1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Linguistics
  4. Volume 10, 2024
  5. Article

Annual Review of Linguistics

Volume 10, 2024

The Size of Clausal Complements

Abstract

Drawing mainly—but not exclusively—on data from Germanic, this article compares syntactic, morphological, and semantic approaches to size differences of complement clauses. Focusing on two phenomena that have been related to clause size reduction and truncation—Exceptional Case Marking (ECM) and restructuring—it is shown that their distribution is radically different and that clause size cannot be the main factor regulating both of these phenomena. This article provides a solution to this conflicting state of affairs and lays out an approach that builds on a fine-grained CP structure, including both syntactic and semantic categories, a reduced structure for infinitives, and a syntax–meaning mapping that predicts different minimal clause sizes for different semantic types of complements. Based on the distribution of ECM in Germanic, a tentative ECM hierarchy is suggested that follows implicational containment relations of an expanded CP.

Keyword(s): CP cartography, ECM, finiteness, implicational hierarchies, restructuring
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031522-103802
2024-01-16
2024-04-30
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/10/1/annurev-linguistics-031522-103802.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031522-103802&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Aissen J, Perlmutter DM 1976. Clause reduction in Spanish. Proceedings of the Second Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society H Thompson et al.1–30. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguist. Soc.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Aissen J, Perlmutter DM. 1983. Clause reduction in Spanish. Studies in Relational Grammar 1 DM Perlmutter 360–403. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Alboiu G, Hill V. 2013. The case of A-bar ECM: evidence from Romanian. Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 42), Vol. 1 ed. S Keine, S Sloggett pp. 25–39 Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Alboiu G, Hill V. 2016. Evidentiality and Raising to Object as A′-movement: a Romanian case study. Syntax 19:3256–85
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Baker M. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  6. Bech G. 1955. Studien zum deutschen Verbum infinitum Tübingen, Ger.: Max Niemeyer
  7. Bok-Bennema R, Kampers-Manhe B. 1994. Transparency effects in the Romance languages. Issues and Theory in Romance Linguistics: Selected Papers from the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages XXIII M Mazzola 199–217. Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bondaruk A. 2004. PRO and Control in English, Irish and Polish: A Minimalist Analysis Lublin, Pol.: Wydawnictwo KUL
  9. Bošković Ž. 1997. The Syntax of Nonfinite Complementation: An Economy Approach Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  10. Bošković Ž, Lasnik H. 2003. On the distribution of null complementizers. Linguist. Inq. 34:4527–46
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Broekhuis H. 1992. Chain-Government: Issues in Dutch Syntax Leiden, Neth.: Holl. Inst. Gener. Linguist.
  12. Butt M. 1995. The structure of complex predicates in Urdu PhD Thesis Stanford Univ. Stanford, CA:
  13. Chomsky N. 1980. On binding. Linguist. Inq. 11:1–46
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Chomsky N. 1981. Studies in Generative Grammar, Vol. 9 Lectures on Government and Binding Dordrecht, Neth: Foris
  15. Chomsky N. 1986. Barriers Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  16. Chomsky N. 2001. Derivation by phase. Ken Hale: A Life in Language M Kenstowicz 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Chomsky N, Lasnik H. 1977. Filters and control. Linguist. Inq. 8:425–504
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Chomsky N, Lasnik H 1993. Principles and parameters theory. Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science, Vol. 9 Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research J Jacobs, A von Stechow, W Sternefeld, T Vennemann 506–69. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Chomsky N, Lasnik H 1995. Principles and parameters theory. The Minimalist Program N Chomsky 13–127. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Christensen KR. 2007. The infinitive marker across Scandinavian. Nordlyd 34:1147–65
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Christopoulos C, Wurmbrand S 2020. Germanic infinitives. The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics R Page, M Putnam 389–412. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Cinque G. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective Oxford, UK/New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  23. Cyrino S. 2010a. On complex predicates in Brazilian Portuguese. Iberia 2:296
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Cyrino S. 2010b. On Romance syntactic complex predicates: why Brazilian Portuguese is different. Estud. Língua(gem) 8:1187–222
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Doherty C. 1993. Clauses without ‘that’: the case for bare sentential complementation in English PhD Thesis Univ. Calif. Santa Cruz:
  26. Doherty C. 1997. Clauses without complementizers: finite IP-complementation in English. Linguist. Rev. 14:197–220
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Doherty C. 2000. Clauses Without “That”: The Case for Bare Sentential Complementation in English New York: Garland
  28. Dotlačil J. 2007. Why clitics cannot climb out of CP: a discourse approach. Proceedings of FASL 1576–93. Ann Arbor: Mich. Slav. Publ.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Evers A. 1975. The Guillotine Principle. Linguistics in the Netherlands 1972–1973 A Kraak 147 Amsterdam: Van Gorcum
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Fong S. 2019. Proper movement through Spec-CP: an argument from hyperraising in Mongolian. Glossa 4:130
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Gonçalves A 1998. On restructuring constructions in European Portuguese. Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the Student Organisation of Linguistics in Europe T Cambier-Langeveld, A Lipták, M Redford 75–88. Leiden, Neth.: SOLE
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Grohmann KK. 2003. Prolific Domains: On the Anti-Locality of Movement Dependencies Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
  33. Guasti MT. 1992. Incorporation, excorporation and lexical properties of causative heads. Linguist. Rev. 8:209–32
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Guasti MT. 1996. Semantic restrictions on Romance causatives and the incorporation approach. Linguist. Inq. 27:294–313
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Guéron J, Hoekstra T 1988. T-Chains and the constituent structure of auxiliaries. Constituent Structure A Cardinaletti, G Giusti, G Cinque 35–100. Dordrecht, Neth: Foris
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Haegeman L, van Riemsdijk H. 1986. Verb projection raising, scope, and the typology of rules affecting verbs. Linguist. Inq. 17:417–66
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Haider H. 1993. Deutsche Syntax—Generativ Tübingen, Ger: Narr
  38. Hegarty M. 1991. Adjunct extraction and chain configurations PhD Thesis MIT, Cambridge, MA:
  39. Heycock C 2006. Embedded root phenomena. The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol. 2 ed. M Everaert, H van Riemsdijk pp. 174–209 Oxford, UK: Blackwell
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Holmberg A. 1986. Word order and syntactic features in the Scandinavian languages and English PhD Thesis Univ. Stockholm Stockholm:
  41. Johnson K, Vikner S. 1994. The position of the verb in Scandinavian infinitives. Work. Pap. Scand. Syntax 53:61–84
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Kayne R. 1984. Connectedness and Binary Branching Dordrecht, Neth.: Foris
  43. Kayne R 1989. Null subjects and clitic climbing. The Null Subject Parameter O Jaeggli, K Safir 239–61. Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer Acad.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Kayne R 1990. Romance clitics and PRO. Proceedings of the 20th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 20) JA Carter, RM Dechaine, W Philip, TD Sherer 255–302. Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Kayne R. 1991. Romance clitics, verb movement, and PRO. Linguist. Inq. 22:647–86
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Krifka M. 2023. Layers of assertive clauses: propositions, judgements, commitments, acts. Propositional Arguments in Cross-Linguistic Research: Theoretical and Empirical Issues JM Hartmann, A Wöllstein 115–81. Tübingen, Ger.: Narr
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Lødrup H. 2008. Raising to object in Norwegian and the derived object constraint. Stud. Linguist. 62:2155–81
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Lohninger M. 2021. An A′/A limit in CP: an A-percolation account to multiple WH-questions and cross-clausal A-dependencies Paper presented at the Move & Agree Forum, online, May 31–June 4
  49. Lohninger M, Kovač I, Wurmbrand S. 2022. From prolepsis to hyperraising. Philosophies 7:232
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Lohninger M, Wurmbrand S. 2020. Typology of complement clauses Work. Pap. Univ. Vienna Vienna: https://ich.univie.ac.at/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Lohninger_Wurmbrand_2020.pdf
  51. Lundin K. 2003. Small clauses in Swedish: towards a unified account PhD Thesis Lund Univ. Lund, Swed:.
  52. Manzini MR. 1983. Restructuring and reanalysis PhD Thesis MIT Press Cambridge, MA:
  53. Marušič F. 2005. On non-simultaneous phases PhD Thesis Stony Brook Univ. Stony Brook, NY:
  54. Moulton K 2009a. Clausal complementation and the wager-class. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 38) A Schardl, M Walkow, M Abdurrahman 165–78. Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Moulton K. 2009b. Natural selection and the syntax of clausal complementation PhD Thesis Univ. Mass. Amherst:
  56. Müller G 2020. Rethinking restructuring. Syntactic Architecture and Its Consequences, Vol. 2 A Bárány, T Biberauer, J Douglas, S Vikner 149–90. Berlin: Lang. Sci.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Mursell J 2020. Long distance agreement and information structure. Agree to Agree: Agreement in the Minimalist Programme PW Smith, J Mursell, K Hartmann 271–305. Berlin: Lang. Sci.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Napoli D. 1981. Semantic interpretation versus lexical governance: clitic climbing in Italian. Language 57:841–87
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Pesetsky D. 1992. Zero syntax II: an essay on infinitives Work. Pap. MIT Cambridge, MA:
  60. Pesetsky D. 2019. Exfoliation: towards a derivational theory of clause size Work. Pap. MIT Cambridge, MA:
  61. Postal P. 1974. On Raising Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  62. Postal P. 1993. Some defective paradigms. Linguist. Inq. 24:357–64
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Ramchand G, Svenonius P. 2014. Deriving the functional hierarchy. Lang. Sci. 46:152–74
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Rizzi L. 1976. Ristrutturazione. Riv. Gramm. Gener. 1:1–54
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Rizzi L. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax Dordrecht, Neth.: Foris
  66. Rizzi L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. Elements of Grammar: Handbook of Generative Syntax L Haegeman 281–337. Dordrecht, Neth: Kluwer Acad.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Roberts I. 1997. Restructuring, head movement, and locality. Linguist. Inq. 28:423–60
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Rochette A 1988. Semantic and syntactic aspects of Romance sentential complementation PhD Thesis MIT, Cambridge, MA:
  69. Rochette A 1990. On the restructuring classes of verbs in Romance. Binding in Romance: Essays in Honour of Judith McA'Nulty AM Di Sciullo, A Rochette 96–128. Ottawa: Can. Linguist. Assoc.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Rochette A 1999. The selection properties of aspectual verbs. Beyond Principles and Parameters: Essays in Memory of Osvaldo Jaeggli K Johnson, I Roberts 145–65. Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer Acad.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Rooryck J. 1994. Against optional movement for clitic climbing. Issues and Theory in Romance Linguistics: Selected Papers from the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages XXIII M Mazzola 417–43. Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Rosen ST. 1989. Argument structure and complex predicates PhD Thesis Brandeis Univ. Waltham, MA:
  73. Rosen ST. 1990. Restructuring verbs are light verbs. Proceedings of the 9th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics A Halpern 477–91. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publ.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Rutten J. 1991. Infinitival complements and auxiliaries PhD Thesis Univ. Amsterdam Amsterdam:
  75. Sabel J. 1994. Restrukturierung und Lokalität: Universelle Beschränkungen für Wortstellungsvariationen PhD Thesis Goethe Univ. Frankfurt Frankfurt:
  76. Satık D. 2022. The fine structure of the left periphery of infinitives. Proceedings of the 52nd North East Linguistic Society (NELS 52)61–74. Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Şener S. 2008. Non-canonical case licensing is canonical: accusative subjects of CPs in Turkish Work. Pap. Univ. Conn., Storrs
  78. Şener S 2011. Cross clausal licensing of accusative case on subjects of CPs in Turkish. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 39) S Lima, K Mullin, B Smith 679–90. Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Stowell T. 1981. The origins of phrase structure PhD Thesis MIT, Cambridge, MA:
  80. Svenonius P. 1994. Dependent nexus: subordinate predication structures in English and the Scandinavian languages PhD Thesis Univ. Calif. Santa Cruz:
  81. Terzi A. 1996. Clitic climbing from finite clauses and tense raising. Probus 8:273–95
     [Google Scholar]
  82. van Urk C. 2015. A uniform syntax for phrasal movement: a case study of Dinka Bor. PhD Thesis MIT, Cambridge, MA:
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Webelhuth G. 1992. Principles and Parameters of Syntactic Saturation Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  84. Wurmbrand S. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause Structure Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter
  85. Wurmbrand S. 2014a. Restructuring across the world. Complex Visibles Out There: Proceedings of the Olomouc Linguistics Colloquium 2014: Language Use and Linguistic Structure L Veselovská, M Janebová 275–94. Olomouc, Czechia: Palacký Univ.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Wurmbrand S 2014b. The Merge condition: a syntactic approach to selection. Minimalism and Beyond: Radicalizing the Interfaces P Kosta, L Schürcks, S Franks, T Radev-Bork 139–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Wurmbrand S 2015. Restructuring cross-linguistically. Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 45) T Bui, D Özyldz 227–40. Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Wurmbrand S. 2018. The cost of raising quantifiers. Glossa 31:119
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Wurmbrand S 2019. Cross-clausal A-dependencies. Proceedings of the Fifty-Fourth Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS54) E Ronai, L Stigliano, Y Sun 585–604. Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Wurmbrand S, Lohninger M. 2023. An implicational universal in complementation—theoretical insights and empirical progress. Propositional Arguments in Cross-Linguistic Research: Theoretical and Empirical Issues JM Hartmann, A Wöllstein 183–229. Tübingen, Ger.: Narr
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Yoon JH. 2007. Raising of major arguments in Korean and Japanese. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 25:3615–53
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031522-103802
Loading
The Size of Clausal Complements
Annual Review of Linguistics 10, 59 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031522-103802
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031522-103802
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031522-103802
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error