A case for movement

A CASB FOP MOVFMENT

Kyle Brian Johnson

B.A. University of California, II'vine (1981)

Subrni tted to the Departme~lt of LinC"Tuistics and Philosophy in Partial Ful~il1ment o~

the Requirements of the De~ree Ctf

DOCTOR OF PHIOLOSOPHY_t at the

MASSA.CHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOL()GY October 19R5

@Kyle ,Tohnson 19R5

The author hereby grants to M.I.T. permission to reoroduce and to distribute copies of this

- thesis document in \'lhole or" part

Signature of Author_....

Departltent (tiLinquistics an(l Philosophy

October ~l, 1995 Certified by

---Noam chomsky, ~hesis Sunervisor

" , .

-Accepted by

_{---_-...}

...

.-.-

...

_---Chairman, Departmental Graduate Committee

MASSAGHUSEr,~.)tNSInuit:

OF TfCHNOlO(i'(

OCT

31

1985

LtBRAAtES

by

Submltted to the Deparunent or~ Llngujstics and Phi 1osophy 01 Octc~r 22 '1985 in partlal fuli~lllment 01' tht: rdqulrements for tht= Degrae 01-' Dcc"tor 01' Philosophy In

Lingule'tlcs

ABSTRAGr

ThlS thesl~ d~I\~nC1s the posit1m That the: SyntaCtIC IdvC'l o~f D structur~

has an existence autcnanoos fran S structure. It dces this by shOWing that,

Movemen't a ralatlOl between D and S structure, is cQ'lstrained at

in~rmed1atelevels, Two cmstra1nts Q1 MOJement are investigated (he SubJacency is argudd t'J mak; reference to the syntax of thematlc role

assignment. '!he secmd the Emp"ty Categay Principlet 1s heId to make

ra!t.:rC'nc~ to the syntax of Case asslgnment. The 1·1r.3t holds at

1ntermediate levels in tha Syntax the secood at S structure and Logical

Form, Subjacency is shown to ccnstralo rlghtward mOJement a.s well a~

leftward movement ' The Empty

ca

tegory Pr inc1ple is factored into

lndepend~ntprinclples me holding of chains, tna othE.r holdIng cf emp"1:Y categories. The asymmetrlcal bamdedneas of leftward and r1gntward

movement 1s argued to S1:em fran till., ver.s101 of the Empty category Princlple. A shcrt account of PSl predicates 1s included

Thesis Superviscr Ncam O1an.sky

Acknowledganents

With

this

dissertation ends four (and some)

tremando~~ years at

MIT, it is a pleasure to acknowledge some of those responsible I

first send my kudos to the ephemeral "communi ty" at Building 20, this more than anything is responsible for growing the lin~st in me. To my commi ttee members, Noam Chomsky, Luigi Rizzi, Howard lasnik, K61'l

Hale and J1m Higginbotham (it took all of them), 1 am forever grateful. Noam Chomsky 8 influence on me demands more than can be

described here, among his many, renowned abilities, I thank him especially for his energy, thoughtfulness, and eagerness to explore new ideas. Iuigi Rizzi I thank for teaching me at once comp:l.rative syntax and about how to know a language (like Italian, for instance) thoroughly~ From Howard Iasnik comes most of what I lmow of the nuts and bolts of linguist ics; I thank him for sl1ariog hi s wealth of

lmowledge and clarity of thought Ken llale I thank for his constant enthusiasm and encouragement, he is a fountain of rich ideasI

remarkable facts and just good sense. I am grateful to Jim

lIigginbotham for sharing his precise thinking, good counsel,

anr.

for giving me a glimp3e at what linglllstics is about To all I am grateful for introducing me to the pleasures of linguistics.

Two unofficial members of my commi ttee deserve special thanks. Tim Stowell and Mamoru Sal to have given much of their time towards

hearing (and solving) my problems; this clissertation would have been much poorer without their

help-It is a well known truth that the uhief educators of MIT students

are their fellow students. From this perspective, thanks are due to my other thesis committee; Diwla Arohangeli, Mark Baker, Isabelle

Haik, Julle·tte Levin, Dinette Massam and Riohard Sproat. It has been no small privilege to be included in their year; I thank them each for their guidanoe and friendship- Among my teachers from classes past, ~ wish to thank David Peaetsky, Hagit Borer Ken SaIir, Alec Marantz, Barry Schein, Donca Steria.de, Susan Rothstein, Jim Huang,

Mario Montalbetti, Idea Travis David Nash, Jane Simpson, Rita

Manzini, Paula Pr~~, Malka Rappapport, Beth Levin, lDri Levin, Joseph Aoun, Denis Bouchard, Doug Pulleyblank, Ianilo Salamanca Jan Wager, Nigel Fabb, Hilda Koopnan, Dan1nique Sportiche, Maria-Luisa

Zubizarretta, and Jeri Kisala Among my teachers from olasses

future, I thank; Pew Speafl, Andy Barss, Mae.gie Browning, Betsy Walli 160ki PUkui, Tova Rapaport, Marc }Weert Alicja Gorecka,

Margaret Magnus, Jennifer Cole, Miohele Sigler, David Feldman, Sandra

-Levenson, Steve Abney, Ur Shlon~~, Andrea Calabres~, Carol Tenny,

John Lumsden, Doug Saddy, Loren Trigo, Jim Blevins, Betsy Ritter, Hyon Soak Choe, Janis Melvold, Viviane De ')rez, Ewa liiggins, Ka.ty McCreight, and Kelly Sloan. The stdady' Btcaam of visitors to MIT

have washed more than a few good ideas into my l1eOO, even i f they've only managed to cleanse i t of few bad onesII My grati tude to them all, some of whom are. Jacqueline Gueron, Peter Coopnans, Bonnie Schwartz Iany Jaspers, Ian Roberts, Robin Clark, Mike Hammond, Anne Lowbeque, Carme Picallo, Adrianna Belletti, Pino Longobardi

Alessandra Giorgi l Katalin Kiss, Ana Szabolsci, Joe Emonds Erie

Reuland, Paula Kempchins~, Dan Finer, Dan Everett, Alfredo II\lrtado, leo Wetzel, Susan Fisher I Robert May, Peter Ludlow Ma.ry laughren,

Cecelia Hedlund, John Truscott, Grant Goodall, Nobert llornstein, David IAghtfootl Pierre Pica and Irene Haim·

I have a friend who complains that since moving into New 1'ngland he has been unable to eacape mixing company with the ever present

linguist. TllOugh a curse for him, this extended community of linguists has been a blessing for me. A special thanks to; Vicki

Berqvall, Jolm 1~hitman, Tom Roeper, Fliwin Williams, David Lebeaux,

Janet Fodort ~'teven Craillt Edwin Williams, Peter Sells, lloj 1 lIajime, Yoshihisa Kitagawa, Joan Maling, Paul Gorrell, Lori Davis, Charlie Junes, Sut3UInU Kuno, fub :Berwick, Anllie Zaenen, J'ane Grimshaw, Steve Pinker, Elaine McNulty, Sam Epstein, Juan Uerigarecka, Jaklin

Korn':::'ilt, and Fstller TorregoII My friend recently made an unfortunate move to Los Angeles; unfortunate because southern California is thick with them too. I send my thanks for many 11elpful discussions to the crowd there: Ken Wexler, Neil Elliott, Jack Martin, Aaron (fresh) Broadwell, ravid Cline, Q3valdo Jaeggli, Nina Itrams, Hea1~her Holmbaok, Garjl' Gilljgan, Hagit Borer, Mamoru Sai to, Tim Stowell, Bonnie Schwartz, Paula Kem}XJhinsky, and Ian Roberts - 14any in thetJ8 lists deserve a much greater mention than they receive. They have given genarously of their time and talents, have consoled and coaxed me, have extended charity and offered challenges. To each of yOtl. I say thanks

There are many others who have had a hand in getting thi8

dissertation off the ground. Discussions with Tarald Taraldsen and Richard larson have proven very t!elpful. A brief trip in Flt.ro~

rewarded me with conversations with Kristi Koch Christensen, Henl{ Van Riemsdijk, Stan Vilmer and Martin Evereart. Thanks to my teachers at Irvine; Peter Culioover, Mary-lDuise Keen, Mike Braunstein, and Edward Matthei. To my philo.c:1ophical friends Ken Albert, David law1

Gabriel Segal, Debra Satz, Thomas Uebel and Jay Isbed a salute. To Morris Halle and Jay Keyser for their wise counsel and good

couching. For material supporlj, my thanks to the MIT Press crowd: Ron Jensen, Jeremy Grainger, and Tom McCorkleII For support of all varieties, my thanks to Maggie Carraccino and Nancy Peters. For

broadening my linguistic 101Qwledge, thanks to Wayne 0'NeilJ (Jim Harris, and Yosef Grodzinsl\y. For sticking by me for so long, Rita Manzini, Peggy Speas, and Maggie Browning deserve a medal. My thanl{s to lsa's giMle, JL's grin, Dx't3 ptlone calls, and Lizith ~~ law. A special thanks to Mikey. Their warm friendship have enriched these years immeasurably. Thank~3 to Richard Kayne for ConnectedneSl3 and to Jfaj Ross for Constraints. To my family, Vern, Elearlor and Julie, a special salute. For last minute tlelp with the manlL9cript, thanks to Maggie Browning and Viviana Deprez. And finally, to the reader w110 continues beyond the Aclmowledgements, my admjration.

-J

~.l Intro,lLC lion

2.~ rrhL·t[\··r0J.~G an\..l L\lt.:nts

~.3 i{\JaI1'-tlY2in'J vlJrb.;i :2. ) •1 'l'hl-: ,~Iu.:n\.)nH.:n<Hl

~.3.2 ,;\11 ccc(,)unt

~• 3 .~.1 L:xL.J~ 0t iv~ ..it"

2.3.3 A tl:Lt fur una:;cusative Vert)ci

2. 4 P;Ji-v~rb;3

2_ 4.1 llltroduc tion

~.4. ~ 1)r01)\...( ties (Jf thtJ priYc 11- intLft;Jt.'<.:tat i.Hl

2.4,,2.1 'rhl: n0rl--tht;:ta"·nlilrk~J sut)Jcct !:A):JitiuJ1

2.4.2.2 l:tJsition 0(' th~ U<LJl.:Ci<"f'Ct!r

2.4.3 Arrbi':Ju~us stru:tur~vf internal cll:lSS

2. 5 rUl eccuunt [c)r t.ht;' ant>igUJU~ ~tr.u..;turCJ

~.6 Corelus ion

Chapter

3

Subjacency

3.1

Introductory definitions and assumptions ,.2 left~d movement

3.2.1 Extraction from NPe ,.2.1.1 Simple :{Ps

3.2.1.2 Complex NPs

3.2.2

The Raising Prinoiple

3.2.,

The Subject and Adjunct Conditions

3.2.4

Wh-Islands

3.3

Rightward movement

3.3.1

Focus Movement

u

U 11 :"H 30 )3 34 36 39 47 50 59 59 68

68

68

72

73 76 77 83 84

3.3.3

~trapositionfrom

NP

3.3.3.1 ~trapositionis movement 3.3-3.2 Extraposition from subjects

3.3.3.3

Landing sites and Freezing effects

3.3.3.4

Stylistic Extraposition

3.3.4

Summary of rightward movement

3.4

Two problematic constructions

3.4.1 ~trapo8ed clauses

3.4.2

Extraction from PPs

Chapter

4

Chain Government

4.1

Chain Government

4.1• 1 Rightward Movement 4.1.2 leftward movement

4.1.2.1 Extraction from VP

4.1.2.2 CGO and Freezing Principle effects 4.1.3 Problems

4.2

Lexical Government

4.2.1 Structurally Case marked anpty categories

4.2.2 Non-structurally Case marked emp"ty categories

4.3

Parasitic Gaps

4.3.1 Idcensing parasitic nhalns

4.3.2

Parasitic gaps in simple subjects

4.3.:3

Parasitic gaps in complex nourl phrases

4.4 Conclusion -7-100 100 108 116 125 128 134 134 138 147 149 149 156 158 163 165 172 173 179 187 192 201 208 211

Cllapter1

In1rcx1ucti m

D1scCNering the prlnc1p.Les that gOlerrl cOlstruct101s like that in (1 ) has played a ~tral role 10 transl~ormat:lalalgrammar.

1 ~2 did you see

.!

In (1), the phrase who is related to the pos1 tim marked with ~ by Movement. The Movement-relat1m, or !.12"~:-Jt 1s gOJerndd by a number of principles, many still obscure. We exam1ne a number of these pr1nc1ples in

the chapters that follow

Tha1: the sentence "Who dld you see" has a repres~nrat.lcn like that in (1) stems fran a battery of principles, sane of which we spell cut hereI We

presuppose that, verSlal of Extende=d Standard Th~ory sanetlmes called GOiernment-Bind1ng (GB) Theory (c1~. Chansky (1981, 1982) and references ci ted there,) lhder this theory, the grammar 1s organized as followe

D-stI'ucture \

,

S structure

- 7 \

/

\

~(hcnet10 Form~ L( cg1cal)F(

9I'mj

D structure to S structure canpmen"t "Syntax

I"

the S-structure to PF

canpment "the St:yJ.lst1c canpcnent," eX' PF. The S·structure to Lcglcal For'm

branch is called, slmply. LF. PF ana LF are defined as the levels at which rules of phenet1c and semantic (r~spectlvely) in"tarpretatlal are applied. D-structure 15 the level a't which Thematic Roles (theta roles) (e.g., "agent." "patient," etc.) are mappea alto Grammatlcal F'unc'tlcns (1,e ..

subjec"t, object, etc), At D··structure, every argument rests in a theta·marked posi"t10l (cf. Chansky (1981 1984) We may i'urtther assume thet Xbar The ory holds at D structure, 1n tne manner descr 1bed by StCMe11 (1981) with the mcrl1r'1ca'tlcn inttc.duced in 3·1 In partlcular. we shall

follow SChein (19EQ) and assume tha:t (I) holds at D structure

I 1) For every XO, there is an

xna

x wn1ch is the project1cn of Xc, and

11) Ancxie

r

1s the projec't101 of a tIl1que

ca tegtry

( Sche m 1

982

1 (3))

S strucUlre has been sanetimes defined as that level at which Binding Theory applies (cnansky (1981)). and/or the level a-cwh1ch structural Ca.:,e: (see Chapter 2) is assigned. We speculate that S structure 18 the level at,

which structurally Case-marked chains are evaluated Sea Chapter 4,

MOle d\ gives r1se to chains (of. Chansky (1981 )) . A cha.ln is an n",tuple calta1nmg the moved cOlst1tuent and all 01' thE: pos1-clcns thrcugh which 1t mOied. In (1), for example, the chain formed by Movement may be

represented Wlttl =(who. ~). In (ll, we call wno the "he:ad," and t the "tail, ,,1

1 We shall assume that chams are der1vatlve fran Movement.

A central tenet of GB is me PrinclE.!~.-2.~_.ful!. Int~£2re!at~al_tEfll(cI'. Qlansky (1984). which guarantees that every CQ1Stlwent in a syntactIC representat1Q1 15 "licensed" thrcugh sane means. Qle sub principle of the

PFI lS

th~ The~Cr1terlO1

2

II, '!heta Cr1'tkr1en

For

every" ch81n =(~ 1. ·")"h ) ,

1I'''i is an argument thdn thert:: is exactly

me ~j' II-j a 'theta· pant.1m. and 1£

6-1 is a theta pas1 tim tn~n there 1s exactly me

J.j

I ,J.j an argument.

We shall assume tha"t 'theta-assigners (verbs, sane na..ns and prepos1t101d) assign a theta role to pos1t1ms oocup1ed by their arguments under

s1sterhocxt at 0 structure Arguments 10 subject pcs1 tim ara aS31gned a theta-role canpesit:1cnally by the VP (see Marantz (1984)),

Theta-asslgnment 1n ttl1s 51 tuat1m 15 mediated by Pred1catloo (set:: Williams (1980). Anumber of canpan1cn not1ms to (II) are introduced in Chapter 2.

Mother tene"t of ttle PFI raquires that "operators" be related to a

var1able, We take "operators" to be wh phrases arid quantified

expresS1ms.3 We adopt (III) follow1ng essen'tially Chansky (1984) 4

2. See Freiden (1978) for a earJ.y versim of (II) St~e Chansky (1981 335

( 19» for a more precise def1n1t1 en of (I I ), and O1ansky (1984 Ch 3) .

3.

See Taraldsen (1984)

III. No Vt?2uoos_~~ificat10'!

In operata' must c-canmand a variable at LF.

C ccmmand 1s del~1ned 10 (IV)

IV . J- c canmands ~ 1ft the f1 r st, branchlOg

ncde dciiim8ting rJ. danina tes ~, and rJ.. d03~1

not danlnate ~ .

See Reinhart (1976

en

2) and Giorgi (1985) 1-'or an extensive defens~ of

this def1ni tim. See Kuno (1'crthcaning) fer sane problems. The def1n1tim of "variable" is a ma'e difficult matter. We may und~rstand "variable" to be defined informally as that pes1 tim fran which the operator receives 1ts

interpretat1cn; the tail in a chain. In (2), for example t, but not t is

a variable associated with why

5

2, \\by did you say C~ [Mary left: }:]]

A licensmg COld!1:101 of a different sort canes fran Case 'Iheory (Of, Vergnaud (1978) and Chansky (1980). case Thecry requires that categcr1es of a certain type be related to case marked posj1:1ens , case marked

pos1tiOlS are argument pos1t101S gcwerned by a verb, prepoa1t1Q1 t AGR, or

nOlll · We adept a verSlcrl of the case Fil ter in (V),

5, This dces no"t permit bwnd pralwns (of, H1ggmbotham (1980)) to be

oonsidered variables,

-V. Case Fi1ter

In

a dia1n =(J._{1 ,· •.,f..n ) ·}

iI'

cl--1 is an argument then there 1s exactly me ~j'

J-

_j a Case-marked posi tim, and if

J..

i is a Cast:!-marked POSltim then ttlere is exactly me d-.

j , o.j an argument. positim

(V) requires that every argumen-c

cham

cmtain exac1:1y me casa marked pos1t10l: see, fer example, Manzm1 (1983) and Massaro (1985) We take PRO

to be mtrlnslcally Case-bearing, fol.lowmg Chansky (1984)

We take "government" to be defined as in (VI) fallOt/log an idea of Kayne 5 (1984b) 6

VI. GOJernment

~gOvems-~1ff no more than

ale IIBXimal project:101 dan1nates

l:>

but not (Jt..

As Kayne remnrks. "this formulat101 of gOiernment will accamt fer tile follcw1rlg d1str1butim of !"acts

3.

a) I believe [sMary to be intelllgent] b) I want [Sfor [sMary to be intelllgen't]]

c)*1 be!leve [s [stohry to be intelligent] to be obvioos d)*I want [sfor L

s [sMary to be intell1gen't] to be ob'.r1~s]]

In (;a) the Except101al Case tohrk1ng verb bellev~ gO/eros and assigns Case to

Mea

mly ene IIBX1mal projectlal, S, daninates Marx but not be11ev~.

6.

(VI) 18 probably too permlBs1ve: see Chansky (1985) for a stricter def1n1 tim.

~im11arlY, in (3b) f~ g",erns and assigns Case "to Mary fer CJ11y me

maximal project10l danlnates ~['l and not !~, But in (3c,d). two maximal project1ms s~parate the argument !1a£y fran a case~·marker, hence (V) 1s violated.

A large role 1s played in GB by the Project101 Pr1nclple (01:, Chansky (198138 (6)), which can be infa'mally stated as~

Representat1Q1s at each syntactjc level (1.e LFt and D- and

S structure) are projected fran the lexical. in that they

observe the sUbca~gor1zatialproperties of lexical items.

(Chansky 1981 29 (38))

Pesetsky (1982) argues that the "subcategor1zatlU1 property" that Is represented at each syntac"t1c level 1s the semantic type that ttle lexical 1tern selects for.7 The verb believe, for examplet selects as canplement a propos1 tim Hence, by --he Projec1:!m Prlnciplt:: at, every syntactic levelt

believe must be 1n a "subcategcr1zat1m" relat1cn "to a propos1tim, We shall assume 1tlat the ~.Qects notiQ1 of "subcategorlzat1m" is subsumed by Theta Theory, Hence the Project1cn Prlnciple can be de1'lned as (VII). VII. froj~2t1cn Princ1ple

IfrJ- , J.. an argument, 15 siSl:el." to a "theta-assigner XO at D structure, then sane

rJ

In ~;:;(J1 · · · c£n) must

be sister to Xc,

(VII) prctlib1ts mOJing arguments by substl tut10l into cbJect pcs1tim (Ra1s1ng to Objec-c), and requ1res that mOlement fran an object pos1t100

.leaves a trace.

7 See also Grimshaw (1979).

-The Project10l PrInciple saya nothing abcut subject pos1tlO1, The subject pas1~icn of clauses is obligatory (cf. Chomsky (1981 )). as (4) demcnsttatesI

4.

*seems that Mary has left

We shall simplY stipulate this descriptive truth

VIII. Clauses

mu~t

have

& sUbject position

(VIII) argurably follows fran tile PFI, if· pred1ca tes are 1icensed by sUbjects See Rothste:1n (1983) and Chan,:)ky (1984).

We are primarily concerned with lnvest1gating the constraints that Subjacency and the Einpty Category Principle plac~ a1 M()J~-oL. We turn to

these principles in Chapter 3 and 4. A role will be played by "ordering"

el~fects be"tWeen movement to an argument po.s1tlal (A-pos1liQ1) and movement

"to a nOl-argument pcslticn (A bar pos1t1m). In particular, we shall argue ttla"t certain puzzling facts ccncern1ng parasl tic gaps and Extraposit1:Xl fran noun phrases can be understocx:l if movement of a phraf\e to an A bar P~)Sltim is perm1 tted to oocur before a hosting phrase is mO\fed to an

A pea1tial, We begin, then with a d1scU5S1cn of sane cases of mOlement to an A-pos1t1m.

Olapter 2

SubjecUi and 'lhem-'lhecry

Atheory of grammar must, nave a means for exprt=sslng tht: relatimship

be"tWeen predicates and their arguments. Two of these relat1Ql5 t.ha-t hav~

played a ren"tral rOle 10 rc:cen"t research en the proper't1es of c.la\.ls~s ar :

what may be called. follCM:lng Pesetsky (19EQ) (c)ategory select1Q1 and (s)emant1c-select10'1 By c selectlcrl, we rnean the 1nl~ormat1m COl.Cemlng

the categor1al status of a verb's canplement. Sane verbs require naninal canplementst others me of a variety of sentential mes. and so 01. By

B selectia1 1s meant the relat1msh1p that coocerns the semantic

re.Lat1Cl1ship of the verb to 1"t::s argument.s. Sane verbs et:l~ct a canplement

that refers "to an an1mate antity, a property, and so en. We shall assume tha't the re la t1al of seleotien is caJched at least in paC't, in the

vocabulary of thematio (or theta) relatlOls (cf, Gruber, (1965)

JackendOI'f (1972 ), and also Fillmore (1968) fer a similar thecry ), Verbs speoify the theta-relatims (or theta-roles) that their arguments bear For example, the verb ~ requires that its subject, bear an agent

theta-role and 1ts direct object a Ea~!eQ~ theta-roleI Wh1sE~r, 0'1 1i1e

other hand, canbines with a subject bearing an ~.E theta role and a d1rect object bearing a them~ theta role. The def1nlticn of each

theta role 13 a notoriOUSlY difficult matter. We will be prlmar11y ccncerned wittl agent theme and experlencer The def1nit1Jl of

experlencer will be pootp01ed until 2,4.1. For agent and theme we may take the follONing deflnit1cns, In argument b=arlng an agt.'nt theta role denotBs an ent1~ which is at least partially responsible far, and 1s physically

involved in, the proparty de,:;crlbad by th~ verb, f.n argumen't bearlng a theme theta·-role denotas an entity that the property described by the verb

1S abcut, but 1s not an active causer of,8 We shall use the c01Venti01 of placing 10 upper case le'tter3 the names of theta role-:i.

Verbs do mere tnan specify which theta roles ttleir arguments bear, 'lhey

also specify how thelr theta roldS are assigned In par ~lcular t they speC1fy the relat1m betMeen theta·role asslgnment and case assignment,

Q1e of the gCBl.;., of this chapter is to discover sane of the ways 1n which

"this 1nforma1:ial is represented.

We shall adq:>t the forma11dm of the ttleta-grid 1ntrcx1uced by StONell

(1981 ), to express the ass1gnment of theta roles by a predicate to 1ts arguments The lexical representat1Q1 of a predicate includes a theta-grid which lists the theta roles that its arguments will bear. To each entry Q1 tha tht=t8 grid is an annotat.101 speclly1ng the syn actic category or' th~

argument that realizes the theUl role in this way c ·se:lect1m is

encc:x1ed.9 Idd.ti01ally a

l1~t cfCas~s

assigned by the predicart= is included in the lexical representat1c.:n of a verb. Tne normal 81tua t101 is

for a Case Sp~cll'lcatlm to be an annota'tlO1 al an entry m the th~ta gCld

this 15 wha~ goos by the naine o1~ "inherent Case." or IIst:mantio Casefl _(cf,

Marantz (1984 ) LeVIn (1983)). In thIs f31tua:tl01. the asslgnment of Catie is "tied "to the assignment 01' the theta role. A d1fferen't s1tua-c1cn arises

with "structural Case" whlcn. for U=i, oocurs when a Case 15 listi=d 1n a

verb's lexical representat1Q1 w1thoot being linked to an entry in the theta gr1d. In Ehg11sh accusatIve Case 1s (ncrmally) structural; 1rs

assignment is not tied to the assignment of a particular entry Q1 the theta gr1d.

In argument mcved in to an argument pes! tim fran a theta-poslticn I'erms a

"A-chain" (cf. Chansky (1981 Ch. 6), R1zzj (1982b). Sport1che (1983), Brcx1y

{1984) and Lasolk (1985» AChams are SUbject to the following cC1stram-c.

I C::::(d.

1, •••

,tt

n) is a well formed Chain 1ft:

1) Qlly d'-1 is an argument in a Casa marked POS11:101 and

2) Every

J..!

locally A··binds rJ.₁+

1

By "locall.y binds." we mean that

J.

₁ c canmands

J.

1+1' is in the governlng

9, Pese1:eky (19e2) argues that c-seJ.ect101 is deriv8t:1ve fran s-selcct1cn. 'Ibis pran1s1ng idea has a number of syntactic d1fficu!ties that I know ofI

Ql; is that partitiming the class of verbs selecting sE:ntential gerunds -so· called acc-1ng gerlllds (01' Reuland (1982») -- appears to be strictly a rna tter of c-select1Q1 So also with the distinetlen between 001tl'01 and raising predicates. Aithough these problems may be solvable, I shall

calt1nue to asslDJle c-select1m dis'tlnct fran s-select1Q1, in accordanc.~·

categcry fO[' J.1+1 I m 'ttle sense appropr1att:! fer antecedents and anapha:'.:!,

IS c01nd~xed wittl

J

1+1' and there 1s nc Jj such that

J

i+1 c canmands and 1,";) coindexed wittl d_j and cJ..j c camnands and Is co.index, d wi th J..1 . Sed'

especially Sport1che

(1983),

Brody

(1984)

and Lasn1k (1985).

Marantz (1984) observes that the rnappmg of agt:-nt and theme or pat1ent

theta roles cnto grammat1cal relat1ms (e. g" subjec't, object) exh1bi't8 rf::gulari ty See Pesetsky (1982) and Lev10 (1983) for exten~1ve

disCllss1m, A predicate that is 1ntrans1Live may assign el ther THEME or

/GENT -co 1ts subject pes!ti01, as in (1), A trans1 t.LVc pred1cate may a.lSO assign e1 ther THEME or /GENT 'to 1ts subjecl:, but 1t may never assign /GENT as an in ternal ttle'ta role. cf ( 2 ),10

1 ,a) Tne horse sat, b) '!he rock fell.

2.a) Jales patted the rook

b) The trees surrOJlld the hwse.

c)*The rock {.S"tted JOles (synalymws with (a)) Fran these facts we may fcrmulate (II)

10. A class of caJnterexamples "to th1s last claim arC' the "transItive" vers1al of act1ve 1ntrans1t1ves, e.g. "Jchn walked the dog." "Mary jumped

the hor.~e," ete Arguably the d:>jects of these sentences are jUst as

agent1ve as tney are when they are

subjects

of

the intrans1t1ve

II. If a predicate has /GENT ill 1ts tl1eta grjd. then

/GENT is external, 11

I tnInkmcre can bd said about the d1stributlcrl of /GENT, Whether a

sUbject of a predicate is AGENT or not can be determined by other

prcpertles of the pred1ca'te.:i 1nvolv~d We shall make a snor't dlgressicn at

thlS point "to discuss these properties.

Two classes of Engllsh veros can be identifIed; tn03~ WhlCh describe a state or property of their subj~ct argument, arid those which describe an act1m of their SUbject argument DaVlds01 (1966) has argued that thjd

latter class, act1m verbs, involve a hidden event argument. Under this

v1ew. 1.here is 1mplic1t in (3) reference to an event a k1sd1ng

3.

Mary

kissed the man.

That there 1s an event argumen"t 1mp11c1there 1s suggt:!sted by oor abi11ty to add phrases which appear to mcxi1fy this argument, In particular t events can be located in space and therer"\.-,l'~ (3) can be made mCf'e ~peclf1c witIl

4

Mary

klssed the man 10 the Smith ~ house

See Dav ldsal (1966), and references 01ted there.

This 1s not: a feature 01' verbs wtllch unamb1guOlls1y describe a state eX"

proper"ty, (5a) cannot be made mere specific by adding a locative PP, as can (3),

5 a) John fears the man.

b) Jctn fears the man in the Sm!tn'5 hwse

In (5b), the locative PP::; must: mcx:11fy the !Dan Tn~ d.lff~(la1ce betwet:n (4) and (50) 1s explained if locative PPs are required to mcxi1fy syntactically preserit argumerlts, and til.ere 1s an argument presen"t in (4) that 1s no't presen't in (5) an event argwnent 12 This follcws fran the Prmclple 01' Full Interpretatim if looat1ves are licensed by arguments, as seems nawral.

Higginbotham (1985) }1aS given this event argument a syn-ract.ic hane by suggesting that it 1s 1m entry in a verb s theta·grld. In the framework Wb are adcpting th= head of S 1s an abstract bundle of features~ INFL.

Higginbotham suggests that IN~J.., is matched wi til the "EVENT" entry Ql me theta gr1d For cOlcreuaness, we may assume that IN~~ carl hest an argument and that i t may receive an EVENT them role.

Eventlve predlca1:E:s which are dyadic always ass1gn PGENT to their sUbjec't. Th1s 1s 1J,lustrat:ed by the amb1gu1ty involved in (6) and (7).

6 a) Mary has proved that: at least me Latvian 16 blue-eyed.

b) John kept the d~

c) Tne \tIall surrc;unded Mary

12 '£his d1ffer.:; fran H1gg1nbotham (1985 P 15) who wishes to place event arguments with s'tat1ve and other verbs as well. The issue is an unclear

7·a) Mary has pt'oved that at least ale La'tv1an is blue-eyed in

my office.

b) Jd1n kept thcl dog in his k1"tch~n c)#The wall surrOJrlded Mary 10 the yard

The examples in (6) have a meanlng that thl.:se in ('l) do not have. In (6)

the verbs may describe a property or state of tile subject argUlncnt, but not an event In (6a) 1"\or example, 1f Mary is a blue eyed Latv1arl, tt1f~n Ma~y

may receive THEME and thd sentence can state that the prcpos1tim the! at ..least Ole Latvia!} 1~ !:>lu~_~ed 1s prOJen oy Mary s ex1sTenc(~, In ('1a) I

howevert Mary must receive an /GENT theta .. role (i t:. Mary must be the prover) since the lcx::at1ve pp, if taken to specify wher~ thE:: acticn tad{ place, forces Erov~ to be eventive. A parallel, if more subtle, d1ffere1c~ exists fer (6b)/(7b) and

(60)/(70)

Our cla.lm nay appear to be untrue of even-c1ve 1ntranslt.1ve pred1ca"tds canpare (8) wittl (9).

8. Jehn patted. klSS~d em fJJary

9. The rock fell, rolled, dropped, ete.

In both (8) and (9) an event is descrlbed We may say Jd1n patted

sC!!!~jt}1ng

..m

It!~ garden. and th~ roc~ fell, !12 sEa2~ and specify where the

even t took place. k3 we have under s toed. /GENT and THEME, the 8utject of (8) is an /GENT but the SUbject

at

(9) is most likely THEME.

However, 1t is l1kely that the subjects of (9) are not in a theta,marked pes1tlQl tnese verbs may be of the unaccusatlve or ergative class (Ci't

Perlmutter (1978), Burz10 (1981 ). Levin (1983)). Predicates of this class assign an internal theta role bu't do not assign accusative Case, forcing the argument to be in the Case marked ~ubject pos1t1m. Since the

Theta-Cr1ter101 requ1rf:s that there be ally me theta -pos1tim in a chain, the result is that unaccusative predicaLds do not as~ign a theta-role to their subject poslt1a1. If this 1s the case for (9), therl the correlatia1

betwea1. IGEfIT and eventive pred1ca~ stated aOOJe 1s "true of beth trans1t1ve and 1ntransitlve predicates.

The Italian verbs corre::.pcnding to those in (9) have been ccnv1nc1ngly

argued to be unaccusatlve by Burz10 (1981 ) . There are a number of diagnostics for U1aCCUS8t.ives in Italian that ar~ not ava11abJ.: in

Fngllsh, tmmg the few tests 1n Ehg11sh, Burz10 (1981) suggests me that employs propert,i~s of 'ttle presdntatiOlal tilere omstructlrn Fall ewing an analysis of ther~ losert1en by S'tLwe11 (1978) we may assume that me way an 1ndef1nlte NP may be related to there is if the NP remains in 1ts theta pos1tim form.s a chain

._-

there m CB:Je-marked subject pOd!1:1 en

/nother der1vat1a1 of a ther~-cQls1ructlQl involves extra.posing the NP rlghtward fran SUbjdCt pos1 tim and insertlng there in the vacated pasl tim In the secOld case, which ally occurs with unergatlve

predicates. the post-verbal NP IDUS"t Le exrernal to all other ecnst1 tuc;nt3

of the VP, under the assumpt1 en that moved ems tl tuen ts are

Chansky··adjomed to maximal projecticns. a pos1t10l we defend in the following chapter. As a result, ally unaccusative mmadic predicates shculd allow pres~ntatlQlal there ccnstrUCt1018 where The indef1n1te NP

precedes other VP 10ternal coost1tuents .

MQ1sdlc predicates which involve an !GENT subject are systematically unable to hcst that subject wii:h1n the VP, and mmadic predicates which canbine with a nm-agent1ve subject are, This 1s shown by the CQ1trast

between (10) and (11 ) ,13

10 *There wen"t jlDDped welk-:d bounced eto a kangar00 in"to

the garden.

11 .a) There arose, ensued began etc a r io't in the cour t.yard, b) There arr 1ved, appeared, etc. a man in the chinney

c)~l?Tnere f'ell t drqJpe:d rolled a rock alto the table.

see

Burz10 (1981) for d1scUBSiOl. These data cmfirm Tile claim that the verbs in (9) (=11 c) ar~ unaccusative and theretor~ do not asslgn a

theta role to their subject pos1t10'1. The judgements calcern1ng (110) art.,

sanewhat less clear than those in (11a-b). We shall develop a ~st for

unaccusat1ves in English in sectiOl 2 3.3 which ccnfirms the status 011

fell ~,ete as unaccUSa1:1VeS I havt: no explanatlO1 i'or the margma11'tY of {11c) .

If all cases wher~ evenL1ve 1ntranslLlve pred1cat~5 appear to have

non-agent1ve subjects are unaccusat1ves, then our observation concerning the correlatltn ootween EVENT and /GENT may be strengthened.

III. k1 argument that is 1n a theta-marked subject posttim of an eVdrltive predicate is /OENT

(Ill) allows /GENT to be a derlvatlve notiO'l. It 1s no lcnger a dlstlnct theta·~role assigned by a predicate, but instead arises 1n a certain

structural rela"t10lsh1p "to an even'tlve predicate,

It may appear that a verb's ab111ty to assign /GENT must be independent of whether the verb is even'tive, because of cases like (12).

13 See M11sark (1974) where these COltraa"tS wara orIginally noticed.

12, *Jd1n fell the rook

It I-GEI'fl' is assignt::d 31I'Uctural1y then Jdln 10 (12) shwld rec~ive an

IOENT theta-role by vlr'tUe of the event1ven~ss of fell (12) might th~n b·

~xpected tc be gramma tj.cal . HOt/ever, the ungrammat1CA.l1ty of (12) ar ises fer a d1fr'erent reaSQ1. Fell does not assign Accuserive case, and

thereftre the ~ook 1s a member of a chain whose h~ad, narnely th~ roc~

itself, is nct in a case marked posit1cn. This violates (1).14

If /GEm' and EVENT are linked, then (Ill) may b: further strengthened to (IV)~

IV. In argument bears an PGENT theta ·role if and cnly if it is 10 subject pos1 tim of an eventlve predicate,

(IV) prCN1des a means i'or thata-marking an argument in subject posi tim when certa1n cOldi "tims are met. It allows fer the poss1b111ty of a

sentence cmtaming an argument in subject postticn that is

not-the1Ja-marked by the verb. This possibility 1s ['ea11zed by psi-pred1cates as we shall 5ee in sec'tlO1S 4 and 5

The. va11dlty of (IV) rests 10 part witil the oJ.a1m that event1ve mcnadlc predicates like fell are unaccusat1ve, In the follcwing sect101 we develop a test wn1ch substant1ates mid ClaIm, and which provides 1nd~pendent

evidence for (IV).

2 3 Reanalyzj~g verbs

In this sect1m I shall argue that El'lg11sh and Fr'ench harOor a class of Reanalyzing verbs. Altll0ugh 81m!~ar in serne respec ts to the pr ocess of Re::)tructuring fcund in I~llan. C1· Rizzi (19e2a. 01 1) in

md

sense that

both operat1Q1.s ferm a canp]~,preu.tCQte fean the triggering verb and it5

'\

canplement, thE: q:>eratlm 1nduce.~ by Rc::~r)alyzjn,~ verbs differs 1n important:

, \\

respects. Ole of these differ1ng ~'\opertlt;\1 1s rhat 'th& Relml\lyz ing

\\ ""

operat1m cannot, take piace wh~n tnt:: ~~anplen.-?nt ho~,ts a theta··mal~·'$ed

subject pos1tim. As a result, Reanalyz~ng pr:;d1cat~~ provide a test foC'

unaccusa"t1ves, since unaccusa'tiveB are the m.1y ;o:.nadlc ~1rad1cate;3 which have th1s pr operty •

2

.3

,1 The phen anenQ1.

The class of veros that we shall argue are ReanalYZlng 1nclud~t in

English, threaten, E!:an1se and marginally, begs. 9~t mer!ac~ 8l1d

deserves. In Fra1ch, the class includes men~cer, r1s9.u~ E.~~~tr~, ~1ge~

"

and mer 1tar . We shall refer to this class as the ~r:~.!!en-class, and draw primarily 01 Eng11sh and French facts, a1 though similar phenanena exist in Italian. These verbs in ale use are simple trans1"tlve predicates as in "Jctn 'threatened me," They may also funct1m as cmtrol verba, taking an 1nf1n1t1val canplemen-c that: cmtains PRO in subject pos1t1m. as in "Jdln threatened to kiss the horse." Finally, they may be employed in another, slightly marked r'ormt as 1n "ThlS rock threatens to fall." In this use,

the mean1ng of threaten, fa' example, might be paraphrased as. "events are

in motiOl such that X 1s imminent.15 It 1s this latter vers1cn, the Reanalyzlng ver3101 trlB.t we l1Jnit wr dISCUSS!en to

Ruwe"t (1972) and Zub1zarreta (19EQ) note that 10 certain rt:!spects, the threaten class displays propart1es assoolated w1th ralsmg verbs. F'1rst when trans! tlve 1i1.ese predicates assign an agen"tlve theta role to their sUbject position, bu~ under their Reanalyzed guise their subject bears a theta r ole determined by the lower precticete , of. (13). Sec01d. the threaten -class may host in their subject posi tim ld1ans assoolated with

object position cf. (14)

13.a)~Que Jean parte menace l' equ111bre de la familla

(Tha~

John

leaves threatens the equilibrium of

the family)

b) Que Je:an parte menace de t'ennuyer

(That Jdhn leaves threatens to bother yeo)

(Zubizarreta 19fQ

75

(64)) 14. Part1 menace/ex1ge d'etre tire de cette s1tua1:100

(Pdv8ntage threatens/demands to be taken of thlS 81 tua1:ial)

(Zub1zarreta 1982

74

(61b))

Finally -en c11t1c1zat1cn, a property characteristic of derived subjects, 1s possible fran subjects of Reanalyzed verbs, as in (15) ,16

\

15 My ti1.8nks to J1W Higf:inbotham for making clear to me the d1ffererlce in meaning these verbs have. I am gUided throughOJt this sect1m by his ccmnents and suggest101S,

16. See Kayne (1975) and Cooquaux (1981), Fer acme speakers (15b) is ungrammatical and (15a) mly slightly be·ttsr. Aslight 1mprO/ement is achieved if the sUbjec't cannot have an agent1ve 1nterpreta tim, as in "?La photo menace d en ~tl'e circulee "

15.a) Le chef menace ct'en etre impitoyable (The chief threatens to be lIlforglving)

b) Le chef pranet d' en etre magnan1m€ (The chieI-' pranlses to ba magnanamcus)

(Zubizarreta, 1982 74 (63a-b))

These facts suggest that members of the !tlr~a~Q-classare optimally raising verbs, that (13b). for example, llaS the structure in (16).

16 lThat Jetln 1~aves]1 threatens [.!1 to bother ycuJ

However ZUb1zarreta. l'()llCJtling Rwveret &Vergrlaud (1980). f1ote:S that in

certain re'3pects these veJ.~bs do not act like raising predicates. Tn~y do not permit an expletive it in subJect pas1tlcn. a Characteristic of raIsing predicates ccnsider the ccntrast in (17).17

17 a) 11 semble falloir partir

(It

seems necessary to

leave)

b)*11 prane~/exigc de s'averer que Jean est 1dlot

( It premises/demands to turn out that Jd1n 1s an idiot,) (Zubizarreta, 19~ 76 (66a),(67b))

They also fail to display a characteristic property of raising predicates noted by r-tay (1977), May observes Ulat raising predicates allow a

quant1f1cat1Q1.al subject to have narrow scope with respect to the

pred1cam Tnis 1s a d1agnostlc for a raising predlcate as the ccntrast with a cOltrol predicate shows, cQls1der (18) .

..-.. ,.. I

17. Zub1zarreta reports "11 eX1ge d' etre arrete un grand nanbre dIhanm~s" as ungrammatical (76 (67d). My informant finds 1t much better than (17b).

-18 .a) Nobcxiy tr1ed [Ph·.> to leave]

b) Nobcx1y tried "to l\,~ave but sanebcx:iy trted to leave c) NObodY_i seemed [~1 to leave]

d) Nobcxiy seems "to have le.ft but, sanebcx:iy seems to nave left

The difference between (18a) and (180) 1s illustrated by the l'act that a1 thaJgh (18b) is a COltrad1ct1cnt (18d) need not be. Unllke raislng

predlcate.s, the threaten class dres not allow a quant11'1cat1mal subject to

have narrCItl scope.

19. Personne ne mer1te/menace de ven1r, mala queiqu'un

mer1te/menace

de

ven1r

(Nobcxty deserves/threatens to cane, but sanebcdy deserves/threatens to came)

(Zublzarreta 1982 76 (68b))

(19) cmst1tutes a cmtradict1m.18

18 A related distinguishing propert:y of raislng predicate:.) ti'lat

Zub1zarreta discusses cmcerns the interpretat1m of each 10 ~.Xl~

!L.

each CalstrUCtl015, Burz10 (1981 ) notes that this Calstructim Dla'Y be employed to link tWo NPs in raising COlsTructlO1s, but not 10 caltt'ol CQ1struct1ms of. the cootrast in (1).

i.a) Q1e interpreter eeen seems to have been assigned

to the dlplamats.

b)*Q1e interpreter each 1r1ed to be assigned to the d1planau-.

See Burz10 (1981) and Zubizarreta (1983) fer two acccunts. Zub1zarreta claims that, like CQltrol predicates. ReanalyZing pred:cate:s do not tolerate ttllS .1nterpretat1al :

,

/ , . .

~

11.*Un interprete chaClIl pranet eX1ge d1etra 8ss1grle

aux d1planates

(Q1e interpreter each pran1ses/demands to be

assigned to the d1plomats)

(Zub1z;arreta

77

(69b»)

Althcugh marginal with eX1g~ the above exam")le with eralle~ do=s not scund s1gn1f1can,;y different than a raising predicate to my 1n:tOrmant. Nor ~o

the English correlates appear ungrammatical

to

me.

Finally the verbs 01' the th£.~at~ class. un11k~ ralsing predicates d~

not tolerate cbjects that intervene be-weer! the triggering verb and th~

clausal canplement.. Ccnsidar the ccntrast in (20), 20.a) John₁ ~eems to me [~1 tc like f~ult]

b)~ustice pranet aux rev01tes ct'etre rendue

(Justice pran1ses the insurgents to be made)

(Zub1zarreta, 1982 79 (73b))

The threaten·clas5 also displays properties absent in standard raising pred1ca ces cQ1.cern1ng the theta-roles borne by the raised argument. They are unable to host a subject which bears an EXPERIENCER or CAUSER

theta role.19

21 a)*Mary threatens to desire Jc:hn b}*My bunt pr anises to want a watch

c)*The hammer threatens to crush ttle can

d)*Jc:hn threatens to fear the tornado

e )*He threatens -co believe that Mary has left f)??Th1s treatmerlt pran1ses to cure the patient

g)??Th1s idea promises to enlighten John

We may assume that EXPERIENCER is assigned to the SUbject pos1 t1cn 1n (21a-a) and CAUSER to subject pos1 tim 10 (21f-g) . Ncr may the SUbject bear an AGENT the1la .role, in sane cases; of. (22).

111, Ole prOblem each threatens to annoy the students

JUdgements are adm1 ttedly delicate fa these examples if ungramma tical, these examples are problt!mat1c for the acccunt of ReanalyZing pred1carea to be offered 1n 2.3.2 under an analysis of each 1nterpretat1cn like that 10

Burz10 (1981 ) •

19. We are not

interested 10 the centrol interpretat1m of these sentencesf Throoghout this paper, we restrict our d1scuss1m to "tile

22,a)·Mary tnreatens to slap B111

b)*Blll promises to kiss

Mary

c)*Gary pran1ses to hit Mary intent101ally d)*Terry threatens 'to try to leave

e)*Randy promises to decide to take the job f)*Sue threatens to persuade m~ to leave

It may be, therefcre, that the correct statement of this cmdl tim Q1 the ~r~aten-class IS that tha matrix suLJject may not bear the theta-role ass1gn.ed to the subject pos1t1cn of the lower predicate. This hypotne~1s

wwld be strengthened 1£ "raising" were blocked under a member of the

threaten~claS5 predicates from a verb which assigns a th~ta-role d1ffarent fr an /GENT CAUSER or EXPERIENCER Tnis seems to be the case, as (2,)

demmstratea .

23,a)*The wall threatens to surramd Mary

b)*The tank premises to hold all the water

c)*Your idea pramlses to deserve praise

This point will be taken up 10 greater detail in the following sectjcn Let us say here simply that the subject of the threaten-verb may not bear the theta role assigned oy the lONer pred1cate to its subject posl ticn 20

A problem wittl tillS hypothes1s is presented by (24),

20. '!he examples in (23) argue against the analysis for these predlcates advanced by Zub1zarreta. Zub1zarreta s clalm, if I understand it

corc'ectly, 1s that a threaten-verb assigns THEME to 1ts subject pos!tim and that, 1n other respects. these predicates are ra1s1ng verbs. Hence, the subjects of a threaten-verb must be related to a pes! tim assigned a THEME theta-role to avo1d a theta-role ccnflic"t. However, as we have

defined THEME, the verbs

surround,

hold and deserve assign THEME to their subject tim, and yet (23) is ungrammatical. Zubizarreta may

24,a)?The rock threatens to hit Mr. Jacober b)?Tnat rider thrdaten:3 to crush the horse

c)??Thls chevy pran1ses to beat any car Q1 the rood

d)?That gpy threatens to talk forever

I find these examples very much better than those in (22). Althcugh the

verbs in th~ canplemt::rlt in (24) appear to be similar to those 1n (22), the theta-role borne by their sUbject:s 15 not.. In (22), the subjects of hit slap, ete. denote indIviduals that are no"t mly agents of the act1Q1, but, also bear sane cogn1 t1ve state with respect to that a01:101 ; theyt ill sane vague sense. "willn the acticn of the verb. This is not true of the

objects denoted by the sUbject NPs 1n (24). These objec1:S merely carry out the act1cn of the verb. Let's separate these two not101s, calling the former NJENT and the latter ACI'OR

2.3.2 k1 accamt

The: accamt for these phenanena that we shall explore is that a member of

the thr~aten-class 16 able 'to join wi ttl a predicate 10 1ts canplement clause and form a canplex pred1cate. In1'\ormally, this process allows a

threaten,~verb to take (25) as input and give as aJtput (26). We give

merely give a description of the process here.

25.

[vpthreaten

[S' [S [INFL

to[vp

V

*

(NP)]]]]]]]

-->

26.

[vpthreaten ·to-V*] (NP)]

where V* dces not asa1gn a ttleta-rola to subject pos1tlQ1

A crucial property of (26) 1~, thert V* may not assign a tt1eta~role to

subject posit1cn We call the prooess in (26) "reanalysis." and assume it

to be obligatory for verbs of the threaten··class when they receive that

-1nterpretatim.

If (26) is the correct representatlcn for these examples men the inab!l!ty of quant1flcat101al subjects to have narrow scope 1s explained. A relevant example 15:

27. Ncbcdy threatens to bother Mary

In (27) unlike raising predicates. "nobcdy" may not have narrow sccpe with respect to threaten, (27) cannot have the meaning paraphrased by "It 1s threatening that nobcxiy bothers r.t:lry," Fer thls reading to be able to arise, however, entails tha"t nobcxiy has scope Q11y OJer E2therI and not

threaten. See ~lay (197"(. 1985). This is impossible if (27) has the

structure given by (26), for threaten and .bother n~cessar11y have the same scope.

3upport fa' a.tr hypothesis is also given by facts cmcerning scq:>e of temperal adverb1als. In b1clausal sentences, post-verbal temporal adverbs are ambiguously calstru~d e1 ther wittl matrix or' canplement ola'use. In (28), for example, Q1 TuesdaX may tell when the activity described by e1 ther the matrix verb or the embedded verb takes place.

28,a) Jdln seemed likely to marry Sarah m Tuesday b) John was believed to want cake Ql Tuesday

c) Jd1n wanted to leave town al Tuesday

This amb1gu1ty reflects the ab111ty of 01 Tues9~ to be attached to e1 ther the ma1r1x S cr to the canplement S. There is no such amb1gu1ty present in

reanalyzed constructicns.

29.a) This idea threatened to bottler Mary Ql Tuesday

b) Thet idea pr an1sed to be remembered a1 Tuesday

Tne unambiguity of (29) is accamted for by the mmoclau.sality imposea by (26) ,21

We are nOti also In a posttlal to acccunt l-cr tha ttlemat..lC res'trlc"tlalS

that hold of the subject of a threaten-verb. We saw abcwe that the sUbject of a threaten -varb may not bear tne theta role assigned externally by the lower predicate. Hence the ungrammatical! ty 01' (30), where tile lower

predicate assigns an external theta·role. 30.a )*Mary threatens to h1-c Jetln

b)*Jd1n threatens to fear me tornado c)*The horse pran1ses to jump the fence d)*The wall ttlreatens to surroond the troops

e)*Your idea promises to deserve praise

These examples ccntrast w1th Oles where the lower pr~dlcate assigns an internal theta-role, but no theta-role to subject pos1tioo, as in (30).22

31 a) That car pran1ses to be purchased som

b) Tn1s toy pran1ses to be enjoyed

c) Idvantage threatens to be taken of yaJ

21. In this respect, reanalysis differs fran the process of restructllring argued for by R12.z1 (1962a, Ql.1).

22. We assume that passive pred1cates assign no external theta-role to their SUbject pes! tim. They do, however, assign an external theta-role which 1s manifested by the argument in a EY-phrase: "The car was purchased by

Jctn,"

or by the passive mcrphol~y "-en". See Jaegg11 (1984). In this respect the "se"-passive differs crucially for, as Zublzarreta observes

Reanalys1s is

1ncanpatlble w1th

a

"se"-passive:

~ ~

1.*Ces vetements pr anetten"t de sa laver frequemment

(These clothes premise to be washed frequently)

(Zublzarreta 105 (116a))

The, di!ference is s1mply that in the pass1ve, the external theta-role may be borne by the passive morphemE: "-en" which is within the VP (01. the verb). but in the "se" pass1ve. "se" remains a eOlst! tuent of INFL (of, Bellett,1 (1962») 10 v101at100 of the struowral descript1m for RE:snalys1s.

-There are a number 01' other ca5~S to be cCl1.s1dered. A threaren-verb may reanalyze with a Clause involving a pred1cative bcl, as in

(32).

32.a) Yoor idea pran1ses to be a gam me

b) That dog pran1ses to be a I'1erae flgher c) Today promises to be miserable

These exarnples may appear to coonterexemp11fy th-=1 generallzatlcn that a

threaten-\ferb may not reanalyze Wlttl a predicate which ass1gns an ex ternal

theta-rol.~0 because adjectives (passive participles aside) and noons appear

to never theta-mark an internal pos1 tim which is 1n a chain wj.-th an

argument in sUbjec't pas!tim. HCMever, Stowell (1978) has argued that the

pred1catJ.ve be in these ccnstruct1ms 1s a raising predicate. lhder

Stowell'~) analysis, a sen'cenee involving a predicative be has the following represen

om

tien .

If Stowrsll'5 acccunt 1s correct, then the examples in (33) fall

stra1gnforwardly into our analysis; (33b), for exam~le, would have the

structure shown in (34) .23

34.

lS

[that dcg1] [vp[Vpran1ses-to-be].!i a flerce fighter]]]

Note that these examples ccntrast with equa"t1ve be, where a representatlcrl like that in (32) 1s unavailable.

35.a)*24n-1 tnreatens to be prime

b )*Reagen threa tens to be the president

A secood class 01' paten tiel cwterex.ampJ.es is glven by certain

psi .. predicates. These predicates appear to assign a THEME theta··role to their subject positim and an EXPERIENCER theta rcle 1:0 their ob,ject. Jnnoy: 1:) cne such verb.

36 This problem annoys me

Psi-verbs may reanalyze with the threaten class. 37. This pr oblem threa tens to annoy me

In sect1m

4

we shall see that there are a number of' reaSQ1S for believing that psi-predicates do not theta-mark their subject pos!tim, but instead assign THE1E to an internal posttlO1 We shall argue that (3'-') is 8S in

(38), and therefcre that (39) ccnfcrms to (26), as (39) shows.

38 · [sthis pr oblem₁ [vpann oys me .!1]]

39· lSthiS problem

1 [vp[threatens-to~annoy] me

.1:

1]

Fmally there are a se"t of examples whlCh pOSE: a more serious problem for the claim made here. These examples, exemp11f1ed by these 10 (40), 1nv01ve cases where the lower predicate appears to assign a THEME theta-role to 1ts subject posi tim.

40 a) Litt:er threatens ~o ruin the beauty of our streets

b) Mary

s

quarrelsaneness threatens to destroy wr picnic

0) The water· balloal pran1ses to hi't Mr. Jacober d) That r1der ttlreatens to crush the h.orse

Iv3 was noted above, in (40c,d), the matrix sUbject may bear an ICIDR

theta-raId Which 1s apparently assigned by th~ lcwer predlcate to subjec'(

pos! tim. However, these examples may be Olly apparent counter-examples to

(26). Recall that when the lower predicate assigns IQENT to 1ts subject position, ralsing undar a threateQ-verb 1s blocked, cf. (41).

