Chapter 8 - The Syntax of Non-Finite Clauses(35) IP
DP I'
I XP
Besides the problem that under this analysis the head of the predicate is not the head of
the clause, a major problem facing it is that it forces us to assume that the inflection
can subcategorise for a whole set of different complements, ranging from DPs to PPs.
But functional heads do not normally display this amount of freedom in their
complement taking abilities. In all the cases we have considered so far, the agreement
head selects for a v/VP complement, i.e. complements with [–N, +V] features. But if I
can select for DP, AP and PP complements as well, i.e. [+F, +N, –V], [–F, +N, +V]
and [–F, –N, –V], this must mean that it imposes no categorial conditions on its
complement whatsoever. This is not true as bare NPs, non-thematic vPs, IPs and CPs
cannot act as predicates inside small clauses:
(36) a I consider him [NP student]
b I thought him [vP have gone]
c I ordered him [IP will leave]
d I consider him [CP that he will leave]
Stowell has countered the argument that the predicate part of the small clause is a
full phrase by claiming that it only seems to behave like a phrase as the subject moves
out of the subject position before the predicate itself moves. Thus the derivation of a
sentence like (37) would follow the steps indicated below:
(37) a you consider [him how intelligent]
b you consider him 1 [t 1 how intelligent]
c [t 1 how intelligent] 2 do you consider him 1 t 2
The debate continues and we will not attempt to put an end to it here. Stowell’s
analysis does seem to be able to address the problematic issue of the selection of small
clause complements, but his analysis of how the predicate can appear to behave like a
phrase rests on the validity of the suggested subject movement, and it is not at all clear
that there is a well motivated position for the subject to move to, even assuming a
more articulated structure of the vP.
2 Raising and Control
Another aspect of non-finite clauses that we have noted without much comment is
their ability to have missing subjects. This is surprising in more sense than one. Finite
clauses in English never have missing subjects:
(38) a (this) is a mouse
b (he) has gone
This is so even in cases where there is no semantic subject: