Jaume Solà i Pujols - Departament de Filologia Catalana ...

aising verbs have no eligible DP/CP Argument themselves, assuming that the infinitival
complement is not CP but IP, as has been traditionally assumed.
- In the case of weather verbs, we have to assume that they project a quasi-Argument,
that would count as an Argument for the purposes of the present theory.
- in a passive structure, we assume that the EA is not projected as a DP, so the coindexed
DP will be the object (John was seen), or an Argument internal to the IP in an ECM construction
(John was believed to...), or the subject of a Small Clause (John was considered intelligent).
Roberts (1991-b) proposes that in a passive the EA is projected as PRO. If so, it would be
problematic for our account, since it would be taken by AGR as a the chosen candidate
(assuming this PRO is projected in the same position as the EA in active structures). I think that,
even if the EA is present in a passive in a way it is not in an unaccusative structure, it is far from
clear that it is projected in the same way as in an active structure. It has been noticed that the
implicit Argument can control an adjunct clause -0.a)-, while no controller is available in the
unaccusative structure -0.b). But the implicit Argument cannot control a complement clause -
0.c):
(8) a. The boat was sank to prove a point
b. *The boat sank to prove a point
c. *Bill was promised to go
(intended meaning: Someone promised Bill to go).
d. *It was promised/wanted/hoped to go
So I think the implicit Argument should be better characterized as not projecting in the
same position as the EA in an active clause, however problematic this may be for the Projection
Principle. I leave the question here. 49
49 See Roberts (1987), and Baker, Johnson & Roberts (1989),
for the proposal the implicit Argument is projected as the
passive participial affix (i.e. a head).
1