Verbal Complement Clauses: A Minimalist Study of Direct Perception Constructions (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today

VERBAL COMPLEMENT CLAUSES

LINGUISTII< AKTUELL TI1is series provides a platform for studies in the syntax

,

semantics, and pragmatics of the Germanic languages :md their historical developments. The focus of the series is represented by its German title Lingl�istik Aktuell (Linguistics Today). Texts in the series are in English. Series Edilor \Verner Abraham Germanist isch lnstituut Rijlciuniversiteit Groningen Oude Kijk in 't jatstraat 26 9712 EK Groningen The �etherlauds E�rnail: [email protected] Advisory Editorial Board Guglielmo Cinque (University ofVenict) GHntlH�r Grewendorf (University of Stuttgart) Uliane llaegeman (University ofGeneva) 1 1 ubert llaider (Universil)' of Salzburg) Christer Platzack (University of lund} Jan Roberts {University of Stuttgart) Ken Satlr (Rutgers Universil)'· New Brunswick �J) lloskuldm Thciinsson (Urlh•ersity of Iceland. Reykjavik) Usa det\·fena Travis (McGill University) Sten Vikner (University of Stuttgart} C. Jan-Woutcr Zwart (Uuiversily of Groningen)

Vol ume 25 Claudia Felser Verbal Complement Clauses A minimalist study of dir&et perception constructions

VERBAL COMPLEMENT CLAUSES A MINIMALIST STUDY OF DIRECT PERCEPTIO

CONSTRUCTIO

S

CLAUDIA FELSER University of Essex

JOH

BENJAMINS PUBLfSHING COMPANY AMSTEROA).f

/PHILADElPHIA

The paper used m tlus publication meets the mmnnum requirements of

TM

American National Standard for Information Sctenccs- Pemtancnce of Paper for Pnnted Ubrary Matcruls. AKSI Z39·4S-r984.

OC)

Librarr of Congrc..o;s Catalog)ng-in-f>ublication Data Fdser. Cbudia. Verbal complement clauses : a mmimalist study of direct �rceptton constructions 1 Claudia Fclser. p. em.·· (Lmgmsttk akruellfl.mgutstlcs today. ISSN 01&6·0&2nerai-Verb phrase. 2. Grammar. Comparam·c and general­ Complement. 3. Grammar. Comparatwc and gcucraJ.. Cbuses. I. Ttt1e. II. Scncs: Lmgmst1k aktuc11 : Bd. 25. P28LF-ts

1999 99·2H96

415-�c21 ISBN 90 272 2746 2

(EU R) /1

55619 909 ()

(t:s) (Hb. aUc.. paper�

CIP

© 1999 - John Bcnlamms B. V. No part of thts book may be reproduced m any form. by print. photopnnl microfilm. or any other me-ans.

\VIthcmt wnttcn penmss1on from the publisher.

John BenJarmns Pubhslung Co. John Ben1amms Korth Amenca

·

·

P.O.Box 75)77 P.O.Box

27519

·

•

1070 ,\N A�>t STERDA.M

Pluladclphta

The Netherlands

PA 19118.()519

·

usA

Fiir meine Eltern

Contents

Pretacc Abbreviation. and Symbols Pe1ception Verb� and Generative Grammar 1 . 1 Jmroduction 1.2 The Problems 1.3 The Aim and Scope of this Study 1.4 Organi.auon 1.5 Over\'iew of the 'llleoretical Framework 1 . 5 . 1 0-Theory and Merger 1.5.2 Argument Movement 1.5.3 Functional Categorie.., and Head t\•1ovemcnt 1.5.4 Bmding and Control 2

Synta�tic rope1tte� of I PVC. 2.2.1 Oeterminmg Constituency 2.2.2 Ab. ence of Finitene,c;. tvtarkers and Auxilianes 2.2.3 t{estrictions on Pass ivi.auon 2.2.4 Re,c;trictions on 1'/u:re Insertion 2.3 Semantac Properties of I PVC� 2.3.1 Tempoml Simultaneity 2.3.2 Re,c;trictions on the Predicate 2.3.3 Logical Propertae. of Bme lnfi muves 2.3.4 Restrictions on Bare Plural Subjects 2.4 S ummary of the Propenies of I PVC� 2.5 Perception "ersus Cau. attve Comptcmen11 2.6 Participial Perception Complement� 2.6.1 Tlle J\mbiguiry of Participta1 Complement. 2.6.2 The Oitference between PPVC.c; and JPVC. 2. 7 Summe. hear or jt•l'l ad nut a wide range of complements. utduding four dtlferem typ� of ·vetbar complemems: finite clau. e . . full mtinl­ tive�. bare inlinitives (i.e .. verbs in the intirlit ive form that are not accompamed by the infinitival marker w). and partictpial complements (ct. la-d).' � ( t)

a. b. c. d.

We saw !hat John wet dmwiJtg a circle We saw John to be a (!ood srutlem We . aw J'-'lary leavt• We saw M(tr' r lem·iug

In add1tton to lhe active ''erb forms shown m ( t ) ome perception verbs al.o admit complements containing a bare pas t part1c1ple. cl pnceplhm. � 'll1e difference between d1rcct •md indirecl perception is illustrated by the contrast between did not .eem to tit imo the picture. Consequently. perceptual reports came to at'qutre a certain notoriety among generative researchers. which is captured nicely by Declerck's (1983a. I 05) ratherdisillu ioned conclu.ion rhat Eng lish JPVC' s 1- infinitiwli/JrTN'fJIIOTI w·rb romplt>ml'llls) sull present a serious prob­ lem for tr has once again

become a fol'US of anterc.�l. New theoretical developments-. uch ru the VP-IIIIl'nwl Sul�jn·r Hypoth£>sis (Kilagawa 19X6. Kuroda 1988. Koopman and Sponil:·he 1991. among other:-). the wcakenmg of the structural paralleh.m hypothe. is t Chomsky 1986a). and the postulauon of further functional categones-gave rise to new pro­ po.ab regardmg the . tructure of direct perception complements (see.for in. tan..:e. Benni. and Hoekstra 1989. Guasti 1993. or Safir 1993). Their proposal. will be critically evaluated an the later pa11 of this study.

1.3 The Aims and Scope of this Study Rogcr.�t ( 1971. 1974) distinguishe. three different . emanuc type. of perception verbs: {i) non-agentive or ·cogntttve· verbs. (ii) agemive or ·acttve· verbs. ;.md (iii) descriptive verb.. illustrated by (3a-c). re. pechvely: (3)

a.

We could hear/l>eeJsmell/.. .our neighbou�· dog

b.

We were h.tening to/watching/smelling/ .. . our neighbottrl>· dog

c.

'111at dog ,1\ounw /looks/.melis/ ... awful!

Table l4) provides an overview of Rogers· dassilkauonal .ystem.w h t ch ru. oci-

i n t r·oducrion

5

ale$ each of the five human .enses with a set ot at lea.�t three (semantically related) ' verb. . some of which appear to . erve as muluple homonyms: (-l)

cogni t iv e

active

descl'i p t i v e

hear .ee smell1 taste1 fecl1

li. ten (to) look (at)/watch smell! taste� feel�

sound look smell� taste, feel,

Tlle present study focu. es on non.agemive perception verbs :o-uch yl\lactic and semantic charactertstic. of non-fimte perception complements in Engh.h. and uwestigate, the nature of the relauonshtp between bare mfiniuvcs and panidpial complements. It turns out that the two t)'pe-1 of complement pattern ahke in all rele­ vant respect. .whtch suggest. that they are in fact structurally analogous. and differ only with re-1 peel t o thetr aspectual spectlicauon. In Chapter 3. l cnucally evaluate some ear her analy.es of verbal small clauses. before pmposing an alternative syn­ tactic analysis for direct perception complement. thatts compatible wllh Cham. ky·.

(1995) mintmahsl framework. Specifically, f argue that both bare mfintttve.� and parti�iphll complem en ts are best �malysed a,� m;1ximal ptojecctons of the functional head A,·pc>ct. an analysis \Vhich accoun� nicely for a number of tic. of perception of grammar. ln Chapter 5. I examine direct perception construction. Ill other Westgermantc language. and in Romance. ll is shown that while the analy. is pmposed for English l' (0-role). Thi. property can be reprc..c;enced .chematically a. follows:

fJ-marking 1:-. the mechanism by which thematit roles are assigned to XJ>s denot­

tng the participanu of the actron or state-ol-atfatrs de. cribed by a given predkme. presumably in accordance wirh a universal mechani. m of 9-role �signment such as Baker's ( 19Sg) Uniftmnit)' t�/"11tew Assignment H-,1HIIhl'sis (UTAH). Although the notion of9-role 1s a syntactic one (see e .g. Cowper 1992: 48-56). 11 i often used more or le-"S . ynonymou:o.ly with the notion of semantac role. examples of which tnclude the roles of ag e n t . t heme. experience!'. etc. Argument. are sucres­ . 1vely merged into syntacrk po. 111on. in the order determmed by a tuniver. al) the­ matic hie1archy such as the following. which ha� heen sugge. ted by Gnmshaw ( 1 990: 8).'J (8)

(age n t (e xpel'iencet· � go a 1/. oun;e/1 ocat io n (t heme ) ) ))

·me argument which is most promment . emantically is also mo. t prominent syntactically. an idea which is c-aptured by Larson· s � 1 988: 382) argument linking principle: (9)

If a verb determines 6-roles e,. 6z. . . .. e... then the lowest role on the Thematic Hierarchy is assigned to the lowest argument in constituent . lructure. the next lowe. t role to the next lowe. t argument. and so on.

In order to mcJintain the genetalisatton that 9-marking is local in the .en. e rhat it t. restricted to the domain of the 0-marking head. Lar. on ( 1 988) propo ed that cer­ lnm verb phmsc. . notably those headed by l < datransitive verb. arc structurally more complex than pre tously thought. Chom. k)r ( 1 995) not only adopts Larson's pro­ posal but extend. n to other t)'J>CS of verb phrase ru well. Specifically. he propo. es all erb phra es (wnh the po:sible exception of unaccu. alive prechcat�) comprbe an outer vP . hell headed by an ab.tract agemive or causative 'light verb· v as well as an inner or core VP. ln accordmK-e with the predicate-mternal. ubject hypolhe.1s. Chomsk, sugge.�ts that the external argument-nO!mally. the argument rusociated

i n t a·od us denot� mg the participant of the acuon or �tate-ol-affatrs descnbed by a given predicate. presumably in accordance wirh a universal mechani.m of 9-role �signment such as Baker'. ( l9K8) Uniformity of" l'lteta Assignment Hypmlu·sis (UTAH). Although rhe notion of9-role ts a syntactic one (.see e .g. Cowper 1 992: 48-56). tt i often used more or less . ynonymou. l, with the notion of semanllc role. examples of which mclude the role. of agen t . t heme. e x pe .- ie nce .- . etc. Arguments are succes­ savely merged imo syntactic posauon. in the order determmed by a ( univer. al) the­ maw: hierarchy such as the following. whic h hal> been sugge. ted by Gnmshaw ( 1 990: 8).'J (8)

(age n t (e xpcdencet· (goa l /soun. �ellocation (t heme))))

The argument which is mo. t promment semantically is also most prominent syntactically. an idea which i:- captured by Larson·. l I 988: 382) argument linking principle: (9)

If a ver b determme. 0-roles S 1 61 0,.. then the lowest role on the Thematic Hierarchy i. assigned to the lowest argument in cottl>tituent . tructure. the next lowe. t role to the next lowe. t argument. and so on. •

•

.

.

••

In order to maintain the genetalisauon that 0-markmg is local in the . en. e £hat it ts re..,tricted to the domain of the 0-marking head. Lar. on l I 988) proposed that cer­ tam verb phrase. . notably those headed by 'ilh the predicate�tnternal. ubject hypothe. is. Chorn.�ky sugge.;;ts that the extemal argument-normally. the argument associated

10

d audta fe l s e •·

wuh the agen t role--originate. in (Spec.vP). whereas all internal argument). of the verb originate inside VP. a. indicated in ( 10). ( tO)

vP

/'.

Ot>

v'

A

v

VP

A

(XP)

V'

A

V

DP.�

According to Chomsky (Chomsk)' 1 995. 3 I 2-16. 355-67). the extended erb phra. e accomo

A

DP

vP

A

DP..,

v'

A

VP v b1011 1

. A

�.

t,

___...

The nominative case feature of the .UbJOCt DP (in finite dau. es) i. checked against a corresponding feature of the functional head T

�

the subJeCt rat. es to

(Spec.TP).

( 12)

Ca e theory has thus become an intergral part of a more geneml theory ol morpho-�yntactic fe,.nure checkmg. which dality. A.�JU!l"l and Vuission). and forr pos. ible coreference relation. between the:-e. The nmion of bindinl( is defined as follow. : ( 14)

a

binds p if a c-conuuands P and <J.. p are l'Oindexc.d.

(Chom:-ky :md Lasmk 1993. 548)

BT t. behevcd to be operative at Lr tn that its principle. (A). (B) and (C) impo. e specific well-formcdness conditions on Lr t'epre. emation. . ( 15)

(/\ • An anaphor must be bound in a local domain. {B) A pronoun mwa be tree in a lor.al domain . (Chom. ky and La. mk 1 993. 549) (C) An R-expre. StOll mu�t be tree.

The grammatical module of control theory i. de. tgned exclustvely to account fot the distribtUton of the null pronominal PRO. which in English may serve as the . ubject of complex event nominal. and �nain types of mfinHtve. T'he notion of comml can be mformall>' denned as follows (adapted from Htgganbotham 1989: 495). ( 16)

Control i:. . een when an under. tood argumem take. for us amecedem an­ other local element with no transmisstott of thematic role.

Like all empty categories. PRO requite. a referential index { Rizzi I 986}. The reference of PRO t. determined by its antecedent if it ha. one: otherwise. PRO i. mdcxed freely. Unfortunate!�. a proper theory of control ha. nevet' been formulated. and much debate has been �:oncerned wHh the question of whether control theory constitute. a . eparate module of grammOme of Lhe problenh they pol>e for linguil>tic analyst. . 2.2 .J Vf•tnminin� Coustitm•JtC\'

In eru·lier analyse. propo. ed within a generative framework {Gee 1975. Akmajian

non-finite pe n�ept ion t•omp I em e n u .

19

1 977). .ome of the characterisuc :-.yma�lic propertie.� of I PVC. were taken to sup­ pon the vtew thai they are not consliment. . but mdependent DP-VP �cquences. as . hown in rig. (5). s

(5)

� DP

We

VP

� V

DP

VP

;----___

.o;aw John draw a cirde According to AkmaJian. the fact that l PVC. resi. t pa�.l\·is.ation and cannot appear Ill cleft.. pseudo-dells. wu�h t'on. truction. . or right node rat. ing conligurauons (as tllustrated by the example. in (6}) indicate..; th;n the, are not constttuems. (6)

a. b. c. d. e.

ie.Joltn drau a drdt' was �een

in High Street Ia. t mght (pa . . tv e ) ..It wa� Jolut drau plumt. the re.o.;u llin.g . trucwre. are all grammatical. (7)

a. b. c. d. e.

ll pinJ.. dt.:plumt

was seen Ill Hsgh Street last night It was a pink rlcpham that we saw Whal we saw wa. a pink dt>p/wm A pin/... deplumt is a rare rhing to see We could sec. but we couldn't hear. a pink elepltam

As poimed out by Gee ( 1 977). however. data like those in (6) can at best be taken to sugge. l that IPVCs do not have the :-.talUs of noun phrase. . smce the movement operation. involved ate of a kind that typically apply to OPs (hence the grammatic­ ahty of (7a-e)). Pa. . avisauon. fore, ample. ts regruded as an mstance of DP-move­ ment. and the focus po�iuon of deft-. entence. i. l..nown to host only non-verbal categories such as OP or PP (Jackendol1' 1977. Stowell 1981 ). ' Although the .yntax of pseudo-clefts is sttll poorly understood (see Higgin� 1 979. Rochemom 19�6 fo1 . ome discu. sion). it appear. that the focu. ed constnuem in both clefts and pseudo-

d audsa fe l . e t·

20

clefts smface� a. a complemem of (.'Opular lu'. Given that �opular bl' doe. not admit bare intinitive complemenL-:. the ill-formedne. . of ( 6b.c) is hardly surprising. NexL con!ider example (6dt Tough �.onstruction:-. are standardly ru ·umed to uwolve an empty operator that binds a variable withm the mtinnival clau:-.e. rathct than being derived vta oven ObJeCt raising (Chomsky 1 98 1 : 204): A ptnk elepham i. a rare tlung In> Op1 PRO to . ee t, I

(8)

Hence. the mability ot JPVCs to undergo 10ugh movemem merely conlirms our earlier ob:-.e1 ation that bare inlinitive. are excluded from :o.ubject po. i11or1:o. ld. (6a)). Nottce that full infinitives (which are unequtvocally clau. al con.mtuents) are often felt to be had in 10u�h focu. 100: .. For a cat to cares. your ann would be ju.t wonderful to feel! {Satir 1993: 62)

(9)

; le ):

( 15)

a. b. c.

(Gee 1975) l . aw it rain last ntght J heard it chtme one o'dock as 1 was turmng out ot the gate ( Declerck 1983a) J saw tlu:rt- nse over the rnoumam a h1ue haze (adapted ftom Kir. ner and Thompson 1 976: 2 1 0)

Given that quasi-argument' and over1 expletive� are not allowed to occur in obJeCt po. auon. it loJiows that it and there in ( 15) mu. t be structural subjec�. A' J>OIIlted out by Kayne ( 1 9M). the postvcrhal DP in JPVCs also behave. like a subject rather than an object wtth te. peel to WH-extmction:

c;J audsa fe l se t·

22 ( 16)

a. ,. Who, did , ou �ee the si�te1 of l1 dance b. Who, did you vistt the sister of l,

What is more. perception verb. �.ter. Second!, . whereru m;1ny of the (b) example. stnke u. a. . emantic.ally or pragmatically odd. there ts nothmg at all

non-finite pen�eptlon �omp l em e n t s

23

unusual about the (a) example:-.. That is. (23a) i. line because povnt\' here i. under­ :-.tood ru the :-.ubject of ruin mtmyfarmers. wherea. Ill (23b). it can only be construed a. the direct ObJect of �vatch. which then renders the .entence anomalou. . The ex­ amples above thw show that the postverbal OP i. sensueve to electtonal restrictions unposed by the embedded predicate rather than by the matrix verb. Tlu. . m turn. . uggests that the postvcrbal DP. in the (a) examples are structural . ubjects. not objects. I conclude (following Gee ( 1 975: 306tf.). Kirsner and Thompson 1 976. Par. ons ( 1990: 2M n. 2). ;md others) that the Iact that the entity denoted by the I PVC subJect can oilen be understood as an object of the perception vetb is due to pragmatic infet·cnce. Thi. b further confirmed by the ob. ervatton that this mfcrence appears to be directly cancellahle6: (25)

I saw John . aw through the floor (though I did not actually see him. but onl; hi:-. saw pokeng through the floor) (adapted rom Barss 1 9KS: I 56)

(26)

I fell Uemge get on the other end of the water bed (but. of cour:-.e. I didn ' t actually feel George) ( Kirsner and Thompson 1 97(>. 209)

(27)

rrom my vantage point I 0 nulcs away. I watched them blow up the bridge (though of course from thai distance. I couldn't see the mdtvidual commando. involved) (adapted ftom Kir. ncr and Thompson 1976: 209)

(28)

='low that I think ol it. I did .see John draw a ctrcle. tt' s JU. t that my view of hi. face wa. blocked1

Or. to quote another tllu.slrataveexample from Gee ( 1 977. 474 ). pictllle a situation m which John is hidmg behind a screen so that we cannot see him. though we know he ts there. ='low tf he 1. able to move .c; maJI object on the front sade of the screen from the back by mean. of u. mg a strong magnet. it is pos, ible to say: (29)

I ju. t saw John mo e one of the little figure�-: (though I couldn't �ee John him. elf)

In most situauons. though. perceiving an evem implie lhat we aLo pen.·eive the msttgator (rectpient. expenenccr. . . ) of the action described by the predicate. A':-- the above examples •how. however. this is due to out· knowledge of the world and of the natute of events tather than to the grammatic.al funcuon of the postverbal OP (compare Kinmer and Thomp. on 1 976. 2 I Of.).� The beha tour of rellexives ..:onstiltUes another argument for a biclausal analy.i of IPVC constructionl:>. Accordmg to Principle (A) of the binding theory. anaphors require a 'clausemate' <mtecedent. t.e. they mu t be bound locally by the closest

24

d audaa fe I . e a·

po. sible antecedem (Chomsky 1 9 8 1 . Aoun 1985). �ow consader the examples Ill (30): (30)

a. b. c.

Bill� saw John, shave hun. elf.L,.. BiiJ� expected John, to shave hnn. cl f.lr. Bill� wanred (the cuddly toy teddyberu 1. f01 hnn. elfLr•

The reOextve anaphor himsc�l m (30a.b) can only be mterpreted ing home. an observatton that as due to Oederck ( 1983a). (32)

Bill saw John kts. l\•lary before goin.� ltDnU'

Here. the adverbial modifica· phm.e /)(fon• goinK home can be interpreted in two different wa, . . i.e. it can be under.;:tood a.� rclaung either to .lolm 01 to Bill. but-crucially-not to Mary. This mdacales that both .lohu and Bill function as �ubjects an lhe above example. and hence may both ahemately function a.c; the controller of the PRO subject contained within rhe modifier clause9, C"C shown Ill (33). (33)

Bi111 saw John1. ki.. Mary !before PROA gomg home}

As there appears lo be no e idence for analysing perception verbs a. dumnsuive verb�. we may as�umc that 1he 0-grid of e.g. se(> look. a. follow. . 11,

non-fini t e pe 1·cept ion comp I em en t:-.

25

Chomsky". ( 1 98 1 ) l'n�it•ction PriJtdpl!' (or ilc; mmimali. l re. sdue. see Chom. ky 1 995. Ch. 4) thus force:-. u. to reject not only AkmaJian · :-. non-consutucnt analy.as. bm at.o an ObJeCt �ontrol analysis in the sparil of Ro. enbaum ( 1 967) or Hengo ( 1 974 ). which also pre..c;upposes that a verb like SN' i. able to functtOJ\ as a thre� place predicate. cr. We saw John, !PRO draw a Circle}

( 35 )

In sum. we have seen that a non-con:-.tituel\1 analy. i.s ol IPVC. is fal. it1ed by a va..c;t numbe1 of e1npirical facts. Instead. it was . hown that HI per�ptaon sence t4' Finileness Marker.\' and 1\u,\i/i(tries .

.

rust. notice that I PVC. dafl'er from full daus� in that they are never mtro carries objective cac;e indicate. that perception verb. might belong ro the class ol exc't'J)fional iYISt'·marking ( t::C M) verbs like belit·•·e or n.pt>ct. which are able to a$sign obJecuve ca. e to the embedded . ubjecr DP: (37)

a. b.

We saw I hun/,.I'RO draw a ctrclej We expected lhun/,.I'RO to be clever!

IPVCs are fut thermore characrerised by lhe absence of modats. oven rense/ agreement markers. and. most conspicuou. ly. inllnitival ro. (38 )

a. "'We saw tum will/nughtlcan/. . . draw a dtde b. •We . aw tum draws cirdes b. "' We sa\ hun ro dr;\W a circle

In short. there is no oven evidence at all for the presence of C. tnft/T or subject­ verb agreement Ill JPVC. . so that we can formulate the following con. tmint on Bl perception complement. :

d audsa fe l . e t·

26

(39)

Tlw N()u-Fiuireness Cmt.'ifraiur

Oven complcmentiscrs and finitene, . marker� are exduded from WVCs. Another l'haracterisllc property of IPVC. 1. their failure to admn the two a.�peclUal auxiliari� llttv(• and be. which combine wnh a paniciplc to form perfec­ tive or progressive expr��sion.s. (40)

a. 11We .aw John have drawn a circle b. "'We . aw John be drawing a circle

No such res11 icuonl>. on the other hand. are observed m the case of ten:-.ed or fully mtimuval complemenb. Compare the exampi�. on the other hand. l>Cems to be ( margmally ) permitted in non-tinuc perception construction. . preferably in the . hape of the pre. ent panictple bt>in.�. as noted e.g. b. Lapointe ( 1 9XO) (the symbol t,r� mdscates that the relevant example i. acceptable m some vanetie.s of present-day English only). 1 1 (42)

a. (k\Ve . aw a circle be drawn 12 b. We . aw a ctrcle bemg drawn

Lapointe t 1 980) and Takezawa ( t 984) have suggested that the absence ot per­ fective huw· can be accounted for in terms of a purely )>etnantic condition. the perfective auxiliary hlJ\'t' is disallowed simply because it is incompatible with the requirement that the matnx clause and the event expr��sed by the IPVC be inter­ preted a� stmuhaneou. . Or. a. Lapomte puts 11. bccau. e we arc . .simply not .. equtppe. however. cannot be accounted for quite a� ca.tly (but ee Secuon 3.3.2. below). Pru. tve bt•. then. ss the on ly admis. t­ ble auxiliary m non-tintte pe1ception verb complements. These observation. arc summed up in (43). (43)

Restrictions oJt 1\u.\iliari('S

Apec tual auxiliari�� are excluded lrom IPVCs.

2.2 .J Restrinions em Plts.�ivi.writm 2.2 .J .I Bare Past Pttrriciple Complements Whercal> lPVCs that contain uninflected passive be are often only marginally ac­ ce t>table. perception verb. qui te readil, admit participial complements without be.

non-finite pe 1·cept i o n comp I em en t :-.

27

According to Gee ( 1 975: 20 I ). the exam pi� in (44) are all fully grammatical. and semamicaJiy akin to finite clause. that describe an cvem m the pm;srve (compare (45a-c)): (44)

(45)

I . aw a car wrecked (by the police)

a. b. c.

1 heard a song sung

I felt my foot kicked

a. b.

I . aw that a car was wrecked by the police I heard that a song wa:-. sung I feh that fn)' foot was ktckcd

c.

Recall. however. lhat the example.�: in t4+) and (45) are nor . emantkally equiva­ lent. as they uwolvc dtrect and indirect per·ception. respectively. /\s noted by Palmer ( 1987: 199>. only st•e. hntr .{et•l and watch r·egularly occur 11 With the -en form. h i. far from clear. however. whethe r all (or indeed. any) ot the bare -en t'omplcmems in (44) really are the passive correlates of the active IPVCs Ill (46a-d below: (46)

I . aw the poltce wreck a car I he;ud someone sing a . ong I felt someone kick my foot

a. b. c.

Notice also that there .eems to exi:-.l a tendency (at lea. t aero. s Germanic hm­ guage:-.) to replace the past partictple b. the intinit ive form of the verb. a phenome­ non known as l11finitiw1s I'm Participio (IPP) or t:r.tat:_it�{initil' (. ce Section 5.2.3 for .some discussion): (47)

a.

We heard a piano play

b.

We heard the bells

c.

\Vir lu'irum die (i/ockell llmten

ri ng

(German)

We heard the bell. ring d.

lk hoor een liedje :iu�t·tt

I he.ar a

(Dutch. de Gcest 1970: 38)

song sing

A to t11e derivallon of panicipial -m t'omplemem. of the type �hown tn (44a- may be due to the 1�1ct that proper nouns or pronouns cannot normally be modified by re)>tricuve rclatl\'e clauses (. ee Fillmore 1963). To conclude the dt. cussion of bare pa. t participle complements. the above obser­ vattOJh sugge,IOt that they are ambaguou.s between a OP-modifier .structure (which may actually be the preferred �lnaly�i.) and a participial small dau. e structure. 2.2 .3.2 Mttin Claw.e Pcls.�ivt•s One of the most pu7.7.ling femures ot IPVC.s m English is the fact that. unlike the subject. of. tanda.rd ECM infinitives as in t59a). or . mall dause complement. like the one in (60a). their subject cannot pa. sivise:

c

30

1 audaa fe l s e r

(58)

a. We . aw John draw a circle b. ,.John was seen draw a circle

(59)

a. b.

We expect John to draw circle. John was expected to draw circle.

(60)

a. b.

We consider hun .tupid He was consadered .tupad

Note that the pa!\. ave .emence m (59b) cannot he ruled out on any obviou se­ mantac grounds-after all. the semence can be a. . igned the intended imerpretation wtthout much dilficuhy. This sugge. � that the reruon for Its ungrammaticality i• . yntactic. The unavailability of. tructures hke t58b) is caprut•ed by the following de:-.criptive generalisation: 1 7 (61)

The C:ouslrailll ttgttiiiSI /'(tSSi\'t'

The subJect DP ol bare inlinilive percepltOil complemen� cannot be pa. savised. So far. few allempts have been made to account for the ilt-fonnednes. of matrix pa:sives like (58b). Williams ( J9K3: 3031f.) propo. ed a ·ymactk filler condition (samilar to ROS$ · 1 972 Double-in� Consrntim ) to rule out . tructurcs of the t pe shown 111 (62). which mvolve a past participle followed by the inlinilival form of the verb: �t

(62)

John was seen h•ttw

As William. himself admits. however. a grammaucal constraint that applie. to the surface linear ordering of constituems i. nothing more than a de. cnptive devace. and doe:-. not have any explanator force. More princtpled attempts to derive the Constramt agamst Pa. sive have sub. equentl. been made by Higginbotham ( 19X3 ). Kroch t?l a/. ( 1 987). Bennis and Hoek. tra ( J9K9). and Pollock ( 1 994): they will be discu.. ed in Chapter 4 in the context of the analysts developed in the later part of thi. book. Le1 us now examme whether or not there as a way for perceptual report. to e.'>capc the C01wraillf a�ainsr Passive. It ha:-. often been claimed !hat .uucture:-. like (63b) that contain the infiniuval marker to repre. em the p�.ave correlate of acuve IPVCs like (63a) below (see Karsner 1 977. and reference$ cited there). (63)

a. b.

Someone saw John draw a dtcle John was seen to draw a circle

(64)

a. b.

John drew a circle A circle was drawn by John

non-ftn i t e pet·ce t> t ion comp l e m e n t s

31

However. the hypothe! is that the relauon between l63a) and {63b) IS the.amc a. the one that hold. between a finite active sentence like (64a) and its pa� tve counter­ part (64b) turn. out to be incorrect for various re been much debate a. to how many verb dass� are actually needed. 111 what way they are iruerrelatcd. and what �.:rileria should be used for d that they mu. t contai n a non-stulil'l• verb-that is. a verb which. in Vendler' s terms. describes either an activuy. an accomplishment. or an achievement (Higginbotham 19g3). There are. however. example)> which appc.c.tr tocommdkt this generah. ation. rollowtng Neale ( 1 98M: 3 14f.). a . tative verb like own 1. actually permitted to o�.:cur m lPVCs provided that an app10priate context can be con. trued. A . emence like l l 06a). for instance. nught be uttered during a fa:t-mo mg poker game where hou. e .; can change their owners several tunes in a . ingle na!!ht. Given an appropnate �.:omext. then. a . emence hke { 106b) makes pcrtcct sen:-e. •

( 106) a. ?I . aw John own a house b.

l .aw John own a hou. e for two mtnute!'> once

In other words. Neale ( 19�8) ..;haws that depending on uch extra-grammatical factors a: the pragmatic �ontcxt m whtch a sentence i!'> u�ed. It i. possible even f01 an mherentl · stative verb to be interpreted evemively. According to �Jill woch ( 1990: l 06 n. 2). Neale· s example merely illustrate. what is known m the �emantic literature a$ a c·megorv switch. and a. . uch doc. not necessanly uwalidate Htggmbotham·� claim. :•) However. �hllwoch':; account for examples like { 1 06) does not take into consideration a very general property of B l perception comple­ ments. namely that the predicate as a whole must always be interpretable a: non­ stative. In othes word. . what seem. to be cmdal for a sentence . uch ( 106a) to be

non fin i t e pen�eption �omplemenb

43

-

JUdged acceptable 1. that the pred1cate Oll'lf a hott.\'l! (rather than the erb alone) can be as;;:igned a non-.tative reading. Notke. moreover. thar even predicate. headed by copular /)l• may sometunes occur in dirocl perception con. truction. . provided the . ituation depicted pos. es. � a cenam 'temporary" quality. Compare the examples i11 ( 107) beiO\v:

( I 07)

a.

We aw/watched John be a nu1:-ance

b. *We aw/watched �tary be tall Tlle Bl complement in l l 07a) favours an event reading. which i. contlrmed by the facl that the potentially ambiguou. verb

:>t>('

can be replaced b, watdt

tn

thi.

context. that is. by a verb that never admus stauve complements. The t'omplement m ( I 07b). on the othe1 hand. expre. se.s a true state. and i. therefOI'e excluded from IPVCs. E•. entially the . ame situanon is found in . emences that uwol\ e predicates such

a...,

:mmd ot lil·. whtch are u. ually grouped with the , tative verbs. Again. these

are permiued in Bl complement. of perception verb. only tf they expre:s a non­ permanent state texamples adapted from Kir)>ner and '11tornpson 1976 and Declerck 19RJ a).

nmn

. are nol generall, excluded I rom J PVC, . whtch mean. that our earher generalisation as to what kind of predicates are permiued in IPVC. ha. to be l'nodified. Let u. therefore tentatively formulate the following constrain!. ( I I 0)

ResJrictiUII 011 81 Prnfied on a semantic opposition which allows u. to distmgui. h situations that involve a change or motion of . ome soil from . lluation. that do not. This 1. precise!., what Carlson· s ( I 980} distinction between stage-level and md1vidual-level predtcate. enables u. to do. Carlson t 1980: 1 5 2 ) claun. that 1 . . . 1 we hnV\: a large number of predtc:ttcs that apply only to stngcs of indt\'tduuls. ex:unples bctng most PP' s. UUJCl'llV Ihe extstence of the evem de. cl'ibed by the bare infinitive clau.e. Hence the following inference is ' argued to be V that a hidden quantification mu.t be present m BI con. u·uctions. an a. sumption that he share,'\ with Harwise (secal. o Gee 1975). More . pedtlcally. H1ggmbotham ( 1 983: I 06) argue.� th•lt 81 complements behave hke quamified noun phrase. lOPs) ruther than clause. the Pnndple of Exportability. concerns the al�.;ence of certain type, ol quantifier scope ambiguity in Bl con. trucuons. In general. e:us­ tenttal quantifiers or quantified noun phra!->e:o. within a 1:3 1 clau!->e must take the w1dest possible . cope. ·nte truth of .entence ( 124a) below. for example. implies the truth of the . tatement m ( I 24b). but not lhat oft J 24�). Jn other words. the reading given tn ( I 24bl. tn which the quantified noun phrase somN>IIt' hru matnx cope. ts the only po.sible read1ng of t 1 24a): w ( 1 24)

a. b. c.

John saw someone leave There was ,omeone whom John aw leave John .aw that there was . omeone who left

Again. quantifier exportab1ht, would seem to follow I rom Higginbotham· s as umptlon thai B l complement!-> are not interpreted a� dau. es at LF (but see Sec­ tion 4.4.6 for an alternative account}. Jn addition to principles { A }-(C). Barwise ( 1 9 8 1 ) notes that negation occun ing mside a HI dau. · was a univer. al charactenstr� of firemen

Sentence ( 135a) can either be imerp1eted in the .sen. eof ( 1 35b ). where t'.\lingttish fin•s describes an ongolflg activity of .wnu• firemen. or as ( l 35c). in which l'a�e extingui.�lt fires peci ties a propen y of tire men m general.

Tlle above ob:-.ervauons can be captured by the following de�criptive "� genel'ah. ation:

d audsa fe l ses· ( 1 36)

'l1te :t(;J:.W Cmt�lrttiffl on Bart' Plttml::.

Bare plu• al subject. of non-finite percept ion complement. cannot be in­ terpreted genencally. Die.ing · ( 1992a.b) claims cegardmg the . ymax of indefinites suggest that the absence of a generic reading for bare plural. in Bl per"Ception complement. might be linked to the fact noted m Section 2.3.2 that mdh•idual-lcvel predicate. as m ( 137) below are generally exdudcd from diroct perception sentences. ( 1 37)

a. 'tWe saw t1remen be intelligent b. •we saw dino. aurs love kelp c. •we heard dog. be noisy animals

The prec1se nature of thi. link. as well VCs exhtbit a number of unequivocally dau.al characteri tics. there t. no ob\'ious evsdcnce for the presence of any of the standard clausal heads such as C. or lnll-categones such as Tor Agr. m lhts type of complement. II wa. funher shown that IPVCs behave dtl'ferently from both ECM and non-verbal small clause)> in that their . ubjoct OP cannot be pa.sivt.ed. a fact that 1. as yet poorly under.tood. Moreover. ll was . hown that the po. l>ibshty of in­ sertmg expletive !ltert' into Bl perception clause. IS subject to seemingly arbitrary restrictions. umme.d up in (89) above. Semantically. perception verbs followed by an IJ>VC always denote the unmediate sensrn perception of an event OJ situation. which must be mterpreted a:- occurring ..-imultaneously wuh the act of perceh•ing (d. (97)). When combmed with a ten.ed or fully inlinitival complement. on the other hand. perception verbs take on an epi.temsl� reading. giving ri e to what we have called an ·indirCl'f perception ime1 pretation. Contrary to Bl clauses. tensed and fully infinitival complement. show a comparatively htgh degree of temporal tndependence from the mall ix clause. 'llte three l)'pe,�; of clausal perception comple­ ment differ not only . yntactkally. but with respect to thetr semantic type as well: !PVC denote evems. full mtimtsve..- denote . tatel>. and finite daus� denote propo­ stuons. It wru fun her noted that for a dtrect perception reading to be available. the IJ>VC mu.1 contain a . tage-level predtcate in the sen. e of Carlson ( 1980). that i.. a predicate rhat describes a change of state or motion of some sort. Individual-level predicatel>. on the other hand. are genemlly excluded from non-finite perception complementl> (cornpare ( I I on. Unlike that-PVC. OJ full infinitives. JPVCs were

non-ftnite pet·ce t> t io n complemen t s

53

shown to be referentially transparent with existentially quantilied expressions nor­ mally taktng mmr ix scope. Finally. it was noted that bare plural subjects of u>VCs fail to admit the generic reading that is :wai table for them in other context. . and can be as. igncd an exi.tenttal inteq>retattotl only (compare ( 136)). I n .um. we have ,ecn that the interpretation of perception verbs varies according to the t, pe of complement they occur wllh. and that there appears to be a fairly )>trong degree of correspondence between the syntactic and . cmamic propertie.� that ch:uacteri. e I PVC.. The absence of oven complementtser:- and modal . for exam­

ple. corre. ponds to the ob. ervauon that BJ clause. do not fun�:lion as propositions Independent from the matrix �.·lause. hke 1/uu complements or. to a Jes.er extent w-mfinruvc.�. The lack of evidence for a Tense node in JPVC.s ob\'iously correlate· wllh the Simultaneuy Condtttotl. The notion of direct pen.·eption. then. might serve as a cover term for a number of. ymacrtc and semamic characten. tics of these con­ . trucuons. . uch a. the ab. ence of finitenc.�s markers. the condtllOtl on tempmal snnultaneity. and other interpretative properties. Belore mming to par1icipml -in�t complement.� in Section 2.6. J pre.-.ent evtdence again)>t the �ammon a�sumption that IPVCs should be treated on a par with cau.­ attve B l complemen� in the followmg Section.

2.5 Perception versus Causative Complements Thts :;ection pro,•ide. a lme l contrasttve overvtew of the properties of causative B l complemems. I will pomt out a number of di tlerence. between the complements of cau. ative Olnt out that ACC-ing and percepuon verb. difrer with respe�t to the po. �ih1hty of adjunct extraction: �l ( I62)

a. How, did he . ee me runnmg � b. ,.How, did he enjo, me running t,

As noted by Reuland ( 1983a. 1 I 0). quanti tied subjects of ACC-ing complements w1ll typically have narrow scope. a. shown in the (. imphlied) u: repre, entation (163b). (163)

a. b.

I hated everyone I liked being hanged I hated I (every.:�. . . . . ) [ .\ i. hange.d ) J

Postverbal QP. i n participial percepuon con. tructions. on the other hand. are generaHy expo11able. and existential quanulier. seem unambiguously to take matrix scope tcompare Section 2.3.3 above): (16 4)

a. b.

I .aw someone lea mg (. omc ,\ . . . . ) I I . aw \ leavmgl .

Finally. observe that ACC-ing ve1 bs admit a rather dtft'ercm range ot complement t)rpes from perception \·ems. mduding indi tdual-level or perfective ones as well as full inlinili es. but excluding Bl clau. es (examples (b) and (cl are cited by Palmer 1987: 198. 202): ( 165)

a. b. c. d.

I 1emember her being quite tall I remember havmg come to . ee you I remembered to tell him aboul it 1' ) 1emember her leave

'lllus it seem� that even though perks conwinilt�ft long bib/i()�raphies => a·educed •·e. I a t a e c l ause a·eading on I y

h.

We saw a lo1 of !>Overt\· mwclling 1hmugh t\fi'ica => p a t· t i c ipta I adj u n c t reading o n l y

(Rigter 1 98 1 )

n o n - f i n i t e pen�e l> t ion �omp I em e n t s

c.

65

\Ve te ll souu•thing drm8erous approuchin�: (van der Leek and Jong 1982) => even t-pe•·cepttOn •·eading on I y

The major . u·uctural difference between ( 1 73a) and ( 1 73b) on the one hand. and ( 173c) on the other. is that whereas in the fir. t t\.VO examples. the m.atnx verb St't.' take.� a direct OP Objecl. the complement in ( 173c) behave. like a single clausal con�timent ( cf. the tree diagrams above). In what follow. . J will show how perceav­ mg-ing . uuctures can be �yntactacally dt. ambtguatcd. truction can be eparated from the post verbal DP by operations . uch a.'> right node rmsing. whtch is not po. stble where the complement 1. a true PPVC or complex DP: ( 198)

a. 1 saw John. and Peter saw him too. r1ossin� the road b. "'I felt . omething dangerou),. and Mary felt it too. (tpprotlchiiiJ: c . "We could hear the man. and the people opposite could hear hun too. livinr: next-door

In addition. note that adjuncts can optionally intervene between the postverbal DP and the r�t of the �entence.�'J ( 199)

I . aw John lrut friday. crossing the road

(iii) \VH-mm•ement. Since WH-extmction from adjunct clauses 1. not pennilled. the ill-formedne"' of(200a.b) 1. expe-eted (where� m (200c.d). the postverbal )>tring can be analysed as a single clausal complement. fmm wh1ch extra�tion is possible). (200)

a ..IWhich country], did you see a lot of poverty travellmg through b. .. What, Wil! John . hot crossmg � c. LWtuch coumryl, did you see John travelling through t1 d. What1 wa.li John , een cJossing 1, .

Notice again that once WH-movemcnt has apphed. perceiving-ing constructions like (200c.d) cease to be ambiguou. . ·n1e following charactensucs of participial adjunt't. can be added to Dederck's catalogue of propenies: (iv) Optitmality. ParllClpial dauscs adJomed to VP or IP arc always optional. Like adJunct m general. they merely add extra information.

non-fini t e pe t·c e r >t i o n t'omp lemen b (20 I )

a. b.

71

\Ve saw a lot ol poveny ( travel hng through lndm) John wa. . hot (cro!\. ing the bndge)

By contra!t. leaving out the partil:ipial predicate of truly cltw.wl PPVCs cau. e a radical change in meantng. or may even result in ungrammaucahty. as illustrated by the example!\ in (202): (202)

a. h. c.

We tell . omething dangerous approaclung ('?We felt something dange1ou. ) We saw it raining cat. and dogs (We saw it) We saw there rising over the meadow a blue haze ( •we . aw there)

) lmmobilit\. DP/adJunct dau!\e combination. fat! to undergo pas: i 1. ation.

tough movement. orclefting. whach indtcat� that they are not nonunalt'onstituem . (203)

a. •Th�hin.� dangerous ttpproadtinJ: wru , cary to Ieel

(pas. a v e )

( t o u g h-moveme n t )

c . :t'Jt wa. thtm: rising m•e1 tlte meado·w a bltu• ha�e that w e . aw ( de ft

)

·n·ue PPVC. are further chara terised by the following !')'ntactic proper ttes: ( i ) WH-IIW\'enwm. A:- indicated earlier. the clausal character of true PJ>VCs is confirmed by the fact that long WH-movement our of this type of complement i. permitted (cf. Huang·s 1982 Condition on &lrflclion Domains ). (207)

a. h.

Where, d1d you . ee l 11 raming t, j? What, did the, feel ( t approaching I?

(ii) Snuential Projorm. Note that truly eventive perception complements like someone bt�eswtf.\ing tltefloor in (208) take a . emential profot m only: ( 20M)

We smelt !iomeoue beeswaxinft tlw floor. but they couldn't smell all '+'him (adapted from Declerck 1 982a: 1 2 )

(iii) l\1uiliarii' . PPVCs also mirror bare infinitive. m that the aspectual auxiliaries luwe and be are excluded: ( 209)

a. ,.We felt . omething dangerou. be approaclung b. ,.We felt . omething dangerou:- hm•ing appr<X t ched

Passive be. on the other hand. is ususally peunitted611• d.

non-finite pet·ce l> t i o n l.'Omp l e m e n b

(21 0)

a. b. c.

73

I saw my car being demoli.hed We heard them beiiiJ: interrogated I fell myself being stung b, a bee

(iv) Passi�·ismio11. As wilh HI complement.. the subject DP of genuinely clausal J>PVCs cannot undergo mam clause passivismion: (21 I )

a. •tt, wa� seen I t, rainingj b. "Someone was smell ! t, beeswaxing the floor !

c. ..I, was fell I t, · being •tung t by a beeJ (\•) E.rph•Ji\•e sul�iec:rs. Insertion ot expletive 1here turn:--: out to be re. u icted in exactly the same way as ll 1. in HI perceptron clause. . That is. non-thematic there IS permmed Ill PPVCs onl, if one of the following conditions holds: if it functions ru the subject of a rai. ing pred1cate. if the matnx clause defines an irreali. context. or if the complement i. a ·pre. emationar dau. e. The lallet typically involve an unergative vetb of motion . uch as wtt/1.. . a deicttc adjunct. and a comparatively 'heav>' subject DP. The following examples iJiu. trate the rel>tricuons on there 11\.1\ertion: ( 2 1 2)

a. *We saw lhere bemg . everal pyramtds in Egypt (imli\•idttal-lew•l pn·dimte) b. •we saw there arriving three grrb (unac·cu.wtive srag('-/{!\'('1 prl'dimu•) ? c. ' We heard there beginning to be a knocking sound (sf((ge-level mising prt•dicau•) d. ?I've never seen there being .o many complaints before (irrealis cont('.\1 + omologica/ predictue) e. We saw there running into the room a man so handsome that he must have been a mov1e . tat (presenwtional therel

Perceptual repo11. that uwolve unaccusative verbs .omeumes improve if a de1ctic adJunct ts added to the complement. rendering n more ·presentational' : We saw there rise/l'ismg over the IIWWitttiu a blue haze

(213)

Semanucally. true PPVCs also pallern \ovith theit' infinitival counterparts. Clausal PPVC. always express the direcl phy. teal perceplton of an event. ;�s opt>osed lo finite complements or full infiniuves. which nece. . ari ly involve indirect perception. Compare the examples below. (214)

a. h.

We saw/watched het· gelling up. et (= H� saw/wmched her �er upst-'1) We saw/ttwatched that she was getllng upset (= We 1ea/ised rlwr she wtts gelling upsn )

74

d audaa fe l s e a·

Whereru :>ee c.<m only be undetstood m it' vt. ual sense in t1 14a). 11 has a non­ vision interpretation in (1 14b). with us meaning cor re. pondang lO that of .find or rea!i.'U'.

Nexl. ob. erve that dau. at PPVC:- admu stage-level predicate. only. h is well known chat the . et of stage-level predtcates (comprising telic and atelk event; a. well as some stative predicates) mclude. the . et of predtcates that may be marked for progressive aspect in English. Individual-level predicate..�. on the other hand. do not admit the progre.sive-hence the ungrammaLicaJity of ( 2 1 6a-d) below: (21 5)

a. h. c. d.

(216)

a. b. c. d.

He was bemg obnoxiou. He was runnmg He wa. drawmg a circle He wa. . Landing on his head tHe wa. >tHe wa. *He wa. *He wa.

bemg tall knowing the answer havmg a long nose re.embling his father

The following example. demonstrate thac PPVCs are subject to exactly the s.ame re..�trktion: We saw We aw We saw We saw

( 2 1 7)

a. b. c. d.

( 2 1 8)

a. t>We saw b. tWe saw c . '!tWc saw d. *We . aw

him being obnoxious him aunning him drawing a circle him standmg on ht. head him being tall him knowmg che m t . wer him having a long nose him resembhng his father

Like !PVC. . true PPVCs prove to be referenttally transparent. The mferencc m (2 I 9). for example. is a lid under the premtse that both Cmol and rlu' nw\·or rcter to the . ame individual: �' ( 2 1 9)

II Mary . aw the mayor JOgging through the park. Ylary aw Carol jogging through 1he park •

B. According to (225). the retauonsh1p between (226a) and ( 226b) i. es:-.entially the same ;\s the one that holds between the progre.­ sive :-.entence (227a) and 1ts non-progres. ive counterpar t (227b). (226)

a. b.

We saw John painting the wall We saw John paint the wall

(227)

a. b.

John wru p;unt ing the wall John painted the wall

What the Progre.s.i\·e Hypothesi. claims. in other ' ords. as thal the two types of complements share the . arne set of . yntacltc and semantic propertie...;. but ditfer tn their respective . pecitication for the feature l:tprogre...;. ive). The followmg section present. an overview of al'guments in favour of the Progre. .1ve Hypothe..�is. In Section 2.6.2.2. I examine :-:o-called irrealis perception constt Ul'tton�. wh1ch con. titute apparent counterexamples to the f•rogressive Hypolhe. 1. . 2 .6.2 .I The Plop_ri!SSiV(' Hvpotlw is Revisitni r1llmore ( 1963) was one ot the first to recogm e that true Pi>VCs are dau. at con­ struction. that mu t be dt. tinguashed from other type.� of -in� structures. He H < gued that PPVCs are transformationally derived from progre: sive sentenl'e,'> by an opera­ lion called /J£ Di!leriou. The ba, k adea wa.� lhat a :-:emence Hke (228) below was denved f1om the progres. ave sentence (229i) via deletton of progress1ve b£.•. and ' . ub. equem embedding of the resulting . tructuJe under a perception verb: 6

non-finite pen�ep t i o n �omplement:-. (22S)

I heard Mar\' plnying 111)' .wng

(229)

(i) �Jary wa.� playing my song (ii) � M I h�ud (�Jru·y playmg m, . ong.l

77

With lhe. hifl from transfomlattonal toconstraint-based. repre�emational models of g.t llmmar. Fillmore· s 'telescoped progrcs. ive · analyst obviou. ly lost its appeal. �Iany yea� Imer though. Fillmore · . analysis wa. rehabilitated b, Declerck ( I 981 a). who . howed that a number of empincaJ arguments that had been rai)>ed again. t the Progres. tve Hypothe. is could in fact be refuted. An overvsew of argument. m favour of 1he Progre ·sive Hypothesi. (drawing mamly fJOm Declerck's study) is provided below. First. howe"er. let us briefly con. ider some fact about progressive a.�;pect in Engli. h. a language with a comparatively poor aspectual system. Progr�sive aspect tn modern English i)> marked by the verbal suffix -in,f!.. which normally �.:o-occurs wtth the ·aspeclllal' auxtliary hl'. Prog1es. tvi.at ion i. generally po. . ible with stage­ level predicates only. Although the expanded form can be a.-;signed a vanet, of different meanings (see Galton 1984). the general function of the progressive is to tndtcate that an event is in pro�rt•ss. Brinton ( 1988. 237). for example. states that "the primary func1ion of the progresstve marker is to portray a situation as continu­ .. ous. developing. and incomplete . Another way of staung this would be ro say that the progre,�t. ive pack. out a single suh-t'W'III ol a larger event. Accordmg to Par. ons ( 1990). progre:-.stves are events in the !'>tate of holdmg.M With regard to PVC�. notice that whereas a Bl perception con. u·ucttot\ usually unphe)> that lhe event described b, the lower clause is wune)>�ted . from its heginnin,g to its end. the PPVC merely descnbes an event as ongoing. i.e. mcomplete. Jn othe! words. the intt..•rnal temporal structunng of inlinitival complement. differs from that or tlletr participial counterpaa1s. This mterpretative difference is tllu. trated b" the foltowing example, {cited by Ktrsner and Thompson 1 976: 2 1 5):

(230)

a. I . aw her drowning. but I r�cued her b. #I . aw her drown. but I re.� ued her

Sentence (230b) is incoherent because it implie,�t that the drowning action i)> com­ pleted. whereas the u. e of the partici pte in che first sentence sugge.ts that tl ts nol. In short. the difference between (230a) and {230b) t. exactly the same as lhe difl'er­ ence between progre,.;. ive m1d non-progre. sivc main clause. such as (23 Ia.b). (23 J )

a. She was drowmng. but she wa: rescued b. #She drowned. but she wa. re$cued

Second. recall that the dtstinction between completed and ongoing event.-

78

d audta fe l s e •·

represemed by I I'VCs a.nd PPVCs. respoctively-applies 10 telic evem� only. l\telic verb. �uch as sinct. walk or mn. on the other hand. signal incompletion by ''inue ol their inherem ·proces�· rneaning. Con:-.equently. we nottce hardl, any dtflerence in meamng between a stmple sentence hke �232a) and il. progres. ive coumerpart (233b). (232)

a. h.

John walked towards the beach John was walking tow;:uds the beach

As predicted by the Ptogre.�;sive H, pothesi:-.. a parallel . lluation i. found 111 the corresponding pet·ception se111ences l Dederck 19K I a: 95f. ): (233)

a. h.

We ·aw John walk towards the beach We aw John walkmg loward. the beach

Third. observe that vetb.�; appearing tn a context that renders them incompatible wllh the progre. �ive are also excluded from PPVC . Compare the followtng exam­ ples (Declerck 1 9 8 1 a: I 02): (234)

a. I have paid him only one isll . o far b. t'J have been paying him only one tsil . o far c. t-She has seen me paying hun only one visit so faJ

t:ul'lher evidence Ill favour of the Pl'ogressive Hypothe�i . and again. t <maly. ing PPVCs a:-. a 1ype of (nonunal) gerund cothtmction. can be gathered from dtachronic f;tcts. Oiachmnically. progre!\sive and gerundh·e structure. have developed f10m difl'erent origin. (see Declerck 1981 a. I 0 41. ). 'llte progre. . tve torm de,·eloped from prepositional phrases headed by on or in. which were llr:-.t weakened to u-. and eventually dt. appeclred ahogether: the -ilt,� suffix 1. thought to have replaced the Old Engli. h pre.�;ent participle endmg ·nul( e}/-ind(e) (. ee e.g. Visser I 963-73. or an Gelderen 1993. Ch. �n.f� Uerund forms. oo lhe ollter hand. developed from verbal nouns. whkh were formally distinguished from progresstve in earlier srage. of English. As the following examples fmm Middle English .how. perception verbs have alway. combined with aspeclUal rather than gerundtve complemems (see Vi:'ser { I 963-73: 236K-9). and references ctled there): (235)

a. h.

I feele my-self a-d. mg now I heard a clashing of sword�. and men (t-tightmg

A fifth argument in l�wour of the Progrc. :-.ive Hypothc. is has been pointed out by van der Leek and Jong ( 1982). They note that not aii iPVCs do m facl ahernate 'uumtics

I shall follow Declerck in a. �uming that complements of the type sho\ n in (241 ) are not true J>PVCs. but. hould be sub. umed under the p. eudo-modifier corL-;truction Ill! tc.ad.

2. 7 SununaQ' The pre. em chapter ha. provided an overvrew of the characlerisuc properlie. ol direct perceptton complemems. and ha! demonstrated that both B I complements and participial complements are clau. al con. tituenl)> which cue reduced tn t he. enl>C that there is no evtdencc for the pr'C. ence of eitherC of JnOrnm. e m these co rll>t rucl ions Semamicnlly. both types of direct l>ercepli on complement, I PVCs and PPVCs. denote events. whereas full mttmuve.-. and finite complements denote state. and propo. lltons. respectively. IPVC� were . hown to belong to a complement type

.

non-fi n i t e pen�ept ion �·omp I emen u .

81

di ttncc from bare infinitive complemenhofcau. ative verbs. which I haved1.cu��ed br ieAy m Section 2.5. In contrn�t to B I perception dau.e�. perceiving-ing construc­ tions are pocenllally ambiguous becween a reduced relati e clause stnu.·cure. a non­ con�timenc .equencc of a DP and a particrpial adjunct dause. and true (I.e. clau. al) PPVC . Only the latter type of perceiving-ing conscruction proved to he direcely related to the other major type of non-finue clausal perception complement. the bare mfinliJve con. truccion dtscus�ed m Sections 2.2 <md 2.3 above. A number of de. CJ iptive generalisation. concerning the syntax and semantics ol direct pen;epuon complements were shown to hold for !PVC. and PPVCs alike. They are given below m thetr final versions. .

(244)

The Non-Finirntess CoiiSTrailll Overt complcmentJsers and tlnitene.-.s marker. are excluded from direct perception complemenL.;:.

(245)

Resrric1ions on t\u.'(i/iaril'S

Aspectual auxllianes are excluded from dir·cct perception complement.. (246)

nre ConstrainT agaill.'il l'a3·sive

Perccptual r-epor·ts do not pas. ivise.

(247)

Rt,srricliOn:> on Explcti\'t' There

Non-thematic 1heH> i. excluded from direct percepuon complements. except l i ) a:-. the subJect of a .tage-level rat ing predicate. (ii) in pre. entational clauses. or (tii) with ontological predicate. in the context ol rrrealis. (248)

Simuluuwil)' Condi1ion Oft PVCs

(249)

'l1te SUJ Constraim

t(Wnl � f.:\VI lt.e .. the time interval taken up by lhe event de. cribed by a direct percep­ tion complement includes the ume mtcrval a:. igned to the matrix event)

Uirecc percepuon complements mu:H contain a stage-level predicate. (250)

'lhult- Theort>tic· Propenh·s of PVCs:

{J\) Principle of \lc•ridicalit}' ror d1rect perceptton complement� ¢. if a sees ¢. then ¢.6f.

( B ) Principle uf Substitwion In d1rect pen;eption construction;;;. if a se� ¢tt1) and t1 = t2• then a see� ¢02).

d audaa fe l .se•·

82

f C ) l'rinciple t�t' t:.xportal>ility If a sees some x such thai tp(xt then there L an x such that ll .see..� (.\ ). (25 I )

'/1te NJ::.Ci Cons!mint Semential negation L excluded from I'VC:..

(252)

The *Cii:."N Constraint on Ban· Plural

Bare plu•al .subjects of non-finite perception complement. cannot be in­ terpreted genencally. Moreover. we saw that both IPVCs and pm-y cnn hardly wllhstand the empmcnl cndence m

f:wour of constttucncy that is

presented here and m the hternture cited.

I I . Lupmnte ( 1980) ctte thi!> a:; an argument against the ·stacked VP' analysis of the verbal ·

complc:x proposed by AkmaJWn t'l a/. ( 1 979). Further arguments agamst thil> analysis

em be found in Tak�zawa ( 1984: 67511.) or Jan6cn ( 1993: 91 ff.l. 12. The degree to whit:h spcakcn. of Enghsh ucccpt sentences like t42a) vnri�s consider­ ably. Whereas Bntish speakers tend to reJect cx:unplcs like (42a). many .'lpeakers of Amencan Engh)>h only �onsider them u little odd. or even tine (compw-e the cxumplcs in Gee l 1975: . 75tf.)l. Accordm& to vun der Docs ( 1991: 244}. wmplemenHnternal pn.�stvisatJOn tl- nonnully ruled out: (i)

a.

Daniel saw Lu(.'Jn phone Henry

b. •Daniel saw Henry be phontnble 2.3.2 for furtht:r dtscu ·s10n of the 1:sue of slntl\•ityL

(sec

Sect.

d audta fe l set·

84

13. Partinpial -en complements appear to be scn..;it1ve to !-Omc cunous restnctions though. Some of my infonnnnts said they preferred them with u by-phrase added. Jnd some reported that l·omplemcnts of th1s type sounded more nutural 1f the JroStverbol DP (.I.e.. the -.ubJCCt of the ullc�cd pass1vc VP) IS an some wny aOutf'd by the �tct10n dcscribcd by the partu.:iple. 14. A similar suggestion has been made by Chierchau ( 1988: 288 n. 17). lt IS shown an Sect.

2.6.1 thut complements contaming a present pmttc1plc arc umb1guous I.). ! well. Reduced relative dnusc.s also occur m di rect pcn:eptton coru.tructions in Romance (sec Sect.

5.3.2. and references cited there. for some discussion of psc:udo-rclauvc complements in Romance).

15. Some of my mformunts were actuulty rcluctml to accept l55h). and claimed thut bt•inJ.: ought to be inserted. lt uppcur that the presence uf pos.. -;1\·c bf' always forces an cvcnll\'c readmg. 1nes ruther o a lexitully unitary dement with indeh:rminate c 1tc argued the .same for :.o-n-ailed ·pscudo-rel111ve' perception comple­ ment-> in Romance (sec Scx:t. 5.J.2l. 56. Declerck ( 1 981 bhrgues thut pseudo-rel ;_tllvcs mu:.t be di.sungu1shed from hth rcstm·­ tivc and appo.s1t1ve relative dausc�. Pseudo-modifiers of this type nrc nO( restricted to percept mil statement,:.. but ocl·ur 1n other contexts as well. e.g. ( i) That no1se'? It's :wmr bo\·:; f1lavtll8 mttsult•.

(Dedcn:k 1981 b: I J8)

57. Prc.sumubly. adjunct clauses like those i n c 1 94) thut involve control by the matn:\ subjcl·t arc altuched to IP rather than VP. 58. The amh1gmty of ( 1 96) 1s samilar to the one exh1b1tcd by sentences such �1s 1/r lrjl the room clean that involve scx:ondary prcdacation. Here. PRO may be controlled c1thcr by the matrix sub_1ect or by the matrix object: (il (ii)

Hc1 left the room I PRO. dean ) He left lthc room). {PRO, clenn 1

59. l thank an :monymous renewer for drawmg m>' attention to th1s fact. 60. f-iengo l l 974: IOOf.l. however. obscn·es thnt-stmilar to what has been arsued ahovc in l·onnectton wtth pnrhctpial -en complements--the difference between a t1ve PJ>VCs and the1r alleged passives 1s b•t;8cr th1m m•sht be expected. He clauns thnl a �entcnce

like t i) below entails that John :MtW Btll lJ":lthcr than the hunter.-;). NO(e that th1s 1s nO( necc:s::mly the cnse m (iil. whu.:h contams :t tensed complement:

non-finite pet·cer>tion l.'Omp l e m e n b (i) (iil

89

John saw Bill being chased by the hunters John saw that B11l was bctng chasc.d IJ.y the hunters

6 1 . The vahdity of 13urwisc ' s pnnc1ple fA) for PPVCs 1s doubtful though. As one rev1ewcr

pmnts out. the followmg mfcrcnce IS not valid. IJ.ccuuse Mnry mi�ht not tn fact have completed the crossmg: til

(f John saw )..tary crosstn� the street. then Ma.ry cro: �ed the stn:et

Th1s result 1s actually expcer 1s absent {if pcrf«·ti,·e ru.pe.ct 1s to be marked cxphcttly. the lL'\pectual auxil1ary hnvr must be uslituents of the category CP by Rouverel and Vergnaud { 1 980). Reuland { 198 1 . 1983a.b). Kayne ( 1984 ). and lwakura { 1 984 ). among others. 'llle claim that PVCs are struclurally analogous to full dau. es is in line wilh Kosler and �a�'s ( 1982) Strucnmtl Ptmtl1!'/i.tm Hypothesi . whtch posmlate.li thal the structure of clau. e. is unifonn acroS! clause types. However. lhe obligatory ab. cnce ot oven complementi. cr. and thute­ ness markers from PVC!'> poses an obvious problem for the CP analysi�. Proponents of such an analysis are forted to a��ume either that both C and J are struclumlly present bUl wilhout content. or that they comam phonologically null head! which are associated wHh a .et of fonnal and/or . cmantic features. /\s the former oplion ts ruled oul by rl. this leaves us with only the latter one to con�tdes. �N!

(2)

lei' lc 01 (1p him 1 1 01 (VP drtm(i118) (J circle} I J

Ui\en lhal neither C nor fnfl may t'�'L'r comam any lexical malenal. tt seems di ttl­ cult lO determine what the feature content of the lWO covet1 heads m l2) mighl be. Accordmg to Chomsky ( 1995: 240. 289). C indicate. clause lype and !'ervcs hot t WH-movcment. lt' PVCs were strucmrally amllogou!'> lO full clau. es. we would expect that the spedtier of C should be avail­ able as a landing site for prepo. ed operalor expre. .ions. Con. ider. however. the differences in grammalicalil)' between (3a.b). whtch contain lensed complemems. and {3c.d). which contam PVCs. (3)

We couldn't see lcr• what, lc· John was drawing t, J I b. Mary didn · t know 1 0• (which . ongj, lc·· PRO to smg l, I J c. -we couldn't see lu• whal, lr John drawtng '• J J · d . .. We couldn't hear lcr (whtch songl. ll" Mar sing t, j I a.

•

92

d audta fe l s e t·

Whereill shon WH-movement can apply freely within linite complement such as (3a). or control infinitive. such as (3b}-both of which are . tandardly a. sumed to project a CP layer-. hon WH-movement is not available for PVC.s. The til· fomedness of(3l:.d) suggests that PVC. might not in fact project a C-.ystem. 1 One major theoretical disadvantage of the CP analy. is 1. thai it flies m the face of the tdea of .muctural economy. The claim that PVC. cotuam a .yntacttcally inert C is mcompatible with the minimalist as. umption that. yntal'tlc representation. are sub­ JeCt to a general economy con.tmim that prevents functionle s nodes from being generated (Chomsky 1 99 1 . Bo�kovtc ( 1995: 42. 64 )). Analy. mg PVCs as full clause. also rat.ses rhc que. tion ol how then . ubjcct is as. igned obJective c,ote. Rouverel and Vergnaud ( l9XO: 1 15) have propo ed a CP deletion account. which allow the higher verb to exceptionally govern and ca:-emark 1he lower . ubject after the CP boundary ha.'> dtsappeared:� Howe er. the a1sumpuon of a CP dcleliOtl mechani. m ha.'> been :-hown to be problematic in it. ell as it relies on mere stipulation. . and presupposes the existence of multtple syntactic le cl. of represemation (.�ee. for example. t:rank. 19X3 or Baui. tella 1 983). Prom a minimalist J>Otnt of view. CP deletion must be reJected as an tul lwr mechanism that is mcompauble with suuctuml economy requirement.� and with a stt ictly bouom-up approach to phrase :-.tructure building. Within mimmalism. :-.yntactic operations rue a.-.. tuned to expand rather than reduce the phrase marker under con­ struelton (compate Chomsk 1995: 226. and Section I .5 above). lflhe pre. ence of a CP boundary prevent. ca.1e from being assigned to the lower subject from the outside. then a more promt. ing alternauve might be the idea that the PVC. ubject recetve.� case from within its own clau. e. either from C (a possibil­ uy :-.uggested by Stowell 1981 ). or from a phonetically unrealised 1 nfl ( Kayne 1984 ). The �sumption that case :-.hould be a:-. tgned by C seems dubious in hght of the fact lhat perception complements differ from the complements of wam-dass verbs in that the crue-a.signing complementiser for ts general!)' excluded from the ormcr (compare (9b)): ,

(4)

a.

We wanted IC'P lc (lor) ) him to win I

b.

ttWe . awfvr him wtn

Alternatively. Kayne ( 1 9tW: 35) sugg� ts that objective ca.'e may be assigned complement-uuernally by an ab.�tracl morpheme INF in In fl. a.� shown in (5} below. (5)

. N�

I . INF 1 lv.,drtrwtt circle J I J lc-P lc 01 l1P him •

In mmimahst terms. Kayne·!'> analyis of bare infinitive. amounts to the claim that they contain a null mflectional head that is capable of checking the ObJective ca. e

diJ·ect pe 1·c e p t i on comp l em e n t .

93

of a DP m it. . pecifier. analogous to tcenam in. lance. of) infinitival to. which hru been argued to check null case of PRO in conlrol infinitive. .� However. Kayne · . anaty. 1. al!.o appear. to be rather ad hoc. and offers no explanation for the slrlct adJacenc, reqUirement thai hold. between the tnatrix verb and postverbai DP. The ttl-formednes. of t6c) . hows lhat no material may inter ene bet ...veen the htgher verb and the PVC: (6)

a. We could see 111!1)' dearly that he was wmnmg rhe race b. We wamed l'er\' much for tum to Will Lhe race c. "We !.aw ven cJe(lr/\' him win(ning) the race

If/tim were a�. igned ca. e t'omptemem-intematty in ( 6c). as Kayne sugge.�ts. then there would be no need for . trict adjacertcy.6 We would also expect the distribution of Bl dau. es to be much fr-eer than it i. . as under Kayne · :-. account. there is no rea­ son wh)' Bl. should be excluded. lor exs-indircctnes� of perception and the requsremcnt that non-thematic 1/tere tnust be generated VP.-externally-nece. . anly imply the pre. ence of In fliT in the. e con. truction. . 1 will return to this 1. ue tn Chapter 4. .

•

J .2 .J 1'\ICs as bctre \If's

To . urn up the di. cu� ion so far. I have argued that dsrect perception complements are clau. al con. tituent. contaimng nenher C nor In fliT. Thu. . it would seem reason­ able to a. sume that they arc m fact nothing but ' bare · VPs-verbal . malt ctau. cs m the sense of Stowet I ( I 98 1 . 1 983 }. or proJectton. of a light verb v in the spn it of Lan.on ( 1 988) and Chom. ky ( 1995). Gtvcn the lack of evtdencc for the presence ol either C or tensed lnfl in PVCs. it i� not surpri. mg that the V J> analysi. ha. found many supporters { Haggmbotham I 983. Hoek.tra 1 984. Mittwoch I 990. and Sallr 1 993. to name just a few). Gueron and Hoekstra l I 988) took the VP analy. ts f01 PVCs one . tep further in sugge.ting that perception verb. . houtd be grouped with modal. and auxiliarie: rather than mam verb�. on the ground. that only auxthary­ typc verbs are able to Jicen. e a VP complement. Thetr propo. at is discu.sed below. With the predkate-intemal . ubject hypothesi� now bemg widely accepted. a bare VP analyst for PVC. ha. become C\'en more attractive. Note. however. that if the lower verb is u·ansitive. checking theor)' require.-. u. to assume the presence of at lea.·a one structuml levet above VP which P•ovides an appropriate checking domam

d audta fe l s e t·

100

for objects. Thi. layer may be tdenuned etther wnh AgrOP. as as. ume headed by a transtttve verb ha've the following ba. ic structure. with the extemal argumem origmattng in the . pecifier of a (cau.­ auve 01 agentive) a ffixal light verb 1'. (27)

vP

A

or..

v'

A

v

VP

A V

DP.

...

While the tnternal argumencs of the verb are all generated within the core V P. the external 0-role i. ence ot oven complemenusers and tntlmttval to. lor instance. follow. dtrectly from analysing PVC a; pt'OJeCiion. or the light verb 1'. The requirementJ of ca. c checking can at.o be .ati.tied without poo�itulating any additional levels of suucture. while the subject check. tts objective case in ( Spcc.vP) of the matnx dause. rhc objecl check. tts case complcment­ tnternall, by ratsing lO the loweI' ,.·� outer speci tier lnote that Lhis latter movemem has been omiued m (29)).

dit·ect pea·cet) tiOn c o mp l eme n t s

We . aw l. r• John, I.

(29)

•

. . . t"'c .

I0 I

. . l,p t, I,. draw I \'P tdrlf"' hw a cude J I I I J I

1

wtll . hO'.v in what follow. that the bare VP/vP a.nalysi:-.-auracttvc a. it might seem-al:::o faiL to provide a unified analysi. for dtrect perception complements. and that there ts evidence for the pa>e. ence of at lea�t one functional head dt. tinct from. and abo\ e. \' (or Agr0) in dtrect perception complement. . J .2 .J I llgainst tl Bare VJ> Analysis .

l:i.vtdence agamst a bare VJ> analyst. can be derived from the exi�tence of B l tltere clause�. from particle veth con. tructton. . and from the distribution ol manner ad· verbs in PVC. . Fir. t. t·onsadercomplement clause..;; that comain noJHhematac there. Though I have argued above that /hen• complement. like tho. e in (30) below are not mdcpendently spectfied lor Tense. it seem. rhat they cannot be analy�ed as bare vP.. either. �otice that all of the t/wre-PVCs below mvol\e an unaccusauve predt· cate. i.e .. a verb that fails to a.;;sign an external Mgument role (Burzto 1 986). (30)

a. b. c.

I have never seen ( there be so many con1plamt� from student. before J I wouldn't like to .ee [ there be so many muakes I We wouldn't hke to �ee ! there arise any problems from this I ( Salir 1993. adapted trom Napoli 1988)

On the as. umption that argument po. tttons within the (extended) verb phra.-.e are re..;;erved for 9-marked expressions. generatmg non-thematic therl' in the . pecitler of VP or ,.p doe not seem to be an admi.. able option here (compare Chomsky 1 995: 362ft'.). If we further follow Chom. ky ( 1 995) in a. summg that unaccusattve,;; lack a vP shell. then rhe expletive an (30a-d must be in the . pecifier of ome other functional head above V. ok(iiJg) the reference up We heard Betsy throu (iiiK) the bicycle out We watched Lhe crew hmul(ing) the pa. sengers thetr pas.pons back

Given the internal .structure of vP illu. trated ahove. the data m (33) sugge. t not merel, that the embedded verb. have left tL such as the following (from Guasti 1 993. 1 32): (35)

We saw the children all lea e

According to Sporttche ( 1988). floating quantifien. such ru all in (35) are option­ ally left behind a:-. arguments undergo movement to some lughet Spec po. itton. and thus sc1ve al> an mdtcator of A-moveme11l. Let us finally con ider the di. tribution of manner adverlh m J>VCs. Though the . ymactic . tams and po. uion of adverbs are . till controversial. it is t:ommonty as­ sumed that they are licensed by a semantically compatible head. tn a recent mint­ malt. t study on adverb pla�:ement. Alexiadou { 1 997) has argued that adverbs are unifat mly licensed 111 the . pecine1 of a corresponding functional head. 11 If this is correct. then the number. type and relative ordering ol adverb. will help u. deter­ mine the number. t. pe and relative ordenng of the corrc. ponding hcensmg heads Ill a given chm. e. and can also tell Ul> whether and how tar up the verb has moved. Bowers t 1 993) points out that there eXJ. 1 at tea. t two different type. of manner ad verb. which ma)r co-occur but which cannot exchange po. Ittons without ch<mgin� the meaning of the . entence or is shown by the ill-formedne. s ol the (b) example, an (43}-(45) below. and by the l�tct that perception verbs normally require do support m emphatk affim1auve statemenu (cf. (46b)). (43)

a. Did you . ee the pink elepham over lhere'! b. ..Stt w )'OU the pink elephant over there?

(44)

a. You heard 11. did11 't you'! b. ,. You hem·d II. heardu 't you?

(45)

a. He dicbt'l feel any pain b. ttHefelm·, any pain

(46)

a. b.

You rmglu not want to come to lhe party-but you JHUST come! Allhough we were not going to. we DID watch the movie after all!

ln contntJt to non-lextcal verb. . perception verbs normally function as genuine Lwo-place predtcat�. i.e. they both 9-mark and ca. emark lheit· complement. which 1 evtdent from the facr lhat they also admn DP direct objects. as m (47). (47)

a. b.

l saw l11r• a pink elephant} We could hear (l>T' a lot of noa.e l

Notice that both DP complements and PVCs fulfil rhe �emantic role of t heme. 11ti. i� to say that from the pomt of iew of 9-theory. there i no diOerence between DP direcl objeclc; tra abo rat:-e. new problem• . I . hall therefote l:Onlinue to trent perception verb!'> a:. tntnl>tttve tnrun verbs. lndepcndentl�' from the disCU!'.Ston of what count!\ a!'. an auxiliary \Crb and what doe!\ not. it h i. ditlkult to account for mdced. ill> are the other dtflerence!\ that exbt between \erbal and non-,erhal �mall dau!'>e!\ (sec Aarts 1992: 18Xf.). Recall. for itbtaru:e. that verbal !'>mall clau�es differ from all other types of . maJI dau e· i n that they rel>l!\t matri>. pal>l>ivisation

(d. (4�d)). (48)

a.

Bill wa con!-.idered lupt, a fool }

b.

Bill \Va� expected IPP t, off the �lup I Bill \Vill> con!-.idered I \P t, . tuprd J

l.

d . .. l:Vlaryl. wa!'> felt I ,.P t, hitt(ing) me I

Ditlcrent explanation. ha\e been offered for the ungmmmaticalit� ol (48d). which will be cmically e\aluated in the following chapter. ror the time being. it l>hould merely be noted that a bare vP analy�i that i'i not embedded within a coher­ ent theory ot ltcen�mg that accounts I or the dt!\trtbutton of ,·erbal projection!\ cannOt provide an explanation for what ts pemaps the most pecul iar�yntacuc chamcteri. tic ol perceptual reports-their tnability to fonn pill>l>ivcs . 3 2 .J.

.

.

.

PVC. as Smtt/1 Clauses

The previous dt. CUS!\1011 hf' .\llary·. be:-.t fnendj I

Suzuki t 1991) !-.ho>.v� that lhe AgrP analysi:-. �.an account lor a numbe1 ol other propc111e� a. ociated wtth �mall clau.,es tt ''ell. !'.UCh a� the ab!-.ence of PRO :-.ub­ JCCt:-.. the lad. of �cope amb1gunre:-. of quantified noun phra. c.s. and the unavailabil­ Ity ol :-.entemial negation. which he argue. is linked to the prc�ence of'lense 1 com­ pare c .g. Laka I 990. Zanuttuu 199 I . 01 Gucron and Hoekstra I 9YJ). PRO as argued to be ab�cm I rom �mall dause because tSpcc.AgrP) •� a po�ttion in which ca� i. checked. wh1le the lad, of M�ope ambiguiues follow!'. from �ay· :-. ( I 985) prohrbilion again. t adjunction to argument . 16 Compare the following example:-.. which differ minimally with rc:-pect to the pre:�:ence versus absence of 10 b£' l Wtllicun� 1 9XO: 236. Suzuki 1 99 1 . 29): (52)

a. b.

John consider . .wmt•mw 10 be sit·k John consider� . mnl'mU' sic/..

Only the flr�t is ambiguou. between a wide $COpe reading and a narmw sco(>C rc�ding of �onu•one. In (52b). by contrast. the QP ma>' ta"-:e \l.trde M�opc only. Fol­ Io\\ ing Suzukl l 1 99 1 ). thr� interpretative dtOerence 1:-. due to the different categonal :-.tatu. ol the two complement:-.. In contrmt to lhe AgrP small dau�c 1n (521>). the complement in (52a) mu:-.t be of the category TP 01 h1ghcr. In (52 a). then. soml'orre l:an adjoin either to the embedded AgrP. yielding a nauow !'.Cope rcadmg tel. (53a) below). 01 to Ag1P OJ TP m the mall ix clau.e. whtch then y1eld:-. a wtde . ope inter­ pretation tel. 53bH. a. b.

(53)

John consider:-. hr· ( t ' ) to [".l'P �omeone (,;rl' t be -.iekl J I :-.omcone, r 11 1 John constdef!'. r 11'1 t,' to ( -\Jrl' t be sick I J I

In the ca:-.e of a srnall clau. c complement. ho,,evcr. onl, the latter option r:-. avail­ able . rncc adjunction of .wnwo11e to AgrJ >. a� shown in (54). is precluded becau:-.e Agrt> itself function:-. a:-. an argument of ctm�ider: .

(54)

•

John con. idcrs

lA;:rl' :-.omeonc, I \�:rJ· t, !-.ick I I

In sum. ;:maly:-.ing �mall dau.es as AgrP. correctly predrcts the ab:-.ence of Tense marker!'. and compJemenu.ser. from the.;;e construction.-. a.' well as lhe lack ot :-.cope ambiguities. while at the �ame tnne allo\\ ing for an (ab:-.tmct) agreement relation to be establi:-.hed between the predicate and 11:-. �uhject. The Ag1 P anaJyMs thu:-. allO\\ � u:-. to characteri�e ;;mall dau.se:-. as dau�al con. tituent:-. which are reduced in the :-.ense that the) Jack the entire T-sy�teln. wh1ch account� for theu lack ol an rnde­ pendem 'len�e :-.pecrticauon. One maJOr theorettcal problem lor analy!-.ing !'.mall clause:-. a:-. proJections ol an

1 10 . grX head. ho\\ever. •� that thi. head appe•\r� to ha\C nal comem. Chomsky ( 1 995) point. out that :-.ance Agr-t)rpe categones lack semantic comem. the1r pre encc can only be ju:-.tihed for theory-internal reason� . theu -;ole function being that of pro\ id­ . ang . a :-.lfuctural configuration in whkh leaturc:-. can be ched,ed ·· (op. � n. . 35 I ).

llu� function. however. could equally well be fulnlled by other funcuonal head.

\\ho:.e

presence is independemly motivated. such a:- T or

1'.

Under Chom��·y ·.s

( I995) re'·•�ed L·heckang theory. a small dam.e subJect ched..� objecti\e ca�e not

complement-anternall,. but b)· entering into a Spec-Head configuration with the matnx ' . Given the predil:ate-imernal subJect hypothe�ts. t S pec.AgrXP) 1. not re­

quired as a :-.ubject position either. Ne1ther doe..., the Agr head seem to play any role

at Lf. since Agr- type categorie. do not conmbute to mterpretat ion. they mu)tt not be visible at the u• interface. In •hon. it i:-. completely unde.1r what the feature

content of the re,lipective Agr-heads in (50) �hould be. or indeed whether they have any. head� with nal content. however. are excluded lrom repte�emations by virtue

of Fl. I I agreement i� repre.en ted merely



A

v

It appear. that AgrV is not idemical to AgrS euher (a� has been sugge. ted by Gua:-.ti l l 993. 1 32ft.)). since it. main propentes mdude that ofcheckmg nonunauvc ca.e in finttc clauses. and chocking of the agreement fentures on the verb. Jn Chomsky's ( 1995) framework. the functions of AgeS have been taken over by T. . o thai like AgrO. the category Ag1S can presumabl, be dLpen:-.ed with altogether. As we saw e.trher. however. there is no c"idcnce at all for the presence of (either lin lie 01 non-linite) Tense in Engli.h PVCs. and theit· subjet•t never bear. nominative case. Gaven that economy force. each additionpectual �peci lkation accounts naturall> for theu

parallel syntactiC beha\ 1our. Bel ore di:-.cu:sing the ad\ amage. of analy�ing PVC:s a� A�J>P� in more detail in Section 3.3.2. I bnefly examme the role of A�pect in :-.yntux. and p1ovtde mdepen­ dem argument' lot a.s�igning Aspect the �tatu� of a �yntactic category in ll'> own right J.J.I Aspect as a Synwctic Hnul rew hngUisuc tenn� have caused more confusion 111 the litemtuac than the term

lbpl'ct. which 1. often u:o.ed .ynonymou. ly. or in conJuncuon with. the not1ons ol vh·ll'poilfl 01 fJL'r.\pt>cth·t.• (e.g. Smith 1991 ). or ddimilnlnes.,· (Teamy 1987) ( . ec

Blinton 19�� for an o\·erview ol some traditional dehnilions ol A�JlCCt). Comrie

( 1976: J) dchne� the a..o;pect'

a.'

''ditlerent wa)':-. of vJewmg the imernal Lemporal

con�timenc) ot a ·situation· · · . That 1:-.. the not1on of (�entential) Aspect acler' to the

W:l) in which a g1\en :-.ituation i s pre..'>e nted. for example whether it 1. po11rayed .u.

ong01 ng (imper/t·t·th•e a.'pect) or completed (pt..•r(ectiw· aspect). m Sentential A�pect

mu�t be d1�tmgu1shed trom Ten:-.e. wluch ha. been argued to have dektic properties (Paatce 1973. 19�) and whidt. pedt1es the e.\ll'uutl time ol an C\ent ora :-.ituation.

d i a·ect pet·ce t> t ion complemen t s

1 15

1cm. e.

in other word. . locate� the event in ume by linking tt to some independently determined reference pomt. u ually the time of uuerance (Reichenbach'. 1947 spen:Jt 1ime: see e.g. 'fenny ( 1987. 195 ). Smith l l 99 1 : 25). and spedtkally En� 1987). Aspect at.odil'fer. from Alaionwn. a notion which refers to inherent. eman­ tic paoperues of predicates. e.g. whether they are suaive or 1Wn-.wmi\te. £die or mdic. ptmcuutl or duNtti�·e (Conu ie 1976. 4 J tf.).11 MorphologrcaJiy. A. peel is typrcally realised b a verbal attix. or by an tndependent syntactic formative. Eng­ li�h distingui�hes between non-progressive and progressive aspect onl .. . Although rhe

Enghsh progre.sive ha.-.. a variety of dstferem use:-. (. ee Scheffer 1975 for an overvrew). its principal function i. Lhal of repre::entmg an evem a. ongomg. or in­ complete. whereas the . imple form represent. an event as a whole-;l ditfcrence that con·e. pondl to the . emantac distinction between perfective and nnperfective aspect. Within the past decade. the existence ol a functtonal category Aspt•ct hru been postulated for a number of different l<mguage. including Russ tan (Tenny 1 987). :Vloder n Ureek (Rivero 1990. Alexiadou 1 997). Spanth and Basque (Laka 1990). Welsh ( Hendrick 199 1 . Koopman and Sponiche 1991). Breton (Hendrick 1991). Chine.e (Borer 1 993). Sconish Gaelic (Ramchand 1993 ). Modern Irish (Gurlfoyle 1994). Gennan ( Shall and S�hmidt 1993). and Egypuan Arabic (Diesing and Jelmek 1995). The facl that aero. s languages. a�pectual marker. occur closer to rhe vert> chan marker!'- of Tense . uggesls that the two are hiemrchicall, ordered wuh re. pect to each other (compare Comrie 1976). Engli. h. roo. has been argued to mstantiate an aspectual head located between Ten. e and lhe verb {e.g. Tenny 19K7. Ouhalla 1991. Koopmm1 and Sportiche 1991. Borer 1993. van Gelderen 1993. or Di� ing and Jelinek 1995). a claim which I shall adopt and JWII f)' below. :Vlorphologically. progrc:sive a�pect in Engli.h is marked on the \'erb by adding -im� to the stem. As to the way . emential Aspect may be represented syntactically. at lea. l three po.sibilitie. must be constdered. which are repre-1ented b (68a-..: ) below. (68)

a.

b.

VP

A

lP

�

fnfl

V'

�

V-i1tg

...

·r

�

S . . . ASP

VP

�

. . . V-ing . . .

d audsa fe l ses·

1 16 l' .

/p

...

Asp'

/'---

Asp

A

VP

�

V-ing Asp . . . I,

�

(a) '/1u• U.'(icali.'it 1\C'coum. Under this as. umpuon. which follow� the tradiuon of what is known as l11e Smm� L(>xicalis1 Hrporlu·sis (Selkirk 1982. Di Sciullo a feature of the VP. nder thi. view. if A peel is taken to be structurally rcprc�cmed at all. it e,an only be a head at the morpho-lexrcal level (compare Selkirk 1982). (b) Tht• ·nat · lnjl Account. J\hernauvely. lhe status of A peel might be that of an mflectional feature that forms pat 1 of the feature matrix ol another functional head. JnO tor Tense). and which 1. �hocked off ns the verb ratses to I nO m LE as indicated in ((>8b) (see e.g. Ru� ter 19X8: 262). (d

Asp�·t·t as ttll Independent Fwwtional Head. In rhe tradition of Baker ( I 9X8). who allows for individual grammatical morphemes to head therrown functional projection. . Aspect can be coruidered an indepcndem .)'ntactic head to which the erb must adjom at .ome . tage in the denvauon. in order to ha c its aspectual feature checked agamst the corresponding feature of 1\:>:p (cf. (68-feature1 are checked by a marching OP. ten�e and rupec1ual fea1ure1 are checked by corre.liponding functional heads. If Aspect is specified positive!, for the abstmct feattue jJ:prog ]. lhe verb mu. t appear m the -ing form. the sutfix -ing being £he phonological reflex of the feature ( +progj. In the event of A. peel being marked l-progJ. on the other hand. the verb is msened m us bare stem fmm. posstbly cm·ry­ mg a zero affix. In short a. summg the pre:o.ence of an rupectuaf head below T cor­ rectly predict that main verb. uninllected for Tense but intte�ted for Aspect wtll be able to unde1go .hort verb mo emem. a� indicated in (75) below.

(75)

a. b.

John 11' is l A'""' I �w lookin,f!., (\,. l.he reference . . . 1i up . . . We expected John 11' to IA,f'l' lA>p· loDk, 1-.P the reference . . . t, up . . .

Another empirical advmllage oOered by the propo. ed analysis concems the posl>i­ bility ofmulliple ad\•erbial modtfication. Analy. ing A. peel a. a . ymactic head capa-

c;J audaa fe l se r

120

ble of licensmg a cen.aan . ub.et of aspecLUal and manner adverb, correcrly predicts that di tferem types ol manner adverb should be able to co-occur. a� Bowers ( 1993) and Alexiadou ( 1 997) have observed.

(76}

a.

Bill Jowl)' recucd hi. line. poudy

b.

�lary {'(>tifulnlll\' played the violin bt•auti{ttll\'

If il is correcl that each adverh is licensed by a distinct. . emamically compatible functional head. then it . eem rea. onable to a:�sume that the semencc-final adverbs m (76) are licen.ed by \'. and the higher ones by an aspectual head.;.� Heads capable ol licen. ing ,;;emcnce adverb� p•·esumabl; include C and T (or Mod) a indicated Ill (77).

(77)

Clearlyc . �lary probablyT,M,.., will contidentlyA,f' play the vaolin beau­ tifully

Recall furthe1 lhat like Ten�e. and unhke Agr. Aspect i� a mearungful head m thm it contrtbutes to a sentence· s Interpretation. /\..:cording to ·renn)' ( 1 987). Aspect prima1ily specifies w hether

an

event t. . patio-temporally bounded or not. which

renders lhe functaon of A. peel analogous to that of D in DPs. which. among other lhings . . pe.cities whether or not a given noun phrase is countable. If her line of thinking is correcl. then A p and 0 might both be categor ic,.:; that turn lexical phrases into refemng ex pre. s1on�. and . pecify whether they are countable (perfec­ ti

e or non-progre!

ive aspect) or not (imperfective or p10gres. ive a�pect). Evtdence

cited by Longobrudt t ] 994} for the existence of �-to-O

tal.

ing within DP.-an

operation which we may regard as the equivalent of V-to-Ap mis ing-1s consistent with the tdea that D t be checked off by corres ponding. tunctional heads. Empitical evidence in f:wour of a h�ad analy ·is fot Aspect mduded evidence from verb movement and from the dastnblllion of manner adverb. . Structure t68c). therefore. i)> to be prefe rred over both (68a). here termed the lexicali. t account. and l68bt the analysts that sub. umes Aspect under a complex

Jnfl head. J.J.2 Tile Slrttl:lllre of P\ICs A I have pointed out above. verhnt> rai. e.� to the outer . peciller of the lower \'P. a. indicated in { H I ) below. in order to have its objective C I l l

._j

Like tnlimttvnl w. null lnO is u prcpositton that is reanulyscd with the mntnx verb. an idc:t that is rcmmiscent of the at·count for p1cpusitton strandmg thut ha..; been offered by Homstem and Wemberg ( 1 9 I). Due to the mabilit>• of a phonctu.:nll)' null lntl to retam its c::sse. CIL'-C movement ts mnndtttory. which ss why the su�je. Reuland ( t983t�) proposes a suuilar ::malysts for parti· dpiul per�cplton verb t·omplcmcnts. whiCh differs from the one above only m thut the

I nO head here

IS

spelled out ns ·in�. However. Reuland's ·l·ase movement' account ts

incompatible wtth mmunaltst checking theory. As noted by Johnson l I 988). Reuland's annlysi!> of PPVC.s i.s abo unable to u : :-t·ount for the gcneml unavml tbthty of PRO in the:-e construc.·tiuns.

8. Boskovic { 1 995. 19%} l:onvincingly UJ'{0ues in favour of analysmg both ECM and control intimuve.s as IPs. 9. Some evtdencc that raising of ECM subjects may in fact take pluce overtly ts suggested by the data below (t·ompare e.g. Johnson 1991. Koizumt 1995. nnd reference� cited there): (i} (ii}

They proved him clmcluJil't>ly to be a hnr

I've behevcd John for n long time 110\\' to lx: a fool

10. Note tiMt thts idea ts actually m hnc with Safir':. own susptt ann to clmunatc the concept of c-sclectmn from grammar. 23. Note that this dtsungUtshe.s the progressive marker from the ·voice· marker -t>n. which has been llf8UCd to absorb the external .trgumenl role of the verb tn passives. r-or thiS rc.ason. 1t nught he that the -en mflccuon dOl'etation but i. abo :-.yntactically acttve. and therefore should be included in the syntactic representation .

t he e ve n t - �o n t r· o J ana lysi.

129

of clauses. Speciticall, . it i. . uggested that the event argument origanates in the specifier of an a. pectual head. Section 4.3 imroduces the E'ent Conuol Hypothesas. which . tales that verb.-: of perception are able to function as control predicates. but differ from well-known control verbs such a. lr)'. p10mise. or per.wade in that the comrol relauon involved i)> one of evem control rather than subject or object control of PRO. It is danned that m pe1ccptual repo1 ts. the event argument of 1•vc. enters mto an obligatory control relation:-.hip with the event argument pro"ided by the matrtx predicate. In Section 4.4. I examme m some detail tho. e propenie...; of direct perceptton constructions that are as yet unexplamed. and how that the, are cor­ rectly predicted by the proposed analysis. Some po)>sible exten. ions of the propo.ed analy. JS are discu. sed m Section 4.5. and the chapter conclude, with a hrtef sum­ mar in Section 4.6.

4.2 The Syntax of E\'cnt Argutncnts 4.2 .J EvideJtct· for an &ira ArJ?ttmem Position

E:nending Dav1d-:on · :- ( I 967) anginal . uggestion. Htggmbotham ( I 985. 1 989) pro­ poses that the thematic grid of verbs contains an additional . lot for rut argument as!\octated with the evem 6-role. That is. 'verhs are assumed to provide an extra argument po. ilion or ·event variable· that i:o: subJeCt to entenuaJ quantification at the level of semamic interpretation. 1 Under this view. a tran. 111ve vert> such a)> kis:> is taken to be a three-place predicate with a 0-grid a)> m ( I ) (compare Higginbotham 19K5: 555). (I)

kiss V.

(£.91.0�)

While there is little que..�lion f10m the point of view of.emantic� proper that natu­ ral language make. reference to evenL' ( ee. for in. lance. Parson. I 990). opmion. are divided a. fa r a.-: the , macuc realuy or event argument. is concerned. That as. their status at the symact1c level LE which constitutes the mterface level between the computattonal sy. tem and . cmantic mtcrpretation. i. still controver. iat. Let us brrefly re,•iew . ome of the arguments that have been cited m the literature a n . upport of the exbtence of a Daviruonian event argument. Higginbotham ( 1 985) has argued that positing the existence of an abstract event position in the 9-grid of verb. helps. for example. to capture the semantics of adverbtals . uch as rapidiJ· in (2a). which tran.�lat� into the semantic repre,entation ( 2b). rollowmg Oa\'id. on ( 1967). he .ugge$tS that manner adverbial of thi. type . cmanticalty function a.� predicates of events (Higginbotham 1 985: 562f.. 1 989: 478tf.).

d audra

130 (2)

a. b.

fe I . et·

John walked mpid/)1 3te) walked (John. e) & rapid (t'. A) •'Jl1ere wa. a walk b.. John. and it wa� rapid (for a walk) '

Kratzer ( 1989) argues that assuming the presence of an addlttonal argument mso­ ciated with the :spatio-tempoml location of an event miglu help act'Olrnt for the am­ biguity of . entence.� involving locative or tempoml adjunct. .uch ru the German example (3) below. ll. l\ o readings are paraphrased as t3a) and (3b). respoctivcly. (3)

ll'eiJ ihu j'ast aJI!• F/Ohe in die.�em IJNI gt.•bissen lwbt•n . mcc him almost all Hea. in this bed binen have a. Since almost all of the fleas in this bed bit him b. Since almost all the fle.'ls bil him m thi. bed

In the ta) re�1ding. the locative PP in diesem Beu 'in this bed' moditle. (i.e .. i. adJoined to) the quanti fled noun phra. e rasr aile F/Ohe 'almost all flea!'>·. re.•aricting the domam of t he quantifier. In the (b) readmg. on the other hand. the i>P 1. under­ stood as bemg predicated of the event or spatio-tempornl argument rur1her. em;m­ tic evidence in suppor1 of a Davtdsoruan event possuon has been derived. inu>r alia. from the e>.istence of derived nomina Is ( Htg.gmbotham 1989: 483f. ). · root-r'elated homonyms· . uch as SJH'fl\' paint ()fl tht• wall ver. u. .pray rite wttll wilh ptlilll top. cit. 4731f.). from ambtguou� case. of adverbial modtticallon (op. cit. 477-4K3). and lrom licenstng conditions on w/wu-clau. es ( Kratzer 1989. and below). According to Haggtnborham. the event argument ditl'er. from the nominal argu­ ment!'> of the verb(. uch a. its age n t or t heme arguments) in that il is not normally as. oc�etted with a phonetic matrix. or as..10igned a d1stinct po. 111on in a phrase mal'ket (though Higginbol11am ( 1 989: 484). Stowell ( 1991 ) and Ramchand ( I 996: 189) have pointed out a few po. sable ext·eptions to ahi!->). According to Higginbotham. the evem 9-role is not actually tts. i�ned to •ynta fie argument.. but instead i. dis­ clwr�nl "at the pomt where VP meets lnfl" ( Htggmbotham 1985: 56n.� In a sense. then. the event argument I!' more like an argument of lnfl than of the ve tb . an idea whkh wiJl be explored fu11her beiO'r\'. From a nunimaJi. t 'bottom-up· perspepeak:-: rrench. . he knows it well d. .,When Mary know. rrench. she . peak. it well

Since only stage-level predicates provtde an event argument. which ts belteved to introduce a variable IntO the logkal repre.-.entatson of clause.. Kratzer's theOI)' explam why-in the ah. cnce of olhe• variable-introducing expresstons such as mdennite DPs-wllen-clause... must contain a . tage-level predicate. and why only . tage-le,·el predicate. but not individual-level predtcates are able to licen. e wllt·n-clau. es. rrom the example.'> above onl • (5a). whose logical repre."enta­ tion is . ketched below. . atistie. the above reqUirements on . entence. involving conditional. .

(6)

a

1 way. (£') (speaks t Mary. rrench. e)) 1. peak. well (Maty. rrench. r))

Among the syntacuc dtl'fercnce. between .stage-level and individual-level predi­ cates pointed out by Knuzer is the following. Ob. erve that only dau�. involving

132

d a u d s a fe l se •·

�tagc-le,·el pt cdkate� !\Uch h < t 7a t but not thO!\C contauung indi\ tdual-level predt­ cate� like (7b). allow t clauve dau.e extmpo. ition in German: (7)

a.

: ..·ei

wt•il

8iicher auf dem

�in�e two books

on the

1hch la�nt . dit• ni�nratul lt·st•n wollre table lay

that nobody

tead wamed

·since two book!-. were lying on the table that nobody ''anted to read· b.

Wt.'il zwei Biiclter letter

since two book!

'' aren. dit• nh•mand h•.\t.'lt ''ollie

expensive ''ere

that nobody

read wanted

·since two book!\ were expetbive that nobody wanted to read· It appear!\ that the ob!\ened comra. t is also found in Englbh. Leaving the detail. of Krmz.ct · . analy:-.is of the above example:-. asadc. we ma; take a:-. further evadence l for her claim that SLP. and ILP. differ with regard to their !\yntactic make-up. finall,. cothidcr the behaviour of what Stowell ( 1 9 9 1 ) calb · mental-property· (MP) adJective�;. which acc01dang to ham p10vides e\ tdencc that under cenam con­ dition!\. the event argument may be . pelted out mertly. MP adjective� arc charactct tl-ed bv the fact that thev and an , are able to ·elect both a l-ellliclll argument � ,

mnnatlval daU!\C dcnoung an acuon. as tn l8d.

(�)

a.

John was ·lcvet/mean

h.

It

c.

John was dcvel'/mean to �ign the commct

\Va.�

clever/mean tof John) to �•e.n .... the conLract

While these adJecuv� by them. eh•es are ambiguou:-. bel\\een an indi\'idual-level and a !\tJge-le\•el readmg. StO\\ ell note!\ that .\ele�tion of an tnfiniuval clau!\e as Ill (8b.d nece.sarily coancadc� with a �tage-level aeadang of the adjective. COI\\'Cr!\ely. adJectives that allow fo1 an indi adual-lcvel reading onlv never admit both a sentiem !\Ubject and an action-denoting innnitave at the :-.ame time.

�h

l-hown by the

ungrammau�ahty of (9c). (9)

a.

Btll W3!\ famous/unportant

b.

It was ampo11am to win the election

c. .. Btll W3!\ famous/ampon3nt to win the election Stowell top. 1 . . . em(e,) . . . j I

Thus. st look. as if the two exi.tmg concepuon. ol the event positim1-the cia. st­ eal Oavtdsoman vtew on one hand. and Kratzer':.. vsew on the other-(annOl easily be reconciled. J\ possible W3)' out oftlw: dilemma ha.� been sugge.ted by Ramchand ( 1 996). who argue rhat Kratzer's argument of spauo-tempoml location i. in fact disunct from the lexically determmed Oavidsonian event vanable. Ramchand argue, that wlule the ·oJiginal' Davtdsonian event variable is pa11 of the lexical meamng ot verbs. the pre, ence of Kratze(. e\•ent argument is detenmned . yn­ tacucall,. and that it serves to.aturate (in Rothstein·. 1983. 1995 sen. e ) stage-level predicate. . Her datm that the hcetL�ing ol evem arguments 1. a mauer ol com­ positional Slr ucture rather than lexical �emantic.� gam.s independent support ftom the fact that many prcdkate. are origmally neutral w11h respect to the stage/mdtvidual distmctton and thus allow fo1 both u. es. such as the verb haw: (compare Carter 19�8: 268-77). ( 14)

a. b.

John hru a headache John i). havmg a fit

(ILP) ($LP)

A simslar view ha. been expressed by Heycock ( 1994: 234). who as. umcs that .. lexical predicates are inhcremly individual-level. What allows them to he inter­ preted as stage� level is the pos. ibslity of them being predknted. not of the ostenstble subject. but rather of an abstJact David. onian event argument. as sugge!>ted tn .. Kratzer 1 989 . As we shall see below. the characterisation of the event argument as the subject (in rhe techmcal . ense) of. tage-levcl predicate. .:orne:\ very clo!>C to the ''iew de­ fended rn the present !>tudy. The event argument. I . uggc.-;t. J:\ be).t be conceived of as a ·quasi-argumem· (in the sense defined by Chom. "-1' 1981: 325) in that i( bears a themattc role without refernng to an actual participant in an event. In what fol­ lows. I . hall adopt and extend Kratzer" s propo. at by claiming that the .yntactic status of the event argument !. e. senti ally the . ame tbility of functional head. other than •tense inter­ venmg between C and V (such a. Mod or Asp). the number ol spectlier position that could potentially ho.�; t an extemal argument increa. e!\. In the lollowing . Ci:tion. I argue thai external argument. may originale in {Spec.TP). (Spec.A pP) or (Spec. vJ>). Jepending on what kind of external argument and what type of predtcate is involved.

136

d audaa fe l s e a·

Re�all that the set of stage�level predtcate, (which compnses telic and atelic events as well ru stative predicate. such as stand or lie) include:- the set of predi­ cates that may be marked for progre. swe a� peel in l:.ngh. h l Carbon 1 980). Individ­ ual-level predicate. . on the other hand. never take the progre. . ive. ( 18)

a. •Gho. ts art' exisrinr: b. Kenia ;,,. Iring in Africa c. "John is (JWning a mansic>n d. 'llle . now is mt-•ltinr: e. Bill is wttlking f. They are drawinl! circles

( u naccusa t i v e ILP) (tnt •·ans i t ive JLJ>)

(tran. i t iv e ILP) ( u naccu�ativc SLP) (in t nu1. i t i v e S LP) ( t •·an. i t i ve SLP)

T1le abtlity of a predicate to admit the progre. sive tim. correlates wtth the pres­ ence of an evem argumem. as both are propenies of stage-level predicates. Below. 11 i. suggested that thb correlation is not a coinctdence. ln the previous chapter. it wru argued that progres. ives in Engli. h project an A.pP layer. wnh progre. . tve ·ing bemg the overt re.alisatton of the a.�tpcctual feature l +progj located in A.p. Recall that sensory percepuon verbs semantically select events as their complement. l < nd that direct perception complemems were analysed as AspP!-> tn Chapter 3. That a (null) aspectual head i. al. o present in bare infimuve.�t ts confirmed by the fact that both IPVCs and PPVC�t can be modified by dtfferem manner adverbs at the same lime: ( 19)

We heard Bill /owl\' rct'ite/reciting his lines poor!}·

In example. such as ( 19). s/owlv has been argued to be licensed by Asp. and poorlv by \'. In order to c�apture the ob. erved couelation between the type of predscate in­ volved and the pre$ence of an aspectual head. I propo. e the following mapping principle: ( 20)

SLP Mapping H)1pothesis Stage-level predicates are realised as A. pP syntactically.

From the point of "iew of interpretation. we may regard AspJ> as the canonical realisation of the semamic type t:w•m. Events dtlfer from state. or propense� m that they are internally struclured ti.e.. the comprise dtflerem 'stages'). and hence necessarily involve . tage-level predicates. If. a.-. I have assumed 111 Chapter 3. A p is lhe licenser of·�pectual adverbs such as frequellll\' or grtlfltutlly. pr inciplc ( 20) correctly predict:-. that stage-level predi­ cates. but not indi tdual-le el predtcates. should admtt adverbial modifiers of this type.

t he e ve n t - �o n t t·o J ana lysi. (21)

1 37

a. �tGho. ts t'.\is1etl repNtTedly b. 10 Keniafrequeutlr lies itt 1Vrira c. ..John ()Wm·d a Jtumsiott r:radtwlly d. ·n1e .now gr((dttallr melted e. Billfrequenll\' qdn/ w 'Wrk f. ·n1ey rept•atedl\' asknl qm,ostions

I fua1her suggest that the specilier of A.pP (m Engli.h) 1s aJl A-position which hos1s the external argument of stage-level predscatcs. i.e. the evem argumem t:. A),suming a vP-shell struclure for tran. itivc vca·b phra:e. {see Chomsky 1 995). thi. give. us the re.pre. entation ·hown in (22) for stage-level verb phra)>e .5 .

(22)

A

t:

Asp'

A

Asp

vP

A

Dl�.

v'

A VP

A

v

1)�..

One que. tion that immediately spnngs to mind here is the following. I I £ really 1 an argument of the verb or predscatc. then m what way doe. it receive tts a-role'! Since Chomsky ( 198 1 ). it has been assumed that the . UbjeCI a-role i:-> assigned compo. ttaonally by V' or V P. rather than by V directly. By definition. extemal argu­ ments. are realised outsidt• the maxunal project ion of the S-maa kmg head ( Wilhams J9K I ). l n Chomsk, ·s ( 1995). y. tem. the subject DP in (Spec.vP) is 0-marked b, the emire \•-VP compte�. with ''the agent role. being understood as the incerpretation as:-.igned to the v-YP conligurarion ·· lOp. cil.. 315). Since t: also appear:. outside the umnediate 9-marking domain of lhe verb. it mu. l also be as. igned irs 0-role composnJOnaUy-m this case. by the entue Asp-vP complex. The event role. then. IS as. tgned cotnpo. nsonally by all clcmem, contatned withm vP (mcludtng the the� maw: . ubjcct). and the c.venl argument is generated in ( S�c.AspP). I n this way. lhe event argument can be characterised as an aJgument of . tage-le,·el predtcates lhat is 9-marked in a f.u hion analogous to 9-marktng of nominal . ubjects. lndtvidual­ level predicates. on the olher hand. do not i\• •tgn an evem 8-role. and l would like to propose that they also fatl to project an AspP layea·. Ditferent types of predicate are tim. distmguished bolh with respect to thetr

d a u d 1 a fe I . er

13X

. tructural complexity and the ba. e position of their external argumenl. 1 f we take literally the idea that the hght verb " is in some sense the source ·Of the age n t or

causer role. . o that

Il lS ab�ent where no such role i. rusigned. we may condude

that true states-which never admit an agentive .ubjcct-do not project a vP shell either.(' By Kratzer's pnnciple ( 15). the external argument of lLP expres. ions then mu. t originate in . ome higher specifier pos1110n. and indtvidual-level verb phrase..o; are un. aturated predicatcs in the sen. e of Rochstein ( 19X3 ). which take ll < thear sub­ Ject the individual they are predtcated of. 1 . uggest that che subject ol mdtvidual­ le el VPs 1. generated in the spec1tier ofTP. the . tandard po. ition for external . ub­ Jects.7 That i. . clause. proJected from an indivtdual-levcl predicate wi II nunimally have the followmg . uucture.

TP

(23}

A

DP. ,

'r'

A

T

VP

�

DP.,.

V

Like all arguments. the event position must be formally introduced by a head. l pmpose that the event argument is formally Jicen. eel by Ihe funcuonal head A�p. In the . ame way a s

v

extend. a core VP tn that it introduce..o; the agent argumenl.

merging an a. pectual head with vP extend. the verb phra. e tn that it introdut'e$ the event argument. ror illu.trataon. constder the . uccessive extension of the core VP that i involved in dc1 ivmg the . entent-e Thev wJ/ed 1he ball dfJWn 1/re hill (example adapted from Radford 1 997). (24)

a. b.

L\'P the ball l "' rolled IPv down the hill I J I l,p they L, \' rVI> the ball h·· rolled (pp down the lull J I J I J

Example (24) illustrates that the structure of t11e lextended) projection of a predi­ cate is compositional an that each �lrgumenc must be formally introduced by a head. and is a.signed a thematic role by iL.;; sister con. tituent. J u. L as the age n t role in (24b) above i. a. . 12-ned to the subject DP by the , .. VP complex. the event role is L < '>.

igned to t: by the enu re Ap-v.P l·omplex. Tht.. in turn. implie,., that external

arguments need not be explicitly . pecitied m the thematic grid of a verb-rather. their prc,.,enc-e b syntactacally detenmned. i.e. a matter of compositional structure. fo This hypothe. is that only . ubjects of stage-level predicates can be predicate�

t he e ven t-�on t a·o I ana ly.si.

1 39

mternal subjects is cons1. tent with Diesing·� ( 1 992a.b) claim that SLP subject. and ILP subJects appear in d1fl'e rent po. tllons at LF. Con. iderthe well-knO\ n ambiguity of indefinite subjects of stage-level predtcate . The bare plural DP .firem£'11 in (25a). which comam. an individual-level predicate. ts ambiguous between a generic (OJ 'strong' ) and an existemiaJ (or ·weak ' ) reading. In (25b). which comruns an mdJvidual-level prechcate. only the genetic reading 1s available (examples from Kratzer 1 989): (25)

a.

h.

Fireme11 are available Firemt•n are ahmi.tic

tGE�/EX) tGEN)

Aiming to provide a coherent account for the . yntax and semantic. of indetlntle.li. D1csmg applies the semaruic framework of Heim ( 1 982) to . yntactic representa­ tions. According to Henn. the pre. ence of cenam quanttliers causes the semamic repre.�ematton of a sentence to be , plil into three pan. . the quamifier. it.;; re�tnction. and Lhe nuclear .�cope. Indefinites .such a)> bare plurals introduce a variable tnlo the log1cal . uucture of a clause which mu)>t be bound b, some operator. either by a genenc operator GEN. as m (26). or by an (implicit) exi. tenttal operator. as in (27) below. (26)

a. b.

firemen are ahru1. tit: GENx lx i. a fireman)

t

quantifie•

re)>tJ icuve dau. e

x 1. altruist it· nuclear .scope

In order to en. ure that the logical repre. entation contains no unbound variable,li. a process of nistt•mial do.wre must apply obhgatonly. with an unselective cxi. ten­ tial operator binding any free variable that rematns wilhm the nuclear scope. (27)

a.

h.

Lion have manes GENx (x is a lionj 3v ty i� a mane A x has yJ

Diesing propo.e:- lhat the nuclear scope of a . entcnce . hould be tdent11ied with VP. m ; d that lP (exduding VP) corresponds to the re�tnctive clause. lni. idea is ex pres. ed b. lhe following mapping pnnciple (Diesing 1992a. I 5 ). (28)

LF J'.tlapping

Principle Material from VP i)> mapped into the nuclear . cope. t\•taterial from I P i)> mapped 11110 lhe re,mclive dau. e.

�r inctple t28) allows u. to correlate the imerpretation of mdefiniles wtth the post­ Lion they occupy at Lr: DPs which are interpreted in (Spec.lP) receive a ·snong· mterpretmion. whereru indefinite. that re. ide in a predicate-uuemal position al LF are a. signed a ·weak' interpretation.

1�0

d audaa fe he t· JP

(29)

A

(OP,,)

I'

��

nuc I eat· .cope

VP

A

(DP ,)

V'

A

v

In order to account for the observed imerpretath·c differences between SLP and JLP subjects. Oie. ing propo. es that the LF position of subJects i. restricted by the following pnnciple (op. cit.. 22): (30)

SubJects of sta!!e-level predicates can appeat· either in [ Spec.JP) or m !Spec. VP). Subjects of indivtdual-level pred11.:ates can appear' only in I Spec.IPJ.

Acl'ording to (30). indefinite !i>Ubjects of. tage-level predicme. may optionally be recon. tructed in their onginat po. ttton wtttiun lhe verb phral\e. which then renders £hem . ubject to exi. temial clo. ure (cf. ( 3 1 c H..., (31)

a. b.

riremen are Cl\'atlable ln· Firemen, . . . I..,.. t, are available J l

�-

3x lx as a fireman

L

_;

A x is <Wailable I

Funher eviden� in favour of out' hypothe..'>is tJlal subjects of . tage-level predicate. origmate in a different posttton from subject. of individual-level predi­ cate. can be gathered from the so-called qtwm{{ier-split con. truction in German (Kratzer 19X9). Kratzer notes that only stage-level predicate. allow their subjects to ·split' 111 the way illu.trated by (32al. whereas indtvidual-leveJ predicates do not (�f. (32b)): (32)

a.

Funs \wren h>ine im Publikum fans were none m.the audience 'As for faJlS. there weren't any in the audience· b. ,.S'kmulimtvin sim/ ,,it,le blond Scandinavians are many blond 'A. for Scandinavians. many (ol them) are blond·

(SLP)

(JLP)

Acl:ording to Krotzer. lhe absence ol split subjects from mdividual-level ex pres-

t he event-�o n t r�oJ a n a l si.

I4I

�101\)> follows iiom the rusumptton that SLP �ubject . but not iLP subjech. originate Ill (Spel·.VP). As the NP raises to {Spec.IP). it may optionall. leave the quamif1er behmd. as 1n t 32a). On the basis of these observations. 1 will henceforth assume that the evem argu­ ment E of a stage-level predacate i. generated in the spectlier po. ition of AspP. whereas all its nominal argument. origmate in argument po. itions wathin vP (or V J>). w lndtvidual-level predkates. on the other hand. denote propertie)>. not events. and cannot be defined in spatia-temporal tenns like the forme1. I have argued that this is reflected. yntactically by the fact that they fail to proJeCt an AspP layer above the verb phr� e. 11 I have sugg� ted that their external argument (i.e .. the1r nominal subject) is generated in (Spec.TP). T11e event argument thus function:. ru a subject an the :-en. e de. cnbed by Rothstein ( 1983). taking ,.pas it. predicate. 12 Heycock { 1 994) propo. e)> a minor modilkation of Diesing· s original mapping principle to the effect that the inte1pretation ol mdefinite. depend. on their position n•/(lli,•t' w the event argument (If there t. one). .. Thi. allows her to extend Diesing ·s theory to cettain type.� of non-verbal small clause as well. Compare the following example:.. only the first of which permit. an exi. tential reading for (treJiu•n (from Heycock 1994: 233). (33)

a. b.

Firt>mNt remain ava1lable Fin.·uu'u seem available

lGEN/EX) (GEN)

Heycock ( 1994) claims that the . mall cl au. e complement of \rerbs hke remaiu. but not that of :tn•m or considt>r. involve. an a. pectual layer who.e . peciner host. the event argument. In the latter case. the obligato•" generk reading for .firemen re.�>ults from the fact that even 1f the subject i. recon.true ted within the small clau:o;e or predtcate phra!e. it will never be within the )>Cope of an event argumen1. (34)

a. b.

. . . remain IA,f'l' J:: Lur· A p I PtP firemen lPr· avatlable I J I J . . . seem I p,p firemen (PI available I J

Notice that under thi. view. 11 is A.pP rather than the verb ph1a:-e rhat delines the domam of existential closme (compare aho Heycock 1994: 234). Given Kratz.er's as. umpuon that the E position. if present. is always the most prominent argument. Griam:haw·s ( 1990) thematic haerarchy must be extended i\)> follows: (35)

(E (age n t (cxpel'iencer· (goa 1 /. oun::e/1 o�a tson ( theme)))))

We may further assume. followmg Grimshaw·. ( 1 990). that the notton ol external argument i. a rclatsve rather than an absolute one. Contrary to Williams ( 198 1 . 1 994 ) Grimshaw tate. that "there is nothing peetal about the external argument beyond the fact that tt 1. alway. the lru t to be theta-marked" tGnmshaw 1990: 1 7). .

d audsa fe l se s·

142 4.2 .3

Tile .\)'nwctic Staw.� ot E

In the light of what has been said above. we expect that. hke any other empty syntactic category. an event argument must be formally Jicen:\ed. and that uscontem must be identified {Rizzi 19R6). The fir.o:t condition is eassly met: like all argumems. null arguments are founally imroduced. or licenced. by heads. The identilkation ol empty arbitrary PRO. the typology 1n (36) (adapted from Bouchard 1984: 54) pro\' ides u. with the follow. mg . et of empty categories: (36) A·bound {= [ +anaphoricj) A· free (= 1-<maphoncn

-Move

+Move

PRO pm

DP.uace vatiable

Dmwmg from t11e above inventory of empty categories. the event argument t:. by vinue of being a base-generated empty argumem. must etthet' be pro or PRO. Wherea. the reference of pw �� determined by the {/�-features carried b, the thule verb in .o-called pro·dmp languages. controlled PRO is bound b)' [he dO!est c-commanding DP in the domain of the control prcdtcate. Larson ( 1 99 1 : I 1 5 )

t he e v e n t · �o n t r·oJ ana l y.s i.

143

propose. the following ver ion of Ro.enbaum · . (I 967) Minimal Di.mmc:e Principle. (37)

The J'tlininwl Disram:e Prinl'plt' i

An infinitive complcmem of a predicate P .select. a. its comroller the minnnal c-commanding noun phrrue in the functional complex of P.

I as ume that (non-explcttve) pro origmates in (Spec . P) and subsequently enters mto a checking contigurmion wirh the 'l:.vb complex. whereby it inhetit the verb· . ¢-feature. . Ballin ( I 995) provide. evtdence that PRO i:- at.o generated within rhe verb phrase. and actuall, remains there throughout the derivation (d. (38a.b)). Since the ¢-feature. that PRO acqUires via conuol are interpretable and hence need not be checked. and given that the verb itself lack.� (nominal) ¢-featur�. there is. ac­ cording to Balun. no need for PRO to rai.e to (Spcc.TP). (38)

b.

a.

vP

/

Pl{O

v'

'A ,.

VP

Now con:-.sder the event argument. which I . hall argue below is a . pecial in. tance of a null pronominal. What I would like to propose as thai the . yntactk type of the event argumem as determined by the kind of relatronship thai tt bears to 1�m.e. In contrast to null DP.s. whtch are identified by . haring the ¢-feature. of another ele­ menl Ill the sentence whose refes>enttal index ts copied onto them. I as. ume that event argumems have to be temporally sdentttied. i.e. they must seceive a temporal mdex (T-index) from T.1� 1lti� T-mdex. I suggest. is normally transmitted to the event po. ition in a fas hion analogou. to rhe idemitication of pro. In order lo di. tin­ guish it from null $Ubject pro. I hall refer to a purely pronommal evem argumem as J::-pra. In ten.ed and tully mtimuval clau. es. rdenuticauon of t:-1)ro t. pre,o;um­ ably aclueved under Spec-Head ag�eement. i.e. via raa. ing of E lO tSpcc.TP). a. Illustrated in (40a) below. 16 The evem argument then inherits the letnporal mdcx ol T. which en. ures that the emire event i!-> located m time and tlut becomes uuerpret­ able at LE Note lhat tf a .entcnce comain. a modal. idemitkation o f £-pro nught be accompli. hed ut a lightly different manner. According to En!$ C ltJ96: 354). modal. dilfer from referential Tense in that they are quamificational. and invoke a .

144

d audsa fe I . e t·

default identification mechani.m which ensut•e. that the denotation of E "1. taken .. to be tdenucal to evaluation tune (for further di. cu. sion of the semanttcs ol modab. see e.g. Kratzer 1981 ). '11te foltowing two requtremems might then be argued to hold for all Kratzerian C\'ent argumen� : (39)

Conditions on t:w·m Argttml'lll� (i) Event argument. are hccn.ed by an aspectual he-ad (it) Event arguments must ret":Cive a temporal index

Assuming that tdenttlicauon of E proceeru in the way desct ibed above. we nor­ mally expect T poslltons and event argument:-. to be m a one-to-one telationship. �ote that clause (39ii) allow. for E to be a. stgned a temporal mdex m fully mtintttval dause..'> too. whtch is consi.tem with Stowell's ( 1982) claim rhat full tntintttves define a temporal domain of their own. True . tate. (I.e.. clau. es contain­ mg tndtvidual-level predicate:-.). on the other hand. which remain con. tantover time. do not require to be assigned a spatto-temporal location in order to be interpretable. Tlu. hne. up with Kratzer's ( 1 9K9) claim that they lack an e ent argument. In dauses from which T (or t\·1 od) i. missing. however. the event argument can­ not be tdentsfied dsrectly. Rather. 11 re. embles anaphoric PRO in that information about tt. content (i.e .. the :-.patto-temporal locmion of the event) mu.t be . upplied by an appropriate conuollet in the matrix dau. e. (40)

a.

TP

b.

� �·0

E-p

� /�

���

£-PRO

Asp'

�

A. p

T

vP

----��----/ A E

Ap

vP

T1tal is. I propo. e that an event argument that cannot be sdenutied ''ia a local Spec-Head agreement relation. hip with T is like PRO (and hence is labelled £­ PRO). as stated in (36) below. (4 1 )

An event argument that is not locally linked to Tense i:-. £-PRO

Like their nominal counterpans. £-pro and £-PRO will be mutually exclu. ive. .1\nalogou. to the prononunal anaphor PRO. which is re. tncted to non-tinue environment. . t.·-PRO can onl)' occur m positions in whtch it cannot be identified

t he even t-�on t a·o I ana lysi.

145

by a local T. Ltke nominal PRO. it must acqutre its mdcx via obligatory or arbitrary comrol. Summan. ing the preceding discus�ion. I have suggested that cvem arguments of stage-level predicate� are generated in (Spec .AspP). tor e. . emially the following rea!'-ons: (i) There is evidence that only. tage-level predtcate...; provide an event argu­ meJll. and that this argument ts symactically rcpre..o;emed: (it) there t. independem evidence for the pre�ence of a l±progresstve) aspecmal head in Engh.h lSee Section 3.2.5). whil:h co-occurs only with stage-le"el predicate. : and (iii) the pre. em pro­ posal allow. tor a maxunall, general treatment of a.rgument!'- to the effect that all arguments that are interpreted as . uch at LF. and wluch are ymacucally acuve. are as�octated willt a . u·uctural postuon. It wa. further propo�ed that event arguments are formally licerued by the functional head Asp. and that their content is idemifled by Tense. It was argued that in tensed clause..o; (includmg full mnmuve, ). the evem argument is like null . UbJCCl pm in that it inherits the temporal index ofT under Spec-Head agreement. In clauses from whkh T 1s nussing. however. the event argu­ ment resemble. PRO tn that it.'i index mu. L be . upplied in some other way. Below. I shall argue that the e'•em ;ugumem of PVC predtcate.'i can be characteri�cd as l:"-PRO. and that it receive. it temporal tndcx by entering into an obligatory control relationship with the event argument m the higher clause.

4.3 Perception Verbs as Control Predicates In Chapter 3. I propo!\ed that non-finite perception complements are constituents of the category AspP. with PPVC. being matked for ( +prog). a grammatical feature . pelted out by the verbal . uffix -inc:. The a.-:pectuaJ head of bare tn inui f ve comple­ ments. on the other hand. was argued to be specified as 1-progj. tJndeJ rhe ·�sump­ lion that the . pecitier of A.pP hOlt. an event argument. direct perception comple­ ments in sentence. such as ��,saw h>hu drrM( int:) a circle will have the following ba. ic . tructure:

d audsa fe I . e t·

(42)

(:tprogj John

VP

v (1

/"'---..

Ol�,.

V

I dmw(mg)

A a circle

Due to the ab:.cnce of a TV layer from �,VCs. theia evem argument cannot be tdentsfied by any lo�:al Tense, and hence nm. t be analy. ed as L:.'-PRO. �lore spectti­ cally. I propose that the empty event argument m (42) is like obi igatorily controlled PRO in that 11 ha. to be coindexed wuh the event position in the lugher dau:.e. Thi. 1 daim 1 tatcd a:-. the E11ent Control H..·p(Jihesi. in (43). 7 .

•

(43) Event Control Hyporht,sis

ln direc1 perceptton consrruction. . the perception verb functton. as a control predicate tn that its event argument control. the event argument provtded by the embedded predicate.

Tllu. . the two event atgument. pr�ent in direct perception statements receive their re. pective ·l".. indices m . lightly diO'erent ways. as illuslrated below. Whereas rhe event argument provided by the matnx predicate (= t.'-pro) �:an be rdenufied by T directly under Spec-Head agreement. the . econd E posiuon i. bound. or anaphor­ Jcall)r controlled. by the highe•· event argument (or its trace). (44)

(0• C 11P S �c lr T, 1.,,11., E-pro1 lv1•

L

raisin}?

I

•

•

•

L-u1,p E-PR01 vP I l l I J I

nmrrol

lnformall,. conuol can be dellneaW Iher �!'·PRO watch (i ng) l him E-PRO cook dinner ] I l

.

I

�

.

A parallel . ituation can be found with ordinal)' comrol verbs:

150

d aud1a fe l s e 1·

(55) a. b.

She wanted to If)' to phone him She wamed I PRO to try l PRO to phone him I J ..

.

In add1t1on to the cVC constructions. multtple vanahle bandmg i)> precluded by the ami-c-RO cannot be a syntactic variable. but instead re. embles an A-bound (i.e .. anaphoril:) null pronominal. 4.4 Deriving the Properties of Perceptual Reports

Thts section aims to demonstrate that the Event Control Hypothe! i)>. in conjunction wtth independently motivated pt inciples of grammar such a. Kratzer's Princ1ple of .1\rgumem Lmkmg and general economy l.!on. traints. correctly pt·edicts. the ob. erved . yntactic and semantic behaviour of non-fintte perception verb complements. After critkally evatuatmg . ome prev1ous auempl)> to derive the more peculiar properties of direcl perception constructions. it is . hown that the analysis unroduced above is able to pro,•ide a unified accoum for the ob:-erved phenomena. 4.4 . J Bare Event Complnne111.

The event comrol analysis predict:- that the dislfibution of AspPs. 1. testricted to etwironments in which their event argument. can receive a T-index. Tllat is. they

156

d aud1a fe l se s·

w1ll occur in the complement domain of Tense 01 modals. or a. complements of event control ptedicates. T'hey are excluded. on the other hand. lrom position. m which their event position cannot be identified by Tense. such as rhe complement domam ofindivtdual-level predicate Thi. analysts defended here olfers two nnme­ diate advamages over pre,•iou. analyses of perceptual repon. : rirs:t there 1. no need to a. . ume that perccptton vet bs form a natural class with modals or auxtharie. (as :-.uggested. for instance. by Gueron and Hoef.,:o:u·a I 98K). Second I>'· it i. unnoce.�ary to stipulate that perception verbs c-seleN ApP {cl. Tunstall 1 993: 235). . ince the fact that direct perception complements are able to licen e bare· A.pt>s follows from. -. eloctional propenie..� and from their ability to act a. event control predtC merely becau. e they ad­ mit the same type of complement that t, p1cally occurs with aux1hary hke be or modab-after all. not every element that takes a DP as it:- complemem 1. automati­ cally analysed a. a preposition. Summarising. I conclude that Bennis and Hoelctra·. account i. potentially problematic from a lheoreHcal point of view. and leave. a number of quel>tion. unanswered. 4..1.2 ..3 Swwe/1 ( 1992. 1996)

Yet another explanatton for condition (74 H lal> been offered by Stowell ( 1992). who tries to implement the 1dea that Ten. e function. a.'> a . yntactic predicate. StowelL model-wh1dl in a . en e 1. a more rad1cal version of the neo-Reichenbachian framework developed by Hornstein ( 1990)-1:-. ba. cd on the chum that in ICall, coincides with utterance tune). wlnle ZP2 denme. evem time. The T-hc�d Instantiate, .symacttc Tett"e. . uch as pa.s t or p t·e s e n t . which act like predtcate• . while the �ategory ZP 1:-. cons1dered an analogue of DP. which is optionally rai.ed at Lr. V herca. ZP1• according to S10well. is realised as arbttrary PRO (= 'PRO­ ZP') whose contem i. either contextuall, or di cout.se-identitied. the Zeit head of ZP2 comam. a temporal ex1s1enual quantifier that bind. the tempmal argumem provided by the verb. which I have hlbelled e. The diagram in (79) below . hows the mternal structure of1'P accordmg to Stowell ( 1 996).

t he e ve n t - � o rH a·o J ana ly. i:(79)

163

TP

A

PRO

T'

,A T

ZP

A

Z

VP

l A

3 t' \.J

VP

'llle category e . in Stowell':- model. is a variable by vinue of being locally A' -bound b, 3 lCOmpare Bouchard's 1984 functional defin1t10tl of van able). Con­ trary to what ts as. umed by Kratzer ( 1989) and under the event control anal>•sis. in the framework developed by Stowell the event Ver.uor which bind. their t' J)()SJtion. On the other hm1d. the option of the higher extstenual quanutier simuhaneously binding e1 and e2m . tructures hke (80) is not available either. a� [hi. would induce a strong �ros. over effect. a situation that 1s illu.trated tn (8 1 ) below. (81)

3,John . aid--e, I that Btll ktssed-e, �lary f

In (8 I). the second £' posuton 1. bound by the event argument tntroduced by the matrix verb. tltu� violating binding principle lC). which states that R-expressions. mcluding variables. must be A-free. The only way to prevent .such a situation tiom arising is to mtroduce another operator {:o-uch a. the habuual operator. H/\13). which �erve. a.s an independent A'-binder of the embedded rk. a. shown in ( R2). (82)

3. John . md-e, l that HJ\13.._ Bill ki. ed-e�,. �lary J

Con. equemly. the rwo t' po. itions m (82) are unrelated. and a simultaneuy read­ mg is precluded.1� Now consider the ca. e of direct perception �on. trucuons. Here. we would expect [he suuation to be e..;. emially the same as in t 8 1 ) above. with SIM being precluded -however. comrary to expectatton. no cro. saver vtolation. seem to anse here. Now

d audsa fe l ses·

164

a Sl�l reading ts not only permitted. but t. in fact the onl)' possible •eadmg. How. then. doe. StoweJI · s sv. � tern account for the Snnuhaneit, Conditton? (83 )

John saw Bill k1s. (ing) Mc.u..

B)) :-ugge�ts that Lhey arc ILP expressaons (:-.ee abo Rrtter and Ro:-en 1993. 52�). despite the tact that the vea h� in quesuon can normally be construed as . tage­ le\cl. a.;; shown by the example. in (95). (9�)

a.

Egg� are poaching well

b. ,.Bureaucrats are bribing ea.,ily

(95)

a.

He \\a� poachmg the eggs when I walked in

b.

She ' l.-'•r'' £ IA' . ubsequently been raised to (Spec. VP). which m this case i. a po. ition not 0-marked by the verb. Thus. the

t he event-�o n t r·ol ana lysi.

171

complement m (9&) has the tsimplifled) ullemal srructure of ( I 07). ( t07)

(��>,. Asp I vp there1 l v· begin bP r, h- to be a knocking sound I ) I I J

While l believe that Safi1's explanatton fot· the grammaticality of r:ai.ing )>truc­ Lure..c; such a), (96c) i. along the l'ight lin�. L would like to sugge. r rhat lhe expletive acrually raises to a specifier of A.pP. a movement rhat is mggered by the . rrong I 0 J feature of Asp. ( I OX)

[Not-,. th.ere.-.o.· (� £ IA•rr lhP-:t)'.- 1 ,p begin l

°

•

0

lw t, h· ro be . . I J l J I I 0

This anaty. i. ac�ounts for the facr that raising of there m example. such as (96c) ts obligato•y. as shown b, the ilt-formedneos of ( 109) below.

( 109)

'tWe heard begin(ning) there Lo be a knockmg sound

'lllal is. Lhe gmmmaticahty of (96c) lollows from the requirement Lhat (Spec. /\0 pP) mu.r lcxkall, lilted at some tage m the de1 ivationo and from the fact rh t>ndo;; to Bower. · ( 1993) Pn:dicme head. a. indicated in ( 1 1 2). ( 1 1 2)

. . . [1"p there [ ,., [ Pr be, l l vr t, . o many complamt. I I J

Under this view. the inter-pretation of indirectne. . re:-.ulrs from the ab�ence of event control rather than from the presence of a TP. Ob:-.er e that if the complement clause in ( 1 1 2 ) were a luii iP. as Satir assumes. we would expect infimtival w to be permitted (if not required) in these constructions as an oven realisation or non­ finite T. Notice. however. that the irreahs examples cited earlier actuall, become bad if the infinitival marker ts added: ( 1 1 3)

a. "'I've nevet seen there to be so many complaints from . tudents before b. ot t wouldn't hke to see there to be . o many m1.takes c. otWe will probably ee thete to be fewer complamt.

In sum. I ha e suggested that in the context ol irrealis. event �ontml is cancelled 01 overridden by the sentenual irreali. operator in the matrix dause. as a con.e­ quence of its betng unable to a. sign the matnx event position a referential mdex. In the absence of event control. tauve (or ontological) complements tend to become more ac..·ceptable. 4.4.4.5 Pn•semational Comp/('ffll'ntS

Pre..o;;entauonal �tructures have alway. been problematic for hnguisuc analy�t. as their fom\atson pre..o;; umably mvolve. the application of styli.tic rule! . uch ' Asp I ,9 dinosaurs ate kelpI J J J I j L__

( 1 24)

[1·p C [ Tl' dinosuurs

h· T

l vr r, ale kelp J J J I

Now consider again direct perception l·omplements. Under the assurnption that fo1 a generic reading to be avatlable. the . ubjcct ha to be m ( Spec.TP) at LF. the

d audsa fe l ses·

176

observed re!!>tt ictaon on mdetinue . ubJeCt!!> of PVC. follows from our claim that direct perception complements fail to project a TP layer. :'ll otice that (at Jea. t) three positions are potentially available for the PVC. ubject to appear in at Lr. (Spec.vP). (Spec .AspP). or the outer specifier of the n1atrix vP. it� ca.,e-checking position. ( 125)

LTI'

•

.

.

lvP (dinosau�) 1 ,- . . . aw L\>i,P (dmosaur. ) .

(� l , .. (dinosaurs) eat kelpJ I J I I I

All ot the:-.e. however. are internal possuons with respect to the matrix Tense. Smce funher raistng of dium.aur� across T is not motivated b, checking theory. we expect 11 to be impo)>sible. If 11 is AspP rather thml vP that detlne.l\ the domain ol existential closure. or nuclear . cope. of a semence. then it appears that in the case ot' perceptual report!!>. the two '. tacked' AspP. together form a single extended nu­ clear scope domain. That ss. no matter whether the PVC subject ts uuerpreted tn (Spec. vP) of the matrix clause or complement-mternally. il wi II be unable to e.�cape exi�tential closure. The proposed analysis thu. correctly predicts that bare plural . ubject occurring in aspcctual perception complements should admit an ext.tenttal mterpretation onl , . Moreover. two . eemingly unrelated properties. the lack of a genenc readtng lor bare pluraL and the SLP Constraint. tum out to be mumately linked. 4.4.6 Vnivin� 01hn St•mamic l'ropnih•.)

In Chapter 2. I provided a brief overview of some logico-semanttc properties ol

PVC. pointed out by Barwtse { 1981 l and olher. . Among the. e are veridkahty. subsfilutivuy. exportabilit. of existential quanttfiers. and the unavailabihty of sentential negauon in PVC . The relevcun generalisation. are repeated here tor con­ venten�e. ( 1 26)

TrwIt- Tlu•on•1ic l'roperties of I'VCs:

1 A) Priuciph• of Vt.•ridirality

rr direct perception complements many people I, I , p we . aw b,,..p r, leave J I I J I

In the configura! ion in ( 132). QP has cope over the enlire matrix vP. including the subject (or Ill\ tmce). ln other words. the A-movement operauon tnggered by lhe requirement of checkmg lheory also . erve.s to extend the c-�ommand domam ol QP, thereby allowing it lO take . cope over the predicate of the main clause. How­ ever. on the assumption !hal the PVC subject can at leas.! optionally be reconstrucled mside lhe lower clause (as indicated in ( 1 33) below). the quesuon arises a.� to why 11 should be impo. . ible lor an existentially quanttlied suhjeCt lo rake . cope over the complement clause alone. •

( 1 33)

. . . we saw [N.rf> (many people) (A,1,. t: 1,,,,... l,p tmany people) leave JJ I J

The answer I would like to suggesl is the following. Due to the absence of TP from asp�tual complement clauses. and the fact that the two event argumenu are comdexed. the nudeal' .cope of the mall ix cl;1Use actually itrdudes the entire com­ plemem clause {see also Secuon 4.4.5 above). '11tal ts. perceptual report provide

t h e e ven t-�on t ··o 1 ana lysi.

179

a smgle extended nudear scope domain only. and an, indefinite within thi. domain wtll unambiguou ly be assigned an exi. tcmial interprelatlon. Since the event argu­ ment ot the matrix dau. e and the evem argument of the lower dau. e carry the lklllle (refes·enu.,l) T-mdex. misit1g or recon. trueI ion of the PVC . ubject make� no ditrcr­ ence for its interpretatton-it will invanably be part of the nuclear �cope of the main dau.e. ( 134)

t:, . . . l,p (many people) I�P we !'aw 1.\,pt• £, (�,· (.,p (many people) leave } J I J I

Hence 11 i. impo�Mble for man,Y JU�ople Ill ( 1 28b) to have narrow . cope. a. . tated by Barwi:\c · s Pnnciple of Exportability.�n� 4.4.6.3 Negation

hnally. �on. tder again the ab.ence of.ententaal negation from PVC. . Recall that negattve PVC. make sense only tf the verb phra. e alone 1. understood to be negated. which i� pos. ible in ( 13Sd. but not Ill ( 1 3Sa.b). ( 135)

a. Iii heard the baby not cry b. ttWc watched a circle not be(mg) drawn c. l .aw the car not start (i.e .. I saw the car ufraiu /'rom stmtiug)

One might argue that excunple. hke ( 1 35a.b) are semantscally or pragmatically odd because an event whose occurren�e ts dented hy not cannot p� sibly be an ob­ Ject of sensory percept ion. M iuwoch l 1 990: I 09) propo. e. that negative PVCs are ruled out because not-dau. e$ are mherentl.. stative (see also an der Uoe..; 1991 . 250). so that their unavailability follow. from the SLP Constraint. Tlu. . however. cannot be the whole story. smce we have seen that gtven an appropnate context. negauve VP. are . ometimes possible. Let us therefore con. ider an altemative. �yn­ tacuc explanation for the ab. ence ot sentential negation from PVCs. Zanuuim ( 199 1 ) hru . hown that we mu, 1 distingui.h between two ditfetent types of negatton: clausal negation. and ptedicate negation. Clausal negat ion is a. :\Octated with a func­ tional head Neg. whose presen�.-e. according to Zanuttint ( 199 1 ). Gueron ;md Hoekstra ( 1993: 89) ;md others correlates with the presence ofT. Opinion. are dt­ vided as to whether a negative head is generated above or belmv T (compare e.g. Laka· � 1 990 Tmse C-Command Condition). or whether it� po�ition with reUpponed by any InO. Bare infinitive:;;. then. are ·unsuppOI'ted dau.e.'> · . a term which. followmg Higginbotham ( 1983: 102). refers to ··a . ubjoct-predicate sequence that exhibits none of the uuemal inflectional suucture of a full . cntence or clausal �omplement: neither ten.e. nor intiniti al to. nor progre.'>sh•e -inft.. . Assuming that B l complement-.. .:ontain a Oavicbonian event vanable and . eman­ tically denote indivtduals ( 'individual evem:- · ). he sugge,•;ts that 13 1 clauses entatton m ( 1 4()b) (Higginbotham 1983. 109):-"> ( 140)

a. b.

�arlowe saw Shake.�ipeare dm\ce (3x: dance (Shakespeare.x)j f\•tarlowe saw x

Con. ider next what happen. 1f the BJ appear.s in a passive context: rirst. the em­ bedded subJeCt DP Slwk£·sprare rai e. overtly to matrix subject po. ilion. leaving behmd a trace of it.;;elf l = t,) in the complement clau,e (d. { I � I a)). Sub. equently. the enttre complement undergoe. LF rai. utg to take scope over the sentence. al.o lea"ing behind a trace (= t1J Toget11er. these two movements yield the Lr structure shown in ( 1 4 1 b). ( I� I )

a. b.

Shake. peare, was seen I t, dance I ( t, dance k ( Shakespeare, was , een t'- J

'l11e resulting LF representation. however. is ungrammattcal for two rea. on. . first. ob!'>erve that the anaphol'ic trace t, in ( 1 4 1 b) is out.ide lhe scope of its ante­ cedent. Shakespnm.:. This con. titute. a violation of binding principle (A). which requires that traces of A-movement mu. t be locally bound by a conunanding ante­ cedent. Secondly. tk is not the anaphot ic trace of Sitak(•speare. hut a variable bearing an mdepcndent thematic role. A a te.suh. the stnng Slwkc•speare, was st•en r, violate. both theta and clipulate that pa�sive paniciple, cannot form Iinks in a 1'-cham to rule our structure, such as ( 137c) (. ee Bennis ) versus the ungrammaticalily of (1 55a). Bennis and Hoekstra t l989: 39 n. 9) are forced todt. tmgutsh two types of -t>tt pani­ ciple. a pa. . tve participle and a prut participle. both of wluch are formally identical. Unhke pa. sive panscsples. past participle. appear to be . omehow able to retain thetr T-linking propeny (cf. ( 155b)). ( 155)

a. ,.,John wa� . een draw a cit-cle h. We have seen John dmw a cil'cle

Whethe-r or not tht. analy. 1. carrie,.;; over to PPVCs also remain unclear. In l>Uill. while smular m spuit to the event control analy. 1 Bennt. and Hoekltra's T-Linking account doe. not seem fully convmdng. euher. mainly becau. e il relics on a mechanism which 1S di tikull to reconcile with minimalist assumption. on head (or femme) movement and on checking. mte.o;; cettain aspects of Bennis and Hoek:o;rm·. account. but diffcr.o;; from 11 in thal li exploit'i the propenie:- oft he familiar relation. hip of comrol. •

•

t he e v e n t-�on t •·o l ana l y s i .

1 87

4.4.7.5 Au t:vent Control 1\/ternmive

Let us now con. tder an alteJ nauve at\! wer to the que. tion of why PVC conl>tructions should lack pa. !.tve counterparts whtch is based upon the evem control analy�is outlined earlier. In essence. what I wam to argue 1. that structure..� like ( 1 37d above are ruled out by Vi. ser'. Generali:-.ation. That is. event comrol fatls be..:ause percep­ tion verb. in the pas. 1ve do not provide an appropriate comroller for .t::-PRO (d. ( 156b)). ( 156)

a. We 1::, .aw John /:.'-PRO, draw a cirde h. "'John, wa. . een t, £-PRO draw a circle

Recall that it is commonly a. . umed that -m participles differ m argumem struc­ ture from their corresponding active forms. Ill lhat their external argument role i. absent or suppres sed (Gnmshaw I 990: 1 I K. among other:-.) and in that it •� unable to check objective c�e.-a descriptive correlation at.o known as IJur::io 's Gnt­ c:rulisalion {Burzto 1986). ln the light of lhe fact that passive predicates do not licen. e an age n t subject either. we tnay take flus to mean that pas:-.ive VP. . like other unaccusatives. do not p1ojoct a vP shell. 1 would like to suggest that passtve VPs are inherently indivtdual-level. and hence do not by rhemselvcs induce the proj�·tion of an I ±progre. �tve I A. pP. or provide an event argument. Thi� claim i. cons1. tent wuh the fact that pa sive clause. are often comade1ed to be stattve m chamcter. Once again. direcl perceptton construcuons behave analogously to cothtrucuon. that involve obligatorily conuolled PRO. ( 157)

a. b.

Ylary, prorni. ed John PRO to leave 11John wa. promi.ed t, PRO to leave tby tvtary)

Just like pas. ivi$ed . ubject control verb. such a!. promisNI in ( 157). me -t.'IJ form of a perception verb cannot function as an C\•ent comrol pr·edicate because an appro­ priate controller t!!. nu. . ing from the htgher dau. e. ·n1us. lhe unavailabtltty of pet­ ceptual repmt. in the pas. ive can be derived from the familiar as. umption that 1he argument structure of -en partlctple..� is impovcri.hed. and from the event control analyst.. If a predtcate projet·ted from a pasl paniciple or from an adje�tive is to be used tn the progt'C.'isive. an auxiliar., mu. 1 be in. ened as the earner of progressive morphology. ( 1 5M)

a. b.

John wa. bein� que�tioned Ylary was bc:in� obnoxtous

Like perfective ltave. whtch ha. been claimed to augment the argument structure ol past paniciple� by adding an external argument role tRmer and Rosen 1 993). the

18K

d audta fe l .s e r·

auxthary . erve.. -. to augment the participle'. argumem suucture by adding an evem argument as mdtcated m ( 1 59)." John. wa.

( 159)

IA,pr· 1:: I "W bemg I VI' questioned t, J I I

However. as the evem argument i)> not a designated argumem of the participle 01 panicipial VP. but in. tead i. provided by be it. elf. it will not be able to act as a controller of another event position. For thi. reason. ectual hc;ld or by \'. Given our a� advcrbtal. and adverb-licensing head� t. one-to-one. we expecl that predtcatc adJuncts are excluded from clauses whtch already contt oa quickl)' cooked rhe chicken. thoroughly young

In �um. 1 conclude that Rapopon·. notion of ·e-place licen. ing · 1. very sinular (if no1 tdentical) to the notion of evem control mtroduced above. It appears that adJunct predicates arc licensed only in a conligurallon that pemut� their event place to be conuolled by the evem argument in (S!>Cc./\. pP) of the higher sumc thm (.t) .hJim rmsc� to (Spt:c.TP), where 11 is nsstgncd nonnnative t·nsc. nnd ( Ji) thnt dever must aiM> mtsc to some head above A. Alternatively. the mfimt1ve dause nnghl rail-c to subJeCt position. which yields (tt (.t)

[PRO to stgn the contrartl wa." de\'er tof John)

In this case. .lalm must be asst&ned CIL system

pro,•idcs us with the alternutivc posstbihty that null arguments arc tn fact lla.-.c-udjomcd to their licensing head (in th1s case. to Asp). rather than bcmg genemted in its spcc:1lier. As the choice between these two options is irrclcvnnt for our present purposes. I shall conttnue to . a dttran.'-ltiVe

obJect control \'Crb. Obs�rvc that the exampl�s below posed coindcxmg:

are

ungrumm:lltcnl under the nn·

( i ) •John promised Mary, ( PRO, to wash the car) (ii) •Susan, persuaded him fPR01 to le�we)

20. 21.

22. 23. 24.

Lu.n;on f 1 99 1 ). however. argues convincin!-:IY thut the verb promise only constitute!\ an apparent ex cpuon to the Mmimal Distcmt'f' Prindplt>. Both of these are discussed at some length by Bresnan { 1 982: 353-. 74). But sec Roeper ( I 987) for a dilferent v1ew. The r<X.)Utremcnt that co:ntrollcd PRO must have an antecedent docs not. however. rule out the poss1b1hty that the controller itself is a null ar(!_umcnl. as in pnHimp lunguuges (see Rizzi 1986). The 4tbsolute scope of :m element can be 1denutied w1th tts c- poach better that thts '?

You rarely sec bureaucrats bnbc L" eustly these d.1ys

3 1 . Sec Brcivtk ( 198 I ) for arguments agmnst analysing expletive tht•rt• a.� a locattvc adverb. II ts trndtltonully :.·sutncd that the expletl\'e serve!- it!- u placeholder for the themotu: .;ubJet:t. .although the prectse nature of the rclullonshtp between the explettvc and tls ussot:t.lte is .;ttiJ undcar. For some dtst:ussion of e�i dnncl!

Vlach ( 1 9S3:

I� I lL).

who argues :1guin:.t Bmwt:-.e'" approut:h to perceptual reports.

as:.ert:. thnt fJVCs do not denote ·scenes'. hut o;amply l'Onstttutc (bare) C\'cnts. whtt:h he cuncctvc:. of as cntlttcs that nrc located in space and ttmc. like physical object:. denoted by a direct obJeCt DP ('ce also l·hgginbotham 19�3. Bayer 19�6). It is thts latter view th:tt ha.' been ll!>sumcd throughout the pre,cnt :.tudy. For an altcrnattve account of the �cmantu:' of direct pen:cptton �cntent:c:. tn terms ol Gcner.:altscd Qu.mttlier logtc. see van dcr Doe' I 1 99 1 •·

n : . Not1ce that we c:tn rule out the narrow s1.:opc rc:Klm,; e,·cn tf we adopt the trJdJttonnl \"ICW

ol QR. on the c;round:. that tcnselcs� l"Omplc mcnl dau,cs f.ttl to provtdc an (1111 )

(aan her > aan 't)

the . leepmg

However. a clo. er look at the syntax of PIC. reveal. that they exhibit none of lhe t yp1cal charactensttcs of prepositional phrases. Bhatt and Schmidt ( 1 993) have .hown that PIC. in Northwe. tem variettel> of German behave dilierently from genume PPs (like tho. e tound in the (h) sentences below) in that they fall to admit prenominal or po. tnominal modiliers. and exhibit a diffetent word order from ordinary PP. (exampl� ( 1 7 )-( 19l have been adapted ' from Bhau and Schmidt 1993: 79f.).'

209 ( 17)

a.

,.

t"r ist am

ltllltt•n Vorl!·sen

he i!. auhe loud b.

reading-out

t."r i.H hdm ltllt/('11 Vor/(•sen he is auhe loud

reading-out

'He i. reading our loud" ( 1 8)

(19)

l\'OJt) dcr Bihcl a. ,. f:."r i. t am Vorh•.seu he is auhe reading-our (of) the bible

b.

l\'on) der Bibel he is auhe reading-our (of) the bible 'He i. reading oul from the bible'

a.

Er ist di' the l ·emanucall>' simi tar) preposition ln:im 'at the·. however. the sen­ tence become. ungrammaucal (d. ( J 9bH. Parallel fact. are found in Dutch (though judgement:. may be •ubJeCt to some dialeclical variatton): (20)

a.

Hij is sw·l he

1s

amr

·, voorl£'�/ ulm ·r voorlezen he is the bible auhe reading-ut 'He is reading our from lhe bible·

b. .. Hij is tum 't voorle�cn van de bijbel he 1. at.the reading-ul of the bible �loreover. Bhatt and S�hnudt ob. erve that while German doe:- not normally allow for PPs headed by identical prepo.ition. to be stacked. ordinary (i.e .. locative) fm-PI's do in facl co-occm with prepositional infinitives.

210

d audaa fe l s e t·

(22)

t.·,.

ist lrr

he is

w1

eiuem Htwsj am

Baunt

at a

house auhe build ·He i. building a hou. e·

(Bhall and Schnudt I 993: 80)

Agatn. the same holds Lrue for Dutch-that is. sta�king of tum PP. is possible provided that one of them is a p eudo-progre.�si e form:

Hij is lw aan :(in bod} tw11 ·r schrijvnJ

(23)

he 1.

at

his book at.the wrne

·He is writing his book· One might add to the above argument the observation that wn in German p. eudo­ progre..�sive:': also dtffer;;: from the homophonou. prepo. it ion ttm in that it cannot opttonall� be split up imo its alleged component. an and dem (tht:- di.tinction is le..�s obvious in Outch though. where all instance.� of aan ltet will normally be contracted to aan ·1 in the spoken language anyway). (24)

a.

I tm dem l'mjekr at.the I at the proJeCt

Er arbeitet am He works

· He·. working on the proJect' b.

Er war am

I *ltu dN11 Arbeiten

He was auhe I ttm 11te work ' He wa. working· 'That is. a:.pectual am differ. from prepo..;; itional tml in that it mu�t alway form a smgle phonological unit. This adds further . uppon to the claim that aspectual am IS

a grammaticalised preposition that function.

� iU1

inflectional element. and as

:.uch 1. no longer decompo. able. Finally. ob. erve that PlCs can he fom1ed fwm . tage-level JWedicate. only (see also Bhau and Schmidt 1993: 72f.). Individual-level predk.ate. . on the other hand. are excluded: (25)

a.

*

Er war dnt Lt•lu•t•r am

Hassen

(German)

he was the teacher auhe hate ·He wa:. hating the teacher' b. ,.Zij was aau ·r gmot �U, she was at.the tal I be

( Dutch)

'She was betng tall' In sum. I have . hown that Bhatt and Schmidt'. ( 1 993) argument. agam 1 a PP analyst. for prepositional inlinitive:o:--ot· p. eudo-progre.. 1ve...c:-in German al.o carry over to Dutch. This lead. me to conclude that both 11111 and 1wn het/'1

21 1

o t h e r· e u a·opean 1 anguagc�

function a., a�pectual marken. and not a� {I u�d) prepo:-.JIIon-deternunc• urHI�...

52.1 .2 11te Position t�/ ASfJL'el ipher

•

of

P. The Jolla\\ ing

example� show that non-mcorporable object OJ>�. adJunct p1edicates or adverb:-. may not amervene between wn and the infimttval verb {example:. (27) and (18) have been adapted from Bh;Ht and Schmidt 1 993: 77).

(26)

a.

J:.'1

wur die Suppe um

he was the soup W 1 983 . en�e). a. Ba) er ( 1986) ha� sugge�ted for German ACb. However. e\•idence I rom scrambling indkate. that German and Dutch ACh mu�t e · ha.' moved oveuly a ros� the rnstrumcmal PP mil dt•m Hammt•rlmt>t dt• lwmer '\\ ith the hammer'. (.W)

a.

Hanlllll'J dil• \lll.\e :erbreclwn hamer de \•aas bn•kt•n hammer the vm.e break e wtth the hammca ·

(German) ( Dutch)

.wh Haw. die Vase mit dem Hammer :n bn•chen Jk :_t4f: Hans dl• vmts mer de hamer hrl•kt•n :-.aw H. the v;tse with the hammer break

(German) ( Dutch)

.wh Ha11s mit th•m , at: H£tn!i ttwt de I )>aw H. With the • J :-.aw John break the 'a

Jell Jk

b.

Jell

If :-.holl

:-.crambhng or object shift of thi. type involve� mO\ement of the direct ob­ Ject to ll:-. ca:-.e-checking position (. ee e.g. Schnudt 1994. Zwatt 1994. 1 997). then the ob�ervcd word order in (4-lb) tells us two thmgs: (I) that the complement dause provide� a landing !-.lie for the moved obje�t (lhat b. ( Spe�.AgrOP) or ( Spec.vP)). and (ti) that the ACJ :-.UbJCt't at o rahes ovettly--eithcr to tSpet'.AspP). or to its uhtmate (�a.,e-che�king) posnion tn the matnx claul->e.

l.r· luf'die Vase I (,. t11 L, 7erbJechenl ,. I J Jch �th Han. �

(�5 )

l w · mit dem

Hrullmct t

l"he tact that a�pectual adverb!-. such a· /an�:.wmlltmK:mml 'slowly' can optionally precede a scrambled obJect DP :-.uggcsu lhat another functional projection is pre!-.ent which dommate!-. v P and to wh1ch . uch ad\•erb. may be attached: �aIt Hans la1tgsam I die Suppel, mil t•itu.>m Lbf/£'1 1, unmilue11 (German) Jk :.ac: Htms lanx:. aam (de .wup), mel et'll leptl 1, omroert'll { Dutch) :-.aw H. . lowly the . oup wuh a spoon stir 'I saw John . tit the soup , lowly wnh a spoon·

( 46)

Jell

runher -;uppon for the pre!-.cnce of an A!-.pP layer m Germ

:a�£'11 J\-flll ill We/ /1L'r(l'CI rilllll \Ve sa\V �1. quickly perfectly French learn ·we saw �1m, quickly leam Fren·h perfectly' \\lir

.

(German) I Dutch)

o t h e r� e u r�opean 1 anguagc

b.

' \Vir .wlll'u Maria f>t>J:fd.. i

• \Vt• ':.li}(L'If Maria pt>rfi•cJ

we !'-aw

M.

217

sc/we/1 Fn.m:_thi elf lnum sul'l

Fran.\

lln•n

french

learn

perfect!, quickly

(German) ( Dutch)

Taken together. the� fact!'- uggc. t that ACis contain (at leru I ) two d1. tinct headJ that are cap ab le of hcen .. ing corresponding ad\crbiab of manner. and that one ol lhe:-e head!'- mu�t be located higher than 1'. I take thb latter one to be nothmg ot he1 than Jhp . That i�. I p mpo �c th;U percept ion-ACb m German and Dutch have the following ba. ic imerMI structure:

52.2 .2 I'IL'JlO. ifionul llrfiuili\•e Camplnm•ms In some (mamly �orthwestern) German dialect!'- and in Dutch. prepo.�itional mtim­ 11 th·e�. or p!'-cudo-prog•e�Mve.s. al.o oc�.:ut 111 perceptual repon�. (49)

a.

\Vir lwbt•n Haus um

we have H . at.the work ·we �aw Joh n workmg· b.

\Vii hu�·n Mwia dtiS Alllo um

. ee

Rt'J)lll ie1t!11 .\L'Iu•n

we have :vi. the L·ar auhe repair · ·we �a'' Mil!\ repainng the car (50)

a.

b.

(German)

i\rbei1cn seheu

(German)

!'-ce

1 Dutch)

Jan :.i£'1 Pi£•1 (lUll her 1·en·en

J . �ce� P. on the paint 'J an .see..-; Piet painting· Heb je

ltm a/

( Ruyter 198H. 269) (Dutch)

aan her le:_t•u J(t':it•u.'

have you J. alread)' . The un�rammatu:alaty of (58b) below thus confirn"t.�; the hypothe:-.1� that the noun phra:.c "u1 l'fJOI llll'IISt'Jt lunt:uons a.-. the subject of a complement clau. e. and not a� a matnx objecl: /h

(58)

a. l \wu WJOI mt'JUell l, :.ag je I I, mm he1 {iersL'11 I'! what for people . aw you on the baking 'What kind of people dtd )'OU �ec cycling?' b.

\\till, :.ag jL' I l l, \'Oor mensen J mm hL·t jil'I.H'Jtl'! whal :-.aw you t'o1 people on the bikmg

..

Similar ol crvation::. can be made with regard Lo the twailability of the was-flir spli1 Ill German PICs: (59}

a. I Was flir Kinderl, hast du 1 1, das Awa am Denwlit•ren) .H'Irt•n'! what lor children have you the car auhe demoll�h ee 'What k1nd of duldren did you :-.ee demoli!->hing the car'!' b.'t'.'\wt.\, lw.r du l l t./ilr Kimh•rl tla., Attlo am DL•malinnrl sdten? what have you for children the �ar au he demoli!-.h •ee

·nurd. notice lhat auxahary dnl:.tjn 'be· a. excluded from PIC�. e'en though il as obligatorily p•e�ent in finile dauscs that �ontain a pseudo-progre!\:o.ive. Thi.

220

d aud1a fe l se•·

�ugge:-.ts that like J\Ch. p�eudo.pro�re��•ve complement-. IatI to project a T-.!.)Stem. ( 60)

a. "\�'ir .wlwn we .saw

Hans tml Schlttfen :,t•in H. auhe . Jeep be

(German)

tOmch) 1 Ruyter 19��- 269)

b. "Jan ..it•t :: Pit•t mm lwt verL·en ::.Un

J.

�ce� P.

on

the palllt

be

Related to thi� i� the ob. ervallon that PIC:� in Gcmtan and Outch al),o obe)r the SLP Con�ttatnl. That i.. ju)>t like p10gr� he -ing in Engli�h pantctpial complements. am and aan hL•tl 't u\ PIC:� will combine with .stage-lcveJ.predicate:-. only.

(6 1 )

a.

,.Jell

b.

..

/1..

I

hab£• Han :,·t•ine Schwe.\'IN' am

Hatts :_ijn ::.us have H. his . tster

ht•b

Htt.\'St!ll :,(•/wn

t lied lltoordt•Jt aan ·r :.in�t. it could be that La's ( I 990) prohibi taon again:-.t func­ tioMI hei\d'i mcorporat ing into lexical one. holru t ru e unh·en.all,. and that VR i pos:-. ible out of ACis but not out of PICs beeau. e ACb do not comam any fu nct ional layer above vP/VP at all. However. tha. ex planatton •� at odds with the e adencc pre� ented abo' e which shows that ACI percept ion �omplementl> do contain an a�pec tu al laye r. The second po!>sib ility i. bal>ed on t he idea that VR •� blocked tl there is a mtsmatch between the featu re t il> �pectlied difle1ently. or ts undeaspedlied. lor the leatu1e in ques tion. Recall that the aspe� tual he�\d ofp. eudo­ progre;;�i\ e comple me nt !> catHe:. the leattlle l +progrel>save 1. whach an Out�h spell. out a:. cum hc·tf't. whtl e the matnx verb i:. unnuuked f01 /\!>pcct. The ill-formedne:...'l tt (72c) then tollo\\:.. from the asl>umption lhat a ( +pJOgre....st,·e J head may not ancor­ pOtate imo a \erbal head that t tsel f i marked ({1pJOgre.shej. or is not marl..ed fot thi� feature at all. �Jlte second avenue appean. to be more promil>ing as 1t gams mde­ pcndent �upport from the so called lnfinith•u.f. Pro l'articipio l i J>P) pheno menon. Ob. erve that in perlecuve mauax clau. es. the followmg comra�t �hows up: Gaven

,

-

(73)

a.

lk heb Hwu d-t\UX2-7t·n.,t:d AUX �� pre­ SCI \·ed. '11ms it �eerns that at lca. t a. far a� the (comparatavely �implc) case� under discu��ion are concerned. the only dall'erence bel\\cen (jennan and Dutch lies in the direction of head adJUncuon. In Dutch. verb. will uniformly adJOin to the right ol their host. wherca� in German the direction of adJu nction l.eems to be

Vive comple­ ment!�. are hcad-hnal A. pPs headed by am or tWit lt£'11 '1. and that the...;e a. pectual mat ket� are af11xal an that they cau.e the \'erb to adjoin overt!, to their right. Sup­ po�e lu1 ther that perlecuve lwben t. not a lexical \erb but in tmlltate� the functional head PeJf(£' view. rhe verb siiJ�i!'J

Ill (78a) ha. hn.t adJoined to the right of a (null) a!ltpectual head. wh1ch has �Ub!ltC· quently adJoined to the left of lturen. fanally. the te!ltulung ,·erbal complex hru moved to the 1 ight ol lhe perfcclive auxahary ltab!•n. The rc�ult ,, tl1e configuration )>hown in (79) (tor e:\po�itof) re. hon. . small vP halo been let\ out>.'' (79)

Per l '

�"-..

Perf

/�

Perf

V

lwben

�

A!ltp

/'

A'P

V

V

hbren

The a..;sumpuon that V-to- V movement •� vacuoulo in German aho explam� the

o t h e r· e u r�opean I anguagcs

227

po:-:-.ibthty ol using the intlniti\e Ill place ol the )XUilctple in (77) and (781>) above. an optton that 1s not available in Dutch. Final!). ob!'>CJ \ e that VR

Ill

Ge1man is preduded where the matrix verbcombi ne.�o

with a (+progre�!'>ivej complement. JUSt (80)

a.

du.\.\ wir ihn am

as

it i� in Dutch:

Siugnt �eltmt/lu)r('ft ltub con·cctly predicted b

heard/hear

our hypothesi!'> that mcorporation should be

tmpo.;;sible whenever there t.s a feature mismatch between the mcopraung head and II!'> potential mcorpormum. 52.4 Sttmttwn After prc�enting evidence that German am <md Dutch wm lterl 'r m p:-.eudo­ progre:-si\e:-. funcuon

a." a:pe ctual

marker�. I ha\e argued that both ACI and

p:-eudo-progte:o.!\JVC perception complement:- in the..,e language:-. :-.hould

be anal) !'>fd

as dau�al ptojections of the category Asp!'. It ha.�o been !'>hown that de,�;pate apperu­ ancel>. cornplemenb of tlu:-. type are neuher nommal

or

prepo:-.attonal gcrund.l>. nor

verbal :anall dauscs m the :-.ense of Stowell ( 19M3). but llhtead are be!'>t analysed as clau:-.al projecuon:-. ot an aspe tual he.ad located lo\\er than T. but higher than V (or \'). Direct percepuon complement� in German and Dutch dalier from theu Eng­ li:-.h counterpruL' only wilh regaad to fhe headedne�. ol J\:-.pP. and 10 lhe way that ptogressh·e a-"pect i!'> marked-lexically in Geml<m and Dutch. but morphologically Ill English. That i:-.. perception ACls and pseudo-progrc:-.. ive!'> pattern with Engh�h

bare inti nit ivai and paa1 icipaal complement!\ not only with respect to their :-.ymactk beh<wiour and :-.emamic �haracteristics. but also With regard to theit imernal !'>U Ul'tural make-up.

5.3 Direct Perception Complements in Romance In t he Romance language..->. the !'>fnsoa-y perception of an action or e,·ent can be cx­ pre!'>!'>fd through the u�e of an ACI (cf. ( g 1 :1 n. a l'.w .>udo - Re/aril'(' Cvmplt•IIU'fll WRC. . cf. t � I b)). or a Pn·,w�iliomtl lnfiniri�·e Complemenr {PIC). (cf. (8 lcH. The follow­ sng example� from Italian rue cued by Gua:-.ti ( 1992: 53). 1"

22X

d aud.a fe l .e a· a.

(8 1 )

Hu l'i.\lu Maria parlire · l �aw Maty leave·

b.

\l£'do J'rlariu dw bada Luca

(I) sec f\1.

who kt�.es L.

'1 :-.ee Mary kt��mg Luca·

c.

Huo

�t·mii Maria a cwua

' 1 heard Mary �mg

(Bnanza. Milan: �cc note 19)

·

All three type!' of complemem observe the Sunuhanett, Condllaon nnd permit �tage 1e,el predacatcs onl)'. PRC� and PIC. d1ll'er I rom ACts in that they signal -

unperfecuvit)' or ·prog•e��•ve·

l! < pect

(see e.g. Guasu IY93: 1-Htf.).

This :-.ection provide� a brief overview of di fferent type� ol direct perception cothtrucuon a n Romance. showmg how the# contnlM wllh J>etceptual reports m

Germanic. I al. o critically evalume :-.ome previous analyse. . ror lad\ ol pace and •

for expo:-.ttot �, rea.�ons. I �hall glos� 0\·er some of the dtflcrent:e:-. that exi�t bet\veen

111d1vidual Rom cmnph�u•mem Ia

I ha\e :-.een P. b. ·�J'ai

\'u

de�..trO) completely

the car

!'au/ complhemntl dlftrttil£• Ia

I ha,·e seen P.

com1>letely

'oiwre

'oiiLtrt'

destroy the �;u

�ext. con�ide1 the disu ibution of negation in lt;than ACb.

(86)

a.

Ho

•·isto Alia non dan· (pili)

(I) have .seen A. U�f)

1£• curwndh• tt Lia. ma a

neg give tany more ) candie)\

to L.. but to

U. b.

Ho

••isto Alice non partire. ma arri\•urL'

(I) have seen A. c.

Ho

neg leave.

but arri\e

•·i.\10 A/in' non dmc molu• caJttnlt..•ll£• u Lia

( 1 ) have .seen A.

neg give many cm1daes

to L.

Gua:-.ll rugue.s that P C. 111 (86) above contain sentent ial negation. If it t:-. cotrect that the avail ab ili ty of sentential negat ion conelate.s with the pre,-:ence ol Ten!-.e

(Zan Ultlll i 199 I . among othen. ). then the abO\·e data �u�gest that Romance ACh arc

:o.tructurall�· mme complex than their Germanic countef(Xlth in that tltcy proJCt't a

TP layer. A� a negated eve nt L hardly compatible with darcct percep11on in the �en)>e

d audaa fe l s e t·

230

outlined in Chapter 2 (compare. al.o Mittwoch 1 990). it would , eem dtat for the sentence. m (86) to be a. stgned a coherent mterpretation. the complement clause. must have a greater degree of. emamic (or temporal ) independence from the matrix clau.e than thetr Gennanic correlate. . Ob. erve that French differs trom Italian m that the embedded lexseal vet·b may not mo e aero� the negative markerpa (corre­ . pondmg to Italian pitt) (Gua. ti 1993: 1 2 1 ). 2: (87)

a.

l"t1i

vu

les £,,�f(ml.\' ne

pas pleurer

I have . een the duldren n e g not Cf)' b.

,.

J'(li vu les l!l{ltmrs lfl' plntrer pa� I have seen the children n e g cry not

rinally. Guru It ( 1993: 1 23f. ) claims that the occurrence of null . ubject. in Romance !\Cis implie.c; the prc.c;enl·c ol a corTespondmg h�ensing head (AgrS in her sy tem). In (88). for example. the understood null subJect (pro) of rttbart.• ·. teal' is able to control PRO in the adjunct clause. (88)

1-/o

l'isro mbart? dei

( I ) have seen :-teal

libri.

PRO na!wondt•ndoli souo il

some books. PRO hiding them

under the

cappotto �:oat /\gam. french pattern. ditfet>ently from the.c;outhel n Romance languag� m that null . ubject. are excluded from rrench ACb (Guasti 1993: 1 24):

(89)

Fai

vu

voler de.,·

li�·res. PRO t.m I!'S c(lc/utnt sous le uutureatt

I have seen steal ·ome book.. PRO hiding them

under the coat

�ottce thal Gua. ti':--: claim that Romance /\Cis project a TP layer al.o provide. u. wtth a way of accounting for a long-standing puzzle. namely the tact that contrary to their Germanic counterparts. ACI. m Italian-type languages fail to obey the Con­ stnunt again. 1 Pa.stve.

(90)

Gianni t' suuo \•isro 11Umt?iart> ww tuela

G.

was . een eat

an apple

lPollock 1994. 302)

In the Italian example above. the ACt subject Giunui ha. been pa. stvi�ed. (jJven the Event Control Hypothe. ts outhned in Chapter 4. we expect that matrix passivism ion of perceptual report • . houtd be �sible onl, if the complement contain:-. a (non­ finite) TP. in which case the complement Ten:-.e will be able to formally tdenufy the tower event argument irrespective of whether or not a potential controller i. pro­ vided by the matnx erb. Raising of the lower . ubject i. fmced by the f.

t, una macchina

IJ I J I

Tlu� analysis b. con:-.1:-.tent wnh the data di)>CU$Sed. and rende� Type I ACb sLruc­

English.11 to their counterpan� in the Southern

turally :-.imthu to full utfintll\'� in

The fact that conuary

Romance

language . .

perceptton ACts in French rather systematically behave like Englbh HI comple­ ment�. �uggc�ts that they might lack a T-�ystem

altogether. I would like to �uggcst

that ACb in Type II language. are better <mal)r�d

a.'

·bme · AspPs. I I thh ts correct.

then the ill- lonnedness of (93) follow. from the ab�ence of an appropnate commll er

II\ Ihe mmrix clause. whtch leave. the lower event po:-.llton unidenti lied (compare Section 4.-l. 7 abO\ e). The ob.erved difference..'\ between rrench on the one hand. and Southct n Romance languages on the other might be Iinked to certain ditlerenc� m the morphologtcal prot>Cttles ot ,·ems m the..se language:-.. Pollock { I 994: 302) :o.ugge�ts that language� like Italian differ from French in that the tn the Iarmer. unl1ke the Iauer.

b

inhnJtival

sutfix

·. trong · and thu� ha:-. to be checked pnor to Spell­

Our. I wouiJ hke to make an e\·en stronger sugge�tion to the elfect thai mfimuve m the Southem Romance language. . but not in French. are obligatorily inflected fot layer Ill the symax. .!� evidence that

non-fmite Ten�e. lon�ing £he ptojection of a TP

232

d aud1a fe l .e 1·

bare infinsuve.... in the Southem Romance language!'>-but not in French. Englb.h. Gc1 man or Out� h-are able to deline an independem temporal domain come. I rom example� :o-uch a::. lhe lollo\\ing {adapted from Kroch er a/. 1987. 283). (95)

(96)

a.

h i� nece::.!'>ar)' •(to) ·peak wnh Mary

b. c.

trl!cc>.uuire '+'{dL') parler uret· Marie J:.'s ist m'itii:. mit i'vlaria (.:u) lpredten

a.

Era

b. c.

II t'.\1

tFrench) (Getman) {Italian)

necessario ("di) par/an• cun Maria J::w preci!>o ( ..t/(• ) hablttr con l'vlariu Ellt prn·i�o c•de) Ja/(lr COlli Maria

l Spnnb.h) Wortuguese )

The conlJol infinitives Ill the English. french. and Oerman example!-> m (95) all require the presence of ·orne kind of infiniti at marker. In the infinitival clause. m {he corre..�ponding example. from Itahan. Spant:-.h and Portuguese. by contta!'>l. the anfhuttval marker::. are redundant. suggesting that the infinitival morphology here as !->Uihc1ent to �ignal the degree of temporal independence that i� i\l>l>Odatcd wilh l'OJUrol inli nilh·e� (see Stowell 19X2):u' Taken togetheL the abO\ e olhet 'at ions lead me to condude that perception ACis m french arc projection� of a head to" et than T. Let

u.;;

now return to ACb

Ill

T) pe I language.,.

\\ luch

exhibit a rather dtnercm

beha\'iour I rom ACb in Germruuc. and which arguabl)• �ontam a Te n�e l•1yer. I\ote that Gua�tr s anal) l>i� doe� not .eem to offer any :o.traighttorward e�planadon for the absence of a:-.pectual auAJiiarie. lrom J\Cb. or fos the fact that J\Ch are normally under.-;tood

a.

de;;cnbsng a completed e' ent. i.e. that the vet b carne::. perfective

aspect (."ee Guasti 1993. 1 1 8. 149). J-'U11hermorc. at lhe generah-;ation proposed eat tier. that �tage-level predscate.;; are canomcally reah:-.cd a::. Al>pl's. i. coa reel. then the fact that per�cption-ACI. m Romance ob:-.erve the SLP CoJl!'>tmmt amphes that they !->hould comasn an a.'pectual layer a. well. ror lhi� rea::.on. I sugge::.t that the analy::.t:-. in {94) above �hould be amended in the following way. Based on 1he theory ofTcnsc outlmed b. Gaorga and Pianesi ( 1997). according to which clauses {at leUmed by Gaorgt and Paane!'>t have been ommed). Romance ACb instantiate the.econd one.'21 (97)

a. b.

. . . h'Pt . . . I TP1

.

.

.

.

.

•

T I .. h'P . .

.

T2 . . . v p J

. VA.., . . . ht-1 . . . T2

.

. . VP I J

Tht!-> would e�plain why any auxiliaries associated '' ith the higher T- projection (and which. followsng the author�. origmate in the po:.ition mruked v..,J. an (97a)). notably modal. . a::.pcc•ual bl' and perlecllve /un·e. do not occur in percepllon-ACis.

o t h e r· e u t·opean 1 anguagc�

233

author� further a��ume that Romance dau:-.e:- may contain an aspectua1 projection that 1:-. located 1111ermediate bel\\een TP2 and the VP projec ted by the main vet b. ;Uld whtch ti> a:-.:-.oci ated with the aspectual propertie ,, of the \erb l tbid . . I 00. 129ff.). 'llli� ::-ugge. u that the �anontcal reah!.atton of bare event:. in language.� that panem like ltahan i:-. TP2. and not AspP. I I we take Asp to be the lormal licen:-.er of the Kratzcri;lll event argumcnt t.ee Chapter -l). t hen Roman'--c ACh wtll ha\e the 1 :.tmpli lied) ba�tc :.tructure of t98) below.:" Tlle

(9S)

lP2

/""'-

DP.,

1'2'

/�

T2

A E

Asp'

�

Asp

vP/VP

In French ACh. b) contr� 1. the T2 . y:-.tem i:-.

not obhgatouly projected .

I I we

ac�..-ept thb modtlicatton of Gua:-.ti' � ana1ysi:-. then ACb tn Romance 'l)'pe l lan­ guage!'> will in fact be !.tructurall) Je�3 comp lex than lull inhntttve!'> 1ea.,t tf we lol low Giorgi and Pianess ( 1997: 82)

an

m

Englt..-;h. at

analy:.ing to a:-. an in�tanuation

(= Tl ). That the e,·enh denoted b) Romance ACb are normally interpt eted a.� contemporaneou. with the mamx event might be due to the fact that the lower T lacks a referential mdex of their O\\ n. but in!'>tead a.':-.ign� the lo\\ er ,went atgument i:-. Specitkally. he a. ume� lhat both the complement dau:-.e a� a whole and 1ts subject �imultaneously tunction a."' the theme of \•iden· ·see· m ( 1 02).

( I 02)

\lnlo In• Maria lc- [C" che J bacia Luca ) J

t_.=

•

J

0-. haring

J\ccordmg to Riai (I Y92). the pos. ib1lity of a direct pen.:cpuon tcad111g doe� not depend on the category of the complement. but rather on whether or not lhe postvetbat DP ss governed and 0-marked by the h1gher verb. As Rtz7i himselt note. . the thematic �h;ll ing hypothe�t. il> problematic becau�e 11 imolve� a VIOlation of the 0-cutedon: The DP J\,-laria Ill ( I 02) end. up being a.'�igned two d1�llnct thematic role:;. the role ol agent by the embedded verb. c1nd that of t heme b) the h1gher verb. If. on the other hand. pseudo-rclauve con�tructtoth were anal� �d a.' complex noun phrase�. a � tt ha� previou.ly been �ug�e�ted by Kayne ( I 98-U and 1:3urzto ( 1986). then the fact lhat the po. t\'Ctbal DP h understood follow automattcally:

a.

a mauix object would

o t he a· e u a·opean 1 anguagc

235

\letlo 1 11r. lvlaria lCCl mitrors rhe analyM:o. that I have propo�d for •true·. t.e. clausaJ. PPVC. in Chapter 3. •tne othet rwo brad.etmg:- indicate a DP-modifier �onsfruction and a non-constuuem cquence of a DP and a controlled adJuncf clause. re.pectivel). Cinque ( 1 995. 261 f.) pmpolle� that the :-mall dau. e complement ol �·idL•te in ( I 06n) i. u�elf a CP headed by a null cornplernenuser. Tlu�. however. rai�e. the que. tion ol how the �mall dause :-.UbJCCt wtll 1 ccei,·e iu themattt ituenc who� progre:-­

:-.ave value ts comribuced by

u.

which IS homophonou: wrth

a

dati,e-goveming

preposition corre:-.ponding to Engh.h •to'. Like I PVC's and PPVCs in Engh�h.

Ponuguese ACL:-. and PlCs difter minrmally " ith respect to theu a�pectuaJ charac­ ter (1b1d

..

a.

( 1 10)

279): t.'u \•i

m

meninos lerlem)

o

/i,•ro

�aw the children read{AGR) che book b.

Etc ' i

w

menilws a Jer( em)

tJ

li1•ro

�aw the children to read(AGR) the book

'I .sa'' the duldren readmg the book' E' rdence chat a in Ponugue:-.e PIC. does not behave hkc a normal paeposition

IS

provided by Rapo!o ( 1989). who notes that it may not be coabtrued with a

nominahsed lorm:

J::u \'i

( 1 1 1)

o.-.. mt•n;no.\ (l)

leilttr

final

free

nuxed

TP

initial

free

A-:pJ>

initial

Ronumn.• "I)JU' I (e.g. Jwlian) Romance "J)pc II

�where avajlable)

(fin"·h) In sum. sensory perception verbs in the above language� were found to pattern ahke with re.'>pect to their selectional properties-they all !lemamically select event. . The relallonshtp between Romance ACb 4tnd prepo. itional infinitives nut rors the relation. hip between Engli!lh IPVCs m ; d J>PVC. in that the latter rcpte:-.ent� the progrcssi\·e counterpart ol the former. Cro:-.:-.-linguistic ditlet ence...; between the categ01 v of the complement have been argued to be due to ditl erence� in the mor­ phological paope1tte!l ol infinitive. in the lang uage." under consideration.

Notes I . Stnl"C

Dutl·h .tnd Dant�h

(1991).

f thank L.tura Rupp (or hclpmg me w1th the Dut ·h data. and f lurald Clah�cn for confirm­ '"� �orne of my JUd�cmcnts for the German data. Throuf.hout thb c:h:�ptcr. thc J Udgcmcntl> on the Germ.m data nrc ba�cd on

·'·

'orthwcstem vunettC). of �todem Standard Gem1:.m.

mdudm� my own dtnlect.

Ltke the Du tch acm hetl"t l·onstruc:tJon. the German am + injiniti\'C! construl·tton (which

origmah:d in the Lower Franktsh dialect area. but ts now m-.:rcasingly bem� used m collo­ qutul . tandard German � wcll l typical ly mvoiYes mtr.JmJtJve verb...;. Ac:c:ordmg to Lehmann 0 99 1 : 51 4}. lr.mstti\'C PfCs arc:. m Gemmn. ··sull rare out�ttk the onginal d1alcct urea".

4.

Note that the examples below may al1 be deemed uc:ccptublc in Southern vmcties of German. whu:h is consistent wllh Bayer's ( I 993) chum that mfimttvc� in Bavarian

German ha\'e rc tamed their nominal character m part.

5. Van Gcldcn:n ( 199�:

I 2) cite.\ the

followmg cx:1mplc as gr:uum.Jtical. which �uggests

that aan 't may not yet ht : vc llcromc fully f.rnmmutu:ahsctl m Dutch.

(I•

lk ben bnrdt•n ttall bet wassen en het dro8t'IJ

I

am plates

m

the wash

and the dry ('.m Gcldercn'.; l22))

·( .1m washms .tnd drymg plntcs'

Bhntt and Schm1dt l l 9?3: 90tf.) also suspct:t tlut Gcrnun .L'(>C-.!\tatlL'... whtrh

a

cordmg to the authors would hdp :sct:ount fur otherwise uncx­

p..-ctcd rc,tncllonl> on pscudo-progrc�sm::.s !>uch a� their mubthty to combmc w1th l'Crtam type.!\ of loc ati\'C c�pres�ton � 1b1d . . 7. l:

1 u) •Manu tst in dit! Schttll' am �1.

Gt'11e11

1st m the s-.:hool auhe go

·Mary 1:-. goan� to school

6. That 1'. the pn:d1cutt\C adjcc t l\'e TiltH> •tired' mu!>t normally p n:cedc ttml ltrtl t an Dutch: {I l

Martt' is mm' mm 't �..:nrden �1.

is tin:d ::u.thc bct:ome

· Mar)' IS gettm� t1rc:d'

The word order of I i) ts al�o poss1blc m some d1alecl� uf Gcrmnn. The observed \,.tn:.ttton

prc:,umnbly depend� on whether or not the ndJCCttve IS mcurpur:1tcd mto the verb m a g.ven language or d1alc l.

7. Note th:.tt tht.s anal)'!-IS 1� ut odds with recent chums made by Zwart ( 1994. 1997) to the ctl'cc:t

th:tt Dutch and Gennan arc undeclymgly . VO l.mguagcs. and that mflet:Llonal

proJCCCJon.' m thc� l.mt!ungcs arc alo;o umform l� head-mit tal (l'ompurc: :tl!-o Kayne I994). Under th1� \'IC\\'. pscudo-progrc:.!\SIVC!> would mvolve a hc :td-mit1al. r obhgatory fur both dchmte and mdclimte obJeC ts

(sec Zwart t I ?94: �95f.. 1997: 90-9bl for some dl !-l' US Sion of tlu� tssue).

242

c:l audta fe l.set· Hr ll'ttr dil! Suppt' am

ti)

• •die Suppt•) Knrlwn (•die Suppr)

Ill} 1ms dt• .mt•p

nan ·, t•dt' :mt>p)

he was the soup

al.lhc

koken

tGem1nn)

(•de soep)

{Dutch)

cook

·He wu_.; cookm� the soup' Furthermore. tf AspP ts heud-imtinl. there would . eem to be no ob\'ious rea...;on why VP adverbs should not be allowed to inter\'ene between

nm

or ann ht'tl "t nnd the verb­

n restrictton that fo1lows tmm�dmtdy from the analysts proposed in the text. (ti)

Sic 'mrft>st am

•German)

l•fest) Schlnfen

Zij was diep nan •t (•dit'f') slnpen

she ,,.,.r dt.-ep

'She

at.thc

(Dutch)

sleep

wns sl cepm� deep'

Another potential problem for Zwan's annlysis arises from the fact thot

hke non-timte

complement clauses m general. dtrcct perceptton t·omplements wilt inevitably prcl·cdc.

2 1..'ontext.; (but see Zwart ( 191)4: 398(.. problem). For lnck of space. the menls nnd drawhacks of Zwart's proposal cannot be fully evaluated here. rather thun follow. the 9-mnrkin� verb in nun-

191)7: 102) for a

S.

possible solutton to thts

Withm the Geml<m literature. ACl structures nrc tradiuonnlly subsumed under the so· called 'coherent' intimttve constructions {llOscd: (e) they ( marginollyl pcnnit long pa::-.tvcs. Ltke their Enghsh B l counterparts. German ACls have been U..'isi�ned a \'anety of dtffercnt strul·turcs 111 the past. rangm� frum ohJ«t t·ontrol (Harbert 1 977). subJCCI-to-ohjcct ratstng tHohlc 1 978. Ktss 199 ). or Buyer's ( 1986) ·bare VI'' analysis. to the chum that ACls are not tn fact !-tngle constituents (Eisenberg 1986: 387f.). The synu t x of Dutl·h ACls has bt:en dtsCes all

dv}

243

profcs..o;on;

then books must

publish

In :.i]n dmmen :.ag Pe1rr :.u·h:.elj f:t!lll'mal :.ijn In h1s dreams saw P.

tumsclf gc nc.ral

be

What ts unusual about the abo\'e examples is that the complement clauses �.:ontain n time advcrbml lin 1990l. an :tspcctual auxiliary lhebhrn). an eptstemic modal (moelrnl, nnd the verb ;,iJn ·be'. rcspccuvely. all of wh1ch arc nommlly excluded from English nnd German JPVCs. Although there is no ev1dcncc for the prcsen e o f T m non-irrculis B l complement-. (sec Ruyter 1988: 2 6 1-264). the abtlity o f Dutch Dr cluuses to exprcss mdcpcndent tunc rcferet1cc se.ems to mdicatc th:lt some !nO-type node must be present. dcsplte the obhgntory ahsence of the mfiruttV<Jl marker

tc 'to'.

Notice. however. th.at none of the above examples actually involve dtrcl·t pen·eptton {hence the label 'meahs' Bl!}. That is. the verb

:.m1 ·see' tn (1}-(iv) docs not denote

tmmedmtc viston. hut is used m the more metaphoncal sense offoresrc · or unat:ine. To ' conclude. it appears that trrc::alis PVCs cather d10er from tn.t buy

tii)

..

.

r�'rQI' S pec I\LJCY AgrO L\PI Jan (v. \1'1/t lv,,� kuopt•ll 1m· dlellt'IJ boekl ) I)) I

Under thts vtew. the ·VR effect' results not from \'erb movement. but from overt ruismg

244

d audaa fe l se a·

of the subJect and object DPs to the1r CUM! positions (hen:: J Spec.Agr.SP) and ISpecAgrOPp. Note. however. thut 1t Is not immediately denr how an analysis along the-"C lines would account for verb rmsmg m ACl structures, or the absence thcn:of in corresponding pseudo-progressiVe structures. whu:h both c.hiYcr from monodnusal sen­ tenc-es such us t i ) in that they a��uubly involve a non-aux1liary verb takmg a dau.ml complement. A." far as the d1n:ct1on of head ndJuncuon is concerned. Bttrbosa C 1996) presents inde�ndent empmcal evidence suggesting thut Kayne's n:stnction m1ght l:x: too stron�. and argues m fu\'our of permillm& hcad-ad.iunction to the n�ht. I am mdmcd to lL"sume that m general. nght-:uljum:llon should be pos.stble providud lhttt (a) the J.U\'IC is observed. and (b) movement is tnggercd by morphosyntactic features that require checkmg. Howc\·er. as an m- such us (i) below VR has taken place at all. the mO\'elliCnt nlUS( ha\'C been Wll"UOUS: (I}

dcu.v a das !Judt 11icht /('SCJfl kihmm muss

that he the book neg n:ad can must "that he doesn't have to be :1blc to rend the book'

The gcnemhsauon propo�ed in Ute text 11roves to hold for more compte� cases too. Compare the followmg example�. which contain ooth perfecuve Jwl>�n nnd the future auxihnry wrrden (see den Bcsten and Edmondson I 983 for a more \·omprehcns1ve OVCf\'JCW of the data.): (ii)

dass 1ch ihn mcht wude !when sm�en /u}rrn

that I (iii)

him n�g will

have sing

hcnr

dass 1ch Um nicht sin�m !Whill"l Jwbm werdr

that I hirn n�g sing hemd have w1ll both: · . . . thul I w11l nut hnve heard hun smg'

Ex,mtple ( 1ii) represents the basic lhcad-linal) order. Tn (n ). the entue inlinittval complex lwbrn kmtmu•n komtttll has ndJomed to the nght of timtc au1uhury wirrl ·,nil'. wh1ch 111 sentence:- hkc the abo\'e is must approprmtely analy�ed as :m mstant1at1on of T or M(odality).

17. Note that m Dutch. a past participle may appear e1thcr to the left or to the nght of aux­ ihanes such as perfocll\'C lwbben ·have' . whercus m Modern Standmd German. the �ct·ond pus.,1b1hty 1:. llfedudcd. This IS shown by the followma contrast (the Dutch examples are Iuken from Zwart 19�: 385).

o t he•· e u 1·o 1>ean I anguage ( i)

doss Jan .filaria �:ekii.w hat dat

( ii)

Jan ll•larir f:t!ku.�t heeft

t pos.-:tbihty 111 a footnote (Polloc.:k 1994: 30:l n. 18). Spc(.'lh ­ cully. he �peculates that tt might be the compumtivdy weak nominal properties of mltm­

lt\'C� m present-day French that enable them to fum:t10n ;b 'b:u\! verbs'

(i.e.. verb' thnl

are not mlk-ctcd for Tense). . m control mhmtt\-C�. there ts evtdcnce that 26. Al thoufh frcm:h dr typtcnllr occur

tt tl- not

fu lly cqui,·alent to tnhnttJ\al to m Enfli�h (l'ompare Kall\'e con,tructtons 10 Romance mvolve the formJtion of complex pr)'nta Ill' levd of Argument Structure (Rosen 19M9.

Dt

c1ullo 1990}.

or \'lu l>}'ntac t1c mcorporauon 10 the �pmt of Buker ( I t)g ·) (compa� e.g. Gu.t!>lt 1993).

lf th1s I!> corrct:l. then c:tus:tll\'e �o·omplcmen� m Romnnn: are not clausal onstttuents.

and m orporntton. or prcd1cnte mcr&cr.

IS :tn alternative way fur \'Crb.ll .stems in thc:.c

languat;el> to s:tt1sfy the rnorphologtcnl n:qutn:mcnt that \"Crbs must a temporal alh.\.

be .tsM>..:tatetl

wtth

6 Conclusion The major aml of the pre. em study ha. been twolold: ti�t. 10 pre. em an analy. is of non-finite verbal complements of perception vert>. within the framework of Chomsk-y's ( 1995) r..t. inunalist Program. and second. 10 determine the extent to which the . emantic propenres of pe�eptual reports can be derived from theu . ymactic .tructure. The matn focus of the inve. ligation ha. been on pre�em-day Engli. h. At a more general le el. 1 have trted to make explic:tt the conditions under which ten. ele.'t� verbal complement:-. are licensed. . howmg why genuine · verbal small clau�e$· are rather limited in distribution. and $Ubject to a number of seemingly unrelated restrictions. The results from my anal. sb. ::-.ugge ·t that the mapptng from symacuc 10 semantic tructure might be more stratghtforward than previou. ly thought. "l'hey also suppot1 the line of re,.;earch which treats Ten. e and /bpocl a. . yntactic categorie. and aims to capture the temporal and aspectual proper1ies of sentence. by exploiting independently mottvated principle:- of grammatkal thoory. In Chapter 2. we saw that direct perception complement:- are characterised by a clu.ter of. yntactic and semantic properties . ome of whtch cu1 iou. ly overlap. lt was . hown that both bare infinitive complemem and prutictptal complements are clausal con. tiruents that pauem alike in all rele\o'Clnt re,.,pect . Participial construc­ tions tn the context of percepttOtl verbs were .hown to be potentially ambiguous between a reduced relauvedause structure. a controlled adjunct clause. and a ' true·. t.e. clausal. perception complement. Both bare infinifive. and partictpial comple­ ment� diffet from rhe two other type. of clausal perception n. J . 107.\. A11 /::.ssa Canrt'mifll: .Aspt•ct. The f.tngue: �toulon. Aoun. J. 1985. A (irammar of .-\napltara. C::Jm bndge. .\tA: MIT Pre s�. Aoun. 1. and La. Y. A. 1 9?3. :,)ntax of Scope•. Camhm.lgc. .\tA: MIT Pre�s. Aoun.

J ..

Hom�tcm. N. and Laphtfoot. D. 10�6. "Two type� of lor:altty". Lin{!uistic Jnqtdry

IS: 537-77. Anm(J(o. !\I. IOX9 . ..Ag.nnst a ratstng analyst� of BE.". l:.'nKiish Lm�uwics 6: 1 1 1-29. Anrn(J(o. M. 1 99 1 . "'J'/u•n'-insertaon nnd the structure of sentcnl·esh.moll c lauses" . In

'akaJtllla and S. Tono a kc (eds.). 107-16. .. A�hcr. • . and Donevac. D. 1985. How e xtensJOnul •s cxtcnsJOnul pcn:eptton ?". un�:mstit-s H.

and Phila.mpltr K: 203-28. Atkm,on. M. 199t.. "The Mmimuhst Program ". In A Cmrcise l�lln·rlnpt•dia of Syntawr 1/wnnt'.'i.

K . Brown .md J. �hiler (eds. ). Oxford: Pergamon Pres�.

Bach. E. 1986. ..The algebra of event.;". U11Kfli.5tl£ s and Plrilo.wplry 9: 5-16.

8itker. M. 1988. lm nrpnrauon: A Tlwm)· t�{ Grtmmwurt�l I rmcmm Clram:inK. Chi cago: The Um,·ersity of Chicugo Press.

Buker. M .. John�on. K. and Roberts. I . 1989. " Passa \'c argument� rw�ed". Un�:lli.wc lnquirr 20: 219-5 1 . Dultm. M . 1995. · ·floatm.g quunttlien>. PRO. :tnd prct.hc:ttioo". Lin�:ui.rs by Riduml Carter l=Lexiron Projt'ct WorkinK Papers: 251. B. Levin and C. Tenny (cds. ). Center for Cogmtivc Sncncc. MIT. Cullcll. R. I 984. Splla:r and Semantics 17: Cmnposttt' Prerliratt'S in EnK!tsll. \�w York: Acndcmil· Press. Chtcn:hiu. G. 1988. Topics in tlw Syntax and Smrantics oj lnfimtivl's ami Gemnds. New ork: Garland. ChUitL-:ky. K 1957. Symactir Structum�. The Hague: Mouton. Chom..;ky. K 1965. A sp uts ofthe Theory ofSymax. Cumbndgc. MA: MIT �-:s. ChmtL-:ky.

. 1970. ··Remarks on nommaltzmion". In Readin�:s in F.nglish 'J'ransformatumal

Grammar. R. Jucobs anS.

Chomsky. N. 1986b. Knowledge oj L..nnguaf:P. Its Nalllrr. Origin. mrd U:w. New York:

f'racger.

. Chom!>ky. N. 199 I . . Some notes on economy of denvntion and rcpt-c.'\cntation". In Princi· plesmul Parameters in Compnrmivr Grammar. R. f'rc1dm (cd.). 4 17-54. Cnmbndgc. MA: MIT Press. Chomsky.

. 1993. ..A mimnmhst pro�rnm for lin�uistic theory". In 'fhr Vii'tr from JJuild­

int! 20. K . Hale nnd S. Keyser (cds.l. 1-52. Cambndge. .MA: �tiT Press. ChonLl a/. teds.). 67-96.

Dtrven. R. 1989. "A cognitive perspective on complementation". In D. Jasper� t'l ttl. (ed.d. 1 1 3-39.

Doe:-. J. van der 1 9 9 1 . "A generalized quantifier lo�IC for naked mliniti\'cs''. Lingmstirs and Philosophy 14: 241-94.

Doherty. C. 1997. "Clauses wtthout complcmcntizers: f'imte IP-complcrnentatlon

111

Eng-

h.sh". Thi' Li11guistir Rel'lew 14: 197-220. Dowty. D. 1979. \\�u·d Mt•nnmg ami .Monta�:ur Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. Drctske. F. 1967. Seein.r: and Knowin�. Chicago: limvcrstty of Chtcago Press. Dufflcy. P. 1992. Till' 1-.ngli.vh lflfinitive. Harlow: Longman.

Etscnbcf!�· P. 1986. Grrmdq{J dt•r dewsclwfl Grnmmatik (2" E.d1t10n) . Stutt�art: J. B. Mc.tzJen>ehc Vcrlag.sbuchhandlung. Emond.s. J. 1976. A 1rnnsjomwtional Approach

to

J: n�lish Svnlilx. !\cw York: Academic

Press. En of En�hsh direct pen:epllon complements ' · . .lo11mal qf Linguistics J4: 35 t-85. . Fclscr. C. and Rupp. L. I 997. . A mmimalist approach to c�istenllnl constructions in Gernmmc". 1-..ssex Rrst>nrrh Reports m Lim;.uistirs 15: 45-SO. .. Semantic Condttmns on Surf:�ce Structure". Ph.D. Dt:scrtatton. MIT. . . Ftllrnorc. C. 1963 . Tile pusition of embcddin� transfttmlattons in a grammar··. \lvnl 19:

Ftengo. R. 1974

208-3 1 .

.

.. Franks. S . 1983 . A note o n NP-structurc and s · deletton". Linguisnc Inquiry 14: I 75-9. Franks. S. and Homstetn, •. 1992. ··Secondal)· predtcation tn Russian and proper govern · . ment of PRO. . In R. Larson 1'1 n/. tcds.). J-50. Freed. A. 1979. The St•mmmrs of Em:,lish A.sprctual Complt•lm'lllntion. Dordrecht: Reidel. Gnbbny. D. and Momvcsik. J. I 980. ··Verbs. events. and the tlow of time ... I n 11nw. 'ft•mw. and Qualll{{it•rs. C. Rohrer (ed.). 59-.3. Tiibin�en: 'tcmcycr. Gnlton. A. 1984. 111e Log1< ofAspt•t:l. Odord: Clarendon Press.

Gee. J. 1975. . . Perception. lntentionaluy. and t\'aked lntintuV ing quanuher.; wuhout quan tifi er raiMng · . In W. Abraham N a/.

(eh t. .). I X9-98.

Kolt.Uml. M. 1995. " Phrase . tructure m

M i mmill is t Synta.'\ ".

Ph.D. Dl�l>crtatJOn. MIT.

Koopman . H. 11)()4. ··L�.

Amherst. Kratzer. A. 199:\ ··On external argmncnts". In E. BenOIT and the Stmcmrc oj £n�:llJh: A ."-limmallst Approad1. C:un bridgc: Cumbndgc Um,·crslt)' Press. Rumchand. G. 1993. "Aspc:.ct an Modem Scott1sh Gachation". Namml um�:uaf:t' mul Utlf:lli.sm

. Riner. E. nnd Rosen. S. T. 1997. .The function of hm•e". Un�ua 10 I: 295-32 1 . .. R1vcro. l\•t. L. 1990. The locntton of nonactive vo1ce m Albaman tmtl Modern Greek". Unguist1c lnquirv 2 1 . 13.5-46. Riu.i. L. 1986. ··. uti obJects m ltuliun anti the theory of pro". Un�:u;stic lnqu;ry 17:

501-57. R1t .1.1. L. 1990. Rt>lm;ri:_t·d Min;maUty. Cambridge. MA: MIT Pre:s. Riz zi. L. 1992. ··Duect perception. government und thematic shunng " . Gt•tlt'l'a Gmer£m �·e

Papc>rs 0: 39-52. Roberts. 1 . 1985.

..Agreement

parnmctcrs and the development of English modal nu�llia­

nes". Natttral Langua.r:e and Lins:u;stit' 'f'lteory .l: 2 1-58. Roberts. I. 199�. \1•rbs wul D;arhronic Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Rochemont. M. I 986. focus in Gmerative Gnmmwr. Amsterdam and Ph1laddphiu: John 13en.Jumms. Rochelle. A. 19�8.

.. Scmantil- and Syntacttl· Aspcl:ts of Romance Scntent1ul Complemen­

tation". Ph.D. Dissertation. MIT. Roeper. T. 1987. "Implicit arguments and the head-complement relation". Linguism Jnqu;ry 18: 267-3 10. Roeper. T. and de Vtlhcrs. J.

1992. "Ordere-d par;1mcters m the ucquisttion of

WH-Ning ojthe Chicago Lin;.:mstic Socte�y: 202-22. .. Rogers. A. 1974 . Physical Pen:epllon Verbs tn English: A Study in Lc:<Jcul Relatednes s". Ph.D. Otsscrtntion. UCLA. Rosen. . . 1 989. '·Argument . tructure and Complex PredJtutc..( lnflection-Phrase) am DcuL,chc:n". Ph.D. Disse 1t nt ion. Umven;ity of Cologne: .

. eUmJ... . E. I 982 .. Thr Swtnx aJ �"''i>nls. Cumbndgc:. MA: MIT Presl>. Snuth. C. 1 9 9 1. . Tlw Panmlett.'r of Aspt•t·t. Dordrccht: Kluwer. Speas. M. I 990. Phrasr Str11clltre in Nmurnl Ltmguaf{r. Dordn:d1t: Kluwer. portJChe.. D. I 98�. "A theory of tlo::ttmg quantihc.!> r .md at� corrolarae� for con,tllucnt struc­ ture" Ltm:mstic Inquiry I 9: 3�-60 .. . portae he. D. I 995 . . . ketch of n rcducttom�l approach to �yntactac v..armllon nntl tlcpcndcn­

cac�.. In Itt nlrtltOII (//It/ Re�·olution Ill Ltnr:mstic 1 ' /worr: Essa\'.f in IJmwr a/ rarlos Otero. H. C.1mpo' and f'. Kempchm�ky reUbJCl"t lcl>J- 17. 55 lnjmitiwts Pro Partll'lpio 27. 1 89. 224 lnfl ll.tt 1 1 6-18 null 94--7. 99. 126 n. 7. 169. HU spht 17. 99. 108

subjcl"t-:tux•hary I 06

IPP (.w•t• Jnfinuil'lls Pro Parlicipio) •�nliJ- t·ontcxt 34. 35 . .lb. 73. 80. N I.

n. 10. 167. 168. 1 7 1 -2. 189. 201 n. 30. 24., n. 1 0 ltalmn 84 n . 1 7 . 147. 184. 202 n . 42. 205. 227-35. 138. 239. 145 n. I 9. 246 n. 26

84 n. 17. 86 n. J2. 99. 126

Lr tst'L' Lo�llal Form ) Lr �fappmg l'nncaplc 139 h�ht \"Crb 9. 10. 15 n. �- 99. 100. 104.

107. 1 1 0. 1 1 2. 1 2 1 . 125 n. 4. 126 n. 12. 13�. 197 n. 4 Logtcal f.om1 1-2. 6. K. 4�. b l . 96. lOS. 107. JON. 1 10. 1 17. 129. UO. 139. 140. 143. 177. 178. l X I . 182 M11m Verb An.tlystJ- 1 17

mutnx (liL\SIV'C :l0. 56. 185. 18X. 189.

202 11. 30. 231. 243 n. 12. 246 n. 23 IIICilt::tl-propert)' ::tdJCl"IIVe 132 nuddlc constructton 45. 86 n . .n. 167. 245 11. I S �hddlc Cl1!;h'h l .t n. I . 7K f\hmm;�l l)t.;t;mre Prtnl'lple I ·H.

200 11. 1 9

modahty I I �lodcrn Greek I I 5 �lodcrn lnsh I I 5

mood I I . 9 I . 242 n. 9

subje�t index !'\EG Con...tramt SO. 82. 176 negatton I I . 39. 49. 73. 86 n. 34. 176. 179-80. 2 1 5 . 225. 242 n. 8 m ltulian ACis 229 ncgattvc adverb 225 predtcntc v�. �entenllal 49 scope 48 strong v�. weak 49 non.'i. . A. I S . 21. 59. 62

Carter. R. I 3-l Cattell. R. 18. 54

Baltm. M. 127 n. 16. 142. 143

Banv1se. 1. 3. 28. 36, 37. 46. 48. 50. 53.

6 n. 33. 89 n. 61. 176. 201 n. 36 Ba111stcllu. E. 5, . 92 7�.

Bayer. J . 1 7 1 . 199 n. 17. 201 n. 36. 202. 203 n. 46. 2 1 5. 216. 24 I n. 4.

242 n. 8. 242 n. 10. 242-� n. 10

Bcch. G. 242 n.

86 n. 3 1 . 90. 136

Ch1erchm. G. I . 84 n. 14. 150, 1 5 1 Chomsky. N. L 4-13. 1 4 n. 6. I S nn. 10. I I . li t 20. 24-5. 4 1 . 58. 82. 9 1 . 92.

94. 97. 99- 1 0 1 . 107. 108. I 10. 1 1 7. I 19. 1 2 1 . 125 n. 5. 1 �0. 1 34. 1�7. 142.

153, 154. 158. 168. 1 69. 172. 1 82. 200 n. 24. 201 n. 3 1 . 23 I

Beedham. C. 127 n. 2�

Cmque. G. 8, n. 55. 235. 236. 239. 245 nn. 19. 20

Benms. H. 4. IS. 30. 108. 1 1 0. 158.

Comne. 13. I 14. I I 5. 127 n. 24 Cowpc"'. E. 9. 14 n. 6

Be.stcn. H. tlen 222. 225. 243 n . 14.

Dam.lsen·f'Jclsen. •. I 27 n. 24

Beukema. F. 20. 82 n . I

Declerck. R . 3. 4. 5. 2 1 . 24, 26. 3 1 . 32. 43. 60. 62-72. 75 . 77. 78. 80. 8 n. 56.

Boncvac.

Dcni,on. D. 14 n. 2. 89 n. 65

Bellcui. A. 201 n. 33

160. 1 6 1 . 1 62. 1 8 1 . ISS. 1 86. 190. 200 n. 27. 215. 223. 242 n. , 244 n. 16. 245 n. I S

Bhatt. C. 1 15 . 207- 12. 241 n. 5 Bicrwisch. M. 2 1 5

D.

37. 47. 85 n . 20. S7 n . 36.

177 Borer. 1-f. 94. I I 5 Borkm. A. 2. 14 n. 5. 32. 39. 87 n. 42.

94. 96

Da\'ttJson.

D.

�7.46. 128. 1 29. 102 n. 40

20-1 · . 207. 213. 242 n. 8

Di Scmlto. A. 57. 247 n. 35

D1csmg. M. 2. 52. 86 n. 3 1 . 102. I 14.

1 15. t 1 8 . 139. 140. 1 75. 197 n. 9. 241 n. 7

276

aut hor· index

Dtkken. M. den 82 n. I. 243 n. 14 D�rvcn. R. 87 n. 46 Docs. J. vnn tier 37. 83 n. 12. �7 n. 40. 201 n. 36. 1 79 Doherty. C. IS n. 1 2 Dow1)'. D. 148 Drctskc. F. 3. 14 n. 3. 8J n. 8 DufRcy. r�. n. 39. 84 n. 17. ,4 n. 19. 96. 189 Edmondson. J. A. 225. 243 n. 14. 244 n. 16. 245 n. 18 Eisen�rg. P. 242 n. l:i Emond-.. J. 94. 1 1 7. 190 Epstein. S. D. 1 4 n. 6 Evers. A. 82 n. I . 214. 222. 225. 242 n. 9. 243 n. 1 4 Fabb. '. 107. 200 n . 27 F.ukus. D. I 5 I Fehx. S. 88 n. 49 Fclscr. C. 169. 198 n. 1 3 . 20 1 n. 3 1 . 201 n. 32 Ftcngo. R. 25. 45. 59. 8 n. 60 Ftllmorc. C. 5. 29. 62. 63. 65. 66. 76. n Franks. S. 13. 92 Freed. A. 192 Gabbay. D. 127 n. 20 Galton. A. 77. 87 n. 38. 89 n. 64. 127 11.20 Gee. J. 2. 3 . 5.. 18-24. 27. 35. 36. 48. 54. 55. 62. 68. 82 n. 4. 83 n. 6. IJ K (eds): RiKhtward Mm;nnc�m. 1 997. 18. ALEXIAOOU. Artc nus: Adw•rb Pltrumcm. A ntst· stml\ 111 lllllt.'H'IIIIIIl'trir S)'Jitax. 1?97. 19. JO. EFSSOl\'. GuniOg: Minimal \Vard:r in 11 Mmimal Swrtnx. WfJrd jommtum m Swt•d­ islr. 199�. 20. LAENL.Llt\GER. Chnstophcr: Cmnpamtil'l' Studies in Word Ordt.,- Vnrlatum. Ad­ l"criJs. prmrmms. and rlnusc stnu·wrr m Romancc ami (iammric. 199 . 2 1 . KLE!ll\. Henny: Adw•rbs oJ IJcgrrc in Dutch tmd Rdatcd Ulll'-:llltr:cs. IIJ9,.

22. ALEXIADOU. Artem1s and Chns WILDER (ed!>J: PcJ.'f:tes.wr:t. PrNitt atcs 011d Mm·rmrm m tht• lJc tamina Plrmse.

199�.

2.\. GJA, NAh.JDOl . Ana..o;tasaa: Pt1larit Smstti\'tt\' as (NcmJ Vaitli