ELECTIVE 4_On Control and Raising Instances in ING-complements

A. Introducing ING-Complements

The label ing-complements comprises those non-finite complements whose mark is the ing
morpheme. Ing-complements can be gerunds or participles and it is ultimately the context of use & their
distribution which distinguish between gerunds and participles
Some examples:
(1) a. [His/Him saying that] upset me (= It/This upset me) (subject)
b. I resent [his/him saying that] (= I resent this/it) (direct object)
c. I depend on [them/their helping me] (= I depend on it/this) (prepositional object)
argument status GERUND constructions

(2) a. [The movie being over], they went home (=After the movie was over) (adjunct,
adverbial of time)
b. The man [sitting next to my wife] is my best friend. (adjunct, attributive)
non arguments PARTICIPLE constructions

- like all non-finite complements, gerunds and participles a) do not bear tense or agreement features ([-
T/Agr]), but b) do have aspect and voice (3); c) they do not have Nominative subjects (4a) since these
are only licensed by finite inflection; when the subject is overt, it is either in the Acc or Gen case (4b)
(3) [His having said that] upset me. / [Their having been fired] surprised everybody.
(4) a. I really dont like [*heNom doing all the work] / I dont like [ __ cooking] (null subject)
b. I do appreciate [hisGen/himAcc borrowing me some money]

Besides the Gerund and the Participle, there is also the VERBAL NOUN, which is not part of non-finite
forms: it is part of the nominal system, as it is a NP which just happens to look like a gerund or
participle: it is a noun since it bears typical noun characteristics: it has a determiner (the (or possessives)), it
can be modified by an adjective, it selects an of-phrase:
(5) [The cruel shooting of the hostages] shocked us all.

Gerunds: both verbal & nominal features (+N, +V)

Participles: only verbal features (-N, +V)
Verbal Noun: only nominal features (since it is actually a noun, not part of ing-complements!) (+N)

B. The Gerund:
B.1. Nominal properties of Gerunds (+ N, + V) (characteristics that gerunds share with nouns)
a) like NPs, gerunds occupy case-marked positions (since they are arguments of main clause elements)
the canonical subject position (!Notice that, unlike that-complements, gerunds can be
questioned/appear in SAI structures):
(9) [Johns arriving late] upset me / Did [Johns arriving late] upset you? (SAI)
structural Accusative:
(10) I consider [him/his arriving late] to be a big mistake
after prepositions:
(11) I insist on him/his leaving early.
!! Notice that, unlike in the case of that-complements, the preposition is NOT deleted with gerundial
complements >> proof that they do not resist case.

b) like NPs, gerunds appear after sentence adverbs:

(12) Perhaps John is at home / Perhaps/Possibly Johns arriving late upset her

1
c) like NPs, gerunds can topicalize (i.e., appear leftmost):
(13) Such songs, I cannot stand. / Johns being late, I cant stand.

d) like NPs, gerunds can undergo passivization:

(14) a. Everybody regretted John(s) leaving.
b. Johns leaving was regretted by

e) (with limited exceptions1), gerunds do not extrapose (and neither do NPs):

(15) * It is unlikely Johns leaving early.

B.2. Verbal properties: (+ N, + V) (characteristics that gerunds share with verbs)

a) like Vs, gerunds allow adverbial modification (can be modified by adverbs):

(16) Him/his behaving wisely impressed his parents.

b) the gerund assigns Acc case to its D.O. NP:

(17) They rely on [us/our helping him/herAcc]
Acc

c) like Vs, gerunds have Aspect & Voice (i.e., verbal categories):
(18) a. [John(s) having left early] came as a surprise. (Perfect Gerund)
b. [John(s) having been sacked] was a surprise to everyone. (Perfect Passive Gerund)

B.3. Types of gerundial constructions

From the p.o.v. of the type of subject in the gerundial complement, the Gerund comes in two types:
1. Null Subject Gerundial complements
2. Gerundial complements which have their own subject (an argument of the ing-V; the ing V
assigns this DP a certain theta role (the EA theta role)

Q1: Where else have we seen a similar classification?

Q2: When null, what type of subject EC are we dealing with in the gerundial complement?
Q3: When the gerund clause has its own overt subject, can this subject be in the Nominative case? Why?

three types of gerundial complements:

a) PRO-ing/(Control Gerund): cases when the gerundial clause does not have its own subject, i.e., it has a
null subject, PRO (the same as in the case of infinitives)
-in OC cases, PRO is controlled/co-indexed with a Main Clause nominal antecedent which establishes its
reference under the Control Module. Just as with infinitives, the controller may have any syntactic function
within the main clause (6a-c); there can also be cases of NOC (LD, AC) (6d, e)
Besides controlled and arbitrary (not controlled) reading of PRO with gerunds, PRO can also have a third
interpretation (unspecified PRO, with so-called public verbs), i.e., that of a variable whose content is
specified by the context (6f-i)

(6) a. Ii remember [PROi telling you about it] (Su.)

b. Theyi congratulated herj on [PROj being promoted] (D.O.)
c. I hope youre not angry with mei for [PROi arriving so late] (P.O.) OC

1 Extraposition of Gs is allowed with a few expressions (evaluative As & Ns): be no good/no use// (not) be worth; be easy/hard/useless; be a
catastrophe/disaster/fun/pleasure/tragedy/etc.)
!! ONLY SUBJECTLESS GERUNDS CAN EXTRAPOSE:
*Its awful him not being there.// Its awful not being there with you.

2
 d. Haroldi know that [[PROi forgetting hisi umbrella] would make it rain] (LDC)
e. PRO hating ones neighbours is forbidden/PRO Seeing is PRO believing. (AC)

f. The psychiatrist recommends [PRO getting away for a week]

g. Harry disapproves of [PRO opening trade relations with this country].
h. [PRO pulling her] hair made the girl mad.
i.[PRO playing the drums might disturb the neighbours]
.., they might get too excited
, so Ill play my sax instead
, so you had better play your sax instead.

So, Unlike the case with control infinitives, gerunds are freer in their instantiation of Control readings.
Compare the following pairs
I advised himi [PROi to wait for a while] vs. I advised [PRO waiting for a while]
I forbid youi [PROi to park here] vs. They forbid [PRO parking here]
They recommended mei [PROi to buy this CD] vs. They recommend [PRO buying this CD]
with gerunds, there is no object (controller) in the matrix, hence no interaction between the main clause
subject and that of the embedded clause (the reference of the latter can be established in context or can be
generic see above)

- when the subject of the gerundial complement is overt/expressed, we distinguish between:

b) Acc-ing (Half Gerund): (7) I remember [him telling you about it] &
c) Poss/Genitive ing (Full Gerund): (8) I remember [his telling you about it]

OBS: clear evidence that the possessive and the Acc. pronouns are arguments of the embedded (-
ing) verb and thus belong with the subordinate comes from paraphrasing & argument structure of main verb

Q4: Provide appropriate (finite) paraphrases for the gerundial complements in (7) & (8)
Q5: What type of predicate is the main clause verb remember? What is its theta-grid and how many
arguments does it need?
Q6: How do the DPs (him, his) end-up getting their respective case (Gen, Acc)? Is the main verb involved
in case-assignment here (as was the case with Acc+Inf, for example?)2

2
Poss-ing ~~ DPs // Acc ing = more clausal ~~ IPs, but: unifying analysis: gerunds (poss-ing + acc ing) are DPs which embed an
IP Why IP? Because gerunds have verbal properties like aspect (have`en//be`ing),voice (Passive: be`en)
DP
D
D IP
However, the two (poss-ing & acc-ing) have different case-assigning mechanisms:
Poss-ing: the head of the DP (D = s; the subject moves from SpecIP to SpecDP & receives Genitive case from the possessive head s
I resent [Johns leaving the country]
DP
John
D
D IP
s tJohn I

I VP
leaving the country
Acc- ing: no s in D; no movement of the subject (the subject remains in the IP (in SpecIP) and receives case (Acc) from the main verb (through
the D head, which is activated by the case assigner in the main clause (the main V)
I resent [John leaving the country]
VP
V
V DP
resent D
D IP
John leaving the country

3
B.4. An aside: The Half Gerund vs. The Full Gerund
- in most cases, both are acceptable, so sometimes they overlap (I resent [him calling me a liar] / [his calling
me a liar]), but there are some syntactic/semantic differences with respect to:
agreement:
- Poss-ing behaves like a DP: there is plural agreement on the verb with double Poss-ing Gerund subjects(9);
Acc-ing behaves more like a clause (CP): there is singular agreement with double/multiple Acc-ing Gerund
subjects 106)
(9) [His winning] and [your losing] were both surprising.
~~NPs: [His victory] and [your defeat] were both surprising.
(10) [Him winning] and [you losing] was surprising.
~~CPs: [That he won] and [you lost] was surprising.

wh-movement: allowed by Acc-ing (11a); disallowed by Poss-ing (11b)

(11) a. We remember [him describing Rome] (Acc-ing)
a. Whati (city) do you remember [him describing ti]?
b. We remember [his describing Rome] (Poss-ing)
b. * What (city) do you remember his describing?

!! type of Su (of the-ing form) + meaning:

- Poss-ing have a more limited range of subjects (because, for example, some items do not have
possessive forms: there, it, this, that, etc.) (12) > Poss-ing prefers [specific] + [animate] subjects
- the subject of Acc-ing may be [indefinite]:
(12) a. I remember there being/*theres being a park here.
b. I remember Johns saying that.
(13) a. Susan often dream of [Johns kissing her]. (Poss-ing)
b. Susan often dream of [John kissing her]. (Acc ing)

- in (13a), the use of the Poss-ing signals a different meaning than that induced by the use of the Acc-ing in
(13b): the meaning of (13a) is that the event of John kissing Susan already happened and Susan dreams of this
(> definite), whereas the meaning of (13b) is that Susan dream of an event of John kissing her, but this event
did not necessarily happen (>indefinite)

C. The Participle
Let us re-consider the examples under (2) above:
(2) a. [The movie being over], they went home (adverbial of time)
b. The man [sitting next to my wife] is my best friend. (attributive)

participles are non-arguments they are not subcategorized for by Main Clause elements. Hence, they do
not have the distribution of DPs and only have verbal properties: [+V, - N]
As adjuncts (attributive (i.e., noun modifier) & adverbial modifier), participles can NEVER be preceded
by prepositions (Remember! prepositions assign case; since participles are non-arguments, they are banned
from case positions. Instead, participles can only be preceded by subordinating conjunctions (e.g., when,
although, as if, if, while, etc), which are not case-assigners
- they can appear either in sentence final or sentence-initial position

(14) a. [When visiting London], I got the chance to see a lot of wonderful sights.
b. [While watching the film], I got this sudden desire to read the book.

4
C.1. Temporally, the present participle indicates a situation simultaneous with the time of the main
verbs (irrespective of its tense); the perfect participle expresses anteriority with respect to the tense
of the matrix verb
(15) a. (When) walking down the road, I met Harry.
b. Having written my homework, I went out to a movie.

C.2. Structurally, adverbial participial clauses have a complete functional structure: CP (with
when/while in Spec CP) > IP > (NegP) >AspP > VP >
C.3. Classification/Types of Participial constructions
From the p.o.v. of the type of subject, adverbial participial clauses can be
a) be subjectless (16a) or
b) have their own (Nominative) subject = ABSOLUTE PARTICIPIAL CONSTRUCTIONS (16b)

(16) a. [PROi Living in seclusion], hei became introspective. / [PROi Being tired], shei decided
to go to bed early. / [While PROi running], hei fell.
b. [God willing], we will pass the LEC exam // [Weather permitting], we will have a
picnic. (condition).// [The kids having gone to bed], we could finally talk undisturbed
(temporal or cause)

- in (16a), we have a PRO-Participle Construction (amenable to the Control Module ): the empty PRO
subject of the (adverbial) participle is co-indexed/controlled by the subject of the MC; being the most
prominent element in the main clause, the subject is more often than not chosen as the binder for the
reference of the empty subject within the participial construction; this can engender what some have dubbed
misrelated participles:
Q7: Can you guess what the term refers to?

