Attempts to identify a black hole: what is the categorial status of small clauses? clauses?

5.3.1 Some preliminaries: the categorial component of generative grammar

Although SC-theoreticians have lamentably failed to provide empirical evidence for the con-stituency of the NP₂ XP-string and the subjecthood of NP₂, they have nevertheless attempted to naturalise the SC-analysis within the theoretical framework of generative grammar. Since SCs tie in perfectly with other generative principles such as the Theta-Criterion, the Projection Principle and the binary-branching requirement (cf. 5.1), SC-proponents have redoubled their efforts to prove the existence of SCs from a theoretical stance at least. As has been pointed out in 3.2, the postulation of different representational levels and various subtheories gives grammarians a rather useful loophole in order to come to terms with distributional mis-matches. In a multi-stratal framework, the constituency of SCs could also be established if it were possible to identify a node that exhaustively dominates NP2 and XP at D-structure and if the non-constituency behaviour of this string could be claimed to be an S-structure reflex oc-casioned by independent principles of grammar; similarly, the subjecthood of NP2 may be demonstrated if this phrase clearly occupied the subject position of a clausal entity at D-structure and if its direct-object properties could be coherently attributed to other premises of the grammatical system. As the various proposals that have been advanced along these lines in the past two decades draw extensively on theoretical notions of GB-theory (and, more re-cently, the MP), some common principles of the categorial component of generative grammar and Case theory must be laid out at this point.

The categorial component integrates the lexicon with the syntax via certain structural rules and principles. In the versions of generative grammar preceding GB-theory, the cate-gorial component was essentially made up of a rich set of category-specific rewrite rules de-fining the constituent structure of each phrasal category, e.g. S → NP VP, or PP → P NP (Hoek-stra 1988: 102-3; Stowell 1983: 288). While the device of rewrite rules may have been well suited to the task of constructing descriptively adequate phrase-structure configurations for a specific language such as English, it lacked explanatory adequacy because the rules had idio-syncratic properties and could not be deduced from more general principles of grammar (cf.

3.2) (Cook and Newson 1996: 135; Grewendorf 2002: 12). The 1970s and 1980s therefore saw systematic attempts to reduce the redundancy of individual phrase-structure rules and to accommodate them to some more abstract principles within the new framework of X'-theory.

Category labels such as 'NP' or 'VP' used to be essentially unanalysed symbols, with no

sys-tematic relations holding between V and VP or N and NP. X'-theory, on the other hand, hy-pothesises that the label of each phrase consists of a "categorial value" such as N and V, which identifies the lexical nature of the phrase, and a "hierarchical value" represented by the re-spective bar-level (or, today, number of primes), e.g. V' or V'' (Stowell 1991b: 40). The impor-tant generalisation of this system is that each complex syntactic entity has the same categorial value as its lexical head, irrespective of its hierarchical level, i.e. "Xⁿ → ... X^n-1 ..." (Grewen-dorf 2002: 33). Heads are zero-level categories belonging to a particular lexical class (e.g. V⁰

or N⁰); the categories of the first bar-level are so-called intermediate projections of their heads (e.g. V' or N'), and the categories of the second and highest bar-level are maximal projections or phrases (e.g. V''/VP or N''/NP) (Cook and Newson 1996: 139). The principle of endocentric-ity thus guarantees that the features of the head progressively project up onto the maximal projection.

While the maxim of endocentricity makes the relations between a lexical head such as N

and its projections N' and NP explicit, it does not, as such, capture the structural parallels be-tween phrases of different categories. X'-theory remedied this situation as well because it pro-vided a uniform rule schema into which all phrasal categories could be collapsed (Starke 1995: 237-8; Stowell 1983: 288-9). The structural skeleton of (108) is a category-neutral tem-plate, where the value of X can range over the lexical categories N, V, A and P. This template allows for no X-particular variation and thus guarantees that the syntactic levels X' and XP are projected from their heads in a uniform way, irrespective of what lexical categories these heads are instantiated by.⁶⁰

(108) a. X' → X⁰+ YP b. XP → SPEC + X' c. XP* → XP + ZP

All projections are reduced to binary branching: the intermediate projection X' dominates the lexical head and at most one complement YP (108a), while the maximal projection XP consists of a so-called 'specifier' (SPEC) and the X'-projection (108b) (Cook and Newson 1996: 141-4;

Stowell 1991b: 40). A specifier is defined in terms of its particular syntactic position; its exact categorial values, however, are notoriously vague and subject to continuing debate (Sternefeld 1991: 17-8; Stowell 1991b: 42).⁶¹ Maximal projections can be recursively combined with

60 In the MP, this strict algorithm has been replaced by the simple recursive operation 'merge', which combines two elements in a piecemeal fashion (Cook and Newson 1996: 323). The advantage of 'merge' is that certain (complement or specifier) positions which the X'-format would have required but which are not lexically filled in the sentence need not be projected (Chomsky 1995: 249). The principle of endocentricity remains unaffected, though: one of the two elements merged provides the label for the whole structure (Cook and Newson 1996:

339-40).

61 A notational device for expressing the notion 'specifier of XP' is [SPEC,XP].

junct ZPs — without increasing the hierarchical value of XP, though (108c)⁶² (Haegeman and Guéron 1999: 80); alternatively, adjuncts are also sometimes analysed as sisters to X', recur-sively creating other X'-levels (Cook and Newson 1996: 145-6).

The blueprint of (108) has been extended from lexical to functional categories such as determiners, temporal inflections, and complementisers as well (Bresnan 2001: 99-100; Hae-geman and Guéron 1999: 103). While a sentence was originally analysed as an exocentric structure (S → NP VP), it is now thought to be a hierarchically structured projection of the ver-bal inflection, abbreviated as 'I'(Cook and Newson 1996: 148). The head I determines whether a clause is finite ([+tense]) or non-finite ([-tense]), and what its person/number agreement-features ([AGR]) are.⁶³ I takes a VP as its complement to form an I' projection, which in turn combines with a specifier — in this case the subject of the sentence (but see 5.3.5) — to form the maximal projection IP (109a, a') (Haegeman and Guéron 1999: 95; Stowell 1991b: 41).

Similarly, a clause introduced by a complementiser (C) such as that, for or if is no longer con-ceived of as an exocentric construct (S'→ C + S), but as a projection of this complementiser.

The head C selects a clause, IP, as its complement and forms a C'-projection; C' then combines with a specifier to result in the maximal projection CP (109b, b') (Cook and Newson 1996:

150-1; Stowell 1991b: 41).⁶⁴

(109) a. I'→ I + VP a'. IP → SPEC + I b. C' → C + IP b'. CP → SPEC + C'

The extension of the X'-template to functional categories is first and foremost based on theo-retical reasons; the postulate that I selects VP or that C selects IP,for example, does not follow from empirical considerations, but is primarily "a matter of analytical convenience" (Stowell 1991b: 42). The developments of the categorial component thus clearly illustrate the continu-ing drive in generative grammar from descriptively adequate analyses to abstract, explanato-rily adequate accounts.

62 A maximal projection without adjuncts is called the 'minimal maximal projection'; this projection can then be recursively extended by adjuncts, creating various 'segments' of a phrase (Haegeman and Guéron 1999: 80).

63 The tense and agreement features of I can be represented by a free morpheme such as is or by a bound mor-pheme such as –s. In the course of the derivation, a bound mormor-pheme must be combined with its lexical stem by some mechanism that raises the verb to the bound morpheme (Haegeman and Guéron 1999: 90-2). In the more recent 'checking account', verbs are base-generated under the head V complete with their inflectional endings.

The functional head I does not contain tense or agreement morphemes, but only abstract tense/agreement fea-tures. These abstract features must be checked by a verb with matching inflections; for this checking procedure, the verb must (overtly or covertly) move to the functional head I (Grewendorf 2002: 39-40).

