Basic English Syntax with Exercises

object position

2.2.2 The object

In the same way that subjects tend to have a Case form associated with them, so too do objects. The object, when it sits in object position and is not moved to the subject position as in (60), always appears in its accusative Case:

2.3.2 Movement

One way to account for this interpretation is to claim that the wh-element does not start in the clause initial position, but is moved to this position from the object position. In this way we can claim that what IS the object and hence account for its interpretation. The movement may be indicated thus:

2.3.2 Movement

These interrogative elements are called wh-elements as they tend to be spelled with the letters w and h at the beginning, though this does not reflect the current pronunciation of these words. In the above example, the wh-element can be categorised as a DP, originating from object position, which is a DP position. We can also find wh-APs and PPs:

3.2 Theoretical Aspects of Movement

But in (46) the object appears to be missing. This is not a case of an ‘understood’ object, where the argument is present at a semantic level, as it is fairly obvious that the interrogative pronoun who has the grammatical function of the object. Yet, this pronoun is not sitting in the canonical object position, the complement of the verb, directly after it. Indeed, the interrogative pronoun is occupying a position that no other object can occupy:

3.2 Theoretical Aspects of Movement

The obvious questions to ask are: why is the object sitting at the front of the sentence in (46)?; and how is the interrogative pronoun interpreted as an object when it is not sitting in an object position? As to the first question the obvious answer is that it has something to do with the interrogative nature of the clause: the clause is a question and interrogative clauses of this kind start with an interrogative phrase such as who.

3.2 Theoretical Aspects of Movement

In (49a), the pronoun him is interpreted as the object as it is sitting in the complement position. Harry on the other hand is the subject and is sitting in a specifier position. In (49b) it is the other way round: He is the subject, sitting in the specifier position, and Harry is the object, sitting in the complement position. If who in (46) is interpreted as object, we should expect it to occupy the object position. The grammar that we will be adopting in this book assumes that this is exactly the case: the interrogative pronoun does indeed sit in the object position at some level of description of this sentence. However, at another level of description, the interrogative pronoun is in another position, one at the beginning of the clause. The assumption then is that this element undergoes a movement which takes it from the object position into the sentence initial position.

3.2.1 Move α

In the first case in (50) we have a passive sentence in which the subject is interpreted as the object: the water was what was wasted, not what did the wasting. We might claim that in this case the object moves from object position into subject position:

3.2.2.1 D-structure and Theta Theory

Turning to D-structure first, an important consideration which has been present in all developments of this concept, first proposed by Noam Chomsky in the 1950s, is that D-structure positions are somehow basic. For example, in a passive sentence, what sits in the subject position at S-structure is interpreted as the object of the verb and hence is assumed to occupy the object position at D-structure:

3.2.2.1 D-structure and Theta Theory

The idea is that the way an element is interpreted in terms of its thematic status indicates its D-structure position and thus if something is interpreted as an object it will be in an object position at D-structure. Moreover, an element that is interpreted as the subject or object of a predicate will be in the relevant subject or object position of that predicate at D-structure:

3.2.2.1 D-structure and Theta Theory

In this example, although Ken is sitting in the subject position of the verb consider, this element is interpreted as the object of confused and thus is in the object position of this predicate at D-structure.

3.2.2.1 D-structure and Theta Theory

D-structure then is a pure representation of thematic relations. Anything which is interpreted as the subject or object of a given predicate will be in the subject or object position of that predicate at D-structure no matter where it is found at S-structure.

3.2.2.1 D-structure and Theta Theory

It is a long standing assumption that there is a uniformity in Θ-role assignment which links certain Θ-roles to certain positions. The reason why the object is assumed to move in a passive sentence is precisely because of this assumption. In an active sentence the object occupies the object position, following the verb, and so it is assumed that in the passive sentence the argument that is interpreted identically to the object in the active originates from the same position that we see it in in the active:

3.2.2.2 S-structure and Case Theory

The pronoun is in the subject of a finite clause and so naturally is in the nominative. However, as this clause is passive, the pronoun originates from the object position at D-structure. But this fact does not seem to have any bearing on the case of the pronoun: the pronoun is nominative not accusative as a non-moved object would be. Clearly, then, it is the position that a pronoun sits in at S-structure that determines its case. We might claim therefore that there are positions which are Case positions, specifically nominative positions and accusative positions, and there are positions which are not Case positions.

3.2.2.2 S-structure and Case Theory

But if there are nominative and accusative case positions, what are we to say about the non-pronominal DPs that sit in these positions as no other DP demonstrates morphological Case distinctions? There are two things that we might say. One is that Case positions are only Case positions when occupied by a pronominal DP. This would be rather difficult to arrange however, as it appears that apart from the fact that Cases are only visible on pronominals, what defines Case positions is fairly general: the subject of a finite clause is nominative, the object position of a verb or preposition is accusative and the subject position of a non-finite clause is accusative. It is not clear how to include the presence of the pronominal into the definition of a case position.

3.2.2.2 S-structure and Case Theory

The third person singular masculine pronoun demonstrates a Case distinction between subject and object position in (86), but not the pronoun it. It would be extremely difficult to account for why Case positions are only defined in the presence of pronouns, except for it and would be much better to say that the Case position is defined in the presence of it but this pronoun does not realise the distinction overtly. In other words, it is the nominative form of this pronoun and it is the accusative form. But once we have accepted this as a possibility it is reasonable to accept it for all other nominal elements as well.

3.2.2.2 S-structure and Case Theory

One way to view this situation is to separate two notions of Case. One notion of Case, relating to the traditional view, is that Case has to do with the form a nominal element takes dependent on its position or, in some languages, its function in a sentence. We can call this phenomenon Morphological case. The other view of Case is that this is something a DP gets simply by occupying a certain structural position, whether or not it is realised overtly. We call this Abstract Case, or just Case (spelled with a capital). From this perspective then, any DP that occupies the subject position of a finite clause has nominative Case irrespective of whether that DP looks different from what it would if it were sitting in an object position and bearing accusative Case.

3.2.3 Traces

Now consider the nature of the empty object in (92b): the extraction site of the moved object. By the Projection Principle, this object position must remain in the structure and cannot be deleted otherwise the transitive verb would find itself without an object and hence would be sitting in the structural position of an intransitive verb. As this would alter the lexical nature of the verb, we conclude that it would be impossible. Yet if this position were simply vacant, like the subject position is at D-structure, we might expect that it could be the landing site for some other moved element. This, it turns out, is not true at all. Consider the following analysis which indicates several movements step by step:

3.2.3 Traces

The S-structure representations here demonstrate the movement of an interrogative pronoun from two different D-structure positions, marked by the trace. In (97a) who moved from object position and hence the sentence is interpreted as a question about the one who was helped. In (97b) on the other hand who moves from the subject position and hence the question is about the one who does the helping.

3.2.3 Traces

In these examples, the trace and the pronoun sit in object positions and refer to the subject in much the same way. From this perspective, the trace can be seen as having properties of its own independent of the moved element. We will see that there is some truth to this idea. However, traces are not like pronouns in one important way. As we see in (98b), the pronoun and its antecedent represent two different arguments, though they both refer to the same individual. Thus Harry is interpreted as the one who does the helping and himself is interpreted as the one who gets helped. With the trace in (98b) however, there is only one argument interpreted here: the one who was cheated. Because the verb is passivised, the subject’s Θ-role is not present and so no element is interpreted as agent. Thus, it is as though the trace and the moved element share the same Θ-role, which strictly speaking should not be possible due to the Theta Criterion. From this perspective, the trace and the moved element seem to be interpreted as a single element, capable of bearing a single Θ-role. This single element is, however, spread out across a number of positions in a structure.

5.2.4.1 Evidence from passives

Even under a less strict view of the UTAH than we are attempting to keep to here, one would like to assume that the object is generated in the same place in active sentences and their passive counterparts. This has been the assumption since the beginning of generative grammar in the 1950s. Thus, the object is generated in object position in the passive, but moves to the subject position. Presumably the only reason it would do this is to get Case. Thus while in the active structure the object gets Case in object position, this ceases to be a Case position in the passive and hence not only does a passive verb lose its subject, it also loses the accusative Case assigned to its object. Again, these are fairly standard assumptions about the analysis of the passive which have been proposed since the 1980s.

7.3.2 Wh-movement

The wh-element in (27a) moves from an object position, from the object of a preposition in (27b) and from a finite clause subject position in (27c). All these are Case positions, so the Case filter cannot explain why the movement took place.

8.2.1 Raising

As we have seen, with certain verbs a subject which is generated in one clause can move into the subject position of a higher clause. This movement is known as raising as the subject always moves from a lower clause to a higher one and never the other way round. The conditions on raising are that the moved element must originate in a non-finite clause and it must be the subject of that clause. Thus, we do not find raising out of finite clauses or raising directly out of object positions:

8.2.1 Raising

Next, consider the restrictions on the movement shown in (52b) and (c). The subject of the embedded clause cannot undergo raising if it is in a finite clause, or in an object position. In both of these cases, the DP is sitting in a Case position, therefore regardless of any other restriction, there would be little point in it moving to the specifier of the higher clause as once it has satisfied the Case Filter, it does not need to do so again. We might assume a kind of laziness to the system (some call it ‘economy’) such that if something doesn’t need to happen, it will not happen. If the clause is finite and hence the subject gets nominative from the finite inflection, then the higher subject position will be unfilled. It is under these circumstances that the EPP will force the insertion of a pleonastic subject:

8.2.2 Control

It does not ever appear in the subject position of a finite clause, the object position or the object of a preposition: