Syntax I

We’ve just met quite a number of different kinds of embedded clauses, particularly embedded infinitive clauses, and I just want to take a moment to summarize what we have and suggest strategies for determining what we’re looking at in any given sentence.

Some things to keep in mind, in no particular order, are:

• DPs need case. Every single one.
• Each θ-role must be assigned to a distinct argument.
• Infinitive T (generally marked by the modal to) cannot check case.
• Finite clauses always have a C.
• T (whether finite or non-finite) requires there to be a DP in its specifier.
• PRO is a DP, and can only survive if it is assigned null case.
• The only thing that can assign/check null case (so far) is the silent C, ∅_NULL.
• If an embedded subject gets case from the higher clause, the embedded clause is a TP (not a CP).

When you have a sentence embedded inside another one, the first question to ask yourself is whether the embedded sentence is finite or non-finite. The non-finite sentences generally have a to in them, which is a pretty good tip-off. Modals like should, may, etc., only appear in finite clauses.

If the embedded clause is finite, it is a CP (even if the C is silent). Finite clauses are always CPs.

If the embedded clause is non-finite, there are several possibilities. For one thing, it might be a CP or it might be a TP—it depends in large part on the verb that the embedded clause is the complement of. There’s also the question of whether (if no subject is visible in the embedded clause) there is a PRO or not.

The way to determine whether there is a PRO is to count the θ-roles. That’s pretty much the only reliable way to do it.

In a sentence like John wants Mary to leave, there are two verbs to consider: want and visit. The participants in want are the wanter (Experiencer, John in this instance), and the thing wanted (Proposition, the embedded clause Mary to leave in this instance). The sole participant in leave is the leaver (Agent, Mary here). So, nothing here is unaccounted for, all θ-roles are going to visible/audible DPs—there is no PRO here.

In a sentence like Mary seems to be leaving, if we run through that same procedure, we will again find that all θ-roles are accounted for. Seems has a single θ-role, the Proposition that appears to be true, and leave again has one θ-role, the Agent doing the leaving (Mary). However, in this case, there is no visible subject in the embedded clause, and moreover the logical subject (Mary) shows up as the subject of seems. There are two TPs here, one in the main clause, and one in the embedded clause. Each requires a DP to be in its specifier, but only the top one appears to have a DP in its specifier. There can’t be a PRO in the specifier of the lower TP because there aren’t enough θ-roles for there to be a PRO (if there were a PRO, it wouldn’t get a θ-role). The only conclusion is that the subject of the lower clause (Mary) was first in the specifier of the lower TP (checking the [uD*] feature of the lower T), and then moved up to the specifier of the higher TP.

Considerations of how case is checked also point to the same conclusions with respect to these two sentences. Every DP needs case. In John wants Mary to leave, the DP John gets case from the finite T in the main clause, and Mary gets case from wants (the non-finite T in the lower clause is incapable of checking case features, like all non-finite Ts). In Mary seems to be leaving, there is nothing in the lower clause that can check the case of Mary, so the main clause T values/checks its case as nominative.

In both of these two sentences (John wants Mary to leave and Mary seems to be leaving), the embedded clause is just a TP, not a CP. Since Mary in both cases, while originating in the lower clause, gets case from the higher clause, there can be no CP there. If it helps, you can think of CP as a kind of a “case shield”, you can’t check case across a CP.

In the sentence John wants to leave, if we run through the θ-role-counting procedure, we’ll find that there are more θ-roles than visible DPs. There’s the wanter (John) and the leaver. Since the visible DP John can’t get both θ-roles, there must be a PRO. And if there’s a PRO, there there must also be a null C (∅_NULL) to value/check null case on PRO.

Finally, consider the sentence John asked Mary to leave. Here, again, the procedure of counting θ-roles comes up short. We have the asker (John) and the askee (Mary), and the leaver. Since there are more θ-roles than visible DPs, there must be a PRO in the embedded clause (and therefore a ∅_NULL C as well).

To summarize in bracket notation we have:

• John wants [_TP Mary to leave] (ECM)
• Mary seems [_TP <Mary> to be leaving] (Raising)
• John wants [_CP ∅_NULL [_TP PRO to leave]] (Subject control)
• John asked Mary [_CP ∅_NULL [_TP PRO to leave]] (Object control)

Once we have these four kinds of verbs, it’s always possible to mix-and-match them (and it makes for good homework problems and test questions too). For example, John seems to want to ask Mary to leave:

John seems [_TP <John> to want [_CP ∅_NULL [_TP PRO to ask Mary [_CP ∅_NULL [_TP PRO to leave]]]]].