T-CONTRACTION IN A PHASE-BASED THEORY OF GRAMMAR1
Andrew Radford (radford@essex.ac.uk)
It is well-known that (under specific conditions) finite auxiliaries and infinitival to
can contract onto an immediately preceding word in sentences such as:
(1)(a)
(b)
(c)
He’s lying
They wanna win the race
They are gonna win the race
If finite auxiliaries are T(ense) constituents and infinitival to is a nonfinite tense
particle of some kind, sentences like those in (1) have in common that they involve
contraction of a (finite or infinitival) T constituent onto a preceding host.
Accordingly, sentences like (1) and (2) can be seen as instances of a more general
phenomenon of T-contraction whereby an affixal (or clitic) T contracts onto a
preceding constituent.
T-contraction appears to be a phonological operation (involving local PFcliticisation), since a contracted auxiliary cannot be pied-piped along with its host
when its host undergoes syntactic movement, as the sentences in (2) below
illustrate:
(2)(a)
(b)
(c)
You think who’s been lying?
Who do you think’s been lying?
*Who’s do you think been lying
So, when the host who undergoes wh-movement in (2), the clitic auxiliary 's cannot
be pied-piped along with it, as the ungrammaticality of (2c) shows.
A general assumption which has been made about T-contraction is that T can only
contract onto a preceding host H if there is no overt constituent intervening
between the two. More controversial is the question of whether an intervening
empty category blocks T from contracting onto H. There have been numerous
claims in the earlier literature to the effect that some kinds of intervening empty
category block contraction whereas others do not. For example, Jaeggli (1980)
argued that case-marked traces block contraction but other traces do not. This
assumption was motivated by contrasts like that in (3) below:
1
I am grateful to Bob Borsley for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. This version appeared in Essex
Research Reports in Linguistics (2000), vol 33, pp.21-32.
(3)(a)
(b)
Who do you wanna beat?
*Who do you wanna win the race?
The two sentences in (3a/b) would have the respective superficial syntactic
structures (4a/b) below2, if we follow Bresnan (1972) in positing that want always
selects a CP complement:
(4)(a)
(b)
Who do you want [CP t [C ø] [TP PRO [T to] beat t]]
Who do you want [CP t [C ø] [TP t [T to] win the race]]
In (4), the italicised traces of who in spec-CP are caseless3 and the bold-printed
traces carry accusative case, assigned by the transitive verb beat in (4a) and by the
transitive null complementiser ø in (4b). Since the only trace which intervenes
between want and to in (4a) is the italicised caseless trace in spec-CP, contraction is
correctly predicted to be possible in (3a/4a): but since an additional bold-printed
case-marked trace in spec-TP intervenes in (4b), contraction is correctly predicted
to be ruled out in (3b/4b).
However, there are a number of aspects of Jaeggli’s analysis which prove
problematic. One of these is that his claim that case-marked traces block
contraction but caseless traces do not amounts to an ad hoc stipulation which lacks
explanatory force. The second is that (as Schachter 1984 noted) data such as the
following cast doubt on the descriptive adequacy of the claim:
(5)
Who do you think’s telling the truth?
Whether the complement of think is a TP (as in (6a) below) or a CP (as in (6b)
below), the (bold-printed) case-marked trace which is the subject of is will
intervene between think and is, as we see from the partial superficial structures for
(5) shown in (6) below:
2
Throughout this paper, only partial structural representations are shown: those aspects of structure which are not
relevant to the discussion at hand are omitted in order to simplify exposition.
3
A minor complication here is that Kayne (1984) argues that a transitive verb can assign case to a constituent in the
specifier position of its CP complement, e.g. in structures like someone whom I believe is innocent. For me, at any
rate, whom is also possible in structures where believe is replaced by an intransitive adjective like sure, as in
someone whom I am sure is innocent, so calling into question Kayne’s assumption about the nature of the who/whom
contrast. For speakers like me, it would seem that whom is always an option when extracted out of the CP in which it
originates (and hence, in some sense, whom can serve as a marker of long-distance movement).
(6)(a)
(b)
Who do you think [TP t [T is] telling the truth]
Who do you think [CP t [C ø] [TP t [T is] telling the truth]]
Hence, contraction will wrongly be predicted to be ruled out in (5) if case-marked
traces block contraction.
One way of attempting to circumvent this problem is to posit that who in (5)
originates (and is case-marked) in spec-VP rather than in spec-TP. On this view, (5)
would have the structure (7a) or (7b) below (where bold print indicates casemarked traces):
(7)(a)
(b)
Who you think [TP t [T is] [VP t [V telling] the truth]]
Who do you think [CP t [C ø] [TP t [T is] [VP t [V telling] the truth]]]
Since there would be no case-marked trace intervening between is and think,
contraction would then correctly be predicted to be possible in (5).
However, the assumption that subjects are case-marked in spec-VP raises
additional problems. For one thing, it leaves us with no account of the
ungrammaticality of (3b) *Who do you wanna win the race?, since this will have
the simplified structure (8) below (with the subject in spec-VP being case-marked
in situ by the null transitive complementiser ø):
(8)
Who do you want [CP t [C ø] [TP t [T to] [VP t [V win] the race]]]
Since no case-marked trace of who intervenes between to and want, contraction is
then wrongly predicted to be permissible in (3b) *Who do you wanna win the race?
In addition, the assumption that case-marked traces block contraction but caseless
traces do not is problematic from a theoretical point of view. Under the copy theory
of movement, traces and their antecedent form a chain in which each link of the
chain is a copy of the constituent which originates at the foot of the chain. Hence, if
subjects are case-marked in situ in spec-VP, all traces of the moved subject will
likewise be case-marked. This is turn means that it is problematic to rely on the
distinction between case-marked and caseless traces to determine whether
contraction is permissible or impermissible.
Given the problems associated with the case-marked trace analysis, it is not
surprising that Boskovic (1997) rejects the assumption that intervening traces of
any kind block T contraction. Instead, he posits that intervening null lexical items
(e.g. a null complementiser or null PRO subject) block T-contraction. This requires
him to assume that where the head T of a complement clause contracts onto a
matrix V, the complement clause has the status of TP (and not of a CP headed by a
null complementiser). Hence (6) Who do you think’s telling the truth? for Boskovic
would have the simplified structure (9a) below, not (9b):
(9)(a)
(b)
Who do you think [TP t [T 's] telling the truth]
Who do you think [CP [C ø] [TP t [T 's] telling the truth]]
If (as Boskovic assumes) intervening traces do not block contraction but null
lexical items do, it follows that the intervening trace t in (9a) will not block
contraction of 's onto think, but that the intervening null complementiser ø in (9b)
will. Since the resulting sentence (6) Who do you think’s telling the truth is
grammatical, Boskovic concludes that the complement of think must be a TP rather
than a CP.
In relation to sentences like (1b) They wanna do it, Boskovic’s assumptions lead
him to conclude that the complement of want is a TP with a PRO subject in specVP4 as in (10a) below, rather than a CP with a PRO subject in spec-TP as in (10b):
(10)(a)
(b)
They want [TP [T to] [VP PRO do it]]
They want [CP [C ø] [TP PRO [T to] do it]]
Under the analysis in (10a), there is no null lexical item intervening between want
and to, hence nothing to prevent to from contracting onto want. By contrast, in
(10b) both the PRO subject in spec-TP and the null complementiser ø in C block
contraction of to onto want, under Boskovic’s assumptions. Since the resulting
sentence (2a) They wanna do it is grammatical, Boskovic is forced to opt for
analysis (10a).
However, there are a number of aspects of Boskovic’s analysis which are
potentially problematic. For one thing, no explanation is given for why null lexical
4
Boskovic assumes that verb phrases have a simple VP structure rather than the split vP/VP structure posited in
Koizumi 1995 and Chomsky 1995.
items should block contraction, but not null traces: this appears to be an arbitrary
stipulation, in that if both are null we should expect neither (or both) to block
contraction. Moreover, his assumption that the complement clauses in (6a) and (7a)
are TPs is at variance with the assumption in Chomsky (1998, 1999) that all finite
clauses are CPs headed by a force-encoding complementiser, and that all control
infinitivals are CPs headed by a null C. Likewise, Boskovic’s assumption that
control clauses are TPs whose subject remains in situ in spec-VP entails positing
that control to lacks an EPP-feature even though finite auxiliaries have an EPPfeature. The assumption that control to has no EPP-feature becomes even more
problematic if EPP is associated with agreement (so that e.g. T has an EPP-feature
if it agrees with its subject). There is some evidence which suggests that control to
does indeed have agreement properties (and agrees with its PRO subject).
Theoretical considerations suggest this: if (as in Chomsky 1998, 1999) case is
assigned under agreement, then the null case assigned to PRO by control to
suggests that to has abstract agreement properties.
Moreover, facts about complement ellipsis may lead to a similar conclusion.
Lobeck (1990) and Murusagi and Saito (1994) argue that only heads which agree
with their specifiers allow ellipsis of their complement: some evidence in support
of their claim comes from contrasts such as the following (from Boskovic, 1997,
p.12):
(11)(a)
(b)
John liked Mary and [Peter did ø] too
*John believed Mary to know French but Bill believed [Jane to ø]
(12)(a)
(b)
John’s talk about the economy was interesting, but [Bill’s ø] was boring
*A single student came to the class because [the ø] thought it was
important
(13)(a)
(b)
John met someone, but I don’t know [who COMP ø]
*John thinks that Peter met someone, but I don’t believe [that ø]
In (11a), the italicised finite T did agrees with its specifier Peter and hence allows
ellipsis of its complement (denoted as ø); in the bracketed ECM clause in (11b),
infinitival to has no case/agreement properties, and so does not allow complement
ellipsis. In (12a) possessive 's is a determiner (as in Chomsky 1995, p. 263) which
agrees with its specifier Bill and hence allows ellipsis of its complement; in (12b)
the determiner the has no specifier and hence does not allow complement ellipsis.
In (13a) the null complementiser COMP agrees (in respect of wh-hood) with its
specifier who and allows ellipsis of its complement; but in (13b) the
complementiser that has no specifier and so does not allow complement ellipsis.
In the light of the claim that only a head which agrees with its specifier allows
complement ellipsis, consider sentences such as the following:
(14)
I couldn’t marry you even if I wanted to ø
Here, control to allows complement-ellipsis. If only a head which agrees with its
specifier allows complement ellipsis, this suggests that control to agrees with the
PRO subject of its clause, and that PRO is in spec-TP (rather than in spec-VP): and
this in turn means that Boskovic’s analysis of wanna contraction (represented in
skeletal form in (10a) above) is untenable.
Having looked at two earlier attempts to handle T-contraction, let me now turn to
consider how contraction might be handled within the phase-based theory of
grammar developed in Chomsky (1998, 1999). Before doing so, I will outline three
key theoretical assumptions made by Chomsky in the relevant papers.
The first is that syntactic and phonological operations are local: more specifically,
they are phase-bound and hence subject to the Phase Impenetrability Condition
(which specifies that the domain of a subordinate (strong) phase is not accessible to
the head of an immediately superordinate phase); the phases relevant to our
discussion here are CP and (transitive) vP. The second is that syntactic movement
operations involve two sub-operations of copying and deletion: a moved constituent
is first copied into the position to which it moves, and then the original is deleted
(i.e. given a null phonetic spellout) at the point in the derivation at which spellout
occurs. The third is that ‘Spell-Out is cyclic, at the phase level’ (Chomsky 1999,
p.9). More specifically, Chomsky (1999, p.10) posits that in a structure of the form
[ZP Z ...[HP  [H YP]]] where HP and ZP are phases and ZP is the phase
immediately superordinate to ZP, ‘YP is spelled out at the level HP’, whereas ‘H
and its edge ...belong to ZP for the purposes of Spell-Out.’ In addition to these
theoretical assumptions, Chomsky makes the further descriptive assumption that all
finite and control clauses are CPs, but raising and ECM infinitivals are TPs.
Although Chomsky does not discuss the conditions governing phonological
contraction phenomena, it seems clear from his overall view of language as a
perfect system that any attempt to arbitrarily stipulate that only a subset of empty
categories block contraction (e.g. case-marked traces but not caseless traces, or null
lexical items but not null traces) would amount to an imperfection. From a strict
minimalist perspective, the optimal account of contraction would seem to be to
posit that contraction is blocked by overt constituents, but not by null constituents:
this would seem to be the minimal conceptually necessary condition on contraction.
Given the background assumptions above, let’s turn to consider how we handle a
sentence like (5) Who do you think’s telling the truth, which proved problematic for
the view that case-marked traces block T-contraction. On the matrix vP phase, (5)
will have the simplified structure (15) below5, if the complement of think is a CP
(in keeping with Chomsky’s seeming assumption that all finite clauses are CPs):
(15) [vP who you [v ø] [VP [V think] [CP who [C ø] [TP who [T is] telling the truth]]]]
Given Chomsky’s assumption that in a phase of the form [HP  [H YP]], YP is
spelled out at HP, it follows that the trace of who in spec-TP will have been deleted
(i.e. given a null spellout) on the complement clause CP phase, and that the trace of
who in spec-CP will be deleted on the matrix vP phase. If we suppose that
T-contraction takes place at the point where the host is spelled out, it follows that
contraction will apply on the vP phase (i.e. at the point where the VP containing
think is spelled out6). At this point, both traces of who will be null; and since the
head C of CP is also null, it follows that there are no overt constituents separating
think from is, and hence that is can contract onto think and be spelled out as `s. As
should be obvious, contraction will also be predicted to be possible if the
complement of think is a TP rather than a CP.
Now consider how we derive (1b) They wanna win the race. If (as Chomsky posits)
control infinitivals are CPs with a PRO subject in spec-TP7, (1b) will have the
simplified structure (16) below on the matrix vP phase8:
(16)
[vP they [v ø] [VP [V want] [CP [C ø] [TP PRO [T to] win the race]]]]
Since there is no overt constituent intervening between want and to, an analysis
such as (16) correctly predicts that wanna contraction can apply when VP is spelled
out on the vP phase. It goes without saying that the same will be true if the
complement of want is TP rather than CP, or if PRO is in spec-vP rather than specTP.
5
Simplified by ignoring the internal structure of the vP containing telling the truth. Here, as elsewhere, I do not show
the structure of the complement of the clitic T, unless this is relevant to how contraction applies.
6
A potential problem arises if the morphological form of think is not be determined until vP merges with T.
7
Perhaps because control to agrees with its PRO subject, and agreement is an EPP-feature.
8
Since want does not appear to case-mark any constituent here (unless it case-marks the null C heading CP),
questions arise about whether the vP containing want is transitive, and hence whether it is a phase.
An interesting complication which arises in relation to (16) – and indeed (15) – is
what happens if want raises from the head V position of VP to adjoin to the lightverb in the head v position of vP. Such raising seems to be possible (though
optional), as we see from examples like:
(17)(a)
(b)
They desperately want to win the race
They want desperately to win the race
If desperately can function as a VP-adverb, it would seem that want raises from V
to v in (17b), though remains in situ in (17a). If want raises from V to v, (1b) will
have the simplified structure (18) below on the matrix vP phase:
(18) [vP they [v want+ø] [VP [V want] [CP [C ø] [TP PRO [T to] win the race]]]]
Wanna contraction cannot apply at this stage of derivation, since want has been
moved out of VP and so cannot be spelled out at this point. On the contrary, want
can only be spelled out at the end of the matrix CP phase, when (1b) has the
simplified structure (19) below:
(19)
[CP [C ø] [TP They [T ø] [vP they [v want+ø] [VP [V want] [CP [C ø] [TP PRO [T to] win the race]]]]]]
But on the CP phase, material contained within the matrix VP is no longer
accessible, since the Phase Impenetrability Condition specifies that the domain
of a subordinate phase is inaccessible on a superordinate phase. Hence to can no
longer contract onto want at this point. The more general conclusion would appear
to be that wanna contraction can only apply if want remains in situ in the head V
position of VP.
Now consider how we derive (3a) Who do you wanna beat? On the matrix vP
phase, (3a) will have the simplified structure (20) below, if control clauses are CPs
whose PRO subject is in spec-TP (as assumed by Bresnan (1972), Chomsky (1981)
and Snyder and Rothstein (1992)):
(20)
[vP who you [V ø] [VP [V want] [CP who [C ø] [TP PRO [T to] beat]]]]
On the matrix vP phase, the trace of who will be deleted, and VP will be spelled
out. Since there is no overt constituent between want and to, T-contraction can
apply, ultimately deriving wanna. As should be obvious, the same will be true if the
PRO subject is in spec-vP.
Now consider the more problematic question of how we account for the
ungrammaticality of contraction in (3b) *Who do you wanna win the race? If we
suppose that want always selects a CP complement and that infinitival to always
has an EPP feature, (3b) will have the simplified structure (21) below on the matrix
vP phase:
(21)
[vP who you [v ø] [VP [V want] [CP who [C ø] [TP who [T to] win the race]]]]
But the difficulty posed by the analysis in (21) is that on the vP phase, VP will be
spelled out and all traces of who will be deleted. There will therefore be no overt
constituent intervening between want and to, and we wrongly predict that wanna
contraction is possible9.
One way of overcoming the problems posed by the analysis in (17) is to suppose
that structures of the form want someone to do something are ECM structures in
which want selects a TP complement, and want case-marks the infinitive subject.
Let’s suppose that in such structures, the infinitive subject who (by virtue of being
an object) raises to spec-VP (an A-position) and then (by virtue of being a whexpression) to spec-vP (an A-bar position), and that the verb want raises to v. Some
evidence in support of the claim that the object raises to spec-VP in ECM structures
comes from the distribution of adverbs in sentences such as:
(22)(a)
(b)
They wanted him desperately to win the race
*They wanted desperately him to win the race
If desperately can function as a VP-adverb, the fact that both the infinitive subject
him and the verb want in (22a) are positioned in front of desperately suggests that
the subject raises to spec-VP and the verb to v10.
Given the assumptions made here, (3b) will have the simplified structure (23)
below on the matrix vP phase11:
(23)
[vP who you [v want+ø] [VP who [V want] [TP (who) [T to] win the race]]]
For speakers of so-called ‘liberal’ dialects who allow contraction in cases like Who d’you wanna win the race, a CP
analysis may be appropriate – though other possibilities also need to be explored.
10
An apparent complication is posed by the possibility of saying They desperately wanted him to win. This suggests
that desperately can modify vP if V raises to v.
11
The parentheses around the trace of who in spec-TP indicate that this trace will only be present if to has an EPPfeature. If EPP is tied to agreement, then it seems likely that to will have an EPP-feature in control infinitives (by
virtue of agreeing with its PRO subject), but not in raising or ECM infinitives.
9
By this stage, all traces within VP will have been deleted, so that at first sight it
might seem as if wanna contraction is wrongly predicted to be able to apply here.
However, this is not the case, since want has been raised out of the complement VP
into the head v position of VP, and so cannot be spelled out until the matrix CP
phase – i.e. until we have derived the simplified structure in (24) below:
(24) [CP Who [C do] [TP you [T do] [vP who you [v want+ø] [VP who [V want] [TP (who) [T to]
win the race]]]]]
But by the time we reach the CP phase in the derivation, material contained within
the matrix VP (i.e. within the domain of the light-verb v) is no longer accessible,
given that the Phase Impenetrability Condition specifies that material within the
domain of a subordinate phase is not accessible on a superordinate phase:
consequently, to cannot contract onto want at this stage.
Under the analysis presented here, the verb want in structures such as want
someone to do something selects a TP rather than a CP complement. Some
evidence in support of the TP complement analysis comes from contrasts like that
below:
(25)(a)
(b)
What John wants is [to win the race]
*What John wants is [Mary to win the race]
As (25) shows, the infinitive complement of want can appear in focus position in a
pseudo-cleft sentence when want has a control complement, but not when it has an
ECM complement. If both bracketed complements in (25) are CPs, the contrast
between them is inexplicable: for example, we can’t attribute the ungrammaticality
of (25b) to case failure if the bracketed complement is a CP headed by a null
transitive complementiser which assigns accusative case to Mary; nor can we
attribute the ungrammaticality of (25b) to a requirement for a null C to be properly
governed (as in Stowell 1981) or to cliticise a superordinate head which selects the
relevant CP as its complement (as in Pesetsky 1995) if both bracketed complements
in (25) are CPs headed by a null C. By contrast, if the bracketed complement in
(25b) is an ECM complement and hence a TP, we can account for the
ungrammaticality of (15b) in a number of ways. One possibility would be a
structural constraint to the effect that CP (but not TP) can occur in focus position in
pseudo-cleft sentences. Another possibility would be a case-failure account, under
which the subject Mary in spec-TP lacks a case-assigner. A further possibility
would be an EPP-violation, if to only has an EPP feature (and permits a subject in
spec-TP) when it agrees with its subject (i.e. in control structures, but not in raising
or ECM infinitives)12,13.
Now let’s consider how we derive a sentence like (1c) They are gonna win the
race. If (as Chomsky assumes) an intransitive vP is not a phase, spellout of
constituents within the matrix VP will be delayed until the matrix CP phase – i.e.
until the point where we have formed the simplified structure (25) below:
(25)
[CP [C ø] [TP They [T are] [vP [v ø] [VP [V going] [TP (they) [T to] they
win the race]]]]]
If to has no EPP-feature in raising structures, there will be no trace of they
intervening between going and to to block gonna contraction; if to does indeed
have an EPP feature, contraction will nonetheless not be blocked, since the trace
they in spec-TP will be erased on the matrix CP phase and hence not block
contraction.
The goal of this paper has been to show that we can arrive at a principled account
of T-contraction in a phase-based theory of grammar in which we make the
minimum conceptually necessary assumption that contraction is blocked only by an
overt intervening constituent. Within such a framework, it is entirely unnecessary
to make arbitrary stipulations about the kinds of empty categories which do and
don’t block T-contraction14.
12
The analysis of want as an ECM predicate raises the question of why want (unlike believe) does not allow its
complement subject to passivise: cf.
(i)
He was believed by everyone to have resigned
(ii) ?*He was wanted by everyone to resign
It may be a lexical idiosyncrasy of want that it does not freely passivise when it has a clausal complement, even in
non-ECM structures such as:
(iii) ?*It hadn’t been wanted by anyone for him to resign
13
The assumption that to has no EPP-feature in clauses other that control clauses has interesting implications for the
syntax of for-to infinitives, since it means that the subject cannot be in spec-TP. Adapting the split cP/CP analysis of
for-to infinitives proposed in Radford (1997, pp.449-450), we might suppose that for originates in C and raises to c,
and that the subject raises from spec-vP into spec-CP, so that the for clause in I want very much for him to win the
race would have the simplified structure:
(i) [cP [c for] [CP him [C for] [TP [T to] [vP him win the race]]]
14
One residual problem which remains is accounting for the uncontractibility of has in sentences like:
(i)
He has/*He’s his car serviced regularly
Since he occupied the matrix spec-TP position here, contraction cannot apply until the matrix CP phase, at which
point we have the simplified structure (ii) below:
(ii)
[CP [C ø] [TP he [T ø] [vP [v ø] [VP [V has] his car serviced regularly]]]]
If has remains in situ in V, it will be inaccessible to operations which apply on the matrix CP phase, and hence will
not be able to contract onto he (on the assumption that contraction applies on the minimal phase containing the host).
However, such an analysis raises the question of why has does not raise to v, and how the nominal his car is casemarked. A further residual problem relates to have contraction, which seems to be somewhat different from T
References
Boskovic, Z (1997) The Syntax of Nonfinite Complementation: An Economy
Approach, MIT Press
Bresnan, J W (1972) Theory of Complementation in English Syntax, MIT PhD diss,
Chomsky, N (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht
Chomsky, N (1995) The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass
Chomsky, N (1998) Minimalist Inquiries, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics
no. 15
Chomsky, N (1999) Derivation by Phase, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics
Jaeggli, O (1980) ‘Remarks on to contraction’, Linguistic Inquiry 11: 239-246
Kayne, R S (1984) Connectedness and Binary Branching, Foris, Dordrecht
Koizumi, M (1995) Phrase Structure in Minimalist Syntax, MIT PhD diss.
Lobeck, A (1990) ‘Functional heads as proper governors’, Proceedings of NELS
20: 348-362
Murusagi, K & Saito, M (1994) ‘Adjunction and cyclicity’, Proceedings of the 13th
West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pp. 302-317
Pesetsky, D (1995) Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades, MIT Press,
Cambridge Mass
Radford, A (1997) Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English, Cambridge
University Press
Schachter, P (1984) ‘Auxiliary Reduction: An argument for GPSG’, Linguistic
Inquiry 15: 514-523
Stowell, T (1981) Origins of Phrase Structure, PhD diss, MIT
contraction, in that the host must always be an immediately preceding pronoun with which have agrees in some
respect. See Radford 1997, pp. 329-332 for one possible analysis.