41 .a)*Mary threatens to hit me 1ntent101ally b)*Gary tnreatens to crusn the can 01 purpose

This cmtrast shows that the two semantic relat1cn( IDENT and AcroR should be cOlsidered distinct theta·roles, We may ask. Where do these two

theta-roles cane fran? The subject-cr1ented adverbs in (41) pick oot arguments bearing a particular theta-role (namely AGENT), bU"t they do not

assign it, til1s is shown by the ambiguity of (42a) as canpared to the unambiguous (42b).

42 a) Gary crushed the can (Gary= /GENT or ACTOR)

b) Gary threa tens 1:0 crush the can (Gary:: AcrOR en1y )

We argued, earlier, that SUbjects cf event1ve predicates receive an PGENT theta-role by v1rtue of their p051tlal Suppos~, however, that the

theta-role asslgned to the subject pos1t1m of event1ve predicates is ACrOR rather than AGENT Our previous arguments do not chose between thes~

optims. If this 1s correct, then (IV) shwld be changed to IV In argument bears ACTOR it'! it is in SUbject pas1tim

of an event1ve pred1cate

en this view, JGENT mly arlses by virtue of being assigned by a verb. Ber,ause AClENT is restrioted to subject pes!tim, like AcrOR, we shwld view

/GENT as being a particular form of AcrOR, We may take tGENT to be

canpos1t10lally determined; suppose that a predicate that canbines wi ttl an /DENT subject assigns a particular theta-role, call 1t X, which, when

canbined with AcroR yields f(iENT. A verb like h1~, then, optlQ1allY assigns X to its subject poslti01; slae d1r'fers merely in that it

ob11gatcr11y assigns X. Tne grammat1callty of (400 d), and the lU1amb1gu1ty of (42b) now i'ollOWS. Reanalysis may O'lly occur with a verb that doos not

assign a thetawrole to 1ts sUbject posltlC1. Hence, irl (40c.d), Reanalysis

may ally coeur whdn the lower prt:dlcates do not assign X i.e. juat when tile1r sUbjects bear AcroR

NeverthelessI I do not see how this explanatim of (400 d) can be

extended to (4Qa,b), which remain problematic fer this account.

2.3.2.1 Exple-cive "i1;"

Still myster1ws 1s the mab111ty of a reanalyzed ccnstructi01 to host an expletive "1 t," as in (43).

43.a)*I1 pranet de s'averer que Jean est 1d1o~

b)*1t pr anises to seem/appear that, Jd1n. is an Id10t

In fact, we find that in sane cases these ccnstruct1ms do host expletive it. When the raising predicate 1s an adjective, reanalysis is possible;

( 44) is a clear 1mprovement to (43b).

44.a)??1t threatens to

be 11kely that John 18

an

idiot b)?1t threa1:ens to be certa1n that Jetln is dead

The same cmtrast holds when the tensed clause is 1n subject pes1 tim of

45.a)*

That John 15

an

idiot

threatens to

seem/appear

b)??That Jd1n is dead threatens to be certain

The difference between these two cases is the following. The raising

-predicates seem and ~pear ar~ arguably auxiliaries attacned under INB~.

See, e.g. Rotnstein (1983) ,24 This is suggested by their abili ty to combine with pred1cat1ve adjectives, as in

(46).

46.

John seems/appears upset

The raising predicates be likely, be certain, etc., are made up of a predicative be and an adjective We have assumed, following Stowell

(1978), tha·c the pes!tim that these predlca tes theta -mark 1s the 1mmedlate

sister to the adjective. (47a) has the representat10l shawn in (47b).

47.a) it is likely that Jchn is dead

b) it is [[~i likely][tha~Jchn is dead]]

However. there 1s no reascn for 1ns1st1ng that the thdta-marked pes1 tim be to the left of l1kelx:. All that is required is that likely be a sister to

its

argumen~.25

(48) is a legi timate representaticn for (47a).

48. (it is [likely [that John 1s dead]]]

Reanalys1s 15 defined so that it necessarily applles be~~een a

threaten-verb and another pred1cate. If Reanalysls is restricted so that the threaten-verb must reanalyze with a true predicate, i.e. a

om auxiliary, then the preceding cOltrasts are accamted fa' This requirement will prevent threaTen fran reanalyzing witil ~ or appear,

24. Howard Lasn1k points rot that the fa1lure of Subject-AUX Invers10l Wlth these predicates 1s problematic for th1s view, of. n*seems 1t that Mary left." We must assume that Subject-AUX Invers1m is calstra1ned to apply 01.1y to om-theta assigners (in English). Cf.

3.:3.3.4.

25. We do not take theta-role assignment to be d1rect1cnal; of. Koopman

( Zubizarreta 19EQ 78 (7CJa,b) )

since th~~e are auxiliaries, and (43b) and (45) are ungrammatical. W1th be likely, how~ver, Reanalysis may occur;

(44a)

may be represented as

(49).

49. [it [[threatens-to be-likely] (tnat Jetln it) dead]])

Another case where expletives may appear quite freely in these c01struct1cns, as Zubizarreta notes, involves ttla class of explet1ves associated with weather verbs,

50.a)

II

menace/merits

ue

pleuvo1r (It threatens/deserves to rain) b) II pramet de ne1ger

( It pranlses to snow)

These "expletives" are 10 fact arguments theta-marked by the weather verb. See cnansky (1981 ) " These examples will then emstitute cammrev 1dence to

the analysis

presented here if weather verbs theta-mark their sUbject posi tim. However, there 1s evidence that, in 11Bl1an. wee tiler verbs are potentially m8ccusat1ves.26 (he test fer unaccusatives in ltallan

employed by Burz10 (1981) (see also Perlmutter (1978)) 1s aux1liary

selecticn Monadic predicates which camblne with essere are unaccusative, tilose that canb1ne w1th ~ver~ are 10trans! "t1veI Weetiler verbs may canbine witil e1 ther, of. (51).

51.a) [pro] e p1oru'to

b) [pro] ha pioruto ( 1trained)

If weather verbs can be unaccusat1ves in branch and Ehg11sh as well as

26. My grat1 tude to Luigi Rizzi fer bringing this to my attent1m.

-Italian, therl the granunatlcall"ty of (50) is expected.

2 .,.' A test for tnaCCusatlve verbs

Reanalyzing predicates prCNide a test r'or unaccusatives in bng11sh. 'fhe cmdl tim that reanalysis cannot occur OJer a eClst! tuent intervening

between 'tWO predicates requ1res that the lower pred1ca~ no"t assign an external theta-role. As a result, a threaten-predicate may cnly reanalyze with an unaccusative mmadic predicate, not an intransi t1ve ale,

In the prev100s sect10l we based the validity of (III) al the claim that

mQ1ad1c eventlve predicates which have /GENT subjects, as in (52), are

unaccusa

t1v

e .

52 .a) A riot arose/ensued/began in the coortyard

b) The package arrived/appeared en Tuesday

c) Arock fell/drqJped/rolled 01 the table

These predicates may reanalyze with a threaten-predicateI ccnfirm1rlg that

they

are unaccusatives.

53.a) A rio-c threatens to ar1se/ensue/begin in the ccurtyard b) The package pran1ses to arrive/appear 01 Tuesday

c) A rock threatens "to fall/drcp/roll Q1 the table

Canpare the ungrammaticalit;y of reanalyzing with intrans1t1ve predicates,

54 '

*

A child threa tens to jump. walk, boonce, telephcne al Tuesday

We turn in the next sect10n to a class of pred1cates where the effects of

2.4 Psi-verbs

2,4 .1 Intrcx:!uctiQ1

PSl··verbs in lligl1sh can be classed into two bread categct'les.2'1 The f\irst includes predicates wnlch assign an EXPERIENCER theta·role to the

sUbject pos1ti01, where we may take "EXPERIENCER" "to be defined as 1'ollowd an argument bearing an EXPERIENCER theta-role 1s 10, ctr canes to be in, sane psych01cg1cal 5ta te • These include both mcnad1c, (54a ), and dyadic,

(54b) , predicates.

54.a) John suffered

Jctn was unhappy, sad, miserable, etc.

b) John feared, dreaded, liked hated, e'tO, Mary

Let us refer to this class of pred1cat:t=s as the "ex ternal" class.

'!he secood categcry includes these verbs which assign the EXPERIENCER theta-role to their d1rect ct>jecl: as in (55).

55.

Jetln s behavior bothers, amuses, ~~es, ete. me

27, Inother categcry exists 10 Ranance. exemplified by the Italian "p1acere" ("likes"). '!he EXPERIENCER 1n this class appears with CNert Dative case marking and may be in e1tiler subject or object pcs!tim. The Tl-IEME bears Nan1nat1ve Case and may likewise appear in e1ther pre-or post-verbal pes1 t1m. The unava11ab111ty of this class 10 Ehg11sh is

probably t1ed to the inab111ty to assign Nan1nat1ve case to post-verbal t~Ps

10 Ehg11sh, a reflex, we assume, of 1ile unavailability of Rule R 1n Syntax

( of. Bcrer (1984

»).

It is this class, which we ahall call "1nt£:rnal," that our d1scusslQ'i will be restricted to. The internal class shOVIs an alternat1m between a THEME/EXPERIENCER reading, as in (56), and an /GENT/THEME reading, as in (57) •

56. Reagan's smile disturbs me

Blizzards depress me

My ldeas may strike yoo as improbable

57. The child disturbed the table

John

depressed the button

The bat struck the ball

I shall refer to the reading represented by (56) as the "psych" interpretat1Q1, and the reading exemplified by (57) as the "active"

interpretati01. I shall sanetimes call a psi-verb when 1t receives O1e of these readings a "psych-verb." or an "active verb~" With verbs such as

wor~, strike surprise. uEset, depress, disturb. ttje difference in meaning is quite sharp. W1ttl other members of the internal class, the difference

in meaning is often very subtle, as in (58).

58, 'Iha mag1c1an 15 amazing the chIldren with his tricks The dqss are bothering the sheep into the pen

We shall advance sane arguments. most borrowed fran Bel..Lett1 & Rizzi (1985), that the SUbject pos1t1cn of a verb fran ttle 1l1ternal class when it receives a psych-1nterpretat1Ql is not theta-marked. Instead, arguments :L~

the subject pas1 ticn of these CQ1struct1m5 are 10 a chain w11::h a theta marlted pos1tal internal to the verb phrase.

214.2.1 The ncn-theta-marked sUbject pos1 tim

We shall argue ttlat the representatlQ1 associateu with the pSyCh

interpretat1cn for a predicate of the internal class is as in (59),

59.

s

/\

e VP

I

V'

/~

V NP

XP

I , , I

EXPERIENCER THEME

The argument receiving the THEME theta role is SUbsequently raised to the case-marked subject posttim, in accordance wittl (I). I shall revlew two

of Balletti & Rizzi's arguments for taking the subjects of psych-verbs to

be derived.

Tne !'1rst argument employs a proper-cy 01' Italian r~flex1ve 81, As the examples 1n (60) demcnstrate, ally NPs that occupy a theta-marked subject pcs!t1Ql llBy a~t as an tecedents for 81. Hence (60a) and (60b) are

U'lgrammat1cal, since the subject of these clauses is linked to an internal theta-marked p~1tim. Example (600) cmtrasts minimally with (6oa) and (60b); the subject in thls case oocup1es a theta-marked subject pas1 ticn and may therefcre bind!! ( of. Bellett1 (19~), Rizzi (1982a), Manz1nl (1983), Burz10 (1981 )) .

-6O.a)*Giann1 81 e' state affldato John to·h1mself was given b)*G1ann1 51 ~embra slmpat1co

Jann

to-himself seems nice c) Gianni 81 e' fotografato

John himself photqgrapned (B&R, 198 c)

Calsider 10 this light the example in (61).

61 , *G1ann1 51 preoccupa John himself worries

(B&R. 2Gb)

The tngrammatica11t:y of this sentence can be traced to the presence of the reflexive "si" if the sUbjec"t 1s not in a theta-marked subject posttim. 'rhls prO/ides evidence that the SUbjects of psi-verbs have been movdd r'ran a VP internal pos1t:1m. We return to the particularities of (59) bela«.

The secOld argumen"t tha~ BaIletti & Rizzi provide can be transposed to English. This makes use of a proper"ty of Binding Theory that we shall not

be able to explore in detail a"t this point. thcugh we ahall give a

pre11minary desor 1pt1al. We adopt the Binding Theory advocated in Chansky (1981) which requires, essentially that an anaphor havt: a prac1mate

an tecedent which c-camnands 1t. Cms1der the examples in (62).

62.a) [Replicants of' tnemselves]i seem to the boys [t₁ to be ugly] b) [Replicants of themselves]i were believed [~11 to have seemed

to the boys [t

1 to be ugly]

These examples are grammatical. thcugh sanewhat marginal due to their oanplex1ty. Ca11rast (62) wittl (63).

63.a)*[Rep11cants of themselves] promised the ~~~ [PRO to

bdcane ugly]]

b)*[Repllcwlts of themselves]1 were belIeved [t

1 to promise

the e~ (PRO to becane ugly]]

In (63). the sUbjects at the matr 1x clauses do not form a chain with the lower suoject poslt1m. In this respect, (63) minllDally differs fran (62),

where the matrix sUbjects are linked to an internal pos1tim. The ungrammatica11ty of (63) straightforwardly derives fran the Binding

Theory There 1s no NP a-commanding the reflexive themselves 1n (63), and

therefcre this anaphor falls to be bOJl1d. '!he grammatical 1ty of (62) is mysterlous fran thlS Viewpoint. The relevant difference between (62) and (63) appears to be that in (~), the argument C01.ta1ning the reflexive is 1n a chain that Caltalns a member which is in a structurally appropriate

pos11:1al to be bamd. As (64) demOlstrates, when the NP rep11cants of themselves 1s in sUbject post tim of the canplement, themselves may take the boys as an tecedent.

64.a)

I~ seemed to the ~ tnat [rep11cants of themselves]

are ugly

b) It was believed that i t seemed to the boy:s that [rep11cants of themselves] are ugly

As a preliminary 8ta"ternant. we may character1ze the difference between (Ee)

and (63) wittl (V).

V. In anaphor cart:a1ned in an argument A must be bamd by en antecedent in the GO\ferning Category of and c-canmand1ng a member of A's chain.

(V)

requires modification irrelevant to our discussion; see Baras

(1984)

and Kuno (forthcanmg). We assume the de1'1n1tim of "GOJerning Cat.egory"

-in Q1ansky (1981)28; X 1s a GOJern1ng Ciitegory fa' Y iff X 1s tho:: minimal

maximal projecticn ccntain1ng Y, a subject, and a gCNernor 01"' Y.

(he apparent problem with (V) is the ungrammatlca11ty of: "*1 believe herself to werry her ~" In this sentenc~, herself nay be bound by her. since her c-camnands~. However, as Pesetsky (1985) observes, there is a D15j01n~ Reference v101a~1cn in this example herself a-commands. coindex~d Wltn, 8l1d 1s the Gcverning Category or' her

diSjOint.29

hence herself and her must be

Wit." this in mmd, ccns1der ttle Caltrast 1n (65).

65.a) (Replicants of themselves] amused, bothered, etc. the ~

b)*[Replicants of ttlemselves] boonced 01. hit, etc. the ~

Pga1n, the ungrammat1ca11ty of (65b) 1s unsurpr1s1ng, "tt1emselves" is not c-canmanded by "the boys" The grammatlcality of (65a), by cOltrast, follows fran (V) ally if tbe NP "rep11cants of themselves" is linked to a pos1ti01 that is c camnandad by "the boys". If the subject of a ps1 ver b ls linked to an 1nternal pos1t1m, (V) would permit "themselves" 10 (65a) to be boond by "the boys",

We may calclude that the psych interpretat101 of a psi-verb is associated

. witil a representat1cn, liKe (59), where the subject 1s linked to an internally theta-marked pes1 tim.

28. But see Chansky (1984).

29. See Lasn1k (1976). The \Jlgrammat1ca11ty of "*1 oe11eve herself to

wa.-ry

herself" tollowc fran the same cause for

me

ungrammatical! ty of "*I

2.4,2.2 Position of the Experlencer

In (59), the argument bt::ar1ng the EXPERIENCER theta-role is a sister to V' , not a sister to the verb itself. Bellettl and R1zzi assign the

EXPERIENCER to thlS pesi tim al the basis of facts cQ1cern1ng

ne-c11tic1zat1m. In 11a11an, ne may be c11t1c1zed cnto the verb ally frcm

direct objects of.' the verb. Clitic1zat101 fran a subject, even when inverted, as in (66b) , or fran an indirect object, as 1n (660), is not possible. See Be!lett1 & Rizzi (1981).

66.a) Ne no CO'losc1uto 1 collabcratl (I ne met the collaborators) b)*Ne hanna parlato tre

(ne tave spoken threa)

c)*Gianni ne e rlmasto tre a Milano

(Gianni ne remained three in Milano)

Interestingly. ne-c11 t1c1zat1m 1s not possible tran the direct object of a psi-verb when it receives a psych-interpretation.

67.a)??Questa battuta ne ha urtati moltl

(this j aka ne struck many)

b)??Ques~o genere d1 problem1 ne preoccupa molt!

(this kind of pr oblem ne worry many)

(B&R (36d), ( 36b ) )

In 1tl1s respect, the argument bearmg ar! EXPERIENCER theta-role is more

like an 1nverted SUbject than a direct object.

A canpan10l phenanencn exists 10 Ehg11sh Extrac't1m of a wh-phrase 1--ran

-a direct object NP is gener-ally possible in lihg11sh, cf.

(68).3

0

&1.a) Who did you see la sister of t] b) ~ho did yw buy [a sta'y aboot !]

Extract1m fran an md1r~ct object 1s much less acceptable.

69

a)??Who did yoo give a boolt to (a sister of t] b)??WhO did

_-

you put a glass 01 la story about

_-

t]

Giving these cmtrasts a fcrmal characterizatlm is a d11'ficult matter involvmg a nwnber of canplex factcrs see e.g. Huang (1982) l'or

d1scuss10l . .8ellett1 &Rizzi (1985) argue fer an apprcach that

d1stingu1shes direct: and indirect, cbjects structurally They suggest that indirect oojects and inverted subjects are not sisters to the verb, and then provide a methcxi wh1ch dres not require slstarhocxi for theta-marking

them. The cootrasts noted abO/e, then, can be described with the f'ollowing cmdit1Ql (see Chansky (1985) and Ch. 3).

VI. k1 Xmax is an extract1m danain ally if it 1s sister

to a verb.

Fa' this reasoo Bellettl & Rizzi place the argument b';Jarlng the

EXPERIENCER theta ..·role outside V' , as in (70).

30. Extt'aotim fran an NP is sUbject to myster1ws ccnd1t1cns in English ..