ENGLISH COMPLEMENTATION Spring 2011 INTRODUCING THE MINIMALIST FRAMEWORK 1.1. Aim of the course.

. Topics covered A presentation of the English complementation system, within the general framework of Chomsky's Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995, 1998, 1999). Range of description: the domain of complement clauses point of view Complement clauses (informal definition): subordinate clauses which function as arguments of predicates (subjects, objects). Complement clauses: constructions). (1) a. He considered that it was a mistake. b. He considered it to be a mistake. c. He considered accepting their offer. a) that-clauses b) infinitive clauses c) ing-complements (gerunds, participial

1. 2. Classification of subordinate clauses A) The structural criterion ( informally , the nature of the introductory element: a complementizer, a relative/interrogative pronoun, a subordinative conjunction). If (most) subordinate clauses are CPs, the structural criterion concerns the type of constituents that fills the CP projection). Three types o subordinates may be identified: 1) Complement clauses: the introducer is a complementizer (C0), an abstract element whose role is to partly nominalize a clause, turning it into an argument of a predicate.

(2)

a. It is spring. b. ...that it is spring c. I can feel that it is string d. Everybody is aware that it is spring.

CP C | that IP DP I I

C0 that, for, whether, if C0 --[IP I0 [+finite] ] that 0 C --[IP I0 [-finite] ] for 0 0 C --[IP I [ finite] ] whether Complement clauses are clauses introduced by complementizers, which function as arguments of predicates. Predicates (verbs, adjectives, nouns, prepositions) c-select and s-select complements, and their subcategorial properties are listed in the lexicon. A) The structural criterion 2) Wh-complements are subordinate clauses introduced by relative or interrogative phrases (pronouns, determiners, adverbs) which move to Spec, C. a. relative clauses (nominal modifiers) Wh- complements b. interrogative complements c. cleft-sentences c1) pseudo-clefts or wh-clefts c2) it-clefts (3) a. the man on whom people have pinned their hopes/

b. c1. c2.

Whoever will come will be well-received. (free relative clause) I wonder on whom they are pinning their hopes in this disaster. What she needs is a good job. It is him who brought about the whole disaster

3) Adverbial subordination The subordinate clause is introduced by a "subordinative conjunction", an introductory element which indicates the semantic interpretation of the clause (a time clause in (4 a) concessive clause in (4b), a comparative clause in (4c) etc. (4) a. He abandoned her before he could find out the truth. b. He abandoned her although he had found out the truth. c. He abandoned her, as if he had not found out the truth. B) The functional criterion This criterion concerns the syntactic function of the clause.

It is relevant to distinguish between

a. subject clauses b. object clauses c. adjunct clauses (adverbial and attributive clauses).

Subject clauses and adjunct clauses pattern alike regarding certain phenomena, such as the possibility of extracting constituents out of them. Both subjects and adjunct clauses are islands for extraction, differing from object clauses, which are transparent for extraction. (5) Object clauses a. John thought that Pedro told him that the journal had published the article already. b. What did John think that Peter told him that the journal had published t already ?

Subject clauses: c. [That Mary was going out with him] bothered you. d. Who did [that Mary was going out with him] bother ? B) The functional criterion Adjunct clauses Mary was bothered because Peter discussed her past. *What was Mary bothered [ because Peter discussed t ]?

From other points of view, subjects and objects, which are arguments of predicates, have characteristic properties, not true of adjuncts. The Extraposition +It Insertion construction is characteristic of subjects and objects, not of adjuncts. (6) a. It was suggested to them that they should sell the house as soon as possible. b. He owes it to his fathers influence that the committee appointed him to this position. C) The type of licensing involved This criterion concerns the semantic integration of the subordinate within the main clause. a) argumental clauses are -licensed (complements, adverbials) b) clauses licensed as predicates on an element of the main clause. This element functions as the subject of predication. (e.g., relative clauses are predicates on their antecedents). (7) The man who was wearing the straw hat looked exhausted. Goals: a) an explanatory account b) a descriptively complete account, even if surely not exhaustive

Goals a. an explanatory account b. a descriptively complete account, even if surely not exhaustive

Practical skills a. identifying the complex sentence patterns of English b. a good command of the distribution of these patterns. c. understanding the relation between meaning and structure for the patterns studied

d. skills a), b), c) are required in any form of manipulating these patterns: paraphrasing, translating, editing, etc.

2. 1 Plato's problem and the GB program Distinctive features of the GB model

1. GB is modular (Modules of GB: X' Theory, - theory, Binding and Control, Case Theory, Move ) 2. Through its Move module, GB, contains a very unconstrained transformational component, because, in principle, Move allows any category to move anywhere at any time. Possible problem: overgeneration, hence the need of filtering away incorrect representations 3. GB has four levels of representation at which various conditions are applied to filter out illicit structures: D-Structure (DS), S -Structures (SS), Logical Form (LF), and Phonological Form (PF). 4. The central grammatical relation in GB is government. This relation is what lends formal unity to otherwise rather diverse subcomponents. Aim of GB: finding a suitable answer to Plato's problem; its success deoends on proposing plausible accounts of language variation and language acquisition.

New problem: Which of the conceivable PP models is best, and the issue is in part addressed, using conventional (not uniquely linguistic) criteria of theory evaluation.

2.2 General design of the Minimalist Program (MP)

Chomsky currently considers the following questions: How well is FL designed ? How close does language come to optimal design ? More narrowly, the MP seeks to discover to what extent minimal conditions of adequacy (=success at the interfaces) suffice to determine the nature of the right theory. The program addresses the question of what conditions are imposed on the linguistic system by virtue of its interaction with the performance systems. a) The Articulatory-Perceptual System (A-P) b) the Conceptual-Intentional System (C-I). In so far as we can discover the properties of these systems, we can ask how well the language organ satisfies the design specifications they impose, providing legible representation at the interface.

(8) Strong Minimalist Thesis Language is an optimal answer to legibility conditions (cf. Chomsky 1998) 2.3. Design of the MP Bare output conditions

An expression converges at an interface level, if it consists solely of elements that provide instructions to that external level, thus being legible for the respective external level. The presence of objects which are not interpretable at an interface causes a derivation to crash. There are two linguistic levels which interface with performance modules, i.e, A-P and C-I: these are PF and LF respectively. PF and LF can be conceived of as those parts of the linguistic system which provide instructions to the performance systems. (9)The organization of a GB Grammar Lexicon D-Structure Move (Affect ) S-Structure Logical Form Phonological Form

(10)The organization of an MP Grammar Lexicon (Spell-out) Logical Form Phonological Form

Grammar still associates structural descriptions with each sentence /expression. But instead of associating a sentence/ expression with four representation (D-Structure, S-Structure, Logical Form, Phonological Form), the structural descriptions of a sentence / expression is now a pair of representations ( , ). is a PF representation interpreted at the articulatory perceptual (A-P) interface. is an LF representation interpreted at the conceptual-intentional (C-I) interface.

Conclusions

1. The MP seeks a maximally simple design for language. Given this view, the linguistic levels are taken to be only those conceptually necessary -namely PF and LF - meaning that that there are no (intermediate levels of D-Structure or S-Structure.

2. Each expression is associated with a structural representation, a pair ( , ), where is a PF representation interpreted at the articulatory perceptual (A-P) interface, and is an LF representation interpreted at the conceptual-intentional (C-I) interface. 3. Structure of an (I)-language: A lexicon and a computational procedure 3.1 The components of a language are a lexicon and a computational procedure for human languages CHL, that is, a procedure for constructing or generating linguistic expressions using the items in the lexicon. Linguistic items fall into two main categories: substantive ( N, V, A, P) and functional (C, T D, etc.).

The following procedures are involved in building expressions: (12) (i) Select lexical items from the lexicon ( a Lexical Array, a Numeration) (ii) Map lexical items to expression.

The computational system (narrow syntax) consists of a few trivial operations Select, Merge, Move, and (more recently) Agree. Select is involved in the initial choice of the Numeration, as well as in providing pairs of objects that undergo Merge. Merge operates on pairs of elements chosen by Select and maps them from a pair into a single element with a more complex structure. Merge is the basic combinatorial device for obtaining complex objects out of simpler or basic ones. 4. Merge. From X'-Theory to Bare Phrase Structure

Defining Merge Merge takes two syntactic objects ( , ) and forms the new object (K ( , )) from them. (14) Input Output , , K Since the possibility of Merge depends on the c-selectional/ s-selectional possibilities of the combining lexical items, Merge is obviously the analogue of X'-Theory. The principle of endocentricity is still present in as much as, of the two items that combine, one, the head, is that which projects and transmits its lable. The relations of head-complement ( sister) and head-specifier continue to be available. Conclusions 1. The bare phrase structure theory adopted by the MP is represented by the operation Merge. Merge takes two syntactic objects ( , ) and forms the new object K(( , )) from them. 2. Endocentricity continues to function given that, of the two elements that merge, only one, namely, the head projects. 3. The relations of head-complement and head-specifier are available, as before. 5. Spell-Out Elements interpretable at the A-P interface (e.g. phonologic features) are not interpretable at the C-I interface, and vice versa. At some point in the derivation, the computational system must then split

into two parts, one forming , and the other forming , which do not interact any further after the bifurcation. S-structure was the point of this split in pre-minimalist versions of the PP theory. From a minimalist perspective, the problem with there being a distinct level feeding PF and LF, such as S-structure, is that, since it does not interface with any performance system , it is not conceptually necessary. Thus every substantive property attributed to S-Structure should be restated within the minimalist framework in either LF or PF terms. The only thing required under minimalist assumptions is a rule which splits the computation to form the distinct objects and . Chomsky (1993:22) dubs this operation Spell-Out. After Spell-Out the lexicon will no longer be accessed, and the items in the Numeration have been used up. The computation from Spell-Out to PF is referred to as the Phonological Component. The computation from Spell-Out to LF is referred to as the covert component, and the computation that obtains before Spell-Out is referred to as overt syntax. PF contains, in addition to phonological rules proper, a morphological subcomponent and it also deals with linearization. 6.Types of features and feature checking

Why check?

The items combined by Merge group features of different types: phonological, semantic, but also formal (grammatical features) (Person, Number, Gender,(= -features), Case, Tense, etc.). The formal features of the lexical items must be checked during the derivation. Intuitively, one has to verify that each item is suitably placed in an expression. Thus *We goes to school is ungrammatical because the Number feature on the subject does not match the number feature of the verbal inflection. Feature checking is thus an essential aspect of a derivation.

6.1 Strong/Weak features (Chomsky, 1993, 1995)

Strong features illegible at PF, so they must be eliminated in the overt component of Syntax by overt movement. A strong feature must enter into a checking relation as soon as possible, causing movement or insertion. The analysis of strong (formal) features, formalizes the intuition that a strong feature is checked immediately and that it has visible effect (displacement). 6.2 Interpretable/Uninterpretable features

A feature is interpretable if it is legible at LF. A feature like Case is always uninterpretable Number or Gender are interpretable on Nouns, but uninterpretable on verbs, adjectives. Uninterpretable features are not legible at LF, therefore they must be erased before LF. Following the same intuition, uninterpretable features must be eliminated as soon as possible, therefore they induce strict cyclicity. If uninterpretable features are also "strong", they are checked by overt movement and erased after checking. (A slightly different description of strong uninterpretable features will be given in the next chapters). Interpretable features survive to LF and may be used several times in a derivation.

7. Move and Agree 7.1 Move While, Merge forms a new object by concatenating two objects that are separate phrase markers, Move forms a new object by concatenating two objects that are in a single phrase marker. Move is defined as follows. It is possible to decompose Move into the simple operations of Copy and (re)merge. (18) Move (from Kitahara (1997) Applied to the category and , Move forms ' by concatenating and . Input: containing . Concatenate and , forming ' Output: ' (19) a. ' t( ) 7.1 Move Chomsky (1993) incorporates the copy theory of movement. According to the copy theory, a trace is a copy of the moved element which is deleted in the phonological component, but is available for interpretation at LF. A chain thus becomes a set of occurrences of a constituent in a constructed syntactic object. Summarising, Move appears to be a complex operation comprised of copy, merge, chain formation, and finally, chain reduction. Chain reduction is the deletion at PF of all the copies in the chain, but the highest ( the head of the chain). Move observes the following two requirements: (i) Constituents always move ( to the left) to c-commanding positions, of the same type. Therefore heads move to head positions, phrases move to phrasal positions (A or A). (ii) Locality The closest constituent that has the appropriate checkable feature is the one that moves. Locality becomes a built-in condition, stated as the Minimal Link Condition or the Minimize Chain Links Condition, which specifies that a constituent always travels the shortest possible distance, or equivalently, that if two candidates could check the same feature, it is the closest that actually checks it.

b.

7.2. Agree

Agree is a relation between two items, the probe, which is the agreeing item and which is a head that possesses uninterpretable features and the goal a phrase or a head, possessed of a feature that matches

the feature of the agreeing head. In the case of Agree, matching of the features of the probe under identity with features of the goal is sufficient to delete the strong uninterpretable features on the probe, rendering movement unnecessary. Agree allows the checking and erasure of an uninterpretable feature, by matching it with an identical feature of another item, in a sufficiently local domain. The conditions governing Agree are summarized below (cf. Carstens (2000:149)). According to this conception , Agree is driven by uninterpetable features of the probe, which must be deleted for legibility. (24) Agree operates between a probe and a goal iff a. has uninterpretable features. b. has identical interpretable features. c. c-commands d. There is no closer potential goal such that -commands [+interpretable] (goal) Conclusion Move and Agree are alternative mechanisms of deleting uninterpretable features, so as to meet the legibility conditions of LF.

(25)

and c-commands b

[-interpretable] (probe)

8. Economy Principles Economy of representation is nothing other than the principle of Full Interpretation: every object at the interface must receive an "external" interpretation, i.e., must be interpretable by the external performance systems. Full Interpretation thus determines the set of convergent derivations for a language.

Economy of derivation requires fewer steps than in another permissible derivation. (27) Shortest derivation Condition Minimize the number of operations necessary for convergence.

Instead of Conclusions The novelty of the MP lies in its addressing the question of the optimal design of language, the answer to which is the Strong Minimalist Thesis stated in (28)

(28) Language is an optimal answer to legibility conditions (cf. Chomsky (1998))

Adopting the strong thesis has proved to have the following consequences: 1. The only linguistically significant levels are the interface levels (PF, LF)

2. The interpretability condition: Linguistic items have no features other than those interpreted at the interface, properties of sound and meaning. 3. The inclusiveness condition: No new features or symbols are introduce by CHL. 4. Relations that enter into CHL either (i) are imposed by legibility conditions, (ii) or fall out in some natural way from the computational process THE STRUCTURE OF THE ENGLISH CLAUSE 1. The endocentricity of sentences 1.1 Inflection as the head of the sentence.

(1) (2)

S NP ^ VP a. I0 Tense [ Agr] ^( Mood). b. I' I0 ^ VP c. IP DP ^ VP

Inflection (I0) is considered the head of the sentence, since it c-selects the VP and agrees with the subject DP, thus entertaining formal relations with the predicate (the head - complement relation) and with the subject (the head-specifier relation).

Tense[+Agr] s/ed

The Stranded Affix Filter Tense is an affix which must be supported by a verbal root. The present or past form of a verb is derivationally produced, by combining the verbal stem and Tense affix during the derivation. Modal auxiliaries In English, Inflection includes in addition to Tense and Agr , the modal verbs: can, may, shall, will, must, need, dare. Justification modals are defective, having only finite Tense froms, i.e., Tense plus agreement features. When modals are present, they support Tense, and the tensed modals may further raise to C0. A clear indication that modals move to C0 is that I0-to-C0 takes place only in root clauses, i.e., only when the C0 position is not filled by a complementizer, as is apparent in the complementary distribution in (3) below, where either the complementizer whether, or the modal auxiliary, occupies the position before the subject (C0): (3) a. Could [IP he ta be a fool]? b. I asked you [CP whether [IP he could be a fool]] c. *I asked you [CP whether could [IP he be a fool]]

Aspectual auxiliaries (4) Aux Tense (Modal ) ( have -en) (be-ing)

Definition: An auxiliary is a verb that subcategorizes a VP, and cannot assign -roles. 1.2. The projection of auxiliaries Similarties between modals and auxiliaries (the NICE properties) a) Negation He should not go. He has not gone.

b) Interrogation Should he read this? Has he read this? c) Contracted sentences (tag-questions, etc.) He should do it, shouldnt he? He has read this, hasnt he. d) Emphatic stress (in emphatic assertions) Bob should not go there. Yes, he should go there. Bob has not read this. Yes, he HAS read this, Im sure. Dissimilarties between modals and auxiliaries a) Auxiliaries have a complete paradigm, with finite and non-finite forms, modals are defective to be, having b) Auxiliaries still have lexical uses, unlike modals which are always functional. He has a nice house. He has bought a nice house. He has had a nice house

There are several manners of projecting auxiliaries. a) One may treat them as lexical verbs, under the VP, which c-select a VP (5) VP V0 ^ VP (6) have [ V[EN]] be [V [ING] ] (7) IP I' I0 VP [+Past] V0 VP V' ed have V0+en

b) Alternatively, one might stress their functional nature and project them as heads of suitably labelled functional projections: Auxiliary Phrase, Aspect P, etc. (8) IP I' I0 [+Past] ed AuxP Aux' Aux0 have VP

The syntax of auxiliaries a) V-to-I In sentences where there are no modals, the highest auxiliary raises to Tense, to support the Tense affix, and then it may further move to C0. Example (9b) shows that the auxiliary have has raised out of the VP to T0, past the adverb often, adjoined to the VP, as shown in (9c). (9) a. She often visited the city. b. She has often visited the city. c.

IP DP She I' I0 V0 I
0

VP AdvP

VP

have

often

V0 ta

VP visited the city

b) I-to-C

An auxiliary that has moved to I0 can further continue to C0, as shown in (10): (10) a. Has she often visited the city ? b. CP C' C0 I0 V 0 I0 have+s Has she I0 ta IP DP AdvP often I' VP VP V0 ta V0 visited

VP V' DP him

Extended Projections

An extended projection defines a domain of movement for the head (i.e., the verb). a. English, auxiliaries raise all the way up to C0, b. English lexical verbs remain in the VP. (11) French vs. English a. Il embrasse souvent Marie. b. *He kisses often Mary. c. He often kisses Mary. d. Embrasse-t-il souvent Marie ? e *Kisses he often Mary ? f. Does he often kiss Mary? Conclusion The English clause has the following functional structure: (12) CP> IP >Vaux0 > VP I0 Tense[+Agr]^(Modal)

2. Main verbs and auxiliary verbs again. 2.1. Verb Movement and Verbal Morphology The lexicalist analysis: Verbs enter the derivation fully inflected, and merely check their inflectional features against the functional heads. If the inflectional features are strong, the verb raises to Inflection (or the Inflectional heads) to check its features.(The case of French). If the inflectional features are weak, the verb does not raise overtly. There is covert movement at LF English. The derivational account (bare stems +affixes)

(13)

TP T0 ed

TP VP V walk T0 V0 VP V0 ed

The lexicalist account (inflected forms) (14) TP T0 [+Past] TP VP V walked T0 V walked

0

VP T0 [Past]

The difference between English and French can be stated as follows (cf. Lasnik (1995)): (15) a. In French, the V-features, i.e., those that check features of V, are strong. b. In English the V-features are weak. (16) Strong features surviving at PF cause the derivation to crash. (17) Delay an operation until LF whenever possible, that is, whenever delaying would not cause the derivation to crash. The parametric difference between English and French is now expressed in a different manner, namely the strong/weak difference between inflectional V-features. Strong features trigger overt movement, weak features do not.

Auxiliaries

One problem for this analysis of English is that English auxiliaries do raise to Tense0 and then to C0, as is apparent in the following types of well-known contrasts. (18) a. He often goes to movies. b. He has often gone to movies. c. Does he often go to movies ? d. Has he often gone to movies ? 2.2. A Hybrid Approach (Lasnik 1995, 1998)

In the hybrid approach, the fundamental difference between English auxiliary and main verbs lies in the choice of the checking mechanism, a difference that correlates with different types of lexical representations. Lasnik re-states the difference between English auxiliaries and main verbs, and between English and French as follows: (20) a. Have and Be are fully inflected in the lexicon (possibly correlating with the fact that they are highly suppletive, allowing for person /number variation). b. All other English verbs are bare in the lexicon. (21) a. Inflection is freely either an affix or a set of abstract features. b. Finite featural Inflection is strong in both French and English.

The choice of Inflection type (featural, affixal) is predictable from the type of lexical representation. If the lexicon lists inflected forms separately, Inflection will be featural, if the lexicon contains the bare form of the verb, Inflection is affixal. The final necessary mechanism is Affix Hopping. AH is

morphophonemic; it will be a PF rule, since from the point of view of semantic interpretation, it is desirable that Tense should c-command the VP on which it operates. (22) Afix Hopping : Affixal Inflection must merge with a V, a PF process (distinct from head movement) demanding adjacency. Possible configurations a. (23) ...Infl...V... +F +F This configuration is well-formed. V raises (overtly) to Infl, and all relevant features are checked. This is the situation of be/ have/ do/ (modals) and all French verbs. b. (24) ...Infl......V.... Af bare This is the case of a bare verb and an affixal Inflection (English main verbs). In this configuration PF merger takes place as long as adjacency obtains, and the PF affixal requirement of Inflection is satisfied. Two more configurations (25c, d) will arise, but will lead to a crash, as can be seen below: c. (25) c. ...Infl....V.... *at LF. +F of Infl will not be checked; +F bare *at PF as well, since +F is strong d. Infl Af V +F *at LF. +F of V will not be checked *at PF also, if merger fails

In sum, the gist of Lasnik's analysis is that lexical representation determines the type of Inflection, and the strength of features then determines whether feature checking takes place overtly or covertly.

2.3. Evidence for the hybrid approach : Verb Phrase Deletion (VPD)

VPD is a rule which deletes the second of two presumably identical lexical VPs, leaving an auxiliary behind. (26) a. Peter should [buy the text book] and Mary should [e] too. b. Peter will go to London and Mary will [e] too.

Main Verbs VP ellipsis can ignore certain inflectional differences between the antecedent and the elided verb (cf. Quirk e.a. (1972), Warner (1986)): (27) a. John slept, and Mary will too. b. John slept and Mary will slept too. c. John slept, and Mary will sleep too.

In (27a) the past tense form slept serves as antecedent for the deletion of the bare form sleep. The present tense form can also antecede the bare form, as in (28a). (28) a. John sleeps every afternoon, and Mary should too. b. *John sleeps every afternoon, and Mary should sleeps too. c. John sleeps, and Mary should sleep too. Similarly the progressive and perfect forms can antecede the bare form. It appears that a sort of sloppy identity is at work here, permitting tense and aspectual differences to be ignored. (29) a. ?John was sleeping, and Mary will too.

(30)

b. *John was sleeping, and Mary will sleeping too. c. John was sleeping, and Mary will sleep too. a. John has slept, and Mary will too. b. *John has slept, and Mary will slept too. c. John has slept and Mary will sleep too.

Auxiliary Verbs Ellipsis with auxiliaries is markedly different, requiring strict identity. Thus, (31a), though seemingly parallel to (27), is unacceptable, because was cannot antecede be; nor can is antecede be, as shown in (49): (31) (32) a. * John was here, and Mary will too. b. *John was here and Mary will was here too. c. John was here and Mary will be here too. *John is here, and Mary will too.

Similar effects obtain with the auxiliary have. Ellipsis is markedly better in (33) with identical forms of have than in (34) with distinct ones: (33) a. John should have left, but Mary shouldn't (have left). b. ?John should have left, but Mary shouldn't (34) a. * John has left, but Mary shouldn't-(have left). b. John has left, but Mary shouldn't have left. (35) Results on VPE The bare form of a verb V other than be or auxiliary have can be deleted under identity with any other form of V. Be or auxiliary have can only be deleted under identity with the very same form. As Warner (1986) observes, this difference does not follow directly from the degree of suppletion. The paradigm of go is highly suppletive, yet the verb patterns with all the other main verbs considered above, allowing deletion under sloppy identity (cf. (36)) (36) John went, and now Mary will go. John went and now Mary will.

Thus, the relevant differences is that between main verbs and auxiliaries. Sag (1976) notices that all these cases could be accounted for by ordering VP deletion before Affix Hopping, i.e., by allowing deletion to take place at a point in the derivation where the inflected form of the main verb has not been created, so that deletion actually operates on identical forms. On a strictly lexicalist view, such as that of Chomsky (1993), described in (14) above, there is no such point in a derivation. Sag's insight is, however, convergent with the hybrid approach, whereby English main verbs come from the lexicon as bare uninflected forms. Identical occurrences may be deleted in syntax, while inflected forms are produced at PF by Affix Hopping: Schematically, (some of) the examples above are analysed as follows: (37) (38) (39) John slept, and Mary will too. John Infl sleep, and Mary will sleep too a. John was sleeping, and Mary will. b. John was ing sleep, and now Mary will sleep. a. John has slept, and now Mary will. b. John has en sleep, and now Mary will sleep.

On the other hand, if auxiliaries come from the lexicon fully inflected, and if deletion requires strictly identical forms, was or is will never be identical to be, since they are not formed in syntax out of Infl + be. (40) a. *John was here and Mary will, too b. John was here and Mary will be here, too

Summing up: (41) a. A form of a verb V can only be deleted under identity with the very same form. b. Forms of be and auxiliary have are introduced into syntactic structures already fully inflected. Forms of "main" verbs are created out of lexically introduced bare forms and independent affixes. VP Deletion facts provide strong empirical support for the hybrid approach to English verb morphology. We will adopt it, and use it in the analysis of negation in English. Conclusion. 1. English verbal morphology can best be described by assigning different lexical representations to main verb and to auxiliary verbs. 2. Main verbs are represented with one bare form. They come uninflected into the derivation, and will merge with inflectional affixes during the derivation (Affix Hopping at PF). 3. Auxiliary verbs are represented with all their inflected forms in the lexicon. They come fully inflected into the derivation, and will simply check their inflectional features during the derivation. (Overt movement to functional heads). 4. The lexical representation of the verbs determines the representation of Inflection, either as a bundle of abstract features or as an affix. ENGLISH COMPLEMENTATION Spring 2010

3. Negative sentences

3.1 Negation may affect different types of constituents in a sentence, and it is useful to distinguish between the following types of scope of negation: a) word negation - realized by means of negative affixes, mostly prefixes: unhappy, infelicitous, dislike, displease. b) phrasal negation: the negation not may adjoin to any phrase, taking scope over it. (42) He came to the party not long ago, didn't he? Not far away, it was still raining, wasn't it ?

c) Sentence negation - cases where not has sentence scope. A sentence is negative when its predicate is negated, in other words, when its Inflection, which is the head of the sentence, is negative. 3.2 The concept of negative sentence. Types of negative sentences A sentences is negative, not only by virtue of its meaning, but also because of its syntactic properties. Negative sentences have particular distributional properties, which identify them as such. It is instructive to compare pairs made of a negative sentence, and a nearly synonymous sentence, where negation is expressed by means of a negative word. There are several tests, due to Klima (1964), which distinguish between negative sentences and sentences with negative constituents.

a. Tag questions. Under falling intonation on the tag question, negative sentences take affirmative tags, and vice versa: (43) a. Mary is happy/unhappy about her job, isnt she/* is she? b. Mary is not happy/unhappy about her job, is she/* isnt she? b. Not -even tag sentences require a negative host sentence: (44) a. George doesnt like smart girls, not even pretty ones. b. George dislikes smart girls even pretty ones /*not even pretty ones. c. Either conjoining. Two co-ordinated sentences can have the form S1 and S2 only if the second is negative. (45) a. Jack stayed at home all day and Mary didnt go any place either. b *Jack didnt go anywhere all day and Mary stayed at home either. c. John isnt happy and Mary isnt happy either. d. *John is unhappy and Mary isnt happy either. d. Neither tags require negative hosts. Affirmative sntences are followed by so-tags (46) a. Jack doesn't like lingusitics and neither does Mary / *and so does Mary b. Jack dislikes linguistics and so does Mary/ and neither does Mary.

Types of negative sentences. a) Sentences where negation is in the Auxiliary (47) a. Bob has lost my respect. b. Bob has not lost my respect. c. Bob abandoned his pet cat. d. Bob did not abandon his pet cat.

b) Sentences where negation is expressed by negative quantifiers, like nobody, never, nothing. Syntactically, these negative quantifiers are determiners (no), pronouns (nobody, nothing) or adverbs ( never, nowhere).

(48)

a. He saw no rose-bush in the garden. b. He saw nobody in the garden. c. He had never visited that city.

c) Emphatic negative sentences are sentences where the negative constituent appears to the left of the subject, triggering inversion.

(49) Never before had he seen such pretty girls. Polarity items One other famous problem that relates to negation is that of polarity items (items sensitive to the polarity of the sentence). Affirmative polarity items require assertive, non-negative contexts (sentences). Negative polarity items require negative sentences. Here are a few examples. Positive Polarity Items (50) a. It is still raining. b. He has already arrived. c. Mary is here, too. d. Mary was looking for some old pair of shoes. Negative Polarity Items a'. It is not raining anymore. b'. He hasn't arrived yet. c.' Mary isn't here, either.

d'. Mary wasn't looking for any old pair of shoes. Remark Negative polarity items occur in several contexts related by their semantic properties. Klima (1964) labels them contexts that contain [+affective] triggers. Here is the list of contexts which license NPIs: a) Negative sentences Negation is the strongest [affective] trigger. Use of an API instead of a NPI may lead to ungrammaticality. Most of the other contexts permit both NPIs and APIs, but the interpretation associated with the sentences are critically different: (i) He didnt lift a finger to help. *He lifted a finger to help.

b) Questions are also sensitive to polarity. NPIs are used when a negative answer is expected. APIs are neutral or expect a positive answer. (ii) a. b. a b. Are you expecting anyone this afternoon Are you expecting someone in particular? Do you want any more beans, perhaps? Do you want some more beans, perhaps?

c) Comparative clauses allow both NPIs and APIs, but the interpretations are very different: (iii) a. b. a. b. She was more beautiful than any princess that he had seen. She was more beautiful than some princess that he head seen. He is smarter than any student I ever had. He is smarter than some student I once had.

d) Relative clauses headed by indefinite determiners like no, any, every, few, little etc., as opposed to the definite article, demonstratives, each, several, (iv) I know no politician who has ever done anything for this country. He had every reason to refuse any help they offered.

e) If-clauses are also NPIs triggers, but they license APIs as well, roughly, under the same circumstances as questions: (v) If anyone comes, tell them to wait. If someone comes, invite him in the office. 4. Negation in the Auxiliary. 4.1 The Negative Projection

English sentential negation can show up in two different shapes: the contracted n't or the full form not. It is generally assumed that the two formatives spell out the content of a Negative Projection, NegP, one of the functional categories of the verb. The examination of sentences with negative operator will offer evidence for projecting NegP as an independent phrase. The Negative Parameter (Laka, 1990) (51) a. Mary is not in the kitchen

b. Maria nu este in bucatarie. (52) The Negative Parameter distinguishes between: a. languages where Negation is above Tense; (Romanian) b. languages where Negation is below Tense. (English)

(55)

Not to accept this proposal (seems foolish) Neg>TP b. He has not accepted this proposal. TP> NegP A more restrictive hypothesis regarding functional structure: (56) Hypothesis. 1) The hierarchy of functional categories is invariant. The only thing that varies is the properties of the functional nodes (Borer 1984). 2) Functional categories are projected as a last resort.

a.

4.2 The Split Inflection Hypothesis.

(Chomsky 1993)

(57)

AgrSP > TP > AgrOP > VP s ed ? The analysis may be more detailed and extended by detailing the verbal features of Inflection. (58) AgrSP> TP(M) > AspP > AspP> (AgrOP)> VP s ed, may have be ? The position of NegP Following Lopez (1995), we will assume that NegP is above TP in English as well as in UG: (59) AgrSP> NegP> TP > AspP AspP> (AgrOP) VP s nt ed have be ? It is necessary to analyse the two items that may fill the NegP: not, and n't. 4.3. n't and not. English sentential negation can show up in two different shapes: the contracted n't or the full form not. In this section we will pay attention to their syntactic distribution, particularly to the problem of how the order auxiliary verb + negation obtains.

4.3.1. Nt N't is an affix to the auxiliary; it is a bound morpheme, incorporated into a modal or an auxiliary. Forms, such as, can't, aren't are pulled from the lexicon as fully inflected, and they will have to check their features during the derivation: Hasn't for instance must check [+Present, 3d Person, +Negative]. The hypothesis that n't is incorporated into the auxiliary explains the following:

a) N't and the auxiliary raise together as in (60). b) N't attaches to the highest verbal projection of the sentence, (61). c) There can't be two formatives nt, (62): (60) (61) (62) Couldn't you give me that book / a. He couldn't have been fooling around so much. b. *He could haven't been fooling around so much/ **He couldn't haven't been so careful

The sentences in (61) confirm the hypothesis that there is a functional category, NegP with an abstract head carrying a strong feature, Neg [+neg], against which n't checks its own feature. This hypothesis explains the fixed position of n't, which must show up on the highest auxiliary, the one that raises. If n't attached to the lower auxiliary verbs, as in (61b), the features of n't could not be checked. In the same way, there can't be two n'ts as in (62), because there is only one functional head against which the two n'ts could check features and, as a result, the features of the lower n't would go to PF unchecked, causing the derivation to crash. The assumption adopted here (following Lopez (1995), Haegeman (1996)) is that the inflected auxiliary is projected under Tense ( do and the modals) or under Aspect (have, be), therefore, under a category whose content it lexiclizes, and then successively raises to check its inflectional features, ultimately getting to the AgrS0 head where it checks its [Person] features. (63) a. Mary hasn't come. b. AgrSP AgrS' AgrS0 [+person] NegP Neg' Neg0 [+neg] TP T' T0 AspP Asp" Asp0 hasn't DP +present +3d pers VP V' V0

+neg come Negated modals are subject to the same analysis, except that they are generated under Tense. (64) a. He shouldn't go. 4.3.2. Not Consider now the syntax of not. It differs from nt in the following ways:

a. It is not cliticized or affixed to auxiliary verbs. b. When auxiliaries raise to C0 past the subject, not must be left behind (cf. (65)).This suggests that not is not a head that checks features through head to head movement the way n't does. c. In sharp contrast to n't, not can appear in lower positions, as in (66a-c), where not may be adjoined to any of the verbal functional projections. d. There can be two nots, as in (66d). e. Finally the two negatives not, n't co-occur, suggesting that they occupy different positions. (65) (66) a. Could you not stay home tonight for a change? b. *Could not you stay home tonight for a change? a. He could not have been fooling around so much.

b. He could have not been fooling around so much. c. He could have been not fooling around so much. d. He could not have not been fooling around so much. e. He couldn't not do his homework

The following result has been obtained: 1) N't is an affixal head that checks features with an abstract functional category. 2) Not does not have to check features and does not have to be associated to sentence negation. Actually, not can be adjoined to verbal as well as to non-verbal projections as well, so that an adjunction configuration like (67c) below is generally available. (67) a. Not everyone can swim. b. He came here not long ago. c. XP Neg not XP

In sentences which are negative and pass the tests for negativity above, there is a NegP whose strong [+neg] feature must be checked. It can be checked by head to head movement, as already shown, or it can be checked by specifier -head agreement with a negative specifier. We may analyse not as a specifier of the NegP. The presence of not checks the feature [+neg] of the negative head "making the sentence negative" (i.e., negation has scope above tense). Not is a functional element. An alternative that comes to mind is to regard not as a negative adverb, in the lexical class not, never, hardly, scarcely, etc. The analysis of not as an adverb is undermined by the fact that, not triggers do-support, while the other negative adverbs do not. (68) a .* I did hardly buy Nixon's book. b. I did not buy Nixon's book. c. I hardly bought Nixon's book. d. *I not bought Nixon's book. It is also likely that not should not be analysed as a head (contra Laka (1990), Chomsky (1993)). Thus examples like the ones below, show a clear difference between n't which is affected by head to head movement, and not, which is not. If n't is a head and not is a Spec, it is predictable that auxiliaries can skip not, but cannot skip n't. (69) a. He should not have done it. b. Should he not have done it ? c. He shouldn't have done it. d. Shouldn't he have done it ?

Conclusions

1. Neg sentences contain a NegP headed by a strong negative feature [+neg]. 2. The NegP is uniformly projected above the TP. Tense and negation are conceptually related, since what sentence negation denies is that the event holds at a particular time interval.

3. The Auxiliary verb + negation word order is due to the existence of a higher AgrS phrase,where the Auxiliary verb checks its [Person , Number] features. 4. Sentential Neg is a functional head whose content is retrieved in two ways, by checking with the affix n't, or by specifier- head agreement with not. Move is involved in both checking operations. The derivation of a negative sentence relies on the mechanisms presented in (71), and (72) (71) (72) [AgrSP [NegP NEG [TP [ PAST ] [AuxP hasn't]]] [AgrSP [NegP not [Neg' NEG [TP [ PAST ] [AuxP has]]] [AgrSP hasn't [NegP t [TP t [AuxP t]]] [AgrSP has [NegP not [TP t [AuxP t]]]

5. Do-Support (73) (74) He did not come. (a) NegP Neg not Neg' Neg0 [+neg] DPsubj T0 -ed DP tsubj V0 come 5. Do-Support (b) AgrSP AgrS' AgrS0 [+ 3d person] NegP Neg not Neg0 [+neg] Neg' TP T T0 did/*ed [+past] [+ 3d person] VP V' V0 come TP T' VP V' ...

(75) (76)

He didn't come. AgrSP AgrS' AgrS0 [3d person] NegP Neg' Neg0 [+neg] TP T' T0 didn't VP V' V come
0

[3d person] [+past] [+neg] 5.1. Extending the analysis. Emphatic assertion

The analysis can be extended to other contexts where do appears, namely: questions, emphatic assertions, short answers and VP-ellipsis: (77) a. Do you know this man ? b. Of course, I DO know the truth. c. Of course, I do.

In all of the cases do supports an abstract morpheme that is not phonetically overt, and which is above T: the question morpheme in (77a), the emphatic assertion morpheme in (77b). Consider emphatic assertions first, by examining the following paradigm: (78) a. Mary left. b. Mary didn't leave. c. *Mary did leave. d. Mary DID leave AgrSP AgrS AgrS0 [3d person] AffP Aff' Aff0 [+aff] TP T' T0 VP

(79) (80)

DID [3rd person] [+past] [+aff] 5.2. Questions and short answers: a. Did she go ? b. What did she sell ? c. Yes, she did.

V' V0 leave

(84)

Questions are CPs, containing a question feature and a wh feature in C0. The question feature carries the interrogative meaning, the wh feature is the syntactic marker of a family of related constructions all of which involve wh-Movement (questions, relative clauses, cleft sentences). The question feature is strong in root questions and must be checked by moving an auxiliary verb to C0. This is the familiar rule T/Agr0-to- C0 (I0 -to -C0). Since the question feature is checked by moving a verb, it has to be conceived as some sort of verbal feature, and since only finite auxiliaries undergo movement to C0, the Q feature may be viewed as an uninterpretable Tense feature, finite Tense being the common property of modals, have, be, do. We will accept that root questions contain a Tense feature in C0, a feature which must attract an appropriate verb. In (85a), the aspectual auxiliary have will raise all the way up to C0, finally checking the Tense and wh features. (85) a. Has she come ? b. Is she still working with that company ? c. Could he still go there ? CP C' C0 uTense uwh T/AgrP DP she T/Agr0 [+Present] AspP Asp' Asp0 has VP come T/Agr'

(86)

5.3 (87)

Licensing NPIs: NPIs are always in the command domain of overt negation: a. Bill didnt buy any books. b. Bill is not sure that anyone will lift a finger to help. (*Anyone will lift a finger to help.) c. *Anyone didnt come. d. Didnt anyone come?

Conclusions

1.Do Support occurs in a variety of environments. In all of them do supports an abstract morpheme (e.g. +neg, +aff, +uTense, +Agr) which appears above Tense, therefore above the position of the affixes s/ed, and which would remain invisible, unchecked. 2. The presence of these abstract heads bearing strong features forces Inflection to be featural, and forces the use of an auxiliary which can successively raise to check all the features. 3. Given its morphology, do is inserted under Tense and must raise further at least as far as Agreement, possibly to C0. 4. The requirement that these abstract features should be supported by do is a PF not an LF requirement 5. To claim that there is only one negation in an English sentence is to claim that the abstract Neg head licenses only one negative constituent. 6. Other types of negative sentences 6.1. Sentences with negative quantifiers

Consider the following sets of examples, containing negative quantifiers. (90) a. Nobody came to the party, did they ? b. Nobody came to the party, not even her brother. c. Few people showed up for the lecture, and no one showed up for the party either. d. Nobody likes him, neither do I. a. They found nothing in the garden. did they? b. They found nothing in the attic, not even old coins. c. They found nothing in the first room and they didn't find much in the second room,

(91) either.

These examples point out to two things: a) Sentences with negative quantifiers are syntactically negative and pass all the tests for sentence negation. b) These sentences must be "marked" as negative by Spell-Out, because they overtly show the behaviour of negative sentences. The standard analysis of examples like these relies on the insight that sentences with Neg quantifiers contain a NegP, headed by a [+neg] feature, and it is this Neg head which licenses the negative quantifier, if it has sentence scope. Such a view is strengthened by the existence of negative concord languages (e.g., Romanian), where the sentence negator must appears on the verb, in order to license the negative QPs. Thus in Romanian, nu always shows up in sentences with nimeni, nimic. (92) a. Nimeni nu a venit b. *Nimeni a venit c. N-au gasit nimic. d. *Au gasit nimic. As to the specific licensing strategy, a frequently invoked solution is the Neg Criterion: (93) a. A negative operator (QP) must be in a Spec head relation with an [+negative] X0 head. b. A negative head X0 must be in a spec-head agreement configuration with a negative operator. A negative operator is a negative phrase in a scope A' position. (94) a. No one has come yet. b. AgrsP

DP No one AgrS0 has

AgrS' NegP Neg Neg0 ta TP T' T0 ta Asp0 ta a. Nobody came b. NegP Neg' Neg0 [+neg] DP tnobody T/Agr0 ed T/Agr' VP come T/AgrP AspP Asp VP come yet

(96)

DP Nobody [+neg]

(98)

a. Mary bought nothing b. NegP Neg' Neg0 DP Mary T/Agr0 ed T/AgrP T/Agr' VP V' V0 buy DP nothing [+neg]

Op [+neg]

(99)

a. Mary has heard nothing. b. AgrSP

DP Mary Agrs0 has

Agrs' NegP Op [+neg] Neg0 [+neg] Neg' TP T' T0 AspP Asp' Asp0 V0 [+neg] VP V' DP nothing

Conclusions 1. Neg QPs may have sentence scope, so that sentences containing them pass al the tests for sentence negation. 2. When they have sentence scope, negative QPs are licensed by vebal negation, therefore by the NegP. 3. Negative Quantifiers are licensed by the Neg Criterion. 6.2. Emphatic negative sentences. The last type of negative sentences considered are emphatic negative sentences. (100) a. Not often did he digress from the topic. b. Not until yesterday did he change his mind. c. Seldom do I see him nowadays. d. Never before had he seen such a crowd.

(101)

a. Not long ago it rained. b. Not unreasonably, one may expect results from him. c. In no small measure. it is his attitude that is blocking progress. d. Not far away, it was raining very hard. It is easy to prove that sentences in (100) exhibit sentence negation, while those in (101) exhibit constituent negation, using the familiar tests. Instances of sentence negation admit neither tags, but instances of constituent negation do not. (102) Not often does Jack attend parties and neither does Jill. *Not long ago, Jack attended a party and neither did Jill. Secondly, instances of sentence negation most naturally take affirmative tags, while instances of constituent negation take negative tags. (103) Not often does Jack attend parties, does he?

Not long ago Jack attended a party, didn't he ? When there is sentence negation, negative polarity items ( any, ever, etc.) are licensed, while otherwise they are not : (104) Not often does Jack attend any party. *Not long ago, Jack attended any parties. According to Rudanko (1980), phrases which trigger inversion all "seem to be principally composed of adverbials with an overt or inherent quantifier and motivational adverbs"(1980:356): not often, not always, not until, not even then, not because, not for any reason, not under any circumstances, etc. The attempt to give a sharp semantic characterization of the inversion-triggering phrases is undermined by the fact that the same element may or may not cause inversion: (105) With no job, John would be happy. With no job would John be happy. (106) In no clothes, Mary looks attractive In no clothes does Mary look attractive. This shows that it is the syntax of the sentence rather than the semantics of the phrase which is essential in the description of the contrast between examples (100) and (101) The contrast (100), (101) can be accounted for assuming that the negative constituents which trigger inversion are operators, i.e., sentence negators which have moved to a scope position satisfying the Negative Criterion. Accordingly, they will be licensed in a configuration of specifier-head agreement with a negative head. When an ordinary negated constituent is preposed, which does not qualify as an operator, it does not trigger inversion since it will not require to be in a Spec-head relation with a negative head. Inversion signals the presence of the abstract negative head. The derivation of emphatic negative sentences (107) Seldom do I see him nowadays AdvP Seldom [+neg] C0 CP C' T/AgrSP T/AgrS' I T/Agrs0 ta AdvP tseldom V0 see him

[+neg] DP [+Tense]

VP VP V' DP nowadays AdvP

Conclusions In the following description of English complementation, the finite clause will be assumed to have (at least) the following structure: CP>AgrSP> NegP> TP> AspP1> AspP2 > VP ENGLISH COMPLEMENTATION Spring 2010 THAT COMPLEMENTS SYNTACTIC PROPERTIES OF THAT COMPLEMENTS 1. Similarities and differences between DPs and CPs

1.1. DPs and CPs share several properties: a. Both DPs and CPs occur as arguments of predicates. Thus the Longman Grammar (1999) states that "Complement clauses are sometimes called nominal clauses, because they typically occupy a noun phrase slot, such as subject, object, or predicative." b. DPs and CPs merge in - positions and are - marked by predicates that c-select and s-select them. Predicates, (V, A, or N) which combine with that complements have characteristic sselectional properties. They accept an abstract argument, a Proposition/Theme, and more often than not, they also s-select a human role, Experiencer, or Agent. These two -roles appear in various syntactic functions. (1) a. I thought that it looked good. b. It surprised me that he was right. c. He is aware that he is mistaken. d. It seems to me that he is right. e. It is important (for all of us) that he is still here. f. I claim that he is right. Similarities (continued) c. DPs and CPs accept (some of) the same pronominal substitutes: it, this, that. This is because clauses too have default -features, selecting a clause substitute which is [+Neuter, +Singular]. (2) a. I believe that God is good. b. I believe this/ that / it. c. [That he knows the truth] is not sure. Differences between DPs and CPs: DPs must be case-licensed, i.e, DPs have case features which must be checked during the derivation. The Case Filter bars the occurrence of DPs which lack Case. CPs do no have to be case-licensed. The absence of Case is the main syntactic difference between DPs and CPs, from which all the other differences between DP and CP syntax can be derived. The distribution of CPs is not determined by the Case Filter. As a result, the distribution of CPs is less constrained by syntactic factors and more dependent on discourse factors. Through their syntactic position, that-clauses often code discourse function, like focus or topic. 1.2 Introducing Extraposition In this pattern regardless of its syntactic role ((Su(bject), D(irect) O(bject), Prepositional O(bject)), the complement clause appears at the right periphery of the sentence, while the pronoun it appears in the position which ought to have been occupied by the clause, thus indicating its syntactic function. (3) Subject a. That Pauline moved to Kansas surprised me indeed. b. It surprises me indeed [that Pauline moved to Kansas]. Direct object a. The engineer wrongly figured out [that the bridge would hold ]. b. The engineer wrongly figured it out [ that the bridge would hold ]. Prepositional object a. Can you swear [ that the accused man was at your house all Friday evening? ]. b. Can you swear to it [ that the accused man was at your house all Friday evening?].

(4)

(5)

The extraposed clause is adjoined to the VP, as in (6) . In (6), the pronoun it occupies the Nom case position, the transitive verb checks the Acc feature of the object, so the CP must be devoid of case. (6) DP I0 VP It V0 surprises DP me IP I' VP CP that he didn't come

The term extraposition is due to Jespersen, MEG. The pronoun it is the so-called introductoryanticipatory it, since it introduces and anticipates the real object of the sentence. The introductoryanticiptory it is regarded as a type of formal subject or object, a "meaningless" or expletive pronoun. 2. The Case Resistance Principle 2.1. The difference between DPs and CPs with respect to case has noticeable empirical consequences. (7) a. I am happy that he left. b* I am happy his leaving. c. I am happy about his leaving. (8) a. I insisted that Mary should depart in the morning. b. *I insisted Mary's departure. c. I insisted on Mary's departure.

The first attempt to precisely state this difference between CPs and DPs is Stowell's 1981 Case Resistance Principle, stated in (9).[ According to Stowell, the case difference between CPs and DPs follows from a dfference between categories which assign case and categories which are case-marked. (9) The Case-Resistance Principle ( CRP) Case must not be assigned to a category bearing a case-assigning feature. According to Stowell, the case assigning feature that CPs bear is [+Tense], which is involved in the assignment of Nom case in finite clauses. CPs, unlike DPs, bear [+Tense], a verbal case assigning feature, and cannot be assigned case as a consequence. Assuming that there is a difference between -positions and case positions, the consequence of the CRP is that CPs will be banned from positions of case-checking. English supports the CRP to a considerable extent, since in English CPs are excluded from the following three basic (structural) case-checking positions: a) the position after prepositions; b) the structural Accusative position; c) the Nominative position. a) The prepositional context: In English, CPs cannot be sisters to prepositions. (10) a. I insisted that Mary should depart in the morning b.*I insited on that Mary should depart in the morning.

b) Structural Acc: the Acc+ Inf construction. The Acc (in italics in (11)) is -marked by the infinitive verb, but gets case from the main verb, (consider). Since the Case source is not the -assigner, the Acc is structural. The example in (11b) is analogous. The CP is -marked by the subordinate infinitive predicate, and would get case from the main verb (consider). The CP is in a structural Acc position, this leading to ill-formedness. (11) a. I consider [ this statement] to be a big mistake]. b *I consider[ [CP that Mary left] to be a big mistake]. c) The Nominative position Sentence (13a), with the subject clause in preverbal position, may be taken to show that the subject clause is in SpecT, i.e. in a position where it has been assigned Nom. On the other hand, sentence (13e). where the Auxiliary has moved to Comp is ungrammatical. Given the ungrammaticality of (13e), it is likely that in the well-formed (13a) the clause is in topic, rather than subject position. As suggested by examples like (13b), there is more than one preverbal position in English. In (13b), last night and in London are topicalized phrases. (13) a. That John hates Mary could be true. a' [[ TP That John hates Mary] [TP tCP [T'could be true]]]. b. Last night, in London, the killer struck again. c. Could this be true ? d.*Did last night, in London, the killer strike again ? e. * Could [that he hates her] be true ? 2.2. CPs may have to pass through case-marked positions Stowell's insight that DPs and CPs differ in terms of case is correct. Nevertheless, as stated in (9), the CRP is too strong and there are empirical facts which disprove it, since they involve CPs that have moved through case-positions, even if they do not remain there. One example is that of operator-variable constructions, movement constructions, where what moves is the CP, acting as a syntactic operator. It is well known that an operator's trace, (=a variable), must be in a case-marked position. Such operator-variable constructions include relativization, question formation, tough-movement, topicalization, a.o. Simple examples with DP operators show that variables are case-marked: (15) (16) a. What are you so happy about tDP b*What are you so happy tDP a. Who tDP wrote it? b. * Who was it written tDP ? c. Who was it written by tDP ?

Examples (15b, (16b) are ill-formed since the trace is not case marked. The adjective happy in (15b) cannot case-mark the DP-trace. The passive verb in (16b) cannot case-mark the DP trace either, so the preposition by is necessary to case-license the trace, as in (16c) Safir(1985) investigates the behaviour of clauses in operator-variable constructions, systematically comparing extraposed and unextraposed clauses. Extraposed clauses are in caseless position, and predictably, they cannot participate in operator-variable constructions. The essential observation is that only unextraposed clauses participate in operator-variable constructions. Therefore, they leave behind case-marked traces. The operator-variable construction considered below is Topicalization. This rule moves a DP/CP to the left periphery, leaving behind a case-marked trace. (17) a. That Susan would be late John didn't think [ tCP was very likely]

b. *That Susan would be late John didn't think [ it was very likely tCP] a. That he had solved the problem we didn't really find [tCP to be very surprising] b.* That he had solved the problem we didn't really find [it to be very surprising tCP] (19) a. That we won't abandon him you may definitely depend on tCP. b. *That we won't abandon him you may definitely depend on it tCP. In every pair, only the unextraposed clause can be topicalized, while the extraposed clause cannot. The chains in examples (17a)-(19a) are correctly formed, containing the operator, that is, the topicalized CP, which binds a variable, i.e., a trace in a case-marked position. In contrast the trace of the extraposed clause is not in a case-marked position. The operator does not bind a variable in (17b)(19b), the chains are incorrectly formed, so severe ungrammaticality results. (18)

Conclusions 1. At least sometimes, CPs must pass through positions where case is licensed, against the CRP. 2. One might interpret this as a sign that a CP may be used to check the strong case feature of some head. Thus, one might claim that in (17), the CP moves from Spec VP to SpecTP, and perhaps further on in order to check the strong features of Tense in English. The principle at work is Lasnik's 1995 Enlightened self interest: a constituent, in this case the CP, moves to satisfy the needs of another constituent, in this case Tense (Inflection). Tense may attract the CP, because the latter possesses features. Thus Case may not be the right way of eliminating the ungramamtical sentences in (10-13) above. 3.Given the data in (17-19), the CRP cannot be maintained in the strong form initially proposed by Stowell. 2.3. More recently, Stowell's CRP has been reinterpreted as a categorial filter. The proposal is that the CP category is categorially unsuited in certain configurations. This forces clauses to move out of these positions. This interpretation is based on the intuition that predicates/heads should be categorially distinct from their arguments or, more generally from the constituents they govern. Evidence for a categorial filter comes from the fact that sequences of type *N NP (*destruction the city vs destruction of the city), *I ^IP, etc are usually unacceptable. (20) A head and its complement must be distinct in terms of their categorial features.

This categorial filter is sufficient to eliminate sequences of type *P^CP. Categorially speaking, CPs are surely [-N], which is why they do not need case. They may also be viewed as [-V], this allows them the possibiity to be -marked arguments. IF CPs are [-N,-V], they are non-distinct from prepositions and subordinating conjunctions, which are also traditionally described as [-N, -V]. We derive the unacceptability of (22) (22) a. *They complained about [ that salaries were too low]. b. *Although [that she had done her work], the master was displeased.

Conclusions

1.Unlike DPs, CPs do not have to be Case-licensed. 2. Nevertheless, CPs can be attracted to case positions, at least when they are antecedents in operator-variable cosntructions. 3. As they pass through positions of case checking, they will be case-marked, this allowing them to appear in operator variable constructions. This property is not available to clauses in extraposed position precisly because they do not acquire a case feature. 4. By virtue of their categorial properties CPs are filtered away from certain environments, such as the position of sister to a preposition. 3. The Extraposition Structure (26) Subject a. That Pauline moved to Kansas surprised me indeed. b. It surprises me indeed [ that Pauline moved to Kansas ]. Direct object a. The engineer wrongly figured out [ that the bridge would hold ]. b. The engineer wrongly figured it out [ that the bridge would hold ]. Prepositional object a. Can you swear [ that the accused man was at your house all Friday evening? ]. b. Can you swear to it [ that the accused man was at your house all Friday evening? ]. 2.2 Establishing a link between it and the CP The it+CP configuration does not represent a chain of type expletive +associate, for the following reasons: a) CPs do not have to be in a case-marked -chain. b) CPs do not inherit case form it. The CP is caseless when extraposed. Let us turn to claims a) and b), under the standard assumption that Case is inherited along the members of a chain. For example, whom in SpecCP in (30) is Acc-marked and so is its trace in DO position. Consider then the examples in (31): (30) (31) Whom did you see t ? a. *It was bizarre Mary's departure. b. It was bizarre that Mary left. c. *It was noticed Mary's departure. d. It was noticed that Mary left. e.There seems to be a man under your bed.

Examples (31a-d) prove that DPs cannot occur in the position of the extraposed clause, because that is a caseless position and DPs need case. Evidence that extraposed clauses do not inherit Case from the expletive it comes from operator-variable constructions. Evidence that extraposed clauses do not inherit Case from the expletive it comes from operatorvariable constructions. a) Topicalization The topicalized clause moves to the CP field, and it should leave behind a trace in a case-assigned position. If it were true that extraposed clauses inherit case from the expletive it, it would not matter, in operator variable constructions, whether the (unextraposed )clause is itself in a case position or whether the (extraposed) clause merely inherits case from the expletive it. However, this expectation is no confirmed. Only the unextraposed clause can be topicalized, while the extraposed clause cannot. This is because the trace of the unextraposed clause is in a case marked position (a subject trace in (32), a direct object trace in (33), while the trace of the extraposed clause is in a non-case marked position. (32) (33) a. That Susan would be late John didn't think [ tCP was very likely] b. *That Susan would be late John didn't think [ it was very likely tCP] a. That he had solved the problem we didn't really find [tCP to be very surprising] b. *That he had solved the problem we didn't really find [it to be very surprising tCP]

b) Appositive relative clauses. A that-complement can serve as the antecedent of an appositive clause only if the trace it ultimately binds through the mediation of the relative pronoun is in a case position. Since the relative pronoun itself is a DP, rather than a CP, the requirement that the relative pronoun should check case is natural. (34) a.[ That Mary was leaving]i , whichi ti was noticed at once, upset Joe. b.[That Mary was leaving]i , whichi iti was noticed at once ti upset Joe. Thus the evidence from operator-variable constructions shows that there is no case transmission between it and the CP, so that it +CP are not members of a chain. Conclusions 1. The evidence argues both against Case-transmission from it to the CP 2. Safir (1985) proposes that it and the CP are simply related as members of a configuration. The semantic relation between it and the CP is that the CP is an adjunct which specifies the content of the pronoun, very much like an appositive clause, which specifies the content of the antecedent (e.g., the fact that he has abandoned his former love). 4. The subject-object asymmetry in Extraposition constructions On the motivaton of extraposition A fundamental remark regarding Extraposition in English, is that this structure is extremely frequent if not quasi-obligatory for subject clauses and marginal for DO and PO clauses. This asymmetry is motivated by structural as well as by functional considerations. The

examination of the motivation for extraposition will help us choose among the various proposals on how to analyse Extraposition syntactically. Cullicover and Rochemont (1990), in work on Focus constructions, include Extraposition in a large class of constructions which are motivated by functional considerations. Quirk e.a. (1972) mention the two discourse principles of End-Focus and End-Weight, which play a major role in determining wordorder in English. According to these two principles, other things being equal, constituents which are focussed and constituents which are "long" and heavy tend to occur towards the end of the sentence. 4.1 More on End-focus and End-weight. Structural Focus English disposes of two syntactic structures specifically designed to place a constitiuent in focus. These are the cleft sentence, in (39)&(40), and the pseudo-cleft sentence, in (41). In both instances the constituent which occurs after be is focussed, while the rest of the sentence contains presuppostional information. (39) a. What did he purchase for his wife? b. It was [ a brand new fur coat ] that John purchased for his wife. c. Focus: A brand new fur coat. d. Presupposition: He purchased something for his wife. a. Who purchased a brand new fur coat for his wife? b. It was [ John] who purchased a brand new fur coat for his wife c. Focus. John (purchased a new fur coat for his wife). d. Presupposition: Someone bought a brand new fur coat for his wife. a. What does Mary want ? b. What Mary wants is a rich husband. c. Assertion: (Mary wants) a rich husband. d. Presupposition. Mary wants something.

(40)

(41)

4.1 More on End-focus and End-weight. Topicalization is a syntactic rule designed to indicate the topic of discourse or a link, the constituent which bridges between the given sentence and the preceding discourse. The topic is thus an informationally given element. (42) A: They would like to offer you roses. B: Roses I heartily dislike t.

Topicalization is possible only if there is a case-marked trace in the initial position of the topic. 4.2. The functional perspective Extraposition of a Su clause is functional, since it enables a Su clause, which is a heavy constituent, often containing new information, to occur in final position. S clause V O => it V O S clause

(43) a. He kept complaining. It annoyed him that inflation was running so high. b. ?That inflation was running so high annoyed him.

c. He kept complaining. He had found out that inflation was running high. Extraposition from object position is not motivated by the same considerations, since object clauses already satisfy the principles of End-Focus and End-Weight. In a simple declarative transitive SVO senetnce with neutral intonation, the O is the expected focus. Hence, DO/PO extraposition is functionally superfluous and therefore, infrequent. On the other hand, when DO/PO extraposition does occur, the resulting structure has characterstic semantic and pragmatic properties. (see below). SV O clause => SV it O (46) a. John regretted [that he had abandoned the race]. b. John regretted it that he had abandoned the race.

4.3. The structural perspective Structurally, the motivation for extraposition+it insertion comes from the Extended Projection Principle and from Case Theory (see next section). English is a SVO language that requires an overt subject in preverbal position. Reinterpreting the EPP in feature-checking terms, the fact that a subject in SpecT is always required in English means that the T head has strong features, features which require checking by moving an (appropriate) constituent to SpecT. When there are reasons for the semantic "real" subject to be post-verbal, as is the case with extraposed subject clauses, a formal, 'meaningless' it subject is needed tocheck the strong feature of T and satisfy the EPP. While for the reasons explained, the Nom Su position must be lexically filled , there is no requirement to lexically realize the Acc DO position. If an object clause does not appear in its -position, the latter may remain empty, as in (46a) or it may be filled by the introductory anticipatory pronoun it, as in (46b). (46) a. John has known it for a long time that Mary will leave him. b. John has known tCP for a long time that Mary will leave him. Conclusions. 1. Extraposition is a discourse-related rule, which places a clausal constituent in Focus position and at the right periphery, satisfying End Focus and End Weight. 2. Extraposition is quasi-obligatory for Su clauses, but infrequent for DO/PO clauses. 3. The subject /object asymmetry is important enough to be looked upon as a structural phenomenon, therefore as a matter of syntax, rather than a matter of stylistic preference. 5. On the English expletives A central claim about expletives is that they occur only in subject position. The Su receives its -role in SpecVP. It follows that the Su position, Spect TP, is projected for purely syntactic reasons, having to do with the strong features of Tense and must therefore be filled even when it has no semantic relevance. Consider the passives below. The passive is an ergative configuration which lacks a thematic subject, but where the syntactic subject SpecT position must be filled nevertheless. It may be filled by the clause itself, or it may be filled by an expletive pronoun: (47) a. That the earth was flat was widely believed in ancient times. b. It was widely believed that the earth was flat in ancient times.

Since the object position is projected only from thematic structure, therefore only if the verb assigns a role in object position, expletive pronouns would not be expected to occur as objects.

However, it has been claimed (cf. Postal and Pullum (1988)) that there are many counterexamples to this claim, such as those in (48) and (49). In each case there seems to be an expletive pronoun in what should be a -position, against GB theory. (48) a. I consider it obvious that you should have done that. b. I prevented/ kept it from being obvious that we were late. (49) a. I regretted (it) that he was late. b. They never mentioned (it) to the candidate that the jog was poorly paid. c. I resent it every time you say that. d. I hate it when you are late. The following claims will be defended here, following Rothstein (1995): 1) Expletives occur only in subject position and this follows from the distinguished syntactic nature of the subject position. 2) The examples in (48) are not counterexamples to the theory, since the pronoun is projected as a subject and is (at most) a derived object. 3) When the neuter pronoun it is an object (the examples in (49)), it is not an expletive, but an ordinary pronoun, which receives a role. 4) This leads to a disunitary analysis of textraposition, since only in the case of extraposition from subject position will the clause be initially projected in a -position (SpecVP). For the other cases, the neuter pronoun will be projected in the (prepositional or direct) object position, while the clause will be projected as an adjunct or in some other position. If this analysis is adopted, it is important to define the semantic relation holding between the pronoun and the clause, when the pronoun is not an expletive. 5.1. Licensing subject expletives. The EPP feature of Tense The expletive it is a neuter pronoun, whose main property is that it does not receive any role. As a result it appears in contexts where lexical DPs, which must be thematic, are banned. In (50), the only overt) -role of the passive verb goes to the CP, so the lexical DP in (50b) cannot be interpreted and violates the - Criterion. (50) a. It was widely believed that the world was flat. b. *The hypothesis was widely believed that the world was flat.

Because expletives fail to be -marked, they cannot be questioned. (51) a. That he came was a blessing for them. b. What was a blessing for them ? c. It was a blessing for them that he came. d.*What was a blessing for them that he came?

Expletive as quasi-arguments Since, in principle, pleonastic elements are devoid of content, it was proposed (cf. Chomsky (1991)) that these elements are deleted at LF, because they simply satisfy formal features which have no interpretation. This analysis proved to be problematic for at least two reasons: a) Different expletive elements with the same role, say different formal subjects, do not contribute in the same way to the interpretation of the sentence (cf. (53)) b) Secondly, sentences with expletives are not semantically equivalent with sentences without expletives. Thus, in (54), the variant without there, with the phrase some ghosts in SpecT, presupposes the existence of ghosts, while the sentence witht there in SpecT does not presuppose the existence of ghosts.

(53)

a. It was a man. (Who was it ?) b. There was a man. (Was there anyone in the room?) (54) a. There were som ghosts in the pantry. b. Some ghosts were in the pantry. The position on expletives adopted here is that expletives are legitimate LF objects with 'null' reference, since they make no contribution to the truth conditions of the sentence. It then becomes necessary to specify for it / there how they are licensed (legitimacy) and what interpretative contribution ( if any) they have. Assuming the principle of Full Interpretation, a natural question is what principles of the grammar license pleonastics. Currently there are two (convergent) ways of stating the intuition that expletive pronoun occur to fill a synatctic subject position: a) the syntactic predication account; b) the EPP account. a) The syntactic predication account (Rothstein (1995) claims that subjects occur to satisfy the condition that syntactic predicates must have subjects. This idea is stated as a Predicate Condition: (59) Predicate Condition Every syntactic predicate must be syntactically saturated. A syntactic predicate is an open maximal projection that needs to be saturated by being linked to a syntactic argument, its subject. Crucially, predicates need not have a thematic relation with their subjects, though they must have a thematic relation with their objects. It follows that expletive elements are licensed only as subjects. A pleonastic subject denotes the null element, since it is has no -role and, when the predicate takes a pleonastic subject, the truth value of the proposition is fully determined by the content of the predicate. The ergative verb + its object represents a complex syntactic predicate which needs a subject. The subject is licensed only syntactically, to satisfy the needs of the (non-lexical) syntactic predicate. (60) a. It was obvious that we would be late. b. That we'd be late was obvious. c. It was obvious. The expletive interpretation is one way of reading an otherwise ordinary pronoun like it, in thoses cases where the syntactic predicate is completely responsible for the semantic interpretation of the sentence; therefore, the pleonastic appears as a default reading, made available by the interaction of the principles of interpretation and the properties of pronominals. b) The EPP account The analysis in terms of syntactic predication does not, however, explain the difference between English and, say, Romanian, where the semantic process is similar to English, and there are also cases when an ergative verb with its object expresses a complete proposition, but no pleonastic element is overtly present. The fact that the Su is overt in English is related to the well-known fact that English is non-pro-drop a language, that is a language where the Su is obligatory. The presence of the Su is related to the EPP. The obligatory preverbal Su position in SpecT is the effect of the features of the functional head T. T is assumed to have a strong D/N feature which can only be satisfied by Merging or Moving a DP/NP in the (lowest) specifier of T. 5.2. On the English Expletives. There and it behave differently, at least with respect to agreement.

(61)

a. There is a boy in the room. b. There are boys in the room.

The different agreement pattern follows from the obvious morpho-syntactic difference between it and there. There is an adverbial expletive, so it lacks -features. This is why in there sentences agreement features are checked with the lexical subject, which possesses -features It is a pronominal expletive which has -features: it is a [+3d person, +neuter, +singular] pronoun. Subject it always imposes singular agreement on the verb. This is apparent under co-ordination: (62) a. That the president will be re-elected and that he will be impeached are both likely at this point. b. It is /*are equally likely at this point [CP that the president will be re-elected and that he will be impeached] Let us turn to the expletive there. There may be analysed as a DP that checks the case and EPP features, but cannot value the -features of Tense. The simplest analysis is to assume that there originates as a small clause subject and agrees with the predicative inside the small clause. There is thus a defective DP, lacking the - features of person and number, but bearing a case feature checked by T. This analysis suggets that Case may be checked without simultneously checking Agreement.

(62)

There are monsters IP DP I V DP X There are tbe tThere I VP XP X NP monsters

5.2. Object Expletives 5.2.1 A real expletive The only case of true expletive objects is that of derived objects, that is, consituents which start out as (expletive) subjects, but are case-marked by the verb above them. (63) I find it impossible to live under these circumstances.

5.2.2 It is a -marked pronoun in other cases: (64) a. I regretted (it) that he was late. b. They never mentioned (it) to the candidate that the job was poorly paid. c. I resent it every time you say that. d. I hate it when you are late.

In such cases, the extraposed CP/XPs must be independently licensed. There are three types of licensing such a phrase. One of them does not involve an it+ CP structure, but it is instrumental in understanding the object it +CP construction. a. It as an event variable bound by a quantifier over times We refer to examples of type (64 c, d) or (65) below, the DO it is followed by a Time Adverbial Quantifier. In (65a-c) the adverbial is a quantified DP (every time I have dinner with John, etc), while in (65e), it is followed by a when(ever) time clause. It designates an event variable, quantified over by the adverbial (65) a. I regret it every time I have dinner with John. b. The children enjoy it every time you tell them a story. c. They announced it publicly every time they decided to move house. d. He used to like it when(ever) it thundered late. In such examples is that it desgnates an event-variable. Sentence (65a) means "for every event of having dinner with John, I regret that event".. It is a variable that ranges over events of having dinner with John (example a), or events of deciding to move house ( example c). The pronoun it now has a semantic role, it is an e- variable bound by the quantifier of time. The semantic value of it can be appreciated by comparing (65a) with (66) where it is missing: (66) I regretted every time I had dinner with John. In (66), the every phrase is the object of the verb. In (65), where the every phrase is an operator binding the pronoun, there is a "matching relation" between events named by the every phrase and events named by the matrix verb. Sentence (65a) asserts that every event of my having dinner with John is matched with an event of my regretting having dinner with him. By contrast, (66) asserts that I regretted all the occasions of having dinner with John, but it makes no claim about how many regretting events there were. Thus (66), but not (65a) is appropriate in a situation when, after ten years of happy dinner occasions, something happens that makes me regret that I ever had dinner with John. Selectional restrictions Since it denotes an event, with this interpretation, it is allowed with just those verbs that s-select events. Regret is one such verb, but claim is not. Evidence for this comes from gerunds, which as known, can express events. Expectedly, regret appears with the gerund, claim does not: (67) He regretted doing it /that he had done it. *He claimed doing it/ that he had done it

If a verb does not allow its Theme to be an event, then the verb does not occur in bound time adverbial constructions, like (65). The verb claim, for instance, can only select a proposition for its object, so it does not appear in the it+ (quantified) adverbial construction. (68) He claimed it, but it wasn't true. He claimed it every time he saw you.

The important point is that in the it+ quantified time adverbial construction, the pronoun has semantic content, designating an event variable, bound by the adverbial quantifier. The pronoun it is not an expletive. b) It is a specific context known event. It is an ordinary anaphoric pronoun.

(69)

a. I regretted it that he was late. b. They confirmed it that you had passed the entrance exam. c. They announced it that she had passed her exams.

In the absence of any QP, the pronoun it is free and denotes a specific entity recoverable from the discourse. In examples (69), it is optional, but not meaningless. The neuter it is appropriate when the object of the matrix verb is a specific event. Bolinger (1977) claims that in these circumstances it "must refer to some fact already broached". It is anaphoric. (70) a. John and Mary have announced that they got married. b. John and Mary have announced it that they got married.

Sentence (70a) is appropriate as a report of the fact that John and Mary made an announcement that is new to the speaker. (70b) is more appropriate if the report announced by John and Mary is alredy known to the speaker. This also explains the differences in (71). (71) a. If he asks you to help him, just say that you regret (*it) that you can't. b. You shouldn't regret it that you were helpful. The same neuter it can also be the object of a preposition in it+CP structures: (72) a. I depend upon it that their paper will expose crooked politicians. b. I was counting on it that you would be there. c. What do you make of it that he is late ? Summing up, in examples of the second type, the complement designates contextually salient events. Bolinger (1977) mentions several factors that may favour a referential interpretation of the pronoun as designating a specific event. The meaning of the main verb is one factor which influences the acceptability of "extraposition from object position". Expectedly, factive verbs allow this structure. (73) They didn't mind it that a crowd was beginning to gather in the street.

Non-factive, propositional verbs which express suppositions- normally having to do with bringing forward something new - generally exclude the it+CP construction: (74) a. Who would have thought (it) that things would turn out this way ? b. Who would have supposed (*it) that things would turn out this way ? c. He pretended (*it) that he was the one. d. I presume (*it) that you are Dr. Levingstone.

Concluding, the neuter pronoun it is licensed under -marking, just as any other argument. As to how the relation between it and the CP is established, the easiest solution is to treat it as the subject of a small clause with the CP as a predicate. c. It as a means of factivizing a predicate Some propositional verbs (= verbs that may select propositions, not events as their internal argument, cf. (78)) may also appear in the it+CP construction (cf. 77). (77) a.They suspected it that he was a spy. b. You just assumed/ believed it that he would help. c. I never supposed it that they would help.

(78)

d. I expected it that the baby would be up all night. *They suspected/ assumed/ believed John's stealing the diamonds.

In order to interpret these cases, notice first that the semantic effect of adding the pronoun is the same as in the preceding cases. The pronoun it designates a specific event, so the effect of using these nonfactive verbs in this configuration is to reanalyze them as factive. The verbs in (77) are factive when the pronoun it is present and are not factive when it is omitted. Sentences (79, 80a) entail the truth of their complements, whereas the corresponding examples without it do not, as ((80b), (81) illustrate). (79) (80) They had suspected it that she would be arrested. a. They suspected it that he was a spy. b. They suspected that he was a spy (81) a. ?????They had expected it that she'd be arrested, and were relieved when she wasn't. b. They expected that she'd be arrestd, and were relieved when she wasn't c. ????They had been expecting it that she might be arrested. Extraposition from object positions is thus a means of turning a non-factive verb into a factive one. But the complement of a factive verb may designate a specific event. The CP is licensed by predication as before. To give one more example, with the (normally non-factive) verbs of reporting in examples (82), the contrast induced by the presence of it +CPis between something previously unknown (it is absent) and something already settled (it is present, and the verb is factive): (82) a. You might at least have announced that you were moving in on us. b. You might at least have announced it that you were moving in on us. c. Did you find out that the cheques was bad ? d. *Did you find it out that the cheques was bad / e. When did you find (it) out that the cheque was bad ?

The pronoun is felicitously interpreted as designating a specific event, or a fact especially if the main verb is in the past, or in other types of contexts which clearly indicate that the content of the complement clause is presupposed. Here are some of Bolinger's examples: (83) a. I was the one who guessed (it) that you would win. b. I guess (*it) that you will win. c. I was the one who ordered (it) that he should be fired tomorrow. d. Are you going to order (*it) that he be fired tomorrow.

This is not to say that a future event in the complement clause always excludes the it+CP construction, but where this construction is used, the matter has already been broached or predetermined. (84) Since we are agreed on the action, I shall take the responsibility of ordering it that he be fired. It may be concluded that the object it +CP is a hall-mark of factive readings in English. While so far the object it+CP structure was shown to be able to turn a non-factive verb into a factive one, it appears that the same construction functions as a means of recategorizing a non-CP taking verb into a verb that accepts a CP, usually with a factive reading. The resulting structures are often metaphorical and the use of it is mandatory, since there is no propositional (non-factive) reading. Here are examples: (85) a. I take it that you will start at once. b. *I take that you will start at once. c. We have it on good authority that a man will give all that he has to save his life. d. He can't swallow it /*-that you dislike him.

(86)a. She hid it /*-that she was involved b. He let it / *- out of the bag that you were a thief. c. He spilled it /*-that you were a thief. d. They pooh-poohed it / * - that we were responsible. e. They finally got it/* - that I meant no harm. Conclusions 1. The pronoun it is an expletive only in subject position. Pleonastic elements are generally licensed only in subject position, in order to saturate a syntactic predicate, or in order to satisfy the EPP. 2. In object position it is a -marked argument ( a Theme/Event), as shown by the fact that there is sselection: the it+ CP structure is preferred by verbs whose complement may be an event, rather than simply a proposition. The clausal it may be a variable bound by a QP, or it may be a referential 9event-designating) expression. The CP is licensed as a predicate on this pronominal subject. 3. The object it+CP construction does not involve movement. The pronoun merges in the -marked object position, while the clause is VP adjoined 6. Back to the Analysis of Extraposition It is time to return to the analysis of Extraposition, using the result obtained above, namely, the fact that apparently only Su clauses extrapose, i.e., must move out of their - position. Seemingly extraposed object clauses may be CPs projected in positions of adjunction, having a predicative role with respect to the thematic object it. A second result, derived from the functional analysis, is that Extraposition is a Focus -related rule. Two descriptions of Extraposition will be offered. One of them (Landau (1999), McClosky (1999) regards Extraposition as a PF rule, applying after Spell-out. The other one, inspired by Kayne (1998) regards Extraposition, as part of narrow syntax rather than stylistics and phonology. We will settle for a variant of the second position (Extraposition is part of (narrow) syntax), while trying to do justice to the special properties of rules like Extraposition. 6.1. Landau's Analysis Landau (1999) proposes the following formulation of Extraposition: (87) Extraposition VP-internal clauses must be peripheral (at PF).

Extraposition is adjunction to VP and (as is standardly assumed) an adjunct is not dominated by its host category. Several consequences follow from this formulation: a) Extraposition will always apply from subject position. Given the canonical configuration of the subject and the object, an object CP is already peripheral with respect to the VP. Only the subject is VP internal. b) At the same time, a clause in "structural Acc position" is also VP internal, as shown by the examples below, so Extraposition operates producing the right results. In fact, as discussed above, clauses in structural Acc position merge as Sus of the infinitive clause, so this situation reduces to the preceding one. (88) a. *I consider [ that he lied to us like that] to be outrageous.

a'. I consider it to be outerageous that he lied to us like that. b.* I judge [ that he went there] to have been a mistake. b. I judge it to have been a mistake that he went there. Extraposition ia a repair strategy that filters away clauses in structural Acc position, rendering the CRP superfluous. 6.2. Extrapostion vs. Topicalization of subject clauses A clause which is originally projected in Su position, therefore in SpecVP, may avoid this position in two ways, by moving to the left or by moving to the right. In numeretions where the expletive it is not available, the clause is bound to move to the left. It must move at least as high as SpecTP to check the EPP feature and the - features of Tense, and possibly higher to a Topic position. If the clause has moved to the left, it will be interpreted as a Topic. It must represent given, "construable" information. Discourse studies have all stressed that a preverbal clause is a Topic, referring to an event specified in the discourse. Thus, the Longman Grammar (1999) remarks that: " In nearly every case when a preverbal that clause is used, it presents information as if it is factual or generally accepted, and provides an anaphoric link to the preceding discourse." Moreover, a topicalized (subject) clause often contains constituents which are anaphoric to preceding disocurse. Here is an example of a topic subject clause which provides a link with the preceding discourse, and where the pronominal subject of the topicalized clause is used anaphorically too: (89)Thare are many players who might win the Masters, many who could. But the feeling about Faldo is that if he is at the top of his game, he should win it. [That he is ranked only N04 in the world at the moment] is due to the eccentricity of the system. . 6.3. In numerations where the expletive it is available, the expletive is inserted in SpecT, serving as a syntactic Su for the complex predicate represented by the main verb+ clause and checking the EPP, case and features of Tense. The CP moves to the VP-periphery and is right-adjoined to VP, in a suitable position for being an information focus. 6.4. On Object Extraposition. We have so far taken for granted that at least for Object Extraposition the clause merges as a VPadjunct, semantically functioning as a predicate on the thematic object pronoun, in the configuration (98) (98) a. I will see to it that he is properly paid. b. VP VP DP V I see V PP to it that he is properly paid CP

However, nothing in the formulation of Extraposition in (87) specifies the position of the Extraposed clause with respect to other VP constituents. Since it is an adjunct, it will follow subcategorized constituents, as in (99a,b), yet nothing is mentioned about its position with respect to other adjuncts. The examples in (99c-e') show that the extraposed clause is ordered with respect to other adjuncts, and

such ordering conditions are more easily dealt with as locality principles on Move than as conditions on Merge: (99) a. I wrote it to him that he had been dismissed. b. I grant it to you that he wanted to hurt me. c. I regret it very much that he didn't come. c.' I regret it that he didn't come very much. d. I will forgive it tomorrow that he was rude to me last night. d. * I will forgive it that he was rude to me last night tomorrow. e. I had forgotten it that he had arrived when I asked you about it. e'. ? I had forgotten it when I asked you about this that he had arrived.

Since the clause is a predicate it is not selected, so that it is not obvious how to make sure that that the clause merges in an appropriate position. Given the data, a different analysis of Object extraposition is possible. The complement clause might simply first merge as a the predicate of a small clause whose subject is the pronoun it, in the configuration (100) for sentence (99a). A clause in this configuration will also count as VP internal, forcing VP adjunction, past the other adjunct. Extraposition continues to apply, since clauses must be VP peripheral at PF. (100) a. VP V' AdvP V0 SC very much DP CP regret it that he didn't come b. VP VP V' V0 regret AdvP very much CP that he didn't come SC DP tCP it An important advantage of this analysis is that the subject it c-commands the predicate CP, an essential requirement for syntactic predication, which fails to be met if the clause first merges as a VP adjunct. The small clause analysis is preferable on theory internal and on empirical grounds. Conclusions The following conflicting situation has emerged: 1) Extraposition mainly having discourse related effects (End-Focus and End-Weight). 2) Extraposition has interpretative consequences, so that it must be made visible to LF as well. Closer scrutiny shows that Extraposition is not the only rule exhibiting properties (1) and (2). More will be said about Extraposition, after having examined a rule with which it appears to share properties (1) and (2). THAT COMPLEMENTS (II)

SYNTACTIC PROPERTIES OF THAT COMPLEMENTS 7. Heavy NP Shift and Clause Shift Heavy NP Shift (HNPS) and Clause Shift. The empirical phenomenon at stake is the occurrence of an object XP (DP or CP) at the right periphery of the sentence, in a position different from its - position. (101) (102) a. Mary gave every help that he demanded to Joe. b. Mary gave to Joe every help that he demanded. a. ?*Mary said that she wouldn't come flatly. b. Mary said flatly that she wouldn't come.

Clause Shift differs from Extraposition in two respects: a) it applies only to objects, never to subjects; b) no (expletive) pronoun marks the initial position of the clause. Our discussion will concentrate on HNPS, but analogous statements could be made about Clause Shift. 7.1. Heavy NP Shift. It is known that a "long" or complex DO can be separated from the verb by another constituent, against the V+DO adjacency requirement, which is very strict otherwise. A complex DP is one which contains a PP or a clause (103) a.*He threw into the basket the letter. b. He threw the letter into the basket. c. He threw into the basket the letter which he had just decoded. HNPS is a right-movement rule which adjoins the object to the phrase containing it, i.e., to the VP in the general case. It was also shown that not only DPs, but also clauses, which are by definition "complex", may appear at the right periphery, by Clause Shift. (104) a. We require of our employees that they wear a tie. b. John regretted deeply that Georgina was pregnant.

7.1.1 Several constituency tests indicate that the shifted object is still in the VP. Rules that affect the VP as a whole affect the shifted DP as well, because it is included in the VP. a) VP ellipsis (105) "deletes" a lexical VP, leaving behind an auxiliary verb. In the examples in (105), the complex DO has moved over the IO or over a locative PP. Nevertheless the DO is still part of the elided XP, therefore it was analysed as still inside the VP. b) Pseudoclefting in (106) brings further evidence. This rule places one phrase in focus position (i.e., afther the verb be). In (106), the Focus is the VP phrase. Inside the focussed VP in (106b), the DO has been moved to the right. c) VP preposing (in (107)) is another test that confirms that the shifted DP is iniside the VP, since a VP that is fronted for emphasis may contain a shifted object. (105) VP Ellipsis. a. John gave to Mary a picture of Bill Clinton, and Bill did too. b. John read in The Times a scathing review of his new book and Sally did too. (106)Pseudoclefting of VP. a. What John did was buy for Mary every book he could find. b. What Mary did was put on the mantel an old soiled portrait of her husband. (107)VP Preposing

a. I said I would give to Peter everything that he demanded and give to Peter everything that he demanded I will. b. * I said that I would give to Peter everything that he demanded and give to Peter I will everything that he demanded. 7.1.2 From a functional perspective, HNPS is a manifestation of the discourse principles of EndWeight / End-Focus. The examples below prove that HNPS too is a construction in which there is an obligatory focus interpretation for the phrase which moves to the right. Thus, sentence (114) below is a suitable answer for (115a), but not for (115b). That HNPS is focus related has been stressed by all analysts (Rochemont (1997), Mc Closky (1999) a.o.). (110) (111) a. What did John purchase for his wife? b. ?For whom did John purchase a new coat? John purchased for his wife a brand new fur coat.

7.1.3. The available evidence proves that the shifted DP occupies an A' position, a position of adjunction to the right of the phrase that initially contained it. Two phenomena support this claim: a) The shifted DP is an island for extraction. b) The shifted DP licenses parasitic gaps (PGs). At the same time, HNPS has an important interpretative contribution regarding scope phenomena, as well as the interpretation of sentences containing PGs. 7.1.4 From a functional perspective, HNPS is a manifestation of the discourse principles of EndWeight / End-Focus. The examples below prove that HNPS too is a construction in which there is an obligatory focus interpretation for the phrase which moves to the right. Thus, sentence (114) below is a suitable answer for (115a), but not for (115b). That HNPS is focus related has been stressed by all analysts (Rochemont (1997), Mc Closky (1999) a.o.). (110) (111) a. What did John purchase for his wife? b. ?For whom did John purchase a new coat? John purchased for his wife a brand new fur coat.

7.1.4. It is important that HNPS has semantic effects as well. Thus, the application of HNPS may have consequence for the scopal interpretation of certain adverbials , as in (113) below. Sentence (113a), where the DO occupies its canonical position is ambiguous. The adverbial phrase, for a time, may modify either the matrix sentence ( i.e., the verb believe) or the embedded clause. (i.e., the verb to be in hiding): (113) a. The FBI believed the man they were after to be in hiding for a time. b. The FBI believed to be in a hiding for a time the man they were after.

Once HNPS applies to the former embedded subject the man they werer after, as in (113b), the interpretation of the adverbial is unambiguous. The adverbial modifies only the lower clause, including the moved NP, since the object must be attached to the end of its own clause, and the object is definitely in the main clause now that it has been HNPSed. 7.2. Clause Shift as Heavy NP Shift Clauses are by definition "heavy" constituents which tend to appear at the periphery, by virtue of End-Weight and End-Focus. There are two strategies which allow argument clauses to appear at the right periphery: the first is Extraposition (functional for subjects and objects alike). In this case the clause appears at the right periphery, but a pronoun in a case position indicates its syntactic function. The second strategy is Clause Shift. The clause is simply adjoined to

the phrase, usually the VP, containing it. Here are comparative examples. Clause Shift applies only to object clauses. (122) a. They never mentioned it to the candidate [that the job was poorly paid].(extrapsed constructions) b. We require it of our employees that they wear a tie. c. John regretted it deeply that Georgina was pregnant. a'. They never mentioned to the candidate that the job was poorly paid. (Clause Shift) b'. We require of our employees that they wear a tie. c'. John regretted deeply that Georgina was pregnant. Since a clausal object is normally a focus and is heavy, sentences where Clause shift does not apply are fairly awkward, if not downright ungrammatical, as can be seen by comparing the examples below: (123) a. Mary said t quietly [that she wanted to drive]. b. John knew t from experience [that the law was unfair]. c. They wrote to the lawyers that the firm was going bankrupt. a' ?*Mary said [that she wanted to drive] quietly. b'. ?*John knew that the law was unfair from experience c' ?They wrote that the firm was going bankrupt to the lawyers. d. ?They informed me [that we had lost the war] yesterday.

A second remark is that, Clause Shift does not need to leave behind a case-marked trace (Webelhuth, 1991). An example is provided by sentence (123d), which exhibits movement out of a position which is not case-marked. 7.5. Extraposition and Heavy NP Shift . More on the status of these rules. A re-analysis of right movement rules The similarity between HNPS and Extraposition cannot have gone unnoticed. a) Both of them relate to discourse rules ("heaviness"). b) Both of them involve prosodic and pragmatic properties: the constituent which is moved is often an (informational) focus. c) Both of them involve interpretational (semantic) effects. d) Both appear to involve movement to the right. e) Both are optional, at least sometimes. 8.That Deletion. A Minor Problem ? 8.1. The facts. It is well known that the complementizer that can be omitted in post-verbal object clauses. (133) John says [the key opens the chest].

The absence of the complementizer is not possible in preverbal position, that is, it is not possible for subject clauses, or for topiclaized object clauses. (134) *He is here is nice. *Mary had left nobody had noticed.

While for preverbal clauses that Deletion is impossible, for object clauses the rule is in principle possible, but it is constrained by register and other stylistic factors.

8.2. The IP analysis Though that Deletion would appear to be unproblematic, it is not clear whether the complement clause is a CP with a null head, as first proposed by Stowell (1981), or whether it is simply a bare finite IP and no CP-level is projected, as proposed in Webelhuth (1991) or Doherty (1997). (135) a. John says [CP [IP the key opens the chest]]. b. John says [IP the key opens the chest]. Doherty (1997) makes a strong claim that complements where that is missing are IPs. He starts by noticing a number of anomalies of the CP hypothesis. Admittedly, the CP hypothesis has the advantage of uniform subcategorization, i.e., verbs uniformly select for CPs, instead of taking both IP and CP complements. However the required free variation between null and overt C0 raises some questions in itself: Thus, if it is assumed that null complementizers are lexically inserted, the free alternation between null and overt C0 is anomalous: there is no analogous case of free variation between a null and an overt variant of a functioanl head. Other null heads which have been positied for English (for example, D0) are either obligatorily null or obligatorily overt. Doherty's argues that predicates select both IP and CP, on the basis of empirical facts, unexplained under the hypothesis that the complementizer is present, but null. He starts form the well known fact that it is impossible to have adjunction to a phrase which is s-selected by a lexical head. Thus, given that verbs select CPs, it is not possible to adjoin anything to the CP. Thus a topic in English must appear to the right of the head, not to the left. In embedded clauses, Topicalization is grammatical only when the Topic appears to the right of the complementizer: (136) a. I hope that this book you will read. b. She claims that Guiness he likes but that whiskey he hates. (137) a. *I hope this book that you will read. b. *She claims Guiness that he likes, but whiskey that he hates. Consider now the following examples, assuming that the complements are headed by a null complementizer: (138) *I hope[ this book[ you will read]]. *She claims[CP [ IP Guiness he likes]].

The topic appears to the right of the null complementizer, as in the correct examples (136), but the sentence is ungrammatical. However, under the hypothesis that verbs select IPs, the ungrammaticality of examples (138), follows from the same prohibition of adjunction to a phrase (= the IP) selected by a lexical head. We tentatively accept that complements which are not headed by that are IPs not CPs. One still has to give an account of the distributional restrictions of that-less clauses under the IP hypothesis. Webelhuth (1992) proposes an explanation of the distributional differences between IPs and CPs, which rests on the proposal that the categorial distinction between IP and CP is equivalent to the distinction between verbal and nominal elements. More exactly, the IP is a fully verbal category, while the CP has some nominal properties as well: CPs have -features and may also check case. If we assume that verbal elements are excluded from subject position, the failure of bare IP to appear as sentential subjects, illustrated in (134) above follows. 9.5. Constraints on the omission of THAT. a) The presence of that is (nearly) obligatory in embedded declarative clauses in which an adverbial or topicalized pharse has been fronted: (158) a. Mary is claiming that [for all intents and purposes] John is the mayor of the city. b. ?? Mary is claiming [for all intents and purposes] John is the mayor of the city. (159) a. Mary knows that [books like this] Sue will enjoy reading.

(163) (164) (168)

b. * Mary knows [books like this] Sue will enjoy reading b) That cannot be omitted in Subject clauses and topicalized clauses. a. That they will win the war is widely believed. b. *They 'll win the war is widely believed. a. He doesn't believe they will win the war. b. *They'll win the war he doesn't believe. c. That they will win the war he doesn't believe. He said[ CP Mary [TP-- had left an hour ago]]

CP recursion and the Adverb Effect In this section we will examine a group of examples which have always been problematic since they involve inversion in an embedded clause introduced by that. This ought to be impossible since the inverted auxiliary and the complementizer would be competing for the same place. (179) I knew that not even for one moment had Leslie given a damn about the budget. Consider the following three groups of examples, all of which involve topicalized adverbial phrases. The first is of a type that we have discussed: the presence of a topicalized phrase forces the presence of that in C, as a means of eliminating the uT on C. Movement of the subject to delet uT on c is no longer available since it violates Attract Closest. The second group of examples is also familiar, involving successive wh-movement out of an embedded declarative. The wh-subject starts from a positon lower than the topic, in italics in examples (180). As a consequence of the fact that uT on C must be eliminated by merging (attracting) that, the wh- subject will raise to C only to check its uWh feature, so that the subject trace in Spec C co-occurs with that, in an anti- that-trace effect: The third group of examples is of a type not examined so far. In such sentences T-to-C has obviously applied since the auxiliary verb is in C. A negative adverbial phrase is in Spec C, yet the complementizer that is present, and, moreover, as shown by the ungrammaticality of (180b), that is obligatory. Other emphatic operator adverbials may also trigger inversion and the obligatory presence of that: (180) a. Robin said that, for all intents and purposes, this man was the mayor of the city. b. * Robin said for all intents and purposes, this man was the mayor of the city. c. Robin said that this man was the mayor of the city. d. Robin said this man is the mayor of the city. a. This is the tree which I said [ t that [ just yesterday [t had resisted my shovel]]] b. I asked what Leslie said[ t that in her opinion t had made Robin give a book

(181) to Lee.

c. Lee forgot which dishes Leslie had said[ t that under normal circumstances t should be put on the table]. (182) a. I thought [that at no time had Leslie left the room] a'.*I thought [at no time had Leslie left the room]. b. I realized that only then did Leslie see anything moving. b'. *I realized only then did Leslie see anything moving. c. I knew that not even for one moment had Leslie given a damn about the budget. The intuitive reason for which the examples in (182a',b') are wrong is that they are not identifiable as finite declarative embedded complements. Finite embedded complements should start with that or with the subject in SpecCP. In both cases what is nedded is a constituent that carries a Tense feature. The starred sentences fail to satisfy this requirement. As shown in Watanabe (1992) clauses must be typed for syntactic, as well as semantic reasons. English finite complements are of two types: that complements and wh-complements. With that-complemnts, C is that, and there is no specifier, with the possible exception of a specifier which like C carries uT. As already discussed this exception is the

Nom subject. Wh complements on the other hand typically have a wh-specifier phrase in SpecC. Examples of type (182a'-c') have a filled specifier and nothing in C. In other words (181a'-c') are not properly clause-typed and cannot satisfy the c/s-selction requirements of the main verbs. This is why Merge applies again, combining the clause with inversion with the complementizer. Such sentences thus exhibit CP recurssion as shown in the phrase marker below: (182) V' V0 think CP C that CP AdvP only then C' C did IP DP I0 Leslie tv General Conclusions The syntax of that complements specifies the following properties. 1. That clauses are headed by the complementizer that. 2. That complements are licensed as arguments, theta-marked by predicates. 3. That complements have -features, as shown by the fact that they select particular substitutes. 4. That complements, and, more generally, CPs do not need Case. Their distribution is not constrained by the Case-Filter. 5. Their surface distribution is in line with their discourse role, topic or focus. 6. That complements appear in the extraposition structure. 7. That complements may undergo Clause Shift. 8. That complements allow that-Deletion. ENGLISH COMPLEMENTATION Spring 2010 THE DISTRIBUTION OF THAT COMPLEMENTS I' VP see anything wrong.

1. Preliminaries The distribution of that complements will be presented according to: a) the configuration where the clause merges (the c-selectional properties of the main verb; b) the actual construction where the clause occurs, given by the operations that have applied in the derivation. The distribution of that complements will be presented in terms of the (traditional) syntactic functions assigned to that-clauses.

2. That Clauses as Direct Objects - Simple transitive verbs Verbs in group (2a) below are marked in Longman (1979) as allowing the omission of that. (2) a. admit, allege, answer, apprehend ('understand' ), arrange, assume, aver, believe, claim, certify, calculate, consider, confirm, discern, doubt, dream, estimate, expect, fancy, find, feel, fear, forget, figure out, hear, guess, imagine, gather, guarantee, hear, learn, maintain, mean, mind, know, object, prove, pretend, presume, realize, reckon, recollect, remember, regret, rejoin, see, suppose, suspect, think, understand.

b. acknowledge, advocate, anticipate, add, announce, allow, affirm, adjudge, accept, ascertain, attest, aver (=state), avow, assert, bear in mind that, beg, cable, conjecture, conclude, concur, counter, charge, comprehend, choose, conjecture, confess, conceive,confide, confirm, contend, contrive, denote, decree, deduce, demand, demonstrate, denote, direct, dictate, discern, disclose, discover, dispute, divine, dread, deny, declare, desire, determine, direct, disclose, discover, exclaim, establish, enact, emphasize, envisage, estimate, explain, forebode, foreordain, forecast, forbid, foresee, foretell, gauge, gesture, grant, guarantee, hold, hypothesize, have (it) that, judge, intend, intimate, imagine, infer, insinuate, intuit, judge, imply, lament, mention, murmur, mutter, muse, mumble, moan out, order, own ('confess'), notice, note, propose, protest, prescribe, profess, pronounce, proclaim, presuppose, preordain, prefer, predicate, pledge, pray, point out, pronounce, reason, recall, recognize, recommend, reflect, repeat, reply, report, require, return, roar (out), rule, scream, smell, sense, settle, speculate, sense, settle, speculate, state, submit, suggest, smell, surmise, specify, swear, suss, testify, theorize, twig, undertake, urge, volunteer, vow, verify, watch, wish, tolerate (3) A. He had long advocated that the country should become a republic./He affirmed that he was responsible./ I cannot accept that he is to blame./ She acknowledged that the equipment had been incorrectly installed. / As a postscript to his letter, he added that he loved her. /I admit that I was wrong./ He allowed that I had the right to appeal./ The director announced that she would resign. / She answered that she preferred to eat alone. /We anticipate that demand is likely to increase./ I appreciate that you may have prior commitments./ I ascertain that the report is accurate./ She asserted that she was innocent./ She averred that there was no risk. / Id love to play tennis with you, but please bear in mind that this is only the second time Ive played. / She begged that her husband might be released./. She cabled that she would arrive on 15 May. /Scientists have calculated that the worlds population will double by the end of the century. I think I remembered to turn the oven off but youd better check up that I did./ The tribunal has commanded that all copies of the book must be destroyed./ I cannot conceive that he would wish to harm us./ The jury concluded that she was guilty./ He confessed that he had not been telling the truth. /He confided that he had applied for another job. /When asked, she confirmed that she was going to retire./ He conjectured that the population might double in ten years./ We consider that you are not to blame. / I would contend that unemployment is our most serious social evil./We contrived that she would leave early that day./ I pointed out the shortcomings of the scheme, but he countered that the plans were not yet finished./ The king charged that his ministers had disobeyed instructions. r. The minister certified that his trip abroad was necessary. / I soon discerned that the man was lying. / I declare that the war is over. / Fate decreed that they would not meet again If a=b and b=c, we can deduce that a=c. / He demands that he be told everything./ The first six months results demonstrate convincingly that the scheme works./ The mark denotes that a word has been left out. / He denied that he had been involved./ We determined that wed make an early start./ We soon discerned that there was no easy solution./ The government disclosed that another diplomat had been arrested for spying. /We discovered that our luggage had been stolen. /There is no disputing that the treaty is important./ I dont doubt that hell come./ He emphasized that careful driving was important. /Please ensure that all the lights are switched off at night. / It is envisaged that the motorway will be completed by next spring./ Weve established that hes innocent./ Council officials estimated that the work would take three months./ He had exclaimed that he had never even met her./ He explained that his train had been delayed. /He fancied that he heard footsteps

behind him./He sometimes fantasized that he had won a gold medal. / He foresaw that the job would take a long time./ The teacher forecasts that only five of these pupils would pass the examination . / She's never a cheerful person, she always forebodes that the worst will happen./ The gypsy foretold that she would never marry. / He gestured that it was time to go./ They guarantee that the debts will be paid./Can you guess her age? Id guess that shes about thirty./I still hold that the governments economic policies are mistaken. /Copernicus hypothesized that the earth and the other planets went round the sun./ Are you implying that Im wrong?/ She indicated that I should wait a minute./ It can be inferred that the company is bankrupt. / Are you insinuating that I am a liar?/ He judged that it was time to leave. /They lamented that so many hedges had been destroyed. /Learn that its no use blaming other people ./ He has always maintained that he was not guilty of the crime./ I never meant that you should come alone. / It is worth mentioning that banks often close early before a holiday./ Mr Chairman, I move that a vote be taken on this. / She mumbled that she didnt want to get up yet. / He murmured that he wanted to sleep. / I objected that he was too young for the job. / She observed that hed left but made no comment. / Fate ordained that they would never meet again. / .She perceived that he was unhappy. / The union have pledged that they will never strike./ They prayed that she would recover.. / She predicted that the election result would be close. / I would prefer that you did not print this story./ Police regulations prescribe that an officers number must be clearly visible. / Approval of the plan presupposes that the money will be made available. / The doctor pronounce that he was fit enough to return to work. / She protested that she had never seen him before./ I read that he had resigned. / She reaffirmed that she was prepared to help. / She realized that he had been lying. / He reasoned that if we started at 6 am we would be there by midday. / He reasserted that all parties should be involved in the negotiations. / She recalled that he had left early that day. / They failed to recognize that there was a problem. / I recollect that you denied it./ I regret that I cannot help./ Let me reiterate that we are fully committed to this policy. / Remember (that) were going out tonight./ He replied that he was busy. / A special news bulletin reported that he had died. / He retorted that it was my fault as much as his. / I can now reveal that the Princess is to marry in August. / The chairman ruled that the question was out of order./.Semaphore that help is needed ./

Ellen shouted that she couldnt hear properly. / The figures clearly show that her claims are false. I could smell (that) he had been smoking./ The judge ruled that he must stop beating his wife. / I could smell that the milk wasn't fresh. /A police surgeon stated that the man had died from wounds to chest and head./ The job advertisement stipulated that all applicants should have at least 3 years experience. / I must stress that what I say is confidential./ The Counsel for the defence submitted that his client was clearly innocent. / His cool response suggested that he didnt like the idea. /I strongly suspect that they are trying to get rid of me. /She swore that shed never seen him. / He taught that the earth revolves around the sun./ The hijackers threatened that they would kill all the passengers if their demands were not met. /I trust (that) shes not seriously ill. / I quite understand that you need a change./ The computer will verify that the data has been loaded correctly. He vowed that one day he would return./ They verified that he was the true owner of the house. /In his latest book, he writes that the theory has since been disproved.

B We advised that they should start early.('recommended'). / I wish you hadnt told me all this. ./ I arranged that we could borrow their car. The regulations specify that calculators may no be

used in the examination. / They requested that they free the hostages. / The situation requires that I (should) be there. /The law dictates that everyone be treated equally. /The court directed that he should pay a substantial fine./ I insist that you take immediate action to put this right. /The evening didnt turned out as I intended (that it should)./ I intend that you shall take over the business after me./ The judge ordered that the prisoner should be released./ It was proposed that membership fees should be increased. /A clause in the agreement provides that the tenant shall pay for repairs to the building. / She urged that there should be no violence during the demonstration./ Structural possibilities of realizing the complement construction, with a factive verb know (4) a. The police already know that Oliver is a spy. b. The police already know Oliver is a spy. c. That Oliver is a spy, the police already know t. d. The police have known it all along that Oliver is a spy e. That Oliver is a spy is already known by the police. f. It is already known by the police that Oliver is a spy. 2.1. THAT Deletion In what follows we will examine these patterns in turn. Sentences (4b) and (5) illustrate that Deletion. (5) a. I guess youre feeling tired after your journey. b. How dare you infer (that) she is dishonest?

The omission of that is an optional rule influenced by structural, lexical and register factors. In the previous chapter we have identified the structural constraints on that deletion: namely, it is impossible for subject and topicalized clauses (i.e., in preverbal position), but possible in postverbal position. The lexical factor: selection of the appropriate verb: Only some verbs (listed in (2b) above) allow that Deletion. Here are a few examples in sentences: (6) The prisoner alleges he was at home on the night of the crime. I automatically assumed he had told her. /She still believe the world was flat. /I dare say you are British, but you still need a passport to prove it./ I dreamt I could fly. / I expect Ill be back on Sunday. / I fear he may die./ We all feel our luck was about to turn./ I figured you wouldnt come. / God / Heaven forbid (that) shes fallen down the cliff. Did you forget I was coming?/ I gather you wanted to see me./ I grant (that) shes a clever woman, but I wouldnt want to work for her. / I heard you were ill. / Imagine you are on a desert island./ She noted his hands were dirty./ I noticed (that) he left early. I own (that) it was entirely my fault. / I presume (that) you still want to come./ / I reckon (that) hes too old for the job./ Id recommend (that) you see a solicitor. / I know its not right for me to talk like this about my father. / She pretended (that) she was not at home when we rang the bell. / He said (that) his friends name was Sam. / Although she didnt say anything, I sensed (that) she didnt like the idea. / What makes you suppose (that) Im against it? / We can only surmise (that) he must have had an accident. / She felt she was on the way to worshipping him. Register In conversation, the omission of that is the norm, while the retention of that is exceptional. At the opposite end, the retention of that is the norm in academic prose. Several factors, midway between syntax and discourse, may favour the omission of that ( cf. Longman Grammar) :the use of frequent main verbs like think or say in the MC; b) the occurrence of a (coreferent) pronominal subject in the subordinate clause, marking the boundary of the clause: (7) a. I think I'll make a shopping list today. b. He said he probably would not have come back before President Gorbachev launched his perestroika policy.

Other factors that favour the retention of that. a) First that tends to be retained under co-ordination: (8) The major conclusion of both studies was that the nation and particularly the state of Florida must quickly reduce their large reliance on foreign oil and that conservation measures and increased reliance on the abundant national supply of coal were the major alternatives. b) A passive main clause also favours the retention of that (9) I was told that both the new right and those who support the government's had been excluded. view

c) Proximity or distance to the main verb is also important. An intervening NP, PP, AdvP etc. favours the retention of that: (10) He testified under oath that he had not been at the scene of the crime 2.2. Topicalization. Direct Object clauses may be topicalized. They appear in sentence initial position, and represent known information with respect to previous discourse and with the rest of the complex sentence. (11) [That Oliver is a spy] the police have known all along t.

Technically, the topicalized clause moves to some left periphery position. Topicalization is an operator variable construction, which means that the trace left behind should be case-marked. When the topicalized clause is a Direct Object, the trace left behind is case-marked by the main clause verb. 2.3. Heavy NP Shift. The DO clause is focussed and thus undergo Heavy NP Shift, over a PP, or an AdvP. (12 ) Antonia suggested of her own accord [that she might go down and stay with Alexander at Rambers]./ He knew from experience[ that the boy hated being asked what he was reading]./ I think honestly [that this is a good thing]. d. You knew bloody well [that this would hurt me]./ She minded very much[ that he had not come]. I shall prove to you that the witness is lying. 2.4. Passivization. A direct object clause may be passivized as in (4e), (13a). Passive may combine with Extraposition, as in (13 b-e). (13) a. That he would let her do it sooner or later was expected by all of them. b. It was declared by my nurse first that I was destined to be unlucky life, and secondly that I was privileged to see ghosts and spirits. c. It must be admitted that on this particular Sunday morning he had received and refused two invitations. d. It has been decided that the book should be revised. e. It was enacted that offenders be brought before Council 2.5. Clausal substitutes. With weak assertive verbs generally, but with other verbs as well ( e.g. know, declare), the DO clause may be replaced by so in addition to the prono-minal substitutes it/ that. So may be fronted, in operator position , as in (14c), and it appears in idiomatic constructions such as I told you so, etc. in

(14)

a. Is he coming? I believe so. b. Will you be late? I expect so. c. Theyve split up or so Ive been told. d. He loves to say I told you so when things go wrong.

2.6. Object Extraposition This structure has already been discussed in detail. Three practical points have been established: a. This construction is possible when the pronoun it may be interpreted as designating an event, rather than merely a proposition. b. The CP is presupposed to be true, so that the verb either is factive or acquires a factive reading. (15) The police know it for a fact that he is a spy.

c. Thirdly, there is a class of idiomatic constructions where the extraposed construction is obligatory: have it that..., see to it that, take it from smb that, lay it down that, etc. The it+CP structure is a means of recategorizing the verb, which turns into a clause-taking verb with a specialised meaning: (16) a. He has it that the trains are running late. b. The Madrid rumour will have it that the leading candidate to succeed Arias eventually would be Jose Maria Areilsa. c. Looking back on the scene, I felt admiration for the way in which from the start,Palmer took it that something catastrophic and irrevocable had occurred. /I take it you wont be coming to Sophies party. d. Take it from me hell be a millionaire before hes 30. e. It is laid down that all candidates must submit three copies of their dissertation. 3. Complex Predicates that select DO that clauses. Verbs takes a clausal DO and an IO or PO. They occur in the context [--DPPP] and are mostly 'communication' verbs. Many of these verbs show the Dative alternations. (24) They read the story to the child. They read the child the story.

The Longman Grammar mentions the following s verbs as registered in the pattern verb+ to NP + that clause, thus appearing in the prepositional Dative construction (25) (notably common verbs) :suggest, indicate, prove, cable, convey, demonstrate, pray, reveal, signify, submit, write; (other verbs) admit, announce, insist, acknowledge, boast, complain, concede, confess, confide, cry, declare, demonstrate, emphasize, explain, express, explicate, grant, hint, imply, mention, mutter, point out, proclaim, propose, radio, remark, recommend, reply, read, report, reveal, respond, repeat, shout, shriek, state, stress, swear, testify telephone, vow, whisper, fax, e-mail, etc Semantically , these are speech act verbs (e.g. announce, complain, confess, declare), manner of communication verbs shout, read, write) or instrumental communication verbs (telephone, cable, fax, etc) As shown in detail in Green (1974: 86), for some of these verb, the double object construction ( the Dative Movement structure) is marginal (e.g. explain, recommend, recount), and there are also quite a few verbs of communication which permit only the prepositional Dative construction (mention, mumble, admit, shriek, confess, declare, narrate, report, utter, voice, reveal, repeat, demonstrate, explicate, confide a.o.) Structural possibilities (strategies of observing end focus and end weight): (26) The double object construction

a. They telegraphed us that father had died. (Lg) b. He cabled her that she should join him at once. c. She promised him that she'd never lie to him again. She promised me (that) she would be here. d. The thief signalled his friend that the police were coming. f. We radioed (them) that we were in trouble. g. Theyve told us (that) theyre not coming. (27) Heavy NP Shift a. They acknowledged to us that they were defeated.(Lg) b. Her face betrayed to an observer that she was seriously ill.(Lg) c. The priest preached to large crowds that God would soon destroy the evil world. d. Ely confided to me that something out of this world had taken place. e. It was in vain to represent to her that some conveniences, teaperhaps included, resulted from this objectionable practice.(Di) g. The lawyer represented to the court that the defendant was mentally unstable h. She has intimated to us that she no longer wishes to be considered for the post. (28) Extraposition a. I explained it to John that the car was out of order. b. He owes it to his father's influence that the committee appointed him to the position. / We owe it to our customers to give them the best possible service. c. I put it to you that he knew everything from the beginning. / I put it to you that you are the only person who had a motive for the crime. (29) VP V0 CP that he was wrong V0 explain VP V' PP to John

Passive variants In the prepositional constructions, the DO merges as the specifer of a lower verb shell, as in (29). The DO complement clause may be passivized in patterns with prepositional Datives. Passive may be accompanied by Extraposition ( and HNPS of the former object clause, as in (32)). (30) a. They suggested a good solution to us. b. A good solution was suggested to them by us. (31) a. They suggested to us that it might be better to wait. b. That it might be better to wait was suggested to us by them c. It was suggested to us by them that it might be better (32) a. It has often been said to the press that it was the African and Arabs who prevented Israel from becoming a member of the European regional group. The IO is also passivizable in the double object construction. (33) a. He was told that she had checked out of the hospital. (LONG) b. And worried executives of the Australian news network have been told that visas to Indonesian Timor, normally available within three days, will now take three weeks to process.

Other verb classes In addition to the subclass of Dative Movement verbs, there are several verbs that take a clausal DO and a [+Human] PO: (34) blame, beg, ask, request, require, etc. (35) a. He blamed it on me that we had had an accident. b. I requested it of them. / c. I requested of him the she he ( should ) leave. d. I begged of them that I may be allowed to go. 4. That clauses as Subjects Transitive psychological verbs These accept a clausal subject and an Experiencer Direct Object; (hence the name Object Experiencer verbs often attributed to them (Pesetsky (1997))). (36) alarm, amaze, anger, annoy, astonish, astound, attract, baffle, bedevil, boast, bother, bore, charm, cheer, calm, comfort, compliment, concern, confuse, delight, discourage, disgust, displease, dismay, distress, elate, embarrass, enchant, enrage, frighten, floor, gladden, gratify, nonplus, humble, hurt, horrify, insult, interest, imitate, madden, rattle, pain, please, relieve, sadden, satisfy, scare, sicken, soothe, surprise, sustain, tempt, torment, trouble. Structural possibilities (37) a. That nothing came out of it intrigues me. b. It intrigues me that nothing came out of it. c. I am intrigued that nothing came out of it.

Statistically extraposed clauses are by far more frequent, but topicalised subject clauses are nevertheless possible, even if infrequent Corpus examples: (38) Topic subject clause a. That she would press me to marry her was of course out of the question. b. That I could love such a person was a revelation and something of a triumph

(39)

Extraposition+It insertion a. It stirs me that I was thought worthy. b. I was very relieved that I had not sent her the first letter. c. It grieved him that his children were almost totally indifferent to this requirement. It amazed her that he was still alive. / It astonishes me that no one has thought of this before. / It bothers me that he can be so insensitive. / It concerns me that you no longer seem to care. / It frightens me that so many countries now possess nuclear weapons. / It grieves me to have to say it, but you have only yourself to blame. / It irritates me that I have to tidy up after others. / It maddens me that she was chosen instead of me! / It pains me to have to tell you this. / It peeves me that they are so unreliable. / It riles me that he wont agree. / It saddens me to see all their efforts wasted. / It staggers me that the government are doing nothing about it. / Would it surprise you that Im thinking of leaving? / It vexed her that she had forgotten Peters birthday. (40) Passive d. I was pleased that they had recognised my work / I was appalled that the fire was spreading so rapidly. / They were astounded that anyone could survive such a crash / He was disconcerted that

the other guests were formally dressed. /I was gratified that they appreciated what I did for them. / He felt mortified that he hadnt been invited. 4.2. Ergative propositional verbs The following intransitive verbs also apparently select subject that-complements: seem, appear, turn out, come about, come to somebody that, emerge, happen, follow, occur, transpire. Some of these may also accept a prepositional indirect object, seem, occur, appear, happen. Here are examples: (41) a. It turned out that she was a friend of my sister. b. It transpired that the gang had had a contact inside the bank.. c. It seems (to him) that she is right. d. Shes leaving. So it seems. e. It occurred to me that I might have made a mistake. f. It appears (to me)that there has been a mistake. g. It chanced that she was in when he called. h. It suddenly came to her that she had been wrong all along. i. It emerged that officials had taken bribes. j. It happened that she was out when I called. k. You havent got a pair of scissors in your bag, have you? Well, it happens that I have. ( IDM it so happens that.) l. Shes not in the office but it doesnt necessarily follow that shes ill. Properties. Differences between seem verbs and surprise verbs(psych-verbs) a. Seem verbs do not allow the topicalization of their CP complement. The only structure they accept is the it+CP ("extraposed") one: (42) a. It appears /seems /occurred to me that this is the beginning of a revolutionary process. b. *That this is the beginning of a revolutionary process appears / seems/ occurs to me. c. It surprised me that this is the beginning of a revolutionary process. d. That this is the beginning of a revolutionary process surprises me b. The subject position of surprise verbs may be occupied by a thematic DP, the subject position of appear verbs cannot be occupied by any lexical DP in a simple construction. (43) a. This attitude surprises me. b. * This attitude seems. This distribution suggests that the subject position of surprise verbs is thematic, while the subject position of seem verbs is non-thematic, therefore, accessible only to the expletive pronoun it. c. The DO position of the verb surprise is an Acc (usative) position, accessible to a DP. In contrast, in simple sentence constructions, the object position of seem cannot be occupied by a nominal, but only by the (caseless) adverbial clausal substitute so. In contrast, with Acc assigners like believe, which accept so as a clause substituete, so is in complementary distribution with it or this: (44) a. This surprises me. / b. *It seems that / this / c. It seems so. / d. I believe that /this/so. Result: The subject position of seem is non-thematic and the object position of seem is caseless. Such properties indicate that seem verbs are unaccusatives, whose unique clausal argument is internal (an object clause), as in (45). The expletive argument is inserted in Sepc IP to check the strong feature of Tense. (45) IP

just so

DP It I0

I VP V V0 s seem C0 that CP C IP he is late

The complement clause cannot be topicalized, since topicalization leaves behind a case-marked trace, and the internal argument of seem-verbs is not in a case position. 4.4. English also disposes of a fairly restricted class of ergative adjectives which select that complements: a) raising adjectives: certain, likely, unlikely, sure (These allow the Nom+Inf construction) (73) It is certain/ likley sure that john will win John is sure/ likley / certain [ t to win b) some other adjectives like possible, obvious: (74) a. It is obvious that he will win. b. It is possible that I'll pass the course. Evidence that the complement clause is an internal arguments. Subject raising: likely, sure, certain, unlikely (75) a. I'm likely to win. a. I am likely [ t to win b. He is certain to win. b. Only internal arguments may wh-move with a head, though, of course, they need not do so: (76) a. How likely that I'll be on time is it ? b. How possible for me to pass the course is it ? c. How certain/ obvious that he'll win is it ? c. Only internal arguments undergo ellipsis in as structures. These complements pass this test too. (77) a. If we are late, as is likely b. If we are late, as is possible... c. They'll pass, as was certain / obvious from the start. Since these adjectives are ergative, they will be analysed on the model of the appear verbs that have just been discussed. 4.6. Other verbs that take subject that-complements: unergative verbs, a few other (in)transitive verbs or verbal idioms: (78) strike smb as, dawn on smb, cross one's mind, enter smb's mind, etc. escape smb's attention,

(79) a. It never entered my mind that she would tell him about me. b. It might have escaped your notice that Ive been unusually busy recently c. It never crossed my mind that she might lose. d. It finally dawned on me that he had been lying all the time. e. It strikes me that nobody is really in favour of the changes

4.7. Subject that clauses also occur with the so-called bisentential verbs ( prove, show, imply, entail, indicate, mean, suggest, etc.), that is, verbs which accept clauses as both subjects and objects: (80) [That his fingerprints] were on her throat] shows/means/ proves/ entails [that he was unfond of her] Bisentential verbs are subject The Same Side Filter Constraint due to Ross (1973): (81) The Same Side Filter No sentence can have both complements of a bisentential verb on the side of the verb. Extraposition is impossible for the subject clause of these verbs (82) That he was dripping wet proved that it had been raining. *It proved that it had ben raining that he was dripping. same

Topicalization is impossible for the object clause of these verbs, since its outcome would place both complement of the verbs to the left of the main verb: (83) That her knife was bent demonstrated conclusively that she was guilty. *That she was guilty that her knife was bent demonstrated conclusively. 4.8. Unergative adjectives that occur with subject that clauses. Semantically they are modal or evaluative ( emotive). Quite a few of them may also take a prepositional Indirect Object with to, for, of . The clause is either topicalized or extraposed. (84) a. likely, unlikely, (un)certain, true, probable, (im)possible, feasible, etc; b. quaint, definite, doubtful, evident, odd, anomalous, appropriate, awkward, loathsome, ironical, burdensome, clever, considerable, fair, fine, fantastic, meet and proper, funny, fortunate, good, bad, helpful, important, immaterial, inconvenient, incredible, crucial, essential, lucky, sufficient, natural, normal, alarming, astonishing, surprising, insulting, gratifying, splendid, queer, etc. (85) a. That John won was essential ( to his wife). b. It was essential (to his wife) that John won.

The copula be takes an adjectival small clause. The finite clause is the subject of the small clause. The pronoun it in (85b) is an expletive place holder for the subject. The two clauses are represented below: (86) a. That John won was essential ( to his wife). b. TP CP That John won T' T0 V0 was CP tCP VP V' SC AP essential

(86) a. It was essential (to his wife) that John won. b. DP TP T'

It

T0 V0

VP V' SC SC was DP tit AP essential CP that John left

Here are more examples. (87) a. It is also true that, by some metamorphosis brought about by its own violence, it can live on anything. b. It was evident in a way that it was almost consoling that Antonia and Palmer were very much in love. c. It was immediately and indubitably apparent that I had interrupted a scene of lovers. d. It was ironical that a week ago I had seemed in secure possession of two women. (88) a. It was evident to me that I had not yet accepted that I had lost her. b. That the candidate did not have the slightest chance of winning the was now clear to everyone. c. It was clever of him that he waited. d. It's only incidental to our cause that the defendant is known to be a politician. election shrewd

4.9. Nouns mostly from the same semantic area as the predicates above can also be used as predicatives selecting subject that clauses: (89) problem, thing, fact, idea , impediment, surprise, miracle, (no) wonder, mystery, etc. (90) a. It's a wonder you weren't all killed. b. But it was a sad paradox of their relationship that Tim was continually trying to please Mary by a parade of his scanty learning. 5. That Complements as Prepositional Objects. 5.1. That clauses are also selected by prepositional Verbs and adjectives selecting prepositional thatcomplements. The complement clauses systematically alternates with a PP, as in (92). The expected patterns occur: that-omission, HNPS and (seldom) Extraposition from PO position (91)a. agree, argue, boast (about), brag (of, about), complain (of, about), fret (about), comment (on), rejoice (at), remark, marvel (at), resolve, respond, see to, testify (to), theorize (about, on), speculate (on), worry (about), wager (on), swear (to); ~IDM : cross ones fingers b. bet (on)conceive (of), insist (on), hope (for) learn (about, of). vote (for), wonder (at, about), (Verbs in B are marked in Longman (1978), as allowing That omission), etc (92) The company insists on the highest standards from its suppliers. / I insist that he did nothing wrong. / She was always bragging about her cottage in Italy. / They bragged that they had never been defeated. (93)He agreed that I could go home early. / I argued that we needed a larger office. / He boasted that he was the best player in the team. / Holiday-makers complained bitterly that the resort was filthy. / Asked about the date of the election, the prime minister commented that no decision had yet been made. / Im crossing my fingers that my proposal will be accepted. / I often marvel that people can treat each other so badly. / Critics remarked that the play was not original. / We rejoiced that the war

was over. / When asked for his reaction, he responded that he was not surprised. / She resolved that she would never see him again. / I can only speculate that he left willingly. / Id wager that she knows more than shes saying. That-omission (94) I bet he arrives late he always does. I vote we stay here. (no passive) I dont wonder you got angry I would have done too. HNPS He reflected sadly that he had probably made the wrong decision about the job.

(95)

(96) Extraposition a. Can you swear to it ? b. Can you swear that the accused man was at your home all Friday evening? c. Can you swear to it that the accused man was at your house all Friday evening ? e. You may depend upon it hat every member of the Committee will support your f. I will answer for it that the man is honest. Please see to it that no one comes in without identification ( =obj= that clause) He testified to it that she had seen him leaving

proposal.(Hb).

Transitive vs. Prepositional Verbs Although on the surface there is little difference between transitive and prepositional verbs when they select clauses so that certain grammarians prefer to lump them together (an examples is Longman Grammar (2000), there are significant distributional differences between a verb like remark, insist and a verb like believe a) Only the complement of a transitive verb undergoes topicalization. (97) a. That Bob had left he didn't believe. b. *That Bob had left, he didn't remark/ warn/ wonder. b) Only the complement of transitive verbs can passivize: (98) a. It was believed that Bob had managed to leave. b. *It was warned/ boasted that Bob had managed to leave In fact both topicalization and the passivization are possible if the verb surfaces with a preposition: (99) That they should go there at once was insisted on tCP by the police. That you may lose your fortune I surely worry about. The preposition also surfaces when there is Extrapostion from object position and it is also possible to have both extraposition and passive: (100) a. I will answer for it that we get there in time. b. It was strongly insisted on by all of them that you should do it as soon as possible. The different behaviour of transitive and prepositional verbs is expected. Thus, since Topicalization is an operator-variable rule, traces of the topicalized clause should be in a position of case. When the verb is prepositional and the preposition is absent, topicalization is impossible 5.2. Adjectival selectors of that-clauses These adjectives subcategorize for [-PP/CP]. When the clause is topicalized, extraposed or cleft the obligatory preposition reappears, as seen in (108). Attested examples are given in (109).

(107) afraid of / CP, alarmed at/CP, ashamed of/CP, amazed at /CP, annoyed at/ CP, aware of/CP, angry about /CP, concerned about/CP, conscious of/CP, desirous of/CP, delighted at/CP, glad about/CP, irritated at /CP, hopeful of/CP, indicative of/CP sorry for/CP, sure of/CP confident in /CP, certain of/CP, surprised at/CP, thankful for/CP, happy about/CP. (108) a. We are fully aware of the gravity of the situation. b. Are you aware that you are sitting on my hat ? c. I wasn't fully aware of it that things were so bad. d. What she is not aware of is that her slip is showing.

(109) I was thankful that Sybil was so independent and self-sufficient. She was determined that there should be no repetition of the weakness and indecision of the day before 5.3. Transitive prepositional verbs, subcategorized for [- DPCP/PP] . The clause alternates with a prepositional phrase. Since the verbs are transitive, passive constructions are available, so that these verbs, listed in (110) realize the paradigm in (111): (110) advise NP of / that, accuse NP of/that, assure NP of/CP, congratulate NP on /CP, forewarn NP of /CP, charge NP wit /CP, flatter NP CP, kid NP CP, instruct NP in /CP, (mis)inform NP of/ CP, notify NP of /CP, persuade NP of/CP, convince NP of/NP, tip NP off/ that, warn NP of/CP (111) a He informed me of their willingness to help. b. He informed the manager that he was willing to work overtime. c. We were informed that very few children continue in church membership. (112) We were not advised that the date of the meeting had been changed. / What she said convinced me that I was wrong. / We are pleased to inform you that you have been accepted for a place on our MBA course / He kidded his mother that he was ill. / She finally persuaded us that she was telling the truth. / They warned her that if she did it again she would go to prison. / He notified us that he was going to leave. / How can Japan best convince the United States it isn't shirking its defences obligations? (113) Passive

It is charged that on 30 November, the accuser made an important statement. He flatters himself that he speaks French well. / We had been forewarned that violence could occur. / We are instructed by our clients that you owe them $3 000. / The police were tipped off that the criminals were planning to rob the bank. (114) HNPS I assure you sincerely that there is no such possibility. 6. That clauses as noun modifier ( attributes) Two types of nouns may select that complements as their internal arguments; these are: a) nouns that name abstract entities: proposition, idea , fact, etc. b) nominalizations of the verbs and adjectives that select that complements: belief, conception, fear, doubt, possibility, probability, etc. (115) Betsy. c. The most dramatic evidence that Thailand's rulers are finally making some headway came last week. Attributive clauses may undergo Extraposition from NP, being right adjoined to the VP: a. I suppose there is no doubt that I'll get in. b. A the second glance, my mother had a sure foreboding that it was Miss

(116)

An intoxicating sense tCP possessed me [ that at last we were treated on equal terms].

7. That clauses as predicatives That clauses may also function as predicatives in equative sentences, where the subject is a noncomplex abstract NP or even a clause. (117) a. The devil of it was that I needed both of them. b. My second and more terrible apprehension was that I was in possession of an advantage which I must not lose. 8. That complements as adverbial clauses. General considerations on adverbial clauses. a) Adverbial clauses do not subcategorize predicates. Hence they seldom appear in head-complement configurations. b) Adverbials are not pure grammatical relations like subjects and objects, but they contract syntacticsemantic relations with their heads (s-selection). Hence they are usually classified and interpreted in terms of the semantic notions they express, rather than in terms of their structural properties. Traditionally they are described as being formed of a subordinate conjunction (although, because), or a conjunctive phrase (with a view to, on condition that) or an adverb with conjunctive role (when, where), followed by a finite or non-finite clause. Categorial analysis Adverbials show very great categorial diversity. Simple adverbials are mainly AdvPs ( yesterday, there), and PPs ( in the evening), but also NPs (last night, next week). Complex adverbials are represented by various types of embedded clauses: that-complements, infinitives, free relative clauses, etc. In this section we examine that complements as part of adverbials. According to a categorial perspective, there are several models of adverbials that may have a that complement as a constituent. 7.1. The Prepositional Phrase model There are adverbial clauses which are generated under a prepositional phrase node. In most cases, the clause is traditionally said to be headed by a "conjunctive phrase". But the conjunctive phrase is in fact a PP, and the that clause is a complement to the noun introduced by the preposition. The meaning of the head noun roughly indicates the semantic interpretation of the clause. Thus, a conjunctive phrase like on the ground that introduces an adverbial of reason, etc. At the same time, the meaning of the noun also dictates whether the indicative or the subjunctive is chosen in the that clause. Compare: (118) a. He didn't go there for fear that he should be caught. b. He did it in the hope that they would help him.

The following are some of the PPs that may be used to introduce finite adverbial clauses: (119) for fear (that), on the ground that, in order that, to the end that, in the hope that, to the intent that, on purpose that, in case(that), in the event that, on/upon condition that, by reason that, etc.// except for the fact, but for the fact that, in spite of the fact that etc. (120) a. Wine is scarce by reason that it is prohibited. b. They dislike her on the ground that she is too haughty. c. I was sent to stay with my aunt Prue in London, in order that I might attend one of the schools of art. d. She sent me after you, for fear you should offend Mr. Pendennis. I know nothing about him, save for the fact that he is very young.

Less frequently, the preposition is directly followed by a that complement clause. This possibility existed for many prepositions formerly, in other words many prepositions could select CPs, as remarked by Poutsma (1929: 657) :" Adverbial clauses are introduced by a great variety of conjunctions and conjunctive expressions, most of which, on being traced to their origin, will be found to consist of an adverbial adjunct followed by either that or as." Here are a few early Modern English examples, due to Poutsma (op.cit), where prepositions no longer followed by that in contemporary English, are followed by that clauses: (121) a. They were our guides at first, until that we reached the green hills. b. Before that Philip called the, I saw thee. c. Though that the queen on special cause is here, her army is moved on. / He could not be silent long, because that his troubles increased At present, most prepositions select IPs, rather than CPs. Surveying the list of English prepositions, allowing clausal complements, several subcategories appear to be available. There are prepositions that c-select DPs or IPs, [---DP], [---IP]; this is a well-represented group: after, before, until, till, since (temporal) (see examples in (122)). There are some prepositions (e.g., because) which c- select both PPs and IPs, [--PP], [--IP] ( examples in (123)). There are many prepositions which c-select only IPs, i.e. they are always "conjunctions", [--IP]; for instance, as, although, if, though, unless, lest, since (causal) ( examples in (124). Finally, there are a few prepositions that still allow CPs, or both CPs and IPs [--CP]: in that, beyond that, save (that), except( that), besides that, but that, a.o. (122) He left after her arrival / after she arrived. Come before noon. He came before Jane left for London. (123) I did it because of my temper / because I was very angry. (124) Although he is poor, he is happy. / Unless I hear the contrary, I'll be there. / One day she spoke out, as she had told Sam she would if Matt and his lot kept bellyaching about his Squire. / I'm sure of that, though she never said it in so many words./ Since these men could not be convinced, it was determined that they would be persecuted. (125) a. You can find one reason in that she was too tired to do it. b. I can say no more beyond that you have made me inexpressibly happy. A few conjunctive connectors are composed of a specifying adverb followed by the a preposition, only if, even though, even if, or one preposition may take a PP complement as in: as if, as though, as to (126) I could be happy, if only I could get out of this place. /You look as if you've been running../ Why is she looking at me as though she knew me ? Even though I didn't know anybody at the party, I had a good time. 7.3 A number of verb-based prepositions are also available, derived from present or past participles, but entered in the lexicon as prepositions. They inherit the c-selection properties of the verbs and select that complements: provided that, providing that, concerning that, given that, supposing that, suppose that, excepting that, granting that, etc. (127) Provided that all is safe, you may depart./You can find no reason excepting that he is young and shy./Supposing that) you fell in love with your boss, what would you do? You can borrow my bike providing that you bring it back. 7.4. The Degree Phrase model That clauses often function as result clauses. Finite result clauses employ the degree determiners so with adjectives and adverbs and such with DPs, in the illustrated in (128). Result clauses presuppose the presence of gradable predicate / property ( adjectives, adverbs, a few nouns like fool, etc.), manifested in such high degree ( so, such) that a certain result follows ( the complement clause).: (128) He is so old that he cannot dance the polka. He was so wild that we let him escape. It flies so fast that it can beat the speed record. I enjoyed it so much that I'm determined to do it again.

I so much enjoyed it that I am determined to do it again. He polishes the floor so hard that you could see your face in it. It's such a good chance that we mustn't miss it. He is such a liar that nobody believes him any more. Notice that the gradual predicate may be missing, and in such cases, the degree determiner such appears with an ungradable noun, and some suitable adjective is implicit in the context. Thus such a girl in (129a) presumably means 'nice girl', 'sweet girl', etc.: (129) a. She is such a girl that we can't help loving her. b. He has lived such a life that he cannot expect sympathy now. It is also possible for such to function as a predicative adjective. Again another adjective is implicit, and such+ the implicit adjective refer to the subject DP. (130) a. The nature of power is such that even those who have not sought it, tend to acquire a taste for more. b. His answer was such that we could not doubt his veracity. Finally notice that the complement clause itself may originate inside such an adjectival phrase with an implicit head. (131) He gave an answer, such that we could not doubt his veracity. ENGLISH COMPLEMENTATION Spring 2010 THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN THAT CLAUSES 1.On the concept of modality. Traditional grammarians have long noticed that the opposition between the indicative and the subjunctive mood is semantic, each grammatical form being suitable in a coherent class of contexts. Curme (1931) opposed the two moods as representing the mood of fact (=the indicative) vs. the mood of a mere conception of the mind (= the subjunctive). More recently (cf. Farkas (1985), Boskovics (1997)) a.o) a widespread semantic account claims that the indicative is the mood of realis contexts, whereas the subjunctive is the mood of irrealis contexts. 1.1. Mood and modality. The basic assumption is that the grammatical category of Mood is one way of expressing the general notion of modality. Modal attitudes and concepts are variously expressed by lexical means (verbs, adjectives), as well as by functional elements such as the English modal verbs or the grammatical moods of the verb. The logical notion of modality presupposes the existence of modal operators. A modal operator is one which, when it is appended to a proposition, yields another proposition. Roughly speaking, the modal operator expresses an attitude towards the operand proposition. Thus, in all the examples below, the modal operators (italicized) express attitudes towards the proposition Tom is the murderer. Conversation unfolds against a common ground, i.e., the set of propositions taken for granted in a context. Let us refer to this as the conversational background. The propositions in the conversational background play an important role in human reasoning, since they are taken as implicit premises in the judgements speakers make. These implicit premises are sometimes explicitly signalled by using phrases of the type: by virtue of what is known, by virtue of what is reasonable, etc. The propositions in the conversational background determine a set of contexts worlds, containing all the worlds in which these propositions are true. (1) a. Tom is the murderer. c. Tom might be the murderer. b. Tom must be the murderer. d. It is believed by the police that Tom is the murderer (but they are wrong). e. It is possible that Tom is the murderer. f. Necessarily, Tom is the murderer.

g. The police declared that Tom was the murderer. Some key notions of modal semantics

Consider now the interpretation of the examples in (1 a-g). In uttering (1a), the speaker makes an (unmodalized) assertion. His statement expresses a commitment that the proposition that Tom is the murderer is true in the real world. Sentence (1a) must also be true in all of the context worlds, determined by the conversational background. In contrast to (1a), sentences (1b) and (1c) contain modal operators and express modalized assertions. Sentences (1b) and (1c) are conclusions that the speaker may draw on the basis of what is known in the context. Therefore they rely on an epistemic conversational background. Sentences (1b) and (1c) differ regarding the strength of the conclusion. Sentence (1c), containing the modal might, says that given what is known, it is not impossible for Tom to be the murderer. For (1c) to be true it is enough that the proposition that Tom is the murderer should be true in one world consistent with what is known. A similar idea is expressed in (1e), which has truth conditions quite similar to (1c), except that the modal operator is the adjective possible. In contrast, for (1b) to be true, given what is known in the current situation, the proposition Tom is the murderer must be true in all the worlds which are epistemically possible, i.e., in agreement with what is known. These examples show what ingredients are involved in the interpretation of modalized assertions (cf. Kratzer (1981), (1991)): first, there is a conversational background which contributes the premises from which the conclusions are drawn. In the examples above, the conversational background was epistemic, since the evidence involved in drawing the modalized conclusions represented what was known in the context. The background (i.e., the set of premises (propositions) made use of in the modal judgement) determines the set of worlds with respect to which the truth of the modalized proposition is evaluated. A modal base is the set of worlds where all the premises considered true in the modal inference are true. The term modal base is thus a more technical term for 'type of conversational background', since the modal base is the set of worlds where all the propositions considered as premises in the modal inference are true. A second ingredient in interpreting modality is the modal relation, which determines the force of the conclusions drawn with respect to some background or modal base. If the modal base is epistemic, the modal relation differentiates between epistemic possibility (might, possibly) and epistemic necessity (must, in the examples discussed ). In sentence (1d), the modal base introduced by the modal operator believe is doxastic; it includes the propositions which are believed to be true by the police. Sentence (1d) is true if the proposition that Tom is the murderer is true in those worlds which are consistent with the police's beliefs. Notice, as suggested by the bracketed continuation in (1d), that what is believed by the police does not have to be true in the real world. Thus, more generally, the modal base may or may not include the real world. Modal operators express different types of commitments to the truth of the modalized proposition. What changes is the type of world or situation where the modalized proposition is evaluated (e.g., worlds compatible with what is known, worlds compatible with what someone believes, etc.). The modality of the sentence thus signals the context of evaluation of the modalized proposition, a context which is determined at least in part by the modal operator. Types of modal base A conversational background or modal base is realistic when it represents a set of propositions which are true in the given world. It follows that a realistic conversational background is a subset of the common ground. It is signalled by phrases like, in view of facts of such and such kind. A modal base or conversational background is totally realistic when it represents a set of propositions which characterize the given world uniquely. Such a background may be signalled by expressions like in view of what is the case, etc. It is important to notice that asserted propositions like (1a) are evaluated with respect to a totally realistic background.

A weakly realistic conversational background is a set of propositions that merely has an intersection with the common ground. Such is the context created by the verbs like say, declare, as in (1g)), because what we say or declare is not completely based on what is known to be true in the context. The ordering source A particularly salient ingredient in interpreting modality is that it may have, and often does have, a strong normative component. People reason function of ideals which represent perfect behaviour, the realization of all one's wishes etc. This is typically the case of modal operators like want, wish, desire, prefer, etc., but also of deontic modal verbs like should, ought, may . (2) a. Students should be polite to their professors. b. One ought to do one's duty. c. They prefer that the building should be restored at once.

Such modal operators not only introduce a set of alternatives, but also order them function of how close they come to the envisaged ideals. Modal judgements of these type imply not only a modal base (a set of alternative worlds), but also an ordering source, i.e., a set of principles /propositions imposing an ordering among the considered alternatives. Ordering sources capture the observation that the understanding of a modalised sentence often implies the use of idealised states of affairs, describing the world as it should be (according to the law, according to the normal course of events, according to what is desirable, etc.). An ordering source, which is also a set of propositions describing the ideal, orders the worlds in the modal base according to the degree in which they realise the ideal described by the ordering source itself. Ordering sources may be explicitly introduced by such phrases as, in view of what is normal, according to the law, etc. Worlds in the modal base are ordered according to how many propositions in the ordering source (in the ideal) they realise, i.e., how close they get to the ideal. Verbs and other operators which have a stronger or weaker normative component invariably imply a non-realistic modal base, in the sense that we do not require that there should be any intersection between the worlds determined by the conversational contexts and these ideals. We judge not function of what is the case, but function of ideals which may never be actually realized. Conclusion on the semantics of modality. Two semantic parameters are essential in the analysis of modality: the modal base and the ordering source (cf. Kratzer (1981), (1991)). A modal base specifies the world(s) in which the proposition in the scope of the modal is evaluated. The worlds in the modal base are possibly ordered by the ideals in the ordering source, if the respective modality implies one. The joint effect of the modal base and the ordering source is to force the evaluation of the modalised proposition in those worlds of the modal base that better realise the given ideal or norm. The modality of the sentence signals the context of evaluation of the modalized proposition, a set of propositions with respect to which the speaker chooses to consider a particular proposition. In that sense, modality signals a particular attitude of the speaker. The view of modality proposed above comes very close to that proposed by Jespersen (1924), namely that mood describes a characteristic of sentence use. More precisely, it concerns the speaker's commitment about the truth of the sentence in the actual world. It is the notion of speaker commitment that was formalised in terms of the semantic environment where a sentence is to be evaluated.

2. Back to grammatical mood.

A plausible account of grammatical mood must incorporate the distinction between 'notional mood' or modality, which, as already seen, is a semantic classification of the evaluation contexts and grammatical mood.

Grammatical mood is (one of ) the linguistic manifestation(s) of semantic modality. Grammatical mood is a manifestation of a binary classification of the contexts with respect to which propositions are evaluated (cf. Giorgi and Pianesi (1997)). The contexts are classified function of a basic designated one, identifiable as that of basic simple assertion. In this case the base is totally realistic. Contexts sufficiently alike to the basic one use the indicative, contexts sufficiently remote from the basic one use the subjunctive. In this view, the indicative mood appears whenever the complement proposition is asserted or at least evaluated with respect to the real world. The subjunctive appears when the complement is not supposed to be true in the real world, but in a different possible world. The standard context is that of a totally realistic base (the common ground). Contexts of evaluation are ordered function of their similarity to this standard. The rationale of this idea is that notional mood (modality) is a way of classifying sentences with respect to the standard constituted by simple assertions.

It is possible to set up the following hierarchy of contexts of evaluation. (apud Giorgi & Pianesi (1997)). The scale moves from contexts where the ordering source is non-null, so that the sentence is judged to be true in possible worlds conforming to the ideals in the ordering source, to contexts which take into account only what is the case in the particular context of utterance. (3) non-null> non-realistic > weakly realistic > realistic> totally realistic ordering base.

Grammatical mood, the indicative/subjunctive divide, corresponds to a simplification of such a classification into a binary one. Contexts of evaluation similar to the standard one require the indicative, whereas those classified as different require the subjunctive. Similarity to the basic context is, expectedly, a matter of degree. This is why, crosslinguistically, there are a number of contexts where the indicative is consistently used across languages and there are also contexts where the subjunctive is used, likewise, consistently. 3. Operator licensed and lexically licensed subjunctive. Generally the occurrence of the subjunctive in a sentence is the effect of the (implicit or explicit) presence of a modal operators. Modal operators may be lexical categories (verbs, adjectives, nouns) or they may be functional categories, such as negation. (4) a. b. They require that new solutions should be sought. I don't believe that he should win the competition

As a result, there is a distinction between lexically licensed subjunctive and operator licensed subjunctive. Since we are interested in mood choice in subordinate clauses, we shall mostly be concerned with the lexically licensed subjunctive, since it is the main verb which is the modal operator chiefly responsible for the selection of a particular modal base and ordering source, determining the context of evaluation for the subordinate clause. 3.1. Lexical licensers of modality. Strong and Weak Intensional Verbs

To understand why the subjunctive and the indicative appear where they do a classification of the subordinate contexts is needed, function of the semantics of the main verbs. The semantic mechanism is, roughly, the following: the modal operator, i.e. the main verb, determines the context of evaluation, and the context of evaluation is signalled by the choice of grammatical mood (indicative vs. subjunctive). Several semantic features which may characterise verbal concepts prove to be relevant in classifying of evaluation contexts and thus in determining mood choice. Farkas (1982) offers an insightful characterization of the difference between verb like believe, hope which use the indicative, even though they express modal concepts, and verbs like desire, wish, which use the subjunctive. Verbs like believe, hope are labelled weak intensional. They may be said to introduce just one alternative to the context-world, that possible situation/world where the proposition believed or hoped for is true. Since normativity (=an ordering source) is not involved, it is not necessary to introduce an ordering on possible worlds, so one alternative course of affairs is sufficient. On the other hand, verbs like desire, wish, prefer are strong intensional verbs. They introduce ideals and thus impose an ordering on the alternative courses of affairs. Talk in terms of ordering implies the existence of more than on possible world. Weak intensional verbs often use the indicative, strong intensional verbs employ the subjunctive. The distribution of the Indicative and the Subjunctive in English 3.2 Indicative triggers a) The indicative is typically the mood of root non-modalised assertions. In such cases the modal base is totally realistic. (5) Tom was here. b) Expectedly, clauses embedded under assertive verbs, i.e., clauses whose complements make assertions (truth claims) also select the indicative. These verbs are weak intensional. The main verb introduces one world, in which the complement is evaluated. The intersection of this world with the common background is non-null, so that the modal base is weakly realistic. The ordering base is null. Using the terms of Farkas (1982), these verbs, even if they are modal operators, are extensionally anchored, i.e. they introduce one world with respect to which the complement is evaluated, and in which the complement clause is true. In English, all assertive verbs (strong assertive, semi factive and weak assertive verbs) select the indicative, since, as explained, they are weak intensional verbs, extensionally anchored. (6) They have just reported that the enemy has been defeated. (strong assertive verb) They claim that the enemy has been defeated. (7) They have realized that they are defeated. (semi-factive verb) They have discovered that they have been defeated. (8) They believe that they will win. (weak assertive verb) The indicative appears to be the mood of assertion ( see Quirk e.a. (1972)). Several characteristics follow from this characterization. The indicative is factual, descriptive, presenting the world " as it is". Indicative propositions are typical for informative, referential discourse. Indicative tenses are deictic, directly or indirectly placing an event in real time, as discussed above. 3.3 Subjunctive triggers At the other end of the mood scale one finds verb classes which always select subjunctive complements. The semantic characteristic of these verbs is that their complements are evaluated with respect to non-realistic backgrounds, involving non-null ordering bases. Since the ordering bases is non-null, more than one alternative to the actual world is taken into account and these alternatives differ in terms of how close they are to moral, legal, etc., ideals and norms. The most general single meaning associated with the subjunctive in argument clauses (cf. Portner (1994)) is thus a very general notion of normativity, incorporating the senses 'ought to be' (desirability) and 'ought to do'

(obligation)". Compare the following examples in American English, showing contrasting mood choices: (9) (10) a. They hope that he will be here. b. * They hope that he be there. a. *They desire that he is here. a.'*They desire that he will be here. b. They desire that he be here.

Hope, an indicative selector, differs from desire. It is possible to hope only as long as one still believes there is a chance of satisfaction. In other words, the modal base of hope intersects with the common ground, with what is known to be possible in the real world. Hope requires a weakly realistic modal basis and this explains why the indicative is used. Additionally an act of hoping is also a situation in which something is obliged. The mandative subjunctive requires that its reference situation be an obliging situation. This is why the meaning of hope is incompatible with the mandative subjunctive. On the other hand, the verb desire naturally calls for the subjunctive. One cannot desire a type of situation unless one believes both that the situation does not exist in the real world (i.e., the modal base is non-realistic) and that it still could come to exist. The desired situation thus must be future. Intuitively, desires are for states of affairs that are believed to be unrealized as of yet, which are future, but undetermined as to whether they will be actualized (cf. (10a), and (10b)). A nonrealistic modal base and an ordering source are clearly present (the 'ought to do' component of the subjunctive). This explains why the subjunctive is compatible with desire, but not with hope. The subjunctive always signals the presence of norms and ideals, so that the ordering base is non-null and the modal base is non-realistic. The verbs which require the subjunctive are strong intensional verbs, since, as already explained, they need to introduce a set of (ideally ordered) worlds, with respect to which the complement clause is evaluated. The subjunctive is normative, prescriptive, essentially involved in the choice and evaluation of human agency. The subjunctive "tenses" are not deictic. They do not place an event in real time. The Past Subjunctive, merely expresses anteriority with respect to a reference expressed in the main clause. (11) a. I regret that he should believe me capable of dishonesty. b. I regret that he should have believed me capable of dishonesty.

Let us examine some of the subjunctive triggers. Notice the prescriptive, non-factual nature of the subjunctive, in contrast with the descriptive, factual nature of the indicative. a) The first verb class almost exclusively used with the subjunctive is that of exercitive verbs. In Austin's definition exercitive verbs "give a decision in favour or against a course of action", crucially involving the "ought to do" component of the subjunctive. Exercitive verbs may be verbs of command or verbs of permission. The following represent the most frequently used exercitive verbs of command: (12) ask, beg, advise, demand, decree, decide, instruct, prohibit, forbid, interdict, recommend, rule, command, order, give orders, suggest, etc. (13) She demanded that I should stay with her. b. God forbid that you should take any road, but one where you will find and give happiness. c. The carrier proposed that my pocket handkerchief should be spread upon the horse's back to dry. d. Now they ask that this sordid episode be sealed from public knowledge. e. Carol suggested that the lady stay for supper and that Kennicott invite Guy Pollock. (14) (15) We ask that this food be blessed. (LG) The medicine man then ordered that there should be no mourning for the dead child. (LG) He demands that he be told everything. (ALD)

Is it ordained in heaven that women should work in the home (ALD) These sentences report exercitive acts, acts whose point is to bring about the fulfilment of some volitional act denoted by the complement clause and carried out by an explicit or implicit Agent in the subordinate clause. There are a number of constraints on the propositional content of the complement clause. The verb in the complement clause should be non-stative, and should denote a volitional, controllable act of an Agent. The time sphere of the complement is future. These explain why sentences (16b, c) are ungrammatical: (16) a. He ordered that she should leave b. *He ordered that she should grow taller. c. *He ordered that she should have left.

The use of the subjunctive with these verbs is related to the notion of 'imperative sentence', of ' bringing it about that p', actualizing some state of affairs. Each of these main verbs introduces sets of future possible worlds consistent with what the main clause subject demands, forbids, proposes, suggests. If the exercitive act is felicitous, the clause will be true in (some of) these future alternatives. Some of these verbs appear with Direct Objects or Indirect Objects (see (17)). In such cases, the referent of the object is either coreferential with the subordinate clause Agent, or is responsible for fulfilment of the volitional act denoted by the subordinate sentence. Thus, sentence (17c) below is felicitous only if the referent of the Indirect Object to him is responsible for seeing that the next recital is indeed shorter. (17) a. We advised Mary that she should wait. b. They recommended to him that he should read the instructions carefully. c. We suggested to him that the next recital should be shorter. The subjunctive is also required after exercitive verbs of permission: allow, authorize, suffer, permit, etc. In this case, in the alternative courses of affairs introduced by the main verb, the volitional act denoted by the subordinate act is not prevented from occurring: (18) a. Do you permit that I should smoke in here ? b. The committee allowed that the bridge should be restored. c. The doctor allowed that John should drink a glass of whisky every evening. Exercitive verbs of command and permission very clearly illustrate the normative, prescriptive dimension of the subjunctive. There are also a few modal adjectives which are non-factive, even though they are hardly emotive, that is they can hardly be said to express an emotional reaction: (un)necessary, impossible, imperative, likely, unlikely, possible. They are nearly always used with the subjunctive. (19) It is necessary that one should pay one's taxes. Remark. The adjectives possible, conceivable select a subjunctive with may, by a sort of modal agreement between the main predicate and the auxiliary in the complement clause. Their antonymic pairs select the should subjunctive. (20) It is conceivable that he may win. It is impossible that he should succeed.

b. A second group of verbs that select the subjunctive, often to the exclusion of the indicative, are volitional verbs, expressing volition, intention, planning or activity intended to prepare the fulfilment of some desirable state of affairs. There are several verbs and adjectives in this class: (21) a) verbs: want, wish, intend, prefer, desire, arrange, see to, etc.; b) adjectives : eager, anxious, willing, reluctant, can't stand, can't bear, etc. (22) a. I want / am anxious that he should get the job. b. They arranged that we should be met at the station. c. Who will see to it that things should turn out well ? Volitional verbs, like exercitive verbs may be described as strong intensional verbs. They introduce set of alternative worlds, ordered function of the ideal of what is wanted, intended, prepared, etc. The complement clause is evaluated with respect to these alternatives, not with respect to the real world. The normative, ideal semantic component is again clear, which is why volitional verbs select the subjunctive cross-linguistically.(Giorgi & Pianesi (1997)). 3.4. Dual mood choice While so far we have examined only predicates that consistently select one mood, there are also many predicates which systematically allow either mood. The interpretation of the two moods is clearly different, and follows from the semantics of the two moods, as described above. a. Verbs of communication (23) agree, tell, say, confess, declare, explain, suggest, inform, point out, write, telephone, convince, persuade, repeat, remark, state, warn, etc. When the complement clause is in the indicative, these verbs are used as (strong) assertive verbs, the complement clause makes an assertion, and there are no constraints on the propositional content of the complement clause. It is interpreted in a weakly realistic background, since the verb is extensionally anchored. This use of the verbs is the one described in 3.1. above. When they are used with the subjunctive, they are interpreted as exercitive verbs. Since they become exercitive verbs, in this use, they observe all the constraints mentioned above for exercitive verbs: The complement clause should denote a volitional act, controlled by an Agent. If there is a direct or indirect object, it is either coreferential with the Agent in the subordinate clause, or at least understood as responsible for fulfilment of the action in the complement clause. These differences are clearly brought out by pairs of examples like the following: (24) a .I told / convinced Maryi that shei should go to that conference a' * I told / convinced Maryi that should be tall. b. I told / convinced Mary that Paul was right. c. I told / convinced Maryi that she should go to the conference. (25) a. I insist that the concert finished at ten (=I claim that it is true that it finished at ten). b. I insist that the concert should finish at ten ( I demand that it should finish at ten) In (24a) the verb is exercitive, the act is felicitous if in some future course of action Mary goes to that conference. Should is a subjunctive auxiliary in this case. The predicate in the complement clause is non-stative. The referent of the direct object, Mary is responsible for fulfilment of the action in the complement clause. In (24b, c) the main verb is assertive and takes the indicative mood. In (24b) the assertion in the subordinate clause is not modalised, in (24c), there is a modal assertion, should is interpreted as a deontic modal operator. Here are some more examples: (26) a. Bill told Suzy that she should go to the dentist's. b) Mother convinced me that I should keep indoors another day. c. The secretary informed the students that they should take the final test on the 25th of May.

b) Evaluative predicates/ emotive predicates b1) Non -factive emotives. This semantic class includes a large number of adjectives that take subject clauses, and express evaluative modalities: good, bad, right, wrong, best, better, essential, legal, moral, natural, normal, urgent, vital, inconvenient, troublesome, unlikely , LOG amazing, anomalous, astonishing, awful, annoying, etc., natural, neat , nice, notable, noteworthy, okay, (un)lucky, paradoxical, peculiar, preferable, ridiculous, silly, untypical, unfair, understandable, upsetting, wonderful. There is also a group of 'importance adjectives": advisable, critical, crucial, desirable, essential, fitting, imperative, important, necessary, obligatory, vital, etc. b2) Factive emotives fall into several syntactic classes: emotive factive adjectives: odd, tragic, quaint, crazy, bizarre, amazing, surprising, bothersome, etc.; emotive subject-clause taking verbs: amaze, alarm, surprise, bother, annoy, irritate, astound, disturb, etc.; transitive emotive verbs: regret, resent, deplore, etc. Interestingly, in English, all emotive predicates, factive and non-factive alike, exhibit double mood selection. This possibility, which is attested cross-linguistically, is inherent in the semantic make-up of evaluative predicates. The meaning of an emotive predicate may be decomposed into a descriptive component and an evaluative, normative component (cf. Hare (1952)). Emotive predicates are descriptive by virtue of our knowledge of the adequate standards of functioning or behaviour which entitle us to speak about 'a good deed', 'a right decision', 'a good car'. In terms of the analysis adopted here, given their descriptive meaning, the complements of evaluative predicates may always be interpreted against a weakly realistic epistemic modal base, and are thus extensionally anchored predicates. Hence the use of the indicative

But these predicates also express normative concepts through the implicit commending or condemning attitude that they express. When one commends or condemns anything, it is always against standards and ideals, and one does so in order to guide choices (usually of action) of one's own or of other people. In other words, these predicates may make reference to ideals and norms, and when the subjunctive is used, normative judgements are made explicitly. Choice of the subjunctive over the indicative stresses the prescriptive, normative component in the meaning of the emotive predicates. The contrast can best be appreciated in pairs of the following type: (30) a. It is best that he is going there alone. b. It is best that he should be going there alone. (31) a. It is important/ essential that this book is being written. b. It is important / essential that this book should be published. (32) a. It is very natural that he should wish to meet her. b. But it was essential in her father's view that this affair should reach its climax in London. c. It was important to them that I should let them off morally, that I should spare them the necessity of being ruthless. The Longman Grammar also mentions (2000: 673, 674) that affective /evaluative adjectives, as well as, necessity and importance adjectives accept the subjunctive with should , as well as the uninflected subjunctive. These forms are most common in academic prose: (33) It is sensible that the breeding animals receive the highest protection.

It is preferable that the marked cells should be identical in their unmarked cells. (34) It is essential that the two instruments should run parallel to the It is vital that leaking water is avoided It is important that it be well sealed from air leakage. It is desirable that it be both lined and insulated.

behaviour to the

microscope stage.

c) Factive predicates Quer (1998: 94) comments that these predicates have two components in their meaning. On the one hand, their complements are/ may be interpreted factively, i.e., they are presupposed to be true in the real world; this makes them compatible with the indicative. On the other hand, emotive factive predicates express reactions or emotions to situations, or relate situations to an implicit set of normative criteria, and this makes them compatible with the subjunctive. (35) a. It seemed to Mor a little quaint that she should refer to the boys as children. b. It is not strange therefore that the Tudors should have been able to exercise a great influence. c. It irritated Mor that his wife should combine a grievance about her frustrated gifts with a lack of any attempt to concentrate. d. I'm ashamed that you should have me for a mother. In order to better understand double mood selection with these verbs, one should notice, with Quer (1998:95) "that factivity (in the sense of presupposed truth of the complement clause) is not an inherent property of the lexical semantics of these predicates.", but depends on the contexts where they are used. Their complements are indeed presupposed when the main predicate is in an episodic tense (such as the Past Tense or the Present), but they are not presupposed in all the tenses or moods of the verb. Notice the different interpretation of the complement clauses in the examples below. (36) I would it regret it if he didn't come. I regret it that he didn't come (37) I would resent it if you were famous. I resent it that you are famous.

Since the factive component can be suspended, one understands why these verbs allow a modal normative reading, whose specific interpretation has long been noted by grammarians. Quirk e.a. (1972) remarks that when the subjunctive is used with these verbs, what counts is not that the complement is true, but that "it is imagined as true", that is, the complement is merely possible. Rosenberg (1975) stresses that with emotive factives, the proposition often refers to actual events only "due to a pragmatic principle of emotional reactions" which says that "people react emotionally to states and events that exist, rather than to non-existent fictitious ones." However, taking into accounts their own normative standards people may express emotional reactions on the strength of beliefs that something has happened, may happen, will happen and they may be proved wrong in their beliefs. (38) He regrets that that the little girl should be sick, but I know that the little pert is shamming.

Thus in a sense the use of the subjunctive signals the absence of factivity, or rather it signals lack of concern for what is actual. The judgement is evaluative, not descriptive. As aptly expressed by Curme (1947) " even when the subjunctive is used of actual facts, it presents them as conceptions of the mind, as general principles rather than facts." 3.5 Operator licensed subjunctives.

The subjunctive may also be licensed by other operators, such as negation, the question operator, etc. (cf. Quer (1998), Giorgi & Pianesi (1997)) Thus in the example below, the subjunctive is triggered by negation, rather than by the main verb, as shown by the difference between the affirmative sentence and its negative counterpart: (39) I believe that he is here. /* I believe that he should be here. I don't believe that he should be here./ I don't believe that he is here.

In this paragraph we examine the effect of mood shift with the polarity subjunctive, and then present a group of verbs for which the use of the subjunctive in the complement clause has the same effect as that of the polarity subjunctive (40) a. The dean does not believe that the students should deserve a prize, but I do. b. ?The dean does not believe that the students should deserve a prize, and neither do I (41) a. They do not believe that Godot should come. b. They do not believe that Godot will come.

Quer comments that there is a difference between such pairs. When the indicative is used, the presuppositions of the complement sentence normally become part of the common ground. When the subjunctive is used the presuppositions of the complement clause are not accepted as common ground presuppositions. The use of the subjunctive signals that the complement proposition is contrary to the common ground expectations or presuppositions. This is the so called contrary to expectations subjunctive. The contrary to expectations subjunctive is found not only with negation, but also with lexical predicates that include an element of doubt, uncertainty, implicit negation, such as: doubt, think, believe, matter, fancy, imagine, complain, reproach, etc. But this subjunctive also may appear with verbs that fail to express uncertainty, to suggest that the complement clause is contrary to the presuppositions in the common ground. Here are examples: (42) a. And that you should deceive me well, I don't exactly understand imagine it. b. It doesn't matter that Max should have bought a Cadillac. c. To think that he should have done it at last! d. I doubt that he should succeed. Conclusions 1. The indicative and the subjunctive represent the main propositional modalities of English. Each of the two grammatical moods is associated with a semantic content that limits its distribution. 2 Grammatical mood is (one of ) the linguistic manifestation(s) of semantic modality. The indicative/ subjunctive dichotomy represents a binary classification of the contexts with respect to which propositions are evaluated. The contexts are classified function of a basic designated one, identifiable as that of basic simple assertion. In this case the base is totally realistic. Contexts sufficiently alike to the basic one use the indicative, contexts sufficiently remote from the basic one use the subjunctive. 3. The indicative mood appears whenever the complement proposition is asserted or at least evaluated with respect to a realistic background. this is in line with its factual descriptive nature. 4. The subjunctive signals a non-realistic conversational background and the presence of an ordering source. This is in line with its normative ('ought to be'), prescriptive ( 'ought to do') character. it, but I can