13. Tensed S Condition : NP-Movement is subject to Tensed S Condition
[1] In the ‘Raising’ construction found with verbs such as ‘seem’ or ‘be likely’, an NP can be
moved out of subject-position in a subordinate infinitive complement(=untensed clause or
nonfinite clause, i.e. it cannot carry present or past tense inflections like ‘–s’ or ‘–d’) as in
(102):
(a) np = empty position
(b) np2 = trace left behind
by movement of ‘John’
By contrast, if the subordinate clause is tensed (i.e. contains a verb or auxiliary inflected for
tense), NP-Movement is blocked, as we see in (103):
(102) John seems to like Bill (103) *John seems likes Bill
S S
NP VP NP VP
John V S’(untensed) John V S’(tensed)
seems COMP S seems COMP S
[-WH] NP VP [-WH] NP VP
t to V’ t V NP
V NP likes Bill
like Bill
Tensed S Condition is satisfied Tensed S Condition is violated
To account for this asymmetry between these two types of complement clauses, Chomsky
proposes Tensed S Condition of (104):
(104)
The condition of (104) means that no rule can move any element out of a tensed clause.
Accordingly, in (103) ‘John’ can be moved outside this tensed S-bar, thereby violating Tensed S
Condition. But in (102) ‘John’ is contained within an untensed (infinitival) S-bar, so the move-
ment
of ‘John’ out of the untensed subordinate clause is not blocked, and (102)(c) is grammatical.
[2] The NP-Movement in passive sentences is subject to Tensed S Condition. The subordinate
subject NP ‘the fur’ can be moved, since it is in an untensed clause S-bar.
(106)(c) does not violate
Tensed S Condition.
However, the NP-Movement in (107) violate the Tensed S Condition, since ‘the fur’ is moved
out of a tensed clause S-bar.
[3] Reflexive constructions as a certain type of semantic interpretation follow Tensed S Condi-
tion.
(110) (a) I consider myself to be right (= I consider [S’ myself to be right] )
(b) *I consider (that) myself am right (= I consider [S’ myself am right] )
Tensed S Condition can be paraphrased with a semantic interpretation(reflexive) rule as (113):
(113) No rule can construe an anaphor inside a tensed S-bar with an antecedent
outside that tensed S-bar (or vice-versa)
(113) allows an anaphor in an untensed clause to be construed with an antecedent outside
that clause like (110)(a), but the anaphor ‘myself’ within a tensed clause cannot be construed
with an antecedent outside that clause like (110)(b).
[4] Is WH-Movement subject to the Tensed S Condition?
The surface structure (114) is derived from the underlying structure (115) by successive
cyclic application of WH-Movement:
(114) What will she say that she did?
(115)
In Wh-Movement1, the movement of ‘what’ outside its tensed clause does not violate
Tensed S Condition since it is not outside S’2, but in Wh-Movement2, it violates the Condition,
moving outside its tensed S’2. But in fact, (114) is grammatical in English.
This analysis wrongly predicts that the sentence (114) is ungrammatical. Here, we might
need
to revise the Tensed S Condition as (116) in order to restrictively apply to NP-
Movement:
(116)
Consider the Chomsky-adjunction. In WH-Movement1, ‘what’ is Chomsky-adjoined to the
left of COMP2, and so the NP ‘what’ exists within COMP as in (117):
(117)
(115)
The revised Tensed S Condition (116) implies that the condition should be applied only when a
moved element is not in COMP. The NP ‘what’ in (115) exists in COMP by adjoining to COMP2 in
Wh-Movement1, and then it moves out of that COMP S’2 in WH-Movement2. But (116) is not
applied to WH-Movement such that. So a Wh-word is permitted to move out of a tensed clause.
▶ In other words, the revised condition (116) permits movement of an element in
COMP
out of a tensed clause S-bar, and there is no longer any violation of the Tensed S
Condition
in (115). Therefore, the effect of the proposed revision is to ensure that WH-
Movement
need not violate the Tensed S Condition (provided it applies successive cycli-
cally).
Accordingly, the answer of the given topic ‘Is WH-Movement subject to the
Tensed S
Condition?’ is No.
