Labeling of Non-finite
Clauses
⽇本英⽂学会関⻄⽀部第14回⼤会
奈良⼥⼦⼤学2019年12⽉8⽇*Supported by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research #16K02769
⽇本学術振興会：科学研究費補助⾦: 基盤研究（C) 課題番号 #16K02769
Thanks to Sandiway Fong and Hiroshi Terada for helpful comments. (All errors are my own.)

11. Background• Labeling theory• Problems/issues for labeling theory

2. Analysis – Computational Model• Actually modeled on a computer

3. Issues
4. Conclusion

2

Background
1. Labeling theory
2. Non-finite clauses

3Labeling theory• Chomsky (2013, 2015)• Phrases need to be labeled for interpretation• Phrases can be labeled by shared features
Assume that A and B are XPs
unlabeledLabeled if an XP moves out

Labeled by shared features4• Chomsky (2013, 2015)• Phrases need to be labeled for interpretation

EPP (need for a clause to have asubject – in languages like English)• results from the need for T (whichis initially weak) to be labeled• Phrases can be labeled by “strong” heads
Head X is strong enoughto labelHead X is too weak to label Head X is strengthened – now it can label

5

set-Merge• Symmetric• XP and YP are
equallyprominent{XP, YP}

pair-Merge• Asymmetric
YP is more prominent than XP• XP (adjunct) is essentially on a
separate plane• <XP, YP>

6

Problems/Issues for Labeling Theory
John expects you to win.

Finite T is strengthened by sharing featureswith a subject. Then T can label. (Chomsky
2015)
Non-finite T doesn’t Agree with a subject, so
how is it able to label?
Does it make sense for non-finite T to be able
to label, but finite T to not be able to label?

7

Mary thinks that Sue will buy the book. (Pesetsky & Torrego 2001:357, originally from Stowell 1981)
Verbal roots are strengthened via Agree with an object.
• See buy in embedded clauseHow do verbal roots that don’t Agree with an object label?
• think is a root, so it should be too weak to label• There is no object to strengthen think8

Who do you expect to win? (Chomsky 2015: 10)• If the matrix v* is a phase, then who should be transferred in theembedded clause, predicting that this should be ill-formed.
• Chomsky (2015) – verbal root Merges with v* and v* is dephased, so
who remains accessible• What is the nature of this “head movement” of the root?
••

This is a problem if you assume that edge of v* phase is not available.
Compare with who do you think that John saw• (Sandiway Fong, p.c.)9

2. Analysis - Computational Model
The derivations presented here were automatically generated with a computer model.
The model produces step-by-step derivations from an input stream of lexical items.
Latest version• http://www.osaka-kyoiku.ac.jp/~jginsbur/MMIndex.html
Older versions:• http://www.osaka-kyoiku.ac.jp/~jginsbur/MinimalistModeling.html
Joint work with Sandiway Fong
• http://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~sandiway/mpp/mm.html
See Fong & Ginsburg (2019), Ginsburg & Fong (2019), Ginsburg (2016)

Basic assumptions follow Ginsburg 2016, based on Chomsky (2013, 2015).
• There are many problems…
10Feature transmission (Ginsburg 2016, based on Chomsky 2015)• A phase head passes its features to its complement• “uPhi from a phase head travel down a tree until they cannot
travel any farther (Ginsburg 2016: 27)”
• There can be super-inheritance• Feature unification• “Feature inheritance leads to unified instances• of a feature on multiple SOs.”(Ginsburg 2016: 30, following Fong 2014, cf. Frampton& Gutman 2000, Pesetsky & Torrego 2007)• When a uF is checked, all unified instances of thatuF are checked.

Verbal roots undergo internal pair-Merge with v* (cf. Epstein,
Kitahara, Seely 2016, Kitahara 2019 notes)• Select v*• Pair-Merge: <read, v*>• uPhi of v* are transferred to root read
• Case assigning ability comes from <read, v*>• uPhi of v* are present on lower copy of read too• Set-Merge: <read, v*> and {read…}• Not counter-cyclic
Determiners are adjuncts (Chomsky 2007, Oishi 2015,
Sandiway Fong, p.c.)• An adjunct is pair-Merged (indicated with dotted line)• Accounts for why verbal and tense elements Agree with n
and not with d

Object remerges with verbal root (Chomsky 2015)• Enables feature sharing and strengthening

Tom read a book (Chomsky 2015: 10)

Assumption: An NP re-Merges
with the root of an unlabeled
structure.

•Agree(<read, v*>, book)• uPhi on <read, v*> are checked• Unified uPhi on read are checked•

Labeling• <read, v*> labels• Shared phi-label• Strengthened read labels

Tom read a book (Chomsky 2015: 10)

12

•
•
•
•
•
•

Features of C are inherited by Tpast
T and C have unified uPhi
Agree(C, Tom)uPhi on C are checked
Case on Tom is checked
Unified uPhi on Tpast are checked•

Labeling• C labels (C is strong enough to label)• Shared phi label – Phi2
• Strengthened Tpast labels - Tpast is strengthened via
checked uPhi

Tom read a book (Chomsky 2015: 10)

13

Multi-clausal statement••

Non-transitive vUnerg categorizes think
Assume that vUnerg is strong enough to label.

Epstein, Kitahara, & Seely (2016) propose that abridge-verb like think externally pair-Merges withv* and then <think, v*> is Merged into thederivation. This cancels the phasehood of v*.
• Phase cancellation is mysterious. Why not justassume that there is a non-phase head v?

Assume pair-Merge of will andTpres – T is affixal

14
Mary thinks that Sue will buy the book. (Pesetsky & Torrego 2001:357, originally from Stowell 1981)

Spell Out:C n Mary T(Pres,3rd,sg) v think that n Sue will(Pres,3rd,sg) T(Pres) buy v* the n book

PF Rules:Mary thinks that Sue will buy the book15

Non-finite ClauseFeature transmission (Ginsburg 2016, based on Chomsky 2015)• A phase head passes its features to its complement• “uPhi from a phase head travel down a tree until they cannot
travel any farther (Ginsburg 2016: 27)”
• There can be super-inheritance

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

Feature unification“Feature inheritance leads to unified instancesof a feature on multiple SOs.” (Ginsburg 2016: 30,
following Fong 2014, cf. Frampton & Gutman 2000,
Pesetsky & Torrego 2007)
When a uF is checked, all unified instances of that uF
are checked.

The roots expect and toT inherit uPhi from v*
uPhi on <expect, v*> are checked via Agree with you.
Checked uPhi strengthen toT, so it can label

John expects you to win

16

Spell Out:C n john T(Pres,3rd,sg) expect v* n you toT v win

PF Rules:john expects you to win
17Non-finite clause with progressive••••

toT inherits uPhi from <prefer, v*>
Agree between <prefer, v*> and {n, John} checks
uPhi on toT
Unified uPhi on toT are checked
Strengthened toT can label

Sue prefers John to be swimming18

Spell Out:C n Sue T(Pres,3rd,sg) prefer v* n John toT be -ing v swim

PF Rules:Sue prefers John to be swimming

19

Clausal Gerunds
Some properties of clausal gerunds• NPs/DPs(a) Mary favored Bill taking care of her land(b) Susan worried about Mark being late for dinner(c) Sylvia wants to find a new house without Anna helping her (Pires 2007: 166)(d) Does her being a solicitor matter very much? –Ojea 2011: 170) – subject-aux inversion• Clauses(e) Mary revising the book (Pires 2007: 167) – verb has a complement(f) Mary probably being responsible for the accident (Pires 2007: 168) – adverbial present(g) What did everyone imagine Fred singing (Pires 2007: 168) - wh-extraction• Adjunct modifiers(h) Not knowing the answer, John felt at a loss.
(i) Closing the door, he disappeared into the night. (Ojea 2011: 174)
• Permit overt and covert subjects(j) Susan preferred PRO being late for dinner.
(k) Susan preferred John/him being late for dinner. (Pires 2007: 165)

20

Clausal Gerunds
Pires 2007(a) Susan preferred PRO being late for dinner.
(b) Susan preferred John/him being late for dinner. (Pires 2007: 165)
Analysis:• A DP can get multiple theta-roles (cf. Hornstein 1999). In (a), Susan = PRO• T of clausal gerund has uCase. uCase needs to be checked before T can check Case of subject.
• uCase must be checked by matrix v.
• (a) – After Susan moves to matrix clause, matrix v checks uCase on clausal gerund T. Susan is able tomove before it gets Case.
• (b), John/him get Case after uCase of clausal gerund T is checked by matrix v.
• Note how Case assignment occurs after matrix v is Merged (counter-cyclic?)• Issues:• Do we really want a single nominal to be able to get more than 1 theta role?
• Movement accounts of co-reference face problems for distinguishing copies from repetitions (seerecent Chomsky talks).
• Clausal gerund T both has uCase and checks Case.

21Clausal Gerunds
Sato 2019
Follows Abney’s (1987) view that gerunds are DPs.
(a) She always liked physical exercise and watching television shows.
(b) Someone arranged for a new swimming pool and painting the house. (Sato 2019:54; per Emonds
2013, 26).
(c) John preferred destroying an existing notion and creation of a new idea.
(d) John preferred destruction of an existing notion and creating a new idea. (Sato 2019:54)
Proposes a labeling-based account (Sato 2019: 56)• -ing is a nominalizer that Merges with a TP
• The subject Mary and n share nominal features, which enable labeling.
Problems/issues• Sato assumes that {Mary, nP} can label because they areboth nominals, even though they don’t share features.
• Although the clausal gerund subject and –ing are bothnominal, they don’t actually Agree. Can feature sharing
really label?
22

Clausal Gerunds
Are clausal gerunds NPs/DPs?
Note that coordination isn’t necessarily a perfect test. Even though clausal gerunds
can be conjoined with NPs/DPs doesn’t necessarily mean that they are NPs/DPs(a) Pat is either stupid or a liar.
(b) Pat is a Republican and proud of it.
(c) Pat is healthy and of a sound mind.
(d) Pat is either asleep or at the office.
(e) Pat became a Republican and quite conservative.
(f) We walked slowly and with great care.
(g) They wanted to leave tomorrow or on Thursday. (Bayer 1996: 580)(h) John is sleepy and a liar. (Sandiway Fong, p.c.)23

My analysis• Clausal gerund involves a non-finite T, which is pronounced as –ing: Ting
• Subject of clausal gerund gets case from v* (or some other higher element)• The subject of a clausal gerund gives a clausal gerund nominal-like properties(suggestion by Sandiway Fong, p.c.).
• But there are many issues/problems…

24•

Merge v*
• uPhi are inherited by:• prefer• Ting•uPhi on <prefer, v*> Agree with John
• Unified uPhi on prefer are checked• Unified uPhi on Ting are checked• Ting is strengthened so that it can label••

John remerges with verbal root
prefer• An “object” remerges(Chomsky 2015)• This strengthens prefer andenables labeling by sharedphi-features

Sue prefers John swimming. (Pires 2007:182)

vUnerg is strong enough to label• Ting is a non-finite T that occurs inclausal gerunds
25

Spell Out:C n Sue T(Pres,3rd,sg) prefer v* n John -ing v swim

PF Rules:Sue prefers John swimming

26

•

Merge v*
• uPhi are inherited by:• prefer• Ting•uPhi on v* Agree with PRO• Unified uPhi on prefer arechecked• Unified uPhi on Ting are checked• Ting is strengthened so that it canlabel

PRO can occur in a clause with Ting

John prefers swimming. (Pires 2007: 182)

27

Spell Out:C n John T(Pres,3rd,sg) prefer v* n PRO -ing v swim

PF Rules:John prefers swimming28

•Assume that PRO is subject of adjectival• It is possible that argument is internalargument of late (Sandiway Fong, p.c.)•••Susan preferred being late for dinner. (Pires 2007: 165)

