Syntax Lecture 6: Missing Subjects of Non-finite Clauses

A Mystery We know that the subject is a compulsory part of the sentence: – Some argument from inside the VP must move to subject position: [ IP -- will [ VP the judge sentence the convict]] [ IP -- will [ VP be sentenced the convict]]

A Mystery We know that the subject is a compulsory part of the sentence: – Some argument from inside the VP must move to subject position: [ IP the judge will [ VP -- sentence the convict]] [ IP the convict will [ VP be sentenced --]]

A Mystery We know that the subject is a compulsory part of the sentence: – If there is no argument that can move, the position is filled by a pleonastic element: [ IP -- [ VP rained]] [ IP -- [ VP appears [ CP that the convict has escaped]]]

A Mystery We know that the subject is a compulsory part of the sentence: – If there is no argument that can move, the position is filled by a pleonastic element: [ IP it [ VP rained]] [ IP it [ VP appears [ CP that the convict has escaped]]]

A Mystery However, there are some sentences where the subject appears to be missing: – The convict seems [ IP -- to [ VP have escaped]] – The convict tried [ IP -- to [ VP escape]] These constructions are clearly IPs – They are headed by the infinitival I: to They are always infinitives: – * the convict seems [ IP -- will [ VP escape]] – * the convict expects [ IP -- will [ VP escape]]

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

An Observation The clauses which lack subjects always lack one of the arguments of the verb: – The police want [ IP -- to [ VP -- question the witness]] – The witness wants [ IP -- to [ VP be questioned --]] Normally arguments can’t be left out: – * questioned the witness – * the police questioned However, it is obvious what the meaning of the missing argument/subject is: – The police want to question the witness The police will do the questioning – The witness wants to be questioned The witness will be the one that is questioned

An Observation The missing argument/subject is interpreted as identical to the subject of the higher clause The police are the ones doing the wanting And the police are the ones doing the questioning

Some questions Can one phrase be the argument of two verbs? Why does this only happen in the subject of an infinitive clause?

Answers No phrase can have more than one argument role: – John saw  John saw himself – * I watched Mary danced no argument can be object of one verb and subject of another

Missing subjects with different properties! The convict seems [ -- to have escaped] The convict planned [ -- to escape] – In both cases, ‘the convict’ is the one interpreted as the escapee – In the second, ‘the convict’ is the one who did the planning – But in the first, ‘the convict’ is not the one who seems It seems [ the convict has escaped] * it planned [the convict has escaped] – plan has its own subject, seem does not

Missing subjects with different properties! For this reason, the subject of verbs like seem can be pleonastic or idiomatic, if the missing subject has these properties: – It seems [ -- to have rained] – The cat seems [ -- to be out of the bag] The subject of verbs like plan can never have these interpretations: – * It planned [ -- to have rained] – * the cat planned [ -- to be out of the bag]]

With seem there is just one argument -- seems [ -- to have escaped] the convict pronouncedinterpreted

Raising In cases where something is interpreted in one place but pronounced in another, a movement analysis is indicated: – The argument of a passive is pronounced in subject position but interpreted in object position: -- was arrested the criminal= interpretation the criminal was arrested= pronunciation – Wh-phrases are interpreted in a position inside the IP but pronounced in the specifier of CP I asked [ -- e [ they arrested who]]= interpretation I asked [ who e [ they arrested]]= pronunciation

We call this movement Raising the argument starts in the lower VP – interpreted It moves to the lower subject position – IP must have a subject It moves to the higher subject position – IP must have a subject – pronounced

The conditions for raising Raising never happens out of a finite clause: – The criminal seems [ -- to have escaped] – * the criminal seems [ -- will have escaped] In this case, the subject stays inside the lower clause and the higher subject position is filled by a pleonastic:

No raising from finite clause Subject moves to lower IP specifier It can’t move further Higher IP specifier is filled by it

No raising to a non-empty subject If the higher subject position is already filled, raising cannot take place: – I believe [ the criminal to have escaped] – * I the criminal believe [ -- to have escaped]

Conclusions For raising to happen: – The higher verb must have no subject – The higher verb must take an infinitive complement Verbs which have these properties are called raising verbs: – seem, appear, tend, happen, etc.

Examples He seems [ -- to be rich] – It seems [ he is rich] He appears [ -- to be intelligent] – It appears [ he is intelligent] He happens [ -- to be good looking] – It happens [ he is good looking] He tends [ -- to be sarcastic] – * it tends [ he is sarcastic] Some raising verbs only have non-finite complements

Raising Adjectives He is likely [ -- to win] – It is likely [ he will win] He is certain [ -- to lose] – It is certain [ he will lose]

With want there are two arguments -- wants [ -- to escape] the convict pronouncedinterpreted the convict interpretedunpronounced refers to the same individual

How can two arguments refer to the same individual? Normally two arguments, even if they are phonologically identical, refer to different individuals: – John hates John But if the second is a pronoun, they can have the same referent: – John hates himself – John thinks he is ugly With verbs like want there is an unpronounced pronoun in the subject of the lower clause – The criminal wants [ PRO to escape]

We call this phenomenon Control Both subjects move to IP specifier PRO is controlled by the higher subject

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

Conditions for control There must be a controller: – In Subject position (subject control) I promised John [ PRO to pay] – In Object position (object control) I persuaded John [ PRO to pay]

Conclusions For control to happen: – The higher verb must have a subject or object – The higher verb must take an infinitive complement We call verbs with these properties control verbs: – want, expect, try, etc.

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

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

Conclusions There are two constructions in English where there appears to be no subject in an infinitive clause: – He seems [ -- to be rich] – He wants [ -- to be rich] Both do in fact have subjects Though they look similar they are not – The first appears to lack a subject because its subject has moved = raising – The second appears to lack a subject because its subject is unpronounced = control