9 Nonfinite clausal complements

• Selectional restrictions
• Subject control
  • Evidence for two clauses
  • Deriving subject control sentences
• Raising
  • A "what if" detour
  • Nonthematic subject positions
  • Deriving raising sentences
  • Tend and occur
  • Promise
• Object control
• More nonthematic subjects
  • Subject idiom chunks
  • Weather it
  • Summary
• Notes
• Exercises and problems

So far in this book, we have come across three types of clausal complements: finite clausal complements, ECM complements, and small clauses. (By 'clausal complement,' we mean any complement that contains a subject and a predicate.) We briefly review the three types in (1)-(3); the complement clause is bracketed, and any Infl element in it is in boldface.

The verb forms in (1b,c) are nonfinite, but the head of the complement clauses is a finite morpheme (a finite tense morpheme in (1b) and a modal in (1c)). As a result, the entire complement clause is finite. For more information, see Finiteness.

Finite complement clauses are illustrated in (1).

Like finite complement clauses, the ECM complements in (2) contain an Infl element - namely, to - but it is nonfinite.

Finally, small clauses like (3) contain no Infl element at all.

Despite their diversity with respect to how and whether Infl is realized, the complement clause types illustrated in (1)-(3) all have one property in common: namely, the presence of an overt subject (here, the children). But English also permits nonfinite complement clauses in which a subject is not overtly expressed (although one is understood). For instance, dance, the verb in the apparently subjectless complement clauses in (4), has an understood agent.

More particularly, this agent is interpreted as being identical to the referent of the matrix subject the children. Yet unlike (2), where the matrix clause and the complement clause each have their own subject (we, the children), the sentences in (4) contain only a single overt subject, the one in the matrix clause. In this chapter, we argue that the nonfinite complements in (4) contain a structural subject position that is filled by a silent element, and we argue further that the silent element in question is not the same in the two examples. Rather, we distinguish between subject control, as in (4a), and raising (sometimes called subject-to-subject raising), as in (4b). In a subject control sentence like (4a), the complement subject position is filled by a silent pronominal element PRO, which is coreferential with the referent of the matrix subject. In other words, we give (4a) the structure in (5a); note the parallel with (5b), where the complement of agree is finite and where the complement subject position is not PRO, but an ordinary personal pronoun (the numerical subscripts on the children, PRO, and they are intended to represent coreference).

The idea behind the term 'subject control' is that the matrix subject fixes, or controls, the reference of PRO. Notice that the parallel between PRO and overt pronouns in (5) is not complete. Specifically, PRO in (5a) must be coreferential with the matrix subject, whereas the pronoun they in (5b) can be, but needn't be, as succinctly summarized in (i). (i) a. The children1 agreed [ PRO1,*2 to dance ] . b.   The children1 agreed [ that they1,2 would dance ] . For this reason, only sentences with nonfinite complements can count as instances of subject control.

Raising sentences differ from subject control sentences in that their matrix subject position starts out empty and the complement subject moves up to fill it. Their derivation is schematically illustrated in (6).

(6)	a.		Before raising:	_____	seemed	[ the children	to dance ] .
	b.		After raising:	[The children]i	seemed	[ ti	to dance ] .

The assumption that the matrix subject position starts out empty is supported by the fact that when seem takes a finite counterpart, this same position is filled by expletive it.

(7)

Itexpl

seemed

[ that the children danced ] .

Again, for a sentence to count as an instance of raising, the complement clause must be nonfinite, as in (6), since it is only then that the complement subject raises into the matrix clause. (7) contains the same matrix predicate as (6), but the complement subject never moves out of its clause.

The chapter also addresses so-called object control. The difference between subject and object control is illustrated by the contrast between (4a), repeated as (8a), and (8b). In both sentences, the understood agent of the complement verb dance is the discourse entity referred to by the phrase the children. But in (8a), that phrase - the controller - is the matrix subject, whereas in (8b), it appears to be the matrix object.

(8)	a.		The children agreed to dance.
	b.		We persuaded the children to dance.

The treatment of object control that we present relies on the VP shells introduced in Chapter 7. Specifically, we decompose object control predicates into CAUSE and an appropriate subject control predicate, roughly along the lines of (9).

Notice that the children is not actually an object in (9), but rather the subject of the small clause complement of CAUSE. However, as is customary in the literature, we will continue to use the term 'object control' as a purely descriptive label for sentences like (8b).

A note on terminology. We will refer to the class of (Fregean) predicates to which agree belongs as subject control predicates. Similarly, we refer to the class of predicates like seem as raising predicates, and to the class of predicates like persuade as object control predicates.

The term 'raising predicate' is potentially confusing. It is not the predicate (the verb in the cases that we have seen so far) itself that undergoes movement. Rather, as schematically indicated in (6) and as we will see in more detail below, it is the complement subject that raises into the matrix clause. A better term for the class of predicates in question would be 'raising triggers.' But we continue to use the term 'raising predicate' because it is standard in the literature.

A leading role in the analysis of nonfinite complementation is played by expletive there. The final section of the chapter shows that expletive there belongs to a larger class of nonthematic subjects.

Selectional restrictions

Before addressing the topics of main concern to us in this chapter, we need to introduce the concept of selectional restrictions. Selectional restrictions are conditions that a (Fregean) predicate imposes on one or more of its arguments, depending on its meaning. For instance, drink imposes a selectional restriction on its theme argument to the effect that the theme argument must refer to a liquid (or an amount of liquid).

(10)	a.		Amy drank the { lemonade, #sandwich } .
	b.		Lukas drank a whole { quart, #piece } .

Elapse selects a subject that refers to some quantified amount of time.

(11)

{ Two hours, the shift, #two liters, #Larry } elapsed without further incident.

The felicitous use of the verb murder requires (among other conditions) that both the agent and the theme arguments refer to humans (and arguably, also other species - see below for related discussion). By contrast, kill imposes weaker selectional restrictions, requiring only that the theme argument refer to a living being.

(12)

a.

The { paramilitary,

#

bomb,

#

avalanche } murdered

{ her husband,

#

the olive tree,

#

her house }

(12)

a.

The { paramilitary,

bomb,

avalanche } killed

{ her husband,

the olive tree,

#

her house }

Two points are important to keep in mind concerning selectional restrictions. First, notice that we are using pound signs, rather than asterisks, in (10)-(12); in other words, we are treating the ill-formedness of sentences that violate selectional restrictions as semantic/pragmatic deviance, not as ungrammaticality. This approach is consistent with the fact that selectional restrictions can be deliberately flouted for special effect. For example, the ordinary (literal) meaning of lap up is 'to eagerly drink up' (used especially of animals). Based on this meaning, we would expect it to select a nonhuman animate agent and a liquid theme. But although both restrictions are violated in (13), the sentence does not come across as deviant.

(13)

The little girl lapped up her teacher's praise.

Rather, the violation of the selectional restrictions signals to the hearer that the sentence is intended to be taken not literally, but figuratively - as an instance of metaphor. (14) summarizes the kind of reasoning that a hearer of (13) would go through; the reasoning process itself is ordinarily not explicit, but subconscious and lightning-quick.

(14)

The little girl lapped up her teacher's praise?? Whoa there, that's complete nonsense! It's only nonhuman animals that lap up things. And then, whatever they're lapping up has to be liquid, not something abstract like praise. But the speaker seems to know English and be compos mentis, so what could they have possibly meant by what they said? I guess what they must have meant is that the attitude of the little girl towards her teacher's praise resembles the eagerness with which a thirsty animal laps up some welcome liquid.

In distinguishing figurative from literal uses of language, don't let yourself be confused by the fact that in the vernacular, the adverb literally is routinely used to qualify figurative statements. So we often hear people say things like My boss literally hit the roof. In other words, literally has come to mean figuratively!

Don't, by the way, conclude from examples like (13) that selectional restrictions are in force only intermittently (in force when language is used literally, but not in force when language is used figuratively). Rather, it is precisely the fact that selectional restrictions are always in force that prompts a hearer of (13) to go through a reasoning process like (14).

A second point to keep in mind concerning selectional restrictions is that the criteria for set membership that the restrictions are based on are not always crystal-clear. In other words, sets like liquid things, animate beings, potential murderers, or potential murder victims, and so on, are somewhat fuzzy around the edges. Speakers might disagree, for instance, about whether the sentences in (15) are deviant; the disagreement would concern whether the selectional restrictions on murder might, on the basis of recent advances in the understanding of animal intelligence, be relaxed to include members of species other than Homo sapiens.

(15)	a.		The { chimpanzee, dolphin } murdered the explorer.
	b.		The explorer murdered { the chimpanzee, dolphin } .

Fortunately, for our purposes in this chapter, locating the exact boundary between cases that meet selectional restrictions and ones that violate them will not be necessary. The important thing is that selectional restrictions exist, and that there are sentences in which they are clearly met and ones in which they are clearly violated.

Subject control

If subject control sentences contain two clauses, as we are proposing, each with their own subjects, they ought to behave analogously to (18) and (19), and this is in fact exactly what we find in (20) and (21).¹

One last thing. Not all subject control predicates allow a finite complement paraphrase.

But even for subject control predicates like try and ones that behave similarly, we assume a biclausal structure with a PRO subject for the lower clause. This is because, just as in (20) and (21), the subject control verb and the lower verb impose separate selectional restrictions on their respective subjects. We ask you to provide the relevant evidence in Exercise 9.1A.

An excursion into lexical semantics

If you have been paying close attention to the examples, you may have noticed that agree seems to have two slightly different meanings, depending on whether it takes a finite or a nonfinite complement. When it takes a finite complement, the finite complement expresses a proposition, and agree means something like 'assent to.' In this case, the subject of the complement clause need not be coreferential with the matrix subject.

We also have the semantic intuition that someone besides the agreer shares the belief in the proposition; in other words, agree takes an optional semantic argument, expressible in the syntax by a with phrase. So, for instance, if Sam were the last person on Earth, we might describe him as believing that there were no other people, but it would be odd to describe him as agreeing that there were no other people. On the other hand, when agree takes a nonfinite complement, it means something like 'commit oneself to a course of action.' Here, part of the irreducible meaning of agree seems to be that the agreer and the agent of the predicate of the lower complement must be identical. As a result, a sentence like (24) is ungrammatical (or perhaps only semantically deviant).

(24)

*

The students agreed [ the problem to be difficult ] .

Here, too, there is a sense of an optional argument - an entity to whom the agreer has an obligation to. Now, so far, we have phrased things as if the semantic differences that we have described are associated with agree itself. However, a more attractive hypothesis is that agree has exactly the same meaning in both cases, and that the differences in meaning come about as a result of the different semantic properties of the complement that agree is combining with. Under this approach, agree would denote a commitment between a rational being and the kind of thing that the CP complement refers to, in the presence of another rational being. In the finite complement case, the CP expresses a proposition. A natural way to interpret commitment between a rational being and a proposition is as intellectual assent to the proposition, and a natural scenario is that the co-present rational being shares the belief in the proposition. We have seen that nonfinite IPs can express propositions (I expect there to be problem is synonymous for our purposes with I expect that there is a problem), but let us assume that nonfinite CPs (for some reason) cannot refer to propositions, but only to events or actions.

It is tempting to say that nonfinite complements of subject control predicates are VPs (rather than CPs). But that would leave the presence of to unexplained. Moreover, there are subject control predicates that take indirect questions, as illustrated in (i), which must be CPs, since otherwise there is no place for whether. (i)     They decided whether to buy the house.

A natural way to interpret commitment between a rational being and an action is as a commitment to seeing to it that the action is carried out, and a natural scenario is that the co-present rational being is someone to whom the agreer has that commitment. A crucial question that we will have to leave unresolved here is why the matrix subject controls the subject of the lower predicate in this case. In other words, what accounts for the oddness of (25a) despite its near-synonymy with (25b)?

(25)	a.	#	At the meeting, the higher-ups agreed for someone else to do the job.
	b.		At the meeting, the higher-ups agreed to delegate the job to someone else

Under appropriate circumstances (such as in the context of a strict social hierarchy), perhaps (25a) does become acceptable. Or perhaps the concept of commitment is irreducibly individual. We leave this question unresolved here.

Deriving subject control sentences

After this excursion into semantic aspects of control, let us now consider the syntactic representation of subject control sentences, which is straightforwardly analogous to the representation of their finite complement counterparts. The elementary tree for agree is the same for both cases and is given in (26).

(26)

Substituting a finite CP complement headed by that at the CP substitution node would yield structures for sentences like (16). Substituting a nonfinite CP complement headed by a silent complementizer yields structures for subject control sentences like (17). In what follows, we illustrate the derivation of (17) in detail.

(27)	a.				b.				c.
			Substitute PRO in specifier position of lower verb				Substitute (27a) as complement of to and subject movement				Substitute (27b) as complement of silent C

Substituting the structure in (27c) as the complement of the control verb yields (28a), which in turn becomes the complement of the matrix I element, yielding (28b).

(28)	a.				b.
			Substitute (27c) as complement of control verb				Substitute (28a) as complement of matrix I

Finally, moving the matrix subject yields (29a). The structurally analogous tree for the finite complement counterpart of (29a) (= (16)) in shown for comparison in (29b).

(29)

a.

b.

In concluding our discussion of subject control, we must point out that we will leave an important question about PRO unresolved: namely, how its case feature (if any) is licensed. There is evidence from languages like German and Icelandic that PRO is able to bear the same case features that overt subjects do. Nevertheless, PRO and overt noun phrases are in complementary distribution.² In other words, the positions that PRO can appear in are ones from which overt noun phrases are barred, and vice versa. It has therefore been proposed that PRO in English bears a case feature unique to it - so-called null case - which is checked by nonfinite I in the spec-head configuration. Although this approach does not address the crosslinguistic facts and leaves it mysterious why the case properties of PRO and overt noun phrases should differ, it does straightforwardly capture the distributional difference between PRO and overt noun phrases in English.

Raising

A "what if" detour

Let us turn now to raising sentences like (4b), repeated here as (30).

(30)

The children seemed [ to dance ] .

At first glance, it seems as if we could simply treat such sentences on a par with subject control sentences. But that would leave us without an explanation for the contrast in (31) - in particular, for the grammaticality of (31b).

(31)	a.	*	There agreed to be a problem.
	b.	✓	There seemed to be a problem.

The analysis in the previous section does correctly rule out (31a), to which we assign the structure indicated schematically in (32).

(32)

*

There agreed [ PRO to be a problem ] .

Given the structure in (32), the sentence is ruled out for two reasons. First, expletive there is not licensed because it does not occupy the specifier position of a verb of (coming into) existence (this is the reason that we mark (31a) as ungrammatical rather than as just semantically deviant).

It is true that the sentence contains the there licenser be, but there never substitutes into its specifier position. The predicate whose specifier position there does substitute into, namely agree, is not a there licenser (*There agreed some students).

Second, expletive there fails to satisfy the selectional restriction of agree, which, as we saw earlier, selects human subjects. So (32) is a fine representation because it correctly rules out (31a) as ungrammatical. But by the same token, if we give (31b) the analogous structure in (33), we incorrectly expect (31b) to be as ungrammatical as (31a).

(33)

Incorrect structure:

There seemed [ PRO to be a problem ] .

The reason, once again, is that there is not licensed in the representation in (33). The fact that seem is not a there licenser is demonstrated in (34) (recall Exercise 3.4).

Be careful not to confuse the class of raising verbs with the class of there licensers. Raising verbs like seem don't necessarily themselves license there, as we see in (34).

At this point, notice that the representations in (32) and (33) are both ruled out because there isn't licensed in the matrix clause. However, only in (32) is the selectional restriction of the matrix verb violated. It turns out that a crucial difference between agree and seem is that seem imposes no selectional restrictions. We can see this by replacing agree in (20) with seem; the acceptability contrast between (20a) and (20b) disappears in (35). (By contrast, replacing agree with seem in (21) has no effect on the contrast in acceptability. After reading this section to the end, you will be able to explain this fact, and you are asked to do so in Exercise 9.1B.)

Another noteworthy property of seem is that its specifier position is not (and, in fact, must not be) associated with any thematic role. It is true that seem takes an argument: what for lack of a better term we will call the proposition argument.³ However, this argument (for some reason) cannot be expressed in the specifier position, as we can see in the finite complement counterparts of raising sentences.⁴

To summarize: the subject position of seem is semantically defective in the sense that it is associated neither with selectional restrictions nor with a thematic role. We will refer to such a subject position as nonthematic.

Deriving raising sentences

Of course, despite being superfluous from a semantic point of view, nonthematic subject positions are nevertheless syntactically obligatory (recall the subject requirement introduced in Chapter 3). This makes possible the following analysis of the grammaticality of (31b) and, more generally, of all subject raising sentences. We begin by deriving the complement clause. Note how the eventual matrix subject there is licensed as a specifier of main verb be in (37a). We assume that the subject moves from Spec(VP) to Spec(IP) in (37c) in order to provide the complement clause with a subject in accordance with the subject requirement.

In the case of a nonexpletive matrix subject, as in The children seemed to dance, the children would substitute into the specifier of dance, thereby becoming associated with that verb's agent role.

(37)	a.				b.
			Substitute eventual matrix subject as specifier of lower verb				Substitute (37a) as complement of to and subject movement

We now substitute (37b) into the elementary tree for seemed in (38a).

(38)

a.

b.

Before proceeding with the derivation, a few words about the elementary trees in (38) are in order. First, note that both elementary trees in (38) contain a specifier position. Though semantically unnecessary, as discussed above, this position is motivated by the syntactic obligatoriness of expletive it in small clauses.

Second, the syntactic category of the clausal complement is IP in (38a), whereas it is CP in (38b), which we would use if we wanted to derive the finite complement counterpart of (31b) (It seemed that there was a problem). The reason that raising predicates, in contrast to control predicates, require different elementary trees depending on the finiteness of their complement has to do with certain structural conditions that must be satisfied by traces of movement (but not by PRO). We simply mention the existence of these conditions (known as "improper movement") here; their exact character and their motivation go beyond the scope of this textbook.

Substituting the clause in (37c) as the complement of the elementary tree for raising seem in (38a) yields (40a), which in turn becomes the complement of the matrix I element, yielding (40b).

(40)	a.				b.
			Substitute (37c) as complement of raising verb				Substitute (40a) as complement of matrix I

At this point in the derivation, the option arises in principle of substituting expletive it in the matrix Spec(VP) and moving it to the matrix Spec(IP). In fact, this is what we would do if the complement of seem were finite. In the case of a nonfinite complement, however, this step yields the hopelessly ungrammatical (41).

Why is (41) ungrammatical? The reason is that there bears a nominative case feature that cannot be checked in the lower clause. (How we know that the case feature is nominative is left to you to determine in Exercise 9.1C.) The case feature can't be checked in the lower Spec(IP) (its position in (41)) because nonfinite I is unable to check case at all. The case feature also can't be checked in the lower Spec(VP) (its position before subject movement in the complement clause) because V doesn't check case in the spec-head configuration.

In principle, seemed could check objective case on there in the head-spec configuration just as expect and other ECM verbs do. However, the ungrammaticality of (41) shows that raising verbs are in fact unable to do so. Why they should differ from ECM verbs in this way is obviously something that needs to be explained. It has been proposed that there is a correlation between a verb's ability to assign a thematic role to its specifier and its ability to check objective case. This correlation, known as Burzio's generalization, is discussed further in Chapter 10.

Since the complement subject's case feature cannot be checked within its own IP, it is forced to move via the matrix Spec(VP) to the matrix Spec(IP), as shown in (42a). In this final position, nominative case is checked by the finite I of the matrix clause in the spec-head configuration. For comparison, the structure of the finite complement counterpart is shown in (42b); here, each of the two subjects checks nominative case with its own finite I.

(42)

a.

b.

It is the movement of the subject from the complement clause to the matrix clause in (42a) that is known as raising. Raising, like ordinary subject movement, targets the subject. In both cases, an element that is licensed in a lower specifier position moves to a higher specifier position. In the case of expletive there, the licensing is by an appropriate verb; in the case of a nonexpletive subject, the licensing is as an argument of the lower verb. In both cases, any licensing relations are maintained by the trace of movement. And finally, in both cases, the lower position is not a case-checking position, whereas the higher one is. The one difference between raising and ordinary subject movement is that in the case of raising, the subject moves out of the IP in which it originates.

