complement subject deletion and subset relations

Complement Subject Deletion and Subset RelationsAuthor(s): Robert WilkinsonSource: Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 2, No. 4 (Autumn, 1971), pp. 575-584Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177670 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 05:56

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Linguistic Inquiry.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.196 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 05:56:57 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177670?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


SQUIBS AND DISCUSSION

(20) John has even more money than Mary, since in

fact *he has none. *she j a oe (2I) Mary has even less money than John, since in

fact {he} has none. she

As before, this difference could be explained if we assume presuppositions are present. Adding a presupposition to (20) makes no difference; there is only one choice:

(22) [Mary has more money than X [Mary has f*no } money]]

somem But when we add a presupposition to (21), we seemingly will have two choices:

(23) [John has less money than X [John has {nme}

money]] But if we were to add the no money proposition to (2 I) we would be saying that Mary has even less money than no money-a contradiction. Only choosing the proposition guaranteeing some money will keep (2 I) grammatical.

(24) Mary has even less money than John [John has

less money than X [John has fno money]].

COMPLEMENT SUBJECT

DELETION AND SUBSET

RELATIONS

Robert Wilkinson, Northwestern University

It has been pointed out by various writers that certain verbs require that the subjects of their complements be identical to their own subjects. An example of such a verb is try: I tried to kill Sam and I tried killing Sam, but *I triedfor Bill to kill Sam and *I tried Bill's killing Sam. There are other verbs which require unlike subjects in their complements (Perlmutter I 968). To my knowledge, however, verbs which permit both identical and nonidentical complement subjects to be deleted have not been discussed. Compare the following examples:

(i) I tried drinking tepid tea. (2) I regretted killing Sam.

Whereas (i) must be interpreted as having the deep structure subject I in the complement sentence, (2) can be interpreted as having either a deep structure subject I or a deep structure subject we in the complement sentence. Another example of the sort of phenomenon shown by (2) is provided by (3):

(3) I advocated killing Sam.



576 SQUIBS AND DISCUSSION

In (3) the deep structure subject of the complement can be we as well as indefinite someone, but not I.

It seems that this phenomenon is syntactic, in view of the examples to be presented below. Before the relevant data can be given, it is necessary to consider briefly the type of ambiguous construction exemplified by (4)-(6).

(4) I killed Sam the way I did because I hated him. (5) We emptied the contents of the barrel into the

sink, the way you said (to). (6) Judy clouted Frank the way she did because she

didn't like his insolent remarks.

Each of these sentences is ambiguous between a manner adverbial reading for the way + complement, which is derived from in the way + complement by deletion of in, and a kind of "redundant sentential relative" reading for the way + complement that is not derived by reduction of in the way. Thus the two readings for (4) can be paraphrased by (7) and (8):

(7) I killed Sam in the manner I did because I hated him.

(8) I killed Sam, and I did it because I hated him.

This ambiguity was first pointed out, as far as I know, in Bouton (I969). Here the ambiguity in as sentential relatives was discussed; (9a) has readings (b) and (c):

(g) a. I shouted at him as I did because he tried to uproot my carrots.

b. I shouted at him and I did it because he tried to uproot my carrots.

c. I shouted at him in the manner I did because he tried to uproot my carrots.

This ambiguity shown by (4)-(6) is interesting in its own right (for example, only as and the way show it; in the manner + complement cannot even be reduced, as shown by *the manner + complement), but for the purposes of this squib it suffices to observe that the subject of the complement of way must be identical to the subject of the sentence to which the construction with way is attached if the redundant sentential relative reading is to be present. Thus (io) is unambiguous, having only the manner adverbial reading:

(io) I shot Sam the way Harry did because I hated him.

If Harry is substituted for the second occurrence of I in (4), a deviant form results, since it is not possible to kill someone twice:




(i I) *I killed Sam the way Harry did because I hated him.

This the way + complement construction can be used as a syntactic test for deleted complement subjects. (There are other tests, such as the use of regular sentential relatives, but they are less neat.) First notice that such like-subject verbs as try allow only the subject found in the matrix and complement sentences in subject position in the complement of way.

(I2) I tried shooting Sam the way I did because I hated him. (ambiguous)

(I 3) I tried shooting Sam the way Harry did because I hated him. (unambiguous)

Next note that although (i4b) is ungrammatical, (I 5b) is perfectly grammatical:

(I4) a. I killed Sam the way I did because I hated him.

b. *I killed Sam the way we did because I hated him.

(I 5) a. I regretted killing Sam the way I did because I don't know where he hid the loot.

b. I regretted killing Sam the way we did because he was such a nice guy.

(Both (I 5a) and (I 5b) may actually be taken as ambiguous between manner and redundant sentential relative readings. I am considering only the latter, of course.) The following, however, are ungrammatical:

(I5) c. *I regretted killing Sam the way you/Ben/ they did because I don't know where he hid the loot.

Since the redundant sentential relative sense of the way + complement requires NP identity of the sort des- cribed above, as shown by (i I) and (I 4b), one is apparently forced to conclude that the deep structure subject of the complement of regret in (I5b) is we. All of the examples under (I5) show that the deep structure complement subject can only be I or we, thus corroborating the observation made in conjunction with example (2). Furthermore, it is interesting that I and we stand in a set-proper subset relationship with respect to denotations, since (disregarding the fact that pronouns have variable reference) the referent of I must always be included among the set of objects comprising the referent of we if these two pronouns are used by the same speaker in an utterance. This set inclusion relationship does not obtain between I and we and any ofyou,




Ben or they. Here is a list of similar examples involving the other personal pronouns:

(i 6) a. We regretted killing Sam as we did. b. *We regretted killing Sam as I/you/Ben/they

did. (I 7) a. You regretted killing Sam the way you did,

didn't you? b. *You regretted killing Sam the way I/she/

they did, didn't you? (i8) a. Dick regretted killing Sam as he/we/they/

you did. b. *Dick regretted killing Sam as I/George/

George and Harry did. (i 9) a. They regretted killing Sam the way they/we/

you did. b. *They regretted killing Sam the way he/I/

George and Harry did.

We find, however, that the following are ungrammatical, thus paralleling the relationship between (I 4b) and (I 5b) when considered with their counterparts (I 7a)-( ga):

(20) *You killed Sam the way we did since he was no longer useful.

(2i) *Dick killed Sam as we/they/you did because he hated him.

(22) *They killed Sam the way we/you did in order to spare his wife.

Considering (I 7a), for example, it must be the case that the deep structure subject in the complement of regret cannot be you unless the subject of the complement of way is also you. This follows from the ungrammaticality of (20).

Also, of course, example (23) corroborates this observation:

(23) a. You regretted our killing Sam the way we did.

b. You regretted your killing Sam the way we did.

We note that sentences like (24) exist:

(24) a. You regretted my killing Sam the way I did, didn't you?

b. You regretted her killing Sam the way she did, didn't you?

The underlying complement subjects in these two sentences cannot be deleted withyou as controller, however, as shown by the ungrammaticality of (I 7b). Similar remarks can be made regarding the deep stucture complement subjects in (1 5b), (i 8a), and (i ga), in view of the ungrammaticality of (I4b), (2i), and (22) as well as (25b), (26b), and (27b):




(25) a. I regretted our killing Sam the way we did. b. *I regretted my killing Sam the way we did.

(26) a. Dick regretted our/their/your killing Sam as we/they/you did.

b. *Dick, regretted hiss killing Sam as we/they/ you did.

(27) a. They regretted our/your killing Sam the way we/you did.

b. *Theyi regretted theiri killing Sam the way we/you did.

Thus the deep structure complement subject cannot be identical to the matrix subject in (I 5b) and (I 7a)-( I9a), unless one wishes to accept deep structures with ill-formed constituents whose ill-formedness cannot be remedied transformationally by any justifiable means.

The same sort of "set inclusion" relationship seems to obtain between the subjects of regret and the subjects of its complements in (I7)-(I9) that was seen in (I5b). If the pronouns are interpreted in extension, the set of objects comprising the denotation of the subject of regret must be a subset of the set of objects comprising the denotation of the deep structure subject of kill. The set of referents of we, they, or you in sentence (i 8a), for example, must include the referent of Dick. On the other hand, the referents of I or George certainly do not include the referent of Dick (assuming, obviously, that the names Dick and George do not refer to the same person). Similar remarks can be made regarding (i8) and (I9). As noted above, a subset relation must always obtain between I and we. In the case of (i 6), however, there is apparently no pronoun or noun form whose class of referents can properly include the class of referents of the (token-reflexive) pronoun we. Thus only we is possible as the subject of the complement. This fact can perhaps be related to higher performative subjects.

There are other examples of this sort which are of interest. Thus most subject-complement predicates allow variable complement subjects to be deleted, providing that the proper "subset relations" obtain. Consider

(28) Killing Bill disturbed Harry. (29) Killing Bill disturbed me. (30) Killing Bill disturbed us.

When a redundant sentential relative the way clause is inserted in (28), we find the following situation:

(3i) Killing Bill the way he/they/we/*I/*you/*Mar- tha/*Dick and Jane did disturbed Harry.

6-L.I.




It is interesting that whereas killing Bill the way we did disturbed Harry (but it didn't faze the rest of us, etc.) forces an interpretation in which Harry is included among the referents of we, our killing Bill the way we did disturbed Harry does not force such an interpretation, although it is certainly a possible one. We find, then, that in the former sentence Harry, whose referent must be included among the referents of the deep complement subject we, seems to be able to serve as the controller NP in the deletion of we by Equi- NP Deletion. The same thing can be said about the deletion of they. Therefore, this subset principle is perhaps the right one to account for the different readings for (28). Similar observations can be made about (29), which is also ambiguous. (30), of course, has but one reading.1

It is certainly not the case that all subject-complement predicates allow this sort of variable complement subject deletion, however. Consider

(32) Killing Bill was wise of Harry.

If we insert redundant sentential relative the way clauses into (32), we find that only he (=Harry) as the subject of did is possible:

(33) Killing Bill the way he/*they/*we/*George/*I/ *you ... did was wise of Harry.

A few more examples along the same lines that are of interest are the following. They are only grammatical if it is understood that John and Mary killed Bill together or as part of a larger group.

1 Notice that (28) is not similar to Killing ants disturbs Harry, a generic in which either Harry or indefinite A is the deep subject of kill ants. Here, I suppose, it is best to say that the matrix direct object Harry is the controller for the deletion of the complement subject Harry by Equi-NP Deletion and that A is deleted by the same general principle that deletes it in Killing ants is unwise. Another sort of example which can be considered here is Harry wants to start cooking the meat. The deleted subject of start can be either Harry or N, where N names some group including Harry and the speaker. The "vagueness" of this second mean- ing is, of course, a function of the large class of possible referents for N, none of which is completely specified. One probably cannot argue that N is the dummy element A, since A as found in Killing ants is unwise is essentially third person rather than first person. Note also that the example under consideration cannot be derived from Harry wants Mikel you/Dave and Joelme to start the meat. Indeed, it makes sense to think of N as a kind of vague we, perhaps similar to the sort of we and us seen in WVe in the United States don't realize that other nations dislike us. The difference between this "vague" we which includes Harry among its referents and a nonvague we which does not can be seen by considering Harryi wants us to call himi. Here us cannot include the referent of Harry and cannot be deleted: *Harryt wants to call himi.




(34) Killing Bill disturbed John, but not Mary /it didn't disturb Mary.

(35) *Killing Bill was wise of John, but it wasn't wise of Mary.

(36) John regretted killing Bill, but Mary didn't (regret killing him).

(34), for example, cannot be paraphrased by (37):

(37) John's killing Bill disturbed John/him, but not Mary.

Also, (34) cannot derive from the ungrammatical (38):

(38) *The fact that he killed Bill disturbed John, but the fact that she killed him didn't disturb Mary.

Only if "help to kill" or something similar is substituted for killed in (38) does a grammatical sentence result. The basis for all of these ungrammaticalities are strings like (39):

(39) *John killed Bill, but Mary didn't. *John killed Bill, but not Mary.

(40), however, is grammatical.

(40) a. John killed Bill; Mary didn't. b. John killed Bill, not Mary.

It seems that the deep structure complement subject for (34) will have to be jtohn and Mary, as we find in the sentence:

(4I ) Killing Bill disturbed John and Mary.

Presumably the structure underlying (41) is

(42) so

NIP VP

S V NP

John and Mary kill Bill disturb John and Mary

It seems clear that the object of disturb in (34) cannot be John and Mary in either clause at any stage in the derivation of the surface form. If (43) is posited as the deep structure for (34), no conjunction reduction of the objects of disturb in S, and S2 is possible.




(43) SO

but Sit S2

NEG NP V-P NP VP

S3 V NP S4 V NP

John and Mary kill Bill disturb John John and Mary kill Bill disturb Mary

Sentences like (34) and (36) resemble the Edes split antecedent sentences to some extent. I suggest that the apparently unavoidable structural nonidentity between controller NP and deleted NP's in (43) and so forth either be ascribed to some kind of "split controller" principle or to the "subset" principle I have proposed. It does not appear that the former will work in the case of the data I have discussed previously; in the case at hand, any split controller would have to be based at least in part on seman- tics, since (34) and (36) do have ungrammatical "readings" if it is supposed that John and Mary did not work rogether. By definition, the subset principle does not even apply in this situation. The conjoined NP John and Mary, just like the pronouns we and they, must refer to some sort of a group defined with respect to some action undertaken jointly (however vague this term may be at present) if the subset principle is to be relevant.

The reflexive test applied to sentences like (28) and (29) above yields interesting results, it seems to me. First of all, it is clear that the standard examples showing the need for coreferentiality and restrictions on the distribution of coreferential nouns in superordinate and subordinate clauses are valid:

(44) a. I washed myself. b. *I washed ourselves. c. I wanted to wash ourselves. d. *We wanted John to wash ourselves. e. We wanted to wash ourselves. f. *Filbert strove to improve themselves.

It appears, however, that embedded reflexives whose referent is not identical to the referent of the matrix object are




relatively acceptable in sentences like (34) provided that (this is crucial) the subset relationship already discussed holds. Thus compare (44) with (45):

(45) a. Washing ourselves in that stream (the way we used to) always disturbed me, because there were piranhas in it.

b. Washing ourselves in that stream used to disturb you, didn't it?

c. Washing ourselves in that stream (the way we did) often disturbed John, because he doesn't like muddy water.

d. Washing ourselves in that stream disturbed us.

The following should also be compared with (45): (46) *Washing myself in that stream always disturbed

us. *Washing himself in that stream frequently

bothered Hermann and Dorothy. It is always the case, of course, that the referent of I is

part of the referent of we (the referent of the former is included in the latter). Thus there is no possibility of inter- preting (45a) with the referent of the matrix object me not "part" of the referent of the deleted complement subject we. In the case of (45b), since the referent ofyou may or may not be part of the referent of we, the sentence is grammatical only ifyou is part of the referent of we in the complement sentence. (45b) can be compared with (47), which does not require that the referent ofyou be part of the referent of we (our):

(47) Our washing ourselves in that stream used to disturb you, didn't it?

Similar remarks about the subset relation can be made regarding (45c). The grammaticality of (45d) is fully expected, of course. The ungrammaticality of the examples under (46) is also expected, given the subset principle, since the deep complement subjects I and he (Hermann, or whatever), whose referents do not include the referents of the matrix objects in a subset relationship, cannot be deleted by the matrix objects through Equi-NP Deletion (or whatever transformation would replace this one). In other words, us and Hermann and Dorothy cannot serve as controllers in the deletion of I and he respectively, because the deep complement subject is not a "subset" of the potential controller.

Examples of this sort raise a number of questions which have not been answered or even considered, as far as I know. What verbs allow such deletion of the subjects of




their complements when the proper "subset relations" hold? Do these verbs constitute an independently motivated natural class? Do all types of complements in which subjects are deleted allow deletion under such conditions? Are performatives related in any way to this phenomenon? How can such rules as Equi-NP Deletion (or Super Equi- NP Deletion, if it exists) make use of such subset relations among noun denotations in their operations? Do complement objects ever delete under such conditions? These are just a few of the questions which can be brought up.

References Bouton, L. F. (I969) Pro-sententialization and the "do it"

Construction in English, unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois.

Perlmutter, D. M. (i 968) Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax, unpublished Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

A FURTHER NOTE ON THE

NOMINAL IN THE

PROGRESSIVE

Dwight Bolinger, Harvard University

The adverbial inversion that characterizes the type of sentence that might be called presentational, in which the referent of the subject is introduced on the scene, is also found with the progressive. Initial position is taken by the adverbial:

Round the bend came the train. Up jumped the rabbit. On the stump sat a great big toad.

With the progressive, the -ing phrase takes the initial position of the adverbial:

Rounding the bend was a runaway locomotive. Charging at us full tilt was an infuriated bull. Standing there was my brother.

(When another adverbial is in initial position, the progressive may retain normal word order, but this is less frequent:

Sitting on the stump was a great big toad. On the stump was sitting a great big toad.) That both instances represent the same construction

not only is felt intuitively but also is indicated by the mean- ing of the possible verb phrases. The adverbials are direc- tional and locational. The same is true of the verb phrases, and this shows most clearly when the verb is unmodified- it must explicitly bring or keep something on the scene:

*Standing (eating, working, fighting) was my brother. Approaching was a strange sort of three-headed figure.



complement subject deletion and subset relations

Documents