1.3 A Typology of Word Categories

Having introduced some of the basic concepts, let us now turn to look at what categories we need to refer to in the description of a language like English. In generative linguistics it is often seen as a positive aim to keep basic theoretical equipment to a bare minimum and not to expand these unnecessarily. This can be seen in the standard approach to word categories in terms of the attempt to keep these to as small a number as possible. In the present book we will mainly be concerned with eight basic categories. These come in two general types: thematic categories and functional categories. In the thematic categories we have verbs (V), nouns (N), adjectives (A) and prepositions (P) and in the functional categories there are inflections (I), determiners (D), degree adverbs (Deg) and complementisers (C). Thus we have the following classification system:

1.3.1 Categorial features

We see from the discussion above the predictive power of the system that we have set up: the system predicted that there should be a fourth thematic category that has certain properties and these fit the category of prepositions very well. We can take this as evidence in favour of this system of features. What else does the system predict? It is clearly predicted that if we add a third binary feature to the two we have just been discussing, then a further four categories will be defined. This again matches perfectly with the description of categories we started this section with, as seen in (23). With the third feature, [±F], there should be four functional categories which match the four thematic categories in terms of their feature settings for [±N] and [±V]. We have already seen how determiners and modals can be analysed as functional nouns and functional verbs, respectively. The expectation is that degree adverbs, such as so and too, and complementisers, such as that and if, should be related to adjectives and prepositions in the same way. As degree adverbs modify adjectives in a very similar way to how determiners modify nouns, it is not difficult to conclude that degree adverbs are functional adjectives. This leaves complementisers to fill the final place as functional prepositions. There is evidence in favour of this assumption, but it rests on notions not yet introduced, so we will have to wait until later to demonstrate it.

1.3.3 Grammatical aspects of meaning

i>That is a complementiser and its meaning is a little more difficult to determine. We can see its meaning if we compare (47) to (49):

1.3.3 Grammatical aspects of meaning

In the bracketed sentence here, the complementiser is if and we can see that the difference between this and the previous case is that here the sentence is interpreted as a question, not a statement as previously. The sentence beginning with that is declarative and the one beginning with if is interrogative. Given that the only difference between the two is the complementiser, it seems reasonable to assume that this is what the complementiser contributes to the meaning of the sentence. The distinction between declarative and interrogative is known as the force of the sentence and hence complementisers contribute to this aspect of sentence meaning.

1.3.3 Grammatical aspects of meaning

Functional categories, such as modal auxiliaries and complementisers are specified for the [+F] value and a distinguishing property of these categories is that they are not involved with the assignment of Θ-roles. They therefore lack Θ-grids in their lexical entries.

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 can also see a difference between the clause types in terms of the word that introduces them, the complementiser. For the finite clause, the complementiser must be that and for this kind of non-finite clause, the complementiser must be for:

1.3.5.4 Complementisers

1.3.6 Functionally underspecified categories

However, these prepositional elements, though apparently non-thematic, are not complementisers, as they do not introduce clauses. We therefore categorise them as prepositions which are unmarked for the F feature. Thus, they are non-thematic, but also non-functional prepositions, categorised as [–N, –V]. Like most prepositional elements they take nominal complements:

2.3.1 Substitution

We may conclude, therefore that this part of the structure is also a phrase, presumably a noun phrase, as the word impostor is a noun. This NP is constructed of a noun followed by that just left, which as it is introduced by a complementiser we can conclude is some kind of a clause, though admittedly it doesn’t look much like a clause and a lot more needs to be said to show that it is. For now, let us just accept that it is a clause and stop our analysis at this point. What we have therefore is the following structure:

3.1.1 Rewrite rules and some terminology

Whether it precedes or follows the complement, the head is the central element of the phrase and is a word of the same category as the X'. Thus, if the head is an adjective, the X' will be an A' and if the head is a complementiser the X' will be a C'.

3.2.2.2 S-structure and Case Theory

In (87) we have a series of pronominal subjects of non-finite clauses. In the one grammatical case the subject is accusative, demonstrating that this is an accusative position. The ungrammaticality of the nominative pronoun in (87b) is therefore understandable. That (87c) should be ungrammatical is interesting as here we have an accusative pronoun. In this case the complementiser for is absent, indicating that this element is in some way responsible for the accusative case in (87a) in which it is present. This is understandable as this complementiser is similar to a preposition, and in fact is often called the prepositional complementiser, and as we know, the complement of prepositions is in the accusative. To account for this let us assume that Case is rather like Θ-roles and is assigned by certain elements to certain positions. The prepositional complementiser therefore assigns accusative Case to the subject of the non-finite clause that it introduces:

6.1 The structure of IP

Note that apart from complementisers, which we will discuss in the next chapter, and adverbials, which we will discuss at the end of the present chapter, this structure accounts for all elements of the clause. Specifically we have a subject position, an inflection and a VP predicate: the three obligatory parts of the clause. It seems reasonable to claim therefore that the IP IS the clause. This point of view addresses an issue raised in chapter 3 concerning the exocentric nature of the clause. There we discussed reasons for not considering the subject or the VP as the heads of the sentence as they do not seem to have the right properties of a head. Traditionally therefore it has been assumed that clauses are headless.

6.1 The structure of IP

In embedded contexts, we see another difference between finite and non-finite clauses in that a finite clause can act as the complement of the complementiser that, while only infinitival clauses can act as the complement of the complementiser for:

6.5 Conclusion

In this chapter we have discussed the basic architecture of the clause, claiming that this is headed by the inflectional element. This analysis provides positions for both the subject and the VP as well as the inflectional element itself. However, there are aspects of the syntax of the clause that we have not yet touched upon. We have yet to discuss the position of the complementiser, for example. Furthermore, there are types of clauses that we have not discussed: interrogatives, for example. These will be discussed in the next chapters.

Chapter7 Complementiser Phrases

Above the IP the structure of the clause continues and in particular the complementisers, which a large part of this chapter will be about, are found to reside. We will see that this part of the clause structure also has its semantic impact on the interpretation of the whole sentence, mainly in terms of the notions of declarative and interrogative, i.e. whether the sentence is supposed to be making a statement or asking a question. This aspect of meaning has been referred to as the Force of the sentence.

Chapter7 Complementiser Phrases

As with the previous chapter, we start with a general discussion of the general organisation of the super-IP structure. We then turn to look at complementisers themselves and the part they play in certain syntactic processes. We will look at the specifier of the complementiser and its use in various English constructions and finally turn to phenomena that suggest the existence of a certain degree of structure between the complementiser and the IP.

7.1 The structure of CP

In embedded contexts we often find that clauses are introduced by a small set of words known as complementisers:

7.1 The structure of CP

These words form a constituent with the following IP, but are not part of its structure. So, the clause can be moved along with its complementiser, the clause and its complementiser can be replaced by a pronoun and the clause and its complementiser can be coordinated with another such string:

7.1 The structure of CP

In (2a) the clausal complement of the verb know has obviously moved from its normal complement position behind the verb to a position at the front of the sentence. As the complementiser still precedes this clause, it can be assumed to form a constituent with it. In (2b) the pronoun it is used to replace the clause that Stan saved the world. As this includes both the complementiser and the IP, we conclude that these must form a constituent. Finally, in (2c) two clauses are coordinated. That both clauses begin with a complementiser demonstrates that the complementiser forms a constituent with the following IP.

7.1 The structure of CP

The first case in (3) is fairly straightforward. The it replaces the non-finite clause there to be trouble and given that the complementiser precedes the it the pronoun replaces just the IP. The second case needs a little explanation. What is coordinated here are the two IPs there would be trouble and I could be involved. In some clauses the complementiser does not have to appear overtly, however:

7.1 The structure of CP

One possible analysis, which we will argue in favour of a little later, is that when there is no overt complementiser, there is an phonologically empty complementiser. This possibility then raises the question of what is being coordinated in (2b): is it just the IP, as we claimed, or an IP with an empty complementiser?:

7.1 The structure of CP

In the second case, the data obviously do not support the claim that the IP can be coordinated without the complementiser as both sides of the coordination contain complementisers. However, (5b) cannot be the correct analysis as the only complementiser that is allowed to be empty in this kind of situation is that and if cannot be omitted:

7.1 The structure of CP

Thus, (5b) would only be possible if the empty complementiser were a version of that. But this is not possible as, in this case, a clause beginning with if cannot coordinate with a clause beginning with that:

7.1 The structure of CP

As the complementiser is a word and the IP is a phrase, we immediately see a potential head–complement relationship between them and if we apply X-bar principles to this situation the structure we expect is:

7.1 The structure of CP

If this is so, we expect the complementiser would demonstrate certain head-like properties and it is fairly easy to show that it does. For example, compare the following sentences:

7.1 The structure of CP

The embedded clause in (10a) is interrogative as it can act as the complement of the verb wonder and this subcategorises for interrogative complements. The clause in (10b) is declarative as it can act as the complement of the verb think which subcategorises for declarative clauses. But the only difference between the two clauses lies with the complementisers. The IP in both cases is identical. This would suggest that the interrogative/declarative nature of the clause is fixed by the complementiser and not by anything inside the IP. In other words, it is the complementiser that provides the force of the sentence. As it is heads that provide the properties of the structures they head, this demonstrates that complementisers do have a head-like status within the clause.

7.1 The structure of CP

Another claim made in (9) is that the IP is the complement of the complementiser. Can this be substantiated? One obvious relevant observation is that the IP follows the complementiser and as we know complements follow heads in English. Thus the claim that the complementiser is the head and the IP its complement accounts for this fact about English word order without resorting to stipulation. Furthermore, we have seen that functional heads such as determiners and inflections have a very limited range of possible complements: determiners always have NP complements and inflections always have v/VP complements. The element which follows a complementiser is always an IP and so this fits the pattern very well. Finally, note that different complementisers introduce different IPs. If and that both introduce finite IPs, while for introduces a non-finite IP. As heads select for their complements, this is again an indication that the complementisers are heads selecting for different types of IP complements. This is very similar to plural determiners selecting for plural NP complements and singular determiners selecting for singular ones.

7.1 The structure of CP

In what follows, we will be assuming the structure in (9) as essentially correct, though we will see that some extension will be needed for elements that appear between the complementiser and the IP. We will start by discussing facts that do not concern these elements however, and so for the time being (9) provides us with an adequate model of the top part of the English clause.

7.2 The Clause as CP

Not all clauses are introduced by a complementiser. For example, subordinate declarative finite clauses may or may not be introduced by that and main clauses never have complementisers:

7.2 The Clause as CP

What is the status of the clause when there is no complementiser? One possibility is that when there is no complementiser there is no CP and hence a clause without a complementiser has the status of an IP. For embedded clauses this is a problematic conclusion as it means that the verbs which select for such clauses must be able to take IP or CP complements. In other words, they subcategorise for a complement with the features [+F, –N]. But if this is so, we would predict that there should be verbs that select for only CP complements, i.e. complements with [+F, –N, –V] features, and those that select for only IP complements, with [+F, –N, +V] features.

7.2 The Clause as CP

But while there are many verbs which take clausal complements both with or without a complementiser, it is doubtful whether the other predicted verb types exist. It seems that we have to accept a generalisation that if a verb selects for a declarative finite IP complement, it also selects for a declarative finite CP complement. It is not easy to think how we can explain this generalisation when stated in this way. There is another possible view, however. This sees all these complements as being CPs, but sometimes the complementiser is filled with an overt that and sometimes it is filled by an unpronounced complementiser:

7.2 The Clause as CP

All we need to say is that something with a propositional meaning is canonically realised as a CP and then it follows that if a verb takes a propositional complement, this will be realised as a CP. It follows from this that all finite declarative complement clauses will be CPs and hence that we must assume that sometimes the complementiser can be abstract, as in (12b). Non-finite complement clauses differ from this pattern quite substantially. Certain verbs take non-finite complements with an obligatory complementiser:

7.2 The Clause as CP

Others take non-finite clause complements that never have a complementiser:

7.2 The Clause as CP

Note that some of these verbs are in the other category as well. However there is a difference, verbs in the try category take non-finite complements with missing subjects and those in the hope category take non-finite complements with overt subjects. Thus there seems to be a correlation between when the complement clause has an overt subject and when it has an overt complementiser. We will go into this in more detail in the next chapter, but it can be argued that clauses with covert subjects must be CPs with a covert complementiser position:

7.2 The Clause as CP

This leaves main clauses. As pointed out in (11b), these never have overt complementisers. However, given that covert complementisers seem to be a possibility it is reasonable to ask whether main clauses are CPs which have an obligatory covert complementiser, or whether they are just IPs with no space for a complementiser. The issue is complicated unfortunately. On the one hand, there are some main clauses that have to be argued to be CPs, as we shall see a little later. Thus, on general grounds it seems reasonable to assume that all clauses are CPs. Moreover, if the role of the complementiser is to indicate the force of a sentence, and main clauses without complementisers have a force interpretation, then it might be argued that there must be a complementiser to provide this aspect of clausal semantics. On the other hand, most linguists accept that ‘exceptional clauses’ lack complementisers and these also have a force interpretation and so it seems that there is a way for this to be introduced in the absence of a complementiser, which undermines the argument that main clauses must have complementisers because they have a force interpretation.

7.2 The Clause as CP

If we assume that main clauses are CPs we need an explanation as to why their complementisers are obligatorily covert. But if we assume that main clauses are merely IPs, we must account for why the CP is obligatorily banned. All in all then, it is hard to decide on the issue. In this book, we will take the fairly standard view that all clauses are CP (except for the exceptions) and hence we assume that main clauses have obligatorily covert complementisers by a general principle.

7.3.1 Basic positions within the CP

Note that these questions are formed by placing an auxiliary verb in front of the subject, a phenomenon traditionally termed subject–auxiliary inversion. Again, given that the auxiliary is to the left of the subject, it seems to be outside of the IP and presumably somewhere in the CP. This time, however, the position needed is a word position and the obvious choice is the complementiser position itself:

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:

7.3.2 Wh-movement

In the examples in (28) the force of the embedded clauses is obviously determined by the complementiser, as would be expected. However, in the following, it seems that the force of the clause is determined by the wh-element in specifier positions:

7.3.4 The interaction between wh-movement and inversion

We know that the complementiser is the head of the CP and that this provides the relevant features for the force interpretation of the sentence. Some complementisers are interrogative and some are declarative. Thus, when the clause is interrogative, presumably it has an interrogative complementiser and vice versa if the clause is declarative. In yes–no questions, therefore, we might expect the clause to have an interrogative complementiser. As we can see no complementiser in such sentences, we must assume it to be abstract. The assumption of such an element is supported by the fact that in some languages a morpheme with exactly these properties appears overtly. For example, in Japanese, a yes–no question is marked by the appearance of the morpheme ka at the end of the clause. Thus, the difference between (43a) and (43b) is that the first is declarative and the second interrogative:

7.3.4 The interaction between wh-movement and inversion

In Japanese, the complementiser goes in the final position of the clause and so the question particle is suitably analysed as a complementiser. Thus, we might claim that English is similar to this, the main difference being that the question particle is covert in English:

7.3.4 The interaction between wh-movement and inversion

The simple assumption that this interrogative complementiser is a bound morpheme in English is enough to justify the movement of the inflectional element to support it:

7.3.4 The interaction between wh-movement and inversion

A similar analysis can be provided for inversion that accompanies wh-movement to spec CP. As we discussed in the previous section, wh-movement to spec CP establishes an agreement relationship between the wh-element and the head of CP that enables the clause to be interpreted as an interrogative. One way to realise this agreement relationship is in terms of the presence of an interrogative complementiser, i.e. the empty question particle, in the C position:

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:

7.3.4 The interaction between wh-movement and inversion

However, we have also claimed that main clauses are CPs and so have complementisers introducing them. Therefore there seems to be a distinction between main clause and embedded clause complementisers. If this is so, then we might claim that the main clause interrogative complementiser differs from the embedded interrogative clause complementiser in that the former is a bound morpheme while the latter is not:

7.3.4 The interaction between wh-movement and inversion

A second proposal claims that the difference between main and embedded clauses is that while complementisers are allowed in embedded clauses they are not in main clauses. Thus, a main clause interrogative actually lacks an interrogative in the C position, which is therefore underlyingly empty. An embedded clause on the other hand differs in two ways from a main clause: complementisers are allowed in embedded clauses and the clause itself is selected as a complement by some predicate. We have seen how a predicate imposes selectional restrictions on its clausal complements and those predicates which take an interrogative complement will demand that the CP be marked as interrogative. The way to mark a clause as interrogative is to give it an interrogative head and this can either be overt, i.e. if or covert, i.e. Q:

7.3.4 The interaction between wh-movement and inversion

If we assume that Q, like if, is not a bound morpheme, then there will be no reason for inversion. However, in a main clause there can be no complementiser and hence Q like all other complementisers will be prevented from appearing. An interrogative CP still needs to be interpreted as interrogative however and hence it will need its head to have the [+wh] feature. We have seen how, when a wh-element moves to spec CP, it agrees with the head. If we make the reasonable assumption that nothing can agree with an empty head position, this necessitates something being in the head position of an interrogative clause. Given that complementisers are systematically excluded from this position, the only option is to move the nearest head into the C position and this will be the auxiliary in I:

7.3.4 The interaction between wh-movement and inversion

53a) is ruled out because the wh-element has nothing to agree with and hence the clause cannot be interpreted as an interrogative. (53b) is ruled out by the general exclusion of complementisers appearing in main clauses. This leaves (53c) as the only grammatical possibility.

7.3.4 The interaction between wh-movement and inversion

While this analysis seems less ad hoc than the assumption of different interrogative complementisers in main and embedded clauses, there are still a number of questions left unanswered. For example, how are we to analyse yes–no questions under the assumption that complementisers are not allowed in main clause complementiser positions? What triggers the inversion in this case if there is no wh-element to agree with? The answer might be that there is a wh-like element in yes–no questions. Although we do not get inversion type yes–no questions in embedded clauses, for obvious reasons, it is still possible to have an embedded yes–no question. These are typically expressed by the element whether:

7.3.4 The interaction between wh-movement and inversion

If we were to put the content of this embedded clause into a main clause it would be should I bring some wine, i.e. a yes–no question. Thus, (54) contains an embedded yes–no question. The wh-element whether is quite strange. In many ways it looks like a complementiser, being a word that appears at the front of an interrogative clause, rather like if. However, there are a number of reasons to believe that whether is not a complementiser. For one thing, it can introduce both finite and non-finite clauses:

7.3.4 The interaction between wh-movement and inversion

As we have seen, complementisers generally select for a particular type of CP complement, either finite or non-finite. Moreover, no other complementiser can introduce a non-finite clause with a missing subject:

7.3.4 The interaction between wh-movement and inversion

Yet Old English did not have main sentences that started with complementisers, indicating that whether never was a complementiser even in former stages of the language.

7.3.4 The interaction between wh-movement and inversion

But if whether is not a complementiser, what is it? It differs in one very large way from wh-elements and that is while wh-elements move out of a clause whether does not seem to. Wh-elements are all moved to the spec CP from some position inside the IP and therefore they are always associated with a ‘gap’ in the clause, filled, of course, by a trace:

7.3.4 The interaction between wh-movement and inversion

But whether is not linked to any position inside the IP from which it has moved. This, I think, is understandable in terms of the functions of wh-elements. Most wh-elements are used in wh-questions and their function is to mark the clause as an interrogative and to indicate what the focus of the question is. (60a), for example is a question about the object, which is the position from which the wh-element derives. As we said, the function of whether is to mark a yes–no question and these questions focus on the truth of the sentence rather than on any particular piece of information it may carry. For this reason, then, whether does not need to hold a position in the clause, it merely indicates the clause’s question status. We may assume therefore that whether is a wh-element that is generated directly in the specifier of CP as a general interrogative operator. As it appears in embedded contexts, it will be accompanied by an interrogative complementiser Q with which it agrees:

7.3.4 The interaction between wh-movement and inversion

Like other main clauses the complementiser position is empty and yet the null operator must agree with something to ensure the correct interpretation of the clause. This then is the trigger for the auxiliary inversion we see in yes–no main clauses. We end up then with a very uniform analysis of interrogatives in English: they all have an interrogative operator in the specifier position of the CP which agrees with the head. In main clauses the head cannot contain a complementiser, so an auxiliary is moved to C to enter into the agreement relationship. In subordinate clauses however, complementisers can appear and so there is no need for auxiliary inversion:

7.3.4 The interaction between wh-movement and inversion

A final issue we might mention in connection with this analysis concerns the embedded clauses. If embedded questions can have complementisers as well as wh-elements in their specifier positions, why do we never get them together?:

7.3.4 The interaction between wh-movement and inversion

This is a puzzle for which I have no real account. Apparently it is a very general condition that a CP can contain either an overt operator or an overt complementiser. We will see that this extends to other clauses too. Moreover, it appears not to be violated by an auxiliary moving to C. The condition has been known as the Doubly Filled COMP Filter since (1977) when it was introduced by Chomsky and Lasnik. However, this stipulatory account has never been superseded by anything more explanatory. I will therefore adopt the Doubly Filled COMP Filter as a condition on the well-formedness of structures in lieu of a proper explanation:

7.4.2 A comparison between relative and interrogative clauses

As pointed out, in many ways the relative clause has many properties in common with a wh-interrogative. But relative clauses are not interrogative, but declarative. This is clear both from their interpretation and the fact that they may start with the complementiser that which as we have seen, introduces declarative clauses. Thus, the wh-element which starts relative and interrogative clauses seems to have a different set of features: an interrogative pronoun is [+wh] and a relative pronoun is [–wh]. One might think therefore that they are entirely different lexical elements. This is supported by the fact that in some languages there are differences between relative and interrogative pronouns. In Hungarian for instance, there is a systematic difference with relative pronouns beginning with a‑:

7.4.2 A comparison between relative and interrogative clauses

Even so, there is still an obvious relationship between the two and so it probably would not be wise to claim them to be completely separate. It may be that wh-pronouns are lexically unmarked for the feature [±wh] and get this through the agreement with the appropriate complementiser, though this suggestion does not entirely square with the claim made earlier that in main clauses there is no complementiser for the interrogative pronoun to agree with.

7.4.2 A comparison between relative and interrogative clauses

There is another interesting difference between the use of interrogative and relative pronouns which shows that there is a possibility available for a relative pronoun that is not generally available with interrogatives. The restrictive relative is often noted to come in three different forms. One starts with a wh-relative pronoun and is called a wh-relative. Another starts with the complementiser that and is called a that-relative, and the third has nothing in front of the subject and is called a zero relative. These are exemplified below:

7.4.2 A comparison between relative and interrogative clauses

We should first counter a myth about that-relatives that prevails from traditional grammars. In these it is common to find that at the beginning of the relative clause referred to as a relative pronoun, thus suggesting that it be given the same treatment as wh-elements. If this is true, then this element originates inside the clause and moves to the specifier of CP, as do wh-elements. But there are many reasons to believe that this word is not a wh-element but is, as appearances predict, a simple complementiser. Firstly, note that as would be predicated on the assumption that it is a complementiser, that is only ever used in finite clauses and although wh-elements can marginally be used in non-finite clauses, that never is:

7.4.2 A comparison between relative and interrogative clauses

Instead, we can get a for complementiser in non-finite relatives, as would be expected:

7.4.2 A comparison between relative and interrogative clauses

If that is a complementiser in the that-relatives, then that-relatives and zero relatives are alike in that they do not contain a wh-element and the difference appears to be the standard ability of the complementiser to be overt or covert in a finite clause:

7.5 Other fronting movements

So far we have concentrated on movements which seem to specifically involve complementisers and their projections. However, there are movements in English which appear to move an element out of the IP but which do not involve the CP. This indicates that there are positions between the CP and the IP. In this final section of this chapter we will briefly investigate this part of the English clause structure.

7.5.1 Topicalisation

A complication is added by considering other examples. In embedded contexts, the topic does not precede the CP, but follows both the specifier and the head complementiser:

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 obviously follows the complementiser and so cannot be in specifier of CP. However, note that the fronted negation is still accompanied by auxiliary inversion and therefore there must be a head position to accommodate the auxiliary. This would suggest the following structure:

7.5.3 Negative fronting

Under these assumptions the negative phrase is fronted to the specifier of some phrase that comes between the complementiser and the IP. The head of this phrase is then where the inverted auxiliary sits.

7.5.3 Negative fronting

What is the nature of XP and how does it interact with the other movements we have reviewed? If we are to maintain our view that functional categories select for a very limited selection of complements, then as XP is the complement of a complementiser this argues that it is something like an IP. However, presumably X is a functional element itself and it takes an IP complement, which makes it more like a complementiser. Given that complementisers are categorised as [+F, –N, –V] and inflections are [+F, –N, +V] categories, a category which shares properties of them both would be [+F, –N], with an undefined V feature. Let us refer to this category a little ‘i’, reflecting the use of ‘v’ to represent a verbal element with an undefined F feature. This element heads an iP and so the structure can be represented as:

7.5.3 Negative fronting

We can account for the distribution of the topic if we suggest that it adjoins to the highest phrase that it can. In main clauses the topic can adjoin to the CP and therefore as this is the highest phrase, this is where the topic will adjoin. In embedded contexts, something prevents the topic from adjoining so high up. Perhaps there has to be a relationship between the selecting verb and the head of its complement clause, i.e. the complementiser, that the presence of the topic interferes with. In this case then the topic will have to adjoin lower down: to iP, if present, and if not, to IP.

7.5.3 Negative fronting

The difference however, between the fronted focus and the fronted negative is that the latter induces inversion to ‘i’, while the former does not. Referring back to the difference between wh-movement that triggers inversion and wh-movement that does not, we proposed that inversion is triggered when there is no head to agree with. In embedded interrogatives the complementiser position could be filled and hence there will be no inversion. If we project these ideas on to the current situation, we conclude that with focus the i head is filled by some abstract element but with negative fronting the head position is unfilled. We know that the negative head is a verbal element of the category ‘v’ and so it cannot be generated directly in i. The only way for the negative head to get to i is for it to move and yet we know that the negative is not able to move to I to support the inflection in English, as it is in Finnish. Thus, there is no way for the negative head to get to i and hence when a negative element moves to the specifier of iP it will induce inversion to provide a head for it.

Chapter8 The Syntax of Non-Finite Clauses

In this chapter we will concentrate on the non-finite clause and investigate syntactic phenomena that are exclusive to it. There is a surprising amount of this and the non-finite clause is a far more varied structure than its finite counterpart. Much of this variation concerns the subject which in many cases has connections with the verb selecting the non-finite clause as its complement. Thus the boundaries of the clause become blurred at this point. Most of the structures we will look at in this chapter are infinitives, which as they contain both a tensed element and a complementiser have the kind of structure we have been discussing over the previous chapters. Not all of them, however, have identical structures and the amount of functional structure they contain is one of the axes of variation between non-finite clauses. We end the chapter with a look at probably one of the strangest constructions in English, the gerund. This has been claimed to have a status somewhat similar to a mythical beast, being half one creature, half another. The gerund displays certain properties of clauses but also certain properties of DPs. This makes it a very interesting structure to analyse from the X-bar perspective which claims that the properties of a structure come from its head.

8.1.1 Clauses without CP

But while there certainly are non-finite clauses which fit this pattern, there are others for which bits and pieces of the structure appear to be missing. In some cases the complementiser is not only absent, but obligatorily so, which is very unlike the finite clause which has an optional complementiser:

8.1.1 Clauses without CP

There are even some cases of non-finite clause where not only is there no evidence of a complementiser or an inflection, but there isn’t even a verb:

8.1.1 Clauses without CP

What is the best analysis for these clauses with obligatorily missing parts? We will argue in this chapter that the missing elements are mostly not just null, but absent. We will start by considering those clauses with missing complementisers.

8.1.1 Clauses without CP

Moreover, in some non-finite clauses the subjects Case is dependent on the complementiser rather than the inflection. This can be seen by the fact that without the complementiser an accusative subject cannot appear:

8.1.1 Clauses without CP

Note that this has nothing to do with the finiteness of the complement clause, (10b) is just as ungrammatical as (10a) and the latter involves a non-finite clause. There is clearly a difference between verbs like believe which can take non-finite complement clauses with accusative subjects and verbs like hope which cannot. One observable difference between them is that hope can take a non-finite complement clause with a complementiser, but believe cannot:

8.1.1 Clauses without CP

One assumption that might solve a number of problems might be that with believe there is no CP, just an IP. This would account for the missing complementiser with such verbs, it would also place the subject of the non-finite clause a little nearer to the Case assigning light verb:

8.1.1 Clauses without CP

This means that the VP doesn’t act as a barrier to government. From observations given in (8) above, we can conclude that the for complementiser assigns Case to the subject of its non-finite clause complement, as the DP subject is only grammatical when the complementiser is present. If this is so, then IP does not count as a barrier either as the complementiser can Case mark the subject through the IP:

8.1.1 Clauses without CP

In all these cases the complementiser for would be ungrammatical if used to introduce the non-finite complement. All of these verbs also may have a finite complement clause, which is obviously a CP as the that complementiser can appear:

8.1.1 Clauses without CP

Presumably the reason why the subject cannot move out of the non-finite clause is because this is a CP, not an IP. Besides, passivising the verb would not affect the non-finite clause’s subject as this does not get its Case from the light verb, but from the complementiser. But if this is the reason why want does not passivise, then we must conclude that it has a CP complement, not an IP, i.e. it is not an exceptional verb. If the complement of want is a CP, then its subject must get its Case from a complementiser, but there is no complementiser visible in (21). However, the complementiser can be made visible by separating the clause from the verb by an intervening adjunct:

8.1.1 Clauses without CP

Presumably the reason why the subject cannot move out of the non-finite clause is because this is a CP, not an IP. Besides, passivising the verb would not affect the non-finite clause’s subject as this does not get its Case from the light verb, but from the complementiser. But if this is the reason why want does not passivise, then we must conclude that it has a CP complement, not an IP, i.e. it is not an exceptional verb. If the complement of want is a CP, then its subject must get its Case from a complementiser, but there is no complementiser visible in (21). However, the complementiser can be made visible by separating the clause from the verb by an intervening adjunct:

8.1.1 Clauses without CP

Thus we may conclude that want takes a CP complement with a complementiser that may be null. Why the complementiser is null when the clause is adjacent to the verb and why it becomes overt when it is not, is a complete mystery.

8.2.1 Raising

A first issue to decide on is whether the embedded clause has the status of a CP or an IP. We saw in the previous section that some verbs select for IP non-finite complement clauses while others do not. The question we need to answer, then, is whether verbs like seem are exceptional verbs or not. There is reason to believe that these verbs are exceptional, as they never take a non-finite complement with a for complementiser:

8.2.1 Raising

A possible explanation for this fact could be that the clause is an IP and hence there is no position for the complementiser. Let us assume this to be correct.

8.2.2 Control

Similarly, PRO will not be able to appear with a for complementiser, which we have argued assigns Case to the subject position of the non-finite clause that it introduces:

8.2.2 Control

In such cases, if the complementiser is absent, the sentence is grammatical:

8.3 The Gerund

There are a few prepositions which appear to be able to take IP complements (e.g. since, before, after, etc.), but then it might be that these are kinds of complementisers rather than prepositions.