3.2.2 D-structure and S-structure

3.2.2.1 D-structure and Theta Theory

3.2.3 Traces

In the previous sections of this chapter we have concerned ourselves with the positions in which elements originate at D-structure and the positions they move to at S-structure. We might term these positions the Extraction site and the Landing site of a moved element. What is the status of the landing site at D-structure and the extraction site at S-structure? In (58) we introduced a restriction on movement called the Structure Preservation principle, which states that movements are not allowed to alter the basic X-bar nature of a structure. The result of this restriction is that the structure cannot be much different between D- and S-structure. In particular, we would not expect landing and extraction sites to appear at one level of representation but be absent at another. Thus, if we consider a passive structure in which the object moves to subject position, we can expect the object and subject positions to be present at both D- and S-structure:

3.2.3 Traces

In the previous sections of this chapter we have concerned ourselves with the positions in which elements originate at D-structure and the positions they move to at S-structure. We might term these positions the Extraction site and the Landing site of a moved element. What is the status of the landing site at D-structure and the extraction site at S-structure? In (58) we introduced a restriction on movement called the Structure Preservation principle, which states that movements are not allowed to alter the basic X-bar nature of a structure. The result of this restriction is that the structure cannot be much different between D- and S-structure. In particular, we would not expect landing and extraction sites to appear at one level of representation but be absent at another. Thus, if we consider a passive structure in which the object moves to subject position, we can expect the object and subject positions to be present at both D- and S-structure:

3.2.3 Traces

There is reason to believe however, that the two empty positions in (92) are not the same as they display different properties. Consider the empty subject position in (92a). As this is a position to which something moves it would not be reasonable to think of it as being filled by some other element before the movement takes place. If there were something in this position at D-structure, presumably it would have to be deleted to allow the object to move into the position as general principles of structure do not allow two elements to occupy the same structural position. But if this element is always deleted, how could we ever be aware of its existence, let alone its nature. Moreover, if it were possible to delete elements in a structure to allow others to move into the vacated positions, we would expect far more movement possibilities that we actually observe. We would be able to move an object into a subject position of any verb, not just the passive ones:

3.2.3 Traces

What this means is that anything that is inserted into a structure from the lexicon cannot change from one level of representation to another. If a verb is put into a structure, nothing can delete or alter this verb, turning it into a noun, for example. Also no movement can alter a verb’s selectional properties: a transitive verb will remain transitive at D-structure and S-structure even if the object is moved.

3.2.3 Traces

Under these assumptions, it must be that a passive verb loses its subject before it enters into a structure. There are numerous ways in which we might suppose that this can happen, but we will put the matter aside until we are in a better position to understand it. The general point is that as a result of being passivised, a verb fails to assign a Θ-role to its subject and hence this position is absolutely vacant at D-structure. So with regard to the empty subject position in (92a) we can say that this position, whilst being present in the structure, is simply devoid of any contentful element and hence is vacant to be moved into.

3.2.3 Traces

Now consider the nature of the empty object in (92b): the extraction site of the moved object. By the Projection Principle, this object position must remain in the structure and cannot be deleted otherwise the transitive verb would find itself without an object and hence would be sitting in the structural position of an intransitive verb. As this would alter the lexical nature of the verb, we conclude that it would be impossible. Yet if this position were simply vacant, like the subject position is at D-structure, we might expect that it could be the landing site for some other moved element. This, it turns out, is not true at all. Consider the following analysis which indicates several movements step by step:

3.2.3 Traces

Both of these derived structures seem to be grammatical, but importantly they do not mean the same thing. In (95b) Fred is interpreted as the one who is helped and the interrogative pronoun who is the one doing the helping, as is indicated by the D-structure in (95a). But in (95c), Fred is the one doing the helping and who is the one helped. Under the assumption that Θ-roles are assigned at D-structure, it cannot be the case that (95c) was formed from the D-structure (95a), but must be related to another D-structure, i.e. (96a):

3.2.3 Traces

The overall conclusion of this discussion then is that the empty positions that are present at D-structure are of a different nature to the empty positions present at S-structure which are created by movements: D-structure empty positions are vacant to be moved into, S-structure empty positions are not. Obviously this demands an explanation.

3.2.3 Traces

One possible account of the nature of empty extraction sites is that they cannot act as landing sites for subsequent movements because they are occupied. As two elements cannot occupy the same position and as we are not allowed to delete material, this would block movement into this position. There are two problems that this assumption faces: what element occupies the extraction site and why cannot we see it? Given the above discussion, there is no choice as to the identity of the element that occupies this position: it must be the moved element itself. No other element could either be moved into this position or be inserted into it from elsewhere without drastically changing the lexical information represented by the D-structure and this would violate the Projection Principle. But then we seem to be forced to accept that one element can occupy two positions.

3.2.3 Traces

The S-structure representations here demonstrate the movement of an interrogative pronoun from two different D-structure positions, marked by the trace. In (97a) who moved from object position and hence the sentence is interpreted as a question about the one who was helped. In (97b) on the other hand who moves from the subject position and hence the question is about the one who does the helping.

3.2.3 Traces

One might wonder if adjunction conforms to structure preservation as it does seem to alter the structure from its D-structure condition. However, it should be noted that adjunction does not alter lexically determined aspects of structure and so is perfectly compliant with the Projection Principle which supersedes structural preservation. Moreover, adjunction is something which X-bar theory allows for and hence to create an adjunction structure is not to create something that violates the possible X-bar nature of the structure. In this way, adjunction movement does not radically alter structure and can be seen as structure preserving.

4.3 Multiple Determiners

The object of the verb is associated with accusative Case and hence must be in a Case position. But the object of the noun is not associated with any Case; indeed nouns in general cannot take bare object. We can account for these observations if we simply assume that the complement position of a noun is a Caseless position. Given the Case Filter introduced in the previous chapter, it follows that DPs are not allowed to occupy such a position at S-structure. There is nothing to prevent a noun from taking a DP complement at D-structure, however, and thematically it seems to be the case that many nouns do have DP arguments which all surface as PPs headed by the meaningless preposition of. We might therefore assume that this preposition is inserted into the structure at S-structure so that the Case Filter may be satisfied.

5.2.1 Unaccusative verbs

It is important to point out at this stage that what we are looking at here is the VP at D-structure, i.e. prior to any movement process and not the complete analysis of a full sentence. We will see that this is more complex, involving more structure and a greater number of syntactic processes. In particular, it is common for the subject not to remain in the VP, but to move out into a higher position in the clause:

5.2.3.2 Light verbs and ergatives

But how can we even consider (50) as a possible analysis when it obviously gets the word order wrong? The thing to remember is that what we are discussing here is the organisation of the VP at D-structure and we know that things tend to move about before we get to S-structure. Thus, if there is a plausible movement analysis which will re-arrange things so that the right word order is achieved at S-structure, then this objection will have been answered. The obvious way to achieve the correct word order would be to have the verb move to the light verb position:

5.2.3.3 Unaccusatives and ergatives

This is a case of raising, as introduced in chapter 3. In (62a) the subject of the lower clause is raised into the subject position of the raising verb seem, demonstrating that this position must have been empty at D-structure. In (62b), however, the thematic subject of the lower clause does not move out of this clause. In this case the subject position is filled by another expletive element it. It would be ungrammatical for this position to be left empty, an indication that all English sentences must have subjects regardless of whether one is semantically demanded or not. We will return to this observation in the next chapter. Note however that this expletive subject differs from the one used in there constructions, though their function (to fill a vacant subject position) seems to be similar. It would be ungrammatical to use a there in raising structures and it in there constructions:

5.2.8 Verbs with clausal complements

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:

5.3 Aspectual Auxiliary Verbs

Remember, that what we are looking at there is the D-structure, before movement takes place. Thus this structure is that of a declarative VP, not an interrogative one. At S-structure the subject will move out of the vP to the clausal subject position, where it will get Case:

6.1 The structure of IP

What is the nature of the IP and what else does it contain? Just as inflections are always followed by the VP, they are also typically preceded by the subject in its surface position, though as we pointed out the subject originates inside the VP (vP) at D-structure and moves to get Case:

6.2 The syntax of inflection

Here (18) provides the D- and S-structures for the infinitival IP in a sentence like I want [Sam to phone Fiona]. Again, the same movement processes are observable and again none of these involves the inflection itself.

6.3 Movement to Spec IP

We have said that the light verb which is responsible for assigning the Θ-role to the subject is responsible for assigning Case to the object. This seems to be the locus of Burzio’s generalisation that verbs which assign a subject Θ-role assign an accusative Case. Hence the object is in a Case marked position and need not move away in order to get Case. Consider the subject: why is it not in a Case position? Note that the verbal element above the subject, the tense in this case, does not assign any Θ-roles and hence its specifier position is empty at D-structure. Clearly this is unlike the light verb. We may propose therefore that tense is not an accusative Case assigning head. But why doesn’t the light verb assign Case to its subject? One might attempt to answer this by claiming that the light verb has to assign Case to the object and assuming that accusative Case can only be assigned to one place. While this seems reasonable, it doesn’t explain why the light verb taking an intransitive verb does not assign Case to its subject:

7.3.3 Inversion

This suggests that the auxiliary moves to the C position from the inflection position. This is straightforward with modals as they are generated in the inflection position at D-structure. Thus they undergo a movement from I to C in certain interrogative structures:

8.2 Raising and Control

The verb seem is one which takes a clausal complement but it has no thematic subject. In this case the subject position is filled by a meaningless it, known as a pleonastic subject. This subject, like all subjects in English finite clauses is obligatory. This suggests that the obligatory nature of the subject is more than a semantic condition that arguments need to be realised. In fact there seems to be a grammatical requirement that clauses have subjects. This condition has been called the Extended Projection Principle (EPP). Recall from chapter 3 that the Projection Principle ensures that the lexical properties of heads are projected into the structure at all levels of syntactic representation. Thus if a verb requires an object as a lexical property, it must have an object at D-structure and at S-structure. The Extended Projection Principle claims not only this, but that the subject position must be present at all levels of structural representation and moreover that it must be filled by something at S-structure. Of course, under usual circumstances there will be something in the subject position at S-structure as an argument of the verb will move there for Case reasons. But even if there is no argument inside the VP in need of Case, the subject position must be filled by the insertion of a pleonastic subject:

8.2 Raising and Control

In reality then, the subject is not ‘missing’, it has just moved. By the same conditions, we cannot treat the independent missing subject as the result of movement: it bears a Θ-role different from its antecedent and so they do not represent a single argument, but two different ones. Moreover, at D-structure these two arguments must also be in different positions as different Θ-roles are assigned to different positions at D-structure. Hence we conclude that this kind of missing subject is present at D-structure. As we see in (51), this is not true of the other ‘missing’ subject. Because this element has many properties in common with a pronoun, i.e. it bears an independent Θ-role but can be referentially dependent on something else, it is often referred to as PRO.

8.2.1 Raising

At D-structure the complement clause will sit in the specifier of the verb:

8.2.1 Raising

Here, the verb first moves to the tense position, and then into the I to support the bound tense and agreement morphemes. The subject in its D-structure position is Caseless, so it moves into the vacant specifier of the IP where it is assigned nominative Case.