1. Lecture 7: Missing Subjects of Non-finite Clauses
Syntax
Lecture 7:
Missing Subjects of Non-finite Clauses

2. A Mystery
We know that the subject is a compulsory part of the sentence:
Some argument from inside the VP must move to subject position:
[IP -- will [VP the judge sentence the convict]]
[IP -- will [VP be sentenced the convict]]

3. A Mystery
We know that the subject is a compulsory part of the sentence:
Some argument from inside the VP must move to subject position:
[IP the judge will [VP -- sentence the convict]]
[IP the convict will [VP be sentenced --]]

4. A Mystery
We know that the subject is a compulsory part of the sentence:
If there is no argument that can move, the position is filled by a pleonastic element:
[IP -- [VP rained]]
[IP -- [VP appears [CP that the convict has escaped]]]

5. A Mystery
We know that the subject is a compulsory part of the sentence:
If there is no argument that can move, the position is filled by a pleonastic element:
[IP it [VP rained]]
[IP it [VP appears [CP that the convict has escaped]]]

6. A Mystery
However, there are some sentences where the subject appears to be missing:
The convict seems [IP -- to [VP have escaped]]
The convict tried [IP -- to [VP escape]]
These constructions are clearly IPs
They are headed by the infinitival I: to
They are always infinitives:
* the convict seems [IP -- will [VP escape]]
* the convict expects [IP -- will [VP escape]]

7. A Mystery
So, how can some clauses lack a subject when the subject is an obligatory part of the clause?

8. Missing subjects with different properties!
The convict seems [ -- to have escaped]
The convict planned [ -- to escape]
In both cases, ‘the convict’ is the one interpreted as the escapee
In the second, ‘the convict’ is the one who did the planning
But in the first, ‘the convict’ is not the one who seems
It seems [ the convict has escaped]
* it planned [the convict has escaped]
plan has its own subject, seem does not

9. With seem there is just one argument
-- seems [ -- to have escaped]
the convict
pronounced
interpreted

10. Raising
In cases where something is interpreted in one place but pronounced in another, a movement analysis is indicated:
The argument of a passive is pronounced in subject position but interpreted in object position:
-- was arrested the criminal = interpretation
the criminal was arrested = pronunciation
Wh-phrases are interpreted in a position inside the IP but pronounced in the specifier of CP
I asked [ -- e [ they arrested who]] = interpretation
I asked [ who e [ they arrested]] = pronunciation

11. We call this movement Raising
the argument starts in the lower VP
interpreted
It moves to the lower subject position
IP must have a subject
It moves to the higher subject position
pronounced

12. The conditions for raising
Raising never happens out of a finite clause:
The criminal seems [ -- to have escaped]
* the criminal seems [ -- will have escaped]
In this case, the subject stays inside the lower clause and the higher subject position is filled by a pleonastic:

13. No raising from finite clause
Subject moves to lower IP specifier
It can’t move further
Higher IP specifier is filled by it

14. No raising to a non-empty subject
If the higher subject position is already filled, raising cannot take place:
I believe [ the criminal to have escaped]
* I the criminal believe [ -- to have escaped]

15. Conclusions For raising to happen:
The higher verb must have no subject
The higher verb must take an infinitive complement
Verbs which have these properties are called raising verbs:
seem, appear, happen, etc.

16. Examples He seems [ -- to be rich] He appears [ -- to be intelligent]
It seems [ he is rich]
He appears [ -- to be intelligent]
It appears [ he is intelligent]
He happens [ -- to be good looking]
It happens [ he is good looking]

17. Raising Adjectives He is likely [ -- to win]
It is likely [ he will win]
He is certain [ -- to lose]
It is certain [ he will lose]

18. With want there are two arguments
-- wants [ -- to escape]
the convict
pronounced
interpreted
the convict
interpreted
unpronounced
refer to the same individual

19. How can two arguments refer to the same individual?
Normally two arguments, even if they are phonologically identical, refer to different individuals:
John hates John
But if the second is a pronoun, they can have the same referent:
John hates himself
John thinks he is ugly
With verbs like want there is an unpronounced pronoun in the subject of the lower clause
The criminal wants [ PRO to escape]

20. We call this phenomenon Control
Both subjects move to IP specifier
PRO is controlled by the higher subject

21. Conditions for control
PRO can only appear in the subject position of an infinitive:
I expect [ PRO to be paid]
* I expect [ PRO will be paid]

22. Conditions for control
There must be a controller:
* it seems [PRO to be paid]
The controller can be a subject or an object:
In Subject position (subject control)
I promised John [ PRO to pay]
In Object position (object control)
I persuaded John [ PRO to pay]

23. Conclusions For control to happen:
The higher verb must have a subject or object
The higher verb must take an infinitive complement
We call verbs with these properties control verbs:
want, expect, try, etc.

24. Examples They want [ PRO to escape] They tried [ PRO to find them]
They expect [ PRO to be captured]

25. Control Adjectives They are anxious [ PRO to be caught]
They are willing [ PRO to pay]
They are afraid [ PRO to leave]

26. Conclusions
There are two constructions in English where there appears to be no subject in an infinitive clause:
He seems [ -- to be rich]
He wants [ -- to be rich]
Both do in fact have subjects
Though they look similar they are not
The first appears to lack a subject because its subject has moved = raising
The second appears to lack a subject because its subject is unpronounced = control