If you are seeing this message, you may be experiencing temporary network problems. Please wait a few minutes and refresh the page. If the problem persists, you may wish to report it to your local Network Manager.
It is also possible that your web browser is not configured or not able to display style sheets. In this case, although the visual presentation will be degraded, the site should continue to be functional. We recommend using the latest version of Microsoft or Mozilla web browser to help minimise these problems.
Wiley InterScience | |||||||||
![]()
Abstract | References | Full Text: PDF (Size: 194K) | Related Articles | Citation Tracking A sentential subject asymmetry in English and its implications for complement selection Copyright 2005 The Author Journal compilation 2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd ABSTRACTAbstract. In this article, I defend a particular solution to a long-standing problem concerning the syntactic behavior of the verb seem—namely, its failure to take a sentential subject (*That the Giants lost the World Series seems). I show that this restriction follows straightforwardly if, following Koster (1978), sentential subjects are analyzed as topic phrases linked to a phonetically null DP in Spec,IP. I further suggest that this DP is an argument (not an expletive) and that it eventually undergoes A'-movement, making sentential subject constructions a species of the null operator constructions discussed in Chomsky 1977. The analysis is supported by (i) active/passive asymmetries involving sentential subjects, (ii) agreement phenomena, (iii) restrictions on A'-movement across sentential subjects, (iv) parallels between sentential subject and CP-topicalization constructions, and (v) the distribution of embedded sentential subjects. The analysis also correctly predicts certain facts concerning the co-occurrence of seem and sentential subjects in raising constructions. An interesting consequence of the analysis is that some form of idiosyncratic selection for DP complementation must be available within the lexicon, contrary to what has been suggested elsewhere. |
|
![]() | |||||||