Syntax

1. Syntax Lecture 4: The Complementiser System

2. Complementisers • Complementisers are words which introduce subordinate clauses: • I know that [he’s mad] • I wonder if[you’ve heard] • I was hoping for [it to be sunny] • Unlike other subordinating particles, they always precede the subordinate clause: • John left though he didn’t want to • John left, he didn’t want to though • * I know he’s mad that

3. Complementisers are not part of the IP that they introduce • All the positions in the IP are taken • Specifier = subject • Head = inflection • Complement = VP • IPs are independent of complementisers: • I wonder if [I’m not totally sane] and [he’s not totally mad] • They say that he’s mad. But if [so], then so am I

4. Complementisers form a unit with the clause they introduce • This shows [that he is mad] and [that I’m not] • They say [that I’m mad] but I don’t believe [it] • * They say [that I’m mad] but I don’t believe that [it] • It replaces C + IP, not just IP

5. First attempt at finding the structural position of the complementiser • But what is X? • How does this fit with X-bar theory?

6. The X-bar analysis • The complementiser is a head and so projects a CP • The IP is the complement of the complementiser • This accounts for why the complementiser always precedes the IP

7. The complementiser as the head • Clauses differ in force • Some make statements • Some ask questions • The force of the sentence is often determined by the complementiser: • He stated that I was right • I asked if I was right

8. The IP as complement • The functional heads we have considered so far are D and I: • D has no other complement than NP • I has no other complement than VP • Thus it seems that functional heads select for a specific complement • C always introduces IP • So IP is similar to NP and VP in that it is always selected by a particular functional head

9. Features of the Complementiser • We have mentioned the difference between declarative and interrogative complementisers: • +wh = interrogative = if • -wh = declarative = that • Complementisers can also be distinguished in terms of what kind of clause they introduce • I know [that he disappeared] finite clause • I long [for him to disappear] infinitival clause

10. Features of the Complementiser So what about this?

11. Whether • Whether can be used to introduce non-finite interrogatives clauses: • He wondered whether [to stay in bed] • However, whether is unlike a complementiser: • It can introduce both finite and non-finite clauses • He wondered whether [he should stay in bed] • It can introduce a clause with a ‘missing subject’ • * I am anxious for [to leave] • It can be coordinated with an interrogative phrase • He wondered whether and (if so) when to tell her • *he wondered if and (if so) when to tell her • This suggest that whether is not a complementiser but more like an interrogative phrase (more on these later)

12. Obligatory nature of the complementiser • If the complementiser provides the force of the sentence, it should always be present. • Sometimes there is no complementiser • I think that he fled • I think he fled • It seems that we have to suppose an invisible complementiser: • I think [CP e [IP he fled]]

13. Evidence for the empty complementiser (argument 1) • If there were no complementiser there would be no CP • So verbs with clausal complements could take IP or CP complements • But what a verb takes as its complement is a lexical matter – unpredictable/idiosyncratic

14. Evidence for the empty complementiser (argument 1) • But EVERY verb which takes CP complement takes IP complements – so this is predictable • I think/suppose/said/know/feel/... (that) he fled • If the complementiser is present (but empty) then all these verbs take only CP complements and whether the complementiser is pronounced or not is a general fact about complementisers

15. Evidence for the empty complementiser (argument 2) • I said yesterday that he fled • I said that yesterday he fled • When a modifier is next to the verb, it modifies it – when it is separated from the verb, it modifies the following clause • I said yesterday he fled • This is ambiguous – but why? • If there is an empty complementiser it is easy to account for • I said yesterday e he fled • I said e yesterday he fled

16. Evidence for the empty complementiser (argument 3) • Certain questions involve a wh-phrase in front of the subject • Why did he flee • Ignore the auxiliary verb here – we will deal with it in another lecture • The subject is in the IP specifier position (like all other subjects) • The wh-phrase must therefore be outside the IP

17. The position of the wh-phrase • If the wh-phrase is not inside the IP, there must be a phrase which contains both the wh-phrase and the IP • But what is this phrase? • Neither the wh-phrase nor the IP can be its head, as they are both phrases • So there must be another head • As the wh-phrase precedes and the IP follows, it seems that they are in specifier and complement positions

18. The position of the wh-phrase • We still don’t know what the head of this phrase is • But we know of one phrase that is on top of the IP • The CP

19. The position of the wh-phrase • We still don’t know what the head of this phrase is • But we know of one phrase that is on top of the IP • The CP • So, wh-phrases sit in the specifier of CP • But as there is no visible complementiser, we must assume an invisible one

20. Wh-movement • Many wh-phrases which appear in the specifier of CP have other functions inside the IP • Who did you meet object • Who did he say fled subject • When will you leave modifier

21. Wh-movement • These positions are always empty when there is a wh-phrase in CP specifier • * who did you meet him • * who did you say he fled • * when will you leave at 6 o’clock • This suggests that the wh-phrase starts in these positions and moves

22. Wh-movement • Wh-phrases start off in the position appropriate to their function • Object • Subject • Modifier • Then they move to the specifier of CP

23. Evidence in favour of wh-movement (argument 1) • Sometimes the wh-phrase does not move • You saw who! • He said who fled • You will leave when! • These are called echo questions • They don’t have the same meaning as wh-questions with moved wh-phrases • But they do show that wh-phrases can occupy these positions

24. Evidence in favour of wh-movement (argument 2) • When ‘want’ is followed by ‘to’ they can be contracted into ‘wanna’ • Who do you want to fight • Who do you wanna fight

25. Evidence in favour of wh-movement (argument 2) • But this is not always possible • Who do you want to fight Bill • * Who do you wanna fight Bill • The difference is in the function of the wh-phrase • Who do you want to fight who = object • You want to fight him • Who do you want to fight Bill who = subject • You want him to fight Bill

26. Evidence in favour of wh-movement (argument 2) • When there is a subject it sits between ‘want’ and ‘to’ • I want him to go • Obviously ‘want’ and ‘to’ cannot contract in this case • But the only way a wh-phrase at the beginning of a sentence can interfere between ‘want’ and ‘to’ is if it sits between then at some point • So it must have been in this position once, and then moved

27. Examples These can contract

28. Examples • Then movement takes place These can’t

29. Conclusion • Complementisers introduce clauses • They determine the force of the sentence • They provide a position for wh-phrases to move to • This is not surprising as wh-phrases appear in questions and this is to do with the force of the sentence