Basic English Syntax with Exercises

complementary distribution

1.2.4 Distribution

What (22) indicates is that the positions we are considering here are both verb positions, and hence a noun cannot occupy them. Yet some verbs can occupy one of these positions and other verbs can occupy the other. This suggests that there are different types of verb, what we might call subcategories of the category verb. If this is right, we would expect that the set of possible verbal positions would be divided up between the different verbal subcategories so that the positions in which one can appear in are those in which the others cannot. In other words, different subcategories will have complementary distributions. This indeed seems to be true, as (20) and (21) indicate.

1.3.4.3 Adjectives

Yet, if we consider the total set of possible positions for adjectives and adverbs, we notice that where an adverb can appear an adjective cannot and vice versa. In other words, the two are in complementary distribution, just like transitive and intransitive verbs. In the case of verbs we took their complementary distributions to be evidence that they are of the same category and, therefore, there is no reason why we should not argue the same here in relation to adjectives and adverbs.

1.3.4.4 Prepositions

It is possible that, given the complementary distribution between words like that and since, they are of the same category and hence since is not used as a preposition in (130b). Indeed, we will see, words like that, being complementisers, are analysed as ‘functional prepositions’, given their feature specification [+F, –N, –V]. However, we will not pursue the issue here.

1.3.5.1 Inflections

We need to distinguish between two groups of auxiliary verb, however. (133a) and (133b) involve aspectual auxiliaries (perfective and progressive respectively). (133c) concerns a modal auxiliary. These two types of auxiliaries differ not only in their semantic content, but also in their syntactic behaviour. For example, while modal auxiliaries are in complementary distribution with one another (there can only ever be one per clause), they are not in complementary distribution with the aspectuals. The aspectual auxiliaries are also not in complementary distribution with each other:

1.3.5.1 Inflections

Modal auxiliaries are also in complementary distribution with other elements of the clause. But before we can discuss this, we need to distinguish between two types of clause. Consider the clauses in brackets in the following:

1.3.5.1 Inflections

Putting these together, we find that there are three elements here which are in complementary distribution: modals, the non-finite element to and the finite inflections on verbs. In any clause, wherever one of these appears, the others cannot:

1.3.5.1 Inflections

We have spoken about complementary distribution patterns before, concluding that elements that are in complementary distribution should be analysed as instances of the same category. If this argument applies here, then modals, finite inflections and the non-finite element to are to be analysed as of the same category. While this makes perfect sense for modals and to, as these are words which appear to occupy the same position in the clause, it seems somewhat odd to claim that the finite inflections belong to this category. For a start, finite inflections are inflections that appear on the verb, not independent words themselves. However, there are things which seem to form part of other things in sentences, but which we might want to claim that at some deeper level of analysis are independent from them. Consider the status of n’t in negated auxiliaries such as can’t, won’t, couldn’t, etc. In one sense this element is part of the auxiliary, but in another sense it is an independent element expressing negation in exactly the same way that its non-contracted counterpart not does. It would seem reasonable to suggest that the contracted negative is an independent lexical item, with its own lexical entry (perhaps even the same one as the non-contracted negation) and that as such it enters the sentence as a word. Then there are syntactic processes which combine the auxiliary and negation into a single element:

1.3.5.2 Determiners

Not all quantificational elements are determiners, however. Some quantifiers might at first appear to be determiners, but the observation that they are not in complementary distribution with determiners challenges this assumption:

1.3.5.2 Determiners

Also, pronouns and determiners are in total complementary distribution:

1.3.5.3 Degree Adverbs

Some of these degree modifiers are in complementary distribution with each other, indicating that they belong to the same category:

1.3.6 Functionally underspecified categories

We will start with the aspectual auxiliaries. We have pointed out that these auxiliary verbs do not behave like modals as they are not in complementary distribution with them. In fact, aspectual auxiliaries are not in complementary distribution with any I element:

4.1 Why the Noun is not the Head of the DP

However, the analysis in (17) accounts for the absolute complementary distribution between pronouns and determiners:

4.2.2 The Specifier of the DP

However, the problem in viewing the possessor as the specifier of the DP is that this would predict that possessors can appear in front of a determiner, when in actual fact possessors and determiners seem to be in complementary distribution:

4.2.2 The Specifier of the DP

If X-bar theory is correct however, this observation cannot be taken to show what it seems to: i.e. that the specifier and the determiner sit in the same structural position. Words and phrases cannot be in complementary distribution as they cannot appear in the same positions in a phrase. Some other element must appear in complementary distribution with the determiner in (39c), not the possessor. But what?

4.2.2 The Specifier of the DP

If this analysis can be maintained, we now know why possessors and determiners are in complementary distribution; in fact they are not in complementary distribution but the possessive determiner ‘’s’ is in complementary distribution with other determiners, as we would expect.

4.2.2 The Specifier of the DP

A third possibility would be to claim that the reason why pronoun possessor are in complementary distribution with all other determiners, including the possessive determiner, is because they are determiners sitting in the head position. From this perspective, the structure of the DP with a possessive pronoun would be:

5.2.3.3 Unaccusatives and ergatives

It seems then that there is a complementary distribution between these verb types. How are we to explain this? Complementary distribution patterns appear when two elements of the same type try to occupy the same position: we can have one or the other, but not both. In the causative construction, we know that there is a light verb above the VP headed by the ergative. Could there possibly be a light verb above the unaccusative VP in the there construction?

6.1 The structure of IP

Inflectional elements are word level categories such as will, can, may, must, etc. as well as to, ‑ed (and its numerous irregular manifestations) and ‑s. In chapter 1 we argued that these all belong to one category, ‘Inflection’ (I) because of their complementary distribution:

6.2.3 Tense and Agreement

These observations show that this zero morpheme is in complementary distribution with tense and thus the straightforward conclusion is that it IS tense. But how can this be if tense is an inflectional element and the zero morpheme is not in complementary distribution with modal auxiliaries, which are also inflectional elements? What the data show is that it is not modals that tense is in complementary distribution with, but the zero tense morpheme that accompanies the modal and hence the conclusion is that if modals are of the category ‘inflection’, then tense is not of this category. Given that tense is situated in front of the VP, we can assume that it is a head that selects a verbal complement and given that it follows the inflectional elements (i.e. modals) it must project a verbal phrase. In other words, tense is yet another light verb:

6.2.3 Tense and Agreement

This analysis raises the question of what category ‘inflection’ is if it excludes the tense morpheme, and specifically what occupies this position when there is no modal? To answer this, consider the properties of modal auxiliaries. It is a traditional idea that they are not actually in complementary distribution with tense, as in some sense they display a kind of tense inflection:

6.2.3 Tense and Agreement

Although I am very much simplifying things here, we can see in (43) that there is some requirement that embedded clauses have a matching tense specification to the main clause and hence the ungrammaticality when the main clause is in the past tense and the embedded clause is in the present. (44) demonstrates something very similar happens with certain modals and hence that modals seem to be specified for tense (or at least they are not themselves in complementary distribution with a tense specification wherever in the clause that specification is made). However, what modals are in complementary distribution with is agreement: modals do not have forms that are dependent on the properties of the subject:

7.3.1 Basic positions within the CP

It makes perfect sense that wh-questions and yes–no questions involve the complementiser system as complementisers contribute the semantics of force to the sentence, but there is independent evidence for the validity of these analyses. To start, that inverted auxiliaries occupy the C position is supported by the observation that inverted auxiliaries and complementisers are in complementary distribution. The best evidence for this involves not interrogative clauses, though it is also true that we never get inverted auxiliaries and complementisers together in an interrogative, but conditional clauses. In English there are two types of conditional clause, one formed with an if complementiser and one formed with an inverted auxiliary:

7.3.1 Basic positions within the CP

That if conditionals do not involve auxiliary inversion demonstrates that the complementiser and the inverted auxiliary are in complementary distribution and therefore occupy the same position:

7.5.1 Topicalisation

Moreover, if the fronted topics occupied the same position as fronted wh-phrases, then we would expect them to be in complementary distribution, which they are not:

7.5.2 Focus fronting

115) might be used in response to someone asking ‘who would trust women?’, with the meaning that it’s men who are untrustworthy, not women. However, this complementary distribution between foci and wh-elements should not lead us to assume that the focus sits in the specifier of the CP. We can see this from the fact that in embedded clauses the focus, like the topic, follows the complementiser:

7.5.3 Negative fronting

The fronted negative is in complementary distribution with the focus:

7.5.3 Negative fronting

This complementary distribution seems more significant than that which holds between the focus and the wh-element as both the focus and the fronted negative clearly occupy very similar positions. We might therefore claim that both make use of the same landing site: specifier of iP.

7.5.3 Negative fronting

With these structures in place we now have room for all fronted elements in English including wh-elements, topics, foci and fronted negatives and the inverted auxiliaries that accompany them. We have not accounted for why there is complementary distribution between elements that move to spec iP and wh-elements. This may be a semantic incompatibility rather than a matter of syntactic distribution, as suggested by the fact that this seems more of a universal restriction rather than something restricted to English. Alternatively, it may have something to do with the locality of movement in that if iP is present a wh-element is prevented from moving to spec CP. I will not attempt to sort these issues out here.

8.2.2 Control

So it seems that PRO cannot appear in Case positions and is therefore in complementary distribution with overt DPs, which of course must sit in Case positions.

8.2.2 Control

One possible solution to both these problems would be to claim that PRO doesn’t avoid Case positions per se, but has to sit in special Case positions which up to now have been assumed not to be Case-marked, but in fact might be assigned a special Case, applicable only for PRO. Chomsky and Lasnik (1989) proposed that PRO must sit in special Case marked positions. They argue that the subjects of certain non-finite clauses are not Caseless but that what they term ‘Null Case’ is assigned to them. Only PRO can bear Null Case and Null Case is the only Case that PRO can bear. Thus PRO will not be able to sit where overt DPs go as these will be Case marked with something other than Null Case. Moreover no overt DP can sit in a position in which it would be assigned Null Case as this is not ‘strong’ enough to satisfy the Case Filter. The good thing about this assumption is that it predicts complementary distribution between overt DPs and PRO but does not force us to assume that PRO can occupy any position in which we cannot find an overt DP. From this perspective, then, PRO cannot sit in a position to which no Case is assigned, as in (73).

8.3 The Gerund

A number of consequences follow from this analysis. First, in (91a) as there is no light verb, the DP in the specifier will be Caseless and hence the preposition of will have to be inserted to salvage the structure. The presence of the light verb in (91b) renders this unnecessary as the DP will get Case in the normal way. More interestingly, the subject is present in the structure in (91b) but not in (91a). This does not mean that the subject cannot be introduced in (91a) as it is perfectly possible to have a possessive argument introduced into the NP/DP structure under normal circumstances, so there is no reason why it could not happen here. However, the point is that, as is usually the case with nouns, this will be optional and therefore the possessor/agent may or may not appear. When there is no possessor, there can be a determiner and when there is a possessor there can be no determiner, as the two are in complementary distribution: