Conditions for Raising Subject to Subject, or Subject to Object The third and final condition under which a verb may fail to

have a subject remaining to provide for finite-verb agreement is when the subject of the sentential object is raised from its own clause into the next higher S. There are two main classes of raising:

a. Raise the subject of the sentential object to subject of the matrix verb by the rule RAIS-SUBJ, governed by the feature [+RAIS-SUBJ]. This rule precedes the regular subjectivalization rule early in the cycle. From the structure underlying (oU.a) it provides either for (8U.b), where the entire neutral case is subjectivalized, or for

(81*.c) where the subject is raised.

(8U) (a) Is unlikely - He will solve the problem.

(b) That he will solve the problem is unlikely.

(c) He is unlikely to solve the problem.

This analysis eliminates the spurious IT-replacement rule of Rosenbaum, since (8U.c) is generated directly from the underlying structure (8U.a), not from the extraposition of (8U.V):

(8U) (b1) It is unlikely that he will solve the problem.

NOM - 51*

The rule of RAIS-SUBJ (read "raise subject to subject") is obligatory with verbs like begin, continue, start blocking (8U.f):

(8U) (d) Began - He ran.

(e) He began to run.

(f) *That he ran began.

Sentences like (8U.e), analyzed as Intransitive Verb Phrase Complementation by Rosenbaum (1967a), have a number of special properties which argue that they belong with the other RAIS-SUBJ verbs. The most striking such property is the occurrence of the expletive there as surface subject of the matrix verb in Just those instances where it is possible as surface subject of the embedded verb:

(8U) (g) There began to be rumblings of discontent, (h) There were rumblings of discontent.

A counterargument to this analysis, pointed out by Perlmutter (1968b) is that with verbs that appear to require deep structure subject identity, like try,

condescend, a verb begin must have a deep structure sub- ject in order to be able to state the constraint that blocks (8U.i):

(Qk) (i) *I tried to begin to like Jazz.

Perlmutter concludes that the verb begin must be permitted to occur in both configurations: i.e. with abstract sub- jects, as in (8U.d,e), and with concrete subjects and complements, as in (8U.J):

(8U) (j) He tried to begin to do his work.

He began to do his work.

There are, however, difficulties in the notion "deep structure constraint" on subject identity. If (8U.k) is well-formed, as we believe,

(81+) (k) John tries to be difficult to please.

it must have a deep structure in which John is object of please: i.e., To please John is difficult. The constraint that the subject of try and the subject of its complement must be identical cannot here be stated as a deep structure

NOM - 55

constraint, only as a mid-derivation constraint, or conceivably as a surface structure filter of some kind.

If (8U.k) is Judged not to be fully well-formed, then it appears that begin will indeed have to be permitted in both configurations, as Perlmutter claims. But

then there will be unexplained derivations of Perlmutter's John began to read the book, which stands as an unsolved problem. The data on which the case rests is not entirely clear, since (8U.i), rejected by Perlmutter, is acceptable to most speakers.

b. Raise the subject of the sentential object to object of the matrix verb by the rule RAIS-OBJ (read "Raise subject to object") governed by the feature [+RAIS-OBJ], This rule is optional for most verbs, but obligatory with a few like consider which disallow clausal nominalization:

(85) (a) They expected that he would solve the problem.

(b) They expected him to solve the problem.

(c) He believes that she is intelligent.

(d) He believes her to be intelligent.

(e) *He considers that she is intelligent.

(f) He considers her to be intelligent.

Like the rule RAIS-SUBJ, this one precedes the regular objectivalization rule early in the cycle, thus providing, in those instances where it is optional, for either the clausal or infinitival nominalization of (85).

Consider now the motivations for claiming that the subject of the embedded clause in (85.c) is raised to object of believe in (85.d). If the analysis did not raise the clausal subject she to object of believe, there would be no natural explanation of the fact that reflexivi-

zation is possible in this position:

(85) (g) She believes herself to be intelligent.

Reflexivization is not normally possible down into a lower sentence:

(85) (h) "She persuaded John to like herself.

This argument is not totally convincing, perhaps, in view of the fact that verbs like expect require EQUI-NP-DEL under these circumstances, so that one cannot argue for RAIS-OBJ on these grounds, with these verbs:

NOM - 56

(85) (i) *He expected himself to solve the problem, (j) He expected to solve the problem.

Nonetheless the RAIS-OBJ analysis, proposed by the Kiparskys (1968), serves well to bring together all instances of

infinitivalization under a single principle of to-inser- tion and is adopted here. It is quite analogous to the RAIS-SUBJ principle illustrated in (8U), which has been accepted in some form by virtually everyone who has

examined sentences of this type. In the present analysis, it is extended to cover the so-called "second passive" of

(86):

(86) (a) One says — He is intelligent.

(b) *One says — him — to be intelligent. [RAIS- OBJ objectivalization]

(c) He is said to be intelligent. [Passive subjectivalization]

(d) One says — He is intelligent

(e) One says — that he is intelligent. [Regular objectivalization]

(f) That he is intelligent is said. [Passive subjectivalization]

(g) It is said that he is intelligent. [Extraposition]

It is true that this derivation creates one ungrammatical intermediate stage for the verbs say, rumor, and repute; but all the others that are commonly analyzed as second passives have no ungrammatical intermediate stage under this deriva- tion — suppose, think, consider, believe,...—and there is no reason to set up a different derivation for the verbs say, rumor, and repute when all that is required is either to make the passive obligatory with subject-raising in these sentences, or to claim that some special surface constraint filters out (86.b), since these verbs are idiosyncratic in a number of ways.

There is one strong reason to maintain this derivation of the 2nd passive even in the face of the ungrammatical intermediate stage generated for say, rumor, and repute•

The only alternative derivation is by some form of IT- replacement after extraposition:

(86) (g) It is said that he is intelligent, (h) He is said to be intelligent.

NOM - 57

But, although this avoids an ungrammatical stage in the 2nd Passive derivation with say, rumor, and repute, it provides another path for the comparable 2nd Passive derivation with think, believe, suppose, etc.:

(86) (i) It was thought that he was intelligent, (j) He was thought to be intelligent.

But (86.J) can also be derived through the regular passive from They thought him to be intelligent; since

(86.j) shows no trace of structural ambiguity, we be- lieve that the general RAIS—OBJ solution is correct and that IT-replacement should be rejected for 2nd Passive derivations.

7. Illustration of l.c: Derivation of Infinitivals with Subject