(17) a.PRO Running into the room, a rug caught her foot and she fell. / b. PRO Riding in the first race,
his horse fell at the last jump./ c. PRO Knowing me to be the fool of the family, the news that I had
won a scholarship astonished him. / d. PRO Reading in bed, my hands often get very cold./ e. PRO
Climbing down the tree, one of the eggs broke./ f. PRO Barking furiously, I let the dog out of the
room./ g. PRO Getting out of bed, a scorpion bit him.

OBS! Absolute Participial Constructions disallow conjunctions In other words, wh-adverbs/

conjunctions and overt subjects are in complementary distribution:
(18) a. [While PROi eating], Johni/hei chocked.
b. * While John eating, he chocked.
c. * If God willing, we will pass the Licen exam.

In other words:
-- whenever the participial adverbial clause has its own subject, conjunctions are banned (18b, c) &
-- Controlled Participles/PRO-Participles are compatible with conjunctions (but can also appear without
them) (see (16) above)
Nominative Subjects are impossible with conjunctions in Spec, CP, BUT possible when there is
no conjunction in the Spec, CP position when Spec, CP is filled, PRO-Part is licensed; when Spec, CP is
empty (with Absolute Part. Constr.), an abstract temporal operator occupies this position, which activates
the Agr features of T and licenses a default Nom. Case on the EA

(19) a. (While) PROi running, the thiefi fell. (PRO-Participle) vs.

b. The thief running away, we felt much safer. (Absolute Participle)

5
 a. CP b. CP
AvP C AvP C
while Op
C IP C IP
I DPSu I
I vP I vP
-ing PRO.. -ing tSu ..

Participles as part of complex constructions: Accusative + (Present/Past) Participle &

Nominative + (Present/Past) Participle
- structurally, these participial clauses are only AspP, so they lack the functional projections necessary to
assign case to the EA of the embedded ing V this DP will search for an external source for case (Main
Clause verb for Acc + Participle; Main Clause Inflection in the case of Nom + Participle)

1. Accusative + Present/Past Participle

- mainly after:
a) Vs of perception: see, hear, notice, observe, watch, perceive
(20) I saw [him crossing the street]. / I heard [him sipping his coffee]. / I could smell [the cake
baking in the oven.]

b) after causative(-like) Vs & find Vs: have, get, catch, find, discover:
(21) You will find me reading. / They caught him stealing/ They discovered him beaten to a
pulp (Acc+ Past Participle)/ I wont have him sitting here alone.

c) after keep, leave:

(22) They left her waiting all by herself. / They kept me waiting for one hour.

OBS! Mind you: with verbs of perception, there is a certain ambiguity of interpretation. Compare:
(23) a. I saw Jimi [PROi copying during the LEC exam] vs.
b. I saw [Jim copying during the LEC exam]

the direct object NP in Acc + Participle constructions (with Vs of perception) can be interpreted either as
a) an argument of the main clause (23a) or as b) an argument of the participial clause (23b)
- in (23a), the ing-clause functions as a sort of manner adverbial or pseudo-relative (an adjunct): I saw Jim
[while/as he was copying during the exam] > a case of object control (into a non-finite adjunct clause); in
(23b), the (whole) ing-clause (the Acc DP included) functions as a direct object complement (i.e., an
argument of the main verb see: I saw [that Jim was copying] + the focus is on the perception of the whole
event.
Evidence for both analyses:
(23) a. I saw Jim [writing] and you saw him, too.
b. I saw [Jim writing a latter] and you saw it/this, too (you saw the event of .)

- with find/catch/keep types of verbs, the adjunct interpretation is (clearly?) preferred:

(24) The teacher found/caught Jimi [PROi cheating during the exam.]

2. Nominative + Present/Past Participle: the passivized counterparts of Accusative + Participle:

(25) a. I saw him crying (Acc + Part) He was seen crying (Nom + Participle)
b. They caught him stealing He was caught stealing
c. They found the wallet thrown in a ditch The wallet was found thrown in a ditch.

6
!! 3. Distinguishing between apparently similar constructions: Accusative + Participle vs.
Accusative + Gerund/Half Gerund

It is often difficult to distinguish between the two constructions, since they have identical surface structures:
(26) a. I saw him stealing my apples (Accusative + Participle) vs.
Su V d.o. NP ing-form .

b. I resent him stealing my apples (Accusative + Gerund or Half-Gerund)

Su V d.o. NP ing-form .

The difference between the two constructions above does not simply reside in the selecting verb (verb of
perception for Acc + Participle vs. resent for the (half) Gerund). There are other significant empirical tests:
a) only Accusative + Gerund can be replaced by Possessive + Gerund (the full gerund):
(27) a. I saw him leaving/ * I saw his leaving (Acc + Part) vs.
b. I resent him/his leaving. (half or full Gerund)
(28) a. I caught Kim stealing apples/ * I caught Kims stealing apples vs.
b. I regret Kim/Kims stealing your apples.

b) only Accusative + Participle can be replaced by Accusative + infinitive; Acc + Gerund disallows
this replacement:
(29) a. I saw him leaving I saw him leave vs. (Acc + Part Acc + Inf)
b. I regret him/his leaving *I regret him/his leave (half gerund * Inf)

c) since Accusative + Participle constructions (may) represent instances of (Su-to-Obj) raising, the
Accusative NP in Accusative + Participle is the direct object of the main verb. Hence, only Accusative +
Participle allows passivization of the d.o. DP (to form Nom + Participle, see above) (30); Acc + Gerund
(i.e., the half gerund) does not allow the passivization of the Acc DP, since this DP belongs in the ing-
complement (31):

(30) a. They saw [that he was sleeping ..] > They saw [him sleeping in the park]
> They saw him [t sleeping in the park] (Accusative + Participle)
Hei was seen ti [ sleeping in the park] (Nominative + Participle)
b. She caught Kim feeding bonbons to the dog (Acc + Participle) Kim was caught
feeding bonbons to the dog.
c. They found him collapsed under the table (Accusative + Past Participle) He was
found collapsed under the table.

(31) a. I regret [him leaving early] (Acc + Gerund) * He is regretted [t leaving early]
b. I resent [them being exploited] (Acc + Gerund) * They are resented being exploited
c. I remember [them quarrelling quite often] (Acc + Gerund) *They are remembered
quarrelling quite often.

SO,
- participial constructions: non-arguments (adverbial and noun modifier)
- as adverbials, participial construction are full CP and can have a) null subjects & overt Nominative
subjects (forming the so-called Absolute Participial Construction)
- when the participle is part of complex structures (Accusative + Participle & Nominative +
Participle), it is structurally and AspP and functions as an argument (object or subject)

7
D. (Briefly) (Back to) The Verbal Noun

!!Lets remember (see ex. (5) on page 1 above and the discussion therein): the verbal noun is an ING form
but is not part of non-finite forms: it is part of the nominal system, as it is a NP which just happens to
look like a gerund or participle

Q: How can we tell when an ing-form is a verbal noun (or a gerund)?

Compare:
(32) a. The shooting of the attacker was an ugly episode. To
b. Shooting the attacker was an ugly..

- (32a) contains a verbal noun, identified by: a) the presence of the (i.e. the determiner); b) the presence of the of
phrase (i.e. of the attacker); c) the fact that the ing form can be combined with an adjective: The cruel shooting of
the attacker

- (32b) contains a gerund due to: a) the absence of a determiner like the, a; b) the absence of an of phrase, but
the presence of a direct object (i.e. the attacker) and c) the possibility of its combination with an adverb: Shooting
the attacker cruelly

Lack of the presence of a determiner, the problem with distinguishing verbal nouns from gerunds is that they
both end in -ing and both take a possessive:

(33) a. Georges shooting of the attacker was an nasty episode vs.

b. Georges shooting the attacker was a nasty episode

- in (33), the only way of distinguishing between the two is the presence (vs. absence) of the of-phrase. Thus,
in (33a) we have a verbal noun (a noun whose syntactic function is that of subject) whereas in (33b) we have a
gerund (functioning as subject).
A further test that always helps is that of combining these constructions with an adjective or an adverbial:
The first construction takes an adjective (34a), whereas the second structures takes an adverb (34b). This
confirms that the first structure is a verbal noun while the second is a gerund.

(34) a. Georges cruel shooting of the attacker appalled everyone.

b. Georges shooting the attacker cruelly appalled everyone.