1.3 A Typology of Word Categories

Having introduced some of the basic concepts, let us now turn to look at what categories we need to refer to in the description of a language like English. In generative linguistics it is often seen as a positive aim to keep basic theoretical equipment to a bare minimum and not to expand these unnecessarily. This can be seen in the standard approach to word categories in terms of the attempt to keep these to as small a number as possible. In the present book we will mainly be concerned with eight basic categories. These come in two general types: thematic categories and functional categories. In the thematic categories we have verbs (V), nouns (N), adjectives (A) and prepositions (P) and in the functional categories there are inflections (I), determiners (D), degree adverbs (Deg) and complementisers (C). Thus we have the following classification system:

1.3.1 Categorial features

This is fortunate as there is one more thematic category left to be included into the system: the prepositions. Thus we can claim that prepositions fill this slot:

1.3.1 Categorial features

However, this cannot be put down to good fortune. After all, categorising elements in terms of these features has consequences concerning what other categories are related to or different from these elements. Note that the feature combination in (29) predicts that while prepositions differ from nouns in that they are [–N], they are similar to nouns in that they are [–V]. Similarly, prepositions differ from verbs in being [–V], but they share the [–N] feature with them. Thus prepositions are predicted to be similar to nouns and verbs, but in a different way to how adjectives are similar to these categories. Indeed, while prepositions do not have similar distribution patterns as verbs, as do adjectives, they share another property with verbs. Consider the following observations:

1.3.1 Categorial features

In (30), we see that both verbs (see) and prepositions (to) can be followed by a word such as him, which is a pronoun. Nouns (portrait) and adjectives (mindful) cannot. We might claim therefore that the ability to be followed by a pronoun is restricted to the [–N] categories. Now consider the following:

1.3.1 Categorial features

As shown in (31), a noun like Sally and a preposition such as underneath can sit in the position between the words was and that in this English construction, known as a cleft construction. However, an adjective (stupid) and a verb (fishing) cannot occupy this position. We might claim therefore that this position can only be occupied by [–V] categories.

1.3.1 Categorial features

We see from the discussion above the predictive power of the system that we have set up: the system predicted that there should be a fourth thematic category that has certain properties and these fit the category of prepositions very well. We can take this as evidence in favour of this system of features. What else does the system predict? It is clearly predicted that if we add a third binary feature to the two we have just been discussing, then a further four categories will be defined. This again matches perfectly with the description of categories we started this section with, as seen in (23). With the third feature, [±F], there should be four functional categories which match the four thematic categories in terms of their feature settings for [±N] and [±V]. We have already seen how determiners and modals can be analysed as functional nouns and functional verbs, respectively. The expectation is that degree adverbs, such as so and too, and complementisers, such as that and if, should be related to adjectives and prepositions in the same way. As degree adverbs modify adjectives in a very similar way to how determiners modify nouns, it is not difficult to conclude that degree adverbs are functional adjectives. This leaves complementisers to fill the final place as functional prepositions. There is evidence in favour of this assumption, but it rests on notions not yet introduced, so we will have to wait until later to demonstrate it.

1.3.2 Predicates and arguments

To complete the picture, it should also be pointed out that Prepositions too can act as predicates:

1.3.2 Predicates and arguments

In this example, the arguments the house and the hill are related by a relation expressed by the preposition on. Thus we can propose the following lexical entry for this preposition:

1.3.4.1 Verbs

What we see by these examples is that different verbs are followed by different complements. The verb await must be followed by a nominal complement (i.e. one expressed with a noun: his trial) whereas the verb wait must be followed by a prepositional complement (expressed with a preposition: for his trial). Although there is often a connection between the thematic interpretation of the complement argument and its category, patients tend to be nominal and locations tend to be expressed by prepositional complements for example, it is not always possible to predict the category of the complement from its thematic role. In (68) for example, the two complements seem to be interpreted fairly similarly, but still they are expressed by complements of different categorial statuses. It follows that the category of the complement should be stated as a separate piece of information in a verb’s lexical entry:

1.3.4.1 Verbs

What is represented in these lexical entries is that the two verbs are both two-place predicates taking agent and goal (something that an action is directed towards) arguments, but that the goal of await must be nominal while that of wait must be prepositional. The part of the lexical entry that states the categorial status of the complement is known as a subcategorisation frame. Thus a lexical entry for a typical verb will consist of a theta-grid and a subcategorisation frame in addition to phonological and semantic information.

1.3.4.1 Verbs

A further type takes both a nominal and a prepositional complement, known as complex transitive verbs:

1.3.4.2 Nouns

As seems clear, most nouns that are formed from verbs take exactly the same complements as the original verb does. The one difference can be seen in (87e) where the verb takes a nominal complement while the noun takes a prepositional one. Note that the verb and its complement express exactly the same relationship as the noun and its complement: in both cases it is ‘the bomb’ that gets detonated. Thus, the preposition of in the case of the noun complement does not seem to add anything of a semantic nature. Moreover, this is an entirely regular process – any verb that has a nominal complement will take a prepositional complement (with of) when it is formed into a noun:

1.3.4.2 Nouns

This inability to take nominal complements is something nouns share with adjectives, as we shall see. Verbs pattern with prepositions in this respect. Thus we can claim that whatever property it is that allows verbs and prepositions to take nominal complements, it is connected to the [–N] feature that they both share. The [+N] categories (nouns and adjectives) obviously lack this property.

1.3.4.3 Adjectives

A final argument for seeing adjectives and adverbs as being of the same category has to do with the system of categorisation introduced in the preceding section. Above we pointed out that while verbs are able to take nominal complements, nouns are not. Adjectives are like nouns in this respect. For example, when we derive an adjective from a transitive verb, the adjective must take a prepositional complement, not a nominal one:

1.3.4.3 Adjectives

If we assume that this property is related to the [+N] feature, then we can account for why nouns and adjectives pattern alike in this respect, as both are [+N] categories. Note that prepositions and verbs, the [–N] categories, can have nominal complements. Adverbs behave like nouns and adjectives in not being able to have nominal complements:

1.3.4.3 Adjectives

In this example, both the adjective (independent) and the adverb (independently) take the same prepositional complement. In other cases, however, this does not seem to work:

1.3.4.4 Prepositions

1.3.5.4 Complementisers

The remaining set of categorial features that has not been assigned to a category is [+F, –N, –V], that is ‘functional prepositions’. One argument for treating complementisers as functional prepositions is the fact that at least one of them, for, has certain prepositional properties (it is sometimes called the prepositional complementiser). Note that prepositions take nominal complements that are always in the accusative Case, and never in the nominative:

1.3.5.4 Complementisers

The remaining set of categorial features that has not been assigned to a category is [+F, –N, –V], that is ‘functional prepositions’. One argument for treating complementisers as functional prepositions is the fact that at least one of them, for, has certain prepositional properties (it is sometimes called the prepositional complementiser). Note that prepositions take nominal complements that are always in the accusative Case, and never in the nominative:

1.3.5.4 Complementisers

We will be examining these observations in more detail later on in the book, but for now we can take the observations as support for the categorisation of complementisers as types of preposition. Indeed, we may even take this as evidence that complementisers should be [–N] elements as it is this feature that is responsible for the accusative nature of the following nominal, as discussed above.

1.3.5.4 Complementisers

Another argument in favour of categorising complementisers as functional prepositions is that both prepositional elements and clauses introduced by a complementiser undergo a syntactic process known as post-posing, where they appear to be moved to the end of the main clause:

1.3.6 Functionally underspecified categories

If there is a non-functional non-thematic verb, then it is predicted that there must be non-functional non-thematic nouns, adjectives and prepositions. To what extent is this prediction fulfilled? There are nouns which do not appear to behave like thematic nouns and yet are clearly not categorised as determiners either. Consider the following examples:

1.3.6 Functionally underspecified categories

The complements of measure nouns are always prepositional, though specifically the preposition of is always involved. We are not yet in a position to clearly see the details of what this implies, so we will not pursue the issue at this point. The following lexical entries are an approximation of what is necessary to more precisely capture their true nature:

1.3.6 Functionally underspecified categories

Finally, we turn to non-thematic non-functional prepositions. There are elements which appear to be prepositions, but which do not play a role in the thematic structure of the clause. For example, we have introduced the use of the preposition of in situations such as the following:

1.3.6 Functionally underspecified categories

As we pointed out, nouns and adjectives seem not to be able to take nominal complements and hence the preposition of is inserted so that the complement is prepositional instead. This preposition plays no role in the thematic interpretation of these constructions however, the thematic relations hold between the noun or the adjective and the following nominal element. Another such preposition is the by which is found in passive clauses:

1.3.6 Functionally underspecified categories

However, these prepositional elements, though apparently non-thematic, are not complementisers, as they do not introduce clauses. We therefore categorise them as prepositions which are unmarked for the F feature. Thus, they are non-thematic, but also non-functional prepositions, categorised as [–N, –V]. Like most prepositional elements they take nominal complements:

2.1.2 Phrases

Indeed, once we recognise the notion of a phrase, we can see them in many positions. For example, a string consisting of the preposition on and its nominal complement Wednesday can be replaced by the noun yesterday demonstrating that they have the same distribution. Thus, on Wednesday is also a phrase in the sentence:

2.1.6 Labels

Clearly this phrase must be different from the previous two. We will see in the next chapter that the identity of a phrase is determined by one of the words it contains. This word is known as the head of the phrase. It will be argued later on in this book that the head of phrases such as the postwoman is the determiner and the head of phrases such as on his birthday is the preposition. Thus, we distinguish between determiner phrases (DPs) and preposition phrases (PPs).

2.1.7 Rules

Such rules are known as rewrite rules as they describe how to draw a tree by ‘re-writing’ the symbol on the left of the arrow for the symbols on the right. Thus, if we start with the S at the top of the tree diagram we can rewrite this as a DP and a VP. The VP can be re-written as a verb, a DP and a PP and the PP as a preposition and a DP. The DPs can then be re-written as determiners followed by nouns.

2.2.1 The subject

In (43a) the pronouns are the subject of the finite clause and are in their nominative forms, in (43b) they act as the complement of the verb (a position which we will return to), in (43c), complement of a preposition and in (43d) subject of a non-finite clause containing the infinitive marker to, and they are in their accusative forms.

2.2.2 The object

We have also seen that the object is a more limited complement in some ways. For example, Verbs and Prepositions have objects, but nouns and adjectives do not:

2.2.2 The object

The object following the preposition is called a prepositional object.

2.2.2 The object

Quite what determines when a prepositional object may undergo this movement and when it may not is not well understood. It seems to have something to do with the relationship between the verb that is passivised and the preposition whose object moves: the closer the relationship, the more likely the object will be able to move. Thus the at preposition in (65) is closely related to the verb, heading the PP complement of this verb. The near preposition in (66) does not head a PP complement, but a PP that modifies the verb. Modification is not such a close relationship as it is not indicated in a head’s lexical entry, but can be fairly freely be added to any appropriate head.

2.3.1 Substitution

This shows us that the string of words, under his mitre forms a constituent of the sentence, but the category of this constituent is not so easy to determine from the category of its replacement. We might suppose that there is a pronoun and therefore it replaces DPs, but this constituent is made up of a preposition (under) followed by a DP (his mitre) which does not distribute like a DP:

2.3.1 Substitution

In our discussion so far we have shown that whole DPs can be replaced by a pronoun and, indeed, that a PP can be replaced by the prepositional ‘pronoun’ there. But for VP we have used intransitive verb to demonstrate the distributional properties of the phrase. Is there a ‘pronoun’ for a VP? I may be that the words do so function as a kind of pronominal replacement for VPs, though its use is a little more restricted than other pronouns:

2.3.3 Coordination

There are other phenomena besides distribution that can also be used to support structural analyses. One of these involves coordination. This is a device used in language to take two elements and put them together to form a single element. This coordinated element then acts like the two coordinated elements would have individually. For example, we can take two nouns, say Bill and Ben, and we can coordinate them into a single element Bill and Ben. This coordinated element behaves exactly like each of the nouns in that it can appear as subject, object, object of a preposition or topic in a sentence:

3.1.1 Rewrite rules and some terminology

Recall from chapter 2, rewrite rules which tell us how structures of various kinds decompose into their constituent parts. The rules in (1) are like these, only far more general. The generality is achieved through the use of category variables, X and Y, which stand for any possible category (nouns, verbs, prepositions, determiners, etc.). Thus these rules tell us how phrases in general are structured, not how particular VPs, PPs or DPs are.

3.1.2 Endocentricity

In other words, a preposition phrase which behaves as an adverbial phrase is an adverb phrase headed by the preposition. Clearly this is something that would not be allowed by the X-bar rules in (1). Evidence favours the X-bar perspective and there is no reason to believe that just because something functions adverbially it is categorially the same as an adverb. For example, even when PPs are used adverbially, they still have different distributions to AP:

3.1.2 Endocentricity

As we see in (9), a PP modifier of a verb must follow it, while an AP modifier may precede or follow it, even if the two modifiers have virtually the same interpretation. Thus a phrase headed by a preposition has a different categorial status to one headed by an adverb, supporting the X-bar claim that phrases have heads of the appropriate kind.

3.1.3 Heads and Complements

This restriction clearly does not come from the X-bar rules as these state that complements can be of any category, which in general is absolutely true. But in specific cases, there must be specific complements. Again it is properties of heads which determine this. Recall that part of the lexical entry for a word concerns its subcategorisation. The subcategorisation frame of a lexical element tells us what kind of complement there can be. For fall, for instance, it is specified that the complement is prepositional:

3.1.3 Heads and Complements

As we know that the complement must be prepositional, we also know by the general principles of X-bar theory that only a preposition could be inserted into the head position of this phrase and the lexical properties of this head will, in turn, impose restrictions on what can appear in its complement position:

3.1.3 Heads and Complements

In this structure, off is inserted into the head position of the PP complement of the verb and as this preposition selects for a DP complement (as most of them do), only a determiner could be inserted into the head position of this phrase. The determiner would then impose restrictions on its complement, ensuring this to be an NP and hence only a noun could be inserted into the head of the determiner’s complement. Obviously, this could continue indefinitely, but in this case the process stops at this point as the noun subcategorises for no complement.

3.2.2.2 S-structure and Case Theory

In (84a) the clause is finite as tense is marked on the auxiliary verb. The subject he is in the nominative form, not the accusative him. However, the object of the verb help, her, is in the accusative not the nominative she. In (84b), while the main clause is finite and has a nominative subject, I, the embedded clause is non-finite. This clause has an accusative subject him. The object of the preposition in this clause is also accusative, us.

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

In (87) we have a series of pronominal subjects of non-finite clauses. In the one grammatical case the subject is accusative, demonstrating that this is an accusative position. The ungrammaticality of the nominative pronoun in (87b) is therefore understandable. That (87c) should be ungrammatical is interesting as here we have an accusative pronoun. In this case the complementiser for is absent, indicating that this element is in some way responsible for the accusative case in (87a) in which it is present. This is understandable as this complementiser is similar to a preposition, and in fact is often called the prepositional complementiser, and as we know, the complement of prepositions is in the accusative. To account for this let us assume that Case is rather like Θ-roles and is assigned by certain elements to certain positions. The prepositional complementiser therefore assigns accusative Case to the subject of the non-finite clause that it introduces:

4.1 Why the Noun is not the Head of the DP

If, on the other hand, we wanted to claim that the noun tea is the syntactic head of the phrase we would have difficulty fitting in the preposition and the other noun:

4.1 Why the Noun is not the Head of the DP

In these cases, as in those above, the preposition does contribute something to the meaning of the phrase, though it is not clear that this should be seen as the most important aspect of the meaning of the whole phrase. Indeed London and tunnel seem to contribute just as important, if not more important information. However, it would not make sense to claim that the nouns are the heads of these phrases as they are clearly not NPs, not having the distribution of NPs:

4.1 Why the Noun is not the Head of the DP

There are syntactic reasons, then, for considering these phrases to be headed by the preposition and thus it seems better to assume that the most important semantic word is not always the syntactic head.

4.3 Multiple Determiners

First, consider the presence of the preposition of which is obligatory in nearly all structures of this type, with the exception of the ‘pre-determiners’. This is the preposition we find when there is a noun which takes a DP complement:

4.3 Multiple Determiners

This preposition has no meaning in these structures and it is fairly obvious that the semantic relationships hold between the noun and the following DPs. This can be most obviously seen from the fact that the verbs from which some of these nouns are formed are transitive and have no need of the preposition to express their relationship with the DP complement:

4.3 Multiple Determiners

The object of the verb is associated with accusative Case and hence must be in a Case position. But the object of the noun is not associated with any Case; indeed nouns in general cannot take bare object. We can account for these observations if we simply assume that the complement position of a noun is a Caseless position. Given the Case Filter introduced in the previous chapter, it follows that DPs are not allowed to occupy such a position at S-structure. There is nothing to prevent a noun from taking a DP complement at D-structure, however, and thematically it seems to be the case that many nouns do have DP arguments which all surface as PPs headed by the meaningless preposition of. We might therefore assume that this preposition is inserted into the structure at S-structure so that the Case Filter may be satisfied.

4.3 Multiple Determiners

Note that the object of a preposition is an accusative position and hence that prepositions are Case assigners. Inserting of then allows an otherwise Caseless DP to be assigned Case. Of-insertion is however a very limited phenomenon. It happens with the DP complements of nouns and adjectives and nowhere else which might be argued to be a Caseless position:

5.2.1 Unaccusative verbs

In the most straightforward case, ignoring the complexities of the there construction for the moment, the theme argument is always the subject. If there is a prepositional argument, this always appears behind the verb, presumably in complement position. Thus the simplest assumption we could make for the structure of a VP involving an unaccusative verb is:

5.2.2 Light verbs

The thematic relationships are straightforward. In the lower VP we have a situation fairly similar to the VP in the previous section. The theme argument, the vase, is in the specifier of the VP as we discovered previously. The verb break therefore looks fairly similar to an unaccusative verb (we will investigate the properties of this type of verb more fully in the next section). The specifier of the vP is interpreted as an agent and therefore the light verb is clearly not unaccusative. This is not surprising as unaccusative verbs either have no complement or prepositional ones, and here the light verb has a VP complement. In terms of the UTAH, we might therefore propose that the agent Θ-role is assigned to the specifier of a (light) verb which has a VP complement.

5.2.6 Multiple complement verbs

In this structure the theme is sitting in the complement position of the thematic verb, not the specifier, and the goal is in the specifier. The indirect object is obviously interpreted in the same way as the PP is in the dative construction and so we should expect it to appear in the complement position if the UTAH holds. We might try to account for the properties of the double object construction via a movement analysis, using the dative construction as the underlying arrangement as this seems relatively unproblematic. The question is, what moves and where does it move to? A minimal assumption is that besides the verb moving to the light verb position, one of the arguments moves to change their order. Thus, either the theme moves backwards or the goal moves forwards. If the theme moves backwards, it isn’t clear what position it would move to and moreover it isn’t clear why it would move, given that the position it occupies seems to be a Case position in virtually all other cases we have looked at. The goal argument is slightly different however. In the dative construction there is a preposition and this we might assume is what is responsible for providing the argument with its Case. In the double object construction, however, this preposition is not present and hence the argument cannot be assigned Case in the same way. This would then provide the motivation for the argument to move to a position in which it could get case. Considering the problem more closely the goal must move to a phrasal position between the specifier of the VP, occupied by the theme, and the light verb to which the main verb moves. The only possibility is that there is another specifier position between the two:

5.2.6 Multiple complement verbs

In this structure the theme is sitting in the complement position of the thematic verb, not the specifier, and the goal is in the specifier. The indirect object is obviously interpreted in the same way as the PP is in the dative construction and so we should expect it to appear in the complement position if the UTAH holds. We might try to account for the properties of the double object construction via a movement analysis, using the dative construction as the underlying arrangement as this seems relatively unproblematic. The question is, what moves and where does it move to? A minimal assumption is that besides the verb moving to the light verb position, one of the arguments moves to change their order. Thus, either the theme moves backwards or the goal moves forwards. If the theme moves backwards, it isn’t clear what position it would move to and moreover it isn’t clear why it would move, given that the position it occupies seems to be a Case position in virtually all other cases we have looked at. The goal argument is slightly different however. In the dative construction there is a preposition and this we might assume is what is responsible for providing the argument with its Case. In the double object construction, however, this preposition is not present and hence the argument cannot be assigned Case in the same way. This would then provide the motivation for the argument to move to a position in which it could get case. Considering the problem more closely the goal must move to a phrasal position between the specifier of the VP, occupied by the theme, and the light verb to which the main verb moves. The only possibility is that there is another specifier position between the two:

5.2.6 Multiple complement verbs

The remaining problems to solve are the identity of X and how the theme argument gets Case if the goal argument gets the Case assigned by the light verb. The obvious answer to the latter is that X provides the theme with its Case, which in turn suggests that X is a Case assigning head, i.e. a verb or a preposition. If X is a verb, we have a structure which is identical to those involving multiple light verbs:

5.2.7 Phrasal verbs

A set of verbs which demonstrate some unique properties are known as phrasal verbs. These appear with what looks to be a preposition, traditionally referred to as a particle, following them:

5.2.7 Phrasal verbs

One obvious fact about these verbs is that their meaning is usually idiomatic in that it is not straightforwardly computed from the meaning of the verb and the meaning of the preposition combined. To take off, for example, means ‘to become airborne’ and to come to means ‘to become conscious’.

5.2.7 Phrasal verbs

Much of this evidence seems to suggest that the preposition does not act as the head of a preposition phrase, but forms a unit with the verb. For example, while (124a) shows that the PP complement of a verb can be moved to the front of the clause, it seems that the particle plus the following DP cannot be moved (124b), indicating that it is perhaps not a constituent. Moreover, as we have seen in (125a) a PP can be modified by an adverb like right, but this is not possible for the particle followed by a DP (125b). Finally, we can coordinate a PP complement with another PP (126a), but we cannot coordinate the particle plus the following DP with a PP, indicating that the particle does not form a PP with the following DP. For this reason, it is often claimed that the particle forms a syntactic unit with the verb, perhaps being adjoined to it:

5.2.7 Phrasal verbs

When the particle is separated from the verb by an object, it seems to have properties that it cannot have when it precedes the object. For example, we have seen that, unlike a preposition, the particle cannot be modified by an adverb in (125b). However, in the post-object position it can be modified by an adverb:

5.2.7 Phrasal verbs

In this structure, presumably the main verb will move to support the light verb and the right word order will be achieved. It would seem reasonable to assume that the particle construction with the particle following the object is derived in exactly the same way, with the preposition heading a PP which has no other content:

5.2.7 Phrasal verbs

The tricky part is to account for the pre-object particle. If we assume that (136) is the basic structure of the construction, then we might analyse the pre-object particle construction as derived by a movement of the preposition head to the verb, so that when the verb moves to the light verb position, the preposition is taken along with it:

5.2.7 Phrasal verbs

Note that the structure that is formed by the movement of the particle is the same as the one that is traditionally assumed to be the basic structure for a phrasal verb, with the preposition adjoined to the verb. Of course this means that the preposition does not form a PP with the following DP in the specifier of the lower VP and hence we account for why it does not behave like a PP complement, which would have an entirely different structure (see (136) for example).

5.2.7 Phrasal verbs

It seems that it is only when the verb has a PP complement which consists only of a prepositional head that the preposition is allowed to move out of the PP. If the preposition itself has a complement, or if it is modified, then it is not allowed to move. It is not entirely clear why this should be, as other heads can move out of their own phrases when there are other elements in other positions within them. For example, we have seen many cases of a verb moving out of the VP when its specifier or complement are filled by its arguments. Another observation from (138) might help to shed some light on the problem. Note that when the verb has a simple PP complement, it has a different interpretation: to put something off does not mean the same as to put something somewhere. Similarly, put down, put on, put back, put over, etc. all have somewhat idiosyncratic meanings that are not simply related to the meaning of put as a verb of placement. So, put down can mean ‘to kill’ (of animals), put on ‘to fake’, put back ‘to delay’ and put over ‘to convey’. This might suggest that it is not the same verb we are looking at in all these cases and especially they are not the same verb as in (138b). If this is true then it could be that the ability of the preposition to move might be lexically restricted by the verb: some verbs allow it, others do not. Of course, this still does not explain why those that do allow the preposition to move only take ‘simple’ PP complements, which contain just the preposition and so we cannot be said to have solved all the mysteries of phrasal verbs here. In fact we have probably only just scratched the surface and it has to be admitted that phrasal verbs present many very difficult problems for analysis under any set of assumptions. We will therefore leave this topic at this point and be content with the meagre understanding of them that we have gained.

5.2.8 Verbs with clausal complements

But why would the clause have to move backwards in a structure like (148)? Note that the clause occupies a position to which Case is assigned: the light verb assigns accusative Case to the specifier of the VP. There is an old idea, dating back to Stowell (1981), that clauses avoid Case positions. While it might seem that clauses occupy similar positions to DPs, there are a number of reasons to think that this is not so. For example, we do not get clauses in the complement position of prepositions, a position to which Case is assigned:

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:

7.3.2 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.

7.4.2 A comparison between relative and interrogative clauses

Another argument that that is not a relative pronoun in that-relatives is that it does not behave like a wh-element with respect to prepositions. Note the following two possibilities with a wh-relative:

7.4.2 A comparison between relative and interrogative clauses

When the wh-element is part of a PP it has the option of moving alone, a strategy known as preposition stranding, or of taking the whole PP with it, a strategy known as pied-piping (after the story of the Pied Piper of Hamlin, who played his pipes and the rats followed him – the connection between prepositions and rats is, however, mysterious). If that were a relative pronoun, we might expect the same options to be available in that-relatives. But this is not true:

7.4.2 A comparison between relative and interrogative clauses

One explanation for why we do not get pied piping with a that-relatives is that that is not a relative pronoun and did not originate in the gapped position and hence the preposition could not be pied-piped by it.

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:

8.3 The Gerund

In this case, the ing element behaves exactly like a noun syntactically. For example it heads a phrase which can be the complement of a determiner. As we know determiners take NP complements, so the ing element must have the category of a noun. A further fact about nouns is that their DP complements cannot be assigned case, which is why there is an of preposition inserted into the structure. With a verb, its light verb will assign Case and hence there is no need to insert of. This can be clearly seen in the different behaviours of verbs and their derived nominal counterparts:

8.3 The Gerund

If we now refer back to (83), we note that some of these features are missing. For a start, there is no preposition before the DP complement. This suggests that this ing element is not a noun, but a verb. This is confirmed by the fact that this element is modified by an adverb, not an adjective:

8.3 The Gerund

As we see in (83) a possessor is allowed. Whatever the status of the possessive marker ‘’s’, possessors are elements which are confined to DP specifier position and hence the whole construction would appear to be a DP. This is further confirmed by the distribution facts concerning the construction. Note that the gerund in (83) serves as the complement of a preposition. In general prepositions take DP complements and they certainly do not take VP complements. Prepositions do not even easily take clausal complements:

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.

8.3 The Gerund

A number of consequences follow from this analysis. First, in (91a) as there is no light verb, the DP in the specifier will be Caseless and hence the preposition of will have to be inserted to salvage the structure. The presence of the light verb in (91b) renders this unnecessary as the DP will get Case in the normal way. More interestingly, the subject is present in the structure in (91b) but not in (91a). This does not mean that the subject cannot be introduced in (91a) as it is perfectly possible to have a possessive argument introduced into the NP/DP structure under normal circumstances, so there is no reason why it could not happen here. However, the point is that, as is usually the case with nouns, this will be optional and therefore the possessor/agent may or may not appear. When there is no possessor, there can be a determiner and when there is a possessor there can be no determiner, as the two are in complementary distribution: