Basic English Syntax with Exercises

covert

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.

7.3.4 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

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:

7.4.2 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: