Basic English Syntax with Exercises

subcategorisation frame

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

Because these verbs have no complements, their subcategorisation frames are empty (as indicated by the ‘null symbol’ Ø, which typically stands for the absence of content). These verbs obviously differ from those such as wait which have non-null subcategorisation frames. We might distinguish between the two types by referring to those in (72) as true intransitives and those such as wait as being prepositional verbs.

1.3.4.1 Verbs

There is no traditional term specifically for predicates with sentential complements, but generative grammar has not felt the need to invent one as the subcategorisation frame serves to distinguish between the different subcategories of verbs.

1.3.4.2 Nouns

For some reason then, it seems that the whole class of nouns fails to have nominal complements and thus they differ from verbs in this way (we will see later on in this book there is an explanation for this observation). However, other than this, nouns can take any other kind of complement and as such we can propose that they subcategorise in the same way as verbs do, by the inclusion of a subcategorisation frame in their lexical entries.

1.3.4.3 Adjectives

Finally in this section, we turn to the subcategorisation of adjectives and adverbs. We start with adjectives as these are the most straightforward. We have already seen that adjectives, like nouns, cannot take nominal complements. However, all other possibilities are open to them:

1.3.4.3 Adjectives

The subcategorisation of adverbs is a rather more tricky issue. One would have thought that if adverbs are formal variants of the relevant adjective, then they would subcategorise in the same way as these adjectives – like the present tense verb subcategorises in the same way as the past tense verb. There are some cases where this might well be true:

1.3.4.4 Prepositions

In terms of the subcategorisation of prepositions, they can appear with most types of complements, including nominal ones:

1.3.5.1 Inflections

Given that inflection is a functional category and takes no part in thematic structure, members of this category do not have theta grids as part of their lexical entry. Furthermore, their subcategorisation seems to be much simpler than any thematic category: all inflections are always followed by a verbal element and hence we might suppose that they all subcategorise for verbal complements:

1.3.5.2 Determiners

Like the inflections, the lexical properties of determiners are relatively simple. They have no theta grid and they subcategorise only for nominal complements. If pronouns are determiners, then in their pronominal use they can be considered as ‘intransitive’, taking no complement:

1.3.6 Functionally underspecified categories

Given that verbs are categorised as [–F, –N, +V], we cannot claim that this is the category that aspectual auxiliaries subcategorise for as this would exclude them from taking non-thematic verbal complements (i.e. other aspectual auxiliaries). On the other hand, if we claim that they select complements of the category [–N, +V] they would only be able to select for auxiliary complements and not main verbs. The solution to the problem is stating that the category they select as their complement is optionally specified for the [–F] feature, which correctly predicts that they cannot have an inflectional complement.

2.2.1 The subject

The appearance of an expletive element is restricted to the subject position. We do not get an expletive in a complement position of intransitive verbs, which do not subcategorise for a complement:

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

Thus through the notion of subcategorisation, the head imposes restrictions on the complement position, allowing only elements of a certain category to occupy this 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.

3.1.4 Specifiers

These arguments are nearly always DPs and so, unlike the complement they do not seem to be restricted differently by different heads in terms of their category. This is reflected in the lexical entries of the relevant heads in the fact that subcategorised elements are always complements and subjects are never subcategorised for. Of course, there are restrictions placed on these specifier arguments from the predicate, but of a more semantic nature. The verb assigns a Θ-role to these arguments and so the argument must be semantically compatible with the Θ-role it has to bear. For example:

3.1.6 Summary

The three X-bar rules introduce three elements besides the head. The complement is introduced as the sister of the head. It always follows the head and is restricted by the head’s subcategorisation requirements. Thus, if a head selects for a PP complement, the complement must be a PP. The specifier is introduced as the sister to X' and daughter of XP. Specifiers precede the head and are restricted to one per phrase. The last element of the phrase, the adjunct, can be introduced at any X-bar level: X, X' and XP. This element expands what it is adjoined to into another element of the same type. Therefore the process is recursive and in principle any number of adjuncts can be added to a structure.

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.

7.2 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.

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.

8.1.2 Clauses without IP

The fact that heads subcategorise for their complements in terms of the complement’s category would seem to suggest that these clauses do indeed differ in terms of their categorial statuses.

8.1.2 Clauses without IP

But this proposal claims that the head of the predicate is no longer the head of the whole clause and hence it no longer determines the categorial status of the clause. It would be difficult therefore to account for the observations of (30) and (31) where different verbs subcategorise for different small clauses in terms of the category of the predicate. A separate question concerning (34) is what the status of X is. Haegeman (1994) argues that this head is an agreement element, i.e. what we have been calling I. Thus small clauses, according to Haegeman, are IPs (AgrPs in her terminology):

8.1.2 Clauses without IP

Besides the problem that under this analysis the head of the predicate is not the head of the clause, a major problem facing it is that it forces us to assume that the inflection can subcategorise for a whole set of different complements, ranging from DPs to PPs. But functional heads do not normally display this amount of freedom in their complement taking abilities. In all the cases we have considered so far, the agreement head selects for a v/VP complement, i.e. complements with [–N, +V] features. But if I can select for DP, AP and PP complements as well, i.e. [+F, +N, –V], [–F, +N, +V] and [–F, –N, –V], this must mean that it imposes no categorial conditions on its complement whatsoever. This is not true as bare NPs, non-thematic vPs, IPs and CPs cannot act as predicates inside small clauses: