2.1.6 Labels

There are also other phrases associated with the verb (VPs), with adjectives (APs) and indeed with every kind of word category that we have discussed (noun phrases – NPs, inflectional phrases – IPs, CPs and degree adverb phrases – DegPs).

Chapter7 Complementiser Phrases

7.1 The structure of CP

7.2 The Clause as CP

7.3 Interrogative CPs

7.3.1 Basic positions within the CP

8.1.1 Clauses without CP

8.1.2 Clauses without IP

If some clauses can lack CPs, the question naturally arises as to how small clauses can get. Recall that clauses are structured in various layers, each of which adds something to the interpretation of the whole clause. But the basic proposition is expressed by a predicate and its arguments. As the predicate does not have to be a verb a basic proposition can be expressed with no verbal element at all:

8.1.2 Clauses without IP

But what kind of a clause lacks a VP, let alone a CP or an IP? Moreover, what is the categorial status of such clauses?

8.1.2 Clauses without IP

Besides the problem that under this analysis the head of the predicate is not the head of the clause, a major problem facing it is that it forces us to assume that the inflection can subcategorise for a whole set of different complements, ranging from DPs to PPs. But functional heads do not normally display this amount of freedom in their complement taking abilities. In all the cases we have considered so far, the agreement head selects for a v/VP complement, i.e. complements with [–N, +V] features. But if I can select for DP, AP and PP complements as well, i.e. [+F, +N, –V], [–F, +N, +V] and [–F, –N, –V], this must mean that it imposes no categorial conditions on its complement whatsoever. This is not true as bare NPs, non-thematic vPs, IPs and CPs cannot act as predicates inside small clauses:

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:

8.2.2 Control

So far, I have remained uncommitted about the status of the clause that contains PRO: is it a CP or is it an IP? Under both assumptions that PRO cannot sit in Case positions or that it can only sit in Null Case positions we have to ensure that the place where it can be found is not assigned a full Case from an element outside the clause. We have seen that as PRO cannot be the subject of an exceptional clause it must be assumed that this is not possible. One way to ensure that nothing else can assign Case to the place occupied by PRO is to assume that it is protected by a CP. Recall that a governor can govern up to a CP, but not through it as CP acts as a barrier to government. For this reason then, we will assume that all clauses containing a PRO subject are CPs and not IPs.