Tend and occur

Such verbs have a nonthematic subject position, just like seem and tend. However, they are not considered raising verbs, since their complement subjects cannot move out of the clause they originate in, as was mentioned in the introduction.

Promise

There is at least one other verb in English that clearly has the same property as promise - namely, threaten. You are asked to provide evidence for this assertion in Exercise 9.1D.

Object control

The requisite VP shell structure is shown in (56).

(56)

In extending the analysis of the finite complement case to the object control case, we will make a slight revision and replace AGREE by COMMIT. The two predicates differ in that COMMIT does not take an optional argument referring to a co-present rational being. In other words, we can persuade someone that the moon is made of green cheese without necessarily sharing that belief ourselves or assuming that there are others with that belief, and we can persuade someone to do the dishes without their incurring an obligation to us to do so. Given this slight change, we are now in a position to derive (57).

The derivation of the nonfinite clause to dance is exactly the same as in the case of a subject control sentence; (58a) is identical to (27c). (58a) substitutes as the complement of COMMIT, and substituting the children in the specifier position of COMMIT yields (58b).

(58)	a.				b.				c.
			Reuse (27c)				Substitute (58a) as complement of abstract subject control verb				Substitute specifier in (58b)

Notice how the apparent matrix object the children is not actually an object, but rather a subject of a small clause complement; in a moment, its objective case feature will be checked by CAUSE in the head-spec configuration. (58c) substitutes as the complement of CAUSE, yielding (59a), and then substituting the matrix subject we in the specifier position of CAUSE and abstract verb movement yields (59b).

(59)	a.				b.
			Substitute (58c) as complement of CAUSE				Substitute specifier in (59a) and abstract verb movement

Finally, the VP in (59b) substitutes into the elementary tree for the matrix I, and the matrix subject undergoes subject movement. For simplicity, we omit these last steps of the derivation.

The analysis just presented is straightforwardly consistent with the contrast between ECM and object control illustrated in (60).

The structures for the two sentences are shown in (61).

(61)

a.

b.

In (61a), expletive there is licensed by originating as the specifier of main verb be in the complement clause. (61b), on the other hand, is ruled out for exactly the same reasons as (32), repeated here as (62).

First, expletive there is not licensed, since neither COMMIT nor agree are verbs of existence. Second, COMMIT, like agree, selects rational beings as subjects, and expletive there fails to satisfy this selectional restriction.

More nonthematic subjects

Subject idiom chunks share two important properties with expletive there. First, just as expletive there must be licensed by a verb of existence, the subjects in (63) have whatever idiomatic force they have only in connection with the rest of the idiom, but not otherwise.

The relation between subject idiom chunks and their predicates is actually even stronger than the relationship between expletive there and its licensers, since predicate idiom chunks also have no independent idiomatic meaning of their own, whereas verbs of existence can occur independently of existential there.

For instance, neither cat in (63a) nor pot in (63d) have a metaphorical sense of secret or hypocrite, respectively, in other syntactic contexts. So sentences as in (64) have only literal interpretations.

Second, presumably because they are not interpreted literally, subject idiom chunks don't seem to be associated with any thematic role, and so they can occupy the nonthematic subject position of raising predicates. As a result of these two properties, contrasts as in (65) are expected.

(65a) is ruled out both on a literal and an idiomatic reading. Agree selects rational beings as subjects and is therefore incompatible with the cat either as a literal or as an idiomatic (nonthematic) subject. In addition, the cat isn't licensed as an idiom chunk in the representation in (65a) because it doesn't form a constituent with the rest of the idiom. By contrast, both readings, and in particular the idiomatic one, are possible in (65b). This is expected, since the matrix subject originates in the complement clause, forming a constituent with the remainder of the idiom.

Note that examples like (66) do not invalidate the diagnostic value of subject idiom chunks in distinguishing between subject control and raising predicates.

Here, want imposes less strict selectional restrictions on its subject. Since the subject needn't be rational (only have a reasonably well-developed nervous system), the sentence is grammatical, unlike (65a). However, unlike in (65b), the matrix subject position isn't nonthematic and the matrix subject doesn't move out of the lower clause, so the sentence has only a literal interpretation.

Weather it

What is going on here? A simple explanation is that the selectional restrictions of try and manage are being violated at a literal level (recall the discussion of the little girl lapping up her teacher's praise), prompting the hearer to conceptualize the weather as an animate being.

Summary

1. It might occur to a careful reader that an alternative approach to the facts in (20) and (21) is possible, according to which control sentences contain a single subject (not two, as in the text), which must simultaneously satisfy the selectional restrictions of both the higher and the lower verbs. Regardless of whether such an approach might be worked out in detail for English, we do not adopt it, since it cannot be extended to handle control constructions universally. In particular, the approach in question fails for Icelandic, as we briefly describe in what follows.

In contrast to English (and most other languages), Icelandic has certain verbs whose subjects appear in some non-nominative case (genitive, dative, or accusative), even in finite clauses. The analysis of these so-called 'quirky case' subjects is beyond the scope of this textbook, but it is well established that they are true subjects (despite the lack of subject-verb agreement) (see, for instance, Zaenen, Maling, and Thraínsson 1985, Sigurðsson 1991, and the many references therein). (i) gives examples of Icelandic finite clauses with an ordinary nominative subject and with a quirky case subject. The subjects are in boldface. Note that the underlined quantifiers agree in case with the subjects; this fact will be important directly.

Strákarn-ir      komust all-ir       i  skóla.
boys    -def.nom got    all-nom.pl.m in school
'The boys all got to school.' (= Sigurðsson's (6a))

Strákan-um       leiddist  öll-um       i  skóla.
boys   -def.dat  was.bored all-dat.pl.m in school
'The boys were all bored in school.' (= Sigurðsson's (6c))

(ii) shows that the clauses in (i) can be embedded under a subject control verb (here, vonast til 'hope for'). As in English, the subject of the embedded clauses is silent, but note that the quantifiers continue to exhibit the same case that they did in (i).

Strákarn-ir      vonast til að   PRO komast all-ir       í  skóla.
boys    -def.nom hope   for Comp     get    all-nom.pl.m in school
'The boys hope to all get to school.' (= Sigurðsson's 8a))

Strákarn-ir      vonast til að   PRO leiðast  ekki öll-um       í  skóla.
boys    -def.nom hope   for Comp     be.bored not  all-dat.pl.m in school
'The boys hope to all not be bored in school.' (= Sigurðsson's (8c))

In particular, in (ii.b), the quantifier must appear in the dative. From this, we conclude that the silent subject of the lower clause in (ii.b) checks quirky dative case in (ii.b), just as it did in the finite clause in (i.b). The fact that the matrix and embedded subjects don't bear the same case feature in (ii.b) provides conclusive evidence that control constructions are indeed biclausal, since a single noun phrase cannot check more than one case (even though it might satisfy more than one selectional restriction at the same time).

2. The statement in the text is an oversimplification. In fact, there is a bit of overlap in the distribution of PRO and overt noun phrases - for instance, the subject position of gerunds.

3. For simplicity, we focus on the proposition argument of seem and disregard the optional experiencer (It seems to me that you've solved the problem). Including the latter in our considerations would not affect our conclusions.

4. Even clearer evidence that the specifier position at issue is the Spec(VP) associated with seem (and not, say, some higher specifier position, such as Spec(IP)) comes from small clauses like (i).

D. Show that threaten is both a subject control verb and a raising verb.

Exercise 9.2

A. The premises of the following argument are correct, and the conclusion itself may be correct, but the argument is invalid. Where is the fallacy?

(1) is grammatical; (2) is ungrammatical. Therefore, manage must be a subject control predicate, not a raising predicate.

(1)			She managed to solve the problem.
(2)		*	There managed to solve the problem.

B. Using the sample answers in (2)-(4) as a model, determine whether the verbs in (5) are raising predicates, subject control predicates, or neither. For the purposes of this exercise, use only active verb forms.

Notice the difference between grammaticality judgments (= evidence) and conclusions (reached on the basis of evidence).

			Judgments:	Conclusion:
(2)	a.	✓	They chanced to have an opening.	The grammaticality of (2a) shows that chance is either a raising verb or a subject control verb. The grammaticality of (2b) resolves the uncertainty in favor of subject raising.
	b.	✓	There chanced to be an opening.
(3)	a.	✓	They resolved to solve the problem.	The grammaticality of (3a) shows that resolve is either a raising verb or a subject control verb. The ungrammaticality of (3b) resolves the uncertainty in favor of subject control.
	b.	*	There resolved to be a solution.
(4)	a.	*	They slipped out to have participated. Intended meaning: 'It slipped out that they participated.'	By definition, both subject raising and subject control verbs take nonfinite complements. The ungrammaticality of (4a,b) shows that slip out belongs to neither category.
	b.	*	There slipped out to be a problem. Intended meaning: 'It slipped out that there was a problem.'

(5)

agree, aspire, attempt, be, beg, cease, choose, claim, come, commence, continue, dare, demand, deserve, desire, determine, elect, end up, endeavor, expect, fail, forget, happen, have, hope, intend, look, mean, need, neglect, plan, pledge, prefer, presume, pretend, proceed, prove, purport, remember, request, start, strive, swear, tend, train, try, volunteer, vow, wish, yearn

C. Subject control predicates and raising predicates can belong to other syntactic categories than V. The predicates in (6) are adjectives, those in (7) are participles and it's not always completely clear whether they are adjectives or verbs, and about in (8) is a preposition. As in (B), determine which class each of these predicates belong to, giving the judgments that form the basis for your conclusion.

(6)			afraid, anxious, apt, certain, content, eager, ecstatic, evident, fortunate, glad, happy, hesitant, liable, likely, lucky, necessary, possible, ready, reluctant, sorry, sure, unlikely
(7)			bound, delighted, destined, determined, embarrassed, excited, fated, going, inclined, itching, jonesing, prepared, scared, (all) set, supposed, thrilled
(8)			about

D. Using (9)-(11) as a model, determine whether the verbs in (12) are ECM verbs or object control verbs. Once again, use only active verb forms. For the purpose of this exercise, do not worry about how you would semantically decompose any object control verbs that you find.

			Judgments:	Conclusion:
(9)	a.	✓	I assumed the meeting to be over.	The grammaticality of (9a) shows that assume is either an ECM verb or an object control verb. The grammaticality of (9b) resolves the uncertainty in favor of ECM.
	b.	✓	I assumed there to be a problem.
(10)	a.	✓	I convinced John to take the job.	The grammaticality of (10a) shows that convince is either an ECM verb or an object control verb. The ungrammaticality of (10b) resolves the uncertainty in favor of object control.
	b.	*	I convinced there to be a problem.
(11)	a.	*	I noticed the problem to be difficult.	By definition, both ECM verbs and object control verbs take nonfinite complements. The ungrammaticality of (11a,b) shows that notice belongs to neither category.
	b.	*	I noticed there to be a problem.

(12)

acknowledge, advise, allow, anticipate, ask, beg, blackmail, challenge, command, consider, convince, corral, dare, deem, determine, discover, encourage, enjoin, expect, fear, find, forbid, get, help, instruct, invite, know, order, perceive, permit, predict, pressure, prompt, prove, provoke, remind, report, request, require, tell, tempt, urge, warn

Exercise 9.3

For this exercise, be sure to provide the judgments on the basis of which you decide that a particular verb belongs to a particular class. Not much in the way of discussion is required beyond that.

A. As was mentioned in this chapter, raising verbs are logically distinct from there licensers. There are, however, some verbs that belong to both classes (this is comparable to a single person belonging to two distinct clubs). Can you think of any?

B. As we mentioned in this chapter, there are raising verbs that cannot take finite complements. Can you think of other verbs besides tend with this property?

C. Expect is an ECM verb. Which other class(es) of verbs discussed in this chapter does it belong to?

Exercise 9.4

B. Using the grammar tool in x-bar ch9, build structures for the sentences in (1). Provide suitable decompositions for any object control predicates.

Exercise 9.5

B. In your review, you graciously provide the conclusive evidence that Professor Gerneweis should have provided himself.

Exercise 9.7

B. Explain why the sentences in (1) are ungrammatical. The intended meaning is (2). If convenient, you can use the grammar tool in x-bar ch9 to build the relevant structures, but you don't need to. Assume that expletive it substitutes directly into Spec(IP), rather than moving there from Spec(VP).