ON OBJECT DISPLACEMENT IN ENGLISH PASSIVES[1]
Andrew Radford (radford@essex.ac.uk)
1. Introduction
In his (1999) paper Derivation by Phase, Chomsky argues that expletive passive
constructions in English (i.e. passives with an expletive there subject) involve obligatory
leftward or rightward displacement of the direct object. He maintains that the relevant
displacement operations are phonological rather than syntactic in nature, and discusses
the criterial properties of phonological and syntactic movement operations. In this paper,
I challenge Chomsky’s view that the relevant object-displacement operations are
phonological in nature and argue instead that neither construction involves any objectdisplacement operation. I therefore conclude that there is no evidence (at least, from the
kind of structures discussed here) for weakening the theory of grammar by positing
phonological phrase-movement operations.
2. Ordinary and expletive passives
English has two different types of passive construction – ordinary passives like (1a)
below and expletive passives like (1b/c/d)[2]:
(1)(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Several large packages were placed on the table
There were several large packages placed on the table
There were placed on the table several large packages
*There were placed several large packages on the table
Chomsky (1999, p.20) claims that expletive passives like (1b) are ambiguous between a
verbal/dynamic passive interpretation (on which (1b) is roughly synonymous with (1c))
and an adjectival/stative passive interpretation involving an ‘existential construction
“there be NP”, where NP includes a reduced relative’ (on which (1b) would be
paraphraseable as ‘There were several large packages which were placed on the table’).
He argues that an existential analysis is appropriate for sentences like (2a) below, but not
for those like (2b) (# indicates anomaly):
(2)(a) #There are many cakes expected to be baked in that oven
(b)
There are expected to be many cakes baked in that oven
Structures like (2a), he maintains, have existential import: (2a) states that there are many
cakes such that they are expected to be baked in that oven, and is odd because it
presupposes that the cakes already exist prior to being baked in the oven. By contrast,
true expletive passive structures like (2b) have no existential import (and so (2b) is not
odd).
Moreover, observes Chomsky (1999, p.20), the passive participle expression is an island
for extraction in existential structures (in the same way as relative clauses are), but not in
expletive passives: cf.
(3)(a)
(b)
*Which oven are there many cakes expected to be baked in?
Which oven are there expected to be many cakes baked in?
Chomsky does not propose any specific analysis of existential passives, but rather
concentrates on expletive passives.
In both ordinary passives like (1a) and expletive passives like (1b/c/d), Chomsky posits
that the italicised nominal several large packages originates as a theta-marked direct
object argument of the passive participle placed. Some apparent evidence in support of
this claim comes from the fact that the direct object in expletive passives can be an object
idiom chunk, as we see from sentences like:
(4)(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
There was umbrage taken at his remark
There was due homage paid to the former president
There were close tabs kept on the X-files by the FBI
There was little heed paid to his warning
If (as is traditionally assumed) the italicised idiom chunk nominal can only serve as the
complement of the bold-printed verb[3], it is plausible to suppose that it originates as the
object of the bold-printed passive participle such cases.
3. The derivation of passives
Although Chomsky makes no specific claim about the syntax of the direct object of place
in sentences like (1), one possibility consistent with the VP-shell analysis which he
adopts (following earlier work by Larson 1988, 1990 and Hale and Keyser 1991, 1993,
1994) is that several large packages originates in spec-VP, so that at the end of the vP
cycle all four sentences in (1) would have the structure (5) below[4], if we assume that V
raises to adjoin to the null light verb ø which heads vP[5]:
(5)
[vP [v placed+ø] [VP several large packages [V placed] on the table]]
Merging the Tense auxiliary be with the resulting vP in (5) will in turn derive[6]:
(6)
[TP [T be] [vP [v placed+ø] [VP several large packages [V placed] on the
table]]
The finite tense-auxiliary be agrees in person and number with (and assigns nominative
case to) the closest nominal which it c-commands, namely several large packages: in
consequence, be is ultimately spelled out as the third person plural form were. T has an
obligatory EPP feature which requires it to project a specifier. In simple passives like
(1a), the lexical array (i.e. the set of items taken from the lexicon which are used to form
the relevant structure) contains no expletive and the EPP requirement of T is satisfied by
moving the direct object people into spec-TP to become the subject of were, deriving[7]:
(7)
[TP Several large packages [T were] [vP [v placed+ø] [VP slp [V placed] on
the table]]
The resulting TP in (4) is then merged with a null declarative complementiser to derive
the CP structure associated with (1a) Several large packages were placed on the table.
In the case of expletive passives like (1b/c/d), the lexical array contains expletive there;
merging this in spec-TP in (6) will derive the structure (8) below:
(8)
[TP There [T were] [vP [v placed+ø] [VP several large packages [V placed]
on the table]]
Expletive there carries an uninterpretable person feature which is erased via agreement
with were. Subsequently merging (8) with a null declarative complementiser will derive
the CP structure associated with (1d) *There were placed several large packages on the
table. But the resulting sentence is ungrammatical. Why should this be?
Chomsky (1999, p. 15) observes that passive and unaccusative objects like those
italicised in (9) below cannot remain in situ in English:
(9)(a)
(b)
*There were placed several large packages on the table (= 1d)
*There arrived several large packages in the mail
He concludes (1999, p.16) that ‘English bars surface structures of the form [V-DO],
where the construction is unaccusative/passive.’ (For succinctness, this is referred to
below as the V-DO constraint.) Chomsky has little to say about the nature of this
constraint, other than noting that it must reflect a parametrised property since there are
languages like Italian and Dutch in which the counterparts of sentences like (9a/b) are
grammatical (i.e. languages in which the V-DO constraint does not hold).
However, Chomsky notes that structures like (9a) become grammatical in English if the
direct object is displaced leftwards as in (10a) below (repeated from (1b) above) or
rightwards as in (10b) (repeated from (1c) above):
(10)(a)
(b)
There were several large packages placed on the table
There were placed on the table several large packages
He refers to the relevant leftward displacement operation as Thematization/TH and to its
rightward counterpart as Extraction/EX. He hypothesises (1999, p.18) that leftwardmoved thematized objects move to spec-vP and that rightward-moved extracted objects
adjoin to vP: in consequence of the V-DO constraint, an expletive passive direct object
must obligatorily undergo either Thematization or Extraction.
4 The phonological nature of object displacement
A key postulate of Chomsky’s analysis of expletive passive object displacement is that
both Extraction and Thematization are phonological rather than syntactic movement
operations. The two types of movement operation have in common the fact that they both
leave behind a trace which is phonologically null, though differ in that phonological
traces are given a null spellout at the point where phonological displacement applies,
whereas syntactic traces are given a null spellout at the end of the relevant phase.
Moreover, the moved constituent is visible at both the LF and the PF interfaces in the
case of syntactic movement, but is visible only at the PF interface in the case of
phonological movement: from this is follows that syntactic movement operations may
have semantic effects (e.g. a moved DP may be interpreted as specific/definite), but
phonological movement operations may not. Further differences which Chomsky
postulates include the fact that phonological displacement operations apply to the output
of syntactic movement operations (but not conversely), and that syntactic (but not
phonological) movement operations can be iterated (i.e. can apply in a successive-cyclic
fashion).
Given these (and earlier) assumptions, (10a) There were several large packages placed
on the table and (10b) There were placed on the table several large packages would have
the common syntactic structure (11) below (if the verb placed remains in situ in the
syntax[8]):
(11)
the
[CP [C ø] [TP There [T were] [vP [v ø] [VP several large packages [V placed] on
table]]]]
Movement of the verb placed from V to adjoin to the affixal light verb [v ø] in the PF
component will derive (12) below:
(12)
[CP [C ø] [TP There [T were] [vP [v placed+ø] [VP several large packages
[V placed] on the table]]]]
However, the resulting structure violates the V-DO constraint – as we see from the
ungrammaticality of (1d) *There were placed several large packages on the table.
Accordingly, in the PF component the object several large packages must obligatorily
undergo either leftward Thematization (deriving (13a) below), or rightward Extraction
(deriving (13b) below)[9]:
(13)(a)
[CP [C ø] [TP There [T were] [vP several large packages [v placed+ø] [VP slp
[V placed]
on the table]]]]
(b)
[CP [C ø] [TP There [T were] [vP [v placed+ø] [VP slp [V placed] on the
table] several
large packages]]]
(11) is the structure visible at the LF-interface, (13a/b) the structure visible at the PF
interface.
Chomsky offers a number of arguments in support of his claim that Thematization and
Extraction are phonological operations. One type of argument which he adduces is
semantic in nature. He notes (1999, p.16) that Thematization/Extraction differ from
typical syntactic displacement rules ‘in not yielding the usual surface-semantic effects
(specificity, etc.)’: this would follow if principles of LF-interpretation can only ‘see’
syntactic structures like (12) and not phonological structures like (13a/b). Moreover, it
would then follow that ‘The English constructions reach LF in the same form as in
similar languages, as we would expect if LF-external systems of interpretation are
essentially language-independent and prefer the LF interface to be as uniform as possible
across languages’ (Chomsky, 1999, p. 16).
Chomsky goes on to note that his analysis of Thematization and Extraction as
phonological operations correctly predicts that (in English expletive passives) the whole
direct object is inaccessible to syntactic movement operations like wh-movement – as we
see from the ungrammaticality of expletive passives such as[10]:
(14)
*How many packages were there placed on the table?
(14) cannot be derive from a syntactic structure with an in situ direct object, since (as
(13) above shows) by the time wh-movement applies on the CP cycle, the direct object
will already have obligatorily undergone either Thematization or Extraction in the
phonological component on the vP cycle[11], leaving behind a null trace which cannot
undergo movement if ‘traces are inaccessible to Move’ (Chomsky 1999, p.18). Nor can
(14) be derived from phonological structures like (13a/b), since phonological structures
are inaccessible to syntactic movement operations.
Chomsky also argues that his analysis of Thematization and Extraposition as
phonological operations correctly predicts that no subpart of the direct object can
undergo syntactic movement. In this connection, consider the contrast below[12]:
(15)(a)
(b)
(c)
?How many people did they place pictures of on the table?
*How many people were there pictures of placed on the table?
*How many people were there placed on the table pictures of?
The slight awkwardness of sentences like (15a) may be ‘the result of incomplete internal
constituent constraints on movement (Kuno 1973)’ (Chomsky 1999, fn 41). However,
(15b/c) are completely ungrammatical. This, Chomsky argues, is because (15b/c) could
only be derived by application of wh-movement to phonological structures like (13a/b);
but it is in the nature of phonological movement operations that their output in
inaccessible to syntactic movement operations.
Chomsky argues that Thematization and Extraction also differ from syntactic operations
in that they cannot be iterated (i.e. they cannot apply to their own output). Data such as
(16) below might be seen as providing empirical support for this claim in relation to
Thematization:
(16)(a) There had been umbrage taken at his remarks
(b) *There had umbrage been taken at his remarks
Chomsky does not, however, explain why phonological movement operation should not
be iterable, simply noting (1999, p.19) that non-iterability is ‘perhaps a more general
property of operations not driven by uninterpretable features, and/or phonological
operations[13].’
As should be apparent, Chomsky’s analysis of the syntax of expletive passive direct
objects in English is of considerable theoretical importance because it leads him to the
conclusion that natural language grammars incorporate both syntactic and phonological
XP-movement operations. However, from a conceptual perspective, his postulation of
phonological movement operations can be seen as introducing an unwanted imperfection
into the theory of grammar. Within a perfect theory of grammar, we might conjecture, the
syntactic (i.e. computational) component of the grammar would generate a single
structural representation which is visible at both the LF and the PF interfaces. However,
within the model outlined in Chomsky (1999), the syntactic component generates a
syntactic structure (visible only at the LF interface) which is mapped into a distinct
phonological structure (visible only at the PF interface). In other words, Chomsky’s
analysis in some ways marks a retreat to earlier two-level models of syntax in which a
distinction was drawn between deep structure/shallow structure and surface structure. Of
course, if (as claimed here) there are no phonological object displacement operations in
English expletive passives (and, perhaps more generally, no phonological movement
operations[14]), we can maintain a single-level theory of structural representation. In the
sections which follow below, I argue against positing either of the phonological object
displacement operations which Chomsky postulates.
5. On the non-existence of Extraction
There are a number of theoretical and descriptive problems posed by Chomsky’s analysis
of clause-final objects in expletive passives like (1c) There were placed on the table
several large packages. One relates to the question of what drives (rightward) Extraction
of the object in such cases. The only answer which Chomsky offers to this question
(1999, p.18) is to suggest the possibility that ‘a weak phase has a phonological
counterpart to EPP’: in other words, the head light verb of a passive vP may carry some
kind of EPP-feature which triggers phonological movement. But since a head H with an
EPP feature typically triggers (leftward) movement of a phrasal constituent to specHP[15], it is not clear how an EPP-feature of a light verb v could drive (rightward)
adjunction to vP.
What makes Chomsky’s analysis even more problematic is the fact that he has to posit
that the clause-final direct object in sentences such as:
(17)(a)
There are likely to be awarded several prizes
(b)
We expect there to be awarded several prizes
undergoes string-vacuous Extraction and is thereby adjoined to the righthand edge of vP.
Since movement is a prima facie imperfection which is tolerated only to the extent that it
resolves interface problems, the question arises of what specific PF-interface problem
vacuous Extraction in the PF component is designed to resolve. Clearly, it cannot be
linear ordering problems, since Extraction in such cases does not change the linear order
of the overt constituents in (16).
Moreover, Chomsky’s Extraction analysis violates Kayne’s (1994) Linear
Correspondence Axiom/LCA under which x precedes y iff x asymmetrically
c-commands y. Chomsky (1995, 334-340) adopts LCA (while modifying some of
Kayne’s assumptions) and concludes that it follows from LCA that in all structures in
which an XP is adjoined to some target constituent, ‘the adjunct precedes the target’.
However, under Chomsky’s analysis of Extraction, a clause-final direct object in an
expletive passive undergoes rightward adjunction to vP, in violation of LCA.
Given the problems posed by Chomsky’s Extraction analysis, I shall explore an
alternative analysis under which clause-final expletive passive direct objects are in situ
constituents which undergo no movement operation of any kind. On this view, the direct
object several large packages in a sentence like (1c) There were placed on the table
several large packages is merged as the complement of placed and the locative argument
on the table as the specifier of placed, so that (1c) has the structure (18) below[16]:
(18) [CP [C ø] [TP There [T were] [vP [v placed+ø] [VP on the table [V placed]
several
large packages]]]]
The object several large packages would remain in situ. Since the analysis proposed here
does not assume any rightward movement, the need to attribute the non-iterability of
rightward movement of direct objects to a (somewhat mysterious) property of
phonological operations does not arise.
Moreover, the analysis sketched here provides a straightforward account of the
ungrammaticality of sentences like (1d) *There were placed several large packages on
the table. This follows from the assumption that direct objects are always merged (and
theta-marked) in VP-complement position. A sentence like (1d) would require a structure
like (19) below:
(19)
[CP [C ø] [TP There [T were] [vP [v placed+ø] [VP several large packages
[V placed] on the table]]]]
But (19) would be ungrammatical by virtue of violating the requirement for direct objects
to be merged in VP-complement position. Thus, the analysis proposed here obviates the
need to posit a V-DO constraint which filters out unaccusative or passive V-DO
structures (a constraint which amounts to a return to the kind of output filters associated
with Chomsky and Lasnik’s (1977) Filters and Control paper – a device criticised in
subsequent work for being entirely ad hoc).
The in situ analysis of expletive passive direct objects would also enable us to avoid the
need for positing vacuous rightward movement of the direct object in sentences like:
(20)
There were awarded several prizes
Under the in situ analysis proposed here, (20) would have the structure (21) below:
(21)
[CP [C ø] [TP There [T were] [vP [v awarded+ø] [VP [V awarded] several
prizes]]]]
The clause-final direct object several prizes would originate in VP-complement position,
in accordance with our earlier assumption that direct objects always originate as the
complement of V[17]. The object several prizes would not undergo vacuous rightward
movement, but rather would remain in situ in VP-complement position.
Under the in situ analysis of clause-final expletive passive direct objects sketched in this
section, the direct object is first-merged as the ‘lowest’ argument of the verb. This in turn
means that other internal arguments of the verb will c-command the direct object. Some
evidence that this is indeed the case is provided by sentence such as (22) below:
(22)
There were shown to the blackmail victims numerous compromising photos
of themselves
Under the analysis proposed here, the italicised string in (22) will have the syntactic
structure indicated in (23) below[18]:
(23)
[VP to the blackmail victims [V' [V shown] numerous compromising photos of
themselves]]
and the oblique argument to the blackmail victims will c-command and hence be able to
bind the reflexive themselves[19].
Further evidence that oblique arguments originate ‘above’ direct objects come from
contrasts such as:
(24)(a)
(b)
It was reported to the authorities that several prisoners had escaped
*It was reported that several prisoners had escaped to the authorities
In general, that​-clause direct objects typically remain in situ and do not move to some
higher position within vP/VP (arguably because they are case-resistant, as noted by
Stowell 1981)[20]. If so, the fact that the that-clause direct object in (24) must precede
the indirect object to the authorities suggests that VP-complement position is the
canonical position for first-merge of direct objects[21]. It may be that an in situ direct
object is typically assigned a specific type of interpretation (e.g. as focused or new or
contrastive), and that heavy objects are the optimal candidates for the relevant
interpretation, thereby accounting for the heaviness effect.
What remains to be accounted for under the in situ analysis proposed here are extraction
facts. The grammaticality of sentences such as:
(25)
How many people were there arrested?
would suggest that there is no constraint against the whole object undergoing a syntactic
displacement operation like wh-movement. Moving a subpart of the object, however,
yields ungrammaticality, as we saw earlier in relation to (15)(c) above – repeated as (26)
below:
(26)
*How many people were there placed on the table pictures of?
However, we find a similar picture in relation to in situ object complements of a VP
containing a prepositional specifier, as contrasts such as the following illustrate:
(27)(a)
(b)
He sent to you which copy of the book? (echo question)
Which copy of the book did he send to you?
(28)(a)
(b)
He sent to you a copy of which book? (echo question)
*Which book did he send to you a copy of?
For reasons which are not clear, it would seem that extracting a subpart of an in-situ VPcomplement across an oblique argument leads to ungrammaticality. Whatever the precise
nature of the relevant constraint[22], it provides us with an account of the
ungrammaticality of sentences like (26).
6. On the non-existence of Thematization
Having looked at Chomsky’s analysis of rightward extraction, I now turn to look at his
analysis of leftward Thematization of objects in sentences like (1b) There were several
large packages placed on the table. There are a number of questions which arise about
the descriptive adequacy of the claims made by Chomsky. For one thing, his claim that
Thematization cannot apply in a successive-cyclic fashion would seem to be called into
question by sentences such as:
(29)(a)
(b)
There are continually being new treatments developed for cancer
There are continually new treatments being developed for cancer
(30)(a)
(b)
He could see that there was being umbrage taken at his remarks
He could see that there was umbrage being taken at his remarks
(29a/30a) is the output we obtain (under Chomsky’s analysis) if the thematized object
moves to spec-vP (where it is supposedly is frozen in place); (29b/30b) is the output we
obtain if the italicised object moves in successive-cyclic fashion from spec-vP to become
the specifier of the superordinate projection headed by being. The grammaticality of
(29b/30b) might at first sight seem to lead us to the conclusion that Thematization
(contrary to what Chomsky suggests) can indeed be iterated and hence arguably is a
syntactic operation akin to (iterable) A-movement.
However, the conclusion that Thematization is a syntactic A-movement operation and
hence can be iterated in a successive-cyclic fashion raises the question of why iteration is
not possible in structures such as (16) above, repeated as (31) below:
(31)(a)
(b)
There had been umbrage taken at his remarks
*There had umbrage been taken at his remarks
Any attempt to handle the difference in grammaticality between (30b) and (31b) by
positing that being has an EPP-feature (requiring it to project a specifier) but been does
not would not only be purely stipulative in character but would also fail to account for
the ungrammaticality of the (b) examples in (32-33) below:
(32)(a)
There ended up being several demonstrators arrested
(b) *There ended up several demonstrators being arrested
(c)
Several demonstrators ended up being arrested
(33)(a)
There kept being complaints made about the noise
(b) *There kept complaints being made about the noise
(c)
Complaints kept being made about the noise
The ungrammaticality of sentences like (32b/33b) calls into question the plausibility of a
successive-cyclic A-movement analysis.
A closer look at the data in (29-33) suggests the generalisation that in English expletive
passives, the associate must occupy a surface position immediately below be (in the
sense that be must be the closest verb c-commanding the associate). Hence, we have
grammatical outcomes in (29a) with new treatments following being, in (29b) with new
treatments following are, in (30a) with umbrage following being, in (30b) with umbrage
following was, in (31b) with umbrage following been, in (32a) with several
demonstrators following being and in (32b) with complaints following being.
Conversely, we have ungrammatical outcomes in (31b) where umbrage follows had, in
(32b) where several demonstrators follows ended up, and in (33b) where complaints
follows kept. Data such as (34-36) below lend further empirical support to the
generalisation that a preparticipial associate in expletive passives must be positioned
below be:
(34)(a)
(b)
Several demonstrators got arrested by the police
*There got several demonstrators arrested by the police
(35)(a)
(b)
They wanted replica guns issued to the campus cops
*They wanted there issued to the campus cops replica guns
(36)(a)
(b)
(c)
There seem to have been several passengers injured
*There seem to have several passengers been injured
*There seem several passengers to have been injured
The most straightforward conclusion to arrive at on the basis of data such as
(29-36) is that the relevant sentences are existential structures of the form
there+be+associate+participle (with the participial expression modifying the associate
in some way) – contrary to what Chomsky claims.
An existential analysis would also resolve a number of other puzzles which surround
Chomsky’s Thematization analysis. One is why the verb be is apparently immune from
the V-DO constraint, as the following contrast shows:
(37)(a)
(b)
There were several large packages on the table
*There were placed several large packages on the table
In terms of the assumptions made here, we can provide a straightforward answer to this
question by positing that structures like (37a) are existential be structures in which the
closest verb c-commanding the italicised associate is be[23], whereas in (37b) the closest
verb c-commanding the italicised associated is placed.
The existential analysis proposed here also provides the key to a further mystery in
Chomsky’s analysis. A key claim which Chomsky makes is that not only passive
participles but also unaccusative verbs are subject to the V-DO constraint – a claim
illustrated in terms of contrasts such as the following:
(38)(a)
(b)
*There came several angry men into the room
There came into the room several angry men
(39)(a)
(b)
*There arrived a strange package in the mail
There arrived in the mail a strange package
Under Chomsky’s analysis, structures like (38a/39a) are barred by the V-DO constraint,
and structures such as (39b/39b) are the result of rightward Extraction of the italicised
object[24]. But given the assumption that intransitive objects can undergo leftward
Thematization in passive participle structures, we should expect the same leftward
movement of the object to be possible with unaccusative participles. However, it is not,
as the ungrammaticality of examples like those in (40) below illustrates:
(40)(a)
(b)
*There had several angry men come into the room
*There has a strange object arrived in the mail
Nothing in Chomsky’s analysis (as far as I can see) precludes leftward Thematization
from applying to unaccusative objects in the same way as it applies to passive objects;
and simply stipulating that passive participles have an EPP-feature which unaccusative
participles lack would be an ad hoc expedient entirely lacking in explanatory force. By
contrast, under the existential analysis of There+be+associate+participle structures
proposed here, the ungrammaticality of structures like (40a) can be accounted for
straightforwardly by positing that
the relevant structures lack the existential predicate be which is required in the relevant
existential expletive construction in English.
7. Conclusion
The main goal of this paper has been to argue against the existence of the two
phonological XP-movement operations which Chomsky posits in his analysis of
expletive passive/unaccusative structures in English. I argued that the clause-final object
in expletive passives like There were placed on the table several large packages is an insitu object which is first-merged in the canonical VP-complement position associated
with objects. Likewise, I argued for a parallel conclusion in relation to clause-final
objects in expletive unaccusatives such as There arrived in the mail a strange package. I
also argued that sentences such as There were several large packages placed on the table
are existential structures of the form there+be+associate +participial modifier, in which
the associate is likewise generated in situ. Under the analysis proposed here, a sentence
like How many large packages were there placed on the table? could in principle either
be the wh-movement counterpart of an existential structure such as There were several
large packages placed on the table or the wh-counterpart of a genuine expletive passive
structure such as There were placed on the table several large packages[25].
8. References
Bowers, J. (1993) ‘The syntax of predication’, Linguistic Inquiry 24: 591-656.
Chomsky, N (1999) Derivation by Phase, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics
Chomsky, N & Lasnik H (1977) ‘Filters and Control’, Linguistic Inquiry 8: 425
-504
Hale, K & Keyser, S J (1991) On the Syntax of Argument Structure, Lexicon
Project Working Papers, Center for Cognitive Science, MIT
Hale, K & Keyser, S J (1993) `On argument structure and the lexical expression of
semantic relations’, in K Hale & S J Keyser (eds) The View from Building 20,
MIT Press, Cambridge Mass, pp.53-109
Hale, K & Keyser, S J (1994) ‘Constraints on argument structure’, in B Lust, M
Suñer & J Whitman (eds) Heads, Projections and Learnability, Erlbaum,
Hillsdale NJ, vol.1, pp.53-71
Kayne, R (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.
Kuno, S (1973) ‘Constraints on Internal Clauses and Sentential Subjects’,
Linguistic Inquiry 4: 363-385
Larson, R (1988) ‘On the double object construction’, Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335
-391
Larson, R (1990) ‘Promise and the theory of control’, Linguistic Inquiry 22: 103-39
Pesetsky, D & Torrego E (2000) ‘T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences’, to
appear in M Kenstowicz (ed) Ken Hale: A Life in Language, MIT Press,
Cambridge Mass.
Stowell, T (1981) Origins of Phrase Structure, PhD diss, MIT
___________________________________________________________________
[1] I am grateful to members of the LAUG Research Group at Essex (Martin Atkinson, Bob Borsley, Claudia Felser, Mike Jones
and Roger Hawkins) for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. This version appeared in Essex Research Reports in
Linguistics (November 2000), vol. 33, pp.33-49.
[2] Impersonal passives like It was agreed that the chairman should be reprimanded are another type of passive with expletive
subjects, but are not discussed here since they do not manifest the phenomenon of object displacement which is the central focus
of this paper.
[3] As Mike Jones points out, sentences such as Any umbrage which was taken at his remarks was soon forgotten or The homage
which was paid to the former president was gratifying might suggest that this claim must be weakened somewhat, since a relative
pronoun with an idiom chunk antecedent can serve as the object of the relevant verb.
[4] Throughout this paper, labelled bracketings are simplified by showing only heads and maximal projections, and by not
showing structure not immediately relevant to the discussion at hand: material which is deleted at the end of the relevant phase is
indicated by strikethrough and traces are shown in a smaller typeface. (1b) only has the structure shown here at the relevant stage
of derivation as an expletive passive, not as an existential passive.
[5] If Bowers (1993) is correct in supposing that perfectly is a VP-adverb, the position of the participle manoeuvred in The shuttle
was manoeuvred perfectly into position would suggest that the participle raises from V to v. To simplify exposition, I overlook the
suggestion made by Chomsky that some or all head-movement operations may be phonological in nature: it is not clear whether
Chomsky would hold that this is the case for movement from V to v.
[6] To simplify exposition, I am assuming here that be originates in T, though the fact that passive be has nonfinite forms may
suggest that it originates in a lower position and from there raises to T. However, this is an incidental detail which does not affect
the main thrust of the argumentation here.
[7] Because of space constraints, the trace of several large packages is represented as slp
[8] I am assuming here that V-movement is a phonological operation; but it does not affect the argumentation here if it is a
syntactic operation.
[9] To save space, the trace of several large packages is shown as slp. Recall that labelled bracketings are simplified by not
showing intermediate projections – only heads and maximal projections.
[10] (12) is grammatical as an existential (adjectival) passive, but this is irrelevant to Chomsky’s point. Personally, I also find it
grammatical as an expletive (verbal) passive as well – i.e. for me it is ambiguous.
[11] It is not clear what makes Thematization/Extraction obligatory in Chomsky’s analysis – as noted later in the text.
[12] (13b) is more acceptable as an existential/adjectival passive, but this is irrelevant here
[13] It is not clear to me why Chomsky posits that phonological operations cannot be iterated. If (as he suggests) head movement
may be a phonological operation, it would appear that it can be iterated in that (e.g.) a finite verb can move to T and thence to C in
successive (iterated) steps in (British English) structures such as Have you any wool?
[14] Other, perhaps, than phonological cliticisation operations by which a clitic C attaches to a host H is there is no phonologically
overt material intervening between the two at the stage of derivation when PF-cliticisation applies. A case in point might be
auxiliary contraction structures such as Where’s he going? However, an alternative
no-movement approach to PF cliticisation would be to explore the possibility suggested by Chomsky’s (1999, p.11) that
phonological rules typically ‘blur or remove boundaries between units’ (which raises the possibility that contraction might result
from removal of the boundaries between clitic and host where there is no overt phonological material between the two).
[15] Or adjunction of a head to H, if an EPP feature can also drive head movement as in Pesetsky and Torrego (2000).
[16] If V-to-v movement is phonological, (18) will be the structure at PF; if it is syntactic, (18) will be the structure at both the PF
and LF interfaces.
[17] By contrast, under the analysis sketched earlier, the direct object would originate in VP-specifier position in (1c) but in VPcomplement position in (17a), presupposing a non-uniform account of the syntax of direct objects.
[18] If V-to-v movement is phonological
[19] The grammaticality of structures such as You must talk to Mary about herself suggests that an oblique argument can ccommand and bind a reflexive.
[20] One well-known exception is that that-clauses can seemingly passivise in sentences such as That several prisoners had
escaped was reported to the authorities. It may be that apparent passivisation here is a topicalisation or focalisation operation of
some kind.
[21] This of course does not preclude the possibility that transitive direct objects move to a superordinate specifier position, e.g. as
in We showed compromising pictures of themselves to the blackmail victims.
[22] An interesting possibility to explore might be an incompatibility between the interpretive consequences of leaving the object
in situ in VP-complement position and the interpretive consequences of extracting part of it via
wh-movement.
[23] Other non-verbal material can intervene between be and the associate, e.g. an adverb like definitely in a sentence such as
There were definitely several large packages on the table.
[24] Under the very different analysis proposed here, the structures in (38b/39b) are the result of first-merging the unaccusative
object in its canonical VP-complement position, not of movement.
[25] In my judgement, the relevant wh-question is ambiguous, as expected under the analysis proposed here.