x
هدف البحث
بحث في العناوين
بحث في المحتوى
بحث في اسماء الكتب
بحث في اسماء المؤلفين
اختر القسم
موافق
Grammar
Tenses
Present
Present Simple
Present Continuous
Present Perfect
Present Perfect Continuous
Past
Past Continuous
Past Perfect
Past Perfect Continuous
Past Simple
Future
Future Simple
Future Continuous
Future Perfect
Future Perfect Continuous
Passive and Active
Parts Of Speech
Nouns
Countable and uncountable nouns
Verbal nouns
Singular and Plural nouns
Proper nouns
Nouns gender
Nouns definition
Concrete nouns
Abstract nouns
Common nouns
Collective nouns
Definition Of Nouns
Verbs
Stative and dynamic verbs
Finite and nonfinite verbs
To be verbs
Transitive and intransitive verbs
Auxiliary verbs
Modal verbs
Regular and irregular verbs
Action verbs
Adverbs
Relative adverbs
Interrogative adverbs
Adverbs of time
Adverbs of place
Adverbs of reason
Adverbs of quantity
Adverbs of manner
Adverbs of frequency
Adverbs of affirmation
Adjectives
Quantitative adjective
Proper adjective
Possessive adjective
Numeral adjective
Interrogative adjective
Distributive adjective
Descriptive adjective
Demonstrative adjective
Pronouns
Subject pronoun
Relative pronoun
Reflexive pronoun
Reciprocal pronoun
Possessive pronoun
Personal pronoun
Interrogative pronoun
Indefinite pronoun
Emphatic pronoun
Distributive pronoun
Demonstrative pronoun
Pre Position
Preposition by function
Time preposition
Reason preposition
Possession preposition
Place preposition
Phrases preposition
Origin preposition
Measure preposition
Direction preposition
Contrast preposition
Agent preposition
Preposition by construction
Simple preposition
Phrase preposition
Double preposition
Compound preposition
Conjunctions
Subordinating conjunction
Correlative conjunction
Coordinating conjunction
Conjunctive adverbs
Interjections
Express calling interjection
Grammar Rules
Preference
Requests and offers
wishes
Be used to
Some and any
Could have done
Describing people
Giving advices
Possession
Comparative and superlative
Giving Reason
Making Suggestions
Apologizing
Forming questions
Since and for
Directions
Obligation
Adverbials
invitation
Articles
Imaginary condition
Zero conditional
First conditional
Second conditional
Third conditional
Reported speech
Linguistics
Phonetics
Phonology
Semantics
Pragmatics
Linguistics fields
Syntax
Morphology
Semantics
pragmatics
History
Writing
Grammar
literature
Reading Comprehension
Elementary
Intermediate
Advanced
Defective clauses
المؤلف: Andrew Radford
المصدر: Minimalist Syntax
الجزء والصفحة: 131-4
15/11/2022
1187
We have argued that all finite clauses are CPs, and we went on to argue that for infinitives with accusative subjects and control infinitives with null PRO subjects are likewise CPs. These two assumptions lead us to the more general conclusion that:
And indeed this is an assumption made by Chomsky in recent work. However, there is one particular type of clause which is exceptional in that it lacks the CP layer found in canonical clauses – namely infinitival complement clauses like those bracketed in (76) below which have (italicized) accusative subjects:
Complement clauses like those bracketed in (76) are exceptional in that their subjects are assigned accusative case by the transitive verb (believe/intend) immediately preceding them: what’s exceptional about this is that the verb is in a different clause from the subject which it assigns accusative case to. For this reason, such clauses are known as exceptional case-marking clauses (or ECM clauses); and verbs (like believe) when used with an ECM clause as their complement are known as ECM verbs.
ECM complement clauses seem to be TPs which lack the CP layer found in canonical clauses, and for this reason Chomsky (1999) terms them defective clauses. One reason for thinking that the bracketed ECM clauses in sentences like (76) are not full CPs is that they cannot readily be coordinated with for-infinitives, as we see from the ungrammaticality of (77) below:
Although (for speakers like me) the verb intend can take either a bare ECM infinitive complement or a for infinitive complement, the fact that the two cannot be conjoined suggests that the bare ECM infinitive clauses have the status of TPs while for-to infinitive clauses have the status of CPs. By contrast, coordination is indeed possible in sentences like:
and this is because both bracketed clauses in (78) are infinitival TPs.
Further evidence that ECM infinitive clauses like those bracketed in (76) are TPs rather than CPs comes from the fact that they cannot occur in focus position in pseudo-clefts, as we see from the ungrammaticality of the sentences below:
If ECM clauses are TPs, this follows from the restriction noted in (75) that only CPs (not TPs) can occur in focus position in a pseudo-cleft sentence. Moreover, a further property of sentences like (76) which would be difficult to account for if the bracketed complement clause were a CP is the fact that its (italicized) subject can be passivized and thereby made into the subject of the main clause, as in (80) below:
This is because it is a property of the subject of an infinitival CP complement clause like that bracketed in (81a) below that its subject cannot be passivized – as we see from the ungrammaticality of (81b):
Likewise, the subject of the infinitival CP complement of a for-deletion verb like want cannot be passivized either:
– and indeed this is precisely what we expect if the subjects of CPs cannot passivize, and if the bracketed complement clauses in (82) are CPs headed by a null counterpart of for. However, the fact that the passive sentences in (80) are grammatical suggests that the bracketed complement clauses in (76) are TPs rather than CPs (since the subject of an infinitival TP can be passivized, but not the subject of an infinitival CP). Hence, complement clauses like those bracketed in (76) above are defective clauses which have no CP layer, and (76a) They believe him to be innocent accordingly has the structure (83) below:
The particular aspect of the analysis in (83) most relevant to our discussion is the claim that the complement clause him to be innocent is an infinitival TP headed by to, and its subject him is assigned accusative case by the transitive verb believe: how this happens.
We can extend the analysis of ECM predicates like believe which select a bare infinitive complement. On this view, a sentence like I have never known him be rude to anyone would be analyzed as containing a transitive perfect participle known which selects a TP complement headed by a null counterpart of infinitival to – as shown in skeletal form in (84) below:
Since the subject of a TP complement can passivize, the analysis in (84) predicts that the subject of the bracketed infinitive complement in (84) can passivize, and this is indeed the case as we see from examples like (85) below:
Because infinitival to can only have a null spellout when the TP complement it heads is the complement of an active transitive verb-form like the perfect participle known in (84) and not when the relevant TP is the complement of a passive participle like known in (85), it follows that infinitival to must be given an overt spellout in sentences like (85).
Under the analysis proposed here, verbs which take a bare infinitive complement with an accusative subject are analyzed as ECM predicates which select a TP complement headed by an infinitival T which has an overt spell out as to in passive structures like (85) and a null spell out in active structures such as (84). However, one predicate which is problematic to classify in such terms is let, since it allows a bare infinitive complement in active structures like (86a) below but doesn’t allow the subject of the infinitive to passivize, as we see from the ungrammaticality of sentences like (86b):
We can’t describe the relevant facts by saying that let is a defective verb which has no passive participle form, since let is used as a passive participle in sentences like The prisoners were let out of jail. An alternative analysis is to suppose that whereas typical ECM predicates select an infinitival TP complement in both active and passive uses, let is irregular in that it only selects an infinitival TP complement in active uses, not when used as a passive participle. Similar lexical idiosyncrasies are found with a number of other verbs: for example, know only allows a bare infinitival complement with an accusative subject when used as a perfect participle in structures like (84) above. (An alternative way of accounting for the impossibility of passivisation in sentences like (86b) which we won’t adopt here is to take let to be a verb selecting a CP complement headed by an inherently null complementizer which in turn selects an infinitival TP complement headed by a null counterpart of infinitival to: the ungrammaticality of (86b) then follows from the impossibility of passivizing the subject of a CP complement.)