AN ANALYSIS OF SMALL CLAUSES AND PERCEPTION VERB COMPLEMENTS* TORUSUZUKI Tohoku University This paper presents an analysisof small clauses,which subsumes them under the general clausal structure of English. We propose that small clauses are projected by the INFL head in an analogousway to the other types of clausal projectionswith respect to X-bar theory. It is shown that small clauses allow any lexical phrasal categoriesAP, PP, NP, and VP as their internal predicates,while the other clauses only take VP predicate for principled reasons. The analysis also gives a generalizedaccount of some syntactic pecu- liarities of Perception Verb Complements, in particular, the anomalous behavior of bare infinitive complements in passivization. 0. INTRODUCTION.The aim of this paper is two-fold. First, we will investigate the nature of small clauses and present an analysis of the general clausal structure of English, including tensed clauses, infinitival clauses, Acc-ing clauses and small clauses. Second, based on this ana- lysis, we will give an account of some interesting properties of Perception Verb Complements in English. In section 1, we will survey some theoretical assumptions which are necessary for our proposal, and then develop an analysis of small clauses in which they are treated as projections of INFL head. Our analysis claims that in principle small clauses may have any phrasal categories like AP, PP, NP, and VP as their predicates, in contrast to the other types of clauses projected by INFL. A critical review of a pioneering analysis of small clauses (cf. Stowell 1983) will be given in section 2. In section 3, * This is a revised version of a paper read at the General Meeting of the English Literary Society of Japan held at Chuo University,May 23, 1987. I am indebted to Masaru Nakamura for his valuable suggestionsand comments on the earlier versions of this paper. I would like to thank Dr. Graham McMaster,who kindly acted as an informantand correctedstylistic errors. My thanks alsogo to MakotoYamada for his kind assistance. Lastly I am grateful to two anonymousreviewers of this journal for their critical comments and suggetions. All remaining inadequacies are my own. -54- AN ANALYSIS OF SMALL CLAUSES AND PERCEPTION VERB COMPLEMENTS 55 some syntactic properties peculiar to Perception Verb Complements will be accounted for under our proposal. 1. THE GENERAL CLAUSAL STRUCTURE OF ENGLISH. The bracketed sequences of words below which express a subject-predicate relation are generally taken to be a syntactic constituent called a 'small clause'.1 (1) a. I consider [John very stupid]. b. John believes [her a genius]. c. I expect [Mary in New York]. In this paper, we are to present a unified structural analysis of these small clauses under a restrictive X-bar theory (in a sense to be made clear shortly). Our basic theoretical assumptions are as follows. First, following Chomsky 1986b, we assume throughout this study the X-bar schema in 2, which claims categories S and S' in traditional terms to be analyzed as maximal projections of INFL and COMP, respectively, with the internal structures represented in 3. (2) XP=[Specifier [X' X Complement]] (3) a. S=IP(I")=[NP [I' INFL VP]] b. S'=CP (C")=[...[C' COMP IP]] Here we are assuming a restrictive version of the X-bar theory in that every category, whether lexical or nonlexical, has an isomorphic head- projection structure without exception. Second, we follow Stowell's 1982 arguments for inherent tense in to- infinitives. He proposes that to-infinitives have an inherently fixed tense frame. In 4 and 5 below, the to-infinitives constantly indicate 'unrealized or hypothetical future' with respect to the matrix tense, in contrast to gerund cases where relevant tense interpretation seems to depend on the semantics of matrix verbs. (4) a. Jenny remembered [PRO to bring the wine]. b. Jenny remembered [PRO bringing the wine]. (5) a. Jim tried [PRO to lock the door]. b. Jim tried [PRO locking the door]. (Stowell 1982) Stowell assumes a general condition which is involved in the tense 1 In this paper we will not be concernedwith Williams' 1983analysis which claims that small clauses are to be treatedas non-constituents. For criticismsof his analysis, see Hornstein & Lightfoot 1987and Safir 1983 among others. 56 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOLUME 5 (1988) interpretation process at LF, which is roughly stated below. (6) COMP position is required for the tense interpretation of inherent tense operator in INFL. Condition 6 provides an explanation for the peculiar behavior of so- called Exceptional Case Marking (ECM) constructions in their tense interpretation. It is generally assumed that ECM complements lack COMP position (due to either a rule of 'S-bar deletion' or the verb's direct sub categorization for IP). Condition 6 predicts that the inter- pretation of inherent tense in to-infinitives in ECM structures like 7 is impossible, since the COMP position which is required for the inter- pretation of tense does not seem to be available for the INFL in embedded clauses. Thus, Stowell argues, the resultant tense inter- pretation of the embedded clauses has to depend on the semantics of matrix verbs; in ECM constructions, the embedded tense is always lexically determined by matrix verbs. For instance, the tense of 7a is interpreted as present, that of 7b as future, and that of 7c as past. (7) a. Bill considers himself to be the smartest. b. I expect John to win the race. c. I remember John to be the smartest. (Stowell 1982) Here we follow Stowell's arguments for the presence of inherent tense in to-infinitives and assume that the INFL of to-infinitives is specified for [+Tense] in a parallel way to the INFL of tensed clauses. Third, we adopt the proposal in Reuland 1983 that the verbal suffix-ing in Acc-ing constructions is a realization of INFL with AGR. Reuland argues that the agreement element in INFL is basically nominal in character since it shares features, such as number, gender, person and so on, with the subject of a clause. We further assume that morphologi- cally realizable AGR is represented as [+N] for its basically nominal character. Based on the above assumptions, we propose that INFL consists of at least two independent elements, Tense and AGR, the former specified for the feature [±Tense] and the latter specified for the feature [±N]. The following four types of INFL are available as basic forms of INFL in the English clausal system. (8) a. INFL1=[+Tense, +N] b. INFL2=[+Tense, -N] c. INFL3=[-Tense, +N] d. INFL0=[-Tense, φ] [+Tense] feature in 8 indicates the potential existence of inherent tense AN ANALYSIS OF SMALL CLAUSES AND PERCEPTION VERB COMPLEMENTS 57 (or tense operator), which requires a certain COMP position for its interpretation due to 6, while [-Tense] feature indicates the absence of inherent tense, the relevant tense interpretation consequently depending on the semantics of a matrix verb which governs the projection of the INFL. As for the specification [±N] with respect to AGR, [+N] indicates the existence of AGR, while [-N] indicates the absence of AGR. INFL1 is the core head of tensed clauses (IP) in the usual sense. In the present framework, a tensed clause forms a CP (with or without an overt COMP) and it contains a maximal projection of INFL1, probably due to a selectional property holding between COMP and INFL, which is required for appropriate tense interpretation. The feature specification [+Tense, +N] indicates that INFL1 has its own inherent tense and the feature complex AGR. It phonetically realizes as tense marker (e.g. past -ed) and/or person and number marker (e.g. third-singular-s) on verbal inflection. INFL2 phonetically realizes as to in to-infinitives. Recall that we are taking the position, following Stowell 1982, that to-infinitives are poten- tially equipped with its inherent tense 'unrealized or hypothetical future', though it may fail to be interpreted at LF due to lack of proper COMP position, typically in ECM contexts. The feature [+Tense] reflects the presence of this inherent tense. If a maximal projection of INFL2 is selected by COMP (for or some empty equivalent), thus incorporated into CP, its inherent tense will be properly interpreted. If, on the contrary, it is not selected by any COMP but is directly selected by some other lexical head, presumably V, then the relevant tense interpretation of INFL2 will have to depend on the meaning of the matrix verb, because there is no available COMP position for the interpretation of its inherent tense under 6. The feature [-N] simply indicates the absence of mor- phologically realizable AGR which would be responsible for verbal inflection. The lexical realization of INFL3 is the verbal inflection-ing and its maximal projection is the form of IP with NP-ing structure, known as Acc-ing constructions and, we may presumably include, absolute con- structions, in this type of structure. The feature [-Tense] in INFL3 indicates lack of inherent tense and as a consequence tense interpretation of INFL3 has to depend on the matrix predicate's semantics. The feature [+N] is an indication of AGR as we are assuming following Reuland 1983. The maximal projection of INFL3, unlike that of INFL1 and 58 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOLUME 5 (1988) INFL2, cannot be selected by any kind of COMP, thus never forming CP. This property comes from the assumption that there is no selec- tional relation in terms of tense between COMP and INFL3. Lastly, a maximal projection of INFL0 is the category which we have been calling 'small clause'. This type of IP is similar to the projection of INFL3 in the sense that it does not form CP, that is, its projection will not be selected by COMP.