Passivization

Consider HP’s data first (HP’s [24i, ii, iii] respectively, p. 1179):

(131) a. It was arranged for the performance to begin at six.

b. * It was expected the performance to begin at six.

c. The performance was expected to begin at six.

HP take the contrast between (131a) and (131b) in conjunction with the absence of for in the latter to be evidence that the post-verbal NP the performance does not form a constituent (a clause) with the nonfinite VP that follows it in (129b). The argument is that (131b), which involves extra-position of a clausal subject without a complementizer, is ungrammatical because the material extraposed is not a clause, since it is not introduced by for.

First, note that the in-situ counterpart of (131b) is equally ungram-matical:

(132) * The performance to begin at six was expected.

Second, note that with the complementizer added, the sentence becomes immaculate, cf. (130) above, repeated here as:

(133) For the performance to begin at six was expected.

Finally, observe the following contrasts:

(134) a. That John will come is likely/expected.

b. It is likely/expected that John will come.

(135) a. * John will come is likely/expected.

b. * It is likely/expected John will come.

Assuming, quite obviously, that John will come is a sentence in (134)–(135), two important conclusions may be drawn from the last two pairs of examples. First, the clausehood of the matrix subject is totally independent of the presence or absence of a complementizer, with or without

extraposi-tion. Second, regardless of whether or not the subject clause is extraposed, the complementizer is obligatory. Similar conclusions can be drawn from the contrast between (130), (131b). What the ungrammaticality of the latter shows is not that the string the performance to begin at six is not a clause in (129b), (131b), and (132), contrary to what HP would like to derive, but that a complementizer is obligatory in infinitival subject clauses with a lexical subject.

Now consider the following contrast.

(136) a. They wanted the performance to begin at six.

b. * The performance was wanted to begin at six.

HP correctly observe that “passivisation doesn’t provide a necessary condition for objects”, and, therefore, they conclude, incorrectly, that (129b) and (136a) must be assigned the same structure, in which the post-verbal NP is the object of the matrix verb, the residue of the complement being a subjectless infinitival clause (p. 1179). Part of the argument is that the contrast between (131c) and (136b) is not, in itself, conclusive evidence that they have different structures. This is correct. But notice that this alone is absolutely no evidence that they have the same structure, as HP would like to assume. If there is independent evidence either way, it cannot be ignored.

The relevant facts, curiously ignored by HP, are represented by the following examples.

(137) a. They arranged for the students to attend the lecture.

b. They arranged for the lecture to be attended by the students.

c. * They arranged the lecture to be attended by the students.

d. * They arranged the students to attend the lecture.

(138) a. They expected the students to attend the lecture.

b. They expected the lecture to be attended by the students.

(139) a. They intended (for) the students to attend the lecture.

b. They intended for the lecture to be attended by the students.

c. They intended the lecture to be attended by the students.

(140) a. They wanted (for) the students to attend the lecture.

b. They wanted for the lecture to be attended by the students.

c. They wanted the lecture to be attended by the students.

Several structural properties are clear from these examples. One is that the post-verbal NP and the nonfinite VP that follows it can be freely passivized (with two irrelevant exceptions, to which we will return directly).

This is strong evidence that the NP and the infinitive that follows it form a clausal constituent in all of them, contrary to HP’s ill-derived conclusion.

Secondly, it is also clear from the examples in (137), (139), and (140) that the passivizablity of the material following the matrix verb is independent of the presence or absence of the complementizer for. In structures where for is optional, passivization is possible either with or without it, cf. (139) and (140). Where for is obligatory, both the active and the passive for-less structures are ungrammatical, cf. (137). This clearly shows that the presence or absence of for is totally independent of the clausehood or otherwise of the material that follows it. It may be required, as in (137), it may be optional, as in (139) and (140), or it may be forbidden, as in (138), but this has nothing to do with the category or constituent structure of NP to-VP sequences. It is required, optional, or forbidden for independent reasons.

Therefore, crucially, its absence is no evidence at all for the non-clausehood of the post-verbal NP to-VP sequence. It is puzzling that in the relevant context HP make no reference to data of the kind just discussed, though similar facts and their parallelism with passive finite clauses are not only observed but taken as evidence for constituent structure elsewhere (cf. p.

1183).

HP (incorrectly) assign the same structure to want-sentences like (140) and expect-sentences like (138a) or (129b). They also claim that the latter have the same structure as persuade-sentences like

(141) a. They persuaded the students to attend the lecture.

b. * They persuaded the lecture to be attended by the students.

As the contrast between (138b) and (141b) clearly shows, that is not correct.

HP’s general conclusion is that “there is no construction where the sequence NP + to-infinitival, with no preceding for, behaves as a subordinate clause, a single constituent” (1181). As we have seen, this conclusion is quite clearly both invalid and false.