Assume that v is not strong enough tolabel.
uPhi of C are passed all they way down
to v and be.
Agree(<prefer, v*>, PRO) leads tostrengthening

29

Spell Out:C n Susan T(Past,3rd,sg) prefer v* n PRO -ing v be adj late for n dinner

PF Rules:Susan preferred being late for dinner30• Assume that him is subject of adjectival

Susan preferred him being late for dinner. (Pires 2007: 165)

31

Spell Out:C n Susan T(Past,3rd,sg) prefer v* n him -ing v be adj late for n dinner

PF Rules:Susan preferred him being late for dinner32

Problem: Note that only the subject is predicted tobe passivized.
• This could be evidence that a clausal gerund is
an NP.
• It could be evidence for pied-piping.

John reading a book was preferred. (Pires 2007: 166)

33

This is ill-formed in standard English.
“clausal gerunds cannot be licensed in thecomplement position of passive…verbs (Pires
2007:166) “
But note the following:(a) I saw him leaving the building.
(b) ?Him/He leaving the building was seen.
(c) He was seen leaving the building.

Spell Out:C n John be(Past,3rd,sg) -en T(Past) v prefer -ing read v* a n book

PF Rules:John was preferred reading a book34

Passivization of the subject of a clausal gerundis okay if the main verb is see but not okay if
the main verb is prefer.

He was seen leaving the building.

35

Spell Out:C n he be(Past,3rd,sg) -en T(Past) v see -ing leave v* the n building

PF Rules:he was seen leaving the buildingNote: This might be ditransitive(a) I preferred John to read a book.
(b) *John was preferred to read a book.
(c) Bill was favored to take over the office(d) *Bill was favored taking over the office.
(e) Bill taking over the office was favored.
(Sandiway Fong, p.c.)

Mary favored Bill taking care of the land. (Pires 2007: 166)37

Spell Out:C n Mary T(Past,3rd,sg) favor v* n Bill -ing take v* n care of the n land

PF Rules:Mary favored Bill taking care of the land38

Agree(P, Mark)• Mark gets Case fromP
• Agree(P, Mark)enables strengthening
and labelingSusan worried about Mark being late for dinner. (Pires 2007: 166)

Spell Out:C n Susan T(Past,3rd,sg) v worry about n Mark -ing v be adj late for n dinner

PF Rules:Susan worried about Mark being late for dinner40

Anna gets Case from P• Agree(P, Anna)

Sylvia wants to find a new house without Anna helping her. (Pires 2007: 166)

41

Spell Out:C n Sylvia T(Pres,3rd,sg) want v* n PRO toT find v* a adj new n house without n Anna -ing help v* n her

PF Rules:Sylvia wants to find a new house without Anna helping her
42

3. Issues/Problems• Passive• Problem 1:• If the subject of a clausal gerund requires Case (and the entire clausal gerund does not
require Case) then why is the entire clausal gerund, and not just the subject, passivized?
(See slides 33-34)(a) John reading a book was preferred.
(b) *John was preferred reading a book.
But this could have something to do with the selectional requirements of the verb. (Seeslides 35-36)(c) I saw him leaving the building.
(d) He was seen leaving the building.

43• Problem 2:• If the subject of a clausal gerund typically gets accusative Case from v*, then what happens• when the clausal gerund functions as a subject? Why doesn’t the subject of the clausal
gerund get nominative case?
• We could assume that the subject of a clausal gerund gets a default accusative case, but…
(a) Him swimming was preferred by Sue.
(b) Him eating dinner quickly was a problem.
(c) *He swimming was preferred by Sue.
(d) *He eating dinner quickly was a problem.
•

But note the following:(e) ?Him/He leaving the building was seen.
(f) ?Him/he going to the store was a problem.
(g) ?He/him eating dinner was preferred by Sue.
(h) She being now a Woman…induced him to entertain her often with Discourse of
Marriage (Fanego 2016: 111)44

• PRO• Assume that PRO appears in non-finite clauses• How does case assignment work.
• I have assumed that PRO gets case like a regular NP, but this may be problematic.
• What is the nature of PRO?
• Assume that PRO occurs with v that doesn’t check Case.
• If PRO doesn’t get Case, then labeling of clauses with PRO is a problem.
• John prefers PRO swimming.
• How can labeling occur with PRO and swim?
• Also, can there be a T that doesn’t assign Case?
• PRO swimming is preferred by John.

