The subject of xcomps

We need not discuss the structure of strings involving gerunds or participial relatives as they are not relevant to the analysis of the valency of SEE. However, it is

necessary to justify the subject relation between the object of an instance of SEE and its xcomp. At least three criteria indicate that there is a subject relation between these two elements.

• can the xcomp be passivised? If we look at (49), we can see that the xcomp of (49a) is passivised in (49b). This clearly suggests that the object of saw is the subject of the xcomp.

(49) a. Jane saw Peter ice/icing the cake b. Jane saw the cake be iced by Peter

• can the object and the xcomp be treated as a constituent according to standard constituency tests? I claimed above that this datum was irrelevant to the xcomp

analysis and was more relevant to the participial relative analysis. However, linguists working in the phrase-structure tradition will recognise this as a potential diagnostic of subjecthood and certainly, with an infinitive, subject is the only syntactic relation linking the object o f the verb and the xcomp. If they can be treated as a constituent, there must be a direct syntactic relation between them. The example in (50) shows that Peter ice/icing the cake in (49a) is a constituent.

(50) what Jane saw was Peter ice/icing the cake

• are subject idiom patterns possible in these examples? If they are, it shows that the object o f saw is the subject of the xcomp. As it is not possible for expletive words to have adjuncts, these examples exclude the possibility of a participial relative analysis.

(51) a. Peter saw the shit hit/hitting the fan b. Peter saw all hell break/breaking loose

The examples in (49) - (51) make it quite clear that there is a subject relation between the noun and xcomp. Furthermore, they make it quite clear that the subject relation exists irrespective of whether the xcomp is a bare infinitive or a participle.

2.3.2.3 Control versus raising^"*

The WG view o f object raising asserts that the referent of the object of the verb is not in a semantic relation to the sense of the verb. Postal (1974) makes the same

assertion. However, there is a second issue. In a Phrase Structure Grammar account, the raised object is only subject of the verb’s xcomp at some stage in the derivation.

Langacker (1995) and Hudson (1990) argue for a similar account o f raising and control, although m y account is not exactly theirs. The view o f raising and control that I take is that both involve a verb that has an xcomp. I f the verb also has an object, the object is the subject o f the xcom p. I f not, the subject o f the verb is also the subject o f the xcomp. This much is uncontroversial. Both object raising and control involve the ee linking to the xcomp. The difference between them is that in object-control, the object is in a force-dynamic relation to the subject, it is the antagonist, whereas in object raising the object is in no semantic relation to the verb whatever.

that is, while it is in the same clause as the xcomp. Furthermore, GB and its lineal descendants does not allow object raising, calling verbs which display the phenomena discussed here “Exceptional Case Marking Verbs” (Haegeman 1991). Postal and Pullum (1988) makes a clear case for accepting the existence of object raising. As WG does not have a role for clauses, and as the distribution tests apply equally well for structures apart from those found in object raising, the arguments here centre on the semantic role of the object of SEE. If its semantic role is not determined by SEE, then raising is involved. If its semantic relation is determined by SEE, control is involved. EXPECT is an object raising verb. PERSUADE is an object-control verb. These issues were discussed in 1.2.3.1.

(52) a. Jane expected him to kiss the dog b. Jane persuaded him kiss the dog

In (52), there is no semantic relation between the sense of expected and the referent of him, but there is a semantic relation between the sense of persuaded and the referent of him. There are two diagnostics for determining whether there is a semantic relation or not. First, if the truth-conditions of the subordinate clause remain constant under passivisation there is not a semantic relation. Secondly, if the object can be expletive there is not a semantic relation.

(53) a. Jane expected the dog to be kissed by him b. Jane persuaded the dog to be kissed by him

The truth conditions of (53a) are the same as those of (52a) but the truth conditions o f (53b) are different from those of (52b). This shows that the object of persuaded does have a semantic relation to the verb while the object of expected does not. And if we take examples like those in (54), we can see that EXPECT can have expletive objects and PERSUADE cannot.

b. Jane expected there to be an accident c. ! Jane persuaded it to rain

d. IJane persuaded there to be an accident

The data in (54) support the analysis of the data in (53).

If we examine SEE, we can see that it patterns just like EXPECT. In (55), we can see that truth-conditions are preserved under passivisation of the subordinate clause.

(55) a. Jane saw Peter to have drawn a circle

b. Jane saw a circle to have been drawn by Peter

In (56), we can see that expletive objects are possible after SEE.

(56) a. Jane saw it rain b. Jane saw it raining

All o f the objects of saw in the examples in (56) are expletive. The evidence in (55) and (56) clearly supports an object raising analysis of SEE.

These facts show that SEE is not exactly akin to what Gee (1977) calls “Naked Infinitive” verbs like MAKE and LET. MAKE and LET appear to be like raising verbs in that they can have a clause with an expletive subject as their xcomp, but they are unlike SEE in that the truth-conditions of the sentence are not preserved under passivisation o f the xcomp.

(57) a. Peter made it rain

b. Peter made the doctor examine the patient

c. Peter made the patient be examined by the doctor

In (57a), it appears that the xcomp is the ee of the main verb, but in (57b-c) it seems that the direct object is the ee of the verb and that the xcomp stands in some other

relation to the verb. In fact, MAKE and LET appear to be ambiguous between raising and control structures depending on whether the direct object of the main verb is expletive or not. I suspect, therefore, that it is best not to analogise too much from the syntax o f MAKE and LET to the complementation of SEE. On the other hand, it is clear that the peculiarity of the passivisation of SEE when it has an xcomp (discussed further in 2.3.5) holds with MAKE and LET. With an active main verb, TO is excluded; with main verb passivisation a TO xcomp is required.

(58) a. Jane made/saw Peter go home b. * Jane made/saw Peter to go home c. Peter was made/seen to go home d. * Peter was made/seen go home

We need to recognise similarities between MAKE, LET and SEE as far as the TO facts are concerned. I return to these facts in section 2.3.5 below.