64 The position of C can also be empty and serve, for example, as the landing site of auxiliaries in root interroga-tives (Will [C] he come tomorrow?). Likewise, [SPEC,CP] is frequently unfilled, but may function as the structural position for interrogative pronouns in wh-questions (e.g. When [S^PEC,^CP] will [^C] he come tomorrow?) (Haege-man and Guéron 1999: 170-2).

GB-theory defines SCs as clausal complements of verbs like consider; since complement positions are occupied by maximal projections such as NPs (I believe the story) or CPs (I be-lieve that the story is true) (Cook and Newson 1996: 141; Moro 1995: 113), the propositional θ-role of SCs must be syntactically realised by a maximal projection as well. According to the principle of endocentricity underlying X'-theory, SCs must thus be projected by some head.⁶⁵ The problem now is to specify what head projects an SC as in Mary considers [SC John fool-ish] (cf. 110) — is it some sort of lexical projection (e.g. an AP), or a functional projection (e.g. an IP or a CP)?

(110) ?P

NP AP

John foolish

Any proposal concerning the categorial status of the SC-node must also account for the fact that the SC-subject does not show characteristic subject properties; in particular, it must ex-plain why this phrase can act as a separate constituent at S-structure and has the accusative Case typical of direct objects (cf. 5.2). Case-relations are explicated within the GB-module of 'Case theory', the cornerstone of which is the requirement that all overt NPs must be assigned Case (Haegeman and Guéron 1999: 133; Stowell 1983: 286).⁶⁶ In the standard account, nomi-native and accusative Case are assigned by governors such as P or V under specific S-structural configurations (Grewendorf 2002: 23). A head can assign S-structural Case to an NP if it bears one of two possible local relations to it: a head governs its complement and can Case-mark it under this relation of government; furthermore, a head is in an agreement relation with the specifier of its maximal projection and can assign Case to the NP in the specifier position under this relation of SPEC-head agreement (Haegeman and Guéron 1999: 79). More explic-itly, a verb assigns accusative Case to its direct-object complement and I assigns nominative Case to the subject in the [SPEC,IP] position (Haegeman and Guéron 1999: 129-30). It is, however, assumed that only finite I (marked [+AGR]) has the ability to assign nominative Case on the strength of the agreement relation holding between it and the subject NP

65 Despite the wide-spread acceptance of the endocentricity principle, there have been occasional attempts to treat SCs as exocentric structures (e.g. Chung and McCloskey 1987; Hayashi 1991: 23; Kluender 1985). Chung and McCloskey, for instance, argue that an SC is of the category 'S' because "it shows all the characteristic traits of maximal categories but is not a projection of any category" (1987: 234-5); Kluender likewise identifies SCs as

Ss and wants to exempt S from the principle of endocentricity (1985: 287-8). Exocentric analyses of SCs have come in for heavy criticism because they violate the generalizations of ^X'-theory (Aarts 1992: 178-9) and treat 'SC' as a primitive, unexplained notion (Radford 1988: 516).

66 The Case requirement for overt NPs is often explained by the fact that Case renders an NP visible for the as-signment of a θ-role (Haegeman and Guéron 1999: 502). As a consequence, a direct relation between Theta-theory and Case-Theta-theory can be established if it is assumed that "Cases are to syntax what theta-roles are to the lexicon" (Brody and Manzini 1988: 117-8).

man and Guéron 1999: 95; Stowell 1983: 286). Non-finite I (marked [-AGR]), on the other hand, cannot establish an agreement relation with [SPEC,IP] and thus cannot Case-mark the subject at all (Haegeman and Guéron 1999: 132; Stowell 1983: 290-1). In more recent devel-opments of Case theory, where the concept of government has been abolished (Cook and Newson 1996: 316), it is assumed that both nominative and accusative Case are assigned un-der SPEC-head agreement relations; a direct object must thus be moved to the specifier posi-tion of some funcposi-tional head to receive accusative Case (Grewendorf 2002: 39).⁶⁷

The accusative Case of the putative SC-subject can thus be explained in two ways: if ac-cusative Case is assumed to be assigned under government, as the traditional theory has it, the SC-subject must be exceptionally governed and Case-marked by the matrix verb (Rothstein 1992: 136; Stowell 1991a: 187-8). SC-theories working on this assumption must explain why such Exceptional Case Marking (ECM) is possible, i.e. why and how a matrix verb can gov-ern an NP it has not semantically selected across a clause boundary. Alternatively, if it is hy-pothesised along the lines of more recent assumptions that the SC-subject moves to the speci-fier position of some functional head to receive accusative Case (Cook and Newson 1996:

334), it must be pointed out where exactly the landing site of this NP is and how it can move there.⁶⁸ In addition to these questions, both Case accounts must explain why the SC-subject can separately move into the matrix clause, e.g. in the passive transformation (Hei is consid-ered [SC ti a fool]), although it is only a subconstituent of a clause.

In the following sections, we will look at various attempts to identify the SC-node and to explain the accusative Case of the putative SC-subject in the chronological order of their ap-pearance in the SC-literature.

67 In the current 'checking account', a head is not regarded as assigning Case to some NP, but to check an NP that has been inserted into the structure along with its Case feature (Grewendorf 2002: 159-60; Haegeman and Guéron 1999: 129). The checking account works with the notion of 'uninterpretable' features: Case is seen as an uninterpretable feature that does not have any meaning in the semantic interpretation of the sentence; a Case-bearing NP must therefore move to the specifier position of some functional head to have its Case feature checked and subsequently deleted; this movement is overt for the subject (which checks for nominative Case), but covert for the object (which checks for accusative Case) in English (Cook and Newson 1996: 333-5; Gre-wendorf 2002: 162-3, 189-90). As I am not interested in clearly differentiating between alternative theories of Case in GB or the MP, I will use the terminology of the Case assignment account and the checking account in-discriminately in the following discussions.

68 If an NP moves from its theta-position at D-structure to some Case position at S-structure, it leaves behind a co-indexed trace; the moved NP and its trace are said to form a chain (Haegeman and Guéron 1999: 396). The notion 'chain' ensures that both the Theta-Criterion and the Case requirement are satisfied because the NP is in a Case position in this chain and the co-indexed trace occupies a theta-position (Haegeman and Guéron 1999:

506). NP-movement is 'A(rgument)-movement' (Haegeman and Guéron 1999: 217-8): an NP moves from its base-structure argument position to another argument position (Cook and Newson 1996: 178; Grewendorf 2002: 19).

The idea of A-positions is important to guarantee that such an NP does not move to a position that cannot be assigned a thematic role (so-called A'-positions), such as the [S^PEC,^CP] position, which serves as the landing site for wh-phrases in questions (Cook and Newson 1996: 314; Haegeman and Guéron 1999: 218).

5.3.2 Small clauses as quasi-clauses: is an SC a pure lexical projection?

Stowell, who has laid the groundwork for modern SC-theory, did not analyse NP2 XP-strings on a par with non-finite and finite clauses; specifically, he assumed that SCs do not contain any functional projections such as I or C. Instead, he proposed that an SC is simply a maximal projection of the lexical category of its predicate (1983: 301); the inner architecture of an SC would then look something like (111a). When an SCs is a bare lexical projection (LP), it can be, among other things, an NP (111b) or AP (111c):

(111) a. [LP = SC SC-subj [L' [L0 SC-pred]]]. b. Mary considers [NP = SC John [N' [N0 a fool]]]. c. Mary considers [AP = SC John [A' [A0 foolish]]].⁶⁹

Stowell and the scholars drawing on his LP-analysis (which include Chomsky (1981), Contreras (1987), Kayne (1985), and Manzini (1989)) furnish several pieces of evidence to substantiate the configuration of (111a). In the first place, Stowell asserts that the matrix verb can select for the categorial status of the SC-predicate (1983: 301). To corroborate this hy-pothesis, he makes up the following ungrammatical sentences:

(112) a. *I consider [John off my ship].

b. *I expect [that man very stupid]. (from Stowell 1983: 301)

Stowell attributes the ungrammaticality of these sentences to the categorial constraints that consider cannot subcategorise for a PP and expect not for an AP. As these verbs are able to specify the categorial status of XP, Stowell concludes that SCs must be projections of the lexi-cal head X. If they were sentences, the matrix verb would categorially select a subconstituent of its sentential argument, something which is strictly disallowed by the rules of subcategori-sation (Stowell 1981: 259, 1983: 301). These selection data therefore seem to underpin Stow-ell's claim that a matrix verb such as consider subcategorises for one postverbal argument, which may be an NP or AP; an SC is therefore nothing more than a maximal projection of a lexical category which is preceded by a subject NP within the same phrase.

One more assumption is necessary to make the analysis of (111) sustainable, though.

Stowell needs to postulate that not just IPs, but all maximal projections may contain a struc-tural subject (1983: 295-6) — a generalisation not usually included in the X'-framework of the time. As the only structural position made available by X'-theory for this sort of subject is the specifier of the respective maximal projection, the notion 'subject' would generalise across categories and be synonymous with the template '[SPEC,XP]'. N' or A' would thus combine with

69 The intermediate projections N' or A' are identical to their heads N⁰ and A⁰ in these sentences, but some nouns and adjectives can also take complements in the SC-predicate position: I consider John an obstacle to our plans;

I consider John too proud of his achievements.

their specifiers a.k.a. subjects to form the maximal projections NP (111b) and AP (111c), re-spectively.⁷⁰

As a result, the propositional θ-role assigned by matrix verbs such as consider can be structurally realised not only by ordinary clauses, but also by quasi-clauses such as the LPs postulated by Stowell (1981: 259-61). The subject/predicate relation between NP₂ and XP is not structurally reflected by a canonical clause, which would also contain a functional projec-tion for tense or a complementiser, but by the subject/predicate configuraprojec-tion holding between the specifier and the lexical head within a single maximal projection (Nakajima 1991a: 5;

Staudinger 1996: 29; Stowell 1983: 298-9). In this view, SCs constitute structural and seman-tic predication domains like full clauses (Ionescu 1997: 168; Stowell 1991a: 183, 1995: 274).

While the latter are the CSRs (cf. footnote 41) of the propositional θ-role, SCs would be marked structural realisations because they contain a subject and a predicate position but not any other typical clausal characteristics (Chomsky 1981: 112; Kaplan 1988: 81).

The subject in the specifier position of an SC is θ-marked by the lexical head of the SC, but is thought not to be governed or assigned Case by it (Stowell 1983: 297). The NP2 there-fore needs Case from the matrix verb outside the SC (Ionescu 1997: 169; Stowell 1991a:

182). The SC-boundary must consequently be taken to be transparent to government so that the SC-subject can be exceptionally Case-marked by the matrix verb.⁷¹ The movement of the

NP2 in passive sentences (Johni is considered [ti foolish]) is also attributed to Case theory be-cause passive verbs are assumed not to assign accusative Case, so the SC-subject must move to the matrix subject position where it can receive nominative Case from finite I (Stowell 1991a: 182). The mechanism of ECM thus explains both the S-structure direct-object proper-ties of NP₂ and the non-constituent behaviour of the NP₂ XP-string in passive constructions, for instance.

70 Stowell's argumentation for the category-neutral definition of the subject position relies heavily on Case the-ory. While the subject position of finite IPs, i.e. ordinary clauses, must be obligatorily filled by an NP, the subject of lexical projections such as ^NP and ^AP is optional (1983: 289-90). Stowell theorises that this "defective cross-categorial distribution of lexical subjects" (1983: 290) can be attributed to Case: finite I can assign nominative Case to the clausal subject, but lexical categories such as N and A are unable to assign Case and therefore usually do not have their subject positions filled by an NP (1983: 292).

71 The theory of Case then prevalent demanded that a matrix verb can only govern into a non-maximal projec-tion, so it had to be argued that SCs are non-maximal projections of their predicates (Chomsky 1981: 107, 169).

71 The theory of Case then prevalent demanded that a matrix verb can only govern into a non-maximal projec-tion, so it had to be argued that SCs are non-maximal projections of their predicates (Chomsky 1981: 107, 169).