adjunction

a type of movement where a new position is formed as a result of the movement creating an adjunction structure, like the (simplified) movement of the PP in the following tree structure representation where the S node is doubled:

agent

one of the thematic or theta-roles, where the argument deliberately performs an action, as Jamie in Jamie sang a song or Robert in Robert kicked the cat. In terms of the UTAH the agentive theta-role is assigned to the specifier position of vP, similarly to experiencer arguments.

ambiguity

a structure is ambiguous if it can be interpreted in more than one way. We differentiate lexical ambiguity from structural ambiguity.

arguments

the participants minimally involved in an action defined by the predicate. The complements and the subject, the latter also called an external argument.

clause

a structure containing a (visible or invisible) subject and a predicate.

control

a term related to the interpretation of PRO. E.g. in the sentence I promised [PRO to visit her] the constituent I controls PRO, gives reference to it. See also subject control, object control, arbitrary reference.

light verb

a verb occupying the head of a vP used in combination with another element, typically a noun or verb, where the light verb’s contribution to the meaning of the whole construction is less than that of a fully thematic main verb, e.g. to take a shower=to shower. Certain verbs expressing aspectual (be, have) or modal (let) meaning also belong here. According to the proposals in the present book the following constituents can appear within the vP in a visible or abstract form (see also vP-shells):

– agentive arguments in the specifier positions

– experiencer arguments in the specifier position

– goal arguments in the double-object construction as specifiers

– the passive -en morpheme in the head of vP

– the aspectual morphemes -en and -ing in the head of vP

– the tense morpheme in the head of vP

main clause

a clause that is not embedded in another clause. In the sentence I know that you are clever the main clause is I know selecting an embedded CP.

missing subject

in terms of the EPP every clause must have a subject, so clauses cannot have a missing subject. In certain structures it seems to be the case, however, it can be argued that these clauses only have a missing visible subject, there is an abstract element occupying the subject position in these clauses as well, either in the form of a trace or PRO.

non-finite clause

a clause in which no finite verb is present.

object

a DP complement immediately following the verb. It can move to the subject position in passive sentences. See also direct object, indirect object.

object control

PRO can be coreferent either with the subject or the object of the preceding clause depending on the main verb. The verb tell is an object-control verb, in the sentence I told him [PRO to go] PRO is coreferent with the object.

reflexive pronoun

a DP without independent reference, e.g. himself. Reflexives always need an antecedent.

specifier position

a position defined by X-bar Theory. The specifier is sister to X', daughter of XP. It is a phrasal position, the nature of the phrase depends on what it is the specifier of. E.g. the specifier of IP is the subject, the specifier of DP is the possessor in possessive structures.

subject control

PRO can be coreferent either with the subject or the object of the preceding clause depending on the main verb. The verb promise is a subject-control verb, in the sentence I promise [PRO not to destroy my brother's castle again] PRO is coreferent with the subject.

theme

one of the thematic roles where the argument is not affected by the action described by the verb e.g. in Peter saw John nothing directly happens to John as a result of being seen. In terms of the UTAH the theme theta-role is assigned to the specifier position of the VP.

there-construction: see existential there-construction.

previous next

Basic English Syntax with Exercises

5.4.3 Clausal modifiers

Finally in this chapter we will note the possibility of modifying a VP with a clause. As we have seen with adverb modifiers the most straightforward VP modifiers are those that modify the manner of the verb. It is not possible to use a clause in this way however, and so it is not easy to tell whether a clause is a VP or a sentential modifier. However, there are certain reasons to think that some clausal modifiers are situated inside the VP.

Without going too much into the details of clause structure itself, a task we will undertake over the next chapters, certain non-finite clauses appear to have a missing subject:

(180)aBert bought a Ferrari [to impress his friends]
bthey set fire to the building [to collect the insurance]

Although these clauses seem to lack a subject, it is immediately obvious that a subject is interpreted: in (180a) it is Bert who will be doing the impressing and in (180b) it is they who will collect the insurance. We call this phenomenon control. There is an element in the main clause who is interpreted as, or who ‘controls’ the missing subject of the modifying clause. There are restrictions, however, on which argument can act as the controller:

(181)Fred phoned the plumber [driving to the office]

In this case, only Fred can be interpreted as the one who was driving. It seems that the object is too far down inside the clause to act as controller. This is supported by the following observation:

(182)the witness claimed the defendant paid a lot of money [to attract attention to himself]

The reflexive pronoun himself can either refer to the witness or the defendant. But note, this depends on what the purpose clause is thought to modify. In one case it is the defendant’s paying money that attracts the attention and in the other case it is the witness’s claim that attracts the attention. In the first case, himself refers to the defendant and in the second it refers to the witness. What is not possible is to interpret the purpose clause as modifying the claiming event and for the reflexive to refer to the defendant or for the purpose clause to modify the paying event and the reflexive to refer to the witness. In other words, neither of the following are possible interpretations of (182):

(183)athe purpose of the witnesses claim that the defendant paid a lot of money was to attract attention to the defendant
bthe witness claimed the purpose of the defendant paying a lot of money was to attract attention to the witness

We can account for this in the following way. We know from chapter 3 that reflexive pronouns must refer to something within their own clause and in (182) the only thing that could be the referent of the reflexive is the missing subject. The missing subject is in turn controlled by some other element in the clause and hence limitations on the reference of the reflexive indicate limitations on the control of the subject. When the purpose clause modifies the higher verb, only the subject of this verb can act as the controller and hence be the ultimate referent of the reflexive. It seems that the subject of the other clause is ‘too low down’ in the clause to act as controller. On the other hand, this subject can act as controller when the purpose clause modifies the lower verb.

Having established that there are structural conditions on what can act as a controller, consider the following examples:

(184)aHarry hired Freda [to fire the security guard]
bHarry fired Freda [to hire the security guard]

(184a) is ambiguous in terms of who is doing the firing: it could be Harry or Freda. (184b) is not ambiguous however as here only Harry can do the hiring. What can account for this difference? We have seen that the structural position of the purpose clause affects what can be the controller and so it might be that there are different possible positions for the purpose clause within the structure. The structure of the main VP in (184a) is as follows:

(185)

As agent, Harry is the specifier of an agentive light verb and as theme Freda is the specifier of the main verb. The verb will move to support the light verb as usual. We know in this case, the purpose clause can either be controlled by the subject or the object and so it must be able to attach to the structure high enough to allow subject control and low enough to allow object control. Suppose we assume that the purpose clause can adjoin either to the v' or to the V':

(186)a
 
b

The two structures relate to the two possible meanings. When the purpose clause is adjoined to the v', as in (186a), then the agent can control the missing subject, and when it is adjoined to the V', as in (186b), then the theme can control the missing subject. For some reason, when fire is the head of the VP, the purpose clause can only be adjoined to the v' and hence only the agent can be the controller. Hence there will be no ambiguity. Note that the facts as such demonstrate that the purpose clauses must be able to attach within the VP so that objects can act as controllers. If this were never the case, we would only be able to get subject control.

previous next