5.2.8 Verbs with clausal complements
A class of verbs which are often traditionally lumped together with transitive verbs are verbs which have clausal complements:
| (139) | a | Theo thinks [Sally is smart] |
| b | Wanda wants [Larry to leave] | |
| c | Bob believes [Tim to be tall] | |
| d | Harry hopes [for Fiona to fall in love with him] | |
| e | Tony tried [to look innocent] | |
| f | Albert asked [why Wendy went] |
As can be seen from the limited data in (139), there are a wide range of possibilities for clausal complements. Some verbs take finite clause complements (139a), while others take non-finite complements of various kinds (139b–e). Some complements are declarative (139a–e) while others are interrogative (139f). The possibilities are determined by the verb, as we would expect.
An obvious question to ask is where the clausal complement sits with respect to the verb. There are a number of possibilities. In some ways the clausal complement is rather like an object, which is what leads traditional grammars to conclude that these verbs are transitives. For instance, many of these verbs can appear with an object, sometimes with a similar meaning to the clausal complement:
| (140) | a | Sam said something | Sam said [that Tim is tall] |
| b | Albert asked the time | Albert asked [what the time was] |
Moreover, some of these verbs can undergo passivisation, and as we have seen, in English, only the transitive verbs can passivise:
| (141) | a | it was believed [that Tim is tall] |
| b | Chris was considered [to be clever] |
This might lead us to the conclusion that they should be treated like objects and be placed in the specifier of the VP, with the verb moving to a light verb position to precede it:
| (142) |
There are however, a number of problems facing this analysis. First, when a verb takes both a DP and a clausal complement, invariably the DP precedes the clause:
| (143) | a | I asked [him] [where to get off] |
| b | I told [him] [that I would write a letter] | |
| c | I persuaded [him] [that the moon was made of cheese] | |
| d | I promised [him] [to be good] |
In each case of the above, if the DP followed the clause it would be ungrammatical. Moreover, if there is a PP complement and a clause, the PP tends to precede the clause:
| (144) | a | it seems [to me] [that the gudgeon pin is broken] |
| b | I shouted [at him] [to get out of the bath] | |
| b | we demand [of you] [that you tell the truth] |
If we consider the thematic roles assigned to these arguments, typically the DP arguments receive a goal Θ-role: the one to whom the event described by the verb is directed. The clause has a theme Θ-role. We saw with dative/double object verbs, the goal argument sits in the complement position of the thematic verb, but may move in order to get Case. If this is what is going on here, then the structure should be:
| (145) |
In this, the verb moves from light verb to light verb and the DP moves to the specifier of the first light verb to get Case from the higher one. A similar structure would have to be supposed for the PP arguments. However, this structure does not seem to reflect the event structure of such verbs, which seem to consist of just two events:
| (146) | e = e1 → e2 | : e1 = they did something | |
| e2 = I was asked to pay |
A second problem is why the PP argument would undergo the same movement as the DP as PPs do not need Case and do not normally undergo this kind of movement. Hence it appears that there is not much to recommend this analysis.
If we want to maintain the UTAH we cannot just assume that the arguments start off in different positions, however. So we want to keep the basic structure of the VP as it is in (145). We need to simplify the light verb structure, getting rid of one of these to match with the event structure and finally we need to find a way of getting the PP in front of the clause that does not assume that it undergoes a similar movement to DPs. The structure is as follows:
| (147) |
One way to get the PP in front of the clause without moving the PP would be to move the clause backwards, perhaps to adjoin to the VP or v':
| (148) |
Do we have any evidence that clauses can undergo the supposed movement and any motivation for it to take place in this instance? Actually, there is some evidence that certain clauses can undergo a backward movement:
| (149) | a | the announcement [that the prime minister had resigned] was broadcast on the radio |
| b | the announcement was broadcast on the radio [that the prime minister had resigned] |
In this example, the bracketed clause is the complement of the noun announcement and hence is part of the DP subject, as is clearly the case in (149a). In (149b) this clause not only does not appear to be part of the subject, but it is right over the other side of the clause from the subject. It seems therefore that the clause moves towards the back of the clause and therefore that backward movement of clauses is a possibility.
But why would the clause have to move backwards in a structure like (148)? Note that the clause occupies a position to which Case is assigned: the light verb assigns accusative Case to the specifier of the VP. There is an old idea, dating back to Stowell (1981), that clauses avoid Case positions. While it might seem that clauses occupy similar positions to DPs, there are a number of reasons to think that this is not so. For example, we do not get clauses in the complement position of prepositions, a position to which Case is assigned:
| (150) | a | she spoke about [her theory] |
| b | *she spoke about [that brontosaurs are thin at both ends and fat in the middle] |
Moreover, while it might look as though clauses can occupy subject positions (to which Case is assigned), there are observations which indicate that sentence subjects are not in the same position as DP subjects:
| (151) | a | did [Ursula] upset you? |
| b | *did [that Ursula got drunk] upset you | |
| (152) | a | this theory, [I] just can’t accept |
| b | *this theory, [that the space probe found no pizzerias on Mars] disproves |
The data demonstrate that certain things which are possible when there is a DP subject, are not possible with a clausal ‘subject’. For instance, the auxiliary can move to the front of the clause to form a question in (151a), but not in (151b) where there is a clausal subject. In (152a) we can see that an object can be moved to the front of the clause in what are called topicalisation structures, but not when the subject is clausal (152b). These observations might suggest that the clausal subjects are in a position which prevents the relevant movements and that DP subjects sit in a different position which does not interfere with them. Obviously the DP subjects sit in Case positions, as required by the Case filter and therefore our conclusion is that clausal subjects do not sit in the Case position that the DP subject sits in. All this might be accounted for if we assume that clauses avoid Case positions and this would warrant the clause moving out of its D-structure position in (147) into a position that is Caseless. We therefore assume the following principle:
| (153) | the Case avoidance principle | |
| clauses avoid Case positions |