Sie sind auf Seite 1von 14

Sam Sanders

Syntax 1 Final
12/6/2010
Collaborated with: Lila Hunt, Zoe Lu, Dima Zadorozhny, Andrew Pedelty

I. Intend: (1) *Tabs intend to be kept on John

(2) *There intend to be fish in the tank

(3) *John is intended to eat pancakes

(4) *Tabs are intended to be kept on John

Since we cannot have idiom chunks or dummy subjects in the upstairs subject position

without a passive with "intend," (1)-(2), intend must be a subject-subject raising verb. If it is not a

subject-subject raising verb, and still has a missing subject in the downstairs clause, it must be a

subject-subject control verb. Since you cannot passivise "intend," (3)-(4), it must not be a subject-

object raising verb.

Be going: (5) Tabs are going to be kept on John

(6) There are going to be fish in the tank

(7) *John is being going to eat

Since we can have dummy subjects or idiom chunks in the upstairs subject position

without a passive with "be going," (5)-(6), we can tell that "be going" is a subject-subject raising verb.

Since it is subject-subject raising, it cannot be subject-subject control. Since you cannot have a

passivised "be going," (7), we can tell it is not subject-to-object raising.

Be sure: (8) Tabs are sure to be kept on John

(9) There is sure to be a fish in the tank

(10) *Jack is being sure to keep tabs on John

Since we can have dummy subjects or idiom chunks in the upstairs subject position

without a passive with "be sure," (8)-(9), we can tell that "be sure" is a subject-subject raising verb.

Since it is a subject-subject raising verb, we can know it is not a subject-subject control verb. Since we
Sam Sanders
Syntax 1 Final
12/6/2010
Collaborated with: Lila Hunt, Zoe Lu, Dima Zadorozhny, Andrew Pedelty

cannot have a grammatical sentence with a passive, (10), "be sure" cannot be subject-object raising

verb.

Refuse: (11) *Tabs refused to be kept on John

(12) *There refused to be fish in the tank

(13) Tabs are refused to be kept on John

(14) Fish are refused to be in the tank

Since we cannot have an idiom chunk in upstairs specifier position without a passive,

(11)-(12), we can tell that "refuse" is not a subject-subject raising verb. Since it is not a subject-subject

raising verb, we can tell that it must be a subject-control verb. Since we can see the idiom chunk in (13)

being raised to upstairs specifier position, we can tell that "refuse" is a subject-to-object raising verb.

Need: (15) Tabs need to be kept on John

(16) There need to be fish in the tank

(17) *Fish are needed to be kept on John

Since we can have dummy subjects or idiom chunks in the upstairs subject position without

a passive with "need," (15)-(16), we can tell that "need" is a subject-subject raising verb. Since it is a

subject-subject raising verb, we can know it is not a subject-subject control verb. Since we cannot have

a grammatical sentence with a passive, (17), "need" cannot be subject-object raising verb.

Assume: (18) *John assumes to be happy

(19) Tabs are assumed to be kept on John

Since we cannot have a an empty downstairs specifier position without a passive, (18),

we can tell that "assume" is neither subject-subject control or subject-subject raising. Since we can

have an idiom chunk from the downstairs clause after a passive, (19), we can tell that "assume" is a
Sam Sanders
Syntax 1 Final
12/6/2010
Collaborated with: Lila Hunt, Zoe Lu, Dima Zadorozhny, Andrew Pedelty

subject-object raising verb.

Find: (20) *John finds to be happy

(21) Tabs are found to be kept on John

Since we cannot have a an empty downstairs specifier position without a passive, (20),

we can tell that "find" is neither subject-subject control or subject-subject raising. Since we can have an

idiom chunk from the downstairs clause after a passive, (21), we can tell that "find" is a subject-object

raising verb.

Advise: (22) *John advised tabs to be kept on Jack

(23) John advised the students to do well

(24) The students were advised to do well

(25) *Fish were advised to be kept in the tank

(26) *Tabs were advised to be kept on John

(27) *Tabs advise to be kept on John

We can tell that idiom chunks can't be in the upstairs specifier position, even with a

passive, (26)-(27), so we can tell that "advise," is not a subject-subject raising verb. Because it's not

even ok to have certain other things as the upstairs specifier after a passive or as the upstairs

object/downstairs specifier before a passive, (22)-(25), we can tell that there are restrictions about

which things can be the specifier of the downstairs clause. When this is the case we can tell that the

upstairs verb is an object-subject control verb. If we say that "advise" is an object-subject control verb,

we don't currently have the tools to determine if it is a subject-subject control verb, as we have no way

of knowing whether the downstairs specifier of (23) was "the students" or "John" in the deep structure,

so I will simply assume something cannot be both subject-subject and object-subject control for now.
Sam Sanders
Syntax 1 Final
12/6/2010
Collaborated with: Lila Hunt, Zoe Lu, Dima Zadorozhny, Andrew Pedelty

Have7: (28) *You have tabs to keep on John

(29) You have clothes to keep on John

(30) I have a steak for John to eat

(31) *You have tabs for Jack to keep on John

Since we can see that have7 can either have or not have the downstairs specifier,

(29)-(30), we can tell that have7 works as a subject-subject control verb. We can also tell that it is an

object-object control verb, because you can be missing a downstairs direct object, but only if it's not an

idiom chunk.

Have8: (33) Tabs have to be kept on John

(34) There have to be fish in the bowl

Since we can have an idiom chunk or dummy specifier in the upstairs specifier

position without the proper transformation or a passive transformation, we can tell that have8 is a

subject-subject raising verb.

Use5: (35) Tabs used to be kept on John

(36) There used to be fish in the bowl

Since we can have an idiom chunk or dummy specifier in the upstairs specifier

position without the proper transformation or a passive transformation, we can tell that use5 is a

subject-subject raising verb.

II. In order to check the transformations occurring in sentences with tough-type adjectives, I will use

simpler sentences than those given in the examples to try and eliminate anything that is confounding.

The set of sentences I will be using in order for us to get a better idea about these types of adjectives, I
Sam Sanders
Syntax 1 Final
12/6/2010
Collaborated with: Lila Hunt, Zoe Lu, Dima Zadorozhny, Andrew Pedelty

will use the following sentences:

(37) It is hard for Winston to keep tabs on Murphy

(38) *Winston is hard to keep tabs on Murphy

(39) Tabs are hard for Winston to keep on Murphy

(40) For Winston to keep tabs on Murphy is hard

(41) Murphy is hard for Winston to keep tabs on

What pattern do we see in these sentences? We can tell from (38) that "hard" is neither a raising or a

subject-subject control predicate. We can tell it's not an object-object control predicate because there is

no direct object in (37). It can't be object-object control for the same reason, that there is no direct

object. So, what do we see going on?

In (39) we see an idiom chunk as the upstairs specifier without a passive transformation, so there

has to be movement. Why does this tell us there has to be movement? Since the idiom chunk could not

have been in the upstairs specifier position of the deep structure, then it must have been moved there

somehow. However, there is the possibility that one may not consider (39) to be grammatical. If this is

the case then consider the following sentence, which is less dubious.

(42) Tabs are hard to keep on Murphy

Since we can see that tough-type predicates move the downstairs object into upstairs specifier

position, I propose the following transformation:

D: Take a sentence with a tough-type predicate

C: Move the downstairs object into upstairs specifier position

I won't name this yet, because it seems to be deeply intertwined with the other possible

transformations we see occurring with tough-type predicates. One more final point before moving on -
Sam Sanders
Syntax 1 Final
12/6/2010
Collaborated with: Lila Hunt, Zoe Lu, Dima Zadorozhny, Andrew Pedelty

since (39) seems dubious, while (42) does not, there seems to me to be something about this

transformation not being possible for some when there is a downstairs specifier which is not indefinite.

Now the question becomes - what other transformations do we see? Considering (40), it also

seems possible to move the CP complement of a tough-type predicate into upstairs specifier position.

Some may say that sentences such as

(43) To keep tabs on Murphy is hard

Would prove this idea wrong. However, consider the fact that we can see the same type of

embedded clause without a head or specifier in other situations.

(44) To be generous is good

This has nothing at all to do with tough-type adjectives, and everything to do with having an

indefinite or definite deep structure specifier in embedded clauses. So, if we ignore these special cases,

it's fairly clear to see that tough-type predicates raise their CP complements to upstairs specifier

position. Since this is still a tough-type predicate raising something, and it goes without saying that you

cannot raise both an entire embedded clause as well as the object of the embedded clause, we can

combine the two transformations. I propose the combined transformation is

D: Take a sentence with a tough-type predicate

C: Raise either the downstairs object or the CP complement to the predicate to upstairs

specifier position.

This explains (39) and (40) readily. However, we still need to account for (41). Looking at

(41) we can tell that there is a missing DP complement to the P "on." We could question whether this is

a movement or control transformation. However, if we were to consider this to be a type of control, we

would also be saying that there are two different subcategorizations for tough-type predicates. Why is
Sam Sanders
Syntax 1 Final
12/6/2010
Collaborated with: Lila Hunt, Zoe Lu, Dima Zadorozhny, Andrew Pedelty

this? Well, for transformations to raise something into upstairs specifier position, they must be 1 theta

role predicates that subcat against a deep structure specifier, and control predicates are the exact

opposite. Working off the concept that we are seeing the complement of a P being raised, we now need

to consider when it can be raised. The "on Murphy" portion of the deep structure of (41) may or may

not be a complement to the verb. Consider the following sentences

(46) The freeway is hard for John to drive on

(47) The freeway is hard to drive on

(48) School is difficult to sleep during

(49) This bed is hard to sleep in

These sentences show pretty strongly, if they are grammatical, that the PP does not have to

be complementing the VP, but can also be modifying it, for tough-type predicates to raise the P's

complement. So, there seems to be one more possibility we need to account for in the possible

transformations associated with tough-type predicates. To account for these I will propose one more

change to the transformation

D: Take a sentence with a tough-type predicate

C: Raise the entire CP complementing the predicate, or the object of the CP

complementing the predicate, or a complement of a P that is complementing or modifying the VP of the

CP complementing the predicate

There is one final question to answer about these - how bounded are these transformations?

Consider the following sentences to determine this.

(50) *To sleep is hard to want

(51) Some food is hard to want to like


Sam Sanders
Syntax 1 Final
12/6/2010
Collaborated with: Lila Hunt, Zoe Lu, Dima Zadorozhny, Andrew Pedelty

(52) My bed is easy to want to sleep in

(53) *To run is hard to like

Considering these sentences, we can see that the CP movement is bounded so that it is

only the CP that is complementing the tough-type predicate that can be raised. However, we can also

tell that the raising of the DP complementing the P or the VP can be raised no matter how many clauses

below the tough-type predicate it is. This means that we should actually split this into two

transformations: CP raising and DP raising. I propose the two following transformations:

CP Raising

D: Take a TP with a tough-type predicate

C: Raise the CP complementing the predicate to upstairs specifier position

DP Raising

D: Take a TP with a tough-type predicate

C: Raise any DP that is an object of any clause more downstairs than the one containing

the tough-type predicate or is in a PP in a clause that is more downstairs than the predicate

There is still one more point to be made about these transformations, which I stated at

the start, but that I need to restate now. Even though I think it is important to have these as two seperate

transformations because of how they are bounded differently, you cannot do both of them. That is, you

cannot move one of the DPs and then move the CP that that DP was in.

III. The difference between "ready" and tough-type predicates is simple when you understand that

tough-type predicates are raising while "ready" is control. The easiest way to see this is in testing the

grammaticallity of the two in a similar surface structure with an idiom chunk. Consider the following.
Sam Sanders
Syntax 1 Final
12/6/2010
Collaborated with: Lila Hunt, Zoe Lu, Dima Zadorozhny, Andrew Pedelty

(54) *Tabs are ready to keep on Murphy

(55) Tabs are hard to keep on Murphy

(55) The book was ready to read

(56) The book was hard to read

(57) The book was ready to be read

(58) *The book was hard to be read

(59) The turkey was ready to eat

(60) The turkey was hard to eat

(61) John is ready to sleep

The patterning is immediately obvious with (54) and (55) - idiom chunks do not work as the

upstairs specifier with "ready." This is dichotomy is usually due to one predicate being control and one

predicate being raising, and this pattern holds in this instance. The other reason it becomes clear that

"ready" is a new type of control verb is because of the ambiguity. (57) gives us further reason why we

should consider "ready" to be a control predicate and not a raising predicate - we can have grammatical

surface structures with the downstairs clause having and not having a passive transformation. Why

does this show this? Because if it was an object-subject raising predicate like tough-type predicates,

then when we use the passive on the downstairs clause, which removes the downstairs object, we

would no longer be able to get grammatical surface structures, because we wouldn't be able to do the

required raising. I will now propose the new transformation that we see in "ready" that will also be a

stepping stone in explaining the ambiguity in (59) that does not exist in (60).

Subject-object control

D: Take a sentence with a subject-object control predicate that has an upstairs specifier co-
Sam Sanders
Syntax 1 Final
12/6/2010
Collaborated with: Lila Hunt, Zoe Lu, Dima Zadorozhny, Andrew Pedelty

referent to the downstairs object

C: Delete the downstairs object

Now that I have that proposed, how does this account for the ambiguity of (59)? This accounts

for it because we can tell that "ready" is also a subject-subject control predicate because of (61).

Because it can control either the downstairs object or subject, the deep structure of (59) could have

been either of:

(62) The turkey was ready for the turkey to eat

(63) The turkey was ready for [indefinite] to eat

IV. (64) The kids stopped being hard to get ready to send to school when they learned to tie their own

shoes

This sentence is hiding many, many problems and secrets. To understand fully what is going on,

we first have to step by step determine what the main verbs in the sentence are. First, we have to

determine the relation of the three words "stopped" and "being." We see "be" in the present participle,

while we see "stop" in the past tense, which is a hint at their relation. Perhaps "stop" is a new auxiliary

verb we have yet to deal with. Consider the following sentences

(65) John stops eating

(66) *John is stopping running

(67) John has stopped running

(68) John may stop running

(69) John stopped wanting to bring cookies to school

(70) Tabs stopped being kept on John


Sam Sanders
Syntax 1 Final
12/6/2010
Collaborated with: Lila Hunt, Zoe Lu, Dima Zadorozhny, Andrew Pedelty

So, we can see from these sentences that stop is in fact a new type of auxiliary verb that subcats

against having a be1 compliment. This solves part of the problem, as we can now tell the relation

between "stopped" and "being" in (64). Since we have been discussing tough-type adjective-predicates

earlier in this paper, it is not necessary to discuss the relation of being and hard for now. Since we saw

earlier that you can pull the DP direct object of any clause more downstairs than the tough-type

predicate, that means that "the kids" must have been the direct object of one of the clauses after

"stopped being hard." I will get back to determining which verb "the kids" was the direct object of later.

Next, I will discuss the T' "to get ready." We can see that there is the adjective-predicate

"ready," as well as the predicate "get." We have discussed ready prior in this paper already, so the

bigger question becomes what type of verb is "get." Consider the following sentences.

(71) *Tabs got ready to be kept on John

(72) Sue got her kids ready to eat

(73) *Sue got her kids happy

(74) Sue made her kids happy

(75) Sue got her kids ready

(76) Sue got ready

(77) Sue got herself ready

We can see two unique things going on with "get" in these sentences. First, when you consider

(73)-(75), we can see something that we haven't seen before, but that is not expected - "get" is

subcatting against specific types of adjectives. I would assume that this would have to do with some

kind of strange theta-role, but that is far too difficult to determine for this paper. However, (75)-(77)

show us something very interesting - if you consider that (76) is equivalent to (77) and not (75), then it
Sam Sanders
Syntax 1 Final
12/6/2010
Collaborated with: Lila Hunt, Zoe Lu, Dima Zadorozhny, Andrew Pedelty

seems that "get" has another new transformation type that follows patterning similar to other control

transformations - a subject-upstairs object control verb. What does this have to do with (64)? This

means that "get" has a direct object, and if I formulated my transformations for tough-type predicates

correctly, then we have our direct object that has been raised. Consider just the clause "to get ready to

send to school." Who is the indefinite specifier getting ready? I believe that intuitively, it is "the kids."

This agrees perfectly with our observations about "get" and "hard," so it is a good choice. I say that the

specifier of the clause is indefinite because "hard" does not have an outside theta role, so it cannot be

subject-subject control, so this is easiest explained by way of indefinite embedded specifier deletion.

The last int he series of verbs before "when" is "send." What sorts of patterns do we see with

send? Consider the following sentences.

(78) *John sent to school

(79) John sent the kids to school

(80) John sent the whale

What is important in these sentences is that "send" requires a direct object. While I can still

ignore the empty specifier because of indefinite specifier deletion. However, the CP containing "send"

is complementing "ready." This means that, if my analysis earlier was correct, then we can be safe in

saying that if the specifier in the clause containing "ready" is the same as the object in the clause

complementing "ready," we can delete the downstairs object. Lets now reexamine the clause containing

"ready." This clause is "to get ready to send to school." If my earlier analysis that the thing that is being

gotten ready is "the kids," then that would mean that "the kids" is also the thing that is being sent to

school. However, this is not quite right. Consider the following sentences.

(81) John got his lamb ready to eat


Sam Sanders
Syntax 1 Final
12/6/2010
Collaborated with: Lila Hunt, Zoe Lu, Dima Zadorozhny, Andrew Pedelty

(82) *John got tabs ready to be kept on Jack

What do these two show us? If we recognize the ambiguity in (81), and the ungrammaticality of

(82), then we can see that "ready" also makes other predicates, or perhaps get ready is a single

predicate like "be going," act as object-object control. This accounts for (64) in an appropriate way. I

propose that the deep structure of (64) is

(83) Stopped being hard for [indefinite] to get the kids ready for [indefinite] to send the kids to

school

The most downstairs kids would be deleted because of "get ready" acting as an object-object

control predicate, then we would see the more upstairs "the kids" being moved into the most upstairs

specifier position because of the tough-type raising. This accounts for everything before the clause

starting with "when." Why do I say that that is all accounted for? Consider the fact that the sentence is

grammatical with or without "when they learned to tie their own shoes."

(84) The kids stopped being hard to get ready to go to school

"Learn" is rather uninteresting, and thus the clause following "when," as it is simply a subject-

subject control verb. Consider the following sentence.

(85) *Tabs learned to be kept on John

Thus, the final question is - what is "when?" First, as I showed, it seems to be modifying,

because the sentence is grammatical with or without its phrase. Admittedly, I am assuming that "when,"

is the head of the clause/phrase. Now, let's consider when you can see a when phrase. First, I will check

it on just sentences, as we have seen.

(86) The kids were orange when they learned to tie their shoes

(87) I was sleeping when they learned to tie their shoes


Sam Sanders
Syntax 1 Final
12/6/2010
Collaborated with: Lila Hunt, Zoe Lu, Dima Zadorozhny, Andrew Pedelty

(88) The man brought cookies slowly to the class on the day I slept in when I was sick

What do these sentences show us? They show us that "when" headed phrases are modifying, not

complementing, the VP, because there are not Vs that subcat against them. This suggest that "when" is

a P, and that we are now seeing PPs that have TPs as their complements. If this is true, that "when" is a

PP, then we should see it in other places that PPs normally occur. Consider the following sentence

(89) The time when we were together was a happy time

This seems to suggest this. However, CPs can also complement NPs. What is one place that a

CP can be that a PP cannot - specifier position. Consider the following sentence.

(90) When we were together was a happy time

This shows fairly strongly that "when" headed phrases are CPs. So, then what is the final

change we need to make to our grammar to account for this? We need to change it so that CPs can

modify VPs when the have certain heads like "when," and include "when" into the category of C.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen