VERBAL COMPLEMENT CLAUSES
LINGUISTII< AKTUELL TI1is series provides a platform for studies in the syntax
,
semantics, and pragmatics of the Germanic languages :md their historical developments. The focus of the series is represented by its German title Lingl�istik Aktuell (Linguistics Today). Texts in the series are in English. Series Edilor \Verner Abraham Germanist isch lnstituut Rijlciuniversiteit Groningen Oude Kijk in 't jatstraat 26 9712 EK Groningen The �etherlauds E�rnail:
[email protected] Advisory Editorial Board Guglielmo Cinque (University ofVenict) GHntlH�r Grewendorf (University of Stuttgart) Uliane llaegeman (University ofGeneva) 1 1 ubert llaider (Universil)' of Salzburg) Christer Platzack (University of lund} Jan Roberts {University of Stuttgart) Ken Satlr (Rutgers Universil)'· New Brunswick �J) lloskuldm Thciinsson (Urlh•ersity of Iceland. Reykjavik) Usa det\·fena Travis (McGill University) Sten Vikner (University of Stuttgart} C. Jan-Woutcr Zwart (Uuiversily of Groningen)
Vol ume 25 Claudia Felser Verbal Complement Clauses A minimalist study of dir&et perception constructions
VERBAL COMPLEMENT CLAUSES A MINIMALIST STUDY OF DIRECT PERCEPTIO
CONSTRUCTIO
S
CLAUDIA FELSER University of Essex
JOH
BENJAMINS PUBLfSHING COMPANY AMSTEROA).f
/PHILADElPHIA
The paper used m tlus publication meets the mmnnum requirements of
TM
American National Standard for Information Sctenccs- Pemtancnce of Paper for Pnnted Ubrary Matcruls. AKSI Z39·4S-r984.
OC)
Librarr of Congrc..o;s Catalog)ng-in-f>ublication Data Fdser. Cbudia. Verbal complement clauses : a mmimalist study of direct �rceptton constructions 1 Claudia Fclser. p. em.·· (Lmgmsttk akruellfl.mgutstlcs today. ISSN 01&6·0&2<.): v. 25) lndudes bibhographtcal references and index. 1. Grammar. Comparatwe and gt>nerai-Verb phrase. 2. Grammar. Comparam·c and general Complement. 3. Grammar. Comparatwc and gcucraJ.. Cbuses. I. Ttt1e. II. Scncs: Lmgmst1k aktuc11 : Bd. 25. P28LF-ts
1999 99·2H96
415-�c21 ISBN 90 272 2746 2
(EU R) /1
55619 909 ()
(t:s) (Hb. aUc.. paper�
CIP
© 1999 - John Bcnlamms B. V. No part of thts book may be reproduced m any form. by print. photopnnl microfilm. or any other me-ans.
\VIthcmt wnttcn penmss1on from the publisher.
John BenJarmns Pubhslung Co. John Ben1amms Korth Amenca
·
·
P.O.Box 75)77 P.O.Box
27519
·
•
1070 ,\N A�>t STERDA.M
Pluladclphta
The Netherlands
PA 19118.()519
·
usA
Fiir meine Eltern
Contents
Pretacc Abbreviation. and Symbols Pe1ception Verb� and Generative Grammar 1 . 1 Jmroduction 1.2 The Problems 1.3 The Aim and Scope of this Study 1.4 Organi.auon 1.5 Over\'iew of the 'llleoretical Framework 1 . 5 . 1 0-Theory and Merger 1.5.2 Argument Movement 1.5.3 Functional Categorie.., and Head t\•1ovemcnt 1.5.4 Bmding and Control 2
Synta�tic
rope1tte� of I PVC. 2.2.1 Oeterminmg Constituency 2.2.2 Ab. ence of Finitene,c;. tvtarkers and Auxilianes 2.2.3 t{estrictions on Pass ivi.auon 2.2.4 Re,c;trictions on 1'/u:re Insertion 2.3 Semantac Properties of I PVC� 2.3.1 Tempoml Simultaneity 2.3.2 Re,c;trictions on the Predicate 2.3.3 Logical Propertae. of Bme lnfi muves 2.3.4 Restrictions on Bare Plural Subjects 2.4 S ummary of the Propenies of I PVC� 2.5 Perception "ersus Cau. attve Comptcmen11 2.6 Participial Perception Complement� 2.6.1 Tlle J\mbiguiry of Participta1 Complement. 2.6.2 The Oitference between PPVC.c; and JPVC. 2. 7 Summ
XI
xii
I 3 4 6 7 9 I0 II 13
16 16 17 18 25 26 33 36 38 39
46 50 52 53 57 59 76 80
viii 3
con t e n t s The Structure of Dtrect Percepuon Complemems 3.1 lmroduction 3.2 Previous Analyse. 3.2.1 'll\e CP Analy. i. 3.2.2 The lP Ana.ly. ts 3.2.3 PYCs as b:ue VP. 3.2.4 PYCs as Small Clau es .. 2.5 Pl'e lnm nar Summary 3.3 An Alternattve: PVC a. A pect Phrase. 3.3. 1 Aspect a. a Syntactic Head 3.3.2 The Structme of PVC. 3.4 Summary .
4
,
The l:.vem-Control AnalysL 4.1 lmroduction 4.2 '11\e Syntax of t::vem Arguments 4.2.1 Evidence for an Extra Argument PostttOJl 4.2.2 Tbe Po. ition of External Argument� 4.2.3 '11\c Syntacuc Statu. of E 4.3 Perccptton Verbs i"C Control Predicates 4.3.1 ·n,e Non-Stative Character of Perception Verbs 4.3.2 Event Control in PVCs 4.3.3 Again. 1 f•vtulttple Binding 4A Deriving the Propertie. of Pen:eptual l{epom 4.4.1 Bare Evem Complements 4.4.2 Accounttng for Snnuhaneity 4.4.3 Selectional Re:-.tnctions on the Predicate 4.4.4 'll\e Distribution of Expleuve '11tere 4.4.5 Interpreting Bare Plurals 4.4.6 Deri tng Other Semantic Pmpet1te. 4.4.7 11\e Con. traim agamst Pas. tve 4.5 Extensions of the Analy. ts 4.5. 1 Comp1emem:-. of Aspectual Verbs 4.5.2 AdJunct-Predicate Construclions 4.5.3 Purpose Clause:-. 4.6 Summary
90 90 91 91 93 99 107 I 13 114 114 121 125 1 28 1 28 1 29 1 29 134 142 145 148 149 1 52 155 1 55 1 58 165 1 67 1 7-l 176 180 1 90 1 90 192 194 195
contents
5
Dtrect Percep1ion Complemelll!!. in Ollter European Language.
204
5.1 lmroduction
204
5.2 Aspectu al Complememation in German and Dutch
206
5.2.1 Am and Aan·l a. Aspectual t-.1tarkers
208
5.2.2 The Syntax of ACI and Prepo$itional lnfintttve Complement.
213
5.2.3 Verb Rai�ing m Perceptual Reports
222
5.2.4 Summary
227
5.3 Direc1 Perception Complement. in Romance
6
ix
227
5.3.1 ACI Complements
228
5.3.2 P. eudo-Relative Complemenh
233
5.3.3 Prepo�itional Infinitive.
237
5.4 Summary
239
Conclusion
248
Reference.\\
,-3 _)
Subject index
267
Aulhm index
275
Preface ·nte pre�em study grew out of my doctoral thesi. on the .ymax of perception vert>s
111 cngli. h. submmed to the Faculty of History and J>htlology ;\l lhe Umversity of Gtsuingen 111 June 1995. On the way to bel.'ommg a book. llu. work ha� undergone many substamial change.. although lhe original proposal. and anal.,se. ha\•e largely been mamtained. All chapters have been revi.ed and updated. Chapter. 2 and 3 have been shortened and reorgam. ed. and detail:-> of the analy.es in chapter 4 have been modined. Mo:-t of the matenal presented in Chapter 5 i� new.
I wt h to thank all those who.in one way or other.have comributed to thts book·. corning mto being. I am grateful to Werner Abraham. f\·1artm Atkinson. Harald Clahsen.T homas Gardner. Hero JanBen. Mike Jon e..Andrew Radford. Laura Rupp. Te�sa Say. and two �monymous re,•iewers for numerou. helpful comment. and sugge�tion.. for providing nattve .peaker judgements or offering further data.
I thank my fnends and colleagues at Uouingen and t:: ex for thetr �upport and en . .
couragement. Pan of the re. earch underlying lhi. stud, was funded b)r a DAAD re.�earch scholarship awarded to me in 1 993. which i. gratefully acknowledged. J am mdebted toTe.sa Say for bi'Ushing up rny cngli.h and t'heckmg some of the data. �eedle,. to ay. I take the sole re�ponsibility for all remmning errors. I thank Kecs Vaes f rom Benjamins for helping me with the layout. Special tltank. are due to rny parent!\ for everything they have done for me. La t but not least. I thank Harald Clahsen for hi:-. pallen�:e and moral suppon. and for helping me keep m
feet on
the ground.
Claudia Fdsrr
Colrheswr. January /999
Abbreviations and Symbols
3
existemial operator
1VAP
AdJective/Adjeclival Phrase
1\CC
accusative case
1\CI
lkcu.,·tuiw,• und lnjinilil't! con . truction
Adv/AdvP
l\dverbl/\dverbml Phrrue
Agr/AgrP
AgrecmenllJ\greemem Phnue
Ag•O/AgrOP
Agreemem-ObJeC.:I!Agreemem -Object Phrase
AgrS/AgrSP
Agreemem-SubJect/1\greement-Subjet't Phrase
A.piA. pP
A.pect/ Aspeel Phrase
Al.5X
amahary
Bl
Bru·c lnnnitive
BT
Binding Theory
C/CP
Complememiser/Complemcmiser Phra. e
D/DP
Determiner/Determiner Ph.1·a. c
DP�,_
object DP
DP.,
subject DP
t:te
cvem argumem
EC�J
ex.:;eptional ca.�e marking
ECP
Empty Category Principle
rl
rull Interpretation
GBN
generic operator
HJ\B
habuual operator
1/IP
lnOecrion/lnfJection Phm. e
ILP
mdtvidual-level predicate
INF
mfinitival morpheme
IPl'
ll{/ilfifilltJS Pro Participio
I PV C
Infinitival Perception Verb Complement
EPI,
Extended Projecrion Principle
LF
Logtcal Fonn
�Jl'
�Jmimah. 1 Program
�/NP
�oun/�oun Phra. e
�EG
negative marker
�eg/NegP
�egation/�egation Plml!'e
abbt·evi a t ions and .ymboh )10� OBJ Op P/PP Pe rf/PerfP Pr PH PIC POSS J>PVC Pr/PrP PRC PRT PVC Q/QP QR
s sc SLP T/TP I
UG UTAH v/vP
V/VP VR VTA
nonunative case objective c�e null ope rator Prepostrton/Prepo. it ional Pht·a:-c Perfect/Perfective Phrase Phonetic Form Progresstve Hypothesis Preposntonal I nlinitive Complement pos.e..ive Part ici pia l Percept ion Verb Complement Predicate/PI'edic.ate Phr;ue P. eudo-Relative Complement panide Perception Verb Complement Quantitlet/Quamitier J>hrase quant ifier ra isi ng S ente nce . mall dau�e stage-level predrcare ·tensefl'cnse Phra. e movement trace Untver�aJ Grammar Uni fornuty of·llleta Assignment Hypothesis li ght verb/hght verb Phrase Verb/Verb Phrase Verb Ra istng verb of tempmal aspect
X
tit
1 Perception Verbs and Generative Gran1n1ar
l.l Introduction Lingui. tic theory as developed by ChOJn.;ky l l 957. and later) asl>ume. that there exi. b. a . yntactic level of represe ntallon from whtch semantic interpretations are denved. that ts. a level whtch ·feed. · semamic. propeL ·n1e prectse nature of the uueraction betwee n s�rmax and ,emanllCl>. however, has been subject to much de bate from lhe early days of gener.uive theot ,. suggested by Chom. ky· s re mark. Hl Svntactic StrttCiltl'l'S: There ts no aspect of linguisuc study more subJect to confuston and more in need of dear and c:treful fonnulution than that whi h deals wtth the point� of connection be tween syntax and sc manttcl>. l . . . ) The 1ssuc hu.s hcen whether or not semantic informa tion is rcqmred fordJscovcnng or selecting a (!rammar: und the challenge usually posed by those who take the aflirmati\'e in thts dispute ts: ·How can )'<>U const ruc t a grammar with no appeul to meaning'?' (Chomsky 1957: 93) In the late Stxties. the tdea was put forward that lhe . urface suucture ol sentence· dcnv� from their undctlying semanttc fot m (McCawley 1 96K. Lakotr 1971 ). How ever. the Generath'L' S£>nwntics approach ultimately failed. and tt was recognised that the relation. hip betweens. max and. emmllics b more complex than pre tously thought. In Cl1onhk)''. ( 1 9 8 1 . ancl latet) iew. s. max con. tilutes an aulonomous module of grammar wtuch provtdes the inpul lor an (equall. autonomou. ) semantic module via an interface leve l known as Logtcal R>ml (lr). Although much l'e:-.earch hru . ince been devoted to explonng the wa in whtch syntax and , emantics are related. the nature and properties of Lr are . till comrover:-.ial. al> Choml>ky and Lastuk ( 1993: 5 1 Of.) note: To capture whnt the bngu:t�c fucuh)· detcnmncs about the mcaning of an exprcsston. it lu .. LFI must be umversul l . . . 1. The (;Ondillons arc more ohst·urc than m the case of the phoneuc analogue. hecause the systcnL' at the ILFI interface .trc much lcs." well undc.ts tood (. . .). Within l11e Mi1timuli 1 Pm�ram developed by Chomsky and his followef:' during the early 1'\ineties. u.: has come to play a central role by vinue of being the on/)
c:l aud1a fe l se1·
2
�yntactic level of representation that the theory recogni.e� (see Section 1 . 5 below for a hnef overview of the theoretical framework). Durmg the pa. t t\ o de�ade!\. numerous resea�hers have . mdted the syntax semantics intesface from a generattve per. peccive (see e.g. May 1977. 1985: Huang 1 982. Oiesing 1 992a.b. Aoun and Li 1993. or Hmnstein 1 995). 'll1e leading idea of thi. hne of re. earch ha. been chat sem�muc imerpretation 1s to a considerable extem determined by syntactic .stru�ture. and that S)'lllacllc and . emantic representations converge to a .sub. tantial degree (. ee Lar:-on and Segal ( 1995. Ch. 3) for some dis cussion of1lus i!\..� ue). Perception verb con. u·uction. . which have always constttuced something of a challenge both for generall\fe S)'ntax and formal . emantk theorie..�. are of particular intere. c to the . tudy of LF because the .;;ymact ic. hape of perceptual complement!\ correlate..; vet .. strongly with . pecitk emanuc ptopcnie. . Thi!\ of cour. e rats� the question of whether and lO what extent the Iauer can be derived from the former. Verb. of JlerceJ>Uon sul..' h a st>e. hear or jt•l'l ad nut a wide range of complements. utduding four dtlferem typ� of ·vetbar complemems: finite clau. e . . full mtinl tive�. bare inlinitives (i.e .. verbs in the intirlit ive form that are not accompamed by the infinitival marker w). and partictpial complements (ct. la-d).' � ( t)
a. b. c. d.
We saw !hat John wet dmwiJtg a circle We saw John to be a (!ood srutlem We . aw J'-'lary leavt• We saw M(tr' r lem·iug
In add1tton to lhe active ''erb forms shown m ( t ) ome perception verbs al.o admit complements containing a bare pas t part1c1ple. <1J in /.sau tlw childrt.•lf bn11en /)\·their rivals w�-lmer 1 987: 1 99). Verb. of perception are known to vary m mcan mg depending on chc cype of complement they occur with (compare e.g. Borkm 1973. Gee 1975. \•an der Leek and J ong 1982. or Gramley 1 987). Whereru the pre. ence of eithe1 a bare inrinitive or panicipial complement indue� what is known a.� a dirar perception ullerpretation. pen!eption verb. followed by a finite dau�e or a full mnnmve take on an ep1s1cnuc reading. or arc !.aid to describe an act of indirt>cl pnceplhm. � 'll1e difference between d1rcct •md indirecl perception is illustrated by the contrast between <2a). wluch concains a bare infinitive. and (2b). which comams a nnite complemem dau.e: •
(2)
a. b.
.
I �w John smoke I saw !hat Jolm ·''muknl
While it 1. nece.��ary tor John to be . mokmg at the ttme of �eeing tor sentence (2a) to be ti'Ue. the truth of sencence (2b) doe, not depend upon thts. In other words. . cntence (2a) can only be imerpreted as the dtrect physical pea'Ception of the evem
i n t t·oducrion
3
of John"s .moking. whereas (2b) de�rib�" an inference. thai is. a conclusion the spe.tker
In sum. then. il appear. thai percepuon verb. are pmenuall. aml>1guous between a drrecl and an indirecl perception readtng. As lhe two readings available for percep tion ver� are . )'Siematicall related to dtfferem complemem type.. we might a.-:k to what extent the . emantic properties of perception semences can be derived from £heir syntactic shape.
1.2 The Problems
Jnllniti al and participial percepuon complements. both of which are as. ociated with a direcl perception reading. are characterised by a curious clu. ter of !!.yntactic and semantic properties man, of whtch do not appear to be linked in an. obviou. wa These mclude the ab. ence of tiniten�. marker. and aspectual auxiliar ie •. re.miction� on the sema.nttc type of the predic,.ne. the unavailability ol main clau!!.e passive. . and see1mingly arbitrary resu ktrons on then> msenton. 'Jllb du. rering of propeuie. . which i� peculiar to
daudaa f e l ser
4
W herea$ wuhan Chomsky'. ( 1965) Jbpt•cts model it was possible to derive non finite perceplton complements transfonnationally from underlying full dau. es (conlpa•-e e.g. Rosenbaum 1967 or Declerck 1983a). perception sentences were difficult to accommodate within the Ciownmu•m am/ Bindin� (GB) framework outlined by Chomsky (1981). Here.the lransfonnational component was reduced to a single movement operation J.._,/ow•-a. whale the ProJn:rion Prindp/(' demanded that the argument slructmeof lexical item. must be pre..�ervcd throughout the deriva tion. Given a comparatively poor inventOI)' of functional categone.. in conjunction wuh the Strucrurall'aral/t>lism Hypotht•sis (Chom.ky 1980.Ko.ter and �Jay 1982)
according to which al l intini t h•a l construction). are .structurally analogous to full clause:-..syntactically reduced verbal complements .uch as the bare infinitive com plement. of perception verbl> did not .eem to tit imo the picture. Consequently. perceptual reports came to at'qutre a certain notoriety among generative researchers. which is captured nicely by Declerck's (1983a. I 05) ratherdisillu ioned conclu.ion rhat Eng lish JPVC' s 1- infinitiwli/JrTN'fJIIOTI w·rb romplt>ml'llls) sull present a serious prob lem for tr
the syntax of du-er:t perception . entcnce:> has once again
become a fol'US of anterc.�l. New theoretical developments-. uch ru the VP-IIIIl'nwl Sul�jn·r Hypoth£>sis (Kilagawa 19X6. Kuroda 1988. Koopman and Sponil:·he 1991. among other:-). the wcakenmg of the structural paralleh.m hypothe. is t Chomsky 1986a). and the postulauon of further functional categones-gave rise to new pro po.ab regardmg the . tructure of direct perception complements (see.for in. tan..:e. Benni. and Hoekstra 1989. Guasti 1993. or Safir 1993). Their proposal. will be critically evaluated an the later pa11 of this study.
1.3 The Aims and Scope of this Study Rogcr.�t ( 1971. 1974) distinguishe. three different . emanuc type. of perception verbs: {i) non-agentive or ·cogntttve· verbs. (ii) agemive or ·acttve· verbs. ;.md (iii) descriptive verb.. illustrated by (3a-c). re. pechvely: (3)
a.
We could hear/l>eeJsmell/.. .our neighbou�· dog
b.
We were h.tening to/watching/smelling/ .. . our neighbottrl>· dog
c.
'111at dog ,1\ounw /looks/.melis/ ... awful!
Table l4) provides an overview of Rogers· dassilkauonal .ystem.w h t ch ru. oci-
i n t r·oducrion
5
ale$ each of the five human .enses with a set ot at lea.�t three (semantically related) ' verb. . some of which appear to . erve as muluple homonyms: (-l)
cogni t iv e
active
descl'i p t i v e
hear .ee smell1 taste1 fecl1
li. ten (to) look (at)/watch smell! taste� feel�
sound look smell� taste, feel,
Tlle present study focu. es on non.agemive perception verbs :o-uch erb. that allow bare infinitive. and panicip1al ·ing complemenL' to alternate freely. With [he exception of rill more ( 1963) and Declerck U981 a. 19&2a ). who. e work provides many valuable in. ights into the syntax of perceptual report:-.. liule aucmion has been paid m the pa.�t to the nature of the relatiOJt."lup between bare infinitive. and partkip1al complemems. 'll1ese two types ofnon-finlle complement alternate freely onl. after perception verb. in English. which. as 1 Will . how. i. not a mere coincidence. but can be attributed to lex1cal propentes of these verbs. 'f'he pnnc1pal aun. of this book are ( i ) to provtde an analy. 1. of dtrect perception complements within Chom. ky· s ( J 995) minimalist framework. and (ii) to show that the . emamic properties of perceptual reports can largely be dertvcd from the1r syn· tacuc structure and from lexical proper11es of perception verbs. In pu�uing these goals. I examine the general condlltort. under which verbal complemem. are licen. ed. and prov1de a po. stble explanation for their limtted di. tribution. The primary reference language t Engli. h. though [he propo. ed licen. tng condition. for verbal complements are assumed to hold universally. The pre. em . tudy focuse,'\ on complen1crus of percept ion verbs rather than on the-.11uperticially . imilar--comple· ments of cau:o.ative or permi.. tve verbs such a. make or IN. whtch pallem differently from the former and thus cannot strmglnforwardly be . ubsumed under 1hc same complement type (see Section 2.5 for a contrastive overview of the properties of causalive and perception verb:- in English). That the main propo.."als of this study and the analys� uggested for English do indeed C
c;J audsa fe I s e t·
6
under a purely l>emantic or under a purely (surface- )syntactic perspective. Higgin botham ·s ( 1983). eminal study on perceptual reports constitutes an earlier anempt to Jenve .ome of the logical properties of bare mfinitive complements from thelf
LF repre:-.entation. ·1ne analysi. of dire�.: I perception cort�tructions outlined in Chap ter 4 takes a . imilat approach. and aim.� to provide a unified accoom for thear . yntactic and . emanttc characteri.tic.. Note. however.that the present .rudy i. not concerned with lay an important role in an overall theory of human percepuon. �either do I have much to :-a. about the formal logico-semant ic repre)>entataon of perceptual report.. which f shall leave
ru
a maner for semantic. proper.
1.4 Organisation The remainder of this book is suuclured as follows. A brief introduction to the t'Cie vam theroretical concept. and notion. associated wirh the tvfinunalist Program is given m Section 1.5 below. Chapter 2 provides a detailed o erview of the )>yl\lactic and semantic charactertstic. of non-fimte perception complements in Engh.h. and uwestigate, the nature of the relauonshtp between bare mfiniuvcs and panidpial complements. It turns out that the two t)'pe-1 of complement pattern ahke in all rele vant respect. .whtch suggest. that they are in fact structurally analogous. and differ only with re-1 peel t o thetr aspectual spectlicauon. In Chapter 3. l cnucally evaluate some ear her analy.es of verbal small clauses. before pmposing an alternative syn tactic analysis for direct perception complement. thatts compatible wllh Cham. ky·.
(1995) mintmahsl framework. Specifically, f argue that both bare mfintttve.� and parti�iphll complem en ts are best �malysed a,� m;1ximal ptojecctons of the functional head A,·pc>ct. an analysis \Vhich accoun� nicely for a number of <.'haracteristic syn tactic propenie, of direct perceptton complements in Engli.h. Chapter 4 introduce.� the E\'l'nl Control Hypothesis. which dauns that verbs expre.-;. ing direct sensory percept1on act as a specific type of control predicate. It is $hown that the entire dus ter of propettae. rhat chatacteri.e du'ect perception complement. can be det ived from the assumption that percepuon verb. are lexicall
specified a. event control
verbs. The syntactic and semantic characteri)>tic. of perception <.'omplemems are thus shown to tallow from the imeractton between inherent lexical propenie. ol perception verb. and general principle.'> of grammar. ln Chapter 5. I examine direct perception construction. Ill other Westgermantc language. and in Romance. ll is shown that while the analy. is pmposed for English l'
i n t ,·odu(.' t ion
7
of verbal complemem daw.es rue system<.nically related to morphologscal properties ol verbs m the. e 1wo group. of languages. Finally. the central idea. and conclu. ions of thi. study are summari. ed Ill Chapter 6.
1.5 Overview of the Theoretical Framework
'llte l'riuc:iple�-aud- l'w ame1ers framework developed by Chomsky ( 198 1 )-.af.o known as GB T/wory-presupposes that humatl language 1s organi. ed as a modular sy. tern that itself forms part ol a larger cognitive or performance . )'Stem. The lan guage system compri e1 a lexicon. wh1ch store. the individual vocabllhH)' items of a given language together with their idiosyncratic phonetic. �emantic. and . yntactic mfonnatton. and a syntactic component. or grammar. whil:h genemte. more com plex hnguisttc expre...;sions from the lexical input. TI1e gcneucall. determined pat't of our grammatical knowledge. known as Uuiw • r a/ Grmmnar ( UG). is believed to provide a number of invari<.llnt princ1ples as well ru a �et of open pammctef'l'; which are fixed during the proce. s of language acquis1tton. and whose value settings may vary from lcmguagc to language. Ac cording to Chomsky t l 99 I : 4 I 7). syntax i. universal m lhe .1\ense t)H\1 there arc ··no rule. for panicular language. and no con. trucuon-. pecific p1 indples··. Um versal grammar i. itself orgam. ed in a modular fa. hion. compnsing a number of smaller subsystems . uch ru 0-theOl)'. case theory. and the theorie. ol bmding and control. each of wh1ch impose specific well-for·medness condition:- on syntactic . desctspuon. .6 Sin�..-e the late c1gluie.�. U B theory has g�adually been superseded by Ihe Minimal ; r Program (�I P ) developed by Chomsky ( 1 99 1 . and later) and ht. follower. . The �� P ditfer� from its predcce�sors in that it airru to reduce the grammatical appamtu. lo the conceptually nece. sary minimum. thereby getting one . tep do. cr to the ultimate goal ot explanatory adequacy. Many of the core concepts of GB theory are now argued to be obsolete. mcluding the Projection Principle. the SubJacency Condiuon. the notion of government. and the Empty Category Principle tECP). All of these are claimed to reduce to general economy con. tt
.
d (5)
audsa l fe
.
e t·
PF t
·Spell-Out'
I
l exicon
::::. lcomputational .yste�
· LF
'Move-CJ.· Tlle MP recognLes two level:-. of repre,en1a1ion onl)'. the imerface level. PF (·Phonetic Form') and Lf {·Logical Fonn· ). both of whtch are requned on concep tual ground. m they provsde in Iruction. for the aniculatOJ, -perceptual . ystem and the �onceptual-intenttonal system. re.pectively. The �yntaclk or computational sy. tem 1. a symbol-manipulating devtce whtch outputs slructul'al description. . conceived of a.;; reprc.entational pairs (.i.. .JT) lltal must sa1isfy the well-founedne. � condition. at LF and PE LF is the only level of rcpre, entation that has phrase,. . tructure properties. and hence the only level over whtch ymacttc well-fonnedn� s 1 condition. are detined. The Principle of Full lmcrprewlion (rl) demimd.� that PF and LF representa tions cotnam only material 1hat can be mtcrpreted by adjacent cognitive modules (Chomsky J98(»b). Lextcal items enter lhe computational . ystem each carrying a . et of ab. tract grammatkal teamrc. (·formal features·). and denvauons are dri en by rhe requirement that featur� which are not intetpr·ctable at 1he relevant inler f;\ces must be eliminated. ot· cltedwd. before. the derivation 1enmnate.s at Lf or before Spelt-Oul. A denvatton i. •aid to l'om•t'f!:l' only if all unimerpretable fea tw·e · such as ca�e featur�. or agreement features
J\ hnguisttc e:\pre�ion (SD) is a pair (�T.A) generated by an opttmal derivation . allsfymg mterface condtttons. (Chom. ky 1993: 43)
Whethet movement takes place overtly or not is determined by £he t-elative ·. trength · of the ca1egorial features as.�ociated wnh individual functional head.;;. whil·h ma.... vary from language to language. C\·1o"vement which takes place after all phoneucall, rele,·am in!ormation has been removed trom the der ivmion by applica tion of the function 'Spell-Out' i. called cm•t•rr movement � it no longet ha. any phonological consequence .N Among the former G B . ubtheories thai have ·urvived the muumahsr sprmg-dean are 0-theot, . the theot i� of binding and control. and movement and case theory. The taller. however. have been collapsed into a mol'e �eneral theory of motpho synractic fealllrf clu·l'king. which is assumed to motivate all type. of syntactic .
i n t r·o d u c t i o n
9
movement. The followmg pro ides a brief overview of the most important theorelt cal concepts and mechanisms �. octmed with the nunimaltst framework. J .5.1 0-TIIt:oJ ,. and Mergl'r
Each lexical head 1. as ociared with a panrcular thenuui(' grid (6-gnd) m the textcon whil:h spedfie. the number of argumenL� it rake$ (Williams I 98 I ) . The verb kis.\. for mstance. a typ1cal example of a monotran. Have (or dwulic ) prechcate. lil:ense�li two arguments by asstgmng each of them a di. tinct thematic rolt> (0-role). Thi. property can be reprc..c;enced .chematically a. follows:
fJ-marking 1:-. the mechanism by which thematit roles are assigned to XJ>s denot
tng the participanu of the actron or state-ol-atfatrs de. cribed by a given predkme. presumably in accordance wirh a universal mechani. m of 9-role �signment such as Baker's ( 19Sg) Uniftmnit)' t�/"11tew Assignment H-,1HIIhl'sis (UTAH). Although the notion of9-role 1s a syntactic one (see e .g. Cowper 1992: 48-56). 11 i often used more or le-"S . ynonymou:o.ly with the notion of semantac role. examples of which tnclude the roles of ag e n t . t heme. experience!'. etc. Argument. are sucres . 1vely merged into syntacrk po. 111on. in the order determmed by a tuniver. al) the matic hie1archy such as the following. which ha� heen sugge. ted by Gnmshaw ( 1 990: 8).'J (8)
(age n t (e xpel'iencet· � go a 1/. oun;e/1 ocat io n (t heme ) ) ))
·me argument which is most promment . emantically is also mo. t prominent syntactically. an idea which is c-aptured by Larson· s � 1 988: 382) argument linking principle: (9)
If a verb determines 6-roles e,. 6z. . . .. e... then the lowest role on the Thematic Hierarchy is assigned to the lowest argument in constituent . lructure. the next lowe. t role to the next lowe. t argument. and so on.
In order to mcJintain the genetalisatton that 9-marking is local in the .en. e rhat it t. restricted to the domain of the 0-marking head. Lar. on ( 1 988) propo ed that cer lnm verb phmsc. . notably those headed by l < datransitive verb. arc structurally more complex than pre tously thought. Chom. k)r ( 1 995) not only adopts Larson's pro posal but extend. n to other t)'J>CS of verb phrase ru well. Specifically. he propo. es all erb phra es (wnh the po:sible exception of unaccu. alive prechcat�) comprbe an outer vP . hell headed by an ab.tract agemive or causative 'light verb· v as well as an inner or core VP. ln accordmK-e with the predicate-mternal. ubject hypolhe.1s. Chomsk, sugge.�ts that the external argument-nO!mally. the argument rusociated
i n t a·od u<: t ion
9
movemenl. The followmg provsdes a brief overview of the most important theorett cal <.'oncepts and mechani. ms a-:. octmed with the mmimilhst tramework. 1.5 .I
8�T/Jt•OJ r and MerJ?t>r
Each lexical head a. ru ociated with a particular themttlit: J?rid (9-grid) m the lexrcon whkh specifies the number of argumenL� il rakes (Williams I 981 ). The verb kis.'. for mstance. a typrcal example of a monOlran. lltve (or dwulic) prechcate. license...; two arguments by a:--stgnmg each of them a distinct 1/temarh· role (9-wte}. Thi. propea1y can be represented . chematically a. follows: (7)
kis
V. (01.9�)
6�ttwrking 1:-- the mechanism by which thematic rot� are a. signed to XJ>s denot� mg the participant of the acuon or �tate-ol-affatrs descnbed by a given predicate. presumably in accordance wirh a universal mechani.m of 9-role �signment such as Baker'. ( l9K8) Uniformity of" l'lteta Assignment Hypmlu·sis (UTAH). Although rhe notion of9-role ts a syntactic one (.see e .g. Cowper 1 992: 48-56). tt i often used more or less . ynonymou. l, with the notion of semanllc role. examples of which mclude the role. of agen t . t heme. e x pe .- ie nce .- . etc. Arguments are succes savely merged imo syntactic posauon. in the order determmed by a ( univer. al) the maw: hierarchy such as the following. whic h hal> been sugge. ted by Gnmshaw ( 1 990: 8).'J (8)
(age n t (e xpcdencet· (goa l /soun. �ellocation (t heme))))
The argument which is mo. t promment semantically is also most prominent syntactically. an idea which i:- captured by Larson·. l I 988: 382) argument linking principle: (9)
If a ver b determme. 0-roles S 1 61 0,.. then the lowest role on the Thematic Hierarchy i. assigned to the lowest argument in cottl>tituent . tructure. the next lowe. t role to the next lowe. t argument. and so on. •
•
.
.
••
In order to maintain the genetalisauon that 0-markmg is local in the . en. e £hat it ts re..,tricted to the domain of the 0-marking head. Lar. on l I 988) proposed that cer tam verb phrase. . notably those headed by <\ dttran. itive verb. are .u·uctur alty more cmnplex than pre tously thought. Chomsk)1 ( 1995) not only adopts Larson· s pro po. al but extend. n to other type. of verb phrase ru well. Specifically. he propo. e. all erb phra�es (wllh the po.·sible exception of unaccu:-.ative predacat�) compri.e an outer vP . hell headed by an ab.tract agentive 01 cau:-.ative 'light ver b· v a. well as an inner or core VP. ln accordance \>'>'ilh the predicate�tnternal. ubject hypothe. is. Chorn.�ky sugge.;;ts that the extemal argument-normally. the argument associated
10
d audta fe l s e •·
wuh the agen t role--originate. in (Spec.vP). whereas all internal argument). of the verb originate inside VP. a. indicated in ( 10). ( tO)
vP
/'.
Ot>
v'
A
v
VP
A
(XP)
V'
A
V
DP.�
According to Chomsky (Chomsk)' 1 995. 3 I 2-16. 355-67). the extended erb phra. e accomo
Chomsky'. ( 1 9 H I : 49) Case Filter demand. that every phonetically reali.ed DP must be a....signoo eme. WiLhm minimalism . . tructurnl case must be dwcknl in an appropnate Sped liei'-Head configuration. and argumem rnovement (A-movement) 1. mouvated by 'I < I OP'. need to have its case feature checked against a corresponding feature of a funcuonal head. According to Chom. ky l I 995). a dtrect object DP must rai. e to the outer . pecifier of " in order to have it� case checked against the (OBJj ca. e teamre of a tran. it ive verb. a. md1cated m ( I I ). ·nle erb it.elf fonn. a com plex head \'b with the light verb '' to which it adjoms ovc11ly (compare Chom:-.ky · 1995: 308. 3 1 51 . 352). 10 .
i n t ,· o d u <." t i o n
(II)
Il
vi>
A
DP
vP
A
DP..,
v'
A
VP v b1011 1
. A
�.
t,
___...
The nominative case feature of the .UbJOCt DP (in finite dau. es) i. checked against a corresponding feature of the functional head T
�
the subJeCt rat. es to
(Spec.TP).
( 12)
Ca e theory has thus become an intergral part of a more geneml theory ol morpho-�yntactic fe,.nure checkmg. which
J .5.3 Ftmnional Categorif's and Head Movl'ment Pollock's { 1 989) and Chom. ky' s ( 1 99 1 ) sugge. tion that the tanner categOI)' lnll(ection) should be split up into separate T(e11sd and Agr(t'l'IIU'IIt) head. trig gered the po.tulation of numerous addltsonal funcuonal l..'ategories mduding Nega lion. Mood. J'.tll>dality. A.�JU!l"l and Vui<.'e he<1d. (see. for example. Ouhalla 199 1 .
Ch. 2). all of which have been argued to form pan of the inllectional l·omptex. or 'extended projection· of the verb in the . en. c of Grim.haw ( 1991 ). According to
d audta fe I . e t·
12
Lum. den { 1987) and Baker ( 1988). every gmmmatical feature i�. in principle. capa ble of projet:ting mto the :-yntax} ' Modal. and auxiliarie.'\ ( unle. s they are being used as mmn verbs) l. on the other hand. is a true syntactic 'dummy· m that it i. a :-.emanticnlly empty element that alternately function.
CP
A
C
TP
A
Spec
T"
A
T
vP
/"
OP.,
v'
A
v
VI,
A
v
DP.I.
Verbs carrying inllections must rai�e to the relevant functional head. m order to ha'e thetr mflectional features l:hecked agaima the wrre.. -;ponding features on these heads. Depending on the strength of the aus·acting head. thi. movement 1. eithes oven 01 delayed umil LF (Chomsky 1995. 232f.). All tensed verb. . for e�ample. must ultimatel. rai),e to T. In language). such as F1-ench where T IS :-.aid to be ·. trong· . th1s mo emem wsll be oven: in language. like Engli.h. on the other hand. T is assumed to be · weak'. so that majn verbs <1Je unable to raise to T overtly (compare e.g. Pollock 1 989).
i n t ··od u t.' t ion
13
I .5 .4 Binding and Comrol
Binding theory LBT) aims to provide a systematic account for the distribution of anaphors. pronoun:;. variable. and refernng exprc.c;. ion. (both of which are sub sumed under the label R-(•xpn>ssion). and forr pos. ible coreference relation. between the:-e. The nmion of bindinl( is defined as follow. : ( 14)
a
binds p if a c-conuuands P and <J.. p are l'Oindexc.d.
(Chom:-ky :md Lasmk 1993. 548)
BT t. behevcd to be operative at Lr tn that its principle. (A). (B) and (C) impo. e specific well-formcdness conditions on Lr t'epre. emation. . ( 15)
(/\ • An anaphor must be bound in a local domain. {B) A pronoun mwa be tree in a lor.al domain . (Chom. ky and La. mk 1 993. 549) (C) An R-expre. StOll mu�t be tree.
The grammatical module of control theory i. de. tgned exclustvely to account fot the distribtUton of the null pronominal PRO. which in English may serve as the . ubject of complex event nominal. and �nain types of mfinHtve. T'he notion of comml can be mformall>' denned as follows (adapted from Htgganbotham 1989: 495). ( 16)
Control i:. . een when an under. tood argumem take. for us amecedem an other local element with no transmisstott of thematic role.
Like all empty categories. PRO requite. a referential index { Rizzi I 986}. The reference of PRO t. determined by its antecedent if it ha. one: otherwise. PRO i. mdcxed freely. Unfortunate!�. a proper theory of control ha. nevet' been formulated. and much debate has been �:oncerned wHh the question of whether control theory constitute. a . eparate module of gramm
14
d audsa fel.se1· (I) I saw her corral lips to mo\'e
(Tmmng of tl!r Slm•w}
{ii) Who heard me 10 denk it or forswearc tt?
(Comedy of £rmrsl
For further examples. sec Poutsmn ( 192�: 39f.) or Jespe-rsen ( 1940: UU). The c.lisappcar an<:e of 10 from dire�o:t perception compk:mentJ> mi�ht be hnkc:d to the grummaucalisat1on
of the preposttlon to as a temporal muriccrdunng the Middle Engltsh period {compare \'an Gclderen
I 993).
2. Both bare mfinittvc and panu:ipi�l perception complcmt.:nts date rock to the Old Enghsh period. as the followmg exnmples (�o.·Jted hy Kageynma ( 1992: 92) and Denison ( 1993: 386)) show. (I)
Ill' gesrah Juu
he saw
licgan tL'IIIlt' snnw-hll'lllll' foctm
there he
a
snow-white
l'ake
'He suw there lying 11 snow-white cake' {u)
pn
�rsmh llt'o
/ul'l
ctld
licgtm 011 bumr
then saw she the ch1ld ltc m cnb 'Then she saw the ch1ld he m a crib' (Ill)
tt•r
hr ges/0 his lfijt! and lu:> bl'am
before he •.
(tvl
:.ee
.nw:lwndt'
his wife and lu:- chilc.ltren l dying
. . r�tther than sec h1s wtfc and cluldren dymg•
T/11.-. Pirnmtts. w/ucl1 hit•re I Sl'
th1s P1rnmuJ> whom here
I sec
: LJIC'drnde. ll'hat hath llr drsc•n·rd?
blccdmg
what h.ts
he deserved
'This Pmmtus. whom I see blccdin� here. what hns he done to deserve thts?'
3. These terms correspond to Dretskc's ( 1969) disllrn:llon between ·cptstemlc' and ·non· cpistcm1c' pel\:cpllun. 4. Sec Ch. 3 for some discussion of pre-nunimulist analyses. 5. A <>unilar system nm be found tn Palmer (1987: 76}. The thrc..-c groups of verbs dearly differ wtth respect to their thematic properttc:s. We muy take Rogers' ( I 971) ·dcscripuvc'
verbs to belong to the cla:s of unnccusattve predicates. that is. they faiI to asstgn an exter
nal 0-role and thus permit
u
more deeply embedded argument to bc:.comc the structuml
subJCl'L The ·rogmttvc' verbs diller from the ·acuves' m that the former take an cxpertcnccr subJect r.uhcr thnt an agenttvc one. Of course. neither Rof_crs nor Palmer datm to htt\'e pro\'ldcd <:�n c:xhaustm: list of verbs dcnottng pel\:cpt10n. For the purposes of the present study. there is httle pomt m trying to define the cltL"S of percepttOn verbs. or their subclasses. DCCordtngto purclysemnnticcntena h:Oill(XIFee.g. norkin t97�). Jnstc:td.
r �hnll focus on a relevant subset of pcrccptton verbs that pnucrn nlike syntactically.
6. For 11 comprehensiVe mtroductton to Prinnplcs-anc.l-Parnmeters theOfy. sec e.g. Cowper ( 1 992) or Hacgemnn U99.J). The more ad\'ancc:d reader mt�ht prefer
to
consult
Webelhuth ( 1995). whtch .:ontuins .1 collc<:tion of chapters each written by a speciulist in the urea undercons1dcmtion. Chomsky l l995)compnses :t number of Oftginal urt1cles that document the development of the minimalist frnmcwork Marantz ( 1 995}. Atkmson ( 1996) and Epstc:in l't al. ( 1996) ull olfcr uscful mtroductory overvtews of the �fmimulist �ogmm. f"'r a thorough m . c.l systernuttc introductton to the MP. see Radford ( 1997).
i n t ··od u c r i o n
15
7. Some resc:m.'hc.rs have argued for the exastence of pre- or extra-syntactic le\'cls such as
Lexacnl-Conceptu:ll Strueture tJaekcntloff I 972. 1997}. Ar�umcnt Structure (Grimshaw 1990). Event Structure {vtm Voorst 198 ). or Asp«tual Structure (Tenny 1994). Wh!le then: mt�t be good reasons for postulatmg such addttaonnl levels. tJ1e present study shall make no further reference to them. 8. LF (or ·covert ') mo"cment may be thou�ht of as tn\'olnng �n;·olatwn of the rele,•unt gr.tmmatical features to the attra tang hcnd. mthc.r than full category mo,·cmenl (com pare Radford 1997: 184-7).
9. Labels such as a g c n l . goa 1 . theme. etc have tmditJOnally been used to refer to indwiduttl 0-roks. or semantil· roles (see e.g. Juckendoff I 972). Several dtffcrcnt the malic hiemrc:hics have b«n proposed an the htemturc to date. L:uson l l 98g: 382l. for cx.unple. IL.;sume..s a hierurehy in wtud1 the t heme argument is more prominent thnn the goa I argument (hut sec .Strotk 1996 for cndence agmnst this ns..'iumptiOn. antl m favour of a Gnmshaw-typc htcrarchy ). What all nvmluble hacrarchtcs seem to agn:e on. though. is that the a g c n l argument is the most promtnent one.
10. In earlier work It w:1s as.o:utne<.l thut DPs check case in the sptoei flcr of AgJ(IWIUJ/11) heads (Chomsky I 99 I . 199.\). Chomsky ( I 995: 349-55). however. argues persuasively in favour of eliminating Agr-type cutcgone� from syntactic representations. In order to ensure that un adc.quatc numtx:r of spec1lier positions (or landing sites for A-movement) remmns avmluble. he suggests that mdtvadual he:ttl" rnuy huve multtplc spcc1hcrs. I I . Opimons ordering
are
ure
dtndcd
���
to whether the set of functaonal cttcgories and thctr rdattvc
f�xed unwersully (Chomsky 1995. .Sportiche 1995) or whether thc.-.c :tre
subJect to cro.ss-linguist1c vnnution ( lutridou 1990. Ouhallu I 991. ''an Gclderen I 993. among others). The present study shall rcm!lln neutral wtth respect to thts qucsllon. 12. Finite dcdurut ivcs not introdul·ed hy an overt complementtser mtght in fact simply be TPs (sec Boskunc ( 1995: 50f.) and Doherty 1997 for stm1lnr sug.gestions).
2 Syntactic and Sentantic Characteristics of Non-Finite Perception Con1plements in English
2.1 Introduction Tlu chapter aims to provide a detailed overvaew of the characteri.tk propenie. ol the two types of verbal complement thm are the focus of the p1esent study. mtintttval perception verb complements ( hencefonh. IPVC. ). and pamcapial pet ceptton verb complement. ( PPVCs). lt is . hown that non-agentive perception verbs licen. e three diflerent kmd!> ofclausal complements-finite clause. . full antinuivc.s. and bare infinitival or participial complements-whidt v;uy with regard to thear suuctural complexity and theu semantic properties. Whether the malfix
erb is
understood to denote an act of duect or mdarect perception is shown to correlate wuh the type of complement that it occm. wuh. The present chapter al.o examine. the syntacic status of perceiving -ing �omple mc nt .. and addresses the que,c:lton of
how pamcapial complement. differ from bare mnnitive. . The rest of th1s chapter 1s organi. ed as follows. Secuon 2.2 deals with the . yntac tic propertie. ol bare infinitive percepuon complement;;:. and demonslf<\te. that IPVCs repre. ent a type of dau. al complement that differs . ignificantly from both ten. ed and fully intlnittval clause. . The most prominent semantic charactcn. tk\;; of lPVCs are discus. ed in Section 2.3. These include the conditaon on temporal simul taneuy. re. tr icttons on the semantic type of the predicate. referential transparency. as well as restrictions on the imerpretatson of bare piUJ al. ubJect. . The syntactic and semantic propenae. of I PVC. are summari ed in Section 2.4. 1n Secuon 2.5, lPVCs are contra. ted with bare 1nfinmve complements of caus.uive verb. . Section 2.6 looks at the propertic.c; of participial pe1ception complements. After pointmg out a number of apparently contmdictory properties of percetving-iug construction. . I demonstrate that contrary to what has often been . ugge. ted. PPVC. cannot be . ub sumcd under the ACC-in;? con. ttuclton. 1 pre. em ev1dence that -in� constructions after verb. of pen:epuon are pOLentiall, amb1guou. . and that only one type is a clausal t·onstuuem that pattem� wtth IPVC;;. The two t)1>e. of construction. are . hown to differ with respect to their aspectual . pedficatton only. In other word. . I shall be a. sunung that 'true · pantctpial perception t·omplements are the progressive countcrpMt. of bare mtinitives. The conclusion!> reached at the end of this chapter
17
non-finite pet·cer>tion �·o m p l e m e n t :-.
wtll then form rhe basis for a detatled analysis of direct perception constructions provided in the followmg two chapters.
2.2 Syntactic Properties of IPVCs Jnlinirival verb forms occur almost exclusively after modaL and infinitival Engli. h. a. Illustrated by ( I a.b) below. (I)
a. b.
w
111
John will draw a cirdt' John decided to draw ft cirdt>
In GB theory. both modals and mtinttJval to were standardly taken to be lunc tional elements generated under lnfJ �Roberts 1 985. among others). Whtle Enghsh modal. might be characten. ed
a. .., PRO v1. it one·. mother) i. ntce b. • r listened to the radio (PRO drive homeJ { ' I listened 10 the radio dnving home: )
Only a comparati ely small numberot lextcal verb. admit bare mnnuivecomple ments. These include causativc/pennissive predicate� . uch
a. b.
We made/let/had John draw a circle We saw/watched John draw a cirde
In the context ot lexical verbs such a:-: make or see. the infinitive must be preceded b)' a noun phra.�e. which can be undenaood a� its . UbJecl. .Subjoctless mtit\Uives a. in (4a.b) are ruled out. (4)
a. i<We made/let/had draw a cwde. b. .. We saw/watched draw a circle
Uh·en that in Engli. h (as well a. m many other language. ) cau. auve and per ception verb. are the mlly lex1cal verb. that admit bare infinitive complements. a natural rusumption to make would be to �ubsume causative Bl. and lPVCs under
18
d audsa fe l se t·
rhe . ame complement type (Htggmbotham 1983. among othea�'\\. However. the assumpuon thai cau. auve and perception verb." form a natural etas. hi)] been called mlo que. tion b, a number of re. earcherl> indudmg Cattell ( 1 984). Neale ( 1 988), and ��ill woch ( 1 990). who have shown that de..->pite their .uperlkial . imilanty. causative Bls paHcrn dtfferemly from pert'eption complement. in a vanety of respects. A the pre. enl . mdy focu:-e.�> on perceptual complements. I shall limit the di.cu. . ion ol cau. atives to presentmg a bnef comra:-:tive overview of the propea1ie:-: of caus.Hive complements in Section 2.5. whtch demonstrate. that causative and perception complements cannot be treated on a par. Bare mtinittve perception consu uctiom in Engli.h are characlen. ed by a htghly rdiosynaatic duster of. ymactic properti� . Within the generative literature. a va. l number of differem analyse.'\ have been propo. ed for bare mtiniuve · in the pa. L Some of the suggested at'counls proved incompattble wuh Chorru ky's ( 198 1 . and later) Principle. -and-Parameter. framework. and all ofthem left one or anothet as peel of the rather peculiar behavtour of these construction. unexplained (compare also Section 3.2 below). The followmg two questions form the heart of the debate: (i) Are IPVCs con:-.tituent. (t.e . . mgle l>trucmral units) or not. and (ii) if the, are. then what is their categorial statu. '? While Akmajaan ( 1 977). Bowers ( 1 98 1 ). Withams ( 1983). �apoli ( 1 988)and Chierchia ( 1988) have analysed IJ>VCs a. notH'onsutuem DP-VP sequence..�> . a far larger number of rel>earchers have answered the fir.l ques tion in the atfirmatsve. However. there has been considerable di sagree ment abom the categOJ ial . I 1985. Ruyter 1988). AgrPs ( Bemu� and Hoekstra 1989. Guasti 1993 ). or . imply 'bare· VP. {Stowell 1 98 1 . 1983: Htggmbotham 19H3. Hloek.Ira 1 984. ��illwoch 1 990. Safir 1993. among othersl. The categorial status and internal struc ture of perception complements wi II be examined rn det<.til m Chapter 3. Jn what follows. 1 will . how that de"pile the lack of element. that normally , ignal clau.ehood �uch a. complementisers. modals. infinitival to. or oven tens�Jagrce ment inflec1ions. I PVC:-. exhibll the behaviour of clausal constituents. t:urthermore. 1 provrde a detailed de. cription ol the symacttc and . emamic properties of Bl per cepttoat complements. i1Jld point out l>Ome of Lhe problenh they pol>e for linguil>tic analyst. . 2.2 .J Vf•tnminin� Coustitm•JtC\'
In eru·lier analyse. propo. ed within a generative framework {Gee 1975. Akmajian
non-finite pe n�ept ion t•omp I em e n u .
19
1 977). .ome of the characterisuc :-.yma�lic propertie.� of I PVC. were taken to sup pon the vtew thai they are not consliment. . but mdependent DP-VP �cquences. as . hown in rig. (5). s
(5)
� DP
We
VP
� V
DP
VP
;----___
.o;aw John draw a cirde According to AkmaJian. the fact that l PVC. resi. t pa�.l\·is.ation and cannot appear Ill cleft.. pseudo-dells. wu�h t'on. truction. . or right node rat. ing conligurauons (as tllustrated by the example. in (6}) indicate..; th;n the, are not constttuems. (6)
a. b. c. d. e.
ie.Joltn drau a drdt' was �een
in High Street Ia. t mght (pa . . tv e ) ..It wa� Jolut drau
At first glance. J\kmajtan · s example. . eem to con titute pcrsua. tve e tdence against constituency. a:-. only constituents ate beheved to be able to undergo �yntac tic displacement operation. of the type illustrated above (compare Radford 19K�: 90). l'ot ice that if we replace the string Jo/m draw lt cirde with a OP such as a pink dt.>plumt. the re.o.;u llin.g . trucwre. are all grammatical. (7)
a. b. c. d. e.
ll pinJ.. dt.:plumt
was seen Ill Hsgh Street last night It was a pink rlcpham that we saw Whal we saw wa. a pink dt>p/wm A pin/... deplumt is a rare rhing to see We could sec. but we couldn't hear. a pink elepltam
As poimed out by Gee ( 1 977). however. data like those in (6) can at best be taken to sugge. l that IPVCs do not have the :-.talUs of noun phrase. . smce the movement operation. involved ate of a kind that typically apply to OPs (hence the grammatic ahty of (7a-e)). Pa. . avisauon. fore, ample. ts regruded as an mstance of DP-move ment. and the focus po�iuon of deft-. entence. i. l..nown to host only non-verbal categories such as OP or PP (Jackendol1' 1977. Stowell 1981 ). ' Although the .yntax of pseudo-clefts is sttll poorly understood (see Higgin� 1 979. Rochemom 19�6 fo1 . ome discu. sion). it appear. that the focu. ed constnuem in both clefts and pseudo-
d audsa fe l . e t·
20
clefts smface� a. a complemem of (.'Opular lu'. Given that �opular bl' doe. not admit bare intinitive complemenL-:. the ill-formedne. . of ( 6b.c) is hardly surprising. NexL con!ider example (6dt Tough �.onstruction:-. are standardly ru ·umed to uwolve an empty operator that binds a variable withm the mtinnival clau:-.e. rathct than being derived vta oven ObJeCt raising (Chomsky 1 98 1 : 204): A ptnk elepham i. a rare tlung In> Op1 PRO to . ee t, I
(8)
Hence. the mability ot JPVCs to undergo 10ugh movemem merely conlirms our earlier ob:-.e1 ation that bare inlinitive. are excluded from :o.ubject po. i11or1:o. ld. (6a)). Nottce that full infinitives (which are unequtvocally clau. al con.mtuents) are often felt to be had in 10u�h focu. 100: .. For a cat to cares. your ann would be ju.t wonderful to feel! {Satir 1993: 62)
(9)
; le <\�:tu Final! ... note that :-.entences that involve right node raising. :o-uch as (6e). \ ally considered tine by . orne speakers. or only marginally odd (compare. for in stance. Gee 1 977. �69). Sum man. ing. Akmajiatf s data only show that IPVC..; arc bad m positions which are normally reserved for DPs. but they do not rule out the �. ibility that IPVCs may be con. tituent. of diO'erent type. More broadly . peakmg. Akmajian's examples merely underline the fact that the distribution of bare inlinitive is lughly restricted. Note that Akmajtan · s non-constituent analysis ts also problematic from the point of view of 9-theory. as it pre:-.uppo:-.e. that perception verbs-which are often cited as prototypical monotransitive verbs in the linguistic literature (see. for example. Rigter and Beukema 1 985: 4 l lf.}-are actuaJiy ditrnnsttive verbs. or three-place predicates. There t. no independent evidence. however. th;U lhe verbs Ill question ever lil-ense two distmct complement. : ( l 0)
a. b.
tit
We saw John that he wa.� drawing a ctrde "l11ey .howed/ saw u. a pink elephant
Above all. though. there exsst abundant empwical evtdence in lavour of analy),tng I PVC ru single dau. al constilllents. In what follows. l wi II show that rather than tunctioning a. a direct object of the matrix verb. the po tverbal OV an !PVC construction. serve,o;
non-finite pe a·cet> t t o n comp I em e n t:-.
21
s
(II)
�
OP We
VP
A
V
�lW
S
�
John draw a circle
'l11e following argumems strongly suppon the claim that 1PVC� are indeed single stHlctural units. rir�l. lhe a. . umption lhat I PVC. are con:o:tituents is . ub.tantiated by pronominalisation and conjuncuon fact. : .: ( 12)
a. b.
�lary saw !John draw a cirdcl. and Bill . aw it too �lary saw [John draw a drdel and !Bill pmlll a treeJ
Another argument against analysing the postverba1 DP a� a direct object of st•e can be det ived from the fact that this DP cannot appear Ill the locus of a umt?h construct ton (a fact panned out by Gee 1975 ): ( 13)
a. It ' as difficult to . ee John draw a circle b. rtJohn W:l! dilt1 uh to . ee draw a circle
'laugh-movement ts known to apply to direct obJects only. ( 14)
a. b.
ru
in ( 14b).
h ' as easy to convince John (that the patty was over) John W:l! easy to convince (th�H the party wa� over)
The following examples moreover sugge. 1 that bare mfinittve,.; are in fact clausal con. timems. As the dma below show. the position following the main verb can at. o be filled by a quasi-ru·gument ("weather i() or a non-thematic argumem (expletive tlten> ):
( 15)
a. b. c.
(Gee 1975) l . aw it rain last ntght J heard it chtme one o'dock as 1 was turmng out ot the gate ( Declerck 1983a) J saw tlu:rt- nse over the rnoumam a h1ue haze (adapted ftom Kir. ner and Thompson 1 976: 2 1 0)
Given that quasi-argument' and over1 expletive� are not allowed to occur in obJeCt po. auon. it loJiows that it and there in ( 15) mu. t be structural subjec�. A' J>OIIlted out by Kayne ( 1 9M). the postvcrhal DP in JPVCs also behave. like a subject rather than an object wtth te. peel to WH-extmction:
c;J audsa fe l se t·
22 ( 16)
a. ,. Who, did , ou �ee the si�te1 of l1 dance b. Who, did you vistt the sister of l,
What is more. perception verb. �.<\n be followed by clausal idiom. . which are ' generally regarded � S)rntactac units c arry mg an idio. yncratic meaning. In mhe1 words. the post verbal DP in the examples below (taken from Gee 1977) can only be unde�tood a. the subject of the lowe1 t>redi�:ate. ( 17)
a. b.
We heard aJI hell break Joo.t' Then we sa\ the shit hit tlu· .ftur
A third •lrgumem in f,wour of a clau. al •uHdysis for I PVCs as provsded by exam
ples hke tho. e 111 ( t 8)-{25) below. which tllustrate that t1 i · ll1e event as a whole that ts percetved rather than its mdtvidual pans. ll1e noun phra. e and the verb phrase. In fat'l. it JS pos�tble e.g. to see an event without actuall, seeing (or even being able to . ee) the entlly denoted by the DP following the matrix ve11>. Compare the sentence pans below for illu. tratton. ( 18)
a. b.
I heard �tary ring the bell I heard �tary
( 19)
a. b.
I fell �tary hit me \VJth a stone I felt �lar •
(20)
a.
could smell the toaster bUI n the toru 1 (adapted from AkmaJian 1977. 456) I could . mell the toa. ter
b.
l Gee 1977. 474)
I
(21}
a. I . aw the wmd move the tree$ b. ·�?I saw rhe wind
(22)
a. I heard the window break b. ??I heard the window
(23)
a. I have watched poverty ruin man, farmer. b. tt l have watched poverty ( Kir. ner and Thomp. on 1 976. 2 1 0)
(24)
a. I have seen faith accomplish miracles b. ,.I have �een fahh
(Ibid.)
Two observauon. can be made in connel·lion wllh the above examples: Fir. l. rhe (a) �emence� do lliOt ne�e�. aril, ematl the corre ponding (b) semence. . In ( 1 8a). fot mstance. I hear the noise made by the bell. but not Ma1, herselt: in (20a). what I �melt is the burning to;�t. but not the toa.'>ter. Second!, . whereru m;1ny of the (b) example. stnke u. a. . emantic.ally or pragmatically odd. there ts nothmg at all
non-finite pen�eptlon �omp l em e n t s
23
unusual about the (a) example:-.. That is. (23a) i. line because povnt\' here i. under :-.tood ru the :-.ubject of ruin mtmyfarmers. wherea. Ill (23b). it can only be construed a. the direct ObJect of �vatch. which then renders the .entence anomalou. . The ex amples above thw show that the postverbal OP i. sensueve to electtonal restrictions unposed by the embedded predicate rather than by the matrix verb. Tlu. . m turn. . uggests that the postvcrbal DP. in the (a) examples are structural . ubjects. not objects. I conclude (following Gee ( 1 975: 306tf.). Kirsner and Thompson 1 976. Par. ons ( 1990: 2M n. 2). ;md others) that the Iact that the entity denoted by the I PVC subJect can oilen be understood as an object of the perception vetb is due to pragmatic infet·cnce. Thi. b further confirmed by the ob. ervatton that this mfcrence appears to be directly cancellahle6: (25)
I saw John . aw through the floor (though I did not actually see him. but onl; hi:-. saw pokeng through the floor) (adapted rom Barss 1 9KS: I 56)
(26)
I fell Uemge get on the other end of the water bed (but. of cour:-.e. I didn ' t actually feel George) ( Kirsner and Thompson 1 97(>. 209)
(27)
rrom my vantage point I 0 nulcs away. I watched them blow up the bridge (though of course from thai distance. I couldn't see the mdtvidual commando. involved) (adapted ftom Kir. ncr and Thompson 1976: 209)
(28)
='low that I think ol it. I did .see John draw a ctrcle. tt' s JU. t that my view of hi. face wa. blocked1
Or. to quote another tllu.slrataveexample from Gee ( 1 977. 474 ). pictllle a situation m which John is hidmg behind a screen so that we cannot see him. though we know he ts there. ='low tf he 1. able to move .c; maJI object on the front sade of the screen from the back by mean. of u. mg a strong magnet. it is pos, ible to say: (29)
I ju. t saw John mo e one of the little figure�-: (though I couldn't �ee John him. elf)
In most situauons. though. perceiving an evem implie lhat we aLo pen.·eive the msttgator (rectpient. expenenccr. . . ) of the action described by the predicate. A':-- the above examples •how. however. this is due to out· knowledge of the world and of the natute of events tather than to the grammatic.al funcuon of the postverbal OP (compare Kinmer and Thomp. on 1 976. 2 I Of.).� The beha tour of rellexives ..:onstiltUes another argument for a biclausal analy.i of IPVC constructionl:>. Accordmg to Principle (A) of the binding theory. anaphors require a 'clausemate' <mtecedent. t.e. they mu t be bound locally by the closest
24
d audaa fe I . e a·
po. sible antecedem (Chomsky 1 9 8 1 . Aoun 1985). �ow consader the examples Ill (30): (30)
a. b. c.
Bill� saw John, shave hun. elf.L,.. BiiJ� expected John, to shave hnn. cl f.lr. Bill� wanred (the cuddly toy teddyberu 1. f01 hnn. elfLr•
The reOextve anaphor himsc�l m (30a.b) can only be mterpreted
a. b. c.
I . aw John, begm t, to get drunk We watched them, lail t, to score a single goal I've never seen John, appear/. eem t. to be so out of it before (Gee 1 977. 47 1 )
T1le . ubjcct status of the po.(verbal DP i. further confinne.d by the ob. ervmion lhat it is able to control a . ubject-orientated adJunct such a. bt'}'ore R(>ing home. an observatton that as due to Oederck ( 1983a). (32)
Bill saw John kts. l\•lary before goin.� ltDnU'
Here. the adverbial modifica· phm.e /)(fon• goinK home can be interpreted in two different wa, . . i.e. it can be under.;:tood a.� rclaung either to .lolm 01 to Bill. but-crucially-not to Mary. This mdacales that both .lohu and Bill function as �ubjects an lhe above example. and hence may both ahemately function a.c; the controller of the PRO subject contained within rhe modifier clause9, C"C shown Ill (33). (33)
Bi111 saw John1. ki.. Mary !before PROA gomg home}
As there appears lo be no e idence for analysing perception verbs a. dumnsuive verb�. we may as�umc that 1he 0-grid of e.g. se(> look. a. follow. . 11,
non-fini t e pe 1·cept ion comp I em en t:-.
25
Chomsky". ( 1 98 1 ) l'n�it•ction PriJtdpl!' (or ilc; mmimali. l re. sdue. see Chom. ky 1 995. Ch. 4) thus force:-. u. to reject not only AkmaJian · :-. non-consutucnt analy.as. bm at.o an ObJeCt �ontrol analysis in the sparil of Ro. enbaum ( 1 967) or Hengo ( 1 974 ). which also pre..c;upposes that a verb like SN' i. able to functtOJ\ as a thre� place predicate. cr. We saw John, !PRO draw a Circle}
( 35 )
In sum. we have seen that a non-con:-.tituel\1 analy. i.s ol IPVC. is fal. it1ed by a va..c;t numbe1 of e1npirical facts. Instead. it was . hown that HI per�ptaon <.. comple mel\ls form smgle clausal con. lltuents which denote an event or .situatson that 1 perceived in the •nanner specified by the matrix verb. The catcgonal .status of non-finite pel'ception <.'omplemems will be discu. . ed in detatl m Chapter 3. 2 2 2 Al>sence t4' Finileness Marker.\' and 1\u,\i/i(tries .
.
rust. notice that I PVC. dafl'er from full daus� in that they are never mtro
a. ,.We saw rlwr({or John draw a circle b. We . aw rlwt John was drawing a circle c. We wanted tor John to become an aru. t
'flte absence of PRO. ubject. (cf. (37a) belo' ) and lhc fact that the postverbal OJ> carries objective cac;e indicate. that perception verb. might belong ro the class ol exc't'J)fional iYISt'·marking ( t::C M) verbs like belit·•·e or n.pt>ct. which are able to a$sign obJecuve ca. e to the embedded . ubjecr DP: (37)
a. b.
We saw I hun/,.I'RO draw a ctrclej We expected lhun/,.I'RO to be clever!
IPVCs are fut thermore characrerised by lhe absence of modats. oven rense/ agreement markers. and. most conspicuou. ly. inllnitival ro. (38 )
a. "'We saw tum will/nughtlcan/. . . draw a dtde b. •We . aw tum draws cirdes b. "' We sa\ hun ro dr;\W a circle
In short. there is no oven evidence at all for the presence of C. tnft/T or subject verb agreement Ill JPVC. . so that we can formulate the following con. tmint on Bl perception complement. :
d audsa fe l . e t·
26
(39)
Tlw N()u-Fiuireness Cmt.'ifraiur
Oven complcmentiscrs and finitene, . marker� are exduded from WVCs. Another l'haracterisllc property of IPVC. 1. their failure to admn the two a.�peclUal auxiliari� llttv(• and be. which combine wnh a paniciplc to form perfec tive or progressive expr��sion.s. (40)
a. 11We .aw John have drawn a circle b. "'We . aw John be drawing a circle
No such res11 icuonl>. on the other hand. are observed m the case of ten:-.ed or fully mtimuval complemenb. Compare the exampi�<; in 14 1 ) ( Declerck 19H I a: 85f.): (4 1 )
a. b. c.
l saw a great change to have come over hun J saw that a great change lwd come over hun J observed them to be working
Passive be>. on the other hand. l>Cems to be ( margmally ) permitted in non-tinuc perception construction. . preferably in the . hape of the pre. ent panictple bt>in.�. as noted e.g. b. Lapointe ( 1 9XO) (the symbol t,r� mdscates that the relevant example i. acceptable m some vanetie.s of present-day English only). 1 1 (42)
a. (k\Ve . aw a circle be drawn 12 b. We . aw a ctrcle bemg drawn
Lapointe t 1 980) and Takezawa ( t 984) have suggested that the absence ot per fective huw· can be accounted for in terms of a purely )>etnantic condition. the perfective auxiliary hlJ\'t' is disallowed simply because it is incompatible with the requirement that the matnx clause and the event expr��sed by the IPVC be inter preted a� stmuhaneou. . Or. a. Lapomte puts 11. bccau. e we arc . .simply not .. equtppe. however. cannot be accounted for quite a� ca.tly (but ee Secuon 3.3.2. below). Pru. tve bt•. then. ss the on ly admis. t ble auxiliary m non-tintte pe1ception verb complements. These observation. arc summed up in (43). (43)
Restrictions oJt 1\u.\iliari('S
Apec tual auxiliari�� are excluded lrom IPVCs.
2.2 .J Restrinions em Plts.�ivi.writm 2.2 .J .I Bare Past Pttrriciple Complements Whercal> lPVCs that contain uninflected passive be are often only marginally ac ce t>table. perception verb. qui te readil, admit participial complements without be.
non-finite pe 1·cept i o n comp I em en t :-.
27
According to Gee ( 1 975: 20 I ). the exam pi� in (44) are all fully grammatical. and semamicaJiy akin to finite clause. that describe an cvem m the pm;srve (compare (45a-c)): (44)
(45)
I . aw a car wrecked (by the police)
a. b. c.
1 heard a song sung
I felt my foot kicked
a. b.
I . aw that a car was wrecked by the police I heard that a song wa:-. sung I feh that fn)' foot was ktckcd
c.
Recall. however. lhat the example.�: in t4+) and (45) are nor . emantkally equiva lent. as they uwolvc dtrect and indirect per·ception. respectively. /\s noted by Palmer ( 1987: 199>. only st•e. hntr .{et•l and watch r·egularly occur 11 With the -en form. h i. far from clear. however. whethe r all (or indeed. any) ot the bare -en t'omplcmems in (44) really are the passive correlates of the active IPVCs Ill (46a-d below: (46)
I . aw the poltce wreck a car I he;ud someone sing a . ong I felt someone kick my foot
a. b. c.
Notice also that there .eems to exi:-.l a tendency (at lea. t aero. s Germanic hm guage:-.) to replace the past partictple b. the intinit ive form of the verb. a phenome non known as l11finitiw1s I'm Participio (IPP) or t:r.tat:_it�{initil' (. ce Section 5.2.3 for .some discussion): (47)
a.
We heard a piano play
b.
We heard the bells
c.
\Vir lu'irum die (i/ockell llmten
ri ng
(German)
We heard the bell. ring d.
lk hoor een liedje :iu�t·tt
I he.ar a
(Dutch. de Gcest 1970: 38)
song sing
A to t11e derivallon of panicipial -m t'omplemem. of the type �hown tn (44a-<'). 11 eem. that the lollowing three po.sibilitie!' must be considered: (i) lhe compl� ment is a symacttcally reduced clau�ai J>
.
28
d audta fe l se t·
(48)
a. b.
v,.,....�t,. l, . . . (VP) I lr* 01' lRdO . . . V�·"-rrt� . ( PP) ] I
(c;c L.>P,
.
.
•
.
.
01>:erve thm redu�·e
a. b.
Books publislwd betme 1900 are vcr� expensive to bu; (Hudson 1 973. 251 ) Au. tin aw a man bom in .lcru. aln11 gel . haved in Oxford t Barwt.e 198 1 . 381 )
·me reduced a·clauve dause hypothe. i. would explain why bare-t.•n con1plement� differ from active IPVCs 111 that the po. tverbal OP i� sen. alive to. electional restric tions unposed by the perception verb in lhe matrix clause. Consider the sentence patrs in (50-52) below: (50)
a. I heard .\llary prepare breakfa. l b. ,. I heard breakfru t prepared (by f\•tary)
(5 I )
a. I watched Emma . mke an imaginary attacker b. ,. I watched an imaginary auacker l\lruck (by Emma)
(52)
a. I . aw him turn up the volume b. ;. 1 . aw the volume turned up by lum
The anomaly of the (b).entence..� follows naturally from the assumption that the complement 1. a complex DP that t. .o;emantkatl� .elected by the matrix verb. rarher than a clau. al pa. . ave. The . ubject� ofu uly clausal complemems such a. IPVCs. by comra�t. are nevet sen. iuve to semantic resu icttons tmpo. ed by rhe higher vetb (compare example-" ( 1 8)-{24) above). There aI.o ex1st. a �-ompelhng semantic al'gument against the claim that participle con. truction. con. tilute the passive counterp<m� of ac11ve I PVC. . Both Vlach ( I 983) and eale t 198tn have ob. ervcd that wherea. in ordtnary passive �lructure.. rhe truth-functional value of the underlying propo. 111on is normally pre�erved. no sud\ entailment relatton holds between lPVCs and thetr alleged correlate. . By way ol illu�lratton. compat-e the examples in (53) and (54) (adapted I rom Vlach 1 9M3: 1 50). (53)
a. b.
Kennedy wal\ �hot by Oswald Oswald shot Kennedy
(54)
a. b.
Jackte l\<1W Kennedy shot by Oswald Jackie . aw 0. wald shoot Kennedy
Whereru ( 53a) and (53b) may be regarded as semamically equtvalem. the .en.
29
non- ftni t e pet·ception comp l e me n t s
tence. in (54) are far from . ynonymous. This led �lcale ( 1988) to the conclusion that (54a) does not 111 fact t:omam a �entential pru, i e . The cructal requirement for (54a) to be true is that Jackie saw Kennedy. and .he might or nught not have �een Oswald at the srune time. Example {54b). on the other hand. states that Jackte . aw the event of 0.wald' :-. shooting Kennedy. which does not ncce,.;. anly unply that she a<. tually sttw Oswald-she might. for mstance. onI)' have seen part of a gun. and later leamt that the killer's name wa. 0. wald. In other wot ds. the imerpretati\ie differences found between (54a) a11d (54b) suggest that what look. like a par1 icipral small clause ts not in fat:t a dau�al con. tituent. hut a OP modtfied b a reduced relative clause. Similar imerptetive differences can be observed m relation to the sentence patrs Ill (55) and (56) below_ l:\ '
(55)
a. b.
We heard the htmlcr slaughter the pig We heurd the ptg slaughtered by the fanner (adapted from de Geest 1 970)
(56)
a. b.
�ary saw John call the dogs back �lary saw the dogs called back by John
l Rizzi 1992)
In (55a). what we hear might be the notse made by the farmer. the pig. or po. stbly both. whereas in example (b) It i)> dear that we hear. fir�t of all, the noise. made by the pig. Likewase. {5(>b) implies that f\·1af)' )k \ \V the dog. . but not nece:sarily John. Again. tlus is con. istent with the hypothe. i. rhat the complement in the (b) . entences i. not an event in the pas. ive. but a OP containing a reduced relative clause. It appear. that not all bare past participle complement allow tor a reduced rela tive clause reading. though. Whereas (57a) below nught be regarded as ambiguous between a passiVe and a relative clause reading. (57 b) can only be under. tood a. an event in the pas: ive (i.e .. the event of Fido ·s lu·in� gm<Jmed).1" (57) a. b.
�Iat saw the dog. groomed by John �lary . aw rido groomed by John
Thi)> may be due to the 1�1ct that proper nouns or pronouns cannot normally be modified by re)>tricuve rclatl\'e clauses (. ee Fillmore 1963). To conclude the dt. cussion of bare pa. t participle complements. the above obser vattOJh sugge,IOt that they are ambaguou.s between a OP-modifier .structure (which may actually be the preferred �lnaly�i.) and a participial small dau. e structure. 2.2 .3.2 Mttin Claw.e Pcls.�ivt•s One of the most pu7.7.ling femures ot IPVC.s m English is the fact that. unlike the subject. of. tanda.rd ECM infinitives as in t59a). or . mall dause complement. like the one in (60a). their subject cannot pa. sivise:
c
30
1 audaa fe l s e r
(58)
a. We . aw John draw a circle b. ,.John was seen draw a circle
(59)
a. b.
We expect John to draw circle. John was expected to draw circle.
(60)
a. b.
We consider hun .tupid He was consadered .tupad
Note that the pa!\. ave .emence m (59b) cannot he ruled out on any obviou se mantac grounds-after all. the semence can be a. . igned the intended imerpretation wtthout much dilficuhy. This sugge. � that the reruon for Its ungrammaticality i• . yntactic. The unavailability of. tructures hke t58b) is caprut•ed by the following de:-.criptive generalisation: 1 7 (61)
The C:ouslrailll ttgttiiiSI /'(tSSi\'t'
The subJect DP ol bare inlinilive percepltOil complemen� cannot be pa. savised. So far. few allempts have been made to account for the ilt-fonnednes. of matrix pa:sives like (58b). Williams ( J9K3: 3031f.) propo. ed a ·ymactk filler condition (samilar to ROS$ · 1 972 Double-in� Consrntim ) to rule out . tructurcs of the t pe shown 111 (62). which mvolve a past participle followed by the inlinilival form of the verb: �t
(62)
John was seen h•ttw
As William. himself admits. however. a grammaucal constraint that applie. to the surface linear ordering of constituems i. nothing more than a de. cnptive devace. and doe:-. not have any explanator force. More princtpled attempts to derive the Constramt agamst Pa. sive have sub. equentl. been made by Higginbotham ( 19X3 ). Kroch t?l a/. ( 1 987). Bennis and Hoek. tra ( J9K9). and Pollock ( 1 994): they will be discu.. ed in Chapter 4 in the context of the analysts developed in the later part of thi. book. Le1 us now examme whether or not there as a way for perceptual report. to e.'>capc the C01wraillf a�ainsr Passive. It ha:-. often been claimed !hat .uucture:-. like (63b) that contain the infiniuval marker to repre. em the p�.ave correlate of acuve IPVCs like (63a) below (see Karsner 1 977. and reference$ cited there). (63)
a. b.
Someone saw John draw a dtcle John was seen to draw a circle
(64)
a. b.
John drew a circle A circle was drawn by John
non-ftn i t e pet·ce t> t ion comp l e m e n t s
31
However. the hypothe! is that the relauon between l63a) and {63b) IS the.amc a. the one that hold. between a finite active sentence like (64a) and its pa� tve counter part (64b) turn. out to be incorrect for various reponding to-pas. ives in {b) arc feh to be bad {compare al.o �Jittwoch 1990: I l K). " (65)
a. 1 smelled the toaster burn the toast b. :tThe toru ter wa:- :-melled 10 bum the toast
(66)
a. J felt �Ia•� hit me wuh a . tone b. "'�tary wa.'> felt to hit me wnh a . tone
Second I, . ob. erve rhat perceptual reports invoI ing exphculy agenti ve percept ion verb� such as '"'melt do not passivise at all ( Kir�ner 1977). (67)
a. We watdted John draw a ctrde b. •John was watched (to) draw a circle
(68)
a. We li. tcned 10 Mary :-ing a . ong b. •Mary wa. listened to (to) smg a .ong
Unlike the verb. see or hear. which are potentially ambtguou. berween a :-ensory percep1ion and an ept. tenuc teadmg. the verbs watd1 and lis/NI can only be used non-epistemically. whtch is why the, do not combme with propo. itional t/uu-complement. lsee also Deden:k t983b: 34): (69)
a. b.
'f'Wc watched that John left 'tWe listened to that Mary .ang a song
Palmer ( I 987: 1 89. J 99) point. oul that perccplton verbs followed by a /o-mtilutlve are always understood as 'reporting· verbs. never in thetr direct per ceplion sense. This holds Irue for passive as well as for active su ucture.'> such as (70a.b) below (Palmer'. example�):
32 om
d aud1a fe l s e 1·
a. b.
J herud him to be very foolish He saw the children to be emmg their lunch
The fact that agentive verbs fml to admit full infin111ve..; even in the active vo1ce 1s con.is tent with the idea that to-inliniti\'es in gcneml are . emanucall}' more clo.ely related to full clause!!. than they al'e to bare mfimuve.s. (7 I )
a. b.
We .aw John to be imelhgent ..,We watched John Lo be mtelligem
Though pet·celving-to con. u·uction. in the active are rarely u. ed Ill pre:-:em-day English. they deserve . ome auemion because they contrast . harply wtth the bare mfimtivcs . 1� Setnantically. ro-PVCs belong with the perce1ving-t/wt construction rather than with Ji'VCs m that the type of perception involved is nee�. arily indirect (.ee Sorkin ( 1973: 54). Declerck ( 1 983b: 38). Higginbotham t I 983: I 24). among others). The ,·erb :�ee in (7 I a) above can only be understood in its epi. temk . en. e (where see= jitu/). since 'being imelhgent' is not something whtch can be perceived directly. Onl, in theit epi.temk reading can perception verbs be followed by a to-infitHllve. Where such a readmg is not a ailable. a. in the case of w(Jic:h or lislt'n. full inliniti\>e. are not admissible. At·cording to Bo1kin ( 1 973. S21'f.) and Duttley ( 1992. I 4ff.). rhe u. e of inliniti at to serves to int.:rease the temporal distance between the matrix event and the situa tion described by the mfintttve. an effect that is qu1te mdependent of whether the main clause is active or passive. Thus the two sentence. m (72) below can be said to differ with re..�pect to the dtrecmess ol perception. (72)
a. b.
Someone aw tum walk awa. He w·d. . cen to walk away
Where<� (72al involve. direct. non-epistemic perception. perception in (72b) can only be interpreted a. indirect.lll ·n1irdly. ju. t as the.re are Bl-takmg perception verbs that cannot be followed by a 10-intiniti e in the pa;·sive (watch. lisreJt). we also find the reverse •ituation -pru. ive �on.trucuons that contain a full infinitive for which there exists no active 81 coumerpart. Compare the following pair:- ol example. : (73\
a. Ylary wa$ . een to have finished her breakf�lst b. t�� We . aw M
(74)
a. Bill could be heard to be talkmg to himsell b. �we could hear Bill be talking to hnnself
Note that unlike IPVCs. to-mfinttives may contain the aspectual auxiliat ic.;; ltuve and b�.• (compare ill. o Declerck 1983b: 37f.). Perfecuve lw�·e. however. i. known to
non-finite pe t·�eptlon �omp I em en t:-.
33
be incompatible wilh a dire�t percepuon reading. Thus once again. fully infinitival complements pauem with 1hm complements nuher than with JPVC. . (75)
a. ..,We . a\ Ma1, have faulted b. ·�we saw Mary to have fainted �. We :-:aw that Mary had fainted
Finally. Safir ( 1 993. 55) points out lhe following contrast between B I there clauses and ru-infinitives m pa.-;sive semencc�:
(76)
a. ..,We :-:aw there be several men capable of murde•
b. We saw there to be several men capable of murder c. ?There were seen to be . everal men capable of mu1der Example (76c) can only be the pa:sive ol (76bt nm (76a)-tf 11 were the passive correlate ol (76a). we would expect it to be mled out a. wellY ·ro conclude. H appears that perceptual reports m English do not have a pa:.sivc counte1 part. Rather. the above ob..'\ervmion� supporl our claim that IPVCs and lull mfimtives-whether they occur in a p�sive environmem or not-belong to differ em complement types. and ti\U. cannot be derived from each other. 2.2.4 Rt>�triclious on There Jnsn1iou
Ylibark ( 1974) dt. tingut. he. the following type. of existential .emence. : (77) a. on to I ogtca I : There are no ghosts b. locauona I . There ts a fly in the mustard c. periphntstt�: There were many people . ick d. ve,·ba I : (i) There aro. e many tnvial objections during the meettng ( = · insrde verbar type) (ii) ·ntcre walked mto the room a lierce-looking tomcat ( = ·out.ide verbal· type) 'llle diflerence between tnside and outstde verbal ex1.tenttats is that the Iauer mvolve a configuration that i. traditionally rhought to re, uh from a ll ansformation known a:" Ht'CII')' Nl' Sh(lt { where the subJe�o:t appears not in its l·anomcal position. but to the right of the VP). Out-:ide-verbal 1/len• semencc. typically. though not exclusively. contain an unergattve verb. and are also referred to a. 'pre. entationar sentences (compare e.g. Salir 1993: 52 n. 7). Although we have seen that JPVCs exhibit unequtvocally dau. e-like behaviour m a ar iety of respects. the po sib1hty of inserung a truly non · thematic subject such as extstcntial rhne as linuted to a few subca:::es of the above. Ontologrcal. locational.
34
d audta fe l s e t·
and periphra. tic there i. generally excludeJ from B I petception complements (except in the comexl of irreali.. see below). (78) a. "'We aw there be no gho. ts b. "'�lary saw there be a tly in the n1ustard � . .. I :-aw there be too tnany people . kk
(Satlr 1993: 52)
By contrast no , uch J'e, tnctiom. hold for tensed complement. . as s.hown by the example. below. (79)
a. b. �-
We . aw that there were no gho. ts We . aw that there was a fly in the mu.laJd 1 saw that there were too many people . 1ck
Full. infinitival PVC�\ also admit expletive tllne. both in active and Ill passive �entences (example� from Salir 1 993: 55). (80)
a. We perceived there to extst seveml problems b. ·�There were . een to be several tuen capable of mutder
Higginbotham ( 19K3) attnbutes the ungrammatil:ality of e�amples like { 78a-c) to the fact that expletive there preferably occur. with , t�ttive vert>. such as be or exist. which are excluded from IPVCs tor independent reason. {compare Section 2.3.2 below ). lf this assumption is correct. chen the ill-follnedne.s of the above example. need not have anything to do with the pre. ence of non-thematic there. Rather. the re�tricuons on there msenton i llusu ated above would be a mere Side effect of the general unavailability of stative predicate. m direct peroeeption con strucuons. According to the stauviry hypoth� is. then. there are no a pril>ri syntactic re.1sons why tht!re insertion in B l clau. e. should be prohtbited. I wtll. however. demonstrate below that the. tativity hypothe.! i� faiIs to provide an adequate account fo1 the overall dtslfibution of r/Jn(> in perceptton . entcnces. Instead. the po. �ibility of in. e11ing a non-themalic subject is shown to depend on the parttcular type of exi.tential corbtructJOil mvolved. wluch sugge.ls that . yntactic factors do play a crucial role. Consider tirst unaccu. ath·e verbs ol the arrive t pe. whtch normally combine wllh exJstenttal i/wr(' to form 'in�idc verbal' cxi. tentials:�2 Their IPVC correlate$. however. are u. ually judged ungrammatical. Compare the following data (lrom Burz..i o 1 9K6 and Sat1r 1993): (81)
a. b. c.
'l11ere amved three girl. 'l11ere emercd tht·ee men 'l11ere emerged several bump.
non-fini t e pen�ept t o n �omplement:-. (82)
35
a. ,.?I aw there arnve three girls b. ,."?1'\athan heard there enter three men c. ,.Jane felt there emerge several bumps ,
ru the embedded verb.
otherwise make perfectly acceptable B 1 complements. the ungrammaucahty of (82a-c) can only he attributed to the presence of r/J(•r(, in the . ubordmale clau. e.
(83)
a. b. c.
1 saw three gtrl. arnvc )Iathan herud three men enter Jane felt three bump. emerge
Wherea� non-thematt� rhn(' is normall)' exduded from 1PVC. that comain an ordinary unaccusattve verb (Nl il:-:ark · s 'in. 1de verbal" existential.). then• in. en ion 1. oflen po. sible if the complement comams a rat. ing predacate. e. pectally tf a deictic adjunct tsu�.:h a:- a temporal or locative PP) i. present a. well (example. from \ :"'apoli I 988 and Safir I 993)2· . (84)
a. ?At three o'clock. we heard there begin to be a knockmg sound b. I could see there begtn to be a flicker of doubt in hi. eye. c. At rhrec o'clock we saw there appear to be a light ( though actually. it wa. faked)
lnterestmgly. mserling a locative phrase can rendet otherwise unacceptable sn--uc tures in olving non-stauve uurnn:-lltve predacat� acceprable. as in (85) below. (85)
a. b.
We saw there run into the room a man so hand.ome that he mu. 1 have (Safir I 993: 52 n. 7 ) been a movie srar We . aw there n e ove1 the mmmtain a blue haze (adapted from Kirsner and Thomp. on I 976. 2 1 0)
Notice that the complemems in (85) are both pre.�entational . u·ucture.s (�hlsark's outstde-verbal exi tentials). Though pre:-entational semenc� typacally uwolve unergative motional verbs. the unaccusatiVe verb ri:u• (or £trist-) . ecms to pattern identically here. As pointed out by Napoli ( 1 988). the extem to which such example. are acceptable nught al.o be influenced by the stru�tul'ill complexit, (or ' heavine� ' ) ol the thematic subject. Safir ( 1993) funhermore points out that ontologtcal or mside-verbal tltt.'re complemems often become more acceptahte if the mamx dau:-.e set:-: up an irrealis context (that ts. if it contams e.g. negarion. a modal. or cenain adverbs of modaluy). Tlu. ob. ervation ts illu. trated by lhe followmg example,. whkh have been cued by Gee ( 1 977). Hsggmborham ( 1983). and Safir ( 1 993).
d audsa fe I . e t·
36 (86)
a. b. c. d.
rve never . een there be . o many complaint from students before I wouldn't like to �ee there be )>0 many mistake..; We will probably see there be fewer complaulls We wouldn't like to . ee there ame any problem from lht.
Sentence$ like these do not. however. expre.�. the direct phy. ical perception of an cvem. bUl instead constitute example." of mdirect perceptton. In the ab. ence of an meal is context. omologicai i/wn• clause, are genet ally excluded (example$ adapted from Sanr 1993): (87 )
a. •we :;;aw there be fewer cmnplasnts b. "'We saw there be many mistakes c. rtWe . aw there arise problem.
01�erve that non-ep1.lemk erbs such ru watch differ from potentially ambigu ous verb. . uch a� see in that they altogether tail to admit ontologtcal complemems. even in an srrcalis ctwironment
(88)
a. rtWe've never watched there be so man, nustake� b . .. We will probably hsten to there be fewer complaints
To summan. e. it appear� £hat the re. u·icted distributton of there-dausc.� after perceptton verb. cannot simply be auribuled to the f
Re.\lriclibu.\· on t.'.\pletive 'lltere
Non-thematic there i. excluded f10m B l perception complements. except ti) � the subject of a non-stattve mi.mg verb )>Uch as beftilr. (ti) m pre. entational clause. . or (iti) wuh ontologh.:at predi�ate. in rhe context ot irrealis.
'llle heaviness of the subject DP nught be another factor that plays a role fo1 whether 01 not a percet\'ing !here sentence i. felt to be O.K. Though at first glance. lhe dt. lnbution of explelive thnt• in 1:3 1 clause." appears to be subject to more or le.c;s arbitrary restrictsons. I . hall offer a s.. stcmatic account tor the restricted distribution of expletive there in B l perception complemems in Chapter 4.
2.3 Semantic Properties of IPVCs
ln the pasl. perception verb. ha e often been . tudted undes a philo. ophical or logsco-semantic per),peclivc (sec. for example. Hintikka 1969. Gee 1 975. Barwise
non-finite pen: e p t io n �omp I em en t :-.
37
198 1 . Asher and Bonevac 1985. or an der Doe� 1991 ). Since the . emamic char actetistics of I PVC. are by no mean. less peculiar than their , ymactic properties. non-finite perceptton complements have occasiOnally been taken as te. t ca. e. fm partkular semamic frameworks. notably tho.e of Da 1ruon ( 1967) and Barwi�e and PeaTy ( 1 983). The problem with fom1al . emantic approaches 10 flu. type of con struction. however. i. that lhey will typically fall to take imo account the syntactic propea1ies of I PVC�. and to relate them . ystemaucall... to thetr semanttc charactens tics.14 In what lollows. I shall pro ide a de:\cripttve overview ol the most �ahem semami.: proper! ies o I PVC�. rather thml discus.ing the formal logical repre..�enta tion of perceptual repons in any detml. An unpoa1am preliminaay ob. ervallon to make ts thaL IPVCs
a. b.
1 saw the librttrv 1 sav.• the librttry bum down
Semanttcl.ls working within the tradition of Davidson { 1 967) have cia�. itied direct perception complements as bart• or indi�·idual e\'l'niS (Htgginbotham 1 983. Vlach 1983. and Parson. 1990. among others). Accordmg lO Vlarh 0983: 1 32). event. re. emble phy ical objects in that " lt lhey have locations m l.pace and time. they pat udpatc in causal relations. and they may be percetved by many people at the same time". Like physh.:
a. b.
