Installment 9a. CP and Installment 9a. CP and PROPRO

8.1-8.2.58.1-8.2.5

CAS LX 522CAS LX 522Syntax ISyntax I

Types of sentencesTypes of sentences Sentences come in several Sentences come in several typestypes. We’ve . We’ve mainly seen mainly seen declarative clausesdeclarative clauses.. Horton heard a Who.Horton heard a Who.

But there are also questions But there are also questions ((interrogative clausesinterrogative clauses)…)… Did Horton hear a Who?Did Horton hear a Who? Who did Horton hear?Who did Horton hear?

……exclamativesexclamatives…… What a crazy elephant!What a crazy elephant!

……imperativesimperatives…… Pass me the salt.Pass me the salt.

Declaratives and Declaratives and interrogativesinterrogatives

Our syntactic theory should allow us to Our syntactic theory should allow us to distinguish between clause types.distinguish between clause types.

The basic content of…The basic content of… Phil will bake a cake.Phil will bake a cake.

……and…and… Will Phil bake a cake?Will Phil bake a cake?

……is the same. Two DPs (is the same. Two DPs (PhilPhil, nominative, and , nominative, and aa cakecake, accusative), a modal (, accusative), a modal (willwill), a ), a transitive verb (transitive verb (bakebake) that assigns an Agent ) that assigns an Agent -role and a Theme -role and a Theme -role. They are -role. They are minimally different: minimally different: one’s an interrogative, one’s an interrogative, and one’s a declarative.and one’s a declarative. One asserts that One asserts that something is true, one requests a response something is true, one requests a response about whether it is true.about whether it is true.

Clause typeClause type Given this motivation, we seem to need Given this motivation, we seem to need one more category of lexical items, the one more category of lexical items, the clause typeclause type category.category.

We’ll call this category We’ll call this category CC, which , which traditionally stands for traditionally stands for complementizercomplementizer..

The hypothesis is that a declarative The hypothesis is that a declarative sentence has a sentence has a declarative Cdeclarative C in its in its structure, while an interrogative structure, while an interrogative sentence (a question) has an sentence (a question) has an interrogative Cinterrogative C..

ComplementizersComplementizers The reason for calling this element a The reason for calling this element a complementizercomplementizer stems from viewing the stems from viewing the problem from a different starting point.problem from a different starting point.

It is possible to It is possible to embedembed a sentence a sentence within another sentence:within another sentence: I heard [Lenny retired].I heard [Lenny retired].

And when you embed a declarative, you And when you embed a declarative, you generally have the option of using the generally have the option of using the word word thatthat.. I heard I heard that [that [Lenny retired].Lenny retired].

So what is that So what is that thatthat??

What’s What’s that that ?? We can show that We can show that thatthat “belongs” to the “belongs” to the embedded sentence with constituency embedded sentence with constituency tests.tests. What I heard is that Lenny retired.What I heard is that Lenny retired. *What I heard that is Lenny retired.*What I heard that is Lenny retired.

There’s a demonstrative There’s a demonstrative thatthat, but that’s , but that’s not what not what thatthat is. is. *I heard this Lenny retired.*I heard this Lenny retired.

So, So, thatthat is its own kind of thing. It’s is its own kind of thing. It’s an introducer of embedded clauses, a an introducer of embedded clauses, a complementizercomplementizer..

ComplementizersComplementizers There are a couple of different kinds There are a couple of different kinds of complementizer. of complementizer. ThatThat is for is for embedding declarative sentences.embedding declarative sentences. I understand I understand thatthat Alton will bake a cake. Alton will bake a cake.

It’s also possible to embed an It’s also possible to embed an interrogative sentence, like so:interrogative sentence, like so: I wonder I wonder if if Alton will bake a cake.Alton will bake a cake. I wonder I wonder whether whether Alton will bake a cake.Alton will bake a cake.

Here, Here, ifif and and whetherwhether serve as serve as complementizers, introducing the complementizers, introducing the embedded interrogative.embedded interrogative. I wonder about the answer to I wonder about the answer to Will Alton Will Alton bake a cakebake a cake??

SelectionSelection Just like the verb Just like the verb bakebake takes the DP takes the DP a cakea cake as its object, some verbs take clauses as as its object, some verbs take clauses as their object. their object.

Some verbs specify what kind of clause they Some verbs specify what kind of clause they take:take: I claimed that Alton will bake a cake.I claimed that Alton will bake a cake. *I claimed if Alton will bake a cake.*I claimed if Alton will bake a cake. *I wondered that Alton will bake a cake.*I wondered that Alton will bake a cake. I wondered if Alton will bake a cake.I wondered if Alton will bake a cake.

This is a matter of This is a matter of selectionselection. Some verbs . Some verbs select for declaratives, some verbs select select for declaratives, some verbs select for interrogatives. Some verbs can take for interrogatives. Some verbs can take either, some neither.either, some neither. I know that Alton will bake a cake.I know that Alton will bake a cake. I know if Alton will bake a cake.I know if Alton will bake a cake. *I washed that Alton will bake a cake.*I washed that Alton will bake a cake. *I washed if Alton will bake a cake.*I washed if Alton will bake a cake.

CC So, we have lexical items like So, we have lexical items like thatthat and and ifif, which are complementizers , which are complementizers (category: (category: C)C), and have a value for clause type., and have a value for clause type.

thatthat [C, clause-type:decl, …][C, clause-type:decl, …] ifif [C, clause-type:Q, …][C, clause-type:Q, …]

Where is it structurally?Where is it structurally? We know it We know it forms a constituent with the clause it forms a constituent with the clause it introduces. We know that verbs can introduces. We know that verbs can select for different kinds of C. select for different kinds of C. The The natural conclusion is that it is a natural conclusion is that it is a sister to TP, at the top of the tree, sister to TP, at the top of the tree, which projects.which projects.

CPCP

C is the head of CP.C is the head of CP.

Saying this also provides a natural Saying this also provides a natural explanation of why in SOV languages, explanation of why in SOV languages, complementizers are generally on the right.complementizers are generally on the right.

Hanako-ga [Taroo-ga naita to] itta.Hanako-ga [Taroo-ga naita to] itta.H.- nom T. -nom cried that H.- nom T. -nom cried that saidsaid‘Hanako said that Taro cried.’‘Hanako said that Taro cried.’

vP

T

T

TP

DPSubject

CP

Cthat

CPCP C specifies the clause typeC specifies the clause type; ; thatthat indicates a declarative clause.indicates a declarative clause.

Why then can you say either of these?Why then can you say either of these? Jack claimed that Jill fell.Jack claimed that Jill fell. Jack claimed Jill fell.Jack claimed Jill fell.

In French, Spanish, probably most other languages In French, Spanish, probably most other languages you don’t have the option to leave out the C.you don’t have the option to leave out the C.

J’ai dit J’ai dit qu’ qu’ elle était malade elle était maladeI’ve said I’ve said thatthat she was ill she was ill‘I said that she was ill’‘I said that she was ill’

*J’ai dit elle était malade*J’ai dit elle était malade ClaimClaim doesn’t embed interrogatives.doesn’t embed interrogatives.

*Jack claimed if Jill fell.*Jack claimed if Jill fell. SoSo Jill fellJill fell is declarative inis declarative in Jack claimed Jill Jack claimed Jill fellfell..

ØØ Where does that leave us?Where does that leave us?

Jack claimed Jill fellJack claimed Jill fell ClaimClaim only takes declarative complements. only takes declarative complements. Jill fellJill fell is declarative. is declarative. Clause type is a feature of C.Clause type is a feature of C. Thus:Thus: There is a declarative C.There is a declarative C.

You just can’t hear it.You just can’t hear it.

English has two declarative English has two declarative complementizers. One is complementizers. One is thatthat, one is , one is ØØ. . In most cases, either one works equally In most cases, either one works equally well.well.

Jill fell Jill fell is a is a declarativedeclarative

But hold on a minute. But hold on a minute. Jill fellJill fell, just as its , just as its own sentence (not embedded) is also own sentence (not embedded) is also declarative.declarative. Cf. Cf. Did Jill fall?Did Jill fall?

So, we’ll suppose that since the function of So, we’ll suppose that since the function of C is to mark clause type, C is to mark clause type, there’s a C in there’s a C in simple sentences as well.simple sentences as well.

The C that heads the whole structure has The C that heads the whole structure has somewhat special properties. Declarative C in somewhat special properties. Declarative C in that position is never pronounced. that position is never pronounced. Interrogative C is not pronounced as a word, Interrogative C is not pronounced as a word, but makes its presence known by causing but makes its presence known by causing movement.movement.

SAI in YNQsSAI in YNQs In yes-no questions, the subject and In yes-no questions, the subject and auxiliary “invert” (Subject-Auxiliary auxiliary “invert” (Subject-Auxiliary Inversion):Inversion): Scully will perform the autopsy.Scully will perform the autopsy. Will Scully perform the autopsy?Will Scully perform the autopsy?

Assuming everything we’ve got so far:Assuming everything we’ve got so far: T has a [T has a [uuD*D*] (EPP) feature to check,] (EPP) feature to check,so so ScullyScully is in SpecTP. is in SpecTP.

The question is an interrogative.The question is an interrogative. (Unpronounced) C is to the left of TP.(Unpronounced) C is to the left of TP.

So what must be happening in yes-no So what must be happening in yes-no questions?questions?

T-to-CT-to-C

A natural way toA natural way tolook at this: look at this: T is moving to CT is moving to C.. Just like V moves to Just like V moves to vv,,or like Aux (Perf, Prog, oror like Aux (Perf, Prog, orPass) moves to T, or like N moves to Pass) moves to T, or like N moves to nn..

In (main clause) questions, T moves In (main clause) questions, T moves to C.to C.

MP

T

M+Twill

TP

DPScully

CP

C[clause-type:Q]

T-to-CT-to-C Specifically:Specifically:

Suppose T has anSuppose T has anuninterpretable featureuninterpretable featurethat matches a featurethat matches a featureof C: [of C: [uuclause-type:clause-type:].].

Suppose that when C values [Suppose that when C values [uuclause-type:clause-type:] ] as Q, the uninterpretable feature is as Q, the uninterpretable feature is strong.strong. Cf. When T values [Cf. When T values [uuInfl:] on Aux (Prog, Perf, Infl:] on Aux (Prog, Perf, Pass), the feature is strong, and Aux moves to Pass), the feature is strong, and Aux moves to T.T.

T

TP

DPScully

CP

C[clause-type:Q]

MPM+Twill

DeclarativDeclarativee A simple declarative A simple declarative clause would look clause would look like this.like this.

The YNQ would be The YNQ would be formed by replacing formed by replacing the declarative C the declarative C with an interrogative with an interrogative C.C.

Vperform

VP

DPthe autopsy

vP

v

MP

<M>

T

Mwill

TP

DPScully

v<V>

CP

CØ

[clause-type:Decl]

v<DP>

T

T

YNQYNQ In a YNQ, the In a YNQ, the [Q] feature [Q] feature of C matches of C matches and values and values the [the [uuclause-clause-typetype] feature ] feature of T as of T as strong strong ([([Q*Q*]).]).

T moves up to T moves up to adjoin to C, adjoin to C, checking the checking the feature.feature.…

MP

<M>

T

<T>

TP

DPScully

CP

C[Q]

C

Mwill

Abbreviations:[Q] = [clause-type:Q][Q*] = [uclause-type:Q*][uclause-type] = [uclause-type:]

T [Q*]

T

YNQYNQ If T is just If T is just a past or a past or present tense present tense marker, marker, vv is is no longer the no longer the head of T’s head of T’s sister.So we sister.So we pronounce pronounce dodo: : Did Scully Did Scully perform the perform the autopsy?autopsy?

Vperform

VP

DPthe autopsy

v

v

vP

<DP>

T

<T>

TP

DPScully

v<V>

CP

C[Q]

C

T[tense:past]

[Q*]did

Embedding questionsEmbedding questions So, you can embed declaratives…So, you can embed declaratives…

I heard (that) Jill fell.I heard (that) Jill fell. ……and you can embed questions…and you can embed questions…

I asked if Jill fell.I asked if Jill fell. Notice that the main clause is different:Notice that the main clause is different:

If the topmost C is interrogative, we get SAI. If the topmost C is interrogative, we get SAI. If the topmost C is declarative, it is If the topmost C is declarative, it is pronounced pronounced ØØ..

If an embedded C is declarative, it can be If an embedded C is declarative, it can be pronounced either as pronounced either as ØØ or as or as thatthat. . If an If an embedded C is interrogative, C is audible (embedded C is interrogative, C is audible (ifif) ) and no SAI.and no SAI.

So, T moves to C only in main clause So, T moves to C only in main clause interrogatives. [interrogatives. [uuclause-type:clause-type:] is strong ] is strong only when valued as Q by a main clause C.only when valued as Q by a main clause C.

Nonfinite clausesNonfinite clauses

Some verbs embed finite Some verbs embed finite declaratives, as we have seen: declaratives, as we have seen: I I heard (that) Jill fellheard (that) Jill fell..

There are other verbs that embed There are other verbs that embed nonfinitenonfinite clauses. These come in a clauses. These come in a few types, but we’ll start with the few types, but we’ll start with the trytry type.type. Scully tried to perform the autopsy.Scully tried to perform the autopsy.

This is two clauses: Scully tried This is two clauses: Scully tried something, and what it was was something, and what it was was to to perform the autopsyperform the autopsy..

-roles-roles Scully performed the autopsy.Scully performed the autopsy. Scully tried to perform the autopsy.Scully tried to perform the autopsy.

The verb The verb performperform has an Agent and a has an Agent and a Theme, here Theme, here ScullyScully and and the autopsythe autopsy, , respectively.respectively.

The verb The verb trytry also has two also has two -roles, -roles, an Agent (the one trying) and a an Agent (the one trying) and a Theme (the thing attempted). Suppose Theme (the thing attempted). Suppose that the Theme of that the Theme of trytry is is [[to perform to perform the autopsythe autopsy]] here. here.

-roles-roles Scully performed the autopsy.Scully performed the autopsy. Scully tried to perform the autopsy.Scully tried to perform the autopsy.

In the second sentence, In the second sentence, ScullyScully is both is both the one trying and, if you think about the one trying and, if you think about it, the one performing the autopsy. The it, the one performing the autopsy. The same individual is the Agent of both.same individual is the Agent of both.

Agent Agent -roles are assigned to the DP -roles are assigned to the DP that is Merged into Specthat is Merged into SpecvvP.P.

However:However: You are not allowed to assign You are not allowed to assign two different two different -roles to the same DP. -roles to the same DP. Otherwise, it should be possible for Otherwise, it should be possible for Scully admiresScully admires to mean to mean Scully admires Scully admires herselfherself..

PROPRO Scully tried to perform the autopsy.Scully tried to perform the autopsy.

So, we have something of a problem So, we have something of a problem here. We need an Agent DP in the here. We need an Agent DP in the vvP P for for performperform, and an Agent DP in the , and an Agent DP in the vvP for P for trytry. But it appears as if . But it appears as if there is only one DP around, there is only one DP around, ScullyScully.. What to do? Once again gritting our What to do? Once again gritting our teeth, we resolve ourselves to the fact teeth, we resolve ourselves to the fact that we need two DPs and can only see that we need two DPs and can only see one— therefore, there must be a DP we one— therefore, there must be a DP we can’t see.can’t see.

The DP we can’t see, we call The DP we can’t see, we call PROPRO..

ControlControl Scully tried [PRO to perform the autopsy].Scully tried [PRO to perform the autopsy].

PRO is a DP that is the Agent of PRO is a DP that is the Agent of performperform, , ScullyScully is a DP that is the Agent of is a DP that is the Agent of trytry..

It is impossible to actually It is impossible to actually pronouncepronounce an an Agent for Agent for performperform.. *Scully tried [Mulder to perform the autopsy].*Scully tried [Mulder to perform the autopsy].

The PRO Agent of The PRO Agent of performperform must be interpreted must be interpreted as being the same person as the Agent of as being the same person as the Agent of trytry.. PRO is a little bit like an anaphor in this PRO is a little bit like an anaphor in this respect; this fact is similar to the fact that respect; this fact is similar to the fact that herself herself in in Scully admires herselfScully admires herself must refer to must refer to ScullyScully..

This obligatory co-reference goes by the name This obligatory co-reference goes by the name controlcontrol. . ScullyScully controlscontrols PRO. Sentences with PRO. Sentences with PRO in them are often called PRO in them are often called control clausescontrol clauses..

PROPRO So why is it impossible to say this?So why is it impossible to say this?

*Scully tried [Mulder to perform the *Scully tried [Mulder to perform the autopsy].autopsy].

The answer we’ll give is that The answer we’ll give is that nonfinite nonfinite T (T (toto) does not have a case feature) does not have a case feature..

Finite T has a [Finite T has a [nomnom] feature which ] feature which matches, values, and checks the [matches, values, and checks the [casecase] ] feature of the subject, checking itself feature of the subject, checking itself in the process.in the process.

Nonfinite T has no case feature at all, Nonfinite T has no case feature at all, so so MulderMulder would be left with its case would be left with its case unchecked.unchecked.

Null caseNull case As for PRO, it is a DP so it has a [As for PRO, it is a DP so it has a [casecase] ] feature. If feature. If MulderMulder can’t get its case can’t get its case checked by the nonfinite T, how does PRO checked by the nonfinite T, how does PRO get its case checked?get its case checked?

A standard (and perhaps less than A standard (and perhaps less than completely elegant) way to look at this:completely elegant) way to look at this: PRO is specialPRO is special, it can only “show up” with , it can only “show up” with “null case” (“null case” (uucase:case:null).null).

Null case is specialNull case is special, it is only allowed on , it is only allowed on PRO.PRO.

Control clauses are specialControl clauses are special, they are , they are introduced by a null C that has a [introduced by a null C that has a [nullnull] case ] case feature, which can check the [feature, which can check the [casecase] feature on ] feature on PRO.PRO.

TryTry So, So, trytry embeds a nonfinite CP, headed by embeds a nonfinite CP, headed by the special null C with the [the special null C with the [nullnull] case ] case feature.feature.

In turn, the subject must be PRO, in order In turn, the subject must be PRO, in order to successfully check that feature of C.to successfully check that feature of C. If the [If the [casecase] feature of any other DP is ] feature of any other DP is valued and checked as [valued and checked as [nullnull], the derivation ], the derivation crashes: only PRO can have null case.crashes: only PRO can have null case.

The embedded clause must be nonfinite (T The embedded clause must be nonfinite (T can’t itself have a [can’t itself have a [nomnom] feature).] feature). If the [If the [nomnom] feature of T checks the [] feature of T checks the [casecase] ] feature of the subject, nothing is left to feature of the subject, nothing is left to check C’s [check C’s [nullnull] feature.] feature.

TryTry Here, the [Here, the [nullnull] ] feature of C will feature of C will match, value, and match, value, and check the [check the [casecase] ] feature of PRO, feature of PRO, checking itself checking itself in the process.in the process.

Vperform

VP

DPthe autopsy

v

v

vP

<DP>

T

T[inf]

TP

DPPRO

[case]

v<V>

CP

CØ

[null]

VP

Vtry

MP

Mto

BelieveBelieve Another place where nonfinite clauses can be Another place where nonfinite clauses can be embedded is under the verb embedded is under the verb believebelieve.. I believe [him to be innocent].I believe [him to be innocent].

Here, we have an accusative subject, and a Here, we have an accusative subject, and a nonfinite T that is not capable of checking nonfinite T that is not capable of checking case.case.

How is the (accusative) case of How is the (accusative) case of himhim checked? checked? This relates to the fact that This relates to the fact that believebelieve can can also simply take a DP object:also simply take a DP object: I believe him.I believe him.

So, how is the accusative case of So, how is the accusative case of himhim checked here?checked here?

ECMECM

The idea is that The idea is that believebelieve (actually (actually the the vv that combines with the V that combines with the V believebelieve) has an [) has an [accacc] feature that ] feature that can check the case of can check the case of himhim in in I I believe himbelieve him..

Suppose that Suppose that believebelieve can either have can either have a DP a DP or a TPor a TP as its complement.as its complement.

What do we expect?What do we expect?

ECMECM Nonfinite T Nonfinite T cannot check the cannot check the case feature of case feature of himhim. But the . But the higher higher vv of of believebelieve can. can.

Checking the Checking the case of a case of a subject “from subject “from above” like this above” like this goes by the name goes by the name Exceptional Case Exceptional Case MarkingMarking ( (ECMECM).).

Vbelieve

v

v

vPbe innocent

DPI

T

T[inf]

TP

DPhim

[case]

v[acc]

VP

<V>

vP

MP

Tto

Arranging to leaveArranging to leave A somewhat similar phenomenon occurs A somewhat similar phenomenon occurs with verbs like with verbs like arrangearrange.. Harry arranged for Tom to leave MI-5.Harry arranged for Tom to leave MI-5.

Here, we have:Here, we have: Nonfinite T, which cannot check case.Nonfinite T, which cannot check case. An overt subject (An overt subject (TomTom) in the accusative.) in the accusative. The word The word forfor, which we classify as C., which we classify as C.

ForFor, as a P, checks accusative case , as a P, checks accusative case ((He baked a cake He baked a cake for herfor her). If the C ). If the C forfor also has an [ also has an [accacc] feature, it ] feature, it could check the [could check the [casecase] feature on ] feature on TomTom..

Arranging to leaveArranging to leave Harry arranged for Tom to leave MI-5.Harry arranged for Tom to leave MI-5.

So, So, arrangearrange-type-type verbs can take a CP complement. verbs can take a CP complement.

Notice that it is also possible to sayNotice that it is also possible to say Tom arranged PRO to leave MI-5.Tom arranged PRO to leave MI-5.

But this is expected.But this is expected. Nonfinite T, cannot check case.Nonfinite T, cannot check case. The null C with [The null C with [nullnull] case can check the ] case can check the case of PRO.case of PRO.

An overt subject can’t get null case:An overt subject can’t get null case:*Harry arranged Tom to leave MI-5.*Harry arranged Tom to leave MI-5.

PRO cannot get anything but null case:PRO cannot get anything but null case:*Tom arranged for to leave MI-5.*Tom arranged for to leave MI-5.

SummarySummary Complementizers indicate clause type Complementizers indicate clause type ((thatthat//ØØ for declaratives, for declaratives, ifif//whetherwhether for for interrogatives).interrogatives).

Some verbs embed clauses. Finite clauses Some verbs embed clauses. Finite clauses are always CPs.are always CPs.

Some verbs can embed nonfinite clauses, Some verbs can embed nonfinite clauses, some embedding TP and others embedding CP.some embedding TP and others embedding CP. BelieveBelieve ( (expectexpect, …, …) embed TP and check ) embed TP and check accusative case (ECM verbs).accusative case (ECM verbs).

TryTry ( (wantwant, …) , …) embed CP. This can either be:embed CP. This can either be: C[C[nullnull]], checking null case on PRO., checking null case on PRO. forfor[[accacc]], checking acc case on an overt subject. Not , checking acc case on an overt subject. Not all verbs allow this option (all verbs allow this option (wantwant does, does, trytry doesn’t). doesn’t).