Basic English Syntax with Exercises

finite verb form

1.3.5.1 Inflections

There are two points of interest. First, when a modal does appear in a finite clause, the verb does not appear in its finite (tensed) form:

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:

2.2.1 The subject

When the subject refers to either the speaker or the addressee, what we call first and second person, the finite verb in present tense shows no overt morphology. The same is true when the subject is plural. However, when the subject is third person (referring neither to the speaker nor the addressee) and singular the present tense verb inflects with an ‘s’. This morpheme not only shows the tense therefore, but also the nature of the subject: that it is third person singular. This phenomenon is known as agreement: we say that the verb agrees with the subject.

2.2.1 The subject

Thus agreement is a relationship that holds between the subject and the finite verb.

6.1 The structure of IP

However, the traditional assumption is challenged by the analysis in (4), where it is claimed that clauses most definitely do have heads. There is much evidence to support this. Firstly consider the relationship between the inflection and the clause. The inflections come in two basic types: finite and non-finite. The finite inflections consist of the modal auxiliaries and tense morphemes. The infinitival marker to is non-finite, but we also get clauses, traditionally called participles, in which the inflection on the highest verbal element is either ing or en (or one of its irregular versions):

6.2.4 Movement to tense and I

However, these approaches are based on the assumption that the position of the adverb is rigidly fixed and so if the verb follows the adverb it must be inside the vP. But we have seen that adverbial placement is not so rigid, although it is subject to some restrictions. It would seem to me to be more straightforward to assume that in the case of a finite main verb, the verb does occupy the inflection position and what needs accounting for is the position of the adverb.