Linguistics 550
7. Subject raising versus subject control

These notes discuss an instance of movement akin to subject movement that is known as (subject) raising. Raising is similar to subject movement in that it targets subjects, but it differs in that it moves subjects not within a single IP, but out of a lower IP (the embedded or complement clause) into a higher one (the matrix clause). In order to show that subject raising exists, we rely on the existence of a class of special subjects that have a very close relationship with their verbs. This class includes expletive there (already briefly discussed in Notes 6), weather it and so-called subject idiom chunks. After showing that raising exists, we go on to show that it is possible only when the matrix clause contains a verb or adjective belonging to a special class of raising predicates. At first glance, raising predicates resemble another class of predicates, so-called subject control predicates, but we show that the two types of predicates form distinct classes.

Special subjects

More on expletive there

As was observed in Notes 6, expletive there in English is possible in subject but not in complement position ((1) = (16) of Notes 6).

(1) a. ok There is a fly in my soup.
b. * I dislike there in my soup.
c. * I dislike flies in my there.

There turn out to be additional restrictions on the distribution of expletive there. As is evident from the contrast between (2) and (3), expletive there is only grammatical when it occurs in the same clause as a certain class of verbs (roughly speaking, verbs of coming into and being in existence).

(2) a. ok There is a problem.
b. ok After their military defeat, there arose among the Plains tribes a powerful spiritual movement.
c. ok There began a reign of terror.
d. ok In the end, there emerged a new caudillo by the name of Batista.
e. ok There ensued/followed a period of unrest and lawlessness.
f. ok There exists an antidote.
g. ok There has occurred an unfortunate incident.
h. ok There remains a single course of action.
(3) a. * There continued the same problem.
b. * There failed an available time slot.
c. * There proved toxins in the soap.
d. * There rang the mail carrier.
e. * There seems no solution.
f. * There turns out an antidote.

Weather it

Two other kinds of subjects resemble expletive there in entering into a privileged relationship with their verb. These are standardly known as weather it and so-called subject idiom chunks.

Weather it is simply the subject of verbs of precipitation. As the contrast between (4) and (5) shows, other semantically conceivable subjects for these verbs are ungrammatical.

(4)   ok It is { hailing, pouring, raining, sleeting, snowing } .
(5)   * The { air, environment, precipitation, sky, weather } is { hailing, pouring, raining, sleeting, snowing } .

Subject idiom chunks

Subject idiom chunks is the name for the subjects of sentential idioms such as those illustrated in (6).

(6) a.   The cat has got X's tongue.
b.   The cat is out of the bag.
c. The fur will fly.
d. The jig is up.
e. The pot is calling the kettle black.
f. The shit hit the fan.

What is crucial for our purposes is that the subjects in (6) have whatever idiomatic meaning they do as part of the idiom, but not otherwise. For instance, neither cat in (6b) nor pot in (6e) have a general metaphoric sense of secret or hypocrite, respectively. Thus, although the sentences in (7) are not ungrammatical (unlike (3) and (5)), they have only (some bizarre) literal interpretations.

(7) a.   The cat { seems, proved } safe with her.
b. # Fortunately, the pot is retracting his duplicitous slander.

To summarize, expletive there requires the verb of its sentence to be a verb of (coming into) existence. Conversely, the verbs of precipitation require weather it as their subject. Finally, subject idiom chunks must for part of an idiom in order to receive a nonliteral interpretation. What all three types of subject share is a close dependency on the verb whose subject they are.

(Subject) raising

Data

Knowing what you do about expletive there, consider the contrast in (8) and (9).

(8) a. * There turns out [ to fail an available time slot. ]
b. * There turned out [ to ring the mail carrier. ]
(9) a.   There turns out [ to be a problem. ]
b.   There turns out [ to exist an antidote. ]

The ungrammaticality of (8) is not surprising, since we have already seen in (3a) that turn out does not belong to the class of verbs that license (= are the condition for the availability of) there. But by the same token, the grammaticality of (9) is unexpected. What might the contrast between (8) and (9) be due to?

A first clue to the answer to this puzzle lies in the fact that the sentences in (8) and (9) contain not one predicate, but two. Specifically, although the matrix predicate is turn out in all four sentences, the complement predicates in (8) do not license there, but the ones in (9) do. In fact, the non-there licenser in the matrix clause turns out to be a red herring. Rather, although all four sentences in (8) and (9) appear at first glance to be parallel to (3a), the sentences in (8a,b) are actually parallel to (3b,d), whereas the ones in (9a,b) are parallel to (2a,f). For convenience, the relevant sentences are all repeated in (10) and (11).

(10) a. i. * There failed an available time slot.
ii. * There turns out [ to fail an available time slot. ]
b. i. * There rang the mail carrier.
ii. * There turned out [ to ring the mail carrier. ]
(11) a. i. There is a problem.
ii. There turns out [ to be a problem. ]
b. i. There exists an antidote.
ii. There turns out [ to exist an antidote. ]

Analogous examples can be constructed for the two other special subject types. Thus, the contrast between (12) and (13) is parallel to the one between (4) and (5).

(12) a. ok It { continued, failed } [ to { hail, pour, rain, sleet, snow } ] .
b. ok It { seemed, proved, turned out } [ to be { hailing, pouring, raining, sleeting, snowing } ] .
(13) a. * The { air, environment, precipitation, sky, weather } { continued, failed } [ to { hail, pour, rain, sleet, snow } ] .
b. * The { air, environment, precipitation, sky, weather } { seemed, proved, turned out } [ to be { hailing, pouring, raining, sleeting, snowing ] } .

Finally, the sentences in (14) have an idiomatic interpretation, even though the subject idiom chunk does not belong to the same clause as the predicate.

(14) a.   The cat seems [ to have got X's tongue. ]
b.   The cat proved [ to be out of the bag. ]
c. The fur turned out [ to fly. ]
d. The jig proved [ to be up. ]
e. The pot seems [ to be calling the kettle black. ]
f. The shit failed [ to hit the fan. ]

Analysis

The facts in (8)-(14) indicate that the subject of verbs like continue, fail, prove, seem and turn out are not, in some sense, their own. Rather, the subject of a matrix clause containing such a verb originates as the subject of the complement clause. We illustrate this by examining the derivation of (10a.ii) in detail. We begin with the structure of the complement clause, which is given in (15). Note that the eventual matrix subject, expletive there, is licensed by its clausemate be.

(15) a.  

Substituting the complement clause into the matrix clause yields (16).

(16)    

(16) is not well-formed as it stands, however, because expletive there needs to receive case. There cannot receive case from be (even granting be the ability to assign case, there isn't in the right configuration to receive it) or from nonfinite I (which is not a case assigner; recall the ungrammaticality of (10b) of Notes 6). Nor is seem able to assign case. Not being able to receive case within its own clause, there is forced to move to Spec(IP) of the matrix clause, as shown in (17), where it receives nominative case from finite I under spec-head agreement.

(17)    

The subject's movement from complement to matrix subject position is called (subject) raising, and the matrix verbs in sentences involving raising are called raising verbs (a somewhat unfortunate term, since it is not the verbs themselves that undergo movement).

According to (17), the subject moves through each available specifier position before coming to rest in the position where case is available. In principle, an alternative is available: the subject might move from the complement Spec(VP) to the matrix Spec(IP) in one fell swoop. Evidence in favor of the derivation shown in (17) comes from the availability of quantifier stranding in each of the available specifier positions, as shown in (18). This is consistent with the stepwise derivation shown in (17), but not with the one-fell-swoop alternative.

(18) a.   [IP [ The children ]i do [VP ti seem [IP ti to [VP all ti have lost their mittens. ] ] ] ]
b. [IP [ The children ]i do [VP ti seem [IP all ti to [VP ti have lost their mittens. ] ] ] ]
c. [IP [ The children ]i do [VP all ti seem [IP ti to [VP ti have lost their mittens. ] ] ] ]

Further evidence for subject raising

According to the analysis just presented, raising verbs have no semantic subjects of their own. This analysis is supported by the fact that when raising verbs takes finite complements (as some of them do), the complement subject does not undergo raising, since it can now receive case within the complement clause, and the matrix subject is an expletive (= non-referring) it, as shown in (19a).

(19) a.   It { appears, seems, turns out } [ that there is a problem ] .
b. Therei { appears, seems, turns out } [ ti to be a problem ] .

The position of there in (19a) confirms the idea that there in (19b) originates in the complement clause and only raises into the matrix clause because it is unable to receive case otherwise.

Subject control

Data

Subject raising verbs are not the only verbs in English that take infinitival complements. Out of the several other verb classes that do so, we focus in the remainder of these notes on the class of so-called subject control verbs, which is illustrated in (20).

(20)     Larry { attempted, decided, expected, hoped, tried } [ to travel to China ] .

As is evident from (20), subject control verbs superficially resemble subject raising verbs, but the two verb classes differ in their syntactic behavior in two respects. First, no subject control verb has a variant with expletive it as a matrix subject.

(21)   * It { attempted, decided, expected, hoped, tried } [ that Larry ( { will, would } ) travel to China ] .

Intuitively, the reason that the sentences in (21) are ungrammatical is that both the matrix verb and the complement verb require a semantic subject of their own. That is, in contrast to sentences containing subject raising verbs, these sentences require not one, but two semantic subjects– one for each verb. This is confirmed by the behavior of those subject control verbs that allow finite complements. When they do so, as illustrated in (22), the matrix and the complement clause each have their own semantic subject.

(22)     Larry { decided, expected, hoped } [ that he would travel to China ] .

It is true that the two subjects in (22) refer to the same discourse entity, but the important point is that the matrix subject is not expletive it, as would be possible if the matrix verb were a raising verb (contrast (21) with (19a)).

There is a second difference between raising verbs and subject control verbs. In contrast to sentences containing raising verbs, the special subjects discussed earlier are either ungrammatical or do not have idiomatic interpretations in sentences containing subject control verbs. This is illustrated in (23).

(23) a. * There { attempted, decided, expected, hoped, tried } [ to be a problem ] .
b. *? It { attempted, decided, expected, hoped, tried } [ to { rain, snow } ] .
c. The cat { attempted, decided, expected, hoped, tried } [ to get X's tongue ] .
(only literal interpretation possible)
d. # The jig { attempted, decided, expected, hoped, tried } [ to be up ] .

Analysis

How can we capture the syntactic differences between sentences containing raising verbs and ones containing subject control verbs? The analysis of subject control verbs that is standard in current syntactic theory is based on the idea that English has an element called PRO, which we can think of as a silent pronoun. In certain languages, silent pronouns are available in finite clauses, but in English, PRO is available only in nonfinite clauses (for reasons that are not yet well understood). It is this silent pronoun that occupies the subject position of the subject control verb's nonfinite complement, as shown in (24), much as an overt pronoun occupies the same position if the complement is finite (recall (22)).
Note: See below for why the complement clause is analyzed as CP rather than IP.

(24)    

Substituting the complement clause into the matrix clause yields (25a), and subject movement of the matrix subject yields the final structure in (25b).

(25) a.  
b.

Two questions immediately arise in connection with the structures in (24) and (25a,b). First, does the complement subject PRO undergo subject movement? As usual, evidence bearing on this question comes from quantifier stranding. I will leave it to you to decide what your judgments are on the relevant sentences in (26), and to draw the appropriate conclusions from your judgments.

(26) a.   [IP The children have [VP decided [IP to [VP all go skating. ] ] ] ]
b. ?* [IP The children have [VP decided [IP all to [VP go skating. ] ] ] ]

A second question is why the complement clause in these structures labelled CP rather than IP. Here, the evidence is quite straightforward. The reason is that certain subject control verbs allow indirect questions as complements, as shown in (27a), and the complementizer whether requires a slot. The structure for (27a) is shown in (27b).

(27) a.   Larry must decide [ whether to travel to China ] .
b.