Upload
sergio-rojo
View
223
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/29/2019 Argumentation Essay FINAL
1/24
17292 English Language: G
ESTUDIOS INGLESES
GROUP 320
ammar II
ERB TYPES
ArgumentatiSergio Gonzlez de la Hi
Engl
Autonoma University
English Language:
Prof.: Ana ArDeadline:
1
n Exerciseguera Rojo
ish Studies
Of Madrid
rammar II
id Gumiel12/13/2011
7/29/2019 Argumentation Essay FINAL
2/24
17292 English Language: Grammar II
ESTUDIOS INGLESES
GROUP 320
2
The verb can be regarded as the central item in the syntactic analysis. As pointed
out in Mendikoetxea (2003), the decision on how to analyze a verb necessary leads to
the analysis of different aspects of the sentence, such as phrase structure, -marking,
complementation, syntactic derivation and so forth. Thus, given a concrete verb, wemay also predict what will be the semantic and syntactic properties of the possible
sentences that can be built with the predicate in question. To put this paper into context,
we begin by giving a definition of what is understood by verb. Taking Crystal (2008:
510), Radford (2004: 483) and Bybee (1985) as references, we have three different sets
of properties to define a verb: morphologically, it can be inflected for valence, voice,
aspect, tense, mood and number, person and gender agreement; syntactically, it heads
the complement of inflexion, and semantically, it forms the lexical domain of the
sentences1. Thus in this paper I will show how the different types of verbs may vary the
grammaticality of sentences which in principle show the same linear structure. In order
to do so, I will take as evidences the sentences in (1) and (2). Firstly, I will start
describing the two pairs of utterances and providing a first hypothesis for the
ungrammaticality of (2a). Afterwards, I will continue applying different modifications
to the active counterparts of the sentences in (1) to see what the different properties of
the verbs given are. Finally, I will compare them with the different verb in (3) to see if it
could be in the same category as requestor believe.
(1) a. It is requested not to park hereb. It is believed to be missing
(2) a. *There was requested to be another worker at the siteb. There was believed to be another worker at the site.
(3) It is hoped to return to this issue.
1With respect to the semantic property, we have to exclude the so-called copula verbs, which have no
lexical content and hence its main function is to link the subject with a non-verbal predicate (Radford,
2004: 445).
7/29/2019 Argumentation Essay FINAL
3/24
17292 English Language: Grammar II
ESTUDIOS INGLESES
GROUP 320
3
In (1) we have a pair of passive sentences which share the next superficial
structure: it in subject position, matrix verb (in passive form) and a subordinate
infinitival clause (the appearance of the negative adverb notin (1a) is irrelevant for our
argumentation). Since, as we said in the introductory paragraph, the verb is essential forthe structure of the sentence; let us look briefly at the properties of passivization. This
process can be seen as an arrangement of the arguments of the main verb due to the
change of its properties. We could say that the passive morphology absorbs the theta-
role of the external argument and that, as a consequence of Burzios generalization,
there is no case-marking (Bosque and Gutirrez-Rexach, 2009). Remember that
Burzios generalization proposes that a verb assigns case to its complement only if it
assigns a theta-role to the external argument. In other words: if there is no external
argument, there is no case assignment. In order to clarify this, consider the examples in
(4),
(4) a. I killed a manb. A man was killed (by me)
where (4a) is an example of an active sentences and (4b) the passive counterpart.
In the former example,Ioccupies the subject position, being given its -role (agent) by
the verb. The other argument, the theme, is merged with the verb in complement
position and given objective case. However, we see a different distribution of the
arguments ofkill in (4b). The internal argument of the verb has been raised to subject
position and the original agent is now syntactically realized as a by-phrase adjunct. The
reason for this raising is as follows: by being in the past-participle form, the verb kill
does not have any external argument and hence, as we said before, it has no case to
assign to its internal argument, that is, the complement a man. As the case-filter would
not allow a NP to be without case, the only way for a man to be given case is to raise to
spec-IP, where it would be given covert nominative case by the inflection, while
remaining its thematic role as theme. However, this is not the only possible case of
passivization that can be found in English. Taking the examples in (5), we find that this
process can affect to subordinate clauses as well.
(5) a. I understood John to speak Japanese.
7/29/2019 Argumentation Essay FINAL
4/24
17292 English Language: Grammar II
ESTUDIOS INGLESES
GROUP 320
4
b. John was understood to speak Japanese.
As can be seen with these sentences, the NP that has raised to subject position is
not an argument ofunderstandbut the external argument of the verb in the subordinateinfinitival clause, that is, John. This process is sometimes called long-distance
passivization as a metaphorical way of describing the raising of the argument of the
subordinate clause. The reason for this constituent to occupy the subject position is in
essence the same to the example in (4b): given that the NPJohn cannot be given case in
that position (issue that we will discuss later in the paper); the case-filter forces it to
move into spec-IP. Having seen these characteristics of the passive sentences, lets
return to our first examples.
The first thing that could catch our attention is the fact that the infinitival clause
in both cases has no overt subject, that is, there is no element phonetically realized. At
first, this could seem to violate the EPP generalization, the abbreviation for Extended
Projected Principle. What this requirement posits is that every inflection head requires
expanding into a maximal projection which has a specifier, what we have been calling
the spec-IP position. In more traditional words, we can paraphrase this by saying that
every sentence must have a subject. However, since, as indicated above, both sentences
are totally grammatical, it must be the case that this requirement is fulfilled. The
possibility we have to account for both things, that is, the EPP and the non phonetic
realization of the subjects is to propose that we are dealing with two instances of cover
or null subject. Nonetheless, we have two different types of covert subjects, namely,
traces and PROs. The former can be seen as the covert copy of a moved constituent
while the latter is a covert pronoun, subject of infinitival clauses. A piece of evidence to
decide which kind of subject we have in these sentences might be given by the
examples in (2). In this case, we have a special kind of clause in the complement
position: an existential sentence. The main feature of this sort of construction is that the
subject position is occupied by an expletive, aka dummy there, to fulfill the EPP feature
of inflection. An obvious consequence of this insertion is that there will be always be
the subject of the sentence. Thus for the ungrammaticality of (2a) we could argue that
the raising of the subject of the existential clause is what causes the ill-formedness of
the sequence. However, as we saw when talking about long-distance passivization, this
should not be a problem. Actually, the example in (2b) shows that the subject of a
7/29/2019 Argumentation Essay FINAL
5/24
17292 English Language: Grammar II
ESTUDIOS INGLESES
GROUP 320
5
subordinate existential sentence can be perfectly raised to fulfill the EPP of inflection in
the matrix clause.
At this point, we could posit that the problem concerning (2a) could be the actual
existence of the subject in the infinitival complement clause. However, we need moreevidence to take this as the reason for the ungrammaticality. This issue relates perfectly
with the problem that we mention on deciding which kind of null subject we have in (1),
since PRO subjects do not allow the appearance of overt expressions, whatever their
nature is. Hence in order to decide (i) which type of subject is used in the subordinate
examples in (1) and (ii) to explain the ungrammaticality of (2a) we are going to give the
properties of the verbs in the matrix clause and, for this purpose, we are going to turn
the examples in (1) into their active counterparts, shown in (6), and analyze their inner
structure to give a final reason for both problems.
(6) a. They request not to park thereb. They believe it to be missing.
An interested point is revealed when turning the previous examples into their
active counterpart. Although we said that in (1) the linear structure was shared by both
sentences, things are different in (6) as shown below:
(7) a. They request not to park hereNP Vmatrix ADV to VP
b. They believe it to be missing
NP Vmatrix DP to VP
In the second example we find that between the matrix verb and the infinitival
marker, there is a pronoun, it. However we may argue that this disparity can be
minimized because there may be an implicit pronoun, as the example in (8) seems to be
grammatical:
(8) A: What do they say to the guest?B: They request him not to park here
7/29/2019 Argumentation Essay FINAL
6/24
17292 English Language: Grammar II
ESTUDIOS INGLESES
GROUP 320
6
Since the meaning of the verb is not changed2, the reason for the ellipsis of (7a)
in comparison to (8a) can be based on the idea of the generic reference (Bosque and
Guitirrez-Rexach, 2009: 367). While in the latter there is a concrete controller for thepronoun him (the NP the guests) given by the conversational context, in (7a) there is no
specific reference, thus we can say that there may be an indeterminate pronoun that,
although it is not present in the syntactic configuration of the sentence, is present in the
semantic representation. This can be further proved by inserting a generic overt
reference as we have done in (9). As can be seen, the meaning of the sentences is
exactly the same to that in (7a).
(9) They request everybody not to park hereHaving shown then that the superficial differences of (7) can be shrunk by the
overt realization of a pronoun, for the rest of the paper we will take the sentence in (8b)
since the contrasts when applying different modifications will be greater in this case,
because the linear structure is totally similar in both cases. Thus we part from the
sentences in (10) for our analysis.
(10) a. They request him not to park hereb. They believe it to be missing
In tune with what we saw previously about passivization, we may find it useful
to determine whether the pronouns in both cases are the complement of the matrix verb
or the external argument of the verb in the infinitival clause. In order to do so, we may
apply different constituency tests. The first test we can apply is substitution by the pro-
form that. The test consists on substitute the string of words him not to park here and it
to be missing by the pro-form that. If the resulting sentences are grammatical, that
would be that the words in question form a constituent. In case the result turns to be ill-
formed, that will be a reason to think that they do not form a syntactic unit.
2We refer to the meaning of the verb, not to the meaning of the sentence as a whole.
7/29/2019 Argumentation Essay FINAL
7/24
17292 English Language: Grammar II
ESTUDIOS INGLESES
GROUP 320
7
(11) a. *They request thatb. They believe that
After this modification, we can see that the ungrammaticality of (11a) is givenby the fact that the pronoun him and the infinitival clause not to park here do not form a
constituent in (10). Things seem different in the example in (11b) since the result of the
insertion of the pro-form thatis totally viable. Hence this leads us to think that the NP,
to and the VP do form a constituent. To strengthen this hypothesis of constituency, we
turn to use a finite paraphrasing with a that-clause.
The difference between the subordinate sentences with the [+FIN] feature to the
infinitival ones that we have in (10) is that the verb is inflected for tense, number and
person. Another special feature of the finite clauses is there is agreement between
inflexion and the subject, the latter of which is also inflected in nominative case. If the
result of this paraphrase is grammatical, that would suggest that the sequence NP-to-VP
forms a constituency in any of the sentences. If it turns out to be ungrammatical, the
conclusion is that, again, the string of words we are dealing with is not.
(12) a. *They request that he does not park hereb. They believe that it is missing
With the application of this test we have reinforced the previous idea we had
concerning the phrase structure of the sentences. The example in (12a) shows that him
not to park here is not a constituent, since, were it the case, the sentence would be well-
formed. This case is exactly what we find in (12b), where the final grammaticality gives
strength to the fact that itand to be missing is a constituent. However, although these
two examples draw the same conclusion, we may still use one more test finally decide
on the constituent structure of the constructions. In this way, we apply now ordinary
coordination.
This syntactic process refers to the result of linking linguistics units equivalent
syntactically, e.g. clauses, phrases or words (Crystal, 2008: 115). Thus if the string of
words which are coordinated are a constituent and they are at the same level, the
sentence would be grammatical. If it is not grammatical, that would mean that the
7/29/2019 Argumentation Essay FINAL
8/24
17292 English Language: Grammar II
ESTUDIOS INGLESES
GROUP 320
8
conjuncts are not of the same level and that they are not constituents. The test is
exemplified in (13).
(13) a. *They request him not to park here [and her to move her car away]b. They believe it to be missing [and that to be at home]
This test shows the same results as the two previous ones we have seen. The fact
that (13a) shows ungrammaticality is given by the fact that the sequences NP-to-VP is
not a proper conjunct to the parallel sequence in the sentence, and thus proves that they
do no form a constituent. The contrary evidence is given in (13b). We have to note here
that the sentence in (13b) would be more natural if there is a phonological stress in both
itand that, since the pragmatic use of this utterance would be more appropriate when
contrasting two different items. Leaving the phonological and pragmatic characteristics
of the sentence, it turns that it is perfectly grammatical, what suggests one more time
that the pronoun it and the sequence to be missing do form a constituent. So, having
applied these three tests, we may finally claim that there is a syntactic unit in the
example in (10b) but that the sequence NP-to-VP is not a constituent in (10a).
Apart from the phrase structure of the sentences, another claim may be implied
from the tests previously applied. Since the sequence him not to park here is not a
constituent, it suggests also that the pronoun him is not the syntactic subject of the
infinitival clause, since every subject must form a constituent with I. Besides, based on
it, we could also claim that it is the complement of the matrix verb request. The
contrary could be argued for the case of believe. It may be said to be the syntactic
subject of the to-phrase given that they do form a unit while it is not the internal
argument of believe. However, although this could be an implication from the data
given above, now we are going to provide three tests that would give us the precise
evidence we need to reinforce the hypothesis that we have just given.
The first test we can use is to change the sequence NP-to-VP by another of the
same superficial structure but with different meaning. If the final sequence is
grammatical and semantically normal, a part from strengthen the fact that they form a
constituent; it will concretely prove that the NP is the subject of the VP following to. If
the result is ungrammatical or semantically anomalous, that will prove again that the
7/29/2019 Argumentation Essay FINAL
9/24
17292 English Language: Grammar II
ESTUDIOS INGLESES
GROUP 320
9
string of words in question is not a unit and that the NP is not the subject of the
infinitival verb.
(14) a. !! They request the vase to be brokenb. They believe the vase to be broken
The interested fact provided by this pair of sentences is that both sentences are
grammatical. However, the former is semantically anomalous whereas the latter is
grammatically and semantically normal. Besides, given that the sequences inserted, the
vase to be broken, is the same in both cases; the anomaly of (14a) suggests that the NP
following the matrix verb is not the syntactic subject of the infinitival verb but the
complement ofrequest. This can be accounted by the following reason: if the NP the
vase is the complement of the verb, it is likely to assume that requestimposes semantic
requirements to its complement. To be concrete, this verb requires that its complement
be [+HUMAN] since, as categorized in Bosque and Guitirrez-Rexach (ibid.), it can be
labeled as verb of human influence. The opposite result is shown in (14b). Since the
vase is not the complement of the matrix verb, this cannot impose any kind of semantic
requirement on it; actually it is the infinitival verb which imposes this requirement, as
can be seen in (15):
(15) !! They believe the air to be broken
What (15) and (14b) leads us to suggest is the fact that the NP is the subject of
the subordinate verb and has it has some impositions upon it. However, to have more
evidence we now turn to the passivization of the subordinate clause.
With these new pair of sentences what we want to see is if the meaning of the
whole utterance is the same or is changed by the passive voice in the infinitival clause.
If the sentence keeps its original meaning, then we can say that we are dealing with a
NP which is the external argument of the subordinate clause. However if the meaning is
different from the one of the active counterpart, that would lead us to suggest that the
NP in question is a complement of the main verb. The reason for this disparity is the
fact that if the NP is the subject of the to-phrase, when turned into a by-phrase, its theta-
role will remain the same, since it is given by the subordinate verb. However, if the NP
7/29/2019 Argumentation Essay FINAL
10/24
17292 English Language: Grammar II
ESTUDIOS INGLESES
GROUP 320
10
is an argument of the matrix clause and it is changed into a by-phrase of the infinitival
verb, the meaning will change because now it will be -marked by a different predicate,
and hence the whole meaning will change.
(16) a. They requestJohn to call Peterb. They request Peter to be called by John
(17) a. They believeJohn to have called Peterb. They believe Peter to have been called by John.
These four examples help us to reinforce the hypothesis that we have foreseen:
The meaning of (16a) is different from the active correspondent. The so it is because in
the latter, the NPJohn is given its theta-role, goal, by the verb request. However, in the
passive sentences, the adjunct by John is the agent, since is -marked by call. The
reason for this disparity is again the fact that the NP after the to-VP sequence is the
complement of the verb. The contrary is found in (17b). Since bothJohn and Peterare
given their -role by the same verb, that is, call the passivization does not affect to the
meaning of the sentence. Finally, to ensure completely that him is not the subject of
park and that it is the subject of be missing, we are going to turn the subordinate
sentences into an existential clause.
If the existential sentence is allowed to appear in form of a subordinate
infinitival clause, it would mean that the element following the matrix verb is the
subject of the subordinate clause, since the expletive there must be a subject, remember
that its insertion was due to the EPP feature carried by inflection. However, the contrary
result in grammaticality will provide us with the last evidence for classifying the NP in
(10a) a complement of the matrix verb. The reason for this conclusion relates to the fact
that the NP following the verb cannot be the subject of the following infinitival sentence
and there has to be compulsorily the subject of the existential clause.
(18) a. *They request there to be waterb. They believe there to be water
These examples finally prove what we have been seeing with passivization and
the semantic restrictions. The fact that the request sentence turns out to be
7/29/2019 Argumentation Essay FINAL
11/24
17292 English Language: Grammar II
ESTUDIOS INGLESES
GROUP 320
11
ungrammatical, helps us to conclude finally that him in (10) is the complement of the
matrix verb. Furthermore, our intuition about the status of it in (10) can be also
confirmed, since the three different tests provide us with enough evidence.
We may now recall the examples in (2), where the passive sentence in (2a) wasungrammatical. Previously we proposed that the ill-formedness of this sentence could
be given by the fact that there had to be obligatorily the subject of the infinitival clause
and this is not viable. If we turn the sentences in (2) into their active correspondents, we
see that the ungrammaticality remains in the case of the verb request:
(19) a.* They request there to be another worker at the siteb. They believe there to be another worker at the site
Having just applied the third test, we may conclude that the ungrammaticality of
sentence (2a) is given by the impossibility of being there the subject of the existential
clause, since an NP following the verb request must be the external argument of it.
However, this leads us to another problem that we foresee previously. If there is not the
subject of the subordinate infinitival clause, but the sentences in (9), (10a), (16a) and
(17a) are totally grammatical; the subordinate verb must have a subject, since the
violation of the EPP feature would give us ungrammaticality. This, of course, links with
one of the first question we saw in the paper: what kind of covert subjects do we have in
sentences (1a) and (1b)? In order to give an answer to these questions let us firstly take
a look at how the NPs that we have been considering get case.
As we say before, the case-filter prevents any NP to be without case. Besides,
there is more evidence that the pronouns in question have case. Examples (10a) and
(20a) below provide us with empirical evidence for the fact that those elements are
inflected for case, since we can see that the meaning of the sentences remains the same,
the only different is the appearance of an inflected pronoun instead of the content noun.
(20) a. They believeJohn to speak Japaneseb. They believe him to speak Japanese.
The case of the pronoun him in (10a) can be accounted for straightforwardly. It
gets case since the sentence fulfills the next two conditions: (i) firstly it is the
7/29/2019 Argumentation Essay FINAL
12/24
17292 English Language: Grammar II
ESTUDIOS INGLESES
GROUP 320
12
complement of the verb request, as we have already proved, and hence it is given the
goal -role. Besides, in accordance to Burzios generalization, as the verb has an
external argument, it can assign case to its complement, in this case objective case.
Nonetheless, the things may seem more complicated with the verb believe, since thepronoun we have, it, is in objective case
3and, however, it is the subject of the
subordinate infinitival clause, that is, it is not the complement of the matrix verb as our
tests have previously shown. Besides, there arises another problem: in simple matrix
sentences, subjects are given nominative case by inflection, which is [+FIN].
Nevertheless, in the case of our complement clause we have a [-FIN] inflection, that is
not able to assign nominative case, but to can only assign null case. To see then how it
gets it case, we may find it useful to turn the sentences in (20b4) into passive.
(21) He is believed to speak Japanese.
This sentence shows that the previous objective pronoun him has raised to spec-
IP position in the matrix clause. This can be argued because it carries the theta-role that
is given by speak, that is, experiencer5, in more traditional words we can say that it is
the semantic subject ofspeak. We have to take it for granted that a given constituent can
be only -marked by the predicate whose valence it fulfills. Furthermore, if we look at
the lexical entry of the verb believe, in (22), we find that this verb only takes two
arguments: experiencer and theme. However, the one that is marked as experiencer is
absorbed by the passive morphology as we previously said. Then, the passive verb
believe is left only with one argument to which it can assign case. However, as
Burzios generalization claims, believe cannot assign it case for its passive form and
hence has to raise in order to fulfill the case-filter.
(22) Believe (x, y) x: experiencery: theme
3 Remember that the pronoun it, as the other content nouns, has covert case, that is, it is not realized
phonetically. As evidence for the fact that an element following the verb believe is in objective case is in
(20b).4
We use this concrete example instead of the original in (10b) because, by having the pronoun he
different overt form for different cases, the result is less abstract.5
We use the theta-role experiencer because the most salient sense of the sentence is that the subject has
the mental capacity of speaking Japanese, not that he is speaking at the moment.
7/29/2019 Argumentation Essay FINAL
13/24
17292 English Language: Grammar II
ESTUDIOS INGLESES
GROUP 320
13
[ _ Sub. Clause6]
Y
As the lexical entry shows, the internal argument is the whole subordinate
infinitival clause, result that is reinforce by the fact that the string of words in question
form a constituent as previously proved. However, we see that him in (20b) is objective
and that it then raised in the passive sentence. The only way to account for these facts is
to say that him gets case from the verb believe, although it is the subject of the to-
phrase. That would explain why when the matrix verb cannot assign case, him has to
raise. This sort of verbs is known as ECM, aka Exceptional Case-Marking. The only
elements that can be able of mark thematically in these exceptional conditions are verbs
subcategorizing for an exceptional clause and the complementizerfor. An important fact
concerning this point is that the insertion of an overt complementizer is not viable, as
can be seen below:
(23) *They believeforhim to speak Japanese
The problem in this sentence is that it is a lexical requirement of the verb believe
that it is must have an exceptional clause as complement and the sentences shows a
common complement clause. These exceptional clauses we are talking about are
characterized by two facts: inflection is defective and they lack a complementizer
domain. The first characteristic is easy to see. Ordinary complement clauses have an
inflection which is able to assign null case to its subject. However, the only kinds of
pronoun that is able to carry this particular case are PRO subjects. The insertion of this
covert subject is not legitimate with the verbs of the ECM type as the next example
shows:
(24) *They believe to speak Japanese
6The type of clause the verb subcategorizes for will be dealt with later.
7/29/2019 Argumentation Essay FINAL
14/24
17292 English Language: Grammar II
ESTUDIOS INGLESES
GROUP 320
14
The ungrammaticality of this sentence is given by the fact that a believe type
verb cannot allow an ordinary complement non-finite sentence. This now relates to what
we have just proved before: the fact that it is believe that gives case to the subject of the
infinitival clause. Be the non-existence of the complementizer domain, the verb canassign case to the pronoun that, otherwise, would be non-inflected and would violate the
case-filter. We finally can state that the kind of pronoun that is found in (1b) is a trace,
instead that a PRO, because of the syntactic derivation of the sentence, which is shown
in (26). We have to take into account that the only different between (10b) and (20b) is
the pronoun. Of course, it could be said that it in (1b) is an expletive, element that is
inserted to fulfill the EPP, as occurs with there. But this is not viable since it can be
substituted by a content noun phrase such as the bird, as the next example in (25)
shows, and the meaning is exactly the same.
7/29/2019 Argumentation Essay FINAL
15/24
17292 English Language: Grammar II
ESTUDIOS INGLESES
GROUP 320
15
(25) The birdis believed to be missing(26) It is believed to be missingCP
C3
C IP
[+PROP] 3
NPsubject I4 3
It I VPaux
[+FIN]
is V3
Vaux VPlex
tbeV
3
Vlex IP
believed 3
NP I4 3
tit I VPaux
[-FIN]
to Vaux3
Vaux VPlexbe 3
NP Vlex4
tit Vlexmissing
Let us take a look at how the sentence in (25) is derived: the verb missing
expands into an intermediate constituent which in turns is merged with the pronoun it
before expanding into the lexical verbal phrase. In order to take this, we have to accept
the Internal Subject Hypothesis that suggests that subjects are originated within the VP
and then raised to be assigned case. Continuing with our derivation, the VP is then
merged with the auxiliary verb to be, which remains in its form because of the non-
finite character of inflexion. The VPaux then merges with I, which, due to the EPP
feature that it carries, triggers the movement of the external argument ofmissing, that is,
it. Therefore at this point in the derivation, as the pronoun cannot be assigned case
7/29/2019 Argumentation Essay FINAL
16/24
17292 English Language: Grammar II
ESTUDIOS INGLESES
GROUP 320
16
because of the exceptional inflection and because the matrix verb, believe, is in its
passive form, it moves to the only place of the sentences where it can get case: spec-IP.
Here, it will be given a covert nominative case by the finite inflexion.
However, although we have resolved how the sentence in (1b) is derived andwhat kind of pronoun it has for the subordinate infinitival clause, we still have to known
what subject we have in the spec-IP position of the to-clause of (1a). First of all we need
to know if the itelement in this sentence is an expletive or a content pronoun. In order
to know it, we apply the same construction as in (25).
(27) a. !! The birdwas requested not to park hereb. !! The birdwas requested not to eat here
c. The birdeats here
Just in case someone would say that the anomaly of (27a) is given by the fact
that the noun phrase the birdcannot be the subject of the verb parksince this requires
the feature [+HUMAN]; we have proposed a similar sentences in (27b) with a verb that
can perfectly match the subject bird in a simple sentence, as in (27c). So, with this
simple test, we can prove that the element in subject position in (1a) is an expletive
instead of a content pronoun. However, the fact that the anomaly of (27a) is given by
the fact that Birds dont park cars is interesting from a syntactic perspective. If, as we
have shown previously with some tests, the NP following the verb require is the
complement of the verb and not the subject of the subordinate clause, why is it
understood as if it were its subject? Moreover, if the sentence is grammatical it follows
that there is a subject, in concordance with the EPP. Then the proposal we have to make
is that there is a PRO subject in this case, since itin (1a) is an expletive and not a raised
element7. This kind of element receives case from its inflection and theta-role from the
predicate in its clause, in our case it would be park. We assume that it has a case since
every pronoun has to fulfill the case-filter principle and we also take it for granted that it
is theta-marked since it has the semantic role of agent. However, as we can see from the
evidence above in (27a) and (27b), for instance; the controller of this pronoun is the
7We discard the option of being a content pronoun since it would be then grammatical to substitute it
with a singular, [-HUMAN] NP, the kind of element that itstands for. Besides, expletives are inserted to
satisfy the EPP, not by raising, since, were they so, they would have some semantic content.
7/29/2019 Argumentation Essay FINAL
17/24
17292 English Language: Grammar II
ESTUDIOS INGLESES
GROUP 320
17
complement of the verb, reason why this sort of verb is named Obligatory Object
Control. Nevertheless, in our original sentence, things are a bit more complicated than it
is in (10a) since there seems to be no overt complement. In order to account for this
disparity, we provide the lexical entry for this verb in (28).
(28) Request(x, y) x: goaly: theme
[ _ Sub. Clause]
Y
As we can see thank to the lexical entry, the complement that we have been
introducing in the examples in order to make the similarity with the overt pronoun in
(10b) more significant can be omitted. If we take back the concept of generic reference,
we can posit that there is a semantic complement that is not present in the syntactic
derivation. By being generic and indefinite, it can be omitted, as proposes Fernandez
Soriano (1989) (quoted in Bosque and Guitirrez-Rexach (ibid.)). Furthermore, as we
have said that it is present in the semantic representation, we can argue that the PRO
element in the infinitival clause takes as reference this generic element and hence we
have a generic or arbitrary PRO (Bosque and Guitirrez-Rexach, 2009: 367). This can
be taken to more concrete spheres if we retake the sentences in (9) that we number hereas (29).
(29) They requested everybody not to park here.
Here the NP everybody is the complement of the matrix verb, as shown before
with the case ofhim, but it is also the referent for the PRO subject in the subordinate
clause. Moreover, with this evidence we can also argue that there is a CP domain, which
was not the case in the verb believe. We are able to propose this since the inflexion is
not defective, as we can see by the fact that it gives null case to its subject. However, we
still have one problem. If the subordinate sentence in question is a CP, we may try to
insert a complementizer, but the result would be ungrammatical, as the example in (30)
shows.
7/29/2019 Argumentation Essay FINAL
18/24
17292 English Language: Grammar II
ESTUDIOS INGLESES
GROUP 320
18
(30) a. *They request itforit to be missingb. *They requestforit to be missing
These examples could prove that the sentence in (1a) is not a CP. However theungrammaticality of these utterances can be straightforwardly explained: if we propose
an overt complementizer that introduces the complement clause, it would lead to the
inclusion of an overt subject for the [-FIN] inflexion. However, this overt subject cannot
be found in a control predicate, since this is a lexical requirement of this type of verbs.
Therefore, if there is an overt subject there is no control and the sentences turns to be
ungrammatical. To have a more visual idea of what this all means, we represent the
syntactic derivation of the sentence in (1a) in (31).
7/29/2019 Argumentation Essay FINAL
19/24
17292 English Language: Grammar II
ESTUDIOS INGLESES
GROUP 320
19
(31) It is requested not to park hereCP
C
3C IP
[+PROP] 3
NPsubject I4 3
It I VPaux
[+FIN]
is V3
Vaux VPlex
tbe V3
Vlex CP
requested C
3
C IP
[+PROP] 3
AdvP I4 3
not NP I
4 3PRO I VPlex
[-FIN] 3
to NP Vlex4 tp
TPRO Vlex AdvP4
park here
This tree diagram summarizes all that we have been showing with the tests and
the analysis. The P-marker shows that the element it is directly merged with the
intermediate constituent of the [+FIN] inflection, as it is characteristic of expletives.
Besides, it is important to note that we have not included a constituent for the omitted
argument of the verb. The debate on whether it should be placed or not in the syntactic
derivation is deep to be dealt with here, so we just take the proposal that it is relevant
for the semantic representation of the sentence, aspect that is shared by those who are
against of including the empty category and those who are in favor. By being of
7/29/2019 Argumentation Essay FINAL
20/24
17292 English Language: Grammar II
ESTUDIOS INGLESES
GROUP 320
20
relevance in the semantic derivation, we then propose that the PRO, which raises from
the internal position within the VP to be assigned case, is controlled by this empty
category.
To conclude with this first of the paper let us revise the characteristics of theECM verbs and the Object control verbs. The formers take two arguments, one of which
is external and the other the internal argument, that is, the complement. This
complement is an exceptional clause, what means that it has no CP domain and its
inflection is incapable of assigning case to its subject. Therefore we find that the matrix
verb gives objective case to the subject of the IP, what is known as Exceptional Case-
Marking. The Object Control Verbs are categorized by the fact that they take three
arguments: one external and two complements. On the opposite of what we find with
ECM clauses, here we do have a CP domain. However, the complementizer cannot be
overtly realized, since it is a lexical requirement of these verbs that they do need a PRO
subject within the subordinate clause. The only way to have this concrete sort of subject
is to have a non-defective inflexion that can assign null case. The last characteristic of
these verbs is that the controller of PRO is not the subject as happens with the typical
control verbs, such as try. On the contrary it is the complement of the matrix verb which
imposes the semantic content to the PRO subject. However, we have to take into
account that some verbs may omit their complements, as in the case ofrequest. This is
only possible if the internal argument is generic and indefinite. Furthermore, though
omitted, it will play a role in the semantic derivation. Hence it is from this omitted
argument that PRO gets its content, reason why it is understood as generic also.
Moreover, we may also find that there are more kinds of verbs in English. Take
for example (3), which we number here as (32).
(32) It is hoped to return to this issue.
We may argue if the verb hope cab be said to belong to the same class ofrequest
or believe. In order to do so, we apply here two tests that will help us to develop the
answer: insertion of a non-finite existential clause in complement position and seeing if
there are semantic restrictions by the matrix verb. However, in order to proceed with
these modifications, we are going to start with the active counterpart of (32), as we did
with the first sentences.
7/29/2019 Argumentation Essay FINAL
21/24
17292 English Language: Grammar II
ESTUDIOS INGLESES
GROUP 320
21
(33) They hope to return to the issue.
So we begin by the insertion of an existential clause. As we said before, if theresult is grammatical, that would be that the matrix verb allows a phonetic realization of
the subject in the subordinate clause. If the result is ill-formed, the direct suggestion is
that it is not possible to have realized the subject of the infinitival verb. The sentence is
given in (33).
(34) *They hope there to be water
As this example proves, the insertion of an existential clause is ungrammatical.
The reason for it to be so is that the expletive there has to be the subject of the verb be
and this causes ungrammaticality. This would lead us to classify the verb hope as
request, since both of them do not allow the existential clause. However, an interested
point is given in (35).
(35) They hopeforthere to be water
This example could be said to be in struggle with the one in (34). However, as
we said before, the over complementizer obligatorily forces to have an overt subject in
the subordinate sentences, so the grammaticality of the sentences can be explained. We
can conclude with this piece of evidence that with a for complementizer, the overt
subject of a subordinate non-finite clause is viable. However, we may also wonder what
we have in (33) since there seems to be no subject. As in the case ofpark, we may argue
that there is a PRO, which is controlled by the subject of the matrix verb. We assume
that it is the subject because the verb hope only subcategorizes for a complement which
has to be a subordinate clause, as the lexical entry shows in (36).
(36) Hope (x, y) x: experiencery: theme
[ _ Sub. Clause]
Y
7/29/2019 Argumentation Essay FINAL
22/24
17292 English Language: Grammar II
ESTUDIOS INGLESES
GROUP 320
22
As this shows, since the verb in question does not have a complement, it is
therefore impossible to have an object control. The last option we have is that the matrix
subject is the reference for the PRO subject in the to-phrase. In order to prove so, weapply the second test we have mentioned before, to see if there are semantic restrictions.
The evidence is given in (37).
(37) !! I hope to melt.
This example shows that there is a semantic anomaly in the sentences. However,
it could be argue that it is given for two different ways: (i)Iis a raised element, whose
original position is in spec-IP of the verb meltor that (ii)Iis the controller of PRO and
hence this is the source of the anomaly. The decision among the two options can be
made if we take back the lexical entry we have previously provided. As it shown, hope
is a bivalent verb, that is, it requires two arguments. Since the grammaticality of the
sentence is taken for granted and it is not passive, we can argue that the two arguments
are present. Besides, I in the first example is understood as the experiencer of hope,
rather than the theme ofmelt, -role that actually has PRO. Note that we say that Iis
the experiencer, we are not making any reference to what the reference in the real world
is. Of course ifIis the controller of PRO, their reference in the real world would be the
same. However, semantically they have different theta-markings: experiencer and theme
respectively. A last argument to think that I is not raised is the theta-criterion. This
posits that: (i) an argument can only be assigned one theta-role and (ii) a theta-role
would only be assigned to a one argument. If, as we have just said, I and Pro have
different markings, it must be thatIis not a movement constituent, since it would have
been given two different theta-roles in the derivation of the sentences: first theme of
meltand secondly experiencer ofhope. WouldIhave been given these two, the theta-
criterion would have been violated and therefore the sentence would have been
ungrammatical. However, it is not, so we can claim that Icontrols the PRO subject in
the subordinate clause.
Having seen this behavior of the verb hope we are able to say that it belong to
the category known as FOR-TO verbs. The main property of this sort of verbs is shown
by hope: they do have a CP domain. The importance point to make is that when the
7/29/2019 Argumentation Essay FINAL
23/24
17292 English Language: Grammar II
ESTUDIOS INGLESES
GROUP 320
23
subject of the infinitival clause is overtly realized, it is obligatory to have an overt
complementizer, as the example in (35) shows. This need is accounted for by the fact
that an overt pronoun cannot receive null case. Therefore foris needed to provide with
objective case so that it fulfills the case-filter. However, things are different if we have aPRO. Since this pronoun is the only that can carry null case, the appearance offor is
unnecessary and actually gives ungrammaticality, for the reason that we gave for the
verbpark: if the complementizer is present, then there is no control, which is a lexical
requirement of the verb.
Having just seen the properties of these verbs, we can take back the statement
made at the beginning of the paper. Using the verbs request, believe and hope as an
excuse, we can see how their nature and typology allows us to predict what the nature of
the possible sentences are, since they impose certain syntactic and semantic
requirements, which make the whole sentences ungrammatical or grammatical. Thus we
can understand why the importance of the study of verbs in syntax is such and where
their relevance resides.
7/29/2019 Argumentation Essay FINAL
24/24
17292 English Language: Grammar II
ESTUDIOS INGLESES
GROUP 320
24
References
- Bosque, I. and Guitirrez-Rexach, J. 2009. Fundamentos de Sintaxis Formal.Madrid: Akal.
- Bybee, J. 1985. Diagrammatic Iconicity in Stem-Inflection Relations. InHaiman, J. (ed.)Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing
Company.
- Crystal, D. 2008.A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonology sixth Edition).Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
- Fernndez Soriano, O. 1989.Reccin y Ligamento en Espaol: Aspectos delParmetro del Sujeto Nulo. PhD thesis: Autonoma University Of Madrid.
- Mendikoetxea, A. 2003. On the Intricate Relation between Theory andDescription: A Linguists look at The Cambridge Grammar of The English
Language. In Crculo de Lingstica Aplicada a la Comunicacin. 16: 3
41.
- Radford, A. 2004. Minimalist Syntax. Exploring the Structure of English.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.