Download part iv: subordination - Universitatea din Craiova

UNIVERSITATEA DIN CRAIOVA
FACULTATEA DE LITERE
SPECIALIZAREA: ROMANA / ENGLEZA
INVATAMANT LA DISTANTA
SUPORT DE CURS
DISCIPLINA: LEC (SINTAXA II)
Anul III Semestrul I, II
TITULARUL DISCIPLINEI: Iulia Ciurezu
PART I:
LINGUISTIC THEORY AND THE STUDY OF SYNTAX
1. TYPES OF GRAMMARS - APPROACHES TO SYNTAX ..................................................................... 3
2. SOME BASIC CONCEPTS IN GENERATIVE GRAMMAR .................................................................. 3
3.
E X E R C I S E S: .................................................................................................................................. 4
PART II: SENTENCE STRUCTURE AND SENTENCE TYPES
1.THE STRUCTURE OF THE SIMPLE SENTENCE .................................................................................. 5
2. THE SYNTAX OF QUESTIONS .............................................................................................................. 7
3. . SENTENCE NEGATION IN ENGLISH ................................................................................................ 8
3.1. The Concept of Negative Sentences .................................................................................................... 8
3.2. The Syntax of Negative Sentences..................................................................................................... 10
4. E X E R C I S E S ..................................................................................................................................... 18
PART III: SENTENCE COORDINATION
1. SENTENCE COORDINATION........................................................................................................... 20
2.
THE DERIVATION OF FULL COMPOUND SENTENCES............................................................. 21
3.
REDUCTION RULES ......................................................................................................................... 21
3.1. Conjunction Reduction (CR) ............................................................................................................. 22
3.2. Gapping (GAP) .................................................................................................................................. 22
3.3. Right Node Raising (RNR) ................................................................................................................ 23
3.4. Main Verb Deletion ........................................................................................................................... 23
4. E X E R C I S E S ..................................................................................................................................... 24
PART IV: SUBORDINATION
1. ENGLISH COMPLEMENT CLAUSES .............................................................................................. 24
2.
THAT COMPLEMENT CLAUSES ..................................................................................................... 26
2.1. Major Syntactic Properties of THAT complement Clauses............................................................... 26
2.2. The Distribution of THAT Complement Clauses .............................................................................. 27
3.
NON-FINITE COMPLEMENT CLAUSES – INFINITIVES AND GERUNDS ................................ 32
3.1. The Subject of Non-Finite Complements ......................................................................................... 32
3.2. The Distribution of Non-Finite Complement Clauses ..................................................................... 32
4.
RELATIVE CLAUSES ........................................................................................................................ 36
5.
E X E R C I S E S ................................................................................................................................. 36
TESTE, GRILE, EXERCITII DE AUTOEVALUARE FINALA
2
PART I:
LINGUISTIC THEORY AND THE STUDY OF SYNTAX
1. TYPES OF GRAMMARS - APPROACHES TO SYNTAX
1.1. In linguistics, there are two basic approaches to syntax: the nonformalist approach and the formalist
approach. With the exception of cognitive-functionalist grammars, nonformalist grammars tend to be
descriptive, while the most important formalist approaches tend to be theoretical. (descriptive = focusing on
cataloguing syntactic patterns into taxonomies; theoretical = aiming at constructing a theoretical model of
people’s knowledge of language so as to be able to make predictions about what types of structures are
possible in a language / to define the set of possible ‘grammars’).
The best and most important examples of descriptivist (nonformalist) syntax can be seen in the work of Quirk
et al. (1985)1 and Jespersen2.
Formalist approaches to grammar are found in Generative Grammar (a.k.a. Chomskyan generative
grammar), the so-called ‘post-Chomskyan’ generative grammars (Head-driven phrase structure grammar
(HPSG), Lexical-functional grammar (LFG), Construction grammar), as well as in computational
linguistics or linguistic engineering.
1.2 The generative grammar tradition proposes a model of language and the human faculty of
language capable of explaining two otherwise mysterious properties of human natural language:
learnability and creativity).
Chronologically, we can speak of two stages in generative theory:
-- generative transformational grammar (GTG) (the pre-principles and parameters stage):
Syntactic Structures (Chomsky 1957); Aspects of The Theory of Syntax (Chomsky 1965), a.k.a. ‘the standard
theory’ (ST).
-- the Principles and Parameters stage
---- GB (government and binding (Chomsky 1981));
---- MP ( the minimalist program (Chomsky 1995)).
2. SOME BASIC CONCEPTS IN GENERATIVE GRAMMAR (revised)
2.1. Lexical and functional categories
(1) Lexical vs. functional categories
lexical:
functional:
N0 (noun)
Det0, Q0, Num0, ... ...(determiner, quantifier (e.g. many), number)
0
V (verb)
Infl0 [ T0, M0 ], V0Aux, ... ...(inflexion[tense+agreement, modality], aux)
P0 (preposition)
Adj0 (adjective)
1
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., and Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the
English Language. Longman
2 Growth and Structure of the English Language,Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1905
Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles (7 vols.)London: Allen & Unwin, 1909-49
Essentials of English Grammar, London: Allen & Unwin, 1933
Analytic Syntax, London: Allen & Unwin, 1937
3
Adv0 (adverb)
Deg0
- have semantic content
- open classes
- no lexical content
- closed classes
(degree)
2.2. From phrase structure to X-bar theory
(1) in the GTG model:
SYNTAX = • the central component of grammar
• an autonomous system that consists in P(hrase)S(tructure)R(ules) that produce D(eep) S(tructure) and
T(ransformations) that (may) apply to DS to produce S(urface) S(tructure).
- PSR (morpho-syntactic labels):
- Transformations: - Reflexivization
S --> NP ^ VP
- Passivization
NP --> (Det) ^ N
- Dative movement
VP --> V intr
- There Insertion
(or: V --> Vtr ^ NP
...
or: V --> Vtr ^ NP ^ PNP,
...
or: V --> Vintr ^ PNP ^ PNP, or... ...)
...
...
...
(2) in the GB model:
X-bar theory = the blueprint for all syntactic structures, a more abstract format that replaces all the PSRs of
GTG (This means that all phrases and sentences in any language are produced by one syntactic mechanism,
which is universal, i.e. part of UG.)
- both lexical and functional categories project regularly according to the X-bar schema
XP
Specifier
X'
XP
X'
X0
Complementizer
Spec.
X'
Xo = the Head (any lexical or functional
ZP
category)
X0
Comp.
X' = the minimal (intermediate) projection
YP
XP = the maximal projection
possible phrases of any language are produced by the same syntactic mechanism – the X-bar schem
2.3. Theta theory
- Thematic roles (Θ-roles): AGENT, PATIENT, THEME, EXPERIENCER, BENEFACTIVE, SOURCE,
GOAL, LOCATION
- Verbs are the typical thematic role (Θ-role) assigners. Depending on their meaning, they assign one, two, or
three theta-roles, which must be associated with arguments in the sentence.
Projection Principle - Representations at every syntactic level (D- Structure, S-Structure, LF) are
projected from the lexicon in that they observe the thematic properties of lexical items.
3.
E X E R C I S E S:
I. Make the following sentences passive, comment on the (grammaticality of) the results and
discuss the claim that T(ransformations) (including Passivisation) are structure preserving. The meaning of
which constituents is affected and how?
1. George recited that poem.
2. Every student in this room speaks three languages.
3. Few of my friends have read an article by Noam Chomky.
4. Every person in this room has written three poems.
4
II. Are the underlined strings constituents? For those which are, try to represent their structure both
in the GTG frame (using PSR/Phrase Markers) and in the Principles and Parameters style (using the X-bar
schema). Comment on the differences.
III. Explain why the following sentences are ungrammatical, using notions of theta theory. What
words or constituents could be added to make the sentences correct?
1. Some people bought.
2. She is known her to have made the right choice.
3. They both sent to Paris that morning.
4. The children were crying them.
5. I'm pleased with your work the paper you wrote it.
PART II: SENTENCE STRUCTURE AND SENTENCE TYPES
1.THE STRUCTURE OF THE SIMPLE SENTENCE
In modern generative theory, sentences are analysed as IPs (Inflection Projections) - endocentric
projections of a (verbal) functional head Io (Inflection), whose specifier position is occupied by the subject
(DP) and which takes a VP as its complement. This means that sentences (IPs) are extended projections of
verbs.
Inflection represents a bundle of both verbal and nominal features: tense, agreement and (in English)
mood features. It is considered to be the head of the sentence because it entertains formal relations with the
predicate ( the head - complement relation) as well as with the subject (the head-specifier relation agreement). Tense is represented by either Present, -s, or Past, -ed. In English, modal verbs can also be
considered to be included in Inflection because they are defective, only occurring in the presence of finite
Tense, i.e. tense plus agreement features (which they always carry, being stored as such in the lexicon).
Both the verb, a lexical category, and its functional category – Inflection, project regularly according
to the familiar X-bar schema (1) below:
(1)
XP
XP
Spec ^ X'
Spec
X'
X0
(2)
Comp
IP
DP
X0 ^ Comp
X'
I'
IP
I'
I0
DP ^ VP
I0 ^ VP
Tense [ Agr] ^( Mood).
I0
VP
T
M
[Agr] can
-ed may
-s
shall
will
must
need
dare
V'
V0
Another functional 'extension' of the English verb is represented by the Aspect Auxiliaries have and
be (henceforth V0Aux and with their maximal projections labelled as VPAux). Auxiliary verbs are also clearly
5
functional categories; they do not designate events, but rather they specify the reference of the event
expressed by the main verb, so they lack  assigning properties. Like Inflection, they take VP complements.
An auxiliary is thus a verb that subcategorises a VP (i.e. takes it as its complement), and cannot assign roles (has a 'functional'/'grammatical' and not a 'lexical' contribution to the meaning of the sentence).
It is also important to note that, since selection is a relation between heads, each auxiliary verb selects a
particular form of the head of its complement phrase (of another auxiliary V0Aux or a main verb Vo). The
auxiliary have selects the past participle form, the auxiliary be selects the present participle form ((3) below):
(3)
V(Aux)P
V0(Aux) ^ VP
have
[ V[EN]]
be
[V [ING] ]
So, the derivation of a sentence like (4) will be represented as in (4'):
(4) Ann could have been fooling us.
(4)
IP
I'
DP
Ann
I0
T[+Past] M
-ed
+ can
could
VPAux1
V0Aux1
have
VPAux2
V0Aux2
been
VP
V'
V0
fooling
DP
us
There is a very important difference concerning the syntax of main verbs and auxiliaries between
English and languages with 'rich' morphology (such as French or Romanian). As first observed by Pollock
(1989), English main verbs remain in the VP throughout the derivation, while auxiliaries may or must move
to higher positions. In sentences where there are no modals, for instance, the highest auxiliary raises to
Tense, to support the Tense affix. The rule is known as V0- to - I0 or V0 - to - T0 movement. The inflected
form of the auxiliary is thus created through movement of the auxiliary and merger of the auxiliary with the
tense +agreement affixes -s/ -ed. The derivation of sentences (5)a. and (5)b. will thus be (5')a. and b. below,
respectively, where the highest auxiliaries (have in 5a and be in 5b) raise out of the VPAux to T0, past the
adverbs (often and only) that are adjoined to the VPAux. (Compare with : Ann could often have fooled us. and
Ann could only be fooling us.)
(5)a. Ann has often fooled us.
b. Ann was only fooling us.
6
(5')a. IP
I'
DP
I0
Ann
VP
V0Aux1
Io
T[+Pres]
have + - s
has
AdvP
often
VPAux
V0Aux
taux
VP
V'
V0
fooled
DP
us
(5')b
IP
I'
DP
Ann
V0Aux2
be
I0
T[+Past]
-ed
was
VP
VPAux2
AdvP
only
V0Aux
tAux
VP
V'
V0
fooling
DP
us
2. THE SYNTAX OF QUESTIONS
Another important functional category of the verb, which can further extend its projection to produce
more complex structure, is the Complementizer head, C0. A sentence in which this head is represented is no
longer (just) an IP but a CP. This is the case of questions, which, in addition to the Tense and Modality
information present in I0, also contain another important 'piece of information', an abstract feature [+Q]
(+question) for general (yes-no) questions - [Q],[+wh] for specific questions. This abstract information is
brought in by the C0 head and materialises differently in each language. In English, the feature in C0 is a
strong one (must be made 'visible'), so it Attracts (=triggers movement of) I0 to C0 (6 / 6'). If there is no
lexicalized (modal) auxiliary in I0, a last resort operation applies: DO Support (7 /7').
(6) Was Ann fooling us?
(7) Did Ann fool us?
7
(6') CP
C'
C0
IP
I0
0
V
I'
Aux T[+Past]
was
DP
VPAux
I0
Ann
VP
V'
0
tInfl
V
Aux
tAux
fooling
us
(7') CP
C'
C0
I0
T[+Past] M
-ed
DO
did
IP
I'
DP
VP
0
Ann
I
V'
tInfl
fool us
3. . SENTENCE NEGATION IN ENGLISH
3.1. The Concept of Negative Sentences
Negative sentences have been studied by both linguists and logicians, who tried to relate the logical negation
operator used in formal languages with its natural language equivalents.
Negative sentences have been discussed in relation with their affirmative counterparts in order to give an
explicit account of the formal relation that holds between the two:
e.g. 1(a). They were playing bridge that evening.
(b). They were not playing bridge that evening.
2(a). He brings up that question at every meeting.
(b). He doesn’t bring up that question at every meeting.
3(a). My sister bought something for me yesterday morning.
8
(b). My sister didn’t buy anything for me yesterday morning.
The sentences in each of the pairs above exhibit marked syntactic resemblance, but there is a sharp semantic
contrast between them: they express opposite truth values (if (a) is true, then (b) is false). This implies that
sentences (a) and (b) cannot be related transformationally, i.e. we cannot derive sentences (b) from sentences
(a); they must have distinct deep structures (DSs) – but different only in the presence of one feature/
functional head, namely negation. Thus, being the 'marked case', negative sentences are naturally more
constrained from a pragmatic point of view: they are felicitously used only in a discourse where the
corresponding affirmative has been mentioned or implied or, alternatively, where the speaker believes the
hearer has heard of the possibility of the corresponding affirmative. So, negative sentences can be defined as
a denial of an implicit or explicit assertion.
Negation is a complex syntactic phenomenon:
 it can occur at different levels of structure (not only at sentence level, but also at word and phrase level).
e.g. Your reaction was not adequate. (sentence negation)
Your reaction was inadequate. (word – level negation, realized by means of negative affixes, mostly
prefixes)
I left it not far from here. (phrasal negation, realised by adjunction of the negation not to a phrase)
 in negative sentences, the Neg constituent is a very mobile element:
e.g. John didn’t see anyone on the premises at any time.
John saw no one on the premises at that time.
At no time did John see anyone on the premises.
 the presence of the sentence negator may cause other changes in the form of the sentence:
e.g. She has already been there. – She hasn’t been there yet.
She kept someone waiting. – She didn't keep anyone waiting.
 Neg is a grammatical formative that has several, not fully synonymous, surface realisations:
Neg not, hardly, scarcely, barely
That is why the grammar needs some kind of scientific devices (tests) for identifying negative
sentences as a class, i.e. for distinguishing between word or phrasal negation and negation of a sentential
constituent.
The Properties considered relevant and reliable in identifying the class of negative sentences (first
discussed by Klima (1964)) are:
1. Tag-questions: under a falling intonation on the tag, negative sentences take affirmative tags and vice
versa
e.g. Father doesn't approve of your new friends, does he?/doesn’t he?
Father disapproves of your new friends, doesn’t he?/does he?
2. Not – even tag sentences: are allowed only by negative sentences
e.g. George doesn’t like smart girls, not even pretty ones.
George dislikes smart girls, even pretty ones./not even pretty ones.
2. Either conjoining: two coordinated sentences can have the form S1 and S2 either only if the second
one is negative
e.g. I stayed in all day, and Max didn’t go anywhere either.
I didn’t go anywhere, and Max stayed in all day either.
John isn’t happy and Mary isn’t happy either.
John is unhappy and Mary is unhappy either.
3. Neither tags: in order for the second of two either-conjoined sentences to be truncated into a neithertag, the first sentence, as well as the second, must be negative.
e.g. He didn’t like the show, and neither did his guests.
She wasn’t happy about it, and neither was I.
She was unhappy about it, and neither was I.
9
A constituent (whether sentence, phrase or word) counts as negated if the head of that constituent is
negated. So all (and only) the sentences identified by the tests above as being syntactically negative sentences
count as negative IPs, whose heads I0 are formally negated.
3.2. The Syntax of Negative Sentences
3.2.1. The derivation of negative sentences
We have seen that the syntax of negative sentences is highly complex due to some characteristics of
the sentence negator:  it is realised by several types of formatives – complete negators (not, n't) and
incomplete negators (hardly, scarcely, barely, seldom, little);  it appears in a variety of surface positions,
including negative quantifiers such as nobody, nothing, never, etc. and  its presence in a sentence may cause
or block the presence of certain lexical items (e.g. yet – already, any – some, ...), which have been labelled
Polarity Items and will be discussed below. Despite these complexities, all syntactically negative sentences
have the same deep structure, being IPs with a negative feature materialised as the presence of a Neg0
functional head and its maximal projection NegP. As far as the surface realisations of this structure (overt
positions of negative Inflection) are concerned, three major patterns have been identified in English:
A. Sentences with negation in the auxiliary
e.g. She must not forget that.
They weren't thinking.
B. Sentences with negative quantifiers
e.g. No friend of yours would ever believe that. (negative determiner)
She told nothing to any of the examiners. (negative pronoun)
One never knows. (negative adverbial)
C. Emphatic negative sentences
These are sentences in which the negative constituent appears to the left of the subject, triggering
inversion.
e.g. Never will Marcus admit to such a thing.
Little did we know about what was going on.
A. Sentences with negation in the auxiliary
The most ‘natural’ position for the negative constituent is in the auxiliary. Jespersen (1917, Analytical
Syntax) spoke of a ‘universal tendency to attach the negative constituent to the verb even when it logically
belongs to some other word’. Generally speaking, negating a sentence actually amounts to negating the
predicate of the sentence.
Just like inflexion and auxiliary verbs, the negative constituent is a functional category of the (lexical)
verb; it is placed in the extended projection of the verb. Its exact position (below or above tense) appears to
be different crosslinguistically, being subject to parametric difference (ultimately determined by the
morphology of each language). In English, Neg0 is situated right below T0 (I0) and it projects regularly (6).
The two complete negators that the English language uses have different status (and, consequently,
syntactic behaviour): the contracted n't (clitic negation) is a head while not appears to be projected as a
specifier of the NegP, thus checking the abstract [+neg] feature of Neg0.
(6) I'
Io ^ NegP
NegP
(Spec) ^ Neg'
Neg'
Neg0 ^ VP
Spec
not
0
Neg
n't
Consider the following possible configurations:
10
(a) there is one lexicalized modal-auxiliary verb in Inflection. If the negator is n't it will incorporate to
Inflection by Head-to-Head Movement – Neg0 toI0.
The derivation of sentences (1) and (2) is shown in (1') and (2') below:
(1) They could not have been joking.
(2) They couldn't have been joking.
(1')
IP
DP
I'
Io
they
T
NegP
M
-ed + can
Spec
Neg'
Neg0
not
could
VP
V0Aux
[+neg]
have
VP
V0Aux
VP
been
V'
V0
joking
(2')
IP
DP
they
I'
Io
Neg0 I0
NegP
Spec
Neg'
n't+-ed+can
Neg0
couldn't
tneg
VP
V0Aux
VP
V0Aux
have
VP
been
V'
V0
joking
(b) There is no lexicalized modal auxiliary, but there is at least one Aspect auxiliary verb in the sentence,
either HAVE or BE, or both. In this case the rule of HAVE/BE Raising must apply: the highest (closest!)
V0Aux moves to I0, through Neg0, to carry the tense affix. If the sentence has clitic negation (n't) the aspect
auxiliary, moving first to Neg0, will first combine with the negation, taking it along to I0 (3 and 3'). The
11
negator not, being in specifier position will not affect/be in any way affected by HAVE/BE Raising, which is
a Head-to-Head movement rule (4 and 4').
e.g. (3) They hadn’t been joking.
(3')
IP
DP
I'
Io
they
0
NegP
0
Neg
I
Spec
V0Aux Neg0 T
Neg'
Neg0
hadn't
tneg
VP
V0Aux
tAux
VP
V0Aux
VP
been
V'
V0
joking
(4) They had not been joking.
IP
(4')
DP
I'
Io
they
NegP
V0Aux
I0
have
T
had
Spec
Neg'
Neg0
not
[+neg]
VP
V0Aux
VP
V0Aux
tAux
VP
been
V'
V0
joking
(c) there is no lexicalized modal or aspect auxiliary. In this case a last resort operation applies: the insertion
of the auxiliary verb DO. The rule is known as DO Support. Do is inserted in I0, under Tense to support the
abstract
e.g. (5) He does not smoke.
12
(5')
IP
DP
I'
Io
he
T
NegP
M
Spec
Neg0
-s DO
does
Neg'
not
VP
[+neg]
smoke
B. SENTENCES WITH NEGATIVE QUANTIFIERS
Neg QPs may have sentence scope, so that sentences containing them pass the tests for sentence negation.
Compare (1)a and (1)b below:
(1)
a. You met her not long after the event, didn't you
b. You met no one there, did you?
Not many people know that, do they?
When they have sentence scope (=sentence negation is obtained), negative QPs are licensed by verbal
negation, therefore by the NegP (= a [+neg]IP).
Languages differ in terms of the possibility of co-occurrence of negative quantifiers (pronouns,
adjectives, adverbials) and overt negation in the auxiliary. Thus, we can speak of :  negative concord
languages, also (less appropriately!) known as 'languages with multiple negation' (e.g. Romanian (2), but also
substandard English (3)) and  non-negative concord languages (e.g. standard English (4)).
(2) a. Nimeni nu a stiut niciodata nimic.
b. *Nimeni a stiut ceva.
(3)
Nobody didn't know nothing.
(4) a. Nobody ever knew anything.
b. *Nobody didn't never know nothing.
This difference concerns only the surface structure. The English grammatical sentence (3)a above passes the
negativity tests (e.g. Nobody ever knew anything, did they?/ *didn't they? // Nobody ever knew anything, not
even Dan/ *even Dan), qualifying as syntactically negative. Therefore, it has the same structure as any
negative IP, containing 'verbal negation' - a NegP headed by a [+neg] feature – in English it is covert, while
in negative concord languages it becomes overt in all the relevant positions .
English sentences with negative quantifiers are of two types:
---- Negative Incorporation (NI) sentences:
(5)
Nobody ever told you about us, did they?
She will leave no stone unturned.
We said nothing to any of the workers.
---- Negative Adjunction (NA) sentences:
(6)
Not all that glitters is gold.
Not much has been done about it so far.
Not everything he does is in such bad taste, is it?
NA functions tipically in subject position and is only possible with a limited class of quantifiers, including:
every, all many, much... and excluding: some, each, several,... Moreover, the negative formative not can only
be adjoined to a DP or AdvP without suffering incorporaton on condition that the quantifier be [- specific].
(Remember that non-specificity implies non-referentiality.)
13
e.g.
Not many people saw the film.
Not often do such things happen.
Not everyone can write such a song.
Not all that glitters is gold.
If the quantifier is [+ specific] the negator is incorporated to the verb:
e.g. Many of them couldn’t come: John, George, Bill, Mary,…
*Not many of them could come: John, George, Bill, Mary, …
The structure of NI/NA sentences
Both these types (NI and NA sentences) have the same syntax, i.e. the Negative Quantifier is licensed by a
negative Inflexion ( [+neg] IP). So, the sentence format will be the same as the one studied above (for
negative sentences with the negation in the auxiliary). What differs is that, in standard English sentences with
negative quantifiers, this [+neg] feature present in Neg0 (and, by Raising, also in Infl0) remains covert ------>
is not represented by any 'visible' lexical material generated in these nodes. That is precisely why, the
licensing of a negative quantifier (whose [+neg] feature will agree with/ check the Infl/NegP's) anywhere
in the sentence is not only possible, but necessary for the respective sentence to be interpreted as negative.
(7) No student/ Nobody came at any time.
(7')
IP
DP
I'
D'
I0[+neg]
NegP
Neg'
D0
NP
N'
N0
T
VP
Neg0
[+neg]
V'
PP
P’
0
V
no student
-ed
nobody
(8) Not many students came that morning.
(8')
DP
Neg
came
P0
DP
at
any time
DP
D'
D0
NP
not many students . . .
...
Negative Incorporation and Negative Attraction sentences, as opposed to their corresponding 'ordinary'
negative sentences, are associated with different pragmatic situations, differing in focus.
◙ Sentences with negative incorporation convey a higher degree of certainty, making a stronger statement:
e.g. I missed no one. (→ I’m quite sure)
I didn’t miss anyone.
( → I may be wrong)
That is why NI is inappropriate with a verb expressing uncertainty:
e.g. ?? I think she eats nothing for breakfast. I think she doesn’t eat anything for breakfast.
14
◙ NI/ is more appropriate when the speaker is in control over the state of affairs expressed in the
sentence:
e.g. I chose no one to be my secretary.
◙ Sentences with NI convey an indirect perception of some situation; Knowledge, not experience, on the
part of the speaker offers a higher degree of certainty and objectivity:
e.g. It appears that the tornado damaged nothing in the area.
Polarity Items
Generally speaking, any affirmative sentence has a negative counterpart, from which it only differs in the
presence of the neg. constituent. However this is not always the case: there are affirmative/negative
sentences which appear to lack a negative/affirmative counterpart..
e.g. Mary is pretty tall.
Mary isn’t pretty tall.
He didn’t arrive until midnight.
He arrived until midnight.
This situation is due to the occurrence, in such sentences, of certain lexical items that – in some of their
meanings or in given collocations – require an affirmative or a negative environment. Such elements have
been labelled Polarity Items. There are affirmative polarity items (APIs) and negative polarity items
(NPIs). APIs are less numerous and weaker than NPIs, which are stronger, more numerous and idiomatic.
We can also distinguish between Lexical Pis (which are idiomatic constructions and evince no regular
correspondence between affirmative and negative ones) and Grammatical Pis, which are organized more
systematically. (see examples in…)
Any and Some
There are two different meanings for the lexical items any and some, only one of which is a Polarity Item
(NPI, API, respectively.
ANY: ----- 1. The free choice any is a universal quantifier and not a PI.
e.g. Anyone could answer your question.
Its distribution is limited:
e.g. He's very popular, he talks to anyone. (generic present)
*At that party, he talked to anyone. (a definite past event
------ 2. NPI any is an existential quantifier:
e.g. She doesn't like anyone here.
Similarly, we can speak of two formatives some:
----- some1 – stressed [s m] – is a [+ specific] strong existential quantifier which patterns with singular
and plural countable nouns and uncountable nouns. This some is not a polariry item, being used in both
affirmative and negative sentences.
e.g. But surely, Molly, you’re pleased he hasn’t become some sort of career type.
Some such youngsters almost never smile at all.
------ some2 - unstressed [sm] – is [-specific] – a weak existential quantifier, it patterns with countable
plural nouns and mass nouns and it is an Affirmative Polarity Item.
e.g. We may need you to do some work in the evening. - We won’t need you to do any work in the evening.
DEFINING SPECIFICITY
The correspondence between the grammatical PIs some and any may suggest a transformation rule – the
Some/Any Suppletion Rule. Yet, Baker (1970) suggested that both some and any should be generated in the
DS and then a filtering device should be used to star the ungrammatical strings. This latter proposal is more
advantageous because it offers the possibility of giving a unifom treatment of all PIs: the same ‘device’ could
‘filter’ lexical as well as grammatical Pis.
A sentence like the following can be negated in two ways:
15
I saw some of them.
– I didn’t see some of them.
- I didn’t see any of them.
The two negative counterparts are clearly non-equivalent and they actually correspond to the two possible
interpretations of some in terms of the feature [± specific].
Also consider the following example:
e.g. Melinda wants to buy a motorcycle.
The sentence is ambiguous as to the [± specific] interpretation of the indefinite NP (a motorcycle). The
ambiguity is brought out by the two continuations of the sentence:
(a) She will buy it tomorrow.
(b) She will buy one tomorrow.
On the [+ specific] interpretation, the indefinite NP designates a certain, unique motorcycle that Melinda
wants to buy. These NPs are always anaphorically pronominalized by definite personal pronouns.
Pronominalization is based on identity of reference.
On the [- specific] interpretation, the NP is construed as defining a class of objects, any object of which can
be instantiated. [- Specific] NPs may be pronominalized by indefinite pronouns (one, any).
Pronominalization is based on identity of sense.
The most important semantic property of [+ specific] quantifiers, which distinguishes them from [- specific]
ones, is that they entail the existence of at least one referent for the indefinite NP in the universe of discourse;
these entities (referents) can later be talked about in a discourse using definite descriptions or definite
personal or demonstrative pronouns.
e.g. I saw a man; the man/he was tall.
* I didn’t see a man; the man/he was tall.
It follows that [+ specific] quantifiers (of the type a) cannot appear in negative sentences - and be referred to
later on definitely - because the negative constituent negates the existence of the item.
The PRR functions like a kind of filtering device that applies to obtain correct sentences with PIs or, rather,
to prevent us from ‘misusing’ polarity items, i.e. to star sentences like the following:
e.g. *You are not far prettier than your sister.
*She slept a wink last night.
--- Polarity items are inherently marked (marked in the lexicon) for the feature [± assertive]: APIs are
[+assertive] and NPIs are [-assertive].
--- The presence of a negative constituent in a sentence obligatorily marks this sentence as [-assertive]. Other
non-assertive contexts are: questions (e.g. Did he lift a finger for you?), comparative clauses – introduced by
than, as (e.g. The dances were beautiful as anything I have ever seen.), if clauses, certain Relative Clauses,
etc.
--- The sentence feature [-assertive] triggers the Polarity Reversal Rule, which appropriately marks all the
positions held by Pis inserting the feature [-assertive] in those matrices. If the inherent (lexicon)
specification for the feature [± assertive] and the derivationally assigned feature coincide the sentence is well
formed. If the two features differ, the sentence is ill formed.
e.g.
He didn’t say a word.
[-assertive] - inherent specification
[+assertive] - derivational specification
well formed sentence
* He wouldn’t rather do it.
[+assertive] - inherent specification
[-assertive] - derivational specification
16
ungrammatical sentence
The Scope of the Polarity Reversal Rule
--- the PRR is optional in all contexts other than negative sentences
--- when the rule operates on a given sentence, it operates on all the Pis in that sentence
e.g. John once learnt some linguistics.
John didn’t ever learn any linguistics.
*John didn’t once learn any linguistics.
--- the rule may (optionally) go down into embedded complement claues (subject and object clauses)
e.g. It just didn’t occur to John that anything serious would happen to him.
* Anything serious would happen to him.
--- the rule does not go down into embedded clauses governed by nominal heads.
e.g. *They didn’t report the claim/ the fact that anyone had deserted.
They didn’t report that anyone had deserted.
--- certain determiners of Relative Clauses are [-assertive] triggers: no, any, every, the first, the last, the
adj+est, the only.
e.g. … and I felt for Julian all that I had felt for anyone in my entire life.
C. EMPHATIC NEGATIVES
Emphatic Neg sentences have the same structure as questions; they are CPs. The emphatic negative
constituent will be placed in Spec, CP, where it can check (by Spec- Head agreement) its strong focus
feature. The presence of this feature in Co also triggers movement of I0 to C0.
e.g. Never had she visited those people.
CP
AdvP
C'
[+neg]
C0
IP
DP
I'
0
I
NegP
V0 I0
Neg'
0
Neg
VP
AdvP
VP
Never
had
she
tInfl
[+neg]
tADV
[tAux [visited those people]]
3.2.2. Incomplete Negation – Other Negative Words
In addition to not, the negative constituent may have other surface realisations in English, which have been
called incomplete negators:
Neg →{not, hardly, scarcely, barely, seldom, rarely}
 Sentences with incomplete negators are syntactically similar to sentences negated by not and they pass
the tests for negativity:
e.g. You could hardly see him, could you?
She hardly likes anyone, not even her sister.
 In sentences with incomplete negators, occasion DO Support does not apply:
17

Incomplete negators may be placed :
-within the auxiliary: I can hardly have had the time to do that. I have rarely seen a more ill mannered
man.
-in pre-verbal position: He scarcely knows her.
-in sentence initial position, triggering inversion: Seldom have I met a more ill mannered man.
All these negative constituents trigger the Polarity Reversal Rule:
e.g. I seldom pay any attention to those bores.
4. E X E R C I S E S
I. Say whether the following sentences are syntactically negative. What is the D-Structure of a negative
sentence?
He isn’t writing any novels at present, is he? / He dislikes presents, doesn’t he? / He hardly understands
you, does he? / He hasn’t ever liked any linguists, not even Noam Chomsky. / He isn’t working anywhere,
and he isn’t writing novels either. / This approach is non-scientific. / John is not kind. John is unkind. / Mike
doesn’t like smart girls, not even pretty ones. / John is unhappy and his wife is also unhappy. John is
unhappy, and his wife isn’t happy either. / John isn’t happy, and neither is Mary. John is unhappy and neither
is Mary.
II. Explain the derivation of the following sentences:
(1) You cannot say that. (2) Carol has not been listening to this lecture. (3) He should not ever have
responded to her. (4) Horace often does not believe the New York Times. (5) Horace does not often believe
the New York Times. (6) Won’t you stay until tomorrow? (7) Couldn’t you have rescheduled that lecture?
(8) He doesn’t love her. You are wrong; he does love her. (9) Didn’t he say he was coming? (10) Well, I
never did hear anything like that.
III. Sentences with negative quantifiers.
Show that the following sentences are negative:
They found nobody alive. / Nobody has helped her so far and nobody will help her from now on, either. / He
could find nothing of interest there.
IV. Negation and Quantification
a) Comment on the relative scope of quantifiers and negation. Specify the preferred reading of
potentially ambiguous sentences:
(a) Every man loves a woman. // Every man fights for a cause/ his cause/ this cause. // Every arrow hit one
target. // John visited a museum every day. // Someone has always come late.
(b) They always haven’t liked their leaders. / They haven’t always liked their leaders.
He hasn’t once come to this class. / He once hasn’t come to this class.
Carol hasn’t contacted many of them. / Many of them haven’t been contacted by Carol.
The police didn’t catch three (of the) escaped convicts.
b) SOME / ANY – Define ‘inherent scope’. Comment on the interpretation of SOME / ANY in the
following sentences:
1. I saw some of your friends at your party. / I didn’t see some of your friends at your party. / I didn’t see
any of your friends at your party. // He talked to some of my students at the lecture. / He didn’t talk to any
of my students at the lecture. / He didn’t talk to some of my students at the lecture.
18
2. Don’t you open a window. / You open a window. / *Don’t somebody open a window. / Somebody open a
window. / Don’t everybody open a window. / ?Nobody open a window. / Don’t anybody open a window.
/ *Anybody open a window.
3. There are three unicorns in the garden. / There are some unicorns in the garden./ *There are any unicorns
in the garden. / There are no unicorns in the garden. / There aren’t three unicorns in the garden. / ??There
aren’t some unicorns in the garden. / There aren’t any unicorns in the garden.
c) What is the relative position of ANY words with respect to negation? State the relevant .rules.
I saw no one. / I didn’t see anyone. // No one can help her in her present condition./ *Anyone cannot help
her in her present condition. // I can find no pickles anywhere in my house. / *I can find any pickles nowhere
in my house.
d) Comment on the interpretation and derivation of the following sentences:
(a) Not many people attended the lecture. / Not much rain fell and neither did any snow. // They sent not
many of them to study abroad. / They didn’t send many of them to study abroad. / Not many of them were
sent to study abroad. *They were unhappy. // I saw not some of them. / *Not several of them/ *some of them
came. / *Not each of them received flowers.
(b) Not all her letters were concerned with these technicalities. / We are not cotton spinners all. / But all men
are not born to reign. / Not all that glitters is gold. / All the money in the world won’t make her happy.
(c) Not everyone can understand that. / Everyone is not able to stand the temptations of political life. / What
we would like to suggest is that every pro-Iranian paper which lays any claims to honesty should not print
such stuff. / I don't’look on every politician as a scoundrel.
(d) Not a word fell from her lips. / A certain fellow she was expecting did not show up. / It all took a minute.
/ That next lunch she said not a word when I spoke to her and I said I was ready to let bygones be bygones. /
He rested but two hours and rested not at all.
V. Polarity Items.
Define polarity items. Pick out the NPIs/APIs below. Give possible corresponding APIs/NPIs
If you don’t like my manners, I won’t speak to you at all in the future. / She wouldn’t marry him until/before
his mother died. / The eclipse isn’t there yet/anymore. / Not everyone can do what they want with their spare
time. / She isn’t any smarter for having learned linguistics. / You needn’t write any exercise as far as I’m
concerned. / You need have no fear. / You must be Mr. Smith. / He never touches a drop before noon. / He
would rather marry Jane’s sister. / I fired the gun right under his nose, but he didn’t budge. / No one has
found a solution to some of these problems. / She isn’t all that interested in modern art after all. / I don’t like
it much. / She lives a long way off.
Give the affirmative counterparts of the sentences below; give alternatives where possible:
(1)Someone left this book here sometime after classes. (2)She managed to find something more appropriate
somewhere else. (3)He may be somewhat displeased when you tell him the news. 4)Anyone can swim.
5)John will arrive here before midnight. 6)I would much rather live in London. 7)Some of the questions on
this test he knew how to answer. 8)I think that John is a fool. 9)Many people can sing and dance. 10)There
has been only one train since two o’clock. 11)Peter knows some English and so does John. 12)Both John and
Peter have pretty wives. 13)It’s a long time since we last saw them. 14)She lives a long way off from here.
15)He is already an expert on the sublect. 16)He drinks a lot of coffee, and now he misses it quite badly. 17)I
nearly always have to clean it myself. 18)Almost everyone of them did well on that exam. 19)You must pay
that fine. 20)You must be telling lies. 21)You may smoke in the nursery. 22)Let us open the window.
VI.Parapfrase the following sentences using: no sooner…than; scarecely…when; hardly…when.
19
1)I turned round the corner and bumped into a stanger. 2)I read only a few pages and the main ideea of the
book became clear to me. 3)She left the house and remembered the appointment.4)He entered the room and
immediately the telephone rang. 5)He took a seat at the table and a plate of steaming soup appeared before
him as if by magic. 6)He came into the garden and was enchanted by its beauty.
PART III: SENTENCE COORDINATION
1.
SENTENCE COORDINATION
COORDINATION is the process of forming complex structures by conjoining (i.e. ‘putting together’)
constituents of equal rank; this process is performed by means of coordinating conjunctions and results in
compound constituents. These constituents may be either compound sentences or compound phrases (ex. 15); the process is therefore highly productive, one of the most productive in any natural language.
e.g. 1) The Queen died and the King died of grief. [S coordin.]
2) I often tease my pet dog and my pet cat. [NP coordin.]
3) Bill saw Jane and greeted her. [VP coordin.]
4) Grandpa is old and hard of hearing. [AP coordin.]
5) We have linguistics classes on Monday morning and on Friday afternoon. [PP coordin.]
Each member of a coordination is called a conjunct: in the case of compound sentences the conjuncts are
always sentences. In a P&P model this would mean that sentence coordination is coordination of IPs; yet, it
has been convincingly argued (Hoekstra 1993)3 that it is in fact CP - CP coordination.
In a GTG frame, compound sentences are considered to be generated by the same kind of PSR that can work
for any other compound constituents, i.e. a rule of the type:
PSR: SConjSn
The conjuncts in a compound sentence are independent sentences and have equal status, each of them being
directly dominated by the node S. That is the difference between coordinated sentences and subordinate ones,
which are always generated under the direct domination of some node other than S.
e.g. NP - S
NPNPS
There are two main problems that an adequate grammar of coordination should be able to explain:
1. The so-called “incomplete conjuncts”
e.g. a) When George entered, one of the girls lost her head and the other
[----] her heart.
b) Music will not only calm [---- ], it will ennoble thee.
Each of the sentences above consists of two conjoined sentences in surface structure, but in each of them one
of the conjuncts is ‘incomplete’ (has something missing in its structure). The elements that are missing could
be easily added to make these defective clauses complete; as they are overtly expressed in the other conjunct.
(the MV in a./ the DO in b.) The grammar should be able to produce all and only the correct incomplete
conjuncts, i.e. to star sentences like:
a’) When George entered, one of the girls [---- ] her head and the
other lost her heart.
b’) Music will not only calm thee, it will ennoble [---- ].
2. The relation between sentence coordination and phrasal
coordination:
This second problem apparently amounts to finding an answer to the question: is only sentence coordination
basic (i.e. generated by PSRs) and are therefore phrasal compound constituents always obtained
3
Expletive Replacement, Verb-Second and Coordination
20
transformationaly or, quite to the contrary, is phrasal coordination always basic (produced by PSRs of the
type: NPCONJNn, VPCONJVn, a.s.o.)? Arguments can be found in favour of both hypotheses, yet
there are also counter arguments to each of them. Consider the following exemples:
e.g. 1. John and Mary danced.  John danced and Mary danced. But
John and Mary are alike  John is alike and Mary is alike.
Bob and Dan and George lifted the piano.
2. The message was ambiguous and misunderstood by most of us.
Examples 1. show that compound phrases cannot always be derived, while example two proves that in
certain cases compound phrases must be derived (…misunderstood by… must be generated by Passivising
the DS sentence Most of us misunderstood the message). In conclusion, both sentence coordination and
phrasal coordination are indeed basic but phrasal coordination may also result from the reduction of
compound sentences.
2.
THE DERIVATION OF FULL COMPOUND SENTENCES
The PSR that produces coordinated sentences [S(Conj)Sn] may also produce configurations like:
They fuss, they worry, they never make it here on time.,
where there is no conjunction and coordination is achieved merely by juxtaposition. Syntactic juxtaposition is
semantically equivalent to “and” coordination, “and” being one of the “pure coordinators” normally
represented by the constituent Conj.
(Conj)and, or, but
An obligatory transformational rule copies the conjunction in front of each conjunct except the first. This rule
is called Conjunction spreading and it daughter adjoins the conjunction to each of the following sentences.
This means that the copied conjunction is actually part of the sentence to which it is appended and not of the
previous one, as the following examples prove:
(a) John left and he didn’t even say good bye.
John left. And he didn’t even say good bye.
John left and. He didn’t even say good bye.
(b) John left early and he is my best friend.
John, and he is my best friend, left early.
In the example (b) we have turned the second clause into a paranthetical one and the conjunction has
obviously gone with it.
If more than two sentences are conjoined it is common to delete all but the last conjunction by means of an
optional transformation called Medial Conjunction Deletion
3.
REDUCTION RULES
Reduction Rules apply to fully coordinated sentences and delete identical occurrences of constituents in
conjuncts, thus producing “incomplete conjuncts”
General Constraints on Reduction Rules.—The Directionality Constraint
 If the shared items are on left branches, deletion operates in the second conjunct and it is called forward
deletion. (example (a)).
 If the shared items are on right branches, deletion operates in the first conjunct and is called backward
deletion (example (b)).
e.g. (a) Max prefers whisky and Chriss [-] brandy
Max [ - ] whiskey and Chriss prefers brandy..
(b) John likes [ - ], and his brother hates Mary.
John likes Mary and his brother hates [ - ].
21
3.1. Conjunction Reduction (CR)
The rule of CR works in the following three steps:
a) raises an identical constituent on a left edge
b) deletes all lower repetitions of the same constituent
c) prunes non-branching nodes.
e.g. The man smiled and [ - ] opened the door.
 CR can apply several times to its own output successively, raising identical constituents on the left edge
branch of the conjunction. Thus it deletes identical: subjects, copulas and (partly) identical predicates.
e.g.
1. John will write his essay and then [ -] go to the Tates.
2. Bill was fond of Mary this year and [ - ] of her sister last year.
 CR obeys the constraint of Immediate Dominance: an identical constituent in a coordination may be
deleted only if it is directly dominated by a node of the conjunction. This requirement blocks the starred
sentences/ strings below:
e.g. 1. * During the meeting they talked too much and [ - ] the dinner party they were much too quiet.
2. * Which boy is John and [ - ] girl is Mary? <-> Which boy and/or girl arrived first?
CR is possible with any of the conjunctions and, or, but, nor.
3.2. Gapping (GAP)
Gapping deletes identical constituents which contain the verb on condition that two constituents are left
behind to flank the gap (i.e. only one constituent on either side of the gap).
e.g. Jane has sent a card to Rome and Ann [ - ] to London.
Like CR, Gapping is a forward rule, it deletes in the second conjunct.
Unlike CR, GAP applies only if the sentences are coordinated with and and or. For but acceptability is
doubtful.
The rule is very productive, but it must obey some constraints (both constraints on the possible gap and
constraints on the remaining constituents):
------ Conditions on the gap:
 it must include the verb (i.e.V, not MV or VP)
 it doesn’t have to be a constituent (unlike the deleted string in the case of CR)
 it is a variable string (it can be any sequence of any number or type of constituents as long as it is shared
by the conjuncts and includes the verb)
Such an internal variable string is also called an essential variable.
e.g. Some brought us cakes and others [ brought us ] fruit.
In Paris we visited museums and in Bucharest [ we visited ] old churches.
Dan appeared to have been worrying too much about his final exams and Mary [ appeared to have been
worrying too much ] about her home assignments.
it may include any element to the left of the verb (one/several auxiliaries, an adverb of manner, even the
subject when it is not a left-edge constituent):
e.g. John has quickly written a poem and Bill ( has quickly written ) an essay.
A day before, John had easily written a poem and two days before [ - ] an essay.
the Neg. constituent cannot be deleted by GAP.
e.g.
*I didn’t eat fish and Bill [ - ] rice.
the gap can include any number of constituents to the right of the verb, as long as one major unlike
constituent remains. This unlike post-verbal constituent need not be VP final (resulting in a discontinuous
gap).
e.g. Jack asked Elsie to dance and George [ - ] Phoebe [ - ]. (discontinuous gap)
GAP cannot delete strings contained in Relative Clauses, which are islands with respect to both deletion and
movement rules.
------ Conditions on the remnants:
22
the two string which flank the gap must be major constituents (constituents immediately dominated by S or
VP) The left-edge constituent must be under S and adjacent to the conjunctioon.
e.g. *Betsy said the Allan went to the ball and that Peter [ - ] to the movie.
*She tried to phone us and Dan [ - ] send us a telegram. ( only to send us a telegram is a major
constituent)
*He wrote about African elephants and Dan [ - ] bees. (the major constituent: about African bees)
Noun Gapping
The rule of gapping works quite similarly at the level of NP:
the essential variable which the gap must include is the head noun with/without premodifiers and one or more
postmodifiers;
the two remnants which flank the gap are: a determiner on the left edge and one unlike postmodifying phrase
on the right.
e.g. Bill’s many funny jokes about the police and Fred’s [ - ] about the PM were the treat of the evening.
3.3. Right Node Raising (RNR)
RNR reduces clause final (or left-edge) constituents, i.e. operates on right branch nodes and it goes
backwards.
e.g. John thought [ - ], and Bill dreamt, of Mary. (reduction of a PO)
John hates [ - ], and Bill likes, Mary. (reduction of a DO)
Bill drinks [ - ], and his sister smokes, sparingly. (reduction of an adverbial)
Bill studies [ - ], and Bob works, in London.
Similar to CR, RNR is a raising rule which:
 raises an identical constituent on the right edge;
 deletes all lower identical repetitions of the same constituent, and
 prunes non-branching nodes.
Intonation plays an important part in decoding the string as a reduction. There is an intonation break/ pause
in each of the conjuncs, marking the deletion site. In writing, the uses of a comma is obligatory in both these
positions.
3.4. Main Verb Deletion
Gaping should be kept distinct from other deletion rules which are not restricted to cooordination. These are
Main Verb Deletion and, correspondingly, N-Deletion.
The MV Deletion rule is different from GAP in that:
 it requires identical MVs and
 it obligatorily leaves behind an auxiliary, occasioning DO Support when there is no other constituent in
Aux but Tense.
e.g. Tom has come and Bill will.
John understands the situation and surely Bill does too.
 Unlike GAP, which is restricted to coordinated sentence, MV Deletion may go down into embedded
clauses.
e.g. Charlie will leave the house if his mother-in-law doesn’t.
 MV Deletion does not obey the directionality Constraint either: although the MV is a right branch
constituent, MV Deletion usually goes forwards (cf. examples above). The rule may also go backwards
into embedded clauses:
 [Anyone who can}, should tell John how to do this.
 [Although Ann didn’t], all the others left as soon as the news was broadcasted.
 MV Deletion freely occurs with and, or, nor and but.
e.g. My wife doesn’t play tennis, but I do.
23
4. E X E R C I S E S
I.
Explain why the following sentences are ungrammatical; produce the correct reductions.
1. *Geoge and his friend arrived an hour ago, but and his girlfriend left again in less than ten minutes.
2. * Some of us had coffee, but most of us tea.
3. *Some of us coffee, and others had tea.
4. *I sent her a long letter and George me a beautiful card.
5. *I sent, and you gave, her all the articles she needed
II
Perform deletions on the following strings; identify the rules you are using:
(1) Their message was ambiguous and it was difficult to comprehend. (2) Peter must have broken in and he
must have stolen the papers. (3) Why did Max give a mink coat to his secretary and why did Max give this
shoddy dress to his wife? (4) the old man and the old woman; from London and from Paris. (5) Bill was
seeing Mary this year and he was seeing his sister two years ago. (6) I took only fish and he took only chips.
(7) John might have been writing letters and Peter certainly was writing letters. (8) Lily often goes to the
hairdresser once a week and Liz often goes to the hairdresser twice a week. (9) Max seems to be trying hard
to get along with Sue, and Fred seems to be trying hard to get along with Irma. (10) Simon quickly dropped
the gold and John quickly dropped the dimonds. (11) They could have sent money and they should have
sent money. (12) Bill studies in London and Bob works in London. (13) John crawled under the fence, but
Bill climbed over the fence. (14) Two fine bottles of wine and three fine bottles of beer. (15) If you really
can solve this problem, you should show me how to solve this problem.
PART IV: SUBORDINATION
1.
ENGLISH COMPLEMENT CLAUSES
With the study of complementation, we begin discussing Complex Sentences.
A sentence is said to be complex when it contains another sentence as one of its constituents. So, complex
sentences are the result of the syntactic process of subordination, while complex sentences are produced by
coordination.
 The constituent clause in a complex sentence is called a subordinate/ embedded clause.
 The containing clause is referred to as the main/ matrix clause.
Embedded clauses fall into several categories, which have been defined in terms of:
(a) the type of connector which introduces them
e.g. - subordinating conjunctions: although, if,…;
- adverbs: whenever,…;
- relative pronouns: who,…
(b) the syntactic function the EC has in the MC: Su Cl, Predicative Cl., DO Cl, PO Cl., Attr. Cl., … …
more synthetically: --- arguments (Su Cls, Obj Cls)
--- Adjunct Cls (Attr. and Adv. Modifiers)
(c) the structural criterion for clause classification
 In GTG: = the configuration within which the EC is introduced; this is a unifying criterion that serves to
differentiate not only among subordinate (embedded) clauses, but also between independent/ coordinated
sentences and subordinate clauses. We saw that an independent or a coordinated sentence is immediately
dominated by an S node, while an EC is immediately dominated by some node other than S. Complement
clauses are ECs that replace NPs, taking over their syntactic functions. Their characteristic PSR is: NP→S
and they are are introduced by a limited set of subordinating particles, called complementizers: THAT, FORTO, etc. The possible clause types are:
- NP→S (complement clauses)
- NP→NP∩ S (relative clauses)
24
- AdvP→ S ( adverbial clauses)
 In GB (Principles and Parameters): -> subordinate clauses are (mostly) CPs (not just IPs), so they can be
structurally classified in terms of which element of the CP is represented (filled), into the following types:
------ Complement clauses = clauses whose C0 is filled by a complementizer : C0  that, for, whether
------ Wh-Complement clauses, whose Spec,CP is filled by a wh- phrase (a relative/ interrogative
pronoun/adverbial) and which include:
- Indirect questions: They didn’t tell me [CP which film [IP they were going to see.]]
- Relative clauses: The writer [CP whose biography[IP you’ve just read]]…… …
- Cleft Constructions: It’s John [CP who [IP dit it]] .
------ Adverbial clauses. Adverbial subordination is realised by means of subordinating conjunctions, such
as although, often, before, etc., which are not C0 elements, but should be viewed as members of the same
class of subordinators as Prepositions, as they both show an asymetric relation between two constituents.
(e.g. after the show/ after his departure/ after he left)
I.
THE CLAUSE SQUISH. FROM SENTENCE TO NP
Complement clauses suffer important modifications when embedded; their sentential status is destroyed to a
greater or lesser degree so that formerly independent sentences come to be more and more ‘nouny’ in
structure and properties. Thus, it is possible to set up a hierarchy (a squish) of complement types ranging
from very sentency complements to very nouny ones.
e.g. (a) That he gave that heirloom to me was a shock to everybody. (THAT-complement cl.)
(b) For him to give that heirloom to me was a shock to everybody. (infinitive FOR-TO compl. cl.)
(c) When/ How/ How willingly he gave that heirloom to me everybody remembers. (indirect question
complement clause)
(d) Him/ Max giving that heirloom to me caused his wife a heart attack. (ACC-ING complement cl.)
(e) His/ Max’s giving that heirloom to me caused his wife a heart attack. (POSS-ING complement cl.)
(f) His giving of a necklace to his wife was meant to patch up things. (verbal noun or proper
nominalization)
(g) His gift of a necklace to his wife was meant to patch up things. (deverbal noun or proper
nominalization)
We notice that there are syntactic processes that affect only some strings of the hierarchy:
◙ Preposition Deletion is: - obligatory for low nouniness (a,b)
- optional for intermediate nouniness (c)
- impossible for really nouny strings (d-g)
e.g. (a) I’m amazed (*at) that he gave that heirloom to me.
(b) I would be amazed (*at) for him to give that heirloom to me.
(c) I was amazed (at) how willingly he gave that heirloom to me.
(d) I was amazed at him giving that heirloom to me.
(e) I was amazed at his giving that heirloom to me.
(f) I was amazed at his giving of that heirloom to me.
(g) I was amazed at his gift of that heirloom to me.
The structure of the embedded clause is also modified:
◙ Independent intonation is lost (this is exclusively characteristic of independent sentences).
◙ Important changes regard the auxiliary:
-the sequence of tenses rule modifies the tense of the complement in finite complement clauses;
-starting with the infinitive clauses, the complement clause loses Aux1 altogether, so that infinitive or ingclauses may express only
aspectual distinctions :
e.g. for Mary to laugh/to have laughed/to be laughing/to have been laughing
-in verbal nouns and proper nominalizations there is no Aux constituent.
25
◙ The subject has different realizations across complement types:
- a nominative NP in (a), (c);
- an accusative in (b), (d);
- a genitive in (e), (f), (g).
◙ The direct object may acquire a preposition as in (f) and (g)
◙ Transformations are also sensitive to this squish: some apply to more sentency clauses, some to more
nouny ones.
2.
THAT COMPLEMENT CLAUSES
2.1. Major Syntactic Properties of THAT complement Clauses
That complements can be defined as clauses that are introduced by the PSR: NP→ S or as CPs whose
C0 -> that
THAT = a complementizer = a formative which is appended to a sentence (an IP) and nominalizes it,
transforming it into an argument of a predicate. This implies that THAT-Complements (which function as
arguments of predicates) are licensed by theta marking.
This can be justified by showing that complement clauses and NPs are distributionally similar:
e.g. Columbus demonstrated that theorem.
Columbus demonstrated that the world is not flat.
▪Complement clauses occur in all the DS positions of NPs and they may enter into most of the functional
relations of NPs: subject, direct object, indirect/prepositional object, predicative, attributive, adverbial.
▪THAT clauses pronominalize like NPs: pro-forms like it, that stand for NPs as well as clauses.
▪NPs and complement clauses undergo many common transformations: Passive, Complex NP Shift, etc.
THAT is a marker of subordination, a purely syntactic word showing embedding – hence its name of
complementizer. Unlike other subordinators, it has no meaning and consequently it is occasionally deleted.
Complementizers are sensitive to functions:
e.g. That John eats cabbage means that he likes it.
For him to eat cabbage means nothing.
In spite of these important similarities between CPs and DPs (or NPs), there is also one major difference
between the two: DPs must have Case while CPs can never have Case. This property is reflected in The
Case Resistance Principle (Stowell 1981) : ‘CPs tend to avoid Case marked positions.’ This explains,
among other things, why THAT clauses can never be preceded by prepositions:
e.g. I am afraid of [ his leaving].
 PO
I am afraid (*of) [ that he would leave].
 That cl. Functioning as PO
TRANSFORMATIONS REQUIRED FOR GENERATING THE COMPLETE RANGE OF
COMPLEMENT CLAUSES
1. EXTRAPOSITION AND IT INSERTION
The rule moves a sentential constituent to the end of the matrix and inserts the anticipatory pronoun it to
mark its initial position; it converts sentences (a) in the example below into sentences (b):
e.g. (a) That the world is round is obvious.
(b) It is obvious that the world is round.
–
extraposition from Su position
(a) Bill regrets that the world is round.
(b) Bill regrets it that the world is round. –
extraposition from Obj position
The rule is optional, not lexically governed, but obligatory for some verbs: seem, appear, turn out.
e.g. *That the world is round seems/ appears/ happens/turns out.
It seems/appears/happens/turns out that the world is round.
26
The extraposed clause is always adjoined under the node S:
Constraints on Extraposition and IT Insertion
- We have seen that a limited number of highly frequent verbs require obligatory extraposition (see above).
This is so because they do not allow sentential subjects in general.
e.g. *That he is smart seems.
*For him to be smart seems.
Such verbs allow another type of constructions, based on Raising (Subject to Subject Raising), which is a
transformation that may apply after Extraposition and It Insertion.
e.g.
*That he is smart seems.
Extraposition
It seems that he is smart.
Raising
He
seems to be smart.
- Extraposition also appears to behave exceptionally with respect to the subject and object complements of
bisentential verbs like prove, show, indicate, imply, suggest, mean, entail, etc. These verbs accept sentencial
constituents as both subject and object, but they block Extraposition and IT Insertion.
e.g. [That his finger-prints were on my throat] shows [that he is unfond of me].
*It shows [that he is unfond of me] [that his finger-prints were on my throat].
That is so because no surface structure can have both complements of a bisentential verb on the same side of
that verb; the rule that blocks extraposition in this situation is called The Same Side Filter.
EXTRAPOSITION FROM OBJECT POSITION
Extraposition is also possible both from DO and from PO position, but in these cases the rule applies much
less frequently. Extraposition from object position maintains the clause in (usually!) final position and
inserts it: hence the name of vacuous extraposition. An adverbial may frequently appear between the
inserted pronoun and the extraposed clause:
e.g. Bill regrets it very much that he missed the concert.
You may depend on it that he will return the money.
I don’t like it that he should be alone with my daughter.
This it is different from the referential pronoun it. But it is not entirely empty; this it resembles the personal
pronoun with a cataforic function (anticipating the real object – the complement clause).
2. COMPLEX NP SHIFT
Complex NP Shift is (besides Extraposition) another very general rule of English. It violates the normal
word order of English – i.e. the DO should not be separated from the verb by any other constituent. Only if
the direct object is “heavy” (a clause, for instance) it has to move to the right over a variable and this
movement rule is what we call Compl.NP Shift.
e.g.
Bill knows very well that he should do that tomorrow.
The rule moves DOs only; it never applies to Su-s.
e.g.
Mary destroyed completely the car which she had bought.
He threw into the basket the letter he had just decoded.
The car she had bought was obviously the best one.
* Was obviously the best one the car she
had bought.
2.2. The Distribution of THAT Complement Clauses
.
All the predicates that take THAT clauses are selectionally characterized by their possibility of accepting, as
one of their arguments, an abstract nominal - or a sentence! – describing some state of affairs. In most cases
the second obligatory or optional argument is a [+personal] nominal. This is the participant that expresses
some propositional or emotional attitude towards the proposition expressed in the complement clause.
e.g. I claim that he is right.
It surprised me that he was right.
It is important (for all of us) that he is still alive.
27
1 THAT CLAUSES AS DOs
--- Many transitive verbs are subcategorized for clausal Dos introduced by THAT:
(a) admit, apprehend, assume, believe, claim, consider, doubt, object, prove, hear, regret, see, think,
understand ,a.s.o.
[+THAT Del.]
(b) anticipate, add, boast, choose, denote, establish,, hold, intend, order, proclaim, reply, state, wish, …
e.g. She protested that she was not tired.
I soon discerned that the man was lying.
--- A second subcategory of transitive verbs take, in addition to clausal Dos, an IO or a PO.
▪ Such are the so-called communication verbs: -which may undergo Dative Movement (a), -with
obligatory to (b):
(a) tell, read, write ,cite, insinuate, suggest, radio, wire, cable, telephone, // +permit, guarantee, grant,
vow, …
(b) mention, admit, confess, declare, narrate, recite, demonstrate, utter, confide, …
The heavier clausal DO is preferably placed in final position by applying one of the rules that has this effect:
Dative Movement, Complex NP Shift, Extraposition and IT Insertion.
e.g. Dative Movement:
(a) They telegraphed us that Father had died.
(b) I promised him I’d never be that late again.
Complex NP Shift:
(a) The priest preached to large crowds that God would soon destroy the evil world.
(b) Her face betrayed to an observer that she was seriously ill.
Extraposition (only if Dative Movement has not applied)
(a) I explained it to John that the car was out of order.
(b) He owes it to his father’s influence that the committee appointed him to the position.
Clausal DOs may be passivized before Dative Movement:
e.g. That we shouldn’t go there was suggested (to us) several times by various people.
--- In addition to the subclass of Dative Movement verbs, there are verbs that take a clausal DO and a
Personal PO:
e.g.: blame, beg, ask, request, require,…
He blamed it on us that things didn’t turn out the way they should have.
I requested it of them that they bring those documents back.
She begged of them that she may be allowed to go.
2. THAT CLAUSES as POs
--- That clauses often represent underlying POs which undergo Preposition Deletion.
e.g. admit (of), answer (for), marvel at, see to, wonder at /about, swear to, conceive of, decide on, learn
of/about, …
Can you swear that the accused man was at your home all Friday evening?
They voted that he should be admitted.
--- Next there is a class of transitive verbs that govern a DO and a PO, where the PO alternates with a
clause:
e.g.
advice∩NP∩of, accuse∩NP∩of, assure∩NP∩of, instruct∩NP∩in, inform/misinform∩NP∩of,
notify∩NP∩of, warn∩NP∩of,…
He informed the manager that we were willing to work overtime.
I assure you sincerely that there is no such possibility.
--- Another class of verbs is subcategorized for occurrence in the context V∩PP∩PP, where the first PP is
usually personal and the second is either a simple NP or a clause.
e.g. argue ∩with NP∩about NP, agree ∩with NP∩on/about NP, pray∩to NP∩for NP, …
28
We agreed with the Browns that we should throw a party.
I used to lie there praying to God that their mother would come home unexpectedly.
--- Most frequently THAT clauses originate in a PP governed by an adjective.
e.g.
afraid of, alarmed at, annoyed at, concerned about, delighted at/with, sorry for, confident in, happy
about, thankful for, surprised at,...
Was she aware that you couldn’t have called on them youself.
I’m afraid that it is time to bring this stimulating session to an end.
You should be thankful that you’re still alive.
■ The preposition is obligatorily deleted, but it may surface if Extraposition applies.
e.g. I requested it of them that they bring the documents.
I was thankful for it that nothing had happened.
Don’t blame it on us that you couldn’t manage.
3.
THAT CLAUSES functioning as SUBJECTS
There are several predicate subclasses that take That clauses as subjects.
--- The intransitive verbs: seem, appear, happen, turn out, come out. Some of these verbs may also take a
[+personal] IO.
e.g. It appeared that I had run out of whiskey again.
It appears that the American culture as a whole is experiencing a corresponding enrichment.
--- A considerable number of adjectives (in copulative predications) take sentencial subjects.
e.g. likely, certain, true, possible, definite, doubtful, odd, awkward, ironical, helpful, essential, surprising,…
It is also true that by some metamorphoses brought about by its own violence it can live on anything.
It was also evident to me that I had not yet accepted that I had lost her.
--- Nouns can also be used in this pattern:
e.g. problem, thing, fact, idea, surprise, miracle, wonder, illusion,…
It’s a wonder you were not killed.
It’s a good thing that she knows everything now.
---- A large number of psychological transitive verbs allow sentential subjects:
e.g. alarm, amaze, attract, cheer, calm, concern, confuse, disgust, insult, irritate, please, sadden, satisfy,
tempt, trouble, …
That nothing came out of it intrigues me.
It pleases me that they recognize my work.
4. THAT CLAUSES as PREDICATIVES
That clauses may function as Predicatives in equative sentences, when the subject is a non – complex
abstract NP or a clause (fact, idea, reason, claim, …)
e.g. The devil of it was that I needed both of them.
My second and more terrible apprehension was that I was in possession of an advantage which I must
not lose.
Indications were that Spain and Portugal had come close to an agreement.
5. THAT CLAUSERS as ATTRIBUTES
e.g. My mother had a sure foreboding, at the second glance, that it was Miss Betsy.
I have an uneasy feeling that she’s forgotten.
Attributive clauses may be shifted to the end of the Main Clause.
e.g. An intoxicating sense possessed me that at last we were treating on equal terms.
On the Subjunctive mood in THAT Complement Clauses
Traditional grammars often mention the fact that there are complement taking predicates which require or
allow the use of the subjunctive in their complement clauses. Among the verbs which require the use of the
29
subjunctive (analytical with should in Br. Engl. And synthetic – with short infinitive – in Am. Engl.), the
following are frequently quoted: order, demand, require, ask, agree, recommend, suggest, …
e.g. He demanded that new solutions should be sought/ be sought/ *ought to be sought. (the verb should is
not used in its ‘obligation, necessity’ meaning, as shown by the fact that it is not replaceable by ought to )
The use of the subjunctive in finite complement clauses can be, and has been, analysed in two ways:
▪ The purely syntactic approach views the subjunctive in terms of verbal government, as a mark of
subordination. The subjunctive is not supposed to have independent meaning or significance. The choice of
the subjunctive strictly depends on certain matrix verbs (e.g. ask, demand) marked in the lexicon as
[+subjunctive] or [subjunctive]. This is a rule feature that signals a transformation that inserts subjunctive
markers in the Aux of the complement clause. The occurrence of the subjunctive in a Main Clause (e.g. So be
it.; Everybody stand up; …) is explained by saying that those surface Main Clauses represent underlying
embedded clauses where the MC verb is marked [+subjunctive], e.g. I wish that it be so; I order that
everybody stand up, where the MC verb has been deleted.
▪ The semantic approach starts from the assumption that the subjunctive mood has a specific meaning,
distinct from the meaning of the indicative. The distribution (i.e. use) of the subjunctive is thus analysable in
terms of its meaning, in the sense that the subjunctive is selected by those matrix verbs that are semantically
compatible with subjunctive meaning. The co-occurrence of certain predicates with the subjunctive is a
matter of selectional restrictions rather than syntactic government. This analysis is syntactically simpler and
better equipped to account for the numerous cases when verbs can govern either the indicative mood or the
subjunctive mood in the complement clause, but the resulting constructions are not semantically equivalent:
e.g. I insist that he has written it.
I insist that he should write it.
You act as if you know something.
You act as if you knew something.
The meaning of the subjunctive vs. the meaning of the indicative
- The indicative is the mood of assertion while the subjunctive is non-assertive. An assertion is a claim to
the truth of a proposition. A sentence like: I say/claim/believe that she works here, commits the speaker in
various degrees to the truth of the proposition that ‘She works here’. A subjunctive clause does not describe a
state of affairs or action that obtains in the real world, but one that obtains in some possible world; the
proposition is not actual but merely believed by the speaker to be possible.
- The indicative is factual, representative while the subjunctive is theoretical, potential, therefore
uncertain.
- The factual nature of the indicative is given by the deictic category of Tense (an important property of
indicative sentences), understood as orientation towards speech time, i.e. real time. Subjunctive clauses lack
deictic temporal orientation; they are not actualized in time. They may only have perfective aspect
signaling anteriority with respect to a reference point.
- Subjunctive sentences form an intrinsic part of prescriptive discourse. Prescriptive language has to do
with proper choice and evaluation of human action.
e.g. It is right that you should help your neighbour.
- An indicative proposition is concerned with human knowledge, while a subjunctive one is concerned with
human action.
The distribution of the Subjunctive
The first class of cases where the subjunctive is used in the complement clause has to do with the notion of
‘imperative sentences’. The matrix verbs mostly belong to the class of exercitive verbs, which, in Austin’s
definition, ‘give a decision in favor or against a certain course of action’ (e.g.: order, forbid, ask, insist,…).
Thus, the subjunctive mood is required after:
--- exercitive verbs of command: suggest, recommend, order, forbid, ask, beg, prohibit,…
e.g. a) She did not demand that I should remain with her.
b) He suggested that we all stay for supper.
30
c) Now he asks that this sordid episode in our history be sealed from public knowledge.
d) The liberals were demanding that the political changes come first.
The complement clause action is controllable either by the embedded clause subject (a, b) or by some other
agentive participant implicit in the discourse (c, d). The matrix clause subject (the assertor) is not supposed to
have control over the complement clause action, so he will not assert the complement, which merely
expresses potential action.
--- exercitive verbs of permission: allow, authorize, forbid, permit, can’t stand, can’t bear, …
e.g. Do you permit that I should smoke in here?
The committee allowed that the bridge should be restored.
--- There is another class of verbs, most of which are verbs of communication, that govern complement
clauses in the indicative or subjunctive and DOs or IOs (e.g. arrange, agree, tell, say, confess, declare,
explain, inform, persuade, remark, warn, state,…).. These verbs require the subjunctive only when
realization of the complement clause is controlled by the (matrix) IO or DO. This IO/DO is an agent and it is
often but not always a coreferent of the embedded clause subject.
e.g. Bill told Suzy that she should go to the dentist’s.
If the IO/DO does not control the complement clause, then the assertor (the matrix subject) is responsible for
it and the indicative mood is used.
e.g. I convinced Mary that I had read the book. (↔…that she should read…)
I insist that the concert should finish by 1o (=I demand) ↔ I insist that the concert had finished by 10
(=I claim that it is true…)
In the context of the subjunctive clause these verbs acquire exercitive meaning. Thus, when the subjunctive is
used, the complex sentence qualifies as an indirect command and when the indicative is used, the complex
sentence qualifies as an assertion.
--- In other cases, the subjunctive merely indicates that what is at stake is not whether the proposition is true
in the real world, but that it could be true in some world (possibly the real world). The subjunctive reveals its
theoretical, prescriptive dimension. The matrix verb may express uncertainty, doubt as to the realization of
the complement (the so-called contrary-to-expectation subjunctive). The matrix verb does not change its
meaning, the complex sentence continues to be an assertion. (e.g.: doubt, think, matter, imagine,
complain,…)
e.g.
And that you should deceive me – well, I don’t exactly understand it, but I can imagine it.
I doubt that he should succeed.
--- The largest group of verbs with which the subjunctive is constantly used is that of factive and nonfactive emotive predicates ( - a factive predicate presupposes the truth of its complement). These predicates
express a subjective, emotional evaluation of a state of affairs. Emotive predicates fall in several syntactic
classes:
intransitive predicates (adjectives in copulative predications) that take Subject Clauses:
non-factive: good, right, bad important, essential, natural, urgent, vital, advisable, unlikely,
factive: odd, quaint, tragic, amazing, surprising, …
transitive predicates that govern Subject Clauses: amaze, alarm, bother, worry, impress, …
transitive predicates that govern DO or PO Clauses:
non-factive: intend, prefer, wish, hate, …
factive: regret, resent, deplore, …
As a general characterization, use of the subjunctive with emotive predicates is optional. Choice of the
subjunctive over the indicative stresses the evaluative, prescriptive nature of the sentence. The subjunctive is
yet highly frequent with non-factive intransitive predicates. When both the subjunctive and the indicative are
allowed, the opposition between description of real action vs. prescription of possible action is clearly
brought out:
e.g. It is best that he went there alone. ↔ It is best that he should go there alone.
31
It is important/essential that this book is being written. ↔ It is important/essential that this book
should be written.
With factive emotive predicates the subjunctive is less frequent than with the non-factive emotives.
e.g.
It seemed to M. a little quaint that she should refer to the boys as children.
It is not strange therefore, that the Tudors should have been able to exercise a great influence.
Again the subjunctive stresses the evaluative nature of the predicate. The possible occurrence of the event
mentioned in the complement clause confirms or disconfirms these expectations, - hence a reaction of
surprise, wonder, disbelief; emotional should appears as ‘contrary-to-expectation’ should. The same should
appears in sentences like:
e.g.
Would you not fire a gun at anyone who should attack you?
Why should Peter treat me like that?
In accordance with their meaning, other main clause verbs may select other modal auxiliary verbs in the
subjunctive complement. Thus, for instance, possible, conceivable, etc. require may in the subject clause.
3.
Non-Finite Complement Clauses – Infinitives and Gerunds
3.1. The Subject of Non-Finite Complements
The conversion of an independent sentence into an infinitive or gerundial construction/ clause entails
important modifications in the form of the complement. These modifications affect both the verb (tense
distinctions are lost and only aspectual ones are preserved) and the subject of the clause. The head of the
clause being non-finite inflexion (I0 [-finite]), it cannot assign Nom. Case to its specifier, the subject of the
clause. That is why the subject of the non-finite clause verb is sometimes absent from surface structure (but
‘understood’, i.e. present in the Deep Sructure) and, when it is present , it must acquire Case from somewhere
else – the Prep for in the case of For-To infinitives or the matrix verb. In this latter situation the Su of the
infinitive has to move to a hierarchically higher position of the MC – this is called Raising.
INFINITIVE COMPLEMENTATION is of two types:
A. For – To Complementation
For-To complements are CPs: C0 for and I0[-finite]  to
e.g. It is impossible [CP for [IP them to have discovered the truth].
[CP For [IP George to tell them that] would be absolute madness.
B. TO Complementation
TO complements are not really CPs, since neither C0 nor SpecC are filled with any material, they are
IPs whose head is I0 [-finite]  to
To Complements occur with two classes of matrix predicates, resulting in different types of syntactic
structures, in which the subject of the infinitive can be:
(1) - missing in Surface Structure (an Empty Category in P&P terms // Deleted constituent in GTG
terms) but ‘recoverable’ based on identity with some matrix constituent (=the ‘controller), or
(2) - present in SS but ‘raised’ into the matix to acquire Case (because [-finite] Infl./I0 cannot assign
Nom. Case to its Specifier)
(1) Control predicates
In this case the subject of the infinitive is an empty category which is correferential with another DP in
the MC – a ‘PRO’.
e.g. I persuaded themi [ PROi to speak up].
SheI wants [ PROi to know the truth].
(2) Raising predicates
32
------ Subject to Object Raising: the Su of the infinitive (i.e. the DP which is assigned the subject theta-role
by the infinitive) is raised to the DO position in the MC, where the matrix predicate assigns Accusative to
it.The rusult is the so-called Acc.+Inf. Construction:
theta-role
e.g. I persuaded [ them to speak up].
Acc. case
------ Subject to Subject Raising: the subject of the infinitive is raised to the matrix subject position, where
it can get its Nom. case from the matrix predicate.
Nom. case
e.g. She seems [ to have heard the truth yesterday].
theta-role
3.2. The Distribution of Non-Finite Complement Clauses
THE DISTRIBUTION OF INFINITIVE COMPLEMENT CLAUSES
PATTERNS BASED ON FOR – TO COMPLEMENTATION
1. The Infinitive Complement as Subject
--- intransitive verbs: remain, suffice, will do, be. Extraposition and It insertion applies.
e.g. It remains to choose a leader and to raise additional funds.
The EC subject may be retained or deleted under indefiniteness.
e.g.
--- adjectives: possible, impossible, likely, necessary, essential, odd, unpleasant, safe,…
e.g. It is impossible for there to be a war between your country and mine.
After all, it was not uncommon for an earl’s daughter to marry a commoner.
--- nouns: a pleasure, an advantage, a tragedy,…
e.g. It would be a good idea to do that.
Adjectives that take Inf. Clauses as subjects may also take IOs where the preposition is for, to, of.
OF: absurd of you to V, brave, bold, careless, civil, clever, decent,…
FOR: lucky for you to V, unnecessary, dangerous,…
TO: beneficial to you, essential, …
e.g. For you to win would be essential to your club.
It’s vital for your career for you to attend that course.
For Mary to go there would really be beneficial to all of us.
TOUGH MOVEMENT
TM is a transformation, which moves the DO of the embedded clause into the main clause, making it the
matrix subject. The rule is lexically governed by adjectives like: tough, easy, amusing, interesting, fun, …
e.g. It is tough to park cars in Manhattan. → Cars are tough to park in Manhattan.
--- transitive verbs: bother, distress, embarrass, ...
e.g. It bothers me for Fred to have hallucinations.
It embarrassed us all to witness that scene.
2. The infinitive Clause as DO – the subject of the EC may be deleted by Equi.
33
--- aspectual verbs: begin, start, continue, cease, …
e.g. He began to write his essay.
--- verbs of responsibility, control, success of action: attempt, endeavour, manage, refuse, decline, learn,
omit,
e.g. Would she attempt to carry it further?
He ventured to touch the dog.
--- verbs of liking and disliking: desire, like, dislike, love, hate, prefer, …
e.g. He preferred to see his friend relaxed in a pub.
I would love to know him better.
--- mental state verbs and verbs of linguistic communication that have an alternative THAT complement
construction: remember, forget, regret, ask, conclude, claim, suggest, …
e.g. They had concluded / not to say anything about it.
/ that they would say nothing about it.
3. The infinitive clause as PO
--- verbs: apply for, consent to, persist in, plead for, bother about, long for, …
--- adjectives: anxious, afraid, (cap)able, proud, glad, inclined, ready, …
The preposition is deleted:
e.g. We decided for John to represent us.
4. The For – To Construction as a Predicative
e.g. The solution would be for the shops to open at noon and close about 9 p.m.
To see is to believe.
His principal pastime is to drive into the country.
5. For – To Complements as Attributes
Infinitive complements may subcategorize :
--- simple nouns: right, idea, power, instinct,…
--- nominalizations: ability, wish, desire, …
e.g. We don’t give up because we believe in the American dream, and in our power to make that dream
come true.
He knew of course that Mrs. B had no right to be thus addressed.
I had no desire to revive old memories.
TO – COMPLEMENTATION. PATTERNS BASED ON RAISING
INFINITIVE CONSTRUCTIONS BASED ON RAISING
1. The Accusative + Infinitive construction – is the direct result of SOR
e.g. She believes Bill to be honest.
2. The Nominative + Infinitive construction is : - the direct result of SSR or,
- the result of passivizing the main clause after SOR.
e.g. She seems to be honest.
Bill is believed to be honest.
These two Raising transformations may be followed by a transformation of TO BE Deletion. The deleted BE
may be a progressive BE, a passive BE, a copula.
The following three constructions are obtained by TO BE Deletion after SOR:
3. The Accusative + Present Participle construction (from a deletion of progressive BE)
e.g. [She saw Bill][ TO BE running].  She saw Bill running.
4. The Accusative + Past Participle construction (from a deletion of passive BE)
e.g. [She had her tooth][ TO BE extracted].  She had her tooth extracted.
5. The Accusative + (Derived) Object Complement construction (from a deletion of the link verb BE)
e.g. [I consider him][ TO BE a genius].
 I consider him a genius.
34
Application of main clause passivization to these constructions (3-5) or SSR followed by TO BE
Deletion derives the corresponding Nominative + Verb constructions.
6. Nominative + Present Participle
e.g. Bill was seen running.
– (Passive of the Acc.+Pres.Part. I saw Bill running)
7. Nominative + Past Participle
e.g. He was found killed by a bomb.
8. Nominative + (Derived) Subject Complement construction
e.g. He is considered a genius. – (Passive of Derived Object Compl.: I consider him a genius.)
He seems sad. - (SSR + TO BE Deletion)
THE DOMAIN OF RAISING CONSTRUCTIONS
1. SOR TRIGGERS - Most SOR triggers also have THAT complements, which are roughly equivalent
from a semantic point of view.
--- verbs of attitude with a [+human] subject and a [+abstract] DO: assume, believe, consider, think,
suppose, remember, find, imagine, fancy, presume, know,…
e.g. They suspected him to be the murderer.
Helen knew herself dismissed.
I had imagined him to be a fool.
--- causative verbs: cause, get, occasion (+long infinitive), make, let, have (+short infinitive) – These verbs
do not have alternative THAT constructions.
e.g. This almost caused Jane to faint with terror.
I’ll have you all speaking fluent English.
He’ll soon get things going.
I must get my hair cut.
--- verbs of permission and command: allow, beg, ask, command, dictate, order, permit, prescribe, bear
e.g.
I allowed John to smoke in the room.
I will never bear a lie told to another in my presence.
--- verbs of liking and disliking: like, love, prefer, wish, intend, dislike, hate,….
e.g.
Of course, I would have preferred you to enjoy yourself.
Mr. Osborne wished the tree cut down.
--- verbs of physical perception: see. Hear, overhear, feel, watch, find, notice, observe,….
e.g.
We saw John cross the street.
I watched her enter.
her entering.
I’ve heard it said.
I saw him led through the hall.
2. SSR TRIGGERS
--- intransitive verbs:  seem, appear, happen, prove, chance
 inchoative verbs: become, grow, get, remain, go,
e.g. There came to be twenty families in our village.
 aspectual verbs: begin, continue, start, stop,…
e.g. It was beginning to rain when he left.
John began to be annoyed by the noise.
 the two verbal phrases had better/ had best (e.g. There had better be no flaws in your argument.)
--- (link V +) adjectives: likely, unlikely, sure, certain,…
--- to be bound to, to be apt to, to be supposed to, to be going to. To be going to may also appear in a
transitive structure where it expresses intentionality.
e.g. There is bound to be a riot in London.
Bill is going to become a doctor. (intention, transitive DS, EQUI)
That house is going to collapse. (certainty, intransitive DS, Raising)
35
4.
RELATIVE CLAUSES
Relative Clauses are licensed under predication; they are (semantic) ‘predicates’ on an
antecedent, not arguments. Relative clauses are of the following types:
(1) Relative Clauses with expressed antecedent (a.k.a. Dependent RCs), which can be:
--- Restrictive Relative Clauses (RRC) or
--- Non-Restricrive Relative Clauses (NRRC)
(2) Relative clauses without expressed antecedent – Free Relative Clauses (FRC)
Examples:
RRCs:
The students [who/that passed that test] were very pleased.
The girl [I was talking to] was not enjoying herself.
My sister [who lives in Paris] speaks French fluently. (=> ’not the other one’ < I have more than
one sisiter and only one sister lives in Paris)
NRRCs:
My sister, [who lives in Paris], speaks French fluently. (=> I have only one sister)
FRCs:
[Whoever swims in sin] shall swim in sorrow. (Subject clause)
They always do [whatever they please]. (DO clause)
Dependent RCs function as attributive modifiers of their antecedents, they are Attributive Clauses. FRCs can
have any syntactic function in the MC, ‘taking over’ the function of their unexpressed antecedent.
The difference between RRCs and NNRCs is basically a semantic one:
- RRCs (a.k.a. defining RCs) limit the domain expressed by the antecedent by specifying a further
property of the antecedent;
- NRRCs ( non-defining RCs or Appositive RCs) merely add information about already
identified antecedents (hence their compatibility with proper names: George, who is my true
friend, hasn’t shown up yet.). They are always separated by commas from the rest of the sentence.
At a structural level, this difference is reflected in the fact that RRCs adjoin at the NP level, and the
determiner D subsequently attaches to a compound NP, while NNRCs attach to DPs (=already identified
individuals).
Other differences between the two types of dependent RCs:
 NRCs are always finite and +WH (they do not permit that or zero relative pronouns):
e.g. RRC: finite: I was looking for a man/ someone [(whom/that)I could talk to].
non-finite: I was looking for a man/ someone [to talk to].
NRRC: I was looking for Dan, [whom I could talk to].
*I was looking for Dan that I could talk to.
*I was looking for Dan to talk to.
 while RRCs are always nominal modifiers, NRCs can take a much wider range
of antecedents:
e.g. He was in high spirits/ extremely kind/ a day-dreamer, [which I didn’t think he would be]. (PP/AP/DP)
She could understand everything I said, [which came as a surprise]. (the antecedent is the whole
sentence)
5.
EXERCISES
I.
In the complex sentences below, identify the non-finite clauses, specify their syntactic function and
discuss their subjects (for raised subjects, identify the resulting constructions:
36
1. I had undertaken to offer some kind of apology to them for my behaviour. 2. I had obliged him
to offer some kind of apology for… …
3. She appeared to have been lying all the time. 4. It’s
always amusing to feed ducks. 5. Ducks are always amusing to feed. 6. The noise began/ seemed
to annoy the children. 7. It was very nice of you to join us. 8. They preferred him to be their new
leader. 9. That poem was difficult for us to recite. 10. They are sure to be late as usual. 11. He
remembered that very coat to have been frequently worn by his nephew. 12. She was thought to be
honest. 13. They all considered you their best friend. 14. She appeared ignorant.
II.
Discuss the following sentences; specify the type of RC and the syntactic function of the RC and of
the relative pronoun:
1. This law was what the Senator thought of as his legislative masterpiece. 2. The little girl, whose broken
toy was still lying on the pavement, had been taken to the hospital. 3. I will teach whomever I speak with
to speak civilly to me. 4. Any boy that is lazy must be punished. 5. Whom a serpent has bitten a lizard
alarms. 6. That J. Smith, whom she mentioned in her letter, had just arrived from Chicago. 7. The
woman that I saw on the train was a real beauty. 8. They were interested in alchemy, astrology, as much as
in what we should call philosophy. 9. There is no evidence from which to infer that. 10. Even John,
who is a friend of ours, left early. 11. He adopts the word and manner of whoever he happens to live with.
12. What he had to say was the truth. 13. This happens at times when the light intensity is low. 14.Dan’s
new article, which you’ve all been talking about lately, is quite a success. 15. As for the magazines, he
could take whichever of them he liked.
TESTE, GRILE, EXERCITII DE AUTOEVALUARE FINALA
I.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Derive the following sentences:
They needn’t have said those things.
Might she have missed her flight?
I didn’t know that you were here.
She won’t be bothering you anymore.
It is improbable for them to change their minds.
They seem to suspect something
II.
Correct the following sentences; explain why they are ungrammatical.
1. *Anyone doesn’t know the whole story better than you do.
2. *? No one has never told me anything.
3. Not often such thing happen to simple people like you.
4. *Seldom she make such wonderful presents.
5. *For some people this is the ideal solution and others it is just a way out.
6. *I really like Jane but my brother simply adores.
7. *That she hadn’t been careful enough during the trial seemed to most of us.
8. *It shows that you care that you have bothered to come here with us.
9. *Anna would like I to be on her side.
10. *We all wanted us to be exonerated from any blame.
11. *A ll the books I was interested were almost impossible to find.
12. *This book, that you’ve surely heard about, is much nicer than the other one.
13. *Everybody said the music you were listening that evening was incredibly beautiful.
14. *Luke, that you haven’t met yet, is still waiting outside.
III. (a) Use the examples below to explain the difference between negative-concord languages and nonnegative-concord languages. (b) Explain the structure of the sentences of the standard dialect.
37
STANDARD ENGLISH
Harry didn’t talk to anyone.
There isn’t any cat there.
I can’t tell anyone.
She won’t give me any cookies.
NON-STANDARD ENGLISH
Harry didn’t talk to nobody.
There ain’t no cat there.
I can’t tell no one.
She won’t give me no cookie.
III. Analyse syntactically the finite and non-finite embedded clauses in the following text:
The poet must be very conscious of the main current, which does not at all flow invariably through the most
distinguished reputations. He must be quite aware of the obvious fact that art never improves, but that the
material of art is never quite the same. He must be aware that the mind of Europe—the mind of
his own country—a mind which he learns in time to be much more important than his own private mind—is
a mind which changes, and that this change is a development which abandons nothing en route, which does
not superannuate
either Shakespeare, or Homer, or the rock drawing of the Magdalenian draughtsmen. (...) But the difference
between the present and the past is that the conscious present is an awareness of the past in a way and to an
extent which the past's awareness of itself cannot show.
Someone said: "The dead writers are remote from us because we know so much more than they did."
Precisely, and they are that which we know. I am alive to a usual objection to what is clearly part of my
programme for the métier of poetry. The objection is that the doctrine requires a
ridiculous amount of erudition (pedantry), a claim which can be rejected by appeal to the lives of poets in any
pantheon. It will even be affirmed that much learning deadens or perverts poetic sensibility. While, however,
we persist in believing that a poet ought to know as much as will not encroach upon his necessary receptivity
and necessary laziness, it is not desirable to confine knowledge to whatever can be put into a useful shape for
examinations, drawing-rooms, or the still more pretentious modes of publicity. Some can absorb knowledge,
the more tardy must sweat for it. (...) And I hinted, by an analogy, that the mind of the mature poet differs
from that of the immature one not precisely in any valuation of "personality," not being necessarily more
interesting, or having "more to say," but rather by being a more finely perfected medium in which special, or
very varied, feelings are at liberty to enter into new combinations.
Examples:
[which does not at all flow invariably through the most distinguished reputations] = Non-Restrictive Relative
Clause (NRRC), functioning as attribute of the expressed antecedent ‘current’; the relative pronoun which
functions as subject of the RC;
[that the mind of Europe … is a mind [which changes] ] = THAT complement clause functioning as PO (of
the predicative adjective aware – Obligatory Deletion of the preposition of)
[to confine knowledge to [whatever can be put into a useful shape for examinations, drawing-rooms, or the
still more pretentious modes of publicity]] = Infinitival complement clause, Subject clause; the Su of the
infinitive is deleted by One Deletion;
[whatever can be put into a useful … … ] = Free Relative Clause (no expressed antecedent) , functioning as
PO (of the verb confine^ toPO); the relative pronoun functions as Su of the RC.
BIBLIOGRAFIE GENERALA
Cornilescu, A. (1995): Concept of Modern Grammar, EUB, Bucuresti;
Cornilescu, A. (1986): English Syntax, vol. 2, EUB, Bucuresti
Galateanu-Farnoaga, G., Comisel, E (1993).: Gramatica Limbii Engleze, Omegapres & Rai, Bucuresti,
Heageman, L and J. Gueron (1999): English Grammar, Blackwell
Radford, A. (1997): Syntactic theory and the structure of English, CUP, Cambridge
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., Swartvick, J. (1972): A Grammar of Contemporary English
Longman, London
38