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).

Chapter6 Inflectional Phrases

6.1 The structure of IP

6.3 Movement to Spec IP

6.4 Adjunction within IP

Chapter7 Complementiser Phrases

In this chapter we continue to present the parts of the English clause, extending it further upwards. So far we have seen that the clause has a number of layers to it, relating to certain syntactic and semantic properties. The lower layer consists of the thematic part of the VP, including the Θ-assigning light verbs, which concern argument and event structure. Above this we have the non-thematic part of the verb phrase where the morphemes of aspect and tense are introduced. Finally above this we have the IP in which agreement and modal auxiliaries are situated. The IP also provides the surface Case position for the grammatical subject.

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

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

That the complementiser is not inside the IP itself can be demonstrated by the fact that it is possible to pronominalise the IP without the complementiser and we can coordinate two IPs separate from the complementiser:

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

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

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

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

In the next chapter we will argue that these are exceptional verbs and do not behave like the others in that they take IP non-finite complements. Exceptions aside however, the conclusion is that the majority of non-finite complement clauses seem to be, like the finite ones, CPs. Hence a general conclusion seems to be that complement clauses are always CPs.

7.3.1 Basic positions within the CP

Apart from (18a) where the wh-element replaces the subject, all other instances of wh-questions involve the wh-element being in front of the subject. Given that the subject’s surface position is the specifier of the IP, this indicates that the wh-element sits in a position outside the IP. Above the IP is the CP, so we may assume that the wh-element is situated in the CP. As wh-elements are phrases, probably DPs, though some of them have underlying distributions similar to PPs and therefore are either PPs or perhaps DPs non-canonically realising the prepositional role, they must occupy a phrasal position in the CP and the most obvious choice would be the specifier of the CP:

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:

7.3.2 Wh-movement

The main issue to be discussed is why wh-elements move to the specifier of the CP. We have seen that movement of DPs to the specifier of IP is motivated by the need to circumvent the actions of the Case filter. But this cannot be the motivation for wh-movements. This can be argued for from a number of perspectives. First note that wh-movement does not always involve DPs, unlike movements to spec IP. As the Case filter concerns only the distribution of DPs, it cannot be the motivation for all wh-movements and there must be another reason for why non-DP wh-elements, at least, undergo the process. Moreover, the Case filter cannot be the motivation for DP wh-elements moving to spec CP. This is because DP wh-elements move to spec CP from Case positions:

7.3.2 Wh-movement

We have seen in a number of previous places that the head and the specifier have a special relationship. In the IP where the subject sits in the specifier and the agreement morpheme sits in the head position, the two elements ‘agree’ with each other in terms of number and person features. Thus if the subject is a third person singular element, then the agreement will be third person singular and determine that the finite morpheme ‘s’ will show up on the verb. In the DP, the possessor sits in the specifier position and this can only be accompanied by a determiner that ‘agrees’ with it in terms of possession. We might assume therefore that the CP will be no different and that the head and its specifier will enter into an agreement relationship, presumably in terms of the [+wh] feature. So, if the specifier has this feature, so will the head. Of course, if the head has the feature, then it will project it to the CP and this will be interpreted as an interrogative clause, and hence the wh-specifier can indeed influence the interpretation of the clause in a round-about manner:

7.3.2 Wh-movement

The movement of the wh-element to spec CP therefore seems to have an interpretative motivation, which contrasts with the grammatical motivation of the movement to spec IP. There are other differences between the movements, which we will look at in the next chapter. We may, for now, simply identify the kind of Case filter/grammatically motivated movement as A-movement (A stands for ‘argument’ as it is only argument DPs which undergo it) and the kind of semantically motivated movement, such as wh-movement, as Ā-movement (? means ‘not argument’).

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:

7.3.5 Subject questions

In (67a) both the wh-subject and the auxiliary are in the IP and do not move to the CP. In (67b) the wh-subject moves to the specifier of CP but the auxiliary does not move and in (67c) both the subject and the auxiliary move. But which one is correct and how can we know? From all that we have said above, one might hope that (67c) is accurate as only in this is the CP specifier filled with a wh-element and the head filled by something it can agree with. However, doubt is cast on this conclusion from the following phenomena:

7.3.5 Subject questions

We have seen restrictions like this before. The adverb, for example must be above the verb and the negation must be above the verb but below the tense. It seems that the verb must be below the subject and hence when the subject is in spec IP the verb can be no higher than I. However, when the subject moves to spec CP the verb can move to C and still remain lower than the subject. When the verb cannot move from I to C there is no choice other than to insert the auxiliary do. However, it appears that the dummy auxiliary is not enough by itself to provide the wh-element with something to agree with, thus the auxiliary must be inserted in to tense and move from there to I and from there to C to provide enough semantic content to support the agreement. The verb stays behind in the VP:

7.4.2 A comparison between relative and interrogative clauses

If this is true, then the same must be true of all relatives, including that and zero ones. The fact that we cannot detect a wh-element in these relatives suggests that they should be analysed as containing an empty wh-element, similar to the empty operator in yes–no questions, but this time behaving like the type of wh-element that originates inside the IP and moves to the spec of CP:

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

So far we have claimed that AP modifiers of VP and of the clause are adjoined to various places inside the IP. There is another position in which we can find both VP and sentential adverbs which appears to be outside the IP altogether:

7.5.1 Topicalisation

Thus it seems that there are two topic positions in the clause, one adjoined to the CP and one adjoined to the IP. The choice of the two is not free however as it is only in main clauses that the topic can adjoin to the CP and only in embedded clauses that the topic can adjoin to IP:

7.5.1 Topicalisation

Conditional clauses also have a similar distribution and hence we might claim that they are CP and IP adjuncts:

7.5.1 Topicalisation

Moreover, conditional clauses are not associated with any particular position inside the main clause, unlike topics. Therefore we can conclude that conditionals are generated in these positions whereas topics are moved to these positions from various places within the IP.

7.5.2 Focus fronting

From this perspective, it seems as though the focus sits in a similar position to the topic, adjoined to the IP in embedded contexts. This assumption is also problematic, as if both the topic and the focus were adjoined to IP, one might expect them to be able to appear in any order. But this is not so:

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.

7.6 Conclusion

In this chapter we have introduced the final part of the clause structure of the English sentence. This part of the structure, built on top of the IP serves a number of purposes, but collectively seems to be to do with the syntactic arrangement of operators of one type or another. With wh-movement, both in interrogative clauses and relative clauses, the wh-element is an operator with either quantifier-like or anaphoric function. The interpretation of this element is dependent on movement which has a dual role, both to mark the clause as having a special interpretation (as an interrogative or relative) and to establish a relationship between that interpretation and a position in the clause itself. Hence, questions can be seen to be ‘about’ the subject or the clause, etc. and relatives can relate the modified noun to the object of the clause, etc. Focus and negative fronting may also have a similar function in that their interpretation is quantifier-like. Topicalisation, although not quantificational, may be seen as anaphoric in that the topic refers to some element established in the discourse.

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

But if neither VP nor IP is a barrier to government, then we expect that the Case marking relationship depicted in (12) should be perfectly possible. There is no reason however to believe that any element can assign Case from outside a CP to any element within the CP and indeed it is a standard assumption that CP does count as a barrier to government. This supports the assumption that the non-finite complement clause of a verb like believe has an IP status and is not a full CP.

8.1.1 Clauses without CP

Given that clauses are normally CPs, a clause which only has an IP status is an exception. Hence, such clauses are known as exceptional clauses and the verbs which take exceptional clauses as their complements, i.e. verbs like believe, are known as exceptional verbs. Finally the process of assigning Case to the subject of an exceptional clause is sometimes called Exceptional Case Marking, or ECM for short.

8.1.1 Clauses without CP

In conclusion, we can see that there is a class of verbs which subcategorise for exceptional non-finite IP complements. These clauses have subjects which are dependent on the light verb of the governing verb for their Case. Therefore these subjects bear accusative Case. Moreover these subjects are affected by the passivisation of the governing verb which robs them of their Case assigner. Hence they will undergo a movement to the subject position of the higher clause, just like the object of the passive verb does.

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:

8.1.2 Clauses without IP

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.

8.2.1 Raising

Here, the verb first moves to the tense position, and then into the I to support the bound tense and agreement morphemes. The subject in its D-structure position is Caseless, so it moves into the vacant specifier of the IP where it is assigned nominative Case.

8.2.1 Raising

Another structure which bears a remarkable similarity to raising structures concerns the passive exceptional verb. From what we know about the properties of exceptional verbs and the process of passivisation, it can be predicted that they will behave very much like raising verbs. As we know, an exceptional verb can take a non-finite IP complement. Normally there will be an accompanying light verb and this will assign Case to the DP subject of the complement clause. When we passivise a verb, we replace the light verb with the passive morpheme, which neither assigns a Θ-role to the subject, nor a Case to the complement. This, then, is the same set of properties that raising verbs have. We can see that such verbs do indeed behave like raising verbs:

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.

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.