Lexicon, Functional Categories, and Clause Structure

Posted on Mar 19, 2025 in Linguistics and Applied Languages

Topic 1: A Review of the Lexicon and Constituent Structure

A lexical entry is composed of categorial information, a subcategorization frame, argument structure, and a theta-grid.

Category

There are two types of categorial information:

• Lexical categories: N (noun), V (verb), A (adjective), P (preposition), and Adv (adverb).

1. a. They have no __ car, conscience, friends… (N)

   b. *They have no __ went (V), older (A), conscientiously (Adv)…

2. a. They can __ stay, leave, hide, starve, die… (V)

   b. *They can __ happily (Adv), book (N), green (A)…

3. a. He is very __ slow, foolish, intelligent, ashamed… (A)

   b. *He is very __ fool (N), play (V), slowly (Adv)…

• Functional categories: D (Determiners), Q (Quantifiers), I (Inflection), C (Complementizer), ASP (Aspect), NEG (Negation).

• Determiners

3. a. The village store is near.

   b. This stupid comment of his!

   c. Your dog has bitten me!

• Quantifiers

4. a. Most people have some money.

   b. Many politicians have no conscience.

   c. Every child needs all the attention he can get.

• Inflection

5. a. You can/could/may/must/should stay.

   b. I would like you to stay.

• Complementizer

6. a. I think that you should eat.

   b. I doubt if you can help.

   c. I’m not sure whether it’s fine.

   d. I’m anxious for you to recover.

Subcategorization

It is the number and type of complements that a word (head) can take.

1. a. I ___ for three hours → [ __ ]

   b. You can ___ some money to the poor → [ __ NP [PP] ]

   c. She hasn’t ___ his new book → [ __ NP]

There are also clausal complements:

1. a. They wanted [ to show their discontent ] → [ __ CP [-fin] ]

   b. They feared [ that things would get much worse] → [ __ CP [+fin] ]

   c. He remembered [thinking he was wrong] → [ __ CP [-fin] -ing ]

   d. Somebody has encouraged [people] [ to complain] → [ __ NP [CP [-fin] ]

Argument Structure

It indicates the number of arguments that a lexical item takes, the core participants in the eventuality that a verb denotes. Arguments are associated with predicates, and predicates denote eventualities.

1. a. John slept. → (x)

   b. Mike watched a movie. → (x, y)

   c. Jane gave the book to Mary. → (x, y, z)

There are internal and external arguments:

• Internal arguments are within the VP as the Complement of the V.
• External arguments are out of the VP as the Subject of V.

Theta Theory and Argument Structure

The Theta Criterion is composed of two rules:

• Each argument is assigned to one and only one theta-role.
• Each theta-role is assigned to one and only one argument.

• Theta-roles express thematic (semantic) relations between the eventuality denoted by a predicate and its arguments: Agent, Experiencer, Theme, Goal, etc.
• Theta-roles denote syntactic roles, such as the difference between external and internal arguments.
• Theta-roles are assigned within the maximal projection of a V.

The Projection Principle states that:

• Lexical information must be syntactically represented.

The Extended Projection Principle states that:

• All sentences must have subjects.

The VPISH (VP-internal subject hypothesis) says that:

• All arguments of a V generate within the maximal category of a V.

Expletives and Existentials

• Expletives are elements that contribute no meaning to a clause because they lack a theta-role; they are meaningless.
• Expletives play a syntactic role because they are place-holders for the subject position → Subject Extrapolation

The table is beautiful. I bought it yesterday → this is not an expletive, but a referential it with meaning.

It surprised me that you came late → this is an expletive it, because it occupies the subject position and it has no meaning.

There is a dog in the corner → this is an expletive there, because it is meaningless and it places the subject position.

I put my book there → this is a referential there, because it has meaning.

Expletive there and expletive it have different distributions:

• Expletive there is used to link a clause → There remained some problems.
• Expletive it is used to link an NP → It made me happy that you sent me the invitation.

Topic 2: Functional Categories in Clause Structure (1)

The Clause as a Projection of Inflection

a. [ [NP These students] [ INFL will] [VP study grammar] ]
b. [ [NP Mary] [ INFL might] [VP seem keen on tennis] ]
c. [ [NP He] [ INFL had] [VP given the girl an apple] ]
d. [ [NP His mother] [ INFL was] [VP reading in the living room] ]

There are different affixes under inflection:

a. Lydia plays football.

b. Jill called her boss.

A zero-affix is, for the syntax, like an overt or explicit affix (-s or -ed): it lacks phonological features (it is not pronounced), but it has syntactic features which inform about tense and agreement.

English Inflectional Elements

The elements under inflection in English are:

Inflection includes two kinds of grammatical info: tense and agreement.

Modals:

1. a. I must [VP talk to him immediately].

   b. What I must do is [VP talk to him] → Pseudo-cleft sentence.

   c. …and [VP talk to him] I must! → VP- fronting sentence.

   d. *I must should talk to him.

   e. *I might can talk to him.

   f. *I must talked to him.

Tense features on modals occupy a position outside the verbal domain (VP). → They are in complementary distribution with other modals and affixes.

Affixes:

→ Tense features on affixes occupy a position outside the verbal domain (VP).

1. a. I did [VP talk to him].

   b. She does [VP talk to him].

The Category Aspect [ASP]

→ Have/be are compatible with modals

1. a. *John will can come.

   b. *John would must come.

   c. John must have had a brilliant time.

   d. Fergus could be a genius, but he must be hiding his talent.

→ Have/be are compatible with affixes: has, had, have, is, are…

→ Have/be are incompatible with do support.

Topic 3: Functional Categories in Clause Structure (2)

The Functional Category Complementizer

A complementizer is a syntactic category that combines elements together (conjunction), as for example:

1. a. I know that they will be arriving late.

   b. I had arranged for them to stay in a nice hotel.

   c. → Tense features on modals occupy a position outside the verbal domain (VP).

   → They are in complementary distribution with other modals and affixes. I asked if they would like to rent a car.

   d. I don’t know whether [they will stay] / [to stay or not].

Feature-Matching Between Complementizer and Inflection

Some complementizers, such as that, demand [+FIN] inflection from their complement, but others, such as for, demand [-FIN] inflection from their complement.

3. a. I know that [they will be arriving late] *[them to arrive late]

b. I arranged for [them to stay in a nice hotel] *[they will stay in a nice hotel]

The Features of CP are Selected by the V

a. I asked [if they would like to rent a car] *[that they would like to rent a car]

The Zero-Complementizer

Some complementizers can be omitted, such as that.

b. I know [CP [C Ø] they will be arriving late]

c. We arranged [CP [C for] them to stay in a nice hotel]

d. We arranged [CP [C Ø] PRO to stay in a nice hotel]

The Functional Category Determiner

A determiner is a word that accompanies an NP such as the, a, some, your…

Topic 4: Movement Involving Functional Heads

Inflectional/Tense Markers on Verbs and Head Movement

Affix Movement

Lexical verbs get their affixes through affix movement.

With main verbs and the American use of the verb have in the affirmative, there is Affix Lowering because the inflection lowers onto the lexical verb, as in these examples:

a. Lisa started the fight.

b. Peter always has/had flowers.

With main verbs and the American use of the verb have in negative sentences, there is Do-support. It is used as a last resort mechanism to form negative and interrogative sentences, including have in American English, as with main verbs, because affix lowering is blocked in negative and interrogative constructions, so do is necessary to provide a lexical item to which the affix can be attached. See these examples:

a. Peter does/did not inform.

With the verb be, the British use of the verb have, and auxiliary verbs (have, be) in affirmative sentences, there is Verb Raising because the verb rises onto the inflection position.

a. Peter is/was always good.

With the verb be, the British use of the verb have, and auxiliary verbs (have, be) in negative sentences, there is Verb Raising. Verb raising is not blocked in negative constructions, so do-support is not required, and the verb rises onto inflection.

a. Peter isn’t/wasn’t.

With main verbs and the American use of the verb have in interrogative constructions, there is Do-support, and also, it is necessary to be I-to-C Movement, which is the movement of the inflection to the Complementizer Phrase because if there is a [+wh] feature in C, then it must be supported by a word (do).

a. Anne bought a new car.

b. Did Anne buy a new car?

With the verb be, the British use of the verb have, and auxiliary verbs (have, be) in interrogative sentences, there is Verb Raising and also, I-to-C Movement, which is the movement of the inflection to the CP because if there is no complementizer, then either the modal auxiliary (should, can, could…) or auxiliary have or be move.

a. Anne has bought a new car.

b. Has Anne bought a new car?

Unit 2: Case and Case-Driven Movement / A-Movement

Topic 5: Case and Distribution of Lexical NPs: Subject and Object (Part A)

Subjects in <spec IP>

• DP (NP) Subjects

a. Liz talked to Paul on the phone.

b. I expected that Liz would talk to Paul on the phone.

c. They had arranged for Liz to talk to Paul on the phone.

d. Paul considers Liz to be an intelligent woman.

e. She admires her boss. → [NOM] case

f. They admire her. → [ACC] case

Non-Overt Subjects: PRO and pro

Little pro is a null pronominal in the subject position of finite clauses in Null Subject Languages as Spanish (not English): nosotros, tú, ellos… It occurs in finite clauses.

• It can only function as a subject.
• It can be replaced with an NP.
• It can receive case.

Big PRO is a null pronominal (-anaphoric) element in the subject position of non-finite clauses:

• It occurs in non-finite clauses.
• It can function as a subject.
• It cannot occur after the prepositional complementizer for.
• It cannot occur after an ECM verb as believe, consider…
• It cannot receive case.

Examples:

1. I regret [PRO insulting Liz’s boss]
2. I wonder [whether PRO to stay at home]

• Clauses as subjects: Clausal Subjects

Examples:

a. [The accident surprised] the woman. → DP (NP)

b. [That there had been an accident] surprised the woman. → CP

It is necessary to do an expletive insertion, so that we adjoin B to A, and we create an additional category identical to the original one that we had (Adjunction):

It surprised the woman [that there had been an accident].

Objects as Complements of V

• DP (NP) Objects
• Clausal Objects

a. Liz called Paul.

a. I know [CP that they are just good friends].

Topic 5: Case and Distribution of Lexical NPs: Subject and Object (Part B)

Case Filter and Case Assignment

The Case Filter says that:

Every NP needs to receive case.

There are different case assignment rules:

1. [+FIN] inflection assigns [NOM] case to the external argument (subject).
2. A transitive verb assigns [ACC] case to the internal argument (complement).
3. A preposition assigns [ACC] case to its complement.

There are two exceptions:

b. Paul was called by Liz.

b. I asked [CP whether they would be willing to help]

1. ECM verbs (group 6) such as consider, believe, think, or judge assign [ACC] case to the NP subject of its complement clause.
2. “for” complementizers assign [ACC] case to the subject of its complement clause.

Topic 6: A-Movement (Part A): Subjects in Non-Finite Context

The Distribution of PRO

a. John preferred very much [PRO to go to the movies]. Subject-Controlled PRO

b. John encouraged Peter [PRO to go to the movies]. Object-Controlled PRO

c. [PRO to go to the movies] is a great idea. Arbitrary PRO

PRO can be the subject of a non-finite clause:

• PRO can be controlled by a subject or object antecedent → Controlled PRO
• PRO can lack an antecedent, when it does not refer to a specific element → Arbitrary PRO

Binding Theory

It is only applied in the DS (Deep Structure) and it has three conditions:

1. Anaphors (reflexive and reciprocal pronouns) must be coreferential with another element present before in the same clause and there has to be agreement of gender and number between the antecedent and the anaphor.

a. Peter hit himself.

b. Susan and Peter help each other.

2. Personal pronouns cannot be coreferential with an antecedent within the same clause, except reflexive/reciprocal pronouns.

a. John hates him. → It is grammatical because John ≠ him

b. *John hates him. → It is ungrammatical because John = him

3. NPs must be free everywhere and present in the sentence.

Topic 6: A-Movement (Part B)

Verb Patterns

There are three verb patterns that serve to classify verbs:

1. V + to infinitive clause
2. V + NP + to infinitive clause
3. V + “for” + NP + to infinitive clause

There are seven groups of verbs:

Group 1 → fail, try, manage, offer, threaten, seek…

1. I try to [PRO] help Peter. → Subject Control
2. *I try Michael to help Peter.
3. *I try for Michael to help Peter.

Group 2 → decide, arrange, agree, aim, hope, long, yearn…

1. I decide to [PRO] help Peter. → Subject Control
2. *I decide Michael to help Peter.
3. I decide for Michael to help Peter.

There is no raising or control because all arguments are visibly represented in the sentence.

Group 3 → want, prefer, wish, request, require, need, expect…

1. I want to [PRO] help Peter. → Subject Control
2. I want Michael to help Peter. → Raising-to-Object
3. I want for Michael to help Peter.

There is no raising or control because all arguments are visibly represented in the sentence.

Group 4 → ask, promise, beg, help…

1. I ask to [PRO] help Peter. → Subject Control
2. I ask Michael to [PRO] help Peter. → Object Control
3. *I ask for Michael to help Peter.

Note for group 4 special verb → promise

1. I promise to [PRO] help Peter → Subject Control
2. I promise Michael to [PRO] help Peter → Subject Control
3. *I promise for Michael to help Peter.

Group 5 → persuade, tell, condemn, invite, recommend, encourage, teach, get, convince… (Verbs with three arguments)

1. *I persuade to help Peter.
2. I persuade Michael to [PRO] help Peter. → Object Control
3. *I persuade for Michael to help Peter.

Group 6 → find, know, report, assume, believe, consider, judge… (also called, ECM verbs)

1. *I believe to help Peter.
2. I believe Michael to [PRO] help Peter. → Raising-to-Object
3. *I believe for Michael to help Peter.

Group 7 → happen, appear, tend, seem… (also called, Unaccusative verbs)

1. I appear to [PRO] help Peter → Subject Raising
2. *I appear Michael to help Peter.
3. *I appear for Michael to help Peter.

Raising vs. Control Tests

There are some tests to know if there is Raising or Control:

1. Passivization of the Subordinate Clause:

• If the passivized sentence maintains the same meaning as the active sentence → Raising
• If the passivized sentence does not maintain the same meaning as the active sentence → Control

2. Theta-Role Assignment:

• If there is not argument sharing → Raising
• If there is argument sharing → Control

3. Idiom Test → “The cat is out of the bag” (A secret has been revealed)

• If both literal and metaphorical meaning of the sentences make sense → Raising
• If only the literal meaning makes sense → Control

Example: with verb persuade: I persuade Michael to help Susan.

1. Passivization of the Subordinate Clause:

I persuade Susan to be helped by Michael → PASSIVIZED SENTENCE The passivized construction does not mean the same as the original sentence, so then there is CONTROL. 2. THETA-ROLE ASSIGNMENT: persuade X: I Y: Michael Z: to help Sussan Help X: Michael Y: Susan There is argument sharing with the word Michael, so then there is CONTROL. 3. IDIOM TEST help x = Michael y = Susan I persuade the cat to be out of the bag → TRANSFORMED SENTENCE ,> It only makes sense the literal meaning, so then there is CONTROL. Some examples of the different constructions: SUBJECT CONTROL We try to [PRO] help Peter. OBJECT RAISING They persuaded Peter to [PRO] help Susan. RAISING-TO-SUBJECT We appear to [PRO] help Peter. RAISING-TO-OBJECT They consider Peter to [PRO] help Susan. Topic 6: A-Movement (Part C) OBJECT VS. SUBJECT TESTS There are tests to determine if the element is the Object of the main verb (V1) or the Subject of the subordinate verb (V2): 1. PRO-TEST: ▪ If it cannot be replaced by PRO → OBJECT OF THE MAIN VERB ▪ If it can be replaced by PRO → SUBJECT OF THE SUBORDINATE VERB 2. PASSIVIZATION OF THE MAIN VERB: ▪ If it is possible to passivize → OBJECT OF THE MAIN VERB ▪ If it is not possible to passivize → SUBJECT OF THE SUBORDINATE VERB 3. SELECTIONAL RESTRICTIONS: ▪ If the verb imposes selectional restrictions on the element → OBJECT OF THE MAIN VERB ▪ If the verb does not impose selectional restrictions on the element → SUBJECT OF THE SUBORDINATE VERB 4. “for” COMPLEMENTISER → when you insert for, a new sentence starts so: ▪ If for doesn’t fit in the sentence, it isn’t a new sentence, and the verb cannot be separated → OBJECT OF THE MAIN VERB ▪ If for fits in the sentence, it forms a new sentence, and the verb can be separated → SUBJECT OF THE SUBORDINATE VERB 5. PRONOMINALIZATION: ▪ If it cannot be replaced by a pronoun, it isn’t a whole constituent → OBJECT OF THE MAIN VERB ▪ If it can be replaced by a pronoun, it is a whole constituent → SUBJECT OF THE SUBORDINATE VERB 6. THAT-CLAUSE: ▪ If it’s possible to add a that-clause, separating the NP from the subordinate clause → OBJECT OF THE MAIN VERB ▪ If a that-clause can’t be formed, not separating the NP from the subordinate clause → SUBJECT OF THE SUBORDINATE VERB EXAMPLE: 1. PRO-TEST: *I persuade [PRO] to help Susan → It cannot be replaced by PRO, so it is the OBJECT of persuade (V1). 2. PASSIVIZATION OF THE MAIN VERB: Michael was persuaded to help Susan. → It is possible to passivize the main verb, so it is the OBJECT of persuade (V1). 3. SELECTIONAL RESTRICTIONS: I persuaded…. the horse to jump the fence. → It imposes selectional restriction on Michael, so it is the OBJECT of persuade (V1). *the table to be clean. *it to rain. 4. “for” COMPLEMENTISER: *I persuaded for Michael to help Susan. → It doesn’t fit, so it isn’t a new sentence, and persuade cannot be separated from Michael, so it is the OBJECT of persuade (V1). 5. PRONOMINALIZATION: *I persuaded that → As it can’t be replaced by a pronoun, it doesn’t form a whole constituent, so it’s the OBJECT of persuade (V1). 6. THAT-CLAUSE: *I persuaded that Michael should help Susan. → It isn’t possible to add a that-clause, so Michael is a single constituent and then, it is the OBJECT of persuade (V1). 

Topic 7, 8: Case and displaced NPs: Raising vs. Control. Passives and unaccusatives NP-MOVEMENT Raising structures, passives and unaccusatives all have displaced NPs. They are displaced because they are in different positions than those in which they are semantically interpreted → syntactic position ≠ semantic interpretation. ERGATIVE verbs, PASSIVE voice and UNACCUSATIVE verbs are connected because all of them cannot assign [ACC] case to their complements, because they do not have an external argument. BURZIO’S GENERALIZATION 1. A verb which lacks an external argument fails to assign [ACC] case. 2. A verb which fails to assign [ACC] case lacks an external argument. PASSIVE CONSTRUCTIONS In a passive construction, the verb cannot assign case to its complement according to Burzio’s generalization because it loses its property, that is why the external argument needs to move to receive case. Active voice → My mother made a cake.  

Passive voice → A cake was made by my mother.

UNACCUSATIVES CONSTRUCTIONS There are two types of intransitive (lack of an argument) verbs: Passive voice → A cake was made by my mother. − Unergative verbs, which have only one argument and it is always the external (subject), as sleep, cry, work, jump, shout… Examples: I cried all day → There is just one argument (cry ), which is the subject of the cry (external argument). − Unaccusative verbs, which have only one argument and it is always the internal (object). ▪ Existence: be, exist. ▪ Position: stand, lie, remain. ▪ Movement: go, come, arrive. ▪ Appearance: seem, appear. ▪ Happening: happen, occur. ▪ Change of state: two types: Alternating/Anticausative/Ergative verbs: open, close, burn, sink… They have two forms. 1. The ball rolled down the hill. → Anticausative/Ergative form 2. The wind rolled the ball down the hill → Causative form Pure/Non-alternating verbs: die, grow, fall… They have one construction. 1. My dog died. ,>UNIT 3 Wh-movement / A’-movement Topic 9: Wh-movement TYPES OF MOVEMENT

MOVEMENT IN QUESTIONS a. Peter read a book.

b. What did Peter read?

Topic 10: Restrictions on wh-movement SUCCESSIVE CYCLE MOVEMENT The Successive Cycle Movement says that all types of movement happen successively. SUBJACENCY CONDITION The Bounding Theory tries to eliminate the distance between phrases through the Subjacency Condition which is a principle that says that a wh-phrase cannot cross more than one bounding node at the time. Bounding nodes are barriers that limit movements for WH-questions. Bounding nodes are IPs and complex NPs, also known as islands, which are semantical configurations that cannot be extracted to transform into a wh-question. *What do you wonder where Peter hid? In this example, this sentence is ungrammatical because there is a violation of the Subjacency Condition since the Wh-phrase what crosses more than just one bounding node at a time

EXAM SOLVED: SECTION I-ARGUMENTATION [20 POINTS] CHOOSE ONE OUT OF THE TWO OPTIONS BELOW A. Discuss the ambiguity of the following sentences. Make sure that you provide a detailed account of the infinitival clause in both meanings. Present relevant empirical evidence to justify your analyses. (1) Bill swore to impress his friends (2) He hurried to get tickets for the movie. [Answer given for the sentence in (1) – your analysis should also include (2), obviously] • Start by defining syntactic ambiguity • Provide the two readings (this can often be done via paraphrases o Reading 1: Bill swore in order to impress his friends o Reading 2: Bill swore that he would impress his friends. • Locate the ambiguity in the two sentences (1) and (2) : it has to do with the relation between V and the following CPg o Under reading 1 swear is an intransitive V and the CP is an adjunct clause expressing purpose o Under reading 2 swear is a transitive V with a CP-complement • Be more specific about the structure: o Reading 1 corresponds to a structure in which the CP is represented as an adjunct; it is an infinitive clause with PRO as a subject; though this is an adjunct clause [in clause we have only seen complement clauses], PRO is controlled by the subject of the main clause. Provide lexical entry for swear as an intransitive V (like cry) and provide a representation of Reading 1, with the CP as an adjunct

Reading 2 corresponds to a structure in which the CP is represented as a complement; it is an infinitive clause with PRO as a subject. PRO is controlled by the subject of the main clause. This is an example of obligatory control.

Be more specific about the Verb in Reading 2: The V swear in Reading 2 is a type-1 subject control V (like fail). Thus, it cannot appear in structures like (3) [describe them and explain why they are ungrammatical referring to Case- provide lexical entry and P Marker for Reading 2] – (3) a. *John swore for Peter to impress his friends b. *John swore Peter to impress his friends 

B. Analyse the contrast in grammaticality between (1a) and (1b). In your analysis be as precise as you can regarding the derivation of these sentences. Identify another structure, seen in class, in which the same contrast in grammaticality is observed. (1) a. Under no circumstances do I accept her apologies. b.*Peter said that under no circumstances does he accept her apologies –> • Describe the sentences • In (1a) we have a sentence with an XP[+neg] in initial position, followed by dummy do and then the rest of the sentence. This is an example of what grammars call: negative inversion. The canonical sentence would be: (2) I accept her apologies under no circumstances (or I don’t accept her apologies under any circumstances) • In (1b) the same sentence is embedded as a complement of say leading to ungrammaticality. • Describe the structure in (1a) • The presence of do indicates that affix movement has not taken place- that is the zero-affix that attaches to the V in (2) above has attached to do [say more about do-support]. This happens when something breaks the adjacency between I and VP. There are two contexts for this: (i) NEGP intervenes between I and VO (I do not accept….) (ii) I moves to C breaking adjacency • The situation we have in (1a) is (ii) (as in questions): the zero affix has moved to C as an example of I-to-C movement and do-support is needed • If do [+AFFIX] is in C, the PP under no circumstances is in • Provide P-Marker • Describe the structure in (1b) • In (1b) the CP described above has been embedded as a complement of say • Ungrammaticality shows that Negative Inversion cannot take place in embedded contexts. The grammatical counterpart is (3): (3) Peter said that he accepts her apologies under no circumstances ,>• This is so because in embedded contexts C is occupied by a zero complementizer and therefore no I-to-C movement can take place • Provide P-Marker • Other contexts: questions (4) a. Under what circumstances do you accept her apologies? (like 1a) b.*Peter asked under what circumstances do you accept her apologies? (like 1b) 

B. Ungrammaticality [10 POINTS] Explain the ungrammaticality of ONE of the following examples. Bear in mind that their grammatical equivalent might be relevant to understand what is going on. If possible, include it in your answer. This is just a sketched answer-remember to follow all the steps given in class (description of the structure, etc.) 1. *Have you should done this? Illegal V-C movement: In this yes/no question, have is a derived auxiliary in V taking an ASPP [+perf] as a complement. Since INFL is occupied by a modal, there is no V movement of have to I. I-C movement applies to the element in I; thus, it must apply to should and not to have: Should you have done it? 2. *It’s important them to do well in the exam Violation of Case Filter: we have a non-finite CP which has the function of an extraposed subject. It has an overt element in . This element cannot get Case from non finite INFL and there is no external element which can assign Case to it. Therefore them in that structure cannot receive Case in violation of the Case Filter. The grammatical counterpart involves insertion of ‘for’ in C: It is important for them to do well in the exam. ,> This is just a sketched answer-remember to follow all the steps given in class (description of the structure, etc.) 

SECTION I-ARGUMENTATION [20 POINTS] CHOOSE ONE OUT OF THE TWO OPTIONS BELOW A. Examine the contrast between (1) and (2): (1) a. These childreni appeared to me to benefit themselvesi b. *These childreni appeared to me to benefit themi (2) a. *These childreni turned to me to benefit themselvesi b. These childreni turned to me to benefit themi Account for the ungrammaticality of (1b) and (2a) by making reference to the principles of the Binding Theory. Firstly, you should state the principles of Binding Theory, which concerns syntactic restrictions on nominal reference, as it particularly focuses on the possible coreference relationships between a pronoun and its antecedent. More specifically, you should refer to principles A and B: – Principle A: An anaphor (e.g. reflexive pronoun or reciprocal pronoun) must be bound in its binding domain. The binding domain of an anaphor is basically the clause containing the anaphor (that is, it broadly corresponds to a clause). – Principle B: A pronoun must be free in its binding domain. Secondly, you should explain the problem observed in the two examples. Thus, taking into account what these principles state, it seems very easy to explain why (2a) is ungrammatical (the reflexive pronoun “themselves” is not bound by an appropriate antecedent, namely “these children”, in the same clause) and why (2a) is grammatical (the pronoun “them” is not bound by anything in the same clause). However, regarding the first example, it is hard to explain why (1a) is grammatical (the anaphor “themselves” is not bound by its antecedent, namely “these children” in the same clause) and why (1b) is ungrammatical (the pronoun “them” is bound by “these children” but this NP is in the first clause, rather than in the second). Finally, you should analyze the structure of the above sentences in order to account for their (un)grammaticality. To this aim, you should explain what type of verbs “appear” and “turn (to)” are. Thus, while the former is an unaccusative verb, the latter is unergative. Bearing this in mind, we could account for the grammaticality of (1a) and the ungrammaticality of (1b) by arguing that the subject of the matrix clause, namely “these children” is generated in the embedded clause and from the Spec,IP of the latter moves up to the Spec,IP of the former in order to get case from finite inflection (“appears”), leading to an instance of subject raising. Finally, we could explain the facts in (2a) and (2b) by claiming that “turn (to)” is an unergative verb and that the CP “to benefit…” is an adjunct clause expressing purpose. As the subject of the main clause, namely “these children” originates in the main clause, there is a PRO in the Spec,IP of the adjunct clause that is controlled by the “these children”, leading to an instance of obligatory (subject) control.

B. The verbs “consider” and “claim” appear to be identical in their complementation patterns: they both require a ‘that’-clause following the V as shown by examples in (1): (1) a. Everybody considers that John should be the boss. b. Everybody agrees that John should be the boss. However, examples in (2) appear to suggest that they do not exhibit the same grammatical properties: (2) a. John is considered to be the boss. b. * John is agreed to be the boss. (i) Explain the contrast between (1) and (2).The contrast between (1) and (2) lies in the different properties of the verbs “consider” and “agree”. Thus, while “consider” is an ECM verb, “agree” is a subject control verb (e.g. “I agree to be the boss”.  (ii) Provide sufficient empirical evidence to decide whether these verbs belong to the same class, as suggested by the examples in (1), or not. In this part, you should apply several diagnostic tests (e.g. passivization, argument structure, idioms, expletives, pronominalization, etc.) in order to show that “consider” and “agree” are different types of verb, hence they are expected to show a different morphosyntactic behaviour, as illustrated in example (2). By doing this, you will see that these two verbs do not allow for the same type of construction: (3) a. Everybody considers John to be the boss. b. *Everybody agrees John to be the boss. (iii) Represent the sentences in (1) and provide full lexical entries for these verbs. Here you should analyze the lexical entries of each verb in depth and provide a representation of the syntactic structure of examples (2a) and (2b). Taking into account the examples in (3), it is possible to account for the grammaticality of (2a) and the ungrammaticality of (2b): – When “consider” is passivized, it loses the capacity to assign accusative case to the subject of the linked clause (ECM), that is “John” (“Burzio´s generalization), so “John” must move up the tree until it reaches the Spec,IP of the main clause (which is now empty, as the verb is in passive!), where it gets case from finite inflection (“is”). – As “agree” is not an ECM verb, it cannot assign case to the subject of the linked clause, namely “John”. Rather, the only possible structures for “John” to appear, functioning as the subject of the embedded clause would be either a sentence like (1b), where it gets case from the finite inflection in its own clause, or a sentence such as “Everybody agrees for John to be the boss”, where it gets case from the prepositional complementizer “for”. In both situations, “John” gets case in the embedded clause and, consequently, it does not need to move somewhere else (please note that NP movement is case-driven). (iv) Is the verb “need” like “consider”, like “agree” or does it belong to a different class? Justify your answer briefly (providing only those tests that distinguish the verb “need” from the other two (if at all!)). Finally, you should analyse the behaviour of a verb like “need” by applying several of the diagnostic tests, similarly as you have done in section (ii) for “consider” and “agree”. 

B. Ungrammaticality [10 POINTS] Account for the ungrammaticality of TWO of the following examples in a principled way and construct their grammatical counterparts. [18 POINTS]1. * I persuaded there to be no alternative. Violation of the Theta Criterion: “persuade” is a three-place predicate, so it requires three participants and it has to assign a theta role to each of its arguments. However, “there” is an expletive and, as it has no semantic content (it does not refer to any discourse entity), so it cannot be an argument of the predicate and, consequently, cannot have a theta-role. Grammatical counterpart: “I persuaded Peter to invite Susan”.  2. * Laura seems that Edward likes. Violation of the Case Filter (+ illegal NP movement), as the verb “like” can assign accusative case to its complement, namely “Laura”, but the complement has moved to the subject of the main clause (leading to an illegal raising movement. Grammatical counterpart: “It seems that Edward likes Laura”. 3. * It seems Michael to have helped his brother. Violation of the Case Filter, as the NP “Michael” cannot get case in its surface position: inflection in the embedded clause is non-finite (“to have”) and “seem” is a raising verb, rather than an ECM, so it cannot assign case to the subject of the non-finite clause. Grammatical counterpart: “It seems that Michael has helped his brother” or “Michael seems to have helped his brother”. 4. * Peter is probable to love Susan. Violation of the Projection Principle (+ illegal NP movement), as the sentence does not observe the subcategorization properties of the lexical item “probable”. The adjective “probable” is not a raising adjective such as “likely”, for instance, so the subject of the non-finite clause, namely “Peter” cannot raise to the Spec,IP position of the main clause. Grammatical counterpart: “It is probable that Peter loves Susan.” 

TOPIC 6: PERSUADE VS PREFER:

Tests: i. ii. Subjecthood-Objecthood tests to determine the status of Mary:  subject or object? (Tests 1-4) Constituency tests to determine the constituent structure of material after V:  one or two constituents? (Tests 5-6)  Tests: i. Subjecthood-Objecthood tests to determine the status of Mary as a subject or as an object  Empty NP (replacement with PRO)  Forcomplementiser  Passivisation  Selectional restrictions 

 Subjecthood-Objecthood : Empty NP  ifwecan replace Mary with PRO, then we know that it is in of a non-finite clause (typical distribution of PRO), and therefore a subject.  Ifwecannot, it must be because it is a position in which Mary receives Case – typically an object (BUT see ECM Vs in Part 3 (1) a. I prefer Mary to resign b. I persuaded Mary to resig ,>  a. I prefer PRO to resign b. *I persuaded PRO to resign  The grammaticality of (1 a) seems to indicate that Mary in that sentence seems to behave as a subject, while in (1b) it is in a position in which Case is assigned, typically in the object position. 

 2) Subjecthood-Objecthood : Insertion of for  ifwecan insert for immediately before Mary this would indicate that this DP is in of a non-finite clause and therefore a subject.  Ifwecannot, it must be because it is in a different position, typically an object (BUT see ECM Vs in Part 3 (2) a. I prefer Mary to resign b. I persuaded Mary to resign ,> a. I prefer FOR Mary to resign b. *I persuaded FOR Mary to resign –> The grammaticality of (2 a) seems to indicate that Mary in that sentence seems to behave as a subject, while in (2b) it is in not in a subject position. 

 3) Subjecthood-Objecthood : Passivisation  Ifwecan passive these sentences so Mary becomes the subject of the corresponding passive this would indicate that this DP is in an object position (typically, the subject of a passive sentence is the object of the corresponding active: The police arrested John– John was arrested (by the pólice)) (BUT see ECM Vs in Part 3)  Ifwecannot, it must be because Mary is not the object in the corresponding active (3) a. I prefer Mary to resign b. I persuaded Mary to resign.  *Marywaspreferredto resign.  Mary as persuaded to resig N–> The grammaticality of (3b) seems to indicate that Mary in that sentence seems to behave an object, while in (3 a) it does not behave as a typical object.  

 4) Subjecthood-Objecthood: Selectional Restrictions These are restrictions of a semantic/pragmatic nature that predicates impose on their arguments (related but different from theta-role) (i) a, The plant is wilting. b. #The building is wilting. (ii) a. Sam drank a coffee b. #Sam drank a car  TheVwilt selects a subject argument that is a plant or is plant-like. Similarly, the predicate drink selects an object argument that is a liquid or is liquid-like.  Theb-sentences are possible only given an unusual context that establishes appropriate metaphorical meaning.  Thedeviance of the b-sentences is addressed in terms of selection: he selectional restrictions of the predicates wilt and drink are violated.

 Verbscan impose selectional restrictions on their arguments, not on the arguments of other Vs  Iftheselectional restrictions on the DP following the Vs prefer or persuade (Mary) are imposed by that V, then it is an argument of prefer/persuade (an object)  Iftheselectional restrictions on the DP following the Vs prefer or persuade (Mary) are imposed by the lower (non-finite) V, then it is argument of that V (4) a. I prefer Mary to resign b. I persuaded Mary to resign.

 a. I prefer the table to be clean / I prefer it to rain b. # I persuaded the table to be clean / I persuaded it ito rain –>  While prefer does not seem to impose s-restrictions on the DP following it, persuade does (it requires an anímate entity with volition). Thus, the DP following persuade seems to be an object of this V; the DP following prefer, however, is selected by the lower predicate, therefore not an object of prefer .  Subjecthood-Objecthood tests to determine the status of Mary:  subject or object? (Tests 1-4) Conclusions so far: According to tests 1, 2 – Mary with prefer seems to behave as the subject of the non-finite clause vs. Mary with persuade which does not show subject-like behaviour According to tests 3, 4 – Mary with persuade shows behaviour object-like vs. Mary with prefer which does not seem to behave as an object  So far, H1 seems to be compatible with prefer, while H2 seems to be compatible with persuade 

Tests:  ii. Constituency tests: to determine the constituent status of the sequence after V Mary to resign as one constituent (H1) or two constituents (H2)  Pronominalisation  that-clause paraphrase.

5)Pronominalisation  ifwecan replace the sequence Mary to resign with a pro-form, then we can conclude it is a single constituent  Ifwecannot, then we must conclude it is not a single constituent (2) a. I prefer Mary to resign b. I persuaded Mary to resign.  a. I prefer Mary to resign b.*I persuaded Mary to that resign tha –>  While the sequence Mary to resign can be replaced with the proform that when it follows prefer, it cannot be replaced with that when it follows persuade. This indicates that what follows prefer is a single constituent vs. what follows persuade, which does not behave as a constituent 

6) That-clause paraphrase  ifwecan replace the sequence Mary to resign with a that-clause then we can conclude it is a single (clausal) constituent  Ifwecannot, then we must conclude it is not a single (clausal) constituent (2) a. I prefer Mary to resign b. I persuaded Mary to resign  a. I prefer Mary to resign that Mary should resign b. *I persuaded Mary to resign that Mary should resign 

 *WARNING!!!: (2b) could be ungrammatical for other reasons (e.g. because the V does not subcategorize for a that-clause). (i) I want Mary to resign I want that cc Mendikoetxea *I want that Mary resign

While the sequence Mary to resign can be replaced with that-clause when it follows prefer, it cannot be replaced with a that-clause when it follows persuade. Conversely, While the sequence to resign can be replaced with that-clause when it follows persuade, it cannot be replaced with a that-clause when it follows prefer cc Mendikoetxea This indicates that what follows prefer is a single constituent vs. what follows persuade, which appear to be two independent constituents PR

Key Differences Between NOM-ACC and ERG-ABS