Syntax

Lecture 6:Missing Subjects of Non-finite

Clauses

A Mystery

• We know that the subject is a compulsory part of the sentence:– Some argument from inside the VP must move to

subject position:• [IP -- will [VP the judge sentence the convict]]

• [IP -- will [VP be sentenced the convict]]

A Mystery

• We know that the subject is a compulsory part of the sentence:– Some argument from inside the VP must move to

subject position:• [IP the judge will [VP -- sentence the convict]]

• [IP the convict will [VP be sentenced --]]

A Mystery

• We know that the subject is a compulsory part of the sentence:– If there is no argument that can move, the

position is filled by a pleonastic element:• [IP -- [VP rained]]

• [IP -- [VP appears [CP that the convict has escaped]]]

A Mystery

• We know that the subject is a compulsory part of the sentence:– If there is no argument that can move, the

position is filled by a pleonastic element:• [IP it [VP rained]]

• [IP it [VP appears [CP that the convict has escaped]]]

A Mystery

• However, there are some sentences where the subject appears to be missing:– The convict seems [IP -- to [VP have escaped]]– The convict tried [IP -- to [VP escape]]

• These constructions are clearly IPs– They are headed by the infinitival I: to

• They are always infinitives:– * the convict seems [IP -- will [VP escape]]– * the convict expects [IP -- will [VP escape]]

A Mystery

• So, how can some clauses lack a subject when the subject is an obligatory part of the clause?

An Observation• The clauses which lack subjects always lack one of the

arguments of the verb:– The police want [IP -- to [VP -- question the witness]]– The witness wants [IP -- to [VP be questioned --]]

• Normally arguments can’t be left out:– * questioned the witness– * the police questioned

• However, it is obvious what the meaning of the missing argument/subject is:– The police want to question the witness

• The police will do the questioning– The witness wants to be questioned

• The witness will be the one that is questioned

An Observation

• The missing argument/subject is interpreted as identical to the subject of the higher clause

• The police are the ones doing the wanting

• And the police are the ones doing the questioning

Some questions

• Can one phrase be the argument of two verbs?

• Why does this only happen in the subject of an infinitive clause?

Answers

• No phrase can have more than one argument role:– John saw John saw himself– * I watched Mary danced

• no argument can be object of one verb and subject of another

Missing subjects with different properties!

• The convict seems [ -- to have escaped]• The convict planned [ -- to escape]

– In both cases, ‘the convict’ is the one interpreted as the escapee

– In the second, ‘the convict’ is the one who did the planning

– But in the first, ‘the convict’ is not the one who seems• It seems [ the convict has escaped]• * it planned [the convict has escaped]

– plan has its own subject, seem does not

Missing subjects with different properties!

• For this reason, the subject of verbs like seem can be pleonastic or idiomatic, if the missing subject has these properties:– It seems [ -- to have rained]– The cat seems [ -- to be out of the bag]

• The subject of verbs like plan can never have these interpretations:– * It planned [ -- to have rained]– * the cat planned [ -- to be out of the bag]]

With seem there is just one argument

• -- seems [ -- to have escaped]

the convict pronounced interpreted

Raising

• In cases where something is interpreted in one place but pronounced in another, a movement analysis is indicated:– The argument of a passive is pronounced in subject

position but interpreted in object position:• -- was arrested the criminal = interpretation• the criminal was arrested = pronunciation

– Wh-phrases are interpreted in a position inside the IP but pronounced in the specifier of CP

• I asked [ -- e [ they arrested who]] = interpretation• I asked [ who e [ they arrested]] = pronunciation

We call this movement Raising• the argument

starts in the lower VP– interpreted

• It moves to the lower subject position– IP must have a

subject• It moves to the

higher subject position– IP must have a

subject– pronounced

The conditions for raising

• Raising never happens out of a finite clause:– The criminal seems [ -- to have escaped]– * the criminal seems [ -- will have escaped]

• In this case, the subject stays inside the lower clause and the higher subject position is filled by a pleonastic:

No raising from finite clause

• Subject moves to lower IP specifier

• It can’t move further

• Higher IP specifier is filled by it

No raising to a non-empty subject

• If the higher subject position is already filled, raising cannot take place:– I believe [ the criminal to have escaped]– * I the criminal believe [ -- to have escaped]

Conclusions

• For raising to happen:– The higher verb must have no subject– The higher verb must take an infinitive

complement

• Verbs which have these properties are called raising verbs:– seem, appear, tend, happen, etc.

Examples

• He seems [ -- to be rich]– It seems [ he is rich]

• He appears [ -- to be intelligent]– It appears [ he is intelligent]

• He happens [ -- to be good looking]– It happens [ he is good looking]

• He tends [ -- to be sarcastic]– * it tends [ he is sarcastic]

• Some raising verbs only have non-finite complements

Raising Adjectives

• He is likely [ -- to win]– It is likely [ he will win]

• He is certain [ -- to lose]– It is certain [ he will lose]

With want there are two arguments

• -- wants [ -- to escape]

the convict pronounced interpreted

the convict interpreted unpronounced

refers to the same individual

How can two arguments refer to the same individual?

• Normally two arguments, even if they are phonologically identical, refer to different individuals:– John hates John

• But if the second is a pronoun, they can have the same referent:– John hates himself– John thinks he is ugly

• With verbs like want there is an unpronounced pronoun in the subject of the lower clause– The criminal wants [ PRO to escape]

We call this phenomenon Control

• Both subjects move to IP specifier

• PRO is controlled by the higher subject

Conditions for control

• PRO can only appear in the subject position of an infinitive:– I expect [ PRO to be paid]– * I expect [ PRO will be paid]

Conditions for control

• There must be a controller:– In Subject position (subject control)

• I promised John [ PRO to pay]

– In Object position (object control)• I persuaded John [ PRO to pay]

Conclusions

• For control to happen:– The higher verb must have a subject or object– The higher verb must take an infinitive

complement

• We call verbs with these properties control verbs:– want, expect, try, etc.

Examples

• They want [ PRO to escape]• They tried [ PRO to find them]• They expect [ PRO to be captured]

Control Adjectives

• They are anxious [ PRO to be caught]• They are willing [ PRO to pay]• They are afraid [ PRO to leave]

Conclusions• There are two constructions in English where

there appears to be no subject in an infinitive clause:– He seems [ -- to be rich]– He wants [ -- to be rich]

• Both do in fact have subjects• Though they look similar they are not

– The first appears to lack a subject because its subject has moved = raising

– The second appears to lack a subject because its subject is unpronounced = control