Assume an intransitive v• No Accusative case
How is this labeled?

45

Other related (?) examples. Why is there this variation?
(a) She prefers to go.
(b) Sue prefers him to go.
(c) Sue prefers going.
(d) *Sue prefers him go.
(e) I want to go.
(f) I want him to go.
(g) *I want going.
(h) *I want him go.

I saw him go vs. *Sue prefers him go
I saw him go vs. *I want him go(i) *I saw to go.
(j) *I saw him to go.
(k) *I saw going.
(l) I saw him go. (Sandiway Fong, p.c.)46

Assume that there is a non-finite T, similar to
Ting but that isn’t pronounced.
Problem:
The following examples are not ruled out:(a) *Sue prefers him go.
(b) *I want him go.
Some type of non-finite T that
isn’t pronounced

I saw him go.

47

4. Conclusion
I have presented a model of some English clausal gerunds. This was implemented on a computer,so it’s consistency and accuracy were verified.
l But just because it was implemented on a computer doesn’t mean that it is correct.
There are many remaining problems.
l The clausal gerund data is very complex.
l Are clausal gerunds NPs? Are they TPs? Are some of them NPs and some of them TPs?
l Do clausal gerunds get Case (sometimes or always)?
l Why is there variation in behavior of clausal gerunds?
l Is there a connection with examples like the following?
(a) I watched the swimming contestants.
(b) I watched the boring movie.

48Selected References
Abney, Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Bayer, Samuel. 1996. The coordination of unlike categories. Language 72: 579-616.
Chomsky, N. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Uli Sauerland & Hans-Martin Gartner (eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language?, pp. 1-30. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130. 33-49. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003
Chomsky, Noam. 2015. Problems of projection: Extensions. In Elisa di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann & Simona Matteini (eds.), Structures, strategies and beyond: Studies in honour of
Adriana Belletti, 1–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Epstein, Samuel D., Kitahara, Hisatsugu, & Daniel Seely. 2016. Phase cancellation by external pair-merge of heads. The Linguistic Review 33. 87-102. DOI 10.1515/tlr-2015-0015
Fong, Sandiway & Jason Ginsburg. 2019. Towards a Minimalist Machine. In Minimalist Parsing, ed. by Robert C. Berwick and Edward P. Stabler, 16-38. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Fong, Sandiway. 2014. Unification and efficient computation in the Minimalist Program. In Francis Lowenthal & Laurent Lefebvre (eds.), Language and recursion, 129–138. New York:
Springer. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9414-0_10
Frampton, John & Sam Gutmann. 2000. Agreement is feature sharing. MS, Northeastern University.
Ginsburg, Jason & Sandiway Fong. 2019. Combining linguistic theories in a Minimalist Machine. In Minimalist Parsing, ed. by Robert C. Berwick and Edward P. Stabler, 39-68.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ginsburg, Jason. Modeling of problems of projection: A non- countercyclic approach. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 1(1): 7. 1–46, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.22
Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30. 69-96.
Kitahara, Hisatsugu. 2019. Lecture notes for 5/25/2019.
Oishi, Masayuki. 2015. The Hunt for a Label. In Egashira H. eta al. (eds.), In untiring pursuit of better alternatives, 222-334.
Ojea, Ana. 2011. Propositional gerunds in English and Spanish. Journal of English Studies 9. 165-182.
Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego. 2001. T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 355–426. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Pires, Acrisio. 2007. The derivation of clausal gerunds. Syntax 10. 162-203.
Sato, Ryosuke. 2019. Clausal gerunds and labeling. English Linguistics 36. 48-68.
Stowell, Tim. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

49

Acknowledgments
Thanks to Hiroshi Terada and Sandiway Fong.

50