (34a) where abandon does have an

overt complement, and the sentence is grammatical, while (34b) is ungrammatical because there

now seems to be two complements of abandon: one which is raised (Mary) and one in situ (Peter),

and abandon is a not a ditransitive verb.

Finally, both (35a) and (35b) are grammatical. The reason is that leave is an optionally

transitive verb, i.e. that it may or may not project a complement. In (35a) no complement of leave is

projected, and the subject (Mary) is raised to spec-TP of the matrix clause. In (35b) leave does

project a complement (also Mary), which is then raised to spec-TP of the matrix clause.

With these words, the sections concerning the complements of adjectives are completed. Let

us briefly sketch the findings of this section.

7.6. Partial Conclusion Basically, what has been shown in this section is that there are basically four different types of

adjectives: two-place adjectives that project a subject (a DP) and a complement (usually a CP or a

PP). These adjectives include reluctant, afraid, happy, nervous and (if we consider it to be an

adjective) excited. Another type of adjective only projects a subject, but no complement. These

adjectives include weak (and if we consider them to be adjectives) decomposed and exhausted.

These adjectives may, of course, be modified by adjuncts. Thirdly there are adjectives that do not

project a subject, but only a complement clause. Those looked at here are likely and difficult. The

difference between likely and difficult is that likely raises the subject of the complement clause to

become the subject of the matrix clause, whereas difficult raises the complement of the complement

clause to become the subject of the matrix clause.

This section partially explains some of the questions raised in the introduction. It answers the

question of why PRO is interpreted differently in (1a) and (1b) in the Introduction, repeated here as

(36a) and (36b):



As it turns out, afraid is a two-place predicate that projects a CP complement (PRO to leave) as

well as a subject DP (Mary). As predicted by Landau (1999), control into complement clauses is

Anders Jørgensen


72

always obligatory, i.e. Mary controls PRO. In (36b), on the other hand, PRO is arbitrary, because

difficult is an object-raising complement. In (36b), Mary is understood as the complement of leave

and has been raised from that position. It is suggested that control relations are established a D-

structure, and since there is no c-commanding nominal in the D-structure of (36b), cf. (37):

(37) [ ___ was difficult [PRO to leave Mary]].

PRO is interpreted as arbitrary.

This section also explains why (3d) and (4d) in the Introduction (repeated here as (38b) and

(39b) are ungrammatical while (3b) and (4b) in the Introduction (repeated here as (38a) and (39a)

are grammatical.

(38a) Mary is afraid [to leave].

(38b) * Mary is weak [to leave].

(39a) Mary was excited [to leave].

(39b) * Mary was exhausted [to leave].

As mentioned above, afraid and excited are two place predicates, whereas weak and exhausted are

both one-place predicates that only project a subject, but no complement. If the adjectives were

verbs we might say that afraid and excited are transitive, whereas weak and exhausted are

intransitive. Therefore, afraid and excited allow for a complement, whereas weak and exhausted do

not.

This concludes the section on adjective complement clauses. In the next section we will look

into what I call too-constructions.

Anders Jørgensen


8. Too-Constructions This section deals with too-constructions, i.e. structures that concern the degree word too, an

adjective, and a so-called result clause which is licensed by too. Section 8.1. will deal with the tree

structure of these constructions. Two different approaches will be presented: that of Thrane (2002)

and that of White (1997). The following sections investigate how the non-overt arguments of result

clauses are, or can be, interpreted, and some theoretical problems that arise in connexion with these

sentences will be presented.

8.1. The Structure of Too-Constructions

Degree phrases (DegPs) are phrases that are headed by degree words such as so, too and enough

followed by for example an AP (or in the case of enough, preceded by an AP), as in (1a), (1b) and

(1c):

(1a) DegP (1b) DegP (1c) DegP Deg AP Deg AP AP Deg

73

A A A so angry too angry angry enough

(White (1997: 2))

But, as White (1997: 2) notes, degree words may select other categories, such as quantifiers ((2a)

and (2b)), and adverbials ((3a) and (3b)):

(2a) so/too much

(2b) so/too many

(3a) so/too hungrily

(3b) so/too quickly

(White (1997: 2))

Anders Jørgensen


74

Further, in White’s (1997) account, in addition to an AP, the degree word may select a CP comple-

ment. The degree word in question requires different values for finiteness:

(4a) Mary was so sad that she cried.

(4b) * Mary was so sad to cry.

(5a) Mary was too sad to cry.

(5b) * Mary was too sad to that she cried.

(6a) Mary was sad enough that she cried.

(6b) Mary was sad enough to cry.

(White 1997: 3)

Thus, so requires a finite complement clause, too requires a non-finite complement clause, and

enough may select either a finite or a non-finite complement clause.

The complement CP is called a result clause; it is the result or consequence of Mary’s being

so/too sad or sad enough. It is argued that these CPs are complements of the degree word because

they cannot occur without a degree word:

(7a) * Mary was sad that she cried.

(7b) * Mary was sad to cry.

This leads White (1997: 9) to conclude that degree words have a structure similar to that of verbal

double object constructions. The basic structure is as follows:

Anders Jørgensen


(8) DegP1 Deg1 DegP2

75

AP Deg’ Deg2 CP so angry ti that we cannot talk to him

(Based on White 1997: 10, fig. 29)

The DegP2 is the inner core and DegP1 is the outer shell. The degree word is said to project both of

these. In structures with so and too as heads, there is a strong feature in Deg1 that attracts the head

word, as in (8), whereas in structures with enough as the head, the feature in Deg1 is weak and does

not attract the head (White (1997: 10), as in (9):

(9) DegP1 Deg1 DegP2 AP Deg’ Deg2 CP angry enough PRO to hit Peter

(Based on White 1997: 12, fig. 35)

This accounts for the difference in word order.

Thrane (2002), meanwhile, has a different take on the structure. This account is based on too-

constructions in Danish, such as:

(10) Peter er for stor til at holde i hånden.

Peter is too big for to hold in hand-the.

‘Peter is too old to hold hands (with).’14

14 In the gloss, I have put with in parenthesis because the Danish structure, as Thrane (2002) points out, is ambiguous as to whether Peter is subject or the complement of the embedded clause. The leaving in or out of with seems to me to be the best way to show this in English.

Anders Jørgensen


Thrane’s (2002) analysis looks as follows:

(11) CP DP VP

76

V SP DegP S’ Deg AP S InfP Peter er for stor til at holde i hånden

(Thrane 2002: 291)

Thrane (2002: 291-2) argues that the DegP is in fact located in the specifier of another phrase,

called a scale phrase (SP). The DegP is headed by for (too) and selects one complement: the AP

stor (big). The SP is headed by the preposition til (equivalent to the English prepositions to or for,

but an equivalent preposition is never found in English too constructions as far as I know). The

complement of til is the infinitive phrase (InfP)15 at holde i hånden (to hold in hand-the).

Thrane’s (2002) approach thus accounts for the two types of structures (so angry/angry

enough) by way of parameterisation: the branches of the DegP in (11) may turn either way

depending on whether so/too heads the phrase or enough does.

I will not go into a theoretical discussion of these two approaches to the structure of degree

constructions.

As a final note, it should be pointed out that too, in contrast to so and enough seems to have a

negative consequence on the result clause:

(12a) Mary was so sad that she cried. = Mary cried.

(12b) Mary was sad enough to cry. = Mary cried.

(12b) Mary was too sad to cry. = Mary didn’t cry.

This concludes the subsection on the structure of too-constructions. Now, let us take a look at the

interpretation of non-overt arguments in too-constructions.

15 In the framework presented in section 2, the InfP would be considered to be a CP.

Anders Jørgensen


8.2. PRO and Traces in Simple Too-Constructions

In this subsection we will take a look into what I call simple too-constructions. These are too

constructions with adjectives that do not project a complement. Let us take look at the following

sentence:

(13) The body was too decomposed [to identify]16.

First, let us note that the embedded clause is not a CP complement:

(14) * The body was decomposed [to identify].

Because of the ungrammaticality of (14), it seems that the embedded clause in (13) is a result clause

and not an adjective complement clause. Semantically, it also seems to be the result of the body’s

being too decomposed. Of particular interest are the non-overt arguments of the embedded verb

identify. We may ask: who does the identifying, which answers the question concerning the subject

of identify and we may ask: who is being identified, answering the question concerning the

complement of identify.

The answer to the first question seems to be that we do not know who does the identifying; it

is someone not mentioned in the sentence, probably the police, but certainly not the body. This

suggests that the subject of identify is arbitrary PRO, i.e. control without an argumental controller.

The answer to the second question (who or what is being identified) seems to be the body.

This may suggest that the body is base-generated as the complement of identify, and by way of a

movement operation akin to object-raising it is moved to spec-TP of the matrix clause:

(15) The bodyi was too decomposed [PROarb to identify ti].

Let us take a look at the interpretation of a sentence similar to (13), but where the embedded clause

has been passivised:

77

16 This example is the only piece of data that is not devised by introspection. It has been taken from a crime documentary. The context is that a body of a girl was found in a lake.

Anders Jørgensen


(16) The body was too decomposed [to be identified].

As we should expect, the answer to the question who is being identified (which in passive

constructions targets the subject of the clause) is the body. This falls in nicely with the predictions

about passivisation made in sections 2.9. and 4.6. Here, it was argued that passive subjects are base-

generated as the complement of the verb where it is θ-marked, only then to move to spec-TP to

become the subject of the sentence. Thus, in the active sentence (13), if we interpret the

complement of the embedded verb to be the body, then we should interpret the subject of a

corresponding passive construction to be the body as well. As in ordinary simple finite sentences,

the subject ‘disappears’ in passivisation. Therefore, we can argue that PROarb also simply

disappears in (16). After the passivisation has taken place in the embedded clause, the body moves

to spec-TP of the matrix clause by way of a movement operation akin to subject-raising:

(17) The bodyi was too decomposed [ti to be identified ti].

The predictions made with passivisation seem to fit nicely with our interpretation of (17). If we now

turn to another sentence with weak as the matrix predicate:

(18a) Mary was too weak to leave.

we would probably assume that Mary is the one (not) doing the leaving, as in:

(18b) Maryi was too weak [PROi to leave].

But there is another way to interpret (18a), viz. when someone else (i.e. arbitrary PRO) is of the

opinion that they cannot leave Mary because she is too weak to be alone:

(18c) Maryi was too weak [PROarb to leave ti].

78

Anders Jørgensen


79

With this interpretation, (18c) seems to have a structure identical to that of (15), i.e. that the subject

of the matrix clause is base-generated as the complement of leave, only then to move to spec-TP of

the matrix clause, and that arbitrary PRO is base-generated in spec-TP of the embedded clause.

But why are there two possible interpretations for (18a), when this is not possible in (13), cf.

(19)?

(19) * The bodyi was too decomposed [PROi to identify].

I will argue that the difference is a matter of the argument structure of the embedded predicate.

Whether a verb is intransitive or transitive or optionally transitive determines the interpretation

possibilities of the embedded non-overt subject.

In order to look into this, let us return to sentences (2a) and (2b) in the Introduction, repeated

here as (20a) and (20b):

(20a) Mary was too weak [to run].

(20b) Mary was too weak [to abandon].

In (20a), whoever does the running seems to be Mary, i.e. we could argue that the subject of run is

PRO controlled by Mary. In (20b), on the other hand, we do not know who does the abandoning; it

certainly is not Mary. This suggests that the subject of abandon is arbitrary PRO. As we know from

section 3.1., abandon is an obligatorily transitive verb, but there is no overt complement in the

complement position of abandon. If we ask the question who is being abandoned (designed to

target the complement of abandon), it seems that the answer is Mary. This suggests that Mary is

base-generated as the complement of abandon, but moves to spec-TP:

(21a) Maryi was too weak [PROi/*arb to run].

(21b) Maryi was too weak [PRO*i/arb to abandon ti].

Since the only thing that differs in the two sentences is the verbs of the embedded clauses, it seems

that they are the reason for the difference in interpretation of PRO. Run is an intransitive verb in the

Anders Jørgensen


80

common meaning of ‘moving your feet quickly17, whereas abandon is an obligatorily transitive

verb. With these verbs as embedded predicates, there is only one interpretation possible, through a

different one for each sentence.

If we compare, it seems that it seems that the interpretation of (21b) is identical to that of an

object-raising structure, cf. (22):

(22) Maryi was difficult [PROarb to abandon ti].

This leads me to suspect that perhaps the structure of (21b) is an object-raising structure. If the

complement of abandon becomes the subject of the matrix clause (21b), one could, by analogy,

argue that, in (21b), the subject of the matrix clause is actually base-generated as the subject of the

embedded clause. It moves to spec-TP of the matrix clause, and leaves a trace in the subject

position in the embedded clause:

(23) Maryi was too weak [ti to run].

This looks remarkably like a subject-raising structure, cf. (24):

(24) Maryi is likely [ti to run].

If we accept the hypothesis that too-constructions are raising structures, the notation of PROi in

(18b) and (21a) is incorrect. We understand the subject of the embedded clause to be identical to

that of the matrix clause, not because a PRO is controlled by the matrix subject, but because the

matrix subject has left a trace in spec-TP of the embedded clause.

Thus it seems that too-constructions are very similar to subject-raising and object-raising

structures. Too-constructions behave much like subject-raising constructions when the verb of the

embedded clause is intransitive:

(25a) Maryi was likely [ti to run].

(25b) Maryi was too weak [ti to run].

17 Of course, with the exception of cognate objects, but I will generally treat run as an intransitive verb.

Anders Jørgensen


81

(25c) * Maryi was likely [PROarb to run].

(25d) * Maryi was too weak [PROarb to run].

And when the verb of the embedded clause is transitive, the too-construction seems to follow the

pattern of object-raising structures:

(26a) Maryi was difficult [PROarb to abandon ti].

(26b) Maryi was too weak [PROarb to abandon ti].

(26c) * Maryi was difficult [ti to abandon].

(26d) * Maryi was too weak [ti to abandon].

And, finally, when the verb of the embedded clause is optionally transitive, the too-construction

may behave like both a subject-raising structure and an object-raising structure:

(27a) Maryi was likely [ti to leave].

(27b) Maryi was too weak [ti to leave].

(27c) Maryi was difficult [PROarb to leave ti].

(27d) Maryi was too weak [PROarb to leave ti].

Thus, if we return to the question as to why the subject of the embedded clause in (19), repeated

here as (28), cannot be interpreted as identical to the matrix subject, the answer is relatively

straightforward.

(28) * The bodyi was too decomposed [PROi to identify].

If the interpretation possibilities of the non-overt arguments of a result clause depend on the

transitivity of the embedded verb, then we might argue that identify is a transitive verb, and this

seems to be the case:

(29a) The police identified the body.

(29b) * The police identified.

Anders Jørgensen


82

Because identify is obligatorily transitive, sentence (28) follows the structure of an object-raising

construction, and thus no trace or obligatorily controlled PRO can occupy the subject position of the

embedded clause.

We may wonder what happens when we allow an overt complement of the embedded verb. In

such cases, the too-construction seems to follow the pattern of subject-raising structures, rather than

that of object-raising constructions:

(30a) Maryi was too weak [ti to abandon Peter]

(30b) Mary was likely [ti to abandon Peter].

(30c) * Maryi was difficult [ti to abandon Peter].

The same seems to be the case when the embedded transitive verb is passivised (cf. (17)):

(31a) Maryi was too weak [ti to be abandoned ti].

(31b) Mary was likely [ti to be abandoned ti].

(31c) * Maryi was difficult [ti to be abandoned ti].

At this point, it seems rahter straightforward why sentences (3c) and (4c) in the Introduction

(repeated here as (32a) and (32b)) are grammatical, in contrast to sentences (3d) and (4d), which are

not grammatical (repeated here as (33a) and (33b))18:

(32a) Mary is too weak [to leave].

(32b) Mary was too exhausted [to leave].

(33a) * Mary is weak [to leave].

(33b) * Mary was exhausted [to leave].

Put very simply, weak and exhausted are both intransitive adjectives. They do not select any

complements. In (32a) and (32b), the embedded clauses are simply result clauses licensed by too,

but there is no too in (33a) and in (33b) and hence no element in the sentences to license the CPs.

18 The ungrammaticality of (33a) and (33b) was discussed in section 7.3.

Anders Jørgensen


83

This concludes this section on simple too-constructions. Even though, the ideas concerning

too-constructions behaving like raising structures seems fine, it should be noted that just because

something looks like something, it does not necessarily need to be so. There are some major

theoretical problems with the account described above. These will be looked into in the next

section.

8.3. The Case of the Missing Argument

In the previous section it was argued that too-constructions are like raising structures, and they do

seem to behave that way in most aspects. There is one exception, however, and that is the fact that

raising structures allow expletive it to be inserted into spec-TP of the matrix clause, while leaving

the raised argument in situ. Too-constructions do not allow this:

(34a) It was difficult [PROarb to leave Mary].

(34b) It was likely [that Mary would leave].

(34c) * It was too weak [PROarb to leave Mary].

(34d) * It was so weak [that Mary would leave].19

This is quite a problem for the raising hypothesis of too-constructions. In sections 7.1. and 7.2., it

was claimed that subject control structures can be distinguished from subject-raising structures

because raising structures allow expletive it. Because of this, it seems that perhaps the raising

hypothesis of too-constructions may not be true.

This problem can be extended to something more critical. In a sentence such as:

(35) Mary was weak.

It would be argued that weak is a one-place adjective that only projects a subject, Mary. This gives

us problems with the too-construction:

19 Too has been replaced by so, because too does not select finite result clauses. Had too been the degree word in (31d), it could be argued that the ungrammaticality was due to the wrong value for finiteness in the result clause. With so as the degree word, this claim cannot be made. Rather, it is the fact that expletive it is not allowed to be inserted into spec-TP of the matrix clause.

Anders Jørgensen


(36) Maryi was too weak [ti to leave].

If Mary has already been projected into spec-TP of the matrix clause, how can it be claimed that

(another) Mary is base-generated as the subject of leave only then to move to spec-TP of the matrix

clause?

(37) Maryi was too weak [ti to leave].

?

Fortunately, (36) can be saved if we claim that the subject of the result clause is not a trace but is,

after all, PRO controlled by Mary:

(38a) Maryi was too weak [PROi to leave].

We could simply claim that the subject of result clauses is always PRO, and thus there would be no

problem:

(38b) Maryi was too weak [PROi to run].

(38c) Maryi was too weak [PROarb to abandon].

But now we have the problem that we cannot as easily explain why the embedded subject is

understood the way it is. It can still simply be argued that obligatory PRO obtains when the embed-

ded verb is intransitive, whereas arbitrary PRO obtains when the embedded verb is transitive. But it

cannot be as easily explained why this should be. Granted, there is counter-evidence of the raising

hypothesis of too-constructions, but at least the hypothesis could (by analogy to other structures)

explain why the non-overt subject is interpreted the way it is.

Moreover, invoking PRO instead of a trace does not solve all our problems. Let us take yet

another look at the following sentence:

(39) The body was too decomposed [to identify].

84

Anders Jørgensen


In the previous section, it was argued that the body was base-generated as the complement of

identify but moves to spec-TP of the matrix clause. Let us break it down by looking at the simple

passive construction, from which (39) seems to have been formed:

(40) The body was decomposed.

In sections 2.9. and 4.6. concerning the structure and θ-marking of arguments in passive construc-

tions, it was argued that the subject of a passive construction is base-generated as the complement

of the verb, only then to move to spec-TP of the matrix clause:

(41) The bodyi was decomposed ti.

This means that passive constructions are considered to be instances of sentences where the comple-

ment is always projected (but where no subject is projected). I assume that the same must be true

for a too-construction that lacks a result clause:

(42) The bodyi was too decomposed ti.

This, however, collides with the idea that the matrix subject (the body) is base-generated as the

complement of the result clause:

(43) The bodyi was too decomposed ti [PROarb to identify ti].

Obviously, it is not reasonable to assume that the complement of two difference predicates

(decomposed and identify) can magically fuse to become one—even despite the fact that they refer

to the same entity. This is simply not allowed within the theoretical framework.

Could we argue that the complement of identify moves to the complement position of decom-

posed before it moves to become the subject of the matrix clause, as in (44)?

85

Anders Jørgensen


(44) The bodyi was too decomposed ti [PROarb to identify ti].

Unfortunately, this brings us on edge with the θ-criterion. In (44), the body would be θ-marked by

both decomposed and identify, but as stated in the θ-criterion: each argument is assigned one and

only one θ-role, this is not allowed.

Another, quite simple, solution would be to claim that the verb of the result clause does not

project a complement. After all, many predicates optionally project a complement. Perhaps the

complement of identify is simply implicit? But as we saw in (29a) and (29b), repeated here as (45a)

and (45b), this is not the case:

(45a) The police identified the body.

(45b) * The police identified.

Sentences (45a) and (45b) suggest that identify is a verb which, like abandon, obligatorily projects a

complement. Therefore, we have to assume that identify does project a complement. This indeed

seems to be an unsolvable conundrum: three arguments (including PROarb) seem to have been

projected, but only two are syntactically present. Therefore, if my interpretation of the projection

principle in section 3.3. is correct, i.e. that an obligatorily transitive verb must project an overt

complement (which cannot simply disappear), we find ourselves in trouble with the projection

principle. We are missing an argument. I suppose that no matter how one analyses the sentence:

(46) The body was too decomposed to identify.

we seem to have either a violation of the θ-criterion or a breach of the projection principle.

Perhaps the critical reader is not convinced that identify is an obligatorily transitive verb, but

in the literature, abandon is used as a typical example of a verb that must select a complement. If

we take a look at (38c) again, repeated here as (47), we see the same problem:

(47) Maryi was too weak [PROarb to abandon]

86

Anders Jørgensen


87

There is no overt complement in the complement position of abandon. Where has it gone?

To conclude: we are able to save those sentences in which the non-overt subject was

interpreted to be identical to the subject of the matrix clause by claiming that no movement takes

place, and that the non-overt subject is indeed PRO and not a trace. However, this solution does not

suffice for sentences whose result clauses contain obligatorily transitive verbs. There is clearly no

complement in the complement position, so it must have moved.

Because of this, I will argue that, the raising hypothesis of too-constructions is preferable. It

can account for all the data in a uniform way, and the problem that it suffers from is the same for

both the subject-raising structure and the object-raising structure. I have no solution for this prob-

lem, however. One might speculate that the projection of the matrix subject is somehow prevented

by too. If this is true, it would leave the position open for an element to move into.

Next let us turn to complex too-constructions, i.e. structures that contain a two-place adjective

in a too-construction.

Anders Jørgensen


88

8.4. PRO and Traces in Complex Too-Constructions

The adjective afraid, as noted in section 7.3., is a two-place predicate. Let us take a look at how it

combines with a too-construction:

(48) Mary was too afraid [to leave].

The first question we may ask is whether the embedded clause in (48) is a complement of the

adjective or a result clause. It seems that we can test this by looking at the interpretation possibi-

lities of the non-overt subject since control into complement clauses is always obligatory, while

control into a result clause can be arbitrary when leave is the embedded verb.

If we ask the question who does the leaving (designed to target the non-overt subject of the

embedded clause, we find that the immediate interpretation is Mary. However, (48) can also be

interpreted to mean that someone else (i.e. arbitrary PRO) is of the opinion that Mary is too afraid to

be left alone. The fact that there are two possible ways to interpret the subject of the embedded

clause suggests that it is a result clause, and we may surmise that it follows the patterns of result

clauses suggested in section 8.2:

(49a) Maryi was too afraid [ti to leave].

(49b) Maryi was too afraid [PROarb to leave ti].

We may wonder whether this pattern is repeatable with other two-place adjectives:

(50a) Maryi was too happy [ti to leave].

(50b) Maryi was too happy [PROarb to leave ti].

(51a) Maryi was too excited [ti to leave].

(51b) Maryi was too excited [PROarb to leave ti].

It seems that happy and excited do follow this pattern, whereas reluctant does not conform well to

arbitrary PRO:

(52) * Maryi was too reluctant [PROarb to leave ti].

Anders Jørgensen


89

This suggests that reluctant prefers to project its complement rather than letting a result clause be

generated. It is difficult to explain why this should be. Perhaps we may speculate that there is a

stronger relationship between reluctant and its complement than there is between afraid, happy and

excited and their complements. This may be true since the latter seem to do absolutely fine without

their complements, while reluctant seems a little unfinished:

(53a) Mary was afraid.

(53b) Mary was happy.

(53c) Mary was excited.

(53d) Mary was reluctant.

Reluctant seems to provoke us to ask the question to do what? whereas afraid, happy and excited do

not seem to need the answer to that question in the same way.

Next, let us take a look at structures that contain an adjective complement and a result clause:

(54a) Peteri is too afraid [of PROi playing football] [PROarb to pick ti for the team].

(54b) Peteri is too afraid [of PROi playing football] [ti to be picked ti for the team].

(54c) Peteri is too afraid [of PROi playing football] [ti to accept the invitation for the game].

If we look at the result clauses, we see that they behave exactly the same as they do without the

intervening adjective complement. If we deem (54a) to be acceptable, the interpretation of the non-

overt subject of the result clause must be arbitrary PRO, and the complement of pick is a trace of

Peter.

Sentence (54b) is without doubt acceptable, and this supports the acceptability of (54a) since

(54b) is a passivisation of (54a). The trace of Peter moves to spec-TP of the result clause by way of

passivisation before it moves to spec-TP of the matrix clause.

Finally (54c) is also perfectly acceptable. The subject of the result clause is interpreted to be

identical to the subject of the matrix clause, and since we argued that the subject of result clauses

moves to spec-TP of the matrix clause in simple too-constructions, we may, by analogy, argue the

same in complex too-constructions.

In all three sentences, the non-overt subject of playing is obligatory PRO.

Anders Jørgensen


Unsurprisingly, we find the exact same pattern in structures in which the adjective has not

projected a complement, but is modified by an adjunct. According to Haegeman (1991: 262),

control into adjuncts is always obligatory, and that also seems to be true in combination with too-

constructions:

(55a) Maryi was too weak/exhausted [from PROi climbing the mountain] [ti to run back

down].

(55b) Maryi was too weak/exhausted [from PROi climbing the mountain] [PROarb to abandon

ti at the top].

(55c) Mary was too weak/exhausted [from PROi climbing the mountain] [ti to be abandon ti

at the top].

I argued earlier that Landau’s (1999) predictions about control into complement clauses being

obligatory was true, except when there was no potential argumental controller in the matrix clause.

This fits nicely with complement clauses of object-raising adjectives and result clauses in simple

too-constructions, but it does not fit well with complex too-constructions. In a sentence such as

(55b), we may argue that the D-structure is this:

(56) ___ i was too weak/exhausted [from PROi climbing the mountain] [PROarb to abandon

Maryi at the top.

Since we have to assume PROi in the adjective complement clause even in D-structure, it does not

seem reasonable to assume that there cannot be established an obligatory control relation between a

position (i.e. spec-TP if the matrix clause) and PRO in an embedded clause if there is no element

present in spec-TP of the matrix clause at D-structure. Indeed (56) seems to show that there can be

an obligatory control relation between PRO in an adjectival adjunct clause (or complement clause)

and spec-TP of the matrix clause, even if there is no element present in matrix spec-TP at D-

structure. If the raising theory of too-constructions is correct, we will have to assume that the

control relation between PRO in the complement clause and the subject of the matrix clause is not a

matter of whether an element is present in spec-TP of the matrix clause. The control relation seems

to be a relation between the positions, i.e. PRO in complement clauses and adjunct clauses are

90

Anders Jørgensen


always obligatorily controlled by spec-TP of the matrix clause, no matter whether an element has

surfaced in that position or not. This, unfortunately, brings us in trouble with explaining why PRO

is not obligatorily controlled in object-raising structures and in those too-constructions that

resemble object-raising constructions. Our ideas concerning generalisation do not go along very

well with a rule saying: control into complement clauses and adjunct clauses is always obligatory,

except in object-raising complement clauses and in result clauses. There has to be an explanation

for this anomaly.

Perhaps it may concern the referential properties of the arguments of a given predicate. Put

simply, it makes sense to argue that, usually, the subject and the complement of a predicate cannot

refer to the same entity20:


By analogy, it can be argued that the non-overt subject and complement of an embedded clause

cannot refer to the same entity either. In an object-raising construction, the complement is raised to

spec-TP of the matrix clause. Therefore, we know the reference of the complement of the embedded

verb. Since the subject cannot refer to the same entity, we have to interpret it as referring to a

different entity, which is not present in the sentence, hence arbitrary PRO.

We also find ourselves with exactly the same problem concerning the missing argument as we

did in simple too-constructions (discussed in section 8.3). If it is true that afraid is a two-place

argument, then it projects a subject and a complement of its own. How, then, can an argument of a

result clause move into the subject position of the matrix clause, when the position has already been

filled:

(58) Peter was too afraid [of PROi playing football] [PROarb to put Peter on the team].

?

However, if we argue that no movement takes place, we have a breach of the projection principle.

As argued in section 3.1., the verb put is an obligatorily ditransitive verb. But there is only one

complement of put in (58), i.e. on the team. Where has the other complement gone?

91

20 There are, of course, anaphors which do allow for exactly this: Peteri behaved himselfi, however, for arguments sake, this will not be considered here.

Anders Jørgensen


92

Before leaving this subjection, it should be noted that if we try to form a sentence in which

the complement of the adjective is a CP (rather than a PP as in (54a), (54b) and (54c)) in

combination with a result clause, we find ourselves with somewhat strange sentences:

(59a) ? Peter is too afraid [to play football] [to pick for the team].

(59b) ? Peter is too afraid [to play football] [to be picked for the team].

(59c) ? Peter is too afraid [to play football] [to accept the invitation for the game].

I am reluctant to dismiss these sentences as ungrammatical, but I do not think they are acceptable to

the same extent as (54a), (54b) and (54c) are. It seems to me that they are garden path sentences in

the sense that while reading the first embedded clause (to play football) we try to interpret it as the

result clause (i.e. that to play football is the consequence of Peter’s being too afraid. When the real

result clause follows, we are confused.

It seems that there is a kind of competition between the two embedded clauses to be

interpreted as the result clause. This mistake is not possible in (54a), (54b) and (54c), as the

complement of the adjective is a prepositional phrase, and result clauses can never be PPs:

(60) * Peter is too afraid [of playing football]. * result clause

This concludes this section on complex too-constructions with two place adjectives. Now let us turn

to too-constructions in combination with subject-raising adjectives.

8.5. Too-Constructions and Subject-Raising Adjectives

Let us take a look at subject-raising structures in combination with a too-construction:

(61) Mary was too likely [to leave].

Sentence (61) seems fine, even though we seem to want to know the consequence of Mary’s being

too likely to leave. I will get back to that. First, we may wonder whether the embedded clause is a

complement of the adjective or a result clause. Basically, if it is a complement clause, we should

Anders Jørgensen


93

only be able to interpret the subject of leave as Mary, and not arbitrary PRO, while both inter-

pretations should be possible if the embedded clause is a result clause. It seems, however, that the

non-overt subject cannot be interpreted as arbitrary PRO:

(62a) Maryi was too likely [ti to leave].

(62b) * Maryi was too likely [PROarb to leave ti].

The only other subject-raising adjective that I have been able to find is certain:

(63a) Mary was certain [to leave].

(63b) It was certain [that Mary would leave].

Sentences (63a) and (63b) suggest that certain is a subject-raising predicate. Since expletive it can

occupy the subject position of the matrix clause in (63b), it suggests that certain does not assign a

θ-role to its external argument. In (63a), Mary is θ-marked by leave and moves to become the

subject of the matrix clause, whereas in (63b), Mary surfaces as the subject of the finite embedded

clause. This is evidence for subject-to-subject raising. Counter-evidence is available in (63c),

however:

(63c) Maryi was certain [that shei/j would leave].

Sentence (63c) suggests that certain is a two-place predicate. The fact that there can be an overt

subject of both the matrix clause and of the embedded clause, suggests that certain is a two-place

predicate that projects both a subject specifier and a CP complement. This basically rules out

movement. But perhaps that can be explained by arguing that there are two kinds of certain. Mary

in (63a) seems to be somewhat different from Mary in (63c); more precisely: in (63c) we intuitively

feel that Mary has an opinion about something, while she does not in (63a). This suggests that in

(63c), Mary is assigned an EXPERIENCER θ-role, while she is not in (63a). Thus we can claim that

there are to adjectives called certain. Their θ-grids are as follows:

Anders Jørgensen


94

(64) certain1, adj.

PROPOSITION CP

(65) certain2, adj.

EXPERIENCER PROPOSITION DP CP

Let us take a look at how raising-certain combines with a too construction:

(66) ? Mary was too certain [to leave].

The sentence seems odd, if not ungrammatical. If we look at the interpretation possibilities of the

non-overt arguments, we seem to find that if we try to interpret Mary to be the one doing the

leaving (i.e. as the subject of leave), the sentence seems odd. However, if we try to interpret the

non-overt subject of leave as arbitrary PRO, this seems fine:

(67a) ? Maryi was too certain [ti to leave].

(67b) Maryi was too certain [PROarb to leave ti].

But the problem is the confusion over the θ-grids of certain. I will argue that in (67b), certain

functions as a two-place predicate, i.e. that Mary has an opinion about something and that this is the

reason why someone (arbitrary PRO) cannot leave her. This is also evidence that the embedded

clause in (67b) is a result clause.

Let us return to likely. Perhaps unsurprisingly, if we try to add a result clause to the

complement clause, the sentences seem to become even stranger:

(68a) ? Mary was too likely [to leave] [to not stay indoors].

(68b) ? It was too likely [that Mary would leave] [to not talk to her while she was there].

(68c) ? Mary was too likely [to leave] [to…].

It seems very difficult to coin a result clause in combination with likely as the matrix predicate. The

same seems to be true with certain:

Anders Jørgensen


95

(69) ? Mary was too certain [to leave] [to stop].

But as we saw with the two-place adjectives, which did not allow two consecutive CPs, likely does

allow so as the degree word, followed by its own complement, followed by a result clause:

(70a) Mary is so likely [to buy that dress] [that I will have to go and stop her].

(70b) * Mary is too likely [to buy that dress] [to (not) go and stop her].

Thus I feel tempted to conclude that in degree constructions, the complement of the adjective and

the result clause may not be of the same type.

8.6. Too-Constructions and Object-Raising Adjectives

Now let us turn to too-constructions in combination with object raising adjectives. Let us first take a

look at a structure with only one embedded CP:

(71a) Mary was too easy [to fool].

(71b) Maths is too difficult [to learn].

As we can see from (71a) and (71b), it is possible to combine too with an object raising predicate.

Again we may ask whether the embedded clause is a result clause or an adjective complement

clause. As argued, in object-raising constructions, PRO is always arbitrary, whereas in too-

constructions, the non-overt subject may be a trace of the matrix subject or arbitrary PRO. Hence, if

it is possible to interpret the subjects of the embedded clauses in (71a) and (71b) as identical to the

matrix subject, we know that the embedded clauses are result clauses. This, however, does not seem

to be possible:

(72a) * Maryi was too easy [ti to fool].

(72b) * Maths is too difficult [ti to learn].

Therefore, we can conclude that the embedded clause in (72a) and (72b) are complements of the

adjective.

Anders Jørgensen


96

Now, let us turn to structures that contain two CPs: a complement clause and a result clause:

(73a) ? Mary is too easy [to fool] [to resist (it)].

(73b) ? Maths is too difficult [to learn] [to even try].

Sentences (73a) and (73b) are, if not ungrammatical, then immensely odd. In fact, it seems very

difficult to coin a sentence that combines an object-raising construction with a non-finite result

clause. With finite result clauses, however, there are no problems:

(74a) Mary is so easy [to fool] [that I can’t resist it].

(74b) Maths is so difficult [to learn] [that I won’t even try].

This suggests that it is not a property of result clauses in general that they cannot combine with a

raising adjective. Why this should be is somewhat beyond me, but it seems to be a simple fact that

the adjective complement and the result clause cannot be of the same type.


(75b) ? Mary is too likely [to buy that dress] [to (not) go and stop her].

We saw the same thing with two-place adjectives:

(76a) Mary is too afraid [of climbing mountains] [that she can’t be persuaded].

(76b) ? Mary is too afraid [to climb mountains] [to be persuaded].

Thus, since raising adjectives only subcategorise for a to-infinitive clause, the result clause cannot

also have that form, cf. (73a), (73b), (75b) and (76b). This basically rules out too as the degree word

in combination with raising adjectives, as the result clause in a degree construction with too as the

degree word is always a to-infinitive clause. If the degree word is so, the result clause takes the

form of a finite that-clause, the sentence seems fine, cf. (74a), (74b), (75a) and (76a), and the two

consecutive embedded clauses do not have the same form.

This concludes this last section on too-constructions, and indeed the main body of this thesis.

Anders Jørgensen


97

8.7. Partial Conclusion

This section has taken an even deeper look into the raising and control aspects surrounding

adjectives. This section has not been concerned with the adjective complement clauses, however,

but rather result clauses in too-constructions.

In section 8.2., it was demonstrated why sentences (3c) and (4c) in the Introduction, repeated

here as (77a) and (77b), are grammatical, despite the fact that weak and exhausted are one-place

adjectives.

(77a) Mary is too weak [to leave].

(77b) Mary was too exhausted [to leave].

As it turns out, the embedded clauses are result clauses that are licensed by too rather than by the

adjective. They are the result, or the consequence, of Mary’s being too weak.

This section has also shown that the non-overt arguments of result clauses behave much the

same way as raising structures. In (77a) and (77b), the subject of the embedded clauses may be

understood as either referring to Mary or to someone ‘outside’ the sentence, i.e. arbitrary PRO. This

is because leave is an optionally transitive verb. This is in contrast to (78a) and (78b), where there is

only one interpretation of each of the sentences:

(78a) Mary is too weak [to run].

(78b) Mary is too weak [to abandon].

In (78a), the subject of run can only be interpreted to be Mary, whereas in (78b), it can only be

interpreted to be someone other than Mary. This is due to the fact that run is an intransitive verb,

whereas abandon is a transitive verb. Both verbs project subject specifiers, but only abandon

projects a complement.

It has been argued that with embedded intransitive verbs, the subject of the embedded verb

moves to spec-TP of the matrix clause by an operation akin to subject-raising, and that with

embedded transitive verbs, the complement of the embedded verb moves to spec-TP of the matrix

clause by an operation akin to object-raising, and that arbitrary PRO is base-generated as the

Anders Jørgensen


98

subject. With verbs that optionally project a complement, such as leave in (77a) and (77b), either of

these operations may take place.

In section 8.3., we looked into the theoretical impact of the analyses described in 8.2. The

analyses, while superficially tempting, causes problems particularly concerning the projection

principle. If weak is an intransitive adjective, which projects a subject, how, then, can the subject of

an embedded clause move to spec-TP? A solution for this may be to suggest that the non-overt

subject of the embedded clause is not a trace, but PRO:

(79) Maryi was too weak [PROi to run].

But while this solution works for (79), it does not work for (80). Abandon is an obligatorily

transitive verb, so where has the complement disappeared to?

(80) Maryi was too weak [PROarb to abandon ti].

Because of this, I will maintain that result clauses are similar to raising structures, and that perhaps,

the presence of too blocks the projection of a subject specifier of the matrix clause, leaving spec-TP

open for an argument of the embedded clause to move into.

In section 8.4., we took a look into too-constructions in combination with two-place

predicates. It was found that when there was only one embedded clause, it was usually interpreted

as a result clause rather than the complement clause of the adjective. The test for this was that if it

had been a complement clause, only obligatory control would be allowed. This seems to be true for

afraid, happy and excited, but not reluctant, which seems to prefer its complement to be projected

rather than the result clause:

(81a) Maryi was too afraid [ti to leave].

(81b) Maryi was too afraid [PROarb to leave ti].

(82a) Maryi was too happy [ti to leave].

(82b) Maryi was too happy [PROarb to leave ti].

(83a) Maryi was too excited [ti to leave].

(83b) Maryi was too excited [PROarb to leave ti].

(84b) Maryi was too reluctant [PROi to leave].

Anders Jørgensen


99

(84b) * Maryi was too reluctant [PROarb to leave ti].

Theoretically, of course, we should also be able to construct sentences in which both the comple-

ment and the result clause are projected, and this seems to be the case:

(85a) Peteri is too afraid [of PROi playing football] [PROarb to pick ti for the team].

(85b) Peteri is too afraid [of PROi playing football] [ti to be picked ti for the team].

(85c) Peteri is too afraid [of PROi playing football] [ti to accept the invitation for the game].

In (85), the PPs headed by of are complements of the adjective, which themselves take CPs as

complements. The other embedded clauses are the result clauses; they are the result of Peter’s being

too afraid of playing football.

In the complement clauses, PRO can only be interpreted as being controlled by Peter, which

is what we expect in control into complement clauses. In the result clauses, we find the same

interpretation possibilities of the non-overt subject as those that were found in constructions without

adjective complements. In other words, with an embedded transitive verb such as pick, as in (85a),

the non-overt subject is interpreted to be arbitrary PRO. We may assume that the complement of

pick has been raised to spec-TP of the matrix clause. In the passive counterpart (85b), we find that

the non-overt subject is interpreted as Peter, which is what we should expect in passivisation. It is

argued that Peter is base-generated as the complement of pick, only then to move to spec-TP of the

result clause by way of passivisation, after which Peter moves to spec-TP of the matrix clause by

way of an operation akin to subject-raising. Finally, in (85c), the non-overt subject is interpreted to

be identical with Peter. It is argued that Peter is base-generated in that position, only then to move

to the subject position of the matrix clause.

These sentences seem to be problematic to the idea that control relations are determined at D-

structure and that if there is no c-commanding nominal in D-structure, arbitrary PRO must prevail.

If the raising hypothesis of too-constructions is true, the D-structure of (85a) would be (86):

(86) [ ___i is too afraid [of PROi playing football] [PROarb to pick Peteri for the team]].

The idea, of course, would explain why PRO is arbitrary in the result clause, but it collides with the

fact that PRO is obligatory in the complement clause.

Anders Jørgensen


100

The argument that control relations are established at D-structure may be abandoned in favour

of a less elegant theory, viz. that control into complement clauses must be obligatory, except in

raising structures. The reason for this may be that two arguments of one predicate cannot normally

refer to the same entity:


Therefore, in raising structures in which the complement has been raised, the subject of the same

clause cannot refer to the same entity, hence the subject is interpreted as arbitrary PRO.

In sections 8.5. and 8.6., we took a look into how raising adjectives combine with too-

constructions. It seems that they cannot do this:

(88a) * Mary was too likely [to leave] [to not stay indoors]. (Subject-raising adjective)

(88b) * Maths is too difficult [to learn] [to even try]. (Object-raising adjective)

This is puzzling as they are fine with so as the degree word and a finite result clause:


(89b) Maths is so difficult [to learn] [that I won’t even try].

Perhaps there is a collision between the two infinitival clause in (88a) and (88b) as to which should

be interpreted as the result clause. This is not the case in (89a) and (89b) where the result clause

must be a that-clause.

These are basically the findings in this section.

Anders Jørgensen


101

9. Conclusions I believe that the questions of the Introduction have been answered. Sentences (1a), (1b), (2a) and

(2b) of the Introduction are repeated here:



(2a) Mary is too weak [PRO to run].

(2b) Mary is too weak [PRO to abandon].

It has been argued that PRO is obligatory, i.e. controlled by Mary, in (1a) and (2a), whereas in

sentences (1b) and (2b), PRO is arbitrary, i.e. refers to someone not mentioned in the sentence. The

puzzling thing observed in the Introduction is that in (1a) and (1b), it seems to be the matrix

predicate that decides the interpretation of PRO (as the only difference between (1a) and (1b) is the

matrix predicate) whereas in (2a) and (2b), it seems to be a property of the embedded predicate that

decides the interpretation of PRO, as the only difference between (2a) and (2b) is the embedded

predicate.

The answer lies in the fact that sentences (1a) and (1b) cannot really be compared to (2a) and

(2b) in the manner suggested. In (1a) and (1b), the embedded clauses are complement clauses of the

adjective, and therefore the control relations into the complement clauses are determined by the

adjective. This is in contrast to (2a) and (2b), in which the embedded clauses are not complement

clauses of the adjective, and therefore are not subject to any control relations determined by the

adjective.

The predicate in (1a), afraid, is a two place predicate that projects a subject and may project a

complement of different types, and in (1a) it has selected a CP. As Landau (1999:14) argues,

control into complement clauses is always obligatory. This is true for control verbs and for two-

place adjectives, such as afraid, but not for object-raising adjectives, such as difficult. With object-

raising adjectives, PRO is always arbitrary, perhaps because two arguments of the same predicate

cannot usually refer to the same entity. Since the reference of the complement in (1a) is Mary, PRO

cannot also be interpreted to be Mary. Adding traces and indexation to sentences (1a) and (1b), they

look as follows:

Anders Jørgensen


102

(3a) Maryi is afraid [PROi to leave].

(3b) Maryi is afraid [PROarb to leave ti].

The embedded clauses in (2a) and (2b) are result clauses licensed by the presence of too, which we

can see from the ungrammaticality of (4a) and (4b):

(4a) * Mary is weak [to run].

(4b) * Mary is weak [to abandon].

I have argued that too-constructions are similar to raising structures, but that unlike raising

adjectives, the argument that is raised is not determined by any matrix element, but by the

embedded predicate. In short, if the embedded verb is intransitive, the subject of that verb is raised

into spec-TP of the matrix clause, whereas if the embedded verb is transitive (and there is no overt

complement in the complement position), then the complement has been raised to spec-TP and

arbitrary PRO has been projected as the subject of the embedded clause. Thus, there is no PRO in

(2a), but only a trace. Adding traces and indexation to sentences (2a) and (2b), the sentences look as

follows:

(5a) Maryi is too weak [ti to run].

(5b) Maryi is too weak [PROarb to abandon ti].

This thesis has also answered the question of why sentences (3d) and (4d) in the Introduction

(repeated here as (6d) and (7d)) are ungrammatical, while sentences (3a), (3b), (3c), (4a), (4b) and

(4c) in the Introduction, repeated here as (6a), (6b), (6c) (7a), (7b) and (7c) are all grammatical.

(6a) Mary is too afraid [to leave].

(6b) Mary is afraid [to leave].

(6c) Mary is too weak [to leave].

(6d) * Mary is weak [to leave].

(7a) Mary was too excited [to leave].

(7b) Mary was excited [to leave].

Anders Jørgensen


103

(7c) Mary was too exhausted [to leave].

(7d) * Mary was exhausted [to leave].

As it turns out, the embedded clauses in (6a), (6c), (7a) and (7c) are all result clauses licensed by

too. The embedded clauses in (6b) and (7b) are complements of the adjectives afraid and excited,

and are allowed because the adjectives are two-place predicates. This is in contrast to (6d) and (7d).

Weak and exhausted are one-place predicates and thus they do not project a complement. Since

there is no too in these clauses either, the embedded clauses are not licensed.

Anders Jørgensen


10. Perspectives This thesis may have answered the questions posed in the Introduction, but it seems to have raised

quite a number of questions of its own.

First there seems to be the question whether it is possible to find empirical evidence in favour

of the raising hypothesis of too-constructions. As it is, the idea is simply based on the fact that too-

constructions seem to fit the structure of raising adjectives. The fact that too-constructions do not

allow expletive it as the subject of the matrix clause, however, is clear evidence that too-

constructions are not entirely identical to raising constructions:

(1a) Maryi was difficult [PROarb to leave ti].

(1b) It was difficult [PROarb to leave Mary].

(2a) Maryi was too weak [PROarb to leave ti].

(2b) * It was too weak [PROarb to leave Mary]. (Where it is expletive)

In fact, this seems to be evidence against the raising hypothesis of too-constructions. If we do

accept the idea, though, it might be investigated why expletive it is not allowed in too-constructions

whereas it is optional in object-raising constructions.

On a related note, an argument in (3a) seems to have disappeared.

(3a) The body was too decomposed [to identify].

Either the complement of decomposed (which is understood to be the body) or the complement of

identify (which is likewise understood to be the body) has disappeared. One way to get out of this

problem is to argue that no verb (not even abandon) necessarily needs to project a complement. If

this is true, then the complement of identify can simply be said to be implicit, and the problem is

solved:

(3b) The bodyi was too decomposed ti [PROarb to identify Ø].

104

Anders Jørgensen


Another solution is to argue that both complements move to spec-TP of the matrix clause and

‘magically fuse’ to become one:

(3c) The bodyi was too decomposed ti [PROarb to identify ti].

A third possibility is to claim that too somehow prevents the projection of the subject of adjectives

(or the complement in passive constructions). If the subject of the adjective is prevented from being

projected, the complement of the embedded verb is free to move to spec-TP of the matrix clause:

(3d) The bodyi was too decomposed Ø [PROarb to identify ti].

It needs to be investigated what happens to that missing argument.

A question, which was implicitly asked in the Introduction, was how control in general is

established in adjective complement clauses and in result clauses. It was argued that obligatory

control is a relation between an argument (the controller) and PRO, in which the controller c-

commands PRO from a higher clause at D-structure. If we assume the raising hypothesis of too-

constructions to be true, there seem to be three types of structures.

(4a) Maryi was afraid [PROi to leave].

Sentence (4a) displays obligatory control of PRO by an argument which at D-structure c-commands

PRO. This is not the case with object-raising structures and the corresponding too-construction:

(4b) Maryi was difficult [PROarb to leave ti].

(4c) Maryi was too weak [PROarb to leave ti].

Sentences (4b) and (4c) display arbitrary control because there is no c-commanding argument in the

matrix clause present. Thus, obligatory control is not an option, and arbitrary control obtains.

The problem with this hypothesis is that it does not conform well with structures that contain

both a complement clause of the adjective as well as a result clause:

105

Anders Jørgensen


106

(5) Maryi was too afraid [of PROi leaving] [ti to notice Bill]. complement of adj. result clause

If the raising hypothesis of too-constructions is correct, then Mary should be base-generated as the

subject of notice. Thus, there is no element in the matrix clause at D-structure to control PRO. How

is the obligatory control relation between Mary and PRO then established? Is control established at

S-structure? If it is, it cannot be explained why PRO is not obligatory in (4b) and (4c). Another

possibility is that obligatory control is not restricted by c-command, i.e. that it is not necessary for

an argument to c-command PRO in order to control it. This can explain why the argument Mary (in

its base-position as the subject of notice) can control PRO. This seems to need investigation.

Another thing to look into is why subject-raising adjectives and object-raising adjectives do

not work well with non-finite result clauses, whereas finite result clauses are fine:

(6a) * Mary is too likely [to buy that dress] [to (not) go and stop her].

(6b) May is so likely [to buy that dress] [that I will have to go and stop her].

(7a) * Maths is too difficult [to learn] [to even try].

(7b) Maths is so difficult [to learn] [that I won’t even try).

The descriptive explanation that two consecutive clauses cannot be of the same type is not satis-

factory. The real question here is whether it is a matter of the human mind not being able to

compute an excessive number of non-overt arguments in a sentence, or whether there really is a

syntactic or semantic answer to the question, e.g. that in (6a) and (7a), there are two arguments that

compete to move into spec-TP of the matrix clause, viz. the subject of the adjective complement

clause and subject of the result clause.

Anders Jørgensen


107

11. References Arndt, Hans (2003) Sproget: hverdages mirakel, Århus Universitetsforlag. Århus, DK.

Börjars, Kersti and Burridge, Kate (2001) Introducing English Grammar. Arnold. London, UK.

Carnie, Andrew (2002) Syntax: a generative introduction. Blackwell. Oxford, UK.

Chalmers, A.F. (1995) Hvad er videnskab. Gyldendal. Copenhagen, DK.

Haegeman, Liliane (1991) Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Blackwell. Oxford,

UK.

Kawai, Michiya (2002) Tough Subjects are Thematic. In: Proceedings of the 2002 annual

conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, pp. 167-180. Available at

http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/2002/Kawai_2002.pdf

Landau, Idan (1999) Elements of Control, PhD dissertation. MIT, US.

Radford, Andrew (2004) Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English. Cambridge

University Press. Cambridge, UK.

Thrane, Torben (2002) Gradsudtryk. In: 9. Møde om Udforskningen af Dansk Sprog, pp. 285-297.

Institut for Nordisk Sprog og Litteratur, Århus Universitet. Available at:

http://www.muds.dk/rapporter/MUDS_9.pdf .

Thrane, Torben (2004) Control in Danish and English. Ninth Nordic Conference for English

Studies ’04, Århus Universitet. Available at:

http://www.sprog.asb.dk/tt/Forskning/Control/index.htm.

White, Jonathan R. (1997) Result Clauses and the Structure of Degree Phrases. In: UCL Working

Papers in Linguistics 9. University College London. Available at:

http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/PUB/WPL/97papers/white.pdf.

Wikipedia: www.wikipedia.org. ‘cognate objects’. Viewed 28 January 2008.

http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/%7Ecla-acl/2002/Kawai_2002.pdf

http://www.muds.dk/rapporter/MUDS_9.pdf

http://www.sprog.asb.dk/tt/Forskning/Control/index.htm

http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/PUB/WPL/97papers/white.pdf

a study into raising and control in - au purepure.au.dk/portal/files/2555/speciale.pdf · a study...

Documents