Small Clause - Empirical Considerations

Empirical Considerations

There are a number of considerations that support or refute the one or the other analysis. The layered analysis, which, again, views the small clause as a constituent, is supported by the basic insight that the small clause functions as a single semantic unit, i.e. as a clause consisting of a subject and a predicate. The layered analysis is also supported by the fact that in certain cases, a small clause can function as the subject of the greater clause, e.g.

Bill behind the wheel is a scary thought.

Sam drunk is something everyone wants to avoid.

Most theories of syntax judge subjects to be single constituents, hence the small clauses Bill behind the wheel and Sam drunk here should each be construed as one constituent. Further, small clauses can appear as the complement of with, e.g.:

With Bill behind the wheel, we're in trouble. _{- Small clause as complement of with}

With Sam drunk, we've got a big problem. _{- Small clause as complement of with}

These data are also easier to accommodate if the small clause is a constituent.

One can argue, however, that small clauses in subject position and as the complement of with are fundamentally different from small clauses in object position. The data further above have the small clause following the matrix verb, whereby the subject of the small clause is also the object of the matrix clause. In such cases, the matrix verb appears to be subcategorizing for its object noun (phrase), which then functions as the subject of the small clause. In this regard, there are a number of observations suggesting that the object/subject noun phrase is a direct dependent of the matrix verb, which means the flat structure is correct: the small clause generally does not behave as a single constituent with respect to constituency tests; the object becomes the subject of the corresponding passive sentence; and when the object is a reflexive pronoun, it is coindexed with the matrix subject:

a. She proved him guilty.

b. *Him guilty she proved.

c. *It is him guilty that she proved.

d. *What she proved was him guilty.

e. *What did she prove? - ??Him guilty.

f. He was proved guilty.

g. She₁ proved herself₁ guilty.

These data are consistent with the flat analysis of small clauses. The object of the matrix clause plays a dual role insofar as it is also the subject of the embedded predicate.