Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 343–380 | Cite as

The hidden side of clausal complements

Article

Abstract

I propose that a moved clausal complement must involve a DP structure headed by a covert determiner. This proposal explains the fact that the base-generated position of a moved clausal complement must show properties of DPs even though the moved constituent appears to be a CP. I argue that the necessity of the DP structure comes from properties of an independently motivated mechanism for interpreting structures involving a movement dependency under the copy theory of movement. Together with a particular theory of counter-cyclic merger, the proposed analysis also captures (anti-)reconstruction effects exhibited by movement of a clausal complement.

Keywords

(Anti-)reconstruction Clausal complements Copy theory of movement Counter-cyclic merger Determiners 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adger, David, and Josep Quer. 2001. The syntax and semantics of unselected embedded questions. Language 77: 107–133. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alrenga, Peter. 2005. A sentential subject asymmetry in English and its implications for complement selection. Syntax 8: 175–207. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bayer, Samuel. 1990. Tough movement as function composition. In Proceedings of the 9th west coast conference on formal linguistics, ed. Aaron L. Halpern, 29–42. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  4. Bhatt, Rajesh, and Roumyana Pancheva. 2004. Late merger of degree clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 1–45. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhatt, Rajesh, and Roumyana Pancheva. 2007. Degree quantifiers, position of merger effects with their restrictors, and conservativity. In Direct compositionality, eds. Chris Barker and Pauline Jacobson, 306–335. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  6. Bresnan, Joan. 1995. Category mismatches. In Theoretical approaches to African linguistics, ed. Akiniyi Akinlabi, 19–45. Trenton: Africa World Press. Google Scholar
  7. Bruening, Benjamin. 2002. On wh movement. Lecture notes, University of Delaware. http://www.ling.udel.edu/bruening/Courses/2001-2/610/Lecture16.pdf. Accessed 1 February 2010.
  8. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding: the Pisa lectures. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The view from Building 20: essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, eds. Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  11. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  12. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In Step by step: essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, eds. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  13. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: a life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  14. Chung, Sandra, William A. Ladusaw, and James McCloskey. 1995. Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language Semantics 3: 239–282. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davies, William, and Stanley Dubinsky. 1998. Sentential subjects as complex NPs: new reasons for an old account of Subjacency. In Proceedings from the main session of the 34th annual meeting of Chicago Linguistic Society, eds. M. Catherine Gruber, Derrick Higgins, Kenneth S. Olson, and Tamra Wysocki, 83–94. Chicago: University of Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society. Google Scholar
  16. Davies, William, and Stanley Dubinsky. 1999. Functional structure and a parameter account of subject properties. In Proceedings of the 15th eastern states conference on linguistics, eds. Rebecca Daly and Anastasia Riehl, 48–59. Ithaca: Cornell University, CLC Publications. Google Scholar
  17. Davies, William, and Stanley Dubinsky. 2001. Functional architecture and the distribution of subject properties. In Objects and other subjects: grammatical functions, functional categories and configurationality, eds. William Davies and Stanley Dubinsky, 247–279. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  18. Delahunty, Gerald. 1983. But sentential subjects do exist. Linguistic Analysis 12: 379–398. Google Scholar
  19. den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Particles: on the syntax of verb-particle, triadic, and causative constructions. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  20. Elbourne, Paul. 2001. E-type anaphora as NP-deletion. Natural Language Semantics 9: 241–288. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Elbourne, Paul. 2005. Situations and individuals. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  22. Emonds, Joseph. 1976. A transformational approach to English syntax: root, structure-preserving, and local transformations. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  23. Emonds, Joseph. 1985. A unified theory of syntactic categories. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  24. Epstein, Samuel David. 1989. Quantification in null operator constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 647–658. Google Scholar
  25. Farudi, Annahita. 2007. An antisymmetric approach to Persian clausal complements. Manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. http://people.umass.edu/afarudi/GP%201%20Filed%20version%20.pdf. Accessed 1 February 2010.
  26. Fox, Danny. 1999. Reconstruction, binding theory, and the interpretation of chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 157–196. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  28. Fox, Danny. 2002. Antecedent-contained deletion and the copy theory of movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 63–96. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fox, Danny, and Martin Hackl. 2006. The universal density of measurement. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 537–586. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fox, Danny, and Howard Lasnik. 2003. Successive-cyclic movement and island repair: the difference between sluicing and VP-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 143–154. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Freidin, Robert. 1986. Fundamental issues in the theory of binding. In Defining the constraints, Vol. 1 of Studies in the acquisition of anaphora, ed. Barbara Lust, 151–188. Dordrecht: Reidel. Google Scholar
  32. Grimshaw, Jane. 1982. Subcategorization and grammatical relations. In Subjects and other subjects: proceedings of the Harvard conference on the representation of grammatical relations, ed. Annie Zaenen, 35–55. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Google Scholar
  33. Han, Jin Hye. 2005. A DP/NP-shell for subject CPs. In Proceedings of the 31st annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: general session and parasession on prosodic variation and change, eds. Rebecca T. Cover and Yuni Kim, 133–143. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley Linguistics Society. Google Scholar
  34. Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  35. Heycock, Caroline. 1995. Asymmetries in reconstruction. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 547–570. Google Scholar
  36. Higgins, Roger. 1973. On J. Emonds’s analysis of extraposition. In Vol. 2 of Syntax and semantics, ed. John Kimball, 149–195. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  37. Hintikka, Jaakko. 1962. Knowledge and belief. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Google Scholar
  38. Hornstein, Norbert, and Amy Weinberg. 1981. Case theory and preposition stranding. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 55–91. Google Scholar
  39. Huang, James C.-T. 1993. Reconstruction and the structure of VP: some theoretical consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 103–138. Google Scholar
  40. Jacobson, Pauline. 1992. The lexical entailment theory of control and the tough-construction. In Lexical matters, eds. Ivan Sag and Anna Szabolcsi, 269–299. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  41. Jacobson, Pauline. 2004. Direct compositionality: is there any reason why not? Paper presented at the workshop in linguistics and philosophy, University of Michigan. Google Scholar
  42. Johnson, Kyle. 2004. Clausal edges and their effect on scope. In Peripheries: syntactic edges and their effects, eds. David Adger, Cécile De Cat, and George Tsoulas, 289–311. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  43. Kaplan, Ronald, and Joan Bresnan. 1982. Lexical-functional grammar: a formal system for grammatical representation. In The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. Joan Bresnan, 173–281. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  44. Koster, Jan. 1978. Why subject sentences don’t exist. In Recent transformational studies in European languages, ed. Samuel Jay Keyser, 53–64. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  45. Kratzer, Angelika. 1977. What must and can must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 337–355. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kratzer, Angelika. 2006. Decomposing attitude verbs. Talk presented at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Google Scholar
  47. Kuno, Susumu. 1973. Constraints on internal clauses and sentential subjects. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 363–385. Google Scholar
  48. Kuno, Susumu. 2004. Empathy and direct discourse perspectives. In The handbook of pragmatics, eds. Laurence Horn and Gregory Ward, 315–343. Malden: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  49. Landau, Idan. 2007. EPP extensions. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 485–523. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lasnik, Howard. 1998. Some reconstruction riddles. In Proceedings of the 22nd annual Penn linguistics colloquium: University of Pennsylvania working papers in linguistics 5.1, eds. Alexis Dimitriadis, Hikyoung Lee, Christine Moisset, and Alexander Williams, 83–98. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Department of Linguistics, Penn Linguistics Club. Google Scholar
  51. Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Chains of arguments. In Working minimalism, eds. Samuel David Epstein and Norbert Hornstein, 189–215. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  52. Lasnik, Howard, and Mamoru Saito. 1992. Move α : conditions on its application and output. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  53. Lebeaux, David. 1988. Language acquisition and the form of grammar. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts,. Amherst. Google Scholar
  54. Lebeaux, David. 1998. Where does binding theory apply? Technical report, NEC Research Institute, Inc., Princeton, N.J. Google Scholar
  55. Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  56. Merchant, Jason. 2008. Variable island repair under ellipsis. In Topics in ellipsis, ed. Kyle Johnson, 132–153. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McCarthy, Corrine. 2003. Reconstruction and Condition C: some unexpected symmetries. In McGill working papers in linguistics 18(2), eds. Theres Grüter and Tomokazu Takehisa, 25–44. Montreal: McGill University, Department of Linguistics. Google Scholar
  58. McCloskey, James. 1991. There, it, and agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 563–567. Google Scholar
  59. Moulton, Keir. 2007a. Clausal complementation and the wager-class. Manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Google Scholar
  60. Moulton, Keir. 2007b. Natural selection and the syntax of clausal complementation. Manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Google Scholar
  61. Moulton, Keir. 2008. (Not) moving CPs. Manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Google Scholar
  62. Postal, Paul. 1986. Studies of passive clauses. Albany: State University of New York Press. Google Scholar
  63. Postal, Paul. 1994. Parasitic and pseudoparasitic gaps. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 63–117. Google Scholar
  64. Romero, Maribel. 1998. The correlation between scope reconstruction and connectivity effects. In Proceedings of the 16th west coast conference on formal linguistics, eds. Emily Curtis, James Lyle, and Gabriel Webster, 351–365. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  65. Rosenbaum, Peter. 1967. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  66. Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Google Scholar
  67. Ross, John Robert. 1969. Guess who? In Papers from the fifth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, eds. Robert I. Binnick, Alice Davison, Georgia M. Green, and Jerry L. Morgan, 252–286. Chicago: University of Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society. Google Scholar
  68. Roussou, Anna. 1991. Nominalized clauses in the syntax of Modern Greek. In Vol. 3 of UCL working papers in linguistics, ed. Hans van de Koot, 77–100. London: University College London, Department of Phonetics and Linguistics. Google Scholar
  69. Safir, Ken. 1999. Vehicle change and reconstruction. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 587–620. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sauerland, Uli. 1998. The meaning of chains. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Google Scholar
  71. Sauerland, Uli. 2001. A contrast to a trace. In Proceedings of the 20th west coast conference on formal linguistics, eds. Karine Megerdoomian and Leora Anne Bar-el, 498–509. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Google Scholar
  72. Sauerland, Uli. 2004. The interpretation of traces. Natural Language Semantics 12: 63–124. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sauerland, Uli, and Paul Elbourne. 2002. Total reconstruction, PF movement, and derivational order. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 283–319. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sportiche, Dominique. 2005. Division of labor between Merge and Move: strict locality of selection and apparent reconstruction paradoxes. In Proceedings of the workshop on Division of Linguistic Labor: the La Bretesche workshop, Los Angeles: University of California. Google Scholar
  75. Sportiche, Dominique. 2006. Reconstruction, binding, and scope. In Vol. IV of The Blackwell companion to syntax, eds. Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, 35–93. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stowell, Timothy. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Google Scholar
  77. Takahashi, Shoichi. 2006. Decompositionality and identity. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Google Scholar
  78. Takahashi, Shoichi. 2008. Variable binding in temporal adverbial clauses: evidence from ellipsis. In Proceedings of the 26th west coast conference on formal linguistics, eds. Hannah Haynie and Charles Chang, 445–453. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Google Scholar
  79. Takahashi, Shoichi, and Sarah Hulsey. 2009. Wholesale late merger: beyond the A/Ā-distinction. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 387–426. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Takano, Yuji. 1995. Predicate fronting and internal subjects. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 327–340. Google Scholar
  81. van Riemsdijk, Henk, and Edwin Williams. 1981. NP-structure. The Linguistic Review 1: 171–217. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. von Fintel, Kai, Danny Fox, and Sabine Iatridou. 2005. Definiteness as maximal informativeness. Manuscript, MIT. Google Scholar
  83. Webelhuth, Gert. 1992. Principles and parameters of syntactic saturation. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  84. Weisler, Steven. 1982. Coordination and the syntax of that-clauses. In University of Massachusetts occasional papers in cognitive science, eds. Alan Prince and Steven Weisler, 113–133. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, GLSA Publications. Google Scholar
  85. Williams, Edwin. 1981. Argument structure and morphology. The Linguistic Review 1: 81–114. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of EngineeringNihon UniversityKoriyama-shiJapan

Personalised recommendations