Basic English Syntax with Exercises

binding

5.2.3.2 Light verbs and ergatives

Thus the main verb stem moves to the causative light verb morpheme in order to bind it. The product of the movement would obviously have to undergo further morphological processes in order to show the appropriate tense and agreement forms, but this is unimportant for the point being made here. Suppose English works in exactly the same way as this. The English causative light verb is a bound morpheme, though a phonologically null one, and differs only in this way from the non-null causative make. Thus it must be attached to the main verb and this happens by the main verb moving to adjoin to it. This would then give us an independent motivation for the movement of the verb.

7.3.4 The interaction between wh-movement and inversion

But this is a puzzle. Why do we not get inversion in an embedded interrogative? If the account of why we get inversion in main clauses is as we have so far suggested, then we must conclude that the question complementiser either does not need binding in an embedded clause, or that it is bound by some other element. For example, we might assume that the question complementiser in an embedded clause is not the same complementiser that appears in the main clause. We know that we do not get the kinds of overt complementisers that introduce embedded clauses in main clauses:

8.3 The Gerund

The analysis of (96a) and (b) are fairly straightforward. In both cases the nominalising ing is inserted above the relevant aspectual morpheme, taking the vP that it heads as a complement. The verb will move to support the lower morpheme, i.e. the aspectual which will leave ing unsupported. As it is a bound morpheme this will trigger the insertion of an auxiliary to bind it. The choice of the auxiliary will, as usual, be determined by the lower aspectual morpheme: