Transcript Lecture 06 PP

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