Adverbs, PPs and Clausal modifiersWe can call the phenomena noted in (178c) heavy DP shift (leaving undefined just
what counts as a ‘heavy DP’). It is common to find the attitude that heavy DP shift is a
slightly odd phenomenon. However, given that other elements can undergo backward
movement and given the fact that DPs of any weight can undergo certain forward
movements, what is odd is the refusal of ‘light’ DPs to undergo backward movement.
Obviously there are mysteries here that we cannot yet approach and so again we will
set the issue aside.
4.3 Clausal modifiers
Finally in this chapter we will note the possibility of modifying a VP with a clause. As
we have seen with adverb modifiers the most straightforward VP modifiers are those
that modify the manner of the verb. It is not possible to use a clause in this way
however, and so it is not easy to tell whether a clause is a VP or a sentential modifier.
However, there are certain reasons to think that some clausal modifiers are situated
inside the VP.
Without going too much into the details of clause structure itself, a task we will
undertake over the next chapters, certain non-finite clauses appear to have a missing
subject:
(180) a Bert bought a Ferrari [to impress his friends]
b they set fire to the building [to collect the insurance]
Although these clauses seem to lack a subject, it is immediately obvious that a subject
is interpreted: in (180a) it is Bert who will be doing the impressing and in (180b) it is
they who will collect the insurance. We call this phenomenon control. There is an
element in the main clause who is interpreted as, or who ‘controls’ the missing subject
of the modifying clause. There are restrictions, however, on which argument can act as
the controller:
(181) Fred phoned the plumber [driving to the office]
In this case, only Fred can be interpreted as the one who was driving. It seems that the
object is too far down inside the clause to act as controller. This is supported by the
following observation:
(182) the witness claimed the defendant paid a lot of money [to attract attention to
himself]
The reflexive pronoun himself can either refer to the witness or the defendant. But
note, this depends on what the purpose clause is thought to modify. In one case it is the
defendant’s paying money that attracts the attention and in the other case it is the
witness’s claim that attracts the attention. In the first case, himself refers to the
defendant and in the second it refers to the witness. What is not possible is to interpret
the purpose clause as modifying the claiming event and for the reflexive to refer to the
defendant or for the purpose clause to modify the paying event and the reflexive to
refer to the witness. In other words, neither of the following are possible
interpretations of (182):