We .aw/watched 1\-farv depan We �aw/watched Mmf:;• dcparwre
Since there evidently exists a .ubstantial overlap between the syntactic
38
d audta fe I se t·
2 .J. I Temporal Simu/uml'ity The fact lhat lhe HI �omplement of a percepllon verb must be interpreted as comemporaneou. with the matnx dau. e IS perhaps lhe mo t salient semantic prop eJ1)' of this construction. and one that is m. eparahly linked to the notton of direct perception. In contmst to th(ll-dauses or to-infinitive. . the temporal imerp1etation of a bitre mfinlltve perception complement is always dtrectl, determmed by the tense of lhe matri x .emence. That i. . the embedded dau. e doe� not have a temporal uuerpretation of lis own. but take, lls lime reference from the higher dau. e. NOl only do WVC. lack the independem tense speciticat ion that chamcteriscs finite clau.es. they abo lack tempoml uuerpretmion. which ;we relmi''(' to land therefore different from) the matrix tense. a po. .ib1ht, which ha. been argued to be available foqcertam type. of) full infinitives. J\ccordmg to Stowell ( 1982). control mfinmves or.en exprc. s an ·unrealised· future tense. a. in (93)
M<1r)', wants (PRO, to bocome an actre. �1 PRESENT
�
PlJTURE
Tensedncs. , under this view. "relate.'> to the possibility of time reference mdepen .. dently of the matrix dau. c . as Reuland ( I 983b. I l l ) put. it. Syntacttcall� . the requirement of temporal simultaneity on IPVCs cor relate. with the absence of finitcnes. markers and ru pccmal auxiliaries. Compare the following examples. (94)
a. b. �.
d.
We . aw
that John had left. We . aw that John would kave We saw that John was lea\'ing We saw that John left
(95)
a. ·�we . aw John to have left b. ·?we . aw John to be going to leave �. ?We saw John to he leavmg (. oon) d. •We :o:aw John to leave
(96)
a. •we . aw John have left h. .. We a\ John be gomg to leave c. •We . aw John be lea ing d. We . aw John leave
·111e propo. lllonal that complement!' in (94) clear!, . how the highe. t possible degree of temporal independence from the matr ix c:lau. c-rhat t the event or situa tion expre."sed by the lower clau. e may be specified and interpreted as occusring .
•
n o n - f i n i t e pen�eption l.'Om p l e m e n u.
39
either prior to. as in (94a). after. as in (94h). or. unuhaneou. ly wllh the act of seeing (as m (94c.d)). The . itua(ion i. . tmilar wuh to-infinilive. such as t95a-d). However. due to the fact tJtat they lack a positive (or ·referemial") ten. e alue of their own. the temporal mterpretation ot to-PVC� intemct more do.ely with the ten�e of the ma trix clause. Put dtft'erently. the fact that the tense of to-infinittves i. never absolute. but can only be a relariw ten. e follow. from the facr that they are IWJt-{iniu• clauses. ' 1.e. the� contain a ·negative· tense . pecitkation !· With re. pcct to their temporal interpretation. the beha iow· of IPVC. ts qutte different from that of to-infinittves occurring atter perception verb. . A. shown by the ill-formedne.� of {96a�) above. the . imultaneuy relation il> the only temporal relation that ma� hold between the B l complemem and the higher clause. Let us therefore assume the followmg condition on the temporal unerpretation of lPVCs (adapted from Lapointe I 980: 778. the astensk indicates the matnx event. i.e. the act of. eeing. hcarmg. etc.): (97)
Simulwncil\' Condition 011 IPVCs
t ...w,. = '�'"'" (i.e.. the temporal mtcrpretation of the event de. cribed by a BI perception �omplemcnt is ident1cal to the temporal nllerpretation �. tgned to the matrix event) As poimed out above. whereas i/ua-PVCs are tempornfly independent of the mamx tense. and the ten�e interpretation of to-infinitives 1. relative to the tense of the matnx clau�e. the temporal mterpretation of wvc� mu. t be identical to that of the matn� clau. e.� Recall that the pr�ence of to �:au. c.-; the situation de!>cribed by the complement clau. e to. hift temporally with respect to the matnx clau�e ( Borktn 1973. Oulfte, 1992). B l clause. . on Lhe other hand. necessarily ssgnaJ simultaneity. In Chapter 4. some previou. attempts to derive condition (97) will be critically e'·aluated. and an alternative analy�ts wtll be presented that doe, . among other things. accoum for the requirement of temp<>ral . imultaneity in d1rect perception construcuons. 2 .J .l Restrictions an 1he Predkutt• Another well-known fact about perception constructtons i that stative predicate.c; are generally excluded from I PVCs. Direct perception. then. appears to be re.�tricted to the nnmediate ensor perception of a non-stative . ttuation or event. as the following pair. of examples suggest: •
(98)
a. "" We saw Mar)' live in town b. We .aw Mary mO\·e to town
d audta fe l s e t·
40 (99)
a. ,. 1 heard John be a 11dy person b. I heard John tidy up his room
One nught argue thai the anomaly of the (a) examples follows rather trivially from the s�.electional reqmremem thal lhe event or.ituation expres. eel in the com plemem daul>e must be perceivable m the way sped fled by the matrix verb. Ob. erve. however. that cenain cventtvc predicate. are pe1 miued m JPVCs e en tl t he event as .such 1s not open to immediate sen. e perceprion. as in { 100): ( 100)
a. b.
We can . ce Bill solve the problem (Ktrsner and Thompson 1976: 206) I've seen fatth accompli:;;h miracles
Stauve pred1cate.o;. on the other htmd. are excluded even if they describe a . tat� of-affmrs whkh. in princ1ple. IS open to sensory perceptton. ( 10 1 )
...
l . aw Bill ha,•e (got) a motorbike
According to Kmmer and�l1tomp.on. t I OOa) forces a reading in which we see Bell do something of which we know or as sume that tt repr�ent. solving the problem. Similarly. the e cnt described by the IPVC in ( I 00b} can only be perceiVed meta phoncally. �cvenhele�s. (I OOa.b) ru·e both tine. On the other hand. example ( I 0 I ) IS ruled out even though there 1. no a p1 iori reason why we . hould not be able to see the . ttuation depleted by the B I complement. ·nms it appears that the choice of the complement is not exdu. 1vely determined by s-selecuonal factors such as the J'e quirement that the complement of sn• mu. t be vi.tble (in the ph� steal sense). What seem. to be of primary nnponance. then. is that the Bl clause contains a non-stative predicate. Put d1ffetently. direct percepuon is always ('\'l�llt pnct.>ptimt-that IS. percepuon of a $ituation that uwolve · a change of state or motion or $Ome sort (compare Higginbotham 1 983). Note that none of the above-mentwned restricuons apply to the predic.ues ol
percel\•ing-r/wr complements. Both stative and non-stative ve 1 b. may be U:\ed in conl>tfUl'tions that de ·cribe an act of mdirect perception. ( 102)
a. b. c.
d.
We saw that Ylary lived in town I heard that John was a tidy man We heard that Susan p
An intere. ting contra. t be1ween lPVC. ru1d to-PVCs h
non- fini t e pe t·�eptlon �omp I em en b ( 103)
41
a. I :-.aw the library burn down b. I saw the library to have burned down c. I saw that the librna·y bw·ned down d. i>Wc aw the hbrary to burn down
According to Gramley. the complement dau. e m ( I 03a) semantically denotes an event. the one in ( I 03b) a . rare. and the 1/wt-dau.e in ( 103c) denote.� a full proposi tion. !? Example (I 03d). on the other hand. 1 · ill-fOI'med a). the complement dause cont
diret.·t p£•rc�·prion
•
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •·•••
r
r
IPVCs
ro- PVCs
•
indire(.·t pcrceplion
thm-PVCs
In other word. . the level of darectnes. of perception det·rease). <\S the . trucl\Jre of the complement dau. e become. more compte�. Since structural complexity is dt • . /indirectne)..<: recrly telated to finitenes.. one could. ahernativety. state that directnc of perception cor respond. to the degree to whtch the co1nplemem i. finite or non llnite (.ee also Palmer 1 987. 1 62): the tughest degree of finiteness co.relates with the highest degree of indirectness. and \'ice versa. 2.3.2.1 Problems wilh 1\risrotdian \lnb T vpology
/\s the notion of ·evem · 1s going to play a central role in the .econd pa11 of this work. n ).eerru wonh e.xamining in . ome detail what kind of. emantk o�ject. thi. term refers to. Jn this section. I argue that traditional verb typotogte). such
d aud1a fe he t·
42
f10m events {.ec e.g. Kenn. 1 963. Vendler 1967). Vendlet·. original typology W the three type. of non stative verb. under the single label of non-srau·s: ( I OS)
si r uatton�
./ tate.
...... non-�tates
./ "-.... ac ti VI t i e. accomp 1
event.
./
ish men ts
.......
ac h i ev e me n t s
Although there ha!-> been much debate a. to how many verb dass� are actually needed. 111 what way they are iruerrelatcd. and what �.:rileria should be used for d that they mu. t contai n a non-stulil'l• verb-that is. a verb which. in Vendler' s terms. describes either an activuy. an accomplishment. or an achievement (Higginbotham 19g3). There are. however. example)> which appc.c.tr tocommdkt this generah. ation. rollowtng Neale ( 1 98M: 3 14f.). a . tative verb like own 1. actually permitted to o�.:cur m lPVCs provided that an app10priate context can be con. trued. A . emence like l l 06a). for instance. nught be uttered during a fa:t-mo mg poker game where hou. e .; can change their owners several tunes in a . ingle na!!ht. Given an appropnate �.:omext. then. a . emence hke { 106b) makes pcrtcct sen:-e. •
( 106) a. ?I . aw John own a house b.
l .aw John own a hou. e for two mtnute!'> once
In other words. Neale ( 19�8) ..;haws that depending on uch extra-grammatical factors a: the pragmatic �ontcxt m whtch a sentence i!'> u�ed. It i. possible even f01 an mherentl · stative verb to be interpreted evemively. According to �Jill woch ( 1990: l 06 n. 2). Neale· s example merely illustrate. what is known m the �emantic literature a$ a c·megorv switch. and a. . uch doc. not necessanly uwalidate Htggmbotham·� claim. :•) However. �hllwoch':; account for examples like { 1 06) does not take into consideration a very general property of B l perception comple ments. namely that the predicate as a whole must always be interpretable a: non stative. In othes word. . what seem. to be cmdal for a sentence . uch ( 106a) to be
non fin i t e pen�eption �omplemenb
43
-
JUdged acceptable 1. that the pred1cate Oll'lf a hott.\'l! (rather than the erb alone) can be as;;:igned a non-.tative reading. Notke. moreover. thar even predicate. headed by copular /)l• may sometunes occur in dirocl perception con. truction. . provided the . ituation depicted pos. es. � a cenam 'temporary" quality. Compare the examples i11 ( 107) beiO\v:
( I 07)
a.
We aw/watched John be a nu1:-ance
b. *We aw/watched �tary be tall Tlle Bl complement in l l 07a) favours an event reading. which i. contlrmed by the facl that the potentially ambiguou. verb
:>t>('
can be replaced b, watdt
tn
thi.
context. that is. by a verb that never admus stauve complements. The t'omplement m ( I 07b). on the othe1 hand. expre. se.s a true state. and i. therefOI'e excluded from IPVCs. E•. entially the . ame situanon is found in . emences that uwol\ e predicates such
a...,
:mmd ot lil·. whtch are u. ually grouped with the , tative verbs. Again. these
are permiued in Bl complement. of perception verb. only tf they expre:s a non permanent state texamples adapted from Kir)>ner and '11tornpson 1976 and Declerck 19RJ a).
nmn
I . aw the mnn lie on the bed
b. ,. I . aw the gla-:. e.s lie on the bed
( 109)
a.
I saw B1ll stand in rhe comer
b. • 1 saw the lamp stand
10
the corner
'l1te diiTerence between the complement clause. m la) and (b) above b that wher�s the former imply �hange or motion. the latter depict a permanent state. This seems to be the rca. on why the (b) examples are genemlly regarded as incoherent wtth a d1rect perception interpretation-de. pite the fact that the satuat ion de. enbed by the Bl clause is visible.111 )lotice 1u11her that m the (a) examples. the embedded subject 1. actively involved in 'the acLiOt) detloted by the predicate. '"het'eas tn 1he (b) examples. which expre. s a prope r ty 1ather than an action. 11 is not. ·nte above examples . how that . tate vert>. are nol generall, excluded I rom J PVC, . whtch mean. that our earher generalisation as to what kind of predicates are permiued in IPVC. ha. to be l'nodified. Let u. therefore tentatively formulate the following constrain!. ( I I 0)
ResJrictiUII 011 81 Prnfi<·au•s
The predicate of a bare mfinitive percepuon complement must be uuerpret able a. non-stative. A Vendler-type di.tincuon between state vet b..; on the one hand and non-stative
d audta fe I . e t·
44
verbs on 1he other 1s evidently too ngid to be applicable here. In the following section. l �ugge. 1 the above genemlisauon would be better . tated 111 term. of the stage-level/indt\'idual-le\'el dt. tinction in the sen. e ol Carlson ( 1980). 2.3 .2.2 'l'ltt· Swgt•-h•w:/1 flldividua/-/e�·£'1 Distinclion . As can be . een from l11e examples discussed u1 the prevsous section. the core seman tic property common to all Bl perception complements. includmg the examples uwolving . tauve verb. whtch were cited above. is that they have a sense of tempo ranne. s attached to them. t.e.. they all imply {the possibility of) change. Obviou ly. the traditional disunction between stative and non-. tattve vems is tnadequate here as 11 prove:- too ngiJ. ln. tead. the generalisation we are looking for . hould be ba!'>ed on a semantic opposition which allows u. to distmgui. h situations that involve a change or motion of . ome soil from . lluation. that do not. This 1. precise!., what Carlson· s ( I 980} distinction between stage-level and md1vidual-level predtcate. enables u. to do. Carlson t 1980: 1 5 2 ) claun. that 1 . . . 1 we hnV\: a large number of predtc:ttcs that apply only to stngcs of indt\'tduuls. ex:unples bctng most PP' s. UUJCl'llV<:s such as dnmk or lll'aUaMt-. the present progrc:s si\'c form of vctbs.
u.s
well as many verbs themselves. We also found there to be a
Jesser number of predtcntcs that nppltcd only to tndi\'tduub 1 .
. .). as the t. dJCCtJVC..s
imelliKNit or JarKL'. the ubtlity sense of the \'Crb can. most verbs that Jack the progrc:s si\'c form csuch as resemb!t'). and all CN's (pretltc.tte nmmnnls).
Carlson· s approach differs fi'Om Vendler-type syslcms (indudtng Mourelatos 1978) in that il make,-: relerence to predicalt!S rather than to individual verbs. In Carlson ·s framework. individual-level predicate)> (hencefot1h. ILPs) denote proper ties or 'true· . tate. . whcrca. the term stage-level predicate (hen�efonh. SLP) applies to all t}'pe. of non-stalive situations as well a. some stative expresstons le.g. si1. swJtd. lie: compare figure ( I l l ) below).
p r·edtcat c.
( I I I)
-----
-
indivtclua l - l e v e l
I
states
-----s t age- l evel / .. "..
acuvities
events
stative verb� te.g. stand. lie)
Carlson· · distinct1on permit ,·erbs such a sta11d or li�· to occur in both tag� level and indt\'idual-level expressions. The following pair of examples might help tllustratc the difference between ILP. and SLP. :
non- fini t e pen�ept ion �omp l e m en t s ( 1 1 2)
a. b.
John was obnoxious John wa. tall
45 tSLPIILP) (•SLP/ILP)
While the {a) sentence is ambiguous between an ILP and m1 SLl' reading. the (b) example can onI, be \ < S. tgned an ILP imerpretmion. In other word.. !-.emence {a) can be understood either a. denotmg a permanent property of John (= ILP). or as a com ment about John·. behaviour on a l'er1ain occasion <= SLP). 'llte predicate in exam ple \b). on the other hnnd. i. genumel, . tative and �an only he taken to refer to a non-changtng quality ofJolm · . . The a. . umption that m contrast to ( 1 1 2a). the predi cate m ( 1 1 2b).-at least in its mo. I natural readmg-Jenote." a permanem proper1)' ol John· s i::: corroborated by it. resistance to take the progre, . h·e. one of the test" for stage-levelhood employed by Cmlson: ( 1 1 3)
a. John wa. being obnoxiou. b. *John wa. bemg tall
When the example, abo e are inserted into a direct perception context. 11 tums out that only stage-level predkates are acceptable � predicate. of 81 complements. where.\. indivtdual-level predicates are excluded. a fact pointed out by Carl.on l ( 1980) hunsell. 1 This ditferencc Ill behaviOur is of course fully consi)>tem with our earlier observation that Bl predicates must imply a dtangc: ( 1 14)
a. We sa' John be obnmaou� h. -tWe .aw John be tall
(SLP/•ILP) ( ILP only)
Thus. we ma, conclude that only SLP complements are coherent with a direct perceptaon interpretation. Our assumption is confirmed by the fact that the alterna tive ILP aeadmg of John bt> obno.\ious. whkh wa> formerly available. is now pre cluded. Only the SLP reading 1s available fot ( 1 14a). that IS. what we see is John brlwvin� in an obnoxious f
The SU' Constraint
for a direct perception Interpretation tO be available. lhe bare mtlnttivc complement of a perception erh must comain a . tage-level predicate. ·nte SLP Con:-.tramt I urthermore predicts that . o-called middle coatmuction. . whh:h denote propert1es rather than event. (riengo 1 974) . .hould be excluded from Bl perception complement. a. well. The following examples . uggest that this predktion ts in fact borne out (example. adapted from Fiengo 1974: 640.): l� ( 1 1 6)
a. -tWe a-. the egg. poach well h. ,.We saw burcaucm� bribe easily c. �we felt the pape . moke nil:ely
d audta fe I . e t·
46
Note that it does not depend on Ihe verb alone whether a given predtcate exhtbits stage-level or individual-level propeme. . bul also on the argumems mm accompany the verb. Por example. a predk�He headed by the verb stand may be mterpreted as . tagc-level in one context (as m ( 1 09a) above). but may favour an individual-level reading in another context (as it does. for example. in ( I 09b)). Given the SLP Con�traint. we further expect that perceptton verbs admit other types ofSLPs as well. such a. non-verbal small dau�e. that have . tage-level propet ties. Once again. the prediction made by the SLP Constraim mrns out to be correct. �ottce thai non-verbal small clause complement� arc . ubject to exactly the san1e restriction that applie, to the predicate. ol tnfitHilval perception complements. that is. they are . ensitive to the .stage-level/individual-level di.tin�tion (see also Carl.on 19HO: 1 25). R>r iiJustration. compare the following example. : ( 1 17)
a. b.
( I I H)
a. �we aw John imelli�ntl b. *We saw John a lumdsome man
We saw Jolm drunJ.
We saw Jolm on T\1
{SLP) (SLP) {ILP) {ILP1
Whereas both the adjective drunk and the preposttional phrase on "IV m (I 1 7 ) aJ'e mterpreted a! stage-level predicates. the . mall clause complements in l 1 1 8 ) only have an individual-level readmg. Condition ( 1 1 5 ) correctly rule,li out the latter type of complement. The above example. thus confirm out as. umption that for non verbal small clause. to be a�ceptable in a direct percept ion context the embedded predicate must have stage-level properties in the . en. e of Carl. on ( 1 980). As it . tands. the SLP Constraim { 1 I 5 ) is of course nothing more than a de. crip tive generali ation. In Chapter 4. I wtll show that it can be denved from lexical prope11ie. of perception verbs. together with certain syntactic properties of stage� level predicate.li. 2 .J ..J Logical I'J·otu•nies of Bare ltt/initivt•s Barwtse ( 191) 1 . 376ft'.) pomb out a number ol truth-theoretic propet ties that chclJ<\t'teri. e Bl complements of perception verbs. the most �aliem of whidt are . tated in ( A)-(C) below. Whale Barwt.e claim. that they can be. t be accounted for wulun the framework of Situation Semantics. his approach ha. been criticised by Htggmbotham ( 1 983). who rnstcad advocate.� an tndl\•idual-events analy. is of perceplual reports in the spirit of Davidson ( I %7). 11 Itresp&.·tive of the se manllc fmmework that one prefer�. the following generah ation. po.-.e a challenge fo1 an, analy. is of bare infinitival complements (compare at. o Higginbotham 1983. 1 05).
non- fini t e pe1·ception �·omp l e m e n t s (A)
47
Principle of \l(•ridicalil\'
For . nnple Bl sentences f/J. if a sees ¢'. then f/1. (8)
Principlt• of Substillllion
If a sees
Prinripl*' oj E:�porrabiliry
If a sees some x such that cp(x). then there rs an x �uch th
which i:-. to say thm the uuth of a perceptual statement implie.'> Ihe extstence of the evem de. cl'ibed by the bare infinitive clau.e. Hence the following inference is ' argued to be V
If Mary saw John leave. then John left
By contrru t. veti dtcali ty doe. not hold fOI' lhe clau. at completnen� ol verbs of proposmonal attatude . uch as bdit'l'i'. which is shown by the fact that the fotlowin!? is not a valid inference (the symbol # marks incoherence). lflf Mary belte ,·es that John left then John left
( 120)
The Princrple of Substuution basrcall · claims lhat i PV C. are referentially trans parent. or e:nen:-ional. in that noun phrases contamed wrthin the Bl dau. e can be . uhstituted by other noun phrases that :-.hat•e the . ame referent withoul changmg the u·uth value of the overall semence. '5 Again. Prind pte ( 8 ) faiIs to hold for propo. t tionaJ complements of perception verbs. which are known to create a referentially opaque context. For illu. trauon. compare the validity of the loll owing inference.�. Only lhe second one. whkh involves a Bl complement. follows from the premise that Carol t. the mayor (example. from Asher and Bonevac 1985. 203): ( 12 I )
a. h.
If Maay se� that the mayor 1s jogging through the park. �ary . ee. that Carol 1. jogging through the park If Mary see.� the mayor jog through the park. r...tary sees Carol jog tlu·ough the park
ln t 1 2 1 a). on the olhet hand. the complement clause func1ions like an independent proposllion. and the truth of the overall sentence depend. on the cognith·e state of the perceiver (A.her and Bonevac. ibid.). In short. the difference in logical beha,•iour between full dau es on the one hand and Bl complements on the other corre..;ponds to the distmcrion between direcl and indirect perception drawn earliet'. which in tum 1 correlcned with the . yntactic type of the complement dau. e. '6 Recall that for Htgginhotham ( 1 983). Bl clauses correspond to the semantic t)'pe ol event. and a�. udt denote individuals. The fact that I PVC. can be pronominali sed
48
d audta fe l se t·
provides addition•\! suppon for the daim that they have reference independently of the matrb. clause. For tht. rea. on. he a. ume!-> that a hidden quantification mu.t be present m BI con. u·uctions. an a. sumption that he share,'\ with Harwise (secal. o Gee 1975). More . pedtlcally. H1ggmbotham ( 1 983: I 06) argue.� th•lt 81 complements behave hke quamified noun phrase. lOPs) ruther than clause. <\l LF. even though their surface form re. embles that of clawal expre$.10ns.n Under this view. sentence ( 122a) below is e. sentially synonymou.'\ with ( 122b): ( 122)
a. h.
�ary . a\.v John lea e �lary beheld John · . departure
According to Htggtnhotham. the ( simpli lied) logical representation of ( 1 22a) is a. in ( 1 23). where the quanufied event has been mo,·ed to an operator pos1110n by an LF proce.�. known as Quamifin· Raisin�: l QR) tMay 1 977. 1985):
(3x: leave (John. x)l Mary saw x
(123)
'llle repre. entation in ( 123) read). as 'the1·e exist. an event X . iz. John·. leaving. which Mary saw·. Even though lreating IPVCs analogously to quanti lied DPs raises some independent problem. (. ee in particular �eale 1 988). Higginbotham·. { 1 983) mdl\'idual-event. analy IS ( wluch will be di.cussed in more detai I in Chapter 4) (8).111 provide. a straightforward explanauon for Barwt.e· s Pnndples (1\) anJ Princtple (Cl. also kno\ n a!-> the Pnndple of Exportability. concerns the al�.;ence of certain type, ol quantifier scope ambiguity in Bl con. trucuons. In general. e:us tenttal quantifiers or quantified noun phra!->e:o. within a 1:3 1 clau!->e must take the w1dest possible . cope. ·nte truth of .entence ( 124a) below. for example. implies the truth of the . tatement m ( I 24b). but not lhat oft J 24�). Jn other words. the reading given tn ( I 24bl. tn which the quantified noun phrase somN>IIt' hru matnx cope. ts the only po.sible read1ng of t 1 24a): w ( 1 24)
a. b. c.
John saw someone leave There was ,omeone whom John aw leave John .aw that there was . omeone who left
Again. quantifier exportab1ht, would seem to follow I rom Higginbotham· s as umptlon thai B l complement!-> are not interpreted a� dau. es at LF (but see Sec tion 4.4.6 for an alternative account}. Jn addition to principles { A }-(C). Barwise ( 1 9 8 1 ) notes that negation occun ing mside a HI dau.<;e can u."ually be a. . igned matrix . cope. '11tis generalisation 1s slated Ill (D).
(D)
Scope of NL·�ation If 11 . ees .., ifJ. then .... {a sees ¢).
non- fini t e pet·c e p t i o n comp I e m e n t:-.
49
Princ1ple l0) �orrectly predicts that the �emence John .WI\\ nobod\' lt·uve should be e!!>!!>enually synonymou. wuh ./olm didn ·, s£•e au\'body l('{ll'l! (Higginbotham 1983. 1 10). The general vahdit� of Pdncip·le tD) ha)> however been questioned by Higgmbotham. who ob. crves that negative not-to the extent that it may occur mside a B I clause at all-tends to have the narrowest possible .cope. tuming the embedded VP into an ·amonymic predicate·. ·n1at i . . the sentence I .Wh J\tl(tf) not lea ve will be unerpreted in the sen. e of l I 25a) rather than ( I 25b): (125)
a. b.
l . aw Mmy stay I didn't �ee tvhtry leave
In much the . arne way. the sentence /saw the car not tart I. under. tood a.-: more or lcs synonymous with I saw the car rt'jraiu from sumiug (and not wtth I ditbt ·1 .\'t>e the car sturl). Under this vaew. a statement like ( 1 26a) appears quite coherem. and is tar from l>ynonymou. with ( I 26b). ( I 26)
a. b.
r ve never seen m, l>ISter". car not stan before rve never not seen my . 1:::ter"s car start before
In general. however. occurrences ot negauve nor in. ide Bl clau.e. are rather limited. �httwoch l I 990) points out that sentences such as ( 1 27a.b) below are ·. im ply grotesque·. on the grounds that an event who. e occurrence 1s explicitly denied c<1nnoL l)QS. ibly (!Oilstitute the obJect of tmmediate sen:::e pe1·ception (Ibid .. I 08l: ( 127)
a. #I heard the baby not �:ry b. ffl felt the wasp not sting me
Ol:k'>erve that there are. in principle. two different optron. available for the use of the negauve marker nor in Engh. h: it ma.. negate either an entire chm.e (sentenllal or ·. lrong · negation). or the predrcatc alone (predicate or ·weak· nc!!-ation) (�:ompa.re e.g. Zanuttini 199 I ). The example� in ( 1 2 8) demon. trate that these two type� of negauon may at.o co-occur: ( 128)
a. b.
l c<m·t not obey her When John goes to a patty at Budangham Palace. he can ·t pos. ibly not dance with the queen
Notice now rhal I PVC. diner I rom finite dau. cs m that they do not admit two separate irll>tances of not. as shown by the tll-formc-dne,'>s of ( I 29b ). ( 1 29}
a. We saw lthal John couldn·t ()QS. ibly not dance with the queen] b. *We saw (John not not dance with the queenI
Tlle conclu!!>ion to be drawn from Higginbotham ·s and Mittwoch ·s observation. appears to be that semeutial negation i. genemlly excluded from IPVC.. while
50
d audsa fe l se s·
predicate negation ss permiued to che cxtem that il makes sense pragmatically. I chcrefore sugg� t that Barwsse · s Pnnciple { 0 ) should be replaced by 1he following . generahsat ion: s•) ( 130)
The Nt:G Con.traiJU
Sentential negation is excluded from I PVC. . I n .urn. w e have seen chat Barvlise ·s generalisations ( J\)-(C) illustrate two majot logtco-. emanttc �hru·acterisucs of direct percepcion con.tructions. namely ( i ) that B1 clause, do not function as independem propo. itions (and hence cannot be as s•gned a li'Uth value ofthetr own). ertie. can be denved. Higginbotham · . :maly,is consti lu les an imponant slep Ill this direction. even though il is tlOI entirely withom problems (see Neale t9K8. and Section 4.4.7 below). In Chap'ler 4. I will show that the semamic characterisl ic. of petceptual reports are to a large excem determined by their :-.yrua:-.. 2.3 .4 Rtstrh:tions on Bare Plural Subje('/S
Carlson l l980) ob. ervcd that so-called bare plural noun phrases are ollen ambigu ous between a generic and an existemiaJ interpretauon. Where:� lhe subJect OP firemt>tl. dinosaurs and do,f!.!l lll ( t 3 1 ) can recetve either an exislemial or a generic mterpretation. the :-;ame DP:-. can only be interpreted Ill lhe genenc . en:-.c in ( 132). (131)
( 132)
a. b. c. a. b. c.
Firenu>11 extinguished fires
Dino.mws ate kelp Dogs tan Firemen are tntclligem
Dinosaurs liked kelp Dugs are noisy anunal.
(EX/GEl\) (EX/GEl\) < EX/GEN) (OEN/"EX) (GEN/ EX) (GE�/,.EX)
Sentence ( I 3 1 a). for in. tancc. can be under. tood either as describmg a propeny
non-finite pen:eption l'Om p l e m e n b
51
of firemen m general c the UEN reading). or in the )>ense of ouw fitemen being engaged in the activity of extinguishing fire. at )>orne poim in the pa. t (the EX read mg). Example ( 1 32a). on the other hand. unamb1guou. ly imphe. that imelhgence IS a umversal characterisll� of tiremen. lf we follow Carlson ( 1980: I 04) in a.�sum .. . mg that . the Engli)>h bare plural 1. by ttself unaml>1guou. . then the availability versu. ab. ence of an existential reading mu.t depend on the type of predicate in volved. i.e .. whethet th1s has :.rage-level or individual-level prope11ie:.. With regard to the example.� above. we note that the predtcatcs m t 1 3 1 ) are actually ambiguous between an JLP and an SLP reading. that ts. they ma, denote �ithn a property or an activity. The example. in ( 132). on the other h<md. all contain the mdtviduai Jevel predicates. wluch according 10 Carlson denote properttes of individuals. Whereas bare plumI subjects of stage-level predtcat� admit either an ext. tenuat or a generic reading. bare plural . ubjccts of indivtdual-level pre(hcate.� can only be mtcrpreted g.enencally. Notice that if the B l equtvalents of ( 1 3 1 a�) are embedded under a perception verb. the po. . ibili1y of a.s1gnmg the po.tverbal OP a generic readmg is no longer ava1lable. That is. the complement dauscs in ( l 33a�) can only be understood in the sense of ( 1 34a-c) below. ( 1 33)
a. b. c.
We watched firemen e:\.tinguish fire:. We ,�;aw ditwsnurs eat kelp We heard dogs bark
( 134)
a. b. c.
We watched some firemen exttnguislung fir� We saw some dinosaurs eaung kelp We heard . ome dog. barkmg
(EXJ•Gt::I" ) (EX/41Gt::N ) (EX/..GEl")
We may conclude. then. thm IPVCs generally do nm permil a generic inter pretation of bare plural :.ubject..,.1 In tensed complements. on the other hand. the ambiguity of the plural . ubjecls is pre. ervcd. ( 1 35)
a. b. c.
We saw that tlremen extingui.heel fire. We .saw that .orne firemen were bu.)' extinguishing tires We saw that ·extinguishing fire)> · was a univer. al charactenstr� of firemen
Sentence ( 135a) can either be imerp1eted in the .sen. eof ( 1 35b ). where t'.\lingttish fin•s describes an ongolflg activity of .wnu• firemen. or as ( l 35c). in which l'a�e extingui.�lt fires peci ties a propen y of tire men m general.
Tlle above ob:-.ervauons can be captured by the following de�criptive "� genel'ah. ation:
d audsa fe l ses· ( 1 36)
'l1te :t(;J:.W Cmt�lrttiffl on Bart' Plttml::.
Bare plu• al subject. of non-finite percept ion complement. cannot be in terpreted genencally. Die.ing · ( 1992a.b) claims cegardmg the . ymax of indefinites suggest that the absence of a generic reading for bare plural. in Bl per"Ception complement. might be linked to the fact noted m Section 2.3.2 that mdh•idual-lcvel predicate. as m ( 137) below are generally exdudcd from diroct perception sentences. ( 1 37)
a. 'tWe saw t1remen be intelligent b. •we saw dino. aurs love kelp c. •we heard dog. be noisy animals
The prec1se nature of thi. link. as well <\. the extent to which the above-named constraint. are interrelated. Will be explored further in Chapter 4.
2.4 Summary of the Properties of I PVCs Thu. far. we have seen that even though JJ>VCs exhtbit a number of unequivocally dau.al characteri tics. there t. no ob\'ious evsdcnce for the presence of any of the standard clausal heads such as C. or lnll-categones such as Tor Agr. m lhts type of complement. II wa. funher shown that IPVCs behave dtl'ferently from both ECM and non-verbal small clause)> in that their . ubjoct OP cannot be pa.sivt.ed. a fact that 1. as yet poorly under.tood. Moreover. ll was . hown that the po. l>ibshty of in sertmg expletive !ltert' into Bl perception clause. IS subject to seemingly arbitrary restrictions. umme.d up in (89) above. Semantically. perception verbs followed by an IJ>VC always denote the unmediate sensrn perception of an event OJ situation. which must be mterpreted a:- occurring ..-imultaneously wuh the act of perceh•ing (d. (97)). When combmed with a ten.ed or fully inlinitival complement. on the other hand. perception verbs take on an epi.temsl� reading. giving ri e to what we have called an ·indirCl'f perception ime1 pretation. Contrary to Bl clauses. tensed and fully infinitival complement. show a comparatively htgh degree of temporal tndependence from the mall ix clause. 'llte three l)'pe,�; of clausal perception comple ment differ not only . yntactkally. but with respect to thetr semantic type as well: !PVC denote evems. full mtimtsve..- denote . tatel>. and finite daus� denote propo stuons. It wru fun her noted that for a dtrect perception reading to be available. the IJ>VC mu.1 contain a . tage-level predtcate in the sen. e of Carlson ( 1980). that i.. a predicate rhat describes a change of state or motion of some sort. Individual-level predicatel>. on the other hand. are genemlly excluded from non-finite perception complementl> (cornpare ( I I on. Unlike that-PVC. OJ full infinitives. JPVCs were
non-ftnite pet·ce t> t io n complemen t s
53
shown to be referentially transparent with existentially quantilied expressions nor mally taktng mmr ix scope. Finally. it was noted that bare plural subjects of u>VCs fail to admit the generic reading that is :wai table for them in other context. . and can be as. igncd an exi.tenttal inteq>retattotl only (compare ( 136)). I n .um. we have ,ecn that the interpretation of perception verbs varies according to the t, pe of complement they occur wllh. and that there appears to be a fairly )>trong degree of correspondence between the syntactic and . cmamic propertie.� that ch:uacteri. e I PVC.. The absence of oven complementtser:- and modal . for exam
ple. corre. ponds to the ob. ervauon that BJ clause. do not fun�:lion as propositions Independent from the matrix �.·lause. hke 1/uu complements or. to a Jes.er extent w-mfinruvc.�. The lack of evidence for a Tense node in JPVC.s ob\'iously correlate· wllh the Simultaneuy Condtttotl. The notion of direct pen.·eption. then. might serve as a cover term for a number of. ymacrtc and semamic characten. tics of these con . trucuons. . uch a. the ab. ence of finitenc.�s markers. the condtllOtl on tempmal snnultaneity. and other interpretative properties. Belore mming to par1icipml -in�t complement.� in Section 2.6. J pre.-.ent evtdence again)>t the �ammon a�sumption that IPVCs should be treated on a par with cau. attve B l complemen� in the followmg Section.
2.5 Perception versus Causative Complements Thts :;ection pro,•ide. a lme l contrasttve overvtew of the properties of causative B l complemems. I will pomt out a number of di tlerence. between the complements of cau. ative
a.
BiJI saw !John jumpI. and Mary saw ir too
b.
This .suggest. that m contm. t to IPVC.s. causativecomplcJnents do not have refer ence (see also Barwise I 98 I ).
ote that cau. attves never aJmit derived evem nonu
naf. in place of a bare infinitive enher:
d audsa fe he•·
54 ( 139)
a. We saw/watched Man depart b. We saw/watched Man·.'\ departure c. We made/helped/let/had Mary depan d. •we madcJhelped/lellhad Mctry 's depanwe
In corutrast to IJ>VCs. causattve Bl complements arc typicall, interpreted as re.!ultative. that i.. the event or situatton described by the bare inti nit ive is under stood to be tJ1e n-sttlt of the action denoted by the causative ''erb (Mittwoch 1 990: 1 1 7). In other word. . it appea1s that causative verb. and thetr non-finite comple ments de�cnbe a :-mgle complex e ent whereas perceptual reports make reference to two di unct event.. denoting the act ol perceiving and the event or suuauon that ts perceived. re.lipectively. Contrar, to perceptual reports. cau. auve sentences do not always ob�el'\·e the Sunultaneity Condition enher (ct. ( 140a.b)). ( 140)
a. b.
We can·t now let Gazza play for England in the futw·e"'� Her early trauma made Mary . eek therapy later in hfe (Safir 1993: 59 n. 1 6 )
Mittwoch ( 1990) fUither pomts out that tn comra�t lo percepuon verb. . causative verb� do not form a . cmantically coherent cla�s. and they do not neces. anly . hare the . arne . elet�tional pmpenics. Causative make. for example. dit'fer. from other cau. atives (as well � from perception verbs) in that u optionally admits mdtvidual le el complements such as re:wmble sumeom:': ( 141)
a. h.
I made Harry rc,liemble his father by pumng an old hat on him {Cattell 1984: 266) John made/44had Btll like French cooking (Ktller and Rosen 1993. 540)
There also exist ,ome fundamental s, macttc di1ference.� between causative and perceptton Bls. a. well as among the causauve verb. themselves. Whtle IPVC$ are characten.cd by the absence of aspectual auxiliaries. make. In and haw• allow pro gressive be to occur instde their B l complement . ( 142)
a. b. c.
Let It be raining. I don·t care tGee 1975: 350) :Vlar·y made/had £he frog be entertaimng the dwarfs {Lapointe 1 980: 772. Take1.awa 1984. 678) ":Vlar·y . aw/heard the lrog be entertainmg the dwart:
The verbs Jn(lke <md h•r also seem to admit pas.ive bt: more readily than percep tion verbs do:
non-finite pe t·�eptlon � omp I em en t:-.
( 143)
a.
�lake/let it be known that John 1s a fool
b.
�lary had/?.aw the frog be cmertamed by the dwa1fs
55
(Gee 19n. 467) (Laponue 1980: 772)
Ritter and Ro. en ( I 993: 54 I f.) point out that make contra. t:- with have in that 1ts B l complement may commn an expletive subject �cf. ( 1 44a.bt). ·111e :\ame i s true for In
(144)
a.
John made/41 had it seem likely that Bill had lied
b.
John made!•had there be cotnputer:-. available for all the . tudent:
c.
Let lhere b e light!
The verb:-. Jet and nwke are unique among the Bl-takmg ve•·bs in that they occa . 1onally allow mauix pa:'sivtsation. although lhis po. . tbility . ecm. to be restricted to a small number of ·frozen· . yntagmas wtth an idiosyncratic meaning: ( 145)
a.
John wa. let go b, the police
b.
She wru made belteve Ihat she wouldn' t have to pay anythmg
b. :tJohn wa.
een/made/helpedJ11ad go (by �Jar, )
Notice fur1her that whtle none of the causatiVe$ nounall, admits fully ptopo. i tional (i.e.. ten:-.cd) complements. the verb lu·lp i. :-.pec1al in that it takes full mfim ti es in the active ( Palmet 1 987: 195):
( 146)
a.
I helped them to bUJ!d the hou. e
b. • 1 saw/made/hacUiet them to butld the hou. e In addition. ob. erve that causauve In and hdp (but not mal.e or havt!) ato admit
subjectle.�. mfinitives. Bl perception complemem:-. on the other hand. mu. t alway ha e an overt subject.
(l·H)
a.
Let go (ofthe rope)!
b. :t$ee leave (of John)!
(I 48)
a.
They helped carry the load
b. -t'They saw/made/had/let carry the load Among the cau. auve vems. lw\'t> 1s the only one rhat pattern. with perception
verb:-. m pcrmiumg panidpial ( 149)
-m
complement:-. (Palmer 1 987: 1 95):
He hadJf<made/*let/•helped all the pri:-.oner:-. pumshcd
La: t but not least. perception verbs. but not causativcs l with the exceptton of haw!. see Palmer 1 987: 195). alternate with p:utkipial complement. of the type tllustrated by ( 1 501>). The ability to pernut both Bl and pat1idp1al complemcm:- is an exclu. ive characteristic of verbs of perception.
56 ( 150)
d aud1a
a. b.
fe I . e t·
We saw/had/made/let/helped John draw a ci rete We saw/had/,.madel,.lell... helped John drawmg a circle
A <.'Ontmstive overview of the mo�t :-.altcnl dtft'erence. between �au. ative and perceptton verbs. as well as of dtlierence. between mdtvidual causative verbs. i given in table ( 1 5 1 ) below (compare Palmer 1 987: 195. l9�tf. . and the reference,� cited above). (151)
Conlrasli,•e overview ofS)'UUu'lic and semmuh' properties of cflu;)mi,•e
and pt>�cep1ion w•rb.11 in t:nl{lislt
Perception Verbs
Cau:-.att ve Verbs help make ltm·e
SubJectle. s Bl I:H and Expletive BJ and Mall'ix Pa�sive 81 and aspoctual be BJ Proform · Resulf Jnterpretat ion Simultaneity Condition SLP Con. traint -ing Complement -i!n Complement Fully lnfinuival Complement iltat Complement Derived Event Nominal Complement
+ + +.. + + + +
+
+
+.. ,.
+ + + + + +
let
+ + +.. +
see
hear
fe<>f
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ + + + +
+ + + + +
+ + + + +
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ +
•idiomatic c:<pres�ions only: .. in pas.ssvc contc:
From the above ob.crvations. I conclude that cau...;ath·e t.:Oil.tructions are . em<mtt cally and .ynta<.'tk
non-finite pea·ce J> t ton comp I em e n t:-.
57
a complex predicate with it-: verbal complement.� Others have proposed that cau�ative B l structure. generally mvolve complex predtcate formation (. ce e.g. Kac 1 976. Rosen 1989. Di Scwllo 1990. or Guasti I 993). Whether or not there exist� a sub. et of�au. ative 8 1 complement.: that can indeed be treated on a par ' it.h I PVCs. 1' I shall leave a.o; a matter for futute researeh.
2.6 Participial Perception Con1plcments
What make� the ''erb� of .�en�ory perception unique among Engli.h verbs 1. theu abthl)' 10 license both bare mtimuve and p<micip•al complemem.s: 1f) ( 152)
a. b. c.
1 . aw Mar, lntvelleaving We heard him plt�ylplaying the piano They fell . omeone enterlnrtering the room
Cau.sati\·e verbs. ct.S we have seen 111 Section 2.5. typically admit Bl complements but cannot be con),trued wllh the V-ing form. A number of other verbs. hy contrast admit participial complements only: 1he. e include the progrc. . ive auxiliary be. verb), of the remembl'r type. and aspecrual verb), such ru swn. stop. or ke('P· ( 153)
a. b. c.
John "'''� dr;\wmgl•draw d1·de. I remember John drawing/ ..draw ctrcle. John .staned drawmgl•draw circle�
Along with infinitive, and the \f-('n form. the -ing form of the verb belongs lO the set of non-finite \•erb form. :1! it is not overtly marked for tense or agreemenL Whereru B l complement clau. e. are rather hmited m dislnbution. t:::nghsh make, abundant use of the V -ing form. The -in� uffix is an exttemely ver.attle elemem lhal can occur in a variet )' of different erl\'ironmcnrs. The bound morpheme -ing. for mstance. is a highly productive denvauonal suffix wluch. when au ached to a verbal stem. may yield noun. (e.g. \H•ddiug). adjecttve.� (e.g. plt•asing). or even prepost lion {e.g. re!(arding). as �Jilsark ( 1988) note In combination with aspectual be. lhe verbal sutfix -in� signal. progrc . . ive aspecl. .
•
( I 54)
a. b.
John wa lked John was walking
.
(simph• ptw)
(past l"ogn•.ui\•d
Other m. lances of the V -inK form occur in modifying adjuncts or .absolure con str uctions. as in ( I 55) {compare Smmp I 985 ). ( 155)
a. h.
Bill lefl
without .�a)ing a word
With Bi/1 /wviu� lejl . Mary's life became mudt quieter
c 1 audaa fe l s e r
58
The V -ing form abo appear!'> in the complement domain of lexical verbs. OP-ing
con!'>trucftott. like those li�ted in ( l 56) below have been extensively di. cu. sed in the H generauve literature: ( 1 56)
a.
I can't .stand Joh1t ·... smokin� cixars
( POSS-ing)
h.
1 remember him ki.ui11� Man
(ACC-ing)
c.
1 hate PRO driving m llil!llf
d.
John staned drinking
( PRO· illg)
e.
I .aw it raining
(VTA)
( Perceiving-iug )
The . yntactic statu. of the POSS-ing construction in ( 1 56a) (Chomsky' s 1 970
· gerundtve nonunals · ) ts pat1a�ularly coot rover ial beeau. e it shares propenie, ooth
wtth clawe. iUld DP. . PRO-i11g and ACC-ing structures (cf. ( 156b.d). on the other hand. are wtdely believed to be clausal con. tituents of .some type t for some discus . ton. see e.g. Horn 1975. Bmu. tell a 1 983. Reuland J983a. Jwakura 1984 m Johnson 1988). Verb!'> ol temporal a� peel (as m ( 1 56<1)). which also take clausal compte� menI!->. are a. sumed to trigger . ubject mt. ing (see al.o Section 4.5.1 ). Sentence ( l56e) contain. an example of perception -ing. a complement type whkh. ru r wtll
. how below. shares most of tt. properties with IPVCs. La!t but not leaH. Engh. h also has true gerund!.
�
in ( I 57).
John's brutal killin� of llw d(•er up. et t-.•tary
( 157)
Abney ( 1987) offer!'> a sy. tematic analys1. of OP-mg constru�t ion� whtch makes crucial u. e of synta.:tic afihauon. He suggests that the nominal ising affix-ing com bin� not only wtth lexical items. but with phrruat categories too. an a. sumption which account. rather neatly for the difrerent t, pes of OP-ing complement that we find m English. According to Abney. -in� may alltlCh either to V. V P. Ol' IP. yielding
true gerunru. POSS-ing and ACC-ing structure. ( 158)
a.
DJ>
�
.lohn·s
D'
A
D
NP
�
�
A
-iug
V
kill
.,.,
/�
of the deer
t'e.
pecttvely (Abney 19X7: 222ft'. ):
non-finite pe t·�eptlon �omp I em e n t:-.
b.
01'
POSS-ing
�
John'.
c.
A
D
A
�
�
I
smoke
I'
A
I
VP
V
JP
A
hun
NP
DP
6 cigars
l\CC-ing
OP
-iug
0'
59
VI'
A
V
OP
A
kt:-s �hwy
Jn each c•�e. -in.� al1h:auon converts a verb or a vet bat project ion (i.e. either VP J" Ole. however. that 01 lP. the extended proJection of V ) into a nonunal constituent. Abney's analysis. 1. not enurely unproblematic either: not only does the preci. e syntactic . latus of -int: remain unclear. hts analy. t.s of ACC-iug gerunds are al.o que�tionablc from the pouH of \itew of X'-theory a. ll appears to involve an exocentnl.' . trucu.uc (unle.�s -inK i. taken to be the head of the overall 0Pl.�9 In . um. the -ing suffix proves to be an extremely ver.;;mile element. who. e mean tng-to the extent that it ha� any-i. alway. contexmally defined. that ts. it merely contributes information to the meaning of the element (or group of elemenL') it anache. to and take. . cope over. The lexical repre.sentacion of -ing has alway. been a comtove�ial tssue. and I shall not attempt to provide a unified anal,. is lor -in� here. rollowmg .sugg�uons by Reuland ( 1 983a) and M iJ.sark ( 1988). I assume that at least in some of us use5. the ·utfix -ing (or the grammatical features a.-..sociated wllh it) acts like a .symact ic head (. ee Chapter 3 for fu11her discussion). 2 .6.1 Tlu• t\.mbi�uirv of f'arricipitll Complemems
'11\e complemenL-.; of perception ,·erb. have often (enher explicit!.. or taculy) been exempted from analy. es of OP-ing �on. u·uctions. or have been dei t lt wirh only in footnotes (Mil. arlk 1988. Reuland 1 983a. among others). This i. like! · to be due to the fact chat thetr .syntactic behaviour i. not uniform. or may even appei u to be downright contradictory. Perceiving-in,'? construction. sometnnes behave like clau�:-.. and .sometime. appear to panem with DPs. In the past PP'VC. have alternately been analysed as object control structures (riengo 1 974. Jwakura 1984 ). sentemia.l constituents l van der Leek and Jong 1 982. Bar:-. 1985. Johnson 1 988. among others). verb phrase. or verbaJ small dau�e..-. (Akmajian n ul. 1979. Roeper and de ViJher� 1992). noun phmse. (Akmajian 1 977). or a� non-constituent equence. (Bowe� 1981 ). OccasiOnally it has been •
d audta fe l s e t·
60
:-.ugge. ted that PPVCs .-. hould be . ubsumeJ under the ACC-iug construction rathet than bemg treated a. a separate complernent type (Goggin 19K2. among others). In what follows. l provide some evidence against this datm. l further demonstrate that the confusion that tht• type of pe�eplion t:Omplement ha:o. cau:-.ed in the prut i� pn marify due to the fact that many instance. of the perccivmg-ing construction are . tructurally ambiguou . . a propert, that h.-c thu. far been systematically mvesugated only by Declerck { 1 982a). Only one type of perceivmg-ing con. truction turns out to be structurally analogou..; to H I perception complement.. 2.6 .I .I Clausal /'r()perties At fiN glance. the behaviour of PPVCs re.embles that of the l\CC-ing <.'Ot\struction which we find after verbs of the remember type. Like ACC-iu,�s. participial percep tion complements exhibit dausal propet ues.. as illustrated by the example. below.�
( 159)
a. b. d.
We sa' /remember it mining in i\ri�Oiw 1 felt/remember 1'-'larv hillitt� llll' wi1h a stom• ( I felt/remember Mr£' ri.in� m•t•r the mettdow n blue hu�t' ( � 1 .aw/remember there)
t::xan•ples ( I S9a-c) tllustrate that what is perceived or temembered in each ca:-.e t. . quite dearly. an entire event. with the postverbal OP functiomng ru the :-.ubject of the embedded predicate rather than an object of the matnx verb. Not ice further that neither ACC-in� con!\.tructtons nor PPVCs can be mtro
a. 't l . aw/remember p,r John drawtng cirdes h. 1 saw/remember them/* lheyl*litt>ir drawing circles caretully
·n1e fact that the subject OPcarrie. objecuve ca�e. ugge.•as that DP-mg structures like the above mvol e exceptional ca'e-ma.rking b)' the higher verb (John. on 1988 -but :-ee Reuland 1 983a and Roeper and de Ytllier.s I 992 for a Jiffea-ent vicw).51 Despite these and othersimilaritte. . howe,·er. PPVC. behave differently frorn the ACC-iu,� construction in . evcral other respects. which cast. doubt on the �. ump tion that they belong to the :-:arne complement type. ottce. for tnstance. that n>mt•m ber-type complement. differ from PPVCs m that they optionally admit null subjects (d. ( 1 6 I a)). but on the other hand do not very readily permit anaphorit: :-.ubjects (cf. { 1 6 l b)}s2 : ( 16 1 )
a. h.
1 rememberfotsaw PRO drawing circle.-; I . aw/?.. 1 remember myst>{f' dmwmg circl�
non- fini t e pen�eptlon �omp l em e n t s
61
Roepe1 and de Villier. ( 1992: 222) J>Olnt out that ACC-ing and percepuon verb. difrer with respe�t to the po. �ih1hty of adjunct extraction: �l ( I62)
a. How, did he . ee me runnmg � b. ,.How, did he enjo, me running t,
As noted by Reuland ( 1983a. 1 I 0). quanti tied subjects of ACC-ing complements w1ll typically have narrow scope. a. shown in the (. imphlied) u: repre, entation (163b). (163)
a. b.
I hated everyone I liked being hanged I hated I (every.:�. . . . . ) [ .\ i. hange.d ) J
Postverbal QP. i n participial percepuon con. tructions. on the other hand. are generaHy expo11able. and existential quanulier. seem unambiguously to take matrix scope tcompare Section 2.3.3 above): (16 4)
a. b.
I .aw someone lea mg (. omc ,\ . . . . ) I I . aw \ leavmgl .
Finally. observe that ACC-ing ve1 bs admit a rather dtft'ercm range ot complement t)rpes from perception \·ems. mduding indi tdual-level or perfective ones as well as full inlinili es. but excluding Bl clau. es (examples (b) and (cl are cited by Palmer 1987: 198. 202): ( 165)
a. b. c. d.
I 1emember her being quite tall I remember havmg come to . ee you I remembered to tell him aboul it 1' ) 1emember her leave
'lllus it seem� that even though per<.'ei ing- ing complements . hare a numbe1 of properlie.s wuh the ACC-in� constructmon. they cannot strmghtforwardly be sub.umcd under the . ame complement type. 2.6 .I .2 Nominal Properries Surpn. ingly. percel\'ing-ing complements often . how the behaviour of OP. . The nominal ch;uacter ofcertain perceiving-in.( complement10 i. i llu. tratcd by the exam ple. in ( 166).54 ( I 66)
a. b. c.
The moon 1 ising over the mountain h� been \Vitne.sed by many a lover here on Lover's Lane (pa . . t v e ) ll wa.' thl' nwon risin� ovn the nuJtmlain thal we saw r � I eft) What we saw was 1/u• moon risin� ewer the mountain (p. eudo-c 1 eft )
d au ds a fe l . e t·
62 d. e. f.
You can see. but you certainly can't hear. 1he moon rising over the mountain (dgh t node s·atsin g ) Tht• mmm risin� over rlu• mounwin was a bremhtaking stght to :;;ee ( t o ugh-mo eme n t ) 1 was stunned by rhe moon rising Ol't'l rlu• mmmwin {compl e m e n t of a prepo. i t i o n )
I n ( t 6(,a). rhe whole complement serve as the subJect of a passive clause. where.<. t in ( 166b) and ( 166c). the -iltg construcuon appears in the focu. of a cleft or p. eudo-cleft semencc. Examples (d) and le) show that PPVC:- may undergo righ1 node raising as well as appear in the focu. of umgh con. trucLions. and in (f}. the em ire PPVC .er"es a. the complement of a prepo:-.ition. A�.co1dtng to Akmajtan ( 1977). example,� like those above do not only prove LlltH PPVC. are constituent. but furthermore sugge.•a that they mu. t be analysed as DPs. As we �aw above though. PPVC� do not unequivocally beha"e hke nominal cxpres stons--rather. rhey pattern altemately with dause,o; or OPs. Akmajtan ·, analy. is has been discu.. e.d at some length by van der Leek and Jong ( 1982) and Bar. s ( 1985). who demonstrate convmcingly that none of AkmaJian · s argument. against a clausal analysis for PPVCs are actually valid lSee. in panicular. van der Leek and Jong 1982: 106ff.). '11le obvious conclu. ion to draw from the . eenungly contradictory behaviour ol percet\'ing-in.¢ consn ucuon. 1. that they ma. be . tructurally ambiguous. Ob. erve that in contrast to the ACC-ing construction. which take. a semential proform only. many Pt>VC. pemtit esther a nominal or a sentential profonn. for illustration. com pare the examples in ( 1 67). ( 167)
a. b.
1 saw !John riding ht. bike!. and you saw illl1im too I remember [John ridmg hi. btke). and you mu. t remember it/t'-llim too
Taken together. the above observauons suggest ver# strongly that -ing construc tion, embedded under verbs of perception do not consltlute a unifonn complemem type. but are potemially ambtguous between a dau al and a nominal . uucture. Al £hough the structumJ ambiguity of panicipaal perception complements has been noted before (fillmore 1963. Gee 1 975). the only auempt thus far to provide a . y. temattc account for the ambtgutty of PPVCs ha. . to my knowledge. been made by Declerck ( 19�2a). who claims that PPVCs can be up to three-ways ambiguous.5� If thi. i. correct. Lhen the va:a number ot different analyses that ha"e been propo.ed for these constructions in the past i. no longer surprising. as Declerck ( 1982b: 2) notes: In my opimon thss astonishing vnncty of nnalysc� 1 . . . 1 follows from the fact that
PPVCs huvc always bee n n: sumcd to be a unitary phenomenon. {. . . ] As far ns I can
non-fin i t e pen�eption �omp l e m e n t s
63
sec. PPVCs mur OC(.:Ur t n at Jeust lhn:c c.liffercnl ktnds o f (.:Onstrucllon� und should be LS i s1gncd three dilfcrcnt analyses an·ordingly.
'11te three complemem types he distinguishes are (i) DP complements that comam a ·pseudo-modifier' or reduced relative clause. (it) non-con. tituent . equence.� con . 1.ting of a DP and a participial adJunct clause. and (tit) clausal complement. . In the following section. I will provade adduion;1l evtdence in favour of Declerck· s three fold distinction and . how how percetving-iu� con. truction. can be dt amhiguated syntactically. 2.6 .I J '11m•e 'f)'JU'S of PN·ceiving-ing Complemt•llf rtllmore ( 1963: 2 1 8) was one of the fir. t to recognise the ambtguit)' of paniciptal perception complement�. Declerck ( 1 982a) claims that a .entence like ( 1 68a) L . tructurally ambiguous in that it can bc as.signed three ditfc:rent .S)'ntacuc repre.�enta tions. each con·e. ponding to one of the paraphrases giVen m ( 1 681>-d): .
( 168)
a. b. c. d.
1 saw the moon nsing over the mountain I . aw the moon which Has risin�t bW'r 1/le mmmrain I . aw tilt' mooJt as it was rising over the nwwuain I saw the rt•ent of rite moon's rising ow!r rite mowuain
Sentence ( I 68b) tllustrate. the reduced relative clause or ·pseudo-modifier' re.tding of ( 168a). whereas ( 168c) tllu. trate..; the non-con:-.tituent reading of ( 168a). which im·oh•es a VP-adjomed parllcipial clause (or predica1 ive adjunct in Oeclerd(. terminology). Sentence ( 168d). finally. represents the 'true· perception re.tding of ( 1 69a). i.e. the one that corre:-.ponru n1ost closely to the readmg of the 1 PVC truct11 rc in ( 169). ( 169)
I . aw the moon rise O\'cr 1he IIWUillttin
We may take the three po),..;ible reading. ot ( 1 68a) to corre:-.pond to the following repre..;entauon. (fig. ( 1 70) represents an analysts of reduced relative dau.es in the spinl of Kayne 1994. though details of the intemal .tructure of modified DP� are of no turther relevance to the present dtscus:-.son ).
d audta fe I . e t·
64 ( 1 70)
VP
a·educed n:!l atave c l au . e (cf. ( 1 68b))
�
V
Ol>
I
see
�
CP
0
I
the
�
NP
C'
A A moon, C
IP
I /-------
o
VP
(171)
�
DP p l u panicipaal adjunct
(cf. ( J68c))
CP
VP
�
V
[el. rising over the moumain
OP
/-----::::=..-..
PRO rising over the mountain
I �
�ee lhe moon
VP
( 1 72)
�
V
I
t.:lau. a l perception complement (cf. ( 1 68d))
PPVC
�ee
�
--the moon n. ing ovet· the mountain
According to Declerck. only structure ( 1 72) yields a near-synonym of the cotTC! pondutg bare infiniti e con. trucuon. thm as. describes the direct perceptton of an cvem in the sen.e e.l\tabli.hed earlier. If Declerck's t l 982a) claim is correct. we expect that only true PPVCs paucm symacucall� and . cmamically with the B l constructaon. I . hall demon. trate below lhat this predktion 1. indeed bome out. Although pcrhap. the majority ot perceaving-ing constructions are at lea. t two-fold ambiguous. semence� like the followmg are actually unambaguous: ( 173)
a.
We aw thrN' blH>ks conwinilt�ft long bib/i()�raphies => a·educed •·e. I a t a e c l ause a·eading on I y
h.
We saw a lo1 of !>Overt\· mwclling 1hmugh t\fi'ica => p a t· t i c ipta I adj u n c t reading o n l y
(Rigter 1 98 1 )
n o n - f i n i t e pen�e l> t ion �omp I em e n t s
c.
65
\Ve te ll souu•thing drm8erous approuchin�: (van der Leek and Jong 1982) => even t-pe•·cepttOn •·eading on I y
The major . u·uctural difference between ( 1 73a) and ( 1 73b) on the one hand. and ( 173c) on the other. is that whereas in the fir. t t\.VO examples. the m.atnx verb St't.' take.� a direct OP Objecl. the complement in ( 173c) behave. like a single clausal con�timent ( cf. the tree diagrams above). In what follow. . J will show how perceav mg-ing . uuctures can be �yntactacally dt. ambtguatcd.
( 174)
a. b. c.
We saw thrN! bo()ks comaiuin� long bibliogrttphies We aw a lloust.• cm1sistin� oj pnpl'r We heard thl' man Ji\•in� 11eM-door
The symacuc behaviour of thi:-. type of percept ton verb complemem tum. out to be almo t diametrically oppo. ed to that of Bl complement.. wilh which lhey do not alternate. ( 175 )
a. •we saw three books contain long bibhograplues b. *We saw a house const. t of paper c. 'tWc heard the man hve next-door
Note lhal the complement in { 1 74) all exhibit the propenie.'\ of noun phrase. . not sentences. whteh unplies that they ;we headed by a nominal element. What we per ceive with Olll senses in the example� in t 174a-�) above is not event.. but books. hou�e�. and the noise made by 1he man nex1 door. re. pecuvely. Among the .syn tacHe characteri. ttc. of reduced relative clau. e perception comple ments pointed out by Declerck t 1 982a: 6ff.) are the followmg. ( i ) Sul�jt!cl- w•rb tt�nwnem. If a p. eudo-relattve con!i:uuc ttOtl �erve. a. the matrix :-.ubject. It triggers oven number agreement on the verb. an observation origmally due to Akmajian { 1 977: 432): ( 176)
a. h.
The moon and Vcnu using Ill conjunction haw• ( *ha.s) often been ob.erved by the astronomer.-. at Kill peak The moons of J up11er rOiattng tn their OJ bits are {"is) beautiful to watch .
The examples in ( 1 76) at. o allustrate that the reduced relatiVe clause in thts case
d audsa fe l set·
66
must be ·pted-piped· along as lhe head DP undergoes main clause pa: ivtsation. (ii) Ol�il'CI of a pri!pm•ition. Reduced relative dau. e� may also appear as ohje('t� . ol preposition. tn rhe context of perceptaon nommal such as sound and siglu. a. in ( 177) below. ( 1 77)
The sight of three books conwinin� /on�: biblio�raphit•s di),mayed me
WH-extraction out of this type of complement i. usually disallowed (a;; predi cted by Ros. · 1 967 Comple.\ NP Co�t.wruillt). cf. (iii)
WH-movemnll.
•(Whach mountaml, wru I the moon n. ing over t,l ob. erved by many student trut night'?
( 1 78)
In addition to Dederck·. ob. ervattott.�. perception complements containing a reduced relative clause are characterised by the following . yntactil: properties. (iv) DP proform. Wuh re. pcct to pronominali�tion. pseudo-relative con. true lions exhibit the be-haviour of DP)o. not dau�es. ( 179)
a. b.
We aw thr£'e /J{)(}h containing long bibliograpltit•s. and you saw them/,. it. too We heard thl• man li�·ing ne.\t·door. and you heard hun/,.ll. too
. ( ) Re.wiction. t>1t the 'ht.>ad DP. rill more ( 1963) noted that reduced t•elative
dauses cannot normally modtfy proper nouns or pronoun. . a re. trktion which would account for the oddity of the example.;; in l I 80): ( I 80)
a. '?*We saw them containing tong bibliographie� b. '?'+'We he.;ud .John living next-door
(vt) Tuu�h nww•nrt'lll. The p. cudo-relative type of per�eption complement can undergo touf:lt movement (as in ( I 8 1 a)) and clefling (cf. ( I 8 1 b)). both of which are operations that typical ly apply to DPs. (I 8 I )
a. h.
Hou.�e.\' consisti,,g of papn are a rare thing to . ee
It wa. thret> books cmrwining loll;{ bibliographie� that we . aw
Again. recall that bare infinitive clause. are generally excluded from these post Lion (see Section 2.2. I ). (vsi) t.'Aplt•li\'t> su�in:ts. Pseudo-modifier complements do not penn it insertion ot' expletive there. 'Jlte presence of 1/u•re. however. i. generally taken to be a reliable mdtcator of clausehood. as it. distribution is re.-;tncted to (non-themauc) subject positions. ( 1 82)
a. There hvcd a strange man next-dool' b. •we saw/heard there living a . tmnge man next-door
non- fini te pen: ep t i on �omp I em e n b
67
/\s predscted by our analysi.. 1/len' is line in main dau. es like ( 182a). but L excluded from pseudo-modifier con. !ructions hke ( I K2b). (\•iii) Subject function. Not only can p. eudo-mo
a. b.
We watched !the man living next-doorl jog through rhe park We saw (three book. containmg long bibliographie. J falhng off the shelf
(ix) Coordination. Lett but not least. note that reduced relative. t:an ea.;;ily be conjomed with ordinary DP.s. as in ( 1 84a). whereru tslte PPVCs and DP. tend to make rather poor conjunct,.;: ( 184)
a.
We .saw (three books containing long bibliographie. eachl and [two video tapes I b. '?'?We watched I it rainingj and (the dnfung douds} c. ??I fell l�lm, · s touch) and (John hitung me with a rockJ
The above data thus lu11her corroborate Declerck's daun that one type of pe• ceh•ing-in,r: complernent mu. t be analysed ru a complex DP contatning a paniciptal relative clause. Note that reduced relative claus� may also contain a pa. t partictple. as in the example. in ( 185) below. ( 185)
a. b.
We saw (a number of hooks pubh. hed before 19001 We aw [{he wall built by Jolmj crumbling to ptece�
I suggest that the, e two types of participial complements . hould be subsumed under one and the same type of construction. whsch is t:onrirmed by the observation {hat reduced relative clause con. tructions uwolving participles of ditlerent t. pe,li can be conjoined. ( 1 86)
We .saw [three books containmg long bibliographie�) and [ two volume. published before 1900 I
I conclude that perccpuon verb. admu complex OP obJects which may contatn ei{her type of parttctpial reduced relative. both of which are of the gencral form l l87). ( 1 87)
(l>l' . . . IC'P
•
•
.
v run... ork
•
•
•
J)
Semanucall,. too. complex DPs dilfer from clausal perception complements tn at lea. t the following respects. �irst. notice that the temporal interpretation of the
c:l audaa fe 1 . e t·
68
reduced relative doe:. not necessarily coincide with that of the matrix clau:.e. ru the foiJowing example.� show (�ompare Huruon 1973): ( 188)
a. b.
We ·aw a number of book.� published IJL:fim· /900 'l'oda . l saw 1he pt'oplt- living Jwre 1\1 n11)1 rears ago (i.e.. the people who lived here twemy years ago)
De. pite the fact that each comam, an unlensed verb form. both complement:. in ( 1 88) refer to a .ituation m the past. which is tndtcated b, the temporally detctk expres. ion:-.lufon• /900 and t\\ t>nl) )Wtrs a.t:o. Hence. the Simultaneity Condition uuro
( 189)
a. We saw three books· conwiuin� lonK biblio8rttphit?s b. >t'Thrce book. were comaming long bibliographie..; c. We aw 1/leir Jwust-s mnsi.win�: of papn d. 1-'Their hou. es were cothtsting of paper
Summan. ing. l have demon, trated tn thi. section that a numbct· of DP-ing con . trucfiOJh that appear in a percepllon context are not clau. at constituents. hut com plex DP. that are rnodified by a reduced relative clau, e. This I, pe of percetving-inft complemelll pattern:. dal'fercntly from the other major type of non-linite perception complement. rhc bare infinitive construcuon. 2 .6.1 .3.2 fi·t.'t' Adjunct Clau.t'S The second type of per"Cei mg-ing construction which. followang Declerck ( 1982a ). mu, t be distingutshed from true PPVCs mvolve what we may refer to a: a free adjunct clause. Thi. type of perceh•ing-inft comple ment is �imilar-though perhaps not identical. a:. Declerck ( 1982a: 1 5f.) notes-to the constru�tion. in ( 1 9 1 ) below texamples from Gee 1975): ( 1 90)
a. b.
John was . hot crossin� the �rre£'1 Bill wru caught stettling ttpplt'S
The imlicised phm. e re.. o;emble full adverbial adjunct dauses that can be para phra. ed by tinilc adjunct chmse.c;. ( I9 1 )
a. b.
John wa. . hot as he wtts crossing 1he street Bill wa.-. caught as he '' as s1ea/ing applt'S
Sentence ( 192n) below. then. i:. ambiguous between the mterpretation given m ( 192b) and an event-perceptson reading which corresponds to that of the Bl construction Illustrated by ( 192c).
69
non-ftnite pe1·ception comp lemen t s ( 192)
a.
We sau John ao.,·�iug
b.
We saw John a. he was eros. ing the street
c.
We saw John cross the . treet
rlw .wreN
Declerck ( 1 982a) argue.o; that m thi. type of con:-uucllon. the po. tverbal o�� and the partrctpial clau. e do not form a single constituent. Elaborating Decler�k·s propo. at funher. I suggest that the adjunct dau. e {which I take to be adJOined to either VP or I P) contain. a PRO �ubject which. in princtple. may take its reference either tmm the direct obJeCt OJ> or from the matrix . ubjcct ( though instance. of subject control are compru·atively rare). The free adjunct reading of the complernem m ( 1 92a) corresponds to the structure shown Ill { 1 93 ). with the direct object .lohn comrolhng the empty subject pronoun in the adjunct dau. e. VP/IP
( 193)
�
CP
VP
/
V
I
DP
I
/_____
_
PRO, eros. ing the street
se-e John, Where� manr participial complement. are ambiguous l>:!twcen
a
control
structure like ( 1 93) and a uue PPVC structure. the sentence. m ( 1 94) (whsch al. o lack B l colllnterpatts) penntt only one natural readmg-which is one of subject �T control: ( 1 94)
a.
We saw a lot ol paver ty traw,lling thmugh 1Vi·i<·a
b.
�lary often watche. television siuin� in Bill·.� armchair We could see the moon suuuling on top ofthe hill
c.
·n1e meaning of ( 194a ). for example. correspond. to that of ( 195a) below. ·n1at ts. PRO
1.
controlled by the mamx subject.
a.11
indicated m ( l9Sb). and not b.. the
direct obje�t of see. the DP a lot of pow>rfV. ( 195)
a. h.
We saw a lot of pove1ty when we \.Vere travel1ing through A fnca We, saw a lot of poverty !PRO, travelling through Afrkaj
Notice that the intonational break between the postvcrbai DP and the verb phra. e Ill
pmnouncing the . emence. 111 ( I 94) further confirms our daun that we are not
deahng wllh a �mgle constituent here. A .;;entent'e like 1 1 96 ). on Ihe other hand. is ��� ambiguous� ( 196)
We saw John travelling through Africa
d audta fe l s e t·
70
Disambiguating example. like the.e requires the apphcauon of specitk . uuctuml diagno. tic. . Declerck ( 19H2a: I I tr. l ob.erves thai the VP-adjunct type ofperception complemelll daffe� from the other two with re, peel to the following syntactic prope11 ie. : ( i ) Passivismion. Notice rhat the free adjunct type of complemem ts the only one which allow. the po.tverbal OP to pru. ivi.e on its own: ( 197)
a. John, wa. seen 11 cro. smg the street h. "'�lary, wa.li felt 1, hittmg me with a stone c . *(The manj, wa. heard t1 1iving next-door d. "H, wa. seen 1, r-.mung
In the pa),sive. sentence { 197a) i. no longer ambiguou.---fhat i. . it tan only be ru. igned the controlled adjunct readmg. (ii) Syntaclic independence. The participial clau. e in thts type of perception con)>truction can be eparated from the post verbal DP by operations . uch a.'> right node rmsing. whtch is not po. stble where the complement 1. a true PPVC or complex DP: ( 198)
a. 1 saw John. and Peter saw him too. r1ossin� the road b. "'I felt . omething dangerou),. and Mary felt it too. (tpprotlchiiiJ: c . "We could hear the man. and the people opposite could hear hun too. livinr: next-door
In addition. note that adjuncts can optionally intervene between the postverbal DP and the r�t of the �entence.�'J ( 199)
I . aw John lrut friday. crossing the road
(iii) \VH-mm•ement. Since WH-extmction from adjunct clauses 1. not pennilled. the ill-formedne"' of(200a.b) 1. expe-eted (where� m (200c.d). the postverbal )>tring can be analysed as a single clausal complement. fmm wh1ch extra�tion is possible). (200)
a ..IWhich country], did you see a lot of poverty travellmg through b. .. What, Wil! John . hot crossmg � c. LWtuch coumryl, did you see John travelling through t1 d. What1 wa.li John , een cJossing 1, .
Notice again that once WH-movemcnt has apphed. perceiving-ing constructions like (200c.d) cease to be ambiguou. . ·n1e following charactensucs of participial adjunt't. can be added to Dederck's catalogue of propenies: (iv) Optitmality. ParllClpial dauscs adJomed to VP or IP arc always optional. Like adJunct m general. they merely add extra information.
non-fini t e pe t·c e r >t i o n t'omp lemen b (20 I )
a. b.
71
\Ve saw a lot ol poveny ( travel hng through lndm) John wa. . hot (cro!\. ing the bndge)
By contra!t. leaving out the partil:ipial predicate of truly cltw.wl PPVCs cau. e a radical change in meantng. or may even result in ungrammaucahty. as illustrated by the example!\ in (202): (202)
a. h. c.
We tell . omething dangerous approaclung ('?We felt something dange1ou. ) We saw it raining cat. and dogs (We saw it) We saw there rising over the meadow a blue haze ( •we . aw there)
) lmmobilit\. DP/adJunct dau!\e combination. fat! to undergo pas: i 1. ation.
tough movement. orclefting. whach indtcat� that they are not nonunalt'onstituem . (203)
a. •Th<• moon sumding on top of the hill could be seen very cle.\rly Ia. t night b. ,. Tht· poverty rrm·elling 1hrouglt Africa was di. tres. ing to :-ee c. If was a lot ufpm'f'l'l) tnt,•elling 1hrouglt 1Viica that we . aw
t i} Lack of proform. Moreover. the free adjunct type of percetving-in� comple ment cannot be n�placed by a single . ememial proform. which i. shown by the fact that (204b) below 1. not a uue paraphrase of (204a). (204)
a. b.
�lary watched a 1V progNtmme silling in Bill '.\' armchair and John watched it too �lal'y watched tt TV pmgrammt• silling in Bill ·.� armchair and John watched tt TV programme siuing in Bilrs armchttir too
As noted earlier. the unavailability of a single profonn t. generally regarded as . trong e tdence agatnsl constituency. Taken together. lhe above observataons all connnn Dedel'ck· s daun that one type of perceiving-ing construction mvolve a non-constituent sequence con. i.tmg of a DP and a (controlled) adJunct dau. e. as mdacated m ( 193) above. Summan. ing. we have . een a variety of syntactic evidence in supporl of the a . . umption that there exist a second type of participial perception complement distinct from both reduced relattve clause constructions and true Pl'VC . which must be analy. ed as a non-con. tituent sequence consi!\ting ot an DP and a paniciptal clause adjomed to VP or I P. Along with p. eudo-relattve complements. the construe lions di�cu:-.1\ed in this section wi l l pla · no further role m lhe remainder of this work. ln. tead. I shall focus on clausal perceiving-ing complements. whrch are de,cnbed tn the next Section.
72
d audsa fe l s e t·
2.6. I J .3 C/a u. al Pt•rceptiou Complnnems
Finall,. let u. tum to the third type of percea\•ing-ing <.'onstntction. whtch turns out to be a clausal constituent whose prop ertie. closely muTot tho.l\e of HI complements {compare Declerck J 982a. van det Leek and Jong 1982). Although they contain neither overt complementiser. nor ten. e markers. true J>PVC. exhibit the behavaour of clauses. as shown by the exam ple:- in (20Sa-c) below. .
(205)
a. h. c.
(we a t h c t·- i t) We aw it mining We felt the . iiiUllion bt.>(!iuuing to {:('/ daugnous ( s·as�i ng) We saw t/U're 1 ising ow•r tilt' meadow (t blue lw::e (non- t he m a t ic subjec t )
The availability ol weather-il. subject raising. and non-themall� there withm the complement indicates that the Hahca. ed . equences in (205a-c) are mdeed clau. al constituents. �otice that. by contrast. true PPVC:- are excluded from typical DP po ilions: (206)
a. 'fJt raining was seen b. 'fSomt>�hin.� dangerous ttpproadtinJ: wru , cary to Ieel
(pas. a v e )
( t o u g h-moveme n t )
c . :t'Jt wa. thtm: rising m•e1 tlte meado·w a bltu• ha�e that w e . aw ( de ft
)
·n·ue PPVC. are further chara terised by the following !')'ntactic proper ttes: ( i ) WH-IIW\'enwm. A:- indicated earlier. the clausal character of true PJ>VCs is confirmed by the fact that long WH-movement our of this type of complement i. permitted (cf. Huang·s 1982 Condition on &lrflclion Domains ). (207)
a. h.
Where, d1d you . ee l 11 raming t, j? What, did the, feel ( t approaching I?
(ii) Snuential Projorm. Note that truly eventive perception complements like someone bt�eswtf.\ing tltefloor in (208) take a . emential profot m only: ( 20M)
We smelt !iomeoue beeswaxinft tlw floor. but they couldn't smell all '+'him (adapted from Declerck 1 982a: 1 2 )
(iii) l\1uiliarii' . PPVCs also mirror bare infinitive. m that the aspectual auxiliaries luwe and be are excluded: ( 209)
a. ,.We felt . omething dangerou. be approaclung b. ,.We felt . omething dangerou:- hm•ing appr<X t ched
Passive be. on the other hand. is ususally peunitted611• d.
non-finite pet·ce l> t i o n l.'Omp l e m e n b
(21 0)
a. b. c.
73
I saw my car being demoli.hed We heard them beiiiJ: interrogated I fell myself being stung b, a bee
(iv) Passi�·ismio11. As wilh HI complement.. the subject DP of genuinely clausal J>PVCs cannot undergo mam clause passivismion: (21 I )
a. •tt, wa� seen I t, rainingj b. "Someone was smell ! t, beeswaxing the floor !
c. ..I, was fell I t, · being •tung t by a beeJ (\•) E.rph•Ji\•e sul�iec:rs. Insertion ot expletive 1here turn:--: out to be re. u icted in exactly the same way as ll 1. in HI perceptron clause. . That is. non-thematic there IS permmed Ill PPVCs onl, if one of the following conditions holds: if it functions ru the subject of a rai. ing pred1cate. if the matnx clause defines an irreali. context. or if the complement i. a ·pre. emationar dau. e. The lallet typically involve an unergative vetb of motion . uch as wtt/1.. . a deicttc adjunct. and a comparatively 'heav>' subject DP. The following examples iJiu. trate the rel>tricuons on there 11\.1\ertion: ( 2 1 2)
a. *We saw lhere bemg . everal pyramtds in Egypt (imli\•idttal-lew•l pn·dimte) b. •we saw there arriving three grrb (unac·cu.wtive srag('-/{!\'('1 prl'dimu•) ? c. ' We heard there beginning to be a knocking sound (sf((ge-level mising prt•dicau•) d. ?I've never seen there being .o many complaints before (irrealis cont('.\1 + omologica/ predictue) e. We saw there running into the room a man so handsome that he must have been a mov1e . tat (presenwtional therel
Perceptual repo11. that uwolve unaccusative verbs .omeumes improve if a de1ctic adJunct ts added to the complement. rendering n more ·presentational' : We saw there rise/l'ismg over the IIWWitttiu a blue haze
(213)
Semanucally. true PPVCs also pallern \ovith theit' infinitival counterparts. Clausal PPVC. always express the direcl phy. teal perceplton of an event. ;�s opt>osed lo finite complements or full infiniuves. which nece. . ari ly involve indirect perception. Compare the examples below. (214)
a. h.
We saw/watched het· gelling up. et (= H� saw/wmched her �er upst-'1) We saw/ttwatched that she was getllng upset (= We 1ea/ised rlwr she wtts gelling upsn )
74
d audaa fe l s e a·
Whereru :>ee c.<m only be undetstood m it' vt. ual sense in t1 14a). 11 has a non vision interpretation in (1 14b). with us meaning cor re. pondang lO that of .find or rea!i.'U'.
Nexl. ob. erve that dau. at PPVC:- admu stage-level predicate. only. h is well known chat the . et of stage-level predtcates (comprising telic and atelk event; a. well as some stative predicates) mclude. the . et of predtcates that may be marked for progressive aspect in English. Individual-level predicate..�. on the other hand. do not admit the progre.sive-hence the ungrammaLicaJity of ( 2 1 6a-d) below: (21 5)
a. h. c. d.
(216)
a. b. c. d.
He was bemg obnoxiou. He was runnmg He wa. drawmg a circle He wa. . Landing on his head tHe wa. >tHe wa. *He wa. *He wa.
bemg tall knowing the answer havmg a long nose re.embling his father
The following example. demonstrate thac PPVCs are subject to exactly the s.ame re..�trktion: We saw We aw We saw We saw
( 2 1 7)
a. b. c. d.
( 2 1 8)
a. t>We saw b. tWe saw c . '!tWc saw d. *We . aw
him being obnoxious him aunning him drawing a circle him standmg on ht. head him being tall him knowmg che m t . wer him having a long nose him resembhng his father
Like !PVC. . true PPVCs prove to be referenttally transparent. The mferencc m (2 I 9). for example. is a lid under the premtse that both Cmol and rlu' nw\·or rcter to the . ame individual: �' ( 2 1 9)
II Mary . aw the mayor JOgging through the park. Ylary aw Carol jogging through 1he park •
B
If Mary saw someone dancing. then there was someone who Mary. aw dancing
Funhennore. negation occurring instde a PPVC. to the extent that it 1. pos. ible at all. will normally be unde�tood as proJucing a negative VP (that a.. an antonym-
non-fin i t e pen::epuon �omp I e m en t s
75
tc pred1catc Ill the l>en.se of Higginbotham 1983). Tim. in an appropriate context one nught say. for example:'': (22 1 )
a. b.
YesleJday monung. we could !!>eelhear the neighbour" s car not . tarting agam (t.e .. we saw or heard 11 refrain from startillf:) It ts your job to entertain 1he customers-so tf I ever see you not dancing again. I . hall give you the aek!
Let us finally rake a brief look at the po.sible interpretations of bare plural . ub JeCt:-. of PPVC.. A gam. onI, the existential reading is available for .subJeCts of true PPVC. : (222)
a. b.
We ·aw dino),aurs eating kelp We sa' firemen extinguishmg tires
(EX/.. Gc. ) (EX/,.GEN)
In sum. we have .een that tJue PPVC. pattern with bare infimllve complements m all relevant respects. and that both denote an event that ts pe1�eived directly in the manner specttied by the matrix verb. That bare infimttve and panidpial com plement. might belong to the :-.arne complement type t), further .suggested by the observatiOn that they can eastly be conjomed (example from Declerck 1982a: 3): (223)
1om heard 1a door open} and !someone approachmgl
We at.o . aw lhat perceivmg-in� con. l i Uctton s are . omewhat more dtfficull to evaluate than Bl complement:-. as they are often structurally ambtguous. The appli cation of appropnate structural diagnostics. however. reveal. that one type of pana cipaal complement pauernssymactJcally with Bl clauses. . ugge. ting that lPVCsand PPVC. are in fact closely related �onstruction. that ought to be treated on a par. rather than being mvesugatcd independently from e�H:h othe1. Table { 224-) offer:-. a contra. tive overview of the three ditferent types of per�eiving-iltg con. taucllons that exist in Engh h. '
(224)
Three npes ofpanicipial pnceprion complements
Pseudo-Ylodifier Con. u·uct ion
DI,+Parlidpial AdJunct
PPVC
Symactk· Status
OP
dau!-.e
Matnx l'a. stvas;uion Proform Long Wh Exlfacllon Predicate Type Expletive then•
OP + modifier pro-DP no SLPIILP no
non-con.stttuent DP-adjunct . equence OP only no SLP no
no pro-S ye. SLP yes
76
d audaa fe l s e t·
2 .6.2 The DiJ.{en•nn• bc•f\H!t.:n PPVCs ami JPVCs. I demon trmed above that there is one type of participial per\;epuon complement which re.emble. B l complement. in that tt is a clausal con. tituent denoting an event. Since PPVC. and IPVCs were found to pauern alike in all maJOI' l'e: pects. a natural que. tion to a. k i$ what the procise nature of their relattan. hip might be. In other word:-:. what is the diJference between the two type.'> of non-t1nue comple ments? J\ piau. ible answer to thi. que. tion is that the difference between them i. a. pectual 111 nature. Tills tdea was originally sugge. ted by fillmore t 1963) and 1S sometime$ referred to as the l'togrl'ssive Hvpothesis. whach i. .stated intormally Ill (225). (225)
PrtJ�rt·ssive Hvpotllt'. is
IPVCs and PPVC d sfer l nunimall)' wuh respect to theu aspectual speci fication. Spec1lk,ally. the l,rogressive Hypothe.�is argues that PPVCs are the pmgres. ive counterparts of B l perception dau:-:e.'>. According to (225). the retauonsh1p between (226a) and ( 226b) i. es:-.entially the same ;\s the one that holds between the progre. sive :-.entence (227a) and 1ts non-progres. ive counterpar t (227b). (226)
a. b.
We saw John painting the wall We saw John paint the wall
(227)
a. b.
John wru p;unt ing the wall John painted the wall
What the Progre.s.i\·e Hypothesi. claims. in other ' ords. as thal the two types of complements share the . arne set of . yntacltc and semantic propertie...;. but ditfer tn their respective . pecitication for the feature l:tprogre...;. ive). The followmg section present. an overview of al'guments in favour of the Progre. .1ve Hypothe..�is. In Section 2.6.2.2. I examine :-:o-called irrealis perception constt Ul'tton�. wh1ch con. titute apparent counterexamples to the f•rogressive Hypolhe. 1. . 2 .6.2 .I The Plop_ri!SSiV(' Hvpotlw is Revisitni r1llmore ( 1963) was one ot the first to recogm e that true Pi>VCs are dau. at con struction. that mu t be dt. tinguashed from other type.� of -in� structures. He H < gued that PPVCs are transformationally derived from progre: sive sentenl'e,'> by an opera lion called /J£ Di!leriou. The ba, k adea wa.� lhat a :-:emence Hke (228) below was denved f1om the progres. ave sentence (229i) via deletton of progress1ve b£.•. and ' . ub. equem embedding of the resulting . tructuJe under a perception verb: 6
non-finite pen�ep t i o n �omplement:-. (22S)
I heard Mar\' plnying 111)' .wng
(229)
(i) �Jary wa.� playing my song (ii) � M I h�ud (�Jru·y playmg m, . ong.l
77
With lhe. hifl from transfomlattonal toconstraint-based. repre�emational models of g.t llmmar. Fillmore· s 'telescoped progrcs. ive · analyst obviou. ly lost its appeal. �Iany yea� Imer though. Fillmore · . analysis wa. rehabilitated b, Declerck ( I 981 a). who . howed that a number of empincaJ arguments that had been rai)>ed again. t the Progres. tve Hypothe. is could in fact be refuted. An overvsew of argument. m favour of 1he Progre ·sive Hypothesi. (drawing mamly fJOm Declerck's study) is provided below. First. howe"er. let us briefly con. ider some fact about progressive a.�;pect in Engli. h. a language with a comparatively poor aspectual system. Progr�sive aspect tn modern English i)> marked by the verbal suffix -in,f!.. which normally �.:o-occurs wtth the ·aspeclllal' auxtliary hl'. Prog1es. tvi.at ion i. generally po. . ible with stage level predicates only. Although the expanded form can be a.-;signed a vanet, of different meanings (see Galton 1984). the general function of the progressive is to tndtcate that an event is in pro�rt•ss. Brinton ( 1988. 237). for example. states that "the primary func1ion of the progresstve marker is to portray a situation as continu .. ous. developing. and incomplete . Another way of staung this would be ro say that the progre,�t. ive pack. out a single suh-t'W'III ol a larger event. Accordmg to Par. ons ( 1990). progre:-.stves are events in the !'>tate of holdmg.M With regard to PVC�. notice that whereas a Bl perception con. u·ucttot\ usually unphe)> that lhe event described b, the lower clause is wune)>�ted . from its heginnin,g to its end. the PPVC merely descnbes an event as ongoing. i.e. mcomplete. Jn othe! words. the intt..•rnal temporal structunng of inlinitival complement. differs from that or tlletr participial counterpaa1s. This mterpretative difference is tllu. trated b" the foltowing example, {cited by Ktrsner and Thompson 1 976: 2 1 5):
(230)
a. I . aw her drowning. but I r�cued her b. #I . aw her drown. but I re.� ued her
Sentence (230b) is incoherent because it implie,�t that the drowning action i)> com pleted. whereas the u. e of the partici pte in che first sentence sugge.ts that tl ts nol. In short. the difference between (230a) and {230b) t. exactly the same as lhe difl'er ence between progre,.;. ive m1d non-progre. sivc main clause. such as (23 Ia.b). (23 J )
a. She was drowmng. but she wa: rescued b. #She drowned. but she wa. re$cued
Second. recall that the dtstinction between completed and ongoing event.-
78
d audta fe l s e •·
represemed by I I'VCs a.nd PPVCs. respoctively-applies 10 telic evem� only. l\telic verb. �uch as sinct. walk or mn. on the other hand. signal incompletion by ''inue ol their inherem ·proces�· rneaning. Con:-.equently. we nottce hardl, any dtflerence in meamng between a stmple sentence hke �232a) and il. progres. ive coumerpart (233b). (232)
a. h.
John walked towards the beach John was walking tow;:uds the beach
As predicted by the Ptogre.�;sive H, pothesi:-.. a parallel . lluation i. found 111 the corresponding pet·ception se111ences l Dederck 19K I a: 95f. ): (233)
a. h.
We ·aw John walk towards the beach We aw John walkmg loward. the beach
Third. observe that vetb.�; appearing tn a context that renders them incompatible wllh the progre. �ive are also excluded from PPVC . Compare the followtng exam ples (Declerck 1 9 8 1 a: I 02): (234)
a. I have paid him only one isll . o far b. t'J have been paying him only one tsil . o far c. t-She has seen me paying hun only one visit so faJ
t:ul'lher evidence Ill favour of the Pl'ogressive Hypothe�i . and again. t <maly. ing PPVCs a:-. a 1ype of (nonunal) gerund cothtmction. can be gathered from dtachronic f;tcts. Oiachmnically. progre!\sive and gerundh·e structure. have developed f10m difl'erent origin. (see Declerck 1981 a. I 0 41. ). 'llte progre. . tve torm de,·eloped from prepositional phrases headed by on or in. which were llr:-.t weakened to u-. and eventually dt. appeclred ahogether: the -ilt,� suffix 1. thought to have replaced the Old Engli. h pre.�;ent participle endmg ·nul( e}/-ind(e) (. ee e.g. Visser I 963-73. or an Gelderen 1993. Ch. �n.f� Uerund forms. oo lhe ollter hand. developed from verbal nouns. whkh were formally distinguished from progresstve in earlier srage. of English. As the following examples fmm Middle English .how. perception verbs have alway. combined with aspeclUal rather than gerundtve complemems (see Vi:'ser { I 963-73: 236K-9). and references ctled there): (235)
a. h.
I feele my-self a-d. mg now I heard a clashing of sword�. and men (t-tightmg
A fifth argument in l�wour of the Progrc. :-.ive Hypothc. is has been pointed out by van der Leek and Jong ( 1982). They note that not aii iPVCs do m facl ahernate '
non-ftnite pe1·ception c omp l eme n t s
(236)
a. I �aw her find her long-lost ring b. '?*1 saw her finding her long-lost ting
(237)
a. I saw her recogm�e her old fticnd b. '?* I saw her recogni ing her old fnend
79
Again. thi. IS pred�ely what we expect if the Progre!\. ive Hypothesi. IS conect: due to their punctual chamcter. verbs . uch as fiud or recognise do not normally admit the progre.. �. i e. and are theretore excluded from aspectual perception com plemem� too.6f•. (,7 Compare the following examples: (23 8)
a. ?*She W
In summary. the above data demonstrate convincingly that the dttference between !PVC and PPVC. exactly mitror. the difference between non-progre .tve and progressive sentences. Hence, we may conclude that the Progre. . ive Hypothe. is as . tated in (225) is e.li. emially correcl. ln rhe hght of the preceding dtscusston. let U!-. final!. re-examine the Simultaneity Conditton. In the case of PPVC. . whic:h have been argued to de. cribe not a com pleted event. but an event in progress. temporal simultaneity can only be unde�tood in the sen.e that the time taken up by the complement event must inclath, the time mterval . pecilied b., the event described by the matrix clause. ·111is is to say that. generally speaking. wherca. the event described by a B l complement take..'\ place sunuhaneou.ly wirh the act of percei"ing. the beginning (= tt)) and the end (= t11) of the event depu�ted by a PPVC remain un pectfied. due to the fact that the progre · sive merely pack:- out a !->Uhevent of a larger event. whose temporal dW'atton ts not known. Tlu. difference 1. illu. trated by the dtagram below. (239)
tI
----�--- --
(= lime Wkl'll up b) rhe <.'omplenumr event)
PPVC '"V"'
I PVC
B l dau. es that contatn an atelic verb (e.g. run). are snnilar to PPVCs in that they. too. dc�cribe an action that i!-> not bounded in ume. I therefore suggest that we should reformulate the Simultaneity Condition so a. to allow for the possib1hty of a dtrect perception complement denotmg an unbounded event:
80
d audta fe l s e t·
(240)
Simu/umeil)' Condition OJt PVCs
I<'�"' � t , ,..,• •• 1 1.e.. the time imerval taken up by the event descnbed by a direct perception complemem include. the lime imerval assigned to the matrix evenl)
2 6 2 2 lrrcali.� Perreption Construction� Dederck ( 1 9 8 1 a) note:. that . entences like the followmg. for which there extst no grammatic:al main clau. e cqutvalent. (d. (241 a-�)). �on. tllute apparelll counterexamples to our daun that PPVC. are I PVC. in the progre!\. tvc: .
.
.
(24 1 )
a. b. c.
(242)
a. •John t. owning a mansion b. *'I am needing more drugs c. •He is understanding Momague Semamics
I just can't . ee .lolm owning a nwnsitm I ju. t can't see mvsdt' twedin� mon? drug� I �an't see him ever ttnd(•JStmtding J\tlonwgue Sl'numtic.\
Notice. however. that none of the examples in (241) mvolves the direct vt. ual perceptton of an event. lnsread. the verb sn? 1. used m the sen.e of ima�bw here. that ts. tt funcuon.s rather hke a ..:ognilive t>redk.ate. and the mam clause specifies an m•eali. t Ontex t Ob. erve that the complements in (24 1 ) do not alternate with !PVC. eather. '
(243)
.
a. *''?I JUSt can't . ee .loltn own a mansion b. •1 ju. 1 can· t . ee myse(l need mrm· dru,e.s c. "'I can't see him ('\'('1' und(.•rsumd l'v/ontague St>uumtics
I shall follow Declerck in a. �uming that complements of the type sho\ n in (241 ) are not true J>PVCs. but. hould be sub. umed under the p. eudo-modifier corL-;truction Ill! tc.ad.
2. 7 SununaQ' The pre. em chapter ha. provided an overvrew of the characlerisuc properlie. ol direct perceptton complemems. and ha! demonstrated that both B I complements and participial complements are clau. al con. tituenl)> which cue reduced tn t he. enl>C that there is no evtdencc for the pr'C. ence of eitherC of JnOrnm. e m these co rll>t rucl ions Semamicnlly. both types of direct l>ercepli on complement, I PVCs and PPVCs. denote events. whereas full mttmuve.-. and finite complements denote state. and propo. lltons. respectively. IPVC� were . hown to belong to a complement type
.
non-fi n i t e pen�ept ion �·omp I emen u .
81
di ttncc from bare infinitive complemenhofcau. ative verbs. which I haved1.cu��ed br ieAy m Section 2.5. In contrn�t to B I perception dau.e�. perceiving-ing construc tions are pocenllally ambiguous becween a reduced relati e clause stnu.·cure. a non con�timenc .equencc of a DP and a particrpial adjunct dause. and true (I.e. clau. al) PPVC . Only the latter type of perceiving-ing conscruction proved to he direcely related to the other major type of non-finue clausal perception complement. the bare mfinliJve con. truccion dtscus�ed m Sections 2.2 <md 2.3 above. A number of de. CJ iptive generalisation. concerning the syntax and semantics ol direct pen;epuon complements were shown to hold for !PVC. and PPVCs alike. They are given below m thetr final versions. .
(244)
The Non-Finirntess CoiiSTrailll Overt complcmentJsers and tlnitene.-.s marker. are excluded from direct perception complemenL.;:.
(245)
Resrric1ions on t\u.'(i/iaril'S
Aspectual auxllianes are excluded from dir·cct perception complement.. (246)
nre ConstrainT agaill.'il l'a3·sive
Perccptual r-epor·ts do not pas. ivise.
(247)
Rt,srricliOn:> on Explcti\'t' There
Non-thematic 1heH> i. excluded from direct percepuon complements. except l i ) a:-. the subJect of a .tage-level rat ing predicate. (ii) in pre. entational clauses. or (tii) with ontological predicate. in the context ol rrrealis. (248)
Simuluuwil)' Condi1ion Oft PVCs
(249)
'l1te SUJ Constraim
t(Wnl � f.:\VI lt.e .. the time interval taken up by lhe event de. cribed by a direct percep tion complement includes the ume mtcrval a:. igned to the matrix event)
Uirecc percepuon complements mu:H contain a stage-level predicate. (250)
'lhult- Theort>tic· Propenh·s of PVCs:
{J\) Principle of \lc•ridicalit}' ror d1rect perceptton complement� ¢. if a sees ¢. then ¢.6f.
( B ) Principle uf Substitwion In d1rect pen;eption construction;;;. if a se� ¢tt1) and t1 = t2• then a see� ¢02).
d audaa fe l .se•·
82
f C ) l'rinciple t�t' t:.xportal>ility If a sees some x such thai tp(xt then there L an x such that ll .see..� (.\ ). (25 I )
'/1te NJ::.Ci Cons!mint Semential negation L excluded from I'VC:..
(252)
The *Cii:."N Constraint on Ban· Plural
Bare plu•al .subjects of non-finite perception complement. cannot be in terpreted genencally. Moreover. we saw that both IPVCs and p
!'Jo�n·.�siv(• Hvporlwsis
I PVC. and PPVCs differ minim
,_{That he would wash the car) WI!!- promised by John _.lt wns lthat a pmk dephant crossed the strcet) lhat we saw
Compare also Gee ( 1977: 478 ). l t is gcnemlly a·sumcd that only constituents can he pronommalised or conJomcd (st.-c Radford 1�88: 90l. S . • apoli ( I 988) note!- thut certmn unanaly.!-ablc: id1oms sut.:h ns "the j1� is up and 'mum ·s the word' arc excluded from Bl dauscs (l·ompare •U� saw the j1g bt� up). whit.:h she mtcrprcl$ as evllkncc ll!:mnst a c:lausnl anal)'si.s of IPVCs. Satir ( 199. : 47f.). however. pmnts out that tdiomauc expressions such a_.; the ones ubovc which do not describe an cvcnl pcn:c1v tblc m the mnnner spcCJhed b)· the matrix verb arc in facl ruled out on sc· mantic ground:.. wh1ch renders C\apoh'l> nrgumcnt inv·.:Jhd. 6. J ole that the observatiOn that the postverbul DP in perceptual reports is not n dircl'l ob.JC<:I
non-finite pet·�eptlon �omp I em e n t:-.
83
of the mutnx verb 1s by no means new (�ce. for mstan�e. de Gccst I 970, 1973. or Gee 1975. 1977). Nevcrthelc:;s.
some
researchers have attempted to cnptun: formally the
( tmsleading) pragmatic mtuiuon thntthc enuty denoted by the po:;tvcrbnl DP tl> tL -.elf an obJC(.'l of pcrceptton I sec Sel·t. 5.3.2).
7. I owe thts example tu an anonymous renewer.
8. Dretske ( 1969) md . Gee l 1975> refer to this L < " our ·proto-knowledge'. which enables us tu draw infcrcm:es of thi� kind.
9. On the u.ssumption that the l'Ontrollcr ts ulwuys the closest c-cornm:mding DP. the nmlli gutty here must result from the fact that the modi tier duuse cnn be analysed dther as a main cl.tuse adjunct. or as pat1 of the complement clause. 10. Wtlhnms' ( 198:l) vcrston of the 0-critenon allows hun to unnlyse lPVCs ns non· constituents wtthout violuting fl-theory. He cl:ums that the mlimuve funl·ttons ·naked prcdtn:ttc' that is coindcxed with the pllstverbul DP.
IL" shown
as 11
bdow.
I, �aw, tJohn, (JcnvcJw., '"''
(i)
However. the stnu.:ture proposed D)' Wilhnms \\'tllun the framework of Pudimtiort
Tltt>m-y cnn hardly wllhstand the empmcnl cndence m
f:wour of constttucncy that is
presented here and m the hternture cited.
I I . Lupmnte ( 1980) ctte thi!> a:; an argument against the ·stacked VP' analysis of the verbal ·
complc:x proposed by AkmaJWn t'l a/. ( 1 979). Further arguments agamst thil> analysis
em be found in Tak�zawa ( 1984: 67511.) or Jan6cn ( 1993: 91 ff.l. 12. The degree to whit:h spcakcn. of Enghsh ucccpt sentences like t42a) vnri�s consider ably. Whereas Bntish speakers tend to reJect cx:unplcs like (42a). many .'lpeakers of Amencan Engh)>h only �onsider them u little odd. or even tine (compw-e the cxumplcs in Gee l 1975: . 75tf.)l. Accordm& to vun der Docs ( 1991: 244}. wmplemenHnternal pn.�stvisatJOn tl- nonnully ruled out: (i)
a.
Daniel saw Lu(.'Jn phone Henry
b. •Daniel saw Henry be phon<:d by Lucm However. it might be that pragmatic factors play a c.:rudal role here--on event such as Henry' bemg phoned by lucia may simply not he open to d1rcct \'tsuul pcrcepllon. Notice ul.;u tlmt the ucceptab1IHy of sentence..;
ontammg tntemal passives often lnl·
pro\'es when u Jcx·auvc or dnccttonul PP is present. as in: (iil
We saw John be drawn mto the game
Burt.to ( I 986) pomL.; out thut rcplucing passtve br by gn genemlly ytelds mon: acl'epl ablc structure-s: (iii)
We saw John :;ct/?bc arrested
(BurLto 1986: 3 1 2 n. 53)
Th1s ts pre.,urnably due to the fact that contrary to be. the \'Crb {!t'/ IS mhercntly non stattve. Both the presence of the PP m titl and the usc of gn m (iiil seem to have a ·destutivtsing' eO'c�l on the cumpleruent whidt renders it more acCCf>tnble 2.3.2 for furtht:r dtscu ·s10n of the 1:sue of slntl\•ityL
(sec
Sect.
d audta fe l set·
84
13. Partinpial -en complements appear to be scn..;it1ve to !-Omc cunous restnctions though. Some of my infonnnnts said they preferred them with u by-phrase added. Jnd some reported that l·omplemcnts of th1s type sounded more nutural 1f the JroStverbol DP (.I.e.. the -.ubJCCt of the ullc�cd pass1vc VP) IS an some wny aOutf'd by the �tct10n dcscribcd by the partu.:iple. 14. A similar suggestion has been made by Chierchau ( 1988: 288 n. 17). lt IS shown an Sect.
2.6.1 thut complements contaming a present pmttc1plc arc umb1guous I.). ! well. Reduced relative dnusc.s also occur m di rect pcn:eptton coru.tructions in Romance (sec Sect.
5.3.2. and references cited there. for some discussion of psc:udo-rclauvc complements in Romance).
15. Some of my mformunts were actuulty rcluctml to accept l55h). and claimed thut bt•inJ.: ought to be inserted. lt uppcur that the presence uf pos.. -;1\·c bf' always forces an cvcnll\'c readmg. <�s m ( i)
From somewhcre toward the rear they could hc;tr n dmncrtablc bcmg set ( Faulkner.
Pyltm: cited by Vis-.cr 1963-7.\: 2�0)
Notice that the above pcrcep11on st:ucmcnt bcn>1nes ruther o<.ld if b,•;nf.: 1s left out: tii) ?�They heard a dinncrtublc set 16. I owe these examples to Tessa Say. 17. Th1s label Consmrim agninst Passn•c 1s borrowed from Mittwod1 { 1990). Duffle)· (. 1992: 46) ctles two counterexamples to th1s gcnernh!-atton: (i)
The smnllc..;t pin cuuld be heard drop ·ot only n pm. even a dend mosqu1to. ought have been heard drop
(ii)
Note thut hoth of them invoh·c nn ·1rrcalis' conte�t. wh1d1 IS known to huvc curious effel·ts on Bl complements in other respccts as well (sec Sect. 4.4.7 for further diS(;US slon). \-Vhilc the Constraint a�ainst J>ass1ve also holds m other Gcrmamt· llmguugcs :-.uch as German or Dutch. matrix pa..,slvts::ation 1:. pos:-.1ble tn southern Romance languugcs such
us haliun. Spanish. or Portuguese. This cruss lingu1st1t d1ffercncc b d1scussed in Ch. 5. -
I�- Mittwoch ( I 990l further notes that p::rcepuon construction!- tn the pns.. -.tvc trc fully
acceptable only if the referent of the sub)Cl't DP 1s ;tl'ltvcly anvolvcd tn the event pcr
cei\'cd. or. tn the case of the verb lwllr. if the sound pcn:eivcd ts attributable to the entity denoted by the subje<:t. These requirements arc clm mcd to nn:ount for the contrast he tween examples hkc (tl and (ii): tl) (iil
Mury was heard to slam the door '?The brunch wus heard to snap
19. For .m overncw of the d1stnbution of mtimt1vnl dauscs m present-day Engltsh. see Muir
0990} or Dufflcy (. 1 9�2). 20. Note thnt thcd11Yercncc in mcnmng between IPVCs and pa..-.siveto-PVCs tsmuch greuter than the contnL\l between orclmary sentential pass1ves and their ;•cttvc counterparts. and
non-finite pen�ep t i o n �omplement:-.
85
hence cannot be an·ounted for tn ternL" of a ·shift in focus· alone (compare also Satlr 1993: 54 f.). TJmt sentences involving U,_passives hnve nn cptstemsc chumcter ss further confimsc.d by the fact that of the followm� examples (csted by Kroch t-1 al. 1987: 273). only hii) ss semanticully coherent: (s} IIMany people saw that he wa... writing Japanese. but they nil though1 he was JUSt doodling lsi) 4Hc was seen to write Japanc:.e. but they all thought he was .Just doodhng tiiil 1\•lany people saw him wnte Japanese. but they all thought he was JUSt doodling Only direct pt:rcepuon ts independent of the cogmttve state of the pcrl·civer (l·omparc also Asher and Bonevnc 1985). 2 1 . Restriction� on the occurrcn..:e of thue tn B I cl:mscs are dsscussed sn Soct. 2.2.4. 22. .See Levin ( 1 993: <Sf.) for u cumprehenstve list uf non-stutsve verbs thu1 pemut thrrr in_l,er1ion. 23. Agatn. speaker's ,JUdgements of ratsing examples such ;�s (fi-1�) tend lo vary some what. Sutir's example (S4c:) was 111 f:u.:t reJected by one of my British mf()nmmts. 24. Notable excepttons snclutlc Gee ( 1975> and Hsggmbotham t 1983}. 25. One way of c.apturing thts tdea would be to a-"sume that the lower T po.snson 10 fully inhmtival complements w11l nom1ally inherit the temporal index of the matnx Tense tsec. for mstunre. Kr()(:h <'I al. 19X7: 27!-if.). Alternauvely. st mil!ht l:x: that inlinitt\·al to acts hke a modul m that it c:mse.s the intinith•al duuse to be ass1gned a ·dcf:tult' tempo rnl mterpretntson thnt corresponds to cvalunuon u rn�: lsec En� 96: 358 n. 14l. J shnll return to this assue sn Ch. 4. 26. In its present formulntion. the .SsmultuneJtyCondltJon 1s prc�umablytoostr-ong. 'otc. for example. that st is pcrfectl)' natural for u senes of con,Secutlve events to oct:ur m a .ssngle d1rect pcrccpuon �tatement. as in (il tn fal"t pointed out to me by J. Hisg-anbo
28.
kitchen lllmdow
Exnmple hke (s} suggest thut It would be more accurate to spe.sk of an m•t•rlafJOf tunes. to s.uy that the ume mtcnrnl .spe-<:ihed hy the matrix clause must inr/((de the lime taken up by the embedded cvent(s}. I .shuII return to th1s questton m .Sc.ct. 2.6. where the tina! n:rswn of the Simultnnetty Condition is g1ven. As to example (il. l take tt that the coor dmated events in the complement domasn of :wt! together hum a ssngle composite event tbut see tach ( 1 98�: 137-tl) for a d1llcrenl view). Gramley's ( 1987l notson of r�·emwrrcsponds to what Rochette t 1988) e�tlls nn action. I shall. however. conttnuc to use the term n•ent. The tcrnL" used her<: arc those of Vendler ( 1967). whose four-part classification represents the tradltsonul v1cw. There are. however. a VIU1el)' of other lubcts available. a..; wctl as d1fferent systems of classsficauon. Muurelatos ( 1978). for mst.:locc. uses the terms pmass. dt•vl'lopment.
27.
I su.w the bntl fly tlmmgll the air. Jm tlu wall. bounre llfiC<'. nnd finally .mmsh tht•
·
86
d audsa fe l se t· (.t.:e Mourelato.1> 1978. Parsons 1990. or Vcrkuyl 1993 for some dtscus.Mon).
29. Verbs switdting thctr aspcc:tual cutegory are not an uncommon phenomenon (compare in particular Levin 1993). Tile activity verb rrm. for example. turns tnto an accomplish· mcnt verb if a dtrccttonal phrase such as to the swre ts ndclcd (sec Parsons 1989 for an interesting discussion of this 1ssuc). 30. Note that ucccptabthty jud(;emcnts of these examples may vary depending on the prag· matte context 10 which they occur. 3 1 . Carlson ( 1980) actually uses compntibtlity wtth pcrcepuon verbs as u test for detenmn ing stagc-lcvdhood. A third propc•ty of .stagc-lcvd predicate:. poan tcd out by Carlson
{ ibtd .. I 07) is that they occur m extstenuul there sentences. whereas mdtvtdunl-lcvcl prcdtcates do not. d)
There were many people sick
(ii) •!here were mnny people tntdltgcnt Notice that sitk tn the above example can only merm ·phy.stcally stck'. not ·ment!tlly
"tck• . which corre.1>pon<.b to the tndl\'idual-levcl reading of the ndJCCtlve (for SClrtiC dts cusston of tins phenomenon. sec Kratt.er 1989. Diesmg 1992u. :md Ch. 4 below). 32. Note. however. that PVCs involvtng nuddles mny bewme acceptuble in an ·irrcahs' context (the followtng example was suggested to me by A. Radford): (i1
(' ve never seen 11 burenucrut bnbc quttc so eastly
Bx tmple.!> like c i ) thus prov1de further illustratton of the fm.:t that complements in the scope of trreulis behave dtl'ferently from non-im:nlts per�eptunl reports (see Sc.cl. 4.4.4 for further dtscussion).
3:\. Like Higginbotham. Vlal·h t 198�) nls.o argues aguinl-t a MtuattOnnl semantics apprcnu·h. which in turn
IS
defended by
'calc ( 1 988). A� a detailed thscu ·sion of the scmanttc
issues 10\'0I\'cd t:. far beyond the scope of the: present study. the n:ader ts referred to the orsgmul studies b)' Barwtsc ( 19 8 1 ). Barwisc and Perry ( 1 983). Vlach 1 1983). Ht�mboth:un C 1983). and Neale { 1988) mstcad. 34. Oh.l>el'\'e. however. that vettdieahty breaks down if the B l clause cont.nns a ncg.mivc. as Ht�gtnboth:un ( 1983: I 05fJ has pomted out. For illustratton. cumpare the example· in { t ) and (11) below. only the latter of wh1ch ts ,·ohcrent. ( i ) #llf Mary saw no one leave. then no one lcfl (ii)
lf M.try saw that no one left. then no one left
35. For a delinttion of the nuttons 'tmnsparent' and ·opaque'. sec Quine ( 1960). :�6. In semantic tcmls. tt appears that pcrccptton verbs construed with n B l clause .1ct as extcnswnul predicates. whcrc!L' pcrccptl()n \'erbs followed by a fully proposiltonnl com plement behuve hke mtcns10nal v·crbs (.similar to kmJw. bL'11eve. etc.). There ha...; been some debate m the literature as to the extent to whtch perceptual report.o.; can be constd erc.d extensiOnal. Ge.c ( 1 975). for ex::tmplc. regunls perceptton verbs ns intenswnul predi cates. C\'en though he is aware of the differences that cx1st between the perceiving-thm constructton on the one hand and B l clause:� on the other. More rel·cntly. Asher and
non-finite pen:eption �·omp lemen t s
87
Bonevuc ( I 985) ond vun der Docs ( I � l l have shown that I PVC!> are extensional with resp<:et to DP. hut not VP. 37. That 1s. Htg�mhotham ( I 983) take." b!Ln! mtimuves to be sernunucall)· akm to dcllmte or indctimtc de... cri!J'ions. whtch in the tradit10n ol Russell (190.S) are analysed as quantiticot10nal cxpn::ss1on<. (!-ee also Neale 1990). 38. The term event (iL" tt is used here) IS of courst• a f:urly abstract notion. Observe. for instance. thnt an sndivuJual event �an ha\'e more thnn one occurrence. or alternatively mU)' have none at all (Gulton 1 984: 1 53ff.). Otherwise. we would expect sentences such u.s the following thut contain dcscnpt10ns of ·unreal events to bc: ruled out: (il tul
In hts dream. John saw two pink dephnnts play table-tenms After dnnkmg too much wine. Mmy saw the walls move towards her
39. Th1s IS another property that IPVCs share wtth non-\'erbal smull clauses lComp:u-c e.g. Suzuki 199 I). Vlm.:h ( 1 983: 142f.) however notes that the :l\'aslable scope rcodings for the postvertml QP ought \'ary nccordmg to what CJUantttier IS chosen. Sec S«:t. 4.4.6. for further dtscussion. 40. See vun dc.r Docs ( 1991) for further dtscussion of the semantics of negauon m Bl clauses. 41. Notice that the bare plural obJeCt fires now lacks a generic reading ns well. ru. th1s 1s c.orrcctly predicted by the account for the ubscnce of gencnc rcudings of subjct·t DPs pro\'lded 10 Ch. 4 bdow. I shall hmit the d1scuss1on to bare plural sub)cCtl>. 42. .Sentences hke the followmg (which have been po10tcd oul to me by anonymous revicw ers}conshtutc poss1ble t·ountcrcxamplcs to this genernh!>ation. as it seems that hrmsand rndio m·ws bulletins nrc understood genc:m:atly here: (tl (II}
43. 44.
45. 46.
47.
I :.aw hems come down wh1lc I Wll." a fash1on dcsi�ner I nottt·cd rnd1o news bullcuns reduce 10 length O\'er the years
Notice. however. thut both ( i ) and Hi) 10volvc metnphom· ruther than dirct·t sensory perception. The generic reading of hi!ms in {I) appear!- to be less readily avmluble if Sl't> is replaced by the non-epistcmtc verb w01ch. or 1f the PT> ts left out. Example (iil seems to be poss1blc only wtth notice (or other ·reporting' verbs). wh1ch pattems dtffcrently from true perception \'crb.'\ such e or hear in other respcrts toot compare e.g. Borkin I 973: 46f.. Palmer l 987: 1 98ff.l. The above sentences nught actually be spcnal in stances of irrealis pen:epuon constructions. wh1ch differ from "true' perceptual reports and are discussed briefly in Sect.s 2.2.4 and 4.4.4. I owe th1s example to A. Rndford. For a umlicd al·count of the rnult1plc uses of lun:r. see Rlltcr and Rosen ( 1997). Gututi { 1993) hns shown that t·nus:lllve and perception wmplemcnts contru.st sh 1rply in Romance too. ond pattern d1ffcrently even w1thsn the Ronmocc lunguugcs. Acl·ordin� to Oir\'en t l989: 1 24l. thts alternation I!> normally rcstm:ted to the verbs ht'ar. see. notice. llbsen·r. w01ch.;rrl and smdl. though it would seem thnt at Jca..;t the verbs listt>ll (U,) and Ul.fte can be .tdded to the above list. One po-"siblc wny of accounting for the mult1plc uses of -ing 1s the approach taken by
88
48. 49. SO.
51.
52.
d audsa fe h e •· Milsark ( 198 }. who :;ut;gests that the -mg su ffix i�> a lexitully unitary dement with indeh:rminate c 1tc<�onul !-pe<:ilication. More spcclli<:ully. Abney tuk�s ·Ill'< to be a non-projcctable clement wh1ch sub!-tllutes its {+> J feature for the nc8utavcly specified N fcnture of a vcrhul cutC8ory. Further nitic1sm of Abney' .s anulysis of ACC-mg construction� can be found in Felix ( t990l. lt :.hould he note-d here thnt the verb remember tend..; to cxh1bit a somewhat 1d1osyncmttc behanour. Other verbs that ndmit an ACC-in� complement arc rc-grN. hme. and t'tl)ay. Reuland ( 19R3a) argued that the postverbal Dl' 10 ACC-ing structures 1� u..;s1gnc
53. As pomtc.d out hy a rcvtewer thou8h. peakcrs· JUdgements of cxtroct1on data such ns t t62bl may vary dcpendmg on the spedli ACC-111� verb involved. susgc.-;tmg that prasmatic factor· may nlso pl:•y n role. 54. Examples (al-{c) arc taken from Akmajinn ( 1 971: 430l: example (f) hns he.en susgested to me hy a rcv1ewer. 55. Cmquc ( 1995) lut.'> argued the .same for :.o-n-ailed ·pscudo-rel111ve' perception comple ment-> in Romance (sec Scx:t. 5.J.2l. 56. Declerck ( 1 981 bhrgues thut pseudo-rel ;_tllvcs mu:.t be di.sungu1shed from h<>th rcstm· tivc and appo.s1t1ve relative dausc�. Pseudo-modifiers of this type nrc nO( restricted to percept mil statement,:.. but ocl·ur 1n other contexts as well. e.g. ( i) That no1se'? It's :wmr bo\·:; f1lavtll8 mttsult•.
(Dedcn:k 1981 b: I J8)
57. Prc.sumubly. adjunct clauses like those i n c 1 94) thut involve control by the matn:\ subjcl·t arc altuched to IP rather than VP. 58. The amh1gmty of ( 1 96) 1s samilar to the one exh1b1tcd by sentences such �1s 1/r lrjl the room clean that involve scx:ondary prcdacation. Here. PRO may be controlled c1thcr by the matrix sub_1ect or by the matrix object: (il (ii)
Hc1 left the room I PRO. dean ) He left lthc room). {PRO, clenn 1
59. l thank an :monymous renewer for drawmg m>' attention to th1s fact. 60. f-iengo l l 974: IOOf.l. however. obscn·es thnt-stmilar to what has been arsued ahovc in l·onnectton wtth pnrhctpial -en complements--the difference between a t1ve PJ>VCs and the1r alleged passives 1s b•t;8cr th1m m•sht be expected. He clauns thnl a �entcnce
like t i) below entails that John :MtW Btll lJ":lthcr than the hunter.-;). NO(e that th1s 1s nO( necc:s::mly the cnse m (iil. whu.:h contams :t tensed complement:
non-finite pet·cer>tion l.'Omp l e m e n b (i) (iil
89
John saw Bill being chased by the hunters John saw that B11l was bctng chasc.d IJ.y the hunters
6 1 . The vahdity of 13urwisc ' s pnnc1ple fA) for PPVCs 1s doubtful though. As one rev1ewcr
pmnts out. the followmg mfcrcnce IS not valid. IJ.ccuuse Mnry mi�ht not tn fact have completed the crossmg: til
(f John saw )..tary crosstn� the street. then Ma.ry cro: �ed the stn:et
Th1s result 1s actually expc<:tcd 1f 11 is assumed (IL" I do tn Ch. 3) thnt PPVCs are progre!\ SIVC structures. The non-v:tlidity of (l) then follows from the fnct that the progressiVe focuses on a single potnt of un event. Without implying that the event IS nccc:sarily completed tsee Sc't. 3.2.5 for more dcHtils). 62. Example (221b} has been offered to me by A. Radford.
63. A -"1m1hu prorosnl has been put forwurd hy Rigtcr l l 9l< I : 57). M. Compare Pan;ons ( 1990: Ch. 9). PerfcrtJVe aspect. on the other hand. always signals
completion of an event. W1th non-stat1vc ...-ems. perfectiVity 1s impltcd whenc"cr the progrc:si\"C rnurl>er 1s absent {if pcrf«·ti,·e ru.pe.ct 1s to be marked cxphcttly. the lL'\pectual auxil1ary hnvr must be us<:d). For further <.hscuss1on of the formal sernantks of Aspect. sec e.g. Anderson 4 1973}. Galton tJ9S4) md Saun:l" ( 1 984 ). 65. The pn:nsc ongin of the Enghsh progrcs.savc 1s still not cnt1rcly dear. however. See Denison ( 1 993: Ch. 1 3 ) for an ovcn•iew of1he relevant hteraturc. 66. The same appeu.r.; to be true fur naompUsh. As one rev1cwer J>Olllts out. scnten<:c ( i i ) 1s
cons1dcrably worse thnn (i): (i)
I saw f:uth accomplish mnncles
( i i ) ?�1 !\.aw faith .t<:�omphshing mirudc:s Ohser\'c that the '"crb due$ not nom1ally adnut the progressive in mam clause.... e1ther: liiil '?.,F:uth was accomplishing tnlr:tcle.o; The degree of anomaly of examples su<:h .1s (il) and (236b). l237b) or (2:l8) in the text might also be mOucnce.d by the pr••gmatlc �<mtc:xt tn whid1 the)' occur. They may actu alty he considered line in a Situation in which a slow-:tl·tion vuJeo replay of the relevant scene 1s shown. Note that th1s observation (wtn�h 1s due to A. Radford ) 1s consistent
wllh the \•iew that the pro�rc:s1vc p1cks out n .;ub-c\'ent of a larger event (sec e.g. Saurer 1984).
67. Van tier Leek nnd Jong. ( 1982: I 09) ohser\'c that the s1tuutmn is qu1tc d1fferent m ACC illf: complements of rf'mt>mber-type verb.'. wh1ch mdu.:utes that 111 l"Ontrnst to PPVCs.
-in,: docs not fum:tion ru. a progrcs. o;i\'c marker here: {l) (u}
I remember her lindmg her long-lost ring
1 remember my mother being very tull
68. But sec note 6 1 .
3 The Structure of Direct Perception Contplements
3.1 Introduction The preceding chapter pro"ided a Jetaaled overvaew of the .yntactic and scmamic propertie. lhat charactetise the two types of darect perception complemem that we find in Engh. h. bare infiniti"e and participial (V-ing) clause. . It was shown that verbs cxpre..�. ing direcl sense perception semamically . elect stage-level comple ment:-. in the sense defined by Carlson ( 1980). and that Bl pcr<.·eplion clause. and rheir participial counterpart pallern idemically in all rele"am re. pects. ll wa. fur ther argued that the sole daiTerence between them i. one of progres. ave "ersus non progres ive aspe�l. Hence. we may subsume both lPVCs and PPVC. under the label perceprion vedJ complcmcnt l)>VC). PVCs were shown to daO'er from full mfimtav� and that complement� m that they alway. anduce a direct percepllon reading. The nouon of direct perL-epuon. m turn. ha. tentatively been linked to the ab. ence ol �len. e from PVC . Thu. . we may classify the four types of clau. at perception com plement according to the following 't'hema: 1 (ll
dausal pen:ep tion-verh comp l e ment.
�
1-ten:-.ej
/'-...... 1-progl I
(+prog]
IP C
pp c
"----
(+ten. e}
/'-...... (-finite)
l+finatc l
The pre. em chapter pro" ide:-. a detailed discu. . ion of the . tructurc and categoraal :-.latus of English PVC:-.. In Secuon 3.2. 1 ourhne and critically evalucuc some prevt ous analyse. of non-finite perception complements.2 An alternative analy. is coosa. tent with the MinimalLt Program is presented in Section 3.3. where it a .ugge. ted that direct perception complement:-. are best analysed as proJectton. ofthe functional head Aspecr. a category that i. located mtermedialc between T and r. Note that I . hall continue to refer to the highe...;t mflectional projection presem as IP rather
d i t·ec t pen�e J) t lon compleme n t s
91
than TP where a dt.tinclion between TP and a po. stblc htgher InO node i. trrelevant. or when discus. ing analyse..� that have be,en developed wnlun a pre-minimalLl framework.
3.2 PreYious Analyses 3.2 .I Tile CP Analysis
Dtrecl perception complemem� have been analysed a. clausal cOil!'>lituents of the category CP by Rouverel and Vergnaud { 1 980). Reuland { 198 1 . 1983a.b). Kayne ( 1984 ). and lwakura { 1 984 ). among others. 'llle claim that PVCs are struclurally analogous to full dau. es is in line wilh Kosler and �a�'s ( 1982) Strucnmtl Ptmtl1!'/i.tm Hypothesi . whtch posmlate.li thal the structure of clau. e. is unifonn acroS! clause types. However. lhe obligatory ab. cnce ot oven complementi. cr. and thute ness markers from PVC!'> poses an obvious problem for the CP analysi�. Proponents of such an analysis are forted to a��ume either that both C and J are struclumlly present bUl wilhout content. or that they comam phonologically null head! which are associated wHh a .et of fonnal and/or . cmantic features. /\s the former oplion ts ruled oul by rl. this leaves us with only the latter one to con�tdes. �N!
(2)
lei' lc 01 (1p him 1 1 01 (VP drtm(i118) (J circle} I J
Ui\en lhal neither C nor fnfl may t'�'L'r comam any lexical malenal. tt seems di ttl cult lO determine what the feature content of the lWO covet1 heads m l2) mighl be. Accordmg to Chomsky ( 1995: 240. 289). C indicate. clause lype and !'ervcs hot t WH-movcment. lt' PVCs were strucmrally amllogou!'> lO full clau. es. we would expect that the spedtier of C should be avail able as a landing site for prepo. ed operalor expre. .ions. Con. ider. however. the differences in grammalicalil)' between (3a.b). whtch contain lensed complemems. and {3c.d). which contam PVCs. (3)
We couldn't see lcr• what, lc· John was drawing t, J I b. Mary didn · t know 1 0• (which . ongj, lc·· PRO to smg l, I J c. -we couldn't see lu• whal, lr John drawtng '• J J · d . .. We couldn't hear lcr (whtch songl. ll" Mar sing t, j I a.
•
92
d audta fe l s e t·
Whereill shon WH-movement can apply freely within linite complement such as (3a). or control infinitive. such as (3b}-both of which are . tandardly a. sumed to project a CP layer-. hon WH-movement is not available for PVC.s. The til· fomedness of(3l:.d) suggests that PVC. might not in fact project a C-.ystem. 1 One major theoretical disadvantage of the CP analy. is 1. thai it flies m the face of the tdea of .muctural economy. The claim that PVC. cotuam a .yntacttcally inert C is mcompatible with the minimalist as. umption that. yntal'tlc representation. are sub JeCt to a general economy con.tmim that prevents functionle s nodes from being generated (Chomsky 1 99 1 . Bo�kovtc ( 1995: 42. 64 )). Analy. mg PVCs as full clause. also rat.ses rhc que. tion ol how then . ubjcct is as. igned obJective c,ote. Rouverel and Vergnaud ( l9XO: 1 15) have propo ed a CP deletion account. which allow the higher verb to exceptionally govern and ca:-emark 1he lower . ubject after the CP boundary ha.'> dtsappeared:� Howe er. the a1sumpuon of a CP dcleliOtl mechani. m ha.'> been :-hown to be problematic in it. ell as it relies on mere stipulation. . and presupposes the existence of multtple syntactic le cl. of represemation (.�ee. for example. t:rank. 19X3 or Baui. tella 1 983). Prom a minimalist J>Otnt of view. CP deletion must be reJected as an tul lwr mechanism that is mcompauble with suuctuml economy requirement.� and with a stt ictly bouom-up approach to phrase :-.tructure building. Within mimmalism. :-.yntactic operations rue a.-.. tuned to expand rather than reduce the phrase marker under con struelton (compate Chomsk 1995: 226. and Section I .5 above). lflhe pre. ence of a CP boundary prevent. ca.1e from being assigned to the lower subject from the outside. then a more promt. ing alternauve might be the idea that the PVC. ubject recetve.� case from within its own clau. e. either from C (a possibil uy :-.uggested by Stowell 1981 ). or from a phonetically unrealised 1 nfl ( Kayne 1984 ). The �sumption that case :-.hould be a:-. tgned by C seems dubious in hght of the fact lhat perception complements differ from the complements of wam-dass verbs in that the crue-a.signing complementiser for ts general!)' excluded from the ormcr (compare (9b)): ,
(4)
a.
We wanted IC'P lc (lor) ) him to win I
b.
ttWe . awfvr him wtn
Alternatively. Kayne ( 1 9tW: 35) sugg� ts that objective ca.'e may be assigned complement-uuernally by an ab.�tracl morpheme INF in In fl. a.� shown in (5} below. (5)
. N�
I . INF 1 lv.,drtrwtt circle J I J lc-P lc 01 l1P him •
In mmimahst terms. Kayne·!'> analyis of bare infinitive. amounts to the claim that they contain a null mflectional head that is capable of checking the ObJective ca. e
diJ·ect pe 1·c e p t i on comp l em e n t .
93
of a DP m it. . pecifier. analogous to tcenam in. lance. of) infinitival to. which hru been argued to check null case of PRO in conlrol infinitive. .� However. Kayne · . anaty. 1. al!.o appear. to be rather ad hoc. and offers no explanation for the slrlct adJacenc, reqUirement thai hold. between the tnatrix verb and postverbai DP. The ttl-formednes. of t6c) . hows lhat no material may inter ene bet ...veen the htgher verb and the PVC: (6)
a. We could see 111!1)' dearly that he was wmnmg rhe race b. We wamed l'er\' much for tum to Will Lhe race c. "We !.aw ven cJe(lr/\' him win(ning) the race
If/tim were a�. igned ca. e t'omptemem-intematty in ( 6c). as Kayne sugge.�ts. then there would be no need for . trict adjacertcy.6 We would also expect the distribution of Bl dau. es to be much fr-eer than it i. . as under Kayne · :-. account. there is no rea son wh)' Bl. should be excluded. lor ex
"'Him ''in could be )>een on televt. ion I�t night
Moreover. it is unclear what the feature content of Kayne's lnfl should be. given that bare mfinttives are not overtly marked for either ten.e or agreement. and that rhe infinitival maker 1. obligatorily absent.7 Finally. nouce that l'VCs cannot be modified by speaker-orientated adverb. like n·�reuabl)'. or adverbs of mod.,lit, such U..'> probably. (8)
a. "We saw regrettably John walk away (vs. Rt·�reuablv. Joltu uytfked tJ \\ ll)) b. "We . aw regrenably Btll probably dancing with l'vtary ( v. . RegrnUibly. Bill was p10bably dancing wi1h J\1ar\')
If it 1. correct that adverbs ate licensed by semanucally compaubte heads {sec �larantz I 984. Travis I 988. Sporuche I 988. John. on I 991 . Alexmdou 1997. among others). then the una ailabtht)' of sentence adverb. hke those above . ugge. ts that the retevcull tkensing head. . C cutd T (or f\•tod). are m fact ab. em from PVC�. In :.um. then. there exist no compelling reason for a. suming the presence of a CP layer Ill PVCs. a. there is no evidence for the presence of either C or a :.pecitier of C. On the other hand. we have found abundant evidence. both theoretical and emptr tcaL ugllill.'>l the hypothesi. that they are strut•turatty analogou)> to full dauses. 3 2.2 The II' Aualysi5>
Wilhin minimalism. Koster and �ay· s l I 982) Structmal Parallelism Hypothesis is no longer tenable. ln. tead. it i. a. )>Umed that clausal complements may \'ary in
94
d audta fe l se t·
. trucmrat complexity. thell' cmegoriat status heingjoimty determmed h :-.electional requirements imposed b)' the mau ix verb and general prindples of grammar. includ mg economy con:-.trnmts of the type. proposed by Chomsk, ( 199 I. and later) (see also Rochelle 1988. Urimshaw 1997. Safir 1993. and Bo. kovic 1 995)." following Chom:-.ky ( 1 995). who propose� that J\.¢r-type catego1 ie$ . hould be eliminated from the grammar. we may tdcnttfy the c.ategOI'y label IP with TP. the maximal proJccuon of Tense. Recall that non-finite Ten e i:-. normally t'ealised by the infinitival marker 10 m Engh. h. Adapting the analysis lor ECM l'Omplement, of verb. hke expe<'l thm has been sugge. ted by Chom. ky t ] 986a) and developed further hy Bo�kovic ( 1 995). I take it that the complement clause tn (9a) 1s of the l'ategory TP. with the internal structure shown Ill (9b) below. (9)
a. b.
We expect hun 10 be very brave We expect hP htm1 1,., h lo lv1• t, be ve1, brave J I j I
Analogous to direct objel:ts DP. the . ubjet't of EC:VI complements a� in (9) check, Hs ca. e by raismg to the oute1 specifier of t11e matrix vP. either over tly or at LF9 Clause!'> containing infinitival to have been argued to define a temporal dommn of their own. i.e. the)' are specified independenlly lor Ten. e (Stowell 1982. Gueron and Hoeksttil 198t)).Thts is confirmed by the fat't that it t. pos. ible for time adverb. to take scope over the mtinilival clause alone. ( 10)
Yestt'rtlay we expected him to wm the race ne.'(t .'JNII .
( . . . but today we are no longer . ure)
Is there any e\'idence. then. for a� uming that PVCs are also TP �.:onstituents. i.e. that they are str ucturally analogou. to full tntinitive..;? I . hall argue below that there t. none. and conclude that the. TP layer i. altogether absent from PVC.;. A do. er comp;u i.on of w-infinitives and PVC. will reveal that both behave dinerently in a variety of re.�pect:-. suggesting that they do not belong to the satne categorial type. Before the predtcate-internal . ubject hypothe. IS gained general acceptance. bare tnfinitive clauses were mo. t plau�tbly analysed as IP constituents. PVC. were eithct as.tuned to be der iveJ from full inthuuves by obligatory apphcauon of 10 (be} deh· lhm (Emonds 1976. Jan8en 1993. among others). 01 were argued to be headed by a null or 'degenerate ' lnfl (Borer 1 986: 406f.. Radlord 1 997. 144f.). ln the follow mg. I provide argument� again. t the hypothesis that PVCs are headed by :m empty lnllfl' node. 3.2.2.1 llgainsl To (Br) Delethm and Null lufl
Within earlier transformational frameworks. Bl complement. were sometimes as sumed to be "irregular vanants of inlinitive:-. with to .. from whidt inlinilival tu has been deleted (Emonds 1 976: 220: see Borktn t973 for an earlier critique of a to (be)
d i a·ect pc1·ception comp l emen t s
95
tleletiun accoum for PVC.�). ·111e deletion approach to PVCs :-.eemed to ofrer an
explanation of the fact that the putative lnfl head of the construction never contains any overt material. while at the same time accounting for the observation that they exhtbit the characten. tks of clau. e.s. (II)
a. b.
We .aw John ("to) dmw a cu'de We .aw John ("to be) drawing a cude
1\ deletion account.
however. i. questionable. first ot all. from a theoretical poim of ''iew: Why should infinitival to be generated m lnfl Ill the first place tf il i:-. then obltgatonly deleted? What is the function and content of an Inti head that . eems unable to check the c.a. e of the subject and does not appear to be specslied for eirheJ ten.e or agreement'� We shall see below that Emond. · dmm ha. no empirical JUSttli cation. esther. Conssder t1r. t 81 pen:cption clause. . which have been . hown to nec es. anly mvolvc direct perceptton. We . aw in Chapter 2 that perceptton verb. m the active occasionally take a full infinitive a. their complement. which nece�arily re.·mlt. in an mdtrect perception reading. Thts t. why verbs . uch a. watch. which lack an epi.tenuc reading. never combme with to-PVC:-. (cf. ( 12b)). ( 12)
a. b.
We saw/watched John win the race We . aw/�twatched John to be very tall
.- diret'l perception .- indin•c:1 percep1ion
Notice funher that ro-PVCs Ill pre. ent-day English are re.litricted to tndtvidual le el predicates. which is why the examples in ( 1 3 ) below are bad. ( 13)
a. ,. I . aw il Io min b. ttWe heard Mttry to sinr: a song �. • 1 felt John 10 hit me \\ ilh a rock
Under the to (be) deletion hypothe:o.t. . this re.strrction remains inexplicable. Moreover. recall from Chapter 2 that tully intlnllt\•al perception complementl al.o differ from PVCs m that they admtt aspectual auxtharie. and o�cur in passtve . n ucture.s. as the following examples show. �tary, was seen ( t1 to have fini.heel her breakta. t I �ary, was heard I t, to be . inging a song I
( 14)
a. b.
( 15)
a. ·t� wa:-. .een l t1 rain(mg)] b. ,. 1 felt ( John be hitting me with a . tone )
Ifdu·ect perception complements were structurally analogous to. or derived from. full tnfinitive. . we would expect the two to pattern tdenucally. Evidence against the as. umptaon that w-infinitives as in ( 14b) are the pas. tve counterpart. ofiPVCs ·was pre. ented tn Section 2.2.3 abo\e.
c;J audsa fe l se t·
96
Seman11ca1Jy. ru-inlinilive. have been found to pauern with t/uu.clau:-.e� rathec than with Bl complement� (see Borkm 1 973. and the discus. ion m Chapter 2). Recall. for example. that IJUC PVC. . bm not full tntinlltves. are always subject to the Simultanehy Condition (see Section 2.3.1 ). l\s to the degree of temporal utdependence of infinitival complemenl clauses. Horkin { 1973. 53) note. that "m . entences with full antinlltves. a greater space of time is implied between the time of the matrix verb and the de.� ired or expected time of realtzmg the potenttal state .. ol affairs de. cr ibed in the inlinilive . Her remark!-. are m line with Stowell's ( 1982) observatron that lhe pre�ence of inliniti al w in full tntinnive.� often coincid� with an · unreali. ed future· rnterpretation of the infinitive (compare also Je. persen 1 940: 297). Recall. however. that no such reading. is available for dtrect percepttort com plement.. Jn. hon. 1he semantic differences between to-infinili e. and U'VCs argue against the hypothe. t.s that l PVCs are derived from full inflnit ives. Hy the . ame rea�oning as above. we can rule out a to be deletion or null Jnll ac count for PPVCs as well. Recall. for instance. that whereas PPVCs neces...;arily im pl, direct perception. pl'Ogte. s1ve !o-inllnitive. never do. Tltu. the meaning of a sentence ltke t 1 6a) correspond. to that of ( 1 6c) rather than ( l6b). as HO\ er.s ( 1 9 8 1 . I 08 n. 5) ob. erve.�: ( 16)
a. b.
�.
l felt someone to be touchtng my arm l fell someone touching my arm I feh that .omeone wa. touching my rum
Put differently. the relation between ( 16a) and ( 1 6b) 1s Ihat of a nunnnal pau rather than one of emmlment. . ince removtng the infinitival marker from a percep tion con. tructton like ( 16a). igniticamly change,.;; Its meaning (from indirel't to direct perception). 'I11at 1 lhe presence versus ab. ence of to (be) makes all rhe ditfe1ence (. ee al.o the discu. . ton in Dutney 1992: 29ft.). The daim that the complement m ( I 6b) IS created by 1o (be) deletion i. therefore incompattble with Chom. ky' � ( 199 1 ) postulate that element whtch play a role at Lr may not he deleted from a structure. Finally. ob. crvc that exi. tcntiall� quant itied subject! of to-infinitives. but not tho�e of IPVCs or PPVC�. <1re sl'OJ>
( 17)
a. b.
.
We expected someone to open the door We saw omeone open the door
'l11at i�. while ( 17a) perrnit. both readmgs 111 ( 1 8). someone in ( 1 7b) has a wide scope reading orlil)'. corresponding to ( 18a) (compare Sectton 2.3.3 above). ( 18)
a. b.
·ntere was someone who we expected to open the doot We expecred that someone would open the door
c;J audsa fe l s e t·
96
Seman11ca1Jy. ru-inlinilive. have been found to pauern with t/uu.cJau:-.e� rathec than with Bl complement� (see Borkm 1 973. and the discus. ion m Chapter 2). Recall. for example. that IJUC PVC.. bm not full tntinlltves. are always subject to the Simultaneity Condition (see Section 2.3.1 ). l\s to the degree of temporal utdependence of infinitival complemenl clauses. Harkin { 1973. 53) note. that "m . entences with full antinlltves. a greater space of time is implied between the time of the matrix verb and the de.� ired or expected time of realtzmg the potenttal state .. ol affairs de. cr ibed in the inlinilive . Her remark!-. are m line with Stowell's ( 1982) observatron that the pre�ence of inliniti al ro in full tntinnive.� often coincid� with an · unreali. ed future· rnterpretation of the infinitive (compare also Jespersen 1 940: 297). Recall. however. that no such reading is available for dtrect perl·epttort com plement.. Jn. horl. lhe semantic differences between to-infinili e. and U'VCs argue against the hypothe. t.s that l PVCs are derived from full inflnit ives. Hy the . ame re.a�oning as above. we can rule out a to be deletion or null Jnll ac count for PPVCs as well. Recall. for instance. that whereas PPVCs neces...;arily im pI, direct perception. pl'Ogte. s1ve !o-inllnitive. never do. Tltu. the meaning of a sentence ltke t 1 6a) correspond. to that of ( 1 6c) rather than ( l6b). as 130\ er.s ( 1 9 8 1 . I 08 n. 5) ob. erve.�: ( 16)
a. b. �.
l felt someone to be touchtng 1ny arm l fell someone touching my arm I felt lhat .omeone wa. touching my rum
Put differently. the relation between ( 16a) and ( 1 6b) 1s Ihat of a nunnnal pau rather than one of emmlment. . ince removmg the infinitival marker from a percep tion con. trucuon like ( 16a). ignificamly change,.;; Its meaning (from indirel't to direct perception). 'I11at s. . the presence versus ab. ence of to (be) makes all lhe ditfe1ence (. ee al.o the discu . . ton in Dutney 1992: 29ft.). The daim that the complement m ( I 6b) IS created by 1o (be) deletion i. therefore incompattble with Chom. ky' � ( 199 1 ) postulate that element. whtch play a role at Lr may not he deleted from a structure. Finally. ob. crvc that exi. tcntiall� quant itied subject! of to-infinitives. but not tho�e of IPVCs or PPVC�. <1re scOt>
a. b.
We expected someone to open the door We saw omeone open the door
'l11at i�. while ( 1 7a) perrnit. both readmgs 111 ( 1 8) . someone in ( 1 7b) has a wide scope reading only. corresponding to ( 1 8a) (compare Sectton 2.3.3 above). ( 18)
a. b.
·ntere was someone who we expected to open the doot We expecred that someone would open the door
97 Summarh.ing. the syntactic and semantic ditferences that exist between tu-PVCs on the one hand and bare infiniti al or parttc1pial perceptton complements on the other mdtcate that they belong to ditferem type· of construction. rrom the above observations, J conclude that to-PVCs are be. t analysed as Ti> constituentc; (d. ( 1 9H. \ hereas direct perception �omplements appear to lack the lense S)')>tem altogether. ( 19)
We saw 1,.. John, IT 10 ) I ..,,. t, be vet, tall j I I
To conclude the dt. cuss1on of 10 (be) deletion and null Inti. no ev1dencc has be found m :-.uppon of the claim that PVCs are derived from underlying 1o-mtinitives. or that they contain a phonetically unrcalised. non-tlnite tempo1al head. What the facts . ugge. t in. tead is that rhe T-system 1. completely missing from PVC. . The above olhervations I unher confirm our earlier su. pi ion that rhe different'e between direct and indtrect perception is linked to the pre.c;ence versu. ab. ence of lnflrr m the complement. Thts idea is not new (see. for example. van der Leek and Jong 1982. Salir 1 993. or Uuastt 1 993). and will be discus. ed in greater detail in Chapter 4. There Cltmses One argument in favour of po. tulattng a null lnfl node m PVC. might be de1 ived from Lhe lalbeit limited) occmrence of tlrerl! ut PVCs. Chont.-:ky ( 1995) propo. e.-: that m language, where T contain:; a strong [DJ feature whose pre. ence for..:es the specifier ofT to be expres..;ed overtly. true e�pletive. arc merged mto tSpec.l'J>) tf the logtcal subject fall. to undergo mismg tcompare also Safir 1993: 53). II it is correct that the possibility of there insertiotli is contmgent on the presence of'£'en. e. then it follows that the complement clauses in (20) below must contain a TP layer: 3.2 .2 .2 Bart• lufilliliV('
(20)
a. b.
I have never :-.een In• there l or h 0j I vp be so many complaint. from students before I l l I wouldn't like to see (r•• there jy. IT 0J I vp be so many nu takes) j )
Thi:-. i s e. . entially the . tructure that is as: umed by Safir { 1993) for illN<•-PVCs ol the t, pe shown above. A we .aw earlier. perception m irrealis . emence. like (20) is always mdu-ect. �otice fur1her that the complement)> in (2(}.t.b) both cotllatn tndl\'idual-level predscate• . wh1ch is con11rmed by the unavailability of the progre, sive. (21)
a. ...llle1e were being many complamts ftom student<; . b. ,. J11ere were being so many mi. take:-.
The assumpt1on of null lnfllr in the complement clau. es tn (20) doe:- indeed seem to tie m nicely with our hypothesi. that the pre.ence of·Ien. e in the comple-
98
d aud1a fe l s e •·
ment coincides with an indirect perception readmg. However. 11 i. far from deai whether it really i. the p1e. cnce of an abstmct lnfl Ill the lower dause that causes perceptt011 to be mteq>reted a� ut
a. •we . ee there be tewer complaitllts b. •?we saw there be man, student comphun� c. ..They . aw there being a riot (example from John. on 1988)
Although rhe idea that indirecme..;s of perception is linked to the plel>CIK'e of lnnrr m the complement dau. e is rather attractive. it does not provide an an. wer to rhc followmg que. lion: Why is it that intinilival 10 1:-- obligatorily mi. smg ftont perceptton complements that comam cxplet ive there. wherea. it 1s requsred in ECtvl mfimuve.s? Compare the followmg example. : (23)
a. b.
We never expected rhe1e ..{to) be so many complaims from students We never expected the1e 41{to) be so many mistakes
(24)
a.
We have never . een there. l'"to) be so many complaints from student: before We wouldn't hke to see there (��>to) be . o many mil>takc,,
b.
In other words. if borh B l thl'l'c clause. and t::C M infinitives are TPs headed by non-finite 'Jen. e. then how come infinitival ro is excluded m (24). but not in (23)'? 1'1u. ob. ervatton seems particularly strange in the light of the fact that /o-PVC. do exi. t in pre·ent-day Bngli�h as well. alongside PVCs and finue complement (sec Chaptcr 2). '/1wn·-PVC. also fail to pattern with ro-I?VCs rutd Len.ed complements m other ch
a. ,.There, have never been seen [TI' t, be so many complaints from stu denl! before j b. �lacy, wa. seen hr t to be very brave I c. There, was believed Ill' t, to be a problem 1
Nor do 1/wn•-PVCs allow for time reference relatiVe to the matrix 'Ten. e. (26)
a. "We wouldn · t hke to see the1'e have been so many nustakes b. We . aw the building to have col lap.ed
d i t·ec t pen�e J) t lo n compleme n t s
99
Tlle�e ob. erva1ion. cast some doubt on Safir'. analysL. ln. teacJ. we ma. tenta tively as. ume that the mduect perceptton reading of the example. in (2()) abo,·e is due to lhe preseuce of the trre�tlis m the nltlitrtx clause. mther than to the exi.tence of a. null In Orr head in the lower clause. An irrealis comext nught then in fact con stitute a st�(Jicit!nt conditton for perception to be interpreted as indirect . o that 1 Safir". semantic argumem lo. e.;; . orne of tt'i fooung. 0 Nevertheless. the requtremem that non-lhemauc subjects mu. t be generated VP externally appears to be a strong theoreucat argumem in suppon of a TP anaty. is for rher�· complements of the type discu�;;ed by Satir. However. given rhe inflation ot functional heads in the wake of the . plil-lnO hypothesi . we mi,ght argue that the <Wmlabilit� of rlu·n• msertion i:- not nel-e. . ari ly an argument lor the pre:-.ence of tnnn·. but merely sugge. l<; that some functional prOJecttot\ above VP must be pre em. who:-.e speci tier po. iuon is able to host a non-thematic argument. This tdea wttl be explored funher below. Summing up. I have argued that de. pite its imttal appeal. Safir's analy�i. of Bt tht•n• dau�e. doe. not stand on altogether solid ground. There is actually no compel ling reason for neating urealis perception construction. such a.o; (20). who. e Bl complement contain. a non-themattc :-ubject. a� structural!, analogou. to ECM mfinittvc.o; and to-PVC.-. . >leither of Salir's main arguments for analysing t/ten• PVC. a.-: TJ>s-indircctnes� of perception and the requsremcnt that non-thematic 1/tere tnust be generated VP.-externally-nece. . anly imply the pre. ence of In fliT in the. e con. truction. . 1 will return to this 1. ue tn Chapter 4. .
•
J .2 .J 1'\ICs as bctre \If's
To . urn up the di. cu� ion so far. I have argued that dsrect perception complements are clau. al con. tituent. contaimng nenher C nor In fliT. Thu. . it would seem reason able to a. sume that they arc m fact nothing but ' bare · VPs-verbal . malt ctau. cs m the sense of Stowet I ( I 98 1 . 1 983 }. or proJectton. of a light verb v in the spn it of Lan.on ( 1 988) and Chom. ky ( 1995). Gtvcn the lack of evtdencc for the presence ol either C or tensed lnfl in PVCs. it i� not surpri. mg that the V J> analysi. ha. found many supporters { Haggmbotham I 983. Hoek.tra 1 984. Mittwoch I 990. and Sallr 1 993. to name just a few). Gueron and Hoekstra l I 988) took the VP analy. ts f01 PVCs one . tep further in sugge.ting that perception verb. . houtd be grouped with modal. and auxiliarie: rather than mam verb�. on the ground. that only auxthary typc verbs are able to Jicen. e a VP complement. Thetr propo. at is discu.sed below. With the predkate-intemal . ubject hypothesi� now bemg widely accepted. a bare VP analyst for PVC. ha. become C\'en more attractive. Note. however. that if the lower verb is u·ansitive. checking theor)' require.-. u. to assume the presence of at lea.·a one structuml levet above VP which P•ovides an appropriate checking domam
d audta fe l s e t·
100
for objects. Thi. layer may be tdenuned etther wnh AgrOP. as as. ume headed by a transtttve verb ha've the following ba. ic structure. with the extemal argumem origmattng in the . pecifier of a (cau. auve 01 agentive) a ffixal light verb 1'. (27)
vP
A
or..
v'
A
v
VP
A V
DP.
...
While the tnternal argumencs of the verb are all generated within the core V P. the external 0-role i. e. Recall that the obJective case feature..c; of direct obJects and l>Ubject:- of t:CM com plement. n1u. 1 be checked against the case feature of ' as DP,., . raises to the outer ),pedtlet of vP. The resulting configuration i. shown in (28). (28)
vP
A Dl�,
v'
A t,,
v'
A VP
A
The as�umption that PVCc; ate vP. immediately reduces the li.t of propertie. that require an explanation. The obligatory abl>ence ot oven complemenusers and tntlmttval to. lor instance. follow. dtrectly from analysing PVC a; pt'OJeCiion. or the light verb 1'. The requirementJ of ca. c checking can at.o be .ati.tied without poo�itulating any additional levels of suucture. while the subject check. tts objective case in ( Spcc.vP) of the matnx dause. rhc objecl check. tts case complcment tnternall, by ratsing lO the loweI' ,.·� outer speci tier lnote that Lhis latter movemem has been omiued m (29)).
dit·ect pea·cet) tiOn c o mp l eme n t s
We . aw l. r• John, I.
(29)
•
. . . t"'c .
I0 I
. . l,p t, I,. draw I \'P tdrlf"' hw a cude J I I I J I
1
wtll . hO'.v in what follow. that the bare VP/vP a.nalysi:-.-auracttvc a. it might seem-al:::o faiL to provide a unified analysi. for dtrect perception complements. and that there ts evidence for the pa>e. ence of at lea�t one functional head dt. tinct from. and abo\ e. \' (or Agr0) in dtrect perception complement. . J .2 .J I llgainst tl Bare VJ> Analysis .
l:i.vtdence agamst a bare VJ> analyst. can be derived from the exi�tence of B l tltere clause�. from particle veth con. tructton. . and from the distribution ol manner ad· verbs in PVC. . Fir. t. t·onsadercomplement clause..;; that comain noJHhematac there. Though I have argued above that /hen• complement. like tho. e in (30) below are not mdcpendently spectfied lor Tense. it seem. rhat they cannot be analy�ed as bare vP.. either. �otice that all of the t/wre-PVCs below mvol\e an unaccusauve predt· cate. i.e .. a verb that fails to a.;;sign an external Mgument role (Burzto 1 986). (30)
a. b. c.
I have never seen ( there be so many con1plamt� from student. before J I wouldn't like to .ee [ there be so many muakes I We wouldn't hke to �ee ! there arise any problems from this I ( Salir 1993. adapted trom Napoli 1988)
On the as. umption that argument po. tttons within the (extended) verb phra.-.e are re..;;erved for 9-marked expressions. generatmg non-thematic therl' in the . pecitler of VP or ,.p doe not seem to be an admi.. able option here (compare Chomsky 1 995: 362ft'.). If we further follow Chom. ky ( 1 995) in a. summg that unaccusattve,;; lack a vP shell. then rhe expletive an (30a-d must be in the . pecifier of ome other functional head above V.
(3 I )
.
'llle bare VP analysi. thu. wrongly predicts that non-lhematic rlum! should be generally excluded from PVCs. Next. con. idcr the behaviour ot partide verb con. tnJCtion. . John.on ( 199 1 ) pro poses that particle con:-.tructions of the t)'pe illustrated below are denved by move. ment ot the verb to some pre-verbal head position l which he labeL 11). wluch leave.li the parttcle !.tranded tibid.. 590): (3 2)
a. b. c.
�hkey was Jrwkinc: the reference up Bet.y was 1hmH ing the bicycle out ·n1e l'rew were lumdin� the pas. engers their passport. back (example adapted l rom Radford 1 997. 444 )
d audta fe l s e t
102
t
·
1\
shown by the grammaucaluy of (33a-<.') below. this kmd of verb movemem ato po. . tble tn PVC. .
(33)
a. b. c.
We saw Mikey h>ok(iiJg) the reference up We heard Betsy throu (iiiK) the bicycle out We watched Lhe crew hmul(ing) the pa. sengers thetr pas.pons back
Given the internal .structure of vP illu. trated ahove. the data m (33) sugge. t not merel, that the embedded verb. have left tL<; ba�e po. it ion within VP. but at. o that the obJeCt DPs have undergone overt rat. ing. lfwe make the reasonable
hand the pas.sengen-
v
'
A
I"'
v'
A
----+-- l,.to .t ' �. . •.,
· ·· ··· ·\·--- . .. . ...... \. \
\'
..
VP
/�'\.. t
V'
. A v
A '
I,
.'
'• •,
t,
p
I
� '
.
'
back . .. .. , ..
On Lhe a�sumptton that auxiliary be 111 (32a-c) occuptes the T head. it follows that verb movement ut panicle-shift constructions actually targets a head po. itton lowe• than T. but higher than \ . That t. . John�on·. head fl cannot be identified wtth eithe1 T 01 \'. but in. tcad seem. to be located intermediate between the two (see al.o Dtesing and Jelinek 1995: 160).
diJ·ect pe 1·cep t i o n comp l em e n t .
103
Notice that the PVC subject in .entences .uch as (33) mul>t also have undetgone movement to. ome tughcr specitierpo. ition. eithet to the. peestier of/l (as indicated Ill (34)). or to us ca. e-checkmg posltJOJl in the matnx ctau. e. 'That the embedded . ubject can rat. e ovet tl, 1. independemty .;onlirmed by examples mvolving floating quantsflerl> such as the following (from Guasti 1 993. 1 32): (35)
We saw the children all lea e
According to Sporttche ( 1988). floating quantifien. such ru all in (35) are option ally left behind a:-. arguments undergo movement to some lughet Spec po. itton. and thus sc1ve al> an mdtcator of A-moveme11l. Let us finally con ider the di. tribution of manner adverlh m J>VCs. Though the . ymactic . tams and po. uion of adverbs are . till controversial. it is t:ommonty as sumed that they are licensed by a semantically compatible head. tn a recent mint malt. t study on adverb pla�:ement. Alexiadou { 1 997) has argued that adverbs are unifat mly licensed 111 the . pecine1 of a corresponding functional head. 11 If this is correct. then the number. type and relative ordering ol adverb. will help u. deter mine the number. t. pe and relative ordenng of the corrc. ponding hcensmg heads Ill a given chm. e. and can also tell Ul> whether and how tar up the verb has moved. Bowers t 1 993) points out that there eXJ. 1 at tea. t two different type. of manner ad verb. which ma)r co-occur but which cannot exchange po. Ittons without ch<mgin� the meaning of the . entence or <.'aUl>tng it 10 become ill-formed. This indicates that the two adverbs in (36) are licensed by . eparate heads whkh arc hierarchically ordered with re peel to each other. (36)
a. b.
(37)
a. ,. Bill pfJorly recited lu� Ime. slmvly b. ,. :VIary beattl(/itll\. played the violin ronfidt•fltlv
Bill s/(Jwl,v recited hL lines p<1orly :Vtary co�tfidnttl\' played the violin bt•twtiftt/1\'
Notice that the distribution of adverbs . uch a� .'ilowly or cm�fidt•m/y differs from that of sentence adverb. . uch a. pmbablv or clt•arly m the example beiO\v. which may precede but not follow them (. ee Bower:-. ( 1 993. 606tf.) for an example of the full paradigm). (38}
CINtrl\'. Mary probabl\' will confidemly play the v1olin bt'lwt{(ttll)
Now ob. erve that manner adverb� of this type may also co-occur in PVC. . (39) a. b.
We heard Bill shm•/)' recite his line,� poorly We . aw Mary coJtjidelltlv playing the violin beautijitllv
If we take it that there 1. a one-to-one relation. hip between adverb. and theu licensing head. (Bowers I 993. 606. among others). the example. in {39) tell us that
1 04
d audta fe l s e t·
PVC. mu�t contain (at lea:I) two d1.tinct head. which are capable ol licensmg COl responding adverbial modifier. . Alextadou ( 1997: 17. 129) propose, that a . ubset of .emence-final ad,·erbs may origmale as complemems of the verb. bul neverthe le. . need to be formally I icenscd by a related tcature of a functional head. Accord mg to J\lexiadou ( 1 997: 1 29f.. and reference, cited t1lere). complemem-type adverb. (.uch as poor/\' in (39a)) differ from adverbs that are base-generated in specifier position. in thai they typically can, an oblique thematic role. restrict or delimtt the event denoted by the predtcale. and may undergo VP froming together with the rest ofthe verb phra.�e. lfwe assume thai the lowest functsonal head capttblc of formally licen. ing complement-lype adverbs i)> lhe light verb v. 11 follows that the lugher adverbs slow!\' and conjidemly in the examples above must be lacensed by a d1. linct functional head higher up in the . uucture. 12 Aspcctual advea·bs $UCh as fn·queml� Ill (40a ). or m : bJetl-oriented adverb. such ru opnliV 111 (40b). are noce:�arily . pedner adverbs: tf they do oc�ur in post verbal postUon. then the verb must have moved aao. s them overtly {compare Ale:-aadou 1 997: 92. I 64ft.). (40)
a. b.
We . aw Chrb look frt'quemlv at the wall We heard t\•tary 1alking opcnlv to them about it
Again. if we assume that the lowe.�l pas. ible adJuncuon site for a �pcdlier-type adverb 1. ,.p lOr ,,· ). then the observed word order in the example.� above sugge. ts £hat the lower verb has moved to a funclional head beyond 11. as illustrated in ( 4 1 ) for ( 40b). (41)
�tP
/----._ .\llary
talking
v'
Adv openly
l,,
v'
� t,,,
VP
�
pp
V'
/"-.. A
pp
/"-.. about it
dit·ect pe a·cep t l o n complcmcnh
105
In �um. ''e have �een that although the bare VP analy. 1:-. offer� a number ol advantage� 0\er the anal, :o.e� pre,•iou. l) di:..cus�ed. the1e i:o. evidence lor the exi�tence of at lca:o.t one functional Ia, er abO\·e VP tor vP) 111 PVC:-.. who.!e head can be taagcted b ' :-.hon verb movement and licen:-.e� ce1 tain type . .:;ol adverb:-.. and who�e spec1ner :-.ene:-. as an intermediate landing �tte lor the lower :-.ubject. I !.hall argue in Section 4.-t..tbelow that undercenam condtttOih. the �pccaner ol Johnson·. head /l may aJ.o ho:-.t an expleuve (. ee also Sectton -l.4..t belO\\ ). J 2 .J .2 Pnceptio11 Vnhs u� Auxiliaries
Their ability to take vc• bal complements would �cem to render perception ,·erbs MJHtlar to auxthane:-. and modals. whtch abo select bare vP�.• � (-l2)
a. b. c.
d.
John, might lvl' t, draw a cirde ) John, W
Conrra1 )' to '' hat happens m (-l2a-<"). howcvet. the PVC :.UbJect in l-l2d) appear to 1emain wilhin the ,·erb phrase. t.: The modal character ol percept1on verb:-. has ,rra olten been pomted out (:-.ee e.g. Bower:-. I 98 1 : I I-ll.). and Jed Gucron and Hoek. ( 19K8) to po�tulate that perception verb�. along " tth modah and causathe�. belong to a �reciiJI da:-.:o. of auxiliw ies. Acco rdmg to Gucron and H�kstra ( 19H8). percep tion \erb..;. li lo..e modab. and causauves. belong to a cia-.:-. ot element:-. labelled 'J:mc.\iliaries. The�eare characten.ed by their abilit, to lrcen�e a verbal complemem by a.signing a temporal role l 1:ro/t•) to n rather than 0-markmg it. lake otdtnaf)' lexu:al verbs. The autho� datm that \erbal projection� mu�t be gO\emed and T-marked either by lntlfr dtrectly. or by an app10priate T-auxiliaa,. tl they are to be interp1eted mg that \•erbal ::md nominal exptes�ions are �ubjcct to dt fl"e re nt llcen!'\ing requiremems. an idea that is reminiscem ol Fabb' s (19K4) Jdea ol ·,erbi \ 1 ca�c·. or Zagona's ( 19�8) claim that VP. mu:-.1 be go,erned by 'tense. OnI • T-markers . uch as modals and auxilia1 ies admit a vc1bal comple-
c:l audaa fe l se a·
106
ment. Verbal complement.. m tu1 n. are restricted to posnions in which they can be T-marked by an appropriate au: \lliary element. However. there en t a number of argumems against the as. umpuon that percep tion verw form a natural dass wllh non-lexical verbs such a. modals or auxiliary be. Lnhke modal. and auxiliaries. perceptton verb. do have )>Ub. tanttve semamic t:oment. They are al. o unable 10 move to C m direcr quesuon. (that is. to undergo subject-auxiliary inversion). cannot be u. ed in tag. . do not t:arry negation. and can not be u. ed emphaucall; in the .ame way a. auxiliarie, can--characteristics that have been dubbed NICE propertil·s by Huddleston ( 1 976: 333) (. ee at.o Palmer ( 1987: 16-21 ) ). '' 'l1li)> is shown by the ill-formedne. s ol the (b) example, an (43}-(45) below. and by the l�tct that perception verbs normally require do support m emphatk affim1auve statemenu (cf. (46b)). (43)
a. Did you . ee the pink elepham over lhere'! b. ..Stt w )'OU the pink elephant over there?
(44)
a. You heard 11. did11 't you'! b. ,. You hem·d II. heardu 't you?
(45)
a. He dicbt'l feel any pain b. ttHefelm·, any pain
(46)
a. b.
You rmglu not want to come to lhe party-but you JHUST come! Allhough we were not going to. we DID watch the movie after all!
ln contntJt to non-lextcal verb. . perception verbs normally function as genuine Lwo-place predtcat�. i.e. they both 9-mark and ca. emark lheit· complement. which 1 evtdent from the facr lhat they also admn DP direct objects. as m (47). (47)
a. b.
l saw l11r• a pink elephant} We could hear (l>T' a lot of noa.e l
Notice that both DP complements and PVCs fulfil rhe �emantic role of t heme. 11ti. i� to say that from the pomt of iew of 9-theory. there i no diOerence between DP direcl objeclc; . and as T-markers. a possibthty that i� not avail able m Gueron and Hoek, tra's s, stem. Wnh lntlfr being absent from the lower clause. the only way for lhe embedded subject OP to check it objective case feature IS via raismg to (Spec. vP) m the matrix clau. e. an optton wh1ch 1. unavailable 11
d i t·e c t pe a·ce p t l o n comp l c m c n h
107
perception verb� are ll eated on a par with auxiIiane� a.-. It would lead to an imerpt e tmi,·c dtlcmma m Lr: being ca..,emarked l:au.'e� an cxprc:-�ion to be conl>trued as
nom mal. wherea:- the !\tgnment of a T-ro!e would at the same ume render u ver
bal. In .;hart. then. ll appears that clas:-itying petception \Crb' a.' auxilial"ies 1:- in compatible with standard a.�umption� concernang the di�t incuon between lexical and au>.il iary \Cib.,. ilfld n wa.' .hown lhat the propo�al made by Gueron and Hoekl>tra abo rat:-e. new problem• . I . hall therefote l:Onlinue to trent perception verb!'> a:. tntnl>tttve tnrun verbs. lndepcndentl�' from the disCU!'.Ston of what count!\ a!'. an auxiliary \Crb and what doe!\ not. it h
licen!'.ing mecham. m that b m some ways i\nalogou!\ to o.role a. �ignment. or l'ihC as!\ignmcnt to DPs (see e.g. Fabh 1 984. Zagona 198K, Rutten 1 99 1 . or Janllen 1993). Othctwi�e. the limited d1. tnbut10n of erbal small di\U�Cl> i. ditlkult to account for mdced. ill> are the other dtflerence!\ that exbt between \erbal and non-,erhal �mall dau!'>e!\ (sec Aarts 1992: 18Xf.). Recall. for itbtaru:e. that verbal !'>mall clau�es differ from all other types of . maJI dau e· i n that they rel>l!\t matri>. pal>l>ivisation
(d. (4�d)). (48)
a.
Bill wa con!-.idered lupt, a fool }
b.
Bill \Va� expected IPP t, off the �lup I Bill \Vill> con!-.idered I \P t, . tuprd J
l.
d . .. l:Vlaryl. wa!'> felt I ,.P t, hitt(ing) me I
Ditlcrent explanation. ha\e been offered for the ungmmmaticalit� ol (48d). which will be cmically e\aluated in the following chapter. ror the time being. it l>hould merely be noted that a bare vP analy�i that i'i not embedded within a coher ent theory ot ltcen�mg that accounts I or the dt!\trtbutton of ,·erbal projection!\ cannOt provide an explanation for what ts pemaps the most pecul iar�yntacuc chamcteri. tic ol perceptual reports-their tnability to fonn pill>l>ivcs . 3 2 .J.
.
.
.
PVC. as Smtt/1 Clauses
The previous dt. CUS!\1011 htinct from and higher than Chomsk� { 1 995) he,ad., the vP shell that
\'.
the light ,·erb which Iolio" ing
b projected by tranl>itive verb�. l::.rnpmcal
evidence 111 suppotl ol th1.s dann mdud� the existence of irrealil> rlznt·-PVC�. the
pos�rb1hty of \erb rabtng in corlJUnctton with oven object 1 ail>mg. and the dt�tn
buuon ol manner adverbiab. In othet words. u appear that PVC� are proJection. ol a category lower than ·lem.e-which il> arguably ah.;ent 1 rom PVC.s-but lugher
than v. a category wh1ch can presumahl)' be 1den11hcd \Vith Johnson· .s ( 1 99 1 ) categor> 11. Po�l>ible candidate.;; mdude a cntcgory ot the Agr-type. as �ugge!'.ted by
d audsa fe l se s·
lOX
Bennis and Hoekstra ( 1 989) and Gua:-.ti ( 1 993). or the functional category Pr(edh·ate) postulated by Bowe� ( 1993). The. e two possibshtte. wtll be crnically examined below. to be eventually rejected in favoUJ of analy ing PVCs as a•.;pectuaJ projections in Section 3.3. J .2.4. I Small Clau:�;es as 1\f.!rP� In the wake of the . pht-lnfl hypothesss. ,everal authors have uggc.ted that . mall clau.e. are besl analysed a:-. projections ot some Agr he�ad (1\ee van den Wyngaerd 1989. Suzuki 1 99 1 . or Chomsky 1993 ): Arimoto { 1 99 1 : 1 35) has proposed the !'kHlle for ACC-ing complemenrs. Under thts view. small clauses in general conform to the represenlatton given below (X C ( �- V.A.P � ). ( 49)
(.,�rXP DP IAyX· 1\grX XP I J
Chomsky ( I 993) sugge, ts that . mall clause complemenrs like those below nught be a�signed the mnemonic h1bels 1\grNP. AgrAP. and AgrPP. re.l\pecdvely. (50)
a.
b.
�-
·n1ey considered I.'"'�P him (-'i!'N· AgrN I uP a real idtot J I ) He found L,�·-'P t\h\ry I 'f'A· Agl'l\ I ,,p extremely auractive I l l ·n1ey believed (""''"' the captain lApP' AgrP (pp off the slup I J I
Analysmg small clause.�t a. AgrPs smmediately solves a number of £he problems ll
dia·e c t pe r·c e p t lo n comp l e mc n b . (51}
a. b.
109
Tltey con�1dcred ltim a11 idiat/:t idiot.\ llley t'Olhidered l xP lum l >f' .\llary·. be:-.t fnendj I
Suzuki t 1991) !-.ho>.v� that lhe AgrP analysi:-. �.an account lor a numbe1 ol other propc111e� a. ociated wtth �mall clau.,es tt ''ell. !'.UCh a� the ab!-.ence of PRO :-.ub JCCt:-.. the lad. of �cope amb1gunre:-. of quantified noun phra. c.s. and the unavailabil Ity ol :-.entemial negation. which he argue. is linked to the prc�ence of'lense 1 com pare c .g. Laka I 990. Zanuttuu 199 I . 01 Gucron and Hoekstra I 9YJ). PRO as argued to be ab�cm I rom �mall dause because tSpcc.AgrP) •� a po�ttion in which ca� i. checked. wh1le the lad, of M�ope ambiguiues follow!'. from �ay· :-. ( I 985) prohrbilion again. t adjunction to argument . 16 Compare the following example:-.. which differ minimally with rc:-pect to the pre:�:ence versus absence of 10 b£' l Wtllicun� 1 9XO: 236. Suzuki 1 99 1 . 29): (52)
a. b.
John consider . .wmt•mw 10 be sit·k John consider� . mnl'mU' sic/..
Only the flr�t is ambiguou. between a wide $COpe reading and a narmw sco(>C rc�ding of �onu•one. In (52b). by contrast. the QP ma>' ta"-:e \l.trde M�opc only. Fol Io\\ ing Suzukl l 1 99 1 ). thr� interpretative dtOerence 1:-. due to the different categonal :-.tatu. ol the two complement:-.. In contrmt to lhe AgrP small dau�c 1n (521>). the complement in (52a) mu:-.t be of the category TP 01 h1ghcr. In (52 a). then. soml'orre l:an adjoin either to the embedded AgrP. yielding a nauow !'.Cope rcadmg tel. (53a) below). 01 to Ag1P OJ TP m the mall ix clau.e. whtch then y1eld:-. a wtde . ope inter pretation tel. 53bH. a. b.
(53)
John consider:-. hr· ( t ' ) to [".l'P �omeone (,;rl' t be -.iekl J I :-.omcone, r 11 1 John constdef!'. r 11'1 t,' to ( -\Jrl' t be sick I J I
In the ca:-.e of a srnall clau. c complement. ho,,evcr. onl, the latter option r:-. avail able . rncc adjunction of .wnwo11e to AgrJ >. a� shown in (54). is precluded becau:-.e Agrt> itself function:-. a:-. an argument of ctm�ider: .
(54)
•
John con. idcrs
lA;:rl' :-.omeonc, I \�:rJ· t, !-.ick I I
In sum. ;:maly:-.ing �mall dau.es as AgrP. correctly predrcts the ab:-.ence of Tense marker!'. and compJemenu.ser. from the.;;e construction.-. a.' well as lhe lack ot :-.cope ambiguities. while at the �ame tnne allo\\ ing for an (ab:-.tmct) agreement relation to be establi:-.hed between the predicate and 11:-. �uhject. The Ag1 P anaJyMs thu:-. allO\\ � u:-. to characteri�e ;;mall dau.se:-. as dau�al con. tituent:-. which are reduced in the :-.ense that the) Jack the entire T-sy�teln. wh1ch account� for theu lack ol an rnde pendem 'len�e :-.pecrticauon. One maJOr theorettcal problem lor analy!-.ing !'.mall clause:-. a:-. proJections ol an
1 10 . grX head. ho\\ever. •� that thi. head appe•\r� to ha\C nal comem. Chomsky ( 1 995) point. out that :-.ance Agr-t)rpe categones lack semantic comem. the1r pre encc can only be ju:-.tihed for theory-internal reason� . theu -;ole function being that of pro\ id . ang . a :-.lfuctural configuration in whkh leaturc:-. can be ched,ed ·· (op. � n. . 35 I ).
llu� function. however. could equally well be fulnlled by other funcuonal head.
\\ho:.e
presence is independemly motivated. such a:- T or
1'.
Under Chom��·y ·.s
( I995) re'·•�ed L·heckang theory. a small dam.e subJect ched..� objecti\e ca�e not
complement-anternall,. but b)· entering into a Spec-Head configuration with the matnx ' . Given the predil:ate-imernal subJect hypothe�ts. t S pec.AgrXP) 1. not re
quired as a :-.ubject position either. Ne1ther doe..., the Agr head seem to play any role
at Lf. since Agr- type categorie. do not conmbute to mterpretat ion. they mu)tt not be visible at the u• interface. In •hon. it i:-. completely unde.1r what the feature
content of the re,lipective Agr-heads in (50) �hould be. or indeed whether they have any. head� with nal content. however. are excluded lrom repte�emations by virtue
of Fl. I I agreement i� repre.en ted merely
a )tpecik t conligurauonal relation be
tween two (or more) clements in a :-.entence. as Jatridou ( I 99()) and. more recemly.
Chomsk)· ( 1 995) have suggested. then the l < grcement tact:-. in ( 5 1 ) can equally well be accounted for by a�. ummg that the subject b in the :-.pcc1ner ol �ome mterpret
able head. :-.uch a:-. the �emamk head of the predicate. In :-.hort. neither the presence ol an J\�1X head nor of Its :-.pecuier can be moti\'
.. Obreeardi ne. statu� ol non-verbal �mall dau:-.e ... for the moment. the cate,)orial C' '"
let u:-. btietly con:-.rder the pos:.ibrluy of applyang the AgrP anal y:-.i.s to ·verbal' 'mall clause� •mch a.' PVCs. In their 1989 arttde. Benms tlnd Hock:-tr·a suggest that along \VIIh nominal. ndjec:tival. and prepositional small dau�c.li. PVC:-. should be llJlalysed
projection. of an Agr head too. with Agr being located between T and V. and the
subjc�l locmed an (Spec.AgrP).
otc that -checking theory requ1re� that th1s head
cannot be identincd with AgrO (a category which ha:-. :-ance been replaced by the light verb 1'). since the specifier of A�tO (or
\')
i� required a.� a landing :-ite fot
rabed OP object:-. in Lran�itive structure:-.. C\·1orc0\er. in the ca."'e of the verb being unaccusath·e. the AgrO layer (or the vP shell) is arguably ab:-.ent. Con:-.equemly. we mu:-.t a.�ume that ,·erbal �mall dau. e,l\ are maxunal ptOJecuon:-. of a di:-.unct Agr 11
head. which ''e mrght label J\�r\1 and whrch ha., the intemal :-.u ucture an (55).
111
(55)
I..,
v'
/".. v
Vi>
A
v
It appear. that AgrV is not idemical to AgrS euher (a� has been sugge. ted by Gua:-.ti l l 993. 1 32ft.)). since it. main propentes mdude that ofcheckmg nonunauvc ca.e in finttc clauses. and chocking of the agreement fentures on the verb. Jn Chomsky's ( 1995) framework. the functions of AgeS have been taken over by T. . o thai like AgrO. the category Ag1S can presumabl, be dLpen:-.ed with altogether. As we saw e.trher. however. there is no c"idcnce at all for the presence of (either lin lie 01 non-linite) Tense in Engli.h PVCs. and theit· subjet•t never bear. nominative case. Gaven that economy force. each addition
(56)
We he. u d Bill .�Jowl\' recne Ius Ime. poor!\'
I conclude that even though smne funcuonal he�td above \' appears to be pre. el\l m PVC.. the head in que uon cannot be a category of the Agr type. 3.2.4.2 I'VCs as Predit·au· Phrn es
A more plausible analyst ot small clause. IS the one propo.ed by Bower. ( 1993 ). who sugge. ts that they rue projection. of a Prtt>r/icate) head. a Iabei ihat reOects the semantic function ofthe head. which IS that of turning an un. aturated predicate mto a complete funcllonal complex. Bowen.' head Pr •� . unilar to Chom. ky' .s v m that t1 provides a p<>. it ion lor the external argument of lexacal phra. e and tn that erb. must adjoin to it. According to Bowers l l993. 596). the category Pr can be lexic�lll)' reali. cd by £IS m non-verbal small dau:-.e. . as m (57).1� •
.
d audsa fe l ses·
1 12 (57)
I regard John a.\ crazy/an sdiot
While Bowers· p•opo. at is able to pro tde a unified <\11d plau)>tble analysis ol non-vea·bal .o;mall clau. es within the mimmalist ,pir il. it appear. that where the complement i. verbal. the category Pr is in facl non-di.tinct from Chomsk.. ·. hghl verb ''· I il pos. ible. then. thal PVCs arc predke of Bowers ( 1993). with an internal struclure as in {58)'? J shall argue below that chey are nol. and present evidence lhal verbal small clauses �.:annot be lreated on a par wtth other lypes of. mall clause. (58)
PrP
� DP,..
Pr'
A Pr
VP
PVCs di lfer from non-vet bat small dau. es in various te�pecrs. Observe. fo1 example. that non-thematic there i. cxduded from non-verbal small clauses. bUl not from 1•vcs (compare e.g. Wilder 199 1 . 2 1 8 n. 2): (59)
a. "'We c:on�ider there n man . ick b. We . aw there rt. e over lhe meadow a blue haze
Secondl,. we already noted thal PVCc; differ from non-verbal small clau. es wtth respe�.:t to pas. svisation. a difl'erence that is ralher unexpected sf it is assumed lhat the complements in t60) all belong to lhe .arne calegory and are struclUrally analogou. . ( 60)
a. John, was conssdered I l'rf' t, . lupid I b. "'John, was seen ll',ro t, . Jeep j �. •1� wa. .een h·lf' t, raining )
Verbal small d�\uses dsffcr from non-verbal ones in dt.tnbution. lOO. Wherea.c; verbal . mall clause. typically follow modals. mfinthval fo. or auxiliary verb. . mher types of small clau)>e me re. tricted to the complement domain of ECt-.•t or rai. ing verbs such as St'l'/11 or consider. Tht. contr�t i. illu tratcd by lhc example. m { 6 1 ) and (62) below. (61 )
a. We con. idered I John stupid/a real idtot b. �tWe :-.aw I John stupid/a real idiol I c. "John1 will I t, . tupicVa real tdiot )
J
d i a·ect per·cet> t ion comp leme n t s
(62)
I I3
a. "We considered 1 John . Jeep/sleeping I b. We saw I John .sleep/. leeping I �- John, will I t, sleep j
Notice further that in �ontr
(63)
a. We con. idered John to be stuptd/an idiot b. "We . aw John to .leep c. "We heard a bell to he rmgmg
Finally. notice that while H is often po. siblc for different types of non-verbal small dau. e to be conjoined-an argument whkh IS ctted by Bowet · t 1993) a.�; upponing the PrP analysis-non-verbal . mall dau. es tend to make poor conjuncts wtth P VC Compare the example. in (64) and (65) below. .
•
.
(64)
a. b.
(65)
a. "We saw it rainin}! ottbidt• and John dmnk agttin b. ,. 1 hemd John on 1/w radio and the u:lt•plu>ne ring
We con. idered Bill cra:.y
[A and NJ lA and P) (V and Aj [P and Vj
Recall that on the other hcu1d. nothmg prevent. the coordination of IPVCs and J>PVC. : (66)
Tom heard the door open and some()tUt approachin�
Taken together. the above ob. ervation:-. argue again. t extendmg Bowen: · predt cate phrase anal, sis to PVC.. and . uggest mstead that non-linite verbal projections and non-verbal small clause.'\
The prccedmg discus. ion ha. .hown lhat neither of the analyse. advanced for direct percept!Otl complemenh m lhe past 1. emirely convin�mg. and that PVCs �•umot be treated on a par wtth non-verbal small clau.es. Tl1e evidence reviewed . ugge. ts that J>VCs are projection. of a functional head imenned1ate between T and V (or '') which is a potential larget for verb movement and ts capable of lic-ensing aspectual or mannet' adverns. m ; d who. e .lipecilier may. under certain l:Onditions. host
e 1 aud1a feLe1·
1 14
3.3 An Altcn1ati\'c: PVCs as Aspect Phrases In thi:- secuon. 1 argue that direct perception complements
ol the functional he.ad Avu·u rather than . grV or Pr. as indkated in (67).
1hp
vP
/
DP,,
v'
/ '
VP
A v
01�..
A �imilar structure ha� independently been .suggested by Tun�tall ( 199.3) foa pani dpial PVC:.s. and by D1e:-.mg and Jelinek ( 1995) loa dire�:t perception complement. Ill At abic}'1 Below. I '\hall demonstrate that analy�ing Engh�h PVC� a... Jhpect .
pha tl'e� help� accoum for many of their chaJacten�tic properties. mduding the ab �cncc of complememi�c•�- inflectional element� and as1>ectual auxilianc�. then EC�l properties. and the fact that onl)1 .tage-1evcl predicate� rue pea n111ted. In addt lion. treating I PVC:-. and PPVC;
a.
�tructurall> analogou� comtstucm:-. that difl e1
minimally "ith 1e�pcct to their a.!>pectual �peci lkation accounts naturall> for theu
parallel syntactiC beha\ 1our. Bel ore di:-.cu:sing the ad\ amage. of analy�ing PVC:s a� A�J>P� in more detail in Section 3.3.2. I bnefly examme the role of A�pect in :-.yntux. and p1ovtde mdepen dem argument' lot a.s�igning Aspect the �tatu� of a �yntactic category in ll'> own right J.J.I Aspect as a Synwctic Hnul rew hngUisuc tenn� have caused more confusion 111 the litemtuac than the term
lbpl'ct. which 1. often u:o.ed .ynonymou. ly. or in conJuncuon with. the not1ons ol vh·ll'poilfl 01 fJL'r.\pt>cth·t.• (e.g. Smith 1991 ). or ddimilnlnes.,· (Teamy 1987) ( . ec
Blinton 19�� for an o\·erview ol some traditional dehnilions ol A�JlCCt). Comrie
( 1976: J) dchne� the a..o;pect'
a.'
''ditlerent wa)':-. of vJewmg the imernal Lemporal
con�timenc) ot a ·situation· · · . That 1:-.. the not1on of (�entential) Aspect acler' to the
W:l) in which a g1\en :-.ituation i s pre..'>e nted. for example whether it 1. po11rayed .u.
ong01 ng (imper/t·t·th•e a.'pect) or completed (pt..•r(ectiw· aspect). m Sentential A�pect
mu�t be d1�tmgu1shed trom Ten:-.e. wluch ha. been argued to have dektic properties (Paatce 1973. 19�) and whidt. pedt1es the e.\ll'uutl time ol an C\ent ora :-.ituation.
d i a·ect pet·ce t> t ion complemen t s
1 15
1cm. e.
in other word. . locate� the event in ume by linking tt to some independently determined reference pomt. u ually the time of uuerance (Reichenbach'. 1947 spen:Jt 1ime: see e.g. 'fenny ( 1987. 195 ). Smith l l 99 1 : 25). and spedtkally En� 1987). Aspect at.odil'fer. from Alaionwn. a notion which refers to inherent. eman tic paoperues of predicates. e.g. whether they are suaive or 1Wn-.wmi\te. £die or mdic. ptmcuutl or duNtti�·e (Conu ie 1976. 4 J tf.).11 MorphologrcaJiy. A. peel is typrcally realised b a verbal attix. or by an tndependent syntactic formative. Eng li�h distingui�hes between non-progressive and progressive aspect onl .. . Although rhe
Enghsh progre.sive ha.-.. a variety of dstferem use:-. (. ee Scheffer 1975 for an overvrew). its principal function i. Lhal of repre::entmg an evem a. ongomg. or in complete. whereas the . imple form represent. an event as a whole-;l ditfcrence that con·e. pondl to the . emantac distinction between perfective and nnperfective aspect. Within the past decade. the existence ol a functtonal category Aspt•ct hru been postulated for a number of different l<mguage. including Russ tan (Tenny 1 987). :Vloder n Ureek (Rivero 1990. Alexiadou 1 997). Spanth and Basque (Laka 1990). Welsh ( Hendrick 199 1 . Koopman and Sponiche 1991). Breton (Hendrick 1991). Chine.e (Borer 1 993). Sconish Gaelic (Ramchand 1993 ). Modern Irish (Gurlfoyle 1994). Gennan ( Shall and S�hmidt 1993). and Egypuan Arabic (Diesing and Jelmek 1995). The facl that aero. s languages. a�pectual marker. occur closer to rhe vert> chan marker!'- of Tense . uggesls that the two are hiemrchicall, ordered wuh re. pect to each other (compare Comrie 1976). Engli. h. roo. has been argued to mstantiate an aspectual head located between Ten. e and lhe verb {e.g. Tenny 19K7. Ouhalla 1991. Koopmm1 and Sportiche 1991. Borer 1993. van Gelderen 1993. or Di� ing and Jelinek 1995). a claim which I shall adopt and JWII f)' below. :Vlorphologically. progrc:sive a�pect in Engli.h is marked on the \'erb by adding -im� to the stem. As to the way . emential Aspect may be represented syntactically. at lea. l three po.sibilitie. must be constdered. which are repre-1ented b (68a-..: ) below. (68)
a.
b.
VP
A
lP
�
fnfl
V'
�
V-i1tg
...
·r
�
S . . . ASP
VP
�
. . . V-ing . . .
d audsa fe l ses·
1 16 l' .
/p
...
Asp'
/'---
Asp
A
VP
�
V-ing Asp . . . I,
�
(a) '/1u• U.'(icali.'it 1\C'coum. Under this as. umpuon. which follow� the tradiuon of what is known as l11e Smm� L(>xicalis1 Hrporlu·sis (Selkirk 1982. Di Sciullo a feature of the VP. nder thi. view. if A peel is taken to be structurally rcprc�cmed at all. it e,an only be a head at the morpho-lexrcal level (compare Selkirk 1982). (b) Tht• ·nat · lnjl Account. J\hernauvely. lhe status of A peel might be that of an mflectional feature that forms pat 1 of the feature matrix ol another functional head. JnO tor Tense). and which 1. �hocked off ns the verb ratses to I nO m LE as indicated in ((>8b) (see e.g. Ru� ter 19X8: 262). (d
Asp�·t·t as ttll Independent Fwwtional Head. In rhe tradition of Baker ( I 9X8). who allows for individual grammatical morphemes to head therrown functional projection. . Aspect can be coruidered an indepcndem .)'ntactic head to which the erb must adjom at .ome . tage in the denvauon. in order to ha c its aspectual feature checked agamst the corresponding feature of 1\:>:p (cf. (68<.')).
In the tollowmg. I shall review . ome arguments Ill favow· of a..;:�ignmg A�pel·t the status ol' an independent . yntactic caregory higher than '' but lower than T. as has been sugge. ted. among others. by 'ttmn. ( L987) and Ouhalla ( 1991 ). J.J./.1 P10bl�·ms with the Le.\iNtlist Accoutll
ru, 1. ob, erve that the hypothesi:-. that Aspect is a lexical (i.e .. )>emantic) feature of V otfers no strmghtJorward account for the fact that if the main verb already carrie,li an inflection. the progres..-:ive marker -ing is syntactically di.sodated from the lexr eal verb left (69)
a.
A cirde was betng drawn
b. ,. A circle wa. drawning c. "A circle wa. been drawmg
diJ·e c t pe •·ce t> t ion comp l emen t .
1 17
In (69a). �tense. A. pe\:L and Voice (the Iauer being as. ociatcd with the -m inOec tion) are all marked on dtfferem verb.. e on V is to be maimamed. then the fa\: I that the progressive affix <\ppears on an auxiliaty rather than on the main verb in l69a) compels us to a. sume that auxilianes are essentially like main verb:-. and each head thear own VP { Ro. s 1 969. Emonds 1 976). 'l11is v1ew has been challenged. among others. by Ouhalla ( 199 1 ) and Roben:-. l l993). and runs countet to the more recent as.umptton that auxiliaries are semantically impoverished place holder elements that are iruerted directly in'lO fun�tional head positions. One of the main drawbacks of what 1. known a. the Main Verb Anai\'Sis of aux1hanes 1s that ll i. unable to accoum for the relative mdermg of A. pect atld Votce markers.1: Abo. a :-.lacked VP analysis as Ill (70) would incorrectly pred1ct that the two type..� of manner adver� idenl ified by Bowers ( 1 993) should be ahle to exchange pla�e •. as both would have to be regarded as adverbtal� of the :-.ame type. t.e. as V or VP adverbs (cf. 7 1 b)).
lu· I a circle J�c will h..1• be l vJ• being I"' drawn tk I I I I
(70) (71 )
a. A circle Will be slowly being drawn badly b. ,. A cirde wtll be bad/)' being dmwn sil>\\ ly
/\ pos ible theoretical argument agamst the lexicalist account derive:-. from the requirement: ofchecktng theory. Ac.cordmg to Chomsky ( 1995: 239), features that are not determmed by the verb'. lextcal meaning. :o-uch a!!> it:-. tense feature (:!::pastJ. or
/\Rains/ Subsumin� Aspt!CI Jtltdn Jnjl Let u:-. now consider the po. . tbility lhat Aspect •� one of several grmnmattcal fea tw·e.s locate.<� under a smgle inflectional head I nO. cu indicated m (68b) above. First. nouce that a Oat lnfl analy�1!\ incorrectly prcdtct. that i t . hould be po. sible for Ten. e J .J .J .2
I IS
d audsa fe I s e t·
and A.peel to be marked on the ( 199 1 ) have poimed oUl: (72)
�a
me vcJ'b. al\ both Tenny l l 987} and Ouhalla
a. ,.John dnnkmgs/dranking beet b. John dnnksldrank/was drmkmg beer
Secondly. subsummg Aspecl under lnll along with Tense (and po. sibly other fe. uures :1! well) provtdes no explanation for the fact 1ha1 �Jense and A pect are . yruactically dLsocia1ed. That •�. there . like che le�icnlt�l analy. 1 discu.sed above. the flat lnft analysi. faiIs to account for the relative ordlet ing ofTen.e and Aspect morphemes. One po. . tbi lit)r of accounung for these facts would be to argue that more rhan one mstantiatton of lnfl may be pre. ent m a .emence at a time-wluch ts m effect what the proponent!'> of the third soluuon. £he functional head analyst�. have argued for. Finally. Tenny ( 1987. 195ft.) has Jrawn attention to a number of semantic differ ences between 'tense and Aspect. which she interpret. a. addtuonal cir('um tantsal evidence in favour of analysing Aspecl as on�. the flat lnfl anal, sis must also be reJected. J .J./.J The FunNicmal Hf·ad AIUtl\'sis
In Section 3.2.3 above. we . aw (hat eviden e for the existence ol a functional he. td between T and ,. in English (John. on's 1 99 1 head Jt) can be derived from the behaviour of pmtide \ICI'b. and from lhe dtslributwn of manner adverbs. following a .uggestion made by Dse. ing and Jelinek ( 1995). I propo. e that Johnson ·. head Jl can tn fact be identified wtth Aspect. which check! the aspectual feature of the veJ'b fhat adjoms to it (d. (73)). I fwe fake the hiemrchical order of functional c.-ue gorie.-. to be fixed by UG. 1hen this analysi correctly predicts the observe{! relative ordering of temporal and aspectual marker!'>. and at.o account. for their mutual mdependence.
dia·ect pe•·ce�tion comp leme n t s
) 19
'J' P
(73)
A DPW
T"
A
T
/!_____
Asp
� vb
A. p
vP
� t , t,., . . .
Although Pollock ( 1989) ha. . hown that Engh:-.h main verbs are unable to raise ill far up as T m the overt . yntax. lexical verbs undcrgomg hon verb movement (3$ m (74)) never1hcle.lis appear to raise to a position outside the verb phrase. (74)
a.
h. c.
�hkey wa.'> looking the reference up Bet.y wa. throwing the bicyde out The crew htmded the passengers their passport. back
I sugge. t that the poslltott latgeted b, the main verbs in (74) t:-. nothing other than Aspect As. ummg that Engli.h instantiate. an aspectual head thai triggers (overl or covert) verb raismg allows for a uniform treatment of . horl verb movement and is m line with the theory of morph01 ymactk feature checkmg outlined in Chomsky ( 1995) (. ee Section 1 .5 above). Verb. enter the computational system fully in flected. and undergo movement m order to have their inflectional features checked: while q'>-feature1 are checked by a marching OP. ten�e and rupec1ual fea1ure1 are checked by corre.liponding functional heads. If Aspect is specified positive!, for the abstmct feattue jJ:prog ]. lhe verb mu. t appear m the -ing form. the sutfix -ing being £he phonological reflex of the feature ( +progj. In the event of A. peel being marked l-progJ. on the other hand. the verb is msened m us bare stem fmm. posstbly cm·ry mg a zero affix. In short a. summg the pre:o.ence of an rupectuaf head below T cor rectly predict that main verb. uninllected for Tense but intte�ted for Aspect wtll be able to unde1go .hort verb mo emem. a� indicated in (75) below.
(75)
a. b.
John 11' is l A'""' I �w lookin,f!., (\,. l.he reference . . . 1i up . . . We expected John 11' to IA,f'l' lA>p· loDk, 1-.P the reference . . . t, up . . .
Another empirical advmllage oOered by the propo. ed analysis concems the posl>i bility ofmulliple ad\•erbial modtfication. Analy. ing A. peel a. a . ymactic head capa-
c;J audaa fe l se r
120
ble of licensmg a cen.aan . ub.et of aspecLUal and manner adverb, correcrly predicts that di tferem types ol manner adverb should be able to co-occur. a� Bowers ( 1993) and Alexiadou ( 1 997) have observed.
(76}
a.
Bill Jowl)' recucd hi. line. poudy
b.
�lary {'(>tifulnlll\' played the violin bt•auti{ttll\'
If il is correcl that each adverh is licensed by a distinct. . emamically compatible functional head. then it . eem rea. onable to a:�sume that the semencc-final adverbs m (76) are licen.ed by \'. and the higher ones by an aspectual head.;.� Heads capable ol licen. ing ,;;emcnce adverb� p•·esumabl; include C and T (or Mod) a indicated Ill (77).
(77)
Clearlyc . �lary probablyT,M,.., will contidentlyA,f' play the vaolin beau tifully
Recall furthe1 lhat like Ten�e. and unhke Agr. Aspect i� a mearungful head m thm it contrtbutes to a sentence· s Interpretation. /\..:cording to ·renn)' ( 1 987). Aspect prima1ily specifies w hether
an
event t. . patio-temporally bounded or not. which
renders lhe functaon of A. peel analogous to that of D in DPs. which. among other lhings . . pe.cities whether or not a given noun phrase is countable. If her line of thinking is correcl. then A p and 0 might both be categor ic,.:; that turn lexical phrases into refemng ex pre. s1on�. and . pecify whether they are countable (perfec ti
e or non-progre!
ive aspect) or not (imperfective or p10gres. ive a�pect). Evtdence
cited by Longobrudt t ] 994} for the existence of �-to-O
tal.
ing within DP.-an
operation which we may regard as the equivalent of V-to-Ap mis ing-1s consistent with the tdea that D
a.
DP
b.
A
D
\j
�p
. A
XP
X
Asp
\v
vP
r A b
VP
Longobardi ( 1994). tales that nominal expressions may ser e � argumenh only 1f they are headed by a D con. tituent. 'Hare· NPs. on the other hand. are licensed only under a re. tricted �et ol carcumstances. notably m predtcattonal �tr uctures . uch as Bill beNtme president. Analogously. we might claim that verbal complements ..:an serve
a-: arguments
or
If th1s generalisation is correct. it would prcd1ct that bare VP (or vP. ) are
11.
only tfthey are introduced by a functional head distinct from V
generally unable to funct1on as synractic argument.. Among other things. this would
d i t·e c t pen�eraaon comp leme n t s
I2I
rule out the po��ibaln. of analy. ing verbal argument small clauses as projecuons of a le:\tcal 01 ligln verb (m llte spint of Stowell 1 9 8 1 . 1983). J.J.1 .4 Preliminary Sum11wry ·to conclude the di.cussion of A.pel'l. we have looked at a vanety of arguments that . uppon our instaal claim that A.pect con. titutes a .eparatc . yntactic head located between T and v. The analysis provided in ( 73) above make. the correct prediction. a.� to the order in which Tense and Aspect marker. appear. and explaans why the two can occur q uite independently f10m each other. Analy. ing A.pect as a syntact ic head as furthermore consi. tem with checking theory. which requi res that grammau cal feature. of the verb l$pelled ou t by inflectional affixes) mu)>t be checked off by corres ponding. tunctional heads. Empitical evidence in f:wour of a h�ad analy ·is fot Aspect mduded evidence from verb movement and from the dastnblllion of manner adverb. . Structure t68c). therefore. i)> to be prefe rred over both (68a). here termed the lexicali. t account. and l68bt the analysts that sub. umes Aspect under a complex
Jnfl head. J.J.2 Tile Slrttl:lllre of P\ICs A I have pointed out above. verhe.� in the :-ense ot Bower. ( 1993). As noted by Roth. tein ( 1 995). the question arise. ru to how the subjects of . mall clause. are licen. ed. l fsmall dau. es are clau. al constituents from which the T·:-ystem is miss mg. then the fact that they have oven . ubjects cannot be attributed to the presence of a strong I D J feature Ill T (which follow ing Chom. ky ( 1995: 232) fotce.� insenion of an oven )>Ubject m linite indicatives). Roth. tell\ sugge, t. that the the t:.\temJn/ Prc�;eclimt Principle (EPP) of Chomsk, ( 198 1 ) . hould be replaced by a more gen eral 'Predication Condtttott' accordang to which all pt-edicates mu. t be satu mted by a subject. lfChom ky and La. nak's ( 1 993) null ca. e mtalysis ol Pt{O is correct then the prohibttaon against PRO . ubjects in complemen t . mall clau. e.s can be accounted fot by assumi ng th
d audsa fe l s e t·
122
len. e :-.pecilieation of thetr own. The ba.ic :-.tructure fo1 mtimttVal and panidpsal perception complement a. in {79a.b) then i. the one shown in {80). (79) a. b.
We saw John dmw a circle We . aw .John dmwinlf a circle
(8())
A pP
A /....._ ...._
Spec Asp ' Asp
(±progj
J>
A Spec
v'
�
DP�, John
v'
� v
VP
� V
draw(mg)
DP
.,
� a circle
The structural repr�enlation in {80) accounts for the absence of complementiser. and oven 'len. e 1narkers from PVCs. whtle at the . ame tlfne capturing the fact that both IPVCs and PPVC:-. are clausal con. tttuem. that diller mimmally wnh respect to the value as. tgned to the aspectual feature l±prog l. wh1ch 1. located in Asp. The absence ol aspectual be follow:-. from the minsmalist a. sumption that auxthary bt.• IS a semamically empty earner for otherwise . tranded inflection. . and can only be ut�erted a. a last resort 1.e. when the main verb alread, carrie. an inflection. Checkmg theory furthermore allows u. to handle ..:a.e ru.ignment within PVC con strucuons in a stratghtforward and uniform fruhion. Either at LF OJ ovenly. DJ>nt> rai. e.� to the outer . peciller of the lower \'P. a. indicated in { H I ) below. in order to have its objective C<\.e checked against the objective ca:e feature of the embedded verb in 11.
dia·ect pen�eption complements (8 1 )
123
X
Spec
A.p'
/---_
Ap
[±progj
vP
/---_ '
01�0
�
a circle . 0 . 0 0 0 • , ' ' '
v
�'
OV.,.
John
v
/--..__
v
/'
..
VP
/'
� .. .. . ... ..
The lower subject. in tum. must ultimately rai. e to ( Spec.vP) in the matJ ix clause. where it. objective crue feature is che.cked agamst the con·e. ponding featw·e of the higher erb. The specttier of A pect provide an intermediate landing .ite for the displaced subject. If OP,,., and OP,, nu.e ovenly. then we mu. 1 a. sume that the verb ha)o al.o undergone further rais1ng. targeting the funcuonal head Aspect. Evsdence for oven movement can been derived. for example. from the behaviour of particle verbs. The resulting (partial) repre.!entatton i. shown 111 (82) below.
d audsa fe l set·
124 (82)
,.p
�'
Spec
v
�'
0
v
I
�
we
v
I
(ij
VP
�
I or�/� /�
saw
A. p
John
I
draw(ing) t
I I . . .
.. '
.
vP
/'---....
v'
OP,,.
A A
.
A
.. v .. ,
.
v'
a c1rde t,
t," . . t,,. .
.. .
Many of the characteri. tic propenie� of direct perception complements follow unmediately from an analy. is that regards them ali projection. of the funcltonal head A. pect. in ludmg thetr clause-like beha 10ur. the absence of complementi:;;ers and t1nitene$. markers. as well as the ca. e properttes of the post ''erbal DP. h also allows us to treat IPVC:- and PPVC. a� . tructurally
a. We saw a �1rde ln•inx drawn b. % We saw a cirde be drawn
As. uming that
PVCs
are proJecuon. of a head that is C<.lpable of licensing
d i a·ec t per·cep t aon .;omp l emen t s
125
aspectual and cenain type!> of manner adverb funher· accounts for the co-occurrence ol differem kind. of mannet adverbs in dil'cct perception complement�. The proposed analysis is con.istent with . uuc1ural oconomy reqUirements in that it does not posmlate any tunctionle. � nodes. but involves only cu much . U\Jcture a.� necessary.
3.4 Summary I have suggested in this chapter that verbs o sen. ory perception semanucally . elect
aspeclUal t·omplements. After providing . ome independem argument. m favour of ancluding the functional head Aspect in lhe categorial ilwentory of Eng I ish. l argued that PVC. are be. 1 analysed as clausotl t'onst ituents headed by an a. pectual head that 1 pecified for the feature l±progl. This analysis wa:-: shown to correctly predtct many of the syntactic properties associated wath the. e construction. . and naturally accounts for the fact that inliniti al and participial perception complements alternate freely. Among the propenie. ol Engli. h PVC� tihat have not , et been explained are the Sunuhaneity Condition. the Constraint again. I Pa��ive. the ob.�erved rc�tricuon. on then' in�ertron. and the absence of a genenc reading of b;ue plural . ubJects. Jn the following chapter. I will show that on the ba. IS of the analy. b. proJ>O. ed above. these remaining propenre. can be derived I rom specilic lexicnl properties of percep tion verbs. in conJunction wnh independemly motivated principles of grammar. •
•
�otcs I . The nohon of hmtcness is traditionally assocmted wath the presence of tense and/ora�rc:e mcnt morpholo,gy. I shall follow u .suggcsuon by Palmer ( 1987: 12f.) .md take ·timtcnc:ss'
to indicate the abality of a verb or verbal clcmc:nt to head ::t simple sentence. 2. Analyses which an: ancompatahlc with Chomsky's ( 1981. und later) Principlcs-and J>arametcr.,.. fr.tmcwork w1ll
lurgely be: 1gnvrcd. That is. I shall refrnm from discussing in
.m)' det ail Rosenbaum':; ( 1967) and f1cn�o· s ( 1974) obJel·t control nnalyses. Dcdcrck · s
{ 1 9 2b. I 9K3h) subjcct-to-i>bJeCt raising anal)'Sis. or Akmajian' s l I 977) nun-c:unstatucnt analysts of perceptton complements. For reasons why thcJ\c an: to he lt:JCCtcd. sec Ch. 2.
�. One could perhaps nvotd thts condu.,ton by proposmg that verbs of phy ·h.:al percept ton sck'(:t a {-WH I complemcntiscr hcnd. though this lea\'cs unexplained the fact that jor ts excluded as well.
4. Under chcckmg thcor)'. this means tlmt in the absence of a CP hamer. the lower .subject IS free to ratse t o the mntnx ($pee. vP) ut LF 10 have its case feature checked ngttinst the obJC.Cttve c�c features c:nnied by the matrix verb. 5. Sec Chomsky ;tnd Lasmk t I 993 ). or Bo�kovic ( I 995. I 996).
126
d aud1a fe I . et·
6. ln a footnote. Kayne ( 1984: 1 2 1 n. 16) cvnl>tders the: pos..,tbiltty that PVCs may he clausal constituents sm tiler than CP (S' in his tc:rminologyl. :lllowmg for �nsc to he L I .;signed to the postvcrbal DP by the higher v�rb mstead of dausc-tntcrnnll)-.
7. Yet unother vnrmnt of the CP :malysts for t>VCs has been proposed by Reuland t 191': I}. Reuland suggests m the absence of an overt ,·omplemcnttsc:r. objective case �nn be a:.·
.ssgncd by the matnx verb to a null lntl in the lower clause. whtch then shifts Its �nsc further to the suhjecl. c i)
Sel'' (,.(' I ll him Lt f) I' "·· draw (I circlt> I l l
._j
Like tnlimttvnl w. null lnO is u prcpositton that is reanulyscd with the mntnx verb. an idc:t that is rcmmiscent of the at·count for p1cpusitton strandmg thut ha..; been offered by Homstem and Wemberg ( 1 9 I). Due to the mabilit>• of a phonctu.:nll)' null lntl to retam its c::sse. CIL'-C movement ts mnndtttory. which ss why the su�je<.:t of ban: mtiniuve.s can never be PRO (Reuland 198 1 : 7>. Reuland ( t983t�) proposes a suuilar ::malysts for parti· dpiul per�cplton verb t·omplcmcnts. whiCh differs from the one above only m thut the
I nO head here
IS
spelled out ns ·in�. However. Reuland's ·l·ase movement' account ts
incompatible wtth mmunaltst checking theory. As noted by Johnson l I 988). Reuland's annlysi!> of PPVC.s i.s abo unable to u : :-t·ount for the gcneml unavml tbthty of PRO in the:-e construc.·tiuns.
8. Boskovic { 1 995. 19%} l:onvincingly UJ'{0ues in favour of analysmg both ECM and control intimuve.s as IPs. 9. Some evtdencc that raising of ECM subjects may in fact take pluce overtly ts suggested by the data below (t·ompare e.g. Johnson 1991. Koizumt 1995. nnd reference� cited there): (i} (ii}
They proved him clmcluJil't>ly to be a hnr
I've behevcd John for n long time 110\\' to lx: a fool
10. Note tiMt thts idea ts actually m hnc with Safir':. own suspt<.:ton that "the absence of a prcsupposttion of the truth of the l·omplcment in the irrcahs context somehow licenses
.ft't'
to pcrnnt a temporally independent complement" (Suhr 1993: 59). . ec.• Scc.·L 4.4.4 for a more exten.�tve discussion of tlwre-PVC:..
I I . More prc..:iscly. she dmms thnt udverbs
em::
etthcr b;L.;e-adJotncd to ::s projc...: tion of the
lkensmg head. or arc gencrutcd as complements of . fn the Iutter ClL"c. the mlvcrb (or its relevant formal features) must enter into an nppropnntc chcckmg relution with the corresponding functional head via r:using. ln some language�. t:omplement-type adverbs muy also meet thctr hccnsmg requirements through tocorporallon.
12. Compare Chomsky' s l I 995: 33<)) su�gesuon th.tt adverbs mny not be adJOined to phrases thut arc G.related. which excludes V P from the range of pos..;iblc t·nndidates. Acn>rdmg to Alexiadou ( 1997: 1 7 1 ). wh(\ doe.s not c!\phcitly adopt Chomsky's 4 1 995} VP-shell system. the lowe:.t functJOnul category ntpnblc of ltl:cnsmg :.pet·it'icr adverbs is Voice. which perhaps can be tdcnlthcd wtth Chomsky's ( 1995) hfht verb \'. I:\. Compare also Davtdson-J ielsen· s { 1990: 22)cntenu of uuxihnnty. He argues that .tuxil-
d i a·ect pc1·ception comp lemen t s
127
iarie1- do not constllutc u dearly demarcated class. ;md that there �re borderline cuses ( ibJd.. 17f. ).
14. Modats and ( l·opulur) uux1hnucs have often he.en assumed to take .1 duusul complement who� subje\·t is overtly ratsed to (. pee .I Pl. a new th;u 1s ompallblc wuh the VP-mlcr nttl subJeCt hypothesi:-.
. 15. For a more comprehensive overview of the dtl)ercnces between auxihancs and main vc1bs. sec e.g. Rndfont { 1 988: 15. . 19<.>7: 65f.) and \Varner ( 1993: . ff.l. 16. Notice. however. thnt thts urgumcnl breaks down i f we assume with Balun ( 1995) that PRO ongmatcs {and remains) m the specitic:r poMilon of lc:ucal head.-:. 17. Johns ( 1 992) hus postulate-d the ex1stencc ofn category AgrV for lnukt1tul. 18. Aarls ( 1 992: I I 1-122) also c.hs usscs th1.s type of small dausc. and sug.gesL-: thai as might be an lnO-clemcnl. 19. Contrary to what l shall nr�uc below. Tunstall ( 1993) dunns thut the -in�: aflh ·IJccnsc:.' the case of the PVC subjcl'l. 20. I n formal :-emuntu:s. Aspcl·t is commonly co�ei\'ed of iL" an operator. assumed to oper ate c1ther o n proposllions (Vlach 198 I). C\'cnts (Gnlton I 984. Saurer I 984). or VPs (Gubbay and Murnvcs1k I 980. Lnndrmm 1 992). The semrmtlcs of Aspect htL" also been d1sc:usscd by Htrtlc � I %7}. VcEkuyl ( I 972. I 993). or Smtih ( 199 I ). to menuon but a few. 2 I . An event construed from un inhc1cntly tchc predicate sud1 us OJh'll the door. for exam ple. can be vu:wed from dtfrercnt aspects (unpcrfccttve/prugre.sstve ven.us perfccttvc/ non-progrcsstve aspe.:tl. Nottcc that Aktio.ns.urt. whn:h currc.spond..o; r:�thcr closely to Smith's ( 1991) notion of .muntitm type. is not ncccssanly dctcrm10cd by lexJcal proper lies of the verb ulonc. which ts shown by the fact that proress verbs such L I S nm ma� undergo �i ·catc�ory switch' u.nd turn mto uclncvemcnts when comhincd with a locattve
PP as 10 She rrm 10 the stort-. 22. Unless one ascribes to them c-sekoetional properties. a move whu:h docs not seem purtlr ulurly deSirable though 10 VIew of the mimmali�>t ann to clmunatc the concept of c-sclectmn from grammar. 23. Note that this dtsungUtshe.s the progressive marker from the ·voice· marker -t>n. which has been llf8UCd to absorb the external .trgumenl role of the verb tn passives. r-or thiS rc.ason. 1t nught he that the -en mflccuon dO<:.-: 10de<.xl form part of the lcxu.:al content of a pi!rttcipml V. or perhaps 1s L I '>sormtcd w1th \'(sec Bccdham 1987 for arguments a�mnst the cx1stenrc of nn mdcpcndcnl cat<."gory Voice m Enghshl. 24. The dcictu: properties of Tense have first bee n noted by Partee ( 197�. I 984). On Tense us a dcJCtic or refcrcntiul category.
sc.c
ulso Comnc l l 976. 19. 5). Ens: ( 1986a.b). or
Dandscn-N 1dsen l l 990: 54tl ). 25. TillS hypotht:sls IS in line with Alcxmdou' s t I 997} claun that aspectuul ad\'crbs arc generated 10 the specitier of Aspect.
4 The Event-Control Analysis
4 . 1 Introduction
In Chapter 3. it wa.-: shown that analysing direct perception c.omplements as projec tions of an a. poctual head immediately solves many of lhe problem. tradtltonalty a.soctated with thc$e construction. . rvtost importantly. the propo. ed analysi. man age� to rcconctle the fact that PVC-' behave syntactically like clausal constituents wllh lhe obltgatory absence of complementi. en. and ten. e markers. Anal, sing PVC� as Aspi's also captures ntcely the obsetvation thm inllnitival and pa11 idpial comple ments d1ffer with re. pect to their aspectual character only. However. the analy. i presented above also left :-.orne other dlru·acterisltc facL" unexplained. in particular. the condllton on temporal sunultaneity. the restriction! on the interpretation of bare plural :-.ubject. . and the unavailab1hty of main clause passive. . The present chapter aims to show that all the. e propea1tes can be derived from the hypothe. is that per ception verb. expre. . ing direct sense perception of an aclton or event function as £\·�m Cantrol l'rNiicate . What a. meant by thb ts that the event or . patio-temporal argument provided by the matnx verb is able to control the evem place of the lower predkate. a relationship that IS hown to be analogou. to t'omrol of PRO. Under the event conuol analysis there is no need for a. . unung that the higher verb r-sdecb rhe category of the complement. a welcome theoretical con. equence that is comas lent wtth a number of recent propo. als lO eliminate the not ton of t:-selection from the theory of grammar. If is argued that the ability of percepuon verb.-; to lkensc verbal complement clau...;es which lack a lempoml specification of thei1 own ulti mately derive.� from lextcal propetties of the:-.e vea·bs. in conjunction wtth indepen demly mottvated principle. of gmmmar. The org;misation of this chapter ts as fol low.s. In Seclton 4.2. I di. cuss and extend the claim onginall. put foi'Wi\rd by Oavtd:-.on (I 967) thal the argument structure of verb:-. may contain an additiOnal argumem place for a variable that r;mges over events. I shall argue that the event argument-whsch al.'cordmg to Krat7.er ( I 989) 1s more appropriately chamclerised as an argumem as. octaled wtth the .patio-tem poral location ol an evem-t. not on I. relevant lO semantic imeq>l'etation but i. abo :-.yntactically acttve. and therefore should be included in the syntactic representation .
t he e ve n t - �o n t r· o J ana lysi.
129
of clauses. Speciticall, . it i. . uggested that the event argument origanates in the specifier of an a. pectual head. Section 4.3 imroduces the E'ent Conuol Hypothesas. which . tales that verb.-: of perception are able to function as control predicates. but differ from well-known control verbs such a. lr)'. p10mise. or per.wade in that the comrol relauon involved i)> one of evem control rather than subject or object control of PRO. It is danned that m pe1ccptual repo1 ts. the event argument of 1•vc. enters mto an obligatory control relation:-.hip with the event argument pro"ided by the matrtx predicate. In Section 4.4. I examme m some detail tho. e propenie...; of direct perceptton constructions that are as yet unexplamed. and how that the, are cor rectly predicted by the proposed analysis. Some po)>sible exten. ions of the propo.ed analy. JS are discu. sed m Section 4.5. and the chapter conclude, with a hrtef sum mar in Section 4.6.
4.2 The Syntax of E\'cnt Argutncnts 4.2 .J EvideJtct· for an &ira ArJ?ttmem Position
E:nending Dav1d-:on · :- ( I 967) anginal . uggestion. Htggmbotham ( I 985. 1 989) pro poses that the thematic grid of verbs contains an additional . lot for rut argument as!\octated with the evem 6-role. That is. 'verhs are assumed to provide an extra argument po. ilion or ·event variable· that i:o: subJeCt to entenuaJ quantification at the level of semamic interpretation. 1 Under this view. a tran. 111ve vert> such a)> kis:> is taken to be a three-place predicate with a 0-grid a)> m ( I ) (compare Higginbotham 19K5: 555). (I)
kiss V.
(£.91.0�)
While there is little que..�lion f10m the point of view of.emantic� proper that natu ral language make. reference to evenL' ( ee. for in. lance. Parson. I 990). opmion. are divided a. fa r a.-: the , macuc realuy or event argument. is concerned. That as. their status at the symact1c level LE which constitutes the mterface level between the computattonal sy. tem and . cmantic mtcrpretation. i. still controver. iat. Let us brrefly re,•iew . ome of the arguments that have been cited m the literature a n . upport of the exbtence of a Daviruonian event argument. Higginbotham ( 1 985) has argued that positing the existence of an abstract event position in the 9-grid of verb. helps. for example. to capture the semantics of adverbtals . uch as rapidiJ· in (2a). which tran.�lat� into the semantic repre,entation ( 2b). rollowmg Oa\'id. on ( 1967). he .ugge$tS that manner adverbial of thi. type . cmanticalty function a.� predicates of events (Higginbotham 1 985: 562f.. 1 989: 478tf.).
d audra
130 (2)
a. b.
fe I . et·
John walked mpid/)1 3te) walked (John. e) & rapid (t'. A) •'Jl1ere wa. a walk b.. John. and it wa� rapid (for a walk) '
Kratzer ( 1989) argues that assuming the presence of an addlttonal argument mso ciated with the :spatio-tempoml location of an event miglu help act'Olrnt for the am biguity of . entence.� involving locative or tempoml adjunct. .uch ru the German example (3) below. ll. l\ o readings are paraphrased as t3a) and (3b). respoctivcly. (3)
ll'eiJ ihu j'ast aJI!• F/Ohe in die.�em IJNI gt.•bissen lwbt•n . mcc him almost all Hea. in this bed binen have a. Since almost all of the fleas in this bed bit him b. Since almost all the fle.'ls bil him m thi. bed
In the ta) re�1ding. the locative PP in diesem Beu 'in this bed' moditle. (i.e .. i. adJoined to) the quanti fled noun phra. e rasr aile F/Ohe 'almost all flea!'>·. re.•aricting the domam of t he quantifier. In the (b) readmg. on the other hand. the i>P 1. under stood as bemg predicated of the event or spatio-tempornl argument rur1her. em;m tic evidence in suppor1 of a Davtdsoruan event possuon has been derived. inu>r alia. from the e>.istence of derived nomina Is ( Htg.gmbotham 1989: 483f. ). · root-r'elated homonyms· . uch as SJH'fl\' paint ()fl tht• wall ver. u. .pray rite wttll wilh ptlilll top. cit. 4731f.). from ambtguou� case. of adverbial modtticallon (op. cit. 477-4K3). and lrom licenstng conditions on w/wu-clau. es ( Kratzer 1989. and below). According to Haggtnborham. the event argument ditl'er. from the nominal argu ment!'> of the verb(. uch a. its age n t or t heme arguments) in that il is not normally as. oc�etted with a phonetic matrix. or as..10igned a d1stinct po. 111on in a phrase mal'ket (though Higginbol11am ( 1 989: 484). Stowell ( 1991 ) and Ramchand ( I 996: 189) have pointed out a few po. sable ext·eptions to ahi!->). According to Higginbotham. the evem 9-role is not actually tts. i�ned to •ynta fie argument.. but instead i. dis clwr�nl "at the pomt where VP meets lnfl" ( Htggmbotham 1985: 56n.� In a sense. then. the event argument I!' more like an argument of lnfl than of the ve tb . an idea whkh wiJl be explored fu11her beiO'r\'. From a nunimaJi. t 'bottom-up· perspe<:tive. however. we would expect that from Higginbotham ·. sn that she assumes that the eveIll argument is actually the external argumem of the verb. and . emanttcally a. socimed wuh the spauo-temporal location of an event. She funher argues that onl)' stage-level predicate�. but not individual-level predtcate.-..
t he e ve n t-�o•H a·o I a n a ly. i.
131
provide . uch an ab. tract event argumenl. and show:-. that the
(4)
aile Sdnwine in ALwralien .\·thwart. sind
since almost all swan. in Austraha black ·since almost all swan:- in Au. fralia are black ·
are
If the
ambiguity ot (3) result trom the po. sability of a:sodating the lo�attve PI' cithet with the quantified noun phra:-.e or with the ab.tract event argument. then the unavailability ol the .econd teadmg lor the . entence in ( 4) sugge:-.ts that there 1s no event argument present that the PP in 1\ttSira/int could be predicated of. A . econd argumem cited by Kratzer in favour of a David. onian treaunent of stage-level pre�hcates concern. the licen. ing of conditional dau�. . On the cu . umption that l.Onditionals . erve to restrict the domain of an a�tract operator 'ALWAYS·. and that both the conditional clause and the main clau. e must provide a val'iable for tlw: operator to bind (compare Lewt. 1 975. Heim 1 982). her proposal 1. able to account for the followmg paradigm: (5)
a. When 1\·tary speak. rrench. . he . peaks it well b. •When Mal)' knows rrench . . he know. it well c. ..When Mary )>peak:-: rrench. . he knows it well d. .,When Mary know. rrench. she . peak. it well
Since only stage-level predicates provtde an event argument. which ts belteved to introduce a variable IntO the logkal repre.-.entatson of clause.. Kratzer's theOI)' explam why-in the ah. cnce of olhe• variable-introducing expresstons such as mdennite DPs-wllen-clause... must contain a . tage-level predicate. and why only . tage-le,·el predicate. but not individual-level predtcates are able to licen. e wllt·n-clau. es. rrom the example.'> above onl • (5a). whose logical repre."enta tion is . ketched below. . atistie. the above reqUirements on . entence. involving conditional. .
(6)
a
1 way. (£') (speaks t Mary. rrench. e)) 1. peak. well (Maty. rrench. r))
Among the syntacuc dtl'fercnce. between .stage-level and individual-level predi cates pointed out by Knuzer is the following. Ob. erve that only dau�. involving
132
d a u d s a fe l se •·
�tagc-le,·el pt cdkate� !\Uch h < t 7a t but not thO!\C contauung indi\ tdual-level predt cate� like (7b). allow t clauve dau.e extmpo. ition in German: (7)
a.
: ..·ei
wt•il
8iicher auf dem
�in�e two books
on the
1hch la�nt . dit• ni�nratul lt·st•n wollre table lay
that nobody
tead wamed
·since two book!-. were lying on the table that nobody ''anted to read· b.
Wt.'il zwei Biiclter letter
since two book!
'' aren. dit• nh•mand h•.\t.'lt ''ollie
expensive ''ere
that nobody
read wanted
·since two book!\ were expetbive that nobody wanted to read· It appear!\ that the ob!\ened comra. t is also found in Englbh. Leaving the detail. of Krmz.ct · . analy:-.is of the above example:-. asadc. we ma; take a:-. further evadence l for her claim that SLP. and ILP. differ with regard to their !\yntactic make-up. finall,. cothidcr the behaviour of what Stowell ( 1 9 9 1 ) calb · mental-property· (MP) adJective�;. which acc01dang to ham p10vides e\ tdencc that under cenam con dition!\. the event argument may be . pelted out mertly. MP adjective� arc charactct tl-ed bv the fact that thev and an , are able to ·elect both a l-ellliclll argument � ,
mnnatlval daU!\C dcnoung an acuon. as tn l8d.
(�)
a.
John was ·lcvet/mean
h.
It
c.
John was dcvel'/mean to �ign the commct
\Va.�
clever/mean tof John) to �•e.n .... the conLract
While these adJecuv� by them. eh•es are ambiguou:-. bel\\een an indi\'idual-level and a !\tJge-le\•el readmg. StO\\ ell note!\ that .\ele�tion of an tnfiniuval clau!\e as Ill (8b.d nece.sarily coancadc� with a �tage-level aeadang of the adjective. COI\\'Cr!\ely. adJectives that allow fo1 an indi adual-lcvel reading onlv never admit both a sentiem !\Ubject and an action-denoting innnitave at the :-.ame time.
�h
l-hown by the
ungrammau�ahty of (9c). (9)
a.
Btll W3!\ famous/unportant
b.
It was ampo11am to win the election
c. .. Btll W3!\ famous/ampon3nt to win the election Stowell top. <.'it.. 1 12f.) further ob. erYes that in !-entencc!- hke tSct there exa!-t. an oblagatory control rclauon!\IHp between bet\\een the matrix !\Ubject and the un der�tood l-Ubject of the anhnitive dau. e. ( I (})
John, was clever !PRO... � to �ign the contmclj .
Stowell's explanation ol the Iact that action-denoting dau!\e:o. of tha' type are re.1 tricted to . tage-level ildJecuves i:-. that the inhmtave dause 11!\clf bear.\ the evem 0-role ol the matm.. predicate in . tructure.�; like ( 1 0) top. dt.. J 1 8). He lollo\\.
t he e ve n t-�on t •· o l ana lysi.
1 33
Kratze1 ( 19H9) in a . uming that lhe event argumem t. always the {most) external argument of a given predicate. and suggests Ihat MP predicate. project an additional layer of suucture -a · L
· . 10 Slftn
.
.
•
. x
Al,
� OP
J\
John
d<'\'t-r
I
Funher syntactic differences between SLPs and JU>s will be considered in Sec tion 4.2.2 below. Gi en that Kratzer'. chru·acterisation of the evem po. it ion difJ'eP.' considerably from Davidson'. and I iigginbotham. · conception of the event variable as parl of the mherent meaning of verbs. the quc.lilton anse..; as to whtch of the two ts the ·correct' view-<>r mdeed. whether Krarz.er' � e\rent or . patio-temporal argument and Higgin botham's event variable are one and the same entity. Kratzer note:-.. for example. that Davidson·. and H igglllbotham · s approach to manner adverbs is problemauc for examples such as (12a.b). as the adverb. nicely and coar.\·ef.� can hardl�, be inter preted a:-. charactensing lOr being predJcaled of) the events dc.licrtbed by the VP. : nor can they be under. tood as predicate. of the due.: I object. i.e. of the package or thl' onimts. ( 12)
a. b.
She wrapped the package nicel)' She chopped the omons coar.liely
She concludes that manner adverb. cannot uniformly be treated as predkatcs of event.. and imerprets the above ob�ervations a:-: additional evidence for her claim thal the Oav1dsoruan event position is actual! y an argument of. pauo-tempoml loca tion. rnthe1 than a variable ranging over events (see Giorgi and Pmne. i 1991 and En� 1 996 tor a sinular vJew). A lu11her problem wllh lhe Oavidsoni<m conception ol event vanable: has been pointed out by Wtlliams ( 1994. 74f.). who note.li that in the case of a ·entence conlaining more rhan one adverb1al of the relevam kmd. like ( 13a) below. we would have Lo po. at the existence of multiple evem variable� w it hm the same sentence. as each ariable l'�an only be bound once lthat l. . a configuration like the one shown m ( 1 3b) would be illicit).
d audsa fe l se t·
134 ( 13)
a. b.
John ate breakfast twice three Ume.! three times ( llt.-'iet.> 1 . . . em(e,) . . . j I
Thus. st look. as if the two exi.tmg concepuon. ol the event positim1-the cia. st eal Oavtdsoman vtew on one hand. and Kratzer':.. vsew on the other-(annOl easily be reconciled. J\ possible W3)' out oftlw: dilemma ha.� been sugge.ted by Ramchand ( 1 996). who argue rhat Kratzer's argument of spauo-tempoml location i. in fact disunct from the lexically determmed Oavidsonian event vanable. Ramchand argue, that wlule the ·oJiginal' Davtdsonian event variable is pa11 of the lexical meamng ot verbs. the pre, ence of Kratze(. e\•ent argument is detenmned . yn tacucall,. and that it serves to.aturate (in Rothstein·. 1983. 1995 sen. e ) stage-level predicate. . Her datm that the hcetL�ing ol evem arguments 1. a mauer ol com positional Slr ucture rather than lexical �emantic.� gam.s independent support ftom the fact that many prcdkate. are origmally neutral w11h respect to the stage/mdtvidual distmctton and thus allow fo1 both u. es. such as the verb haw: (compare Carter 19�8: 268-77). ( 14)
a. b.
John hru a headache John i). havmg a fit
(ILP) ($LP)
A simslar view ha. been expressed by Heycock ( 1994: 234). who as. umcs that .. lexical predicates are inhcremly individual-level. What allows them to he inter preted as stage� level is the pos. ibslity of them being predknted. not of the ostenstble subject. but rather of an abstJact David. onian event argument. as sugge!>ted tn .. Kratzer 1 989 . As we shall see below. the characterisation of the event argument as the subject (in rhe techmcal . ense) of. tage-levcl predicate. .:orne:\ very clo!>C to the ''iew de fended rn the present !>tudy. The event argument. I . uggc.-;t. J:\ be).t be conceived of as a ·quasi-argumem· (in the sense defined by Chom. "-1' 1981: 325) in that i( bears a themattc role without refernng to an actual participant in an event. In what fol lows. I . hall adopt and extend Kratzer" s propo. at by claiming that the .yntactic status of the event argument !. e. senti ally the . ame <1! thi\l of other arguments. e\en though it i. not normally
Kratzer ( 1 989) propo. es a Prindple ufAr!!,tmwnt Linkiu� (d. t 1 5)) which in effect states that the event argument. by vsrtue of being the mo!>t promsnent argument of the predscate. must always be the external argument-that !. . it mu. t be assigned to a po!>ttion outside VP. The nomin(l/ .subject of. tage-Jevel predicate. (typically. the
the
e ve n t - �o n t r· o t a n a l si.
135
argumem associated wilh the age n t mle). on the other hand. will onginate within the verb phra.e. ( 15)
All but the htghest argument are realised witlun the lexical projection of the predtcate.
lndividual-le,·el prcdil:ate. . b. comrnsl. are asl>umed to lack an evem pol>Uion. By pr indple ( 15). then. the highest argumem of a truly l>tative predicate is 11. nominal . ubject ti.e. the individual a given state-of-affairs 1. predicated of). whtc:.·h according to principle ( 15) must be generated VP-externally. Thw the mapptng of argumem structure to. yntactic repre. cmations yield. difl'erent re. uh. for SLP. and JLPs. This differen�e i. illustrated below. with ( 1 6 ) con·e. ponding to an SLP expression. whtle ( 1 7 • shows an I LP structure. XP
tage-1cveJ pr·edicate
/"... E
X'
A
VP
X
A
DP
V'
"A
o�
v
( 17)
i ndi vtdua 1 - 1 eve 1
XP /"...
DP..
•.
p1·ed ic a t e
X'
A
X
VP
A v
DP·"
Kratzer daim. that the external argumellit in each ell!e i. generated tn lSpec.IP). a posttron wluch corre. poncl�t to (Spec.TP) in Chomsk, · . ( 1 995) framework. However. if we rail ow lor the posl>tbility of functional head. other than •tense inter venmg between C and V (such a. Mod or Asp). the number ol spectlier position that could potentially ho.�; t an extemal argument increa. e!\. In the lollowing . Ci:tion. I argue thai external argument. may originale in {Spec.TP). (Spec.A pP) or (Spec. vJ>). Jepending on what kind of external argument and what type of predtcate is involved.
136
d audaa fe l s e a·
Re�all that the set of stage�level predtcate, (which compnses telic and atelic events as well ru stative predicate. such as stand or lie) include:- the set of predi cates that may be marked for progre. swe a� peel in l:.ngh. h l Carbon 1 980). Individ ual-level predicate. . on the other hand. never take the progre. . ive. ( 18)
a. •Gho. ts art' exisrinr: b. Kenia ;,,. Iring in Africa c. "John is (JWning a mansic>n d. 'llle . now is mt-•ltinr: e. Bill is wttlking f. They are drawinl! circles
( u naccusa t i v e ILP) (tnt •·ans i t ive JLJ>)
(tran. i t iv e ILP) ( u naccu�ativc SLP) (in t nu1. i t i v e S LP) ( t •·an. i t i ve SLP)
T1le abtlity of a predicate to admit the progre. sive tim. correlates wtth the pres ence of an evem argumem. as both are propenies of stage-level predicates. Below. 11 i. suggested that thb correlation is not a coinctdence. ln the previous chapter. it wru argued that progres. ives in Engli. h project an A.pP layer. wnh progre. . tve ·ing bemg the overt re.alisatton of the a.�tpcctual feature l +progj located in A.p. Recall that sensory percepuon verbs semantically select events as their complement. l < nd that direct perception complemems were analysed as AspP!-> tn Chapter 3. That a (null) aspectual head i. al. o present in bare infimuve.�t ts confirmed by the fact that both IPVCs and PPVC�t can be modified by dtfferem manner adverbs at the same lime: ( 19)
We heard Bill /owl\' rct'ite/reciting his lines poor!}·
In example. such as ( 19). s/owlv has been argued to be licensed by Asp. and poorlv by \'. In order to c�apture the ob. erved couelation between the type of predscate in volved and the pre$ence of an aspectual head. I propo. e the following mapping principle: ( 20)
SLP Mapping H)1pothesis Stage-level predicates are realised as A. pP syntactically.
From the point of "iew of interpretation. we may regard AspJ> as the canonical realisation of the semamic type t:w•m. Events dtlfer from state. or propense� m that they are internally struclured ti.e.. the comprise dtflerem 'stages'). and hence necessarily involve . tage-level predicates. If. a.-. I have assumed 111 Chapter 3. A p is lhe licenser of·�pectual adverbs such as frequellll\' or grtlfltutlly. pr inciplc ( 20) correctly predict:-. that stage-level predi cates. but not indi tdual-le el predtcates. should admtt adverbial modifiers of this type.
t he e ve n t - �o n t t·o J ana lysi. (21)
1 37
a. �tGho. ts t'.\is1etl repNtTedly b. 10 Keniafrequeutlr lies itt 1Vrira c. ..John ()Wm·d a Jtumsiott r:radtwlly d. ·n1e .now gr((dttallr melted e. Billfrequenll\' qdn/ w 'Wrk f. ·n1ey rept•atedl\' asknl qm,ostions
I fua1her suggest that the specilier of A.pP (m Engli.h) 1s aJl A-position which hos1s the external argument of stage-level predscatcs. i.e. the evem argumem t:. A),suming a vP-shell struclure for tran. itivc vca·b phra:e. {see Chomsky 1 995). thi. give. us the re.pre. entation ·hown in (22) for stage-level verb phra)>e .5 .
(22)
A
t:
Asp'
A
Asp
vP
A
Dl�.
v'
A VP
A
v
1)�..
One que. tion that immediately spnngs to mind here is the following. I I £ really 1 an argument of the verb or predscatc. then m what way doe. it receive tts a-role'! Since Chomsky ( 198 1 ). it has been assumed that the . UbjeCI a-role i:-> assigned compo. ttaonally by V' or V P. rather than by V directly. By definition. extemal argu ments. are realised outsidt• the maxunal project ion of the S-maa kmg head ( Wilhams J9K I ). l n Chomsk, ·s ( 1995). y. tem. the subject DP in (Spec.vP) is 0-marked b, the emire \•-VP compte�. with ''the agent role. being understood as the incerpretation as:-.igned to the v-YP conligurarion ·· lOp. cil.. 315). Since t: also appear:. outside the umnediate 9-marking domain of lhe verb. it mu. l also be as. igned irs 0-role composnJOnaUy-m this case. by the entue Asp-vP complex. The event role. then. IS as. tgned cotnpo. nsonally by all clcmem, contatned withm vP (mcludtng the the� maw: . ubjcct). and the c.venl argument is generated in ( S�c.AspP). I n this way. lhe event argument can be characterised as an aJgument of . tage-le,·el predtcates lhat is 9-marked in a f.u hion analogous to 9-marktng of nominal . ubjects. lndtvidual level predicates. on the olher hand. do not i\• •tgn an evem 8-role. and l would like to propose that they also fatl to project an AspP layea·. Ditferent types of predicate are tim. distmguished bolh with respect to thetr
d a u d 1 a fe I . er
13X
. tructural complexity and the ba. e position of their external argumenl. 1 f we take literally the idea that the hght verb " is in some sense the source ·Of the age n t or
causer role. . o that
Il lS ab�ent where no such role i. rusigned. we may condude
that true states-which never admit an agentive .ubjcct-do not project a vP shell either.(' By Kratzer's pnnciple ( 15). the external argument of lLP expres. ions then mu. t originate in . ome higher specifier pos1110n. and indtvidual-level verb phrase..o; are un. aturated predicatcs in the sen. e of Rochstein ( 19X3 ). which take ll < thear sub Ject the individual they are predtcated of. 1 . uggest that che subject ol mdtvidual le el VPs 1. generated in the spec1tier ofTP. the . tandard po. ition for external . ub Jects.7 That i. . clause. proJected from an indivtdual-levcl predicate wi II nunimally have the followmg . uucture.
TP
(23}
A
DP. ,
'r'
A
T
VP
�
DP.,.
V
Like all arguments. the event position must be formally introduced by a head. l pmpose that the event argument is formally Jicen. eel by Ihe funcuonal head A�p. In the . ame way a s
v
extend. a core VP tn that it introduce..o; the agent argumenl.
merging an a. pectual head with vP extend. the verb phra. e tn that it introdut'e$ the event argument. ror illu.trataon. constder the . uccessive extension of the core VP that i involved in dc1 ivmg the . entent-e Thev wJ/ed 1he ball dfJWn 1/re hill (example adapted from Radford 1 997). (24)
a. b.
L\'P the ball l "' rolled IPv down the hill I J I l,p they L, \' rVI> the ball h·· rolled (pp down the lull J I J I J
Example (24) illustrates that the structure of t11e lextended) projection of a predi cate is compositional an that each �lrgumenc must be formally introduced by a head. and is a.signed a thematic role by iL.;; sister con. tituent. J u. L as the age n t role in (24b) above i. a. . 12-ned to the subject DP by the , .. VP complex. the event role is L < '>.
igned to t: by the enu re Ap-v.P l·omplex. Tht.. in turn. implie,., that external
arguments need not be explicitly . pecitied m the thematic grid of a verb-rather. their prc,.,enc-e b syntactacally detenmned. i.e. a matter of compositional structure. fo This hypothe. is that only . ubjects of stage-level predicates can be predicate�
t he e ven t-�on t a·o I ana ly.si.
1 39
mternal subjects is cons1. tent with Diesing·� ( 1 992a.b) claim that SLP subject. and ILP subJects appear in d1fl'e rent po. tllons at LF. Con. iderthe well-knO\ n ambiguity of indefinite subjects of stage-level predtcate . The bare plural DP .firem£'11 in (25a). which comam. an individual-level predicate. ts ambiguous between a generic (OJ 'strong' ) and an existemiaJ (or ·weak ' ) reading. In (25b). which comruns an mdJvidual-level prechcate. only the genetic reading 1s available (examples from Kratzer 1 989): (25)
a.
h.
Fireme11 are available Firemt•n are ahmi.tic
tGE�/EX) tGEN)
Aiming to provide a coherent account for the . yntax and semantic. of indetlntle.li. D1csmg applies the semaruic framework of Heim ( 1 982) to . yntactic representa tions. According to Henn. the pre. ence of cenam quanttliers causes the semamic repre.�ematton of a sentence to be , plil into three pan. . the quamifier. it.;; re�tnction. and Lhe nuclear .�cope. Indefinites .such a)> bare plurals introduce a variable tnlo the log1cal . uucture of a clause which mu)>t be bound b, some operator. either by a genenc operator GEN. as m (26). or by an (implicit) exi. tenttal operator. as in (27) below. (26)
a. b.
firemen are ahru1. tit: GENx lx i. a fireman)
t
quantifie•
re)>tJ icuve dau. e
x 1. altruist it· nuclear .scope
In order to en. ure that the logical repre. entation contains no unbound variable,li. a process of nistt•mial do.wre must apply obhgatonly. with an unselective cxi. ten tial operator binding any free variable that rematns wilhm the nuclear scope. (27)
a.
h.
Lion have manes GENx (x is a lionj 3v ty i� a mane A x has yJ
Diesing propo.e:- lhat the nuclear scope of a . entcnce . hould be tdent11ied with VP. m ; d that lP (exduding VP) corresponds to the re�tnctive clause. lni. idea is ex pres. ed b. lhe following mapping pnnciple (Diesing 1992a. I 5 ). (28)
LF J'.tlapping
Principle Material from VP i)> mapped into the nuclear . cope. t\•taterial from I P i)> mapped 11110 lhe re,mclive dau. e.
�r inctple t28) allows u. to correlate the imerpretation of mdefiniles wtth the post Lion they occupy at Lr: DPs which are interpreted in (Spec.lP) receive a ·snong· mterpretmion. whereru indefinite. that re. ide in a predicate-uuemal position al LF are a. signed a ·weak' interpretation.
1�0
d audaa fe he t· JP
(29)
A
(OP,,)
I'
��
nuc I eat· .cope
VP
A
(DP ,)
V'
A
v
In order to account for the observed imerpretath·c differences between SLP and JLP subjects. Oie. ing propo. es that the LF position of subJects i. restricted by the following pnnciple (op. cit.. 22): (30)
SubJects of sta!!e-level predicates can appeat· either in [ Spec.JP) or m !Spec. VP). Subjects of indivtdual-level pred11.:ates can appear' only in I Spec.IPJ.
Acl'ording to (30). indefinite !i>Ubjects of. tage-level predicme. may optionally be recon. tructed in their onginat po. ttton wtttiun lhe verb phral\e. which then renders £hem . ubject to exi. temial clo. ure (cf. ( 3 1 c H..., (31)
a. b.
riremen are Cl\'atlable ln· Firemen, . . . I..,.. t, are available J l
�-
3x lx as a fireman
L
_;
A x is <Wailable I
Funher eviden� in favour of out' hypothe..'>is tJlal subjects of . tage-level predicate. origmate in a different posttton from subject. of individual-level predi cate. can be gathered from the so-called qtwm{{ier-split con. truction in German (Kratzer 19X9). Kratzer notes that only stage-level predicate. allow their subjects to ·split' 111 the way illu.trated by (32al. whereas indtvidual-leveJ predicates do not (�f. (32b)): (32)
a.
Funs \wren h>ine im Publikum fans were none m.the audience 'As for faJlS. there weren't any in the audience· b. ,.S'kmulimtvin sim/ ,,it,le blond Scandinavians are many blond 'A. for Scandinavians. many (ol them) are blond·
(SLP)
(JLP)
Acl:ording to Krotzer. lhe absence ol split subjects from mdividual-level ex pres-
t he event-�o n t r�oJ a n a l si.
I4I
�101\)> follows iiom the rusumptton that SLP �ubject . but not iLP subjech. originate Ill (Spel·.VP). As the NP raises to {Spec.IP). it may optionall. leave the quamif1er behmd. as 1n t 32a). On the basis of these observations. 1 will henceforth assume that the evem argu ment E of a stage-level predacate i. generated in the spectlier po. ition of AspP. whereas all its nominal argument. origmate in argument po. itions wathin vP (or V J>). w lndtvidual-level predkates. on the other hand. denote propertie)>. not events. and cannot be defined in spatia-temporal tenns like the forme1. I have argued that this is reflected. yntactically by the fact that they fail to proJeCt an AspP layer above the verb phr� e. 11 I have sugg� ted that their external argument (i.e .. the1r nominal subject) is generated in (Spec.TP). T11e event argument thus function:. ru a subject an the :-en. e de. cnbed by Rothstein ( 1983). taking ,.pas it. predicate. 12 Heycock { 1 994) propo. e)> a minor modilkation of Diesing· s original mapping principle to the effect that the inte1pretation ol mdefinite. depend. on their position n•/(lli,•t' w the event argument (If there t. one). .. Thi. allows her to extend Diesing ·s theory to cettain type.� of non-verbal small clause as well. Compare the following example:.. only the first of which permit. an exi. tential reading for (treJiu•n (from Heycock 1994: 233). (33)
a. b.
Firt>mNt remain ava1lable Fin.·uu'u seem available
lGEN/EX) (GEN)
Heycock ( 1994) claims that the . mall cl au. e complement of \rerbs hke remaiu. but not that of :tn•m or considt>r. involve. an a. pectual layer who.e . peciner host. the event argument. In the latter case. the obligato•" generk reading for .firemen re.�>ults from the fact that even 1f the subject i. recon.true ted within the small clau:o;e or predtcate phra!e. it will never be within the )>Cope of an event argumen1. (34)
a. b.
. . . remain IA,f'l' J:: Lur· A p I PtP firemen lPr· avatlable I J I J . . . seem I p,p firemen (PI available I J
Notice that under thi. view. 11 is A.pP rather than the verb ph1a:-e rhat delines the domam of existential closme (compare aho Heycock 1994: 234). Given Kratz.er's as. umpuon that the E position. if present. is always the most prominent argument. Griam:haw·s ( 1990) thematic haerarchy must be extended i\)> follows: (35)
(E (age n t (cxpel'iencer· (goa 1 /. oun::e/1 o�a tson ( theme)))))
We may further assume. followmg Grimshaw·. ( 1 990). that the notton ol external argument i. a rclatsve rather than an absolute one. Contrary to Williams ( 198 1 . 1 994 ) Grimshaw tate. that "there is nothing peetal about the external argument beyond the fact that tt 1. alway. the lru t to be theta-marked" tGnmshaw 1990: 1 7). .
d audsa fe l se s·
142 4.2 .3
Tile .\)'nwctic Staw.� ot E
In the light of what has been said above. we expect that. hke any other empty syntactic category. an event argument must be formally Jicen:\ed. and that uscontem must be identified {Rizzi 19R6). The fir.o:t condition is eassly met: like all argumems. null arguments are founally imroduced. or licenced. by heads. The identilkation ol empty <.�ategories i. normally achieved ''ia �signment of a referential mdex. ot R·index. rhrough . ome form of binding. T'hat i . . an empt, argurnent is eilhet coindcxed \Vith a c-�ommandmg antecedent. or else must be di.cour.e or contextu· ally idemifled. in whtch ca.e at receive. an arburary index. Unadentified null ele� ment)> (i.e. those who. e content cannot be recovered from the context) constitute slleguimate LF objects as they cannot be a. s1gncd an mterpretation. 'lb detenninc the statu. of the event argument E a little more precssely. let u. briefly ex.mune the exi. ting mventoty of nu II elctnents. Empty categoric. are eilher created by movement (DP-trace.\·. variables). or they arc ba. C·genemted tn argument po ition. {pm. PRO). Like overt pronouns. null pronominals are either free ot /\·bound by an element thai bears an mdepcndent 6·1ole (Chomsk. 198 I . 330). Small pro 1. generally assumed to be idenufied by Agreement (RiZZI 1986). whereas PRO inherits 1he referential properties of it antecedent. or else is indexed freely. That i.. PRO appears to ahernately function � an anaphor or a pronoun (compare e.g. Houchard 19&4. Kos te r 1 98-t). Whereas pro 1:: genemlly taken to be a ·pme' pronommal (Chom. ky 19�2: 8 1 ) ky and Lasnik ( 1 993) propose that PRO actually bear:-. a spectal kind of ·null' ca. e that is checked by non-linite lnfl (but .ee Baltm 1995 for a critique of this approach). Disregarding. for the moment. unbound empty categoric, such a)> arbitrary PRO. the typology 1n (36) (adapted from Bouchard 1984: 54) pro\' ides u. with the follow. mg . et of empty categories: (36) A·bound {= [ +anaphoricj) A· free (= 1-<maphoncn
-Move
+Move
PRO pm
DP.uace vatiable
Dmwmg from t11e above inventory of empty categories. the event argument t:. by vinue of being a base-generated empty argumem. must etthet' be pro or PRO. Wherea. the reference of pw �� determined by the {/�-features carried b, the thule verb in .o-called pro·dmp languages. controlled PRO is bound b)' [he dO!est c-commanding DP in the domain of the control prcdtcate. Larson ( 1 99 1 : I 1 5 )
t he e v e n t · �o n t r·oJ ana l y.s i.
143
propose. the following ver ion of Ro.enbaum · . (I 967) Minimal Di.mmc:e Principle. (37)
The J'tlininwl Disram:e Prinl'plt' i
An infinitive complcmem of a predicate P .select. a. its comroller the minnnal c-commanding noun phrrue in the functional complex of P.
I as ume that (non-explcttve) pro origmates in (Spec . P) and subsequently enters mto a checking contigurmion wirh the 'l:.vb complex. whereby it inhetit the verb· . ¢-feature. . Ballin ( I 995) provide. evtdence that PRO i:- at.o generated within rhe verb phrase. and actuall, remains there throughout the derivation (d. (38a.b)). Since the ¢-feature. that PRO acqUires via conuol are interpretable and hence need not be checked. and given that the verb itself lack.� (nominal) ¢-featur�. there is. ac cording to Balun. no need for PRO to rai.e to (Spcc.TP). (38)
b.
a.
vP
/
Pl{O
v'
'A ,.
VP
Now con:-.sder the event argument. which I . hall argue below is a . pecial in. tance of a null pronominal. What I would like to propose as thai the . yntactk type of the event argumem as determined by the kind of relatronship thai tt bears to 1�m.e. In contrast to null DP.s. whtch are identified by . haring the ¢-feature. of another ele menl Ill the sentence whose refes>enttal index ts copied onto them. I as. ume that event argumems have to be temporally sdentttied. i.e. they must seceive a temporal mdex (T-index) from T.1� 1lti� T-mdex. I suggest. is normally transmitted to the event po. ition in a fas hion analogou. to rhe idemitication of pro. In order lo di. tin guish it from null $Ubject pro. I hall refer to a purely pronommal evem argumem as J::-pra. In ten.ed and tully mtimuval clau. es. rdenuticauon of t:-1)ro t. pre,o;um ably aclueved under Spec-Head ag�eement. i.e. via raa. ing of E lO tSpcc.TP). a. Illustrated in (40a) below. 16 The evem argument then inherits the letnporal mdcx ol T. which en. ures that the emire event i!-> located m time and tlut becomes uuerpret able at LE Note lhat tf a .entcnce comain. a modal. idemitkation o f £-pro nught be accompli. hed ut a lightly different manner. According to En!$ C ltJ96: 354). modal. dilfer from referential Tense in that they are quamificational. and invoke a .
144
d audsa fe I . e t·
default identification mechani.m which ensut•e. that the denotation of E "1. taken .. to be tdenucal to evaluation tune (for further di. cu. sion of the semanttcs ol modab. see e.g. Kratzer 1981 ). '11te foltowing two requtremems might then be argued to hold for all Kratzerian C\'ent argumen� : (39)
Conditions on t:w·m Argttml'lll� (i) Event argument. are hccn.ed by an aspectual he-ad (it) Event arguments must ret":Cive a temporal index
Assuming that tdenttlicauon of E proceeru in the way desct ibed above. we nor mally expect T poslltons and event argument:-. to be m a one-to-one telationship. �ote that clause (39ii) allow. for E to be a. stgned a temporal mdex m fully mtintttval dause..'> too. whtch is consi.tem with Stowell's ( 1982) claim rhat full tntintttves define a temporal domain of their own. True . tate. (I.e.. clau. es contain mg tndtvidual-level predicate:-.). on the other hand. which remain con. tantover time. do not require to be assigned a spatto-temporal location in order to be interpretable. Tlu. hne. up with Kratzer's ( 1 9K9) claim that they lack an e ent argument. In dauses from which T (or t\·1 od) i. missing. however. the event argument can not be tdentsfied dsrectly. Rather. 11 re. embles anaphoric PRO in that information about tt. content (i.e .. the :-.patto-temporal locmion of the event) mu.t be . upplied by an appropriate conuollet in the matrix dau. e. (40)
a.
TP
b.
� �·0<±past>
E-p
� /�
���
£-PRO
Asp'
�
A. p
T<±p.ut>
vP
----��----/ A E
Ap
vP
T1tal is. I propo. e that an event argument that cannot be sdenutied ''ia a local Spec-Head agreement relation. hip with T is like PRO (and hence is labelled £ PRO). as stated in (36) below. (4 1 )
An event argument that is not locally linked to Tense i:-. £-PRO
Like their nominal counterpans. £-pro and £-PRO will be mutually exclu. ive. .1\nalogou. to the prononunal anaphor PRO. which is re. tncted to non-tinue environment. . t.·-PRO can onl)' occur m positions in whtch it cannot be identified
t he even t-�on t a·o I ana lysi.
145
by a local T. Ltke nominal PRO. it must acqutre its mdcx via obligatory or arbitrary comrol. Summan. ing the preceding discus�ion. I have suggested that cvem arguments of stage-level predicate� are generated in (Spec .AspP). tor e. . emially the following rea!'-ons: (i) There is evidence that only. tage-level predtcate...; provide an event argu meJll. and that this argument ts symactically rcpre..o;emed: (it) there t. independem evidence for the pre�ence of a l±progresstve) aspecmal head in Engh.h lSee Section 3.2.5). whil:h co-occurs only with stage-le"el predicate. : and (iii) the pre. em pro posal allow. tor a maxunall, general treatment of a.rgument!'- to the effect that all arguments that are interpreted as . uch at LF. and wluch are ymacucally acuve. are as�octated willt a . u·uctural postuon. It wa. further propo�ed that event arguments are formally licerued by the functional head Asp. and that their content is idemifled by Tense. It was argued that in tensed clause..o; (includmg full mnmuve, ). the evem argument is like null . UbJCCl pm in that it inherits the temporal index ofT under Spec-Head agreement. In clauses from whkh T 1s nussing. however. the event argu ment resemble. PRO tn that it.'i index mu. L be . upplied in some other way. Below. I shall argue that the e'•em ;ugumem of PVC predtcate.'i can be characteri�cd as l:"-PRO. and that it receive. it temporal tndcx by entering into an obligatory control relationship with the event argument m the higher clause.
4.3 Perception Verbs as Control Predicates In Chapter 3. I propo!\ed that non-finite perception complements are constituents of the category AspP. with PPVC. being matked for ( +prog). a grammatical feature . pelted out by the verbal . uffix -inc:. The a.-:pectuaJ head of bare tn inui f ve comple ments. on the other hand. was argued to be specified as 1-progj. tJndeJ rhe ·�sump lion that the . pecitier of A.pP hOlt. an event argument. direct perception comple ments in sentence. such as ��,saw h>hu drrM( int:) a circle will have the following ba. ic . tructure:
d audsa fe I . e t·
(42)
(:tprogj John
VP
v (1
/"'---..
Ol�,.
V
I dmw(mg)
A a circle
Due to the ab:.cnce of a TV layer from �,VCs. theia evem argument cannot be tdentsfied by any lo�:al Tense, and hence nm. t be analy. ed as L:.'-PRO. �lore spectti cally. I propose that the empty event argument m (42) is like obi igatorily controlled PRO in that 11 ha. to be coindexed wuh the event position in the lugher dau:.e. Thi. 1 daim 1 tatcd a:-. the E11ent Control H..·p(Jihesi. in (43). 7 .
•
(43) Event Control Hyporht,sis
ln direc1 perceptton consrruction. . the perception verb functton. as a control predicate tn that its event argument control. the event argument provtded by the embedded predicate.
Tllu. . the two event atgument. pr�ent in direct perception statements receive their re. pective ·l".. indices m . lightly diO'erent ways. as illuslrated below. Whereas rhe event argument provided by the matnx predicate (= t.'-pro) �:an be rdenufied by T directly under Spec-Head agreement. the . econd E posiuon i. bound. or anaphor Jcall)r controlled. by the highe•· event argument (or its trace). (44)
(0• C 11P S �c lr T, 1.,,11., E-pro1 lv1•
L
raisin}?
I
•
•
•
L-u1,p E-PR01 vP I l l I J I
nmrrol
lnformall,. conuol can be dellne
t he even t-�o n t a· o t ana lysi. (45)
a. b. c.
147
John, pronu. ed r..•tary I PRO, to wa. h rhe car j Bill decided l PRO, to get up early J Su:-.an per.uaded tum, I PRO, to le,;wc I
In pro-drop languages . uch as ltahan. PRO can also be controlled by the empty prononunal pro. whtch may appear euher in subject OJ' obJect po. uaon (examples from Rtzri 1 9H6. 54 1 . 503): (46)
a. b.
pro; ritmgo I di PRO essen• simpatico I · t believe to be nace (= I believe that I am nacer II be/ tempo im oglia pro, £t l I'HO, rt'Sill rt• j 'The ntce weather induces _ ro stay'
Notice that the. atuation illustrated b, the Italian examples exactly parallels e\'ent control a:-. mda�ated m l44) above. where £-pro �onrrols the evem argument in the complement clause. The control propenies of perception verbs are cxanuned m greatet· detail Ill Section 4.3.2 below. In :-.um. I have proposed that the syntactic . ratus of the event argument is analo gous to that of null pronominals. and that events arguments may participate in . yn tacuc relations such a� bindin!! or control. Like their nommal countert>arts. t.'-PRO and J:.:-pro differ with rc.�pect to the way in whtch the1r comenr ts determined. £-pro 1s identified by entering Into an agreement relation with finite or non-finite T whereas £-PRO-which i. confined to positions that are not locally related to any Ten�e--i� adentified through control by an appropriate antecedent. In short. I pro- po.e rhat event argument� have the �yntaclic statu. of null pronominals. but difl'er from mor·e fanul tar in$tanc� ofpro or PRO in that they carry a temporal mther than a nonunal mdex (d. table {·H) below). (47)
A-bound {= ( +anaphoric() A- free ( = 1-anaphoncJ)
R-tndex
T-index
PRO pro
£-PRO t.'-pro
Sin�.-e we have sub. cribed to Kratzer's ( 1989) propo. al thai only . tage-le\·et predicates hcense an e ent argument, it b. fir. 1 of all. nel'eS. ary to estahli:-.h that predicate. formed by perception verbs do indeed have stage-level properttes. and hence provide an event po:-.ition that can .erve a:o: a controller. I provide some argu ment:-. in :-;upport of tlus claim in the next section. In Section 4.3.3. 1 dtscu. . (and eventually di miss) an alrernarivc po. sibility that ha. occasaonally been su!!ge."red tn the hrenuw·e. namely that direct perception involve. multiple binding of the two event posttiOJh by the Tense operator· m the matrix clause.
d audsa fe I . e t·
14X
4.J.J The Nou-Stative Charactl'r of Pert:(•ption Verbs
Vendler {1967) and Dowty ( 1 979) offer a number of empirical 1� ts that help determine whether or not a verb ts . tali e. It is well-known. for example. that stmives (of more accurately. indivtdual-level ptedicates) do not admit the progre,� stve. The fact that non-agemi e perception verbs such ru . et> or huu· "tend to av01d the progressive··. a. Hirtle ( I 96 7: 73) puts it. led Vendler and others to group them among the state verbs. ·nlat thi. conclul.ton is in fact wrong become. evidem m the light ot the following ol).!ervations. whtch are mainly due to Mourelatos (I 978) and van Voorst ( 1 988: 29f.). Not ice. fir. t of all. that verbs of percept ion do appear in the progre. stve in appropnate contexts. as the examples below show. (48)
a. b. c.
John thought he wa. heanng those voice. again J am heanng lecLUt'C. ( Htrtle 1967) He wa)> . eemg rhem robbed day by day (Poutma 1 926. cited by H111le 1967)
Secondly. ob. erve that while true statives �uch a. km>n· cannot be embedded under the verb force. thi. restriction does not neces. arily apply to perception verb. . '' (49)
a. .. �lary forced him to know the :tru wer b. 'f11ey forced him t o . eelwatch Ru. sm beat Scotland {by draggmg tum to the . tadium against hi. will)
'lllat perceptual )llatement -Ill contra. t to sentence mvolvmg individual-level predicates such a. bt' w/1 or knm' tlw alt.\'Wt"r-are temporally bounded can be . een ftom the f
a. b. c.
ror how long dtd you see him run? What happened nexl'�-1 saw him ( fall over). �rom stx to eight. we heard her play the ptano
(51 ) a. .. How long did , ou know the answer? b. What happened next?- I Wa! tall. c. ot�rom )>IX to eight. John wa. intelligent Thus we are led to conclude that pen.:epltOtl ''erb. do denote event. that extend over time. not permanem . tate •
.
t he e ve n t-�o n t •·o l analysi.
1 49
finally. not ice lll
a. See that man over there! b. Come and hear the mu. tc play! c. • Know the an. wer! d . .. Be tall !
I take the aho e data to pro"ide suflktent evidence that pet·ception verb. �an be const1 ued . CiJven what ha!-> been assumed above. thi. means that they are able to project a A:\pP and provide a spatio-temt){)ral argument . 4.3.1 £\'t?llt Con11ol iu P\ICs
In thi. secuon. I provide evidence lor the h pothcsis that the embedded event argu ment in dire�t perception �onstruction. t:- mdeed obhg<non ly controlled by the higher event argumem. as indicated in {53).
In a configuration like (53). the lower event argument i. temporally identified by emermg mto a control relation. hip with the higher event argument. whereby the temporal index that i. assigned to the matrix event position by T i. transmitted to t.'-PRO in the lower dau:-;e. The condiuon on temporal :-unultanetty. lhen. follows trivtally from the e ven1 control hypothest. . Along with the other properties of PVC constructtons that rematn to be explained. the Snnultancit� Condition will be dts cus.sed in more detatl in Section 4.4.2. Recall that control is a �oreference relauon between a null argument and a local amecedent in a 0-po:\i l ion. The only difference between familiar control ol PRO and event control t. between the type. of argument that enter into the control relation in each case: nominal argument� in lhe former ca. e. and patto- tem poral argument. Ill the lallet·. In general. control can be obligatory only if PRO i. c-commanded by its controller (Withams 1 98m. Otherwi. e. �.:ontrol is arbitrary. and PRO may be mdexed freely. Notice that provided that the c-command requtrement is met. it is pos. ible for a controlled event argument to . erve itself a. a controller tor £. (54)
a. b.
1 saw he1 watch(ing) hun cook dmner I E·j)TO !'>aW Iher �!'·PRO watch (i ng) l him E-PRO cook dinner ] I l
.
I
�
.
A parallel . ituation can be found with ordinal)' comrol verbs:
150
d aud1a fe l s e 1·
(55) a. b.
She wanted to If)' to phone him She wamed I PRO to try l PRO to phone him I J ..
.
In add1t1on to the c
a. b.
Bill dedded (11• PRO, to get up early I �Jar. , knows lcr· how hr PRO,,.»., to play cricket I
Note that analysing controlled complement clau. e, <1! TPs rather than CPs mee£:. structural econom. requiremems that pre,·enl unnece.s. ary node:-. from being generated. 1\s to dire�t perceptson sentences. the locality requirement on anaphork control structure.� accounts lor the fact that a direcl perception readmg is precluded when ever the complement clause 1. of the category CP. Like obligatory control of PRO. event control do� not hold across a CP boundary. which accounts. among other rhings. for the temporal opacity of finite perception complements that wa). noted m Chapter 2. 1\ si nular re,•mlt ls obtamed tf the complement is mdependently :-.pecitled for ·nmse (as in tull min111ve f ). Second. 1he comrolled el�·nu•m cmmor be assigm•d tw nrbirrnr) indl'.t. LocaiJy bound PRO. m 01her words. may never recetve an arbitrary mterpretation. 'l11i:o. is confirmed by the unavailabtlny of an arbmary reading tor PRO in (57). (57)
......,11
Bill. decided PR0
to get up early
Under the ru. umption that locaJly controlled PRO is an anaphor. this 1. a direct consequence of the tk 1 propet1)' : Like anaphor. . PRO in obligatOr)' control struc tures mu. t be coindexeJ with ll:-. clo. esl potential bmdet' (see also Larson 199 1 : 1 20). With respect to direct perception complementc;. this tesu icllon 1s reflected 1n the Simultaneity Condttton. that is. Ill the fact that PVCs cannot recci e an
t he even t-�oru r·ol a n a l si�
151
the matrix event. Where t: can be identi tied by a local T, conuol is precluded (.ee Section 4.4.2 for funher discu. . ton). Thirdly. thl' crmtrollcr is always uniqudy dnnmined. Opinions are divtded. though.
ru
to whether the �ontrollcr ts lexically determined by thematic properli��
of the cmltrol verb (. ee. among others. Ch�erchia. 1 988. Jone. I 988. rarka. 1988. or Jackendoff 1990). 01 whether obligatory comrol ts a purely configunnional phe nomenon. wuh comroller chotec being deternuned by syntactic principles such a..; Pr inci p le {A) of the bmdmg theory (see e.g. Rosenbaum 1967. �lanzim 1983. Bouchard 1 984. Larson 1 99 1 . or Wexler 1 992).1'' Whatever 1he ultimate an. wer to the ·�ontroller problem· (Jone. 1 988) might be. the uniquene. . tequiremem cor rectly predicts that perception verbs may function a. event control verbs only. and are unable to mduce subject control: (58)
't'John, saw
I PRO, leave/lea"ing I
·n1e uniquene-1s requirement can be extended to mclude a prohibtt1on agams1 )>plit amecedents lalso noted by Chrerchta t 988): 1-Susan, per. uaded Bill..
(59)
I PR0,.1 to wa. h themselves J
I\ fourth propeny of controlled PRO ts that thl'n• alls·a�·s /uu 10 be a contrt>lll'r. If appear.s that two well-known proper ttes of obligatory control structures can be
. ub. umed under this requu-emcnt: (t) the observation that a subJel·t control verb cannot be pa!. ivt. ed. which i)> know n as. \'isst>r'.s (iL•m·rulisatiolt. and (i i ) the facl that ometunes referred to
a.�
Bach ·s Cit'm•rtJiismiou.211 The, e two propenie. are tllustrated b y the
ungrammallcahty of (60a) and ( 60b). (60)
a.
>t�Jary, was promised t1 I PRO 10 was h the car I
b.
•Su. an persuaded PRO to leave
Vi.. er' s Generalisation follows from the
a...-:.
umptton that past participles differ
from their active correlal� in that the subject 0-role of the verb is suppre. .ed ( 1:3urzio 1986. Grun. haw 1 990: 1 1 8). !I Under thi:- view. the reason wh)r subject control verb. fail to pa.si tse i. thai pa.'\. i\'iS<1llOll rernove. thecontrollingargument. )>0 that PRO remams unidentified (see al. o Sec1ion 4.4.7 below ). Together with the
two propenie. of obligatory contro l structures that were memioned earlier. thi. observation can be subsumed under a single. more general . tatement. to the ettect that anaphoric PRO requires e:wcll\' one controller. whos:e rdentu� ts determined by lexrcal pr:openies of the control predicate. ·Illis last condition on obi igatory control ·tructures cOI'reclly predict. that in
ual-level predtcate. should be unable to license aspectual complement clau. es. Re call that according to Kratzer ( 1989). ILP. do not provide an event po. it ion thai may
d audta fe l set·
152
serve ru a controller of £-PRO. so that the lower event po. ilion� in (61 a.b) remain unidemified. (61 )
a. b.
*Bill, seems t, run{ning) rn the park '+'We knew him draw(mg) �ucles
A.� we . hall , ee in Section 4.4. 7. the rcquircmem that there mu. t be a controller also helps account for the Constrarnt against Passive: (62)
'+'�lary wru heard sing a :-ong
In sum. dtrect percepuon . tatement. have been shown to pattern analogou. l, to obligatory comrol strut'ture� in all relevant respects. The properties of obligatorily controlled PRO reduce to (t) the .tructural requirernents of c-command and locality. and {it) the reqmrement that there must be one. and ont one. appropriate comroller (. ee also Ko�ter 1 984: 4 1 8). In other word. . both anaphoric PRO and 1:.·-PRO are subject to Prrnctple (A) of the binding theory. In Secuon 4.4. l will show how the entire duster of properties dest"ribed in the first part of this work can be derived from the event connol analy. is. and evaluate the proposed analy. is with l'e. pect to prevtou. account.. 4 .J.J Af(ainsl Mulliph• Bimli11�
Recall that traditionally. and in formal semanttcs model.. �len. e ts taken to be a sentemial operator {Prior 1967). t•roponents of this view might argue that 1:.· is iden tified through semamil" bmdmg by some ab�tract Priorean Tense operator that func tions as an un�elective binder m the sense of Lewi. ( 1 975) and Heim ( I 982). ln theu semantic S)'slem. certarn elements t notably adverbs) are as. tuned to funcuon as unselective binders m that they bind every free vanable in their . cope. A pos. ible conJecture to make. then. would be that in perceptual repons. the Tense operatrn of the mauix ctau. e funl·tion:- as a multiple bmder m that it simultaneously btnds all event positions in us scope. A suggeslion along the. e tines has been made by Safir ( I 993 ). who argue..� that the Simultaneity Condiuon simply follow. ffOm the fact that the two event po. iuons are ··in the inunechate scope of the .same (:tten.e} lnfl·· (op. cit.. 50f.). A sumtar idea has been expres. ed by ''an der Leek and Jong (19K2: I 12). l shall argue below. however. that thi. explan<1110il is not altogether sau.fac tory. and is mcompatible with the approach to Tense and event po. ition:-. outlined above. Given our two ba. il: assumpuons {i) that cvem argument. are a.-.s. tgned to. ymac lic argument posnson.�. and (ti) that they mu. t he identified lhrough the Jclalion that they beat to Tense. PVC t'onstructions can be characterised a. constru�tion. in whkh a single Tense node must tdenufy two distinct event po. itions: the event
t he even t-�onta·ol ana l ysi.
153
argument provided by the perceptton predacate. l< nd the £ po. ition ptovided by the embedded stage-level prcdacate. both of which are wilhin the ab. olute scope of T (or C. depending on one·:- view. as to the syntactic locus of the Ten. e operator).1; In thi. respect darect perception con. u ucuons resemble parasitil" gap structure. such as (62b). wluch contam two null elements as. odtHed with one and the same W H-operator: (63)
a. b.
We £-saw John £-draw a circle Whsch paper did you file (' wtthout readmg c
Safir ( 1984) provides an analysis of parasitic gap and related construcuons which argue.� that !.lnK'tures like t63b) mvolve multsple variable binding. That i. . the WH phra:-e which paper is sasd to simultaneously bind two empty t.:ategoaie. : (64)
I Whsch paperj1 dad you tile t\ without reading e,
L According to Safir. multiple binding of thi. kmd i. po..". ible pro aded that the bound elements are of the . ame t, pe (Pttrallrlism CoJtsmtint on Operator BindittK). If turns out. however. that a multiple-binding analysis along the�e hnc. cannot easily be applied to perceptual reports. for the following rea.on. . Not ice first that multtple vm iable bmdmg Ill pal ru it ic gap con. tructaons con. truc tion. constitute. a spcctal type of A'-dependency. The functional head T. however. a. an L-related position by vtnue of the fact that H check. feature! of the verb (. ee Chomsk.. 1995: 196. 276). and should therefo1e be unable to act as an A'-binder. If T itself cannot be a bmder for E. then it might be that the required l\'-binder L actually an ab!\tract sentential opetator located withm the C-system (Stowell 1982). and that every time-sensitive expre�sson that happens to be in the .scope of tha. oper ator will receave the temporal interpretation associated with it. However. analy ing 1ense as a .entential opel'ator i problematic m the light of the inadequacie. of a purely quanttlicattonal approach to Tense that have been noted. for example. by Partee ( 1 973. 1984). En<; ( 1986a.b. 1 987). and Zagona ( 1988. 1992). Arguments against treating 'Jense a:- a sentenl-e operator include the following: ta) . ubordinate clause. may be temporall, independent of the ten. e of the matrix dau. e. or mteract wllh the matnx ten.e tn ways not accounted for by the operator approach. (til the uuerpretation of noun plmues i. not necessanly atfected by tense: and (iii) the pos ssbility of combining tense operators yaelds complex tense. that :ue not actually found in natural language.li-white on the other hand. the operator approach to 2 'lense ha. dtfficulty di. tingui. hing the present perfect from the .ample past. ' ror these reasons. the assumptaon that tense. are . emence operators that act as un. elec ti\e binde� of t: must be 1ejected. '
d audsa fe l .s e t·
154
Secondly. ob�rve that multiple variable binding of the kind illustrated above is possible only if none of the two gaps c-commands the other (Chomsky 1 982). If t:
J>UO l)ike it. putauve para. i�k gap analogue) is indeed a vanable. then it is hke an R-expre. StOll Ill that tt may not be locally A-bound. However. sf two coindcxed evem variable. are m a local c- ommand relation to each other. the lugher ariable would mevitably act as an A-bmder for the lower ariable. thereby mducmg a . trong crossover ettect. t:or illustration. constder again parasitic gap construction. . The anti-c-command requsrement on parasiuc gaps is believed to accoum tot the ungrammattcahty of example:-. such (65)
ot(Wiuch paper], I
a.-:
t65) below.��
t\ annoyed you when
you read e,
I
In otltet ' ords. we expect that muluple variable binding is po. . ible only tf no c-command relauon holds between the two hindee:-.. Con. ider now du'Cct percep tion cotl:-.ll ucuon.�. Given the re. triction. on multiple bmdmg impose.d by the anti-c-command requirement. it proves impo. sible for the matrix Ten� to hind both evem po. ttions at the same time. for the obvtous reason that the matrix event argu ment c-command. the event argument in the complemem dau. e.
X
Notice that the result i, the sttme uTespecuve of whether we assume that the rele vam binder is the funcuonal head 1' tt. elf. or a Tense operator in (Spec.CP). rrom a thcorettcal per. pecuve. Salir' s ( I 984) multtple bmdmg app10ach is at odds wtth the assumption that in symax. the•·e must be a one-to-one corresponden�e between operator. and variable. (compare Koopman and Sp0111che ·:-. I 982 Bijenion
Princ-iple). /\ biJecuve accoum tor parasitic gap constructions hru been defended by Chomsky ( 1986a: 54-68). who claim� that a ·para. itk gap· v;mable ts bound by a . eparate null operator. Constraining the form of repre:-.entauons and the nature ol syntacti�.: relations in thi. way i. de..•drable not lea..;t; trom the point of view ol learnability (. ee Lat. on and Segal t 1 995. Ch. 3 ) for some discu. . ton of this J>OIIlt ) . Under th1s v1ew. tfexploiting the propertie..�t of the t independently mottvated) mech am. ms of binding and control enables u:- to <\ccouJH for a given set of phenomena. there appears to be no reason tor posmlatmg a distinct (and empincall. question able) . emamic mechanism mstead. Finally. llte claim that multtple binding of event arguments should be po. sible whenever there are several b' positions in the scope of a . ingle tense opera£OJ' fai I. to account for the limited distribution of bare aspcctual l·on1plement clawes. and for the fact that event control (and hence. Simultaneity) doe..� not hold. for example. in gerund or absolute �on u·uction. .
t he e ven t-�on t a·o I ana ly.si. (67)
a. b.
1 55
We regret her having left the coumry Having had too much to eat. Btll felt like he should he down
·llleorie. which locate the ten!\e operator withtn the C-sy. tern have difficuhy ac countmg fonhe fact that infinitival clause. arecapableexpre. smg temporal reference mdependently of the main dau. e. as shown by Stowell l l 982). Given the minimalist as. umptton that (all things bemg equal ) both ECM and control inlinilives are simply lP. headed by anon-finite lnllfl' rather than CPs. it would be expected that full tnfini tive. lack a tense opemtot· of their own. Jn. hort. the view that unselecuve bmdmg by Ten. e may apply freely wherever pos.sibledoe..o; not provsde any piau. iblcexplanation fonhe fact that only vety few (and semanttcally related) verbs arecapableofhcen.sing aspectual complement dau. es. and rhat other type. of(osten:-ibly) ten. elcs. clau. es . uch as the ab. olute adjunct m (67b) tail to ob:-erve the Simultaneity Condttton. Thus we are led to conclude that in perceptual repo11s. £1 1athet rhan �lense binds the event argument in the subordinate dau. e. which in turn entails that £2 ts not a variable but an anaphor. by vinue ol being locall)' bound b, an element in an argu ment position. In a configw·atton like (6(, ). a binding relation between T and t:� is blocked by the pre,ence ofan ime1vening c-commanding event argument (pro tded by the higher verb). which is a potential closer binder for E1. From this. 1 conclude rhat pCI'ception . emences cannot be treated on a pat· with para. ttsc gap construction . whil:h. accordmg to Safir ( I 984). contain two variables . imultaneously bound by the same opermor. Jn J>VC constructions. multtple vanahle bandmg i)> precluded by the ami-c-RO cannot be a syntactic variable. but instead re. embles an A-bound (i.e .. anaphoril:) null pronominal. 4.4 Deriving the Properties of Perceptual Reports
Thts section aims to demonstrate that the Event Control Hypothe! i)>. in conjunction wtth independently motivated pt inciples of grammar such a. Kratzer's Princ1ple of .1\rgumem Lmkmg and general economy l.!on. traints. correctly pt·edicts. the ob. erved . yntactic and semantic behaviour of non-fintte perception verb complements. After critkally evatuatmg . ome prev1ous auempl)> to derive the more peculiar properties of direcl perception constructions. it is . hown that the analysis unroduced above is able to pro,•ide a unified accoum for the ob:-erved phenomena. 4.4 . J Bare Event Complnne111.
The event comrol analysis predict:- that the dislfibution of AspPs. 1. testricted to etwironments in which their event argument. can receive a T-index. Tllat is. they
156
d aud1a fe l se s·
w1ll occur in the complement domain of Tense 01 modals. or a. complements of event control ptedicates. T'hey are excluded. on the other hand. lrom position. m which their event position cannot be identified by Tense. such as rhe complement domam ofindivtdual-level predicate Thi. analysts defended here olfers two nnme diate advamages over pre,•iou. analyses of perceptual repon. : rirs:t there 1. no need to a. . ume that perccptton vet bs form a natural class with modals or auxtharie. (as :-.uggested. for instance. by Gueron and Hoef.,:o:u·a I 98K). Second I>'· it i. unnoce.�ary to stipulate that perception verbs c-seleN ApP {cl. Tunstall 1 993: 235). . ince the fact that direct perception complements are able to licen e bare· A.pt>s follows from. -. eloctional propenie..� and from their ability to act a. event control predtC
.
'
'
(63)
a. '"It wa:-. John draw a c1rcle that we saw b. ,. What we . aw was John draw a circle c. •John draw a drcle is a rare lhin,g to . ee
In the exampl� above. the event argument in the lower clau. e is not c�ommanded by 11:-. antecedent (the t:-posmon ru. ocicued wnh st>e). and hence remains umdentitied. Similar!)' bad re �u hs are obtatned if clauses contaming anaphotic PRO undergo clefting. pseudo-clefting, or 10u�h movement: 26 (69)
a. '"It wa:-. PRO. to get up early thai Bill. decided b. •whal Su. an persuaded him1 was PRO, to leave c. •PRO, to wash the car is a rare thing for MaJ)' to persuade John1
·me reiat ive unmobility of PVCs can thus be explained in term� of genetal
requirement� on anaphmic control. In order for the event argument of �)VCs to be tdenufied. it mu. t occupy a position in which it can be locally bound by lhe h1gher t: position. 1\s predicted by the proposed analy. 1s. only . tagc-le\·el prcd1cat� are able to function as e ent control predicates. smce indwidual-level predicate. fai Ito provide a controllet for the embedded evem po. iuon. The data in (70) below . uggest that the abtht, to induce event �ontrol i� tndeed restticted to a srnall number of (non cpt.tenuc) verb. which are lexically specified as control verbs (. ec abo Section 4.5.1 below ) . Thus. m sp1te of bemg quite intelligible. the followmg example. are Ill-formed: .
t he e vent-�o n t t· o J ana lysi. (70)
1 57
a. "We knew John dmw(mg) c1rdes b. "'We thought Mary sing(mg) very well
Witlun our analy::i).. the ungrammaticality ofthe..;e example, result:-. from the fact that no conuoller is prov1ded. wh1ch cau:-.e$ the event po. it ion in the lower dau:-:c to remain unbound. Note that the examples m (70) can be ·saved' by inserting to (be). which adds a T head that I. able to tdenufy the event argument in the comple ment clause. (71)
a. b.
We knew John to be drawing dl'cles We thought Mary to sing very well
T1lese ob. ervauons provtde us with a means for explaining the ambiguity of non-agenuve percepuon verbs. which ts reflected m the difference between direct (=sen. ory) and indirect (=epi. temic) perception. 1 argue that like many other predi cates. verbs like.wt' are potemially amb1guou. between a stage-level and an indi,•id ual-level reading. Tht. . in our system. corre....pond. to rhe pre. ence versus a�ence of an A. pP laye1. and of the associated event argUtnent in (Spec.A.pP). As pointed out earlier. one l'haracteri. lie property of stage-level predicate, ts their ab1lity to admit the progre:·sive. The following examples md1cate that epistemic .\'L'e in (72b)-a. opposed to viston sn• in t 72a). which admits the progres ive-i. an mdividual-level predicate: (72)
a. John was . eemg liule green men dance on lu:-. table b. •John was seemg rhat lirtle green men danced on has table
Notice finally that the agemive verb u·mdt. which is unambaguously . tagc-level. ts actually incompatible wtth an indirect percepttotl reading. and thus unable to licen. e propo. ittonal complements (cf. (73b)). (73)
a. We were watching John leave b. ,. We were watching that John left
In other words. the diffe rence between dt reel and tndtrect perception i. telated to whether the matrix verb is construed as a . lage-level or mdtvidual-level predicate. If it ha." stage-level propertte:-.. it selects bare events and tnduce� event control. tf it ts used as an mdtviduat-level prcdic<\te. It select. propositional complements m state:-.. whtch (for reason:-. gtven above. and in the ab.ence of potential comrollet for 1:..") are nunin1ally realised a. TPs. Summan. ing. I have argued that the emantic notions of direct and indirect perceptton arc hnked to the pre.ence versu. absence of e ent control. The propo.ed analyst. also oners an accoum for the limited distribution of AspP complement. m Engli.h. •
d audaa fe l s e t·
158
4.4.2 t\a()uming for Simultaneity
The descriptive generaJisalion stated in (74) below 1s pe1·haps the mo. t ob"iou. semantic chara recistic ot PVC consrruction.. (74)
Simultanei1v Condi1iou on J>VCs �
t«-•<111 (i.e .. 1he ttme Interval raken up by lhe evem described by a d11-ect perccptton complement mcludes the time interval a. ssgned to the mamx event) ·�"'"
Whereru m the. ca. e of a bare infinitive complement. the two event� are assumed to e�tend over the same time interval. the event depicted by a parttcipial comple ment must merely hold at the time ol perceivmg. as is generally the case with pro gressive! c.sec e.g. Va�ons 1 990. and the d1 cus�Jon Ill Chapler 2 above). As the snterpretative condition on temporal simultaneity correlates with 1he ab sence ol overt lnllfr in the embedded clau. e. this ptope11)' i. of particulat intere. t to those tnterested in the. ynta:\/semantic� utterface. Many scholars have sugge. led a purely . emantic explanation for condition (74 ). argutng that in the absence of finite ·lense. complement clau. es automaucatl)r fall under the scope ofthe Ten. e operator sn the matrix clause ( an der Leek and Jong 1 982. Salir 1993). A l>llllllal' stance i. taken by Guasti ( 1 993: 1 52ft'.). who claim� that temporal simultaneity follow� from the Iact that duect perception complements lack ·reteremial ten. e · . which implies that they cannot be assigned a temporal ''alue of their own at the level of. emamic mterpretation. However. rec�tll from Se�tion 4.3.3 that the�e are not particularly . au. fying explanations of the simultaneity phenomenon. and that concci ing of 'lense as a sentcmial operator has a number of empiricaI and theoretical drawbacks. In the following. I . hall focu. on proposals that regard Ten�e as a referential category (Par tee 1 973. 1984: Enc. 1 986a.b. among others). Several suggestions have been made in Ihe past a. to how Ten. e and temporal relation. within clau.es may be represented . yntactically. 'Jense as an independent S)'ntactk head was fir)>t intro duced by Pollock ( 1989) and Chomsky ( 1 991 ). Others. mcluding Zagona { 1 988. 1 992) and Stowell { 1 992. 1 996). have gone one . tep further in suggesting that Tense 1s like a lex seal categot)' in t11at it is as.ociated with an argument . tructure of it. own. ln what follow�. J shall examine the Simuhaneity Condition in the light of val'ious different approachc. to Ten. e which have been developed b, Hornstein ( 1990). Benn1s and Hoeksm1 { 1 989). and Stowell ( 1 992. 1 996). and contrast them wtth my own account. 4.4.2.I Homs1ei11 ( 1 990)
Hornstein ofter.s an account for condition (74) that i. based upon a neo Retchenbachian framework whtch attempt� to incorporate l:ertain a. peel. of·lense
t he even t-�on t ro I ana ly. i�
159
semantics into syntactic de.cnpl ion. . Reichenbach ( 1947) propo. ed Ihal Ten:-.es are not primitives. but are linearly ordered complexe. made up from three temporal points. labelled S (= :-.peech time). R l= reference time). and E (= evem lime). re� spec1ivety. According to Reichenbach. all ix ba:1:tc Tenses of engiLh li.e. past pre. en I. future. present pet feet. past perfect. and future perfec() can be expre:-..c;ed in term. of relations between S. E. and R. In thi. :-.c1t-:e. ·ten. e. (like A:-.pect) arc conlposutonal categor ie. . Withm lu. re tsed Retchenbachian model. Hornstein ( 1990: I l l n·.. 169) claims that there is a dtrect corre�pondence between Ten.e rela tion. and syntacuc mamfe. tation� of Tense :-.uch as Tense morpheme. . wluch en code the relation that holds between S and R. and auxiliary lul\'l>. who. c absence versus p1·esence i. associated with ditferem relauons between E and R (compare at.o Giorgi and Ptanest 199 1 . 1997). Whereas finite clause. in. tantiate all three temporal point . Hornstein argues. mfinitives are chamctensed by the absence of an S poml. whtch correlate. with the absence of finite Ten:-.c m mfinittvc However. as E and R have to be related to an S point in order to become properly anchored (. ee also Enc. 1 987). mfinuival clauses must obligatorily undergo a Seqlu'IICI!·Of 'Jenst• ( SOT) rule by mean� of wh1ch their temporal interpretation is related 10 the 'tense of the higher clause. As to the construction. under investigauon. Hornstein sugge. ts that bare mfin1tive clause. lack both S and R. and therefore contain an E poim only. which is provtded by the verb. A. m Horn. tetn's model. 1he S poinl is introduced b, a 1en. e mot pheme. wherea:-. R i. reah. ed by haw'. the absence of both finttene:-.. markers and perfective haw' from PVCs follow irnmediately. With rel.pect to their internal tem poral make-up. the following three clause types can thus be distinguished. •
(75)
(i) thule dau.es (ti) full infinil ives. gerunds ( iti) bare infinitive.
.
( S.R.E) i R.EI (E)
Tlle �ondition on temporal simultaneity. then. follow:-. ftom the a. sumplion that all remporal pomt. mtLc:l be anchored (i.e. be related to some S poim): since bare inliniti cs lack S and R. lhc lower E point can only be anchOJ'ed by the marnx S. While being perfectly con. istcnt wllh h1s own framework (which I shall not allempt to evaluate here). Hornstein·� claim that PVC. 'lack' S and R describ� rather than derives 1he condiuon on temporal snnultaneity. ln addition. the question ol why the di. Lribuuon of bare infiniu,•e dau. es should be restricted in the manner described earlier is not addressed at all. In other words. what i:- . pec1al about verb.c; of perception that enables them to select bare cvem complements'! And how pre cisely are Sequence of Ten.e rule. instamiated in 1he . yntax. tf at all? Moreover. it remautc; unclear whether Hornstesn· s analysb of B l clau. e:-. carries over to PPVCs
d audaa fe l s e t·
160
as well. �o. l tmponamly. however. none of the other propertie. thal characterise direcl percepuon �on::truclion. follow fmm Horn. leut's claun that PVC. lack bolh S and R. Hence. de. pile lhc advantages that his model nuglu offer· wllh regard to the syntaclh: repre.entation of •tense relatrons. an analysts lhat can provide a unified account for· the . ytuax and . cmamics of PVCs ts to be preferred over Hornstein·. account. 4.4.2.2 Bnmis and Hoekstra ( /989)
According to Benms and Hoek. tra ( 1 989). the Snnullaneity Condtllon on PVC.� follow. trom a general licensing requircmcm on verbs. and hence can be accounted for in purely �yntacti.c lerms. Their analysi. crucially relie...; on the .u. umptton of a T-Linkiug mechani. m which they develop in their arlicle. repealed here a. {76) (Bennis and Hoeksrra 1 989: 24).17 (76)
T-Liuking
A verb must be identiried b)' Tense. Condilion (76) demand. that Tense and the verb musl be pan of the same . yntac lic chain. A T-chain may be cstabli. hed eilher by step-by-step movement of the verb to T or. in language� withoul overt V-movemem. by percolatton of the T-mdex. T-cham formalion resull� in a chain of locally related coindexed head. . where imer vcnmg heads may not be .kipped. The aulhors fur1her argue thal perceplion vetbs are '. pedal' m that chey can funclion as '/:((tcd/iaril·s (. ce al. o Gueron and Hoehlra I 988). that i.. they share with modals and auxtharie;;: lhe property of bein� able to temporall, mark their tenseless clausal complement (which Benni� and Hoekstra have labelled AgrP). This lead. to lhe formation of an exlendcd T..chain. as shown m (77).
t he e ven t - � o n t r·o I ana lysi.
I6 I
Under Bennis and Hoekstra· s m � atysi.. both the limited distribuuon of B l dau. es m general and the Simulmneny Condmon (74) can l>e denved from the nuerac£ion between the ·modal' nature of cenain predicates. :-.tructurat prope11 ie. of bare mnni tive. . and general principle. of grammar. mcludmg the wett-fonnednes. condition stated in {?(>). However. Bennb. and Hoekstra·:: T·Linking accoum for . nnuhaneity is not en tirety l'Onvincmg. for the followmg reason:->. Pu-stly. with the nollon of T-Linking a grammatical mechanism ts imroduced whose independem motivation retnams largely unclear. �loreover. the authors do not make explicit what exactly tnggers percolation of T-indices in Engli.h. or vert> movement in languages like French. Secondly. Bennis and Hoekstra·. T-chains do not seem to have much in common with ordinary head chain. . ll appears that '1'-Linking cannot be tully idemiticd with (oven or coven) head movement. a. nummalist as sumption. on movement prolubit . yntactic lowering operation..� of an.. kind (compare Travis' I 98� Hnul Movnnelll ConsJraint). I n particutru·. it b diltkult to unagme that mdu�es or head fe,aiUres should percolate downwards from one head to the next. gtven that X0-cham are normally formed through adJunction of a zero-level category to a lugher c-commandmg head. and that .ucce. stve raising lead. to the creation of scveml two membered chain:-.. rather than a single extended one. While there is obviou. ly a link between 'Jense and Ihe verb ('J' i. believed tO check the uninterprelable ten. e feature of V in Chomsky'. 1 995 . ystem). the rdea that all other head� that lllight po. . tbly uuervene between T and V-under recent vrews on clause structure. rhese may mdude (at least) the functional catego• ie...c; l'
d aud1a fe l s e t·
162
�cems wrong to categorise perception vefb: as auxilianel> merely becau. e they ad mit the same type of complement that t, p1cally occurs with aux1hary hke be or modab-after all. not every element that takes a DP as it:- complemem 1. automati cally analysed a. a preposition. Summarising. I conclude that Bennis and Hoelctra·. account i. potentially problematic from a lheoreHcal point of view. and leave. a number of quel>tion. unanswered. 4..1.2 ..3 Swwe/1 ( 1992. 1996)
Yet another explanatton for condition (74 H lal> been offered by Stowell ( 1992). who tries to implement the 1dea that Ten. e function. a.'> a . yntactic predicate. StowelL model-wh1dl in a . en e 1. a more rad1cal version of the neo-Reichenbachian framework developed by Hornstein ( 1990)-1:-. ba. cd on the chum that in <\ddition to thematic argument . tructure. clauses al.o exlubit tempo�entencel> (in particular. SOT phenomena) by memb ol employing the formal machmet, provided by syntactic theory (see also Stowell 1996. 277). Tense. he argue$. i. a dyadtc pred1cate which t
(78)
TP
A
ZP
T
A
T
zp,
A
Z
VP
In the representation above. ZP1 should be taken to denote reference time (which t)'J>ICall, coincides with utterance tune). wlnle ZP2 denme. evem time. The T-hc�d Instantiate, .symacttc Tett"e. . uch as pa.s t or p t·e s e n t . which act like predtcate• . while the �ategory ZP 1:-. cons1dered an analogue of DP. which is optionally rai.ed at Lr. V herca. ZP1• according to S10well. is realised as arbttrary PRO (= 'PRO ZP') whose contem i. either contextuall, or di cout.se-identitied. the Zeit head of ZP2 comam. a temporal ex1s1enual quantifier that bind. the tempmal argumem provided by the verb. which I have hlbelled e. The diagram in (79) below . hows the mternal structure of1'P accordmg to Stowell ( 1 996).
t he e ve n t - � o rH a·o J ana ly. i:(79)
163
TP
A
PRO
T'
,A T
ZP
A
Z
VP
l A
3 t' \.J
VP
'llle category e . in Stowell':- model. is a variable by vinue of being locally A' -bound b, 3 lCOmpare Bouchard's 1984 functional defin1t10tl of van able). Con trary to what ts as. umed by Kratzer ( 1989) and under the event control anal>•sis. in the framework developed by Stowell the event V
r�SJM)
ln)ltead. the predicate headed by kiss in (8 1 ) below is assigned a 'ha1bilual' inter
pretation. Within Stowell's . , stem. evemive verb. do not provide an OJ>er.uor which bind. their t' J)()SJtion. On the other hm1d. the option of the higher extstenual quanutier simuhaneously binding e1 and e2m . tructures hke (80) is not available either. a� [hi. would induce a strong �ros. over effect. a situation that 1s illu.trated tn (8 1 ) below. (81)
3,John . aid--e, I that Btll ktssed-e, �lary f
In (8 I). the second £' posuton 1. bound by the event argument tntroduced by the matrix verb. tltu� violating binding principle lC). which states that R-expressions. mcluding variables. must be A-free. The only way to prevent .such a situation tiom arising is to mtroduce another operator {:o-uch a. the habuual operator. H/\13). which �erve. a.s an independent A'-binder of the embedded rk. a. shown in ( R2). (82)
3. John . md-e, l that HJ\13.._ Bill ki. ed-e�,. �lary J
Con. equemly. the rwo t' po. itions m (82) are unrelated. and a simultaneuy read mg is precluded.1� Now consider the ca. e of direct perception �on. trucuons. Here. we would expect [he suuation to be e..;. emially the same as in t 8 1 ) above. with SIM being precluded -however. comrary to expectatton. no cro. saver vtolation. seem to anse here. Now
d audsa fe l ses·
164
a Sl�l reading ts not only permitted. but t. in fact the onl)' possible •eadmg. How. then. doe. StoweJI · s sv. � tern account for the Snnuhaneit, Conditton? (83 )
John saw Bill k1s. (ing) Mc.u..
B
3, John saW-t.'. l Bill ki� -1, Mary I ••
J
L_
bindinr:
{$1M only)
rai.'iin,�
As the event variable is withtn the :-.cope of the 1empo1at operator of the matnx dau.e. the re, ulling ·nm. e relauon can onl, be one of simuhaneity. 11lis soiUlion. however. depend. cructatly on the as. umpuon that the matrix vetb does not provide an event position of it own. which 1. more than doubtful given the stage-level char actcJ of.ensory pcrcepuon verb. (see Section 4.3. 1 above). We can conclude. there fore. that Stowell's account for condition (74) does not stand on altogether sohd ground. Even if his raising analy.i were correct. Stowell'. framework. which i. designed to handle lemporal a·elations only. doe.s nol offca· :lll)' .straightforward ex planation for any of the remaintng propenie. of PVC con. truction. . Funhennore. the prectse slatu� of Ihe category ZP is not quite clear: If ZP IS a quanufied expres�ion. as Stowell suggc,�ts. then we would expect 1t to obligatorily undergo QR (along the. hne. suggested by Htggmbotham 19�3 . . ee Section 4.4. 7). which. however. would rai.e independent problems withm Stowell·. framework. Schmidt ( 1 994. 58). for example.
t he e ve n t - co n t r· o t ana lysi.
165
I\. indicated earlier. the condnion on temporal simultaneity follow� trivially fwm
rhe hypothesi. that m perceptual reports. the event position in the lo,Ner clau.e is ohhgatonly �:omrolled b. the higher evem argument. That is. £-PRO receive. its T-index v1a obligatory coindexmg with the c-commanding event argument m the matnx clause. (85)
poimeJ out earlier. the . ituation IS difl'erent where the perceptron verb is followed by a Hmte or fully intimtival complement (d. {86a.b)). Here. the two event. ar'e tempomlly dissociated. �o that �imull;meuy is not required: I\.
(86)
a. b.
We saw that John had been drawmg circle. We . aw the library to be gomg to collap. e soon
Again. this IS preca. ely what i. expected under the proposed analysi.. Both ten.ed dau.es and full mtinuaves contain a tempoa·al head of their own. wh1ch i. able ro locally identify an event argument (if there is one). Thu . . the two event position. Ill sentence. !->Uch ''=' t86a) or (86b) are each idemitied b a dtfferent Tense. as md1cated in t87) tthough £mayactuallybeab. em from the mattix clause. . eeabove). (87)
10' C hr T, l.�t.•ri» 1:.', lvr- V . . . (Tl' Tk I >\sri' Ek VP J I J I l l •
j
In other word . . the presence of a (second) T position in complement. of the cate gory TP or higher pl'e ems the two events from bemg obligatonly as. octated. a..o; each evem argument is 1denufied by the 'lense of its own chtu. e. In the ab. ence of event com•ol. perception is neces!'>aril, tndtrect. Following a sugge,c;uon by En� ( 1996: 358 n. 14). we may a"sume that to ac� like a modal in that it as. igns a de fault temporal interpretation to any cvem argument 1n it. scope. Observe that thute clau.e paraphra. es of full infiniti al. typically involve a modal:1" (88)
a. b.
J expecled him 10 leave I eX J>ected that he ll'ould leave
Sununru·1:-ing. the Stmuhaneity Condition only holds it an evem �ontrol relation IS established between the two event argument!'> involved. which IS possible only 1f no CP or TP barrier mtervene. between the matrix event po. ition and the evem argumen1 prov1ded by the complement. In th1s way. the Simultaneity Cond1tton can be denved from the event contJol hypothesis. 4.4.3 Seleclioual Rt>strictions Oil Jhe rredicme
We saw earlier that md1vidual-level predicate.-; are excluded from direct perception
d audsa fe l se t·
166
complemems even 1f they denote a state which b. in pnndple. open to .ensory per cepttotl. Previous studte. have had httle to say about thb beyond the assertion that non-epi.tenuc perception verb� ).Cmantically selel't event� tlitgginbotharn 1983. among others). The obser ation thai PVCs are re, trtcted to stage�level predtcates has been captured by the following de,l\criptive generahsation. repeated here for convenience: (89)
Tlu· SLP Con.wraint ror a direct perceptton interpre1a1ion to be available. the non-finue clausal complement of a peJception verb must contain a stage-level predicate.
Under the analysis defended here. condttton (89) follows from the assumption that bare event. whtch are canonical!, reaJs. e
(90)
a. b.
We .aw Mary" s departure We .aw Mary depa11
If. as I have . ugge.•aed above. indtvidual-level predtcate.� minimally project up to the TP level. and if the pre$ence ofT tums a sub-ptopo. tllonal clause into a propost tion. then it follows that dau.es comaining mdtvidual-level predicate..; do not meet £he selecuonal requirements of non-epistenuc perception verbs. If a predicate thai is by itself ambtguous between an SLP or ILP readmg occur,c; Ill a perceptual report. then the individual-level reading cease. to be avculable. even 1f the predicate normally tavour. an lLP mterpretation. Example ( 9 1 ) below. for mstance. is admLsible only to the extent that a stage-level interpretatton can be unposed upon the complement clause tas in tronic use). (91 )
Last night. we saw John be mtclligent ( for a change)
(SLP/*ILP)
Complements which do nor permu a . tage-level reading. like tho. e in (92) below. are excluded from direct perception complement . (92)
a. •we watched �lary be tall b. '" We saw Bill have (got) a car
t he even t-L·on t a·o 1 ana l y s b
167
The �ame ap(>ear:- to be tauc for nuddle �on:-ttucllon� �uch as { 93 ) . •o
(93)
a. �we :-a\\ egg poach well b.
We :-a\\ bureaucrat:-. ba ibc ea:-aly
'llle fact that the complement dam.es 111 (93) do not aJmit the progres�ive (d.
(94a.l>)) :-ugge�ts that Lhey arc ILP expressaons (:-.ee abo Rrtter and Ro:-en 1993. 52�). despite the tact that the vea h� in quesuon can normally be construed as . tage le\cl. a.;; shown by the example. in (95). (9�)
a.
Egg� are poaching well
b. ,.Bureaucrats are bribing ea.,ily
(95)
a.
He \\a� poachmg the eggs when I walked in
b.
She ' <\!'. bribing the olker t while John
Wth
waiting outside
In shon. nuddles and true state. are excluded from PVCs
a.,
tJ1ey both contain
mdavadual-lcvel prcdil:ate. that do not naturally admit a stage-level reading. Ui,·en out eather a.ssumplaon� that mdtvidual-lcvel predicate.; laal to prO\•ide
an
event
aagument and nece. s
Ba!-.ed hugely on ob ervalloth by Safir ( 1 993). I aagued above that (at least) five
diflcrent cases ot perception \etb. consuued with a non-hnite then•-complement mu:-.t be da:-.tinguashed. The.!e hve types of. cntencc are illu:-.llated by the example..s (96a-e) re:-.pectivcly. (96)
a. ,. We saw there anive/amving three girls
b. ttWc saw there be/bemg several pymmads in Egypt c.
(tmaccu.wtin• SLP) (ILP)
We heard thel'e begin/beginning to he a knocking sound
(rai:-.ing SLI') d.
I've never . cen there be/'!being so many complaint:- before
(irrt•ali:. <'Oitlt.'.\1 and ontoloKicllf prNih•at<') e.
We :-.a\\ there walk/walking into the room a man so hand:-.ome that he must have been a mo\ se star
<pre.\<'llliltiuual there)
The�e data. in paniculru Lhe grammatkality ol (96d) versu� the ungrammatacalll)' ol (96a). �ho\\ that the rc.,tricted dbtribution of tltert• i n PVCs cannot be atuibuted to the fact that explcta\e thne t. picall)' occur� with state verb:-. The obsen·ed re trkuons goveanmg th£'H' in:o:enion in PVC., are �ummarised in (97) belo\\ .
IGK (97)
d audta fe l se t· RL•striclions on £Ap1Nil't' There
Non-themat k 1/u•re i excluded from direct perception complements. except ( i) as the subject of stage-level raising predtcate . (ii) m ·presentattanal' clau. C$. or (iii) wuh ontological predicate, in the context of trrealis. Suppa. e rhat expletive then•. by virtue of bemg a non-thematk argument mu. t always occupy a predicate-external argument po. it ion l Sanr 1993. Chomsky 1995). We may follow Chom. ky { 1995) in assuming that in tensed clause,. non-thematic rht•n' is located m r Spec.TP). whose head contains a strong ( D} feature forcing oven sub. titution in its speciner.l' Under this view. a sentence uch a. {98) w1ll have the mternal . u·ucture shown in (99): (98)
There arm•ed three girl.
(99)
I rv rlu•rt• h· T> l.-'•r'' £ IA
The . uuation b• . imilar in cases where expleth•e tltere occur:: with a . t
a.
b.
There are several pyramids in Egypt ln lhl!n' h· hcth are l lr•rf' . everal pymmtds in t::gypt I I J
Expletive theN• ts excluded. by contrast. from the subject position of non-verbal small dau. e. . whtch ostensibly lack a T·system:
( 100)
>tWe consider there a tire
In sum. n appears that ti'Ue expletive. are only licen. ed in predicate-external argument positions such as the one provided by a '. trong· temporal head. True percepuon verb complements. however. have been argued throughout to be claul>al consftluents frorn whtch the T.. system 1· m1. .mg. ).0 that II would . eem that direct perception complement. do not make an appropriate external ru·gument po. 1tion ava1lable for non-tJ1emattc thne to be merged into. Tlu!> would explain why example. such a!'> (9oa) are con. tdered bad. Adding an extra TP layer to rhe comple. ment does not help. as the presence ofT would block evem control. again re ulting m 1ll-tormcdne. . : ( 10 1 ) •we . aw there to arrive three girls
What we expect 10 lind. then. IS that lhf!n' should generall, be excluded from dir·ect perception complements. becau!'>e they fai I to pro,•ide an appropnate po. it ion for external subjects. However. the data m (96) mdacate that the picture is not quue as . imple as that. and that expletive inse1tion 1. 10 fact possible in a . mall ).Ub. et of direct perception complemcn� .
t h e e ve n t-co n t r·o t ana ly. i.
169
Safir ( 1993) daims that the pre, ence of 1hne correlate)> wuh the pre�ence of an (otherwt. e absem) lnfi node in PVC•. While adopting some pan:- of Safir'. analy:-ts. J w11l argue that the a�sumption of a null l nfirl'ense Ill en tentml PVC. is in fact unncce, ruy Under the evcm control analysts. the dttferences m grammaticality between the example. in C96) can be accoumed for as follow. . �2 4.4.4.1 Sln�<·-h·vel Uuac.·cusmh·es
Though unaccu. auve verb. hke m·rive typically permit rhere in� en ion. this possibil tty 1. normally ruled out m direct perception �omplement)>. In relser ( 1995. 1998). 11 was argued that expletive there IS excluded as the . ubject of stage-le\·el unaccusative)> becau. e PVCs do not make an external subject po. it ion available imo which a non-thematic . ubject could pos. ibly be merged. If Chom. ky ( 1995) is nght Ill a ummg that unaccu. fai I to project a vP . hell. and that (Spec. V P) 1s not a po. s1ble . ubject po. tllon. then u would :-eem that the expletive cannot even ·ex cepttonally' be generated anywhere within the verbal complex (see Chomsky ( 1995. 3 1 5 f.. 3631i. ) for .orne di. cu.sion ). It wru further a..... umed that the expletive cannot be merged into (Spec .AspP) eilher. ru this already ho. ts the event argument. I now tcel tllat thb account 1. only partiall, correct. and would hke to modtf, the second as. umption . lightly. rirst. consider the semannc function of the expletive. Accordmg to Mtls.ark ( 1974. I 977). expleuve thert> functions semanticaJI�r like an existential quantilier. <1.-;serting the eXt. ten�c of the entitit�' denoted hy tls associate and prevenung tt from betng (wrongly) a.. tgned a ·:-:trong· (generic. . pec1tk. or presuppositional) reading. Oh. erve that rhe indefimte DP thrt>t• K irls in l l 02a) i. ambiguou)> between a cardinal (or exi. tenttal) readmg. an which 1/m!t' �ir/.,· merely specifie. the number of girl. that arnved. and a prcsuppos1tional reading ('three of a larger g10up of girls'). In ( I 02b). by contrast. only the ·weak' cardmal rc.ading is avatlable. . .
( I 02)
a. b.
Three girl. arrh·ed There arrived three girls
As we saw in Section 2.3.4. however. a strong interpretation is not normally available for indeftmte PVC . ubject. anyway. That is. unles. three in ( I 03) i assigned special sue. s. the pre,�uppo. itional readmg wtll be unavatlablc. ( I 03)
We . awlwatched three gtrl. arnve
Thi. suggests that from a :-:emanuc or pragmatic pomt of view at least. there uuertton in monoclausal unaccusative PVC ts simply not requsred. As far as the syntactic propert ie. of non-thematic then· are �oncemed. Chomsky ( 1995) state,� that it:-. ole function 1s that of sati.fying the EPP by checking the. trong ( DJ feature of T. in . ttuat ions where the nonunal . ubJCCI (for whatever reason) fail. to rat. e to
170
d audta fe l s e t·
(Spec.TP) overtly. That i�. the expteuve ts a symactic dummy that i. in. ened as a Ia. t re.�on. tn order to,atisfy the E.:anuled l'n>j('ction Principle. Let us assume that the aspectual head of direct perception complements also host. a strong (OJ feature. which requires that the specifier of A p contam oven matenal at . ome . tage of the denvation. As noted Ill Section 3.3 above. this rusumption accoums for the unavail abtht_. of PRO . ubjects in PVC. . and. a. we shall see. also provtdes us with a means for explaimng the dhtribution ol expleth•es in PVCs 11lu. trated by {96a-e) above. 4.4.4.2 llldividttal-lt•vel prNii<•ate.\
Complements involving md1vidual-level predicates.�uch as { I 04a.b) below are ruled out for the same r-eason. as th�e : they fail to provrde an appropriate predicate-exter nal subJect position lt'ompare Section 4.4.3 above). ( 104)
a. '1'We saw there be several pyranuds in Egypt b. ttWe s.aw there stand a giam monument
Given our a.�sumpuon tllat argument po. allons wttlun the predicate phrn�e are reserved for 0-marked argument�. the possibality of generating non-thematic there V P-imernally appear. to be precluded. Since tndividual-level predrcate. fail to pro Ject an AspP. mserting the expletive IIllO an aspectual . pecitier is non an available opuon either. Neithea� tt . eems. can we an alyse rhe complement rlau e 111 { 1 04) ru Tl' constituent� he.aded by a null T. a.' indicated in ( I 05)-the very fact that the, arc ungrammatical . ugge. l� that no (Spec.TP) posauon is provided for tiler<'. either. .
h" lltt!re 1-r �j L.,.,P be seveml pymmi� in Egypt J I j
( 105)
As noted earher. indi 1dual-level perception complement.� are mimmally TP constituents. and the presence of U < l overt T head block! a direct perception reading. Like the ECYI �omplement in ( I 06b).the perception complemem m ( 106al defines a temporal dommn of its own. ( 106)
a. b.
We ·aw there to be .eveml pyramid. in Egypt We expected there to be several pyramid!
In short. the example:-. in ( I 04) above are ruled out because they cannot be as . tgned a legitimate .tructural de,cription. 4.4.4.J /(aiSiiiK Pn•dicmt•s
Accordmg to Salir ( 1993 ). PVC 1here-dauses that contain a . rage·le el raising predicate are acceptable because expletive 1/wre here originate.� a. the subject of a more deeply embedded predicate. and has onl>' . ubsequently been raised to (Spec. VP). which m this case i. a po. ition not 0-marked by the verb. Thus. the
t he event-�o n t r·ol ana lysi.
171
complement m (9&) has the tsimplifled) ullemal srructure of ( I 07). ( t07)
(��>,. Asp I vp there1 l v· begin bP r, h- to be a knocking sound I ) I I J
While l believe that Safi1's explanatton fot· the grammaticality of r:ai.ing )>truc Lure..c; such a), (96c) i. along the l'ight lin�. L would like to sugge. r rhat lhe expletive acrually raises to a specifier of A.pP. a movement rhat is mggered by the . rrong I 0 J feature of Asp. ( I OX)
[Not-,. th.ere.-.o.· (� £ IA•rr lhP-:t)'.- 1 ,p begin l
°
•
0
lw t, h· ro be . . I J l J I I 0
This anaty. i. ac�ounts for the facr that raising of there m example. such as (96c) ts obligato•y. as shown b, the ilt-formedneos of ( 109) below.
( 109)
'tWe heard begin(ning) there Lo be a knockmg sound
'lllal is. Lhe gmmmaticahty of (96c) lollows from the requirement Lhat (Spec. /\0 pP) mu.r lcxkall, lilted at some tage m the de1 ivationo and from the fact rh
4.4.4.4 Ontologic-al Claust•.r in an lrrcalis Conte.\t
We have . cen thal where the mamx clause . ets up an irreaho context. as in (96d). a direcr perception readmg is predudedo hlluitively. we might. ay thal the pre.c;ence of an mealis operator is orne how able Lo neurrahse the evem control propertie� of perccptton verb�. A suggeo tion to thi. effect ha. been made by Bayer ( 1986. 26). who argue. thal cenam operators-mctuding negation. modats. and adverbs such . as pmbabl\'- . are able to cancel the evenl a),pect' · introdut·ed by the verb ( com pare also Safir 1 993: 56tf.). Not ice thar in an irreahs comext. no spec1fk . patio-temporal location i. assigned Lo Lhe matrix evenr-in fact. it occurrence is explicitly denied by the ptesence ol the urealis operator. Recall En� · s ( 1 996) sugge.c;uon thal modal. ditfel' from Tense m thal they tack referential properties. and trigger a dcfaulr mterpretation of Ewhich c.:au. es it lO be tdentttied with evaluation tune. One po.;;sible way of capruring this tdea .symacucall, would be to say thal an evem argument 111 the context of a modal OJ other irreah. operator fait. lObe as. igned a refcrenttal index. In this case. it wttl be unable lO acL as a comroller. analogou� lO expleuve tl�tn·. whtch is unable lO control PRO. 0
( I I 0)
't'"J'here, decided PR01 to lea,·e
If modal. and othet ineahs expre. ion. funcuon as .senrential operator.;;. Lhcn any 0
172
c1
audaa fe l se r
event
I've never seen (theN' be . o many nustakest before
What is more. there is no need for mtroducing a :-.eparate ·nm. e node mto the complement clau. c in order to prevent the 1natnx verb from impo. ing an unwanted comrot readtng upon the lower predicate. UnlikeSafir. who ru. umes that perception complement:-. comaming a non-thematic ·ubject are full IP. . l propose that they too are projections of a fun�tional head below T. perhaps one that corre,'> t><>ndo;; to Bower. · ( 1993) Pn:dicme head. a. indicated in ( 1 1 2). ( 1 1 2)
. . . [1"p there [ ,., [ Pr be, l l vr t, . o many complamt. I I J
Under this view. the inter-pretation of indirectne. . re:-.ulrs from the ab�ence of event control rather than from the presence of a TP. Ob:-.er e that if the complement clause in ( 1 1 2 ) were a luii iP. as Satir assumes. we would expect infimtival w to be permitted (if not required) in these constructions as an oven realisation or non finite T. Notice. however. that the irreahs examples cited earlier actuall, become bad if the infinitival marker ts added: ( 1 1 3)
a. "'I've nevet seen there to be so many complaints from . tudents before b. ot t wouldn't hke to see there to be . o many m1.takes c. otWe will probably ee thete to be fewer complamt.
In sum. I ha e suggested that in the context ol irrealis. event �ontml is cancelled 01 overridden by the sentenual irreali. operator in the matrix dause. as a con.e quence of its betng unable to a. sign the matnx event position a referential mdex. In the absence of event control. tauve (or ontological) complements tend to become more ac..·ceptable. 4.4.4.5 Pn•semational Comp/('ffll'ntS
Pre..o;;entauonal �tructures have alway. been problematic for hnguisuc analy�t. as their fom\atson pre..o;; umably mvolve. the application of styli.tic rule! . uch <1! focali.wtiou (sec Gueron 1980 for an interesting discus:-ion of presentational �on strueuons). for this reason. they have even been . uspected of belonging out. ide the domatn of grammar altogether (Chomsky 1 995: 333). Ne' erthele..10s. I . hall attempt to g1ve a pos. ible explanatiOn f01 why. in contrast to non-presentattanal tht•rc dauses. pre. entational rhere PVCs arc felt to be acceptable by many speakers.
t he e v e n t - �o n t •·oJ ana lysi.
173
·lh1ditionally. pre. emational . enteJlL'e:o. . uch as ( 1 1 4 ) below are assumed to involve adjunction or' the lhematic . ubject to the right of VP (Stowell 19S I ) or lP (Safir 1985). ( 1 14)
There I w I \'P walked into the room} (01.a man .o hand.ome that he must have been a movie star j I
However. smce the a:. umpuon of rightward movement not u iggered by checking theory is incompatible wnh minimali.t as. umpttons. Lar. on ( 1988) and Ka, ne ( 1994) have independenll}' sugge. ted that structw·c. involving complex OP. or other types of exuaposed constituents must be derived by leftwa1d movement of other constituents wuhin the dau. e. Adopting a •stranding· analysis in the. pilit of Ka, ne ( 1994 ). we may assume that a sentence like ( I 14) is derived via leltward movement of the PP inw tlu• room pa. t the .ubJeCI OP. as indicated in ( 1 1 5 ) . ( 1 15)
TP
� T' � tllnt' T AspP � A.p vP � Spec
J>P'
vP
A
DP
v'
"A v
VP
A
1,
·n1e locauve PI'. I sugge. l. t. adjoined to vP. while the logical . ubject remains in 11:-. ba!'>e pos1tion m (Spec.vP). Not1ce that the above analysi. imphes that the verb must have undergone 0\·en raismg too. pre, umably targetmg A p ( recall the di.cus . 1on of erb movement in Chapter 3).u ( 1 16)
There lAw walked l�P (pp intu the room I [,p [01' a man .o handsome that he must have been a mov1e . tarj I, l," ( ,1• lv la, ) j I j I
d audaa fe l s e a·
174
Thi:-. is contlrmed b, the inability of the l'P to precede the verb. a:-. shown by the ungrammaticality of ( I 17h) below. ( I I 7)
lmo the room walked a man so hand ·ome lluu he must have been a mov1e . tar h. otWe saw into the room walk a man �o handsome that he mu. t have been a movie star
a.
/\s to the po.auon of the expletive. 1 :"uggest that it 1. agam in a specifier of Aspect in order to check off it. strong (DI feature. '111e rea. on wh� there in.enion 1 po. s1ble 111 pre.emational clau. e:-: but nm wnh sample unaccu. at ive or mtransnive predicates is that as a rule. thne in PVCs b only used as a Ia. t resort. tf the logical subject 1:-: pre\•ented from mi.mg it elf. Thi. situauon is found. for in. tance. m presentational or locattve inversion . tructure. . uch as (96e). e,�t>ectally 1t the subject 1. excepuonally heavy. 4.4 .4 .6 Summar\' lb
conclude the discu. . 1on of explettve there. I hope to have . hown that the pro posed analy. i offers an explanation for the fact that there b excluded from PVCs Ill the V is mserted to meet thi. requirement in ca�e where the logical subject is unable to rai.e to (Spec .A.pP). or where there i:-. no thematic subject. In summcu , . I have argued that tht•re may occur in PVC:" if one of the following condttton. is met: (i) 1f it appears m a de1 ived po. it ion. (ti) with ontological complements. if event control 1. overrid den by an irr� , h. operato1 111 the rnain clau. c. or (iti) if the expletive is requtred fo1 . ymactic reason. . notabl, an the context of an exceptionall • 'heavy' subject. In all other crue. . expletive in:"et•tion will be e:\duded. as ns presence 1. not J'C quired on semantic ground�.
4.4 .5 lnrnpretins: Bare Plurals
In Chapter 2. it wa:-. noted thai although bare plural subjet·ts . uch a:" dinosaurs are ambiguou. in ( 1 18a). bare plural subjecL.;; of PVCs can onI, be as. tgned an exi.ten tial reading (as in ( 1 1 8b)). ( I lK)
a. b.
Dino.,·aw·s ate
kelp We saw dinosfwrs eat kelp
tEX/GE ) ( EX/,.GEN)
This interpretative restriction wa. labelled rhe *GI.:.'N Con�lrainl Dn Bare Plural�. and is repeated below.
t h e event-�OJ1tr·ol
( 1 19)
a n a l y . i.
1 15
'f'lw �Gt.N Canslrttim on 8t.Jre PlumIs
Bare plural subjects of non-fintte perception complement� cannot be interpreted generically. Recall Oi� ing· ( 1992a.b) claim that the inte1pretauon of indefinites depends on the . yntactic posttton they occup., at LE According to Heun ( 1982), indetinite, . mcluding bare pluraL. !unction semanucall# as variable. and ru such require to be bound b)' an operator. In order for a bare plural subject to be avatlablc for binding by a generic operator it hru to be out.tde the nuclear scope of the .entence at LE which Heycock ( 1994) has claimed should he identilied wtth AspP rather than VP. as onginall, . uggested by Diesing. Subject. that remain or are rcconstru�ted m thelf predicate-mtemal base posU1on wtll be assigned an e:ustenual interpretauon via exbtential do. ure. an option that is a ailable for �lagc-level predicate� only (�ee Secrion 4.2.2 above). Oi� ing· :: generali.auon ts repeated below lor convenience. ( 120)
Subjects of . tage-level predicate, can appear either in tSpcc.l J:>) or m ( Spec. VP). Subjects ol indivtdual-Jevel predtcate.�t can app�lr only in tSpcc.IJ:>).
As a con equence of ( 1 20). bare plu•al subject. of indivtdual-le el predtcates permit
a. b.
rt:uemen are a Itrut. IIC Opera singers know Italian
t.: XJGL "'' ) �..:.' n ( lt' �..:. (,.,EXJGEN)
In tensed clause. contatning . tage-level pt•edicates. on the other hand. we expect ambiguilic-�t ot the kind exhibited b)' ( 122) to an. e. ( 122)
Dmosaurs ate kelp
(EX/GE�)
Uiven D1esing's generalisation ( 1 20). the ambiguity in ( 122) can be accounted for i n . yntactic tenns: an existemial interprctallon (·some dino. aurs · ) re. ulls i !'dino saurs i� reconstructed in the specifier position of vP (or anywhere lower than the evem argument t:). as indicated in ( 1 23), wlule the genenc reading requtres the subject to be interpreted in (Spec.JP)-.which we have taken above to corrc' JX>nd to (Spec.TJ:>)-where it can be bound by a generic operator (cf. ( 1 24)). ��
( 1 23)
lcr C I Tl' _ I,. T I \srr t: l A·i>' Asp I ,9 dinosaurs ate kelpI J J J I j L__
( 1 24)
[1·p C [ Tl' dinosuurs
h· T
l vr r, ale kelp J J J I
Now consider again direct perception l·omplements. Under the assurnption that fo1 a generic reading to be avatlable. the . ubjcct ha to be m ( Spec.TP) at LF. the
d audsa fe l ses·
176
observed re!!>tt ictaon on mdetinue . ubJeCt!!> of PVC. follows from our claim that direct perception complements fail to project a TP layer. :'ll otice that (at Jea. t) three positions are potentially available for the PVC. ubject to appear in at Lr. (Spec.vP). (Spec .AspP). or the outer specifier of the n1atrix vP. it� ca.,e-checking position. ( 125)
LTI'
•
.
.
lvP (dinosau�) 1 ,- . . . aw L\>i,P (dmosaur. ) .
(� l , .. (dinosaurs) eat kelpJ I J I I I
All ot the:-.e. however. are internal possuons with respect to the matrix Tense. Smce funher raistng of dium.aur� across T is not motivated b, checking theory. we expect 11 to be impo)>sible. If 11 is AspP rather thml vP that detlne.l\ the domain ol existential closure. or nuclear . cope. of a semence. then it appears that in the case ot' perceptual report!!>. the two '. tacked' AspP. together form a single extended nu clear scope domain. That ss. no matter whether the PVC subject ts uuerpreted tn (Spec. vP) of the matrix clause or complement-mternally. il wi II be unable to e.�cape exi�tential closure. The proposed analysis thu. correctly predicts that bare plural . ubject occurring in aspcctual perception complements should admit an ext.tenttal mterpretation onl , . Moreover. two . eemingly unrelated properties. the lack of a genenc readtng lor bare pluraL and the SLP Constraint. tum out to be mumately linked. 4.4.6 Vnivin� 01hn St•mamic l'ropnih•.)
In Chapter 2. I provided a brief overview of some logico-semanttc properties ol
PVC. pointed out by Barwtse { 1981 l and olher. . Among the. e are veridkahty. subsfilutivuy. exportabilit. of existential quanttfiers. and the unavailabihty of sentential negauon in PVC . The relevcun generalisation. are repeated here tor con venten�e. ( 1 26)
TrwIt- Tlu•on•1ic l'roperties of I'VCs:
1 A) Priuciph• of Vt.•ridirality
r<>r direct perception complements
( B ) Principle ofSub:uitwiou In duect perceptton con.tructtons. tf a . ee:- ¢(t1) and t 1 = t�. then a sees t/>(tz). ( C ) Principle oj fu])()riability I r a ee. some x . uch that tp(x). then there is an x . uch that a sees ¢/(.\). .
( 1 27)
'/1re NEG C()ustrailll
Sentential negation i. excluded from PVCs.
t he e ve n t-�otl t a· o I ana ly. i.
177
Batwi.e·s t 198 1 ) claim that the cruth-funcuonal prope11ie. of perception sen tence. can be. t be accounted for within the frmnework ol . iluation �emamics has prompted others to defend an alternative analysis in terms of the theoty of underly mg evenu; (Higginbotham 1 983. Vlach 1 983. l,arson. 1990).1(' However. the. tudy of the logical structure of perceptual reporu l wtth the ex eption of Higginbotham· s account) thus far ha.� had hHie to contribute to a bcner under. tanding of their syntac tic propertie. . In the following. I explore the extent to which the above generah. at ions c.an be derived trom the syntactic lonn of per�eptual reports. 4.4 .6.1 Veridicalit) tmd Sttbstilllli\•iJv The fir�t two of Barwise· s properttes. ''endtcaltty and sub. titutivity. follow direcfly from the sugge sted analy is. which claims that PVCs. on account of being 'bare· event•. lack Lhe categoric. C and T as well as sentence operatot. (."uch a. modals) which might otherwi.c rendet them referentially opaque. Where all of these are absent. petception i. neces. anly direct. Since under e\·ent control. the two event. are literally linked together. direct pen:cpt ion statements form a . inglc propo ilion m the sense that they arc ru. octated with the �ame (refcrenual) T. and share a . ingle uut11 value. That ts. the u·ulh of the matnx evem implie� the truth ofthecomplemem event. independent of the cognurve state of rhe perceiver (compare Asher and Bonc\'aC 19XS. 203). Tim. rf r..tary . . ees the mayor jog through the park. and the y n ma or i� Carol . the Ylary . ees Carol jog lhrough the park. I f. by conu·rut Mary belit!'l't'S that the mayor jogs through the park. tlu:-. does not cntai I that. at the same time. . he also behevc$ that Carol jogs through the park. ln the Iauer case. the u uth of the matrix and the complemem dau. e are evaluated tndependently. In this way. the tir�t two of Harwise · propertic. follow dtrectl. from the event control analysts. 4.4.6.2 t:.xporwbilif.,. Con. ider the contrast between ( 128a) and ( 1 281>) below. Whereru the exi tenttal QV 111011)1 people has a narrow scope imerpretation in ( 128a). it is. at·col'dmg to the Principle of Exponability (C). obhgatonly assigned matrix scope m ( 1 28b).
( 12X)
a. h.
We aw th�u mttll\' peuple left We saw Jtlflll\' people leave
That b. ( 1 28b) can be paraphra. ed ru nu:n• wen· mwt)' peoplt• who we smt· leave. Within GB theory. it wru a. sumed that quanti tied expres. ions ( QVs) mu. t rat. e and adjoin to IP at Lf (May 1 977. 1985). A .entence like mtmy people lrfl. for example. would traditionally be as�igned the following LF structure: ( 129)
(,.,. C (0• lQr many people), · _
(II' r, left I J I J
17X
d audsa fe l se t·
From a mmimah. 1 posnt of v1ew. however. the traditional approach to Quamitier Ras. ing ((,)R) appears queslionable. gsven that QR is a movement operation for which there exists no obviou. morphosyntaclic 1rigge1·. and which fall�'> to ob. ervc the famihar localily con lraints on movement. In Hornstein ( 1 995). il i. argued that the rule QR . hould be eliminated from dte grammar altogether. Smce in minima lism. nominal expre.sion. mu. l raie anyway in order to chel·k ca. e. Hol'thlem suggests that quaminer . cope can equally well be accounted for in term. of A-movement. and by explo111ng the prope11ie. of chain. (.ee at.o Aoun and L1 1993. Kitahara 1996. or Stroik 1 996). Under this \•iew. an apptopnate LF representation for J\tlttm· people Jeji would look like ( 1 30) below rather than l I 29). with QP raising to lSpec.TP) in order to check nominative ca. e: ( 130)
(cp C ln· l0,, many peopleJ. h· T I�P t, left I J I J •
l
'llle QP m ( 130) ha. sentential scope. and there IS no obviou. rea.on why it shouiJ 1 aise any further than tlus. Example ( 128a). on the other hand. would be repre.!emed as ( 1 3 1 ). whete many pebph· has scope over the embedded dau.e only. (131)
We sa\
let> that lw IQ1• man);•peoplej, 1 � T I''P 1, left I J I J I
'l1te situation is differem. however. in lhe c�e of PVCs. where the subject OP must raise imo the matrix clause to ch�k objective ca. e. ( 132)
. . . [ ,., lQr> many people I, I , p we . aw b,,..p r, leave J I I J I
In the configura! ion in ( 132). QP has cope over the enlire matrix vP. including the subject (or Ill\ tmce). ln other words. the A-movement operauon tnggered by lhe requirement of checkmg lheory also . erve.s to extend the c-�ommand domam ol QP, thereby allowing it lO take . cope over the predicate of the main clause. How ever. on the assumption !hal the PVC subject can at leas.! optionally be reconstrucled mside lhe lower clause (as indicated in ( 1 33) below). the quesuon arises a.� to why 11 should be impo. . ible lor an existentially quanttlied suhjeCt lo rake . cope over the complement clause alone. •
( 1 33)
. . . we saw [N.rf> (many people) (A,1,. t: 1,,,,... l,p tmany people) leave JJ I J
The answer I would like to suggesl is the following. Due to the absence of TP from asp�tual complement clauses. and the fact that the two event argumenu are comdexed. the nudeal' .cope of the mall ix cl;1Use actually itrdudes the entire com plemem clause {see also Secuon 4.4.5 above). '11tal ts. perceptual report provide
t h e e ven t-�on t ··o 1 ana lysi.
179
a smgle extended nudear scope domain only. and an, indefinite within thi. domain wtll unambiguou ly be assigned an exi. tcmial interprelatlon. Since the event argu ment ot the matrix dau. e and the evem argument of the lower dau. e carry the lklllle (refes·enu.,l) T-mdex. misit1g or recon. trueI ion of the PVC . ubject make� no ditrcr ence for its interpretatton-it will invanably be part of the nuclear �cope of the main dau.e. ( 134)
t:, . . . l,p (many people) I�P we !'aw 1.\,pt• £, (�,· (.,p (many people) leave } J I J I
Hence 11 i. impo�Mble for man,Y JU�ople Ill ( 1 28b) to have narrow . cope. a. . tated by Barwi:\c · s Pnnciple of Exportability.�n� 4.4.6.3 Negation
hnally. �on. tder again the ab.ence of.ententaal negation from PVC. . Recall that negattve PVC. make sense only tf the verb phra. e alone 1. understood to be negated. which i� pos. ible in ( 13Sd. but not Ill ( 1 3Sa.b). ( 135)
a. Iii heard the baby not cry b. ttWc watched a circle not be(mg) drawn c. l .aw the car not start (i.e .. I saw the car ufraiu /'rom stmtiug)
One might argue that excunple. hke ( 1 35a.b) are semantscally or pragmatically odd because an event whose occurren�e ts dented hy not cannot p� sibly be an ob Ject of sensory percept ion. M iuwoch l 1 990: I 09) propo. e. that negative PVCs are ruled out because not-dau. e$ are mherentl.. stative (see also an der Uoe..; 1991 . 250). so that their unavailability follow. from the SLP Constraint. Tlu. . however. cannot be the whole story. smce we have seen that gtven an appropnate context. negauve VP. are . ometimes possible. Let us therefore con. ider an altemative. �yn tacuc explanation for the ab. ence ot sentential negation from PVCs. Zanuuim ( 199 1 ) hru . hown that we mu, 1 distingui.h between two ditfetent types of negatton: clausal negation. and ptedicate negation. Clausal negat ion is a. :\Octated with a func tional head Neg. whose presen�.-e. according to Zanuttint ( 199 1 ). Gueron ;md Hoekstra ( 1993: 89) ;md others correlates with the presence ofT. Opinion. are dt vided as to whether a negative head is generated above or belmv T (compare e.g. Laka· � 1 990 Tmse C-Command Condition). or whether it� po�ition with re<'pect to lense is variable (Ouhalla 1 99 1 . Zanuuim 1991 )-an empincal is. ue that need not. however. concern us here. Predicate negat�on. by contrru 1. involves a negati\e
180
d audsa fe l s e t·
( 1 36)
a.
b.
TP
A
T
NegP
IU)/
vP
nm
A
\'
�
Adv
�
Neg
vP
v'
A
v
V}l
VP
Under thi. vsew. the unavailability ofdau.al negatton m non-verbal .mall clau!':e, and PVCs follow. dtrectl from the absence ofT from the:-.e constructions (.ee al.o Suzuki 1 99 1 : 33). �ote that Higginbotham · s ( 1 983) ob. ervation. now fall smo place. too: PVC. that comam what he call. an ·amonymic pt-edicme· involve predi cate or ·weak' ne�ation. wuh the negauve adverb bearing scope over the predtcate alone. Adverbial negation. then. is the only type of negation that ts (margutally) permitted in PVCs. to the extent that n yield. a . emantically and pragmatically coherent . emenl�. �
4.4. 7 The Conswaim againsl l'assi\•e
Recall that in contra. t to . ubjects ol non- verbal . mall clauses. the . ubjects of dire.ct perception complements {m Engli. h and other Northem European languages) resi�t pa: si tsation: ( 137)
a. b. c.
John. wa. considered 1, tupid John, wa. thought 1, a fool -tJohn. wa!': .een 1, draw a circle •
Since the trace ofJahn appear. to be properly governed by the matrix verb in all three examples in ( 137). the ungramm
a. lt�Jary, was fell 1, hiumg me with a :;tone b. 'tJl, wa: . een 1, .nowing c . !f!lAII helll1 was heard 1, breaking lool\e
Tltis ob. ervation ha been c�ptured b)' Lhe following de cnpuve generali:->allon: ( 139)
71te Cmi:Uraint against Passive Perceptual repons do not passivise.
In the followmg. I will �rillcall, evaluate previous attempts to derive the above
t he e ve n t - co n t r· o t ana lysi.
181
gencrah. at ion made by Higginbotham ( t 983). Kroch. Santorini and Heycock ( 19K7). Pollock ( 1 994). and Benn1s and Hoekstra ( 1 989).t') In Secuon 4.4.7.5. I pre:-em an alternative accoum that is ba. ed upon the event control analysis outlmed above. 4.4.7.1 H;gginborlwm ( J 98J)
Htggtnbotham argues that bare infinitive complements. de, pite being clause-like from the point ot 1ew ot . ymax. are not inte1 preted as clausal arguments at LE on rhe ground. that the, arc not intemally )>Upponed by any InO. Bare infinitive:;;. then. are ·unsuppOI'ted dau.e.'> · . a term which. followmg Higginbotham ( 1983: 102). refers to ··a . ubjoct-predicate sequence that exhibits none of the uuemal inflectional suucture of a full . cntence or clausal �omplement: neither ten.e. nor intiniti al to. nor progre.'>sh•e -inft.. . Assuming that B l complement-.. .:ontain a Oavicbonian event vanable and . eman tically denote indivtduals ( 'individual evem:- · ). he sugge,•;ts that 13 1 clauses to QP:-. Bl complement" must undergo QR to an appropriate scope po. 111on at LF. Under du. view. a sentence like ( 140a) will be assigned the (.simplified) LF repre.'>entatton m ( 1 4()b) (Higginbotham 1983. 109):-"> ( 140)
a. b.
�arlowe saw Shake.�ipeare dm\ce (3x: dance (Shakespeare.x)j f\•tarlowe saw x
Con. ider next what happen. 1f the BJ appear.s in a passive context: rirst. the em bedded subJeCt DP Slwk£·sprare rai e. overtly to matrix subject po. ilion. leaving behmd a trace of it.;;elf l = t,) in the complement clau,e (d. { I � I a)). Sub. equently. the enttre complement undergoe. LF rai. utg to take scope over the sentence. al.o lea"ing behind a trace (= t1J Toget11er. these two movements yield the Lr structure shown in ( 1 4 1 b). ( I� I )
a. b.
Shake. peare, was seen I t, dance I ( t, dance k ( Shakespeare, was , een t'- J
'l11e resulting LF representation. however. is ungrammattcal for two rea. on. . first. ob!'>erve that the anaphol'ic trace t, in ( 1 4 1 b) is out.ide lhe scope of its ante cedent. Shakespnm.:. This con. titute. a violation of binding principle (A). which requires that traces of A-movement mu. t be locally bound by a <>conunanding ante cedent. Secondly. tk is not the anaphot ic trace of Sitak(•speare. hut a variable bearing an mdepcndent thematic role. A a te.suh. the stnng Slwkc•speare, was st•en r, violate. both theta and c
1 82
d a u d a a fe l .e 1·
po. Hion. In tht'- re�pect. the ill-fonnedne�� ol ( 1 4 I b) '" p
{ I -t1)
wa:-
. een
tL
In �hotl. Haggmbotham daim,_ that the unnvaalabtlity of pa.si' 1 ed B I comple
fact that un:.upported dau�e.;; ,_uch a IPVC. mu.t m turn entails that there exist� no well-formed u: �tructure fot
ment� i� ultimately due to the rai,_e at LE which
pa.si\·e construction:-. :-uch a� ( I 37c). De�pite it:- initial appeal. however. Htggmbotham· :- account is not without prob
A;; potnted out by Neale ( 1988). Higginbotham·� logical structure:. do not ncce��u ily repre�ent the Logtcal ronn ol sentence. in the sen:-.e ofChom�ky { I 98 1 . and later). who con�tden. LF to be a purely ;))'11/m:til' le,·el. .Specitkally. Neale points out that the �tam. of the event variable at L F remain� unclear. I I the event variable. lli Higginbotham a:..ume . is not mstant iated syntacttcally. then i t would �cem that there i� no need for 11 to be bound by an exi�tential quanti tier at the �yn tacttc Je,·el ot LE either. �·ut difl'erently. Higginbotham·� accoum does not pt ovide ... to how e�plicit quanttticauon (QR) L an. condu i\·e an:.wer to the question a . lem�.
u ie eeted . . ... ...
Fu11henuore. it remrum:
undeat
wuhout 0\Crt InA feature� �hould Lr-Higginbotham· � analy�i:. ,_eems to
whv clauses
funct ton a., argument:- at predict that . entence.�o uch as ( 1 37a.b). '"hich inmlve non-\·ert>al small dau�:-.. ,_hould abo be ung.rammattcal.�• Given lltggmbotham· � ( 1 983) delinition ol the notion of unsupported clau�e. it �ecm. that Ius analysi� cannot be extended be unable to wrongly
.
to PPVC:. a.-; these are mternall>r supported by the progre��•ve market -inx (compare abo Kroch l'l a/. 1987. 274). Thu� the analogous behavious of both ty pe:-. ol PVC. wtth te:.poct to passivbation remain� unaccoumed lor under the above analysis.
Finally. as noted by Neale ( 1 988: 3 1 0U. Higginbotham's analy�t!'- fail:- to take mto account the fact that not all Bl-taking verb� pattcm ahke. We saw in .Section 2.5 {hat them exist
of �emantk and . yntactic dttl'esence,_ hetween rhe comple
ment� of pe1ception and causative verb�. which Higginbotham·:-. analyMs ignores. Followmg Htggtnbotham. fat lure to ad nut the pa. �•ve b atu ibuted �olely to inherent properlle:-. ol Bl clause� in general. independently ol the context m whach they ap pem. I conclude that Htggmbotham·. explanatton fot the structures :.uch as ( I 3 7d. whtch
emit ely convincing.��
lorms part of
ill-fonnedne,;;s ol
pa�:-.ive
hb tndtvidual cventli analy�is.
i� not
-1.-1.7.2 Kruch. Santorini and H£.'\'Cucll. ( 19<'?7)
After pointing out :-.orne ol lhe weakne:-se. of Higginbothmn·s
( 1 9�3) ac<:oum.
Kroch t'f a/. propo�e that the Constratnt again�t Passi\e can be accounted lot· m term�
of 0-theory.
in conJuncuon with a lexkal analy,is
of
the pa��•ve. They
the even t-�o n t r·ot analy. i.
1 83
claim thai m pa.�sives like l l 43 ). Ihe .UbJeCL Mary faib to be a. s1gned a 0-role. ( 143)
*�Jru·y was seen leave
The author. . tart out from the fairly un�ontroversial assumption that past ptuUCI ple:-: dtOer from active verb forms with re.! J>Cct to I heir argument �tru�l\Jre. and that pa. ivi ation uwolve.o: the extemalisation of lhe internal 0-rolc. Gnder a non transformational treatment of the passive. the DP 1'tlar> will be base-generated as the . ubject ol seen. However. gsven that J't/ar)' in ( 143) is not the internal argument of the matrix verb. it is cannot tel-eive any thematic role from we. The aurhor:-: fur ther argue that the derived . ubject Ill ( 143) canno1 be a. signed the external 9-rolc of lea\·e either. because it is not syntaclt�ally associated wnh the lower verb dbid .. 276). Their Iauer chum. hO\ ever. rai. cs rhe queslion of why to-pas�ives such as ( 144) below are grammaucal. rarher than being ruled out on sinular grounds as ( 1 43) above. ( 144)
�ru'y was seen to leave
This. arcordmg to Kroch er a/.. follow� fmm the way an external 0-role 1. a.1stgned. '11te authors propo. e that external 0-role assignment in general is mediated by the feature AGR m lnO. which then transmits the role a. signed to 11 by lhe verb to a comdexed DJ> In its specifiet. In (144). lhe AGR featUie borne by mnnilival to IS coindexed with the con·e. ponding .1\GR feature of lhe matnx clause. a mechanhm that allow. il to pass on the extemal 6-role of /eaw: to the matrix . ubject Mary (via the higher AGR. cf. ( 145)). ( 145)
lw Ylary It· wasA.
L/
_(
An analysi. along the. ame line..; i� a.'lsmned lor raising structure, in olving verb. such as set-•m. Where 10 (and hence. AGR) i. absent from the inlinitival compte� ment. no such S-role transmi. ston 1. t>assible-hence the ill-formednes� of ( 144). While this IS not the place for evaluatmg Ihe mer its and drawback..; of a lexical analysis of the passive. one might a.k how lhe authors accounr f01 rhe gmmmalicality of active Bl-structure.'l such a1 ( 1 46). a question rhat they do not propcl'ly addre. . . ( 146)
We . aw )liar leave ,
As far a. I C<m •ee. one would either have to po. 11 the pre. en�e of a null lnfJ Ill the complement dau. e that IS capable of transmittmg the external 0-role of /eavt.� to ll'i . ubject Mmy. or one would have to assume that the PVC ubJeCI re ceives us themattc role in some other way. The former assumption 1. at odd. with the evidence we have . een in Chapter 3 against the pre. ence of null lnfJ (or T. in
184
e l audsa fe L e s·
our ternunology) in direct pert-epuon eomplement:-.. wherea., the Iauer optton 1. mcompatible '' ith the authors· claim that extet nal U.tole a.signmem IS umtormly mediated b) I nfl. Recall from Chapter 2 that 0-mas kint! ol J�/an by Lhe lugher ve1 b 1). abo preduded. on the grouncb that the J>O!'>tverbal DP 111 perceptual reports IS not an ObJeCt of the h1gher verb. J'l:otsce that assigning the leatUJe 'AUR · the �latus ot an independent head ( ignoring the dsawbacks a!'>!'>Ociated with )oUCh a move that ha\e been noted earliet1 doe: not get U!'> out 1f this dalemma eather: II null AGR is pre:-.em in bare intinith·e complement� ot acll\·e verb!'>. then there i. no a priori 1eason why it !'>hould not abo be pre:-.em in passhe comexts. Secondly. it rem.uns undear why the Constraint agatnst Pa:o.!'>tVe does not abo hold fo1 non-,·erbal �mall clau. e s (compare ( 1 37a.b) above). In :-.um. il appears that Kroch n ttf.'s analysis doe:- not �land on very solid ground either. 4 ../.7.3 Pollock ( I 99./)
Pollod, :11gues thai the Con:-traim against Pal-sh·e can be de1 h·ed f10m ca:-.e theory. under the as�umpt1on lhat bare lllfiJHttvc dauses arc nommal expre:o.. 1ons and there fore need to check ca�e. Pollock ru sumes Lhat B I clauses are lt{/iniriwl Pllra:,es (lnfl,s) headed b) the null pronom111al pm. as hown below (op. cat.. 300). ( 147)
1
hec1.rd lt..w John IMfJIO J
lvt• :-.1ng a �ng I I
He fUJ ther al.sumc!'> that null funclional head:-. \vhich do not �orre:-.pond to an oven ve1bal afllx musl be 'licensed' or ·recovered' in !'>Ome othe1 Wi.l)• top. Cll.. 288f.). 11tcpm head of Inti' in ( 1 47). he argues. i� lice1hcd through being �a:-.emarked by the highe1 \erb. ' ndcr Lhis view. the ungrammatacaltty ot ( 14Ma} below lollows directly trom ��:-.e theory. on lhe familial a:-.!'>umption Lhat veJth Ill lhe pas:-.ive are unable to check the ca.'e of their ObJeCt. Where bare intinithe!-- are embedded under a passi\e \erb. mfinauval ro must be inse1ted a!'> a la!'>t re:-.on hccnser for the func tional head lnj. a!'- in ( 14�b). ( 14M)
a. 'f'Jolm wa:-. heard l1,pm I smg a !'>Ong b. John wa:-. heard l,..r to J !--ing a song
Pollocks analysi!> makel. the inte1e. ling predicuon that tn language:-. where the functional he�d lnf 1:-. J��ciated wuh verbal morphology. mauix pa!'>:-.ivisation should be pos).ihle bec�use infinitive� that are not bare root:-do not need to undergo ched.ing. '11ti:-. predJcuon appears to be borne out tor Somhe1n Romance languages !'>UCh L < � llalian tPollock 199-t: 302). ( 149)
Ciitmni t)
.\tato visto man�iare una m£'1u
has been . een eat-l�f ·John wa.' . een eat an apple·
G.
an
apple
t he e v e n t-�on u·o I ana lysi.
1 85
01�erve. however. that Pollock·:-. accoun 1 appear:-. to make the wrong prechclion for German. a language m which infinitives al:o:o carry an oven . uffix (the same hold. true for DUlch): ( 150)
,.. Han. wurde t>in Lit!tl ·''in�en
gdtort
H. was a . ong :-.mg-inf heard ·J ohn w� heard sing a son�· Another problem for Pollock's analysi. is that it crucially a.. umcs that. entence like l } 48h) are denved from actave B l :-.tructures. Recall. however. from Chapter 2 that to-infimuves and Bl clau�es are neither :-.yntal·tically nor , emanttcally analo gous. which I have interpreted a. evidence that the two type. of complement are not transformationally related. �toreover. the t<.lea that Bl dauses should be nominal expres. ion. provides no explanatson for the fact that only stage-level predicates are permined m B l clause. . whereas ostenstbly nominal expre. sions such as the DP small dau. e in l i S Ia). or POSS-in!-! gerund:-.
a. *We .aw John a good friend b. 'tWc heard Mal)•'s playing the pt<mo
La.·a but not least. Pollock·. analysi:-. inl·orrectly predicts that progressive PVC.-by vircue of the fact that the verb carrie:-. an oven infiecuon--. hould be able to undet·go pas. t\•isatton. As we have . een in Chapter 2, howevet·. truly clausal PPVC� are excluded trom matrix pas...;i e. a. well: ( 152)
a. *Mary. was tell t, hitting me with a . tone b. i'lf, wa.'i: :-.een t, raining
Taken together. these ob.ervation. sugge. . t that a. it stands. Pollock's accoum is not tenable. 4.4.7.4 IJnmis ami Hm•kstra ( 1989) A rather different attempt to account tor the ill-lormedness of ( I 37<:) ha. been made by Bennt. and Hoekstra ( 1 989). which cruciall, rehe� on the mechant. m of T-Linking menttoned earlier. The upshot of lltetr chum 1. that pa. . tve panu.:tplc.s lack the abtltty to 'J:mark theu· complemem. Thus. accordmg to Benni. and Hoek. tra. the re�on why matnx pa:.stve.� like ( 1 37c) are bad 1. that the lower erb fails to be assigned a temporal index. because the presence of a pas. ive participle m the matnx clause blocks T-percoJmion to the lower V. Given their condition ( I 53). repemed below. the result can only be an 1!1-formed structure. rcpre. ented m ( I 54). ( 153)
T-Linkin�
I\ verb must be idemined by Tense
1 86 ( 154)
d aud1a fe l se t·
TP
/"--... Spec
T'
/"---,
John T,
I
H'll.
l
VP
1.� �......
sem Spec
\ ! X �� /'-.... VP
Agr
V
DP
I
�
draw
a drde
As Ihe mtervening V head (filled by the pa!o.t parttctplc) may not be skipped. ei ther. there is no Wlipulate that pa�sive paniciple, cannot form Iinks in a 1'-cham to rule our structure, such as ( 137c) (. ee Bennis ) versus the ungrammaticalily of (1 55a). Bennis and Hoekstra t l989: 39 n. 9) are forced todt. tmgutsh two types of -t>tt pani ciple. a pa. . tve participle and a prut participle. both of wluch are formally identical. Unhke pa. sive panscsples. past participle. appear to be . omehow able to retain thetr T-linking propeny (cf. ( 155b)). ( 155)
a. ,.,John wa� . een draw a cit-cle h. We have seen John dmw a cil'cle
Whethe-r or not tht. analy. 1. carrie,.;; over to PPVCs also remain unclear. In l>Uill. while smular m spuit to the event control analy. 1 Bennt. and Hoekltra's T-Linking account doe. not seem fully convmdng. euher. mainly becau. e il relics on a mechanism which 1S di tikull to reconcile with minimalist assumption. on head (or femme) movement and on checking. <>mte.o;; cettain aspects of Bennis and Hoek:o;rm·. account. but diffcr.o;; from 11 in thal li exploit'i the propenie:- oft he familiar relation. hip of comrol. •
•
t he e v e n t-�on t •·o l ana l y s i .
1 87
4.4.7.5 Au t:vent Control 1\/ternmive
Let us now con. tder an alteJ nauve at\! wer to the que. tion of why PVC conl>tructions should lack pa. !.tve counterparts whtch is based upon the evem control analy�is outlined earlier. In essence. what I wam to argue 1. that structure..� like ( 1 37d above are ruled out by Vi. ser'. Generali:-.ation. That is. event comrol fatls be..:ause percep tion verb. in the pas. 1ve do not provide an appropriate comroller for .t::-PRO (d. ( 156b)). ( 156)
a. We 1::, .aw John /:.'-PRO, draw a cirde h. "'John, wa. . een t, £-PRO draw a circle
Recall that it is commonly a. . umed that -m participles differ m argumem struc ture from their corresponding active forms. Ill lhat their external argument role i. absent or suppres sed (Gnmshaw I 990: 1 I K. among other:-.) and in that it •� unable to check objective c�e.-a descriptive correlation at.o known as IJur::io 's Gnt c:rulisalion {Burzto 1986). ln the light of lhe fact that passive predicates do not licen. e an age n t subject either. we tnay take flus to mean that pas:-.ive VP. . like other unaccusatives. do not p1ojoct a vP shell. 1 would like to suggest that passtve VPs are inherently indivtdual-level. and hence do not by rhemselvcs induce the proj�·tion of an I ±progre. �tve I A. pP. or provide an event argument. Thi� claim i. cons1. tent wuh the fact that pa sive clause. are often comade1ed to be stattve m chamcter. Once again. direcl perceptton construcuons behave analogously to cothtrucuon. that involve obligatorily conuolled PRO. ( 157)
a. b.
Ylary, prorni. ed John PRO to leave 11John wa. promi.ed t, PRO to leave tby tvtary)
Just like pas. ivi$ed . ubject control verb. such a!. promisNI in ( 157). me -t.'IJ form of a perception verb cannot function as an C\•ent comrol pr·edicate because an appro priate controller t!!. nu. . ing from the htgher dau. e. ·n1us. lhe unavailabtltty of pet ceptual repmt. in the pas. ive can be derived from the familiar as. umption that 1he argument structure of -en partlctple..� is impovcri.hed. and from the event control analyst.. If a predtcate projet·ted from a pasl paniciple or from an adje�tive is to be used tn the progt'C.'isive. an auxiliar., mu. 1 be in. ened as the earner of progressive morphology. ( 1 5M)
a. b.
John wa. bein� que�tioned Ylary was bc:in� obnoxtous
Like perfective ltave. whtch ha. been claimed to augment the argument structure ol past paniciple� by adding an external argument role tRmer and Rosen 1 993). the
18K
d audta fe l .s e r·
auxthary . erve.. -. to augment the participle'. argumem suucture by adding an evem argument as mdtcated m ( 1 59)." John. wa.
( 159)
IA,pr· 1:: I "W bemg I VI' questioned t, J I I
However. as the evem argument i)> not a designated argumem of the participle 01 panicipial VP. but in. tead i. provided by be it. elf. it will not be able to act as a controller of another event position. For thi. reason. e. ( 160)
it
�lary, was 1-'srt• £1 L-u1,. being
I,.,. watdted lA>t•P J::� l.� t, leave ] I j 1 1
What l atn sugge.c;ung. then. is that matrix pas. ives such a. ( 1 37c) and ( 160) are ruled out because there 1. no appropriate comroller for the embedded event argu ment available in the main dau. e. Conscqucmly. no event control relation can be �tablished. and the lower event t><>.�ition remain. untdenufied. neither can n receive a 1cmporal index by entenng into a control relationship wnh another event argu ment. nor can n be identified by all)' local T du·ectl,. Non-verbal small clauses. by contra�t. allow their subJect. to pas. ivi e l�reely. ru m ( 1 6 1 ) below. Here. evem control docs not play any role at all. due to the absence of an evem argumem from the lower clause. and the lack of control properue. of the matnx verb. ( 16 I )
Bill, wm considered I t, stupid I
'11le hypothe. r. that -en participle. fail to provtde an evem argumem not only accounts for the unavailabtltty of matrix passive ·. but also explain. why many speaker)> do not accept bare pa. . tve VPs as complements of pcl<'epLion verbs (though rhe picture is blurred by the fact thal ll ts often po.11sible to ha\e a reduced relative dause 01 pat Uctpial adJUnct dause . uucture tn place of a lrue PVC. see Chapter 2). Consader the (b) sentence. tn the following examples. whtch cannot ea. tly he con. trued as reduced relative. or· predtcate adjunciS. ( 162)
a. I heard Mary l'ing the bell b. ltJ heard the bell rung lby Mary)
( 163)
a. I saw hun turn off the ltght b. 't'J . aw the light turned off (by tum)
Unle:' they C
t he e ve n t - �o n t a· o t ana lysi.
189
Pm Parridpio (IPP) or t:rsar�i,�fmiriv phenomenon that 1s common m Dutch and German. :lnd is occa. ionally found in English too: ( 164)
a.
dass wir die Ciluc:ken lwben /limen hlirenft<�t>/u)n
h.
that we the bell. have nng We heard a piano *pla>red/play
(German)
hear/heard
In order to make event control po. sible tand hence render the sentenl"e accept able). the par1tc1ple mu. t be replaced by an acuve tonn. which does not supprc. . the generauon of an event po. ition. ote that rhe pa�sivc me.1ning i. retained. per hap. due to the lack of agenuve prope111es of the :-ttbject (see Section 5.2.3 for further discw. ion of the lPP phenomenon). As perception verbs Ill the pas. ive lose their control property. they can only l"Olll bine with DP� or propositional <.'omplemem. such a. full intiniti e•. ( 165)
a.
b.
�truy wa..- see n tn town last week John wa. heard to smg a song
In the latter case. adding a 1"P layer IS nece.':sary m order to ensure rhat the lo' c1 event position ccm be identified-a direct perception readmg. however. Will be pa·e cluded.
; , [.,.... l.pt, sing a song J I l l ) ] John, was heard hpt," h· to� I A,tf' t,' lA,,.. I:
( 166)
L
Under this view. there is no re. bon to believe that to-passive �uch a.� ( 1 65b) arc derived from bare infinitives. finall,. recall our earlier daim lhat in the context of irrealis. the higher event argument loses its ability to al't a.� a controller. ln.tead. any event po�llion that is in the scope of the irre. l li. operator in the malfix clause will receive a default intetpre t;nion. This h)'pothcsis makes the imeresung prediction that matrix passivi ation should become n1ore acceptable tn an 1rrealis context. 11\ough there is currently not much data available to continn this prediction. oh�erve that the 1wo counter example:-. 10 the Con. mum against Pru. ive no1e.d by Dutlley ( 1 992: 46) borh uwolve a modal auxiliary: ( 1 67)
a. b.
The .;malle.l pm could be heard drop �ot only a pin. even a dead mosquito. might have been heard drop •
Summan. ing. l have argued that being inherently indivtdual-level. pa. s1ve VPs do not provide an event position. Given this a. sumplion. the unavailability of matrix passi\'es L"<m be aunbuted to lhe fact that an appropriate controller IS m1s. ing from rhe matrix clause--a . ituation sinular to the one that underlie Vi. . e(� Gencrah . auon (compare e.g. Lru·.on 1 99 1 : 1 16). In shon. the Con. tramt again.t Passive
190
d audaa fe l s e a·
follow. directly trom the Event Control H. pothe, is and from fanuhar a. sumptions about the propenie. ol -en participles. "llle proposed analy. is explolls the existing mvemory of syntactic objects and relations. and correctly predtcts thai the Con suauu against Pa. sive should hold lor progre.;;. ive and non-progre we complement clauses alike. A far as I can see. il suffen-: from none of the drawbacks ru. ociated wllh Higginbotham· . QR account. Krach e1 nl.'s 0-theoretie account. Pollock·s ( 1994) explanauon in terms of ca. e theory. or Benni. and Hoek. tra · . ( 1 989) T-Linking approach. • .
4.5 Extensions of the Analysis
As shown by Krat1.er { 1 989). event arguments not only contnbute 10 imerpretation and account for cenain type.� of .emanuc ambiguity. but their pre. ence vetsu. absence also has observable :-.yntactic etfects. The evenl l'Ontrol analysis argues that the Kratzerian evem argument ce.emble. the nominal arguments of the erb in that 11 is able to pattictpate in symacuc relations. In the followmg. I sugge. t some po. sa ble extension. of the propol-ed analy. is. arguing thai event control may al.o be mvolvcd in constr11c11ons involving verbs of temporal aspect. adJUnct predtcale. . and purpo.e dau.e. . 4.5.1 Comp/('mem oj A''JU:ctual Verbs A
number of verbs dubbed verbs of temporal aspect (VTA. ) by Emond. ( 1 976) such a. bej!ilf. comimu·. start and stop pattern with perception verb. in that they also admit paa1icipial -i11g complements. ( 168)
a.
h.
c.
d.
Sue continued filling in the form Chri� began preparmg dinner H staned mming There . copped being a commotion
It is commonly a.;;sumed that the VTAs m ( 168) function as rai. mg predicate. that take a non-finite clau. al complement {compare Newmeyer 1 975: 8). ( 169)
a. b. c. d.
S/w, continued I xP t,
WJ iting I p1epanng dinner J It, stopped lxr 1, raimng ] Thue, started L"
He, beg•m lxP t,
The fact that the complement clauses may have an explettve subject indicates that they cannot sunply be bare VVs. but must comam at least one funcuonal layer above
t he e ve n t - �o n t r·oJ a n a l sb
191
the verb phrase whose specifier serves a. the base po. nion for non-themauc there. Funher evtdence for the presence of a functional project ion above VP 1s provtded by the followmg data. whtch show thai there mu. 1 be least two functional head. available in the complement clause capable of licen.ing manner adverbials (cf. ( 1 70)). and Ihat short verb movement is pos ible wnlun the complement (cf. ( 1 7 1 )). ( 170)
a. h.
Bill began �lowJ.v rectttng hi lines poorly �tary . tarteJ <:onfidnulv playing the tolin bumti(ully
(171)
a. b. c.
the reference up Bel!y kept tltrowin� the bicycle ow The crew continued llandint.: the p�scngen. their pa.sporu back M ikey .tarted lookinf(
Ob.�erve that YTAs combine naturally with . tage-level prcdu:ates only. which sugge. ts that a� with pat1icipial PVC:-.. the -ing atlix mark. progre:-.sive a. pecr. lndt vidual-level predicate!\ arc normally ruled out ( 172)
a. ,. �tary began/started/. topped bemg tall b. *John cominuedlkept knowing the answet
At the . ame time. there is no evidence for the presence of a temporal projecrion Ill the complement dau.e. and sentences like tho. e in t 168) evidemly ohsetve the Sunultaneit, Condiuon. ( 173)
a. b.
�tary . tarted/stoppedkontmued/ . . . working ,. �Jary started/stopped.lcontmucdl . . . having worked
On the basi. of these observation:-.. l propo. e that the complement clau�cs in ex ample.� hke ( 1 68) are . yntactically analogous to partscipial perception complcmenu (PPVCs). and that VTAs that permit -in� complement:-. are able to acl a.� event con trol predkale�. a p10perty which enabl� them to combine widt ten.eles. verbal complement clause. . ( 174)
Maryl L\fJlP £. [.,,.,. A''/> I ,p started . . . (A>ff' £, L\,, ibp (, ,. �� workmg J l l J I J
L
VTAs (m their event control usc) differ from perception verbs m that they are
one·place ptedicates that semamically select fot (+progre:-.. �ive j complement clauses only. Since the VTI\s in ( 16&) focu� on a single . 1age of the event dccribed by thesr complement. tlte)' cannot be construed wilh bare infinitives. which were argued above to srgnaJ perfectivity. i.e. to view the event in its em,irety..s.s A. raising predi cates. V'l/\s are unable to as. ign case 10 the embedded subject. forcing it to raise ovenly to become the structural subject of the matrix clause.
d audJa fe l se t·
192
Notice that VTA. t, pically admit full Jlltlnative.s ru well. /\s noted by freed ( 1979). fully mnnicival complements ditfer semantically from -ing complement. m that the, have what she calls a ·generic· reading. and exhibit a greater degree of temporal mdependence from the tnatrix clau�e than the latter. Specitkally. rreed claims that lsln nil cases. the \f-inK from su�csts u single eYent that is in prog.rcss for ss smtiutc-<.1) at the t ime that be�:in \·tart. co111m1w. or rease oper.�te. The ro V form refers instead to a series of C\'cnts stretching mto the past or future dependmg on the prcsuppo..,.stlulb and conscqucncc:s of the aspcctuah1.cr opcruting on it. (op. cit.. 1 52f.l .
.
For illustrauon., compare the following p
a. Lacey ceased crymg when she heard her parenL\ come in the door b. ?Lacey cea. ed to cs, when . he lheard her parents come in the door
( 176)
a. That r�eve1 ce.a. e,., to an1aze me b. ?Thal never ce.a. e,.; amazmg me
'l11e . emanttc difference between the (a) and {b) . emence. appears co mirror roughI the difference between direct perception complements on the one hand. and fully inthuttval complements signatlmg indirect perception on the other. Given that fully inlinitival complement: of VT!\s appear lO define a temporal domain of thetr own. I suggesl that they are TP. . 4.5 .2 Adjtmct-l'redicate Con. ll'ttctians
Rapopon ( 1 99 1 ) cxtmlmes the licensing conditions for adjunct-predicate con:.truc tions of the kind exemplified by ( 177). where the adjunct phra�e i, a specJik type of secondary predicate that modi fie.-. a �ubject or object DP. ( 177)
a. b.
�oa ate the meat raw �oa wrote the an. we� drunk
Rapoport top. dt.. 164) analy, es predicate adjunct of thi. type a: V' or VP adJunct:.. depending on whether they modify the subject as in ( 177a). or the object. as in ( 1 77b). /\ccordmg lO her. adjuncl predk.ate. differ from argument . mall clau:.es in that lhey are not :.elected (t.e.. 0-marked) by lhe verb. and thu. have to be Jicen. ed m some other way. She notes that the mtcrpretmion of adjunct predtcate.-. mvolve.-. reference to the action or event denoted by the VP. with ( 177a). for exam ple. implying that when Noa ate the mem. it \WS raw (tbid. ). From our pornl of view. the most interesting restrictton on adjunct-predtcate construcuons JS lhe tact that both the verb and the adjunct predicate must have
t he e ve n t-�o11t a·o I ana I sb
193
stage-level propeni� . The former property prevent"> expres. ion. that have an mdt vidual-level reading only from. erving as a predicate adJunct such as adjectives like inrelliJ:elll in l I 78). 01 OPs as tn ( 1 79). ( 17X)
a. Roni bought [the dog !, stck, b. -tRom bought I the dog!, mtelhgent,
( 179)
a. ,.. �oa ate [ the me.alj, (a b1g piecej, b. ,.. Liat read lthe book!, (a best-. elled
'll1e following example. show that the tage-level re�tnction holds for the matl'ix predicate too. as only stage-level verb phra.�e. seem to be able to licen. e an adjunct predicate. ( 180)
a. �oa cook. ch1ckens, young, b. ,.. �oa owns ch1cken. , young,
(181)
a. �oa, wrote the answers drunk, b. *�oa, knew the an. wers drunk,
Assuming a general licen. mg principle to theetfect that "every phrase 111 a clau. e mu:-.t be licensed Lhrough a relation bet ween its 9-. tructure and the 0-structurc of .. the head of the clau..'\e (op. ctt.. 1 70). Rapoport concludes that adjunct predicate, are licensed by the event argument of the matrix pred1cate. Assuming that event arguments are repre:-.ented at the lexico-sernantic level of f:."11ent S1rucwre {see van Voorst 1 988). she propo...;e. that the event place of the adjuncl predicate is linked (at thi. Ieven to the event place pro ided by the matnx verb. Thi. mecha nism. in turn. allows the adjunct-predicale to be temporally anchored. i.e. to be "linked in lime to the event d�cribed by the verb"{ }{apoport 199 1 : 175). Thts. then. accounts for the event-related interpretation of adjunct predtcate, . Let u. now consider Rapoport's ob.!ervations in the light ofthe event cntrol anal ysi. discus. ed abo\'e. }{ecall that dtrect perception conslr ucuons are also subject to a bt-unique stage-level re�triction. I therefore suggest that the linking relation that Rapoport assumes for predicate-adJUllcl con. tructions is nothing other than event control. a:- indicated in ( 182) below. ( 1 82)
Noa t:, ate the meat [£-PRO, raw!
If adjunct predicate:-. arc clau. at con.truction. . then we must assume (contra Rapoport) that they contain a null p1ononun''' subJeer a� well. which in principle can be controlled either b)' the subJect or object. ''s indtcated m ( I X3). ( 183)
a. b.
He left I the roomlt. l:w PRO, sober· ) He lefl lthe room I Ix�> P}{Oll clean I
d audsa fe l se t·
194
To the extent that tht. anaJyss. ts c01·recl. it shows that event control and other types of control may occur . unuhaneousl,. )louce that like othet controllers. an event argument seem. to be able to control only one £ argument at a time. a re. tric tion that applie..c; to obligatory control relauonshtps in general. and which rule.! out example:-.such as( 1 84c)-who�e ill-fonnedine.s. ts othetws.e uncxpected. ru the two lower £ position. are not m a c-command relatton. ( 1 84)
a. Bill c.·, watched I the train c� arnve ) b. Billk £, watched the tram'. arrival [ Ej PROL drunk I c. '+'Billk t:, watched I the train £, arrive I I £, PROL drunk J
Observe. however. that predicate adjuncts arc po. stble when they appem embed ded withm a PVC. as m ( 1 85). Ssnce the £ position provtded by the l•VC predicate. which t. itself controlled by the matrix evetlit atgUJnent. c-command:- the E po. it ion of the predtcate adjunct. it should also be able to act as a controller for il. ·n1e two 1� . eparate control relaflons which are rhus established are tndicated tn ( 1 85b): ( 1 85)
a. b.
Bill saw oa eat the meat mw Bill E1 saw [ Noa £1 eat the meat •
--' L
I E'1 raw ) ) • J
Suppo. e that predicate adJuncts. like manner adverbs. are licensed either by an -:urnption that Ihe relauonsl up between <eJ>ectual hc;ld or by \'. Given our a� advcrbtal. and adverb-licensing head� t. one-to-one. we expecl that predtcatc adJuncts are excluded from clauses whtch already cont
a. b.
't'Bill slowly recited his line. poorly drunk >t oa quickl)' cooked rhe chicken. thoroughly young
In �um. 1 conclude that Rapopon·. notion of ·e-place licen. ing · 1. very sinular (if no1 tdentical) to the notion of evem control mtroduced above. It appears that adJunct predicates arc licensed only in a conligurallon that pemut� their event place to be conuolled by the evem argument in (S!>Cc./\. pP) of the higher <.'lause.'<> 4 .5 .J l'urpu.)e Clauses
Jaeggli ( 19H6). Roeper ( 1 987) and Baker et a/. ( 1 989) have argued tJ1at re. ult or . purpo.c clauses of the kind shown tn ( 1 87 ) mvolve control by the ·implicit agem argument of the matnx verb. '7 ( 187)
a.
The books were . old-1\g, I PRO. to make money J (cf. 71lt'.\' sold the book 10 mttkt: money)
t he e ve n t-�o n t a· o t ana lysi. h. c.
195
The ship was sunk-Ag, ( PRO, 'to prove a point I (cf. 11U' admirlll .wttk rlu· ship w pra\•e tt point) The door wm. opened-Ag, I an order PRO, to let air m I (d. Somt•OJte opened rile door 10 Jd ait in)
However. the unplictt argument hypothesis ha.'> also receaved much cnucism (see e.g. Williams 1985. La. nik I 988. or Grinl.�haw I 990). and many counter-example! that have been cttcd Ill the lilcrature cast doubt on lhc anal� sis indicated in ( I �7). II it t. correct that the null subject in the above examples is controlled by an implicit agent. then it come. as a l>Urpr ise that preca. ely thn.l\e purpose dause� that are un equavocally agem-onented are often ruled out (examples from La. nik ( I 988: 12) and Grimshaw ( 1 Y90: 1 3 ] )). t 188)
a. John sank the ship PRO, lo become a hero b. 'tThe ship wa. sunk PRO to become a hero
( 189)
a. John, sank the ship in order PRO, to be promoted b. 't"'J'he ship wa. sunk m order VRO to he promoted
( 190)
a. Ylary, . ludied hnguisuc. in order Pi-tO, to become rich b. "'LingUistic,'> should neve1 be studied m order PRO to become rich
( I9 I )
a. Cae. ar, invaded Uaul PRO, to become more powerful b. ,.. Gaul was uwaded by Caesar, Pi-tO, to become more powetl ul
Example ( l'Jib) show. even when the agent i. realised o ertly (in form of a b\'-adJunct). it may be unable to funcuon a."' controller of PRO. The .olution otfc1ed by Wilham. t I 974. I 985) and La. nik t 1988) IS that PRO Ill example� like ( I �na-c) 1. in fact controlled by the entire e cnt d�cribed by the matnx dau. e. a relation tenned S-comml by Williams. Under thi. view. the (b) examples m ( I 88)-( 19 1 ) are JU!ed out because the predicates or the purpose clause. uwolved are such that they cannot be predicated of an event. bm instead require a nonunal subject (compare Unm. 'haw I 990: 1 3 I ).4" The phenomenon of $-control. then. might ultimately be reanaly�able as (non-obligator)') evem control m the �ense descnbed in 4.2 above. In sum. the e"idence cued above sugge. l. that control by or of evem arguments IS not re. tricted to perceptual reporL,. bul can in fact be found in a arie1y ol constructtons.
4.6 Summary The aim of this dt�tptct ha. been to demonstrate that the event control analysis ol-
196
d audaa fe l se a·
fers a umtied accounr for the syntax of direct perceplton con. trucuon:-.. I have . hown that the maan characten:-.tic propcrtie� of perceptton verb complement follow from the hyp01he. i. that perception verbs funclton as l'Oillrol predicme. . and from ande pendently motavated princaples of grammar. Specifically. I suggested that the !age level predicate of dia·ect perceptton complement' licens� an exira argument that is a..'\.ociated wuh the spauo-temporal location of the event This evenl argumem is 9-mar ked compositionally hy the entire A),p-vP complex. and :-.emamically , erve,'\ to dose off the predicate. thereh� enabling 1\spP to function :1! an argument r have argued that . yntactically. the event argument i. like pro Ot PRO and a:-. such is ahle to participate in s�rntactic relattons. II is formally mtroduced by the tunctional head Aspect. and t. identified through the relationslup that it bears to Tense. In general. stage-level complement dau.e. are licensed tn one of two way:-.: (i) by projecting a 1en. e layer of their own. or (ii) through evem ('onuol. In direct perceplton con . trucuons. the lower evem argument a. not ibelf in a local relalionshtp to Ten.e and must therefore be adenutied via control by the event argument of the main clause. Adopting the comparatively simple mechanism of evem control. understood to be analogous to anaphoric control of PRO. the ;mal, :-.i. outlined above is ahle to attrib ute a number of seemingly unrelated phenomena as.ociated with direct perception complement:-. to a umque source. 'lbgether wuh the syntacuc analysi. of PVC. provided in Chapter 3. analysing perceptual reports ascomrol l>UUctures enables us to accoum for syntactic characteJ aslics.uch a. the absence ot finitene:-.�. mMker. . temporal simultaneity. and the pro hibllton agamst main clause pru,iv1.ation. Yloreover. the �. umpt1on that perception verbs . emanttcally selec t . tage-level predicate:-.. i.e. complemenL' which. tf headed by a verb. are . ensllive to the progre..,. ive/non-progres. ive di�tinclton and who:;;e canon1cal structural realisation is A:o.pP. allows us to capture the s, ntax of percep tual repons without making any appeal to c-sel�tion. The analy. is put forward here 1. therefore cottslstent wllh propo. als that argue in favour ot ehminattng the mecha ni. m of c-sclection from grammar entirely. Instead. the category of clau. at comple ments is deter mined by lexical propenie· of the. c verb. (such as their s-selectional requirements. and their ability to function as control verbs) in conjuncllon with orhe1 principles of grammar such as Kratzer's Principle of Argument Lmkmg. the SLP Ylapping Principle. and general :-.tructural economy requirement. Whether or not event control {and hence. a duect perception imerpt•etation) is pos. 1ble depends on (i) wherher rhe matnx verb ha� stage-level properties or not. and {il) whether the complement ts independently :-.pecitied for Ten e or not. In SecltOtl 4.5. I explored the possibility of extending the propaied analysa:- to other conslructiom•. It wa. . ugge. led Uml aspectual verb. •uch as begin or kr<'P might also act as event conlrol predicate. . and that event control might be involved tn the licensing of adJUnct predicates and l'e rtain types of purpo. e dause.
197
t he even t-�on u·o I ana lysi. �otes
I . W11liams C 198 I ) and Hi&�tnbottmm ( 19,5) have suggcstc.d tlnll nouns also have an
a<.kht10nal position m their9-grids. wh1ch IS usually catted R m order to distmgUJsh it from the event aJ"�umcnt of vcrh.o;.
2. H1g�inbothnm l l985. 1 989) suggests that both the PrO.JC(:tJOn Pnnc1plc und the 0-Cntenon should be reformulated so IL" to allow for dt(fcrent modes of 0-role dischur<6cment. to the ctrct:t that certatn 0-role� ma)' be assi�ncd. at LF rather than ut the potnt
of merger ( ec also . peas 1990). J. Sec Kayne t 1994: 1 1 7- 126) for a possible uhematJvc to the lradtuonal ·rightward ndjunct10n' nnalysis of exlraposc.d relative dnuscs. 4. I deliberately leave the categonal status of XP m ( I I } open. It x head
IS
(:oncCJ\'ablc that the
should host the ·tight verb' bt>. wht h then tncorporatcs the udjct·tive. Contrary to. towel) ( 1991 ).1 follow Kayne ( 1 994) in a."suming that spcctfiers ncce: sarily
prcn-.de their heuds. To uct:ounl for the word order m ( 10). we must therefore m>sumc thm (.t) .hJim rmsc� to (Spt:c.TP), where 11 is nsstgncd nonnnative t·nsc. nnd ( Ji) thnt dever must aiM> mtsc to some head above A. Alternatively. the mfimt1ve dause nnghl rail-c to subJeCt position. which yields (tt (.t)
[PRO to stgn the contrartl wa." de\'er tof John)
In this case. .lalm must be asst&ned CIL<\C ll)' :t prcposttwn.
5. That the Kratzcrian event ar�umcnt on�matcs m the spec:tlier of
,m llS
pcctual head
ha." tndepcndcntly been suggested by Hcyl."ot·k t 199-t: 234). Chomsky's ( 1995> system
pro,•idcs us with the alternutivc posstbihty that null arguments arc tn fact lla.-.c-udjomcd to their licensing head (in th1s case. to Asp). rather than bcmg genemted in its spcc:1lier. As the choice between these two options is irrclcvnnt for our present purposes. I shall conttnue to <:ts sumc that the event argument is in CSpcc:.AspP). 6. Recall Chomsky· s ( 1995) suggestJOn that unaccusul!ves fat I to project ::t vP shell. !\cver thelcss. many un:u:cusutt\'es c::tn be used as stage-level prediculcl-. Within the analysts outlined above. th1s would mean that umtn:usauve prcdtcatcs may prujcct an AspP layer. but no vP shell.
7. Thi!- is stnular to Die�mg' s ( 1992a.b) proposal thai the subjet·t of an mdtvtdunl-level predtt"ate on�matcs m (Spec.lP). Contmry to what ts assumed here. however. -;he suggests that the ILP subJeCt t•ontrolo; a null pronommul tn cSpec. VP).
8. For cndence that the :.UbJel"t 0-role is not m fat·t purt of the ll!xlc:tl entry of \'erbs. see Marantz ( 1984). The view that extetnul argument addttlon 1s determined syntactically rathcrthan lextcnlly has prevtously been cxprc�sed lly Kmt:tcr ( 1993 ). Harley ( 1995 ). and Rumch:md ( 1996). 9. Stowell I I ? 9 1 ) proposes that the Krutt.enan cvcnt argument :.hould be identtlicd with the operator of cx1stcnti tl dusurc proposed h)· 1-lcim 1 1 982). wh1ch 11n:ording to Oicsing
( 1992n.bl. hu.o: seope over the verb phrnse (the nude:.r scope of a sentence). Spcclfkully. . Stowell ( 1991: 1 17) suggest. that . Heim 's opcrutor is like a normal quantifier in that 11 must origmatc tn :t G-posit1on al 0-structure. A� this opcr.ltor shows its fare wtth evcntJve
d aud1a fe I . et·
198
10.
I I.
12.
13. 14.
verb�. it 1s natural to suprosc that 1t origmntes in the Event (.sp:ttiotcmpornl) argument 0-position." Stowell's hypothesis is compatible wtth our proposal thnt the evenr argument 1s m�:rged mto the spcc1tier plmllon of Al'pP. but IS 3t odd!' w1th the traditional view that the event argument is a \':mahle that itself mu!>t be bound by an existential operator. Though a possible solution to this d1lemmu m1ght he in Rumchund' s l l9%) suggc.•aJOn that the David.sonutn event v:mablc and Kr<.ttzcr'.s spnuo-temporal argument nrc actually two d1stmct entitles. Stowell's proposal will not be further eluboratc-d here. Others have l-uggcstcd that it m1ght be some inflcctionol he.ulthat fun�o.·t1on as an ex1stentiul operator �emtmticully (Rothstein ( 1 983: 1 10). or Kratzer 1993). Harley f 1995) also postulates thut event nrgument.s arc introduced by u separate head lower than T but higher thnn V and A�JO �:.. 1•). wh1rh she labels Rw•nt. h uppcar.s that her EventP i� l�ifScly tdcnltcal to the cate�ury that ( have called AspP. save fur the fact thut according to Harley. agenl!veorcuus.uttve subjel·ts origmnte m lSped!ventP) rather than ms1de the verb phrase. II is of course pos..•:tble for :t stat1vc verb to combine w1th perfec:llve /un·«>. nn u.spectunl element whose properties d10.er from those of the l:progrcss1vc) nspectual head thut the: present dJscus..,mn focusses on. and whtch presumably hends a phrase of 1ts own. Ac cording to Homstctn t 1 990: I l l 0. the perfecttve auxiliary cuntnbutes to the temporal mterpretatton uf sentenn�.s m that the presence versus :tbsent·e of /raw· determines the Retchcnbnchtan relation between t•vrm tinw and re}rrrnce timr. The progrc:ssivc/non progres...;lvc dil-Unctton. by t·ontrnsl. is tndcpcndcnt of the Tense of u scntcnl·c. A welcome conscquem:c of thi� approach is thul 1t allows vP to retain Jls stalul> "-" a predicate even under the tnternal suhject hypothe.s1s. Accordmg to Rothstem ( 1983). predicates are open (or unl-aturutoo) constituents thut dre formally ·cJo�cd ot'f' by an externul a�ument. Unsaturated prcwcatc.' ure unable to function al> arguments. In our !>ystcm. stage-k\'el predtC:IIC have �� as their external l'IF8Umcnt. WhiCh IS senerated In tSpec.A�pP). whtle the e.xtcrnul nrgumcnt <Jf mdivHlual-lcvel pred1cates 1s generated in tSpcc.TP). lt follows thut AspP. where present is always a dosed (or saturated) �o.·onstitu ent. <�nd therefore able to function as ilJl argument tn syntax. A related su0gcstton has been made by Felscr and Rupp ( 1 997) m connectiOn with extstentiul !'entcnccs. Huung ( 1984. 1989) suggests th.tt the null pronominal c!ltegorics pro and PRO m1ght merely be two dtstnbutional vunnnts of the same empty category pm/PRO. nnd that they arc both subJcl·t to the (it>�wmlised Control Rttlr f 1). < i)
An empty pronommal 1s nmtrollcd in 1L' control domuin (if it has ond.
The notion of rmuro/ domnin. m tum.is dehnoo as follows: tii)
a
is the control dommn for P if it is the nummal l·ategury sallsfymg (a) and (b): u. 1s the lowest S or P contaming fJ or the mimmal max1mal category con t:nnmgp h. r.J. l·ontmns a suh,cc t acces..sihle t() p. f Huang 1989: 193)
a.
Given thut the PRO Tlrt>cJrem has been ,1bandonoo in mimmahsm. Huang's sugse...tion
t he even t-�orH r·o 1
ana
1 sb
199
that pm and PRO arc really one and the some appears intuitiVely attractive. One 1mpor· tant way m which Huan�'s propo.sal dl lfers from c.�. Manzmt's ( 1 983) is that m h1s -"Y-"tcm. control theory ts sull needed as a separate module from bmdm� theory. because othenv1sc the fact that controlled PRO is locally rcluted to Its antecedent would render it an nnaphor. not u pronominal. from u binding-theoretic perspective (.compare Hunn� 1989: 205ff.l. Although formuhttmg nn .tdequate mmimahst theory of null pronommals would he f:n beyond the scope of this work. keepmg the numhcr of �rnmmatil-al mecha· msms to a mimmum by mtegrating control theory into the hndcpendently mottv:ttcd) theory of bindmg tManzmt 1983. Bouchard 1984. Koster 1984) seems to me to be a more promismg nppt'ouch. 15. II hns often been argued that Tcn.;c. whtt:h ts trndtttonally trcatcd ns u sentential operator in formal .\emanucs. 1s actually a referential category {Partee 1973. 1984: En� t9S6n.b. 1987. 1996). A·cording to Giorgi and Pianest ( 1 991: 1 89t. tenses "denote {classes oO relationships hetween the three Rckhenbachmn temporal puints. E. R. 1md S". Though prondmg a comprchenstve m:count of the synt<JX of Tense is beyond the scope of th1s work tfor a cntu:nl evuluatwn of some recent proposals. see Og.thara 1992). I �hall u..;sumc that Tense IS mdeed rcfcrentiul m some sense. und there fore mu.\t benr un index {.see al so Sect. 4.3.3). 16. A rcluted suggestion hu..; been made hy Cnmpbcl l t l 991 : t 620. who claims that verbs take n temporal argument wh1ch IS hkc pro 1f 1t IS governed lly Ten:-c. a..; m: (i)
John j PASTJ'Iw· Wo' ldtl
Por Campbell. Tense constJtutc:s a type of agreement. Th1:> view is supported by a re mart of En<; t 1996: 357 n. 1 1 ). who .su�gests that the ident1licution of E (her 'temporal' argument) 1s analogou.\ to the agreement rdat1on that holds between :.ub]«!Ct and verb. I n a frnmework like Chomsk)·' s ( 1995) that pem1its mult1plc specifiers. ra1smg of L� to fSpec.Tf') due...; not conOict wtth the as.sumpt1on tlmt some speedier ofT hosts the nonu nnl .subject. Alternatively. we may thmk o f the identification of £-pro as involvtng co vert adjunction of the null pronomina1 toT. 17. The tem1 e\'l'Jit comml 1s used tn n .somewhat different .sense by Bayer f 1986) . md .. 111 yet another sense by Grimshaw (1990). llt The rcnson why some speakers feel that the jorcr-construction is 11 hit awkward with non-agcnllve percc(ltlon verbs such as Sc'l' IS that verbs takmg expcricncer :-ubJccts tend to be somewhat unnaturnl 1f emhcdded underforce. c f.
f i ) rrhcy forced him to fear that he would f:ul his exam:. The fnt·t thut verbs hkc see. lwnr. and J-;.l'l have an c�pencncer subject also accounts for the ir general tncomputibility with agent-onentated adverbs such usdt'libt•mtelv or inten· tionnllv.
19. An excepuonal control verb 1s the verb nsk. ll.S it can be construed e1ther as a subtect or obJe<:t control prcdil·ate: 1 i)
Blll, .Jskcd Ithe teacher)l PRO," to go
A .\tandurd counterexample to the syntactic btndm� approach 1s the ditransitive verb
200
d audaa fe l se a·
promtse. winch induces subject control and whtch l·ontrasts wtth per.wade>. a dttran.'-ltiVe
obJect control \'Crb. Obs�rvc that the exampl�s below posed coindcxmg:
are
ungrumm:lltcnl under the nn·
( i ) •John promised Mary, ( PRO, to wash the car) (ii) •Susan, persuaded him fPR01 to le�we)
20. 21.
22. 23. 24.
Lu.n;on f 1 99 1 ). however. argues convincin!-:IY thut the verb promise only constitute!\ an apparent ex cpuon to the Mmimal Distcmt'f' Prindplt>. Both of these are discussed at some length by Bresnan { 1 982: 353-. 74). But sec Roeper ( I 987) for a dilferent v1ew. The r<X.)Utremcnt that co:ntrollcd PRO must have an antecedent docs not. however. rule out the poss1b1hty that the controller itself is a null ar(!_umcnl. as in pnHimp lunguuges (see Rizzi 1986). The 4tbsolute scope of :m element can be 1denutied w1th tts c-<:omnmnd dommn (May 19!\5: 5). Sec G1or<0t and Pianes1 l l 997: 17-22). or the refen:n cs ctted m the text. for further dctuil:; and relevant c.xampJc.;. Chom�ky ( J 986u: 6 t lf.) notes that sentences hkc (1) below (which he: cunsidcrs a cpt uble) indu:ate that the anti-c-command rcquncmcnt on par.tsittc �Zlps might actually be too strong: ( i)
Who did you te.JI l' that you would \'!sit t'
Offenng an analysis quite d1lfen:nt from Safir's. Chomsky ( 1982. J986al argues thut pora�itll' saps arc liccnst.-d by on empty operator in lSpcc.CP). His analysis 1s. however. not tr msferablc to PVC cunstruct1ons either. ns these Jack the C-systcm altogether and hcm·e cannot pro'·1de un nppropnate opemtor position. 25. Note that due to the fact that particip111l perception complements are potentmlly arnbtgu· ous between DPs ami clauses (l·ompare Sect. 2.6). examples such as (68a-d will usually be line 1f the bare inlinittve is replaced hy the -in,t: form. 26. By contrast. inlinittves thnt mvol\'e arbttrury PRO are somct1mes hne tn clefts:
t i)
ft was I m order PRO to determine the l'ause of hil' 11lness I that the pauent was cxnmmcd
�7. Related proposals rcgardms the rdattun.;hip between Tense (or lnfll nnd the verb have been developed independently by Fab b l ) 98-l). Giorgi and Pianesi (1991). Zagonu t 1988. t 992}. JanSen ( 1993 ). Koopman ( 1 994) and others. Due t<.> hmitat1ons of sp:tce. however. [ shall restrict the di.sc:usswn to Bennis nnd Hocksu:i s model here. as theus is the only one that has cxphcitly been applied to pen:eptual reports. 28. ln the case of the lower verb bcmg stat1vc. the sttuuuon 1s different. and a SlM readmg become · possible. As the dtffcrenccs hetwcen Mattve and evcntive verbs m Stowell's model are not rcle\ mtto the present discuss1on. I wtll not present his account of embed ded stltives here. 29. On mfinit1vnl to as o modal. see ul.;o R1gtcr ( l9l\5). As the hotcc of modal depends on the matrix Tense and on the l\cntunucs of the hi�ber verb. we may ussume that the mter pretatton of mtimt1val to IS also detcrrmned by ontextuul mformatton. Thts hypothesiS
201 app�:ar' to he conlimtcd by the followmg examples. m whu.:h the mlimtival dam.es refer to ..Ln ·undef"!,tocxl' future and an ·understood' past. r<:sp<:ellvely ( from Stowell l9N2: 566): (1• (II•
I expect John to wm the: r.Jt"c J remember John to be the smartest
30. A few posstble exl·epttom to ttus ha\c hcen pomted out to me by A. R.�dford. But note that on�c a�am. JUd�cmcnb nught be inllucn cd by the trre.ths
onlc�t set up by the
matnx dau,c: (i) liil
Have you ever !'een egg> poach better that thts '?
You rarely sec bureaucrats bnbc L" eustly these d.1ys
3 1 . Sec Brcivtk ( 198 I ) for arguments agmnst analysing expletive tht•rt• a.� a locattvc adverb. II ts trndtltonully :.·sutncd that the expletl\'e serve!- it!- u placeholder for the themotu: .;ubJet:t. .although the prectse nature of the rclullonshtp between the explettvc and tls ussot:t.lte is .;ttiJ undcar. For some dtst:ussion of e�i<.tcnttal sentences from a nununahst pc�pel·ttve. sec. for example. Lnsmk (1992. 1995l. Chomsky ( 1 995: ISSf.. 27:\tf.). Gront ( 19951. Jang ( 1997). or Felc;cr :and Rupp ( 1997). 32. Note that the account prov1dcd below dtvc"'&cs m some Important respects from earlaer 'u!:gcstions made tn Fclser ( 1995. 1998).
33. Note thJt this anulysas of prcsent:ttional structures rcqutres ;:an addtttonul . \Umptton about the way tn whtdt the c:l!-e fc:Jture of the thematic subjet:l DP 1s chct:kctl Perhaps \'crbs whil-h Jrc ..:.:apable of functioning as ·pre,cntattonJI' prcdti.'Jtes hccn.\c n spccml type o( case. ns su��cstcd by Bcllettt ( 198S) for umtn·u:.atl\el> ('cc nlso l..Jsmk 1992.
1 995 ). �4. Note that under :t mmtmahst ·copymg and delet10n ' .1pproach to mo\cmcnt. ret:onstroc tton of the type t11Ul>trntcd an ( 12.\l nbovc C3n b�: thou�ht ol a.' i"' oh tng dcletton of the hcnd of the ch.un rather than of tts foot. as an t 12n - t<.:OIIIfY.lrC Homstetn 1995: Ch. 9).
J5. But sec Ch. 2. note 6 1 .
36. B.trwt:-.e ( 198 l ) dmms that the entity whtt:h i:. percei,·cd tn a sentence ltkc (t) as actually a .H't'flt• (t.c. u vtsually pert:eivcd situation} whtt:h ·supports the truth' oft/). 1 il
Marlowe snw Slmkr.v1nm.> dnncl!
Vlach ( 1 9S3:
I� I lL).
who argues :1guin:.t Bmwt:-.e'" approut:h to perceptual reports.
as:.ert:. thnt fJVCs do not denote ·scenes'. hut o;amply l'Onstttutc (bare) C\'cnts. whtt:h he cuncctvc:. of as cntlttcs that nrc located in space and ttmc. like physical object:. denoted by a direct obJeCt DP ('ce also l·hgginbotham 19�3. Bayer 19�6). It is thts latter view th:tt ha.' been ll!>sumcd throughout the pre,cnt :.tudy. For an altcrnattve account of the �cmantu:' of direct pen:cptton �cntent:c:. tn terms ol Gcner.:altscd Qu.mttlier logtc. see van dcr Doe' I 1 99 1 •·
n : . Not1ce that we c:tn rule out the narrow s1.:opc rc:Klm,; e,·cn tf we adopt the trJdJttonnl \"ICW
ol QR. on the c;round:. that tcnselcs� l"Omplc mcnl dau,cs f.ttl to provtdc an
prtatc .ldJunctton stle for QPs. The only U\'atlahlc clau,c-tntemal lrtll- proJ<:Ction t:> A.'pP. but adJunt:tton to A.,pp ts precluded by �by s ( 19H5) and Chomsky's t i9N6a: 6) prohtbi-
202
c:l audsa fel.set·
lion ngainst adjunction to arguments. As a conscquem·c, QP .subjects of smull dauses must raise und ..tdjoin to the mutrix TP. whtch ulso yields the observed wtde scope mtcr· prctauon (compare also Suzukt 1991). 38. Kayne ( I 984: :\4) daims that a nnrrow scope reudmg lor 11omu 111 (i) 1s at least mllr<0in ully p
I
suw noone step forward
To the extent that a narrow sl·ope re:tdmg is posstb1e. we may assume thnt it results from the possibtlity of IIOOIIt> Slt'pfonmrd being mterpreted a-. an 'antonymtc predicate· 111 Htg.gmboth:un' s ( 1983) sense (compare the dtscus.ston of ncgltlton m . el·t. 4.4.6.3 be low). 39. AnothcrcxplnnntJOnof the Conslrmnl against Passive hru. been offered b)• K ayne ( 1984). He attributes the rcstw:tton on PVC matnx passtve" to the fact that they \•iolntc hts ·.SubJeCt rsland Conditton' (ibid.. 33). according to whtch anuphoric tral·cs must becnsc muiced ami bound wtthtn the same nummnl CP. .Smce Kuyne'.!\ proposal depends tru· dally on the assumption that PVCs huve the structure of full dauses. hts cxplanauon of the proh1bitton nguinst passtves must be rejected along wtth the CP analysis of PVCs. 40. The vunuble x here st.aoos for the event posttton prondcd by dam·t•. us ongmally pro· posed by Dav1dson ( 19b7). To avoid confus1on w1th the nouon of event argument employed 111 the present ilnalys1s. I huve used Htg�inbotham's ongmal not..thon. 4 1 . Higsmbotham ( 1983: 104) dtstinguishes three types of unsupported clause: (n) adjum·ts (whtch I shall tgnure here). (b) 'true' dauscs such as the complements uf verbs hke nmsider. and (d Bl dauscs. 42. Note that Hrgg.tnbo4hmn's an·ount also f:ulstocxplam why matnx passtvisattun 1 possi ble m Southern Romance lmguages such us ltalmn or Spanish (a point also made by Kroch t>t a!. 19 7: 274f.). I wtll return to tins issue m Ch. 5. 43. An·ording to Ritter and Rosen ( 1993: 520. 525). auxiliary hal'e as a J-cmantically impovenshcd ·functor predicate' that fonns ,m extended e\'eot w1th its complement. ( i)
Mary has1 IPulP t4 [ vP lci\John lJ
•J
Oext
lj Oint
ln a contiguratwn like ( t). have and lnwr together assign two thematic roles agen t and l heme to Its arguments. That haa-·r is able to supply the ·missing· subjcxt 0-rolc has also been suggested by Gueron and Hoekstra f I98,: 49) and JanBen t 1993: 2 1 9). Under this \'lew. we may assume that there ts only one past parttclple. wh1ch by iL-.elf license.-. an internal argument only. but whose argument structure can lx: ,m�mcntcd in different ways dependmg on the auxtliary or aux11iunes tt combmes w1th. 44. Thts may be us begmnmg (Start. be�:in) or 1ts endpoint (SWfl). or u J-tage in �tween. 45. An analoguu!- example involving ·ordinary 1..7ontrol of PRO is the one in (tl: { i l John, tried (PRO, to dec1dc l whnt PRO, to doll) 46.
A related tdca ha..; been sugscsKxl by Bu)'er ( 1986). who ttlso uses the term ·event control ' . He prop<>.,.es that a semantic feature {+c\• ). wh1ch is a..;socmtcd with non-stattve
the event-�onta·ol ana l ysb
203
\'crh\. 1s able to mdarcctly control the empty PRO �UbJCCt of wlut he Htkes to be ·ad jecti \'al �mall daw.es'. The following example from German 1 c1ted b� B.tyer 19�6: 31 l
ma�ht sen·e to 11lustr.Jtc has poml: ( 1)
<'i/
H
du Kd/ner I vr Jie Srtppr' l
b<:causc: the w�ner
the soup
fc}me// ) 1 ,.1 .,,11 brtrdttc·l l brou�ht
qual·k
· . . . hec::JUse the waller brought the soup qukkly
In th1s w�y. Bayer a�uc�. �entem:e!> lake h) that c:ont.nn an adjectival tor adverb1al. �
the two are formally identu:al) mod1tier of the entire C\'Cnt can he .malysed on a par with other types of adJeCttVul udJuncL' such a� ln-ml. hi)
Wt'il der Kt•JJ,�·r ldtt'
SupfH')1 [PR01 kaltl bmchtt•
'b<:cause the waater brought the �{)up �:old'
I iii>
wt•il ldt•r Kt•llna), dit• Suppt' LPRO, na£ktl bmclltc• ·tx:c.mse the waiter brought the �oup naked'
Wtule 11 1� unde.tr to me whether the adjccta\'cJ.adverh sclm£'11 m ( I ) really has the status of a controlled �mall clause tor whether 11 i� not merely
Sl'IJUmtiml"·
mtcrprcted a�
predi ated ol an e\'enL in H1ggmhotham' s 1985. I <)g1 hen�el. 11 1' actually example� lake tai) am.l fui) that appear to provide support for our analy,ls ol prcdu:atc adJum:ts �;ketc:hed ahove. Note that a.' With Rapoport's ex.unplcs. the adJunct prcdacate must have ,t.tgc-level
propentc�:
liV) +,,d/
!dt•r Kellnu), die Suppe [PR01 inti"Jii�t>lll} IJrttchtt'
'because the wattcr brought the soup mtclh�cnt l\') •,u•il du Kellnu ldie Suppr], [PRO, lc!ckerl brm htt• 'bec.Juse the waller b rought the soup t.al>l)
'
That IS. adJum·t prcth catc.s hkc those m (il} and {Ill) arc .1dnm�a ble only 1f they thcm ,cJve' provide an event p�1t10n. whtc:h IS nvm lable fon.:ontrol by ..1 �:-commandtnf, event
47.
argument.
It 1� as�umcd that ms tcud of bcmg absent or -.uppre�scd. the �UhJcCt 0-rolc m pa.,stve
'lructurcs 1.s us-.1gncd to the (llL'\Stve mo'llhcme -t•n. anti that the suhjecl rcmmn� able to parttn p.1te m S)' nt acuc relations ns an mtphctt nrgumcnt.
48. Purpose dau�s oc as10nully occur wuh stnllve matrix clau,cs too. 1.c. in environments thut provide netthcr an agent nor :m event mgumcnt. ns m
(I•
The doors .1re red PRO to make them attr.ll'tt'f·c to tlrst grader.; (Grumhaw J94)0: 132)
(iil
Gras� •� Freen PRO to promote photo.') ntltc�l� (\V1IIiam� 1974. ntcd by 'A•'tlh:ml� 19M5: HOl .
I 'uggcst th.n 1r1 the :.�bscnce of any suttablc controller. PRO \Imply rcccl\'es an .arbttrnry mterpretaL1on.
5 Direct Perception Contplentents in Other European Languages
5.1 Introduction A� we saw in the prccedmg chapters. the direct per�eption of an event or actron in English cmt be expre.sed through rhe use ol eather an inltnilivai ( I PVC) or a palll cipial complement (PPVC). (I)
a.
We �aw him draw a circle
b.
We �aw him drawmg a circle
Perception verb!-. are the only verb� Ill the Englbh language lhm permit the)',e two l)'pe� of non-finite dau!-.al �omplement to alternate I reel
•.
In Chapter 2. it wa.o; ar
gued e that ( I b) i)', the pt ogre��ive counterpart of ( I a). Accordmg to the anai)·Si� ad\ anced in Chapter 3. Engh. h PVCs are projection:-. ol an a�pectual head located lower than T but higher than V (or \'). Chapter -t intro duced the idea that lhe abtlny to license
a.pectual
complement dau�e:-. can ulti
mately be attnbuted to mherent (t.e .. lexic.a)) properue� ol the verb� Ill que�tion. and �pecihcally to their abrltty to function If the approach that 1 have taken
1.
a. '
e\·ent control predrcates.
on lhe right track. then we expect perception
verbs to behave similarly m other language.�\ a� well. e�peciaiJy in tho:-.e whrch are fairly closely r·e lated to English. It has often been noted that cros�-lingui�tically. perception verbs tend to pattern . unilarly m admitting what appear to be verbal �mall dau. e complement:-. The most common type is the !-.o-called Acmsmive lind
lnlutitil•t• (or J\CH consuucuon that is aue. ted m many Germanic language� al\ '"·ell as in Romance. 1 (2)
Wir .wlteJt Ham schlajen
\\C sa\\
(3)
H.
:-.Jeep
/J.. hofn Kmtljt• :.ingt·u
I
hear
K.
(German)
sing
Jett
hprtt• lu•ndt• \. ''nt:t!
I
heaJd her
sm�
tDutch) (de Geest 1 970. 33) tDanish) (Je.persen 1 92 1 . cued by Vater 197 3: 62)
o t h e r· e u a·opean 1 anguagc� (5)
a. b.
�.
Ho ,.;_,ltJ Paolo ruiJan.• ww macdtina Fai I'll Pmtl wlu wtc w1iture Vl Pablo robar IIIJ cuclu•
205 ( ltaltan) tFrench) tSpanbh) (Uua�u 1 993. 1 1 5 )
'I ha,·e . een Paul �teal a car·
A �ccond type of �on!'.trucuon that ha. recei,·ed .omewhat le�� auenuon in the hter
ature i� the �o-called Pn.>ptJsitional ll�(initi&·e COJutrucriou. '' ha h occms m the context of percepuon verb� m se,·eral Eu10pean languages induding many (collo quial) 'arietie...; ol Modern .Standard Gennan. Dutch. nnd �ome ol the Romance lane.uaee�. .. . .. (6)
Wir lwbt•n sil' da... Awu am
Rt•pminnJ 3t'ltt•lt we have her the car auhe repair �ce ·we saw hct repainng the car'
(7)
.Jan :.h·r Pit'I atm her l'L'I'VL'IJ J . see..; P. on the pa1nt ·Jan .sees Piet pamtmg·
(German)
(Dutch) ( Ruyter I 9KK. 269)
,.; o.) ml'niuo.\ a lerlnn) e�.w lhm .saw the children to rend(.i\UR) that book 'I �aw the l:hildren re.ading that book·
{l'ortugue�)
Eu
(8)
(Raposo I 9�9. 277)
Like the part1c1pial -in� form 111 English. the Infinitival �u-ucture..... an the above ex ample!. 'ignal that the action or event de..�cribed •� in progre��. In Romance. we lind et another type of cvellli\e perception complement. con �•�ting of a noun phra.,e acl:ompanic.d by what ha. been dubbed a ·p-.eudo-relative dau:-.e·: (9)
a. b. c.
clw numgim·ia Maritt qui man�eait .Juan ha visw a Mari(t qm' comfrt has seen .\11. G. that ate 'John saw Ylary eating the apple· Ciiamri ha visto Maria
.lt•wr
lt
Vll
Ia ml'la Ia
( ltahan)
/)0111111£'
Ia man:ana
(French) (S pa ni.h)
the apple (Uua�ti 1 993. 1 4 1 )
The pre.o;ent chaptea exanune� the syntax of direct perception complements in German. Dutch. and Romance. and airns to e. tabhsh whethe1 and to what extent they mirror thear Engli. h coumerpan. . The reM ol the chapter b organised a� lol low�. ln Section 5.2. I di cu�� the symax ofdtrect perceptaon complement� an Dutch and Gea man. A Ilea pre!'>eming evidence that German . I �ugge�t that direct percepuon complcmenL-. in Gennan and Dutch arc �uucturally analogou!'> to their l:ngh.sh counterpart;;. It t!'> sho'' n that a.spectuaJ com plemcnL-. 111 the three language� pattern e�:-.entially ahke. and ' aa)' only wllh regard
206
d a u d . a fe l se a·
to (I) the headedne.!>� ol
�pP. and (it) " hethet progres:.i\e A:-.pe�t i:. reali�d
lexacnlly or morpholo� ically. fmally. Section 5.3 provide..;; an 0\erview ol differ em type� of perception �:omplement in Romance. l l is �hown that although they :-.hare the :-.emantic characteri:-.lic. of direct pe n.:ep uon �omplernents in Germanic.
antuutaval complement." in Southern Romance langua�e� diflet l rom thc1r Ucrmanic (and ftench) countetpa� l. in that they project a TP layer.
5.2 AspcctuaJ Complementation in German and Dutch Recall trom the prcviou. l· hapters that direct percepttort complcmem:-. m t:ngh:-.h re..;;emble �mall clam.e� m that they are symactlcall, reduced subJCCt-pl'edicate units whose subJect DP •� dependent on the highet verb tor case as�1gnment. They de �cribe an action or an evem that mu. t be perceivable in the manner specified by the matnx verb. and they receive a temporal index by cntermg into an comrol relation !\hip with the e\elll dc...cribed by the matrix dause. Accotding to the Paogre��ive Hyp<>the!\1:-.. inlinithal and participial PVC:- differ wnh regard to their a.;;pectual chatacter only. In th1. section. I exam1ne the syntax ol J\CI and ptepositional tntlnntval complement. of perception verb� 111 Gemtan and Dutch. sho\\ ing that they mirror Lhe behaviour ol t::ngl�:.h IPVCl\ and PP C:.. re ... pectivel). Sancc Gennan and Dulch l:lck cominuou)> vet b lorm:.. progre �;i' e m�ming
ha� to be conveyed by other mean." in the�e language.'�. for e>.ample through the u:-.e of cenam advcllh
OJ
panicle.s �uch ru German gewd£• OJ Dutch iui�r "just·
ru
1n ( I m.�
( 10)
a.
Sh• �chltlfr f?t!rudc
b.
z;; �laapt juisr
(German) ( Dutch)
she sleep� ju�t "She 1:-. :-.lcepmg right now· In Dutch. a pertphrasttc construction uwolving the adjective IH•:.i� "busy" can also be u:-.ed to �•gnat that the event 01 al:lton depicted i:- in progre..;;s: (It)
a.
Hii is ln·�i� de .fit·t�
te reptm:r£'11
he 1:-. bu. , the bil·yde to repair 'He i� repairing the bl<.'yde· b.
/1.. bt'n l>e:.ig llll'l
w•rw:tt
I am bu!\y wtth paim " 1 am puinting' In add1uon to the�c. a more direct equivalent ol the Engltsh pmgre�i\ e b abo
o t he1· e u ropean 1 anguage
207
;watlable in man, (colloquial) vanetic. of Gennan and Dutch. Tlle e are known as the '((m · + Infinitive Constrru·rion and the 'tum hn ' (or 'aan 'r ') Cons11·w·tio11 ' re...;pectively. which are exemplified by ( 1 2 ) and ( 13) below. ( 12)
a.
�:.·, i.'il am
(German)
1\rbt>iten
he is auhe work 'He is wmking·
( 13)
b.
Sh· war U(IS i\uw am R(>parh•ren . he was 1he car auhe repair 'She wa� repatring the car'
a.
Zij i.\' atm ·r schrijwn
tOULch)
she is au he wrne 'She is writing· b.
Hi) is d() fiNs
aan ·r repareren
he i. the bicycle au he repmr ·He i. repniring the. b1cyclc · German am b a portmanteau morph compo�cd ofthe locative prepo. iuon tm ·at/on· and the den nile neuter detenuiner dem. which carrie..� dative ca. e marking. Dutch mm't as the contracted form of the preposition ttalt ·arton· and the den nile neuter de1erminer llet: both are followed by a erb in the infinitive. Like lhe Engli.h con tinuou. form. both lhe mn and the uan hNI't construction . •gnat imperfecllvity. or progres. ive mpet:t ( compare. for u1stance. Bhau and Schmidt 1 993: 72f.. Declerck 1981 b: 103. or Lehmann 1991: 5 1 3-51 5). which has led Lo their being dubbed P.)eudo-Progn•s.sive� by RuyLer ( 1 988). DUich . peaken>. and . peaker. of many (mainly Nonhwe.Lem) varictaes of . German. al o readily accept pseudo-progre. sive.�. or l'n•po.-;irimwl 11�/inirivt.• Cumpft>mem.,· (PIC. ) m Lhe �ontext of perception verbs: ( 14)
a.
Wir lwbNI H(iiiS am
Arbt>il£>n sehen
we have H. at.the work ·we aw John workmg · b.
./an :,itH Pin aan ht•t l't'rven
J. . ees P. on the pamL 'Jan see..� Pier painling'
(German)
. ce ( Dulch) ( Ruyter 1988. 269)
In what follows. I present evtdence Lhat German ttm and Dutch tum lu>t/'t in p. eudo-prog1-e. stve structures function as �pectual marker. . and argue thaL co•n plemenl� of the type shown in ( 14) are slruclurall)' analogou� to Engli. h pankipial perception complement. . The, differ from their Englt. h counterpart. an that ApP
c:l audta fe I . e t·
208
m the,c;e languages is head-final. and progre. :-.sve a:-.pcct is reah. ed Iexie:\II)' instead Ol'
ol morphologically. wuh am Asp�·t.
ct(tll he11 "1 instantiating the funcuonal categOI)'
5.2.1 J\m attd Aan ' t as t'upec:ntal Markers 5.2 .I .I Against a I'I' /\na/\'.!iis Tlu. . ection re tews some evidence agam. t the primafacie a:.umptton that German mu and Dutch aan in p. cudo-progressive structures tunction the examples in ( 1 5 ) tltustrate. ( 15)
a.
Das (Iawe) Singen ( wm \Vl'ilmac/usliedem) is1 /tier l'erboten the (loud) singing (of
Christmas.caroh)
1.
here prohibited
'Smging Chri.unal> chorals loudly is prohibited he1·e· b.
Hct
_(jchr�ivL'JJ (van boeken) is ng
lhe writing
(of
books)
mm•ilijk
(German) ( Dutch)
is very difficult
·wntmg booh 1s very d1flkult' In view or this. the most obvious assumption to make would be that p. eudo progres. ives are nothing but ordinary prepo. IIJonal phrases. with till or atm taking a DP complement wluch it.elf contain. a nominalised infinitive (see e.g. van Gelderen 1 993: 1 8 1 - 1 &4 ). ( 16)
a. b.
Si(' is1 lw an hw dem Sch/(ifen J I Zij is I r-1' aan I or llet slape1t J I she is at 'She IS sleep1ng·
lfiiJ dtWI > (1111 )
(aan her > aan 't)
the . leepmg
However. a clo. er look at the syntax of PIC. reveal. that they exhibit none of lhe t yp1cal charactensttcs of prepositional phrases. Bhatt and Schmidt ( 1 993) have .hown that PIC. in Northwe. tem variettel> of German behave dilierently from genume PPs (like tho. e tound in the (h) sentences below) in that they fall to admit prenominal or po. tnominal modiliers. and exhibit a diffetent word order from ordinary PP. (exampl� ( 1 7 )-( 19l have been adapted ' from Bhau and Schmidt 1993: 79f.).'
209 ( 17)
a.
,.
t"r ist am
ltllltt•n Vorl!·sen
he i!. auhe loud b.
reading-out
t."r i.H hdm ltllt/('11 Vor/(•sen he is auhe loud
reading-out
'He i. reading our loud" ( 1 8)
(19)
l\'OJt) dcr Bihcl a. ,. f:."r i. t am Vorh•.seu he is auhe reading-our (of) the bible
b.
l\'on) der Bibel he is auhe reading-our (of) the bible 'He i. reading oul from the bible'
a.
Er ist di<' Bihel ltm
t."r ist bcim Vor/e�eu
Vorlest•fl
he i. the bible auhe read-our ·He is reading out from the bible· b. ,. t.'r ist dit• Bibd beim Vorlesen he is the bible auhe reading-our Example l l9a) ilJustrates the facl thai m tran:-mve pseudo-progre. sive.�. the direct object of the verb carne. accusative ca. e. and obligmotily precedes am. J f am i. replaced b>' the l ·emanucall>' simi tar) preposition ln:im 'at the·. however. the sen tence become. ungrammaucal (d. ( J 9bH. Parallel fact. are found in Dutch (though judgement:. may be •ubJeCt to some dialeclical variatton): (20)
a.
Hij is sw·l he
1s
amr
·, voorl£'�<'11
qusckly auhe reading-out
·He i!. reading oul quickly' b. (21)
a.
is attll ·, ·''m•J \•oorle:en he 1. at.the quickly reading-out
•• Hij
Hij is de hijbt>/ ulm ·r voorlezen he is the bible auhe reading-<>ut 'He is reading our from lhe bible·
b. .. Hij is tum 't voorle�cn van de bijbel he 1. at.the reading-<>ul of the bible �loreover. Bhatt and S�hnudt ob. erve that while German doe:- not normally allow for PPs headed by identical prepo.ition. to be stacked. ordinary (i.e .. locative) fm-PI's do in facl co-occm with prepositional infinitives.
210
d audaa fe l s e t·
(22)
t.·,.
ist lrr
he is
w1
eiuem Htwsj am
Baunt
at a
house auhe build ·He i. building a hou. e·
(Bhall and Schnudt I 993: 80)
Agatn. the same holds Lrue for Dutch-that is. sta�king of tum PP. is possible provided that one of them is a p eudo-progre.�si e form:
Hij is lw aan :(in bod} tw11 ·r schrijvnJ
(23)
he 1.
at
his book at.the wrne
·He is writing his book· One might add to the above argument the observation that wn in German p. eudo progre..�sive:': also dtffer;;: from the homophonou. prepo. it ion ttm in that it cannot opttonall� be split up imo its alleged component. an and dem (tht:- di.tinction is le..�s obvious in Outch though. where all instance.� of aan ltet will normally be contracted to aan ·1 in the spoken language anyway). (24)
a.
I tm dem l'mjekr at.the I at the proJeCt
Er arbeitet am He works
· He·. working on the proJect' b.
Er war am
I *ltu dN11 Arbeiten
He was auhe I ttm 11te work ' He wa. working· 'That is. a:.pectual am differ. from prepo..;; itional tml in that it mu�t alway form a smgle phonological unit. This adds further . uppon to the claim that aspectual am IS
a grammaticalised preposition that function.
� iU1
inflectional element. and as
:.uch 1. no longer decompo. able. Finally. ob. erve that PlCs can he fom1ed fwm . tage-level JWedicate. only (see also Bhau and Schmidt 1993: 72f.). Individual-level predk.ate. . on the other hand. are excluded: (25)
a.
*
Er war dnt Lt•lu•t•r am
Hassen
(German)
he was the teacher auhe hate ·He wa:. hating the teacher' b. ,.Zij was aau ·r gmot �U, she was at.the tal I be
( Dutch)
'She was betng tall' In sum. I have . hown that Bhatt and Schmidt'. ( 1 993) argument. agam 1 a PP analyst. for prepositional inlinitive:o:--ot· p. eudo-progre.. 1ve...c:-in German al.o carry over to Dutch. This lead. me to conclude that both 11111 and 1wn het/'1
21 1
o t h e r· e u a·opean 1 anguagc�
function a., a�pectual marken. and not a� {I u�d) prepo:-.JIIon-deternunc• urHI�...
52.1 .2 11te Position t�/ ASfJL'<.'I Both Get m>lll am and Dutch mm hetl "t must not·mally be adJacent to the infinill\ al verb. A� noted by Bhatt and Schmidt ( fo• ;.Jorrhwc.-.tcrn \el ipher
•
of
P. The Jolla\\ ing
example� show that non-mcorporable object OJ>�. adJunct p1edicates or adverb:-. may not amervene between wn and the infimttval verb {example:. (27) and (18) have been adapted from Bh;Ht and Schmidt 1 993: 77).
(26)
a.
J:.'1
wur die Suppe um
he was the soup W
'He
b.
,. J:.'r
a.
at .the cook
�.:ooking the soup·
wttr am dit• Suppc Korlwu
he wa� at
(27)
Kot"hen
the �oup
cook
Pncr i:lt das I:Judt .voN{/(1/ti� ltm Lt•st·u J>. •� the book caaefuJJy auhc read 'Peter •� 1eadmg the book carelully'
b.
(2�.0
a.
..
Pt•ter
i.u das Buclt am
P.
tl> the book at.the carefully read
Sit· ist
£lit• Kano!Jefn roh wu
�he i� the potatoe� 'She b.
1:-.
.wrgl ulti� Lt•. en
£.\:.en
raw auhe cat
eatmg the potatoes raw·
'"Sit• ist dh• Karu�lji:/11 ttm �he i� the potatoes
1oh t:s.w!lt
auhe raw cat
On the other hand. Ge1man am mma precede �eparable 'erb patt icle:-. 'light' mdeli nite (i.e .. incorporable)
(29)
a.
Jell
bin da.\ �nmlt· am
I
a m 11
Jell
bin dm
g�.·rtuh•
m�f
I
am 11
ju:-.t
down at.thc wnte
All/�chreiben
at.the down.wrne 'I am JU�I wntmg it down ·
b.
(30)
a.
jusl
ftm
Pt•tn
i.\1 wn
RadfaJtren
P.
is at.the bicyde.aide
·Peter a:- nding a bicycle·
Sclm.!ibL•n
d audsa fe l se s·
212
b. • Pnn is! Rtcd am Falm•n P. is hs�ycle auhe ride (31)
a.
Ma1 ia ist m11
�1.
mlide l\�'rden
is at.thc tired become
·�taria i. gelling tired' b. ,. Maria i.1 milde am
\\�rdt'll
is tired auhe become
�1.
(O.K. in . ome dsalect.. see note 6)
The word order I act. illustrated by {2())-{ 3 1 ) above are e. senti ally parallel m Dutch. save for the fa�t rhat Dutch speakers prefer the ordering of ( 3 1 b) o er rhe one in 6 ( 3 1 a). Nouce that the data in (29 )-(3 1 ) also rule out the po:-.stbility that am (or aan 't) i. a verbal prefix that i. ba.Je-generated m V. along with us crbal host. I . uggest that the examples above are be. t accounted for if we adopt the analy.is
propo. ed by Bhau and Schmidt ( 1993) for German p.'\eudo-progres. ive. and extend 11 to Dutch. Their analysi.
il!sume.�
that in both German and Dutch. A pP i. head
final. and lhat the verb-together wnh it. incorpo•ata--obligatorily adJoin. to the a. peclllal head. Thi. is illustr.ned for example {26a) t:r \l'((t dit, Suppe am KudtPn lll l32) below. and for example l30a) Pt•ter i 1 am Rm(fctltreu. whkh mvolve. prior noun incorporation into V.
sn
{33). The basic structure of the correspondmg Dutch
pseudo-progre�s•ve.." wi II be idemical.
(32)
Spec
Asp'
/------
vP
A:-.p
�
. \'
D
(t•r)
�
VP
�
DP
�
v
dit• Suppt..• Kochen
v
0
(lilt
:::;.
A.p
�
A p
I
am
,.
A
v
v
f) Koclum
213
o t her· e u r�opean I anguage
(33)
�
A :-.p'
Spec
/-----
A. p (lm
v
::::>
J\.p
�
Asp
v
A l A
I
v
am
I H
v
(I) N
V
I
Rad-jahrnt
I l
On the a.��umption lhat Asp in German and Dulch i. atnxal (or '. lrong' ) in the sense that it may not be straJlded (compare e.g. Baker'. ( 1988: 140) StNt)' ll.lfi.'C Filler). 1he above analysis correctly predict:- that am and aall ht•ll'l should alway. be adjacent lo the ,·em. and that lhe Asp-inl1nlltve complex .hould appear al the right-hand boundary of the verb phmse.7 5.2 .2 Tile Syntax ofi\CI and l'repo.'>ilioua/ lnfiniti\•l' Complements 5.2 .2 .I i\CJ Complt'IIU'IIIS
The German and Dutch equi\'alem of Engh h bare inlinilive complemems ts beltcr known as Art:usati\•e lllld l11jinitive con. trucllon. or ACI fOJ hort.� •
(34)
a.
\Vir .wht•u ilm sclzlaj(•n
we saw b.
him sleep
lk hoor K(ltltjl' :_ingen
I hear K.
(German) ( Dutch)
sing
Like their English counterpans. Dutch and German ACts prove to be single clausal c,onslimenb. Con. ider the following data (lhe Dutt·h (b) example.<; have been adapted from de Gee.
a. b.
es sdmein1 lk zag he1 sneeuwen I saw il snow
lch
:.ah
214 (36)
daudta fe l se1· J.
Jell ltttbt· l'.\ oft
b.
pas.,ieren ;)£'11l'n tlu!!.\ Kinder
ha\e n often happen
1
. een
!lu
that children thu:o. had.an.acddent
her laak :kn gebeurt•n dm Und('H'II :.tJ
/1.. Ju•b
I have 11
often . een happen
\'t•rungllk/...tcll
\'t•rtmgelul..tt•n
that children tim� had.an.accidcnt
' 1 have often . een it happen lhat duldren had an acc1dent 1n thi� way· (37)
cl.
Jell :.alt den
Glauben
b.
//...
:.u�:
1(1!/uo/'
1
saw (the) latth
Wwula t•ufi!Jrint:t'lf (v. . Jell :.ah den Glattbt'll ) wmult•re" \'t:rriduen ( vs. lk :.ag t:l'loo_/) miracle:-. accomplish ( v:o.. t I saw faith)
'I saw taith accomph�h miracles· l'he fact that the po:o.tverbal OP can be a qua:o.t-argument. an ex pl cthe. or a thematic c.xpre.lision den ot ing :o.omethmg that i. not it:o.elf open to serhOf)' percept1on demon stl mes that it cannot be a matrix obJeCt. hut instead functions
a.'
the :o.ubject of the
lower predicate. �otice th:u Dutch ACI . tructure:o. in which the lex•cal matnx verb
IS not ll\ the canonil'al V2 pos1tlon (which is the calie in embedded clause� and in penphrasuc main dau. es :o.udt as (36b)) ditler from their German cquJ\•alenL' m that the more natural word order va1iam L the one that involves a so-called \lab Rt1i.\ing ( VR) configuration. VR. which i. aue.-.ted m .evcral Geunank languages (but not Ill Engli:o.h). is common!) thought of ru a movement 01 reordenng p1oce. that lead. to a du�tcling ot \er1>� at the right penpher) of the dau:o.c (see Ever. 1 975. and Section 5.2.3
fo1 .some di:-.cu.ssion of VR in per�cptual •epoll:-. ). L1ke Engl ish bare mfinnave complemenb. ACh are non-hnnc dau. al con�titu ent-- that fail to admit a�pectuaJ auxiliane�. �opular st'in/:.1}11 'be · . or the inlinitival marker :.u/1£' 'to·: they require an O\'ert subJeCt that •� marked lor accusauvc ca�c. and the predicate mu�t have stage-level propert1e:o. (sec e.g. Clernent 1971 or liyvhrinen 1984 for Uennan ACL ).� The tollowmg example:-. might :o.cr \e to allus uate the..lie tac�:o.: (38)
a.
,. \Vir
( Gcl'rnan)
.wht'll Hans :.u schlafL'Jt
we .saw
H.
to sleep (de Uecst 1 970. 53: Dutch)
b. •Jk hoor Kau�it· It' :.inxt'll
I (39)
hear
K.
to sing
.1. • \Vir .when Hmts �(·schlajt•n lutbl'Jt
we saw
H.
slept
b. "Jan :il'l l'it•r :.iin J. (.Wl
a.
:o.ee:o. P.
uttto
his car
ha,·e wrJ...odtt hebbt•n sold
\\1/r .when Han.,· �ross (sein)
we saw
H.
tall
·we sa" John < be ) tall'
(German)
tbe)
(Ruyter 198H. 262: Dutch)
have (German)
o t h e r· e u r·opean 1 anguagcs b.
t Ruyter 198H. 270: Dutch)
Hij :.ax Pil·r tltJt·ter (:.iju)
he
l>i \ W
P.
215
doctor (be)
'He .aw Paet (be) a doetor' They abo lat1 to undc1go matnx passivi mion (:o.ce C1emem ( 1 97 1 . 260} 01 Hy,•hrinen t 1984. J 14) lor Gemtan. and Bennis and Hoek.tra t 1989. 36) fo1 Dutch). (-l l l
a.
.. Ku�iu
wurde £'in Ued sin�:eu �eltbrr
b.
,. Kuu�it'
wnd een Jiedje :.in�eu J?ehoord
K.
was
a
song . ing
(German: but d. note 1 2 ) (Dutch)
heard
Yloda1s. even though they do occur in the mtinitive fonn elsewhere in the language. are generally exduded from per�epuon complement� in German. In Dut�h. by con tra:'il. II apperus that non.epistemic modals are oc a.�ionally penniued to occur in <m 1' ACI (d. (42b)). ' (4-2)
a.
,.
Wir . allen Ham- um:.en konnnt we saw
b.
H.
(B ayer 1 986: 5: German)
dance can
llm lwordt• d£' profe.\'. on·n IIW£'/('IJ publi<:t.'rt'Jt J.
heatd
the profe:-sors
must
publish
(Dutch) tRuyter
19SH. 263)
A negali\C in,Jde an ACI " ill nonnall}' be a. stgned matnx :-cope (G1ewcndor1 19H7. 1 4 1 . Ha1dcr 1 993: 248U. and the . ame holds tt ue lor .. . .ententtal adve1 b:-. csee Bayer 1 986: 200. lor German. and Ruyter 19S8: 261 lor Dutch). According to Ru}rter. the dev1ance of (-t3b) re. ulu from the I act that the adverb mm;,?en • tomor row· may not have scope o\·e• the complement alone. and thus conllicts with the matnx temporal adverb �isrnen ·ye:-.terday· . Like ( 39) above. example� :o-uch as ( -l3b.c ) tunhermore illu:-.tmte the fact that ACl� m German and Dutch are subject to the Simultaneity Condition t(-Dc) is cited by Bien.vbch 1963: 126). ( 43)
a.
\Vir .Whl'n Hems nidtl schll(fi•u we saw
H.
not
(German)
sleep
·we didn't ec John sleep· b.
,.
Jan :ag f:i.\'fl•ren
J. c.
Pier :.ijn awo mor,l!,ell
�aw ye:-terday P.
Jell habt• ilw wr
his car
\'l'l'kopen
(Dutch)
tomorrow �ell
:.�\'ei Stwult.!lt seiner Frau dt•u �wt:_t•Jt
ha,·e him belore two hours
his
wife the whole
\1JJ mirW,f!. lu·ljt•Jt sehen mo1 n1ng help . een
(German)
·Two hour� ago. I sa" hun hel t> hb wtle the whole moming' At h1M glance. and given the mtcrnal subject hypothc.! i�. n would .seem that dirc.ct
d aud1a fe 1 s e ,.
216
petcepuon �omplement. like tho)>e above arc nothing but VP M'llall clau. e� (in Stowell")> 1 983 . en�e). a. Ba) er ( 1986) ha� sugge�ted for German ACb. However. e\•idence I rom scrambling indkate. that German and Dutch ACh mu�t <.'Ontain at lema one additional (functional) projedion abO\e VP. In (-+4b). the direct obJeCt! dh• Ht.\'t•lth• 'aas 'the val->e · ha.' moved oveuly a ros� the rnstrumcmal PP mil dt•m Hammt•rlmt>t dt• lwmer '\\ ith the hammer'. (.W)
a.
Hanlllll'J dil• \lll.\e :erbreclwn hamer de \•aas bn•kt•n hammer the vm.e break e wtth the hammca ·
(German) ( Dutch)
.wh Haw. die Vase mit dem Hammer :n bn•chen Jk :_t4f: Hans dl• vmts mer de hamer hrl•kt•n :-.aw H. the v;tse with the hammer break
(German) ( Dutch)
.wh Ha11s mit th•m , at: H£tn!i ttwt de I )>aw H. With the • J :-.aw John break the 'a
Jell Jk
b.
Jell
If :-.holl
:-.crambhng or object shift of thi. type involve� mO\ement of the direct ob Ject to ll:-. ca:-.e-checking position (. ee e.g. Schnudt 1994. Zwatt 1994. 1 997). then the ob�ervcd word order in (4-lb) tells us two thmgs: (I) that the complement dause provide� a landing !-.lie for the moved obje�t (lhat b. ( Spe�.AgrOP) or ( Spec.vP)). and (ti) that the ACJ :-.UbJCt't at o rahes ovettly--eithcr to tSpet'.AspP). or to its uhtmate (�a.,e-che�king) posnion tn the matnx claul->e.
l.r· luf'die Vase I (,. t11 L, 7erbJechenl ,. I J Jch �th Han. �
(�5 )
l w · mit dem
Hrullmct t
l"he tact that a�pectual adverb!-. such a· /an�:.wmlltmK:mml 'slowly' can optionally precede a scrambled obJect DP :-.uggcsu lhat another functional projection is pre!-.ent which dommate!-. v P and to wh1ch . uch ad\•erb. may be attached: �aIt Hans la1tgsam I die Suppel, mil t•itu.>m Lbf/£'1 1, unmilue11 (German) Jk :.ac: Htms lanx:. aam (de .wup), mel et'll leptl 1, omroert'll { Dutch) :-.aw H. . lowly the . oup wuh a spoon stir 'I saw John . tit the soup , lowly wnh a spoon·
( 46)
Jell
runher -;uppon for the pre!-.cnce of an A!-.pP layer m Germ
( �7)
a.
ACh.
sahn1 Mario sdiiJell pnfda Fnm:hsi.,ch It'lilt'II /t'rt'/1 \Vt> :a�£'11 J\-flll ill We/ /1L'r(l'CI rilllll \Ve sa\V �1. quickly perfectly French learn ·we saw �1m, quickly leam Fren·h perfectly' \\lir
.
(German) I Dutch)
o t h e r� e u r�opean 1 anguagc
b.
' \Vir .wlll'u Maria f>t>J:fd.. i
• \Vt• ':.li}(L'If Maria pt>rfi•cJ
we !'-aw
M.
217
sc/we/1 Fn.m:_thi elf lnum sul'l
Fran.\
lln•n
french
learn
perfect!, quickly
(German) ( Dutch)
Taken together. the� fact!'- uggc. t that ACis contain (at leru I ) two d1. tinct headJ that are cap ab le of hcen .. ing corresponding ad\crbiab of manner. and that one ol lhe:-e head!'- mu�t be located higher than 1'. I take thb latter one to be nothmg ot he1 than Jhp . That i�. I p mpo �c th;U percept ion-ACb m German and Dutch have the following ba. ic imerMI structure:
52.2 .2 I'IL'JlO. ifionul llrfiuili\•e Camplnm•ms In some (mamly �orthwestern) German dialect!'- and in Dutch. prepo.�itional mtim 11 th·e�. or p!'-cudo-prog•e�Mve.s. al.o oc�.:ut 111 perceptual repon�. (49)
a.
\Vir lwbt•n Haus um
we have H . at.the work ·we �aw Joh n workmg· b.
\Vii hu�·n Mwia dtiS Alllo um
. ee
Rt'J)lll ie1t!11 .\L'Iu•n
we have :vi. the L·ar auhe repair · ·we �a'' Mil!\ repainng the car (50)
a.
b.
(German)
i\rbei1cn seheu
(German)
!'-ce
1 Dutch)
Jan :.i£'1 Pi£•1 (lUll her 1·en·en
J . �ce� P. on the paint 'J an .see..-; Piet painting· Heb je
ltm a/
( Ruyter 198H. 269) (Dutch)
aan her le:_t•u J(t':it•u.'
have you J. alread)'
(Oclcrck 1 98 1 b. 1 03)
prep<>.! itional infinitive <.'omplcmcms explicitl)' dcpkt the action or event that i!'- percetved a. ongoing or mcomplete. PICs of the type �hown above lurn out to pattem wtth perception-ACts in all majo1 rc.specr:-. That is. they prove to be . ymactically redu<.:ed clau. at coru tirucnt� who. e �UbJect cames accusauve ca!'-C. and whose predicale mu�l have Mage-level propertie..l\ . F•r�t . nore that the !'-emantic difference between am {ot mm hn/'r) and ACI com plemem� mirror. the a�pcctual ditlerence between p:-.eudo-pt ogre��JVe. and !'-ltnple ten. c...; in maul clau. es (compate { 5 1 ) and (52)). Contrary to ACts.
(51)
a.
. /:.'1
'' w
ilm rt>tft'll Hij \HJ.\ tutll 'r VL'rdrinJ..en. maar �£' konden llt•m Jeddt•n um
£nrinJ..en.
aber sit• konml'n
he \Vil!'- auhe drown. but the could him re�cue 'lie wa� dJOwning. but they were able to re�cue hun· •
(Ger·man)
tDutch)
d audaa fe l se t·
21X
(German)
b. #Er ertrank.
alu�r sit· komllt•n ilm re11n1 #H(i verdrcmk. mattr :.£' koudt:n lll'm reddnt he drowned. but
rhey could
( Dutch)
him rescue
·He drowned. but Ihey were able to r�cue him· (52)
a.
\Vir lwben ihu am J:.'rtrinken sl'ltt'll. ai.H>r sie kounten ilm \Vt.• hebben lwm aan ·, \'erdrinknt gt•:_ien. mattr :.ij krmden lwm we have
him auhe drow
relit'II
. ee( n) but
the, could
him
rnldeu re.!cue
b. #\Vir /when ilm enrinken sehcn. aber sit• konnrm ihn rt•llell we have him drown . ee bul they could him t•e. cue
#We hcbben ltnn :.ieu ''erdrinJ..en. maar �U we have
hun , ee drown
but
lwudt•u hnu redden
they could
him rescue
Secondly. . yntacttc and semantic evidence .-.hows that J)Seudo. progressive comple ments are indeed clausal constituent . . The followmg examples demonst1 ille that the postvcrbal noun phrase 1. not semanticall, selected by (and £1\etefore cannot be an object on the matrix verb: (53)
a. b.
Regnen sdwn Jch habe e� nor/1 nh· �o !ilark ttm Jk lu•b liN nog uooit z.o hard aan 1 regt.'JU'IJ ge:.ieu J
have tt
PitT never . o hea y auhe rain
(German) l DUtch)
. ee{nl
• J have never before seen it rainmg thi. heavil)r'
(54)
a. b.
Jclz hab(• 1'Yiaria die Glockt• am Ll1uteu horeu arm ·, /uidt.•u gt·hoord Jk lu•b Marit� de bi•l J
have �1.
the bell
at.the rmg
(German) l DUtch)
hear{d)
·1 heard Mary ring the bell' Example (53) containl- a quasi-argument. which cannot possibly be con. uued
direct object ol see. ln {54). it is clear that what i. perceived ts the sound of llte bell. and not the voice of Mari
a.
\Vir lwbn1 HtiiiS ft•st ttm Schltrfen sehen we have H. deeply au he sleep . ee ·we saw John steeping deeply'
o t h e r· e u r·opean 1 anguagc�
(56)
b.
\Vir hu�'" Hm1s um fi•sten Schll�{l'ft (�t·)..\t•lwn we have H. auhe deep !\Jeep �ee(nl
a.
\Vir hu/)(•n Maria da� Bm:h um LL'.\l'tt .H.!hen we have �1. the book auhe read see ·we .saw .Ylaria reading the book'
219
b. • \Vir ltuJK'Il Mw ill am U:.\t'n de.\ BttciW.\' ([:ehl'ht•n we have �1. auhe reading I the bookJ,L ' �ee{n) �lo•eover. a� Ruyter ha� pointed out. the. ubjoct-obje�t a�ymmetry cxhabated by the � o-�alled wtfl-l'oor splir in Dutch 1s also tound in ac111 hcr/ '1 �omplemcnt:-. (the exam ple:-. in <57) and (58) have been adapted from Ruyter 1 988. 271U. (57)
Will, h£'1) ,it• I 1, wJor boeke1tl t:t·kodll'! what have you tor books bought 'What kind of book!'> ha'e you bought'!'
a.
b. • War, lu•bben l r, ''OfJr men.\t..'lf) dit• boekl'lt t:t•ktJdtl '! what have for people tho!'>e book.-. bought the above example. allwarate. the interrogative pmnoun �o.·ar ·what' may be �elecuvel) extracted I rom object.. but not I rom . ubJeCt e:\pre!'>StOtl!'>. The un�rammatu:alaty of (58b) below thus confirn"t.�; the hypothe:-.1� that the noun phra:.c "u1 l'fJOI llll'IISt'Jt lunt:uons a.-. the subject of a complement clau. e. and not a� a matnx objecl: /h
(58)
a. l \wu WJOI mt'JUell l, :.ag je I I, mm he1 {iersL'11 I'! what for people . aw you on the baking 'What kind of people dtd )'OU �ec cycling?' b.
\\till, :.ag jL' I l l, \'Oor mensen J mm hL·t jil'I.H'Jtl'! whal :-.aw you t'o1 people on the bikmg
..
Similar ol crvation::. can be made with regard Lo the twailability of the was-flir spli1 Ill German PICs: (59}
a. I Was flir Kinderl, hast du 1 1, das Awa am Denwlit•ren) .H'Irt•n'! what lor children have you the car auhe demoll�h ee 'What k1nd of duldren did you :-.ee demoli!->hing the car'!' b.'t'.'\wt.\, lw.r du l l t./ilr Kimh•rl tla., Attlo am DL•malinnrl sdten? what have you for children the �ar au he demoli!-.h •ee
·nurd. notice lhat auxahary dnl:.tjn 'be· a. excluded from PIC�. e'en though il as obligatorily p•e�ent in finile dauscs that �ontain a pseudo-progre!\:o.ive. Thi.
220
d aud1a fe l se•·
�ugge:-.ts that like J\Ch. p�eudo.pro�re��•ve complement-. IatI to project a T-.!.)Stem. ( 60)
a. "\�'ir .wlwn we .saw
Hans tml Schlttfen :,t•in H. auhe . Jeep be
(German)
tOmch) 1 Ruyter 19��- 269)
b. "Jan ..it•t :: Pit•t mm lwt verL·en ::.Un
J.
�ce� P.
on
the palllt
be
Related to thi� i� the ob. ervallon that PIC:� in Gcmtan and Outch al),o obe)r the SLP Con�ttatnl. That i.. ju)>t like p10gr� he -ing in Engli�h pantctpial complements. am and aan hL•tl 't u\ PIC:� will combine with .stage-lcveJ.predicate:-. only.
(6 1 )
a.
,.Jell
b.
..
/1..
I
hab£• Han :,·t•ine Schwe.\'IN' am
Hatts :_ijn ::.us have H. his . tster
ht•b
Htt.\'St!ll :,(•/wn
<1£111 't luttnt
f:t•:_it'lt
auhc hate
sec
(German) t Dutch)
'1 �aw John hating h1. si.ter" rmally. 11 appear:-. that matrix pa. ivt�ation i� ruled out for PICs as well :'�
(62)
a. •Mwia wurdt• dit! Glod .. e am
b.
..
Mw ia ll'erd Yl.
was
Ulttft'll f:t'ltbrt
de �·I
tllllt ·, luidt•n gelund u
the bell
auhe nng
(German) (Dutch)
hea1d
On the ba),i� of the abo,·e ob�e• vauons. I propo. e that PIC �tructure� 'l . uch
a.\
the
bracketed �tnng in the Gem1an example (63) have the ba.'k :-.tructure ot {(H). with the lowct 'crb bein� obhgaton ly incorporated into the a�pectual head. ( 63)
Kodu•n .n•hen I
\Vir hub�·" I ilut die Sttppe
am
we have
auhe cook
him the oup
·we �aw hun cooking the ::-.oup·
�ee
other· e u a·opean 1 anguagc (64)
221
VP
------A� V
---
Spec
-
......
sehen
��· �� -......
\P
Asp
/�
0
v'
iltn
/
VP
�
v
�
OP
�
\'
am am
I
(1
V
,A
v
v •
(1 Kochm
die Suppe K(JdtcJt
'lne tollowmg e>..amples
ugge,1 that the subject OP may r;use into the matnx
•
dau:-.e oven l>'· cro.sing main clause ad\'erbial!\ and (optionally) leaving behind a floating quanuner { the (a) example,, beiO\\ are I rom Get man. the (b) example:-. Irom
Dutch)." (65)
a.
lc:h habe dh• Kinder
b.
lk
hdJ de kinderen ;:i:\tNen
I
ha\e the �htldren yesterday all
J{£'Siem
aile
das Awu tum)
demu/it..•rnt
allemaul dt· m1W (aau ·r) kupotuwJ..en the car
(al.lhe) demoli:-.h
.�£'Ill'II .ee(n) 'I saw the cluldren all demohsh(tng) the cat yesterday' ((16)
ktwf£'11
a.
\Vir lwben die Minuter gemde beilh• t•iw• Z<'iumg
b.
\�· ltebbt•n de mannen juist
beiden
L'L'It
ktam
we have
both
a
new�paper (al.lhe) buy
the men
ju. t
(am)
taan 't) kopL'Il
.\'c/wn !-.ec(n) ·we have JUSt :-.een the men both buy(ing) a new:-.paper" �rom the above example:-.
a:;
not possible to tell whetltCJ the quamifier is
:-.uanded 111 the sUbJect's ba.'e po!->nion. or in (Spec. A:-.pP). its Intermediate landing sue. Consider. howe\er. the fo llowing sentences. whtch invol\·e not only :.UbJect Q-
222
daud1a fel se1·
float bul abo scmmbling of lhe direct obJecl aero:-� an 11\l.lrumemal PP: (67)
a. b.
ldw Auto J mil S1eiuen l Wt• ht•bbt'll de l.. iudneu J!iswren allemau/ ld£• mao!, nwt .\1£'/ll'll l \Wr lmiJell die Kimh•r
we have
ge.\t£'rtl
all£•
the chi ldren ye, terday all
the ca1
\vith . tone�
(am) bt•u·£•r(eu .ttehen (twn 't) bcJ..ogdeu (J:e):hw (auhe) throw.at
(Germtm ) tDutch)
,ee{n)
·we .saw lhe ch1ldren all lhrow(mg) :-.tone..o; at lhe car ye.stcrd
.
Agam. on the as:-.umplion thal the d1rect object ha.l moved lO the outer spec1tler ol v oven I,.
the word order of (67 ) . uggel>tS that the floating quaminer has m fact been
l>llanded in { Spec.AspP). Wir lnaben [die Kinderj, ge. tern I, ,,,.,. I aile t, j L,..,r. I,J• Ida. Auto!
(68)
(,. mit Stemen . . . lt.
.
•
.
j (am) heweafcn I j I I :-.ehcn
To �:ondude. I have paovided a1gumem� that the category and internal make� up of pseud�progae:-.�Jve complement. in German and Dutch mirror that of the Enghi>h panidpial complement in that lhey too arc clausal �o.OJbtituent:-. headed by a l+progJe.si\cj ;lspcctual head. Dutch and German PIC)> differ onl
•
\vith regard
to lhe pos:-.tble ordenng o( verb. at the right pcriphel)' ol the dau:-.e. whkh is tradl
uonall y U)>�ociated with Verb Rai. mg. Thel>e d1fference� will be b1 iefi> exanuned 111 the lollowing �ection.
5.2 J V£•rb Rtti�ing ill l'erct.•p!cw/ RepOrt.\ .
5.2 J. I Dwelt Verb Rat�ing a!'. Ill (691>) below 1. tradtuonally thought to involve :ldJuncllon of one {or more) verb{�) to a h1gher verb or auxiliary. re...;ulting Ill lhe lormauon ot a clau:-.e-linal verbal duster (see Ever:-. 1975). For tllustratton. compare the Dutch "' example:- below (den Besten 1989: 142). (69)
lm(i her lied z_in�:eu I hoordt>Jt
a. <,:idtll :t'
lhal the.. me the . ong sing b.
dar :e
uu:; liN
lied I hoordm :.mgen l
lhm lhe)' me 1he song heard both_ ·
.
heard
smg
. . thal they heard me �ing the :.ong ·
In (69b). the embedded verb :in.�en ·. mg · appear:-. to ha,·e mO\ed out of the ACI tnto lhe mam dau:-.e. and adJoined to the nghl ol lhe tinne vea b Jwordt.•n 'heard'. 1\ccotd mg. to Ruyter ( 1988: 277). example:-. like (69a) repre..o;em a marked oplion
o t he 1� eu,·opean 1 anguage
223
(which 1 have tndicated u. mg the '% · symbol). while Bennis and Hoekstra ( 1 989:
3 1 f.) even consider them ill-formed. Th1s indicate. that VR in Dutch ACts is (near-) obhgatory. Given our earlier claim that Dutch ACI. are aspectual phra. es headed by a non-progrcs. tve null counterpart of arm ·,. the derivation of (69b) mighl be sketched as follow. . '"'ith :.ingt•n adjoining to \' and £he resulling complex head rai.ing ful'lher to A p. wh1ch finally adjoms to the matnx ve1b.
v ho01den
1111)
In this way. VR forms a complex verbal head with the following internal strucwre:
(7 1 )
v
�
A.p
v
hoorden
A
J\sp (J
v
A
\'
v
(j :.ingen lmere.sungly. VR proves to be i mpo. .ible when the complement i. a p. cudo progressive:
(72)
a.
dar �t}
lmij he! lied
tl(m
·,
�int?enl lworden
heard that they me the . ong au he . ing · that the. heard me singing the .ong· .
.
.
224
d audta fe 1 .e ,.
b.
dar :e
uu:; lit•! lied
that the. me �-
•dat :.<'
atm
't tJroou/eu :.inJ:<'nl
the song auhe
heard
smg
uu:; lu>t lied lltoordt•Jt aan ·r :.in�<'ll J
that the� me the �ong heard
auhe
�mg
the analyst above. the data in (72) sugge�t that VR obe •:-. the Head Move ment Com.uaint in that the i ntel\ening aspectual head may not be �kipped lCI. (721>)). and that lhe complex a.�pectual head that i. founed via adJunction of the embedded V to A�p cannot l>Ub:-.equently mcorporate mto the higher verb (cf. (72c)). How can this Iauer resuicuon be accounted lor'? The following two po�!'.ible expl a nation:-. come to mind. 1-'irl>t. it could be that La's ( I 990) prohibi taon again:-.t func tioMI hei\d'i mcorporat ing into lexical one. holru t ru e unh·en.all,. and that VR i pos:-. ible out of ACis but not out of PICs beeau. e ACb do not comam any fu nct ional layer above vP/VP at all. However. tha. ex planatton •� at odds with the e adencc pre� ented abo' e which shows that ACI percept ion �omplementl> do contain an a�pec tu al laye r. The second po!>sib ility i. bal>ed on t he idea that VR •� blocked tl there is a mtsmatch between the featu re <.'Ontem of the element to be mcorporated and that of it:-. potential hO!'.L in the .ense that the hol>t il> �pectlied difle1ently. or ts undeaspedlied. lor the leatu1e in ques tion. Recall that the aspe� tual he�\d ofp. eudo progre;;�i\ e comple me nt !> catHe:. the leattlle l +progrel>save 1. whach an Out�h spell. out a:. cum hc·tf't. whtl e the matnx verb i:. unnuuked f01 /\!>pcct. The ill-formedne:...'l tt (72c) then tollo\\:.. from the asl>umption lhat a ( +pJOgre....st,·e J head may not ancor pOtate imo a \erbal head that t tsel f i marked ({1pJOgre.shej. or is not marl..ed fot thi� feature at all. �Jlte second avenue appean. to be more promil>ing as 1t gams mde pcndent �upport from the so called lnfinith•u.f. Pro l'articipio l i J>P) pheno menon. Ob. erve that in perlecuve mauax clau. es. the followmg comra�t �hows up: Gaven
,
-
(73)
a.
lk heb Hwu d<· awo J.apotmakm f:t'�ienl*:iell I
b.
huve
H.
the car
de molbh
sce•ll•see
lk heb Hans de awo :_ienl*�n.inl ktlpotnwkt•Jt
1 ha\'e H. 'I
the car . eel'•seen �aw John demolbh the car'
demolish
the matrh. ,·erb ts po��ible onl>-and become vil tually obl ig atory if the mntn� verb il> replaced by the mnmuvc form (hent:e the Get mtm term I:.:J.wt:injinitil ). According to Sto\\ell ( 1 9 t H . 4-8). past panacaple. difl er from inlini ti,·e:-. and finne verb� Ill that they are u nde r!>pec a fled " ith re�pect to the c.uegorial le�:uure I±N 1. l i this L'l corrc t. lhen m ligh t of what '''a" ...aad above. the word 01der fact:-. of ( 73) . uggel>t that VR of a (-N J element i l> prohabited if the potential ho:-.t Hl>elt as .pecitied ru 10�).1� Inversion ol lhe embedded and -
o t h e r· eu a�opean J anguagc
225
5.1.J.2 Gauwn Get man dtner. from Out\!h m that the evidenc.·e for VR 1. le� ohviou.-.. Den Be�ten and Edmond�on (I 9H3. 1 8�) obset 'e that for �ampler ca. e�. the relatl\'e ordct ing ol verb:-. \VIlhan lhc dau�c-nnal ,-erbal cluster
a.-.
a� an {7-t) (whe•e J\l.JX 2 can be a
modal ot auxilint). 01 one of a small !let of ACI-taking \erbs :-.u�...h as 'en�ory perceptton verbs or pe11ni. i\·e lcts.li£'1l ·ten:
(7-tl
g c t· man: 'lensed AUX-�lain Verb-AUX 2
d u t ch : 'Ien!!-ed J\UX-AUX 2-Main Verb
(75)
a.
das:; ll'ir ihn habt·n :�ingen huren that we him have
b.
sing
(German)
hear
dat we linn lu·bben horn1 tim :elf that we him have
hear
( Dutch)
ing
· . . . that we have heard hun :-.ang· rollowmg l:.vers (I 975). thi. difference b read1ly accoumed for if il i� a.sumed that
the mo:-.t deeply embedded \'erb sinc:en ·. mg· adJoin:-. to the lett ol the lugher ,-erb
an German. rather than to its nght. a." it doe:-. in Dutch. Example� such ao; the lollowing (cue-d by JanBcn 1993: 17�) have been taken to :-.how lhat the ACI
ltbren ·hear"
vet b has mdeed moved mto the matrix clau,.;e. on the groundi> thi\l it tallow. the :-.entemial negauon nidu ·not": da.\.\ id1 den Ldue1 das Lied nicltl :o.illf:t.'Jt /u)nc
(76)
that I ·
the teacher the :.ong not
!-- ing
heard
. . . that I d1dn· t hear the teacher sang the song·
However. if we take nidu to be a negative adverb that math the lett edge of the matrix verb phrase { Webelhuth 1989. among other.-. ). then all thi:-. example shows IS lhnt both the ACI subject and the object have moved (or ·scrambled·) acro. s the negatton into lhe matnx dau. e . If we follow the standard
rusumptton
that German
VP and IP lOt for out purpose:-.. A pP) are head-hnal (but see Zwart 1994 for a tadacally ditfcrent view). then the above data fail to tell u:-. whether or not VR really has taken place. '11te followmg example . how:-. that the parucaple and mtinnive foum are not al\\ ay:-. mutually exclusive:
(77)
\Vir lwbl•n ilm linJ?l'n t:<•hbn/lwren
we have
him sing
heard/hear
I I the analysi:-. ol VR an Dutch that I have :-.ketched above ss along the nght line·.
then the contra.-.1 an t78) below m1ght be accoumed lot 111 a similar way. (78)
a.
t!aH ll'ir ilrn ( t•in Lied) lwben siu�m horenl.. �£·lion that we him a
. ong have
smg
hear/"herud
d a u d s a fe l s e s·
226 b.
till.\.\ u•;r ilm ( ein Lied) s;IJ/-:(.'11 �:duirlf?lwreu hab£'11 Lh
�ong !lting
hcard/?heru
have
both. · . . .that we heard him sing t a song)" ·ntat 1:.. on the a1..�oumpuon that the au:\iliru·y lutbnt 'have· tn crnbedded dau�es he:.1ds a hcad-final sntlecuonal projection. 11 '' ould apperu that ra1.�.ing ol the . inxcn ltiJrt'Jt comple:\ to lhe auxi lia 1y 1s posl.tble only (and again. near-obligatory ) if the
lllhlllttvc ss U!lted an place of the parts�sple. II the parucaple IS Ul.ed. adJUncuon of the mol.t dcepl. embedded verb siJt�t·n to the (inherently perfective) panidple �l'hbn
t. blocked. �o that in (78b). the bas1� orJer Ml1in Vnl>-t\UX2-7t·n.,t:d AUX �� pre SCI \·ed. '11ms it �eerns that at lca. t a. far a� the (comparatavely �implc) case� under discu��ion are concerned. the only dall'erence bel\\cen (jennan and Dutch lies in the direction of head adJUncuon. In Dutch. verb. will uniformly adJOin to the right ol their host. wherca� in German the direction of adJu nction l.eems to be
V
Howe\er. the direction of head adjunction in Genna Ill nught actually be le.s arbt tmry than it :-.eenh. Recall that 11 was argued above that p!�tcudo-progre!ltl>ive comple ment!�. are hcad-hnal A. pPs headed by am or tWit lt£'11 '1. and that the...;e a. pectual mat ket� are af11xal an that they cau.e the \'erb to adjoin overt!, to their right. Sup po�e lu1 ther that perlecuve lwben t. not a lexical \erb but in tmlltate� the functional head PeJf(£'<'/). It then appear. lhat Ill German VR connguratJon�. adjunctiOn to a lextcal \erb will generally be to the left whetea! adJunction to a tunclional hcaJ (�u�h a.' pet f'ct'tive hube,J) ''ill be to the right .1'' ,., Under thll> view. rhe verb siiJ�i!'J
Ill (78a) ha. hn.t adJoined to the right of a (null) a!ltpectual head. wh1ch has �Ub!ltC· quently adJoined to the left of lturen. fanally. the te!ltulung ,·erbal complex hru moved to the 1 ight ol lhe perfcclive auxahary ltab!•n. The rc�ult ,, tl1e configuration )>hown in (79) (tor e:\po�itof) re. hon. . small vP halo been let\ out>.'' (79)
Per l '
�"-..
Perf
/�
Perf
V
lwben
�
A!ltp
/'
A'P
V
V
hbren
The a..;sumpuon that V-to- V movement •� vacuoulo in German aho explam� the
o t h e r· e u r�opean I anguagcs
227
po:-:-.ibthty ol using the intlniti\e Ill place ol the )XUilctple in (77) and (781>) above. an optton that 1s not available in Dutch. Final!). ob!'>CJ \ e that VR
Ill
Ge1man is preduded where the matrix verbcombi ne.�o
with a (+progre�!'>ivej complement. JUSt (80)
a.
du.\.\ wir ihn am
as
it i� in Dutch:
Siugnt �eltmt/lu)r('ft ltub<•n
lhm we him auhe smg
heard/hear
h:.we
'lhat we h<we he.ud hun .inging ·
b. �dtl.'i.\ 11'ir ilm habe11 am that we him have
Siu�en gehurtlltlm!n
at.lhe sing
Agam. this i!'> con·cctly predicted b
heard/hear
our hypothesi!'> that mcorporation should be
tmpo.;;sible whenever there t.s a feature mismatch between the mcop<>raung head and II!'> potential mcorpormum. 52.4 Sttmttwn After prc�enting evidence that German am <md Dutch wm lterl 'r m p:-.eudo progre:-si\e:-. funcuon
a." a:pe ctual
marker�. I ha\e argued that both ACI and
p:-eudo-progte:o.!\JVC perception complement:- in the..,e language:-. :-.hould
be anal) !'>fd
as dau�al ptojections of the category Asp!'. It ha.�o been !'>hown that de,�;pate apperu ancel>. cornplemenb of tlu:-. type are neuher nommal
or
prepo:-.attonal gcrund.l>. nor
verbal :anall dauscs m the :-.ense of Stowell ( 19M3). but llhtead are be!'>t analysed as clau:-.al projecuon:-. ot an aspe tual he.ad located lo\\er than T. but higher than V (or \'). Direct percepuon complement� in German and Dutch dalier from theu Eng li:-.h counterpruL' only wilh regaad to fhe headedne�. ol J\:-.pP. and 10 lhe way that ptogressh·e a-"pect i!'> marked-lexically in Geml<m and Dutch. but morphologically Ill English. That i:-.. perception ACls and pseudo-progrc:-.. ive!'> pattern with Engh�h
bare inti nit ivai and paa1 icipaal complement!\ not only with respect to their :-.ymactk beh<wiour and :-.emamic �haracteristics. but also With regard to theit imernal !'>U Ul'tural make-up.
5.3 Direct Perception Complements in Romance In t he Romance language..->. the !'>fnsoa-y perception of an action or e,·ent can be cx pre!'>!'>fd through the u�e of an ACI (cf. ( g 1 :1 n. a l'.w .>udo - Re/aril'(' Cvmplt•IIU'fll WRC. . cf. t � I b)). or a Pn·,w�iliomtl lnfiniri�·e Complemenr {PIC). (cf. (8 lcH. The follow sng example� from Italian rue cued by Gua:-.ti ( 1992: 53). 1"
22X
d aud.a fe l .e a· a.
(8 1 )
Hu l'i.\lu Maria parlire · l �aw Maty leave·
b.
\l£'do J'rlariu dw bada Luca
(I) sec f\1.
who kt�.es L.
'1 :-.ee Mary kt��mg Luca·
c.
Huo
�t·mii Maria a cwua
' 1 heard Mary �mg
(Bnanza. Milan: �cc note 19)
·
All three type!' of complemem observe the Sunuhanett, Condllaon nnd permit �tage 1e,el predacatcs onl)'. PRC� and PIC. d1ll'er I rom ACts in that they signal -
unperfecuvit)' or ·prog•e��•ve·
l! < pect
(see e.g. Guasu IY93: 1-Htf.).
This :-.ection provide� a brief overview of di fferent type� ol direct perception cothtrucuon a n Romance. showmg how the# contnlM wllh J>etceptual reports m
Germanic. I al. o critically evalume :-.ome previous analyse. . ror lad\ ol pace and •
for expo:-.ttot �, rea.�ons. I �hall glos� 0\·er some of the dtflcrent:e:-. that exi�t bet\veen
111d1vidual Rom<.mce languages. .)• 5 .J. I ACI Comph•mt'ltl.\
Like their Gennan and Dutch coumerpar ts Romance perce puon ACis. 1 er>eated m .
(82a-<") below. bear a �trong �upcrlicial resemblance to the t::ngh�h Bl corL-:truction and to ACI complement� 111 other Germamc language�. (82)
a.
Hu vi:uu Pao/() rubart> ww macdtiJUt
(ltahan)
b.
J'cti vu !'au/ voler tme w>illm.'
tFtench)
c.
\If Pablo rubar tm <'Oclte
t Spani�h)
' I have seen Paul . teal a car
(UUil:.ll 1 993: I 15)
'
Like their Germanic correlates. lhe J\C1s in (82) pro e to be non-tinue dau�'l �on stituent� that signal the tmmediate sen�ory perception of an event. In whal follow5:. 1 shall bnefly review Guasti· s ( J 993) main ar-Juments fot
ana lysi ng
Romance ACis
as full IP:-. (AgrSPs in he1· terminology). and then propo�c a minor modtticauon ol her analy�•s that account� lor the ab�ence of auxilhu ies a� well a:- lor the e\·emive chruacter ot the�e comple ments I shall funhe1 propo:-.e that certain differences m .
�yntacuc behaviour bet\\leen ftalian. Sparu�h and Ponuguc!'>e AC:I.s on the one hand. and rtench ACh on the other. can be accounted for Ill term� ol a �ubtle �u uc tuml ditl erencc bel ween ACI. in the.e language�. J3a,ed on the ob�ervation that the Smmltaneit) Condition appea1 to hold fo1 direct petcept 1on complement�C!Ol � h ngui �tical ly Gua�ti t 1993. 153f.) argue� that -
.
PVC:- rue uni\er:-.all) characterised b • their lack of releremial Ten�c. Accordmg to
o t h e r· eut·opean 1 anguagc�
229
her. It •� the absen e ol a referential tcn�e from a ghen clau�e. mther than ib :-.ytuac
lic comple�u y f>L'J
se. that �orrelates wilh Its ability
lo denote a bare event.21
She
propo�e.!. to analy:-.c Romant-e ACis a. AgrSP. , \\ ith A�rS taking a non-thute TP a� 11:-. complement ltbtd . . 1 20).
Ho vtsto I"' ..SJ> Paolo rubare, In• 1,· I w t, una macchina J I I
(�)3 1
Guasti"s anal, si:-. is ba:-.ed mainly on the dt.tribution of VP adYerbs. negation. and
nul l :o.ubject:-. m thc�e complement. Consider. for in :o.tance . the fol l owmg example from Italian tibid .. 1 17f.).
(84)
a.
Ho
l'i.uo Litt disrruggne complt•Utlllclllt' �LW macchiua
(I) h:wc seen L. de:o.troy b.
.. Ho
complete ly
her car
visto Lilt complnamt'lllt> distruggt'rL' tw mw·cllilm
(I) have seen L. completely
her car
de..�troy
The tll-formcdnes:-. of(84b) show. that in Italian. the inlini th·e must mO\e obligato
rily acros:o. a VP-inllial adYerb such a. c:omplcwmenu' ·completely' . evidently tar
gcung a head positton that b located higher than V. In french. by contra:-.t. verb
rabang across a V P adverb appears to be merely optional (op. cat.. 1 20f.l.
(85)
a.
J'a;
w
Paul dbruirt> cmnph�u•mem Ia
I ha\e :-.een P. b. ·�J'ai
\'u
de�..trO) completely
the car
!'au/ complhemntl dlftrttil£• Ia
I ha,·e seen P.
com1>letely
'oiwre
'oiiLtrt'
destroy the �;u
�ext. con�ide1 the disu ibution of negation in lt;than ACb.
(86)
a.
Ho
•·isto Alia non dan· (pili)
(I) have .seen A. U�f)
1£• curwndh• tt Lia. ma a
neg give tany more ) candie)\
to L.. but to
U. b.
Ho
••isto Alice non partire. ma arri\•urL'
(I) have seen A. c.
Ho
neg leave.
but arri\e
•·i.\10 A/in' non dmc molu• caJttnlt..•ll£• u Lia
( 1 ) have .seen A.
neg give many cm1daes
to L.
Gua:-.ll rugue.s that P C. 111 (86) above contain sentent ial negation. If it t:-. cotrect that the avail ab ili ty of sentential negat ion conelate.s with the pre,-:ence ol Ten!-.e
(Zan Ultlll i 199 I . among othen. ). then the abO\·e data �u�gest that Romance ACh arc
:o.tructurall�· mme complex than their Germanic countef(Xlth in that tltcy proJCt't a
TP layer. A� a negated eve nt L hardly compatible with darcct percep11on in the �en)>e
d audaa fe l s e t·
230
outlined in Chapter 2 (compare. al.o Mittwoch 1 990). it would , eem dtat for the sentence. m (86) to be a. stgned a coherent mterpretation. the complement clause. must have a greater degree of. emamic (or temporal ) independence from the matrix clau.e than thetr Gennanic correlate. . Ob. erve that French differs trom Italian m that the embedded lexseal vet·b may not mo e aero� the negative markerpa (corre . pondmg to Italian pitt) (Gua. ti 1993: 1 2 1 ). 2: (87)
a.
l"t1i
vu
les £,,�f(ml.\' ne
pas pleurer
I have . een the duldren n e g not Cf)' b.
,.
J'(li vu les l!l{ltmrs lfl' plntrer pa� I have seen the children n e g cry not
rinally. Guru It ( 1993: 1 23f. ) claims that the occurrence of null . ubject. in Romance !\Cis implie.c; the prc.c;enl·c ol a corTespondmg h�ensing head (AgrS in her sy tem). In (88). for example. the understood null subJect (pro) of rttbart.• ·. teal' is able to control PRO in the adjunct clause. (88)
1-/o
l'isro mbart? dei
( I ) have seen :-teal
libri.
PRO na!wondt•ndoli souo il
some books. PRO hiding them
under the
cappotto �:oat /\gam. french pattern. ditfet>ently from the.c;outhel n Romance languag� m that null . ubject. are excluded from rrench ACb (Guasti 1993: 1 24):
(89)
Fai
vu
voler de.,·
li�·res. PRO t.m I!'S c(lc/utnt sous le uutureatt
I have seen steal ·ome book.. PRO hiding them
under the coat
�ottce thal Gua. ti':--: claim that Romance /\Cis project a TP layer al.o provide. u. wtth a way of accounting for a long-standing puzzle. namely the tact that contrary to their Germanic counterparts. ACI. m Italian-type languages fail to obey the Con stnunt again. 1 Pa.stve.
(90)
Gianni t' suuo \•isro 11Umt?iart> ww tuela
G.
was . een eat
an apple
lPollock 1994. 302)
In the Italian example above. the ACt subject Giunui ha. been pa. stvi�ed. (jJven the Event Control Hypothe. ts outhned in Chapter 4. we expect that matrix passivism ion of perceptual report • . houtd be �sible onl, if the complement contain:-. a (non finite) TP. in which case the complement Ten:-.e will be able to formally tdenufy the tower event argument irrespective of whether or not a potential controller i. pro vided by the matnx erb. Raising of the lower . ubject i. fmced by the f
o t h e r· e u a·opean 1 anguagc
231
language� like halinn panern with Engh:-.h t:::CM snhnitives. and not with 1P C.. (91)
(92 1
a.
We expocted/,..�aw L,l' t\•1at)
b.
�t:u ,, was expected/�een
a.
lio
b.
h· lr to I
return
IJ
IrP t, 1,., h to) retw·n J I
Ir. G i ann i (r. (1 0 J mnngiarc una me ta I I Gtanni, c stato In• t, fr. h 0 J mangia1e una mcla ) I i
v � to
lntere:-.tingly. Ftench once again turn. out to behave hke Hnglbh. and not �' san. Spanh.h or Portugue�e. in that matrix pa��•visation i:-. prohsbned:
(93)
"Jean u iii l'll numgt•r tme pomme J. was �een eat an apple
lit...e hal
( l,ollock 1 994. 302)
Gtven the observed
of
non-flnlle event complement:-. in Lhe�c language�: Southern
pa.siv1. ation. (a l)'pe 1 1 lan
Romance (ot "1, pe I) language which permn pro :-.ubjects. matrix •
and
rabmg of lhe
mfinmve
.
across a
negath e mruket: and Ftench
guage). " luch do not allow null subject·
or
malrix
pa.,:-.ive�.
and in wluch \erb
movemem is more restncted.
languages �uch a� ltah;.m. Spant:-.h. 01 Portugue�e. I take . Uua�ti � analy�•' to be e��entially correct. I �ugge:-.t. however. lhat within the AgrP For ACb in "l)•pe I
ftee frame\\ 01 k ol Chom�ky t I 995). they . hould better be anal)'sed (94-}
Ho vi�to In· Paolo I,. rubare, . . . l.r• . . . 1 1,· l •.
.. r
a� TP'>.
t, una macchina
IJ I J I
Tlu� analysis b. con:-.1:-.tent wnh the data di)>CU$Sed. and rende� Type I ACb sLruc
English.11 to their counterpan� in the Southern
turally :-.imthu to full utfintll\'� in
The fact that conuary
Romance
language . .
perceptton ACts in French rather systematically behave like Englbh HI comple ment�. �uggc�ts that they might lack a T-�ystem
altogether. I would like to �uggcst
that ACb in Type II language. are better <mal)r�d
a.'
·bme · AspPs. I I thh ts correct.
then the ill- lonnedness of (93) follow. from the ab�ence of an appropnate commll er
II\ Ihe mmrix clause. whtch leave. the lower event po:-.llton unidenti lied (compare Section 4.-l. 7 abO\ e). The ob.erved difference..'\ between rrench on the one hand. and Southct n Romance languages on the other might be Iinked to certain ditlerenc� m the morphologtcal prot>Cttles ot ,·ems m the..se language:-.. Pollock { I 994: 302) :o.ugge�ts that language� like Italian differ from French in that the tn the Iarmer. unl1ke the Iauer.
b
inhnJtival
sutfix
·. trong · and thu� ha:-. to be checked pnor to Spell
Our. I wouiJ hke to make an e\·en stronger sugge�tion to the elfect thai mfimuve m the Southem Romance language. . but not in French. are obligatorily inflected fot layer Ill the symax. .!� evidence that
non-fmite Ten�e. lon�ing £he ptojection of a TP
232
d aud1a fe l .e 1·
bare infinsuve.... in the Southem Romance language!'>-but not in French. Englb.h. Gc1 man or Out� h-are able to deline an independem temporal domain come. I rom example� :o-uch a::. lhe lollo\\ing {adapted from Kroch er a/. 1987. 283). (95)
(96)
a.
h i� nece::.!'>ar)' •(to) ·peak wnh Mary
b. c.
trl!cc>.uuire '+'{dL') parler uret· Marie J:.'s ist m'itii:. mit i'vlaria (.:u) lpredten
a.
Era
b. c.
II t'.\1
tFrench) (Getman) {Italian)
necessario ("di) par/an• cun Maria J::w preci!>o ( ..t/(• ) hablttr con l'vlariu Ellt prn·i�o c•de) Ja/(lr COlli Maria
l Spnnb.h) Wortuguese )
The conlJol infinitives Ill the English. french. and Oerman example!-> m (95) all require the presence of ·orne kind of infiniti at marker. In the infinitival clause. m {he corre..�ponding example. from Itahan. Spant:-.h and Portuguese. by contta!'>l. the anfhuttval marker::. are redundant. suggesting that the infinitival morphology here as !->Uihc1ent to �ignal the degree of temporal independence that i� i\l>l>Odatcd wilh l'OJUrol inli nilh·e� (see Stowell 19X2):u' Taken togetheL the abO\ e olhet 'at ions lead me to condude that perception ACis m french arc projection� of a head to" et than T. Let
u.;;
now return to ACb
Ill
T) pe I language.,.
\\ luch
exhibit a rather dtnercm
beha\'iour I rom ACb in Germruuc. and which arguabl)• �ontam a Te n�e l•1yer. I\ote that Gua�tr s anal) l>i� doe� not .eem to offer any :o.traighttorward e�planadon for the absence of a:-.pectual auAJiiarie. lrom J\Cb. or fos the fact that J\Ch are normally under.-;tood
a.
de;;cnbsng a completed e' ent. i.e. that the vet b carne::. perfective
aspect (."ee Guasti 1993. 1 1 8. 149). J-'U11hermorc. at lhe generah-;ation proposed eat tier. that �tage-level predscate.;; are canomcally reah:-.cd a::. Al>pl's. i. coa reel. then the fact that per�cption-ACI. m Romance ob:-.erve the SLP CoJl!'>tmmt amphes that they !->hould comasn an a.'pectual layer a. well. ror lhi� rea::.on. I sugge::.t that the analy::.t:-. in {94) above �hould be amended in the following way. Based on 1he theory ofTcnsc outlmed b. Gaorga and Pianesi ( 1997). according to which clauses {at leerception-ACis ptoject the lower Ten:-.e layer l= TP2) onl, . "lllat is. of the two options l>hown in (97) ( from which addauonal Agr-phm::.e:-. ill':l>Umed by Gaorgt and Paane!'>t have been ommed). Romance ACb instantiate the.econd one.'21 (97)
a. b.
. . . h'Pt . . . I TP1
.
.
.
.
.
•
T I .. h'P . .
.
T2 . . . v p J
. VA.., . . . ht-1 . . . T2
.
. . VP I J
Tht!-> would e�plain why any auxiliaries associated '' ith the higher T- projection (and which. followsng the author�. origmate in the po:.ition mruked v..,J. an (97a)). notably modal. . a::.pcc•ual bl' and perlecllve /un·e. do not occur in percepllon-ACis.
o t h e r· e u t·opean 1 anguagc�
233
author� further a��ume that Romance dau:-.e:- may contain an aspectua1 projection that 1:-. located 1111ermediate bel\\een TP2 and the VP projec ted by the main vet b. ;Uld whtch ti> a:-.:-.oci ated with the aspectual propertie ,, of the \erb l tbid . . I 00. 129ff.). 'llli� ::-ugge. u that the �anontcal reah!.atton of bare event:. in language.� that panem like ltahan i:-. TP2. and not AspP. I I we take Asp to be the lormal licen:-.er of the Kratzcri;lll event argumcnt t.ee Chapter -l). t hen Roman'--c ACh wtll ha\e the 1 :.tmpli lied) ba�tc :.tructure of t98) below.:" Tlle
(9S)
lP2
/""'-
DP.,
1'2'
/�
T2
A E
Asp'
�
Asp
vP/VP
In French ACh. b) contr� 1. the T2 . y:-.tem i:-.
not obhgatouly projected .
I I we
ac�..-ept thb modtlicatton of Gua:-.ti' � ana1ysi:-. then ACb tn Romance 'l)'pe l lan guage!'> will in fact be !.tructurall) Je�3 comp lex than lull inhntttve!'> 1ea.,t tf we lol low Giorgi and Pianess ( 1997: 82)
an
m
Englt..-;h. at
analy:.ing to a:-. an in�tanuation
(= Tl ). That the e,·enh denoted b) Romance ACb are normally interpt eted a.� contemporaneou. with the mamx event might be due to the fact that the lower T lacks a referential mdex of their O\\ n. but in!'>tead a.':-.ign� the lo\\ er ,went atgument <'I default mterprctation in the way de!.clibed by En� ( 1996). J\:-. th i:. dcfault tnterpretation in tum 1:-. deternuncd by the matrix tense m conjunclion wllh semanttc propenie:- of the lugher verb. perception will normally be interpreted as being fairly direct. The pre..�ence of the T2 head capa bl e of for mall� identifying lhe lowe r event
5.J2
•
1'.\'t•udu-Rdatil'i' Complemnas
Pscudo-re1athe meanmg and
from ordin
omplement
contain a
dtfler
trom ACb
in
that they
are progr�. ive sn
ten:-.ed \erb. They are abo l nown to pauem
din crently
(re:-.lricuve or apposith·e ) relative clau.,e:-. (see e.g. Uua:-.u 1993.
234
(99)
d aud1a fe l .e1·
du• nuw�iaviu Ia m£'/a
a.
Gianni lw \'i to 1\t/ariu
b.
Jean
a
�-
JuwJ
ha l'i!l'to a J'¥/ariu que.• com/a
Ia
G.
ha:-. 'een .\11.
the ap[>le
'John
saw
'u
\1/uria
qui JTUI!tf?t'ait
that ate
( ltahan)
Itt ptJIIIIIIl'
tFrench) <Spanish)
JIWII._ww
(Uua�t• 1993. 1 -t l )
.\llary eatmg the apple'
J\ccordmg toUua:-.ti ( 1 99'2). 1he pre.o;;ence ol a rclatlve complemcnu�er indicate� that the complemenh in (99) are in tact full CP:-.. with an internal :-.truL·tute along the
line� of ( 100).1''
( &00)
Gitm11i lw \'i�u,
lc1• Maria
lc I c clu· J mau�iavia Ia ml'la I J
This analy�i. •� conststent wtth Radford" s (I 977) obscrvation that the complement as a whole behave:-. like a p10po.itwn. a. the tollowmg example illu�trate� {op. cit.. I 55ff.):
( 10 I )
Cir) clu>
i• Maria
•·isto
that which (J) have seen �� ?vl .
du• scrivt'l'a
nd
.wmw
thm ''a� writing while a!ltleep
Along with R1J.Zi ( 1992). Guasti a�sume. that the subJeCt ol the p:-.eudo-relauve complement 1:- generated in (Spec.CP). This propo!�oa l. however. rai�c� :-.e,·eral prob lem�. fir�t. the 1dea that an atgument of V �hould originate in the �pecihe1 po. it ion ol CP is bru ely compatible with the �tand:Hd a."'�umpuorh that thematic expre.sion
01 iginate within the ve1 b phrase. anJ that (Spec.CP) '' a non-argumcm po�ition. A
�econd problem ol Guasu·s and Rizzi·� analy�i. lie. in the way H account� for the
fact that the talleged) �ubject of the lower clau�e b at the �arne time tnterp1eted as a ditect object ot the mamx ,·erb. In order to �olve th1s p10blem. RIZ ZI ( I 992) pro pose� what he call� a 'themnuc sharing· i:-. Specitkally. he a. ume� lhat both the complement dau:-.e a� a whole and 1ts subject �imultaneously tunction a."' the theme of \•iden· ·see· m ( 1 02).
( I 02)
\lnlo In• Maria lc- [C" che J bacia Luca ) J
t_.=
•
J
0-. haring
J\ccordmg to Riai (I Y92). the pos. ib1lity of a direct pen.:cpuon tcad111g doe� not depend on the category of the complement. but rather on whether or not lhe postvetbat DP ss governed and 0-marked by the h1gher verb. As Rtz7i himselt note. . the thematic �h;ll ing hypothe�t. il> problematic becau�e 11 imolve� a VIOlation of the 0-cutedon: The DP J\,-laria Ill ( I 02) end. up being a.'�igned two d1�llnct thematic role:;. the role ol agent by the embedded verb. c1nd that of t heme b) the h1gher verb. If. on the other hand. pseudo-rclauve con�tructtoth were anal� �d a.' complex noun phrase�. a � tt ha� previou.ly been �ug�e�ted by Kayne ( I 98-U and 1:3urzto ( 1986). then the fact lhat the po. t\'Ctbal DP h understood follow automattcally:
a.
a mauix object would
o t he a· e u a·opean 1 anguagc
235
\letlo 1 11r. lvlaria l<'l' dte bada Luc:a I )
( 103)
E' tdencc lor a DP analy�b. 1:-. pro,·ided by example, �uch as ( I 0�) helow. m which the plural noun phm�e Giwmi e Maria 1:-. resumed by the plural dttic pronoun Ji 'them· tsee Cinque 1995. 256). ( 10-t)
L Ciicmni £'
G.
MariaJ qttL' ballww if
and .\11.
that dance
ttlltg(). non
li lw nwi \'i�ti
the tango. them I ne,er .aw
J"he unavaelal>Jiity ol a sentential prolorm �ugge:-.ts that the bracketed OP here b. the head of a compte" DP :-.tructure. The fact thaf fhe po�tverba.l DP may be pnssivi�cd on its own. on the othe1 hand. appe�u:-: �omewhat puzzling. given that the head of a relative clatL'e may not nor mally be exfracted (ibid .. 259). Gilllwi e
( 105)
G.
.taw
visw
cite correva a lttlla ,.efocila
" a:-. seen that was running m full �peed
/\ po:-.�tble explanation oftheseemingl�r contradJctory behavtoue ol pseudo-relative!
ha� been otlered b, Cinque ( 1 995). He suggests that hke Engli:-.h DP-ing comple ment�. PRC� may be up to three-way� ambiguous. Under tlu:-. ' tew. a :-emence . u h as the Italian example in ( I 06) can be rusociated \>vith the three dtlfercm :-.fructural reprcsemauon� (a}-(c) (adapted from Cinque 1995: 256). ( 106)
H(J \'i.Ho MarifJ chl' correru
t•t.>luc-ita that wa. running at full speed a tulle
�aw .M . ' I �aw Mary 1 unning at full �peed·
(I)
a. sma l l c l ause complement Ho Lv visw I "c J'vlttrio ln.dte correva u lullu \·t'locilii I J I
b. sma I I
wt t hm DP Ho h vislo l 1w IIJr• Mariol t. ,. PRO che corn•wt a 111/la \'t'/ocitil J I I
c.
c l a usc adj u n c t
sm a l l c l ause adj u n c t wlt htn VP Ho lVP lv \•isw I uP Mmiol j In PRO che corrt•wt ll luiUL w·locilli
II
Of t11e abO\e analy�e.. only ( I06a) takes the complement Ill qucsuon to be a single dau:-.al con�tiLuent and en thb re�J>CCl mitrors rhe analyM:o. that I have propo�d for •true·. t.e. clausaJ. PPVC. in Chapter 3. •tne othet rwo brad.etmg:- indicate a DP-modifier �onsfruction and a non-constuuem cquence of a DP and a controlled adJuncf clause. re.pectivel). Cinque ( 1 995. 261 f.) pmpolle� that the :-mall dau. e complement ol �·idL•te in ( I 06n) i. u�elf a CP headed by a null cornplernenuser. Tlu�. however. rai�e. the que. tion ol how the �mall dause :-.UbJCCt wtll 1 ccei,·e iu thematt<.' mle and how it will �heck ca. e. geven that only �mall clause� or TP:--
236
d audsa fe l .e t·
but not CP:. -are commonly a� umed to be tr:m�parent for ca�e marking by the higher 'erb. 'llle following example. (�lied by Cmquc 1995: 273t.) !.uggest. �ontm R1zz1 ( I 992). that the po.tverbal DP 111 dau.at pe1<�eption eomplement:-. 1. 8-matked b. the ''\mall dau:-.e· predicate (lhat i:-.. by the lower CP). and not by the higher \erb. ( 107)
a.
\fidt>
il
t•cnto dw
111110\'t!\tt
le
/(J�Ii£'
:Jhe sa\\ the wmd that wa.�; tno\'ing the lea\e:o. h.
Se .\·cnti
Gianni
1f you hear G. In ( I 07a). the po. tvetb
Ill> own. and
<·he fa pilmt:ere il that hal> cry w:nro
frmdlino.
chicunami
hi:- liule btother call me
"the wind' i:-. not somethmg that can be per
111 ( J 07b). the only thing that b heard il> Gimuu·s
crymg brother. OnI, the analyse)> Ill ( 106b) or ( 106c) wi II yield readmgl> 111 which the post verbal DP it�elf is per�ci\ ed dire tty. in the manner :-.pecifled b, the htgher (and in thl. Ca..\e. ().markmg) verb. In clau�al PRCl>. the 0\ert subJect m the :-.pecificr of the higher CP t= CP I ) i. comdexed witJ1 a null pronominal subject 111 the lowe1 CP ( = Cl�). whkh i <1..;:-.igned non1inauve ca:-.e b)' finite Agr an C (see Cinque 1995: :!63t. fo1 turtl\ec deta.ls). ( I OX)
l io
1
.. .
vil>tO
lo·• Matio,
. . .
1<'1 ••pro, 1<. che correva a tutta 'elodti\ I l l J
Jh regard-. case a.signment to the subject OP in the h1gher lSpec.CPJ ). Cinque
argues that tt 1:-. case-matked indirectly along the lines of Reuland's ( 1 983a) analy�is \ se i!\ a��igned by the of J\CC-in�: con�trucuons in English. accordtng to which c� matnx verb to its CP complement. then percohHel> to AgrS and from there 1!-. il! l>lgned to the subJect. A we saw earlier. however. this �\l>sumption is d1fkult l to reconcile with minimalist views on crue checking . .1\h.o. ll i� hard to !-.ee how lhe higher verb should be able to impo�e . elecuonal restrictions on the most deeply embedded prcdkate. gtven the pre�ence of two inletvening CP bamer:-..�� ln .o;um. Cinque·:. clajm that PRCs may be tructumlly ambiguous in a way .inu lar to the DP-in�: corb.lt\J<.'tion. discu. :o:ed in Chapter 2 seems to be reasonably well founded. and pmv1de.s a plausible explanation for why Jheudo-relati\·e constrtrctions
exh1bit apparently conOicting characteristic:-.. A:-. far a:-. the structUie ol dau:-.al J>RCs 1'\ concemed though. ncitJ1er ol the analyse:. dLcus:-.ed above appearl> to be entirely com tnclllg. Although dausal PRCs appear to �hare a number ol propen ic.-. Wllh Engli'h PPVC�. the fact that the�r comam both a complementbcr and a tln1te ,·erb for m suggest� th;.U they are not 'erbal or a.spectuaJ �mall daul>C:o.. and hence. that the t \\O type:-. of complement cannot be treated on a par. 1 l>hall leave any further inve:o> tigation imo lhe -.u ucture of PRC. al> a mauer for tuture re:-.earch.
o t h e r· eu a�opean 1 anguagc
237
5..J.J Pn..•pu.\ilionu/ JnfiniliL't!.\ Lee u� hnally cum to prepo:-itional mtinicivc:- of the cype �hown in t I 09).
( 109)
a.
t."t t \ i
(),, meninbs a ler(em)
c Portugue�e)
£'�St• li\ro
�aw the children to Jead(AGR) that book
'I :.aw the chtldren readmg that book' b.
( Rapo. o 1 9X9. 277) (Bnanza. Milan)
Hoo l£'11tii Maria a <'amu
' I heard Mary .ing·
{Gua:-.ci 1992: 53)
Wherca� che pseudo-rehuive complemencs di scu:-:-.ed above are tensed. PICs con tam an intinitiV
Engli. h. Accordang to Rapo. o ( 1989). PIC's are . ingle con)>t ituenc who� progre:-
:-.ave value ts comribuced by
u.
which IS homophonou: wrth
a
dati,e-goveming
preposition corre:-.ponding to Engh.h •to'. Like I PVC's and PPVCs in Engh�h.
Ponuguese ACL:-. and PlCs difter minrmally " ith respect to theu a�pectuaJ charac ter (1b1d
..
a.
( 1 10)
279): t.'u \•i
m
meninos lerlem)
o
/i,•ro
�aw the children read{AGR) che book b.
Etc ' i
w
menilws a Jer( em)
tJ
li1•ro
�aw the children to read(AGR) the book
'I .sa'' the duldren readmg the book' E' rdence chat a in Ponugue:-.e PIC. does not behave hkc a normal paeposition
IS
provided by Rapo!o ( 1989). who notes that it may not be coabtrued with a
nominahsed lorm:
J::u \'i
( 1 1 1)
o.-.. mt•n;no.\ (l)
leilttr
dl'S!W livro}
saw t he children co the readmg of the boo�
{Raposo 1989: 279)
T1u:-. ob),eJ\ation b compatible wuh Gua�ti·s ( 1992) proposal that u 1n PICs fun
-
tions as a lprepo::-illonal) complementtser. She argue!>. that de:-.pite the d1tfcrence m
le n:.e PIC� are :-tructurally analogous to p. eudo-relattvc complement:-.. Both ex pre�� direct perception. ate re.crtcted to .stage-level pred1catcli. carry unperfe<:-CIVC a..pect. and obsct \C the Simultaneuy Condll1on. Therelore. Uua.-.ti :-.ugge. ts. the two �hould be tteated ali�e. She paopo:-.es to analy�e both type:- ot complement a� CP con:-.tituent:-. witll a tructure lli in ( 1 1 2 ) belo\\. tcikmg both du• and a to be
'
.
mstanllatiOtb of C.
23X ( 1 1 2)
d audaa fe l .e1· a. b.
Veda l lr l\•laria
1<-- lr che j
bac1a Luca j )
Eu Vt ( u .. os meninos I< I<' a l ler(em) es!'.e lt\ro J I
However. it •� uncleat whether a in Por tugue!'.e or Italian PIC!'. really ha� the �talU. ol a complemcnti,er. gt\en that they lack refere mial 1ensc. Gua�ti · !'. anaJy,L i� abo at odd� with the evidence prO\aded by Rapo�o ( J 989) that PIC� shrue the di�tribu tion ol �mall clau. e� (and not that ol IP� or CP:. ). and that the lower subject I� case
but not U-mart...ed by the matnx verb. �oreover. her analy�is p•o,• ide� no ob'• iou. ' explanation tor the fact that PIC� are nece�sarily progre.s�ive in chara ter. 1 finally.
ob erve that we would not nonuall)• expect a constituent thm originates within CP to undetgo mat ri x J>il.! MvbatJon - but the PICs !'.UbJcct do�-;:
( 1 1 3)
Os at'Wrt·s.[oram vi.�to:l t, a repn•. entnr(t>m) a
the acto�
were .een
repre. eming.
ana
the �cenc (Raposo 1 989. 290)
A pos�ible ahem&uh·e to Gua�tr s anal�sb 1s the one sugge�ted by Rapo�o ( 1989).
who analy e� PIC� a. prepo. itional small clause� headed by u. whkh 1telf takes a claUl><\1 ( I P 01 CJl) complement.
( I 14)
f:.'i vi I ..r• u.\ nu•tlilfo:., 1,. tt I�"Wtr e, h •1(em) £'.'iJ.<' li l'ro J I J
( e = PRO 01 fJrO )
J\naly. mg
tt a.!
a prcpo�naon. howe,·er. �eem� que!'.tionable in hglu of the all
formednc�� ol ( I l l ) abO\e. Secondly. I can :.ee no compelling rea�on lor a.�uming
that the complement of a ),hould be a full clau�e comauung a (comrolled) null pro
nominal. What i� more. like Canque·. anl : ly�1. of clausal PRCs discu:sed above. the analy� •� 1ft ( I I .f) wal l ha\e daticulty l accounting lor the fact that the PIC ' !'. o;tage level predicate appear. to be �emantically :-elected by the perception verb.
Ui,en the app
ct\lly and :;ymacucally. Romance PICs bear a strong resemblance to Gennan and Dutch p!'.c udo- prog re. s1ve�. I would Iike to sugge!'.t a �omewhat �unplcr alternative to Raposo· c; c;mall
c lau�
analysis. Suppo�e thm a is neither a prepo�atron nor a
complemenusea·. but in!'.tead. like Get man
m11
and Dutch
mm
llet/'t. fu nctions as a
progresshe marker headmg an a. pectual projection ol it'l own. The PIC's failure to ob.erve the Con�tramt a�amst Pa:�ivc suggest� the additional pae�cnce of a tem poral layer. In :-.hort . I propo. e that the structure ol PIC� is analogou� to that ot Roman�c ACb. i.e. that they are projec tion� of a non-rel crem ia l T: '�
llte pre.�;ence of a temporaJ head in the complement ensure!'. that the lormal bmdmgl adenuncauon requirernems ot the Jo,\er event argument :ue met even t l the matnx
o t h e r· e u a·opean 1 anguagc� verb 1� pa.,Mvi:-.ed. Subjecl-\erb agreement i� ched,ed as the
239 VCJb
rai:-.e. 10 Asp.
who. e (outer) �pedtier serves a. an intermediate landmg site for the �UbJect." Un der tht� view. It tnU!\l l ut lher bea:-.:-.umed lhat lhc obligatory :-.imultaneuy read1ng for PJC· ( a.' ''ell a� for ACI�) re.!ult. not lrom event comrol. but ratller follow:-. from the ab. ence ol a referemial Ten.e node from lhe complemcm dam.e.�.�
5.4 Summary From our discus�ton of perceptual report� 111 language:-. other than Engh�h. the fol lowing picture emerge:-.. Fir. t. I demonstrated thai dc�pitc certaan super kaal f dift c1ence�. direct petception complement:-. in Nor1hwe:-.tern dialecL' ol Gernl
Omdt are :-.tmcturaiJy analogow 10 a!\pCl'tual complement:-. m English. The
ob�erved difference! between Engli.h I PVC. and PPVC� on the one hand. and German and Dutch ACJ:.. and p. eudo-progrc�:-.tve:-. on the othet. were :o.hO\\ n to re duce to the he.tdcdne.! s ol AspJ> ( left vs. nght) and the morpholog ical �talU:-. of the progres�he markea tfree v.s. bound). Secondly. I exanuned three t •pe. ol eventive percepuon complement in Ro mance: ACJ:-.. prepo. itional antinauve ..... and pseudo-relative complement.;. ·1lle laue, diner hom the other t\\O in that they bear a prinut .fadc 1esemblance to complex
DP� similar to Declerck· !I ( 19� I b) pseudo-modiher coJblJ uction. but oth ctwi�e :-.ho\\ a 'omewhat msxed behavsour. which led Csnque ( l t}(}5) to propo:.e that p:-eudo-relauve complement:-. are :-.tructurally ambiguou:-.. Whatever lheit true :-.u uc tw·c(s) might be. they can evademly not be sub.umed under the �et ot verbal or a.�pectual :-.mall dau�e. that have been the maJor concct n ol the prc�em :-.tud
•
.
As
rcgasJs non-finite perception complements. there i:-. fairly strong evidence lhat AClo; and PICs in Italian. Spani:-.h and Ponugue. e are :-.tauctumlly ditlerent lrom thetr Germanic cot relate� in that they contain tnon-relerential) Tcn�c. Analy:-.mg direct perception complements in the. c languages a:-. TPs 1 athet than A:-.pP wa.' �hown to corrc tty predict their syntactic behaviour. inducting the fact that they are not restricted to active environment'\. licen. e null subjects. mtd may be negated. French turned out to behave dtlfercmly Irom outer f{omance languages . uch
as
Italian and Spanish with re:-.pe<.'t to verb movement. matrh. pa... . stvi:-.auon. and the :waalabilit) ol null subJects. whkh I have taken to �uggeM lhat evem com10l doe� play a role tn perceptual report:-. in French. which m turn implle!\ that the comple ment clau:-c :-.hould lad. lhe T-:-.y stem. The po.. ibthty of verb mo,•ement aero.s a VP adverb howe,•er indic�te. the pre,,etK'e ol at le�!\t one functional proJe ·lion above the \erb phra!e an French ACb
a .!
well. which I have :-.uggested m1ght be
A�pP. Hence. it appear:. that wtth regard to the canonical reah:-allon of bare events. Romance langu
240
daud.a fe l se1·
Spam:-.h. and Pollugue.e). the nunimum size ol a clau�al complement i� a TP. wherea� in •type II language� (�rencll). bare event' may be teali!led a� AspP!�. a� in Englbh and other Germanic languages.·'' This difference �eenb to cot relate with certain morphologacal char:lcten. tac� ol ,·efbs in the�c l�mguagc:. . Specihcall). I ha,·e !�Ugge!lted that inlinithe!l i n Romance Type I lnnguagc.'\ . but not in Enghsh. German. Dutch or French. are oblrgatoril • rnftected tor Tense. thu� tordng the projection ot a TP. 'llli!l presen�:e ol a T head unphe!� that to the extent that non tinste perception complemem� in language. ol the f01 mer type have a genuine dsrccl perception re.ading. thts readtng cannot re.! uh from event cont10l. but mstead must follow f1om the imeracuon of contextual information (includtng the matnx Ten. e) wtth the non-titutc Tense of the complement. The table in ( 1 1 6) provid�
an overvtew
of the main disttncttve propertte!l of non
finite dau.lial perception <.'Omplement. in the language:-. under con. ideratton.
( 1 1 6)
Pwperties l�f' dtrt.·<·t perct•Jnion complt•mt•Jtls ilf diJf"t•l£•111 European lml,f!lutftt'.\' Syntactic
Headedne"'s
l\·1orphologtcal
Du·ection of
Category
of AspP
Status ot Pro-
V-Adjunction
grcsshe Marker t.:n�Ji.\lt
innial
bound
Dutc h
/\ pP
A�pP
final
free
light
Gc•rmcm
AspJ>
final
free
nuxed
TP
initial
free
A-:pJ>
initial
Ronumn.• "I)JU' I (e.g. Jwlian) Romance "J)pc II
�where avajlable)
(fin"·h) In sum. sensory perception verbs in the above language� were found to pattern ahke with re.'>pect to their selectional properties-they all !lemamically select event. . The relallonshtp between Romance ACb 4tnd prepo. itional infinitives nut rors the relation. hip between Engli!lh IPVCs m ; d J>PVC. in that the latter rcpte:-.ent� the progrcssi\·e counterpart ol the former. Cro:-.:-.-linguistic ditlet ence...; between the categ01 v of the complement have been argued to be due to ditl erence� in the mor phological paope1tte!l ol infinitive. in the lang uage." under consideration.
Notes I . Stnl"C
Dutl·h .tnd Dant�h <.hlfc:r from Gcrm:m m that thc:y Jilek the: dnuve-nl·cu:-:-�uvc: dls
lmlllon �CAl cpl for pronoun:.). the tcnn .-\t t uscttr\'C' and Jujmill H' l"C.IO�Irulllon
1:- ..1
polcn·
t1.1l mbnomcr here. However. :L" It 1:. common prJcl�ec: m the rele\,Jnl htcrature to refer
to these �onstrul"llon:. as ACls tsce e.g. V:.�tcr 197., ). I �hull rctaan the term. for recent
othea· e u a·opean 1 anguagc
241
O\'cn• tew� and dtsc:us�•on ol tnlimllv:.tl c:omplcm�m� i n German. 'ce c.�. Hatdcr ( I 993: Ch. 9•. Kll> ' ( 1993). Steubc ( I 994). or Abraham l l995: Ch. �). On IJutc:h. se� c.�. Rutten >
(1991).
f thank L.tura Rupp (or hclpmg me w1th the Dut ·h data. and f lurald Clah�cn for confirm '"� �orne of my JUd�cmcnts for the German data. Throuf.hout thb c:h:�ptcr. thc J Udgcmcntl> on the Germ.m data nrc ba�cd on
·'·
'orthwcstem vunettC). of �todem Standard Gem1:.m.
mdudm� my own dtnlect.
Ltke the Du tch acm hetl"t l·onstruc:tJon. the German am + injiniti\'C! construl·tton (which
origmah:d in the Lower Franktsh dialect area. but ts now m-.:rcasingly bem� used m collo qutul . tandard German � wcll l typical ly mvoiYes mtr.JmJtJve verb...;. Ac:c:ordmg to Lehmann 0 99 1 : 51 4}. lr.mstti\'C PfCs arc:. m Gemmn. ··sull rare out�ttk the onginal d1alcct urea".
4.
Note that the examples below may al1 be deemed uc:ccptublc in Southern vmcties of German. whu:h is consistent wllh Bayer's ( I 993) chum that mfimttvc� in Bavarian
German ha\'e rc tamed their nominal character m part.
5. Van Gcldcn:n ( 199�:
I 2) cite.\ the
followmg cx:1mplc as gr:uum.Jtical. which �uggests
that aan 't may not yet ht : vc llcromc fully f.rnmmutu:ahsctl m Dutch.
(I•
lk ben bnrdt•n ttall bet wassen en het dro8t'IJ
I
am plates
m
the wash
and the dry ('.m Gcldercn'.; l22))
·( .1m washms .tnd drymg plntcs'
Bhntt and Schm1dt l l 9?3: 90tf.) also suspct:t tlut Gcrnun .L'(>C<.:tu.tl tml �t11l h� ··a rc:.!\td
u�tl f>-.!\tatlL'... whtrh
a
cordmg to the authors would hdp :sct:ount fur otherwise uncx
p..-ctcd rc,tncllonl> on pscudo-progrc�sm::.s !>uch a� their mubthty to combmc w1th l'Crtam type.!\ of loc ati\'C c�pres�ton � 1b1d . . 7. l:
1 u) •Manu tst in dit! Schttll' am �1.
Gt'11e11
1st m the s-.:hool auhe go
·Mary 1:-. goan� to school
6. That 1'. the pn:d1cutt\C adjcc t l\'e TiltH> •tired' mu!>t normally p n:cedc ttml ltrtl t an Dutch: {I l
Martt' is mm' mm 't �..:nrden �1.
is tin:d ::u.thc bct:ome
· Mar)' IS gettm� t1rc:d'
The word order of I i) ts al�o poss1blc m some d1alecl� uf Gcrmnn. The observed \,.tn:.ttton
prc:,umnbly depend� on whether or not the ndJCCttve IS mcurpur:1tcd mto the verb m a g.ven language or d1alc l.
7. Note th:.tt tht.s anal)'!-IS 1� ut odds with recent chums made by Zwart ( 1994. 1997) to the ctl'cc:t
th:tt Dutch and Gennan arc undeclymgly . VO l.mguagcs. and that mflet:Llonal
proJCCCJon.' m thc� l.mt!ungcs arc alo;o umform l� head-mit tal (l'ompurc: :tl!-o Kayne I994). Under th1� \'IC\\'. pscudo-progrc:.!\SIVC!> would mvolve a hc :td-mit1al. r<1thcr than a hcad hnal. A_,pp (headed by am or aan hrt/ 't). The fact that d1rcct obJeCt� nece,lt:Jn}y precede
the a!'pcl·tuul muriccr would then fon:c us to ;L'>.. 'umc.
�ontr.l
Dtc�mg ( J99:!:t&bt. thnt
ob1cct ).h1ft .JCfO.!\S the .bpct:tunl head I!> obhgatory fur both dchmte and mdclimte obJeC ts
(sec Zwart t I ?94: �95f.. 1997: 90-9bl for some dl !-l' US Sion of tlu� tssue).
242
c:l audta fe l.set· Hr ll'ttr dil! Suppt' am
ti)
• •die Suppt•) Knrlwn (•die Suppr)
Ill} 1ms dt• .mt•p
nan ·, t•dt' :mt>p)
he was the soup
al.lhc
koken
tGem1nn)
(•de soep)
{Dutch)
cook
·He wu_.; cookm� the soup' Furthermore. tf AspP ts heud-imtinl. there would . eem to be no ob\'ious rea...;on why VP adverbs should not be allowed to inter\'ene between
nm
or ann ht'tl "t nnd the verb
n restrictton that fo1lows tmm�dmtdy from the analysts proposed in the text. (ti)
Sic 'mrft>st am
•German)
l•fest) Schlnfen
Zij was diep nan •t (•dit'f') slnpen
she ,,.,.r dt.-ep
'She
at.thc
(Dutch)
sleep
wns sl cepm� deep'
Another potential problem for Zwan's annlysis arises from the fact thot
hke non-timte
complement clauses m general. dtrcct perceptton t·omplements wilt inevitably prcl·cdc.
2 1..'ontext.; (but see Zwart ( 191)4: 398(.. problem). For lnck of space. the menls nnd drawhacks of Zwart's proposal cannot be fully evaluated here. rather thun follow. the 9-mnrkin� verb in nun-
191)7: 102) for a
S.
possible solutton to thts
Withm the Geml<m literature. ACl structures nrc tradiuonnlly subsumed under the so· called 'coherent' intimttve constructions {ll<.x:h 1983). These nrc characterised by the followmg �� of properties tcompnre H:Hder
1986: 24: 1993: 24S. nnd references cited
there): (n) Unstressed pronouns can move across the lower subJect: (b) the embedde.c.l VP cun be fronted: (c) negution and other .;copc-h�anng clements take matrix scope:
(d) they can becxtrat>Oscd: (e) they ( marginollyl pcnnit long pa::-.tvcs. Ltke their Enghsh B l counterparts. German ACls have been U..'isi�ned a \'anety of dtffercnt strul·turcs 111 the past. rangm� frum ohJ«t t·ontrol (Harbert 1 977). subJCCI-to-ohjcct ratstng tHohlc 1 978. Ktss 199 ). or Buyer's ( 1986) ·bare VI'' analysis. to the chum that ACls are not tn fact !-tngle constituents (Eisenberg 1986: 387f.). The synu t x of Dutl·h ACls has bt:en dts<.·usscd. for example. by de Gcest U970. 1 973. 1980). Deden.:k ( 1 982b). Ruyter 0988}. and lknms und Huckstrn ( 1989). 9. For arguments thtl German <;t1 is an Inn clement as:.ocmt�.d with Tense or f'.·lood. sec G\'crs ( 1988. 1990). 10. Buyer ( 1986) has argued thm modnb arc cxduded from PVCs for semantic re.t-.ons as they do not normally describe an cvcnt thnt ts open to sensory pcrcephon. The fact that
111 Dutch PVCs has led ti9SS) to duim that Dutch bare mfinlltve clauses contnm un lnflff node. The followmg data exemplify what Ruyter has labdlt:.d the Jrrralis IJI Constructirm top. cit.. 2641'f.) modals and auxth:�ries are. under certmn conditions. acceptable Ruyter
(t} (iil
De rconoom :.it.·t iederr'cn �1j11 JJA•t lV's weer \'l'rkopeu m 1990 The econmmst sees C\'eryone his 13M\Vs agam sell m 1990 /Je N'OIIOtlltl :it>t h·den•t•n �1j11 auto ll't't'r \'erkot'ht lrebhen trgrn die tijd The economist sees everyone his cnr agam sold hnve b)• that time
o t h e •· e u 1·opean 1 anguage (in}
1/�j :.tel all� pmjr.uoren tkm luH'ken mm•lt'll publict'rt'll He l>Ces all
dv}
243
profcs..o;on;
then books must
publish
In :.i]n dmmen :.ag Pe1rr :.u·h:.elj f:t!lll'mal :.ijn In h1s dreams saw P.
tumsclf gc nc.ral
be
What ts unusual about the abo\'e examples is that the complement clauses �.:ontain n time advcrbml lin 1990l. an :tspcctual auxiliary lhebhrn). an eptstemic modal (moelrnl, nnd the verb ;,iJn ·be'. rcspccuvely. all of wh1ch arc nommlly excluded from English nnd German JPVCs. Although there is no ev1dcncc for the prcsen e o f T m non-irrculis B l complement-. (sec Ruyter 1988: 2 6 1-264). the abtlity o f Dutch Dr cluuses to exprcss mdcpcndent tunc rcferet1cc se.ems to mdicatc th:lt some !nO-type node must be present. dcsplte the obhgntory ahsence of the mfiruttV<Jl marker
tc 'to'.
Notice. however. th.at none of the above examples actually involve dtrcl·t pen·eptton {hence the label 'meahs' Bl!}. That is. the verb
:.m1 ·see' tn (1}-(iv) docs not denote
tmmedmtc viston. hut is used m the more metaphoncal sense offoresrc · or unat:ine. To ' conclude. it appears that trrc::alis PVCs cather d10er from tn.t<: l'VCs '''lth regard to their syntactic category (as Safir 1993 has claimed for ·arrealis' PVCs m Enghsh). orthat they constitute a-<:utegorially identu:nl-rnnrked option in winch semantic or prugm::attc factors (such as the irrcnli� context dell ned by the motnx dnusc) arc able to override the Simultunctty Condition or c::mccl out e\'ent control (t:ompan: also Bnyer 1986: 26).
I I . Ruyter ( 1 988: 269) notes that some spenken. consider (50al margmal. Thts may be due to the atelil· character of the \'erb \'en·en ·pamt' when used intranstt1vcly. rendering the usc of an m•crt pmgrcssavc marker rather superfluous. 12. Some speakers of Germun. however. report that they do not find mtttnx passives that involve the vern sehcll 'sec' too bad. 13. L. Rupp points out to me that while not bcmg un�rnmmat1cnl. the Dutch examples in t65) nnd (66) sound rather unnatural. 14. Vern Rmsing in West Gcrmamc ts an mtncatc phenomenon that has rct:cwed consider able allenhon 111 the generatn-e literature (sec den Besten nnd Edmond�on 1983 for some illustratave dtscussJOn). The pre...\ent chupter docs nO( intend to provide u comprchenswe O\>'CrYicw of the datn or of the \'Ust amount of literature on the top1c that hn� appeared smt.·e G\'ers { 1975•. A rel·ent alternative to the traditional \•iew of VR (::as well
as
of the
supcrticmlly smulnr Verb l'rl•jecmm Raismf.:J. has been sug,gcstc:d by Zwart (I 994} and den D1kl,.en ( 1996). and references nt«l therein . Thetr analyses arc l'Onststent with Kayne· s 0994) Anllsymmetry framework. Den Dikken propose..; that a typtcal VR configumt1on as m the West Flenush example (tl will tn\'olvc :t stark«l VP. and w11J conform to the schemati.c form of (ti) (p.75l: (il
da Jan thenell boc-k will kuopen
(den Dikkcn 1996: 7 1 \
that J. thnt book w tnl'> buy
tii)
..
.
r�'rQI' S pec I\LJCY AgrO L\PI Jan (v. \1'1/t lv,,� kuopt•ll 1m· dlellt'IJ boekl ) I)) I
Under thts vtew. the ·VR effect' results not from \'erb movement. but from overt ruismg
244
d audaa fe l se a·
of the subJect and object DPs to the1r CUM! positions (hen:: J Spec.Agr.SP) and ISpecAgrOPp. Note. however. thut 1t Is not immediately denr how an analysis along the-"C lines would account for verb rmsmg m ACl structures, or the absence thcn:of in corresponding pseudo-progressiVe structures. whu:h both c.hiYcr from monodnusal sen tenc-es such us t i ) in that they a��uubly involve a non-aux1liary verb takmg a dau.ml complement. A." far as the d1n:ct1on of head ndJuncuon is concerned. Bttrbosa C 1996) presents inde�ndent empmcal evidence suggesting thut Kayne's n:stnction m1ght l:x: too stron�. and argues m fu\'our of permillm& hcad-ad.iunction to the n�ht. I am mdmcd to lL"sume that m general. nght-:uljum:llon should be pos.stble providud lhttt (a) the J.U\'IC is observed. and (b) movement is tnggercd by morphosyntactic features that require checkmg. Howc\·er. as an m-<.lepth disc:ussiun of VR is f:u beyond the q·ope of the pn:s ent work. this i:o not the place to cwluatc the full range of merits and drawb tcks of lcflwurd-movement alternuti\'cs to the trndit10nul acc:ount that l have a: �umcd hen:. 15. Allcrnut1vely. the reason for the anub1hty of un inlinnivc to adJoin to a past p:.�rtic1plc might again be an aspcctual mismatch: lf the past purllnplc is mhercntly perfcct1ve ( wh1ch we mny indu:ate by assignmg 11 the feature (-progressm:J). then this w1ll make it an unsuitable host for a l+pro�n:s.mreJ head. 16. Note thnt under this view. German modals (other than the tmurc uux1hary ll'erdt•ll. se.e below). whiCh pattemessentiully like main verbs. must also be analysed as lextcnl verbs. Th1s means. for cxumpk. that 1f m s-entenceJ> such us (i) below VR has taken place at all. the mO\'elliCnt nlUS( ha\'C been Wll"UOUS: (I}
dcu.v a das !Judt 11icht /('SCJfl kihmm muss
that he the book neg n:ad can must "that he doesn't have to be :1blc to rend the book'
The gcnemhsauon propo�ed in Ute text 11roves to hold for more compte� cases too. Compare the followmg example�. which contain ooth perfecuve Jwl>�n nnd the future auxihnry wrrden (see den Bcsten and Edmondson I 983 for a more \·omprehcns1ve OVCf\'JCW of the data.): (ii)
dass 1ch ihn mcht wude !when sm�en /u}rrn
that I (iii)
him n�g will
have sing
hcnr
dass 1ch Um nicht sin�m !Whill"l Jwbm werdr
that I hirn n�g sing hemd have w1ll both: · . . . thul I w11l nut hnve heard hun smg'
Ex,mtple ( 1ii) represents the basic lhcad-linal) order. Tn (n ). the entue inlinittval complex lwbrn kmtmu•n komtttll has ndJomed to the nght of timtc au1uhury wirrl ·,nil'. wh1ch 111 sentence:- hkc the abo\'e is must approprmtely analy�ed as :m mstant1at1on of T or M(odality).
17. Note that m Dutch. a past participle may appear e1thcr to the left or to the nght of aux ihanes such as perfocll\'C lwbben ·have' . whercus m Modern Standmd German. the �ct·ond pus.,1b1hty 1:. llfedudcd. This IS shown by the followma contrast (the Dutch examples are Iuken from Zwart 19�: 385).
o t he•· e u 1·o 1>ean I anguage ( i)
doss Jan .filaria �:ekii.w hat dat
( ii)
Jan ll•larir f:t!ku.�t heeft
t
f:t•kit.ut
Jan Marit• ht•t•jt �:ekust
.;ed M:uy' · . . . th tt John has ki�
245
(Genn<m) (Dutch) (Gcnnan) (Dutch)
The word order fact.; of (I) and (ii) indtcnte that adJunction of a pa..;t parttctple to a perfel·tive auxtliary is optionally possible 10 Dutch. but ts prohibited in Modern Standard German (but :;ee Zwart 11)()4 for a dtffercnt \•iew). Though this i cons1stent with out earlier observatiOn thm German exhibits a tendency to prcl'enrc the btt:;tc ordcnng of elements. I have no explanutton to oll'cr at present as to why the two lunguugcs should bcha"c differently m this rcsp«l. 18. Obsen·e that \'erb dusters m Fnsian usuully cltspl::ty the pattcm Main \lrrb-AUX1Tt!IISI'Ii AlJX (den Bcsten nnd Edmondson 198:l: J 88). 1l1is might be caken to suggest either thut VR m Fnsmn docs nut take phtce at ull. or thut it is unifonnly lcft-adjum:tion hmd hence. vucuous). If the anulysts of VR propo� 10 the text 1s along the nght lines. and if we compare Duh;h and German wtth fonsiun. tt appears thut verb dusters m Dutch exhtbit the strongest tendenl·y to estahhsh n head-lntllul order. whcreiJ.S fonsian .shows the strongest preference to preservl' the underlying hcnd-tinal order. German appears to be somewhere m the nuddle. with a preference for nght-:tdJunctlon tf the mcorporatmg hend i:. a functional element. but not i( 11 is u lex1cnl one. If dtarhromcally. Dutch and German nrc both on the wny of developing from a prcdornmantly head-llnul to a pre· donunantly head-mtual (I.e.. Enghsh-type) hmguage. then the fact that German ts more conscn7tttve with regnrd to VR thun Dutch suggcsL.; that German is currently at an enr licr smgc than Dutch (while being more hcad-imtiul than. for example. fonsltm). Clearly. further (diachromc) data are needed to l·ontirm tins hypothcsts. but explonng th1s ide.a uny further tu:re would lend u� too far afield. 19. According to Guust1. PICs nrc attested m Europenn Portuguese. Romansch (a language spoken m . outhenst Switzerland}. as well a..; in muny lthuloctal) vancucs of hahan (see Guu.stt 1992: 5:lf.. and rdcrem·es cited there). Sonk' Romnnce longuag� also nmkc use of a gerundtvc constructiOn. iJ.S in the Rournnman example bdow. (1)
Am
m�lll
Jonfu.r.iiUI
·t suw John nmnmg away'
20. 21. 22.
23.
{Cinque 1995: 244 n. I )
Assummg that thts type of complement ts nommal or ad.Je<.:ti'"al in character. l shnll not dtscuss it ony further here. The reader 1s refetrcd to Guasti ( 1 1)()2. 1993). Cmquc ( l 995l ond Raposo ( 1 989) for a more comprehensive O\"etview of the d:1ta. Though 1t remains largel)' unclcnr how the pre�ence or absence of a referential Tense ts syntactically encoded. Notice that not all speakers of French ucccpt exnmple...; :.uch ns ona). and tt appears that to the extent that the exnmple ts mterpretublc at uti. tt wtll be understood us invol\"lng un antonymic prcdtcute r:tther than a negutcx.l event. As noted by PotlOt·k ( 1994: 30 I f.. n. 15). some spc:ukers of French do not consuler ma-
246
d aud1a fe l .e 1· tnx p.t,�l\·es too b..td thou�h. Kayne ( 1984: 198\. for example.
a:-.,tgnl- the followmg
'cntem:e a quesllon mark only: 11 l
Yt'fm a Nt• \'U tra\'t?I"St'r le jiPtlre ·John W.L' l-ecn Ho) cross the nvcr·
14. An..tlv:-.mg ACis 10 Type l lnnguage as TPs al so n l lows u� to m.unt:un the gcnernl 1satton th:tl pm I' l 1cen:o.ed only m tensed dauscs. An apparently hmtc counterpart of Romance
ACb i� the � o-c.JII cd lnjluJed l11/i11iflle
ConJtructton that
•� found 10 European
Portuguese:
(I)
1:.'11
11
[dt"s
tmballurrrm)
tRaposo 1 989: 28�)
l>ltw them (hL tht'li) to-work-ugt·
Here. the cmhedded \ erh IS O\'ertly marked fur ii!!rcement. and the lcxtcul subJeCt be:us '
nominutivc ca..'c ('ee Rnpo.so l 987. t9N9 fur diM:u..,:o.iont.
15. Pull ock htm,clf "u�gcsts thi�> pos.-:tbihty 111 a footnote (Polloc.:k 1994: 30:l n. 18). Spc(.'lh cully. he �peculates that tt might be the compumtivdy weak nominal properties of mltm
lt\'C� m present-day French that enable them to fum:t10n ;b 'b:u\! verbs'
(i.e.. verb' thnl
are not mlk-ctcd for Tense). . m control mhmtt\-C�. there ts evtdcnce that 26. Al thoufh frcm:h dr typtcnllr occur
tt tl- not
fu lly cqui,·alent to tnhnttJ\al to m Enfli�h (l'ompare K<1ync 1934: JO.\-Ill9. who anaty 'c:. dP as a complement1scrl. Gtvcn that French dt• or ltah.tn di arc excluded from inhmttval complements of rntsmg verbs. It mtght be th:ll thcy .uc .u:tu:tlly mstanttallons ol ..t h1sher T node ( �uch a..' G1ol';i nnd Pmnc st 's 1997 head T l : mum tc:\tl.
sec further below tn the:
27. Al·cordms to Gtorgt :md Piuncsi":. ( 1997l ongmal propo,al. the lower T-pro1e L1on w1 ll normall y be proJected by p:lrttct plel-
only.
The author« clam1 that T2 mstantlllte� the
relation betwe�n Retc hcnbach":; n·ent liml' 4 E> and reju�nce Jtnll' 4 R) (op. ctl.. JSf. ). If
we a..'sumc: thnt thc: property of a dause to have a referential Tense tl- contmscnt on the presence of a h1ghc:r T-pro.Jccuon
(= TP I .
which mstanttutc:s the . fR relat1on and thus
'cncs to hnk an event to �pec:ch tunc, cf. 1b1d.). then the fact that pen·cpllon-ACis lack referential tcn"e (Gutt�>tt 1993} follows tmmcdiutcly from the .maly.,t:. proposed tn the text. 21). An posstble mod1licauon of the :malysts �uggc'itcd m the text would be to anul)·sc Ro mum.:c pcn:ept10n ACb as proJCCUon '. of .m amalfutnated or 'hybrid' category T/rup.
�tmtl,u to a category proposed hy Gtor
l44ff.) for a sltghtly
mod tiled analyst�.
:lO Gu.t.,tl I 199. : 1 49 ) note:. lhat the prcdtcatc of :t PRC must have impcrfccti\'c
S1mple
p.tst ten:o.e form:-.. for example. are �xdudcd as they stgnal pcrfc ll\'tty:
(I) • /In
l'isto
(iumm cht• 10\'0
l l l ha\'C :o.ecn G.
1
:t!>pccl.
piatti
that washed the dt�he�
:l l . U nics!> a�pectual properties :m: :lttrtbuted to the omple ment l,er tl. Tht:.. howc\-er. would
\Cern r..tthcr strnn�e tn vtcwofthc fact that n:.pectual markers norma lly ..tppear \'cry dose to the verb or prcd tcatc .
o t h e r· eut·opean 1 anguagc�
247
:n. Afain. PICs m1ght :tl'lu:tlly be proJCl'tlons of a sm�lc l>yncn::tll head T/A'(> (c:omp:u-c: G10rg1 and 1'1:�ncs1
1997).
:u. Not1cc. howe,·cr. that PICs in Portuc::ucsc: d1tlcr from ACis :md mOcctcd mfinitwes an that the� f;:ul to adm1t null .subJcct.s I Rapow 1989: 2 '!)).
ll l • [;_u d
l pro a roubar( i'm) o
.saw pro stealm�
(II)
""'' l'i
mtJomo\·d)
the
[pro mubart•m
o
'aw pro to-.stcal-ugr the
car
automm•t•ll
car
Th1:. d1lfcn:m:c nuC!ht be due to the pn:sencc of n :.tront;
(D) k.nurc 111
A.sp mtrodul·cd
by the (+prugresl>i\'cl head a. whil-h forces the !>UbJCI."t tu be <:.\pressed O\'crtly.
:l4. A smul.u situation 1:. found m a .subset of UJ·Itllllliti\'CS m Engli-.h. whose tempor.tl mtcr
pretallon. .tc:curdm& to Stow-ell ( 1982). IS determined c.sscnt1ally by the meaning of the
h1gher verb. �5. Other potentutl c:and1datc.s for a bare event analysis
cuu�uii\'C
\"Crbs. Guastt
ception complements
1 1 99J) has shown
ma
mcludc
mfimlt\"Jl complements of
that they p.lltcm d1llcrently from threct per
\r;mety of way.s. �md hence c:Jnnot be treated on a par w1th
thc'c lcomp.tre al.so Sect. 2.5 abo\'e). ff Il l!> mdecd the c.be that non-fimtc clausal con 'tttucnts m the Southern Romance languages :tn: nunimally rc.thsed .1s TPs. It follows that causative Bl complcments must also be TPs-<>r that the\' are nO( dausnl �o·onstltu cnt'. Se\ernl 'cholars h,l\'e
m
fuel
arguet.l
lor the latter po's1b1hty. and h:t\'e proposed
that cau!>all\'e con,tructtons 10 Romance mvolve the formJtion of complex pr<.-dtc�tcs. ctther at the p�·!>)'nta Ill' levd of Argument Structure (Rosen 19M9.
Dt
c1ullo 1990}.
or \'lu l>}'ntac t1c mcorporauon 10 the �pmt of Buker ( I t)g ·) (compa� e.g. Gu.t!>lt 1993).
lf th1s I!> corrct:l. then c:tus:tll\'e �o·omplcmen� m Romnnn: are not clausal onstttuents.
and m orporntton. or prcd1cnte mcr&cr.
IS :tn alternative way fur \'Crb.ll .stems in thc:.c
languat;el> to s:tt1sfy the rnorphologtcnl n:qutn:mcnt that \"Crbs must a temporal alh.\.
be .tsM>..:tatetl
wtth
6 Conclusion The major aml of the pre. em study ha. been twolold: ti�t. 10 pre. em an analy. is of non-finite verbal complements of perception vert>. within the framework of Chomsk-y's ( 1995) r..t. inunalist Program. and second. 10 determine the extent to which the . emantic propenres of pe�eptual reports can be derived from theu . ymactic .tructure. The matn focus of the inve. ligation ha. been on pre�em-day Engli. h. At a more general le el. 1 have trted to make explic:tt the conditions under which ten. ele.'t� verbal complement:-. are licensed. . howmg why genuine · verbal small clau�e$· are rather limited in distribution. and $Ubject to a number of seemingly unrelated restrictions. The results from my anal. sb. ::-.ugge ·t that the mapptng from symacuc 10 semantic tructure might be more stratghtforward than previou. ly thought. "l'hey also suppot1 the line of re,.;earch which treats Ten. e and /bpocl a. . yntactic categorie. and aims to capture the temporal and aspectual proper1ies of sentence. by exploiting independently mottvated principle:- of grammatkal thoory. In Chapter 2. we saw that direct perception complement:- are characterised by a clu.ter of. yntactic and semantic properties . ome of whtch cu1 iou. ly overlap. lt was . hown that both bare infinitive complemem and prutictptal complements are clausal con. tiruents that pauem alike in all rele\o'Clnt re,.,pect . Participial construc tions tn the context of percepttOtl verbs were .hown to be potentially ambiguous between a reduced relauvedause structure. a controlled adjunct clause. and a ' true·. t.e. clausal. perception complement. Both bare infinifive. and partictpial comple ment� diffet from rhe two other type. of clausal perception <.'omplement. tensed finite dau. e, and full mfnuttve.... m rhat they semamically denote 'bare· events. and necessarily induce a direct (or non-epistemic) perception read mg. It wa� argued that the two types of direcl percepuon complement are in fact structurally idemkat. and rhal the difference between them is one ol progre. stve ve�us non-progres. ive �peel only. A do. e examinatton of the data under considemuon further. uggc, ted thai whether a sentence rs a••igned an indirect or a t.lirecl perception imerpret;uion ts dependent on whether ot not the matnx verb i. construed as stage-level. which m turn correlates wuh the prc.,ence versu. absence of the S)'llfactic category T(ens£') tn the complement dau. e. Chapter 3 exammed the internal structure of direct perception complement�. It was argued that both bru·e infinitive and panicipial perception complement. arc •
cone I U$10n
249
maximal projecuon<> ol the functional head Aspecr. and that they diner solely with rc.-.pcct to the value a:.�i!!ned to the a.'pectual feature [..tprogre:-:-ivel located in Jhp�t Adopting Chomsky" s ( 1995) vP :-hell analy. ts ol the verbal complex. the ba:.e structure of direct percepllon cornplements uwolvin� a tran:.mve verb was ,entation m Figute ( I ) below. argued to cot respond to the rcpre
vP
l±progj
�
ol�
v'
·
�
v
VP
�
V
DP,,
None of the analy:.e� p10po. ed in the pa:.t ha\'e been able to provide a unified acc..:oum for ttl/the propertie� that char-..tcterbe i>etceptual t epons. The pre:.cnt study. b • conu a.\l. demon�trates that both their symacllc and �emantic chJJ'
d aud1a fe 1 se ,.
250
two cvem argument!\. I ha\e followed Kratze1 (1 9X9) in
L < II�octated "ith llle !\patio-temporal locatton ol the cvcm or �ituattort de�ribcd by
the predu:ate are licen. ed by ·tage-level predicate!\ only. Ba,ed on the ob!\CJ'alion that only Mage-level predicmcs exhibil the progre.-.�r' e/non-progres!\ivc con!fast. l !\Ugge�ted that Ol)ly !\tage-level predicates
an e\·cnt to become interpretable. it event argument mu�t be rdcnutied by Ten. e. a procc.s which l ha\e described as bemg e�!\entially analogous to identification of null !\Ubject pw b, the
rne.m.
that verbal (or more generaII . stage-level)
complement chlU!\e. mu�t be mimmally reah. ed as 1\!\pP!\. I fu11her argued that
111 the ab ence of a local Ten!\e. lhe eveIll argument is like
l'Ontrollcd PRO in th
(2)
I�,. C In• T t.,,,.p £, 1\Povv v/V [ E-P�O. vPIVP J J I J I
Event control makes 11 �sible for two . eparatc evem� to be linked to a . ingle Tense po!\ition. in which case the simultaneity reading becomes obligatory. Since an imervcntng Ten�e node would prevem a control relation from being established. a di1cct perception readmg 1s automatically preduded whene\er a perception \erb combme� with a lensed or tully mtlnlltval complement. The I:.vent Control Hypoth e.
b tim. coucctly predicts £helt individual-level predtcates (Which are mmimally
rcalbed as TP. ) can never be the object of direct sen. ory perception. In order to account for the absence o( a generic or ':-.trong· readrng of indefimte �ubject� ol a. pectual complement clau. C!\. I , uggcsted a mino1 modifkmion ol Dre!\mg' !\ { 1992a.b) thcory of indetinite. to the effect that A:-.pP rather than the \erb phra�c denne� the nuclear M:"ope of a l.Cnten·c. In the ab!\ence ol a TP layer in the complement clam,e. perceptual reports have a �ingle extended nuderu . �ope domain only-the mau ix A�pP. Since for an indennite OP to be a. !'-tgncd a strong interpre tation. it must appe,ar ouL,ide the nudear �cope at LF. there b no way tor the PVC :;ubject to be mtcrpreted as
ron�: . even though 1t rai!\e:o. into the mam� clau�e to
·. I
check case. A !\ttmlar explanation has been . .;ugge:;tedfor the limited occurrence.�
cone I u. ton
25 1
ol e:\pletive then• in a�p�tual complement clause�. Gaven that from a �emanttc or pragmattc per..pecti,•e. expletive thae sen•e., to prevent an unwanted '!\tJong · read Ill£. I rom beang imposed on the log1 al subJect. its pre,�tence 111 PVC!\ i� not normally requ1rcd a� the .subJect will 1ecei\e a ·weak' (orexistenual) reading an)'"ay. There nre. ho,, ever a few �uuation:-. m wh1ch 1hen: msenion i:-. requared lor �> ntactk rea
son:-.. in order lo ched ofT the :-.trong 1 D I teattue ol the a�t pectual head. (i) af the lower verb il�ell IS a masing predicate that takes nn ext. tenual dau�e a.�t 1t� comple
ment. (ii) in :-.o-�alled prc.�tentational clause. : or {iail if event control b cancelled by the pre:-.ence of an arreali. operator in the matrix dau:-.e. The proposed analysi� al�o offer. an explanation for the unavailability of main clause pa.,:-.ives. It wa� argued that like clau�e:-. involvang subject conuol pr e < hcat e .. perceptual report.; l�ttl to pa. i isc becau:->e pallsivt:-.ation remove� the controlling argument (d. \IJ'.un ·.f Gnwrali mirm ). A pa�t paniciple� are inheremly uldavidual levcl. they fail to licen�e an event argument. In the ab. ence of a �uitable comroller
from the matnx dau.e. howe er. bare aspectuaJ complemem:-. are no longer licen:-.ed. In �um. c1naly:-.ang perceptaon verhs a.s event control verbs enable:-. us to trace back mo�t ot the :-.ynta tic and semanuc characteristic. ol perceptual reporlll to specitk lexacal p1opeuie� of the:-.e verbs. Verbs of perception �emamically sclec:t either an mdavidual
01
a proposition. where the indivtdual role can. in pnnc1ple. be as�igned
either to a DP or to an evem. \\'hose canonical realbauon i� A:-.pP. Onl) their ability to mduce e\etu comrol pemuts percepuon verb� to combine '' tth 'bare·
n
pectual
complement dau:-.es. A direct perception reading ts avrulable only with norninal or <�lipectual complements. �Olice that there b no need to mvoke the controver:-.aal mechatu:o.m of c-:-.electaon. In their �rage-level U!'e. pen:eption verb� :-.emanticaiJy �elect l �progre:.:-.h·e) eYent.. who...;e synta tic shape i� detcrmmed by independent principles ot proJccuon and economy. When construed ib an individual-level predt cate (an option that i� not available lor explicitly agentlve \Crb such as watch ). perceptaon erhs select propositional complemem:-.. which must he of the categol)' TP or lugher. l·hwing dealt with the . yntax of perceptual repon:-.. I linally explored the po.sibility of extendmg the proposed anal, �b to other type� of constt uctaon in English. A prelirninary investigation suggest:-. that ,·crbs of temporal a�pcct are al.o able to act a� event control predicate:-.. and that obligatory
or
non-obJigatol, event
contl'ol nught play a role i n the licen�ing ot predkme adjuncr.; and ctnain type of purpose clause a:-. well. The�e re. ult:-.
me
pronu:-.ing. and it would be de�trable
for the ptoposed analy�i. to ulumately lorm part ol a comprehetN\ e lheOI) of the �yntax of Ten�e and Aspect. Finall). til Chapter 5 I examined whether the pcopo:-.ed anal.. si can be extended to du-ect perception con�tructtOib in other Europenn language�. It tu1 ned out that the language:-. undet considemuon tall into two group:-.. 1 i ) tho�e 111 whach ditect percep-
252
d audaa fe l se a·
tion complements are realised as A. pP. that pattern sdenttcally to their Englt. h �oumeq>Mts m all maJor rc. pe t. (a. they do m German. Dutch. and �ren�h). <\nd (ii) tho. e in whith dau�al perceptson complement. are mimmally realised as TP.s (as m Italian. Spanash.
01
Portugue.e ) . Non-finite perception complements i n lan
guage:-. belonging to the .econd group hcense null subjects. admit .emential nega tion. and at.o occur in pa:. tve context. It wa. . uggested that lhe infinitival .suffix 111
these languages
of a T-. y. tem.
1.
actually a Ten. e inflection. and � such force. the projection
References A arts. B.
IIJ9l. Small Cltmses tn Em:Ush: '111� Non-\·abal /\pes. Bcrhn: Mouron de Gruyter.
A bney. S. 191<7. "The Eng l ish
•
oun Phrase an It �
entcntt.ll A�p«:t". Ph.D. Dt�sertntton .
MIT.
Abraham. W. 1995. DL·rttsdu• S} nlcv: 1111 Sprarhcm t'I'J�It•irJr. Tubml!en: Abrah.tm, W
.•
cpstcm. .S. D. . Thr:itnsson. H. and Zwart. C. J.-W.
• •trr.
(cd s.).
J99b. lllinimal
ldc•as: Syntac tic Smdirs in the Mimmail.'it /•ramc''''ark. Ams te rd am und Phtbdclptu n: John DcnJumms. A kmuJian . A. 1977. "The com pl ement structure of perception \'erb� m un uutonomous syn t.tx fr.1mework" . I n P. Cuhwvcr £'t a/. (cdo;). 427-60.
·
Akmajmn. A .. Steele. .S. and Wasow. T. 1979. "The cate�ory AUX tn Unt\'er�al Grammar" . UIIKtti.wc hrquir, 10: 1-6-t Alexaudou. A. 1997. Ath erb Placemelit.,\ Ca.'it' Strub . in Alllt.'i�'lllflll'trit Swufl.l:. Amsterd:.tm md Phtl.tdelpha.t: John Bcnpman.-..
.
AnderM>n. J . 107.\. A11 /::.ssa Canrt'mifll: .Aspt•ct. The f.tngue: �toulon. Aoun. J. 1985. A (irammar of .-\napltara. C::Jm bndge. .\tA: MIT Pre s�. Aoun. 1. and La. Y. A. 1 9?3. :,)ntax of Scope•. Camhm.lgc. .\tA: MIT Pre�s. Aoun.
J ..
Hom�tcm. N. and Laphtfoot. D. 10�6. "Two type� of lor:altty". Lin{!uistic Jnqtdry
IS: 537-77. Anm(J(o. !\I. IOX9 . ..Ag.nnst a ratstng analyst� of BE.". l:.'nKiish Lm�uwics 6: 1 1 1-29. Anrn(J(o. M. 1 99 1 . "'J'/u•n'-insertaon nnd the structure of sentcnl·esh.moll c lauses" . In
'akaJtllla and S. Tono a kc (eds.). 107-16. .. A�hcr. • . and Donevac. D. 1985. How e xtensJOnul •s cxtcnsJOnul pcn:eptton ?". un�:mstit-s H.
and Phila.mpltr K: 203-28. Atkm,on. M. 199t.. "The Mmimuhst Program ". In A Cmrcise l�lln·rlnpt•dia of Syntawr 1/wnnt'.'i.
K . Brown .md J. �hiler (eds. ). Oxford: Pergamon Pres�.
Bach. E. 1986. ..The algebra of event.;". U11Kfli.5tl£ s and Plrilo.wplry 9: 5-16.
8itker. M. 1988. lm nrpnrauon: A Tlwm)· t�{ Grtmmwurt�l I rmcmm Clram:inK. Chi cago: The Um,·ersity of Chicugo Press.
Buker. M .. John�on. K. and Roberts. I . 1989. " Passa \'c argument� rw�ed". Un�:lli.wc lnquirr 20: 219-5 1 . Dultm. M . 1995. · ·floatm.g quunttlien>. PRO. :tnd prct.hc:ttioo". Lin�:ui.
A.-� I. Da Snullo led.l. 1 6 1 -83. Somcmllc: Cn.sc.tdJIIa Pre�s Bars'. A. IIJH5. "Kcmarh on Akm:tJ•:m's ·The Complement Strm:turc of Perception Verbs' and Gee " ·Commcn� on t he Paper by AkmaJt::ln• " . In Lexrwl St'lutlllllr.r m Re,•iel'
254 (- Lcxu:on ProJcl·t \Vorklng Papers I ]. B. Levm (cd.l. 149-65. Center for Cogntll\'e cience. MlT.
!Jarwtse. J. 19M I . ··Scene� and other sttuauons".
1/w lmtrnal r;f Plu lo.mpJn· 7'0:
365-97.
!Jarwtse. J . .md Perry. J. 1983. Sitrumnns and Attitudt•s. Camhnd�e. �lA: �tiT Prc:.ss. E. I 9'03 . . .A subj:.u.:cncy puzzle". LinKllistll Jnquir\ 14: 698-70-t. .. lJuyer. J. 1986 The role of event cxprc�s10n� in grammar". Studies in LtmKmrKt' I 0: 1-52. . Buyer. J. 1993. .z,, 10 BJVan:m and �cmmbhng". In \V. Abraham and J. Bayer (cd..;. }.
B..tttastella.
.
Owlt'ktsmttLY lLmguistischr LJericlue Smululw/t S j. S0-70.
n�h. G. 19M3
.
•
wdil'Jl
liber das tii'lllsclle \�rhum in{miiWII. JJand
I flml l.duion). .
Tubmgen: . icmcycr. . Uccdh;tm. C. 19X7. ··The Engltsh paSSI\'e as an aspect . . \\�n/ 3t): 1 - 1 2 . Bellctll. A. 19SX. ·'The cuse of unw:cusat avcs". LiiiKllislii Jnquu-r 19: 1-J-t Bcncdicto. E. and Runner. J. (e<.ls.). 1 993. 1-fmctirmal
ProicctilJII!i. Amherst. MA: GLSA
(- UMas� On:a'iJOnal l'apcr.s 17}. .. Benms. H. and l lockstra. T. 1989. Why K:tatJC was not heard "Ill� n song". In D. Jaspers t'l
al. 4cds.). 2 1 -tO.
Bcstcn. (1. den. 1989. Studu•s in \\�st Gt•murnic S..llttLr:. Amsterdam: Rodupa.
Uc�len. H. den and Edmondson J. A. 1983. ··The 'r"<:rbal complclt m Contmcntal West Gcr . maam:". In On the fnrmttl S)'lllax oj 'l11e \\�:;t�amcmia. \\'. Abraham (cd.}. 155-2 16. Am�terdam and Phtl:uJclphta: John BenJ:muns. .. The po�atton of the anhmtt\'al mali:cr m the
lleukem::t. F. ancl den Dtkken. M. 1989.
Germamc ltmgu..tge�". In D. Jn�pers et a/. 4eds.l. 57-75.
1111
KOim�du:n und am
Umf.angs�pra hlachcn Standurddeutschcn <:�Is A�pekt-Phr.tscn".
Owlt•ktS'tllWX
BhJtt. C. and Schmtdt. C. M. 1993. ··Dae am+lntimttv-Kunstruktmn
In
1- Li11gmstisdJe JJericlue Somlerht'jt 5}. W. Abrahnm and J. Bayer 4cds.). 71-9N.
Bterwa,ch. �I. 196�.
1983 . ..Scmanttschc und konzcptucllc Reprjl\entation lext�alischcr
Emhetten". In Untn.wchllllfWil :.ttr Semantik. R. Ru11da and \\'. Mohch teds.). 6 1 -99. Bcrhn: Ak.ttk mic Verlag. Borer. H. 1986. ··1-suhJC:Cts". LinKuisnclnquiry 17: 375-t 16. Borer. Jl. 199.'- ··The proJcl·tton of arguments". In E. 13cncdtclo und
J. Runner lecls.)
Borkan. A. 197 3. "1n b1• and not ta l1r". Paprrs .from thr 9th Rr�imwl Mt'NinK of the Ch1cal:n LmKmstrc StiCit'ty: 44--56.
Bo;ko\'Jl'. Z. 1995. "Principle� of E�·onomy in ·onlimtc Complemcnt:tlton". Ph.D. D•��cr l.ttiun. Umvcrsity of Conncctu:ut. . Bo;ku\'tt:. 2. 1996. .SdcctJOn and the catc�onul status ol mhll ltl\·al complemcnt!-". Nawral Wllf.:IWKt'
and LinKtuStic 1'11Mrv 14: 269-30-t.
Bouchnrd. D. 19X4. On tht- (omr/11 oj Empl\ Catn:orit'.s. Dordrccht: f'ons.
IJowcrl-. 1 . 19M I . 'lht• Thrm'\' oj Grammatical Relanans. lthoc.1: Cornell Lnt\'crsuy Press. .. The synta� o prct.hcataon". LiiiKllisnc Jnquirv 24: 5�1 -656.
lJowcrs. J. 1993 .
lJn:t\IJ.... L. 1.:.. I 981. ··On the mtc:rpn:tation ol cx1stcntaal that···. Ln11guaKt' 51: 1-25. .. Bn:�n.m. J. 19'02. Control and complementatiOn". In 1'1rt' Mt•mal Rt•prc•stwtcrtitm of Gramnultlcal Rt'ltrtions. J. Bresnan (cd.•. 2S2-390.Camhndgc. MA: MIT Prc.!>s.
r·e fes·e nce� Bnnton. L. 1988. 11w Dew/opmrm of £r1Kiul1 A:;pecwal S\·stt'lns. Cambndgc: Cambndge Umvc:rsity Press. Burzm. L 1986. lwlitm Smtax. Dordrccht: Reidel. . Cumphdl. R. 1991. . Ten� and :.lf!rccmcnt m dtlfercnt tense:." . The U11Kuism· lrs by Riduml Carter l=Lexiron Projt'ct WorkinK Papers: 251. B. Levin and C. Tenny (cds. ). Center for Cogmtivc Sncncc. MIT. Cullcll. R. I 984. Splla:r and Semantics 17: Cmnposttt' Prerliratt'S in EnK!tsll. \�w York: Acndcmil· Press. Chtcn:hiu. G. 1988. Topics in tlw Syntax and Smrantics oj lnfimtivl's ami Gemnds. New ork: Garland. ChUitL-:ky. K 1957. Symactir Structum�. The Hague: Mouton. Chom..;ky. K 1965. A sp uts ofthe Theory ofSymax. Cumbndgc. MA: MIT �-:s. ChmtL-:ky.
. 1970. ··Remarks on nommaltzmion". In Readin�:s in F.nglish 'J'ransformatumal
Grammar. R. Jucobs an
ChonL.,ky.
Chonu.ky. N. I 982. Somr Concepts and Cmrsequmres of tlw Tllrory of Gtwemmmt and
JJmding. Cambnd�e. �fA: MlT Press. Chom...ky.
. 19S6n. Barrll'rs. Cambndgc. MA: �tiT PTC"!>S.
Chomsky. N. 1986b. Knowledge oj L..nnguaf:P. Its Nalllrr. Origin. mrd U:w. New York:
f'racger.
. Chom!>ky. N. 199 I . . Some notes on economy of denvntion and rcpt-c.'\cntation". In Princi· plesmul Parameters in Compnrmivr Grammar. R. f'rc1dm (cd.). 4 17-54. Cnmbndgc. MA: MIT Press. Chomsky.
. 1993. ..A mimnmhst pro�rnm for lin�uistic theory". In 'fhr Vii'tr from JJuild
int! 20. K . Hale nnd S. Keyser (cds.l. 1-52. Cambndge. .MA: �tiT Press. ChonL<:ky. f\. 1995. thr Minimalist ProKrnm. Cnmbndgc. MA: MIT Press. Chomsky. . . and Lasnik. H. 1993. ··Principles and parnmcter.s theory". In Syntax: 1\n /ntrr
natimrnl 1/andbook tif Comrmporary Rrst•art·h. J. Jncolls. A. von Stc how. \V. Stemcfeld and T. Vcnncmann {eds.). 505-69. Berlin: de Gruyler. . . The pseudo-relative and ACC-ing constructions after verbs uf perc:cp· t10n" . I n Italian Smmx and Universtrl Grammar. G. Cinque. 244-76. Cambnclgc: Cam
Cinque. G. 1995 .
bridge Univcr.stty Press. Clement. D. I 971 . .. Sntt.cmbcuungcn mu:h Vcrhcn de� . mne.swuhmchmun� 1111 Deutschen• • . 1n Pmblrmr und Fortschrmr da Trrmsjormatimrsgrammatik. D. Wunderhch (ed.}.
245-65. Mi.inchen: Hueber. Comrie. 13. I 976. AsfJrct. Cambndge: Cambnd�c Umvcrstl)' Pres .. Comrie. 13. 1985. '/i•nst•. Cnmbndgc: Cambndge Umvcrsity Pres.<:. Cowper. E. I 992. A Concise Jntmd11ttion w Syntnrtic Tlwory. Chicago: 1l1c Universtty of Clncugo Pre.<�s.
256
t•efes·encc.
Cuhcover. P.. \VIL'\OW. T. and Akmujt:tn. A. (cd.o;.; ) 1 977. fnrmnl Smmx. New York: Academil · Press . Davidsen-. 'tclscn. f':. 1990. Tmse and Moad in Em:/ish. Bcrhn: Mouton de Gruytcr. Duvidson. D. 1967. ··The logical form of actwn �cntc:nces". In 1'/re Lo�ic oj Decisl(ln ami Acuon. J
•
Rcschc:r (cc.l.). 85-95. PtttsburcQh: Umversity of Pittsburgh Press.
Dct:lcn:k. R. 1 9 8 1 �•. "On the role of progressive aspect tn nonlimtc perception verb comple ments". (i/ossa 15: S3-1 14. Declerck. R. 1 9 8 1 b. "Pseudo-modifiers". Lingua 54: 135-63. Declerck. R. 1982:.. "The tnpleongm of porttnpml pen:eptlon v·crt> complements" . Lingms· tic Antilysis I 0: 1-26.
Declerck. R. t982b. "On the dcnvauon of Dutd1 bare intimtivcs after perception verbs". Theort•tiral Linguistics 9: 1 6 1 -79.
Declefl·k. R. 1983a. "The structure of mhmttvrtl pcrcepuon verb complements in u tran.<;fommtiOIIUI srnmmar". In Problems in Symax. L. TtlSillOWl>kl and D. WillcntS (cds. ). I 05-28. Ghent: Commurucauon and Co.gnit10n. Declerck. R. 19S3b. "On the passive of infinitival pcrcepuon verb complements". Journal oj £11Kiish Lm�mstics 16: 27-'16.
Denison. D. 1993. Hnghsh 1/istoncnl Syntax: \�·rbal Construction.\'. London: Longman. D1 Sciullo. A. 1 990. "Muht-levcl satur.uion". uximn Pro;ect Working Papus 33. Center for Cognitive Sctcnce. MIT. Dt SciUllo. A. nnd Williams. E. 1 987. On thl' Ul'jinition oj'\Vord. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press. D1esmg. M . 1 992a. lndrfinitn. CambridJ;c. MA: MIT J>rcs.s. Otesmg. M. 191)2b. "B
D1kken. M. den 1 996. "The mmuual hnks of verb (proJe<.:tton) raising" . In \\'. Abrahurn t>l a/. teds.). 67-96.
Dtrven. R. 1989. "A cognitive perspective on complementation". In D. Jasper� t'l ttl. (ed.d. 1 1 3-39.
Doe:-. J. van der 1 9 9 1 . "A generalized quantifier lo�IC for naked mliniti\'cs''. Lingmstirs and Philosophy 14: 241-94.
Doherty. C. 1997. "Clauses wtthout complcmcntizers: f'imte IP-complcrnentatlon
111
Eng-
h.sh". Thi' Li11guistir Rel'lew 14: 197-220. Dowty. D. 1979. \\�u·d Mt•nnmg ami .Monta�:ur Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. Drctske. F. 1967. Seein.r: and Knowin�. Chicago: limvcrstty of Chtcago Press. Dufflcy. P. 1992. Till' 1-.ngli.vh lflfinitive. Harlow: Longman.
Etscnbcf!�· P. 1986. Grrmdq{J dt•r dewsclwfl Grnmmatik (2" E.d1t10n) . Stutt�art: J. B. Mc.tzJen>ehc Vcrlag.sbuchhandlung. Emond.s. J. 1976. A 1rnnsjomwtional Approach
to
J: n�lish Svnlilx. !\cw York: Academic
Press. En<;. M. 198�. "Tense wtthout Sl·ope" . Ph.D. Dtssertatton. USC [Dtslnbutc.d by the lndtana Umvcrsity Lmsuistics Club. Bloommgton. lndiuna).
257
r·e fe•·ence.
. En�. M. 1986b. . Towards :. referenttal analysts of temporal expressiOns". Lin8wstics and Philosophy 9: 405-26. . En�. M. 1987. . Anchorin� condittons for tense". Lm�m:rtic Inquiry 18: 633-57. . En�. M. 1996. . Ten.se and modalny" . In The Hcmdlmok oj Comempomry Semamic Thi'lJry.
S. lappm (ed.l 345-58. Oxford: Blackwell. . Epstem. S .. Thramsson. H. and Zwart. C. J.-W. 1996. "Introduction". ln W. Abr.�ham eta/. (eds.}. 1�6.
Evers. A. 1975.
.. The Trnnsfom1atmnal Cydc m Dutch and German". Ph.D. Dt�sertntton.
Umvcrsity o f Ut�x·ht I Dtstnbuted by the lndtuna Umvcrsit)' Lin�u1sttcs Club. Bloommgton. lnti.J. .. i'ion-tlmtt: verb forms and subJect theta role nssignmcnt" . In Morplrologr
Evers. A. 1988.
mul Modularity. M. Evcracrl. A. Evers. R. HuybrcgL'> and M. Trommclen {eds. ). 105-28. Donlrccht: Fons. Evers. A. 1990. ..The mhnitival preh;{ ·zu · as I NFL". In Scmmhli11K and IJarrit·r:r. G. Grewendorf and \V. Stcrnefcld Ccds.). 2 17-Jg. Amsterdam and Plllludclphiu: John 13enJIUnms.
. '. 1984. . Syntactic Affixation". Ph.D. Dissertation. t\•UT. . Farkas. D. 198 . . On ubhgatory control". Lm,r:m:rtics and PJu/o.mphy I I : 27-5�t . Fchx. S. 1990. . The structure of fun<:tionnl catcgoncs". Unguisnsche Bcnchtt· t 25: Fabb.
46-7 1 .
. Fclser. C. 1995 . . The Syntax of Verbnl Complements: A Study of Perception Verbs 111 Eng hsh". Ph.D. Dtssert.ttJOII. Umversity of Giitungcn. Fclscr. C. I 998. . . Perception and ontrol: a mimmahst anulysu. of En�hsh direct pen:cptton complements' ·. .lo11mal qf Lin�:uistic:r J4: 351-85. . Fclscr. C. and Rupp. L. 1997. . A nunimalist approach to e�istcnttal constructions in Gernmmc". 1-..ssex Rrst"arrh Reports m Lillf.:Uistirs 15: 45-80. .. Ftcngo. R. 1974. Semantic CondttJons on Surfncc Structure". Ph .D. Dt:sertattun. MIT. . Flllrnorc. C. 1963. . TI1c pusition of cmbeddin� uansfttml:ttJons in a grammar··. \lvnl 19: 208-3 1 .
.. Franks. S . 1983 . A note on NP-structurc and s · deletion . LinKUiSIIC Inquiry 14: 175-9. Franks. S. and Humstcm, •. 1992. .. Secondary predication 111 Russiun and proper govern· .. mcnt of PRO . In R. Larsun t't a/. ceds.). l -50. ..
Freed. A. 1979. The St•mmmrs of £m:,lish A.sprctual Complt•nwmmicm. Dordrec:ht: Reidel . . Gnbbny. D. and Morovcsik. J. 1980. . Verbs. events. and the llow of time". In Ttnw. Tt•n:w. and Quant{{it•rs. C. Rohrer (ed.). 59-,3. Tiibin�en: 'tcmcyer.
G�lton. A. 1984. 111e LoKI< ofAspt•t:l. Odord: Clurcndon Press. Gee. J. 1975. . . Pen:epuon. lntcntionaluy. and t\'aked lntinmves: a . tudy 111 Lmgmstics and Philosophy". Ph.D. Dissertation. Sttmford Umvcrs�ty. . Gee. J. 1 977 . . Comments on the pape-r by Akntajian". In P. Culu.:ovcr c•t al. {eds. ). 46 1-8 I . . Gcest. W. de. 1970. . lnfimttefc.·onstructJes b!J vcrbtt senttcndt". Swdia Necrlandu·a 3: 33-59. Gccst. \V. de:. 1973. Cnmplmtt•lltatrc� Construe/It'S b1i \"'rba Sentimdi in het Nederland.\·. Utrecht: HnndS.
r·e fe•·ence.
257
En�. M. J986b. ··Towards :1 referent&al analysts of temporal cxprcsstons". Lin8wstics and Philosophy 9: 405-26. . En�. M. 1987. . Am:horin� conditions for tense". Lm�m:rtic Inquiry 18: 633-57. . En�. M. 1996. . Ten.sc and modaluy" . In The llcmdlmok of Comempomr y Semamic Thi'tJry. S. lappm (ed.} 345-58. Oxford: Blad\wdl.
.
Epstem. S .. Thramsson. H. and Zwart. C. J.-W 1996 "Introduction". l n W. Abr:�ham et nl. . . (cds.}. 1�6. .. Evers. A. 1975. The Trnnsfom1atmnal Cydc m Dutch and German". Ph.D. Dt!'scrtatton. Umvcrsity of Utre<:ht I Dtstnbuted by the lndtuna Umversit)' Lin�utsttcs Club. Bluomtn�ton. lnd.J. .. Evers. A. 1988. Non-timtt: verb forms and subJect theta role nssignment··. In ,._ and M. Trommclen {eds. ). 105-28. Dordrec:ht: Fons. . .The tnhnitiv:tl preh1< ·zu· as JNFL". In Scmmhli11K and IJarrit·r:r.
Evers. A. 1990.
G. Grcwendorf and \V. Sterncfeld tcds.). 2 17-38. Amsterdam and PIHiudclphiu: John 13enJamms.
. . 1984 . . Syntactic Affixation". Ph.D. Dissertation. MIT. . Farkas. D. 198 . . On ubhgatory control". Lm.«m:rtics and PJu/o.wphy I J : 27-5�t .. Fehx. S. 1990. The structure of fun<:tionnl catcgoncs". Unguisnsche Bcnchtt· t 25:
Fnbb.
'
46-7 1 .
. Fclscr. C. 1995 . . The Syntax of Verbnl Complements: A Study of Perception Verbs t n Ens hsh". Ph.D. Otssert.tttoll. Umversity of Gotungen. Felscr. C. 1998 . . . Pcrceptton nnd ontrol: a mimmnhst unulystl> of En�hsh direct pen:epllon complements ' · . .lo11mal qf Linguistics J4: 35 t-85. . Fclscr. C. and Rupp. L. I 997. . A mmimalist approach to c�istenllnl constructions in Gernmmc". 1-..ssex Rrst>nrrh Reports m Lim;.uistirs 15: 45-SO. .. Semantic Condttmns on Surf:�ce Structure". Ph.D. Dt:scrtatton. MIT. . . Ftllrnorc. C. 1963 . Tile pusition of embcddin� transfttmlattons in a grammar··. \lvnl 19:
Ftengo. R. 1974
208-3 1 .
.
.. Franks. S . 1983 . A note o n NP-structurc and s · deletton". Linguisnc Inquiry 14: I 75-9. Franks. S. and Homstetn, •. 1992. ··Secondal)· predtcation tn Russian and proper govern · . ment of PRO. . In R. Larson 1'1 n/. tcds.). J-50. Freed. A. 1979. The St•mmmrs of Em:,lish A.sprctual Complt•lm'lllntion. Dordrecht: Reidel. Gnbbny. D. and Momvcsik. J. I 980. ··Verbs. events. and the tlow of time ... I n 11nw. 'ft•mw. and Qualll{{it•rs. C. Rohrer (ed.). 59-.3. Tiibin�en: 'tcmcycr. Gnlton. A. 1984. 111e Log1< ofAspt•t:l. Odord: Clarendon Press.
Gee. J. 1975. . . Perception. lntentionaluy. and t\'aked lntintuV<:s: a . tudy 111 Ltngmstics and Phtlosophy". Ph.D. Dissertation. Stunford Umvcrstty. Gee. J. 1 977 . ··Comments on the paper by AkmaJian". In P. Cuhcovcr c•t al. {cds. ). 461-81. . Gecst. W. de. 1970. . lnfimttcft:onstructtes btJ verba senttendt". Swdia Necrland tctt 3:
33-59. Gecst. \V. de:. 1973. Cnmplt�mt'lltatr(' Construe/It'S bti \ft.rbn Smtiendi in het Nederland.\·. Utrecht: HandS.
258 Gccst. W. de.
refe•·e nce.
1 980.
"Nmu ccn bctcr
lx:�nJp
,·an 'kale inflniLH:fconstructics' ·•. GLOT 3:
29-46. Gcldcrcn. E. van. 1 993. Tlrr Uise oj Funrtimurl Catef:Ortt'S. Amstcrc.lum and Philadclphm: John BcnJUmtns. Gtorgt. A. and Pianesi. F. 19?1. "Towurd .1 syntax of tempoml reprcscntauons". Pmbus 32: 1 87-2 1 3. Gwrgt. A. and Piancst. F. 1997. Tl'll.ft! and Aspeo: from Semalllir.{ to Marphosvntax. Oxford: Oxford Um,·erstt)' Press. Goggm. J. 1982. ''A non-sententtal approach to ·c tuus.al ' NPs". 1'exa:; Uuguisnc l·omm 2 1 : 7-1 26. Gramley. S. 1987. "The mfi ni uvc forms of Enslish u.s verb complements". f>apt•r No. 185. Sates A. L.A.lJ.D.. Dutsbur<0. Gn·wendorf. G. 1987. "Kohiiren1. und Restruktunerung. Zu verhalen Komplcxcn im Dcutschcn". In NPttt'Tt- Forsclumgcn :.rtr lVortbildrm.r: rmtl llistnrio.r:raplrir der Linguist#:. Ft·str;abr fiir II. £. Brt•kle �IIIII 50. Gebur/:;tag
(cd�>. l. I 23-44. Tiibingcn: Narr.
.
B. Asbnch-Srhmtker ami J.
Rog_!.;enhofcr
Grimshaw. J. 19 I . "Form. funcuon and the lunguugc acqmsitwn device". ln The Lo,r;ical Pmblem oj Ltmgunge Al'qmsition C. L. Baker and J. McCarthy (eds.). CambndgG. MA: . MIT Pre.o;s. Grimshaw. J. I 990. Ar�:unwnt Strrtcture. Cambr idgc. M A: MIT Press. Grimshaw. J. l <)C) I . .. Extended proJection". Ms. Brandets U ruversity. Gnm.o;haw. J. I 997. ··ProJectiOn. heads. und opttmahty". Lm�Jtistic lnquir�· 28: 373422.
Grout. E. I 995. "English expletives: a nunimuhst approach". Unr:uislic Inquiry 26: 35465. Gu:t.StJ. M. T. I 992. "Pscudorclativ-cs and prcpostllonal intimuves". Gem•w1 Gi'IIUanvr Pnpc:rs 0: 53-65. Guasti. M. T. I 993. Owsotivr and Perception H�rbs. A CmuJNimtive S1udy. Torino: Rosenberg & Sdher. Gueron. J. 1980. "On the syntax ;�nd semanttcs of PP extraposition". Lmgwstit· lnqmry 1 I : 637-78. Gueron. J. and Hoekstra. T. I 988. "T-cham.o; nnd the constituent stntcture of auxtliarics". In Cnnstitut•m SII'IICIIIre. Ptrpi'rs .from the 1987 GLOW Conjl•rt'llrr. A. Cardtnaletti.
(cds.). 35-100. Dordrcchl: Fons. Gueron. 1. und Hot:kstm. T. I 993. "The tcmJl
259
Hatdcr. H. 1993. Dt�lllsdlt" Syma.x Geurrati\•. Tiibmgcn : Narr. Hmben. W. 1977 . ..Clause umon and Gemlitll an·u..;attvc plus intlmttvc constructt<ms". In Svnuu:and Snn£mtics : Grammauml Relattolls. P. Cole and J. Sadock fcds.). I 2 1 �9. New York AcademK Press. Harley. H. I 995. · ·. ubjtttl>. E'·ents. and Licensing". Ph.D. Dtsscrtatton. MIT. Hctm. 1. 1982. . .The Semantics of Dctimtc and lndctlnitc l oun Phrases". Ph.D. Dis..,crta uon. Unwcrsity of Ma.,sachu�ctts. Amherst. Hcndnck. R. 1991. .The morphosyntiL"< of aspect". Lin.t:ua 85: 17 I -210. Hcycod.:. C. I 994. .The mtcmnl structure of small dauses: new C\'tdcncc from in\'crsion". .
.
Pmct>nlings oj N£L�' 25: 22�-Jft
Htg� inbotham. J. 1983. ..The logtc of perceptual reports: an cxtensaonul alternattve to sttua uon semantics". The Jmmwl of Philosophy 80: 100-27. Htgsinbothnm. 1. 1985. .On semantics• · . Lin�uistir /nqmry 16: 5-J7-9�. Htge;inbothnm. J. 1989. .Elucidations of meomng". Lim:uistic.f ((lid Phi/().mplly 1 2 : 463-.
.
5 1 7.
Htggins. F. R. 1979. Tilt" P.,·nuf,.Cltjt Co11structum in H11gltsll. cw York Garland. Hmtikko. J. 1969. ..On the logtc of of pci"ccption". In /'..todt•lsjor Moduluirs. J. Hmttkka. 15 1-83. Ourdr«"ht: Reidel. Htrtle. \V. 1967. Thr Stmple aud till' Progrrssivt> Forms. An l\nalytical Approach. Quebec: Lcs Pre·�c:. de I'Umver�ite La\'al. Hock:.trn. T. I 984. Tron.\·iti\'itv. Cimmmntiral Nelatio11s m Glm1'rJIJitt>llt·8indin�: Tlrt"ory. Dordrccht: Fons. Hohlc:. T. 1978. Le.•dkaliswu:he Swunx: Die Aktiv-Pnssi\·-Rrlauon wu/ mulrrt• Jnfimti\•· konstruktionen im Deutsdwn Ti.ibmgen: Ntcmcycr. . Horn. G. 1975 . ..On the: nonscntcntrul natur� of the POSS-lt'.'G consuuctwn". Linguisur Analpis I : 333_g7. Hornstein. K 1990. As 11mt• Got>s By. Cambnd.gc. MA: MIT Pre.-.s. Hornstein. '. 1995. Logical Form. From GIJ to Mininwlism. Oxford: Blackwell. Hornstein. '. and Wcmber<�. A . I 981. ..Cruc thcor)· and preposilton stranding". Li11guis11r Inquiry I 2: 55-9 I . Hornstein. K and Li�Jnfool. D. 1987. Prcthcttion and PRO". Lfmgrw_r�e 63: 23-52. Huang. J. 19 2. Logtl·al Reiallons in Chinese and theTheory of Granun;tr". Ph.D. dtsscrta uon. MIT. Huang. J. I 984. ..On the distribution and rdcrcnce of empty pronoun:.''. Lin_r�ui.\'tic Inquiry IS: 531-7-J. Huang. J. 1989. .Pro-drop m Ctunesc: ::1 gcneruhzcd l·ontrol theory". In 0. J:tcggh ::md K_ Satir (c:ds.). I 85-2 14. Huang. J. I 993. Rel·onstrucuon and the structure of VP". Lmguistic l11quiry 24: 1 03-..
..
.
..
38.
Huddleston. R. D. I 976. Some thcorettcal issues in the dcscnpuon of the Engltsh vert)'. Ungua 40: 331-83. Hudson. R. I 973. ..Tense and tune reference m rc.du cd reluti"e d.tuscs". Lin�uistic Inquiry "
4: 25 1-6.
260 Hy,·.irmcn. I. 19X4. ··zur Satt.ghcdanaly� dcr A.c.L-Korl\lrukuonbcr den dc:U>;Chcn L Verbcn dcr Sinncswahrnehmung". Dmtschr Spmdze 1 2 : 303-25. latridou. S. 1990. "About Agrtp)''. Lln�:mstic lmtmn 2 1 : 551-11.
Jy, akura. K. 19�4. "Go\'emmcnt theory and J P-m� con�trut:Uon.\ · · . Llm:m.\lk Amtlyszs I 5: .l 1-54.
J.u.:kendotf. R. 1972. Scmnnllt" lmupretallon m Cienuom·e Grammar. C.1mlmd�c. i\IA: i\IIT Pres�. Jackendotf. R. 1977. X'-Synta.\ . A Smdy of Phra.'i
•
Jnnlkn. H. 199.\. \'t·rlwl'llun!( rmd Sat�struktllr im L!trgll.w·hm. Tuhingcn: Nurr. Jaspers. D .. Klooo;ter. W .. Putseys. Y. and . eurcn. P. (cds.). 1 9H9. Senll'lllial Cmnp!t·mNrtation am/ thl' Lrxicon. Dordrccht: Fori.... Jcsp<:r�n. 0. I 9�7. Analyttc Srmtu. London: Allen a.nd Unwin. Jc�pcr�n. 0. 1940. :\ M{)dcrn J�ngll:ilr Grammar 011 J/istm'ical Prmoples . Part V ( $ymaxJ. London: Allen and Unwm. Johns. A. 1992. ··Dc:ri\'Jng crg:lll\'lly". J..Jn�uisuc lnquin 2�: 57-87. Johnson. K. 1988. "Ciaus.al scrunds . the ECP. :md go,crnmcnt". Lmt:uistir Inquir y 19: 5MJ..(l()�. JohnM>n. K. 19C) I . "ObJect posi uons". Namml umKtW�l'tmd UIIKIII.fth 'fht•OT)' 9: 577-636. .. Jon<:.\. C. 1 9 S . fhemauc relntrons 10 l'Ontrol". rn Spuar ami St�mantirs 21: Tlrrmouc J<elatians. \\'. Wall..rn' ted.). 75-.'19. S ..m Diego: Academk P�.\s.
K.tc. �t. B. 1 976. "On
omposrle p�dacatron 10 Englash
•.
In Sv111ar and Semcm11cs 6:
lilt' (immmur nj Causnti\'t' Constructions. M. Shabutanr ted.}. 229-SN. 1\cy,. York: Ac:t
dcmic P��s.
. Kagey.ama. T. 1992 . .AGR in Old Engh�h w-inlimtrves". Lmgua 8�: 9 1 - 1 2l.t �.tync. R. 198 1 . "On l·crtarn dall'crcnrcs between French a.nd En�hsh
•.
Unguis11c Inquiry
1 2 : 349-7 1 .
K.1ync. R. 1 \JIW. Cmmrl'll'llne.�s (}lid LJmary Bmnching. Dord�(.'ht: foorrs. Kayne. R. 1994. J1u> Antisymmt•try of Syntar. Cumbridl:;C. MA: MIT Pres,. Kenny. A. 196.3. Ac tum. Emmimr am/ Will. London: Routlcdsc and K. Paul. K1rsner. R. I 977. "On the passive of scn.sory verb complement,". Ungui.stu lnqtmT 8: 1 73-9.
K1rsncr. R. and Thompson . . . 1976. "The role of pra�mutu: mfcrencc 10 .\Cmanllc�: a study of .\Cn,ory \'Crb \.'omplemcnts m Enghsh " . Glossa 10: 2U0-40. K1� �- T. 199� . .. Infinite Komplcmentation: Neue Studrcn t.um dcuL<;chen Verbum tnllnr . . tum ... Arbellrn des Smrde1_jorsduuu:,sbereulzs 2•'2 . 'lht•orie dt•t Lt•xikon_t . No. 42. Oc�as�hc l,;ni\'CI'.\IWl Gc.!lamthoch.sd tulc Wuppcrtal. K1wgawa. Y 1986. ··SubJct:ll> in En�lrsh and J.tpnncsc ". Ph.D. Dasscrtutton. Mas.\at:hu�tts. Amherst.
niver�ny of
261 K 1t�harJ. II. I 996.
..
R.nl> ing quanuher.; wuhout quan tifi er raiMng · . In W. Abraham N a/.
(eh t. .). I X9-98.
Kolt.Uml. M. 1995. " Phrase . tructure m
M i mmill is t Synta.'\ ".
Ph.D. Dl�l>crtatJOn. MIT.
Koopman . H. 11)()4. ··L�<:cnsmg heads". In Vub Mo�·mr.•nt. D. Llfhtfoot and . . Horn�tc111 {cth.t l61-96. C.Jmb ndge: c..mbndge Unl\'e�ll)' Pre·s. Koopm.1n . H. and S port1c hc . D. 19 2. ··vanahlcs and the BIJCLlJon Pnn�:: 1plc' . Thr Lm�msIIC
l
1 39-60.
Koopm.1n. H. und Sport1che. D. 1991. "The pos111on of .subJect ' ·. Un�rw 85: 2 1 1-58. Ko�ter. J. 1984. "On bmdmg and control ''. Un�uislic lnqmn- 1 5 : 4 1 7-5?. Koster. J. and M.1y. R. 1982. "On the con!>lltucncy of mfinitJVCl> • . La11�mr�:e 52: 1 16-143.
Kratzer. A. 1 9 8 1 . "The notwnal category of Mod ahty" . In \l0rds. �\�,r/d.s. and Ctmtt•xt. H.-J. bkmcycr .. md H. Rteser lcds.). Berlin: de Gmytcr.
"S t.Ige-lcvel and mdiv•dunl-levd pred kntc s " . in Papus m1
Knllt.cr. A. 1989. Qllmlllf�ealitm.
sr Grant Report. Dept. of Lmgu•stic.s. Uni\'CNty of
Mu.....suchUI'Cll'>.
Amherst. Kratzer. A. 199:\ ··On external argmncnts". In E. Ben<:dJCto and J. Runner (et.ls.). 103-29.
Kruch. A . . Santonm.
B. and Heycodc C.
1987. "O:tJ'C mfimt1ve� and external arguments".
Pmucdmt:.f oj ,1\'L'..Ui 18: 271-..'\S. Kuroda. S.-Y. 19X . "Whether we agree or not: a compar.tti\'C syntJ� of l!nf.h.sh and Jap:�
nese" . Lin,c:u.f/trar lm N;ti�tmnnt"s 1 2: 1-n. Laku. M. l. 1 990. "Nc}:3tlon 10 SynttL'\: On the t'ature Of Functional Categories ..Lnd Pro1e twns". Ph.D. Ob�crtatwn. I\ liT. Lakofl. G. 1971. "On Generative Semantics··. In Srmantics. D . . Iemberg and L. Jakobovll:. {ctl,.l. 232-96. New York: C:�mbndge Lm\'erslt)' Pres:. .
Landman. •. 1992. "The progrc,si"·e". Natural Lan�ruu�c ScmtmtilS I . l-.l2. Lapomte. S. 1980. "A note on Akm:IJtan. Steele and \Vaso\Jo ·, treatment of ccrtam \'erb complement typc l>" . Lint:uistk lnqllll')' I I : 77�7.
Lar,on. R. 19�8. "On the double obJeCt constru�llon". Lmr:uwi£ lnqurry 1 9 : 335-92. Lar.son. R. I 991.
··Pmmm• nnd the theory of control".
Lillf:llisnr lllqllin 22: t0.�-39.
Larson. R .. latndou. S.. Lahm. U. and Hi�gmbotham. J. ted:..). 1992. Calllml and(;rammar. CJordrecht: Kluwer. Lar-.un. R. and Segal.
G.
1995. Kllmrlc!df:t' oj Mt•anim� . Cambnd�c. MA: 1.\•JIT Pre: !>.
Lasmk. H. 1988. ..SubJects and the fkntcnon". Namm/ Ltlflf:IIOKr and Un�:uistir 1'11cory 6: 1-17. Lasmk. ll. 1992. ··Case and expletives: note:. tuward a punun ctnc account". Lillf:llisnt l11quin· 23: 3X 1-405.
Lasmk. H. 1995. ··C:lsc :mtl explct i\'C S rcns itcd: on Greed and other human fa!l mgs " . Lill �lli:'ltu: ltUJIIi'} 26: 615-:H. Leek. F. '�n der and Jon�. J. 1982. "The complement structure of perception verbs m Eng h�h". Lmi:III.'ilit'!; in /he .. Nc!thrrlmuls 13: I 03-14. Lehm.mn. C. II)<) I. "Cramm:JIIt'aliutJon :md related ch:mges
111
contempor:try Gcrm:m".
In Approadtr.'i w Grammatiralt�ation. \fJI. II. E. C. TrJu�ott and 49:\-535 . Am:.terdam and Philatlelphm: John Oc:nJ.Jmms.
B.
llcmc (cd.,. ).
262
refe•·encc.
Lenn. B. 1 993. En!:lish Verh l'lnsst>s and AltN·flallves: i\ PTl'limmarr lm•estif:.atilm. Chtca�o: The lJm\'ersny of Ch1ca�o Press. Lewis. D. 1 975. ··Adverbs of quunttlication". ln l•orma/ Srmamrcs of Natural Lmtf:UOI:t'. E. Kcem.ln ted.}. 3-15. Cambndge: Cambndgc Umverstty Press. Lt. Y. 1990. ··x·-bmding und \.'erb tm:orpuration... Unguisur Inquiry 2 1 : 399-426. Longobanh. G. 1994. ··Reference and proper names: a theory o f . -movement in synn>: t and logical form". Lmgmstic bUJllll). 25: 609-65. Lumsden. J. 1987. ··Syntuctal· Features: Paramctnc Vanataon m the Htstory of Enghsh''. f'h.D. dtsscrtauon. MIT. McCawle)'. J . 1968. ··The role of scmanttcs 10 grnmmar". In lJJti�'t'rsals m Lmgmstic 'f'lrt- orv. E. Bach nnd R. T. Hunns {cd.o;. ) . 1 25-69. New York: Holt. !Rmehurt and Winston. Matr. C. 1990. ltifinitll'nl Complt'l11t'nt Clmtst'S in f.'m:lish. Cambrsdgc: Cambndge Umvcrsity Pre ·s. Manzim. R. 1983. "On control und control theory". Linguisuc llltfuiry 14: 421-tQ. Manzim. R. 1992. LAcaluy. Cambridge. MA: 1\•flT Press. Marunll . . A. 1984. On tllr Nnmre of Grammatical Relations. Cambrtdgc. MA: MIT Pre .;s. •
Marantz. A. 1995. ··The minimalist progrum". In G. Wcbelhuth (cd.). 349-82. . May. R. 1 977. The Grammar of Quantilu:atwn··. Ph.D. DtssertatJUn. MIT. .
May. R. I 9X5. Lof:lcal l·orm: Us Strucmrt> and Duimtion. Cambridge. MA: MIT Pre:�. . ;crtatton. MIT I Distributed Mils_mk G. 197-t. "Extstential Sentences in English". Ph.D. Dis. by the lndianu LmgUJ�tu:s Club. Bloomington. IndianaJ.
Milsmk G. 1 977. "Towards an explanution of certmn pccuharitics of the e:
.
Publishers. f\apuli. D. 1988 .
.
t99t. tapirs in Small Claust's. Tokyo: Kurosto
. Sub,Jcx:t� and external arguments cluuse." und nonchtuseo;". Lifll:llisurs and
Philosophy I I : 323-254. calc. S. 1981:!. . EYenL-; and ·Logll'al Fonn ' . Lin,:uistics and Plulosophv I I : 303-3 2 1 . .
'calc. S. 1990. Dnrriptions. Carnbndge. MA: MIT J>re:.s. ewmeycr. F. 1975. English A.''/h'CIIutl Verbs. The Hague and Pans: Mouton. . Ogihurn. T. 1992. . Temporal Reference 10 English and Jap.:�ncse". Ph.D. DissertatiOn. •
Umvcrsity of Washmgton [Dtstributcd by the lnd1anu Umverslly Ltngutstic.'> Club. Bloommgton. Ind.]. Ouhnlla. J. 1 99 1 . FunNionaJ Cate�:ones and Pammrtrlc \'nriatitm. London: Routledge. P<�lmer. F. 1987. 11re l�ngl1sh \(ub t2nd F..dition). New York: Lon�man. .. P�1rsons. T. 1989. The progressive m Enghsh: Events. stutco; und procc: �es". Lm�mstic:s mrd Pllilosoplly l2: 2 1 3-41. Parson�. T. 1990. £vt·nts in the Srmmuics t�{ Efl�:hsh: A Study in Subatomit' St'mnnt1cs. Cambrul�c. MA: MIT Pre..o;s.
263 . Partee. n. 1973 . . .
0111<:
structur.II analog ieS hetween tenses and pronouns 10 English ... .lour-
11(1/ of Philosophy 70: 601-8.
Partee. B. 198-l. " N onunal and temporal anaphora". Unguisttcsand Philosnphy 1: 243-2 6. Pcsetsky. 0. 1982. "Paths :md Categonc:s". Ph.D. Dassertution. MIT. Pcsctsky. D. 1995. Zero Syntax. E. xpenenct•rs and Cascades. Cambridge. MA: MIT Prcsl> Pollock. J.-Y. 1989. "Verb movement. UG nnd the stnll'turc of I P " . l.mguistic Inquiry 20: 365-424. Pollock. J.-Y. I99-t. ·'Chcdan(! theory and bare verbs". I n Paths 1owards Uni,•ersal Grum mar: Studies in 1/onor oj Richart/ S. Kaw1e. G. Cmquc. J . Koster. J.-Y. PoiJOl·k. L. RIZZI and R. Zanullini tcds.). 293-3 10. Wnshmgton. D.C.: Georgetown
ni vcrstty Press.
Poutsm:t. H. 1923. 111e Jnfilliti\'t'. the Gerund and thr Particif1lrs af the 1-.JlKiuh H•rb. Gronmgcn: P. !\oordhoff. Poutsmu. H. 1926 . .4 Grammar of Latt• Modun E11Kitsh. Gromnsen: P. 'oordhoff. Pnor. A. N. 1967. Past. Prt!.ft'llt. and future. Oxford: Oxford Umvcrsity J>res.o;. Quine:. \\'. 1960. U.�rd and Objrct. Cambridge. r-.•IA: MlT Press. Rndford. A.
I ?75.
"Pscudo-relallvcs and tJ1c unity of subJC('t raising". Archi"um
Unguisttcmn 6: 32-64. Rudfurd. A. 1 977. Italian Synuu: '/i·ans.fonnatwnal and Rt'lntionnl Grammar. Cambndgc: C:unhndgc Umvcrsuy Press. Rudford. A. 1988. 7i'an:f r ormationnl Cimmmar. Cnmbridgc: Cambridge Umver.sity Pre.ss. Rudfurd. A. 1997. Syntc1ctic Tht>OIT and the Stmcmrc oj £n�:llJh: A ."-limmallst Approad1. C:un bridgc: Cumbndgc Um,·crslt)' Press. Rumchand. G. 1993. "Aspc:.ct an Modem Scott1sh Gach<:". Procrt'dinp,s oj NRLS 23: 4 1 5-29. Ramchand. G. 1996. "Two subjc.ct pusittons in Scollish Gaelic: the syntax-scmunt1cs mtcr face". Nawml LaiiKIWKl' St•numtics 4: 165-9 1 . R11poport. T. 1 99 1 . "'AdJunct-predicate lkcn..-mg and D-structurc". (n S . Rothl>tc in fed.). 159-87. Ruposo. E. 1989. "Prepostt ional inlimtt't·c constructions in Europc;1n Portuguese". [n
0. Jacggh and K. Sahr (cds.). 277-306. Rctchcnbach. H. 1947. Elrnwnts oj Symlmlic l..o�:il'. N ew York: �f.tc�tJllan.
Reulnnd. E. 1981. "On Ihe govemmg properties of in hmttvnl mnrkeni'. In Papersfrom tltr Si.wh Smndinawan Cnnjcrem·t! oj Lmguwirs. T. Fretheun und L Hdlan (cd.d. Trondhcim: Tapir.
Reuland. c. I 983a. ··Govemmg -mg". Lin�:uistic lnquiiT 14: 1 0 1-36. Reuland. E. t9l\3b. "Govcrnm�:nt and the search for AUXES: A ca.'c study 111 no.ss-hnguls uc cntcgory ident1tkution". In Linguistic C.atr�:oril•s. Au.nliarit•s and Rrlatrd Pu::.dt>J. Vol. /. F. Hcny und B. Richard (cds.l. 99- 168. Dordrc:.cht: Rctdel. Ri!>tcr. B. 1981. "Stacked structures m Engltsh: scm,ml lr mot1vution and syntactic sl lpulu twn". L..lll811" 53: 33-60. .. Rigter. B. 1985 . TO and PRO". Lmguwirs m tlrr Netlwrlnnds I: 157-65. Rigtcr. n. and Beukema. F. 1985. A Gm•nnmt-mand Binding Appmach to E nglish Sentt•ncr
Struclllre. Apcldoorn: Van \Valrn,.-en.
264
Riner. E. and Rosen . . . T. 1993. iheorv I I : 5 1 9-51.
..
Dcri"ms cau!>ation". Namml um�:uaf:t' mul Utlf:lli.sm
. Riner. E. nnd Rosen. S. T. 1997. .The function of hm•e". Un�ua 10 I: 295-32 1 . .. R1vcro. l\•t. L. 1990. The locntton of nonactive vo1ce m Albaman tmtl Modern Greek". Unguist1c lnquirv 2 1 . 13.5-46. Riu.i. L. 1986. ··. uti obJects m ltuliun anti the theory of pro". Un�:u;stic lnqu;ry 17:
501-57. R1t .1.1. L. 1990. Rt>lm;ri:_t·d Min;maUty. Cambridge. MA: MIT Pre:s. Riz zi. L. 1992. ··Duect perception. government und thematic shunng " . Gt•tlt'l'a Gmer£m �·e
Papc>rs 0: 39-52. Roberts. 1 . 1985.
..Agreement
parnmctcrs and the development of English modal nu�llia
nes". Natttral Langua.r:e and Lins:u;stit' 'f'lteory .l: 2 1-58. Roberts. I. 199�. \1•rbs wul D;arhronic Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Rochemont. M. I 986. focus in Gmerative Gnmmwr. Amsterdam and Ph1laddphiu: John 13en.Jumms. Rochelle. A. 19�8.
.. Scmantil- and Syntacttl· Aspcl:ts of Romance Scntent1ul Complemen
tation". Ph.D. Dissertation. MIT. Roeper. T. 1987. "Implicit arguments and the head-complement relation". Linguism Jnqu;ry 18: 267-3 10. Roeper. T. and de Vtlhcrs. J.
1992. "Ordere-d par;1mcters m the ucquisttion of
WH-<.jucstions". ln 'flworl'tiral lssru·s ;, Languar:,e Acquis;tiOJI. J. We1·scnborn ::md H. Goudluck (.cds.l. 1 9 1-236. HJIIsdulc.
NJ:
Erlbaum.
Rogers. A. 1971. ··Three kinds of phys1cnl perception \'crbs". P apers/rom tlw 7th Regional Mt>Ning ojthe Chicago Lin;.:mstic Socte�y: 202-22. .. Rogers. A. 1974 . Physical Pen:epllon Verbs tn English: A Study in Lc:<Jcul Relatednes s". Ph.D. Otsscrtntion. UCLA. Rosen. . . 1 989. '·Argument . tructure and Complex PredJtutc..<; ". Ph.D. Dtsscrtauon. Bntnde is University. Rosenbaum. P. 1 967. 'the Drammar
t?f l�ngl1sh
Prrtbcme Complemmt Construct;ons.
Cambndgc. MA: MIT Press. Ros. o;. Ross.
J. J.
1967. ··Constrnmts on Vunables m Syntux". Ph.D. Dis.-;crtallon. MIT. 1969. "Au�Jltancs
IL"
m:un verbs". In Swd;es in Philosophic L;ngu;stics. Series I.
\V. Todd. ted.). 77-102. l!vanston. IL: Great Expcl·tations Press. Ros. o;.
J.
1972. ··Doubl-mg'". Lm.�mstic Inquiry 3: 6 1 -86.
Rothstein. S. 1983. ··'The Syntactic Forms of T>redil·atJon". Ph.D. DtssertatJon. �tlT. . Rothstein. S. 1995. . Pieon;L<\Ih:s and the mterprctatiOII of pronouns". UnKuistu: Inquiry 26:
499-529. Rothstein. S. ted.) t991. Spttax andSemantics 25: Perspt•ctive.<� on Phrase Struclltrr!. IJc•uds and Llcensing. San Otego: Acudemll' Press. . Rouvcn:t. A. nnd Vergnaud. J.-R. 1980. . Speci(ymg reference to the subJC<'t: f-rench l'ausuuve.' and t'ondtuons on representations' · . Lilll!llistlc lnquirv I I : 97-202.
Russell. B. 1905 .
.
. On dcnotmg" . .�'lind 14: 479-93.
265 Rutten. J. II)<) I . •• lntimuv:tl Complements and Au:\aharics". Ph.D. Disse rt.1t aon. Umvcr.. at y of Amsterdam. Ruyter. L. 1988. ··Bdl'C mtimtl\'als. INFL and pseudo-proj.!rel-!-1\'el> in Dutch
.
McG11l
Working Papers in Luu;m.\tics: SpPcwl lssut· on Comporotll't' Gt•nnnnic Syntax: 260-79.
S.llir. K. I IJ8.:t . "On !-mall dauscs ns conslatucnts". Lilaguistic Jnquin· 14: 730-5. . ahr. K. 19g4_ "�lulllplc \':.mable bmding' . Ungrtisti< Jnqrtin 1 5 : 603-38. Snhr. K. I 9X5. Srnlilctir Chams. London: Cambnclgc lma\'crsuy Presl> . .
ahr. K. 1993.
•
uc.r
"Pe n·cptaon .
selectJOn. and :.trurtur.1 l economy " . .'Vt1111rnl umr:unt:e Seman
2: 47-70.
. aurc:r. W. I 984. A /•omut! Semantics oj'l..nse. A.fpect om/ A/.:titmsarten. Bloonungton . Ind.:
lnda.ma Univer\aty Linguistt<:s Club. •
-.:hcfler. J. 1975. 1'l1e Pm}{rt's.\·i�·r in H ngl uh. Amsterdam: Elst:\'IC: r.
Schmidt. C. 199-L "Sntt-"truktur und Verbbcwegun&. Eine manimuhsliM:hc Analyse zur mtecncn Strukturdcr ll>( lnflection-Phrase) am DcuL,chc:n". Ph.D. Disse 1t nt ion. Umven;ity of Cologne: .
. eUmJ... . E. I 982 .. Thr Swtnx aJ �"''i>nls. Cumbndgc:. MA: MIT Presl>. Snuth. C. 1 9 9 1. . Tlw Panmlett.'r of Aspt•t·t. Dordrccht: Kluwer. Speas. M. I 990. Phrasr Str11clltre in Nmurnl Ltmguaf{r. Dordn:d1t: Kluwer. portJChe.. D. I 98�. "A theory of tlo::ttmg quantihc.!> r .md at� corrolarae� for con,tllucnt struc ture" Ltm:mstic Inquiry I 9: 3�-60 .. . portae he. D. I 995 . . . ketch of n rcducttom�l approach to �yntactac v..armllon nntl tlcpcndcn
cac�.. In Itt nlrtltOII (//It/ Re�·olution Ill Ltnr:mstic 1 ' /worr: Essa\'.f in IJmwr a/ rarlos Otero. H. C.1mpo' and f'. Kempchm�ky re
(rcpnnted m Pamtions and Atoms of Claust.' S11·ucwn•:
Srtbiut!i .. A�rrrmrm.
Case and
Clittoi. D.. . portae he 1998. 379-419. London: Routled�e )..
. teube. A. «ed. ). 1994. lur Sat::.u rrti�krit \'ml Jnjmitttt•n wul Small Clmtsrs. Tubmgen : J temeyer. . towcll. T. 198 1 . ··Ongm� of Phrase . tructun:''. Ph.D.. Das,ertatton. MIT.
. towelI. T. I 982.
"The
tense of tnhniti\'cs". Linguistic lnqmn· U: :561-70.
. towell. T. 19SJ. ··SubJet·ts across cntcgones'' .. 1'/w Linguistil Rc.,... lrw 2: 285-312.
Stowell. T.. t 99 1 . "The alignment of arguments an adJC<:ti"ul phra,cs" . In . . Rothstein (et!J. 105-�5. Stowell. T. I 9<.>2. Lecture notes. GLOW Sumnwr Srhonl m Lm�:mstics.. Garona.. . towcll. T. 1996. "The phra.'c structure of Tense" . In Phras£' Structure mul thr Lr:rtum. J . Rooryck and L. Zanng {ecbJ. 277-91. Dordrccht: Kluwer.
Strotk. T.. I 996. ,\./mimali:mr. Smpe. atUI \1P Strur111re. Thousand 0.1ks. CA: S1.1ge Pubhcuuons..
Stu mp.. G.. I ?M.S. flit' Semanti( Vartability oj Ab..wlmn ·e Ctm:>tructitm.'i. Dordn:cht: RcuJel.
Suzuk1.. Y. I CJC) I . "Smnll clause:. as AgrP" .. In H.
akaJama .md S. Tonoakc lctls.). 27-37. Takc: Law.t. K. I 9M4. "Perle cuve ha\'e nnd the bnr notataon . Lingmstir lnqmrY I 5: 675-6S7. Tenny. C.. 1 9 7 "Gr.ammat•cniiLing Aspet·t and Aflcctc:tlm:�s" .. Ph.D. Dt�scrtatton. �flT.
266
refe,·ence.
Tenny. C. 1994. Aspectual Rolt:.t ltnrl thr Synuu:-Sc-manncs lmajace. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Tnwis. L. 1984. ··Parnmcters ;mel Effect.; of Word Order Variation". Ph.D. D1sscrtauon. MIT. Tmvts. L. 1 988. ··The syntax of advc:ms··. McGill U0rkm� Plrpers in Lmgmstics: Sprcial Issue on Cmnp,mtiw' Germmtic SvntlLI:: 280-3 10. Tunstall. S. 1993. ··Case m aspectuul pcrceptton l·omplcmcnts''. I n E. Bcncd1cto nnd
J. Runner(ed.s.). 227-5 1 . Vater. H. 1973. Diim:rche Sul�it'kt- rmd Objektsiit;:l'. Tiibmgcn: N acmeycr. Vcndlcr. Z. 1967. Lin,v,uistics m Philt�Sophy. lthacu: Cornell Um\'ClSll)' Press. Vcrkuyl. H. 1912. On the Compositional Nawre of thr A.�fJec:ts. Dordrecht: Reidel. Verkuyl. H. 1993. A Tht'm)· of A.�IU'Cillality. Cambmlgc:: Cambndgc: Umvcrsity Pres�. Visser. F. J 96l-73. A lllstarical Svntax of thr Fnglish Ltm�rwJ:t•. Leaden: E. J. Bnll. Vlach. F. 1981. ··The semantics of tht: progressive". In Synlll:r am/ St•mantics I-I: 1'tm.te and Aspt'CI. P. Tcdcsch1 and A. Zacncn (cds. ). 271-92. . cw York: Arademic Press. .. Vlach. F. 1983. On s1tuatwn scmtmtics for pen:eptton". Svntlrr:w 54. 129-52. Voorst. J. van. l988. £vcm Structrtrtr. Amsterdam uno Philadelphia: John BenJmnins. Wllmcr. A. 1993. En�lish Aro:iliuri£•s. Ctunbrid�c: Cambridge University Press. .. \Vebclhuth. G. 1989. Syntnl·Uc Satumt1on Phenomena and the Mo<.lcrn Germamc Languages" . Ph.D. Dissertation. Umvcrsity of Mass
1991.
··Smal1 clauses und related obJeCL'". Gmnm�er Arbi'ilcn ::ur
Germmustischrn Un�ui:otik 34. 2 1 5-36. WJJiiums. E. 1974. ··Rule Ordcrmg m SyntiL'\ ... Ph.D. D1s.sertatton. MIT. \V11liluns. E. 1980. ··PredicatiOn". Ungrtisuc Inquiry 1 1 : .!08-38. W1lliums. E. 1 9 8 1 . ··Argument structure and morphology". th1• Un�uisnc Rc•l•it'lf 1 : • 1-1
14.
WJtlitmls. E. 198�. ··Again_t small dmscs''. Lm�:mstk Inquiry 14: 287-308. \V1lliurns. E. 1985. ··PRO .md subJect of . f>". Namral Lan�:uagi' and Un.r:.mstic Tht•OY)' 3: 297- 3 1 5 . WJllium. . E. 1 99-t. Tlll'lnatir Structure m Sylllax. Cambndge. MA: MIT Press. Wyngaerd. G. van den. I 989. "'Verb projectiOn raismg and the status of inlinuivul complc· mcnts··. In D. Jaspers l't nl. (cds.). 423-3�. Zagona. K. 1 988. \�•rb Phra.�tr Syntax. Dordrcl·ht: Kluwcr. Zagonu. K 1992. ··Times as tempor�tl argument structure". Ms. Umversity of Washm,gton. Zanuttmt. R. 1991. ··Synt:tcttc Propertie)> of Sl�ntentJUI Negat10n: A Compamllvc Study of Romnnl-e Lansunges". Ph.D. D1sscrtatwn. Um\'ctsll)' of Pennsylvania. Zwart. C. 1.-W. 199-l. ··Dutch as hcad-matml". tl1e Liu�uisn• Review I l : 377-406. Zwart. C. J.- V•l. I 997. ,1./orpho.mu"x oj \'c!rb /'flovement: A Minimalist Approach to thi' Syntax qfVutch. Dordreeht: Kluwcr.
Subject index
A-movement 10. 15 n. 10. 103. 178.
181 absolute construction 57. 154
ACC-in� construrtton 16. 58. 60-1 Abne(s analysts 59 Reulund' s una lysis 23o Accusativc-.1nd-lnlinitivc construction
IACI) 20-t. 2 1 3-21. 240 n. I . 242 n. 8
adJunct detl·tJc 35. 73-5 adjunct dau..;c no adverbial 24. 51
�o:ontrolled 7 1 . 235 frc.e ud_1unct clause 6!:1-72
purtinpiul 63. 64. 7:5. < I . 188
annphone control 146. I SO. 196 anaphonc subJCl·t 60 anuphunc trnce 1 . I . 202 n . 39 PRO 142. 144. 150, 1 5 1 . 155� Arub1c 1 1 4 Egyptian I I S
argument
argument pusitton� in tht: extended VP 101 event argument vs. nominal argument 130 e:xtcmul 9. 100. 1 0 1 . I t I . 127 n. 23.
1 30. 1 33-4 1 . 1 68. 187. 197 n. 8. 198 n. 15 internal I 0. I 00
adjunct c:xtmction 6 1 adjunct prcdtcate 190. 1 92-4. 2 1 1
hnking 9 movement
adjunl·t1un
non-thenmuc 2 1 . 06. 99
to AgrP 109
see A-movement
qua�i-ar<�ument 2 1 . 134
sputJO·Icmporul 130
to an nrgumcnt I 09 to an .tu:xiliary 245 n. 1 7
argument stru turc 1 2
to Asp 224
aspect 76. 77. 204
to a he,td 1 6 1 . 226. 244 n. 14 lcft-adjum:tton 245 n. 18
right-adJunctton 2-B n. 14. 245 n. I 8 to VP 104. 173. 222 adverb. hccnsmg I 04. 1 1 3. 120. 1 24.
1 2 6 n . I I . 126 n. 12. 1 9 1 . 194.
217 agreement 8. 109- 1 1 . 147. 199 n. 16.
246 n. 24 murpholos,y 93. 125 n. I number 65. 108 small pm 142
as feature 9 1 . I 16-18. 122. 1 7 1 . 174.
224 as functtonal head 90. 1 1 3. 1 1 4. 1 1 6. I 18. 1 2 1 . 1 2 3-5. 1%. 226 as opemtor 127 n. 20
mmphology 1 1 5. 1 16. 1 24. 127 n. H.
187 perfcc-ttve 89 n. 64. 1 14. 1 t 5. 1 20.
1 24. 127 n. 2 1 . 159. 1 87. 198 n. I L 224. 226. 232. 244 n. 15. 244 n. 16. 244 n. 1 7 progrcsstve 57. 73. 77. 1:12. 96. 97.
Spe<:-Hcud 108. 14�-46 ·ubjcl·t 25. 65. 237. 239 Akrion.wrr I I S. 127 n. 2 1
I 15. I 16. 136. 14�t 157. 158.
anuphor 13. 23. 155. 1 99 n . 14
238. 243 n. 1 1 . 244 n. 15. 247 n. 33
:maphoric bmding 156
1 6 1 . 167. 1 8 1 . 1 85. 1 87-9 1 . 1 96. 198 n. 10. 206-8. 224. 227. 228.
subj e c t index
268
pscudo-progn:sstvc 207. 209. 210, 2 1 2. 2 1 7-19. 222-24. 226. 2�8. 2 4 1 n. 4. 24 1 n. 7. 244 n. 1 3 scmant11.:l> of I 14-2 1 . I 27 n. 20. 136 vs. Aktionsart I I 5 aspcctual adverb 104. I I 3. I 27 n. 25. 136 aspcctual auxiliary 26. 38. n. 8 1 nnd fPVC 54-5. 72 aspc tu:tl verb 2-1. 57. 58. 190-3 aux1liary 225 as dummy \'crb 1 2-t as functional head I 1 7
case accusatavc 209. 2 14. 2 1 1 nommati\'C I I. I 00. I I l . I 78. 197 n. 4. 236. 246 n. 24 null 93. 94. 96. 1 2 1 . 142 obJect ive 2:5. 60. 9 1 . 92. 100. 106. I Oft I 10. 1 2 1-23. 125 n. 4. 126n. 7. 17�. 187 C:1sc Filter 10 C:tUSUlt\'e 87 n. 45
causattvc verb 5. 51. I 05. 247 11. 35 and perceptiOn "erb I 7. I 8. 53-7 h�ht verb 9 <.'hcckmg
aspcctual 26. 32. 3,. 54. 12. 77. 8 1 . 89 n. 64. 95. 1 14. 122. 21-t 232. 24� n. 10
domam 99. 1-B of casc 8 n. 5 1. 92. 100. 102. 103. I I I . 176. 2 1 6. 236
nspcctual be 77 lutvt' 26, 32. 89 n.
of mflcctJonal feature I I , I l l . I I 9. 126 n. I I . 244 n. 14
226 modal 99. 160. 189
theOI'y of 8. 99. lOS. 1 10. 1 17. 125 n. 4. 122. 173. 176. 178 Reulnnd's theory of ·case
passive be 12. 26. l24 perceptiOn vern n� I 05-8. 162 pcrfcc:tivc 198 n. I I . 245 n. 1 7 pro�rc..o;stvt' bt• 12. 57. I 02. I 87 vs. main verb 107. I 1 7 Bach's GeneralisatiOn 1 5 I
movement' 126 n. 7 Ct1inese I I 5 cleft sentence 19. 1 56. 200 n. 26 dllt<.: 235 complcmentJscr 125 n. 3. 236. 238 us case usstgner 92
bare plur.tl noun 50. 5 I . 75-6. 87 n. 4 1 . 125. 128. 139. 174-6
cumplemcnllser-le.ss CP 243 n. tO french dr 2-16 n. 26
bumer 9 1 . 125 n. 4. 165. 2�6 B1u.quc I 1 :5
Italian a 247 n. 3 1 null 2�5
Bijcctmn Prmciple I 54 binding 147. 16�
overt 15 n. 12. 25. 26. 53. 60. 12. g l . 9 1 . 100. 109. 122. 1 24.
anuphoric 24. 156 bmdmg domain 24 domnm 139. 175 multiple 147. 1 5 2-5 Par<�llc!Jsm Constraint on Operator
126 n. 7 pn:postttonul 2�7 relative 234 Complete Thcmatk Con..;tituent I 05 condittonnl dausc I 3 1
Bindmg 153 Pnm:tple A 23. I 5 L I 52. l S I
conJunction 2 1 <.·onslrnmt
Pnnctplc C 163 syntal'ttt: 199 n. 1 9 theory of 7. 8. 13. 19<) n . 14 Breton 1 1 5 Our;:io's Gcnerahsutaon 187 c-sclc<.·uon I 0. 128. 1 56. 1 96. 127 n. 22
Complex •p Ccmstr.tmt 66 Constr;u nt agamst Passtvc JO. 8 1 . 84 n. 17. 152. 180-9. 202 n. 39. 230. 238 Double-in.�: Constramt 30 •GE Constraint on Bnrc: Plurub; 52. 82. 175
subjeet general cconom� con�tramt 7. 92. 94. 15� Jlcnd-MO\-cment Constramt 161. 224 locahtv con�tr.unb on movcmt:nt 178 •
EG
Constr.unt
.SO. �L 176
. on-Fmttene:o.s Con,tramt 26.
I
ParalleJt,lll Constr:unt on Operator Bmdmg 15.l Rcstnctton!> on Au:oltarie:. 81
index
269
sec cxccptmnul <.:tt!>c nuui:m�
ECM
cc.:onomy 7. 12. 92. 94. 1 1 0. I l l . 125. 150. IS:S. 196
see Empty CJtegory Pnm:tple
ECP
Empty C:�tcgory Pnnnplc 7
see E:xtendcd ProJcCtton Pnnnplc t. rsat:_u�fmtli\' see lnfinitims Pro EPP
Paruripto event
Rcstnctmn� on c:xplcttve tlwrl! 81
complc:x 13. 54
Simuh.mctty Condtuon on PVCs 81 SLP Con�trumt 45. 46. 56. S I . 166.
mdiVIdual 37. 46. 48. 50. R7 n. 3K.
176. I 79. 220. 232 !>tructural economy constrnmts I 2
18 t. I �2 realisation 1 .\6. 233. 2J9 c\·ent trgument
control
tdcnuhcatton 1 30. 144. 146. I 55. I 57.
..1naphm ic 146. I 50
164. 165. 197 n. 9. 230. 233. 238
arbitrary 145. 149
hccnsmg of 134. 138. 142. 144. I tiS.
by n null pronommal 197 n. 7 by :1 l>UbJCCt 24. 69. 88 n. 57. 88 n. 58.
193. 233 notwn 1 29. I �4
1 5 1 . 193
po�1t10n 1 3 1 . 133. 13+-t l . 165. 1 8
by an unplicit .t'1tument 165. 195 by nn obJcd 25. 59. 88 n. 58. 193
I ?7 n. 5. 198 n. l() C\'cnt Control H) pothests 6, 129. 146.
control mlinitl\·c �H. 92. 9.l. 126 n. 8. 2.l1. 246
n.
26
149. 155. 165. 190. 230 cxcept10nnl ca� mJrkmg 25. 60.
defint tton I 46
S n.
dom:un 143
I . I()�
cxJ�tcnt1al do�ure 1 39. 140. 1 4 1 . 175.
Gcncr.thscd Control Rule 19 n. 14 obh(!�ltory 132. 1 45. 146. 1 49. ISO.
176. 197 n. 9 exJstcnttal �entence 33. 20 I n. 3 1 .
16tl. I K7
I'J8 n . U
opttonal 150
cxportlbt hty 47. 1 77-9
theory of I 3. t99 n. 1 4 control \'Crb 1 29. 149. l S I . 156. 196
e:xi�tc:nttal qu.mtt her I 76 Pnnnple of Cxportabthty 47. 48. 7.\.
ask 199 n. 19 event 1 5 1
11xtcnde<J ProJeCtiOn Pnnnplc 1 2 1 . 170
SubJect 1 5 I
cxtrnpusitwn
I . 176
SubJCl"l. pns...;ivizcd I 87
rdattvc d.msc I �2
copula 20. 42. 43. 127 n. 14. 2 1 4 CP deletiOn 92 cro:-. ,ovcr 163
feature a�n:cmcnt X. I l l
strong 154. 163
l"atce-onJI l'i. 81< n. 48. 224 formal lt 9 1 . 126 n. I I
D.mtsh 204. 240 n. I dcnved c\cnt nommal 37. 53. 56
optwnal I I 7 (>fOfTC�SI\ C 76. �2. 1 19. 122. J 36.
do �upport I 06 Dutch 6. 27. 84
145. 187. I? I . 222. 224. 227. n.
17. I 5. I M9. 204-25.
244
22S. 232. 238. 240. 240 n. I . 241 nn. .l 4. 5. 7. 242 n. 8. 242-3 n. 10.
24� n. U. 24-t n. 17. 245 n. H i
n.
15. 247 n. J3
scmanLJC 9 1 . I 16. 202 ten�e 1 1 7. 152. 161
A
s.·�
Full Interpretation
n.
46
270
.subject index
f-rench 12. 161. 2U5. 206. 121( 229-34.
internal pa�SI\"C 83 n. 1 2
239. 240. 245 nn. 22. 23. 246 nn. 25. 26 Fmi.tn 245 n. I �
Internal SubJCl'l Hypothem 4. 9. 04. 99.
I 10. 127 n. 14. 19::\ n. 12. 2 1 5
111tcrprcl:tlton
Full lntcrpret.ttlon X
arlntr.uy I 50. 203 n. 4�
GcrmJn 6. 27. ::\4 n. 17. 1 15. 130. 132.
(I!reel pcrccptton 2. 43. 45. 98. 166.
dd;lUit 1 7 1 . 1 72. 189. 2J3
14U. ll�.S. 189. 203 n. 46. 204-225. 232. 23&--tO. 241 nn. 3. 4. .S. 6. 241-2 n. 7. 242 nn. 8. 9. 243 nn. I 0. 12. 244 n. 16. 244-5 n. 17. 245 n. 1 8 Gcrnmnu: languages 27. 84 n. 17. 204. 22X gerund 58. 78. 1.54. 159. 185. 245 n. 19
196 c�t�tcntml 50. 53. 175. 176. 179 gcncm: SO. 5 1 hub1tual 163 strong VJ-. weak 139 unreahi'cd future 96 lnuktitut
127 n. 17
inven.ion 174 Hcnd Movement Con,tr:unt 1 6 1 . 224 l lc.Jvy l"P Sh1ft .U tdtom <:�pression 22. 56. 82 n. 5 tnl·orpor.1uon 126 n. I I . 212. 227. 247 n. 35 tndchmtc DP 87 n. 37. 13 I . 1 39.
14U. 1 4 1 . 169. 175. 176. 179. 241 n. 7 tndcx 145. 1 9 9 n 1 5 :ub1trary 142. ISO rcfc:rc:ntJ::tl 13. 142. 143. 147. 1 7 1 . 172. 179. 133 tcmpllfal 85 n. 25. 142. 143. 1-1-4. 145. 147. 149. 155. 156. 160. 1 6 1 . 165. 185. 188. 206 tnlimtl\'l.tl marker 2. 17. 30. 3 1 . 94. 96. 172. 214. 232. 243 n. 10 tnlimtl\'C 2. 4. 5 m earlier J-lafC" of Enghsh J 3 n. I , 14 n. 2 mtlcc;:tcd 2.3 1 . 240. 246 n. 24. 247 n. .B morphology 232 nommabcd 208. 2 I 8. 237 prepoJ-Jtionul 205-10. 2 U-2�. 227. 237--W l>UbJCl"t lcl>J- 17. 55 lnjmitiwts Pro Partll'lpio 27. 1 89. 224 lnfl ll.tt 1 1 6-18 null 94--7. 99. 126 n. 7. 169. HU spht 17. 99. 108
subjcl"t-:tux•hary I 06
IPP (.w•t• Jnfinuil'lls Pro Parlicipio) •�nliJ- t·ontcxt 34. 35 . .lb. 73. 80. N I.
n. 10. 167. 168. 1 7 1 -2. 189. 201 n. 30. 24., n. 1 0 ltalmn 84 n . 1 7 . 147. 184. 202 n . 42. 205. 227-35. 138. 239. 145 n. I 9. 246 n. 26
84 n. 17. 86 n. J2. 99. 126
Lr tst'L' Lo�llal Form ) Lr �fappmg l'nncaplc 139 h�ht \"Crb 9. 10. 15 n. �- 99. 100. 104.
107. 1 1 0. 1 1 2. 1 2 1 . 125 n. 4. 126 n. 12. 13�. 197 n. 4 Logtcal f.om1 1-2. 6. K. 4�. b l . 96. lOS. 107. JON. 1 10. 1 17. 129. UO. 139. 140. 143. 177. 178. l X I . 182 M11m Verb An.tlystJ- 1 17
mutnx (liL\SIV'C :l0. 56. 185. 18X. 189.
202 11. 30. 231. 243 n. 12. 246 n. 23 IIICilt::tl-propert)' ::tdJCl"IIVe 132 nuddlc constructton 45. 86 n . .n. 167. 245 11. I S �hddlc Cl1!;h'h l .t n. I . 7K f\hmm;�l l)t.;t;mre Prtnl'lple I ·H.
200 11. 1 9
modahty I I �lodcrn Greek I I 5 �lodcrn lnsh I I 5
mood I I . 9 I . 242 n. 9
subje�t index !'\EG Con...tramt SO. 82. 176 negatton I I . 39. 49. 73. 86 n. 34. 176. 179-80. 2 1 5 . 225. 242 n. 8 m ltulian ACis 229 ncgattvc adverb 225 predtcntc v�. �entenllal 49 scope 48 strong v�. weak 49 non
271
as auxtliuric:s 105-7. 156. 160-1 as ditransiuve.o; 24 as tmp:mttivcs 149 asptXtual vs.genmtltvccomplemcnts 78 l'Ontrast with causativcs. ovren•tcw 56 control in passives 1 87-90 cpistcnuc rcadmgs 52 cvcnt-<:ontrol propcrtic� 1 7 1 non-agcntive 14, . 157. 199 n. 1 8 non-eptstemir 1 66 partictptul complements 26. SS. 59-7-t 126 n. 7 prepositional intimtivul complement� 207. 2 1 1-24. 227-8. 237-9 PF (sn Phonettc Form) Phonetic Form S Portuguese 84 n. 17. 205. 228. 231. 2J2. 237. 23X. 239. 240. 245 n. 19. 246 n. 24. 247 n. 33 PRC (.w•e Pseudo-Relattvc Complement) 11 PfCdtcatc antonymtc 49. 75. J ,0. 202 n. 38. 245 n. 22 complex 57. 247 n. 35 mdtvtduol-lcvcl 45. S l . S2. 68. 73. 86 n. 3 1 . 95, 97. 1 3 1 . 135. 137. 138. 1 39. 144. 148. 1 5 1 . 156. 151. 165. 166. 167. 1 70. 1 9 1 . 197 n. 7. 198 n. 1 2 tndJVidual-levcl vs. stugc-kvcl 44-7. 5 1 . 1 30. 1 3 1 . 132. 136. 140. 1 4 1 . 148. 15� 1 57. 175. 2 1 0 sccomlory 8 8 n . 58. 192. 2 1 1 stage-level 44-6. 52. 73. 77. 8 1 . 8 6 n . 3 1 . 1 14. 1 3 1 . 134. 136. 137. 145. 147. 149. 153. 157. 164. 166. 175. 18S. 1 9 1 . 196. 197m. 6. 198 n. 12. 228. 232. 237. 238 prcsentnt10nat !-Cntcncc 35. 173 Prmc iplc of Argument Linkms 1 34. 155. 1 96 Principle of Substitution 47. I . 176 PRO 13. 24. 25. 69. gg n. 58. 93. I 09. 1 2 1 . 126 n. 7. 127 n. 16. 1 2 . 129. 142-52. 162. 1 7 1 . 187. 1 95. 198-9 n. 14. 200 nn. 2 1 . 26. 202 n. 45. 203 n. 48. 230. 238
272
subje�t index
PRO (mm.) nnaphori<: 144. 1 > 1 . 1 52. 156 pro t-12. 143. 145. 147. 184. 198 n. 14. 199 n. 16. 2�0-1. 246 n. 24 Pro�rcssive Hypothesis 7�9. 82. 206 Projoctaon Prmdple 4. 7. 25. 191 n. 2 pronominalisatton 2 1 . 66 pronoun 13. 29. 66. 142. 2 1 9. 235. :NO n. I . 242 n. 8 proper noun 29. 66 PseudtrRelattvc Complement 7 1 . 84 n. 14. 227. 2�3-7 QR tsee quuntihcr. Quunutier Raising) 48 quantifier 87 n. 39. 1 30. 139. 197 n. 9. 221 cxistentml 48. 6 1 . 162. 163. 169. 176. 1 8 1 . 182 cxportnhihty 48. 176 Ooaung I 03. 22 1 . 222 Quantifier Rmsin� -18. I 7S scopc -18. 178 spht 140 quosi-ar<0umcnt 2 1 . 1�4. 21-1. 2 1 8 R-cxpre. ston 13. 154. 163 raismg 85 n. 23. 97. tOO. 102. 106. 108. 161. 167. t73� DP 24. 124 /:.' 14�. 199 II. 1 6 LF 1 8 1 �-to-D 1 20 object 20. I 07 of infimuve 231 nght-nodc 19. 20. 6 1 . 61. 70 subJCl't 24. 58. 72. 126 n. 9. 230 subJCl't-tcrobjcct 125 n. 2. 242 n. 8 V-to·Asp 120 Vcrb Rmsmg 107. 1 19. 1 61 . 2 14. 222-6. 229. 243 nn. 13. 14 raismg verb 24. �6. 1 1 2. 246 n. 26 perceptton verb as 1 64 reconstructiOn 1 79. 20 I n. 34 ret.luccd �lativ-e clause 27. 28. 29. 63-69. 7 1 . 8 1 . l:i4 n. 14. ISS nght adjum:tiUn 243 n. 14
ri!::ht-node rmsing (set' raiSing. nghtnudc) 1 6 rightward movement 173. 24� n . t 4 Romunsch. 245 n. 10 Roumnman. 245 n. 1 9 Russian I IS s-sclcct inn 40. 156 scope absolute 200 n. 22 adverb 9-t. 215 cxtstcnttal quantifier 50. 51. 61. 96. 177. 17:.-i trrealis S6 n. 32 matrix 48. 215. 242 n. 8 negation 48. 1 80. 202 n. 38 nude1r I .9. 175. 176. 178. 179. 197 n. 9 qunntifier 87 n. 39. 178 quantifier scope tmbtgmty 4� sentential 178 tense operator 153, 154. ISS. 1 64 unselel ttvc binders 152 wtdc v:.. narrow l 09. 202 n . . 7 .t.•otttsh Gacht· I t 5 scrambhng 216. 222 sclet"twnal restrictions 10. 23. 28. 165-7. 236 Shortest Move Condllton 7 Smmltanclt)' Condttton 3 . 39. 53. 54. 56. 68. 79. 80. S I . 85 n. 26. 150. 152. 155. 15 8-65. 191. 2 15. 22N. 237. 243 n. 10 SLP Cunstnunt 45. 46. 56. I . 1 66. 176. 179. 220. 232 SLP Mappm(! Hypothesis 136. 196 small clnu.o;e verbal vs. non-verbal 107 Spamsh 84 n. 1 7 . 1 1 5. 202 n. 42. 205. 228. 231. 232. 234. 239. 240 Spell-Out 8. 23 t stnuvc \"Crb 34. 40. 42. 43. I I S. 1 36. 148. 168. 1 87. 19 n. 1 1. 200n.28 vs. non-stattvc verb 42. 44 Structur:il Parallelism Hypothesis 4. 9 1 . 93 subject at LF 94. l2S n. 4. 1 39. 176 '
subject index expletive 2 1 . �. 36. 55. 66. 73. X I . 97. 98. 1 0 1 . 105. 1 67-74. 190. 201 n. 3 1 external 9. 99. I 00. 138. 168. 170 mtcrnul 4. 9. 9-J. 99. 1 10. 127 n. 14. 139. 19 n. J 2 . 2 1 5 smnll duusc 29. 1 10. 1 2 1 . 1 4 1 . 16S. I 0. 1 8 . 202 n. 37. 2J5 T-Linking 160. 1 6 1. 1 85. 186 tense domnm 94. 144. 156. 170. 192. 232 functiOnal hcnd I I , 158 tdcntificatton 144. 145. 146. l..J7. 1 5 1 . 152. 155. 156. 160. 1 65. 188. 1 89. 199n. 16. 230. 231 morphology 125 n. I non-fimte 17. 26. 37. 39. 4 1 . 50. 52. 54. 57. I . < 2. 94. 98. 1 1 1 . 1 1 3. 1 2 1 . 142. 144. 145. 147. 1 55. 166. 172. 190. 214. 22 . 229. 2�0. 2. I . 239. 2-JO. 242 n. 7. 247 n. �5 operntor 147. 152. 153. 154. 155. 158. 164. 199 n. 1 5 predtcate 1 62-5 referenunl 39. 9 1 . 143. 158-65. 1 7 1 . 177. 199 n. 15. 228.. 233. 238. 239. 245 n. 2 1 . 2-;6 n. 27 rcbtlVe J9 semnnttcs of 155. 158.-05. 199 n. I S thcmutic hternrchy 9. 1-J I thematic shanng 234 rlu•rc• insertion 3. 33-6. 85 n. 22. 73. 97. 99. 125. 167. 169. 174 to (bt•) deletion 76. 94-7 rortl!ll movement 19. 20. 2 1 . 6 1 . 62. 06. 7 1 . 72. 156 UG
.�ee
Uni"ersnl Grammur
273
unal·cusattvc verb 9. 1 4 n. 5.. 34. 35. 73. 101. 1 10. 1 36. 167. 1 69-70. 1 74. 1 87. 197 n. 6. 201 n . .n uncrgattve verb 33. 35. 73 Universal Grammar 1 . 7 liTAH 9 verb mo"emcnt I 0. I 01. I 02. I 05. 1 13. 1 1 9. 1 2 1 . 123. 1 24. 160. 1 6 1 . 173. 1 9 1 . 226. 23 L 239. 243 n. 14. 244 n. 1 6 Vern ProJ<.-.c tton Raisin3 243 n. 1-J Vern R.usmg see raismg. Verb Ratsmg verb typology 41-b vcridicaltty ..J1. 8 1 . 6 n. 34. 176. 177 Visser's Gcnernlisatio11 1 5 1 . 187. 189 Vo��:c 1 17. 126 n. 12. 127 n. 2� morpholo!)Y 1 1 7. 127 11. 23 VP frontmg 104 vP shell 9. t O J . 107. 1 1 0. 138. 1 69. 187. 197 n. 6 VR see ratsing. Verb Ratsing
-fiir spht
was
see wat-wmr
IWif·I'OOr spJtt
.split
219 Welsh 1 1 5 West Acnllsh 24� n. 14 Wc:st Gcrmumc 243 n. 1 4 ,,·11-rnovcml!nl 66. 70. 72. 9 1 . 92 X-bnr theory 7. 59. lOS 0-nmrlang 9. 10. 1 �0. 137. 1 70. 184. 192. 196. 236. 242 n. 7 l"ornpositmnul I �1. 196 0-rolc 9. 1 -t n. 5. 1 5 11. 9. 100. 1 30, 137. 1 5 1 . 183. 184. 197 n. 2. 1 97 n. 8. 202 II. 4�. 203 11. 47 event 1 29. UO. 132. 137 transmission uf 13. I � 0-theory 8. 182
Author index
Aarts. B. 107, 108. 127 n. 1 8 Abney. S. 58. 59. 88 n . 48. 88 n . 49
Boskovu:. Z. 10. 1 5 n. 1 2 . 4 1 . 88 n. 5 1 . 92. 94. 125 n. 5. 126 n. 8
Abraham. W. 24 I n. I
Bouchard.
Akrnajiun. A . .\. I 8. 19. 20. 22. 25. 59.
62. 65. S3 n. 1 1 . 8� n. 54. 156 Alcxiadou. A. 93. 103. I 0-L I 15. 120. 126 n. 1 2 Anderson. J. 89 n . 64
Aoun. J. 2. B. 24. 178
ArimO(o. M. I 2. I 08
Asher. K. 37. 47. 85 n. 20. 86 n. 36. 177
D.
13. 142. 1 50. 1 5 1 .
199 n . 1 4 Bower�. 1 . 1 8 . 59. 96. 103. 105. 108.
I l l . 1 1 2. 1 13. 1 1 7. 1 20, 1 2 1 BreJ\•ik. L. E. 201 n . � I Bresnan. J . 200 n. 20 Bnnton. L. 77. 1 1 4
Bur.lio. L. 1 8 . 34. 8� n. 12. 1 0 1 . I 5 I .
187. 234
Atkinson. M. 14 n. 6 Campbell. R. 199 n. 16 Buker. M. 9. 12. 1 I 6. I 94. 247 n. 35
Carlson. G. 44. 45. 46, 50. 5 1 . 52.
Barbosa. P. 244 n. 14 B1m>.'i. . A. I S . 21. 59. 62
Carter. R. I 3-l Cattell. R. 18. 54
Baltm. M. 127 n. 16. 142. 143
Banv1se. 1. 3. 28. 36, 37. 46. 48. 50. 53.
6 n. 33. 89 n. 61. 176. 201 n. 36 Ba111stcllu. E. 5, . 92 7�.
Bayer. J . 1 7 1 . 199 n. 17. 201 n. 36. 202. 203 n. 46. 2 1 5. 216. 24 I n. 4.
242 n. 8. 242 n. 10. 242-� n. 10
Bcch. G. 242 n.
86 n. 3 1 . 90. 136
Ch1erchm. G. I . 84 n. 14. 150, 1 5 1 Chomsky. N. L 4-13. 1 4 n. 6. I S nn. 10. I I . li t 20. 24-5. 4 1 . 58. 82. 9 1 . 92.
94. 97. 99- 1 0 1 . 107. 108. I 10. 1 1 7. I 19. 1 2 1 . 125 n. 5. 1 �0. 1 34. 1�7. 142.
153, 154. 158. 168. 1 69. 172. 1 82. 200 n. 24. 201 n. 3 1 . 23 I
Beedham. C. 127 n. 2�
Cmque. G. 8, n. 55. 235. 236. 239. 245 nn. 19. 20
Benms. H. 4. IS. 30. 108. 1 1 0. 158.
Comne. 13. I 14. I I 5. 127 n. 24 Cowpc"'. E. 9. 14 n. 6
Be.stcn. H. tlen 222. 225. 243 n . 14.
Dam.lsen·f'Jclsen. •. I 27 n. 24
Beukema. F. 20. 82 n . I
Declerck. R . 3. 4. 5. 2 1 . 24, 26. 3 1 . 32. 43. 60. 62-72. 75 . 77. 78. 80. 8 n. 56.
Boncvac.
Dcni,on. D. 14 n. 2. 89 n. 65
Bellcui. A. 201 n. 33
160. 1 6 1 . 1 62. 1 8 1 . ISS. 1 86. 190. 200 n. 27. 215. 223. 242 n. , 244 n. 16. 245 n. I S
Bhatt. C. 1 15 . 207- 12. 241 n. 5 Bicrwisch. M. 2 1 5
D.
37. 47. 85 n . 20. S7 n . 36.
177 Borer. 1-f. 94. I I 5 Borkm. A. 2. 14 n. 5. 32. 39. 87 n. 42.
94. 96
Da\'ttJson.
D.
�7.46. 128. 1 29. 102 n. 40
20-1 · . 207. 213. 242 n. 8
Di Scmlto. A. 57. 247 n. 35
D1csmg. M. 2. 52. 86 n. 3 1 . 102. I 14.
1 15. t 1 8 . 139. 140. 1 75. 197 n. 9. 241 n. 7
276
aut hor· index
Dtkken. M. den 82 n. I. 243 n. 14 D�rvcn. R. 87 n. 46 Docs. J. vnn tier 37. 83 n. 12. �7 n. 40. 201 n. 36. 1 79 Doherty. C. IS n. 1 2 Dow1)'. D. 148 Drctskc. F. 3. 14 n. 3. 8J n. 8 DufRcy. r�. n. 39. 84 n. 17. ,4 n. 19. 96. 189 Edmondson. J. A. 225. 243 n. 14. 244 n. 16. 245 n. 18 Eisen�rg. P. 242 n. l:i Emond-.. J. 94. 1 1 7. 190 Epstein. S. D. 1 4 n. 6 Evers. A. 82 n. I . 214. 222. 225. 242 n. 9. 243 n. 1 4 Fabb. '. 107. 200 n . 27 F.ukus. D. I 5 I Fehx. S. 88 n. 49 Fclscr. C. 169. 198 n. 1 3 . 20 1 n. 3 1 . 201 n. 32 Ftcngo. R. 25. 45. 59. 8 n. 60 Ftllmorc. C. 5. 29. 62. 63. 65. 66. 76. n Franks. S. 13. 92 Freed. A. 192 Gabbay. D. 127 n. 20 Galton. A. 77. 87 n. 38. 89 n. 64. 127 11.20 Gee. J. 2. 3 . 5.. 18-24. 27. 35. 36. 48. 54. 55. 62. 68. 82 n. 4. 83 n. 6. <3 n. 8. 8J n. 12. 85 n. 24. 86 n. 36 Gecst. W. de. .3. 18. 27. 29. 83 n. 6. 2().J. 2 1 3. 2 14. 242 n. 8 Gcldcren. E. \'Un. 1 4 n. I . 1 5 n. I I . 17. 78. 1 15. 241 n. 5 G10r�t. A. 13). 1 59. 164. 199 n. 15. 200 n. 23. B2. 233. 246 nn. 26. 27. 28. 247 n. 32 Goggm. J. 60 Gramley. S. 2. 40. 4 1 . 85 n. 27 Grcwendorf. G. 2 1 5 Gnmshaw. J. 9, 10. 1 1 . 1 5 n. 7 . 1 S n.9. 94. 141. 1 5 1 . 187. 195. 199 n. 17. 203 n. 48 Groat. E. 20 I n. 3 1
Guusta. M. T. 4. Is. 57. 87 n. 45. 97. 103. 108. I l l . ISS. 205. 227-34. 237. 245 nn. 19. 20. 246 nn. 27. 29. 30. 247 n. JS Guemn. J 9 1 . 9-t. 99. 105- 1 10. 156. 160. 172. 179. 202 11. 43 Guilfoyle. E. 1 1 5 Hacgcman. L. 1 4 11. 6 ll:uder. H. K2 n. I . 2 1 5. 24 I n. I . 242 n. S Harbert. W. 242 n. S Harley. H. 197 n. 8. 198 n. 10 Hcnn. l. 1 3 1 . 1 39. 152. 1 75. 197 n. 9 Hcndrkk. R. 1 1 5 Hcyco k. C. 1 34. 1 4 1 . 175. 1 8 1 . 182. 197 n. 5 Higgmbotham. J. 6. 13. 18. 30. 32 . .W. 35. 37. 40. 42. 46-50. 75. 85 nn. 24. 26. 86 nn. 33. 34. 87 n. 37. 99. 129. 1 30. 164. 166. 177. l S I . 1 .2. 197 nn. I . 2. 201 fl. 36. 202 fl. 4 1 Htg.gms. F. R. 19 Hmtikka. J. 3. 36 Htrtlc. W. 127 n. 20. 148 Hoekstra. T. 4. 18. 30. 9 1 . 94. 99. 105-1 10. 156. 158. 1 60. 179. 1 8 l. 1 85. 186. 202 n. 43. 215. 223. 242 n. 8 Hom. G. 58 Homstcm. !':. 2. 13. 126 n. 7. I 50. I 58. 159. 162. 178. 198 n. I I . 201 n. 34 Huang. J. 2. 72. 198. 199 n. 1 4 Huddleston. R. D. 106 Hudson. R. 28. 65. 68 latndou. S. 1 5 n. I I . I I 0 lwukura. � 58. 59. 9 1 Jnckendoff. R. I S n. 7. 1 5 n. 9. 19. l S I Jnc� ,gh. 0. 194 Jang. Y. 201 n. 3 1 JanBcn. H. 83 n. I I . 200 n. 27. 202 n. 43. 225 Jdmck. E. 102. 1 14. 1 1 5. 1 1 8 Jespersen. 0. 1 4 n. I . 20. 96. 204 Johns. A. 127 n. 1 7 Johnson. K. 58. 59. 60. 93. 9c'. 101. 126 n. 7. 126 n. 9
aut hor· index Jone�"· C. 1 5 1 Jong . J . 2. 59. 62. 04. 72. 7 . 89 n . 67. 97. 1 :52. 158 Kac. M. B. 57 Kngeynma. T. 14 n. 2. 82 n. I Kayne. R. 18. 2 1 . 63. 9 1 . 92. 93. 126 n. 6. 17�. 197 n . .l 1 97 n. 4. 202 n. 38. 202 n. 39. 234. 241 n. 7. 246 nn. 23. 26 Kenny. A. 42 Ktrsncr. R. 2 1 . 22. 23. 30. 3 1 . 3:5. 40. 4:l. 77 K ts.s. T. 241 n. I. 242 n. I:S K ttagawa. Y. .t Kttnhara. H. 178 K01zumt. M. 126 n. 9 Koopman. H. 4. 17. 1 1 5. 1 54. 200 n. 27 Koster. J. 4. 13. 17, 9 1 . 93. 142. 152, 199 n. 14 Kratzer. A. 86 n. 3 1 . 128. 1 30. 1 3 1 . 133. 134. 135. 1 39. 1-tO. 144. 1 5 1 . 163. 190. 197 n. 8. 198 n. 9 Kwch. A. . 0. 85 n. 20. 85 n. 25. I S I . 182. 183. I S-t. 190. 202 n . 42. 232 Kuroda. S.-Y. 4 Laka. M. I. 109. 1 1 5 Lakoff. G. I Landman. r. 127 n. 20 Lapomtc, S. 26. 39. 54. 55. 83 n. I I Larson. R. 2. 9. IS n. 9. 99. 142. ISO. l S I . 154. 1 73. 1 89. 20(} n. 19 Lasmk. H. I. 13. 125 n. 5. 142. 195. 201 n. 3 1 . 201 n . .n Leek. F. van dcr 2. 59. 62. 64. 72. 78. 89 n. 67. 97. I 52. 158 Lehmnnn. C. 207. 208. 241 n. 3 Lcnn. B. 85 n. :22. 86 n. 29 Lewis. D. 1 3 1 . J52 Lt. Y. 224 Lt. Y. A. 2. 1 7 Longobardi. G. 1 20 Lumsden. J. 12 McCawley. J. l Matr. C. 84 n. 19 l\•la11zim. R. 7. 1 3. I SO. 1 5 1 . I()() n. 14
277
Marantz. A. 14 n. 6. 93. 197 n. 8 May. R. 2. 4. 17. 48. 117. 200 11. 22 Milsnrk. G. 33. 35. 57. 59. 88 n. 47. 169 C\•httwot:h. A. 18. 3 1 . 42. 49. 53. 54. S.t n. 17. 84 n. IS. 99. 179. 230 Mornvcstk. J. 1 27 n. 20 Mourclatos. A . .n. 42. 44. 85-6 n. 28. I-tS �apoh. D. l . 35. 82 n. 5. 101 'calc. S. 18. 28. 29. 42. 48. 50. 86 11. 33. 87 n. 37. 182 'cwmeycr. F. 24. 190 Ogihara. T. I ()() n. I 5 Ouhnlla. J . I I . 12. IS n. l L 1 1 5. t 16. 1 17, t i S. 124. 179 Palmer. F. 2. 14 n. 5. 27. 3 1 . 4 1 . 55. 56. 6 1 . 87 n. 42. 106. 125 n. I Parsons. T. 23. 37. 71. 86 n. 28. 86 n. 29. 89 n. 64. 129. I 5&. 177 Partee. B. 1 14. 127 n. 2-t. 153. I 58. 199 n. I S Pcrr)'. J . :\7. 86 n . 3J Pesctsky. D. tO Ptancst. F. 133. 159. 164. 199 n. IS. 200 n. 23. 200 n. 27. 232. 233. 246 n. 28. 247 n. 32 Pollock.J.-Y. 1 1 . 12. 30. 1 1 9. 158. 1 8 1 . 1 84. no. 23 1 . 245 n . 2.t 246 n . 25 Poutsmu. H. 14 n. I . 148 Pnor. A. �- 152 Quine. W. S6 n . .�5 Radford. A. 12. 14 n. 6. IS n . l:\. 17. 19. 65. 82 n. 4. 86 n. 32. 87 n. 43. N9 n. 62. 89 n. 66. 94. 101. 127 n. 15. I 3<. 20 I n. 30 Ramchund. G. 1 15. 130. I �t - 197 n. 8 Rapoport. T. 192. 193 Rapol-u. E. 205. 237. 238. 246 n. 20. 246 n. 24. 247 n. 33 Rctchcnbach. H. 159 Reuland. E. I 8. 3!:1. Sit 59. 60. 61. l:i8 n. 5 1 . 9 1 . 108. 126 n. 7
27�
au tho•·
Rigtcr. B. I :l. 20. 9 n. 63. 64. 124. 150. 200 n. 29 Ritter. E. 54. 55. 56. 87 n. 44. 1 :\4. 167. 202 n. 43 Rivero. !\•1. L I 15 Riu.i. L. 13. 17. 29. 142. 147. 200 n. 2 1 . 234.2J6 Robt:rl.'\. I. 12. 17. 1 17 Rochcmont. M. 19 Rochette. A. I 0. 85 n. 27. 94 Roeper. T. 59. 00. 61. 194. 200 n. 2 1 Rogers. A. 4. 1 4 n. 5 Ro:->en. S. T. 4. 25. 54-7. 87 n. 44. 1 34. 167. 202 n. 43. 247 n. 35 Ro:>enbuum. P. 4. 25. 151 Ross. J. 30. 66. 1 17 Rothstcm. S. 1 2 1 . 1 3 . 1 4 1 . 198 n. 12. 198 n. 9 Rouvcrel. A. 18. 9 1 . 92 Rupp. L. 198.201 n. 3 1 Rus..o;ell. B . 87 n. 37 Rutten. J. 107. 241 n. I Ruyter. L. IS. I 16. 205. 207. 214. 215. 2 1 7. 2 1 9. 220. 222. 242 n. 8. 242-3 n. 10. 243 n. I I Sntir. K. 4. I 0. I � . 20. 33. 34. :\5. 36. 54. 82 n. 5. 85 n. 20. 85 n. 23. 94. 97. 98. 99. 101. lOS. 126 n. 10. 1 52. 15:\. 155. 158. 167-73. 243 n. 10 Snntonm. B . 1 8 1 . 182 S,mrer. W. 89 n. 64. 89 n. 66. 127 n. 20 Scheffer. J. I I 5 Schmidt. C. �f. I I S. 164. 207. 208. 209. 2 1 0. 2 1 1 . 2 1 2. 2 16. 2-H n. 5 Segal. G. 2. I 54 Sclktrk. E. 1 16 Smith. C. 1 14. 1 15. 127 n. 20 Speas. M. 197 n. 2 Sporttchc. D. 4. I S n. I I . 93. 103. I I S Stcuhe. A. 241 n. 1
index
. towdl. T. 17-19. 3,. 92. 94. 99. 108. 1 2 1 . 1 30. U2. 133. 153. 1 55. 158. 162. 163. 164. 1 7J. 197 n. 4. 197 n. 9. 201 n. 29. 224. 227. 232. 247 n. �4 .troik. T. I S n. 9. 178 Stump. G. 57 . uzuki. Y. 87 n. 39.108. 109. 1 80. 202 n. 37 Takezawa. K. 26. 54. 83 n. 1 1 . 124 Tenny. C. 15 n. 7. 1 14-16. 1 1 8. 120 Thompson. S. 2 1 . 22. 23. 35. 40. 43. 77 Travis. L. 93. 1 6 1 Tunstaii.S. 1 14. 127n. l9. 156 Vutcr. H. 204. 240 n. I Vendkr. Z. 4 1 -4. 85 n. 28. 148 Vcrgnaud. J.-R. 18. 9 1 . 92 Verimyl. H. 86 n. 28. 127 n. 20 V1llicrs. J. <.lc 59. 60. 6 1 V1sscr. f. 78. 84 n. I S Vlach. fo'. 2S. 37. 85 n. 26. 86 n. 33. 87 n. 39. 106. 127 n. 20. 177. 201 n.36 Voor.:-1. 1. van I S n. 7. 148 \Vamer. A. 127 n. I 5 Webclhuth. G. 14 n. 6. 225 Weinbt:rg. A. 126 n. 1 Wexler. K. 1 5 1 Wtldcr. C. 1 1 2 Wilhurns. E. 9. 18. 30. 83 n. 10. 109. 1 16. 133. 1 37. 1 4 1 . 149. 195. 197 n. 203 n. 48 Wyng.Jcrd. G. van den I OS Zugonn. K. 107. I 53. I 58. 200 n. Zanuumi. R. 49. 109. 179. 229
27
Zwurt. C. J . .w. 216. 225. 241-2 n. 7. 24. n. 14. 244-5 n. 1 7
I.
I n the st:ne' LIC'.G Lll .
TIK AKTUELLfllC\'G UI. TICS TODAY (LA) the followm� titles
h.tvc been pubti...hcd thu:. far. or arc . rhcduled for publit:at10n: l.
KLAPPE f.JACH. Ruth l 19l l- 1977): Suulim :_ur Modemm Dt•�ttschm u.\ik(J�rap/uc.
.-\uswahl mts den Lcxtkof:raphsciJrn i Arbntcn wm kwh Alappcnbach. en1ellt'r1 11111 dret
8eurc if:c wm 1/l'lcne Malt-.:t'·Klnppcnlurch. l980.
2.
CHUCH. Konr�d & Joch::n REHB£11'\: Au�mkmummukat1011. ,\-1cthodcnrct1eunn und
\.
ABRAHA�I. Werner {ed.): On the Fmnrnl Smta.\ oj tht• Wcstf:t'tmanitr. Papas jrom
8t•tspirlmwh·.u.
1982.
the Jrd Cirmrm�:cn Grammar Tcrlks Or (imninf:cr (immnurti/..gesprirclw). (irmrin]:cn.
ltiiiiUII"\ /9/i' I. I 9SJ. 4. 5.
ABRAHAM. Werner & Sjank Dc MEIJ feds): lopic . Focus and Cm�figumtumaltl\'.
Pnprrsjmm thr 6th (irtJmm:m Gmmmnr Talks. Gmnin�cn. 198-1. crs.
6.
19
6.
GREWENDORF. Gunther und Wolfgang STERt\l!foELD (ed.;): SaamblmJ: nnd Bam
19?0.
Btl ATT. Christ<�. Ehsubcth L6B EL and Cluudt<� SCHI\•IIDT (cds): Smtawr Phrase
Strucmre Phenomt•tra in Nmm Plrm:oc.s tmd St•trtrm cs. 1989.
7. A fARLl. Tor A.: The Symax n.f Nom·�·�tmt Pm•.m e Con.'itrliCIWII.'i. 1992. 8. FAt\. ELOW. G1�hcrt ted.): Tilt- Pammetri:.atum o/ llnn u:wl (immnwr. 1993. 9. GeLDER EN. Ell)· van: "fltt- lrlcs. 1993. 10. CJC\QLE. Gughclmo and Gualmnu GIL Tr tcds): .\d1 tmcc:r m Rmmrmumr Lmr:msttcs. 1995. I I . LL1T2. Uh and Jii rgcn PAf'EL (cds): On EJ.tmrtwn and lixtrapmttwn in (;crmcm. 1995. 12. ABRAHAM. \V .. S. EPSTEt(':. H. TIIRAii\. SON and CJ.W. ZWART {cds): ,\1mmral Metts. Lin�:tt istu: s tudtcs m the mmmutltst framru ork. IIJ96.
U. ALEXIADOU Artemis and T. Alan HALL tcds): Strulte.\ tm Um1 u.m/ Grammar and 1\·poltJ!:tcal Variaumr.
1997.
14. ANAGI\OSTOPOL LOt..:. Elena. Hcnk VA1 RIE..\tSDUK and Fran' L.WARTS kds): Mmrrurls 011 Lt11 Dtslocatum.
I 997. 15. ROHRBACHER. Bernhard \Volfgang: Mo'1Jiraln�\··Vm•cn Smm.\. A tlwory• oj \1 to I rat.'img and pro-drop. 1 999. f \'. IIJ97. l6. LIU. FE 'G-JISI: Scope and Spuitrit 17. BEERMA . Dorothcc. D.wid LEBLA 'C :md Hcnk ,.,m RIEMSL>IJ K (eds): RiKhtward Mm;nnc�m. 1 997. 18. ALEXIAOOU. Artc nus: Adw•rb Pltrumcm. A ntst· stml\ 111 lllllt.'H'IIIIIIl'trir S)'Jitax. 1?97. 19. JO. EFSSOl\'. GuniOg: Minimal \Vard:r in 11 Mmimal Swrtnx. WfJrd jommtum m Swt•d islr. 199�. 20. LAENL.Llt\GER. Chnstophcr: Cmnpamtil'l' Studies in Word Ordt.,- Vnrlatum. Ad l"criJs. prmrmms. and rlnusc stnu·wrr m Romancc ami (iammric. 199 . 2 1 . KLE!ll\. Henny: Adw•rbs oJ IJcgrrc in Dutch tmd Rdatcd Ulll'-:llltr:cs. IIJ9,.
22. ALEXIADOU. Artem1s and Chns WILDER (ed!>J: PcJ.'f:tes.wr:t. PrNitt atcs 011d Mm·rmrm m tht• lJc tamina Plrmse.
199�.
2.\. GJA, NAh.JDOl . Ana..o;tasaa: Pt1larit Smstti\'tt\' as (NcmJ Vaitli
24. REBLlSCHI. Georges :md Launcc TLLLER (cds): /'lw Grammar o/ Fonts. 1 999.
�5. r�L�CR. CluudJa: \'erbnl Compll'lltCIII Clauses. A mimmahst studr o/ directperception rnn.ffrliCIIOIIS. 1991). 26. ACKE�tA. Peter: l.wws rn Morphos)·nta.\. 1999.
27. RU� lL'KA. Rudolf:
Cnmml m Grammar and Prn�lluttics. A c mss-lmgmstic study.
1 999.
2�. 29.
HERMANS. Ben and �tare van OOSTE DORP (eds.):
Phmwlm:ical Uptmwltt' 111t
�fiYA�·IOTO. Tadao: /he liKIIf Verb Constructum m Japa11ese. mum. 1999.
30.
llw /Jrnwtumnl H.t<stduc m
BEUKEMA. Fnts and .\larcel den
DlKKEI\
(cd�.}:
1fir mlr rlf tlzc \'crlm/
Clrt1c Pht•tuJmrlla m £uropt'nn
Lflllf.:lWKt.'S. 2000.
ONIUS. Peter {cd.): The Vcm ntro11 nj VO ami 0\1. 2000. Paul LAW. Andre MEh"U' GEl( and Chri� WILDER (cd.<...}: '/'he S\lltax nj Rr/am·r Clauses. 2000. .U. PU SKA . . Genovev<J: Word Order m 1/uugrmau. Tlu· n ultl.\ oj A-wwtitms. 2000. 34. REULAND. Enc {ed.): Ar�umrnts and Case. £\pltrinm�: /Jttr:w'.v Gt�ncrall: . mitm.
-' I . VE,
.l:L ALEXIADOL. Arternil-.
20UO.
3:ci. HR6ARSOOTTIR. Thorbjor� .
Word Orda Clw11�:e ill 1<-dam/ic. i'rVJm OV w VO.
20UO.
36. GERLACH. B1rg1t and Janet GRIJZE.: HOUT (ed�o.):
Clitic.f in Phonnlot:\. Morpltol
"1:' ami Srnta.\. 2000.
.l7.
Ll"TZ. llh.
�reon M (t LLER and Anum von STECIIOW (ed<... ):
\Vh-Smpc Markin�:.
:woo 3�.
MEINUI\GER. Andre: Srmactrc. ;bpt�cts r?/ Ioptc amJ Ctmllncm. 200U. Elly van: A llistol'\ oj k.n�ltsh Rt17cuw· Prmw1ms. Prrsnn.
.l?. GELDERE, .
"Srlj ... tmd
lmN-puttrluhtl' :WOO
40. 41.
HOEKSE�fA. Jn�:k. Hot1.e RULLMA. , . V1ctor SANCHEZ-VALENCIA and Ton vun der WOUD(!, (eds . ): Puspt•rtil cs ou NrKtrtion anti Polanll' ltt'III.V. 2001. ZELLER. Jochcn : Pamdr Verbs and Lncal JJomtrins. n.)'.p.
42. ALEXIADOt . Artemis : Fwwtimml Structurt• m Nmm11nls. Nomi11alt:Puon aud
n.y.p. FEATHERSTOt\. Sam: £mpl\· Catct:oru·s in St•trtt•nu PrtJcrssin�. 200 I . 44. TA YLA . Escr E. (cdJ: Tht• \lab m furktsh. n.y.p. 4S. ABRAHAM. Werner and C. Jan-Wouter ZWART (cds.): l.wtrs in hmmrl Caman(ic) 1\poloJ:v. n.y.p 46. PANAGIOTlDL. Phocvos: Pro11oUils. dtttcs mtd Lmpt)' Nmms. 'Prmwmuwlit\' ' tmd /tu'USIII� ill :iWIItl.\. n .y.p. t.•r�:ati\'lt\'.
4. .
