The Place of Slifting in the English Complement System Jane Grimshaw, Rutgers University GIST 3: May 12 2011 Section 1. Introduction: Examples like these were labeled “Slifting” for Sentence-Lifting in Ross (1973). (1) Mary is a talented singer, (they say / I’m sure / it’s clear / the teacher explained to me). (2) Mary, (they say / I’m sure / it’s clear / the teacher explained to me), is a talented singer. Host (Slifted) clauses, bolded in (1) and (2), contain a parenthetical IP in which there is an A or V which lacks its normal clausal argument. I will refer to the parenthetical IP as the (Slifting Fragment). (3) say (x, P); clear (x, P), explain (x, y, P) Host (Slifted) clauses combine main and subordinate properties. Core hypothesis: Slifting is inevitable given the theory of clauses, arguments etc. etc. I.e. nothing special needs to be said about it. I assume that the Slifting fragment (e.g. they say, I’m sure, it’s clear, the teacher explained to me in (1) and (2)) is adjoined to any XP that is part of the extended projection of the verb in the host clause. (See tree below.) E.g. It can adjoin to VP, to TP and so forth. However, it may be that the Slifting fragment is paratactically related to the host clause (de Vries 2007). The Slifting fragment cannot appear in initial position. *They say / I’m sure / it’s clear / the teacher explained to me, Mary is a talented singer. Hypothesis: this is because what precedes it must be focused. 1 Scene Setting: Slifting resembles, but is distinct from, several other constructions. These include: direct quotations, contrastive complement preposing, complements with that omission, Slifting with subject inversion, clauses introduced by as. Not all predicates which take clausal complements can be Slifting predicates. This is due to semantic/pragmatic requirements. Slifting predicates include those which have “say” as a component of their meaning, and the cognitive semi-factives such as realize, and know. More later. Section 2: Host clauses are arguments (directly or indirectly) of the predicate in the Slifting fragment A. Some Slifting fragments e.g. (the teacher explained to me), are grammatical only when a Slifted clause is present, because the predicate in the fragment must have its argument. B. Slifting is impossible if another expression satisfies the argument position of the predicate. C. The Slifted clause is selected. 2. A Obligatoriness All predicates with the right semantics/pragmatics are grammatical as Slifting predicates. I.e. there is no lexical variation. Note: in this respect Slifting contrasts with that omission, where there are semantically appropriate predicates which, as argued in Grimshaw (in prep.) do not allow omission due to register affiliation. E.g. surmise. These predicates all allow Slifting. In particular Slifting is possible with “embedding” predicates which otherwise take an obligatory complement. See (3) for representation of such predicates. (4) *They surmised. *The papers reported. *I take it. (5) Bill: Mary is a talented singer. Sam: *They surmised. *The papers reported. *I take it. (6) They surmised / the papers reported / I take it that Mary was a talented singer. (7) Mary was, (they surmised / the papers reported / I take it), a talented singer (8) Mary was a talented singer, (Susan said / they surmised). Even parentheticals which do not contain a predicate which takes clausal complements must combine with an argument. They (all?) behave like predicates which allow Null Complement Anaphora (Grimshaw 1979). (9) *In John’s opinion. *According to Fred. (10) Bill: Mary is a talented singer. Sam: In John’s opinion. According to Fred, I know. Sue told me. (11) Mary is a talented singer, (in John’s opinion / according to Fred). Hypothesis: these too require an argument, which is satisfied by the main clause. (12) in opinion (x, P) Mary is a talented singer, in John’s opinion (x, P) (13) according (x, P) Mary is a talented singer, according (x, P) to John 2 These are items which take semantic arguments but not syntactic complements. Hypothesis: the requirement that verbs such as surmise, report, take (it) combine with an argument is satisfied in the Slifting context, by the host clause. 2. B Slifting is impossible if another expression satisfies the argument position. There must be a gap corresponding to the clausal argument: pro-forms which are otherwise grammatical are impossible. *it, *so, *that, *this. Some predicates occur both with a clausal complement alone and (slightly marginally) with both it and a clausal complement (at least an apparent complement). In such cases, Slifting is fine when it is not present but impossible when it is; (14) The students figured (?it) out that she was a talented singer. (15) Mary was, (the students figured (*it) out), a talented singer. Similarly the predicates which occur with so (Cushing 1972) do not allow so when they are unambiguously Slifting predicates: (16) Mary was, (the students said/thought (*so)), a talented singer. (17) Is Mary a talented singer? The students said/thought so. If it and so are the arguments here, there is no way to connect the main clause to the Slifting predicate: a theta criterion violation. The same is true for Slifting fragments with subject inversion (e.g. “said Susan”), and predicates which combine with direct quotes: (18) Mary was a talented singer, (said (*so) Susan). (19) “Mary is a talented singer” said (*so) Susan An apparent exception: (20) The textbook, (I take it), discusses evolution. But I take it differs from (15) in three ways: The it is obligatory; the predicate is not (semi-) factive; and it allows that omission in its complement, which other verbs do not, when they occur with it. (It is also limited to the 1st person and most natural in the present tense). (21) I take it/*Ø that the textbook discusses evolution. (22) I take it (that) the textbook discusses evolution. The verb is really take+it, and the main clause is the argument of take+it. 3 2. C Selection The main clause can be propositional or interrogative: A selectional relationship holds between the Slifting predicate and the Slifted clause. E.g. believe vs. wonder. (23) a. Harry would like the film, (Mary believed / #wondered). b. Would Harry like the film, (Mary wondered / #believed). (24) a. Mary believed / #wondered (that) Harry would like the film b. Mary wondered / #believed whether Harry would like the film Other verbs which combine with Slifted questions: ask, want to know, inquire, try to find out….. The generalization: Only predicates which allow interrogative complements combine with interrogative clauses in slifting. Only predicates which allow propositional complements combine with declarative clauses in slifting. But in both cases there are predicates which combine with true complements but do not allow Slifting. i.e. Selectional compatibility is necessary but not sufficient. More later. Note: There is at least one selectional discrepancy to be investigated: These Vs don=t take interrogative complements. But they are “say” verbs, and can quote: ACan I retake the exam?@ he begged. (Grimshaw in prep.) (25) Could he retake the exam, (he begged/implored). (*hoped, *wished) Section 3: Host clauses are not complements of the Slifting predicate. Evidence from syntactic form The Slifted clauses are indistinguishable in form from a main clause without an argument-taking parenthetical. i.e. removing the Slifting fragment yields a grammatical result. (26) Mary, (they say / I’m sure / it’s clear / the teacher explained to me), is a talented singer. The evidence: A. Host clauses must be finite, like main clauses. B. The complementizers that and whether cannot occur. C. Inversion is required in interrogatives. D. Extraction from the host clause is impossible. E. C-command does not seem to hold between material in the host clause and the argument(s) of the Slifting predicate. A. Only finite clauses are possible, not infinitives, -ing, subjunctive complements: (27) a. I promised them to leave. *To leave, (I promised them). b. I arranged for Mary to learn to sing. *For Mary to learn to sing, (I arranged). 4 c. I prevented them from leaving *From leaving, (I prevented them). d. I insisted that she learn to sing *That she learn to sing, (I insisted). B. The complementizers that and whether cannot occur. (28) a. It was raining hard, (they thought / they said / they were sure / it seemed / the papers reported). b. *That it was raining hard, (they thought / they said / they were sure / it seemed / the papers reported). c. *That it was raining hard. It was raining hard. When the Slifted clause is a question, we find I to C (inversion), not whether. (29) a. Had she made a mistake, (he wondered). b. *Whether she had made a mistake, (he wondered). c. *Whether she had made a mistake? Had she made a mistake? Note: there exists another construction in which that or whether occurs and inversion is not possible. These examples must be contrastive. In this construction, the embedding complex (subject + V or A) must follow the complement. The clause cannot be discontinuous. See (31) (30) a. They may have reported that it was raining hard, but that it was snowing they definitely didn’t say. b. They studied hard but whether they’ll pass the exam I don’t know. (31) a. *That it was, (they said), raining hard. b. *Whether the students, (I wonder), will pass the exam. Hence, a C can never be present if the embedding predicate is clause internal. (32) a. The committee, (I think), will approve the request. b. *That the committee, (I think), will approve the request. C. Inversion is required in interrogatives, even for speakers who do not allow it in subordinate interrogatives.